Is there any reason a proper, healthy vegan diet cannot supply all of the
necessary vitamins and minerals without supplementing?

ta wrote:
> Is there any reason a proper, healthy vegan diet cannot supply all of the
> necessary vitamins and minerals without supplementing?

A lot of planning would have to go into such a diet to assure getting
the proper RDA of vitamins and minerals. One would especially have to
pay attention to zinc, iron, and B-12. In the real world,
supplementation *is* necessary since most veg-ns don't pay attention to
what they eat except to make sure their food has no animal parts.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> ta wrote:
> > Is there any reason a proper, healthy vegan diet cannot supply all of
the
> > necessary vitamins and minerals without supplementing?
>
> A lot of planning would have to go into such a diet to assure getting
> the proper RDA of vitamins and minerals. One would especially have to
> pay attention to zinc, iron, and B-12. In the real world,
> supplementation *is* necessary since most veg-ns don't pay attention to
> what they eat except to make sure their food has no animal parts.

because of the mass farming, pollution and stuff-there are not all the
vitamins we need in the vegetables and fruit..it is a good idea to
supplement...

"Michael Balarama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ta wrote:
> > > Is there any reason a proper, healthy vegan diet cannot supply all of
> the
> > > necessary vitamins and minerals without supplementing?
> >
> > A lot of planning would have to go into such a diet to assure getting
> > the proper RDA of vitamins and minerals. One would especially have to
> > pay attention to zinc, iron, and B-12. In the real world,
> > supplementation *is* necessary since most veg-ns don't pay attention to
> > what they eat except to make sure their food has no animal parts.
>
> because of the mass farming, pollution and stuff-there are not all the
> vitamins we need in the vegetables and fruit..it is a good idea to
> supplement...

Michael, you hit on a key secondary question that I was hoping to address
as well. That is, to what extent, if any, has the quality of human food
degraded to the point where supplementing is necessary? Naturally (no pun
intended) human beings didn't always have vitamin pills, nor did they
probably need them. In other words, shouldn't we be able to get absolutely
everything we need from the food we eat, and if not, why not? You hit on a
couple of reasons, but if you have any specific sources on that, I'd
appreciate it.

The reason I ask is because it seems entirely "unnatural" to have to take
supplements. Thanks.

snip
Naturally (no pun
> intended) human beings didn't always have vitamin pills, nor did they
> probably need them.
A good diet is a relatively recent phenonomen and we in the western world
tend to spoil it by eating too much. Food is now heavily processed and it
is easy to eat to over-indulge. In recent history, many people had poor
diets; they simply did not understand the connection between diet and health
or they were too poor to be able to afford food to sustain themselves
adequately.

In other words, shouldn't we be able to get absolutely
> everything we need from the food we eat, and if not, why not? > The reason
I ask is because it seems entirely "unnatural" to have to take
> supplements. Thanks.

Because things are "natural" it does not necessarily mean it is "good".
Famine is natural - not necessarily desirable. You probably could get all
the nutrients you need from your food if you understood enough about it -
but most of us have the occasional snack day, the day we have a take out,
the day we just don't bother much, the times we overwork or over play - and
I take supplements as an insurance, rather than to replace food.
Deb
>

"ta" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Michael Balarama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > ta wrote:
> > > > Is there any reason a proper, healthy vegan diet cannot supply all
of
> > the
> > > > necessary vitamins and minerals without supplementing?
> > >
> > > A lot of planning would have to go into such a diet to assure getting
> > > the proper RDA of vitamins and minerals. One would especially have to
> > > pay attention to zinc, iron, and B-12. In the real world,
> > > supplementation *is* necessary since most veg-ns don't pay attention
to
> > > what they eat except to make sure their food has no animal parts.
> >
> > because of the mass farming, pollution and stuff-there are not all the
> > vitamins we need in the vegetables and fruit..it is a good idea to
> > supplement...
>
> Michael, you hit on a key secondary question that I was hoping to address
> as well. That is, to what extent, if any, has the quality of human food
> degraded to the point where supplementing is necessary? Naturally (no pun
> intended) human beings didn't always have vitamin pills, nor did they
> probably need them. In other words, shouldn't we be able to get absolutely
> everything we need from the food we eat, and if not, why not? You hit on a
> couple of reasons, but if you have any specific sources on that, I'd
> appreciate it.

I am sorry -My wife is out of town-it was along time ago in Calif- think
Adele Davis, might have started the rumblings about the soil, water,
atmosphere and our vegetables..I think that victor Vin?????guy also said
that..
Michael





>
> The reason I ask is because it seems entirely "unnatural" to have to take
> supplements. Thanks.
>
>

"ta" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Michael Balarama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > ta wrote:
> > > > Is there any reason a proper, healthy vegan diet cannot supply all
of
> > the
> > > > necessary vitamins and minerals without supplementing?
> > >
> > > A lot of planning would have to go into such a diet to assure getting
> > > the proper RDA of vitamins and minerals. One would especially have to
> > > pay attention to zinc, iron, and B-12. In the real world,
> > > supplementation *is* necessary since most veg-ns don't pay attention
to
> > > what they eat except to make sure their food has no animal parts.
> >
> > because of the mass farming, pollution and stuff-there are not all the
> > vitamins we need in the vegetables and fruit..it is a good idea to
> > supplement...
>
> Michael, you hit on a key secondary question that I was hoping to address
> as well. That is, to what extent, if any, has the quality of human food
> degraded to the point where supplementing is necessary? Naturally (no pun
> intended) human beings didn't always have vitamin pills, nor did they
> probably need them. In other words, shouldn't we be able to get absolutely
> everything we need from the food we eat, and if not, why not? You hit on a
> couple of reasons, but if you have any specific sources on that, I'd
> appreciate it.

This might hlep-Eric the Programming director at our TV station-is a
vegan...
I asked him for help...
From what I was taught, you are correct, the soil is depleted of nutrients
due to innappropriate commercial use of land. Also, we thoroughly wash the
fruits and veggies, which counteracts us getting the bacteria we need that
produces B12 in our colons. I don't have specific sources, but I would
start him off on Dr. Schulze's stuff. As for books, tell him to look up
Herbert Shelton (a pioneer in natural hygiene movement in america.

Eric












>
> The reason I ask is because it seems entirely "unnatural" to have to take
> supplements. Thanks.
>
>

"Michael Balarama" > wrote in message >...
> "ta" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "Michael Balarama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > ta wrote:
> > > > > Is there any reason a proper, healthy vegan diet cannot supply all
> of
> the
> > > > > necessary vitamins and minerals without supplementing?
> > > >
> > > > A lot of planning would have to go into such a diet to assure getting
> > > > the proper RDA of vitamins and minerals. One would especially have to
> > > > pay attention to zinc, iron, and B-12. In the real world,
> > > > supplementation *is* necessary since most veg-ns don't pay attention
> to
> > > > what they eat except to make sure their food has no animal parts.
> > >
> > > because of the mass farming, pollution and stuff-there are not all the
> > > vitamins we need in the vegetables and fruit..it is a good idea to
> > > supplement...
> >
> > Michael, you hit on a key secondary question that I was hoping to address
> > as well. That is, to what extent, if any, has the quality of human food
> > degraded to the point where supplementing is necessary? Naturally (no pun
> > intended) human beings didn't always have vitamin pills, nor did they
> > probably need them. In other words, shouldn't we be able to get absolutely
> > everything we need from the food we eat, and if not, why not? You hit on a
> > couple of reasons, but if you have any specific sources on that, I'd
> > appreciate it.
>
> This might hlep-Eric the Programming director at our TV station-is a
> vegan...
> I asked him for help...
> From what I was taught, you are correct, the soil is depleted of nutrients
> due to innappropriate commercial use of land. Also, we thoroughly wash the
> fruits and veggies, which counteracts us getting the bacteria we need that
> produces B12 in our colons. I don't have specific sources, but I would
> start him off on Dr. Schulze's stuff. As for books, tell him to look up
> Herbert Shelton (a pioneer in natural hygiene movement in america.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > The reason I ask is because it seems entirely "unnatural" to have to take
> > supplements. Thanks.
> >
> >

This is an interesting discussion to me because I work with a
supplement manufacturer that frequently comments about the issue of
soil depletion, and why this makes it so important to take supplements
(like theirs). I've never been completely clear if that angle is
"junk science" for the sake of marketing more product, or if there's a
factual basis.

I'd be real interested to know if anyone can direct me to independent
research that backs this up factually...

Aaron

"Aaron" > wrote in message
om...
> "Michael Balarama" > wrote in message
>...
> > "ta" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >
> > > "Michael Balarama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > ta wrote:
> > > > > > Is there any reason a proper, healthy vegan diet cannot supply
all
> > of
> > the
> > > > > > necessary vitamins and minerals without supplementing?
> > > > >
> > > > > A lot of planning would have to go into such a diet to assure
getting
> > > > > the proper RDA of vitamins and minerals. One would especially have
to
> > > > > pay attention to zinc, iron, and B-12. In the real world,
> > > > > supplementation *is* necessary since most veg-ns don't pay
attention
> > to
> > > > > what they eat except to make sure their food has no animal parts.
> > > >
> > > > because of the mass farming, pollution and stuff-there are not all
the
> > > > vitamins we need in the vegetables and fruit..it is a good idea to
> > > > supplement...
> > >
> > > Michael, you hit on a key secondary question that I was hoping to
address
> > > as well. That is, to what extent, if any, has the quality of human
food
> > > degraded to the point where supplementing is necessary? Naturally (no
pun
> > > intended) human beings didn't always have vitamin pills, nor did they
> > > probably need them. In other words, shouldn't we be able to get
absolutely
> > > everything we need from the food we eat, and if not, why not? You hit
on a
> > > couple of reasons, but if you have any specific sources on that, I'd
> > > appreciate it.
> >
> > This might hlep-Eric the Programming director at our TV station-is a
> > vegan...
> > I asked him for help...
> > From what I was taught, you are correct, the soil is depleted of
nutrients
> > due to innappropriate commercial use of land. Also, we thoroughly wash
the
> > fruits and veggies, which counteracts us getting the bacteria we need
that
> > produces B12 in our colons. I don't have specific sources, but I would
> > start him off on Dr. Schulze's stuff. As for books, tell him to look up
> > Herbert Shelton (a pioneer in natural hygiene movement in america.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The reason I ask is because it seems entirely "unnatural" to have to
take
> > > supplements. Thanks.
> > >
> > >
>
> This is an interesting discussion to me because I work with a
> supplement manufacturer that frequently comments about the issue of
> soil depletion, and why this makes it so important to take supplements
> (like theirs). I've never been completely clear if that angle is
> "junk science" for the sake of marketing more product, or if there's a
> factual basis.
>
> I'd be real interested to know if anyone can direct me to independent
> research that backs this up factually...

If they read the old testament, even God instructed man to use the land with
a set of rules. Organic farmers tend to follow these rules more closely
than commercial farming practices. Use the land for 6 years, and the
seventh year is a Sabbath (rest) for the land. Every seventh land Sabbath,
the land is not to be used for growing for 7 years. Organic farmers section
off their land and use half of it for 4 years and the other half the next
four years (or something like that). This allows the land to recuperate
lost nutrients and makes the fruits and veggies grow full of nutrition.

"Aaron" > wrote in message
om...
> "Michael Balarama" > wrote in message
>...
> > "ta" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >
> > > "Michael Balarama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > ta wrote:
> > > > > > Is there any reason a proper, healthy vegan diet cannot supply
all
> > of
> > the
> > > > > > necessary vitamins and minerals without supplementing?
> > > > >
> > > > > A lot of planning would have to go into such a diet to assure
getting
> > > > > the proper RDA of vitamins and minerals. One would especially have
to
> > > > > pay attention to zinc, iron, and B-12. In the real world,
> > > > > supplementation *is* necessary since most veg-ns don't pay
attention
> > to
> > > > > what they eat except to make sure their food has no animal parts.
> > > >
> > > > because of the mass farming, pollution and stuff-there are not all
the
> > > > vitamins we need in the vegetables and fruit..it is a good idea to
> > > > supplement...
> > >
> > > Michael, you hit on a key secondary question that I was hoping to
address
> > > as well. That is, to what extent, if any, has the quality of human
food
> > > degraded to the point where supplementing is necessary? Naturally (no
pun
> > > intended) human beings didn't always have vitamin pills, nor did they
> > > probably need them. In other words, shouldn't we be able to get
absolutely
> > > everything we need from the food we eat, and if not, why not? You hit
on a
> > > couple of reasons, but if you have any specific sources on that, I'd
> > > appreciate it.
> >
> > This might hlep-Eric the Programming director at our TV station-is a
> > vegan...
> > I asked him for help...
> > From what I was taught, you are correct, the soil is depleted of
nutrients
> > due to innappropriate commercial use of land. Also, we thoroughly wash
the
> > fruits and veggies, which counteracts us getting the bacteria we need
that
> > produces B12 in our colons. I don't have specific sources, but I would
> > start him off on Dr. Schulze's stuff. As for books, tell him to look up
> > Herbert Shelton (a pioneer in natural hygiene movement in america.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The reason I ask is because it seems entirely "unnatural" to have to
take
> > > supplements. Thanks.
> > >
> > >
>
> This is an interesting discussion to me because I work with a
> supplement manufacturer that frequently comments about the issue of
> soil depletion, and why this makes it so important to take supplements
> (like theirs). I've never been completely clear if that angle is
> "junk science" for the sake of marketing more product, or if there's a
> factual basis.
>
> I'd be real interested to know if anyone can direct me to independent
> research that backs this up factually...
>
> Aaron

Here's one source I came upon:

http://www.healingwithnutrition.com/s264.html

"ta" > wrote in message . ..
>
> "Aaron" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Michael Balarama" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "ta" > wrote in message
> > > .. .
> > > >
> > > > "Michael Balarama" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > ta wrote:
> > > > > > > Is there any reason a proper, healthy vegan diet cannot supply all
> > > > > > > of the necessary vitamins and minerals without supplementing?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A lot of planning would have to go into such a diet to assure getting
> > > > > > the proper RDA of vitamins and minerals. One would especially have to
> > > > > > pay attention to zinc, iron, and B-12. In the real world,
> > > > > > supplementation *is* necessary since most veg-ns don't pay attention to
> > > > > > what they eat except to make sure their food has no animal parts.
> > > > >
> > > > > because of the mass farming, pollution and stuff-there are not all the
> > > > > vitamins we need in the vegetables and fruit..it is a good idea to
> > > > > supplement...
> > > >
> > > > Michael, you hit on a key secondary question that I was hoping to address
> > > > as well. That is, to what extent, if any, has the quality of human food
> > > > degraded to the point where supplementing is necessary? Naturally (no pun
> > > > intended) human beings didn't always have vitamin pills, nor did they
> > > > probably need them. In other words, shouldn't we be able to get absolutely
> > > > everything we need from the food we eat, and if not, why not? You hit on a
> > > > couple of reasons, but if you have any specific sources on that, I'd
> > > > appreciate it.
> > >
> > > This might hlep-Eric the Programming director at our TV station-is a
> > > vegan...
> > > I asked him for help...
> > > From what I was taught, you are correct, the soil is depleted of nutrients
> > > due to innappropriate commercial use of land. Also, we thoroughly wash the
> > > fruits and veggies, which counteracts us getting the bacteria we need that
> > > produces B12 in our colons. I don't have specific sources, but I would
> > > start him off on Dr. Schulze's stuff. As for books, tell him to look up
> > > Herbert Shelton (a pioneer in natural hygiene movement in america.
> > >
> > > Eric

Nature 1980 Feb 21;283(5749):781-2Related Articles, Links
Vitamin B12 synthesis by human small intestinal bacteria.
Albert MJ, Mathan VI, Baker SJ.

In man, physiological amounts of vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) are
absorbed by the intrinsic factor mediated mechanism exclusively in
the ileum. Human faeces contain appreciable quantities of vitamin
B12 or vitamin B12-like material presumably produced by bacteria
in the colon, but this is unavailable to the non-coprophagic individual.
However, the human small intestine also often harbours a considerable
microflora and this is even more extensive in apparently healthy
southern Indian subjects. We now show that at least two groups
of organisms in the small bowel, Pseudomonas and Klebsiella sp.,
may synthesise significant amounts of the vitamin.
PMID: 7354869 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://tinyurl.com/80o6

From; The Bacterial Flora of Humans

(8) While E. coli is a consistent resident of the small intestine,
many other enteric bacteria may reside here as well, including
Klebsiella, Enterobacter and Citrobacter.

1. The normal flora synthesize and excrete vitamins in excess
of their own needs, which can be absorbed as nutrients by the host.
For example, enteric bacteria secrete Vitamin K and Vitamin B12,
and lactic acid bacteria produce certain B-vitamins.
http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Bact303/Bact303normalflora

(Antibiotics
Antibiotics of all classes disrupt normal bowel flora which
synthesize some B vitamins and Vitamin K; probiotic
supplementation needed.

Oral Contraceptives
Deplete, especially B1, B6, B12, folate.
http://www.interactionreport.org/depletion.html )

A course of human multi-strain probiotics will remedy prior disruption.

Organically grown plant foods contain higher quantities of nutrients,
including vitamin B12, - it's taken up from soil rich in B12 (w/ cobalt).
(Mozafar, A. 1994. Enrichment of some B-vitamins in plants with
application of organic fertilizers. Plant and Soil 167:305-311.
http://tinyurl.com/6onc ).

The B12-Cobalt Connection
...
The implication for humans subsisting on vegetarian diets are profound.
B12 synthesis by indigenous bacteria is known to occur naturally in the
human small intestine, primary site of B12 absorption. As long as gut
bacteria have cobalt and certain other nutrients, they produce B12. In
principle then, internal B12 synthesis could fulfill our needs without any
B12 provided by diet.
...
The emerging nutritional crisis of B12 deficiency calls for remedial action in
the macro- as well as micro-environment. Broad-spectrum remineralization
of topsoils using crushed rock or dried seaweed from ocean areas known
to contain sufficient cobalt can reestablish mineral balances necessary for
healthy food supply able to fulfill our requirement, both direct and indirect,
for B12 . The cobalt connection is especially relevant to us growing our own
food, since cobalt-deficient areas likely are well-established. Beyond promoting
remineralization to the farm community, we can adopt the practice in our gardens.'

http://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/b12coblt.htm .

> > > > The reason I ask is because it seems entirely "unnatural" to have to take
> > > > supplements. Thanks.
> >
> > This is an interesting discussion to me because I work with a
> > supplement manufacturer that frequently comments about the issue of
> > soil depletion, and why this makes it so important to take supplements
> > (like theirs). I've never been completely clear if that angle is
> > "junk science" for the sake of marketing more product, or if there's a
> > factual basis.
> >
> > I'd be real interested to know if anyone can direct me to independent
> > research that backs this up factually...
> >
> > Aaron
>
> Here's one source I came upon:
>
> http://www.healingwithnutrition.com/s264.html

'The mineral content of organic food - Rutgers University USA

Percentage of | Quantities per 100 Grams | Trace Elements. Parts per million
Dry Weight Dry Weight Dry matter

Vegetable: Mineral Ash Calcium Magnesium Boron Manganese Iron Copper Cobalt
Snap Beans
Organic 10.45 40.5 60 73 60 227 69 0.26
Non-organic 4.04 15.5 14.8 10 2 10 3 0
Cabbage
Organic 10.38 60 43.6 42 13 94 48 0.15
Non-organic 6.12 17.5 13.6 7 2 20 0.4 0
Lettuce
Organic 24.48 71 49.3 37 169 516 60 0.19
Non-organic 7.01 16 13.1 6 1 9 3 0
Tomatoes
Organic 14.2 23 59.2 36 68 1938 53 0.63
Non-organic 6.07 4.5 4.5 3 1 1 0
0
Spinach
Organic 28.56 96 203.9 88 117 1584 32 0.25
Non-organic 12.38 47.5 46.9 12 1 49 0.3 0.2

http://www.organicnutrition.co.uk/wh...whyorganic.htm

ta wrote:
> Is there any reason a proper, healthy vegan diet cannot supply all of the
> necessary vitamins and minerals without supplementing?
>
>
It's possible to get everything you need from your diet, if you have a
good knowledge of nutrition, plenty of time and money and live within
easy reach of supermarkets and health food shops. Supplementing is often
easier - just beware those gelatin-filled capsules!

"Michael Balarama" > wrote in message
...
> Organic farmers section
> off their land and use half of it for 4 years and the other half the next
> four years (or something like that). This allows the land to recuperate
> lost nutrients and makes the fruits and veggies grow full of nutrition.
Nonsense.
Minerals mined out of the land for decades do NOT magically reappear
out-of-nowhere when "organic" techniques are used on land that has been
abused by the commercial paradigm for decades.
Similarly, the complex microfauna/flora systems absolutely necessary for
healthy plants do NOT magically and instantly reappear when "organic"
methods are used on depleted/poisoned land.
These are strong arguments supporting supplementation.

Laurie

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> In the real world,
> supplementation *is* necessary since most veg-ns don't pay attention to
> what they eat except to make sure their food has no animal parts.
Are you implying that meat-eaters are meticulously and consciously
planning their meals with the latest nutritional research results in hand?
Nonsense. They just waddle down to McD's and pig out.

Laurie

Larry Forti, bored (and boring) troll, wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> In the real world,
>>supplementation *is* necessary since most veg-ns don't pay attention to
>>what they eat except to make sure their food has no animal parts.
>
> Are you implying that meat-eaters are meticulously and consciously
> planning their meals with the latest nutritional research results in hand?

No, he isn't, Larry; that's your little angry polemical
strawman. They don't need to do that, Larry. Meat
contains the things that the supplements do. All a
"meat-eater" need do is eat some reasonable portion of
meat.

> Nonsense. They just waddle down to McD's and pig out.

You give away your anger and snideness too easily,
Larry, as well as your illogic. I eat meat, and I very
rarely eat at McDonald's.

"Laurie" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Michael Balarama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Organic farmers section
> > off their land and use half of it for 4 years and the other half the next
> > four years (or something like that). This allows the land to recuperate
> > lost nutrients and makes the fruits and veggies grow full of nutrition.
> Nonsense.
> Minerals mined out of the land for decades do NOT magically reappear
> out-of-nowhere when "organic" techniques are used on land that has been
> abused by the commercial paradigm for decades.
> Similarly, the complex microfauna/flora systems absolutely necessary for
> healthy plants do NOT magically and instantly reappear when "organic"
> methods are used on depleted/poisoned land.
> These are strong arguments supporting supplementation.
>
> Laurie

Using leaves for composting
.... Since most trees are deep-rooted, they absorb minerals from deep
in the soil and a good portion of these minerals go into the leaves. ...
http://www.compostguide.com/using_le...omposting.html

'In 1991, Dr. Sanchez accepted a position as the head of ICRAF
in Nairobi, Kenya. There, he quickly discovered that African
agricultural production lagged due to the extremely depleted nature
of the soil. Dr. Sanchez’ most enduring contribution to ending
world hunger has been his development of the means to replenish
crucial nutrients in exhausted soils, through the development and
promotion of agroforestry. This practice of planting trees on farms,
when combined with adding locally available rock phosphate to
the soil, has provided farmers in Africa with a way to fertilize
their soils inexpensively and naturally, without relying on costly
chemical fertilizers.

The 150,000 small scale farmers who are utilizing Dr. Sanchez’
methods are experiencing greatly increased yields, in some cases
200% to 400% above previous plantings. In response to this
success, ICRAF plans to help African farmers plant 5.5 billion
more trees over the next decade, the equivalent of another
tropical rainforest. ICRAF’s goal is to move 20 million people
out of poverty and remove more that 100 million tons of CO2
from the air with this project.'

http://www.worldfoodprize.org/2002La...essrelease.htm

"Dirk McDougal" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Larry Forti wrote:
>
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> In the real world,
> >>supplementation *is* necessary since most veg-ns don't pay attention to
> >>what they eat except to make sure their food has no animal parts.
> >
> > Are you implying that meat-eaters are meticulously and consciously
> > planning their meals with the latest nutritional research results in hand?
>
> No, he isn't, Larry; that's your little angry polemical
> strawman. They don't need to do that, Larry. Meat
> contains the things that the supplements do. All a
> "meat-eater" need do is eat some reasonable portion of
> meat.

Inadequate micronutrient intake among older adults is common
despite the increased prevalence of fortified/enriched foods in
the American diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

.... and eating meat. (And livestock are given a mineral supplement.)

Are You Vitamin B12 Deficient?

Nearly two-fifths of the U.S. population may be flirting with
marginal vitamin B12 status-that is, if a careful look at nearly
3,000 men and women in the ongoing Framingham (Massachusetts)
Offspring Study is any indication. Researchers found that 39
percent of the volunteers have plasma B12 levels in the "low
normal" range-below 258 picomoles per liter (pmol/L).

While this is well above the currently accepted deficiency level
of 148 pmol/L, some people exhibit neurological symptoms at the
upper level of the deficiency range, explains study leader Katherine
L. Tucker. She is a nutritional epidemiologist at the Jean Mayer
USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University
in Boston.

"I think there's a lot of undetected vitamin B12 deficiency out there,"
says Tucker. She noted that nearly 9 percent of the study population
fell below the current deficiency level. And more than 16 percent fell
below 185 pmol/L. "Many people may be deficient at this level," she
says. "There is some question as to what the clinical cutoff for deficiency
should be."

Deficiency can cause a type of anemia marked by fewer but larger
red blood cells. It can also cause walking and balance disturbances,
a loss of vibration sensation, confusion, and, in advanced cases, dementia.
The body requires B12 to make the protective coating surrounding
the nerves. So inadequate B12 can expose nerves to damage.

Tucker and colleagues wanted to get a sense of B12 levels spanning
the adult population because most previous studies have focused on
the elderly. That age group was thought to be at higher risk for deficiency.
The researchers also expected to find some connection between dietary
intake and plasma levels, even though other studies found no association.
Some of the results were surprising. The youngest group-the 26 to 49
year olds-had about the same B12 status as the oldest group-65 and
up. "We thought that low concentrations of B12 would increase with age,"
says Tucker. "But we saw a high prevalence of low B12 even among the
youngest group."

The good news is that for many people, eating more fortified cereals
and dairy products can improve B12 status almost as much as taking
supplements containing the vitamin. Supplement use dropped the
percentage of volunteers in the danger zone (plasma B12 below 185
pmol/L) from 20 percent to 8. Eating fortified cereals five or more times
a week or being among the highest third for dairy intake reduced, by
nearly half, the percentage of volunteers in that zone-from 23 and 24
percent, respectively, to 12 and 13 percent.

The researchers found no association between plasma B12 and meat,
poultry, and fish intake, even though these foods supply the bulk of B12
in the diet. "It's not because people aren't eating enough meat," Tucker
says. "The vitamin isn't getting absorbed." The vitamin is tightly bound to
proteins in meat and dairy products and requires high acidity to cut it
loose. As we age, we lose the acid-secreting cells in the stomach. But
what causes poor absorption in younger adults? Tucker speculates that
the high use of antacids may contribute. But why absorption from dairy
products appears to be better than from meats is a question that needs
more research. Fortified cereals are a different story. She says the vitamin
is sprayed on during processing and is "more like what we get in supplements."

-By Judy McBride, Agricultural Research Service Information Staff.
This research is part of Human Nutrition, an ARS National Program
(#107) described on the World Wide Web. Katherine L. Tucker is at
the Jean Mayer USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research Center on
Aging at Tufts University, 711 Washington St., Boston, MA 02111;
phone (617) 556-3351, fax (617) 556-3344.
"Are You Vitamin B12 Deficient?" was published in the August 2000
issue of Agricultural Research magazine.

Had antibiotics? Eating conventionally grown foods?

Larry the Fruit Loop wrote:
>> In the real world,
>>supplementation *is* necessary since most veg-ns don't pay attention to
>>what they eat except to make sure their food has no animal parts.
>
> Are you implying that meat-eaters are meticulously and consciously
> planning their meals with the latest nutritional research results in hand?

Strawman.

> Nonsense. They just waddle down to McD's and pig out.

Some do, but many veg-ns also engage in careless ingestion despite their
blanket claims that veg-nism is inherently healthier -- not to mention
more ethical -- than meat-eating. Compare healthy meat diets to healthy
veg-n diets, not one extreme to the other.

Some would argue that "EVERYTHING" is natural.

rick etter wrote:

> "ta" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "Michael Balarama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > ta wrote:
> > > > > Is there any reason a proper, healthy vegan diet cannot supply all
> of
> > > the
> > > > > necessary vitamins and minerals without supplementing?
> > > >
> > > > A lot of planning would have to go into such a diet to assure getting
> > > > the proper RDA of vitamins and minerals. One would especially have to
> > > > pay attention to zinc, iron, and B-12. In the real world,
> > > > supplementation *is* necessary since most veg-ns don't pay attention
> to
> > > > what they eat except to make sure their food has no animal parts.
> > >
> > > because of the mass farming, pollution and stuff-there are not all the
> > > vitamins we need in the vegetables and fruit..it is a good idea to
> > > supplement...
> >
> > Michael, you hit on a key secondary question that I was hoping to address
> > as well. That is, to what extent, if any, has the quality of human food
> > degraded to the point where supplementing is necessary? Naturally (no pun
> > intended) human beings didn't always have vitamin pills, nor did they
> > probably need them. In other words, shouldn't we be able to get absolutely
> > everything we need from the food we eat, and if not, why not? You hit on a
> > couple of reasons, but if you have any specific sources on that, I'd
> > appreciate it.
> >
> > The reason I ask is because it seems entirely "unnatural" to have to take
> > supplements. Thanks.
> ==============
> It is when you have an unnatural diet..
>
> >
> >

--
Tp,

-------- __o
----- -\<. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
-----------------------------------------

No Lawsuit Ever Fixed A Moron...

"TomP" > wrote in message
...

> Some would argue that "EVERYTHING" is natural.
======================
Sure, even the products of a large petro-chemical industry. Can't get much
more natural in your diet than that!


>
> rick etter wrote:
>
> > "ta" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >
> > > "Michael Balarama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > ta wrote:
> > > > > > Is there any reason a proper, healthy vegan diet cannot supply
all
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > necessary vitamins and minerals without supplementing?
> > > > >
> > > > > A lot of planning would have to go into such a diet to assure
getting
> > > > > the proper RDA of vitamins and minerals. One would especially have
to
> > > > > pay attention to zinc, iron, and B-12. In the real world,
> > > > > supplementation *is* necessary since most veg-ns don't pay
attention
> > to
> > > > > what they eat except to make sure their food has no animal parts.
> > > >
> > > > because of the mass farming, pollution and stuff-there are not all
the
> > > > vitamins we need in the vegetables and fruit..it is a good idea to
> > > > supplement...
> > >
> > > Michael, you hit on a key secondary question that I was hoping to
address
> > > as well. That is, to what extent, if any, has the quality of human
food
> > > degraded to the point where supplementing is necessary? Naturally (no
pun
> > > intended) human beings didn't always have vitamin pills, nor did they
> > > probably need them. In other words, shouldn't we be able to get
absolutely
> > > everything we need from the food we eat, and if not, why not? You hit
on a
> > > couple of reasons, but if you have any specific sources on that, I'd
> > > appreciate it.
> > >
> > > The reason I ask is because it seems entirely "unnatural" to have to
take
> > > supplements. Thanks.
> > ==============
> > It is when you have an unnatural diet..
> >
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> Tp,
>
> -------- __o
> ----- -\<. -------- __o
> --- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
> -------------------- ( )/ ( )
> -----------------------------------------
>
> No Lawsuit Ever Fixed A Moron...
>
>

"Dirk McDougal" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Meat contains the things that the supplements do.
Actually, "meat" contains lots of chemicals that the original animal
body did not: carcinogens produced by the high temperatures of cooking,
Mallard reaction products, denatured, indigestible protein fragments
(peptides), charred flesh and blood, bacterial waste products depending how
long the "meat" has been "seasoned".
http://ecologos.org/denature.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction
http://ecologos.org/cancer.htm

> All a "meat-eater" need do is eat some reasonable portion of meat.
What, indeed, is "reasonable"? TCCampbell found that Western style
"degenerative diseases" are all caused by the human consumption of animal
fat and animal protein. See: The China Study
http://tinyurl.com/2v689m

> You give away your anger and snideness too easily,
Don't judge others by yourself; of course, IF you could provide specific
examples, I'd let the group decide where the boundaries are.
Can you back up your allegations with concrete examples. or is all you
have are unsupportable insults?

> ... as well as your illogic.
PLEASE, present detailed examples of these, or be polite enough to
politely withdraw your unsupported claims.
Put up, or shut up, little man.

Their heme iron should be avoided.
http://ecologos.org/iron.htm

You NEVER consciously decided for a logical reason to eat dead, rotting
animal corpses -- you were psychologically conditioned to do it without your
consent OR knowledge. You were turned into a mindless, brain-dead robot;
playing out other peoples' expectations of you. You are nothing but a
figment of other peoples' imagination; nothing of your own! No ability to
think independently, none.
That's the reason for the insults by which you paint yourself as a
cowardly bully.

Laurie

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> blanket claims that veg-nism is inherently healthier
It is.
It is not like you to actually to seek out logical support for your
crackpot beliefs by reading, so apparently you, missed TCCampnell's The
China Study.
http://tinyurl.com/2v689m
The largest epidemiological study ever done showed conclusively that the
consumption of animal fat and animal protein CAUSE Wastern "degenerative
diseases".

> -- not to mention more ethical --
Ethics is a bogus issue raised by the woefully ignorant.

>. Compare healthy meat diets to healthy veg-n diets, ...
Just how does one determine a cut-off point in data like this?
http://ecologos.org/meatcan.htm
http://ecologos.org/japcan.htm
http://ecologos.org/meat-heart-death.htm
http://ecologos.org/anxiety.htm
http://ecologos.org/pix/Health/cause-effect.jpg

Laurie

"Deborah Emmett" > wrote in message
...
> It's possible to get everything you need from your diet, if you have a
> good knowledge of nutrition, plenty of time and money ...
Just how does one measure and monitor, say, chromium or cobalt in one's
diet?

Laurie

Larry Forti, Fruity Food Fad Fraud wrote:

> You NEVER consciously decided for a logical reason

You don't know anything about his choices, you're blowing smoke out of
your ass.

> to eat dead, rotting
> animal corpses -- you were psychologically conditioned to do it
without your
> consent OR knowledge. You were turned into a mindless, brain-dead
robot;
> playing out other peoples' expectations of you. You are nothing but a
> figment of other peoples' imagination; nothing of your own! No
ability to
> think independently, none.

Following stupidly irrational ideas is no wiser if done independently.

> That's the reason for the insults by which you paint yourself as a
> cowardly bully.

Look hard at yourself in the mirror and repeat that 100 times.

Laurie wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>> blanket claims that veg-nism is inherently healthier
> It is.
> It is not like you to actually to seek out logical support for your
> crackpot beliefs by reading, so apparently you, missed TCCampnell's The
> China Study.
> http://tinyurl.com/2v689m
> The largest epidemiological study ever done showed conclusively that the
> consumption of animal fat and animal protein CAUSE Wastern "degenerative
> diseases".

Size isn't everything, accuracy is more important.
The Truth About the China Study
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
<excerpt>
Figure 1
Associations of Selected Variables with Mortality for All Cancers in the
China Study Total Protein +12%
Animal Protein +3%
Fish Protein +7%
Plant Protein +12%
Total Lipids -6%


Carbohydrates +23%
Total Calories +16%
Fat % Calories -17%
Fiber +21%
Fat (questionnaire) -29%*
* statistically significant ** highly significant *** very highly
significant
==============================
(Data taken from the original monograph of the China Study.)

But the actual data from the original publication paints a different
picture. Figure 1 shows selected correlations between macronutrients and
cancer mortality. Most of them are not statistically significant, which
means that the probability the correlation is due to chance is greater
than five percent.

It is interesting to see, however, the general picture that emerges.
Sugar, soluble carbohydrates, and fiber all have correlations with
cancer mortality about seven times the magnitude of that with animal
protein, and total fat and fat as a percentage of calories were both
negatively correlated with cancer mortality.

The only statistically significant association between intake of a
macronutrient and cancer mortality was a large protective effect of
total oil and fat intake as measured on the questionnaire. As an
interesting aside, there was a highly significant negative correlation
between cancer mortality and home-made cigarettes!

====================
SIDEBAR

It isn't uncommon for researchers to claim they found one thing while
their own study says they found another. Too often, researchers put the
real data in the full text, but then freely contort it to fit their own
ideas when they write in the summary. And then doctors, other
researchers, and journalists will rely on the summary alone, simply
because there are so many studies!
</excerpt>

>> -- not to mention more ethical --
> Ethics is a bogus issue raised by the woefully ignorant.

With a wave of his hand, all-knowing Fruity Larry dismisses eons of
social evolution. You are demonstrating woeful ignorance.

>> . Compare healthy meat diets to healthy veg-n diets, ...
> Just how does one determine a cut-off point in data like this?

Objectively, without an axe to grind. That's going to be hard for you.

Laurie wrote:
> "Dirk McDougal" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>> Meat contains the things that the supplements do.
> Actually, "meat" contains lots of chemicals that the original animal
> body did not: carcinogens produced by the high temperatures of cooking,
> Mallard reaction products, denatured, indigestible protein fragments
> (peptides), charred flesh and blood, bacterial waste products depending how
> long the "meat" has been "seasoned".
> http://ecologos.org/denature.htm
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction
> http://ecologos.org/cancer.htm
>
>> All a "meat-eater" need do is eat some reasonable portion of meat.
> What, indeed, is "reasonable"? TCCampbell found that Western style
> "degenerative diseases" are all caused by the human consumption of animal
> fat and animal protein. See: The China Study
> http://tinyurl.com/2v689m
>
>> You give away your anger and snideness too easily,
> Don't judge others by yourself; of course, IF you could provide specific
> examples, I'd let the group decide where the boundaries are.
> Can you back up your allegations with concrete examples. or is all you
> have are unsupportable insults?
>
>> ... as well as your illogic.
> PLEASE, present detailed examples of these, or be polite enough to
> politely withdraw your unsupported claims.
> Put up, or shut up, little man.
>
> Their heme iron should be avoided.
> http://ecologos.org/iron.htm
>
> You NEVER consciously decided for a logical reason to eat dead, rotting
> animal corpses -- you were psychologically conditioned to do it without your
> consent OR knowledge. You were turned into a mindless, brain-dead robot;
> playing out other peoples' expectations of you. You are nothing but a
> figment of other peoples' imagination; nothing of your own! No ability to
> think independently, none.

That description also happens to fit you nicely as well.
Some of us understand that the world isn't black and white, and some don't.

By the way, where do you get your vitamin D from?


--
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they
are free - Goethe

Steve wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:41:54 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> By the way, where do you get your vitamin D from?
>
> The sun.

Yes... I was waiting for that one

Can you guess some of the flaws with that idea?


--
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they
are free - Goethe

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> Laurie wrote:
>>> You give away your anger and snideness too easily,
>> Don't judge others by yourself; of course, IF you could
>.> provide specific examples, I'd let the group decide where
>> the boundaries are.
>> Can you back up your allegations with concrete examples. or is all
>> you have are unsupportable insults?
NOTHING TO PRESENT supporting your false accusations?

>>> ... as well as your illogic.
>> PLEASE, present detailed examples of these, or be polite enough to
>> politely withdraw your unsupported claims.
NOTHING TO PRESENT supporting your false accusations?

>> You NEVER consciously decided for a logical reason to eat dead,
>> rotting animal corpses -- you were psychologically conditioned
>> to do it without your consent OR knowledge.
> That description also happens to fit you nicely as well.
Yes, unfortunately, I WAS conditioned to eat the SAD as an infant, as
ALL infants are so conditioned by the adult behavioral patterns of their
local tribe; but, rather unlike you, I have strong education in chemistry
and have done research for ~38 years on plant-based diets.
My statements are fully supported by contemporary, consensus science,
while yours are supported by NOTHING except your own wishful "thinking". My
web site has over 700 scientific citations, you have presented NOTHING to
support your beliefs.

> None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are
> free - Goethe
How does relate to you, and Bear's, falsely believing that you are
"free" to violate your own inherent biochemistry?

"Ignorance and arrogance pave the road to self-destruction!" -- LauFo

Laurie

"The Voice of Reason" > wrote in message
news:wNpEi.139231$rX4.32329@pd7urf2no...
> With a wave of his hand, all-knowing Fruity Larry dismisses eons of social
> evolution. You are demonstrating woeful ignorance.
Hi, noBalls, another obfuscated e-mail account and phony name?

Laurie

Laurie wrote:
> "The Voice of Reason" > wrote in message
> news:wNpEi.139231$rX4.32329@pd7urf2no...
>> With a wave of his hand, all-knowing Fruity Larry dismisses eons of social
>> evolution. You are demonstrating woeful ignorance.
> Hi, noBalls, another obfuscated e-mail account and phony name?
>
> Laurie

My email account is transparent, my name is The Voice of Reason.

It is both arrogant and ignorant of you to dismiss eons of
social evolution with your stance on morals and ethics.

Fortunately for you I don't believe your little tagline is true,
many people who live long healthy lives nonetheless remain mired
in ignorance fueled by pride and arrogance.

Laurie wrote:
> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Laurie wrote:
>>>> You give away your anger and snideness too easily,
>>> Don't judge others by yourself; of course, IF you could
>> .> provide specific examples, I'd let the group decide where
>>> the boundaries are.
>>> Can you back up your allegations with concrete examples. or is all
>>> you have are unsupportable insults?
> NOTHING TO PRESENT supporting your false accusations?
>
>>>> ... as well as your illogic.
>>> PLEASE, present detailed examples of these, or be polite enough to
>>> politely withdraw your unsupported claims.
> NOTHING TO PRESENT supporting your false accusations?
>
>>> You NEVER consciously decided for a logical reason to eat dead,
>>> rotting animal corpses -- you were psychologically conditioned
>>> to do it without your consent OR knowledge.
>> That description also happens to fit you nicely as well.
> Yes, unfortunately, I WAS conditioned to eat the SAD as an infant, as
> ALL infants are so conditioned by the adult behavioral patterns of their
> local tribe; but, rather unlike you, I have strong education in chemistry
> and have done research for ~38 years on plant-based diets.
> My statements are fully supported by contemporary, consensus science,
> while yours are supported by NOTHING except your own wishful "thinking". My
> web site has over 700 scientific citations, you have presented NOTHING to
> support your beliefs.
>
>> None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are
>> free - Goethe
> How does relate to you, and Bear's, falsely believing that you are
> "free" to violate your own inherent biochemistry?
>
> "Ignorance and arrogance pave the road to self-destruction!" -- LauFo

Do you know me? No, you don't.
Notice I never said I was against being vegan? Nope, of course not.
I'll leave you to your own stupidity... goodbye.


--
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they
are free - Goethe

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...

> Do you know me? No, you don't.
I know you well enough by your juvenile behavior, and personal insults,
here.
I know you can not support your beliefs with facts, science, or logic.
I know that you cannot think for yourself, for you have not even
attempted to do so.
I know you seriously embarrass yourself in public by generating personal
insults, willfully failing to respond to issues, intellectual dishonesty,
and evasiveness.
I know you understand nothing about human physiology, evolution,
biochemistry, epidemiology, or even 8th grade science.
See; I know you well enough.

> Notice I never said I was against being vegan? Nope, of course not.
Straw Man: I did NOT say that.
I merely presented a rational rebuttal to your nonsensical meatarian
propaganda with science.
I have nothing against your eating what you want; munch on!
But, I will NOT tolerate anyone coming to alt.food.vegan.science and
dumping off-topic, unsupportable, meatarian propaganda.
But, THANKS for the Bear link; I will write a line-by-line rebuttal to
HIS dietary nonsense on my site. See, you HAVE made a substantial and
important contribution, for which we all are grateful.

Laurie
Moderator: alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE

Laurie wrote:
> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Do you know me? No, you don't.
> I know you well enough by your juvenile behavior, and personal insults,
> here.
> I know you can not support your beliefs with facts, science, or logic.
> I know that you cannot think for yourself, for you have not even
> attempted to do so.
> I know you seriously embarrass yourself in public by generating personal
> insults, willfully failing to respond to issues, intellectual dishonesty,
> and evasiveness.
> I know you understand nothing about human physiology, evolution,
> biochemistry, epidemiology, or even 8th grade science.
> See; I know you well enough.
>
>> Notice I never said I was against being vegan? Nope, of course not.
> Straw Man: I did NOT say that.
> I merely presented a rational rebuttal to your nonsensical meatarian
> propaganda with science.
> I have nothing against your eating what you want; munch on!
> But, I will NOT tolerate anyone coming to alt.food.vegan.science and
> dumping off-topic, unsupportable, meatarian propaganda.
> But, THANKS for the Bear link; I will write a line-by-line rebuttal to
> HIS dietary nonsense on my site. See, you HAVE made a substantial and
> important contribution, for which we all are grateful.
>
> Laurie
> Moderator: alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE

alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is an oxymoron. "Veganism" is an
anti-scientific, quasi-political, pseudo-religious, completely
bogus agenda promoted by mentally unbalanced food faddists.
There is not a vegetarian diet which exists in the real world
that could not be improved by the judicious addition of some
type of animal product.

On Sep 20, 2:53 pm, The Voice of Reason > wrote:
> Laurie wrote:
> > "Jeßus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> Do you know me? No, you don't.
> > I know you well enough by your juvenile behavior, and personal insults,
> > here.
> > I know you can not support your beliefs with facts, science, or logic.
> > I know that you cannot think for yourself, for you have not even
> > attempted to do so.
> > I know you seriously embarrass yourself in public by generating personal
> > insults, willfully failing to respond to issues, intellectual dishonesty,
> > and evasiveness.
> > I know you understand nothing about human physiology, evolution,
> > biochemistry, epidemiology, or even 8th grade science.
> > See; I know you well enough.
>
> >> Notice I never said I was against being vegan? Nope, of course not.
> > Straw Man: I did NOT say that.
> > I merely presented a rational rebuttal to your nonsensical meatarian
> > propaganda with science.
> > I have nothing against your eating what you want; munch on!
> > But, I will NOT tolerate anyone coming to alt.food.vegan.science and
> > dumping off-topic, unsupportable, meatarian propaganda.
> > But, THANKS for the Bear link; I will write a line-by-line rebuttal to
> > HIS dietary nonsense on my site. See, you HAVE made a substantial and
> > important contribution, for which we all are grateful.
>
> > Laurie
> > Moderator: alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE
>
> alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is an oxymoron. "Veganism" is an
> anti-scientific, quasi-political, pseudo-religious, completely
> bogus agenda promoted by mentally unbalanced food faddists.
> There is not a vegetarian diet which exists in the real world
> that could not be improved by the judicious addition of some
> type of animal product.


*THAT* is the most absurd set of statements I've read in a long while.
(discounting Goo's blabbering)





- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

shrubkiller wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2:53 pm, The Voice of Reason > wrote:
>> Laurie wrote:
>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Do you know me? No, you don't.
>>> I know you well enough by your juvenile behavior, and personal insults,
>>> here.
>>> I know you can not support your beliefs with facts, science, or logic.
>>> I know that you cannot think for yourself, for you have not even
>>> attempted to do so.
>>> I know you seriously embarrass yourself in public by generating personal
>>> insults, willfully failing to respond to issues, intellectual dishonesty,
>>> and evasiveness.
>>> I know you understand nothing about human physiology, evolution,
>>> biochemistry, epidemiology, or even 8th grade science.
>>> See; I know you well enough.
>>>> Notice I never said I was against being vegan? Nope, of course not.
>>> Straw Man: I did NOT say that.
>>> I merely presented a rational rebuttal to your nonsensical meatarian
>>> propaganda with science.
>>> I have nothing against your eating what you want; munch on!
>>> But, I will NOT tolerate anyone coming to alt.food.vegan.science and
>>> dumping off-topic, unsupportable, meatarian propaganda.
>>> But, THANKS for the Bear link; I will write a line-by-line rebuttal to
>>> HIS dietary nonsense on my site. See, you HAVE made a substantial and
>>> important contribution, for which we all are grateful.
>>> Laurie
>>> Moderator: alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE
>> alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is an oxymoron. "Veganism" is an
>> anti-scientific, quasi-political, pseudo-religious, completely
>> bogus agenda promoted by mentally unbalanced food faddists.
>> There is not a vegetarian diet which exists in the real world
>> that could not be improved by the judicious addition of some
>> type of animal product.
>
>
> *THAT* is the most absurd set of statements I've read in a long while.

Of course you mean the statements of Larry the Fruity Food Faddist.

On Sep 21, 7:20 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> shrubkiller wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 2:53 pm, The Voice of Reason > wrote:
> >> Laurie wrote:
> >>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> Do you know me? No, you don't.
> >>> I know you well enough by your juvenile behavior, and personal insults,
> >>> here.
> >>> I know you can not support your beliefs with facts, science, or logic.
> >>> I know that you cannot think for yourself, for you have not even
> >>> attempted to do so.
> >>> I know you seriously embarrass yourself in public by generating personal
> >>> insults, willfully failing to respond to issues, intellectual dishonesty,
> >>> and evasiveness.
> >>> I know you understand nothing about human physiology, evolution,
> >>> biochemistry, epidemiology, or even 8th grade science.
> >>> See; I know you well enough.
> >>>> Notice I never said I was against being vegan? Nope, of course not.
> >>> Straw Man: I did NOT say that.
> >>> I merely presented a rational rebuttal to your nonsensical meatarian
> >>> propaganda with science.
> >>> I have nothing against your eating what you want; munch on!
> >>> But, I will NOT tolerate anyone coming to alt.food.vegan.science and
> >>> dumping off-topic, unsupportable, meatarian propaganda.
> >>> But, THANKS for the Bear link; I will write a line-by-line rebuttal to
> >>> HIS dietary nonsense on my site. See, you HAVE made a substantial and
> >>> important contribution, for which we all are grateful.
> >>> Laurie
> >>> Moderator: alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE
> >> alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is an oxymoron. "Veganism" is an
> >> anti-scientific, quasi-political, pseudo-religious, completely
> >> bogus agenda promoted by mentally unbalanced food faddists.
> >> There is not a vegetarian diet which exists in the real world
> >> that could not be improved by the judicious addition of some
> >> type of animal product.
>
> > *THAT* is the most absurd set of statements I've read in a long while.
>
> Of course you mean the statements of Larry the Fruity Food Faddist.




Need some help moving the goalposts Gooby?





- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

shrubkiller wrote:
> On Sep 21, 7:20 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> shrubkiller wrote:
>>> On Sep 20, 2:53 pm, The Voice of Reason > wrote:
>>>> Laurie wrote:
>>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Do you know me? No, you don't.
>>>>> I know you well enough by your juvenile behavior, and personal insults,
>>>>> here.
>>>>> I know you can not support your beliefs with facts, science, or logic.
>>>>> I know that you cannot think for yourself, for you have not even
>>>>> attempted to do so.
>>>>> I know you seriously embarrass yourself in public by generating personal
>>>>> insults, willfully failing to respond to issues, intellectual dishonesty,
>>>>> and evasiveness.
>>>>> I know you understand nothing about human physiology, evolution,
>>>>> biochemistry, epidemiology, or even 8th grade science.
>>>>> See; I know you well enough.
>>>>>> Notice I never said I was against being vegan? Nope, of course not.
>>>>> Straw Man: I did NOT say that.
>>>>> I merely presented a rational rebuttal to your nonsensical meatarian
>>>>> propaganda with science.
>>>>> I have nothing against your eating what you want; munch on!
>>>>> But, I will NOT tolerate anyone coming to alt.food.vegan.science and
>>>>> dumping off-topic, unsupportable, meatarian propaganda.
>>>>> But, THANKS for the Bear link; I will write a line-by-line rebuttal to
>>>>> HIS dietary nonsense on my site. See, you HAVE made a substantial and
>>>>> important contribution, for which we all are grateful.
>>>>> Laurie
>>>>> Moderator: alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE
>>>> alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is an oxymoron. "Veganism" is an
>>>> anti-scientific, quasi-political, pseudo-religious, completely
>>>> bogus agenda promoted by mentally unbalanced food faddists.
>>>> There is not a vegetarian diet which exists in the real world
>>>> that could not be improved by the judicious addition of some
>>>> type of animal product.
>>> *THAT* is the most absurd set of statements I've read in a long while.
>> Of course you mean the statements of Larry the Fruity Food Faddist.
>
>
>
>
> Need some help moving the goalposts Gooby?

You don't understand what "moving the goalposts" means, but then
you're not very bright are you?

On Sep 22, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> shrubkiller wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 7:20 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> shrubkiller wrote:
> >>> On Sep 20, 2:53 pm, The Voice of Reason > wrote:
> >>>> Laurie wrote:
> >>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>> Do you know me? No, you don't.
> >>>>> I know you well enough by your juvenile behavior, and personal insults,
> >>>>> here.
> >>>>> I know you can not support your beliefs with facts, science, or logic.
> >>>>> I know that you cannot think for yourself, for you have not even
> >>>>> attempted to do so.
> >>>>> I know you seriously embarrass yourself in public by generating personal
> >>>>> insults, willfully failing to respond to issues, intellectual dishonesty,
> >>>>> and evasiveness.
> >>>>> I know you understand nothing about human physiology, evolution,
> >>>>> biochemistry, epidemiology, or even 8th grade science.
> >>>>> See; I know you well enough.
> >>>>>> Notice I never said I was against being vegan? Nope, of course not.
> >>>>> Straw Man: I did NOT say that.
> >>>>> I merely presented a rational rebuttal to your nonsensical meatarian
> >>>>> propaganda with science.
> >>>>> I have nothing against your eating what you want; munch on!
> >>>>> But, I will NOT tolerate anyone coming to alt.food.vegan.science and
> >>>>> dumping off-topic, unsupportable, meatarian propaganda.
> >>>>> But, THANKS for the Bear link; I will write a line-by-line rebuttal to
> >>>>> HIS dietary nonsense on my site. See, you HAVE made a substantial and
> >>>>> important contribution, for which we all are grateful.
> >>>>> Laurie
> >>>>> Moderator: alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE
> >>>> alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is an oxymoron. "Veganism" is an
> >>>> anti-scientific, quasi-political, pseudo-religious, completely
> >>>> bogus agenda promoted by mentally unbalanced food faddists.
> >>>> There is not a vegetarian diet which exists in the real world
> >>>> that could not be improved by the judicious addition of some
> >>>> type of animal product.
> >>> *THAT* is the most absurd set of statements I've read in a long while.
> >> Of course you mean the statements of Larry the Fruity Food Faddist.
>
> > Need some help moving the goalposts Gooby?
>
> You don't understand what "moving the goalposts" means, but then
> you're not very bright are you?



I know exactly what it means.

You are squirming around doing everything possible to divert FOCUS
from my statement.





- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ron wrote:
> On Sep 22, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>> shrubkiller wrote:
>>> On Sep 21, 7:20 pm, Dutch > wrote:
>>>> shrubkiller wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 20, 2:53 pm, The Voice of Reason > wrote:
>>>>>> Laurie wrote:
>>>>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Do you know me? No, you don't.
>>>>>>> I know you well enough by your juvenile behavior, and personal insults,
>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>> I know you can not support your beliefs with facts, science, or logic.
>>>>>>> I know that you cannot think for yourself, for you have not even
>>>>>>> attempted to do so.
>>>>>>> I know you seriously embarrass yourself in public by generating personal
>>>>>>> insults, willfully failing to respond to issues, intellectual dishonesty,
>>>>>>> and evasiveness.
>>>>>>> I know you understand nothing about human physiology, evolution,
>>>>>>> biochemistry, epidemiology, or even 8th grade science.
>>>>>>> See; I know you well enough.
>>>>>>>> Notice I never said I was against being vegan? Nope, of course not.
>>>>>>> Straw Man: I did NOT say that.
>>>>>>> I merely presented a rational rebuttal to your nonsensical meatarian
>>>>>>> propaganda with science.
>>>>>>> I have nothing against your eating what you want; munch on!
>>>>>>> But, I will NOT tolerate anyone coming to alt.food.vegan.science and
>>>>>>> dumping off-topic, unsupportable, meatarian propaganda.
>>>>>>> But, THANKS for the Bear link; I will write a line-by-line rebuttal to
>>>>>>> HIS dietary nonsense on my site. See, you HAVE made a substantial and
>>>>>>> important contribution, for which we all are grateful.
>>>>>>> Laurie
>>>>>>> Moderator: alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE
>>>>>> alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is an oxymoron. "Veganism" is an
>>>>>> anti-scientific, quasi-political, pseudo-religious, completely
>>>>>> bogus agenda promoted by mentally unbalanced food faddists.
>>>>>> There is not a vegetarian diet which exists in the real world
>>>>>> that could not be improved by the judicious addition of some
>>>>>> type of animal product.
>>>>> *THAT* is the most absurd set of statements I've read in a long while.
>>>> Of course you mean the statements of Larry the Fruity Food Faddist.
>>> Need some help moving the goalposts Gooby?
>> You don't understand what "moving the goalposts" means, but then
>> you're not very bright are you?
>
>
>
> I know exactly what it means.
>
> You are squirming around doing everything possible to divert FOCUS
> from my statement.

You don't know what it means, you're retarded on so many levels..

1. Diversion and moving the goalposts are not the same
2. I didn't attempt either, and besides..
3. You didn't say anything of substance anyway, you simply
blurted out that something was absurd without even attempting to
explain why.

On Sep 22, 9:33 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Ron wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 1:56 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> shrubkiller wrote:
> >>> On Sep 21, 7:20 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>> shrubkiller wrote:
> >>>>> On Sep 20, 2:53 pm, The Voice of Reason > wrote:
> >>>>>> Laurie wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>>> Do you know me? No, you don't.
> >>>>>>> I know you well enough by your juvenile behavior, and personal insults,
> >>>>>>> here.
> >>>>>>> I know you can not support your beliefs with facts, science, or logic.
> >>>>>>> I know that you cannot think for yourself, for you have not even
> >>>>>>> attempted to do so.
> >>>>>>> I know you seriously embarrass yourself in public by generating personal
> >>>>>>> insults, willfully failing to respond to issues, intellectual dishonesty,
> >>>>>>> and evasiveness.
> >>>>>>> I know you understand nothing about human physiology, evolution,
> >>>>>>> biochemistry, epidemiology, or even 8th grade science.
> >>>>>>> See; I know you well enough.
> >>>>>>>> Notice I never said I was against being vegan? Nope, of course not.
> >>>>>>> Straw Man: I did NOT say that.
> >>>>>>> I merely presented a rational rebuttal to your nonsensical meatarian
> >>>>>>> propaganda with science.
> >>>>>>> I have nothing against your eating what you want; munch on!
> >>>>>>> But, I will NOT tolerate anyone coming to alt.food.vegan.science and
> >>>>>>> dumping off-topic, unsupportable, meatarian propaganda.
> >>>>>>> But, THANKS for the Bear link; I will write a line-by-line rebuttal to
> >>>>>>> HIS dietary nonsense on my site. See, you HAVE made a substantial and
> >>>>>>> important contribution, for which we all are grateful.
> >>>>>>> Laurie
> >>>>>>> Moderator: alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE
> >>>>>> alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE is an oxymoron. "Veganism" is an
> >>>>>> anti-scientific, quasi-political, pseudo-religious, completely
> >>>>>> bogus agenda promoted by mentally unbalanced food faddists.
> >>>>>> There is not a vegetarian diet which exists in the real world
> >>>>>> that could not be improved by the judicious addition of some
> >>>>>> type of animal product.
> >>>>> *THAT* is the most absurd set of statements I've read in a long while.
> >>>> Of course you mean the statements of Larry the Fruity Food Faddist.
> >>> Need some help moving the goalposts Gooby?
> >> You don't understand what "moving the goalposts" means, but then
> >> you're not very bright are you?
>
> > I know exactly what it means.
>
> > You are squirming around doing everything possible to divert FOCUS
> > from my statement.
>
> You don't know what it means, you're retarded on so many levels..
>
> 1. Diversion and moving the goalposts are not the same
> 2. I didn't attempt either, and besides..
> 3. You didn't say anything of substance anyway, you simply
> blurted out that something was absurd without even attempting to
> explain why.




and you are the expert on moving the goalposts?

Why am I not surprised?

You get more practice at it than anyone else on ngs.




- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -