Wally Day wrote:

>
> >But if you eat several prercent of you energy as
>
> Please define 'several'. If you mean 10%, I would tend to disagree. If
> you mean 50%+, then you are probably correct.

Yes, the effect will depend on amounts. Some small escapades into sweets
would go unnoticed, 10% could be a tolerable "cheating".
50% energy from sweets (including white flour) would certainly be a
significant problem.

For sweets and similar junk carbs you'd have the problem of insulin
surges as those items all are very insulin elevating (glycemic- and
insulin index).
For the effect of missing protein which I described, pure fats are
similar, btw. Fats and sweets both are pure energy without protein and
low in vitamins.
For sweets there's the additional problem that the body has to
metabolize  the carb the two steps (into Acetyl CoA) to a energetically
usable substrate, whereas fats don't require this step. This first step
of glycolyse requires a very complex enzyme complex (pyruvate
dehydrogenase) which depends on several vitamins and coenzymes, in
amounts related to the intake. And these items are processed out in the
"refining" process.
The same caloric amount of junk fat would be better than the same amount
of junk carb.

I myself live on the boundary of eating fat and getting adequate protein.
I like to eat a lot of  fats (normally  some 40% of all energy) and I
don't eat protein concentrates.
Natural plant protein souces contain from about 100% energy (I mean 100%
energy = some 2400kcal, for 100% RDA protein=some 55g).
 From 100% in nuts over 150% protein in grains, over 210% in legumes to
500% in vegetables (broccoli).
Fat fills the gap between 100% and 150 or 210 or 500% protein, depending
on how much of each I get.

> 270g is exactely the average meat
> >consumption every day in Germany (I suppose other western countries are
> >similar).
>
>  I think if you looked at the average 'non-junk-food' omnivorous
> eater, I think you you would find a much, much higher animal
> protein consumption figure.

Most people I tell about the 270g are astonished that it is so much. A
very big steak plus some sausage, but not everybody eats a steak everyday.
Ordinary meat portion sizes (in a steak house for ex) are smaller. I
recall 125g.

>
> >Therefore such meat eaters (SAD) are enabled to  proceed with their
> >deleterious diet without protein deficit.
> >While the "only" 270g meat provide little vitamins in comparison.....
>
> I'm not clear about your point here. Sounds like you are saying that
> meat allows people to eat 'crappier' and get away with it, but in the
> absence of meat you are 'forced' to eat more healthy? Sounds like a
> vidication of meat.

Yes that's  right.
Not generally healthy but particularly in the aspect of protein. (also
some vitamins, b2 and b12, maybe b6 maybe iron and zinc).
As a energy source it's not so good (lean meat has 700% protein per
2400kcal).
Therefore, alas the gap of energy to be filled after 100% protein has
been eaten is much  bigger.
And alas *can* be eaten as "crap" energy.
Of course many meat eaters eat much more than the 100% RDA protein and
much fattier meat. So the gap becomes smaller and filled with more
protein calories and the slaughter fat from the animals.
Paleolisters would generally almost close the energy gap by very fatty
meat and some little other calories.
Keep in mind that the fat in the muscle of fattened animals is less
ideal due to lack of EFAs.
That's why Cordain consequentially suggests to replace the slaughter fat
with some added EFA containing fats (e.g. rubbing with flax)
and adding some more paleo-carbs. In my view it's only logical to do so.

> ..  meat offers nutritional factors in a concentrated package that
> they were unable to duplicate from the plant world. Think of it like a
> very large vitamin pill for vegetarians :)

Ok, which nutritional factors?
Protein of course (with the additional advantage that muscle protein
causes less allergies than many plant proteins).
If you analyse the plan of a only meat day (1600g lean meat for 2400
kcal) you see, which vitamin/mineral is high.
It's b6 (160%),  b2 (180%), zinc (430%), iron(330%) , phosphor and
potassium. And b12.
 From whole plants you easily also get a high value on these, except for
b2 and of course b12. For zinc and iron only if no resorption blocker is
active (phytin).
So the meat, seen as a "vitamin pill" has protein, b12, b2, less
important b6. Plus zinc and iron for phytin suffering subjects.
If a vegetarian doen't manage to equal that out by choosing the right
other sources  he or she will fail after some time.
For b12 it will be a very long time of up to 15 years.

Btw if you check what the meat "vitamin pill" is lacking, you easily see
what can be missing in a high meat (or in a SAD meat) diet.
That's what has to be equaled out in a high meat approach.

>
> >In the first time I was also infected by this bad "logic" - mainly
> because
> >of the bad rep meat got due to many statistics and meat scandels.
>
> This was also my original reason for being a partial vegetarian. Plus
> the low-fat propaganda. I later learned, mainly through beyond-veg.com
> that
> 'they' were lying and returned to meat.

When I discovered this paleo lists (and vergy good is paleodiet) I
learned of a lot of problems that come with plant foods as well. A good
reason to care.
Besides that, well scandals are there.
Low-fat I even didn't hear about (no big topic over here). IMO low fat
is a (less ideal) EFA  preserving strategy and could work in this way.

> I'm again surprised Amadeus. It almost sounds like you are defending
> meat..... :)

I has it's advantages.

regards

Amadeus