>When I type a variety of meats into fitday and then looked at the nutritional
>analysis, it seems several purported "necessary" vitamins & minerals are
>missing or low -- such A, E, D, K, C, thiamin, folate, calcium, magnesium.
>Is it
>possible that we don't actually "need" all these vitamins or if we do, not in
>the "suggested" amounts?  On the other hand, if we do need these vitamins in
>amounts greater than found in meat alone -- wouldn't a few vitamins do the
>trick?

Well, we might, and we might not. But a varied meat-only H/G diet would
include liver and other organs for A, sunshine for D, grass-fed and fish
for Omegas and E. Again, briefly looking at dogs as carnivores, the best
way to get a vegetable into their nutritional picture is to run it through
a prey animal and then eat the animal. This might also be more true of us
than is commonly held.

I think there is still far more to food and nutrition than science knows.
Identifying a few components as "vitamins" is a gross oversimplification of
the concept of nutritional adequacy. If we can determine the diet upon
which we were obviously somewhat successful without technology, I think it
would be nutritionally adequate by definition. The mega-additions of some
vitamins to the diet is not prototypical, I would say, and small or trace
amounts of some of these and other factors might have been, and are,
perhaps all we need, given a good environment and healthy start to obviate
the load of insults most of us modern types carry.

ginny

All stunts performed without a net!