>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.

Amadeus:
>Glad that I've found someone who seems to have read it.

Actually I haven't read it--only some summaries and discussion about it.

>However a switch to wild game meat results in a much more  dramatic shortage
>food energy (very few fat and almost zero carbohydrate).

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

>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?

>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.

Except that we can thrive in the absence of carbs. Fat has more
calories/gram than carbs, no?

>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.

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. There are plenty of exceptions (algae-eating whales) but the
pattern seems clear. You may not be respecting just how huge the human
brain is.

>  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".

>- 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?

>- If brain eating would be so important for growing up, we should have
>  developped a great appetite for and culture of eating brains.

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? ;)

>- Billions of humans (today) build up a equal big brain without ever eating
>  brain (mothers or childs). Or even developping appetite to eat one.

And they are not under any natural selection pressures--in large part
because of agriculture. I can still imagine that a properly paleo-nourished
brain is better developed than a grain-fed one.

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.

>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.

>Why do you bother? You're not attacked.

Why do I bother what?

>>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.

My point was when another poster makes some blanket statement like this you
demand references, but you are giving the above a priori status--and have
no reference for it either!

>And I've been suspiciously checking if 0% are possible.

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?

Cheers,
Kirt

Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]