On Mon, 28 Sep 1998, Amadeus Schmidt wrote:

> Well, no matter, how you may call them - already hominids, or pre-hominid
> anchestors (I've read about hominids since 4mio years),
> one thing seems shure: we do have anchestors that lived in some tropic woods
> before the ice age. I do assume here - and that is what I've read in several
> scientific publications, in museums and so on.. that these pre-humans
> had a diet very much dominated by plant stuff (see teeth, coprolithes ...).
> My imagination would compare their diet to that of todays chimps.
> They still had no stone tools and were not even capable to break an animals
> carcass. Their and our own pysiognomy show still the same signs of a
> non-hunting animal (claws/teeth/eyes...).

The earliest recognized hominids are Australopithecus Africanus
and Australopithecus Robustus.  There is still no agreement as to
whether these were ancestors of modern humans, or as to how they
were related to each other.  Even the dates are disputed, but
estimates range from 3.5 mya to 1.5 mya.  At this point, it's
probably fair to say that 2.5 million years is a fair estimate of
the length of time humans have been around.

> >You are overlooking a very important fact.  What happened during
> >the last 2-3 million years or so was the *appearance* of a new
> >species, the human species.  This species has occupied an
> >ecological niche quite different from that of the other primate
> >species.

> The "new" species is still a slowly mutating descendent from it's anchestor,
> and not created new.

Actually, neither you nor anyone else knows how this occurred.
It is still a matter of intense controversy whether such
evolutionary changes are gradual or sudden.  The point is that it
is simply invalid to infer that what was good enough for our
pre-human ancestors (whose specific identity and way of life is
completely unknown to us) is good enough for us.  Changes across
species can be quite wide, as in the case of species of birds,
and are probably driven by severe selection pressures that force
either drastic adaptation or extinction.

> At the end point we have a human with a 30% meat part in the diet.

That is an average.  At the end we have humans adapted to a
spectrum of diets that include much more meat than that and also
much less.

> But they did'd adapt so much to it, that they would need it.
> I can see no dependancy (animal vitamin) do you see one?

Yes.  Protein.  I believe that the laboratory and clinical
evidence supports the hypothesis that humans need more protein
than is readily available in vegetarian diets.  Although the
evidence is not yet conclusive, I think a case can be made that
w-3 fats in the form of EPA and DHA are also beneficial (In
addition to plant-derived ALA).  Conjugated linoleic acid, also
from animal sources, is becoming recognized as an important
nutrient.

> Optimum health is possible for both, vegs and non-vegs, IMO.

My guess is that a paleo-vegetarian will have an underdeveloped
musculature, from the low protein levels.  I'm well aware that
some vegetarians become strength athletes, but they must use
protein isolates and other technological foods.  The breast-fed
child of a complete vegetarian is at risk for w-3 fat
deficiency, unless the mother is eating a *lot* of purslane.

> I'd conclude from what you said, that w-3 fats can be obtained from both,
> plant and animal sources.
> If meats are denser with it, that needn't be an advantage.
> It was an advantage if a higher need was established than
> available through plants, but i can't see that.

The need is determined in part by the amount of w-6 fats that you
are eating.  A diet high in nuts and seeds is also high in w-6
fats, which increases the need for w-3 fats to maintain a
favorable ratio.  Unless you're eating purslane by the bushel,
you probably can't do it.  I eat a lot of nuts, but I also eat a
good amount of sardines, to offset the w-6 fats.  In sardines,
w-3 fats are present in *gram* levels.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]