At 10:50 AM 9/3/98 -0400, you wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 09:29:35 -0400, Wade Reeser <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>At 06:09 AM 9/3/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>... All the plants, fruits, and nuts are not
>>necessary for a long and healthy life.
>Few would sign that statement, I suppose.
Certainly a vegitarian who would have no recourse but to eat rocks and sand
if
plants, fruit and nuts were off limits would not.
<snip>
>but there are only vague assumptions how much it was
>in _our_ anchestors. Especially if you consider, that probably
>_our_ anchestors came at about 40ky back from a tropic region
>and we are *not* descendants of the northern hunter humans.
Some is debateable.  However, if you accept the savannah origins, there is not
alot of fruit and vegetable around for primates to eat.  There are no edens
where
fruit is available in quantities that would sustain year-round.  Though the
amount
of meat ingested by various paleolithic/HG groups worldwide varies, it is a
major
component.  To me it seems that all evidence, physiological and
anthropological,
points to the consumption of alot of meat.
>Anyway IMO it is obvious that meat eating time was not enough
>for a real adaption, since our dependency on certain stuffs did not
>align with what is in meat.
>And that's not only on vitamins, mainly on energy.
I don't follow you here at all.  All primates eat 'meat' in some form,
wether it be
animal and insect.  Are you suggesting that humans are basically
fruititarians?
What do you mean by "since our dependency on certain stuffs did not align with
what is in meat."  Can you give me something more substantial that "it is
obvious."?
<snip>
>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 k
>idney strain.
Two pounds of meat in a day is nothing.  You should really look into protein
requirements as alot of the old data was derived using faulty assumptions and
technique.  0.7 gram protein per 1 pound of body weight is allright.  Many
athletes consume much more without ill effect.  Kidney strain is a myth for
those
without certain types of kidney disease.  In fact, 'proper' protein
consumtion has
been shown to improve kidney function in healthy individuals.  More protein is
perscribed for individuals with certain types of kidney disease.  The
'acidification'
of the body seems to be the new bugaboo;  what exactly is being claimed and
has it been shown?  If you want some vitamin and mineral enriched animal
products it is hard to go wrong with liver, brain, marrow and the various
sweet breads.  How can the plant foods compare?
<snip>
>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.
How?  It seems if you had to pick one food item to keep you alive and healthy
the clear choice would be meat.  In fact people have survived (thrived!) on
meat
alone.  It seems obvious to me ;-) that it would be difficult to collect
enough
seeds and roots day after day to meet even minimal caloric needs.  Remember,
you don't get to use the calorically dense modern hybrids! (e.g. fruits,
potatoes,
legumes,etc.)
>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,
<snip>
Though a domesticated animal may be poorer in some aspects as compared to
the wild game, I think it is wrong to call domestic meat 'poor quality.'
How do you
quantify these assertions?  I think your problem with meat clouds your
judgement.
Remember that this is a paleolithic dieting list.  Perhaps your appeals are
better
for a vegitarian natural foods list?
>Amadeus
  Wade Reeser   [log in to unmask]