At 08:06 AM 10/11/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 11:42:38 -0700, David Lewandowski <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>>        I usually eat closer to 5-6000kcal/day.
>
>wow.

        I know I'm a freak when it comes to the amount of
food/calories I eat but
as those I've sent pictures to can attest, I look like a caveman.
Always
have. When I walk at night people go to the other side of the street
probably because they're not sure if I'm human!

>Average overall fat of wild game is 4% (study of Speth).
>Even fatty organs like brains
>have only 8%. Bone marrow is small in amount.
>The analysis of a kangaroo of Prof.Cordaine shows it.

I am not too interested in the fat content of todays animals.

>2-3 fold of RDA won't make a problem i think, because RDA probably
>lists more low values. I don't think it's a problem - rather positive.
>When eating more over many years... you could find out the vitamin A
>toxicity symptoms and watch yourself.
>
>>        What exactly is the acidic burden of protein digestion?
>
>Dense protein food items leave a acidic net result in the blood.
>High mineral food items can neutralize this.
>The blood ph has to be kept within tight limits.
>To achieve that the body disposes some acidity in the urine.

        Just part of the kidney's job. I don't think this is bad.

>And if that's not enough uses its calcium reserves.

        I have the x-rays of my self and bone density test are off the
charts.

>The calcium reserves of the body are the bones and the disease of loosing
>to much calcium is called osteoporosis.

        Sorry to Jean Claude I meant extreme weight bearing exercise
along the
lines of partial deadlifts and squats to maintain/increase bone
density.

>
>If the pH of your urine is constantly at the lower limit (about pH 5)
>then this is an indication that the de-aciditication mechanism
>of the kindey operates at its limits and calcium is likely to be
>used in addition.

        Don't know it and I am not that interested in setting specific
fixed
ranges to a dynamic system. Though I suppose a consistently low
reading
might mean something to someone.

>I think too that there's such a built in wisdom and sense which leads us,
>according to each state of the body.
>However probably with the thing with food items is, that ones instincts
>first have to get to know each food item. To decide instintually then.

        I do.

>Taking supplements may also confuse the system.
>Because the association of a taste and the following wellbeing will be wrong
>if the wellbeeing resulted only from a supplement eaten by accident.

        I rarely take vitamins.

>
>>>>Germanic warriors used to eat this
>>>>way
>>>What references do you have for this claim?
>>
>>   I like watching discovery type programs. A program was done on various
>>armies down through the ages. They went over how they fought, what clothing
>>they wore, their lifestyles, and the types of food they ate. They were not
>>the stay at home type of warrior. They rarely were at one location very
>>long and this was one of their greatest threats to others such as the
>>Romans.
>
>As i read at Tacitus ("germania") german tribes fought in a way that
>in the line behind the fighting warrious was the next line with the wives
>which used to show their children to the warriors in front, to encourage
>them.
>Archeologic findings proove too that some sort of bands (small, possibly
>only some dozend or hundred) used to raid over the roman boundaries.
>Such "raiders" may be what you think of.

        They are. Definitely not cavemen though.

>When a whole folk or tribe moved (like teutons or cimbers or francs) it was
>together with all, equipment and family.

        Still exist in Africa to some extent. Moving really doesn't
involve
possessions. They simply built structures with materials available.
Transported tools were at a minimal. Supposedly this is what made them
a
thorn in the Roman's side.

>
>Roman armies were rather mobile and each legioner carried about one months
>food with him (several kilos of grain and pans and millstones).

        I don't think it was due to the food that they were mobile but
from fear
of what would happen if they weren't. And they really were not that
mobile
in comparison.

>The forests were much more alive and also more diverse in plants.
>Still, one square km of good wood will only bear about 4-5 big animals.
>For a moving group it will be enough to pass on. Like wild west pioneers
>also did when moving westward. But not back again at the samle path.
>On the long run or "at home" it will be much to few of supply.

        Not if they crossed plains which they did. The estimated 60-75
million
buffalo before their slaughter were definitely not scares. In addition
to
the many elk, deer, antelope, etc.

>
>>Grains were just not a viable food source to carry
>>around in any significant amount. ... They also
>>would make beer about once a month. This was one of their uses of grains.
>
>So, they did carry grain (grains are easy to carry).

        No they didn't have to carry the grain to make alcohol because
this was
done in more stationary dwellings and not during battles.

>They even had the equipment to soak and sprout it (what malting is).

        Only takes a container, water, sugar source, and a
fermentation initiator.
They wouldn't had to carry a Coors brewery around with them.

>>>     17% fat - where should all the fat come from?
>>
>>        They ate all of the animal not just the muscle.
>
>They must have eaten all *except* the muscle (or a small part of it).
>Look at the kangaroo. A wild boar or deer should be similar.

        No kangaroos in Europe except in zoos. The fat content varies
with the
season. This can be an enormous fluctuation in some species.

>
>You told you'll be hunting these days.
>Now you *can* tell us how much marrow, brain and kidney fat your prey has.
>Please do.

        The fat content will also vary from region to region and
season to season.
I can assure you they have enough to satisfy any fat requirements my
body
might have.

>
>> Vikings did eat some cereals but the type they ate are vastly different
>>from what we see today.
>
>Agree on the last part. Of course you could get just natural barley as real
>vikings had.

        It wouldn't have been the main course though. Grains are
starvation foods
in that you could live on them if you had to but only subsist not
thrive.
Hell I would eat them if it meant going hungry or not. I don't think
they
are a good long term staple.

>
>> I think people are much like
>>wolves in that to pacify you simply need to restrict the intake of protein
>>thereby preventing the requisite muscle mass for hand to hand combat.
>
>And 1-2kg meat or fish and 5000kcal will be enough to go to a body building
>contest with only 30 min exercise per week?
>
>Amadeus S.

        Yes. Maybe you confuse quantity and quality. By the way I do
not do
bodybuilding. The dieting bodybuilders do is one of the most unnatural
things that one could possibly do to them self.

Dave