On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:42:58 -0800, Mary <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>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?

regards
Amadeus S.