Wa'il, (what kind of name is that anyway? Hawaiian?)

I'm still not sure if I agree with your interpretation. You see, Eaton said that if hominoids ate 95% plant food, they would still be getting extremely low carbohydrate.



I don't know how he figures, but I would say this means that the 45% animal product/55% plant product would mean that the 55% plants would still be a low carb diet. How? I don't know, but it appears to be what he's saying.

Perhaps it had to do with having 200 g fiber per day. 50% of calories were fiber it says. (The term energy and calories are interchangeable in the literature. A low energy diet means a low calorie diet.) I see a big problem with his statement that 50% of energy/calories were from fiber as fiber has zero calories whether it's one gram of fiber or 10,000 grams of fiber, the calories are still zero. So how can you get 50% of calories from fiber?

With only 5% animal foods, these hominoids got a lot of protein:



How can you get more protein than contemporary humans while eating 95% plant foods? Now that is a good question. And if you are getting high protein from plants, how much fat is in these plants?

In view of Eaton's comments above, I can't believe that he is trying to say that the up to 65% of calories from fruits and vegetables for Paleolithic man is all carb. (He was still dependent on the work of Lee 1968 here in this 1998 essay, because he hadn't done the Cordain study of 2000 yet. He quotes Lee as his source.) Somehow I think he's still saying there was a great deal of fiber and protein in this part of the Paleolithic Diet.