On Fri, 4 Sep 1998 16:46:22 -0400, Wade Reeser <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>At 07:25 AM 9/4/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>I think we don't have to debate about pre-savannah-times
>>Prehumans were fruitarians with a small animal part in the food.
>You keep driving away at this fruitarian thing but from what we can see of
>our closest ancestors, they were decidedly NOT fruitarians.  Cave sites for
>Peking Man (500,000 BC) are shown to have a plethora of animal bones
>indicating heavy meat consumption.  Give me an specific example of a
>fruitarian ancestor that you think has some bearing on this.
Of course.
I speak of all primates living and developing bevore ice ages, in the time
from about 30 mil
lion years back to time 2 million years back
(well, i got that from Wards interview, actually).

Whatever comes inbetween is debatable in terms of quantity.
Tons of animal-bones point to tons on flesh food, but there is no indication
how much plant food was accompanieing it.
Nereby my place there is an ancient Celtic capital, Manching.
Millions of animal bones have been found there, computing to
millions of kg of consumed meat.
But relating that to the count of inhabitants (based on house-count)
and number of centuries, it turned out to be only about 5% of animal
food for them. Asterix and Obelix were mostly grain eaters,
besides a little wild boar only.

Peking man, neanderthal ,the northern hunter humans in ice ages had probably
a rather high meat consumption percentage due to lack of plants.
Present scientific view is, to the extent of my newest reading,
that these may be close _relatives_
to us.
But not _anchestors_. They died out.
Our anchestors may probably have come at about 40000 bc from africa
to northern regions (Cro Magnon Human).

>>This made for me-70kg 500 grams cow-muscle per day
>>OR 550g almonds OR 400gs sunflower seed. We can choose or mix.
>Nut and plant proteins really are inferior to meat protein in relation to
>amino acid profiles.
Well, meat also hasn't all that good profile. It's
significantely worse than simple egg, for example.
Bader than a grain/legume combination.
And much bader than potatoes with a little egg added.

> You should also look at current estimates for
>nitrogen balance and adaquate protein intake.  The RDA is based
>on old numbers that are founded on wrong assumptions.  I believe even
>the United Nations food bank calls for higher protein requirements.
So then, where are _your_ UN, or US-RDA or whatever originating
document
s about protein requirements?
Please tell some sources.
I think this is a point worth further discussion,
but based on some facts.
Some weeks ago we had already a starting protein need discussion.
Did you read this posts?

>>Excess purins, nitrogen and acid (bad balance protein to calcium)
>>puts stress on one's kindeys. Everybody can decide to think if thats
>>normal and healthy or not.
>Sure kidney probelems come over the years.  And yet none of these imagined
>problems you talk about come to pass.  Can you give me references that
>indicate these problems?  The latest research that I have read shows that
>increased protein consumption improves kidney function.
I didn't read that yet, is it available on the net?
Anyway, if protein may help kindeys (in what amout??)
certainly purin disposal tasks won't be of help to the kidney.

>There have been
>plenty
of people, whole societies, that eat far more protein that you think
>prudent and they are not falling over from kidney failure.
Which societies do you speak of? (please not Inuit again)

Aren't there some studies of connections between protein (or meat)
consumption and kindey deseases? Anybody here knows?

Amadeus Schmidt