This discussion is now fully circular, so I am bailing out after
this post.

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>
>Are there any other animals other than ourselves that can have a wide range
>of diets?

Tom:
Omnivores (common definition of the term) are characterized by the
ability to consume a wide range of diets. Most omnivores are
frugivores, but they are not vegetarians.

By the way, a fruitarian fanatic has routinely quoted D .J. Chivers
out
of context and tried to twist his writings to support the fanatic's
unscientific claims re: omnivores and  diet. This is discussed in
depth
on Beyond Veg, of course.

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>
>We are the only species to eat food other than is readily
>available in nature - true or false? Does this make sense? You have ignored
>my hypothetical zoo question Tom!

Tom:
Humans are defined as tool users. Humans also have processed foods
for millions of years (hunter-gatherers). Our gut morphology
appears to reflect the consumption of animal foods and/or
some processed foods (citations on Beyond Veg).

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>
>First of all - I am *bothering* to read your site and it is very time
>consuming so give me a break!! :) I'm trying to have a conversation with
you
>and instead of a conversation, all my questions are referred to lengthy
>beyond veg detailed articles.

Tom:
I don't deal in simplicity. Reality is complex: that cannot be
denied (though various diet gurus routinely deny it).

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>
>The Atkins diet does not have a common sense theory behind it. To my mind
it
>is obviously unnatural and unhealthy.

Tom:
The ardent fans of Atkins would strongly disagree with you. As well,
many ex-rawists consider rawism as irrational and anti-common sense.

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>
>Agreed.....has the frugivorous diet been studied long term? Chimps do seem
>to thrive on it don't they?

Tom:
And chimps are not vegetarians, either. As well, we are not chimps.

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>
>I agree, a recurring theme is developing. I'm trying find out what you
think
>is lacking in a frugivorous diet that would cause FTT??? This is my number
>one question to you. I believe we are frugivores. What do you believe? That
>is my number two question.

Tom:
No definite answers as there is no research. Anecdotal evidence
suggests
the problems MAY include: deficiency of calories, zinc, B-12, taurine,
EFAs,
and (extreme, high fruit diets) calcium.  The excessive sugar on
fruit diets may impact the brain -- is that a posible explanation for
the
hostile, bizarre behavior of some of the raw veg diet gurus? :-)

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>
>I stand by my statement. Not all raw diets are healthy and FTT must be
>scientific at least we need to know the detail of exactly what diet was
>followed, for how long and any relevant medical history. Blanket statements
>will not do in this case.

Tom:
Given the massive failure of raw regimes, you should be demanding
scientific proof from the raw gurus. But there is a problem:
the few 100% raw gurus who promote "science" are promoting
pseudoscience and misinformation. They say it can work, I
say it usually does not. The logical burden of proof is on their
shoulders, not mine.

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>
>I don't follow, what does my attitude reveal?? It seems to me that your
>stance is a perfect defence. "I just give the information". You have a lot
>of diet knowledge, your opinion matters and IMO should be given. (Actually
>you stated your views on the living-foods article so I do know now! but not
>the reasoning behind it.)

Tom:
The 1997 article is outdated. I mentioned it only to answer the
question you
asked. What I eat is irrelevant: I am not a diet guru.

Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>
>You should speak your truth to whoever will listen and forget the wide
>audience.

Tom:
Wide audience = many listeners.

This ends my participation in this thread.

Tom Billings