Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 17:38:38 +0100, "pearl"
posted:

"Moosh" wrote in message ...
On 30 Mar 2004 08:20:22 -0800, (jpatti) posted:
..
There are archeological studies indicating humans were much healthier
prior to the development of agriculture...

Some were, some weren't. Archeological evidence is very sparse and
often contradictory in my experience

on a much lower-carb diet.

Whoa! Some ate a lot of meat and some ate little. Some ate lots of
fish some ate little or none. Most gathered seeds and fruits and
juices and tubers....

Larger skeletons, better tetth, stuff of that sort.

In some, and not in others.

'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of calcium
until the onset of the Agricultural Age, 10,000 years ago.

What does that mean? Anthropologically speaking? Very little tenuous
evidence, or what?

Current calcium
intake is one-quarter to one-third that of our evolutionary diet and, if we
are genetically identical to the Late Paleolithic Homo sapiens, we may be
consuming a calcium-deficient diet our bodies cannot adjust to by
physiologic mechanisms.

No reliable evidence though?

The anthropological approach says, with the exception of a few small
changes related to genetic blood diseases, that humans are basically
identical biologically and medically to the hunter-gatherers of the late
Paleolithic Era.17 During this period, calcium content of the diet was
much higher than it is currently. Depending on the ratio of animal to
plant foods, calcium intake could have exceeded 2000 mg per day.17
Calcium was largely derived from wild plants, which had a very high
calcium content;

Which ones? Grown where? Calcium rich soils or calcium poor soils?

animal protein played a small role, and the use of dairy
products did not come into play until the Agricultural Age 10,000 years
ago.

Not sure about that. Some early humans are thought to have "caught"
some animal milks.

Compared to the current intake of approximately 500 mg per day
for women age 20 and over in the United States,18 hunter-gatherers had
a significantly higher calcium intake and apparently much stronger bones.

Sorry, what did these women eat?

As late as 12,000 years ago, Stone Age hunters had an average of
17-percent more bone density (as measured by humeral cortical
thickness). Bone density also appeared to be stable over time with
an apparent absence of osteoporosis.17

Exercise -- Sheeeesh!

High levels of calcium excretion via renal losses are seen with both
high salt and high protein diets, in each case at levels common in the
United States.10,11

High salt and high protein was likely in the diets of SOME prehistoric
humans.
..
The only hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss
were the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical
activity level was high, their osteoporosis incidence exceeded
even present-day levels in the United States. The Inuit diet was
high in phosphorus and protein and low in calcium.20

http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/full...alcium4-2.html

And very high in protein.

'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities have
been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater the reliance
on meat. There are sound biological and economic reasons for this, not
least in the ready availability of large amounts of fat in arctic mammals.
From this, it has been deduced that the humans of the glacial periods
were primarily hunters, while plant foods were more important during
the interglacials. '
http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder..../devensian.htm

Whereabout? Indonesia? Africa? India?