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