Whats the point of not eating meat?
Veggie
think about it the more unsure I become.
After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
they? Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
we do the same.
I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
veggy.
I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting - just
to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
there will be no adverse consequences.
Richard Head
Marketing
myo...@cdzone.co.uk
steve
> After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
> they? Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
> we do the same.
>
that just ain't right, sonny. some animals kill, some don't. whatever personal
system of beliefs you hold may say that animals were 'put' on this earth,
possibly even for humans to kill and eat. but that's not a scientific system of
beliefs.
>
> I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
> eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
> veggy.
no sir. in fact, you will be healthier by going veggie.
GypsyTryst
eat crap (like my meat-eating friends)...pizza, etc.
And my health is perfectly fine. (Well, as fine as that of my meat-eating
friends.)
As to why...
I have a philosophy of do the least harm, do the most good.
This is one way I follow that philosophy.
Do what makes sense to you.
GypsyJen
Mr Falafel
"Veggie" <myo...@cdzone.co.uk> wrote:
> I have been considering going vegetarian/vegan for some time, but the
more I
> think about it the more unsure I become.
>
weren't
> they? Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human
nature that
> we do the same.
Plants were 'put on this earth' for us to eat, too. Why do you want to
kill animals for food when we have so many other things to eat? Do you
enjoy killing animals?
>
> I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non
meat
> eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of
going
> veggy.
A healthy diet is a healthy diet. You don't need meat or dairy or eggs
to eat a healthy diet. Proven time & time again.
>
> I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting
- just
> to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances
that
> there will be no adverse consequences.
>
You will have no adverse consequences if you eat a healthy diet. You
will have many positive consequences.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
RJH
"Veggie" <myo...@cdzone.co.uk> wrote:
> I have been considering going vegetarian/vegan for some time, but the more I
> think about it the more unsure I become.
>
> After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
> they? Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
> we do the same.
>
> eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
> veggy.
>
> to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
> there will be no adverse consequences.
>
> Marketing
> myo...@cdzone.co.uk
Animals were put here to eat eh?...Adam had two boys...one killed the
other. Does that make it O.K. for me to kill you?... or vice versa.
--
---
---
---
"NO" to WTO, "NO to NATO, "NO" to NAFTA
FitWell
>think about it the more unsure I become.
Understandably and invariably, changes to core beliefs such as the
lifestyles we follow involve challenges. You have doubts and
concerns, however, or you wouldn't be addressing this issue.
>After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
>they? Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
>we do the same.
Not to get into individual spiritual and/or metaphysical beliefs,
there is the danger when we rely too much on finding answers in that
area that we forget to look at one that avoids many problems. Look to
nature (without abandoning your other beliefs, as one really has
nothing to do with the other). From a strictly physical point of
view, even from a superficial and common sense perspective, it is easy
to disprove all of the so-called 'evidence' that we must eat meat.
I won't go into more than a couple, but, did you know?...
- we, like all other vegetarian animals, do not produce uricase to
metabolize uric acid, a by-product of meat-eating. This is not true
for carnivores (true carnivores, not carnivore-wannabes like most of
the human species, do). Since we don't break it down, as uric acid
has an affinity for cartilage, it settles in the joints. Ever wonder
why arthritis is on the rise?
- we are one of the few species which does not produce its own Vitamin
C. My reading has produced the apes and guinea pigs as the only
others, so far, but there are probably a few more. All other species
seem to produce their own. Predominantly fruitarian animals have no
need to as it occurs naturally when eating their species-specific, raw
diet.
- our teeth, hands, intestines and other physical resources are not
those of a meat eater. Carnivores have short intestines in general
and produce industrial-strength hydrochloric acid in their stomach and
salivas that are quite strong. Our is a long intestine (but not as
long as the animals who need the longest ones, herbivores, the grass
eaters, etc.) We lack the teeth structure or strong jaws to crush
bones. We are also not omnivores since we lack the broad range of
those physical resources needed for that diet. Omnivores, for
example, produce many types of (7 or so?) starch-splitting enzymes to
cope with their diets. We only produce 2 if memory serves and they
are not all that strong, ptyalin and amylase.
- One day, after several weeks of reading a variety of books, I sat
down and wrote up a list of what came to memory and in about 20
minutes had in point-form a couple of pages of items like the above.
Still, I like the various metaphors that have been written up - for
example, you're walking along a path in a forest or park and you see a
chipmunk run across it. Is your first impulse to run after it,
salivating over crushing it in your mouth, bones, blood and all? Or is
your first thought of how cute it is and you'd like to hold it, etc.
(or ignore it. Maybe you're not a nature nut; but, I highly doubt
your first thought would be on what a tasty morsel it would be. Watch
how fast Minou or Spot would take off after it, though...)
An even better one is Harvey and Marilyn Diamonds': put a baby in a
crib with a rabbit and an apple. We'd all be terribly surprised if
the baby tried to seriously eat the rabbit and it just played with the
apple (teething babies, notwithstanding, and the fact that babies like
to put EVERYTHING in their mouths. They're not trying to really eat
things, though.)
There are tons and tons of these types of things that keep slamming
you against a brick wall. Whenever I see/hear accepted evidence for
the present way of living, there's no getting around nature. When
someone says, 'you *have* to eat meat for protein', how do you get
around the fact that elephants build protein from grasses/leaves (they
look pretty strong and big to me), horses from grasses (few grains in
wild), many monkeys from fruits, cows/oxen/mules also from grasses
(they're pretty big and strong themselves), some large marine life
live off seaweeds, etc., etc., etc. (Protein is built from amino
acides, not primarily from cannibalizing other protein. Also, as I
mentioned in another post, carnivorous animals need to get their
greens somehow. Notice how they don't eat other carnivores? What do
they eat? Vegetarian animals and they eat their prey **raw**. Try
eating that steak without cooking, spices, sauces and utensils next
time...!)
We just don't have the instincts to kill. Not naturally, anyway,
despite all the evidence to the contrary. What we're seeing in
today's world is precisely due to the fact that we are not living
healthfully. As many people who have converted to a non-meat
lifestyle can attest, one of the first things you notice (especially
the more raw matter you eat over cooked), is how much more serene you
become, or how much more free of pain and irritations, etc., your life
is. Life becomes more glorious, overall.
>I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
>eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
>veggy.
Many of the difficulties first-generation converts going to a more
healthy lifestyle experience is due to their systems not working
efficiently/properly. It takes time to restore organs, etc., (which
can always be done to one degree or another, esp. if organic
derangement hasn't set it). Some people do go wrong, admittedly, but
it is through lack of understanding/knowledge not in the diet itself.
Anyone who has ANY doubts whatsoever, like in all areas of life,
should research and seek out truly knowledgeable people and get help
in that way.
>I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting - just
>to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
>there will be no adverse consequences.
The best book in my view, though it does not deal with raw foodism,
per se (diet of raw fruits, veggies, nuts and seeds) is FIT FOR LIFE
by Harvey and Marilyn Diamond. It is ideal for mostly everyone. I
find it a sane approach and you just modify your eating habits, not
change them completely. And the fact that you can modify to the
degree you want is perfect, too. You can keep whatever you want in
your diet with this plan, too (or, indeed, you should anyway).
Despite the fact that I believe raw foodism is the ideal diet (it is
our biological diet), I am a serious advocate that each person should
do what they can in accordance to what their lifestyles will allow.
There are many factors involved and only each individual person knows
what challenges they face. Yes, if we all converted to this or that
diet, Utopia would be possible. However, one isn't always in the
position to do so. ANY step in a more healthy approach is positive.
And sometimes, one step at a time is what leads to success.
If you adapt the following into your life from their advice you will
see tremendous change:
- have only fruit in the morning
- try not to eat after 8 p.m. at night whenever possible (just common
sense, tool)
- and for the rest eat a large salad with your meals while keeping to
at least minimum food-combining
(- and, personally, if you have a choice between eating a food raw
over cooked, go for the raw!!!! - but that's from me)
this coupled with their advice about what currently is being advised,
that the more harmful substances you give up, etc., the more you'll
feel great - i.e., giving up smoking, exercising more, giving up
coffee, or salt of whatever - doing the above with any of the current
medical advice will result in really great rewards!!
Good luck to you in your fascinating journey!!
rasiel
want to kill animals for food when we have so many other things
to eat? Do you enjoy killing
animals?"
Why is it implicit in this sentence that it's okay to kill plants
but not animals?
Why is that one lifeform deserves a shot at life any more than
another?
Is it because plants don't scream when you cut them down? If they
did would you change your mind?
I eat my burgers plain, just cheese. By my refusing to put on
lettuce, tomato and onions I'm doing my part to save plant life
;-) Maybe I can start a movement here!
Ras
ras...@rasiel.com
http://www.rasiel.com
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Mr Falafel
rasiel <rasielN...@rasiel.com.invalid> wrote:
> "Plants were 'put on this earth' for us to eat, too. Why do you
> want to kill animals for food when we have so many other things
> to eat? Do you enjoy killing
> animals?"
>
> Why is it implicit in this sentence that it's okay to kill plants
> but not animals?
>
> Why is that one lifeform deserves a shot at life any more than
> another?
>
> Is it because plants don't scream when you cut them down? If they
> did would you change your mind?
>
> I eat my burgers plain, just cheese. By my refusing to put on
> lettuce, tomato and onions I'm doing my part to save plant life
> ;-) Maybe I can start a movement here!
>
Yo sparky, take a look at an interesting concept called 'evolution'. It
maps out how animals evolved.
Animals are sentient and have neurons (I know it's tough, but go get a
book called a 'dictionary'). Plants don't have those things.
Natural selection will weed out knuckle-draggers like you. Colon
cancer, heart disease...why it's already happening!
James Hepler
Veggie wrote:
>
> I have been considering going vegetarian/vegan for some time, but the more I
> think about it the more unsure I become.
Wow.
> After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
> they?
That's up to you to decide.
> Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
> we do the same.
We are animals. But some say that we have the ability to say no to
that. That is, the fact that animals kill animals is hardly the best
argument for eating meat.
> I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
> eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
> veggy.
I agree. What was your main reason for going veggie?
> I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting - just
> to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
> there will be no adverse consequences.
The adverse consequences come about as a result of not eating a healthy,
balanced diet. You don't need meat, but meat provides a lot of
nutrients, and a lot of veggies are not easily digested by the human
body. Going veggie is fine, but if you have the ability and the
opportunity, see a nutritionist about how best to go about it. No
reason to put your health at risk if you don't have to. That goes for
meat eaters too.
--
James Hepler
http://www.sorryaboutdresden.com
For your listening pleasure, Chapel Hill Music Online!
http://www.unc.edu/~hepler/CHMI.html
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to
prayer." -mark twain.
James Hepler
steve wrote:
> > I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
> > eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
> > veggy.
>
> no sir. in fact, you will be healthier by going veggie.
Can you explain to me how giving someone a false sense of security does
anyone any good? You don't automatically become more healthy as a
result of going veggie.
Charlotte
The way i see it, some animals have to kill to live, but we don't : it's as
simple.
Whave the possibility to evolve mentally and make decisions, lions and
tigers can't : they don't think about what's right or wrong, they act
natural.
We don't act natural, we eat with forks, we live in houses, we spray
chemicals all around the planet, we cut down trees, we have less and less
hairies :-). We are still evolving....away from nature, so why couldn't we
take a more peaceful path and eating what does not involve suffering?
Now wanna why i became a vegetarian? : to be true to yself, because i've
always loved animals, and i realized it was hypocritical to love animals and
eat them at te same time. Then i stared thinking about those kind of things
foodchain, natural behavior, etc..
--
Char+lotte
"Veggie" <myo...@cdzone.co.uk> a écrit dans le message news:
8f46a4$gt1$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> I have been considering going vegetarian/vegan for some time, but the more
I
> think about it the more unsure I become.
>
> After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
> they? Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature
that
> we do the same.
>
> I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
> eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
> veggy.
>
> I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting -
just
> to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
> there will be no adverse consequences.
>
> Richard Head
> Marketing
> myo...@cdzone.co.uk
>
>
rasiel
'evolution'. It maps out how animals evolved"
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
"Animals are sentient and have neurons (I know it's tough, but go
get a book called a 'dictionary'). Plants don't have those
things"
Oh. Wow. What a fucking compelling argument this is. So,
according to you, plants don't feel so it's okay to chop them up.
Well perhaps you didn't know this but there are plants, several
of them, that have receptors if not for pain then at least
external stimuli. I remember one type of grass that has what look
like miniature palm fronds that when you touch them they close
up. why do you think they do that? what evolutionary purpose do
you think this serves that plant?
and who cares if plants can't feel? are you saying it's ok to eat
animals who were anesthetized prior to being killed? this may
come as a shock but plpants have a vested interest in continuing
to live and would rather NOT you or any other animal eat them.
should i provide some proof to back this statement (please say
yes!).
"Natural selection will weed out knuckle-draggers like you. Colon
cancer, heart disease...why it's already happening!"
somehow i doubt you'd have the nuts to say stuff like this in
person. but it's a lot easier to take a stab at me when you hide
behind fake email names using mom's pc, isn't it?
steve
become healthy by paying attention to your diet. if you are veggie and watch your
diet, you WILL enjoy far greater health than if you eat meat and watch your diet.
many doctors will argue that the practice of 'watching your diet' to achieve
greater health automatically excludes the consumption of meat.
>
> Can you explain to me how giving someone a false sense of security does
> anyone any good? You don't automatically become more healthy as a
> result of going veggie.
>
steve
> Can you explain to me how giving someone a false sense of security does
> anyone any good?
>
also i think you overreacted a bit there.
steve
Laurie
news:8f46a4$gt1$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> I have been considering going vegetarian/vegan for some time, but the
> more I think about it the more unsure I become.
> After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
> they?
earth"; are you assuming that everything is for us to eat? How about rocks,
bacteria, viruses, insects, molds, fungi, poisonous plants, poisonous
animals, trees, ...
The question that needs to be answered is what was the natural human
diet BEFORE tools and fire.
I certainly commend you for thinking about a veg diet, BUT did you ever
"think" about the diet you were programmed to eat as an ignorant,
defenseless child, without your consent, by ignorant parents and the huge
advertising budgets of the cowboy and junk-food industries. No!
So, if you want to learn about human diet, do think about the local
cultural diet as well. You will find no scientific evidence that suggests
the human is a natural carnivore! And you will find mountains of evidence
that supports the reality that most degenerative diseases are caused by
animal flesh/product eating.
> Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
> we do the same.
Severe non-sequitur: you are ASSuming that ALL animals 'kill for food',
and thus the human (being an animal) must/should do the same, and that is
simply not true.
A very small percentage of the animal species on this planet are natural
carnivores, and if you were to look at the physiology and biochemistry of
same, you would discover that they all run down their prey, kill it and tear
it apart with their natural physical equipment, and eat it in raw chunks.
Like it or not, you will have to start learning physiology and biochemistry
to get to the facts, as fuzzy-wuzzy 'ethical' or 'spiritual' arguments will
get you only more confused.
So, if you really want to be a carnivore, why don't you do it as ALL the
natural carnivores do? Of all the meat-heads I have met in the past 30
years who tenaciously believe that they are a natural carnivore, NONE of
them have the courage of their convictions to do it the same way as ALL the
natural carnivores do. Why?? Understanding this is imperative.
> I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting ...
No one can convince you of anything, you will have to do your own
homework. But if you would like some facts to help you clarify your
thinking and discover some of the more widely held errors in various dietary
dogmas, then see my articles at the link in the sigfile below.
> I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
> there will be no adverse consequences.
If you were to search PubMed,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=PubMed
you would soon discover that all the major 'degenerative diseases' are
closely associated with consumption of animal flesh/products. Would not
carnivores' cancers, heart attacks, strokes, and osteoporosis be considered
adverse consequences?
Don't assume there is only one 'veg*n' diet; there are many, and most
are horrible from a nutritional point of view. Most are centered on cooked
grains/beans, and as such provide far too much cooked protein and starch for
a healthy diet, long-term. Cooking alters the molecular structures of
nutrients, severely diminishing their digestibility, and is just a bad idea
as flesh-eating -- which only cooking makes possible for the human.
Find out what the rest of the apes eat, and that would be a far better
diet than the cooked-glop veggie diet books tout.
As you clean up your diet, sometimes spectacularly severe cleansing
reactions (discharge of mucus and stored toxins) occur, and these should not
be confused with an "adverse consequence". It is necessary to understand
these and know how to control them, such that you can continue with your
planet-side trip. You won't find this info in pop-veggie cook books.
Laurie
_____
Get my diet articles free: | Bust SPAMMERS!
http://www.ecologos.org/articles.htm | http://spamcop.net/
Newsgroups: delete "X" for legit e-mail. |
Laurie
meat-eating humans
as "knuckle-draggers", beyond the insult, this shows the ignorance of the
poster because the only "knuckle-draggers" are veg*n apes.
> Colon cancer, heart disease...why it's already happening!"
More ignorance; in order for natural selection to work and change the
composition of genes in the gene pool, individuals with 'weak genes' must
die BEFORE they reproduce.
Since a bad human diet, no matter how bad, does not kill its enthusiasts
BEFORE they reproduce, there is no such possibility as 'adapting' to a
non-natural diet.
Thus, the silly concept that because fire-pits and charred bones exist
in the fossil record humans 'adapted' to flesh-eating is simply nonsense.
The fact that humans have not 'adapted' to flesh-eating is experienced
in the immediate gain in level of health and energy by any human that stops
eating same.
--
James Hepler
steve wrote:
>
> eating meat or 'being veggie' does not make someone healthy, that's true. you
> become healthy by paying attention to your diet. if you are veggie and watch your
> diet, you WILL enjoy far greater health than if you eat meat and watch your diet.
In order to maintain even a shred of credibility with a statement like
that, you need to either A) present us with your medical credentials and
forward to us any relevant studies you performed on the subject, or B)
point us to other people's studies which conclude the same.
Nothing resembling what you just said has ever been proven as far as I
know. Not only does it lack logic, it reflects a very popular trend
among newsgroup posters to post their beliefs as facts. If it is a
belief, designate it as such, please. If it is a fact, back it up.
> many doctors will argue that the practice of 'watching your diet' to achieve
> greater health automatically excludes the consumption of meat.
Name some. You aren't qualified to make this statement unless you
actually SPOKE to many doctors and they all told you, which of course
you will have to document.
steve
> In order to maintain even a shred of credibility with a statement like
> that, you need to either A) present us with your medical credentials and
> forward to us any relevant studies you performed on the subject, or B)
> point us to other people's studies which conclude the same.
>
i don't have to do shit. i'm vegan, i watch what i eat, i'm healthier than most people
i know.
> Name some. You aren't qualified to make this statement unless you
> actually SPOKE to many doctors and they all told you, which of course
> you will have to document.
i'm not in court, here, asshole. i don't have to present any research. i know it's
available. if you want to go look it up, be my guest. i've read conclusions of plenty
of studies.
James Hepler
So you can't explain it to me? By telling someone that they will
instantly be more healthy by removing meat from their diet, you are
giving them the impression that it is that simple. People need to make
informed choices. Judging by some of the posts I have seen in this
thread and a few others, you seem to treat the vegetarian issue like
some kind of contest, by which the team with the most players wins. It
isn't a contest. It is a lifestyle choice. You can't be right or wrong
because of it.
steve
information that has been posted here before. the readers of alt.food.vegan have seen
it enough times. i really don't care about the availability of information on the other
ng's that this has been cross posted to. i also don't care about what you know to be
true, what research you have seen, etc. i have something more valuable than
scientifically conducted research- my own personal experience. this i will continue to
share with other readers. if they want to know if it's healthy to be vegetarian, the
answer is yes- i can be far healthier than non-veg diets. that is plain and simple
fact. you could not have possibly seen any research w/in the last 10 years stating the
opposite, unless the vegetarian is eating grass clippings and watching tv all day, and
the carnivore is working out daily. (those are external factors that would
theoretically have no place in a scientifically conducted test, though that doesn't
mean they wouldn't be there anway. i've participated in university-conducted
experiments. they're often run by students under the guidance of professors, and
university students just aint the most responsible people)
don't go around ng's demanding that people back up every statement they make with
'scientific' facts. you can't prove the validity of any test unless you watched it
yourself. but your behavior is just plain rude. you didn't back anything up that you
said, anyway, so fuck you.
David N. Harrison
>I have been considering going vegetarian/vegan for some time, but the more I
>think about it the more unsure I become.
Good! Keep thinking...it is when you become unwilling to continue
thinking open mindedly, that you will seek refuge in some supposedly
simple solution, like becoming a veg*n, imo.
>After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
>they?
We don't really know that, do we? The Bible tells us that it's ok to
eat meat, if that means anything to you personally (some examples are:
Genesis 9
Deuteronomy 12:15
Deuteronomy 14:4
Mark 7:18
Acts 10:9
Romans 14 --this last one is my favorite :-), but we really can't "know"
what the truth behind our existence is yet, can we?
> Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
>we do the same.
Surely humans have as much "right" to kill other animals, as any of
those other animals have to do the same. One thing that makes humans
different in our killing is that we provide life for the animals which we kill.
Animals don't exist before they are born, or after they are killed. Veg*ns
encourage the same thing for future meat animals, that those animals
would experience after being killed: non-existence. Of course meat
consumers encourage that also, but they encourage something else
which veg*ns do not: the animals' lives. Meat is life.
>I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
>eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
>veggy.
>
>I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting - just
>to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
>there will be no adverse consequences.
Why go out of your way to intentionally become such an extremist? Why
limit your diet in such a way? If you just cut down on the amount of meat
that you eat--even if you eat veggie meals more often than not--you will be
benefiting from that approach, and still leave yourself the flexibility to enjoy
meat when you want to, and encourage life for meat animals which you
feel have decent lives.
You are a human, and have the ability to think open mindedly. Enjoy that
ability, instead of trying to restrict your thinking as some/many people would
encourage you to do. The topic of raising animals for food contains many
complex issues. To say that the whole thing is "bad" is obviously just a
method some people have of trying to oversimplify many complex situations.
It is a method of restricting what people allow themselves to think about imo.
By putting such restrictions on what we allow ourselves to think about, we
surely would develop a growing inaccurate interpretation of the way things
really are...which would strengthen our confidence in the correctness of our
original beliefs, which caused us to choose that path in the first place...
Please think very hard, as open mindedly as possible, about what you are
considering doing to yourself.
steve
> So you can't explain it to me? By telling someone that they will
> instantly be more healthy by removing meat from their diet, you are
> giving them the impression that it is that simple. People need to make
> informed choices. Judging by some of the posts I have seen in this
> thread and a few others, you seem to treat the vegetarian issue like
> some kind of contest, by which the team with the most players wins. It
> isn't a contest. It is a lifestyle choice. You can't be right or wrong
> because of it.
1) i'm giving the reader the benefit of the doubt, and assuming he is an
intelligent person. you are assuming he is a dumbass who needs me to give him
step by step instructions on how to live their life. i don't feel that is
necessary.
2) i would say that you treat this as a contest, not me, by demanding
'scientific proof'. presumably, whomever has the most of that wins. i won't
participate in that, since you can pretty much find 'proof' to back up
anything.
Victor
I have been a committed Vegetarian for 15 years, in all that time I have
never
suffered any adverse effects from my diet, on the contrary, I noticed I have
a
great deal more vitality than in my meat eating days.
Best wishes
Victor
(The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They
were not made for humans any more than black people were
made for whites or women for men)
Veggie <myo...@cdzone.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8f46a4$gt1$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> I have been considering going vegetarian/vegan for some time, but the more
I
> think about it the more unsure I become.
>
> After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
> they? Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature
that
> we do the same.
>
> I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
> eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
> veggy.
>
> I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting -
just
> to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
> there will be no adverse consequences.
>
> Richard Head
> Marketing
> myo...@cdzone.co.uk
>
>
MLM
>
> Hello!
>
> The way i see it, some animals have to kill to live, but we don't : it's as
> simple.
In your mind maybe but out in the real world humans do have to
kill to live (including you).
[...]
MLM
[...]
> don't go around ng's demanding that people back up every statement they make with
> 'scientific' facts.
Don't go around making unsupported wild-ass and inaccurate
assertions.
[...]
rasiel
experienced in the immediate gain in level of health and energy
by any human that
stops eating same."
laurie i think you got me wrong. i was responding to the original
poster and had to manually quote his thinly-veiled flame. anyway,
the only thing i can nit-pick with you is the above quote.
which it just isn't so in my experience. for example, my wife
wanted to lose weight so i told her the only thing that'll TRULY
work short of eating less and exercising is to eat a 100% leafy
green diet (of which i suggested she could eat as much and as
often as she wanted).
what do you think happened? no, her health didn't magically spark
up. sorry. she felt mildly sick the whole time and completely
unfulfilled culinarily speaking. she found out that while she
*was* losing weight she couldn't handle seeing me across the
table wolfing down those new yummy buffalo burgers and haagen
dazs. so two weeks later she joined up weight watchers instead.
this incident is just the first one that comes to mind. i've
known other vegetarians (with different degrees of strictness)
who have been anywhere from real healthy to being rather sickly
looking. i remember one friend of mine in college who was a
vegetarian who was real skinny and always looked anemic. he was
also real lazy. great guy otherwise. now, i could infer from that
one example that a vegetarian diet is harmful to you but i know
that it's because he didn't take good nutriotional care.
it's also probably true that if you don't give a crap about your
diet you're better off being a non-vegetarian. i eat junk food
pretty much all the time and consider myself to be healthy in
that i have never suffered a serious illness in my lifetime
(though i could afford to lose a couple of pounds!)
James Hepler
steve wrote:
>
> i don't need to spend my time flipping through old posts looking for links to
> information that has been posted here before.
First of all, I don't even know what you are specifically responding
to. Second, this tired excuse does nothing but illustrate the fact that
you aren't serious about this debate. If you were, you would back your
claims up with something substantial.
> the readers of alt.food.vegan have seen
> it enough times.
Bullshit. If they care, they CAN'T see it enough times. IF you care,
you would have the shit SAVED on your DESKTOP for when outsiders like
myself want to learn. But you don't want to teach. You want to
COMPETE. Well, I'm good at that too.
> i really don't care about the availability of information on the other
> ng's that this has been cross posted to.
Why not? Because it doesn't result in the comforting mass back
patting? Are you only concerned with preaching to the saved? What a
lame attempt at an excuse for your LAZINESS.
> i also don't care about what you know to be
> true, what research you have seen, etc.
That's what takes this out of the realm of DEBATE and into the realm of
RELIGION. The willingness to toss aside arguments to the contrary in
favor of BLIND FAITH, RHETORIC, and PROPAGANDA. You are a poseur.
> i have something more valuable than
> scientifically conducted research- my own personal experience.
Your arrogance is duly noted. Shall I infer from this statement that
you are under the impression that what you experience is what EVERYONE
experiences? That you are some kind of cosmic trendsetter?
> this i will continue to
> share with other readers.
You didn't share any personal experience in your last post. You made
assertions that you now refuse to support. Based on that, and the fact
that you snipped it all, which indicates that you KNOW you are LYING,
your personal experience is nothing other than: "lying is OK".
> if they want to know if it's healthy to be vegetarian, the
> answer is yes- i can be far healthier than non-veg diets.
This much is true. But will you grow a pair and admit that one can eat
meat and be more healthy than a vegetarian?
> that is plain and simple
> fact.
This is true, as I stated already.
> you could not have possibly seen any research w/in the last 10 years stating the
> opposite, unless the vegetarian is eating grass clippings and watching tv all day, and
> the carnivore is working out daily.
Exercise notwithstanding, one can eat meat and be more healthy than a
vegetarian. THE KEY IS NUTRITION. You can attempt to oversimplify the
issue, but you can not dispute the fact that a healthy diet is
INFINITELY MORE IMPORTANT than whether or not it contains meat.
> (those are external factors that would
> theoretically have no place in a scientifically conducted test, though that doesn't
> mean they wouldn't be there anway. i've participated in university-conducted
> experiments.
Show me where I can find the results. Otherwise, you might as well be
claiming that you flew to the moon and back.
> they're often run by students under the guidance of professors, and
> university students just aint the most responsible people)
Neither are people who can't back up their assertions.
> don't go around ng's demanding that people back up every statement they make with
> 'scientific' facts.
I don't. I only demand that they back up their ASSERTIONS with
evidence. If you wish to state an opinion, you are free to do so. But
don't pass off rhetoric as fact. That gets us nowhere. What we end up
with is two bickering children saying, "Is too." "Is not." "Is too."
"Is not."
But then for you, that is enough, right? For you, it is a pissing
contest. If you aren't interested in debate, just say so, and I will
leave you to make your IDIOTIC CLAIMS. Otherwise, grow the fuck up and
debate like an adult.
> you can't prove the validity of any test unless you watched it
> yourself.
What? Is this a thinly veiled attempt to question the integrity of
scientists in general? IS this an early attempt for you to discredit
sources I haven't even posted yet?
> but your behavior is just plain rude. you didn't back anything up that you
> said, anyway, so fuck you.
What I said is backed up by common sense. I haven't said anything
questionable. But here, chew on this:
M Kestin, IL Rouse, RA Correll, and PJ Nestel
Cardiovascular disease risk factors in free-living men: comparison
of two prudent diets, one based on lactoovovegetarianism and the other
allowing lean meat
Am J Clin Nutr 1989 50: 280-287.
FM Sacks and EH Kass
Low blood pressure in vegetarians: effects of specific foods and
nutrients
Am J Clin Nutr 1988 48: 795-800.
All I have to prove is that including meat in one's diet is AS HEALTHY
AS excluding meat from one's diet, AS LONG AS both diets are balanced
and healthy. It should stand to reason that a balanced meat eating diet
is MORE HEALTHY than an unbalanced vegetarian diet. But for some reason
you want me to prove it. Unfortunately, it is hard to find any studies
to prove my point, due to the fact that it is so INTUITIVE. So give me
more time to find stuff. In the meantime, enjoy reading the articles I
have provided.
Stuart Dunn
>
> I have been considering going vegetarian/vegan for some time, but the more I
> think about it the more unsure I become.
>
> After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
> they?
Universe was created spontaneously by the Big Bang. All life on Earth
originated from a common anscestor over 4 billion years ago. More
recently, the evolutionary paths of Monerans (bacteria) diverged from
all other life, then the anscestors of Protists and Archeans became
seperated, and then Protista gave rise to three other Eukaryote kingdoms
of life: animals, plants, and fungi. Of all the inhabitants of the four
Eukaryote kingdoms, only animals other than sponges have a nervous
system, and it should be obvious that mammals, birds, and quite possibly
other animals have wills of their own. Any animal that has a will of its
own has a right to life, and eating meat violates that right.
Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
> we do the same.
predators, our mouths would water whenever we had the oppurtunity to
handle raw meat. If we were naturally carnivorous, we would be able to
kill without remorse. If we're naturally carnivorous, then why were so
many people shocked a few weeks ago when an innocent dog was thrown out
into the middle of traffic and killed?
>
> I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
> eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
> veggy.
>
> I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting - just
> to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
> there will be no adverse consequences.
Stuart Dunn
>
> > "Natural selection will weed out knuckle-draggers like you.
> Although impolitely referring to ignorant, culturally-programmed
> meat-eating humans
> as "knuckle-draggers", beyond the insult, this shows the ignorance of the
> poster because the only "knuckle-draggers" are veg*n apes.
>
> > Colon cancer, heart disease...why it's already happening!"
> More ignorance; in order for natural selection to work and change the
> composition of genes in the gene pool, individuals with 'weak genes' must
> die BEFORE they reproduce.
> Since a bad human diet, no matter how bad, does not kill its enthusiasts
> BEFORE they reproduce, there is no such possibility as 'adapting' to a
> non-natural diet.
> Thus, the silly concept that because fire-pits and charred bones exist
> in the fossil record humans 'adapted' to flesh-eating is simply nonsense.
> in the immediate gain in level of health and energy by any human that stops
> eating same.
forms of malnutrition do, we would have adapted to meat eating long ago.
Thanks for posting that. That's a great argument to use whenever someone
argues that we are genetically adapted to eating a mixture of meat and
plants.
steve
posted them. i'm not doing it for you.
lilweed
*
*
Highly interesting material.
http://lettersfromandromeda.com/dsg1/chapter1.html
Living Thought Forms... etc
http://www.trufax.org/w9.html
Leading Edge International Research Group
http://www.trufax.org/w1.html
*
ResNovae
that's bad news. So's cross posting in general. If you seriously want to
discuss this, you should try each group individually.
Veggie wrote:
>
> I have been considering going vegetarian/vegan for some time, but the more I
> think about it the more unsure I become.
>
> After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat, weren't
> they? Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
> we do the same.
>
> I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
> eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
> veggy.
>
> I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting - just
> to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
> there will be no adverse consequences.
>
> Richard Head
> Marketing
> myo...@cdzone.co.uk
Cool Mutt
James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>
> steve wrote:
> >
> > eating meat or 'being veggie' does not make someone healthy, that's
true. you
> > become healthy by paying attention to your diet. if you are veggie
and watch your
> > diet, you WILL enjoy far greater health than if you eat meat and
watch your diet.
>
> that, you need to either A) present us with your medical credentials
and
> forward to us any relevant studies you performed on the subject, or B)
> point us to other people's studies which conclude the same.
>
> know. Not only does it lack logic, it reflects a very popular trend
> among newsgroup posters to post their beliefs as facts. If it is a
> belief, designate it as such, please. If it is a fact, back it up.
>
> > many doctors will argue that the practice of 'watching your diet'
to achieve
> > greater health automatically excludes the consumption of meat.
>
> actually SPOKE to many doctors and they all told you, which of course
> you will have to document.
>
> James Hepler
>
> http://www.sorryaboutdresden.com
>
> For your listening pleasure, Chapel Hill Music Online!
>
> http://www.unc.edu/~hepler/CHMI.html
>
> "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even
to
> prayer." -mark twain.
>
Some animals happen to be herbivores (hippo or rabbit) and others are
carnivores (dog or cat). Then some eat both veggies which is called an
omnivore (bear). It is really your own personal preference. When I
switched I did it one animal at a time. What does this mean? I cut
out beef first but still ate chicken or fish. Then gradually cut out
all meat from my diet. It was easier for me and gave me a chance to
learn new vegetarian recipes. You really need to be creative in what
you are going to cook. If you don't feel you can cut meat out all
together you could also eat less steak and more salads. Vegetarian
diet is not for everyone. You must beable to overcome all the
criticism and comments people will make. You can eat meat and still be
healthy and fit. I wouldn't say that a vegetarian diet will make you
more healthier. I have seen some vegetarian friends eat the wrong
foods and gain weight as a result. I also run 5 miles and take
vitamins each day. I do not criticize someone for eating meat and I
expect the same because I choose not to.
--
Dogs love you no matter what!
Remember there aren't enough homes for them all so
please spay and neuter your pets.
--
Dogs love you no matter what!
Remember there aren't enough homes for them all so
please spay and neuter your pets.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mr Falafel
Sorry 'bout that Laurie but you're absolutely right! I was just trying
to deal with a suspected troll with a bit 'o levity...
Mr Falafel
rasiel <rasielN...@rasiel.com.invalid> wrote:
> "Yo sparky, take a look at an interesting concept called
> 'evolution'. It maps out how animals evolved"
>
> What the hell does this have to do with anything?
>
> "Animals are sentient and have neurons (I know it's tough, but go
> get a book called a 'dictionary'). Plants don't have those
> things"
>
> Oh. Wow. What a fucking compelling argument this is. So,
> according to you, plants don't feel so it's okay to chop them up.
> Well perhaps you didn't know this but there are plants, several
> of them, that have receptors if not for pain then at least
> external stimuli. I remember one type of grass that has what look
> like miniature palm fronds that when you touch them they close
> up. why do you think they do that? what evolutionary purpose do
> you think this serves that plant?
>
> and who cares if plants can't feel? are you saying it's ok to eat
> animals who were anesthetized prior to being killed? this may
> come as a shock but plpants have a vested interest in continuing
> to live and would rather NOT you or any other animal eat them.
> should i provide some proof to back this statement (please say
> yes!).
>
> cancer, heart disease...why it's already happening!"
>
> person. but it's a lot easier to take a stab at me when you hide
> behind fake email names using mom's pc, isn't it?
>
The only reason you are here is to envoke an argument. You have no
interest in veganism or vegetarian ideals. You just want to rile people
up.
Veggies are easy targets because you can't be blamed for being a racist
or anti-religious (like if you were attacking the catholics for their
beliefs or another race because of their cultural differences.
All of the bullshit reasoning you have for eating meat has been shot
down time and time again in this and other newsgroups. It's posted on
many FAQs and websites. But you aren't interested in actually doing
research, you just want to come over here and make fun of ethically
minded people.
So you say that my entire ethical belief system is wrong because I kill
plants. Since I kill plants I should kill animals as well. I mean
really, is this the best you can do?
Don't you have anything better to do with your time? Help the homeless?
get a job? Clean your room?
BIG 1
James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> has been wrote and re wrote
but don't worry - U'r mum loves U
BTW why don't U take the personality tests at
http://keirsey.com/cgi-bin/keirsey/newkts.cgi
and
http://pigment.lcs.mit.edu:8080/~becca/enneagram/
I'm sure folk would be interested to see the results ;¬)
FitWell
>poster and had to manually quote his thinly-veiled flame. anyway,
>the only thing i can nit-pick with you is the above quote.
>which it just isn't so in my experience. for example, my wife
>wanted to lose weight so i told her the only thing that'll TRULY
>work short of eating less and exercising is to eat a 100% leafy
>green diet (of which i suggested she could eat as much and as
>often as she wanted).
>
>what do you think happened? no, her health didn't magically spark
>up. sorry. she felt mildly sick the whole time and completely
>unfulfilled culinarily speaking. she found out that while she
>*was* losing weight she couldn't handle seeing me across the
>table wolfing down those new yummy buffalo burgers and haagen
>dazs. so two weeks later she joined up weight watchers instead.
What you are describing is the very real process of de-toxification.
Unfortunately, as with everything like this, it takes time to learn
how to adapt to your body's own de-toxifying process. I, for example,
after many years, though, can go hours and hours without food without
suffering any of the usual expected consequences (headaches, nausea,
etc., etc.). If you truly wish to lose weight and keep it off, the
only SURE way is to properly adapt to a raw vegetarian diet (raw
fruits, nuts and seeds). Is it that simple? Yes, it is. It's also
that complicated.
Our species-specific diet is so old and disregarded that it's brand
new. And we humans are mammals, so we rely considerably less on
instinct than we do on learning from the people who raise us and from
those people or other we are exposed to (education, even TV, etc).
Unfortunately, as Copernicus and others throughout history have found,
just because a belief is universally held, does not mean it is true.
That we can survive a cooked, omnivorous diet attests to the force of
life to keep living; this is why we are still around today, so far,
despite all of our practices. Anyone who has experienced illness and
has recovered by following a more natural, wholesome and deliciously
satisfying species-specific diet understands that nature and our
bodies are going ALWAYS going 110% towards health if I can describe it
that way. If we are experiencing less than 100% health is due by what
we are doing to interfere with life's processes, not from a lack for
the body to always be at optimum levels.
It is humbling to remember that 2 cells at the beginning contain all
the knowledge of the universe to divide and grow and be born and then
to develop into a full-grown human being or other in perfect working
order (if the proper conditions of life are met - i.e., 'pure' air,
'pure' water, food of our biological nature, and a list of other
things...). That knowledge in each and every is never lost. When we
don't interfere with nature's way, there is health and there is no
disease (notwithstanding what you see in the first generation group
that adopts a raw diet; the changes are seen immediately yes, but
organic derangements are not always corrected if they are already set.
The successive generations are the ones that will see the results.
Raw fooders see this in their children, by and large and generalizing
- again, we are all having to re-learn what has been lost over the
last several centuries in order for us to survive ice ages, etc. But
that's another story...).
There are two ways we are poisoned (that we come in contact with toxic
substances):
- exogenously, and
- endogenously
When Pasteur sought the cure for disease, he was searching for
something to replace the invasion by evil spirits that *everyone* of
his age believed. He looked to the outside because that is what
appears to be happening when there is disease present. When he looked
for a 'cause' of disease he found bacteria, etc.
Bacteria and germs are not the cause of disease, just as flies and
other insects are not the cause of a problem of infestation at a
picnic, or whatever. Remove the food source (the tons of food lying
around) and you get rid of the pests. Same with bacteria/germs, etc.
Or,
you can do what we do in modern times. Get out the bug spray and
zap!! However, once the spray wears off, if you haven't gotten rid of
the food, they'll be back...
Exogenous toxins are blamed for many health problems, and indeed they
can be of a very serious and oftentimes deadly nature (radiation,
etc.). But the danger to a greater # of us in the long run are the
endogenous ones, more dangerous because they are a constant. What we
put on our plates 3 times a day means a constant bombardment to which
the body fights valiantly. Like any such siege, however, the body
loses ground over time. Is old age as we see it today normal and
natural? No, it is not. What we see is degeneration and not aging.
I know the flames will fly. That's okay by me. There is a ton of
material out there that proves this. Ignored articles within the
medical and dental literature itself have challenged long-held
beliefs.
Herbert M. Shelton once said he'd never get rich by helping people get
back to a healther lifestyle because everyone that came to him he
fasted and they got better and didn't come back (he apparently helped
Gandhi fast).
However, to reiterate what I've said in posts before: What we each
choose to eat or not eat is based on our own choices. Although it is
best to know what is our species-specific diet is and despite what
I've just said, each of us must do the best we can under our own very
personal circumstances and not to feel guilty. EVERY step towards a
healthier lifestyle mean a step closer to optimum health.
>this incident is just the first one that comes to mind. i've
>known other vegetarians (with different degrees of strictness)
>who have been anywhere from real healthy to being rather sickly
>looking. i remember one friend of mine in college who was a
>vegetarian who was real skinny and always looked anemic. he was
>also real lazy. great guy otherwise. now, i could infer from that
>one example that a vegetarian diet is harmful to you but i know
>that it's because he didn't take good nutriotional care.
Yes, as I said in a post yesterday, it is lack of knowledge when a
lifestyle change appears not to be working, not always a fault of the
lifestyle itself. There is no doubt that one can run into
difficulties in ANY lifestyle one chooses if one doesn't learn how to
follow it correctly.
>it's also probably true that if you don't give a crap about your
>diet you're better off being a non-vegetarian. i eat junk food
>pretty much all the time and consider myself to be healthy in
>that i have never suffered a serious illness in my lifetime
>(though i could afford to lose a couple of pounds!)
Going into the above statement would be lengthy. What we perceive as
a certain level of health is not truly indicative of health and
well-being, but I am glad, though, for you that you are doing well.
Cheers and good luck!!
Swamp
Apologies in advance if I screwed it up.
"Stuart Dunn" <dun...@erols.com> wrote in message news:391862...@erols.com...
> No. The world was never created. The Earth and everything else in the
> Universe was created spontaneously by the Big Bang.
You might not want to word that so precariously.
-snip-
> Of all the inhabitants of the four
> Eukaryote kingdoms, only animals other than sponges have a nervous
> system, and it should be obvious that mammals, birds, and quite possibly
> other animals have wills of their own.
False equation. Thats an "all dogs are poodles" argument.
> Any animal that has a will of its
> own has a right to life, and eating meat violates that right.
Wills, at various levels on a broad spectrum, are compromised daily.
What makes a 'will' so special that it becomes a qualification of rights?
> > Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
> > we do the same.
> We don't kill and eat animals instinctively. If we were natural born
> predators, our mouths would water whenever we had the oppurtunity to
> handle raw meat.
Ummm, my hand is raised (anyone else?)
> If we were naturally carnivorous, we would be able to
> kill without remorse.
We are naturally omnivorous. FWIW, I think we've been killing
animals for food with-and-without remorse for a couple of years
now, at least.
> If we're naturally carnivorous, then why were so
> many people shocked a few weeks ago when an innocent dog was thrown out
> into the middle of traffic and killed?
Maybe because it had nothing to do with eating.
> > I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
> > eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
> > veggy.
> > I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting - just
> > to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
> > there will be no adverse consequences.
> Go for it!
Indeed, you are free to choose your own diet, just like any other healthy adult.
--
ゥSwampゥ
MLM
[...]
> Unfortunately, as Copernicus and others throughout history have found,
> just because a belief is universally held, does not mean it is true.
It also does not mean it is false.
[...]
> I know the flames will fly. That's okay by me. There is a ton of
> material out there that proves this.
And I expect you will produce none.
[...]
Swamp
poor formatting of previous message.
"Stuart Dunn" <dun...@erols.com> wrote in message news:391863...@erols.com...
> Laurie wrote:
-snip-
> > > Colon cancer, heart disease...why it's already happening!"
> > More ignorance; in order for natural selection to work and change the
> > composition of genes in the gene pool, individuals with 'weak genes' must
> > die BEFORE they reproduce.
Actually, with species that have slowly maturing children, the parent
needs to live for quite awhile after reproducing. The longer the parent
can live, the better chance the progeny have of living. 'Weak genes'
could be weeded out by proxy.
> > Since a bad human diet, no matter how bad, does not kill its enthusiasts
> > BEFORE they reproduce, there is no such possibility as 'adapting' to a
> > non-natural diet.
To repeat, the longer a care-taking adult human survives, the better the
chances that the children can survive to reproduce.
> > Thus, the silly concept that because fire-pits and charred bones exist
> > in the fossil record humans 'adapted' to flesh-eating is simply nonsense.
Actually, the more learned anthopologists are now claiming that the flesh-eating
adapted us (allowed for bigger brains and such), not that we adapted to it.
> > The fact that humans have not 'adapted' to flesh-eating is experienced
> > in the immediate gain in level of health and energy by any human that stops
> > eating same.
Your opinion. Here's mine, most people will show an even better
improvement if they were to follow a healthily *balanced* diet,
low in fat and processed foods, and drinking lots of water.
> That's a good point. If atherosclerosis killed people as fast as other
> forms of malnutrition do, we would have adapted to meat eating long ago.
> Thanks for posting that. That's a great argument to use whenever someone
> argues that we are genetically adapted to eating a mixture of meat and
> plants.
Nah, looks like smoke to me.
--
ゥSwampゥ
James Hepler
Cool Mutt wrote:
> Some animals happen to be herbivores (hippo or rabbit) and others are
> carnivores (dog or cat). Then some eat both veggies which is called an
> omnivore (bear). It is really your own personal preference.
Entirely.
> When I
> switched I did it one animal at a time. What does this mean? I cut
> out beef first but still ate chicken or fish. Then gradually cut out
> all meat from my diet. It was easier for me and gave me a chance to
> learn new vegetarian recipes. You really need to be creative in what
> you are going to cook. If you don't feel you can cut meat out all
> together you could also eat less steak and more salads. Vegetarian
> diet is not for everyone. You must beable to overcome all the
> criticism and comments people will make.
Do you really get criticized? Sheesh! It is just wrong to criticize a
person's personal choices.
> You can eat meat and still be
> healthy and fit. I wouldn't say that a vegetarian diet will make you
> more healthier. I have seen some vegetarian friends eat the wrong
> foods and gain weight as a result. I also run 5 miles and take
> vitamins each day. I do not criticize someone for eating meat and I
> expect the same because I choose not to.
Amen. You have nothing but my admiration. Keep up the good work.
James Hepler
RJH wrote:
> Animals were put here to eat eh?...Adam had two boys...one killed the
> other. Does that make it O.K. for me to kill you?... or vice versa.
That's a pretty bad non sequitur, isn't it? One can reasonably
interpret the bible to mean that we have dominion over the animals (I'm
not religious, so I don't argue that point). But how do you derive from
that interpretation that the bible or anybody who reads it might think
that because Cain killed Abel, murder is OK? Cain was banished from
"settled society" for killing Abel, which indicates to me that the bible
is saying it is NOT OK.
Can you help me figure out what you are talking about?
David N. Harrison
[...]
>So you say that my entire ethical belief system is wrong because I kill
>plants. Since I kill plants I should kill animals as well. I mean
>really, is this the best you can do?
We all participate in killing animals. Growing and harvesting plants
kills animals. Using paper kills animals. Roads and all types of
construction kill animals. Mining kills animals... And we all contribute
to it in a number of ways. Really, by being a veg*n what you are
doing is keeping animals from living. That isn't anything to strive for
imo, and certainly not ethically superior. Encouraging better lives for
animals would be ethically superior imo, not encouraging their
extinction.
Laurie
news:0ce22531...@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com...
>> "The fact that humans have not 'adapted' to flesh-eating is
>> experienced in the immediate gain in level of health and energy
>> by any human that stops eating same."
>
> poster and had to manually quote his thinly-veiled flame.
to know who one is 'talking' to, so I generally ignore people, and just try
to refute erroneous statements, or present some lesser know facts.
> the only thing i can nit-pick with you is the above quote.
> which it just isn't so in my experience. for example, my wife
> wanted to lose weight so i told her the only thing that'll TRULY
> work short of eating less and exercising is to eat a 100% leafy
> green diet (of which i suggested she could eat as much and as
> often as she wanted).
> what do you think happened? no, her health didn't magically spark
> up. sorry. she felt mildly sick the whole time...
No surprise here. Apparently she went from a meat/junk food diet of
many years/decades to a 100% raw diet overnight. This is far, far, FAR too
fast for the great majority of people, and certainly not recommended by
folks who understand such processes.
Not generally known, even in the veg*n books, is that when one improves
one's diet, the body will, when relieved of its thrice-daily load of toxins
and excessive nutrients, start sometimes rather spectacular cleansing
reactions that excrete many pounds of old, stored toxins through every
possible eliminative route (urine, feces, skin, breath). These toxins, on
their way from any cell to the toilet bowl, pass through the blood and can
thus affect any organ, including the brain, and its functioning. There can
be many quite unpleasant 'symptoms' in the physical (headaches, skin
eruptions, severe mucus discharge, prolonged coughing spasms, lack of
energy, exacerbated menstrual madness, dizziness, ...) and psychological
(irritability, nervousness, bad dreams, negative emotions, confusion, ...)
domains.
The 'felt mildly sick the whole time' is a well known and quite logical
consequence of rapid bodily cleansing, and should not be misinterpreted as a
failure of the concept or application of a raw diet. Obviously, our species
evolved on a totally raw diet, as did all Life on the planet, and that is
what our biochemistry is structured for.
Many folks read books on raw diet and jump right in with mindless
enthusiasm. They experience some increase of energy immediately, but in a
couple of weeks when the cleansing reactions start coming on, they
misinterpret this as 'sickness' or a failure of the 'diet' itself, and go
back to their old clogging diet. The cellular cleansing/detox stops, the
blood clears out, they feel better, and they falsely conclude that their old
diet is best for them. Ignorance of the process, as always, leads to false
conclusions.
> and completely unfulfilled culinarily speaking.
I think what you are referring to is the lack of that old, familiar
indigestible lump in the gut; that heavy, "full" feeling that lingers for
hours after a heavy cultural meal. This is a result only of indigestion:
the excessive protein/fat of the local cultural diet is the real cause for
this. The purpose of eating is to keep the body alive, NOT to get "full".
There is some (mis)awareness of this effect in popular culture: you get
"hungry" an hour after Chinese food. What really is happening is that the
Chinese diet is centered on rice and vegetables, with little fatty meat
(fat/oil coat the chewed "food" particles and thus insulate them from the
aqueous digestive juices) or concentrated protein, and so it is digested
relatively rapidly compared to the highly-excessive fat/protein common in
western diets. It is this quicker, more efficient digestion that is
misinterpreted as 'getting hungry'.
Part of what is necessary in successful dietary reform is to decondition
the psychological addictions, as well as the physical ones. That old,
familiar 'lump' is a sign of indigestion, NOT achieving some nutritional
goal.
Those sincere enough about their diet to do some serious experimenting
with an all raw diet (our species evolved on same, as did all Life on this
planet) quickly discover that not only is the 'lump' not necessary or
desirable, but that one can eat frequently, maintain a high energy level,
and feel 'empty' all at once.
> she found out that while she
> *was* losing weight she couldn't handle seeing me across the
> table wolfing down those new yummy buffalo burgers and haagen
> dazs. so two weeks later she joined up weight watchers instead.
This relates to the psychological work necessary concomitant to any
successful dietary reform. Obviously it is in the best interests of the
family for everyone to cooperate with any individual moves toward better
health or self-actualization of any form. The most difficult thing for most
wannabe veg*ns is to have 'family' members constantly undermining their
efforts to improve.
I have seen many couples break up because one member starts to wake up a
bit, starts to think, starts to improve, and sees their sincere efforts
being undermined, negated, criticized, or attacked by a 'partner' who does
not care.
> this incident is just the first one that comes to mind. i've
> known other vegetarians (with different degrees of strictness)
> who have been anywhere from real healthy to being rather sickly
> looking.
Try to understand that there is not just ONE veg*n diet, but many, many
forms, and most are not particularly healthy since they are centered on
cooked glop -- rice/beans. Also, lots of sick folks try veg*n diets BECAUSE
they are sick, so this group is certainly not comprised of poster boys/girls
for veg*n diets. Additionally, people may go through months/years of
cleansing/detox, so they don't present a good appearance during this time.
Of course, conventional diet eaters may also 'look' healthy or sickly,
so what's the point of these observations? The medical statistics; however,
are clearly supportive of plant-based diets, so is ALL scientifically
credible information.
> i remember one friend of mine in college who was a
> vegetarian who was real skinny and always looked anemic.
One can not LOOK anemic, the effects are not visible.
The intelligent veg*n, who avoids excessively concentrated
starch/protein all too common in most veg*n diets, will look thinner. But
this is because the great majority of people are severely overweight.
However, a 'skinny' vegetarian will look quite normal when compared to
animals in Nature, since they do not overeat. Try to find some body fat on
a 'skinny' Gorilla. Species that have natural fat stores for special
purposes, e.g. hippo and polar bear, do not refute this concept.
My best intellectual buddy in college was a meat-eater (so was I at that
point) and he died of a 'heart-attack' at age 24. So what? One data point
does not give one insight into the natural laws involved.
> also real lazy. great guy otherwise. now, i could infer from that
> one example that a vegetarian diet is harmful to you but i know
> that it's because he didn't take good nutritional care.
One could also remember skinny, fat, lazy, or stupid meat-eaters too;
but that is irrelevant. We need to look at averages to see the patterns
that are manifest by the Laws of Nature.
> it's also probably true that if you don't give a crap about your
> diet you're better off being a non-vegetarian.
What a bizarre concept; apparently you are unfamiliar with the medical
statistics regarding meat-based vs. plant-based diets?
>i eat junk food
> pretty much all the time and consider myself to be healthy in
> that i have never suffered a serious illness in my lifetime
> (though i could afford to lose a couple of pounds!)
Heart attacks, strokes, cancers, osteoporosis generally present no
observable symptoms -- until it is too late. Lack of acute 'disease' is
certainly no assurance of a state of health. Given the history of poor diet
of our species, we have no idea of what a truly healthy human is. Several
generations of raw fooders may give us some insight.
--
Laurie
_____
Get my diet articles free: | Bust SPAMMERS!
http://www.ecologos.org/articles.htm | http://spamcop.net/
Newsgroups: delete "X" for legit e-mail. |
rasiel
years/decades to a 100% raw diet overnight. This is far, far, FAR
too
fast for the great majority of people, and certainly not
recommended by folks who understand such processes."
laurie, i didn't recommend she switch to this diet for any reason
other than that instinctively i knew she'd lose weight on it.
somehow this got out of hand and made it appear as though i had
some great revelation that this diet is the holy grail of
nutritional well-being.
"Not generally known, even in the veg*n books, is that when one
improves one's diet, the body will, when relieved of its
thrice-daily load of toxins
and excessive nutrients, start sometimes rather spectacular
cleansing reactions that excrete many pounds of old, stored
toxins through every
possible eliminative route (urine, feces, skin, breath)"
look, really, i'm controlling my urge to call the above BS in the
interests of a non-flaming argument. as far as i know the
lymphatic system, liver and kidneys are responsible for
detoxification of the body. sweat plays a role too. please
provide at least a cursory argument of why a veggie-only diet is
toxin-free. provide another indicating where turning veg*n gets
rid of POUNDS' worth of toxins.
as far as the body is concerned a toxin is that which poisons it
and the body is simply unable to synthesize this particular
chemical into something else. like urea. like heavy metals. like,
arguably, free oxygen radicals. please state how it is that
eating vegetables to the exclusion of meat significantly alters
any of the above. and don't compare an irresponsible meat-based
diet to an ideal veg*n one because that wouldn't be fair.
"Obviously, our species evolved on a totally raw diet, as did all
Life on the planet, and that is
what our biochemistry is structured for. "
why the *%&7^$%#$# is this so obvious? the old adage that if you
say it enough maybe it sticks as truth?? i buy this only on a
literal sense. as in early hominids did not cook their food. you
however seem to be referring a 'raw diet' as one based
exclusively on vegetable matter.
as much as you may hate to admit this these two things are
unquestionably true. 1) our biochemistry is suited for a wide
variety of nutrients available from nature. proof: humans can
adapt to a wider climate spread than any other animal precisely
because we're more flexible in finding food with which we can
successfully live with. 2) our biochemistry is NOT fine tuned to
a vegetable-only diet. proof: if it were we'd be able to digest
cellulose. more proof: if you change the diet of a herbivore to a
meat-based diet the animal will promptly die because it can't
adapt. of course, the opposite is also true.
"The purpose of eating is to keep the body alive, NOT to get
"full".
this is probably true. at any rate i can't argue because i've no
proof to substantiate the opposite point. in any case, us humans
when given the chance often eat because the food tastes good
rather than just to meet our nutritional requirement.
and you'd be no different. if a lab came up with a 100%
nutritionally balanced pill to the exclusion of all food except
water you and most others would pass. am i right on this much of
an assumption?
"There is some (mis)awareness of this effect in popular culture:
you get "hungry" an hour after Chinese food. What really is
happening is that the
Chinese diet is centered on rice and vegetables,..."
what a coincidence! i had dollar-a-scoop sesame chicken w/ rice
for lunch about five hours ago and am still stuffed :-) ok,
lighten up - i know what you mean.
"Part of what is necessary in successful dietary reform is to
decondition the psychological addictions, as well as the physical
ones."
it's been shown in lab conditions that animals that are minimally
fed, indeed borderline starved, live considerably longer than
their control peers who are allowed a "free for all"-style diet.
but it's been noted in the same breath that the initial test
group are much less happy!
i'm not sure i would want to ever give up that most delicious of
foods, fried bacon, regardless of whatever carcinogens and other
bad stuff it has. that shit just tastes too damn good and if i
can't live a little then what's the point of living at all?
"Those sincere enough about their diet to do some serious
experimenting with an all raw diet (our species evolved on same,
as did all Life on
this planet)"
there you go again with your mantra. what-ev-ah.
"The most difficult thing for most
wannabe veg*ns is to have 'family' members constantly undermining
their efforts to improve. "
ouch. that hurts. especially the family within quotes part. as if
i'm not true family unless i go along. well ok.
"I have seen many couples break up because one member starts to
wake up a bit, starts to think, starts to improve, and sees their
sincere efforts
being undermined, negated, criticized, or attacked by a 'partner'
who does not care."
notice how you take the high road, safe in the knowledge that
what you're espousing is the True Way. smacks of elitism,
snobbiness, brainwashing.
either way remember that i specifically asked my wife to follow a
diet i couldn't take on myself and encouraged her insofar as it
was reasonable for me. it's not like she was eating brussel
sprouts across the table with a frown on her face while i go
'Hmmmmm-oh-YES-mmmmm check out this filet mignon BABY!!!'. otoh,
it'd be silly for me to hide in the room while i ate my own food.
"Additionally, people may go through months/years of
cleansing/detox, so they don't present a good appearance
during this time. "
you call it detox. i call re-acclimatization. and it works both
ways. if god forbid you had a catastrophe befall you where your
life depended on eating a diet of 100% fish sticks or chicken
wings (let's pretend maybe you were kidnapped by some evil
scientist) then you would go through months of agony and "detox"
and eventually be absolutely fine. or die starving... but we'll
assume that you're no martyr and your willpower isn't on a heroic
scale for the sake of argument :-)
"The medical statistics; however,
are clearly supportive of plant-based diets, so is ALL
scientifically credible information"
hmmm. ok if you say so it MUST be true!
and are you willing to bet anything from the real world that i
can find at least one morsel of scientifically credible info to
the contrary? you are saying that ALL, the complete ENTIRETY in
the annals of scientific history lead to this conclusion, right?
or is it credible only when it's supportive of your views?
"However, a 'skinny' vegetarian will look quite normal when
compared to animals
in Nature, since they do not overeat. Try to find some body fat
on a 'skinny' Gorilla"
and this proves what exactly? try to find some body fat on a
starving ethiopian who eats whatever he/she can and gives a damn
not about the quality or nature of his diet so long as it's
edible. or some body fat on any other person who has an
extraordinarily hard life regardless of what they eat. don't
forget that obesity is mostly an affliction of first-world
countries, esp. the u.s. and is not directly related to meat vs.
veggie diets.
and some animals, not many, gorge their asses off beyond any
nutritional need.
"My best intellectual buddy in college was a meat-eater (so was I
at that point) and he died of a 'heart-attack' at age 24. So
what? One data point
does not give one insight into the natural laws involved. "
i agree. why are you shooting holes into your own arguments?
linda mccartney died relatively young of cancer. how cynical it
would be of me to apply that particular case to the cause of
vegetarianism, right?
"We need to look at averages to see the patterns that are
manifest by the Laws of Nature."
indeed! and what are those anyway?
"What a bizarre concept; apparently you are unfamiliar with the
medical statistics regarding meat-based vs. plant-based diets?"
why yes i am, please enlighten me!
"Given the history of poor diet of our species, we have no idea
of what a truly healthy human is. Several
generations of raw fooders may give us some insight."
so true! maybe when some studies show that vegetarians live
longer than meat-eaters you'll be able to make some valid points.
it'd be easy to make a correlation of nil scientific value to the
effect that lazy bastards like me who eat food primarily because
whatever they eat tastes good and don't get off their asses much
to boot are less healthy than vegetarians who are very careful
about their diets and exercise regularly.
my granddad is about to turn 97 this summer, is healthy of body
and mind and is as physically active as someone half his age. he
has had an average, mainstream diet throughout his life. you and
i should be so lucky to live as long as him with his present and
former quality of life. in the end, my guess is that diet has
played only a marginal role in his longevity with everything else
in his life taken into account.
Ward M. Clark
news:shj8o6d...@corp.supernews.com...
> Actually, the more learned anthopologists are now claiming that the
flesh-eating
> adapted us (allowed for bigger brains and such), not that we adapted to
it.
Not only that, of all the branches in the homonid tree, only one group ever
adopted a totally vegetarian diet, those being the robust australopithicines
(A. robustus and A. boisei.)
They proved an evolutionary dead end, being out-competed and supplanted by
early Homo species, namely H. habilis and H. rudolfensis.
So much for an evolutionary vegetarian argument.
--
www.pathwai.org
Sometimes the light's all shining on me,
Other times, I can barely see
Lately it occurs to me,
What a long, strange trip it's been
Cool Mutt
vegetarian diet is benefitical if continued throughout your life time.
Just curious if anyone asked or read up on it.
In article <39187C49...@misinformer.com>,
--
Dogs love you no matter what!
Remember there aren't enough homes for them all so
please spay and neuter your pets.
Cool Mutt
each and every second we breath. If we drive a car or own a house with
plumbing we are killing species on this earth. There is no getting
around the number of animals that die just to drive to work and back.
Everything is pretty much polluted and dirty because of humans. The
only way to get around this is to live on an island far away from
civilization. Not many of us would choose to live that kind of life.
At this point no matter how much recycling and walking we do it will
not reverse the damage already done.
In article <8f9btu$baf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Mr Falafel <mrfa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <00f92095...@usw-ex0102-014.remarq.com>,
> rasiel <rasielN...@rasiel.com.invalid> wrote:
> > "Plants were 'put on this earth' for us to eat, too. Why do you
> > want to kill animals for food when we have so many other things
> > to eat? Do you enjoy killing
> > animals?"
> >
> > Why is it implicit in this sentence that it's okay to kill plants
> > but not animals?
> >
> > Why is that one lifeform deserves a shot at life any more than
> > another?
> >
> > Is it because plants don't scream when you cut them down? If they
> > did would you change your mind?
> >
> > I eat my burgers plain, just cheese. By my refusing to put on
> > lettuce, tomato and onions I'm doing my part to save plant life
> > ;-) Maybe I can start a movement here!
> >
>
> Yo sparky, take a look at an interesting concept called 'evolution'.
It
> maps out how animals evolved.
>
> Animals are sentient and have neurons (I know it's tough, but go get a
> book called a 'dictionary'). Plants don't have those things.
>
> Natural selection will weed out knuckle-draggers like you. Colon
> cancer, heart disease...why it's already happening!
>
David Lindsay
: Veggie wrote:
: >
: > I have been considering going vegetarian/vegan for some time, but the more I
: > think about it the more unsure I become.
: >
: > they?
: No. The world was never created. The Earth and everything else in the
: Universe was created spontaneously by the Big Bang. All life on Earth
: originated from a common anscestor over 4 billion years ago. More
: recently, the evolutionary paths of Monerans (bacteria) diverged from
: all other life, then the anscestors of Protists and Archeans became
: seperated, and then Protista gave rise to three other Eukaryote kingdoms
: of life: animals, plants, and fungi. Of all the inhabitants of the four
: Eukaryote kingdoms, only animals other than sponges have a nervous
: system, and it should be obvious that mammals, birds, and quite possibly
: other animals have wills of their own. Any animal that has a will of its
: own has a right to life, and eating meat violates that right.
Then you are saying that if it's a choice between killing an animal with
say a kidney that could save a man's life, you'd let the man die and
don't kill tne animal
: Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human nature that
: > we do the same.
: We don't kill and eat animals instinctively. If we were natural born
: predators, our mouths would water whenever we had the oppurtunity to
: handle raw meat. If we were naturally carnivorous, we would be able to
: kill without remorse. If we're naturally carnivorous, then why were so
: many people shocked a few weeks ago when an innocent dog was thrown out
: into the middle of traffic and killed?
Again we should be able to steal without remorse either say a few
hundred dollars from a guy whose net worth is 4 billin dollars [Bill
Gates] ... surely he won't miss the money ...
: >
: > I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non meat
: > eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of going
: > veggy.
: >
: > I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting - just
: > to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances that
: > there will be no adverse consequences.
: Go for it!
I would suggest doing it gradually ... I eat vegetarian but still eat
meat on occasion [Kosher] just not as often as i used to ...
--
David Lindsay bg...@torfree.net or bg...@freenet.toronto.on.ca
Rebbe Nachman of Breslov's Teaching: it's a great Mitzvah to be Happy always
Huria
David N. Harrison <kl...@mindspring.com> wrote (amongst other things)
news:391861b...@news.mindspring.com...
"One thing that makes humans
different in our killing is that we provide life for the animals which we
kill.
Animals don't exist before they are born, or after they are killed. Veg*ns
encourage the same thing for future meat animals, that those animals
would experience after being killed: non-existence. Of course meat
consumers encourage that also, but they encourage something else
which veg*ns do not: the animals' lives. Meat is life."
Who provides life? Wow us humans are so god like aren't we, so considerate?
"If you just cut down on the amount of meat
that you eat--even if you eat veggie meals more often than not--you will be
benefiting from that approach, and still leave yourself the flexibility to
enjoy
meat when you want to, and encourage life for meat animals which you
feel have decent lives."
Who says veggie people would not want these animals to live? The difference
is we would want those animals to live to the end of their natural lives,
not by murdering them first.
And before you reply about the amounts of animals that wouldn't have had
lives if they weren't bred for slaughter, consider this:
Firstly, the majority of these animals (eg. chickens, cows, sheep, lambs,
fish etc.) exist due to factory farming, so when considering what you said,
that Richard should " still leave yourself the flexibility to enjoy
meat when you want to, and encourage life for meat animals which you
feel have decent lives" you wouldn't wish for such animals to exist, if
existing means living such miserable lives.
Secondly, those animals (cows, chickens etc.) would naturally reproduce far
less offspring (ok, nature can be cruel, but why be an extra cruel-factor,
when we can be compassionate and kind?)
Thirdly, veggies think the right to life extends not just to humans but to
all other creatures. By right to life I mean fullfilling their lives
naturally, not by being alive just for the predetermined goal of being meat
on our plates. We don't need to eat them to survive, so why kill them? Of
course other animals kill each other, but we seem to have more than just
basic instinct (not wanting to judge what other animals have or don't have,
but this is just what I observe from nature) and that is the ability to
assert our compassion with the reasoning mind.
WE DON'T NEED TO EAT MEAT TO SURVIVE, SO WHY EAT IT WHEN IT INVOLVES AN
ANIMAL SUFFERING?
I've seen some excellent posts in response to Richard's enquiry, which cover
other issues regarding this (eg. that physiologically our bodies do not need
meat to survive and of how animals and vegetables are entirely different. So
there's no use going over old ground. Regarding animals and vegetables being
entirely different - as if you need someone to point this out to you. As far
as we can see, we can observe how different an animal is to a plant with
regards to amount of sentience.
A friend who used to regularly eat excessive amounts of meat turned veggie
after this experience:
He had hitched a lift with a sandwich deliverer, who on the way had to make
a stop at a nearby slaughter house. When they arrived, men came out for
their beef sandwiches wearing aprons covered in blood. Then a lorry pulled
up, it opened and a load of cows/bulls ran out. My friend said they were
screaming, he didn't know it was possible for cows to scream. They had a
look of immense horror on their faces. He said they certainly knew why they
were there.
Shortly after this he became vegan, because there is as much cruelty in the
dairy and egg industry, if not more, because they have to experience a
longer life of cruelty and torture before their death. Of course, this is
factory farming.
But even of those "meat animals which you
feel have decent lives", I and many others would rather they lived
naturally, with a chance of them leading happy, content lives, than meeting
with a definite, bloody, predetermined end.
By the way, with regards to the bible. Maybe it would be better if people
would go by their "gut feeling"/"inner tuition" (or even common sense)
regarding such issues, instead of doing what a book tells them. I think the
reason why the majority of people don't do this already is due to a lack of
self-confidence (with regards to thinking for themselves) because they think
"how could anything I think of possibly have any truth?"
Basically, treat others the way you'd like to be treated yourself. Would you
like the kind of lives those animals have, even the ones who you think have
better lives than other factory farmed animals? Would you like to know that
whatever you do, you would still meet the same bloody ending as they do?
Most people wouldn't want such a life. We have a choice to help out our
fellow creatures, to help them attain freedom just as much as we strive for
it.
Let's not be their captors. Let's be their friends.
James Hepler
steve wrote:
>
> >
> > In order to maintain even a shred of credibility with a statement like
> > that, you need to either A) present us with your medical credentials and
> > forward to us any relevant studies you performed on the subject, or B)
> > point us to other people's studies which conclude the same.
> >
>
> i don't have to do shit. i'm vegan, i watch what i eat, i'm healthier than most people
> i know.
Good for you. That doesn't excuse a blanket statement though, does it?
Doe it justify spreading myths?
> > Name some. You aren't qualified to make this statement unless you
> > actually SPOKE to many doctors and they all told you, which of course
> > you will have to document.
>
> i'm not in court, here, asshole.
You might as well be. YOu are taking the position of expert witness.
> i don't have to present any research.
That's like saying, "I don't have to debate responsibly". But then you
aren't here for that, are you?
> i know it's
> available. if you want to go look it up, be my guest. i've read conclusions of plenty
> of studies.
Just point me to them, lest ye be branded LIAR.
James Hepler
steve wrote:
>
> actually i'm the king of overreacting so i guess i can shut up.
Can I be a member of the round table of overreacting?
James Hepler
Mr Falafel wrote:
> > I eat my burgers plain, just cheese. By my refusing to put on
> > lettuce, tomato and onions I'm doing my part to save plant life
> > ;-) Maybe I can start a movement here!
> >
>
> Yo sparky, take a look at an interesting concept called 'evolution'. It
> maps out how animals evolved.
>
> Animals are sentient and have neurons (I know it's tough, but go get a
> book called a 'dictionary'). Plants don't have those things.
So, you draw the line at neurons? Do shrimp have neurons? Hows about
mosquitos? The dreaded Tsetse fly? All sentient and should be
protected by law for peril?
> Natural selection will weed out knuckle-draggers like you. Colon
> cancer, heart disease...why it's already happening!
LOL! Whatever you are smoking, I'd like to get my hands on some!
James Hepler
steve wrote:
>
> >
> > So you can't explain it to me? By telling someone that they will
> > instantly be more healthy by removing meat from their diet, you are
> > giving them the impression that it is that simple. People need to make
> > informed choices. Judging by some of the posts I have seen in this
> > thread and a few others, you seem to treat the vegetarian issue like
> > some kind of contest, by which the team with the most players wins. It
> > isn't a contest. It is a lifestyle choice. You can't be right or wrong
> > because of it.
>
> 1) i'm giving the reader the benefit of the doubt, and assuming he is an
> intelligent person. you are assuming he is a dumbass who needs me to give him
> step by step instructions on how to live their life. i don't feel that is
> necessary.
You should have read his original post before saying that. Here is the
relevant text:
-------------------------------------
I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non
meat
eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of
going
veggy.
I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting -
just
to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances
that
there will be no adverse consequences.
-------------------------------------
Now, if he NEEDS advice (emphasis NOT added), based on health concerns,
it seems as though you would be doing him a service by including ALL the
information regarding this issue and nutrition, not treating him like a
dumbass. After all, it IS the information he is asking for.
> 2) i would say that you treat this as a contest, not me, by demanding
> 'scientific proof'. presumably, whomever has the most of that wins.
You know, by posting support for your claims, any person who feels the
way the original poster did can get a decent amount of information on
the subject. You are doing people a disservice by withholding this
information. Granted, the original poster could have found information
by his or herself, but the fact is, the person asked US. Those of us
who already have access to the information (IMO) have an obligation to
provide the information we have if we choose to participate in the
thread. If you aren't prepared to have your ideas questioned, you
shouldn't be so quick to post.
> i won't
> participate in that, since you can pretty much find 'proof' to back up
> anything.
And the honest person uses BOTH sides of the issue to make an INFORMED
(EDUCATED) opinion. Isn't that the whole point? Granted, it would be
great if everyone here were credible enough to be considered an
authority on these subjects. But when you make a claim like "Not eating
meat is more healthy than eating meat", you invite a myriad of queries
as to not only your idea's credibility but your own. And you don't
separate yourself from anyone else, because EVERYONE makes assertions
that they can't, won't, or don't support. For that reason alone, you
should have information ready to back you up. Then, any given reader
will say to him or herself, "This person really knows what he/she is
talking about."
If your assertion is right, then proving it should be no sweat. I think
the reason why support for assertions is met with so much defensiveness
is the fact that few people actually HAVE support. Not that there is
any out there. Just that the person posting is ill prepared for the
debate. And that's how flame wars get started.
rasiel
difference is we would want those animals to live to the end of
their natural
lives, not by murdering them first."
i'm with you that this is one of the lamer arguments proposed for
justifying the killing of animals for food. the quality of life
for chickens or cows or whatever bred specifically to end up at
the dinner table must be terrible. and, personally, if i had the
choice of living that life or not living at all i'd choose the
latter.
"Thirdly, veggies think the right to life extends not just to
humans but to all other creatures... WE DON'T NEED TO EAT MEAT TO
SURVIVE, SO WHY EAT IT WHEN IT INVOLVES AN ANIMAL SUFFERING?"
MAYBE WHEN EGGPLANT TASTES LIKE FRIED CHICKEN I'LL SWITCH TO A
VEGGIE DIET. people eat meat mostly because meat tastes good. and
people , me included, are willing to trade off the necessary evil
of animals dying in order to have a good meal. it's a lot more
justified in my eyes than killing animals senselessly or for
trivial reasons like fur coats or similar things.
as for environmental impact, most activities that you do harm the
environment in one way or another (even if not very much). eating
veggies vs. meat just happens to be your pet issue but,
admittedly, in the overall scheme of things a pig farm in north
carolina contributes relatively little pollution to the ground
water compared to the impact of other industries.
remember that just about ALL animals on the planet die a violent
(or at least unpleasant) death. few animals die as peacefully as
your average pet being put to sleep in a vet's office. dignity in
death is reserved just for us humans who have the luxury of dying
in ways other than being devoured.
it could even be argued that if you were a deer and given the
choice of being shot or disemboweled by wolves you'd pick the
bullet. or if you were a chicken you'd probably prefer being
beheaded after a stun bath than being chewed on by another
animal.
"Regarding animals
and vegetables being entirely different - as if you need someone
to point this out to you. As far as we can see, we can observe
how different an
animal is to a plant with regards to amount of sentience. "
it's not that i don't recognize the difference between animals
and plants. the point is that plants have every much of a "right"
to live as do animals. they may not have a brain, sentience as
you call it or a mouth to voice their opinions but it's
self-evident that plants have a vested interested in continuing
to live. the evidence is in their self-defense mechanisms like
poisonous resins to ward off harmful insects and many other ways.
so when you eat a carrot you should be fully aware that you took
the life of an animate object that would've resisted being eaten
if only it could. iow, eating that carrot did nothing whatsoever
for that carrot's well-being.
"A friend who used to regularly eat excessive amounts of meat
turned veggie after this experience:..."
well, good for him. by his dropping out of the market he's done
his small part to drive down the price of beef which makes it
more affordable for me. again, in an ideal world no animal would
have to suffer for my sake. but i don't live there yet. maybe
some day they'll be able to grow t-bone steaks in labs with no
bone or gristle. when that happens i'll vote with my dollars.
"Basically, treat others the way you'd like to be treated
yourself... Let's not be their captors. Let's be their friends."
aw, please pass the kleenex cuz i'm all choked up!
Domenick V. Amato
you would not be able to convince a lion or your pussy cat to become a
vegetarian. There is nothing inherently evil about killing animals for
food. It has been going on ever since there have been animals. (People are
animals too!)
What I take offence at is to have someone ask a question as silly, pompous,
and self righteous as "Do you like to kill animals?" No, I leave it the
professionals. I only kill fish when I can spare the time. But I eat what
I kill.
Dom Amato
Mr Falafel <mrfa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8f917m$um9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8f46a4$gt1$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>,
> "Veggie" <myo...@cdzone.co.uk> wrote:
> > I have been considering going vegetarian/vegan for some time, but the
> more I
> > think about it the more unsure I become.
> >
> > After all, animals were put on this earth for us to kill and eat,
> weren't
> > they? Animals kill animals for food, therefore it is only human
> nature that
> > we do the same.
>
> Plants were 'put on this earth' for us to eat, too. Why do you want to
> kill animals for food when we have so many other things to eat? Do you
> enjoy killing animals?
>
> >
> > I have heard lots of stories regarding health issues surrounding non
> meat
> > eaters. I do not think that my health should suffer as a result of
> going
> > veggy.
>
> A healthy diet is a healthy diet. You don't need meat or dairy or eggs
> to eat a healthy diet. Proven time & time again.
>
> >
> > I NEED advice from anyone to convince me of the merits of converting
> - just
> > to tip the scales. I know that I want to do it but want reassurances
> that
> > there will be no adverse consequences.
> >
>
> You will have no adverse consequences if you eat a healthy diet. You
> will have many positive consequences.
Mr Falafel
Nope. Using your 'logic', how about: meat eaters kill animals purposely
and vegans avoid it wherever possible. Sound reasonable?
David N. Harrison
>
>David N. Harrison <kl...@mindspring.com> wrote (amongst other things)
>news:391861b...@news.mindspring.com...
>
>"One thing that makes humans
>different in our killing is that we provide life for the animals which we
>kill.
>Animals don't exist before they are born, or after they are killed. Veg*ns
>encourage the same thing for future meat animals, that those animals
>would experience after being killed: non-existence. Of course meat
>consumers encourage that also, but they encourage something else
>which veg*ns do not: the animals' lives. Meat is life."
>
>Who provides life? Wow us humans are so god like aren't we, so considerate?
Humans are as considerate of animals as they allow themselves
to be. Humans are not god like imo.
>"If you just cut down on the amount of meat
>that you eat--even if you eat veggie meals more often than not--you will be
>benefiting from that approach, and still leave yourself the flexibility to
>enjoy
>meat when you want to, and encourage life for meat animals which you
>feel have decent lives."
>
>Who says veggie people would not want these animals to live? The difference
>is we would want those animals to live to the end of their natural lives,
That is not an option. They get what they get...it is that or nothing.
>not by murdering them first.
>
>And before you reply about the amounts of animals that wouldn't have had
>lives if they weren't bred for slaughter, consider this:
>
>Firstly, the majority of these animals (eg. chickens, cows, sheep, lambs,
>fish etc.) exist due to factory farming, so when considering what you said,
>that Richard should " still leave yourself the flexibility to enjoy
>meat when you want to, and encourage life for meat animals which you
>feel have decent lives" you wouldn't wish for such animals to exist, if
>existing means living such miserable lives.
I don't believe that all of their lives are worse than no life at all.
>Secondly, those animals (cows, chickens etc.) would naturally reproduce far
>less offspring (ok, nature can be cruel, but why be an extra cruel-factor,
>when we can be compassionate and kind?)
That is an option that human meat eaters have, but nonhuman meat
eaters do not, imo.
>Thirdly, veggies think the right to life extends not just to humans but to
>all other creatures. By right to life I mean fullfilling their lives
>naturally, not by being alive just for the predetermined goal of being meat
>on our plates. We don't need to eat them to survive, so why kill them?
They depend on meat eaters for their lives. Veg*ns do not contribute
to the fact that they live.
> Of
>course other animals kill each other, but we seem to have more than just
>basic instinct (not wanting to judge what other animals have or don't have,
>but this is just what I observe from nature) and that is the ability to
>assert our compassion with the reasoning mind.
>WE DON'T NEED TO EAT MEAT TO SURVIVE, SO WHY EAT IT WHEN IT INVOLVES AN
>ANIMAL SUFFERING?
I'm in favor of reducing the suffering, not eliminating the animals.
>I've seen some excellent posts in response to Richard's enquiry, which cover
>other issues regarding this (eg. that physiologically our bodies do not need
>meat to survive and of how animals and vegetables are entirely different. So
>there's no use going over old ground. Regarding animals and vegetables being
>entirely different - as if you need someone to point this out to you. As far
>as we can see, we can observe how different an animal is to a plant with
>regards to amount of sentience.
>
>A friend who used to regularly eat excessive amounts of meat turned veggie
>after this experience:
>He had hitched a lift with a sandwich deliverer, who on the way had to make
>a stop at a nearby slaughter house. When they arrived, men came out for
>their beef sandwiches wearing aprons covered in blood. Then a lorry pulled
>up, it opened and a load of cows/bulls ran out. My friend said they were
>screaming, he didn't know it was possible for cows to scream. They had a
>look of immense horror on their faces. He said they certainly knew why they
>were there.
I have killed pigs in the pen they grew up in, next to their mother and
brothers and sisters. None of the other pigs showed any sign of fear. I've
seen a young bull shot in the head, its throat was cut to bleed it, and then
it was butchered while the next one in line stood by and calmly observed the
procedure--showing no sign of fear. Animals are scared to be forced into any
new situation, whether it is a slaughter house or not. But they are not afraid
when their brother is killed beside them, because they don't know what death
is.
>Shortly after this he became vegan, because there is as much cruelty in the
>dairy and egg industry, if not more, because they have to experience a
>longer life of cruelty and torture before their death.
Why do you feel that no life at all is better than life as a dairy cow?
> Of course, this is
>factory farming.
>But even of those "meat animals which you
>feel have decent lives", I and many others would rather they lived
>naturally, with a chance of them leading happy, content lives, than meeting
>with a definite, bloody, predetermined end.
As I said before, that is not an option. They get life in the meat industry,
or they get nothing. If some of you veggies want to change that, then buy
some animals which are headed for slaughter, and free them to enjoy the
happy content lives you feel they could have.
>By the way, with regards to the bible. Maybe it would be better if people
>would go by their "gut feeling"/"inner tuition" (or even common sense)
>regarding such issues, instead of doing what a book tells them. I think the
>reason why the majority of people don't do this already is due to a lack of
>self-confidence (with regards to thinking for themselves) because they think
>"how could anything I think of possibly have any truth?"
Maybe. The animals which humans raise do depend on us for their lives
though. That is a definite truth, and we are aware of it.
>Basically, treat others the way you'd like to be treated yourself. Would you
>like the kind of lives those animals have, even the ones who you think have
>better lives than other factory farmed animals?
I would rather have the life of some factory farmed animals than no life
at all. I would rather have no life at all than the lives of some factory farmed
animals. I feel the same way in regards to wild animals...don't you?
> Would you like to know that
>whatever you do, you would still meet the same bloody ending as they do?
They don't know what their fate is, so that is not an issue. We may be in
the same position that they are, but not know it. We do know that all animals
will die (including ourselves, our friends, our family...), which is something that
the animals we raise to eat do not know.
>Most people wouldn't want such a life. We have a choice to help out our
>fellow creatures, to help them attain freedom just as much as we strive for
>it.
>
>Let's not be their captors. Let's be their friends.
Their "captors" have been dead for thousands of years in most cases.
We that are alive today are not cheating the animals out of any part of
their lives because we raise them to eat, but instead we are providing them
with whatever life they get to have. Their "friends" would like to improve
the quality of whatever life they get to have , not deprive them of it, imo.
FitWell
>flesh-eating
>> adapted us (allowed for bigger brains and such), not that we adapted to
>it.
No, we had our bigger brain from the time before we took on
flesh-eating habits. That we continued on in our evolution was
despite the flesh-eating habit, not due to it. That is like the
argument that because we developed tools, our opposable thumb further
developed where in fact the reverse is true. If you can't hold or
manipulate a tool, why are you going to persevere (how long would a
cat try to peel an orange. Would it even really bother to try???)?
As Carl Sagan always said, "we have always been as intelligent as we
are". That is true for everything about us.
There is a very, very intriguing theory put forth (sorry, I'll have to
dig it up, if anyone's interested where I read it some years back),
that we developed our large brains due to the fact that we evolved on
a supremely efficient diet high in the easily digested sugar:
fructose.
If you look at other species, they all have pros and cons to the way
they get their glucose. In mammals, probably the least efficient is
the carnivorous one. When you compare the usable energy derived vs
the cost of metabolizing and the amount of waste by-products,
meat-eating probably takes the prize. Ever wonder why many of the
carnivorous species sleep a lot, don't generally have strength and
endurance over long periods of time and speed is generally available
only in spurts (dogs are one of the few carnivorous species that seems
to do okay in endurance/speed/strength - compare to the cats, though,
of any size. However, cats have a higher requirement for protein
derived by cannibalization of existing protein). That's due to the
limitations of the carnivorous diet.
Where the others go will be in between.
Herbivores are, generally, pretty good. They must eat very frequently
and have long intestines and/or 2 stomachs, etc., etc., in order to be
able to extract enough nutrients, but they sleep little, have strength
and have great endurance, i.e., though they should eat frequently, one
can travel cross-country on a horse, or other equine relative, or
elephant, etc. The metabolic by-products are not bad either; an
alkaline vs acid diet.
It has been argued that the fruit diet is the most efficient. It
requires little digestion, it's alkaline and produces energy with
little cost. i.e., if you eat, say, a watermelon, a whopping high
percentage of it ends up as pure energy in your system. As any of us
who have done a juice or fruit day (and who are clean enough inside
that they don't immediately go into some form of crisis of
elimination, even if it's just a feeling of fatigue or listlessness)
can attest, that it is an energy high that can't be beat. You can go
for hours on end at high speed, be high in spirits and suffer no or
very little effects from little sleep. I have had days on raw food
where, due to doing personal work at home, have put in a full day and
worked into the night until 4 a.m. and then been up again at the
regular time to continue late into the next day - with little
discernible effect. This is not a normal routine and I don't consider
it healthy if done more than when absolutely necessary. But it serves
to point out the difference to me from before, when I required 10-14
hours sleep and still did not feel rested and felt ill most of the
time. That was my life 10 years ago.
As a primarily fruitarian species (sorry, even common sense backs that
up. Look at our digestive makeup, jaw, type of eyesight, joint
sockets, etc., etc., etc., and look for parallels in nature and you
find that we fit the bill under frugivorous best), it appears that we
evolved as we did due to the advantages our food source provided us.
Why did we leave it? We didn't have the technology at the time to
grow our own food and we had to survive and we did. The results of
that diet are really coming to a head in today's world where the
processing is increasing exponentially. Yes, we still cook our food
which is the first step in rendering a diet 'artificial', we now
compound this even more with more and more processed ingredients -
less and less natural - and lack of exercise and all other bad habits.
So much so that the cumulative/degenerative effects are really
reaching alarming proportions. That is why we are seeing a widespread
attempt to return to a more natural/healthy lifestyle.
Again, it may seem that I am proselytizing, but that isn't the case.
Yes I get up on my soapbox all the time, but this is a place to
discuss and talk and by making available many resources to us all. I
enjoy reading about other people's journeys in this area (well, of
course, the flames I just kind of skip over. We'll just have to agree
to disagree in those cases).
So, on my soapbox again, whenever our doctor say we must eat meat for
protein and get our calcium from dairy sources, we who have followed
an alternate path know that this is not correct. Even superficial but
intelligent and responsible investigation disproves this immediately.
Also, it is wise for us to remember what history has taught us, that
just because everyone believes something is so does not make it true
(geoocentric view of solar system, earth being flat, 'cupping' or
'bleeding' to cure illness, evil spirits causing illness............)
>Not only that, of all the branches in the homonid tree, only one group ever
>adopted a totally vegetarian diet, those being the robust australopithicines
>(A. robustus and A. boisei.)
>
>They proved an evolutionary dead end, being out-competed and supplanted by
>early Homo species, namely H. habilis and H. rudolfensis.
There is very little said about what we were before that time of
change. We already +were+ a 'vegetarian' species before the change,
but anthropology focuses on it primarily. Ever wonder why every
creation myth in every culture includes
vegetation/trees/fruits/vegetables of some sort? If we were truly
meat-eaters, our creation myth would probably involve prey, just like
an amoeba's idea of paradise would maybe be an abundance of food and
an environment conducive to plenty in its context?? What would a
caterpillar's view of paradise be, or how about my rabbit? What is
his view of paradise, I wonder?
(BTW, evolution does not preclude a creator. Although I am not
religious, have read many articles and some books from raw fooders
that are. Their particular journeys to raw foodism/fruitarianism is
inspiring for they speak of returning to the diet God created for us
as is seen on the first page of the bible ... eating the seeds of the
trees, or words to that effect.)
But, in closing: I just got this 32-bit computer and the database
structure I was trying to start several months back goes into full
construction again next week followed by some months (and months and
months) of reading and input. I have an extensive library I aim to
re-read and to catalogue since my swiss-cheese brain can't remember
where I read everything (the literature on raw foodism and the
investigations into this area are relatively new. Some books exist
from long ago, but they are few. The greatest contributions have come
esp. from last several decades).
Again, all that being said, everyone chooses the lifestyle that is
best for them, and that is as it should be.
Cheers and good luck all!!
FitWell
>of our species, we have no idea of what a truly healthy human is. Several
>generations of raw fooders may give us some insight.
>
>--
>
> Laurie
Hi, Laurie!!!
I look forward to when we have a knowledge base built on observations
of several generations of raw fooders from different parts of the
world. A more complete picture will emerge and people will have a
better choice of what they can decide on.
One thing, though, returning to this issue. I don't know the current
state of the Hunzas, Vilcambambians (spelling???) and the other third
group (name??). I know that they were studied some time ago, now. Do
you know about their current status? Have you seen/heard anythign
about them?
Cheers!!
FitWell
>improves one's diet, the body will, when relieved of its
>thrice-daily load of toxins
>and excessive nutrients, start sometimes rather spectacular
>cleansing reactions that excrete many pounds of old, stored
>toxins through every
>possible eliminative route (urine, feces, skin, breath)"
>
>look, really, i'm controlling my urge to call the above BS in the
>interests of a non-flaming argument. as far as i know the
>lymphatic system, liver and kidneys are responsible for
>detoxification of the body. sweat plays a role too. please
>provide at least a cursory argument of why a veggie-only diet is
>toxin-free. provide another indicating where turning veg*n gets
>rid of POUNDS' worth of toxins.
Unfortunately, the crises of elimination are true. The body is what
institutes these 'crises of elimination'. The veggie-only diet you
speak of is not necessarily toxin free (although of course, no diet is
100% toxin-free otherwise we would have no metabolic wastes to get rid
off). So, a veggie-only diet if raw is quite toxic-free despite
pestacides and other. However, we must remember that vegetables are
not too terribly high in carbohydrates and a vegetarian diet should
have a high fruit content as well (we fill up our cars with gas a lot
more than we take it into the shop for repairs. That is the single
most frequent thing you need, the energy to run your car.) The best
'toxin-free' diet is a raw fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds.
Whatever we ultimately choose to follow, there is no getting around
this base fact.
Just to cite one piece of evidence, leukocytosis has been observed
after a cooked meal has been consumed (again, very sorry about the
source of this study, can and will follow up for anyone that asks.);
it does not occur after a raw one. Leukocytosis is the increase of
white blood cell count as an offensive response to a problem in
system, to give a hopefully accurate enough layperson's explanation.
Also, although I am primarily a raw fooder, I go vegetarian (vs vegan,
I no longer distinguish; vegetarian/vegan both involve cooked food and
I feel the effects of both, so I no longer concern myself over the
drawing the line as I shouldn't be eating either for me, anyway), when
certain stresses happen in my life, primarily my boom or bust
financial situation due to contract work is hardest. However, I've
been making progress in that area, too.
>as far as the body is concerned a toxin is that which poisons it
>and the body is simply unable to synthesize this particular
>chemical into something else. like urea. like heavy metals. like,
>arguably, free oxygen radicals. please state how it is that
>eating vegetables to the exclusion of meat significantly alters
>any of the above. and don't compare an irresponsible meat-based
>diet to an ideal veg*n one because that wouldn't be fair.
Elements in food that are held in organic suspension in a raw state
are released and changed into inorganic substances, etc. These, that
were once beneficial become toxic, as anything that the body ingests
that is not required by the body is a toxin.
High temperatures, i.e., above about 105 degrees F destroy enzymes and
render simple, short molecular chains into more complex and harder to
break ones. That is why sodium, though absolutely essential to life,
once converted to something like sodium chloride becomes deadly. You
don't believe this, an ancient Chinese torture apparently involved
forcing salt into the victim until death occurred. Also, though dying
of thirst, sailors never drank sea water.
Amino acides de-aminize, starches dextrinize, and so on and so forth.
What does all this mean? That when we cook a food, we destroy the
life in it. Life supports life; life cannot be supported by death.
Why have we survived this long? Because, as I mentioned in an earlier
post, an organism's will to live, if you will, is so very very strong.
We survive despite what we do oftentimes not because of it. Also, we
do not completely kill the nutrients in food, in other words, we do
not cook the food till it's an unrecognizable ash. Not to stray into
the argument about eating a plant kills it anyway, since the plant is
killed in this way during cooking when it can no longer grow and since
we eat it at this point, it is not giving us the nutrients in the way
that is most efficient and is in fact harmful in long run (carrots
potatoes and other in the fridge still continue to sprout). Yes, even
when cooked, there is still enough in them to keep us alive - bad food
is better than no food; which will kill you quicker, not eating or
eating bad food? - however, one cannot expect +optimum+ health from
less-than +optimum+ sources of food.
>"Obviously, our species evolved on a totally raw diet, as did all
>Life on the planet, and that is
>what our biochemistry is structured for. "
>
>why the *%&7^$%#$# is this so obvious? the old adage that if you
>say it enough maybe it sticks as truth?? i buy this only on a
>literal sense. as in early hominids did not cook their food. you
>however seem to be referring a 'raw diet' as one based
>exclusively on vegetable matter.
Look to nature and to ourselves. Are we born with cook stoves? What
other animal in nature cooks its food?
>as much as you may hate to admit this these two things are
>unquestionably true. 1) our biochemistry is suited for a wide
>variety of nutrients available from nature. proof: humans can
>adapt to a wider climate spread than any other animal precisely
>because we're more flexible in finding food with which we can
>successfully live with.
Yes, and because of our intelligence in finding ways to survive at
whatever the cost. Other animals don't spread so far because they
don't think to do so and move instinctually. Again, this in no way
means that our biochemistry is suited to these nutrients; it just
means that we survive, as I mentioned before, despite what we do to
ourselves.
2) our biochemistry is NOT fine tuned to
>a vegetable-only diet. proof: if it were we'd be able to digest
>cellulose. more proof: if you change the diet of a herbivore to a
>meat-based diet the animal will promptly die because it can't
>adapt. of course, the opposite is also true.
Yes, precisely, you are correct in the first part of your statement.
We are a predominantly frugivorous species. Vegetables are necessary
but play a secondary role. Our primary source for energy we crave
from fruits (the only source of sugar which can be eaten in a raw,
natural state with gusto.) Where else is sugar available naturally
without cooking process and yet which tastes good?
Also, I'm sorry, but you asked for it. It's a bit of a bombardment,
but, hey, it'll be fun...
- why do we need to perceive colour (carnivorous animals do not)
- why do we have our type of depth perception (woops, watch out for
that branch, it's closer to us than the other one....!!!)
- why the ball and socket joints in our shoulders (arboreal species
require these)
- we don't produce uricase to metabolize uric acid (carnivores do)
- we don't produce our own vitamin C (carnivores and others do)
- we are not predominantly starch eaters (we only produce amylase and
ptyalin unlike other species (graminivores, omnivores) - gee, those
bananas just don't taste good because they're not ripe (starch in
greenish bananas not yet converted to sugars)
- our intestines are only moderately long because the fruit diet is
quiet efficient so doesn't require. Nature does not put more or less
into system than what is needed for each species. When humans survive
organ removal it is due to the ever present need to live than to
medecine's inability to explain what the organ does (herbivores have
intestines that apparently are miles long)
- why our opposable thumb (hey, Spot, try peeling this banana)
- why no great sense of smell (necessarily highly developed in
carnivores)
- why is our eyesight as good as it is (cats see more by motion, you
can fool them a bit by standing still sometimes enough that they don't
chase you if they don't catch your scent - at least, I've never been
in that particular situation, you understand, but I've seen
documentaries...)
- we have a moderate sense of smell (carnivores have an extraordinary
one, they require it)
- no sharp teeth like carnivores
- I can't crush prey with my weaker jaw (can you?)
- my teeth can grind sideways - not as strong as a horse (herbivore),
carnivores cannot (that's why they bolt their food, very little or no
sideways motion in their jaw - not necessary)
- meat begins breaking down in the saliva of carnivores because it is
so strong
- the hydrochloric acid in the carnivore is stronger and more copious
than in a vegetarian/fruitarian's
- a true carnivore has a short intestine in order to expel extremely
toxic by-products much more quickly, that's one reason why we keep
getting into trouble with meat since it stays way too long in our
system which is not equipped for it
- and, let's face it, carnivores relish their prey raw. How do you
feel about chasing a small furry little critter and relishing it
blood, fur and all (aesthetically-speaking, even, it is abhorrent to
us)
>"The purpose of eating is to keep the body alive, NOT to get
>"full".
>
>this is probably true. at any rate i can't argue because i've no
>proof to substantiate the opposite point. in any case, us humans
>when given the chance often eat because the food tastes good
>rather than just to meet our nutritional requirement.
There is one little known fact, just like marijuana is good (so I am
told) to those who learn to like it, and very hot food is good to
those who learn to like it, etc., etc., once you de-toxify your
system, food that tasted good to you before no longer does so. In
fact, after a fast, I read about an alcoholic who after a fast vomited
up his first try back to liquor. I don't know the outcome, whether or
not he gave up liquor for good, but it's an interesting point. Of
course, one can persevere and again overcome one's natural distaste
for any harmful product, but there you have it.
Vegans know this very well. After you've been without cheese, for
example, how does it smell?
I remember when I first got off cheese. I was in the office one day
and a particularly strong smell came along. It was unbearably
nauseating. Finally, a few minutes later I had to get up to
investigate and to try to remove it since I thought it might mean
something dangerous. I was stopped dead at the entrance to a
colleague's cubicle and quietly walked away. The offensive smell,
which I honestly had believed was harmful, was in fact her quiche.
Quiche used to be a favourite of mine. I was quite shaken up by that
experience because for how long had cheese smelled good??? Too long.
And what had changed? I had. I now could smell cheese for what it
was, a fermented yucky sticky thing. This was and is a very scary
thing.
>and you'd be no different. if a lab came up with a 100%
>nutritionally balanced pill to the exclusion of all food except
>water you and most others would pass. am i right on this much of
>an assumption?
Because the nutrients are out of context and are not in their
original, whole environment, it would not even pass the taste test.
Your natural palate, taken off acquired tastes, is very well able to
discern what we can eat and what we cannot. My suggestion to anyone
is to undergo a responsible fast. Then see what conclusions are
reached re these types of discussions... (of course, it's highly
unlikely that many will do this, but remember that there are many
proofs in the world, just like people like Eristarcus (sp???)
calculated the circumference of the earth hundreds of years before it
was an accepted fact that the Earth was not flat.
>"Part of what is necessary in successful dietary reform is to
>decondition the psychological addictions, as well as the physical
>ones."
>
>it's been shown in lab conditions that animals that are minimally
>fed, indeed borderline starved, live considerably longer than
>their control peers who are allowed a "free for all"-style diet.
>but it's been noted in the same breath that the initial test
>group are much less happy!
Yes, very true. Eating less than one would expect is not a happy
experience. However, what they are in actuality doing is decreasing
the toxic load. Their way is not a pleasant way but reducing the
amount of food that is causing the problem is a partial way of doing
what you could do automatically by eating the raw diet of your
biological disposition and without the hardship. The second way,
though, since you eat very much until you feel 'full' (judged by the
appestat versus the bloated feeling), is a way of satisfying way the
needs of life while enjoying the process wholeheartedly. I wish I
could give anyone just an immediate experience of the sensation of
pleasure the eating OF food that is truly delicious and that truly
satisfies your hunger is <sigh>. As we all know, satisfying +all+ the
needs of life should be a joyful and pleasurable process (or at the
very least, shouldn't hurt like in the cases of constipation, etc.)
>i'm not sure i would want to ever give up that most delicious of
>foods, fried bacon, regardless of whatever carcinogens and other
>bad stuff it has. that shit just tastes too damn good and if i
>can't live a little then what's the point of living at all?
Ah, well, that is a totally different story. You +must+ do what you
feel is right or what you want to do. No amount of argument can
change can or should change this.
>"Those sincere enough about their diet to do some serious
>experimenting with an all raw diet (our species evolved on same,
>as did all Life on
>this planet)"
>
>there you go again with your mantra. what-ev-ah.
Ah, well. It is true, sad to say. Again, you don't have to believe
it. Indeed, you don't have to believe anything anyone says. But,
like we have found in history, beliefs can have very little to do with
with the actual state of affairs...
Still, by no means should you do anything you don't want to.
>you call it detox. i call re-acclimatization. and it works both
>ways. if god forbid you had a catastrophe befall you where your
>life depended on eating a diet of 100% fish sticks or chicken
>wings (let's pretend maybe you were kidnapped by some evil
>scientist) then you would go through months of agony and "detox"
>and eventually be absolutely fine. or die starving... but we'll
>assume that you're no martyr and your willpower isn't on a heroic
>scale for the sake of argument :-)
Remember, we survived on the earth before we developed the beneficial
technologies to grow our own food. Heck, people have been known in
extreme situations to eat one other. No one is saying this is good
and that is not the argument here.
>"The medical statistics; however,
>are clearly supportive of plant-based diets, so is ALL
>scientifically credible information"
>
>hmmm. ok if you say so it MUST be true!
>
>and are you willing to bet anything from the real world that i
>can find at least one morsel of scientifically credible info to
>the contrary? you are saying that ALL, the complete ENTIRETY in
>the annals of scientific history lead to this conclusion, right?
>or is it credible only when it's supportive of your views?
There is one thing to point out. Scientific observation is pretty
accurate. One can almost always assume that if the study was
conducted in the accepted manner that the observations are okay.
Where one must be extremely cautious is in the +interpretation+ or the
+why+ of those observations.
Or, to put it a bit differently, what is observed in any given study
is probably true. However, one must always question the conclusions
that were reached and/or the interpretation of those results. The
biggest question I feel one must ask is why was a particular study
conducted or the motivations for it, secondly and more importantly,
who FUNDED the study. Interestingly, studies that disprove what is
trying to be proved are not published as a rule.
>i agree. why are you shooting holes into your own arguments?
>linda mccartney died relatively young of cancer. how cynical it
>would be of me to apply that particular case to the cause of
>vegetarianism, right?
Remember that although she was vegetarian, she probably ate a cooked
vegetarian diet.
Look at untoasted bread. Squeeze it up into a ball. It forms into a
solid, sticky mass. In fact, in crafting, bread dough is one of the
strongest clays around. Think how the body must handle this in the
digestive process. The gluten in sprouted wheat even when ground up in
a blender does not behave in this way. Indeed, one of the things one
has to adapt one's thinking to in a raw diet is the lack of 'bond'-ing
in foods. No way to easily make a wrap other than using leafy
vegetables such as lettuce, or other creative ways. So, I make the
biggest frequent exception in that I eat nori, for example. My
fillings and accompaninents are raw, but I wrap them up in the
processed seaweed.
>my granddad is about to turn 97 this summer, is healthy of body
>and mind and is as physically active as someone half his age. he
>has had an average, mainstream diet throughout his life. you and
>i should be so lucky to live as long as him with his present and
>former quality of life. in the end, my guess is that diet has
>played only a marginal role in his longevity with everything else
>in his life taken into account.
We are seeing less and less of this. Don't forget that even as little
as a few decades ago, the food was less processed and we were
generally-speaking a lot more active. Look at the faces and figures
of the people in the old black and whites. Sure disease has been
around for a long time now in our species, but even in the old black
and white movies, or any of the old movies, generally-speaking our
people looked a lot healthier.
Well, cheers all. It's been fun, but I'm getting too easily
side-tracked with all this really interesting stuff. I really should
go and get some work done, too <sigh>.
Have a great day everyone!!
MLM
[...]
> Also, I'm sorry, but you asked for it. It's a bit of a bombardment,
> but, hey, it'll be fun...
You miswrote - your list is a bunch of erroneous and false
propaganda.
> - why do we need to perceive colour (carnivorous animals do not)
Really? Why, then, does this article exist?
Loop MS, Bruce LL, Petuchowski S. "Cat color vision: the effect
of stimulus size, shape and viewing distance." Vision Res.
1979;19(5):507-13.
Could it be that your "facts" misrepresentations of the real
world?
Your list (and your entire posting pattern) is to bombard people
with unsupported "facts" and claim that somewhere you've got
support for them. That's a load of crap. Start supporting your
"facts" or can the bullshit.
[...]
> Just to cite one piece of evidence, leukocytosis has been observed
> after a cooked meal has been consumed (again, very sorry about the
> source of this study, can and will follow up for anyone that asks.);
> it does not occur after a raw one.
Ok, put it up. And legitimate cites, not veg*n propaganda and
not Kouchakoff's obscure, out of date, non-replicated
"research".
[...]
lilweed
MLM IS A 'BORG !
[as is David 'the life they get to live']
C'mon Martin- let's have- automated flame #2.
MLM <stout.@brew-master.com> wrote in message news:391C357E...@brew-master.com...
> FitWell wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Also, I'm sorry, but you asked for it. It's a bit of a bombardment,
> > but, hey, it'll be fun...
>
> You miswrote - your list is a bunch of erroneous and false
> propaganda.
>
>
>
> > - why do we need to perceive colour (carnivorous animals do not)
>
> Really? Why, then, does this article exist?
>
> Loop MS, Bruce LL, Petuchowski S. "Cat color vision: the effect
> of stimulus size, shape and viewing distance." Vision Res.
> 1979;19(5):507-13.
>
> Could it be that your "facts" misrepresentations of the real
> world?
> Your list (and your entire posting pattern) is to bombard people
> with unsupported "facts" and claim that somewhere you've got
> support for them. That's a load of crap. Start supporting your
> "facts" or can the bullshit.
>
> [...]
>
> > Just to cite one piece of evidence, leukocytosis has been observed
> > after a cooked meal has been consumed (again, very sorry about the
> > source of this study, can and will follow up for anyone that asks.);
> > it does not occur after a raw one.
>
lilweed
[...]
Another very informative, interesting post FitWell.
Thank you.
--
The Love We Withhold is the Pain We Carry
James Hepler
steve wrote:
>
> i'm done with you, forget it. if the original poster wanted backup claims, i would have
> posted them. i'm not doing it for you.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, partner.
James Hepler
>
> James Hepler wrote:
>
> > steve wrote:
> > >
> > > i don't need to spend my time flipping through old posts looking for links to
> > > information that has been posted here before.
> >
> > First of all, I don't even know what you are specifically responding
> > to. Second, this tired excuse does nothing but illustrate the fact that
> > you aren't serious about this debate. If you were, you would back your
> > claims up with something substantial.
> >
> > > the readers of alt.food.vegan have seen
> > > it enough times.
> >
> > Bullshit. If they care, they CAN'T see it enough times. IF you care,
> > you would have the shit SAVED on your DESKTOP for when outsiders like
> > myself want to learn. But you don't want to teach. You want to
> > COMPETE. Well, I'm good at that too.
> >
> > > i really don't care about the availability of information on the other
> > > ng's that this has been cross posted to.
> >
> > Why not? Because it doesn't result in the comforting mass back
> > patting? Are you only concerned with preaching to the saved? What a
> > lame attempt at an excuse for your LAZINESS.
> >
> > > i also don't care about what you know to be
> > > true, what research you have seen, etc.
> >
> > That's what takes this out of the realm of DEBATE and into the realm of
> > RELIGION. The willingness to toss aside arguments to the contrary in
> > favor of BLIND FAITH, RHETORIC, and PROPAGANDA. You are a poseur.
> >
> > > i have something more valuable than
> > > scientifically conducted research- my own personal experience.
> >
> > Your arrogance is duly noted. Shall I infer from this statement that
> > you are under the impression that what you experience is what EVERYONE
> > experiences? That you are some kind of cosmic trendsetter?
> >
> > > this i will continue to
> > > share with other readers.
> >
> > You didn't share any personal experience in your last post. You made
> > assertions that you now refuse to support. Based on that, and the fact
> > that you snipped it all, which indicates that you KNOW you are LYING,
> > your personal experience is nothing other than: "lying is OK".
> >
> > > if they want to know if it's healthy to be vegetarian, the
> > > answer is yes- i can be far healthier than non-veg diets.
> >
> > This much is true. But will you grow a pair and admit that one can eat
> > meat and be more healthy than a vegetarian?
> >
> > > that is plain and simple
> > > fact.
> >
> > This is true, as I stated already.
> >
> > > you could not have possibly seen any research w/in the last 10 years stating the
> > > opposite, unless the vegetarian is eating grass clippings and watching tv all day, and
> > > the carnivore is working out daily.
> >
> > Exercise notwithstanding, one can eat meat and be more healthy than a
> > vegetarian. THE KEY IS NUTRITION. You can attempt to oversimplify the
> > issue, but you can not dispute the fact that a healthy diet is
> > INFINITELY MORE IMPORTANT than whether or not it contains meat.
> >
> > > (those are external factors that would
> > > theoretically have no place in a scientifically conducted test, though that doesn't
> > > mean they wouldn't be there anway. i've participated in university-conducted
> > > experiments.
> >
> > Show me where I can find the results. Otherwise, you might as well be
> > claiming that you flew to the moon and back.
> >
> > > they're often run by students under the guidance of professors, and
> > > university students just aint the most responsible people)
> >
> > Neither are people who can't back up their assertions.
> >
> > > don't go around ng's demanding that people back up every statement they make with
> > > 'scientific' facts.
> >
> > I don't. I only demand that they back up their ASSERTIONS with
> > evidence. If you wish to state an opinion, you are free to do so. But
> > don't pass off rhetoric as fact. That gets us nowhere. What we end up
> > with is two bickering children saying, "Is too." "Is not." "Is too."
> > "Is not."
> >
> > But then for you, that is enough, right? For you, it is a pissing
> > contest. If you aren't interested in debate, just say so, and I will
> > leave you to make your IDIOTIC CLAIMS. Otherwise, grow the fuck up and
> > debate like an adult.
> >
> > > you can't prove the validity of any test unless you watched it
> > > yourself.
> >
> > What? Is this a thinly veiled attempt to question the integrity of
> > scientists in general? IS this an early attempt for you to discredit
> > sources I haven't even posted yet?
> >
> > > but your behavior is just plain rude. you didn't back anything up that you
> > > said, anyway, so fuck you.
> >
> > What I said is backed up by common sense. I haven't said anything
> > questionable. But here, chew on this:
> >
> > M Kestin, IL Rouse, RA Correll, and PJ Nestel
> > Cardiovascular disease risk factors in free-living men: comparison
> > of two prudent diets, one based on lactoovovegetarianism and the other
> > allowing lean meat
> > Am J Clin Nutr 1989 50: 280-287.
> >
> > FM Sacks and EH Kass
> > Low blood pressure in vegetarians: effects of specific foods and
> > nutrients
> > Am J Clin Nutr 1988 48: 795-800.
> >
> > All I have to prove is that including meat in one's diet is AS HEALTHY
> > AS excluding meat from one's diet, AS LONG AS both diets are balanced
> > and healthy. It should stand to reason that a balanced meat eating diet
> > is MORE HEALTHY than an unbalanced vegetarian diet. But for some reason
> > you want me to prove it. Unfortunately, it is hard to find any studies
> > to prove my point, due to the fact that it is so INTUITIVE. So give me
> > more time to find stuff. In the meantime, enjoy reading the articles I
> > have provided.
Swamp
"FitWell" <NoS...@NoJunkMail.com> wrote in message news:391c0075...@news.magma.ca...
> >flesh-eating
> >> adapted us (allowed for bigger brains and such), not that we adapted to
> >it.
>
> No, we had our bigger brain from the time before we took on
> flesh-eating habits. That we continued on in our evolution was
> despite the flesh-eating habit, not due to it.
Better check the books again, the earliest primate fossils ever found,
show evidence of an omnivorous diet.
-snip mostly irrelevant blather-
> >Not only that, of all the branches in the homonid tree, only one group ever
> >adopted a totally vegetarian diet, those being the robust australopithicines
> >(A. robustus and A. boisei.)
> >
> >They proved an evolutionary dead end, being out-competed and supplanted by
> >early Homo species, namely H. habilis and H. rudolfensis.
>
> There is very little said about what we were before that time of
> change. We already +were+ a 'vegetarian' species before the change
> but anthropology focuses on it primarily.
LOL! There's no *we* there. They were a dead end, not an ancestor.
> Ever wonder why every
> creation myth in every culture includes
> vegetation/trees/fruits/vegetables of some sort?
Nope.
> If we were truly
> meat-eaters, our creation myth would probably involve prey
Many do, mine does.
> just like
> an amoeba's idea of paradise would maybe be an abundance of food and
> an environment conducive to plenty in its context?? What would a
> caterpillar's view of paradise be, or how about my rabbit? What is
> his view of paradise, I wonder?
I highly doubt they give it much thought.
> (BTW, evolution does not preclude a creator. Although I am not
> religious, have read many articles and some books from raw fooders
> that are. Their particular journeys to raw foodism/fruitarianism is
> inspiring for they speak of returning to the diet God created for us
> as is seen on the first page of the bible ... eating the seeds of the
> trees, or words to that effect.)
mmmm, cheeseburger trees.......
-snip-
> Again, all that being said, everyone chooses the lifestyle that is
> best for them, and that is as it should be.
There you go! So long as you don't judge me, I won't judge you.
--
¥¥Swamp¥¥
rasiel
state are released and changed into inorganic substances, etc."
what? what's organic suspension? also, that i know of the body
excretes no major inorganic compounds. the definition of
inorganic as i understand it is any compound that does not
contain the element carbon. other than salts that leaves plenty
few other things...
"These, that were once beneficial become toxic, as anything that
the body ingests that is not required by the body is a toxin."
debatable. when you eat your next celery stick remember that a
good part of it is cellulose which is not digestible - are you
ready to call that toxic? for a substance to be called toxic to
the body it should have an adverse, not neutral, effect.
"High temperatures, i.e., above about 105 degrees F destroy
enzymes and render simple, short molecular chains into more
complex and harder to break
ones"
i think you got it backwards. heat normally breaks down molecules
, including those complex molecules known as enzymes. our
digestive system has no specific problems with long molecules
that i know of. fill me in if i'm wrong.
"That is why sodium, though absolutely essential to life, once
converted to something like sodium chloride becomes deadly"
i'd venture to say that you've never tried eating pure sodium.
not unless you're into alkali burns anyway. and i don't see the
connection of sodium to heat-induced molecule lengthening. or
what long chains of molecules have to do with any of this for
that matter!
"You don't believe this,
an ancient Chinese torture apparently involved forcing salt into
the victim until death occurred. Also, though dying of thirst,
sailors never drank sea water"
what's your fixation with salt? it's more dangerous to suffer the
consequences of low salt intake (muscle disorders, including the
heart, etc.) than of too much salt (hypertension, dehydration).
and as for it being used in torture, while it makes interesting
reading it's no different than anything else used in excess.
water, the least toxic substance to the body, could be used just
as successfully in torturing when given in large enough amounts.
"Look to nature and to ourselves. Are we born with cook stoves?
What other animal in nature cooks its food?"
cooking just makes the food taste better, plus has the additional
benefit of sterilizing the food even if at the expense of some
loss of nutritional value. i'm not arguing anything beyond that.
"There is one little known fact, just like marijuana is good (so
I am told) to those who learn to like it, and very hot food is
good to those who learn to like it,
etc., etc., once you de-toxify your system, food that tasted good
to you before no longer does so."
..once you detoxify your system....
this is the fallacy i'm fighting. no one's making any good
arguments here as to why going from a diet based on cooked meat
to one of raw veggies decreases toxic substances in your body.
there is no detoxification going on! you just get used to eating
different food and your body adapts to the new diet. take the
reverse and go from your present diet to one that includes cooked
meat and processed food and you'd see the exact same effects. in
brief, your body wouldn't like it at first and then the new diet
would taste just fine.
we could perform an experiment to prove you right or wrong. first
we fast on a nothing-but-water diet for 3 days. then you go on
and eat a bushel of raw veggies. i'll eat steak and potatoes.
afterwards, let's draw some blood and analyze it for known
toxins. stuff like heavy metals, trace pesticides/herbicides,
synthetic or otherwise non-human hormones. anything that can be
conclusively proven to be harmful to our bodies.
what do you suppose would come up? i dunno. i really don't. but
are you willing to state a priori that my blood sample would come
back with a laundry list of poisons while yours passed the test
with flying colors?
"Vegans know this very well. After you've been without cheese,
for example, how does it smell?"
some cheese smells horrible no matter what. like limburger.
what's this prove? that smell equals the level of healthiness?
tell you what, garlic smells particularly revolting, even
physically sickening to me. it probably smells horrible to you
too. artichokes smell like fart. what do we infer therefore? you
ever opened up a bottle of vitamin b pills? do you like *that*
smell?
"My suggestion to anyone is to undergo a responsible fast. Then
see what conclusions are reached re these types of
discussions..."
i've fasted before for up to three days on nothing but orange
juice. after 3 days of not eating anything i found nothing at all
appetizing. and certainly not veggies. again, all you're
witnessing is the body's shift to a new culinary climate - a
shift that isn't without some pain.
"Sure disease has been around for a long time now in our
species, but even in the old black and white movies, or any of
the old movies, generally-speaking our people looked a lot
healthier. "
this is also very debatable. circa 1900 life expectancy was
around 40 years of age. and if you really think people ate all
that healthy back then take a look at a book called 'the jungle'
by upton sinclair. if you consider it to be axiomatic that being
healthier generally results in living longer then we are
healthier than they were.
Emz
modernisation. Many veggies agree with this statement.
Yet often it is not the meat eating itself that is the concern of veggies.
It is the way in which animals are treated in the production of meat
products. Animals are kept in terrible conditions and treated badly. In this
not a reason for going veggie in itself.
I am not a preaching veggie, but what can be a more natural way of eating
and its healthy, its interesting (loads of pulses, lentils, salads). Things
that many think are horrible, but can be the most amazing tastes around.
I have been veggie for 7 years and it is the best thing I have ever done.
go veggie!!!!!!
Emz
Laurie
"rasiel" <rasielN...@rasiel.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> "Not generally known, even in the veg*n books, is that when one
>> improves one's diet, the body will, when relieved of its
>> thrice-daily load of toxins
>> and excessive nutrients, start sometimes rather spectacular
>> cleansing reactions that excrete many pounds of old, stored
>> toxins through every
>> possible eliminative route (urine, feces, skin, breath)"
>
> look, really, i'm controlling my urge to call the above BS in the
> interests of a non-flaming argument. as far as i know the
> lymphatic system, liver and kidneys are responsible for
> detoxification of the body. sweat plays a role too.
perhaps familiarizing yourself with the subject first by
experiment/experience might be advised.
By what routes does the body excrete toxic and waste material to the
outside world? AFAIK the routes I listed above are the only ones. But
please correct my errors.
> provide at least a cursory argument of why a veggie-only diet is
> toxin-free.
Didn't say that; said when the diet improves, the body will respond with
sometimes spectacular cleansing reactions which involve excretion of stored
toxins.
There are toxins in most plant material, e.g. their natural pesticides,
the exception being fruits. Some plants are extremely toxic, e.g. the
Solanaceae family: Deadly Blooming Nightshade being one member. Herbs,
condiments, and spices are quite toxic; that is why they have been selected
out of general plant material and given special names.
The point was that a plant-based diet is far less toxic than an animal
product-based one. In addition, an animal-based diet presents excessive
nutrients (protein and fat) which can not be digested properly, and this
results in putrefaction in the intestines which, in turn, creates more
toxins that are absorbed back into the body. Cooking meats produces some of
the most powerful carcinogens known.
> provide another indicating where turning veg*n gets
> rid of POUNDS' worth of toxins.
It is common experience, one that you have not made any attempt to have,
that one's body dumps out toxic material when one improves one's diet. If
one fasts, the intensity of bodily and excretion odors increase
dramatically, obviously because more toxic material is being excreted than
normal. E.g. the body/fecal odors of the meat-eater rapidly diminish to the
vanishing point when transitioning to a plant-based diet, at least one not
burdened by excess proteins from nuts/seeds/beans.
The meat-eaters' toxic waste products include: indole, skatole,
cadaverine, and putrescine. These all are amine compounds, and are created
in the intestines because the cooked animal protein is not digested
properly. The veg*n, intelligent enough to not overeat protein, does not
manifest these compounds, or the odors characteristic of meat eaters.
When Chuck moved into my house, he weighed 300+ lbs as a result of
eating the local cultural diet for a couple of decades. A year and a half
later, on Arnold Ehret's transition diet (fruit and raw/cooked vegetables)
he weighed 150 lbs. So, 150 lbs of internally stored toxins, excess mucus,
fat, and random unidentified stuff left his body spontaneously merely
because of his dietary change.
He dropped HALF of his original bodyweight; this without a lick of
exercise. All his so-called "allergies" that he had all his life also
disappeared, and he could go camping for the first time in his life.
It is common experience that one loses weight on a veg*n diet, the most
beneficial and rapid loss occurs with a raw diet. Aren't flesh-eaters
always referring to "skinny" veg*ns in an insulting, or is it a jealous,
way?
> as far as the body is concerned a toxin is that which poisons it
> and the body is simply unable to synthesize this particular
> chemical into something else. like urea. like heavy metals. like,
> arguably, free oxygen radicals. please state how it is that
> eating vegetables to the exclusion of meat significantly alters
> any of the above.
Stopping eating animal products will reduce, or eliminate, the
consumption of:
1> the excessive protein and fat consumption associated with same.
Thus, the internal toxins created by intestinal putrefaction of such
excessive consumption are no longer created and absorbed back into the body.
2> some of the most powerful carcinogens known, which are created by
cooking animal protein/fat.
3> toxic farm chemicals in animal feed, e.g. pesticides, which animal
fat accumulates and concentrates
4> various growth hormones, antibiotics, and other drugs given to
farm animals.
5> the 'flight of fight' hormones created in the animal as it is
slaughtered.
> and don't compare an irresponsible meat-based
> diet to an ideal veg*n one because that wouldn't be fair.
Since there is not one scrap of scientifically credible evidence that
supports human flesh-eating, wouldn't that make all flesh diets
irresponsible? Isn't the social, ecological, and economic burden caused by
eating animal products irresponsible to the rest of us?
> "Obviously, our species evolved on a totally raw diet, as did all
> Life on the planet, and that is
> what our biochemistry is structured for. "
> why the *%&7^$%#$# is this so obvious?
It is not obvious to you that the majority of the existence of our
little species was PRE-fire, and that our biochemistry developed under these
conditions? Do you really not know that fire and tools are a relatively
recent fad, only of our species? Are you denying that all other species on
the planet eat only a raw diet? If these facts are not obvious to you, a
result of a poor education, then crack a book or two. Or, look out the
window; do you see other animal species using fire??
> i buy this only on a
> literal sense. as in early hominids did not cook their food. you
> however seem to be referring a 'raw diet' as one based
> exclusively on vegetable matter.
Since there is not one scrap of scientifically credible information that
supports the silly man-as-carnivore myth, of course we evolved on a raw
plant-based diet.
How many meat-eaters, including yourself, kill their prey with their
bare hands, tear it to pieces manually, and eat it raw, dripping blood, just
like ALL THE NATURAL CARNIVORES ON THE PLANET DO? Certainly, as you prefer
to believe without substantiation, IF humans were natural carnivores our
instincts would have us eating our flesh in the same way as all the other
natural carnivores. Yet, human instinct prevents such behavior. WHY??
> as much as you may hate to admit this these two things are
> unquestionably true. 1) our biochemistry is suited for a wide
> variety of nutrients available from nature. proof: humans can
> adapt to a wider climate spread than any other animal precisely
> because we're more flexible in finding food with which we can
> successfully live with.
If, indeed, you are defining the rampant diseases that cut the potential
human lifespan in half, such diseases not seen in natural species, and the
exponentiating "health care" costs a success, that is irrational.
We certainly have not 'adapted' to living outside our natural ecological
niche; we have created technology: clothes, houses, fire, farming, and
transportation systems, ... to make such possible. But the disease
statistics indicate that this was not without a dear price. You are making
the common error of confusing quality with quantity.
If you were to look at evolutionary theory a bit, the conclusion is that
any species can not 'adapt' to dietary items not in its natural diet, simply
because a cultural diet does not KILL the individual before it REPRODUCES,
thus no 'adaptation' (shift in composition of the gene pool) can occur.
The proof that the human has NOT 'adapted to flesh-eating or other
animal products is that, despite the extensive cultural history of doing
same, when one stops they become healthier, by their own experience.
Experience is the best teacher.
> 2) our biochemistry is NOT fine tuned to
> a vegetable-only diet. proof: if it were we'd be able to digest
> cellulose. more proof: if you change the diet of a herbivore to a
> meat-based diet the animal will promptly die because it can't
> adapt. of course, the opposite is also true.
You are incorrectly assuming that all species that eat plant-based diets
can digest cellulose, but that is not true. Very few species can digest
cellulose, and that not without special physiology and/or microbial
assistance.
In fact, the indigestible cellulose is the necessary 'bulk/fiber'
without which we'd all be constipated as the exclusive meat/bread/cheese
eater.
No one has claimed that the human is a herbivore; I certainly have not.
You are assuming that a species can 'adapt' to a non-natural diet, and
that is not true. There are no mechanisms whereby the complex digestive
biochemistry, indluding dozens of specialized, complex chemical pathways,
can change to accommodate unknown chemicals.
>> "The purpose of eating is to keep the body alive, NOT to get>
> "full".
> this is probably true. at any rate i can't argue because i've no
> proof to substantiate the opposite point. in any case, us humans
> when given the chance often eat because the food tastes good
> rather than just to meet our nutritional requirement.
What people uniformly discover when making serious dietary reform
efforts is that, as the body detoxes, one becomes much more aware of
internal signals related to different dietary items. One's awareness of
toxic/negative effects increases dramatically and one has increasingly
intense internal feedback, such that the natural instincts begin to take
over. I call this developing 'body wisdom'. Thus, it is common experience
that as one gets healthier, one will discover that something one 'liked' in
the past now is not enjoyed, and eventually the body will reject improper
'foods' spontaneously. As one's taste acuity increases, one finds that a
favorite item no longer 'tastes good', so it is easily dropped.
Your statement is merely a result of cultural conditioning of what
'tastes good'.
> and you'd be no different. if a lab came up with a 100%
> nutritionally balanced pill to the exclusion of all food except
> water you and most others would pass. am i right on this much of
> an assumption?
Sure, but what's the point? Each species has a very specific natural
diet, that no doubt 'tastes good' to that species. If you give free choice
of 'foods' to a human infant, it will always choose sweet, juicy fruit. It
will not attempt to eat the family cat. This is before its instincts are
swamped with the pain and diminished consciousness associated with being
forced to eat the local cultural diet.
> it's been shown in lab conditions that animals that are minimally
> fed, indeed borderline starved, live considerably longer than
> their control peers who are allowed a "free for all"-style diet.
> but it's been noted in the same breath that the initial test
> group are much less happy!
Do you not recognize a difference between optimally nourished on a
species-specific diet and "borderline starved"?
How, indeed, do we measure the consciousness (happy?) of a different
animal species, when we can not even detect consciousness in humans?
> i'm not sure i would want to ever give up that most delicious of
> foods, fried bacon, regardless of whatever carcinogens and other
> bad stuff it has. that shit just tastes too damn good and if i
> can't live a little then what's the point of living at all?
This states your position, exactly. You have NO interest in your own
health, longevity, or quality of life. You are defining yourself as a
hedonistic glutton (nothing personal, your choice), the only purpose of
which is to twiddle your own taste buds. Worse, you are defining 'living'
as ONLY a transient taste experience. Life can be much more significant and
rewarding than that.
What you don't know is that IF you get to the point of seeing the
validity of getting healthier, (maybe that first heart-attack might provide
motivation?) that eventually your own body will reject most of the items you
are currently conditioned to think you 'like'. What a dilemma that would
be!
>> "Those sincere enough about their diet to do some serious
>> experimenting with an all raw diet (our species evolved on same,
>> as did all Life on this planet)">
> there you go again with your mantra. what-ev-ah.
Mantra? It is a fact. If you could provide some supported counter
argument, I will be happy to entertain it. Are you really claiming that the
human species used fire from the very beginning?? According to consensus
science the beginning was when proteins agglomerated into individual cells
in the primordial soup. And just how did fire exist under water?
Notice, also, when you can not provide a rational counter argument, you
retreat into avoidance.
It is an unavoidable fact that all species on the planet eat a raw diet,
and that the only one that cooks its food has the most 'disease. Mere
coincidence?
> "The most difficult thing for most
> wannabe veg*ns is to have 'family' members constantly undermining
> their efforts to improve. "
> ouch. that hurts. especially the family within quotes part. as if
> i'm not true family unless i go along. well ok.
The concept of 'family' generally implies some commonality, cooperation,
mutual goals, ... and you reported undermining an other's efforts. This is
a general statement, not directed at you, and it is true.
> "I have seen many couples break up because one member starts to
> wake up a bit, starts to think, starts to improve, and sees their
> sincere efforts
> being undermined, negated, criticized, or attacked by a 'partner'
> who does not care."
> notice how you take the high road, safe in the knowledge that
> what you're espousing is the True Way. smacks of elitism,
> snobbiness, brainwashing.
Oh please, I am just stating my observations, quite apart from you.
But, since you want to talk about brainwashing, just HOW did you start
this scientifically absurd pattern of flesh-eating?? Was it due to several
years of scientific appraisal of the facts? Was it a logical, conscious
decision based on rational analysis? Hell no! You were programmed (i.e.
brainwashed) at a very early age to do so by similarly culturally-programmed
parents, who, like you have no interest in their own health.
You, and the great majority of folks, are deeply asleep in cultural
hypnosis, and unable/unwilling to think about your own diet and its
consequences. How could you possibly humble yourself to even consider that
what you have been doing all your life is not really in your own best
interests? It is not your fault, you were 'raised' that way; what is your
responsibility, however, is refusing to think once you have reached the age
of personal responsibility.
We ALL have been brainwashed by a terminally sick, self-destructive
culture; the idea is to wake up!
> either way remember that i specifically asked my wife to follow a
> diet i couldn't take on myself ...
What a bizarre concept; advising others to something one does not even
remotely understand. That is why I tried to explain the dynamics of her
detox, and why she felt 'sick', and why the misinterpretation of sickness
was inappropriate.
>> "Additionally, people may go through months/years of
>> cleansing/detox, so they don't present a good appearance
>> during this time. "
> you call it detox. i call re-acclimatization. and it works both
> ways.
No it doesn't work 'both ways', you are again ASSuming a non-existent
process of 'adapting'. If one went from a clean plant-based diet to a
flesh-based diet, there would be NO pounds of stored excess mucus/toxins
excreted for they would not exist.
I find it interesting that you claim understanding of a process that you
have not experienced -- what is this, nutritional telepathy?
>> "The medical statistics; however,
>> are clearly supportive of plant-based diets, so is ALL
>> scientifically credible information"
> hmmm. ok if you say so it MUST be true!
You could, instead of wasting my time with this nonsense, look at the
literature for yourself. Oh, wait, that would take some effort.
> and are you willing to bet anything from the real world that i
> can find at least one morsel of scientifically credible info to
> the contrary? you are saying that ALL, the complete ENTIRETY in
> the annals of scientific history lead to this conclusion, right?
> or is it credible only when it's supportive of your views?
OK, present some studies that conclude:
1> the human is a _natural_ carnivore (be sure to include
physiological and biochemical rational)
2> that any species can 'adapt' to a non-natural diet
3> while you are doing this research, also try to find out just what
happens to the 3-dimensional structure of proteins when they are cooked.
Relate this info to the biochemical model of 'lock-and-key' enzyme
processes, and the resulting indigestibility of cooked proteins.
>> "However, a 'skinny' vegetarian will look quite normal when
>> compared to animals
>> in Nature, since they do not overeat. Try to find some body fat
>> on a 'skinny' Gorilla"
> and this proves what exactly? try to find some body fat on a
> starving ethiopian ...
This kind of foolishness has convinced me that you really have no
sincere interest in the subject, but are merely another meat-head with
nothing better to do that troll veg*n forums to annoy people.
The comparison was a healthy 'skinny' veg*n and a health 'skinny' animal
who eats by its instincts, v.s. the obese cultural diet eater. Your
bringing in a nutritionally deficient, starving person is simply stupid, but
it does provide insight into your sincerity.
> "My best intellectual buddy in college was a meat-eater (so was I
> at that point) and he died of a 'heart-attack' at age 24. So
> what? One data point
> does not give one insight into the natural laws involved. "
> i agree. why are you shooting holes into your own arguments?
I'm not; merely pointing out that one data point does not the argument
make -- e.g. your idiotic starvation rap.
>> "We need to look at averages to see the patterns that are
>> manifest by the Laws of Nature."
> indeed! and what are those anyway?
Lots of them.
There are similarities among the physiological tools in natural
carnivores; e.g. sharp claws, teeth, talons, beaks, ... Humans have none.
There are patterns in lengths of the digestive tract for different natural
diets. It's called comparative physiology; read some books. The digestive
biochemistry is quite different.
You prefer to believe that humans are not bound by Natural Law, and we
may do anything we want without consequence. Unfortunately for the
arrogant, beliefs about natural laws do not change them in the slightest.
Ignorance of the Law of Gravity does not allow one to fly.
>> "What a bizarre concept; apparently you are unfamiliar with the>
> medical statistics regarding meat-based vs. plant-based diets?"
> why yes i am, please enlighten me!
Better yet, you search the medical literature and let us know what you
come up with. Make a little effort, try to learn something.
> so true! maybe when some studies show that vegetarians live
> longer than meat-eaters you'll be able to make some valid points.
Here's that old false concept that the length of life is the _only_
aspect of life. You totally ignore quality. The length of one's life tells
us nothing about one's quality of life; medical heroics of keeping useless,
semi-corpses 'alive' distort the statistics significantly.
> my granddad is about to turn 97 this summer, is healthy of body
> and mind and is as physically active as someone half his age. he
> has had an average, mainstream diet throughout his life. you and
> i should be so lucky to live as long as him with his present and
> former quality of life. in the end, my guess is that diet has
> played only a marginal role in his longevity with everything else
> in his life taken into account.
Consider that this guy was born well before the post WW2 avalanche of
toxic farm chemicals, growth hormones, food additives, junk food, etc. that
plague more recent humans. The old grandfather argument doesn't mean much,
since they got a pretty good start. Of course, one could ask just how much
longer would he live if he had been intelligently health-conscious all his
life. I thought you agreed that one data point means nothing.
Since it is clear to me at this point that you have no sincere interest
in the topics of discussion here, and that you are just one more meat-head
troll haunting veg*n discussion forums with the intent only to annoy,
certainly not engage in polite academic discussion, I will no longer respond
to your posts.
Ask yourself what your purpose is here: you have no interest in veg*n
diets, the topic; and you have no interest in your own health, the reason
for the topic. Maybe you are lost? Maybe alt.food.hamburger or
alt.meatheads might suit your purpose, if any, better?
Laurie
rasiel
to have, that one's body dumps out toxic material when one
improves one's diet."
i admitted as much but was interested in the nature of these
toxins. other than point to vague literature just mention some
specific toxic substances that your body excretes when fed raw
veggies that i couldn't with my present one. that's all.
"The meat-eaters' toxic waste products include: indole, skatole,
cadaverine, and putrescine. "
i didn't know that the above were toxic to the system. other
than being obnoxious you didn't state whether these are found in
the bloodstream or tissues or are mostly confined to the gut.
again, i'm defining the word toxinc to be synonymous to
poisonous in which case you should also state the deleterious
effects on the body.
"When Chuck moved into my house.... So, 150 lbs of internally
stored toxins, excess mucus, fat, and random unidentified stuff
left his body spontaneously merely because of his dietary change"
again with the phantom toxins. see, i'd guess that i'd go with
the axiomatic weight-loss truth that if you're eating less
calories than you're burning you'll lose weight. and that means
fat. it leads me to think that since he didn't exercise this
would ring even more true.
i just would like to know how many pounds of which specific
toxins are in my body right now that i will not be able to get
rid of until such time that i eat a vegetarian diet. please?
"Since there is not one scrap of scientifically credible
evidence that supports human flesh-eating, wouldn't that make
all flesh diets irresponsible? Isn't the social, ecological, and
economic burden caused by eating animal products irresponsible
to the rest of us? "
but, sadly, you're evading the comparison and going off on
another tangent which i've addressed in other threads. so if you
could please reconsider the original question?
"It is not obvious to you that the majority of the existence of
our little species was PRE-fire, and that our biochemistry
developed under these conditions? "
fine... i thought you were encompassing more into the
phrase "raw diet" than the literal sense. of course i'm aware
that cooking with fire is a relatively recent event.
"Since there is not one scrap of scientifically credible
information that supports the silly man-as-carnivore myth, of
course we evolved on a raw plant-based diet. "
well i thought i did provide some scientific evidence but
apparently you ignored it. it was to the effect of
anthropoligical observation of early man which nearly always
finds human remains, or remains of human activity, closely
linked to bone fragments with telltale scrapings caused by
primitive tools. i thought i didn't need to be so pedantic as to
pull out reference pages out of national geographics but if i
must...
in any case, you're stating authoritatively that humans evolved
from a raw, vegetarian diet. i'd like to see some support for
this hypothesis. it's a given that before fire their meals were
raw but where is even circumstantial evidence that it used to be
a primarily vegetarian one.
"How many meat-eaters, including yourself, kill their prey with
their bare hands, tear it to pieces manually, and eat it raw,
dripping blood, just like ALL THE NATURAL CARNIVORES ON THE
PLANET DO? "
very few of course, read below..
"Certainly, as you prefer to believe without substantiation, IF
humans were natural carnivores our instincts would have us
eating our flesh in the same way as all the other natural
carnivores. "
well i'd like to think that part of human evolution involved our
desire to improve, among other things, the sophistication of our
cuisine. it stands to reason that we no longer do just about
anything as homo erectus did so i believe this to be completely
unrelated to the line of argument. as a matter of fact it's
unlikely that homo erectus carefully tended their gardens and
took great precaution to eat a nutritionally correct vegetarian
diet.. but i won't use that against you.
if we can agree that primitive man had very little insight into
the correct way of leading a life (and surely we can argue this
some more) then to selectively point out anything within their
behavior offers little help in shaping the discussion.
"The proof that the human has NOT 'adapted to flesh-eating or
other animal products is that, despite the extensive cultural
history of doing same, when one stops they become healthier, by
their own experience. Experience is the best teacher. "
this is a dash of truth mixed in with a bucketload of hearsay.
listen, i'm not an idiot. like i've said before, intuitively i
understand that a diet based largely on vegetables is healthier
than one that is not. what i am saying is that you can lead a
long lifetime without giving up meat and be just as healthy as a
strict vegetarian. oh, and that includes a high-quality life. if
you disagree just address some of my doubts - end of story.
"No one has claimed that the human is a herbivore; I certainly
have not"
well, at least that's a step in the right direction. if man is
not a herbivore then he's either a carnivore (which he isn't
imo) or he's an omnivore. oh wow, what did you just admit to?
that humans are natural omnivores that are naturally suited to
eat both plants and animals? woooops laurie???
"You are assuming that a species can 'adapt' to a non-natural
diet, and that is not true. "
why is it not? i say it is. the proof is visually and
empirically evident. take man off of his ideal diet, whatever
this may be, and he will survive if at least provided with food
of marginal nutritional value. i know you're gonna bring up life
quality and such but the bottom line will contuinue to be the
same: adaptability = flexibility. since you agree that humans
are not natural herbivores you also agree that restricting his
diet to one that mimics a herbivore is an environmental stress
with which he must cope. are we agreeing so far? yet, ideal
diets aside we continue to thrive anyway. i have every right to
think of this as an adaptation to adverse conditions.
when i moved from sea level to colorado my body was put in a low-
level stress from the decreased level of oxygen of the high
altitude. i'd feel winded from just a little exercise. as time
passed my body readjusted (adapted!) and equilibrium was
reached. if we're in agreement that the quality and type of food
available to me at any given point is an external factor of
circumstance then how could you possibly argue that the two are
fundamentally different?
"There are no mechanisms whereby the complex digestive
biochemistry, indluding dozens of specialized, complex chemical
pathways, can change to accommodate unknown chemicals"
you're constantly telling me to read up on books. it's your
turn, find out what liver does. as far as the body is concerned
if it can't synthesize it for some specific purpose it attempts
to break it down. failing that, it attempts to get rid of that.
failing that it attempts to coexist with it. i could place some
examples but i'd hate to be meretricious.
"Your statement is merely a result of cultural conditioning of
what 'tastes good'"
this is so condescending. what tastes good tastes good and
that's that. i have no reason to quarrel the idea that to you
tofu slabs really are delicious to you because this is beyond
the scope of this discussion. it is, actually, on the same level
as my telling you that the color green is not green at all; that
you've been programmed your entire life to think of it that way
but that your 'green' is actually 'red'. de gustibus non est
disputandum.
"If you give free choice of 'foods' to a human infant, it will
always choose sweet, juicy fruit"
funny, i thought it was mom's milk. we all have a sweet tooth
for sure (sucrose more so than fructose) and i doubt that you'd
make the argument that taking this into account this would make
the foundation for a good diet. i have a two year old that i
have a hard time tricking into eating veggies because he prefers
chicken and gravy. this has been so from day one so no need to
jump and state that i've programmed him into a distaste for
veggies.
"How, indeed, do we measure the consciousness (happy?) of a
different animal species, when we can not even detect
consciousness in humans? "
this is easy and surprising that you would bring up. all's you
need is a simple experiment. give your pet a choice of two
foods, one which you instinctively know to be delicious but not
that good for it and another which is properly nutritious but
otherwise bland or objectionable for some other reason.
i've done it with my cats unintentionally. normally, they get
dry food which they eat dutifully. every now and then however i
give them a treat of tuna fish. when i do this they literally
growl each other off and try to hog it up. could we conclude
that they're happier eating tuna fish rather than iams?
"You have NO interest in your own health, longevity, or quality
of life. "
you're right i've no interest whatsoever in my health. i'm
suicidial as a matter of fact... give me a break. i want to live
to be 600 years of age; i'm just part lazy in not exercising and
consider it integral to my quality of life to eat food i like.
"Worse, you are defining 'living' as ONLY a transient taste
experience"
watch those absolutes. it's not helping to get your point
across. i can almost sense your anger beneath the typing. in
truth good living for me is not all about eating tasty food, it
would also include travelling, lots of sex, lots of sleep and
other idle time, lots of good friends and many other things.
"Notice, also, when you can not provide a rational counter
argument, you retreat into avoidance. "
of all your accusations this one so far is the least merited.
i've been answering these posts almost sentence for sentence.
what am i avoiding? in your next post please ask me to elaborate
my thoughts on anything you want. i have no problem when stumped
to admit as much nor to sometimes say "yes, i agree that this is
not the best way"
"You were programmed (i.e. brainwashed) at a very early age to
do so by similarly culturally-programmed parents, who, like you
have no interest in their own health. "
another 100% unqualified assumption on your part. if you'd like
to know the truth both my parents fed me veggies as a kid and
eat veggies themselves to this day. i started dropping veggies
from the menu when they started neglecting what i ate and
naturally steered to other, less-healthy foods (so much for your
programming theory to the effect of humans will eat raw-vegiie-
diets when given the chance). this was wrong and undesirable but
it's here to stay and nowadays you could not pay me enough money
to eat into a salad. i'm sorry to myself for this. my life's an
open-book which you can read at
http://www.rasiel.com/bio/title.html
"How could you possibly humble yourself to even consider that
what you have been doing all your life is not really in your own
best interests?"
i haven't. my diet is crappy. have you been listening to me or
are you just waiting your turn to type?
"We ALL have been brainwashed by a terminally sick, self-
destructive culture; the idea is to wake up! "
are you a communist? your militantism doesn't in and of itself
make your points truer. just stick to the facts or state opinion
and label it as such.
"No it doesn't work 'both ways', you are again ASSuming a non-
existent process of 'adapting'. If one went from a clean plant-
based diet to a flesh-based diet, there would be NO pounds of
stored excess mucus/toxins excreted for they would not exist.
"
well, i've covered the adapting part... i'm also still waiting
to hear of the pounds of toxins, their nature, character and
weight. tell me also how an athlete with minimal body fat and in
perfect health who eats just so happens to eat meat will improve
some more on going vegetarian and how you can explain this
supposed toxin weight loss in him/her.
"OK, present some studies that conclude:
1> the human is a _natural_ carnivore (be sure to include
physiological and biochemical rational)"
but i never said this! no need to put words in my mouth as i'm
debating controversial stuff in its own right! you said yourself
we're not herbivores so it stands to reason we at least
partially agree on this.
"2> that any species can 'adapt' to a non-natural diet"
did it already but can elaborate if desired.
"3> while you are doing this research, also try to find out just
what happens to the 3-dimensional structure of proteins when
they are cooked. "
the proteins probably get denatured and the stuff will lose
nutritional value that your body will then have to re-synthesize
from scrap. more work for the liver. you see? i'm not such a
bone head after all! :-)
"This kind of foolishness has convinced me that you really have
no sincere interest in the subject, but are merely another meat-
head with nothing better to do that troll veg*n forums to annoy
people. "
i'm enjoying the discussion insofar as it's a good debate and
have so far avoided flaming me for having a lifestyle dissimilar
to mine. as for being a troll i've posted on usenet since the
80's which is more than likely longer than you've heard the
word 'internet'. anyway, if you think that calling me meat-head
and troll make you a better person or your views more valid then
suit yourself.
some comments you've made frustrate me in their flawed logic or
circular reasoning or just circumventing the question altogether
but if i lost my patience and started to call you names then
it'd give me away as losing the argument but not owning up to
it. i keep in mind at all times that i'm never going to change
anyone's mind on this or any other board, i'm just in it to
generate some thought-provoking material and, occasionally,
learn a little too.
"The comparison was a healthy 'skinny' veg*n and a
health 'skinny' animal who eats by its instincts, v.s. the obese
cultural diet eater. Your bringing in a nutritionally deficient,
starving person is simply stupid, but it does provide insight
into your sincerity. "
can't you just say it's a bad analogy? a healthy meat-eating
person will also be skinny. bfd. i just misunderstood the
comparison to reflect that vegetarians are alike to animals in
that they're both skinny because their diet is intrinsically
better suited to them.
"There are similarities among the physiological tools in natural
carnivores; e.g. sharp claws, teeth, talons, beaks, ... Humans
have none. "
humans don't have sharp teeth? what are incisors used for?
they'd have sharp nails too if it weren't nail clippers. i've
never understood what this argument is supposed to mean. if you
want to resort to evolution as providing answers to our diet we
can conclude that since we have large brains capable of
reasoning this will aid us, as it has, in hunting and gathering
food of any sort therefore making the necessity to rely on brute
power, natural weapons or pure speed less relevant. we fashion
the tools we need to meet our ends and there's the gift of
evolution.
"You prefer to believe that humans are not bound by Natural Law,
and we may do anything we want without consequence.
Unfortunately for the arrogant, beliefs about natural laws do
not change them in the slightest. Ignorance of the Law of
Gravity does not allow one to fly. "
you're putting words in my mouth again... it is totally within
man's nature to drive a mammoth off a cliff. it is our nature to
be selfish and greedy. hey, i've read Hobbes you know. if we do
it is by definition natural in the sense that we're animals too.
how is it that what you do is any more natural than what i do?
because i use heat to cook a meal? imo this is grabbing at
straws. while it may be technically correct from a philosphical
standpoint it's completely trivial and inconsequential to our
lives as far as you've been able to prove so far.
"Here's that old false concept that the length of life is the
_only_ aspect of life. You totally ignore quality. The length of
one's life tells us nothing about one's quality of life; medical
heroics of keeping useless, semi-corpses 'alive' distort the
statistics significantly"
there's the new false concept that quality of life is completely
unrelated to its length. i brought the example up of my granddad
who has led an extraordinarily lengthy life that also happens to
have been one of happiness and personal fulfillment as far as i
know. in the grand scheme of things his diet played nearly
zilcho role. he eats better than me but by your definition worse
than you.
why not just tell me what you feel regarding the comparison i
made earlier about two hypothetical people having different
diets? one your ideal, one the mainstream... they're otherwise
perfectly active and happy with themselves: who'll live
longer/healthier?
"Consider that this guy was born well before the post WW2
avalanche of toxic farm chemicals, growth hormones, food
additives, junk food, etc. that plague more recent humans. "
is now the argument that it only matters what one eats as a
child? or that it at least has an overbearing effect later on in
life? from what i've learned so far in history is that up til a
century or two ago, before the advent of modern medicine, humans
who lived in isolated groups lived brutally hard, short lives.
some of course died violent deaths, some others agonizingly slow
deaths due to all sorts of diseases. what gives?
"Since it is clear to me at this point that you have no sincere
interest in the topics of discussion here, and that you are just
one more meat-head troll haunting veg*n discussion forums with
the intent only to annoy, certainly not engage in polite
academic discussion, I will no longer respond to your posts."
like they say, if you can't take the heat get out of the
kitchen. i respect your lifestyle, have no need to call you
names just because i can't get a point across to you and will
continue to engage in polite academic discussion with, if not
you, then any others who may like to do so.
AverageJoe
family the vegetarian way". its written by an RD and a Ph.D. and its chock
full of reasons to go vegan and its got tons of references to studies that
support the opinion that a vegan diet is healthier than the average western
diet.
im sure there are many more books out there, i like this one though its
pretty detailed and it covers a lot of specific health issues.
take care, and i hope this helps
joe
Veggie wrote in message <8f46a4$gt1$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>...
FitWell
it may sound like proselytizing, but it actually isn't.
As for facts, yes, my database will help me there. I have tons of
books and references to studies done. However, I apologized already
for not having the facts easily accessible. Will do so very soon.
You can get mad at me or annoyed at me, or whatever, all you want, but
you DO have the option of not reading my posts, you know. Or you can
also just killfile me. Either one is okay by me. However, you were
probably just stating your opinion and that's okay, too.
This is a forum for discussion and even musings, etc., and, as such, I
figure that as long as one isn't rude, one can post one's views.
(And, yes, you won't be the first one to accuse me of or infer about
my verbosity. And you won't be the last, I'm afraid. It IS something
I'm working on ever since I went back to take an English course at
high school level (it's been 20 years since I graduated). My English
teacher helped me out; I told him how difficult it was for me to
write compactly unless I could go over and over text (verrrryyyy
time-consuming) and he quoted Cicero, he believed but wasn't sure,
saying: "Sorry my letter is so long, but if I had had more time, it
would have been much, much shorter". Well, I'm afraid that I rarely
have enough time and since I type 75 wpm and my thoughts just
flow.....
Ah well.....
Have a great day all!!
*****************************
On Fri, 12 May 2000 09:46:54 -0700, MLM <stout.@brew-master.com>
wrote:
>FitWell wrote:
>[...]
>
>> Also, I'm sorry, but you asked for it. It's a bit of a bombardment,
>> but, hey, it'll be fun...
>
>You miswrote - your list is a bunch of erroneous and false
>propaganda.
>
>
>
>> - why do we need to perceive colour (carnivorous animals do not)
>
>Really? Why, then, does this article exist?
>
>Loop MS, Bruce LL, Petuchowski S. "Cat color vision: the effect
>of stimulus size, shape and viewing distance." Vision Res.
>1979;19(5):507-13.
>
>Could it be that your "facts" misrepresentations of the real
>world?
>Your list (and your entire posting pattern) is to bombard people
>with unsupported "facts" and claim that somewhere you've got
>support for them. That's a load of crap. Start supporting your
>"facts" or can the bullshit.
>
>[...]
>
>> Just to cite one piece of evidence, leukocytosis has been observed
>> after a cooked meal has been consumed (again, very sorry about the
>> source of this study, can and will follow up for anyone that asks.);
>> it does not occur after a raw one.
>
FitWell
>state are released and changed into inorganic substances, etc."
>
>what? what's organic suspension? also, that i know of the body
>excretes no major inorganic compounds. the definition of
>inorganic as i understand it is any compound that does not
>contain the element carbon. other than salts that leaves plenty
>few other things...
Sorry. Not being a scientist (yet, anyway), I know that in
paraphrasing from memory I am not accurate. Remember that what
follows is also layperson to layperson again, so I expect that fault
can be found in the wording here, too ...
Take, for example, the calcium in dark greens. The calcium found in
the plant is not quite like the dolomite, or whatever is chosen, that
is put in the garden. Plants don't change the calcium but change the
way it is 'presented' to us (I may be very, very wrong here but I
remember in and around that time reading text referring to "chelation"
and if that was the state the 'organic suspension' was describing.
This was a thought I had at the time, and of course, I don't know, but
maybe someone else with the knowledge of chelation can confirm????)
In other words, our systems can assimilate the calcium in plants but
cannot readily do so when it is in its 'inorganic' state. i.e.,
tincture of iodine, something you buy in a drugstore, is toxic. Yet
iodine is necessary for life. What is the difference? One is in a
mineral or whatever form, but it's inorganic. The other is found in
plants in simpler chains that we can digest.
Same with sodium.
Naturally occurring sodium, my favourite example, is vital for life.
Celery has a lot and when you add lemon juice to avocados some sort of
natural chemical reaction takes place and brings out the natural
sodium - avocados/lemon juice are extremely salty. If you've given up
salt but have the odd craving for it, you can try the above. (Pls
note that because we cook our food, that since natural flavourings are
lost we compensate with spices that our taste buds. So at first this
saltiness may not be readily apparent since we're used to the stronger
and more caustic taste of sodium chloride. If it isn't salty to you
now, it will be if you ever give up or reduce salt/spices.)
BTW, it's never a good idea to ignore "cravings"; it's just best to
get those cravings seen to in natural ways.
Calcium, too. If we could really use the inorganic form efficiently,
we would be natural soil eaters. Remember when playing baseball in
school or other sport? Do you remember that slide or fall you had
where you hit the dirt and got a mouthful? What was your first
reaction? Generally we spit out dirt as a natural reflex, don't you
agree? Well, we +aren't+ natural soil eaters and it isn't the way we
get our minerals, etc., naturally.
Also, another point. Remember how it was the first time you took
medecine, indeed, how even now what your reaction can be to it?
Medicine is often taken in pill form. Early on, we learned that the
only way to get them down was by swallowing quickly and in a certain
way to avoid a gagging response. What did we learn to suppress and
bypass? Our own body's natural and instintive rejection of taking in
anthing that wasn't air, water or food. Same as with dirt.
>"These, that were once beneficial become toxic, as anything that
>the body ingests that is not required by the body is a toxin."
>
>debatable. when you eat your next celery stick remember that a
>good part of it is cellulose which is not digestible - are you
>ready to call that toxic? for a substance to be called toxic to
>the body it should have an adverse, not neutral, effect.
Very true, but the fibre is used by the body, too. We are always
hearing about the ways we need to add fibre to our diet. (This is
kinda gross, but, well, I used to suffer from many things before
becoming a vegetarian. Constipation ain't been since...)
>"High temperatures, i.e., above about 105 degrees F destroy
>enzymes and render simple, short molecular chains into more
>complex and harder to break
>ones"
>
>i think you got it backwards. heat normally breaks down molecules
>, including those complex molecules known as enzymes. our
>digestive system has no specific problems with long molecules
>that i know of. fill me in if i'm wrong.
Okay-doke. I'm going to save this file to get back to. As I
mentioned in an earlier post, I've read so many books and references
when I go and try to hunt them down I can't find them. So, this one
I'm going to look for the specific text. I was generalizing but need
to get more specific.
>"That is why sodium, though absolutely essential to life, once
>converted to something like sodium chloride becomes deadly"
>
>i'd venture to say that you've never tried eating pure sodium.
>not unless you're into alkali burns anyway. and i don't see the
>connection of sodium to heat-induced molecule lengthening. or
>what long chains of molecules have to do with any of this for
>that matter!
Fair enough. I talked about sodium earlier in this post. I'll leave
it there for now.
>"You don't believe this,
>an ancient Chinese torture apparently involved forcing salt into
>the victim until death occurred. Also, though dying of thirst,
>sailors never drank sea water"
>
>what's your fixation with salt? it's more dangerous to suffer the
>consequences of low salt intake (muscle disorders, including the
>heart, etc.) than of too much salt (hypertension, dehydration).
>and as for it being used in torture, while it makes interesting
>reading it's no different than anything else used in excess.
>water, the least toxic substance to the body, could be used just
>as successfully in torturing when given in large enough amounts.
Salt's a favourite, I know. But what I said about sodium can be said
of any mineral, etc., that is required for life yet when we try to eat
it in a form other than that found in plants, is not good for us,
speaking in layperson's terms...
>"Look to nature and to ourselves. Are we born with cook stoves?
>What other animal in nature cooks its food?"
>
>cooking just makes the food taste better, plus has the additional
>benefit of sterilizing the food even if at the expense of some
>loss of nutritional value. i'm not arguing anything beyond that.
Oh no. I'm not touching that one. "Food tastes better" ... all I can
ask you is this: have +you+ ever gone on a raw diet of fruits,
vegetables, nuts and seeds? I'm not asking you to, mind, just asking
you the question.
Remember that you can't speak about cooking making food taste better
because that is what you have known all your life and I'd bet my last
earthly possession on earth that you've never been on this raw diet
for any length of time and gone through detoxification and seen the
difference. Nope, we're just going to have to emphatically agree to
disagree on this one.
>"There is one little known fact, just like marijuana is good (so
>I am told) to those who learn to like it, and very hot food is
>good to those who learn to like it,
>etc., etc., once you de-toxify your system, food that tasted good
>to you before no longer does so."
>
>..once you detoxify your system....
>
>this is the fallacy i'm fighting. no one's making any good
>arguments here as to why going from a diet based on cooked meat
>to one of raw veggies decreases toxic substances in your body.
Ahh, I think I see here what is going on here. You are a meat eater,
is this correct?
If this is so, then your very best bet is to read up on the issue.
There are many books available in the library that are excellent. A
great and sane book is "Fit for Life" by Harvey and Marilyn Diamond.
They advocate vegetarianism/veganism (and don't feel strictly raw
foodism is necessary, which would put many people off at first) but
their approach is quite easy and so very guilt-free. They made it
possible for me to go from meat-eating to vegetarianism then veganism
10 years ago, eight years after I had tried unsuccessfully to the
first time.
>there is no detoxification going on! you just get used to eating
>different food and your body adapts to the new diet. take the
>reverse and go from your present diet to one that includes cooked
>meat and processed food and you'd see the exact same effects. in
>brief, your body wouldn't like it at first and then the new diet
>would taste just fine.
Oh, boy. A challenge!! I love these discussions. Okey-doke. Again,
you're not going to like it but since my database won't be ready soon,
I've just gone to living and raw food diet forum for a look-see.
Until last Weds. I had a 16-bit computer that did not encourage
internet surfing. I really do much prefer a newsreader and newsgroups
to get info, but there isn't any traffic in the living food one I have
access to here. Everyone's all on the faw forums on the internet
instead (I'm working on that one, believe me...). So, I'd never been
able to go into the articles, etc., to any depth as it took forever
just to read and post on the forums. But with my new 56K modem and
128SDRAM I just went and looked around many different links in 10
minutes (woowww!!!!). Here is what I found at first glance:
There are quite a few articles at the living and raw foods site:
http://www.living-foods.com/articles/
Here is a comprehensive-looking links page. Thanks Rasiel; answering
this post led to my doing this search and finding this link. Looks
like I've got MORE reading to do... (this is great!!!)
http://www.looksmart.com/eus1/eus52213/eus52842/eus234187/eus54224/eus541647/eus287652/r?l&
Here are some more links that look interesting:
http://vegetarian.about.com/food/vegetarian/msubfruitarian.htm?iam=mt&terms=%2Bliving-and-raw-foods
Phew. Enough time on this post. Interesting stuff but I can't just
have fun, I've got to go and do some work, too.
Anyway, if you're interested Rasiel and I've probably given you way
more than what you want or need anyway, but the links above I found by
exactly keying in:
+living-and-raw-foods
in the search box of the meta engine I use, MetaCrawler, at:
Good luck and everyone have a great and glorious day!!! <chuckle> too
much on a Saturday morning? Well have a great one at the very least!!
MLM
>
> I had a good chuckle. You made my day. I love discussions. And yes,
> it may sound like proselytizing, but it actually isn't.
Good for you, now back up your blathering. Claiming to have
cites is worthless, produce them or admit you are just spouting
off.
[...]
MLM
[...]
> Ever wonder why every creation myth in every culture includes
> vegetation/trees/fruits/vegetables of some sort?
You really do just make things up as you go along - don't you?
Sorry to spoil your blatherings, but no, every creation myth in
every culture does not include
vegetation/trees/fruits/vegetables. And even if it did, it
wouldn't "prove" that human ancestors were vegetarian.
Let's start with the Greek creation myth - it doesn't conform to
your assertion. The T'sinuk creation myth doesn't conform to
your assertion. The Hawaiian creation myth fails to conform to
your assertion.
Should I continue or will you admit that you were blowing smoke?
> If we were truly
> meat-eaters, our creation myth would probably involve prey,
"Our" creation myth? You just mention "every culture" and then
turn around and act as if there is only one? Sheesh. Do you try
to contradict yourself?
The Iroquois Creation Myth does involve prey. The African
Bushman creation myth involves prey. The Haida creation myth
involves prey, The Inuit, ...
Shall I go on?
Why don't you give me more material that demonstrates that your
assertions are a bunch of hot air?
[...]
Wm James
>> > Thus, the silly concept that because fire-pits and charred bones exist
>> > in the fossil record humans 'adapted' to flesh-eating is simply nonsense.
>
>Actually, the more learned anthopologists are now claiming that the flesh-eating
>adapted us (allowed for bigger brains and such), not that we adapted to it.
There was nothing to adapt. All primates are omnivores. To find an
ansestor of humans whis did not eat meat you would have to go back
likely before mammals even existed.
William R. James
--
Ward M. Clark
> Bushman creation myth involves prey. The Haida creation myth
> involves prey, The Inuit, ...
The Celtic...
--
www.pathwai.org
Sometimes the light's all shining on me,
Other times, I can barely see
Lately it occurs to me,
What a long, strange trip it's been
RBR
NoS...@NoJunkMail.com (FitWell) wrote:
You *are* kidding right? You aren't trying to suggest that we are
frugivores or some other form of vegetarian species. That has been
done to death and we know that humans have always been omnivorous
creatures. I suspect you are simply a troll fishing around in this ng
for someone to take the bait. OK, so I took the bait.
Rob
MLM
Believe it or not, she's serious and actually believes what she
writes.
-
rasiel
words, our systems can assimilate the calcium in plants but
cannot readily do so when it is in its 'inorganic' state. i.e.,
tincture of iodine, something you buy in a drugstore, is toxic.
Yet iodine is necessary for life."
calcium, sodium, iodine... all these elements are needed in the
body and, yes, some can be absorbed by the body in the form of
some compounds and not others. it may or may not be the case
that calcium, for example, is more soluble in the digestive
system from plants but not from milk. you'd have to find out
whether the two calciums are in fact in different chemical
compounds. are they?
the reason tincture of iodine is poisonous has nothing to do
with the form it is in. it's the concentration. it only takes
about 3 grams of iodine to off you. the amount of iodine you
would normally come across in a diet, and which your thyroid
needs, is measured in micrograms. btw, did you know potatoes are
an excellent source of arsenic? you do know that that's among
the most poisonous stuff there is right? why don't you get sick
from eating potatoes then? the reason, of course, is that it's a
good source of arsenic only relatively speaking, the exact
amount being so low that your body can easily cope with it.
"Naturally occurring sodium, my favourite example, is vital for
life. "
naturally occurring sodium is not elemental. it is most often
found in the chloride which you revile so much. NaCl whether
found in plants or meat is identical and is treated by the body
identically. pure sodium, a metal, is so reactive that it rusts
immediately in air and explodes in contact with water.
"Calcium, too. If we could really use the inorganic form
efficiently, we would be natural soil eaters. "
there is no such thing as elemental calcium in nature either,
being similar to sodium. i'm guessing that's what you mean
by "inorganic". otherwise there's few organometallic compounds i
can think of which would include calcium. fewer still that you
would actually have a chance to eat. look up on your
multivitamin bottle and you'll see that the form of calcium
found to be most soluble in your body is calcium carbonate. do
you know what this stuff is? i'll save you the trouble of
looking it up: marble!
"But what I said about sodium can be said of any mineral, etc.,
that is required for life yet when we try to eat it in a form
other than that found in plants, is not good for us, speaking in
layperson's terms... "
well i guess we'll put this issue to rest when you can provide a
reference as to how the ordinary table salt which is found in
meat is different than that other mysterious form found in
plants. afaik, other than NaCl normal human diets would have few
chances of running across other, more exotic types of salts such
as potassium chloride (which is one of the three or four poisons
you would use in your average lethal injection room).
"all I can ask you is this: have +you+ ever gone on a raw diet
of fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds... You are a meat eater,
is this correct? "
yes, this is true. while i like nuts & seeds i can't stand most
vegetables and take fruit only in juice or ice cream. somehow,
to my own mild surprise, i'm 100% healthy.
thanks for the links.. i've saved them for my wife who has
somewhat ambivalent desires to go vegetarian.
FitWell
I'm emerging from the pileup a little bedraggled, a little bewildered
but okay except for a few bumps and bruises. Just let me shake out
the dust and dirt from my clothes and to shake a bit of the perplexity
out ...
First of all, I am extremely grateful for the insight that has been
returned. Again, since you don't know my personal history, you can't
know how wonderful it feels to have broken the isolation. For years I
have struggled alone. As many of you know, as well, vegetarianism in
+any+ of its many branches, is an experience that you can't really
share with a lot of people in terms of having a common point of
reference since people predominantly eat meat, etc. So, first off,
call me all the names you want and challenge me all you want, it makes
not one iota of difference to me. I want to continue with the
discussions and the sharing and hope that most (although I certainly
know not all), feel that way about this and hopefully all ngs, and
that they are an open 'forum' for constructive and instructive debate
as well as sharing.
I've walked into your village along the way through my journeys in the
countryside and stopping at other villages to learn and experience
(other ngs). I saw your central square and interspersed with other
people, those of you on your soapboxes sharing your
knowledge/experience and just general thoughts. I've been overjoyed
because the other journeys were a bit more through necessity rather
than the pure joy of it. So I, too, felt I had found a place to
experience and share. I don't care about who listens or not or who
agrees or not, who believes or not; I have a need to reach those
people who, like I was, are backed against a brick wall with no other
place to go, and no one else to turn to. My life was saved when a
dear friend gave me a book. It was a simple book called Fit for Life
and I am here alive and in normal health today because of it. Though
I had to diverge from it to an even more basic diet, if you will,
because not all my health problems went away, I believe in it and
other books of its kind. Vegetarianism is definitely the way to go,
whichever branch you choose. And as my friend did to me, I am passing
along my experiences. Who knows, someone else may be affected just
like I was.
And to this add that although I've been through many side avenues into
the different forms of vegetarianism seeking and searching over the
last 10 years, my life was further turned around when I was able to
gain some access to the internet a couple of years back. Now with my
own computer I can squeeze in some serious research in between the
million other tasks I must do to start up my business. Thank heavens
for this medium!!!!!!
So, in your town square - well, I was drawn in a bit more than I
should have I guess, being a stranger to your neck of the woods. I
should have kept a bit more to my soapbox, writing for those that felt
any interest or curiousity to listen. I am not the vicar in the
pulpit or the priest recruiting; just a person sharing information.
So, for that person in the thread that wanted proofs for my
'blatherings', I am typing up some lines below as a start from "Raw
Power! Building Strength and Muscle Naturally" by Stephen Arlin.
BTW, I have you to thank for a fact I didn't realize. When taking a
glance through the articles in the living foods website which I'd
never had the opportunity to visit before properly, I found Stephen
Arlin's article, which I read and for which I posted the URL. Before
bed last night, my mind coming back to the posts in this ng, I decided
to take a look at it again and I realized that because of the long
work hours in a particular contract I'd been in when I'd bought the
book, that I hadn't finished reading it!! I THANK YOU for being the
unwitting cause for gleaning some valuable information from the
particular pages I read after the paragraphs below.
Here is what Stephen writes in and around page 26 re the cooking of
food, etc.:
"... No cooked food is benign. Cooked food acts malignantly by
exhausting your bodily energies, inhibiting your healing process, and
decreasing your alertness, efficiency, and productivity.
Eating cooked carbohydrates, dead proteins, and burned fats, leads to
an internal accumulation of numerous mutagenic (carcinogenic) products
caused by the cooking process.
When you treat food with thermal fire, you destroy the life-force in
food. The heat of cooking destroys vitamins, enzymes, nucleic acids,
chorophyll, de-animates minerals, and damanges fats, turning them into
dangerous trans-fatty acids. These changed fats are incorporated into
the cell wall and interfere with the respiration of the cells, causing
an increase in cancer and heart disease. The heat disorganizes the
protein structure, leading to a deficiency of the amino acids. The
fibrous or woody element of food (cellulose) is changed completely
from its natural condition by cooking. When the fibrous element is
cooked, it loses its broom-like quality to sweep the alimentary canal
clean. ...
[I found a reference to leukocytosis, that I refer to earlier in this
thread.]
Eating cooked food suppresses the immune system. After eating cooked
foods, the blood immediately shows an enormous increase of leukocytes
or white blood cells/corpuscles. The white blood cells are supposedly
a first line of defense and are, collectively, popularly called "the
immune system." This spontaneous multiplication of white corpuscles
always takes place in normal blood immediately after the introduction
of any virulent infection or poison into the body since the white
corpuscles are the fighting organisms of the blood. There is no
multiplication of white corpuscles when raw plant food is eaten. ...
Ingesting cooked food allows inorganic minerals to enter the blood,
circulate through the system, settle in the arteries and veins, and
deaden the nerves. ... In many cases, this dead matter is deposited
in the various joints of the body ... accumulates as concretions in
one or more of the internal organs, finally accumulating around the
heart valves. ...
Raw foods are easily digested, requiring only 24-36 hours for transit
time through the digestive tract as compared to 40-100+ hours for
cooked food. Prolonged digestion creates putrefaction and disease in
the colon. ..." and so on, and so on (tums, rolaids, maalox, etc.,
anyone??)
Anyhoo, as a response to the poster, Rasiel, was it? re what supposed
literature I had? Besides this book here's a brief list of some of
them (most of them dealing in raw food vegetarianism, a handful
dealing with more "medical"-type issues, for lack of a better word):
"The Vegetarian Guide to Diet & Salad" by Dr. N.W. Walker, D.Sc.
"The Wheatgrass Book" by Ann Wigmore
"Pasteur Exposed. The false foundations of modern medicine" by Ethel
Douglas Hume
"Raw Food and Health" by Dr. St. Louis A. Estes
"Make your Juicer your Drug Store" by Dr. L. Newman
"The Miracle of Living Foods and the Curse of Cooking" by T.C. Fry
"The Sprouting Book" by Ann Wigmore
"Toxemia Explained" by John H. Tilden, M.D.
"Fit for Life", books I and II by Harvey and Marilyn Diamond (although
Harvey goes it solo these days)
"Fitonics" by Marilyn Diamond
"Wheatgrass, Nature's Finest Medicine" by Steve Meyerowitz
"The Biogenic Diet" by Leslie Kenton
"Fasting Can Save Your Life" by Herbert M. Shelton
"The UNcook Book" by Elizabeth and Dr. Elton Baker
(plus their gourmet UNcook book)
Ann Wigmore's "Recipe for Longer Life"
"The Health Seekers' Yearbook" by Victoria BidWell
"Fresh Vegetable and Fruit Juices, what's missing in your body?" by
N.W. Walker D.Sc.
"Angel Foods, Healthy Recipes for Heavenly Bodies" by Cherie Soria
(which has a scrumptious raw-food lasagna in it - tastes just like
lasagna, granted without the heat of cooking, all plant-based and
raw!!! Yummmm!)
"Vibrant Living, over 250 Heart Healthy Live Food Recipes" by James
Levin M.D. and Natalie Cederquist (another lovely large book with
amusing and lovely pastel pictures of walking fruits and vegetables)
"Living with Green Power, A Gourmet Collection of Living Food Recipes"
by Elysa Markowitz (the loveliest book I have in terms of lots of
glossy and appealing pictures of the food)
Anyhoo, that's all I could reach. I have several tape sets and the
entire Life Science course from the 'Natural Hygienists', one of the
branches of raw fooders (the Diamonds based their book on it, which is
why I know a little bit more about that branch than others).
Re tests/studies (since I know that 'proof' will still be demanded
[hey, I'm learning!]...
Does actually citing a test do the trick or must I cite from it, as
well, which means tracking it down. Tracking down some studies is not
a problem; I've wanted to do that for a long time. But just want to
know to what degree I must go when someone says 'prove it'...
I did track down a study several years back, the famous Pottengers'
cats, but it took my library months and cost me $10 through an
interlibrary search. Can anyone suggest how to go about getting
copies of any studies one finds listed by the AMA and CMA, etc.? In
Fit for Life's bibliography alone, there are 9 pages of references, a
good portion of which are medical studies supporting their
statements. Now that I have access to the internet with a faster
machine, I can do internet research and I'm working on re-learning the
latest version of Filemaker Pro (#5), to be able to use it for my
business needs as well as to start cataloguing references in my books,
not just the books themselves. So it'd be great if anyone knows a
place to start on the internet.
And lastly (yes, lastly), why of all of this? Am I going to 'convert'
everyone? anyone? is that the purposes? The answer is: NO. But how
can any of us make an informed decisions without the full facts? I
wish I had had all the facts 10 years ago; - it would have saved me
years!! Granted there is the aspect that sometimes one has to go
through the journey in exactly the way one did to appreciate it,
but...
Still, it is one thing to remember that nature is nature and ignorant
of the rules or not, we pay the piper when we 'break any of the rules'
(boy, do I ever hate putting it that way, but there's just no other
way I know of how to say it). The sun rises in the east and sets in
the west, no matter what I may choose to believe.
It was Eratosthenes (not Eristarcus, duh me!!), who calculated the
circumference of the earth 2 millenia before it was widely accepted.
He saw the clues and disregarded the popular beliefs of his time and
tracked down the proof and in did so in a time without computers and
needing someone to actually pace out the distances involved to see
what they were so he could make his calculations based in
trigonometry.
... wait ... I must provide proof (be right back) ...
Here is the URL of the first page I pulled up from the search
directory search:
http://www-groups.cs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Mathematicians/Eratosthenes.html
The paragraph below is a few down on that very page:
"...Eratosthenes made a surprisingly accurate measurement of the
circumference of the Earth. Details were given in his treatise On
the measurement of the Earth which is now lost. However, some details
of these calculations appear in works by other
authors such as Cleomedes, Theon of Smyrna and Strabo. Eratosthenes
compared the noon shadow at midsummer between
Syene (now Aswan on the Nile in Egypt) and Alexandria. He assumed that
the sun was so far away that its rays were
essentially parallel, and then with a knowledge of the distance
between Syene and Alexandria, he gave the length of the
circumference of the Earth as 250,000 stadia. ..."
So, although any of this just won't be good enough for all, perhaps I
have conveyed a bit more of who and what I am. Again, we all must
choose our own way. It is best to have all the options available
since although a plant-based raw diet is our biological diet, it is
not yet practical for everyone to adopt; in many cases, do not even
want to adopt. Are there ways to get the best of both worlds? Yes.
I think the sanest way is through the Diamond's vegan approach in Fit
for Life. It provides alternatives so that everyone can win.
Thanks all, once again, and have a glorious day. Good luck to all of
us in our own particular journeys...!!!
**********************************
On Sun, 14 May 2000 13:31:38 GMT, rud...@home.com (RBR) wrote:
>On Fri, 12 May 2000 14:03:40 GMT, in sci.med.nutrition
>NoS...@NoJunkMail.com (FitWell) wrote:
>
>You *are* kidding right? You aren't trying to suggest that we are
>frugivores or some other form of vegetarian species. That has been
>done to death and we know that humans have always been omnivorous
>creatures. I suspect you are simply a troll fishing around in this ng
>for someone to take the bait. OK, so I took the bait.
>
>Rob
MLM
[...]
> So, for that person in the thread that wanted proofs for my
> 'blatherings', I am typing up some lines below as a start from "Raw
> Power! Building Strength and Muscle Naturally" by Stephen Arlin.
This is not "proof", this is a joke. Produce a cite from a
peer-reviewed scientific journal, not some pop-culture
feel-good-potion-of-the-week book that anyone could write.
[...]
> [I found a reference to leukocytosis, that I refer to earlier in this
> thread.]
>
> Eating cooked food suppresses the immune system. [...]
You need to learn how to produce a cite. You just produced a
bunch of unattributed text. So far you've acted exactly as I
predicted.
You might as well be producing "support" for witchcraft, your
style is just as illegitimate.
[snip blatherings.....]
FitWell
>peer-reviewed scientific journal, not some pop-culture
>feel-good-potion-of-the-week book that anyone could write.
...
Exactly. So, pls tell me how. I need to learn how to do this. As I
mentioned in the very same post that you clipped the above from:
>Re tests/studies (since I know that 'proof' will still be demanded
>[hey, I'm learning!]...
>
>Does actually citing a test do the trick or must I cite from it, as
>well, which means tracking it down. Tracking down some studies is not
>a problem; I've wanted to do that for a long time. But just want to
>know to what degree I must go when someone says 'prove it'...
>
>I did track down a study several years back, the famous Pottengers'
>cats, but it took my library months and cost me $10 through an
>interlibrary search. Can anyone suggest how to go about getting
>copies of any studies one finds listed by the AMA and CMA, etc.? In
>Fit for Life's bibliography alone, there are 9 pages of references, a
>good portion of which are medical studies supporting their
>statements. Now that I have access to the internet with a faster
[snip]
So it'd be great if anyone knows a
>place to start on the internet.
Pls advise and thanks!
MLM
>
> >This is not "proof", this is a joke. Produce a cite from a
> >peer-reviewed scientific journal, not some pop-culture
> >feel-good-potion-of-the-week book that anyone could write.
> ...
> >You need to learn how to produce a cite. You just produced a
> ...
> Exactly. So, pls tell me how. I need to learn how to do this. As I
> mentioned in the very same post that you clipped the above from:
Learn from example -
as in:
Loop MS, Bruce LL, Petuchowski S. "Cat color vision: the effect
of stimulus size, shape and viewing distance." Vision Res.
1979;19(5):507-13.
When you incorrectly claimed that carnivores do not perceive
color. You appear to just avoid any post that produces material
that contradicts your assertions. Like your contradictory
assertions about creation myths.
Also, volume does not equal truth. It appears that you believe
you can just write a ton of material and people won't bother to
check any of it or that you don't have to show that your
assertions have any basis in reality.
[...]
FitWell
inexperience in this particular type of thing). Looks like I'll start
digging up those medical/dental journal studies earlier than I
expected. This is good though since I've wanted to learn how to do
this for a long time.
Cheers all!!
***********************
On Tue, 16 May 2000 15:58:51 -0700, MLM <stout.@brew-master.com>
wrote:
Kathryn Packwood
Ward M. Clark
> inexperience in this particular type of thing). Looks like I'll start
> digging up those medical/dental journal studies earlier than I
> expected. This is good though since I've wanted to learn how to do
> this for a long time.
What will you do if they disprove everything you've claimed here?
Ward M. Clark
MLM
>
> > Thanks!! I'll get back to you (though it'll take me a bit due to my
> > inexperience in this particular type of thing). Looks like I'll start
> > digging up those medical/dental journal studies earlier than I
> > expected. This is good though since I've wanted to learn how to do
> > this for a long time.
>
> What will you do if they disprove everything you've claimed here?
I doubt we will have to worry about that. I expect she will
manage to read only confirmatory material.
-
FitWell
You are forgetting that this research spans 10 years and not only am I
living proof that this works (which, of course, will weigh nothing
with anyone), but that these very same 10 years worth of research led
me to the position I am in. I have always wanted to track the sources
quoted in these books and I definitely must pursue this due to this
uncompromising situation.
Also, I am complying with the 'request' to back up my statements
despite the fact that I have misgivings in giving credence to only ONE
type of proof. IMO, one should consider all aspects of this issue and
glean the clues one can find through many other areas as well such as,
history, culture, aesthetics, physiological evidence, anecdotal
evidence, anthropology, etc., etc., to get the broadest base from
which to make the best most informed decision.
What follows is only ONE study, and it is probably the most pointed in
terms of raw foodism, whereas I suspect that in others it is only a
sideline; however, I include this as the first since it is what I have
on hand.
The other area I'd like to delve into is the tantalizing comments I've
read re new studies opening up in this area. I'll be going to the raw
food sites on the web and start inquiries there. Also, spoke with my
library yesterday and was given a couple of URLs that I visited,
Library of Congress being one. Have an email inquiriy to one of the
dental associations (no good to say *I* have a copy of of any study;
want to re-direct people to be able to find their own if they so wish
to do so). And lastly, yesterday found some medical ngs and posted an
inquiry in five of them on how to find studies on the internet. (All
this while doing my regular work here at home re my business startup.
So, it won't be steady, but am taking a bit of time away to pursue the
request here.
I mentioned a study in a previous post in this thread, the one that
took me several months and $10 to get in an interlibrary request.
Since that is one I have on hand and so can verify its existence, I am
posting it here:
"The Effect of Heat-Processed Foods and Metabolized Vitamin D Milk on
the Dentofacial Structures of Experimental Animals" , American Journal
of Orthodontics and Oral Surgery, August 1946, Pottenger, F.M. Jr.
Although all the studies listed on the back of Fit for Life II, for
example, have page numbers, I haven't yet linked up to which
statements they refer to in the book (no footnotes on page bottom;
scanned through some of the text with no results yet. May be just a
bibliogrpahical reference. Will perserver.). I don't quote them
because a list of studies without reference to what they are
supporting is meaningless. However, for the skeptics, or as was
mentioned before, those not believing that these studies exist, I can
do a list. Merely advise me to do so (although I suspect that you may
decide to wait a reasonable time for me to organize the data into
statement and study supporting it). In this particular instance,
however, the title is gives an indication of the study so it can be
given as is, and further, for anyone interested, I reproduced lines
from it (which is fine since I have quoted my source):
-- Pls note that any spelling/grammar mistakes are probably mine
although I have done my best re accuracy. --
(1st page of study; it shows p. 467 on bottom)
"We performed a feeding experiment with cats in our laboratory a few
years ago to determine the effect of heat-treated foods upon growth
and development. This experiment stemmed from the fact that we
suffered steady mortality among the cats on which we were performing
adrenalectomies .. We were feeding these animals the meat scraps from
the Sanatorium, together with raw milk and cod-liver oil. The cats
were poor operatives risks although our technique was good. ...We
placed an order for raw-meat scraps at the market ... The contrast in
apparent health between the cats in the pens fed on raw-meat scraps
and those fed on the cooked-meat scraps was so startling that we
decided to do a feeding experiment...
[explanation of the type of details on cats histories, etc. gone into
here]
Within the ten-year period, approximately nine hundred cats were
studied, upon nearly 600 of whom we have complete records...
The cats receiving raw meat and raw milk (Figs. 1 and 2) reproduced in
homogeneity from one generation to the next. Abortion was uncommon,
litters averaged five, and the mother cats nursed their young in a
normal manner. ... Their organic development was complete and
functioned normally.
Cats receiving the cooked-meat scraps (Fig. 3) reproduced a
heterogeneous strain of kittens, each kitten of the litter being
different in skeletal pattern. Abortion in these cats was common,
running about 25 per cent in the first generation to about 70 per cent
in the second generation. Deliveries were in general difficult, many
cats dying in labor. Mortality rates of the kittens were high,
frequently due to the failure of the mother to lactate (Fig. 4). The
kittens were often too frail to nurse. At times the mother would
steadily decline in health following the birth of the kittens, dying
from some obscure tissue exhaustion ..."
(God!, and so on and so forth. Please note that my copy was a
photocopy and thank goodness because, as I learned from this, these
types of journals have pictures. It is horrible to see such things no
matter how valuable the data accumulated is. I must admit that I was
ready then, and this study I got about 6 years ago, to chase after
studies, but I was stopped dead from that impulse after seeing these
pictures. However, I see that I must continue in the initial quest
started then. I can only hope, and I doubt that'll be the case, that
there won't be too many pictures in all of them.)
My aim has never been to 'convert' or to prove I am right or to do any
such thing. To use the soapbox analogy again - I basically would like
to share what I have learned because someone reached out a hand and
gave me information that changed the course of my life. That is my
purpose here. Anyone seeking answers should have all possible
information at hand, as I said earlier, to make the best decision
possible for them.
Bye.
**************************************
"We are what we eat. ...
Don't believe me? Stop eating."
Harvey Diamond on "Benmergui Live" show in Toronto,
April 23, 1998 (date? according to memory).
FitWell
>> > inexperience in this particular type of thing). Looks like I'll start
>> > digging up those medical/dental journal studies earlier than I
>> > expected. This is good though since I've wanted to learn how to do
>> > this for a long time.
>>
>
>manage to read only confirmatory material.
MLM, I just posted my message earlier and recvd your post upon
updating the ng.
I am curious, I know why I am in the alt.food.veg.live, why are you
here?
Perhaps you are not posting from this ng? If that is the case, I'd
like to know what ng you are coming from since I have stated my
'motivations', if you will, for posting. I'd like to understand the
stance you are taking as it seems defensive or something somehow.
I _am_ in process of backing up the statements I have quoted by going
through my books and tracking their references. What more is there to
do beyond this?
Pls advise. Tony Robbins says we learn most from those we disagree
with or other, and I suspect that that will be our case.
Cheers all!!
MLM
...
> MLM, I just posted my message earlier and recvd your post upon
> updating the ng.
>
> I am curious, I know why I am in the alt.food.veg.live, why are you
> here?
I'm not, I read tpa and aaev (look at the group headers).
>
> Perhaps you are not posting from this ng? If that is the case, I'd
> like to know what ng you are coming from since I have stated my
> 'motivations', if you will, for posting. I'd like to understand the
> stance you are taking as it seems defensive or something somehow.
Not defensive at all. You have a stance and look at anything to
prove it rather than disprove it. You also seem to ignore
anything that contradicts your claims. As an example, you
recently made a couple of assertions about creations myths. The
two assertions were contradictory and both were false. Yet you
go on as if the responses did not appear.
The entire raw-food assertion about leukocytosis comes from an
obscure French researcher and his findings were never
replicated. You dig up decades-old cites when researchers
generally ignore most research that is more than a few years
old. Medical research is changing rapidly and you are clinging
to old, obscure, or irrelevant data.
The willing ignorance I see in your writings is appalling. You
want to believe that humans are something that they are not and
are spinning circles trying to prove it.
> I _am_ in process of backing up the statements I have quoted by going
> through my books and tracking their references. What more is there to
> do beyond this?
Learn how to judge the value of research.
[...]
Swamp
"FitWell" <NoS...@NoJunkMail.com> wrote in message news:39241f64...@news.magma.ca...
-snip-
> "The Effect of Heat-Processed Foods and Metabolized Vitamin D Milk on
> the Dentofacial Structures of Experimental Animals" , American Journal
> of Orthodontics and Oral Surgery, August 1946, Pottenger, F.M. Jr.
-snip-
An interesting *old* study showing how cats do better with certain raw
foods instead of cooked. Maybe good for someone looking for the best
food for a pet cat.
What other animals were studied?
Did they progress to human trials?
Did the study even try to draw a conclusion about how this may
apply to humans?
--
¥¥Swamp¥¥
Alf Christophersen
>An interesting *old* study showing how cats do better with certain raw
>foods instead of cooked. Maybe good for someone looking for the best
>food for a pet cat.
One effect of boiling meat that should be eaten by a cat is that
taurine reacts with sugars to form a compound that is broken down by
bacteria, so boiling increase the dietary taurine needs quite a lot.
That may decrease the life span of a cat seriously. But only for a cat
:-)
David
>In article <3919cb41...@news.mindspring.com>,
> dh...@yahoo.com (David N. Harrison) wrote:
>> Mr Falafel <mrfa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >So you say that my entire ethical belief system is wrong because I
>kill
>> >plants. Since I kill plants I should kill animals as well. I mean
>> >really, is this the best you can do?
>>
>> We all participate in killing animals. Growing and harvesting
>plants
>> kills animals. Using paper kills animals. Roads and all types of
>> construction kill animals. Mining kills animals... And we all
>contribute
>> to it in a number of ways. Really, by being a veg*n what you are
>> doing is keeping animals from living. That isn't anything to strive
>for
>> imo, and certainly not ethically superior. Encouraging better lives
>for
>> animals would be ethically superior imo, not encouraging their
>> extinction.
>
>Nope. Using your 'logic', how about: meat eaters kill animals purposely
>and vegans avoid it wherever possible. Sound reasonable?
I don't really know what you're getting at. Most of the meat eaters
that I know have never intentionally actually killed a warm blooded
animal. They do participate in things which cause animals to die, but
so do veg*ns. Some of the things that meat eaters do which cause
animals to die, cause those animals to be killed intentionally. Those
are the types of things which vegans avoid, right? But those are also
the types of things which provide life for the animals that are killed.
Other things that both meat eaters and veg*ns participate in, which
cause animals to die, do not cause those animals to be killed
intentionally.... things like using roads, using products obtained from
trees and other plants, making use of any buildings, using products
that have been mined.... But those types of things do not provide life
for the animals that are killed, as the things which veg*ns avoid do,
right?
We agree that what you said is true Mr Falafel. I hope that you
understand why I still don't believe that the veg*n approach is
ethically superior.
JAID
> ...Mr Falafel. I hope that you
> understand why I still don't believe that the veg*n approach is
> ethically superior.
You are right David but this boils down to definition. Whether vegan or
vegetarian to carry the terminology any further than as a term simply for
diet leads automatically to bigotry. If one wants to call themselves
something worshipful I wish they would just preface their names with
reverend or right reverend or something. No mattter how careful I may be not
to eat any meat, my attitude toward people and animals is my own, just as
everybody else has their own. If people want to delegate this attitude they
obscure it in a religion. Good luck to them.
Ian
Kaimyn Ressik
--
-Kaimyn Ressik
While in the vicinity, please adhere to the following rules... No swimming,
swearing, laughing, crying, talking out of turn, line dancing, moose
calling, sword play, pumpkin carving, mummified cat juggling, wallowing in
your own self pity, circumstantial evidence, walking on the grass, pancakes
on monday, dessert until you eat your vegetables, balloon animals, and
absolutely, positively, no barking like a seal. It upsets me!
James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
news:39185A99...@email.unc.edu...
>
>
> steve wrote:
> >
> > eating meat or 'being veggie' does not make someone healthy, that's
true. you
> > become healthy by paying attention to your diet. if you are veggie and
watch your
> > diet, you WILL enjoy far greater health than if you eat meat and watch
your diet.
>
> In order to maintain even a shred of credibility with a statement like
> that, you need to either A) present us with your medical credentials and
> forward to us any relevant studies you performed on the subject, or B)
> point us to other people's studies which conclude the same.
>
> Nothing resembling what you just said has ever been proven as far as I
> know. Not only does it lack logic, it reflects a very popular trend
> among newsgroup posters to post their beliefs as facts. If it is a
> belief, designate it as such, please. If it is a fact, back it up.
>
> > many doctors will argue that the practice of 'watching your diet' to
achieve
> > greater health automatically excludes the consumption of meat.
>
> Name some. You aren't qualified to make this statement unless you
> actually SPOKE to many doctors and they all told you, which of course
> you will have to document.
>
> --
> James Hepler
>
> http://www.sorryaboutdresden.com
>
> For your listening pleasure, Chapel Hill Music Online!
>
> http://www.unc.edu/~hepler/CHMI.html
>
>
> "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to
> prayer." -mark twain.
>
lilweed
>
> You are forgetting that this research spans 10 years and not only am I
> living proof that this works (which, of course, will weigh nothing
> with anyone), but that these very same 10 years worth of research led
> me to the position I am in. I have always wanted to track the sources
> quoted in these books and I definitely must pursue this due to this
> uncompromising situation.
>
> Also, I am complying with the 'request' to back up my statements
> despite the fact that I have misgivings in giving credence to only ONE
> type of proof. IMO, one should consider all aspects of this issue and
> glean the clues one can find through many other areas as well such as,
> history, culture, aesthetics, physiological evidence, anecdotal
> evidence, anthropology, etc., etc., to get the broadest base from
> which to make the best most informed decision.
FitWell,
I totally agree that many aspects of an issue should be considered.
The poster MLM, well, demanding peer reviewed studies in the
scientific literature as proof for whatever he decides to oppose
for the sake of argument, well really sweetheart, that's practically
his mantra. Even when you do provide the above, if it contradicts
his narrow minded dogma, well he'll still declare it a fraud.
Many tried and trusted 'alternative' regimes, treatments and beliefs
are shunned by the mainstream researchers as there's simply no
kudos in it for the 'new science', so don't break your pencil looking.
We here who are really seeking knowledge (and not sterile faulty
animal tested lab' work that's actually passed the censors and
deemed fit for publication) are delighted to learn from your years
of dedicated research and study; and once again, thank you.
So, please, carry on as you feel, share what you will, research
as you wish, brainstorm at will, have fun.
MLM is posting from alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian but please
don't allow that to deter crossposts to us.
Cheers lilweed.
Alan Lundin
>
>An interesting *old* study showing how cats do better with certain raw
>foods instead of cooked. Maybe good for someone looking for the best
>food for a pet cat.
>
>Did they progress to human trials?
>Did the study even try to draw a conclusion about how this may
>apply to humans?
Several years before Pottenger did these experiments,
Weston Price, DDS, had noticed and published similar
results in Humans. Because of the similarities in
results, Price and Pottenger are often mentioned together.
--alan
MLM
[...]
> I totally agree that many aspects of an issue should be considered.
> The poster MLM, well, demanding peer reviewed studies in the
> scientific literature as proof for whatever he decides to oppose
> for the sake of argument, well really sweetheart, that's practically
> his mantra.
Hardly "Lilweed", whenever I produce contradictory evidence, you
(and Fitwell) choose to ignore it and act as if it doesn't
exist. You are in the same category. You cling to your religious
beliefs about diet and behavior and choose to believe only what
confirms your beliefs. Your 'homeopathy' rants were classic
examples.
[...]