Hi Jean Louis,

> Alan:
>
> > Whereas this may even be true, there is certainly nowhere near
> > the amount of "organic" beef around to feed even one population
> > (never mind the world as a whole). And we could never provide
> > enough organic food and land to feed all that beef anyway.
>
> Well, there is certainly nowhere near the amount of Orkos-quality
> fruit to feed even one population either.

Whereas this is true of course, it is merely a matter of
politics. Austria (not the most arable country) is a little
over 70% organic merely because of a government support program.
Germany...at around 14% and growing fast..has no government
support programs for organic. Farmers here are merely responding
to the growing demand for clean, quality produce.

> Although I can't prove it, I
> am pretty sure that even if the whole EEC turned to organic
> agriculture, there would in principle be enough land to feed the
> entire population.
>
Did you mean to say what you said here..or is there a typo in
there somewhere?

> > >  -Why do lions waste so much "precious energy breaking down the
> > > protein chains into simple aminos"?
> > >
> > They have to concentrate most of their energy on digesting. This
> > is why they sleep for around 20 hours each day (as is the case
> > with most other carnivores).
>
> I know that they sleep quite a lot, but how do you know that it's
> because they need to "concentrate their energy on digesting"? Have you
> asked them? :-)

Did the scientists (naturalists, biologists) who claim this (not
me) ask them? I can only report what I have read in some cases.
The argument seems perfectly acceptable to me..until somebody
comes up with a better one.

> I have had periods of eating very little animal food
> (less than 5%), and periods of eating much more (over 50%). In either
> case, I found that I needed 8 hours sleep each day.
>
Humans and chimps have roughly the same sleep needs..but chimps
don't eat that much meat. They do not even hunt every day according
to Jane Goodall, merely if and when the occasion arises (i.e. when
other apes encroach on their territory).

> My theory is then than lions don't _need_ to stay awake more than 4
> hours a day, since they spend comparatively little time on hunting and
> feeding, and they have no reason to waste their energy walking around.
>
So you think that we humans..as well as chimps etc. ought to follow
their example..like live in a dream world except for waking for
bouts of eating?

> > >  -Saturated fat is not harmful when not in excess and balanced by
> > > unsaturates. Sugar is harmful when in excess too.
> > >
> > What is the point of feeding the body with something that it
> > doesn't need and which it has to spend more energy on processing
> > and excreting (if it ever gets that far)?
>
> Technically speaking, very little of what we eat is really
> "necessary". Our body requires a few vitamins, minerals, essential
> fatty acids and a few essential amino-acids, but doesn't "need" sugar,
> or starch, or saturated fat, or monounsaturated fat.

True..but the body expends less energy excreting these useful but
perhaps "surplus to immediate needs" nutrients than it does dealing
with non-nutrient foods (colorings, flavourings, stabilizers,
alcohol, agraricides etc. etc.). It has no reason to encapsulate
difficult substances in fat for safekeeping either.

> also need energy (calories), which can be supplied by
>  -sugar. But sugar in excess can raise blood glucose and insulin
> levels excessively. Although simple sugars are easily assimilated,
> fruit is not as easy to digest as it appears initially (I have watery
> stools whenever I eat too much fruit).

Can't comment on the watery stools as I don't each too much
fruit. I only eat fruit (and fruit alone) for breakfast.
Helmut Wandmaker (a fruitarian) hasn't experienced watery
stools as far as I am aware. It would indicate to me that
one is not getting enough roughage (fiber). There is plenty
of fiber in fruit..unless of course you juice more than you
eat whole..unless of course you are talking about a case of
diarrhoea.

> -starch. But raw starch is poorly digestible for many.

Starchy foods (such as raw potatoes and unripe bananas etc.)
are not part of a raw vegan diet.

)> -saturated fat. But excess saturated fat raises cholesterol.
>  -etc.
>
> So in fact you can find inconvenients to basically any food. The best
> in my opinion is to avoid excesses in any of these food categories.
>
I do that..but there are some..like Helmut Wandmaker..who don't
and don't have problems. Tom Billings doubts the credibility of
such people and I have to agree that in many cases he is right.
But Helmut Wandmaker and the many people who read his books and
report similar successes (why should the latter lie?) tell a
different story.

> > if raw meat was always a part
> > of the human diet we would all have a natural craving for it and
> > it would still be eaten raw today rather than cooked in most
> > cases.
>
> Well, it seems that several people here (including me) do have a
> craving for it. You may find it repulsive, but I believe that feelings
> of repulsion are cultural, rather than instinctive (that's of course
> merely an opinion, which would be hard to prove).

I see no reason for not eating organic raw meat from the point
of view of nutrition. Just because I don't do it doesn't mean
that others shouldn't. Each to their own. I can get my aminos
pure from my diet and see no reason why I should have to
waste digestive energy breaking down animal protein into its
constituent aminos first. I have also listed the other reasons
why I don't eat meat in an earlier post so I will refrain from
repeating myself on this score. As to feelings of repulsion..this
could well be cultural as you say. But I was not talking about
repulsion but merely that I have never felt the urge to bite
into the body of a live or dead cow (or any other creature for
that matter. Prepared meat, or tartare or even the raw, chopped
pork that many Germans like to eat after it has been garnished
with raw onions and plenty of pepper, may look more appetising
to some, I would agree.


> Why then do people
> usually eat cooked, rather than raw meat? That's an interesting
> question, to which I don't have a definite answer. I have tried again
> a little cooked meat recently (either at home or in restaurants), and,
> depending on which meat and on the way it is prepared, it may or may
> not taste better than raw. So, if it were only for the taste, why don't
> people eat at least _part_ of their meat raw? Is it for safety
> reasons? (Since we have refrigerators, it is safe nowadays to eat
> high-quality raw meat, but it may not always have been the case.)
>
Germany (because of their love for raw pork as described above) is
said to have the highest incidence of tapeworms in all the western
countries. Carcasses are all inspected of course, but the
examination is usually confined to a surface inspection. Meat
sampling to examine the deep muscle is only carried out
sporadically on relatively few carcasses.

Best regards,

Alan