Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets
in [Vegetarian]
|
From: crisology on 12 Aug 2008 06:07 On Aug 8, 7:12 pm, arch...(a)scfas.com wrote: > "This is the message Pearl originally responded to. She explained why > supplements were now necessary to restore B12 that has been depleted. > Ancestors adapted to B12 readily available in natural plant diet. You" > > Prehumans had access to animal based vit b12 for some millions of years. > No need to speculate about a time when they ate plant foods only. By the > time of modern humans, 100 k years ago, humans had been fully engaged in > eating anything they could get their hands on for a long long time. "A long long time" is very very misleading without anatomical adaptations that would allow humans to digest meat as well as fruit or a ratio for context. Before fire kindling meat was rarely eaten, if at all. And definitely not for nutritional reasons. No nutritional requirements for meat have been established for chimps or humans to this day. On the contrary, meat makes humans & chimps sick. 100,000 yrs of meat supplemented diet/63,000,000 yrs of herbivorous/ frugivorous adaptation = .1587% of primate evolution. There, that's not so long to supplement a diet w/meat until the weather changes again. "long long time" is only cheer leading. Chris
From: archaea on 12 Aug 2008 09:42 "This is the message Pearl originally responded to. She explained why supplements were now necessary to restore B12 that has been depleted. Ancestors adapted to B12 readily available in natural plant diet. You" No, she asserted that plants could be a source and the "depletion" explained why they are no longer. This is called in logic begging the question and special pleading. > Prehumans had access to animal based vit b12 for some millions of years. > No need to speculate about a time when they ate plant foods only. By the > time of modern humans, 100 k years ago, humans had been fully engaged in > eating anything they could get their hands on for a long long time. ""A long long time" is very very misleading without anatomical adaptations that would allow humans to digest meat as well as fruit or a ratio for context. Before fire kindling meat was rarely eaten, if at all. And definitely not for nutritional reasons. No nutritional requirements for meat have been established for chimps or humans to this day. On the contrary, meat makes humans & chimps sick." When you eat a hamburger does chewed undigested meat appear in your feces? Humans even today eat raw animal products, evidence from the distant past shows butchering sites long long before fire was used. The basic amino acids and fats of meat are critical but need not be sourced from meat alone. For the most part once metabolized those meat substances do not appear to the body any different then similar found in plant and other sources. Does meat make cats sick or will they die without it? "100,000 yrs of meat supplemented diet/63,000,000 yrs of herbivorous/ frugivorous adaptation = .1587% of primate evolution. There, that's not so long to supplement a diet w/meat until the weather changes again." In that smaller latter period of human evolution all parts of the globe were occupied in all climates. Meat usage has been suggested as a primary reason humans can easily occupy any place on earth, weather notwithstanding. A fruit only diet would find a great part of the globe off limits to humans. ""long long time" is only cheer leading."" Huh?
From: archaea on 12 Aug 2008 10:06 > > The only question of interest to me is where in the cycle do humans tap > > into the cycle as they make dietary choices or respond to those they can > > make given various restrictions. > > "Like when humans travel to the frigid poles of the earth or food > irradiation "restrictions?" > Fascinating..." > > I'm not sure I follow your question. My comment was in followup to a > previous point that humans because of cultural choices or because of > poverty might have a largely plant based diet. "Your cryptic "various restrictions" of culture & finance have nothing to do with adaptation to eat a plant based diet for health reasons. If some people are financially limited (another subject) they may not choose to purchase meat but other poor people kill and ingest rodents/ mammals/eggs," etc, regardless of financial situation." Who is saying otherwise? This is known as a strawman argument,ie. slay an inderectly related strawman and declare the real topic also refuted. Poverty prevents a large fraction of the globe from eating meat not at all or as much as they wish which would otherwise be their choice. Often they do have access directly or indirectly to animal products, including those whose first choice would be to eat plants alone but get the animal products nonetheless. > In which case they would > have to make choices about supplimenting vit b12 accordingly from the drug > store or eating soil or feces or directly or indirectly from animal > products. "Just buy a pill or food that has been replenished with B12. This is easily/routinely accomplished without financial limitations, consuming feces or cultural pressure. There is no shortage of available B12 on a plant based diet today outside the city limits of cultures that have not abandoned their ecological niche. " Replinished means added to foods not having them in nature. Afford is not a reality for most of the world's population. Feces are directly or indirectly the source for some of them. South india where traditional farming methods prevail and mostly plants are used have high levels of vit b12 deficiency. Those who were not farmers else where consume animal products. "There was no shortage of available B12 on plant based diets while direct lineage was adapting for 63 million yrs. There are no B12 deficiencies known among wild great apes in habitat. There is no B12 issue except for the irrelevant, off topic modern cultural/financial "restrictions" you are trying to carve out while ignoring adaptation and health in general." And all animals find it either in the soil or in feces or by consuming animal products or producing it in their own large gut. They ignore financual considerations has they have for millions of years. Bacteria produce vit b12, not plants.
From: dh on 12 Aug 2008 08:57 On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 03:07:55 -0700 (PDT), crisology <crisology(a)aol.com> wrote: >On Aug 8, 7:12 pm, arch...(a)scfas.com wrote: >> "This is the message Pearl originally responded to. She explained why >> supplements were now necessary to restore B12 that has been depleted. >> Ancestors adapted to B12 readily available in natural plant diet. You" >> >> Prehumans had access to animal based vit b12 for some millions of years. >> No need to speculate about a time when they ate plant foods only. By the >> time of modern humans, 100 k years ago, humans had been fully engaged in >> eating anything they could get their hands on for a long long time. > >"A long long time" is very very misleading without anatomical >adaptations that would allow humans to digest meat as well as fruit or >a ratio for context. Before fire kindling meat was rarely eaten, if at >all. And definitely not for nutritional reasons. No nutritional >requirements for meat have been established for chimps or humans to >this day. On the contrary, meat makes humans & chimps sick. > >100,000 yrs of meat supplemented diet/63,000,000 yrs of herbivorous/ >frugivorous adaptation = .1587% of primate evolution. There, that's >not so long to supplement a diet w/meat until the weather changes >again. > >"long long time" is only cheer leading. > >Chris "Pearl" is from Ireland and therefore would not exist if humans didn't eat meat. I seriously doubt that any of us would, meaning that not only are we *capable* of eating meat, but that meat eating was NECESSARY in order for us to even exist.
From: dh on 12 Aug 2008 08:57
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:36:22 -0700 (PDT), crisology <crisology(a)aol.com> wrote: >There is no shortage of available B12 on a plant based diet today >outside the city limits of cultures that have not abandoned their >ecological niche. Why do you think there is not? Do you think that's true regardless of what plants a person eats, or do you think they must eat certain plants in order to make your claim true? If the latter, what exactly must they eat in order for your claim to be correct? |