On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Amadeus Schmidt wrote:

> Because of the over-protein. It would cause you nausea to live on meat only
> (read about the only-meat-experiment in the 30ies).

This means that lean meat is poorly tolerated as the only or main
source of calories.

> For protein only a human has enough of about 230 grams meat per day.

I'm not sure what that comes to in actual protein yield.  I do
think, however, that it is a mistake to suppose that there is
some fixed amount of protein that is adequate for all humans.
Lean body mass and activity levels can vary widely, and they have
a lot to do with how much protein is optimal.

> For energy he will need about 1500 grams meat! or additional 250 grams of fat.
> Per day!
> I think this explains, why all h/g populations (inuit for ex.) prefer
> fatty parts so much.

Yes.  It's important to get the remaining calories from something
other than protein.

> On the other hand - if you play around a little with some food composition
> programs you'll discover - if you get the calories from plants, then
> more than enough of the _needed_ protein will be already in.

It depends on the plants, and on what you take to be adequate
protein.  Personally, I think the 30% level of protein is best.
I base this on a number of things, such as Mike Kurilla's
arguments at www.zonehome.com, and the fact that research shows
that raising protein intake to this level improves lipid
profiles.  In any case, this is a key variable.  If you want to
achieve 30% protein levels, it will be very hard to do so using
just plants, unless you use protein-isolated processed foods such
as tofu.

> So eating the rabbit will normally leave you hungry - not enough fat.
> And eating to rabbit-sized volumes of tubers - will bring you
> energy, protein, vitamin and fiber.

As much protein as you got from the rabbit?

> >I think it has been successfully argued by anthropologists that wild grains
> >don't provide a positive calorie balance for an HG. In other words, they're
> >more trouble than they're worth.
> What about pavians? I think these live much on grass seeds.

Please explain.

> Why should it be more inefficient for humans to gather it?
> We have the better functional hands...

It's inefficient because it uses more calories to gather the
grains than are replaced by eating them.  That, at least, is the
argument.  When grains are domesticated, the seeds stay on
longer and they are all grown in one place -- agriculture.  This
makes it viable to use them as a food source.

> Our dependance on B1 leads to grains or nuts mushrooms or pigs.
> But only grains and nuts look plausible to me on the long run.

There has been discussion of this on the evolutionary-fitness
list recently.  Nuts are a good source of calories, primarily
from fats, which tend to be a mixture of saturated,
monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fats.  Their advantage over
grains is that humans have been eating them forever, and so they
are less likely to challenge the immune system.

> >Why is 30% crazy? Where do you get 11%? Eaton found an average of 33%
> >calories from protein among todays HGs.

> Because human mothers milk is 6% protein, and a baby should be the human with
> the biggest protein need.

Is that 6% by volume, weight, or calories?

> 11% is a number i saw from Loren Cordain on "paleodiet".


Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]