As far as I know it's only a small fraction of people that are 6'4" or greater, I 
wasn't really thinking of those people, just in general. Apologies to Robert 
Kesterson if his body really did shut down like that, being someone who muscle 
doesn't attach to much it's just difficult for me to imagine. 

Although muscle may be an awful lot better than fat, that doesn't make it 
natural or well-advised to have. I do doubt that your son would have reached 
that level of muscle primevally. It may be good aesthetically and far better 
than fat, I doubt it would do that much harm but I personally wouldn't want it 
as it's not my interpretation of primitive living. 

I did make a mistake by saying "they come about from eating processed 
sugars", even though they really do most of the time... yes many can be 
almost pure muscle *especially* if they're tall. 

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:25:46 -0600, Kathryn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:30:29 -0500, Padraig Hogan  
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> ... 180lbs people are not really natural phenomena,
>>> they come about from eating processed sugars.
>
>> 
>Well, my son is 6'6" tall and weighs between 220 and 230 lbs.  He eats mostly 
paleo, excercises via a variety of seasonal sports as well as cross training w/ 
his personal trainer; he has a lot of muscle.  His height runs in our Dutch 
Frisian family; I have male relatives 7' tall and women over 6'.  If you are 7' 
tall, 180 lbs. would be awfully lean.
>
>Are you saying that tall people are a result of eating processed sugars?   
We've always eaten a lot of cold water fish, high in omega 3's.  
>
>A football coach once told me that muscle weighs more than fat.  Is their 
any evidence for this??
>
>Kath