On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 07:10:20 -0400, Wally Ballou <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> It might not be as
>pretty as the stuff that shows up in the supermarket, but there is NO
>reason that it's any more "unwise" to eat than a pice of "USDA Prime"
>from Morton's or The Palm... (it's CERTAINLY a lot more nutritional
> "bang" for the "buck").

I sounds a bit strange to me, fucussing on fast food so much
on topic of paleolithic nutrition.
Naked in the savannah with a stick (sharp or not) would certainly not
include anything near to a Big Mac.

The more  "bang" for the "buck" is a shot into the wrong direction anyway.
By accident I've just reached the meat chapter in the Udo Erasmus book.
It's very clear outlined in which way the cattle fat (regardless which
grade) is dangerous to our health (as opposed to wild game and wild cattle).

In short, the fat composition is such, that the few EFA's in it are more
than discarded by the saturated part. It has *less* than zero EFA's.
And the list of unhealthy (und unpaleo) effects of missing EFA's is
veeery long.
Including cardiovascular diseases, high cholesterol and low thyroid.

I may add a paleo-view which Erasmus doesn't emphasise:
No animal in the wild has
1. such a bad fat composition
2. so much fatty parts (out of the arctis)
as any commercial beef or pork.

The first point questiones eating (farmed) animal fat without heavy
supplementing with the right extracted fats.

The second point questions the practicability and historical importance of
large style carcass consumation in our line of anchestry.

Outside the arctis. In the arctic animals are fat enough and have plenty of
EFA's in their fat, of marine origin.

Amadeus Schmidt
"Eat like naked in the savannah with a stick and a stone"

(I insist on the stone because of the nuts :-)
and my stick needn't be "sharp" because any stick can be used to dig
and i can't imagine the "sharp" stick i would hunt zebras with)