On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:37:04 -0500Amadeus Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>


> My reference was based on some review of contemporary h/g's - but they have
> experience in the topic.

This appears to me to be anecdotal, not clinical.  Sorry, I'm still not
satisfied.

Especially not satisfied since recent studies of Aussie Aborigines returning
to the bush have shown them to be eating diets providing 50 to 80 percent of
calories from protein for five or more weeks, with no apparent ill effects;
in fact the authors of the study stated:

"The three most striking metabolic changes that occurred in this study,
namely the reductions in fasting glucose, insulin, and triglyceride
concentrations to normal or near-normal levels, were certainly
interrelated."

Thus the "most striking" metabolic changes observed from a diet of 50 to 80
percent of calories from protein were positive.  If "protein toxicity" were
a true issue, I think that it (whatever it is) would have been observed as
the "most striking" of metabolic changes.

For more about that see the page:
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-7l.shtml

Scroll down to read the section: "Reversion to high-protein, meat-based diet
improves lipid and carbohydrate metabolism in Westernized, diabetic
Australian Aborigines."

> Stefanssons free choice was 80% fat and 20% meat calories.  Because of
> "nausea".

Again, anecdote, and one individual.
>
> What makes up the symptoms?
> Just ask what are the symptoms of rabbit starvation. Ray Audette may know.
> Inuit do know. Rabbit starvation leads to death in a few months, what
> happens before?
> Ammonium toxicity? Danger of kidney failure?

The rabbit starvation thing is also ambiguous and anecdotal.  Rabbits don't
provide many calories, so rabbit starvation might be nothing other than
hunger from inadequate food/calories.   Starvation usually also leads to
death within a few months, you know, regardless of whether the individual is
starving on meager portions of rabbit, or meager portions of potatoes.
>
> Anyway Philip obviously lives at the upper end of the possible.

Not according to the aborogine studies.
>
> How about these (1 additional):
> Speth has written extensively about excess dietary protein and it seems
> likely that unless sufficient carbohydrate or fat are available, the
> calories present in wild, lean game animals can only be eaten in limited
> quantities.(Speth JD.  Early hominid hunting and scavenging: the role of
> meat as an energy source. J Hum Evol 1989;18:329-43; Speth et al.
> Energy source, protein metabolism, and Hunter-Gatherer subsistence
> strategies. J Anthropol Archaeology 1983;2:1-31).

It still is not a study from a metabolic ward.   And, he says "it seems
likely....", not a definitive statement.   If protein toxicity is real, and
so simple to produce (just feed some people a diet containing more than 50%
protein with adequate calories) we should be able to produce it in
experimental situation, and identify all of its characteristics.  I have
never seen mention of any such study, only talk about Steffanson's claims
(could be wrong or personal preference), and rabbit starvation (ambiguous),
and vague stories of some place in South America where (supposedly) they
torture or kill political prisoners by feeding them a diet of lean meat
alone (hearsay), so presently I consider all talk of protein toxicity to be
hearsay, anectdote, and speculation.

> There's a study.
> http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A2=ind9803&L=paleodiet&P=R123 :
> "...the fat content of wild game animals.   My colleague, Boyd Eaton, has
> previously summarized the fat content of lean game muscle meat (1), but
> did not present data on total carcass fat content.
> Speth (2) has compiled data from 33 analyses of whole body fat
> % of 11 different species of wild ungulates.   The mean value of 3.6%.."
>
Okay, so what is 3.6% of 500 pounds (total carcass weight of small steer)?
18 pounds (8172 grams) of fat, most of it not in muscle, but in the mostly
fat areas I mentioned.  That is 63,000 calories.  How much fat can one
person eat in a day?  Allow a very generous 100 grams (900 calories) of
animal fat per person, you end up with a fair size serving of animal source
fats for 81 people for one day, or for 20 people for 4 days, from one rather
small steer.    Lets say that only half of what I calculate is
available--still you have enough for 40 people for one day, or for 10 people
for 4 days.

Seems kind of generous to me.  Provided that the people eat about 2000
calories per day, that would be 45% of calories from animal fat alone.
Perhaps this is why as Weston Price observed, natives who hunted ungulates
often ate all the organ meats, marrow, etc. but left the muscle meats to the
dogs.

Anyway, even if meat is not a perfect staple food, neither is any other
food.   Tubers have deficiencies not had by meat.   H-Gs show that humans
are natural omnivores and naturally seek out both plant and animal foods,
and many lines of investigation show that both animal source and plant
source foods are important to human nutrition in some amount.

 Don