On Fri, 24 Jul 1998 11:24:40 -0400, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Amadeus Schmidt wrote:
>
>> I wonder how  so much stable and healthy societies could be see
>> n in history,
>> which were mainly based on grain, if it had such a very bad impact on health.
>
>This is not hard to answer.  A grain-based diet has several
>effects that mathematically guarantee that it will become more
>prevalent, regardless of its effects on health.  It increases the
>reproductive rate.  It makes it possible to support more people
>in a given area, even if they are less healthy.  In short, once
>agriculture is practiced, it is inevitable that agriculturalists
>will
soon outnumber hunter-gatherers, even if they are less
>healthy.  In evolutionary terms, hunting and gathering simply
>cannot compete.
We all know that agricultural cultures are the only thinkable ones,
for a  considerable number of humans.
Because a h/g lifestyle only supports a population density of
about 1 person per 1 square kilometer (1 million square meters).
But once established, the mentioned societies remained and flourished
for hundreds of years. E.g. egypt for 500 years without wars and
expansion in its first period. They didn't seem sick.

Then we talked about grain. If it was so bad, then why didn't suceed
other societies better, which _farmed_ _other_ food items.
There are dozends of different plants which were and are farmed,
other than grain.
- rice societies for example have gluten free food
- several roots , as well as nuts can be farmed
- buckwheat can be farmed which is not
a grain
But exactely the grain farmers succeeded. If they were sicker
than other _farmers_ then the others should have succeeded.

>If agriculturalists out-procreate
>hunter-gatherers, then the fact that they are less healthy makes
>little difference.
But of course a healtier population will be able to reproduce better,
and be able to defend better. Compared to another dense populated society.

>> Yes shure, plant-based calories are rich on energy, but they are accompanied
>> with already really much protein.
>> For example 360 grams Hazel give you your 2400 k.calories, but also
>> already 50 grams of protein.
>>
>> If you _add_ the hazel to your meat then you'll have double protein.
>>
>> So depending in how much protein you (or your kindeys) think acceptable...
>> Why should you eat the meat, then?
>
>As I've already stated, I believe 50 gr
ams of protein is not
>enough, but we'll discuss it further after you read Kurilla's
>article.

You forgot to mention, where to find that article.
Maybe you could shortly mention in one or two sentences why so much protein,
which will not be used as protein, but at maximum  as fuel,
should be necessary.

I have included several arguments why 50 grams should be more than enough.
I'm still waiting for and looking forward to an argument for the opposite.

regards

Amadeus