> If you are going to use ape diets as a model (arguable since humans are
> quite different from apes in many ways), then you have to look at
> the complete diet. Ignoring an entire class of foods in the model
> (e.g., animal foods) means that your use of the model is incomplete
> and inaccurate.
I don't intend to use as a model but more as one piece in the jigsaw,
more clue to the puzzle. I take your point though. If I have any
then they would be with regard to animal products. I note that you are
veggie. Why do *you* not eat meat?
> If you read more on the site, you will see that the standard
> definition of fruitarianism used on the site is 75+% fruit by
> weight, where fruit has the common (not botanical) definition.
> That said, there is some criticism of the more extreme fruitarian
> diets in the links mentioned.
To my mind, that is problematic, as there is a great deal of
between 100% fruit and 75% fruit, 20% green, 5% nuts / seeds. If for
you said that 100% fruit eaters had problems long term, I could see
being true. I would be surprised if it were true for the other group.
> One of the points I am trying to communicate to you is that the
> raw vegan (and conventional vegan) "experts" frequently provide inaccurate
> information. This is regrettable as it puts people's health at risk.
> It's also the opposite of compassion, the oft-mentioned but rarely
> practiced principle that is allegedly important in veganism.
There is mis-information in every field, and especially diet. I would
that the government's guide to a healthy diet is also putting people's
health at risk. As I said before, I simply seek the truth. I have no
at all. Some I think are nearer to the truth than others however. I
with you that if one intends to mis-inform, that is very bad. Do you
evidence that the intent of some is to mis-inform and for what
Surely, there is more 'profit' in the truth.
I recently watched the 'Great Nutrition Debate' in Washington DC via
wonders of the internet. There is so much b/s talked in this field but
thinks they are right.
> Chimp predation is not limited to monkeys or primates. They prey
> on a wide range of species. Check the URLs cited previously for
> cites on this.
Fair enough. The point was that this particular BBC programme said
chimps did not need to kill for food. I heard a theory that this
was copied from man. Plausable? I don't know what their sources were
would imagine it being the 'official' line.
> If you read the comparative anatomy article on the Beyond Veg site,
> then compare it to the claims of raw vegan experts, you will find
> that many of the raw vegan claims are false. I have tangled
> with the raw vegan crank science fanatic who is probably one of
> the people whose "knowledge" you say you respect. How can I
> politely say this -- that person does not deserve your respect.
I am going to look at your site but there is SO much stuff and so
time. Can you briefly summarise what we humans have learned from
anatomy in terms of what we put on our plates. I take it you are not
prepared to name this 'crank'.
> If you actually start looking up his references (as I did in
> researching the Comparative Anatomy article) you will find many
> cases of: quoting out of context, twisting and misrepresenting
> the meaning of scentific research, and "logic" so warped it could
> better be described as science fiction. Some of the out-of-
> context quotes, misrepresentation of references, and dubious "logic"
> is discussed in the Comparative Anatomy article on Beyond Veg.
It is such a shame that individuals need to become 'experts' and
in order to critically evaluate all this stuff. This reminds me of all
weight loss diets out there, some of which are very unhealthy but it's
lottery. It's such a shame there is no consensus of opinion. It's
ironic to me that we the so called 'crown of creation' don't even know
is our 'natural' diet, and every other species on the planet does!!
> That advocate has also presented a bogus "statistical proof" (using
> correlation and covariance) that alleges to prove that fruit and milk are
> the most similar to each other. As a statistician, I can assure
> you that said "proof" is invalid. (I have shown it to several
> other statisticians - everyone had a good laugh at the ridiculous
> "proof"). Anyway, as the author of said "proof" has been advised that
> the "proof" is invalid, yet continues to promote it - that leads me to
> the opinion that the term "scientific fraud" describes at least
> some of the work of the raw vegan crank science fanatic.
I will take that on board Tom. Will you name this person, if not on
list, then to me personally?
> Actually, I don't advocate any specific diet. Instead, my role is
> to serve as an info source, and to step back and let folks find
> what is best for them. Coming from a raw and veggie background (I am
> still a veggie (though not a vegan), still predominantly raw)
> I frankly disapprove of the misinformation used to promote
> raw and veggie diets, and the emphasis on dogma rather than the
> health and welfare of those attempting such diets.
If there is mis-information used to promote raw and vegan diets then I
applaud you for taking task. Personally I like having my view
how else to be sure I'm right? But the fact that mis-information is
does not in itself make the raw vegan diet wrong / not optimum.
You see, your diet does not make sense to me. How can dairy be part of
natural diet, foods based on the milk of another species and how can
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
those foods out I would think. The fact that the body sends leucocytes
the digestive organs when cooked food is eaten suggests that that is
> PS All material in this post written by me is: Copyright 2000 by
> Thomas E. Billings, all rights reserved. Request permission if you want to
> crosspost to other lists.