Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: chilepepper
The hunters were far healthier (even when dying young at the hands of a sabre tooth tiger or whatever).

chilepepper's post here started out so good but should have stopped after the first few sentences.

No one can know how healthy hunter-gatherers were back in the days of the La Brea tar pits, but today their low life expectancy has very little to do with being eaten by vertibrate predators. As for Atkins, check out Michael Fumento, a real health conservative. To paraphrase, you'll lose weight if you cut out two isles of the supermarket, but it doesn't matter which two. What bugs me about Atkins is not the diet but the know-it-all style of his writings. Of course, it may take one to know one ;-)

241 posted on 07/04/2003 6:03:24 AM PDT by Steve Eisenberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies ]


To: Steve Eisenberg
I don't agree that we can't know about early mankind's health:

the story is in the bones. Hunter (and hunter-gatherer) skeletons showed remarkably good teeth and strong bones and were relatively tall. a forensic study would show that these folks died from wounds.

Once humans adapted to sumerian and egyptian city life where they lived off bread, their skeletons show terrible teeth, weaker bones, and evidence of various diseases. these folks died from disease

248 posted on 07/04/2003 6:32:04 AM PDT by chilepepper (Clever argument cannot convince Reality -- Carl Jung)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson