Various folk claim sugar cane etc. aren't paleo:

> I read somewhere that the folks who work in the cane fields eat it.
>
> John P.
>
> ----------
> >        It's a bit like why we don't eat sugar.  It would be perfectly
> >paleolithic to munch on a bit of raw sugar cane, but who in their right
> >mind would want to do so?
>
> Obviously you have never tried this ;) Yum yum...


They were most likely eaten by paleofolk etc.  And paleocoons and
paleobears etc.  Who all also most likely ate honey whenever they
could find it.

Evidence from nonhuman omnivores and modern h-g cultures shows that
omnivores eagerly eat sweet stuff whenever they can get it.  Probably
sadly misguided not having access to internet.

So do you mean 'best selection of possible food' or 'copy most likely
food sources of paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens'?  Let's don't
assume paleofolk made wise selections.  Not more likely to do so than
paleobears or modernbears.

We don't even know that paleofolk evolution represents a perfect fit
to the food they could find, process and eat.  All we can deduce from
physical evidence and principles of evolution is that whatever
characteristics appeared in H. s. s. at the time the species arose
these characteristics had an adaptive advantage.  Perhaps dietary
adaptation was swamped by some other new characteristic eg:
encephalization.

Eaton et. al. in _Paleolithic_Prescription_ and other sources note
that although fossil remains suggest average paleo lifespan was maybe
20 years the few skeletons ageable to 80 years or so showed
remarkably good health, typically better than modern 20 year old
people.  Thus evidently the paleofolk were doing something right.

The physical evidence suggests that diet was a significant factor.
Might be instructive to classify the old age skeletons by geographic
region, food scrap remains, coprolites and bone assay to determine if
there was/is any clumping of long lived citizens by geography, trace
evidence of dietary specialization etc.

I suggest it isn't sufficient to say 'they couldn't have cooked it in
a microwave oven' to determine that 'it' is suitable or not for us
now.

We must look at testable results of various elements of modern diet
to determine actual effects of various food elements or putative
toxins.  The idea of sugar or trans fat provoked toxicity is highly
attractive but making a decision on the highly probable assumption
that paleofolk or Homo Neandertalis didn't have machinery to
generate margarine from corn oil is meaningless.  Controlled test of
the effects of artificially saturated fat is meaningful.

Note that MDs and nutritionists engage in raging controversy over
reletive benefit and/or harm of various potential diet elements.

The robust Australopithecines were evidently heavy seed and/or grain
eaters; based on dentition.  They survived ~3 million years, not bad
at all.  Most cladistic systems suggest they weren't our direct
ancestors but were clearly related; a branch that arose about the
time of the rise of early Homo habilis or not long before.

Many years ago Joseph Campbell suggested that Homo replaced
Australopithecus by eating him.  Perhaps more likely climatic /
environmental changes and encephalization guaranteed the replacement.
I don't know of any conclusive interpretations by physical
anthropologists.  I think most anthropologists accept that A... was
very successful based on his ~3 million year existence, that on
evidently a high carb diet.  This does not prove that a high carb
diet was best; it's merely an observation based on good dentition
studies that A... diet was high carb and probably little or no meat
other than insects.  Although physical anthropologists haven't made
much of the insect possibility such possibility is obvious.

insectivorously,
Dick
[log in to unmask]
http://smith.syr.edu/~ddawson
SU Rifle Club: http://smith.syr.edu/~ddawson/surifleclub.html