Kristina K. Carlton wrote:

>>>How is this different from fad protein diets?  Because  it stresses fat
>>>
>>>
>("living off the fat of the land"):  Protein consumption should not
>exceed 55-60 grams/day for most adults (1 g per kg of body weight). This
>is equivalent, in food volume, to roughly 3 decks of cards per day.
>More than that means you are converting excess protein into
>carbohydrates -- and you don't want to do that -- it's not healthy.  So
>load up on fat to feel ful!  Its tastes good, the right kinds are
>healthy, they feed your brain, your muscles, and every function in your
>body.  Best of all you'll become a fat-burner and enjoy the side benefit
>of living much longer.
>
>This is all very interesting but I just can't imagine that Paleolithic
>people would have restricted their protein intake to 55-60 grams per day.
>Can you explain?
>
>
>
>>>For more information on evolution and the human diet, see the book
>>>
>>>
>To my knowledge Ray Audette does not indicate to limit protein intake. Below
>is a typical dinne listed in "Neanderthin":
>1/4 cantaloupe,
>1 pound grilled Halibut
>Tossed salad with...
>
>The halibut alone would account for roughly 95 grams of protein and that's
>just one meal. Is Ray still on this list? If so I would like to hear his
>take on the protein requirements discussion.
>
>
>
>I have read this book and thought it was very interesting. Again I have to
>question the protein requirements. According to Rosedale I need roughly 60
>grams of protein per day. And according to Rosedale an African American, or
>a Chinese woman, or a mixed race woman all of the same
>height/weight/proportions as I am and on the same exercise regime would need
>the exact same amount of protein per day. How is that possible when we all
>have such different genetic makeups?
>
>
>
>
>
>
1. A 95 g piece of fish is not 95 g of protein -- more likely 15-20 g of
actual protein, so this would be just one of your three daily protein
portions.

2. Ray Audette does not directly address the issue of protein maximums.
There is a short paragraph, if I recall, where it is mentioned, but he
does not give it the clear and convincing treatment that Rosedale does.
Rosedale begins on page 13, discusing the dangers of a high-protein diet
and specifically, glycation -- when excess protein gets broken down into
sugars. This is expanded upon throughout Part 1.  Rosedale also provides
tables and much more on protein requirements and portions.

3. Apparently, if you are on an excercise regimen, your protien
requirements are only slightly elevated (max +10%) from the standard
1g/kg body weight.  What you really require is more fat (ie: calories).
And as for protein, there should be little deviation due to genetic
factors.  Your brain will tell you when you're hungry and when you are
satisfied -- and this will not be the same every day.

Also, I don't consider Rosedale "the final word" on diet and nutrition.
I find that I need much more fat in general, and saturated fat in
particular, than he seems to recommend.  And he never comes right out of
the closet and says: EAT FAT for your calories!  Yes, I know the message
is there, but it's framed by other issues and not presented as the
central issue that I believe it is.  The reason may be social or
psychological:  In our society, people have a hard time accepting the
message that fat can actually feed you.  I don't know why this is so as
we all seem to agree how good it tastes and makes us feel!   To the
books credit, however, Rosedale clearly show, as a medical doctor, how
eating lots of fat will make you a fat burner and thus will make you
thin.  Personally, I think this is his singular contribution to the
literature on the paleo diet.  Its just my personal opinion.