Bob Avery wrote: > This article poses some interesting challenges to the paleodiet > nutritional theory, based primarily on comparative anatomy and > physiology. > > http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/030700pumeatinthehumandiet.htm > > Comments anyone? A bit more spin than serves the seeker of fact. The effort to create a correspondence and close parallel with other primates falls apart when the fact that we are tool users with complex language skills is factored in. Looking at human dentition and noting that it isn't like wolves or lions is a moot discussion point when the fact of cooking enters the picture. We don't need teeth like carnivores. Likewise that our hands are designed for picking plants rather than tearing apart meat. Our hands are designed for holding tools that tear apart meat. We don't need claws. Humans are unique in that we, more than any other creatures, can change our environments to suit our strengths and to minimize our weaknesses. I have no fur so I wear clothing. I can't run faster or further than a horse so I drive something - be it animal or mechanical. All of which makes direct comparisons with other earthly denizens a bit of a strain. Talking about the diseases we're subject to that are relatively new in human history has also to include the facts that we live longer and diagnose better than ever before. The logic is stretched in many places. He says there's a "proper" diet for dogs, cats, horses, each kind of bird and that presupposes that there's a proper diet for humans. Too much of this sort of seeming wishful thinking. Some interesting points, but largely too much of a reach. Pastorio