Vegetarian/Vegan Questions?

[corbyco]

You think we would have ever survived as a species eating 80-90% carbs?   Carbs were VERY RARE back then. Dont' be a slave to your blood sugar.  Switch that to 80 to 90% fats and you'll be great. Research ketogenic diet or nutritional ketosis. This type of eating is key in reversing all modern day "diseases" and it is very liberating. No cravings, no blood sugar dips, balances hormones, improved sleep, improved moods, steady energy all day long, increased muscle mass, lower body fat, etc. etc. (all the good things). It's true, i've done it and it was the best thing I've ever discovered (that and philosophy).  Watch this for some real logical ideas on nutrition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9A-30Twp1k

 

 

I think you must be a time traveler as you seem to be able to state so much about the past with certainty. :-)

 

Actually with all the nuts and milk alternatives I probably get a lot of unsaturated fat.

 

I will watch your videos when I get home tonight - but a balanced vegan diet is the best way to avoid all of the most common causes of death in the west - heart disease, cancer and diabetes.  Note that these are much less prevalent in the east where they mostly have a vegan diet with very little fish and often no dairy.  I will look up some references but I think many have been quoted above.

 

Overall it it simply unnecessary to eat meat and dairy.  I am personal proof and there are millions of us.

@PK Hoffner  quote: "I would say what about saturated fats, cholesterol, omega's 3 fatty acids, vitamins A, D, and K?"

 

We dont need saturated fats.

We dont need to eat cholesterol as it is made in the body when it needs it.  My cholesterol levels are fine (both types) and I dont eat any at all.

I get Omega 3 from ground flax seed.

A, D and K?  Naturally in many veggies.

 

I am afraid you just state sentance after sentance of untrue statements.   It would be better if you kept to 1 or 2 if you truely want to discuss it.  What are your key 2 main 'facts' that prove we need meat?

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

I think you must be a time traveler as you seem to be able to state so much about the past with certainty. :-)

 

Actually with all the nuts and milk alternatives I probably get a lot of unsaturated fat.

 

I will watch your videos when I get home tonight - but a balanced vegan diet is the best way to avoid all of the most common causes of death in the west - heart disease, cancer and diabetes.  Note that these are much less prevalent in the east where they mostly have a vegan diet with very little fish and often no dairy.  I will look up some references but I think many have been quoted above.

 

Overall it it simply unnecessary to eat meat and dairy.  I am personal proof and there are millions of us.

I agree, it is quite unnecessary to eat meat and dairy. I never said it was. Although, some dairy is great (grass fed raw milk, yogurt, cheeses, etc. and provide key nutrients like vitamin A, D, and K, calcium, omega 3's, fats, and others). And, what exaclty is wrong with dairy from farm raised animals? None have to die.   What's wrong with egg yolks from pastured hens, or ducks? What's wrong with eating sea food? Can't we humanely breed and raise animals for our food (and for other uses) in order be healthy and to raise healthy babies? The problem with he current system is Statism. The current Statist / industrialized system is broken and is disgusting.  It needs to be fixed, but don't throw out the baby.....  So, I'd say that at least some animal based foods (from ethicially, naturally raised animals) is critical to health, especially to growing babies (saturated fats and cholesterol for example are essential to the growing body and brain, immune system, etc!). 

 

And heart disease is caused by low-fat diets and inflammation.  "World Renown Heart Surgeon Speaks Out On What Really Causes Heart Disease"  http://preventdisease.com/news/12/030112_World-Renown-Heart-Surgeon-Speaks-Out-On-What-Really-Causes-Heart-Disease.shtml.  And diabetes is caused by modern day diets high in carbs, also known as sugar or blood glucose. If one is on a low-fat diet, they must necessarily substitute the fat with carbohydrates for energy. This is not good and causes all kinds of problems.  We evolved eating high amounts of fats, and very few carbs.  I'm not guessing about this (for example, modern day fruits are breed for their sweetness, not nutrional content... this is not natural).  Look into the evolutionary health, or ancestrial health movements.  Massive amounts of research is being done, and has been done.  Weston A. Price is a good place to start. Nora Gedgaudas also has tons of good stuff out there.  I highly recommend her book. There are many others.

[corbyco]

Ummm so you agree that it is quite unnecessary to eat meat or dairy....but that   "...some other animal based foods are critical to health"

 

I agree there is evidence that heart disease is caused by inflammation.  I read that this is generally due to a lack of Omega 3.  Its the Omega 6 fats that create inflammation if not balanced with 3.

Meat eaters need to ensure they eat fish to get the Omega 3.

Some vegans can still have a problem if they dont ensure they get their Omega 3 from things like ground flax seed.

 

Seriously, nobody needs to eat cholesterol.  How do you think the cows that eat grass get cholesterol?  Or elephants?  Or the most powerful animal in the world - the gorilla?

Or the famous vegan Olympian Carl Lewis?

 

Whatever diet you go for you still need to ensure its balanced.

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

Ummm so you agree that it is quite unnecessary to eat meat or dairy....but that   "...some other animal based foods are critical to health"

 

I agree there is evidence that heart disease is caused by inflammation.  I read that this is generally due to a lack of Omega 3.  Its the Omega 6 fats that create inflammation if not balanced with 3.

Meat eaters need to ensure they eat fish to get the Omega 3.

Some vegans can still have a problem if they dont ensure they get their Omega 3 from things like ground flax seed.

 

Seriously, nobody needs to eat cholesterol.  How do you think the cows that eat grass get cholesterol?  Or elephants?  Or the most powerful animal in the world - the gorilla?

Or the famous vegan Olympian Carl Lewis?

 

Whatever diet you go for you still need to ensure its balanced.

"Meat" is animal flesh.  You don't have to eat it. Dairy is not necessary, but can be extremely beneficial, especially if the only other foods available are plant based.  Without saturated fat and cholesterol we die, and the sacred foods of traditional cultures were the fatty bits... and for good reason. They knew from experience what made them strong and fertile and gave them healthy babies.  Also, things in nature like cholesterol aren't isolated. Cholesterol is found in the highly nutritious, fatty animal based foods. Cholesterol is a critical nutrient for babies, and for adults.  If we don't need to eat it, why is it in mother's breast milk?  http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/fat-and-cholesterol-in-human-milk/  This type of food (high fat / vitamin rich) is critical for nutrient and mineral obsorbtion. Without the fat, we don't absord the vitamins like A, D, K, and minerals.   If you eat tons of mineral rich foods, it's just passes through without fat that's needed. This is why skim milk is ridiculous. The vitamins are fat soluble.  Research fat soluble vitamins A, D, and K. http://www.westonaprice.org/abcs-of-nutrition/fat-soluble-activators/

 

"Fat and cholesterol are very important components in human milk. In fact, the milk from a healthy mother has about 50 to 60 percent of its energy (kilocalories) as fat.¹ The cholesterol in human milk supplies an infant with close to six times the amount most adults consume from their food1"

 

When a woman has many children, the level of fat in her milk usually decreases with each succeeding child. This will not happen, however, if the mother maintains a high quality diet. In some parts of the world, such as China, the new mother is given a diet very high in animal fat that includes 6-10 eggs a day and almost 10 ounces of chicken and pork for at least a month after the birth of her infant. This diet ensures that the level of fat in her milk is as high as possible.²

 

Some women produce milk that has a fat level similar to the Guernsey or Jersey cow (high fat) and some produce milk that more closely resembles the Holstein cow (lower fat). The higher fat is more desirable, of course, for the developing infant. The higher fat milk will have more of the fat molecules that are needed for their many functional properties, and will also supply enough energy so that all of the protein can be used by the infant for development. Fat is spoken of as “protein sparing.” Without adequate fat, the protein in human milk cannot be used.

d.^1"

[luxfelix]

Im going to have to disagree with you on the point about contemporary cattle. The thing is none of that really matters. Not to sound condescending but you might want to read my post again. We dont need meat and if we do eat meat we only need the amino acids and saturated fat from the meat. That isnt effected by the way the cow is raised. The only thing that matters in your diet is how much nutrition you get. That's it. It is impossible to get all your nutrition from your food. If you eat meat from a cow grown in a lab as long as that cow is giving you all your nutrients nothing else really matters (assuming the cow isn't so toxic you die from the first bit).

 

Fair enough.

 

We are addressing separate issues here (agribusiness models and the body's nutrient needs):

 

To be clear, you actually do agree with my point that "contemporary cattle confinement methods are not preferable to traditional free-range methods", but you disagree that meat is even necessary (except for the nutrients found in meat which are needed) and so the means by which the meat is produced doesn't affect it (skirtilator's point about stress and cortisol ruining the quality of the meat contradicts this point...), right?

 

When you say that none of it really matters, you're referring to receiving nutrients from meat, not that the state subsidized agribusiness doesn't matter, no?

 

When you say that the only thing that matters in your diet is how much nutrition you get, you also take into account that nutrients, vitamins, and minerals etc. (as well as internal cultures) work in concert to promote health (as in the vitamin A, D, K triangle from Nathan H. Hoffner's link to Sally Fallon), no?

 

When you say it is impossible to get all your nutrition from your food, you are referring to the way the body synthesizes vitamin D from direct noon-time sunlight, no?

 

I found the information you provided about MDs helpful, and I agree that the body has an amazing capacity to heal itself. 

[yagami]

yagami: "First off I apologize for taking so long to reply to your post. Second UPB cant apply to animals because what you are advocating is that animals be protected by UPB but have no moral responsibility. UPB only applies to humans because we can act both morally and morally. Because of this we are also responsible for our actions. This cant apply to animals because they cant act as moral agents. Also you never explained the difference between a rock a plant an animal and a human. Why are all four of these treated differently to you given your moral framework?"

 

We seem to keep going round in a circle and I dont understand why.

 

You say that UPB cant apply to animals becuase they cant act as moral agents - but I am not asking anything of the animals at all.  I only ask that humans act morally and put it to you that it is possible to extend our moral requirement to not cause animals to suffer.   Surely the difference between a rock and animals is that animals can suffer and a rock cannot.

A baby is protected by UPB but does not have moral responsibility - so why not animals?

Yes but you have no test for what is or isn't moral. You seem to be throwing the word moral around without any kind of test for what is moral or isn't. That is why I asked for you to distinguish between rocks animals humans and plants. Why is it that animals and humans pass the test but plants and rocks. What is your test? How do you determine that one action is moral and another isn't? We cant just say humans should act morally towards animals and not define what morality is. 

[J. D. Stembal]

If the soy bean industry is government subsidised, it's only because of the demand for meat. The percentage of worldwide soy bean produce used for human consumption is minuscule. The rest is for feeding factory farmed animasls.

I try to avoid soy when possible anyway - almond milk is way nicer.

 

If every man woman and child on this planet wants to eat meat, where are these grass fed pasture cows going to graze? Another planet? Have you any idea what kind of space is needed for what you are talking about?

Factory farming is a solution for the demand for meat. Were it not for factory farming, meat would cost 10 times what it does now.

Grass fed beef (or any other animal) for everybody is impossible.

 

A two step anarchic process should alleviate your concerns.

 

First, get rid of all the federally managed land (650 million acres in the United States, 30% of the territory), and the actual cost of raising animals in a pasture would go down. A greater supply of pasture leads to massive decreases in the cost of land, and then you get sustainable, affordable beef, bison, pork, deer, elk, lamb, goat, chickens, eggs, milk, etc.

 

Second, abolish the farm subsidies, and then anything to do with corn, wheat, soy, rice, or sugar goes up in price. The ecology that was devastated by industrial agriculture begins to return to normal, making more usable land available, further lowering the cost of animal husbandry.

 

Finally, we will see the real cost of food at the supermarket checkout. People generally vote with their wallet. If we stop foisting most of the cost of industrial agriculture on the taxpayer, customers will be better served making the informed choice to buy pasture raised meat. It will be cheaper on their wallet, not expensive like it is now. Buying "organic" makes foods even more expensive due to the governmental regulatory overhead involved.

 

 

I think you must be a time traveler as you seem to be able to state so much about the past with certainty. :-)

 

Actually with all the nuts and milk alternatives I probably get a lot of unsaturated fat.

 

I will watch your videos when I get home tonight - but a balanced vegan diet is the best way to avoid all of the most common causes of death in the west - heart disease, cancer and diabetes.  Note that these are much less prevalent in the east where they mostly have a vegan diet with very little fish and often no dairy.  I will look up some references but I think many have been quoted above.

 

Overall it it simply unnecessary to eat meat and dairy.  I am personal proof and there are millions of us.

@PK Hoffner  quote: "I would say what about saturated fats, cholesterol, omega's 3 fatty acids, vitamins A, D, and K?"

 

We dont need saturated fats.

We dont need to eat cholesterol as it is made in the body when it needs it.  My cholesterol levels are fine (both types) and I dont eat any at all.

I get Omega 3 from ground flax seed.

A, D and K?  Naturally in many veggies.

 

I am afraid you just state sentance after sentance of untrue statements.   It would be better if you kept to 1 or 2 if you truely want to discuss it.  What are your key 2 main 'facts' that prove we need meat?

 

 

Actually, there is an inverse relationship between cholesterol levels and incidence of cancer, meaning the lower your cholesterol, the more likely you are to be diagnosed with cancer. You might want to start eating more saturated fat, which raises cholesterol. I like coconuts, and cashews. It's not meat, so you should be able to stomach it.

 

There is a positive correlation with carbohydrate consumption and the incidence of cancer as well.

 

There is absolutely no positive correlation with dietary fat and obesity, heart disease, or diabetes. These are all conditions (including cancer) prevalent in metabolic syndrome, which is the effect of damaging your endocrine system by eating too many carbs over the course of your life. The longer you've been a vegan, the more at risk you are for metabolic syndrome. Nutritionally, there is very little you can do to avoid meat and get enough dietary fat to keep your body going. This is why vegetarians, like Stefan Molyneux, aren't true vegetarians. He claims to still eat meat on occasion. It's because his body needs it to fight off disease. Subconsciously, we all know this to be correct. Fat is good!

 

Have you perhaps considered that it is you that is showering us with nutritional mythology?

 

Stay tuned in this thread for my blog post where I will provide more of my thoughts regarding this debate.

[corbyco]

Yes but you have no test for what is or isn't moral. You seem to be throwing the word moral around without any kind of test for what is moral or isn't. That is why I asked for you to distinguish between rocks animals humans and plants. Why is it that animals and humans pass the test but plants and rocks. What is your test? How do you determine that one action is moral and another isn't? We cant just say humans should act morally towards animals and not define what morality is. 

 

In the UPB book Steffan says:

"We do not have the time here to go into a full discussion of the question of animal rights, but we can at 

least deal with the moral proposition: “it is evil to kill fish.” 

If it is evil to kill fish, then UPB says that anyone or anything that kills the fish is evil. This would include 

not just fishermen, but sharks as well – since if killing fish is evil, we have expanded our definition of 

ethical “actors” to include non-human life. 

It is clear that sharks do not have the capacity to refrain from killing fish, since they are basically eating 

machines with fins. 

Thus we end up with the logical problem of “inevitable evil.” If it is evil to kill fish, but sharks cannot 

avoid killing fish, then sharks are “inevitably evil.” However, as we have discussed above, where there is 

no choice – where avoidability is impossible – there can be no morality."

 

Where I disagree with this text is that I dont see why we have to include the object of the aggression as an ethical actor.  It is the aggressor who is either acting morally or immorally - hence why we can say it is immoral to be aggressive against a baby who can not be an ethical actor either.

It can be immoral for a person to be aggressive against an animal without the animal knowing that it is an immoral act , in the same way as it is immoral to hit a baby.

If it is unnecessary for us to eat animals then it meets the test of aviodability as well. We can all avoid aggression to animals. 

[LovePrevails]

I agree with that but I dont think you have to go that far. Vegetarians eat plants. Why is it morally acceptable to eat a plant that is a living creature but not an animal. I mean what's the point of debating anything else if you cant answer that question? The only reason I pointed out how it's the non initiation of force is because of how often the you guys were saying the word aggression towards animals. Just wanted to be clear on that.

I can't take anyone seriously who makes the argument that vegetarians eat plants.

you have to be a certain kind of sophist, rhetorician, willful ignorant, or just an idiot  to make this parallel. 

[Richard_V]

First, get rid of all the federally managed land (650 million acres in the United States, 30% of the territory), and the actual cost of raising animals in a pasture would go down. A greater supply of pasture leads to massive decreases in the cost of land, and then you get sustainable, affordable beef, bison, pork, deer, elk, lamb, goat, chickens, eggs, milk, etc.

 

Second, abolish the farm subsidies, and then anything to do with corn, wheat, soy, rice, or sugar goes up in price. The ecology that was devastated by industrial agriculture begins to return to normal, making more usable land available, further lowering the cost of animal husbandry.

 

Finally, we will see the real cost of food at the supermarket checkout. People generally vote with their wallet. If we stop foisting most of the cost of industrial agriculture on the taxpayer, customers will be better served making the informed choice to buy pasture raised meat. It will be cheaper on their wallet, not expensive like it is now. Buying "organic" makes foods even more expensive due to the governmental regulatory overhead involved.

 

 

We could see how that could work, maybe at some point in the future if that ever happens. It's purely hypothetical. 

 

What can you do now? How can we help make the world a better place for every living being NOW? 

[yagami]

 

In the UPB book Steffan says:

"We do not have the time here to go into a full discussion of the question of animal rights, but we can at 

least deal with the moral proposition: “it is evil to kill fish.” 

If it is evil to kill fish, then UPB says that anyone or anything that kills the fish is evil. This would include 

not just fishermen, but sharks as well – since if killing fish is evil, we have expanded our definition of 

ethical “actors” to include non-human life. 

It is clear that sharks do not have the capacity to refrain from killing fish, since they are basically eating 

machines with fins. 

Thus we end up with the logical problem of “inevitable evil.” If it is evil to kill fish, but sharks cannot 

avoid killing fish, then sharks are “inevitably evil.” However, as we have discussed above, where there is 

no choice – where avoidability is impossible – there can be no morality."

 

Where I disagree with this text is that I dont see why we have to include the object of the aggression as an ethical actor.  It is the aggressor who is either acting morally or immorally - hence why we can say it is immoral to be aggressive against a baby who can not be an ethical actor either.

It can be immoral for a person to be aggressive against an animal without the animal knowing that it is an immoral act , in the same way as it is immoral to hit a baby.

If it is unnecessary for us to eat animals then it meets the test of aviodability as well. We can all avoid aggression to animals. 

 

Did you read the rest of that section in his book? You only posted about the section that mildly favors your point. Steph is simply pointing out how if you cant avoid something it logically can not be considered evil. But he clearly states later on that you can not disprove a theory by pointing out that it doesn't apply to something else. You may think you are just trying to extend the definition of UPB but you are actually attempting to disprove UPB. You are essentially saying UPB is wrong because it does not include animals. Once we include animals UPB is correct. 

 

Also let me address the babies point once again. Babies are protected by UPB in the exact same way an unconscious person is. If the person is in a state where they currently are unable to be a moral agent but will at some point or have been able to in the past or would be able to given normal circumstances they are protected by UPB. It would be like saying as soon as I fall asleep I have no rights because I cant act as a moral agent. Comparing animals to babies is not really fair. 

 

The other thing that bothers me about your argument is that it seems completely arbitrary when you decide that animals should be protected by UPB because they can suffer and feel pain. To me this sounds like the argument that babies have rights when their heart forms or when their brain forms. You are picking out a characteristic and saying this is why animals should be protected with no appeal to any moral framework.

 

Think of it this way. UPB stands for Universally Preferable Behavior. If you want to include animals in that universe you must have animal follow all the moral rules just like everyone else in that universe. Animals cant be part of this universe for obvious reasons. So therefor they are not protected by universal moral rules. 

[corbyco]

Did you read the rest of that section in his book? You only posted about the section that mildly favors your point. Steph is simply pointing out how if you cant avoid something it logically can not be considered evil. But he clearly states later on that you can not disprove a theory by pointing out that it doesn't apply to something else. You may think you are just trying to extend the definition of UPB but you are actually attempting to disprove UPB. You are essentially saying UPB is wrong because it does not include animals. Once we include animals UPB is correct. 

 

Also let me address the babies point once again. Babies are protected by UPB in the exact same way an unconscious person is. If the person is in a state where they currently are unable to be a moral agent but will at some point or have been able to in the past or would be able to given normal circumstances they are protected by UPB. It would be like saying as soon as I fall asleep I have no rights because I cant act as a moral agent. Comparing animals to babies is not really fair. 

 

The other thing that bothers me about your argument is that it seems completely arbitrary when you decide that animals should be protected by UPB because they can suffer and feel pain. To me this sounds like the argument that babies have rights when their heart forms or when their brain forms. You are picking out a characteristic and saying this is why animals should be protected with no appeal to any moral framework.

 

Think of it this way. UPB stands for Universally Preferable Behavior. If you want to include animals in that universe you must have animal follow all the moral rules just like everyone else in that universe. Animals cant be part of this universe for obvious reasons. So therefor they are not protected by universal moral rules. 

 

I dont see how considering the extension of something is the same as trying to disprove it.

I am not saying anything is wrong... I am hopefully in an exercise of discussion to see whether within its own rules it can be extended.

I am putting forward a proposal for discussion to test it - and so far happen to feel that it could be true.

 

I cannot understand why, if we can include someone asleep, or without the mental ability to understand moral behaviour, then we cannot include animals who can suffer the consequences of immoral behaviour to the same extent as humans even though they cannot understand the immorality that is affecting them.

 

I seriously have problems with the sentence  "If it is evil to kill fish, then UPB says that anyone or anything that kills the fish is evil."

This statement completely includes anyone and everything in the 'universe'. 

UPB does say that it is evil to kill a person.  Therefore, if the above statement is true,  'anyone or anything' that kills a person is immoral.  So if a shark kills a person it is acting immorally???

This goes even further than I want to extend UPB.  I am just proposing that it is immoral to be aggressive to the shark, because we do understand morality and dont need to hurt the shark. I am not asking that we expect the shark to act morally - as you say "...for obvious reasons".

[yagami]

I dont see how considering the extension of something is the same as trying to disprove it.

I am not saying anything is wrong... I am hopefully in an exercise of discussion to see whether within its own rules it can be extended.

I am putting forward a proposal for discussion to test it - and so far happen to feel that it could be true.

 

I cannot understand why, if we can include someone asleep, or without the mental ability to understand moral behaviour, then we cannot include animals who can suffer the consequences of immoral behaviour to the same extent as humans even though they cannot understand the immorality that is affecting them.

 

I seriously disagree with the sentence  "If it is evil to kill fish, then UPB says that anyone or anything that kills the fish is evil."

This statement completely includes anyone and everything in the 'universe'. 

UPB does say that it is evil to kill a person.  Therefore, if the above statement is true,  'anyone or anything' that kills a person is immoral.  So if a shark kills a person it is acting immorally???

This goes even further than I want to extend UPB.  I am just proposing that it is immoral to be aggressive to the shark, because we do understand morality and dont need to hurt the shark. I am not asking that we expect the shark to act morally - as you say "...for obvious reasons".

If you are saying UPB has missed something that needs to be included you are saying UPB is incorrect because animals are not included. If you believe UPB is correct then saying it needs to include animals rights is a contradiction. You are indeed saying UPB is incorrect when you attempt to extend the definition. I hate to keep going to a race thing but it's like when we expanded the definition of black people to be considered equal people. The previous definition was incorrect and now we have the correct definition.

 

As I said in my last post the reason we include sleeping people and babies is because they will become able to act as moral agents at some point. The state of inability to act as a moral agent is temporary.

 

You cant have it both ways here. You cant say you think that you cant be an aggressor towards animals because it would be immoral and then say you disagree with with the statement If it is evil to kill fish, then UPB says that anyone or anything that kills the fish is evil.

Can you help me understand how this is not a contradiction?

[OGMizen]

You think we would have ever survived as a species eating 80-90% carbs?   Carbs were VERY RARE back then. Dont' be a slave to your blood sugar.  Switch that to 80 to 90% fats and you'll be great. Research ketogenic diet or nutritional ketosis. This type of eating is key in reversing all modern day "diseases" and it is very liberating. No cravings, no blood sugar dips, balances hormones, improved sleep, improved moods, steady energy all day long, increased muscle mass, lower body fat, etc. etc. (all the good things). It's true, i've done it and it was the best thing I've ever discovered (that and philosophy).  Watch this for some real logical ideas on nutrition. 

 

 

I can only post 2 messages a day so this will be my only response for now. I've dealt with many WAPF followers before and I am getting tired of repeating myself but I'll give you some facts anyway. (-and no, im not expecting you to change your mind because WAPF followers never seem to respond to the vast weight of very clear evidence against them.)

 

First off, this...

 

You think we would have ever survived as a species eating 80-90% carbs?   Carbs were VERY RARE back then.  

  

..Is called an 'appeal to nature' and is a logical fallacy. So I shouldnt even need to address it. -I will anyway. Its false because I never claimed we survived on 80-90% carbs, I said 90-80% carbs is optimum.. Some of the most healthy populations on earth THRIVE on 80-90% carbohydrates (rural asia and africa are good examples, where heart disease was so uncommon -until western meat based diets moved in- that there are scientific papers written specifically about rare cases of heart disease in ONE person).

 

You havent even defined what you mean when you say 'back then'. but considering these facts:

1) that humans are tropical (equatorial) animals.

2) that the only foods humans enjoy eating in their RAW and uncooked state are plant foods (which obviously includes fruit)

3) that a lot of fruit grows in tropical climates and

4) that most fruits are upwards of 80% carbohydrates (most upwards of 90) and have very little fats..

..if we are going to talk about 'back then', you are on the back foot.. its far more likely humans evolved eating fruit (like their primate predecessors) than it is that they would evolve eating carnage. Humans are disgusted by carnage. (see: milton mills MD the biology of disgust). -and before you fall back on the 'meat made us humans' thing, there is no evidence for that.. its just an assertion.. a far more likely assertion is that cooked starches 'made us human'. Meat is bad for the brain and grains are good for the brain.

 

I have never checked my blood sugar. I dont have blood sugar issues. Fats cause blood sugar issues (especially animal fats) -This is why the only way to reverse T2 diabetes through diet is to eat a diet very low in fat and high in carbohydrates. -Get a book by Neil Barnard MD called 'program for reversing diabetes' for more on how that works.

 

I'd rather not change to 80-90% fat, because A. its disgusting B. its unhealthy and C. I want to stay slim and active rather than get fat and tired.

 

I have researched ketosis. Ketogenic diets are just diets that make you thin by making you sick. I think I'll pass thanks. The idea that a ketogenic diet is the key to reversing disease is laughable. The key to reversing disease is to eliminate animal products as much as possible, eat whole plant foods, to quit smoking, quit drinking and exercise.

 

Do you have before and after blood tests to validate all of the things you think the diet has done for you? Id also like to point out that what you think is 'increased muscle mass' is actually increased fat and water in your muscle. The less carbohydrates you eat the more water you will store in your muscles. Also the more sodium you eat the more water you will store in your muscles. The food you are eating is more salty, so your muscles look bigger.. doesnt mean you are stronger. If you are going to talk about strength, look at the world records for lifting.. The heaviest yoke walk ever was a vegan. 

The most handstand pressups in a row was a vegan https://recordsetter.com/world-record/handstand-push-ups-legs-apart/13810#contentsection Longest treadmill run was a vegan http://hooplaha.com/2014/02/how-one-vegan-breaks-a-world-record-of-running-on-a-treadmill/ and check out these two OAP's who ran a marathon a day for 366 days in a row on 100% raw vegan foods (after beating cancer with a vegan diet) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY4HUmLbT3M

 

As for the WAPF stuff you keep posting (and linked me to) WAPF is about as far as you can get from 'logical' nutrition advice. In fact, the WAPF is a disgrace to weston a price himself: In 1934, Price wrote a moving letter to his nieces and nephews, instructing them in the diet he hoped they would eat. "The basic foods should be the entire grains such as whole wheat, rye or oats, whole wheat and rye, wheat and oat cereals, oat-cake, dairy products, including milk and cheese, which should be used liberally, and marine foods." Yet the Weston A. Price Foundation aggressively promotes the consumption of beef, pork and other high-fat meats, while condemning people who base their diets on whole grains.

 

The Weston A. Price Foundation was co-founded in 1999 by Sally Fallon and nutritionist Mary G. Enig to disseminate the research of Dr. Weston A. Price. (Or rather, disgrace it and hijack it to promote their own agenda.) Mary Enig is a leading proponent of coconut oil who has ties to the coconut oil industry and Sally Fallon is clearly overweight and probably couldnt run around the block without having her heart explode.

 

The main sources of financial support for the WAPF are the dues and contributions of its members. The Foundation does not receive funding from the government or the food processing and agribusiness industries. It does accept sponsorships, exhibitors and advertising from small companies by invitation, whose products are in line with WAPF principles. Sponsors include grass-fed meat and wild fish producers, as well as health product companies. -Thats called a conflict of interest.

 

As for Price himself... He performed poorly designed studies that led him to conclude that teeth treated with root canal therapy leaked bacteria or bacterial toxins into the body, causing arthritis and many other diseases. This "focal infection" theory led to needless extraction of millions of endodontically treated teeth until well-designed studies, conducted during the 1930s, demonstrated that the theory was not valid. -He was dentist not a doctor.. and clearly a poor one at that.

 

If you still arent convinced veganism is fully supported by science read this: http://www.30bananasaday.com/forum/topics/i-told-you-so-science 

Also go to www.nutritionfacts.org for even more supporting science.

 

If you still think high fat diets are healthy watch the videos here: https://www.youtube.com/user/PrimitiveNutrition

 

Heres one last short video on the WAPF that personally I find hilarious! -

 

I doubt I'll be returning to this thread (its too annoying debating nutrition with stubborn WAPF followers) but Im 99% sure none of this will have any affect on your perception of WAPF and your ideas on nutrition, but I would urge you to PLEASE carefully consider the evidence against your position, for your own sake.. you dont want to be wrong about your health practices!! All the best!

 

[Richard_V]

I can't take anyone seriously who makes the argument that vegetarians eat plants.

you have to be a certain kind of sophist, rhetorician, willful ignorant, or just an idiot  to make this parallel. 

I couldn't agree more. 

Cut the head off a flower and see how many people get upset. 

Cut the head off a dog and see how many people get upset. 

 

It's a pointless and childish argument often made by people who have run out of arguments to justify the consumption of animal products. Clutching at straws so to speak. 

Also, there are a great many plants which actually rely on being eaten by animals in order to spread seeds and propagate their species.

[Soren]

I agree that animals are very different from us, I also agree that they are below us, but would you argue that animals are mere biological machines, having no consciousness whatsoever? If you could show that to me, that would convince me.

 

Well they don't have a human consiousness, as we can emprically tell. I personally think, and its just my thoughts, that animals expirence the world in a similar fashion to the way we do, this constant "movie" rolling before their eyes, they experience stimuli. The big difference is how they react on stimuli, how it seems they are unable to reflect on their own actions, stimuli-respons learning. They are organic robots or biological machines as you say, their consciousness is just their "OS" plants have a very different "OS", in that regard the capability of the human mind is what makes us different and gives us free will otherwise we are mostly biological machines by weight too. They are part of the envoirement that surrounds us and is just as valid a food as other living organisms. So why don't I treat them the same as a flower, because of the value they provide is different. Because of their physical features they can be easy to project emotions on too and empathize with.

[J. D. Stembal]

We could see how that could work, maybe at some point in the future if that ever happens. It's purely hypothetical. 

 

What can you do now? How can we help make the world a better place for every living being NOW? 

 

I will give you a hint. It's included in my last post which you quoted.

 

 

Vote with your wallet.

 

[Richard_V]

I will give you a hint. It's included in my last post which you quoted.

 

 

Vote with your wallet.

 

 

Oh OK. Well, good luck with that then.

[Hubot]

  Hello fellow voluntarists! I wanted to make this post a long time ago so without further ado I'll cut to the chase. This post is for all those persons who want to improve their health through diet and exercise. We have surely all heard the phrase “Eat less and exercise more and you'll get in shape”. Sadly, this is a crude oversimplification that doesn't help too many people. Calories are not equivalent for humans in a sense that 1 k cal sugar would be the same as 1 k cal fat (because they have very different biochemical responses) and neither does exercise make you thinner easily.

  So why am I posting this in the vegan thread? Well, mainly because I want to help the sufferers of the vegetarian and other health myths (regarding for example cholesterol, ketosis or fat ). Posting this in the paleo threads would just result in one more voice in the echo chamber of “primalism”. So what do I have against veganism? Simply put it is likely to make you sick. Yes, I know we humans are omnivores but that doesn't mean all diets would be equally healthy to us. It is critically important to optimize it in order to thrive.

Second issue I have with the vegan claims is that it doesn't hurt animals. This is untrue because harvesting, pesticides, and ploughing do kill a lot of animals. And what happened to all the animals who used to live in the forest/prairie that is agricultural land now? It is possible that meat consumers kill more animals than vegans by their eating habits but the score certainly isn't 100-0.

My recommendation for you would be to test the so called paleo/primal lifestyle. The basic idea behind it is to mimic the diet (and some other habits like natural movement etc.) that humans had before agriculture. The diet consists of a lot of green leafy vegetables, tubers, good meat, fish and fats. It includes almost no processed foods (some supplements like Mg, Zn or D3 are needed), sugar and only moderate amount of fruits and berries. Although not scientifically proven (i.e. no double blind studies are done about this) the anecdotal evidence and epidemiological studies suggest that it works well. My own N=1 -experiment basically gave me my life back so understandably I can't take this stuff very unenthusiastically.

  In my opinion one of the best podcast series about paleo diet is Robb Wolfs “The Paleo Solution” -podcast. It delves into paleo basics, answers listener questions and interviews many doctors, biochemists and paleo pioneers. Another pretty good series about health is Chris Kresser's podcast and Dave Asprey's “Bulletproof Diet” (Bulletproof lifestyle includes also Dual N Back -training which is a brain exercise for masochists). If you want to be more thorough, then those same guys have more detailed blogs as well. Also blogs like “Nephropal”, “Cooling Inflammation” and Cordain's “The Paleo Diet” contain a lot of useful information.

 

P.S. This post is for educational and informational purposes only and should not be considered as medical advice. Consult a doctor before making any drastic changes in your life and always do your own research.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

  Hello fellow voluntarists! I wanted to make this post a long time ago so without further ado I'll cut to the chase. This post is for all those persons who want to improve their health through diet and exercise. We have surely all heard the phrase “Eat less and exercise more and you'll get in shape”. Sadly, this is a crude oversimplification that doesn't help too many people. Calories are not equivalent for humans in a sense that 1 k cal sugar would be the same as 1 k cal fat (because they have very different biochemical responses) and neither does exercise make you thinner easily.

  So why am I posting this in the vegan thread? Well, mainly because I want to help the sufferers of the vegetarian and other health myths (regarding for example cholesterol, ketosis or fat ). Posting this in the paleo threads would just result in one more voice in the echo chamber of “primalism”. So what do I have against veganism? Simply put it is likely to make you sick. Yes, I know we humans are omnivores but that doesn't mean all diets would be equally healthy to us. It is critically important to optimize it in order to thrive.

Second issue I have with the vegan claims is that it doesn't hurt animals. This is untrue because harvesting, pesticides, and ploughing do kill a lot of animals. And what happened to all the animals who used to live in the forest/prairie that is agricultural land now? It is possible that meat consumers kill more animals than vegans by their eating habits but the score certainly isn't 100-0.

My recommendation for you would be to test the so called paleo/primal lifestyle. The basic idea behind it is to mimic the diet (and some other habits like natural movement etc.) that humans had before agriculture. The diet consists of a lot of green leafy vegetables, tubers, good meat, fish and fats. It includes almost no processed foods (some supplements like Mg, Zn or D3 are needed), sugar and only moderate amount of fruits and berries. Although not scientifically proven (i.e. no double blind studies are done about this) the anecdotal evidence and epidemiological studies suggest that it works well. My own N=1 -experiment basically gave me my life back so understandably I can't take this stuff very unenthusiastically.

  In my opinion one of the best podcast series about paleo diet is Robb Wolfs “The Paleo Solution” -podcast. It delves into paleo basics, answers listener questions and interviews many doctors, biochemists and paleo pioneers. Another pretty good series about health is Chris Kresser's podcast and Dave Asprey's “Bulletproof Diet” (Bulletproof lifestyle includes also Dual N Back -training which is a brain exercise for masochists). If you want to be more thorough, then those same guys have more detailed blogs as well. Also blogs like “Nephropal”, “Cooling Inflammation” and Cordain's “The Paleo Diet” contain a lot of useful information.

 

P.S. This post is for educational and informational purposes only and should not be considered as medical advice. Consult a doctor before making any drastic changes in your life and always do your own research.

What scientific evidence (i.e. primary research, not fad diet books) do you have that supports the notion that vegan diets are unhealthy?

 

What scientific evidence (i.e. primary research, not fad diet books) do you have that supports the notion that paleo diets are healthy?

[Hubot]

Answers to the questions:

 

A. Evidence (allthough still weak) that vegan diet is not healthy.

 

  Firstly I have to state that direct, strict evidence of vegan diet being unhealthy does not exist. No double blind experiments or even epidemiological comparing vegan diet to say primal have been made so far. The only studies about vegan diet compare it to typical western diets (which are extremely unhealthy). Meat consumption is usually lumped in the same group in these studies regardless if it is grass-fed bison meat or fried, industrially manufactured chicken meat. So obviously vegan diets will deliver better results than Joe Average's supersizing food choices. However, I see five big problems with the vegan diet:

 

1. Too much carbohydrates causes type II diabetes.

 

Gross, Lee S., et al. "Increased consumption of refined carbohydrates and the epidemic of type 2 diabetes in the United States: an ecologic assessment." The American journal of clinical nutrition 79.5 (2004): 774-779.

 

2. Some evidence suggests lectins (in plants and especially in grains, nuts and beans) may lead to autoimmune disease. This is not yet very well researched.

 

Freed, David LJ. "Do dietary lectins cause disease?: The evidence is suggestive—and raises interesting possibilities for treatment." BMJ: British Medical Journal 318.7190 (1999): 1023.

 

Jordinson, Mark, Raymond J. Playford, and John Calam. "Effects of a panel of dietary lectins on cholecystokinin release in rats." American Journal of Physiology-Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology 273.4 (1997): G946-G950.

 

Cordain, Loren, et al. "Modulation of immune function by dietary lectins in rheumatoid arthritis." British Journal of Nutrition 83.03 (2000): 207-217.

 

 

3. Vegans not getting enough DHA, which is crucial for our brain.

 

Rosell, Magdalena S., et al. "Long-chain n–3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in plasma in British meat-eating, vegetarian, and vegan men." The American journal of clinical nutrition 82.2 (2005): 327-334.

 

 

4. Vegans not getting enough B12 and/or the cofactors.

 

Obersby, Derek, et al. "Plasma total homocysteine status of vegetarians compared with omnivores: a systematic review and meta-analysis." British Journal of Nutrition 109.05 (2013): 785-794.

 

Woo, Kam S., Timothy CY Kwok, and David S. Celermajer. "Vegan Diet, Subnormal Vitamin B-12 Status and Cardiovascular Health." Nutrients 6.8 (2014): 3259-3273.

 

 

5. Vegans not getting enough D3.

 

Crowe, Francesca L., et al. "Plasma concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in meat eaters, fish eaters, vegetarians and vegans: results from the EPIC–Oxford study." Public health nutrition 14.02 (2011): 340-346.

 

 

 

B. Second question was about evidence for paleo diet being optimal for human beings. Unfortunately no one has done any double blind studies here either. The only evidence we have is epidemiological at best and prehistorical (based on for ex. bone structures of fossiles) at worst.

 

1. Constrains carbohydrate consumption to safe levels preventing diabetes II.

 

Jönsson, Tommy, et al. "Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study." Cardiovasc Diabetol 8.35 (2009): 1-14.

 

 

2. Prevents crosslinking of sugars and protein for the same reason.

 

Brownlee, MD, Michael. "Advanced protein glycosylation in diabetes and aging." Annual review of medicine 46.1 (1995): 223-234.

 

 

3. Prevents metabolic syndrome.

 

Frassetto, Lynda A., et al. "Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet." European journal of clinical nutrition 63.8 (2009): 947-955.

 

 

4. Removes most of the common food allergens from the diet (like gluten and casein). Here is some evidence that those compounds are more dangerous than we've thought.

 

Wildner, Gerhild, and Maria Diedrichs‐Möhring. "Autoimmune uveitis induced by molecular mimicry of peptides from rotavirus, bovine casein and retinal S‐antigen." European journal of immunology 33.9 (2003): 2577-2587.

 

Kamiński, Stanisław, Anna Cieślińska, and Elżbieta Kostyra. "Polymorphism of bovine beta-casein and its potential effect on human health." Journal of applied genetics 48.3 (2007): 189-198.

 

Catassi, Carlo, et al. "Non-Celiac Gluten sensitivity: the new frontier of gluten related disorders." Nutrients 5.10 (2013): 3839-3853.

 

 

5. Delivers you the nutrients in a very bioavailable way, only some supplements are needed (See points 3-5 in my vegan answer).

 

More articles (I have read only couple of them) about the benefits of paleo at http://thepaleodiet.com/research/

 

At this point I have to mention that I'm not expert on these issues - I have no medical/biochemical/biology background so feel free to point out the mistakes in the articles. They should all be available as pdf with a simple google Scholar search.

[corbyco]

As a Vegan I have been checking that I am getting everything I need and my yearly medical confirms it is working well.

 

Of course, whatever 'diet' you are on it behooves you to check its balanced if you want to avoid the most common causes of early death.

 

This video is an excellent part of a study into the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7KeRwdIH04

 

After this I added ground flax seed (for Omega 3)  and checked my B12 from the alternative milks and taken some supplements when I have felt necessary.

[J. D. Stembal]

As a Vegan I have been checking that I am getting everything I need and my yearly medical confirms it is working well.

 

Of course, whatever 'diet' you are on it behooves you to check its balanced if you want to avoid the most common causes of early death.

 

This video is an excellent part of a study into the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7KeRwdIH04

 

After this I added ground flax seed (for Omega 3)  and checked my B12 from the alternative milks and taken some supplements when I have felt necessary.

 

What is the definition of the word, balanced? You don't eat any meat or animal products. How can that possibly be called balanced? You are certainly deficient in saturated fats or do you eat at least one coconut every day?

 

The closest correlation between biomarkers and heart disease is with triglycerides and high density lipoproteins. The latter is an inverse relationship, so you want a higher number for HDL. What raises your triglycerides levels? Consuming alcohols and sugars. What raises your HDL? Not consuming alcohols and sugars, and consuming more calories from protein and fat.