I'm generally against counting calories, grams of this or that or calculating various ratios. I figure that if I compose meals based on nutrient density, toxin load, satiety, and of course taste, it will all take care of itself. The result has been that I have felt great all the time without any problems.
That being said, I've been reading various proponents of an ancestral diet advocate what seemed like really low protein intakes. I decided to count up the number of grams of protein that I ate yesterday and I came up with the following:
6 scrambled eggs: 42g
1 sweet potato: ~4g
2 lbs of lamb (raw weight): 160g (!)
1/4 lb lamb liver: 23g
Now, if I were taking protein supplements or something I could just cut them out and it'd be a done deal, but this is real food here. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the simultaneous advocating of both an ancestral/paleo-type diet and a low meat intake. I don't think you can logically have it both ways. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that my ancestors would have eaten 2.5lbs of animal in a day. I'm not force-feeding myself at all, I'm just eating whole food 3x a day when I get hungry.
I keep reading that fat is never toxic but there's a pretty low threshold at which protein becomes toxic. So...do people eat a stick of butter for lunch or something? Yesterday was by no means meat-heavy for me; it was right about average. How could someone have a paleo-ish diet and not eat that much meat?