If I may interject my opinion -

nutrition is a low status area of science.  Although the results can
make a
huge difference to people's lives, it's just not a very sexy area for
the
best minds to go into.  It seems to me that that's a problem.  Some
rich guy
needs to make a nobel prize of nutrition or something to increase the
quality of the work being done.

Having said that, it's shocking to me that people are designing their
eating
lives around 70-year old, nonreproducible science.  The leucocytosis
study
would appear to be trivial to try to redo.  But more to the point,
white
blood cell count is an extremely crude biomarker.  Biochemistry has
advanced
incredibly in the last 70 years.  To gamble one's health on such poor
science seems unwise to me.

I respect Tom's unwillingness to take on the guru role.  I consider
myself
pretty knowledgeable about nutrition, including its alternative
variants,
but learned a lot from the beyondveg website, enough to where I'm
considering giving up my 25 year long vegetarianism.  I don't think a
guru
could have persuaded me as ably as the beyondveg information.

It is true that the organization of the site is somewhat overwhelming.
Maybe the owners could use something like microsoft's encarta
encyclopedia's
articles' organization to as an example of how to keep people from
getting
lost in too much information.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Kinnaird" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: Licorice

> Hi Tom,
>
> > Tom:
> > I don't view humans as having one very narrow/specific natural diet.
> > Instead there is a wide range of diets that can be considered
> > "natural" in varying degrees.
>
> Are there any other animals other than ourselves that can have a wide
range
> of diets? 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!
>
> > Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
> > >You say you do not advocate any one diet but to my mind that is a cop
> out.
> > >You have studied diet extensively - can you not use that information to
> come
> > >up with a diet plan that you feel is ideal for our species. Every other
> > >organism on the surface of the planet has it's own diet - what do you
> think
> > >is ours?
> >
> > Tom:
> > I will address the "cop-out" part later. The idea that there is one
> > single "ideal" diet that is best for everyone is:
> >
> > 1. The "holy grail" of dietary idealists
> > 2. A marketing tool used by raw/vegan (and other) diet gurus to
> > dupe their (idealistic) followers.
> >
> > As well, look around you - there are folks thriving on a wide range of
> > diets. "One ideal diet"? Doesn't agree with the available evidence.
>
> I'm looking around me and I see people stuffing crap down themselves. They
> think they feel good, most cope well with life, work, go out for a drink
> with friends etc etc but most will have their lives cut short by disease -
> most commonly heart disease or cancer. In the meantime many put up with
> lowered energy levels, allergies, arthritis, headaches, the list goes on.
>
> Most people who are suffering from ill-health are searching for a holy
grail
> if you want to call it that. Western medicine has little to offer the
> chronic health sufferer, some seek to cure themselves through diet and
other
> means. As an 'expert', you should be willing to say what you feel is the
> best guess human diet. If you think that one diet won't suit all then
surely
> the options / reasons can be included.
>
> If I seek advice in any other field in life, I expect the experts to give
me
> advice, not refer me to all the scientific literature in their field.
People
> who have health problems may not have the energy or the brain power to
> critically evaluate all the information on your site, they need
> recommendations along perhaps with a brief summary of the reasoning behind
> those recommendations.
>
> I consider myself to be pretty intelligent but the scientific stuff is
heavy
> going. Someone said "whatever must be proven is already in doubt". In the
> realm of diet this makes sense to me. It makes perfect sense that we
> shouldn't be consuming the milk of another species and that considering
that
> no other animal cooks its food, then it seems a reasonably safe bet that
we
> shouldn't be either.
>
> > It's not a few FTT: the normal result, long-term, of 100% raw vegan is
> > FTT. If you would bother to read Beyond Veg, you will note that
> > vegan promoter Michael Klaper is doing the very first study of
> > conventional vegan FTT. No studies yet of raw FTT. All we have
> > is anecdotal evidence: but there  is a LOT of evidence, most of
> > it negative (in the long-term).
>
> 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. I just read your bio in fact and it occurs
to
> me that your long periods of very high fruit may have caused a lot of
> trouble. Of course you would agree with this but I can imagine that
without
> greens for so long, that imbalances would occur. As you say, by sticking
to
> fruitarian dogma, long term problems can occur. I would guess that that is
> why the dairy has balanced things for you. This is not however, good
reason
> to drink milk IMO. (If I remember correctly, Sapoty Brooks chart lists
milk
> as balancing fruit, as does green, which is sodium residue?)
>
> As you point out yourself, no primate lives exclusively on fruit and we
> shouldn't either. I found that the amount of green can left to intuition
or
> desire.
>
> I notice as well that on your fruitarian phases that you had weakness and
> cravings but still persisted. I would never recommend that either of these
> two things be ignored as you did.
>
> I know about Michael Klappers study thanks. The FTT issue is complex but
I'm
> yet to be convinced that a raw frugivorous diet is not ideal for us.
>
> > Tom:
> > I have read of massive health improvements on the Atkins diet: a diet
> > high in cooked meat. Does that mean you should go Atkins?  :-)
>
> The Atkins diet does not have a common sense theory behind it. To my mind
it
> is obviously unnatural and unhealthy. If our primate relatives were all on
> the Atkins diet, it may be worth looking into! :)
>
> > As well, fasting short-term may greatly improve health:
> > does that mean that you should never eat?  Short-term and long-term
> > are 2 different things.
>
> Agreed.....has the frugivorous diet been studied long term? Chimps do seem
> to thrive on it don't they?
>
> > Tom:
> > Something tells me you have not read Pottenger's papers. :-)
> > Check out:
> > http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1h.shtml
>
> Ah you know me well now Tom :) be assured, I get round to it! I think the
> human race is getting genetically weak anyway since we are able to keep
> alive people who would otherwise not survive by medical intervention and
so
> the weak pass on their genes. We also use our intelligence to overcome
> physical / genetic weakness e.g. poor eyesight and hence the genetic line
> continues.
>
> > Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
> > >Some do kill but as I said
> > >before, the BBC told me (via a wildlife programme :)) that they did not
> need
> > >to do this!!
> >
> > Tom:
> > Hold the above thought -- you contradict it, next (incidental
> > insects are "not needed" per above):
> >
> > Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
> > >1.Intestinal receptors for heme iron-would these not be needed for
> > >incidental insects and therefore not strong evidence for meat-eating at
> all.
>
> By 'kill', I meant hunt and kill, I accept the insects thing, hence the
> receptors for heme iron perhaps. We also have specific enzymes for
digesting
> bugs.
>
> > Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
> > >2.B-12 an essential nutrient - Where do the non-killing primates get
> their
> > >b12. This is not evidence for meat eating. My info is that pernicious
> > >anaemia is more common in meat-eaters. B12 comes from bacteria - in
meat
> yes
> > >but also on plants and is also made inside a *healthy* gut.
> >
> > Tom:
> > Yawn. When are you going to read more of the site? B-12 is discussed
> > in depth there. Start at:
> >
> > http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-1a.shtml
>
> It's on my list.......sorry to keep you awake. I've looked into B12 though
> and my view is that it is a problem for vegans because of 1) poor bowel
> flora 2) poor absorption 3) washing of food / not eating wild food from
> birth as is our design. The diet is not at fault.
>
> > Tom:
> > I will get around to it in the next few days. Things are very hectic
> > for me now. This discussion, which is frankly showing signs of
> > circularity, is a serious time drain. Please read more of the site and
> come
> > back later with rational questions.
>
> 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.
>
> If you do not wish to reply to my mail then that is your choice.
>
> > Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
> > >What is the failure rate exactly Tom and what is the diet that failed.
> > >That's not science is it Tom? I am cautious which is why I'm talking to
> you
> >
> > Tom:
> > The fact that there are no published scientific studies on raw FTT
> > is mentioned over and over on the site. It follows then that
> > your statement "That's not science" is 1) somewhat misleading,
> > 2) does not say much, 3) is a poor reflection on you: you really should
> > read the site.
>
> 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.
>
> > Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
> > >Fair enough - What is your diet specifically in detail and how did you
> > >arrive at those choices.
> >
> > Tom:
> > My 1997 diet is described in an article titled something like
> > "1997 Raw Expo Speaker Survey" in the articles section of
> > http://www.living-foods.com. The current diet is similar but includes a
> > small amount of dairy, plus more cooked. PS this is a boring and
> > irrelevant question. Repeat after me: Tom is NOT a diet guru. :-)
>
> It is far from irrelevant - it represents what you feel is the healthiest
> diet for you at this time which says a lot to me. The fact that you rely
> heavily on sprouted seeds and drink milk tells me a lot. It's not
> irrelevant.
>
> > Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
> > >Not recommending a diet is a cop
> > >out IMO. Saying here's lots of information now you decide is also a cop
> out.
> > >Do you expect everyone to go into all this in as much detail as you?
and
> if
> > >so then that is just asking for a food obsession!
> >
> > Tom:
> > Your attitude is revealing. I refuse to advocate any one diet for many
> > reasons. What you call a "cop out" is rooted in a profound respect for
> > the dignity, individuality, and intelligence of other people. Unlike
> > the diet gurus, I do think that people are smart enough to decide
> > how to run their own lives. (This respect applies in other spheres of
> life:
> > politically I am a minarchist libertarian.)
>
> 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.)
>
> > By being an info source rather than a diet guru, I am neutral and can
> reach
> > a much wider audience.
>
> You should speak your truth to whoever will listen and forget the wide
> audience.
>
> Mike.
>