In what book did Dr. Spock say that the optimum diet for children is
vegetarianism? Could we have either some direct quotes or references
(title, year, page #) so that we can find them ourselves? I don't
believe that Spock is the be-all end-all of pediatric authorities, and
even if he did say those things, it isn't very meaningful to me. I
just have my doubts.
And as for the statement that there are "millions upon millions of
healthy vegetarians worldwide", I would have to say that numbers like
that have to rely on self-reporting, and I never trust self-reported
vegetarianism anymore. Most healthy "vegetarians" I know are either
new to it (in which case, they probably haven't had time to run into
deficiencies) or, when pressed as to their diet, they say something
like, "Oh yeah, well of course I eat fish. That's not meat." IMHO,
that's just plain stupid, but there are sooooo many of these fake
vegetarians out there! And in my experience, like I said, it's the
fakers and the newbies who seem the healthiest.
Carol
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raw Food Diet Support List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of orestes
> gutierrez
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 5:35 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Another success story & sugar cravings
>
>
> <html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
> <P>Greetings to ALL!</P>
> <P>Let me interject. Milton K's ideas of diet are
> BOGUS! IT IS NOT MANDATORY FOR CHILDREN TO EAT
> FLESH! The late, world renowned authority on
> childrens health, Dr. Spock, said that the optimum diet for
> children is vegeterianism. Also, he said that
> after the age of 2 yo children could be VEGAN!</P>
> <P>On a different note. I only care about what my
> ancestors did 50, 000 years ago as a historic and
> intellectual excercise. Just because they ate flesh
> doesn't mean we should eat flesh. More importantly,
> what matter is the current PRESENT. There are
> millions upon millions of healthy vegeterians worldwide
> that proves humans can be healthy without flesh!</P>
> <P>As a side note, it is stated loud and clear in the
> Essene Gospel of Peace by Jesus Christ that we should not
> eat Animal Flesh. Furthermore, he states that we
> should not put food to the fire and should eat live live
> raw foods!</P>
> <P>Regards, Orestes.<BR><BR></P></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>>From: Lance H <[log in to unmask]>
> <DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: Raw Food Diet Support List
> <[log in to unmask]>
> <DIV></DIV>>To: [log in to unmask]
> <DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Another success story &
> sugar cravings
> <DIV></DIV>>Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:54:29 -0500
> <DIV></DIV>>
> <DIV></DIV>>Let me clarify.
> <DIV></DIV>>
> <DIV></DIV>>Milton K was NOT recommending a vegetarian
> diet. Indeed, she is on record
> <DIV></DIV>>as saying (1998) "I am not advocating a
> vegetarian diet". She even wrote an
> <DIV></DIV>>entire paper (1999) arguing that animal food
> played an essential role in
> <DIV></DIV>>human evolution and that "the routine
> inclusion of animal foods in the diets
> <DIV></DIV>>of weaned children seems mandatory".
> <DIV></DIV>>
> <DIV></DIV>>I quoted her at length to prove that there
> was no consensus amongst
> <DIV></DIV>>scientists as to the actual percentage of
> animal food in Homo's diet. Our
> <DIV></DIV>>ancestors left Africa about 50 Ky ago, at
> which time our evolution as a
> <DIV></DIV>>species was largely complete. So the diet of
> those of our ancestors who
> <DIV></DIV>>migrated to high latitudes, on which
> Cordain's 70% estimate was based, is
> <DIV></DIV>>much less relevant than the diet of our
> African ancestors who lived 50 Ky ago.
> <DIV></DIV>>
> <DIV></DIV>>What do we know of the diet of our African
> ancestors 50 Ky ago? Well, we
> <DIV></DIV>>have the example of the present day !Kung
> San, who eat 33% animal food. But
> <DIV></DIV>>do they occupy their original lands? They do
> not. In the past 2000 years
> <DIV></DIV>>they have been driven to marginal lands by
> Bantu-speaking farmers who have
> <DIV></DIV>>seized the most fertile soils for their crops.
> <DIV></DIV>>
> <DIV></DIV>>Is this push to marginal lands likely to
> have increased or decreased the
> <DIV></DIV>>San's intake of animal food? I do not know.
> More fertile lands support
> <DIV></DIV>>both a richer plant life and a more abundant
> animal life. But we certainly
> <DIV></DIV>>cannot deduce that it was 33%. In short, the
> study of present-day
> <DIV></DIV>>hunter-gatherers gives us insufficient data
> from which to deduce the
> <DIV></DIV>>proportion of animal food in Homo's
> primitive diet. Milton's point was that
> <DIV></DIV>>it is unsafe to draw conclusions.
> <DIV></DIV>>
> <DIV></DIV>>Rick asks that we not "get picky with
> percentages". But percentages are the
> <DIV></DIV>>whole point. Our early ancestors almost
> certainly ate SOME animal foods,
> <DIV></DIV>>just like present-day apes & baboons.
> The question is, how much and what?
> <DIV></DIV>>
> <DIV></DIV>>Cordain makes a plausible case that early
> man relied heavily on animal
> <DIV></DIV>>brains and bone marrow, scavenged from the
> leftovers of carnivores who
> <DIV></DIV>>lacked the weaponry to crack open skulls and
> large bones. Brains are high
> <DIV></DIV>>in omega-3 fats and bone-marrow is high in
> mono-unsaturated fat.
> <DIV></DIV>>Fortunately, for those of us who do not
> relish raw brains & marrow, our gut
> <DIV></DIV>>is flexible enough to source the nutrients
> elsewhere. I agree that this
> <DIV></DIV>>would be difficult on a purely vegetarian
> diet. I also agree that we can
> <DIV></DIV>>thrive on 70% animal food. But I find no
> scientific consensus that 70% is
> <DIV></DIV>>either the dominant historical percentage or
> the ideal one.
> <DIV></DIV>>
> <DIV></DIV>>Cheers
> <DIV></DIV>>Lance
> <DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>STOP MORE SPAM with <a
> href="http://g.msn.com/8HMKENUS/2728">the new MSN 8</a> and
> get 2 months FREE*</html>
|
