Before this disastrous skiing holiday , I asked a new grassfed meat(lamb/beef etc.) as to what they fed their animals on. They rapidly stated that they fed them on grass most of the time but in the winter fed them on some grains. Watch out when you read that the meat is grassfed as it is often the case that it is not 100% grassfed. Now some people such as myself can find way round this such as getting most of their raw meats from wild game, but most should be leery as hell about this.

Another thing:- After a long delay, I intend to add to rawpaleodiet.com when I get back. My initial intention is to add a raw myths section with 1 or 2 paragraphs debunking each point such as the ridiculous mercury-in-fish theory, the laughable noble-savage theory etc. There are others such as the notion that the more raw food you (over) eat the faster you'll recover. Any suggestions re other myths to debunk are welcome.

Even wild animals do eat some amount of grains, as they are quite ease stuffs to get; there is plethora of fields with crops.
IMO I don't think that it is sth to worry about.

I've been thinking about this 'nasty, brutish, short' and Williams theory that the bones were in such excellent condition that they appeared to be around 35 years of age. I'm in no doubt paleo poeples lives were often 'nasty etc but looking at old photos of Aged Australian aborigines with chalk white perfect teeth makes me wonder.

TD also very frequently brings up the point that even paleo people had malcolusion, this is true but it was only around 5% and relates to minor teeth misalignment compared to around 50% malcolusion in moderns some of which would be severe crowding.

I do remember it being reported somewhere here that scientists have already discovered that their dating methods were underestimating the age of bones and they had come up with a new method that showed them to be a bit older (but not centuries older, like William claimed ). It may even been me who posted it, but I can't find it now.

Not a theory. It is an archaeological observation, not disputed.


I made no such claim. However, if you insist on "claims" here's one: Nobody knows the lifespan of paleoman.
Nobody.
Their new dating method is still wishful thinking.
There's no proof that they didn't all die at 32, of nothing, or at 250,000 of boredom.


As for the noble savage hypothesis, it was civilized man who murdered 200,000,000 of his own kind in the last century. How's that for noble?