On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, Phosphor wrote:

> i see no suggestion here that early man lived entirely on plant foods, which
> is what Amadeus consistently proposes as feasible.

Amadeus has never proposed the thesis that early man lived
entirely on plant foods.  Never.

He himself chooses to live on plant foods, by attempting to
select those plant foods that could be considered paleo (as
opposed to other ways of being a vegetarian, such as soy-oriented
diets).  He does this for his own reasons but has never attempted
to argue that meat was not a part of the paleolithic diet.

> Indeeed he has. he has no anthropogical or ethnological support for a purely
> vegetarian diet.

Once again, he doesn't claim such support, and he is as familiar
with the literature as anyone on this list.

Now Amadeus does argue that the typical real paleo diet was
probably less meat-dominated than what many of us on this list
favor in our own implementations, myself included.  He also
argues that the meats that are most widely available are
inappropriate for the purpose of paleodiet implementation.  I
have disputed various points with him many times over the years,
and there are some things on which we just diagree (e.g.,
desirable protein intake levels) but I'll say this: He is no
fool.

I have no interest in becoming a vegetarian but I have learned to
respect Amadeus's views on paleodiet.  He is also a decent person
who does not deserve the verbal abuse that you choose to direct
at him.

> Well? Anything more you would like to say? i have just provided a counter
> example which disproves Amadeus' thesis. As Amadeus himself seems unable to
> carry on a debate perhaps you would like to admit defeat on his behalf.

Amadeus has chosen not to engage in debate with you, because of
your boorish behavior.  There's some wisdom in that.

> > >  [Further, any diet high in carbs - that is, high relative to your
> biochemical
> > >  tolerance - promotes insulin resistance...]
>
> > While I'd like to agree, the research doesn't entirely support
> > this.  The Kitavan diet, for example is rather high in carbs and
> > low in fat (though not at Ornish/Pritikin levels of low fat), but
> > they seem to do rather well with it.  I am increasingly inclined
> > to think that there may simply be more variation in biochemical
> > tolerance than we think.
>
> yes agreed.  I see the Kitavan diet has 10% fish and 20% coconut, rich in
> saturated fats.  Not remotely the diet Amadeus is proposing.

That's true, but you made a *general* claim, that *any* diet high
in carbs promotes insulin resistance.  The Kitavan diet appears
to refute that claim.

> Whether this
> diet is suitable for people of Caucasian, and particularly northern European
> heritage, is another matter.  Why don't you try it?

It's not a bad idea, but I'm not sure that I could emulate if
faithfully.

> of more relevance than weight loss per se is a diet that promotes overall
> health [including better weight].  This includes insulin balance, health of
> the heart muscle, balance of neurotransmitters, and any number of other
> things.  personally i am quite sure there is now substantial variation in
> biochemical balance. As i said before Roman soldiers subsisted well on
> millet and lentils, at least in terms of extraordinary physical fitness, i
> don't know about longevity.

Something tells me that longevity was not much of an issue among
the Roman soldiers.  In any case, I'm not in a position to
comment on the overall health of my colleague on the McDougall
diet.

> One of the big figures in naturopathic doctrine in the 60s and 70s was Paavo
> Airola, Finnish-born who wrote the classic naturopathic text 'How To get
> Well.'  His was a high grain, fruit and veegtable diet with seeds and nuts,
> ans small amounts of eggs and yoghurt. He died of a stroke in his early 60s.

And John Harvey Kellogg, quack vegetarian extraordinaire, died at
age 91.  Vegan G. B. Shaw died at 97.  Go figure.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]