On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, Peter Brandt wrote:

> A paleo diet has no more than 5% of calories
> of grains and legumes by the most liberal of standards.
> Sweet fruits, low fiber veggies and dairy (I believe that
> he eats small amounts of cheese) maybe another 15%.
> Subtotal of 20% of foods in A's diet that might be in a
> paleo category but still not necessarily paleo
> quality. That leaves 85% for tubers, high starch veggies,
> nuts and seeds. I doubt that A's diet is even close to
> this.  If it is, he does deserve some credit for his efforts
> but he is still left with the big issue of animal foods
> unresolved.

I agree.  I believe this is what he strives for -- in particular
using nuts and seeds as energy-dense foods.  This is a reasonable
strategy for one who wants to do this without eating meats. (I
agree with the 5% ceiling for grains and legumes *combined*, by
the way.  In the context of modern "meal" planning, this suggests
that these foods should be treated as condiments, at best).

Amadeus likes to point out that farmed meats have a much higher
ration of SFA to EFA than *any* genuine paleo foods, plant or
animal.  This is true, but nut and seed oils, though they have a
"better" SFA:EFA ratio, generally have a worse w6:w3 ratio (with
the exception of walnuts).  This creates problems of its own,
which are, I think, worse than the SFA:EFA problems.

> He does but
>
> 1)the same nutrient from a plant and from an animal
> are not necessarily absorbed equally well
> 2) there might very well be nutrients in animal foods that
> have not been discovered yet
> 3)a paleo diet including animal foods will naturally be
> a lower carbohyrate diet than one without.
> 4)no h&g tribes have ever been found to be vegetarian.

I agree with all these points, which is why I'm not a vegetarian.

> Therefore if Amadeus is serious about eating paleo,
> he is left with only one option and that is to try
> including animal foods in his diet.

I think he is serious, but believes the omission of animal foods,
while not a true reflection of paleo eating, can be done without
sacrificing the benefits of paleo.  It's not unlike my omission
of brains from my diet.  I know that paleo people undoubtedly ate
them, and they were an important part of their diet (DHA/EPA
source).  But I think I can get by without eating them, without
jeopardizing the whole plan.

> >Obfuscation?  I generally don't have any trouble
> >understanding what Amadeus is arguing.
>
> Are you by this saying that you cannot relate to any
> of the frustration that has been expressed about this
> in all of the time that he has been on the list?

I don't expect to agree with Amadeus on a lot of things, but I
don't find that especially frustrating.  He generally presents
arguments for his views, even if I don't find them compelling.  I
find that far less frustrating than other things that come up
from time to time.

> That his aim is true.  That he is sincere about eating
> a paleo diet.

I think he is sincere about eating a paleo diet and sincere about
not eating meat.  There is an obvious tension between those two
goals.  If you think "paleo" means "eat the foods that paleo
people probably ate" then a paleo diet *requires* eating meat.
But if you think "paleo" means "choose from the foods that paleo
people probably ate", you could choose to avoid meats.  As I see
it, the latter is what Amadeus is trying to do.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]