Peter:
 >>Indeed. However, making up straw man arguments for not eating
 >>whole categories of foods that are essential to paleo is not.

Amadeus:
 >Hm hmm Peter, you dig out an old posting. Why not.

Indeed.

Amadeus:
 >So, what do you say is essential to "paleo"?
 >A food category?

Yes, the category of animal foods.

Amadeus:
 >How about real things like micronutrients, fiber, antioxidants, minerals?

It is well established that these elements are essential as well.

Amadeus:
 >>>Very strange really that many people want me to eat animals.
 >>>Why so?

Peter:
 >>Because of the intellectual dishonesty of your omitting an important
 >>category of paleo foods while being on a paleo list and claiming to
 >>be trying to emulate a paleo diet.

Amadeus:
 >You, seem to see "paleo" as synonym to upper paleolithicum cold climate
 >glacial diet.

Another straw man. I never implied that.

Amadeus:
 >This is your right.  I don't suscribe to this point of view.  I see that
 >humans and humanoids ate various animals' bodies to some extent
 >at nearly all times.

If you go back far enough, yes.

Amadeus:
 >But this exten has been rather low for most of the time we consider as
 >significant for evolutionary adaptions to happen. More than 100,000 years.

This does not mean that they are not essential.

Amadeus:
 >If you choosed to adopt a upper paleolithicum cold climate diet, which was
 >dominated by meat, then you will end up in a nutritional state similar to
 >these people. That's your choice.

It seems I could be making a lot worse choices, no?  ;-)

Amadeus:
 >I see this as a significant deviation from all nutritional states of the
 >millions of years before 60,000 bc in our line of anchestry.

Yes, a shift seems to have happened.

Amadeus:
 >>>I would never insist on someone else to eat termites, for example.

Peter:
 >>Naturally, but you could easily make the argument that insects belong
 >>in any paleo diet.

Amadeus:
 >Of course insects belonged to nearly any paleo diet,
 >except in the glaciated area.
 >Does it mean we have to eat insects?

It is certainly an argument I would entertain, especially if I were
a vegetarian like yourself.   In fact, I have some interesting insect
recipes if you are interested. ;-)

Amadeus:
 >Probably so, if we want to eat like Lucy did.
 >Some may choose not to adopt this.
 >I choose not to adopt other animals' muscles.
 >This is my deviation, I live with.

At least you are bearing your cross with some dignity.  ;-)  It is true that
in this day and age we have the rights and the possibilities to make whatever
dietary choices we want including excluding animal foods.  We can do this
for whatever reasons we please but we cannot do it and claim to be emulating
a paleo diet - at least not with a straight face. ;-)

Amadeus:
 >On the other hand,I think it's a mistake, maybe a fatal mistake to replace
 >the insects and small animal prey(whole body) with agricultural produced
 >cows muscles.

Fatal no, mistake yes.

Amadeus:
 >Not to speak of environmental and agricultural toxin accumulation.
 >Particularly because of the fat composition.
 >I think it's rather hard to get animal fat like of wild game.
 >As we've seen "grass fed" os often "grain finished"-
 >and that's where the fat is from. Appetite for whale blubber?

I find your use of paleo correct arguments and concerns to justify your
vegetarian agenda both dishonest and disingenuous and to be a convenient but
rather tasteless side stepping of the real issues.  The lack of true paleo
quality
animal foods is a poor excuse for simply eliminating them completely.
It makes absolutely no sense and reveals clearly a strong fanatical bent on
your side.
In fact, being the paleo vegetarian walking self-contradiction that you
appear to be,
I imagine it would be for you the ultimate living nightmare if you were
suddenly
surrounded by abundant supplies of animal foods of a paleo quality that
even you
could not question.  ;-)  From a paleo perspective your body needs and
craves animal
foods no matter how matter deep your denial and no matter how much you try to
obfuscate the issue.

Amadeus:
 >And also because of the habit of eating predominately muscles, which are the
 >least valued parts of animals.

So help yourself to the other parts; oops, I forget how impure
and of inferior quality those pesky animal foods can be. ;-)

Amadeus:
 >>>Grains, even cereals and dairy *have* been eaten in the paleolithicum,
 >>> to a lesser percentage.

Peter:
 >>The "just" is the whole point. The proportions and ratios are crucial
 >> - facts that you consistently are choosing to neglect.

Amadeus:
 >And what about the proportions and ratios of animal muscles in your diet and
 >the real paleo diet? Even in late paleolithicum. Much more so before.

Good point.  However, muscle meats are still paleo foods while avoiding
all animal foods per definition is not paleo.

Peter:
 >>As I might have stated earlier, I could eat a diet consisting
exclusively of
 >>blueberries, grasshoppers, walnuts and spinach and, yet, it could
 >>never be called a paleo diet.

Amadeus:
 >Or this should be called a paleo diet with much more justification
 >as when european descendants try to reproduce an inuit diet by eating
 >domesticated cow instead of whale blubber and fatty fish.

True, but the point that I was trying to make is that your diet by the
omission of animal foods in principle is no different than the two examples
above by the imbalances created.

Peter:
 >> Paleo diets come in all types and sizes but one thing they
 >>are never and that is vegetarian.

Amadeus:
 >I've no problem with your personal definition.

Of course, not.   Anybody on a paleo list can call whatever diet they
want to paleo, right? ;-)

Peter