On Wed, 2 Aug 2000 17:44:28 -0700, Wally Day <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Then why do it? It makes no sense to me to scour the
>universe for "the truth", and then ignore it when you
>find it.

Ask a jew, why he doesnt eat pig.
He or she can profit from nature nutrition though.
Ask a catholic why he doesnt eat meat on friday.
He or she can profit from nature nutrition though.
Ask a farmer, why he doesn't eat the eyes of the pigs.
He or she can profit from nature nutrition though.

Any more questions?
I am *not* ignoring the findings.
I deviate knowingly by a few percent if i leave out the animals.
You deviate heavily if you eat beef and pig. Do you "ignore what you find"?

>> For all this reasons I cannot and could not (and i
>> think did never)
>> suggest a pure vegetarian nutrition as *the* true
>> paleo nutrition.
>
>I believe you have 'at least' implied it to the list a
>numer of times. But maybe I was reading into your
>statements something that was not there.

It seems (generally) so that as soon as one thinks to understand
the *motivation* of someone, he or she tends to interpret all communication
of him in this context.
(if you think: "I know what you wanted to say"...... is probably a
misunderstanding).

I am vegetarian, so the context is (usually) that such would want to preach
and convert others.
But I've also studied (some semesters of) archeology, and kept myself
occupied with nutrition themes.
I hope you can perceive my statements in the latter context.

>It's entirely possible that early humans ate 50%+ meat
>may not have "had to" eat that much, but simply
>preferred to eat that much.

From a western POV with calories in abundance, certainly meat is a nice
add on (this used to govern our imagination - mine also).
From a homo-erectus POV with calories representing the most missing
component meat appears not very interesting *because it is so lean*
(As long as enough other food is available).

INVITATION:

I invite you or anyone to test the case. Please try eating 50% meat in kcal.
But real paleo!
-not farmed meat
-only unfarmed wild game. Deer. Reindeer. Wild pork. Rabbits. whatever.
-And *not* fed up examples  of these, which x-folds their fat content
 (You need to know a hunter for this exercise, i presume).
-Maximum 4% average fat.
That will be healthy for you, because you won't eat excess saturated fat
made out only of agricultural matter.
Just leave out agriculture. And leave out fish trawlers. The latter would be
healthy IMO, but are not true paleo savannah for the experiment....

I suppose onsetting rabbit starvation.
(unless you have unpaleo fat reserves on board...)

>> If you have decided to be a meat eater, i hope you
>> can derive fruitful
>> conclusions out of this.
>
>No pun intended? :)

Not intended, but not bad :-)

Don Wiss wrote:
>Prior to a couple of million years ago we ate insects. There is no way we
>became the smartest animals without the extra protein, minerals, and
>vitamins that insects provide.

"extra protein, minerals, and vitamins that insects provide" are what eaters
of sugar, white flour, artificual sweeters and bad oil extractions badly
need. Like most people in the affluent nations.

And what does a tuber eating homo erectus, a grain/lentil/flax eating
linearband-neolithic man, a australopithecus africanus need?
Lets assume (well, just hypothize, just *imagine*) a plant only diet.
Certainly not "extra protein, minerals, and vitamins". Because they all
are already in great abundance in natural whole plants.
Everythin except probably vitamin b12.

Extra food of anything, when hungry... yes, always.

I think better is:
There is no way we
became the smartest if all humanoid species without the extra brain fuel,
minerals, and vitamins that plant seeds and tubers provide.

Amadeus