Doug wrote:

>I think the Taoists have a lot to offer here, in that some people
>may be more adapted to a diet containing meat, while others do best
>without it.  It is something you have to determine for yourself.

I don't know about Taoists, but agree very much with the idea that what
works for one may not work for another.

>I've noticed that often people on this list will rave about the
>tropical fruits in this or that locale, but never hear vegetables
>talked about glowingly.  And if I'm not mistaken it is generally the
>sweet fruits which are raved about, although sometimes the sub-acid
>are praised.  The point I'm getting at is that human appetites seem
>to motivate toward the sweet fruits.

Jeez, Doug, I thought the human appetite motivates towards pizza :)
Seriously, instincto rave about raw animal foods (RAF). Raw-vegans don't
because they avoid them, or perhaps the don't need them, or perhaps....

>Cancer incidence is directly related to protein intake, lifespan is
>inversely related.  Animal protein is clearly worse in this regard
>than is vegetable.

Is this true with raw animal foods, which contain the enzymes to break down
the proteins and fat into aminos and fatty acids? One of the reasons aged
meat and fish have a much more attractive flavor may be that they are
becoming predigested. Could you tell me more about the studies regarding
the correlation you mention? It sounds very interesting.

>I am puzzled by what I see as an unwarranted effort to amend the NH
>unwritten constitution as it has developed in recent decades to one
>which says raw vegetarian is O.K., but we have to mix in a little
>cooked or a little animal.  I just don't get it, & never have.
>Again, maybe the Taoists are right & some people are descended from
>ancestors who evolved to eat some meat, but all I know is that I can
>definitely feel the difference when even eating only a little cooked
>or high-protein food (raw milk & nuts included), & what I feel is
>that my body reacts negatively to these foods.  I suspect that those
>trying to make the case for cooked and/or animal are doing so out of
>weakness, not actual dietary needs.  I would not want this to be
>taken the wrong way & have a big shouting match break out, and
>again, I sometimes (as I am doing now) eat dairy products.  I'm weak
>in this regard & I admit it.

Maybe you aren't weak, Doug. Maybe you need those foods and that is why
you're attracted to them in the small amounts you need. Who knows, but it
sounds like you have found what works for you, eh?

>But there is no way anybody is going
>to convince me that I need animal products, & I suspect that there
>may not be any humans who need them & that all of us would do best
>without any cooked or animal foods.

Perhaps you're refering to me, but you are mistaken if you think that I am
trying to convince anyone that they should eat RAF. Each of us should eat
whatever we choose to.

I am wide open to someone convincing me that raw animal foods are bad for
me, but no one comes close. All I hear is that they are bad because we are
supposed to be more highly evolved in some way than being an omnivore. Your
point that protein is bad because it diminishes life span is a refreshing
exception to the religious talk usually put forth. Again, I am interested
in the references. Do share, please.

Cheers,
Kirt