Todd:
>I agree. I believe this is what he strives for -- in particular
>using nuts and seeds as energy-dense foods. This is a reasonable
>strategy for one who wants to do this without eating meats
I would be curious to know how close he is to the mark. It is
my impression that he eats a fair amount of grains.
>(I agree with the 5% ceiling for grains and legumes *combined*,
> by the way. In the context of modern "meal" planning, this
>suggests that these foods should be treated as condiments, at best).
>Amadeus likes to point out that farmed meats have a much higher
>ration of SFA to EFA than *any* genuine paleo foods, plant or animal.
>This is true, but nut and seed oils, though they have a "better"
>SFA:EFA ratio, generally have a worse w6:w3 ratio (with the
>exception of walnuts). This creates problems of its own,
>which are, I think, worse than the SFA:EFA problems.
Either way it is fairly easy to balance the fatty acids.
But there are other concerns with eating plant foods in
amounts and proportions that exceed those that our
paleo ancesters would consume. In the case of nuts and
seeds these would be antinutrients and enzyme inhibitors
(they can be soaked but this it is tempting not to as
they generally taste much better unsoaked), rancidity
(especially, if shelled) and mold. Nuts if eaten too
liberally can also quite easily cause or contribute to
overload of CU in the body. Also, there are nutrients
and phytochemicals in nuts and seeds that when these
foods are eaten in too large amounts can cause various
allergy and immune type problems. All in all this seems
like a high price to pay for somebody attempting to
emulate a healthy paleodiet.
>I think he is serious, but believes the omission of
>animal foods, while not a true reflection of paleo eating,
>can be done without sacrificing the benefits of paleo.
This is as we should all know by now not true. Which
is why no matter how many compelling nutritional charts
and interesting research he digs up, if they are taken out
of context, they only serve to cloud the facts.
>It's not unlike my omission of brains from my diet.
>I know that paleo people undoubtedly ate them, and
>they were an important part of their diet (DHA/EPA source).
>But I think I can get by without eating them, without
>jeopardizing the whole plan.
Omitting brains is easily done. However, it is not
even closely comparable to eliminating a whole
category of foods such as animal foods.
>I don't expect to agree with Amadeus on a lot of
>things, but I don't find that especially frustrating.
>He generally presents arguments for his views, even if
>I don't find them compelling. I find that far less
>frustrating than other things that come up from time to
>time.
You are certainly a very patient and forgiving man
considering how many times he has run around circles
with you as well.
>I think he is sincere about eating a paleo diet
>and sincere about not eating meat.
As many have said before me, this is an oxymoron.
I believe that Amadeus is a vegetarian primarily for
personal reasons and secondarily for social/ideological
reasons. The paleo/health angle is a superficial overlay
that he neurotically is trying to fit over the original mold.
>There is an obvious tension between those two goals.
>If you think "paleo" means "eat the foods that paleo
>people probably ate" then a paleo diet *requires*
>eating meat.
Quite.
>But if you think "paleo" means "choose
>from the foods that paleo people probably ate", you
>could choose to avoid meats. As I see it, the latter
>s what Amadeus is trying to do.
It is difficult enough as it is to find a broad variety of organic, original
fresh and unprocessed paleo foods which is why eliminating a whole
category of foods as Amadeus is doing and thinking he can pull it off
is a desperate act that makes no sense in a paleo context.
Peter
|
