On Fri, 12 May 2000 09:41:40 -0800, Zoe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>On Fri, 12 May 2000, Amadeus Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> Opposed to this, i feel that meats are more of an emergency food for
>>> deserted areas and well suited only for specialists (predators).
>>> Somehow a lion is more a mortician than a king.
>>
>
Zoe:
>So Amadeus - do you consider yourself a Paleolithic eater and are on
>this list to support that? Or are you just here for some rousing
>discussion?

Zoe, you seem to be disturbed by my way of eating, avoiding meat - as
unfortunately are some here.
As long as overwhelming meat consume is your *only* paleo concept
this may be a disturbance for you.
Sorry for that - meat isn't a concept that interests me much.

Yes I am here (or was here) for having discussion, for the purpose,
NOT of mere discussion, but yes discussion, for finding new aspects and
insights, and to challenge my own as well as others premisses.


And I'm happy to have found - well really a bunch of new aspects not
only worth to reform common western eating, but hear hear also
vegetarian eating.

I'd like to support any ideas following real historical paleolithic eating.

So, am I a paleo eater (hmhm who can *really* call himself so)?
I try and test my own paleo way. Real paleo shamans *may* have
done similar diets (avoiding meats) for a reason not related
to health or complete nutrition.
Consequentely avoiding meat IMO isn't the real (average) paleolithic
lifestyle. Means eating meat is IMO unquestioned paleo.

But the *way* is is practised by many - also on the list and also by average
readers of Ray's book is IMO very questionable. And i question it.

First, I think - and would like to find out more in discussion and studying
sciences, that the very big meat eating volume is *not* real paleo.
Paleolithicum - as we define it - happened in very long time-frames
(as "advertised" by paleo-books). For example 2 mio years of "ice ages".
Very high meat volumes (or percentages) happened in an arctic environment.
This was _for_our_style_of_human_trait_ only about 25000 years for a part
of the population. Genetically IMO less relevant than the last 5000 years of
grain based eating. The time before (2,000,000 to 30,000 years back)
is open to discussion and science, quite unsure and suspect to speculations
With little availability of animal fats (though nut fats)
and very good availability of plant resources.
More than 2 mio years back it is rather undisputed by science that
human anchestors lived in an environment and nutrition of fruit.

Second, todays meat isn't like paleo meat. Read Cordaine and see that
fat was low (in non arctic... i don't consider me or humanity to be acrtic
based descendants). Ask Atkins or Eades or whoever - they won't be able
to claim or even want to claim that their diet like actual human
anchestors lived, for considerable times.
Replacing "modern" carbohydrates by whatever is a good
goal. Fat resolves it. I personally find more interesting to find
real paleo energy sources - real paleo carbohydrates, which can
replace the modern carbohydrates and work as well, or better.
And many people don't eat whole animals (enough proportion of organ meats).
There are signs that *only* organ meats have been the goal and interest
of hunters - especially liver (Whoever eats enough whole plants
will probably have few interest in normal red meat).

There is no reason to lead a vegetarian or not discussion if i point out
such topics. Just take the chance to learn more about real paleo.
Or sharpen your arguments and convert me -not to a meat eater, but maybe
to someone assuming that's something missing when beeing vegetarian.

But I'm tired of the "beleave" discussions. .. really tired.
Please bring up nutrition topics.

Amadeus

>
>Zoe
>Santa Cruz
>Zoe Sodja
>Document Publishing & Editing Center
>University of California Santa Cruz
>(831) 459-3882
>[log in to unmask]