Curing Diabetes Naturally And Holistically

[planning4acrash]

Raw Vegan is a horrific religion that is destroying lives. You cannot get enough vitamin A, D & K from a raw vegan diet and you need these to assimilate minerals in the veg you consume.

http://www.westonaprice.org/take-a-guided-tour/vegetarians.html

[donnay]

Raw Vegan is a horrific religion that is destroying lives. You cannot get enough vitamin A, D & K from a raw vegan diet and you need these to assimilate minerals in the veg you consume.

http://www.westonaprice.org/take-a-guided-tour/vegetarians.html

Raw vegan is great for starters--not to stay on indefinitely.  For people who have diabetes, starting out for about a month on raw foods helps your sugar levels regulate and helps diabetics detox.  Then you could go on to eating, proteins.  But it is also critical to know what body-type you are.  Simple blood test would tell you if you are a protein-type person-- and so on. . .

[mbacolas]

Raw Vegan is a horrific religion that is destroying lives. You cannot get enough vitamin A, D & K from a raw vegan diet and you need these to assimilate minerals in the veg you consume.

http://www.westonaprice.org/take-a-guided-tour/vegetarians.html

Wow, you must be undereducated on the subject. I get plenty of vitamins and minerals, without vitamins and my doctor says im healthy as ever. Who told you you couldnt get those nutrients?

[planning4acrash]

Vegetable and synthetic sources of the fat soluble vitamins are often counter productive or not as potent. Any fool would know that an egg, cream, liver or drippings from pastured animals has more nutrient density than a cabbage.

The original proponents of vegetarianism promoted it because it destroys libido. They claimed to be promoting morality. This is because testosterone and oestrogen are formed using cholesterol and saturated fats. Take them away, and many of our systems slow down, including libido. That is why the Weston A Price Foundation claim that cholesterol is for lovers.

Why the heck do the United Nations promote a vegetarian world!! Because they want you healthy?! I think not. They want this to destroy humanity as part of their earth worship, human hating religion justified by Malthusianism.

[mbacolas]

im vegan and my libido is GREATTTTT!!!

[planning4acrash]

im vegan and my libido is GREATTTTT!!!

It may be now, but what about when you are older and, what about three generations later of raw vegans? We all pass down our gut flora to future generations and, read Pottengers Cats study, where he fed raw meat to one set of cats, cooked to another, and within three generations, the cats with cooked food were sterile, because they got no enzymes or probiotics in any of their foods. Now I know that some of these things are present in raw vegan but, you will lack certain things, including tryptophan, a precursor to seratonin. You cannot get this in a vegetarian diet.

I know MANY raw vegans who did themselves heaps of damage.

I recommend listing to this podcast, from author of The Vegetarian Myth:
 - http://www.blogtalkradio.com/undergroundwellness/2009/10/08/the-vegetarian-myth-with-lierre-keith

[donnay]

It may be now, but what about when you are older and, what about three generations later of raw vegans? We all pass down our gut flora to future generations and, read Pottengers Cats study, where he fed raw meat to one set of cats, cooked to another, and within three generations, the cats with cooked food were sterile, because they got no enzymes or probiotics in any of their foods. Now I know that some of these things are present in raw vegan but, you will lack certain things, including tryptophan, a precursor to seratonin. You cannot get this in a vegetarian diet.

I know MANY raw vegans who did themselves heaps of damage.

I recommend listing to this podcast, from author of The Vegetarian Myth:
 - http://www.blogtalkradio.com/undergroundwellness/2009/10/08/the-vegetarian-myth-with-lierre-keith

QFT!

[mbacolas]

well if anything raw vegan is definately healthier than the normal diet or one full of meat. If ppl just followed the food pyramid and ate less meat and junk food then wed all be healthy.

[donnay]

well if anything raw vegan is definately healthier than the normal diet or one full of meat. If ppl just followed the food pyramid and ate less meat and junk food then wed all be healthy.

The food pyramid is an absolute joke.

It would depend on the meat you are consuming.  Pasture fed beef that is not been inoculated with steroids, hormones and antibiotics are far better to eat than Factory Farm Beef.  Besides it has been said the average hamburger you get at a fast food joint has, at least, meat from 100 different cows--which may have been sick prior to slaughter. 

[mbacolas]

well ive had ppl prove to me meat is bad for you, but not one scientific source of evidence that only plants is bad if done right. The only concern is when you get older as far as i know.

[donnay]

well ive had ppl prove to me meat is bad for you, but not one scientific source of evidence that only plants is bad if done right. The only concern is when you get older as far as i know.

Did you ever wonder why we have canine teeth?  Was the meat that was proved to you, from beef that as I described above?  That demonstration would be like night and day--just saying.

[mbacolas]

yeah but can we eat raw meat like carnivores can or omnivorescan? Can you rip the flesh straight off of a full sized animal? Do you have claws or razor sharp teeth? No we need tools, so naturally we are not natures predators, nor or we developed to eat like a natural carnivore or omnivore. Other than humans, which of natures meat eaters have to cook their meat?

[HealthWyze]

yeah but can we eat raw meat like carnivores can or omnivorescan?

Yes, actually, we could.  At this point in civilization, we choose not to.  We have concerns about bacteria, and parasites (and rightly so), but we could eat some animals in that fashion if we so desired. It's worth noting that some people in alt. health DO eat raw meats.  We don't have to cook them, it's voluntary.

The argument about our use of tools is ridiculous.  Look at a bird. It scavengers to find materials for a nest, but that does not mean that making a nest is not its natural behavior.

[mbacolas]

carnivores are predators, we are not pradators nuff said

[Kilika]

yeah but can we eat raw meat like carnivores can or omnivorescan? Can you rip the flesh straight off of a full sized animal? Do you have claws or razor sharp teeth? No we need tools, so naturally we are not natures predators, nor or we developed to eat like a natural carnivore or omnivore. Other than humans, which of natures meat eaters have to cook their meat?

Do you say stuff just to get people stirred up? That has to be an intentional ignorant post designed to provoke a reaction. What else can explain it? We need tools to eat meat? You really believe that is some kind of proof? Explain chimps using sticks to poke down into holes for ants. Are they violating your concept of what we are suppose to eat? How are going to tell an animal they aren't suppose to be eating that way because they aren't designed to harvest ants without the use of tools?

Ever needed tools to eat beef jerky? And the cooking thing? We do it because it is preferred, and was found to preserve meat longer. It is a practical reason, not some evolutionary one. We cook food because we can! Your tender little stomach as it is most likely wouldn't be happy with you for a bit when first eating raw meat, but you'd adjust to the diet like you have for the diet your currently on, whatever it is. We are, as science calls it, omnivores, if we want to. Your choice.

[mbacolas]

i dont purposefully stir up ppl, im just not like the majority here, thus i have opposing views. If my views anger ppl im sorry, as your dont neccessarily anger me


Are human beings anatomically more similar to natural carnivores or to natural herbivores? Let’s find out….

•Intestinal tract length. Carnivorous animals have intestinal tracts that are 3-6x their body length, while herbivores have intestinal tracts 10-12x their body length. Human beings have the same intestinal tract ratio as herbivores.
•Stomach acidity. Carnivores’ stomachs are 20x more acidic than the stomachs of herbivores. Human stomach acidity matches that of herbivores.
•Saliva. The saliva of carnivores is acidic. The saliva of herbivores is alkaline, which helps pre-digest plant foods. Human saliva is alkaline.
•Shape of intestines. Carnivore bowels are smooth, shaped like a pipe, so meat passes through quickly — they don’t have bumps or pockets. Herbivore bowels are bumpy and pouch-like with lots of pockets, like a windy mountain road, so plant foods pass through slowly for optimal nutrient absorption. Human bowels have the same characteristics as those of herbivores.
•Fiber. Carnivores don’t require fiber to help move food through their short and smooth digestive tracts. Herbivores require dietary fiber to move food through their long and bumpy digestive tracts, to prevent the bowels from becoming clogged with rotting food. Humans have the same requirement as herbivores.
•Cholesterol. Cholesterol is not a problem for a carnivore’s digestive system. A carnivore such as a cat can handle a high-cholesterol diet without negative health consequences. A human cannot. Humans have zero dietary need for cholesterol because our bodies manufacture all we need. Cholesterol is only found in animal foods, never in plant foods. A plant-based diet is by definition cholesterol-free.
•Claws and teeth. Carnivores have claws, sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, and no flat molars for chewing. Herbivores have no claws or sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, but they have flat molars for chewing. Humans have the same characteristics as herbivores.
But aren’t humans anatomically suited to be omnivores?

Nope. We don’t anatomically match up with omnivorous animals anymore than we do with carnivorous ones. Omnivores are more similar to carnivores than they are to herbivores. For a more detailed summary table that compares the properties of carnivores, herbivores, and omnivores side by side, see this page:
Comparative Anatomy & Taxonomy
http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/wiki/index.php?title=Taxonomy

[Novus Ordo]

i dont purposefully stir up ppl, im just not like the majority here, thus i have opposing views. If my views anger ppl im sorry, as your dont neccessarily anger me


Are human beings anatomically more similar to natural carnivores or to natural herbivores? Let’s find out….

•Intestinal tract length. Carnivorous animals have intestinal tracts that are 3-6x their body length, while herbivores have intestinal tracts 10-12x their body length. Human beings have the same intestinal tract ratio as herbivores.
•Stomach acidity. Carnivores’ stomachs are 20x more acidic than the stomachs of herbivores. Human stomach acidity matches that of herbivores.
•Saliva. The saliva of carnivores is acidic. The saliva of herbivores is alkaline, which helps pre-digest plant foods. Human saliva is alkaline.
•Shape of intestines. Carnivore bowels are smooth, shaped like a pipe, so meat passes through quickly — they don’t have bumps or pockets. Herbivore bowels are bumpy and pouch-like with lots of pockets, like a windy mountain road, so plant foods pass through slowly for optimal nutrient absorption. Human bowels have the same characteristics as those of herbivores.
•Fiber. Carnivores don’t require fiber to help move food through their short and smooth digestive tracts. Herbivores require dietary fiber to move food through their long and bumpy digestive tracts, to prevent the bowels from becoming clogged with rotting food. Humans have the same requirement as herbivores.
•Cholesterol. Cholesterol is not a problem for a carnivore’s digestive system. A carnivore such as a cat can handle a high-cholesterol diet without negative health consequences. A human cannot. Humans have zero dietary need for cholesterol because our bodies manufacture all we need. Cholesterol is only found in animal foods, never in plant foods. A plant-based diet is by definition cholesterol-free.
•Claws and teeth. Carnivores have claws, sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, and no flat molars for chewing. Herbivores have no claws or sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, but they have flat molars for chewing. Humans have the same characteristics as herbivores.
But aren’t humans anatomically suited to be omnivores?

Nope. We don’t anatomically match up with omnivorous animals anymore than we do with carnivorous ones. Omnivores are more similar to carnivores than they are to herbivores. For a more detailed summary table that compares the properties of carnivores, herbivores, and omnivores side by side, see this page:
Comparative Anatomy & Taxonomy
http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/wiki/index.php?title=Taxonomy

Good post I knew we were all sheep deep down

[mbacolas]

i beleive they fooled us in every aspect of our lives, including diet. But alas ppl only see what they want to sometimes :/

[Kilika]

Last time I checked, none of my molars were flat. And I don't remember seeing any other humans molars that were flat, like a cows molars. But the bottom line, we can eat meat simply because we can, but if a person doesn't want to, or for some reason think they can't, then don't eat it. Personally, my position is of a religious belief that says nothing is "unclean" of itself. If a person considers it unclean, then to him it is unclean, but that doesn't mean others can't eat it too. Each person I believe has the freedom to choose for themselves. The problems start when some people try to force their dietary views on others through policy, law, Codex, availability, etc.

[mbacolas]

Well its your body not mine. If you want to eat pesticide laiden, anitbiotic laiden, and hormone filled meat, than all the power to you. I prefer to reduce my chances for chancer and diabetes as much as possible and factory farmed meat or even naturally raised meat will definately increase your risk for both. I don't care if someone was raised on a farm or if they own a farm. The flesh of dead carcasses is utterly disgusting and unneccessary.

[donnay]

Well its your body not mine. If you want to eat pesticide laiden, anitbiotic laiden, and hormone filled meat, than all the power to you. I prefer to reduce my chances for chancer and diabetes as much as possible and factory farmed meat or even naturally raised meat will definately increase your risk for both. I don't care if someone was raised on a farm or if they own a farm. The flesh of dead carcasses is utterly disgusting and unneccessary.

You keep saying; "pesticide laden, antibiotic laden, and hormone filled meat..."  I guess you haven't heard of grass-fed cows, or pastured/cage free chickens then.  Because they are not laden with any of the above.

Why not say you are skeeved by a dead carcass and leave it at that?  You continually go into a litany of why meat is bad for you, when in all reality, it is bad for YOU because you cannot handle the fact that an animal once alive is on your dinner plate.  If you rather be a vegetarian  then knock yourself out!  But please do not insult my intelligence by telling me, meat is bad for me.

[Kilika]

Well its your body not mine. If you want to eat pesticide laiden, anitbiotic laiden, and hormone filled meat, than all the power to you. I prefer to reduce my chances for chancer and diabetes as much as possible and factory farmed meat or even naturally raised meat will definately increase your risk for both. I don't care if someone was raised on a farm or if they own a farm. The flesh of dead carcasses is utterly disgusting and unneccessary.

Look, it's your choice to take a certain position, that's fine. But it boils down to our differences as being ones of faith and belief, particularly religious beliefs. At least what I believe. If I were living in the world as the world does, trusting on science and computers, I'd most likely be like you, avoiding all kinds of things in fear of bad health because scientists say there is chemicals in processed beef and chicken. The big difference between us is that I don't fear death, and I am as grateful as I think I can be for what is set before me. And I believe what is clean is good, but I feel its not for me, then I best not eat it. I also believe I have the freedom to choose what I eat, to deem foods clean or unclean as I wish, so long as it is with charity and thanksgiving. The stuff you say people should not eat is what YOU should not eat, because you have deemed it harmful/unclean and to you it could be just that. It's all about faith.

If I don't like a particular food, I won't lie about it. I use to, saying it's good when really it totally sucked. By lying to you would be giving you a false impression, and thus your cooking wouldn't improve from being given the truth of too much salt, etc, and is now reinforced with bad information. Now because I lied, your cooking still sucks, so who did I really hurt? The one that has a plate of your cooking setting before them!

[mbacolas]

Ya know, when I used to eat meat all the time I really thought veggies and nuts and fruits and berries and whole grainsanf tofu tasted bad. But then when I started actually doing research, and noticed how obese meat eaters were and how skinny vegetarians were. How diseased and unhealthy meat eaters were and how healthy vegetarians were.

Overall sure the natural grass fed cage free might make you have a healthier conscience but unless you feel comfortable killing an animal yourself and then eating eat then you are just as weak as the animals them selves. If you are ok with killing the animals then fine the more power to ya. But it is fact that a diet void of meat is healthier.

I'm not scared of death, cause if I was id be worried about goin to hell/heaven. Its the religous that are more afraid of death than I am. I just want my time on earth to be as pleasant as possible, and I want to cause as little harm as possible. I don't have to kill to eat you do.

[donnay]

Twenty-Two Reasons Not to Go Vegetarian      
Health Topics - ABC's of Nutrition
Written by Sally Fallon Morell   

Currently making the rounds on the internet is an article resurrected from a 1999 issue of Vegetarian Times, “22 Reasons to Go Vegetarian.”

“Consider making this healthy choice as one of your new year’s resolutions. . .” says the teaser. “Stacks of studies confirm that a diet full of fresh fruits and vegetables and grains is your best bet for living a longer, healthier and more enjoyable life. There are literally hundreds of great reasons to switch to a plant-based diet; here are 22 of the best.”

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that a “plant-based diet” is not necessarily the same as a vegan diet, and that in the US a diet containing fresh fruits, vegetables and whole grains is a marker for prosperity and health consciousness (and therefore would naturally give better results than a diet lacking in these items), let’s look first at the American origins of the premise that a diet composed largely of fruits, vegetables and grains (presumably whole grains) is a passport to good health.

The American Vegetarian Society was founded in 1850 by Sylvester Graham (1794- 1851), an early advocate of dietary reform in United States and the inventor of Graham bread, made from chemical-free unsifted flour. Highly influential, Graham promoted vegetarianism and a high-fiber diet as a cure for alcoholism and lust. Graham preached that an unhealthy diet (one containing the confounding variables of meat and white flour) stimulated excessive sexual desire, which irritated the body and caused disease.

John Harvey Kellogg (1852-1943) followed in Graham’s footsteps. Inventor of corn flakes and a process for making peanut butter, Kellogg advocated a high-fiber vegetarian diet to combat the twin evils of constipation and “natural urges.” Kellogg preached against sexual activity even in marriage.

Today we recognize the demonization and suppression of “natural urges” as a recipe for the pathological expression thereof; in fact we’d probably label Graham and Kellogg as nut cases suffering from serious insecurities. But the diet proposed to accomplish their goal of character building and social piety is still with us, enshrined, in fact, in the government-sanctioned food pyramid based on grains, vegetables and fruits with the addition of small amounts of lowfat animal foods. Lop off the top of the pyramid and you have the vegan diet, still promoted with religious fervor even though its original dogmatic basis has been forgotten. The language of moral rectitude still lurks in the vegetarian arguments of sexually liberated New Age youth.

With these paradoxes in mind, let’s examine the 22 reasons given for adopting a vegan diet.
1. You'll live a lot longer

"Vegetarians live about seven years longer, and vegans (who eat no animal products) about 15 years longer than meat eaters, according to a study from Loma Linda University. These findings are backed up by the China Health Project (the largest population study on diet and health to date), which found that Chinese people who eat the least amount of fat and animal products have the lowest risks of cancer, heart attack and other chronic degenerative diseases."

Reference please? We haven’t found such statistics in a search of the medical database.

In spite of claims to “stacks of studies,” there is actually very little scientific literature that carefully compares mortality and disease rates in vegetarians and nonvegetarians. In 1991, Dr. Russell Smith, a statistician, analyzed the existing studies on vegetariansim1 and discovered that while a number of studies show that vegetarian diets significantly decrease blood cholesterol levels, very few have evaluated the effects of vegetarian diets on overall mortality. His careful analysis (see sidebar below) revealed no benefit from vegetarianism in terms of overall mortality or longevity. In fact, Smith speculated on the possibility that the available data from the many existing prospective studies were left unpublished because they failed to reveal any benefits of the vegetarian diet. He notes, for example, mortality statistics are strangely absent from the Tromso Heart Study in Norway, which showed that vegetarians had slightly lower blood cholesterol levels than nonvegetarians.2

Since the publication of Russell Smith’s analysis, two significant reports on vegetarianism and mortality have appeared in the literature. One was a 2005 German paper that compared mortality in German vegetarians and healthconscious persons in a 21-year followup.7 By comparing vegetarians with health-conscious meat eaters, the German researchers eliminated the major problem in studies that claim to have found better mortality rates in vegetarians compared to the general population. Vegetarians tend not to smoke, drink alcohol or indulge in sugar and highly processed foods. To compare these individuals to meat-eaters on the typical western diet will naturally yield results that favor vegetarianism. But in the German study, both vegetarians and nonvegetarian health-conscious persons had reduced mortality compared with the general population, and it was other factors—low prevalence of smoking and moderate or high levels of physical activity—that were associated with reduced overall mortality, not the vegetarian diet.

The other was a 2003 report that followed up on The Health Food Shoppers Study in the 1970s and the Oxford Vegetarians Study in the 1980s.8 The mortality of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in these studies was low compared with national rates in the UK. Within the studies, mortality for major causes of death was not significantly different between vegetarians and nonvegetarians, although there was a non-significant reduction in mortality from ischemic heart disease among vegetarians.

As for Colin Campbell’s China Study, often cited as proof that plantbased diets are healthier than those containing animal foods, the data on consumption and disease patterns collected by the Cornell University researchers in their massive dietary survey do not support such claims. What the researchers discovered was that meat eaters had lower triglycerides and less cirrhosis of the liver, but otherwise they found no strong correlation, either negative or positive, with meat eating and any disease.9

In his introduction to the research results, study director Campbell refers to “considerable contemporary evidence supporting the hypothesis that the lowest risk for cancer is generated by the consumption of a variety of fresh plant products.”10 Yet Cornell researchers found that the consumption of green vegetables, which ranged from almost 700 grams per day to zero, depending on the region, showed no correlation, either positive or negative, with any disease. Dietary fiber intake seemed to protect against esophageal cancer, but was positively correlated with higher levels of TB, neurological disorders and nasal cancer. Fiber intake did not confer any significant protection against heart disease or most cancers, including cancer of the bowel.

In a 1999 article published in Spectrum, Campbell claimed the Cornell findings suggested “that a diet high in animal products produces disease, and a diet high in grains, vegetables and other plant matter produces health.”11 Such statements by the now-famous Campbell are misleading, to put it mildly, and have influenced many unsuspecting consumers to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle in the hopes of improving their health.

Continue reading...

[Kilika]

Ya know, when I used to eat meat all the time I really thought veggies and nuts and fruits and berries and whole grainsanf tofu tasted bad. But then when I started actually doing research, and noticed how obese meat eaters were and how skinny vegetarians were. How diseased and unhealthy meat eaters were and how healthy vegetarians were.

Overall sure the natural grass fed cage free might make you have a healthier conscience but unless you feel comfortable killing an animal yourself and then eating eat then you are just as weak as the animals them selves. If you are ok with killing the animals then fine the more power to ya. But it is fact that a diet void of meat is healthier.

I'm not scared of death, cause if I was id be worried about goin to hell/heaven. Its the religous that are more afraid of death than I am. I just want my time on earth to be as pleasant as possible, and I want to cause as little harm as possible. I don't have to kill to eat you do.

Nobody is saying anybody has to kill anything. Your aversion isn't with the chemicals anyway, your aversion to meat is the killing of the animal. Your choice.

A diet void of meat is healthier? That's purely your opinion and not scientific fact as stated.

[donnay]

Overall sure the natural grass fed cage free might make you have a healthier conscience but unless you feel comfortable killing an animal yourself and then eating eat then you are just as weak as the animals them selves. If you are ok with killing the animals then fine the more power to ya. But it is fact that a diet void of meat is healthier.

I have no problem whatsoever killing and animal to feed my family.  I have a small farm and we, for the most part, eat whatever we grow or raise.

[mbacolas]

I have no problem whatsoever killing and animal to feed my family.  I have a small farm and we, for the most part, eat whatever we grow or raise.

i dont see a problem morally if the animals live a good life and are killed humanely, but im not convinced its healthy. If you can get all your nutrition from plants then why not right?

Myths about Vegetarianism

MYTH: "Humans were designed to eat meat."

Fact: Human anatomy suggests otherwise. We're designed to be able to eat meat occasionally, as a survival mechanism, but our digestive systems are very similar to those of the other plant-eaters and totally unlike those of carnivores. Also, the less meat someone eats, the less their risk of just about every major disease. Finally, people who don't eat meat have better physical performance, whether they're athletes or not. The argument that humans are carnivores because we possess "canine" teeth ignores the facts that other plant-eaters have these same so-called canine teeth, and that only plant-eaters have molar teeth. [more on this topic]

MYTH: "Vegetarians get little protein."

Fact: Plant foods offer abundant protein. Vegetables are around 23% protein on average, beans 28%, grains 13%, and even fruit has 5.5%. For comparison, human breast milk is only 6% (designed for the time in our lives when our protein needs are as high as they'll ever be). Professional recommendations for adults range from 2.5% to 10%, and plant foods supply that easily. [more on this topic]


MYTH: "Meat protein is better than plant protein. You have to combine plant foods to make the protein just as good."

Fact: This myth was popularized in the 1971 book Diet for a Small Planet and has no basis in fact. The author of the book admitted nearly thirty years ago that she made a mistake (in the 1982 edition of the same book). [more on this topic]

MYTH: "Milk is necessary for strong bones."

Fact: McDougall: "Where does a cow or an elephant get the calcium needed to grow its huge bones? From plants, of course. Only plants. … People in Asia and Africa who consume no milk products after they're weaned from their mother's breast grow perfectly healthy skeletons in the normal size for their race. A consistent conclusion published in the scientific literature is clear: Calcium deficiency of dietary origin is unknown in humans. Dairy products contain large amounts of animal proteins. This excess protein removes calcium from the body by way of the kidneys. Knowing the physiological effects on calcium metabolism of eating excess protein explains why societies with the highest intakes of meat and dairy products--the United States, England, Israel, Finland, and Sweden--also show the highest rates of osteoporosis, the disease of bone-thinning."

http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/myths.html

also to prove the point further that meat is unneccessary here is a picture of a vegan body builder

[DAVIDE MTL]

the elites plan is to get everyone off of meat,here's Dr Mercola's take
 Dr. Mercola

    vegetarian foodI have sought to apply science to improve my health, and that of others, for over forty years. The topic so intrigued me that I went to medical school to increase my understanding of the way the body works.

    I have learned many things along this health journey. Clearly one of the major lessons is that there is enormous controversy when it comes to understanding what the human body was designed to thrive on.

    Fortunately, as a practicing physician I have had the distinct advantage of having the opportunity to treat over 25,000 patients who were willing to implement suggestions I made to improve their health. Over the years, I certainly have made my share of mistakes, and some people did not improve after implementing what I thought was very solid advice.

    Interestingly, most of my initial failures were related to encouraging many thousands of patients to eat too many vegetables in relation to fats and animal protein.

    This may sound shocking to some, and staunch vegetarians, or vegans, might wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that you could possibly eat too many vegetables. In fact, many have absorbed Dr. T. Colin Campbell’s writing’s on this topic, particularly his book The China Study, which makes a radical case against the wisdom of eating animal protein at all, by linking protein to all manner of ill health, including cancer.

Is Eating Meat Harmful, Like Popular Pro-Vegan Book Proclaims?

    Many who hold strict vegetarian views) still hold up The China Study as the authoritative "proof" that eating meat was harmful.

    This work flies in the face of many nutritionally oriented physicians, like myself, who have collectively treated tens of thousands of patients and found that forcing an animal-free protein diet on everyone will invariably cause harm and suffering in many whose biochemically and genetically determined nutritional type requires large amounts of fat and protein.

    Since this book is widely trusted and used to defend a no animal protein position I thought it was important to provide my views on why I believe this work has some fundamental flaws.

    Another nutritional physician who has taken a hard look at Dr. Campbell’s book, and the studies that form the basis of his conclusions, is Dr. Michael R. Eades, M.D.

    Dr. Eades has been in full-time practice of nutritional and metabolic medicine since 1986, and like I, has treated tens of thousands of patients. Interestingly, Campbell, on the other hand, is not a practicing physician and has no real-world experience to support the veracity of his nutritional recommendations for the population at large.

Major Reason Why the China Study is Fatally Flawed

    The very title of the book is inaccurate. It is NOT a study but a comprehensive set of observations. While this approach can be valuable, it can never prove his assertion that animal protein should be avoided, as he never TESTED that theory on real live patients... The data from Dr. Campbell’s China study was first published in the tome Diet, Life-Style and Mortality in China. It contains several thousands of statistical correlations, which Campbell insists show that animal protein intake is convincingly associated with prevalence of cancer.

    However, it’s important to realize two things:

       1. The China study was an observational study. Correlations deduced from an observational study do not – in fact, cannot -- prove causation. As Dr. Eade points out, all you can really do with data from an observational study is to form a hypothesis, which must then be tested in randomized, controlled trials, to ferret out the truth about whether or not x actually causes y.
       2. In many cases, the data (presented in arduous detail in the book Diet, Life-Style and Mortality in China) do not show statistically significant correlations between animal protein consumption and disease such as cancer at all. On the contrary. It would seem that sugar and carbohydrates are correlated with cancer – not animal protein. In addition, the data indicate that fat is negatively correlated with cancer mortality, which again contradicts the claim that meat is harmful.

    For more information, I highly recommend reading through Dr. Eade’s critique of The China Study.

Two Physicians’ Experiences with Using Vegetarian Diets for Everyone

    After finishing my family practice residency in 1985 I read the book Fit for Life. The book made some very compelling arguments encouraging the consumption of raw fruits and vegetables. So I started its recommendations and had fruit for breakfast. After a few weeks I tested my blood work and was shocked to find my fasting triglycerides were nearly 3,000. That is not a typo. Nearly three thousand...This was surprising because they had never been over 100 in the past.

    Clearly this diet was killing me and I am convinced I would have died long ago had I remained on it. I now realize that this approach probably helps some, but was a disaster for me personally.

    Dr. Eades is another nutritional physician. He and I have never met and do not personally know each other.

    However, we both started our medical practices about the same time and were both passionate about helping people with nutritional interventions and helping them with alternatives to drugs and surgery.

    We had no predisposition to the outcome and were impartial observers to the results of our nutritional interventions. We were both busy clinicians and never had the luxury to take months out of our lives to publish our observations in the medical literature. Nevertheless the lack of publications does not make the observations any less valid.

    Interestingly we both observed the same results, namely that large numbers of sick people failed to improve when they implemented vegetarian or vegan diets.

    This shocked us as we were compelled by many of the arguments that Campbell makes and believed that all our patients should have improved on this regimen. Initially I questioned their compliance and believed many of them were “cheating.” But after this started happening to more and more people, it became clear my approach was flawed.

    Many of these patients significantly worsened and nearly died. Many even left our practices because they lost faith in our ability to use diet as a tool to help them regain their health. What we both realized after these well-intentioned efforts is that . . .

There is No Perfect Diet that Works for Everyone

    Most of the confusion in this debate results from this reality. Vegetarian diets described by Campbell do work for large numbers of people. From my observations, perhaps about one third of the population would benefit from it. These people thrive on these foods and have spectacular health. The problem is that there is an equally large, or even larger, population whose health is devastated by restricting animal protein and fats.

    About ten years ago I was exposed to concepts that helped me understand this shocking observation. I realized that there is an enormous level of biochemical and genetic individuality that essentially guarantees that there is no perfect food plan that will work for everyone.

    What I gradually came to appreciate is that we are all uniquely designed and require customized plans.

    I eventually adopted a program called Nutritional Typing, which is a central part of my health plan and is available for free on my site.

    This plan categorizes people into three different groups:

        * Protein: High amounts of healthy fats and protein and lower amounts of vegetables
        * Carb: High amounts of vegetables and lower amounts of protein and fat
        * Mixed: Somewhere between the above options

    The population is divided equally between the groups, with about one third of the population of the US in each group.

    If you go to certain countries however, you will find high percentages in one group, but the US is a wide mixture and has a widespread heterogeneity.

Nutritional Typing Produced Dramatic Improvement

    Once I began implementing Nutritional Typing in my practice I noticed a remarkable decrease in those that did not respond favorably to dietary changes. Nearly everyone seemed to notice improvement, and for many it was quite dramatic.

    One of the underlying principles of the program is to "Listen to Your Body" and adjust your foods based on how you feel mentally and physically after consuming them. Many who claim to have tried nutritional typing and report feeling worse, have clearly missed this most essential point.

    If, after a meal, you feel sluggish, tired, nauseous, or depressed, your meal was not ideal. If you are indeed following the nutritional typing program, this will be a giant clue that you need to modify your diet.

    You make a great mistake if you simply take the test once and strictly follow the food choices recommended for that type – you must continuously check in with yourself and keep modifying your food choices until you find the right balance of fats, healthy carbs and protein for you.

    Nutritional typing is a way to determine what YOUR customized diet is, and it is not even a one-size-fits-all within each nutritional grouping. If you take nutritional typing seriously, its guidelines will help you modify your food intake until you find the right balance.

    That said, some of the most dramatic improvements I saw were from individuals who were protein types but were eating mostly carbs, in the way of vegetables. It was very common for these people to have strong ethical positions about refusing to eat animal products.

    I would never ask someone to eat animal foods if they had spiritual convictions against doing so. However, many in this category were just confused about this issue – thinking this is what was healthiest for their body. They couldn't understand why they felt so sick and had so many health problems. Once we were able to clear up that confusion, and experiment with the program, the result was typically quite impressive.

Don’t Listen to Me or ANYONE Else About What You Should Eat

    It is sad to see that many staunch vegans and vegetarians fail to even acknowledge that anyone is designed to have animal protein. Unfortunately they are able to convince many with seemingly compelling information like Campbell’s China Study and as a result, many people continue to suffer from not including vital nutrients in their diet -- nutrients they were designed to eat.

    Ultimately, if you are sincerely honest and seek to understand what diet is best for you, it is my recommendation to abandon any previously held convictions you might have about diet and listen to your body.

    Let your body tell you what foods you were designed to eat. Don’t listen to me or Dr. Eades or a researcher like Campbell who has never treated patients. Just listen to your own body.

    You can experiment for yourself and observe your reactions, but if you would like a systemized way to approach this and record your results so you can reach your own independent conclusions about what you were designed to eat, then I would encourage you to take the FREE Nutritional Typing Test.

Should Meat Be Avoided Because of the Cholesterol Issue?

    Many, if not most, conventional physicians still maintain the position that cholesterol is harmful and should be avoided. However, this misconception has been carefully debunked in more recent years. Alas, the conventional system is not known for its speed to embrace corrective action even when a fallacy has been clearly revealed.

    I won't repeat all the arguments here but if you are interested in getting a more in-depth review, please read my most recent cholesterol report.

    The truth is, many of the health problems attributed to fat and cholesterol are in fact caused by SUGAR, not fat! If you do not understand this vital concept, you will likely continue to sabotage your health – avoiding health promoting foods, and substituting them with some of the most health-harming…

Is Vegetarianism Right for You?

    I have long advocated consuming plenty of fresh, organic, locally grown raw vegetables, but it's important to understand that different ratios are appropriate for depending on your nutritional type.

    This means that some people will thrive on very large amounts of vegetables and very little animal protein. For others, this ratio would spell disaster for their health. Again, it's highly individual. The people who fare the worst on a vegetarian diet are those who are naturally protein types, as they're depriving their bodies of essential fuel, determined by their genetic and biochemical makeup.

    Some of my views on eating animal protein were directly influenced by the work of Dr. Weston Price but although his contribution was great, since then countless peer-reviewed studies have been published that support these views.

    It's also worth mentioning that I have no competing commercial interests that might sway me from providing the most accurate, health-promoting information I possibly can share on this or any other health related subject. As you may know already, my business model does not allow outside advertisers.

    The only commercial items sold on my site are ones that I firmly believe in and most of which I personally use – and that includes grass-fed, organically-and humanely (non-factory farmed) raised meats and wild fish providers whose food products I have tested for purity by an independent lab prior to endorsing them.

    But to recap: a largely vegetarian diet may be appropriate for some, but to promote it as the only, or even the best, way to improve health is foolhardy at best, because some two-thirds of people simply cannot and will not thrive on a meatless diet.

What About the Other Animal Protein: Milk… Is it Good or Bad?

    Another important distinction that must be taken into account when discussing animal protein sources is the difference between raw and pasteurized dairy. When you heat a protein to the temperature required to achieve pasteurization you denature the tertiary and quaternary structure of the protein making it essentially a new molecule.

    Additionally, any time you see studies where casein is given to animals and adverse health effects ensue, there's really little cause for surprise.

    Why?

    Because any time you process foods you damage them, and you can therefore experience a variety of adverse health effects when you consume them. This should not be misconstrued as being a reflection of the same food in its raw and/or unadulterated state!

    My recommendation to everyone is to try cheeses made from raw milk and compare them to cheeses made from pasteurized milk. I'm willing to bet that most of you would agree the taste of raw cheese is far superior. This is so well known, no self-respecting cheesemaker would ever choose pasteurized milk over raw when making cheese, because the properties are entirely different – it's basically damaged goods.

    For those who claim there's no significant health benefits of raw over pasteurized, the inherent differences in flavor and consistency between raw and processed cheeses alone will clue you in on the fact that there ARE significant differences between the two types of milk – otherwise the cheeses would also be identical, wouldn't they?

    Another common misconception many people have is that you should avoid milk because no other animal in nature consumes it after they're weaned. While this may be logistically true, observation will show you that most animals will eagerly and readily consume raw milk when given the opportunity.

    Few would argue with the fact that human breast milk is probably the ideal and most perfect food designed for human infants -- a truly custom-made whole food for a baby -- yet virtually no adult is able to consume this as a source of nutrition for logistical unavailability.

    However, throughout history, ancient people across the world have continued drinking similar raw milk from cows, sheep and goats, well past being weaned from their mother's breast.

Final Recommendation

    This is obviously a very sensitive issue for many. It has been my experience that many make choices to eat certain foods based on philosophical or intellectual reasons. While I believe that should always be an important part of the process, I believe it is equally important to listen to the important feedback that your body provides you when you consume a certain diet.

    If your current diet allows you to function at the highest level of energy and fitness and you rarely feel hungry or crave sweets that is a fairly good sign that you are eating food appropriate for your nutritional type.

    However if you are struggling with health challenges and have rigidly adhered to a diet that severely limits or avoids animal protein, because you believe you should or you are choosing it for ethical reasons then I would encourage you to consider changing your diet to include some animal proteins.

    Just be honest with yourself and objectively evaluate your body's response. Your body is the most awesome instrument to make this assessment. Ultimately it is the best resource and far superior to anything you read on the Internet or in any published study.

    Please feel free to use our free Nutritional Typing Test as tool to help you explore what foods you were designed to eat.

    So my final words are to trust the body God gave you to tell you the truth.

[mbacolas]

i beleive if done properly vegan diets can be the healthiest diets on the planet

[HealthWyze]

i beleive if done properly vegan diets can be the healthiest diets on the planet

Yeah, the healthiest people who don't have enough B12, properly usable vitamin A (retinol, not beta-carotene), L-tryptophan, and carnosine. Seriously, you can choose to be a vegan if you want, but don't try to fool the people on this forum that it's healthy, because they know better. By the way, the cardiovascular system of the human being is closest to that of a guinea pig, the only animal that doesn't produce its own vitamin C. Yet, we can't survive on the diet of a guinea pig. Man is incomparable to animals.

The Politically Incorrect Truth About The Cult Of Vegetarianism

[mbacolas]

wow, some of you need to do some good research on the other side of your arguement, not just your side

Bacteria:  Myth vs. Reality
So how could anyone develop pernicious anemia when B12 intake requirements are so low, and when the liver stores so much that it takes years for a deficiency to develop?  The reason touted for the B12 myth is that B12 is found primarily in animal foods.  Very few plant foods provide good sources of B12, they say.  In a way that's true, but only because the source of B12 is not plants OR animals; neither manufacture their own B12.  In the B12 reality, Bacteria are the B12 producers on which both plants and animals rely.  And in humans, that bacteria doesn't necessarily come from plants -- the mouth, upper intestine, and lower intestine all contain bacteria that produce B12.  However, it's unknown if enough B12 to meet the daily requirement comes from internal sources of B12.  More likely, they produce some, and the rest comes in with food and water consumed.

All of the Vitamin B12 in the world ultimately comes from bacteria.  Neither plants nor animals can synthesize it.  But plants can be contaminated with B12 when they come in contact with soil bacteria that produce it.  Animal foods are rich in B12 only because animals eat foods that are contaminated with it or because bacteria living in an animal's intestines make it.
-- From The Vegetarian Way: Total Health for You and Your Family (1996), Virginia Messina, MPH, RD, & Mark Messina, PhD p. 102











Vitamin A http://www.nutriherb.net/vitamin_A_retinol_beta-carotene.html 


Forms of Vitamin A:   Retinol or Beta-Carotene

Vitamin A Facts
Vitamin A is a fat soluable vitamin, meaning that it needs fats and minerals for proper absorption. Retinol Vitamin A comes from animal food sources and is stored in the body, whereas Beta-carotene Vitamin A comes from both plant and animal sources, and is not stored in the body. Beta-carotene is often referred to as provitamin A. Beta-carotene is a powerful antioxidant and immune system booster, working directly at the cellular level to combat free radicals that damage cells and promote disease. Studies show that people who have diets rich in beta-carotene have less cancer and coronary heart disease. Retinol Vitamin A benefits your vision, tissues, skin, teeth, hair, nails and bones in many ways.
 





Tryptophan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Dietary sources
Tryptophan is a routine constituent of most protein-based foods or dietary proteins. It is particularly plentiful in chocolate, oats, dried dates, milk, yogurt, cottage cheese, red meat, eggs, fish, poultry, sesame, chickpeas, sunflower seeds, pumpkin seeds, spirulina, and peanuts.

http://www.vitamins-supplements.org/amino-acids/tryptophan.php

[Libertarian Perspective]

Vegan and vegetarian diets are flawed. I beleive that true health and spiritual consciousness can only be achieved by a Macrobiotical diet.

Contrary to a vegan/vegetarian diet, very few fruits are eaten in a macrobiotic diet and raw vegetables are not eaten mostly.

[HealthWyze]

wow, some of you need to do some good research on the other side of your arguement, not just your side

Bacteria:  Myth vs. Reality
So how could anyone develop pernicious anemia when B12 intake requirements are so low, and when the liver stores so much that it takes years for a deficiency to develop?  The reason touted for the B12 myth is that B12 is found primarily in animal foods.  Very few plant foods provide good sources of B12, they say.  In a way that's true, but only because the source of B12 is not plants OR animals; neither manufacture their own B12.  In the B12 reality, Bacteria are the B12 producers on which both plants and animals rely.  And in humans, that bacteria doesn't necessarily come from plants -- the mouth, upper intestine, and lower intestine all contain bacteria that produce B12.  However, it's unknown if enough B12 to meet the daily requirement comes from internal sources of B12.  More likely, they produce some, and the rest comes in with food and water consumed.

All of the Vitamin B12 in the world ultimately comes from bacteria.  Neither plants nor animals can synthesize it.  But plants can be contaminated with B12 when they come in contact with soil bacteria that produce it.  Animal foods are rich in B12 only because animals eat foods that are contaminated with it or because bacteria living in an animal's intestines make it.
-- From The Vegetarian Way: Total Health for You and Your Family (1996), Virginia Messina, MPH, RD, & Mark Messina, PhD p. 102

Good luck trying to get the B12 from your vegetables. Attempts to explain why animals have B12 just clouds the issue.  You can't get the B12 that you need from plant sources. That's widely established.

Vitamin A Facts
Vitamin A is a fat soluable vitamin, meaning that it needs fats and minerals for proper absorption. Retinol Vitamin A comes from animal food sources and is stored in the body, whereas Beta-carotene Vitamin A comes from both plant and animal sources, and is not stored in the body. Beta-carotene is often referred to as provitamin A. Beta-carotene is a powerful antioxidant and immune system booster, working directly at the cellular level to combat free radicals that damage cells and promote disease. Studies show that people who have diets rich in beta-carotene have less cancer and coronary heart disease. Retinol Vitamin A benefits your vision, tissues, skin, teeth, hair, nails and bones in many ways.

Exactly. Retinol is necessary for the vision, tissues and bones.  Vegetarians don't get enough of it. If you need some studies which show that beta-carotene is not as well absorbed as retinol, just let me know.
 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's desperate.

Tryptophan is a routine constituent of most protein-based foods or dietary proteins. It is particularly plentiful in chocolate, oats, dried dates, milk, yogurt, cottage cheese, red meat, eggs, fish, poultry, sesame, chickpeas, sunflower seeds, pumpkin seeds, spirulina, and peanuts.

The foods highest in tryptophan are milk, meat and cheese. Undeniably. Also, in relation to another post you wrote.. humans need cholesterol. People with low levels of cholesterol have higher suicide rates, and in the elderly, low cholesterol levels is a sign of incoming death.

[mbacolas]

Good luck trying to get the B12 from your vegetables. Attempts to explain why animals have B12 just clouds the issue.  You can't get the B12 that you need from plant sources. That's widely established.

Exactly. Retinol is necessary for the vision, tissues and bones.  Vegetarians don't get enough of it. If you need some studies which show that beta-carotene is not as well absorbed as retinol, just let me know.
 
That's desperate.


The foods highest in tryptophan are milk, meat and cheese. Undeniably. Also, in relation to another post you wrote.. humans need cholesterol. People with low levels of cholesterol have higher suicide rates, and in the elderly, low cholesterol levels is a sign of incoming death.

can you at least quote your sources like i do?

[HealthWyze]

can you at least quote your sources like i do?

B12:
http://www.westonaprice.org/abcs-of-nutrition/267-myths-of-vegetarianism.html#2

Retinol:
http://www.westonaprice.org/abcs-of-nutrition/267-myths-of-vegetarianism.html#4

Tryptophan:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2991068

Excuse me for not doing much work to prove something that is already so well established.

[mbacolas]

where do animals get their b12?

[Freeski]

Meat is difficult for our bodies to digest and quite often tainted with parasites and hormones. With fish we have mercury and PCBs to be concerned with. This would defeat the cleansing process by adding more toxins.

But the fruits and vegetables also have contaminants, mainly in the form of pesticides and fertilizers. These bastards have contaminated our world from head to toe!

[HealthWyze]

where do animals get their b12?

"There is not real B12 in plant sources but B12 analogues--they are similar to true B12, but not exactly the same and because of this they are not bioavailable (13). It should be noted here that these B12 analogues can impair absorption of true vitamin B12 in the body due to competitive absorption, placing vegans and vegetarians who consume lots of soy, algae, and yeast at a greater risk for a deficiency (14)."

Animals absorb B12 analogues in plants, and make it bio-available for us.

[Freeski]

The food pyramid is an absolute joke.

It would depend on the meat you are consuming.  Pasture fed beef that is not been inoculated with steroids, hormones and antibiotics are far better to eat than Factory Farm Beef.  Besides it has been said the average hamburger you get at a fast food joint has, at least, meat from 100 different cows--which may have been sick prior to slaughter. 

That's the key problem with centralization. Local problems become global problems. Now put the Mafia in charge and you're totally screwed.

[mbacolas]

"There is not real B12 in plant sources but B12 analogues--they are similar to true B12, but not exactly the same and because of this they are not bioavailable (13). It should be noted here that these B12 analogues can impair absorption of true vitamin B12 in the body due to competitive absorption, placing vegans and vegetarians who consume lots of soy, algae, and yeast at a greater risk for a deficiency (14)."

Animals absorb B12 analogues in plants, and make it bio-available for us.

what about vitamins?