For newcomers to the list, this a response to Amadeus'
post from September of last year.  I have not had time to
respond earlier, but I guess it is better later than never. :)

Peter:
 >> And let us not forget that the role of
 >> cholesterol as a reliable marker is hotly disputed.

Amadeus:
 >I think the role of cholesterol as a culprit is disputed,
 >but not as a marker.

Ok, how about as a reliable marker?  :)

Amadeus:
 >>> better .. obesity, coronary artery disease,
 >>>hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and some types of cancer.

Peter:
 >>Again, not because they are vegetarian.

Amadeus:
 >What do you think is the cause?

A more health conscious lifestyle. The Ornish study is
a case in point.

Peter:
 >> Since when did making bad food choices make a vegetarian change
 >>his ways. ;-)

Amadeus:
 >A I told. It's easier to come through the day with nasty items plus
 >meat, as with nasty items plus vegetarian items.
 >Protein vegetarian items tend to have the benefits left.

Not really.  Natural meats are readily available and do not contain
many of the naturally occurring substances in plant foods that often
are found to be so problematic.

Peter:
 >> As usual you overlook that vegetarians eat more plant foods than they
 >> are "designed" to eat with all the consequences that this can have.

Amadeus:
 >So what is your reason to assume about how many plants humans were
 >"designed´" to eat? Humans are primates. Primates eat predominately
 >plants. Every thing else, including "more and more hunted or scavenged
 >animals" is later and is assumption with very little explanation on
 >amounts. On the other side a rather high part of plants, particularly of
 >fiberous plants is well established for 90% of the last 2.5 mio years.
 >And of course at all times before.

We are discussing proportions as much as amounts.  If you were
eating a predominate plant diet like our primate relatives, I do not think
we would be having this discussion.  We are discussing this because
you are defending an all plant diet in a paleo context.  Eating animal
foods is what defines us and distinguishes us as omnivores from our
vegetarian ape-man ancestors.  Avoiding eating animal foods altogether
is denying our evolutionary heritage as a species and is the ultimate
antithesis to "paleo", no matter how much you try to deny it.

Amadeus:
 >>>These food items (lets exclude dairy for now) taken amounts for
 >>>sufficient protein (RDA is some 55g) provide automatically a lot
 >>>of vitamins and minerals - and other beneficial stuff (phyto*s).

Peter:
 >> But they have their own set of problems as you well now.

Amadeus:
 >That's very true - imunologic problems.

So we agree?

Amadeus:
 >I don't see allergy problems in paleolithic humans or hominids.

We agree again.

Amadeus:
 >But in modern times allergies and intolerances are a big issue.

And again. :)

Amadeus:
 >I don't think it's so much connected to paleolithic or not.

???  You stated, "I don't see allergy problems in paleolithic
humans or hominids".

Amadeus:
 >But it can be solved in most cases (like with Ray Audette) by
 >simply avoiding main allergens. This are, nowadays wheat,
 >other cereals and often dairy.

More agreement.

Amadeus:
 >My sisters husband who is an medical professional in allergy told me
 >that the most allergy cases are in this order: 1.nuts, 2. fish, 3.
 >others. On the other hand I read that some 15 % humans in the west have
 >intolerances against one of these: wheat protein(gluten) or milk protein.

I find the term "allergy" is often defined so narrowly among mainstream
medical professionals that it looses much of its relevance.

Peter