Pretty interesting
http://www.canibaisereis.com/downloa...-paleodiet.pdf

That is one beast of an abstract, good find.

40% of daily calories from carbohydrates?  That's a lot more than I would have expected.

40% of daily calories from carbohydrates?  That's a lot more than I would have expected.

It's pretty bogus, actually.  They basically assume their conclusions, by assuming that plant calories are between 30% and 70%, based on modern hunter gatherer data.  Since the vast majority of plant calories are carbohydrate, of course they find that carbohydrates come within that range, too.

Of course, as we know, modern hunter gatherers are on marginal lands with no access to big game and are not representative of paleolithic humans.  The limited actual data we have from the paleolithic still demonstrates meat consumption, and does not demonstrate any plant consumption.

The only reason to pay attention to this is if you want to be small and scrawny like modern African hunter gatherers, rather than bigger and stronger like paleolithic humans at their peak.

I read something recently (sorry but I cannot remember where) that posited that the Bushmen may be what remains of original humans. This would absolutely support what you are saying Warren.

They're genetically the most diverse people on earth, therefore thought to be the "oldest".



;Ghost

Warm climate = any kind of root vegetable

Linguistic analysis also suggests the Kalahari Bushmen are the oldest race on earth.

One of the things I found interesting about the article was their argument in favour of a high proportion of seafood, with migration routes tending to be around the coasts. I think it is probably quite valid.

I just can't see shore caught fish (without nets/hooks/fishing poles) ever being an kind of match for big 4 legged herbivores with regards to calories expended for calories gained.

Quote from: Jean on April 21, 2011, 06:58:51 PM

Linguistic analysis also suggests the Kalahari Bushmen are the oldest race on earth.

One of the things I found interesting about the article was their argument in favour of a high proportion of seafood, with migration routes tending to be around the coasts. I think it is probably quite valid.

I just can't see shore caught fish (without nets/hooks/fishing poles) ever being an kind of match for big 4 legged herbivores with regards to calories expended for calories gained.

I can. Seafood, crustaceans & birds eggs are a much more easily accessible & less dangerous way to get good quality protein, plus they wouldn't have to expend much energy to get them. Women & kids would be collecting/harvesting them, while the men were out trying to bring down the big game. If they returned empty-handed (which was around 75% of the time, according to speculation in the article), they would feast on scallops & other water critters. Until we'd perfected prey-specific hunting techniques in our genus and in Neaderthalensis, I'd think that bringing home big game was more luck than actual skill. Plus, seafood of some kind is almost guaranteed to be available, unlike the larger land animals.