Amadeus:
>Your obvious statement is agreeable BUT the only deviation from
>a (true!) paleo way of eating you mention is cooking.

Regardless of what the statement was, we see here that you have one
definitive (true!) paleo way of eating. Upon what do you base such a
conclusion?

>So then, the only supplementation necessary should be for the vitamins
>and in the amounts that are deteriorated by cooking.
>On the other hand, if you add all your food items vitamins in their raw
>(and ideal fresh) state, then the resulting vitamin contents should
>be sufficient, in your terms.
>If they still aren't sufficient raw, then IMO your nutrition can't be
>a paleolithic one, or one we're adapted to.
>But *that* is the intention of the paleolithic nutrition, isn't it?

Take your pick, Amadeus. Is paleo-nutrition 30 million ya? 10 million
ya? 2
million ya? 200,000 ya? 20,000 ya? 2,000 ya?

>To get that straight and avoid further misunderstandings as we had:
>I'm argueing in this way *of course* because i think that th
>e high meat
>amounts (several 100 grams) that some consume are *not* real paleolithic
>and that we are *not* adapted to them. -- We may tolerate them.
>IMO they happened ("following the herds"),
>but only for such a small time period that,
>a real adaption didn't occur,
>or maybe the adaption went away in neolithic times.
>I think you can see that on our vitamin requirement profiles.

What vitamin requirements? It seems you read the (supposedly) latest
database of whatever the up-until-no-discovered nutrients are in
(supposedly) "proper" amounts and use that as some final barameter of
what
we should be eating. Besides being pedantic, this method is sure to be
"false" since the modern RDAs as well as the guesstimates of paleo
nutrient
consumption levels are in _flux_.

Ironically, I agree with you that "real adaptation" didn't occur to
any
particular diet since we have been flung around (genetically) by
cultural
eating practices for tens of thousands of years. Perhaps hundreds of
thousands of years regarding cooking. For you, or Ray for that matter,
to
claim to propose the true human diet is preposterous. There is no such
creature.

>Want some backup by numbers?
>Take your 2 pounds of meat (i'll take 1000g of deer, *good* meat).
>I'll assume that you (and our anchestors) were able to make the proper
>cautiuos use of liver (only 10 g! because of vitmain a becomeing toxic).

Where so you get this from? Excepting the Inuit prohibition of polar
bear
liver, I find many indiginous hunting cultures eating the raw liver as
a
prize, warm and steaming just after the kill, and in amounts that are
far
more than 10g. Jeez, but you seem to "know" a lot that is
false-to-facts
regarding "paleo".

>You will have:
>13% Calcium
>34% folic acid
> 3% vitamin c
> 8% vitamin e
> 0% fiber
>61% b1
>simultaneously too much of:
>400% iron (danger!)
>200% zinc
>380% protein (you and some will debate on that).
>All that giv
>es you only 1400 kcal - it has much too less energy.
>How much additional pure fat gives a deer/moose/mammouth per 1000g meat?
>This is why fat is so high-priced among hunters.

What is your point? That fat is bad today because it was prized in
nearly
all indigenous cultures? Your arguments are so spurious as to be silly
at
times. Fat is clearly _different_ in modern farmed animals, but you
drop
that line of thought to generalize to fat, period. Curious.

>You have to add proper plants and fat or carbs.
>At some points you might have problems to catch up with your actual needs
>-- without supplements.

Perhaps animal foods, esp. organs and marrow are such supplements, and
that
is why they are highly prised by indigenous cultures--whether or not
you
agree they are "pure" paleo. LOL.

>Is *that* the diet we are adapted to?

You won't know until you experiment, will you? You make the mistake
every
other person in the alternative diet arena makes by generalizing your
ideas
(and, in your case, _minimal_ experimentation) to all of humanity. Ray
may
be as guilty as you in this regard, I admit.

>On cooking:
>Furthermore cooking not beeing paleo
>is not agreed on by all. Most of us cook their food and feel
>pretty much paleo,
>because fireplaces were found several hundred k-years old.
>
>If cooking is *not* paleo, and you intend to be paleo-eating,
>why do you cook then?

If cooking is paleo why don't you cook? Does that sound as silly to
you as
the reverse sounds to me. Who died and left you taxi driver?

>In this way you might
>loose very important aspects and benefits of
>the nutrition you *really* are adapted to.
>Still not discovered phytochemicals for examples.

And still not discovered nutrients in animal foods, eh? Who knows? Not
I,
but not you either, Amadeus...

Cheers,
Kirt

Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]