Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:59:01 -0400 |
In-Reply-To: |
<19981013133648.FBCC16714@hp-customer> |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Snowlight wrote:
> Also, my objection to the pyramid regarding quantity...although it does
> state "servings" of each category, it still implies by the picture alone
> that we should be basing our diet on grains. That concept is ruining
> health of many Americans.
I agree. An interesting variation is the "paleo pyramid," in
which the grain and dairy portions are removed altogether. This
would leave a wide base of fruits and vegetables, a smaller level
of meats, and a smaller peak of fats/oils. This would be
consistent with some reconstructions of paleo diet, but not
others. For example, there is the variation that has fats as the
main source of calories, followed by a level of protein in the
form of meats, followed by a small peak of vegetables or fruits.
Comparing these two paleo pyramids, it appears that the
vegetable-based one is probably more nutrient-dense, since fat is
devoid of most nutrients other than EFAs. It is fairly clear
that human beings can survive, and have survived, on both kinds
of pyramids.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|