Peter Brandt wrote:

> Actually, I was trying to point out how you are using farmed animals
> to avoid looking at the whole picture.
 > You have a track record on this
> list of doing this repeatedly on a number of issues and I cannot help
> but wonder if you are really here to try to justify being a vegetarian,
> the logic being that if you can stand your ground on this list, then it
> is ok for you not to eat meat even though you know that you really need it.

Peter, you are digging at a place which isn't really the point, but you
are close to it.
Actually I came to the list by my interest in prehistoric archeology,
I've studied some semesters of it after my first education.
Then I realized to my astonishment - some years ago - that some of the
preferred vegetarian food items (in particular cereal grains) do have
some dangers in it. Most people on the list understand consider "paleo"
as how to replace nearly all "common" food items by "meat" - regardless
if its properties. So this would be a good  place to find the most
strenuous arguments against the condemned cereal food. And learn.
I have profited from this.

However after the first interest it turned out that here was a forum
where it was possible to get new insights and have discussions about
topics which are quite seldom found in mainstream nutrition discussions.
Particularly over here in Europe. Most important example for this is the
eicosanoid topic and generally fatty acids. Especially Todd's knowledge
and elegantely pointed style of discussion made the exchange of ideas a
pleasure. The other side of the medal are the "believe" discussions,
attacking or defending some dogmas like "all grains are bad". Boring.

Regarding me and meat eating - I never believed or expressed that
humanity has vegetarian paleolithic history (paleolithicum roughly 1.9
mio to 10,000 years back). Honestly I do think that humans and hominids
always had some meat of animal in the diet, but that it was a rather
small part (say near 10%) for most of the time for most places for the
most important living beeings in my (our) lines of anchestry.

I do deviate from this, ok. I don't feel the need of a justification for
this - why should I. Rather it looks like many people eagerly search
"excuses" why to eat meat as most feel bad about killing animals and
prefer to eat rectangular pieces of muscle instead of feasting on a real
carcass. Also not my deal. A steak is as attracting to me as a raw eye
of a calve.

One topic is still here and that's fat compositions. It looks as if it
is closely related to the mass killers of today (cancer, chd).
This should be a matter of interest for all humans,sad or vegetarian or
Ray-Audettearian. Information about actual nutrition in the actual
paleolithicum - and before and after- should be helpful for thinking
about it. This is the reason why I pointed out the differences from wild
to commercial meat. It's no use to avoid every grain as a dogma, but
then make the non-paleo compromise in eating masses of farmed meat.

The avoid every cereal *is* to be a dogma for allergics (I know many of
such are here). You can be allergic to any other protein however.
I know I have antibodies against meat-protein in my blood - I'm allergic
to meat. This is likewise possible.

So back to the topic - fat compositions and cholesterol as an
indicative. Why have today's huntergatherers low cholesterol readings,
and others using farmed meat have quite high levels?
Who or what is wrong with it?

regards

Amadeus