On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Peter Brandt wrote:

> >Amadeus has never proposed the thesis that early man lived
> >entirely on plant foods.  Never.
>
> Pretty damn close it seems.  He is after all
> a vegetarian claiming to emulate a paleo diet.

Yes, but he recognizes that his implementation of paleo is
incomplete, in comparison with what paleo people actually ate.
I'm dead certain that my implementation of paleo is also
incomplete, since I eat relatively little organ meat, no insects,
grubs, etc.

> >He does this for his own reasons but has never attempted
> >to argue that meat was not a part of the paleolithic diet.
>
> Actually, he does in his own way.  He seems to think that
> meat is something that man does (and did) not really need.
> Like a bad habit to be outgrown.  One argument he makes is
> that meat has been a type of survival food for times
> when supplies of plant foods were low. In my book
> that is the same as arguing that meat is an expendable,
> not really a true part of the paleolithic diet.

That's an interesting point.  Amadeus indeed argues that there's
nothing in meat that you can't get from other paleo sources, or
make in your own body, with the exception of B-12.  Thus, he
acknowledges that paleo people ate meat to get nutrients X, Y,
and Z, but he argues that it's possible to get those same
nutrients from paleo plant sources without eating meat.

I happen to think that Amadeus's diet provides less protein than
what is desirable, but I admit that the whole "protein
requirement" issue is far from resolved.

> >He also argues that the meats that are most widely available are
> >inappropriate for the purpose of paleodiet implementation.
>
> An argument on purity that can be used to reject virtually any
> kind of food as non-paleo.

I agree.

> >I have disputed various points with him many times over the years,
> >and there are some things on which we just diagree (e.g.,
> >desirable protein intake levels) but I'll say this: He is no
> >fool.
>
> Not, if you do not consider obfuscation foolish behavior.

Obfuscation?  I generally don't have any trouble understanding
what Amadeus is arguing.

> It is bit of a cop-out, IMO.  I think he is not engaging because
> his bluff is being called.

What bluff?

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]