>Perhaps wild animals only eat as much as they need to survive >and to build
some fat reserves for lean times, but stop eating >while they are still lean
enough to escape predators.

your thesis looks a little shaky so far:
But the larger elk bulls weigh around 800 lb when lean, then they put on so
much added fat during the summer that their tails can appear pulled in!
Their weights then can be well over 1000 lb.
http://www.suwanneeriverranch.com/reddeer.htm

for Canola Ken, that sounds like about 200 pounds of extra adding up to
1,080,000 calories in that fat alone.  you are welcome to admit wrong before
wandering down Kenny's path of self-imposed stupidity.

andrew



Wild animals certainly don't have humans stuffing them full of grain
and eliminating their need (or ability) to exercise.

So, if they aren't consuming "excess starches" then they won't be
converting them to SFA and their carcass will be less saturated than
modern farmed animals.


>>Wild animals rarely contain fat greater than 10% of their body >weight,
yet
>it is trivial to construct and adhere to a modern diet >with quantities of
>fat *way* in excess of that amount.
>so you can have mince with 10% fat?
>that would give a calorie balance of 1:1 fat/protein. seems good to me.

Assuming for a second that paleo man aimed for a balanced fat:protein
caloric ratio, by eating such mince you would be consuming
SFA:MUFA:PUFA in a ratio of about 10:10:1. If we also assume that paleo
man ate all the fat from a carcass, their intake would contain a much
higher ratio of polyunsaturated fats, as you will demonstrate when you
report back on the fat profile of a squirrel.

 ...R.