On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Phosphor wrote:
> > Is anyone arguing against eating
> > seafood?
> there seems to be little emphasis on them.
You mean in the book you haven't read? Perhaps you should
reserve your judgment on the emphasis until you read it.
You mean in the book you haven't read?
> In my view
> using even grass-fed beef will not give you enough Om-3. and taking flax
> will suplly even more LA, while converting very inefficiently the ALA to
> DHA.
How much om-3 do you think we need?
> > ALA is present in some nuts, seeds, and greens. It >accumulates in
> various forms in the tissues of the animals that eat these.
> I wasn;t commenting about ALA. there seems to be no use for it except to
> change it to DHA. AFAIK, ALA is not essential.
DHA is not essential either, in dietary terms. What is essential
is that we get om-3 fat in some form, and we are equipped to
utilize it in whatever form we get it.
> > Did you bother to read the abstract? The omega fat ratio was not the
> only thing measured, nor was it the only difference between the fat of the
> game animals and feedlot animals.
> what other specific conclusion does he draw? pray tell me. none.
Do your own homework. Read the research. Read the book. Inform
yourself and then we'll continue.
> > As I've mentioned more than once, the composition of the
> > wild game fats doesn't stray much from MUFA=SFA+PUFA.
> the fat content of how many wild animals have you - or Cordain - researched
> to come to this conclusion? where is the info on eel, turtle, bear, wood
> duck, wolverine, dugong, etc etc etc? you just made this up didnt you. it
> may well be right for all we know, but we don't know.
Do your homework.
>>> i am troubled by the unstated hypothesis that elk and wild deer > an
>>> antelope were the only mammals ever eaten by primitive
>>> man.
>
>> It's unstated and not implied either.
> It means simply his 'research' is meaningless junk.
The research you haven't read, you mean? It's meaningless junk
because of the things it doesn't state?
Yes, there's something troubling here.
> > Here's what he recommends: lean meats, seafood, fruits and > vegetables.
> well we know this is not remotely paleo. do u ascribe to it?
Do I "ascribe" to it?
> > Use olive oil and flax oil to make up not only for the leanness > of the
> meat
> yes, and you believe this? after all this time?
I think it's a workable modern interpretation of paleo, which is
about the most one can hope for. Some people don't tolerat
seafood well, or don't like it much.
> > Maybe you should read more before delivering your opinions.
> why so? you are an able expositor of his position.
Because I am unwilling to continue discussing Cordain's work if
only one of us has read it. This is because it forces me to deal
with one straw man argument after another.
> howevrr i notice you are
> reluctant to say whether you agree with him. tell me which of these areas do
> u agreee with him and which not:
Why? We were discussing Cordain, not Moody.
> > I want to make it clear to all that in your view this makes all of > them
> either incompetent or liars.
> yes. i repeat: since its not paleo, why do they recommend it?
No, that's disingenuous. By asking why you imply there could be
reasons. By calling them incompetent or liars you imply there
could not. You are accusing, not inquiring.
> but i dont argue
> its merits on this list, since it is not paleo.
You have only asserted that olive oil is not paleo, but you
haven't demonstrated it.
> i am consistent. these
> authors are not. in doing so they minimise, by omission, the role marrow,
> suet, fish liver oil sould play in a paleo-reconstructed diet.
Actually, Cordain does recommend cod liver oil, but you wouldn't
know that, would you? But we're playing straw man again, and
I've had enough.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
>
>
> > Try to focus on the question, then answer it: It's not a low fat > diet,
> so why are we discussing it as if it is?
> the issue is, it's not a paleo diet. surely even you can work that out.
>
> andrew
>
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|
