Martha said:
>Granted that some anorexics are also bulimic, and that anorexia
>nervosa arises from a motive that is worlds apart from that of calorie
>restricts. I was just wondering how one would tell if they were
>taking calorie restriction too far. Given that there is some minimum
>caloric requirement for a body, how would its owner know if it was
>being met? If some undesirable symptom arose, would the calorie
>restrictor be able to tell if it was a symptom of anorexia (starving),
>or deep detox, or some other cause? I suppose if I read the CRsociety
>list I would already know the answer to this. Alas, so many lists, so
>little time.....

On the CR FAQ <http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~freinkel/cr.htm#Risks> you
will find the following warning. "It is conceivable that someone prone
to eating disorders could experience an increase in obsessional
attitudes towards food in trying to practice CR. There is no evidence
what this has or would happen but the risk should be kept in mind by
anybody practicing CR. If you begin CR and feel that you might be
developing an unhealthful relationship to food, you might try
discussing your situation in the Usenet group,
Alt.support.eating.disord (in addition with talking with friends,
family etc.)"
I would like to add that I think a lot of diet zealotry and food
faddism is eating disorder in disguise kept in denial by an obsessed
mind.

Martha:
>Are any of you on the list into edible gardening? Maybe the moderators
>of veg-raw wouldn't mind if we traded gardening tips?

Not at all. I think this topic will be of interest to many on the list.


Peter wrote:
>>How "bad" would killing be if you were able or willing to subtract
>>your emotional baggage from the subject?

Martha:
>Emotional baggage? Peter, may I ask you something? Why are (or were)
>you a vegan?

Out of insecurity - righteousness -  concern for the environment  -
disgust with factory farming - to improve my health - needing to
connect with a something bigger than myself - lack of self-esteem.....
the list goes on.

Martha:
>You seem to hold such utter contempt for the values that normally
>lead someone down this path.

I still hold many of the vegan ideals in high regard but find the
righteous and rigid mindset that usually follows harder and harder to
swallow, and I believe the whole concept to based more on wishful
thinking and  sentimentality rather than on facts and reality.

Bob replied:
>>>Why would I want to do this? Just to make you happy?

Peter again:
>>Because in the end it is the only test that really counts. A vegan
>>that is not ready to try RAF at least for a period of time is in my
>>opinion not willing to walk his talk

Martha wrote:
>I'm with Bob here. This logic completely baffles me.

My point it is that Bob in particular and vegans in general have never
been on a whole foods diet that included some RAF or been able to point
to any evidence that shows that such a diet is not optimal and that
they therefore ought to be a little more humble in expressing views on
this subject.

Peter continues:
>>I think you are scared of doing the experiment because you deep
>>inside know that if you do, it will forever change your outlook and
>>that you realize that with all the emotional  baggage you have tied
>>up with them you are just not ready to let go of your vegan belief
>>systems quite yet.

Martha wrote:
>Bob is not the only one here able to project his own feelings onto
>other people.

Unfortunately not. But what a wonderful world it would be if he
were. :-/

Martha wrote
>There. I couldn't resist a little amateur psychoanalysis of my own.
>So why are you so interested in having Bob do the RAF thing, if he's
>feeling fine?

The issue at hand was not Bob's well-being, but his faulty line of
reasoning.

Peter said:
>>These deed they should not. Yet, in nature eating living beings for
>>survival occurs all the time and the implication of your sentiment,
>>which I happen to share, is that animals that kill are less
>>spiritually evolved than human beings

Martha said:
>I have nothing to say about the spiritual evolution of carnivorous
>animals. If I tried, it would be pure conjecture.or that native
>cultures, which always have  had some animal foods in their diets, are
>more primitive than we  civilized vegans. Well, do you not feel that
>each generation "stands on the shoulders" of the last?  Do you think
>it's arrogant to try to find a better way to live?

After 25 years I have found that veganism does not hold up to closer
scrutiny and continuing to deny this fact is depriving the next
generation an opportunity to learn and grow from our mistakes. Among
teenage girls veganism is becoming increasingly popular, and I am not
so sure that this is such a good idea.

Martha:
>I tried very hard not to come across as "holier-than-thou," but
>perhaps this is not possible when discussing ethics/ideals.

It can easily get a little tricky to maintain ones poise when debating
these very emotionally charged matters but so far we are not doing too
bad.

Peter:
>>(Another implication is that it is worse to kill an  animal than it
>>is to kill a plant, which could easily be interpreted as a form of
>>species elitism).

Martha:
>I don't have an answer to this, except to say that the damage to
>plant life is less when we eat them directly than when we process
>them through animals. Also, maybe this is a good argument
>for"mostly-fruitarianism," because picking the fruit doesn't harm the
>plant.

Peter:
I loved your remark about carnivores being equal opportunity seekers.
Regarding picking fruit here are some thoughts from "Food for Thought,
Part III" from the July /August 1976 issue of "Animas", published by
the American Vegan Society.: "Now let's get on down to the last
remaining bastion of wishful-thinking, the "karma's" source of the
strictly frugal frugivorous fruitarian fructomaniac ever-loving
ORCHARD. Let us examine a few typical orchard practices:(1)Grafting.
(2) Dwarfing.(3)Pruning.(4)Spraying.(5)Harvesting.(6)Upgrading.
Despite the simplistic slogans of a few enthusiasts to the effect that
people should eat free of charge by planting a fruit-pip, modern fruit
trees are not usually grown that way, and it would not generally be
satisfactory to do so. Fruit trees are generally begun by grafting
(cutting and splicing) the top of one seedling of potentially good
fruits-bearing type, onto the hardy root-stock of another seedling of a
related family type. We leave it to your imagination what becomes of
the root-half of seedling (baby tree) #1 and the top half of seedling
#2, which are now so much garbage insofar as the nurseryman is
concerned. It would seem that the equivalent of at least one entire
tree is sacrificed for every such fruit tree "manufactured." Some of
this is apparently necessitated by the genetic manipulation over the
years to produce fruits with more desirable traits than the original.
Some of our avocado-growing friends around Escondido (CA) used to tell
us that if you planted an avocado seed, it would grow, all right. But
the fruit from such a natural tree would be mostly seed and skin, with
just a very thin layer of the part WE want.
Then we come to "dwarfing."
" A normal, full-size apple tree (for example)grows rather tall,
requiring considerable ladder tall, requiring considerable
ladder-climbing for pruning and picking. This size treeproduces fruit
only near the outer surface of its ball of foliage. The dwarf and
semi-dwarf, on the other hand, are much easier to prune and pick (often
without a ladder), and produce fruit right through the entire ball of
foliage. For this last reason, the semi-dwarf produces much more fruits
per acre than the full-size trees; and with the advantage of much
faster pruning and easier picking from the ground (in these days of
escalating labor costs), this is the size favored increasingly today by
commercial orchardists. The dwarfs are more desired by the home-owner
with a small yard. A single dwarf tree may be hand-crafted of even four
separate sections of different types or ages, meaning no fewer than
four separate trees chopped apart, with only one segment of each used
and the other 3/4 of each tree discarded.
Next we come to the art of pruning, a method quite necessary if a fruit
tree if to devote the maximum part of its energies to the production of
FRUIT instead of wood and foliage. The diagrams at right (in the
original Ahimsa article, showing yearly pruning techniques)are
reproduced from a 1973 catalog of Stark Brothers, "the worlds largest
nursery"; they are credited as "courtesy of American Fruit Grower
Magazine." This is the recommended method for pruning a fruit tree to
establish a central leader tree (have a single stout stalk in the
center) as is desired. Following the annual pruning (wholesale
amputation of live wood that is undesirable from the orchardist's
points of view), periodic pruning is continued throughout the life of
the tree (generally annually, in the case of apple trees, according to
a friendly local grower). Think of it! WE are exhorted to spare
 the tender sensitivities of the cabbage, when it is plucked all at
once;  and we are asked instead to accept the keeping of a slave-tree
that is gacked and chopped EVERY YEAR OF ITS LIFE for (in the case of
the apple trees) half a century or so. Is there no mercy? Is there no
decency?  Is there no sense of shame...in the hearts of those
fruitarian advocates who would have us believe that trees can feel
pain, but that even modern orchard fruit-growing uses no actions that
would cause pain or suffering to the trees?
We said before, we are judging the matter by their own standards, not
debating the point of WHETHER plants feel pain and suffering. In this
case, what is sauce for the broccoli is also sauce for the apples;  and
anyone with an open mind must be able to see clearly by now, that the
argument of fruitarian" ethical superiority over "ordinary" veganism is
just so much APPLESAUCE.
Regarding spraying, a recent article by a "fruitarian" who seems to
live mainly on vegetables rationalized as "plant fruit," led readers to
believe that vegetables have a pesticide problem but fruit does not.
Actually, animal-source food is generally the worst in this regard;
but if that writer would care to investigate, we would be happy to pay
host for a tour of some /south Jersey commercial peach and apple
orchards for a first-hand look at the truck-sized John Bean sprayers or
foggers that seem ubiquitous in this occupation. The amounts of
pesticides taken up through the skins, leaves, roots, etc., are indeed
debatable;  but the toll in insect and bird life with these methods is
incalculable. Yet we are still expected to go along with the notion
that buying a piece of fruit from a supermarket or roadside-stand does
not in any way foster the destruction of any form of life whatsoever.
To which the knowledgeable vegan can confidently reply:"
"bunk"
<SNIP>  A few years ago, we published an interview with a surgeon, on
the subject of abortions. Regarding risk of injury to the mother, he
stated, "Of course". It is like plucking the ripe fruit that is ready
to fall from the tree, or snatching and tearing it off before its time,
while it is still green."
"It is a very interesting comparison, because this is the way that
fruit is harvested for shipment and sale: tearing or cutting the unripe
fruit from the tree, leaving the passive mother tree with hundreds of
tiny open wounds to heal. And this, too, takes place every year of its
mature life, until it reaches an age of diminishing production and
profitability, and is cut down much as a mother cow is sent to
slaughter when her milk production record starts to drop through old
age.
Nor is the cutting down of fruits trees confined to the very old. In
discussing the relative profit potentials of full-size vs. semi-dwarf
apple trees, a local grower told how ever-increasing labor costs might
force him to take out thousands of fine, bearing full-size trees, and
replace them with the semi-dwarfs. The latter not only produce more per
acre, but require so much less labor in annual pruning as well as
harvesting. So, for strictly economic reasons, thousands of fine fruit
trees on a single farm would be cut down to the ground as so much
firewood."

Peter:
>> By the way we human beings treat each other and how we are trashing
>>the planet, it seems the reverse is true.

Martha:
>Since most "civilized" people are not vegans, it's pretty hard to make
>this comparison.

I do not remember what I specifically was referring to when I made this
remark, but looking at the Hindu culture which is anything but peaceful
only strengthens my belief that vegetarianism is a mistake that mankind
cannot afford to repeat.

Peter:
>>The way we treat animals in raising them for food is cruel & brutal,
>>but not necessarily the act of killing for food.

Martha:
>I can't think of a way to kill an animal (except maybe a tamed farm
>animal) that is not cruel.  Do you >have any examples?

I do not believe that the act of killing an animal is brutal only that
modern factory farming of animals is.

Peter:
>>Also, by not eating animal  foods we might be living in denial of our
>>own roots & of our  nutritional needs, as we evolved as human
>>beings with always a  percentage of these foods in our diets.

Martha:
>I don't see how it's "living in denial of our roots" to exclude
>animal products, any more than wearing clothes, living in houses,
>going to school, writing Email, etc. etc.

I agree, though comparing cultural habits and biological needs is not a
fair comparison.

Martha:
>I'm more concerned here with nutritional needs.

So I am. I just do not believe that a vegan diet meets most peoples
nutritional needs.

Martha:
>Incidentally, I don't think that just because early humans did
>something, that means we have to, or even that it's the best thing.

I agree.

Martha:
>My (limited) understanding is that these early peoples, as well as
>more modern aboriginal peoples, were not very long-lived.

This is more likely due to their harsh lifestyle than to their dietary
habits.

Martha:
>Not that it's necessarily germane, according to a Web article by
>LaurieForti (http://www.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/sciarg.htm), Jane
>Goodall has observed that meat is about 1.5% of the average chimp's
>diet. That's a whole lot less than most humans eat, at least the ones
>I know.

You cannot judge the importance of a nutrient by the amounts needed.

Peter:
>>If veganism is more a way of dealing with all our guilt rather than a
>>viable solution to our health & to all the problems facing humanity,

Martha:
>I thought is was both!!!

So did I - was I in for a surprise. :-(

Peter:
>>we might be doing ourselves and the planet a great disservice by not
>>taking a closer look at our own beliefs. In order to uncover the
>>truth  I think it is vital that we do not pay allegiance to any
>>authority, as we are running out of time and cannot afford many more
>>mistakes.

Martha:
>Once again, I agree. Except that I perceive that you have more
>confidence in the ability of humans to pull together toward a common
>goal than I have.

Depends on which mood you catch me in. :-/

Peter:
>>>Snip stuff about raw meat vs. cooked beans  Were this only the case
>>>I would rejoice and would agree with you 100%.  But what we are
>>>seeing, more and more, is an increasingly number of  people on
>>>long-term vegan diets running into serious deficiencies

Martha:
> Can you give me more specifics?

I do not know for a fact which specific nutrients only that I have
observed so many vegans do very poorly. The animal food advocates speak
of certain fatty acids, amino acids, minerals & vitamins being more
available and absorbable when non-plant foods are added to the diet.

Martha:
>The nutritionists on the other veg-lists claim that all nutrients
>except b-12 can be obtained from a well-balanced vegan diet, and
>there's even some controversy about the b-12.

Not all veg-lists are as cutting-edge as this list. ;-)

Peter:
>>and  seemingly unable to reach any balanced state of health.

Martha:
>So, you think the difference in health is not minuscule, but large?
>:-(

In a few years you will on your knees asking me to forgive you for your
vegan arrogance. :-)

Peter:
>>Just the other  day ran into a raw food vegan advocate, the author of
>>a fairly well - known book on the subject, who has now incorporated
>>animal foods into  his diet. He looked fit & athletic as always and
>>claimed to be doing  better than during his years as a raw vegan (he
>>was an essene to boot). I know of 3-4 other raw foods advocates, who
>>also have books out, who have made similar transitions. There is a
>>definite trend here, and by ignoring it we would be keeping our heads
>>buried in the sand.

Martha:
>Yes, I agree. You seem to be focusing on raw-vegans here. You don't
>mention if these people tried adding back certain cooked foods before
>resorting to animal foods. In other words, were they more "attached"
>to the veg- or to the -raw?

I wish I knew. Most raw vegans have already been on the cooked vegan
path and found it to be inadequate.

Peter:
>>I believe that you are raising very legitimate concerns, and I share
>>them whole-heartedly. I'm very attached to vegetarianism and have
>>been identified with this lifestyle for most of my life. And that
>>should be respected. Yet, remaining in denial in spite of the
>>overwhelming evidence to the contrary, because the truth is too
>>painful, is no  solution either. Either way, these are by no means
>>easy questions and need to be dealt with in a respectful manner.

Martha:
>I'm not sure, but you may be saying that my post was not respectful.

Not at all. You have been very respectful.

Martha:
>Just in case, I'll respond. My only point was that if we are
>compassionate, that is a bona-fide, legitimate piece of we are.
>Perhaps we are more evolved than our ancestors. Why is it bad to
>suggest such a thing?


Trying to improve ones life and to overcome some of our ancestral
limitations is very admirable. But if it doesn't fit you must acquit.
:-)

Peter:
>>I understand that the decrease in sex drive happens mostly on the raw
>>vegan diets, but not if some raw animal foods are included. Putting
>>this into an evolutionary perspective we would probably had died off
>>long ago had our ancestors been raw vegans. :/

Martha:
>And now may I say something really controversial? I don't think a
>decrease in sex drive would be a bad thing. At least for a few
>generations until we get our numbers down a bit (or a lot!). This
>idea that we are not "real" men/women unless we are extremely randy is
>an idea whose time has GONE, IMNSHO.

The population crisis is a product of political, religious and cultural
limitations not overheated sexual activity.

Tierra said:
>-Peter, a much better way to describe it would be *a willingness to
>yield.* There was something so different about the experience, that
>was totally unexpected to me. I raised the heavy metal pipe to strike
>the rabbit once, but was unable to let to fall the first time, but the
>second time there was, as it felt to me, a calming and accepting
>energy that passed between the rabbit and I, at which time I let the
>pipe fall.

I still do not buy it. If you had not felt that accepting energy my
guess is that you would have felt pretty guilty. If killing animals is
a natural human act, as I believe it is, you will (re)learn with time
to kill without needing their "permission."

Kirt said:
>2] It seems almost certain that cherimoya, papaya, avocado, pineapple,
>tomatoes, among other New World foods were not on the menu of our
>distant (80,000 ya, very conservatively)ancestors.

By the ancient, scaly look of the cherimoya it might go back that far.
The natives in Peru call it "original fruit".

>Having long been "troubled" by the relative unattractiveness of both
>domesticated and (esp) wild vegetables, I am seriously wondering if
>cooked veggies may have been (are?) useful in the human diet. Three
>things have stirred my particular stew on the matter: Christian's post
>about the snail-eating kid who would eat cooked veggies above all else
>at times, ideas in Pt.2 of Ward's H&B interview, and the overboard NFL
>line that "cooked foods are poison" (supported by Bob Avery
>apparently). What bothers me is that I pretty much agree, though I
>would come in as "cooked food is not as useful as raw food" but it
>still shouldn't be a sacred cow, so to speak. Do I really believe in
>such simplicity? Granted it is attractively simple, but still.(BTW,
>I'm mostly talking here about the infamous leafy greens we are all
>supposed to be scarfing down, not so much tubers or fruit-
>vegetables...)


Excellent points. Many raw food advocates would agree with you that
steamed greens are not poisons and are a good additions to a mainly raw
diet.

Kirt:
>How's about this?: Perhaps...
>Raw veggies contain important nutrients (both discovered and
>undiscovered).The instinctive "stops" are as much a reaction to
>naturally -occurring pesticides (n-pests, I'll call them) in most
>plant parts as it is a reaction to the satiation of the need for
>important nutrients. In other words, the organism's ability to
>"neutralize" the pesticides is limited and is playing a role in the
>taste changes. So...upon cooking the veggies, the n-pests are
>neutralized externally relieving the organism of the burden of
>neutralizing (with enzymes or even leukocytes?) them internally (big
>assumption!). probably so important in leafy greens may become
>denatured to the point of trouble. NH, which I have read (too?) much
>of, is always on about cooked greens being the cause of all sorts of
>troubles.

I love your creative thinking. I have no clear opinion on the issue
above, but it is becoming more and more clear to me that health is a
process with constant trade-offs and choices to be made and not a black
and white science of absolutes.

Kirt:
>1] The loss of enzymes may be negligible (esp relative to higher
>caloriefruits and RAFs) since leafy greens have few enzymes anyway.2]
>The minerals which are probably so important in leafy greens may
>becomedenatured to the point of trouble. NH, which I have read (too?)
>much of, is always on about cooked greens being the cause of all sorts
>of trouble.3] Though I have smelled cooked veggie smells detoxing from
>me, they are more casserole/soup/stew smells. The detoxes involving
>dairy, meat and bread smells are much more troubling. What this may
>mean is very unclear since I ate very little steamed spinach as a kid
>:) :( :)4] Do cooked veggies exhibit a taste change to speak of, for
>you'all? Might our "instinct" respond to the minerals/nutrients left
>after cooking with a taste-change and not so much to the (assumed
>neutralized) n-pests? Further, that the increased ability to eat more
>(cooked) veggies and benefit from more (non-thermobile) nutrients,
>outweighs the cost of problematic Mallaird molecules created (even
>bigger assumption!).

When it comes to steamed vegetables. I do not think that Mallaird's
molecules is a major issue, as cooked fats & proteins are the main
culprits when it comes to denatured, cooked molecules. I have a friend
who gets clear & strong taste stops when cooked foods are eaten one of
the time.

Kirt:
>In simpler terms, is there a value in, say, broccoli that would be
>useful to me, but that I don't get because raw broccoli is
>unattractive for the most part (the stalks maybe, but the tops never).
>Would steamed broccoli be better than no broccoli (which is about how
>much I've eaten this last year)?

Since many raw food eaters tend to not eat enough green vegetables
maybe eating some of them steamed will help them (re)connect more
easily to these foods. If the taste and stop signals work well with
steamed vegetables it could be a strong indication that they are indeed
optimal to eat.

Kirt:
>At the end, and after having reviewed the entire history of humanity's
>struggle to discover knowledge, Bronowski offers a single lesson: We
>must cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge. How to do
>this, is the question. A course in "critical thinking" is surely not
>an answer. Anincrease in the number of science courses is even less
>of an answer. The Germans once had the most rigorous science program
>in the world, and produced true-believing Nazis. The Russians, later,
>were almost a match, and produced true-believing Communists. The
>quest for certainty, for absolute authority, cannot be stayed by
>courses or curriculum afterthoughts. But suppose the purpose of school
>was to cure the itch for absolute knowledge. Suppose we took seriously
>the idea that we are dangerous to ourselves and others when we aspire
>to the knowledge of the gods. What then?"

Which is why self-reflection is an important exercise to practice.
Absolute certainty or security is an abstraction of the neurotic mind
and not a reflection of reality which is always changing and too
complex to be controlled and tamed by the vanity of the human mind.
Now, if I could only live according to this paradigm a little
better.:-)

Kirt:
>Whether one's diet should be based on the instinctive stop or not at
>every meal is arguable, but one must respect that there are very
>clear stops for RAF, and be able to explain them away somehow
>(especially if they are not willing to try them personally) if RAF is
>"bad for us".

A powerful argument which I have yet to see a vegan response to. Your
open mind & independent perspective makes the arguments for instinctive
eating even more compelling.

Kirt:
>Whatever else our technology has wrought us (in terms of cooking,
>increased animal food %'s, etc.) we seem to have become even more
>omnivorous. Guy-Clad and others have argued that the exact %'s of our
>original diet should be quantifiable as is commonly done with other
>species, and, while this sounds fine in principle (like much of
>antihero argument)

What is the antihero argument?

Kirt:
>I wonder if it is valid given the "intelligence factor". Some chimps,
>for the common example, use technology to get at termites, nuts, etc.
>and others don't. Humans extend the technology to get at all sorts of
>cooked foods. Some species (rats, gulls, bacteria, etc.) have
>apparently become tolerant (adapted?) to our cooked wastes. It seems
>reasonable that there is a cost involved in such tolerance (increased
>reliance on bacteria/viruses to help deal with the new molecules,
>deficiency diseases, etc.), that "natural selection" is now acting
>within an environment very altered by "intelligence" and not within an
>environment of "raw nature".

Inspiring words that make me think of how evolution is a pragmatic
survival process and not this grand plan that will make sure that the
human race will live on forever in optimal health.

William A. wrote:
>I have been with this list a long time. I joined it because I was
>vegan and always loved raw food. One thing I would like to bring up
>is the fact that raw meat does appeal to me. When shopping I can't
>help but check over the red meats and when fresh I can actually smell
>it through the wrapper. I have tried raw steak many times and find it
>is very satisfying if warm and fresh. I've tried raw fish but it
>doesn't taste good unless one puts all kinds of spices on it. I'm
>still a raw food vegetarian, but it wouldn't take much convincing for
>me to much on a side of raw beef.

William, good to hear from you. Interesting how raw meat appeals to
you. Keep us posted if you start experimenting with it. I understand
that RAF's are not big in the UK.

Ward:
>>Something I have been considering lately is that while over  the
>>long-term,evolution optimizes the adaptation of a species to the
>>mix of *overall*selection pressres it has to cope with, because the
>>adaptation is to a*mix* of pressures, what you get in response is a
>>"best-fit compromise"adaptation to that mix. In other words,
>>evolution adapts to the real-world mix of factors (some of which may
>>be at cross-purposes), so if you look at any one selection pressure,
>>the level of adaptation may not be ideal just considering that one
>>particular factor. But it will be ideal considering the mix of
>>pressures that must be adapted to as a whole.

I have truly enjoyed your latest stream of responses to all our
questions on evolutionary matters, and I appreciate how you
continuously manage to come up with new angels to these issues.
Especially as I think that very few on the list, including myself, have
a true grasp of the concept of evolution. Questions I have still have
are: Since genetic adaptation is such a slow process how does it
specifically relate to living today in times of rapid changes, how is
it possible to measure & evaluate the plasticity in the process and
since we have adopted to eating at least some cooked foods, what
exactly is the nature of this adaptation? I realize you might be burnt
out on these issues or feel you have answered the questions above so
feel free not to answer - it will just spur me on to do my own
research. How you found the time to do all the research I will never
understand. :-/


Bob:
>>Yes, but that is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the
>>experiments of the early hygienic doctors who fed people different
>>types of foods and measured how well they were handled metabolically
>>by anaylzing the contents and of urine and stool samples, and such.
>>The China study is useful, interesting, corroborative, but much more
>>modern than what I was referring to. It also suffers from the
>>drawbacks you mention.

Who were these hygienic doctors, what exactly did their experiments
consist of and did they publish?

Bob:
>Medicine recognizes a disease they call "anorexia nervosa," by which
>they mean not eating for mental, or psychological reasons. What they
>notice is that teenage girls (typically), in a misguided attempt to
>slim down to fit social stereotypes, eat little or no food for periods
>of time, then get very "hungry" and, not knowing anything about proper
>nutrition, binge on ice cream, pretzels, jello, or other junk foods,
>after which they revert to not eating again. It is easy to see from
>our perspective that the serious health problems resulting from this
>practice are not due to not eating, they are due to malnutrition: not
>knowing how and what to eat when eating food is required.

On a good diet anorexics will live longer and have less diseases but
will in the long run still end up jeopardizing their health & life due
to the extremely low calorie intake.

Bob:
>The Medical authorities like to focus on the "not eating" part of this
>syndrome because in general they don't know how or what to eat
>either. Hence anorexia gets a bad rap. They ought to call it
"malnutrition as a result of ignorance of the Laws of Life."

Do not forget that anoxia is not caused by malnutrition but has its
roots in severe psychological problems.

Ward:
>>Alcoholic beverages in the form of wine from treading on grapes were
>>invented only around approx. 2,500 BC in the Middle East. [p.100
>>Scarre, Chris (ed.) 1993 "Smithsonian Times of the Ancient World."
>>NewYork: Dorling Kindersley]

Bob:
>I would be surprised if the discovery of fermentation and its
>psychogenic properties did not precede this. Science may not know the
>whole story

Before the invention of pottery I doubt there was much production of
alcohol to speak of. I subscribe more to Terence McKenna's ideas of how
magic mushrooms were the big rave back then. Besides, alcohol is a
stimulant not a nutrient and really does not compare to meat.

Bob wrote:
>Tank you for the bird article, bodhi. What do you think, Peter?
>Mightn't eating birds be a little like eating people?

Despite of Bodhi's excellent article I cannot say that I feel a
connection to birds that would prevent me from eating them. If I did, I
would choose other animals that I did not feel connected to in this
way. As for the comparison to humans I cannot accommodate you here as I
have never had any urge in this direction, though if I do I am sure a
scrumptious vegan will top my list. ;-)

Best,  Peter
[log in to unmask]