Amadeus wrote:

> In my imagination is more the 4% reported from Jane
> Godall, wherefrom
> 2% are from insects and about 2% from the Colobus
> Monkey babies.
> I see this as a derivation from true paleo eating -
> as others exist.
> Even so i won't eat insects and not antelope livers.

If it is a consistent percentage, and not a deviation
by a particular primate or small group of primates,
then how can it not be "true paleo" eating?

> If it's not true paleo I'll supplement.

Hold on here a minute. Supplementing is NOT "true
paleo". If the best method of getting B12 (or any
other animal-based nutrient), is eating animals, then
that MUST be "true paleo". I think your definition of
"true paleo" should be reclassified as "idealistic
paleo".

Admit it, Amadeus, the species appropriate diet FOR
HUMANS includes at least some animal foods. The
"original" diet a couple of million years ago may have
been fruits, nuts, and leaves - but we've obviously
adapted to a diet that includes animal foods now. Or
you wouldn't find the need to "supplement" your diet
to reach the lofty status of "true paleo".

Am I against supplementation? No! But supplementation
should be used to "supplement", not "replace" (or
"introduce").

Please, quit trying to twist the evidence to support
your personal philosophies.

By the way, I posted a link to a great article about
soy the other day. I'm not sure if it made it because
I didn't see it in my digest version. It can be found
at http://www.mercola.com/article/index.htm, along
with a number of other good articles.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/