Ilya, thank you for your post showing your
impressions and feelings. Now I see better POV
and i'll try to show a bit of mine.
I hope that finding *the* common topic will help
what you call your frustrations.

You wrote:
>..get busier in
>high school (sorry if I am confusing my facts here, I seem to
>remember you are about 15 yo or so), go to college
First, I'm not shure what made you thinking that - maybe
my first name (it's my real one).
But i'm 39 years old, have finished Computer science since long
run a small and successful firm in the computer business
and guess you're rhight - i spend too much stolen time here.
I addition i did spent semesters of archeology at the university,
(topic: the earliest times), and i'm also thinking about nutrition
problems since many years, because in my friends and family are a lot
of medicine people and i choose to be a vegetarian in years long
ago, when it used to cause discussions (over here).
I'm 184 cm tall and 70kg heavy, and recovered recently from a leg
broken badly by a car.
I've two children of age 13 and 15 which happen to be life long
vegetarians, but without
other influence than example - they are not living with me.
They both are exceptionally tall (the 13 y old now approaches 180cm).

>Protein appears to be 'lost' to glucose conversion
>at a rate of about 58% regardless of intake.
So, show this reference!
The scientific text i cited,
and the graph i mentioned IMO shows something different.
The more protein eaten above the individual need,
*the more* is excreted. So, how could you tell.

>You keep calling 70 gm per day a very high level.
I call .4 gm per kilo weight the minimum required protein
for a normal (sedentary) living adult consuming the ideal
protein (136% better than egg). Because this is what i have learnt
and never in literature found any contradicionary finding. point.
Indicidual needs due to bader protein quality and desease, wounds
will be higher - didn't i tell this?

>Numerous studies with athletes showed
>that for optimal muscle growth intake of about .9 to 1.0
>gm/lb of body weight is needed (for an average male
>that comes to over 150gms/day).
These studies for shure don't tell that so much protein would be
*used* for the muscle growth,
because a full kg of additional muscle contains only 20% of protein.
>Would you please site your sources that say that 70gms is too much?
I don't like to cite "too much" references because this is a biased
word. 70gm may be adequate for somebody.
I'd call Kens 2-3lbs per day
adequate - simply not used for growth , but for energy.
Raise an objection.

>> White cheese is a mild paleo violation
>> -there is paleo-cheese (remember calves)
>> and last but not least we *are* mammals :-)
>Cheese is hardly a 'mild' paleo violation
>especially cheese from corn/grain fed cows.
Cheese is a way to ingest masses of animal protein
(which i still can't find a strong reason for)
without eating animal body.
This may be important for religious reasons.

> - cow casein is
>different from human casein. Bovine casein
>is the one causing the problems, not human.
I do think so too and wouldn't recommend bovine milk.
(goat and sheep, preferrably from free range eating greens)
But the ideas, why casein was not paleo are IMHO not so strong
like on grains. Besides allergies on cow milk
(which i think are frequent) I only remember as to be bad:
the opiate topic - not so convincing IMHO.

> The only time
>I remember you listing your diet it was decidedly
>NOT paleo - grains, beans, dairy, seemingly made
>the bulk of it.
You seem to remember only what you didn't like.
Bulk in volume is: fresh plants: *various* salads and roots.
Bulk in energy and protein are nuts, almonds , sunflower seeds
and oils (olive and flax).
I do include grains - this needn't be cereals.
There are many more seeds (quinoa for example).
And most important: all is bulk in micronutrients.
Call it cheating, if you want.

>It is tiring having to address the same issues (such as
>amounts of protein) every month or so, like clockwork.
>Patiently people would respond to you only to have you
>bring it up, as if it was never discussed before anywhere
>from a few days to a few weeks later.
I still don't feel satisfied with any arguments concerning
the protein needs.
If you already said it, or feel that the counterargument
was already mentioned then you might just mention a
http pointer to the posting containing it.
If you don't have a counterargument then i feel it's still open.
If there is a new argument considering protein needs
(maybe like my graph reference) i'd really appreciate any argument
on that particular topic.
It won't be enough just to repeat, that in
some body-building magazines a higher intake was recommended.

>If you were a little more observant
>you'd notice how many disillusioned ex-vegetarians or ex-low
>fat faithfuls are here.
Of course i've seen that, and that's a good reason, why i'd expect
to meet nutrition experienced people here
and looking forward to hear from their experiences.

>..so that I can
>discuss Neanderthin version of paleo in peace an quiet here.
I don't hope that all you want to see is your convitions
repeated over and over, but that you are open for
some new ideas too and to discuss them - also controversely.
Don't you trust your arguments?

>....just as you are not likely to stop advocating
>vegetarianism here I am not going to stop eating paleo or
>participating on this list because you are here.
I never advocated v. here, and told so several times.
I advocate that meat eating wasn't necessary
- vegetarianism is a different POV.
After seeing a vegetarian paleo newbee here i just wanted and want
to encourage them - that one can have a paleolithic inspired eating
while staying vegetarian.
Whatever you do is you own chioce, and i'm far from feeling in place
to judge over your own choices.

However, as i recall from frevious posts, you seem to be a heavy
meat consumer. This is IMHO a valid paleoway, since the
anchestors of northern people probably went throu such a meat and fat
evolutionary bottleneck in the years from 35000 to 4000 bc.
But this are only 30kyears, followed by 7kyears of annother
cereal and legume bottleneck.
Besides these evolutionary bottlenecks, we have to consider millions
of years in tropic africa as the primary adaption times
(even if you follow the not much accepted idea that we
stemmed form neanderthals).

I like the idea of eating like "naked in the wilderness".
But meat eating in the first place is *not* what that implies to me.
IMHO there are other more important questions that are still worth
discussion.
For example:
- how much genetically altered may be a food (by selection,
   interbreeding, feeding...) espacially: fruit
- how much antinutrients may be in a food, what do they good/bad
- how are foreign (e.g. american) food to be considered
- which foods have enough/adequate micronutrients
- what impact had the availability of nuts in "african" times
   (one of my fafourite)
And last but not least i'd be looking forward to a discussion how far
meat could be necessary for nutrition or not, based on the genetic

adaption principles.
I would appreciate a controversal discussion, because these tend to
be the most fruitful, if new arguments and views are presented.

regards,

Amadeus

--
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net