On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 22:21:31 -0500, Peter Brandt <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>Amadeus:
>>I think the most unpaleo property of modern meat is
>>the EFA-deficit of it's fat. This is described on page
>>225 of your book "Fats that kill...".
>
>EFA needs are easily covered from other foods or through
>supplementation.  So that is a poor reason not
>to eat meat.

However I think it's a good reason to think well about fats if eating a diet
high in meat.

Peter, I agree on this.
Some months ago I even posted a suggestion how to properly "supplement"
commercial mass meat to achieve more nature like
fat compositions.
Essentially it's adding some PUFA, which can easily be gained from a little
flax oil and sunflower. If you eat about 200g animal fat per day, another 90
grams (of 1/3 flax and 2/3 sunflower) would do the trick. Or better choose
some leaner quality - with 120g fat only and add 60g of the liquids.

>Meat products without hormones and antibiotics
>are easy to come by - especially in Europe.
>So no excuse here.

Who needs "excuses"?

Hormone-free is law in Europe.
Recently we had a scandal here in the area, which revealed that illegally a
good deal of hormones and antibiotics were used.
There's a law against antibiotics in preparation.

>Mass scale paleo quality meat will never be
>produced on a mass scale.  But a lot
>of improvements can be made especially
>with a growing demand.  So, be a good consumer
>advocate and eat your organic meats.

I agree that a lot of improvements could be made.
Udo Erasmus mentioned a lot of possible enhancements, with some hope in it.
After the current animal diseases, our minister on the topic plans new laws
which should help to promote quality over quantity.
For the consumer masses I think it's impossible the supply meat amounts like
today in really good quality. But with a smaller quantity and a much higher
price the quality could be right.

In addition, we have to see, that a good part of the animal fedder is just
used to get the animal fat ("fattened on grain").
That's for sake of "taste". In fact it's a pure necessity if you look on the
macronutrient relations of meat in wild game, simple agriculture
and todays agriculture.

That fat could be and should be, I think, replaced by more plant fat
(of the good types,  *not* hydrogenated, heated....).

>> Most plants, seeds, roots, tubers, nuts have
>>a protein to energy ratio so that you get >
>> 100 percent RDA protein if you ate 2500 kcal
>>(fruit is lower). So that means you could live
>> from most plants only,
>
>Could yes, but thrive no - especially not in the longterm.
>Besides, as you well know, the RDA levels are in dispute.

As we know from nitrogen balance tests, the actual amounts of amino acids
used for structural purposes are about half of the RDA.
That means RDA has already a safety factor of 2. Which is necessary to
provide for the protein quality.
Todd mentioned some additional purposes some specific amino acids have- with
some benefits on it. My guess is that the RDA still is on the generous side.

Roots tubers and nuts leave you at about 100% RDA protein, if you ate 2500
kcal (a paleo outdoor or a rural worker may eat even more than the 2500
kcal, a office worker may eat less).

Seeds vastly overprovide you with protein (at 2500 kcal).
Wheat gives you 150% protein (of bad quality). Legumes double the protein
per kcal (320%) - and make up a protein of superb quality (with wheat).
If your nutrition bases on seeds, you may come more into the zone where
oversupply symptoms of protein can arise.

>
>Granted, most of us do not eat enough organ meats.
>But regardless, the highest quality plant food can never
>make up for the poorest quality animal food.

In which aspect?

Cheers, Amadeus