In the article the mention how nutrients may be limited by the large 
amount of fiber consumed in the Australian Aboriginal diet in addition 
to other nutrient issues.

Almost everywhere, the RDA is specified in amount to be consumed with no 
reference to how much is actually absorbed or availble.  Consequently, I 
think we are comparing apples to apples here.

Steve

william wrote:
> Science is rightly obsessed with counting things, and has done so below, 
> except that they [i]forgot to count[/i] the [b]anti-nutrients[/b].
> 
> They also repeat the whopper that plants contain protein. They do not. 
> Amino acids are not protein.
> 
> William
> 
> 
> steve wrote:
> 
>>
>> On a related issue, the following quite discusses calcium intake and 
>> while they are working with a 65% carb diet, the estimate earlier in 
>> the paper was that the paleo aboriginal diet was 20-40% carbs:
>>
>> Australian Aboriginal plant foods: a consideration of
>> their nutritional composition and health implications
>> http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FNRR%2FNRR11_01%2FS0954422498000043a.pdf&code=a6ad097ac43451d979829c68c457666d 
>>
>>
>> "Palaeolithic nutrition
>>
>> In the classic paper on palaeolithic nutrition by Eaton & Konner 
>> (1985), the nutritional content
>> of 44 vegetable foods most commonly eaten by six modem stone-age 
>> peoples (!Kung, -Kade,
>> San and Hadza in Africa, Aborigines in Australia and Tasaday in the 
>> Philippines) was used as
>> the basis of the average nutrient intake from plant foods of 
>> palaeolithic human beings.
> 


-- 

Steve - [log in to unmask]

"The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you
run out of Other People's Money." --Margaret Thatcher

"Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism"

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html