On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 02:46:14 -0800, Bill Dooley <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Who can rationally object to a
>diet of meat/fish/fowl, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and berries? The most
>one might say is that it's needlessly restrictive. But harmful? Absurd.

Since fruit, veggies, nuts and berries are *not* often mentioned
and expensive, most room is left to various meats.
Of pure agricultural production with all its harms.
Hormones, wrong fat compositions, pesticides,
unnatural production, degenerated animals...
And still many (I think pretty many) think of meat as "the" key paleo.
And this though high meat parts
have probably existed only for a limited time(not m
ore than 800 generations)
in the history of humanity. After many thousands of generations
where meat probably was a minor part of the diet.
And nobody knows how old people grew in that that few ice age
"inuit" generations. ..

Could this be harmful?   Sure so?

>I have yet to see a compelling reason other than poverty to use beans,
>grains, or potatoes as the foundation of a diet. Of course, 'taters kept
>my Irish forebears alive for a long time, but the failure of potato
>agriculture drove my Irish greatgrandparents to the USA. And so, here I
>am.
Abundance of B-Vitamins, fibers?

Ireland adopted a potatoe based agriculture some (<5) centuries ago
and failed severely with it (in production), as you mention.

Ireland bears one of the last remaining Celtic tratitions.
Celtic tradition is one of the most successful *grain* based societies
in Europe --
who's
 descendants happened to conquer much of the worlds area.
Like America (remember, Spain and Portugal are celtic based nations too).

Celts are said to have loved wild boar. Up to 6% of meat and 1 or 2% in
the diet - must have been a real speciality.

Since I'm considering myself as a celtic relict too - as a bavarian
and with blood group 0 - please don't call our ancestors only
'taters eaters.
They were masters of all grains. Knowing how to process them.

>
>Bill Dooley

Amadeus Schmidt