On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:51:56 -0800, Wally Day <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> It would be clearer to people to represent "relative
>> volume"
>> in the pyramid.
>
>In the purest sense that may be true. However, when
>you consider that the "new" pyramid is replacing the
>old (FDA) pyramid, it may not be a good idea to change
>the paradigm. Plus, in my experience, a lot of people
>do not really deal with the concept of percentages
>very well - especially when the factors involved are
>not equal (calories per gram being different). In that
>respect I like Bill Phillip's portion "guage" - a
>portion being equivalent to a fist or a hand.

I was thinking of volume in that sense = size. Supposed all your
food were cut up and put in a measuring bowl. Then the result
might be something like 65% meat, 25% veggies, 10% fruits/nuts
etc. So if each portion is the same size (fist) then meats would be
at the base in terms of greatest # of portions in the "true" paleo pyramid.

Philip Thrift
http://www.paleofitness.com