Vegan virtues - Letter to the editor from the 2/3 edition, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

[niudog]

Vegan virtues - Letter to the editor from the 2/3/05 edition of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch... stltoday.com

Regarding the Jan. 22 article, "The challenge of being vegan," I was happy to see a full article on the subject, but I was disappointed by the overall tone. I realize it can seem to be a challenge to forgo many of society's traditional foods and products. But any change in a person's lifestyle can be challenging, even frightening.

It doesn't need to be a full-time job, though. My husband and I have no trouble finding a great variety of vegan products, and he actually enjoys shopping because he looks forward to seeking out new items to try. Many companies are creating healthy and cruelty-free alternatives. We aren't sacrificing anything.

By comparison, think of the work people on the Atkins diet do. Searching for the all-important "net carbs" and counting protein grams and so forth. But at the end of the day, they haven't helped anyone. In fact, their high meat intake has harmed the environment, the animals and themselves.
=================================================

I am writing a reply to this letter, and will post it here for your comments. I

[kyrasdad]

Why do people who practice the vegan religion insist on taking swipes at the rest of us?

[niudog]

I am thinking about sending this letter to the Post Dispatch.
I do want to inflame anyone, just inform and defend my lifestyle.
I would really like to read your comments.
-niudog
=======
I am writing to take exception with Mary Chipmans’ letter “Being vegan is not a full time job”. If she wants to practice veganism, good for her, but don’t take a swipe at us low carbers? After reading her letter again, I realized it was nothing more than a cheap slam on Atkins and the low carb lifestyle.

If she truly understood Atkins and the low carb lifestyle, she would know that the basis of our diet is fresh meats and fish, a wide variety of fresh veggies, dairy products, and some fruits and nuts. I am living proof that this way of eating is very healthy. After losing nearly 60 pounds on Atkins, my high blood pressure is now in the normal range and my blood cholesterol readings are all excellent. This way of living is very healthy, and people who tell you otherwise are just uninformed.

She writes about our “high meat intake”, but my meat intake is not any higher than it was in my diet before I started Atkins. However, I do eat a lot more veggies than at any other point in my life. This includes one Lenten season a few years back when I tried to give up meat and eat vegetarian for those 40 days. I did allow myself to eat fish and dairy, so I never truly ate vegetarian during that time. It was a very difficult way of eating for me, so I can appreciate the sacrifices that vegans make.

She writes that “My husband and I have no trouble finding a great variety of vegan products, and he actually enjoys shopping because he looks forward to seeking out new items to try. Many companies are creating healthy and cruelty-free alternatives.” These lab created convenience foods or frankenfoods, are not really all that healthy to eat. While I do eat some man-made low carb foods and snacks, they are an occasional treat, not a daily staple in my diet.

This is a great big world, and no one way of eating is correct for all people. So I’ll end my letter with this question, “Why did she have to end her letter taking a swipe at people who do not practice veganism?”

[Kristine]

You might find some good points to back up your argument in this article. (http://www.powerhealth.net/selected_articles.htm) It's a good rebuttal to the "meat eating destroys the world" concept. :thup:

(Edit) Read your letter and it's good. :thup: I would have added that her claims about veganism saving the environment are bogus. We need to control population growth, not feed everyone a diet to which we are NOT evolved.

[littlejohn]

niudog

Very Good!

[ceberezin]

THE RHETORIC OF VEGANISM

There is an eating disorder called orthorexia in which the sufferer links food with spiritual purity. Orthorexia is pandemic among vegans, and it is clearly in evidence in the original letter by the vegan couple. Notice the focus on "cruelty free." In the vegan imagination, meat production is a system of cruelty. Vegans maintain their innocence and purity by not participating in it. You and I, however, by being inveterate meat-eaters, are tainted by the system of cruelty. The more meat we eat the more we participate and the more impure we are.

There's a very interesting non sequitur in the letter. After bashing Atkins dieters for counting carbs, etc., the letter says: But at the end of the day, they haven't helped anyone.. Wait a minute? Why is a food choice supposed to help anyone? What kind of emotional baggage is being laid on food? The letter goes on to catalogue all the bad things Atkins dieters are doing simply through their "high meat intake."

In some respects, veganism is a form of Puritanism. Vegans are on a crusade to make the world more pure, and the touchstone for impurity is meat. That is why they can't simply leave Atkins dieters alone to make their own food choices because, in their eyes, we are not only impure, but defenders of the system of cruelty. That explains the vitriol and self-righteousness of PETA and the PCRM people.

Having said this, I do not mean to argue that there are no problems in the system of producing meat. No one should defend keeping animals penned their entire lives and force-feeding them growth hormones and antibiotics. But these problems stem from producing meat for profit, not from the mere fact of raising animals for food. Vegans, however, make no such distinction.

As far as the environment is concerned, growing plants for profit through intensive monoculture, requiring tons of pesticides and chemical feritilizers, is far more injurious than producing meat.

[niudog]

Well I appreciate your comments and have rewritten my letter using some of your ideas and words. I hope you dont mind. Now I have to see if I have the guts to send it to he paper. The last thing I want is a PETA rally in my driveway. Here it is...

I am writing to take exception with Mary Chipmans’ letter “Being vegan is not a full time job”. If she wants to practice veganism, good for her, but after reading her letter again, I realized it was nothing more than a cheap slam at the low carb lifestyle.

She writes, “By comparison, think of the work people on the Atkins diet do. Searching for the all-important "net carbs" and counting protein grams and so forth.”

Actually, counting net carbs is really no harder than counting fat grams as you would on a low fat diet, nor is it more difficult than checking labels for animal products as a vegan would do.

She goes on to say, “But at the end of the day, they haven't helped anyone.” I'm eating food, providing fuel for my body, and pleasure to my taste buds. Sometimes I make good food choices, sometimes I don’t, but I'm not trying to help anyone with my food choices.

She ended with, “In fact, their high meat intake has harmed the environment, the animals and themselves.”

If she truly understood Atkins and the low carb lifestyle, she would know that the basis of our diet is fresh meats and fish, a wide variety of fresh veggies, dairy products, and some fruits and nuts. I am living proof that this way of eating is very healthy. After losing nearly 60 pounds on Atkins, my high blood pressure is now in the normal range and my blood cholesterol readings are all excellent. This way of eating is very healthy. I have not harmed myself and people who tell you otherwise are just uninformed.

My meat intake is not any higher than it was in my diet before I started Atkins. However, I do eat a lot more veggies than at any other point in my life. This includes one Lenten season a few years back when I tried to give up meat and eat vegetarian for those 40 days. That was a very difficult way of eating for me, so I can appreciate the sacrifices that vegans make.

As far as the environment is concerned, isn't it possible that growing plants for profit using modern farming practices, requiring tons of pesticides and fertilizers, may be far more harmful to the environment than producing meat.

Having said all of this, I do not mean to argue that there are no problems in the system of producing meat. No one should defend keeping animals penned their entire lives and force-feeding them growth hormones and antibiotics. But these problems stem from producing meat for profit, not from the mere fact of raising animals for food.

This is a great big world, and no one style of eating is correct for all people. So I have to ask, “Why did she end her letter defending her vegan lifestyle by making negative comments about my low carb lifestyle?

[liz175]

I think it is a good letter and I would encourage you to send it. The only thing I would change is the first paragraph where you use the phrases "good for her" and "cheap slam." Depending upon how you read it -- and I am sure that people who are critical of low carbing will read it as critically as possible -- this could come off as a snide comment against veganism/vegetarianism. How about replacing it with, "I full support her decision to practice veganism, but after reading her letter again, I realized that her letter focused as much on criticizing the lowcarb lifestyle as on explaining the vegan lifestyle."

[Duparc]

Sorry folks, sounds like I am the odd one out. I would hesitate in reacting to this comment. To do so confirms that the author's views have upset some of us (which, of course, might be true) but I would not give the author, nor anyone else, the satisfaction of knowing this. In this instance, discretion is the better part of valour.

If the letter is examined objectively the first question that arises is why the author needs to say what's been said, and the answer reflects the author's insecurities with which the author is finding difficulty in coping. In order to absolve oneself of the blame of harbouring such inadequate feeling the author finds it easier to project those 'imposters' outwardly and on to others. (It's not me boss, it's them)!

It is easy for those less discerning to pick-up this transference in feeling and to counter-transfer it, and so become engaged in the spiral of bitching!

The author is seeking attention and to provide it would serve only to feed her prejudice.

Finally, a small personal anecdote. For 18 years I was a vegetarian believing it to be a healthy diet, but, ended with having to have a quadruple by-pass! Streaky-bacon and eggs almost every morning fried in beef-dripping cured my cardiac problem but no one desires to hear of this.

A concluding 'PS'. While we breed animals for slaughter we also, incidentally, give life to more animals than would occur in the wild.

[niudog]

Thank yo all for your comments. Maybe it was just theraputic for me to write the letter???

I agree with Duparc that the pro-vegan letter writer was probably looking for attention, so I've opted not to send the letter.

Thanks again!!!

[ceberezin]

The point of sending the letter would not be to send a message to the original vegan letter-writer. You could use e-mail or snail mail for that. The point of responding in a public forum is to inform a public badly in need of information. Your letter would perform that service.

[gotbeer]

Thank yo all for your comments. Maybe it was just theraputic for me to write the letter???

I agree with Duparc that the pro-vegan letter writer was probably looking for attention, so I've opted not to send the letter.

Thanks again!!!Why is wanting attention a bad thing? Why is that justification not to respond to complete nonsense? I've never quite understood that one.

Feeding the Vegan's prejudice is one thing, but by allowing the Vegan's nonsense to go unchallenged, we allow all the readers of her letter the impression that we have no answer to her spurious claims, or worse.

But let's talk some more about feeding the Vegan.

Clearing an acre of land for farmland kills hundreds of thousands of animals - insects, mice, voles, and songbirds at a minimum, and other wildlife as well, all the way up the food chain. This killing proceeds as long as the farmland is in service. If this acre could produce about 20,000 lbs of edible vegetable flesh a year, enough to feed about 100 Vegans for that year, then we can conclude that each Vegan causes several thousand animal deaths per year. (200,000 animal deaths divided by 100 Vegans equals 2,000 animal deaths per Vegan.)

On the other hand, killing a free-range cow for food kills one animal - the cow. One cow can be used to produce about 600 lbs of muscle meat, plus a wide variety of other potential foodstuffs (organ meat, marrow, gelatin, etc.) The nutrient-dense muscle meat alone could easily feed 3 people for a year. So, each meat-eater causes less than 1/3 of 1 animal death per year. Even if the meat-eaters ate the same weight of meat as Vegan's eat of vegetables, each meat-eater would still only need to kill one animal per year, compared to the thousands of animals that would need to die to feed the Vegan.

[Duparc]

Okay! Let's reconsider this approach, of sending a letter, from another vista. Why the urge or indeed the urgency to preach to the public at large that your beliefs (not those of Niudog) are the only ones that are gospel?

Can't you see what you are doing?

If low-carbing has any merit, which current research is indicating, then its message will percolate along the 'jungle-drums' and the public will accept it when it is ready to do so and not through preaching by the converted.

If Joe Public and his family were to believe what the letter extolled they would readily abandon their delicious diet of cakes, cream, and apple crumble, and all become vegetarians, but, they don't, because he and his family use their own discretion, so leave them in peace.

Try to ask yourselves, why this published letter upsets you?

[gotbeer]

Duparc, as I understand it, your prior erroneous beliefs resulted in dietary practices that almost killed you - and furthermore, eating meat saved you.

I do see what I am doing - saving the lives of people like you once were. If my life were hanging the balance, I'd say that would be pretty damn urgent.

Low carbing has been around for decades, but I only learned about it a couple of years ago. If I can spare even one person the problems that caused me, then my urge would be justified.

I lost a fiancee to diabetes in the 1980's. Adopting a low-carb diet could have added years to her life.

[EvelynS]

Try to ask yourselves, why this published letter upsets you?
It upsets me because it sounds so phony. It reads like a television advertisement for veganism. Imagine Neal Barnard standing in front of a camera reading it. I almost expect a request for donations at the end. Yuck.

[Duparc]

If your piety makes you believe that others will be unduly influenced by the contents of that letter then please tell them that I have an iron bridge for sale, it's the real McCoy, it's called the Forth Bridge. If you are interested in it yourself, give me a call.

[ceberezin]

If low-carbing has any merit, which current research is indicating, then its message will percolate along the 'jungle-drums' and the public will accept it when it is ready to do so and not through preaching by the converted.

Sorry, Duparc, I can't agree with you. Responding to that letter does not show an urgent need to preach. I think that's an overreaction. Rather, Niudog's letter is exactly the kind of percolating jungle drum that's needed. (I'll forgive your mixed metaphor this time, hmmm.)

[Duparc]

Ceberezin, only didactic people concern themselves about mixed metaphor.

[gotbeer]

If your piety makes you believe that others will be unduly influenced by the contents of that letter then please tell them that I have an iron bridge for sale, it's the real McCoy, it's called the Forth Bridge. If you are interested in it yourself, give me a call.You are in quite the mood today, Duparc. Are you doing okay?

As an atheist, I have little or no piety per se. I do, however, have a passing regard for objective truth and for the well-being of others.

If you wish to shun moral society and ignore false dogma then that is certainly within the human purview - any number of the credulous do this on a daily basis.

And, if the so-called dangers of meat-eating were widely recognized as just lunatic ravings and not a largely unchallenged dogma, then perhaps engaging them would indeed be didactic.

However, the dogmatic belief in the conventional but dubious dietary advice has harmed pretty much everyone on this site, and that tells me that continuing to engage the Vegans is not didactic but necessary. Acting to counter bad dietary advice seems laudable enough to me - indeed, you have done that yourself.

[Duparc]

Gotbeer, I can see that we are engaging in an affray here. I note too that you advertise yourself as an atheist yet manage to quote Proverbs. A Freudian slip, maybe? I doubt, however, if morality is part of the constitution.

[gotbeer]

Gotbeer, I can see that we are engaging in an affray here.An "affray", sir? I have no quarrel with your disinterest in engaging the Vegans - that is certainly a valid strategy, even if I think it an unwise one. I am simply positing that there is valid case for engagement as well.
I note too that you advertise yourself as an atheist yet manage to quote Proverbs. A Freudian slip, maybe?Though others may have arrived at their atheism by differing paths, I am an Atheist not because I am ignorant of Scripture, but rather, because I am overly familiar with it. That particular proverb (31:6-9) is handy when engaging those of the faithful who are nominally teetotalers and who believe that eschewing alcohol has a sound Scriptural basis. It doesn't - at least, not in any way that makes sense to me, and particularly in light of Proverbs 31:6-9!

Likewise, God-talk in general makes little sense to me, in part because I'm not completely certain what people mean by "God", and in part because inconsistencies in conventional God-talk leave me with insurmountable doubts.

I doubt, however, if morality is part of the constitution.To which constitution do you refer, sir? My morality is innate in my human constitution. Where the morality of others may come from, I cannot say, but like God-talk, various views of morality often leave me puzzled.

For example, your own notion that the credulous should be defrauded into the purchase of goods of dubious value - certain bridges - seems to me to lack a compelling moral case.

In many U.S. jurisdictions, the willful failure to stop an easily preventable human death is called "Depraved Indifference", and is a serious criminal offense. In that sense, morality is in the US constitution to the extent that the constitution allows such prosecutions to proceed.

[niudog]

Wow!!! I never meant for this to spiral into such a spirited discussion amongst us members of this board.

I can't imagine the ire I would raise if I actually did send the letter. I am more than willing to spread the good news of LC life style to family and friends alike, but as I said in an earlier post, I really dont want a PETA protest in my driveway.

[gotbeer]

I really dont want a PETA protest in my driveway.Even if you did find their presence troublesome, you could just toss a couple of pork rinds at them, and I am sure they would scurry away. Firing up the grill and searing some steaks should mop up any stragglers.

[Wyvrn]

Sounds like a plan. I'll bring some lamb chops.

Wyv

[cococarby]

Niudog,

Do you happen to know the name of the editor you are sending this too?

[aloethe]

On the other hand, killing a free-range cow for food kills one animal - the cow. One cow can be used to produce about 600 lbs of muscle meat, plus a wide variety of other potential foodstuffs (organ meat, marrow, gelatin, etc.) The nutrient-dense muscle meat alone could easily feed 3 people for a year. So, each meat-eater causes less than 1/3 of 1 animal death per year. Even if the meat-eaters ate the same weight of meat as Vegan's eat of vegetables, each meat-eater would still only need to kill one animal per year, compared to the thousands of animals that would need to die to feed the Vegan.


Oh wow .. uh it takes 25lbs of vegetable protein to make 1lb of beef protein... a meat eater eats way more than one animal a year by far!! And vegetable protein is far more nutrient dense and fiber full. You can feed way more people for much longer on vegetable protein. I am vegan and doing low carb. You don't have to kill anything to lose weight. And farming all that land for food for cows is a bad transfer of energy. You would do alot better to just eat protein from plants insteads of wasting it trying to feed it to a cow first and getting a product that is full of hormones, bacteria, fat and yes cruelty. If you don't think meat makes the world cruel watch this movie http://www.meetyourmeat.com/
I can come to a low carb diet with an open mind .. can you come to veganism with an open mind? I welcome your comments . :)

[Duparc]

Hi Aloethe, was a vegetarian for around 18 years and it almost killed me. How long have you been a vegan and how's your health and energy levels today?

[aloethe]

Hi I have been vegetarian since I was 13 .. and I am 30 now so 17 years, vegan for almost two years now. I feel really great especially since going low carb also. :)

[aloethe]

I should say the way i gained my weight.. (which i gained between august and november last year...I weighed 130 before my gain) i believe was solely from increasing my carb intake. I met some vegans who indulged in many packaged vegan foods (not necessarily marketed to vegans) that i didn't know were vegan before.. like unfrosted poptarts.... I thought wow great I can eat vegan and eat candyand cookies.. very stupid and I became addicted to carbs eating lots of crackers and jam, tons of toast, candy and my evening meal became a huge plate of any kind of grains with a few beans and lots of oil and I also became more inactive and depressed especailly after suffering some trauma in my life and started to use food to comfort me. I got away from eating raw and whole, lower carb vegan things and viola i grew bigger. Now I am taking notice of the carbs I eat and were my food comes from. Trying to eat organic and staying away from packaged foods. So far so good and I am losing weight.

[Duparc]

Sounds as if you are journeying on the road that some of us have already trod. I wish you bon voyage.

[Quinadal]

If you don't think meat makes the world cruel watch this movie http://www.meetyourmeat.com/
Are you gonna tell tigers and other carnivores to go vegan too? Because humans going vegan makes as much sense.

[aloethe]

what road have you traveled that you think i am on?

[aloethe]

are you saying you can't lose weight unless you kill things?

[Quinadal]

are you saying you can't lose weight unless you kill things?
I'm saying that a vegan diet CAN'T be healthy. You can't get real B12 from anything but animal sources. The sources vegans say they can use are analog, NOT real B12. Plus, your brain needs cholesterol.

[Dodger]

Plus, your brain needs cholesterol.
The human liver is very good at making all the cholesterol that the body needs. You don't really need to have any in your diet.

[K Walt]

are you saying you can't lose weight unless you kill things?

Go ahead, try to eat for a week without killing anything.

If you pretend that by being vegan, you are eating 'kindly', you are deluding yourself.

Unless you ONLY eat plants that died of their own accord, you are killing living things all day long to feed yourself. (And even then, if you are eating dead and decaying plants, you are munching away on -- and killing -- molds and bacteria.)


If you eat lettuce, you are eating a plant that was decapitated while still alive.

Plants don't like to get eaten. That's why they have thorns -- to ward off cruel beasts who eat their living flesh. Or that's why they have developed noxious chemicals -- to PREVENT being eaten alive by cows and lambs.

How about boiling a carrot alive? Or dismembering a broccoli plant? Does the turnip LIKE being torn from the ground?

Tearing the leaves off a living spinach plant? Or cruelly roasting bean sprouts alive. Any botanist can tell you that chopping or tearing a plant triggers a cascade of stress reactions and chemical activity -- that is the PLANT trying to protect and repair itself. It is trying vainly to ward off death.

A tomato is ALIVE when you eat it. It is a metabolizing, respiring, LIVING thing when you bite into it. Then it is dead.

Did you ever rip a living onion from the ground? Then chop it? You know why your eyes tear when you chop onions? That's the onion's chemical defense mechanism to prevent being eaten. It doesn't WANT to be eaten, it is trying to defend itself.

Yep, even wheat grains are living things. Which you cruelly crush and chop apart when you make your bread. Then, the living yeasts that make your break rise are burned alive -- and killed -- when you bake your vegan bread.

If you're eating, you're killing things. Can't be helped.

[Quinadal]

If you're eating, you're killing things. Can't be helped.
Don't forget the 1000's of animals killed so that those plants could be farmed. The field mice, rabbits, other small rodents that were plowed under when the fields were tilled.

[Lauri T.]

How about boiling a carrot alive? Or dismembering a broccoli plant? Does the turnip LIKE being torn from the ground?




:lol:


Lauri

[Lauri T.]

The human liver is very good at making all the cholesterol that the body needs. You don't really need to have any in your diet.


Hi Dodger,

Dr. Lutz in Life Without Bread theorizes that the reason so many people on a low-fat/vegetarian diet get high cholesterol levels is perhaps because the liver doesn't know how much to make and makes too much...it isn't the ideal way to provide needed cholesterol and the liver will perform this function as backup when there is not enough dietary cholesterol. It's also why cholesterol levels tend to settle down on a low-carbohydrate diet.

[Dodger]

Hi Dodger,

Dr. Lutz in Life Without Bread theorizes that the reason so many people on a low-fat/vegetarian diet get high cholesterol levels is perhaps because the liver doesn't know how much to make and makes too much...it isn't the ideal way to provide needed cholesterol and the liver will perform this function as backup when there is not enough dietary cholesterol. It's also why cholesterol levels tend to settle down on a low-carbohydrate diet.
When I was on a low-fat/high-carb diet, my total cholesterol was higher. The component that was really high was the triglicerides from eating all the carbs. My HDL was actually pretty low. Triglicerides are really fats and not true cholesterol.

No matter what the cause, my cholesterol is much better now that I eat more cholesterol.

[aloethe]

yeah i understand plants are alive and maybe i should have asked that question differently.. i guess i just don't understand why low carb has to be an issue of hate .. towards people who eat differently than you or include violence towards animals. Isn't a low carb diet about low carbs??? Why can't we all just get along and support each other in losing weight and being healthy? I think ideally fruitarianism makes sense.. i mean the fruit falls off the vine when its ready to be eaten and replenishes it's self thru seeds. But living in the middle of america makes it hard to do that and be healthy. As far as telling the tigers to go vegan well i think there is a big difference biologically in a tiger and you. I don't think you could hunt enough animals unadded by a gun or traps to sustain yourself. Tigers have big claws and fangs and are really fast. I just don't think humans are built to be carnivores. As far as B12 is concerned it is stored in the body for years after eating it so you really don't need to eat it every day. Since i turned veggie at 13 i don't feel i have to worry about it but i will do research before i raise my kids vegan, thanks for the inspiration on that. I am just curious who actaully watched the movie i posted. How many of you buy organic meat at least and or free range? You have to admit factory farming is pretty nasty in more ways than one? Do any of you have concerns about hormone and pesticide levels in your systems etc..?

[potatofree]

aloethe-- a lot of the hostility you might be perceiving comes from the regular visits of the animal-rights brigade coming in here and targeting us for attack and/or "saving"...

I personally choose to eat meat. I'm not morally inferior to anyone because I do so. I do resent it when people come in and assume an air of arrogance implying I haven't thought out what I eat, that I'm uncaring towards other living things (my pets, who own me would argue with that...:lol: ) or that I'm somehow ignorant in choosing my way of eating. I don't go into the vegetarian area here or other forums and try to convince them they're making a grave error in choosing to eat NO meat, and I expect the same courtesy in return.

If a person chooses a completely vegan diet, I happen to believe they're setting themselves up for some deficiencies, but I assume they've researched it and made an informed choice to follow that way of eating anyway.

Maybe I'm just hopelessly rural, but I really don't personally believe that animals have the same rights as human beings. I don't believe we need to be unnecessarily cruel in the process of raising them for food, of course, but in the end, animals are animals, and I feel some animal-rights groups go too far.

[Lisa N]

As far as B12 is concerned it is stored in the body for years after eating it so you really don't need to eat it every day.

Here's a little something to start you on your research: http://www.yourhealthbase.com/vitamin_B12.html It's not stored in the body for as long as you seem to think and vitamin B-12 deficiency among strict vegans and even lacto-ovo or pesco vegetarians seems to be fairly high according to a few of these studies.

I just don't think humans are built to be carnivores.

Humans aren't designed to be carnivores. We're designed to be omnivores; meaning needing both animal and vegetable matter to be healthy. The fact that supplementation is required when animal products are excluded from the diet to avoid a deficiency is telling along with the fact that plant matter does not provide complete amino or fatty acids that humans require without a great deal of knowledge of food combining and even then, it's tricky. Such supplements weren't available throughout human evolution, so it's reasonable to conclude that humans have made this far without becoming extinct by being omnivores.

I am just curious who actaully watched the movie i posted.

I've seen the movie, but I have to point out that PETA seeks out the most extreme cases of cruelty that they can find to convince others that this is how animal farming is done routinely. It isn't. Would it make you feel better if cows were raised in happy, sunny pastures and then shot through the head from behind so that they never saw it coming? I have a feeling it wouldn't. ;)
At the heart of your objections to eating meat is a belief that it's somehow wrong or immoral to kill animals for food and while I can respect that belief (I'm not going to try to convince or force you to eat animal protein), I don't happen to share it.

[Dodger]

Aloethe,

.. i guess i just don't understand why low carb has to be an issue of hate .. towards people who eat differently than you or include violence towards animals. Isn't a low carb diet about low carbs??? Why can't we all just get along and support each other in losing weight and being healthy?
I just finished reading all the posts in this thread and only lines that may possibly be hateful are these from the original letter that was being commented on:

By comparison, think of the work people on the Atkins diet do. Searching for the all-important "net carbs" and counting protein grams and so forth. But at the end of the day, they haven't helped anyone. In fact, their high meat intake has harmed the environment, the animals and themselves.
There are phrases that are used to get emotional responses from the reader. You have used phrases such as "i just don't understand why low carb has to... include violence towards animals" and "are you saying you can't lose weight unless you kill things?" If you us want to get along and support each other in losing weight and being health, then it should not matter how the food is provided.

[potatofree]

On the subject of how humans were evolved to eat.... isn't it true that a lot of the foods vegans depend on to get their amino acids and such are actually undigestible unless cooked or processed in some way? I remember reading that somewhere, and though maybe someone who follows the paleo way of eating could confirm or deny that for me?

[ceberezin]

Aloethe - When you make statements like You don't have to kill anything to lose weight, you are indulging in the traditional vegan rhetoric of moral superiority. Don't you understand that these words insulted almost everyone on this board by telling us that we are spiritually deficient if we choose to eat meat. It doesn't work to insult people and then lecture them about getting along. It's like the Duchess' rhyme from Alice in Wonderland: "Sprinkle pepper on you child and beat him when he sneezes."

As has been said on this thread before, the cruelty of meat production comes from producing meat for profit, not from raising animals for food. That won't change no matter how many lurid pictures PETA tries to show us. It's the same problems as producing plants for profit. The practice of monoculture agriculture, requiring chemical fertilizers and pesticides, is far more cruel to the planet than raising animals for food.

[Lisa N]

The practice of monoculture agriculture, requiring chemical fertilizers and pesticides, is far more cruel to the planet than raising animals for food.

Yes, not to mention extremely hard on the soil and the water systems that those chemicals drain into and then enter the food chain through the animals that live in and drink that water and then the animals that eat those animals and so on.
In a ideal world, crops would be raised without chemical fertilizers and pesticides and animals would be raised free-range without hormones and antibiotics. But we don't live in an ideal world. The hard fact is that in order to feed a growing world population, we either need to accept that enough food could not be provided without these practices or take steps to reduce the world population to the point that it can be supported on more 'pure' practices. Personally, I'd say that the former is far more likely than the latter. ;)
I'd also like to point out that while it may be better, both nutritionally and environmentally, to buy free range and organic, those foods cost far more than most people can afford on a regular basis so it's an option that only those who are well off financially can choose and is impractical financially for most others.
As for veganism being 'natural' to humans, that would only hold true in temperate climates where vegetable matter is available in variety year-round. For those who live in areas that experience winter, it would be nearly impossible to survive on only plant food year round without the modern developments of long-term shipping and storage.

[mrfreddy]

..isn't it true that even in the case of purely orgainic farming, without a drop of chemicals, raising crops for human consumption involves the killing and disruption of all sorts of bugs and critters and organisms (ie, the former occupants of that space of land)?

...so the idea that a vegan eats without killing is just naive, at best....

[LukeA]

..isn't it true that even in the case of purely orgainic farming, without a drop of chemicals, raising crops for human consumption involves the killing and disruption of all sorts of bugs and critters and organisms (ie, the former occupants of that space of land)?

...so the idea that a vegan eats without killing is just naive, at best....


Exactly. :thup:

Farming and agriculture itself is "unnatural" no matter how you go about it. Its bad for the earth..plain and simple. But is that going to stop me or anybody else from eating? No way are we all going to go back to only gathering wild foods. :lol:

[Wyvrn]

Cattle raised on pasture from start to finish is probably the most environmentally friendly and cruelty free protein source on the planet, though it could be argued that hunting is even more so because it generally does not introduce non-native species. Compare to the soybean industry, which is responsible for the majority of rainforest and other ecosystem destruction and agricultural water pollution today. That translates into starvation and chemical poisoning for billions of animals.

Another thing to consider - beef is generally raised on land that is good for nothing else. Too dry, too cold, wrong chemistry. Sure, the land could in some cases be converted to support crops but only with massive amounts of chemical amendment (usually petroleum-based) and irrigation. This would result in the deaths of thousands of native animals per acre, per season, as well as innumerable downstream kills.

Wyv (thinking seriously of taking up hunting)

[potatofree]

I'd think hunting is actually a bit more cruel, if one wants to try and keep track of such things.... Living in a rural area, I've seen many animals suffering for days after a bad shot. Game wardens hate having to go chase down an animal who survived the initial shot, just to suffer with their injuries until there's no choice but to finish the job. If a hunter either misses, doesn't know what they're doing, or just doesn't care, it can cause a lot of suffering. At least an animal being butchered is taken down quickly, and in the cases that I've witnessed, are "done" in a matter of a few seconds.

[Wyvrn]

I agree that farmed beef is probably quite a bit kinder, though less environmentally sound, especially if the beef is finished on grain. But as far as "net cruelty" I don't think hunting adds much, if any. Even with all the bad shots out there, I doubt it's any more cruel than the usual fate of deer. Starvation, motor vehicle, disease, predation. I've been in the horrible position of having to euthanize a vehicle-struck fawn - still in its spots - with a pistol loaded with hollowpoint - designed for rapid expansion in soft tissue, not necessarily the best thing for penetrating the brain case for a quick death, but better by far than my other options - a pocket knife or a tire iron. Or just leaving it to get eaten alive by a coyote.

Wyv

[mrfreddy]

... but better by far than my other options - a pocket knife or a tire iron. Or just leaving it to get eaten alive by a coyote.

Wyv

the coyote would probably disagree with you about that...

[Angeline]

I think everyone is who taking part in this discussion will be interested in this article : This article (http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/OrganicAgSaveWorld_Jan04.pdf) .

Here is an excerpt:

The innovative system of rotationally grazing several species of animals developed by Joel and Theresa Salatin of Polyface Farm in Virginia is one of the best examples of a high-yield organic system. They use 100 acres of dryland pasture to cell-graze cattle, sheep, pigs, meat chickens, laying hens, turkeys, pheasants and rabbits. Their system is based on native pastures, without cultivation or new,
“improved” pasture species. The only input has been the feed for the poultry. This multi-species rotational grazing system builds one inch of soil a year and returns the family 15 times the income per acre than is received by neighbouring farms using a set stocking of cattle

[Wyvrn]

the coyote would probably disagree with you about that...

In the state of mind I was in, taking the carcass was the last thing I wanted to do, even if it had been legal... but I'm sure it didn't go to waste.

Wyv

[Angeline]

think ideally fruitarianism makes sense.. i mean the fruit falls off the vine when its ready to be eaten and replenishes it's self thru seeds

I wish I could find the link to an article I have read a year or so back. The author was a ardent fruitarians, and it almost killed him. Fruitarianism might make sense to you on an intellectual level, but that's as far as it goes. It doesn't make sense to the body. Human are not designed to live on fruits alone, we do not thrive on it. Species evolve and adapt to eat the food that is available to them. That's a process that occurs over thousands of years. Humans have evolved and developed eating a diet of rich fatty meat and whatever else they could scrounge, with meat being key. If wasn't for our adaptation to eating mainly meat, we would still be in the forest with the chimpanzees. I'm sure (or I hope) you wouldn't dream of feeding tofu to a tiger or wolf and expect him to thrive. In zoos, they try their very best to replicate the natural diet of the animals. I don't see why you think that humans are different. We thrive on our natural diet and suffer on any other. We are omnivores, so that allows us to digest a wide variety of food, but that doesn't mean it's wise to exclude a large chunk of macro-nutrients from out diet. We can survive for a while, but we will pay the price. You can't deny your own biology.

[potatofree]

Wyvrn-- you have a point. I've "hunted" deer with my vehicle twice. The first one, to put it delicately, died immediately. The second, 2 years later, disappeared after doing $3,000+ in damage to the front end of my van. It HAD to be hurt, but two different searches of the area yielded nothing.

It adds to the problem in this state, that you're CHARGED for the deer if you hit and kill it. Game and Fish will charge your insurance over $300 if you strike and kill a deer. My insurance agent was happy the last one disappeared...

[Lisa N]

I wish I could find the link to an article I have read a year or so back. The author was a ardent fruitarians, and it almost killed him. Fruitarianism might make sense to you on an intellectual level, but that's as far as it goes. It doesn't make sense to the body. Human are not designed to live on fruits alone, we do not thrive on it. Species evolve and adapt to eat the food that is available to them. That's a process that occurs over thousands of years. Humans have evolved and developed eating a diet of rich fatty meat and whatever else they could scrounge, with meat being key. If wasn't for our adaptation to eating mainly meat, we would still be in the forest with the chimpanzees. I'm sure (or I hope) you wouldn't dream of feeding tofu to a tiger or wolf and expect him to thrive. In zoos, they try their very best to replicate the natural diet of the animals. I don't see why you think that humans are different. We thrive on our natural diet and suffer on any other. We are omnivores, so that allows us to digest a wide variety of food, but that doesn't mean it's wise to exclude a large chunk of macro-nutrients from out diet. We can survive for a while, but we will pay the price. You can't deny your own biology.

Here are some articles along these lines:

http://www.mercola.com/article/diet/former_vegan.htm
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/bio/billings-t-bio-1a.shtml
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1b.shtml

[gotbeer]

Humans have evolved and developed eating a diet of rich fatty meat and whatever else they could scrounge, with meat being key. If wasn't for our adaptation to eating mainly meat, we would still be in the forest with the chimpanzees.Just to point out that chimpanzees eat a vast amount of meat in the wild, and that chimpanzees are stronger than us. A better analogy might be that, if we didn't eat meat, the chimps would be hunting (or even raising) us for food.

Chimpanzee Hunting Behavior and Human Evolution

Chimpanzees are efficient predators that use meat as a political and reproductive tool. Are there implications for the evolution of human behavior?

Craig B. Stanford

link to full article: http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/24543/page/1

This article originally appeared in the May-June 1995 issue of American Scientist.

Excerpt:

In the early 1960s, when the british primatologist Jane Goodall first observed wild chimpanzees hunting and eating meat in Gombe National Park, Tanzania, it was widely believed that these animals were strict vegetarians. Skeptics suggested that the diet of the Gombe chimpanzees was aberrant. Others suggested that the quantity of meat the chimpanzees ate was trivial. After more than 30 years of research, however, it is now clear that meat is a natural part of the chimpanzees' diet. Indeed, hunting has been observed at most of the other sites where chimpanzees are studied across central Africa. And, it turns out, a chimpanzee community may eat several hundred kilograms of meat in a single year.

To many anthropologists this is a surprising development. Of all the higher primates, only human beings and chimpanzees hunt and eat meat on a regular basis. The similarities pose an intriguing prospect: Might the close evolutionary relationship between chimpanzees and human beings provide some clues to the evolution of our own behavior? We do know that the earliest bipedal hominids, the australopithecines, evolved in Africa about 5 million years ago and that they shared a common ancestor with modern chimpanzees shortly before that time. Unfortunately, the evidence for the occurrence of meat-eating among the early australopithecines is spotty at best. Primitive stone tools that were made 2.5 million years ago suggest that early hominids had the means to carve the flesh from large carcasses, but we know very little about their diets before that time. Were they hunters or perhaps, as many anthropologists now argue, scavengers? The behavior of chimpanzees may provide a window through which we can see much that has been lost in the fossil record.

There are also some interesting subtleties to the chimpanzees' hunting behavior that need to be addressed. Although chimpanzees can and do hunt alone, they often form large hunting parties consisting of more than 10 adult males, plus females and juveniles. Chimpanzees also go on "hunting binges" in which they kill a large number of monkeys and other animals over a period of several days or weeks. Such binges have always been a little mysterious. What could incite a chimpanzee to suddenly forgo plant foraging and turn to hunting? Are there social or ecological factors associated with the impetus to hunt? What ecological effects does the chimpanzees' predatory behavior have on their prey?

In the past five years I have been mindful of such questions as I observed the chimpanzees and their primary prey at Gombe, the red colobus monkey. Although we are only beginning to understand some of the causes and consequences of the chimpanzees' actions, what we have discovered is more complicated and more interesting than anyone suspected. For chimpanzees, meat is not only another way to get nutrients like fat and protein, but a means to make political bonds and gain access to sexually receptive females...

[gotbeer]

and some data on chimp strength:

from http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_001b.html

It's a lot easier to get a chimp in roller skates than it is to get him to pump iron--hence, most of the data on chimp strength is anecdotal and decidedly unscientific. In tests at the Bronx Zoo in 1924, a dynamometer--a scale that measures the mechanical force of a pull on a spring--was erected in the monkey house. A 165-pound male chimpanzee named "Boma" registered a pull of 847 pounds, using only his right hand (although he did have his feet braced against the wall, being somewhat hip, in his simian way, to the principles of leverage). A 165-pound man, by comparison, could manage a one-handed pull of about 210 pounds. Even more frightening, a female chimp, weighing a mere 135 pounds and going by the name of Suzette, checked in with a one-handed pull of 1,260 pounds. (She was in a fit of passion at the time; one shudders to think what her boyfriend must have looked like next morning.) In dead lifts, chimps have been known to manage weights of 600 pounds without even breaking into a sweat. A male gorilla could probably heft an 1,800-pound weight and not think twice about it.

[Angeline]

Just to point out that chimpanzees eat a vast amount of meat in the wild, and that chimpanzees are stronger than us. A better analogy might be that, if we didn't eat meat, the chimps would be hunting (or even raising) us for food.

Interesting article Gotbeer, I have always been interested in our closest cousin. I certainly wasn't comparing our strength relative to chimps, as I am well aware they are vastly superior in that departement. I was refering to brain power. The theory, as you know, is that human evolved their superior brain as a direct consequence of eating a diet rich in meat.

PS thanks for that link Lisa, that was exactly the article I was looking for

[aloethe]

I am minoring in anthropology right now and what I am learning is that we ate less and less meat as we evolved, because we began to spend more time cultivating plants and less time hunting and gathering. This summer I am going to do an independant study on nutritional anthropology so i guess I will look into that deeper but i really don't see a correlation between eating meat and brain power from what I have learned so far.

[Quinadal]

I am minoring in anthropology right now and what I am learning is that we ate less and less meat as we evolved, because we began to spend more time cultivating plants and less time hunting and gathering. This summer I am going to do an independant study on nutritional anthropology so i guess I will look into that deeper but i really don't see a correlation between eating meat and brain power from what I have learned so far.Did your research also tell you that as we started to do more cultivation of plants and less time hunting that we also started to get diabetes and heart disease? It should, because, despite the vegan lies that are pushed, a plant based diet ISN'T healthy for anyone.

[jareddo10]

I am minoring in anthropology right now and what I am learning is that we ate less and less meat as we evolved, because we began to spend more time cultivating plants and less time hunting and gathering. This summer I am going to do an independant study on nutritional anthropology so i guess I will look into that deeper but i really don't see a correlation between eating meat and brain power from what I have learned so far.
We didn't eat less meat as we evolved, we ate less meat starting with cultivation, which we just started only 10,000 years ago. Barely a tick on the evolutional clock. And as quinadal said, since then we started to get diabetes and heart disease. That's because the human body isn't made to eat a plant based diet.

[TBoneMitch]

We did not «evolve» much since we started cultivating plants, grains, etc. for food.

At most, we have been doing it for about 12 000 years, in the fertile crescent of the Middle East.

Homo Sapiens was fully «evolved» (i.e. identical to modern humans) 150 000 years ago, and that evolution from Neanderthal was almost entirely due to increased meat eating, with its fat, protein and calorie-rich properties, and with our shirinking gut size (compared to the apes).
Also, social behavior and tool-making skills had to evolve along with meat eating for man to become a more proficient hunter/scavenger.

[ceberezin]

I am minoring in anthropology right now and what I am learning is that we ate less and less meat as we evolved, because we began to spend more time cultivating plants and less time hunting and gathering

Aloethe -
If you are thinking of becoming a nutritional anthropologist to demonstrate this contention, you are wasting your time. All the current research is moving in the opposite direction. If you are not prepared to find out that you are wrong, do not become a scientist. Bringing that kind of bias to scientific research always breeds bad science, of which the field of nutrition has more than its fair share.

Veganism is a quasi-religious movement whose primary concern is personal and spiritual purity and which contains an a priori definition of purity. If you want to be a vegan because you have accepted this definition of purity, then by all means do so, but purity is not a scientific concept, nor does it have anything to do with health. Attempts at a scientific justification for a particular definition of purity never work.

Combining veganism with low carbohydrate eating is an enormous challenge. I wish you luck. But I suspect that at some point you will be faced with a difficult choice. Especially, if you do pursue a scientific career and discover that there are no scientific underpinnings to veganism, either in human evolution or in biochemistry. Unfortunately, there are vegans who practice a corrupted science and, because they only talk to each other, never understand this. PCRM is a good example of this phenomenon. Don’t fall into that trap. If you do come to that choice, there are some ex-vegans who contribute to this board who may be able to help you through it.

[Lisa N]

Did your research also tell you that as we started to do more cultivation of plants and less time hunting that we also started to get diabetes and heart disease? It should, because, despite the vegan lies that are pushed, a plant based diet ISN'T healthy for anyone.

Quinidal is correct on this point. Research has shown that as cultures moved away from hunting/gathering and towards agriculture, stature and health declined steadily and obesity and disease increased. Skeletal remains of cultures over a period of time demonstrate this clearly and much can be determined from bones and teeth about the health of the deceased.
Some of that increase in disease can be attributed to larger numbers of people living closer together, but not all. So...eating less and less meat as cultures moved away from hunting/gathering and began to rely more and more on agriculture doesn't seem to have been a good thing for their overall health. :idea:

[aloethe]

Yes cultivation and animal husbandry along with sedentism contributed to a decline in health. We also spend much much less time working to aquire things then also.. about 4 hours compared to the hours we work today on average.

We are always evolving .. sorry i didn't mean as we evolved into Homo Sapiens but into the people we are today.

I am not going into nutritional anthropology nor am I studying it because i am trying to prove anything about veganism.
As far as purity and veganism. If i feel pure being vegan it is because of the lack of hormones, pesticides, whatever the hell is in processed foods and the like in my system and also no dairy means no casein which is the glue like substance that forms mucus and causes all kinds of health problems for people. I feel much clearer and yeah i guess more pure. But i don't feel morally superior to other or anything like that. I don't believe in good and evil or heaven and hell i just do what feels good and veganism does for me. I respect that you are doing what feels right for you from what you have experienced in life thus far.

In my opion a plant based diet is healthy but the best case scenerio would be 100% organic mostly wild plants and a good vareity, including protien rich seeds, nuts and fruits and legumes. That is why I mentioned fruitarianism. But of course higher carb fruits and veggies must be used in moderation.

As far as cruelty goes they have proved that a chemical is released into an animals system when it is stressed and it does have an effect on us when we ingest it. So yeah if you gonna kill and eat cow don't feed it pesticides or inject it with hormones,give it a beautiful life, adaquate nutriton and social interaction (did you nkow cows babysit for each other?) then yeah if you feel like research shows your gonna be fat unless you eat a cow.. then yeah shoot it in the head while it's not looking and ingest the meat of a cow who isn't full of chemicals and stress hormones.

I guess for me realizing that carbs made me gain weight has led me to think about what is in my food and where it comes from and how it effects me when i eat it. I feel so level ( i guess it's my blood sugar?) and clear and stable having cut out all those carbs. I still do feel like i am getting adequate amounts of nutrients even being vegan. I enter everyting I eat into a site that calculates everything and charts it. I am not deficient in anything and like i said i feel better than I ever have. and oh yeah I lost a few more lbs. I weigh 145 now down from 155. :)

[aloethe]

one more thing.. As far as the environment is concerned, isn't it possible that growing plants for profit using modern farming practices, requiring tons of pesticides and fertilizers, may be far more harmful to the environment than producing meat.

This simply is not true... animals we farm must be fed plants. Far more than we would consume if we ate them directly and it is entirely possible to grow food with out pestides, machinery, or harmful fertilizers. And as far as making a profit. I think the organic food market is doing just fine. But really small community gardens and personal plots could feed many people. Do we really have to be fed by corporations and have everything wrapped in plastic etc...

[mrfreddy]

one more thing..

This simply is not true... animals we farm must be fed plants. Far more than we would consume if we ate them directly and it is entirely possible to grow food with out pestides, machinery, or harmful fertilizers.


in the case of grass-fed animals, they are eating plants that are already there, usually on land that is not suitiable for crops. the grass fed meat I order is raised without pesticides and fertilizers, the animals are killed in a stress free manner.

good luck with your veganism, even tho I personally think you're kinda like that cartoon shark, trying to eat a diet that isn't well-suited for your species...

[Lisa N]

This simply is not true... animals we farm must be fed plants. Far more than we would consume if we ate them directly and it is entirely possible to grow food with out pestides, machinery, or harmful fertilizers.

Yes, but as Mr. Freddy pointed out, they don't necessarily have to eat plants that are edible by humans. In fact, cattle can thrive grazing on grass that we don't have the ability to even digest fully and are far more efficient at turning that grass into quality protein and fat than we humans are. Furthermore, they can eat grass that is growing in areas that are otherwise unsuitable for growing other crops. Often cattle are fed grain products that are unsuitable for human consumption.
This link says it all far better than I could (and with a lot less space ;) ).

http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html

[Paleoanth]

I am minoring in anthropology right now and what I am learning is that we ate less and less meat as we evolved, because we began to spend more time cultivating plants and less time hunting and gathering. This summer I am going to do an independant study on nutritional anthropology so i guess I will look into that deeper but i really don't see a correlation between eating meat and brain power from what I have learned so far.
Hey Aloethe-

I am getting a Ph.D in paleoanthropology and just wanted to address this last sentence of yours. I am also a vegetarian (of the lacto-ovo variety), so I am not going to give you any grief about your personal choices. I agree that we should just get along here. I just wanted to address the brain/meat connection. There is some evidence to suggest that in order to allow for the brain to expand in the course of our evolution, higher quality foods, (e.g. meat) became more important in our diet. The digestive system and the brain are both expensive organs/organ systems to run. Our brains make up only abou 2% of our total body weight, but use nearly 25-30% of nutrients we take in. For plant eating organisms, the gut takes an enormous amounts of foods and calories just to make it function. Cellulose is a pain to digest and to extract the needed nutrition. Horses and cows, for example, have highly developed digestive systems designed for this purpose. Our closest relatives and our ancestors had expanded cecum's also for that purpose. So, there are not enough calories to run both a large brain such as ours and a digestive system-as long as the digestive system is adapted to grasses/grains/fruits. Meats are calorie/nutrient dense and easier to digest with a smaller digestive system. As our guts reduced in size because we switched from being primarily vegetarian to a more omniverous diet, those calories that were used to run our digestive systems were freed up and allowed to operate a more expansive brain.


Here are a couple of articles, one has a link to the article:

Aiello LC, Wheeler P. 1995. The expensive-tissue hypothesis: the brain and the digestive system in human and primate evolution. Curr Anthropol 36:199-221.

REVIEW ARTICLE
Brains and guts in human evolution: The Expensive Tissue Hypothesis*
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-84551997000100023&lng=es&nrm=iso

This hypothesis was tested in a really innovative way:

Jason Kaufman, Washington University "Using fish to test the expensive tissue hypothesis" -- poster presentation AAPA 2003.

[Wyvrn]

Great article Paleo, thanks for the link. The following from the article caught my eye:

On the basis of in vivo determinations, the mass-specific metabolic rate of the brain is approximately 11.2 W/kg (watts per kilogram). This is over 22 times the mass-specific metabolic rate of skeletal muscle (0.4 W/kg)
Forget building muscle mass to increase your BMR.... it's your brain you need to build!

Wyv

[Paleoanth]

unfortunately thinking really hard doesn't help you lose weight. Believe me, I have tried.

[spiritof72]

The "meetyourmeat" thing lost all credibility instantly when I clicked on the link and up popped Alec Baldwin.

[Paleoanth]

As aloethe has pointed out B12 is stored in the body in significant levels in the liver (around 3 years) and it is not needed to be consumed every day. She can also take a suppliment, and while that might break her "technical" veganism, it isn't necessary for her to go out and eat animals if she doesn't want to. As Dodger pointed out, our bodies can and do produce their own cholesterol. She can be perfectly healthy as long as she is very careful and takes a suppliment. It might be harder for her to do low carb, but not impossible.

Malnutrition has little or nothing to do with whether you lose weight anyway. There are plenty of obese/overweight people who are malnourished. Check out all those people who eat fast food constantly. Kids in the US and other places are overweight and malnourished in increasing larger numbers. http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1073786.htm

In addition, as far as being unnatural is concerned, so is most of the way we live. Planes, shoes, rollar blades, cars, sunscreen, tv, synthesized medications-all unnatural in a strict sense. So is sausage, pepperoni, drinking milk (we are the ONLY species to consume milk after weaning age and the ONLY one to consume another species milk), and all processed foods. Even farming is unnatural if you think about it in terms of our physical, not cultural, evolution.

[Lisa N]

As Dodger pointed out, our bodies can and do produce their own cholesterol.

While it's true that our bodies can and do produce cholesterol, often when dietary cholesterol (and, particulary, saturated fat) is low, our bodies have a tendency to produce the type of cholesterol that we don't want, the LDL type.
As for the vitamin B-12. Yes, the body can store a certain amount for quite a while, but recent investigations showed that many vegans and vegetarians were B-12 deficient. I believe the link that study was posted earlier in this thread. Supplements can help, but to get the right kind of B-12 (not an analog type), it must come from an animal source. Those that refuse to use any type of animal product are pretty much stuck in that respect; the choice is to either take a supplement that came from an animal that was killed to get it or become deficient in something that is vital to human health and development.

[Paleoanth]

Lisa-

Good points and the suppliment I was referring to would come from an animal source. That is why it would break aloethe's veganism in a technical sense. A lack of vitamin B12 leads to pernicious anemia, one of the most treatable and easily avoided RBC issues. That is certainly one reason I eat dairy, unnatural as it is. ;)

ceberezin-the unnatural comment wasn't so much to justify veganism as it was to refute Quinadal's earlier comment that veganism is unnatural. I was just trying to point out that most things we do are pretty unnatural. That her argument was also an invalid one. That is all.

As far as the rest of your post is concerned-while I agree that the PCRM crowd is lacking in science, the vegetarians and vegans on this forum have, as far as I know, shown respect to people's personal choices. My post was basically because there was an obvious lack of respect shown by certain people (not you, you have always been great). However, it is a personal choice for whatever reason people make those choices. My vegetarianism, for example, has nothing to do with animal rights or health reasons. I hate to see dissention here because of the nutcases out there.

[spiritof72]

In addition, as far as being unnatural is concerned, so is ... drinking milk (we are the ONLY species to consume milk after weaning age and the ONLY one to consume another species milk)...


Not to nitpick and this is completely irrelevant and off topic, but ... this isn't true.

My cats have always drunk milk (even, at times, when I was NOT offering them my glass!) and I had a dog that loved it too. Our local animal shelter, where I volunteer, will give cow's milk to young animals of many species, and they're always thrilled with it. Also, there have been many recorded and reported instances of a lactating mother of one animal species, happily nursing the infant(s) of an entirely different species.

So I think it's not that it's unnatural ... it's just that the situation doesn't present itself that often, relatively speaking.

[Lisa N]

Not to nitpick and this is completely irrelevant and off topic, but ... this isn't true.

My cats have always drunk milk (even, at times, when I was NOT offering them my glass!) and I had a dog that loved it too. Our local animal shelter, where I volunteer, will give cow's milk to young animals of many species, and they're always thrilled with it. Also, there have been many recorded and reported instances of a lactating mother of one animal species, happily nursing the infant(s) of an entirely different species.

So I think it's not that it's unnatural ... it's just that the situation doesn't present itself that often, relatively speaking.

I think Paleo's point was that in the wild, we don't find cats milking cows and generally don't find one species nursing from another. If left to their own devices and without human intervention, it just wouldn't happen.

[LukeA]

Not to nitpick and this is completely irrelevant and off topic, but ... this isn't true.

My cats have always drunk milk (even, at times, when I was NOT offering them my glass!) and I had a dog that loved it too. Our local animal shelter, where I volunteer, will give cow's milk to young animals of many species, and they're always thrilled with it. Also, there have been many recorded and reported instances of a lactating mother of one animal species, happily nursing the infant(s) of an entirely different species.

So I think it's not that it's unnatural ... it's just that the situation doesn't present itself that often, relatively speaking.


3/4 of all adult cats cannot digest lactose.

[mio1996]

and some data on chimp strength:

from http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_001b.html

It's a lot easier to get a chimp in roller skates than it is to get him to pump iron--hence, most of the data on chimp strength is anecdotal and decidedly unscientific. In tests at the Bronx Zoo in 1924, a dynamometer--a scale that measures the mechanical force of a pull on a spring--was erected in the monkey house. A 165-pound male chimpanzee named "Boma" registered a pull of 847 pounds, using only his right hand (although he did have his feet braced against the wall, being somewhat hip, in his simian way, to the principles of leverage). A 165-pound man, by comparison, could manage a one-handed pull of about 210 pounds. Even more frightening, a female chimp, weighing a mere 135 pounds and going by the name of Suzette, checked in with a one-handed pull of 1,260 pounds. (She was in a fit of passion at the time; one shudders to think what her boyfriend must have looked like next morning.) In dead lifts, chimps have been known to manage weights of 600 pounds without even breaking into a sweat. A male gorilla could probably heft an 1,800-pound weight and not think twice about it.

Mio says, much to the upset of PETA, So if I am confronted by a chimp, I should shoot (or tire-iron) first and ask questions later?

[spiritof72]

I think Paleo's point was that in the wild, we don't find cats milking cows and generally don't find one species nursing from another. If left to their own devices and without human intervention, it just wouldn't happen.

I understood her point. However, my point was that whether drinking milk is considered "natural" or "unnatural" would depend on an individual's definition of the words themselves.

Does "natural" simply mean "without human intervention?"

Incidentally - yes, most adult cats are lactose intolerant. I keep telling my cats that, and they're still not listening.

[Paleoanth]

I understood her point. However, my point was that whether drinking milk is considered "natural" or "unnatural" would depend on an individual's definition of the words themselves.

Does "natural" simply mean "without human intervention?"

Incidentally - yes, most adult cats are lactose intolerant. I keep telling my cats that, and they're still not listening.
Natural is what behavior would be inherent in the wild. In this case, yes without human intervention. I am not saying that individual exceptions don't happen-but as a species phenomena it is not natural.

[seyont]

Cooking food is not natural.
Throwing away the blood is not natural.
Using silverware is not natural.

So what? Using the Internet is not natural, either.

As for the cats, they're lactase-deficient. You don't get lactase from pasteurized milk.

[Grimalkin]

Interesting... cats are fine with raw milk, but develop serious problems with pasteurized milk.

Here's a reprinted article from Weston Price:http://www.drrons.com/raw_milk.html

Pottenger's studies on raw milk

Now what Pottenger actually did in some of his experiments is this. He used four groups of cats. All received for one-third of the diet raw meat. The other two-thirds was either raw milk or various heat-treated milks. The raw milk/raw meat diet produced many generations of healthy cats. Those fed pasteurized milk showed skeletal changes, decreased reproductive capacity, and infectious and degenerative diseases.

[aloethe]

http://individual.utoronto.ca/rabblerouser/recipes/whyvegan.html

Just curious what you all thought of the info on this site.

[Paleoanth]

Interesting information, but it still doesn't address the B12 issue. Are you adding olive oil to your diet? That is a good way to also up your good cholesterol.

[seyont]

Rabblerouser raises a valid question, why vegan?

Points [1]-[3] are too easy. Don't overgraze. Let's play off some other points:

[4] If 35 pounds of topsoil are lost to make one pound of beef, aren't 35 lbs also lost to produce one pound of human? We fatten up on corn (and corn syrup) just as cattle do.

[7] 2500 gallons of water to produce 1 lb of beef? On pasture that would mean that a cow would be hoovering up 2000 gallons of water a day. (if I use an arithmetically convenient 400 lb hanging weight and 500-day harvest).

That seems excessive. Must refer to grain-fed cattle.

[16] if 38% of grain goes to livestock, 62% goes to us.

The soil and water don't care if the corn is going to humans or cattle.

My conclusion: why vegan, indeed! The earth can't afford veganism.

[ceberezin]

The problem with this site is that it’s called “Why Vegan” and then doesn’t answer the question. It simply attempts ex post facto scientific and economic justifications for something whose acceptance has nothing to do with science or economics. Each one of those justifications is arguable, but ultimately wrong, as seyont showed in his example. The nutritional information is highly questionable, assuming, as it does, that high cholesterol is dangerous and linking high cholesterol to dietary cholesterol. However, I doubt that any vegans would change their minds even when every single contention on the website is disproved because, once again, veganism has nothing to do with science or even with the economics of land use, etc.

Ultimately, arguments about the economics of land use miss the point. All of that is based on the idea that the exploitation of animals for food is inherently cruel. That is an article of faith which reasonable arguments cannot touch. What is more arguable is that cruelty arises from the exploitation of animals for profit. It is also arguable that there is no difference between animals and plants in this regard. The exploitation of plants for profit: intensive industrial farming, requiring extensive monocultures, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, diversions of water resources, etc., is perhaps even more injurious to the earth and ultimately to ourselves than raising animals. Rabblerouser seems unconcerned with the source of all those pesticides getting into animal protein; he only wants to argue that animal protein is bad because it contains these contaminants.

Since the website raises the economic question, I would like to offer the following counter-argument, based on a suggestion by Ron Rosedale that the major function of insulin is to control lifespan.

Every species has strategies for survival at the individual and the species level. Human beings, as a species, have one strategy when resources are plentiful and another strategy when they are not. We know that the preferred macronutrients for the human body are protein and fat. So resource-rich conditions means lots of available protein and fat, and resource-poor conditions would mean less protein and fat and more carbohydrates. Pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers, on the basis of research into the paleolithic diet, had a resource-rich environment, while agriculturalists, despite having abundant food, created an artificial resource-poor environment: high carbohydrate, low protein and fat.

The most important thing from the species point of view is to defend the strength and diversity of the gene pool. Under resource-rich conditions, the species can defend the gene pool with fewer long-lived individuals. Under resource-poor conditions, this strategy makes no sense. The strategy switches to a greater number of smaller individuals with shorter life spans. Since less protein and fat are available, more people need to get to the age of sexual maturity using fewer resources. Insulin is the toggle switch between these two strategies. We know that pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers had a low carbohydrate diet and low insulin levels, while agriculturalists dramatically increased their insulin levels with their grain-based diet.

So after 10,000 years of resource poor conditions, we have massive overpopulation and massive misery. The real question of economics, then, is how do we assure a resource rich environment for the world’s population. Land use is simply a tool in that answer. Eliminating the raising of animals will not lead to a resource rich environment.

[TBoneMitch]

Congrats Cerebezin, that was a very thorough analysis of a complex situations. I am impressed!

[gotbeer]

Intriguing idea, Ceberezin; let me see if I'm grasping it correctly.

1. In a natural human diet, the "key resources" are fat and protein.

2. Carbohydrates are a poorer, secondary resource that is to be consumed only when the key resources are sparse. As such, the level of carbohydrate consumption also serves as a biological marker of conditions of sparse key resources.

3. Under conditions of rich key resources, ongoing individual mortality rates (from starvation, for example) are lower, and hence, there is less survival pressure for individuals to reach reproductive maturity early, and less pressure for these same individuals to expire soon after reproduction (to conserve key resources for offspring, for example). Bodies can have higher rates of metabolism, since key resources are plentiful. Bodies have little need for major long-term fat storage, since fat is plentiful, and the CHO consumption needed to make fat is minimal. Call this survival strategy 1.

4. Under conditions of sparse key resources, ongoing individual mortality rates are higher, and hence, there is more survival pressure for individuals to reach reproductive maturity early, and more pressure for these same individuals to expire soon after reproduction (to conserve key resources for offspring, for example). Bodies have lower rates of metabolism to conserve sparse key resources. Bodies also have a greater need for major long-term fat storage, since the key resource of fat is sparse. Call this survival strategy 2.

5. Insulin levels, which are strongly linked to the level of carbohydrate consumption, can be viewed as the modulator between the two survival strategies: low insulin triggers strategy one, and high insulin triggers strategy two.

6. An artificial increase in carbohydrate consumption, even when the key resources of fat and protein are plentiful, can nevertheless artificially inflate insulin levels, which in turn can cause members of the species to unnecessarily adopt a warped version of survival strategy 2, with inflated early reproduction, early expiration after reproduction, lower metabolic rates, and with massive fat stores building in their bodies despite ample fat availability in the diet.

[ceberezin]

Yes, yes . . . that’s it!

Actually, you raise an interesting question by referring to the age of reproductive maturity. We know that that age has been steadily lowering. I had read that in 1800, the average age of menarche was 17. Now, it’s much lower. We could argue that survival strategy 2 intensified quite recently because of industrialism and the availability of refined sugar from New World plantations. Under industrial conditions, the diet switched from being merely carbohydrate-based to being refined-carbohydrate-based, as industrial methods of food processing made refined carbohydrates more readily available. Before industrialism, white bread was a delicacy reserved for the aristocracy. Interestingly, the Eades, in their paper, “Hyperinsulinemic diseases of civilization: more than just syndrome X,” identify hyperinsulinemia as a cause of early menarche.

[TBoneMitch]

Yes, the Polish Dr Kwasniewski (Optimal Nutrition author, a high fat low carb diet) refers to this principle in his books. He says that the quality of the nutrition of the population directly determines the age of sexual maturity, and the ultimate length of life.
As mentioned, carbs accelerate the whole growth/maturation process, and the aging processes too!

[Paleoanth]

Very nice! Just a couple of things I want to add or discuss in relation to what you have brought up. The first is a concept called the New World Syndrome:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/N/Ne/New_World_Syndrome.htm

It basically explains the high levels of certain noncommunicable diseases found in Native American Indians and those of Asian descent in recent times is directly related to the Westernization of their diets including high amounts of carbs.

While early humans and our direct ancestors did switch from a primarily plant/fruit based diet compared to our closest relatives, it did not mean that plant foods were forgotten. In many cases, even in H/G populations, up to 80% of calories still come from gathered, not hunted foods. They are easier to obtain with less risk as many of the animals hunted require massive amounts of cooperation and energy expenditure. Their lower lifespans have more to do with lack of medical care and accidents, than diet. We are evolved to be dietary generalists, and that includes both plants and meats. Why else retain a large, fully functioning pancreas? It isn't like the appendix, which is the evolutionary left over of the extended cecum from our plant only days. However, I will grant you that with things like the New World Syndrome, our current dietary choices are crappy and leads to bad things.

The lowering of the age at which females enter menarche is also directly related to the amount of body fat. I am not sure about the hyperinsulinemia, but body fat must be 18% before menarche can begin. We are getting there at earlier and earlier ages due to lack of excersize and, again, our crappy diets. Some researchers say it is due to better medical care and better diets. There are always debates. Does the amout of insulin we pump into our bodies affect this? Probably. Our current diet is incredibly unbalanced with the high fat COMBINED with carbs that have little or no nutrional value. As we know, that causes weight problems that leads to earlier menarche and probably earlier menopause. Although, there are some studies, that say it is leptin levels that are the real problem.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/expand?pub=infobike://tandf/tahb/2001/00000028/00000001/art00007

http://humupd.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/7/3/287.pdf
But in opposition:
http://adc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/archdischild;64/3/383

[bluesmoke]

"In many cases, even in H/G populations, up to 80% of calories still come from gathered, not hunted foods."
Paleoanth, if you have facts to back this up, I would very much like to see them, as my reading/research does not support anything like this level of plant foods in historical or current hunter-gatherer populations. Nyah Levi

[Paleoanth]

I'll see if I can find it. I just remember that from my cultural anthropology classes.

[Paleoanth]

OK, I see where you are getting your information-probably from Cordain, et al. There seems to be some dissention in the recent literature about how much recent hunter-gatherers can really be used as an analogy for our ancestral diets and how much plant based foods make up ancestral and some H-G diets. Having debate in human evolution is not abnormal-in fact, we argue about everything, The 80% figure i tossed out based upon my recall of class is too high, but there are some papers that still put the contribution fairly high. Just a couple of articles to show you the debate on the plant side.

K Milton, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/3/665

Hunter-gatherer societies in other environments were doubtless eating very different diets, depending on the season and types of resources available. Hayden (3 (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/3/665#R3)) stated that hunter-gatherers such as the !Kung might live in conditions close to the "ideal" hunting and gathering environment. What do the !Kung eat? Animal foods are estimated to contribute 33% and plant foods 67% of their daily energy intakes (1 (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/3/665#R1)). Fifty percent (by wt) of their plant-based diet comes from the mongongo nut, which is available throughout the year in massive quantities (1 (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/3/665#R1)). Similarly, the hunter-gatherer Hazda of Tanzania consume "the bulk of their diet" as wild plants, although they live in an area with an exceptional abundance of game animals and refer to themselves as hunters (18 (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/3/665#R18)). In the average collecting area of an Aka Pygmy group in the African rain forest, the permanent wild tuber biomass is >4545 kg (>5 tons) (19 (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/3/665#R19)).


The council on nutrition, which is not a peer reviewed article, but has a synthesis of studies presented. Since it is in pdf, I cannot copy and paste. I am sorry. But one of their points, that I agree with is that percentage of plant to animal based foods depends on geography, climate and season of the year. Trying to come up with a generalized diet that all humans ate is almost impossible once we left Africa and spread out over Europe and Asia almost 2 million years ago.

http://www.councilonnutrition.com/store/ancestor.pdf

From http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/nconklin/conklin.html
HOMINID NUTRITIONAL ECOLOGY

As a prerequisite to considering the Australopithecus diet, we will briefly discuss hunter-gatherer diets, modern but traditional human diets, and the minimum nutrient requirements of humans.

Modern humans do not have high protein or fat requirements, as already mentioned. The value of 9.5% CP in the chimpanzee diet in our study is consistent with the prediction by Oftedal (1990) that all primates should have relatively low protein requirements because they have slow growth rates compared to other mammals (Case, 1978). Although a need for protein or fat is often assumed to explain increasing amounts of hunting throughout hominid evolution, primates do not have metabolic demands for high levels of protein or fat.

Eaton et al. (1988) proposed an ancient hunter-gatherer diet in the book The Paleolithic Prescription. We can now evaluate their hypothetical diet in the light of what we have just learned about the chimpanzee diet and with what is known of modern human nutrient needs. The hunter-gatherer diet Eaton et al. proposed contained 35% meat and 65% (wild) plant foods. Table 3 presents the results of the Paleolithic Prescription model diet, with some additional calculations:



Table 3. Attached below

The format of the third column, % of total grams consumed, is comparable to the way we have been reporting the chimpanzee diet. The protein intake is almost 4.5 times higher than required by humans, so we can not make meaningful comparisons there. The fat intake is also high compared to the chimpanzee diet and to that required by humans, even though the authors used nutrient values from wild game meat instead of domestic meat, so the fat intake is moderate compared to a modern human diet.

The fiber content is the interesting point for comparison. The content is about half of that in the chimpanzee diet. This results from 35% of the plant component being replaced by meat, in effect diluting the fiber content of the diet. We have seen that a wild herbivore diet, such as the chimpanzee in Kibale Forest, is high in fiber because wild foods are high in fiber (Table 1). In order to dilute that fiber level further, a new source of food must be found that is low in fiber. Meat is guaranteed to reduce the fiber content of a diet considerably and to be fairly easily digested.

Nevertheless, because wild vegetation is high in fiber, the Paleolithic hunter-gatherer diet was still assumed to contain 150 g of fiber from its 65% plant component, a huge intake by modern standards. Westernized diets normally include only 10-20 g of fiber per day (Johnson and Marlett, 1986; Georgiou and Arquitt, 1992), although the National Cancer Institute recommends 35 g (Bourquin et al., 1996). Consequently, it is useful to consider a traditional, nonwesternized modern diet from Zaire where the only domesticated component of the diet is cassava, a tuber very low in fiber (Pagezy, 1990). The rest of the diet is wild, either game or wild plant food (Table 4).



And of course, Neandertals ate meat like crazy and were very effective hunters, with almost no plant foods in their diet, at least in Europe. I haven't looked at what they ate in the Middle East.

[acohn]

Back in '96, I read "Our Stolen Future," by WWF scientist Theo Colborne. It was a scientific detective story that led to the conclusion that industrialized societies were dumping huge of amount of estrogen-mimicking compounds into the environment. Things haven't gotten better since then.

Could these xenoestrogens also play a role in the decreasing age of menarche?

[zedgirl]

http://www.councilonnutrition.com/store/ancestor.pdf


These few paragraphs sum up well why low-carbing makes so much sense. (bold is mine)

99 percent of our genetic heritage dates from before our biological ancestors evolved into Homo sapiens about 40,000 years ago, and 99.99 percent of our genes were formed before the development of agriculture about 10,000 years ago.

According to Eaton, the many dietary changes over the past 10,000 years have outpaced our ability to genetically adapt to them. "That the vast majority of our genes are ancient in origin means that nearly all of our biochemistry and physiology are fine-tuned to conditions of life that existed before 10,000 years ago," he says. 5

To put this into another perspective, 100,000 generations of people were hunter-gatherers, 500 generations have depended on agriculture, 10 generations have lived since the start of the industrial age, and only two generations have grown up with highly processed fast foods. "The problem is that our genes don't know it," Eaton points out. "They are programming us today in much the same way they have been programming humans for at least 40,000 years. Genetically, our bodies now are virtually the same as they were then." 6