Your forgetting one main point.  The vegetarian diet you are recommending
creates chronic elevated insulin levels for the vast majority of the
population.



In a message dated 3/7/2000 5:07:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:

<<
 >Not only that, a meatless paleo diet would be very high in carbohydrates,
 >which would lead to its own set of problems.
 Disagree on that.
 If you accout for animal slaughter fats, which come with
 todays fabric meat, then you can displace some carbohydrate by the fat.
 But - as we know from Cordain's an others work, wild game is rather
 low on fat - only 4% over all. Only in the arctic - high fat animals
 (sea mammals and fish) are available.

 So, meat alone contributes its energy mostly in the form of
 additional protein, which has to be reconstructed by the body
 to fuel. To *carbohydrate* fuel, to be exact. In a proces
 s called
 gluconeogenesis.

 If you want to have fat, to replace carbohydrate fuels, then you
 needn't take slaughter-fats. There are many fine fat donating plants
 out there (actually in non-arctic environment, more than from animals).

 If you left away the meat, then what would be reduced is not
 energy, but mostly the protein part of the diet.
 If you want to replace this by plant protein sources, then you
 will actually have to eat some carbohydrates.
 So ketosis will be difficult or impossible - but i question if this
 can be called historically paleo.

 If you choose fatty plants for protein-like nuts- then the carbs will
 be so low, that they will hardly be sufficient to fuel the brain alone
 (e.g. 330g sunflower or mongongo).
 If you choose non-fatty plants, then the fat part will again
 be around 4% fat (e.g. sweet potatoe 6% fat).

 If you have to choose from carbohydrate from m
 eat and gluconeogenesis
 and (natural) plants with carbohydrates -
 which way do you prefer?
  >>