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