Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 3 Sep 1998 18:36:22 -0400 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Wade Reeser wrote:
> Certainly, it has been abundantly shown that humans and their ancestors have
> been eating alot of meat for a long time.
>
> I think you are really missing the boat on this. What problems do you have
> with
> the consumption of meat?
>
> Wade, I read Amadeus as reacting to the concept that more meat is better for
> which there is an obvious constituency on this list; particularly in light of
> the "modern" feed lot meat vs. that which was consumed by paleo ancestors. He
> has never said that he has a problem with the consumption of meat per se. As to
> the question of the ratio of meat to plant nutrients, it has often been
> proposed on this list that there had to have been much variation seasonally, by
> region, and by epoch relative to major climatic variations. I think it is silly
> to propose that our hominid ancestors would have passed up wild berries,
> mushrooms or other ripe fruit when it was available. In fact, I think they
> would have gorged on it when they happened upon ripe stands just as they would
> have gorged upon antelope or other ungulates when such large slabs of protein
> were available. If strawberries were plentiful in the artic, do you really
> think that the Inuit would leave them for the ptarmigans??? If you read back
> over his numerous posts, you will wee that he is arguing for the efficacy of a
> predominance of plant foods rather than condemning meat as a component of a
> paleo diet. Rick Strong
|
|
|