Jendev wrote:
> Thanks for asking, how are things going with you now
> days?

Pretty good, thanks.

> I hope to be back in the newsgroups more when my job/school/etc life
> slows down a bit...not sure when that will be though!

It'll all still be here when you're ready for it, and even if you're not.

Rubystars wrote:
> I'm interested in knowing what kind of health issues your friends were
> having. I've been trying to read up as much as I can on vegetarian and
> vegan diets over the past couple of years.

Veg-ns tend to suffer from anemia (iron deficiency), pernicious anemia
(B12 deficiency), and other such vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Also,
they're at risk of clinical eating disorders (anorexia). Age at start of
veg-nism appears to play a role in the latter.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Rubystars wrote:
> > I'm interested in knowing what kind of health issues your friends were
> > having. I've been trying to read up as much as I can on vegetarian and
> > vegan diets over the past couple of years.
>
> Veg-ns tend to suffer from anemia (iron deficiency), pernicious anemia
> (B12 deficiency), and other such vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Also,
> they're at risk of clinical eating disorders (anorexia). Age at start of
> veg-nism appears to play a role in the latter.

Vegans at risk for anorexia? that's a new one. The others are obvious if
you don't eat a balanced diet...but of course I was anemic as a meat eater
so mostly a general balanced nutritian is important.
jen

Jendev wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Rubystars wrote:
>>
>>>I'm interested in knowing what kind of health issues your friends were
>>>having. I've been trying to read up as much as I can on vegetarian and
>>>vegan diets over the past couple of years.
>>
>>Veg-ns tend to suffer from anemia (iron deficiency), pernicious anemia
>>(B12 deficiency), and other such vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Also,
>>they're at risk of clinical eating disorders (anorexia). Age at start of
>>veg-nism appears to play a role in the latter.
>
> Vegans at risk for anorexia? that's a new one.

Not really, and it can work either way. Anorexics can use vegetarianism
as a cover for their disorder. Vegetarians can get flaky about certain
foods and develop the disorder.

http://www.anorexiatruth.com/display...and%20Anorexia
http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/anor...egetarians.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m.../article.jhtml

Etc.

> The others are obvious if
> you don't eat a balanced diet...but of course I was anemic as a meat eater
> so mostly a general balanced nutritian is important.

Agreed.

usual suspect > wrote in message >. ..
> Rubystars wrote:
> > I'm interested in knowing what kind of health issues your friends were
> > having. I've been trying to read up as much as I can on vegetarian and
> > vegan diets over the past couple of years.
>
> Veg-ns tend to suffer from anemia (iron deficiency), pernicious anemia
> (B12 deficiency), and other such vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Also,
> they're at risk of clinical eating disorders (anorexia). Age at start of
> veg-nism appears to play a role in the latter.

I was thinking that veganism probably doesn't cause anorexia or other
eating disorders. More likely, those who developed it were already
obsessive about food or pre-disposed to eating disorders and that's
why they were searching out a restrictive diet to begin with.

I wouldn't think that a kid raised from childhood on a vegan diet with
parents who didn't obsess about weight, etc. would probably have as
good a chance as anyone else of not developing eating disorders. I
also wouldn't think that an adult person who was comfortable with
their body image who took up veganism for ethical reasons (or just for
better health) would develop anorexia. I guess teens would probably be
the at-risk group.

If someone eats eggs and dairy, do they have deficiencies? I thought
eggs were nutritional powerhouses.

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:
> I was thinking that veganism probably doesn't cause anorexia or other
> eating disorders. More likely, those who developed it were already
> obsessive about food or pre-disposed to eating disorders and that's
> why they were searching out a restrictive diet to begin with.

It works both ways, but I think it can be objectively argued that many
vegans are disposed toward eating disorders anyway. I pasted in some
links in my reply to Jenae.

> I wouldn't think that a kid raised from childhood on a vegan diet with
> parents who didn't obsess about weight, etc. would probably have as
> good a chance as anyone else of not developing eating disorders.

I'd argue that children raised in such rare circumstances wouldn't be
immune from peer pressure and other cultural pressures about diet and
image. Many people into exercise are the same with with diet and image
issues.

> I also wouldn't think that an adult person who was comfortable with
> their body image who took up veganism for ethical reasons (or just for
> better health) would develop anorexia. I guess teens would probably be
> the at-risk group.

Teens are predominantly at risk for eating disorders, but they're not
the only age group affected by them. Nor are females the only ones at
risk. Do a Google search of adult-onset anorexia and you might be
surprised what you find. Among other information I found on one site:

The oldest reported patient was a 68-year-old woman with no prior
history of eating disturbance.

Adult-onset cases usually come from upper-middle class families.

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

(http://www.ltspeed.com/bjblinder/publications/7.htm)

> If someone eats eggs and dairy, do they have deficiencies? I thought
> eggs were nutritional powerhouses.

It depends on variety. Full-fat dairy or skim? Any other foods or just
dairy and eggs? I have friends at the gym whose diets revolve around egg
whites, tuna (fresh, bagged, canned), skinless breast meat, and fat-free
dairy. They also eat fresh vegetables (cooked and raw), as well as fruit
in moderation and whole grains less often. They also take a lot of
supplements, so I doubt they have any net deficiencies.

Variety is the key to avoiding deficiencies.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Jendev wrote:
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Rubystars wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'm interested in knowing what kind of health issues your friends were
> >>>having. I've been trying to read up as much as I can on vegetarian and
> >>>vegan diets over the past couple of years.
> >>
> >>Veg-ns tend to suffer from anemia (iron deficiency), pernicious anemia
> >>(B12 deficiency), and other such vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Also,
> >>they're at risk of clinical eating disorders (anorexia). Age at start of
> >>veg-nism appears to play a role in the latter.
> >
> > Vegans at risk for anorexia? that's a new one.
>
> Not really, and it can work either way. Anorexics can use vegetarianism
> as a cover for their disorder. Vegetarians can get flaky about certain
> foods and develop the disorder.
>
>
http://www.anorexiatruth.com/display...and%20Anorexia
> http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/anor...egetarians.htm
>
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m.../article.jhtml
>
> Etc.
>
> > The others are obvious if
> > you don't eat a balanced diet...but of course I was anemic as a meat
eater
> > so mostly a general balanced nutritian is important.
>
> Agreed.

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.

usual suspect > wrote in message >. ..
<snip>
> I'd argue that children raised in such rare circumstances wouldn't be
> immune from peer pressure and other cultural pressures about diet and
> image. Many people into exercise are the same with with diet and image
> issues.

Yeah that's true.

<snip>
> Teens are predominantly at risk for eating disorders, but they're not
> the only age group affected by them. Nor are females the only ones at
> risk. Do a Google search of adult-onset anorexia and you might be
> surprised what you find. Among other information I found on one site:

I have heard of adults and males being affected before. I'm thinking
it's not necessarily the vegan diet that's the risk factor, but
non-mainstream diets in general that may be a risk factor: if only
because it puts someone's focus more on finding and avoiding certain
foods than other people.

<Snip>
> It depends on variety. Full-fat dairy or skim? Any other foods or just
> dairy and eggs? I have friends at the gym whose diets revolve around egg
> whites, tuna (fresh, bagged, canned), skinless breast meat, and fat-free
> dairy. They also eat fresh vegetables (cooked and raw), as well as fruit
> in moderation and whole grains less often. They also take a lot of
> supplements, so I doubt they have any net deficiencies.
>
> Variety is the key to avoiding deficiencies.

The vegetarians claim they have a more diverse diet than meat eaters
because they've explored more plant options than most meat eaters ever
do. I'm thinking that is probably true, since they need to be able to
create meals that don't get boring instead of just doubling up on
traditional "side dishes".

-Rubystars

"Dutch" > wrote in message >...
<snip>
> 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.

I did a search on orthorexia nervosa and I found this page which was
pretty enlightening as to how people can become far too obsessed with
food. It made me think of piddock when I was reading some parts of it,
how he wants other people to drop dead from heart attacks, etc.

http://www.chetday.com/billings.html

-Rubystars

"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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

-Rubystars

> "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!

"Rubystars" > wrote in message .. .
>
> "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.

- 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.

> > > 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.

Could have been taken from (true) predator kill. Certainly not evidence
that (all) humans consumed meat at regular intervals.

> 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.

Lifelong vegetarians don't have underdeveloped brains.

> > '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.

Some humans may well have eaten meat to augment plant-foods
where and when plant-foods were scarce, but behavioural adaptation
is not the same thing as anatomical and physiological adaptation.

> 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).

Why 'probably'? Have you ever scavenged roadkill? .. Why not?

> > 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.

Do *natural* predators find those large animals dangerous and hard to spot?
(smell)

> >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.

Some Native Americans drove bison off cliffs. Anywhere else?

> <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>

<restore>
*animal protein played a small role*,
<end restore>

> >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?

When 'whole herds were driven off cliffs'?

> >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.

Of course it's connected to calcium intake.

> <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.

Very well, all things considered.

> > "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.

But we're omnivores, says you. So why would eating even small
amounts of animal-based foods be linked at least for many individuals
to significantly higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular diseases?

> <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.

Not a problem for true omnivores.

> 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.

And as I said, but you snipped;

'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

> 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,

You're *sure*? At all times? You don't know that for sure.

*animal protein played a small role*

> 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.

For different reasons.

> <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

'in poorer environments predation on vertebrates appears to be much
more common'.

> > So do some types of nuts and seeds.
>
> Nuts and seeds help, but fish are also a good source.

So are some types of nuts and seeds.

> > > 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

'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

> <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.

'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

> <Snip irrelevant stuff about a 7th day adventist group>

<restore _relevant_ Seventh-day Adventist study>

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>
> > 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.

If humans are omnivores, why are hospitals bursting at the seams,
and pharm'crap a multi-billion dollar business (con). Why are diseases
associated with meat-eating, like heart disease, diabetes, stroke and
some cancers the leading causes of death, beside iatrogenic deaths?

Again;

'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

> > 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.

Sliced very thin, or torn of off a slab?

> <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.

Strawman. My argument is that it was eaten due to necessity, not nature.

> > > 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.

Still not evidence that humans are *natural* omnivores.

In fact, try killing and butchering an animal without tools.
(in your mind .

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
.. .
> >
> > "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.
>
> - 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.
==================
Because the above isn't really fact. Try reading it for once...
Besides, even they aren't recommending a vegan diet you ignorant fool.
Man, you really are terminally stupid, aren't you, killer?



snippage...

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> - 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 not. Reasonable amounts of meat are not harmful.

> > > > 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.
>
> Could have been taken from (true) predator kill. Certainly not evidence
> that (all) humans consumed meat at regular intervals.

There was of course some scavenging going on but humans also hunted. An
intact skin isn't that easy to get from an animal that's already been ripped
up by carnivores and scavengers.

> > 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.
> Lifelong vegetarians don't have underdeveloped brains.

When did I ever claim they did?

<snip>
> Some humans may well have eaten meat to augment plant-foods
> where and when plant-foods were scarce, but behavioural adaptation
> is not the same thing as anatomical and physiological adaptation.

We are physically adapted to eat an omnivorous diet.

> > 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).
>
> Why 'probably'? Have you ever scavenged roadkill? .. Why not?

From everything I've read its likely that Australopithecines scavenged some
meat. They probably didn't hunt much, if at all. However, I don't see what
the problem is with that in relation to us, because even though they were
"proto human" they were not humans. If people could travel back in time and
look at a living one, most people would see them as an ape, not a human.

That roadkill comment is irrelevant.

> > > 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.

Tree kangaroos are not large animals.

> > Large animals are dangerous and hard to spot in the jungle environment
of
> > New Guinea.
>
> Do *natural* predators find those large animals dangerous and hard to
spot?
> (smell)

Humans have more of their brains going to thought and much less going to
smell than most other mammals, be they herbivore, omnivore, or carnivore.

Also the use of camoflauge does hide animals from other natural predators.

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

In some parts of Africa it was a rite of passage to kill a lion when a boy
became a man. They must have had pretty good tools for that kind of thing. I
think they could handle an antelope (btw, humans can kill animals with more
than just weapons, think of pit traps, snares, etc.).

> Some Native Americans drove bison off cliffs. Anywhere else?

Well since you agree with me that's one possible way of hunting that's been
used at least once, I think that's pretty much the point I was trying to
make. That humans are capable of taking down large game (Even many at once).
They don't have to jump on the back of an antelope and rip it apart with
bare teeth and fingernails to be hunters.

<Snip>
> When 'whole herds were driven off cliffs'?

Possibly some milk came from there, or they could've killed a mother animal
other times as well.

<snip>
> > For many individuals, yes. For humans as a whole, no. Some people do
need to
> > watch their diets more closely than others.
>
> But we're omnivores, says you. So why would eating even small
> amounts of animal-based foods be linked at least for many individuals
> to significantly higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular diseases?

Because some individuals are prone to cancers and cardiovascular disease, be
it through a family history of those diseases, or other exposures to
carcinogens. You're the one making the extraordinary claim, that humans are
not omnivores, even though I've never seeen a purely vegetarian or vegan
society any time I've ever seen a tribe on National Geographic.

I've also never read or heard of one anywhere or any time. If they existed
in the far past, they were rare.

> > 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.
>
> Not a problem for true omnivores.

Omnivores need both meat and plants to be healthy. At least, the nutrients
that can be found in meat.

> > Yes, that makes sense. I'm sure they ate both at all times,
>
> You're *sure*? At all times? You don't know that for sure.

All that claimed is that the proportions changed, it never said that there
was ever a vegetarian or vegan society.

<snip?
> If humans are omnivores, why are hospitals bursting at the seams,
> and pharm'crap a multi-billion dollar business (con). Why are diseases
> associated with meat-eating, like heart disease, diabetes, stroke and
> some cancers the leading causes of death, beside iatrogenic deaths?

Hospitals are overworked because we have a large aging population. Diseases
associated with meat eating tend to be associated with over consumption of
high fat meats, in every study I've ever read. Think pork chops, fried
chicken, etc.

> Sliced very thin, or torn of off a slab?

Humans have had tools to cut meat for their entire existence. Your question
therefore doesn't make a lot of sense. Knives pre-date humanity. However to
be specific I ate sushi in fairly big pieces, and the steak I ate was very
tender.

> > <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.
>
> Strawman. My argument is that it was eaten due to necessity, not nature.

All right. I think it's eaten by necessity because people need the nutrients
in meat (though these can be gotten, in modern times, from other sources).

<snip>
> > Because they indicate animal use/hunting.
>
> Still not evidence that humans are *natural* omnivores.

I'm probably getting confused on what you mean because we're using two
different definitions of natural.

> In fact, try killing and butchering an animal without tools.
> (in your mind .

Humans have had tools for their entire existence.

These links explain things a lot better than I ever could:
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.html
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-1a.shtml

-Rubystars

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
igy.com...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> <snip>
> > - 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 not. Reasonable amounts of meat are not harmful.

"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

> > > > > 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.
> >
> > Could have been taken from (true) predator kill. Certainly not evidence
> > that (all) humans consumed meat at regular intervals.
>
> There was of course some scavenging going on but humans also hunted. An
> intact skin isn't that easy to get from an animal that's already been ripped
> up by carnivores and scavengers.

Black Bears
...
Often "skins out" the carcass and leave the hide intact
http://www.imok.ufl.edu/wild/coyote/pred_id.htm

Other predators may do the same. Entry is usually through the
soft underbelly.

> > > 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.
>>
> > Lifelong vegetarians don't have underdeveloped brains.
>
> When did I ever claim they did?

When did I ever claim you claimed they did?

> <snip>
> > Some humans may well have eaten meat to augment plant-foods
> > where and when plant-foods were scarce, but behavioural adaptation
> > is not the same thing as anatomical and physiological adaptation.
>
> We are physically adapted to eat an omnivorous diet.

In what way? Where's your evidence for that?

<..>
> > > For many individuals, yes. For humans as a whole, no. Some people do need to
> > > watch their diets more closely than others.
> >
> > But we're omnivores, says you. So why would eating even small
> > amounts of animal-based foods be linked at least for many individuals
> > to significantly higher rates of cancers and cardiovascular diseases?
>
> Because some individuals are prone to cancers and cardiovascular disease, be
> it through a family history of those diseases, or other exposures to
> carcinogens.

'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

> You're the one making the extraordinary claim, that humans are
> not omnivores, even though I've never seeen a purely vegetarian or vegan
> society any time I've ever seen a tribe on National Geographic.
>
> I've also never read or heard of one anywhere or any time. If they existed
> in the far past, they were rare.

Traditionally, nearly, if not wholly vegetarian- Mediterranean
countries, China, India, Caucasus, Georgia, some Native American
tribes, Hunzas in Pakistan, the Vilcambians in Ecuador ..

> > > 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.
> >
> > Not a problem for true omnivores.
>
> Omnivores need both meat and plants to be healthy. At least, the nutrients
> that can be found in meat.

Humans don't need meat, as long as adequate plant-foods are available.

> > > Yes, that makes sense. I'm sure they ate both at all times,
> >
> > You're *sure*? At all times? You don't know that for sure.
>
> All that claimed is that the proportions changed, it never said that there
> was ever a vegetarian or vegan society.

'it'? What would you expect to find as evidence for purely vegetarian
nomadic tribes?

> <snip?
> > If humans are omnivores, why are hospitals bursting at the seams,
> > and pharm'crap a multi-billion dollar business (con). Why are diseases
> > associated with meat-eating, like heart disease, diabetes, stroke and
> > some cancers the leading causes of death, beside iatrogenic deaths?
>
> Hospitals are overworked because we have a large aging population. Diseases
> associated with meat eating tend to be associated with over consumption of
> high fat meats, in every study I've ever read. Think pork chops, fried
> chicken, etc.

Maybe you should read this then;

'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

> > Sliced very thin, or torn of off a slab?
>
> Humans have had tools to cut meat for their entire existence. Your question
> therefore doesn't make a lot of sense. Knives pre-date humanity. However to
> be specific I ate sushi in fairly big pieces, and the steak I ate was very
> tender.

Think you could get to grips with a raw haunch of lamb?

> > > <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.
> >
> > Strawman. My argument is that it was eaten due to necessity, not nature.
>
> All right. I think it's eaten by necessity because people need the nutrients
> in meat (though these can be gotten, in modern times, from other sources).

SOME people needed to augment their diet with meat, - when plant foods
were scarce.

> <snip>
> > > Because they indicate animal use/hunting.
> >
> > Still not evidence that humans are *natural* omnivores.
>
> I'm probably getting confused on what you mean because we're using two
> different definitions of natural.

Naturally equipped, anatomically and physiologically, to catch,
kill and consume animals, like real predators do.

> > In fact, try killing and butchering an animal without tools.
> > (in your mind .
>
> Humans have had tools for their entire existence.

Would you classify us as an aquatic creature because we
can scuba dive?

> These links explain things a lot better than I ever could:
> http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

Where you'll find this;

"the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain
ecological, ethical, and health concerns. "
_health concerns_? ... uhuh..

and;

Quoted from an editorial by William Clifford Roberts, M.d.,
Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of Cardiology:
"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."

> http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-1a.shtml

Ahh yes, ye ole billings, who says; "humans might be frugivores"

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> igy.com...
> >
> > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > <snip>
> > > - 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 not. Reasonable amounts of meat are not harmful.
>
> "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
==================
Not fact, stupid... Try reading it for once...
Besides, even they aren't recommending a vegan diet you ignorant fool.
Man, you really are terminally stupid, aren't you, killer?





snippage...

to do that.
> >>
> > > Lifelong vegetarians don't have underdeveloped brains.
> >
> > When did I ever claim they did?
>
> When did I ever claim you claimed they did?
====================
You, twits, ****ant, expository and many other vegans here make that
conclusion
pretty well determined.


>
> > <snip>
> > > Some humans may well have eaten meat to augment plant-foods
> > > where and when plant-foods were scarce, but behavioural adaptation
> > > is not the same thing as anatomical and physiological adaptation.
> >
> > We are physically adapted to eat an omnivorous diet.
>
> In what way? Where's your evidence for that?
=====================
Because we aren't frugivores, you dolt.




snippage of the same lys told over again....

"rick etter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> > igy.com...
> > >
> > > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > <snip>
> > > > - 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 not. Reasonable amounts of meat are not harmful.
> >
> > "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
> ==================
> Not fact, stupid... Try reading it for once...
> Besides, even they aren't recommending a vegan diet you ignorant fool.
> Man, you really are terminally stupid, aren't you, killer?
>
>
>
>
>
> snippage...
>
> to do that.
> > >>
> > > > Lifelong vegetarians don't have underdeveloped brains.
> > >
> > > When did I ever claim they did?
> >
> > When did I ever claim you claimed they did?
> ====================
> You, twits, ****ant, expository and many other vegans here make that
> conclusion
> pretty well determined.
>
>
> >
> > > <snip>
> > > > Some humans may well have eaten meat to augment plant-foods
> > > > where and when plant-foods were scarce, but behavioural adaptation
> > > > is not the same thing as anatomical and physiological adaptation.
> > >
> > > We are physically adapted to eat an omnivorous diet.
> >
> > In what way? Where's your evidence for that?
> =====================
> Because we aren't frugivores, you dolt.

Sorry to interrupt. As a health care provider, I follow a vegan diet with
the exception of chicken and fish. One can use butter rather than oleo
(same calories and fats) to get animal protein and vitiamins/minerals.
There are so many. Personally I prefer beans, lentils, and nuts. I have
come through chemotherapy and it left me pitifully thin. Today I keep fit
and appreciate what I do have. So far, so good. There is no reason not to
have flavor and to enjoy food. Norma

PS Eating 6 times a day (small feedings) also helps the waistline.

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
<snip entire post>

You know I don't know where to begin with you pearl. If you want to deny
humanity's entire natural history, along with the fact that we can use
tools, and always have used tools, and that nearly every society on earth
consumes meat, and there's evidence that goes far back into the past, then I
don't know what to say to you.

A purely vegetarian society would not leave behind bone piles and stone
tools crafted to cut meat. They wouldn't have needed fires to dry and cook
meat. They wouldn't have worn animal skins that would've been ripped apart
by predators. There would've been no reason why dogs would've hung around
our garbage piles and gotten domesticated if all we had to offer them was
veggie scraps.

I tried to talk to you but every time I say anything you copy and paste the
same garbage you put in other posts. I don't understand what the problem is
with that.

The health benefits of vegetarianism come around because most people
over-consume meat and don't get enough fiber or other benefits of plant
foods.

You seem to be as misguided as a creationist or holocaust denier.

We have a natural tendency toward eating foods that are nutrient dense when
they're available. Now that meat is constantly available in the Western
World, people have naturally made it a part of every meal.

Here's a test. Take a toddler and place a piece of steamed broccoli in front
of them, and a small bowl of ice cream. Which one are they going to eat more
of after the first taste?

Second test. Place a piece of tender steak in front of a young child and a
piece of steamed broccoli. The child will want more steak, not more
broccoli.

Why is this?

On second thought, just stay away from kids.

-Rubystars

"Rubystars" > wrote in message .. .
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> <snip entire post>
>
> You know I don't know where to begin with you pearl.

Try addressing what I've posted.

> If you want to deny
> humanity's entire natural history, along with the fact that we can use
> tools, and always have used tools, and that nearly every society on earth
> consumes meat, and there's evidence that goes far back into the past, then I
> don't know what to say to you.

You're ignoring the evidence I posted.

> A purely vegetarian society would not leave behind bone piles and stone
> tools crafted to cut meat. They wouldn't have needed fires to dry and cook
> meat. They wouldn't have worn animal skins that would've been ripped apart
> by predators. There would've been no reason why dogs would've hung around
> our garbage piles and gotten domesticated if all we had to offer them was
> veggie scraps.
>
> I tried to talk to you but every time I say anything you copy and paste the
> same garbage you put in other posts. I don't understand what the problem is
> with that.

I don't understand why you die-hard meatarians keep ignoring the evidence.

Must be your addiction.

> The health benefits of vegetarianism come around because most people
> over-consume meat and don't get enough fiber or other benefits of plant
> foods.

You've ignored the evidence showing otherwise.

> You seem to be as misguided as a creationist or holocaust denier.

You're the one ignoring the evidence.

> We have a natural tendency toward eating foods that are nutrient dense when
> they're available. Now that meat is constantly available in the Western
> World, people have naturally made it a part of every meal.

Saturated fat is addictive, dear.

> Here's a test. Take a toddler and place a piece of steamed broccoli in front
> of them, and a small bowl of ice cream. Which one are they going to eat more
> of after the first taste?

Humans naturally prefer sweet tasting foods. Like fruits.

> Second test. Place a piece of tender steak in front of a young child and a
> piece of steamed broccoli. The child will want more steak, not more
> broccoli.

Young children savage their pets all the time, yeah?

> Why is this?
>
> On second thought, just stay away from kids.

FOB.

> -Rubystars
>
>

squirrely pearly wrote:
>>You know I don't know where to begin with you pearl.
>
> Try addressing what I've posted.

She has but you resort to pasting the same boring crap over and over again.

<snip>
>>We have a natural tendency toward eating foods that are nutrient dense when
>>they're available. Now that meat is constantly available in the Western
>>World, people have naturally made it a part of every meal.
>
> Saturated fat is addictive, dear.

*Why*? Ever consider that one, nitwit? Could it have something to do
with our evolution?

>>Here's a test. Take a toddler and place a piece of steamed broccoli in front
>>of them, and a small bowl of ice cream. Which one are they going to eat more
>>of after the first taste?
>
> Humans naturally prefer sweet tasting foods. Like fruits.

And ice cream, and Popsicles, and candy bars.

>>Second test. Place a piece of tender steak in front of a young child and a
>>piece of steamed broccoli. The child will want more steak, not more
>>broccoli.
>
> Young children savage their pets all the time, yeah?

Evasion. Answer her question.

>>Why is this?
>>
>>On second thought, just stay away from kids.
>
> FOB.

Gee whiz, no need to get so nasty.

Don't worry, Rubystars, Lesley doesn't have kids and doesn't seem to
have *any* contact with young'uns. That became apparent several months
ago when she attempted to theorize about children and food and what kids
stick in their mouths (especially at certain ages). She thought children
would be too repulsed by worms and such to put them in their mouths, or
that their mommies would ALWAYS stop them (despite the fact that worms
and grubs are delicacies in some cultures, so mommy might eat them).

LOL! In searching for the thread, I found her first mention of the IQ
test. Imagine that!

I'd written (about her):
> She has the attention span of a severely hyperactive two
> year-old and the IQ of a malnourished and retarded squirrel,
> so asking her to read or pay attention is futile. You
> should've seen her brazen lunacy about polar holes and ion
> fountains a couple months back.
>
> <snip>

She responded with:

Addressing the issues head-on as usual, aren't ya, suspect.
<sarcasm>

An IQ test I took recently gave me a score of 135.
Stick that up yer nose and inhale sharply.
http://tinyurl.com/vksl

"pearl" > wrote in message ...

> FOB.
>
What on Earth can you do though, girl? I've been
following this from the sart, of course, and to tell
you truth, judging from Rube's replies I'm not even
sure Rube read a single article you brought here.

"pearl" > wrote in message
<snip>
> Try addressing what I've posted.

All I've seen you post is some article about meat being bad for people. And
when I tried to have a conversation with you about it, or express a
different opinion, all you did was copy and paste.

> You're ignoring the evidence I posted.

You've given no evidence that humans are frugivores.

<snip>
> > We have a natural tendency toward eating foods that are nutrient dense
when
> > they're available. Now that meat is constantly available in the Western
> > World, people have naturally made it a part of every meal.
>
> Saturated fat is addictive, dear.

People need the nutrients in meat,. It's possible to get those nutrients
from other sources, of course.

> > Here's a test. Take a toddler and place a piece of steamed broccoli in
front
> > of them, and a small bowl of ice cream. Which one are they going to eat
more
> > of after the first taste?
>
> Humans naturally prefer sweet tasting foods. Like fruits.

That still doesn't explain the meat. That also doesn't explain why many
vegetables taste to one degree or another, bitter and unpleasant, while meat
tastes good.

> > Second test. Place a piece of tender steak in front of a young child and
a
> > piece of steamed broccoli. The child will want more steak, not more
> > broccoli.
>
> Young children savage their pets all the time, yeah?

Kids do put bugs in their mouth.

-Rubystars

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
<snip>
> Don't worry, Rubystars, Lesley doesn't have kids and doesn't seem to
> have *any* contact with young'uns. That became apparent several months
> ago when she attempted to theorize about children and food and what kids
> stick in their mouths (especially at certain ages). She thought children
> would be too repulsed by worms and such to put them in their mouths, or
> that their mommies would ALWAYS stop them (despite the fact that worms
> and grubs are delicacies in some cultures, so mommy might eat them).

Insects and grubs and worms are highly nutritious, even if most people in
Western cultures think of them as disgusting.

-Rubystars

Dreck Trash, the unethical editor of posts > wrote in message >.. .
> "pearl" > wrote in message ...
>
> > FOB.
> >
> What on Earth can you do though, girl? I've been
> following this from the sart, of course, and to tell
> you truth, judging from Rube's replies I'm not even
> sure Rube read a single article you brought here.


Spending your pocket change again? Should I quote some of your
replies to "Lieslie" from earlier this year?

Kevin

"K D B" > wrote in message om...
> Dreck Trash, the unethical editor of posts > wrote in message >.. .
> > "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> >
> > > FOB.
> > >
> > What on Earth can you do though, girl? I've been
> > following this from the sart, of course, and to tell
> > you truth, judging from Rube's replies I'm not even
> > sure Rube read a single article you brought here.
>
>
> Spending your pocket change again? Should I quote some of your
> replies to "Lieslie" from earlier this year?
>
Go right ahead, pimp. Tell me, are you still pimping
out your wife every weekend to old blokes in rain
macs at that place where she works as a slut?