On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 10:45:51 -0500, Robert Kesterson 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
>By "low cost", I presume you mean in the sense of the energy we must
>expend to get it?  If we had to burn 90 calories climbing a tree to get a
>100 calorie apple (or snickers bar or whatever), it might be different.
>(I have no idea how many calories it takes to climb a tree, it's just an
>example.)
>

But Robert it doesn't matter. For huge amounts of time humans had vast 
quantaties of fruit all around them and were perfectly satiated after eating a 
few. Humans don't hold onto fat well, a 120lbs man is better off than a 180lbs 
man if they each had to go 40 days without food.... humans don't have a 
great capacity of holding onto weight for using later. We eat a few fruit and 
that's it, we're satisfied. There is zero evolutionary reason whatsoever we 
wouldn't be, I know I am. If we weren't then we'd become fat as paleo men! 
Which is so ridiculous a concept I can't even imagine it. 

I think these are just people with "metabolic syndrome" or whatever who can't 
take sugar and be satisfied with small amounts of it. High protein diets may be 
good for these people, but they are NOT how paleo man really lived in my 
strong opinion and as most anthropologists will tell you.