On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:51:56 -0800, Wally Day <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> It would be clearer to people to represent "relative >> volume" >> in the pyramid. > >In the purest sense that may be true. However, when >you consider that the "new" pyramid is replacing the >old (FDA) pyramid, it may not be a good idea to change >the paradigm. Plus, in my experience, a lot of people >do not really deal with the concept of percentages >very well - especially when the factors involved are >not equal (calories per gram being different). In that >respect I like Bill Phillip's portion "guage" - a >portion being equivalent to a fist or a hand. I was thinking of volume in that sense = size. Supposed all your food were cut up and put in a measuring bowl. Then the result might be something like 65% meat, 25% veggies, 10% fruits/nuts etc. So if each portion is the same size (fist) then meats would be at the base in terms of greatest # of portions in the "true" paleo pyramid. Philip Thrift http://www.paleofitness.com