Hi Loren,

I just thought I'd respond to a few points you made recently:


On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:58:16 EST, Loren Lockman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 >Leakey said that chimps, the most violent of all the primates, and the
only one to eat any
 >quantity of meat, would routinely go 6 months without meat.   Our
digestive
 >tract is identical to theirs, and they are all considered frugivores


I have read, in a number of sources, that animal foods comprise about
5-8% of the chimpanzee diet. That's a yearly average. To put this into a
more dramatic perspective, that would equate to 18.25 - 29.2 days per
year that a chimp would devote entirely to eating animal foods. Looked
at in that manner, it suddenly looks very significant. Of course, they
do not eat exclusively animal foods for 18-29 days of the year; I was
just illustrating a point. While they may not eat flesh on a very
regular basis, they do seek out and eat various kinds of insects on a
regular basis. Insects are, after all, small animals. According to Bruno
Comby, insects are quite potent from a nutritional standpoint, being
more concentrated than meat/flesh.


 >I was saying, they are all considered frugivores except the folivorous
 >gorillas.   How can it be that with a digestive tract identical to
theirs,
 >they are frugivores, and we are omnivores?


Well, if we're comparing ourselves and our diets to that of chimpanzees,
then we need to take an honest and objective look at their diets, which
are not vegan. None of those frugivores is vegan.


 >our saliva has an alkaline reaction (to initiate digestion of starches
in unripe fruit)


My understanding is that salivary amylase is ineffective with raw starch
digestion. However, I have read that it was found that raw starch can be
digested after being acted upon by hydrochloric acid. Salivary amylase
is great for acting upon the simple sugars found in ripe fruits, however.


 >our vision is forward rather than stereoscopic,


I don't know how that would preclude one from eating animal foods.


 >our intestines are longer, and not smooth, our stomach acid is much
weaker, etc., etc.


Nonetheless, many people who have eaten raw animal food have found that
they can digest it quite easily, and without putrefaction. Some contend
that raw nuts and seeds are much more difficult to digest than raw
animal foods.

I agree that the human being is not designed as a carnivore (which eats
mostly animal foods). However, that doesn't mean that small amounts of
animal foods, as part of a plant-based diet, are inappropriate.


 >Statements from any number of people won't convince me, Rick.   We simply
 >don't have the physiology to safely consume meat.


I won't try to convince you Loren, but I'm just putting out some ideas
here. I know of many people who have safely eaten raw meat as part of
their diets for many years, even decades in some cases. Furthermore, I
know of many people that have persevered with raw vegan diets for many
years, even a decade or more, and have failed to thrive with it, having
tried it in many different configurations during that time. Many of
these people have indeed also done a lot of extended fasting, and it did
not aid them in thriving with a vegan diet. Many people have found that
raw animal foods were the answer to their diet-related problems. I know
of a great many cases of this.


 >As I mentioned before, T. Colin Campbell, phD, of Cornell U and author
of the
 >China Study said that his research shows that even tiny amounts of
animal products
 >dramatically raise rates of cancer and heart disease.


I am familiar with that study. However, his study is based upon the
ingestion of cooked animal products, not raw. It is known that cooking
has various deleterious effects on animal products, one of which is the
generation of a variety of carcinogenic compounds. In addition to that,
there is a difference between types of animal products and their effect
on the consumer (besides the the raw vs. cooked distinction). For
example, there is a big difference between fish and pork. I read that
consuming pork, even if organically raised, has a tendency to stimulate
tumor growths. Maybe there's a reason that pork was deemed "unclean" in
the bible. ;^)

I know of people who have overcome cancer while including animal
products as part of the diet. In fact, Max Gerson made a point of
including animal products in his diets that aided people in overcoming
cancer. One of his favorites was raw liver juice, which he contended was
highly valuable. Johanna Budwig, best known for her pioneering work in
the research of fats & oils, and the important omega-3's, included
animal foods in the diets she recommended to people -- diets which
helped them to overcome cancer and other diseases. I have read about
other researchers and other individual cases as well.

In addition to those facts, we should also take a look at longevity of
various "omnivores" and vegans.What's the longest-lived vegan that you
know of? Do you know of any vegans that lived longer than the
longest-lived omnivorous eaters? Norman Walker, author of several
raw/health-related books, ate a raw diet, and he lived to 118 years of
age. He wasn't a vegan, however...He did include raw goat dairy as part
of his diet. Another famous health author, Paul Bragg, ate a mostly raw
diet, and included animal foods as part of his diet in small amounts. He
died after sustaining a severe head injury while surfing, at the age of
95. We have "omnivorous" examples such as these (among many others that
I could mention). But where are all the vegan examples?


 >I've counseled tons of people over the last ten years to higher health
 >through a vegan diet, and have lived it myself for almost 18.


I don't doubt you have. It's just that in my observation and personal
experience, veganism doesn't appear to be for everyone. As I mentioned,
many people have tried and failed to thrive as vegans, no matter what
was done -- fasting, various dietary adjustments, lifestyle adjustments,
etc.. Including animal food in the diet has helped many people,
undeniably. In many cases, the difference has been dramatic. What I
deduce from this is that "biochemical individuality" must have some
rational basis when it comes to diet and health. People are individuals,
no two are exactly alike. Human beings have varied ancestry, with a huge
variety of diets having been eaten over the course of the eons. It's
possible that such variation in heredity could have affected humans in
regard to what is the most suitable diet for a given individual.

To give you a few basic examples:

It's known that many people of European ancestry generally can digest
and utilize raw dairy products, whereas most people of asian and african
descent do not tolerate dairy (although the Masai may be an
exception...). Also, for example, it's been found that some Native
American Indian tribes have developed a reliance on animal-source EPA &
DHA. Researchers have found this to be the case, the phenomenon
apparently being a result of these people's reliance on lots of wild
game over the course of thousands of years. Also note the fact that a
particular diet can make a particular individual obese, while another
individual can be quite lean, eating the same foods. I have seen many
examples of this with SAD eaters, for example. Why is it that one person
is 300 pounds and dies of a heart attack at age 40, whereas another
person weighs 150 pounds and never suffers a heart attack, even though
they both eat basically the same foods? The answer often lies in the
differences in heredity between the two people. Those are just a few
crude examples...I suppose I could give many more examples, but you get
the point. All of this seems to indicate that indeed, genetic variances
and biochemical individuality are a reality when it comes to nutrition.
When considering the broad range of mixed ancestry with most people
nowadays, it can be understood how the whole matter of nutrition may not
be quite so simple as many would like to believe. What is best for one
person may not be best for another person. The same goes for raw
foodists. Raw diets as as unique as the eater of those diets.

As you mentioned, humans are almost 99% genetically similar to
chimpanzees. However, it's my understanding that humans are also 97%
genetically similar to mice. In fact, all species on this planet are
very similar at the genetic level. So, the difference of 1 or 2 percent
can in fact make a big difference...And as far as that goes, there are
no vegan anthropoid primates, as far as has been observed and recorded.
You said that bonobos eat less animal foods than chimpanzees. However,
that doesn't negate the potential importance of the animal food in the
bonobo diet. Just like the reality that small amounts of various
micronutrients that the body needs are still important, even in tiny,
tiny amounts -- some only in micrograms.

Having said all that, and all theory aside, it has been my personal
experience that I thrive best aided by a 100% raw, fruit-based
diet...but not a vegan one. I have found that including small amounts of
raw animal food in my diet has been of significant benefit to my health,
well-being, and vitality. I have been able to determine this in a
variety of ways. My health is 1,000% better than it was several years
ago, prior to my learning about and applying various health principles,
which included "radical" dietary changes. I, like, you, have not been
sick in years, and of course, like you, I do not measure my health
status merely by the lack of dis-ease. The proof is in the results. I
know myself pretty well at this point, and there's no denying what my
experiences have been. You know your experiences, just as I know my
experiences. There's no doubt that we've had different experiences, and
well, I guess we can celebrate the individuality and diversity, instead
of trying to make it "one size fits all" when it comes to diet. Many
diet and lifestyle-related factors do apply to everyone, however, when
it comes to discerning what is best for health & wellness. But some of
the finer details need to be worked out on an individual basis.

Regards,

Wes