Amadeus wrote:
>I personally feel not attracted to meat, more disgusted, but that's
>a pure personal story. Searching therefore for other pre-human and
>early-human food items I discovered that plant seeds and roots seem to be
>better suited in many aspects.

I think that the comments above are very revealing.  We are all tempted to
believe that whatever diet suits us best is the one true "natural" diet to
which our ancient ancestors were adapted.  Most of the subscribers to this
list, including me, have learned that a low-carb, meat-based diet suits them
best.  This is not everyone's experience, however, as proven by people like
Amadeus.

>Also plants have historically correct their important role.
>Why should one go with expensive meat, which is available most ever only in
>non-paleo (domesicated animal) and poor quality,
>if the same thing in (for ex.) almonds even suits humans needs better,
>is easily availabe in true paleo quality, cheap, storable,
>and can be eaten unprocessed and raw?

As a former almond addict, I must disagree with the above.  Nuts come
nowhere close to replacing meat, in my experience.  Not only do I find nuts
harder to digest (even when soaked overnight and/or toasted), but they don't
satisfy me either.  Some possible reasons include: (1) their amino acid
profile is unbalanced; (2) their purine content is much lower than that of
dark meat; (3) they lack the equivalent of saturated animal fat.  Nuts may
work well for some people, but they certainly don't for me, even though I
wish that they did.

Cheers,
-- Aaron Wieland