Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:35:03 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:58:41 -0700, Dori Zook <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>As long the topic is "paleolithic nutrition" and not "meat based
>>nutrition"
>>the mixture may work.
>
>Amadeus, this is not a personal attack, just a statement of fact. The
>paleolithic diet includes meat in its very definition. Meat based? Maybe
>not. Meat included? At the very least.
I agree.
Meat was included, yes.
But not by definition - who defines this?
Paleolithic means "old-stone-age" -- thats a long long timeframe.
In practice early humans would have eaten anything - including meat.
We know that there are times which were very low in meats
(australipithecines) and very high in meats (upper northern paleolithicum).
The *extent* is still disputable for most of the time.
That is *not* vegetarian, but remember, I don't sell my vegetarianism.
I see the paleolithicum in the light of plant eating.
Like maybe a man of jewish religion who takes part in a discussion of
aspects of the life of christ. Don't you think there would be things
important to both?
Amadeus
|
|
|