On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:05:45 -0700, Wally Day <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> But this doesn't apply to "omnivores" in *general*.
>> Statistically you can find superiority ...

>????????????????
>
>Amadeus, I'm surprised at you. Why do you assume that
>the 'omnivores' you describe above will supplement
>their meat eating with crap (desserts, cakes, etc.),
>while the 'vegetarians' will take the high road and
>eat non-crap to fulfill their protein requirements?

Please don't miss that I said "in general". And in general
most people - in our society - tend to eat "crap" energy.

Meat-eaters or not, in the first place.
(And as I said, people following a paleo-principle are imune - there is no
paleo crap energy).
But if you eat several prercent of you energy as - lets use the word sweets
now - then you would end in a severe protein deficit.
No human could stand it for long - you'd become very hungry in short time.
If you eat meat (and 90% of the population do), then you can have a protein
concentrate at hand. With only 270g (1/2 lbs) of meat you already eat
about the day's RDA in protein. 270g is exactely the average meat
consumption every day in Germany (I suppose other western countries are
similar).
Therefore such meat eaters (SAD) are enabled to  proceed with their
deleterious diet without protein deficit.
While the "only" 270g meat provide little vitamins in comparison.

If you don't have such a concentrate at hand (like vegetarians) you are
simply forced to eat vegetarian proteins. Most eat legumes, whole grains,
nuts, dairy or other, less dense plants simply in big amounts.
These food items (lets exclude dairy for now) taken amounts for sufficient
protein (RDA is some 55g) provide automatically a lot of vitamins and
minerals - and other beneficial stuff (phyto*s).

Of course also some vegetarians tend to remain at concentrates, like
soy-protein and cheap cheese. They have less of the beneficial effect I
described and in addition may suffer from bad side-effects of the vegetarian
"concentrates". Pudding vegetarians may live with suchalike concentrates for
a while but sooner or later will leave it.
Those who keep it over a longer time have found a way how to get enough of
the major nutrients and this is probably even very high in vitamins,
minerals...  They are just forced to.

Or maybe some will suffer for quite a time before they leave.

More health conscious people of course are less or not subject to suchalike
effects may they eat meat or not.
In general, in the main statistic vegetarians score better - at least that's
what statistics (for general population) say. I've described my exlpanation
of this.

>I have personally known a number of 'junk food'
>vegetarians. They load up on chips, crackers, cakes,
>pies, pastas, pizza, etc.

I'm afraid they'll do bad after some time and resort to some forms of
concentrates. Maybe soy and also may be some meat or fish, then they just
eat "less" or "little" meat (more and more people tell to do so).

>...they believe what they are doing is
>alright because - "well, it's not meat so it must be
>ok to eat it"!!

In the first time I was also infected by this bad "logic" - mainly because
of the bad rep meat got due to many statistics and meat scandels.
However this doesn't work.
Think paleo - unmodified food helps the most.


>In both camps you are going to find people who take
>the high road and some who take the low road.

That was the essence of what I wanted to say.

regards

Amadeus