I'm beginning to feel like a simultan tennis player.
And despite enough tubers today i start to become tired ;-)

On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 06:48:12 -1000, Nieft / Secola <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
>I get so tired of this: do you not suppose that fattier potions of the
>animal were favored?

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.

>>Caloric supply is the most deciding factor for a wildlife population.
>
>Says who? Protein can be important. What ever the limiting nutrient is is
>what is the deciding factor, no?

Exactely the limiting nutrient will be the deciding factor.
Think of a diet of tubers, seeds and vegetables. What will be limiting?
Certainly not protein. Even with the caloric dense parts you'll
have a > 100% RDA supply of protein.
Protein is in shortage for humans eating part-flours and sweets.
Or for humans getting not enough to eat at all.

Some minerals and vitamins can for shure be the limiting,deciding factor.
However i realise, that (quite contrary to the common western food)
the limiting factor in almost any paleo-food-item is energy.

>Except that we can thrive in the absence of carbs. Fat has more
>calories/gram than carbs, no?
We can live on fat and much protein.
I think that this is *not* evolutionary paleo-style.
Naked with a sharp stick hunting walrus.
And i thin, there are *better* carbohydrate sources (for the tripled brain
size) as protein. If both was available (tubers and meat) i suppose that
the better suited would have been choosen.

>
>Dolphins eat lots of fat/protein and no carbs to speak of. Intelligence
>appears well-correlated with overall foodsuff. Herbivores being the
>dimmest; fruit-eaters being a little smarter; and carnivores being the most
>intelligent.

They have no option, whales are hunters as are tigers.
Hunters have a quite different metabolism to humans. I don't know from
dolphins, but cats have hunter characteristics (vit A detox,purin detox).

I don't subscribe to you point of view, that tigers were more
intelligent than elephants.
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 were found to have just a *longer* brain growth phase at an equal
>>  growth *rate* as other mammals (reference not at hand).
>
>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.


>
>>- DHA is *synthesized* in the human body as in other mammals
>
>Especially in human breastmilk. Can you not see the metabolic advantage of
>not having to synthesize such large quanities?

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?

>Chimps are seen to do this. Many primitive cultures are reported to have a
>great appetite for brains. And backatcha: shouldn't we have a tuber fetish
>if tubers account for brain development? ;)

Tuber fetish? Maybe existing ;-) (taters) Tubers bring adequate calories.
For tuber nutrients many sources exist.
For DHA only one (paleo, w/o fish) source exists: brains.
But obviously brain eating is *not* essentially required to build up
a brain of present day size. What should all the people say, who's mother
did not eat brain in pregnancy and while breastfeeding.
Did *your* mother eat brain?

>But your points are reasonable in large part. You seem to have already
>decided what is best (vegetarian) and used your brain to justify your
>decision. If you had an open mind it might be different.

Ok, i reject something, I'm not eating *all*. This is a personal choice of
a different discussion. It's less decision, than feeling.
I admit, i'd hate if someone found out something, that *required* humans
(me) to eat meat. Then i'd try to supplement.
Maybe same as if some told you that it was enevitable to eat eyes, spiders
or pekinese dogs.
But I am interested and watching. Because i want to supplement in the case.
However it goes.

>
>>My question (what needn't concern you) is: can i safely reject it in my
>>diet, can it be even more healthy in modern times.
>
>That is a fair question. Your answer seems to stretch the "truth" though.

My answer presently is: I don't see anything but possibly vitamin b12.
I'll do the vitamin b12 test therefore.
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.

>
>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.

Cheers

Amadeus S.