this post is a followup to my earlier post. Here I address a question raised
by another poster, and clarify a few points from my previous post. Also, I raise
additional questions regarding the protein theories proposed by Laurie Forti.

in a followup to my post, Swedish Vegetarian Society <[log in to unmask]> asked,
regarding vitamin B-12:

>Now here's my reply, hold on:
>Who or what says that you neccesarily need B-12 if you don't eat meat or
>dead vegetables? Can anybody tell me? I don't believe fruitarians have
>need for B-12 since they don't break down their nervous systems with
>their food as carnivores and ordinary vegetarians do. Any comments???

B-12 is required for growing new blood cells, which is an ongoing maintenance
activity of the body. A common symptom of B-12 deficiency is anemia,
specifically pernicious anemia. So unless you stop growing new blood cells,
you do need B-12. (B-12 is also needed for the nervous system.)

The "Journal of Nutrition" article (October, 95, pgs. 2511-2515) that was
a study of B-12 status in live fooders, found that the longer one was on
a live food diet (with no B-12 supplementation), the lower the blood serum
levels of B-12. You might want to read that article; it's very interesting.

now for comments on the original post:
My post was a followup to a post by [log in to unmask] In my
followup, I gave an argument explaining why adults might need more protein than
a growing baby (which contradicts Laurie's claims). In that argument, food
intake was considered on an adjusted basis, but I didn't adjust cell production/
protein requirement on a weight basis. That is, we should divide total cell
production by body weight also for a more accurate comparison.

If one divides cell production by body weight, the analysis becomes:

babies produce the same weight of cells, or slightly more (depends on which
weight for babies is used as basis) than adults, per pound of body mass

but: babies still eat more food per pound of body mass

which suggests that protein requirements for adults and babies, as % of food,
are comparable.

So it appears that the milk model does not support Laurie's claim that adults
need 1/3 the amount of protein (in % terms) that babies do.

Now for new comments; quoting from Laurie's original post:

>nuts/seeds (10-30%), beans and tofu (8%), grains (3-13%) all have FAR too
>much protein for the human to properly digest and should be avoided.

Given that there is a large population of raw fooders who eat substantial
amounts of protein foods, and they are generally very healthy, that suggests
that most people can indeed digest certain raw protein foods. Also, I believe
that in a earlier post, you referred to humans as "hairless apes" (please
correct me if that is wrong). Although I don't like using animals as models,
your reference to humans as apes is interesting. Looking at apes, we see that
their regular diet is not limited to low protein fruit, but includes substantial
amounts of: seeds, nuts, leafy greens, and live insects - all of which are high
in protein. So the "ape model" does not support your claims either.

The question of digesting protein foods can be an involved and controversial
subject, so I will not address that at this time. However, I have just written
a long post to be titled "fruitarianism: pro & con". In an addendum to that
post, I discuss why fruitarians may experience difficulty with protein foods.
That post will be submitted to veg-raw in a few days (I think it best to limit
lengthy posts to 1/week, in case a post generates discussion.)

Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]