On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Amadeus Schmidt wrote:

> I wonder how  so much stable and healthy societies could be see
> n in history,
> which were mainly based on grain, if it had such a very bad impact on health.

This is not hard to answer.  A grain-based diet has several
effects that mathematically guarantee that it will become more
prevalent, regardless of its effects on health.  It increases the
reproductive rate.  It makes it possible to support more people
in a given area, even if they are less healthy.  In short, once
agriculture is practiced, it is inevitable that agriculturalists
will soon outnumber hunter-gatherers, even if they are less
healthy.  In evolutionary terms, hunting and gathering simply
cannot compete.

But this is not strictly relevant to the health question.  The
fact that a grain-based diet is more successful in evolutionary
terms does not entail that it is healthier.  And there are good
reasons to believe that it is not.  Of course, if grains were
swiftly *lethal* then the grain-based diet would not have
succeeded.  But that is not the case.  In evolutionary terms,
health matters only to the extent that it interferes with rates
of reproduction.  If agriculturalists out-procreate
hunter-gatherers, then the fact that they are less healthy makes
little difference.


> Yes shure, plant-based calories are rich on energy, but they are accompanied
> with already really much protein.
> For example 360 grams Hazel give you your 2400 k.calories, but also
> already 50 grams of protein.
>
> If you _add_ the hazel to your meat then you'll have double protein.
>
> So depending in how much protein you (or your kindeys) think acceptable...
> Why should you eat the meat, then?

As I've already stated, I believe 50 grams of protein is not
enough, but we'll discuss it further after you read Kurilla's
article.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]