AntiMcDonald's Daze in Israel 2005

And no negative comments because the article involves Israel? That might be a first here

I can say this much: if the majority of the anti-McDonald sentiment in Israel weren't about these animal rights and vegan/vegetarian activists' efforts to impose a ban on meat consumption there, I'd support much of their message.

Hello there and thanks for your comment, although I think you might be a little bit misinformed.
In the 16 years I've been involved in Animal Rights campaigning (in Israel as well as abroad), I have never, not once, come across an AR group or spokesperson calling for a band on meat consuption.
To be honest, while I can't be 100% sure about the rest of the world, I CAN in fact be certain that no part of the Israeli AR movement has called, at any time, for such a ban.
On the legal sphere, there has been calls to end the force-feeding of ducks to make foie gras, which has in fact become law, although we're talking here about a ban on a certain, especially cruel mode of production, not a ban on the consumption of its' product. There are also calls to toughen animal welfare regulation regarding veal, as well as an attempt to introduce legislation that will gradually phase out battery cages in favor of free range hens, much like in the European Union I believe.
I, personally, would find it ridiculous to try and force people to become vegetarian by law. It's bound to be counterproductive, impossible to enforce, and is just a silly notion to comtemplate in a country where 94% of the population eats meat.
I suppose that is why there was never any attempt to introduce such a legal ban on meat consumption, despite the impression you seem to have gotten.
Currently, the Animal Rights movement in Israel and elsewhere is focusing on education, meaning on convincing people to give up meat voluntarily, rather than trying to impose unrealistic bans on meat-eating.
I am sure you are somewhat sympathetic to our message of compassion towards animals in factory farms, and that's a very good start. in fact, come to think of it, who in their right mind would be AGAINST alleviating the suffering of animals?!?
Thanks again for the comment and have a great day.

Alot of younger, observant Jewish people chose to be vegetarian because in addition to being healthier, its a better, easier and cruelty free way of being kosher. Traditional rules (shechita) mandate that as little pain be caused to animals as is possible and it just works better.

Hey Santiago, you're welcome any time.

First, I'll start off with the rather negative remark I feel compelled to make. This is in response to your observation that "the Animal Rights movement in Israel and elsewhere is focusing on education, meaning on convincing people to give up meat voluntarily, rather than trying to impose unrealistic bans on meat-eating."
Look, therein lies a problem. Most people, not least in Israel, are naturally suspicious of arguments attempting to lead them down a particular dietary path that is premised on the health "faults" of meat and dairy products per se.
The main problem with Animal Rights movements anywhere in this regard is that they can never be counted on to present the people they set out to "educate" (hope you realize the proselytizing and misplaced arrogance inherent in the usage of this word) the entire spectrum of the meat vs. veg*n controversy, notably the availability of cruelty free free range meat and dairy products. Now that wouldn't jive with their agenda, would it? You know this as much as I do, otherwise I'd be quite surprised that you proclaim you've never heard of attempts by any AR groups to ban meat consumption anywhere worldwide. Just do an internet search on the folks at PETA, ALF and the PCRM (this last one being the most egregious example) who've made a career of trying to fool the US public with ridiculous attempts to hide their overriding animal rights agenda while propagating veg*n regimens for health reasons by citing all sorts of bogus claims against consuming animal products and for consumption of plant foods. There are people in Israel paying attention to this charade. (I've read about the some machinations on the part of a British AR group too.)

Animal rights activists also seldom (if at all) address the problem of the ubiquitous consumption of commercially produced plant foods while they're more than happy to demonize all animal foods, both commercially produced and otherwise. All these shenanigans must come to an end once and for all.

As an individual enthusiastically favoring organic and bio-dynamic cultivation of foods - both plant and animal - and who has for quite a while also been aware of animal suffering I'm very pleased to hear you informing on this forum that an attempt is afoot to pass legislation introducing free range hens
over battery cages. That, and other statutes mandating a healthier form of animal husbandry will be huge contributions for the health state of Israelis.

If you folks in the animal rights movements confined yourselves to these kind of efforts and avoided trying to "educate" against animal products consumption, the activists' credibility would grow by leaps and bounds.

I'll leave you with my beef (no pun intended) with McDonald's. I'm unhappy with some of their practices - their treatment of workers and consumers, not least that they charge a hefty rates for using their 00s.

No properly conducted scientific research has been able to show that veg*n (vegan and vegetarian) regimens based on natural foods are better health wise than healthy omnivorous diets. To the contrary, veg*n diets have been found to confer inferior mortality and health benefits than regimens that include animal products.

I've always felt that whatever benefits that animal products might confer should be available through eggs and moderate dairy. Of course, thats a feeling not a study. But, in addition, one set of dishes! I figure that the real problem, the korban , I'll worry about when Moshiach comes.

Well, for starters you'd have to consume at least 16 whole eggs per day only to get your daily quota of vitamin D (the sun is usually not a sufficient producer (FYI it causes the body to produce the vitamin from cholesterol on your skin) for several reasons).
Secondly, even a vegetarian diet guru like Dean Ornish has been advocating the consumption of fish oil - an animal product - for years. What does that tell you about the tenability of a true vegetarian lifestyle (that forbids fish as they're animals), not to mention veganism.

I feel that the Talmudic directives of separating milk and meat stem from a misunderstanding of what the Torah actually ordained (not to cook a kid in its mother's milk), but that's only my view as a secular person drawing on biblical scholarship. Hope I haven't offended you as a practicing religious Jew,. I can defend my view if you really want to get into this with logical reasoning and facts, but I'd never try to convince you to stop observing any commandment.

Now that you've brought up the issue with vitamin A)... there's been vast amounts of confusion on this micro-nutrient due to the disinformation -- either deliberate or inadvertent - spread by so many nutrition "experts", even on Barry Sears' first website (drsears.com) which confuse beta-carotene with vitamin A (retinol).

Beta-carotene, found in veggies like carrots and dark green leafy vegetables, is only a _precursor_ of vitamin A, not the vitamin itself. For Beta-carotene to be optimally converted into vitamin A, several conditions must be met:

1. You need to be older than a baby or an infant

2. You cannot have hypothyroidism or diabetes.

3. You cannot have gallbladder problems

People afflicted with these ailments make the conversion very poorly if they're lucky.

But the worse news is:

1. You must eat the veggies with FAT for optimal conversion (because the conversion from carotene to vitamin A in the intestines can take place only in the presence of bile salts)

2. An optimal conversion is quite inefficient: about 6 units of carotene for making 1 unit of vitamin A...
To use a concrete example, a sweet potato (containing about 25,000 units of beta-carotene) will only convert into about 4,000 units of vitamin A!

All this is not to say that beta-carotene isn't important in human nutrition though.

I enthusiastically second your assertion that all humans should eat with intent instead of shoving the food down their throats. The healthiest food won't confer the best it can offer unless one chews it properly and not too quickly.

------

As far as the meat-milk separation goes, you're correct in saying that the sages put a "fence around the law”. They weren't sure of the reason for the ancient directive, so they opted to be on the safe side as it were and extrapolated from a unique commandment concerning one species to meat and milk at large. What I've found is, this directive was one of the ways the author of this Torah verse sought to set the Israelites apart from the Canaanites among whom they. The custom to cook the kid in its mother's milk was very common among the Canaanites, so it appears to be no accident that this prohibition figures three times in the Torah.

In Judaism one is often supposed to say grace also after meals. Even from a religious point of view I believe the post-meal grace practiced in Conservative and Orthodox circles is too drawn out and could achieve its purpose also if it were substantially trimmed down.

Were you at Bar-Ilan the summer of 2001 ? It had to have been you- how many Cubano vegetarians could there be studying Bible in Israel?

Great job guys! I recently got back from Israel where eating veggie is pretty easy, but raising veggie awareness is very needed

Yes, most of us want people to be vegetarians -- that agenda is hardly hidden -- but we will take whatever improvements we can get on the way. Better might not be perfect, but better is better.

Slow and steady wins the race.

Basar Zeh Ratzach! (Meat is Murder!)

I must humbly disagree with the claim that raising veg*n awareness in Israel is imperative. People must first be informed of the difference between veganism and vegetarianism. The former entails avoiding all animal products. The latter - in its true form - allows for eating eggs but no fish. There's no such thing as "semi-vegetarian" or "almost vegan/vegetarian" - one is either vegan, vegetarian or omnivorous. When we don't have our glossary clear, we're prone to fall prey to unnecessary confusion and attempts at hoodwinking by interested parties.

It follows that people must be informed about the health pitfalls of veg*n lifestyles.
If you're vegan and wish to maintain reasonable heath, you've got no choice but to take certain vitamins as supplements on an ongoing basis like B-12, A and D. The reasons? One can't get an even nearly adequate amount of vitamin B-12 to stave off anemia and other health woes from plant foods
(vegans, in general, have impaired B-12 metabolism and inadequate B-12 intake. See AL Rauma and others. Vitamin B-12 status of long-term adherents of a strict uncooked vegan diet (“living food diet”) is compromised. J Nutr, 1995, 125:2511-5; (b) MG Crane and others. Vitamin B12 studies in total vegetarians (vegans). J Nutr Med, 1994, 4:419-30; c) I Chanarin and others. Megaloblastic anaemia in a vegetarian Hindu community. Lancet, 1985, Nov 2:1168-72 ; (d) M Donaldson. Vitamin B12 and the Hallelujah Diet, posted at <http://www.chetday.com/b12.html>; (e) MS Donaldson. Metabolic vitamin B12 status on a mostly raw vegan diet with follow-up using tablets, nutritional yeast, or probiotic supplements. Ann Nutr Metab, 2000, 44(5-6):229-234).

Vitamins A and D are fat-soluble and found only in animal foods, too, so vegans cannot get them from food either. In addition to the requirements for optimal beta-carotene -> vitamin A conversion enumerated earlier, it should be added that intestinal lipase and proper liver function are necessary too (see (a) Dunne, op cit., 14; (b) I Jennings. Vitamins in Endocrine Metabolism. (Charles Thomas; London), 1970, 39-57). The inefficient conversion ration, which has been fairly recently claimed to be overestimated as it might even be 20 units beta-carotene to 1 unit vitamin A rather than 6 ->1 - and that's only for those capable of an optimal conversion - underlines the need to have adequate sources of vitamin A in our daily diets which one can only get by eating a certain amount of animal foods.

For the curious, the 16 eggs a day "perscription" for vegetarians was arrived at from the facts that one needs a minimum of 400 IUs of vitamin D each day, and each egg (in the yolk, not white) has about 25 IU vitamin D. But how many vegetarians would eat that many eggs a day? One would need another source for this vitamiin, like butter, cod liver oil, lard, beef tallow, etc. - other animal foods.

Taking all those vitamin supplements that the more nutritionally aware of the veg*n activists advocate on a life long basis is obviously an unnatural subsistence pattern and cannot confer optimal health, especially over the long haul. FYI, few still know that even the cholesterol - again found only in animal foods - in eggs is a potent anti-oxidant that has been proven independently of confounding factors to prevent dementia in the elderly .

I had planned to address some points in Santiago's last submission before it was hidden, after which I had a chance to read it more closely. As for Santiago's claim that massive consumption of animal products is a quite recent phenomenon in human history and has always been confined to Western Caucasians, the following two examples suffice to prove him wrong:

1. The Inuit (Eskimos) had traditionally (pre-white colonialism) eaten a carnivorous diet made up of copious amounts of fish, polar bear, seal, caribou, sea birds, seal oil and walrus at various times of the year. Only 2% of their diet was occupied by plant foods, during the brief summer at that. This had gone on for the last 20,000 years at least.

2. The Maasai in eastern Africa have been eating a carnivorous diet comprised of only milk, cattle and occasionally blood for the last 10,000 years or so. In fact, Maasai males ingest a hefty 300g of mostly saturated animal fat on a daily basis. (Just for comparison, the men of another east African tribe, the Samburus, consume up to a whopping 400g of animal fat daily.)

There exist several other examples of non-Caucasian peoples or tribes still consuming their traditional diets featuring plentiful amounts of animal foods.

I'm sorry to see Santiago has shown his true colors. It wasn't a pretty sight to behold. As for his other mistaken notions, suffice to say I'm not surprised. Now I'm finally aware of where he's coming and have a pretty good idea how he received much of his "info".

I'd also like to state I do my darndest to avoid biased research findings emanating from any party with a financial axe to grind in the veg*n/meat controversy. I doubt the same can be said for Santiago though.

In closing, Basar Zeh LO Retzach (Meat is NOT Murder). However, Shteefat Mo'ah Tivonit Zeh Mesukan (Vegan Brainwashing is Dangerous).

----
(The header means "C'mon... settle down!")

For reasons that I don't understand, my responsive post was deleted and I don't know if the intended recipient had a chance to read it.

Anyway, by keeping kosher, including separating meat from dairy by staying veg, no one, including the most kosher of people, feels excluded from ones table. It also means that one's eating is spiritualized as everything that one eats requires a moment of conscious thought. It means that as human beings, that we eat, rather than devour. It heightens the awareness of the presence of the divine even in the simplest and most basis of actions.

By benching after a meal, its a pleasant chance to sing together in a warm, communal way while thanking G-d for our food.

Ko tuv chava

Would you mind repeating the Hebrew sentence though? You probably meant to type, Kol tuv _____? Not sure you actually meant to say "chava" (=farm).

"All good friend" . Which transliteration system do you prefer? Everyone seems to spell stuff differently.

I can manage any you wish. To me proper spelling is the only requirement I can't manage without. You meant to type "chaver". I decipher both Ashkenazi and stantand Hebrew.

Yeah, my Hebrew Ashkenazi accent is so distinct that people have asked me if I was from Poland. We have both in my usual Shul, although we use Askenazi Nusach. Sometimes, if I go to Chabad rather than my usual Shul, I've davened Sefardi Nusach. Apparently they like it for Kabbalistic reasons. It seems that everyone else has switched to Sefardi. I'll consider it. Maybe I'll try to practice up when I get the chance to do my voluntary service in the IDF so I sound more modern.

Colloquial Hebrew in Israel, even as spoken by most non-Ashkenazim, is an interesting compromise between the Sefardic and Askenazi versions. It adopted some Ashkenazi elements, e.g. in not pronouncing the guttural letters properly, early on but otherwise maintains a Sefardic character. Believe it or not, Ze'ev Jabotinsky was fluent in Hebrew of pure Sefardic accent. A recording of one speech on a 78 RPM record has survived as proof.
Interestingly, the Ashkenazi accent has maintained the 'ay' vowel that was lost somewhere down the line in the Sephardic accent and rendered "eh", as in "sayfer"-> "sefer" (book). OTOH, few in Israel would use the letter Tzadi as an 's' sound.

Looks like a Nutritional chatroom...

Do you know if the vowel shift in Ashkenazi preceeded the split from Sephardi or did it occur later?

As far as I recall, Ashkenazis were still using the Sefardic accent as late as the 13th century.
But I'm not sure exactly when the Sefardic 'ay' -> 'eh' shift (which btw figures also in the word 'friend' as in 'chavayr' -> 'chaver') occurred.

If you're alluding to another vowel shift, please give more details so I can relate to the question.

How about the Ashkenazic "aw" shifting to the Sefardic "ah"? Is Italian Hebrew pronunciation, from before the split, perhaps a guide?

If by 'aw' -> 'ah' you mean the vowel 'o' as in the word 'pope' shifting to an 'a' vowel the way it figures in the Hebrew 'retzach' (murder), I believe this too may have happened either before or after the 12th century.
Know something? This 'aw' vowel - if we're talking about the same thing - is shared with the Yemenite Jewish accent... which, to me, suggests it may be authenticity ancient, going all the way back to 1st century spoken Hebrew in Israel.

As far of Italian Hebrew pronunciation goes, I'm still unenlightened. All I know is Italy was the among the first Jewish diasporas (preceded by Egypt, Asia minor and Syria among others), so Hebrew was spoken there by at least some members of the communities for the first decades since Jews began arriving in Italy. Don't see how any valid linguistic conclusions can be made from this where pronounciation is concerned, but I'm no specialist in this niche.

I know that, sometimes, the internet's anonymity brings out the worst in people. I honestly do not know why your post was written as viciously and as hateful as it was, and it sure sticks out among all the other posts, which reacted to differences of opinion with respect.
I especially did not understand how my latest post (now hidden for some reason) "showed my true colors", since I made it quite clear even in my original post, that I come from an Animal Rights perspective.
I am sorry for you that that is your level of discourse, and hope you learn that respecting people will enable you to get your point across to them, even influence their way of thinking, but childish attacks and namecalling doesn't make what you say more convincing.
As for what I said regarding the world's eating habits: your examples are indeed true and good ones, but they don't contradict what I said. I never said ALL 100% of the world lived and lives still on a vegetarian diet, and I also did not say that the majority of the world lived and lives still on a STRICT, 100% vegetarian diet. I am sorry, but Eskimos, Maasai and Samburus is simply not enough (although you did clarify that these were only three examples of many).
Either way, this line of reasoning seems misled to me, since there are many things common around the world, things that have existed since the dawn of man and were considered natural and normal, and which we now consider wrong and aim to change (slavery, rape, war and "might makes right" come to mind...). I think practically the vast majority of principles which we live by today were, at some point, held only by a tiny minority of "bleeding hearts", extremists and weirdos.
Regarding all the nutritional stuff: You no doubt have much more knowledge of it than me, and know your stuff. This, however, does not manage to convince me that vegetarianism is not a healthy choice. I'm sorry. I've read books and hundreds of articles by vegetarian and vegan doctors, as well as dozens of books praising meat and dairy products, and still believe that you can be a healthy vegan and vegetarian. My life's experience taught me that, too.
I understand you think I am mistaken, and I would not mind exchanging opinions on this, if I thought you'd respect me and not talk to me like I was dirt.
I'm sorry, dear sir or madam: you don't know what kind of person I am, what I do, what I know and don't know and what I believe well enough to be talking like that.
Please show more respect.
Thanks for taking the time to post such an informative comment, though.

I'm not sure, but perhaps because Italian Jews are pre-Diaspiora and pre-divison into Sephardi and Ashkenazi dialects, their Hebrew may have some historic hints. Any ideas?

Human beings obtain adequate vitamin D if they regularly spend time outdoors in spring, summer and autumn, by the action of sunlight (UV rays) on skin. Light-skinned, non-elderly adults exposing their hands and face to sunlight during the summer for 10-15 minutes, 2-3 times/week get enough vitamin D from sunlight. In fact, the most significant supply of vitamin D (for omnivores as well as vegetarians) comes from the action of ultra-violet B light on sterols in the skin, and most people (including infants) require little or no extra from food when regularly exposed to sunlight when the sun is high in the sky (bright sunlight is not necessary; even the sky shine on a cloudy summer day will stimulate formation of some D in the skin)

Pre-formed vitamin A exists only in animal products. However, there are about 50 carotenoids that the body can convert into vitamin A; the most common is beta-carotene. The vitamin A content of foods is now stated as retinol activity equivalents (RAE). The DRI of 900 RAE for men and 700 RAE for women, can easily be met with one medium carrot, one baked sweet potato, 2/3 of a cantaloupe, as well as with kale, mango, spinach, butternut squash, and various greens.

Vitamin B12 is made only by bacteria; it is not synthesized by plants OR animals. To a great extent, B12 is recycled from liver bile in the digestive system. This is one reason why vitamin B12 deficiency is rare among vegans, even those who do not use supplements or supplemented foods (Herbert V (1994) "Staging vitamin B-12 (cobalamin) status in vegetarians." American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 59(suppl), pp. 1213S-1222S).
Until very recently in Human history, we obtained an abundance of vitamin B12 from the bacterial “contamination” of unwashed fresh fruits and vegetables - just like the animals we eat obtain them. A person living in the ancestral environment regularly would have consumed fresh fruits and vegetables that were not consistently, fastidiously cleaned - as we routinely do today. Our current unusual degree of hygiene is useful for combating many health threats, but may leave some people vulnerable to the potential problem of vitamin B12 deficiency (which is more common among meat-eaters than even among vegans, by the way).
In short, the reason many people have to supplement their B12 intake with tablets is not because a vegetarian/vegan diet is “unnatural”, but because of our current lifestyle – which itself might be what is “unnatural”.

As to the different Eskimo and African people mentioned, there are many opposite examples: In North America, the Choctaw Indians of Mississippi and Oklahoma, among many others, existed on an almost exclusively vegetarian diet. Aztec, Mayan, and Zapotec children in olden times ate 100% vegetarian diets until at least the age of ten years old (the primary food was cereal, especially varieties of corn).
In Africa there were indeed cattle-herding tribes, but there were also largely vegetarian Bantu tribes such as the agriculturist Kikuyu and Wakamba, whose diet consisted of sweet potatoes, corn, beans, bananas, millet and Kafir corn or sorghum.
In China, for centuries (for reasons both economic and historic), the traditional Chinese diet has been primarily vegetarian - featuring lots of vegetables, rice, and soybeans (are you familiar with Jainists, Taoists or Sikhists, for example?). There were also many Aboriginal tribes in Australia who were 99% vegetarian, although there is not much clinical information about them.
And what about the millions of Hindu who’ve been living as vegetarian since the 2nd millennium BC? Surely, according to the anonymous person who supplied “facts” about vegetarian diets, these people could not have survived at all.
And yes, there are many more examples.
Your post? Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing...

You and I obviously have different standards as to what constitutes malice, hatred and the worst in human beings. Your feelings seem to be hurt, and that is clouding your interpretation of what how I've been expressing myself here. I will readily confess to being upset at how you were non-chalantly able to make that statement of yours branding massive meat consumption as limited to Western Whites. You suggest my last post was devoid of respect to you, when in actuality I was doing my best to maintain a scintilla of respect even though I was finding it very hard to still respect you after you made such an ignorant statement about the gluttony of animal foods as something unique to Caucasians. and then you proceed to claim you'd researched the veg*n matter thoroughly... I'm sorry, and I know this is hurtful to you, but goodness help us. I suggest your post was hidden precisely or primarily because of that historically untenable statement. Think about it.
Moreover, you made some statements in your hidden post repeating scientifically unsupported cliches, and other, preachy ones (and you even admitted this in so many words), and then you come back accusing me of childish behavior and name calling. Evidently you're projecting your behavior onto me but you're now incapable of seeing that, a sorry state of affairs indeed.

As for my remark about your true colors, I don't see how anyone can make such a statement without first ascertaining its validity such as you did and maintain a high degree of credibility in a serious discussion where some interlocutors and readers maintain a healthy dose of skepticism and open-mindedness, not willing to run and embrace any dogma or agenda without at least checking the facts for themselves.
However, you're amplifying my reaction by a certain order to the degree of being vicious. Not so.

Also, I don't use my name here, but I don't care to divulge the reasons. I'm under no obligation to disclose why. But that has no bearing on how I choose to interact with a contributor.

Despite your claim to have researched the veg*n issue thoroughly, all you really have to show for veganism's alleged health superiority - according to your own admission in your hidden submission - is annecdotal evidence confined to yourself. You were careful to qualify that you _think_ it has worked for many others, so you're not even sure about that. Even so, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and suppose it has worked also for some of your friends in the AR movements. Where does this mean vis-a-vis the supposed superiority of veganism healthwise? FYI, annecdotal evidence is quite an inferior form of evidence in scientific research. What is needed is *statistically significant* _clinical evidence_ reached by double-blind randomized, tightly controlled clinical trials that study a sufficiently large number of people to make statistically significant findings one way or the other. Anything else, except epidemiological research (that hints at certain possibilities and suggests certain trends), but is still inferior to clinical research (which is the golden standard in health matters) is a waste of time and amounts to no proof that regimen X is healthier or better than regimen Y.
I'll take your word for testifying about your own good health, but as I said, this doesn't prove veg*n diets are more healthy than omnivorous ones. I too ca do the same by garnering the annecdotal testimony of many Maasai people and meat eaters worldwide and yet that won't register as unassailable proof that omnivorous is more healthy than veg*n.
Your error is that you insist on invoking science to bolster your claim but you're also bent on ignoring historical, anthropological and biochemical facts that aren't to your liking. You simultaneously "want it all" but also "nothing to do with it". Sorry, I have much more respect for those who don't invoke the name of science and want nothing to do with it than those who state a commitment to scientific evidence but disregard it whenever the evidence opposes their convictions partly or completely.

You claim to have read books written by veg*n authors and "hundreds of articles by vegetarian and vegan doctors, as well as dozens of books praising meat and dairy products, and still believe that you can be a healthy vegan and vegetarian."
Sorry, that's not the best way to get closest to clinical evidence, since even the peer-review process that many articles in scientific journals undergo isn't foolproof, and loads of nonsense gets published in them by scientists and authors of almost every dietary creed. You don't mention reading articles by omnivorous docs; surprise?
There's no duly conducted clinical research proving veganism is a healthy choice. One the other hand, at least some adequate research proves veganism isn't healthy.


Next, I see you move on to concede the validity of the information I've produced proving your Caucasian-exclusive massive animal products eating was dead wrong, and yet in the same breath you say the proof DOESN'T contradict what I say?? This is what's called adding insult to injury (not that I've taken offense personally). You seem to be attempting circular argumentation because you're don't seem able to fully come to terms with those facts. The following statements you make confirm your difficulty accepting them. What I was concerned with was to refute your simple unsupported claim with simple evidence, and so I did. That is not to say no societies in which animal foods consisted of a rather small part of the diet existed. Actually, there were and have been a certain number of societies where significantly less animal foods was/is consumed compared to carnivores societies. For instance, the Bantu tribes in Africa. While many investigators have mistakenly claimed that Bantu groups consumed no animal products at all, they in fact kept a few cattle and goats which supplied both milk and meat; they ate small animals such as frogs; and they put a high value on insect food which are rich in the fat soluble factors - some of which I mentioned above - found in blood, organ meats, fish and butterfat. Surely even you wouldn't consider such people vegetarian, let alone vegan.

I knew you'd proceed to the next step, post-denial, which is to claim that two or three tribes or peoples aren't representative. Being unhappy with my refutation, you're trying to save face pretending I haven't actually proven you wrong - you're trying to imply my proof is incomplete, while simultaneously begging to present your argument as fair with the requisite qualification. I'm fully aware you have no intention to be convinced and believe me, I've got no intention to appease you.

But, since I'm enjoying this exchange, I'll go the readers one or a few more just for the heck of it:

1. Pre-colonialism Native Americans, whose diets varied with the locality and climate were nonetheless all based on animal foods of every type and description, including large game like deer, buffalo, wild sheep and goat, antelope, moose, elk, caribou, bear and peccary. And also small animals such as beaver, rabbit, squirrel, skunk, muskrat and raccoon; reptiles including snakes, lizards, turtles, and alligators; fish and shellfish; wild birds including ducks and geese; sea mammals (for Indians living in coastal areas); insects including locust, spiders and lice; and dogs.

2. The Australian Aborigines hunted and ate for many thousands of years plenty of game, birds and fish, kangaroos, wallaby, paddy-melon, bandicoot and kangaroo rat, rabbits, Echidna, possum, koala bear, flying fox, grey glider, iguanas, lizards, frogs and snakes, emus, turkeys, swans, ducks, parrots, cockatoos, mussels, oysters, turtles, eels, dugong, witchety grub, shellfish, lobster, crab, crayfish, prawns, snails, oysters, mussels, mud whelk, abalone, scallops, sea urchins and periwinkles.

3. The traditional Okinawan diet consists, in addition to rice, vegetables, a small amount of soy and their unique purple potatoes, of about 100 grams each of and fish each day. The most common cooking fat that was used traditionally in Okinawa is lard. Bear in mind this diet is what made vigorous Okinawans thrive into their 90s.

And on and on it goes. I can back up all the info on these politically incorrect, non "bleeding heart" traditional diets.

You proceed to the line of argument that dietary traditions going back to prehistory are somehow wrong or invalid for including more animal products than you're prepared to consume by mentioning them along with other ancient traditions unrelated to diet. This line of reasoning is totally unconvincing and meritless, not to mention utterly unscientific.
Positing that "veganism is modern and enlightened, animal foods consumption is antiquated and unenlightened" doesn't change nutrition related physiological and biochemical realities regarding human nutrition that have remained intact for millions of years.


As for your dietary choices, I haven't been attempting to convert you nor your vegan counterparts in the AR movements into omnivores. I wish you or anyone who has chosen a vegan lifestyle and is determined to persist in it for the remainder of their lives the best of luck and hope they will be able to reach and maintain true health according to the best wellness standards as diagnosed by an AA/EPA blood test.

I'd say the gist of my arguments is that vegetarianism MAY be a healthy choice, that is if it is undertaken with care, like eating at least 16 eggs per day. This may be enough for a few to maintain optimal health and wellness, but others will need to add in fish oil and/or other animal products, which will render them omnivores, even though they might keep considering themselves vegetarian.

I do indeed strongly disagree that veganism or what's known as a lacto-vegetarian regimen is the healthiest for most people. Therefore, I'd gladly share facts and my opinions with those who'd like to hear, though. But that doesn't mean I'll refrain from setting the facts straight when I notice factual distortions that I'm duly knowledgeable about to correct.

Lastly, our occupations, precise identities, the entire scope of our erudition and just about all our beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion, so it's pointless to go there even a little.
And, some respect on your part to my intelligence is in order and won't hurt you, I guess.

Al lo davar (you're welcome).
Appreciate very much having this debate with me, sir. Sheyihye lecha Yom tov (Have a good day).

The sentence should read:

3. The traditional Okinawan diet consists, in addition to rice, vegetables, a small amount of soy and their unique purple potatoes, of about 100 grams each of and fish and pork each day.

"vitamin B-12 to stave off anemia"

b-12 has nothing to do with anemia, Dr. Science

*** PREFACE: Sorry for the bandwith this post occupies and its length, but Phillips' claims need to be tackled since they're so full of factual distortions.

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

Some of your assertions concerning the production of vitamin D by the sun have merit. Yet when the notion of obtaining optimal levels of this vitamin from the sun is thought about, several problems come to mind:

(a.) Many locations around the globe do not provide adequate UV-B radiation year round. A majority of people living in temperate or cold climates become vitamin D deficient during winter. The problem is amplified in African-Americans and other naturally dark-skinned people, the elderly, and those who spend little time outdoors. I don't see you addressing this issue, dear prodigy. Furthermore,

(b.) many of us don't have either the time or the chance to get out and receive adequate sun during daytime, provided the season is right. What do you suggest these people do, dear Phillips?

(c.) The formation of "some vit. D" courtesy of the sun on a cloudy summer day might no be the adequate amount. How can you guarantee otherwise?

(d.) It is very difficult to obtain an optimal amount of vitamin D by a brief foray into the sun. Why? There are three UV bands of radiation that come from sunlight named A, B, and C. Only the “B” form is capable of catalyzing the conversion of cholesterol to vitamin D in our bodies ((a) H Glerup and others. Commonly recommended daily intake of vitamin D is not sufficient if sunlight exposure is limited. J Int Med, 2000, 247:260-8; (b) BL Diffey. Solar ultraviolet radiation effects on biological systems. Phys Med Biol, 1991, 36:299-328.) and UV-B rays are only present at certain times of day, at certain latitudes, and at certain times of the year ((a) K Sullivan. The miracle of vitamin D. Wise Traditions, 2000, 3:11-20 (b) RM Sayre and others. Vitamin D production by natural and artificial sources. Photo Medical Society Meeting, 1998, March 1--Conference Proceeding.).
Furthermore, depending on one’s skin color, obtaining 200-400 IUs of vitamin D from the sun can take as long as two full hours of continual sunning ((a) Sullivan, op cit.; (b) LY Matsuoka and others. In vivo threshold for cutaneous synthesis of vitamin D3 in skin. Nutr Rev, 1989, 47:252-3.). A dark-skinned vegan, therefore, will find it impossible to obtain optimal vitamin D intake by sunning himself for 20 minutes a few times a week, even if sunning occurs during those limited times of the day and year when UV-B rays are available.

The RDA for vitamin D is or had been 400 IUs until a few years ago, but famed nutrition researcher Dr. Weston Price’s (I'll mention him also later) seminal research into healthy native adult people’s diets showed that their daily intake of vitamin D (from animal foods) was about 10 times that amount, or 4,000 IUs (Price, op cit, 256-281.). Accordingly, Dr. Price placed a great emphasis on vitamin D in the diet. Without vitamin D, for example, it is impossible to utilize minerals like calcium, phosphorous, and magnesium. Fairly recent research has confirmed Dr. Price’s higher recommendations for vitamin D for adults (R Vieth. Vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations, and safety. Am J Clin Nutr, 1999, 69:842-56.).

How convenient to overlook these problems in the hope no one will raise them.

============================
Vitamin A
________

Before going any further, the 20:1 conversion ration of beta-caroteme to vit. A that I mentioned earlier is discussed in the following passage on http://nutrition.tufts.edu/events/policy/2003fall.html :
"It had been previously thought that 6mg of beta-carotene can convert to 1mg of vitamin A. Now there is evidence that the conversion of fruit and vegetable beta-carotene to vitamin A is much less efficient (perhaps taking as much as 20mg of beta carotene to convert to 1mg of vitamin A). It remains uncertain what the efficiency of conversion of beta-carotene to vitamin A would be in unique foods such as genetically modified Golden Rice. At the present time, the National Academy of Science has set the conversion ratio at 12:1 (12mg of dietary beta-carotene yielding 1 mg of vitamin A), and has introduced new terminology (“retinol activity equivalent”). The resetting of the beta-carotene vitamin A equivalency has enormous public health implications, for recommended dietary allowance for vitamin A, and for vitamin A deficiency prevention programs in developing countries."

As far as the body's ability to convert all carotenoids into vit. A goes, you've somehow overlooked that a variety of factors influence the absorption efficacy of carotenes. First off, of the entire family of carotenes, beta-carotene is most easily converted to vitamin A.
Unlike retinol, carotenes require bile acids to facilitate absorption. Other factors that affect carotene absorption include: the presence of fat, protein, and antioxidants in the food, thyroid hormones, zinc the presence of bile and a normal complement of pancreatic enzymes in the intestinal lumen; and the integrity of the mucosal cells. Also, strenuous physical exercise, excessive consumption of alcohol, excessive consumption of iron (especially from "fortified" white flour and breakfast cereal), use of a number of popular drugs, excessive consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids, zinc deficiency and even cold weather can hinder the conversion of carotenes to vitamin A. FYI, pregnancy, lactation and infection are stresses that quickly deplete vitamin A stores. Children with measles rapidly use up vitamin A, which can result in irreversible blindness.

Now what about all those people incapable of making the optimal conversion like diabetics, those with thyroid damage, babies, infants and those with gallbladder problems? This isn't an insignificant minority we're talking here. They probably number by the hundreds of millions at least worldwide and certainly more than half of the US population. Seems very convenient for you to overlook this.

As for the RDAs and Adequate Intakes (AIs), I'm just too suspicious when I notice public health bearucrats keep lowering them every now and then. In 2001 the US RDA of vit. A had been 5,000 IU per day or about 1515 RAE (1 RAE = 3.3 IU). Dr. Robert Russell of Tufts University, who warned that intake over an "upper limit" of 10,000 IUs a day may cause irreversible liver damage and birth defects - a ridiculous statement in view of the fact that just a few decades ago pregnant women were routinely advised to take cod liver oil daily and eat liver several times per week. One tablespoon of cod liver oil contains at least 15,000 IU and one serving of liver can contain up to 40,000 IU vitamin A. Russell epitomizes the establishment view when he insists that vitamin A requirements can be met with one-half cup of carrots daily.

Now what are truly _optimal_ levels of vit. A? Based on the work of nutritional researcher and, anthropologist Dr. Weston Price who stuied traditional diets of pre-colonized societies where all foods were unadulturated and virtually nearly everyone enjoyed life long optimal health, it's safe to assume the amount in "primitive" diets was about 50,000 IU per day = about 15,150 per day. In a modern diet this amount can be achieved by consuming generous amounts of whole milk, cream, butter and eggs, beef or duck liver several times per week; and 1 tablespoon regular cod liver oil or 1/2 tablespoon high-vitamin cod liver oil per day.

=========================
Vitamin B-12
------------------
It is true that the original source of vitamin B12 in nature is bacteria, the only creatures able to manufacture this vitamin. In humans and animals, these bacteria produce vit. B12 in the colon; _however_, little if any is absorbed across the colon wall so we must get our B12 from animal foods. Vit. B12 is found almost exclusively in animal foods such as liver, kidney, meat, fish, shellfish, milk products and eggs. Interestingly, while eggs contain B12, they also contain substances that block absorption (4. Doscherholmen A and others. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1975 Sep;149(4):987-90; DoscherholmenA and others. Br J Haematol 1976 Jun;33(2):261-72), a fact that leaves only milk as a good source of B12 for vegetarians.
Until recently, vegetarian and vegan literature claimed that certain plant foods could provide B12—seaweeds, fermented soybeans, spirulina, even unwashed vegetables that have been fertilized with manure. A person living in the ancestral environment regularly would have consumed fresh fruits and vegetables that were not consistently, fastidiously cleaned - as we routinely do today. Proponents of vegetarianism pointed to inhabitants of India, who did not seem to exhibit signs of B12 deficiency in spite of very low levels of animal foods in the diet. Yet as early as 1974, an American study found that 92 percent of vegans, 64 percent of lactovegetarians, 47 percent of lacto-ovovegetarians and 20 percent of semi-vegetarians have blood levels below normal, that is, below the low range that marks the onset of pernicious anemia (Dong A and Scott SC. Ann Nutr Metab 1982;26(4):209-16.). Today, most vegetarian literature does warn about the very real possibility of depletion and recommends routine supplementation with B12. We now know that a source of B12 in the tropical, mostly vegetarian diet in India was insect excrement and parts in stored grains and legumes - not what you presented, i.e. the result of bacterial “contamination” of unwashed fresh fruits and vegetables as the animals we eat supposedly do. It is true that Hindu vegans living in certain parts of India do not suffer from vitamin B12 deficiency. This has led some to conclude that plant foods do provide this vitamin. This conclusion, however, is erroneous as many small insects, their feces, eggs, larvae and/or residue, are left on the plant foods these people consume, due to non-use of pesticides and inefficient cleaning methods. This is how these people obtain their vitamin B12. This contention is borne out by the fact that when vegan Indian Hindus later migrated to England, they came down with megaloblastic anaemia within a few years. In England, the food supply is cleaner, and insect residues are completely removed from plant foods ((a) HL Abrams. Vegetarianism: An Anthropological/Nutritional Evaluation, J Appl Nutr, 1980, 32:2:53-87; (b) M Rose. Serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels in Australian adolescent vegetarians. Lancet, 1976, 2:87.). While lacto and lacto-ovo vegetarians have sources of vitamin B12 in their diets (from dairy products and eggs), vegans (total vegetarians) do not. Vegans who do not supplement their diet with vitamin B12 will eventually get anemia (a fatal condition) as well as severe nervous and digestive system damage; most, if not all, vegans have impaired B12 metabolism and every study of vegan groups has demonstrated low vitamin B12 concentrations in the majority of individuals (See reference in my earlier post). Several studies have been done documenting B12 deficiencies in vegan children, often with dire consequences ((a) S Ashkenazi and others. Vitamin B12 deficiency due to a strictly vegetarian diet in adolescence. Clin Pediatr, 1987, 26:662-3; (b) G Cheron and others. [Severe megaloblastic anemia in 6-month old girl breast-fed by a vegetarian mother.] Arch Fr Pediatr, 1989, 46:205-7; (c) T Kuhne and others. Maternal vegan diet causing a serious infantile neurological disorder due to vitamin B12 deficiency. Eur J Pediatr, 1991, 150:205-8; (d) MC Wighton and others. Brain damage in infancy and dietary vitamin B12 deficiency. Med J Aust, 1979, 2:1-3.)
Additionally, claims are made in vegan and vegetarian literature that B12 is present in certain algae, tempeh (a fermented soy product) and Brewer's yeast. All of them are false. Brewer's and nutritional yeasts do not contain B12 naturally; they are always fortified from an outside source.
There is not real B12 in plant sources but B12 analogues--they are similar to true B12, but not exactly the same and because of this they are not bioavailable ((a) PC Dagnelie and others. Vitamin B12 from algae appears not to be bioavailable. Amer J Clin Nutr, 1991, 53:695-7; (b) L Lazarides. The Nutritional Health Bible. (Thorsons Publishing; CA), 1997, 22-23; (c) V Herbert. Vitamin B12: plant sources, requirements, and assay. Amer J Clin Nutr, 1988, 48:852-8.). It should be noted here that these B12 analogues can impair absorption of true vitamin B12 in the body due to competitive absorption, placing vegans and vegetarians who consume lots of soy, algae, and yeast at a greater risk for a deficiency ((a) IE Baille. The first international congress on vegetarian nutrition. J Appl Nutr, 1987, 39:97-105; (b) A Smith. Soybeans: Chemistry & Technology, vol 1 (Avi Publishing Co; CT), 1972, 184-188.).
Some vegetarian authorities claim that B12 is produced by certain fermenting bacteria in the lower intestines. This may be true, but it is in a form unusable by the body. B12 requires intrinsic factor from the stomach for proper absorption in the ileum. Since the bacterial product does not have intrinsic factor bound to it, it cannot be absorbed (L Dunne. Nutrition Almanac, 22-23).
The only reliable and absorbable sources of vitamin B12 are animal products, especially organ meats and eggs ((a) L Dunne. Nutrition Almanac, 31; (b) J Groff and S Gropper. Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism, Third Edition Wadsworth/Thomson Learning; CA.), 1999, 298.). Though present in lesser amounts than meat and eggs, dairy products do contain B12. Vegans, therefore, should consider adding dairy products into their diets. If dairy cannot be tolerated, eggs, preferably from free-run hens, are a virtual necessity.
A surprising source of cobamides is bacterial overgrowth in the small intestines, which can produce B12 analogs.(Brandt LJ and others. Ann Intern M 1977 Nov;87(5):546-51.)
The use of antibiotics, or a diet high in refined carbohydrates, can encourage the proliferation of bacterial overgrowth and lead to B12 deficiencies.
That vitamin B12 can only be obtained from animal foods is one of the strongest arguments against veganism being a "natural" way of human eating. Today, vegans can avoid anemia by taking supplemental vitamins or fortified foods. If those same people had lived just a few decades ago, when these products were unavailable, they would have died.
The claim that vitamin B12 deficiency is more common among meat-eaters than even among vegans is a probably a lie originating in veg*n propaganda.
You are, however, partly correct in saying the reason many have to supplement their B12 intake with tablets is because of our current lifestyle which iself is usually “unnatural”, but you're overlooking that inadequate nutrition - even in the forms of veg*n regimens - are among the culprits as well.

=======================

Examples of Native peoples allegedly living off vegetarian diets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look, all I wanted to do is point out to Gomez how wrong he was to make his massive only Caucasian eating animal foods claim. I set the facts straight. Reading my retort, you felt a need to prove to me that there've been quite a few tribes or people existing on "almost exclusively vegetarian diets". I've already recognized that this has been the case in various siocieties. I've also shown that a rigorous and honest analysis of "almost exclusively vegetarian diets" reveals they're likely to contain some meet, small animals (like frogs) and insects - all animal foods.

When you allude to a "100% vegetarian diet" I assume you define one as consisting of at least eggs and/or milk, if not also fish.

I've already alluded to the "largely vegetarian" Bantu groups you're mentioning. The point is, there has never been any vegan society, and many of the allegedly vegetarian societies were found upon closer examination to consume either fish foods (fish and fish roe), milk, and insects.

China? Don't overestamate the percentage of soy in the Chinese diet. In the _real_ Cornell Study (not the book by Collin Campbell) soyfoods were lumped together with other pulses in the category of legumes. Legume consumption varied from 0 to 58 grams per day, with a mean of about 12. Assuming that two-thirds of legume consumption is soy, then the maximum consumption is about 40 grams (about 3 tablespoons) per day with an average consumption of about 9 grams.

Since soy came up, let me remind you that in addition to the health authorities of several states now warning of various dangers of soy consumption, the tide is now turning even within the corrupt FDA against it and Solae has just withdrawn its petition submitted to the FDA for a soy protein and cancer health claim. So, if veg*ns wisely forgo unfermented soy consumption, they'll need to consume unbelievably huge amounts of grains + legumes to achieve complete proteins, depending on how many grams protein a person needs. In most addults the minimum of protein per day is higher than the gov. supported allowance of 50 gr; the minimum appears to be 77 grams. A vegan would need to eat tons of legumes + grains a day to supply such an amount, which by definition means you're eating a very high-cardohydrate diet - almost a surefire way to fatten up and develope life threatening degenerative diseases. True vegetarians could avoid this trap by consuming many eggs, or add fish if they wish to call themselves "semi-vegetarian" while turning omnivorous.

As for Australia Aboriginals, not only do you concede you've got no clinical info to back you're assertion, but I also can't begin to imagine what you mean by "99% vegetarian". This vague definition needs to be understood in advance by everybody before you start tossing it around. But the animals I've mentioned above to Gomez were hunted and eaten by virtually all the tribes as far back a the 1930's.

The Hindues? Apart from what I've already shown you above in this post that they've been inadvertently consuming larvae, insect feces and some scraps of insects left on their veggies as these foods have never been thoroughly cleaned in India, you may want to take note that they're one of the shortest living populations worldwide, tend to suffere from failure to thrive, profound weakness and are afflicted by various defficiency diseases. Many of them feed of their own muscles whatever they lack in food, so their biggest body circumferances are their joints.


Your finale is just laughable. You'd do well to do some more research on my posts, notably this one, but this time it'd help if you think outside your veg*n box and verify my claims with more balanced or objective scientific literature. Any fool remain in their comfort zone, so try not to fall back on veg*n sources this time round.

Hey. These are just some final lines about some things you said. You seem to be someone with either a lot of time on their hands or a line of work that involves sitting in front of a computer with an Internet connection, and unfortunately I am neither – not that there’s anything wrong with that at all, of course.
When you wrote that you “enjoy these exchanges”, that was very revealing to me. I must confess I do not enjoy this kind of thing, and no – it’s not because of your superior intellect. I never enjoyed this, although unfortunately I chose a path that led (and leads) me to thousands upon thousands of debates and arguments, with passers-by, bored know-it-alls, biology teachers, doctors, vivisectionists, farmers, hunters, business men, politicians etc. I think you might engage in this as some sort of mental sport where you can “prove” yourself, while what motivates me is much less fun (the suffering of and death of non-human animals).
Of course, I’d put some effort into it, like you, look up references and check this thread consistently and stuff, if I thought it was valuable. Unfortunately, I have found that these kind of IMC threads are usually read by 4-5 different people all posting with different names (especially when they’re a few days old), and quite frankly it’s just not worth my time. I don’t mean anything bad about you by it, though. Honest. Anyway, after this post you’ll be able to have the last word, which I’m sure you like.

I found many things you said ridiculous, like all that psycho mumbo jumbo about me, my “hurt feelings” “clouding my interpretation”, me “projecting my behavior onto you” and so forth. My skin is thicker than that, and I don’t get easily offended from anonymous postings on the internet. I pity the fool who does. I’m just probably used to a different way of talking to people, that’s all. I think you assume way too much, and might not be as good in “reading” everyone as you imagine yourself to be.

And I also found it very laughable to suggest that my post was hidden “precisely or primarily” because of a “historically untenable statement”. That’s not IMC policy, they hide posts for different reasons (read their policy), and they many times make grave mistakes (by the way, another person said his post was hidden for no good reason too). No big deal.

If we can agree that vegetarianism CAN be a healthy choice (or even veganism, although I think you did not specify on that), that’s good enough for me. In fact, I’d never suggest it is by definition “healthy”. Just like meat-eating, it CAN be healthy, if approached right.
I don’t mean no insult, but that claim that vegetarians have to eat 16 eggs a day to stay healthy, that’s gotta be the most unrealistic and ridiculous thing I’ve heard in years regarding this subject – and I’ve hear a lot. I can’t imagine a good doctor or dietician not laughing out loud at that one. I know mine would. No offence of course. =)

I don’t mean to go around in circles, but you still haven’t “proved” that my original statement, that MASSIVE consumption of animal products is a relatively new phenomenon in human civilization, confined almost exclusively to the West, was wrong. True, there were societies and tribes in human history that consisted mostly or almost entirely on animal “products”, but that doesn’t prove me wrong. For G-d’s sake, meat consumption in the west has DOUBLED in the last 50 years alone, not to mention eggs and milk (hens in traditional, old style farms laid around 20 eggs a year, and now they lay 300, and up to a few decades ago cows gave around 8 liters of milk a day, now it’s around 40). I don’t know why this statement makes you go so berserk, since it seems to me to be plain common sense. Then again, even things like the theory of evolution are subject to heated debates among scientists, so I guess everything’s fair game…

Either way, I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on the anthropological or health aspect, because as I’ve made clear my motivation and what I find most crucial is the ethical question of having an industrialized system of massive confinement and murder of countless billions of sentient beings. Like I said, I’m more than willing to settle for us agreeing that vegetarianism CAN be a healthy choice.

I also wanted to remind you, since you seem to take the whole unbiased research aspect very seriously, that you are not “neutral” or “unbiased”. You do not approach the meat vs. vegetarian/vegan issue from some theoretical ground. You are a meat eater brought up by meat eaters who were themselves brought up by meat eaters for generations and hundreds of years, in a meat-eating environment, in a culture that teaches from infancy that meat, milk and eggs are good, and that non-human animals are ours to use.
If I showed you a pro-vegetarian study carried out by a vegetarian or an institute where most researchers are vegetarians, you’d no doubt dismiss it as “biased”, right? Well, how many of the researches and scientists from whose data you reach your pro-meat viewpoint eat meat? Do you know or care to know? Is that really trivial? I think it is safe to assume that the vast majority of your (and my) information comes from meat-eating researchers, and I’m not saying they - or you - are inherently wrong because of that, of course, but don’t pretend you come from some sort of neutral background that enables you to examine the issue of meat-eating in a truly unbiased way. You have to be conscious of your limitations.

This also applies to your (quite laughable) remark about “vegan brainwashing” being dangerous. No doubt ALL brainwashing is dangerous, but Golly, vegan brainwashing? Do you realize how utterly detached from reality it is to speak of vegan brainwashing in a society where the corporations that manufacture animal products have billions upon billions at their disposal, reaching children from within the classrooms as well as on all types of media, and reaching adults through medical, scientific and governmental institutions that promote animal products?
Vegan brainwashing? Give me a break, that’s some major desperate made-up nonsense…
What else you got? the Feminazis running America? The Illuminati and Z.O.G controlling the world?

Okay that’ll be it. Now you can start tearing all of this apart. =)

PS – if you really thought you hurt my feelings, why the hell didn’t you simply say you’re sorry?

B12 is absolutely necessary for blood production. Diseases that affect B12 absorption (short gut syndrome, pernicious anemia etc.) lead to anemia. Vegans need to supplement their B12, that's all.

B12 is the ONLY vitamin that vegans specifically need be concerned about. Fat soluable vitamins (D,E,A,K) are available from many non-animal sources.

Adam ve Chava lo achloo et basar (Adam and Eve did not eat meat)
Adam rak tzarich le'echol ma she'motzi min ha'aretz
(man only needs to eat what comes from the earth)

Is this guy joking or what?
Every goddarn doctor we go to, for whatever reasons, tells us practicaly the same thing over and over again: eat more fruits and vegetables, less saturated fats and cholesterol.
I'm not a veggie but for this guy to be saying, in this day and age, that vegetarianism is not healthy means he must be living under a rock in Mars or something!
You can be healthy eating meat or on a vegetarian diet. In the 60's and 70's they used to say veggies aren't healthy; nowadays everyone knows that if anything - they're the more healthy ones.
Perhaps excercise and fresh air are bad too?
Some people really have nothing to argue about...

What is thgis? A fuckin' bible class--less stick with facts instead of the bible, m-kay?

Its nice not to be excluded on this web site. Polite discussion of Bilical topics is ok with me.

Doesn't the bible say human kind is only 6K yrs. old?
Nevermind, that would be off topic.

To Zionist Veggie:
-------------------------

You have it wrong claiming all the fat-soluble vitamins are available from non-animal sources too.
You can find vitamin E and probably also K in plant foods, but vitamins are present only in animal foods, period. Maybe some _analogues_ of vitamins A and D exist in plant foods, but the body can never use these it does the real vitamins. So vegans need to supplement also vitamins A and D in the most natural non-synthetic forms, otherwise they're at risk of developing health problems down the road.

P.S.: I take it you've been to Israel and brushed up on your Hebrew.



To <(b)>:
-----------

How about reading my posts above more closely? I acknowledged that vegetarianism MAY be healthy if one practices it intelligently from a health perspective that satisfies all the valid criteria derived from the findings known so far from properly conducted clinical research.
Anyway, what's your own definition of vegetarianism? Do you include fish and/or dairy products?

As for doctors, please... most of them are so busy, they've got no time to remain up to speed - much less on an ongoing basis - in the clinical findings in the medical literature. And many docs are still encased within their own arrogance that they're unwilling to avail themselves of the more recent literature, let alone findings from their patients.
Physicians get most or all of their knowledge from Big Pharma. These companies reward docs with big cash and several perks for pushing medications. So you'll find countless physicians reaching to the prescription pad in no time - without even conducting any serious diagnostics - in response to any complaint about the slightest ailment.

Also, the nutrition recommendations they dole tend to parrot the heavily agri-business influenced USDA establishment line of a diet high in carbo foods. They're correct to recommend more vegetables and fruits (though its best not to go overboard with the fruits and make veggies your main carb foods) than the average Westerner usually eats.

But they're very wrong for warning you away from saturated fat and cholesterol. The only instances where cholesterol is dangerous is when one ingests _oxidized_ cholesterol found in milk powders. Just so you know, milk powder is added at times to 1% and/or 2% milk - yet another reason to avoid such milk and prefer whole fat milk in its stead.
I repeat, cholesterol is a potent anti-oxidant found also in mother's milk as is important for many bodily functions. Removing all cholesterol from one's diet is very risky.
I suggest you read up on the importance of cholesterol in human nutrition in websites like http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com.

Contrary to the current mainstream medical consensus, saturated fat is very healthy and necessary in human diets. Obviously not everyone needs to eat it in copious amounts, but some consumption of saturated fats is necessary for everyone's optimal health. One of the healthiest forms of saturated fat are coconut oil and palm kernel oil which contain good amounts of Short and Medium Chain Tryglycerides (MCTs) that rev up the metabolism and are immediately utilized by the body as a source of energy and NEVER get stored as fat. These MCTs are also present in butter from grass-fed animals. Anyway, saturated fats have many other virtues going for them.

However, few will be able to break free of their saturated fat and cholesterol phobias since it's been drummed into the public's head so hard for decades now. Recommended reading in this regard would be The Cholesterol Myths: Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease by independent researcher Uffe Ravnskov MD, PhD which thoroughly debunks the myths that saturated fats and cholesterol are harmful to the body.
Few know this, but while saturated fat was being relegated to the status of nutritional pariah, polyunsaturated fats - primarily in vegetable oils - have been aggressively promoted as sort of miracle food, even though humans need a very small percentage of them in the diet in their unadulterated state (derived only from either animal foods or virgin cold pressed oils); any excess consumption is dangerous, let alone from the ubiquitous refined vegetable oils.

Pray tell, who are those "everyone" who "knows they" [the vegetarians] are the more healthy ones"? Can't be the AMA and the AHA or even the USDA. I'm baffled. Enlighten us.

Exercise? Might be dangerous if done to excess (of course excess needs definition beyond an abstract meaning).

To recap, maybe your version of vegetarianism happens to be conducive to optimal health. So if you return, could you please explain which animal foods you'd include in such a diet? Then we'll be better able to assess the healthiness of vegetarianism as per your definition.
In the meantime, my suggestion to you is to read both the book (perhaps it can be found in a library) and website I've mentioned in this post before further dissing me and repeating what you've been led to believe by doctors, some of the most unreliable sources of nutritional wisdom. If you generally trust doctors, you're being quite naive and need a real wakeup call.

Actually, CoQ10 is yet another fat soluble vitamin or quasi-vitamin found mostly in animal foods like organ meats (heart, liver and kidney) as well as beef, soy oil (but soy oil is a health hazard), sardines and mackerel. (If you rather eat peanuts, you'd ahve to consume 2.5 pounds of peanuts to provide 30 mg of CoQ10, the dose probably considered the absolute minimun according to http://faculty.washington.edu/~ely/coenzq10.html .)

So let me correct myself:

You have it wrong claiming all the fat-soluble vitamins are available from non-animal sources too.
You can find vitamin E, some CoQ10 and probably also K in plant foods, but vitamins A and D are present only in animal foods, period.
Maybe some _analogues_ of vitamins A and D exist in plant foods, but the body can never use these the way it does the real vitamins. So vegans need to supplement also vitamins A and D and most likely also QoQ10 in the most natural non-synthetic forms, otherwise they're at risk of developing health problems down the road. (vitamins in synthetic forms casue compromised health in the long run).

Don't mix up the differing interpretations of the Bible. What Fundamentalists believe is not always the same as the traditonal Jewish interpretation of the same text.

This is not a site for Bible Study/Judaism--there are plenty of those, though I'm sure. This is an alternative media/activist site. You were getting way, way off topic on that discussion. I'm sure you could exchange emails and have a bible-love fest, though.

First off, it wasn't the element of trading harsh words in this exchange that I derive pleasure from. Rather, I've been enjoying sharing and discussing examples of diets of indigenous peoples. I can speak for myself and say that such a topic alone is jammed full of a high-charge intellectual dose. I find immense pleasure in having exchanges over such a topic. I can even get into the supposed ancient Jewish nutritional element and make comparisons based on intelligent guessing to a contemporary society living in another geographical region or continent, but that would be way out of this thread topic's boundaries.

I'm not sure my intellect is superior to anyone commenting on this thread. That's all I care to say about that allusion of yours to my intellect.
I don't care all that much whether the last word is yours or mine. At best, such a consideration is secondary to me.

As for hiding posts, just know that in several IMCs every editor works within the collective consensus, but still has some leeway in how they figure which posts to hide. Not every editor would necessarily interpret a policy violation posed by a certain posting as such (the their colleague might), much less on an immediate basis. Anyway, your hidden statement about exclusive "fairly recent in history Caucasian massive animal foods gluttony" almost reeks of racism, too. I for one wonder whether you were even being serious making that statement and if so, would like to know your source for that alleged historical truth. Or were you trying to throw animal products eaters into a fit once you realized the degree of the opposition to your animal liberation agenda? Either way, I don't know how anyone sane can expect a sane audience to believe that claim you made. But then, stranger things have been known to happen.

I regard animal suffering as a very serious matter and want to see all factory farming out of business, the sooner the better. That's where we agree. I do not, however, wish to forgo all benefits of animal foods, so we disagree about organic and bio-dynamic animal farming, which you of course wouldn't ever want to see happening.

However much you hate animal suffering and death, on thing I've noticed about AR activists is, as a general rule they disregard the animal suffering and death entailed in plant foods production. For instance, what occurres in vast expanses where mono-crop agriculture is applied, like wheat fields. Huge territories are cleared for planting these crops, and many animals lose their habitat and die in the process. When the land is ploughed, for example, lots of rather small animals die or get injured. As far as I know, AR activists mostly do not take action to help these animals, presumably because most of them aren't cute furry mammals with a discernable face a caring human can relate to.

That a vegetarian regimens can be healthy if practiced properly is actually what I've been trying to impress upon interlocutors. Of course not just any omnivorous regimen is healthy or health conducive by definition. If one eats lots of processed meats, they're putting their health in serious danger.

You've somewhat misinterpreted another notion. The "16 eggs per day" I mentioned wasn't for the purpose of remaining healthy. This is meant as a way for vegetarians to obtain 400 IU vitamin D a day. If you've read my reply to Phillips, you've seen me pointing out that the optimal daily vit. D amount for adults is actually 4,000 IU per day (but pregnant and lactating women need still more).
Actually, that is a vegetarian "prescription", the brainstorm of one Dr. Michael Janson, past-president of the American College for Advancement in Medicine and the American Preventive Medical Association., which I found out about from a cyber debate he once held with an opponent with a PhD in nutrition, Dr. Byrnes. You happen to be in accord with the latter, who also viewed this idea as quite unrealistic and ridiculous, and proceeded to claim that cod liver oil is a virtual imperative supplemental food in light of this for those people who live in areas where sunlight exposure is limited or cannot access the sun when UV-B rays are present. The funny thing is that Dr. Janson had already approved of cod liver oil consumption, even though he simultaneously tried to present his touted diet as vegan.
I've already called into question above the feasibility of having all vegetarians eating 16 eggs per day every day.

Since the truth is already out and you're on a lark again, I'll now quite one of the leading Stone Age nutrition researchers to prove to the readers that Stone Age (=Paleolithic = Caveman) diets quite often contained a big percentage of animal foods around the globe. Let's turn to beyondveg.com.

"Our laboratory has recently compiled the plant/animal-food subsistence ratio data in the Ethnographic Atlas [Murdock 1967] for all worldwide hunter-gatherer populations which have been studied either historically or by contemporary anthropologists. The analysis shows that in the majority (61.3%) of worldwide hunter-gatherers, gathered plant food represents 35% or less of the total food utilized. Only 2.2% of the world's hunter-gatherers derive 66% or more of their total foods from plants. Further, not a single hunter-gather population derives 86% or more of its total calories from plant foods.

"The most frequently occurring (mode) plant/animal subsistence ratio for worldwide hunter-gatherers is 16-25% plant/75-84% animal, and the median value is 26-35% plant/65-74% animal. These values corroborate five careful modern studies of hunter-gatherers showing a mean energy (caloric) intake from animal-food sources to be 59% [Leonard et al. 1994]."
http://beyondveg.com/cordain-l/metab-carn/metabolic-carnivory-1a.shtml

BTW, Loren Corden is a very sensible researcher of Paleolithic nutrition and he corroborates stuff I wrote above in my post about vitamins A and B12 (note also his statement that a private case of B12 clinical deficiency will take manifest in the long run). But he's almost entirely wrong about saturated fat. Apparently he significantly downplays its role in Stone Age societies since he needs to avoid being excoriated by his peers in academia.

Pundits without stock in the animal rights agenda disagree with your contention that meat, eggs, and milk consumption has risen to the extent you claim. I'm not the least troubled by your statement though, so I'm mystified about what you're trying to prove.
And I propose that what we need for a change is a bit of uncommon sense... now THAT would be a breath of fresh air, wouldn't it. If some can promote, under the guise of common sense, the notion that eating animal products in massive amounts is has only been going on for, say no more than 20,000 years, how about insisting that the Agricultural revolution occurred about 500,000 years ago, and that virtually everyone has been eating copious amounts of grains and legumes ever since? Now that would make sense, wouldn't it? Surely all the academic authorities on prehistory are wrong for maintaining that the Agricultural Revolution began only about 10,000 years ago...

I may not be totally unbiased, but when it comes to the dietary choices my parents, grandparents and perhaps great-grandparents lived by, the environment/s they lived in, and their culture they lived in, don't presume to tell me whether or not they even condoned animal foods or meat eating in particular. You don't know zip about them, so I've got no option but to dismiss the bulk of your assertion, though I'm not taking your remark personally.
Believe it or not, my parents didn't pass any notable culinary/dietary baggage on to me. If anything, I'd say I'm employing a sort of post-modern open-mindedness about what constitutes the healthiest diet for myself and what may be health for most others - at least in the contours.

All in all, I find myself less biased in either direction (avowed meat eater vs. vegan) than you are.
As for your question, I'd approach that pro-vegetarian study with caution, examine the degree of transparency (disclosure of financial sources, etc) read through it, check out comments by peers (if such existed) and check out whether its findings could be corroborated with previous findings by scientists without a veg*n bias (if such existed), and then decide if it has merit, what merit, or whether it must be dismissed. Hope this answers your question.

As for vegan brainwashing, the facts speak for themselves. I'm familiar with some of the mass brainwashing campaigns undertaken by organizations like the PCRM during the years. That multimillion dollar corporation use their own forms of brainwashing doesn't detract from the fact that animal rights groups have also been doing their own brainwashing. This, believe it or not, is reality. I'm observing it. Evidently you don't want to notice some of the forces and events at work, but others do.

Been fun, hasn't it, Gomez?

I just read this thread, and wanted to share something with the readers. Throughout the discussion, I thought the person posting facts regarding nutrition and so on, arguing with the vegetarian/s, was generally doing a good job. Although I think the animal rights arguments are at their strongest on ethical grounds, human health is of course a very serious issue and should be researched carefully.
Here’s a learned person challenging others to “think outside your veg*n box”, to “try not to fall back on veg*n sources”, and most importantly, stating repeatedly and emphasizing that he does his “darndest to avoid biased research findings”.
And I sort of believed him, until his very last post, where he makes the mistake of revealing the site that provides him with all his facts: http://www.beyondveg.com (I say provides him with *all* of his facts because every single piece of information he mentions is in there, although I suppose he also could’ve gotten it elsewhere. He might deny this - look it up for yourselves and see).
I ran into this site a while ago, doing some research, and quickly lumped it together with the worst sentimental vegan propaganda sites. In fact, it’s slightly worse, since it tries to present itself as an unbiased, scientific site, while with nutritional info from PeTa you at least know where it’s coming from.
Please bear with me on this one, because it sheds some light on John Doe’s policy on – or worse, definition of - bias.
First of all, the name of the site itself should be quite revealing. I mean, would you want me to give you some unbiased facts about milk from http://www.milksucks.com?
You go into BeyondVeg, and the subtitle reads “transcending outdated dogmas”. So far so good; everyone, vegans included, should applaud such an effort. No one wants dogmas in their camp (and let’s be honest: everyone has them). Right below that is a paragraph innocently describing the site’s contents: “Reports from veterans of vegetarian and raw-food diets, veganism, fruitarianism, and instinctive eating, plus new science from paleolithic diet research and clinical nutrition”. Sounds serious, sounds scientific, and most of all: sounds like an unbiased, honest & impartial approach to the issues.
You descent yet more, to the first category, which in true Orwellian tradition is named “Frank Talk About Vegetarian, Vegan & Raw-Food Diets from Long Time Insiders”.
Of course, like the rest of the site, this section is comprised of various articles warning you about vegetarianism from every possible aspect, almost all of it – again, like the rest of the site – written by one person, a nonscientist named Tom Billings.
According to his biography, this individual tried fruitarianism, raw diet, vegetarian & vegan diets, failed miserably (due to his ignorance in many areas) and concluded they can’t possibly work. Upon closer inspection, the few biographies of ex-vegetarians in his site reveal a deep ignorance in (among other things) general science, chemistry, biochemistry, the dynamics of dietary change, the quantity and quality of nutrients consumed, the body’s natural warning signs, failure to understand many basic psychological and psychosomatic aspects of dietary change, and a general ‘let’s do things the wrong way’ attitude.
The entire site, its sections and article titles are phrased to give an impression of objective reporting, often using scientific-sounding words and misinterpretations of scientific data to support all kind of false assumptions or conclusions (although there is some good stuff there too). But I don’t care as much about dealing with the validity of its data and claims as I do about the site (and the posts on this thread) claiming to use and provide unbiased facts while doing the opposite.
I was surprised to see that BeyondVeg had a “Comments & Reactions from readers” section, and was hoping to see some heated debates, a sure sign of open-mindedness. Not surprisingly, though, all “comments” and “reactions” are unanimous praise for the site’s content and creator.
I ventured further down to the “Links to Other Sites” section, and was surprised again: there was a “Vegetarian-Oriented” category. Well, I thought, if they include links to Veg*an sites, they can’t be *that* unbiased, right? Wrong again. A closer look at the four “Vegetarian-Oriented” links exposed the awful truth: the first link might be to an article from The Vegetarian Journal, but the article itself aims to prove that the number of vegetarians is much lower than we think, something BeyondVeg seems to find encouraging. No mystery then why that link was included.
The second link is to some moronic New Agey health site run by one Chet Day, which, in between selling you natural tonic and skincare products, also provides chicken recipes, and whose “vegetarian and veganism” section contains nothing but articles denouncing these as unhealthy, dangerous and disastrous choices. And may I remind you that this site was in the “Vegetarian-Oriented” section of BeyondVeg. Incidentally, this Chet Day is a contributor to BeyondVeg’s site. Elementary, my dear Watson. No axe to grind here, of course.
The third link under “Vegetarian-Oriented” is to an article titled “Humans are Omnivores” – need I say more?!?
And the fourth link, as expected, leads to a not at all vegetarian-oriented book review.
What an unbiased, objective, truthful site BeyondVeg is, right my dear friend?
Other categories in their “Links to Other Sites” section include a “Humor, Jokes and Cartoons” section with links to sites such as “The Pathetic Veg*an Jokes Page” or “Boulder Vegetable Rights Association home page”. BeyondVeg is, after all, a serious scientific site devoid of any bias.
Needless to say, all the other link categories lead to strongly anti-vegetarian sites as well.
I could go on about this site for days, but I am hoping this is enough.
For the record: both sides here said things I didn’t agree with, but people presenting deeply biased information while accusing others of doing just that need to be exposed.

By the way, I have no doubt in my mind that the person who’s posting the BeyondVeg stuff here is involved or linked to this site or its few contributors, and also that the reason he remains anonymous is precisely because who he really is would cast a dark shadow over what he is presenting. No doubt he’ll deny it.

PS – The ethical aspect of veg*anism is tackled in BeyondVeg only once, in “Edible Editorials” - as a satire ridiculing the ethics of veg*ans. Shouldn’t have expected more, I guess.

much like that guy said, in a world where the vast majority of people eat meat and practically all of us were raised as meat-eaters, the bias that should worry us is the pro-meat bias. pro-veg bias is a drop in the ocean. also, you seem to confuse spreading misleading information (which is what you actually accuse some animal rights groups of doing, like the PCRM) with “brainwashing”. passing out one-sided flyers to people or even giving them inaccurate information is not brainwashing. you need much more power and control over a people’s entire surroundings that animal right groups have in order to brainwash.

when your natural, logical, realistic pro-meat bias was pointed out, you retreated into mumbling that no one knows anything about your parents so they should all shut up.
dude, it’s not about your actual parents, it’s about the society and the culture we live in. you didn’t weasel out of that one successfully, you’re obviously wrong and did not want to admit it. it’s no “shame” admitting to a pro-meat bias, it’s just reality, we all know it. post-modern or not, you weren’t created or brought up in a vacuum, and you certainly don’t live in one today.

writing that massive consumption of animal products is a recent phenomenon in human history, limited to western society, might be mistaken, but racist? c’mon. if something in this thread “almost reeks of racism”, then your own remark back there about how Hindues tend to suffer from failure to thrive is a way better candidate. neither of you seems like a racist, but if anything, yours is more offending and closer to reeking of racism. you should perhaps learn to not say things sometimes. Also, the idea that this alleged racism on behalf of Gomez was the reason his post was hidden is dumb, since he repeated his claim in all his posts, but only that one post was hidden. on indymedia, if you post three racist remarks, they’ll erase all three, not just the first. Duh.

the whole “99% vegetarian” thing’s stupid too. First, there’s no such thing as “99% vegetarian” – you’re either one or you’re not – but from the context it was clear he meant people who got all the nourishment they needed to survive from vegetation, and for whom hunting was not crucial for their health or survival. your rebuttal is stupid because it is basically just a long list of animals that you say these people hunted – you don’t say how much animals they hunted and you don’t say what percentage of their diet and their nourishment the flesh of the animals provided. if this is one percent, then calling them 99% vegetarian is understandable. your argument is as vague as his, and you certainly don’t prove him wrong, as would be the case had he claimed they were strict vegetarians.
and your argument on chinese diets is also lacking, since you don’t prove his claim is wrong, you just tell him not to overestimate the percentage of soy in their diets. is this your proof? wow, you really nailed that one.

you state three times the nonsense that “true” vegetarians eat eggs, and this leads me to believe that you desperately want someone to take this bait. I’ll take it. if you’re talking about “Pythagoreans”, they didn’t eat eggs. most vegetarian in India don’t eat eggs also. the word itself, invented by the vegetarian society, treats eggs and dairy products the same and actually reads “with or without eggs or dairy products”. this doesn’t imply in any way that “true” vegetarians eat eggs, in case this is not obvious enough for you.

with the whole issue of western massive consumption of animal products you again make an ass of yourself. your tactic is to pretend the claim was different, and then proceed to attack your windmill instead of the actual claim. the claim, right or wrong, is that massive – emphasis on the massive – consumption of animal products (meaning meat, eggs, milk and their infinite by-products) is a relative new thing in human history, and exists mainly – emphasis on the mainly – in western society. if that was not his claim, then this at least is what many in the vegetarian and vegan movements are actually claiming. it is you the one using “circular argumentation” (you don’t manage to prove this wrong in any way, you just repeat it is wrong), and you cite irrelevant examples of tribes or eskimos that really don’t mean anything, because the actual claim (as opposed to what you pretended the claim was) is not that there never were people existing primarily on animal products in the past or outside western society.

Yes, I'm denying - just as Charles predicted - that http://www.beyondveg.com is the source for all the facts I've marshalled. Believe it or not, I have not yet read most of the content in http://www.beyondveg.com, but had been aware and had read parts of that particular webpage I quoted from. I've taken the remainder of my facts and references from several other websites. No offense, but whether you choose to believe me or not is of no consequence. I find it somewhat amusing - you're making an erroneous mistake based on your own guess.

What really got me rolling on the floor in laughter for several minutes was this passage, though:

"I have no doubt in my mind that the person who’s posting the BeyondVeg stuff here is involved or linked to this site or its few contributors, and also that the reason he remains anonymous is precisely because who he really is would cast a dark shadow over what he is presenting. No doubt he’ll deny it."

Apparently this Charles Lenchner considers himself the quintessential genius, capable of reading everyone's minds, believes he possesses infallable psychic powers and such. All his assertions are false.
Lencher, thanks for all the laughs I've had due to your courtesy. My pleasure.

I might add that I've seen the http://www.beyondveg.com author urging the readers on one webpage not to accept his facts as gospel, but to employ critical examination and check everything he's stating.

That said, I don't care to get into the matter of the site's alleged bias, as I was merely quoting Dr. Loren Cordain. Period. In light of all I've said so far in this post, Charles' entire fussing over the alleged anti-veg*n bias in BeyondVeg doesn't belong to the discussion of the alleged health superiority of veg*n regimens for people at large.

what are they? are we to simply take you at your word on matters of so-called facts?

you show no shame in attacking other people's sources, actually pre-emptively attacking sources and groups no one here has even quoted (as if you are reliving some past debate with straw men here)

funny, too, that after you are called out for your biased source of info (which you conveniently do not "care" to get into after screaming "bias" at everyone else here), that you take a big step off of your "factual" high-horse and state people should "not to accept his facts as gospel"

sure seems like you were preaching gospel above, under the rubric of supposedly unbiased, irrefutable big-S Science. now you tuck that one tiny shred of humility (don't take it as gospel) under your much more boisterous "LMFAO" big-blowoff of being called on your bias hypocrisy?

No, both biases - pro-meat fanaticism and vegan fanaticism - must worry us, because both have the potential to sway certain people's dietary preferences in a manner that might lead to health woes resulting from precisely such choices. I'm not all that concerned about which industry or lobby wields more clout - I'm naturally suspicious of commercial interests as a whole. That's the real problem.

Nonetheless, the real state of affairs regarding the distribution of clout should be exposed here. The poster challenging me just might learn something.
What you're overlooking or might have been unaware of, is the huge political and financial clout the wheat, corn (two grains) and soy (a legume) industries and/or growers have wielded over the last few decades. Did you ever investigate how the USDA came up with the 1992 Food Pyramid emphasizing at its base 6-11 servings of grain per day? The newer pyramid didn't really change this nutritional "decree" all that much. The wheat, corn and soy lobbies all but own the USDA and the FDA. Wouldn't the fact that most GMO foods in the US are produced or grown by those three industries give us pause?

As for brainwashing, you have it quite wrong, too. Evidently you're unaware of the term's second meaning. Read the following definition:
Main Entry: brain·wash·ing
Pronunciation: 'brAn-"wo-shi[ng], -"wä-
Function: noun
Etymology: translation of Chinese (Beijing) xina<hacek>o
1 : a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas
2 : persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=brainwashing&x=19&y=14

Examples:
organizations like PCRM have done far worse things than passing out slanted flyers including greatly misleading info. They've also authored newspaper op-eds and letters, run campaigns against airports and school boards and produced television commercials, among other things. One 2005 TV spot claimed “the most dangerous thing our kids have to deal with today isn’t violence. It isn’t drugs. It’s unhealthy food.” PCRM’s prescription? “Vegetarian foods.”
PCRM president Neal Barnard churns out a steady stream of reliably anti-meat and anti-dairy nutrition research and uses them as opportunities to arrive at “results” that generally conclude that a vegan diet will solve any of dozens of health problems, and PCRM is media-savvy, savvy enough to take advantage of the mass media attention to their statements uttered under the guise of medical respectability. PCRM has participated in scare campaigns about pollution from livestock farming, meat irradiation, mad cow disease and the alleged overuse of antibiotics in farm animals. Those disparate causes have one common element: they all serve to frighten consumers away from eating meat.

You lose we though when you say, "when your natural, logical, realistic pro-meat bias was pointed out, you retreated into mumbling that no one knows anything about your parents so they should all shut up.". If I tell you my parents and some of my grandparents were vegetarian, why wouldn't you believe me? You see, who is Gomez or anyone else to determine whether my lineage was omnivorous or vegetarian? Obviously Indymedia is a magnet to lots of garden variety kooks, but that doesn't change the dietary preferences my parents and grandparents and so forth lived by. And it's about them, not society at large. How can you possibly know whether or not my parents even let me eat food not conforming to their dietary principles until I managed to rent an apartment of my own during my late teenage years? In this sense it was mostly about my actual parents rather than about society. Your argument's validity rests on certain assumptions that could be refuted if I cared to share some private details about my upbringing. If you were more intelligent, you wouldn't be as quick to conclude that I tried to weasel out of admitting parent and social dependent pro-meat bias as you did.

IMO to argue over whether or not Gomez's ludicrous "fairly recent Caucasian animal foods gluttony" claim is actually racist is futile. I just think it almost reeks of racism and see no problem with this description of his silly contention. And he's the only person who actually knows whether he even meant it seriously.

When it comes to the Hindus, I should have specified I was referring to Hindu vegetarian groups in southern India. I apologize for defaulting on this. I had worked hours on that post and was quite tired at the point I wrote about those Hindus.

As for your claim that I should learn not to utter certain things, perhaps you should be forgiven for fingering me rather than Gomez or both of us since you seem to be from the veg*n camp, so you should be expected to say such a thing.

"the whole “99% vegetarian” thing’s stupid too. First, there’s no such thing as “99% vegetarian” – you’re either one or you’re not – but from the context it was clear he meant people who got all the nourishment they needed to survive from vegetation, and for whom hunting was not crucial for their health or survival."

You're reading things into that guy's statements that aren't at all clear to be there. It's anyone's guess what he meant. Again, if you're veg*n, then your claim to find that so evident shouldn't surprise.

I assure you that a big percentage of the diets of the North-American Native peoples and the Australian Aboriginals (and all the more so the other peoples I had named) consisted of animal foods during at least most of the year in at least most of these societies. If in doubt, please read about these peoples' diets in the book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" by Dr. Weston Price. If anything is stupid, it's your haste in trying to mash my earlier reference to the animal foods in those diets. But I've come to expect such reactions owing to the fact that the must authoritative info on such details can only be found in real books, not on the internet. It's not like this book is available in PDF form on the web or something. Moreover, Phillips was also being vague in that he settled for saying only "many Aboriginal tribes in Australia" without mentioning even some of these by name or even geographical location. Your double standard allows you to overlook his failure to be more specific. What's his source for his allegation? Who even knows if his statement has any credibility. I for one would like to know why he would brand any of them as "99% vegetarian". You fail to see that I didn't need to be less vague in view of his vagueness. You've unwittingly descended into sophistry.

Mister, if you honestly believe the intent of my post was to refute every single statement Phillips had made about indigenous diets, including China, just snap out of it. I didn't really take issue with his claims about Chinese foods since I found little fault in them. Unlike what your intention looks like, I'm not in here for some childish match of shouting down every sentence by the opponent or trying to refute a contributor's correct claims.

Regarding whether all vegetarians eat eggs or not, I stand corrected. Nevertheless I didn't mean to leave the impression that vegetarians eat eggs by definition.
I also stand corrected that by definition vegetarians may also consume dairy.

You proceed to say,
"with the whole issue of western massive consumption of animal products you again make an ass of yourself. your tactic is to pretend the claim was different, and then proceed to attack your windmill instead of the actual claim. the claim, right or wrong, is that massive – emphasis on the massive – consumption of animal products (meaning meat, eggs, milk and their infinite by-products) is a relative new thing in human history, and exists mainly – emphasis on the mainly – in western society."

I won't readdress this foolish rehash of what was so obvious to begin with except to say (1) you're the one shadowboxing against your shadow opponent now, or actually knocking down strawmen you set up in a straight line, and (2) in case you don't know how to retrieve hidden comments, I'll show you the relevant passage where this Gomez originally made his ludicrous claim:

To all who commented on the article here:
by Santiago Gomez • Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2005 at 2:56 PM
.
.
.
In fact, massive consumption of animal products is relatively a very recent thing in human history, and it is still confined to a white, western minority (to my knowledge the majority of the human population still exists on what is basically a vegetarian diet).
.
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So there. So unless you want to practice denial and pretend he didn't say it or said it but meant something a bit different... In any case, I won't get bogged down in further arguments with you or others over this specific point.
I have also shown the verdict of one of the leading researchers of Stone Age nutrition, Loren Cordain, proving massive animal products cunsumption is a very old thing and was hardly limited to a minority of Western Caucasians. And if anyone wants to follow your foolish example here and bang their proverbial heads against the proverbial wall trying to deny the scientific findings, they can knock themselves out for all I care. All such behavior proves is what clowns such individuals are being. But then again, we're on Indymedia.

Or are you just pretending you hadn't seen the URLs I put in some of my posts?

Who beside desperate veg*ns like you would give a damn about the bias of BeyondVeg when I confined myself to lifting a quote of Loren Cordain from it? Apparently you'd only be content if I quoted from veg*n sites. Why should I care. BTW, your attempted diversion about my "screaming bias" at others are rather unimpressive.

What about your buddies' sources? You spare them your righteous indignation about citing all sources. Surprise?

You'll have to do a much better job to leave an impression on me than by deriding my own ridicule of the silly attempt to "prove" my only source was beyondweg.com all along. Seems like you've reached a dead end and are left with only the ability to bicker over the most trivial stuff.

See, here’s the thing:
i’m not letting you off the hook that easily.
you’re chastising people left and right for using biased sources, or to be more specifically for using veg*an sources, which you find biased. rightly so.
then I come here and I see that the only link you post as a source leads to a site which I know to be biased, as anyone visiting it can plainly see, so I call you on your s*it – simple as that.
your response? “I don't care to get into the matter of the site's alleged bias, as I was merely quoting Dr. Loren Cordain”.
is that serious? you were “merely” quoting information from that site, right? when other folks ‘merely” quote information from biased sites, they’re buffoons. when *you* do it – you’re “merely quoting Dr. Loren Cordain”.
what a joke.
you should have just admitted you slipped, instead of making even a bigger monkey of yourself (sorry for the “speciesism” veg*ans).
and no I’m not from the veg*an camp, the reason I went after you was that you were the only one putting down others for their biased sources and you brought the whole issue up to begin with. besides it's much more fun taking the air out of pompous dorks like you.

whether you are connected to BeyondVeg or not is something I won’t dwell on, since I can’t possibly prove it and, if it is so, you’d never come clean. here’s something to think about, though: this is a San Francisco IMC. The head honcho of BeyondVeg is from – guess where? – San Francisco, as well as some of the other nonscientists contributing to that site. and you come here writing stuff identical to what’s on their site.
what was stupid of me in saying that out loud was that you conveniently used it to divert attention and avoid admitting to doing the exact thing you were ridiculing others for doing, namely using biased sources.

reading all the posts here, if anyone thinks they’re a quintessential genius capable of reading everyone's minds – it’s you. And yes – I still say no honest person comes here posting anonymously on mild subjects like these. if you want to be taken seriously don’t hide who you are, that’s common sense.

I don’t know about BeyondVeg, but here are some interesting facts regarding this lone anti-veg*an crusader and his various, unbiased sources.
Take a look at this quote from said person’s last post to Mr. Gomez, regarding Native Americans:
“…whose diets varied with the locality and climate were nonetheless all based on animal foods of every type and description, including large game like deer, buffalo, wild sheep and goat, antelope, moose, elk, caribou, bear and peccary. And also small animals such as beaver, rabbit, squirrel, skunk, muskrat and raccoon; reptiles including snakes, lizards, turtles, and alligators; fish and shellfish; wild birds including ducks and geese; sea mammals (for Indians living in coastal areas); insects including locust, spiders and lice; and dogs.”

Now, here’s a paragraph from an article about the subject from the website of the Weston A Price Foundation:
“The diets of the American Indians varied with the locality and climate but all were based on animal foods of every type and description, not only large game like deer, buffalo, wild sheep and goat, antelope, moose, elk, caribou, bear and peccary, but also small animals such as beaver, rabbit, squirrel, skunk, muskrat and raccoon; reptiles including snakes, lizards, turtles, and alligators; fish and shellfish; wild birds including ducks and geese; sea mammals (for Indians living in coastal areas); insects including locust, spiders and lice; and dogs.”
(http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/native_americans.html)
Notice any similarity?
That’s just the beginning:

His information about African tribes comes – again – word for word from a Weston A Price Foundation article. Here’s another quote from his last post to Mr. Gomez:
“While many investigators have mistakenly claimed that Bantu groups consumed no animal products at all, they in fact kept a few cattle and goats which supplied both milk and meat; they ate small animals such as frogs; and they put a high value on insect food which are rich in the fat soluble factors - some of which I mentioned above - found in blood, organ meats, fish and butterfat.”

And here’s an excerpt from the Weston A Price article:
“Many investigators have mistakenly claimed that Bantu groups consumed no animal products at all. Some tribes kept a few cattle and goats which supplied both milk and meat; they ate small animals such as frogs; and they put a high value on insect food (…) These insects are rich in the fat soluble factors found in blood, organ meats, fish and butterfat” (http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/out_of_africa.html)

His sentence about the Australian Aborigines is, likewise, obviously lifted from a site of the Weston A. Price Memorial Foundation, from an article written yet again by the same two people who wrote the above ones (Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig). The order of the hunted animals listed in his post and in this article is the same. The article can be found here: http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/Aborigines.html.

His paragraph about the Chinese diet taken from where? That’s right, another article from the Weston A. Price Foundation. Here’s a quote from his post:
“soyfoods were lumped together with other pulses in the category of legumes. Legume consumption varied from 0 to 58 grams per day, with a mean of about 12. Assuming that two-thirds of legume consumption is soy, then the maximum consumption is about 40 grams (about 3 tablespoons) per day with an average consumption of about 9 grams.”

And here’s a quote from “Food in China – Variety and monotony” in the aforementioned website:
“soyfoods are lumped together with other pulses in the category of legumes. Legume consumption varied from 0 to 58 grams per day, with a mean of about 12. Assuming that two-thirds of legume consumption is soy, then the maximum consumption is about 40 grams (about 3 tablespoons) per day with an average consumption of about 9 grams.”

You can also see that in his reply titled “try to accept the WHOLE truth” (to Phillips) he mentions this Weston Price like crazy (regarding vitamin D).
I’m not going to search every single line this person’s written, but it is fairly obvious he copied it all, probably from that same site – or maybe he used two sites.
“Various sources" indeed...

This of course begs the following question: what makes this foundation an unbiased source? What is their relationship with Donna Gates’ Body Ecology Diet, the Grain & Salt Society, Radiant Life or Vibrante Bleu, to name a few - commercial companies and websites whose advertisements fill the whole main page of the foundation’s site?

I’m not suggesting this foundation’s evil or anything, but I don’t think that A) a person copying word for word so much from a single site can claim to have researched the issues or pretend to know much more than how to use the Copy & Paste commands or a Google search, and B) a person copying most of his posts from this fundation's site can lecture anyone about using sources “with a financial axe to grind in the veg*n/meat controversy”.
Good day.

I just saw that this person's giving everyone criticizing him the tired routine of "if you're calling me on my s*it but not them it means you're one fo them so I can accuse you of anything wrong they've said or done and shouldn't listen to you at all". Hey man, is your name George W. Bush by any chance? Just kidding. =)
Anyway I thought I'd point out that no, I'm not "one of them", and also that the fact that you copied your posts word for word doesn't meant the information in them is not accurate. This says something about you, not the info.

Now that Charles Lenchner's folly has been exposed and he's losing his cool, he's resorting to what seems like one of his choice weapons - ad hominem mockery ("the old anonymous nerd", etc.). Two can play this game though.

As for the facts, you know I only told Phillips to try not to fall back on veg*n sources during research, and never accused anyone of using veg*an sources, but that doesn't prevent you from lying anyway. But others must show you understanding as we're not living in the Dark Ages.

Just so the readers know, Loren Cordain's work figures on other sites too. Here's a complete article he published about the topic I was quoting him on:
http://tinyurl.com/8eh3n
(Surely the veg*n contingent here will find anti-veg*n bias by the folks running that site too.)

Charles Lenchner is grasping at straws. Only by this he's digging his credibility hole deeper.

Now on to the "game" itself. I'll follow some of Lenchner's silly contentions with remarks of my own:

1. "i’m not letting you off the hook that easily."

2. "then I come and see that the only link you post as a source leads to a site which I know to be biased, as anyone visiting it can plainly see, so I call you on your s*it – simple as that. your response? “I don't care to get into the matter of the site's alleged bias, as I was merely quoting Dr. Loren Cordain”. is that serious? you were “merely” quoting information from that site, right? when other folks ‘merely” quote information from biased sites, they’re buffoons. when *you* do it – you’re “merely quoting Dr. Loren Cordain”. what a joke. "

NOTE: Nowhere did I allude to other folks in this debate as clowns or buffoons for quoting info from sites, biased or otherwise. But that doesn't prevent Lenchner from lying anyway. He should be understood as he's upset, though.

3. "you should have just admitted you slipped, instead of making even a bigger monkey of yourself (sorry for the “speciesism” veg*ans).

4. "besides it's much more fun taking the air out of pompous dorks like you. "

5. "whether you are connected to BeyondVeg or not is something I won’t dwell on, since I can’t possibly prove it and, if it is so, you’d never come clean."

NOTE: Now the charge has lost some of its weight and luster...

6. "here’s something to think about, though: this is a San Francisco IMC. The head honcho of BeyondVeg is from – guess where? – San Francisco, as well as some of the other nonscientists contributing to that site. and you come here writing stuff identical to what’s on their site."

7. "what was stupid of me in saying that out loud was that you conveniently used it to divert attention and avoid admitting to doing the exact thing you were ridiculing others for doing, namely using biased sources. "

8. "And yes – I still say no honest person comes here posting anonymously on mild subjects like these. if you want to be taken seriously don’t hide who you are, that’s common sense. "

NOTE: So if all of my opponents want to be taken seriously as well, doesn't it stand to reason they too should lose their anonymity? Lenchner exempts them but not me. Why the double standard?


So much for Charles Lenchner...

Josh, thanks for the lack of hostility in your posts.

The point that's lost on you as far as the WAPF site is concerned is that I was copying and pasting findings of a researcher that's long gone. These findings figure also in the book he authored which I mentioned in a previous post. It was published in 1939. As far as I know, I never read any charge with merit that Weston Price himself had an axe to grind in the veg*n vs. meat controversy.

I used in my submission responding to Phillips another source for some of the passages regarding vitamins A, D and B12. You didn't manage to find the site I took those from, or the fact that I've included in my posts URLs of other sites. Never mind though :-)

Also, I'll be more than happy if people point out sites withtout even a smidgen of bias and whose assertions can be counted on as the most authoritative.

I've got a question of my own: what makes the historical conclusions regarding nutrition of an MD like Dean Ornish (who made a false statement about the protein sources in American nutrition at the turn of last century) more free of bias than those of a Paleo food researcher like Loren Cordain?

I get my info from several other sites apart from the WAPF. Some are listed here: http://theomnivore.com/Useful%20links.html . On that site I read much of the research I get to know. I follow almost everything this guy publishes.

But I don't follow even him blindly. For instance, he's hosting an ad for Carlson's cod liver oil which ceased to be optimal once either vitamin A or D was removed from it at the production line. He's also hosting an ad for a book that apparently urges one to sleep 9 hrs. at night, which I find mostly unnecessary and somewhat damaging to one's physical fitness. Also, I don't hold all the sites he links to in the same high esteem he apparently does. For example, he links to a site meant for women that approves of unchecked consumption of tofu. Not good either.

Anyway, thanks for the qualification you made in your second post. It's much appreciated.

Um... I have nothing to add except... who the hell called themselves 'Charles Lenchner'? It sure as hell wasn't me, the only Charles Lenchner I've ever heard of.

Santi, I hope that at least YOU realize someone was using my name. I can't imagine ever knowing that much about diet and nutrition. You might find it amusing to note that my kitchen is 'kosher-vegetarian' although I do eat meat sometimes outside the home.

Miss you terribly!

Chad

Can't really say I'm actually astonished. The Charles Lenchner impostor showed himself to be a semi-clown and demonstrated little credibility overall. The best he could do was chastise me for how I had defended my use of a Loren Cordain quote from beyondveg.com. Yet even that was lame as I went on to show that Cordain's conclusion figures on at least one other website he doesn't own, one without an anti-vegetarian bias at that.

Now that you've established that the supposedly other Charles Lenchner is am impostor - and keeping in mind that he pressured ME to reveal my real full name on this thread - we can determine that this anonymous is one apparently envious, disgruntled buffoon walking around with some gripe and looking to get into online squabbles, though the precise nature of his gripe is not yet known here.


All the best, Charles.