2.d try........
On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 19:46:30 -0500, Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hello Ward,
thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response to our discussion.

I must say that I derived much information, especially the timeline
and the anchestors line, from *your* net-published interview.
(I think all here know about it at:
 http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1a.shtml    )

It's just that i'm taking a little different conclusions on the known
facts, and maybe a little different assumptions in the areas where
nothing is known for shure.

I didn't even come to the point yet, what to conclude, from having
(mainly) frugivore or herbivore anchestors 10 or 5 mio years back, because
the mere fact has been questioned up to now.

My only conclusion of the presented data (and theories) was, that
as a former plant eater who didn't give up plant eating, we
still ought to have the capabilities to get our essentials from plants
only.

Maybe the add-on of meat over a long time led to some relyment of our
organism on substances that are easly obtained from meat, and
less easy from plants.

You did mention several examples for that.
Iron, Zink, taurin, long chain fatty acids,
Todd mentioned protein, I add vitamin b12.

I think each of them should be considered thoroughly
(and not in believe systems) before we were able to conclude
how meat eating was advatageous over plant eating in paleolithic times.
And then of course relate that (existing) advantages
to the drawbacks of practicable meat-containing diets in the present.

You write:
> Sure, we can certainly still eat plants, and they are an
>important part of our diet for certain things, but the point here is what
>is the balance between animal and plant foods that's the most *optimum* and
>*efficient* for our species.

I can see topics in the diet that seem to me  much more important
as if to include meat or not:
- Food processing for example: for meat as well as for plants the
  food processing and storage brings massive alterations to foods' contents
    that makes it in many way different to what was available when "adapted"
      frying - drying - cooking - salting
- Genetic altered food: an ice-salad or a tomatoe of today will never reach
        vitamins and other contents as dandelion, rumex or purslane have or had
          Same counts for industry pigs and cattle compared to a pheasan
- how to escape agrarian and other toxins and hormones
- which todays agrarian products were acceptable (pig / carrot / rice)
            in which quality - (pigs without w-3 fats??)
- variety: how to get an adequate variety primarily on plants as it was
              over the millions of years. This counts for meats as well as for plants.
- for meats: do we include same meat parts as anchestors did (brains, eyes, organs)
- should we eat insects? (seems much more obvious to me as cattle, if you
                consider adaption times) and: Who does it here, as a conclusion?

You write:
> Again, however, what is at issue here is the question of
>*optimal* adaptation. If one subscribes at all to evolution, or is using
>that as one's justification, there is no way around the fact that it makes
>the most sense, that is, it is more *optimal* and more *efficient*, to try
>to match the general profile of food intake that humans evolved on, and
>what they have more recently evolved to.
>It is inherently risky and mathematically improbable to assert that a diet
>*different* in proportions of foodstuffs to the one we evolved on is better
>or can somehow be just as good...

IMO the questions raised above comprise much more dangers to get an altered
diet, "*different* in proportions of foodstuffs to the on we evolved on"
than the mere question if to include meat or not.
And that is what I would prefer to concentrate the discussion on:
how can we come close to paleolithic nutrition.
If some insist on telling me not to be able to do it without meat,
I reply: you may easily do worse *with* meat if you don't
consider several other aspects well.

regards

Amadeus Schmidt