Amadeus:
>Exactely i suppose that the fattier portions of animals were favored.
>Very urgently. But it looks like there were not so much fatty portions in
>savannah wild game. You find them in pigs, you won't find much in gazelle.

Sure you will. Brains and other organs, bone marrow, surface fat.

>They have no option, whales are hunters as are tigers.

Option? That's their evolutionary path, as humans' is to include animal
foods in larger amounts than 10%. You want to explore and justify your
vegansim, fine. But it is not from an honestly evolutionary base.

>Hunters have a quite different metabolism to humans. I don't know from
>dolphins, but cats have hunter characteristics (vit A detox,purin detox).

Humans have many characteristics of hunters--they are not usually
exclusively carnivores.

>I don't subscribe to you point of view, that tigers were more
>intelligent than elephants.

I don't know. But elephants certainly eat an omnivorous diet. Besides I
said there were exceptions--the general correlation still holds.

>Maybe the other way round. More intelligent animals may outsmart other
>animals, which eventually can serve as a prey. For a generalist like the
>human a welcome addition.

Humans are exceptions in many ways.

>>This, of course, means a much larger need for "brain nutrients".
>
>This means a longer need of the same amount of "brain nutrients"
>as other mammals. Also herbivores.

Quantity of need x length of time = more brain nutrients. And I don't know
if I buy your contention that the need is the same for a human and a mouse
anyway. Sounds like another cherry-picked memory.

Have two kids, Amadeus, preferably twins. Breast-feed both--one from a
paleo mom, one from a graineater vegan. Extend the diet into their
childhoods and see what you can see. Both will likely have brains, but I
would bet that there are significant differences in quality. Who knows, but
that is the real test, not whether you can trick your metabolism with
almost compulsively planned veganism as an adult for a decade or so--who
really cares about that, besides you, I mean.

>I can see the advantage. Well, if the body *can* synthesise it, it had
>a little less enzymes to build (chemical work to do) when supplemented.
>Maybe it should be given to mothers, to go shure.
>On the other hand , you seem to suggest eating protein for glucose
>derivation. Considering the amounts, this is a much bigger "chemical" work
>to do for the body, isn't it?

It works well. I was countering your continued suggestion that humans need
carbs to fuel the brain. Which pathway (ketosis or carbs) is more
"efficient" is debateable. Diabetes isn't very efficient. ;)

>Tuber fetish? Maybe existing ;-) (taters) Tubers bring adequate calories.

Potatoes are relatively empty calories though. Those domestic pigs you are
so fond off gain weight rapidly on cooked starches.

>For tuber nutrients many sources exist.

And what EPAs are in tubers in significant amounts?

>For DHA only one (paleo, w/o fish) source exists: brains.

You are wrong. Bone marrow and even surface fat have DHA/EPA in pastured
animals. You seem to be the one with a brain fetish. ;) There is also the
report from Clara Davis that brains were the preferred food for youngsters
choosing their own foods. Maybe they know something that you won't admit. ;)

>But obviously brain eating is *not* essentially required to build up
>a brain of present day size.

It may be optimal though. Chimps certainly love them. And animal foods may
have been essentially required for the evolutionary leap in brain growth.
You can argue that we can get away without it now that our DNA includes the
larger brain, but you will never show that veganism is optimal. It's only
advantage is to help you with your "feeling"--or perhaps help you avoid
some deeper feelings which you have repressed--who knows? Who knows, you
may one day be one of the many many ex-veggies who look back in
embarrassment at their efforts at justification and avoidance of feelings.

>What should all the people say, who's mother
>did not eat brain in pregnancy and while breastfeeding.
>Did *your* mother eat brain?

No. I have though. It is a very interesting food, very powerful.

>Ok, i reject something, I'm not eating *all*. This is a personal choice of
>a different discussion. It's less decision, than feeling.

Fine. Why waste so much of your mental energy justifying a choice based on
feeling then?

>I admit, i'd hate if someone found out something, that *required* humans
>(me) to eat meat. Then i'd try to supplement.

Just keep being a strict vegan and time will tell. Perhaps more telling are
raw vegan children who are often frail and underdeveloped.

>Maybe same as if some told you that it was enevitable to eat eyes, spiders
>or pekinese dogs.

I have no problems with any of those things.

>But I am interested and watching. Because i want to supplement in the case.
>However it goes.

Why supplement? Why not just "supplement" with animal foods as did tens of
thousands of generations before you? Ah, yeah, your _feeling_ right.

>My answer presently is: I don't see anything but possibly vitamin b12.

You aren't very well read on the subject then. Your love of nutrient charts
is not going to change reality.

>I'll do the vitamin b12 test therefore.

Be careful. B12 deficiency can take many many years to develop and can be
debilitating and somewhat irreversable when it does.

>It's my own benefit to judge studies and resulty honestly.
>That i see it in time, when to supplement. I see no "truths" to strech.

So, again, what are you doing on this list? You already know how you are
going to eat--why not hang on the vegan lists? Seriously?

>>Without grains? The track record is pretty bad. With grains, the track
>>record is somewhat bad. Why do you bother? What difference does it make if
>>you are vegan or not?
>
>I consider several grains/seeds a perfect paleo food. To be treated right.
>Please show me, where you see "pretty bad" or "somewhat bad" records.

All around me. I can see a vegetarian a mile away, a vegan from two miles,
and a frutarian from 100 miles. ;) Mostly, I judge by the children of these
people--not pleasant. I'd refer you to the beyondveg.com website but you
already seem to have dismissed most of the experience and references shared
there, so what is the point? There isn't much point in discussing your
feeling which you have already stated is off limits in so many words.

Cheers,
Kirt

Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]