Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 71
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

> "More than 60percent of the women had low levels of vitamin B12"
>
> snip
>
> "Indian mothers have been shown to be deficient in vitamin B12. This
> vitamin
> is required in very small amounts, about 2-4 micrograms per day.
>
> Non-vegetarian foods and dairy products are rich sources of this

vitamin.


"As already pointed out more than once, Indians consume dairy. But.."

But not enough of the right kind. Food preparation often involves boiling
it or fermentation which destroys the vit b12. Milk as a beverage is
little used.

"'WOMEN ARE MALNOURISHED

The exceptionally high rates of malnutrition in South Asia are rooted
deeply in the soil of inequality between men and women."

Gender politics have nothing to do with the nutritional reality.

""The present cross-sectional and interventional study was carried out to
assess the incidence of vitamin B12 / vitamin D deficiency in male office
executives in the tropical city of Mumbai, India."

snip

"The results revealed 65% executives with vitamin B12 deficiency (less
than
193 pg/ml) and 28% executives with vitamin D deficiency (less than 7.6
ng/ml)."

Note the 60 percent rate the same in men and women and these men are rich
enough to eat all of any thing they choose. "Under-nutrition" is not the
source, mal-nutrition is as regards vit b12.

To the degree one withdraws from the vbactreria cycle producing vit b12
the more likely as in the men and women above that levels will be too low.
That is the science reality.

> Most Indians are vegetarian for religious reasons or because of
> socio-economic reasons."


"Most people get someone else to kill, as humans are not true predators
it's not in our nature to kill and we find it upsetting.

Most people have been influenced to regard meat-eating as an indication of
favourable socio-economic status, and so eat carcasses of dead animals for
the positive self-image..."

Food cultist politics, ranting?, can be no less silly. The men and women
above chose because of religion to eat mostly plants and the vit b12
problems was a consequence. That is the scientific reality.

"News Flash: Some Indians in extreme poverty are eating rats. But why
would this be news-worthy if humans naturally "eat everything they can get
their hands on"? Please explain, hari."

I thought of you when reading that article. It is a perfect example, the
author suggested all adopt the tradition of some ethnic groups and eat
whatever is at hand, in this case rats.

Just as you suggest eating animal products is but mere conditioning, one
can say not using rats is equally so. The ethnic groups do eat anything
they can get their hands on. There are hundreds of ethnic groups in india
with a great range in dietary traditions. Those who choose to use mostly
plants withdraw themselves from the vit b12 producing cycle with the
problems as above. Those ethnic groups at hand have no vit b12 problems.
  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

> wrote in message ...
> > "More than 60percent of the women had low levels of vitamin B12"
> >
> > snip
> >
> > "Indian mothers have been shown to be deficient in vitamin B12. This
> > vitamin
> > is required in very small amounts, about 2-4 micrograms per day.
> >
> > Non-vegetarian foods and dairy products are rich sources of this

> vitamin.
>
>
> "As already pointed out more than once, Indians consume dairy. But.."
>
> But not enough of the right kind. Food preparation often involves boiling
> it or fermentation which destroys the vit b12. Milk as a beverage is
> little used.


Then cooking also destroys B12 in animal flesh and in/on plant foods.

> "'WOMEN ARE MALNOURISHED
>
> The exceptionally high rates of malnutrition in South Asia are rooted
> deeply in the soil of inequality between men and women."
>
> Gender politics have nothing to do with the nutritional reality.


You can't say that.

'One study found anaemia in over 95 percent of girls ages 6-14 in Calcutta,
around 67 percent in the Hyderabad area, 73 percent in the New Delhi area,
and about 18 percent in the Madras area. This study states, "The prevalence
of anaemia among women ages 15-24 and 25-44 years follows similar
patterns and levels.
http://www.thp.org/reports/indiawom.htm

> ""The present cross-sectional and interventional study was carried out to
> assess the incidence of vitamin B12 / vitamin D deficiency in male office
> executives in the tropical city of Mumbai, India."
>
> snip
>
> "The results revealed 65% executives with vitamin B12 deficiency (less
> than
> 193 pg/ml) and 28% executives with vitamin D deficiency (less than 7.6
> ng/ml)."
>
> Note the 60 percent rate the same in men and women and these men are rich
> enough to eat all of any thing they choose. "Under-nutrition" is not the
> source, mal-nutrition is as regards vit b12.
>
> To the degree one withdraws from the vbactreria cycle producing vit b12
> the more likely as in the men and women above that levels will be too low.
> That is the science reality.


The science reality is modern farming methods adversely affecting
B12-producing microorganisms and availability of trace elements
including cobalt. In addition.. washing, processing, and cooking.

> > Most Indians are vegetarian for religious reasons or because of
> > socio-economic reasons."

>
> "Most people get someone else to kill, as humans are not true predators
> it's not in our nature to kill and we find it upsetting.
>
> Most people have been influenced to regard meat-eating as an indication of
> favourable socio-economic status, and so eat carcasses of dead animals for
> the positive self-image..."
>
> Food cultist politics, ranting?, can be no less silly.


No. It's the plain truth.

> The men and women
> above chose because of religion to eat mostly plants and the vit b12
> problems was a consequence. That is the scientific reality.


The scientific reality is modern farming methods adversely affecting
B12-producing microorganisms and availability of trace elements
including cobalt. In addition.. washing, processing, and cooking.

> "News Flash: Some Indians in extreme poverty are eating rats. But why
> would this be news-worthy if humans naturally "eat everything they can get
> their hands on"? Please explain, hari."
>
> I thought of you when reading that article. It is a perfect example, the
> author suggested all adopt the tradition of some ethnic groups and eat
> whatever is at hand, in this case rats.
>
> Just as you suggest eating animal products is but mere conditioning,


Very good.

> one
> can say not using rats is equally so. The ethnic groups do eat anything
> they can get their hands on. There are hundreds of ethnic groups in india
> with a great range in dietary traditions. Those who choose to use mostly
> plants withdraw themselves from the vit b12 producing cycle with the
> problems as above. Those ethnic groups at hand have no vit b12 problems.


'Suzuki1 (1995, Japan) studied 6 vegan children eating a genmai-
saishoku (GS) diet, which is based on high intakes of brown rice
and contains plenty of sea vegetables, including 2-4 g of nori
per day ("dried laver"); as well as hijiki, wakame, and kombu.
The foods are organically grown and many are high in cobalt
(buckwheat, adzuki beans, kidney beans, shiitake, hijiki).
Serum B12 levels of the children are shown:

Results of Suzuki.1
age(yrs) years vegan sB12
7.1 4.4 520
7.7 4.4 720
8.6A 8.6 480
8.8A 8.8 300
12.7 10 320
14.6 10 320
average 443 (± 164)
A - Exclusively breast-fed until 6 months old. Mothers had been
vegan for 9.6 and 6.5 yrs prior to conception. Both mothers
consumed 2 g of nori per day.
...'
http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/plant


  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 71
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

> There are hundreds of ethnic groups in india
> with a great range in dietary traditions. Those who choose to use mostly
> plants withdraw themselves from the vit b12 producing cycle with the
> problems as above. Those ethnic groups at hand have no vit b12 problems.


"'Suzuki1 (1995, Japan) studied 6 vegan children eating a genmai- saishoku
(GS) diet, which is based on high intakes of brown rice and contains
plenty of sea vegetables, including 2-4 g of nori per day ("dried laver");
as well as hijiki, wakame, and kombu. The foods are organically grown and
many are high in cobalt (buckwheat, adzuki beans, kidney beans, shiitake,
hijiki). Serum B12 levels of the children are shown:

http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/plant"

The info above does not appear at the link above. No mention of brown
rice at all. The one prepared food and seaweed are however discussed on
the above link you provide. That entire site is a good one I have
consulted before. It doesn't take a radical food cultist stance and wants
to know as do I the real science behind one's choice to eat a mostly plant
based diet. Here is what it does say about the info you presented:

Nori
" The results indicate that B12 in raw nori can be changed into harmful
inactive B12 analogues by drying, and that dried nori decreases B12
they
believe that raw nori is an excellent source of genuine B12.
I disagree with their conclusion that raw nori is an excellent source
of active B12. While eating raw nori, the subjects'uMMA levels
increased 5%. While this was not enough of an increase to be
statistically significant, it indicates that the raw nori did not
improve B12 status (which would have required MMA levels to drop,
rather than increase). "
The seaweeds:

Please
note that 30 g is a lot of seaweed. A serving size would be closer
to 3 grams. Seaweeds also tend to be very high in iodine, which
can cause problems at high intakes. So, consuming mass quantities
of seaweed is unadvisable.

  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

> wrote in message ...
> > There are hundreds of ethnic groups in india
> > with a great range in dietary traditions. Those who choose to use mostly
> > plants withdraw themselves from the vit b12 producing cycle with the
> > problems as above. Those ethnic groups at hand have no vit b12 problems.

>
> "'Suzuki1 (1995, Japan) studied 6 vegan children eating a genmai- saishoku
> (GS) diet, which is based on high intakes of brown rice and contains
> plenty of sea vegetables, including 2-4 g of nori per day ("dried laver");
> as well as hijiki, wakame, and kombu. The foods are organically grown and
> many are high in cobalt (buckwheat, adzuki beans, kidney beans, shiitake,
> hijiki). Serum B12 levels of the children are shown:
>
> http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/plant"
>
> The info above does not appear at the link above.


Yes it does. What's "interesting and perplexing" is that the author of this page
doesn't recognise the importance of "organically grown..many high in cobalt."


  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 71
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

> The info above does not appear at the link above.

"Yes it does. What's "interesting and perplexing" is that the author of
this pa ge doesn't recognise the importance of "organically grown..many
high in cobalt.""

I used the author as an exact cut and paste ""'Suzuki1" which does not
appear. Looking closer you mangled it.

As I said the author of the quite extensive site is commended to anyone
wanting a middle of the road view about plant based dietary practices.
It finds no comfort in it for the radical food cultist.

The info he provided about the specific individual contents still stands
as a great caution and refutation. Why didn't you also offer the site
author's evaluation, that would have been more honest and useful.

For one who is interested in a complete scientific evaluation
and not a cherry picked virsion is here in his remarks about the info and
why he is not greatly moved about its claims:

None of the many measurements between the vegans and 4 nonvegan
controls were significantly different, including serum B12, MCV, and
iron indicators. MMA and homocysteine levels were not measured. Some
suggestions as to how the vegans got their B12 a
* From nori or the other seaweeds. The nori was most likely dried.
* Small amounts of B12 from B12 uptake or contamination of plants
grown in manure.
* B12 from their mother's stores.

These results are both interesting and perplexing. The serum B12
levels are easy to explain as possibly being inactive B12 analogues.
But it is particularly impressive that the eight-year-olds were doing
well given that their mothers had been vegan for some time, supposedly
without B12-fortified foods or supplements. Unfortunately, many vegan
children have not had the same positive results and until more is
known about the GS children's diets, this study should be considered
an unsolved mystery.
If these children were my own, I would make sure they started to get
at least a modest B12 supplement to ensure their continue good health.




  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

Rupert wrote:
> ... was recently found to have Vitamin B12 levels below the normal
> range

No doubt, you also had cholesterol, cortisol, BP, body weight, and
"body odor" well "below the normal range", so what is the correct
interpretation of comparing yourself to the undeniably sick and toxic
masses?
Such comparisons imply that the general public represents some sort
of health standard we should all be striving for.
Obviously this is nonsense; we should be striving for the extant
"degenerative disease" rates associated with flesh consumption also?

http://ecologos.org/B-12.htm
There is NO evidence that B-12 deficiency is a real problem with veg*ns.
NONE!
This issue is simply propaganda of the cowboy culture.
Like the Four Food Groups, "where's the beef", "milk does a body
good", etc.
Remember the medicos are the Number One Killer in the US, so it is
doubtful that they can be used as a source of meaningful health info..
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/...i_death_01.htm
http://www.naturalnews.com/023502.html

If your "doctor" eats dead animals, find a vegan MD.

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science
  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

Dragonbreath wrote:

> I just wonder how those who claim vegan diet - and especially raw
> vegan diet - is the natural diet for humans explain this problem.

IF you had any sincere interest in this bogus issue, you could read
my website and expose yourself to credible scientific info.
There are well over 700 citations there that form the basis of my
writings but you are NOT sincere about anything but meatarian
propaganda, and the commitment to self-embarrassment by intentional
ignorance. And, of course, the comic relief you provide, for which I
am grateful.
You represent the average meatarian zealot: lack of intellect,
conceptual evasiveness, willful ignorance, illogic, emotional perversion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm

> In my thinking ...

I am still waiting for evidence of this; when is it going to start and
when will you attempt to respond honestly to my posts?

> require supplements, but all the necessary vitamins and
> micronutrients should be available from the diet.

It has been shown that "modern" commercial chemical agriculture has
killed the cyanobacteria in the soil that produce B-12.
http://ecologos.org/B-12.htm

You would know that IF you were interested in the biochemistry of
nutrition presented clearly on my site, but your interest is not in
self-eduction or polite academic debate, but, rather, mindless
meatarian propaganda.
You are, transparently, an intellectual fraud.

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science
  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

On 15 Aug, 07:12, Laurie > wrote:
> Dragonbreath wrote:
> > I just wonder how those who claim vegan diet - and especially raw
> > vegan diet - is the natural diet for humans explain this problem.

>
> * * * * IF you had any sincere interest in this bogus issue, you could read
> my website and expose yourself to credible scientific info.
> * * * * There are well over 700 citations there that form the basis of my
> writings


[snip an incoherent rant]

I HAVE been to your website, but there is only uncredited garbage
there. You seldom document where your quotes are mined from, and when
you do, it is generally from either an e-mail from someone or other
(could be the guy who delivers Lenny's pizzas for all I know) or an
encyclopaedia. No science detected whatsoever.

If you want to learn _how_ to document where quotes are from, take a
look at my original post in this thread.

Dragonblaze
  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

pearl wrote:

> Read this:

Hi Perl--
You can't really expect that meatarian propagandists will actually
READ real science, can you?
Their motto is: "I have my mind made up; so don't confuse me with the
facts."
Their only contribution in ng's is to illustrate the intellectual
degeneracy created by the consumption of dead, rotting , animal
corpses. So, they teach by their negative example.
Wait for noBalls to jump in and illustrate this point; he is my boy.
Always ready to illustrate the complete lack of intellectual
development of these silly corpse-suckers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm
Even the BBC has noted their intellectual defects.

Laurie
--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science
  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

wrote:
> S. asians who came to n. america started showing up at doctors with
> vit b12 problems.

WHAT were those "b12 problems"; how ere they determined?
WHY don't these :"problems" appear in the research?
http://ecologos.org/B-12.htm

> Bacteria produce all vit b12 that in the end by way mostly of
> animal sources enters the human diet.

Nonsense; chemical agriculture has destroyed the cyanobacteria in
the soil. The problem, IF it exists, is due to chemical agriculture,
not our natural frugivorous diet.

WHERE is the data that indicates that this is a REAL issue, not
just fodder for the cowboy culture.

For the paranoid: B-12 supplements are cheap and readily available;
so IF there were an issue, there is a simple solution that does
not produce the "degenerative diseases" that eating animals does.

Laurie
--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

On 15 Aug, 07:12, Laurie > wrote:

[snip ********]

Hey Larry, how about dealing with the topics in my original post in
this thread - or are you too scared to deal with real science?

Dragonblaze
  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

Dragonbreath wrote:
> On 15 Aug, 07:12, Laurie > wrote:
>
> [snip ********]
>
> ... how about dealing with the topics in my original post in
> this thread - or are you too scared to deal with real science?

IF you had any REAL interest, you would politely (look this word up,
if necessary) include the "snipped ********" so I could know what you are
jabbering about.
But, your fear of honest debate is clearly reflected
in this childish evasion.
So, I once again challenge you to a polite, academic debate abut any
nutritional topic. You will not accept because you are an intellectual
fraud, just like your mentor "Rudy Canoza".

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science
  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

Dragonbreath wrote:

> [snip an incoherent rant]

Personal insults; the essence of your "debating style".

> I HAVE been to your website, but there is only uncredited garbage
> there.

LIAR!
There are well over 700 citations to the current scientific
literature. Lying does not support your position; but, that is all you
have, right?

> No science detected whatsoever.

You are a LIAR.
There are well over 700 specific and identified citations to PubMed.
Lies: the last refuge the intellectually effete.

Laurie
--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science
  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 71
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

> S. asians who came to n. america started showing up at doctors with
> vit b12 problems.


" WHAT were those "b12 problems"; how ere they determined?
WHY don't these :"problems" appear in the research?"

Forgive me if I decline to do basic homework for you that any quick search
enjine will produce.

> Bacteria produce all vit b12 that in the end by way mostly of
> animal sources enters the human diet.


"Nonsense; chemical agriculture has destroyed the cyanobacteria in the
soil. The problem, IF it exists, is due to chemical agriculture, not our
natural frugivorous diet."

Your remark is a non sequitur. The bacteria that produce vit b12 is
produced in a cycle of animal gut to feces to soil back to animal.
Humans must directly or indirectly tap into that cycle for the vitamin.

"WHERE is the data that indicates that this is a REAL issue, not
just fodder for the cowboy culture."

Are you asking where a problem for low vit b12 exists? This was covered
in an example from india in a recent post in this same thread, please
consult.


"For the paranoid: B-12 supplements are cheap and readily available; so IF
there were an issue, there is a simple solution that does not produce the
"degenerative diseases" that eating animals does."

Indeed, there are 4 sources available to humans, one can go to the drug
store, one can consume soil, one can consume feces or one can consume
directly orindirectly animal products.
  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

crisology wrote:

> ... adaptation related reasons for diet ...

Whoops!
There is NO documented, nor even hypothetical, support for the
concept of "adaptation" to any variations in diet other than that
programmed into the entities' genetic code.
The Theory of Evolution claims that "beneficial" mutations are
propagated throughout the population because they produce a
"reproductive advantage" for those who have said mutation.
Thus, NO adapting to any dietary differences is possible, because
changes in diet can NOT produce any "reproductive advantage".

That's the party line; however, NO "reproductive advantage" can be
produced any dietary variation. E.g., the self-destructive human
experiment with corpse-eating has NOT produced ANY adaptation to such
practices, as clearly seen in the current "degenerative disease"
statistics, after MILLIONS of years of this suicidal cultural habit QED.

Laurie
--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science


  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

wrote:
"high levels of b12 deficiency"
... do not exist in the literature.
http://ecologos.org/B-12.htm

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science
  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

wrote:

LF> WHAT were those "b12 problems"; how ere they determined?
LF> WHY don't these :"problems" appear in the research?" Forgive me if
> I decline to do basic homework for you that any quick search enjine
> will produce.

YOU made the claim, so it is YOUR responsibility to support it with
real science when challenged, especially by ME, on a.f.v.s.
SO, either support your erroneous claim, or STOP posting to a.f.v.s.

LF> "Nonsense; chemical agriculture has destroyed the cyanobacteria in
LF> the soil. The problem, IF it exists, is due to chemical
LF> agriculture, not our natural frugivorous diet."
>
> Your remark is a non sequitur. The bacteria that produce vit b12
> is produced in a cycle of animal gut to feces to soil back to
> animal.

IF chemical agriculture has killed the B-12 producing bacteria,
that "cycle" is broken.

LF> "WHERE is the data that indicates that this is a REAL issue, not
LF> just fodder for the cowboy culture."
>
> Are you asking where a problem for low vit b12 exists? This was
> covered in an example from india in a recent post in this same
> thread, please consult.

NO THANKS. I am requiring YOU to support YOUR as-yet-unsupported
claim of Vit B-12 deficiency due to inadequate ingestion of same.
Provide credible citations for your claims OR STOP POSTING to a.f.v.s.
Your present lack of scholarship will NOT be tolerated here.

http://ecologos.org/B-12.htm

Laurie Forti
Moderator, a.f.v.s.
--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science
  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

crisology wrote:
> ... (unrelated to adaptation)

PLEASE STOP posting claims of "adaption" to variations in diet without
adequate citations (there are NONE) in alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE.

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science
  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 71
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

> The animals eat their feces not for the bacteria it contains but
> for the vit b12 that bacteria produced when in their large gut.



"WOW!! You are now claiming that you knew WHY animals behave in specifi c
ways. How do you know this? Telepathic communication with the animals?
Just HOW do these unidentified animals KNOW microprograms of Vit
B-12 are in their feces? WHICH animals regularly consume their own
feces."

Smile, of course silly, don't you have this power also?

> Not at all, at least one human group get vit b12 in part from
> eating their own feces by

using it as fertilizer.

"WHERE did humans get their fecal B-12 BEFORE fertilization was
developed very, very recently?"

Smile, silly out of their arse.

"Provide credible science to support your claims, OR STOP POSTING TO
A.F.V.S.
The sign on the door is:"SCIENTIFICALLY CREDIBLE""

smile, so you are one of *those* silly ones who play in that sandbox.
" Get on board or get gone!"

Smile, and you is a choo choo driver also.


  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 71
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

" NO THANKS. I am requiring YOU to support YOUR as-yet-unsupported
claim of Vit B-12 deficiency due to inadequate ingestion of same.
Provide credible citations for your claims OR STOP POSTING to
a.f.v.s.
Your present lack of scholarship will NOT be tolerated here."

Smile, here I am and here I will be as long as I choose. Silly rantings
and chip on the sholdier notwithstanding from the boys in the sandbox.

" Moderator, a.f.v.s."

Smile, not even close, it ain't yours and anyone can play in this sandbox
as long as they wish.
  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 71
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

" "high levels of b12 deficiency""

Yup, that's what I said, on the order of 60 percent of a population in
the example discussed.
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

Laurie wrote:

> If your "doctor" eats dead animals, find a vegan MD.


"Vegan" implies he doesn't wear leather either. I
don't think I want anyone in that state of mind making
life and death decisions for me.
  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

> wrote in message ...
> > The info above does not appear at the link above.

>
> "Yes it does. What's "interesting and perplexing" is that the author of
> this pa ge doesn't recognise the importance of "organically grown..many
> high in cobalt.""
>
> I used the author as an exact cut and paste ""'Suzuki1" which does not
> appear. Looking closer you mangled it.


Rich coming from you. I didn't "mangle" anything. "1" indicates reference.

'1. Suzuki H. Serum vitamin B12 levels in young vegans who eat brown rice.
J Nutr Sci Vitaminol 1995;41:587-594'

That should be: 'J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 1995 Dec;41(6):587-94'.

Yes, brown rice retaining bran can be a great source of dietary cobalt.

> As I said the author of the quite extensive site is commended to anyone
> wanting a middle of the road view about plant based dietary practices.
> It finds no comfort in it for the radical food cultist.


Rich coming from you. Are you still harrassing vegetarian Indians in
the Indian/Hindu groups with your "India with relatively low meat use
has the world's highest rate of diabetes and heart disease and related
metabolic "degenerative" disorders." since it was pointed out to you
that this is due to a genetic susceptibility? You absolutely refused to
consider that until you were eventually forced to, and still repeating it
here proves you an intellectually dishonest meatarian propagandist.

From: Date: 19 Feb 2008 15:35:35 GMT
pearl :
...
"Again:"

"'.. a genetic susceptibility, mediated through elevated levels
of lipoprotein(a) {Lp(a)}, which magnifies the adverse effects
of lifestyle factors associated with urbanization, affluence, and
changes in diet. .....'
http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijc/vol1n2/cadi.xml"

And the lifestyle over abundance of meat consumption increasing risk of
genetic disposition applies no less to n. american then it does for india
with other lifestyle risks and genetic dispositions and little or no meat
eaters; as it relates to the rate of chronic disorders.

Bottom line, either high meat eaters or low/no meat eaters can and
do evoke genetic disposition for increased risk for disorders. "

I said: "Fatty foods include dairy and eggs, as well as meat and fish. "
and then you disintegrated into a blithering evasive name-calling bot.

> The info he provided about the specific individual contents still stands
> as a great caution and refutation. Why didn't you also offer the site
> author's evaluation, that would have been more honest and useful.


Rich coming from you. There was nothing compelling about the
author's evaluation, but I'm sure it gave you momentary solace.

> For one who is interested in a complete scientific evaluation
> and not a cherry picked virsion is here in his remarks about the info and
> why he is not greatly moved about its claims:
>
> None of the many measurements between the vegans and 4 nonvegan
> controls were significantly different, including serum B12, MCV, and
> iron indicators. MMA and homocysteine levels were not measured. Some
> suggestions as to how the vegans got their B12 a
> * From nori or the other seaweeds. The nori was most likely dried.
> * Small amounts of B12 from B12 uptake or contamination of plants
> grown in manure.
> * B12 from their mother's stores.
>
> These results are both interesting and perplexing. The serum B12
> levels are easy to explain as possibly being inactive B12 analogues.


'B12 analogues surfaced in research in the early '50s-and not in pickles or
tempeh. In 1955 British workers demonstrated analogue presence in dairy
foods. By the 1970s it was clear animal foods contained abundant analogues.

Says Gray, "It's a big mistake to think only plant foods like seaweed and
algae have analogues. The stuff is ubiquitous."

Asked what factors are identified as causing increased analogues, Gray
cites various environmental factors: heavy metals and chlorine in municipal
water, soil mineral imbalances and deficiencies, and food refining,
especially since niacin and riboflavin are required for bacterial synthesis of
true B12. Moreover, says Gray, "evidence, though incomplete, suggests
B12 content of both animal and vegetable foods is on a downward trend."

As example, Gray points out in 1968 beef liver samples (tested with O.
malhamensis) yielded a B12 content of 122 mcg per 100 grams. Twenty
years later Specker found only 3.9 mcg/100 grams in beef liver (her mean
on four tests)-approximately 95 percent less!

Gray also noted non-vegetarian infants used as "controls" by Specker
showed UMMA excretion - a measure of possible B12 deficiency -
that were "horrendously elevated." Below 4 is considered normal, and
"controls" registered over 20.

Alarmed by the beef liver and infant UMMA finding, Gray contacted a
California lab to run tests using O. malhamensis. The lab's head, Dr. John
Fukuoaka, purchased the foods and did repeat tests himself. Tested were
Swiss cheese, chicken breast and beef heart. Tests in the '60s showed
B12 levels (respectively) of 1.71, 0.5 and 14.2 mcg/100 g.

Yet Dr. Fukuoaka's 1989 tests failed to reveal any traces of B12 whatsoever!

Gray also points out the Dutch and American "vegetarian B12" studies'
tests of vegetarian foods can't be taken at face value because of the
testing method used, and also the wide variability in quality that certainly
exists in different brands of the same food. Tempeh tested in the van den
Berg (Dutch) and Specker (American) studies showed values termed
"negligible" in by Specker/Miller. Yet, when Dr. Fukuoaka tested tempeh
from Washington's Turtle Island Soy Dairy, it weighed in at a robust
4.6 mcg/100g!

Thus, while eating seaweeds, tempeh and certain other foods may place
higher on the B12 spectrum than the panic suggested, that spectrum on
the whole may be declining at a precipitous rate.

http://www.championtrees.org/yarrow/whereb12.htm.

'Animal Foods Low in Vitamin B-12 - Animal foods commonly believed
to be high in B-12 may actually be low or deficient. In lab tests
commissioned by nutrition researcher Sylvia Ruth Gray in 1989 and 1990,
no identifiable B-12 was found in beef liver, Swiss cheese, and chicken
breast and only 2.19 mcg in beef heart. In the 1960s, similar tests showed
these foods contained 122, 1.71, .5, and 14.2 mcg respectively. In contrast,
macrobiotic/vegetarian foods measured higher than the animal foods. Sea
vegetables measured up to 9 mcg, tempeh to 4 mcg, and miso to .7. Gray
attributed the sharp decline in B-12 levels to environmental pollution and
modern chemical agriculture, especially the depletion of cobalt in soils
which promotes B-12 synthesis.
Source: Nathaniel Mead, "Where's the B-12?", Solstice 39:10-15, 1990;
"Here's the B-12," Solstice 40:10-13, 1990; "Corrections on Vitamin B-12,"
Solstice 42:5-7, 1990; Sylvia Ruth Gray, "B-12 Update," Solstice 43:5-7,
1990; Sylvia Ruth Gray, "B-12 Update," Solstice 44:6-8, 1990.
http://www.macrobiotics.nl/encyclope...lopedia_v.html

'Continuous use of inorganic fertilizers mainly containing major nutrients
NPK in large quantities and neglecting organic and bio-fertilizers paved
the way for deterioration of soil health and in turn ill effects on plants,
human being and cattle.

The adverse effects of using fertilizers are explained below.
...
Development of soil acidification and alkalization due to continuous use
of acidic (NH4 Cl (NH2 ) SO4 etc.) and basic (NANO3 ) (CAN basic
slag etc.) fertilizers causing imbalance in nutrients availability to crops
and affecting activities of beneficial micro organisms.
...'
http://www.manage.gov.in/managelib/faculty/manohari.htm

'There were indications that trace element deficiencies in Indian soils
might be comparatively widespread with intensification of agriculture.
...'
http://www.ipipotash.org/udocs/Potas...20F uture.pdf

> But it is particularly impressive that the eight-year-olds were doing
> well given that their mothers had been vegan for some time, supposedly
> without B12-fortified foods or supplements. Unfortunately, many vegan
> children have not had the same positive results and until more is
> known about the GS children's diets, this study should be considered
> an unsolved mystery.
> If these children were my own, I would make sure they started to get
> at least a modest B12 supplement to ensure their continue good health.


The serum B12 levels can't be explained away as B12 analogues, as
acknowledged by your author - "it is particularly impressive that the
eight-year-olds were doing well given that their mothers had been
vegan for some time". There wasn't a single case of symptoms of
B12 deficiency in these vegans, as we read in the available abstract:

1: J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 1995 Dec;41(6):587-94. Links
Serum vitamin B12 levels in young vegans who eat brown rice.
Suzuki H.
Department of Internal Medicine, Social Insurance Institute of Nagahori,
Clinic, Osaka, Japan.
A nutritional analysis was conducted on the dietary intake of a group of
6 vegan children aged 7 to 14 who had been living on a vegan diet including
brown rice for from 4 to 10 years, and on that of an age-matched control
group. In addition, their serum vitamin B12 levels and other data (red blood
cell count, hematocrit, hemoglobin, etc.) were determined in the laboratory.
In vegans' diets, 2-4 g of nori (dried laver), which contained B12, were
consumed daily. Not a single case of symptoms due to B12 deficiency
was found. There were no statistically significant differences between the
two groups with respect to any of the examination data, including B12
levels (p < 0.05). Therefore, consumption of nori may keep vegans
from suffering B12 deficiency.
PMID: 8926531 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8926531

The B12-Cobalt Connection
http://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/b12coblt.htm


  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets

"Laurie" > wrote in message abs...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > Read this:

> Hi Perl--
> You can't really expect that meatarian propagandists will actually
> READ real science, can you?
> Their motto is: "I have my mind made up; so don't confuse me with the
> facts."
> Their only contribution in ng's is to illustrate the intellectual
> degeneracy created by the consumption of dead, rotting , animal
> corpses. So, they teach by their negative example.
> Wait for noBalls to jump in and illustrate this point; he is my boy.
> Always ready to illustrate the complete lack of intellectual
> development of these silly corpse-suckers.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm
> Even the BBC has noted their intellectual defects.


Hi Laurie. Check this out for a "smile", from a past encounter
with this " " aka ....

From: pearl Thurs, Feb 14 2008

On Feb 14, 2:16 pm, wrote:

> > Now if you please, describe the information that is "twisted" on that
> > page, which is provided with specific and ample references.

>
> "My pleasure. All the cites are from that page..."
>
> 'A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that
> would correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously
> not supported by our data (fig. 1). The large variations
> in human diets (Hladik and Simmen 1996) are probably
> allowed by our gut morphology as unspecialized
> "frugivores," a flexibility allowing Pygmies, Inuit, and
> several other populations, present and past, to feed
> extensively on animal matter...' Hladik et al. [1999,
> pp. 696-697]'
>
> Immediately following the paragraph above, billings
> writes:
>
> "The first sentence above, carnivorous adaptation,
> must be understood in context: as a comment on the
> Expensive Tissue Hypothesis. It claims that there is
> no major change in gut surface areas as the Expensive
> Tissue Hypothesis suggests. It does not mean there is
> absolutely no adaptation to faunivory [eating of some
> animal foods]: the major adaptation to faunivory in
> humans was previously identified as a reduction in
> size of the caecum and colon, per Martin et al. [1985]
> and MacLarnon et al. [1986]. The above quote does
> not contradict the 1985 and 1986 papers."
>
> Let's see (emphasis added #).....
>
> ' The research of MacLarnon et al. [1986]
> Refinement needed in analytical techniques used in
> earlier study. The research of MacLarnon et al. [1986]
> provides an extension and analytical refinement of
> Martin et al. [1985].
> ..
> Conclusions. MacLarnon et al. [1986] conclude that:
> ..
> Human GI tract shows possible faunivore adaptations.
> (BV heading)
>
> From MacLarnon et al. [1986, p. 297]:
> ...[T]his being the case, the new evidence from the
> approach using logarithmic quotient values (Fig. 1, 3
> and 5) is particularly interesting in that it suggests a
> marked departure of Cebus[Capuchin monkey] and
> Homo [humans] from the typical pattern of primates
> lacking any special adaptation for folivory ...in the
> direction of faunivorous non-primate mammals....
>
> 5. Use of logarithmic quotient values for clustering
> purposes suggests that Cebus and Homo possess
> gastrointestinal tracts that have become adapted in
> parallel to those of faunivorous mammals, with
> notable reduction in size of caecum relative to body
> size. Nevertheless, # because of the artificiality of
> most modern human diets, it cannot be concluded
> with confidence that the small human sample examined
> to date reflects any "natural" adaptation for a particular
> kind of diet. The results obtained so far are suggestive
> but by no means conclusive.#
>
> (billings goes on to acknowledge this, and elaborate
>
> Thus the research of MacLarnon et al. [1986] suggests,
> but is not (by itself) conclusive proof, that the human
> GI tract is adapted for the consumption of animal foods.
>
> Gut dimensions can vary in response to current diet. The
> gut dimensions of animals can vary significantly between
> wild and captive animals (of the same species, of course).
> Gut dimensions can change quickly (in captivity or in the
> wild) in response to changes in dietary quality. For
> information on this topic, consult Hladik [1967] as cited
> in Chivers and Hladik [1980]; also the following sources
> cited in Milton [1987]: Gentle and Savory [1975]; Gross,
> Wang, and Wunder [in press per citation]; Koong et al.
> [1982]; Miller [1975]; Moss [1972]; and Murray, Tulloch,
> and Winter [1977].'
>
>
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-6e.shtml
>
> "But he'd said... "It does not mean there is absolutely no
> adaptation to faunivory [eating of some animal foods]: the
> major adaptation to faunivory in humans was previously
> identified as a reduction in size of the caecum and colon,
> per Martin et al. [1985] and MacLarnon et al. [1986]."
> - as we see, it wasn't identified - it was only suggested!
>
> So there's some (more) food for thought for you, hari."
>
> Not at all, this but shows you are not familiar with normal scientific
> discourse on complex topics such as this. He makes his points and decribes
> what he thinks its strengths and areas of continuing uncertanity up for
> discussion. What in this is "twisted"? If you were really familiar with
> scientific exchange you would have known this is par for the course.


He lies in an effort to deceive, stupidly. "Birds of a feather....".


83. From: pearl Thu, 14 Feb 2008
...
> > - as we see, it wasn't identified - it was only suggested!


Just to drive the point home..

'identify
v., -fied, -fy·ing, -fies.
v.tr.
1. To establish the identity of.
2. To ascertain the origin, nature, or definitive
characteristics of.
3. Biology. To determine the taxonomic
classification of (an organism).
4. To consider as identical or united; equate.
...'
http://www.answers.com/identified&r=67

suggest
tr.v., -gest·ed, -gest·ing, -gests.
1. To offer for consideration or action; propose: ..
2. To bring or call to mind by logic or association;
evoke: ..
...
SYNONYMS suggest, imply, hint, intimate, insinuate.
These verbs mean to convey thoughts or ideas by
indirection. Suggest refers to the calling of something
to mind as the result of an association of ideas: ...
...'
http://www.answers.com/suggest

"scientific discourse among scholars." Hah!


84. From: 14 Feb 2008

> If you would like one at a time to take up other individual topics then it
> would be welcome. As to the current point of "twisted" you have but
> illustrated your lack of knowledge and/or experience with typical normal
> scientific discourse among scholars.


Pull the other one. If you won't even acknowledge "a bare-faced lie
because you regard /that/ source as a credible one (it supports what you
want to believe and/or your agenda), what's the point in discussing
anything with you? All you do is spout disgusting smear, and
demonstrate exactly what you accuse others of - picking and choosing to
suit yourself."

Whose lie, mine or the "twisted" author? You mistake being "twisted"
with a conclusion not agreeing with your own dearly held cultural norm.
The author made no attempt to decieve nor mislead nor slant his
discussion because of any cultural norm, he found the evidence based on
his analysis supporting a different conclusion then the one he is
dealing with. The reasons for his analysis and conclusion are there for
all to see step by logical step in an accepted and normal scientific
manner. That is what bypractice and definition adds no support to your
claim of "twisted" in the least.
...
Quibbling about the meaning as used in such scientific discussion of
such terms as "suggestive" will not do. Were you familiar with the
practices of normal scientific discourse, such terms are normal fare.


85. From: pearl Fri, 15 Feb 2008

S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.

True or False?


97. From: 15 Feb 2008

"S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.

True or False?"

With out doubt


98. From: pearl Fri, 15 Feb 2008
On Feb 15, 8:52 pm, wrote:

> "S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.


> True or False?"


> With out doubt.


What? Is it true or false? It can't be both.


99. From: 15 Feb 2008

> "S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.


> True or False?"


> With out doubt.


"What? Is it true or false? It can't be both."

Correct, without doubt.


100. From: pearl Sat, 16 Feb 2008

On Feb 15, 10:45 pm, wrote:

> > "S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.


> > True or False?"


> > With out doubt.


> "What? Is it true or false? It can't be both."


> Correct, without doubt.


What is correct? That's it's true, or that it's false?


101. From: 16 Feb 2008

> > "S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.


> > With out doubt.


> "What? Is it true or false? It can't be both."


> Correct, without doubt.


"What is correct? That's it's true, or that it's false?"

Neither, "That's it's" and "that it's false" are not equivalent in
normal english usage.


102. From: pearl Sat, 16 Feb 2008

On Feb 16, 3:07 pm, wrote:

> > > "S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.


> > > With out doubt.


> > "What? Is it true or false? It can't be both."


> > Correct, without doubt.


> "What is correct? That's it's true, or that it's false?"


> Neither, "That's it's" and "that it's false" are not equivalent in
> normal english usage.


Irrelevant, but your evasion was highly entertaining.

You're now fully exposed as lacking any credibility.

Enjoy.


103. From: 16 Feb 2008

> > > "S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.


> > > With out doubt.


> > "What? Is it true or false? It can't be both."


> > Correct, without doubt.


> "What is correct? That's it's true, or that it's false?"


> Neither, "That's it's" and "that it's false" are not equivalent in
> normal english usage.


"Irrelevant, but your evasion was highly entertaining.

You're now fully exposed as lacking any credibility.

Enjoy."

"Irrelevant", was it not you who based an entire critique of a web site
of 240 pages based on the use of two words on one page?

"Credible", was it not you who revealed however unwillingly one's
ignorance of the basic science of human evolution anddietary habits
through time and space as held in mainstream science?

Was it not you who revealed however unwillingly that' one's real talent
lies in picking and choosing returns from a search enjine inquiry that
fits your agenda?

"Enjoy", my pleasure, now you can take your balls and go home, although
I read you in fact have none.

You and anyone can make food choices based on whatever one chooses. But
please don't start with a recieved cultural food preference and pretend
one can work backwards to find human evolutionary justification for it.

Humans eat whatever they can get their hands on, that is why they have
thrived in allplaces on the globe.

Now to really make your day. Going against my own rules not to reveal
personal information, I'm a vegitarian in my food choices.


104. From: pearl Sat, 16 Feb 2008
Local: Sun, Feb 17 2008 1:54 am

On Feb 16, 11:30 pm, wrote:

> > > > "S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.


> > > > With out doubt.


> > > "What? Is it true or false? It can't be both."


> > > Correct, without doubt.


> > "What is correct? That's it's true, or that it's false?"


> > Neither, "That's it's" and "that it's false" are not equivalent in
> > normal english usage.


> "Irrelevant, but your evasion was highly entertaining.


> You're now fully exposed as lacking any credibility.


> Enjoy."


> "Irrelevant", was it not you who based an entire critique of a web site
> of 240 pages based on the use of two words on one page?


You wanted evidence - you got it, and you couldn't handle it.

> "Credible", was it not you who revealed however unwillingly one's
> ignorance of the basic science of human evolution anddietary habits
> through time and space as held in mainstream science?


I did no such thing. I even explained it to you.

> Was it not you who revealed however unwillingly that' one's real talent
> lies in picking and choosing returns from a search enjine inquiry that
> fits your agenda?


Your standard 'defense' when you can't address the evidence.

> "Enjoy", my pleasure, now you can take your balls and go home, although
> I read you in fact have none.


You're a joke. Caught out good and proper.

> You and anyone can make food choices based on whatever one chooses. But
> please don't start with a recieved cultural food preference and pretend
> one can work backwards to find human evolutionary justification for it.


The proof is in the nutritional research, if nothing else.

> Humans eat whatever they can get their hands on, that is why they have
> thrived in allplaces on the globe.


They've done what they had to to survive.

> Now to really make your day. Going against my own rules not to reveal
> personal information, I'm a vegitarian in my food choices.


Good for you.

http://tinyurl.com/63e2wt

---------------

A "vegitarian" who said "we can enjoy a nice lunch of stir fried beef".

Another flesh-industry propagandist, as if there was ever any doubt.


> Laurie
> --
> Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
> http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
> news:alt.food.vegan.science





  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 71
Default A question, was "Some real scientific"

The radical food cultists of both extreems cause me to wonder why they
bother. Sure it is for them almost religious in motivation it seems and a
zealot wants others to join the cheerleader squad. They also want it seem
by nosecount that their ideology is in some fashion better rationalized.

But aside from claiming some nutritional advantage they also demand that
many other matters bow to a whole set of baggage they carry along. If
someone thinks that animal fat is vital to sound nutrition and another
that animal products should not be consumed for the same reason, well and
good and full joy to them. But to demand that the rest of the ideological
bagage be accepted as a package is irrational and when taking a step back
to be observed even silly.
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default A question, was "Some real scientific"

> wrote in message ...

> The radical food cultists of both extreems cause me to wonder why they
> bother. Sure it is for them almost religious in motivation it seems and a
> zealot wants others to join the cheerleader squad. They also want it seem
> by nosecount that their ideology is in some fashion better rationalized.
>
> But aside from claiming some nutritional advantage they also demand that
> many other matters bow to a whole set of baggage they carry along. If
> someone thinks that animal fat is vital to sound nutrition and another
> that animal products should not be consumed for the same reason, well and
> good and full joy to them. But to demand that the rest of the ideological
> bagage be accepted as a package is irrational and when taking a step back
> to be observed even silly.


What the ...? This is recognisable denial and counter-attack response.

'When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their
flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended
for human beings, who are natural herbivores. - Roberts, William C. ,
Editor, American Journal of Cardiology. Volume 66, P. 896. 1 Oct, 1990.

Baggage, or statement of fact?

'Plasma lipids and diet groups
...
The most striking results from the analysis were the strong positive
associations between increasing consumption of animal fats and ischemic
heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for the highest
third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects with no prior
disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat, 2.77 (1.25, 6.13)
for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96) for dietary cholesterol;
P for trend: <0.01, <0.01, and <0.001, respectively]. In contrast, no
protective effects were noted for dietary fiber, fish, or alcohol consumption.
Consumption of eggs and cheese were both positively associated with
ischemic heart disease mortality in these subjects (P for trend, < 0.01 for
both foods).
...
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S

Baggage, or factual evidence?

'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
(white meat - fish, poultry)
...
Strong positive trends were shown for red meat intake among subjects
who consumed low levels (0-<1 time/week) of white meat and for white
meat intake among subjects who consumed low levels of (0-<1 time/week)
of red meat. The associations remained evident after further categorization
of the red meat (relative to no red meat intake): relative risk (RR) for >0-<1
time/week = 1.38, 95 percent CI 0.86-2.20; RR for 1-4 times/week = 1.77,
95 percent CI 1.05-2.99; and RR for >4 times/week = 1.98, 95 percent
CI 1.0-3.89 and white meat (relative to no white meat intake): RR for
>0-<1 time/week = 1.55, 95 percent CI 0.97-2.50; RR for 1-4 times/week

= 3.37, 95 percent CI 1.60-7.11; and RR for >4 times/week = 2.74,
95 percent CI 0.37-20.19 variables to higher intake levels.
...'
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf

Baggage, or factual evidence?

You've been busted, hari, and no amount of blather will change that.



  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 71
Default A question, was "Some real scientific"

> The radical food cultists of both extreems cause me to wonder why they
> bother. Sure it is for them almost religious in motivation it seems and

a
> zealot wants others to join the cheerleader squad. They also want it

seem
> by nosecount that their ideology is in some fashion better rationalized.
>
> But aside from claiming some nutritional advantage they also demand that
> many other matters bow to a whole set of baggage they carry along. If
> someone thinks that animal fat is vital to sound nutrition and another
> that animal products should not be consumed for the same reason, well

and
> good and full joy to them. But to demand that the rest of the

ideological
> bagage be accepted as a package is irrational and when taking a step

back
> to be observed even silly.


"What the ...? This is recognisable denial and counter-attack response.

'When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their
flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended"

A perfect example. It was already said that one may choose not to consume
animal products for claimed health reasons, just as some do the same but
saying that to have good health animal fat should be consumed. My remark
did not support either extreme, please read again.

One hopes against hope in newsgroups that people would read more
carefully.
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default A question, was "Some real scientific"

> wrote in message ...
> > The radical food cultists of both extreems cause me to wonder why they
> > bother. Sure it is for them almost religious in motivation it seems and

> a
> > zealot wants others to join the cheerleader squad. They also want it

> seem
> > by nosecount that their ideology is in some fashion better rationalized.
> >
> > But aside from claiming some nutritional advantage they also demand that
> > many other matters bow to a whole set of baggage they carry along. If
> > someone thinks that animal fat is vital to sound nutrition and another
> > that animal products should not be consumed for the same reason, well

> and
> > good and full joy to them. But to demand that the rest of the

> ideological
> > bagage be accepted as a package is irrational and when taking a step

> back
> > to be observed even silly.

>
> "What the ...? This is recognisable denial and counter-attack response.
>
> 'When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their
> flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended"
>
> A perfect example.


So according to you the editor of the American Journal of Cardiology is
a radical food cultist zealot carrying a whole set of ideological baggage.

Who's looking silly?

> It was already said that one may choose not to consume
> animal products for claimed health reasons, just as some do the same but
> saying that to have good health animal fat should be consumed. My remark
> did not support either extreme, please read again.
>
> One hopes against hope in newsgroups that people would read more
> carefully.


I'm sure everyone's carefully read the cites you've just snipped.

That'll do.

Now, since you've apparently abandoned discussion of the science...



  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan.science,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 71
Default A question, was "Some real scientific"

> > The radical food cultists of both extreems cause me to wonder why they
> > bother. Sure it is for them almost religious in motivation it seems

and
> a
> > zealot wants others to join the cheerleader squad. They also want it

> seem
> > by nosecount that their ideology is in some fashion better

rationalized.
> >
> > But aside from claiming some nutritional advantage they also demand

that
> > many other matters bow to a whole set of baggage they carry along. If
> > someone thinks that animal fat is vital to sound nutrition and another
> > that animal products should not be consumed for the same reason, well

> and
> > good and full joy to them. But to demand that the rest of the

> ideological
> > bagage be accepted as a package is irrational and when taking a step

> back
> > to be observed even silly.

>
> "What the ...? This is recognisable denial and counter-attack response.
>
> 'When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their
> flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended"
>
> A perfect example.


"So according to you the editor of the American Journal of Cardiology is a
radical food cultist zealot carrying a whole set of ideological baggage."

I don't know, I only know your response had little to do with my question
as to why radical food cultists behave as they do and expect others to do
likewise. What he is is not relevant.

"Who's looking silly?"

Smile, no comment.

> It was already said that one may choose not to consume
> animal products for claimed health reasons, just as some do the same but
> saying that to have good health animal fat should be consumed. My

remark
> did not support either extreme, please read again.
>
> One hopes against hope in newsgroups that people would read more
> carefully.


"I'm sure everyone's carefully read the cites you've just snipped."

If so they did it for reasons other then to address my question.


"That'll do."

Do what?

"Now, since you've apparently abandoned discussion of the science..."

No, I have abandoned from terminal boredom discussion of the science where
nothing new was being presented and all proposed objections to my view of
the science involved with vit b12 had been fully addressed, and addressed,
and addressed again. When discussion turns into ego point counts and are
confused with "discussing science" I quickly become bored.

Frankly, I was a bit surprised with the low level of knowledge on the
topic and how little understood was that little that was offered. But one
does think some advantage was to be found keeping respondents jumping and
turning again and again to their search engines.

Equally I was a bit surprised how scientifically dishonest some were
willing to be in defense of an undefendeable but strongly emotionally held
non-scientific agenda.

Some folk confuse having a valid and effective response with having a
response, any response just as long as bandwidth continues to be consumed.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vegan diets no good for your bones. PeterL[_17_] General Cooking 19 04-07-2009 07:16 PM
Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets crisology Vegan 76 18-08-2008 01:32 PM
Some real scientific information on raw vegan diets Laurie Vegan 1 16-08-2008 03:53 PM
ADA endourses VEGAN DIets for children (corrected buffer) Beach Runner Vegan 0 09-01-2006 02:00 PM
Dangers of vegetarian/vegan diets and importans of animal foods for children Wolfbrother Vegan 23 18-07-2004 02:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"