# nutritional deficiencies and diet choices...



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Just curious. I am ALWAYS reading about nutrition and trying to understand it. It's such a process! I'm wondering if there are any good thoughts out there on the subject. See, all of the info out there that is really reputable spends most of it's time comparing the diet they are championing and the SAD. So, where does that leave us? NT is against refined products and rightly so. Veggie nutritionists are against conventionally raised meats, again, rightly so. Paleo is against anything that can't be eaten raw...not sure about that, but alot of it makes sense. There are plenty of others...but you get the picture.

What all the diets (the worthwhile ones) have in common is loads of fruits, veggies and properly perpared nuts and seeds. So taking that as a base and saying you are doing NO refined ANYTHING, no grains (because they are controversial even when properly prepared) no legumes (same reason) no dairy (do I need to say anything here? Major debate) and no potatoes (debate over whether or not toxins can be neutralized with cooking and evenif they are are we meant to eat them) where do you go from there?

We personally do 95% or so of fruits, veggies, nuts and seeds. For various reasons we have included animal products and then removed them. Now kiddos and I do eggs, but no dairy. When out of my house they have done other stuff, aways organic and grass-fed, but I dont really prepare that anymore. Dh eats alot of meat and follows the paleo thinking.

We worry about deficiencies because we have had them. We do supplement (CLO, B-12 and Vitamineral Green) Just wondering if there are any real "purists" out there and what you think? How do you make your decisions? Do you go by research or is it more how you feel? I'm just curious because I haven't seen any studies at all that compare vegan, veg, and omni diets that were all clean-KWIM? Does anyone acutally manage to avoid all the crap out there and have testimonials? Or just want to chat about the path in a non-judgemental way?


----------



## Planta (Dec 26, 2005)

I guess I am a "purist"







Not fanatical, though - which means that I know the difference between theory and practice, between the mind world and the real world.
What I believe (at the moment, I might change again):
- humans can eat all raw and would be much healthier this way (do you know http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/...graw_eat2.html ?)
- the reason it is so hard to follow such a diet is because people have decades of cooked behind them and because it is not generally accepted by society (just imagine how it would be if most restaurants, bars, etc were raw, food shops had 90% raw stuff and only a bit of cooked, etc)
- ideally we wouldn't need supplements, but that would involve a way of living that is not accessible to most people. In addition, eating cooked for so long (+antibiotics, etc) might have damaged the gut flora and/or the absorption capacity of the digestive system so that some nutrients have to be added artificially. Do we know all of them, though?
- the mineral deficiency of the soils is a real problem, but I think it is overemphasized because eating at least some products from organic farms + some sea stuff can cover the needs (that are very small anyway). The real problem with minerals is that they are "robbed" from people by the tons of grains and legumes (and dairy to a certain extent) they eat. If these were drastically reduced there wouldn't be such a big problem.
- raw animal products might be necessary (I don't think it can ever be proved one way or another) but certainly in small amounts. Our digestive system is definetely a vegetarian one (fruitarian, more precisely).

As for practice, I am 100% raw vegan for over 6 months now, but I don't know exactly how the future looks for me. I want to stay this way as long as I feel good. When I get cravings or other unpleasant stuff I will definetely do something about it - include some supplements, some raw animal products or even some cooked stuff (I don't see what cooked would bring though other than psychological relief).
I must mention though that I don't know if I could have been like this in a cold region, without all the fresh tropical fruits from here.
I have a list of great health improvements since going partially raw (almost 2 years ago). I decided to go 100% mainly for psychological reasons. I was very surpised to see one more benefit added and I don't know exactly how to explain it.

I don't know if this covers what you wanted... Maybe I'll write more later.


----------



## melissa17s (Aug 3, 2004)

I am not a purist. We eat stuff you may feel is necessary to avoid. My dh and dd are vegan, and ds and I eat very small amounts of cheese or yogurt on occasion. My dc eat about 60% raw and dh and I eat closer to 30% raw. We eat 3 healthy meals a day that include at least 5 different vegetables. We soy, sweets, rice, lots of beans, and wheat. We do not eat corn, most milk, or eggs due to allergies. We eat half the recommended dose of kiddie vitamins sporadically- never daily because minerals and vitamins that are served outside of food are not the proper quanities or in the natural combinations to really work effectively and can have a damaging effect instead of helpful.

Most of all, we eat food we enjoy.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Planta-I recently decided to do the 100% thing and am very happy so far. IT's interesting becasue I don't feel the need to eat anything cooked at all. I don't have any concerns about eliminating grains, soy, dairy legumes etc. What I keep going back and forth on is the animal protein. I can't imagine cooked would offer anything because you are just killing half the protein anyway-so at that point why bother? Raw is another story. Just puzzling through it right now. Wondering if anyone else out there is as well.
I have had some really great conversations with mamas on this board-two specifically who have been so helpful and informative. I am eternally in debt to the two of them. THey are both meat eaters and opened my eyes to things I never really thought about before. So I'm trying to strike a balance. I'm just trying to figure out the best choices for us along the way.

Melissa-I totally agree about vitamins. There is so much great research that says synthetic forms are really harmful and can actually block the receptors for the food based vitamins. That's why I love the Vitamineral Green supplement. It's 100% from food and highly absorbable. I actually felt a difference when we started using it. I had been 100% raw for two weeks or so and introducing the greens changed everything. I've never had that happen with a supplement before, so we'll stick with them.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Just wanted to add because it was unclear: I don't need to add animal products for protein as far as I'm concerned. They would be necessary for other reasons. Minerals and fat soluble vitamins for starters.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

I agree with you that studies are set up all wrong. The SAD should not be the basis of comparison. Everyone agrees that it's a bad diet and it's not hard at all to improve on it.

I don't know how much of a purist I am, but when facing deficiencies, I ate the food most available in those nutrients. I don't really care what it is. It's not in the standard American diet, that's for sure. I eat a lot of animal now and I feel great. Like I've said before, beef liver is the path to nirvana.


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Planta*
Our digestive system is definetely a vegetarian one (fruitarian, more precisely).

This topic is one I've considered extensively in my musings on nutrition - what types of food are our bodies best able to assimilate, physiologically speaking? Planta, is this quote above your own conclusion based on personal knowledge (education, research), or is it extracted from sources you trust? If it's the latter, do you have any links with actual comparisons between human digestive anatomy and that of other animals (herbivores, omnivoes and carnivores)? Much of what I've read indicates we have the digestion and dentition of an omnivore. Most sources seem to have such a strong agenda (on all sides of this issue) that it's hard to trust them, but seeing as how I've never personally examined the internal anatomy of anything beyong fish and frogs in HS biology class, it boils down to taking the word of other people.


----------



## TopazBlueMama (Nov 23, 2002)

I can't type much right now, but for me--there is what my ideal is, and then there is what is reality. Trying to find a balance between the 2.
I agree, GaleForce, that it's a whole new ball game when dealing with deficiencies.
I try to keep an open mind with all foods, there will be different seasons in our lives where we may need foods we shun now. I used to be very anti dairy, but I've found that for now, we are getting the benefits and array of nutrients and enzymes that raw goat's milk provides. I'm also finding that I am getting great benefits from sprouted grains right now. It's always an experiment and a journey, the most important thing for me now, is to find ways to be satisfied without giving in to modern convenience and old SAD habits.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

I agree. And to a pp...that's the problem. Everyone has an agenda. Many doc's I've read will say we don't have the dentition, physiology or internal structure of an onmivore. Most of them say this after healing "incurable" diseases with an vegan diet. THey weren't vegan before that so it really seems that their agenda is health and who could ask for more. I just wonder if the primary reson for the success was removing the SAD and not animal products at all.

I have seen biological comparisons between digestive systems and ours does more closely resemble an herbivores-as do our teeth. I don't know if that means that we aren't meant to eat meat (I don't actually believe that-just wonder if it's possible to not eat it given all the options we have today) or we weren't ever meant to have it as a staple. There's a big difference between someone who eats meat at every meal, and someone who eats it 2-4 times a week. But-I am not a doctor and I rely on the research of other's to guide me.

Amanda-I agree. I look for the foods highest in the nutrients I need. But there is conflicting info even in that! It's so frustrating. Some say you can't use iron or calcium from animal sources and some say you can't use vitamin A from plant sources. Some say you can get B-12 from plant sources (again, I don't believe this) NOONE agrees. For us we didn't use the Vitamin A from plants-maybe we can now, but we didn't.


----------



## TopazBlueMama (Nov 23, 2002)

Quote:

I just wonder if the primary reson for the success was removing the SAD and not animal products at all.
YES!!! How funny, this is the exact type of thing I've been thinking about lately, too! Not just with the animal products, but ANY diet--were there such miraculous cures because of what they ate, or because they didn't include the modern foods? Is it what you eat or what you don't eat?







We can make ourselves crazy here, can't we?

I believe we are meant to digest animal products, but sparingly. Just enough to help us assimilate and make up for any nutrients that we can't get from plant foods.


----------



## Amaryllis (Feb 11, 2005)

Hi all, what a great discussion!
One question, what is SAD?


----------



## Planta (Dec 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AJP*
This topic is one I've considered extensively in my musings on nutrition - what types of food are our bodies best able to assimilate, physiologically speaking? Planta, is this quote above your own conclusion based on personal knowledge (education, research), or is it extracted from sources you trust? If it's the latter, do you have any links with actual comparisons between human digestive anatomy and that of other animals (herbivores, omnivoes and carnivores)? Much of what I've read indicates we have the digestion and dentition of an omnivore. Most sources seem to have such a strong agenda (on all sides of this issue) that it's hard to trust them, but seeing as how I've never personally examined the internal anatomy of anything beyong fish and frogs in HS biology class, it boils down to taking the word of other people.

Concerning animal products, I have formed my own opinion from reading and thinking. I don't have many links because I haven't kept them all (very bad habit that I hope to change!), but I like these:
http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/Ge.../taxonomy.html
http://www.ecologos.org/anatomy.htm
I think many studies just start with the idea that humans are omnivores and then compare them to cows to show that we are not herbivores. Noone said we should eat grass all day long, though. Cows are just a special example of herbivors, but there are many others.
As I mentioned though, I don't think it can be proven one way or another whether we need small amounts of animal products. The comparative anatomy table, for example, does not exclude that small amounts of insects (and/or eggs) should be part of the diet.


----------



## `guest` (Nov 20, 2001)

Do you think that diet/nutrition is also adaptive, ie for arctic peoples, eating mostly meat/meat products...and what about environment? Doesn't the macrobiotic way of eating ask that you eat foods indigenous to the region where you live? So is there really a way to generalize what constitutes "good nutrition"? Wouldn't there be constraints for region-mediteranean vs. north atlantic, etc.?
For me, I was a vegetarian and it didn't work at all. My dh however, doesnt do well with meat. So when I cook, i leave the meat out of his portion and I eat meat. I guess everyone has a different feeling of what is right for them...


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

That's the issue with traditional diets. Tradition people would eat food specific to their region. SInce we have the luxury of importing anything we want-and we are (at least I am) far removed from my ancestors in terms of being three generations into the SAD (standard american diet) it doesn't really apply too much-but I can still look for clues there. Nowadays we have adapted to some extent and aren't part of indigenous tribes (at least I'm not!) so if I were an isolated inuit and was subsiding on blubber and seal meat with few veggies I would probably be okay. Since they were exposed to the SAD though, they have been shown to have very high rates of osteoporosis-something that wasn't an issue before. So-yes it's adaptive. But that isn't alot of help to me, personally.

As Planta said, there are no traditional diets that are vegan. All ate some animal products-even if they were insects. So I believe we were meant to consume some animal products, I just think the consumption should be minimal. That or you need to really know what you're doing and supplement where it's needed.

Tweetybirds2-I'm thinking it's what you don't eat at this point. How are you doing today?


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

As scientists have mapped human genes, there are genetic differences by region that account for different diets or environments. People developed light skin, for instance, in regions with less sunlight so that they would meet their vit D requirement.

But on the traditional diets, you made a comment firefaery in another thread about how natives used what they had available and now we have a whole lot more available, so we can choose to consume different foods than they did. (Or something along those lines.) Yet that view of traditional diets misses something very important that Dr Price emphasized: natives went out of their way, way out of their way in some cases, to acquire certain foods because of the health benefits of those foods.

So our ancestors put a premium on the organs of animals because of the health benefits that they saw coming from them over many centuries. And their judgement was not clouded by french fries. Shouldn't we also value those foods? We now have the scientific knowledge to verify that animal organs are dense in nutrients. Add that to the wisdom of our foremothers. Why would you all not eat them if you could find a reasonably clean source?

Is it the toxin issue?

Do you think some other food can make up for the nutrients in organ meat? Can you eat enough of that food to do so?

Food for thought.


----------



## cjr (Dec 2, 2003)

If excluding a food creates a deficency, then doesn't that prove we need to eat that particular food? That's how I feel anyway.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Amaryllis*
Hi all, what a great discussion!
One question, what is SAD?

Standard American Diet (SAD)

I agree with the op...a good diet is one that is based on real, whole foods...Not the new "franken foods" with flours, sugars, and margerine. We all are a little different but our bodies were not meant to thrive on HoHos and diet soda!!!


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cjr*
If excluding a food creates a deficency, then doesn't that prove we need to eat that particular food? That's how I feel anyway.

That is why I include a rare egg into our veggie diet (no milk though..we all have issues with milk in our little family!)

I am also researching more about the B12 thing now...I just ahve to believe that God made a way for us to eat to where we did not depend on synthetic vitamins and such. I may add eggs more frequently...we'll see...food at this house is always a learning adventure.









GALE FORCE--it is my understanding that the livers of animals are filled with toxins since it filters all of them in the animal....is that true ??what do you think??


----------



## toraji (Apr 3, 2003)

I will just link to BeyondVeg's extensive article on comparative anatomy and evolutionarily correct diet here (written by a vegetarian, I might add):
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-1a.shtml

Many of the papers I've read that claim humans are naturally herbivores are very misleading. They do comparisons between _carnivores_ and herbivores, and our digestive systems are *nothing* like a carnivore. Yes, we are closer to an herbivore. But we lack the multiple stomachs or rumens that strict herbivores have that digest plant matter efficiently.

I have read Laurie Forti's work before (ecologos.org) and am always less than impressed with her reasoning. Her answer to b12 deficiency is to eat your own feces.

BTW: studies have shown that even animals previously thought of as vegetarian (like apes) actually do consume animal product in the form of insects, or in the case of chimpanzees, by actively hunting.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Toraji-absolutely true. There are no vegan primates (humans are in fact primates) I have read before about eating feces. i won't do it! Shocking, isn't it? B-12 is manufactured in the human body with the addition of bluegreen algae, spirulina and other foods high in chlorophyll. It is manufactured too low in the intestines to be of any use, so the only way it would be usable is if you eat your excrement-which is high in B-12.

God (if he/she intended for us to not eat meat) probably did expect us to eat the insects off of the plant matter. You still can-if you grow your own. I choose not to do that, either-well I don't TRY to.

Yes, livers are filters. However in theory alot of the toxins are neutralized by the animal and the high content of vitamin A-or so I've read. If you eat liver (I have) I recommend getting it from an organic, grass fed animal who is healthy and not dealing with anything more than your standard environmental toxins.

Amanda-absolutely to you as well. I can't get enough vitamin A or D or B-12 without animal products no matter how I want to or how I run the numbers. I do believe that organ meats are essential. I really do. I just can't figure out how to get past my own fears about the toxic environment we have created. Eating high up on the food chain FREAKS me out. I could probably at some point see myself eating meat and/or organ meats two-three times a week, fish once and eggs once or twice. I don't think I'll ever do dairy as I don't do well with it and have major ethical issues there. Even with raw-organic-grass fed sources. It's just the toxin thing. I'm trying to figure this out because I know it's important-especially now. Reading studies of women who were tested for environmental toxins and having vegans come up with 1/12 the toxins of a meat eater in their BREAST TISSUE freaks me out. Granted-probably another flawed study. Probably women on the SAD drinking conventional meat and eating conventional cheese. Most likely. It's so hard to do the right thing.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Liver can have toxins. It processes toxins. But you need to think about it another way:

That organ that processes toxins needs nutrients to do so. Those nutrients are stored in the liver. Do you want a good supply of multiple nutrients to help rebuild your own body and help you detoxify the toxins in your body? Liver has it.

You need to find liver from cattle on a natural diet of grass. If they aren't, who knows how their own liver function is. They may have a toxic overload too just like we all do.


----------



## Planta (Dec 26, 2005)

My opinions on vitamins A and B12:

1) Vitamin A
- even if we admit it is less absorbed from plant sources, I simply cannot understand why it can be of concern when a reasonable amount of raw (or even cooked) veggies and fruits are consumed. Firefaery, can you explain? I haven't calculated yet, but according to this table (and raw tomatoes aren't even mentioned!) : http://health.allrefer.com/alternati...amin-a-11.html
I must be getting thousands % of RDA daily .
- in the table of comparative anatomy that I mentioned it is written:
Feature Carnivore Herbivore Omnivore Human
Liver Can detox vit A Cannot detox vit A Can detox vit A Cannot detoxify
Interesting?
- about excess:
"Too much vitamin A can be harmful or fatal. The body converts the dimerized form, carotene, into vitamin A as it is needed, therefore high levels of carotene are not toxic compared to the ester (animal) forms. The livers of certain animals, especially those adapted to polar environments, often contain amounts of vitamin A that would be toxic to humans. The first documented death due to vitamin A poisoning was Xavier Mertz, a Swiss scientist who died in January 1913 on an Antarctic expedition that had lost its food supplies and fell to eating its sled dogs. Mertz consumed lethal amounts of vitamin A by eating the dogs' livers. The liver of the polar bear also has enough vitamin A to kill a human being, or enough to make even sled dogs very ill." (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A#Dietary_intake )

2) B12
- this is still under lots of research, so anything can crop up!
- what is a plant? When we think about it we usually visualize the typical root-stem-leaves green organism. We rarely think that in its normal environment a plant is in fact an incredible symbiont from "tip to tow", populated by billions of microorganisms and at the very least visited by many little creatures. There's enough B12 there for us - whether from bacteria or insect faeces or whatever. Now, conventionally cultured plants are a different matter altogether, maybe even farther away from the natural state than battery hens. When studies show that organic produce contains B12 they are discarded because the values are not reliable (how can they be always the same?) and due to "contamination". Well, I like such contamination - with healthy soil, with matters that lives and gives me life too. It doesn't mean at all eating your own faeces!
- B12 deficiency is most probably a complex health problem and the result, IMO, of digestive system malfunctions (which are the result of decades of inapropriate diet and other lifestyle wrong choices)
- of course supplementation has its role in particular situations, but I can't accept the generalization that, for example, all vegans should take it. The data for such statements is insuficient.

Back to the omnivorous issue...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *toraji*
Many of the papers I've read that claim humans are naturally herbivores are very misleading. They do comparisons between carnivores and herbivores, and our digestive systems are nothing like a carnivore. Yes, we are closer to an herbivore. But we lack the multiple stomachs or rumens that strict herbivores have that digest plant matter efficiently.

The table I referenced takes into account the omnivores and this is actually a key point.
Why do we need multiple stomachs to qualify as herbivores? In fact the term would be frugivores, a particular category of herbivores. We cannot digest cellulose, but that doesn't make us omnivores automatically.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *toraji*
BTW: studies have shown that even animals previously thought of as vegetarian (like apes) actually do consume animal product in the form of insects, or in the case of chimpanzees, by actively hunting.

Well, maybe it's time to talk about definitions. There is no animal that totally excludes non-plant food, how can there be? And there is no animal that can avoid eating some plant matter - even if it's just the content of the victim's gut (BTW, it seems that some carnivors go first for the belly of the victim). So then, shall we call cows or lions omnivorous too?
To my mind, the definition refers to the bulk of an animal's diet.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

I just lost my whole post. Argh.

No veggies have vitamin A-not even tomatoes. What they have a carotenoids that are converted by the body into vitamin A. There is a 12:1 conversion rate (used to be 4:1, then 6:1 and on and on...now we're at 12:1) So whatever you are getting you need to divide the number by 12 as far as we know today. If you convert well-that's what you have. I didn't and apparently neither did my kids.
The liver thing is actually untrue from what I've read. They assumed the death was due to vitamin A overdose and later found out that hte animals had accumulated a non-essential mineral (cadmium, I think?) and that was where the toxicity was. Not vitamin A. In fact, traditional cultures routinely ate 10 times the current RDA of vitamin A from animal sources and thrived. They had none of the well known symptoms of deficiency.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Sorry-posted mid-thought so I didn't lose it again.
As for the B-12 I believe if I grew the veggies myself and knew the soil quality and left the microorganisms on then I'd be fine. I don't though-can't where I live.
Dr. gabriel Cousens (whom I respect very much) says that you DON'T need to supplement with B-12, that you can get it from consuming several different kinds of algae. He may be right, and if so-cool. I know that I have a damaged gut, so I need to supplement for now. But I do agree that it is possible that we may not need to as a species. If nothing else the little buggies should be enough to maintain.
Again, the more I read, the less i know.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *toraji*
.

I have read Laurie Forti's work before (ecologos.org) and am always less than impressed with her reasoning. Her answer to b12 deficiency is to eat your own feces.









:








and people thought encapsulting your placenta for ingestion was bad!


----------



## Planta (Dec 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery*
If you convert well-that's what you have. I didn't and apparently neither did my kids.

May I ask how you drew the conclusion and also what your diet was at the time?
I am not criticizing, just learning (I know I have an aggresive style when I get involved in a discussion, but it's not unfriendly!







)
About the conversion to vitamin A - even if we take the 12 figure, 2 carrots/day are still enough...


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

LIVER ISSUE-
I have mental issues with it too I guess like firefaery...

PRIMATES--
Interesting studies about primates and eating some animal foods. I would not have a problem having less than 10% animal foods (organic ect) in our diet. I am just a big believer in unprocessed plant foods after all my research and personal experience.

Great posts BTW...this is one of the most informative and interesting discussins I ahve been in.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

My kids had blood tests that confirmed all kinds of deficiencies. THey were on a soy free, mostly grain free vegan diet. My son had meat sporadically for the first year or so-but had deficiencies more due to a damaged gut (well both had gut damage.) But we all had the bumps on the arms which went away after using Carlson's CLO at a high dosage. OF course dd and ds also had DH which only served to complicate matters...

I agree. I'm really pleased at the general tone of this thread. Thanks everyone for participating with genuine interest and information and not being at all confrontational. It's such a charged topic and I think we're all trying really hard to do what's best. Any good information is helpful.


----------



## toraji (Apr 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Planta*
Back to the omnivorous issue...

The table I referenced takes into account the omnivores and this is actually a key point.
Why do we need multiple stomachs to qualify as herbivores? In fact the term would be frugivores, a particular category of herbivores. We cannot digest cellulose, but that doesn't make us omnivores automatically.

Many animals are omnivorous, and focusing on only certain ones can give you a dramatically different profile than others also classified as omnivorous. For example, did the author focus on only omnivores like bears, dogs, or raccoons, thus making the "omnivore" features more like carnivores? Or did he also include features from the omnivorous pigs, rats, and primates? Depending on which animals you choose for the "omnivore" definition, then you can get very different feature sets.

Humans are biologically closest to the chimpanzees, who actively hunt meat.

Quote:

One of the first and most significant discoveries made by Jane Goodall was that chimpanzees hunt for and eat meat. During her first year she observed a male chimp, David Greybeard, an adult female, and a juvenile eating what Jane realized was a young bushpig. Before this, it had been assumed that chimpanzees ate only fruit and leaves.
On that first occasion it was not clear whether the chimpanzees had caught and killed the prey, or merely come upon a carcass. But a short time later Jane actually observed the hunting process when a group of chimpanzees attacked, killed, and ate a red colobus monkey that had climbed high into a tree. The hunters covered all available escape routes while one adolescent male crept up after the prey and captured it, whereupon the other males instantly rushed up and seized parts of the carcass.

Successful hunters typically share some portion of their kill with other group members in response to a variety of begging behaviors. Most of the captured animal is eaten, including the brain. Meat is a favored food item among chimpanzees, but does not make up more than two percent of their overall diet.
From http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp_cen...or/hunting.asp

And again, I will bow down to Tom Billings from BeyondVeg:

Quote:

*Comparative Physiology: Overall Synopsis*

Some of the physiological evidence that humans are adapted to a diet that includes substantial animal products (fauna; i.e., we are faunivores) is:

Heme iron receptor sites. Our intestines contain receptor sites specifically for the absorption of heme iron, which is found in nutritionally significant quantities only in animal foods. This is strong evidence of evolutionary physiological adaptation to animal foods in the human diet.

B-12 considerations. Humans need vitamin B-12, but all current evidence suggests that plant foods were not a reliable, year-round source during human evolution. Geophagy and coprophagy are not plausible sources, leaving animal foods (including insects) as the sole reliable, plausible source.

Taurine synthesis. Relative efficiency of synthesis: the synthesis of taurine is much less efficient in humans than in herbivorous animals.

Beta-carotene to vitamin A conversion. Relative efficiency of conversion: the conversion of beta-carotene to vitamin A is much less efficient in humans than in herbivorous animals.

Sufficiency and balance of EFAs. Common, staple plant foods generally do not contain the right "balance" of EFAs, and production of EPA, DHA from plant source fats may be inefficient. It's hard to understand why--if humans really are natural vegans--the "optimal" balance of EFAs is apparently so difficult to achieve with plant foods.

Bioavailability issues. Relative efficiency of digestion/bioavailability: Although animal foods are generally easier for any mammal to digest than plant foods for structural reasons (e.g., cell wall considerations), the fact that many staple plant foods contain high levels of factors that inhibit the human digestive process suggests a long evolutionary dependence on animal foods as major nutrient sources. Examples of the relative bioavailability are as follows.

Iron in animal foods is more bioavailable than in plant foods.

Zinc is more bioavailable in animal foods than in plant foods.

Animal protein is digested more efficiently than plant protein.

Analysis of bitter taste thresholds by Glendinning [1994] shows that the human bitter taste threshold is in the same range as faunivores.

Taken individually, many of the above points are equivocal. When considered collectively, however, they strongly point to animal foods having an important role in the human diet during evolution.
Also, two important hypotheses relating diet and evolution were discussed here:

The incidence of hereditary hemochromatosis, a relatively common (in certain populations) "iron overload" disease, may be an example of a partial genetic adaptation that promotes survival in the high-carbohydrate, lower-animal-food diets of agriculture, by increasing iron absorption.

The carnivore-connection hypothesis of ****** and Colagiuri explains the high incidence of NIDDM in former (and only recently Westernized) hunter-gatherer populations as being due to insulin resistance; i.e., their insulin resistance level has not yet begun to adapt to the high-carbohydrate diets of agriculture.

*Specific concerns for fruitarians. Additionally, specific hypotheses regarding fruitarianism were presented:*

Heightened B-12 risk. Strict fruitarianism might accelerate vitamin B-12 deficiency by decreasing production of gastric acid. This may be a low-risk issue as it is very rare for anyone to strictly follow a fruitarian diet long-term; i.e., "cheating" and binge-eating are common on the diet.

Low zinc and feelings of "euphoria." Zinc deficiency is a plausible potential explanation for the "euphoric" mental feeling reported by some fruitarians (also an explanation for the loss of libido reported by some).

Diabetes-like symptoms. The carnivore-connection hypothesis of ****** and Colagiuri might explain the high incidence of diabetes-like symptoms among fruitarians, and the extremely high failure rate among those who try the diet. It seems plausible, given the predominant picture presented by the anecdotal record, that most people are not genetically adapted to a diet in which (approximately) 75+% of calories come from sugar, a simple carbohydrate that requires insulin for metabolism.
From http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...hys%20synopsis

Again, please read the entire section on comparative anatomy, frugivorous/vegetarian claims, and what the scientific evidence says about human's natural evolutionarily correct diet. http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-1a.shtml
It is extensively well-researched and cited.

Even the Vegetarian Resource Group believes humans are naturally omnivorous: http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

And some researchers even believe that meat was essential to the evolution of our species and contributed to our large brain size and highly sophisticated social structure: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/069...lance&n=283155


----------



## `guest` (Nov 20, 2001)

Toraji, thanks for your post, so well researched. I found it faschinating. Thanks to everyone, as well. This is a substantial thread.


----------



## carnelian (Feb 24, 2006)

:


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Toraji- you are awesome! And the queen of link to boot. Thank you.


----------



## richella (Nov 30, 2004)

Toraji's links notwithstanding







, I still think that nutrition and digestion are not fully understood enough for us to use science and rational thinking exclusively in deciding what we, individually, should eat. At the very least, I think there are substantial differences from person to person.

I hope you all don't think I'm wacky for saying this, but if you look at what indigenous healers from many different cultures say when asked, "How do you know what plant to give a person to heal a particular condition?" --They always say, "The plants talk to us." Well, I'm not that advanced yet, but I think it points to a need to approach these kinds of questions intuitively AS WELL AS rationally. Being in tune with your body, noticing how you feel after eating a particular food, these are beginning steps in that process, but I think ideally we could all reach a point where we could apply intuition before eating, eg, through meditation (if necessary). One thing that is absolutely essential for that process to work is to release all preconceptions as to what is right or desirable.

As for toxins, when I was coming to terms with adding fish to my diet after 12 years as a vegan, I expressed this concern to my healer. She told me to pray before eating. I don't mean to diminish the importance of making good choices, but I would say that living spiritually has the potential to make everything better than it would have been otherwise. This is an option that we always have.


----------



## toraji (Apr 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *richella*
I hope you all don't think I'm wacky for saying this, but if you look at what indigenous healers from many different cultures say when asked, "How do you know what plant to give a person to heal a particular condition?" --They always say, "The plants talk to us." Well, I'm not that advanced yet, but I think it points to a need to approach these kinds of questions intuitively AS WELL AS rationally. Being in tune with your body, noticing how you feel after eating a particular food, these are beginning steps in that process, but I think ideally we could all reach a point where we could apply intuition before eating, eg, through meditation (if necessary). One thing that is absolutely essential for that process to work is to release all preconceptions as to what is right or desirable.

Oh, I don't think you're wacky at all. I fully believe that plants talk, as well as there being consciousness that we all can tap into (though I am also not that advanced yet). Have you seen the work of Cleve Backster? He is a polygraph expert who discovered all sorts of things after hooking plants (as well as other things like yogurt) up to lie detectors.

Quote:

Then at thirteen minutes, fifty-five seconds chart time, the imagery entered my mind of burning the leaf I was testing. I didn't verbalize, I didn't touch the plant, I didn't touch the equipment. The only new thing that could have been a stimulus for the plant was the mental image. Yet the plant went wild. The pen jumped right off the top of the chart.

I went into the next office to get matches from my secretary's desk, and lighting one, made a few feeble passes at a neighboring leaf. I realized, though, that I was already seeing such a saturation of reaction that more change wouldn't be noticeable anyway. So I tried a different approach: I removed the threat by taking the matches back to the secretary's desk. The plant calmed right back down.

Immediately I understood something important was going on. There were no alternate explanations. There was no one else in the building, nobody else in the lab suite, and I simply wasn't doing anything that would provide a mechanistic explanation. From that split-second my consciousness hasn't been the same. My whole thought process, my whole priority system, has been devoted to looking into this.
http://www.derrickjensen.org/backster.html

I think a lot of problems arise when we as modern humans _think_ we know what's best, without realizing that we are all so far removed from what is inherently normal for a human that we cannot possibly make good judgement calls. I've said this before, but we live in an incredibly rich society which allows us to pick and choose what we eat, and snub our noses at foods which we deem "improper". In a rural tribal setting far removed from fashion, then we'd be tuned into our surroundings and simply eat.

(From the woman who would gladly use composted humanure on her crops, but who would NEVER, EVER eat her own feces.)


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

That's so funny! Mine told me the same thing! She also told me I'd decrease my dd's reactivity if I blessed the food before giving it to her. I agree on the intuitive thing and am working very diligently to get back there myself. Energetic healing is an amazing thing that I have been working with for almost ten years, but only recently began to understand in a more whole way. Thank you for joining us here.


----------



## Planta (Dec 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *toraji*
Humans are biologically closest to the chimpanzees, who actively hunt meat.

Let's see, how much meat do the chimps actually eat?

"In stating "chimps eat meat" it is implied that ALL chimps eat meat ALL the time (as would be the case IF flesh was eaten for legitimate nutritional purposes) and that the quantity is significant. Here, the 1.4% shows that flesh is a quantitatively-insignificant portion of the overall diet; especially so, as these data are for the time spent in "feeding on different food types". "(refering to a table about time spent eating different foods)

"Goodall points out in her section, Eating Meat, "Chimpanzees tear off chunks of meat with their teeth and hands, sometimes using their feet too when strength is required for dividing up the carcass. Almost always each morsel is chewed up together with a wadge of leaves, sometimes dead ones. These wadges, although they may be swallowed, are usually discarded along with any unwanted portion of the meat, such as pieces of bone or skin." Thus, it seems the chimps are not eating the meat, as is commonly assumed, but extracting the juice, and thus very little protein or fat is actually swallowed or available for nutritional purposes; far less that the amount implied from the feeding times in the above table!!"
(both from http://www.ecologos.org/chimphunt.htm )

So, if we consider eating like the chimps, what exactly would be the daily menu? I think I would consider such a person a raw vegan with occasional "slips'. It is really far from the omnivorous status, which to me means at least 20-30% animal products.

A short note about beyondveg.com: at first, when I started exploring the raw idea, I was charmed by this site that seemed to be so balanced, so anti-fanatical and so well documented. However, I realised slowly that it is simply the way the author sees the issue (after the chaotic personal experience http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...t-bio-1a.shtml ) and is very biased towards proving that it is not possible to eat 100% raw vegan. I was on a mailing list for a while and the only thing he kept sending was links to articles that had something to do with this viewpoint. His attitude is not scientific at all.
All this doesn't mean at all that everything on his side is wrong - there are lots of interesting articles. It is just a warning for the people less familiar with the field.

And now the points:

1) Heme iron receptor sites.
Are such sites absent in herbivores? Is there a comparative study available?
And a puzzle: why are so many "omnis" iron-deficient? (I have a possible explanation...)

2) B-12 considerations.
Again something about the obsessive B12 (by far the most discussed topic on raw forums):
"It is possible to develop a B-12 deficiency if your diet and lifestyle are not optimized as much as possible, whether you are a vegan, a vegetarian, or a meat eater. B-12 deficiency is in no way vegan specific." (from http://www.rawgosia.com/articles/sevenpoints.html )
Why is this often forgotten? It is a huge clue in the big puzzle. So, if lots of people on far from vegan diets develop such a deficiency, how can we logically concentrate on vegans and make it an issue of plant/animal foods?

3) Taurine synthesis-relative efficiency of synthesis; beta-carotene to vitamin A conversion-relative efficiency of conversion.
Which herbivores are we compared to? Is it again a case of multiple-chambered stomach?

4) Sufficiency and balance of EFAs. Common, staple plant foods generally do not contain the right "balance" of EFAs, and production of EPA, DHA from plant source fats may be inefficient. It's hard to understand why--if humans really are natural vegans--the "optimal" balance of EFAs is apparently so difficult to achieve with plant foods.
This is highly controversial. If the people used in studies have a history of incorrect diet (even if considered "healthy" by scientists) they can lead to wrong conclusions.

5) Bioavailability issues. Relative efficiency of digestion/bioavailability: Although animal foods are generally easier for any mammal to digest than plant foods for structural reasons (e.g., cell wall considerations), the fact that many staple plant foods contain high levels of factors that inhibit the human digestive process suggests a long evolutionary dependence on animal foods as major nutrient sources.
Sorry, but this is very wrong. Which staple plant foods? Probably he refers to grains, which are a very recent staple and are recognized by more and more people to be a non-food.
We are perfectly adapted to eating the plant food that we find palatable in its raw form (mainly, but not only fruits)!

6) Analysis of bitter taste thresholds by Glendinning [1994] shows that the human bitter taste threshold is in the same range as faunivores.
This is a very speculative article. Also, studying raw food leads to incredible revelations in the field of taste, instinct, etc. Long story, maybe some other time.

OK, it can go on and on. There are also the "other side" arguments with cholesterol, urea, putrefaction, cancer, etc. It's getting late :yawning: , so just some personal points for now:
I started as a normal "omni" trying to find a good diet. This brought me, totally unexpectedly, to raw food and veganism. I have read somewhere that the answers are in fact written in ourselves when we search for something, so sooner or later we fall on what we knew all along. I am quite satisfied with my answers for now (some details are open still so I keep an interest) and I moved on to other fields.
Good luck to all of you for finding piece in the crazy nutritional field!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *richella*
I hope you all don't think I'm wacky for saying this, but if you look at what indigenous healers from many different cultures say when asked, "How do you know what plant to give a person to heal a particular condition?" --They always say, "The plants talk to us."

I read a fascinating book, "The Cosmic Serpent" by Jeremy Narby, where this is approached. It gives incredible examples of the way south american indigens use plants and, when asked how they knew that, say the plants told them in their dreams.
It's a whole new dimension to seeing the world, I'm only starting to explore it.


----------



## Planta (Dec 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *toraji*
I think a lot of problems arise when we as modern humans _think_ we know what's best, without realizing that we are all so far removed from what is inherently normal for a human that we cannot possibly make good judgement calls. I've said this before, but we live in an incredibly rich society which allows us to pick and choose what we eat, and snub our noses at foods which we deem "improper". In a rural tribal setting far removed from fashion, then we'd be tuned into our surroundings and simply eat.

(From the woman who would gladly use composted humanure on her crops, but who would NEVER, EVER eat her own feces.)

I think we think along the same lines, with some small differences...
Thinking of going back to the "rural tribe", exactly how far back should we go? Before or after the discovery of fire? I am starting to think that this is actually the key element to lots of human puzzles: fire.

I find this such an interesting hypothesis:
"o Let me suggest a possible incident that will account for what might have happened after our ancestors discovered fire. Imagine a tribal people that had always eaten raw food before and who, one day, started cooking_even just one food_either out of curiosity, accident, or possibly because a forest fire had cooked their sweet potatoes to a turn.
.....
They probably ate an amount that far exceeded their need for glucose, starch, or any other nutrient present in those tubers. What do you think happened, the following day, when, as usual, they tried to eat their fine sweet potatoes raw?

_They found they tasted bad.

o Precisely. Their instincts prevented them from increasing the overload resulting from the revelries of the previous day. They found their raw sweet potatoes tough and inedible.

_They must have been utterly baffled.

o There were two possible reactions. Either they thought that their raw sweet potatoes had suddenly become distasteful because of some divine curse and that, to exorcise the sweet potatoes, they had to go on cooking them; that was the advent of fire as a cathartic agent.
Or, alternatively, the tribal dietitian concluded that "the raw sweet potatoes tasted bad today because, when we ate them cooked yesterday, we disregarded our instincts and overloaded our metabolism and that today our taste buds, which work properly with raw food, prevented us from increasing the overload not yet cleared."

_I don't believe that a tribal people could have reasoned in such a way.

o Neither do I, especially since 20th century dietitians are as yet unable to.
.....
Our unhappy tribe, then, must have gone back to cooking their tubers the following day, increased their overload, and then carried on, day after day, getting further and further away from a state that would have enabled them to recapture the former taste. Finally, after a few generations, they completely forgot that their ancestors ate sweet potatoes raw and they taught their children, as if it was a statement of the obvious, "Sweet potatoes have to be cooked!"
When I was six or seven years old, I remember asking my mother, who was bustling around in front of her stove, "Mommy, why do you cook potatoes?" She answered me curtly: "What do you mean? You can only eat them cooked!" It took me 20 years to get over that.
.....
_It's worrying to think that if one eats, even once, a food cooked, one already has trouble finding it good in its raw state. You make the act of cooking sound like a sort of unforgiveable sin.

o In actual fact, it's much worse. All it takes is eating a single type of cooked food to trigger off a general overload in several nutrients whose amounts instincts weren't able to gauge properly. The following day, any raw food will taste less appealing. That's why instinctotherapy isn't easy to carry through unless one eats everything raw.

_You mean to say that those tribal people, the day after they ate cooked sweet potatoes, couldn't even bring themselves to eat fruit?

o At least not as enthusiastically as usual.
The excess sugar taken up the day before inevitably made their instincts less attracted to all other foods high in sugar.
Maybe they didn't find fruit so insipid as to refrain from having it altogether, but its fragrance must have seemed less appealing. They found it impossible to put away their usual amount.
At the end of the day, they felt so frustrated they had to compensate for it. So, how did they cope?

_They boiled up more sweet potatoes.

o Possibly, but that wouldn't quite meet the need for greater pleasure, at least palate-wise. Filling up just for filling up's sake is hardly enjoyable.

_I get it; they came up with the first recipe!

o How else could they have got their pleasure's worth, besides trying out cooking artfully? Unfortunately, there's no way back; it's a descending spiral. Every recipe makes one eat more and results in an ever-increasing overload that dulls one's instincts and further reduces pleasure, thus leading to ever more elaborate recipes ad infinitum. Sophistication in cooking can be accounted for in this way. All it took was cheating against instincts once to lead mankind into an endless quest of gluttony that has stranded us, to this day, in a state of perpetual frustration."
( from http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/...graw_eat2.html )


----------



## toraji (Apr 3, 2003)

Some chimpanzee communities eat up to 1 ton of meat annually. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html
I don't deny that chimps eat mostly fruit. I got a bit confused that you were arguing that chimps are vegetarian.

And still, all the anthropological evidence out there points to humans evolving with meat in the diet. Bottom line, we are not chimps, else we'd be living in the jungle instead of typing this meaningless drivel on the Internet.

Quote:

First, those who make such claims may refer to some vague, ancient, frugivorous primate ancestor, implying that such an ancestor somehow proves humans are natural fruitarians. There are two major problems with this:

The reference to an ancient frugivorous ancestor is so vague that it is meaningless. True, there were ancient frugivorous primates. However, the reference mixes up the diverse categories of primates, hominoids, and humans such that no meaningful statements can be made. Another problem here is that--as has been discussed earlier--the type of fruits eaten by earlier frugivorous apes included tougher and more fibrous fruits considerably different in character than the highly bred and far sweeter varieties developed for commercial production in modern times.

Humans have been eating meat since the dawn of the **** genus. Humans appeared with the advent of a brand-new genus (****) ~2.5 million years ago. Humans evolved on the savanna-- a very different environment from the forest home of the great apes. From the very inception of our genus, humans have been eating animal foods. There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support this point. (Some of the evidence is discussed in this and the preceding section; also see Part 1 of the Paleolithic Diet vs. Vegetarianism interview series, available on this site, for additional information and citations.) The diet of some vague prehistoric frugivore that may or may not be an ancestor is irrelevant in light of the status of humans as a new genus with a different diet (i.e., eating more animal foods) and evolving in a different environmental niche.
In contrast to the extensive fossil record evidence of meat in the evolutionary diet, there is virtually no credible scientific evidence of a strict fruitarian or veg*n diet by our prehistoric human (and australopithecine) ancestors.

No fruitarian, or even vegan, hunter-gatherer societies have ever been found. Further, there is no evidence to indicate there ever existed, in the past, a fruitarian (or veg*n) hunter-gatherer society. Even in the tropical rainforest, hunter-gatherers eat meat. (The Ache of Paraguay in the Amazon rainforest, one of the best-studied of all hunter-gatherer tribes, are a prime example with an average of over 50% meat consumption throughout the year, ranging from 47-77% depending on the season [Hill, Hawkes, Hurtado, and Kaplan 1984].) There is no evidence of any fruitarian societies, and--more to the point--the extensive anecdotal evidence (virtually the only evidence available) on modern attempts at (strict) fruitarianism indicates that it may work for a short while but almost always fails in the long run. (Even the fruitarian extremist "experts" often fail to follow the diet strictly, in the long term.)
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...ml#fruit%20evo

Your points about most omnis being iron and b12 deficient are irrelevant. These stats are based on a Standard Western Diet which causes numerous deficiencies.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Planta*
A short note about beyondveg.com: at first, when I started exploring the raw idea, I was charmed by this site that seemed to be so balanced, so anti-fanatical and so well documented. However, I realised slowly that it is simply the way the author sees the issue (after the chaotic personal experience http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...t-bio-1a.shtml ) and is very biased towards proving that it is not possible to eat 100% raw vegan. I was on a mailing list for a while and the only thing he kept sending was links to articles that had something to do with this viewpoint. His attitude is not scientific at all.
All this doesn't mean at all that everything on his side is wrong - there are lots of interesting articles. It is just a warning for the people less familiar with the field.

So in contrast to Billings' well-documented, well-presented research, I'm supposed to believe a man prone to ad-hominem attacks who writes like this?

Quote:

Meatarians, in their never-ending, but always irrational and fruitless, attempts to justify human flesh-eating often use the claim that "chimps eat meat, so we should also".
from the page you linked to: http://www.ecologos.org/chimphunt.htm
Sure sounds well-balanced, anti-fanatical, and scientific to me.

I am so totally done with this topic. My retinas are about to detach.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Planta-I have read in many studies that no matter what your diet you can become B-12 deficient. I agree it's a result of poor diet.
So...you followed the path to raw veganism and now are doing great (if I remember correctly) Do you think that maybe someday you will use small (I call small 1 ounce a week or so) amounts of animal products? I know you are open to the idea, but do you think at this point it will become necessary? I am still on board with raw, just wondering about the difference between raw vegan, and raw. I have also read alot about the putrefaction idea and I posted elsewhere that it's one of the top two things (another being toxins) that really gives me pause. I do think at this point though that I will be incorporating some animal products ( and I'm not talking chicken here, I'm talking things that pack a punch!) occasionally. Again-my quest for balance.

Thank you both for your links! I'm a novice at the computer thing and have no idea how to link.


----------



## Planta (Dec 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *toraji*
Some chimpanzee communities eat up to 1 ton of meat annually. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html
I don't deny that chimps eat mostly fruit. I got a bit confused that you were arguing that chimps are vegetarian.

Well, they are. If we look at what an average chimp eats daily we can easily label it like this, even if some animal products are eaten.
A ton of meat sounds like much, but how much is it actually /day and chimp (and also really ingested meat, not just "juiced")?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *toraji*
Bottom line, we are not chimps, else we'd be living in the jungle instead of typing this meaningless drivel on the Internet.

OK, then why are the chimps used as an argument in proving we should eat meat?
Both sides simply take what fits them and leave the rest. It's the same with all debates in any field. We simply have to make our way through a labirynth of facts, suppositions, opinions, etc.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *toraji*
Your points about most omnis being iron and b12 deficient are irrelevant. These stats are based on a Standard Western Diet which causes numerous deficiencies.

So are the stats based on some sick vegans. Why are they more relevant to veganism than SAD to "omninism"?
Any kind of diet can be practiced wrongly and this can be used as an argument for or against anything. It is just a crazy field.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *toraji*
So in contrast to Billings' well-documented, well-presented research, I'm supposed to believe a man prone to ad-hominem attacks who writes like this?

I agree completely that the person you talk about has a very unpleasant tone. However, he has very solid points and also well documented.
You are not supposed to believe anyone. Just take the points that make sense and confront them with other people's points. The big trouble everywhere is that people want to believe 100% in one person or one trend. When they discover a flaw they throw the whole thing and adopt another "god". Why can't we take bits and pieces from everyone and build our own view? (which to others will also seem partly incorrect, etc). As long as everybody is honest this can only lead to general better understanding. The big obstacle is though the strong interests or drives that lead to biases, which seem to be the following in the nutrition field: ethical veganism, meat, dairy industry, etc. All these have an initial starting point (protecting animals or money interests) that is clear and then try to gather the scientific information supporting that point and minimizing the opposite information. It's really hard sometimes to make sense of the whole thing.


----------



## Planta (Dec 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery*
Planta-I have read in many studies that no matter what your diet you can become B-12 deficient. I agree it's a result of poor diet.
So...you followed the path to raw veganism and now are doing great (if I remember correctly) Do you think that maybe someday you will use small (I call small 1 ounce a week or so) amounts of animal products? I know you are open to the idea, but do you think at this point it will become necessary?

I am totally confused on this. I can't ignore the serious problems that are reported on long term veganism, but I also can't ignore my solid personal experiments. So I decided to wait and look very closely for any signs of something going wrong with me (very small signs, I won't wait for hospitalization!). Then I can see several possibilities:
- the supplementation path choosing natural products, never synthetic compounds
- raw animal products - first eggs and milk. I am trying to follow the principle of eating stuff I can at least imagine myself catching or raising. I am growing already some of my food and in the near future it will be almost all my food (plant stuff). I can imagine raising hens (I actually consider it because they are super cute) and even goats or fish. If I feel like eating meat though I will impose this condition on myself: I should be able to kill that animal and eat it raw. What I can vaguely accept at the moment is killing fish - if I know for sure I will eat most of it.
- back to cooked? The only way I see this makes sense for me is if I decide I can't cover my caloric needs on raw. So far I'm fine, not losing all my weight.

All this internal reasoning is simply based on fear - I can identify that. I don't agree intelectually with the anti-vegan arguments, but there is a voice saying "what if...".
After reading enough of the scientific information about these issues I have reached the conclusion it cannot be a base for decisions because it is too incomplete. That's why I am interested at the moment in personal experiences - I read lots on the raw forums.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery*
I am still on board with raw, just wondering about the difference between raw vegan, and raw.

I'm wondering about that too. The person I respect most on raw is actually not vegan, but, as I said, we shouldn't accept 100% of someone's ideas even if we strongly agree with 98%.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery*
Thank you both for your links! I'm a novice at the computer thing and have no idea how to link.

You can simply copy and paste the address from your browser. It will automatically become active.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *richella*
Toraji's links notwithstanding







Well, I'm not that advanced yet, but I think it points to a need to approach these kinds of questions intuitively AS WELL AS rationally. Being in tune with your body, noticing how you feel after eating a particular food, these are beginning steps in that process, but I think ideally we could all reach a point where we could apply intuition before eating, eg, through meditation (if necessary). One thing that is absolutely essential for that process to work is to release all preconceptions as to what is right or desirable.

As for toxins, when I was coming to terms with adding fish to my diet after 12 years as a vegan, I expressed this concern to my healer. She told me to pray before eating. I don't mean to diminish the importance of making good choices, but I would say that living spiritually has the potential to make everything better than it would have been otherwise. This is an option that we always have.

My grandmother is the healthiest woman I know at 74 and she believes that her boy tells her what it needs...she almost never gets sick and has never been overweight (in spite of having 6 kids!)

We also pray for the "food to be nourishing to ourbodies and give us strength" before we eat....I think there is something to that...


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Oh it's so sad! I don't have a clue how to cut and paste. I'll work on that.

Yeah, I'm still at the same point. I am happiest for sure high raw. I really like 100%, but as I'm still recovering from celiac disease and a badly damaged gut I'm really struggling (and I think I've decided) about adding some raw animal products. I'm not okay subjecting a growing baby to deficiencies. I know that I have gut damage and I need to really pay attention to that. I will stay at least 95% and aim for 100%. I think it's possible for a long time with great nutrition to be raw vegan. I just can't justify starting from where I am, and being pg. and nursing. It stinks because I honestly feel better vegan (and raw) but who knows how long that will last? Both my kids have suffered because of my gut problems. Both. I'm not going to attempt to go for all three.

I am currently craving eggs. Weird since I hate them. I guess I need them. So I'll eat them. I have access to free-range organic eggs from a family that doesn't slaughter and doesn't have a rooster. THat's pretty darn close to perfect for me. I'm the same way with fish-just gotta figure out the cleanest source.

Thanks a lot. It really helps me to talk to other folks! I get so swayed by whatever I'm reading in the moment. This is the only place I can get both sides. Fast.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

firefaery--hoow much of the vitamineral green do you take? It sounds good but that stuff is incredibly expensive!


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

1 Tablespoon a day. Kids get 1 teaspoon. It is expensive, but before I got it I was taking Perfect Food, probiotics, digestive enzymes and a separate B complex. Now I just do the VMG. I really love it.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

For anyone wondering about their nutritional status, don't wait for symptoms. Clear symptoms don't usually come until you are very depleted. This company has a good series of tests:

www.metametrix.com

The plasma homocysteine would be good for vegans to check B12 and folic acid. It's not a direct test but is a very good indirect measure. B12 plasma can be misleading if you are relying on plant-based B12. There's a good bit of research that while the plant-based B12 is bio-available to algae, it is not to humans. Whether it's sufficient research to convince a committed vegan is another question. But if you are above 8 on the plasma homocysteine, start supplementing B12 yesterday. B12 deficiencies will cause folic acid deficiencies even with an abundance in your diet.

Metametrix has a good red blood cell mineral and toxic metal panel as well. It's a reasonably decent test in a world of science in which none of these minerals have really been nailed down.

And this is the company of the test that saved me from PPD hell, the blood spot amino acid test. You can have a custom supplement made based on your bloodwork and become human again even in the midst of a very bad PPD cycle.

Funny thing about aminos, there's a whole step-by-step process your body used to create serotonin, for instance. Body must break down protein into various amino acids. Some of us do this well. Some of us don't. The aminos have to be converted to the neurotransmitters like serotonin. Some of us do this well some of us don't. If we are missing a step in this process (and it's likely due to a nutrient problem), then you are condemned to depression hell.

And here's my point: your body can convert beta carotene to vitamin A and plant-based omega 3s to EPA. If you want to know how well it does it and, thus, how well a vegan diet is working for you, you can have your vit A status checked and your fatty acid profile done. Metametrix has a fatty acid profile as well in its bag of tools.

I don't count on my body converting these critical things. If it exists in the already-converted form, I eat it.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

I'll throw another question out there:

Scientists have mapped the human genome and are now looking at differences across people. What they found is a DNA marker for adaptation to milk for people in Europe.

So I imagine the vegan argument is that humans may have been drinking milk but should not have. Is that correct? And if that's the case then those humans essentially adapted to an ill-suited food. Why would that be? And for those of us descended from Europeans, what should our decision be about dairy from a health point of view (not ethical)?


----------



## Planta (Dec 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
I'll throw another question out there:

Scientists have mapped the human genome and are now looking at differences across people. What they found is a DNA marker for adaptation to milk for people in Europe.

So I imagine the vegan argument is that humans may have been drinking milk but should not have. Is that correct? And if that's the case then those humans essentially adapted to an ill-suited food. Why would that be? And for those of us descended from Europeans, what should our decision be about dairy from a health point of view (not ethical)?

A word of caution about such articles: they are extremely speculative. There are many many assumptions between the data and the conclusions - just count how many times you find "this could mean..." or "this suggests...".

Why did humans start eating lots of animal products? My opinion: because they colonized cold regions where their original foods were scarce - this made possible by fire... This move (with unknown motivation) was very very expensive in terms of health.
If there are enough things to eat apart from dairy, why should we eat milk? Even some adaptation to it (minimal) does not mean it is neccessary. Other concerns are really serious: the ecological impact is really disastrous. How many more generations can afford the luxury to ignore this?


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

On the milk issue...it's a tough one. I have to say that what I have read from Joel Fuhrman, John Robbins and even John McDougall (amongst others) still makes the most sense to me. What you have is a non-species specific milk that was inherently designed for an animal that is meant to grow 2000 pounds in it's first year. The hormones in the milk as well as the proteins and fats were not designed to be consumed by humans, who grow much less rapidly and have larger brains. The consumption of milk will lead to rapid growth (how can it not? That's what it is meant to do) and rapid growth of human cells leads to a predisposition for cancer.
This arguement completely sticks to biological reasons not to drink milk. It doesn't even touch what happens when you drink the milk of a cow who is being forced into oversupply, leading ot a huge lactose load in the milk and then a predisposition to diabetes. THere are (for me) too many good arguements against drinking milk, and not enough for it. I respect that many people enjoy it and have researched it's benefits and make the choice to use it in their diets. I just haven't been swayed far enough in that direction. Not to mention that we are all allergic to it (even the raw stuff.)


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Planta said:


> A word of caution about such articles: they are extremely speculative. There are many many assumptions between the data and the conclusions - just count how many times you find "this could mean..." or "this suggests...".
> 
> 
> > Let me ask you another way:
> ...


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

firefaery--so do you feel you got your gut healed before you started the Vitamineral Green? I'm starting digestive enzymes and the Maker's Diet today to see if that helps my DD's issues...how long did you do the digestive enzymes and other stuff before stopping them?


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

I would say that just because your body isnt' reacting to it (in a way that causes you immediate discomfort) doesn't mean it's okay or healthy to drink.

This is another place I freak on the toxin issue. I really don't believe you could find a source that was exactly what your ancestors drank. The world just didn't have this toxic load. Since we know toxins are excreted in BM I would just not do it.

There is alos a big difference for me between people who had a cow who had just calved and took a couple of ounces of milk for their own use, and going to a farm where they separate the mama and babies and prolong lactation (and in higher amounts than a calf would need and mama would naturally produce) The composition is very different. Also with unlimited access your consumption would likely be very different.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Oh, I would definitely say that my gut was healed (for the most part) before the VMG. I wish I had known about them though-it would have been a great tool.
If your working on healing intensively, I would still say go with something like Houston Nutraceuticals. You need to take good doses several times a day, which you wouldn't really do with VMG. I did HN enzymes for, hmmm, 8 months maybe? I really liked them, but not that we are better and mostly raw the food has the enzymes we need. I'm very glad I did them though. They made a big difference.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

I got some Enzymedica enzymes--those and the Houston ones are the two that were recommended to me. The problem is that they are sooo expensive ($45 for 120, which I figure will last maybe a month). Our problems are pretty minor so hopefully I won't have to take them too long, but I haven't found any info on how to know when your gut is healed or when you can stop taking things. I really hope this stuff works--this diet already sucks and I've only been on it for 1/2 a day!


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

In the beginning it's hard, but once you get creative with it it's a breeze!~


----------



## Planta (Dec 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
Let me ask you another way:

Assume for a moment that it's true that some of us have actually adapted to milk, regardless of how long ago that may have happened and under what conditions. If I have adapted and I can find a source of milk like that my ancestors adapted to (grassfed etc), would it be healthy for me to drink it?

Well, what exactly means that you are adapted to milk? Can you be sure that none of the health problems that you experience or will experience are absolutely unrelated to it?

I agree though that occasionally it's good to forget about history and just sit down in front of all the possible food choices and decide what's good and bad for our bodies right now.
Are you familiar with all the anti-milk sites? I'm afraid I don't have a long list because I'm not so interested in the subject, but this could be a start: http://www.notmilk.com/ (on the left there's a long list of health problems and their direct or indirect connection to milk)

If you believe milk is healthy, what are the main advantages of eating it that can't be easily found in other foods? Did you make the experiment of eliminating only milk from the diet, noticed problems, introduced it back and solved the problems?


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

I am just asking you to make an assumption for a moment that the research is correct that some of us have genetic markers for having adapted to milk. And let's assume we could find out on a case-by-case basis if we are such a person, would it be unhealthy for a person to eat for health reasons if they were such a person and could find the milk of an animal living on its traditional diet?

I'm not actually making an argument about the health of milk. I'm trying to understand your position on animal foods.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Planta*
I am totally confused on this. I can't ignore the serious problems that are reported on long term veganism, but I also can't ignore my solid personal experiments. So I decided to wait and look very closely for any signs of something going wrong with me (very small signs, I won't wait for hospitalization!).

I'm not trying to pick on you Planta but I want to respond to your point and emphasize something very important: you may not "know" you are deficient until you are in very bad shape. I'm sorry but the Bs in particular don't tend to have a host of associated signs like some of the minerals do. Just get a plasma homocysteine test.

And still not picking on Planta because many people make this argument and for the plural "you," your solid personal experience will last just as long as your B12 stores last. How long might that be? Maybe 30 years. Maybe 30 days. You cannot know without knowing the state of your B12 stores which, by the way, are far more dependent on your mother's decisions and her mother's than the decisions you are making right now. So a poor test is not invalidating your own decisions as a philosophy, but there is a reality in this world today that just about all of us were born of women on standard modern diets. Their diets were poor and part of the inheritance they left us was a less-than-ideal nutritional status.

For anyone interested, a plasma homocysteine test is a very common test. Your regular doctor will be able to provide it for you.


----------



## Planta (Dec 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
I am just asking you to make an assumption for a moment that the research is correct that some of us have genetic markers for having adapted to milk. And let's assume we could find out on a case-by-case basis if we are such a person, would it be unhealthy for a person to eat for health reasons if they were such a person and could find the milk of an animal living on its traditional diet?

I'm not actually making an argument about the health of milk. I'm trying to understand your position on animal foods.

So my position is this (mostly refering to milk):
1- the bad effects on humans are only starting to be discovered (scientifically), but so far it seems that most people are affected in one way or another. The big confusion comes from the fact that there aren't clear universal and fast symptoms - obviously, otherwise we would all know it by now. Everybody has a "weak link", and that's what falls first - it can be the liver, the bomes, the brain, etc, after decades of consuming suboptimal foods.
2- even if there were no particularly bad effects (let's say you are perfectly "adapted"), the fact that animal foods are not neccessary (at least in big amounts) is a strong enough reason for me not to eat them, because there are lots of other problems apart from direct personal health (which I admit I also put first). I must say I admire a lot the vegans that think animal products could be neccessary to human health and yet refrain from eating them for ethical reasons. I am not one of them. I simply don't understand the advantages of such food (in big amounts, let me state again). And, actually, encouraging the animal industry ends up affecting our health indirectly too - all the environmental changes are not to be simply brushed aside. Everybody talks of fresh air, good water, etc - but if it goes on like this, and everybody wants their liter of milk/day and daily steak too - I tell you, such natural treasures will be gone fast.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
I'm not trying to pick on you Planta but I want to respond to your point and emphasize something very important: you may not "know" you are deficient until you are in very bad shape. I'm sorry but the Bs in particular don't tend to have a host of associated signs like some of the minerals do. Just get a plasma homocysteine test.

I understand your position - I really do. I come from there. It's difficult to describe briefly my intelectual trip in the last few years, but I'll try.
OK, so I had this view (common) that there are healthy people and sick people. The sick people show some symptoms and by interpreting them correctly we can find a cure (some pill or preferably something natural - herbs, etc.). My trust in the conventional medicine deteriorated steadily in time, which didn't change this view though - I simply thought it was a matter of which remedies we're talking about and also about a bit of prevention.
What made me think this view was inadequate and not useful at all to me? I think, basically, 2 things (of course is more complex, but I'm trying to condense it):

1- my contact with homeopathy. My dh had a terrible atack of sinusitis, he had non-stop strong headache for days. I convinced him to go to the doctor - he went and was prescribed antibiotics. Nothing changed at all after 7-10 days of following the recommendations. Next visit - radiography, nothing changed, doctor shrugged shoulders. OK, what next? The typical scenario so many people experience: go to the trusted authority first, then in desperation try all those "quacks" out there for an "alternative" cure, since what else can be done anyway?
So we decided for homeopathy since in Switzerland it is quite well established, it is a respectable alternative. He picked a homeopath and went for a consultation. He was asked for about 1-2 hours lots of weird questions and then told his remedy will arrive at home. We waited impatiently - by now there were 3 weeks of splitting headaches without a break! After 1-2 more days the globuli finaly arrived - just 2 doses, to be taken the same evening. He took them. Next day the situation didn't change much. Next day - headache gone, vanished without a trace! OK, auto-suggestion some will say. But that is not the end of the story. Something really miraculous happened that I don't know how can be explained: he got a strong aversion to tobacco and alcohol. Before all this, he was a moderate smoker (about 10/day), with failed attempts to quit, and a moderate drinker (in fact quite "normal" ). Well, after the globuli he never put a cigarette in his mouth again (to this day, more than 2 years later). The aversion to alcohol diminished somewhat, he managed to have occasional beers.

Sorry for this long story that might seem irrelevant. I wanted to point out that this incident opened my eyes to a whole new way of looking at health. A classical homeopath takes into account every single detail of a person, even some that have nothing to do (apparently) with disease. From preffered side of sleep, to relationship to parents, passing through food preferences - everything is important. This made me think - hey, maybe it is important! Conventional doctors are totally hopeless in evaluating someone's health. That is why people reach last stages of diseases before anyone considers them sick. A disease never comes just like that - one day you are perfectly healthy and the next you are diagnosed with cancer or whatever. No, it's a long chain of tiny signs your body shows and every single one has some meaning. Slight joint pain, occasional stomach aches, lack of energy, etc? They all mean something, your body is mistreated in some way. Try to ask a doctor about them - what will you get? Maybe some painkiller...

So, where I'm heading with this long rant is this: <<<you may not "know" you are deficient until you are in very bad shape>>> sounds very wrong to me. I have the list of what I call "signs" my body exhibited before going raw and I have the list of signs right now. I tell you - it is like night and day. It is not simple euphoria and I am not saying that nothing can ever crop up again, because I know I might have solved just part of the puzzle. But I can't buy into the mentality "now you're healthy - now you drop" - what is there to convince me? This view stems from a school of thought that has IMO abysmal results in the health field and I simply don't want to follow anymore.

2- my discovery of raw foods
Hmm, this is even longer - maybe I leave it for some other time. Just to mention that it got me to an even more different point of view, where homeopathy isn't that important after all.

Now about B12 - I'd like to ask you something: can you enumerate briefly (or longer, as I did), the points that convinced you of your position - I mean articles or personal testimonies, rationalizations, etc?
Do you know about D.Graham's fascinating position on B12 - he was once diagnosed B12 deficient and yet he advocates no supplementation in general?


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Planta~I am a die hard fan of homeopathy. I love it and have used it pretty much exclusively (for kids, dh and myself) for almost ten years now. I am curious to know (though I can guess, because raw changes EVERYHTING) how raw has rendered it near irrelevant for you? Or at least not all that important. I have only just really gotten in to the raw thing...I'm curious what has happened for you. Also-where are you coming from? Amanda (and I) are coming from a place where we were in tough shape. Significant deficiencies. Did you have that to overcome, or was it more just general healing? I'm always waiting to hear more







That's my hang up about B-12 deficiency in general. For a healthy person I believe it may be possible to not supplement-but what about a person who isn't just deficient, but has alot of damage? Apparently I gotta google Dr. Graham. I've not read his stuff on B-12, though Gabriel Cousens has the same view...


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

firefaery--which Houston enzymes did you take?

Just for a whole different perspective on this thread, I base my decisions on foods to eat on the Bible (which isn't going to convince someone if they believe in evolution, but I thought I would throw it out there anyway). Grains are obviously a food staple in the Bible...milk is mentioned as a food. Meat is obviously a staple as well. Obviously these foods need to be properly prepared, grains soaked/sprouted/fermented, etc. Fruits and veggies were the original foods in the Bible...you get the idea. If "science" contradicts the wisdom of the Bible I'm a bit skeptical of it, especially knowing how easy it is to make a study say anything you want it to say. I'm not saying all studies are bad or inaccurate, but many are skewed and at the very least don't present a balanced picture.

But I also think each person needs to listen to their body and take into account how they feel eating different types of food. Many people have problems with dairy, so people should avoid it if it causes problems for them (although I feel that many of the problems with milk could be avoided if people used only raw products from birth, but that's JMO). Same thing with grains--if they don't work for you, don't use them.

Now that I've offered up my perspective...please don't flame me and tell me how unscientific I am or anything else!


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

I took afp peptizyde, no-fenol and zyme prime.

It depends on where in the bible you are reading. It also is used by many raw vegans as an arguement...in the beginning god gave us "every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed. To you it shall be for food." (Genesis 1:29)

Problems came in the desert when the Jews cried out for flesh. God reluctantly provided it in the form of quails. A plague ensued and many people died. Many people consider this an early warning about the dangers of meat.

When the land was promised in Canaan, He said, "for the Lord, thy God, bringeth thee into a good land, a land of brooks and water, of fountains and depths, springing forth in valleys and hills, a land of wheat and barley, and vines and fig trees and pomegranates, a land of olive trees and honey, a land wherein though shall lack nothing in it. And thou shall eat and be satisfied..." (Deuteronomy 8:7-10) Pretty vegan.

There are many others...The book of Daniel, he was able to interpret the kings dreams which he attributed to his clean diet lacking in animal flesh. In the essene gospels it is very clear that we are not meant to eat meat. "For if you eat living food it will quicken you, but if you kill your food, the dead food will kill you also. For life comes only from life, and from death comes always death." And on and on and on.

Just another frustration for me! Even the bible is unclear (though I'm not religious it would strike a chord at least!)


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

LOL! No flames here! Just a lively discussion in which all perspectives are welcome. Every piece of the puzzle is just that.

My ds had raw from birth (goats no less) and still can't tolerate milk. Same with dd (though with her it was raw cow's milk-same deal anyway) I think some are just not meant to have it. Whether it was because we aren't adapted well or it was because he is very "in tune" and showed signs early where in others it may be dormant cropping up later and Planta pointed out, I dunno.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Nutritional deficiency would be what's known as a "maintaining cause" in homeopathy. You can't heal/make better what's not there in the first place.

And having not much trust in modern scientific methods is one of the reasons I will continue to eat meat unapoligetically. We simply don't know all of the vitamins, minerals and other energy factors that exist in our food, and probably never will.

As for milk, I am a Norse Heathen, and the cow's milk plays and integral part in our creation myth. A creation myth certainly isn't a recent thing . . . it evolved from very ancient humans trying to explain how and why we're here (on an energetic level, I believe, which is why I believe in evolution and the spiritual side of things).

Planta, you should check out BodyTalk (www.bodytalksystem.com). I think it would be right up your alley.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

My view on B-12 is pretty simple:

* Eat foods with B-12 in abundance when you are deficient in it and even when you are not.

*A small insect on a leaf of lettuce is not what I consider an abundant source.

*If I have a baby while my stores and/or my diet is deficient, that baby will be deficient.

*If each generation bequeaths an ever-dwindling supply of B-12 to their babies, the whole vegan-omni diet argument will be moot because it will no longer be possible to be a healthy vegan.

*Increasingly I look out at the animal world and say "it's you or me, buddy."


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Amanda:
I had to laugh at your post! I was in Whole Foods today doing our shopping. I was picking out my greens and there was a cutie little lady bug on my lettuce. I have no idea why I thought it was so charming-but I did. Pregnancy hormones? At any rate I crooned at it (yeah, I'm a weirdo) and showed it to my dh. Several other people looked over at it and smiled as my dh (unapologetic about meat eating as well) booms, "hello, B-12! THere's your natural source." He got some dirty looks.

I can't even think about not doing B-12 (even if I'm going to add animal products in any appreciable amount) until I am healthy. I agree that it's not okay to put my unborn baby in any danger and I haven't seen anything yet that applies to ME with the issue.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
My view on B-12 is pretty simple:

*Increasingly I look out at the animal world and say "it's you or me, buddy."











Caedman-do you follow the Maker's diet?


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

I often find an insect in my salad. I remember when I was a little girl after I had finished the salad, there was a baby snail swimming across the remaining salad dressing.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

newcastlemama--I do follow the Maker's Diet (actually right now I'm transitioning from a whole foods diet to the Maker's Diet, which basically just means preparing some foods a little differently)...right now I'm doing the 40 day program along with some digestive enzymes to see if that will help clear up some problems DD and I have been having.

firefaery--I think the Bible has to be looked at as a whole to get an accurate picture.

For instance, a little later in Genesis (9:3) God gives all the animals as food...now either God made a mistake or there is something in animal food that He wanted us to have (why this didn't happen initially after creation I don't know, maybe it had something to do with the change of atmosphere after the Flood?).

As for the plague after the quails, it was actually punishment for grumbling--the Israelites were punished several times in various ways for grumbling (see Numbers 14 & 16).

And Canaan was also referred to as a land flowing with milk and honey (Numbers 13:27, 14:8, 16:13, and a bunch of other places).

I can't find anywhere in the book of Daniel where he says he can interpret dreams due to his diet...he may have eaten a vegetarian diet but Daniel 1 says that it was due to him not wanting to defile himself with the king's food, so it appears that the king's food consisted of things that weren't "kosher" (maybe pork?). It's pretty clear from earlier references in the Bible that the Israelites ate meat and fish.

I don't recognize the essene gospels as the word of God.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

newcastlemama--I do follow the Maker's Diet (actually right now I'm transitioning from a whole foods diet to the Maker's Diet, which basically just means preparing some foods a little differently)...right now I'm doing the 40 day program along with some digestive enzymes to see if that will help clear up some problems DD and I have been having.

firefaery--I think the Bible has to be looked at as a whole to get an accurate picture.

For instance, a little later in Genesis (9:3) God gives all the animals as food...now either God made a mistake or there is something in animal food that He wanted us to have (why this didn't happen initially after creation I don't know, maybe it had something to do with the change of atmosphere after the Flood?).

As for the plague after the quails, it was actually punishment for grumbling--the Israelites were punished several times in various ways for grumbling (see Numbers 14 & 16).

And Canaan was also referred to as a land flowing with milk and honey (Numbers 13:27, 14:8, 16:13, and a bunch of other places).

I can't find anywhere in the book of Daniel where he says he can interpret dreams due to his diet...he may have eaten a vegetarian diet but Daniel 1 says that it was due to him not wanting to defile himself with the king's food, so it appears that the king's food consisted of things that weren't "kosher" (maybe pork?). It's pretty clear from earlier references in the Bible that the Israelites ate meat and fish.

I don't recognize the essene gospels as the word of God.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Caedmyn-tell us how the ]Maker's Diet[ works for your family...I have thought about reading the book for curiosity's sake because it has become so popular..I also think the author is okay with animal products because he had Chron's disease and it is more benefical for people with those types of issues to eat that way.

The Hallelujah Diet www.hacres.com promotes veganism and hey use Genesis. This man who invented it had prostate cancer i think so a diet like that would impact that kind of illness best IMO.

My point is, that truly whole natural foods and good for everyone and the ratios are just different depending on what ails you. Whole foods is the common thread to healthy diets from all the research I have read whether they are vegan or not.
My best friend does NT and she likes the animal products because she has gut issues and feels better with them...I have always done better with less.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn*

I don't recognize the essene gospels as the word of God.

What are the essene gospels BTW


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Augh!!!!! Can someone just please tell me what the right things to eat are????










Seriously. The more I read, the more confused I am! I seriously wish I could be blissfully ignorant enough to just eat regular foods and not constantly obssess over it..... Sigh.

I thought I knew all of the answers. I was vegan for 5 years, vegetarian for 15. I am still vegetarian and on the NT/vegan fence right now. I feel this enormous weight of resposibility choosing the diet for three people (dh, dd, and me). Not to mention, I am the nutrition "expert" among friends so my decisions tend to rub off on others.

I felt good being vegan until recently. I have no idea if my ailments are connected to being vegan for so long. We did it for the nutritional aspects but also heavily for the ethical and environmental aspects. I really want to know the answer to the question someone posted a while back.... Why would nature be designed in such a way that animal A drinks animal B's milk when it is clear that animal B produces milk expressly for the purpose of growing a baby B into a 1000 pound creature? I want to know!!!!

I have been dabbling in the milk and egg arena for a couple of months. Our whole family got the most-evil-death-flu promptly upon introducing tiny amounts of dairy and eggs. While recovering, we have gone back to vegan eating as I just do not have the energy to cook new foods or experiment with getting sick again. But I know our journey is not done. Very soon, I want to try again. But I just wish I could know what was right? And interestingly, why do I want to try again? Something is drawing me. I feel some sort of strange energy when thinking about these foods.

And frankly....I hate to admit it on a NFL site, but I am sick of being the person that "votes with my dollar". Why should my kid have to miss out on ice cream at bday parties so that we can "save" the rainforest? The fact is, it ain't working! No one cares!!!!!! Of course, we will continue to buy organic (and go broke in the process) and buy ethically raised and fed animal products (and go broke in the process) and try again and again to develop a green organic thimb (and go broke in the process)....but do we have to do all of that AND try to save the animals and the environment when, frankly, no one cares?

Sorry, I am doing a huge dump on this thread. But the last four pages really got me thinking again.

And what about heart disease? What is really causing that? Is it the transfats? Is it being overweight? Is it stress? I for one am leary. My dad died at age 50 from a heart attack. This is a man that ran every morning, was stick thin, never EVER ate fast food, sweets, chips, etc, and had a diet similar to NT. He was raised on a farm with organic foods, fresh from the chicken eggs, and raw milk daily. Of course we did eat refined grains and non-organic foods when I was growing up which is about the only evils I can detect from our diet. That scared me into going vegan. I do nto want to die at age 50. That is only 19 more years...... Now I just don't know.

Someone tell me what to do!!!!!!


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Sing it, sister! I have NO idea. I feel so much better on a vegan diet. I just don't think I can keep it up with a damaged gut. I think it's optimal for me (and animal products may in fact be necessary for children-you can't get cholesterol from plants) but not until I heal. I felt fine, but clearly my body wasn't producing milk or healthy kids.

Until I can figure more out, here I am. 95% raw, with SOME animal products (mostly eggs and butter-oh and CLO) I am trying to do some bone broths and grass fed beef-we'll see how it goes. I don't do grains, I don't do dairy (I don't really call butter "dairy" but technically it is-it's one of my compromises) and I don't do sugar. My kids are perfectly happy with our diet and welcomed eggs back-so there they will stay. They occasionally-not often though-will eat grass fed beef. Maybe once a month? If that? I feel like this is a healthy solution for us right now. It's very light on animal products, but what is there is healthy (as much as it can be). There are a ton of fruits and veggies as well as nuts and seeds. Nothing is refined.

So, welcome to the club!


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Yooper -- Have you tried broth? That's how I started with beef FWIW.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
Yooper -- Have you tried broth? That's how I started with beef FWIW.

That seems like a great plan except so far I have not found a source of organic, grass-fed beef suitable for broth. I can get pre-formed frozen burger patties but no actual bone cuts. Is there somewhere I should be looking for this? I looked at mail-order but cannot afford it. The only place I have looked is our co-op. I have also done online and word-of-mouth searches for organic farmers nearby but have found nothing. I can get whole frozen chickens....but they are VERY expensive. I am not sure I am actually ready to cross the meat-eating line but have been doing my research anyway. Where do you get this stuff? Is it possible to find pre-prepared broths that are done right?


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

That's the problem, no doubt. Your best bet is to contact someone in your area active in the Weston Price Foundation who would be hooked up with local sources. I've seen beef bones at Whole Foods, organic, but not grassfed. $2/lb


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Caedmyn-the arguements aren't mine, as I said I am not religious. Just illustrating how saying something as simple as "I follow the guidelines in the bible" isn't as easy as it sounds. Many vegans are very religious and use the bible as their guide.

I have read everything Jordan Rubin has ever written, I really like him. Clearly he has a different view of God's word as well. He's an interesting fellow.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Yooper -- Have you tried some raw egg yolks in a smoothie? How about quiche?


----------



## TopazBlueMama (Nov 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery*
Caedmyn-the arguements aren't mine, as I said I am not religious. Just illustrating how saying something as simple as "I follow the guidelines in the bible" isn't as easy as it sounds.

True indeed, especially if you are trying to have every little thing spelled out to you (you in general). I do take the biblical guidelines into account to add to the picture. In my religion we also have additional scripture (that we believe is revelation from God and a code of health) that seems to have it all layed out, but even after studying it intently I can still find many ways to interpret it. (it's here if anyone is curious) sigh. So as much as we all just want a clear picture, I guess it may never be exactly spelled out. At least we here are all on our way to finding what is best for our own individual bodies. No more eating cheap packaged goods and freshly baked saw dust and thinking that it is actually nourishing us!







But anyway, I _do_ try to judge all of the modern scientific nutritional findings against what I believe that the Creator tells us is best for our bodies, so there I can understand where caedmyn is coming from.
Sometimes I think ignorance is bliss. Or that maybe I should just stop reading about all of the diet and nutritional information out there and just try to be intuitive about it all. It is hard though when I do enjoy this subject more than others. And it is sure hard to be completely intuitive living modernly with so many different things bombarded at us!







I do enjoy this topic and thread as well.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper*

I thought I knew all of the answers. I was vegan for 5 years, vegetarian for 15. I am still vegetarian and on the NT/vegan fence right now. I feel this enormous weight of resposibility choosing the diet for three people (dh, dd, and me). Not to mention, I am the nutrition "expert" among friends so my decisions tend to rub off on others.










Me too!!I am choosing the food so my family is depending on me for their nutritional health. People ask me about diet all the time too.. I tell them what I know and then usually tell them a few books to read.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper*
I Why would nature be designed in such a way that animal A drinks animal B's milk when it is clear that animal B produces milk expressly for the purpose of growing a baby B into a 1000 pound creature? I want to know!!!!

I
And what about heart disease? What is really causing that? Is it the transfats? Is it being overweight? Is it stress?










I am also wondering about question #1

The heart attack thing...from what I understand it is from unreal foods (flours, sugar, and all that stuff on food labels we can't read) I would think if you ate--

Fruits, lots of veggies, whole grains (millet ect not breads/pasta), natural meat, (raw) milk, free-range eggs, raw nuts, raw seeds.

I don't know how this would produce problems in the body. The cross-cultural studies seem to confirm this...that is why I am interested in reading NT. Dr. Furhman said that countries with the highest _vegetable_ consumption had the longest life span. So that is preety imporant to me. Dr. McDougall says that most unndustrialized countries survive on _whole grains_ as their main staples and are not having heart attacks.

Then there is our country with a lot of stuff made from sugar and white flour (can you tell that I think they are evil yet!) we have the problems...when these foods are introduced into other nations the peolple develop American diseases (diabetes, heart attacks, ect). I think activity is important because people's bodies were meant for physical work. This is what I know thus far.....


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

newcastlemama--what do you want to know about how the Maker's Diet works for us...what things I do with it, or what the results are? I'll answer the results question for now...we were healthy before so didn't really notice much of a difference when we switched to a whole foods diet a little over a year ago. I was a little disappointed that it didn't make more of a difference in my acne issues, but OTOH, my face is as clear as it was when I ate the SAD and used a bunch of prescription meds, so obviously diet does make some difference (plus I've pretty much been pregnant or breast feeding since we started the whole foods so I don't think all the hormones running rampant help the acne issue!). I did notice a difference after I started soaking oatmeal for breakfast--I definitely felt better and didn't get hungry as quickly. I don't have any great results stories, since like I said we were pretty healthy before, but I think it is the most beneficial way to eat, and now it is just a matter of figuring out what foods in what proportions make me feel the best (ie maybe less grains and more eggs or whatever).


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

yooper--to me it makes sense to start from the premise that the less processed a food (any food) is the better, and so you would start with a whole foods diet. But the food also has to be properly prepared, and so you come to NT or the Maker's Diet, which tell you how to properly prepare foods. Personally I think vegetarianism or veganism is basically a belief system, and while you could be healthy with just a small amount of animal products, you are probably going to have problems long-term with none (both NT and the Maker's Diet address some of the problems with vegetarians/vegans and vitamins that are only obtained from animal products).

I think disease basically comes from diet--even if you eat whole grains, if they aren't properly prepared you are still going to have problems. Plus, who knows how much damage just a few years of eating processed food can do to you? I do think there is also an environmental aspect--if you are constantly being exposed to toxins it is going to be harder to stay healthy even if your diet is ideal.

As far as the question of why humans can/should drink milk designed for a baby calf, I believe God gave us the animals (and their products like milk and eggs) for food, and He made it so that these foods are nourishing and beneficial for us. Or another way of looking at it, eggs are designed for nourishing baby birds...but many animals eat eggs (cats, dogs, etc) and animals in the wild intuitively eat the foods that are good for them, so they are obviously able to get nutrition from them--why shouldn't we, also. It seems like the same thing should apply to milk, although I don't know of any animals that drink non-mother's milk in the wild--I don't suppose they have any way of getting it!


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

If that's the case with dairy, why does our body stop producing lactase?


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery*
If that's the case with dairy, why does our body stop producing lactase?

Not all of us do if the research is correct on the genetic adaptation to milk for people of European origin. That is, people who adapted to milk would not, in fact, stop producing lactase.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

But what does that mean? That they were given milk before they weaned so their body is just struggling to keep up? That out of necessity it continued production just to keep functioning? That happens to many people. It's why after a stomach bug people often find themselves lactose intolerant...if the lactose is removed the body naturally stops production. I'd be more willing to say that's possible if those involved had never consumed milk and later in life were able to tolerate it with no ill effects.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Back at the dawn of time no one produced lactase after a certain young age because they didn't need it. The milk in their diets was their mother's milk and they stopped nursing around four years old and their body stopped producing the enzyme to digest milk. That was the case for everybody.

Then people in the area that is now Europe, generally speaking, started relying on their animals for milk to nourish them as adults. Those humans started making lactase and that change is seen as adaptive.

I didn't drink milk for many years. Many, many years. And I sit here drinking copious amounts. Not everybody produces lactase, that's true. Apparently I do.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Lots of Qs to answer......

I have tried quiche and that went over OK. I have not tried egg yolks in smoothies yet. It is going to take some time to get to the point where I can fathom a raw egg. Not to mention it is still winter here and we lay off the smoothies until our house is above 60 degrees.

But that takes us to another question.... I do not have a good source of raw dairy. I got some a couple of months ago but had to travel 1.5 hours to get there. But I am ASSuming that cooking it (like the milk and cheese in quiche) makes it no longer raw. Is that right? Most of what we consumed was cooked since it is cold here. Is there any benefit at all to using raw dairy if it is cooked?

The milk thing is intreging. I do not think of eggs as the same thing since an animal can collect and eat eggs without touching the bird. I see it more like "hunting" an actual animal (like meat) than like getting dairy. That is why it seems more unnatural to me. Also, the ethical thing I cannot get over is that for me to drink a cow's milk, a baby cow is not getting any (or as much as it needs). I cannot seem to find any justification for that in which I feel OK with it. However, somehow, I have less ethical issue with it right now than eating meat. Not that it makes any intellectual sense but I see animal products in this ethical "order": eggs, milk, fish, meat.

I would be very interested to know if there are any books or studies done on the psychological effects of consuming animal products for former veg*ns. I am wondering if one's "nutritional constitution" can be effected by psychological factors. To get to the point, I wonder if I got so sick because I was freaked out and dismayed at myself for what I did (consume animal products). It was the most sick I have ever been in my life. Just seems like an odd coincidence.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

LOL Yooper, no I don't think there have been psychological studies, but there should be. And there should be a thread or tribe here for you ladies. I was not really an ethical almost-vegan. Well, I would like to think I'm ethical, but that was not my primary reason. It was health. When the health went south, the diet transition was a no-brainer.

I agree with you all on the wierdness of dairy. I was explaining it to my almost-4-year-old the other day and that emphasized just how wierd it is. And I agree that it is more cruel because of the separation of the calf from the mom. But I drink it nonetheless.

And, yep, raw milk cooked is no longer raw.








Do you have a reasonable source of non-homogenized milk? (I travel longer for regular groceries than you do for milk, so you get no sympathy from me on your travel time.







)


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
LOL Yooper, no I don't think there have been psychological studies, but there should be. And there should be a thread or tribe here for you ladies. I was not really an ethical almost-vegan. Well, I would like to think I'm ethical, but that was not my primary reason. It was health. When the health went south, the diet transition was a no-brainer.

I agree with you all on the wierdness of dairy. I was explaining it to my almost-4-year-old the other day and that emphasized just how wierd it is. And I agree that it is more cruel because of the separation of the calf from the mom. But I drink it nonetheless.

And, yep, raw milk cooked is no longer raw.








Do you have a reasonable source of non-homogenized milk? (I travel longer for regular groceries than you do for milk, so you get no sympathy from me on your travel time.







)

No non-homogenized....that I have found yet anyway, except for the raw dairy source I discussed earlier. Thing is, she really does not have enough extra to sell to me on a regular basis so it would never be a reliable source even if I could afford the time and gas to travel there regularly. I am VERY lucky in that we have a GREAT co-op here that carries the groceries I need. I can sympathize with travelling for decent food. I have had to do that before and am very grateful I do not have to now. Our income recetly went from comfortable to very low so I am not sure at all what I would do if I were in your situation. We also have a buying club that I can get food through if I cannot get it through the co-op. But for some reason, the co-op is not into good meat sources. The only organic dairy available at the co-op is the one that is the big farmer co-op (cannot remember the name....). They do offer a non-**** but only on the west coast right now. And we are nowhere near the west coast


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

I don't believe we "adapt", so if lactose intolerance is genetic, that's the way it has always been...but perhaps dairy is another thing that has to be properly prepared (ie soured into kefir, yogurt, sour cream, etc), which if I understand it correctly breaks down all the lactose.


----------



## Planta (Dec 26, 2005)

Oh... I have no hope of catching up with this thread. I'll just try.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery*
Planta~I am a die hard fan of homeopathy. I love it and have used it pretty much exclusively (for kids, dh and myself) for almost ten years now. I am curious to know (though I can guess, because raw changes EVERYHTING) how raw has rendered it near irrelevant for you? Or at least not all that important. I have only just really gotten in to the raw thing...I'm curious what has happened for you.

Briefly, I realised that maybe up to 90% or even more of the diseases in the western society are due to the diet. This is quite dramatic, and to me it means we have to start looking at food as the most important factor for health. What is the use of pills and potions (be it as natural as they can be) when we don't do anything about the real causes that lead to a health problem? Homeopathy, IMO, is a bit better than mainstream medicine, but the pattern is the same: a person has a problem and expects to solve it by ingesting something "magic". Now, let's say that it works very well, etc - if that person doesn't change anything in their lifestyle, isn't the problem bound to come back (or even a worse one) eventually?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery*
Also-where are you coming from? Amanda (and I) are coming from a place where we were in tough shape. Significant deficiencies. Did you have that to overcome, or was it more just general healing? I'm always waiting to hear more







That's my hang up about B-12 deficiency in general. For a healthy person I believe it may be possible to not supplement-but what about a person who isn't just deficient, but has alot of damage? Apparently I gotta google Dr. Graham. I've not read his stuff on B-12, though Gabriel Cousens has the same view...

When I started the raw journey I was quite "normal" for my age. Lots of "little" problems that in the mainstream thinking are normal and are supposed to simply accumulate with age because that's what aging is about. I looked at myself and hated the fact that I was slowly falling in the pattern of cute young girl that marries, has children and becomes fat, ugly and grumpy. I couldn't accept it and, yet, what could I do? It seemed to be in the nature of things...
Then came the revelation. When I first read about anopsology I had the first glimpse into a totally different world, where aging doesn't mean at all getting all these health burdens. Of course I couldn't simply believe it just like that, so I started researching and experimenting. Now I know it's true!
You mention a lot that you have bad problems - do you know what caused them? How did you find out and how do you expect to overcome them?
Concerning deficiencies, I think it is quite a complicated thing. Let's say you make tests and see your deficient in X, Y, Z. Most people then just rush to get those supplements instead of stopping and asking why? Is it really because these were absent from food or is it because they weren't absorbed well, or simply not present in the expected fashion, etc? All compounds in our body are part of a gigantic net, with mind-boggling complex interactions between them. When X is low that can't be the only thing - lots of other proccesses must have gone wrong and it's hard to know what's cause and what's effect in this huge labyrinth.
In particular B12, can be low in people that have "adequate" dietary sources. I simply don't understand why it is made to be a vegan problem.

"Talking about B12 deficiencies is a reversal of the scientific facts. The real dangers are due to exposure to toxins in industrialised populations. Taking vitamin B12 will not protect you from heavy metals, but it will help in the short terms. However a high intake of vitamin C and essential minerals along with dietary fibre will assist with reducing your heavy metal load, and therefore improving methylcobalamin status in the brain.
Meat, fish and dairy products may be "good" sources of vitamin B12, but expect them to also be good sources of heavy metals that will accumulate in tissues over time. Winding up in a hospital dribbling and with dimentia is perhaps the worst way to go out. Going vegan is a good way to significantly reduce your heavy metal intake.
High dietary intakes of vitamin B12 do not always guarantee safety from neurological disorders, as metal patients with "normal" B12 serum levels exist. In contrast, vegans with "low" serum levels of B12 do not always display medical problems associated with B12 deficiency.

Many factors inhibit cobalamin bioavailability and function. These have been highlighted and should be eliminated or heavily restricted for a healthy mind and body. How much B12 we each need will vary widely depending on your lifestyle. We can only absorb small quantities of B12 via digestion, so it is safest to reduce the B12 expendature. Consider the risk factors indicated, and if you fit any of the groups, then supplementation may be required. If you have mercury "amalgam" fillings your B12 requirements may be drastically increased to the point that only injected B12 will help you. Some nutritional supplement providers suggest that hydroxocobalamin rather than cyanocobalamin is preferable." (from http://www.vitab12.com/b12.html )

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery*
and animal products may in fact be necessary for children-you can't get cholesterol from plants

No, you can't, but why should you?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
My view on B-12 is pretty simple:

* Eat foods with B-12 in abundance when you are deficient in it and even when you are not.

*A small insect on a leaf of lettuce is not what I consider an abundant source.

*If I have a baby while my stores and/or my diet is deficient, that baby will be deficient.

*If each generation bequeaths an ever-dwindling supply of B-12 to their babies, the whole vegan-omni diet argument will be moot because it will no longer be possible to be a healthy vegan.

*Increasingly I look out at the animal world and say "it's you or me, buddy."

I know this view all to well, but what I was asking was the intelectual journey that led to it., because you were obviously not born worrying about B12.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper*
Augh!!!!! Can someone just please tell me what the right things to eat are????

I could tell you, but will you believe me?








That's the problem - there are lots of information sources and we have to find the ones that strike a chord within ourselves.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper*
I felt good being vegan until recently. I have no idea if my ailments are connected to being vegan for so long. We did it for the nutritional aspects but also heavily for the ethical and environmental aspects.

My opinion: some vegan diets can be much more unhealthy than some "omni" diets. This classification is simply too broad.
Were you consuming lots of grains and legumes? What % of raw? What % of raw greens?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper*
I really want to know the answer to the question someone posted a while back.... Why would nature be designed in such a way that animal A drinks animal B's milk when it is clear that animal B produces milk expressly for the purpose of growing a baby B into a 1000 pound creature? I want to know!!!!

Nature is not designed like that. Humans have gone off the track mainly due to fire and now they do almost everything









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper*
And frankly....I hate to admit it on a NFL site, but I am sick of being the person that "votes with my dollar". Why should my kid have to miss out on ice cream at bday parties so that we can "save" the rainforest? The fact is, it ain't working! No one cares!!!!!! Of course, we will continue to buy organic (and go broke in the process) and buy ethically raised and fed animal products (and go broke in the process) and try again and again to develop a green organic thimb (and go broke in the process)....but do we have to do all of that AND try to save the animals and the environment when, frankly, no one cares?

This is a classical subject of social psychology. Let's say you could easily take stuff unpaid from a store - no personal consequences whatsoever, "no one cares". Would you do it on a regular basis?
It's exactly the same with any other issue when you know something is bad, but no one else seems to care and your personal contribution seems insignificant.
The trouble is that it simply adds up. Everybody says the same and then almost nothing multiplied by millions becomes suddenly significant.
And on a personal, selfish scale: we are trying to buy land in Belize to lead the life we think is best (in a forest, growing our plants, etc). Do you know what we see? Lots of pastures where several years ago there were lush forests. Lots of grass drying in the hot sun. Herds of cows that are destined to be chopped and sent to USA so that people there don't go deficient....
Sorry if my tone turns slowly towards anger, but I find it such a pity!
So, I do care! And not for very noble reasons, but for quite selfish ones: I can see that there is not much room left for the life I think is optimal for me and my kids.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper*
And what about heart disease? What is really causing that? Is it the transfats? Is it being overweight? Is it stress? I for one am leary. My dad died at age 50 from a heart attack. This is a man that ran every morning, was stick thin, never EVER ate fast food, sweets, chips, etc, and had a diet similar to NT. He was raised on a farm with organic foods, fresh from the chicken eggs, and raw milk daily. Of course we did eat refined grains and non-organic foods when I was growing up which is about the only evils I can detect from our diet. That scared me into going vegan. I do nto want to die at age 50. That is only 19 more years...... Now I just don't know.

Someone tell me what to do!!!!!!

My opinion: read http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/...graw_eat2.html


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn*
I don't believe we "adapt", .

God may have made us to adapt to different environmental conditions across the globe. It's a big place. But that is a good point about the cultured dairy and it is cultured dairy that our ancestors would have eaten anyway since they didn't have refrigerators. Unless they drank it immediately, it would have fermented.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Yooper- have you tried here? http://www.eatwellguide.com/
You can put in your zip and find farms, health food stores, restaurants, etc. I found this to give the most results, over other similar sites.
I found non-homogenized milk at every hfs I've been to (inc. Wild Oats). Its in a slightly different section, though.

When I think of the ethical aspect of animal products, I tend to think of what is natural as well. And cow's milk just doesn't seem natural for humans to drink. (and I hadn't ever thought about the fact that cows grow 1000 lbs in their first year!). No other animals regularly drink the milk of another species. Dp said the same thing about no other species having the ability, but it still doesn't cut it for me. Eggs...animals eat eggs all the time. And obviously meat. So as long as the animals are treated humanely, I have no issues with those. But milk, I have major issues with. I do drink it, but I'm trying to find subs for it.

I was vegetarian, and got sick when I started eating meat again- I'm pretty sure it was mostly psychological.

I'm really interested in the discussion on humans being designed as omnivores or herbivores. I think a major factor for me there is the b12. I'm still learning.

Ok, just wanted to add the link, mostly
















eta, on the point that it doesn't make a difference, "voting with our dollars"- I may not make a bit of dofference to eggland's best if I don't buy their eggs. But I CAN make a difference to the small farmer down the road, by buying his eggs. kwim?
Also, I blab about this to everyone I see, so I figure it has to get some people thinking twice.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Planta*
Concerning deficiencies, I think it is quite a complicated thing. Let's say you make tests and see your deficient in X, Y, Z. Most people then just rush to get those supplements instead of stopping and asking why? Is it really because these were absent from food or is it because they weren't absorbed well, or simply not present in the expected fashion, etc? All compounds in our body are part of a gigantic net, with mind-boggling complex interactions between them. When X is low that can't be the only thing - lots of other proccesses must have gone wrong and it's hard to know what's cause and what's effect in this huge labyrinth.

You're preaching to the choir on that one.

Quote:

In particular B12, can be low in people that have "adequate" dietary sources. I simply don't understand why it is made to be a vegan problem.
The problem is not simply a vegan problem but since vegans don't actually consume the bioavailable form unless they supplement, vegans are at higher risk. And it all goes back to the stores they got from mom.

Quote:

"Talking about B12 deficiencies is a reversal of the scientific facts. The real dangers are due to exposure to toxins in industrialised populations. Taking vitamin B12 will not protect you from heavy metals, but it will help in the short terms. However a high intake of vitamin C and essential minerals along with dietary fibre will assist with reducing your heavy metal load, and therefore improving methylcobalamin status in the brain.
B12 does protect you in a sense -- it is used by the liver to help flush these things out. You need it. Just like vit C and essential minerals.

Quote:

Meat, fish and dairy products may be "good" sources of vitamin B12, but expect them to also be good sources of heavy metals that will accumulate in tissues over time.
My biggest heavy metal exposure has come from my water.
But I count on the necessary nutrients in animal food to help my body function properly so that it can filter some of that stuff out.

Quote:

Winding up in a hospital dribbling and with dimentia is perhaps the worst way to go out. Going vegan is a good way to significantly reduce your heavy metal intake.
OK, we can compare notes in about 50 years.

Quote:

High dietary intakes of vitamin B12 do not always guarantee safety from neurological disorders, as metal patients with "normal" B12 serum levels exist. In contrast, vegans with "low" serum levels of B12 do not always display medical problems associated with B12 deficiency.
There is nothing that is deterministic about medicine. You might show low levels and have no depression even though low B12 is associated with depression. You might have depression and normal B12 levels. Vegan or not.

Quote:

Many factors inhibit cobalamin bioavailability and function. These have been highlighted and should be eliminated or heavily restricted for a healthy mind and body. How much B12 we each need will vary widely depending on your lifestyle. We can only absorb small quantities of B12 via digestion, so it is safest to reduce the B12 expendature. Consider the risk factors indicated, and if you fit any of the groups, then supplementation may be required. If you have mercury "amalgam" fillings your B12 requirements may be drastically increased to the point that only injected B12 will help you. Some nutritional supplement providers suggest that hydroxocobalamin rather than cyanocobalamin is preferable."
The biggest risk factor is the unknown: what did your mama give you?

Quote:

I know this view all to well, but what I was asking was the intelectual journey that led to it., because you were obviously not born worrying about B12.








It's like firefaery said -- deficiencies. Not fun. And frankly, I feel a whole lot better.

ITA with you on land and lifestyle and the human footprint on the globe.


----------



## vermontana (Oct 21, 2005)

Okay, I have been lurking here all along, enjoying everyone's point of view. I just have to pipe up with a thought, and actually, I guess it doesn't even have all that much to do with nutrition, on the surface, but:
Planta, when you object to farming and animal products on an environmental basis (that farming and the use of said animal products is destroying the Earth), that breaks my heart. I totally agree that what you are seeing in Belize is an atrocity and that places like that should NOT be used to graze cattle, but the overall argument that farming is bad for the environment totally ignores folks like me and my family and friends who are working our tails off to keep sustainable small farms going. I absolutely do not agree that *small family farms* are bad for the environment in anyway. Those of us who get our animal products from such farms, are actually helping the environment in many ways....like preventing these farms from subdividing and being turned into trophy homes for rich folks from the cities who want more "nature" beyond suburbia. Thankfully not everyone who consumes meat and other animal products is getting them from farms or sources who ARE ruining the good Earth. Of course, there are tons of people who are, but you can't just make a blanket statement that the consumption of animal products is bad for the Earth.
Okay, sorry for the vent...that just hits a nerve with me.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vermontana*
Okay, I have been lurking here all along, enjoying everyone's point of view. I just have to pipe up with a thought, and actually, I guess it doesn't even have all that much to do with nutrition, on the surface, but:
Planta, when you object to farming and animal products on an environmental basis (that farming and the use of said animal products is destroying the Earth), that breaks my heart. I totally agree that what you are seeing in Belize is an atrocity and that places like that should NOT be used to graze cattle, but the overall argument that farming is bad for the environment totally ignores folks like me and my family and friends who are working our tails off to keep sustainable small farms going. I absolutely do not agree that *small family farms* are bad for the environment in anyway. Those of us who get our animal products from such farms, are actually helping the environment in many ways....like preventing these farms from subdividing and being turned into trophy homes for rich folks from the cities who want more "nature" beyond suburbia. Thankfully not everyone who consumes meat and other animal products is getting them from farms or sources who ARE ruining the good Earth. Of course, there are tons of people who are, but you can't just make a blanket statement that the consumption of animal products is bad for the Earth.
Okay, sorry for the vent...that just hits a nerve with me.









This is kind of what I meant by my "voting with the dollar" comment. I was pretty tired when i wrote that and did not really mean it the way I meant. I guess what I meant is by sidestepping ALL animal products in an attempt to be a "good example", I feel like I might be missing out on optimal health. and I do not just mean nutritional. Dd being the only kid that can never eat ice cream and cake at the party is bound to have long term psychological health implications.

Anyway, there are responsible and ethical ways to obtain animal products and still "vote with you dollar". At least I think so, and the farm above is an example fo that.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Planta*

I could tell you, but will you believe me?











Ha ha! I do not even believe myself anymore! I am so confused!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Planta*
My opinion: some vegan diets can be much more unhealthy than some "omni" diets. This classification is simply too broad.
Were you consuming lots of grains and legumes? What % of raw? What % of raw greens?


I know that opinion well. I have stated it myself millions of times. The thing is, "healthy" seems to be a moving target. Our diet was "healthy" by most people's standards. We ate/eat "healthier" than most people I know. We eat almost zero processed foods. No hydrogenated oils. I cook almost everything from scratch. Almost all grains were whole. I even grind flours at home....make my own bread. All organic. We eat legumes almost daily. Greens too. The co-op actually puts aside a box of kale for my weekly shopping trip so I do not destroy their pretty display. Some raw and some cooked. We eat greens raw in salads about every other day, moreso in the summer. We belong to a CSA and get a big variety of fresh organic produce.

BUT, then I read up on NT and find my diet is not "healthy". Who is right? On one hand diets rich in legumes, whole grains, and veggies are suppose to be great! On the other, WHOA, those grains and legumes need to be soaked or the are BAD for you! There are of course millions of other examples. The point being that the point of this very thread is we do not even seem to know for sure what "healthy" even is.

All I know is that I started showing signs of deficiency. Then I had to decide where to go from there. Unfortunately I cannot seem to decide based on "facts". I can go with my gut, my ethics, my feelings, advice of trsuted people, etc..... But so far every point that has been made my either camp (vegan vs. NT) can be countered by the other in a convincing way.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Planta*
Nature is not designed like that. Humans have gone off the track mainly due to fire and now they do almost everything










I find that interesting, and I agree that I cannot seem to reconcile this within myself. But where do you draw the line? I mean, we humans do all sorts of things different as we "evolved". And humans have done things pre-fire that I do not want to do like eat raw meat, insects, each other, and feces.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Planta*
This is a classical subject of social psychology. Let's say you could easily take stuff unpaid from a store - no personal consequences whatsoever, "no one cares". Would you do it on a regular basis?
It's exactly the same with any other issue when you know something is bad, but no one else seems to care and your personal contribution seems insignificant.
The trouble is that it simply adds up. Everybody says the same and then almost nothing multiplied by millions becomes suddenly significant.
And on a personal, selfish scale: we are trying to buy land in Belize to lead the life we think is best (in a forest, growing our plants, etc). Do you know what we see? Lots of pastures were several years ago there were lush forests. Lots of grass drying in the hot sun. Herds of cows that are destined to be chopped and sent to USA so that people there don't go deficient....
Sorry if my tone turns slowly towards anger, but I find it such a pity!
So, I do care! And not for very noble reasons, but for quite selfish ones: I can see that there is not much room left for the life I think is optimal for me and my kids.


Oh, i agree. I have not given up the "fight". I am just getting confused as to which "fight" I am suppose to be fighting. I think we can all agree that the rainforest thing is not so people do not become "deficient". It is happening so that McDs an have a better profit margin and people can have their comfort food for low low prices. For instance, you can take the same agrument over to walmart. I liek to wipe my butt after I "go". The most "responsible" thing to do is to forgo butt-wiping altogether....but that would result in a nasty rash. The least "responsible" would be to go to Walfart and buy thier uber-cheap TP that is made with slave labor and non-sustainable trees....and not get a rash. However, there are all sorts of "responsible" things in between that leave me rash-free and very little environmental footprint like making cloth wipes, using dried grass clippings, or using 100% post-consumer recycled TP.

Whatever the case. I can buy "responsible" animal products. They can be humanely treated on small-scale sustainable farms and we can consume them in small quanities.

I really don't know where I was going with this anymore.....


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper*
I liek to wipe my butt after I "go". The most "responsible" thing to do is to forgo butt-wiping altogether....but that would result in a nasty rash.











I can only hope that this thread will continue to be as amusing.


----------



## MyLittleWonders (Feb 16, 2004)

I've been lurking and totally enjoying this discussion. A comment about the milk and lactase ... raw milk actually still contains the lactase (it's destroyed by pasteurization), so it tends to be tolerated even by people that are otherwise "lactose intolerant".

Cooking with raw milk does pasteurize the milk, but you are still left with the healthy milk fat that you don't get if you use homogenized milk. That fat is completely unhealthy for you. So, if you have a choice (and the price isn't huge, which it is for us), cooking with raw milk is much better than cooking with pasteurized/homogenized milk.

Trader Joe's sells non-homogenized milk by the 1/2 gallon. It's more like the cost of a full gallon, but it's really good, organic, and works well for kefir, yogurt, and cooking. Organic Valley produces a non-homogenized milk as well, though I haven't been able to find it locally. A local HFS might be able to order some for you though if they are already ordering Organic Valley milk products.

There is an Amish Farmer (******'s Organic Farm) in PA that does mail order - he sells raw milk for $3.50 a half gallon, and if you are close enough, the shipping might not be too bad (we are in CA so it's the same price for us to go buy our raw milk - Organic Pastures - from our HFS). You can PM me if you'd like more info on the farm and/or his phone number. I've also bought pasture-fed, organic beef soup bones from him. I get the ones that still have meat and marrow and they were about $3/pound. Made super yummy soup!

Anyways, I'll go back to lurking as I don't have much else to contribute.














We are meat eaters and I tend to believe that we are designed to be. We consume dairy (raw or cultured) and eggs as well. Gale Force - you almost have me convinced to go buy some beef liver and figure out a palatable way of cooking it for my family.


----------



## Planta (Dec 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper*
I know that opinion well. I have stated it myself millions of times. The thing is, "healthy" seems to be a moving target. Our diet was "healthy" by most people's standards.

I have a pragmatic aproach: healthy is what makes you feel good, with no problem. Theories can say what they want - if you aply them for a reasonable amount of time and you don't feel better then that's not healthy. OK, the tricky part is then what time frame is reasonable. IMO, certainly not just a few days or weeks, but after months health problems should start dissapearing instead of multiplying if the treatment (diet) is "healthy".

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper*
Almost all grains were whole. I even grind flours at home....make my own bread. All organic. We eat legumes almost daily.

The answer for me is right here. These are foods that rob you of minerals and vitamins on a daily basis and, IMO, this is the simple explanation for vegan bad health.
Here is an analysis of grains:
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache...client=firefox
or the pdf version: http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles...%20article.pdf

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
The problem is not simply a vegan problem but since vegans don't actually consume the bioavailable form unless they supplement, vegans are at higher risk. And it all goes back to the stores they got from mom.

These conclusions are valid only if you put the dietary intake on the first place in the list of important factors in the B12 issue. That way you can lump together all vegans and say they are at higher risk. I don't agree. I think other things are more important, for example intake of certain drugs. Then the highest risk category looks different and probably includes more "omnis" than vegans.
And a silly analogy: let's say your tire has a puncture and loses air. What do you do: keep pumping air in or patch it? Of course there might be instances you have to keep filling it (for example till you get to the service), but it's unreasonable to say it is a long-term solution. The anti-vegan solution to the B12 issue sounds to me like getting a bigger pump instead of mending the puncture.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vermontana*
Planta, when you object to farming and animal products on an environmental basis (that farming and the use of said animal products is destroying the Earth), that breaks my heart. I totally agree that what you are seeing in Belize is an atrocity and that places like that should NOT be used to graze cattle, but the overall argument that farming is bad for the environment totally ignores folks like me and my family and friends who are working our tails off to keep sustainable small farms going. I absolutely do not agree that small family farms are bad for the environment in anyway. Those of us who get our animal products from such farms, are actually helping the environment in many ways....like preventing these farms from subdividing and being turned into trophy homes for rich folks from the cities who want more "nature" beyond suburbia. Thankfully not everyone who consumes meat and other animal products is getting them from farms or sources who ARE ruining the good Earth. Of course, there are tons of people who are, but you can't just make a blanket statement that the consumption of animal products is bad for the Earth.

A clarification here: what I said was in response to Yooper who expressed feelings of hopelessness at this issue. I wanted to remind her that it is a very burning issue and we can't play along with everybody else that doesn't care. She agrees actually.
Now, about animal products and Earth - it is very important what amounts we are talking about. For example, Gale Force seems to advocate beef liver as a very healthy food (how much and how often?). Let's calculate: is it possible to cover such a demand from organic farms only or will it be neccessary to have more intensive farms and/or use poor countries?
IMO there is absolutely no health justification for raising cattle even if we needed some animal products for health. However, organic farms are of course infinetely better than the others (even though I don't envy at all the cows I once saw at an organic farm). It would be a huge step forward if people abandoned the atrocious cow factories (and pig, chicken ones too) and "voted" more for organic.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper*
Dd being the only kid that can never eat ice cream and cake at the party is bound to have long term psychological health implications.

I totally agree with this. I always felt it would be terrible for ds to be treated that way.
There is a huge difference though between an occasional icecream and 3 meatloaves/day!
The fact that you give in to occasional "treats" does not invalidate at all the path you chose of being more responsible with what you eat.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Planta*
These conclusions are valid only if you put the dietary intake on the first place in the list of important factors in the B12 issue. That way you can lump together all vegans and say they are at higher risk. I don't agree. I think other things are more important, for example intake of certain drugs. Then the highest risk category looks different and probably includes more "omnis" than vegans.

The issue is that if you control for medication use, if I had to put money down on who would be B12 deficient: an omni or a vegan taking no B12 supplement, the smart money is on the vegan.

Sure, there are a whole lot of factors that affect how much B12 you need, how much you absorb from your food, and how much you reabsorb in your intestinal tract. But again, two people with malabsorption problems, one is omni one is unsupplementing vegan. Who is more likely B12 deficient? Smart money is on the vegan.

Quote:

And a silly analogy: let's say your tire has a puncture and loses air. What do you do: keep pumping air in or patch it? Of course there might be instances you have to keep filling it (for example till you get to the service), but it's unreasonable to say it is a long-term solution. The anti-vegan solution to the B12 issue sounds to me like getting a bigger pump instead of mending the puncture.
I would patch the hole and then add some B12 to my diet to keep another hole from forming.

Quote:

Let's calculate: is it possible to cover such a demand from organic farms only or will it be neccessary to have more intensive farms and/or use poor countries?
I don't see it as my job right now to create enough food for the world. If humans have overpopulated this planet, that is still not justification for me to feed my family a diet that is not healthy for them.

Quote:

There is a huge difference though between an occasional icecream and 3 meatloaves/day!
I must be craving beef because the posts in this forum keep getting to me.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Sooooo much to respond to!
On dairy: I believe that when our ancestors evolved to the point they were consuming milk it was a limited supply, and yes, generally fermented which is different in terms of how it's handled. I look farther back and just don't see it as natural or helpful in any way.

Deficiencies: blood tests and our major cause was gut damage for two reasons: undiagnosed celiac disease and massive imbalances due to overmedication in my teens. It was all prescribed, but it did me in. So it could have ben avoided for the most part with good diet. I didn't have that luxury.

Cholesterol: I have ongoing discussions with several vegan MD's (Fuhrman, McDougall and Graham now) and don't have an answer yet. The infant brain needs cholesterol for proper development and they DO NOT manufacture it themselves. For a child who is breastfed for several years-it's not an issue. I had no supply with ds and made him raw formula. BUT he no longer get's it and (here's where it gets murky) noone can tell me if he is in fact producing his own cholesterol yet. So we need some in his diet at least.

Pooing: We were never meant to sit on a toilet. It gets your body and system of elimination al out of whack and not lined up properly. IT's quite likely that if you were squatting you wouldn't have to wipe at all! That said, I use a potty. I'm not 100% committed to all natural! Damn technology and plumbing!

I'll be back to finish later.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery*
Sooooo much to respond to!
.

Pooing: We were never meant to sit on a toilet. It gets your body and system of elimination al out of whack and not lined up properly. IT's quite likely that if you were squatting you wouldn't have to wipe at all! That said, I use a potty. I'm not 100% committed to all natural! Damn technology and plumbing!


Here is the answer ladies and gentlemen! Squatting! The responsible AND rash-free choice









Off to see if I can find a squatting toilet......


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

LOL there are acutally benches you can buy that fit on a standard toilet-and no I dont have one!

Lactase again: Human breastmilk contains lactase as well, yet we naturally stop producing it at the normal age of weaning. Apparently the lactase inherent in the milk isn't supposed to be enough. I don't know about it being at the dawn of time either. Hundreds of years-yes, but that just isn't enough for me. But it is a personal decision, and since I don't think that anyone informed (by this I am not counting our collective pediatricians!) believes that it's necessary for good health. I'm just fine not using milk.


----------



## Planta (Dec 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
Sure, there are a whole lot of factors that affect how much B12 you need, how much you absorb from your food, and how much you reabsorb in your intestinal tract. But again, two people with malabsorption problems, one is omni one is unsupplementing vegan. Who is more likely B12 deficient? Smart money is on the vegan.

Wait-wait a minute. Two people with malabsorption. Where is this coming from? Is it coming from not eating animal products? If not, why do we keep mingling the issue here? First things first: sort out the cause (eliminate medication, metals, whatever) - maybe during this time supplementation is needed.
People are simply scared into consuming animal products to solve a problem that was created by something else in the first place!


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Planta*
People are simply scared into consuming animal products to solve a problem that was created by something else in the first place!

Unless the problem was that they were not getting enough A or D or B12 and they weren't able to process metals or absorb food or whatever are the many other consequences as a result.

My point is that of course not all vegans are deficient and all omnis are replete. That's just silly. To suggest that we omnis here have made that argument is setting up a straw man. I can't remember if you made it or if it was from the website you posted that I couldn't load, either way, no one is making that argument.

If your mama gave you a good supply, Planta, you should be fine.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Planta,

Just curious: Do you believe that someone with pernicious anemia can be a vegan?

Amanda


----------



## Peri Patetic (Feb 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
I don't see it as my job right now to create enough food for the world. If humans have overpopulated this planet, that is still not justification for me to feed my family a diet that is not healthy for them.

Reading along, and this caught my eye because it hits on the paradox of environmental arguments against eating meat. The human population didn't start to explode until we developed agriculture, and specifically the cultivation of grains. It is our use of grains that has caused overpopulation, and overpopulation in turn which has strained the environment -- in part, through the demands of a too-large population for animal products. Arguing against eating animal products because it isn't "possible to cover such a demand from organic farms only" ignores that fact.


----------



## Planta (Dec 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
Just curious: Do you believe that someone with pernicious anemia can be a vegan?

"Treatment is with vitamin B12 (hydroxycobalamin or cyanocobalamin) injected intramuscularly. Body stores (in the liver) are refilled with half a dozen injections in the first couple of weeks and then maintenance with monthly to quarterly injections throughout the life of the patient.

B12 has traditionaly been given parenterally to ensure absorption. Alternatively, since it has become appreciated that when B12 given orally in sufficient quantity is absorbed regardless of intrinsic factor or the ileum, oral replacement has emerged as an accepted route. Generally 1000 to 2000 mcg daily is required [1]. By contrast, the typical Western diet contains 5-7 mcg of B12."
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pernicious_anemia )
OK, so in such a situation I don't see why the person can't be vegan. What would the 5-7 mcg from food count anyway when 1000-2000 artificial ones are needed?

The much more important question to me is how this condition comes about. It seems to me it results from maltreating the stomach in some of the many ways available to us nowdays.
BTW, I could mention here that I used to have gastritis. Never went to the doctor, but all the symptoms were there (atrocious pain at times). Guess what? They simply vanished after a few months of raw diet. I don't know exactly what caused it in the first place, but I have a strong suspicion it was the grains.

So, my wild guess is that pernicious anemia would be greatly improved by a raw vegan diet that would allow the stomach to heal. Of course the supplementation would have to continue for as long as the stomach is damaged.
See, this is what I suspect: foods that make the stomach secrete lots of acid (meat, but lots of other concentrated foods too) consumed over decades lead eventually to a damaged stomach in people with a predisposition towards this (in others the weak link is simply elsewhere). So what do people do? They take antacid! Is there any wonder that several decades later (or sooner) there is an inability to absorb B12?

Shall we restate a bit the whole problem though?
To me the key issues in B12/veganism are:
1- does a vegan diet lead by itself to B12 deficiency? Of course vegans are subject to all the other factors that can create this condition in omnis, so can we separate somehow just the animal issue?
2- once present, can a B12 deficiency be cured by increasing the animal product intake without supplementation?
I have reasons to believe the answer is NO to these questions, from which I conclude that animal foods are irrelevant in respect to B12, even if they contain higher detectable levels than plant foods (BTW, this detectable threshold is also a story...).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Peri Patetic*
The human population didn't start to explode until we developed agriculture, and specifically the cultivation of grains. It is our use of grains that has caused overpopulation, and overpopulation in turn which has strained the environment -- in part, through the demands of a too-large population for animal products.

I totally agree with this.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Peri Patetic*
Arguing against eating animal products because it isn't "possible to cover such a demand from organic farms only" ignores that fact.

I don't see how it ignores it and in fact I don't argue against animal products based on environmental reasons.
The logic is this:
- we exclude conventional animal farming for lots of reasons (I think we all agree?)
- if we argue that we need organic animal farming, then we should be prepared to face the fact that not everybody will have access to it, with two consequences: either some people will go without or the need for conventional farming will arise.
This was simply an answer to vermontana's post.


----------



## Rhannie (Mar 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
I was vegetarian, and got sick when I started eating meat again- I'm pretty sure it was mostly psychological.

Not necessarily, I am not a vegetarian, but I mostly eat veggies--I always have. I can no longer tolerate large amounts of meat. I like meat (except beef), but I can't eat more than a bite or two anymore.

I moved to Japan about 10 years ago. Since coming here my meat intake (which was previously limited to wild meat and the occasional farm raised pork, lamb or chicken) was greatly reduced--from 1-2 times a week to 1-2 times a year (mainly chicken). Due to financial limitations, I eventually ended up with a diet of mainly veggies and some fish with the occasional chicken. I have, in the past couple of years, tried many times to eat other meat, but found I can no longer digest it properly. A bite or two is my limit now. The same could be true of those who were on a long time vegetarian diet. Who knows, you may be able to work meat back into your diet a little at a time, but do you feel you really need to?


----------



## Rhannie (Mar 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
Unless the problem was that they were not getting enough A or D or B12 and they weren't able to process metals or absorb food or whatever are the many other consequences as a result.

What's the deal with Vitamin D? Your body's supposed produce it from sunlight. Why do you feel that people need to get it from food? Spending more time out in the sun is a much better source for vitamin D than any fortified foods or meat products. -- That being said, I know that there are situations (homebound, people in nothern latitudes or large cities) where this could be a problem, but for the most part spending 15-20 minutes 2 times a week outside in the sun should provide enough vitamin D for most people.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rhannie*
What's the deal with Vitamin D? Your body's supposed produce it from sunlight. Why do you feel that people need to get it from food? Spending more time out in the sun is a much better source for vitamin D than any fortified foods or meat products. -- That being said, I know that there are situations (homebound, people in nothern latitudes or large cities) where this could be a problem, but for the most part spending 15-20 minutes 2 times a week outside in the sun should provide enough vitamin D for most people.

It is a problem here. The sun was not uncovered once in the month of December here. Not to mention that for 6 months of the year we have to completely cover up to avoid frostbite. I always wondered how I was suppose to expose my skin to sunlight when it is -10 degrees. I am guessing most of Canada is in the same boat......


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

THere is alot of research available about the vitamin D issue. You can find it in many places, but the WAP site has the best compilation and is the most easily understood IMO. Most people are NOT getting enough from sunlight and are showing signs of deficiency which is a huge problem. I don't know how to link but the site is www.westonaprice.org


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

I bought Nourishing Traditionsat the health food store today...my best friend follows it and I am very interested in the info. I also wanted some of the recipies and will think about incorporating some of the ideas in....I can't wait to read!!!


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Don't have a lot of time to get into ecological arguments against veganism, but on the humanitarian side, have there not been a few studies done that show that a population with adequate (and I mean adequate, not plentiful) nutrition will keep expanding? So with the best intentions to feed everyone, isn't the whole concept just a short-sighted feel-good solution? Especially when one argues that we need conventional farms to feed the world.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Oh yeah, Planta, I wanted to say I'm with you on the grains. Just wish I had the time/strength to get off them right now. Until I'm in a situation that I can step up my diet, though, it's not going to happen. If you get a chance to read "Garden of Eating", you might find some of it interesting.


----------



## Planta (Dec 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
Don't have a lot of time to get into ecological arguments against veganism, but on the humanitarian side, have there not been a few studies done that show that a population with adequate (and I mean adequate, not plentiful) nutrition will keep expanding? So with the best intentions to feed everyone, isn't the whole concept just a short-sighted feel-good solution? Especially when one argues that we need conventional farms to feed the world.

It's interesting you made the distinction adequate/plentiful. I guess you agree with the idea that plentiful nutrition means less population growth. So, why should this not be a goal for everybody then?
It seems that pre-agricultural humans where not expanding so much and we can only hypothesize on the mechanisms that kept their population under control. Limited food supply was almost surely not one of them.
I believe animal farming is an inefficient usage of resources and it is not only unjustified by health reasons, but it is simply harmful. If we really needed some animal products in our diet the amounts would certainly be small IMO, and covered, for example, by hunting animals that lived in the vast mixed orchards meants to produce fruits for human consumption. (In fact "meatarians" often praise wild animals as superior).
So, call me crazy, but this is what is my dream for the future: a redirection of efforts from grain and animal agriculture towards reforestation (mainly fruit trees, of course). I am going to make my modest contribution to this.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Planta*
It's interesting you made the distinction adequate/plentiful. I guess you agree with the idea that plentiful nutrition means less population growth. So, why should this not be a goal for everybody then?

No, what I meant was that with a food supply that is _at least_ adequate population will continue to grow. So if food is plentiful, population will also continue to grow.

Quote:

It seems that pre-agricultural humans where not expanding so much and we can only hypothesize on the mechanisms that kept their population under control. Limited food supply was almost surely not one of them.
In any population biology scenario, food supply is the biggest part of determining the growth of the population of _any_ animal, including humans. Basic requirements for any animal include food, water and habitat. A population will continue to grow until these requirements can no longer be met (carrying capacity), then begin to succumb to such things as disease and starvation until numbers are small enough that food supply is no longer inadequate.

Quote:

I believe animal farming is an inefficient usage of resources and it is not only unjustified by health reasons, but it is simply harmful. If we really needed some animal products in our diet the amounts would certainly be small IMO, and covered, for example, by hunting animals that lived in the vast mixed orchards meants to produce fruits for human consumption. (In fact "meatarians" often praise wild animals as superior).
So, call me crazy, but this is what is my dream for the future: a redirection of efforts from grain and animal agriculture towards reforestation (mainly fruit trees, of course). I am going to make my modest contribution to this.
We're actually in agreement here. However, conventional animal farming and intensively managed pasture are two completely different things. Conventional animal farming is even more devastating than grain monocropping, while intensively managed pasture closely resembles natural grasslands *in areas where that is the natural tendency of the land*. I live on the Canadian prairies, so of course my area is the right kind of area for pasture, and I have personally seen the difference between native grasslands used responsibly for pasture (these are full of life - a lot of biodiversity) and land used (even organically) for monocrops of grains (barren, dead lands imo). Reforestation, permaculture type stuff, is totally the way to go. BUT one has to remember that much of what can be done is dependant on location. If I were to plant a bunch of pear trees it would hardly be worth my while because they simply wouldn't grow here, kwim?
That brings me to the concept of eating locally and in season and how that will be different for everybody (just as nutrient requirements vary slightly depending on location) simply based on where they live and what genetic adaptations to a given environment they have.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

I just got through reading NT 's part on fats...talk about rearranging your brain!!!
All very interesting conversation going on here.....

Something else I noticed today..My gradmother raised her children rurally and had their own organic/pasture animals (chicken beef, eggs) and produce. They were breastfed and ate very much a NT diet--raw milk, butter, vegetables, fruits, free-range meats...they even drank ditch water all those years because they didn't know better.

They are some of the _healthiest people I have ever seen_...People think my 74 year old grandma is my mother (I'm 25) . I know at least some kids had no braces and have very straight teeth. None of them have food allergies either out of 6 kids and 2 parents!!

NT is really making me think....it's almost lke it's too good to be true...fresh milk, eggs, butter, produce, home-milled grains...
Just another reason to get my husband to buy that 10 acres!!!


----------



## Planta (Dec 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
No, what I meant was that with a food supply that is _at least_ adequate population will continue to grow. So if food is plentiful, population will also continue to grow.

So how does food abundance correlate with human population growth at the moment? Do we notice highest growth in countries with plenty of food? Or is it rather the opposite?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
In any population biology scenario, food supply is the biggest part of determining the growth of the population of _any_ animal, including humans. Basic requirements for any animal include food, water and habitat. A population will continue to grow until these requirements can no longer be met (carrying capacity), then begin to succumb to such things as disease and starvation until numbers are small enough that food supply is no longer inadequate.

This simple model needs lots of additions to apply to humans. Looking at the few remaining hunter-gatherers of today we get a glimpse into how population might have been controled in the pre-agricultural times, but let's not forget that conditions were probably very different, with much more food available. One mechanism of population control that sounds plausible to me is extended breastfeeding (that limits frequent births not only by ovulation inhibition - which can be incomplete- , but also by behavioural changes, for example). It seems that child spacing is about 5 years in "free" humans, while agriculture tends to reduce it greatly (2 years or even less).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
Reforestation, permaculture type stuff, is totally the way to go. BUT one has to remember that much of what can be done is dependant on location. If I were to plant a bunch of pear trees it would hardly be worth my while because they simply wouldn't grow here, kwim?

Something can grow everywhere (except the very cold regions that are IMO not where humans should live) and there is also the possibility of greenhouses. If this was number 1 priority for humans, I am sure Earth would look totally different right now.


----------



## JSerene (Nov 4, 2004)

Interesting thread. It's given me a lot to think about, though I'm sort of uncomfortable with the whole thing since I honestly thought my diet couldn't get any better. None of this would be so important to me if I didn't have dd to consider...

I'm going to look further into the idea that grains are not as healthy as I have been lead to believe. Thanks for links to info on that.

Does anyone have the time or energy to tell me why potatoes are bad for you (this was something mentioned early in the thread). I eat some form of potato almost everyday and so does 11mo old dd.

I think that after a certain point you just have to have faith with nutrition and good eating. None of us can have all the answers. I feel good. I never get sick. I'm not fatigued, though I get an average of 3 hours of sleep a day (due to work and a baby at home). DD is bright-eyed and happy. My instincts tell me that is enough evidence to prove that our diet is sufficient. What else is a mother to do?


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

There is a philosophy that if it can't be eaten raw, it shouldn't be eaten at all. Potatoes have toxins in them that are neutralized by cooking. They can also carry a good amount of mold. I'm not personally saying don't eat potatoes, it's just another POV.

It is my opinion (based on my research and observation of my body) that grains are a starvation food. That's how they were used a long time ago, and that's how we have adapted to them. (it should also be noted that the grains available today are distant cousins of what was available hundreds of years ago) They were eaten when food was scarce (winter months, in times of hardship etc. not 6-11 servings daily) I believe that when grains are consumed your body still has a natural conservation response. Your metabolism will slow and you will start gaining weight. You will do yourself a favor by preparing them properly, but I know I do better without them at all.

JSerene~that's a good start! Of course I have felt that I felt well at times in my life and now know that I could have felt much better. FOr me, the research is fun and interesting. Everytime I modify it gives me better answers-for me. I know how my body does best. I know what nutrients are in which foods and what the pitfalls could be. It's a journey, and if you choose to take it it can really change your perspective of what is truly healthy-or maybe not. Maybe your diet (I have no idea what it is) is the best for you. But I really like the experiments and knowledge I have gained because of them.


----------



## melissa17s (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *firefaery*
There is a philosophy that if it can't be eaten raw, it shouldn't be eaten at all. Potatoes have toxins in them that are neutralized by cooking. They can also carry a good amount of mold. I'm not personally saying don't eat potatoes, it's just another POV.

Just another potato question... does the amount of toxins vary depending on the hybrid of potato you are eating because there is like 10,000 different variation? I thought the Inca had grown specific varieties to accomidate animals and others for humans, and wouldn't it be possible to breed out the toxic trait in the raw potato?


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

I really don't know. From what I've read all potatoes have it (as a defense mechanism against pests) but maybe some in less amounts? If they are toxic raw to humans, I would assume they are toxic (to some degree at least) to animals too. Again-it's a part of the "if you can't eat it raw" philosophy. If you cook you're potatoes it shouldn't be as much of a problem.
For the mold though...unless you're getting them fresh from the farm or farmer's markets so they haven't been in storage for a long time I wouldn't chance it, personally.


----------



## melissa17s (Aug 3, 2004)

okay... I think I was wrong on the number of hybrids because when I was looking at a couple of sites trying to answer my question the Inca were only attributed with 200-240 different varieties... so back on track... new potatoes contain less toxins than larger older potatoes. Also, if the skin is turning green it is more likely to have a higher toxic concentration. Cooking does nuetralize the toxins- or so says the Wikipedia section on potatoes.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Planta*
So how does food abundance correlate with human population growth at the moment? Do we notice highest growth in countries with plenty of food? Or is it rather the opposite?

I haven't done much research on this, but a quick internet search revealed that the amount of food per person is actually _higher_ in developing countries than in other countries.
http://www.pregnantpause.org/overpop/food.htm

Quote:

This simple model needs lots of additions to apply to humans. Looking at the few remaining hunter-gatherers of today we get a glimpse into how population might have been controled in the pre-agricultural times, but let's not forget that conditions were probably very different, with much more food available. One mechanism of population control that sounds plausible to me is extended breastfeeding (that limits frequent births not only by ovulation inhibition - which can be incomplete- , but also by behavioural changes, for example). It seems that child spacing is about 5 years in "free" humans, while agriculture tends to reduce it greatly (2 years or even less).
I agree - there are a lot more factors that affect human population growth than food. Still, food production _is_ a very important factor, and one of the most basic needs for survival.
I don't agree that pre-agricultural people had more food available - at least not that was as readily/easily available as the food people eat today.

Quote:

Something can grow everywhere (except the very cold regions that are IMO not where humans should live) and there is also the possibility of greenhouses. If this was number 1 priority for humans, I am sure Earth would look totally different right now.
But we still have to take into account the fact that _other_ animals, who use grasslands and such as habitat, need their ecosystems too. I have every intention of someday buying an acreage where I can plant oodles of berry bushes and native plants and return the land to the land - but in my area I can't plant a forest of fruit trees, it wouldn't be ecologically sound.
As far as where humans or any species should or shouldn't live - if we are adapted to live in a certain climate, even if it means eating a diet that's different than it would be in a different climate, then there's no reason we shouldn't. I used to seriously wonder why my ancestors would have chosen to live here, given the cold weather, but through changing my diet, I was able to tolerate being outside in very cold temperatures much much better - I also eat differently in the summer than I do in the winter, and that has helped me tremendously to adapt to my surroundings. In fact, someday I hope to do a masters in biology or nutrition with a thesis about diet as it relates to environmental adaptation.

Another thought - I learned somewhere along the line (I want to say Developmental Biology class, but that can't be right, and all my texts are in storage right now) that the human brain grew large and we evolved into what we are due to increased intake of meats and animal fats. I can't back it up, haven't had time to do any further research or put much thought into it, but I wanted to throw it out there in case anyone else has any thoughts about it (for or against, I'd find either interesting). If/when I have some time I'll try to figure out where I got that info from.


----------



## Peri Patetic (Feb 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
Another thought - I learned somewhere along the line (I want to say Developmental Biology class, but that can't be right, and all my texts are in storage right now) that the human brain grew large and we evolved into what we are due to increased intake of meats and animal fats. I can't back it up, haven't had time to do any further research or put much thought into it, but I wanted to throw it out there in case anyone else has any thoughts about it (for or against, I'd find either interesting). If/when I have some time I'll try to figure out where I got that info from.

Yes, I've read this too. I think the same source said that our brains have been shrinking since the agricultural revolution. I'll have to hunt that article down.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Peri Patetic*
Yes, I've read this too. I think the same source said that our brains have been shrinking since the agricultural revolution. I'll have to hunt that article down.

If you can find it, please let me know - it sounds really interesting!


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

I'm up for a good read! Sounds right up my alley-though I have not come across that before.


----------



## Planta (Dec 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
I haven't done much research on this, but a quick internet search revealed that the amount of food per person is actually _higher_ in developing countries than in other countries.
http://www.pregnantpause.org/overpop/food.htm

I'm afraid I found more problems in that article than I could count sentences, but to the point: it doesn't say anywhere that people have more food in developing countries (how could it?), the graph just shows food production. A big difference there. And does the author really doubt that there are children dying of starvation? (or maybe he believes it is vaccine preventable...)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
I don't agree that pre-agricultural people had more food available - at least not that was as readily/easily available as the food people eat today.

Yes, maybe I should have said "nutrition" instead of "food". Today's people are happy to have the belly full of "empty calories" and worry later about all the microelements.
Some interesting articles:
http://www.sacredlands.org/jared_diamond_01.htm
Quote: "While farmers concentration on high-carbohydrate crops like rice and potatoes, the mix of wild plants and animals in the diets of surviving hunter-gatherers provides more protein and a better balance of other nutrients. In one study, the Bushmen's average daily food intake (during a month when food was plentiful) was 2,140 calories and 93 grams of protein, considerably greater than the recommended daily allowance for people of their size. It's almost inconceivable that Bushmen, who eat 75 or so wild plants, could die of starvation the way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the potato famine of the 1840s."

http://membres.lycos.fr/xbeluga/orig...riculture.html
Quote: "We have reviewed evidence from several areas of research which shows that cereals and dairy foods have drug-like properties, and shown how these properties may have been the incentive for the initial adoption of agriculture. We suggested further that constant exorphin intake facilitated the behavioural changes and subsequent population growth of civilisation, by increasing people's tolerance of (a) living in crowded sedentary conditions, (b) devoting effort to the benefit of non-kin, and (c) playing a subservient role in a vast hierarchical social structure."

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
But we still have to take into account the fact that _other_ animals, who use grasslands and such as habitat, need their ecosystems too. I have every intention of someday buying an acreage where I can plant oodles of berry bushes and native plants and return the land to the land - but in my area I can't plant a forest of fruit trees, it wouldn't be ecologically sound.

How old do you think are most grasslands we see? Where did all the wood that started off civilization come from? Great Britain was once fully covered by forest, just to take an example...
And, anyway, it would take very-very long to regenerate so many forests as to endanger the grasslands! Furthermore, forests can be cut down in no time at all.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
the human brain grew large and we evolved into what we are due to increased intake of meats and animal fats.

I know this theory and I find it extremely amusing. I don't understand where the true carnivores fit in the picture. Why are they not good at mathematics?
All creatures on this earth are adapted (or in the process of adapting) to particular foods that cover all their needs, from energy to essential lipids and minerals. If a species changes "sides" from plant to animal foods or viceversa it simply means a new set of adaptations starting with the digestive system and ending with complex metabolical processes, but what does this have to do with brain size?
The fact is that we have no clue how human intelligence came about, but this does not justify the appearance of such theories.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Planta*
I'm afraid I found more problems in that article than I could count sentences, but to the point: it doesn't say anywhere that people have more food in developing countries (how could it?), the graph just shows food production. A big difference there. And does the author really doubt that there are children dying of starvation? (or maybe he believes it is vaccine preventable...)

LOL, okay, I concede, the article sucked - sorry about that. It was the chart that I found surprising, but obviously in my haste I misinterpreted it.
The point I was trying to make didn't really have anything to do with that anyway. I guess I really just believe that if humans were to start eating an optimum diet, the human population would balance itself out eventually. I also don't believe I should compromise the health of future generations in my line with what I believe is the lost cause of trying to feed every human in the world. I think you're actually with me on this, given that the "solution" to the problem is to grow more and more monocrops of grains, which we are in agreement are not the path to health.
So, our disagreement actually lies in whether meat and animal fats are essential to generational good health - I believe they are, you believe they aren't. I do believe that meat should be ideally eaten raw, so there we're in agreement over raw foods again. But even in a family that eats meat cooked, and I believe we eat a fair amount of it, my family only eats up to a 1/4 of a cow per year (two adults, a nursing toddler and a nursing baby), which I don't think is unreasonable in any way. Carol Ekarius' book Small Scale Livestock Farming discusses how much land is neccessary to pasture cows responsibly, but I don't remember offhand how much and the book is in storage right now (we're in between houses) - I do remember that it is less than one would typically expect.

Quote:

Yes, maybe I should have said "nutrition" instead of "food". Today's people are happy to have the belly full of "empty calories" and worry later about all the microelements.
Some interesting articles:
http://www.sacredlands.org/jared_diamond_01.htm
Quote: "While farmers concentration on high-carbohydrate crops like rice and potatoes, the mix of wild plants and animals in the diets of surviving hunter-gatherers provides more protein and a better balance of other nutrients. In one study, the Bushmen's average daily food intake (during a month when food was plentiful) was 2,140 calories and 93 grams of protein, considerably greater than the recommended daily allowance for people of their size. It's almost inconceivable that Bushmen, who eat 75 or so wild plants, could die of starvation the way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the potato famine of the 1840s."

http://membres.lycos.fr/xbeluga/orig...riculture.html
Quote: "We have reviewed evidence from several areas of research which shows that cereals and dairy foods have drug-like properties, and shown how these properties may have been the incentive for the initial adoption of agriculture. We suggested further that constant exorphin intake facilitated the behavioural changes and subsequent population growth of civilisation, by increasing people's tolerance of (a) living in crowded sedentary conditions, (b) devoting effort to the benefit of non-kin, and (c) playing a subservient role in a vast hierarchical social structure."
Interesting. Thanks for posting these. Living in the land of monocrops, it's going to be even harder to stomach driving along the highway and seeing cropland, though. And did I mention dh's family are conventional seed growers?*shudder*

-whoops, dd1's awake, will write more later.


----------



## Planta (Dec 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
I also don't believe I should compromise the health of future generations in my line with what I believe is the lost cause of trying to feed every human in the world.

I also put the interest of my family first and research things from this perspective. Interestingly, I seem to reach conclusions that look good from a more general perspective. For example, when I researched the diaper issue I chose cloth for the health of my baby, and I was happy this was also a better solution for the environment. It would be dishonest for me to argue such issues from the altruistic side because that is not my real motivation number 1. However, I still find it meaningful to discuss such subjects because they are quite serious.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
So, our disagreement actually lies in whether meat and animal fats are essential to generational good health - I believe they are, you believe they aren't.

Actually, I don't believe anything in this area at the moment. My position is this:
1- animal products are clearly harmful in big amounts and, whenever possible, plant foods should come first
2- in the small amount range, I think there is insufficient evidence to prove either way. We might or might not need them - it's up to everybody's judgment.
I am a recent vegan (and not due much to ethical reasons), so I am open to strong evidence that animal foods are essential. I accept the possibility of eating them in the future, but for the moment I'm fine.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde*
my family only eats up to a 1/4 of a cow per year (two adults, a nursing toddler and a nursing baby), which I don't think is unreasonable in any way. Carol Ekarius' book Small Scale Livestock Farming discusses how much land is neccessary to pasture cows responsibly, but I don't remember offhand how much and the book is in storage right now (we're in between houses) - I do remember that it is less than one would typically expect.

I think this amount is compatible with my "vision" (actually it's not my invention) of concentrating most of our efforts on trees and having some animals on that area that wouldn't even need any special attention.
I will make the calculations one day, but it seems we only need animal farming due to the excessive amounts consumed which, ironically, are doing more harm than good to our health.

So it looks like we don't disagree much after all.


----------



## Panserbjorne (Sep 17, 2003)

Oh, we're all just one big happy family-LOL! It's really interesting to me (and part of why I started this) that two seemingly different perspectives aren't really that different at all.


----------

