Hurray, at last Lorenzo reported to us his hunting experiences with fat, and
his animals seem to be really fatty. Not in the meat, but between organs.

This is of concern, Lorenzo, not because of doubting the importance of fat.
To the opposite. Only really high fat animals enable a hunting culture with
*predominating* meat (as you can read at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A2=ind0008&L=paleodiet&D=1&O=D&P=56
).
And such animals were found - no doubt -  in northern (cool) areas and
enabled several waves of human expansion, animal based, from Cro Magnon to
Neanderthal to homo erectus (and the last prevailed).

You doubted that african animals would be "skinny".
I ask, why should they be fat, whats *their* advantage in a worm area?
Kangaroos (warm area animals) seem to be skinny. See
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A2=ind0008&L=paleodiet&D=1&O=D&P=416

The main paleo-nutrition paradigm is adaption to food.
If evolution occured mainly in a warm climate or simply a climate
where animals weren't so fatty,
then meat was always a minor part of the diet.

Maybe someone, maybe you could go hunting in some warm grasslands or
savannahs and report how much fat is found in *such* areas.
You aren't so old, are you? ;-)

You describe how easy it is to hunt a caribou (in Canada).
Using a gun i assume.
Well, todays inuit can do it too.
How would a "naked, even  with an excellent spear" do?

On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:36:52 -0500, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>Since saturated fat is the kind that mammalian bodies make when
>they store energy, it makes sense that fatter animals would have
>more saturated fat.  But let's look at how large the difference
>actually is.

Todd, you computed the Saturated fat percentage.
What do you say to the difference in PUFA percentages?
(columns PUFA divided by total fat)

>> 1. Calories, gm of fat, gm of protein per 100 gram portion
>> Food Item                kcal   SFA  MUFA  PUFA    Fat   Prot
>

>> Game, caribou, raw        127  1.29  1.01  0.47   3.36  22.63
>SFA is 38% of total fat.
>
>> Game, deer, raw           120  0.95  0.67  0.47   2.42  22.96
>SFA is 39% of total fat.
>
>> Game, elk, raw            111  0.53  0.36  0.30   1.45  22.95
>SFA is 37% of total fat.
...

>> Pork                      246  6.88  8.41  2.11  18.96  17.41
>> Beef                      222  6.39  6.73  0.63  15.70  18.86
>> Game                      123  0.90  0.91  0.41   3.34  21.81
>> Game - % of kcal as fat                          24.44
>
>> Fruit, raw                 60  0.13  0.35  0.16   0.78   0.89
>% of fat as SFA = 17%
>> Vegetables, raw            43  0.08  0.07  0.19   0.46   2.58
>> Nuts & seeds, raw         288  7.51  7.44  1.89  17.77   5.44

Pork and poultry seems in range, beef is far below.

The ratio of PUFA to SFA has beed suggested as an important
scale (PS ratio).
Udo Erasmus' work would suggest a PUFA to SFA+MUFA ratio as more important.
He gives matching studies, and a striking reasoning.

On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 22:20:13 -0500, Norm Skrzypinski <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

...
>If you'd like the Excel spreadsheet which shows the breakdown by food group
>(game, fish, nuts, veg, fruit), please email me.

Me please too.

Norm, I'm starting to build a local database from USDA data
( I got from "wombn" ).
Which program are you using? Could I have access to it?
And what is RDI? 293 grams protein cannot be 63% of recommeded daily intake,
can it?

Amadeus S.