On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:24:57 -0800, alexs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>An interesting set of observations. If I may comment:
>Vegetarian dogma ...
I try to live without a dogma, but according to facts and my feelings.
> But high fiber is not tolerated
>by all, and can be irritating, not always healthful.
That's true, especially for us "westerners" which are used to a diet very
low in fiber for .. decades. But hominids and primates before had for
millions of years a diet very rich in fiber. I think it's a question of
symbiont gut flora, and a rich fiber diet promotes a good and healthy
flora
(after some time). It has many healthy aspects.
My observation is, that all sugars together with fiber do bad, but without
it feels very good.
>
>> (antinutrients), to which our bodies are
>>untrained..
>What's with this "training"? "Training" one's body to deal
>with mineral-robbing plant phytates has not been demonstrated
>to my knowledge. Same for solanins, and many/most other toxins.
To phytates I don't assume a training, they don't enter the bloodstream
and work outside (in the gut). It has to be removed or the food
composition
has to provide the then missing things at different meals.
Solanin is similar to toxins like
nicotin and caffeine. I think most have experienced that the body
"gets used" to them. This can be partly contributed to activation of
the enzyme systems (in the liver) which break them down
(similar is alcohol). This i mean with training.
>What has been observed is that long-term adherents to one
>dietary regime or another cannot simply switch to another
>without consequences.
"Training" through enzyme systems and intestinal flora adjustment
would be an explanation.
>>Undoubtable humans and primates *are* plant eaters since ever, and
>>therefore able to cope with this.
>Doesn't seem logical to me. Another interpretation is that humans
>benefit from eating meat from animals whose livers have already
>detoxified all the plant poisons - sort of living refineries ...
Of course, animal metabolism and livers work so, and so increased animal
consumption (esp.livers) serve as anti-allergenic and toxin avoiding.
My point is, that plant eaters (primates and hominis are so, aren't they)
have eons old mechanisms to live *with* some "toxins". Even we may
*benefit* from some of them. Only the dosage makes the difference between
poison and medicine (some famous author...).
So, I think we don't have to avoid "plant toxins" totally, but rather
understand them and ingest them in a reasonable (adapted to) amount.
>Yes, but you mean *Human* Milk, especially for infants. The suitability
>of animal milk (or lack of suitability) has been discussed here often. ..
Human milk differs in some aspects from, say cows' (less from goat/sheep).
One main aspect is that cows' has 3-times as much (too much) protein.
Who eats increased protein goes exactely in that (wrong?) direction.
Too few Vitamin C and folate speak the same language.
Fat composition and content compared between cows/humans too.
Nobody adult will want to live from cow (or goat) milk alone. It can be
a contribution. As for toxin content, milk should provide the optimum
possible.
>The relatively large amounts of natural growth hormone IGF-1 in milk
might
>be considered a toxin (identical in human & bovine).
D'accord for this thing. Milk is for (fast) growing organisms.
This may be the explanation that pure cheese provides less problems than
milk - cheese does contain much less things per gram of protein.
>"Real" Paleos certainly do, and without these leaps of rationalization.
What i described, is not pure "hardline" paleo from a "hardline" theory.
There is certainly a "veg.paleo light" version, which allowes *some*
milk products. This i consider very disputable because of the many milk
allergies. I think it should be taken in cases not allergic to casein
only, and no other milk products than cheese anyway. And/or small amounts.
And not cow... and not processed(aged) with chemicals/bacteria... ...
>>...the plants will be very rich in
>>micronutrients and fiber automatically. I pay much attention to this.
>>Keys are fruit (better not so sweet), and *much* vegetables.
>>In big portions like 3-500g spinach or broccoli, carrots, sweet ptatoes
>
>Meat is also extremely nutrient dense.
Meat is extremely dense in *protein* and a few vitamins only.
For a adequate supply on most vitamins with meat (nearly possible) amounts
are necesary, which sound enormous to most - who aren't hunters.
>Fresh raw tubers might have "vitamin C", but once peeled & cooked
>have probably lost most of this nutrient.
Carefull cooking of anything will discard about 30% of the vitamin C in
it.
Leaching out in the cooking water some additional 20% or so.
For vitamin C, it often can be compensatet by volume. But..
For thiamin (B1) which is needed in amounts *in parallel* (proportional)
to
carbohydrates, cooking and leeching out will be even worse.
(for things containing carbos).
In history this (cooking) could only work for items which have *more* than
the proportional breakdown ratio of thiamin. Cereals need cooking and
have more than the needed ration. I think otherwise all the cereal based
cultures would never have worked.
>Dispute this. The amino acid balance of most single plants
>is entirely unlike that of egg albumin, the "gold standard".
>Attempting to fill out the amino acid profile requires
>mixing several plant foods, not necessarily desirable or paleo.
Even meat is much worse than egg protein. Wheat protein lacks one
amino acid (lysin), which lowers its protein's efficiency to about 56%
of eggs' (meat about 86 percent). Most plants are much better than wheat.
Nutrition safety factors include such bad efficiency factors. From a
nearly ideal protein (3lbs potatoe with 1+1/2 egg, 136% of egg) it can be
shown, that much smaller amounts are necessary than from such proteins.
The common wheat proteins defficiency of lysine can be easily equaled
out by pulse-protein - it has a surplus of exactely lysine.
I do *not* recommend wheat protein. But this is the combination that
powered the neolithic revolution.
>The comment was made that oils/fats are "only" energy.
>This is not true! Certain fatty acids are used directly by
>the body for nerve growth and repair. This is why the
>low-fat diet fads are IMO dangerous.
I admittedly simplified this as for macronutrients only.
Some fats have wonderful additional benefits, as you note.
But no protein. If most plants (except fruit) reach about 150% protein
per 2600 kcal, then if a vegetarian replaces 50% (of the kcal) from fat
(no protein) he or she will end at about 75% protein.
No problem for meat eaters (meat has 700% protein per 2600 kcal).
Also vegetarians have to include some protein-denser foods then
- for the 25% rest of protein, or more if desired.
This is no problem whith any seeds, like nuts, sunflower, several grains.
But i think , this is the reason, why (together with my fat intake)
I always felt some need for seed intake.
>Well, it's an interesting outlook, but I perceive
>"Paleovegetarianism" to be an oxymoronic concept.
To be honest, i don't understand oxymoronic, and the babelfish.altavista
translater doesn't know it eather.
There are people which - for reasons i *don't* dispute - are, or like
to be vegetarian. For them (us) paleo-concepts are IMO important to.
They *real* paleolithic human and hominid nutrition was with some
probability not vegetarian, which means without *any* meats.
So I know I don't eat *exactely* as they did. So what - the
same applies for anybody trying to live from todays "supermarket" foods.
Chances are, that *very low* meat percentages (like chimps 1.5%+0.7% meat)
were present for most of our food adaption times.
This encourages me to speak from "paleovegetarianism" even though this
is not the common way like "cave humans" are understood.
regards .. and I've again overstressed time and length
- but thanks for the on topic discussion
Amadeus S.
--
Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net
|
