Hi all!

In my country, veganism is not a word that people associate with health and vitality. If you say that you're a vegan, people think it is merely for ethical reasons (and indeed it is) but they somehow think that going vegan must be extremely unhealthy. The LC-movement is very big in my country, and it's growing bigger each year it seems. It's taboo to talk about carbohydrates and fruits are "sugar, and sugar turns to fat and make you sick". Everybody is high on the lowcarb-diet and everyone on it is totally blind to other ideas.

In my country there is a big kind of guru, a doctor that have convinced 10% of the population that all carbohydrates are bad. Fruit is natural candy and should only be eaten occasionally. Butter, flesh, eggs and oil is health food and potatoes are the devil's work, according to him.

The paleo movement is not as big as the strict lowcarb movement. LCHF, they eat butter and other dairy products as well as all flesh-foods. What is very significant in those people following this diet is their tired eyes, in my opinion. None of them have that vibrant vital-looking gaze that strict vegetarians possess. But they are "big"--they eat high protein.

However, I read once an article written by one of our own leading dietician and I was shocked by the ignorance. This dietician said that a vegan diet could prove helpfully in achieving a greater health... but if you're gonna follow it more than 3 months you have to supplement with omega-3, iron, b-12 and lots other things. Of course she made everyone scared and people just thought "ah, vegan diets cannot be natural". The fact that potatoes alone are sufficient to sustain human life even in a firm and vigorous state of health proves that vegan diets are SIMPLE, easy to follow and there is NO GREATER risk of getting deficiencies than on a regular "normal" diet.

I am afraid, because what I notice is that the raw food vegan movement and the vegan movement is much smaller than the paleo, lowcarb, high animal-food movements. And you cannot discuss health as a vegan in my country, everyone have in their mind that veganism is unhealthy. I am not comfortable in which direction we are heading, more butter, more flesh food, more cream and more fish. Less fruit, not necessarily less greens but overall we are going in a very dangerous direction I think. Just look at this forum, a kind of small one and not so very good-looking (no offense) and then look at the paleo forums. They are large, well-made.

I had a discussion with a young lady about vegan diets vs meatbased diet. She was on a low-carb diet and she told me, that my levels of increased energies, was not due to my vegan, high carb, low fat moderate protein diet, but that my body is signaling to me that "I must go out and kill something! I must massacre some animal and gorge on its flesh because I am apparently dying of slow-phased starvation here.

Haven't you, vegans and vegetarians, ever noticed the same thing? That people that consumes large amounts of animal products are kind of colder people? Look at famous vegetarians/vegans like Gandhi, Dalai Lama hehe for example, they possess these friendly, kind hearted, spiritual gaze whilst if we compare it to the leaders of paleo movement, they look definitely more animalistic. Also something I have noticed over my lifetime, I am quite an observer, is that vegan and vegetarians tend to possess way more self-confidence and courage. In debates, vegans are almost always the most aggressive (which I don't see as a bad thing) whilst the meat-guys are looking more insecure. Take for example the predatory animals in the wild life. Plant-eating animals are always friendly looking, whereas really ALL predators and flesh eating animals have a very cold, uncharming look. Since we are somewhat adapting to our environment, can't it be that if we keep eating flesh foods, that we become more animalistic, more barbaric, more predator-like?

An antelope is programmed from birth to fear a lion. It does not need an experience with a lion before it is able to fear it. And this is because Nature have designed flesh-eating animals to have a look that makes its possible victims fear them. Otherwise no antelope, zebra would survive. A lamb under normal conditions, will not fear a human. They are not designed by nature to fear humans and we are not--our appearances are not designed to inflict fear in the little lamb. Simply because we are not enemies, lambs are not our food and we are not their food. So we go along, side by side, without disturbing each other. At least in an ideal world.

Sharks, lions, tigers, crocodiles, snakes etc may be beautiful animals but they are predators and look like such. I am convinced that if we keep eating animal foods, if we keep hunting, if we keep butchering and brutalizing animals then in sometime in the future we will not have the looks of intelligent, creative, friendly-looking, beautiful humans as we have been and still to a but lesser degree are today, but we will possess looks and behaviors of predators. The fall of man.

Is it just in my country that we are losing the fight? Are the lowcarb-movement really winning?

I had to write a few lines that came to my mind.

Best wishes

I think people (and animals in general) are programmed to select the most calorie-dense foods requiring the least energy to procure. Usually this means fatty foods.

When some guru tells people what they want to hear--that these fatty foods are actually good for them, they are happy.

When they are told that they can eat nothing but plants, they feel deprived.

Very few people have the willpower to eat only plants. Fewer still can do the lowfat plant route.

Even if veg*ism becomes the norm, people will still tend to choose the fattiest junkies veg*n foods. I feel this will happen eventually, with environmental concerns/costs, but companies will have to make it convenient, cheap, and cool. When you can get a good tasty vegan fast food meal anywhere, when the groceries are offering many more low-cost convenient options, then you will see a lot more people eating veg*n.

But I doubt they will be using the v words. Plant-based seems to be less-charged way to put it.

If that were to happen it would be amazing, the massive changes that would happen on this planet if everyone became vegan would be incredible. Even if they all ate junk food the entire world would change.

Sprouted seeds and fermented nuts/seeds are incredibly nutritious. It would be such a shame to go without them imo, but I understand different people have different ideas on things. If your diet makes you happy, good! I'm not going to tell anyone how to eat.

Living Food Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If that were to happen it would be amazing, the
> massive changes that would happen on this planet
> if everyone became vegan would be incredible. Even
> if they all ate junk food the entire world would
> change.
>
> Sprouted seeds and fermented nuts/seeds are
> incredibly nutritious. It would be such a shame to
> go without them imo, but I understand different
> people have different ideas on things. If your
> diet makes you happy, good! I'm not going to tell
> anyone how to eat.


My personal experience is that eating very low fat makes me very alert, energetic and happy, when I increase my fat intake, some days last week I ate so much nuts, avocadoes and I don't feel as good then. But I don't think nuts are bad, they are great for sure but imo, be consumed in very moderate quantities and certainly not be the bulk of the diet. We are designed to seek out carbohydrates (sweet) and I don't think this is a mistake by nature.

I agree that seeds and nuts should not be had in large quantities as-is, but if you sprout and/or ferment them they follow different rules.

Quote

We are designed to seek out carbohydrates (sweet) and I don't think this is a mistake by nature.

We actually seem to be designed to seek out sugary, fatty, and salty foods, which is why fast food chains (for example) can make their food so addicting. That does not mean that we should be eating cheeseburgers and french fries. Using taste as your basis of discrimination as to what to eat is of very limited usefulness.

I am very glad that you are doing so well on a NH diet, many do not seem to be quite so successful. It's also incorrect to say that there is on single perfect diet for humans, because we are all so different and have different needs.

Living Food Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> We are designed to seek out carbohydrates (sweet)
> and I don't think this is a mistake by nature.

I would modify this statement. It seems we do best
on unrefined whole plant foods where the majority of
calories are coming from unrefined whole plant foods,
not concentrated sources of processed plant foods
such as oils or overemphasis on the fattiest parts,
or overemphasis on juicing them and throwing away
the fiber.


> We actually seem to be designed to seek out
> sugary, fatty, and salty foods,

Yes, most of us are programmed to reach for the
most concentrated sources of calories to the exclusion
of healthier choices. Great apes who escape from their
enclosures will make a beeline for the danishes at the
concession stand. My dogs would eat until they exploded
if I gave them that opportunity, and they will always
go for fat above all else.


> It's also incorrect to say that there is on single
> perfect diet for humans, because we are all so
> different and have different needs.

I do not believe this in general. In clinical trials where
people are adhering to the diets, their biomarkers generally
behave exactly as expected. Very high fiber diets based on
whole f+v with little opportunity for cheating produce
massive reductions in LDL almost immediately, massive increases
in protective levels of phytochemicals in the blood, lowered
measures for inflammatory markers, etc.

When people say, "I can't eat fruit because my this or my
that" what they really mean is that they prefer to eat
something else which is almost invariably something fatty with
relatively empty calories.

There are a few exceptions for true allergies which tend to be
rare, but there is always another type of fruit or leaf or
whatever that can be eaten without incidence.

Living Food Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree that seeds and nuts should not be had in
> large quantities as-is, but if you sprout and/or
> ferment them they follow different rules.
>
> We are designed to seek out carbohydrates (sweet)
> and I don't think this is a mistake by nature.
>
> We actually seem to be designed to seek out
> sugary, fatty, and salty foods, which is why fast
> food chains (for example) can make their food so
> addicting. That does not mean that we should be
> eating cheeseburgers and french fries. Using taste
> as your basis of discrimination as to what to eat
> is of very limited usefulness.
>
> I am very glad that you are doing so well on a NH
> diet, many do not seem to be quite so successful.
> It's also incorrect to say that there is on single
> perfect diet for humans, because we are all so
> different and have different needs.


There is a therapeutic value in cutting out protein, carbohydrate and fat but we all have the same essential needs, we are one species, not billions of different kinds. We have the same physiological needs, rest, air, sunshine, sleep, food, sex, whatever..

And yes, we are designed to seek out salt, but there exists no concentrated form of sodium in nature. Salt is a processed food, so is oil and sugar.
And yes, fatty food we tend to like. What I mean is, that the normal appetite of a human will not enjoy flesh-food and we can only enjoy flesh-food if we spice it up with condiments. We also, unlike carnivorous and omnivorous animals, have no taste buds on our tongues for amino acids. They do, we do not. This is a clear proof that humans are naturally vegetarians and I can't believe this argument isn't used in the debate more.

Quote

I do not believe this in general. In clinical trials where
people are adhering to the diets, their biomarkers generally
behave exactly as expected. Very high fiber diets based on
whole f+v with little opportunity for cheating produce
massive reductions in LDL almost immediately, massive increases
in protective levels of phytochemicals in the blood, lowered
measures for inflammatory markers, etc.

Of course they do these things, but what about the long term? What about the differences in how people process nutrients and the differences in how much of a particular nutrient someone needs? All of the good things you listed above can be undone by one single nutrient lacking in the diet. It's like people who go raw vegan and after years are severely deficient in b12. They're getting all these nutrients, all these phytochemicals etc but they aren't doing them any good just because they're missing one single nutrient. The exact same diet that works for one person may end up making another person dangerously deficient in one nutrient or another because we all have different biochemical makeups, different genetics, and different needs. Some people absolutely do better on higher fat diets than on low fat diets, and it has nothing to do with willpower or anything of the sort. I know people about whom this is true and who wrecked their health on low-fat diets. I also know people who have had problems on higher-fat diets. See? We're all different.

Quote

We have the same physiological needs, rest, air, sunshine, sleep, food, sex, whatever..

Sex is not a need so much as a want.

Quote

And yes, we are designed to seek out salt, but there exists no concentrated form of sodium in nature. Salt is a processed food, so is oil and sugar.
And yes, fatty food we tend to like. What I mean is, that the normal appetite of a human will not enjoy flesh-food and we can only enjoy flesh-food if we spice it up with condiments. We also, unlike carnivorous and omnivorous animals, have no taste buds on our tongues for amino acids. They do, we do not. This is a clear proof that humans are naturally vegetarians and I can't believe this argument isn't used in the debate more.

There actually are concentrated forms of sodium in nature, they are called salt licks. Deer and many other animals will go there and lick the salt (hence the name) to supplement their diet with sodium and other minerals.

Humans actually can taste various amino acids, a common example of this is the 'umami' taste.

I don't mean to shoot you down lol, but I think it's better that you learn which arguments have holes in them so you can improve your arguments Better to be shown your mistakes in a friendly environment than to have someone viciously point them out to you in a hostile one.

After all, you have a whole country to convince to go vegan it sounds like. Hone your arguments here and get cracking!

Quote

Since we are somewhat adapting to our environment, can't it be that if we keep eating flesh foods, that we become more animalistic, more barbaric, more predator-like?

Yes! Eating another being's flesh is a very bad idea, especially when they were slaughtered in conditions of extreme pain and terror. Under such circumstances that anguish and terror and rage becomes infused into the meat and is incorporated into us when we eat it.

Living, a prudent vegan diet includes a reliable source of B12. No established clinician would ever recommend otherwise. So that's out.

As far as low fat vs high fat, this is definitely a vexing issue. I do believe that people who are habituated to very high fat diets are miserable when fat is severely restricted. But we have to consider the actual dietary requirements, which are very small--only a couple of grams per day.

I myself was miserable on a no-added-fat diet. After a few months I binged, then I relaxed a bit. I now aim for 20-25% fat which is pretty low by most people's standards. I think this is a good goal, readily achievable by motivated people. I honestly do not think they are doing themselves any favors by increasing the amount of relatively empty calories in their diets. But if this is the only way that they can stay raw and maintain high levels of unprocessed unjuiced f+v, it's a compromise.

I think the most important lessons come from our wild primate relatives. Our diets were like theirs for about 90% of our history. They do not get a lot of fat. What makes us different that we suddenly require all this oil?

Nothing but what we are accustomed to, bombarded with, and made way too easy to obtain.

Imagine how different would things be if fat calories cost 10x as much as carbohydrate calories in the supermarket.

Hi arugula,

B12 was just an example I used. There have also been many cases of vegans and raw vegans being deficient in vitamin d, calcium, protein, selenium, zinc, and various other nutrients. The case I am trying to make here is that sometimes just eating fruits + vegetables is not enough for everyone to thrive, and that no one diet fits all. As I said before, two people can eat the exact same diet and have vastly different blood test results, so that should say something about how individual we can be in our needs.

As for fat, 20-25% is much better than the 10% espoused by 80-10-10ers in my opinion. I would be very wary of only eating a couple grams of fat a day, fat is an essential nutrient and health problems would undoubtedly spring up eventually for the vast majority of people trying so strict a diet. Something to think about: maybe the reason why it is so hard for people to stick to an ultra-low-fat diet is not because they desire fatty foods even though they are bad for us, perhaps it is because they desire fatty foods because they need them. You and I may disagree on this and that's fine, but I am 100% convinced that fat is an essential nutrient and even 10% of calories as fat is far too low for most people. But as I always say - if you're doing well on it, that's awesome! Keep doing what works for you, just be aware of potential drawbacks. With 20-25% fat you shouldn't run into any problems, especially since you're consuming some cooked foods so that you're probably not eating the excessive quantities of fruit that some do. Moderate fruit intake seems to work great for the majority of people, but basing your diet on it seems to be a recipe for disaster for most. People on a fruitarian diet seem to go downhill much more rapidly than people on the SAD even, and it seems to be a combination of micronutrient deficiencies and fat deficiencies.

Quote

I think the most important lessons come from our wild primate relatives. Our diets were like theirs for about 90% of our history. They do not get a lot of fat. What makes us different that we suddenly require all this oil?

There is a theory that our brains started to get much more advanced after we started consuming lots of fat. But then there is another theory saying that eating fruit is essential for the wellbeing of our brains. People come up with lots of theories



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2015 04:03AM by Living Food.

Quote

maintain high levels of unprocessed unjuiced f+v, it's a compromise.

I find juicing to be a very important cornerstone of the diet, and I also believe that certain types of food processing (namely sprouting and fermenting) are highly beneficial. I can however certainly understand your viewpoint as to wanting to consume the fiber.

Yes, I do belive our GI-tracts are mostly frugivorous--with room for modest quantities of animals foods of which I choose not to partake of for ethical reasons.

My problem with modern fruit is that the nutrient profiles tend to be very different compared to the wild fruits that howler monkeys eat (mostly figs). Our modern cultivars are much sweeter and lower in protein and minerals than theirs.

My compromise is to include modest amounts of cooked legumes. I would never suggest that this is optimal! I don't know what optimal is. But I guess my fear of excess fat which I know to be empty calories exceeds my fear of modest amounts of cooked foods.

Also, somewhere along the line we adapted to cooked starches, and this is one way of making me feel more satisfied and sticking with a very high amount of raw foods in my diet in the long term. I can't say this is best, but it is what I am doing now.

We may be more alike than different, ultimately.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2015 04:19AM by arugula.

Living Food Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do not believe this in general. In clinical
> trials where
> people are adhering to the diets, their biomarkers
> generally
> behave exactly as expected. Very high fiber diets
> based on
> whole f+v with little opportunity for cheating
> produce
> massive reductions in LDL almost immediately,
> massive increases
> in protective levels of phytochemicals in the
> blood, lowered
> measures for inflammatory markers, etc.
>
> Of course they do these things, but what about the
> long term? What about the differences in how
> people process nutrients and the differences in
> how much of a particular nutrient someone needs?
> All of the good things you listed above can be
> undone by one single nutrient lacking in the diet.
> It's like people who go raw vegan and after years
> are severely deficient in b12. They're getting all
> these nutrients, all these phytochemicals etc but
> they aren't doing them any good just because
> they're missing one single nutrient. The exact
> same diet that works for one person may end up
> making another person dangerously deficient in one
> nutrient or another because we all have different
> biochemical makeups, different genetics, and
> different needs. Some people absolutely do better
> on higher fat diets than on low fat diets, and it
> has nothing to do with willpower or anything of
> the sort. I know people about whom this is true
> and who wrecked their health on low-fat diets. I
> also know people who have had problems on
> higher-fat diets. See? We're all different.
>
> We have the same physiological needs, rest, air,
> sunshine, sleep, food, sex, whatever..
>
> Sex is not a need so much as a want.
>
> And yes, we are designed to seek out salt, but
> there exists no concentrated form of sodium in
> nature. Salt is a processed food, so is oil and
> sugar.
> And yes, fatty food we tend to like. What I mean
> is, that the normal appetite of a human will not
> enjoy flesh-food and we can only enjoy flesh-food
> if we spice it up with condiments. We also, unlike
> carnivorous and omnivorous animals, have no taste
> buds on our tongues for amino acids. They do, we
> do not. This is a clear proof that humans are
> naturally vegetarians and I can't believe this
> argument isn't used in the debate more.
>
> There actually are concentrated forms of sodium in
> nature, they are called salt licks. Deer and many
> other animals will go there and lick the salt
> (hence the name) to supplement their diet with
> sodium and other minerals.
>
> Humans actually can taste various amino acids, a
> common example of this is the 'umami' taste.
>
> I don't mean to shoot you down lol, but I think
> it's better that you learn which arguments have
> holes in them so you can improve your arguments
> Better to be shown your mistakes in a friendly
> environment than to have someone viciously point
> them out to you in a hostile one.
>
> After all, you have a whole country to convince to
> go vegan it sounds like. Hone your arguments here
> and get cracking!


Are you sure umami is amino acid? And we don't taste it with pleasure. The only tastes we enjoy is sugar and salt, not aminos. But thanks for pointing it out however look at this, shows clearly we are a frugivorous animal: [www.werone.co]

[en.wikipedia.org]



"Many foods that may be consumed daily are rich in umami. Naturally occurring glutamate can be found in meats and vegetables, whereas inosinate comes primarily from meats and guanylate from vegetables. Thus, umami taste is common to foods that contain high levels of L-glutamate, IMP and GMP, most notably in fish, shellfish, cured meats, mushrooms, vegetables (e.g., ripe tomatoes, Chinese cabbage, spinach, celery, etc.) or green tea, and fermented and aged products (e.g., cheeses, shrimp pastes, soy sauce, etc.).[26]"

And, the best argument against flesh-eating IS THAT HUMANS HAVE NO HUNTING INSTINCT! WE DON'T WANT TO KILL ANIMALS!

"And, the best argument against flesh-eating IS THAT HUMANS HAVE NO HUNTING INSTINCT! WE DON'T WANT TO KILL ANIMALS!"

Humans were endowed with the intelligence to make tools to kill animals and self destruct. That is the fall of man.

Don't worry Vitality. Everyone may not become a vegan in our lifetime, but there will be improvements (if our planet survives - with us and other animals on it). Today's science supports a vegetarian/vegan diet or at least a more plant-based diet. This has been acknowledged by no less than the United States Dept. of Agriculture (USDA, amazingly)!

If you like, you can show people this:

According to the Advisory Committee for the USDA's 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans:

"The major findings regarding sustainable diets were that a diet higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in calories and animal based foods is more health promoting and is associated with less environmental impact than is the current U.S. diet."

[health.gov]

From the perspective of many of us, this statement may be moderate, but we're moving in the right direction. It's good.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 10:26AM by suncloud.

RawPracticalist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "And, the best argument against flesh-eating IS
> THAT HUMANS HAVE NO HUNTING INSTINCT! WE DON'T
> WANT TO KILL ANIMALS!"
>
> Humans were endowed with the intelligence to make
> tools to kill animals and self destruct. That is
> the fall of man.


That doesnt matter, there is no reason why we just should accept our fall and not do something about it. Our true nature is not predatory and we should instead struggle as hard as we can to get back to our pristine, divine state of PURITY. Humans are violaters of natural law and when we learn to obey, we reach paradise - which will exist on earth.