Todd Moody wrote: > > > > > > > > > > But the main thing is that the paleo idea gives us a kind of > "square one" to work from. There is reason to believe that paleo > foods are *likely* to be well tolerated and health-sustaining, > even though it it not completely certain. But this gives us only > a very vague picture, as you've pointed out. There is a lot we > don't know, and may never know, about what actual populations of > actual prehistoric people ate, and about how healthy they were. > > > > This is a wonderful post as it puts so much in proper perspective that is > debated on this list. A couple of additional points that have been > mentioned previously that i think bear repeating are the consideration of > whether or not the evolutionary diet is optimum for those of us past > prime child rearing years. That is, should we assume that a diet that is > best for a 22 year old is also best for a 52 year old? Does the > evolutinary process "care" about us after procreation and child > rearing? There have been a couple of recent references to the questions > that have been raised re dating skeletal remains as to probable age of > individual and that research, as it proceeds, may aid in answering that > question. Another point that has always intrigued me is the tremendous > variety in available paleo food sources depending upon latitude and > elevation that would have been available to particular populations > geographically and climatically stable for evolutionarily significant > periods of time. This also leads to the question of the effect on the > whole issue of the melting pot, or, in my case, alphabet soup, character > of our various genetic makeup. Great post! Rick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >