Rachel,
I happen to agree on what you wrote in your
well set posting.
I'd like to add a few comments.

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:00:15 -0400, matesz <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>Mary has posted on the issue of red meat and colon cancer with questions.
>First of all, in epidemiological studies they make correlations; however,
>CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

If a strong correlation isn't a causation, then this would mean
that you could be able to avoid the real cause, while still
maintaining the one thing correlated with the disease.

So maybe something *else* as the meat itself causes the diseases.
Of course then this (real disease-causing) is itself correlated with
meat
eating in a strong way.
Probably also not by accident, but by an effect of causation.

If we assume that a lack of fiber in the diet is the real "cause" of
colon cancer (a real probability).
Much meat in the diet tends to be correlated with little
fiber in the diet.
(Because 1/2 lbs meat plus 1/2 lbs fat can replace 16lbs of vegetables
or
4lbs of dense roots).
In this way even if fiber is the real "cause" of colon cancer,
the meat still would be somehow causing the colon cancer.
Because is can displace other things which are necessary to eat.
Correlation is also not by accident.

Todd, you once asked me if i could mention risks or dangers of
a life in ketosis. Some we have gone through, but one thing came to my
mind
later and i always wanted to mention it.
(this is not ment to argue against ketosis, but for the sake to
comeing
closer to completeness in possible risk factors).

Well, I mean to come into ketosis you have to leave out several food
items. That can be a potential danger. Not to get, what is usually
found
together with carbohydrate (easy example Vitamin C).


>..  Fruther, every survey I have seen has indicated that
>most Americans (97%) fail to eat even the minimum recommended 5 USDA
>servings per day--a serving for most veggies being 1 cup salad greens or
>1/2 cup cooked veggies or 1/2 cup tomato sauce or 1 cup berries or 1 small
>fruit or 1/2 large fruit.
>It seems unwise and unnecessary to limit ourselves to an Eskimo diet.

I feel like beeing quoted.
Much more as real paleolithic diets are assumed to have been
*very* high in what vegetables have.
Particularly fiber, vitamins, phytochemicals, antioxidants.
Also in several more critical foodstuffs like lectins or antioxidants.
They may be harmful in some context, but may have served a purpose in
some
other context. The million year long consumption of these should make
paleo-diet interested more conscious of this.

Paleo vegetables were "low octane".
Leading to intake of rather high volumes.
Even if assuming an unlimited supply of game meat, the recent
discussion
has shown, that many plant calories were unevitable at least as
addition.
Thinking of paleo "low octane" then even more in volume.

>... include more green leafy, orange, yellow, red and  white
>vegetables and some fruits, your diet will be more varied, colorful,
>attractive, nutrient rich, health protective, interesting...

Amadeus S.