Marilyn Harris wrote:
>Overall, my impression is that we would have been something like 90%
>vegetarians and 10% meat-eaters. My feeling is that the neo-Paleo diet
>espoused on this list somewhat inverts that ratio to something like 70%/30%,
>meat to vegetables. For now, I disagree with that ratio.

Boy, I'm the last person on this list who should get into a technical
discussion.

But Marilyn's argument here brings up something that has occurred to me
before: even if current paleo research(specifically Cordain's work) shows
something like a 65-35 meat/non-meat caloric ratio is "ideal", that still
means hg's ate a tremendous volume of veggies. Even lean, grass-fed meat is
comparatively "dense" to veggies. And when hg's ate an animal, they ate the
whole thing, including plenty of very high-fat organs.

So while hg's consumed the bulk of their calories from meat(I think Loren's
work here is definitive; are there any peer-reviewed refutations?), from
the standpoint of volume there should be little question that hg's are
vegetarians in a very practical sense.

So my take on this matter has been very much like that of Art deVany's: to
eat "paleo" style means being a vegetarian that eats meat too. In other
words, a difference of degree, not principle, with vegetarians. Of course,
the politically motivated vegetarian would disagree, but then you'd have a
hard time convincing such a person that the earth is round, too.

Dave Fobare