Amadeus:
>My only source to food analysis that resolves down to
>each single lipid is the USDA database at
> http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_search.pl
>If you enter "human milk" , you see, that EPA DHA is not
>"left out", but that it is zero.
>Otherwise I would have mentioned that that data was not available.
>I would assume that percentages may
>vary in milk from woman to woman/day to day etc,
>but not, that a stuff that is *essential* to a baby would ever go
>to zero, if you take a healthy mother.

I believe the data is in error then. Formula manufacturers are attempting
to add those lipids to their product because it is one major difference
between real breast milk and their synthethic products.

>Human baby's are not dependent on DHA/EPA in the food.
>An so, at a certain probability adult humans aren't dependant too.

Use whatever words you want, but they very likely _thrive_ with it.

>Which decision would you "accuse" me to have already tak
>en before
>making a conclusion based on that data? ??

Your vegetarian stuff. Nuts are better than animal foods. Etc etc.

>My conclusion is, that nuts are a historically correct
>and a presently available and recommendable source of fat (especially
>walnuts).
>If you don't like nuts or don't accept the 7:1 ratio
>*and* you want to stay historic paleolithical
>then you can eat brains as an alternative.
>If you accept non-historic, modern alternatives
>you can eat flax-oil or sardines.
>
>What would be your contrary conclusion?

My conclusiuon is that you perseverate on tidbits of info (like walnuts) to
protect your "a priori" that animal foods are lessor than plant foods. Why
don't you just try experimenting on yourself and leave the nutritional
charts alone for a while. Eat neanderthin for six months and then report
your experience. Then you can say, "For _me_, blah blah blah..." which
would be much more palatable than what you are posting these days.

Cheers,
Kirt

Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]