Peter:
>>EFA needs are easily covered from other foods or through
>>supplementation.  So that is a poor reason not
>>to eat meat.

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

If you cannot afford to buy good quality lean meats and
you are concerned with the amount of fats you are consuming,
get a George Forman Grill or some other grilling device that
drains out a lot of the saturated fats.  See:
<http://www.ramonamall.com/whatshotnow/george-forman-grill
-resource-center.htm>

Amadeus:
>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.

Thanks. I will keep that in mind.  Presently, I am getting
most of my EFA's through fish oil.

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

Amadeus:
>Who needs "excuses"?

A vegetarian attempting to eat paleo. ;-)

Peter:
>>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.

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.

Amadeus:
>In fact it's a pure necessity if you look on the
>macronutrient relations of meat in wild game,
>simple agriculture and todays agriculture.

I am not sure I understand...

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

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

Amadeus:
>>>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,

Peter:
>>Could yes, but thrive no - especially not in the longterm.
>>Besides, as you well know, the RDA levels are in dispute.

Amadeus:
>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.

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

"Nitrogen balance studies, besides being quite difficult to employ due to their requiring
collection of all urine, feces, sweat, etc., possess inherent errors that favor underestimation
of nitrogen losses (Lemon and Proctor, 1991). Thus, an individual may appear to be in a
positive nitrogen balance when that person is not, a situation referred to as a "false positive"
(Reeds and Beckett, 1996). Energy deficits can further complicate nitrogen balance techniques.
Even with these well-known short-comings, nitrogen balance studies have overwhelmingly
supported the usefulness of high protein diets in increasing nitrogen retention. Additionally,
the variability in nitrogen retention study results is often such that although perhaps the
subjects were on average in a positive nitrogen balance, a few subjects were actually in a
negative nitrogen balance. It must also be remembered that the objective of resistance
training for most individuals should not be simply attaining a positive nitrogen balance,
but attaining the most positive nitrogen balance possible while not compromising other
dietary or health aspects.
Other shortcomings on nitrogen balance studies for the purpose of assessing resistance
trainees have been published. Tarnopolsky, Atkinson et al. commented on an unidentified
inherent error in the nitrogen balance method that may lead one to conclude that an
excessive protein intake is of ergogenic benefit. Tarnopolsky, Atkinson et al. cite other
studies in addition to theirs that point to a discrepancy between nitrogen balance and
other measures of whole-body protein synthesis. Thus, they recommend that nitrogen
balance be used in conjunction with other techniques.
A common misconception regarding nitrogen balance studies is that muscle hypertrophy
is impossible when an individual is in negative nitrogen balance. In fact, muscle growth
can occur when protein intake is insufficient by the stealing of amino acids from other
organs. However, this process cannot continue indefinitely and a higher protein diet
would likely prove superior (Lemon, 1995).
Much debate continues in regards to the possible health risks associated with a diet
high in protein. Issues such as increased calcium excretion, increased saturated fat
consumption, and renal damage are at the forefront of such controversy."

Amadeus:
>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 cal, a office worker may
>eat less).

How close are you to eating like this yourself?

Amadeus:
>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.

Problem foods in large amounts.

Peter:
>>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.

Amadeus:
>In which aspect?

Because animal food is a part of man's natural diet.
Take it away and something will always 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)

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

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.

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

Because of a failure to thrive.  There is a reason that
animal foods have always been treasured throughout
the history of mankind.

Peter