On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:35:45 -0400, Siobhan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

><<yesterday in the newspaper there was a big article about how scientists
>have
>found that a diet rich in animal protein will elevate homocysteine levels,
>which they say is the main cause of heart disease. ...

>When science examines something, it does so in a vacuum.  It has yet to
>recognize the interconnectedness of all.  Some simple illustrative examples
>of what happens when there is a lack of balance in all factors, are the
>examples of Vit C and E being interdependent for full efficacy, and the
>amino acids being interdependent upon each other.

Dangerous? It may be even more dangerous to *ignore* known findings.
Well, the afterwords interpretation isn't so easy, and often very
abstruse or even false.
E.g. homocystein can be elevated by a lack of 3 vitamins (folic acid, B-6
and B-12). Is this really connecten to a diet "high in animal protein"?
Or is this just a very commom oversimplification of the average.
One *can* include sufficient vegetables (which contain it) and additional
meat won't harm this (and are "the" B-12 source).

Some verg good information about the (cancer)-protective substances in
plants has the paleo-article at
http://naturalhub.com/natural_food_guide_vegetables.htm
An interesting reading.

Then that neanderthal meat article. Well, they found from the neanderthal
memainders that these neanderthals ate 90% meat.
Then comes the incredible misleading interpretation of this:
>"The new bone-chemistry data combined with evidence of sustained Neandertal
>coexistence and
>interbreeding with early modern humans offer a positive picture of the
>Neandertals and may make it
>easier for some to accept the possibility that the Neandertals were among
>the ancestors of early
>modern humans," Trinkaus said.
What should evidence of coexistence imply?
Then one sole sceleton of a child, not clearly Cro-Magnon or Neanderthal.
*This* should be an "evidence" of interbreeding?
No word of the contradicting DNA findings and that there are no other
traces. What is the intention of this interpretation?
And what is a "positive picture"?

No word that neaderthals died out and that *this* may be linked
to the 90% meat diet.

Scientce just needs a good deal of own thinking.
Better to cut off the "opinion" interpretations delivered with the
actual results.

regards

Amadeus S.