On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 22:02:09 EDT, Gawen Harrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Thanx for the post. It was the first laugh I had today.
Certainly not the first, but yes it was from me too.
Dori, the wild girl of the cave wrote:
> Dr. Loren Cordain's research has shown that the hunter/gatherer diet
> consisted of approximately 65% animal, 35% plant. That much flesh food is
> far beyond interesting to me. Did you do well in math? ;)
Fine, that you've read Cordain's info. He tells us in
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A2=ind9801&L=paleodiet&P=R158
that:
>These values
> corroborate 5 careful modern studies of hunter gatherers showing a mean
> energy intake from animal food sources to be 59% (2).
This number doesn't disturb my computations, because:
1)Of course 59% energy from animal food is not from flesh, but mainly
from fat. Just look out how much fat is available in wild game in temperate
regions, or do you want to emulate a inuit?
2)The information Cordain cites is derived from a study of *present* hunter
and gatherer societies.
This world is since several hundred or thousand years taken into
posession by various agricultural societies. Left for the h/g are only
areas unsuitable for agriculture, several extents of *deserts*.
In a desert living on animals is the only way to survive.
And the above numbers include inuit, which live nearly 100% of meat and fat,
because the *can* in their environment.
3)Present day h/g societies are all of *our* species, homo sapiens sapiens.
Or Cro Magnon human. The most versatile and capable of all yet.
If we talk about the genetic adaptions of our
*anchestors* in the timeframe of the last 2 mio years, our anchestors
had limited resources before only 80kyears ago:
No thrown weapons or spears, no bows and arrows, no fishhooks, no nets.
Limited body size. Stone cutting tools.
The Cordain cited study didn't specify the caloric subsidience percentages
for homo erectus, did it?
> >Nutritionally speaking:
> >Increasing the percentage of this game (beyond estimating 10%)
> >is useless and doesn't make, and made not, sense as long as enough plant
> >sources are available. Because of the shortage in food energy.
>
> Don't even get me started.
Try to list any paleo-possible food composition for half of the day.
Then, look what other paleo-possible food you could add to not stay
hungry for the rest of the day. You'll find out, that what you badly need
is *energy*, calories. And you'll find out, that it is hard to get that
from wild game.
Except you assume a *very* high fat percentage. Higher than animals in
temperate regions show.
And your brain fuel, glucose will be even harder to achieve by wild game.
But a tuber would have it.
> >Practically speaking:
> >The count of humans able to live on *this*, is small enough to
> >be forgotten at once. You just can't do it.
>
> What, the count of humans able to live on more than 10% meat? You're
> kidding, right?
No, i wrote about the count of humans able to live on wild game and trouts
from crystal clear water.
> If I'd eat what you think is a nifty, healthy diet, I'd be a fat, moody,
> cantakerous nag popping Prozac and, eventually, shooting insulin. ...
Dori, it's good news for you, that at last you found a way out of severe
health troubles, probably caused by your former nutrition
(which was not vegetarian, btw., and not by accident).
Don't let me be misunderstood about what I'd assume to be healthy.
Certainly not what you've done and how you understand or experienced
any "vegetarians". What you've done is seemingly switching to a diet of
whole and unmodified food items. Paleo. And I try to work out the same paleo
style nutrition of whole and unmodified food items, but vegetarian.
> .. A fatal heart attack may have come first. ..
If you're concerned about heart diseases and diseases that usualy
have their onset later, as the usual paleo-human age was, then the
medline results posted lately here (e.g.
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A2=ind0007&L=paleofood&D=1&P=7000
) may give you a hint, that a paleo-vegetarian approach *could* have
benefits even beyond what you've experienced.
> And there are tribes that live on walruses and whales and they're
>healthier than your average American. Catch the clue!
Catch the clue. Better you switch to walruses and whales.
Nobody wants "average American" or European. Thats our common frontier.
Amadeus
|
