The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular Liberty.com

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: I think you are splitting hairs

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I understand your point about (see in situ)

I think you are splitting hairs

I think you are splitting hairs or getting caught up in semantics. By "natural" I mean in nature or intended by nature. You have to watch the word traditional. I think what you are meaning to say is something like ancestral?

"but humans became agricultural and started eating those foods."

That does not mean that those kinds of foods are what we should be eating. Man created grains by domesticating wild grasses. They were not here by nature's design. This post touches on the health issues that came about from agriculture. http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3440586 Then it gets even worse with hybridization, GMO etc.

Man has only been agrarian for about 1% of his entire time on earth. We are not adapted to eat those foods. For 99% of man's time on earth, he was a hunter gatherer. It would seem that we are much better adapted to consuming the foods most similar to what would have been eaten in those times. And yes, that would vary quite a bit by region and season.

Also, for much of man's time on earth, he had not mastered fire or had the ability to construct cooking or soaking vessels. So it would stand to reason that anything that nature intended man to eat could be eaten raw, in unprocessed form. This would include fruits, vegetables, nuts, fish, and meat. It would exclude grains and legumes.

And if you remove the hazards of life back then like being eaten by a tiger or clubbed by an enemy, did they really live shorter lives then we do now if they made it to old age? And even if we do live longer now, is it a healthier life? I would say not. Many people are very ill, take multiple prescription meds, and are slave to various medical devices and procedures to stay alive.