On Mon, 2 May 2005 10:26, Jim Swayze wrote:

>Hello all.  Kind of quiet on this list of late.
>
>I'd like to ask your help with a friendly argument I am having with a
>gentleman on another list.  He's the science editor of a bodybuilding
>magazine and so demands a peer reviewed study for every word in
>every sentence I write.  Here are the two assertions I have made that
>he disagrees with strongly and wants scientific proof for (both ideas
>come from Ron Rosedale):
>
>1) When the amount of carbohydrates consumed decrease, the
>body becomes increasingly efficient at gluconeogenesis; and
>
>2) One needs no more than 60-100 grams of protein per day,
>depending of course upon lean body mass and activity level
.......
>Can anybody help?

Jim, whatever your answer, it won't be paleo :-)  There was no science as we know it today in the
Paleolithic.  There was hunger and there was plenty and one ate according to (a) appetite and (b)
availability.  Some days I have eaten over 250g protein, some days about 30g (mainly summer
when there is fresh fruit in abundance - when I get a surfeit of CHO).  People ate in extended
families and had carcases to consume over a period of days.  So it would be all deer for a few
days, all fish for a few days, all eggs for a few days - interspersed with the fruit and leaves/roots
in season

Far more natural to let it fluctuate this way over the weeks (not between meals) and keep active
than to bring out the scales, weigh the meat, subtract the 75% moisture content and the fat
according to some reference work and then time your eating to align to the clock, the TV
programs or restaurant hours.

Keith