On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Amadeus Schmidt wrote:

> We all know that agricultural cultures are the only thinkable ones,
> for a  considerable number of humans.
> Because a h/g lifestyle only supports a population density of
> about 1 person per 1 square kilometer (1 million square meters).
> But once established, the mentioned societies remained and flourished
> for hundreds of years. E.g. egypt for 500 years without wars and
> expansion in its first period. They didn't seem sick.

But they were.  Autopsies on mummies from all social classes
reveal clogged arteries, bone disease and obesity.

> Then we talked about grain. If it was so bad, then why didn't suceed
> other societies better, which _farmed_ _other_ food items.
> There are dozends of different plants which were and are farmed,
> other than grain.
> - rice societies for example have gluten free food
> - several roots , as well as nuts can be farmed
> - buckwheat can be farmed which is not
> a grain
> But exactely the grain farmers succeeded. If they were sicker
> than other _farmers_ then the others should have succeeded.

That's not an appropriate comparison.  For one thing, in
numerical terms we would have to say that rice farmers have done
very well indeed.  The success of grain farmers probably has more
to do with crop yield than general population health,
particularly if they are about as unhealthy!

> >If agriculturalists out-procreate
> >hunter-gatherers, then the fact that they are less healthy makes
> >little difference.
> But of course a healtier population will be able to reproduce better,
> and be able to defend better. Compared to another dense populated society.

No, this is false.  A healthy population of hunter-gatherers will
*not* be able to reproduce better, because a grain based diet
massively increases the reproductive rate.  Furthermore,
agricultural societies, being more stable, will eventually
develop superior weaponry to what hunter-gatherers can manage.
HGs are stronger and healthier, but numbers and weapons will
ultimately decide who wins.

> >As I've already stated, I believe 50 gr
> ams of protein is not
> >enough, but we'll discuss it further after you read Kurilla's
> >article.
>
> You forgot to mention, where to find that article.

I posted the URL in a separate message.  Here it is again:
http://www.zonehome.com/zlib0001.htm

> Maybe you could shortly mention in one or two sentences why so much protein,
> which will not be used as protein, but at maximum  as fuel,
> should be necessary.
>
> I have included several arguments why 50 grams should be more than enough.
> I'm still waiting for and looking forward to an argument for the opposite.

Kurilla points out that the studies that are supposed to show
that protein need is low are based on studies that show that
people on a no-protein diet will lose about 30g of protein from
their body each day.  Thus, the inference is made that 30g is all
we need.  As Kurilla points out, this ignores the body's ability
to retain protein under conditions of scarcity and does not
demonstrate *optimum* intake levels.

Every cell in the body makes proteins, and to do so they need
amino acids, which they get either from dietary protein or by
cannibalizing the body's own tissues.  Muscle tissue uses more
protein than other tissue because it is constantly active,
"vibrating" to maintain tone even when supposedly "relaxed."  If
a person is physically active, the protein demand of muscle
tissues is even greater, of course.  Therefore it makes sense
that one's protein need should be a function of lean body mass
and activity levels.  The more muscle you have, the more you need
to feed it, if you want to keep it.  The more work those muscles
are doing, the more protein they need to stay in good repair.

While we're on the subject of articles, I would enjoy reading the
source material that your low-protein arguments are based on.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]