On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Amadeus Schmidt wrote:

> But since we evolved without vitamin pills, how can we assume that
> we need them *now*? Through unprecedented high stresses on our systems
> like from radioactivity, chemicals, smoking.

Yes, that is one possible sort of answer.  Another may be that we
are trying for levels of health and vitality that are higher than
what was "needed" for our bare survival.

> I think furthermore, the unability to satisfy needed vitamin amounts
> simply shows the fact, that we are *not* eating the original diet
> we really evolved with. At times where significant metabolic developements
> orrured, where adaption occured.

Again, there may be a gap between the minimum amount of a
nutrient that we need for survival and the amount that we can
make good use of for optimum health.  For the latter, it may be
very difficult to get to that level without supplementation, but
that doesn't imply that we "needed" that much.

> (For Vitamin E and K, I don't know a natural occuring concentrated source).
> This is a hint, that our metabolism evolved, how it is now at times
> where such sources were very low in intake, IMO.
>
> With animal sources care has to be taken therefore,
> but otherwise natural occuring
> vitamins shouldn't pose a problem ever.
> And should be sufficient, shouldn't they?

Consider vitamin E.  As you say, it is very hard to get, say, 400
IU of vitamin E from paleo foods.  Does this mean that we don't
need that much?  Well, this could be an example of where we need
more to offset other deviations from paleo.  For example, we eat
grain-fed meats, whose muscle fats contain more PUFAs, and these
fats are more oxidation-prone.  We are exposed to other
pro-oxidants in the form of pollutants.  As a result, we are more
at risk for oxidative damage than our paleo predecessor were, and
can make use of more antioxidants than they had access to.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]