Hi Tom,

> Tom:
> Utility argument: veg works OK for me.

What does 'Utility argument' mean?
I'm trying to find out what you think is the natural diet of human
beings.
If you accept we have one that is. I like to use the analogy of a zoo.
Animals kept in a zoo must be given something. If humans were kept in
zoos
and you were in charge of feed times, what would you feed them and
when.

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:
> There is some difference in composition, but fruitarian diets as you
> describe them have a very poor long-term track record as well (though
> better than nearly 100% fruit diets).  Be surprised.  :-)

There are many problems in sticking to what I would call a frugivorous
diet,
not least of which is social and I sure that over the years, the
battle with
this aspect of raw life claims it's victims.

We cannot be absolutely sure of what people do behind closed doors or
that
what they say is the truth. You are the first to crush bad science but
yet
are willing to take the word of a few FTT as evidence that a raw diet
is
unsuitable.

Most of the people who start on a raw diet are very very sick and are
looking for there health back. All the people I have come into contact
with
report massive health improvement albeit in the short term. If this
diet can
do this for the very sickest........My point is that FTT may be that
the
diet did not solve that particular persons problem. I agree that there
are
very few examples of long term frugivores......that IMO does not say
that
the diet is at fault. All things have a beginning. I do not say that
the raw
diet is a cure all but that it may be the best diet there is (a
balanced
frugivorous diet).

The Pottingers cats show us that we may not be in the best shape
genetically. We cannot expect diet to cure this is one generation.

> Tom:
> I previously cited the false statistical "proof" which is still being
> promoted, even though the author of the bogus "proof" has been informed
> that it has no merit. Only 2 possible explanations come to mind here:
> 1) bad intent -- willing to peddle false info (for the "greater good"
> of promoting veggie or raw), or 2) massive ego such that the individual
> cannot understand that they are wrong.

or 3), he disagrees with your conclusions. You may be right Tom and
the
other guy wrong but I think you would agree that looking at our
closest
primate relatives we can see that they consume mainly raw vegetable
matter
with whatever bugs happen to be on the food. Some do kill but as I
said
before, the BBC told me (via a wildlife programme :)) that they did
not need
to do this!!
As I said before the small amount of animal matter that is consumed by
primates is interesting to me but what they certainly dont do is cook,
drink
milk or eat any grains.

> Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
> >Fair enough. The point was that this particular BBC programme said that
the
> >chimps did not need to kill for food. I heard a theory that this
behaviour
> >was copied from man.
>
> Tom:
> The only folks I have seen making the imitation argument are not
> credible sources but are instead (in my opinion) cranks.
> (If anyone has a credible source - a legitimate, published Anthro or Bio
> article - making the imitation argument, please send me the citation.)

The imitation thing is not central to my theory but I do trust the BBC
when
they say that chimps don't need to kill for food! :)

> Your questions are in fact answered -- with citations -- on Beyond
> Veg.  Read more - your questions will be answered.  :-)

There's so much of it though Tom and it's heavy going. Have you
written any
books? :) I do intend to look into youe site deeply in the fullness of
time.
I'm serious about the book because reading at the computer is not
great.

> Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
> >Can you briefly summarise what we humans have learned from comparative
> >anatomy in terms of what we put on our plates.
>
> Tom:
> A summary is at:
> http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-9a.shtml

Did do, here's some thoughts;

1.Intestinal receptors for heme iron-would these not be needed for
incidental insects and therefore not strong evidence for meat-eating
at all.

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.

3.Plant foods available in evolution were poor zinc and iron sources -
I
heard that RDA's cannot be relied upon, being based on rats and cooked
foods. Again common sense would make me ask where Gorillas get their
zinc
and iron.

4.There is no such thing as a veg*n gatherer tribe - I'm not doubting
that
man turned to hunting, just that it's necessary. You must agree Tom
since
you are veggie yourself.

I haven't the time to answer every single point on your conclusion but
I do
agree that if we use primates as a model, then you can't ignore the
animal
products. Of course, primates don't cook, I don't fancy bugs or raw
cow so
what to do?

> Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
> >I will take that on board Tom. Will you name this person, if not on the
> >list, then to me personally?
>
> Tom:
> I won't name them here, as cranks like publicity. It seems to feed
> their huge egos. In private/confidential mail, I will tell you.

Thanks Tom, you have my address, I'm eager to know.......

> Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
> >But the fact that mis-information is used,
> >does not in itself make the raw vegan diet wrong / not optimum.
>
> Tom:
> The level of misinformation, the high failure rate and the negative health
> consequences experienced by some who try the diet, the utter fanaticism
> of some of the advocates -- this should give you reason to slow down
> and be very cautious in your approach to the diet. If not, then
> (in figurative terms)  you are free to jump off the cliff,
> along with many of the raw vegan diet gurus.

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
now but you've given me nothing that would change my current view
except for
the small amount of animal stuff consumed by frugivores which may be
significant long term.

It seems to me that we need a lot of scientific study on these various
diets
in practice in the short and long term but I wont hold my breath.

> Mike Kinnaird <[log in to unmask]>:
> >You see, your diet does not make sense to me. How can dairy be part of
> >our natural diet, foods based on the milk of another species and how can
> >cooking improve your food? I know that some nutrients are available in larger
> >quantities by cooking veg but is this reason to cook veg? better to leave
> >those foods out I would think. The fact that the body sends leucocytes to
> >the digestive organs when cooked food is eaten suggests that that is very
> >bad.
>
> Tom:
> Pardon me for the format below, but it seems appropriate. :-)
>
> Error message: My diet need only make sense to me, your diet need
> only make sense to you.

Fair enough - What is your diet specifically in detail and how did you
arrive at those choices.

> Error message: I use dairy but generally don't advocate that others use it.
> (I do suggest on rare occasions that folks who fail on 100% raw vegan, try
> dairy as a weight-gain tool, or as a way to remain raw and veggie.
> But I don't suggest that everyone should use dairy.) You seem to think
> that I promote it.

Are you using dairy as a bug substitute? Sorry to sidetrack but I
looked at
your stuff a while back and one thing that stuck in my mind was 'it's
best
of all to be a raw fooder with a healthy attitude to food'. I'm just
confused as to what you exactly stand for. 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!

> Error message: I don't present myself as a role model or diet guru.
> You seem to think that I am a guru or role model. [I'm an info
> source, nothing more.]

see above - make a stand!!!!

Best wishes...
Mike.