Peter,

in your answer to my question

>>>But regardless, the highest quality plant food can never
>>>make up for the poorest quality animal food.
>>In which aspect?

You manage to outline the same basic aspects which I see too.

Generally I do see some advantages from meat eating - you mentioned some.
Well, there are enough people here to praise meat, so I don't have to do
that. I just leave this space.

However my conclusions to your points are different to yours of course,
so I'll add some comments.

>Because animal food is a part of man's natural diet.
That seems to be the case. Note that there no agreement in science or
interpretation which part animal foods had (percentages of calories/volume).
>Take it away and something will always be missing.
That's your interpretation.
Up to now I didn't miss anything.
The same you could say to eating of grasshoppers.
- They were always part of man's diet.
- Take it away... and what will be missing?


>Because if you leave out animal foods, you have to eat
>plant foods in amounts and proportions that your body
>did not evolve to handle. (toxins, antinutrients,
>mold, fiber, nutritional imbalances)

I see the problem that when eating plant protein instead of animal protein,
you encounter more antinutrients. In some high energy foods like
legumes/nuts/potatoes these would constitute a problem (therefore the
traditional preparation methods are advisable to follow).
Some of the self-defense of the plants is even beneficial and part of the
defense of the human against germs bugs and diseases.
-mold: you mean rotten food? each food will deteriorate.
Animals will rot even quicker. I never had a fish intoxication, but I know
several people who had it to the badest.
-fiber: you are kidding. thats one of the main advantages of heavy plant
food. There is a problem if you insisted to eat very low density food only
(like only fruit).
-nutritional imbalances:this is vague which impalance you mean.
My impression: it's easier to balance out several ratios with plant food.
1. protein:energy ratio is favourable in plants and impossible for animals
of worm areas.
2.vitamins and minerals: you need 3-4 lbs meat to establish a sufficient
supply from meats and much less from most plants.
For a given calorie amount eaten therefore a higher vitamin supply would be
the result with plants. Thats a better balance in my understanding.

>Because some nutrients are very likely better absorbed
>when from animal foods.

True for iron and vitamin a. But is this an advantage?
In case of low supply definetely.
In case of oversupply it's a danger.
In case of normal natural good supply it shouldn't be an issue.

>Because there is a great likelihood that there are
>nutritional elements in animal foods yet to be discovered
>that are not found in plant foods.

Then it's a fact that all vegans miss this "nutritional elements".
Is this a drawback of an even advantage?
(I think both are possible)

>Because a plant-based, natural diet is naturally going to
>be a higher carbohydrate diet.  That can be a problem for
>many people.

True. For many people. If they have had a damage to their system before.
(what is likely from the sugar-SAD)

>Because of a failure to thrive.  There is a reason that
>animal foods have always been treasured throughout
>the history of mankind.
A failure to thrive of whom you imply here?
One thing is shure: a great many of ordinary omnivores have a great deal of
problems and fail to thrive and this is nutrition dependant.
This are western "SAD" people which eat about 100-200 procent of their
RDA protein amount in form of muscle meat.
Looks like meat alone doesn't help.

There's something else in the diet which causes problems.
I suspect the food energy household as a main cause.

> ...with seeds... If your nutrition bases
>>on seeds, you may come more into the zone where oversupply
>>symptoms of protein can arise.
>
>Problem foods in large amounts.

Thats true for some with cereal seeds, and for more for tree seeds(nuts).
There still a lot of more seeds left to choose from.
Any plant has seeds. Most are edible. Some are really good.
(just thinking of macadamia nuts)

>Amadeus:
>>Who needs "excuses"?
>
>A vegetarian attempting to eat paleo. ;-)

Porks and cattle are not paleolothical animals , not even close to.
Judge if your eating is paleo.

>Amadeus:
>>For the consumer masses I think it's impossible
>>the supply meat amounts like today in really good
>>quality.
>
>Especially, if the hysteria going on in Europe does
>not die down soon.

The hysteria will have the positive effect of discrediting mass scale low
quality meat production. And promoting a more adequate meat quality.
Of course not quantity - that's impossible together.

>Plant oils are not without problems as you well know.
>(Rancidity, too much omega 6, solvents if in form of
>oil, plant toxins)

Each food item has it's problems if produced badly and not treated well.
However there are superm plant oils.
(hmm hemp oil over broccoli, flax oil in the salad, olive oil on all
vegetables...)

>
>The accuracy of nitrogen balance tests is under some dispute.
>See: <http://www.mikementzer.com/proteinpart2.html>

I've read mikementzer.

His main points are influence by anabolica , short period studies
and disregarding of some protein loss.

The first two don't apply to the study of the Max Planck Gesellschaft I
have. The third, protein loss is very well monitored. The test persons must
"deliver" all of their waste (even when not in the lab). They said that
cheating it was very easy to discover. At last they had to live for two
weeks at the exact balance point. So only sweat wasn't accounted.

Mikemenzer wants to account additional protein demand by low energy in the
diet. This is logical. The MaxPlanck study used enough of calories by a base
of starch, fat and vitamins which provided enough energy but no nitrogen.

Btw, the higher the excretion (by sweat, urine) of nitrogen is, the higher
would be the resulting protein need.
So increased untracked losses would result in higher results, wouldn't they?

This study resulted in a protein intake of 0.34 grams of protein
per kg bodyweight to establish exact protein balance for the best protein
they found.
Anything more was just excreted as ammonia/urea.
The best protein was a combination of potatoe and egg protein which yielded
136% value on a scale where egg hass 100% and meat has 89%.
That means for meat you needed some 50% more.

Have a nice weekend all

Amadeus