[ExI] pale diet again: RE: It's not only the fittest who survive.

[Stefano Vaj]

On 7 April 2011 00:52, Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> This is my problem with the Paleo diet.  The archeology does not fit a
> high-fat diet.  Everything I read shows that hunter/gatherers got more
> of their diet from gathering than hunting.  Big game meat was not a
> daily occurrence.  And even when big game was bagged, it was not
> high-fat as seen in today's deliberately fattened meats.  Therefore, I
> do not believe that high-fat meals are a good emulation of a paleo diet,
> even if eaten rarely.

Certainly, there were differences between the diet. say. in equatorial
Africa and in northern Europe. But gathering what? Eggs, insects,
shellfish, half-eaten carcasses do not really qualify as hunting.

Moroever, while nuts *are* high fat, wild semi-ripe fruits and roots
are even more different (high-fiber, high-vitanutrients, low sugar)
from contemporary agricultural products than meat is.

But yes, nothing wrong in preferring venison or wild salmon over
hormones-pumped veals.

I suppose however that our paleo ancestors whenever they had to choose
which part of their rare-treat big game to eat and which to relinquish
were obviously favouring the fattest parts, which offered a better
caloric deal pro-kilo.

-- 
Stefano Vaj