On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:09:42 -0400, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> The "new" species is still a slowly mutating descendent from it's anchestor,
>> and not created new.
>
>Actually, neither you nor anyone else knows how this occurred.
>It is still a matter of intense controversy whether such
>evolutionary changes are gradual or sudden.
Human (and other mammals) genes contain about 2 gigabyte worth of
information. 95 percent of this is identical between mice and humans.
Over 98 percent is identical between chimps and humans.

I think every quick change in evolution can only rely on genetic
resources, which were already present in some form.
For example adaption on r
aw milk in adult ages was easy and happended
through the whole european population in only some thousand years.
This is possible, IMO, because all the enzymatic apparatus to
digest was already present in humans - from digesting milk in
child ages.

Who ever our early anchestors were. Our bodies are variations
from their genes, with a little mutation.

>> At the end point we have a human with a 30% meat part in the diet.
>
>That is an average.  At the end we have humans adapted to a
>spectrum of diets that include much more meat than that and also
>much less.
You and me, we aren't Inuit decendants, are we?
How high do *You* assume the animal part in the diet of *your*
anchestors, let say 100ky , 500ky, 1my, 2my , 4my back?
In terms of
-percentage of animal protein in diet
-percentage of animal calories in diet
-grams of protein per kg weight eaten?

Maybe build
ing up and discussing the possibilities and
probabilities of such numbers could enhance our picture.

>> I can see no dependancy (animal vitamin) do you see one?
>
>Yes.  Protein.  I believe that the laboratory and clinical
>evidence supports the hypothesis that humans need more protein
>than is readily available in vegetarian diets.

Fine, thats a point, protein needs are still discussable.
But how high should protein needs be that they weren't available through
plants? Even if you assume 2.0 g/kg (biggest i ever heard of)
at 70kg of lean body mass that makes 1kg nuts. Or 250g Sunflower seeds.
Maybe even some kg of green vegetables (rumex, dandelion...)
were not too much to be eaten round one day.

>  Although the
>evidence is not yet conclusive, I think a case can be made that
>w-3 fats in the form of EPA and DHA are also beneficial (In
>addition to plant-derived A
LA).  Conjugated linoleic acid, also
>from animal sources, is becoming recognized as an important
>nutrient.
Maybe we'll be able to obtain some scientific numbers how much
of this stuff is actually needed, and where it can be obtained from.

>> Optimum health is possible for both, vegs and non-vegs, IMO.
>
>My guess is that a paleo-vegetarian will have an underdeveloped
>musculature, from the low protein levels.
What's underdeveloped? Less than Schwarzenegger? More than Boris Becker?
More than !kung look like? Or australian abo's?
Which musculature sizes would you consider
leading to "not optimal health"?

> I'm well aware that
>some vegetarians become strength athletes, but they must use
>protein isolates and other technological foods.  The breast-fed
>child of a complete vegetarian is at risk for w-3 fat
>deficiency, unless the mother is eatin
g a *lot* of purslane.

And the breast fed child of an Inuit like that of an
american Sioux gets 6% of its food cals as protein
or 1.2% of the food weight as protein.
Thats what is in mothers milk of all humans, undoubtely natural.
And after the end of the growing time, in adult ages
the protein need should go up to 30%??

>The need is determined in part by the amount of w-6 fats that you
>are eating.  A diet high in nuts and seeds is also high in w-6
>fats, which increases the need for w-3 fats to maintain a
>favorable ratio.  Unless you're eating purslane by the bushel,
>you probably can't do it.  I eat a lot of nuts, but I also eat a
>good amount of sardines, to offset the w-6 fats.  In sardines,
>w-3 fats are present in *gram* levels.
Without access to purslane (yet) , and no intentions on sardines
I'd really be interested how big actual w-3 fat needs were.
Could you
 specify some net-available publications / references
on this? Thanks in advance.
>
>Todd Moody

Amadeus Schmidt