On Thu, 3 Aug 2000 15:00:46 MDT, Dori Zook <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>... meats,
>vegetables that can be eaten raw, fruits, nuts and berries.  Therefore, a
>vegetarian diet is NOT the paleolithic diet. ...
>Bottom line; by its very definition, the paleodiet contains meat.
>... By ITS
>very definition, the vegetarian diet does NOT.

...
And I believe what i've read in a book.
And i believe in the definition i found there by a non expert
like in a law. ...

>  What part of that is hard
>to understand?

I did never claim that beeing vegetarian was "the" paleolithical times diet.

However i do claim, that my diet is in many aspects much closer to
"paleolithic" diet as *yours*, as far as i can tell from your statements.

You say that you eat 90% meat.
Probably 90% of this are muscles and fat from agricultural farmed animals.
Impossible until the age of artificial fertilization and refrigeration.
This stuff is fundamentally very different from any paleo-meat,
even *if* you assume 90% meat in the actual paleo diet (instead of 5 or
10%).


I personally am also interested not only in the paleolithicum,
but also in the genetic forming timespans before and after.
As this is *the* argument for what is labelled "paleo":
the big number of generations involved.
After all I can't ignore our dependance on Vitamin C just because this
property was aquired far away, 40 million years ago in a jungle of fruits.

Paleolithicum is counted from the beginning of what could be called "human"
up to the last warming (mesolithicum).
This may be from 300,000 to 10,000BC.
Most paleo-thinkers include humanoid predecessors of at least 2 mio years.

You may of course simply (try to) implement one single paleo timespan, the
Cro Magnon style nutrition of the years 40,000 to 10,000 BC.
Then we simply don't have much to talk with each other.
Have fun with it and i whish you to stay healthy.

Amadeus