On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:58:41 -0700, Dori Zook <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>As long the topic is "paleolithic nutrition" and not "meat based >>nutrition" >>the mixture may work. > >Amadeus, this is not a personal attack, just a statement of fact. The >paleolithic diet includes meat in its very definition. Meat based? Maybe >not. Meat included? At the very least. I agree. Meat was included, yes. But not by definition - who defines this? Paleolithic means "old-stone-age" -- thats a long long timeframe. In practice early humans would have eaten anything - including meat. We know that there are times which were very low in meats (australipithecines) and very high in meats (upper northern paleolithicum). The *extent* is still disputable for most of the time. That is *not* vegetarian, but remember, I don't sell my vegetarianism. I see the paleolithicum in the light of plant eating. Like maybe a man of jewish religion who takes part in a discussion of aspects of the life of christ. Don't you think there would be things important to both? Amadeus