>I see that I have not gotten a response from you, Andrew, to >my post a few
days ago. Should I assume that when your >points are successfully debunked

sorry i forgot to get back to you; Archerisms tend to provide enough
amusement. your point was that in wild game the subcutaneous fat was highly
unsaturated and tending towards liquid...
but Cordain's own study recently cited shows the subcutaneous fat of the 3
wild species mentioned to be highly saturated, more saturated in fact than
beef.  [59-66% as opposed to c.45%].  its not suprising, since the animals
need it for structural support as i said, and as i didnt say but
subsequently realised, for protection against cold.

i guess that's what happens when you make wild guesses as you did without
doing any study on it.

having said that, the subcutaneous fat is also a substantial source of
PUFAs..not only the intramuscular fat [around 4%]. so the ratio of SFA/PUFA
is much lower even though the percentage of SFA is higher.
this is still half the amount found in oily fish, but it all adds up. if you
ate a pack of calories from both sources in a cold weather environment the
supply of DHA/EPA would be 10 grams or more.

back to your cage for you Ellie.

andrew