>From: Carol <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: Raw Food Diet Support List <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: Another success story & sugar cravings >Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 06:32:01 -0800 > >In what book did Dr. Spock say that the optimum diet for children is >vegetarianism? Could we have either some direct quotes or references >(title, year, page #) so that we can find them ourselves? I don't >believe that Spock is the be-all end-all of pediatric authorities, and >even if he did say those things, it isn't very meaningful to me. I >just have my doubts. > >And as for the statement that there are "millions upon millions of >healthy vegetarians worldwide", I would have to say that numbers like >that have to rely on self-reporting, and I never trust self-reported >vegetarianism anymore. Most healthy "vegetarians" I know are either >new to it (in which case, they probably haven't had time to run into >deficiencies) or, when pressed as to their diet, they say something >like, "Oh yeah, well of course I eat fish. That's not meat." IMHO, >that's just plain stupid, but there are sooooo many of these fake >vegetarians out there! And in my experience, like I said, it's the >fakers and the newbies who seem the healthiest. > >Carol > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Raw Food Diet Support List > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of orestes > > gutierrez > > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 5:35 AM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: Another success story & sugar cravings > > > > > > > >

Let me interject.  Milton K's ideas of diet are

> > BOGUS!  IT IS NOT MANDATORY FOR CHILDREN TO EAT > > FLESH!  The late, world renowned authority on > > childrens health, Dr. Spock, said that the optimum diet for > > children is  vegeterianism.  Also, he said that > > after the age of 2 yo children could be VEGAN!

> >

On a different note.  I only care about what my

> > ancestors did 50, 000 years ago as a historic and > > intellectual excercise.  Just because they ate flesh > > doesn't mean we should eat flesh.  More importantly, > > what matter is the current PRESENT.  There are > > millions upon millions of healthy vegeterians worldwide > > that proves humans can be healthy without flesh!

> >

As a side note, it is stated loud and clear in the

> > Essene Gospel of Peace by Jesus Christ that we should not > > eat Animal Flesh.  Furthermore, he states that we > > should not put food to the fire and should eat live live > > raw foods!

> >

Regards, Orestes.

> > > > >From: Lance H <[log in to unmask]> > > >Reply-To: Raw Food Diet Support List > > <[log in to unmask]> > > >To: [log in to unmask] > > >Subject: Re: Another success story & > > sugar cravings > > >Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:54:29 -0500 > > > > > >Let me clarify. > > > > > >Milton K was NOT recommending a vegetarian > > diet. Indeed, she is on record > > >as saying (1998) "I am not advocating a > > vegetarian diet". She even wrote an > > >entire paper (1999) arguing that animal food > > played an essential role in > > >human evolution and that "the routine > > inclusion of animal foods in the diets > > >of weaned children seems mandatory". > > > > > >I quoted her at length to prove that there > > was no consensus amongst > > >scientists as to the actual percentage of > > animal food in Homo's diet. Our > > >ancestors left Africa about 50 Ky ago, at > > which time our evolution as a > > >species was largely complete. So the diet of > > those of our ancestors who > > >migrated to high latitudes, on which > > Cordain's 70% estimate was based, is > > >much less relevant than the diet of our > > African ancestors who lived 50 Ky ago. > > > > > >What do we know of the diet of our African > > ancestors 50 Ky ago? Well, we > > >have the example of the present day !Kung > > San, who eat 33% animal food. But > > >do they occupy their original lands? They do > > not. In the past 2000 years > > >they have been driven to marginal lands by > > Bantu-speaking farmers who have > > >seized the most fertile soils for their crops. > > > > > >Is this push to marginal lands likely to > > have increased or decreased the > > >San's intake of animal food? I do not know. > > More fertile lands support > > >both a richer plant life and a more abundant > > animal life. But we certainly > > >cannot deduce that it was 33%. In short, the > > study of present-day > > >hunter-gatherers gives us insufficient data > > from which to deduce the > > >proportion of animal food in Homo's > > primitive diet. Milton's point was that > > >it is unsafe to draw conclusions. > > > > > >Rick asks that we not "get picky with > > percentages". But percentages are the > > >whole point. Our early ancestors almost > > certainly ate SOME animal foods, > > >just like present-day apes & baboons. > > The question is, how much and what? > > > > > >Cordain makes a plausible case that early > > man relied heavily on animal > > >brains and bone marrow, scavenged from the > > leftovers of carnivores who > > >lacked the weaponry to crack open skulls and > > large bones. Brains are high > > >in omega-3 fats and bone-marrow is high in > > mono-unsaturated fat. > > >Fortunately, for those of us who do not > > relish raw brains & marrow, our gut > > >is flexible enough to source the nutrients > > elsewhere. I agree that this > > >would be difficult on a purely vegetarian > > diet. I also agree that we can > > >thrive on 70% animal food. But I find no > > scientific consensus that 70% is > > >either the dominant historical percentage or > > the ideal one. > > > > > >Cheers > > >Lance > >

---

STOP MORE SPAM with > > href="http://g.msn.com/8HMKENUS/2728">the new MSN 8 and > > get 2 months FREE*