Peter:
>>Because animal food is a part of man's natural diet.

Amadeus:
>That seems to be the case. Note that there no agreement in
>science or interpretation which part animal foods had
>(percentages of calories/volume).

That is of little interest in this context.

Peter:
>>Take it away and something will always be missing.

Amadeus:
>That's your interpretation.

An inevitable conclusion I would say.

Amadeus:
>Up to now I didn't miss anything.

You can be lacking without missing.  Or you can be in denial
because you have a vested interest in maintaining your present
belief system.

Amadeus:
>The same you could say to eating of grasshoppers.
>- They were always part of man's diet.
>- Take it away... and what will be missing?

Most of us are eating diets that are lacking
in insects. But you are trying to justify omitting a
whole category of paleo foods from your diet.
By doing this what you are trying to emulate is by
definition no longer a paleodiet.

Peter:
>>Because if you leave out animal foods, you have to eat
>>plant foods in amounts and proportions that your body
>>did not evolve to handle. (toxins, antinutrients,
>>mold, fiber, nutritional imbalances)

Amadeus:
>I see the problem that when eating plant protein instead
>of animal protein, you encounter more antinutrients.
>In some high energy foods like legumes/nuts/potatoes
>these would constitute a problem (therefore the
>traditional preparation methods are advisable to follow).

These methods do help to some degree but they do not
overcome the problem completely.  Furthermore, there are
elements in these foods that are unchanged by soaking,
sprouting, fermenting or cooking.

Amadeus:
>Some of the self-defense of the plants is even beneficial
>and part of the defense of the human against germs bugs and
>diseases.

True.  But it is a question of balance.

Amadeus:
>-mold: you mean rotten food? each food will deteriorate.

After harvesting nuts and grains are easily contaminated
with mold.

Amadeus:
>Animals will rot even quicker. I never had a fish intoxication,
>but I know several people who had it to the badest.

I was not referring to rotting.  Besides, animal foods if not
frozen or otherwise preserved are usually eaten soon after
they are killed.

Amadeus:
>-fiber: you are kidding. thats one of the main advantages of
>heavy plant food. There is a problem if you insisted to eat
>/ very low density food only (like only fruit).

If you are not eating any animal foods you are most likely
consuming more (insoluble) fiber than your body was designed
to handle. That could conceivably cause chronic irritation
in the digestive tract and interfere with the absorption
of nutrients.

Amadeus:
>-nutritional imbalances:this is vague which impalance you mean.

It was more the principle I was addressing.  However,
consumption of soy causing CU/ZN imbalance is one example.

Amadeus:
>My impression: it's easier to balance out several ratios with
>plant food.

Easier than...?   The closer to a natural, paleo diet, the less
it should be an issue to balance the ratios.

Amadeus:
>1. protein:energy ratio is favourable in plants and impossible
> for animals of worm areas.

Worm areas?

Amadeus:
>2.vitamins and minerals: you need 3-4 lbs meat to establish a
>sufficient supply from meats and much less from most plants.

Why would I try to get most of my vitamins and minerals from meats?

Amadeus:
>For a given calorie amount eaten therefore a higher vitamin
>supply would be the result with plants. Thats a better balance
>in my understanding.

I do not get your point. I have never advocated the exclusion
of plant foods.

Peter:
>>Because some nutrients are very likely better absorbed
>>when from animal foods.

Amadeus:
>True for iron and vitamin a. But is this an advantage?
>In case of low supply definetely.
>In case of oversupply it's a danger.

I doubt that oversupply of Fe and vit A could be caused
by eating a paleo diet.

Amadeus:
>In case of normal natural good supply it shouldn't
>be an issue.

A normal, natural good supply would not exclude animal
foods.  Speaking of, you never did give a breakdown
of your diet....

Peter:
>>Because there is a great likelihood that there are
>>nutritional elements in animal foods yet to be discovered
>>that are not found in plant foods.

Amadeus:
>Then it's a fact that all vegans miss this "nutritional
>elements".  Is this a drawback of an even advantage?
>(I think both are possible)

The likelihood of the (vegan) advantage being greater than its
downside is pretty slim would you not think?

Peter:
>>Because a plant-based, natural diet is naturally going to
>>be a higher carbohydrate diet.  That can be a problem for
>>many people.

Amadeus:
>True. For many people. If they have had a damage
>to their system before.  (what is likely from the sugar-SAD)

High complex carbohydrate diets often cause many of the same
problems.

Peter:
>>Because of a failure to thrive.  There is a reason that
>>animal foods have always been treasured throughout
>>the history of mankind.

Amadeus:
>A failure to thrive of whom you imply here?
>One thing is shure: a great many of ordinary omnivores have
>a great deal of problems and fail to thrive and this is nutrition
>dependant.  This are western "SAD" people which eat about
>100-200 procent of their RDA protein amount in form of muscle meat.

I fail to see your point.  On the SAD a failure to thrive is to be
expected sooner or later, no?

Amadeus:
>Looks like meat alone doesn't help.

Of course, not.

Amadeus:
>There's something else in the diet which causes problems.
>I suspect the food energy household as a main cause.

I do not understand.

Peter:
>>Problem foods in large amounts.

Amadeus:
>Thats true for some with cereal seeds, and for more for
>tree seeds(nuts).  There still a lot of more seeds left
>to choose from.

But none are exempt from what we are talking about.

Amadeus:
>Any plant has seeds. Most are edible.

Most? – I doubt that.  "Edible" does not mean
that they necessarily can be eaten in large amounts
without negative consequences.

Amadeus:
>Some are really good. (just thinking of macadamia nuts)

And some taste really bad.

Amadeus:
>>>Who needs "excuses"?

Peter:
>>A vegetarian attempting to eat paleo. ;-)

Amadeus:
>Porks and cattle are not paleolothical animals, not even close to.
>Judge if your eating is paleo.

Pork and cattle surely are a lot closer (to paleo animals)
than the macadamia nuts and grains you eat...

Amadeus:
>The hysteria will have the positive effect of discrediting mass
>scale low quality meat production. And promoting a more adequate
>meat quality.

Indeed.

Amadeus:
>Of course not quantity - that's impossible together.

This is a vegetarian straw man argument.  Improvement is
always possible.

Peter:
>>Plant oils are not without problems as you well know.
>>(Rancidity, too much omega 6, solvents if in form of
>>oil, plant toxins)

Amadeus:
>Each food item has it's problems if produced badly and not
>treated well.

True, but the problems I am pointing out have little to
do with quality or purity.  IMO, your arguments on purity
belong more in the the realm of make believe and magical
thinking.

Amadeus:
>However there are superm plant oils. (hmm hemp oil over broccoli,
>flax oil in the salad, olive oil on all vegetables...)

In comparison saturated animal fats have much fewer potential problems.

Peter