Re: Reducing Bodyfat

DRS wrote:
> kaloalex" <""kaloalexandra\
> <""kaloalexandra\"@hotmailf$ckofanddiespammer.com> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > DRS wrote:
> >
> > > Van Bagnol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > "DRS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > I'm most curious about it.  At the very least it's
> > > > > counterintuitive. Where did all that food come from?
> > > >
> > > > Why would it be counterintuitive? (A) the population was smaller,
> > > > (B) the economy was still highly agrarian, (C) labor was much more
> > > > physical and less sedentary.
> > >
> > > Point A is neither here nor there.  Fewer people simply means fewer
> > > people to work the fields.  Point B misses the fact that farming was
> > > vastly less efficient than it is today.  Point C is the only given.
> > > Taken together it is intuitively true that people had on average
> > > less access to food than we do today.
> >
> > That's not all point A means. It also means more acres per mouth.
> > Which nicely cancels out your objection to point B.
>
>
> No, it doesn't.  With a small population and very inefficient farming
> practices the excess land simply cannot be tilled.  The small population is
> almost entirely engaged in inefficiently tilling the land they have.

Ok. But the extra acres can be hunted.  And native wildlife populations 
will remain far greater than anything we civilized folk are used to. 
Which equates to more available protein per capita just roaming around 
looking to fill a need.

Kalo