On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Phosphor wrote:

> > The point is that for a very long time any fish they caught
> > would have been from lakes and streams.  These fish are
> > not a significant source of om-3.
> at last you are not disputing the sharp-stick hypothesis, but otherwise your
> research skills fit well with Cordain [ie non-existent].

You know, you are very rude, and I'm getting tired of it.
Cordain's book has 20 pages of references -- not a sign of a
person with no research skills.  Have you read the book?

> are freshwater fish a source of omega 3s? why yes indeed...
> http://www.aboutseafood.com/health/omega2.html

Okay, I stand corrected.  The article suggests that freshwater
fish are an inferior source of om-3, but adequate if eaten in
quantity.  Fair enough.

> with sharp sticks ['spears'] men caught fish who swam in lakes, rivers, and
> the sea [using 'boats'].  they also caught fish who live in the sea but then
> swim upsteam to spawn['salmon;' 'sea trout'].  they also collected roe [you
> seem to have forgotten this].  walking along the shores they collected
> mussels, oysters, clams. they caught eels, which are very good sources of
> omega 3s.  they also hunted seal, dugong, river porpoise.

The way of life you describe here is a pretty good description of
the mesolithic period.

> omega 3s everywhere, and not a flax seed or olive in sight.

Sure.  But neither I nor Cordain have ever argued that seafood is
not a good source of om-3 fats.  We were, rather, discussing
Cordain's recommendation to prefer lean meats, a claim that you
found ludicrous.  So perhaps you can explain how the availability
of om-3 fats in a wide variety of seafood shows that his
recommendation is ludicrous.

Incidentally, what does olive oil have to do with om-3s?

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]