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.
|
