Discussion:
A RAW NEW YOU!
(too old to reply)
HEALTHY www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
2006-01-03 19:15:14 UTC
Permalink
A RAW NEW YOU!

Forwarded message from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans

[ Subject: A RAW New You!
[ From: "Fidyl" <***@yahoo.com>
[ Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005

A RAW New You!

http://www.naturaw.com/a_raw_new_you.html

The raw food diet can be a powerful stepping stone and
tool in healing your body, mind, and soul! In many ways,
it represents a return to nature and simplicity. If you
are attracted to the concept of the raw food diet, it is
well worth an exploration to see what might be in store
for you! Some of the main reasons a raw diet is the buzz
today amongst movers and shakers and Hollywood
celebrities are the following:

Increased energy, awareness, and mental clarity and
focus.

Increased sense of peace and overall well being.

Increased sense of connection to nature and the life
force flowing through it.

The scientific reasons for these benefits are several.
Raw foods have more life force in them, which can be
measured through scientific measurement devices.
Consuming this life force adds to our own life force. Raw
foods have more vitamins and minerals than cooked foods.
The water in raw foods is more organized or structured,
similar to the water in our own cells. Therefore, the
body has less work to do in organizing or structuring the
water in raw foods before it is utilized and absorbed by
our own cells. Raw foods have more enzymes which makes it
easier for our body to digest and absorb raw foods. Also,
our bodies do not have to produce as many enzymes in
order to digest raw foods easing the work or strain on
the body in the digestive process. Raw foods have no
altered chemistry such as trans-fatty acids which are
known to cause chemical problems and imbalances in our
own bodies. Raw foods cause less of an immune response in
our own bodies due to less or no altered food chemistry.

If you are new to the raw lifestyle and/or are just
considering exploring it, following are some things to
keep in mind in order to make your journey enjoyable,
successful, and expansive:

1) Have fun! Keep in mind that no matter your reason,
motivation, or purpose in exploring the raw diet and
lifestyle, don't make it just a task! Keep the curiosity
going! Stay creative. Learn new recipies, go to seminars,
potlucks, and retreats, and associate with others who are
learning as well. Read interesting books on the subject.

2) Buy a juicer and learn how to juice on a regular
basis. Learn how to make green juices palatable to keep
your body balanced with greens. My favorite way is using
Granny Smith Apples. Also, buy a blender and learn about
raw soups, salad dressings, and smoothies. Pick up a food
processor and some raw recipie books and learn a new
recipie every week or every month. Visit a gourmet raw
food restaurant!

3) Stay easygoing and flexible around food and diet.
Don't become perfectionistic. Don't try to go 100% raw
overnight. Don't let it take up too much of your mental
time or energy! Read more about this at
http://www.naturaw.com/raw_food_diet.html

4) Learn about raw superfoods and supplements to remain
balanced on the raw food diet as you make your
transitions and to excel on the diet. Some things to
consider are Algaes (such as Spirulina, Blue Green,
Golden, PhytoPlankton), Sea vegetables, Honey bee
products (bee pollen, royal jelly, propolis, and honey),
92 mineral wheatgrass juice, maca, cacao, gojis,
mushrooms, herbs, wild foods, colloidal, ionic, and
angstrom minerals, etc.

5) Learn about and use essential oils.

6) Do some sort of exercise, sport, yoga, or
healing/strengthening program on a regular basis. Spend
time in nature.

7) Learn about breathwork and "rebirthing".

8) Learn and implement the practice of sun gazing:
http://www.naturaw.com/raw_food_resources.html

9) Bring prayer and gratitude to your food and diet.

10) Don't do all of the above at once! Start with one
thing first and let your journey progress naturally in
the way the seems easiest for you! If you are feeling
overwhelmed, step back and take a breather from the
learning and practicing process. Remember, this is a
journey. Rome was not built in a day!

End of forwarded message from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
Dutch
2006-01-03 21:56:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by HEALTHY www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
A RAW NEW YOU!
Forwarded message from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans
[ Subject: A RAW New You!
[ Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005
A RAW New You!
http://www.naturaw.com/a_raw_new_you.html
The raw food diet can be <!> another futile dead-end
See http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1a.shtml
Leif Erikson
2006-01-05 01:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by HEALTHY www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
A RAW NEW YOU!
Forwarded message from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans
[ Subject: A RAW New You!
[ Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005
A RAW New You!
http://www.naturaw.com/a_raw_new_you.html
The raw food diet can be a powerful stepping stone and
tool in healing your body, mind, and soul!
"Raw Foodism" is superstitious bullshit; it isn't founded on any
science at all.
Prehistoric Human
2006-01-05 09:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leif Erikson
"Raw Foodism" is superstitious bullshit; it isn't founded on any
science at all.
================

Well, fortunately for you "modern" humans, we prehistoric humans somehow
managed to survive and evolve for millions of years on a 100% raw diet, up
until the widespread use of cooked food approx. 125,000 years ago, according
to the below reference. Not too bad for a diet which you say "is
superstitious bullshit" and "isn't founded on any science at all", methinks.
Back to my cave now.....

-The Prehistoric Human

ref:
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview2c.shtml#fire,%20first%20control

Crux of the question: first control of fire vs. earliest widespread use. Now
of course, the crucial question for us isn't just when the earliest control
of fire was; it's at what date fire was being used consistently--and more
specifically for cooking, so that more-constant genetic selection pressures
would have been brought to bear. Given the evidence available at this time,
most of it would probably indicate that 125,000 years ago is the earliest
reasonable estimate for widespread control.... (etc.)
Leif Erikson
2006-01-05 15:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Prehistoric Human
Post by Leif Erikson
"Raw Foodism" is superstitious bullshit; it isn't founded on any
science at all.
================
Well, fortunately for you "modern" humans, we prehistoric humans somehow
managed to survive and evolve for millions of years on a 100% raw diet, up
until the widespread use of cooked food approx. 125,000 years ago, according
to the below reference. Not too bad for a diet which you say "is
superstitious bullshit" and "isn't founded on any science at all", methinks.
Back to my cave now.....
The mental cave of superstition.

Eat whatever you like. The fact is, anyone adhering to
a raw food diet today is adhering to an "ism". I'm
reminded of an answer given by the anthropologist
Margaret Mead during an interview a long time back.
Some counter-culture dummy, anticipating a favorable
answer to his leading question, asked her what she
thought of a macrobiotic diet. Completely surprising
the interviewer, Mead answered something like, "When
you eat macrobiotic, you aren't eating food, you're
eating an ideology. I prefer to eat food."

You eat all the helpings of your raw food ideology that
you want, pally. Just don't try kidding us that it's
anything other than an ideological expression.
Dave
2006-01-05 15:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Prehistoric Human
Post by Leif Erikson
"Raw Foodism" is superstitious bullshit; it isn't founded on any
science at all.
================
Well, fortunately for you "modern" humans, we prehistoric humans somehow
managed to survive and evolve for millions of years on a 100% raw diet, up
until the widespread use of cooked food approx. 125,000 years ago, according
to the below reference. Not too bad for a diet which you say "is
superstitious bullshit" and "isn't founded on any science at all", methinks.
Back to my cave now.....
Why assume that our dietary needs are the same as yours despite
the extra 125,000 years of evolution?
Does the fact that prehistoric humans survived on 100% raw food mean
you couldn't have handled cooked food?
Post by Prehistoric Human
-The Prehistoric Human
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview2c.shtml#fire,%20first%20control
Crux of the question: first control of fire vs. earliest widespread use. Now
of course, the crucial question for us isn't just when the earliest control
of fire was; it's at what date fire was being used consistently--and more
specifically for cooking, so that more-constant genetic selection pressures
would have been brought to bear. Given the evidence available at this time,
most of it would probably indicate that 125,000 years ago is the earliest
reasonable estimate for widespread control.... (etc.)
Leif Erikson
2006-01-05 15:48:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Post by Prehistoric Human
Post by Leif Erikson
"Raw Foodism" is superstitious bullshit; it isn't founded on any
science at all.
================
Well, fortunately for you "modern" humans, we prehistoric humans somehow
managed to survive and evolve for millions of years on a 100% raw diet, up
until the widespread use of cooked food approx. 125,000 years ago, according
to the below reference. Not too bad for a diet which you say "is
superstitious bullshit" and "isn't founded on any science at all", methinks.
Back to my cave now.....
Why assume that our dietary needs are the same as yours despite
the extra 125,000 years of evolution?
Does the fact that prehistoric humans survived on 100% raw food mean
you couldn't have handled cooked food?
"Raw vegan extremist behavior patterns: the darker side
of rawism"

Introduction: rose-colored glasses vs. the
unpleasant realities.

Many of us are attracted to and/or get involved in
raw vegan diets because of the positive idealism and
optimistic (albeit simplistic) outlook that is a
part of the "party line." It can be disconcerting,
therefore, especially for those who are new to the
diet and filled with enthusiasm, to learn that raw
vegan diets are not cure-alls, are not perfect, and
so on. Even more disconcerting, though, is when one
learns that the behavior of certain raw diet gurus
is a betrayal of the positive moral qualities that
(in theory) underlie vegan diets in general; and
further, that the behavior of some diet gurus is a
massive betrayal of the trust people place in them,
as well.


http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/claims-cred/claims-cred-1e.shtml
Prehistoric Human
2006-01-07 11:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Why assume that our dietary needs are the same as yours despite
the extra 125,000 years of evolution?
OK, lets consider this general type of raw diet then, kind of like a modern
day version of the prehistoric raw human diet, employing some more modern
food sources:

-Wide variety of fresh, raw fruits and vegetables
-Variety of raw nuts and seeds
-Sprouted whole grains, sprouted legumes/pulses
-Raw milk cheeses, raw eggs, raw fish
-Freshly made raw vegetable/fruit juices
-Cold-pressed vegetable oils (with a good balance of omega 3 and 6 EFAs)

Now I will certainly agree that there is some risk in eating some of the
animal products raw, and that it's safer to eat them cooked. (Yet many
people eat them raw regardless, including some brave souls who eat lots of
raw meat, even, as did the prehistoric humans.) But this isn't about the
safety of raw food diets in connection with the possibility of picking up an
infection. This is about if "Raw Foodism is superstitious bullshit; it isn't
founded on any science at all", as Mr. Leif Erikson stated, and it's also
about the issue that you raised, questioning what you perceive to be my
assumption that the dietary needs of modern humans is the same as that of
the humans of 125,000 years ago, despite the extra 125,000 years of
evolution.

So in connection with that last point, do you think that the raw diet I
outlined above would be nutritionally inadequate for modern humans, and
would (eventually) lead to nutritional deficiencies and illness? If so, I
assume that cooking some of the foods would prevent this, then?
Post by Dave
Does the fact that prehistoric humans survived on 100% raw food mean
you couldn't have handled cooked food?
Who knows, there may well be an adaptation period involved. But this isn't
about how healthy cooked food is, it's about if Raw Foodism is
superstitious bullshit; not founded on any science at all, and also if a raw
diet (like the one I outlined above, for instance) can be healthy for modern
humans, as the "prehistoric version" was long ago, which the prehistoric
humans evolved on for millions of years. (The prehistoric version of course
had no grains, legumes/pulses, dairy, juices or cold-pressed oils, but
likely a fair amount of raw meat instead.)

-The Prehistoric Human
Dave
2006-01-08 11:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Prehistoric Human
Post by Dave
Why assume that our dietary needs are the same as yours despite
the extra 125,000 years of evolution?
OK, lets consider this general type of raw diet then, kind of like a modern
day version of the prehistoric raw human diet, employing some more modern
-Wide variety of fresh, raw fruits and vegetables
-Variety of raw nuts and seeds
-Sprouted whole grains, sprouted legumes/pulses
-Raw milk cheeses, raw eggs, raw fish
-Freshly made raw vegetable/fruit juices
-Cold-pressed vegetable oils (with a good balance of omega 3 and 6 EFAs)
Now I will certainly agree that there is some risk in eating some of the
animal products raw, and that it's safer to eat them cooked. (Yet many
people eat them raw regardless, including some brave souls who eat lots of
raw meat, even, as did the prehistoric humans.) But this isn't about the
safety of raw food diets in connection with the possibility of picking up an
infection. This is about if "Raw Foodism is superstitious bullshit; it isn't
founded on any science at all", as Mr. Leif Erikson stated,
Now I'm not arguing that cooked foods are essential to our health and
as
far as I know Leif isn't either. When he describes "Raw Foodism" as
superstitious bullshit he isn't attacking a theory that claims cooking
is
unnecessary. He is attacking a theory that claims cooking is dangerous.
Post by Prehistoric Human
and it's also
about the issue that you raised, questioning what you perceive to be my
assumption that the dietary needs of modern humans is the same as that of
the humans of 125,000 years ago, despite the extra 125,000 years of
evolution.
It now appears that I misunderstood where you were coming from.
Post by Prehistoric Human
So in connection with that last point, do you think that the raw diet I
outlined above would be nutritionally inadequate for modern humans, and
would (eventually) lead to nutritional deficiencies and illness? If so, I
assume that cooking some of the foods would prevent this, then?
I can see no reason why the raw food diet you outline should not
provide adequate nutrition. Having said that you might be
interested in the following article:
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/Veg/archive/drgregorRawFoodism.html
Post by Prehistoric Human
Post by Dave
Does the fact that prehistoric humans survived on 100% raw food mean
you couldn't have handled cooked food?
Who knows, there may well be an adaptation period involved. But this isn't
about how healthy cooked food is, it's about if Raw Foodism is
superstitious bullshit; not founded on any science at all, and also if a raw
diet (like the one I outlined above, for instance) can be healthy for modern
humans, as the "prehistoric version" was long ago, which the prehistoric
humans evolved on for millions of years. (The prehistoric version of course
had no grains, legumes/pulses, dairy, juices or cold-pressed oils, but
likely a fair amount of raw meat instead.)
-The Prehistoric Human
Prehistoric Human
2006-01-11 13:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Now I'm not arguing that cooked foods are essential to our health and
as
far as I know Leif isn't either. When he describes "Raw Foodism" as
superstitious bullshit he isn't attacking a theory that claims cooking
is
unnecessary. He is attacking a theory that claims cooking is dangerous.
======================
Well I don't know-if someone is healthy and feels well on, and prefers to
live on the 100% raw "prehistoric human" omnivorous diet I mentioned
earlier, but also doesn't necessarily believe that cooked food is dangerous,
does that then mean that that raw diet is not "superstitious bullshit" which
"isn't founded on any science at all"? I guess only Leif can answer that
one...

Nevertheless, after I pointed out earlier that prehistoric humans lived and
evolved for millions of years on a raw diet, Leif stated "The fact is,
anyone adhering to a raw food diet today is adhering to an "ism". He then
went on to mention the macrobiotic diet, which of course contains a lot of
cooked food, which he also seems to consider to be an "ism"/ ideology. Then
he stated "You eat all the helpings of your raw food ideology that you want,
pally. Just don't try kidding us that it's anything other than an
ideological expression."

It seems that his issue is with dietary systems that restrict the modern
omnivorous diet in some way. But of course unlike diets such as macrobiotic
and vegan, the raw prehistoric human diet I'm talking about (which uses
animal products) has a long history of success at being the diet that humans
lived and evolved on for millions of years. So if someone goes on that diet
and feels healthy (perhaps even better?) on it and suffers no malnutrition,
and maybe feels no need or desire for cooked food and so doesn't wish to
bother with all the extra preparation that goes along with that, how can
that be considered merely an "ideological expression"?
Post by Dave
I can see no reason why the raw food diet you outline should not
provide adequate nutrition. Having said that you might be
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/Veg/archive/drgregorRawFoodism.html
Interesting article. I did notice , though, that in the 1999 study
discussed, where there were health problems with many of the raw foodists,
that they were vegan raw foodists (I saw that on another website which
discussed that same study). My argument doesn't apply to the vegan raw diet
of course, since humans didn't evolve on that. The article also says that
"Human beings have been cooking for at least 250,000 years, and maybe as
long as 1.9 million years". That's at odds with that article I posted
earlier from beyondveg.com which states:

"Another good reason it may be safer to base adaptation to fire and cooking
on the figure of 125,000 years ago is that more and more evidence is
indicating modern humans today are descended from a group of ancestors who
were living in Africa 100,000-200,000 years ago, who then spread out across
the globe to replace other human groups. If true, this would probably mean
the fire sites in Europe and China are those of separate human groups who
did not leave descendants that survived to the present." (The China site
seems to indicate fire was used up to 1.5 million years ago).

The article you posted does bring up the point though, that "human beings
have adapted so much that eating cooked food now seems obligatory for
optimum health." The important word here is "seems". Does that translate
into "is obligatory for optimum health"? I haven't come across any studies
about that, in connection with a raw omnivorous diet like I'm talking about.
Not yet anyway...

-The Prehistoric Human
pearl
2006-01-11 13:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Prehistoric Human
Interesting article. I did notice , though, that in the 1999 study
discussed, where there were health problems with many of the raw foodists,
that they were vegan raw foodists (I saw that on another website which
discussed that same study).
Link please. Were they eating exclusively organic produce?
Post by Prehistoric Human
My argument doesn't apply to the vegan raw diet
of course, since humans didn't evolve on that.
Humans have no carnivorous adaptation.

See;
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .
Dave
2006-01-11 13:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by Prehistoric Human
Interesting article. I did notice , though, that in the 1999 study
discussed, where there were health problems with many of the raw foodists,
that they were vegan raw foodists (I saw that on another website which
discussed that same study).
Link please. Were they eating exclusively organic produce?
Post by Prehistoric Human
My argument doesn't apply to the vegan raw diet
of course, since humans didn't evolve on that.
Humans have no carnivorous adaptation.
See;
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .
The article does not analyse in detail what happens to meat
inside our digestive system. All it does is make qualitative
anatomical comparisons between different animal species.
pearl
2006-01-11 14:22:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by Prehistoric Human
Interesting article. I did notice , though, that in the 1999 study
discussed, where there were health problems with many of the raw foodists,
that they were vegan raw foodists (I saw that on another website which
discussed that same study).
Link please. Were they eating exclusively organic produce?
Post by Prehistoric Human
My argument doesn't apply to the vegan raw diet
of course, since humans didn't evolve on that.
Humans have no carnivorous adaptation.
See;
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .
The article does not analyse in detail what happens to meat
inside our digestive system. All it does is make qualitative
anatomical comparisons between different animal species.
False. But we now know for a fact that you are a liar.
Dave
2006-01-11 14:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by Prehistoric Human
Interesting article. I did notice , though, that in the 1999 study
discussed, where there were health problems with many of the raw foodists,
that they were vegan raw foodists (I saw that on another website which
discussed that same study).
Link please. Were they eating exclusively organic produce?
Post by Prehistoric Human
My argument doesn't apply to the vegan raw diet
of course, since humans didn't evolve on that.
Humans have no carnivorous adaptation.
See;
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .
The article does not analyse in detail what happens to meat
inside our digestive system. All it does is make qualitative
anatomical comparisons between different animal species.
False.
Sorry. It also makes unsupported assertions that contradict
conventional nutritional wisdom.
Post by pearl
But we now know for a fact that you are a liar.
Let's see your evidence then.
pearl
2006-01-12 15:11:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by Prehistoric Human
Interesting article. I did notice , though, that in the 1999 study
discussed, where there were health problems with many of the raw foodists,
that they were vegan raw foodists (I saw that on another website which
discussed that same study).
Link please. Were they eating exclusively organic produce?
Post by Prehistoric Human
My argument doesn't apply to the vegan raw diet
of course, since humans didn't evolve on that.
Humans have no carnivorous adaptation.
See;
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .
The article does not analyse in detail what happens to meat
inside our digestive system. All it does is make qualitative
anatomical comparisons between different animal species.
False.
Sorry.
You should be.
Post by Dave
It also makes unsupported assertions that contradict
conventional nutritional wisdom.
For example?
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
But we now know for a fact that you are a liar.
Let's see your evidence then.
Your posting as evidence, that which you *know* isn't.

Other thread. "RIP Tony Banks".
p***@hotmail.com
2006-01-15 23:21:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by Prehistoric Human
Interesting article. I did notice , though, that in the 1999 study
discussed, where there were health problems with many of the raw foodists,
that they were vegan raw foodists (I saw that on another website which
discussed that same study).
Link please. Were they eating exclusively organic produce?
Post by Prehistoric Human
My argument doesn't apply to the vegan raw diet
of course, since humans didn't evolve on that.
Humans have no carnivorous adaptation.
See;
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .
The article does not analyse in detail what happens to meat
inside our digestive system. All it does is make qualitative
anatomical comparisons between different animal species.
False.
Sorry.
You should be.
Post by Dave
It also makes unsupported assertions that contradict
conventional nutritional wisdom.
For example?
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology: 1. Meat 2. Eggs
3. Cooked foods 4. Refined starches and sugars 5. Salt, herbs,
spices, seasonings, dressings, etc. 6. All processed, preserved,
fragmented, and artificial foods."
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
But we now know for a fact that you are a liar.
Let's see your evidence then.
Your posting as evidence, that which you *know* isn't.
Other thread. "RIP Tony Banks".
The data for vegans is based on too small a sample to draw
firm conclusions about vegan mortality rates and I should
have made this clear. However reporting the results of a meta-
Analysis seems more "honest" for want of a better word than
reporting the results of the one (Adventist Health) that best
suits your agenda.
pearl
2006-01-21 16:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by Prehistoric Human
Interesting article. I did notice , though, that in the 1999 study
discussed, where there were health problems with many of the raw foodists,
that they were vegan raw foodists (I saw that on another website which
discussed that same study).
Link please. Were they eating exclusively organic produce?
Post by Prehistoric Human
My argument doesn't apply to the vegan raw diet
of course, since humans didn't evolve on that.
Humans have no carnivorous adaptation.
See;
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .
The article does not analyse in detail what happens to meat
inside our digestive system. All it does is make qualitative
anatomical comparisons between different animal species.
False.
Sorry.
You should be.
Post by Dave
It also makes unsupported assertions that contradict
conventional nutritional wisdom.
For example?
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology: 1. Meat 2. Eggs
3. Cooked foods 4. Refined starches and sugars 5. Salt, herbs,
spices, seasonings, dressings, etc. 6. All processed, preserved,
fragmented, and artificial foods."
I see.. "conventional nutritional wisdom".

'Health vs. Profit: A Major Conflict of Interest

We are continually led to believe that disease causation is a mystery,
or is genetically beyond our control. Most people are eager for excuses
to avoid scientific facts regarding diet and disease causation, thereby
enabling them to continue eating conveniently yet unconsciously, which
is extremely hazardous to their health. In the United States, the animal
food and junk food industries financially support and bias most nutritional
research in major universities and institutions. Over the last five decades,
the largest contributors to Harvard for nutritional research have been the
sugar, meat and dairy industries. Specifically these include: the American
Meat Institute, Coca Cola, the Florida Sugar Cane League, Frito-Lay,
Hershey Foods, McDonald's, National Dairy Council, the National Meat
and Livestock Board, Oscar Mayer, General Mills, General Foods,
Pillsbury, the Sugar Research Foundation, the National Confectioners
Association, and the Tuna Research Foundation, just to name a few.
The American Society of Clinical Nutrition who publishes the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, is supported by CocaCola, NutraSweet,
Nabisco, Borden, and numerous pharmaceutical companies. Hello?
Do we have a conflict of interest here? Industrial food giants control
diet recommendations in the United States. Animal and dairy food
industries have used false nutritional dogma for decades to promote
its products (for detail see: The Truth About Protein). Schools and
advertisements teach that meat and dairy foods are essential for
wellness. This is the result of billions of dollars spent to influence
public opinion, public information, and public curriculum. Big industry
is driven by economics, not science. Powerful lobbyists of animal and
junk food industries wield tremendous economic power. Elected and
appointed members of government influenced by political contributions
make dietary recommendations that are at odds with nutritional scientific
research. Even though the USDA's latest food pyramid de-emphasizes
meat, poultry and high-fat foods, publication of the pyramid was delayed
for five years while stronger stances for these products were negotiated. '
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
But we now know for a fact that you are a liar.
Let's see your evidence then.
Your posting as evidence, that which you *know* isn't.
Other thread. "RIP Tony Banks".
The data for vegans is based on too small a sample to draw
firm conclusions about vegan mortality rates and I should
have made this clear.
But you didn't.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
However reporting the results of a meta-
Analysis seems more "honest" for want of a better word than
reporting the results of the one (Adventist Health) that best
suits your agenda.
And now you're lying about what I post. Bravo!
Dave
2006-01-24 04:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by Prehistoric Human
Interesting article. I did notice , though, that in the 1999 study
discussed, where there were health problems with many of the raw foodists,
that they were vegan raw foodists (I saw that on another website which
discussed that same study).
Link please. Were they eating exclusively organic produce?
Post by Prehistoric Human
My argument doesn't apply to the vegan raw diet
of course, since humans didn't evolve on that.
Humans have no carnivorous adaptation.
See;
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .
The article does not analyse in detail what happens to meat
inside our digestive system. All it does is make qualitative
anatomical comparisons between different animal species.
False.
Sorry.
You should be.
Post by Dave
It also makes unsupported assertions that contradict
conventional nutritional wisdom.
For example?
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology: 1. Meat 2. Eggs
3. Cooked foods 4. Refined starches and sugars 5. Salt, herbs,
spices, seasonings, dressings, etc. 6. All processed, preserved,
fragmented, and artificial foods."
I see.. "conventional nutritional wisdom".
'Health vs. Profit: A Major Conflict of Interest
We are continually led to believe that disease causation is a mystery,
or is genetically beyond our control. Most people are eager for excuses
to avoid scientific facts regarding diet and disease causation, thereby
enabling them to continue eating conveniently yet unconsciously, which
is extremely hazardous to their health. In the United States, the animal
food and junk food industries financially support and bias most nutritional
research in major universities and institutions. Over the last five decades,
the largest contributors to Harvard for nutritional research have been the
sugar, meat and dairy industries. Specifically these include: the American
Meat Institute, Coca Cola, the Florida Sugar Cane League, Frito-Lay,
Hershey Foods, McDonald's, National Dairy Council, the National Meat
and Livestock Board, Oscar Mayer, General Mills, General Foods,
Pillsbury, the Sugar Research Foundation, the National Confectioners
Association, and the Tuna Research Foundation, just to name a few.
The American Society of Clinical Nutrition who publishes the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, is supported by CocaCola, NutraSweet,
Nabisco, Borden, and numerous pharmaceutical companies. Hello?
Do we have a conflict of interest here? Industrial food giants control
diet recommendations in the United States. Animal and dairy food
industries have used false nutritional dogma for decades to promote
its products (for detail see: The Truth About Protein). Schools and
advertisements teach that meat and dairy foods are essential for
wellness. This is the result of billions of dollars spent to influence
public opinion, public information, and public curriculum. Big industry
is driven by economics, not science. Powerful lobbyists of animal and
junk food industries wield tremendous economic power. Elected and
appointed members of government influenced by political contributions
make dietary recommendations that are at odds with nutritional scientific
research. Even though the USDA's latest food pyramid de-emphasizes
meat, poultry and high-fat foods, publication of the pyramid was delayed
for five years while stronger stances for these products were negotiated. '
I assume all this comes off a link you forgot to include? I agree it
casts
a very significant question mark over the integrity of bodies like the
HSPH, USDA and ADA. However what I find strange is that many of
the companies you list as major financiers of this nutritional research
are producers of products that conventional nutrition frowns upon.
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
But we now know for a fact that you are a liar.
Let's see your evidence then.
Your posting as evidence, that which you *know* isn't.
Other thread. "RIP Tony Banks".
The data for vegans is based on too small a sample to draw
firm conclusions about vegan mortality rates and I should
have made this clear.
But you didn't.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
However reporting the results of a meta-
Analysis seems more "honest" for want of a better word than
reporting the results of the one (Adventist Health) that best
suits your agenda.
And now you're lying about what I post. Bravo!
On several occasions you have cited the Adventist Health study
in support of veg*n diets.
pearl
2006-01-24 14:23:14 UTC
Permalink
<..>
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
It also makes unsupported assertions that contradict
conventional nutritional wisdom.
For example?
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology: 1. Meat 2. Eggs
3. Cooked foods 4. Refined starches and sugars 5. Salt, herbs,
spices, seasonings, dressings, etc. 6. All processed, preserved,
fragmented, and artificial foods."
I see.. "conventional nutritional wisdom".
'Health vs. Profit: A Major Conflict of Interest
We are continually led to believe that disease causation is a mystery,
or is genetically beyond our control. Most people are eager for excuses
to avoid scientific facts regarding diet and disease causation, thereby
enabling them to continue eating conveniently yet unconsciously, which
is extremely hazardous to their health. In the United States, the animal
food and junk food industries financially support and bias most nutritional
research in major universities and institutions. Over the last five decades,
the largest contributors to Harvard for nutritional research have been the
sugar, meat and dairy industries. Specifically these include: the American
Meat Institute, Coca Cola, the Florida Sugar Cane League, Frito-Lay,
Hershey Foods, McDonald's, National Dairy Council, the National Meat
and Livestock Board, Oscar Mayer, General Mills, General Foods,
Pillsbury, the Sugar Research Foundation, the National Confectioners
Association, and the Tuna Research Foundation, just to name a few.
The American Society of Clinical Nutrition who publishes the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, is supported by CocaCola, NutraSweet,
Nabisco, Borden, and numerous pharmaceutical companies. Hello?
Do we have a conflict of interest here? Industrial food giants control
diet recommendations in the United States. Animal and dairy food
industries have used false nutritional dogma for decades to promote
its products (for detail see: The Truth About Protein). Schools and
advertisements teach that meat and dairy foods are essential for
wellness. This is the result of billions of dollars spent to influence
public opinion, public information, and public curriculum. Big industry
is driven by economics, not science. Powerful lobbyists of animal and
junk food industries wield tremendous economic power. Elected and
appointed members of government influenced by political contributions
make dietary recommendations that are at odds with nutritional scientific
research. Even though the USDA's latest food pyramid de-emphasizes
meat, poultry and high-fat foods, publication of the pyramid was delayed
for five years while stronger stances for these products were negotiated. '
I assume all this comes off a link you forgot to include? I agree it casts
a very significant question mark over the integrity of bodies like the
HSPH, USDA and ADA. However what I find strange is that many of
the companies you list as major financiers of this nutritional research
are producers of products that conventional nutrition frowns upon.
Didn't you know,- 'it's all ok' as part of "a balanced diet".

But, Dave, just above you wrote:
------
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
It also makes unsupported assertions that contradict
conventional nutritional wisdom.
For example?
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology: 1. Meat 2. Eggs
3. Cooked foods 4. Refined starches and sugars 5. Salt, herbs,
spices, seasonings, dressings, etc. 6. All processed, preserved,
fragmented, and artificial foods."
------

See SAD 'happy meal' constituents there? Or as you now
put it,- "products that conventional nutrition frowns upon"?

<..>
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
However reporting the results of a meta-
Analysis seems more "honest" for want of a better word than
reporting the results of the one (Adventist Health) that best
suits your agenda.
And now you're lying about what I post. Bravo!
On several occasions you have cited the Adventist Health study
in support of veg*n diets.
Just that "one" study? You know well that isn't the case.
p***@hotmail.com
2006-01-24 23:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
<..>
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
It also makes unsupported assertions that contradict
conventional nutritional wisdom.
For example?
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology: 1. Meat 2. Eggs
3. Cooked foods 4. Refined starches and sugars 5. Salt, herbs,
spices, seasonings, dressings, etc. 6. All processed, preserved,
fragmented, and artificial foods."
I see.. "conventional nutritional wisdom".
'Health vs. Profit: A Major Conflict of Interest
We are continually led to believe that disease causation is a mystery,
or is genetically beyond our control. Most people are eager for excuses
to avoid scientific facts regarding diet and disease causation, thereby
enabling them to continue eating conveniently yet unconsciously, which
is extremely hazardous to their health. In the United States, the animal
food and junk food industries financially support and bias most nutritional
research in major universities and institutions. Over the last five decades,
the largest contributors to Harvard for nutritional research have been the
sugar, meat and dairy industries. Specifically these include: the American
Meat Institute, Coca Cola, the Florida Sugar Cane League, Frito-Lay,
Hershey Foods, McDonald's, National Dairy Council, the National Meat
and Livestock Board, Oscar Mayer, General Mills, General Foods,
Pillsbury, the Sugar Research Foundation, the National Confectioners
Association, and the Tuna Research Foundation, just to name a few.
The American Society of Clinical Nutrition who publishes the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, is supported by CocaCola, NutraSweet,
Nabisco, Borden, and numerous pharmaceutical companies. Hello?
Do we have a conflict of interest here? Industrial food giants control
diet recommendations in the United States. Animal and dairy food
industries have used false nutritional dogma for decades to promote
its products (for detail see: The Truth About Protein). Schools and
advertisements teach that meat and dairy foods are essential for
wellness. This is the result of billions of dollars spent to influence
public opinion, public information, and public curriculum. Big industry
is driven by economics, not science. Powerful lobbyists of animal and
junk food industries wield tremendous economic power. Elected and
appointed members of government influenced by political contributions
make dietary recommendations that are at odds with nutritional scientific
research. Even though the USDA's latest food pyramid de-emphasizes
meat, poultry and high-fat foods, publication of the pyramid was delayed
for five years while stronger stances for these products were negotiated. '
I assume all this comes off a link you forgot to include? I agree it casts
a very significant question mark over the integrity of bodies like the
HSPH, USDA and ADA. However what I find strange is that many of
the companies you list as major financiers of this nutritional research
are producers of products that conventional nutrition frowns upon.
Didn't you know,- 'it's all ok' as part of "a balanced diet".
OK once in a while but certainly not encouraged.
Post by pearl
------
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
It also makes unsupported assertions that contradict
conventional nutritional wisdom.
For example?
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology: 1. Meat 2. Eggs
3. Cooked foods 4. Refined starches and sugars 5. Salt, herbs,
spices, seasonings, dressings, etc. 6. All processed, preserved,
fragmented, and artificial foods."
------
See SAD 'happy meal' constituents there? Or as you now
put it,- "products that conventional nutrition frowns upon"?
Yes some of those products are frowned upon; Refined starches and
sugars,
salt, artificial and overprocessed foods. Many authorities also frown
upon
red processed or high fat meats. Herbs, some spices, cooked wholegrain
products like like rice or wholewheat bread, cooked legumes, tofu,
olive
oil, sauteed garlic and steamed broccoli is a partial list of products
that
generally receive a positive press but are utterley condemned by the
article on your website.
Post by pearl
<..>
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
However reporting the results of a meta-
Analysis seems more "honest" for want of a better word than
reporting the results of the one (Adventist Health) that best
suits your agenda.
And now you're lying about what I post. Bravo!
On several occasions you have cited the Adventist Health study
in support of veg*n diets.
Just that "one" study?
No, that isn't the only study you use to present your case but it is
one of the main ones.
Post by pearl
You know well that isn't the case.
pearl
2006-01-25 12:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
<..>
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
It also makes unsupported assertions that contradict
conventional nutritional wisdom.
For example?
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology: 1. Meat 2. Eggs
3. Cooked foods 4. Refined starches and sugars 5. Salt, herbs,
spices, seasonings, dressings, etc. 6. All processed, preserved,
fragmented, and artificial foods."
I see.. "conventional nutritional wisdom".
'Health vs. Profit: A Major Conflict of Interest
We are continually led to believe that disease causation is a mystery,
or is genetically beyond our control. Most people are eager for excuses
to avoid scientific facts regarding diet and disease causation, thereby
enabling them to continue eating conveniently yet unconsciously, which
is extremely hazardous to their health. In the United States, the animal
food and junk food industries financially support and bias most nutritional
research in major universities and institutions. Over the last five decades,
the largest contributors to Harvard for nutritional research have been the
sugar, meat and dairy industries. Specifically these include: the American
Meat Institute, Coca Cola, the Florida Sugar Cane League, Frito-Lay,
Hershey Foods, McDonald's, National Dairy Council, the National Meat
and Livestock Board, Oscar Mayer, General Mills, General Foods,
Pillsbury, the Sugar Research Foundation, the National Confectioners
Association, and the Tuna Research Foundation, just to name a few.
The American Society of Clinical Nutrition who publishes the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, is supported by CocaCola, NutraSweet,
Nabisco, Borden, and numerous pharmaceutical companies. Hello?
Do we have a conflict of interest here? Industrial food giants control
diet recommendations in the United States. Animal and dairy food
industries have used false nutritional dogma for decades to promote
its products (for detail see: The Truth About Protein). Schools and
advertisements teach that meat and dairy foods are essential for
wellness. This is the result of billions of dollars spent to influence
public opinion, public information, and public curriculum. Big industry
is driven by economics, not science. Powerful lobbyists of animal and
junk food industries wield tremendous economic power. Elected and
appointed members of government influenced by political contributions
make dietary recommendations that are at odds with nutritional scientific
research. Even though the USDA's latest food pyramid de-emphasizes
meat, poultry and high-fat foods, publication of the pyramid was delayed
for five years while stronger stances for these products were negotiated. '
I assume all this comes off a link you forgot to include? I agree it casts
a very significant question mark over the integrity of bodies like the
HSPH, USDA and ADA. However what I find strange is that many of
the companies you list as major financiers of this nutritional research
are producers of products that conventional nutrition frowns upon.
Didn't you know,- 'it's all ok' as part of "a balanced diet".
OK once in a while but certainly not encouraged.
McDonalds spends $2 billion on advertising each year.

"Every time you eat at McDonald's you will be eating good,
nutritious food.

Variety is the order of the day. If you eat a Big Mac and
french fries regularly, you should ensure that at other times
you eat different types of foods so that your diet is
balanced and you are eating plenty of minerals, vitamins,
protein and fibre. Think about variety when planning your
meals.

The accompanying tables help you to select the best
McDonald's meal for yourself, by listing exactly what
goes into every single item on the McDonald's menu.

McDonald's meal combinations can form part of YOUR
balanced diet. Here's a selection of popular combinations,
with the information you need to make your choice.

Hamburger, apple pie, milkshake
McChicken sandwich, regular fries, medium diet Coca Cola
Big Mac, strawberry trifle, regular Coca Cola
Filet-o-Fish, regular fries, orange juice
Filet-o-Fish, garden salad, sugared donut, mineral water

http://www.mcspotlight.org/company/publications/nutrition_balance.html

McDONALD's
Product Calories Fat
Chicken McNuggets 314 54%
Quarter Pounder 410 45%
Sausage McMuffin 370 53%
Cheese hamburger 310 40%
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/mcd.html
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
------
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
It also makes unsupported assertions that contradict
conventional nutritional wisdom.
For example?
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology: 1. Meat 2. Eggs
3. Cooked foods 4. Refined starches and sugars 5. Salt, herbs,
spices, seasonings, dressings, etc. 6. All processed, preserved,
fragmented, and artificial foods."
------
See SAD 'happy meal' constituents there? Or as you now
put it,- "products that conventional nutrition frowns upon"?
Yes some of those products are frowned upon; Refined starches and sugars,
salt, artificial and overprocessed foods. Many authorities also frown upon
red processed or high fat meats.
'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate
for all stages of the lifecycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy,
childhood and adolescence. Appropriately planned vegetarian diets are
healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention
and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain diseases' are the killer
epidemics of today - heart disease, strokes, cancers, diabetes etc.

This is the view of the world's most prestigious health advisory body, the
American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, after a review
of world literature. It is backed up by the British Medical Association:

'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease, high
blood pressure, large bowel disorders, cancers and gall stones.'

The World Health Organization thinks similarly: 'Diets associated with
increases in chronic diseases are those rich in sugar, meat and other
animal products, saturated fat and dietary cholesterol.'
....
http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Herbs, some spices,
Are used very sparingly- for a reason. They are not 'foods'.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
cooked
'Today's 'nutritionists' are subservient to the "basic four food groups"
and "food group pyramid" concepts as perpetuated by big industry in
this country. According to these nutritionists, humans do not have a
fixed diet as other animals in nature. Rather, we are omnivorous creatures
that are supposed to partake of numerous cooked foods at virtually every
meal in order to satisfy our nutritional requirements. Of the 80 millions
species on earth, all thrive on raw fresh food. Only humans cook their
food. Cooking equates to fire. Fire burns and destroys living tissue
including nutrients, turning them into toxic substances. .. It is no
coincidence that cancer, heart attacks, stroke, diabetes and chronic
disease kill humans at half their potential life span. Species in nature live
on average, seven times past their age of maturity. Humans mature in
their late teens to early twenties. Do the math. The average life span in
robust health for humans is actually well over 100-140 years when we
live each day according to the Essentials of Health. Lethargic lifestyles
and far too many toxic 'empty' calories from food that we are not
biologically adapted to, kills us at midlife. '

I suggest that you go back and read the first post in the thread.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
wholegrain
products like like rice or wholewheat bread,
'Even eating predominantly of whole grains and natural legumes
as dietary staples can be injurious because of the need for
excessive starch digestion'

'To enjoy an energetic, youthful, disease-free life, eat a varied diet
predominantly of foods you are biologically adapted to: raw fresh
fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, sprouted grains, and perhaps
occasional legumes and tubers.'
Post by p***@hotmail.com
cooked legumes,
'a diet predominating in fresh, raw fruit with a moderate amount
of fresh, raw vegetables, nuts, seeds, and perhaps occasional
meals that include beans and legumes cooked conservatively.'
Post by p***@hotmail.com
tofu,
'The following foods, while not optimum, can be handled
by human digestive physiology in moderate amounts
when properly combined: 1. Starchy vegetables 2. Grains
3. Cereals and 4. Legumes. '
Post by p***@hotmail.com
olive oil,
'The following foods, while usually eaten on a vegetarian diet,
are not well adapted to man's physiology and therefore place
an undue strain on the organism: 1. Free oils 2. Dairy products.'
- So use olive olive sparingly.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
sauteed garlic
I've read that frying garlic produces toxic components.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
and steamed broccoli is a partial list of products that
generally receive a positive press
Steamed broccoli, or broccoli generally?
Post by p***@hotmail.com
but are utterley condemned by the article on your website.
Hyperbole.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
<..>
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
However reporting the results of a meta-
Analysis seems more "honest" for want of a better word than
reporting the results of the one (Adventist Health) that best
suits your agenda.
And now you're lying about what I post. Bravo!
On several occasions you have cited the Adventist Health study
in support of veg*n diets.
Just that "one" study?
No, that isn't the only study you use to present your case but it is
one of the main ones.
Thereby admitting that what you wrote above is false.

Way to try to regain some credibility, dishonest dave.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
You know well that isn't the case.
Dave
2006-01-26 02:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
<..>
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
It also makes unsupported assertions that contradict
conventional nutritional wisdom.
For example?
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology: 1. Meat 2. Eggs
3. Cooked foods 4. Refined starches and sugars 5. Salt, herbs,
spices, seasonings, dressings, etc. 6. All processed, preserved,
fragmented, and artificial foods."
I see.. "conventional nutritional wisdom".
'Health vs. Profit: A Major Conflict of Interest
We are continually led to believe that disease causation is a mystery,
or is genetically beyond our control. Most people are eager for excuses
to avoid scientific facts regarding diet and disease causation, thereby
enabling them to continue eating conveniently yet unconsciously, which
is extremely hazardous to their health. In the United States, the animal
food and junk food industries financially support and bias most nutritional
research in major universities and institutions. Over the last five decades,
the largest contributors to Harvard for nutritional research have been the
sugar, meat and dairy industries. Specifically these include: the American
Meat Institute, Coca Cola, the Florida Sugar Cane League, Frito-Lay,
Hershey Foods, McDonald's, National Dairy Council, the National Meat
and Livestock Board, Oscar Mayer, General Mills, General Foods,
Pillsbury, the Sugar Research Foundation, the National Confectioners
Association, and the Tuna Research Foundation, just to name a few.
The American Society of Clinical Nutrition who publishes the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, is supported by CocaCola, NutraSweet,
Nabisco, Borden, and numerous pharmaceutical companies. Hello?
Do we have a conflict of interest here? Industrial food giants control
diet recommendations in the United States. Animal and dairy food
industries have used false nutritional dogma for decades to promote
its products (for detail see: The Truth About Protein). Schools and
advertisements teach that meat and dairy foods are essential for
wellness. This is the result of billions of dollars spent to influence
public opinion, public information, and public curriculum. Big industry
is driven by economics, not science. Powerful lobbyists of animal and
junk food industries wield tremendous economic power. Elected and
appointed members of government influenced by political contributions
make dietary recommendations that are at odds with nutritional scientific
research. Even though the USDA's latest food pyramid de-emphasizes
meat, poultry and high-fat foods, publication of the pyramid was delayed
for five years while stronger stances for these products were negotiated. '
I assume all this comes off a link you forgot to include? I agree it casts
a very significant question mark over the integrity of bodies like the
HSPH, USDA and ADA. However what I find strange is that many of
the companies you list as major financiers of this nutritional research
are producers of products that conventional nutrition frowns upon.
Didn't you know,- 'it's all ok' as part of "a balanced diet".
OK once in a while but certainly not encouraged.
McDonalds spends $2 billion on advertising each year.
"Every time you eat at McDonald's you will be eating good,
nutritious food.
Variety is the order of the day. If you eat a Big Mac and
french fries regularly, you should ensure that at other times
you eat different types of foods so that your diet is
balanced and you are eating plenty of minerals, vitamins,
protein and fibre. Think about variety when planning your
meals.
The accompanying tables help you to select the best
McDonald's meal for yourself, by listing exactly what
goes into every single item on the McDonald's menu.
McDonald's meal combinations can form part of YOUR
balanced diet. Here's a selection of popular combinations,
with the information you need to make your choice.
Hamburger, apple pie, milkshake
McChicken sandwich, regular fries, medium diet Coca Cola
Big Mac, strawberry trifle, regular Coca Cola
Filet-o-Fish, regular fries, orange juice
Filet-o-Fish, garden salad, sugared donut, mineral water
http://www.mcspotlight.org/company/publications/nutrition_balance.html
c'mon that isn't a respectable nutrition publication you are quoting
from.
It's McDONALD's propoganda and propoganda is a very apt word for it.
Post by pearl
McDONALD's
Product Calories Fat
Chicken McNuggets 314 54%
Quarter Pounder 410 45%
Sausage McMuffin 370 53%
Cheese hamburger 310 40%
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/mcd.html
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
------
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
It also makes unsupported assertions that contradict
conventional nutritional wisdom.
For example?
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology: 1. Meat 2. Eggs
3. Cooked foods 4. Refined starches and sugars 5. Salt, herbs,
spices, seasonings, dressings, etc. 6. All processed, preserved,
fragmented, and artificial foods."
------
See SAD 'happy meal' constituents there? Or as you now
put it,- "products that conventional nutrition frowns upon"?
Yes some of those products are frowned upon; Refined starches and sugars,
salt, artificial and overprocessed foods. Many authorities also frown upon
red processed or high fat meats.
'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate
for all stages of the lifecycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy,
childhood and adolescence. Appropriately planned vegetarian diets are
healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention
and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain diseases' are the killer
epidemics of today - heart disease, strokes, cancers, diabetes etc.
The Meta-Analysis http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/70/3/516S.pdf
established a correlation between meat and Ischemic Heart disease
but not with the other diseases you mention. It may well be that
vegetarian diets reduce the risk of these but I question whether there
is
sufficient data to give a definitive verdict.
Post by pearl
This is the view of the world's most prestigious health advisory body, the
American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, after a review
'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease, high
blood pressure, large bowel disorders, cancers and gall stones.'
I'm sure this is true but less sure whether we can ascribe this to the
absense of meat or whether other factors may be involved. I understand
that vegetarians are more health conscious than non vegetarians as
a general rule.
Post by pearl
The World Health Organization thinks similarly: 'Diets associated with
increases in chronic diseases are those rich in sugar, meat and other
animal products, saturated fat and dietary cholesterol.'
Absolutely. It is widely accepted that excessive consumption of sugar
or animal products is not a recipe for good health. What is less clear,
at least to me, is whether the idea ratio of plant to animal foods is
1.
My guess is probably not but I don't know.
Post by pearl
....
http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Herbs, some spices,
Are used very sparingly- for a reason. They are not 'foods'.
How are they not foods?
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
cooked
'Today's 'nutritionists' are subservient to the "basic four food groups"
and "food group pyramid" concepts as perpetuated by big industry in
this country. According to these nutritionists, humans do not have a
fixed diet as other animals in nature. Rather, we are omnivorous creatures
that are supposed to partake of numerous cooked foods at virtually every
meal in order to satisfy our nutritional requirements. Of the 80 millions
species on earth, all thrive on raw fresh food. Only humans cook their
food.
Humans are the only species that have used fire for several
generations.
As far as I know most animals will happily eat cooked foods when it is
presented to them. Bread is frequently used to feed birds. Rats, foxes
and other animals eat cooked foods that have been thrown away.
Pets sometimes eat cooked foods and pigs frequently dispose of
leftovers. Whether they would thrive on such a diet I don't know
but I'm certainly not aware of any evidence that it does them any harm.
Are you?
Post by pearl
Cooking equates to fire. Fire burns and destroys living tissue
including nutrients,
Some nutrients are destroyed by cooking but the same can be said
of anti-nutrients. For example, phytate is a compound found in plant
cells that inhibits the absorbtion of minerals like iron and zinc.
In "Becoming Vegan" the following processes are said to reduce
this effect: Leavening of wholegrain bread, roasting of nuts,
soaking of beans prior to cooking, fermentation of soya beans,
sprouting of grains, seeds and legumes.

The bioavailability of beta Carotene in carrots and lycopenes
in tomatoes is improved by cooking. Soya beans are dangerous
to eat unprocessed because of their trypsin inhibitors.
Post by pearl
turning them into toxic substances. ..
Cooking creates some toxic substances but some natural
toxins and pathogenic bacteria are destroyed by cooking.
I don't believe there is a single source of food available to
us that doesn't contain any toxic chemicals. If our liver
wasn't able to cope with the toxins in cooked food we wouldn't
be here.
Post by pearl
It is no
coincidence that cancer, heart attacks, stroke, diabetes and chronic
disease kill humans at half their potential life span. Species in nature live
on average, seven times past their age of maturity. Humans mature in
their late teens to early twenties. Do the math. The average life span in
robust health for humans is actually well over 100-140 years
Invalid extrapolation. Wishful thinking. A small number of humans do
live to this sort of age and I doubt many, if any live wild.
Post by pearl
when we
live each day according to the Essentials of Health. Lethargic lifestyles
and far too many toxic 'empty' calories from food that we are not
biologically adapted to, kills us at midlife. '
I suggest that you go back and read the first post in the thread.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
wholegrain
products like like rice or wholewheat bread,
'Even eating predominantly of whole grains and natural legumes
as dietary staples can be injurious because of the need for
excessive starch digestion'
Where is the evidence for this?
Post by pearl
'To enjoy an energetic, youthful, disease-free life, eat a varied diet
predominantly of foods you are biologically adapted to: raw fresh
fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, sprouted grains, and perhaps
occasional legumes and tubers.'
Post by p***@hotmail.com
cooked legumes,
'a diet predominating in fresh, raw fruit with a moderate amount
of fresh, raw vegetables, nuts, seeds, and perhaps occasional
meals that include beans and legumes cooked conservatively.'
Post by p***@hotmail.com
tofu,
'The following foods, while not optimum, can be handled
by human digestive physiology in moderate amounts
when properly combined: 1. Starchy vegetables 2. Grains
3. Cereals and 4. Legumes. '
Tofu is a processed food and therefore according to your
site is injurious to the health and ideally should not be
consumed at all.
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
olive oil,
'The following foods, while usually eaten on a vegetarian diet,
are not well adapted to man's physiology and therefore place
an undue strain on the organism: 1. Free oils 2. Dairy products.'
- So use olive olive sparingly.
Actually that one is probably fair enough.
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
sauteed garlic
I've read that frying garlic produces toxic components.
Frying anything produces toxic compounds. Garlic is
thought to be highly beneficial to the health but really
isn't the sort of thing you'd eat raw. Sauteeing is
probably the best solution.
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
and steamed broccoli is a partial list of products that
generally receive a positive press
Steamed broccoli, or broccoli generally?
Brocolli generally but cooking makes it more
digestable and palatable.
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
but are utterley condemned by the article on your website.
Hyperbole.
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology:"

How can this be described as anything less than a total
and unequivocal condemnation of these foods?
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
<..>
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
However reporting the results of a meta-
Analysis seems more "honest" for want of a better word than
reporting the results of the one (Adventist Health) that best
suits your agenda.
And now you're lying about what I post. Bravo!
On several occasions you have cited the Adventist Health study
in support of veg*n diets.
Just that "one" study?
No, that isn't the only study you use to present your case but it is
one of the main ones.
Thereby admitting that what you wrote above is false.
You frequently do cite it without citing any of the other studies
included
in the meta-analysis into vegetarian and non-vegetarian mortality
rates.
Post by pearl
Way to try to regain some credibility, dishonest dave.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
You know well that isn't the case.
pearl
2006-01-28 19:55:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
<..>
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
It also makes unsupported assertions that contradict
conventional nutritional wisdom.
For example?
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology: 1. Meat 2. Eggs
3. Cooked foods 4. Refined starches and sugars 5. Salt, herbs,
spices, seasonings, dressings, etc. 6. All processed, preserved,
fragmented, and artificial foods."
I see.. "conventional nutritional wisdom".
'Health vs. Profit: A Major Conflict of Interest
We are continually led to believe that disease causation is a mystery,
or is genetically beyond our control. Most people are eager for excuses
to avoid scientific facts regarding diet and disease causation, thereby
enabling them to continue eating conveniently yet unconsciously, which
is extremely hazardous to their health. In the United States, the animal
food and junk food industries financially support and bias most nutritional
research in major universities and institutions. Over the last five decades,
the largest contributors to Harvard for nutritional research have been the
sugar, meat and dairy industries. Specifically these include: the American
Meat Institute, Coca Cola, the Florida Sugar Cane League, Frito-Lay,
Hershey Foods, McDonald's, National Dairy Council, the National Meat
and Livestock Board, Oscar Mayer, General Mills, General Foods,
Pillsbury, the Sugar Research Foundation, the National Confectioners
Association, and the Tuna Research Foundation, just to name a few.
The American Society of Clinical Nutrition who publishes the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, is supported by CocaCola, NutraSweet,
Nabisco, Borden, and numerous pharmaceutical companies. Hello?
Do we have a conflict of interest here? Industrial food giants control
diet recommendations in the United States. Animal and dairy food
industries have used false nutritional dogma for decades to promote
its products (for detail see: The Truth About Protein). Schools and
advertisements teach that meat and dairy foods are essential for
wellness. This is the result of billions of dollars spent to influence
public opinion, public information, and public curriculum. Big industry
is driven by economics, not science. Powerful lobbyists of animal and
junk food industries wield tremendous economic power. Elected and
appointed members of government influenced by political contributions
make dietary recommendations that are at odds with nutritional scientific
research. Even though the USDA's latest food pyramid de-emphasizes
meat, poultry and high-fat foods, publication of the pyramid was delayed
for five years while stronger stances for these products were negotiated. '
I assume all this comes off a link you forgot to include? I agree it casts
a very significant question mark over the integrity of bodies like the
HSPH, USDA and ADA. However what I find strange is that many of
the companies you list as major financiers of this nutritional research
are producers of products that conventional nutrition frowns upon.
Didn't you know,- 'it's all ok' as part of "a balanced diet".
OK once in a while but certainly not encouraged.
McDonalds spends $2 billion on advertising each year.
"Every time you eat at McDonald's you will be eating good,
nutritious food.
Variety is the order of the day. If you eat a Big Mac and
french fries regularly, you should ensure that at other times
you eat different types of foods so that your diet is
balanced and you are eating plenty of minerals, vitamins,
protein and fibre. Think about variety when planning your
meals.
The accompanying tables help you to select the best
McDonald's meal for yourself, by listing exactly what
goes into every single item on the McDonald's menu.
McDonald's meal combinations can form part of YOUR
balanced diet. Here's a selection of popular combinations,
with the information you need to make your choice.
Hamburger, apple pie, milkshake
McChicken sandwich, regular fries, medium diet Coca Cola
Big Mac, strawberry trifle, regular Coca Cola
Filet-o-Fish, regular fries, orange juice
Filet-o-Fish, garden salad, sugared donut, mineral water
http://www.mcspotlight.org/company/publications/nutrition_balance.html
c'mon that isn't a respectable nutrition publication you are quoting
from.
It's McDONALD's propoganda and propoganda is a very apt word for it.
And they aren't called on that by the relevant authorities because ..?
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
McDONALD's
Product Calories Fat
Chicken McNuggets 314 54%
Quarter Pounder 410 45%
Sausage McMuffin 370 53%
Cheese hamburger 310 40%
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/mcd.html
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
------
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
It also makes unsupported assertions that contradict
conventional nutritional wisdom.
For example?
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology: 1. Meat 2. Eggs
3. Cooked foods 4. Refined starches and sugars 5. Salt, herbs,
spices, seasonings, dressings, etc. 6. All processed, preserved,
fragmented, and artificial foods."
------
See SAD 'happy meal' constituents there? Or as you now
put it,- "products that conventional nutrition frowns upon"?
Yes some of those products are frowned upon; Refined starches and sugars,
salt, artificial and overprocessed foods. Many authorities also frown upon
red processed or high fat meats.
'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate
for all stages of the lifecycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy,
childhood and adolescence. Appropriately planned vegetarian diets are
healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention
and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain diseases' are the killer
epidemics of today - heart disease, strokes, cancers, diabetes etc.
The Meta-Analysis http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/70/3/516S.pdf
established a correlation between meat and Ischemic Heart disease
but not with the other diseases you mention. It may well be that
vegetarian diets reduce the risk of these but I question whether there
is sufficient data to give a definitive verdict.
Many individual studies do find a correlation with those diseases.
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
This is the view of the world's most prestigious health advisory body, the
American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, after a review
'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease, high
blood pressure, large bowel disorders, cancers and gall stones.'
I'm sure this is true but less sure whether we can ascribe this to the
absense of meat or whether other factors may be involved.
At least in part to an absence of meat.
Post by Dave
I understand
that vegetarians are more health conscious than non vegetarians as
a general rule.
If true, that alone should tell you something.
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
The World Health Organization thinks similarly: 'Diets associated with
increases in chronic diseases are those rich in sugar, meat and other
animal products, saturated fat and dietary cholesterol.'
Absolutely. It is widely accepted that excessive consumption of sugar
or animal products is not a recipe for good health. What is less clear,
at least to me, is whether the idea ratio of plant to animal foods is
1.
My guess is probably not but I don't know.
1 : 0

'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of
dietary plant food composition that suggested an absence of a
disease prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an
all-plant foods diet, the greater will be the reduction in the rates
of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogenesis_paper.html
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
....
http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Herbs, some spices,
Are used very sparingly- for a reason. They are not 'foods'.
How are they not foods?
'As you learn more about herbs, you'll realize that a lot
of culinary herbs can be used medicinally, as well, ..
..
When properly used, herbs are the safest and surest
medicines available However, one must be well aware
of the power of herbs both to heal and, if misused, to
cause imbalance.
..
http://www.motherearthnews.com/top_articles/1985_July_August/An_Herbal_Medicine_Chest
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
cooked
'Today's 'nutritionists' are subservient to the "basic four food groups"
and "food group pyramid" concepts as perpetuated by big industry in
this country. According to these nutritionists, humans do not have a
fixed diet as other animals in nature. Rather, we are omnivorous creatures
that are supposed to partake of numerous cooked foods at virtually every
meal in order to satisfy our nutritional requirements. Of the 80 millions
species on earth, all thrive on raw fresh food. Only humans cook their
food.
Humans are the only species that have used fire for several
generations.
But how has that changed our natural biological requirements,
if, as you have agreed, cooking can destroy some nutrients?
Post by Dave
As far as I know most animals will happily eat cooked foods when it is
presented to them. Bread is frequently used to feed birds. Rats, foxes
and other animals eat cooked foods that have been thrown away.
Pets sometimes eat cooked foods and pigs frequently dispose of
leftovers. Whether they would thrive on such a diet I don't know
but I'm certainly not aware of any evidence that it does them any harm.
Are you?
I'm not, no.
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Cooking equates to fire. Fire burns and destroys living tissue
including nutrients,
Some nutrients are destroyed by cooking but the same can be said
of anti-nutrients. For example, phytate is a compound found in plant
cells that inhibits the absorbtion of minerals like iron and zinc.
In "Becoming Vegan" the following processes are said to reduce
this effect: Leavening of wholegrain bread, roasting of nuts,
soaking of beans prior to cooking, fermentation of soya beans,
sprouting of grains, seeds and legumes.
The bioavailability of beta Carotene in carrots and lycopenes
in tomatoes is improved by cooking. Soya beans are dangerous
to eat unprocessed because of their trypsin inhibitors.
Some nutrients are destroyed by cooking.
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
turning them into toxic substances. ..
Cooking creates some toxic substances but some natural
toxins and pathogenic bacteria are destroyed by cooking.
I don't believe there is a single source of food available to
us that doesn't contain any toxic chemicals. If our liver
wasn't able to cope with the toxins in cooked food we wouldn't
be here.
Our bodies can cope with occasional, not long-term abuse.
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
It is no
coincidence that cancer, heart attacks, stroke, diabetes and chronic
disease kill humans at half their potential life span. Species in nature live
on average, seven times past their age of maturity. Humans mature in
their late teens to early twenties. Do the math. The average life span in
robust health for humans is actually well over 100-140 years
Invalid extrapolation. Wishful thinking. A small number of humans do
live to this sort of age and I doubt many, if any live wild.
You have already seen a fair bit of evidence that they do.
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
when we
live each day according to the Essentials of Health. Lethargic lifestyles
and far too many toxic 'empty' calories from food that we are not
biologically adapted to, kills us at midlife. '
I suggest that you go back and read the first post in the thread.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
wholegrain
products like like rice or wholewheat bread,
'Even eating predominantly of whole grains and natural legumes
as dietary staples can be injurious because of the need for
excessive starch digestion'
Where is the evidence for this?
Acute Metabolic Response to High-Carbohydrate, High-Starch
Meals Compared With Moderate-Carbohydrate, Low-Starch
Meals in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/reprint/21/10/1619.pdf
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
'To enjoy an energetic, youthful, disease-free life, eat a varied diet
predominantly of foods you are biologically adapted to: raw fresh
fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, sprouted grains, and perhaps
occasional legumes and tubers.'
Post by p***@hotmail.com
cooked legumes,
'a diet predominating in fresh, raw fruit with a moderate amount
of fresh, raw vegetables, nuts, seeds, and perhaps occasional
meals that include beans and legumes cooked conservatively.'
Not "utterly condemned" then.
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
tofu,
'The following foods, while not optimum, can be handled
by human digestive physiology in moderate amounts
when properly combined: 1. Starchy vegetables 2. Grains
3. Cereals and 4. Legumes. '
Tofu is a processed food and therefore according to your
site is injurious to the health and ideally should not be
consumed at all.
Tofu is the coagulated 'milk' from soaked, pressed soybeans.
I don't think that is what was intended by 'processed foods'.
['Low RDA's are maintained so processed food products
do not appear as deficient as they actually are ..
Processed food and fast food producers use portion size
and weight to calculate information, ... ']

'So what are processed foods ?

Processed foods include those that have been artificially
coloured, blended, or enriched to provide different flavours,
textures and colour. Almost all processed foods contain
many different chemicals and additives to help stabilise and
preserve the texture, colour, flavour and freshness of the food.

Additives including; animal and vegetable fats, salt, colour
dyes and chemical flavours are added to food to make them
more appealing. In addition, preservatives like nitrates,
sulphates and salt, are added to prolong the shelf-life of
processed foods.
..'
http://www.cancer.ie/text/cancerInfo/diet.php
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
olive oil,
'The following foods, while usually eaten on a vegetarian diet,
are not well adapted to man's physiology and therefore place
an undue strain on the organism: 1. Free oils 2. Dairy products.'
- So use olive olive sparingly.
Actually that one is probably fair enough.
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
sauteed garlic
I've read that frying garlic produces toxic components.
Frying anything produces toxic compounds. Garlic is
thought to be highly beneficial to the health but really
isn't the sort of thing you'd eat raw. Sauteeing is
probably the best solution.
Cooking reduces its antibiotic, antiviral and antifungal
properties. It can be crushed and eaten raw in salads.
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
and steamed broccoli is a partial list of products that
generally receive a positive press
Steamed broccoli, or broccoli generally?
Brocolli generally but cooking makes it more
digestable and palatable.
Have you ever eaten raw broccoli? Try some florets in a salad.
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
but are utterley condemned by the article on your website.
Hyperbole.
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology:"
How can this be described as anything less than a total
and unequivocal condemnation of these foods?
But "products that conventional nutrition frowns upon".
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
<..>
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
However reporting the results of a meta-
Analysis seems more "honest" for want of a better word than
reporting the results of the one (Adventist Health) that best
suits your agenda.
And now you're lying about what I post. Bravo!
On several occasions you have cited the Adventist Health study
in support of veg*n diets.
Just that "one" study?
No, that isn't the only study you use to present your case but it is
one of the main ones.
Thereby admitting that what you wrote above is false.
You frequently do cite it without citing any of the other studies included
in the meta-analysis into vegetarian and non-vegetarian mortality rates.
'The Adventist Health Study: Mortality studies of Seventh-day
Adventists

Seventh-day Adventists have increasingly become the objects
of epidemiologic studies, both because they tend to be far more
homogeneous in many lifestyle choices and because they are
more heterogeneous in nutritional habits than the general population.

Certain lifestyle characteristics, such as heavy cigarette smoking,
consumption of alcohol, and diets heavy in fats may confound or
modify the effects of other factors, making it difficult to study them.

In the Adventist population, these potentially distorting
characteristics are largely absent, making other factors more
easily observed. Perhaps even more importantly, the wide
range of dietary habits, from strict vegetarianism to a normal
American diet, greatly enhances the ability of investigators.
..'
http://www.llu.edu/llu/health/mortality.html

Fewer confounding factors which need to be adjusted for,
as well as a much greater likelihood of long-term adherence.
p***@hotmail.com
2006-02-01 19:58:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
<..>
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
It also makes unsupported assertions that contradict
conventional nutritional wisdom.
For example?
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology: 1. Meat 2. Eggs
3. Cooked foods 4. Refined starches and sugars 5. Salt, herbs,
spices, seasonings, dressings, etc. 6. All processed, preserved,
fragmented, and artificial foods."
I see.. "conventional nutritional wisdom".
'Health vs. Profit: A Major Conflict of Interest
We are continually led to believe that disease causation is a mystery,
or is genetically beyond our control. Most people are eager for excuses
to avoid scientific facts regarding diet and disease causation, thereby
enabling them to continue eating conveniently yet unconsciously, which
is extremely hazardous to their health. In the United States, the animal
food and junk food industries financially support and bias most nutritional
research in major universities and institutions. Over the last five decades,
the largest contributors to Harvard for nutritional research have been the
sugar, meat and dairy industries. Specifically these include: the American
Meat Institute, Coca Cola, the Florida Sugar Cane League, Frito-Lay,
Hershey Foods, McDonald's, National Dairy Council, the National Meat
and Livestock Board, Oscar Mayer, General Mills, General Foods,
Pillsbury, the Sugar Research Foundation, the National Confectioners
Association, and the Tuna Research Foundation, just to name a few.
The American Society of Clinical Nutrition who publishes the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, is supported by CocaCola, NutraSweet,
Nabisco, Borden, and numerous pharmaceutical companies. Hello?
Do we have a conflict of interest here? Industrial food giants control
diet recommendations in the United States. Animal and dairy food
industries have used false nutritional dogma for decades to promote
its products (for detail see: The Truth About Protein). Schools and
advertisements teach that meat and dairy foods are essential for
wellness. This is the result of billions of dollars spent to influence
public opinion, public information, and public curriculum. Big industry
is driven by economics, not science. Powerful lobbyists of animal and
junk food industries wield tremendous economic power. Elected and
appointed members of government influenced by political contributions
make dietary recommendations that are at odds with nutritional scientific
research. Even though the USDA's latest food pyramid de-emphasizes
meat, poultry and high-fat foods, publication of the pyramid was delayed
for five years while stronger stances for these products were negotiated. '
I assume all this comes off a link you forgot to include? I agree it casts
a very significant question mark over the integrity of bodies like the
HSPH, USDA and ADA. However what I find strange is that many of
the companies you list as major financiers of this nutritional research
are producers of products that conventional nutrition frowns upon.
Didn't you know,- 'it's all ok' as part of "a balanced diet".
OK once in a while but certainly not encouraged.
McDonalds spends $2 billion on advertising each year.
"Every time you eat at McDonald's you will be eating good,
nutritious food.
Variety is the order of the day. If you eat a Big Mac and
french fries regularly, you should ensure that at other times
you eat different types of foods so that your diet is
balanced and you are eating plenty of minerals, vitamins,
protein and fibre. Think about variety when planning your
meals.
The accompanying tables help you to select the best
McDonald's meal for yourself, by listing exactly what
goes into every single item on the McDonald's menu.
McDonald's meal combinations can form part of YOUR
balanced diet. Here's a selection of popular combinations,
with the information you need to make your choice.
Hamburger, apple pie, milkshake
McChicken sandwich, regular fries, medium diet Coca Cola
Big Mac, strawberry trifle, regular Coca Cola
Filet-o-Fish, regular fries, orange juice
Filet-o-Fish, garden salad, sugared donut, mineral water
http://www.mcspotlight.org/company/publications/nutrition_balance.html
c'mon that isn't a respectable nutrition publication you are quoting
from.
It's McDONALD's propoganda and propoganda is a very apt word for it.
And they aren't called on that by the relevant authorities because ..?
I wasn't aware that any authority on nutrition recommended eating at
McDonanlds beyond proposing that we can get away with it if we don't
indulge too often.
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
McDONALD's
Product Calories Fat
Chicken McNuggets 314 54%
Quarter Pounder 410 45%
Sausage McMuffin 370 53%
Cheese hamburger 310 40%
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/mcd.html
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
------
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
It also makes unsupported assertions that contradict
conventional nutritional wisdom.
For example?
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology: 1. Meat 2. Eggs
3. Cooked foods 4. Refined starches and sugars 5. Salt, herbs,
spices, seasonings, dressings, etc. 6. All processed, preserved,
fragmented, and artificial foods."
------
See SAD 'happy meal' constituents there? Or as you now
put it,- "products that conventional nutrition frowns upon"?
Yes some of those products are frowned upon; Refined starches and sugars,
salt, artificial and overprocessed foods. Many authorities also frown upon
red processed or high fat meats.
'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate
for all stages of the lifecycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy,
childhood and adolescence. Appropriately planned vegetarian diets are
healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention
and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain diseases' are the killer
epidemics of today - heart disease, strokes, cancers, diabetes etc.
The Meta-Analysis http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/70/3/516S.pdf
established a correlation between meat and Ischemic Heart disease
but not with the other diseases you mention. It may well be that
vegetarian diets reduce the risk of these but I question whether there
is sufficient data to give a definitive verdict.
Many individual studies do find a correlation with those diseases.
I'm sure they do. Have any of these correlations been firmly
established
by the pooled data of all relevant studies?
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
This is the view of the world's most prestigious health advisory body, the
American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, after a review
'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease, high
blood pressure, large bowel disorders, cancers and gall stones.'
I'm sure this is true but less sure whether we can ascribe this to the
absense of meat or whether other factors may be involved.
At least in part to an absence of meat.
Post by Dave
I understand
that vegetarians are more health conscious than non vegetarians as
a general rule.
If true, that alone should tell you something.
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
The World Health Organization thinks similarly: 'Diets associated with
increases in chronic diseases are those rich in sugar, meat and other
animal products, saturated fat and dietary cholesterol.'
Absolutely. It is widely accepted that excessive consumption of sugar
or animal products is not a recipe for good health. What is less clear,
at least to me, is whether the idea ratio of plant to animal foods is
1.
My guess is probably not but I don't know.
1 : 0
'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of
dietary plant food composition that suggested an absence of a
disease prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an
all-plant foods diet, the greater will be the reduction in the rates
of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogenesis_paper.html
Tom Billings has a few words to say about the study.
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8e.shtml#china%20proj
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
....
http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Herbs, some spices,
Are used very sparingly- for a reason. They are not 'foods'.
How are they not foods?
'As you learn more about herbs, you'll realize that a lot
of culinary herbs can be used medicinally, as well, ..
..
When properly used, herbs are the safest and surest
medicines available However, one must be well aware
of the power of herbs both to heal and, if misused, to
cause imbalance.
Are you saying that commonly used herbs like mint,
basil and parsley would cause unhealthy inbalances if
we started treating them as vegetables rather than herbs?
Post by pearl
..
http://www.motherearthnews.com/top_articles/1985_July_August/An_Herbal_Medicine_Chest
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
cooked
'Today's 'nutritionists' are subservient to the "basic four food groups"
and "food group pyramid" concepts as perpetuated by big industry in
this country. According to these nutritionists, humans do not have a
fixed diet as other animals in nature. Rather, we are omnivorous creatures
that are supposed to partake of numerous cooked foods at virtually every
meal in order to satisfy our nutritional requirements. Of the 80 millions
species on earth, all thrive on raw fresh food. Only humans cook their
food.
Humans are the only species that have used fire for several
generations.
But how has that changed our natural biological requirements,
if, as you have agreed, cooking can destroy some nutrients?
I don't know. I guess that our ability to use fire has reduced our
body's
ability to extract nutrients from tough raw foods because such a skill
was no longer needed. I am not suggesting 100% cooked diet.
Fresh salads are a good way of obtaining heat unstable nutrients
like vitamin C.
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
As far as I know most animals will happily eat cooked foods when it is
presented to them. Bread is frequently used to feed birds. Rats, foxes
and other animals eat cooked foods that have been thrown away.
Pets sometimes eat cooked foods and pigs frequently dispose of
leftovers. Whether they would thrive on such a diet I don't know
but I'm certainly not aware of any evidence that it does them any harm.
Are you?
I'm not, no.
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Cooking equates to fire. Fire burns and destroys living tissue
including nutrients,
Some nutrients are destroyed by cooking but the same can be said
of anti-nutrients. For example, phytate is a compound found in plant
cells that inhibits the absorbtion of minerals like iron and zinc.
In "Becoming Vegan" the following processes are said to reduce
this effect: Leavening of wholegrain bread, roasting of nuts,
soaking of beans prior to cooking, fermentation of soya beans,
sprouting of grains, seeds and legumes.
The bioavailability of beta Carotene in carrots and lycopenes
in tomatoes is improved by cooking. Soya beans are dangerous
to eat unprocessed because of their trypsin inhibitors.
Some nutrients are destroyed by cooking.
Yes so eat some raw food.
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
turning them into toxic substances. ..
Cooking creates some toxic substances but some natural
toxins and pathogenic bacteria are destroyed by cooking.
I don't believe there is a single source of food available to
us that doesn't contain any toxic chemicals. If our liver
wasn't able to cope with the toxins in cooked food we wouldn't
be here.
Our bodies can cope with occasional, not long-term abuse.
Avoiding toxic substances in the environment and the food we
eat is not possible.
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
It is no
coincidence that cancer, heart attacks, stroke, diabetes and chronic
disease kill humans at half their potential life span. Species in nature live
on average, seven times past their age of maturity. Humans mature in
their late teens to early twenties. Do the math. The average life span in
robust health for humans is actually well over 100-140 years
Invalid extrapolation. Wishful thinking. A small number of humans do
live to this sort of age and I doubt many, if any live wild.
You have already seen a fair bit of evidence that they do.
I didn't realise the Uygur were "wild".
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
when we
live each day according to the Essentials of Health. Lethargic lifestyles
and far too many toxic 'empty' calories from food that we are not
biologically adapted to, kills us at midlife. '
I suggest that you go back and read the first post in the thread.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
wholegrain
products like like rice or wholewheat bread,
'Even eating predominantly of whole grains and natural legumes
as dietary staples can be injurious because of the need for
excessive starch digestion'
Where is the evidence for this?
Acute Metabolic Response to High-Carbohydrate, High-Starch
Meals Compared With Moderate-Carbohydrate, Low-Starch
Meals in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/reprint/21/10/1619.pdf
Thanks. I read the summary at the front but confess I didn't read the
whole article. "A diet in which fruit, non-starch vegetables and
dairy products are emphasized may be useful for people with type
two diabetes" Is there any suggestion that similar advice should
be heeded by people without type 2 diabetes?
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
'To enjoy an energetic, youthful, disease-free life, eat a varied diet
predominantly of foods you are biologically adapted to: raw fresh
fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, sprouted grains, and perhaps
occasional legumes and tubers.'
Post by p***@hotmail.com
cooked legumes,
'a diet predominating in fresh, raw fruit with a moderate amount
of fresh, raw vegetables, nuts, seeds, and perhaps occasional
meals that include beans and legumes cooked conservatively.'
Not "utterly condemned" then.
Apparantly not although later in the article cooked foods (legumes
not specifically exempted) are deemed "disruptive of human health".
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
tofu,
'The following foods, while not optimum, can be handled
by human digestive physiology in moderate amounts
when properly combined: 1. Starchy vegetables 2. Grains
3. Cereals and 4. Legumes. '
Tofu is a processed food and therefore according to your
site is injurious to the health and ideally should not be
consumed at all.
Tofu is the coagulated 'milk' from soaked, pressed soybeans.
I don't think that is what was intended by 'processed foods'.
['Low RDA's are maintained so processed food products
do not appear as deficient as they actually are ..
Processed food and fast food producers use portion size
and weight to calculate information, ... ']
'So what are processed foods ?
I'd have thought anything that was eaten in a state other
than the state in which it is found in nature is processed.
You can distinguish between "minimally processed" and
"extensively processed" but tofu is still processed by
definition.
Post by pearl
Processed foods include those that have been artificially
coloured, blended, or enriched to provide different flavours,
textures and colour. Almost all processed foods contain
many different chemicals and additives to help stabilise and
preserve the texture, colour, flavour and freshness of the food.
Additives including; animal and vegetable fats, salt, colour
dyes and chemical flavours are added to food to make them
more appealing. In addition, preservatives like nitrates,
sulphates and salt, are added to prolong the shelf-life of
processed foods.
..'
http://www.cancer.ie/text/cancerInfo/diet.php
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
olive oil,
'The following foods, while usually eaten on a vegetarian diet,
are not well adapted to man's physiology and therefore place
an undue strain on the organism: 1. Free oils 2. Dairy products.'
- So use olive olive sparingly.
Actually that one is probably fair enough.
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
sauteed garlic
I've read that frying garlic produces toxic components.
Frying anything produces toxic compounds. Garlic is
thought to be highly beneficial to the health but really
isn't the sort of thing you'd eat raw. Sauteeing is
probably the best solution.
Cooking reduces its antibiotic, antiviral and antifungal
properties.
I'll take your word for that. It sounds plausible.
Post by pearl
It can be crushed and eaten raw in salads.
True.
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
and steamed broccoli is a partial list of products that
generally receive a positive press
Steamed broccoli, or broccoli generally?
Brocolli generally but cooking makes it more
digestable and palatable.
Have you ever eaten raw broccoli? Try some florets in a salad.
Small florets in a salad are edible but if I was eating brocolli
in significant quantities I'd rather have it steamed.
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
but are utterley condemned by the article on your website.
Hyperbole.
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology:"
How can this be described as anything less than a total
and unequivocal condemnation of these foods?
But "products that conventional nutrition frowns upon".
Cooked and "naturally" *processed* foods are not frowned upon by
conventional nutrition.
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
<..>
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
However reporting the results of a meta-
Analysis seems more "honest" for want of a better word than
reporting the results of the one (Adventist Health) that best
suits your agenda.
And now you're lying about what I post. Bravo!
On several occasions you have cited the Adventist Health study
in support of veg*n diets.
Just that "one" study?
No, that isn't the only study you use to present your case but it is
one of the main ones.
Thereby admitting that what you wrote above is false.
You frequently do cite it without citing any of the other studies included
in the meta-analysis into vegetarian and non-vegetarian mortality rates.
'The Adventist Health Study: Mortality studies of Seventh-day
Adventists
Seventh-day Adventists have increasingly become the objects
of epidemiologic studies, both because they tend to be far more
homogeneous in many lifestyle choices and because they are
more heterogeneous in nutritional habits than the general population.
Certain lifestyle characteristics, such as heavy cigarette smoking,
consumption of alcohol, and diets heavy in fats may confound or
modify the effects of other factors, making it difficult to study them.
In the Adventist population, these potentially distorting
characteristics are largely absent, making other factors more
easily observed. Perhaps even more importantly, the wide
range of dietary habits, from strict vegetarianism to a normal
American diet, greatly enhances the ability of investigators.
..'
http://www.llu.edu/llu/health/mortality.html
Fewer confounding factors which need to be adjusted for,
as well as a much greater likelihood of long-term adherence.
OK. I don't know how well the other studies were designed. Maybe
I'll look into it later.
pearl
2006-02-05 02:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
<..>
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
It also makes unsupported assertions that contradict
conventional nutritional wisdom.
For example?
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology: 1. Meat 2. Eggs
3. Cooked foods 4. Refined starches and sugars 5. Salt, herbs,
spices, seasonings, dressings, etc. 6. All processed, preserved,
fragmented, and artificial foods."
I see.. "conventional nutritional wisdom".
'Health vs. Profit: A Major Conflict of Interest
We are continually led to believe that disease causation is a mystery,
or is genetically beyond our control. Most people are eager for excuses
to avoid scientific facts regarding diet and disease causation, thereby
enabling them to continue eating conveniently yet unconsciously, which
is extremely hazardous to their health. In the United States, the animal
food and junk food industries financially support and bias most nutritional
research in major universities and institutions. Over the last five decades,
the largest contributors to Harvard for nutritional research have been the
sugar, meat and dairy industries. Specifically these include: the American
Meat Institute, Coca Cola, the Florida Sugar Cane League, Frito-Lay,
Hershey Foods, McDonald's, National Dairy Council, the National Meat
and Livestock Board, Oscar Mayer, General Mills, General Foods,
Pillsbury, the Sugar Research Foundation, the National Confectioners
Association, and the Tuna Research Foundation, just to name a few.
The American Society of Clinical Nutrition who publishes the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, is supported by CocaCola, NutraSweet,
Nabisco, Borden, and numerous pharmaceutical companies. Hello?
Do we have a conflict of interest here? Industrial food giants control
diet recommendations in the United States. Animal and dairy food
industries have used false nutritional dogma for decades to promote
its products (for detail see: The Truth About Protein). Schools and
advertisements teach that meat and dairy foods are essential for
wellness. This is the result of billions of dollars spent to influence
public opinion, public information, and public curriculum. Big industry
is driven by economics, not science. Powerful lobbyists of animal and
junk food industries wield tremendous economic power. Elected and
appointed members of government influenced by political contributions
make dietary recommendations that are at odds with nutritional scientific
research. Even though the USDA's latest food pyramid de-emphasizes
meat, poultry and high-fat foods, publication of the pyramid was delayed
for five years while stronger stances for these products were negotiated. '
I assume all this comes off a link you forgot to include? I agree it casts
a very significant question mark over the integrity of bodies like the
HSPH, USDA and ADA. However what I find strange is that many of
the companies you list as major financiers of this nutritional research
are producers of products that conventional nutrition frowns upon.
Didn't you know,- 'it's all ok' as part of "a balanced diet".
OK once in a while but certainly not encouraged.
McDonalds spends $2 billion on advertising each year.
"Every time you eat at McDonald's you will be eating good,
nutritious food.
Variety is the order of the day. If you eat a Big Mac and
french fries regularly, you should ensure that at other times
you eat different types of foods so that your diet is
balanced and you are eating plenty of minerals, vitamins,
protein and fibre. Think about variety when planning your
meals.
The accompanying tables help you to select the best
McDonald's meal for yourself, by listing exactly what
goes into every single item on the McDonald's menu.
McDonald's meal combinations can form part of YOUR
balanced diet. Here's a selection of popular combinations,
with the information you need to make your choice.
Hamburger, apple pie, milkshake
McChicken sandwich, regular fries, medium diet Coca Cola
Big Mac, strawberry trifle, regular Coca Cola
Filet-o-Fish, regular fries, orange juice
Filet-o-Fish, garden salad, sugared donut, mineral water
http://www.mcspotlight.org/company/publications/nutrition_balance.html
c'mon that isn't a respectable nutrition publication you are quoting
from.
It's McDONALD's propoganda and propoganda is a very apt word for it.
And they aren't called on that by the relevant authorities because ..?
I wasn't aware that any authority on nutrition recommended eating at
McDonanlds beyond proposing that we can get away with it if we don't
indulge too often.
I thought that making false claims in advertising was illegal.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
McDONALD's
Product Calories Fat
Chicken McNuggets 314 54%
Quarter Pounder 410 45%
Sausage McMuffin 370 53%
Cheese hamburger 310 40%
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/mcd.html
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
------
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
It also makes unsupported assertions that contradict
conventional nutritional wisdom.
For example?
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology: 1. Meat 2. Eggs
3. Cooked foods 4. Refined starches and sugars 5. Salt, herbs,
spices, seasonings, dressings, etc. 6. All processed, preserved,
fragmented, and artificial foods."
------
See SAD 'happy meal' constituents there? Or as you now
put it,- "products that conventional nutrition frowns upon"?
Yes some of those products are frowned upon; Refined starches and sugars,
salt, artificial and overprocessed foods. Many authorities also frown upon
red processed or high fat meats.
'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate
for all stages of the lifecycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy,
childhood and adolescence. Appropriately planned vegetarian diets are
healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention
and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain diseases' are the killer
epidemics of today - heart disease, strokes, cancers, diabetes etc.
The Meta-Analysis http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/70/3/516S.pdf
established a correlation between meat and Ischemic Heart disease
but not with the other diseases you mention. It may well be that
vegetarian diets reduce the risk of these but I question whether there
is sufficient data to give a definitive verdict.
Many individual studies do find a correlation with those diseases.
I'm sure they do. Have any of these correlations been firmly established
by the pooled data of all relevant studies?
'This is the view of the world's most prestigious health advisory
body, the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada,
after a review of world literature. '

The meta-analysis you like to cite from missed a lot..

'Scientists may have found meat link to colon cancer
Wed Feb 1, 2006 12:38 AM ET

By Patricia Reaney
LONDON (Reuters) - Scientists said on Tuesday they may
have found a reason why eating too much red meat increases
the risk of colorectal cancer.

By studying cells from volunteers eating different diets, they
discovered that red meat raises levels of compounds in the
large bowel which can alter DNA and increase the likelihood
of cancer.

"It is the first definite link between red meat and the very first
stage in cancer," said Professor Sheila Bingham, of the
Medical Research Council Dunn Nutrition Unit in Cambridge,
England.

In earlier research, Bingham and her team showed there was
a strong correlation between eating red and processed meat
and the risk of colon cancer.

The chance of developing colorectal cancer was a third higher
in people who regularly ate more than two portions of red or
processed meat a day compared to someone who ate less
than one portion a week.

In their latest study, published in the journal Cancer Research,
the scientists studied cells from the lining of the colon from
people who consumed red meat, vegetarian, high red meat or
high fiber diets for 15 days.

"We looked at whether eating red meat alters the DNA of
these cells," Bingham told Reuters.

They found that red meat consumption was linked to increased
levels of substances called N-nitrosocompounds, which are
formed in the large bowel. The compounds may stick to DNA,
making it more likely to undergo mutations that increase the
odds of cancer.

The DNA damage may be repaired naturally in the body, and
fiber in the diet may help the process. But if it isn't, cancer
can develop, Bingham said.

The scientists said the findings could help to develop a
screening test for very early changes related to the disease.

Colorectal is one of the most common cancers in developed
countries. More than 940,000 cases are diagnosed each year
and about 492,000 people die from the illness, according to
the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) in Lyon,
France.

A diet rich in fat, animal protein and refined carbohydrates
and lack of exercise are risk factors for the illness. Most
cases are in people over 60 years old and about 5 percent
of them are inherited.

Health experts estimate that about 70 percent of colorectal
cancers could be prevented by changes in diet and nutrition.
Diarrhea, constipation and rectal bleeding can be symptoms.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-02-01T053831Z_01_L30758771_RTRUKOC_0_US-CANCER-MEAT.xml
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
This is the view of the world's most prestigious health advisory body, the
American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, after a review
'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease, high
blood pressure, large bowel disorders, cancers and gall stones.'
I'm sure this is true but less sure whether we can ascribe this to the
absense of meat or whether other factors may be involved.
At least in part to an absence of meat.
Post by Dave
I understand
that vegetarians are more health conscious than non vegetarians as
a general rule.
If true, that alone should tell you something.
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
The World Health Organization thinks similarly: 'Diets associated with
increases in chronic diseases are those rich in sugar, meat and other
animal products, saturated fat and dietary cholesterol.'
Absolutely. It is widely accepted that excessive consumption of sugar
or animal products is not a recipe for good health. What is less clear,
at least to me, is whether the idea ratio of plant to animal foods is
1.
My guess is probably not but I don't know.
1 : 0
'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of
dietary plant food composition that suggested an absence of a
disease prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an
all-plant foods diet, the greater will be the reduction in the rates
of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogenesis_paper.html
Tom Billings has a few words to say about the study.
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8e.shtml#china%20proj
Of course, .. it blows his leaky boat right out of the water.

See; http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/ChinaProject/ .
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
....
http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Herbs, some spices,
Are used very sparingly- for a reason. They are not 'foods'.
How are they not foods?
'As you learn more about herbs, you'll realize that a lot
of culinary herbs can be used medicinally, as well, ..
..
When properly used, herbs are the safest and surest
medicines available However, one must be well aware
of the power of herbs both to heal and, if misused, to
cause imbalance.
Are you saying that commonly used herbs like mint,
basil and parsley would cause unhealthy inbalances if
we started treating them as vegetables rather than herbs?
'Like all mint family plants, pennyroyal owes much of its
medicinal activity to the presence of a volatile oil. The
primary component of this oil is known as pulegone.
Pulegone is converted to menthofuran by the body. If
large enough amounts of pulegone are consumed, the
amount of menthofuran produced can seriously damage
the liver and nervous system.3
http://www.deliciouslivingmag.com/healthnotes/healthnotes.cfm?org=nh?=EN?=EN&ContentID=2144001

'There is little available literature on the toxicity of
Ocimum spp. However, O. basilicum, the species that
appears to be used the most medicinally and the one for
which the most analysis has been done, contains several
potentially dangerous compounds. Some of these
compounds are: safrole, rutin, caffeic acid, tryptophan,
and quercetin.
...'
http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/plants/medicinal/basil.html

'A chemical found in the oil-rich seeds of parsley has
abortifacient properties. For this reason, women should
not use parsley during pregnancy or lactation. Parsley
irritates the epithelial tissues of the kidney, increasing
blood flow and filtration rate; therefore persons with
kidney disease should not take this herb internally
without consultation with a qualified herbalist or
physician. According to the PDR for Herbal Medicine,
the daily dose of parsley in medicinal preparations is
2.1 oz (6 g). Parsley's volatile oil is toxic in high doses,
and overdose can lead to poisonings.
...'
http://health.enotes.com/alternative-medicine-encyclopedia/parsley
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
..
http://www.motherearthnews.com/top_articles/1985_July_August/An_Herbal_Medicine_Chest
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
cooked
'Today's 'nutritionists' are subservient to the "basic four food groups"
and "food group pyramid" concepts as perpetuated by big industry in
this country. According to these nutritionists, humans do not have a
fixed diet as other animals in nature. Rather, we are omnivorous creatures
that are supposed to partake of numerous cooked foods at virtually every
meal in order to satisfy our nutritional requirements. Of the 80 millions
species on earth, all thrive on raw fresh food. Only humans cook their
food.
Humans are the only species that have used fire for several
generations.
But how has that changed our natural biological requirements,
if, as you have agreed, cooking can destroy some nutrients?
I don't know. I guess that our ability to use fire has reduced our body's
ability to extract nutrients from tough raw foods because such a skill
was no longer needed. I am not suggesting 100% cooked diet.
Fresh salads are a good way of obtaining heat unstable nutrients
like vitamin C.
But still less than we'd get eating 100% raw.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
As far as I know most animals will happily eat cooked foods when it is
presented to them. Bread is frequently used to feed birds. Rats, foxes
and other animals eat cooked foods that have been thrown away.
Pets sometimes eat cooked foods and pigs frequently dispose of
leftovers. Whether they would thrive on such a diet I don't know
but I'm certainly not aware of any evidence that it does them any harm.
Are you?
I'm not, no.
There's this:

'Dr. Francis Pottenger in 1932, who conducted an experiment
to determine the effect of cooked foods in cats. For 10 years,
Pottenger fed half of the cats a diet of raw foods, the other half
a diet of cooked foods. At the conclusion of his study, he
reported that the cats who were fed raw foods appeared to be
in better health. In addition, the exclusively cooked diet led to
congenital problems including birth defects and deformities,
after several generations.
http://www.kopete.org/Raw-diet.html
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Cooking equates to fire. Fire burns and destroys living tissue
including nutrients,
Some nutrients are destroyed by cooking but the same can be said
of anti-nutrients. For example, phytate is a compound found in plant
cells that inhibits the absorbtion of minerals like iron and zinc.
In "Becoming Vegan" the following processes are said to reduce
this effect: Leavening of wholegrain bread, roasting of nuts,
soaking of beans prior to cooking, fermentation of soya beans,
sprouting of grains, seeds and legumes.
The bioavailability of beta Carotene in carrots and lycopenes
in tomatoes is improved by cooking. Soya beans are dangerous
to eat unprocessed because of their trypsin inhibitors.
Some nutrients are destroyed by cooking.
Yes so eat some raw food.
But I'd get less of those nutrients than I would eating 100% raw.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
turning them into toxic substances. ..
Cooking creates some toxic substances but some natural
toxins and pathogenic bacteria are destroyed by cooking.
I don't believe there is a single source of food available to
us that doesn't contain any toxic chemicals. If our liver
wasn't able to cope with the toxins in cooked food we wouldn't
be here.
Our bodies can cope with occasional, not long-term abuse.
Avoiding toxic substances in the environment and the food we
eat is not possible.
We can choose organic and to eat at least predominantly raw.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
It is no
coincidence that cancer, heart attacks, stroke, diabetes and chronic
disease kill humans at half their potential life span. Species in nature live
on average, seven times past their age of maturity. Humans mature in
their late teens to early twenties. Do the math. The average life span in
robust health for humans is actually well over 100-140 years
Invalid extrapolation. Wishful thinking. A small number of humans do
live to this sort of age and I doubt many, if any live wild.
You have already seen a fair bit of evidence that they do.
I didn't realise the Uygur were "wild".
The issue is the potential lifespan of humans in robust health.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
when we
live each day according to the Essentials of Health. Lethargic lifestyles
and far too many toxic 'empty' calories from food that we are not
biologically adapted to, kills us at midlife. '
I suggest that you go back and read the first post in the thread.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
wholegrain
products like like rice or wholewheat bread,
'Even eating predominantly of whole grains and natural legumes
as dietary staples can be injurious because of the need for
excessive starch digestion'
Where is the evidence for this?
Acute Metabolic Response to High-Carbohydrate, High-Starch
Meals Compared With Moderate-Carbohydrate, Low-Starch
Meals in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/reprint/21/10/1619.pdf
Thanks. I read the summary at the front but confess I didn't read the
whole article. "A diet in which fruit, non-starch vegetables and
dairy products are emphasized may be useful for people with type
two diabetes" Is there any suggestion that similar advice should
be heeded by people without type 2 diabetes?
'Current advice to increase the intake of starchy foods such as
potatoes may lead to a greater risk of diabetes (Eu J Clin Nutr
1999; 53: 249-54), abdominal obesity, elevated blood lipids,
hypertension and heart disease.

An important finding of GI research is that foods containing
refined sugars often have less glycaemic impact than starchy
staples like bread.
..'
http://www.healthyeatingclub.org/info/articles/diseases/glycaemic-index.htm

That does not seem to apply to whole grains however, so
the author may have been referring to digestive enzymes.
See http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag99/apr99-cover.html .
If I come across any other relevant research, I'll post it.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
'To enjoy an energetic, youthful, disease-free life, eat a varied diet
predominantly of foods you are biologically adapted to: raw fresh
fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, sprouted grains, and perhaps
occasional legumes and tubers.'
Post by p***@hotmail.com
cooked legumes,
'a diet predominating in fresh, raw fruit with a moderate amount
of fresh, raw vegetables, nuts, seeds, and perhaps occasional
meals that include beans and legumes cooked conservatively.'
Not "utterly condemned" then.
Apparantly not although later in the article cooked foods (legumes
not specifically exempted) are deemed "disruptive of human health".
Which is why consumption should be only occasional.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
tofu,
'The following foods, while not optimum, can be handled
by human digestive physiology in moderate amounts
when properly combined: 1. Starchy vegetables 2. Grains
3. Cereals and 4. Legumes. '
Tofu is a processed food and therefore according to your
site is injurious to the health and ideally should not be
consumed at all.
Tofu is the coagulated 'milk' from soaked, pressed soybeans.
I don't think that is what was intended by 'processed foods'.
['Low RDA's are maintained so processed food products
do not appear as deficient as they actually are ..
Processed food and fast food producers use portion size
and weight to calculate information, ... ']
'So what are processed foods ?
I'd have thought anything that was eaten in a state other
than the state in which it is found in nature is processed.
You can distinguish between "minimally processed" and
"extensively processed" but tofu is still processed by
definition.
The meaning here then is "extensively processed".
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Processed foods include those that have been artificially
coloured, blended, or enriched to provide different flavours,
textures and colour. Almost all processed foods contain
many different chemicals and additives to help stabilise and
preserve the texture, colour, flavour and freshness of the food.
Additives including; animal and vegetable fats, salt, colour
dyes and chemical flavours are added to food to make them
more appealing. In addition, preservatives like nitrates,
sulphates and salt, are added to prolong the shelf-life of
processed foods.
..'
http://www.cancer.ie/text/cancerInfo/diet.php
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
olive oil,
'The following foods, while usually eaten on a vegetarian diet,
are not well adapted to man's physiology and therefore place
an undue strain on the organism: 1. Free oils 2. Dairy products.'
- So use olive olive sparingly.
Actually that one is probably fair enough.
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
sauteed garlic
I've read that frying garlic produces toxic components.
Frying anything produces toxic compounds. Garlic is
thought to be highly beneficial to the health but really
isn't the sort of thing you'd eat raw. Sauteeing is
probably the best solution.
Cooking reduces its antibiotic, antiviral and antifungal
properties.
I'll take your word for that. It sounds plausible.
Post by pearl
It can be crushed and eaten raw in salads.
True.
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
and steamed broccoli is a partial list of products that
generally receive a positive press
Steamed broccoli, or broccoli generally?
Brocolli generally but cooking makes it more
digestable and palatable.
Have you ever eaten raw broccoli? Try some florets in a salad.
Small florets in a salad are edible but if I was eating brocolli
in significant quantities I'd rather have it steamed.
I rather a wider variety, with raw brocolli, every day- making
the overall, ongoing intake significant, than eating a small daily
variety of a larger (but infrequent) portion of a steamed veg'.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
but are utterley condemned by the article on your website.
Hyperbole.
"Finally, this last group of foods is definitely disruptive of human
health and are not compatible with our physiology:"
How can this be described as anything less than a total
and unequivocal condemnation of these foods?
But "products that conventional nutrition frowns upon".
Cooked and "naturally" *processed* foods are not frowned upon by
conventional nutrition.
But the other items on the list are.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
<..>
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
However reporting the results of a meta-
Analysis seems more "honest" for want of a better word than
reporting the results of the one (Adventist Health) that best
suits your agenda.
And now you're lying about what I post. Bravo!
On several occasions you have cited the Adventist Health study
in support of veg*n diets.
Just that "one" study?
No, that isn't the only study you use to present your case but it is
one of the main ones.
Thereby admitting that what you wrote above is false.
You frequently do cite it without citing any of the other studies included
in the meta-analysis into vegetarian and non-vegetarian mortality rates.
'The Adventist Health Study: Mortality studies of Seventh-day
Adventists
Seventh-day Adventists have increasingly become the objects
of epidemiologic studies, both because they tend to be far more
homogeneous in many lifestyle choices and because they are
more heterogeneous in nutritional habits than the general population.
Certain lifestyle characteristics, such as heavy cigarette smoking,
consumption of alcohol, and diets heavy in fats may confound or
modify the effects of other factors, making it difficult to study them.
In the Adventist population, these potentially distorting
characteristics are largely absent, making other factors more
easily observed. Perhaps even more importantly, the wide
range of dietary habits, from strict vegetarianism to a normal
American diet, greatly enhances the ability of investigators.
..'
http://www.llu.edu/llu/health/mortality.html
Fewer confounding factors which need to be adjusted for,
as well as a much greater likelihood of long-term adherence.
OK. I don't know how well the other studies were designed. Maybe
I'll look into it later.
Right.
Leif Erikson
2006-01-11 16:47:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Prehistoric Human
Post by pearl
Post by Prehistoric Human
Interesting article. I did notice , though, that in the 1999 study
discussed, where there were health problems with many of the raw foodists,
that they were vegan raw foodists (I saw that on another website which
discussed that same study).
Link please. Were they eating exclusively organic produce?
Post by Prehistoric Human
My argument doesn't apply to the vegan raw diet
of course, since humans didn't evolve on that.
Humans have no carnivorous adaptation.
See;
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .
The article
It isn't an "article" at all, Dave. It's her OWN SITE,
where she has tediously reproduced some "vegan"
propaganda she *stole* from another site.

Lesley ("pearl's" real name; she's a foot masseuse in
Cork, Ireland, and also a prostitute) has *zero*
academic background in any field that would allow her
to speak authoritatively on human nutrition issues.
She's a weird, anti-scientific "vegan" propagandist.

Look at Tom Billings's excellent Beyond Vegetarianism
site, specifically
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-toc6.shtml,
for a good survey of the *true* science concerning
human adaptations to meat eating. The scientific facts
are, humans *first* evolved as omnivorous meat eaters,
because the hominid ancestor species were themselves
omnivorous meat eaters.
Post by Prehistoric Human
does not analyse in detail what happens to meat
inside our digestive system. All it does is make qualitative
anatomical comparisons between different animal species.
p***@hotmail.com
2006-01-12 00:45:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Prehistoric Human
Post by pearl
Post by Prehistoric Human
Interesting article. I did notice , though, that in the 1999 study
discussed, where there were health problems with many of the raw foodists,
that they were vegan raw foodists (I saw that on another website which
discussed that same study).
Link please. Were they eating exclusively organic produce?
Post by Prehistoric Human
My argument doesn't apply to the vegan raw diet
of course, since humans didn't evolve on that.
Humans have no carnivorous adaptation.
See;
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .
The article
It isn't an "article" at all, Dave. It's her OWN SITE,
where she has tediously reproduced some "vegan"
propaganda she *stole* from another site.
I thought she placed it on her webspace with the author's
permission.
Post by Leif Erikson
Lesley ("pearl's" real name; she's a foot masseuse in
Cork, Ireland, and also a prostitute)
Truth or fiction. I don't really care. It's none of my business
and it's none of yours either. Why are you so obsessed with
being hateful. Get a f***ing life!
Post by Leif Erikson
has *zero*
academic background in any field that would allow her
to speak authoritatively on human nutrition issues.
She's a weird, anti-scientific "vegan" propagandist.
Look at Tom Billings's excellent Beyond Vegetarianism
site, specifically
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-toc6.shtml,
for a good survey of the *true* science concerning
human adaptations to meat eating. The scientific facts
are, humans *first* evolved as omnivorous meat eaters,
because the hominid ancestor species were themselves
omnivorous meat eaters.
I've seen the article. I don't have the academic background to
know how accurate the link is but it certainly seems more
plausible to me than the article published on Pearl's website.
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Prehistoric Human
does not analyse in detail what happens to meat
inside our digestive system. All it does is make qualitative
anatomical comparisons between different animal species.
pearl
2006-01-12 13:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Prehistoric Human
Post by pearl
Post by Prehistoric Human
Interesting article. I did notice , though, that in the 1999 study
discussed, where there were health problems with many of the raw foodists,
that they were vegan raw foodists (I saw that on another website which
discussed that same study).
Link please. Were they eating exclusively organic produce?
Post by Prehistoric Human
My argument doesn't apply to the vegan raw diet
of course, since humans didn't evolve on that.
Humans have no carnivorous adaptation.
See;
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .
The article
It isn't an "article" at all, Dave. It's her OWN SITE,
where she has tediously reproduced some "vegan"
propaganda she *stole* from another site.
I thought she placed it on her webspace with the author's
permission.
That is correct.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Leif Erikson
Lesley ("pearl's" real name; she's a foot masseuse in
Cork, Ireland, and also a prostitute)
Truth or fiction.
Fiction.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
I don't really care. It's none of my business
and it's none of yours either. Why are you so obsessed with
being hateful. Get a f***ing life!
Post by Leif Erikson
has *zero*
academic background in any field that would allow her
to speak authoritatively on human nutrition issues.
She's a weird, anti-scientific "vegan" propagandist.
More fiction.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Leif Erikson
Look at Tom Billings's excellent Beyond Vegetarianism
site, specifically
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-toc6.shtml,
for a good survey of the *true* science concerning
human adaptations to meat eating. The scientific facts
are, humans *first* evolved as omnivorous meat eaters,
because the hominid ancestor species were themselves
omnivorous meat eaters.
I've seen the article. I don't have the academic background to
know how accurate the link is but it certainly seems more
plausible to me than the article published on Pearl's website.
beyondveg is load of spin.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Prehistoric Human
does not analyse in detail what happens to meat
inside our digestive system. All it does is make qualitative
anatomical comparisons between different animal species.
cathyb
2006-01-12 14:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Prehistoric Human
Post by pearl
Post by Prehistoric Human
Interesting article. I did notice , though, that in the 1999 study
discussed, where there were health problems with many of the raw foodists,
that they were vegan raw foodists (I saw that on another website which
discussed that same study).
Link please. Were they eating exclusively organic produce?
Post by Prehistoric Human
My argument doesn't apply to the vegan raw diet
of course, since humans didn't evolve on that.
Humans have no carnivorous adaptation.
See;
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .
The article
It isn't an "article" at all, Dave. It's her OWN SITE,
where she has tediously reproduced some "vegan"
propaganda she *stole* from another site.
I thought she placed it on her webspace with the author's
permission.
That is correct.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Leif Erikson
Lesley ("pearl's" real name; she's a foot masseuse in
Cork, Ireland, and also a prostitute)
Truth or fiction.
Fiction.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
I don't really care. It's none of my business
and it's none of yours either. Why are you so obsessed with
being hateful. Get a f***ing life!
Post by Leif Erikson
has *zero*
academic background in any field that would allow her
to speak authoritatively on human nutrition issues.
She's a weird, anti-scientific "vegan" propagandist.
More fiction.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Leif Erikson
Look at Tom Billings's excellent Beyond Vegetarianism
site, specifically
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-toc6.shtml,
for a good survey of the *true* science concerning
human adaptations to meat eating. The scientific facts
are, humans *first* evolved as omnivorous meat eaters,
because the hominid ancestor species were themselves
omnivorous meat eaters.
I've seen the article. I don't have the academic background to
know how accurate the link is but it certainly seems more
plausible to me than the article published on Pearl's website.
beyondveg is load of spin.
Stunning argument. Very convincing:)
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Prehistoric Human
does not analyse in detail what happens to meat
inside our digestive system. All it does is make qualitative
anatomical comparisons between different animal species.
pearl
2006-01-12 14:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
beyondveg is load of spin.
Stunning argument. Very convincing:)
Go for it. Where would you like to start?
cathyb
2006-01-12 15:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
beyondveg is load of spin.
Stunning argument. Very convincing:)
Go for it. Where would you like to start?
You've slightly missed the point. I'm not particularly interested in
this topic, and I've no interest in vegetarian or raw food diets,
despite having regrettably been a vegetarian for 5 years in my teens
(all those bacon butties I could've had before I was worried about fat
content!).

I was passing, and merely wanted to point out that saying "beyondveg is
load of spin" is hardly a terrific argument without any explanation as
to why you think so.

BTW, are the "beings" you believe live at the centre of the earth
vegetarians?
pearl
2006-01-12 15:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
beyondveg is load of spin.
Stunning argument. Very convincing:)
Go for it. Where would you like to start?
You've slightly missed the point. I'm not particularly interested in
this topic, and I've no interest in vegetarian or raw food diets,
despite having regrettably been a vegetarian for 5 years in my teens
(all those bacon butties I could've had before I was worried about fat
content!).
I was passing, and merely wanted to point out that saying "beyondveg is
load of spin" is hardly a terrific argument without any explanation as
to why you think so.
Backing off so soon. Ok.

I wasn't replying to an argument, but to someone's view.

I gave mine.
Post by cathyb
BTW, are the "beings" you believe live at the centre of the earth
vegetarians?
We can pick up the discussion where you ran away if you like.
cathyb
2006-01-12 16:05:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
beyondveg is load of spin.
Stunning argument. Very convincing:)
Go for it. Where would you like to start?
You've slightly missed the point. I'm not particularly interested in
this topic, and I've no interest in vegetarian or raw food diets,
despite having regrettably been a vegetarian for 5 years in my teens
(all those bacon butties I could've had before I was worried about fat
content!).
I was passing, and merely wanted to point out that saying "beyondveg is
load of spin" is hardly a terrific argument without any explanation as
to why you think so.
Backing off so soon. Ok.
I wasn't replying to an argument, but to someone's view.
I gave mine.
Still no explanation as to why "beyondveg is load of spin" then?
What-everr.
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
BTW, are the "beings" you believe live at the centre of the earth
vegetarians?
We can pick up the discussion where you ran away if you like.
What, they *are* vegetarians?
Leif Erikson
2006-01-12 17:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
beyondveg is load of spin.
Stunning argument. Very convincing:)
Go for it. Where would you like to start?
You've slightly missed the point. I'm not particularly interested in
this topic, and I've no interest in vegetarian or raw food diets,
despite having regrettably been a vegetarian for 5 years in my teens
(all those bacon butties I could've had before I was worried about fat
content!).
I was passing, and merely wanted to point out that saying "beyondveg is
load of spin" is hardly a terrific argument without any explanation as
to why you think so.
Backing off so soon. Ok.
I wasn't replying to an argument, but to someone's view.
I gave mine.
Still no explanation as to why "beyondveg is load of spin" then?
What-everr.
I'm happy to give you the correct explanation of why
lesley ("pearl's" real name) said it, Cathy: It's
because she's a commmitted, true-believer "vegan", and
she can't stand the idea that someone has accumulated a
*thorough* survey of the scientific literature that, in
the end, does not support her whacked-out views.

Lesley is ostensibly a "vegan", meaning a (so-called)
"ethical" vegetarian, but she NEVER ONCE has attempted
to elaborate on the ethics of animal usage; instead,
she is obsessed with trying to "prove" that humans are
not "designed" to eat meat, so she incessantly searches
for and copies from "vegan" extremists' bullshit web
sites a lot of junk "science" that purports to "prove"
that we are "frugivores", etc.
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
BTW, are the "beings" you believe live at the centre of the earth
vegetarians?
We can pick up the discussion where you ran away if you like.
What, they *are* vegetarians?
Heh heh heh!

Her "inner earth beings" crapola was one of the
funniest things she ever posted. Did you click on the
link (http://tinyurl.com/wpqf) and actually read what
she wrote? It's astonishing one could be that far out
of it, but she has *never* repudiated it; she still
believes it.
rick
2006-01-12 22:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
beyondveg is load of spin.
Stunning argument. Very convincing:)
Go for it. Where would you like to start?
You've slightly missed the point. I'm not particularly
interested in
this topic, and I've no interest in vegetarian or raw food
diets,
despite having regrettably been a vegetarian for 5 years in
my teens
(all those bacon butties I could've had before I was worried about fat
content!).
I was passing, and merely wanted to point out that saying
"beyondveg is
load of spin" is hardly a terrific argument without any
explanation as
to why you think so.
Backing off so soon. Ok.
I wasn't replying to an argument, but to someone's view.
I gave mine.
Still no explanation as to why "beyondveg is load of spin"
then?
What-everr.
=======================
You're catching on. Pearl never explains anything. It has to be
written down somewhere by somebody else so that she can
cut-n-paste it here. She has nothing of her own to say. Well,
nothing worthwhile, as you have seen...
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
BTW, are the "beings" you believe live at the centre of the
earth
vegetarians?
We can pick up the discussion where you ran away if you like.
What, they *are* vegetarians?
shrubkiller
2006-01-16 00:06:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
beyondveg is load of spin.
Stunning argument. Very convincing:)
Go for it. Where would you like to start?
You've slightly missed the point. I'm not particularly
interested in
this topic, and I've no interest in vegetarian or raw food diets,
despite having regrettably been a vegetarian for 5 years in my teens
(all those bacon butties I could've had before I was worried about fat
content!).
I was passing, and merely wanted to point out that saying
"beyondveg is
load of spin" is hardly a terrific argument without any
explanation as
to why you think so.
Backing off so soon. Ok.
I wasn't replying to an argument, but to someone's view.
I gave mine.
Still no explanation as to why "beyondveg is load of spin"
then?
What-everr.
=======================
You're catching on. Pearl never explains anything. It has to be
written down somewhere by somebody else so that she can
cut-n-paste it here. She has nothing of her own to say. Well,
nothing worthwhile, as you have seen...
ricky you dickless Little ~jonnie~ wannabe, where are the PHOTOS of all
the animals that are being killed during crop harvests?
Post by rick
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
BTW, are the "beings" you believe live at the centre of the earth
vegetarians?
We can pick up the discussion where you ran away if you like.
What, they *are* vegetarians?
pearl
2006-01-21 16:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
beyondveg is load of spin.
Stunning argument. Very convincing:)
Go for it. Where would you like to start?
You've slightly missed the point. I'm not particularly interested in
this topic, and I've no interest in vegetarian or raw food diets,
despite having regrettably been a vegetarian for 5 years in my teens
(all those bacon butties I could've had before I was worried about fat
content!).
I was passing, and merely wanted to point out that saying "beyondveg is
load of spin" is hardly a terrific argument without any explanation as
to why you think so.
Backing off so soon. Ok.
I wasn't replying to an argument, but to someone's view.
I gave mine.
Still no explanation as to why "beyondveg is load of spin" then?
What-everr.
<sigh>

Billings tries to make the case that humans are omnivores,
not frugivores, flying uncomfortably in the face of evidence
which he himself presents at his site. In the end he partially
concedes the obvious, but, unrelenting in his mission, uses
'anecdotal evidence' to try to prop up the fallacious theory.

Just a couple of cites from 'beyondveg';

'Chivers appears to define an omnivore as a general
feeder with a gut morphology that supports a diet that
includes significant amounts of all three types of foods:
fruits, leaves, and animal matter. Such a gut morphology
is not found in mammals, hence the term is indeed
inappropriate for mammals.'

(get that?)

'Chivers' criticism of the common definition of the term
"omnivore" is relevant: it would be better (more precise)
to use terms that are linked to gut morphology: folivore,
frugivore, faunivore. However, that does not mean that
those who are using the common definition are making
incorrect or invalid statements. Recall that a definition is
simply a convention that people follow. While it is
desirable that definitions possess analytical rigor, it is not
a requirement that they do so. Hence the meaning of a
statment like "chimps are omnivores" or "humans are
omnivores" is clear, i.e., the natural diet of humans and
chimps includes both animal and plant foods. '

(- but not in "significant amounts". see above)

'A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that
would correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously
not supported by our data (fig. 1). The large variations
in human diets (Hladik and Simmen 1996) are probably
allowed by our gut morphology as unspecialized
"frugivores," a flexibility allowing Pygmies, Inuit, and
several other populations, present and past, to feed
extensively on animal matter...' Hladik et al. [1999,
pp. 696-697] '

'.. "humans might be frugivores" - but in fact humans fare
poorly and do not succeed, in the long-term, on ape-style
frugivore diets. In sharp contrast to the failure of ape-style
frugivore diets, the example of the Inuit shows that humans
can succeed and even thrive, long-term, on a diet similar to
a faunivore diet. This, of course, brings us right back to the
key question: should we class humans as frugivores or
faunivores? '

Poor billings. He's spinning so fast it's made him dizzy.

'Evidence suggests that eating even small amounts of
animal-based foods is linked at least for many individuals
to significantly higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular
diseases typically found in the United States."
http://www.news.cornell.edu/general/Dec95/asianpyramid.ssl.html
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
BTW, are the "beings" you believe live at the centre of the earth
vegetarians?
We can pick up the discussion where you ran away if you like.
What, they *are* vegetarians?
If it's taking the p***, you're at..

134. excatholic ("cathyb") Dec 18 2005, 3:30 pm
pearl:
...
Post by cathyb
Solid, dense objects don't reverberate for any length of time.
Yes they do.
...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well now, hmmm... looking at you...
Leif Erikson
2006-03-26 19:17:45 UTC
Permalink
This is a classic instance of lesley ("pearl's" real
name) misciting and removing context. The
Beyondveg.com is an excellent site with thousands of
pages of discussion and *complete* reference citations.
The site originator, Tom Billings, is a vegetarian,
but he came over the years to see that a blind
dedication to vegetarianism as a philosophy rather than
a dietary practice caused adherents to be dishonest
with themselves and others they were trying to convert:

The material presented on this site comes from
individuals with years of hard-won experience either
practicing alternative diets or observing those who
do. As you'll find, no two writers will necessarily
agree on all topics. A unifying theme, however, is
the intent to squarely acknowledge and discuss the
sometimes serious problems that can occur on
alternative diets but often go unreported, and to go
beyond the simplistic dogmas readily available
elsewhere--in fact almost everywhere--to "explain
them away."

A sense of admirable idealism is often a motivating
factor encouraging people to take responsibility for
their own health and to explore different diets.
However, the development of emotional attachments to
philosophies underlying such diets can often end up
becoming far more important for some individuals
than the results they obtain--or fail to. One result
has been widespread refusal in the alternative diet
community to face health and behavioral problems
that may arise on these diets. A common thread in
what you'll read here is that a kind of subjective,
"blinded naturalism" has become more or less endemic
in the vegetarian, raw-food, and alternative diet
movements, which can lead to serious health
troubles.

http://beyondveg.com/
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
beyondveg is load of spin.
Stunning argument. Very convincing:)
Go for it. Where would you like to start?
You've slightly missed the point. I'm not particularly interested in
this topic, and I've no interest in vegetarian or raw food diets,
despite having regrettably been a vegetarian for 5 years in my teens
(all those bacon butties I could've had before I was worried about fat
content!).
I was passing, and merely wanted to point out that saying "beyondveg is
load of spin" is hardly a terrific argument without any explanation as
to why you think so.
Backing off so soon. Ok.
I wasn't replying to an argument, but to someone's view.
I gave mine.
Still no explanation as to why "beyondveg is load of spin" then?
What-everr.
<sigh>
Billings tries to make the case that humans are omnivores,
not frugivores, flying uncomfortably in the face of evidence
which he himself presents at his site. In the end he partially
concedes the obvious, but, unrelenting in his mission, uses
'anecdotal evidence' to try to prop up the fallacious theory.
Just a couple of cites from 'beyondveg';
No, lesley, you liar: an *incomplete* mis-citation, as
we'll see...
Post by pearl
'Chivers appears to define an omnivore as a general
feeder with a gut morphology that supports a diet that
fruits, leaves, and animal matter. Such a gut morphology
is not found in mammals, hence the term is indeed
inappropriate for mammals.'
(get that?)
Get THIS, you lying SLUT. You took it out of context.
Here's the full citation, to which you, the classic
bullshit-flooder, should have no objection:

"Omnivore" a vague term lacking in relevance for GI
tract functions. A further relevant quote is from
Chivers and Langer [1994, p. 4]; emphasis below is
mine:

The concept of omnivory is weakened by the
anatomical and physiological difficulties of
digesting significant quantities of animal matter
and fruit and leaves... animal matter is swamped
in a large gut, and foliage cannot be digested
in a small gut. A compromise is not really
feasible... Humans are only omnivorous thanks to
food processing and cookery; their guts have the
dimensions of a (faunivore) carnivore but the
taeniae, haustra and semi-lunar folds are
characteristic of folivores. Among the so-called
omnivores, most eat either mainly fruit and
animal matter (if smaller) or fruit and foliage
(if larger) but not all three.

Thus we note that Chivers appears to define an
omnivore as a general feeder with a gut morphology
that supports a diet that includes significant
amounts of all three types of foods: fruits, leaves,
and animal matter. Such a gut morphology is not
found in mammals, hence the term is indeed
inappropriate for mammals.

Contradictory claims about omnivores: which is
correct? Thus we have what appear to be
contradictory statements: most mammals are
omnivores; no mammal is an omnivore. Which is
correct? The answer is that both are correct,
because they are using different definitions of the
term "omnivore."

Chivers' criticism of the common definition of the
term "omnivore" is relevant: it would be better
(more precise) to use terms that are linked to gut
morphology: folivore, frugivore, faunivore. However,
that does not mean that those who are using the
common definition are making incorrect or invalid
statements. Recall that a definition is simply a
convention that people follow. While it is desirable
that definitions possess analytical rigor, it is
not a requirement that they do so. Hence the meaning
of a statment like "chimps are omnivores" or
"humans are omnivores" is clear, i.e., the natural
diet of humans and chimps includes both animal and
plant foods.

A fruitarian extremist has used the difference in
definitions of the term "omnivore" to suggest that
statements like "chimps are omnivores" are incorrect
and irrelevant. Because the meaning of such
statements is clear (even to those who support
Chivers' remarks), it is my opinion that the
fruitarian extremist is engaging here in a blatantly
intellectually dishonest word game in an effort to
distract attention from the well-known fact that
animal foods are a significant (even if small) part
of the natural diet of many primates.


http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6e.shtml


The "fruitarian extremist" to whom Billings refers is
Lawrence Forti, but it could equally well be lesley.
Post by pearl
Poor billings. He's spinning so fast it's made him dizzy.
Poor lesley - she's lying and spinning so fast, no one
believes her on anything.
pearl
2006-03-27 12:32:29 UTC
Permalink
"Leif Erikson" <***@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:tNBVf.10428$***@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

<snip to the chase>
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by pearl
Billings tries to make the case that humans are omnivores,
not frugivores, flying uncomfortably in the face of evidence
which he himself presents at his site. In the end he partially
concedes the obvious, but, unrelenting in his mission, uses
'anecdotal evidence' to try to prop up the fallacious theory.
Just a couple of cites from 'beyondveg';
No, lesley, you liar: an *incomplete* mis-citation, as
we'll see...
Rubbish. You should deal with your failings, ball,
instead of constantly projecting them onto others.
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by pearl
'Chivers appears to define an omnivore as a general
feeder with a gut morphology that supports a diet that
fruits, leaves, and animal matter. Such a gut morphology
is not found in mammals, hence the term is indeed
inappropriate for mammals.'
(get that?)
Get THIS, you lying SLUT.
You took it out of context.
Here's the full citation, to which you, the classic
'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'

The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
Post by Leif Erikson
"Omnivore" a vague term lacking in relevance for GI
tract functions. A further relevant quote is from
Chivers and Langer [1994, p. 4]; emphasis below is
The concept of omnivory is weakened by the
anatomical and physiological difficulties of
digesting significant quantities of animal matter
and fruit and leaves... animal matter is swamped
in a large gut, and foliage cannot be digested
in a small gut. A compromise is not really
feasible... Humans are only omnivorous thanks to
food processing and cookery;
Not thanks to biological adaptation then. Great stuff, ball!
Post by Leif Erikson
their guts have the
dimensions of a (faunivore) carnivore but the
'5. Use of logarithmic quotient values for clustering purposes
suggests that Cebus and Homo possess gastrointestinal tracts
that have become adapted in parallel to those of faunivorous
mammals, with notable reduction in size of caecum relative to
body size. Nevertheless, because of the artificiality of most
modern human diets, it cannot be concluded with confidence
that the small human sample examined to date reflects any
"natural" adaptation for a particular kind of diet. The results
obtained so far are suggestive but by no means conclusive.

Thus the research of MacLarnon et al. [1986] suggests, but
is not (by itself) conclusive proof, that the human GI tract is
adapted for the consumption of animal foods.

Gut dimensions can vary in response to current diet. The gut
dimensions of animals can vary significantly between wild and
captive animals (of the same species, of course). Gut dimensions
can change quickly (in captivity or in the wild) in response
to changes in dietary quality. For information on this topic,
consult Hladik [1967] as cited in Chivers and Hladik [1980];
also the following sources cited in Milton [1987]: Gentle and
Savory [1975]; Gross, Wang, and Wunder [in press per citation];
Koong et al. [1982]; Miller [1975]; Moss [1972]; and Murray,
Tulloch, and Winter [1977].'

http://www.beyondveg.com/billi ngs-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6e.s htm
Post by Leif Erikson
taeniae, haustra and semi-lunar folds are
characteristic of folivores. Among the so-called
*so-called*
Post by Leif Erikson
omnivores, most eat either mainly fruit and
animal matter (if smaller) or fruit and foliage
(if larger) but not all three.
Are humans among the smaller, or larger primates?
Post by Leif Erikson
Thus we note that Chivers appears to define an
omnivore as a general feeder with a gut morphology
that supports a diet that includes significant
amounts of all three types of foods: fruits, leaves,
and animal matter. Such a gut morphology is not
found in mammals, hence the term is indeed
inappropriate for mammals.
Way to go, ball.
Post by Leif Erikson
Contradictory claims about omnivores: which is
correct? Thus we have what appear to be
contradictory statements: most mammals are
omnivores; no mammal is an omnivore. Which is
correct? The answer is that both are correct,
because they are using different definitions of the
term "omnivore."
Chivers' criticism of the common definition of the
term "omnivore" is relevant: it would be better
(more precise) to use terms that are linked to gut
morphology: folivore, frugivore, faunivore.
- Talking about biological adaptation.
Post by Leif Erikson
However,
that does not mean that those who are using the
common definition are making incorrect or invalid
statements. Recall that a definition is simply a
convention that people follow. While it is desirable
that definitions possess analytical rigor, it is
not a requirement that they do so.
That is priceless.
Post by Leif Erikson
Hence the meaning
of a statment like "chimps are omnivores" or
"humans are omnivores" is clear, i.e., the natural
diet of humans and chimps includes both animal and
plant foods.
'Kortlandt states that predation by chimpanzees on vertebrates is
undoubtedly a rather rare phenomenon among rainforest-dwelling
populations of chimpanzees. Kortlandt lists the reasons given
below in his evidence.

# the absence (or virtual absence) of animal matter in the
digestive systems of hundreds of hunted, dissected or
otherwise investigated cases
# the rarity of parasites indicating carnivorous habits
# rarity of pertinent field observations
# the responses when he placed live as well as dead
potential prey animals along the chimpanzee paths at Beni
(in the poorer environments of the savanna landscape
however, predation on vertebrates appears to be much
more common)

Kortlandt concludes this section on primate diets by saying
that the wealth of flora and insect fauna in the rain-forest
provides both chimpanzees and orang-utans with a dietary
spectrum that seems wide enough to meet their nutritional
requirements, without hunting and killing of vertebrates being
necessary. It is in the poorer nutritional environments, where
plant sources may be scarce or of low quality where
carnivorous behaviour arises. Even then he says that the
meat obtained are minimal and perhaps insufficient to meet
basic needs. Finally he adds "The same conclusion applies,
of course, to hominids . . . it is strange that most
palaeoanthropologists have never been willing to accept the
elementary facts on this matter that have emerged from both
nutritional science and primate research."
..'
http://tinyurl.com/d8aqw
Post by Leif Erikson
A fruitarian extremist has used the difference in
definitions of the term "omnivore" to suggest that
statements like "chimps are omnivores" are incorrect
and irrelevant. Because the meaning of such
statements is clear (even to those who support
Chivers' remarks), it is my opinion that the
fruitarian extremist is engaging here in a blatantly
intellectually dishonest word game in an effort to
distract attention from the well-known fact that
animal foods are a significant (even if small) part
of the natural diet of many primates.
Quoth billings.

"Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest
that dietary divergence is highest when preferred food
(succulent fruit) is scarce, and that niche separation is
clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion & Gautier 1979:
Terborgh 1983). " Foraging profiles of sympatric
lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lopé Reserve,
Gabon, p.179, Philosophical Transactions: Biological
Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270
Post by Leif Erikson
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6e.shtml
The "fruitarian extremist" to whom Billings refers is
Lawrence Forti, but it could equally well be lesley.
Good company.
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by pearl
Poor billings. He's spinning so fast it's made him dizzy.
Poor lesley - she's lying and spinning so fast, no one
believes her on anything.
Poor ball.

--repost entire response - as it was originally posted--

Billings tries to make the case that humans are omnivores,
not frugivores, flying uncomfortably in the face of evidence
which he himself presents at his site. In the end he partially
concedes the obvious, but, unrelenting in his mission, uses
'anecdotal evidence' to try to prop up the fallacious theory.
Just a couple of cites from 'beyondveg';

'Chivers appears to define an omnivore as a general
feeder with a gut morphology that supports a diet that
includes significant amounts of all three types of foods:
fruits, leaves, and animal matter. Such a gut morphology
is not found in mammals, hence the term is indeed
inappropriate for mammals.'

(get that?)

'Chivers' criticism of the common definition of the term
"omnivore" is relevant: it would be better (more precise)
to use terms that are linked to gut morphology: folivore,
frugivore, faunivore. However, that does not mean that
those who are using the common definition are making
incorrect or invalid statements. Recall that a definition is
simply a convention that people follow. While it is
desirable that definitions possess analytical rigor, it is not
a requirement that they do so. Hence the meaning of a
statment like "chimps are omnivores" or "humans are
omnivores" is clear, i.e., the natural diet of humans and
chimps includes both animal and plant foods. '

(- but not in "significant amounts". see above)

'A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that
would correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously
not supported by our data (fig. 1). The large variations
in human diets (Hladik and Simmen 1996) are probably
allowed by our gut morphology as unspecialized
"frugivores," a flexibility allowing Pygmies, Inuit, and
several other populations, present and past, to feed
extensively on animal matter...' Hladik et al. [1999,
pp. 696-697] '

'.. humans might be frugivores - but in fact humans fare
poorly and do not succeed*, in the long-term, on ape-style
frugivore diets. In sharp contrast to the failure of ape-style
frugivore diets, the example of the Inuit** shows that humans
can succeed and even thrive, long-term, on a diet similar to
a faunivore diet. This, of course, brings us right back to the
key question: should we class humans as frugivores or
faunivores? '

Poor billings. He's spinning so fast it's made him dizzy.

'Evidence suggests that eating even small amounts of
animal-based foods is linked at least for many individuals
to significantly higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular
diseases typically found in the United States."
http://www.news.cornell.edu/general/Dec95/asianpyramid.ssl.html

- end -

*
'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are
appropriate for all stages of the lifecycle, including during
pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence.
Appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful,
nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the
prevention and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain
diseases' are the killer epidemics of today - heart disease,
strokes, cancers, diabetes etc.

This is the view of the world's most prestigious health
advisory body, the American Dietetic Association and
Dietitians of Canada, after a review of world literature.
It is backed up by the British Medical Association:

'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart
disease, high blood pressure, large bowel disorders,
cancers and gall stones.'
....
http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html

**
'American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 27, 916-925, 1974
Bone mineral content of North Alaskan Eskimos
Richard B. Mazess Ph.D.1 and Warren Mather B.S.1
1 From the Bone Mineral Laboratory, Department of Radiology
(Medical Physics), University of Wisconsin Hospital, Madison,
Wisconsin 53706
Direct photon absorptiometry was used to measure the bone
mineral content of forearm bones in Eskimo natives of the north
coast of Alaska. The sample consisted of 217 children, 89 adults,
and 107 elderly (over 50 years). Eskimo children had a lower
bone mineral content than United States whites by 5 to 10% but
this was consistent with their smaller body and bone size. Young
Eskimo adults (20 to 39 years) of both sexes were similar to whites,
but after age 40 the Eskimos of both sexes had a deficit of from
10 to 15% relative to white standards. Aging bone loss, which
occurs in many populations, has an earlier onset and greater
intensity in the Eskimos. Nutritional factors of high protein,
high nitrogen, high phosphorus, and low calcium intakes may
be implicated.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/9/916

'First Nations people and Inuit have higher rates of injury,
suicide and diabetes.'
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fnih-spni/index_e.html

'Combined, circulatory diseases (23% of all deaths) and injury
(22%) account for nearly half of all mortality among First Nations.
In Canada, circulatory diseases account for 37% of all deaths,
followed by cancer (27%).
..
For First Nations aged 45 years and older, circulatory disease
was the most common cause of death.
..'
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fnih-spni/pubs/gen/stats_profil_e.html

'Pibloktoq (hysteria) and Inuit nutrition: possible implication
of hypervitaminosis A.
Landy D.
The hysterical reaction among Eskimo peoples known
as pibloktoq, one of a group of aberrant behaviors
occurring among Arctic and Circumarctic societies termed
'arctic hysterias', has been explained by a variety of theories:
ecological, nutritional, biological-physiological, psychological-
psychoanalytic, social structural and cultural. This study
hypothesizes the possible implication of vitamin intoxication,
namely, hypervitaminosis A, in the etiology of some cases of
pibloktoq. Its biocultural approach implicates elements of
several explanatory classes, which are not mutually exclusive.
Experimental and clinical studies of nonhumans and humans
reveal somatic and behavioral effects of hypervitaminosis A
which closely parallel many of the symptoms reported for
Western patients diagnosed as hysterical and Inuit sufferers
of pibloktoq. Eskimo nutrition provides abundant sources of
vitamin A and lays the probable basis in some individuals for
hypervitaminosis A through ingestion of livers, kidneys, and
fat of arctic fish and mammals, where the vitamin often is
stored in poisonous quantities. Possible connections between
pibloktoq and hypervitamonosis A are explored. A
multifactorial framework may yield a more compelling model
of some cases of pibloktoq than those that are mainly unicausal,
since, among other things, the disturbance has been reported
for males and females, adults and children, and dogs.

PMID: 4049004 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://tinyurl.com/5qw7

Perhaps billings doesn't understand the meaning of 'thrive'.


It is certain that ball will reply with more obscenity and lies,
as well as snipping most of what I posted. Not interested.
Leif Erikson
2006-03-27 14:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
<snip to the chase>
Restore:

This is a classic instance of lesley ("pearl's" real
name) misciting and removing context. The
Beyondveg.com is an excellent site with thousands of
pages of discussion and *complete* reference citations.
The site originator, Tom Billings, is a vegetarian,
but he came over the years to see that a blind
dedication to vegetarianism as a philosophy rather than
a dietary practice caused adherents to be dishonest
with themselves and others they were trying to convert:

The material presented on this site comes from
individuals with years of hard-won experience either
practicing alternative diets or observing those who
do. As you'll find, no two writers will necessarily
agree on all topics. A unifying theme, however, is
the intent to squarely acknowledge and discuss the
sometimes serious problems that can occur on
alternative diets but often go unreported, and to go
beyond the simplistic dogmas readily available
elsewhere--in fact almost everywhere--to "explain
them away."

A sense of admirable idealism is often a motivating
factor encouraging people to take responsibility for
their own health and to explore different diets.
However, the development of emotional attachments to
philosophies underlying such diets can often end up
becoming far more important for some individuals
than the results they obtain--or fail to. One result
has been widespread refusal in the alternative diet
community to face health and behavioral problems
that may arise on these diets. A common thread in
what you'll read here is that a kind of subjective,
"blinded naturalism" has become more or less endemic
in the vegetarian, raw-food, and alternative diet
movements, which can lead to serious health
troubles.

http://beyondveg.com/
Post by pearl
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by pearl
Billings tries to make the case that humans are omnivores,
not frugivores, flying uncomfortably in the face of evidence
which he himself presents at his site. In the end he partially
concedes the obvious, but, unrelenting in his mission, uses
'anecdotal evidence' to try to prop up the fallacious theory.
Just a couple of cites from 'beyondveg';
No, lesley, you liar: an *incomplete* mis-citation, as
we'll see...
Rubbish
No, you lying SLUT. You mis-cited Billings to make it
appear he concludes that humans are not omnivores. He
makes no such conclusion, because Billings, unlike you,
is not a lying dogmatist. Billings accepts,
tentatively, Chivers's conclusion that based on based
on a narrow definition of "gut morphology", no mammals
*appear* to be suited to eat lots of foliage, fruit and
meat. Billings goes on to say that:

However, that does not mean that those who are using
the common definition are making incorrect or invalid
statements. Recall that a definition is simply a
convention that people follow. While it is desirable
that definitions possess analytical rigor, it is
not a requirement that they do so. Hence the meaning
of a statment like "chimps are omnivores" or
"humans are omnivores" is clear, i.e., the natural
diet of humans and chimps includes both animal and
plant foods.


Billings clearly concludes that the use of omnivore to
mean one who eats animal and plant foods is *correct*
and useful.
Post by pearl
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by pearl
'Chivers appears to define an omnivore as a general
feeder with a gut morphology that supports a diet that
fruits, leaves, and animal matter. Such a gut morphology
is not found in mammals, hence the term is indeed
inappropriate for mammals.'
(get that?)
Get THIS, you lying SLUT.
You took it out of context.
Here's the full citation, to which you, the classic
"Omnivore" a vague term lacking in relevance for GI
tract functions. A further relevant quote is from
Chivers and Langer [1994, p. 4]; emphasis below is
The concept of omnivory is weakened by the
anatomical and physiological difficulties of
digesting significant quantities of animal matter
and fruit and leaves... animal matter is swamped
in a large gut, and foliage cannot be digested
in a small gut. A compromise is not really
feasible... Humans are only omnivorous thanks to
food processing and cookery;
Not thanks to biological adaptation then.
Irrelevant, and wrong. Our ability to improvise and
invent is itself a biological adaptation.
Post by pearl
Post by Leif Erikson
their guts have the
dimensions of a (faunivore) carnivore but the
[snip classic lesley bullshit flood]
Post by Leif Erikson
taeniae, haustra and semi-lunar folds are
characteristic of folivores. Among the so-called
omnivores, most eat either mainly fruit and
animal matter (if smaller) or fruit and foliage
(if larger) but not all three.
Are humans among the smaller, or larger primates?
Irrelevant digressive question.

Humans are among the primates that we observer, and
have *always* observed, eating plant and animal matter.
Post by pearl
Post by Leif Erikson
Thus we note that Chivers appears to define an
omnivore as a general feeder with a gut morphology
that supports a diet that includes significant
amounts of all three types of foods: fruits, leaves,
and animal matter. Such a gut morphology is not
found in mammals, hence the term is indeed
inappropriate for mammals.
Contradictory claims about omnivores: which is
correct? Thus we have what appear to be
contradictory statements: most mammals are
omnivores; no mammal is an omnivore. Which is
correct? The answer is that both are correct,
because they are using different definitions of the
term "omnivore."
Chivers' criticism of the common definition of the
term "omnivore" is relevant: it would be better
(more precise) to use terms that are linked to gut
morphology: folivore, frugivore, faunivore.
- Talking about biological adaptation.
Not the sole relevant criterion. You're fatuously
trying to make more of it than is there.
Post by pearl
Post by Leif Erikson
However,
that does not mean that those who are using the
common definition are making incorrect or invalid
statements. Recall that a definition is simply a
convention that people follow. While it is desirable
that definitions possess analytical rigor, it is
not a requirement that they do so. Hence the meaning
of a statment like "chimps are omnivores" or
"humans are omnivores" is clear, i.e., the natural
diet of humans and chimps includes both animal and
plant foods.
'Kortlandt
You've never read Kortlandt. You couldn't read it.
Post by pearl
Post by Leif Erikson
A fruitarian extremist has used the difference in
definitions of the term "omnivore" to suggest that
statements like "chimps are omnivores" are incorrect
and irrelevant. Because the meaning of such
statements is clear (even to those who support
Chivers' remarks), it is my opinion that the
fruitarian extremist is engaging here in a blatantly
intellectually dishonest word game in an effort to
distract attention from the well-known fact that
animal foods are a significant (even if small) part
of the natural diet of many primates.
Quoth billings.
[snip phony quote]
Post by pearl
Post by Leif Erikson
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6e.shtml
The "fruitarian extremist" to whom Billings refers is
Lawrence Forti, but it could equally well be lesley.
Good company.
Larry Forti is a bi-polar crackpot and hysterical liar.
Post by pearl
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by pearl
Poor billings. He's spinning so fast it's made him dizzy.
Poor lesley - she's lying and spinning so fast, no one
believes her on anything.
Poor
[snip lesley shit floood]

Leif Erikson
2006-01-12 16:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
beyondveg is load of spin.
Stunning argument. Very convincing:)
Go for it. Where would you like to start?
You have ZERO background in anatomy, physiology or
anthropology that would legitimately allow you to
critique the Beyond Vegetarianism site.

In fact, Tom Billings has done a thorough job of
putting together a survey of the scientific literature,
unlike your cherry-picking.
Peter Bowditch
2006-01-12 21:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
beyondveg is load of spin.
Stunning argument. Very convincing:)
Go for it. Where would you like to start?
I haven't seen you for a while, Pearl. Have you been visiting the
people who live inside the Earth?
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Leif Erikson
2006-01-12 21:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bowditch
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
beyondveg is load of spin.
Stunning argument. Very convincing:)
Go for it. Where would you like to start?
I haven't seen you for a while, Pearl. Have you been visiting the
people who live inside the Earth?
Naw...she's been high for six months from sniffing "chemtrails".
shrubkiller
2006-01-16 00:08:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Peter Bowditch
Post by pearl
Post by cathyb
Post by pearl
beyondveg is load of spin.
Stunning argument. Very convincing:)
Go for it. Where would you like to start?
I haven't seen you for a while, Pearl. Have you been visiting the
people who live inside the Earth?
Naw...she's been high for six months from sniffing "chemtrails".
and you've been getting off on sniffing our bums.


What the *hell* is the matter with you Goober!?
p***@hotmail.com
2006-01-16 00:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Prehistoric Human
Post by pearl
Post by Prehistoric Human
Interesting article. I did notice , though, that in the 1999 study
discussed, where there were health problems with many of the raw foodists,
that they were vegan raw foodists (I saw that on another website which
discussed that same study).
Link please. Were they eating exclusively organic produce?
Post by Prehistoric Human
My argument doesn't apply to the vegan raw diet
of course, since humans didn't evolve on that.
Humans have no carnivorous adaptation.
See;
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .
The article
It isn't an "article" at all, Dave. It's her OWN SITE,
where she has tediously reproduced some "vegan"
propaganda she *stole* from another site.
I thought she placed it on her webspace with the author's
permission.
That is correct.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Leif Erikson
Lesley ("pearl's" real name; she's a foot masseuse in
Cork, Ireland, and also a prostitute)
Truth or fiction.
Fiction.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
I don't really care. It's none of my business
and it's none of yours either. Why are you so obsessed with
being hateful. Get a f***ing life!
Post by Leif Erikson
has *zero*
academic background in any field that would allow her
to speak authoritatively on human nutrition issues.
She's a weird, anti-scientific "vegan" propagandist.
More fiction.
Ok. What research/qualifications/experience do you have
that allows you to speak authoritatively on human nutrition issues?
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Leif Erikson
Look at Tom Billings's excellent Beyond Vegetarianism
site, specifically
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-toc6.shtml,
for a good survey of the *true* science concerning
human adaptations to meat eating. The scientific facts
are, humans *first* evolved as omnivorous meat eaters,
because the hominid ancestor species were themselves
omnivorous meat eaters.
I've seen the article. I don't have the academic background to
know how accurate the link is but it certainly seems more
plausible to me than the article published on Pearl's website.
beyondveg is load of spin.
How did you establish that?
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by Prehistoric Human
does not analyse in detail what happens to meat
inside our digestive system. All it does is make qualitative
anatomical comparisons between different animal species.
pearl
2006-01-21 16:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Ok. What research/qualifications/experience do you have
that allows you to speak authoritatively on human nutrition issues?
I am a fully qualified healthcare provider with over fifteen
years clinical experience effectively treating people suffering
from a wide range of disorders. I have had formal training in
anatomy, physiology, biology, nutrition and pathology, and
in addition, many years of independent study and research.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Leif Erikson
Look at Tom Billings's excellent Beyond Vegetarianism
site, specifically
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-toc6.shtml,
for a good survey of the *true* science concerning
human adaptations to meat eating. The scientific facts
are, humans *first* evolved as omnivorous meat eaters,
because the hominid ancestor species were themselves
omnivorous meat eaters.
I've seen the article. I don't have the academic background to
know how accurate the link is but it certainly seems more
plausible to me than the article published on Pearl's website.
beyondveg is load of spin.
How did you establish that?
Reading it. Look for yourself at the above link.
p***@hotmail.com
2006-01-24 22:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Ok. What research/qualifications/experience do you have
that allows you to speak authoritatively on human nutrition issues?
I am a fully qualified healthcare provider with over fifteen
years clinical experience effectively treating people suffering
from a wide range of disorders.
Would I be right in thinking that this healthcare is in the form
of reflexology? How does fifteen years of reflexology experience
teach you about nutrition issues?
Post by pearl
I have had formal training in
anatomy, physiology, biology, nutrition and pathology,
How much formal training in nutrition? What qualifications?
Post by pearl
and
in addition, many years of independent study and research.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Leif Erikson
Look at Tom Billings's excellent Beyond Vegetarianism
site, specifically
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-toc6.shtml,
for a good survey of the *true* science concerning
human adaptations to meat eating. The scientific facts
are, humans *first* evolved as omnivorous meat eaters,
because the hominid ancestor species were themselves
omnivorous meat eaters.
I've seen the article. I don't have the academic background to
know how accurate the link is but it certainly seems more
plausible to me than the article published on Pearl's website.
beyondveg is load of spin.
How did you establish that?
Reading it. Look for yourself at the above link.
I have read it. It makes sense to me.
pearl
2006-01-25 13:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Ok. What research/qualifications/experience do you have
that allows you to speak authoritatively on human nutrition issues?
I am a fully qualified healthcare provider with over fifteen
years clinical experience effectively treating people suffering
from a wide range of disorders.
Would I be right in thinking that this healthcare is in the form
of reflexology? How does fifteen years of reflexology experience
teach you about nutrition issues?
Go and learn something about reflexology, and get back to us.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
I have had formal training in
anatomy, physiology, biology, nutrition and pathology,
How much formal training in nutrition? What qualifications?
Much more formal training in nutrition than the average doctor.

I'll give you no further personal details.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
and
in addition, many years of independent study and research.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Leif Erikson
Look at Tom Billings's excellent Beyond Vegetarianism
site, specifically
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-toc6.shtml,
for a good survey of the *true* science concerning
human adaptations to meat eating. The scientific facts
are, humans *first* evolved as omnivorous meat eaters,
because the hominid ancestor species were themselves
omnivorous meat eaters.
I've seen the article. I don't have the academic background to
know how accurate the link is but it certainly seems more
plausible to me than the article published on Pearl's website.
beyondveg is load of spin.
How did you establish that?
Reading it. Look for yourself at the above link.
I have read it. It makes sense to me.
That figures. You're comprehension is appalling.
Leif Erikson
2006-01-25 14:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Ok. What research/qualifications/experience do you have
that allows you to speak authoritatively on human nutrition issues?
I am a fully qualified healthcare provider with over fifteen
years clinical experience effectively treating people suffering
from a wide range of disorders.
Would I be right in thinking that this healthcare is in the form
of reflexology? How does fifteen years of reflexology experience
teach you about nutrition issues?
Go and learn something about reflexology, and get back to us.
"Reflexology" is quackery. It isn't medicine. There
is no licensing. It's pure flim-flam.
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
I have had formal training in
anatomy, physiology, biology, nutrition and pathology,
How much formal training in nutrition? What qualifications?
Much more formal training in nutrition than the average doctor.
You have had ZERO formal training in nutrition, you liar.
pearl
2006-01-25 16:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Ok. What research/qualifications/experience do you have
that allows you to speak authoritatively on human nutrition issues?
I am a fully qualified healthcare provider with over fifteen
years clinical experience effectively treating people suffering
from a wide range of disorders.
Would I be right in thinking that this healthcare is in the form
of reflexology? How does fifteen years of reflexology experience
teach you about nutrition issues?
Go and learn something about reflexology, and get back to us.
"Reflexology" is quackery. It isn't medicine. There
is no licensing. It's pure flim-flam.
http://www.reflexology-research.com/updatedresearch.htm
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
I have had formal training in
anatomy, physiology, biology, nutrition and pathology,
How much formal training in nutrition? What qualifications?
Much more formal training in nutrition than the average doctor.
You have had ZERO formal training in nutrition, you liar.
'Those who lie, tamper with quotes, forge posts with
multiple identities, use filth and harass others have
no credibility. YOU have no credibility, and that lack
is persistent.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
Leif Erikson
2006-01-26 06:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Ok. What research/qualifications/experience do you have
that allows you to speak authoritatively on human nutrition issues?
I am a fully qualified healthcare provider with over fifteen
years clinical experience effectively treating people suffering
from a wide range of disorders.
Would I be right in thinking that this healthcare is in the form
of reflexology? How does fifteen years of reflexology experience
teach you about nutrition issues?
Go and learn something about reflexology, and get back to us.
"Reflexology" is quackery. It isn't medicine. There
is no licensing. It's pure flim-flam.
http://www.reflexology-research.com/updatedresearch.htm
"Reflexology" is bullshit; pure quackery. There is no
clinical evidence it does what its thieving
practitioners (flim-flam artists) claim it does.

Reflexology, also called zone therapy, is based on
the notion that each body part is represented on the
hands and feet and that pressing on specific areas
on the hands or feet can have therapeutic effects in
other parts of the body. Most proponents claim:

* The body is divided into 10 longitudinal
zones—five on each side of the body.
* Each organ or part of the body is represented
on the hands and feet;
* The practitioner can diagnose abnormalities by
feeling the hands or feet
* Massaging or pressing each area can stimulate
the flow of energy, blood, nutrients, and
nerve impulses to the corresponding body zone
and thereby relieve ailments in that zone.

The pathways postulated by reflexologists have not
been anatomically demonstrated; and it is safe to
assume that they do not exist.


"Reflexology" is based on exactly the same type of
BULLSHIT belief about "energy" sensing as is the
equally BULLSHIT "therapeutic touch", which was
COMPLETELY DEBUNKED by an eight year old girl in an
article published in the Journal of the American
Medical Association (JAMA), one of the most prestigious
PEER-REVIEWED medical research journals in the U.S.

There have been ZERO peer-reviewed studies
demonstrating the effectiveness of "reflexology". It
is complete and utter quackery.
Post by pearl
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
I have had formal training in
anatomy, physiology, biology, nutrition and pathology,
How much formal training in nutrition? What qualifications?
Much more formal training in nutrition than the average doctor.
You have had ZERO formal training in nutrition, you liar.
'Those who lie,
No lying, Lesley. You have ZERO formal training in
nutrition.
pearl
2006-01-26 13:09:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by pearl
http://www.reflexology-research.com/updatedresearch.htm
There have been ZERO peer-reviewed studies
demonstrating the effectiveness of "reflexology".
http://www.reflexology-research.com/updatedresearch.htm
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by pearl
'Those who lie,
No lying,
Those who lie, tamper with quotes, forge posts with
multiple identities, use filth and harass others have
no credibility. YOU have no credibility, and that lack
is persistent. .
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
Post by Leif Erikson
You have ZERO formal training in nutrition.
FALSE.
Leif Erikson
2006-01-26 14:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by pearl
http://www.reflexology-research.com/updatedresearch.htm
There have been ZERO peer-reviewed studies
demonstrating the effectiveness of "reflexology".
http://www.reflexology-rese
Crap.
Post by pearl
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by pearl
'Those who lie,
No lying,
Those who lie,
No lying. You have ZERO formal training, or even
serious lay reading, in nutrition: ZERO.
Post by pearl
Post by Leif Erikson
You have ZERO formal training in nutrition.
FALSE.
No, TRUE, you liar. You know nothing meaningful about
nutrition.
Leif Erikson
2006-01-26 14:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by pearl
http://www.reflexology-research.com/updatedresearch.htm
There have been ZERO peer-reviewed studies
demonstrating the effectiveness of "reflexology".
http://www.reflexology-research.com/updatedresearch.htm
"Reflexology" is bullshit; pure quackery. There is no
clinical evidence it does what its thieving
practitioners (flim-flam artists) claim it does.

Reflexology, also called zone therapy, is based on
the notion that each body part is represented on the
hands and feet and that pressing on specific areas
on the hands or feet can have therapeutic effects in
other parts of the body. Most proponents claim:

* The body is divided into 10 longitudinal
zones—five on each side of the body.
* Each organ or part of the body is represented
on the hands and feet;
* The practitioner can diagnose abnormalities by
feeling the hands or feet
* Massaging or pressing each area can stimulate
the flow of energy, blood, nutrients, and
nerve impulses to the corresponding body zone
and thereby relieve ailments in that zone.

The pathways postulated by reflexologists have not
been anatomically demonstrated; and it is safe to
assume that they do not exist.


"Reflexology" is based on exactly the same type of
BULLSHIT belief about "energy" sensing as is the
equally BULLSHIT "therapeutic touch", which was
COMPLETELY DEBUNKED by an eight year old girl in an
article published in the Journal of the American
Medical Association (JAMA), one of the most prestigious
PEER-REVIEWED medical research journals in the U.S.

There have been ZERO peer-reviewed studies
demonstrating the effectiveness of "reflexology". It
is complete and utter quackery.
Dave
2006-01-26 01:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Ok. What research/qualifications/experience do you have
that allows you to speak authoritatively on human nutrition issues?
I am a fully qualified healthcare provider with over fifteen
years clinical experience effectively treating people suffering
from a wide range of disorders.
Would I be right in thinking that this healthcare is in the form
of reflexology? How does fifteen years of reflexology experience
teach you about nutrition issues?
Go and learn something about reflexology, and get back to us.
"Reflexology, or zone therapy, is the practice of stimulating points
on the feet, hands, or ears (termed reflex zones), in the hopes
that it will have a beneficial effect on some other parts of the
body, or will improve general health."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexology

What does that have to do with nutrition?
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
I have had formal training in
anatomy, physiology, biology, nutrition and pathology,
How much formal training in nutrition? What qualifications?
Much more formal training in nutrition than the average doctor.
I wouldn't rely on a doctor for nutritional advice.
Post by pearl
I'll give you no further personal details.
Be like that if you want but it's not like I'm questioning you about
your private life or anything. If someone claims to be an
authority on a subject I think one is entitled to probe. I am
probing.
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
and
in addition, many years of independent study and research.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Leif Erikson
Look at Tom Billings's excellent Beyond Vegetarianism
site, specifically
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-toc6.shtml,
for a good survey of the *true* science concerning
human adaptations to meat eating. The scientific facts
are, humans *first* evolved as omnivorous meat eaters,
because the hominid ancestor species were themselves
omnivorous meat eaters.
I've seen the article. I don't have the academic background to
know how accurate the link is but it certainly seems more
plausible to me than the article published on Pearl's website.
beyondveg is load of spin.
How did you establish that?
Reading it. Look for yourself at the above link.
I have read it. It makes sense to me.
That figures. You're comprehension is appalling.
What's the matter; can't resist a jibe?
pearl
2006-01-26 13:56:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Ok. What research/qualifications/experience do you have
that allows you to speak authoritatively on human nutrition issues?
I am a fully qualified healthcare provider with over fifteen
years clinical experience effectively treating people suffering
from a wide range of disorders.
Would I be right in thinking that this healthcare is in the form
of reflexology? How does fifteen years of reflexology experience
teach you about nutrition issues?
Go and learn something about reflexology, and get back to us.
"Reflexology, or zone therapy, is the practice of stimulating points
on the feet, hands, or ears (termed reflex zones), in the hopes
that it will have a beneficial effect on some other parts of the
body, or will improve general health."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexology
"in the hopes"? I doubt that was written by a practitioner.
Post by Dave
What does that have to do with nutrition?
'The reflexologist then begins to work on the client's feet,
or hands if necessary, noting problem areas. There may be
discomfort in some places, but it is fleeting, and also an
indication of congestion or imbalance in a corresponding
part of the body.'

Everything is revealed through the reflexes.
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
I have had formal training in
anatomy, physiology, biology, nutrition and pathology,
How much formal training in nutrition? What qualifications?
Much more formal training in nutrition than the average doctor.
I wouldn't rely on a doctor for nutritional advice.
But nutrition is the cornerstone to good health.
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
I'll give you no further personal details.
Be like that if you want but it's not like I'm questioning you about
your private life or anything. If someone claims to be an
authority on a subject I think one is entitled to probe. I am
probing.
I do not recall having ever claimed to be an authority on
anything, still, I have answered your questions truthfully.

<..>
p***@hotmail.com
2006-01-27 01:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Ok. What research/qualifications/experience do you have
that allows you to speak authoritatively on human nutrition issues?
I am a fully qualified healthcare provider with over fifteen
years clinical experience effectively treating people suffering
from a wide range of disorders.
Would I be right in thinking that this healthcare is in the form
of reflexology? How does fifteen years of reflexology experience
teach you about nutrition issues?
Go and learn something about reflexology, and get back to us.
"Reflexology, or zone therapy, is the practice of stimulating points
on the feet, hands, or ears (termed reflex zones), in the hopes
that it will have a beneficial effect on some other parts of the
body, or will improve general health."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexology
"in the hopes"? I doubt that was written by a practitioner.
Post by Dave
What does that have to do with nutrition?
'The reflexologist then begins to work on the client's feet,
or hands if necessary, noting problem areas. There may be
discomfort in some places, but it is fleeting, and also an
indication of congestion or imbalance in a corresponding
part of the body.'
Everything is revealed through the reflexes.
So when you sense some discomfort you are able to make
dietary recommendations based on the area you were working
at the time?
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
I have had formal training in
anatomy, physiology, biology, nutrition and pathology,
How much formal training in nutrition? What qualifications?
Much more formal training in nutrition than the average doctor.
I wouldn't rely on a doctor for nutritional advice.
But nutrition is the cornerstone to good health.
Nutrition and exercise. Doctors are more the sort of people to
go to for medical emergencies than maintaining good health
in the first place.
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
I'll give you no further personal details.
Be like that if you want but it's not like I'm questioning you about
your private life or anything. If someone claims to be an
authority on a subject I think one is entitled to probe. I am
probing.
I do not recall having ever claimed to be an authority on
anything,
Leif claimed you didn't have the background to be able to comment
authoritatively on nutrition issues and you declared that to be
fiction.
Post by pearl
still, I have answered your questions truthfully.
Thank you. I'm not accusing you of lying about anything.
Post by pearl
<..>
pearl
2006-01-28 19:56:24 UTC
Permalink
<..>
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
"Reflexology, or zone therapy, is the practice of stimulating points
on the feet, hands, or ears (termed reflex zones), in the hopes
that it will have a beneficial effect on some other parts of the
body, or will improve general health."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexology
"in the hopes"? I doubt that was written by a practitioner.
Post by Dave
What does that have to do with nutrition?
'The reflexologist then begins to work on the client's feet,
or hands if necessary, noting problem areas. There may be
discomfort in some places, but it is fleeting, and also an
indication of congestion or imbalance in a corresponding
part of the body.'
Everything is revealed through the reflexes.
So when you sense some discomfort you are able to make
dietary recommendations based on the area you were working
at the time?
Yes. For example, regularly eating excessive amounts of wheat
products can often lead to an allergic reaction, which is manifested
in a swelling of the membrane covering the brain and the patient is
likely experiencing acute headaches, amongst other symptoms.
This is discovered very quickly when gently applying pressure to
the reflex for the top of the head- on the very tips of the toes. It
will feel like tiny sharp needles to both the patient and practitioner.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
I have had formal training in
anatomy, physiology, biology, nutrition and pathology,
How much formal training in nutrition? What qualifications?
Much more formal training in nutrition than the average doctor.
I wouldn't rely on a doctor for nutritional advice.
But nutrition is the cornerstone to good health.
Nutrition and exercise. Doctors are more the sort of people to
go to for medical emergencies than maintaining good health
in the first place.
Prevention is better than cure, as the old, wise adage goes.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
I'll give you no further personal details.
Be like that if you want but it's not like I'm questioning you about
your private life or anything. If someone claims to be an
authority on a subject I think one is entitled to probe. I am
probing.
I do not recall having ever claimed to be an authority on
anything,
Leif claimed you didn't have the background to be able to comment
authoritatively on nutrition issues and you declared that to be
fiction.
I see.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
still, I have answered your questions truthfully.
Thank you. I'm not accusing you of lying about anything.
Cool.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
<..>
p***@hotmail.com
2006-02-02 01:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
<..>
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
"Reflexology, or zone therapy, is the practice of stimulating points
on the feet, hands, or ears (termed reflex zones), in the hopes
that it will have a beneficial effect on some other parts of the
body, or will improve general health."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexology
"in the hopes"? I doubt that was written by a practitioner.
Post by Dave
What does that have to do with nutrition?
'The reflexologist then begins to work on the client's feet,
or hands if necessary, noting problem areas. There may be
discomfort in some places, but it is fleeting, and also an
indication of congestion or imbalance in a corresponding
part of the body.'
Everything is revealed through the reflexes.
So when you sense some discomfort you are able to make
dietary recommendations based on the area you were working
at the time?
Yes. For example, regularly eating excessive amounts of wheat
products can often lead to an allergic reaction, which is manifested
in a swelling of the membrane covering the brain and the patient is
likely experiencing acute headaches, amongst other symptoms.
This is discovered very quickly when gently applying pressure to
the reflex for the top of the head- on the very tips of the toes. It
will feel like tiny sharp needles to both the patient and practitioner.
Interesting and bizarre. The sort of thing that is hard to believe
without
experiencing it first hand and then getting better once you have given
up wheat.
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
I have had formal training in
anatomy, physiology, biology, nutrition and pathology,
How much formal training in nutrition? What qualifications?
Much more formal training in nutrition than the average doctor.
I wouldn't rely on a doctor for nutritional advice.
But nutrition is the cornerstone to good health.
Nutrition and exercise. Doctors are more the sort of people to
go to for medical emergencies than maintaining good health
in the first place.
Prevention is better than cure, as the old, wise adage goes.
Absolutely but when it is too late for prevention you still need the
cure.
Post by pearl
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
Post by Dave
Post by pearl
I'll give you no further personal details.
Be like that if you want but it's not like I'm questioning you about
your private life or anything. If someone claims to be an
authority on a subject I think one is entitled to probe. I am
probing.
I do not recall having ever claimed to be an authority on
anything,
Leif claimed you didn't have the background to be able to comment
authoritatively on nutrition issues and you declared that to be
fiction.
I see.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
still, I have answered your questions truthfully.
Thank you. I'm not accusing you of lying about anything.
Cool.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by pearl
<..>
Leif Erikson
2006-01-11 16:42:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by Prehistoric Human
Interesting article. I did notice , though, that in the 1999 study
discussed, where there were health problems with many of the raw foodists,
that they were vegan raw foodists (I saw that on another website which
discussed that same study).
Link please. Were they eating exclusively organic produce?
Post by Prehistoric Human
My argument doesn't apply to the vegan raw diet
of course, since humans didn't evolve on that.
Humans have no carnivorous adaptation.
Humans are adapted to an omnivorous diet.
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-toc6.shtml

You have no expertise in *ANY* field that allows you to
make your statement.
Rudy Canoza's Empty Skull
2006-01-28 22:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leif Erikson
Post by pearl
Post by Prehistoric Human
Interesting article. I did notice , though, that in the 1999 study
discussed, where there were health problems with many of the raw foodists,
that they were vegan raw foodists (I saw that on another website which
discussed that same study).
Link please. Were they eating exclusively organic produce?
Post by Prehistoric Human
My argument doesn't apply to the vegan raw diet
of course, since humans didn't evolve on that.
Humans have no carnivorous adaptation.
Humans are adapted to an omnivorous diet.
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-toc6.shtml
You have no expertise in *ANY* field that allows you to
make your statement.
And you Goober "have no expertise in *ANY* field" that allows you to
refute Pearl.
Prehistoric Human
2006-01-12 10:53:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by Prehistoric Human
Interesting article. I did notice , though, that in the 1999 study
discussed, where there were health problems with many of the raw foodists,
that they were vegan raw foodists (I saw that on another website which
discussed that same study).
Link please. Were they eating exclusively organic produce?
======================
http://www.living-foods.com/articles/scientificliterature.html

In the 6th paragraph down it says:
"Four studies found uncooked vegan ("living foods") diets to be associated
with substantial loss of weight (5 ,12, 14, 20)."... (etc)

Reference #14 is:
14. Koebnick, C., Strassner, C., Hoffmann, I., Leitzmann, C. (1999).
Consequences of a long-term raw food diet on body weight and menstruation:
results of a questionnaire survey. Annals of Nutrition & Metabolism, 43(2),
69-79

In the article Dave posted earlier it says:
"The only study I know of 100% raw foodists followed for years was published
in 1999.[11] It showed that a third of the raw foodists were suffering from
Chronic Energy Deficiency. Many were just wasting away. Most of the women
suffered menstrual irregularities and half of the women lost their menstrual
periods altogether, which could lead to devastating osteoporosis"

Reference 11 in the paragraph above is:
[11] Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 43(1999):69.

So it appears they are referencing the same study, showing that the study
Dave posted was a study of raw vegan diets (even though it doesn't say so
specifically).

Furthermore, I did find the abstract for that study here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10436305&dopt=Abstract

However it doesn't say in the abstract exactly what kind of raw food diet it
was either (and I'm not going to pay for the full article). So all I had to
go on was the first article above which says the study was of a raw vegan
diet. I have no idea if they were eating exclusively organic produce or not.

Anyway, the study concluded: "The consumption of a raw food diet is
associated with a high loss of body weight. Since many raw food dieters
exhibited underweight and amenorrhea, a very strict raw food diet cannot be
recommended on a long-term basis."
Post by pearl
Post by Prehistoric Human
My argument doesn't apply to the vegan raw diet
of course, since humans didn't evolve on that.
Humans have no carnivorous adaptation.
See;
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .
Actually, I'm quite familiar with the types of arguments in that article - I
have a number of books by the likes of Sheldon, Ehret, Kulvinskas and
Wigmore that I bought 25 years ago. But let me ask you, in connection with
that - You have stated elsewhere that "Humans are frugivores". I'd think
that surely you must be living by that belief since you're so convinced of
it. So how long have you been eating a frugivorous diet, and what exactly
does it consist of? (i.e. do you also include nuts and seeds, for instance).
I have a bit of personal experience in that area from long ago, and I'm
wondering how it it's going for you.....

-The Prehistoric Human
pearl
2006-01-21 18:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Prehistoric Human
Post by pearl
Post by Prehistoric Human
Interesting article. I did notice , though, that in the 1999 study
discussed, where there were health problems with many of the raw foodists,
that they were vegan raw foodists (I saw that on another website which
discussed that same study).
Link please. Were they eating exclusively organic produce?
======================
http://www.living-foods.com/articles/scientificliterature.html
"Four studies found uncooked vegan ("living foods") diets to be associated
with substantial loss of weight (5 ,12, 14, 20)."... (etc)
14. Koebnick, C., Strassner, C., Hoffmann, I., Leitzmann, C. (1999).
results of a questionnaire survey. Annals of Nutrition & Metabolism, 43(2),
69-79
"The only study I know of 100% raw foodists followed for years was published
in 1999.[11] It showed that a third of the raw foodists were suffering from
Chronic Energy Deficiency. Many were just wasting away. Most of the women
suffered menstrual irregularities and half of the women lost their menstrual
periods altogether, which could lead to devastating osteoporosis"
We don't know whether they were the meat-eaters or vegans.

No indication of osteoporosis in the study referenced here;

'People who follow a raw food vegetarian diet are light in
weight but healthy, according to US researchers.
..
The raw food vegetarians in the study had lower body weights
(BMI) and total body fat than the other volunteers. They also
had lower bone mass and bone mineral density.

"It is well documented that a low BMI and weight loss are
strongly associated with low bone mass and increased fracture
risk, while obesity protects against osteoporosis," said the
researchers.

But the people who followed raw food diets did not have any
other biological markers that typically accompany osteoporosis
and had normal rates of bone turnover.

Lead researcher Dr Luigi Fontana, from Washington University
School of Medicine in St Louis, said: "We think it's possible
these people don't have increased risk of fracture but that their
low bone mass is related to the fact that they are lighter because
they take in fewer calories."

Dr Fontana said the raw food diet group also had higher
vitamin D levels than people on a typical Western diet, even
though they did not consume dairy products which are known
to be a good source of vitamin D.

He said this was probably down to sun exposure.
..'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4389837.stm
Post by Prehistoric Human
[11] Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 43(1999):69.
So it appears they are referencing the same study, showing that the study
Dave posted was a study of raw vegan diets (even though it doesn't say so
specifically).
I read in an article about it that about half of those studied ate meat.
Post by Prehistoric Human
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10436305&dopt=Abstract
However it doesn't say in the abstract exactly what kind of raw food diet it
was either (and I'm not going to pay for the full article). So all I had to
go on was the first article above which says the study was of a raw vegan
diet. I have no idea if they were eating exclusively organic produce or not.
That of course makes a significant difference.
Post by Prehistoric Human
Anyway, the study concluded: "The consumption of a raw food diet is
associated with a high loss of body weight. Since many raw food dieters
exhibited underweight and amenorrhea, a very strict raw food diet cannot be
recommended on a long-term basis."
I'll go along with the findings of the China Studies:

'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators
and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is leading
to policy recommendations. He mentioned three:

* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater
the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown
nutrient needs.

* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a healthful
and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without animal-based
food.

* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating,
salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et 1101/et1101s18.html
Post by Prehistoric Human
Post by pearl
Post by Prehistoric Human
My argument doesn't apply to the vegan raw diet
of course, since humans didn't evolve on that.
Humans have no carnivorous adaptation.
See;
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm .
Actually, I'm quite familiar with the types of arguments in that article - I
have a number of books by the likes of Sheldon, Ehret, Kulvinskas and
Wigmore that I bought 25 years ago. But let me ask you, in connection with
that - You have stated elsewhere that "Humans are frugivores". I'd think
that surely you must be living by that belief since you're so convinced of
it. So how long have you been eating a frugivorous diet, and what exactly
does it consist of? (i.e. do you also include nuts and seeds, for instance).
I have a bit of personal experience in that area from long ago, and I'm
wondering how it it's going for you.....
I eat a near-vegan diet (a little milk from 'my' nanny goat,
and an egg every blue moon from 'my' chickens.) I eat a
wide variety of fruits, vegetables, greens, nuts and seeds,
with moderate amounts of legumes, grains and cereals.
Organic as much as possible, and if cooked, minimally.
Dave
2006-01-11 13:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Prehistoric Human
Post by Dave
Now I'm not arguing that cooked foods are essential to our health and
as
far as I know Leif isn't either. When he describes "Raw Foodism" as
superstitious bullshit he isn't attacking a theory that claims cooking
is
unnecessary. He is attacking a theory that claims cooking is dangerous.
======================
Well I don't know-if someone is healthy and feels well on, and prefers to
live on the 100% raw "prehistoric human" omnivorous diet I mentioned
earlier, but also doesn't necessarily believe that cooked food is dangerous,
does that then mean that that raw diet is not "superstitious bullshit" which
"isn't founded on any science at all"? I guess only Leif can answer that
one...
Nevertheless, after I pointed out earlier that prehistoric humans lived and
evolved for millions of years on a raw diet, Leif stated "The fact is,
anyone adhering to a raw food diet today is adhering to an "ism". He then
went on to mention the macrobiotic diet, which of course contains a lot of
cooked food, which he also seems to consider to be an "ism"/ ideology. Then
he stated "You eat all the helpings of your raw food ideology that you want,
pally. Just don't try kidding us that it's anything other than an
ideological expression."
It seems that his issue is with dietary systems that restrict the modern
omnivorous diet in some way. But of course unlike diets such as macrobiotic
and vegan, the raw prehistoric human diet I'm talking about (which uses
animal products) has a long history of success at being the diet that humans
lived and evolved on for millions of years. So if someone goes on that diet
and feels healthy (perhaps even better?) on it and suffers no malnutrition,
and maybe feels no need or desire for cooked food and so doesn't wish to
bother with all the extra preparation that goes along with that, how can
that be considered merely an "ideological expression"?
Not necessarily. I believe that, like vegans, most people who adopt a
raw food diet do so for ideological reasons but it is possible that
some
simply enjoy raw food more and/or don't like cooking and/or feel better
when they eat raw.
Post by Prehistoric Human
Post by Dave
I can see no reason why the raw food diet you outline should not
provide adequate nutrition. Having said that you might be
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/Veg/archive/drgregorRawFoodism.html
Interesting article. I did notice , though, that in the 1999 study
discussed, where there were health problems with many of the raw foodists,
that they were vegan raw foodists (I saw that on another website which
discussed that same study). My argument doesn't apply to the vegan raw diet
of course, since humans didn't evolve on that.
True.
Post by Prehistoric Human
The article also says that
"Human beings have been cooking for at least 250,000 years, and maybe as
long as 1.9 million years". That's at odds with that article I posted
"Another good reason it may be safer to base adaptation to fire and cooking
on the figure of 125,000 years ago is that more and more evidence is
indicating modern humans today are descended from a group of ancestors who
were living in Africa 100,000-200,000 years ago, who then spread out across
the globe to replace other human groups. If true, this would probably mean
the fire sites in Europe and China are those of separate human groups who
did not leave descendants that survived to the present." (The China site
seems to indicate fire was used up to 1.5 million years ago).
I'm sure if one could be bothered one could find 10s or perhaps
hundreds of
different dates claimed as the length of time cooked foods have been a
significant
part of our diet.
Post by Prehistoric Human
The article you posted does bring up the point though, that "human beings
have adapted so much that eating cooked food now seems obligatory for
optimum health." The important word here is "seems". Does that translate
into "is obligatory for optimum health"? I haven't come across any studies
about that, in connection with a raw omnivorous diet like I'm talking about.
Not yet anyway...
I am not aware of any such studies either. I don't know whether cooked
food
is obligatory to good health. I can't think of any reason why it would
be
although cooking does have the advantage of increasing the range of
foods
available to us.
Post by Prehistoric Human
-The Prehistoric Human
Loading...