On Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:56:23 -0500, Ilya <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Amadeus Schmidt wrote:
>> I'd still count it as an indicator for a not real paleolithic or adapted
>> nutrition if we encounter vitamin shortages with our food composition.
>Generally true for adequate nutrition, not true for optimal nutrition.
>Also, don't forget cooking, which destroys some nutrient. If you eat paleo
>foods (animal or plant in origin), but often cook it (thus deviating from
>a paleo way of eating) you may need to supplement to bring yourself to just
>a sufficient level.
>
>This probably looks like a very obvious statement, and it is, so please
>don't start debates about it. I just
find it usefull to say this so
>that the above statement is taken in its proper context and not then
>extrapolated to mean that supplements have no place on a paleo diet.

Your obvious statement is agreeable BUT the only deviation from
a (true!) paleo way of eating you mention is cooking.

So then, the only supplementation necessary should be for the vitamins
and in the amounts that are deteriorated by cooking.
On the other hand, if you add all your food items vitamins in their
raw
(and ideal fresh) state, then the resulting vitamin contents should
be sufficient, in your terms.
If they still aren't sufficient raw, then IMO your nutrition can't be
a paleolithic one, or one we're adapted to.
But *that* is the intention of the paleolithic nutrition, isn't it?

To get that straight and avoid further misunderstandings as we had:
I'm argueing in this way *of course* because i think that th
e high meat
amounts (several 100 grams) that some consume are *not* real
paleolithic
and that we are *not* adapted to them. -- We may tolerate them.
IMO they happened ("following the herds"),
but only for such a small time period that,
a real adaption didn't occur,
or maybe the adaption went away in neolithic times.
I think you can see that on our vitamin requirement profiles.

Want some backup by numbers?
Take your 2 pounds of meat (i'll take 1000g of deer, *good* meat).
I'll assume that you (and our anchestors) were able to make the proper
cautiuos use of liver (only 10 g! because of vitmain a becomeing
toxic).
You will have:
13% Calcium
34% folic acid
 3% vitamin c
 8% vitamin e
 0% fiber
61% b1
simultaneously too much of:
400% iron (danger!)
200% zinc
380% protein (you and some will debate on that).
All that giv
es you only 1400 kcal - it has much too less energy.
How much additional pure fat gives a deer/moose/mammouth per 1000g
meat?
This is why fat is so high-priced among hunters.

You have to add proper plants and fat or carbs.
At some points you might have problems to catch up with your actual
needs
-- without supplements.

Is *that* the diet we are adapted to?

To me it looks like at best suboptimal - tolerable as long as we have
a
proper
plant selection and as long as we don't assume the over 100%-percent
cases as dangerous (we already discussed several aspects with protein
and
iron).

On cooking:
Furthermore cooking not beeing paleo
is not agreed on by all. Most of us cook their food and feel
pretty much paleo,
because fireplaces were found several hundred k-years old.

If cooking is *not* paleo, and you intend to be paleo-eating,
why do you cook then?
In this way you might
loose very important aspects and benefits of
the nutrition you *really* are adapted to.
Still not discovered phytochemicals for examples.

Amadeus