I hope people will take into context the fact that paleolithic humans rarely lived into their 30's. A diet suited for paleolithic hunter-gatherers isn't necessarily going to be ideal for us today, because, with very few exceptions, we don't live like cavemen.
The diet of the Paleolithics was one designed for a short life i.e. 30 to 40 years. A high protein and fat diet would be advantageous because of the high caloric content. This would allow them to live and reproduce and then die at a relatively young age. The reason we are now a agricultural society as opposed to a hunter society is the agricultural society is superior to the hunter in reference to longivity. The reason the agricultural society suffers so many diseases is they live a hell of a lot longer and get old. The hunters died young.
I am hoplessly addicted to a high protein diet.
posted on 03/07/2002 7:32:53 PM PST
Not true--old, bad data. They lived longer than we thought and when agriculture came, the diseases came with it.
posted on 03/08/2002 2:34:08 AM PST
Paleolithic people did not all die before 30. The AVERAGE lifespan was about 30, but the main factor in bringing it down that low was high childhood mortality. Obviously there was no modern-day medical care in the Paleolithic, so a fairly high percentage of people didn't make it to adulthood due to injury or illness. If you survived the usual childhood mishaps and diseases, you had an excellent chance of living to a ripe old age, almost certainly in better health than many folks of comparable age today.
Honestly, this misconception about life expectancy is so widespread it is hard for me to believe so many people don't understand the mathematics of averages. An AVERAGE life span of 30 does not in any way indicate that 30 is the maximum age attainable, or that 30 is "old", or even that most people died at the age of 30. AVERAGES, people!!!!
posted on 05/31/2006 8:00:11 AM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson