Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 24 Jul 1999 02:38:17 -0700 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>
>Where did inland Paleo's get fish oils, especialy if
>only cold water sea fish have much of them?
>
>Did all Paleo's mostly live near the sea?
>
>What about central African Paleo's?
>
>Does this mean we can get by on lower grade fish with
>less of the cold water oils? And thus save money.
>
>R. Keene
scientists focus their attention on , what food is commercially available,
or what kind of nutrients they can expect from a specific food.
What do we know of the fatty acids profile of berries seeds or insects,
snake, frogs or small fishs, all foods obviously paleo but which are not
getting the 1st page in the news. I have the feeling that their
contribution is considered negligible because scientists can't imagine
people eating thoses thing in quantity.< a pound of salmon ,yes it is real
food, but a pound of brain or frog that is gross>
It remind me of an endocrinolog specialist on osteoporosis, giving a talk to
osteoporosis patients, explaining why greens are not a god source of
calcium: <because to get your daily needs for calcium met, you have to get 2
whole cups of brocoli>. That is obviously out of reach to lot of persons (my
ironic comment).
when a <normal > family will share a pint of berries , i easely eat 2 or 3
of them by my self, even my 2,5 years old son will swallow one whole basket
by himself.
jean-claude
|
|
|