On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 11:42:38 -0700, David Lewandowski
<[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>        I usually eat closer to 5-6000kcal/day.

wow.

>

I wrote:
>>The question still open is where the fat would come from in a savannah.
>
>        Organs and bone marrow.

Average overall fat of wild game is 4% (study of Speth).
Even fatty organs like brains
have only 8%. Bone marrow is small in amount.
The analysis of a kangaroo of Prof.Cordaine shows it.
I venture to cite it:
<<Tissue          % carcass wt.   Organ wt. (g)   %fat    total fat
(g)
 muscle          0.50            22,000          0.02    440
 bones           0.13            5720            .03     172
 liver, organs   0.075           3300            0.04    132
 washed GI tract 0.06            2640            0.02     53
 blood           0.012             526           0.02     11
 marrow          0.004             176           0.51     90
 brain           0.0014              62          .093       6
 skin            0.13             5720           0.10     572
 storage fat     0.0026            114           0.82      94
 GI contents,
 hair,nails etc  0.085           3740            na      na
 Total           1.00            44000           na      1568>>

>>Since vitamin A accumulates in the body (over the years) it will also
>>be a funtion of time.
>
>        Is 20-25 years long enough? Probably the amount of time I've been
>well over the RDA(maybe not always 10X's).

2-3 fold of RDA won't make a problem i think, because RDA probably
lists more low values. I don't think it's a problem - rather positive.
When eating more over many years... you could find out the vitamin A
toxicity symptoms and watch yourself.

>        What exactly is the acidic burden of protein digestion?

Dense protein food items leave a acidic net result in the blood.
High mineral food items can neutralize this.
The blood ph has to be kept within tight limits.
To achieve that the body disposes some acidity in the urine.
And if that's not enough uses its calcium reserves.
The calcium reserves of the body are the bones and the disease of
loosing
to much calcium is called osteoporosis.

If the pH of your urine is constantly at the lower limit (about pH 5)
then this is an indication that the de-aciditication mechanism
of the kindey operates at its limits and calcium is likely to be
used in addition.

> I don't believe myself intelligent as
>the innate wisdom that runs the body and prefer to go by instinct rather
>than what my very inadequate educated mind could come up with. ...
> as my nervous system does
>that job to the best of it's ability far better than I ever could.

I think too that there's such a built in wisdom and sense which leads
us,
according to each state of the body.
However probably with the thing with food items is, that ones
instincts
first have to get to know each food item. To decide instintually then.

Taking supplements may also confuse the system.
Because the association of a taste and the following wellbeing will be
wrong
if the wellbeeing resulted only from a supplement eaten by accident.

>>>Germanic warriors used to eat this
>>>way
>>What references do you have for this claim?
>
>   I like watching discovery type programs. A program was done on various
>armies down through the ages. They went over how they fought, what clothing
>they wore, their lifestyles, and the types of food they ate. They were not
>the stay at home type of warrior. They rarely were at one location very
>long and this was one of their greatest threats to others such as the
>Romans.

As i read at Tacitus ("germania") german tribes fought in a way that
in the line behind the fighting warrious was the next line with the
wives
which used to show their children to the warriors in front, to
encourage
them.
Archeologic findings proove too that some sort of bands (small,
possibly
only some dozend or hundred) used to raid over the roman boundaries.
Such "raiders" may be what you think of.
When a whole folk or tribe moved (like teutons or cimbers or francs)
it was
together with all, equipment and family.

Roman armies were rather mobile and each legioner carried about one
months
food with him (several kilos of grain and pans and millstones).

> The forest were much more alive at that time and contained at great
>amount of animal food.

The forests were much more alive and also more diverse in plants.
Still, one square km of good wood will only bear about 4-5 big
animals.
For a moving group it will be enough to pass on. Like wild west
pioneers
also did when moving westward. But not back again at the samle path.
On the long run or "at home" it will be much to few of supply.

>Grains were just not a viable food source to carry
>around in any significant amount. ... They also
>would make beer about once a month. This was one of their uses of grains.

So, they did carry grain (grains are easy to carry).
They even had the equipment to soak and sprout it (what malting is).

>>     17% fat - where should all the fat come from?
>
>        They ate all of the animal not just the muscle.

They must have eaten all *except* the muscle (or a small part of it).
Look at the kangaroo. A wild boar or deer should be similar.

You told you'll be hunting these days.
Now you *can* tell us how much marrow, brain and kidney fat your prey
has.
Please do.

> Vikings did eat some cereals but the type they ate are vastly different
>from what we see today.

Agree on the last part. Of course you could get just natural barley as
real
vikings had.

> I think people are much like
>wolves in that to pacify you simply need to restrict the intake of protein
>thereby preventing the requisite muscle mass for hand to hand combat.

And 1-2kg meat or fish and 5000kcal will be enough to go to a body
building
contest with only 30 min exercise per week?

Amadeus S.