These books give long descriptions as to why it is ok and good to consume animal products. I am sort of stuck as in, If I look at it all from PURELY a health perspective, I'd like to know what the body TRULY wants and how to communicate that to people.
What do you all think about these books that talk about animal sources as traditional and necessary for health? And that cholesterol and saturated fat are good? Has anybody read these books?
Please give me some good feedback and I don't mind which side you are on. I have always been on the vegan side but I want to have an unbiased view of the health issues.....
I realize this forum is vegan, and so am I, but I believe that it is still good to have these conversations in order to best prepare ourselves for what is out there and to fully wrap our heads around these health concepts. I am not condoning the eating of animal products but if I may, I'd like to learn more about why so many people find it essential, and if our side can maintain it's position in the health arena.
Thank you for your input

> Please give me some good feedback and I don't mind which side you are on.

On this forum, I do care what side of the vegan/animal foods that someone posts about. This is a vegan forum, and its OK that a person here eats animal products and wants to participate here, we only require that the posts here be vegan in nature.

So go ahead and post "pro vegan" biased views on this issue, but a "pro non-vegan" view is going to be deleted, as this is not a forum for debating veganism, but a forum to support people in their becoming vegan.

In that light, here is a letter from Gabriel Cousens to Dr Mercola explaining why the consumption of animal products is unnecessary in the exploration of health.

Gabriel's Open Letter To Dr. Mercola

Of course I am pro-vegan, but the reason I say that is because I want to hear the other side. It is necessary to hear the other side so that we can take the whole picture into account and be able to talk about it holistically. I would never want to debate veganism, but I also want to hear what all the reasonings are. I think this helps people who are becoming vegan as well, because they can understand what roadblocks they may run into when health issues are discussed.
And thank you for that article, I appreciate it.

I have written about this subject at great length
in the past, so I won't rehash it all now. You
can check out a sample discussion at the following
link: [www.meetup.com]
Note: that discussion also includes arguments from
people on the "other side."

But I know of absolutely no non-vegan argument that
withstands the intense scrutiny of ethics, psychology,
physiology, biochemistry, and the entire gamut of
Philosophy (from which of all science must correlate/
correspond/conform/etc./etc./etc.)

By "Philosophy," I mean, the entire body of non-
contradictory science of existence, knowledge, psychology,
ethics, politics, aesthetics, etc., and all they
entail. I do not mean one's own very subjective
"philosophy"; from which all irrationalistic,
emotionalistic, defense-driven, non-vegan arguments
arise.

Steve
[www.meetup.com]
[www.rawgosia.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2011 05:53PM by paragon1685.

My opinions wouldn't be respectful to the forum so I won't share them, but all I will say is I am not a vegan (although I eat raw vegan more meals than not, and love it, so that's why I post here) so that should answer your question on what I think about the validity of animal foods.

I wish there was a forum for exactly the way I eat, so I could speak freely without offending anyone. But unfortunately in the raw world, it seems very extreme... either raw vegan, or raw paleo. The raw paleo forum seems to advocate eating extreme amounts of meat and even glorifies animal killing sometimes.... I lean way more toward the vegetarian side than to the side of gleefully munching on raw animal legs, so I choose to post on this forum.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2011 06:48PM by Corathegreen.

vegcase,

I believe that nourishing traditions advocates eating liver and kidney of animals. Have you ever eaten either? Most people are NOT naturally attracted to eating them, a lot of meat eaters don't even like them. But will eat them because they are told its 'good for them' because it has x, y or z nutrients in them. Of course these books are going to say the positive, and downplay the negatives.

Organ meats are very high in cadmium, I just scanned an article that also listed high levels of lead. There are also other factors which make them a poor choice for food. Especially if one has joint problems and gout. Thats the best arguement I can make against the book mentioned.

My mil sometimes asks me to buy some products which contain liver. I hate to buy it for her when I shop for her, because she has problems with cholestrol, joints, and some other health conditions. I buy the min. and hope she doesn't want to get anymore.

Yeah, it never seemed to good to me to eat the parts of the animal dedicated to keeping the body of the animal clean and filtering out waste...

I am increasing the amount of raw and living foods in my diet right now. The main reason is that I want to feel a clean mouth again. Even with brushing It seems like my mouth isn't completely clean like it was on very high raw. My partner discourages me from 'going to extremes'. but he doesn't seem to notice things like I do, like a really clean mouth. He is meticulous in cleaning his teeth and mouth with brushing, flossing rinsing etc... so maybe he doesn't notice.

That is perhaps the best reason for me. I don't expect too many people to understand, as most people think that brushing and flossing are enough. But I notice a difference. Perhaps my saliva is different and requires more alkaline foods, I don't know.

The only argument I've ever heard for non-veganism
that might have some validity is that certain nutrients
(in a non-vegan diet) are necessary for a person with
a particular health issue. (A health issue most likely
caused by the meat-based Standard American Diet [SAD] in
the first place.) And this might be true, for some people.
So I don't want to discount that infinitesimal possibility;
nor suggest that if one person out of 100 million might
have such an issue that, for each such person, the other
99.6 million non-vegans might use that as an excuse to
rationalize their non-vegan diet.

And if you don't want to state your non-vegan opinion on
this website, feel free to post it on the website I
linked above, [www.meetup.com] which is an entirely open forum (as I pay for that website).

Steve
[www.meetup.com]
[www.rawgosia.com]

What Nourishing Traditions represents may be traditional(though the insistence on raw offal consumption is questionably so), it has no real clinical evidence behind it. Sally Fallon and her co-author had limited knowledge of actual nutrition or dietary science when they started writing the book; its cited sources are notorious for being obsolete and/or invalid. People like to have their suppositions, especially those based on feelings rather than objective data, reiterated. It's comforting. This is the target demographic for that book, IMO, the people who yearn for a bucolic never-was, where we all kept cattle and churned our own butter and baked our own bread and set it to cool on sunny summer windowsills . . .

Tamukha,
Your insight is sharp on this issue. I had a conversation with someone about this dietary paradigm, actually in a bread shop. The owner was literally setting out bread to cool. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he had relatives or ancestors who are ranchers.

But in really listening to him speak I was immediately confronted with the fact that he never really understood what the paradigm was proposing. I asked him if he ever tried to eat as suggested, how incredibly heavy one feels. He was unconcerned, as he said the main point is not to feel guilty about eating full fat cheese, meat and using butter. I also listed other ideals, but I quickly found out that he was only half listening, and repeated an expanded list of what I said, as if I never existed. I just sighed and said have a good day...

It never ceases to amaze just how much (seemingly
firsthand) knowledge the average person seems to
have regarding the dietary habits of the so-called
"cave man." (As if all of our ancestors were born
in the cave, and never wandered far from it, until
modern man showed up on the scene a few thousand
years ago.)

The fact is (at least the facts as I understand
them) that Man did not conquer fire until a few
hundred thousand years ago (and then was able to
cook, and enjoy, eating meat). Yet, human ancestry
can be traced back 5+ millions of years ago. Not
to mention that the genesis of life is rooted
(if I'm not mistaken) in billions of years. That's
billions of years of RAW evolution; and the origins
of RAW DNA. Nothing can change that, and nothing
ever will. The DNA of ALL Life is RAW.

Humans could cook and cook and cook their foods, and
their animal products, for the next 100 million years
and nothing would change the fact that humans are primates;
and primates are plant eaters - (even those monkeys that
occasionally eat ants) and that the DNA of all Life is
RAW.

It is only through thousands of years of cultural
conditioning (toward a meat-based diet) that has led
us down the path we're on. But just because Human
Beings can pervert their nature; alienate themselves
from their nature; and do everything possible to
evade awareness of their nature; etc., does not mean
that our basic DNA, closely related to the same DNA
of all living creatures, has evolved (or could ever
evolve) into that of a cooked/meat-eating species.

And as far as "Nourishing Traditions" and "The Cholesterol
Con" go, I only point to the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Multi-Trillion$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Medical Establishment, and the type of eating/living habits
it has endorsed over the years (and everything that it entails),
as evidence of how well that mindset has "helped" produce
and "nourish" a healthy populace.

The results speak for themselves.

Steve
[www.meetup.com]
[www.rawgosia.com]

I don't know why, but I always seem to end up in the middle of whatever is being debated. Thus I'm often pulled back and forth between the two sides until my stomach houses a battle of cooked flaccid asparagus versus wilted raw greens in a race to get through my internal tubing. I have the Nourishing Traditions book, as well as others like it, and also have quite the raw foods library as well. I even have a nutritionist sister who considers Nourishing Traditions her bible (and of course she loves to constantly remind me of some of the veggies that release more nutrition when they are sweating profusely). So I've been to both ends of the dietary rainbow.

What bothers me about trying to decide who is right, is that ultimately I think they both are (please try not to kill me for these absurd thoughts). They have more in common than not (compared to the standard obese-atarian). They've both escaped the SAD paradigm for whole foods nirvana and both are doing well. They've left behind processed franken foods and have thus eliminated mysterious growths or other physical abnormalities, with the only difference between their respective diets - essentially - being the blessed animal. I watch a disingenuous video by durianrider about how meat eating makes you fat (showing fat guys cooking flesh), and then listen to a paleo subscriber boasting about how excessive fruit will make your skin crawl over to another dimension, or some such wackiness. Both end up losing credibility, as I know enough to know neither is true. Durianrider and the feed the animal guy duke it out and they're both healthy and doing well. So why the big fight? Personally I don't get it (though I suspect that what it all really comes down to is where one falls on the spiritual/ethical decision of animal treatment). Still, it's a shame, because there's so much in common between the two warring camps, in my warped opinion. I know plenty on both sides with similar, eco-conscious attributes - but separated by a wall constructed from one dietary item. Disagree on said food, fine, but come together in common cause against SAD, SAD, SAD, and all those who promote it.

I'm currently reading a book that claims humans became human - leaving behind their australopithecine forms - by learning to use fire and cook meat (the Habilines being the missing link), but although it's an interesting topic, his chapter and argument against raw foodism is incredibly weak and easy to counter, so I question his findings.

Oh well, why can't we all get along...

Anyway, I gave up on Nourishing Traditions because the recipes were frustrating. You dig into one recipe and soak this or that in preparation (way more than most raw food recipes) then discover you have to turn to another page to figure out how to prepare one of the ingredients, which leads you to another page to make an ingredient of that ingredient (which turns out to take weeks of pro-biotic nurturing and psychiatric therapy), which then causes a single man with limited culinary skills to give up and throw everything into a composter and make a salad...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2011 01:07AM by jimtoo.

Nice post, jimtoo.

I see nothing in common, intellectually, with the
two camps. Nothing. One argument can be made
intellectually; whereas, the other requires a
purely emotional argument. The difference between
those two,psychologically, ethically, physiologically,
is enormous.

What isn't being mentioned, in the posts directly above,
is Philosophy. Without that, one could simply argue just
about anything and it would make sense to the individual.
(Again, by "Philosophy," I mean, the entire body of non-
contradictory science of existence, knowledge, psychology,
ethics, politics, aesthetics, etc., and all they each entail.
I do not mean one's own very subjective "philosophy."
Which is about the only thing that bolsters the meat-eating
argument.)

The science of Health is not exempt from Philosophy,
nor Psychology (as one's choices in life are determined
by one's mental state at any given moment). Not to mention
that unhealthy/dysfunctional choices involve protecting
one's ego, and people do that by employing various defense
mechanisms and/or coping/reality-avoiding strategies.
Of which, the systematic slaughter and sacrifice of
animals for gustatory delight is entirely consistent
and detrimental - psychologically, ethically, physiologically.

Nevertheless, one could argue that Human Beings are cooked-
food meat eaters, but one cannot escape the fact that we're
also classified as PRIMATES. There is a reason for that.
If we were "ominivores," we likely be grouped in with dogs
or bears. We're not, for good reason.

Still, from a physical Health perspective, the key to Health
(at least from a Philosophical and Physiological perspective)
is the condition of one's blood. If we (through lifestyle)
allow the body to keep the blood relatively pure we will
attain correspondingly good health. (How do you best purify
the blood? A diet of RAW VEgan foods - in balance with one's
physiologcal requirements; as well as the other requirements
of Health: clean air/water, adequate sunshine, a relative lack
of stress, productive work, healthy interpersonal relationships,
etc., etc., etc.)

But if one's blood is toxic (typically a consequence of the SAD),
or worse - chronically toxic, our Health will deteriorate. There
is no doubt that cooking meat, particularly charring meat, causes
serious health problems. Eating meat raw would likely help ameliorate
that problem, but it would invite a host of other potential problems,
though none nearly as deleterious as cooking meat.

Though I'm not sure how many people would actually resort to
eating raw meat, particularly if they have to prepare it themselves.
(I know I cooked one hamburger in my life and I was so grossed
out by it that I never cooked another one again. Instead, I let
others do my dirty work for me.)

Just the thought of the unpleasantness of dead-animal carnage
(we're talking blood, and guts, and stench here...) ought to
cause one to take a step back and think about exactly what
we're doing when we eat meat, and how we really have to
mentally block out awareness of what we're doing; block out
responsibility of awareness; block out the consequences of our
actions - psychologically, ethically, physiologically; and/or
block out the fact that we don't care about any of the above.

Beyond taste, the social acceptance of it, and the supposed
nutritive value of animal flesh, there really/value isn't any
argument for eating meat (that I'm aware of, anyway). Ultimately,
if one cannot demonstrate that eating meat is healthy - psychologically,
ethically, physiologically - then one really doesn't have much of
an argument. (And since those three aspects are all inextricably
linked, one must be able to corroborate the Healthfulness for all
three!) Most damning, in my mind, is the blood toxicity issue.
That's where cooked meat really takes a dive, and that claim also
doesn't require knowlege of Philosophy and Psychology to make a
strong, consistent argument.

And the undeniable proof of meat-based blood toxicity can be found
in every hospital, nursing home, drug store, and just about every
medico's sizable paycheck (in the U.S., anyway), as they laugh
all the way to the bank - until they develop the same health problems
as their clientele.

Steve
[www.meetup.com]
[www.rawgosia.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2011 03:51AM by paragon1685.

Well, this becomes a one-sided debate, given the policies of this site, and I don't want to get stuck playing the devil while arguing for the other side, so all I will do is offer a big stuck-in-the-middle sigh: your philosophy is better than theirs, and thus all the problems and arguments begin. "Non-contradictory science?" Good luck in truly finding that, especially given human evolutionary history on this topic. BTW, hospitals are filled with toxic blood from processed foods, IMO. Anyway, I'm getting too close to the devil's argument, so will bow wow out.

What, exactly, is the other side? What is the
Devil's argument? Rather than alluding to it,
why don't you PLEASE enlighten us? Because I'm
at a loss here. I can't really begin to understand
the other side if I don't have a clue what the
other side entails.

I threw the challenge out there, to explain/
justify something Healthy, but (apparently) it's
more than we can handle.

Human evolution is not really contradictory. The
results are in: all DNA is RAW, and the fossilized
teeth of our ancestors reveal a RAW diet (of fruits
and nuts) until Man conquered fire and migrated
to northern climates.

I also threw out the offer to discuss this topic
on my own website, but no one took me up on that.
So while we're "wrong," we at least didn't hide
behind allusions to something mysterious and elusive,
and we can back up our claims with easily-verifiable
RESULTS!

And if anyone can explain away the need for a multi-
trillion dollar Medical Establishment for dealing
with the effects of a meat-based diet, I'd love
to hear it. Otherwise, it's really just pretending,
rationalizing, and fantasizing.

Steve
[www.meetup.com]
[www.rawgosia.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2011 02:33PM by paragon1685.

Steve, please don't invite a vegan/non-vegan debate on this thread. This kind of debate does not serve the primary focus of this forum, which is to support people who are on an exploration of the raw vegan diet.

Isn't it enough that you can agree to disagree, without having to draw out all the old arguments about which diet is better? For whatever reason, raw veganism doesn't work for many people, and its not our place to say what they are doing is wrong for them, but rather to share why and how what we are doing is working for us.

Also, I've stated I will delete any pro animal foods posts on this forum, so by default no one can argue against your position, as I will delete their posts.

I understand that this is VEGAN forum, and I appreciate
it. What I do not appreciate is naysayers who can't
back up anything they say with any evidence; other than
their own emotions as "facts," their own fantasies
as "facts," their own rationalizations as "facts."
And then have the audacity to imply that VEGANS, making
pro-VEGAN argument, don't have a rational leg to
stand on.

And it does seems a little reckless for people
to infer that logic and reason is "contradictory"
because so-called "scientists" don't agree on what
it is (or that logic and reason even exist); and
to make continual allusions that there is a rational
argument for eating meat, yet offer nothing to
support it, particularly when I've repeatedly
offered people the opportunity to FREELY post
their non-VEGAN opinions on my website.

Silence is acquiescence. Hence, I again throw out
(once again) the challenge to post your ideas on my
webiste: [www.meetup.com]

Let's hear it!

Steve
[www.meetup.com]
[www.rawgosia.com]

"I watch a disingenuous video by durianrider about how meat eating makes you fat (showing fat guys cooking flesh), and then listen to a paleo subscriber boasting about how excessive fruit will make your skin crawl over to another dimension, or some such wackiness. Both end up losing credibility, as I know enough to know neither is true."

Jimtoo, I wish you wouldn't call your mind warped, because that was one of the most level headed and wise posts I think I've ever read on this forum. Couldn't agree more with everything you said.

"Well, this becomes a one-sided debate, given the policies of this site, and I don't want to get stuck playing the devil while arguing for the other side, so all I will do is offer a big stuck-in-the-middle sigh: your philosophy is better than theirs, and thus all the problems and arguments begin."

Yep.... same here.... sigh. lol

I could respond to a lot of what paragon said but it doesn't seem appropriate for the forum, so I'll just respectfully disagree.

"For whatever reason, raw veganism doesn't work for many people, and its not our place to say what they are doing is wrong for them, but rather to share why and how what we are doing is working for us. "

Exactly! Good mentality Prana. I agree, and that is what will help people want to turn more towards veganism. Not criticism.

Steve, maybe not everyone feels the need to argue or defend their position. Personally I don't think I need to defend or make a case to explain why I am not a vegan to you or anyone. It isn't as if I'm telling vegans they are wrong, I highly respect them and their lifestyle and that is why I am on this board. I just don't see the point of going and posting my reasons on your site just so you can shoot them down, because you clearly aren't open to them.

Okay, thanks for giving me that chance.

I appreciate the opportunity to earn your trust.

Steve
[www.meetup.com]
[www.rawgosia.com]

I just really hate any form of debate. I'm a very sensitive soul and can't handle the intensity of it, honestly. No offense intended toward you, I didn't mean to assume like that.

Here is the best link I know to answer all questions from meat eaters:
[michaelbluejay.com]

meh, I say whatever, bananas taste good. I'll stick with that.

Thanks for that link, rab

What Corathegreen and Prana said. Now back to the comfortable seas between the two storms, where I like to reside...

*floats peacefully in the sea*

Before raw, I ate a very healthy diet by a nutritionist standard. But I was looking old and puffy, and had to exercise like crazy to keep the same 15 pounds off. Now on raw, I just do gentle exercise, don't even think about calories, and look younger. Also my PH would never have gotten to a normal range on cooked food. I had no alkalinity to neutralize the acid in cooked food.

My video to keep me inspired on my health quest: [www.youtube.com]

Yeah same here. I used to eat rice with everything thinking it was healthy. But it's so acidic. The first thing I did to attempt to be more raw was exchange all of the rice for raw baby greens. So I'd have a cooked stir fry over greens instead of rice, or a curry, or whatever. It made such a difference and made me want to be even more raw.

Sally Fallon is getting fatter and sicker by the month, just look at her recent shots. Obviously diets based on animal products are going to kill you quicker and make you fatter in the meantime.