It's not natural (how we evolved) but it's workable for many people if you're careful about it.

coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> by vegan i mean never knowingly taking life and
> making an effort to ensure that one's actions
> don't result in harm to other beings.


Awesome....appears some of us understand the concept. Not sure why it's such a hard thing to understand for other people, but maybe this will help explain it to those that do not "get it."

i'm thinking i should add to that

often i come across something that i never realized wasn't vegan, like craft glue, and look for a vegan option. so being vegan to me means being willing to adjust one's lifestyle as one learns more and more. and being grateful for the added knowledge and the chance to refine one's behavior instead of resentful or remorseful, that's helpful too.

joanne81 wrote this in another thread today

Donald Watson, who coined the word "vegan" defined it in this way:

"Veganism is a philosophy & way of life which seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all forms of cruelty to animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose."

I just wanted to throw this out there. It seems like the most sensible approach.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2008 02:21PM by coco.

I agree with you 100% Coco. It's about that level of awareness. Some people want it and/or have it....and some don't.

-David Z. Mason

WWW.RawFoodFarm.com

coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> often i come across something that i never
> realized wasn't vegan, like craft glue, and look
> for a vegan option. so being vegan to me means
> being willing to adjust one's lifestyle as one
> learns more and more.

amen on this one...well all of them but i really loved this one....proactive awareness. that`s why too me it`s so important not to judge, we have no clue what other peeps know or don`t know. for instance when i got my golden retriever 11 years ago i didn`t know the horror of puppy mills so i bought her from a pet store. she is the best dog i have ever owned and has always been healthy. after i got her i started researching about food and researching her bloodline and i learned all about puppy mills. i was horrified and ever since then i have been trying to educate others about puppystore puppies and puppymills. my next dog, fred my papillon is a recue from a puppymill where he was used as a stud dog. it`s all about awareness. i think as we keep searching and learning our ideals can and should change.
patty

Maybe, maybe not. There is no proof yet anywhere on what is the optimal human diet. My feeling is that at least 75 percent of the diet should come from raw fruits & vegetables. But I keep an open mind regarding the other 25 percent, because I think it's important to QUESTION and seek truth.

I don't question the fact that it's wrong to use animals when we don't absolutely have to. I work my diet around that. So far no nutrient has been identified that can't be gotten either from plants, fungi, or bacteria.

Coco,

I would just stop eating that glue.


Lee

[www.dhamma.org]

"May all beings be happy."

hee hee hee! i'll tell my kids too

Quote

Posted by: flipperjan
Date: August 12, 2008

I don't want to doubt you at all but I have read in your posts that you cannot stray from the 100% raw path or you begin to crave all sorts of foods that you don't really want - so how natural is it for you really, at this point in time? I'm not trying to be mean or clever just posing a thought - I hope you don't mind.

I have reflected on your post and I can say that I still believe that an all fresh raw diet is the healthiest diet I can eat. I cannot think of a better diet for health and wellness and that is why I continue to try, try, try again to achieve my previous all raw lifestyle. I am happy to report that I have been all raw for a week now and I feel confident that my persistence will prevail and that I will persevere as long as it takes and that any slips will be minimal and temporary as I definitely do not think cooking and processing food is the natural diet for humanity.

I scanned every post and didn't see the obvious. One only has
to look at the Tooth and Bowel structure of Man to determine
our natural diet. I'd say that Raw Veganism, or Fruitarianism,
is our Natural Diet....WY

The question has built in assumptions---just like the classic example "Have you stopped beating your wife, YET."

Let us go back and look at the first post in the thread again:

"Some people within the raw food movement say that veganism is not a natural diet for man.
I would like to explore this concept further - what are your opinions, what have you read etc to agree or disagree with this?"

The assumptions are that there is such a thing as "natural diet", And by implication that such a thing is "Good", and thirdly that it is stable. And probably fourthly that we know what is "Good", as well.

The process of evolution evolves eyes, not because they are wonderful or to enable us to see beauty but because they are adaptive at certain times and places for survival. Thus when fish take up life in a cave that later gets sealed off we find blind fish, after many generations.
Another example: Loosely speaking, animals grew legs when they came ashore, from the primeavil sea, but begin to loose them when they return to the sea: seals, (otters, still have use of their paws), walrus etc. and finally whales are totally adapted after millions of years only to life in water.

Many adaptations would seem to carry a heavy price from a human standpoint. If eucalyptus trees die out from disease, so do the kola bears because they can only eat one food: eucalyptus leaves.

Thus all species exist only in dynamic relation ship to physical environment, and biological pressures from other species.

Because it is all dynamic there is no one time when adaptation is ideal. What is ideal is the ability to survive imperfection after imperfection, only retaining the ability to continue to evolve and stay one step ahead of extinction.
This is all life can do. But it is human to desire utopia, certainty, and moral knowledge.
This is mainly my "philosophical" view point.

Examining the anatomy is another matter that has been done better than I could do here:

[www.beyondveg.com]

[www.beyondveg.com]

It would seem most so called Frugivores, whom we resemble actually eat 5-10% insects, eggs, and small mammals as part of their diet. This is conveniently ignored by those who have a Vegan agenda to convert others to a view point that they wish to portray as intended from "on high".
But people will debate this stuff forever.
That is why I focused above on what I feel is the larger context.


[www.ask.com]

[news.nationalgeographic.com]

Happyway- I like your post

"It would seem most so called Frugivores, whom we resemble actually eat 5-10% insects, eggs, and small mammals as part of their diet. This is conveniently ignored by those who have a Vegan agenda to convert others to a view point that they wish to portray as intended from "on high".
But people will debate this stuff forever.
That is why I focused above on what I feel is the larger context. "

I agree, this is why I don't believe that the raw gurus should push veganism, but should just highlight the benefits of a diet high in raw fruits/vegetables. If you want to be 100% raw vegan, good for you, I applaud you. But I don't think veganism should be presented as our true diet. There is no true diet.

-I think pushing a vegan attitude and commitment is a good thing. I don't think even the hoity-toity vegan gurus think they are 100% in some sort of absolute sense. It's about the reasonable process and commitment.

-David Z. Mason

WWW.RawFoodFarm.com

Yes, David one aspect of raw diet that I like is the sense of taking as much responsibility as possible for my own health, and a willingness to experiment and learn.

Not all primates eat small mammals and eggs, the chimps are known for killing monkeys occasionally when they stray into territory looking for food. They only do it a couple of times a year. It is not essential to their diet\however. Bonoboes similar to chimps do not kill other animals and eat them and are non aggressive.

A study I heard of in Tony Wright's book stated that we are actually more designed to be frugivore than primates.

Ariel55 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Bonoboes
> similar to chimps do not kill other animals and
> eat them and are non aggressive.

Accoding to Wikipedia on Bonobos ( [en.wikipedia.org] )

"This primate is mainly frugivorous, but supplements its diet with leaves and sometimes small vertebrates (such as flying squirrels and infant duikers) and invertebrates."

Rob

--
Rob Hull - Funky Raw
My blog: [www.rawrob.com]

Thanks for info on bonobo, the info I saw on a wild life documentary a few years ago that studied them for a year or so this particular group of bonobos was not seen to kill during this particular research study and it was presumed at the time they did not whereas it was well known that chimps ocassionally did. Oh well it seems they may do then as well

However Primates do not need meat to survive. Insect matter is different as clearly they will consume insects and insect eggs on the vegetation and fruit.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 08/23/2008 05:08PM by Ariel55.

A link below details what our natural diet is and it isn't designed to digest meat as we do not have enough acid as other meat eaters do.

[www.jewishveg.com]

Also listen to Dr David Jubb on what we are designed to eat, he is a physiologist and blood specialist and microscopist studying human cells.

He believes we are designed to be frugivore His studies and observations show animal products to be not good for health, He has been following a raw path for many years.

[www.oneradionetwork.com]

I worked for a few years with bonobos, chimpanzees, and orangutans at the Yerkes Primate Center of Emory University in Atlanta. This was a language research lab, not an medical research lab. I was a entry-level research assistant, and my main duties were to clean cages, feed the primates, and generally hang out with the animals in symbolic language-learning pursuits.

These were all captive animals, obviously, so it was sort of like studying and caring for prisoners. But the lead scientists worked very hard to give the animals a diet that would be as close to what they believed the animals ate in the wild.

The bonobos and chimps ate all kinds of stuff. They were offered a dizzying variety of fresh, wholesome, organic foods from the local farmer's market. They were offered the very best of food, all the local, organic stuff we could find. Diet was huge in the budget. Yet despite a wide array of choice, they craved candy. They loved M&Ms, for example. Any candy bar or processed sugar product that they knew about was what they wanted. Always.

They loved those disgusting "Vienna sausage" things in slimy goo-filled cans. They loved Spam. They adored Coke, and all sugary, crappy drinks that are terrible for their health. We gave them these things in very tiny amounts, but they always wanted them first, second, third, etc., and they would constantly request the most sugary garbage on the menu. They requested via the lexigram system that linguists designed to fascilitate symbolic communication between the researchers and the apes.

When denied processed candy and colas and Vienna sausages (and other processed meat) they wanted the next sugary items on the menu. They wanted bananas. Plain and simple: bananas. I know it's a stereotype, but it's true. One banana after another...

The other sweet fruits like cherries, oranges, kiwis, grapes, etc. they ate with half-hearted boredom. They yelped and screamed and hooted for M&Ms. They eagerly requested one banana after the next. You work with primates for a while and you just know what they want to eat and what they don't want to eat. It's simple. It would be obvious to you, too, if you worked there. They did not relish fruit. They ate it with shrugged shoulders, and facial expressions of boredom. Again, these were inmates. And spoiled inmates. They could have anything they wanted.

They would eat a tiny bite of apple or pear, for example, then drop the rest until it rotted in the cage yard, or until I or another Research Tech One would later pick it up and throw it in the trash. With the exception of bananas, I don't think I ever saw a bonobo or a chimp eat an entire fruit.

They didn't much care for nuts, either. Oh, they like peanuts. Shelled peanuts, and they like to peel them without their hands, that is, peel them using only their lips. But they ate shelled peanuts like this because they were bored. That's just my opinion, of course. But they looked bored while eating shelled peanuts. ho-hum... They didn't give a rip about walnuts, pecans, pistachios, or any of the other expensive nuts we offered them, macadamia nuts, Brazil nuts, whatever. They just about never asked for a walnut, lol...

We rarely gave bonobos and trogs any cooked meat. Maybe chicken or beef once or twice a month. When we did, they preferred the meat raw, and they ate it quickly. With cooked meat, they loved the skin, and sometimes would eat only the skin and toss the rest away, to be cleaned up later.

As a general rule, they're into salty stuff, just like we are. Fatty, salty, sweet stuff. That's what they want. They didn't care much for cheese, or anything dairy. Oh yes, we did give them kefir and yogurt from time to time, and as you can probably guess by now, they liked the most sugary kind of yogurt, and never the plain. To trick them into getting more healthy fruits like berries, we would mix up blueberries and blackberries and raspberries into the yogurt. They would eat this, but they weren't too crazy about it. Bread wasn't real popular, either, nor any of our grains like rice, quinoa, beans, lentils, none of that stuff was often requested by them. We gave them beans, anyway, and they ate it, ho hum.

The orangutans, on the other hand, were much different. The captive orangutans did love fruit, they loved it very much, and they ate the fruit with happy faces. You can just tell by watching them eat. They didn't care so much for the candy and the meat and the colas. We only had two orangutans, and I was much more impressed by their diet than by the bonobo's or the chimp's diet.

As for bonobos, chimps, orangs eating vegetables? HA!! They rarely asked for vegetables, and when I would give them, say, a head of cabbage they would just throw it around. They would pick at it, maybe peel off a leaf and sort of nibble it and look at me with disgust. Sometimes they would throw it at the cage. Reading their minds regarding food is surprisingly easy.

Sometimes they would start little wars and throw heads of lettuce at each other. It was all very dramatic and noisy, these political wars. They scream and pound the cage or the ground, kick up dirt or the pinebark that lined the outoor cage yard, and they would raise their back hair and bluff charge each other. They can be terrifying and brutal, but mostly it's bluff and politics. They like drama -- screaming, throwing things, charging, or just staring aggressively and swaying their great bodies to and fro. Sometimes it got physical and someone would get hurt. Bitten, mostly, and sometimes deep bites requiring stitches. Captive bonobos and chimps are not nice animals. There is almost nothing very romantic about them. They are angry, bitter, often frightened, very eager to escape, and extremely noisy.

But I don't want to paint too negative of a picture, either. They do have a sense of humor. They can be goofballs and pranksters. They can be sly, and if they had larynges and could speak, I would imagine they'd have a caustic wit.

They're also intensely smart and manipulitive. And remember every one of them is an individual, with his or her own likes and dislikes. Just like we are. So I can't really say... "They hate vegetables..." What I can say, though, is "Tamuli hates carrots, but sorta likes beets. Panbanisha doesn't like watermelon very much, but she loves to peel the skins off grapes, eat the insides, and discard the skin and the seeds. Kanzi is a fat tub of lard and eats all the sugary crap he can stuff down his throat..."

One more sweeping generalization, though, is that they are very, very political. Very much into the hiararchy of power. And the power struggles and shifts, the changing aliances are constant, and very much like baboons in this way. They are so very much like we are. Google "Frans de Waal Chimpanzee Politics." I doubt anyone who has worked with chimps would ever believe man was made from the rib of Adam. The political similarities between us are just too overwhelming. We have evolved from apes, and our diet has, too.

And so Arugula is dead-on with this comment: "I think it's natural for people to evolve, to grow, to change, to become something better. Since we discovered that we can make veganism work, it's natural to go vegan. We are not slaves to our primitive and bloody pasts." Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus represent our primitive and bloody pasts. Working with them makes this entirely clear, and most people with the ability to observe and to think rationally quickly see the obvious.

Also, these animals love, love, love sugarcane stalks. They munch the long brown stalks for hours, and when their emotional baggage would fling violently open again, like clockwork, they would swing available sugarcane stalks like baseball bats. These would become sweet, sugary weapons. No natural food was revered, even bananas. But to use, say, cola as a weapon to throw into someone's eyes would be absolutely unthinkable. Maybe water to throw in the eyes, but the Mountain Dew, or whatever, was cherished.

Sorry this was so very long. It's a rainy, boring Saturday! But my summary is that judging from the behavior of captive apes (except the orangs) these individuals would eat a SAD whenever and however they could get away with it.

Shane thank you for sharing your real world personal experience in this matter.
Some will chime in about how it's meaningless because they were captive, however captive tigers don't eat grass, and captive zebra don't eat spam.
Lot's of food for thought here :-)

mira Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> A vegan diet is certainly healthier

Oh really? Good luck proving that.

5 million years of evolution says otherwise.

There isn't a single civilization that is/was vegan or even vegetarian. Eggs are a staple in every culture. You're out of your mind if you think eating an egg isn't natural.

Were are ancestors vegan?

When getting food is the most important thing in life, as it was for our ancestors, early humans could not afford to miss anything about animal behavior. The Bushmen of southern Africa, for example, are intimately acquainted with the way of life of more than fifty animals. They can follow a herd of antelope even over hard dry ground which holds only the very faintest impressions of hoofprints, and they can detect the almost invisible hoofprint pattern that distinguishes a wounded animal from the healthy.

Do not get me wrong. I am a raw vegan. I don't eat animals. I believe it's the best way to maintain a healthy human body. I'm also an ardent environmental and animal activist. I believe in healthy ecosystems that sustain the widest, most diverse species of life. I've also shot freelance film and video for PETA. If you've looked at PETA's marketing, you've seen my stuff. I LOVE the work of PETA. So do not mistake me when I lay out the scientific evidence here concerning veganism and the evolution of people...

But evidence suggests that the impact of big game animal hunting, fire, and cooking those animals made us who we are today. The size of the human brain in early man nearly doubled during the rise of hunting. Big game hunting expanded our territories, it taught us to know the wider world, to experience novel sights and sounds and smells and tastes, big game hunting taught us patience and the art of waiting, it taught us self-control, it taught us that every course of action was performed for the group rather than for the immediate satisfaction of the individual -- we waited for animals to kill at water holes and salt licks, we waited for animals to look away while we stalked them, we waited after the kill so we did not devour all the meat on the spot but saved it for others waiting at the home base.

Meat eating changed everything about us. Once it had arisen, it was a way of exploiting new sources of food. It gained momentum in your ancestors and mine, and it changed us physically, psychologically, and socially. In the process of meeting a simple need, we created new conditions, new partly man-made environments, and a whole complex of new needs.

In fact, regular cooking of new animal kills may have reshaped the human brain. How? It helped reshape the contours of the face. According to one theory, softer, cooked foods put less of a strain on the jaws and jaw muscles, which became smaller along with our molars. This in turn had an effect on the design of the rest of the skull. Massive overhanging brow ridges and other thick, bony protuberances had evolved largely as structures to which powerful jaw muscles could help us chew raw food. Jaws were reduced as muscles dwindled in size due to softer, cooked food. Cooking our food gave us smaller, shaplier faces. It's a common, well-accepted theory that we have the faces we have now because of the animal cooking skills of our ancestors...

Okay, listen, with the cooking of hunted animal food, the skull itself became thinner over long, long periods of time. A thinner skull eased the way for an expansion of the cranium to house a bigger brain. A bigger brain, well... YOU are the product of a bigger brain, lol...

Do not argue for a natural vegan diet. Evidence goes against you. Hunting for animals, capturing animals, cooking those animals with fire, all of this promoted who you are today, your basic physiology, the very shape of your head, your face, your jaw, your teeth, the functioning of your brain, how you think, how you act, what you say, what you believe... on and on...

But eating meat is not the way of the future. The way of the future is something entirely different. Maybe that entirely different thing is veganism. I don't know. But I believe it's the best of what we have... But I don't know, and no one else does either!

Please, though, do not try to say that we are who we are today because we were vegans in our evolutionary past. This makes us look like imbiciles...

cataplexy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There isn't a single civilization that is/was
> vegan or even vegetarian. Eggs are a staple in
> every culture. You're out of your mind if you
> think eating an egg isn't natural.

Cool message. Can you support it? I wonder if you can cite references because I'm sure there are examples of huminoid civilizations that are/were vegan and/or vegetarian. A quick search may find them? Also, I'm sure that eating an egg may be natural. Whatever that term means... But this thread is about planetary sustainability, environmental protection, and healthy human nutrition. Is eating an egg healthy for evolving humans, is it healthy for the planet, is it healthy for the chickens that suffer unspeakable crimes because of our odd appetites?

There are better ways to obtain the nutrients in an egg than by eating an egg.

Thanks for posts, I think everyone agrees we have evolved to eat animal products. No one is saying that, that is misinterpretation. I have been aware of this info for a long time on primates and it is something that has interested me and wanted to know a little more about. Although I'm sure there are others that know far more on them.

I posted a link by david jubb a physiologist, extremely exeperienced some fascinating info that you might not have heard before.ie our guts when functionally optimally can make its own nutrients.

Much of the world is vegan out of necessity and yet people make such a fuss about veganism not being natural and that they got ill in 2 years or even 2 months sometimes. We can eat what we choose too. I agree that our ancestors ate meat and that primates do and that we have evolved too. Tony Wright book cites that we were originally fruivores and our diets changed and that led to changes in the brain. It is interesting, We don't really know for certain what our true origins are.

He cites as evidence that as we synthesise vitamin d we were not designed to get it from animal foods and that we do not synthesise vitamin c evidence that we are predominatly plant eaters. There is more info on the brain and how it changed in the book.

Don't get me wrong I am aware that our ancestors ate meat and that some primates do, but the primates don't eat meat often from studies I've watched or read about. Maybe there are all sorts of different reasons but 2 reasons that were given one was that there was shortage of food and the monkey strayed into chimps territory and on one ocassion the chimps went looking for monkeys as there was a lack of food. Maybe they have also evolved to eat meat too.

I also believe that reducing animal foods is the way of the future for eco reasons ie it takes 10 pounds of grain to make a pound of animal protein and 50/60% of grain grown is fed to cattle We don't need them I have no doubt. There is not one single nutrient in an animal product that is not in a plant food.


If interested info some might not have heard before then listen to Dr David Jubb. Or read his book cell rejuvenation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2008 05:40AM by Ariel55.

In a talk given this weekend by Doug Graham, he shared that 90% of the grain grown is fed to animals, 10% is purchased by people. But 90% of the revenues come from sales to people, and only 10% of the revenues comes from the animal industry. What this mean is that people pay a few dollars a pound for grains, but for animal feed you pay the same amount for 100 pounds of grains. It also means that human consumption of grains subsidizes the feeding of farm animals.

This same sort of economics is also true of corn oil and olive oil. The oils provide the bulk of the revenues and subsidize the feeding of farm animal with the by products of these products.

As for caged primates preferring SAD foods, this is true of many animals. In Yosemite national park (and other parks) bears prefer people food over their natural diet, including their diet of fish and fresh meats. Why? Because the SAD foods are high in calories, high in salt, and are very addictive (no surprises here). Just because you can get a bear into eating potato chips, perhaps even exclusively potato chips if given the opportunity, this does not mean the bears optimal diet is potato chips, nor does it mean that a bear is now a vegetarian rather than an omnivore. Or if a person feeds their dog a vegan diet high in fat, this does not make the dog a vegan, as it still has the digestive tract of a carnivore.

The question about primates being frugivore versus omnivore is this: is a human more adapted to discovering and obtaining fresh fruits with its bare hands say versus catching a rabbit? And eating a piece of fruit in its natural state versus eating the rabbit in its natural state, which one is more appealing to your average person?

there is no average person!
what are you thinking??
eskimo
polynesian islander
african pygmy
austraillian aborigonie

I mean really?????

Re: Is veganism a natural diet for man
Posted by: happyway
Date: 08/24/2008 03:17AM

as I said in my previous post (Date: August 22, 2008 06:22PM):

"Some will chime in about how it's meaningless because they were captive, however captive tigers don't eat grass, and captive zebra don't eat spam. "

Suppose we are like the fish that lost its sight (previous post August 22)...but only half way through the process?
Suppose we are like otters and seals gradually losing their legs as they once again return to the ocean from which they came?
Suppose all species are in constant transition, never reaching an ideal stable state?
And on top of this pre-existing continual flux, Humans have been actively "interfering" with evolution at an accelerating rate.
Cesarian birth, wearing glasses, dental work...most of us wouldn't even be alive in a "natural" world. and Let's not forget clothes. Or money.

Re: "is a human more adapted to discovering and obtaining fresh fruits with its bare hands say versus catching a rabbit? "
...well the human hand seems to do quite well with guns and boomerangs and slingshots and spears and stone tools and fishooks and nets...in fact it seems to enjoy making stuff to do anything and everything including plenty of killing.

Humans always want to impose their ideas on the world. Ideas that they unconsciously hope will make them safe. The sun revolves around the earth. The earth is the center of the universe. Evolution equals progress. Humans are the pinnacle of evolution. The past equals the future. We should be "moral" ("human consumption of grains subsidizes the feeding of farm animals" and if we are "moral" then we will be in alignment with "cosmic purpose" and everything will somehow be better, I suppose.

Obviously a diet that is more raw than SAD is better...but I don't believe anyone has mapped out the "new territory" accurately...see for example this article from the Natural Hygiene Society itself.
What is the optimal diet in NH?" [naturalhygienesociety.org]

And I for one am quite content without a map, although it has taken a long time to let go of the old "security blanket"...

from [naturalhygienesociety.org]

go to site for accompanying chart

"What is the optimal diet according to NH?


Introduction
The diet question is central in Natural Hygiene.
The internal splits in the 1900's were caused mainly by "the great diet debacle" in Natural Hygiene. Hygienists in general agree that the optimal diet for humans equals the diet that ancient primitive peoples thrived on. The big disagreement comes with defining this ancient diet in detail.

Why is human diet so central in NH? Because the science of removing disease and achieving optimal health is based on going back to an optimal way of eating and living. Start eating and living optimally, and you will automatically, in a steady pace, recover from disease and reach a high state of health, without drugs. And of all the factors of health, diet is the most important.


No INHS-defined diet
We do not define the best diet centrally in INHS. Instead we have several influential theories, promoted by different NH doctors. Today e.g. the paleolithic low-carb diet, the instincto-omnivorous diet, and the lacto-ovo vegetarian diet, see below.

But, we have several members including doctors that prefer Dr. Shelton's vegan (100% plant-based) diet concept from 1928, slightly modified, or even the high-fruit (fruitarian) version of this diet. Individuals using any diet are welcome in INHS.
But INHS does not recommend any vegan or fruitarian diet theories to the public. Why? Because there are too many question marks. Too many hygienists and others have died or become severely damaged using these diets for a long time. A short time is fine. But these diets are inadequate and must be supplemented (e.g. with B12 and omega-3). Dr. Shelton himself was a lacto-vegetarian (used clabbered milk), as was Dr. Esser (used goat milk), even though they preferred and promoted a diet without animal foods. The vegan and fruitarian diets can truly be called idealistic diets, not realistic diets.
Click here for an INHS position statement about diet.
And click here for more about the case against veganism.


Transitional diets
A transition diet is a good but not absolutely optimal diet - it can be any step towards the optimal, e.g. your current diet with added green salads and with less grains.
There are many good diets that mimick primitive peoples' diets from about 100 years ago, that can be called transitional. E.g. some diets that use raw & cooked foods, spices, grains and other foods which are not theoretically optimal, but still at one time resulted in almost-perfect primitive health and strength.
Always remember that improved diet alone may not be enough for excellent health, but that we need improved lifestyle as well - more sun, sleep, exercise, peace of mind, joy, etc. Sometimes it can be very positive to just change the order of eating, not the actual diet. Sometimes cutting down on the amount of food is rewarding. So there are many roads to take.


The key to a good transition diet - avoid deficiency & minimize toxicity
Keep it really simple. Just removing the most toxic items from your diet (preserved foods with additives), minimize other toxins (including white sugar & flour), and increase vital nutrients by eating more raw foods (salads, veggies, oysters, etc.) will go a long way.
Minimize sweet and sugary foods, and starches (to avoid sugar spikes in the blood), and utilize food combining (eat the most liquid foods first, don't mix foods indiscriminately in the stomach) - to save vital energy.

The best red meat is organic and grass-fed, or wild game. The best fish is wild, e.g. deep-sea, small, or from clean waters. As raw as possible, rare, or slow & low-heat-cooked is best. The best dairy is organic, unpasteurized & unhomogenized, from goat preferably. The best veggies and fruits are organic, from mineral-rich soils, especially green vegetables are valuable.


Vegan diets
Vegan diets are deficient, but it may take years before any deficiency symptoms are noticeable. For adults. Children can be damaged much more quickly.
In the beginning, a raw vegan diet can be very cleansing, especially if you came off a SAD diet. If you are a raw vegan and love it, then you can e.g. continue until you begin to feel some of the deficiency symptoms listed here. Or just add a tiny amount of eggs & dairy (raw and organic is best). Added fish gives a good health boost. A raw vegan diet with a few added animal products is an adequate (but not optimal) diet. How much? Eat a minimum of 2% of your diet as animal foods, preferably every day for maximum effect.
Vegans who have not replenished their stores of animal fats and proteins have often slowly gotten into trouble, sometimes first showing as bad moods and depression, sometimes as dry scalp & hair, sometimes loose teeth & receding gum-line. Serious lack of B12 has caused brain damage, pain and paralysis, so be careful.
(Supplements are a must if you are a true vegan, e.g. vitamin B12, D and omega-3. But of course, NH is not in favor of supplements - they can never mimick the real thing. A truly adequate diet is better.)


Overview
This is a rough sketch and comparison of the dominant versions of the ultimate diet in INHS (2004).
Note: They are all adequate, but there are differing opinions about which one is the truly optimal. "