PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Amadeus Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 3 Sep 2002 20:31:38 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (63 lines)
Peter Brandt wrote:
> And let us not forget that the role of
> cholesterol as a reliable marker is hotly disputed.

I think the role of cholesterol as a culprit is disputed, but not as a
marker.

>>    better .. obesity, coronary
>> artery=
>>  disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and some types of cancer.
>>
>Again, not because they are vegetarian.

What do you think is the cause?


My explanation theory.
> Bad eating habits have nothing to do with eating meat.
   ..

> Since when did making bad food choices make a vegetarian change his
> ways. ;-)

A I told. It's easier to come through the day with nasty items plus
meat, as with nasty items plus vegetarian items.
Protein vegetarian items tend to have the benefits left.


> As usual you overlook that vegetarians eat more plant foods than they are
> "designed" to eat with all the consequences that this can have.

So what is your reason to assume about how many plants humans were
"designed´" to eat? Humans are primates. Primates eat predominately
plants. Every thing else, including "more and more hunted or scavenged
animals" is later and is assumption with very little explanation on
amounts. On the other side a rather high part of plants, particularly of
fiberous plants is well established for 90% of the last 2.5 mio years.
And of course at all times before.


>  >These food items (lets exclude dairy for now) taken amounts for
> sufficient
>  >protein (RDA is some 55g) provide automatically a lot of vitamins and
>  >minerals - and other beneficial stuff (phyto*s).
>
> But they have their own set of problems as you well now.

That's very true - imunologic problems. I don't see allergy problems in
paleolithic humans or hominids. But in modern times allergies and
intolerances are a big issue. I don't think it's so much connected to
paleolithic or not. But it can be solved in most cases (like with Ray
Audette) by simply avoiding main allergens. This are, nowadays wheat,
other cereals and often dairy.
My sisters husband who is an medical professional in allergy told me
that the most allergy cases are in this order: 1.nuts, 2. fish, 3.
others. On the other hand I read that some 15 % humans in the west have
intolerances against one of these: wheat protein(gluten) or milk protein.


regards

Amadeus

ATOM RSS1 RSS2