"usual suspect" wrote in message
...

Veg-ns tend to suffer from anemia (iron deficiency), pernicious anemia
(B12 deficiency), and other such vitamin and mineral deficiencies.

'An American study found that organically grown food contained
much higher average levels of minerals than non-organic food. For
example, there was 63 per cent more calcium, 73 per cent more iron,
125 per cent more potassium and 60 per cent more zinc in the
organically produced foods. There was also 29 per cent less of the
toxic element mercury.'
http://www.ekolantbruk.se/PDFer/Myth...%20reality.pdf

B12 is present in non-cobalt depleted 'cide-sterilized healthy soil,
and taken up by plants. Enteric bacteria in a healthy (non-antibiotic
treated) small intestine also produce vitamin B12, as long as the
plants we eat contain cobalt - which is also taken up from soil.

"Rubystars" wrote in message
m...
"Dutch" wrote in message Vegans are at risk for other
eating disorders such as "orthorexia nervosa",
an obsessive concern that everything in one's be "healthy", and one I
have
defined, "ethixsia nervosa", manifested in symptoms like a neurotic fear
that microscopic particles of animal cells might be in one's food, and
the
unshakable perception that killing animals for meat is immoral.

Whether killing animals for meat is immoral or not is really a
personal decision people have to make for themselves.

Vegan/ARAs don't look at it that way, if they did there would be no debate.

I don't think
it's fair to hate or look down on other people for feeling differently
than one's self on the matter though. It's similar to differing
feelings on the death penalty.

As for the "microscopic particles" bit, I see two sides to it. One I
can understand, that if someone is vegetarian, they're not going to
want to eat food that has gelatin in it, or vegetables cooked in bacon
grease. If vegan they're not going to be eating foods with whey.
That's common sense to me.

Those are more than microscopic particles.

However there's another side to it. I saw a girl on MTV's "The Real
World" back when I watched that show as a teenager. She was a
self-described vegan. The group all went out to this Hawaiian luau
where a pig had been roasted. (Apparently, the producers of the show
wanted to set her up for a dramatic scene, and in that way, I
sympathize with her.)She showed disgust at the idea of roasting a
whole pig, but as far as I can remember, she didn't get overly
preachy. I think she wanted to hang out with her new friends so she
participated in the luau by eating some steamed greens that were
available as a side dish. After she had eaten a whole bowl of it,
someone informed her that the greens had pig fat in them. I can
understand her being upset, but what she did I think was a sign that
veganism had become an eating disorder in her case. She prompty went
to the public bathroom nearby and vomited her meal.

She may have been bulemic anyway, or I wonder if she would have puked if she
hadn't been told.

I don't see how that helped her, the pig, or anyone else, other than
to make people avoid the kind of strict diet she was apparently a part
of. All it did was waste food and damage herself. I sincerely hope
that most vegans wouldn't do that kind of thing.

Vegans will make a scene about restaurant condiments that *may* contain
small amounts of anchovy paste, etc..

I also don't understand some people's peculiar need to have meat and
other food cooked in separate pots and utensils (or even a separate
room) even though they were washed. That seems too obsessive to me.

Veganism starts as a diet and morphs gradually into an intolerant religion.

(Rubystars) wrote in message om...

Whether killing animals for meat is immoral or not is really a
personal decision people have to make for themselves.

So you defend needless murder and torture of animals just because
you think tasting good is more important?

I will still lobby for laws to throw people in prison for it.
Taking marijuana and cocaine, suicide, prostitution, and
pornography are personal decisions which people
should be allowed to make for themselves.

I don't think
it's fair to hate or look down on other people for feeling differently
than one's self on the matter though. It's similar to differing
feelings on the death penalty.

Fine. But then you should not look down on adults who want to have
sex with children. Nor should you look down on those who favor
euthanizing disabled babies or elderly. Whether or not you agree
with them or not is not the issue.

I don't see how that helped her, the pig, or anyone else, other than

I agree. It doesn't. But there was still no reason to kill a pig for
a stupid television show.

I also don't understand some people's peculiar need to have meat and
other food cooked in separate pots and utensils (or even a separate
room) even though they were washed. That seems too obsessive to me.

I agree with that, too. After the fact does not help.
That is why it is important to shut down the factory farms and breeding
facilities, at the source.

You, Rubystars, is the one obsessed with people's eating habits,
defending any of them. I saw on the news that the Fiji Islanders
made an official apology for their ancestors cannibalizing a
Christian missionary. That is a nice gesture, but it is too late
and does nothing to help that missionary their ancestors ate.

usual suspect wrote in message . ..

It works both ways, but I think it can be objectively argued that

bullshit snipped

There is nothing to debate here. Veganism & vegetarianism have
nothing to do with eating disorders or any psychological disorders.
For one thing, there is no such thing as an "eating disorder".
Rubystar and Usual Suspect agree and believe that anorexia nervosa
is a lifestyle choice. It is those who push meat on their kids all the
time who have the mental disorders.

Anorexia nervosa in susceptible patients include those with multiple
surgical procedures or illnesses, stress secondary to childbirth or
marriage, or death of a spouse.

There is no such thing as an "eating disorder".
Just because you do not have anorexia nervosa does not mean
you should look down on those who do or judge them to have
"psychological problems".

"piddock" wrote in message
om...
(Rubystars) wrote in message
om...

Whether killing animals for meat is immoral or not is really a
personal decision people have to make for themselves.

So you defend needless murder and torture of animals just because
you think tasting good is more important?
======================
So what? You defend AND support needless cruelty and torture of animals for
nothing more than *your* usnet entertainment.
I suggest you take up watching bullfighting for your pleasure. Far fewer
animals die there than for your contributions to usenet.



I will still lobby for laws to throw people in prison for it.
Taking marijuana and cocaine, suicide, prostitution, and
pornography are personal decisions which people
should be allowed to make for themselves.
=====================
Prison? Where you are now, right stupid?


I don't think
it's fair to hate or look down on other people for feeling differently
than one's self on the matter though. It's similar to differing
feelings on the death penalty.

Fine. But then you should not look down on adults who want to have
sex with children. Nor should you look down on those who favor
euthanizing disabled babies or elderly. Whether or not you agree
with them or not is not the issue.

I don't see how that helped her, the pig, or anyone else, other than

I agree. It doesn't. But there was still no reason to kill a pig for
a stupid television show.
=================
There were no good reason for you to kill animals to post this ignorant
nonsense to usenet either, but you still did it. Why is that killer?
Just like the blood on you habds and the bloody footprints you track around
the world for your stupidity?



I also don't understand some people's peculiar need to have meat and
other food cooked in separate pots and utensils (or even a separate
room) even though they were washed. That seems too obsessive to me.

I agree with that, too. After the fact does not help.
That is why it is important to shut down the factory farms and breeding
facilities, at the source.

You, Rubystars, is the one obsessed with people's eating habits,
defending any of them. I saw on the news that the Fiji Islanders
made an official apology for their ancestors cannibalizing a
Christian missionary. That is a nice gesture, but it is too late
and does nothing to help that missionary their ancestors ate.
----------------------
Just as your 'claiming' to be a compassionate vegan does nothing for all the
animals you kill merely for you entertainment and selfish convenience.
What a hypocrite. A sanctimonious, windbag, hypocrite...


Now, go have that nice blood-drenched lunch, killer...

piddock wrote:
It works both ways, but I think it can be objectively argued that

bullshit snipped

It wasn't bullshit, it's affirmed by science.

There is nothing to debate here.

Then why are you snipping what you can't refute?

Veganism & vegetarianism have
nothing to do with eating disorders or any psychological disorders.

They've everything to do with disorders.

For one thing, there is no such thing as an "eating disorder".

Ipse dixit. Prove it.

Rubystar and Usual Suspect agree and believe that anorexia nervosa
is a lifestyle choice.

I don't think either of us ever said that. I know *I* didn't.

It is those who push meat on their kids all the
time who have the mental disorders.

I think the ones with mental orders are totalitarians -- dietary
fascists -- who'd ban meat altogether. You're certainly intolerant, but
I think your intolerance is a symptom of deeper issues.

Anorexia nervosa in susceptible patients include those with multiple
surgical procedures or illnesses, stress secondary to childbirth or
marriage, or death of a spouse.

There is no such thing as an "eating disorder".

Ipse dixit. Prove it.

Just because you do not have anorexia nervosa does not mean
you should look down on those who do or judge them to have
"psychological problems".

I look down on you. WAY down.

(piddock) wrote in message
snip
So you defend needless murder and torture of animals just because
you think tasting good is more important?

It's not really even about taste. Yeah, meat is tasty. *L* Still, I
think the major reason people eat meat around the world is because
it's nutritious.

Humans are natural omnivores. It's the way our ancestors have lived
for a long, long time.

You don't rage and complain when a raccoon eats Crawfish, insects,
birds, eggs, fish, and rabbits. Why should you rage and complain when
a human does it?

Veganism is a non-mainstream choice of diet with risks of improper
nutrition if done incorrectly, and some who do "all the right things"
still end up having to go off the diet.

I had a very good friend who was a vegetarian (not even a vegan) and
she ended up with an iron deficiency, and her doctor ordered her to
eat a little meat every day. She said it grossed her out
(understandably) but she did it and her health improved.

Whether your body's natural tendency is to be omnivorous or not is not
a choice. It's part of humanity's natural history.

Whether or not you eat an omnivorous diet is a choice, however.
Veganism is a choice that is non-mainstream because most people follow
their natural tendencies.

The reason then, that I said killing animals for meat is a personal
choice whether you consider it immoral or not, is that if it bothers
you (or at least if current methods bother you), you shouldn't
contribute to it.

I will still lobby for laws to throw people in prison for it.
Taking marijuana and cocaine, suicide, prostitution, and
pornography are personal decisions which people
should be allowed to make for themselves.

I see you're either a liberal or a libertarian.

Fine. But then you should not look down on adults who want to have
sex with children.

Now you're just being silly. You're comparing the rape of a child to
the humane slaughter of a cow.

Nor should you look down on those who favor
euthanizing disabled babies or elderly.
Whether or not you agree
with them or not is not the issue.

Well since I'm pro life I certainly don't agree with that but even
most liberals I know wouldn't want to harm babies that were already
born or elderly people who can't defend themselves. However, I could
be wrong and the morality of most of them could have departed from
what I hold to be right and wrong even further than I'd ever imagined.

I agree. It doesn't. But there was still no reason to kill a pig for
a stupid television show.

I don't like it when animals are killed just for tv shows either. That
"Fear Factor" show is awful, for example. I was flipping channels and
saw this exotic animal I was considering buying as an arthropod pet
one day, a whip scorpion (no sting) that's from Thailand. This girl
chewed it up for a chance to get some money. An interesting and exotic
animal crushed for mass entertainment. Sickening.

In the case of the Real World show however, I think there was already
going to be the luau, and they were just scheduled to attend it.

I agree with that, too. After the fact does not help.
That is why it is important to shut down the factory farms and breeding
facilities, at the source.

Are you against factory farms, or all farms that raise animals for
meat?

You, Rubystars, is the one obsessed with people's eating habits,
defending any of them.

I don't think that I have to make any excuses or apologize for what I
eat. I see nothing wrong with it. I also don't care what you or other
people eat. I feel like everyone should follow their own principles
and desires.

You're the one who wants to throw people in jail for eating meat. If
that's not policing other people's personal lives, I don't know what
is.

I saw on the news that the Fiji Islanders
made an official apology for their ancestors cannibalizing a
Christian missionary. That is a nice gesture, but it is too late
and does nothing to help that missionary their ancestors ate.

The missionary was a human being. You keep trying your hardest to
pretend like human beings are morally equivalent to other animals.
Maybe you believe that, and I suppose you'll believe whatever you
want, but I certainly disagree.

-Rubystars

piddock wrote:
usual suspect wrote in message . ..


It works both ways, but I think it can be objectively argued that


bullshit snipped

There is nothing to debate here. Veganism & vegetarianism have
nothing to do with eating disorders or any psychological disorders.

Wrong. "veganism", at least, IS an eating disorder per se.

For one thing, there is no such thing as an "eating disorder".

Wrong again.

Rubystar and Usual Suspect agree and believe that anorexia nervosa
is a lifestyle choice. It is those who push meat on their kids all the
time who have the mental disorders.


Anorexia nervosa in susceptible patients include those with multiple
surgical procedures or illnesses, stress secondary to childbirth or
marriage, or death of a spouse.


There is no such thing as an "eating disorder".
Just because you do not have anorexia nervosa does not mean
you should look down on those who do or judge them to have
"psychological problems".

(piddock) wrote in message
There is nothing to debate here. Veganism & vegetarianism have
nothing to do with eating disorders or any psychological disorders.

Generally, I agree with you. However, any special diets may be
something that people use to cover their eating disorders. If they
begin to think that certain foods are "evil" or "toxic" and they get
too obssessed with it, I think it could form into an eating disorder.

For one thing, there is no such thing as an "eating disorder".
Rubystar and Usual Suspect agree and believe that anorexia nervosa
is a lifestyle choice. It is those who push meat on their kids all the
time who have the mental disorders.

I don't think anorexia is a lifestyle choice at all (though it may
have started out that way). It's a disease and people need help to get
better, and may never be cured.

Vegetarianism/Veganism is a lifestyle choice. I think that was
probably what you meant but I wanted to make that clear.

I disagree with you that there is no such thing as an eating disorder.
Those people who have to live through the hell of having them (losing
teeth, losing hair, becoming infertile, suffering deficiencies,
thinking they're fat even though they're under 100 lbs.) are not
choosing to be that way.

There is no such thing as an "eating disorder".
Just because you do not have anorexia nervosa does not mean
you should look down on those who do or judge them to have
"psychological problems".

Have you ever seen the skeletal images of people who are around 85
lbs. and still consider themselves to be huge? That is a psychological
problem, as well as a medical issue.

-Rubystars

"Rubystars" wrote in message
om...

Humans are natural omnivores.

"Evidence suggests that eating even small amounts of
animal- based foods is linked at least for many individuals
to significantly higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular
diseases typically found in the United States."
http://www.news.cornell.edu/general/...ramid.ssl.html
- were humans *natural* omnivores, that is, adapted to efficiently
digest and derive nutrients from animal flesh without adverse effects,
the above wouldn't be the case.

It's the way our ancestors have lived for a long, long time.

'Paleoecological reconstruction is possible through the study of
correlates to environment and ecology. Plants and animals which
existed in particular types of environments are carefully extracted
and catalogued as fluctuations in the biosphere over a period of time.
Added to this is the use of oxygen isotopes, which indicate worldwide
temperature fluctuations. More recently, analysis of aeolian (wind)
dust deposition has provided a more detailed record of climate
change and seasonality. All of these forms of evidence point towards
an increasingly cold and dry environment with greater seasonality
during the late Miocene and Pliocene eras. Reduction in forested
areas most likely spelled to end for many Miocene hominoid species.
The hominids successfully adapted to open savanna and woodland
environments, developing a series of different strategies for predator
defense, foraging, and social behavior. One of these behavioral
adaptations was possibly a shift to accomodate quantities of meat
in the diet, to augment plant resources.
...
Much of the archaeological evidence also points to a shift in dietary
composition, although direct evidence of meat eating is rarely found.
Instead, meat eating has been inferred from many different sources.
One source is through the interpretation of presence and quantity of
different skeletal elements found in living floors (supposed places of
hominid occupation). High densities of bones found in association
with stone tools have led researchers to believe that processing and
consumption of carcasses took place at these sites. However,
interpretation of this information can often be misleading, particularly
if taphonomy has not been adequately investigated. Accumulations
of bones and stone tools, while intriguing as evidence of hominid
meat-eating, could also be the result of unrelated processes. Careful
examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine
depositional integrity."
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anth...h12/chap12.htm

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Rubystars" wrote in message
om...

Humans are natural omnivores.

"Evidence suggests that eating even small amounts of
animal- based foods is linked at least for many individuals
to significantly higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular
diseases typically found in the United States."
http://www.news.cornell.edu/general/...ramid.ssl.html
- were humans *natural* omnivores, that is, adapted to efficiently
digest and derive nutrients from animal flesh without adverse effects,
the above wouldn't be the case.

I think you're wrong there. In hunter-gatherer societies, which humans were
for most of our history, most of the food is of plant origin, but meat is
still consumed at regular intervals. A successful hunt brings home meat to
be shared, but not every day. Gatherers also pick up eggs when possible. I
think it's the over-consumption of meat that is the problem, not meat
itself. If we based all of our meals (with rare exceptions) around avocados,
coconuts, and fried tofu, (instead of beef, chicken, and pork) with side
dishes to complement them, then you'd see a ton of health problems.that way
too.

Fires for cooking meat go all the way back to Homo erectus, and even further
back are tools being made by Homo habilis to cut meat up. Even chimpanzees,
which share a common ancestor with us around 5 million years ago, eat
termites regularly and sometimes kill monkeys or other prey.

Hunting weapons and animal-product artifacts can be found from other
ancestors and relatives, Homo heidelbergensis, for example. Our sister
species (now extinct) Homo neanderthalensis (alternately known as Homo
sapiens neanderthalensis) ate a very heavy meat diet and wore skins. One of
the characteristics of modern humans is that they not only used stone, but
also antler, bone, and ivory. One of the earliest ways of saving water was
inside of an ostrich shell (a practice still continued today by some people
in Africa).

"Animal flesh" doesn't have adverse effects. Overconsumption of any type of
food does. Fish provide many essential nutrients including those Omega fatty
acids that are so good for people. Beef is rich in iron. Baked chicken is
low in fat and also very nutritious. Other meats also have benefits, when
eaten in moderation.

Dairy products are not only high in calcium but also protein and other
things that are good for people, especially when fortified with extra
vitamins. Eggs are a nutritional powerhouse, giving almost everything except
vitamin C and fiber. They need to be nutritional to provide food for the
growing embryos inside (if they were fertile).

Snip
The hominids successfully adapted to open savanna and woodland
environments, developing a series of different strategies for predator
defense, foraging, and social behavior. One of these behavioral
adaptations was possibly a shift to accomodate quantities of meat
in the diet, to augment plant resources.

Meat is a lot easier to digest than plant matter. Herbivores have much
longer intestines and more specialized teeth than we do. They may even have
multiple chambers or "stomachs." Our puny appendix in no way compares to
that of a koala, for example, and we don't even need it to be healthy.

We have both tearing teeth and grinding teeth (though not strong enough to
grind tough grains without processing).

Much of the archaeological evidence also points to a shift in dietary
composition, although direct evidence of meat eating is rarely found.
Instead, meat eating has been inferred from many different sources.
One source is through the interpretation of presence and quantity of
different skeletal elements found in living floors (supposed places of
hominid occupation). High densities of bones found in association
with stone tools have led researchers to believe that processing and
consumption of carcasses took place at these sites.

When there are scraper marks on the bones and the marrow has been extracted,
it's pretty darn certain.

However,
interpretation of this information can often be misleading, particularly
if taphonomy has not been adequately investigated. Accumulations
of bones and stone tools, while intriguing as evidence of hominid
meat-eating, could also be the result of unrelated processes. Careful
examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine
depositional integrity."
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anth...h12/chap12.htm

Spears and knives and hide scrapers and hand axes, and tools made of bone
and antler, and statues made of ivory weren't mentioned in that article. I
wonder why?

-Rubystars

"Rubystars" wrote in message . ..

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Rubystars" wrote in message
om...

Humans are natural omnivores.

"Evidence suggests that eating even small amounts of
animal- based foods is linked at least for many individuals
to significantly higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular
diseases typically found in the United States."
http://www.news.cornell.edu/general/...ramid.ssl.html
- were humans *natural* omnivores, that is, adapted to efficiently
digest and derive nutrients from animal flesh without adverse effects,
the above wouldn't be the case.

I think you're wrong there.

Where?

In hunter-gatherer societies, which humans were
for most of our history, most of the food is of plant origin, but meat is
still consumed at regular intervals.

Your evidence that meat was always consumed at regular intervals?

A successful hunt brings home meat to
be shared, but not every day. Gatherers also pick up eggs when possible.

'Dr. Katherine Milton, professor of anthropology at the University
of California, has found that dental patterns among fossils of early
humans supports evidence of a high quality, plant-based diet, closely
related to the ninety-four percent plant and fruit diet of chimpanzees. |+
...
Paleolithic humans had some tools to hunt with, but they were not
as useful as tools used by the modern hunter-gatherer. Professor
Jared Diamond explains how the diet of early humans depended on
their tools. He describes how he was invited on a hunt by a tribe in
New Guinea that retained Stone Age "technology" and habits.
Surprisingly, after an entire day of hunting, the tribe returned with
only two baby birds, a few frogs, and mushrooms.

Although the men of the tribe frequently boasted of the large animals
they had killed, when pressed for details, they admitted that large
animals were killed only a few times in a hunter's career. These
peoples' stone tools were far more advanced than the stone tools
found on prehistoric sites, so Professor Diamond thinks it unlikely
that prehistoric hunters could have enjoyed a much higher success
rate than present day hunter-gatherer tribes

This suggests that since a modern hunter-gathering group was not
very successful, then it was highly unlikely for our ancestors to be
able catch even one large prey with their limited equipment. Like
the New Guinea tribe, groups such as the Kalahari bushman and
the Australian aborigines gather much of their food in the form of
roots, fruit, nuts and other nutritious plant products. The proportions
by weight of vegetable food and animal food in their diet compared
with modern humans are about 81.3% vegetable and 18.7% animal.'
http://webpub.allegheny.edu/employee...FS101/Research
Papers/StephaniePeske.html

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

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

High levels of calcium excretion via renal losses are seen with both
high salt and high protein diets, in each case at levels common in the
United States.10,11
..
The only hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss
were the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical
activity level was high, their osteoporosis incidence exceeded
even present-day levels in the United States. The Inuit diet was
high in phosphorus and protein and low in calcium.20
http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/full...alcium4-2.html
*emphasis added

I
think it's the over-consumption of meat that is the problem, not meat
itself.

Again;

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

If we based all of our meals (with rare exceptions) around avocados,
coconuts, and fried tofu, (instead of beef, chicken, and pork) with side
dishes to complement them, then you'd see a ton of health problems.that way
too.

'The Cornell-China-Oxford Project is a massive survey
of more than 10,000 families in mainland China and Taiwan
designed to study diet, lifestyle and disease across the far
reaches of China. By investigating simultaneously more
diseases and more dietary characteristics than any other
study to date, the project has generated the most
comprehensive database in the world on the multiple causes
of disease. Much of the research behind the pyramid is based
on the China project's research findings.
...
"This pyramid reflects the growing body of research that
suggests that Americans will not reduce their rate of cancers,
cardiovascular disease and other chronic, degenerative
diseases until they shift their diets away from animal-based
foods to plant-based foods," Campbell said. "Evidence
suggests that eating even small amounts of animal- based
foods is linked at least for many individuals to significantly
higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular diseases typically
found in the United States." Further, he reported last year,
merely eating some low-fat foods or complying with current
U.S. dietary recommendations is unlikely to prevent much
disease. The dietary recommendations, Campbell said, do
not go far enough in reducing the total fat content of the
diet, or, more to the point, in advocating the exchange of
foods of animal origin for foods of plant origin.
...
"The nutrient composition of the traditional rural Asian diet
is very similar to the Mediterranean diet in that both are
largely plant-based and both pyramids recommend that
meat be consumed no more than once a month or more
often in very small amounts," said T. Colin Campbell,
Cornell professor of nutritional biochemistry, co-chair of
the conference and director of the Cornell-China-Oxford
Project. "However, the Asian diet, which is significantly
lower in total fat, may prove to be an even more healthful
diet," he added. '
http://www.news.cornell.edu/general/...ramid.ssl.html

Fires for cooking meat go all the way back to Homo erectus, and even further
back are tools being made by Homo habilis to cut meat up.

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

Even chimpanzees,
which share a common ancestor with us around 5 million years ago, eat
termites regularly and sometimes kill monkeys or other prey.

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

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

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

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

From 1963 to 1964, similar observations were found in Kasakati
Basin by a Kyoto University team, and when Izawa and Itani published
in 1966 they reported "no chimpanzees eating insects, vertebrates,
avian eggs, soil or tree leaves and found no trace in the 14 stools
that they inspected " (p.86). In contrast Kawabe and Suzuki found
the Kasakati chimps hunting in the same year (p.88), although only
14 of 174 fecal samples contained traces of insects and other animal
foods. So perhaps these differing observations are due to seasonal
variation, or even local differences (cultural variation) in feeding
preferences - Tuttle does not reveal which. Maybe some of the chimps
groups are 'vegetarian', while other are not. But see the Kortlandt
observations below before believing that all chimps are meat-eaters.
...
Kortlandt states that predation by chimpanzees on vertebrates is
undoubtedly a rather rare phenomenon among rainforest-dwelling
populations of chimpanzees. Kortlandt lists the reasons given below
in his evidence.

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

Kortlandt concludes this section on primate diets by saying that
the wealth of flora and insect fauna in the rain-forest provides
both chimpanzees and orang-utans with a dietary spectrum that seems
wide enough to meet their nutritional requirements, without hunting
and killing of vertebrates being necessary. It is in the poorer
nutritional environments, where plant sources may be scarce or of
low quality where carnivorous behaviour arises. Even then he says
that the meat obtained are minimal and perhaps insufficient to meet
basic needs. Finally he adds "The same conclusion applies, of course,
to hominids . . . it is strange that most palaeoanthropologists have
never been willing to accept the elementary facts on this matter
that have emerged from both nutritional science and primate research."
...'
http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/polemics.htm

Hunting weapons and animal-product artifacts can be found from other
ancestors and relatives, Homo heidelbergensis, for example. Our sister
species (now extinct) Homo neanderthalensis (alternately known as Homo
sapiens neanderthalensis)

extinct

ate a very heavy meat diet and wore skins. One of
the characteristics of modern humans is that they not only used stone, but
also antler, bone, and ivory. One of the earliest ways of saving water was
inside of an ostrich shell (a practice still continued today by some people
in Africa).

"Animal flesh" doesn't have adverse effects.
Overconsumption of any type of food does.

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

Fish provide many essential nutrients including those Omega fatty
acids that are so good for people.

So do some types of nuts and seeds.

Beef is rich in iron.

The Heme Iron Problem

Heme (blood) iron, cancer, and cardiovascular disease.
Iron encourages production of free radicals which can damage DNA
and presumably increase cancer risk. In a study of over 14,000 individuals,
high iron intake and high iron body stores were both positively linked to the
risk of colon cancer. Higher levels of iron were associated with higher
incidence of colon polyps, possible forerunners of colon tumors. However,
cancer patients themselves had low levels of stored iron, indicating that
cancer itself can deplete iron stores. [1]

Controversy has surrounded the question as to whether too much
iron in your diet raises your risk for heart disease. A new study from the
Harvard University School of Public Health brings new insight to the debate.
Lasting for 4 years, this research involved more than 50,000 male health
professionals. It was found that total iron intake was not associated with
heart disease risk. But the source of the iron was the principle factor.
High levels of heme iron raised risk for heart disease twofold. Heme iron
is the type of iron found in meat, chicken and fish.

Plant foods contain non-heme iron which appears to not be associated
with risk for heart attack. Traditionally, many nutritionists used to consider
non-heme iron to be inferior to the iron found in animal products, because
non-heme iron is somewhat less well absorbed. But new evidence suggests
that non-heme iron seems to be preferable.

When the body is low in iron, it can increase absorption of non-heme
iron, and it can reduce adsorption when it already has sufficient amounts.
The heme iron in meats tends to pass quickly right through the adsorption
mechanism, thus entering the blood stream whether it is needed or not.
Since vegetarians generally have adequate iron intake, it is clear that
non-heme iron can easily meet nutritional needs. Also, plant iron doesn't
create the health risks of heme iron.

Iron increases heart disease risks because heme iron acts as a
pro-oxidant, causing LDL-cholesterol -- the 'bad' cholesterol -- to react
with oxygen. This reaction is involved in the formation of plaques in the
arteries and therefore increases one's risk of cardiovascular problems. [2]

[1] Nelson, Davis, Suffer, Sobin, Kikeenddl, Bowen. Body iron stores
and risk of colonic neoplasia. J Natl Canc Inst 1994; 86:455-60

[2] Ascherio, Willett, Rimm, Giovannucci, Stampger. Dietary iron intake
and risk of coronary disease among men. Circulation 1994; 89:969-74

http://www.ecologos.org/iron.htm

See chart of foods listed by descending quantities of iron at the above link.

Baked chicken is
low in fat and also very nutritious. Other meats also have benefits, when
eaten in moderation.

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

Dairy products are not only high in calcium but also protein and other
things that are good for people, especially when fortified with extra
vitamins. Eggs are a nutritional powerhouse, giving almost everything except
vitamin C and fiber. They need to be nutritional to provide food for the
growing embryos inside (if they were fertile).

Animal product consumption and mortality because of all
causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes,
and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
Snowdon DA.
Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University
of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
This report reviews, contrasts, and illustrates previously published
findings from a cohort of 27,529 California Seventh-day Adventist
adults who completed questionnaires in 1960 and were followed
for mortality between 1960 and 1980. Within this population, meat
consumption was positively associated with mortality because of all
causes of death combined (in males), coronary heart disease (in
males and females), and diabetes (in males). Egg consumption was
positively associated with mortality because of all causes combined
(in females), coronary heart disease (in females), and cancers of the
colon (in males and females combined) and ovary. Milk consumption
was positively associated with only prostate cancer mortality, and
cheese consumption did not have a clear relationship with any cause
of death. The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not
have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated.
PMID: 3046303 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Snip
The hominids successfully adapted to open savanna and woodland
environments, developing a series of different strategies for predator
defense, foraging, and social behavior. One of these behavioral
adaptations was possibly a shift to accomodate quantities of meat
in the diet, to augment plant resources.

Meat is a lot easier to digest than plant matter. Herbivores have much
longer intestines and more specialized teeth than we do. They may even have
multiple chambers or "stomachs." Our puny appendix in no way compares to
that of a koala, for example, and we don't even need it to be healthy.

Humans are frugivores.

We have both tearing teeth and grinding teeth (though not strong enough to
grind tough grains without processing).

Or tear raw animal flesh.

See; http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm

Much of the archaeological evidence also points to a shift in dietary
composition, although direct evidence of meat eating is rarely found.
Instead, meat eating has been inferred from many different sources.
One source is through the interpretation of presence and quantity of
different skeletal elements found in living floors (supposed places of
hominid occupation). High densities of bones found in association
with stone tools have led researchers to believe that processing and
consumption of carcasses took place at these sites.

When there are scraper marks on the bones and the marrow has been extracted,
it's pretty darn certain.

If the choice were eat bone marrow or starve, I'd probably do the same.

However,
interpretation of this information can often be misleading, particularly
if taphonomy has not been adequately investigated. Accumulations
of bones and stone tools, while intriguing as evidence of hominid
meat-eating, could also be the result of unrelated processes. Careful
examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine
depositional integrity."
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anth...h12/chap12.htm

Spears and knives and hide scrapers and hand axes, and tools made of bone
and antler, and statues made of ivory weren't mentioned in that article. I
wonder why?

Why should they?

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Rubystars" wrote in message
. ..

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Rubystars" wrote in message
om...

Humans are natural omnivores.

"Evidence suggests that eating even small amounts of
animal- based foods is linked at least for many individuals
to significantly higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular
diseases typically found in the United States."
http://www.news.cornell.edu/general/...ramid.ssl.html
- were humans *natural* omnivores, that is, adapted to efficiently
digest and derive nutrients from animal flesh without adverse effects,
the above wouldn't be the case.

I think you're wrong there.

Where?

Humans are natural omnivores, not frugivores or herbivores.


In hunter-gatherer societies, which humans were
for most of our history, most of the food is of plant origin, but meat
is
still consumed at regular intervals.

Your evidence that meat was always consumed at regular intervals?

The skins that they wore, the antler and bone tools they used, the bones
with scraper marks and bones cracked open with tools to reveal the marrow.
The intelligence of humans may have been, at least in part, related to the
fact that you have to be intelligent to hunt, and you have to consume a lot
of nutrients to maintain a large brain, and meat is one way to do that.

'Dr. Katherine Milton, professor of anthropology at the University
of California, has found that dental patterns among fossils of early
humans supports evidence of a high quality, plant-based diet, closely
related to the ninety-four percent plant and fruit diet of chimpanzees. |+

Early humans have the same dental patterns we do today, omnivorous. She may
have been referring to ape-like proto-humans such as Australopithecines
(which possibly were frugivores, but probably still scavenged meat when they
could).

Paleolithic humans had some tools to hunt with, but they were not
as useful as tools used by the modern hunter-gatherer. Professor
Jared Diamond explains how the diet of early humans depended on
their tools. He describes how he was invited on a hunt by a tribe in
New Guinea that retained Stone Age "technology" and habits.
Surprisingly, after an entire day of hunting, the tribe returned with
only two baby birds, a few frogs, and mushrooms.

They also hunt tree kangaroos and other animals in New Guinea.

Although the men of the tribe frequently boasted of the large animals
they had killed, when pressed for details, they admitted that large
animals were killed only a few times in a hunter's career.

Large animals are dangerous and hard to spot in the jungle environment of
New Guinea.

These
peoples' stone tools were far more advanced than the stone tools
found on prehistoric sites,

I'm not sure what they mean by "prehistoric" Certainly stone tools made by
modern humans are far more advanced than those made by H. habilis.

so Professor Diamond thinks it unlikely
that prehistoric hunters could have enjoyed a much higher success
rate than present day hunter-gatherer tribes

Neanderthals (our sister species, sharing a last common ancestor with us)
had a diet very high in meat. I'm sure humans could've managed to take down
large animals as well. There's significant evidence that whole herds were
driven off of cliffs.

Snip
'Anthropologically speaking, humans were high consumers of calcium
until the onset of the Agricultural Age, 10,000 years ago.

Let me tell you this.. before agriculture humans ate animals and plants, so
that's why, when they were involved in agriculture, they raised both animals
and plants.

Current calcium
intake is one-quarter to one-third that of our evolutionary diet and, if
we
are genetically identical to the Late Paleolithic Homo sapiens, we may be
consuming a calcium-deficient diet our bodies cannot adjust to by
physiologic mechanisms.

It's true that most people could be eating a lot more of calcium and other
nutrients than they currently do.

snip
the use of dairy
products did not come into play until the Agricultural Age 10,000 years
ago.

Who is to say that some amount of milk wasn't eaten occasionally when a
nursing animal was killed?

Compared to the current intake of approximately 500 mg per day
for women age 20 and over in the United States,18 hunter-gatherers
had a significantly higher calcium intake and apparently much stronger
bones. As late as 12,000 years ago, Stone Age hunters had an average
of 17-percent more bone density (as measured by humeral cortical
thickness). Bone density also appeared to be stable over time with
an apparent absence of osteoporosis.17

That's not all connected to calcium intake. It also has to do with a lot of
physical activity they were engaged in.

Snip
The only hunter-gatherers that seemed to fall prey to bone loss
were the aboriginal Inuit (Eskimos). Although their physical
activity level was high, their osteoporosis incidence exceeded
even present-day levels in the United States. The Inuit diet was
high in phosphorus and protein and low in calcium.20
http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/full...alcium4-2.html
*emphasis added

It's hard to find food in the Arctic. They have done pretty well though
considering their tribes survived all this time.


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

For many individuals, yes. For humans as a whole, no. Some people do need to
watch their diets more closely than others.

snip

It's no surprise that Americans and other people in the West eat too much
meat, but that doesn't mean meat itself is unhealthy, just that it's
over-consumed and forms too high of a proportion of the diet.

As I said, if we centered all our meals around avocado, coconut, and fried
tofu, with side dishes to complement, instead of centering them around beef,
chicken, and pork, with side dishes, then we'd also see massive health
problems. People need variety in their diets and shouldn't over-consume any
one food.

Some people in Africa have gotten paralyzed or worse from eating improperly
prepared bitter cassava. That's a staple food in Africa, South America, and
some other places. That doesn't mean we should ban cassava. I've eaten some
of the sweet variety and it's actually pretty darn good.

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

Yes, that makes sense. I'm sure they ate both at all times, but the
proportions changed. That would explain why the New Guinea hunters, who live
in a tropical environment, would eat more plant food than animal food.

snip
leftovers at feeding sites. He also found "no evidence that they ate
honey, eggs or animal prey" - this observation may have been too
limited due to seasonal variations in the chimp diet.

They love termites. Termites are animals. I've also seen video tapes of them
hunting down and killing monkeys in wild situations.

Snip

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


"Chimps probably got infected with the monkey viruses by eating monkeys.
Although they mainly eat fruit, chimps also prey on a menagerie of animals,
from antelopes to wild pigs. "Chimps hunt ferociously," Hahn says. "They
organize into hunting teams all the time"

"In Central and West Africa, people love to eat gorillas and chimps," says
Craig Stanford of the University of Southern California's Jane Goodall
Research Center. "Human hunter-gatherers do the same thing chimps do."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...hiv-usat_x.htm


So do some types of nuts and seeds.

Nuts and seeds help, but fish are also a good source.

Beef is rich in iron.

The Heme Iron Problem

I think the risk is primarily from taking iron supplements. Women don't get
hurt as much as men from taking in too much iron because they need more iron
and are more prone to iron deficiencies.

It was found that total iron intake was not associated with
heart disease risk. But the source of the iron was the principle factor.
High levels of heme iron raised risk for heart disease twofold. Heme iron
is the type of iron found in meat, chicken and fish.

Yet vegetarians are prone to iron deficiencies.

http://www.outlands.co.nz/ironfor.htm

Snip
http://www.ecologos.org/iron.htm

See chart of foods listed by descending quantities of iron at the above
link.

Yes, that's interesting, but then why do vegetarians still come up with iron
deficiencies? I noticed shellfish weren't on that list.

Snip irrelevant stuff about a 7th day adventist group
snip
Humans are frugivores.

If we were frugivores then why can people live for 80 years or more on a
diet of daily meat three times a day? If even small amounts of meat or dairy
cause such massive health problems why are nursing homes so full? Something
in your story isn't adding up.

Or tear raw animal flesh.

Actually people eat raw animal flesh all the time. I've even eaten raw and
rare meat. It's pretty good.

snip
If the choice were eat bone marrow or starve, I'd probably do the same.

Of course, but it undermines your argument that they didn't eat it, when
there is clear evidence they did.

Spears and knives and hide scrapers and hand axes, and tools made of
bone
and antler, and statues made of ivory weren't mentioned in that article.
I
wonder why?

Why should they?

Because they indicate animal use/hunting.

-Rubystars

"Rubystars" wrote in message .. .

"pearl" wrote in message ...

'Dr. Katherine Milton, professor of anthropology at the University
of California, has found that dental patterns among fossils of early
humans supports evidence of a high quality, plant-based diet, closely
related to the ninety-four percent plant and fruit diet of chimpanzees. |+

Early humans have the same dental patterns we do today, omnivorous. She may
have been referring to ape-like proto-humans such as Australopithecines
(which possibly were frugivores, but probably still scavenged meat when they
could).

Bingo!