RAW-FOOD Archives

Raw Food Diet Support List

RAW-FOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Date:
Tue, 29 Jul 1997 00:09:59 -0400
Subject:
From:
Don Wiss <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (72 lines)
This is a guest reply from Dean Esmay <[log in to unmask]>, who is not a
subscriber to this list:

PE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Since what
>we know of gatherer-hunters today has them eating 60-85% plant food,
>the paleodiet reasoning may also be iffy.

This is based on faulty, out-of-date information.  Hunter/gatherers (or
gatherer/hunters if you prefer) get about 55% of their daily caloric intake
from animal foods, on average.  The majority get about half their daily
calories from meat.  A minority can get as much as 90% or more of their
intake from meat, and a minority on the other end get only maybe a fifth to
a third of their intake from meat.  All eat it, and a majority eat quite a
lot of it.

Then Dean expounded on the subject:

You might also point out that the idea that hunter/gatherers are really
"gatherer/hunters" (i.e. mostly plant-eaters) comes from a 1960s-era study
by Richard Lee in which that respected anthropologist made a major mistake
by leaving out a significant number North American peoples, and also he
carelessly lumped shell fishing activities in with "gathering," which of
course shell fishing (digging for clams and mussels, gathering crabs, etc.)
IS a gathering activity but it's not plants they're gathering.  Also I
believe traditionally gathering eggs (of birds, or also of turtles, some
kinds of fish, etc.) and also going after bugs (termites, ants, grubs, etc.
are considered a tasty treat by many hunter/gatherers) is also lumped in as
a gathering, not hunting, activity, but I'm less positive on that.  Still,
the currently most-accepted figures among anthropologists say that a
majority of gatherer/hunters get on average slightly more than half their
calories from animal foods in some form or another.

Also I believe that even under the old figures from Richard Lee the average
was accepted to be an average of something like 25% animal foods, which
still makes meat an important part of the diet and not a tiny,
once-in-a-while snack anyway.

BTW, no one that I'm aware of suggests that Richard Lee was being deceptive
or stupid, just that he failed to take certain important factors into
account.  The paper that lays out the case as to what Lee missed was called
"Myths About Hunter/Gatherers," and also Boyd Eaton has written some on
this, I can find out the specifics if someone -genuinely- wants them.

It's probably also important to point out that in all this, there is no
suggestion that we must all eat half our food as meat to be healthy.
Hunter/gatherers do show good health with considerable variation in their
diets, from as little as maybe 20% meat to as much as 90% or more.  The
numbers being tossed around are -averages-.  Although the averages don't
change much even if you take the extreme cases out--a majority do get about
half their calories from animal foods.  Those who get significantly more or
significantly less meat are both a minority.  But they aren't a -tiny-
minority by any means.  Some only get meat maybe once or twice a week and
are just fine that way.  So I would think that if someone was comfortable
and healthy eating meat only as a treat kind of thing, that's still well
within Paleolithic diet standards.  (What would be outside of it of course
would be eating -no- meat, or sucking down huge amounts of grains and
beans.)  Over on the Paleodiet list we talk a lot about meat and maybe this
point gets obscured, but there's no principle I'm aware of that suggests
that we all -have to- eat huge quantities of meat, only that there's no
reason to -avoid- meat and that you should eat as much as you're
comfortable with/can afford.  I've never seen -any- suggestion that you
-must- eat at least 50% meat or whatever, and I think that would be a dumb
idea (unless of course you try it and you find that yes that's what works
for you, as I have.  My diet is absolutely loaded with huge amounts of meat
and I feel better this way than I have in my whole life, but hey, that
doesn't mean everyone else is going to have the same exact experience.  I
remember Todd seems VERY pleased with quite moderate amounts of meat and
doesn't enjoy trying to eat much more than several dozen grams of protein a
day.).

ATOM RSS1 RSS2