The True Cost Of Meat : Nutrition : Active Low-Carber Forums

Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Pearl

Sun, Aug-15-04, 19:17

I disagree with the author's stance on eating fish and
chicken, but otherwise a very interesting and
informative article;

http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns24601

George Con

Sun, Aug-15-04, 19:17

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:cfnhvp$35c$1@kermit.esat.net...
>
> I disagree with the author's stance on eating fish and
> chicken, but otherwise a very interesting and informative
> article;
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id-
> =ns24601
>
>

All this is very old, old news. If you feed an animal
grain, you get back 9%-15% in food. Chickens are the worst.
Pigs are 15%.

And then of course is the water, since animals need a lot
of it. However, as Atkins points out, we evolved to eat
meat, not pasta.

markd

Sun, Aug-15-04, 19:17

I consider the original statement said to be atkins a bit of
apples and oranges. We didn't evolve to eat hamburger either
in the spirit in which you cast the below observation. Any
food regardless of proportion of carb was eaten whenever it
was available. Those such as "wild rice" in n. america, tubers
in tropical areas, stands of wild grains in the middle east,
fruits, etc. were too good to pass up as the seasonal
availablity of various foods came and went. With climate
change in various places, these sources were eaten more and
more such that the technology for their use came into the
archeology record.

>> If he said it he is wrong, humans evolved to eat a very
>> wide range of
>food
>> sources, in actual practice just about anything they can
>> get their
>hands
>
>Hm, where is pasta available in natural form?
>
>By saying that we evolved eating meat does not implicate that
>we was evolved eating ONLY meat. What is sure, we was not
>evolved eating pasta.
>
>Mirek

markd

Sun, Aug-15-04, 19:17

Yes, and the point in this specific instance 12k years ago is?
In those just post glacial times in those areas the climate
was one most similar to one at a higher latitude now where
large herds can be supported as they are today also. A recent
site in the middle east 35 k years ago found early grain
handling technology which was used on the dense stands of wild
grains that grow there to this day. At the time of the clovis
folk in the tropics would have been eating little animal based
protein as the climate doesn't support it in such abundance.

>>If he said it he is wrong, humans evolved to eat a very wide
>>range of food sources, in actual practice just about
>>anything they can get their hands on is eaten. It is in
>>general a function of the environment at any given place
>>which in turn is a general function of the latitude and the
>>forms of food sources supported.
>
>Apparently the evidence now indicates that the Clovis culture
>ate 95% pure meat diet, depleted the North American continent
>of most of its large species of megafauna, including several
>species of elephantines that roamed America.

markd

Sun, Aug-15-04, 19:17

I find little internal logic and/or support from what is known
about humanhistory in your statement and even less
correspondence with the "calcium" info that follows, with
regard to the original statement which has atkins saying that
human's were evolved to eat meat not pasta (high carbs).

>> It now appears that when the hunting and gathering era
>> ended, life expectancy declined as humans moved to eating
>> grain. Of course, life expetancy was short in
>> horticultural and hunting and gathering societies. It was
>> not until cheap widespread transportation that the
>> demographic revolution began.
>
>'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of
>calcium until the onset of the Agricultural Age, 10,000 years
>ago. Current calcium intake is one-quarter to one-third that
>of our evolutionary diet and, if we are genetically identical
>to the Late Paleolithic Homo sapiens, we may be consuming a
>calcium-deficient diet our bodies cannot adjust to by
>physiologic mechanisms.
>
>The anthropological approach says, with the exception of a
>few small changes related to genetic blood diseases, that
>humans are basically identical biologically and medically to
>the hunter-gatherers of the late Paleolithic Era.17 During
>this period, calcium content of the diet was much higher than
>it is currently. Depending on the ratio of animal to plant
>foods, calcium intake could have exceeded 2000 mg per day.17
>Calcium was largely derived from wild plants, which had a
>very high calcium content; animal protein played a small
>role, and the use of dairy products did not come into play
>until the Agricultural Age 10,000 years ago. Compared to the
>current intake of approximately 500 mg per day for women age
>20 and over in the United States,18 hunter-gatherers had a
>significantly higher calcium intake and apparently much
>stronger bones. As late as 12,000 years ago, Stone Age
>hunters had an average of 17-percent more bone density (as
>measured by humeral cortical thickness). Bone density also
>appeared to be stable over time with an apparent absence of
>osteoporosis.17
>
>High levels of calcium excretion via renal losses are seen
>with both high salt and high protein diets, in each case at
>levels common in the United States.10,11 .. The only
>hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss were
>the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical
>activity level was high, their osteoporosis incidence
>exceeded even present-day levels in the United States. The
>Inuit diet was high in phosphorus and protein and low in
>calcium.20 '
>http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/fulltext/calcium4-2.html

Pearl

Sun, Aug-15-04, 19:17

"George Conklin" <nilknoc@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TyMTc.26047$Jp6.4437@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:cfnhvp$35c$1@kermit.esat.net...
> >
> > I disagree with the author's stance on eating fish and
> > chicken, but otherwise a very interesting and informative
> > article;
> >
> > http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=n-
> > s24601
> >
> >
>
> All this is very old, old news.

To you perhaps.

> If you feed an animal grain, you get back 9%-15% in food.
> Chickens are the worst. Pigs are 15%.

For bovines the ratio is typically16lbs grain for 1lb beef
gain, or 6% of input (excluding silage or hay and
supplements).

'Typical animal and feeding statistics Daily water consumption
- 5-10 gallons Daily day matter consumption 15 pounds corn 4
pounds corn silage 1 pound of protein-mineral supplement Daily
gain - 2.7 pounds per day Feed conversion efficiency - 7.4
pounds of feed per pound of gain Initial weight - 700 pounds
Market weight - 1175 pounds Cost of gain - $ 45.00 per 100
pounds http://beef.ans.msu.edu/Facilities/Beef_Cattle_Researc-
h_and_Teach/body_beef_cattle_research_and_teach.html.

beef gain = 34.44% of liveweight gain in feedlot. Average
5.5lbs grain (excl.) to 1lb liveweight gain.
5.5lbs grain (excl.) to 0.34lbs beef = just over 16 : 1.

> And then of course is the water, since animals need a lot
> of it.

Indeed.

> However, as Atkins points out, we evolved to eat meat,
> not pasta.

Atkins was wrong.

Psalm 110

Sun, Aug-15-04, 19:17

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:54:11 GMT, "George Conklin"
<nilknoc@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>news:cfnhvp$35c$1@kermit.esat.net...
>>
>> I disagree with the author's stance on eating fish and
>> chicken, but otherwise a very interesting and informative
>> article;
>>
>> http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=-
>> ns24601
>>
>>
>
> All this is very old, old news. If you feed an animal
> grain, you get back 9%-15% in food. Chickens are the worst.
> Pigs are 15%.
>
> And then of course is the water, since animals need a lot
> of it. However, as Atkins points out, we evolved to eat
> meat, not pasta.
>
Conversion ratio of feed to live animal weight is about
2:1 for fish,
3.7:1 for chickens/rabbits small animals, 4:1 for pigs, up to
10:1 for cattle.

Cattle however eat a large portion of their food as
(indigestible to humans) range and pasteur grasses, hay and
silage. They are loaded up in the last few months with grains.

Wet/moist manures are generated at rates of 1.5:1 ratio to
dry feeds.

Manure lose 50% mass in composting before becoming soil
amendments. Primary losses are H20 and CO2, neither one in
short supply. Residuals are then converted into next
year's crops.

There is ZERO WASTE when intelligent runoff controls keeps
excess rains from carrying away nutrients.

It is perpetual recycling that has gone on for over 500
million years since the Cambrian explosion.

Water has been recycled for at least 3.7 billion years. Over
and over and over.

There are areas here for better practices, better management.
There is no room for falsehoods and frauds.

ATKINS is not the authority. 20,000,000 years of teeth
evolution has identified that the diet has changed many times
on the road to modern human teeth, which include now both
molars and incisors. Humans are OMNIVORES, capable of eating a
large assortment of foods including meats, vegetables, seeds,
berries, fish, grubs, and ice cream.

Not all food have equal beneficial or delitarious effects, and
need to be considered by themselves, in combination with the
total diet, and their ultimate environmental effects. Global
vegetarianism is a recipe for global environmental collapse.
The world can tolerate some portion of vegetarians but not a
majority or totality.

Animals are vital to the global ecology. Their manures
fertilize soils in ways nothing else does. This world is now
adapted to, and requires carnivores.

Dh Ld

Sun, Aug-15-04, 19:17

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 18:21:21 +0100, "pearl"
<tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:

>"George Conklin" <nilknoc@earthlink.net> wrote in message ne-
>ws:TyMTc.26047$Jp6.4437@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>> news:cfnhvp$35c$1@kermit.esat.net...
>> >
>> > I disagree with the author's stance on eating fish and
>> > chicken, but otherwise a very interesting and informative
>> > article;
>> >
>> > http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=n-
>> > s24601
>> >
>> >
>>
>> All this is very old, old news.
>
>To you perhaps.
>
>> If you feed an animal grain, you get back 9%-15% in food.
>> Chickens are the worst. Pigs are 15%.
>
>For bovines the ratio is typically16lbs grain for 1lb beef
>gain, or 6% of input (excluding silage or hay and
>supplements).
>
>'Typical animal and feeding statistics Daily water
>consumption - 5-10 gallons Daily day matter consumption 15
>pounds corn 4 pounds corn silage 1 pound of protein-mineral
>supplement Daily gain - 2.7 pounds per day Feed conversion
>efficiency - 7.4 pounds of feed per pound of gain Initial
>weight - 700 pounds Market weight - 1175 pounds Cost of gain
>- $ 45.00 per 100 pounds http://beef.ans.msu.edu/Facilities/-
>Beef_Cattle_Research_and_Teach/body_beef_cattle_research_and-
>_teach.html.
>
>beef gain = 34.44% of liveweight gain in feedlot. Average
>5.5lbs grain (excl.) to 1lb liveweight gain.
>5.5lbs grain (excl.) to 0.34lbs beef = just over 16 : 1.

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life,
people get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's
well over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy
cow people get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the
influence of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case of
rice the flooding and draining of fields, one meal of soy or
rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths
than hundreds of meals derived from grass raised cattle.
Grass raised cattle products contribute to less wildlife
deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for cattle
than soy or rice products. ·

>> And then of course is the water, since animals need a
>> lot of it.
>
>Indeed.
>
>> However, as Atkins points out, we evolved to eat meat,
>> not pasta.
>
>Atkins was wrong.
_________________________________________________________
[...] In the American Scientist article, Stanford describes
witnessing the largest massacre ever documented at Gombe. Two
hunting parties with a total of 33 chimps - two of them
swollen females - converged on a group of 25 colobus monkeys.
The male chimps chased and shook the monkeys from trees,
eventually killing seven. Before Stanford's eyes, a large male
chimp plucked a baby monkey from a branch and "dispatched it
with a bite to the skull." The chimp then approached a swollen
female with the carcass, dangling it just out of her reach
until she presented her swelling. Only after copulation did
the male share his food.

"An important issue today in human male-female relationships
is control," Stanford said. "What we're seeing is the
evolutionary roots of this kind of mutual attempt to
manipulate and control. Male chimps are using meat to control
female behavior and female chimps are making use of their
reproductive system to get meat." [...] http://www.usc.edu/ex-
t-relations/news_service/chronicle_html/1995.02.06.html/chimp-
.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Rick Etter

Sun, Aug-15-04, 19:17

George Con

Sun, Aug-15-04, 19:17

Pearl

Sun, Aug-15-04, 19:17

"Psalm 110" <MOONIES@SwiftVets.NK> wrote in message
news:r2bvh0h65uovvj26ttfrs8lm8ssn14209u@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:54:11 GMT, "George Conklin"
> <nilknoc@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> >news:cfnhvp$35c$1@kermit.esat.net...
> >>
> >> I disagree with the author's stance on eating fish and
> >> chicken, but otherwise a very interesting and informative
> >> article;
> >>
> >> http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=n-
> >> s24601
> >>
> >>
> >
> > All this is very old, old news. If you feed an animal
> > grain, you get back 9%-15% in food. Chickens are the
> > worst. Pigs are 15%.
> >
> > And then of course is the water, since animals need a
> > lot of it. However, as Atkins points out, we evolved to
> > eat meat, not pasta.
> >
> Conversion ratio of feed to live animal weight is about 2:1
> for fish,
> 3.7:1 for chickens/rabbits small animals, 4:1 for pigs, up
> to 10:1 for cattle.
>
> Cattle however eat a large portion of their food as
> (indigestible to humans) range and pasteur grasses, hay
> and silage. They are loaded up in the last few months
> with grains.

. Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once covered
more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the world's
greatest masses of large animals. Of the major ecotypes,
grassland produces the deepest, most fertile topsoil and has
the most resistance to soil erosion. Livestock production
has damaged the Earth's grassland more than has any other
land use, and has transformed roughly half of it to
desertlike condition. Lester Brown of the Worldwatch
Institute reports that "Widespread grassland degradation
[from livestock grazing] can now be seen on every
continent."

In 1977, experts attending the United Nations Conference on
Desertification in Nairobi agreed that the greatest cause of
world desertification in modern times has been livestock
grazing (as did the US Council on Environmental Quality in
1981). They reported that grazing was desertifying most arid,
semi-arid, and sub-humid land where farming was not
occurring. Seven years later UNEP compiled, from
questionnaires sent to 91 countries, the most complete
data on world desertification ever assembled. According
to the resultant 1984 assessment, more than 11 billion
acres, or 35% of the Earth's land surface, are threatened
by new or continued desertification. UNEP estimated that
more than 3/4 of this land -- the vast majority of it
grazed rangeland -- had already been at least moderately
degraded. About 15 million acres (the size of West
Virginia) of semi-arid or subhumid land annually are
reduced to unreclaimable desert-like condition, while
another 52 million and acres annually are reduced to
minimal cover or to sweeping sands -- more due to
livestock grazing than any other influence. The world's
"deserts" are expected to expand about 20% in the next 20
years.' http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html

> Wet/moist manures are generated at rates of 1.5:1 ratio to
> dry feeds.
>
> Manure lose 50% mass in composting before becoming soil
> amendments. Primary losses are H20 and CO2, neither one in
> short supply. Residuals are then converted into next
> year's crops.

Restoring Soil Carbon Should Be Top Global Priority Source:
Ohio State University 6-10-4

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Newswise) - Restoring soil carbon levels
should be a top priority among the global community,
according to a viewpoint article in this week's issue of the
journal Science.

The amount of carbon that can be restored in the world's
degraded agricultural soils will directly influence global
food security and climate change within our lifetime, said
Rattan Lal, author of the article and director of the carbon
management and sequestration center at Ohio State University.

Scientists estimate that, since the mechanization of
agriculture began a few hundred years ago, some 78 billion
metric tons - more than 171 trillion pounds - of carbon once
trapped in the soil have been lost to the atmosphere in the
form of carbon dioxide (CO2).

"Converting natural ecosystems to fields for crop production
and pastures depletes a soil's carbon content by as much as 75
percent," Lal said. "And the amount of carbon we emit into the
atmosphere each year from industrial activity is on the rise."

With too little carbon in the soil, crop production is
inefficient. Right now, the world's agricultural soils are
alarmingly depleted of carbon, particularly in sub-Saharan
Africa, south and central Asia and the Caribbean and Andean
regions, Lal said.

He calls for adopting "recommended management practices" for
increasing and keeping carbon in farmed soils. These practices
include no-till farming - leaving residue from the previous
year's crops on the field; agroforestry - planting trees or
shrubs on or around cropland to enhance the quality of the
soil; planting cover crops, which protect the soil from
erosion during normal growing seasons; and using nutrients
such as manure, compost or biosolids to fertilize crops.

Evidence shows that following such practices greatly increases
and sustains crop yields.

Lal cited an 18-year experiment in Kenya: Farm fields managed
by regular farming practices - tilling the land, using no
fertilizer, leaving fields bare in the non-growing season -
produced about 1 ton of maize and beans per hectare (a hectare
is about the size of two football fields). But fields treated
with manure, planted with cover crops and covered with mulch
yielded six times that amount.

"This is the type of quantum jump in crop yield needed at the
continental scale to ensure food security in Sub-Saharan
Africa," said Lal, who is also a professor of natural
resources. "Soil needs enough carbon in order to hold water
and nutrients and to grow crops efficiently.

"But completely removing crop residue for animal fodder and
fuel is the norm in many African and Asian countries," he
continued. "This drastically reduces soil carbon levels, and
we cannot achieve global food security without returning crop
residues and putting carbon back in soil. Both are necessary
for improving soil quality." .. "Soil carbon sequestration is
a natural, cost-effective and environment-friendly process,"
he continued. "Once sequestered, carbon remains in the soil as
long as restorative land use, no-till farming and other
recommended management practices are followed."
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/505448/

> There is ZERO WASTE when intelligent runoff controls keeps
> excess rains from carrying away nutrients.

Describe these 'intelligent runoff controls'.

> It is perpetual recycling that has gone on for over 500
> million years since the Cambrian explosion.

Not CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations).

> Water has been recycled for at least 3.7 billion years. Over
> and over and over.

* U.S. fresh water reserves have declined precipitously as a
result of excess water use for cattle and other livestock.
U.S. water shortages, especially in the West, have now
reached critical levels. Overdrafts now exceed
replenishments by 25 percent.

* The great Ogallala aquifer, one of the world's largest fresh
water reserves, is already half depleted in Kansas, Texas,
and New Mexico. In California, where 42 percent of
irrigation water is used for feed or livestock production,
water tables have dropped so low that in some areas the
earth is sinking under the vacuum. Some U.S. reservoirs and
aquifers are now at their lowest levels since the end of the
last Ice Age.- Sandra Postel, _Water: Rethinking Management
in an Age of Scarcity_, Worldwatch Paper 62 (1984), 20.
http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/paper/62/

''We're (also) polluting our cheapest and most easily
accessible supply of water,'' says Payal Sampat, author of the
report 'Deep Trouble, The Hidden Threat of Groundwater
Pollution'.

Nitrate pollution from livestock waste and common nitrogen
fertiliser has caused much damage to aquifers in high demand,
says the 55-page report.' http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~doetqp-p/co-
urses/env440/env440_2/lectures/lec7/The%20Hidden%20Freshwater-
%20Crisis.ht m

> There are areas here for better practices, better
> management. There is no room for falsehoods and frauds.

Livestock farming is unsustainable, full stop.

> ATKINS is not the authority. 20,000,000 years of teeth
> evolution has identified that the diet has changed many
> times on the road to modern human teeth, which include now
> both molars and incisors.

'Most "nutritionists" assert that we have definite carnivorous
leanings, and some have even termed our incisor teeth "fangs"
in defense of their erroneous position that humans are natural
meat-eaters! If you look at the various species in the animal
kingdom, each is equipped with teeth that are ideally suited
to masticate a particular type of food. Herbivores (like the
cow) have 24 molars, eight jagged incisors in the lower jaw
and a horny palate in the upper jaw. Their jaws move
vertically, laterally, forward, and backward, enabling the
herbivore to tear and grind coarse grasses. Omnivores (like
the hog) have tusk-like canines allowing them to dig up roots.
Frugivores (like the chimpanzee) have 32 teeth: sixteen in
each jaw including four incisors, two cuspids, four bicuspids,
and six molars. The cuspids are adapted for cracking nuts, and
the uniform articulation of the teeth enables the frugivore to
mash and grind fruits. On the contrary, carnivores (like the
cat family) have markedly developed canines that are long,
sharp, cylindrical, pointed, and set apart from the other
teeth. Fangs and sharp pointed teeth that penetrate and kill,
that rip and tear flesh, are a feature of all true carnivores
(except certain birds). The powerful jaws of the carnivore
move only vertically, and are ideal for ripping and tearing
flesh that is swallowed virtually whole and then acted upon by
extremely potent gastric juices. Human teeth are not designed
for tearing flesh as in the lion, wolf or dog, but rather
compare closely with other fruit-eating animals. Human teeth
correspond almost identically to the chimpanzees and other
frugivores. The complete absence of spaces between human teeth
characterizes us as the archetype frugivore. The "canine"
teeth of humans are short, stout, and slightly triangular.
They are less pronounced and developed than the orangutan's,
who rarely kills and eats raw flesh in its natural
environment. Human canines in no way resemble the long, round,
slender canines of the true carnivore. Human teeth are not
curved or sharp like the wolves or tigers, nor are they wide
and flat like the grass and grain-eating species. Human teeth
are actually like the fruit-eating monkeys, and the human
mouth is best suited for eating succulent fruits and
vegetables. It would be extremely difficult, if not
impossible, for humans to eat raw flesh without the aid of
fork and knife. To term our incisor teeth "fangs" or even to
liken them as such is outrageous. '
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm

> Humans are OMNIVORES, capable of eating a large assortment
> of foods including meats, vegetables, seeds, berries, fish,
> grubs, and ice cream.

'.. 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

> Not all food have equal beneficial or delitarious effects,
> and need to be considered by themselves, in combination with
> the total diet, and their ultimate environmental effects.
> Global vegetarianism is a recipe for global environmental
> collapse. The world can tolerate some portion of vegetarians
> but not a majority or totality.

False.

> Animals are vital to the global ecology. Their manures
> fertilize soils in ways nothing else does. This world is now
> adapted to, and requires carnivores.

Wild animals produce manure too. The world requires
reforestation.

George Con

Sun, Aug-15-04, 19:17

<dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:k5avh09gb41i9fefhk2il4jm76r7rdkncq@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 18:21:21 +0100, "pearl"
> <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> >"George Conklin" <nilknoc@earthlink.net> wrote in
> >message news:TyMTc.26047$Jp6.4437@newsread3.news.atl.ea-
> >rthlink.net...
> >>
> >> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> >> news:cfnhvp$35c$1@kermit.esat.net...
> >> >
> >> > I disagree with the author's stance on eating fish and
> >> > chicken, but otherwise a very interesting and
> >> > informative article;
> >> >
> >> > http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id-
> >> > =ns24601
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> All this is very old, old news.
> >
> >To you perhaps.
> >
> >> If you feed an animal grain, you get back 9%-15% in food.
> >> Chickens are the worst. Pigs are 15%.
> >
> >For bovines the ratio is typically16lbs grain for 1lb beef
> >gain, or 6% of input (excluding silage or hay and
> >supplements).
> >
> >'Typical animal and feeding statistics Daily water
> >consumption - 5-10 gallons Daily day matter consumption 15
> >pounds corn 4 pounds corn silage 1 pound of protein-mineral
> >supplement Daily gain - 2.7 pounds per day Feed conversion
> >efficiency - 7.4 pounds of feed per pound of gain Initial
> >weight - 700 pounds Market weight - 1175 pounds Cost of
> >gain - $ 45.00 per 100 pounds
>
>http://beef.ans.msu.edu/Facilities/Beef_Cattle_Research_and_-
>Teach/body_beef
_cattle_research_and_teach.html.
> >
> >beef gain = 34.44% of liveweight gain in feedlot. Average
> >5.5lbs grain (excl.) to 1lb liveweight gain.
> >5.5lbs grain (excl.) to 0.34lbs beef = just over 16 : 1.
>
> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life,
> people get over 500 pounds of human consumable
> meat...that's well over 500 servings of meat. From a grass
> raised dairy cow people get thousands of dairy servings.

As Marvin Harris has pointed out, not eating cows in India
is functional. Yes, you can drink the milk. But in
addition, bullocks are used as beasts of burden and to pull
plows. Cow pows are used as flooring--and yes, I have slept
on such a floor personally. Further, cow excrement is used
in India and Africa as a hot-burning fuel. If you kill the
cow and eat it, you don't get any of these benefits. Moraji
Desai used only ethical leather, i.e. leather from a cow
who died a natural death. (He was PM of India).

Due to the influence of farm
> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding
> and draining of fields, one meal of soy or rice based
> product is likely to involve more animal deaths than
> hundreds of meals derived from grass raised cattle. Grass
> raised cattle products contribute to less wildlife deaths,
> better wildlife habitat, and better lives for cattle than
> soy or rice products. ·
>

Grass raised on American lawns and thrown into landfills
could easily support a cow. My grandmother kept a cow in a
city garage, and it was not uncommon in its time. It fed
on the lawn.

markd

Sun, Aug-15-04, 19:18

"However, as Atkins points out, we evolved to eat meat,
not pasta."

If he said it he is wrong, humans evolved to eat a very wide
range of food sources, in actual practice just about anything
they can get their hands on is eaten. It is in general a
function of the environment at any given place which in turn
is a general function of the latitude and the forms of food
sources supported.

George Con

Sun, Aug-15-04, 19:18

<markd@toad-net.com> wrote in message
news:411fcb01$0$251$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
>
> I consider the original statement said to be atkins a bit of
> apples and oranges. We didn't evolve to eat hamburger either
> in the spirit in which you cast the below observation. Any
> food regardless of proportion of carb was eaten whenever it
> was available. Those such as "wild rice" in n. america,
> tubers in tropical areas, stands of wild grains in the
> middle east, fruits, etc. were too good to pass up as the
> seasonal availablity of various foods came and went. With
> climate change in various places, these sources were eaten
> more and more such that the technology for their use came
> into the archeology record.
>

It now appears that when the hunting and gathering era
ended, life expectancy declined as humans moved to eating
grain. Of course, life expetancy was short in
horticultural and hunting and gathering societies. It was
not until cheap widespread transportation that the
demographic revolution began.

Psalm 110

Sun, Aug-15-04, 19:18

On 15 Aug 2004 17:13:18 GMT, markd@toad-net.com wrote:

>"However, as Atkins points out, we evolved to eat meat,
>not pasta."
>
>If he said it he is wrong, humans evolved to eat a very wide
>range of food sources, in actual practice just about anything
>they can get their hands on is eaten. It is in general a
>function of the environment at any given place which in turn
>is a general function of the latitude and the forms of food
>sources supported.

Apparently the evidence now indicates that the Clovis culture
ate 95% pure meat diet, depleted the North American continent
of most of its large species of megafauna, including several
species of elephantines that roamed America.

Mirek Fidl

Sun, Aug-15-04, 19:18

<markd@toad-net.com> pí¹e v diskusním pøíspìvku
news:411f99ae$0$248$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
> "However, as Atkins points out, we evolved to eat meat,
> not pasta."
>
> If he said it he is wrong, humans evolved to eat a very wide
> range of
food
> sources, in actual practice just about anything they can
> get their
hands

Hm, where is pasta available in natural form?

By saying that we evolved eating meat does not implicate that
we was evolved eating ONLY meat. What is sure, we was not
evolved eating pasta.

Mirek

George Con

Sun, Aug-15-04, 19:18

<markd@toad-net.com> wrote in message
news:411f99ae$0$248$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
> "However, as Atkins points out, we evolved to eat meat,
> not pasta."
>
> If he said it he is wrong, humans evolved to eat a very wide
> range of food sources, in actual practice just about
> anything they can get their hands on is eaten. It is in
> general a function of the environment at any given place
> which in turn is a general function of the latitude and the
> forms of food sources supported.

And in what latitude was pasta grown? Get real.

Pearl

Sun, Aug-15-04, 19:18

"George Conklin" <nilknoc@earthlink.net> wrote in message new-
s:aTQTc.26518$Jp6.17144@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> <markd@toad-net.com> wrote in message
> news:411fcb01$0$251$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
> >
> > I consider the original statement said to be atkins a bit
> > of apples and oranges. We didn't evolve to eat hamburger
> > either in the spirit in which you cast the below
> > observation. Any food regardless of proportion of carb was
> > eaten whenever it was available. Those such as "wild rice"
> > in n. america, tubers in tropical areas, stands of wild
> > grains in the middle east, fruits, etc. were too good to
> > pass up as the seasonal availablity of various foods came
> > and went. With climate change in various places, these
> > sources were eaten more and more such that the technology
> > for their use came into the archeology record.
> >
>
> It now appears that when the hunting and gathering era
> ended, life expectancy declined as humans moved to eating
> grain. Of course, life expetancy was short in
> horticultural and hunting and gathering societies. It was
> not until cheap widespread transportation that the
> demographic revolution began.

'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of
calcium until the onset of the Agricultural Age, 10,000 years
ago. Current calcium intake is one-quarter to one-third that
of our evolutionary diet and, if we are genetically identical
to the Late Paleolithic Homo sapiens, we may be consuming a
calcium-deficient diet our bodies cannot adjust to by
physiologic mechanisms.

The anthropological approach says, with the exception of a few
small changes related to genetic blood diseases, that humans
are basically identical biologically and medically to the
hunter-gatherers of the late Paleolithic Era.17 During this
period, calcium content of the diet was much higher than it is
currently. Depending on the ratio of animal to plant foods,
calcium intake could have exceeded 2000 mg per day.17 Calcium
was largely derived from wild plants, which had a very high
calcium content; animal protein played a small role, and the
use of dairy products did not come into play until the
Agricultural Age 10,000 years ago. Compared to the current
intake of approximately 500 mg per day for women age 20 and
over in the United States,18 hunter-gatherers had a
significantly higher calcium intake and apparently much
stronger bones. As late as 12,000 years ago, Stone Age hunters
had an average of 17-percent more bone density (as measured by
humeral cortical thickness). Bone density also appeared to be
stable over time with an apparent absence of osteoporosis.17

High levels of calcium excretion via renal losses are seen
with both high salt and high protein diets, in each case at
levels common in the United States.10,11 .. The only
hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss were
the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical
activity level was high, their osteoporosis incidence exceeded
even present-day levels in the United States. The Inuit diet
was high in phosphorus and protein and low in calcium.20 '
http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/fulltext/calcium4-2.html

George Con

Sun, Aug-15-04, 19:18

"Psalm 110" <MOONIES@SwiftVets.NK> wrote in message
news:ntbvh0lu16o9q6idqr3gb5823a8i63dl91@4ax.com...
> On 15 Aug 2004 17:13:18 GMT, markd@toad-net.com wrote:
>
> >"However, as Atkins points out, we evolved to eat meat, not
> >pasta."
> >
> >If he said it he is wrong, humans evolved to eat a very
> >wide range of
food
> >sources, in actual practice just about anything they can
> >get their hands on is eaten. It is in general a function of
> >the environment at any given place which in turn is a
> >general function of the latitude and the forms
of
> >food sources supported.
>
> Apparently the evidence now indicates that the Clovis
> culture ate 95% pure meat diet, depleted the North American
> continent of most of its large species of megafauna,
> including several species of elephantines that roamed
> America.

Tell the Sierra Club.

markd

Mon, Aug-16-04, 06:16

In a word, no.

> It now appears that when the hunting and gathering era
> ended, life expectancy declined as humans moved to eating
> grain. Of course, life expetancy was short in
> horticultural and hunting and gathering societies. It was
> not until cheap widespread transportation that the
> demographic revolution began.

Wolfbrothe

Mon, Aug-16-04, 06:16

markd@toad-net.com wrote in message
news:<411f99ae$0$248$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>...
> "However, as Atkins points out, we evolved to eat meat,
> not pasta."
>
> If he said it he is wrong, humans evolved to eat a very wide
> range of food sources, in actual practice just about
> anything they can get their hands on is eaten. It is in
> general a function of the environment at any given place
> which in turn is a general function of the latitude and the
> forms of food sources supported.

What you fail to understand is while it is true humans have
evolved to eat a veriety of foods, there is a big difference
between how humans have evolved the ablility to SURVIVE on
certain foods and the foods humans have evolved to THRIVE on.
That is a simple enough concept to grasp if you try. Dogs and
cats and other animals kept as pets by humans can also SURVIVE
on basicly the very same fake processed foods we ourselves are
eating now but they surely do not thrive on them. They
develope in many cases similar diseases and conditions as
modern humans. Dogs and cats thrive off fresh raw animal foods
and so do humans. The amazingly absurd notion that dog food
adds are promoting healthy dog foods with GRAINS and veggies
is a perfect example of how warped the publics(and supposed
health authorities) understanding of nutrition is.

Wolfbrothe

Mon, Aug-16-04, 06:16

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:<cfo6lb$9io$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> "George Conklin" <nilknoc@earthlink.net> wrote in
> message news:TyMTc.26047$Jp6.4437@newsread3.news.atl.ea-
> rthlink.net...
> >
> > "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> > news:cfnhvp$35c$1@kermit.esat.net...
> > >
> > > I disagree with the author's stance on eating fish and
> > > chicken, but otherwise a very interesting and
> > > informative article;
> > >
> > > http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=-
> > > ns24601
> > >
> > >
> >
> > All this is very old, old news.
>
> To you perhaps.
>
> > If you feed an animal grain, you get back 9%-15% in food.
> > Chickens are the worst. Pigs are 15%.
>
> For bovines the ratio is typically16lbs grain for 1lb beef
> gain, or 6% of input (excluding silage or hay and
> supplements).
>
> 'Typical animal and feeding statistics Daily water
> consumption - 5-10 gallons Daily day matter consumption 15
> pounds corn 4 pounds corn silage 1 pound of protein-mineral
> supplement Daily gain - 2.7 pounds per day Feed conversion
> efficiency - 7.4 pounds of feed per pound of gain Initial
> weight - 700 pounds Market weight - 1175 pounds Cost of gain
> - $ 45.00 per 100 pounds http://beef.ans.msu.edu/Facilities-
> /Beef_Cattle_Research_and_Teach/body_beef_cattle_research_a-
> nd_teach.html.
>
> beef gain = 34.44% of liveweight gain in feedlot. Average
> 5.5lbs grain (excl.) to 1lb liveweight gain.
> 5.5lbs grain (excl.) to 0.34lbs beef = just over 16 : 1.
>
> > And then of course is the water, since animals need a
> > lot of it.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > However, as Atkins points out, we evolved to eat meat, not
> > pasta.
>
> Atkins was wrong.

People are not going to stop eating healthy animal foods. You
will have an easyer time getting a Lion to eat tofu.(like the
hippy/animal rights fanatic from Futurama heh). Get that
through your skull. And yes humans evolved to thrive off
animal source foods. To claim otherwise is just animal rights
extremist propaganada. In fact since us foolish meat eating
humans do not want to listen to your wisdom why dont you just
go save all the other carnivorous animals that you love so
much from their folly of eating meat and convert them all
into vegans.

Piezzo Gur

Mon, Aug-16-04, 06:16

Funny how once grains became a mainstay we needed to mold
the same compounds to produce their own cures. I guess you
could say this homeopathy at work without the pharmagiants
knowing it.

"Wolfbrother" <rangerhasten@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6eb8f6eb.0408151717.5a781ff8@posting.google.com...
> markd@toad-net.com wrote in message
news:<411f99ae$0$248$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com>...
> > "However, as Atkins points out, we evolved to eat meat,
> > not pasta."
> >
> > If he said it he is wrong, humans evolved to eat a very
> > wide range of
food
> > sources, in actual practice just about anything they can
> > get their hands on is eaten. It is in general a function
> > of the environment at any
given
> > place which in turn is a general function of the latitude
> > and the forms
of
> > food sources supported.
>
> What you fail to understand is while it is true humans have
> evolved to eat a veriety of foods, there is a big difference
> between how humans have evolved the ablility to SURVIVE on
> certain foods and the foods humans have evolved to THRIVE
> on. That is a simple enough concept to grasp if you try.
> Dogs and cats and other animals kept as pets by humans can
> also SURVIVE on basicly the very same fake processed foods
> we ourselves are eating now but they surely do not thrive on
> them. They develope in many cases similar diseases and
> conditions as modern humans. Dogs and cats thrive off fresh
> raw animal foods and so do humans. The amazingly absurd
> notion that dog food adds are promoting healthy dog foods
> with GRAINS and veggies is a perfect example of how warped
> the publics(and supposed health authorities) understanding
> of nutrition is.

Wolfbrothe

Mon, Aug-16-04, 06:16

dh_ld@nomail.com wrote in message
news:<k5avh09gb41i9fefhk2il4jm76r7rdkncq@4ax.com>...
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 18:21:21 +0100, "pearl"
> <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life,
> people get over 500 pounds of human consumable
> meat...that's well over 500 servings of meat. From a grass
> raised dairy cow people get thousands of dairy servings.
> Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides, and
> in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields,
> one meal of soy or rice based product is likely to involve
> more animal deaths than hundreds of meals derived from
> grass raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products
> contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife
> habitat, and better lives for cattle than soy or rice
> products. ·
>

That kind of reality is simply deflected by the extreme
ideological barriers surrounding animal rights fanatics. Bones
and organs also provide an exelent source of food heavily
relied apon by ancient humans and their ancestors. Not sure if
you implied that in the 500 pounds of meat.

> _________________________________________________________
> [...] In the American Scientist article, Stanford describes
> witnessing the largest massacre ever documented at Gombe.
> Two hunting parties with a total of 33 chimps - two of them
> swollen females - converged on a group of 25 colobus
> monkeys. The male chimps chased and shook the monkeys from
> trees, eventually killing seven. Before Stanford's eyes, a
> large male chimp plucked a baby monkey from a branch and
> "dispatched it with a bite to the skull." The chimp then
> approached a swollen female with the carcass, dangling it
> just out of her reach until she presented her swelling. Only
> after copulation did the male share his food.
>
> "An important issue today in human male-female relationships
> is control," Stanford said. "What we're seeing is the
> evolutionary roots of this kind of mutual attempt to
> manipulate and control. Male chimps are using meat to
> control female behavior and female chimps are making use of
> their reproductive system to get meat." [...] http://www.us-
> c.edu/ext-relations/news_service/chronicle_html/1995.02.06.-
> html/chimp.html
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Some very fascinating stuff there thanks for the post. It is
amazing how they can mirror the basic aspects of what we call
"human nature" in such a pure form. And to observe that in a
non human animal is remarkable.

Wolfbrothe

Mon, Aug-16-04, 06:16

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:<cfoq7d$feu$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> "Psalm 110" <MOONIES@SwiftVets.NK> wrote in message
> news:r2bvh0h65uovvj26ttfrs8lm8ssn14209u@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:54:11 GMT, "George Conklin"
> > <nilknoc@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> > >news:cfnhvp$35c$1@kermit.esat.net...
> > >>
> > >> I disagree with the author's stance on eating fish and
> > >> chicken, but otherwise a very interesting and
> > >> informative article;
> > >>
> > >> http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id-
> > >> =ns24601
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > All this is very old, old news. If you feed an animal
> > > grain, you get back 9%-15% in food. Chickens are the
> > > worst. Pigs are 15%.
> > >
> > > And then of course is the water, since animals need a
> > > lot of it. However, as Atkins points out, we evolved
> > > to eat meat, not pasta.
> > >
> > Conversion ratio of feed to live animal weight is about
> > 2:1 for fish,
> > 3.7:1 for chickens/rabbits small animals, 4:1 for pigs, up
> > to 10:1 for cattle.
> >
> > Cattle however eat a large portion of their food as
> > (indigestible to humans) range and pasteur grasses, hay
> > and silage. They are loaded up in the last few months with
> > grains.
>
> . Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once
> covered more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the
> world's greatest masses of large animals. Of the major
> ecotypes, grassland produces the deepest, most fertile
> topsoil and has the most resistance to soil erosion.
> Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
> more than has any other land use, and has transformed
> roughly half of it to desertlike condition. Lester Brown
> of the Worldwatch Institute reports that "Widespread
> grassland degradation [from livestock grazing] can now be
> seen on every continent."
>
> In 1977, experts attending the United Nations Conference on
> Desertification in Nairobi agreed that the greatest cause of
> world desertification in modern times has been livestock
> grazing (as did the US Council on Environmental Quality in
> 1981). They reported that grazing was desertifying most
> arid, semi-arid, and sub-humid land where farming was
> not occurring. Seven years later UNEP compiled, from
> questionnaires sent to 91 countries, the most complete
> data on world desertification ever assembled. According
> to the resultant 1984 assessment, more than 11 billion
> acres, or 35% of the Earth's land surface, are
> threatened by new or continued desertification. UNEP
> estimated that more than 3/4 of this land -- the vast
> majority of it grazed rangeland -- had already been at
> least moderately degraded. About 15 million acres (the
> size of West Virginia) of semi-arid or subhumid land
> annually are reduced to unreclaimable desert-like
> condition, while another 52 million and acres annually
> are reduced to minimal cover or to sweeping sands --
> more due to livestock grazing than any other influence.
> The world's "deserts" are expected to expand about 20%
> in the next 20 years.'
> http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html
>
> > Wet/moist manures are generated at rates of 1.5:1 ratio to
> > dry feeds.
> >
> > Manure lose 50% mass in composting before becoming soil
> > amendments. Primary losses are H20 and CO2, neither one in
> > short supply. Residuals are then converted into next
> > year's crops.
>
> Restoring Soil Carbon Should Be Top Global Priority Source:
> Ohio State University 6-10-4
>
> COLUMBUS, Ohio (Newswise) - Restoring soil carbon levels
> should be a top priority among the global community,
> according to a viewpoint article in this week's issue of the
> journal Science.
>
> The amount of carbon that can be restored in the world's
> degraded agricultural soils will directly influence global
> food security and climate change within our lifetime, said
> Rattan Lal, author of the article and director of the carbon
> management and sequestration center at Ohio State
> University.
>
> Scientists estimate that, since the mechanization of
> agriculture began a few hundred years ago, some 78 billion
> metric tons - more than 171 trillion pounds - of carbon once
> trapped in the soil have been lost to the atmosphere in the
> form of carbon dioxide (CO2).
>
> "Converting natural ecosystems to fields for crop production
> and pastures depletes a soil's carbon content by as much as
> 75 percent," Lal said. "And the amount of carbon we emit
> into the atmosphere each year from industrial activity is on
> the rise."
>
> With too little carbon in the soil, crop production is
> inefficient. Right now, the world's agricultural soils are
> alarmingly depleted of carbon, particularly in sub-Saharan
> Africa, south and central Asia and the Caribbean and Andean
> regions, Lal said.
>
> He calls for adopting "recommended management practices"
> for increasing and keeping carbon in farmed soils. These
> practices include no-till farming - leaving residue from
> the previous year's crops on the field; agroforestry -
> planting trees or shrubs on or around cropland to enhance
> the quality of the soil; planting cover crops, which
> protect the soil from erosion during normal growing
> seasons; and using nutrients such as manure, compost or
> biosolids to fertilize crops.
>
> Evidence shows that following such practices greatly
> increases and sustains crop yields.
>
> Lal cited an 18-year experiment in Kenya: Farm fields
> managed by regular farming practices - tilling the land,
> using no fertilizer, leaving fields bare in the non-growing
> season - produced about 1 ton of maize and beans per hectare
> (a hectare is about the size of two football fields). But
> fields treated with manure, planted with cover crops and
> covered with mulch yielded six times that amount.
>
> "This is the type of quantum jump in crop yield needed at
> the continental scale to ensure food security in Sub-Saharan
> Africa," said Lal, who is also a professor of natural
> resources. "Soil needs enough carbon in order to hold water
> and nutrients and to grow crops efficiently.
>
> "But completely removing crop residue for animal fodder and
> fuel is the norm in many African and Asian countries," he
> continued. "This drastically reduces soil carbon levels, and
> we cannot achieve global food security without returning
> crop residues and putting carbon back in soil. Both are
> necessary for improving soil quality." .. "Soil carbon
> sequestration is a natural, cost-effective and
> environment-friendly process," he continued. "Once
> sequestered, carbon remains in the soil as long as
> restorative land use, no-till farming and other recommended
> management practices are followed."
> http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/505448/
>
> > There is ZERO WASTE when intelligent runoff controls keeps
> > excess rains from carrying away nutrients.
>
> Describe these 'intelligent runoff controls'.
>
> > It is perpetual recycling that has gone on for over 500
> > million years since the Cambrian explosion.
>
> Not CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations).
>
> > Water has been recycled for at least 3.7 billion years.
> > Over and over and over.
>
> * U.S. fresh water reserves have declined precipitously as a
> result of excess water use for cattle and other livestock.
> U.S. water shortages, especially in the West, have now
> reached critical levels. Overdrafts now exceed
> replenishments by 25 percent.
>
> * The great Ogallala aquifer, one of the world's largest
> fresh water reserves, is already half depleted in Kansas,
> Texas, and New Mexico. In California, where 42 percent of
> irrigation water is used for feed or livestock production,
> water tables have dropped so low that in some areas the
> earth is sinking under the vacuum. Some U.S. reservoirs
> and aquifers are now at their lowest levels since the end
> of the last Ice Age.- Sandra Postel, _Water: Rethinking
> Management in an Age of Scarcity_, Worldwatch Paper 62
> (1984), 20. http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/paper/62/
>
> ''We're (also) polluting our cheapest and most easily
> accessible supply of water,'' says Payal Sampat, author of
> the report 'Deep Trouble, The Hidden Threat of Groundwater
> Pollution'.
>
> Nitrate pollution from livestock waste and common nitrogen
> fertiliser has caused much damage to aquifers in high
> demand, says the 55-page report.' http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~d-
> oetqp-p/courses/env440/env440_2/lectures/lec7/The%20Hidden%-
> 20Freshwater%20Crisis.ht m
>
> > There are areas here for better practices, better
> > management. There is no room for falsehoods and frauds.
>
> Livestock farming is unsustainable, full stop.
>
> > ATKINS is not the authority. 20,000,000 years of teeth
> > evolution has identified that the diet has changed many
> > times on the road to modern human teeth, which include now
> > both molars and incisors.
>

> Human teeth are actually like the fruit-eating monkeys, and
> the human mouth is best suited for eating succulent fruits
> and vegetables. It would be extremely difficult, if not
> impossible, for humans to eat raw flesh without the aid of
> fork and knife.

Ahaha you are so full of shit its amazing. On top of that
ridiculous statment do you realize how much more absurd it
sounds coming right after the previous post detailing the
severe carnivorous aspects of chimps.

> '.. 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.'

Again unbelievably full of shit. What a false statment that
is. You embody animal rights extremism at its worst. Total
disregard for reality. There are many population groups who
have lived in perfect health completely free of modern
degenerative conditions on diets based on up to 80% or more
from animal source foods. At the same time there are
populations(not many howerver do to the fact humans prefer
and thrive off animal source foods) that live close to or
completely on all-plant diets and have extremely poor
health AND short life spans. How easily this fact is
ignored by you people.

One does not go to a tobacco company for health information on
smoking, nor does one go to an animal rights extremist for
health information on food. That is common sense. Information
from either source can simply not be taken seriously. It is
called conflict of interest.

K P

Mon, Aug-16-04, 19:18

Tcomeau

Mon, Aug-16-04, 19:18

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:<cfnhvp$35c$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> I disagree with the author's stance on eating fish and
> chicken, but otherwise a very interesting and informative
> article;
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id-
> =ns24601

That crap is from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, now
the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. As in
Mayor Bloomberg of New York. He bought the university. He owns
it. It's his personal possesion. His toy.

Both John's Hopkins and Mayor Bloomberg have taken swipes at
Atkins in the past. They are anti-meat and pro-vegan.

Interesting how an entire educational institution can be
commandeered to push one person's personal viewpoints. And the
guy who owns it has no medical training. Those "doctors"
should be ashamed of themselves. So much for John's Hopkins
being a centre of higher learning. The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg
School of Public Health has lost all credibility in any field
of science.

TC

Pearl

Mon, Aug-16-04, 19:18

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:...
> "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b550f406.0408160602.236d5ddf@posting.google.com...
>
> <lots of silly ad hominem>
>
> > Both John's Hopkins and Mayor Bloomberg have taken swipes
> > at Atkins in the past.
>
> Who hasn't.. www.all-creatures.org/mfz/health-atkins-mg.html

Part II

WHAT THE EXPERTS THINK OF ATKINS .... http://www.nealhendrick-
son.com/mcdougall/2004nl/040700puatkins.htm

Pearl

Mon, Aug-16-04, 19:18

"tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b550f406.0408160602.236d5ddf@posting.google.com...

<lots of silly ad hominem>

> Both John's Hopkins and Mayor Bloomberg have taken swipes at
> Atkins in the past.

Who hasn't.. www.all-creatures.org/mfz/health-atkins-mg.html

Pearl

Mon, Aug-16-04, 19:18

"Wolfbrother" <rangerhasten@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6eb8f6eb.0408151729.3b53461@posting.google.com...
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:<cfo6lb$9io$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> > "George Conklin" <nilknoc@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > message news:TyMTc.26047$Jp6.4437@newsread3.news.atl.ea-
> > rthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> > > news:cfnhvp$35c$1@kermit.esat.net...
> > > >
> > > > I disagree with the author's stance on eating fish and
> > > > chicken, but otherwise a very interesting and
> > > > informative article;
> > > >
> > > > http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?i-
> > > > d=ns24601
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > All this is very old, old news.
> >
> > To you perhaps.
> >
> > > If you feed an animal grain, you get back 9%-15% in
> > > food. Chickens are the worst. Pigs are 15%.
> >
> > For bovines the ratio is typically16lbs grain for 1lb beef
> > gain, or 6% of input (excluding silage or hay and
> > supplements).
> >
> > 'Typical animal and feeding statistics Daily water
> > consumption - 5-10 gallons Daily day matter consumption 15
> > pounds corn 4 pounds corn silage 1 pound of
> > protein-mineral supplement Daily gain - 2.7 pounds per day
> > Feed conversion efficiency - 7.4 pounds of feed per pound
> > of gain Initial weight - 700 pounds Market weight - 1175
> > pounds Cost of gain - $ 45.00 per 100 pounds
> >
http://beef.ans.msu.edu/Facilities/Beef_Cattle_Research_and_T-
each/body_beef_cattle_research_and_teach.html.
> >
> > beef gain = 34.44% of liveweight gain in feedlot. Average
> > 5.5lbs grain (excl.) to 1lb liveweight gain.
> > 5.5lbs grain (excl.) to 0.34lbs beef = just over 16 : 1.
> >
> > > And then of course is the water, since animals need a
> > > lot of it.
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > > However, as Atkins points out, we evolved to eat meat,
> > > not pasta.
> >
> > Atkins was wrong.
>
> People are not going to stop eating healthy animal foods.

There's no such thing, for humans.

'.. 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

Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S Associations
between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause
mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day
Adventists. Fraser GE. Center for Health Research and the
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda
University, CA USA.

Results associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of
34192 California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized.
*Most Seventh-day Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or
drink alcohol*, and there is a wide range of dietary
exposures within the population. About 50% of those studied
ate meat products <1 time/wk or not at all, and vegetarians
consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, but less
coffee, doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians.
Multivariate analyses showed significant associations
between beef consumption and fatal ischemic heart disease
(IHD) in men [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for subjects who ate
beef > or =3 times/wk compared with vegetarians],
significant protective associations between nut consumption
and fatal and nonfatal IHD in both sexes (RR approximately
0.5 for subjects who ate nuts > or =5 times/wk compared with
those who ate nuts <1 time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in
subjects preferring whole-grain to white bread. The lifetime
risk of IHD was reduced by approximately 31% in those who
consumed nuts frequently and by 37% in male vegetarians
compared with nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and
prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians
(RR of 1.88 and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef
consumers also had higher risk of bladder cancer. Intake of
legumes was negatively associated with risk of colon cancer
in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic cancer. Higher
consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated with
lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day
Adventists have lower risks of diabetes mellitus,
hypertension, and arthritis than nonvegetarians. Thus, among
Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are healthier than
nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the
absence of meat. PMID: 10479227

> You will have an easyer time getting a Lion to eat tofu.

People can and do adopt a vegetarian diet with ease.

> (like the hippy/animal rights fanatic from Futurama heh).
> Get that through your skull.

Nice.

'There is increasing evidence that animal abusers go on to
commit acts of violence against humans.'
http://rense.com/general56/zimbabwethebeasts.htm

> And yes humans evolved to thrive off animal source foods.

Nope.

'.. 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

Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S Associations
between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause
mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day
Adventists. Fraser GE. Center for Health Research and the
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda
University, CA USA.

Results associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of
34192 California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized. Most
Seventh-day Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or drink
alcohol, and there is a wide range of dietary exposures
within the population. About 50% of those studied ate meat
products <1 time/wk or not at all, and vegetarians consumed
more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, but less coffee,
doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians. Multivariate
analyses showed significant associations between beef
consumption and fatal ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men
[relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for subjects who ate beef > or =3
times/wk compared with vegetarians], significant protective
associations between nut consumption and fatal and nonfatal
IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects who ate
nuts > or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate nuts <1
time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects preferring
whole-grain to white bread. The lifetime risk of IHD was
reduced by approximately 31% in those who consumed nuts
frequently and by 37% in male vegetarians compared with
nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and prostate were
significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88 and
1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had
higher risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was
negatively associated with risk of colon cancer in
nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic cancer. Higher
consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated with
lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day
Adventists have lower risks of diabetes mellitus,
hypertension, and arthritis than nonvegetarians. Thus, among
Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are healthier than
nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the
absence of meat. PMID: 10479227

> To claim otherwise is just animal rights extremist
> propaganada.

Twit.

> In fact since us foolish meat eating humans do not want to
> listen to your wisdom why dont you just go save all the
> other carnivorous animals that you love so much from their
> folly of eating meat and convert them all into vegans.

I'm sure that you'd enjoy a chat with the author of
NeandExtinct.

Pearl

Mon, Aug-16-04, 19:18

"Wolfbrother" <rangerhasten@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6eb8f6eb.0408151755.6658bf4d@posting.google.com... <..>
> Bones and organs also provide an exelent source of food
> heavily relied apon by ancient humans and their ancestors.

Relating Chimpanzee Diets to Potential Australopithecine Diets
Conklin-Brittain, Nancy Lou Wrangham, Richard W.

We report data using an ape model to reconstruct the nutrient
composition of the frugivorous diet of our last common
ancestor with African great apes. We aimed to determine
whether the African ape clade, from which hominids evolved,
has any unusual features. We studied frugivory by comparing
chimpanzee diets to that of three species of cercopithecine
monkeys in Kibale Forest, Uganda.

Data came from a 12-month period that showed inter-monthly
variation in fruit abundance. The monkeys consumed stable
nutrient levels except for lipid, which was low (3.2 +/- 2.0 %
dry matter (DM)), but peaked at about 9% DM during ripe fruit
abundance. Chimpanzees also consumed low lipid and sugar diets
during fruit poor seasons. Protein intake reflected each
species' fallback food: leaf consumption kept the protein
levels high for monkeys (16.7 +/- 1.9% DM); chimpanzees relied
on herbaceous piths and maintained a low protein intake (9.5
+/- 3.0% DM). Fallback food was probably also responsible for
the high fiber (NDF) intakes by monkeys, which was not
significantly different from chimpanzees'
(32.4 +/- 3.6% NDF versus 33.6 +/- 4.5% NDF respectively).

Three conclusions emerge: fat intake was low for all
frugivores, protein intake was low for chimpanzees, and fiber
intake was high for all species. Our data (from a lipid-poor
habitat) show that high lipid or high protein is not needed
for normal health and reproduction of chimpanzees. Therefore,
hominids were probably capable of living on a low-fat,
low-protein diet such as would be provided by fibrous roots
commonly found in a seasonal woodland environment. http://www-
.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/nconklin-
/abstract.html

'Paleoecological reconstruction is possible through the study
of correlates to environment and ecology. Plants and animals
which existed in particular types of environments are
carefully extracted and catalogued as fluctuations in the
biosphere over a period of time. Added to this is the use of
oxygen isotopes, which indicate worldwide temperature
fluctuations. More recently, analysis of aeolian (wind) dust
deposition has provided a more detailed record of climate
change and seasonality. All of these forms of evidence point
towards an increasingly cold and dry environment with greater
seasonality during the late Miocene and Pliocene eras.
Reduction in forested areas most likely spelled to end for
many Miocene hominoid species. The hominids successfully
adapted to open savanna and woodland environments, developing
a series of different strategies for predator defense,
foraging, and social behavior. One of these behavioral
adaptations was possibly a shift to accomodate quantities of
meat in the diet, to augment plant resources.' http://www.wwn-
orton.com/college/anthro/bioanth/ch12/chap12.htm

'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer
communities have been taken to show that the colder the
climate, the greater the reliance on meat. There are sound
biological and economic reasons for this, not least in the
ready availability of large amounts of fat in arctic mammals.
From this, it has been deduced that the humans of the glacial
periods were primarily hunters, while plant foods were more
important during the interglacials. ' http://www.phancocks.pw-
p.blueyonder.co.uk/naturalhistory/devensian.htm

'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of
calcium until the onset of the Agricultural Age, 10,000 years
ago. Current calcium intake is one-quarter to one-third that
of our evolutionary diet and, if we are genetically identical
to the Late Paleolithic Homo sapiens, we may be consuming a
calcium-deficient diet our bodies cannot adjust to by
physiologic mechanisms.

The anthropological approach says, with the exception of a few
small changes related to genetic blood diseases, that humans
are basically identical biologically and medically to the
hunter-gatherers of the late Paleolithic Era.17 During this
period, calcium content of the diet was much higher than it is
currently. Depending on the ratio of animal to plant foods,
calcium intake could have exceeded 2000 mg per day.17 Calcium
was largely derived from wild plants, which had a very high
calcium content; animal protein played a small role, and the
use of dairy products did not come into play until the
Agricultural Age 10,000 years ago. Compared to the current
intake of approximately 500 mg per day for women age 20 and
over in the United States,18 hunter-gatherers had a
significantly higher calcium intake and apparently much
stronger bones. As late as 12,000 years ago, Stone Age hunters
had an average of 17-percent more bone density (as measured by
humeral cortical thickness). Bone density also appeared to be
stable over time with an apparent absence of osteoporosis.17

High levels of calcium excretion via renal losses are seen
with both high salt and high protein diets, in each case at
levels common in the United States.10,11 .. The only
hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss were
the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical
activity level was high, their osteoporosis incidence exceeded
even present-day levels in the United States. The Inuit diet
was high in phosphorus and protein and low in calcium.20 '
http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/fulltext/calcium4-2.html

Pearl

Mon, Aug-16-04, 19:18

"Wolfbrother" <rangerhasten@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6eb8f6eb.0408151817.2289f2ab@posting.google.com...
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:<cfoq7d$feu$1@kermit.esat.net>...
<..>
> > Human teeth are actually like the fruit-eating monkeys,
> > and the human mouth is best suited for eating succulent
> > fruits and vegetables. It would be extremely difficult, if
> > not impossible, for humans to eat raw flesh without the
> > aid of fork and knife.
>
> Ahaha you are so full of shit its amazing.

"All cruelty springs from weakness." (Seneca, 4BC-AD65)

> On top of that ridiculous statment

It's ridiculous of you to say that. We all know it's true.

> do you realize how much more absurd it sounds coming right
> after the previous post detailing the severe carnivorous
> aspects of chimps.

Carnivorous behaviour can arise in nutritionally-poor
environments. As Gombe National Park is a limited, highly
primate-populated habitat, competition for ripe fruits is
likely to be relatively high.

'..The park is made up of narrow mountain strip of land about
16 kilometers long and 5 kilometers wide on the shore of Lake
Tanganyika. From the lake shore steep slopes rises up to form
the Rift Valley's escapement, which is covered by the dense
forest. .. The dominating vegetation in this park include the
open deciduous woodland on the upper slopes, gallery forests
on the valleys and lower slopes. This type of vegetation is
unique in Tanzania and has been supporting a large number of
Chimpanzee, Baboons, and a large number of bird species. Other
species seen here are colobus, blue and red tail monkeys. ..'
http://www.utalii.com/gombe%20national%20park.htm

'According to Tuttle, the first substantive information on
chimp diets was provided by Nissen in 1931 (p.75). In 1930
Nissen spent 75 days of a 3-month period tracking and
observing chimps. He made direct unquantified observations and
examined fecal deposits and leftovers at feeding sites. He
also found "no evidence that they ate honey, eggs or animal
prey" - this observation may have been too limited due to
seasonal variations in the chimp diet.

In Reynolds and Reynolds (1965), Tuttle says that a 300 hour
study of Budongo Forest chimps over an 8-month period
revealed "no evidence for avian eggs, termites or
vertebrates", although they thought that insects formed 1% of
their diet (p.81).

In another study of Budongo Forest chimps from 1966 to 1967,
Sugiyama did not observe "meat-eating or deliberate captures
of arthropods", although he reported that "the chimpanzees did
ingest small insects that infested figs" (p.82).

Tuttle says that later observations at Budongo by Suzuki
revealed meat eating. Where the earlier observations wrong, or
incomplete, or maybe an accurate reflection of their diet at
the time? Did the chimps change their diet later? We do not
know. Chimps sometimes change their diets on a monthly basis.
A study of chimps at the Kabogo Point region from 1961 to 1962
by Azuma and Toyoshima, revealed that they witnessed "only one
instance of chimpanzees ingesting animal food, vis. termites
or beetles from rotten wood."
(p.87).

From 1963 to 1964, similar observations were found in
Kasakati Basin by a Kyoto University team, and when Izawa and
Itani published in 1966 they reported "no chimpanzees eating
insects, vertebrates, avian eggs, soil or tree leaves and
found no trace in the 14 stools that they inspected " (p.86).
In contrast Kawabe and Suzuki found the Kasakati chimps
hunting in the same year (p.88), although only 14 of 174
fecal samples contained traces of insects and other animal
foods. So perhaps these differing observations are due to
seasonal variation, or even local differences (cultural
variation) in feeding preferences - Tuttle does not reveal
which. Maybe some of the chimps groups are 'vegetarian',
while other are not. But see the Kortlandt observations below
before believing that all chimps are meat-eaters. ..
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://web.arc-
hive.org/web/20030301130319/http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganm-
c/polemics.htm

> > '.. 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.'
>
> Again unbelievably full of shit. What a false statment that
> is. You embody animal rights extremism at its worst. Total
> disregard for reality.

lol. Let's replace the link, and I suggest you follow it
pronto. http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogene-
sis_paper.html

>There are many population groups who have lived in perfect
>health completely free of modern degenerative conditions on
>diets based on up to 80% or more from animal source foods.

Supporting evidence?

> At the same time there are populations(not many howerver
> do to the fact humans prefer and thrive off animal
> source foods)

False.

> that live close to or completely on all-plant diets and have
> extremely poor health AND short life spans.

Supporting evidence?

> How easily this fact is ignored by you people.

You have it all backward..

> One does not go to a tobacco company for health information
> on smoking, nor does one go to an animal rights extremist
> for health information on food. That is common sense.
> Information from either source can simply not be taken
> seriously. It is called conflict of interest.

You ignore or ridicule any information that you don't like,
regardless of the source.

Dh Ld

Mon, Aug-16-04, 19:18

On 15 Aug 2004 18:55:16 -0700, rangerhasten@yahoo.com
(Wolfbrother) wrote:

>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote in message
>news:<k5avh09gb41i9fefhk2il4jm76r7rdkncq@4ax.com>...
>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 18:21:21 +0100, "pearl"
>> <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>
>> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass
>> raised steer and whatever he happens to kill during his
>> life, people get over 500 pounds of human consumable
>> meat...that's well over 500 servings of meat. From a
>> grass raised dairy cow people get thousands of dairy
>> servings. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and
>> *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>> draining of fields, one meal of soy or rice based product
>> is likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of
>> meals derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised
>> cattle products contribute to less wildlife deaths,
>> better wildlife habitat, and better lives for cattle than
>> soy or rice products. ·
>>
>
>That kind of reality is simply deflected by the extreme
>ideological barriers surrounding animal rights fanatics.

Over the years they have taught me that they really only
care about promoting veg*nism, and will do so regardless
of human influence on animals, even in situations where
consuming vegetable products causes more animal deaths
than consuming some types of meat.

>Bones and organs also provide an exelent source of food
>heavily relied apon by ancient humans and their ancestors.
>Not sure if you implied that in the 500 pounds of meat.

No, I was being extremely generous to the veg*n side. It
also didn't include the products which veg*ns contribute
to that include animal ingredients, and/or cause animal
deaths. I don't remember if I've posted the following in
this thread or not, but the following are things people
should keep in mind when they think about veg*nism--and
especially when considering whether or not to become some
type of veg*n--so the more this type of info is presented
the better, imo:

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else
does. What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:
_________________________________________________________
Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery, Floor
waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze

http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt, auto
and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance
greases, brake fluid

http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard
cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats,
sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC

http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes,
Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes,
Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood
Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste,
Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone
Charcoal for High Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings

http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ The
meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do in
any other habitat. They also depend on it for their lives
like the animals in any other habitat. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in
the future.

>> _________________________________________________________
>> [...] In the American Scientist article, Stanford describes
>> witnessing the largest massacre ever documented at Gombe.
>> Two hunting parties with a total of 33 chimps - two of them
>> swollen females - converged on a group of 25 colobus
>> monkeys. The male chimps chased and shook the monkeys from
>> trees, eventually killing seven. Before Stanford's eyes, a
>> large male chimp plucked a baby monkey from a branch and
>> "dispatched it with a bite to the skull." The chimp then
>> approached a swollen female with the carcass, dangling it
>> just out of her reach until she presented her swelling.
>> Only after copulation did the male share his food.
>>
>> "An important issue today in human male-female
>> relationships is control," Stanford said. "What we're
>> seeing is the evolutionary roots of this kind of mutual
>> attempt to manipulate and control. Male chimps are using
>> meat to control female behavior and female chimps are
>> making use of their reproductive system to get meat." [...]
>> http://www.usc.edu/ext-relations/news_service/chronicle_ht-
>> ml/1995.02.06.html/chimp.html
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
>Some very fascinating stuff there thanks for the post. It is
>amazing how they can mirror the basic aspects of what we call
>"human nature" in such a pure form. And to observe that in a
>non human animal is remarkable.

It is pretty interesting. Here is another one, in case
you're interested in reading a bit more about it:
_________________________________________________________
[...] We might look toward the social aspects of chimpanzee
societies to understand their hunting patterns. One clue to
the significance of meat in a chimpanzee society comes from
the observation that males do most of the hunting. During the
past decade, adult and adolescent males made over 90 percent
of the kills at Gombe. Although females occasionally hunt,
they more often receive a share of meat from the male who
captured the prey.

This state of affairs sets up an interesting dynamic between
males and females. Sometimes a begging female does not receive
any meat until after the male copulates with her (even while
clutching the freshly killed carcass). Some other observations
are also telling. Not only does the size of a hunting party
increase in proportion to the number of estrous females
present, but the presence of an estrous female independently
increases the likelihood that there will be a hunt. Such
observations suggest that male chimpanzees use meat as a tool
to gain access to sexually receptive females. But females
appear to be getting reproductive benefits as well: William
McGrew of Miami University in Ohio showed that female
chimpanzees at Gombe that receive generous shares of meat
produce more offspring that survive.

The distribution of the kill to other male chimpanzees also
hints at another social role for meat. The Japanese
primatologist Toshisada Nishida and his colleagues in the
Mahale Mountains showed that the alpha male Ntilogi
distributes meat to his allies but consistently withholds it
from his rivals. Such behavior, they suggest, reveals that
meat can be used as a political tool in chimpanzee society.
Further studies should tell us whether such actions have
consequences for alliances between males. [...] http://www.s-
igmaxi.org/amsci/articles/95articles/Stanford-full.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ and
this about a book on the subject, in case anyone would want
to get a copy, or see if their local library could borrow one
for a while:
_________________________________________________________
[...] What makes humans unique? What makes us the most
successful animal species inhabiting the Earth today? Most
scientists agree that the key to our success is the unusually
large size of our brains. Our large brains gave us our
exceptional thinking capacity and led to humans' other
distinctive characteristics, including advanced communication,
tool use, and walking on two legs. Or was it the other way
around? Did the challenges faced by early humans push the
species toward communication, tool use, and walking and, in
doing so, drive the evolutionary engine toward a large brain?
In this provocative new book, Craig Stanford presents an
intriguing alternative to this puzzling question--an
alternative grounded in recent, groundbreaking scientific
observation. According to Stanford, what made humans unique
was meat. Or, rather, the desire for meat, the eating of meat,
the hunting of meat, and the sharing of meat.

Based on new insights into the behavior of chimps and other
great apes, our now extinct human ancestors, and existing
hunting and gathering societies, Stanford shows the remarkable
role that meat has played in these societies. Perhaps because
it provides a highly concentrated source of protein--essential
for the development and health of the brain--meat is craved by
many primates, including humans. This craving has given meat
genuine power--the power to cause males to form hunting
parties and organize entire cultures around hunting. And it
has given men the power to manipulate and control women in
these cultures. Stanford argues that the skills developed and
required for successful hunting and especially the sharing of
meat spurred the explosion of human brain size over the past
200,000 years. He then turns his attention to the ways meat is
shared within primate and human societies to argue that this
all-important activity has had profound effects on basic
social structures that are still felt today.

Sure to spark a lively debate, Stanford's argument takes the
form of an extended essay on human origins. The book's small
format, helpful illustrations, and moderate tone will appeal
to all readers interested in those fundamental questions about
what makes us human. [...]
http://www.pup.princeton.edu/titles/6549.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Wolfbrothe

Mon, Aug-16-04, 19:18

You really are despearate arent you. Thats just sad. Do you
really think anyone takes you serious? Like I said before one
does not get their information about smoking from a tabacco
company. The same applies to you and other animal rights
fanatics. That is obvious why dont you get it.

Pearl

Mon, Aug-16-04, 19:18

"Wolfbrother" <rangerhasten@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6eb8f6eb.0408161031.3d9abd1f@posting.google.com...
> You really are despearate arent you. Thats just sad. Do you
> really think anyone takes you serious? Like I said before
> one does not get their information about smoking from a
> tabacco company. The same applies to you and other animal
> rights fanatics. That is obvious why dont you get it.

Evasion and inability to provide supporting evidence for
claims noted.

Severesoci

Tue, Aug-17-04, 06:16

"M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t-August 16, 2004" <M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t
08-16-04@lambercartel.com> wrote in message
news:<_t2Uc.9961$vc4.1585575@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:cfnhvp$35c$1@kermit.esat.net...
> >
> > I disagree with the author's stance on eating fish and
> > chicken, but otherwise a very interesting and informative
> > article;
> >
> > http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=n-
> > s24601
>
> Not to those of us who are members of PETA! That is *P*eople
> *E*ating *T*asty *A*nimals.

your child has cp because of stupid behavior like that.

K P

Tue, Aug-17-04, 19:18

"severesocialanxiety" <samappliance@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:9d9a6dc1.0408170032.73881196@posting.google.com...
> "M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t-August 16, 2004" <M,a,r,k
> P,r,o,b,e,r,t
08-16-04@lambercartel.com> wrote in message
news:<_t2Uc.9961$vc4.1585575@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> > news:cfnhvp$35c$1@kermit.esat.net...
> > >
> > > I disagree with the author's stance on eating fish and
> > > chicken, but otherwise a very interesting and
> > > informative article;
> > >
> > > http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=-
> > > ns24601
> >
> > Not to those of us who are members of PETA! That is
> > *P*eople *E*ating *T*asty *A*nimals.
>
> your child has cp because of stupid behavior like that.

You are a moron.

Nick Macla

Tue, Aug-17-04, 19:18

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:33:53 GMT, "M,a,r,k
P,r,o,b,e,r,t-August 16, 2004" <M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t
08-16-04@lambercartel.com> wrote:

>
>"severesocialanxiety" <samappliance@yahoo.com> wrote in
>message
>news:9d9a6dc1.0408170032.73881196@posting.google.com...
>> "M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t-August 16, 2004" <M,a,r,k
>> P,r,o,b,e,r,t
>08-16-04@lambercartel.com> wrote in message
>news:<_t2Uc.9961$vc4.1585575@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>> > "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>> > news:cfnhvp$35c$1@kermit.esat.net...
>> > >
>> > > I disagree with the author's stance on eating fish and
>> > > chicken, but otherwise a very interesting and
>> > > informative article;
>> > >
>> > > http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id-
>> > > =ns24601
>> >
>> > Not to those of us who are members of PETA! That is
>> > *P*eople *E*ating *T*asty *A*nimals.
>>
>> your child has cp because of stupid behavior like that.
>
>You are a moron.
>

See!!

George Con

Wed, Aug-18-04, 19:19

"tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b550f406.0408160602.236d5ddf@posting.google.com...
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:<cfnhvp$35c$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> > I disagree with the author's stance on eating fish and
> > chicken, but otherwise a very interesting and informative
> > article;
> >
> > http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=n-
> > s24601
>
> That crap is from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, now
> the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. As in
> Mayor Bloomberg of New York. He bought the university. He
> owns it. It's his personal possesion. His toy.
>
> Both John's Hopkins and Mayor Bloomberg have taken swipes at
> Atkins in the past. They are anti-meat and pro-vegan.
>
> Interesting how an entire educational institution can be
> commandeered to push one person's personal viewpoints. And
> the guy who owns it has no medical training. Those "doctors"
> should be ashamed of themselves. So much for John's Hopkins
> being a centre of higher learning. The Johns Hopkins
> Bloomberg School of Public Health has lost all credibility
> in any field of science.
>
> TC

Johns Hopkins is also the home of militant pro-surgery
treatments for prostate cancer, while Harvard goes the other
way. No one purchased Harvard yet.

Tcomeau

Thu, Aug-19-04, 19:20

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:<cfrc6d$7h3$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b550f406.0408160602.236d5ddf@posting.google.com...
>
> <lots of silly ad hominem>
>
> > Both John's Hopkins and Mayor Bloomberg have taken swipes
> > at Atkins in the past.
>
> Who hasn't.. www.all-creatures.org/mfz/health-atkins-mg.html

Why are you referencing an article from an animal rights
group in a science newsgroup? Your wasting band-width and
wasting our time.

TC

Pearl

Thu, Aug-19-04, 19:20

"tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b550f406.0408190631.1b9b7a07@posting.google.com...
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:<cfrc6d$7h3$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> > "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b550f406.0408160602.236d5ddf@posting.google.com...
> >
> > <lots of silly ad hominem>
> >
> > > Both John's Hopkins and Mayor Bloomberg have taken
> > > swipes at Atkins in the past.
> >
> > Who hasn't..
> > www.all-creatures.org/mfz/health-atkins-mg.html
>
> Why are you referencing an article from an animal rights
> group in a science newsgroup? Your wasting band-width and
> wasting our time.

Ad hominem evasion.

Wolfbrothe

Thu, Aug-19-04, 19:20

tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<b550f406.0408190631.1b9b7a07@posting.google.com>...
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:<cfrc6d$7h3$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> > "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:b550f406.0408160602.236d5ddf@posting.google.com...
> >
> > <lots of silly ad hominem>
> >
> > > Both John's Hopkins and Mayor Bloomberg have taken
> > > swipes at Atkins in the past.
> >
> > Who hasn't..
> > www.all-creatures.org/mfz/health-atkins-mg.html
>
> Why are you referencing an article from an animal rights
> group in a science newsgroup? Your wasting band-width and
> wasting our time.
>
> TC

I have already tried to make him realize that him and his
information are worth about as much as that of a tobacco
company trying to say smoking is good for you. He just does
not get it.

Pearl

Thu, Aug-19-04, 19:20

"Wolfbrother" <rangerhasten@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6eb8f6eb.0408191018.6cfd7265@posting.google.com...
> tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
> news:<b550f406.0408190631.1b9b7a07@posting.google.com>...
> > "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> > news:<cfrc6d$7h3$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> > > "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b550f406.0408160602.236d5ddf@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > <lots of silly ad hominem>
> > >
> > > > Both John's Hopkins and Mayor Bloomberg have taken
> > > > swipes at Atkins in the past.
> > >
> > > Who hasn't..
> > > www.all-creatures.org/mfz/health-atkins-mg.html
> >
> > Why are you referencing an article from an animal rights
> > group in a science newsgroup? Your wasting band-width and
> > wasting our time.
> >
> > TC
>
> I have already tried to make him realize that him and his
> information are worth about as much as that of a tobacco
> company trying to say smoking is good for you.

'Michael Greger, MD, is a graduate of the Cornell University
School of Agriculture and the Tufts University School of
Medicine. .. References: 1 The Chronicle (Houston, TX) 9 March
1973.2 The New York Weekly 26 March 1973. 3 Maryland State
Medical Journal 1974:70. 4 Obesity and Fad Diets. U.S. Senate
Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. 12 April 1973
CIS S581-13. 5 Obesity and Fad Diets. U.S. Senate Select
Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. 12 April 1973 CIS
S581-13. 6 Shape Up America! news release 29 December 2003. 7
Journal of the American Dietetics Association 102(2002):260. 8
Chicago Tribune 18 October 1999. 9 Tampa Tribune (Florida) 19
October 1999. 10 Journal of the American Dietetics Association
66(1975):277. 11 Chicago Tribune 18 October 1999. 12
Dietician's Edge November-December 2001:42. 13 Institute of
Medicine. Weighing the Options: Criteria for Evaluating
Weight-Management Programs, The National Academies Press,
1995. 14 American Cancer Society. Weighing In on Low Carb
Diets. 2004. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/SPC/content/SPC_1_-
A_Low_Carb_Diet_to_Prevent_Cancer.asp 15 Circulation
104(2001):1869. 16 The Cleveland Clinic. High Protein, Low
Carbohydrate Diets. August 2003.
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/46/2731_1666. 17 Diabetes
2004. Johns Hopkins University White Paper, 2004. 18 American
Kidney Fund news release 25 April 2002. 19 Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise 33(2001):2145. 20 National
Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
Choosing a Safe and Successful Weight-Loss Program. NIH Publ.
No. 94-3700. National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD.
1993. 21 Circulation 104(2001):1869. 22 Journal of the
American College of Cardiology 43(2004):725. 23 Journal of the
American College of Nutrition 22(2003):9. 24 The New York
Times 10 September 2002. 25 Donaldson, BF. Strong Medicine.
Doubleday, 1960. 26 Hamilton, EMN and EN Whitney. Nutrition:
Concepts and Controversies. Second Edition. West Publishing
Company, 1982. 27 Fraser, L. Losing It. Penguin Books, 1997.
28 Fraser, L. Losing It. Penguin Books, 1997. 29 Agatson, A.
The South Beach Diet. Rodale, 2003. 30 Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins
New Diet Revolution. Avon Books, 1999. 31 Atkins, RC. Dr.
Atkins Diet Revolution. David McKay Company, Inc., 1972. 32
Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution. David McKay Company,
Inc., 1972. 33 Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution. David
McKay Company, Inc., 1972. 34 Australian Magazine 10 April
2004. 35 Deutsch, RM. The New Nuts Among the Berries. Palo
Alto, CA, 1977. 36 Modern Medicine 28 May 1973:132. 37 Atkins,
RC. Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution. David McKay Company, Inc.,
1972. 38 Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution. David McKay
Company, Inc., 1972. 39 Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins New Diet
Revolution. Avon Books, 1992. 40 British Medical Journal
326(2003):1090. 41 Journal of the American Dietetics
Association 100(2000):760. 42 New York Times Magazine 7 July
2002. 43 CNN/Money 1 December 2003. 44 Scripps Howard News
Service 24 April 2003. 45 The Washington Post 27 August 2002.
46 Nutrition Action Healthletter November 2002. 47 The
Washington Post 27 August 2002. 48 Nutrition Action
Healthletter November 2002. 49 Nutrition Action Healthletter
November 2002. 50 Nutrition Action Healthletter November 2002.
51 Reason magazine March 2003 52 Nutrition Action Healthletter
November 2002. 53 Obesity Research 9(2001):1S. 54 Magazine
Publishers of America news release 21 August 2003. 55
Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL) 11 April 2004. 56 Tufts
University Health and Nutrition Letter 22(2004):1. 57 Tufts
University Health and Nutrition Letter 22(2004):1. 58 Harvard
Health Letter November 2003:5. 59 Agatson, A. The South Beach
Diet. Rodale, 2003. 60 Tufts University Health and Nutrition
Letter 22(2004):1. 61 Agatson, A. The South Beach Diet.
Rodale, 2003. 62 Tufts University Health and Nutrition Letter
22(2004):1. 63 USDA Agriculture Research Service. Nutrient
Data Laboratory. National Nutrient Database for Standard
Reference. 64 Agatson, A. The South Beach Diet. Rodale, 2003.
65 PR Newswire 21 May 2004. 66 Scripps Howard News Service 19
February 2004. 67 The New York Times 14 April 2004. 68 Atkins,
RC. Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution. David McKay Company, Inc.,
1972. 69 Fortune 17 May 2004. 70 Family Practice News 15 March
2004. 71 Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution. Avon
Books, 1999. 72 Eades, MR and MD Eades. Protein Power. Bantam,
1997. 73 Sears, B. Enter the Zone. Regan Books, 1995. 74
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1997):1264. 75
Diabetes care 7(1984):465. 76 American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition 50(1997):1264. 77 American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition 50(1997):1264. 78 Journal of the American Dietetics
Association 1010(2001):411. 79 Schweizerische medizinische
Wochenschrift 107(1977):1017. 80 Journal of the American
College of Nutrition 22(2003):9. 81 Australian Family
Physician 6(1977):155. 82 Journal of the American Medical
Association 289(2003):1773. 83 "One Year Effectiveness of the
Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone Diets in Decreasing
Body Weight and Heart Disease Risk" by Michael L. Dansinger,
Joi L. Gleason, John L. Griffith, Wenjun Li, Harry P. Selker,
Ernst Schaefer; Tufts University, New England Medical Center,
Boston, Mass. 84 Diabetes Care 16(1993):1459. 85 American
Journal of Cardiology 69(1992):440. 86 Metabolism
43(1994):621. 87 Nutrition Reviews July 1974:1s. 88 University
of California at Berkeley Wellness Letter April 2000. 89
Journal of the American College of Nutrition 22(2003):9. 90
Journal of the American Dietetics Association 100(2000):760.
91 Nutrition Action Healthletter November 2002. 92 Health
19(1996):102. 93 Archives of Internal Medicine 112(1963):87.
94 Journal of Clinical Investigation 58(1976):529. 95
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 68(2001):761. 96 The
Washington Post 23 November 1999. 97 Journal of the American
Medical Association 289(2003):1854. 98 Callaway, W. The
Callaway Diet. Bantam, 1990. 99 Lancet 2(1960):939. 100
Obesity Research 9(2001):1S. 101 Medical Journal of Australia
175(2001):637. 102 Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution.
Avon Books, 1999. 103 Sears, B. Enter the Zone. Regan Books,
1995. 104 Scripps Howard News Service, November 13, 2003. 105
Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution. David McKay Company,
Inc., 1972. 106 Journal of the American Medical Association
224(1973):1418. 107 Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution.
David McKay Company, Inc., 1972. 108 BBC News 21 January 2004.
109 The Chronicle (Houston, TX) 9 March 1973. 110
Journal-World (Lawrence, KS) 27 January 2004. 111 Journal of
the American Medical Association 224(1973):1416. 112 Journal
of the American Medical Association 289(2003):1837. 113
Medicine and Health 83(2000):337. 114 Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins
New Diet Revolution 3rd edition. M. Evans and Company, Inc.
2002. 115 Obesity Research 9(2001):1S. 116 Atkins, RC. Dr.
Atkins New Diet Revolution. Avon Books, 1999. 117 Annals of
internal Medicine 68(1968):467. 118 Nutrition and Metabolism
17(1974):360. 119 Lancet 2(1960):939. 120 American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition 63(1996):174. 121 International Journal of
Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders 20(1996):1067. 122
Journal of the American Dietetics Association 90(1990):534.
123 Journal of the American Medical Association 228(1974):54.
124 Journal of the American Dietetics Association
77(1980):264. 125 British Journal of Nutrition 15(1961):53.
126 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 30(1977):160. 127
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 26(1973):197. 128
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 21(1968):1291. 129
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 20(1967):139. 130
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 24(1971):290. 131
Journal of the American Dietetics Association 64(1974):47. 132
International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic
Disorders 3(1979):210. 133 Nutrition and Metabolism
22(1978):269. 134 American Journal of Public Health
76(1986):1293. 135 New England Journal of
Medicine252(1985):661. 136 Annals of Internal Medicine
68(1968):467. 137 Annals of the New York Academy of Science
819(1997):44. 138 USDA. Economic Research Service.
http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/factbook/001a.pdf 139 Reason,
March 2003. 140 Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution. David
McKay Company, Inc., 1972. 141 Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins New Diet
Revolution 3rd edition. M. Evans and Company, Inc. 2002. 142
Australian Magazine 10 April 2004. 143 Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins
Diet Revolution. David McKay Company, Inc., 1972. 144 Atkins,
RC. Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution. Avon, 2002. 145 Atkins,
RC. Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution. David McKay Company, Inc.,
1972. 146 Milling & Baking News 7 March 2000. 147 New York
Times Magazine 7 July 2002. 148 Nutrition Action Healthletter,
November 2002. 149 Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition
6(1997):122. 150 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
53(2004):80. 151 Economic Research Service/USDA. The Economics
of Obesity / E-FAN-04-004, 2004. 152 New York Times 6
September 1995. 153 Journal of the Arkansas Medical Society
8(2004):255. 154 New York Times 26 December 2000. 155
Nutrition Action Healthletter November 2002. 156 ABC News 20
May 2002. 157 USA Today 20 February 1996. 158
http://www.nsda.org/SoftDrinks/index.html 159 Gray, G.A. An
Atlas of Obesity and Weight Control. Boca Raton, FL: Parthenon
Publishing , 2003. 160 Critser, G. Fat Land. Houghton Mifflin
Co., 2003. 161 Nutrition Action Healthletter, November 2002.
162 The New York Weekly 26 March 1973. 163 Obesity and Fad
Diets. U.S. Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human
Needs. 12 April 1973 CIS S581-13. 164 Maryland State Medical
Journal 1974:70. 165 Clinics in Endocrinology and Metabolism
12(1983):413. 166 Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution.
David McKay Company, Inc., 1972. 167 The New York Weekly 26
March 1973. 168 Obesity and Fad Diets. U.S. Senate Select
Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. 12 April 1973 CIS
S581-13. 169 Whelan, E. The One-hundred-percent Natural,
Purely Organic, Cholesterol-Free, Megavitamin, Low
Carbohydrate Nutrition Hoax. Athenium, 1983. 170 Hamilton, EMN
and EN Whitney. Nutrition: Concepts and Controversies. Second
Edition. West Publishing Company, 1982. 171 McCall's Monthly
Newsletter for Women, April 1973. 172 The Chronicle (Houston,
TX) 9 March 1973. 173 Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution.
David McKay Company, Inc., 1972. 174 Obesity and Fad Diets.
U.S. Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. 12
April 1973 CIS S581-13. 175 Cleveland Clinic Journal of
Medicine 68(2001):761. 176 Archives of Internal medicine
112(1963):333. 177 Schweizerische medizinische Wochenschrift
107(1977):1017. 178 War Medicine 7(1945):345. 179 Epilepsia
39(1998):744. 180 Gastroenterology 118(2000):1233. 181
Circulation. 102(2000):2284. 182 Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins New
Diet Revolution. Avon Books, 1999. 183 The Washington Times 30
May 2004. 184 Annals of Internal Medicine 140(2004):769. 185
Berland, T and L Frohman. CONSUMER GUIDE Rating the Diets.
Publications International, Ltd., 1974. 186 http://www.health-
yweightnetwork.com/posters.htm#Slim%20Chance%20Awards%20poster
187 Obesity Research 9(2001):1s. 188 American Journal of
Cardiology 85(2000):1018. 189 New England Journal of Medicine
350(2004):1093. 190 The Observer 18 January 2004. 191 Atkins,
RC. Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution. Avon Books, 1999. 192 Asia
Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition 12(2002):396. 193 Dr.
Atkins New Diet Revolution 3rd edition. M. Evans and Company,
Inc. 2002. 194 Journal of the American College of Nutrition
22(2003):9. 195 Time Magazine 1 November 1999. 196
International Journal of Obesity 19(1995):811. 197
International Journal of Obesity 19(1995):811. 198 MIT News 20
February 2004. 199 Press Association 1 March 2004. 200 MIT
News 20 February 2004. 201 MIT News 4 November 2004. 202
Fraser, L. .Losing It. Penguin Books, 1997. 203 MIT News 20
February 2004. 204 Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution.
David McKay Company, Inc., 1972. 205 Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins
Diet Revolution. David McKay Company, Inc., 1972. 206 Atkins,
RC. Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution. David McKay Company, Inc.,
1972. 207 Allopurinol. Physicians' Desk Reference. Thomson
Healthcare, 2004. 208 Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins New Diet
Revolution. Avon Books, 1999. 209 Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins Diet
Revolution. David McKay Company, Inc., 1972. 210 Dr. Atkins
New Diet Revolution 3rd edition. M. Evans and Company, Inc.
2002. 211 Australian Magazine 10 April 2004. 212 BBC Two 22
January 2004, 9pm. 213 Journal of the American Medical
Association 289(2003):1837. 214 Dansinger, M.L., Gleason, J.
L., Griffith, J.L., et al., "One Year Effectiveness of the
Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone Diets in Decreasing
Body Weight and Heart Disease Risk," Presented at the American
Heart Association Scientific Sessions November 12, 2003 in
Orlando, Florida. 215 New England Journal of Medicine
348(2003):2082. 216 Annals of Internal Medicine 140(2004):778.
217 Dansinger, M.L., Gleason, J. L., Griffith, J.L., et al.,
"One Year Effectiveness of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight
Watchers, and Zone Diets in Decreasing Body Weight and Heart
Disease Risk," Presented at the American Heart Association
Scientific Sessions November 12, 2003 in Orlando, Florida. 218
http://atkins.com/Archive/2003/12/11-933145.html 219 Scripps
Howard News Service 13 November 2003. 220 Journal of the
American Medical Association 280(1998):2001. 221 Obesity
Research 9(2001):1S. 222 International Journal of Obesity
27(2003):728. 223 Journal of the American Dietetics
Association 1010(2001):411. 224 Metabolism 43(1994):621. 225
Nutrition Research 10(1990):39. 226 Metabolism 43(1994):621.
227 New England Journal of Medicine 348(2003):2082. 228 Annals
of Internal Medicine 140(2004):778. 229
http://annemfletcher.com/ 230 Nutrition 19(2003):253. 231
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 70(1999):412. 232
Nutrition Reviews 62(2004):1. 233 American Journal of Public
Health 87(1997):747. 234 American Journal of Public Health
87(1997):747. 235 The Washington Post 23 November 1999. 236
Institute of Medicine. Weighing the Options. National Academy
Press, 1995. 237 Annals of Internal Medicine 119(1993):661.
238 Consumers Union news release 6 May 2002. 239 Time Magazine
7 June 2004. 240 Reason, March 2003. 241 American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition 66(1997):239 and Atkins, RC. Dr. Atkins New
Diet Revolution. Avon Books, 1999. 242 The Washington Post 27
August 2002. 243 Time Magazine 25 April 2004. 244 Dr. Atkins
New Diet Revolution 3rd edition. M. Evans and Company, Inc.
2002. www.all-creatures.org/mfz/health-atkins-mg.html

> He just does not get it.

Ad hominem evasion. We get it..

Denial is the primary psychological symptom of addiction.

'Denial is so powerful that addicts are often the last to
recognize their disease. Some pursue their addiction as their
life and health deteriorate, continuing their denial until
they die.' http://www.egetgoing.com/Drug/5_7_1.asp

Tcomeau

Fri, Aug-20-04, 19:19

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:<cg2lrq$ijg$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b550f406.0408190631.1b9b7a07@posting.google.com...
> > "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> > news:<cfrc6d$7h3$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> > > "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b550f406.0408160602.236d5ddf@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > <lots of silly ad hominem>
> > >
> > > > Both John's Hopkins and Mayor Bloomberg have taken
> > > > swipes at Atkins in the past.
> > >
> > > Who hasn't..
> > > www.all-creatures.org/mfz/health-atkins-mg.html
> >
> > Why are you referencing an article from an animal rights
> > group in a science newsgroup? Your wasting band-width and
> > wasting our time.
>
> Ad hominem evasion.

One must always consider the source. In this case the source
is an animal rights group. The historical radicalism and the
extremism, not to mention their financial support of
domestic terrorism, within the animal rights movement has
completely skewered their approach to their advocacy. The
result is that there isn't an iota of credibility to
anything coming from them.

Which, I believe is very unfortunate. Some of us who are
truly compassionate, in a less extremist way, about
animals and their treatment, are left with no credible
voice on the issues.

TC

Fri, Aug-20-04, 19:19

tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<b550f406.0408200629.73b1af61@posting.google.com>...
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:<cg2lrq$ijg$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> > "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:b550f406.0408190631.1b9b7a07@posting.google.com...
> > > "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> > > news:<cfrc6d$7h3$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> > > > "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b550f406.0408160602.236d5ddf@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > <lots of silly ad hominem>
> > > >
> > > > > Both John's Hopkins and Mayor Bloomberg have taken
> > > > > swipes at Atkins in the past.
> > > >
> > > > Who hasn't..
> > > > www.all-creatures.org/mfz/health-atkins-mg.html
> > >
> > > Why are you referencing an article from an animal rights
> > > group in a science newsgroup? Your wasting band-width
> > > and wasting our time.
> >
> > Ad hominem evasion.
>
> One must always consider the source.

One must always refrain from using ad hominem, if one is to be
taken seriously (regardless of the topic).

Can you rebut the information presented or not?

> In this case the source is an animal rights group. The
> historical radicalism and the extremism, not to mention
> their financial support of domestic terrorism, within the
> animal rights movement has completely skewered their
> approach to their advocacy. The result is that there isn't
> an iota of credibility to anything coming from them.
>
> Which, I believe is very unfortunate. Some of us who are
> truly compassionate, in a less extremist way, about
> animals and their treatment, are left with no credible
> voice on the issues.
>
> TC

Pearl

Sat, Aug-21-04, 19:17

"tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b550f406.0408200629.73b1af61@posting.google.com...
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:<cg2lrq$ijg$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> > "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b550f406.0408190631.1b9b7a07@posting.google.com...
> > > "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> > > news:<cfrc6d$7h3$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> > > > "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:b550f406.0408160602.236d5ddf@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > <lots of silly ad hominem>
> > > >
> > > > > Both John's Hopkins and Mayor Bloomberg have taken
> > > > > swipes at Atkins in the past.
> > > >
> > > > Who hasn't..
> > > > www.all-creatures.org/mfz/health-atkins-mg.html
> > >
> > > Why are you referencing an article from an animal rights
> > > group in a science newsgroup? Your wasting band-width
> > > and wasting our time.
> >
> > Ad hominem evasion.
>
> One must always consider the source. In this case the source
> is an animal rights group. The historical radicalism and the
> extremism, not to mention their financial support of
> domestic terrorism, within the animal rights movement has
> completely skewered their approach to their advocacy. The
> result is that there isn't an iota of credibility to
> anything coming from them.
>
> Which, I believe is very unfortunate. Some of us who are
> truly compassionate, in a less extremist way, about
> animals and their treatment, are left with no credible
> voice on the issues.
>
> TC

Ad hominem, continued evasion, and attempt at
sidetracking, noted.

Tcomeau

Sun, Aug-22-04, 06:16

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:<cg7bv6$tav$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b550f406.0408200629.73b1af61@posting.google.com...
> > "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> > news:<cg2lrq$ijg$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> > > "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b550f406.0408190631.1b9b7a07@posting.google.com...
> > > > "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> > > > news:<cfrc6d$7h3$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> > > > > "tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b550f406.0408160602.236d5ddf@posting.google.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > <lots of silly ad hominem>
> > > > >
> > > > > > Both John's Hopkins and Mayor Bloomberg have taken
> > > > > > swipes at Atkins in the past.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who hasn't..
> > > > > www.all-creatures.org/mfz/health-atkins-mg.html
> > > >
> > > > Why are you referencing an article from an animal
> > > > rights group in a science newsgroup? Your wasting
> > > > band-width and wasting our time.
> > >
> > > Ad hominem evasion.
> >
> > One must always consider the source. In this case the
> > source is an animal rights group. The historical
> > radicalism and the extremism, not to mention their
> > financial support of domestic terrorism, within the animal
> > rights movement has completely skewered their approach to
> > their advocacy. The result is that there isn't an iota of
> > credibility to anything coming from them.
> >
> > Which, I believe is very unfortunate. Some of us who are
> > truly compassionate, in a less extremist way, about
> > animals and their treatment, are left with no credible
> > voice on the issues.
> >
> > TC
>
> Ad hominem, continued evasion, and attempt at
> sidetracking, noted.

In order for me to rebut your arguments, you will have to
present an argument that has some credibility. Until then I
will continue to ad hominenize.

TC

Hugh

Sun, Aug-22-04, 19:17

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:55:16 +0100, "pearl"
<tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:

>>> ATKINS is not the authority. 20,000,000 years of teeth
>>> evolution has
>> identified that the diet has changed many times on the road
>> to modern human teeth, which include now both molars and
>> incisors.
>
>'Most "nutritionists" assert that we have definite
>carnivorous leanings, and some have even termed our incisor
>teeth "fangs" in defense of their erroneous position that
>humans are natural meat-eaters!
...
> The "canine" teeth of humans are short, stout, and slightly
> triangular. They are less pronounced and developed than the
> orangutan's, who rarely kills and eats raw flesh in its
> natural environment. Human canines in no way resemble the
> long, round, slender canines of the true carnivore. ... It
> would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for humans
> to eat raw flesh without the aid of fork and knife.

Precisely - we use weapons and tools for killing our prey and
cutting it up, not our teeth (and have done throughout our
existence as a species). Plus we usually cook our food as
well, which makes it softer and even easier to chew. So our
teeth have to do far less work than those of most other
carnivores, which is why they are smaller.

>> Humans are OMNIVORES, capable of eating a large assortment
>> of foods including meats, vegetables, seeds, berries, fish,
>> grubs, and ice cream.
>
We are not omnivores. Our digestive tract is that of a typical
carnivore, it is much shorter than that of herbivores and is
completely unable to digest cellulose. Herbivores and true
omnivores (such as the rat) have a digesive system that allows
fermentative bacteria to break down cellulose. They derive
energy and nutrients from these fermentative bacteria, which
allows them to survive on a diet of fibrous plant matter alone
if need be. We don't have this capability, which means that
most vegetative matter is completely indigestible for us. It
also means that even the limited plant foods we can eat don't
give us all the nutrients we need, people who are forced to
live on vegetarian foods alone without animal protein become
severely malnourished.

Just because we can eat fruit, nuts, and starchy vegetables
(after they've been cooked!) doesn't make us omnivores. Even
highly carnivorous animals such as hyenas and wolves will eat
fruit when they come across it. If we were true omnivores we
would be able to digest ordinary plant materials like grass
and tree leaves.

Pearl

Sun, Aug-22-04, 19:17

"tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b550f406.0408211532.4e1c6106@posting.google.com...
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:<cg7bv6$tav$1@kermit.esat.net>...
<..>

> > Ad hominem, continued evasion, and attempt at
> > sidetracking, noted.
>
> In order for me to rebut your arguments, you will have to
> present an argument that has some credibility. Until then I
> will continue to ad hominenize.

You just can't help yourself, can you? Done.

THE SKINNY ON ATKINS By Michael Greger, M.D.

Part I http://www.all-creatures.org/mfz/health-atkins-mg.html

Part II http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/2004nl/04070-
0puatkins.htm

Pearl

Mon, Aug-23-04, 06:16

"Hugh" <mightyhugh@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:412917d3.647027@news.btopenworld.com...
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:55:16 +0100, "pearl"
> <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> >>> ATKINS is not the authority. 20,000,000 years of teeth
> >>> evolution has
> >> identified that the diet has changed many times on the
> >> road to modern human teeth, which include now both molars
> >> and incisors.
> >
> >'Most "nutritionists" assert that we have definite
> >carnivorous leanings, and some have even termed our incisor
> >teeth "fangs" in defense of their erroneous position that
> >humans are natural meat-eaters!
> ...
> > The "canine" teeth of humans are short, stout, and
> > slightly triangular. They are less pronounced and
> > developed than the orangutan's, who rarely kills and eats
> > raw flesh in its natural environment. Human canines in no
> > way resemble the long, round, slender canines of the true
> > carnivore. ... It would be extremely difficult, if not
> > impossible, for humans to eat raw flesh without the aid of
> > fork and knife.
>
> Precisely - we use weapons and tools for killing our prey
> and cutting it up, not our teeth (and have done throughout
> our existence as a species). Plus we usually cook our food
> as well, which makes it softer and even easier to chew. So
> our teeth have to do far less work than those of most other
> carnivores, which is why they are smaller.

We use airplanes to fly, so does that mean we're a type of
bird?

> >> Humans are OMNIVORES, capable of eating a large
> >> assortment of foods including meats, vegetables, seeds,
> >> berries, fish, grubs, and ice cream.
> >
> We are not omnivores.

True, humans are obligate frugivores.

> Our digestive tract is that of a typical carnivore,

Wrong!

'Among the various species throughout nature, the length of
their particular alimentary canals also differs greatly in
relation to their natural food. The gut of the carnivore is
3-6 times the length of their body. They require a short,
smooth, fast-acting gut since their natural flesh diet becomes
quite toxic and cannot be retained within the intestine for
long without poisonous putrefaction taking place. The gut of
the herbivore is sacculated for greater surface area, and is
30 times the length of their body. Its herb and grass diet is
coarse and fibrous, requiring longer digestion to break down
cellulose. The length of the omnivores alimentary canal is
generally 6 times its body trunk size. The gut of the
frugivore (like humans) is also sacculated and is 12 times the
length of it's body. The length of the adult human alimentary
canal is about 30 feet. The human digestive tract is about
four times as long as the carnivores. The intestine of the
carnivore is short and smooth in order to dissolve food
rapidly and pass it quickly out of the system prior to the
flesh putrefying. The human digestive tract is corrugated for
the specific purpose of retaining food as long as possible
until all nutriment has been extracted, which is the worst
possible condition for the digestion and processing of flesh
foods. Meat moves quickly through the carnivores digestive
tract and is quickly expelled. The human lengthy intestine
cannot handle low-fiber foods including meat and dairy very
quickly at all. As a consequence, animal foods decrease the
motility of the human intestine and putrefaction almost
invariably occurs (as evidenced by foul smelling stools and
flatulence), resulting in the release of many poisonous
by-products as the low-fiber food passes through, ever so
slowly. In humans, eventual constipation may develop on a
meat-centered diet. Colon cancer is also common, both of which
are rare or non-existent on a high-fiber diet centered around
raw fruits and vegetables. '
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm

> it is much shorter than that of herbivores and is completely
> unable to digest cellulose.

Which is why we need molars- to mash and liquidize our food,
breaking open plants' cellulose cell-walls, to get at the
nutrients.

> Herbivores and true omnivores (such as the rat) have a
> digesive system that allows fermentative bacteria to break
> down cellulose. They derive energy and nutrients from these
> fermentative bacteria, which allows them to survive on a
> diet of fibrous plant matter alone if need be. We don't have
> this capability, which means that most vegetative matter is
> completely indigestible for us.

There is sufficient variety of plant-foods that we can and
do consume.

> It also means that even the limited plant foods we can eat
> don't give us all the nutrients we need, people who are
> forced to live on vegetarian foods alone without animal
> protein become severely malnourished.

False.

'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/et1101/et1101s18.html

> Just because we can eat fruit, nuts, and starchy vegetables
> (after they've been cooked!)

Not necessarilly. (You eat raw flesh?).

> doesn't make us omnivores. Even highly carnivorous animals
> such as hyenas and wolves will eat fruit when they come
> across it. If we were true omnivores we would be able to
> digest ordinary plant materials like grass and tree leaves.

See above, and I'd suggest following the link.

But first, to really confuse you;

Feeding types:
-------------------------------------
Herbivores Plant matter - Grazers grass Browsers leaves, grass
Frugivores fruit Folivores leaves Nectarivores plant nectar
Granivores grain, seeds, nuts /p
--------------------------------------
Carnivores vertebrate prey
--------------------------------------
Insectivores insects Ant eaters ants, termites
--------------------------------------
Piscivores fish
--------------------------------------
Scavengers dead animals
--------------------------------------
Sanguivores blood
--------------------------------------
Omnivores plants and animals
--------------------------------------
http://www.bio.gasou.edu/Bio-home/Pratt/vzmamm203.htm

Hugh

Tue, Aug-24-04, 19:17

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:54:34 +0100, "pearl"
<tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:

>> >> Humans are OMNIVORES, capable of eating a large
>> >> assortment of foods including meats, vegetables, seeds,
>> >> berries, fish, grubs, and ice cream.
>> >
>> We are not omnivores.
>
>True, humans are obligate frugivores.
>
>> Our digestive tract is that of a typical carnivore,
>
>Wrong!
>
Once it's passed through our stomach, our food is mixed with
bile and a number of digestive enzymes. The bile acts to
emulsify fats, breaking them up into small globules that can
more easily be acted on by the digestive enzymes. These
enzymes break down fats into fatty acids and protein into
amino acids, which are then absorbed through the wall of the
small intestine. All this takes place without any help from
bacteria, which means that we don't require bacteria to aid
in our digestion. The slurry left behind after all the
nutrients have been removed then passes into the large
intestine, where most of the water is removed to produce a
consolidated fecal mass which is then excreted. We don't
absorb nutrients in our large intestine, just water. There
are bacteria in the large intestine, but they are
putrefactive, not fermentative. The digestive process of
other carnivores works in exactly the same way.

Herbivores (and also omnivores) digest food in a completely
different way. They mix the food with fermentative bacteria
and have a long, convoluted intestine that gives the bacteria
plenty of time to break down cellulose, the main constituent
of fibrous plant matter. Only after the fermentative bacteria
have had time to digest the cellulose does the animal pump in
its own digestive enzymes. Herbivores get much of their
nutrition from digesting these bacteria (which have by then
converted the cellulose into fatty acids and protein) rather
than from the plant matter itself.

Fermentative digestion is essential if ordinary fibrous plant
tissues such as leaves and twigs are to be digested. Because
we don't have fermentative digestion, we are restricted to a
very narrow range of plant-sourced foods (those high in
starches or oils and low in cellulose, such as certain tubers,
grains, fruits and nuts).

In other words our digestive system works in exactly the same
way as that of most carnivores. Our inability to digest
cellulose means that we cannot correctly be classified as
omnivores. We are carnivores. The fact that we can eat a very
limited range of plant-sourced foods means nothing - other
carnivores can and do eat fruits when the opportunity arises.

...
> animal foods decrease the motility of the human intestine
> and putrefaction almost invariably occurs (as evidenced by
> foul smelling stools and flatulence), resulting in the
> release of many poisonous by-products as the low-fiber food
> passes through, ever so slowly.

In my experience, the foods most likely to cause flatulence
and the emission of foul-smelling gases are all vegetarian
foods, such as beans, peanuts, lager and crisps. I don't seem
to fart at all when eating meat on its own. So if gaseous
emissions and foul smells are any guide, vegetarian foods
putrefy far more in the human intestine than meat does.

The real reason carnivores have much shorter intestines than
herbivores is that meat is much easier to digest than
plant-sourced foods. Carnivores quite simply don't need a long
intestine, and having one would weigh them down and reduce
their agility. Like other carnivores, we also have a short
intestine - not quite as short as that of long-time carnivores
such as lions and wolves, but far shorter than that of
herbivores nonetheless. We use traps and weapons rather than
superior agility and speed to capture our prey, which means
that our intestines can be bulkier than that of other
predators without affecting our hunting ability.

> In humans, eventual constipation may develop on a
> meat-centered diet.
You can eat an all-meat diet without becoming constipated.
Certain societies such as the Inuit have lived on an all-meat
diet for thousands of years without dying out from chronic
constipation and putrefying bowels.

> Colon cancer is also common, both of which are rare or
> non-existent on a high-fiber diet centered around raw fruits
> and vegetables. '

There are some studies that appear to show an association
between meat and colon cancer, but then there are others where
colon cancer is associated with starches, sugars and
polyunsaturated vegetable oils. I guess the results depend on
whether the authors of the study are biased towards
vegetarianism or not.

>
>> it is much shorter than that of herbivores and is
>> completely unable to digest cellulose.
>
>Which is why we need molars- to mash and liquidize our food,
>breaking open plants' cellulose cell-walls, to get at the
>nutrients.
>
You need to chew fibrous plant matter for a very long time to
break open a high percentage of the cell walls - herbivores
typically spend most of their waking hours chewing. They also
get most of their nutrition from fermentative bacteria, rather
than from the plant tissues themselves.

>> Herbivores and true omnivores (such as the rat) have a
>> digesive system that allows fermentative bacteria to break
>> down cellulose. They derive energy and nutrients from these
>> fermentative bacteria, which allows them to survive on a
>> diet of fibrous plant matter alone if need be. We don't
>> have this capability, which means that most vegetative
>> matter is completely indigestible for us.
>
>There is sufficient variety of plant-foods that we can and
>do consume.
>
>> It also means that even the limited plant foods we can eat
>> don't give us all the nutrients we need, people who are
>> forced to live on vegetarian foods alone without animal
>> protein become severely malnourished.
>
>False.

During famines, people often can't obtain meat at all and are
forced to subsist on starchy plant foods alone. They go on to
develop a condition called kwashiorkor, which is characterised
by a pot belly, emaciated appearance, stunted growth, mental
retardation etc. Eventually if they don't get meat they die.
Famine victims typically don't die of starvation, they die of
malnutrition. We can't survive without animal protein.
Herbivores can, because they can synthesize a wider range of
amino acids and essential fatty acids than we can and because
they get nutients from the fermentative bacteria in their
digestive tract (which we don't have). Vegetarians and vegans
in western societies get round this by either consuming animal
protein in the form of dairy, eggs or fish, or by taking
supplements.

Hugh

Pearl

Tue, Aug-24-04, 19:17

"Hugh" <mightyhugh@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:412b18ae.6376054@news.btopenworld.com...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:54:34 +0100, "pearl"
> <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:

You need to be asked to indicate snips?

> >> >> Humans are OMNIVORES, capable of eating a large
> >> >> assortment of foods including meats, vegetables,
> >> >> seeds, berries, fish, grubs, and ice cream.
> >> >
> >> We are not omnivores.
> >
> >True, humans are obligate frugivores.
> >
> >> Our digestive tract is that of a typical carnivore,
> >
> >Wrong!

Why did you snip the length of digestive tract argument?
Wrong?

> Once it's passed through our stomach, our food is mixed with
> bile and a number of digestive enzymes. The bile acts to
> emulsify fats, breaking them up into small globules that can
> more easily be acted on by the digestive enzymes. These
> enzymes break down fats into fatty acids and protein into
> amino acids, which are then absorbed through the wall of the
> small intestine.

'The hydrochloric acid concentrations of various species are
an additional determinant of their natural diet. A carnivores
gastric juice is highly acidic, serving to prevent
putrefaction while flesh undergoes digestion. Plant-eaters
however, secrete a much less concentrated and less abundant
quantity of hydrochloric acid that does not curtail the
bacterial decomposition of flesh: a process that begins at the
animals moment of death. Flesh is digested in an acid medium
within the stomach. Humans secrete a very weak concentration
of hydrochloric acid relative to the carnivore, and little of
the protein-splitting enzyme pepsin. Carnivorous animals have
concentrations of these flesh-digesting secretions 1100%
greater than do humans. Lions can rip off and swallow your
hand whole and quite readily digest it.'
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm

> All this takes place without any help from bacteria, which
> means that we don't require bacteria to aid in our
> digestion. The slurry left behind after all the nutrients
> have been removed then passes into the large intestine,
> where most of the water is removed to produce a consolidated
> fecal mass which is then excreted. We don't absorb nutrients
> in our large intestine, just water. There are bacteria in
> the large intestine, but they are putrefactive, not
> fermentative. The digestive process of other carnivores
> works in exactly the same way.

No. See the part you snipped, re: gut length and structure,
and above, and..

'According to Harper's Biochemistry, the putrefaction
bacteria in the large intestine convert amino acids from
undigested protein into toxic amines or ptomaines, such as
cadaverine (from lysine), agmatine (from arginine), tyramine
(from tyroseine), putrescine (from orithine) and histamine
(from histidine). And these amines are "powerful vasopressor
substances". Tryptophan undergoes a series of reactions to
form indole and methylindole (skatole), which produces the
distinctive putrefying faecal smell of a high protein diet.
The sulphur-containing amino acids (cysteine and methionine)
are transformed into mercaptans such as ethyl and methyl
mercaptan as well as hydrogen sulphide (H2S). All these
compounds are very poisonous and unpleasant.
Phosphatidylcholine, only found in meats, breaks down into
choline and the related toxic amines such as neurine. This is
evidence that meat is not well digested. Herbivores do not
produce putrid excrement, but "dung" instead, some still
contains sufficient nutrients to warrant eating again, as
with rabbits.

However, a meal of fruit with similar food energy value would
yield about 2.6 g of protein of which 0.4 g would be wasted. A
high protein food at least doubles the quantity of protein
that is potentially subject to putrefication in the bowels.
Worse still, the reason that plant protein is less digestible
is because it is found in the tough cellulose walls of plant
cells which pass through the gut undigested if not
sufficiently masticated. These proteins are not available as
soil for putrefying bacteria in the bowel. Animal protein
wastes are highly bioavailable to putrefying bowel bacteria
since they have no cellulose cell wall. It seems that only
putrefying bacteria benefit from the "highly digestible"
animal proteins.' http://tinyurl.com/3t7qn

Asia Pacific J Clin Nutr (1996) Vol5, No 1: 2-9 Intestinal
flora and human health Tomotari Mitsuoka, DVM, PhD Professor
Emeritus, The University of Tokyo, Japan .. Other intestinal
bacteria produce substances that are harmful to the host, such
as putrefactive products, toxins and carcinogenic substances.
When harmful bacteria dominate in the intestines, essential
nutrients are not produced and the level of harmful substances
rises. These substances may not have an immediate detrimental
effect on the host but they are thought to be contributing
factors to ageing, promoting cancer, liver and kidney disease,
hypertension and arteriosclerosis, and reduced immunity.
Little is known regarding which intestinal bacteria are
responsible for these effects. A number of factors can change
the balance of intestinal flora in favour of harmful bacteria.
These include peristalsis disorders, surgical operations of
stomach or small intestine, liver or kidney diseases,
pernicious anaemia, cancer, radiation or antibiotic therapies,
immune disorders, emotional stress, poor diet and ageing. ....
The intestinal flora may play an important role in the
causation of cancer and ageing

Dietary factors are considered important environmental risk
determinants for colorectal cancer development. From
epidemiological observations, a high fat intake is associated
positively and a high fibre intake negatively with colorectal
cancer. This is thought to occur by the following mechanisms.
From food components in the gastrointestinal tract, organisms
produce various carcinogens from the dietary components and
endogenous substances, detoxify carcinogens, or enhance the
host's immune function, which results in changes in the
incidence of cancers. The ingestion of large amounts of animal
fat enhances bile secretion, causing an increase in bile acid
and cholesterol in the intestine. These increased substances
are converted by intestinal bacteria into secondary bile
acids, their derivatives, aromatic polycyclic hydrocarbons,
oestrogen and epoxides derivatives that are related to
carcinogenesis. Various tryptophan metabolites (indole,
skatole, 3-hydroxykinurenine, 3-hydroxyanthranilic acid, etc.)
phenols, amines, and nitroso compounds produced by intestinal
bacteria from protein also participate in carcinogenesis (Fig.
5). .. Figure 5. Relationships among diet, intestinal bacteria
and cancer.

Recent epidemiological studies have revealed that insufficient
intake of dietary fibre is associated with high incidences of
Western diseases such as colorectal cancer, obesity, heart
disease, diabetes, and hypertension. Ingested dietary fibre
causes increased volume of faeces, dilution of noxious
substances, and shortening of the transit time of intestinal
contents, resulting in early excretion of noxious substances
such as carcinogens produced by intestinal bacteria. '
http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/APJCN/Vol5/Num1/51p02.htm#top

> Herbivores (and also omnivores) digest food in a
> completely different way. They mix the food with
> fermentative bacteria and have a long, convoluted
> intestine that gives the bacteria plenty of time to break
> down cellulose, the main constituent of fibrous plant
> matter. Only after the fermentative bacteria have had time
> to digest the cellulose does the animal pump in its own
> digestive enzymes. Herbivores get much of their nutrition
> from digesting these bacteria (which have by then
> converted the cellulose into fatty acids and protein)
> rather than from the plant matter itself.
>
> Fermentative digestion is essential if ordinary fibrous
> plant tissues such as leaves and twigs are to be digested.
> Because we don't have fermentative digestion, we are
> restricted to a very narrow range of plant-sourced foods
> (those high in starches or oils and low in cellulose, such
> as certain tubers, grains, fruits and nuts).

An ample variety of edible plant foods to meet our needs
and wants.

> In other words our digestive system works in exactly the
> same way as that of most carnivores.

Nope. Understand there are more feeding-type adaptations than
herbivore, carnivore and omnivore. We are frugivores.

> Our inability to digest cellulose means that we cannot
> correctly be classified as omnivores. We are carnivores.

Absolutely not.

> The fact that we can eat a very limited range of
> plant-sourced foods means nothing -

Oh dear.

> other carnivores can and do eat fruits when the
> opportunity arises.

Even if true, so what.

> ...
> > animal foods decrease the motility of the human intestine
> > and putrefaction almost invariably occurs (as evidenced by
> > foul smelling stools and flatulence), resulting in the
> > release of many poisonous by-products as the low-fiber
> > food passes through, ever so slowly.
>
> In my experience, the foods most likely to cause
> flatulence and the emission of foul-smelling gases are all
> vegetarian foods, such as beans, peanuts, lager and
> crisps. I don't seem to fart at all when eating meat on
> its own. So if gaseous emissions and foul smells are any
> guide, vegetarian foods putrefy far more in the human
> intestine than meat does.

But you're overlooking what's already sitting in your colon.

> The real reason carnivores have much shorter intestines than
> herbivores is that meat is much easier to digest than
> plant-sourced foods. Carnivores quite simply don't need a
> long intestine, and having one would weigh them down and
> reduce their agility. Like other carnivores, we also have a
> short intestine - not quite as short as that of long-time
> carnivores such as lions and wolves, but far shorter than
> that of herbivores nonetheless.
>
> We use traps and weapons rather than superior agility and
> speed to capture our prey, which means that our intestines
> can be bulkier than that of other predators without
> affecting our hunting ability.

Carnivores need a (very) short, smooth-walled intestine.
See above.

> > In humans, eventual constipation may develop on a
> > meat-centered diet.
>
> You can eat an all-meat diet without becoming constipated.
> Certain societies such as the Inuit have lived on an
> all-meat diet for thousands of years without dying out from
> chronic constipation and putrefying bowels.

"Really now. Virtually every credible account you will ever
read that describes the Eskimo way of life will describe them
eating vegetable matter and great efforts they go to in
collecting it during the months when it is available.

(Plants) made up a *significant* portion of the diet in all
Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. Specifically they made up a
significant portion of Eskimo diets. There is one small area
in central Canada where that was less true than in all other
areas, and the main point to consider is that even in that
area Eskimos did eat vegetable matter on a regular basis.

You've never seen berries preserved in seal oil, or dried
leaves to make tea, or eaten soup made from a mouse nest, or
picked rose hips in the winter, or seen willows on the tundra,
or eaten salmon berries with Pilot Bread?"
- Floyd L. Davidson, Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska).

> > Colon cancer is also common, both of which are rare or
> > non-existent on a high-fiber diet centered around raw
> > fruits and vegetables. '
>
> There are some studies that appear to show an association
> between meat and colon cancer, but then there are others
> where colon cancer is associated with starches, sugars and
> polyunsaturated vegetable oils. I guess the results depend
> on whether the authors of the study are biased towards
> vegetarianism or not.

Let's see your studies.

> >> it is much shorter than that of herbivores and is
> >> completely unable to digest cellulose.
> >
> >Which is why we need molars- to mash and liquidize our
> >food, breaking open plants' cellulose cell-walls, to get at
> >the nutrients.
> >
> You need to chew fibrous plant matter for a very long time
> to break open a high percentage of the cell walls -
> herbivores typically spend most of their waking hours
> chewing. They also get most of their nutrition from
> fermentative bacteria, rather than from the plant tissues
> themselves.

Vegetarians and vegans don't spend most of the day
chewing, silly.

> >> Herbivores and true omnivores (such as the rat) have a
> >> digesive system that allows fermentative bacteria to
> >> break down cellulose. They derive energy and nutrients
> >> from these fermentative bacteria, which allows them to
> >> survive on a diet of fibrous plant matter alone if need
> >> be. We don't have this capability, which means that most
> >> vegetative matter is completely indigestible for us.
> >
> >There is sufficient variety of plant-foods that we can and
> >do consume.
> >
> >> It also means that even the limited plant foods we can
> >> eat don't give us all the nutrients we need, people who
> >> are forced to live on vegetarian foods alone without
> >> animal protein become severely malnourished.
> >
> >False.
>
> During famines, people often can't obtain meat at all and
> are forced to subsist on starchy plant foods alone. They go
> on to develop a condition called kwashiorkor, which is
> characterised by a pot belly, emaciated appearance, stunted
> growth, mental retardation etc. Eventually if they don't get
> meat they die. Famine victims typically don't die of
> starvation, they die of malnutrition.

They get malnutrition from lack of FOOD, not meat!

> We can't survive without animal protein.

Millions of long-term veg*ns, myself included, prove
you're wrong.

> Herbivores can, because they can synthesize a wider range of
> amino acids and essential fatty acids than we can and
> because they get nutients from the fermentative bacteria in
> their digestive tract (which we don't have). Vegetarians and
> vegans in western societies get round this by either
> consuming animal protein in the form of dairy, eggs or fish,
> or by taking supplements.

Vegans don't consume any animal protein, and any
deficiency of B12 is due to modern agricultural and
medical practices, not diet.

Wolfbrothe

Tue, Aug-24-04, 19:17

Once again great post. It is too bad that when it comes to
reality checks like this ideological extremist fanatics like
Pearl just cover their ears and say lalalal. Another important
fact is that not only is animal protein most easily digested
by humans but RAW animal protein is even more efficiently so.
Experiments such as those done by Francis Pottinger also show
the benefits of raw animal foods to carnivors. I think the
transition of the human diet from containing a large
percentage of raw food to our modern diet of almost 100%
cooked food is a big reason in the degeneration of health in
our modern society. It would be nice if you could comment on
that since im sure you are more knowledgeable than I.

Pearl

Tue, Aug-24-04, 19:17

"Wolfbrother" <rangerhasten@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6eb8f6eb.0408241426.6de3c3de@posting.google.com...
> Once again great post. It is too bad that when it comes to
> reality checks like this ideological extremist fanatics like
> Pearl just cover their ears and say lalalal. Another
> important fact is that not only is animal protein most
> easily digested by humans but RAW animal protein is even
> more efficiently so. Experiments such as those done by
> Francis Pottinger also show the benefits of raw animal foods
> to carnivors. I think the transition of the human diet from
> containing a large percentage of raw food to our modern diet
> of almost 100% cooked food is a big reason in the
> degeneration of health in our modern society. It would be
> nice if you could comment on that since im sure you are more
> knowledgeable than I.

Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S Associations
between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and
all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California
Seventh-day Adventists. Fraser GE. Center for Health Research
and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma
Linda University, CA USA. Results associating diet with
chronic disease in a cohort of 34192 California Seventh-day
Adventists are summarized. Most Seventh-day Adventists do not
smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, and there is a wide range
of dietary exposures within the population. About 50% of
those studied ate meat products <1 time/wk or not at all, and
vegetarians consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit,
but less coffee, doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians.
Multivariate analyses showed significant associations between
beef consumption and fatal ischemic heart disease (IHD) in
men [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for subjects who ate beef > or
=3 times/wk compared with vegetarians], significant
protective associations between nut consumption and fatal and
nonfatal IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects
who ate nuts > or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate
nuts <1 time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects
preferring whole-grain to white bread. The lifetime risk of
IHD was reduced by approximately 31% in those who consumed
nuts frequently and by 37% in male vegetarians compared with
nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and prostate were
significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88 and
1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had
higher risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was
negatively associated with risk of colon cancer in
nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic cancer. Higher
consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated with
lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day
Adventists have lower risks of diabetes mellitus,
hypertension, and arthritis than nonvegetarians. Thus, among
Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are healthier than
nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the
absence of meat. PMID: 10479227

EOS.

Wolfbrothe

Wed, Aug-25-04, 06:17

And what do you want me to do with that BS? Do you think that
proves something? That meat is bad? That it causes colon
cancer? You need a reality check. Other observations disprove
such foolish notions. If a theory does not hold up under all
observations it must be discarded. That joke of a study is
worthless.

Writers on women's issues may denigrate animal foods with
insouciance but, in fact, the scientific literature offers
very little in the way of long-term studies on the value of a
vegetarian diet. Dr. Russell Smith, a statistician, analyzed
the existing studies on vegetariansim1 and discovered that
while there have been ample investigations which show, quite
unsurprisingly, that vegetarian diets significantly decrease
blood cholesterol levels, studies evaluating the effects of
vegetarian diets on mortalities continue to be few in number.
In fact, Smith speculated that the available data from the
many existing prospective studies are being shelved because
they reveal no benefits of vegetarianism. For example,
mortality statistics are strangely absent from the Tromso
Heart Study in Norway which showed that vegetarians had
slightly lower blood cholesterol levels than nonvegetarians.2

In a review of some 3,000 articles in the scientific
literature, Smith found only two that compared mortality data
for vegetarians and nonvegetarians. One was a 1978 study of
Seventh Day Adventists (SDAs). Two very poor analyses of the
data were published in 1984, one by H.
A. Kahn and one by D. A. Snowden.3 The publication by Kahn
rather arbitrarily threw out most of the data and
considered only subjects who indicated very infrequent or
very frequent consumption of the various foods. They then
computed "odds ratios" which showed that mortality
increased as meat or poultry consumption increased (but not
for cheese, eggs, milk or fat attached to meat.)

When Smith analyzed total mortality rates from the study as a
function of the frequencies of consuming cheese, meat, milk,
eggs and fat attached to meat, he found that the total death
rate decreased as the frequencies of consuming cheese, eggs,
meat and milk increased. He called the Kahn publication "yet
another example of negative results which are massaged and
misinterpreted to support the politically correct assertions
that vegetarians live longer lives."

The analysis by Snowden published mortality data for coronary
heart disease (CHD), rather than total mortality data, for the
21-year SDA study. Since he did not eliminate the intermediate
frequencies of consumption data on meat, but did so with eggs,
cheese and milk, this represents further evidence that both
Kahn and Snowden based their results on arbitrary,
after-the-fact analysis and not on pre-planned analyses
contingent on the design of their questionnaire. Snowden
computed relative risk ratios and concluded that CHD mortality
increased as meat consumption increased. However, the rates of
increase were trivial at 0.04 percent and 0.01 percent
respectively for males and females. Snowden, like Kahn, also
found no relationship between frequency of consumption of
eggs, cheese and milk and CHD mortality "risk."

Citing the SDA study, other writers have claimed that
nonvegetarians have higher all-cause mortality rates than
vegetarians4 and that, "There seems little doubt that SDA men
at least experience less total heart disease than do others. .
."5 The overpowering motivation to show that a diet low in
animal products protects against CHD (and other diseases) is
no better exemplified than in the SDA study and its subsequent
analysis. While Kahn and Snowden both used the term
"substantial" to describe the effects of meat consumption on
mortalities, it is more obvious that "trivial" is the
appropriate descriptor. It is also interesting that throughout
their analyses, they brushed aside their totally negative
findings on foods which have much greater quantities of fat,
saturated fat and cholesterol.

The second study was published by Burr and Sweetnam in 1982.6
It was shown that annual CHD death rate among vegetarians was
only 0.01 percent lower than that of nonvegetarians, yet the
authors indicated that the difference was "substantial."

The table below presents the annual death rates for
vegetarians and nonvegetarians which Smith derived from the
raw data in the seven-year Burr and Sweetnam study. As can be
seen, the "marked" difference between vegetarian and
nonvegetarian men in Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD) was only .11
percent. The difference in all-cause death rate was in the
opposite direction, a fact that Burr and Sweetnam failed to
mention. Moreover, the IHD and all-cause death rates among
females were actually slightly greater for heart disease and
substantially greater for all causes in vegetarians than in
nonvegetarians.

Annual Death Rates of Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians

Male vegetarians Male nonvegetarians Female vegetarians
Female nonvegetarians IHD .22% .33% .14% .10% All-Cause .93%
.88% .86% .54%

These results are absolutely not supportive of the proposition
that vegetarianism protects against either heart disease or
all-cause mortalities. In fact, they indicate that
vegetarianism is more dangerous for women than for men.

The claim that vegetarians have lower rates of cancer compared
to nonvegetarians has been squarely contradicted by a 1994
study comparing vegetarians with the general population.7
Researchers found that although vegetarian Seventh Day
Adventists have the same or slightly lower cancer rates for
some sites, for example 91 percent instead of 100 percent for
breast cancer, the rates for numerous other cancers are much
higher than the general US population standard, especially
cancers of the reproductive tract. SDA females had more
Hodgkins disease (131 percent), more brain cancer (118
percent), more malignant melanoma (171 percent), more uterine
cancer (191 percent), more cervical cancer (180 percent) and
more ovarian cancer (129 percent) on average.

http://www.westonaprice.org/women/wise_choices.html

Wed, Aug-25-04, 19:17

On 24 Aug 2004 15:26:22 -0700, rangerhasten@yahoo.com
(Wolfbrother) wrote:

>Once again great post. It is too bad that when it comes to
>reality checks like this ideological extremist fanatics like
>Pearl just cover their ears and say lalalal.

This coming from one of the most closed minded and ignorant
fanatics around. One whose only source for information is a
creepy cultist webpage offering nothing more than conspiracy
theories on why all generally accepted facts on nutrition
are wrong.

Pearl

Wed, Aug-25-04, 19:17

"Wolfbrother" <rangerhasten@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6eb8f6eb.0408250103.40fa6db3@posting.google.com...
> And what do you want me to do with that BS? Do you think
> that proves something? That meat is bad? That it causes
> colon cancer? You need a reality check. Other observations
> disprove such foolish notions. If a theory does not hold up
> under all observations it must be discarded. That joke of a
> study is worthless.

Your 'review' requires an update.

Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S Associations
between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and
all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California
Seventh-day Adventists. Fraser GE. Center for Health Research
and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma
Linda University, CA USA. Results associating diet with
chronic disease in a cohort of 34192 California Seventh-day
Adventists are summarized. Most Seventh-day Adventists do not
smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, and there is a wide range
of dietary exposures within the population. About 50% of
those studied ate meat products <1 time/wk or not at all, and
vegetarians consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit,
but less coffee, doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians.
Multivariate analyses showed significant associations between
beef consumption and fatal ischemic heart disease (IHD) in
men [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for subjects who ate beef > or
=3 times/wk compared with vegetarians], significant
protective associations between nut consumption and fatal and
nonfatal IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects
who ate nuts > or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate
nuts <1 time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects
preferring whole-grain to white bread. The lifetime risk of
IHD was reduced by approximately 31% in those who consumed
nuts frequently and by 37% in male vegetarians compared with
nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and prostate were
significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88 and
1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had
higher risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was
negatively associated with risk of colon cancer in
nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic cancer. Higher
consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated with
lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day
Adventists have lower risks of diabetes mellitus,
hypertension, and arthritis than nonvegetarians. Thus, among
Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are healthier than
nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the
absence of meat. PMID: 10479227

<..

George Con

Wed, Aug-25-04, 19:17

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:cgi00c$10t$1@kermit.esat.net...
> "Wolfbrother" <rangerhasten@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S Associations
> between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and
> all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California
> Seventh-day Adventists. Fraser GE. Center for Health
> Research and the Department of Epidemiology and
> Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, CA USA. Results
> associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of 34192
> California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized. Most
> Seventh-day Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or drink
> alcohol, and there is a wide range of dietary exposures
> within the population. About 50% of those studied ate meat
> products <1 time/wk or not at all, and vegetarians consumed
> more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, but less coffee,
> doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians. Multivariate
> analyses showed significant associations between beef
> consumption and fatal ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men
> [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for subjects who ate beef > or =3
> times/wk compared with vegetarians], significant protective
> associations between nut consumption and fatal and nonfatal
> IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects who ate
> nuts > or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate nuts <1
> time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects preferring
> whole-grain to white bread. The lifetime risk of IHD was
> reduced by approximately 31% in those who consumed nuts
> frequently and by 37% in male vegetarians compared with
> nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and prostate were
> significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88 and
> 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had
> higher risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was
> negatively associated with risk of colon cancer in
> nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic cancer. Higher
> consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated with
> lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
> Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day
> Adventists have lower risks of diabetes mellitus,
> hypertension, and arthritis than nonvegetarians. Thus, among
> Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are healthier than
> nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the
> absence of meat. PMID: 10479227
>
> <..>
>
>

> news:6eb8f6eb.0408250103.40fa6db3@posting.google.com...
> > And what do you want me to do with that BS? Do you think
> > that proves something? That meat is bad? That it causes
> > colon cancer? You need a reality check. Other observations
> > disprove such foolish notions. If a theory does not hold
> > up under all observations it must be discarded. That joke
> > of a study is worthless.
>
> Your 'review' requires an update.

It is estimated that people on their very best behavior can
add about 2 years to their life expectancy, based on
comparisons of Utah and Nevada. Or maybe it only SEEMS like
2 years....-:)

Laurie

Wed, Dec-29-04, 19:16

<dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:k5avh09gb41i9fefhk2il4jm76r7rdkncq@4ax.com...

> one meal of soy or rice based product is likely to involve
> more animal deaths than hundreds of meals derived from
> grass raised cattle.
"is likely"?? You have been making this crackpot claim for
YEARS, and I have been challenging you to produce some
scientifically-credible evidence supporting it for YEARS,
yet you have failed to do so. Any honest person would stop
making unsupportable claims in public, but not you. Now,
how about some science that supports your claim?? Or
demonstrate a little intellectual integrity and politely
withdraw it.

> Grass raised cattle products contribute to less
> wildlife deaths,
The substitution of mono crop "grass" for the original
ecosystem caused many wildlife deaths which you
intentionally ignore, in addition to drastic reduction in
plant biodiversity.

> ... better wildlife habitat, ...
"Disturbance of wetlands by cattle has negatively affected
other amphibian species and may have a negative impact on
the Plains Spadefoot (Cottonwood Consultants 1986). In
British Columbia, cattle prints in breeding wetlands trap
Great Basin Spadefoot tadpoles preventing them from
reaching deeper areas of the wetland as it dries (Orchard
1992). High turbidity, with high nutrient loading from
cattle feces, resulting in greatly reduced dissolved
oxygen content has been linked to complete die-offs of
Tiger Salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum) at Suffield
National Wildlife Area and may have impacted other
amphibian species (A. Didiuk, unpubl. data). However,
Klassen (1998) found that Plains Spadefoots near Milk
River successfully reproduced in wetlands that were
heavily disturbed by cattle." http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/f-
w/status/reports/spadefoot/lim.html

"The arrival of more people and cattle, along with the
arrival of commercialized farming, marked the beginning
of the end for native prairies in the basin. Destruction
of the native prairie can be attributed to three main
factors: plowing, overgrazing, and fire control." http:-
//www.mdc.missouri.gov/fish/watershed/nodaway/landuse/2-
80lutxt.htm

"... overgrazing and cultivation were the most dramatic
disruptions of the natural prairie ecosystem, ..."
"Grazing areas have often been subject to spraying with
herbicides to kill broadleaf plants in the misguided
belief that pure grass stands make better forage for
cattle. This greatly reduces the plant biodiversity of
the prairie, which though dominated by grasses,
contains literally hundreds of other, non-grass
species." http://accad.osu.edu/womenandtech/2004/resea-
rch%20pages/Loss/loss.html

"the disastrous effects that livestock grazing has on
native wildlife populations. For example:
a.. Grazing domestic livestock on arid lands is the chief
factor responsible for the decline of native trout in the
West. Of 32 fish species native to Arizona, 5 are extinct
and 21 of the remaining 27 are officially listed as
Threatened or Endangered, or are being considered for
listing all due largely to ranching.

b.. Perching bird and songbird populations have been
decimated. For example, at Oregon's Malheur National
Wildlife Refuge birdcounts were 5-7 times higher on an
ungrazed area of the Refuge, compared to surrounding
grazed lands.

c.. Wild turkey and other upland "game" birds such as Ruffed
grouse, Blue grouse and Lesser and Greater
prairie-chickens have also suffered, as have Gambel's
quail, Montezuma quail, and Scaled quail. Livestock have
destroyed their food sources, cover, and essential
understory vegetation. Intensive reintroduction and
recovery efforts for the wild turkey have restored it to
some areas, though generally only to about 10%-20% of its
original population.

d.. Displaced by domestic livestock, elk populations are
estimated at 10% of their original number; pronghorn at
5%. "
http://www.mikehudak.com/Articles/CowsOnDole9801.html

A Declaration from the RangeNet 2000 Symposium
http://www.rangenet.org/rn2k/declaration.html

"23 of the 29 state-list threatened avian species in
Arizona are impacted adversely by grazing according to the
Arizona Game and Fish Department." http://www.rangenet.or-
g/directory/witzemanr/cactus%20Feb.%202001.htm

"Service. Each year taxpayers subsidize approximately $100
million to support grazing on public lands," "According to
numerous authorities, livestock grazing has had and is
having serious impacts on the varied resources of these
federal lands." "As a result of being consumed beyond
their ability to renew themselves, vegetative species are
disappearing from our ranges, to be replaced by
unpalatable weeds, thorny shrubs and unproductive
woodlands (BLM, 1989) as well as by exotic, non-native
species (D'Antonio, et al., 1992). A 1994 U.S. Forest
Service report concluded that livestock grazing was the
4th major cause of overall species endangerment and the
2nd major cause of plant endangerment (Belsky et al.
2002). An analysis of 54 scientific papers on the impacts
of grazing on lands in the west between 1945 and 1996
found that total vegetation biomass (weight of vegetation
per hectare of land) was detrimentally affected by grazing
in comparison to non-grazed plots in 91% of the
observations made by biologists (Jones, 2002)." "Cattle
can denude land of vegetation causing greater soil erosion
and they can compact soils with their hooves resulting in
reduced water infiltration. The removal of vegetation also
exposes the ground to greater solar radiation increasing
the evaporation of moisture (Wuerthner and Matteson,
2002), leaving those plants not eaten by cattle at
increased risk of dying from lack of water. " "The thin
ribbons of green vegetation that border water sources and
provide cover and water vital to the survival of virtually
all kinds of wildlife in the water-poor West are becoming
endangered as livestock use of many of these areas is
changing, reducing or eliminating the vegetation on their
borders, trampling their banks, degrading water quality,
and increasing water temperatures" "In fact, grazing has
damaged 80% of western streams and riparian areas in the
U.S. (Belsky et al., 2002). The combined action of cattle
trampling soils and consuming riparian plants collapses
stream banks resulting in sediment loads and channel
widening. In addition, the dramatic change in the physical
characteristics of affected streams modifies or terminates
the natural flood regime thus inhibiting the development
of cottonwood and willow gallery forests (Kauffman, 2002).
The loss of vegetation and compaction of soil keeps
rainwater from entering the soil and instead, during
storms, causes the water to rush into streams generating
high peak flows that erode stream banks and deepen
channels. As a result, water tables are lowered and less
water is available in the soil for the late summer,
potentially drying out the riparian area (Belsky et al.,
2002). " "Waste from livestock is a major cause of
pollution, pathogenic bacteria blooms, and reduced oxygen
levels in streams. One cow excretes between 30 and 40
pounds of urine and between 29 and 70 pounds of manure a
day that often is directly deposited in streams. This
waste raises the levels of nitrogen and phosphorous in the
aquatic environment causing algae blooms that lower
dissolved oxygen levels threatening fish and other
organisms. The loss of shade from cattle trampling and
grazing on riparian vegetation also raises the water
temperature and reduces water oxygen levels (Carter,
2002). Fish have become increasingly threatened from
grazing throughout the West, including in particular
native trout (Fleishner, 1994) and salmon species
(d.A. Forest Service and BLM, 1994). A single cow's daily
waste can also introduce harmful bacteria into
waterways. Such waste can contain up to 5.4 billion
fecal coliform bacteria and 31 billion fecal streptoccus
bacteria. In a 1997 study of a creek in Utah's Wasatch -
Cache National Forest, 0 to 16 fecal coliform bacteria
per 100 milliliters of water were found upstream of a
cattle-grazing area. In stark comparison, 201 fecal
coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters were found
downstream of the grazing area. In some small
tributaries the count was found up around 1400 fecal
coliform bacteria per milliliter of water (Carter,
2002). " "In many cases, the wildlife are losing and
their numbers are declining (Flather, et al. 1994).
Among the species that have been and are being affected
by grazing are prairie dogs, desert tortoise, Sonoran
pronghorn antelope, and numerous bird species, including
game birds such as sharp-tailed grouse and sagehens
(Nowakowski, et al., 1982; U.S. General Accounting
Office, 1991). Bison, bighorn sheep, deer, antelope, and
elk are threatened by competition with domestic cattle.
Unlike these native grazers which wander from area to
area, cattle will concentrate in place, particularly
riparian areas, for long periods of time grazing on
grasses and trampling on most vegetation. This greatly
reduces the suitability of the land for natural grazers
and the loss of grasses and shrubs eliminates important
cover for deer and antelope fawns and elk calves from
predators (Willers, 2002).

Grazing has also negatively affected Neotropical migratory
land birds and their habitats (Bock, et al., 1993). The North
American Breeding Bird Survey has shown that grassland birds
are undergoing declines that are more widespread than any
other group of birds. Cowbird populations have increased
dramatically as a result of the expansion of livestock grazing
due to the cowbird's preference to feed on insects flushed out
by cattle. Cowbirds - which lay their eggs in the nests of
other birds which usually raise cowbird nestlings at the
expense of their own - have negatively impacted populations of
other birds such as the plumbeous vireo and the willow
flycatcher in areas where the cowbirds were once uncommon or
absent. Grazing also removes refuges from predators for birds
and favorable habitats for roosting and nesting by reducing
the height and ground cover of grasses (Bock, 2002). "

http://www.earthjustice.org/news/documents/grazing_enviro_e-
ffects.pdf

So, once again, your crackpot claims are refuted by real
science. Any chance you will stop lying, soon??

Laurie

Dh Ld

Thu, Dec-30-04, 19:16

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:30:10 -1000, "Laurie"
<no@spam.com> wrote:

>
><dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:k5avh09gb41i9fefhk2il4jm76r7rdkncq@4ax.com...
>
>> one meal of soy or rice based product is likely to
>> involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals derived
>> from grass raised cattle.
> "is likely"?? You have been making this crackpot claim
> for YEARS, and I have been challenging you to produce
> some scientifically-credible evidence supporting it for
> YEARS, yet you have failed to do so. Any honest person
> would stop making unsupportable claims in public, but not
> you. Now, how about some science that supports your
> claim?? Or demonstrate a little intellectual integrity
> and politely withdraw it.
>
>> Grass raised cattle products contribute to less wildlife
>> deaths,
> The substitution of mono crop "grass" for the original
> ecosystem caused many wildlife deaths

Once, unlike your mono crop soybeans which cause many
wildlife deaths every season.

>which you intentionally ignore,

For grazing they happen once. For veggies they happen when
the
ecosystem is substituted to begin with, plus every season
after that.
More for veggies, not less, and you have proven that you
don't care.

>in addition to drastic reduction in plant biodiversity.
>
>> ... better wildlife habitat, ...
_________________________________________________________
Environmental Benefits

Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land
to pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre.
It also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000"
legislation whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not
exceed tolerable limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing
erosion rates will preserve the most fertile soil with higher
water holding capacity for future crop production. It will
also protect our water quality.

High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and
surface waters can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health
problems. Pasturing has several water quality advantages. It
reduces the amount of nitrates and pesticides which leach into
our ground water and contaminate surface waters. It also can
reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and wildlife
habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth
(leading to low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates
most water life).

Wildlife Advantages

Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers,
bobolinks, and meadowlarks, have experienced significant
population declines within the past 50 years. Natural
inhabitants of the prairie, these birds thrived in the
extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops
and frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being
disturbed and their populations are now at risk.

Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this
decline because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed
nesting habitat. (However, converting existing under-grazed
pasture into an intensive rotational system where forage is
used more efficiently may be detrimental to wildlife.)
Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed until late June
provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such as
pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures,
as do bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts.
The wildlife benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest
in those instances where cropland is converted to pasture
since grassland, despite being grazed, provides greater
nesting opportunity than cropland.

Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often
short lived in the environment, some insecticides are toxic
to birds and mammals (including humans). Not only do they
kill the target pest but many kill a wide range of insects,
including predatory insects that could help prevent future
pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill
aquatic invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water
fowl.) Herbicides can also be toxic to animals and may
stunt or kill non-target vegetation which may serve as
wildlife habitat.

http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pastures/Grazing/Syste-
ms/Techniques/MIG/Why.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Rick Etter

Sun, Jan-02-05, 06:16

"Laurie" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
news:41d305fb$1_4@alt.athenanews.com...
>
> <dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:k5avh09gb41i9fefhk2il4jm76r7rdkncq@4ax.com...
>
>> one meal of soy or rice based product is likely to
>> involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals derived
>> from grass raised cattle.
> "is likely"?? You have been making this crackpot claim
> for YEARS, and I have been challenging you to produce
> some scientifically-credible evidence supporting it for
> YEARS, yet you have failed to do so.]
\

Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and
pesticides. Animals die.
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html http://oregonstate-
.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jan00/nitrate.htm http://www-
.abcbirds.org/pesticides/Profiles/carbofuran.htm
http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm http://ww-
w.wwfcanada.org/satellite/prip/factsheets/PRIP_WildlifeF-
actSheet.pdf http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_WildlifeSpec-
iesCon/pg7f2b6.htm
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animalrights/leasth-
arm.htm http://www.panna.org/panna/resources/documents/c-
onventionalCotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm
http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/html/news/archives/e-
le_poison.htm http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html http:-
//www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pests/Vertebrate/Mice.-
html
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jan00/nitrate-
.htm http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/notebook/agricul-
ture.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.html
http://www.greenenergyohio.org/default.cfm?exec=Page.Vie-
w&pageID=135
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf http-
://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/Licensed2Killexecsummary.-
pdf http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm http://www.-
mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_map/articles/article_22.mhtml
http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html http:-
//www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7697992-
.htm?1c http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy/project_fac-
t_sheets/500-01-019.html http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/a-
rticles/envImp/04impacts.htm
http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm http://www.fish-
eries.org/html/Public_Affairs/Policy_Statements/ps_2.sht-
ml http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_detail.cfm?issue_-
id=5 http://www.safesecurevital.org/articles/2004/cleanu-
p012012004.html

Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://ww-
w.panna.org/panna/resources/documents/conventionalCotton.dv.h-
tml http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm

To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http:-
//216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:kmPMnV7pZC4C:www.ext.colostat-
e.edu/pubs
/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http:/-
/www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pests/Vertebrate/Mice.html

To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple dealing
with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html

snippage....