On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 16, Amadeus Schmidt-Philipp wrote:

Amadeus - this is an excellent bunch of answers.  I do admire your mild,
almost languid demeanour under fire.

I was a vegetarian for 30 years (virtually vegan for a couple of those)
and switched to red meat, poultry and fish when I discovered Paleo through
Art de Vany's Evolutionary Fitness.  The meat makes sense to me.  However,
I do think we undervalue nuts. Nuts can be (a) found in abundance (b)
stored for months with virtually no hygiene risks at all.  Seems to me
that, where they were available, nuts may well have comprised a
significant proportion of a Paleo diet.  Probably in temperate, rather
than tropical climates - except for the magnificent macademias.

My present diet (in the current fruit-abundant early autumn) is generally
three meals a day: one based around nuts, one around fish and one around
red meat (kangaroo)/eggs - from our own hens/poultry - some our own.

When I changed to vegetarianism in the 1970s, I tried hard to feel some
improvement in my health but, to my disappointment, failed to do so.
Adopting meat again thirty years later, I still failed to notice any
difference in feelings, mood or performance.  But my recent change to a
nut-based meal a day has actually given me a slight but detectable
physical and mental filip.  Feels good!

There is no solution to the omnivore/vegetarian debate, especially in our
wealthy, un-Paleo economies where we can afford to go either way as a mere
consumer choice.  There were many times in the evolutionary past of our
species when our ancestors needed to eat what they could get or starve to
death.  (Think of the tales we hear of the North Koreans today eating bark
off trees; on the streets of Bombay I have seen half-rotten tomatoes for
sale and seen children picking grains out of fresh horse dung.)  In those
circumstances, our ancestors would have been able to attribute their
survival to eating some pretty ghastly stuff including carrion, other
humans, putrid vegetables and other foods not normally resorted to because
of their low nutrient content or plain repulsiveness.  And all this when
their bodies were severely debilitated.

Amadeus might not choose to avoid eggs (which he says he finds disgusting)
if we could transport him back in time to an ice-age famine.

I like Amadeus's statement that
> Actually I'm not sure that to be veg would be the
> healthiest way. It's more this: I am a veg,
> so I'm interested to hear the opposite
> arguments.

There are so many ways of defining 'healthy': freedom from illness,
physical fitness, longevity, a feeling of well-being.  I don't think Paleo
eating is necessarily the healthiest.  I can't think of any that is
obviously better, but I hold open the possibility that there may be a
better combination of foods, especially when you consider that so few of
the foods we eat are in their Paleo state (fertilizers and poisons added;
micronutrients lost - esp from depleted soils)

>>Is is fair to force your personal decision to eat meat on a child?

>IMO it is impossible to force a child to *anything* on the long run,
anyway.

and that's why many adolescents brought up in meat-eating families become
vegetarian as they willfully cut loose from the constraints of their up-
bringing

>> "Low-carb diets are very popular right now.  What about a low-carb
>> vegetarian diet?
...
>
>Todd once mentioned that it would be possible,
>utilizing fatty plants (like almonds).
>I was and am not tending to low-carb because
>I can't see a benefit for me.

Good answer!  Low-carb (as packaged) is just another consumer fad.  It has
macronutient ratios in common with Paleo eating but not much else. The
Atkins industry produce their low-carb bars - about as un-Paleo as you can
get!

Nice discussion!  Thanks, Dori.  Thanks Amadeus. Thanks all.

Keith