T. martin wrote:
>So, by this reasoning, deer and antelope should also eat meat?

I am sorry, I should have taken the time to be more complete.

He was referring to the biochemical adequacy of ones diet, given the
physiology and anatomy to get the given foodstuff into the bloodstream, and
to the  liver, muscles, etc. Since an antelope couldn't kill meat, or chew
it, or digest it in the stomach or small intestine, the question whether an
antelope should eat meat would of course never arise.

What every animal species must eat is carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium,
magnesium, lesser minerals, vitamins which vary depending on the
biosynthetic capability of a given species, a selection of amino acids which
varies from species to species, and may even vary between the mature and
immature individuals of a given species, certain fatty acids which again are
species specific, etc. Obligatory carnivores are different from omnivores,
which are different from herbivores. Humans, and carnivores, have given up
the ability to synthesize certain amino acids. Thus they gain a
bio-energetic advantage, at the cost of having to procure these amino acids
in their diets. This is of course one reason why it is hard for human vegans
to do well over a full cycle of growth and reproduction.

All Williams meant, and his plan was good enough to keep him intellectually
and physically active into his nineties, is that  humans, being omnivores,
can and should eat both plants and animals. He felt that the metabolically
active parts of plants and animals were nutritionally better than the
storage organs of either plants or animals. Thus, a person would tend to
reject storage tissues-e.g. starch and depot fat, and choose metabolic
tissues. Greens, primitive fruits, lean muscle and organ meats. So from a
somewhat different direction, he arrives at the same diet, more or less,
that we call the Neanderthin diet.

I hope this has helped to clear up any confusion i caused.

Michael