---
Don and Rachel Matesz <[log in to unmask]>
Next Generation Nutrition. (419) 476-2967
On Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:18:25 +0200, Amadeus Schmidt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Paleofood isn't only food like: in paleolithium, glaciation time,
>cold regions. That may be some peoples' definition or picture,
>but not *actual* paleolithicum. Besides that there are
>7000y of neolithicum history.
Aparently Amadeus would like to imply that some people in paleo times were
vegetarian, or near vegetarian. Not possible. Vegetarian diets do not
provide EPA or DHA, two EFAs for mankind, EPA being essential for the
development of the sophisticated human vascular system, DHA being essential
for development of the brain and eyes, hence hand-eye coordination. Because
of the lack of these fats in vegetable matter, no herbivorous animal on
Earth has vascular or nervous system development comparable to mankind.
Largest brain next to mankind is found in dolphin, a carnivore at the top of
the marine food chain. Man simply could not have developed the kind of
body he has if he had been an herbivore (see Nutrition and Evolution by
Professor Michael Crawford). Research has shown that vegetarian humans have
low DHA levels, the vegetarian mothers produce DHA deficient milk, and the
children of vegetarian mothers show low DHA levels. (See Smart Fats, by
Michael A. Schmidt, Frog Ltd. 1997, pp. 48-49) Highest DHA levels are found
in Japanese, who live high on the carnivorous marine food chain and also
judging by their economic success and position as the most longevous of
nations in the modern world are pretty smart. Further, the World
Ethnographic Atlas records that modern hunter gatherers living in
nongalcial, temperate and tropical regioins show that even though large
amounts of vegetation are available, most groups shcoose diets 50% or more
animal source.
>All examples i've heared before, where a group of humans lived mainly
>on killing animals were a kind of overexploitation - except inuit.
>Applies to whales, to bisons, to fish, even to todays wild-game
>when beeing fed (guess, what?).
>Even Ray described repeatedly how all that nice animals went extinct.
>And of course this applies to todays western society- or what do you
>think all that concentrated feed stuff comes from?
>Even in Europe from South and North America- soy.
Where did you get this? When white man came to America, game was so
plentiful that it was astounding. All early explorers commented on the
abundance. Bison herds were so large it could take two days or more to pass
by the whole herd. Rivers and lakes were brimming with fish. And this was
true in spite of the fact that Native American Indians had been hunting and
gathering for thousands of years. The bison were not extinguished by Native
overexploitation, but the white man was stupid enough to kill them wantonly
just to make room for his cattle and grain fields. Agriculture is by
necessity an all out war on Nature.
>Time to process a carrot?
Raw carrots are virtually indigestible in the human gut. Humans can obtain
only one percent of carotenes from raw carrots due to the fact that they are
encased in cellulose, a material not digestible by humans.
>The aim is, (hopefully common) to leave all the food largely
>unprocessed. That applies to all paleofood, not more to plants.
>Some additional processing energy is necessary in detoxifying
>techniques like when cooking grains (*IF* you choose them).
>But this *could* be done by soaking.
That is a crock of grits! Soaking alone will not render whole rice or wheat
digestible. Not even sprouting will do so. I used to eat those sprouted
grain breads and they came out the other end looking the same as they did
when they went in!
>Like meat could be eaten raw.
>How much percent do you eat raw?
My wife and I eat at least 80% of our meat raw--and by meat I mean red
meat, chicken, and fish, 6 to 8 ounces at a time. Never had a digestive
upset from it either. On the other hand, eating more than 1/2 cup of raw
grated carrots gives me a pain in the gut.
>Take the energy cost of producing the meat and you're far off again.
What energy cost? Just let the animal roam around and it feeds itself; when
it gets large enough, kill it. Fish multiply faster than rabbits if you
just stop dumping AGRICULTURAL (and industrial) WASTES in their homes. If
the animal is in its native environment, it is very economical and
ecological. Most of the estimates of the "costs" of raising animals are
based on raising animals in unnatural environments on unnatural diets. For
example, in his infinite stupidity, man insists on raising cattle on the
American plains. Cattle aren't adapted to life on the plains--cattle are
water hungry, but the plains are water poor. We should be raising bison.
Similarly, raising cattle on the African plains is stupid. There we should
raise animals native to that environment, such as eland and orynx. By
working with Nature, huge amounts of food can be produced at mimimum cost.
>
>Again, if you compare *normal* veggies to carnies, the health cost
>for the veggies will be less, because they *in average* do
>better.
THIS HAS YET TO BE DEMONSTRATED! All studies suggesting that vegetarians
are healthier than "normal" omnivores have been seriously flawed and marred
by investigator bias. The vast majority of them have been Seventh Day
Adventists studying Seventh Day Adventists. SDAs are out to "prove" the
'truth' of their religion, which includes practice of vegetarianism, so
naturally they tend to cast a favorable light on the diet. If vegetarians
"on average" do better, then why aren't the average Indians and Chinese in
the running for the health and longevity stakes?
If you compare healthy natural living paleos (say, !Kung)
>to "normal" veggies...?.. Then the veggies may hopefully
>be able to learn something.
Yes indeed, what they should learn is that all humans are designed by
Nature to eat meat.
Don Matesz
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of PALEOFOOD Digest - 1 Aug 1999 to 2 Aug 1999 (#1999-304)
>**************************************************************
>
|
