On Tue, 4 Jul 2000 07:25:39 -1000, Nieft / Secola <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>The article is generally weak; the conclusions
>far-fetched; and as I understand it, doesn't deal with EFA's or brain
>growth in a realistic way. Basing such a hypothesis on _calories_ isn't
>exactly cutting edge.

Glad that I've found someone who seems to have read it.
You'll shurely have read the follow-up articles, which are already pointing
out some weaknesses of the tuber-fire approach.
Weakest point imo is, that there are no additional findings, which would
support such an early use of fire.
And the strongest point the abundance of root food in the savanna area.

Well, the question is, what was the main (driving force) nutrition basis
for hominids after leaving rain-forest and frutatian WOL, 2 mio y ago.
In the same time, teeth got smaller, the colon shorter (not the intestine)
hominids bacame bigger and the brain much bigger.
Boyd Eaton (1) mentiones plant fats , seeds, and "increasing" animals.

Why i consider calories important:
Nearly all paleo foodsources contain much more protein (and vitamins),
compared to calories. Comparing human and other mammal demands.
A switch from a fruitarian nutrition to other plants results in fewer
carbohydrates and more protein. Anyway.
However a switch to wild game meat results in a much more  dramatic shortage
food energy (very few fat and almost zero carbohydrate).
Caloric supply is the most deciding factor for a wildlife population.
A increased (doubled) brain in size increases the demand for food energy,
particularly carbohydrate energy (500 of 2500 kcal is considerable).
These facts do not favour meat at all as an appropiate nutrition basis.
After finding out how extremely low on fat african wild game actually is,
a much increased need for calories shows up.

EFA's:
Boyd Eaton (and many other authors) regard the intake of namely DHA from
animal brains as a major point in brain developement.
I cannot reject this possibility and the good availability of animal brains.
Even without hunting skills from smashing animal skulls if carrion.
However, there are some arguments, that speak against the *necessity*
of eating brains as a DHA source.
- Other animals build up brains too, of the same
  composition without ever eating animals, particularly brains.
  Humans were found to have just a *longer* brain growth phase at an equal
  growth *rate* as other mammals (reference not at hand).
- DHA is *synthesized* in the human body as in other mammals
- If brain eating would be so important for growing up, we should have
  developped a great appetite for and culture of eating brains.
- Billions of humans (today) build up a equal big brain without ever eating
  brain (mothers or childs). Or even developping appetite to eat one.

>.. you can hardly take one article in
>isolation and then defraud the whole paleo/meat concept.
I'm reading all articles on topic, supporting "high" meat or else.
What does "high" meat or paleo-meat concept meat anyway?
People ate it - any paleo people can eat it.
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.
Why do you bother? You're not attacked.

>
>Like your statement that any more than 10% animal foods is a waste, eh? ;)
Waste... If you want a high intake of some of the essentials, abundant in
animal food then 10% of the right pieces will be high.
And I've been suspiciously checking if 0% are possible.
Pure muscles of > 10% in the food... will help to avoid other, possible
allergenic protein sources.
And demands pure caloric sources. Pure fat (like available to inuit and
dairy or pig farmers).
Or pure carbohydrates - the real SAD resolution.

regards

Amadeus S.

(1) is
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/sboydeaton/ea
ton.htm