Amadeus Schmidt wrote:
> >Animal flesh supplies all the B1 you could ever want and doesn't rely on
> >seasonal availability.
> Not to speak of an optimum, even the minimum RDA can be reached
> with meats only with very large quantities (about 2 pounds per day for B1).
> I'd consider such large protein amounts as not ideal on the long run
> because of acidification and kidney strain.
Are you talking about strictly meat or all of the animal (which would be
consumed by the primitive h/g)? Also, kidney strain from protein has been
debunked quite a while ago. This is only true for somebody with kidneys
already damaged by some other condition. 2 pounds of meat provides around 150
gm of protein (give or take). This is the amount I target on the days I work
out or those days when I drop calories. Serious bodybuilders consume much
more long term without any apparent kidney damage (even appears to improve
kidney function in many).

> >I think you are really missing the boat on this.  What problems do you have
> >with
> >the consumption of meat?
> 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.
> 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?
You appear to be an ethical vegetarian who is searching for another reason
to not eat meat and for reasons to eat foods other than meat. This is a
perfectly fine attitude, but it does not make for a good and objective way
to determine facts. When I was in the grad school one of the first things
they told us about gathering and processing data was not to look for a
particular result (if you do then you'll find it). Simply look at the data
and see where it leads. Otherwise it is very easy to throw away some data
point (that doesn't fit your desired result) because of some excuse and add/
shift data (that does fit your desired result) because of some other excuse.
I think you would have a much easier time discussing topics on this list if
you could separate your ethical views (which I don't question) from your
search for facts.

Ilya