Cordain Et Al was the largest hunter/gather study with 229 tribes studies. The average tribe was around 30% calories from plant foods. But there were two tribes (1%) who hit a whopping 76-85% from plant foods, I wonder what they were eating. 0% were 86-100% plant based.
I'm just wondering what people who say "we were plant eaters" think it was we ate, that could support the calorie needs of big strong paleolithic-sized bodies. I wouldn't assume vegis were the same as today, in fact I would assume they were smaller and less calorically dense than what we have today...which makes me wonder all the more how it would be calorically possible to survive on such.
Totally off topic but have to congratulate skorpion317 on the weight loss in his/her signature page! That is amazing! Way to go!
You know all those things you wanted to do: You should go do them.
SW 215 lbs
CW 180 lbs (whole foods/primal eating)
LW 172 lbs
GW 125ish lbs
The thread title should read "doing the arithmetic" - no?
Not only were Paleolithic veggies smaller and less calorically and nutritionally dense, they also had more defenses up in terms of anti-nutrients, and sharp spiky bits. They would not have been worth a self respecting Grok's time to collect unless the tribe was seriously hungry.
I agree with what was said about seafood above and would add that sea veggies might also have played a major role in coastal dwelling Groks' diets. Sea veggies such as kelp are not technically plants but rather algae that don't have such anti-nutrient defenses.
Also our bodies' non-negotiable need for iodine would support the idea that we spent a good bit of our evolutionary path in a coastal environment.