> Gregg Carter wrote
> >...An all muscle-meat diet is
> > either completely devoid or grossly
> >lacking in calcium, selenium, vits. A, C, E, K, and fiber

> Staffan Lindeberg [replied]
> Fiber, yes. Selenium, certainly not. And the amount of other minerals and
> vitamins per energy unit in meat is higher than you think. Westernized
> populations typically get half of their energy from foods that are even
> more devoid of minerals and vitamins, such as cereals, fats and sugar.

Staffan, I don't get your point.  Westerners eat plenty of meat and
Americans in particular have very high protein in-takes.  And they also
eat too much omega-6 fat and too many processed carbohydrates.  My
argument was twofold-- that muscle meat was devoid of or seriously lacking
in a number of essential nutrients, and that to get these people should
consume seeds, nuts, fruits, and vegetables (not cereals, fats, sugar).
Also, the issue of whether muscle meat provides any of the micronutrients
I listed in significant amounts (defined as percentage of the nutrient's
RDA) is empirical question.  Please run a kilo of beef or lamb or venison
through any nutritional analysis program (including the USDA's) and check
out the values for these nutrients-- the amounts (which range from 0 to
miniscule) will apparently surprise you-- except for selenium (as you
correctly pointed out my error, meat can be a good source of this
mineral).

(continued part 2)