Phosphor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 >ah, so you were telling lies about total fat content?  very stupid to think
 >no one would check up. not even Kirt would do that, and he's weally stupid.

It is possible to really communicate with Kirt.
Even if we have a different opinition about one or the other topic.
Argues over a topic tend at least to find out points where it's interesting
to further investigate about.
In several years on this list I experienced  interesting discussions over
points which were able to bring up new insights and topics to take care
about. Sometimes I experienced attacks against my lifestyle.
However in all the years I always experienced a way of conversation which
was oriented on a topic , mostly polite, always respectfull.
Sometimes brilliant.
In contrast to the usenet, where the anonymity often tempts the participants
to end up in endless blah blah about who is right or not and in insults.
For years I have read almost all postings of this list and on paleodiet.
You were the first one to introduce insults.
Don't you think it's worth to think about that.

The listing of the major fat sources in an animal carcass
is a valid step to come to a total fat composition.
Figure 2 lists the composition of brain, skin,marrow, muscle,adipose.
Would it be very difficult to multiply this with the weight of muscle and
marrow?
With the Kangaroo listing you *have* a complete carcass analysis.

What do you want more?
You seem to defend a position that there was predominately saturated fat to
be found in paleo food items.

This is ridiculous. You stand against a large group of real scientists.
Not only Cordain, Speth, Brand-Miller - look at all the references. There
are people who care to examine a lot of animal carcasses and analyzing the
last bit out of it. And you -- just claim that skin fat is "so much" and
"very saturated".
Nothing more. No numbers. No usage of the actual data found.
Loren Cordain writes down his own conclusions and shows us the reasons which
led him to this or that conclusion. Where are your counterarguments.
Not just defending always the same old opinion. Deal with the data!

What's your intention with that?
You only promote the mass agriculture and mass meat production.

 >does this mean all animals are the same as
 >kangaroos?

If you dissect let say an elk, a deer , a moose, a gnu, a zebra
you will probably find out, that the size of a kidney, a liver or the skin
mass of these animals will have similar percentages of the whole carcass as
in a kangaroo.
This way you can find out for example that the sum of muscles of an antelope
will have similar much fat as the skin - like in our kangaroo.
The skin proportion of smaller animals will even rise compared to big ones.

 >>Marine mammals you can skip or humans wouldn't have >developed inlands
 >(like rift valley, east africa).
 >what an ape may or may not have eaten 5 million years ago has nothing to do
 >with this list. presumably paleo means paleo-man, not ape, or paleo ape. if
 >we want to know what an ape eats we can go to the zoo, for what an ape-man
 >eats we can call Gregg.

We humans life since about 10,000 years or 300 to 500 generations in a warm
time and most of the time in a grain agriculture.
Either this time was enough to imply genetic adaption to this diet.
Then we are optimal adapted to the neolithical grain nutrition.
Or this time is not enough for genetic changes.
Then the 10 or 30,000 years before will likewise not have been able
to genetic changes.
Real genetic changes *can* be seen in the time when early hominids
developped into humans.
Dramatic changes are found as far as 1.9 mio years ago.
If genetics are of importance, it's important to look at these times where
genetics made advances.
It must have been very drastic genetic changes if a wood dwelling fruit and
vegetation eating primate developed into a body optimized for meat --
What some of us seem to assume.

With your mumbling above, did you want to say only homo erectus (=ape)
couldn't hunt dougong as a staple?
Then what about all the other inland dwelling humans?
Modern humans at first show up in africa. Spreaded over the continent and
not specifically located more to the coasts. Really genetically and
anatomically modern humans, which are with sincerity out anchestors, lived
there inlands and spreaded all over the world.
These never could hunt a single dougong. Skip sea mammals.

 >what we want to know is what man ate before he was an agriculturalist.
 >amazingly, man had to get fresh water every day. what lives in water?
 >fish..frogs..eels..tortoise...

Not dougongs, not whales, not walrus.
It's not possible to drink salt water.
Today sweet water lakes or rivers are exploited to catch some fish.
With fishhooks and nets (which were not invented before some 40k years ago).

With all this I can't find any connection to support your theories of
predominating saturated fats in the diet. Or the low PUFA percentages.
Water animals have even bigger percentages of PUFAs.
What's your discussion all about. No line of argumentation. Boring.

Amadeus Schmidt-Philipp