100% vegan or not
Has anyone else read these posts on the Fresh Network Blog? What do you think?
I've read portions. I care about (all) animals, so I'm vegan.
Sounds like good arguments from both sides. The question is what works best or is most acceptable for you? I personally always try to eat organic, eat some foods cooked. eat eggs and some dairy rarely , consume certian types of seafood occasionally, and hardley ever eat foods which contain sugar are are highly processed . Any "strict" type of diet can lead to certain problems. Unless you are trying to recover from some type of chronic type of illness, then those type of diets may not work for you.
Haha, I always hear people say that things like "a strict type of diet can lead to certain problems", but I don't see the logic in it. Then why exclude processed foods? Why exclude white sugar? Why exclude rocks, cardboard, mud? Any type of diet is exclusive; you are excluding everything that isn't optimal. Furthermore, it seems that most animals in "the wild" have "an exclusive diet", at least according to the spirit of the original statement. I mean, birds don't eat carrots, they eat worms (simply put). Maybe there are thousands of different worms they eat, but there are thousands of different kinds of fruits too. Spiders don't catch anything but insects in their webs. They seem to be doing just fine. I'm not saying that this proves that we are fine just eating fruits and veggies, I am saying it to counter the argument that a fruit+vegetable diet is "exclusive". It is extremely "inclusive", imo, as in including everything that we should be eating. However, I think superfood2 provides the simplest argument for a vegan diet.
Looking at a species close to humans physiologically (chimps); they are not technically 100% vegan either. They occasionally eat insects, which are animals and made of meat.
However, I don't think that a diet is bad just because it excludes a lot of foods. There are many bad diets that exclude a lot of foods, but the generalization that they are all bad isn't valid in my opinion.
Don't misunderstand me; I don't have anything against people who prefer to keep a 90% raw diet rather than 100%. But personally I believe that 100% provides the best benefits (and is easier to follow).
Was the haha meant to be a belittling remark? I was not addressing you, nor was I interested in arguing with a vegan about what the optimal diet for a human being is. I read the articles in question and responded to them accordingly. Maybe you should have done the same rather than worrying about my comments. I have read some silly statements before, but the one about birds just eating worms? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Depending on which birds you are referring to, they eat everything from other birds, fish, frogs, nuts, seeds, fruit, to, yes, vegetables. Chickens are in fact naturally omnivorous given the choice. I have a cat that you would say is a carnivore, but he begs for almond butter, peanut butter, asparagus, lychee fruit, palm harts, and munches on wheat grass even though I have him on a very expensive brand of human grade organic cat food. See if that square peg fits in you round hole?
P.S.: Maybe you should expand your library .
No it wasn't meant to be a belittling remark.
Excluding foods does lead to other problems IN SOME people. It is a fact and although YOU may not see the logic in it.. it is there. Eccho, reading alot of your posts over the last year or so I can tell you stand by your convictions and I cant begin to tell you how much I respect that. My favorite quality in any person is one who actually believes in SOMETHING! I can only speak from my experience, my education and from things I have seen here. I dont want to speak for Raw Cossfitter because I know nothing about him and have read only 2 of his posts, but.... what he could be talking about are people with ED's. Whether it be over eating, bingeing, anorexia or bulimia. I have seen FAR to many people on here with ED's thinking the raw lifestyle will work for them. It is essentially another method of eating disorder for them. I majored in Ed's in college and find them fascinating.
So coming from that perspective they can lead to other problems such as bingeing and such. I dont know if thats what he was getting at but there is truth in what he says. I read in another thread how that statement kind of agitated you and since I saw it again here I thought I might address it.
As far as the comments made about the animals in the wild having an exclusive diet (and how it doesnt lead to other problems) they also dont have the society based problems we do when it comes to food. They are purely instinctual. We sadly lost that. We no longer eat for survival. We eat for comfort. I dont know if that even what you meant but thats just what I got out of it. Cheers all!
Thanks ILYD. I try to be open minded. After all, I did become raw vegan basically out of principle. However, yes I do stand by what I think until I am presented with enough convincing counter-data.
RCF was right in that I didn't have my facts straight about the birds but I still stand by the metaphor. I don't think that including animal products in a diet is inherently making it more "diverse" any more than adding rocks. And I am not 100% firm in animal products not being part of man's "natural diet", but any scientific doubt in veganism is rebounded by moral principle. The more I learn the more I believe that the world needs more vegans. This is coming from a guy who used to scoff it and even belittle it.
I believe that people who eat meat in America are either 1) undereducated, 2) educated but in denial, or 3) educated but having some experience which causes them to stick with it
I bet RCF is #3, but that is the exception. Most are #1, some are unfortunately #2. Many #1's have a long talk with me and become #2's, haha. I don't have a problem with #3. I have a big problem with #1 and #2.
I also want to point out that education isn't the difference between a typical raw vegan and a person who eats an extremely healthy diet with some animal foods. There is an enormous amount of information on both sides, vegan and non-vegan. When someone becomes open-minded and actually convicted about health, the determining factor in how they react to the seemingly contrary evidence will not be intelligence, but rather experience. But, there's a big difference between Standard American non-vegan and health-oriented non-vegan. If a vegan or a non-vegan is living off of what they are learning and not based off of what society is doing, then they are probably both so vastly different from society together that any differences among each other are dwarfed by their shared differences with society. To put it another way, whether we agree on meat as food is secondary to whether we agree on "science" is food.
heh.... I find that most people are number 2. They remain ignorant to it because it is convenient for themselves. These are the people I cant stand. Not to be rude, I do try to love and appreciate everyone BUT.... I cant have respect for people who shut themselves off to the world around them because it doesn't suit their own needs. Because THEY might actually have to have some responsibility for preparing their own meals. It is the area in which I have 0 tolerance. Ignorance is the WORST quality someone can have... in my opinion!
Peace to you Jon. I know we have had some back and forth here but I certainly have no problems with strict raw vegans. They certainly must be much more healthy than those who base their diets on meat. Even though I am not strict, many still view me as a "health nut". Many Crossfitters follow the Paleo diet that is based on how ancient man used to eat. They consume raw foods, no grains, no sugars but still eat meat. Still too many animal products for me. I feel that if you are not willing to eat a food raw, then you probably should not be eating it. Especially if your not willing to kill it. Tell that to a meat eater and see how he responds. Makes perfect sense right? You don't need science and studies to come to that conclusion.
M42 the closest living relative to humans when it comes to our digestive system is the capachin monkey. They eat aproximately 50% flesh and 50% plant.
Hmm, that sounds a bit odd to me. Granted, this isn't a terribly convincing amount of counter-evidence (as I only spent about 30 seconds searching it), but Wikipedia says that our closest relatives are Gorillaz or Chimpanzees (here)
Kurite, what are some sources that say its the capachin? An odd thing is that they are super tiny, so how are they closer that the two I mentioned? Also, Wikipedia says about diet: "The diet of the capuchins is more varied than other monkeys in the family Cebidae. They are omnivores, eating not only fruits, nuts, seeds, and buds, but also insects, spiders, birds' eggs, and small vertebrates. Capuchins living near water will also eat crabs and shellfish by cracking their shells with stones." So yeah, they're not vegan, but the non-vegan stuff they are eating isn't all "flesh" - its also insects, spiders, and eggs. I would speculate that they are not hunters, but rather scavengers. As in, they eat whatever they can get. So what if they lived in an abundance of vegan fare (like we do)? I don't know...
Closest living relative... honestly, I think the use of animals for scientific comparison to humans is pure pseudoscience.
We don't even do that within the animal kingdom - coyotes are very close relatives to wolves, and yet wolves are pure carnivores (they do not eat the gut plant material as is often presumed, but rip the guts open and shake them out vigorously, dumping plant matter before consumption) and coyotes are opportunistic omnivores, eating a vast variety of food including fruit. Their diet is only 28% mammalian during the summer months. Based on this, I would not decide that an ideal diet for a wolf at a rescue center includes fruit, lizards, insects, berries, watermelon, and cactus, just because that is a major component of a coyote's diet, the coyote being a 'close' relative. It turns out that a wolve's diet is more comparable to a cat than a member of the same canine species.
Hm, that's a good point. Source?
Info on the typical coyote diet is all over the web; I got my info from the U of M http://www3.northern.edu/natsource/MAMMALS/Coyote1.htm as well as from Cecilia Lambert, founder of a coyote rescue organization in Indiana whom I corresponded with in the past: http://www.coyoterescue.org/
As for the wolves, here's more info from the website Myths About Raw (proponents of feeding raw to dogs; I personally switched my rescued dog to raw and she recovered from a lot of health issues) http://rawfed.com/myths/stomachcontents.html
Myth: WOLVES INGEST THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF THEIR PREY.
This claim is repeated over and over as evidence that wolves and therefore dogs are omnivores. However, this assumption is just that--an assumption. It is not supported by the evidence available to us, and is therefore false!
Wolves do NOT eat the stomach contents of their prey. Only if the prey is small enough (like the size of a rabbit) will they eat the stomach contents, which just happen to get consumed along with the entire animal. Otherwise, wolves will shake out the stomach contents of their large herbivorous prey before sometimes eating the stomach wall. The following quotations are taken from L. David Mech's 2003 book Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. Mech (and the others who contributed to this book) is considered the world's leading wolf biologist, and this book is a compilation of 350 collective years of research, experiments, and careful field observations. These quotes are taken from chapter 4, The Wolf as a Carnivore.
"Wolves usually tear into the body cavity of large prey and...consume the larger internal organs, such as lungs, heart, and liver. The large rumen [, which is one of the main stomach chambers in large ruminant herbivores,]...is usually punctured during removal and its contents spilled. The vegetation in the intestinal tract is of no interest to the wolves, but the stomach lining and intestinal wall are consumed, and their contents further strewn about the kill site." (pg.123, emphasis added)
"To grow and maintain their own bodies, wolves need to ingest all the major parts of their herbivorous prey, except the plants in the digestive system." (pg.124, emphasis added).
This next quote can be found on the Hunting and Meals page at Kerwood Wildlife Education Center.
"The wolf's diet consists mostly of muscle meat and fatty tissue from various animals. Heart, lung, liver, and other internal organs are eaten. Bones are crushed to get at the marrow, and bone fragments are eaten as well. Even hair and skin are sometimes consumed. The only part consistently ignored is the stomach and its contents. Although some vegetable matter is taken separately, particularly berries, Canis lupus doesn't seem to digest them very well."
From the mouths of the wolf experts themselves, who have observed countless numbers of kills: wolves do NOT eat the stomach contents of their large prey, and are carnivorous animals. Additionally, Neville Buck from the Howletts and Port Lympne Zoological Parks in Kent, England, notes that virtually no small carnivore (which includes varieties of cats, wolves, wild dogs) eat the intestinal contents of their large prey. The contents are spilled in the enclosures and are often rolled in by the animals, but very little is eaten (if any is eaten at all). His observations can be found in Appendix B of Raw Meaty Bones.