On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, Phosphor wrote:

> > Amadeus has never proposed the thesis that early man lived
> > entirely on plant foods.  Never.
>
> We should then ask the reverse: why has every culture eaten liberally of
> meats of all kinds when they are available? Could it be they knew somethign
> about how to stay healthy in a hostile environment?

Actually, we have talked about that.  I have argued that the
additional protein from animal sources is desirable, as well as
the nutrients concentrated in organ meats.  I think this is
reason enough, and I don't think Amadeus necessarily disagrees.

> but I'll say this: He is no
> > fool.
>
> he is a cretin. Someone who seriously mounts the kangaroo killing fields
> argument can only be called this.

I think the point was that kangaroos have a ratio of fat to
protein that would require most of the kangaroo meat to be left
uneaten unless supplemented with significant amounts of energy
from other sources.  Your eventual response was "Howevr, i will
resile from my statement that kangaroo is an ideal paelo food. i
would imagine emu and goanna would be better."

> > That's true, but you made a *general* claim, that *any* diet high
> > in carbs promotes insulin resistance.  The Kitavan diet appears
> > to refute that claim.
>
> that's true, so it looks as though i'm wrong here.  is there any line of
> thought exactly why the Kitavan diet works?  Also, does it work long term?
> [for caucasians].

We don't know.  We don't know whether caucasians are
metabolically different from the Kitavans in any significant way.
In fact, the whole question of racial or ethnic metabolic
differences is one that is potentially very important, but we
have little information.  On the face of it, I'd say that the
Kitavan diet has the advantage of little *refined* carbohydrate,
but there may be more going on.  The coconut oil, for example,
may have some protective effects, even at moderate to low total
fat levels.

> > And John Harvey Kellogg, quack vegetarian extraordinaire, died at
> > age 91.  Vegan G. B. Shaw died at 97.  Go figure.
>
> They were both lunatics long befoe they died. Including Hitler, that's 3 mad
> and famous vegetarians.

Yes.  I thought you were making some point about Paavo Airola
having died in his early 60s.  Were you?  Also, what is your
evidence for lunacy in Kellogg or Shaw?  Your contempt for their
views?  Let me just suggest that your self-assurance does not
rise to the level of evidence that those with whom you disagree
are cretins or lunatics.

I'll be the first to agree that Kellogg had some ideas that I
would regard as bizarre.  But he was no lunatic.  He led a long
and productive live and was famous for his seemingly endless
energy and ability to work long hours.  Although wealthy, he was
also generous with his contributions to various charities, not to
mention his dozen or so (was it 14?) adopted children.  As for
the "lunatic" Shaw, he also continued to be productive until his
death at 94 (not 97, sorry).  He was even then at work on another
play.  His death was caused by injuries sustained when he fell
from a tree he was pruning.

I don't offer these people as a case for vegetarianism, since I'm
not interested in making such a case.  But they do provide
evidence that it's at least *possible* to lead a long and
productive life as a vegetarian, even if I wouldn't want to do it
myself.  And as I've mentioned before, my own grandmother made it
to 93 as a vegetarian, making only infrequent lapses (once or
twice a year) to have fish.  I've tried to eat as she ate, and I
can't make it work for me.  But she made it work.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]