On Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:26:37 MDT, Dori Zook <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I still, however, stand by my statement that by definition the paleodiet
>contains meat and the vegetarian diet does not.  It seems we may agree on
>that.

I agree.
Not to exactely to "the definition", because anyone can "define" anything".
But is seems that the actual human diet in paleolithical time consisted
also of animals (anything edible, to be honest).

>...90%... When did I ever say that?  I don't.
Sorry, I had the impression by one sentence of you.

>You wished me health.  Remember, this is not a fight. ..

I did, and that was not sarcastic or anything, but ment serious.
And a small hint, to keep an eye on the fat associated especially with beef
(see our SFA discussion and the Loren Cordain quote).

> .. I don't have an
>immediate adverse reaction to grain-fed beef.  I don't appear to have ANY
>significant negative reactions to grain-fed beef, frankly.

The facts i think of are not about immediate reactions but longer term.
I understand, that replacing various oddities by, say beef will save in
short term from food incompatibilities, which can be drastic.
I'd consider this as antiallergenic as long as there is no beef allergy.

Long term it may be wise to better keep an eye on overall fat composition
and  proper EFA supplementation.
To be exact: add fish oil *plus* primrose/borage/hemp (PGE1!)
OR hemp or a rich flex with LA blend.
Just as a inspiration.

> .. Some meats are better than others, granted, but meat is good.

Maybe this is the mistake. Too general. I realize, that in this, you'll
accept anything that they'll serve you, provided it's made of the body of
any animal.
Regardless of the conditions of that animal. It's "meat", but can't be true.

regards

Amadeus S.