Wow, Amadeus, did you go to the trouble of 'de-coding'
my post in order to reply? I'm impressed. I really
don't know what happened - when I mentioned that I was
worried about how the formatting would turn out I was
referring to line breaks, etc., not whether it would
go as HTML. I also could not read it - even with the
mail client I used to send it. However, when I used my
Yahoo client to read it there was not problem. Odd.

> For sweets there's the additional problem that the
> body has to metabolize
> the carb the two steps (into Acetyl CoA) to a
> energetically usable
> substrate, whereas fats don't require this step.

Yes, this was one of the arguments originally used to
support the 'fat makes you fat' lie.

> Most people I tell about the 270g are astonished
> that it is so much. A very
> big steak plus some sausage, but not everybody eats
> a steak everyday.
> Ordinary meat portion sizes (in a steak house for
> ex) are smaller. I recall
> 125g.

Notice I posted 'animal protein', which would of
course include eggs, meat, fish, milk products
(typical for an omnivore). Add to that the grains,
bean, and other plant protein in the non-junk-food
(yet SAD) omnivore's diet, and you get a pretty high
protein intake.

> Therefore, alas the gap of energy to be filled after
> 100% protein has been
> eaten is much  bigger.

If 100% of the protein calories are removed to fulfill
protein requirements, then you have an energy
shortage. But 100% of the protein is never utilized,
so the remainder is used for energy. You CAN get
energy from very lean cuts of meat. (A protein calorie
is *still* a calorie). Which, in general, makes me
question these so-called protein ceilings (in regards
to energy requirements). I think 'rabbit starvation'
has more to do with unfulfilled dietary fat
requirements than a general energy shortage.

> That's why Cordain consequentially suggests to
> replace the slaughter fat
> with some added EFA containing fats (e.g. rubbing
> with flax)
> and adding some more paleo-carbs. In my view it's
> only logical to do so.

Or you could eat organ meat, or 'proper' (paleo) fatty
meats/fish.

> If a vegetarian doen't manage to equal that out by
> choosing the right other
> sources  he or she will fail after some time.
> For b12 it will be a very long time of up to 15
> years.

I think the point is that so many of those factors can
be taken care of with a serving of a single food
source (meat). And even more can be taken care of with
a serving of organ meats or fatty fish. I this the
'fail after some time' could be solved with a serving
of the above once or twice a week for *most*
vegetarians.

> Btw if you check what the meat "vitamin pill" is
> lacking, you easily see
> what can be missing in a high meat (or in a SAD
> meat) diet.

Again, organ meats or 'proper' (paleo) cuts of
meat/fish.

You know, not too many years ago it was common for
meat eaters to use all of the animal, especially those
who lived in rural areas. Nowadays the organ meats are
seen as being inferior, and are used as fillers in pet
foods or discarded (or fed to other feed animals).
Huge mistake.

> Low-fat I even didn't hear about (no big topic over
> here).

It may be a topic mostly in the US - perpetually
fueled by the grain lobby.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com