> So what do you think about the people in the grasslands and
> steppe-tundras where the bulk of our evolutionary history was
> spent, according to Audette and others?
i think its pure, idle speculation. better to settle for what we can be
certain about...man ate aquatic creatures ever since he could hold a stick.
under your scenario, little Ugdug is forbidden by his mother to pick up the
delicious mussel because "if I've told you a millon times, we are NOT in the
mesolithic age yet!"
> They are not bad if you consume the entire carcass,
> including brains.
i tihnk only the brains has Om-3 in any meaningful proportions. The reindeer
may have more though. it all comes down to the food chain. phytoplankton
accumulates the fatty acids. On land, lichen does. reindeer eat lichen. i
dont know what other mammals do.
>Intramuscular fat is mostly absent in wild game, but in
> commercial meats it's just about the only fat consumed. I
> think I have made this point at least three times.
No, this is subcutaneous fat [as i have aid before]. does it matter? not
really, only to day we have plenty of non-intramuscular fat to choose
from...since we can add marrow and suet. people eat only intramuscular fat
because they cut the visible fat off, just as Cordain recommends. now isnt
that ironic.
what we see here:
http://www.wapiti.net/news/default2.cfm?articleID=97
is no conculsion other than the well-known one that conventionally-fed
mamals have too much Om-6. Since i have not been able to find any other
concluson, please inform me otherwise. i am troubled by the unstated
hypothesis that elk and wild deer an antelope were the only mammals ever
eaten by primitive man. im damned sure i read somewhere they ate bison,
turtles, eel, ect etc. so what is the fat compositions of all these
creatures? Dig it out from Cordain and tell me please. we dont know, we cant
ever know the fine print: all we know is that animal fats generally are
quite low in PUFA, and high in MUFA and SFA. as was 10,000 years ago, as is
now. the composition simply cant change radically, or the animal would melt
in the sun :)
> But that's not what he recommends, so what is the point of
> the straw man argument. Let me aske again: Did you read
> Cordain's book?
no i haven't. you can summarise any point i have missed.
i rleid on yu to tell me he recommens olive oil to make up for the leanness
of the meat. did u trick me?
> Have you read his published research?
some of it.
> You didn't answer my question. Audette endorses olive oil.
> You claimed Cordain was incompetent or a liar for doing so,
> so the same must apply to Audette. Which is it?
not sure, as i have not read any of his stuff. One or other will do. Olive
is not paleo. so why does a paleo author recommend it?
> ALA is an om-3 fat, though not VLC. But then we weren't
> discussing VLC until now.
well, by implication we were. these are the bugaboos that have brought on
the whole debate. i have read nothing that states why ALA is essential in
itself. What does it do apart from convert - at considerable inefficency -
to DHA?
.
> No, I don't agree with that, and I agree that it is a careless
> remark. But I have the benefit of having read his book and his
> research, rather than fixating on a single statement. It's not a
> low-fat diet, so why are we discussing it as if it is?
it's not a careless remark. it's symptomatic of either his incomprehensible
stupidity or his deliberate deception. since high fat is the sine qua non
of paleo eating, saying that 'lean meat' is the core of paleo eating is like
saying paedophilia is the core of the catholic church.
andrew
|
