# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Health & Well-Being >  Raw milk is actually bad for you.

## PaulConventionWV

Ok, so I know a person has the choice to do anything they want with their bodies, but you should be responsible and know what to do with your freedoms.  Government regulations on personal lifestyle are bad just like they are for any kind of drug, although even Paul recognizes that does not mean he endorses their use.  I think most people believe that the government is trying to outlaw healthy stuff, which may be true to an extent.  

I know that everyone has a hard-on for raw milk over this controversy because they really hate government, but just because pasteurized, dead milk is bad for you, it doesn't mean raw milk is the exact opposite of that.  In fact, milk in general is unnatural for humans to consume.  Why should we drink the milk of a completely different kind of animal?  It doesn't make any sense in the natural order of things.  This is where people usually bring up the "live" argument.  I get that live food is better than dead food, but that doesn't mean everything that is alive is good to eat.  This usually only applies to stuff that humans are meant to consume, such as veggies, fruits, nuts, and seeds.  Would you prefer to eat your meat LIVE?  Both meat and milk are, frankly, unnatural whether dead or alive.  

Raw milk contains live bacteria that are not meant to be in your body, such as salmonella, E. Coli, staphylococcus, etc.  This stuff is bad for you whether you consume it dead or alive.  Much of the milk propaganda was based on the fact that it contains calcium and vitamin D.  It turns out this stuff isn't quite as simply good as you would think.  Nature has a balance for every nutrient, and this balance is usually built into the plants, fruits, and nuts that we consume.  Here is an article on that:

http://www.rense.com/general26/milk.htm

Like it or not, your milk contains stuff that you probably wouldn't be happy about if you knew.  The problem is, you don't know what the cow has consumed or where it has been, and that all usually finds a way to make it into the cow's milk.  Cow's milk usually contains feces, pus, and other things that humans would usually be apalled to think about consuming, but this stuff is allowed.  

Consider that cows get their big, healthy bones from plants.  How does it follow that we need another kind of animal's milk to get our proper calcium?  This stuff is readily available in a plant-based diet.  Moreover, the cow's milk does not contain the proper magnesium content in order for the calcium to be absorbed.  It's useless.  Proof is in the link above if you want to read it.  

Countries that have the highest protein diet also have the highest rates of osteoporosis.  The levels of protein in milk may actually leach vitamin D that is needed for strong bones from the body.  This imbalance proves costly to having healthy bones.

The high-protein diet is a myth.  We don't need to consume animal products to get our protein.  Everything has protein in it.  Nuts are an especially good source of proteins.  However, the body can't actually use protein.  It must first break down the protein into amino acids before it becomes usable.  That's why many vegetables are also high in amino acids.  The amino acids that the body can't produce must come from the diet, and these are called "essential" amino acids.  Consuming lots of protein is like tearing down a house so you can use the wood.  There is no basis for the idea that we need a high-protein diet because the body's cellular structure is based on the utilization of the proper amino acids.  Meat only provides us with complex proteins that the body has a hard time using, and most of it will actually only sit in your gut and rot because it can't be digested properly and clogs up your digestive system.  Milk is the same way.  

Just thought I'd try to clear up the fact that many people hear believe that milk is good for you simply because the government has taken steps to ban it and it must be good because it is raw.  I am here to tell you that's not how nature works and we should be more careful about how we practice our liberties responsibly.  One part of it is getting educated.  Milk can be the cause of many bone diseases, allergies, and other diseases and bacterial infections because it is not a good natural balance in harmony with our body's chemistry.  It was meant for infant calves, and it should stay that way.

Read more at this link:

http://www.notmilk.com/

There are several useful books that you can get from that site as well that explain why milk is a toxic substance.  Personally, I still consume meat, but I have always tried to avoid dairy products as much as possible.

----------


## pcosmar

> The NOTMILK Homepage! (MILK is a bad-news substance!)
> Anti-Dairyman George Plimpton, Dead at 76. Anti-Dairyman George Plimpton ....* ANTI-DAIRY PETA'S NOTMILK SITE ·* NO MILK YAHOO GROUPS SOYTOY RECIPES ...
> www.notmilk.com/


Yeah,,Ok.
*PETA ?*

Promoting this crap are we?

----------


## Kotin

That's your opinion.

----------


## Justinjj1

One of the biggest scams in history, is the dairy council propagandizing us from a very early age to believe that we need dairy for strong bones.  Milk is awful for you, no matter if it's raw or pasteurized.

----------


## Romulus

> One of the biggest scams in history, is the dairy council propagandizing us from a very early age to believe that we need dairy for strong bones.  Milk is awful for you, no matter if it's raw or pasteurized.


To an extent, yes.. but I wouldn't say it's 'awful'.

----------


## outspoken

So is drinking broken glass... I don't need govt telling me what is good and bad for me.

----------


## AFPVet

Ummm... right. I don't even know where to begin with this.

----------


## Bruno

> So is drinking broken glass... I


$#@!, that blows yet another diet fad I was working on.

----------


## squarepusher

This is a failure article, because Raw Milk farms don't factory produce their cows, they are very often organic and grass fed.

Buying milk from a factory farm the only option is to pasteurize because that stuff is really diseased

----------


## Danke

I like cheese.

----------


## AFPVet

> I like cheese.


Cheese is good

----------


## speciallyblend

what the hell is everyone complaining about?? add some chocolate to your milk raw or dead and enjoy. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

reese puffs and milk kickass add chocolate to

----------


## Inkblots

I don't particularly care whether drinking milk is 'natural' or not.  Living on nuts and berries and dying at age 35 is natural, but I sure prefer the unnaturalness of agricultural, industrial civilization and its comforts.

And as to milk in particular, I don't drink it for the nutrients in the first place, I buy it because it's safe and tastes good over cereal in the morning.  But to each his own, I suppose.

----------


## cordscords

> Raw milk is more nutritious than pasteurized milk. Raw milk has living white blood cells, mammary-gland cells, various bacteria (i.e., probiotics), and several active enzymes, which are all destroyed in pasteurization.
> 
> There are some European studies that indicate — although nothing is yet definitive — that raw milk might be useful in reducing allergies, asthma, and eczema. Raw milk is also more likely to come from "pastured" cows, which only eat their natural diet: grass. Therefore, the cows are less likely to have been regularly treated with antibiotics and growth hormones.


http://mises.org/daily/5365/Legalize-Milk-Real-Milk

----------


## cjm

This doesn't contribute to the discussion, but it's interesting that the domain registrar for the notmilk.com site is TUCOWS, INC (http://www.tucowsdomains.com/).  Go figure.

----------


## Luciconsort

I haven't said much on these forums for fear of being out-debated. Being pretty new I wanted to hang out and watch before I committed anything to posterity. On this issue however I have no fear. So here goes. This entire debate over milk is stupid. In my humble opinion this is an glazing of the real issue. I come from a heavy farm region of the east coast. I am by no means a redneck, I've never tilled a field or milked a cow or anything of the sort. In fact I am a long-haired metalhead as much out of place on the farm as Paris Hilton was. (without all the fashions and vapidness) We all know metalheads have no sense of fashion. On the other hand, having said that I am also perfectly capable of discerning for myself whether or not raw milk or raw anything for that matter is good or bad for me. Having made an informed decision (or not) about what I put into my body is of lesser consequence compared to whether or not I CAN put said things into my body. Drinking raw milk is stupid, any child in a 5th grade science class can tell you that. If I choose to drink raw milk or not is just that MY CHOICE. People making a big deal about what other people eat or drink are skirting the issue. That being.... IT AIN'T NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! If I choose to eat mouse tails and drink moose piss for the rest of my life, that's wholly my choice. I welcome all to my funeral where in the eulogy it could be said that "This guy was a dumbass... he ate mice tails and $#@! and the moose piss really did him in. However because of his tireless efforts to protect HIS liberty... you ALL can eat and drink whatever the hell you want". Your Welcome.

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

> I haven't said much on these forums for fear of being out-debated. Being pretty new I wanted to hang out and watch before I committed anything to posterity. On this issue however I have no fear. So here goes. This entire debate over milk is stupid. In my humble opinion this is an glazing of the real issue. I come from a heavy farm region of the east coast. I am by no means a redneck, I've never tilled a field or milked a cow or anything of the sort. In fact I am a long-haired metalhead as much out of place on the farm as Paris Hilton was. (without all the fashions and vapidness) We all know metalheads have no sense of fashion. On the other hand, having said that I am also perfectly capable of discerning for myself whether or not raw milk or raw anything for that matter is good or bad for me. Having made an informed decision (or not) about what I put into my body is of lesser consequence compared to whether or not I CAN put said things into my body. Drinking raw milk is stupid, any child in a 5th grade science class can tell you that. If I choose to drink raw milk or not is just that MY CHOICE. People making a big deal about what other people eat or drink are skirting the issue. That being.... IT AIN'T NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! If I choose to eat mouse tails and drink moose piss for the rest of my life, that's wholly my choice. I welcome all to my funeral where in the eulogy it could be said that "This guy was a dumbass... he ate mice tails and $#@! and the moose piss really did him in. However because of his tireless efforts to protect HIS liberty... you ALL can eat and drink whatever the hell you want". Your Welcome.


Well I know that you don't eat mouse tails and drink moose piss but I am determined to now outlive you just so I can show up at your funeral and say this. Outside of that little nugget, excellent rant!

----------


## speciallyblend

> I haven't said much on these forums for fear of being out-debated. Being pretty new I wanted to hang out and watch before I committed anything to posterity. On this issue however I have no fear. So here goes. This entire debate over milk is stupid. In my humble opinion this is an glazing of the real issue. I come from a heavy farm region of the east coast. I am by no means a redneck, I've never tilled a field or milked a cow or anything of the sort. In fact I am a long-haired metalhead as much out of place on the farm as Paris Hilton was. (without all the fashions and vapidness) We all know metalheads have no sense of fashion. On the other hand, having said that I am also perfectly capable of discerning for myself whether or not raw milk or raw anything for that matter is good or bad for me. Having made an informed decision (or not) about what I put into my body is of lesser consequence compared to whether or not I CAN put said things into my body. Drinking raw milk is stupid, any child in a 5th grade science class can tell you that. If I choose to drink raw milk or not is just that MY CHOICE. People making a big deal about what other people eat or drink are skirting the issue. That being.... IT AIN'T NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! If I choose to eat mouse tails and drink moose piss for the rest of my life, that's wholly my choice. I welcome all to my funeral where in the eulogy it could be said that "This guy was a dumbass... he ate mice tails and $#@! and the moose piss really did him in. However because of his tireless efforts to protect HIS liberty... you ALL can eat and drink whatever the hell you want". Your Welcome.


good rant now all i want is some damn reese puffs with raw or dead milk either way i want some damn chocolate milk   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ-gpwYnFNE     personally i could go for the old fashioned way

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVdudXoSOqI

----------


## Luciconsort

of all the things we did growin up... i never was much of an "eater of things".

----------


## Luciconsort

now that what I'm talkin about... I didn't hear a word she said.

----------


## speciallyblend

> now that what I'm talkin about... I didn't hear a word she said.


you tube women milk tea , i didn't post that one  holy shiz i think i am gonna say screw raw milk and dead milk and go for just breast milk now   hmmm where is the nearest breast milk farm in colorado deserves its own damn thread the revolution endorses breast milk who needs cows

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

> you tube women milk tea , i didn't post that one  holy shiz i think i am gonna say screw raw milk and dead milk and go for just breast milk now   hmmm where is the nearest breast milk farm in colorado deserves its own damn thread the revolution endorses breast milk who needs cows


I could share some stories here but ummm... well either Josh would ban me or Mrs.Joe would ban me from the forums and either way it would suck to be me.

----------


## Luciconsort

I've seen Mrs.Joe go balls out on many a poor soul... Ipitydafool

----------


## dannno

> Drinking raw milk is stupid, any child in a 5th grade science class can tell you that.


Ya I remember learning about the great Louis Pasteur in 5th grade too. Domestic refrigerators didn't exist until after that guy died. I can imagine it helped save a lot of lives back then, and it is better for shipping long distances and selling in markets. Public schools are kinda into indoctrination for corporations tho.

Raw milk doesn't last as long, but it is much healthier than drinking regular milk. You can find some of the info on that posted in this thread. I don't drink much milk, but I will get some raw milk on occasion for the nutritional benefits. I do like cheese, though. I've been buying raw milk cheddar from trader joe's. Not sure if much of the nutritional benefits extend to cheese or not, but it tastes better.

----------


## cjm

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVdudXoSOqI


+rep.  spricket24 is very entertaining.

----------


## Working Poor

I love milk baths to me if milk was meant for humans it is for what it does for the skin and the lacto bacilli that can help heal the digestive mucosa. 

The less processed the milk is the more healing properties it has and to me this is the reason it is so defatted, sterilized and, pasteurized because the industry does not want us to use milk for healing it is becoming forgotten that healing is milk's real purpose I am sure Ron knows this too. I think Ron loves so called "alternative" medicine and he does not want the ancient healing knowledge to die. I think Ron also knows that some of the more high tech medical practices were banned as quackery during the 30s and 40's.  I feel greatly encourage when people I know are saying they are going to register Republican so they can vote for him in the primary.

ps- I love me some butter on fresh sour dough toast with black berry jelly yum yum

----------


## Esoteric

yeah, well that's just, like, your opinion man! </lebowski>

----------


## muzzled dogg

Didn't read the basis for OP's conclusion but I agree that adult human shouldn't be eating dairy

----------


## Yieu

It's been said but that's... just your opinion, man.  Speaking as an individual who does not eat animals due to religion (I mention this only because you linked to PETA), raw milk is both awesome and delicious.  There is some nutrition in a cow's blood, but our second mother, the cow, in her graceful mercy, offers that nutrition freely through her milk, a non-violent alternative.  We could live off milk alone, it has everything we need.  There are plenty of reasons cows are God's favorite animal.  Homogenized milk is sub-par.  There's nothing like a hot mug of cardamom-saffron milk for breakfast.  The bits of cream floating at the top are a bonus.

----------


## speciallyblend

> Didn't read the basis for OP's conclusion but I agree that adult human shouldn't be eating dairy


your a party pooper, now how the hell am i suppose to eat my reese puffs?? hey lady can you squirt some breast milk into my cereal? good enough for a baby good enough for me.   Save the cows, support Breast Milk For liberty!!!

----------


## Yieu

> your a party pooper, now how the hell am i suppose to eat my reese puffs?? hey lady can you squirt some breast milk into my cereal? good enough for a baby good enough for me.   Save the cows, support Breast Milk For liberty!!!


Hahaha.  Save the cows, drink (the cow's) milk instead.

----------


## chmst1999

The point of the raw milk deal is that I should be able to buy some raw milk from the dairy down the street if I want. Then I will know it is fresh. Remember, I can pasteurize it myself. I can protect myself from bacteria just as well, if not better, than some largescale operation. I'll also benefit from the freshness. 

If you don't think milk is good for you, don't drink it. It's hard to believe that milk is as bad for you as these threads suggest, given that our average lifespan has gone up consistently. It can't all be due to milk, but research actually shows that calcium uptake is actually higher when drinking milk than with vitamin supplements.

----------


## psi2941

i drink soy milk (unsweetened, hard to find cheaply), rice milk, and almond milk.

----------


## Acala

Milk is made for babies.  It s designed to provide nutrition for a creature that is doubling its weight every two months.  Accordingly it is great for making you, a creature who should not be increasing in weight much at all, fat.  Raw or pasteurized, it is not a proper food for an adult animal.  

If you still insist on drinking milk, by all means try to find milk that isn't full of hormones and pesticides.

But what the OP says about animal protein in general = wrong.  Humans evolved eating animal protein.  We were designed for it.     

That having been said, it is none of the government's business WHAT you drink.  You should be able to drink cyanide so long as you don't make a mess on anyone else's property.

----------


## pcosmar

> i drink soy milk (unsweetened, hard to find cheaply), rice milk, and almond milk.


How do you milk an almond? (I can't even find the teats)



Is not milk. despite any such claim. 
It is vegetable juice.

----------


## Yieu

I get all the animal protein I need from cow's milk.  I don't need it from any other source.  For that, it is a great source, and one need not look elsewhere unless their tastes desire.

----------


## mczerone

FTA: "Raw milk is bad because it contains bacteria like E-coli, etc."

Raw milk is GOOD because it contains bacteria like pro-biotics and those that help digest milk-fat (which is good for you at any age).  The bacteria that are bad for you are found EVERYWHERE, and are only a problem when either (1) the cows come from a factory where they live their whole lives wallowing in their own $#@!, or (2) the milk spends 10 days in transit in questionable conditions.

Why does the state hate raw milk? Because they can't keep track of every transaction in it, and can't tax and control the consumers and producers.

----------


## fade

LOL the amount of misinformation in the original post is laughable.

----------


## Yieu

> FTA: "Raw milk is bad because it contains bacteria like E-coli, etc."
> 
> Raw milk is GOOD because it contains bacteria like pro-biotics and those that help digest milk-fat (which is good for you at any age).


Indeed.  Milk is medicine!  Milk is sacred nectar.  This is all a part of why _go-raksha_, or protecting cows from any sort of harm, and treating her like one would treat one's mother, is a religious and spiritual duty with spiritual benefits, much like charity.

----------


## johnrocks

My Grandfather was born in 1888 and died at the age of 89 and grew up on raw milk, my Mom;his Daughter;  now 90 and grew up on raw milk.


This is just personal experience and I won't drink raw milk; but like marijuana,cigarettes, fast food or any of the thousands of other things that may;or may not be bad for you; it  should be your choice.


Don't want to drink raw milk; it's simple; don't drink raw milk; just don't force your views via government  on others who may choose to drink it.

----------


## ctiger2

> I know that everyone has a hard-on for raw milk over this controversy because they really hate government,


I don't have a hard-on for raw milk just like I don't have a hard-on for heroin. I DO have a hard-on for a *people to be free* to make the choice to ingest either of these products if they want to.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yeah,,Ok.
> *PETA ?*
> 
> Promoting this crap are we?


Guilt by association much?  I never said I agreed with the views of PETA.  Just because I visit the notmilk homepage, doesn't mean I promote PETA's interests.  You should know better.

----------


## erowe1

> Guilt by association much?  I never said I agreed with the views of PETA.  Just because I visit the notmilk homepage, doesn't mean I promote PETA's interests.


The OP sure does read like you promote it.

----------


## pcosmar

> Guilt by association much?


You posted their propaganda. If you don't agree,, why promote their bull$#@!? Why post this thread?



> Read more at this link:


And exactly how would I know better?

----------


## dannno

> How do you milk an almond? (I can't even find the teats)
> 
> 
> 
> Is not milk. despite any such claim. 
> It is vegetable juice.


You're right, but any juice that is white and resembles milk is referred to as milk instead of juice.. blame the industry don't blame the people who drink it 

Almond milk is pretty delicious and very healthy.

----------


## dannno

> Milk is made for babies.  It s designed to provide nutrition for a creature that is doubling its weight every two months.  Accordingly it is great for making you, a creature who should not be increasing in weight much at all, fat.  Raw or pasteurized, it is not a proper food for an adult animal.


A good argument against this is that babies drink ONLY milk whereas I might have a glass or two a day.. or a little butter.. or some cheese..

----------


## amy31416

Can't make a good cheese without raw milk, so I think I'll take my chances and live life on the edge, like the bad-ass cheese-lovin' mofo that I am.

Hell yeah I eat cheese. I'll eat that $#@! all day long.

----------


## Acala

> I get all the animal protein I need from cow's milk.  I don't need it from any other source.  For that, it is a great source, and one need not look elsewhere unless their tastes desire.


I don't think you get the proper fatty acid profile that way.  But that is pretty far off the thread topic.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The point of the raw milk deal is that I should be able to buy some raw milk from the dairy down the street if I want. Then I will know it is fresh. Remember, I can pasteurize it myself. I can protect myself from bacteria just as well, if not better, than some largescale operation. I'll also benefit from the freshness. 
> 
> If you don't think milk is good for you, don't drink it. It's hard to believe that milk is as bad for you as these threads suggest, given that our average lifespan has gone up consistently. It can't all be due to milk, but research actually shows that calcium uptake is actually higher when drinking milk than with vitamin supplements.


There can be numerous reasons that lifespan has gone up.  This certainly can't be due to modern medicine, since it is one of the top 5 largest annual killers.  I usually say it's easier to keep someone alive than to make them healthy.

I realize that people are free to do whatever they want with their bodies, and I'm not trying to push this on anyone, just thought you should get the facts before you assume that, since the industry bans it, it must be good for you.

----------


## pcosmar

> You're right, but any juice that is white and resembles milk is referred to as milk instead of juice.. blame the industry don't blame the people who drink it 
> 
> Almond milk is pretty delicious and very healthy.


That's cool. enjoy. 
I need to find a White Beer then. Fermented Hops "milk". FTW !

----------


## Elwar

I only consume human breast milk from the source. It's natural and what God intended.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Milk is made for babies.  It s designed to provide nutrition for a creature that is doubling its weight every two months.  Accordingly it is great for making you, a creature who should not be increasing in weight much at all, fat.  Raw or pasteurized, it is not a proper food for an adult animal.  
> 
> If you still insist on drinking milk, by all means try to find milk that isn't full of hormones and pesticides.
> 
> But what the OP says about animal protein in general = wrong.  Humans evolved eating animal protein.  We were designed for it.     
> 
> That having been said, it is none of the government's business WHAT you drink.  You should be able to drink cyanide so long as you don't make a mess on anyone else's property.


May I ask how you come to that ridiculous conclusion?  I told you the basis for the FACT that the high-protein diet is a myth.  You can't just say "well, evolution says this, so it must be true."  Amino acids are the building blocks for life.  Your cells can't use proteins unless they are broken down.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> My Grandfather was born in 1888 and died at the age of 89 and grew up on raw milk, my Mom;his Daughter;  now 90 and grew up on raw milk.
> 
> 
> This is just personal experience and I won't drink raw milk; but like marijuana,cigarettes, fast food or any of the thousands of other things that may;or may not be bad for you; it  should be your choice.
> 
> 
> Don't want to drink raw milk; it's simple; don't drink raw milk; just don't force your views via government  on others who may choose to drink it.


I'm afraid I've got you beat.  My great-grandmother died shortly before her 100th birthday, and my grandpa is now 95.

----------


## pcosmar

> since the industry bans it, it must be good for you.


The "industry"didn't ban it. Government did. and imposed that on the "industry".

Many folks simply went OUT of Business. others complied. Still others drank whole milk as outlaws.

Never been a big issue for me, but I am a natural outlaw.

----------


## fade

> May I ask how you come to that ridiculous conclusion?  I told you the basis for the FACT that the high-protein diet is a myth.  You can't just say "well, evolution says this, so it must be true."  Amino acids are the building blocks for life.  Your cells can't use proteins unless they are broken down.


What of the high protein diet is a myth? Are you telling me I am not digesting my chicken or beef that I ate earlier today? Are you telling me that it isn't being broken down into amino acids to be used by my body for whatever purpose it needs? Surely taking in a COMPLETE protein source with ALL of the amino acids can't be a bad decision. Trying to pick and choose vegetables to make a complete protein, on the other hand.. is much less effective.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The "industry"didn't ban it. Government did. and imposed that on the "industry".
> 
> Many folks simply went OUT of Business. others complied. Still others drank whole milk as outlaws.
> 
> Never been a big issue for me, but I am a natural outlaw.


Good for you, sir.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What of the high protein diet is a myth? Are you telling me I am not digesting my chicken or beef that I ate earlier today? Are you telling me that it isn't being broken down into amino acids to be used by my body for whatever purpose it needs? Surely taking in a COMPLETE protein source with ALL of the amino acids can't be a bad decision. Trying to pick and choose vegetables to make a complete protein, on the other hand.. is much less effective.


No, the body can't process all of those complex proteins and they sit in your gut and rot.  Most of it isn't even useful, not to mention that you don't know where the animal has been.  Only veggies have the nutrients in their proper ratio and the sugars needed for cellular building.

----------


## fade

> No, the body can't process all of those complex proteins and they sit in your gut and rot.  Most of it isn't even useful, not to mention that you don't know where the animal has been.  Only veggies have the nutrients in their proper ratio and the sugars needed for cellular building.


LOL sit in my gut and rot huh? What in god's name are you basing this off of? MY body processes them just fine.

----------


## Yieu

> I don't think you get the proper fatty acid profile that way.  But that is pretty far off the thread topic.


There is nothing that is in meat, that the human body needs, that cannot be found in other sources.  As for fatty acids, flax is the best source.  Whether to eat meat is purely a choice of taste.  For me, it is a religious choice not to partake, and that is all that matters.  Religion trumps everything else.  It seems a little off the thread topic, but my relish for milk is closely linked to my not partaking in flesh -- both are intertwined with religion.

----------


## AFPVet

I guess we should all be dead if raw milk was bad for us.... This is what people drank for thousands of years people—and lived a very long and healthy life! Has the human genome changed that much since?

----------


## dannno

> No, the body can't process all of those complex proteins and they sit in your gut and rot.  Most of it isn't even useful, not to mention that you don't know where the animal has been.  Only veggies have the nutrients in their proper ratio and the sugars needed for cellular building.


What's your blood type?

----------


## dannno

> LOL sit in my gut and rot huh? What in god's name are you basing this off of? MY body processes them just fine.


What's your blood type?

----------


## fade

> What's your blood type?


AB+

----------


## Yieu

> Surely taking in a COMPLETE protein source with ALL of the amino acids can't be a bad decision. Trying to pick and choose vegetables to make a complete protein, on the other hand.. is much less effective.


The author of the book that started the whole "complete protein" myth that makes it appear as though it is difficult to get "complete proteins" if you do not eat animals, in her 20th Anniversary edition of the book, took back what she said because she learned better.  There is no nutritional reason to eat meat -- it is purely out of the desire for the taste.  Any nutrition that the body needs that is in meat can readily and easily be found in bio-available forms in plants and milk.  Eat how you please, but don't try to justify how you eat by claiming how I eat is wrong when that is not the case.

----------


## Yieu

> What's your blood type?


The "blood type diet myth" is dispelled pretty well in a book titled "You Don't Need Meat".  (To everyone) Please don't misinterpret what I said here -- you are free to eat as you please, just don't try to justify your diet by stating unfactual information about mine.

----------


## dannno

> AB+


Congratulations, your body can handle digesting meat.

I'm not sure if the whole "eating right for your blood type" is completely sound, but I think it is a good general rule to follow, or a good place to start to look at what type of diet is best for you.

http://www.dadamo.com/bloodtype_AB.htm

----------


## Yieu

> I'm not sure if the whole "eating right for your blood type" is completely sound


It's not.

----------


## dannno

> The "blood type diet myth" is dispelled pretty well in a book titled "You Don't Need Meat".


I don't think it's a strict rule, I think there are exceptions, but I've known a lot of people who are vegetarian who tend to be type A blood. Type O people tend to like to eat a lot of meat and can't handle a veggie diet. There have also been exceptions, but there seem to be fewer.. but that's just my personal experience.

----------


## Yieu

> I don't think it's a strict rule, I think there are exceptions, but I've known a lot of people who are vegetarian who tend to be type A blood. Type O people tend to like to eat a lot of meat. There have also been exceptions.. but that's just my personal experience.


Well, any human of any blood type can be as healthy as an ox with just plants and milk.  It's not necessary for nutritional needs to eat meat, but you can if you want to.  Whether or not we eat meat is completely based on what we want to taste, and our religion.  God says to eat a certain way, so I do.

----------


## pcosmar

O +

----------


## fade

> The author of the book that started the whole "complete protein" myth that makes it appear as though it is difficult to get "complete proteins" if you do not eat animals, in her 20th Anniversary edition of the book, took back what she said because she learned better.  There is no nutritional reason to eat meat -- it is purely out of the desire for the taste.  Any nutrition that the body needs that is in meat can readily and easily be found in bio-available forms in plants and milk.  Eat how you please, but don't try to justify how you eat by claiming how I eat is wrong when that is not the case.


I am not saying that you HAVE to eat meat to get a complete source of protein. I am saying it is EASIER. You have your religious beliefs and that is perfectly fine. I have nothing against how you eat. 

I personally eat about 2lbs of meat per day. Whether that comes from chicken, beef, fish, eggs, etc.. Doesn't matter that much to me. They all digest perfectly fine and I am in great health.

----------


## Yieu

> I am not saying that you HAVE to eat protein to get a complete source of protein. I am saying it is EASIER.


But still, even that is only your opinion.  It's not any harder for me to get protein.  It is all up to taste, preference, and religion.

Thank you for respecting my religious beliefs.

----------


## AFPVet

> Congratulations, your body can handle digesting meat.
> 
> I'm not sure if the whole "eating right for your blood type" is completely sound, but I think it is a good general rule to follow, or a good place to start to look at what type of diet is best for you.
> 
> http://www.dadamo.com/bloodtype_AB.htm


I need meat since I am O.

----------


## Yieu

> I need meat since I am O.


Want.  Not need.  Want.  You can want it all you want, and that's fine.  But nobody "needs" it.  That is a myth.

You eat how you want, I'll eat how I want, and everyone will be happy.

----------


## fade

> But still, even that is only your opinion.  It's not any harder for me to get protein.  It is all up to taste, preference, and religion.
> 
> Thank you for respecting my religious beliefs.


I guess that also depends on your goals in life. A higher protein diet leads to better muscle growth. I personally train my body for more muscle. That is not how everyone trains and that is not what everyone wants. In my life and with my goals it would be VERY VERY hard to get the amount of protein that I take in through the combining of carbs, vegetables, nuts, etc.

----------


## Yieu

> I guess that also depends on your goals in life. A higher protein diet leads to better muscle growth. I personally train my body for more muscle. That is not how everyone trains and that is not what everyone wants. In my life and with my goals it would be VERY VERY hard to get the amount of protein that I take in through the combining of carbs, vegetables, nuts, etc.


Well, even then, you still don't "need" it.  You can be a body builder with just plants and milk, and do just as well, and there are many examples of this.  The source of protein most body builders go for is Whey, because it is a very effective source.  Again, it all comes down to taste preference.

----------


## dannno

> Well, any human of any blood type can be as healthy as an ox with just plants and milk.  It's not necessary for nutritional needs to eat meat, but you can if you want to.  Whether or not we eat meat is completely based on what we want to taste, and our religion.  God says to eat a certain way, so I do.


When I eat a vegetarian diet my metabolism gets cut in half and I lose weight. I ate a big meal of sushi (mostly sashimi) on saturday, I have been active, riding my bike and surfing since then, yet I've gained a couple pounds or so (of fat) and it is going to take me at least a week to get my metabolism back in order so I can lose the fat that I will gain just from having ONE meal with meat (fish, at that). 

The problem with your statement is that i know a lot of people who have tried veggie diets and it just doesn't work for them.. they like meat, they eat a lot of it, they are in great shape and have a very speedy metabolism. When they go to a veggie diet, their metabolism shuts down and they lose all of their energy.

Then there are people who did great on meat diets and have found they do even better on veggie diets, see my vegetarian MMA fighters thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...vegetarian+MMA


I've been getting people trying to talk me into the paleo diet for a long time now, on here and in my real life.. it just doesn't work for me, eating meat totally destroys my metabolism, no matter how active I am I start gaining weight and my metabolism shuts down.

----------


## pcosmar

Posted sarcastically in response to the "holier than thou" mindset.

----------


## fade

> Well, even then, you still don't "need" it.  You can be a body builder with just plants and milk, and do just as well, and there are many examples of this.  The source of protein most body builders go for is Whey, because it is a very effective source.  Again, it all comes down to taste preference.


You can't be a very good bodybuilder on just whey and vegetable proteins. It is MUCH easier and MUCH more effective to use real WHOLE foods like meat for bodybuilding purposes. It can be done, but the vegetarians that I have seen bodybuild - are not much compared to the meat eaters.

----------


## Yieu

I'm not trying to discredit anyone's diet here -- far from it.  I'm just trying to give some factual information:  meat is 100% optional, always.  Feel free to indulge yourself, I'm not going to tell you not to eat it, that would not be a very liberty-oriented thing to say.  But please recognize that your diet is not justified at the sake of mine.

----------


## Yieu

> You can't be a very good bodybuilder on just whey and vegetable proteins. It is MUCH easier and MUCH more effective to use real WHOLE foods like meat for bodybuilding purposes. It can be done, but the vegetarians that I have seen bodybuild - are not much compared to the meat eaters.


That is still just an opinion though.  There are examples out there that prove you wrong.

----------


## Yieu

> Posted sarcastically in response to the "holier than thou" mindset.


I don't think anyone here thinks they are better than anyone else due to their diet.  I do not think I am better than anyone else due to my diet.

----------


## dannno

> I guess that also depends on your goals in life. A higher protein diet leads to better muscle growth. I personally train my body for more muscle. That is not how everyone trains and that is not what everyone wants. In my life and with my goals it would be VERY VERY hard to get the amount of protein that I take in through the combining of carbs, vegetables, nuts, etc.


I think the MMA fighters who are vegetarian still use whey protein. You being AB blood type could probably do it, you should checkout the thread I posted on the MMA fighters (some of the best) who became vegetarian and had more energy and won more fights.

----------


## AFPVet

At any rate, milk num num nummy moo.

----------


## dannno

> You can't be a very good bodybuilder on just whey and vegetable proteins. It is MUCH easier and MUCH more effective to use real WHOLE foods like meat for bodybuilding purposes. It can be done, but the vegetarians that I have seen bodybuild - are not much compared to the meat eaters.


Bull$#@!, the MMA fighters in the thread I posted who are vegetarian could kick your ass, and they definitely train harder than you do.

----------


## Yieu

> I think the MMA fighters who are vegetarian still use whey protein. You being AB blood type could probably do it, you should checkout the thread I posted on the MMA fighters (some of the best) who became vegetarian and had more energy and won more fights.


Yeap, see, you can abstain from flesh and be just as well off.  It is all taste preference.  I feel I have to put these reminders in a lot so people do not misread me, but I am not saying anyone should not eat meat, just that it is not necessary and you are free to eat as you please, just don't justify your diet at the expense of mine, and try to realize that the only purpose of meat is its taste, anything in it nutritionally can be found in other sources easily.

----------


## fade

> That is still just an opinion though.  There are examples out there that prove you wrong.


And there are many, many more examples that prove me correct. Just because 1 person can do it does not mean they are the rule.. They are the exception. 





> I think the MMA fighters who are vegetarian still use whey protein. You being AB blood type could probably do it, you should checkout the thread I posted on the MMA fighters (some of the best) who became vegetarian and had more energy and won more fights.





> Bull$#@!, the MMA fighters in the thread I posted who are vegetarian could kick your ass, and they definitely train harder than you do.


MMA is a whole different ball game. I am sure they can kick my ass but they couldn't compete in bodybuilding. Most MMA fighters are not trying to gain weight, in fact they are trying to keep their weight down to stay in their weight class. It is completely different. Bodybuilders are going for maximum muscular size which requires a higher protein intake.

----------


## dannno

> Yeap, see, you can abstain from flesh and be just as well off.  It is all taste preference.  I feel I have to put these reminders in a lot so people do not misread me, but I am not saying anyone should not eat meat, just that it is not necessary and you are free to eat as you please, just don't justify your diet at the expense of mine, and try to realize that the only purpose of meat is its taste, anything in it nutritionally can be found in other sources easily.


Well it works for them, I dunno if it would work for pcosmar. It might, you could be right, maybe people who are type O simply are stubborn about eating meat (i've never met someone who was type o, vegetarian and in good shape.. they always seem to be the 'stubborn' meat eater type).

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What's your blood type?


Don't know.

----------


## pcosmar

> Well it works for them, I dunno if it would work for pcosmar. It might, you could be right, maybe people who are type O simply are stubborn about eating meat (i've never met someone who was type o, vegetarian and in good shape.. they always seem to be the 'stubborn' meat eater type).


Am Omnivore. love my Pumpkins too.

No noticeable weight fluctuations. I'm 5'8" and about 145 (150?) getting a bit heavier in my old age (54 this summer). took me years to reach 130 despite actively trying to gain weight in my youth.

I have worked with weight lifters doing physical labor. They (as a rule) could not keep up all day.
I'm still active, but getting old sucks.

----------


## thedude

I'm poster #91!!!!

Honestly, who gives a $#@!?

----------


## johnrocks

> I'm afraid I've got you beat.  My great-grandmother died shortly before her 100th birthday, and my grandpa is now 95.


That's great!  I hope my Mom lives that long and your Grandpa cracks 100!  I'm sure he drank raw milk at that age;early on anyway as well as your great-grandmother.

Like I stated;not for me and I was raised on a farm; but to each their own.

----------


## Acala

> May I ask how you come to that ridiculous conclusion?  I told you the basis for the FACT that the high-protein diet is a myth.  You can't just say "well, evolution says this, so it must be true."  Amino acids are the building blocks for life.  Your cells can't use proteins unless they are broken down.


The ridiculous conclusion that milk was designed for babies/  Um . . . do you know how mammals work?  Check it out.


I don't know what you mean by "high protein" diet, but the fossil record is clear that human beings evolved as meat eaters.  Not milk drinkers, not grain eaters.  Vegetables, fruit, and meat.  

And there is much more to diet than protein.  Fatty acids for one.  Your body needs omega 3 fatty acids.  Hard to get from vegetable sources without getting too much omega 6.

----------


## Yieu

God designed cows to produce more milk than calves need, so that humans could consume it.  Of course this is a religious view, but it is my belief.  If one follows the non-aggression principle to its fullest extent, you can apply it to your diet too, and that can certainly include milk.  Everyone can eat how they please of course.

----------


## dannno

> Am Omnivore. love my Pumpkins too.


I had a pumpkin curry one time.. how do you prepare your pumpkin to eat?

----------


## Yieu

> I had a pumpkin curry one time.. how do you prepare your pumpkin to eat?


That sounds delicious.  I hear it makes good soup, too.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> They all digest perfectly fine and I am in great health.


That's what you think.  Your body, however, may feel differently.  People don't really realize how healthy they really are until they realize how healthy they could be.  Someone who drops dead from a heart attack may have been feeling "fine" moments before that happened.  Were they healthy?

When you eat meat, you can only use a very small percentage of what you digest, and the rest of the unusable animal product is passed as waste through your lymphatic system, clogging it up.  It is not worth the energy it takes to digest the meat even partially in order to get what little nutrition you can from it.  Not to mention you're also getting whatever the cow ate.  This usually includes its vital hormones, such as second-hand adrenaline, which can temporarily make you feel more hyper, followed by a crash of tiredness.  This is because processing the protein to be broken down for use requires more energy than it gives us.  Food is supposed to make you feel energized, but somehow we've lost sight of that and settled for the age-old myth that all these stimulants can serve as nutrition while they contribute to our numerous health problems and make us feel tired and run-down, give us allergies, and make us susceptible to diseases, many of them bone, heart, or kidney/liver-related.

Furthermore, both meat and dairy are acid-forming substances.  When protein breaks down, it creates sulfuric and phosphoric acids, which are highly irritating, inflammatory, toxic and damaging to tissue. These acids also stimulate nerve responses leading to hyperactivity of tissues. The acid-forming properties of these substances violate the body's natural pH balance of slightly alkaline.   Protein is a nitrogen compound, high in phosphorous, which when consumed in large amounts, will deplete calcium and other electrolytes from the body.  Plant proteins are simple structures of amino acids which are considerably less energy robbing. Plants, being full of electromagnetic energy, counterbalance this energy need.

There are also many, many other problems with meat consumption, such as degeneration of the intestinal walls and putrefaction, which contributes to body odor, and also the problem of meat becoming a source for parasites, making your gut into a parasite factory.

Taken from this link: http://www.eatraworganicsunshine.com/why_no_meat_.html

Now, please note, I still eat meat, but I do not eat dairy.  It is simply a choice I have made for myself, but since I have the added benefit of understanding what's in meat, I can avoid the processed junk that is usually sold on store shelves which are often contaminated with several viruses and heavy metals, I try to only eat organic meat, which is much less taxing on your immune system due to all the poisons.

I highly recommend you read Dr. Morse's book, "The Detox Miracle Sourcebook."  I have read this book, and have put these diet practices into use with spectacular results.  If you need proof, you can take me as an example.  I tried Dr. Morse's vegan diet for a few months, and as an athlete, experienced an incredible gain in energy.  I was running 5k race once, and it seemed that no matter how hard I tried to run, I couldn't get tired.  However, after realizing how difficult it was to follow such a diet in college, I soon went back to eating meat and other things that I had not before, but I still try to avoid dairy products and several other disease-laden foods.

----------


## Acala

> God designed cows to produce more milk than calves need, so that humans could consume it.


A woman's breasts will also produce more milk than needed by a baby.  What conclusion can we draw here? 




> .  If one follows the libertarian non-aggression principle to its fullest extent, you can apply it to your diet too, and that can certainly include milk..


By that line of reasoning you must kill yourself because otherwise your body is mercilessly killing microbes all the time.  And, by the way, plants are just as alive as animals.  So even a vegan lives by killing other living things.




> Everyone can eat how they please of course.


Yup.  On this we all agree.  And that is what is important for our purposes.

By the way, I was a lacto-ovo vegetarian for many years.  But my body couldn't keep up with my training.  I kept getting injured.  I started eating fish and fowl and put on twenty pounds of muscle in two months and stopped being injured.  Possibly I was not diligent enough to eat well as a vegetarian.

That was long ago.  Recently, I adopted the primal lifestyle and dropped about twenty five pounds of fat without even trying.

----------


## fade

> That's what you think.........


No, that is from blood tests that show exactly what is going on in my body, as well as a general overall feeling that I get. OH and countless other blood tests I have seen from people that eat the same way I do.

All meat is not equal. Grain fed cows are not the same as grass fed cows. Grass fed is the only way to go.

Free range chickens and eggs are not the same as your cooped up chickens who are fed $#@! diets. 

You are what you eat has eaten.


I have seen people with high blood pressure, cholesterol completely out of whack, feeling like $#@!, having stomach problems - start eating grass fed beef, coconut oil, free range whole eggs, palm oil, nuts, salmon, and have their blood work come back and SHOCK doctors because of how much it turned around and how fast.

----------


## mczerone

> *God designed cows* to produce more milk than calves need, so that humans could consume it.  Of course this is a religious view, but it is my belief.  If one follows the non-aggression principle to its fullest extent, you can apply it to your diet too, and that can certainly include milk.  Everyone can eat how they please of course.


Not to burst your bubble, but Man designed cows through selective breeding.  That doesn't mean that milk is unnatural or bad for us, because the human population co-evolved to use the milk their cows gave.  That's why lactose tolerance is genetic and still isn't present in some populations.

----------


## Acala

> That's what you think.  Your body, however, may feel differently.  People don't really realize how healthy they really are until they realize how healthy they could be.  Someone who drops dead from a heart attack may have been feeling "fine" moments before that happened.  Were they healthy?
> 
> When you eat meat, you can only use a very small percentage of what you digest, and the rest of the unusable animal product is passed as waste through your lymphatic system, clogging it up.  It is not worth the energy it takes to digest the meat even partially in order to get what little nutrition you can from it.  Not to mention you're also getting whatever the cow ate.  This usually includes its vital hormones, such as second-hand adrenaline, which can temporarily make you feel more hyper, followed by a crash of tiredness.  This is because processing the protein to be broken down for use requires more energy than it gives us.  Food is supposed to make you feel energized, but somehow we've lost sight of that and settled for the age-old myth that all these stimulants can serve as nutrition while they contribute to our numerous health problems and make us feel tired and run-down, give us allergies, and make us susceptible to diseases, many of them bone, heart, or kidney/liver-related.
> 
> Furthermore, both meat and dairy are acid-forming substances.  When protein breaks down, it creates sulfuric and phosphoric acids, which are highly irritating, inflammatory, toxic and damaging to tissue. These acids also stimulate nerve responses leading to hyperactivity of tissues. The acid-forming properties of these substances violate the body's natural pH balance of slightly alkaline.   Protein is a nitrogen compound, high in phosphorous, which when consumed in large amounts, will deplete calcium and other electrolytes from the body.  Plant proteins are simple structures of amino acids which are considerably less energy robbing. Plants, being full of electromagnetic energy, counterbalance this energy need.
> 
> There are also many, many other problems with meat consumption, such as degeneration of the intestinal walls and putrefaction, which contributes to body odor, and also the problem of meat becoming a source for parasites, making your gut into a parasite factory.
> 
> Taken from this link: http://www.eatraworganicsunshine.com/why_no_meat_.html
> ...


lol!

----------


## dannno

> And there is much more to diet than protein.  Fatty acids for one.  Your body needs omega 3 fatty acids.  Hard to get from vegetable sources without getting too much omega 6.



Hemp and soy (I still maintain soy has been under a propaganda attack and is perfectly healthy as long as it isn't all you eat and you include other protein sources like other legumes, nuts, eggs, etc.)

----------


## fade

> lol!


LOL thank you! I'm not crazy here.

----------


## Acala

> No, that is from blood tests that show exactly what is going on in my body, as well as a general overall feeling that I get. OH and countless other blood tests I have seen from people that eat the same way I do.
> 
> All meat is not equal. Grain fed cows are not the same as grass fed cows. Grass fed is the only way to go.
> 
> Free range chickens and eggs are not the same as your cooped up chickens who are fed $#@! diets. 
> 
> You are what you eat has eaten.
> 
> 
> I have seen people with high blood pressure, cholesterol completely out of whack, feeling like $#@!, having stomach problems - start eating grass fed beef, coconut oil, free range whole eggs, palm oil, nuts, salmon, and have their blood work come back and SHOCK doctors because of how much it turned around and how fast.


I have changed over to this diet and I feel great!

----------


## pcosmar

> I had a pumpkin curry one time.. how do you prepare your pumpkin to eat?


Pumpkin pie, Pumpkin Butter, baked with butter. 
Any way you cook squash would work. Haven't tried Pumpkin soup yet,, but I have a recipe.

I have a garden and like veggies. I also like meat, Eggs and Real Butter.
I eat anything that doesn't eat me first.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, that is from blood tests that show exactly what is going on in my body, as well as a general overall feeling that I get. OH and countless other blood tests I have seen from people that eat the same way I do.
> 
> All meat is not equal. Grain fed cows are not the same as grass fed cows. Grass fed is the only way to go.
> 
> Free range chickens and eggs are not the same as your cooped up chickens who are fed $#@! diets. 
> 
> You are what you eat has eaten.
> 
> 
> I have seen people with high blood pressure, cholesterol completely out of whack, feeling like $#@!, having stomach problems - start eating grass fed beef, coconut oil, free range whole eggs, palm oil, nuts, salmon, and have their blood work come back and SHOCK doctors because of how much it turned around and how fast.


Bloodwork is not a good indicator of health, nor is your perception of how you feel, as I demonstrated in my above post.  Please read the whole thing before posting.

----------


## mczerone

> No, that is from blood tests that show exactly what is going on in my body, as well as a general overall feeling that I get. OH and countless other blood tests I have seen from people that eat the same way I do.
> 
> All meat is not equal. Grain fed cows are not the same as grass fed cows. Grass fed is the only way to go.
> 
> Free range chickens and eggs are not the same as your cooped up chickens who are fed $#@! diets. 
> 
> You are what you eat has eaten.
> 
> 
> I have seen people with high blood pressure, cholesterol completely out of whack, feeling like $#@!, having stomach problems - start eating grass fed beef, coconut oil, free range whole eggs, palm oil, nuts, salmon, and have their blood work come back and SHOCK doctors because of how much it turned around and how fast.


I agree, but the same can be gained from switching from a highly processed diet to a well balanced organic vegetarian diet.  You attacked before for someone giving anecdotal evidence, then you turn around and use one yourself.

The key is to actually eat from the earth - meat, veggies, dairy, fungus - in a way that works for you.  Each individual comes from a complex background of genetic make-ups, and some are specially tailored to specific foods.

----------


## Acala

> LOL thank you! I'm not crazy here.


No, you aren't.

----------


## fade

> Bloodwork is not a good indicator of health, nor is your perception of how you feel, as I demonstrated in my above post.  Please read the whole thing before posting.


Uh, actually bloodwork is a GREAT indicator of good health. As well as how you feel.

You're telling me if your bloodwork comes back perfect, and you feel amazing - that somehow, somewhere, you're unhealthy? How can you possibly back up your point with other indicators of what meat does to your body - WITHOUT BLOODWORK? 




> I agree, but the same can be gained from switching from a highly processed diet to a well balanced organic vegetarian diet.  You attacked before for someone giving anecdotal evidence, then you turn around and use one yourself.
> 
> The key is to actually eat from the earth - meat, veggies, dairy, fungus - in a way that works for you.  Each individual comes from a complex background of genetic make-ups, and some are specially tailored to specific foods.


I don't think I attacked anyone for giving anecdotal evidence.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> lol!


I don't understand this.  What in my post was funny?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Uh, actually bloodwork is a GREAT indicator of good health. As well as how you feel.
> 
> You're telling me if your bloodwork comes back perfect, and you feel amazing - that somehow, somewhere, you're unhealthy? How can you possibly back up your point with other indicators of what meat does to your body - WITHOUT BLOODWORK? 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I attacked anyone for giving anecdotal evidence.


Again, you don't really know how you feel until you know how good you CAN feel.  It's all perception.  Bloodwork is not the whole story.  To think your blood can show you what goes on in the rest of your body is very simplistic.  Not everything will register.  Heavy metals, for instance, won't register in a blood test because they are stored in the tissues.  

Until you can refute my earlier post, please don't bother responding.

----------


## Acala

> I don't understand this.  What in my post was funny?


It is utter nonsense without a shred of scientific evidence to support it.  It is vego-quackery.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It is utter nonsense without a shred of scientific evidence to support it.  It is vego-quackery.


Then accept my challenge and read the book I suggested.  Like I said, I put this stuff into practice and had incredible results.  You can't tell me it's quackery because it's not based on conventional wisdom.  There is a lot of scientific evidence, which I provided for you and you simply dismiss regardless of the reasoning and facts that I used.

----------


## speciallyblend

i thought we already solved all this. everyone has a right to choose what they want in their body, reg milk or raw milk meat or veggies. I thought we all agreed we would support Breast Milk for Liberty  


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVdudXoSOqI

----------


## fade

> Again, you don't really know how you feel until you know how good you CAN feel.  It's all perception.  Bloodwork is not the whole story.  To think your blood can show you what goes on in the rest of your body is very simplistic.  Not everything will register.  Heavy metals, for instance, won't register in a blood test because they are stored in the tissues.  
> 
> Until you can refute my earlier post, please don't bother responding.


I see only claims. I see no studies, I see no evidence. Even on the webpage that you posted.

----------


## Acala

> Then accept my challenge and read the book I suggested.  Like I said, I put this stuff into practice and had incredible results.  You can't tell me it's quackery because it's not based on conventional wisdom.  There is a lot of scientific evidence, which I provided for you and you simply dismiss regardless of the reasoning and facts that I used.


Please cite to a single study published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that supports your claims about the evils of meat.

----------


## AFPVet

> Please cite to a single study published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that supports your claims about the evils of meat.


There were no peer reviewed, academic studies.

----------


## AFPVet

> i thought we already solved all this. everyone has a right to choose what they want in their body, reg milk or raw milk meat or veggies. I thought we all agreed we would support Breast Milk for Liberty  
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVdudXoSOqI


She's hot!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I see only claims. I see no studies, I see no evidence. Even on the webpage that you posted.


I see no evidence that meat should be eaten.  Can you provide some of this?  A basic understanding of biology will tell you meat is not good for you.

----------


## TomtheTinker

> IT AIN'T NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! If I choose to eat mouse tails and drink moose piss for the rest of my life, that's wholly my choice.


Hear, Hear!

----------


## dannno

> Please cite to a single study published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that supports your claims about the evils of meat.


Meat rots in your gut and has led to an increase in intestinal and colon cancer for people who are more inclined to a grain/vegetarian diet. For those who are inclined to eat meat, they are less inclined to get these type of cancers. They are also going to have a metabolism that will help prevent meat from rotting in their gut by passing it through their system more quickly. I don't need a peer reviewed study to see that. The peer review process is flawed anyway.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Meat rots in your gut and has led to an increase in intestinal and colon cancer for people who are more inclined to a grain/vegetarian diet. For those who are inclined to eat meat, they are less inclined to get these type of cancers. They are also going to have a metabolism that will help prevent meat from rotting in their gut by passing it through their system more quickly. I don't need a peer reviewed study to see that. The peer review process is flawed anyway.


This is precisely what I am talking about.  My knowledge isn't based on peer-reviewed studies.  It's based on facts.

----------


## fade

> This is precisely what I am talking about.  My knowledge isn't based on peer-reviewed studies.  It's based on facts.


Facts are backed up with actual scientific evidence. OPINIONS are based on your personal experience.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Facts are backed up with actual scientific evidence. OPINIONS are based on your personal experience.


You're right.  That's why my knowledge is based on facts that are backed up by scientific evidence.  This evidence is readily observable if you are willing to look for it.  I don't need a scientist to tell me what conclusion to draw from the facts.  My personal experiences are simply a reinforcement to the fact-based evidence.

----------


## fade

> You're right.  That's why my knowledge is based on facts that are backed up by scientific evidence.  This evidence is readily observable if you are willing to look for it.  I don't need a scientist to tell me what conclusion to draw from the facts.  My personal experiences are simply a reinforcement to the fact-based evidence.


Interesting circular reasoning you have there.

----------


## youngbuck

I'll continue drinking the raw milk from organically and grass/pasture fed cows that I've been drinking for the past 6 years.

----------


## speciallyblend

> You're right.  That's why my knowledge is based on facts that are backed up by scientific evidence.  This evidence is readily observable if you are willing to look for it.  I don't need a scientist to tell me what conclusion to draw from the facts.  My personal experiences are simply a reinforcement to the fact-based evidence.


on that note i want some raw milk!!

----------


## speciallyblend

> I'll continue drinking the raw milk from organically and grass/pasture fed cows that I've been drinking for the past 6 years.


same for me now let us enjoy our reese puffs in peace? though i now have a craving for breast milk thanks to this damn thread..

----------


## Eagles' Wings

Very interesting discussion and opinions here.  If facts are desired please go to my favorite health person, Bee Wilder, and read what she has to say about**:  RAW MILK,  BLOOD TESTS, ANIMAL PROTEIN, GUT HEALTH, GOOD FATS, GERM THEORIES, CANCER etc.  Caps are just to outline the many topics Bee discusses.  

www.healingnaturallybybee.com

Bee would advocate a diet medium in animal protein, high in healthy fats and low carbs only in the form of certain veggies.   Great for sports and body building.  

Much good humor here as well.  Thanks!

----------


## speciallyblend

> Very interesting discussion and opinions here.  If facts are desired please go to my favorite health person, Bee Wilder, and read what she has to say about**:  RAW MILK,  BLOOD TESTS, ANIMAL PROTEIN, GUT HEALTH, GOOD FATS, GERM THEORIES, CANCER etc.  Caps are just to outline the many topics Bee discusses.  
> 
> www.healingnaturallybybee.com
> 
> Bee would advocate a diet medium in animal protein, high in healthy fats and low carbs only in the form of certain veggies.   Great for sports and body building.  
> 
> Much good humor here as well.  Thanks!


thanks for link, look forward to reading it. i have always mixed my foods anyway and have a high metabolism, any word on her thoughts of humans consuming breast milk? hehe  ps i swear if it wasn't for this thread i would of never you tubed milk and seen that damn video though i have to say i enjoy milk period of any kind!!  on a serious note i think this will help my wife in her recovery! thanks

----------


## Ninja Homer

> Not to burst your bubble, but Man designed cows through selective breeding.  That doesn't mean that milk is unnatural or bad for us, because the human population co-evolved to use the milk their cows gave.  That's why lactose tolerance is genetic and still isn't present in some populations.


This.

Saying that milk is unnatural is like saying that it is unnatural to eat any food crops that were grown or any animals that have been domesticated because we should only hunt and gather our food.

Raw milk is good for some people, and some people are lactose intolerant. Pasteurized homogenized milk from factories where cows are fed corn instead of grass, walk around in their own $#@!, have constantly infected teets, and never see the light of day isn't good for anybody.

Some people that think they are lactose intolerant can handle raw milk just fine, because it contains the natural enzymes that break down lactose (pasteurization destroys these enzymes).  Other people think they are lactose intolerant, when they are actually having an allergic reaction to the antibiotic teet treatment that is constantly used and seeps into the milk.  My wife, for example, can drink raw milk all day without any problem, but has a bad reaction to commercial milk because she's allergic to sulfa drugs.

If you ever get the opportunity to try some organic grass-fed raw milk, do it. It's delicious.  Find some here: http://realmilk.com/where1.html

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> thanks for link, look forward to reading it. i have always mixed my foods anyway and have a high metabolism, any word on her thoughts of humans consuming breast milk? hehe  ps i swear if it wasn't for this thread i would of never you tubed milk and seen that damn video though i have to say i enjoy milk period of any kind!!


Bee does not think dairy products are necessary for health and healing.  Breast milk for adults could be helpful only if it is the first milk after birth, the colostrum.  Baby needs that!  I have heard of farmers who save cow/goat colostrum for human consumption.

----------


## Acala

> Meat rots in your gut and has led to an increase in intestinal and colon cancer for people who are more inclined to a grain/vegetarian diet. For those who are inclined to eat meat, they are less inclined to get these type of cancers. They are also going to have a metabolism that will help prevent meat from rotting in their gut by passing it through their system more quickly. I don't need a peer reviewed study to see that. The peer review process is flawed anyway.


Sorry, but you have not "seen" any of the things you just described.  You heard it and you believe it without objective evidence.

----------


## Acala

> You're right.  That's why my knowledge is based on facts that are backed up by scientific evidence.  This evidence is readily observable if you are willing to look for it.  I don't need a scientist to tell me what conclusion to draw from the facts.  My personal experiences are simply a reinforcement to the fact-based evidence.


Hahahahahaha!  Please tell me you are joking with this?

----------


## musicmax

Which statement is likely to attract more voters:

(a) "I'm the only candidate who has served in the US military."

(b) "I'm the only candidate to have introduced raw milk legislation."

----------


## Eagles' Wings

Paul, if you'd like a good read about animal proteins, blood diet, acid vs alkaline and other popular diets, try:

"NOURISHING TRADITIONS: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats"

How do you like that title?!

It is our mainstay cookbook and is full of interesting facts about ancestral diet, food preparation, the importance of food quality.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Which statement is likely to attract more voters:
> 
> (a) "I'm the only candidate who has served in the US military."
> 
> (b) "I'm the only candidate to have introduced raw milk legislation."


Honestly, that is a tough one.  Both impress me and I tend to vote Constitution Party.

----------


## dannno

> Sorry, but you have not "seen" any of the things you just described.  You heard it and you believe it without objective evidence.


No, I've lived it and felt it. That is a lot more objective to me than seeing it written on a piece of paper with some rich dude's name next to it with his richy rich scientific organisation that is controlled by the powers that be.

----------


## pcosmar

> Which statement is likely to attract more voters:
> 
> (a) "I'm the only candidate who has served in the US military."
> 
> (b) "I'm the only candidate to have introduced raw milk legislation."


(c) "I am the only candidate with positions based on Principles."

----------


## Acala

> Which statement is likely to attract more voters:
> 
> (a) "I'm the only candidate who has served in the US military."
> 
> (b) "I'm the only candidate to have introduced raw milk legislation."


I couldn't care less about (a) but I am in the minority.

----------


## Acala

> No, I've lived it and felt it. That is a lot more objective to me than seeing it written on a piece of paper with some rich dude's name next to it with his richy rich scientific organisation that is controlled by the powers that be.


You have lived colon cancer caused by meat?  That was your claim.  Where is your evidence?

People have simply fabricated a bunch of stuff to support their lifestyle decisions and are trying to pass it off as truth. 

Peer reviewed science is far from perfect, but it beats the hell out of anecdotal evidence when trying to make general statements of fact - like the ones you are making.

----------


## dannno

> You have lived colon cancer caused by meat?  That was your claim.  Where is your evidence?


I never said that, but I know that instances have gone up and it has been linked to eating meat..  Even G. Edward Griffin will tell you that.  That doesn't mean everybody who eats meat will get cancer, just those who are not disposed to eating so much.I also have a few relatives who have the same blood type and have had colon cancer at a young age, they ate a lot of meat. I haven't, probably because I stopped eating so much meat at a younger age.





> People have simply fabricated a bunch of stuff to support their lifestyle decisions and are trying to pass it off as truth.


No, I used to eat $#@!ing meat and the $#@! rotted in my gut for years until I did the lemonade cleanse. When I eat meat, my metabolism slows down, everything slows down. When I eat veggies, everything becomes supercharged and I lose weight. I eat ONE meal of meat and everything goes to $#@!, don't try and tell me how my body works.

The only difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying is that what I'm saying makes sense when you look at EVERYTHING and everybody's opinion in here. Great, you eat meat and it doesn't rot in  your gut too much because your body can handle eating meat. Well, mine can't, period, so when you tell me that I have to eat meat to be my paleo self I know those people are full of $#@!. If that works for you, great, you should be on the paleo diet.

When vegetarians say that everybody should be veggie and we don't eat meat, I know they're full of $#@! because I know people who have tried being veggie and can't do it. Our bodies are different. That is the only thing here that makes logical sense, and we have a bunch of people hell bent on thinking that what they have found to work best for them will work best for everyone. I'm the only one putting forward the REAL logical conclusion that our bodies handle different foods differently. 





> Peer reviewed science is far from perfect, but it beats the hell out of anecdotal evidence when trying to make general statements of fact - like the ones you are making.


Not when industry funds the science.

----------


## amy31416

> ...don't try and tell me how my body works....


Gonna have to nominate this as "Ironic Statement of the Day."

(Hope I'm using "irony" correctly.)

----------


## fade

> I never said that, but I know that instances have gone up and it has been linked to eating meat..  Even G. Edward Griffin will tell you that.  That doesn't mean everybody who eats meat will get cancer, just those who are not disposed to eating so much.I also have a few relatives who have the same blood type and have had colon cancer at a young age, they ate a lot of meat. I haven't, probably because I stopped eating so much meat at a younger age.


You mention blood types quite a bit. Have you read D'Adamo's latest book 'The Genotype Diet'?

----------


## Acala

> I never said that, but I know that instances have gone up and it has been linked to eating meat..  Even G. Edward Griffin will tell you that.  That doesn't mean everybody who eats meat will get cancer, just those who are not disposed to eating so much.I also have a few relatives who have the same blood type and have had colon cancer at a young age, they ate a lot of meat. I haven't, probably because I stopped eating so much meat at a younger age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I used to eat $#@!ing meat and the $#@! rotted in my gut for years until I did the lemonade cleanse. When I eat meat, my metabolism slows down, everything slows down. When I eat veggies, everything becomes supercharged and I lose weight. I eat ONE meal of meat and everything goes to $#@!, don't try and tell me how my body works.
> 
> The only difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying is that what I'm saying makes sense when you look at EVERYTHING and everybody's opinion in here. Great, you eat meat and it doesn't rot in  your gut too much because your body can handle eating meat. Well, mine can't, period, so when you tell me that I have to eat meat to be my paleo self I know those people are full of $#@!. If that works for you, great, you should be on the paleo diet.
> 
> ...


You said meat rots in your gut and causes cancer.  I said cite a study.  You said you don't have to because you have lived it.  Now you deny saying it.  

You came out swinging, making all kinds of wild claims about the evils of meat but when it comes down to it, all you have is your opinion and nothing more.  Sorry to say, but that doesn't carry much weight with me. 

I never said your diet would harm you.  You, on the other hand, said my diet causes cancer.  But you have nada in the way of evidence.  I don't have anything more to say to you other than this - if good quality meat rots in your stomach there is something wrong with you.  I'm not saying you need to eat meat, but a healthy human certainly should be able to digest meat without a problem if they want to do so.  We have been doing it for a million years.    

Now, for those of you who want actual evidence rather than anti-meat hyperbole, I suggest this as a pretty good start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet

And for a deeper look, I suggest Mark's Daily apple at:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/

----------


## dannno

> You mention blood types quite a bit. Have you read D'Adamo's latest book 'The Genotype Diet'?


Ya I'm pretty sure that diet is only loosely connected to blood type, the book seems to take a hardline stance that it is the end-all be-all which I'm not so sure of. I'd be interested in checking that one out.

----------


## dannno

> You said meat rots in your gut and causes cancer.  I said cite a study.  You said you don't have to because you have lived it.  Now you deny saying it.


I thought that it was common knowledge that too much red meat can cause intestinal and colon cancer. 

http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/up...n-cancer.shtml

It says that people were 1/3rd more likely to get colon cancer from eating a lot of red meat.. but in reality, it could be that 1/3 of the participants were 95% likely to develop colon cancer with a large intake of red meat and the others will never get colon cancer from eating red meat. That sounds reasonable based on what I've read and what I've been saying.





> You came out swinging, making all kinds of wild claims about the evils of meat but when it comes down to it, all you have is your opinion and nothing more.  Sorry to say, but that doesn't carry much weight with me.


You must be confusing me with other posters. I never said meat is inherently evil, some people thrive on it. For me, meat doesn't work. It would be nice to have the option of eating meat, it tastes good, although I also don't mind not killing as many animals either. 




> if good quality meat rots in your stomach there is something wrong with you.


High quality, grass fed beef or high quality sashimi grade raw fish, just ONE meal stops up by metabolism and rots in my system because my system isn't designed for it. I'm in the minority, only a small percentage of people have A+ blood.

I told you, I just ate a big meal of sashimi and sushi a few days ago and now my metabolism is $#@!ed. It happens every time I eat meat, and every time I go back to being veggie it speeds back up. 





> Now, for those of you who want actual evidence rather than anti-meat hyperbole, I suggest this as a pretty good start:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet
> 
> And for a deeper look, I suggest Mark's Daily apple at:
> 
> http://www.marksdailyapple.com/



I guarantee if I started the paleo diet and ate meat regularly, AND exercised twice as much as I do now, I would gain at least 20 pounds of fat in less than a year.

Get me back on a veggie diet, I will lose it all in 6 months and be in better shape.

----------


## fade

> I guarantee if I started the paleo diet and ate meat regularly, AND exercised twice as much as I do now, I would gain at least 20 pounds of fat in less than a year.
> 
> Get me back on a veggie diet, I will lose it all in 6 months and be in better shape.


If you are switching from veggies to meat, are you contributing the large amounts of fat that are in meat into your caloric intake? It is much easier to overeat meats high in calories than it is in veggies and rice - as they tend to fill you up much faster on a lower amount of calories.

----------


## dannno

> Gonna have to nominate this as "Ironic Statement of the Day."
> 
> (Hope I'm using "irony" correctly.)


I seem to recall in that thread I mentioned massaging, not ramming the back, and then you insinuated that because it hurt you even though you haven't necessarily experienced precisely what I was talking about, or my precise anatomy, it must hurt every woman on the planet, and it couldn't have possibly been pleasurable to the women I've been with. 

That sounds to me more like you were trying to tell me how the women I've been with bodies work rather than me telling you how yours worked, I was just trying to bring about a working knowledge for how most women functioned and how perhaps a slightly different experience for you could possibly bring about different results.

----------


## dannno

> If you are switching from veggies to meat, are you contributing the large amounts of fat that are in meat into your caloric intake? It is much easier to overeat meats high in calories than it is in veggies and rice - as they tend to fill you up much faster on a lower amount of calories.


I know where you're going with this, but it's not about that. When I eat one meal of sushi, even if I mostly eat sashimi and very little rice, or whatever, it doesn't really matter, when I eat ONE meal of meat my metabolism slows down and I start gaining weight for the next week or so afterwards. I go back to as healthy a veggie diet as soon as possible, but my system slows down for about a week and I gain weight no matter what I eat.. Then about a week or so after I eat the single meal with meat, if I'm eating good quality veggie food, it will kick back into gear and then it doesn't really matter what I eat (as long as it isn't meat) I will lose the weight.

I actually had quite a few meals with meat this last winter, all close together, and it shut my system down for almost 3 months. I was fatter than I've been in over 10 years.. I stayed strict on my veggie diet, eventually it kicked back into gear and I lost the weight in about 3 weeks and was skinny again.

----------


## Acala

> I thought that it was common knowledge that too much red meat can cause intestinal and colon cancer. 
> 
> http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/up...n-cancer.shtml.


Now that's more like it!  Some evidence.  Of course it just begs the question what kind of meat were they eating and what else were they eating?  

I'll see if I can find out more about this study.

----------


## squarepusher

processed meat

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Hahahahahaha!  Please tell me you are joking with this?


Why would I be?  I believe in facts and evidence and my personal experiences are simply anecdotal evidence that reinforces the facts.  How is that weird?

----------


## dannno

> Now that's more like it!  Some evidence.  Of course it just begs the question what kind of meat were they eating and what else were they eating?  
> 
> I'll see if I can find out more about this study.


You are probably right that better quality meat would vastly decrease their chance of getting cancer.. but I still think even high quality meat, for the wrong person, in large quantities, can stay in your system and rot. Most people, however, can handle meat just fine so this wouldn't be an issue.

----------


## Acala

> You are probably right that better quality meat would vastly decrease their chance of getting cancer.. but I still think even high quality meat, for the wrong person, in large quantities, can stay in your system and rot. Most people, however, can handle meat just fine so this wouldn't be an issue.


So it appears that the carcinogen in the study was not the meat but a product of excessive cooking of the meat.  And I agree - don't overcook your meat.  And don't eat processed meat or grain finished meat or hormone injected meat.

edit: and here is a recent study and analysis:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/red-meat-study/

edit: and this pretty well destroys any correlation between red meat and colon cancer:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/f...and-mortality/

----------


## Acala

> Why would I be?  I believe in facts and evidence and my personal experiences are simply anecdotal evidence that reinforces the facts.  How is that weird?


Dude, you didn't cite any facts or evidence.

----------


## dannno

> So it appears that the carcinogen in the study was not the meat but a product of excessive cooking of the meat.  And I agree - don't overcook your meat.  And don't eat processed meat or grain finished meat or hormone injected meat.


I like my steaks medium rare, and will even go rare but only if it is the freshest high quality meat.

Of course I like my fish raw. 

The $#@! still gets stuck in me though. I get all bloated, not the day after eating meat, but starting about 3 days later. My system feels like a clogged sink for at least the next few days after that.

I actually lived that way the whole time for many, many years of my youth.. and was about 60 lbs overweight.. no matter how active I was.. Now I can sit around and do jack $#@! and lose weight as long as I'm in high metabolism mode.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Dude, you didn't cite any facts or evidence.


I talked to you about how the body handles protein on the cellular level.  This should be common knowledge based on basic facts about human anatomy.  I don't have to do a double-blind study to tell you how basic biology works.  The body can't handle animal protein, check fact.  The body must break down proteins to amino acids to use on a cellular level, check fact.  Since this process uses energy instead of giving, it is inefficient and most of the stuff goes unused... check fact.  

I suggested to you the Detox Miracle Sourcebook by Robert More, N.D. which is backed by 30 years of clinical experience and many, many successful treatments of cancer.  You can't fake cancer treatment.

----------


## Acala

> I talked to you about how the body handles protein on the cellular level.  This should be common knowledge based on basic facts about human anatomy.  I don't have to do a double-blind study to tell you how basic biology works.  The body can't handle animal protein, check fact.  The body must break down proteins to amino acids to use on a cellular level, check fact.  Since this process uses energy instead of giving, it is inefficient and most of the stuff goes unused... check fact.  
> 
> I suggested to you the Detox Miracle Sourcebook by Robert More, N.D. which is backed by 30 years of clinical experience and many, many successful treatments of cancer.  You can't fake cancer treatment.


Your statements are not facts.  Understand?

When you make the statement that "The body can't handle animal protein" and expect it to be accepted as a fact because you said it, you lose all credibility.  The FACT is that there has never been any culture on earth that did not rely to some extent on animal protein.

----------


## amy31416

> I seem to recall in that thread I mentioned massaging, not ramming the back, and then you insinuated that because it hurt you even though you haven't necessarily experienced precisely what I was talking about, or my precise anatomy, it must hurt every woman on the planet, and it couldn't have possibly been pleasurable to the women I've been with. 
> 
> That sounds to me more like you were trying to tell me how the women I've been with bodies work rather than me telling you how yours worked, I was just trying to bring about a working knowledge for how most women functioned and how perhaps a slightly different experience for you could possibly bring about different results.


Not just talking about your cervix-banging "prowess," I am talking about your insistence on going on and on about how the g-spot (which I have) was some grand "African" conspiracy theory and that me and other women didn't know what we were talking about, because we were probably mistaking it for our cervix.

Did that jog your memory? Any idea how asinine you sounded?

----------


## Dr.3D

WTF?   How did this thread go from raw milk to searching for the g-spot and finding out where Libia is?

----------


## dannno

> Not just talking about your cervix-banging "prowess," I am talking about your insistence on going on and on about how the g-spot (which I have) was some grand "African" conspiracy theory and that me and other women didn't know what we were talking about, because we were probably mistaking it for our cervix.
> 
> Did that jog your memory? Any idea how asinine you sounded?


Well when you are massaging what is said to be the 'ultimate' erogenous zone (the gspot) and it's working out pretty good, then suddenly you hit another zone that seems to get an even better reaction that is further back, it makes you question reality..and the real location of the 'gspot'.. Then I did some research during the thread and found out that for many women, the cervix, when in a fully aroused state, can actually give better orgasms than the gspot. I never denied the gspot existed, I just denied that the ultimate erogenous zone (which we are all told is the gspot) was located only 2 inches up when in fact for many women the ultimate erogenous zone is much deeper (and is not the gspot).

----------


## dannno

> WTF?   How did this thread go from raw milk to searching for the g-spot and finding out where Libia is?


Just go through Amy and my posts the last couple pages. Did you really miss that whole thread a few weeks ago?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Just go through Amy and my posts the last couple pages. Did you really miss that whole thread a few weeks ago?


 I remember that thread, it where I mentioned a country in Africa.

----------


## fade

> I talked to you about how the body handles protein on the cellular level.  This should be common knowledge based on basic facts about human anatomy.  I don't have to do a double-blind study to tell you how basic biology works.  The body can't handle animal protein, check fact.  The body must break down proteins to amino acids to use on a cellular level, check fact.  Since this process uses energy instead of giving, it is inefficient and most of the stuff goes unused... check fact.  
> 
> I suggested to you the Detox Miracle Sourcebook by Robert More, N.D. which is backed by 30 years of clinical experience and many, many successful treatments of cancer.  You can't fake cancer treatment.


Your vegetables and carbs all have to be digested down into amino acids as well. Same with your meats. Thus, your vegetables are worthless as much as the meats that we eat. The thermic effect of food is actually a benefit of eating things like meats that are harder to break down. Your body will actually increase your metabolism to break down your meat. Allowing you take in more calories and reap the benefits of higher nutrient content with a higher metabolism. 

If you consider there are 4 calories per gram of protein and per gram of carbs, using 1 of those calories to help digest the food in the first place leads to a lower caloric intake and thus better fat loss.. Win-Win.

----------


## amy31416

> Well when you are massaging what is said to be the 'ultimate' erogenous zone (the gspot) and it's working out pretty good, then suddenly you hit another zone that seems to get an even better reaction that is further back, it makes you question reality..and the real location of the 'gspot'.. Then I did some research during the thread and found out that for many women, the cervix, when in a fully aroused state, can actually give better orgasms than the gspot. I never denied the gspot existed, I just denied that the ultimate erogenous zone (which we are all told is the gspot) was located only 2 inches up when in fact for many women the ultimate erogenous zone is much deeper (and is not the gspot).


So, what you're saying is that **you** think you know better than the person who actually owns their body, yet you get irked when you think someone does the same to you.

At least you'll vaguely admit it, even if you'll never admit that you were wrong.

Done with the hijack, just thought it was funny.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Your vegetables and carbs all have to be digested down into amino acids as well. Same with your meats. Thus, your vegetables are worthless as much as the meats that we eat. The thermic effect of food is actually a benefit of eating things like meats that are harder to break down. Your body will actually increase your metabolism to break down your meat. Allowing you take in more calories and reap the benefits of higher nutrient content with a higher metabolism. 
> 
> If you consider there are 4 calories per gram of protein and per gram of carbs, using 1 of those calories to help digest the food in the first place leads to a lower caloric intake and thus better fat loss.. Win-Win.


Here is an in-depth article on why humans weren't meant to consume meat.  

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

Plant protein is much easier to digest as it is not as complex and already has electromagnetic energy stored to contribute instead of just wasting the body's energy sources to break down the fats and proteins that are abundant in meat.  Everything has protein in it.  However, only plants supply the specific amino acids we need not in their protein form.  

Dr. Dean Ornish was the first to demonstrate that heart disease can be reversed by feeding patients a vegetarian diet.  
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...stinvegetarian

Contributing dead food to your system does absolutely nothing to revitalize your health and supply your body with the energy it needs to keep the process going.

http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm




> Some vegetarians claim they are more satisfied after they eat. The reason for this is that there are fewer ketones (protein-digestive substances) formed when vegetable protein is digested. For many, ketones cause a trace amount of nausea which one normally interprets as a decreased desire for food due to this uncomfortable and slight degree of queasiness. Although the body calls for more food, the taste buds tolerate less. This is the danger of the popular high-protein diet substances on the market. This abnormally high level of ketones is called ketosis and refers to the state of starvation that the body incurs due to the inability of the appetite to call for nutrition. Most Americans who eat the wrong type of carbohydrates never recognize the high amount of complex carbohydrates required to overthrow this condition. Also, when the blood ketone level is too high, it results in abnormally acidic blood, called acidosis.


http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-...ooked-1a.shtml

Honestly, there are not peer-reviewed studies on some of what is being said here, but that doesn't mean we can't use science and common sense to figure things out.  Are you going to sit around and wait for a hundred-page report on why fire is hot because it releases energy?  No, the fact is that some of this stuff just hasn't been studied in-depth, but that doesn't mean there isn't any truth to it.

----------


## pcosmar

Pffftt !









*Yum*

----------


## Revolution9

The Masai are some pretty tall and athletic people. They have a traditional diet of raw milk and cattle blood..we have rare steak and burger to substitute the proteins. Early Americans drank raw milk. Then they toiled in the fields and they got pretty tough from their work. They needed fuel. Whey is one of the best there is and removes toxins. I used to get what my dad called white milk with cream on top delivered from the farmer to our door. Then he started carrying blue milk....pasteurized. Oatmeal and cereal never had that same sweet smoothness with the blue milk. I slowly got quite allergic to it. However, if cheese is made right I can digest it and like it very much. There is an Amish farmgoods store I get cheddar from that never gives me heartburn and very little mucous which I burn up on the river or in the woods. I drink whey in some of my protein drinks and that doesn't cause problems either. I believe raw milk is better to bake with because it is protein cross linked and bound to other molecular configurations when baking, making it much more digestible, which with pasteurised will already have been crosslinked and have the same general effect on the body, generally making your blood thicken. If you just gotta do it then drink a 16 ounce glass of mineral water with a tablespoon of Braggs Apple Cider Vinegar and some local unpasteurized honey daily to cut the phlegm and deal with impurities and removing them.

Best
Rev9

Legalize the dang stuff. You can buy it for your pet in most states..heh..

----------


## Revolution9

> Here is an in-depth article on why humans weren't meant to consume meat.  
> <snipped psuedo-religious babbling and linkage>


http://www.sott.net/articles/show/23...nd-Vegetables-

A footnote to your butt
"J Appl Bacteriol. 1988 Jan;64(1):37-46. Contribution of the microflora to proteolysis in the human large intestine. Macfarlane GT, Allison C, Gibson SA, Cummings JH. 

"In the stomach and the proximal small bowel, the microorganisms found as normal flora are a reflection of the oral flora. Bacterial concentrations in this region are 10(2)-10(5) cfu/ml intestinal content. In the colon, bacterial concentrations of 10(11)-10(12) cfu/g faeces are found." 

In other words, there are roughly 10 million times as many bacteria in the colon as in the small intestine. So bacterial digestion ('rotting') is not significant anywhere in our digestive tract but the colon. 

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1989 Mar;55(3):679-83. Significance of microflora in proteolysis in the colon.Gibson SA, McFarlan C, Hay S, MacFarlane GT. 

"Proteolytic activity was significantly greater than (P less than 0.001) in small intestinal effluent than in feces (319 +/- 45 and 11 +/- 6 mg of azocasein hydrolyzed per h per g, respectively)." 

That's a mere 3.4% of proteolytic activity occurring in the feces vs. the small intestine...and that doesn't count what already occurred in the stomach. If meat were being digested in the colon, we would expect a far greater amount of proteolysis to occur there. And that 3.4% is likely due to dead intestinal bacteria (which make up a significant fraction of feces), not undigested meat".

You may be interested in digesting the rest of the article for your healths sake.

Regards
Rev9

----------


## AFPVet

> God designed cows to produce more milk than calves need, so that humans could consume it.  Of course this is a religious view, but it is my belief.  If one follows the non-aggression principle to its fullest extent, you can apply it to your diet too, and that can certainly include milk.  Everyone can eat how they please of course.


Animal science supports this as well

----------


## Yieu

> A woman's breasts will also produce more milk than needed by a baby.  What conclusion can we draw here?


I'm not drawing conclusions based on just the fact that there is more milk.  The cow is Krishna's (God's) favorite animal, because she is our second mother, as when we are young we take milk from our first mother, and when we grow we take milk from our second mother, the cow.  This is all religious talk here, not just merely drawing conclusions from the fact there is extra milk.




> By that line of reasoning you must kill yourself because otherwise your body is mercilessly killing microbes all the time.  And, by the way, plants are just as alive as animals.  So even a vegan lives by killing other living things.


You bring up good, important, and valid points here.  It is still sinful to eat/kill even plants and microbes.  In fact, the unavoidable killing of microbes is called "unavoidable sin", because we are unable to prevent it.  But there is an answer, and it is a religious one.  If we serve God, He forgives our sins.  Also, I don't avoid flesh simply over sentiment for animals -- I only eat what has been offered to the Lord first, and he only accepts certain kinds of food offerings.




> Everyone can eat how they please of course.





> Yup.  On this we all agree.  And that is what is important for our purposes.


Indeed, but I feel it necessary to repeat this because others tend to easily misunderstand what is meant on this subject and take offense/go on the offense when I am not threatening them nor trying to say I am better in any way at all, yet people often see "vegetarian" and think "holier than thou" automatically even though that is not the case.

----------


## Revolution9

If God didn't want us to eat animals then he wouldn't have made them taste like meat.

Rev9

----------


## pcosmar

> Indeed, but I feel it necessary to repeat this because others tend to easily misunderstand what is meant on this subject and take offense/go on the offense when I am not threatening them nor trying to say I am better in any way at all, yet people often see "vegetarian" and think "holier than thou" automatically even though that is not the case.


Ah, since that was my comment let me clarify.
I have nothing against someone *Choosing* to be vegetarian. I do find it annoying when they get pushy about it and push dubious claims based on pseudoscience.
I have my faith and you have yours, I sometimes share some of my beliefs and you share yours,,,without pushing them on others.
There are some that do. Such as bashing Ron for his position on Health Freedom. And pushing the position of an organization the is opposed to liberty.

As for myself, I make no claim of being an "expert",, but I do doubt the claims of many so called and self proclaimed experts.

I generally only have milk on cereal. But it has been my experience that farm fresh and unmolested foods both taste better but seem to fuel me better.
And this from an omnivore that can and does eat nearly any and everything.

----------


## pcosmar

> If God didn't want us to eat animals then he wouldn't have made them taste like meat.
> 
> Rev9


It is so nice to see you back.  

I missed ya at times.

----------


## Petar

> God designed cows to produce more milk than calves need, so that humans could consume it.  Of course this is a religious view, but it is my belief.  If one follows the non-aggression principle to its fullest extent, you can apply it to your diet too, and that can certainly include milk.  Everyone can eat how they please of course.


My guess is that if I held you captive and juiced your nipples then you would probably feel aggressed upon.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> http://www.sott.net/articles/show/23...nd-Vegetables-
> 
> A footnote to your butt
> "J Appl Bacteriol. 1988 Jan;64(1):37-46. Contribution of the microflora to proteolysis in the human large intestine. Macfarlane GT, Allison C, Gibson SA, Cummings JH. 
> 
> "In the stomach and the proximal small bowel, the microorganisms found as normal flora are a reflection of the oral flora. Bacterial concentrations in this region are 10(2)-10(5) cfu/ml intestinal content. In the colon, bacterial concentrations of 10(11)-10(12) cfu/g faeces are found." 
> 
> In other words, there are roughly 10 million times as many bacteria in the colon as in the small intestine. So bacterial digestion ('rotting') is not significant anywhere in our digestive tract but the colon. 
> 
> ...


Not sure how you drew that conclusion, but it's interesting that you would say I should digest the article "for my health's sake."  Nobody needs to eat meat.  All of the nutrients in meat can be found in plant sources.

----------


## Acala

> My guess is that if I held you captive and juiced your nipples then you would probably feel aggressed upon.


Ahahahahaha.  Some people pay for that kind of treatment.

----------


## Acala

> Here is an in-depth article on why humans weren't meant to consume meat.  
> 
> http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html
> 
> Plant protein is much easier to digest as it is not as complex and already has electromagnetic energy stored to contribute instead of just wasting the body's energy sources to break down the fats and proteins that are abundant in meat.  Everything has protein in it.  However, only plants supply the specific amino acids we need not in their protein form.  
> 
> Dr. Dean Ornish was the first to demonstrate that heart disease can be reversed by feeding patients a vegetarian diet.  
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...stinvegetarian
> 
> ...


The article is full of crap and not supported by evidence.

And when you talk about "electromagnetic energy" in plant food you are talking nonsense.  You have not one shred of evidence for that.  Indeed, I am guessing you can't even explain in detail what that is supposed to mean.

The same goes with your comment about "dead' food.  Virtually everything we eat is dead or dying.  Plants are as much alive as animals so when you cut them up, grind them up, cook them and eat them, they are just as dead as a strip of bacon.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

*sigh* It's regrettable that I always happen to be on this side of the issue with the animal rights nuts and what seem like hippies.  However, like I said before, I put these principles into practice and got very good results from this.  I'm not lying.  I suggest everyone read the book "The Detox Miracle Sourcebook" by Robert Morse, N.D.  He has had lots of successfully treated cancer patients recover by using his raw, vegan diet plan.  

In any case, I agree that raw milk is probably better than pasteurized poison, but I believe they are both detrimental to your overall health.

----------


## fade

> The article is full of crap and not supported by evidence.
> 
> And when you talk about "electromagnetic energy" in plant food you are talking nonsense.  You have not one shred of evidence for that.  Indeed, I am guessing you can't even explain in detail what that is supposed to mean.
> 
> The same goes with your comment about "dead' food.  Virtually everything we eat is dead or dying.  Plants are as much alive as animals so when you cut them up, grind them up, cook them and eat them, they are just as dead as a strip of bacon.


I don't even understand where he gets half of his claims.. It's as if someone said "this sounds like a good reason to be a vegetarian" and threw it into an article.. No supporting evidence, just a broad general statement. How do you argue with a crazy person? you don't.

----------


## Acala

> I put these principles into practice and got very good results from this.


Now THIS is evidence.  It is not particularly strong evidence, but it is at least factual.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Now THIS is evidence.  It is not particularly strong evidence, but it is at least factual.


I mentioned that like 3 times, dude.

Which suggests to me that you haven't been reading my posts very well..

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't even understand where he gets half of his claims.. It's as if someone said "this sounds like a good reason to be a vegetarian" and threw it into an article.. No supporting evidence, just a broad general statement. How do you argue with a crazy person? you don't.


Electromagnetic energy is given off in different frequencies by nature and by electronic sources.  Electronic sources are generally harmful frequencies to the biological activities of cells because it disrupts cell signals.  I know it sounds sort of hippyish, but just because it's not mainstream science, doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked into.  There is a monopoly on science these days and it has become bureaucratized by government like anything else.  Plant and animal frequencies are harmonious with cell activity and contribute energy to the process instead of taking it away.  Dead animal and plant matter, however, give off zero energy and are inefficient for the body to handle.  Here is an article on electromagnetic energy and the study of energy, which sees us as primarily energetic beings, whereas we are most often seen as being quantities of matter in space and time.

http://www.energystore.biz/index_files/emf1.htm

EDIT: Sorry, I meant to respond to acala, who asked about electromagnetic energy.  Is that enough detail for you?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't even understand where he gets half of his claims.. It's as if someone said "this sounds like a good reason to be a vegetarian" and threw it into an article.. No supporting evidence, just a broad general statement. How do you argue with a crazy person? you don't.


You can disagree all you want, but I do not appreciate your ad hominem attacks on my credibility.  It's a quite complex subject, so it's hard to explain in a nutshell, but that's why I suggested you read that book.  It's the first time I really got into it, too, but it was very clear and had a lot of supporting evidence.

----------


## Acala

> I mentioned that like 3 times, dude.
> 
> ..


yes, buried in tons of total nonsense.

----------


## Acala

> Electromagnetic energy is given off in different frequencies by nature and by electronic sources.  Electronic sources are generally harmful frequencies to the biological activities of cells because it disrupts cell signals.  I know it sounds sort of hippyish, but just because it's not mainstream science, doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked into.  There is a monopoly on science these days and it has become bureaucratized by government like anything else.  Plant and animal frequencies are harmonious with cell activity and contribute energy to the process instead of taking it away.  Dead animal and plant matter, however, give off zero energy and are inefficient for the body to handle.  Here is an article on electromagnetic energy and the study of energy, which sees us as primarily energetic beings, whereas we are most often seen as being quantities of matter in space and time.
> 
> http://www.energystore.biz/index_files/emf1.htm
> 
> EDIT: Sorry, I meant to respond to acala, who asked about electromagnetic energy.  Is that enough detail for you?


No.  What electromagnetic energy are you talking about?  What frequency?  Has it been measured?

----------


## fade

> No.  What electromagnetic energy are you talking about?  What frequency?  Has it been measured?


That's the type of energy that cooks my food in a microwave, right?

----------


## AFPVet

While there is truth to frequencies and biological organisms, there is nothing to suggest that biological frequencies have any negative health effect whatsoever on other biofields.The only frequencies which are harmful include high powered waves or Terahertz frequencies which actually may interfere with cellular communication and DNA. Biofields are not going to harm you. If you consume something which does not emit frequencies, it will not harm you. Ok... I'm done... if you have any more questions, ask a university biologist.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No.  What electromagnetic energy are you talking about?  What frequency?  Has it been measured?


That doesn't matter.  What does matter is that there is a right frequency and a wrong frequency.  All this was explained in the article.  The mechanism isn't clear just like the mechanism of how aspirin cures a headache is not known very well.  However, resonance is a very observable phenomenon, such as the human ear, which vibrates and resonates with certain sound frequencies.  There are very observable cellular effects.  The electromagnetic energy I am talking about is stuff like heat, light, x-rays, and gamma rays that represent different frequencies. 

Seriously, though, for how fast you responded, I can deduce that you didn't read any significant portion of the article.

----------


## Acala

> That doesn't matter.  What does matter is that there is a right frequency and a wrong frequency.  All this was explained in the article.  The mechanism isn't clear just like the mechanism of how aspirin cures a headache is not known very well.  However, resonance is a very observable phenomenon, such as the human ear, which vibrates and resonates with certain sound frequencies.  There are very observable cellular effects.  The electromagnetic energy I am talking about is stuff like heat, light, x-rays, and gamma rays that represent different frequencies. 
> 
> Seriously, though, for how fast you responded, I can deduce that you didn't read any significant portion of the article.


I don't need to read an article on magic energy vibrations.  I KNOW you have no evidence that there is "good" frequency radiation and "bad" frequency radiation coming from plants and animals.  It is mumbo jumbo with no scientific basis in fact.  You CAN measure certain kinds of electrical activity in living things and also measure certain kinds of very low level electromagnetic radiation from both living and non-living objects.  But nobody anywhere has ever demonstrated that there is any interaction between the human body and those phenomena.  And that is your thesis - that there are "good vibes" and "bad vibes" in your food.  I say that is nothing but wild speculation.  Prove me wrong.  You can't.

----------


## Acala

> The electromagnetic energy I am talking about is stuff like heat, light, x-rays, and gamma rays that represent different frequencies.


Are you saying that food emits x-rays and gamma rays?

----------


## Revolution9

> Not sure how you drew that conclusion, but it's interesting that you would say I should digest the article "for my health's sake."  Nobody needs to eat meat.  All of the nutrients in meat can be found in plant sources.



Been there and done that for five years. I started to get tooth decay and felt starved constantly and always cooking or eating. I started adding fish and chicken and felt better but didn't know that the gluten was causing the stomach problems and ate bread for another 20 years thinking it must have been the insides if the sandwich causing heartburn, then found out it was gluten causing the allergy. Twice I was forced into a beans and rice and veggies type diet and my blood made my skin feel like glue, I had a low grade temperature and once it got so bad I lost my appetite did not drink enough water and got toxic hepatitis. I continued with soy and then found my nails and teeth demineralizing and two front ones busted on a veggie pizza. I seemed totally healthy as a kid on beef and chicken with the occasional pasta and sunday pork roast with the gristle, some potatoes and very few veggies. They would often give me a vomit reflex.  I ate lots of fruit and nuts and peanut butter. So, recently I am just eating good grass fed beef locally raised, well marbled for that wonderful saturated fat my brain loves to do gymnastics on, Amish butter for cooking, pasture raised chicken breast, a few sweet treats like pie but have cut out most grains as they swell my eyes. My teeth, what are left are getting strong, I have about a half pound of fat on my body, my muscles are built up again and I can screw in a screw into wood with my thumbnail, like I could as a tennybopper. Now... if I was to follow your faulty relative moral position and bide by you as the authority on everyones diet, I, at least would be a toothless skeletoid schizo from cereal allergy due to lack of saturated fat to protect and fuel my cerebellum and keep and build my muscles, sitting on my bony ass twiddling my thumbs because any other effort beyond cooking myself another rabbit and cattle feed plate would leave me famished and light-headed. 

Perhaps you would like to rephrase your statement for proper clarity. The first words you might start with would be " I personally choose to..."

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> That doesn't matter.  What does matter is that there is a right frequency and a wrong frequency.  <snipped codswallop and balderdash>


You are violating Dept of Agroculture Hogwashing Regulations.

HTH
Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> That doesn't matter.  What does matter is that there is a right frequency and a wrong frequency. 
> 
> Seriously, though, for how fast you responded, I can deduce that you didn't read any significant portion of the article.


Let us reverse your gambit about harm done with a former veg-heads quote...

"This misunderstanding is born of ignorance, an ignorance that runs the length and breadth of the vegetarian myth, through the nature of agriculture and ending in the nature of life. We are urban industrialists, and we don't know the origins of our food. This includes vegetarians, despite their claims to the truth. It included me, too, for twenty years. Anyone who ate meat was in denial; only I had faced the facts. Certainly, most people who consume factory-farmed meat have never asked what died and how it died. But frankly, neither have most vegetarians. 

The truth is that agriculture is the most destructive thing humans have done to the planet, and more of the same won't save us. The truth is that agriculture requires the wholesale destruction of entire ecosystems. The truth is also that life isn't possible without death, that no matter what you eat, someone has to die to feed you. 

I want a full accounting, an accounting that goes way beyond what's dead on your plate. I'm asking about everything that died in the process, everything that was killed to get that food onto your plate. That's the more radical question, and it's the only question that will produce the truth. How many rivers were dammed and drained, how many prairies plowed and forests pulled down, how much topsoil turned to dust and blown into ghosts? I want to know about all the species - not just the individuals, but the entire species - the chinook, the bison, the grasshopper sparrows, the grey wolves. And I want more than just the number of dead and gone. I want them back."

After she had seen the error of her ways as a vegan and had been eating meat for two years, for reasons unknown to her, the author continued to surf the same vegan websites and message boards she had for years. Until she read one post that was so bizarre that she finally realized the large intellectual gap that had widened between her rationale thinking and the cult like thinking of, well, a cult. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.


"But one post marked a turning point. A vegan flushed out his idea to keep animals from being killed - not by humans, but by other animals. Someone should build a fence down the middle of the Serengeti, and divide the predators from the prey. Killing is wrong and no animals should ever have to die, so the big cats and wild canines would go on one side, while the wildebeests and zebras would live on the other. He knew the carnivores would be okay because they didn't need to be carnivores. That was a lie the meat industry told. He'd seen his dog eat grass: therefore, dogs could live on grass. 

No one objected. In fact, others chimed in. My cat eats grass, too, one woman added, all enthusiasm. So does mine! someone else posted. Everyone agreed that fencing was the solution to animal death. 

Note well that the site for this liberatory project was Africa. No one mentioned the North American prairie, where carnivores and ruminants alike have been extirpated for the annual grains that vegetarians embrace. But I'll return to that in Chapter 3. 

I knew enough to know that this was insane. But no one else on the message board could see anything wrong with the scheme. So, on the theory that many readers lack the knowledge to judge this plan, I'm going to walk you through this. 

Carnivores cannot survive on cellulose. They may on occasion eat grass, but they use it medicinally, usually as a purgative to clear their digestive tracts of parasites. Ruminants, on the other hand, have evolved to eat grass. They have a rumen (hence, ruminant), the first in a series of multiple stomachs that acts as a fermentative vat. What's actually happening inside a cow or a zebra is that bacteria eat the grass, and the animals eat the bacteria. 

Lions and hyenas and humans don't have a ruminant's digestive system. Literally from our teeth to our rectums we are designed for meat. We have no mechanism to digest cellulose. 

So on the carnivore side of the fence, starvation will take every animal. Some will last longer than others, and those some will end their days as cannibals. The scavengers will have a Fat Tuesday party, but when the bones are picked clean, they'll starve as well. The graveyard won't end there. Without grazers to eat the grass, the land will eventually turn to desert. 

Why? Because without grazers to literally level the playing field, the perennial plants mature, and shade out the basal growth point at the plant's base. In a brittle environment like the Serengeti, decay is mostly physical (weathering) and chemical (oxidative), not bacterial and biological as in a moist environment. In fact, the ruminants take over most of the biological functions of soil by digesting the cellulose and returning the nutrients, once again available, in the form of urine and feces. 

But without ruminants, the plant matter will pile up, reducing growth, and begin killing the plants. The bare earth is now exposed to wind, sun, and rain, the minerals leech away, and the soil structure is destroyed. In our attempt to save animals, we've killed everything. 

On the ruminant side of the fence, the wildebeests and friends will reproduce as effectively as ever. But without the check of predators, there will quickly be more grazers than grass. The animals will outstrip their food source, eat the plants down to the ground, and then starve to death, leaving behind a seriously degraded landscape. 

The lesson here is obvious, though it is profound enough to inspire a religion: we need to be eaten as much as we need to eat. The grazers need their daily cellulose, but the grass also needs the animals. It needs the manure, with its nitrogen, minerals, and bacteria; it needs the mechanical check of grazing activity; and it needs the resources stored in animal bodies and freed up by degraders when animals die. 

The grass and the grazers need each other as much as predators and prey. These are not one-way relationships, not arrangements of dominance and subordination. We aren't exploiting each other by eating. We are only taking turns. 

That was my last visit to the vegan message boards. I realized then that people so deeply ignorant of the nature of life, with its mineral cycle and carbon trade, its balance points around an ancient circle of producers, consumers, and degraders, weren't going to be able to guide me or, indeed, make any useful decisions about sustainable human culture. By turning from adult knowledge, the knowledge that death is embedded in every creature's sustenance, from bacteria to grizzly bears, they would never be able to feed the emotional and spiritual hunger that ached in me from accepting that knowledge. Maybe in the end this book is an attempt to soothe that ache myself."

rest at... http://www.sott.net/articles/show/22...egetarian-Myth

HTH
Rev9

----------


## Acala

This thread is pretty far off course, but I figure it isn't going back and I want to follow the preceeding excellent post with a few random facts.

Grain plants do not produce their seeds for you to eat.  Nor do legumes.  They produce their seeds to reproduce their species.  In fact, they don't want you or anyone else to eat their seeds because that defeats their purpose.  So they try to defend themselves.  They do this with toxic substances.  The toxic substances in grain include gluten and lectins.  These compounds interfere with the proper functioning of your digestive system, causing, among other things, porosity in the gut lining, which leads to systemic inflammation, and poor nutrient absorption.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectin#...mmune_distress 

Humans were not designed to eat grain and legumes.  The environment we evolved in (or were created for) had very little of these foods available and, at least in the case of most legumes, they were inedible unless cooked.  For men, soy has the additional problem of containing estrogenic substances.

But if you eliminate grain and legumes from the vegetarian diet, good luck getting enough protein. 

Humans need animal fat and nutrients for proper brain growth and function.  I first heard this from a cardiologist a couple weeks ago and here is a link to the study:

http://www.asylum.com/2008/09/15/a-v...nks-the-brain/

There are essential fatty acids needed for proper brain growth and function.  DHA and EPA in particular are not available from terrestrial plant sources, and the essential omega 3 fatty acids, although obtainable in vegetable products, are always found in combination with large amounts of omega 6.  Unfortunately, the body uses omega 6 preferentially and if you have too much omega 6 (as do most americans and most vegetarians) your body will not be able to use the omega 3 that is found in, for example, flax seed.

The first part of this is explained in a pro-vegetarian article here:
http://www.vegetarian-dha-epa.co.uk/

But disastrously they fail to take into account that omega 6 fatty acids are inflammatory AND that they compete with omega 3 in the metabolic pathways, as explained in detail here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid 

As a consequence, if you get your omega 3 from only plant sources, your body will be unable to use it because it will be blocked by the inevitable flood of omega 6.

Vegetables are GREAT for you and should play a major role in your diet.  But they simply are not enough.  And no human culture has ever existed on a pure vegan diet.

Now, putting aside those nutritional and physiological problems with the vegetarian diet, we have the physiological, anthropological and archeological evidence that humans were designed to eat meat and always have done so.

The article cited by another poster in favor of vegetarianism made comparison with chimpanzees and made much of the fact that they don't eat much meat.  The conclusion was that since chimpanzees are our closest living relative and they don't eat much meat, we shouldn't eat any.  However, chimpanzees appear to eat every bit of meat they can lay their hands on, but they just aren't very good hunters.  They can run reasonably fast but only for short distances, and they lack the tools to take down big game.  

Of course, as is obvious, humans differ greatly from chimpanzees.  And the ways in which we differ from chimpanzees are instructive.  We have dramatically larger brains, but we will come back to that.  Other than the brain, the most important way in which we differ from the chimpanzee is that we are built to be much better hunters.  And I don't mean because we are smarter or can make tools.  Bare naked, without weapons, strategy and communication aside, humans are much better hunters than chimpanzees.  

How could that be?  Humans are one of the slowest animals on the planet.  Over a short distance the chimp is far faster.  It is also far stronger and has more robust jaws capable of inflicting a far more damaging bite.  How can a human be a better hunter?

Among the remarkable differences between humans and chimps is the Achilles tendon.  Chimps have none.  In humans it is the largest, strongest tendon in the body.  Chimps also have barely any gluteus maximus.  In humans, the glutes are relatively huge.  Chimps have hair and humans don't have much.  Humans have sweat glands all over their bodies while chimps have virtually none.  And humans run perfectly upright, allowing them to breath freely while chimps and other quadrapedal runners can only breath in time with their cadence.  Additionally, we have feet adapted to running.  So what?    

Other than brain size, the biggest difference between humans and chimps is our dramatic adaptations for running.  Not sprinting.  We suck at that.  But running for long distances.  In the heat.  We are REALLY good at that.  In fact, human beings can run down almost any animal in the world over long distances.  So why did we develop the ability to run long distances in the heat?  Not to escape predators - for that you need to be able to sprint and we are slower than a chimp in a sprint.  Maybe to chase down plants?  Haha.

The most likely scenario is that we developed the long distance running ability so we could run down big game.  

Here's a good explanation of this:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-H...ty-52233.shtml

Not only can a human run down big game, but the big game will actually collapse and die.  It is called persistence hunting.  Bushmen still do it.  Because an ungulate must pant to cool off and can't pant when running, a human (who cools off by sweating and can breath freely while running) can literally run them to death.

Here's a video of an actual persistence hunt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wI-9RJi0Qo

This human distance-running ability appears to be solely for the purpose of acquiring meat.  And the ability to acquire more meat made it possible to get the fatty acids needed to build bigger brains.

One more thing, not only has agriculture done more to ruin the environment of this planet than any other human activity, it also is the basis for the development of the coercive state.  When humans were hunter/gatherers, every individual belonged to a community only to the extent they wanted to.  There was nothing to be gained by a community holding people against their will and they really had nothing to use for coercion.  A man who lived off the land could simply walk away from any community he didn't like.  But once humans became dependant on agriculture, they were tied to plots of land and storehouses of grain.  And it wasn't long before the art of politics developed to determine who would be in control of the plots of land and storehouses of grain.  So the meat eating lifestyle of the hunter/gatherer was a life of liberty.  The life of the vegetarian, tied to agriculture, is the foundation of the state.

Okay, I'm done.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't need to read an article on magic energy vibrations.  I KNOW you have no evidence that there is "good" frequency radiation and "bad" frequency radiation coming from plants and animals.  It is mumbo jumbo with no scientific basis in fact.  You CAN measure certain kinds of electrical activity in living things and also measure certain kinds of very low level electromagnetic radiation from both living and non-living objects.  But nobody anywhere has ever demonstrated that there is any interaction between the human body and those phenomena.  And that is your thesis - that there are "good vibes" and "bad vibes" in your food.  I say that is nothing but wild speculation.  Prove me wrong.  You can't.


That article is your proof.  Look at it and get back to me.

----------


## fade

> that article is your proof.  Look at it and get back to me.


lol

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This thread is pretty far off course, but I figure it isn't going back and I want to follow the preceeding excellent post with a few random facts.
> 
> Grain plants do not produce their seeds for you to eat.  Nor do legumes.  They produce their seeds to reproduce their species.  In fact, they don't want you or anyone else to eat their seeds because that defeats their purpose.  So they try to defend themselves.  They do this with toxic substances.  The toxic substances in grain include gluten and lectins.  These compounds interfere with the proper functioning of your digestive system, causing, among other things, porosity in the gut lining, which leads to systemic inflammation, and poor nutrient absorption.  
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectin#...mmune_distress 
> 
> Humans were not designed to eat grain and legumes.  The environment we evolved in (or were created for) had very little of these foods available and, at least in the case of most legumes, they were inedible unless cooked.  For men, soy has the additional problem of containing estrogenic substances.
> 
> But if you eliminate grain and legumes from the vegetarian diet, good luck getting enough protein. 
> ...


Carl Lewis was a vegan.  Many super-athletes were vegans.  Others get by just fine on a vegan diet.  I got by fine for 5 months on one before I went to college and couldn't afford it.

----------


## dannno

> But if you eliminate grain and legumes from the vegetarian diet, good luck getting enough protein.


That would be easy an inexpensive, as the hemp seed is one of the most nutritious foods on earth containing all the protein and omegas you need, in perfect portions... however hemp being illegal makes this a very expensive option.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> lol


Is that the best you got, punk?  Every time someone suggests something legitimate, you laugh at them?  I expected better from a Ron Paul forum.  I know better than to try to have an intelligent discussion with you nitwits.  It just goes to show that anyone will defend their own worldview no matter what it takes and will openly mock just so that others might be discouraged from taking it seriously.  

I'm just the messenger.  If anyone wants to read the book I suggested, you WILL have a different outlook by the end of it.  The book is The Detox Miracle Sourcebook by Robert Morse, N.D.  Read it and then tell me how he successfully treated hundreds of cancer patients with his diet.  Like I said, you can't fake cancer treatment.

----------


## Revolution9

> This thread is pretty far off course, but I figure it isn't going back and I want to follow the preceeding excellent post with a few random facts.*<snipped for brevity>


Great info Acala. I enjoy stuff like this that connects dots coherently. Saturated fats are now the recommended diet for long distance marathoners..so it all makes sense in a recursive loop.

Best
Rev9

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Are you saying that food emits x-rays and gamma rays?


I am obviously thinking on another level than you.  You might want to gain a few extra IQ points before looking into this.  Or you can go on living in ignorance.  I don't care.  I'm beginning to think the people here don't deserve to know the truth.

----------


## Guitarzan

> Is that the best you got, punk?  Every time someone suggests something legitimate, you laugh at them?  I expected better from a Ron Paul forum.  I know better than to try to have an intelligent discussion with you nitwits.  It just goes to show that anyone will defend their own worldview no matter what it takes and will openly mock just so that others might be discouraged from taking it seriously.  
> 
> I'm just the messenger.  If anyone wants to read the book I suggested, you WILL have a different outlook by the end of it.  The book is The Detox Miracle Sourcebook by Robert Morse, N.D.  Read it and then tell me how he successfully treated hundreds of cancer patients with his diet.  Like I said, you can't fake cancer treatment.



lol

----------


## Guitarzan

> I am obviously thinking on another level than you.  You might want to gain a few extra IQ points before looking into this.  Or you can go on living in ignorance.  I don't care.  I'm beginning to think the people here don't deserve to know the truth.



lolz

----------


## fade

> Is that the best you got, punk?  Every time someone suggests something legitimate, you laugh at them?  I expected better from a Ron Paul forum.  I know better than to try to have an intelligent discussion with you nitwits.  It just goes to show that anyone will defend their own worldview no matter what it takes and will openly mock just so that others might be discouraged from taking it seriously.  
> 
> I'm just the messenger.  If anyone wants to read the book I suggested, you WILL have a different outlook by the end of it.  The book is The Detox Miracle Sourcebook by Robert Morse, N.D.  Read it and then tell me how he successfully treated hundreds of cancer patients with his diet.  Like I said, you can't fake cancer treatment.


Define "intelligent"... What you are spouting off is about as intelligent as thinking the "power-balance" bands actually emit an energy that helps you maintain your balance and stretch better.. Pure quackery. No scientific proof other than some theories in an article which provided no actual studies or any sort of proof.

You can have your vegetarian lifestyle but when you start trying to tell me I'm eating "dead food" that provides "no nutrients" and "rots my gut" then we're going to have a problem because that is just nonsense. Same with the idea that there are some magical property to foods that have an electromagnetic energy that somehow helps my cells in my body function better.

My comment of "lol" was simply because me trying to convince you that you're wrong, is like my trying to tell you that the voices in your head don't exist.. that they are simply in your head. Everytime you hear them you are convinced more and more that the voices exist, but everyone around you knows that you are in fact crazy.

----------


## fade

> lolz


x2

----------


## Revolution9

> That article is your proof.  Look at it and get back to me.


But what do YOU think. Can you elucidate this concept to show us you actually know it and not similar to a parrot in a gilded cage with a limited vocabulary unable to express other than what it mimics.

Rev9

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Great info Acala. I enjoy stuff like this that connects dots coherently. Saturated fats are now the recommended diet for long distance marathoners..so it all makes sense in a recursive loop.
> 
> Best
> Rev9


Scott Jurek is an ultramarathoner and Wester States 100 mile and Badwater Ultra champion (about 115 miles in searing heat).  He also has many world championship teams and an American record in the 24-hour run.  Scott lives on a completely vegan diet and has written several books about it.

http://www.scottjurek.com/#/highlights/

----------


## Danke

> You might want to gain a few extra IQ points before looking into this.


I want to learn how to do that!





> Or you can go on living in ignorance.  I don't care.  I'm beginning to think the people here *don't deserve* to know the truth.


No, we can't handle the truth( Big_J TM).

----------


## Revolution9

> I am obviously thinking on another level than you.  You might want to gain a few extra IQ points before looking into this.  Or you can go on living in ignorance.  I don't care.  I'm beginning to think the people here don't deserve to know the truth.


As per IQ points, you have been extremely outclassed in this thread and especially as of recent in it. As for you enlightening the ignorant with your truth..that ain't the way truth works. Truth is and always will be and is demonstrable every time in every case. Your opinion fails these criteria. Please be more exacting as you attend college or you will be wasting others time and your money.

Best Regards
Rev9

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Define "intelligent"... What you are spouting off is about as intelligent as thinking the "power-balance" bands actually emit an energy that helps you maintain your balance and stretch better.. Pure quackery. No scientific proof other than some theories in an article which provided no actual studies or any sort of proof.
> 
> You can have your vegetarian lifestyle but when you start trying to tell me I'm eating "dead food" that provides "no nutrients" and "rots my gut" then we're going to have a problem because that is just nonsense. Same with the idea that there are some magical property to foods that have an electromagnetic energy that somehow helps my cells in my body function better.
> 
> My comment of "lol" was simply because me trying to convince you that you're wrong, is like my trying to tell you that the voices in your head don't exist.. that they are simply in your head. Everytime you hear them you are convinced more and more that the voices exist, but everyone around you knows that you are in fact crazy.


Then why do you bother?  I think you're protecting an interest.   You can brand me as crazy all you want, but you don't know what you are missing.  Nobody said you had to believe me, so I don't see why you really have a problem with me posting what I believe and practice very successfully on a health forum.  I mean, what vendetta do you have that you find it offensive that I post my beliefs about food on a health forum?

----------


## Revolution9

> Scott Jurek is an ultramarathoner and Wester States 100 mile and Badwater Ultra champion (about 115 miles in searing heat).  He also has many world championship teams and an American record in the 24-hour run.  Scott lives on a completely vegan diet and has written several books about it.
> 
> http://www.scottjurek.com/#/highlights/


He will change his mind when his heart starts scarring.

Rev9

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> As per IQ points, you have been extremely outclassed in this thread and especially as of recent in it. As for you enlightening the ignorant with your truth..that ain't the way truth works. Truth is and always will be and is demonstrable every time in every case. Your opinion fails these criteria. Please be more exacting as you attend college or you will be wasting others time and your money.
> 
> Best Regards
> Rev9


Exactly what made up criteria are you referring to?  Truth is demonstrable MOST of the time.  To say it's always demonstrable would be to say that we know everything about everything.  Medicine used to be based on some things that were regarded as fact until they were proven wrong.  Truth may be demonstrable, but that doesn't mean you will always be able to comprehend it.  Scientific studies try very hard to demonstrate the truth, and many, even with watertight methods, have failed because they weren't getting all of the information.  What if there is something you're missing?  

As for IQ points, I was referring to the fact that acala couldn't seem to comprehend the idea of electromagnetic energy waves, which are a well-established fact.  He couldn't seem to comprehend the idea of different frequencies, some harmonious, some not, existing in living beings.  However, people should know that ignorance is pretty widespread and the truth is often hidden.  It's just a result of the society we live in.  I don't have to prove my intelligence to you because I already know I am intelligent.  I am simply speaking to those who will listen, but some poor souls seem to find it necessary to engage in meaningless arguments just for the 'thrill' of it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> But what do YOU think. Can you elucidate this concept to show us you actually know it and not similar to a parrot in a gilded cage with a limited vocabulary unable to express other than what it mimics.
> 
> Rev9


I already did that in a few previous posts without even looking at the article first.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> He will change his mind when his heart starts scarring.
> 
> Rev9


He's been doing this for years and has run several ultramarathons.  Something tells me he would have met his doom by now.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I want to learn how to do that!


 You could always try bribing the IQ testing facility.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You could always try bribing the IQ testing facility.


Dr. 3D, I think your signature applies pretty well in this case.

----------


## Acala

> That article is your proof.  Look at it and get back to me.


Let me explain something to you.  The world is awash in information, more than any one human could every possibly take in.  Some of it is good, some of it is speculative, some of it is bull$#@!.  In order to try and gather the good, exclude the bull$#@!, and make some stab at evaluating the speculative, you must have filters. 

One filter that I use is to try and determine the reliability of a source before I spend much time delving into it.  One way to judge reliability is to see if a source reports something I know isn't true, distorts things I have some knowledge of, or makes illogical statements.  In the case of your article, I took a quick look at it even though I didn't have much confidence in what I would find since you had made some claims that I found to be rather weak.  But I looked at it.  And within a few paragraphs I discovered falsity, distortions, and strawman arguments.  At that point I threw it on the rubbish heap.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Dr. 3D, I think your signature applies pretty well in this case.


Try clicking on it.

----------


## Acala

> I am obviously thinking on another level than you.  You might want to gain a few extra IQ points before looking into this.  Or you can go on living in ignorance.  I don't care.  I'm beginning to think the people here don't deserve to know the truth.


Hahahaha!  So you really don't have a clue what you are talking about when you talk about electromagnetic radiation?  I must assume this since you resort to ad hominem attack rather than answering the question.

I know a little about electromagnetic radiation since I have a chemistry degree with a math/physics minor.  I had to be able to use Maxwell's equations on a couple exams.  Couldn't do it for the life of me now.  But that should suffice as evidence that I actually have an idea what electromagnetic radiation is.  I doubt you do.  And if you think your food is emitting x-rays and gamma rays, you might want to shop at a different grocery store.   

The funny thing is that I think there almost certainly ARE forms of biological energy and subtle influences among organisms that science has yet to measure.  But YOU can't measure them either and YOU have no evidence whatsoever that one type of food has "good" energy while another has "bad" energy.  And claiming that you do destroys your credibility.

----------


## Yieu

> Ah, since that was my comment let me clarify.
> I have nothing against someone *Choosing* to be vegetarian. I do find it annoying when they get pushy about it and push dubious claims based on pseudoscience.
> I have my faith and you have yours, I sometimes share some of my beliefs and you share yours,,,without pushing them on others.
> There are some that do. Such as bashing Ron for his position on Health Freedom. And pushing the position of an organization the is opposed to liberty.
> 
> As for myself, I make no claim of being an "expert",, but I do doubt the claims of many so called and self proclaimed experts.
> 
> I generally only have milk on cereal. But it has been my experience that farm fresh and unmolested foods both taste better but seem to fuel me better.
> And this from an omnivore that can and does eat nearly any and everything.


Thank you for the clarification.  I'd like to note that I have a lot of respect for you, and glad we can both recognize in the end all that matters is what someone voluntarily choses to eat, so long as they don't push their views on others (and it can be discussed without being pushy).

The rest of this post is not directed at you in particular.  Gave you a rep for understanding the voluntary nature of it all.  

I'd also like to note I feel the same way -- I have nothing againse someone chosing to eat meat, but it does bother me when people get pushy about it and push dubious claims based on pseudoscience, such as claims that the human body needs meat, or claims that the human body is less healthy without it, when the human body can be healthy with or without it, it is entirely optional.

But in general, it seems there are a lot of people who, as soon as you mention you are vegetarian, assume you are pushing your views, so they push their views.  I used to avoid discussions about the topic because it would almost certainly get heated and end up with non-vegetarians attacking vegetarians due to assuming they were pushing their views even if they were not, and both sides claiming their way is healthier or the only way.  Then the discussion gets nowhere, and people are left feeling riled up and disturbed.

I make no claims that my diet is more healthy, and I'd appreciate the same kindness in return from those who eat meat, by them not making claims that theirs is more healthy.  In the end, it is all a personal choice that we all must make on our own.  At the core, my own decision is based on the religious principle of non-aggression, and commandment by the Lord.  I don't judge anyone for chosing differently, it is a personal choice, like everything in life.

The only thing I would like everyone to understand, is that the human body does not need meat -- whether to eat meat is solely a decision based on taste preference.  If you prefer to eat meat, that's fine -- just try to realize that _no human would be less healthy if they chose to not eat meat_, so don't demonize those who chose not to eat it.  Whether to include meat in your diet is purely optional and a decision based completely on taste preference and not based on nutritional requirements.

I have gotten bashed for just mentioning my diet, which has made me tend to not even mention it, because I don't want to have to deal with that.  So if we all just recognize it is voluntary and it is fine if someone doesn't want to eat meat or does want to, then we'll all be better off.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Let me explain something to you.  The world is awash in information, more than any one human could every possibly take in.  Some of it is good, some of it is speculative, some of it is bull$#@!.  In order to try and gather the good, exclude the bull$#@!, and make some stab at evaluating the speculative, you must have filters. 
> 
> One filter that I use is to try and determine the reliability of a source before I spend much time delving into it.  One way to judge reliability is to see if a source reports something I know isn't true, distorts things I have some knowledge of, or makes illogical statements.  In the case of your article, I took a quick look at it even though I didn't have much confidence in what I would find since you had made some claims that I found to be rather weak.  But I looked at it.  And within a few paragraphs I discovered falsity, distortions, and strawman arguments.  At that point I threw it on the rubbish heap.


Question, how did you find straw man arguments when he wasn't even arguing with anyone?  Care to explain what you mean by that?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Hahahaha!  So you really don't have a clue what you are talking about when you talk about electromagnetic radiation?  I must assume this since you resort to ad hominem attack rather than answering the question.
> 
> I know a little about electromagnetic radiation since I have a chemistry degree with a math/physics minor.  I had to be able to use Maxwell's equations on a couple exams.  Couldn't do it for the life of me now.  But that should suffice as evidence that I actually have an idea what electromagnetic radiation is.  I doubt you do.  And if you think your food is emitting x-rays and gamma rays, you might want to shop at a different grocery store.   
> 
> The funny thing is that I think there almost certainly ARE forms of biological energy and subtle influences among organisms that science has yet to measure.  But YOU can't measure them either and YOU have no evidence whatsoever that one type of food has "good" energy while another has "bad" energy.  And claiming that you do destroys your credibility.


It's pretty obvious that I didn't mean x-rays and gamma rays.  I was talking about the electromagnetic spectrum of frequencies as an example.  Obviously, x-rays and gamma rays are way too high in frequency.  It's also obvious that you didn't really look at the article.

----------


## fade

> The only thing I would like everyone to understand, is that the human body does not need meat -- whether to eat meat is solely a decision based on taste preference.  If you prefer to eat meat, that's fine -- just try to realize that no human would be less healthy if they chose to not eat meat, so don't demonize those who chose differently.  Whether to include meat in your diet is purely optional and a decision based completely on taste preference and not based on nutritional requirements.


And that is where you lost me. I agree with all the rest of your post. Right here you are doing exactly what you are criticizing only a few paragraphs earlier. You claim one would not be any less healthy if they stopped eating meat. That is your opinion. My opinion is the opposite.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Hahahaha!  So you really don't have a clue what you are talking about when you talk about electromagnetic radiation?  I must assume this since you resort to ad hominem attack rather than answering the question.
> 
> I know a little about electromagnetic radiation since I have a chemistry degree with a math/physics minor.  I had to be able to use Maxwell's equations on a couple exams.  Couldn't do it for the life of me now.  But that should suffice as evidence that I actually have an idea what electromagnetic radiation is.  I doubt you do.  And if you think your food is emitting x-rays and gamma rays, you might want to shop at a different grocery store.   
> 
> The funny thing is that I think there almost certainly ARE forms of biological energy and subtle influences among organisms that science has yet to measure.  But YOU can't measure them either and YOU have no evidence whatsoever that one type of food has "good" energy while another has "bad" energy.  And claiming that you do destroys your credibility.


Let me clarify my statement in your last paragraph.  I never said one kind of food emits good energy and another bad energy.  I'm saying that plant life has harmonious frequencies that agree with our body's cellular function.  It has been demonstrated many times that different frequencies can have different effects on the plasma membrane and the movement of molecules through that membrane, such as calcium and can have effects on the different mechanisms of the membrane, such as Na-K pumps.  

I never said certain foods are "good" in this regard and others "bad."  I meant that live plant food emits harmonious frequencies because it supports cell function.  Cooked vegetables have less of this energy.  Dead meat, on the other hand, has ZERO electromagnetic energy.  Examples of harmful frequencies are found in man-made sources such as electronics.  This has also been pretty well-established.  The WHO even admitted that living close to a source of high electromagnetic radiation from electronic sources can increase the risk of cancer.  As far as bad and good foods, I never said anything about that and don't claim to know.  I am simply saying that live plant food gives energy while dead matter gives less, depriving your system of energy through the concept of diminishing returns.

----------


## Yieu

> And that is where you lost me. I agree with all the rest of your post. Right here you are doing exactly what you are criticizing only a few paragraphs earlier. You claim one would not be any less healthy if they stopped eating meat. That is your opinion. My opinion is the opposite.


Then you didn't read the rest of my post well enough.  I said I will not claim that being vegetarian is _more_ healthy, and request that others do not claim that the non-vegetarian diet is _more_ healthy either.  For the non-vegetarian diet to not be more healthy, that means it is not _less_ healthy to be vegetarian.  Re-read what I said more carefully.  No human requires meat nutritionally.  That is consistent with everything else I have said.  Whether you have meat is entirely an option, and your personal choice.  But it is _factually incorrect_ to claim anyone would be less healthy if they did not eat meat.

If you think that I was doing what I was criticizing earlier in my post, then re-read what I wrote because everything I said was consistent and I was not at all doing what I was criticizing.  Perhaps you may have misread what I said.  But I feel that it is very, very important that you especially try to understand the paragraph that you quoted, because it is all that I ask you to admit.  If you cannot admit that, then you are being unfairly biased and are believing a lie so that you can attack me by claiming my diet is less healthy, when it is not less healthy.

----------


## fade

> Then you didn't read the rest of my post well enough.  I said I will not claim that being vegetarian is _more_ healthy, and request that others do not claim that the non-vegetarian diet is _more_ healthy either.  For the non-vegetarian diet to not be more healthy, that means it is not _less_ healthy to be vegetarian.  Re-read what I said more carefully.  No human requires meat nutritionally.  That is consistent with everything else I have said.  Whether you have meat is entirely an option, and your personal choice.  But it is _factually incorrect_ to claim anyone would be less healthy if they did not eat meat.
> 
> If you think that I was doing what I was criticizing earlier in my post, then re-read what I wrote because everything I said was consistent and I was not at all doing what I was criticizing.  Perhaps you may have misread what I said.  But I feel that it is very, very important that you especially try to understand the paragraph that you quoted, because it is all that I ask you to admit.


Actually, I'll stick to my beliefs that proper meat is healthier and gives more nutrients. Omega3:6 ratio, CLA, good cholesterol from eggs, good saturated fats, etc.. Are much harder to get in the right ratios through a non-meat diet. Could it be done? Ya know what, it may be possible. It is 1000x harder for sure. So it is POSSIBLE that you could get the nutrients that you need to be JUST AS healthy as a meat-eater. Is it likely? Probably not.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> And that is where you lost me. I agree with all the rest of your post. Right here you are doing exactly what you are criticizing only a few paragraphs earlier. You claim one would not be any less healthy if they stopped eating meat. That is your opinion. My opinion is the opposite.


If you are claiming people would be less healthy because they don't eat meat, I think you need to look at Scott Jurek.  Here is a quote from his bio:

"On his own journey toward optimal health, Scott began transitioning to a vegetarian whole foods diet in 1997, while competing in several ultra trail races per year.  In 1999, he adopted a vegan diet out of further health and environmental concerns.  Scott continues to fuel his body on a vegan diet while competing in 8-10 ultramarathons per year in addition to his rigorous training schedule.  All seven of his consecutive wins at the Western States 100 mile Endurance Run were performed on vegan fuel."

http://www.scottjurek.com/#/bio/

----------


## Yieu

> Actually, I'll stick to my beliefs that proper meat is healthier and gives more nutrients. Omega3:6 ratio, CLA, good cholesterol from eggs, good saturated fats, etc.. Are much harder to get in the right ratios through a non-meat diet. Could it be done? Ya know what, it may be possible. It is 1000x harder for sure. So it is POSSIBLE that you could get the nutrients that you need to be JUST AS healthy as a meat-eater. Is it likely? Probably not.


Then you are believing a lie so that you can come onto the forums and give baseless attacks to vegetarians to make yourself feel better about your own diet.

It is not unhealthy to not eat meat.  PLEASE try to understand that.  That is all I ask.

I will not claim being vegetarian is more healthy -- but please do not try to claim that being vegetarian is less healthy.  Because if you try to claim being vegetarian is less healthy, then you are only doing so to have ammo to bash vegetarians with, and that is simply aggressive.

All I want is for people to admit that it is not less healthy to be vegetarian.  It is not much to ask, and it would show that you're not merely being prejudiced to have an easy target to attack.  I don't want to go as far as trying to say being vegetarian is more healthy.  I just want people to stop the baseless attacks of claiming it is less healthy, when that is not the case.

I do not want to attack those who eat meat.  So please do not attack me by claiming my diet is less healthy.  It's not true and it's not very kind.  The only aim I can see in that is to try to justify your own diet at the sake of mine due to either insecurity about your own or just wanting to attack something you don't understand.  Otherwise, it would be easy to admit that it is not less healthy to be vegetarian (this includes milk).

----------


## fade

> If you are claiming people would be less healthy because they eat meat, I think you need to look at Scott Jurek.  Here is a quote from his bio:
> 
> "On his own journey toward optimal health, Scott began transitioning to a vegetarian whole foods diet in 1997, while competing in several ultra trail races per year.  In 1999, he adopted a vegan diet out of further health and environmental concerns.  Scott continues to fuel his body on a vegan diet while competing in 8-10 ultramarathons per year in addition to his rigorous training schedule.  All seven of his consecutive wins at the Western States 100 mile Endurance Run were performed on vegan fuel."
> 
> http://www.scottjurek.com/#/bio/


Ultra marathons are not healthy in themselves. When this guy's heart gives out in a few years, just remember that I told ya so. As for his diet, I don't really care. So he ate vegan and did well at some ultra marathons... Well Lance Armstrong eats meat - so what?

----------


## Acala

> Question, how did you find straw man arguments when he wasn't even arguing with anyone?  Care to explain what you mean by that?


Sure.  He says that those who argue that humans are by nature meat eaters do so on the basis of the presence of canine teeth.  That's the strawman.  He then proceeds to knock down the strawman.  although not very well.

----------


## fade

> Then you are believing a lie so that you can come onto the forums and give baseless attacks to vegetarians to make yourself feel better about your own diet.
> 
> It is not unhealthy to not eat meat.  PLEASE try to understand that.  That is all I ask.
> 
> I will not claim being vegetarian is more healthy -- but please do not try to claim that being vegetarian is less healthy.  Because if you try to claim being vegetarian is less healthy, then you are only doing so to have ammo to bash vegetarians with, and that is simply aggressive.
> 
> All I want is for people to admit that it is not less healthy to be vegetarian.  It is not much to ask, and it would show that you're not merely being prejudiced to have an easy target to attack.  I don't want to go as far as trying to say being vegetarian is more healthy.  I just want people to stop the baseless attacks of claiming it is less healthy, when that is not the case.
> 
> I do not want to attack those who eat meat.  So please do not attack me by claiming my diet is less healthy.  It's not true and it's not very kind.  The only aim I can see in that is to try to justify your own diet at the sake of mine due to either insecurity about your own or just wanting to attack something you don't understand.  Otherwise, it would be easy to admit that it is not less healthy to be vegetarian (this includes milk).


 I'll bow out of this little argument. You won't find me agreeing with you in this lifetime.

----------


## Acala

> It's pretty obvious that I didn't mean x-rays and gamma rays.  I was talking about the electromagnetic spectrum of frequencies as an example.  Obviously, x-rays and gamma rays are way too high in frequency.  It's also obvious that you didn't really look at the article.


If you didn't mean x-rays and gamma rays, you shouldn't have listed them off.  Why would it be obvious that you didn't mean what you said?

I think you heard someone talk about electromagnetic waves in food and you just bought into it without giving it any critical thought.

----------


## Yieu

> I'll bow out of this little argument. You won't find me agreeing with you in this lifetime.


Why do you hate vegetarians?  You are willing to give up logic in order to attack vegetarianism.  That is not fair.  You're even willing to believe a lie so that you can attack us as "less healthy" even though that is not factual.  Sigh.  This is why I avoided these discussions.

There is nothing in meat, that the human body needs, that is not readily and easily found in plant sources or milk.

----------


## Acala

> Let me clarify my statement in your last paragraph.  I never said one kind of food emits good energy and another bad energy.  I'm saying that plant life has harmonious frequencies that agree with our body's cellular function.  It has been demonstrated many times that different frequencies can have different effects on the plasma membrane and the movement of molecules through that membrane, such as calcium and can have effects on the different mechanisms of the membrane, such as Na-K pumps.  
> 
> I never said certain foods are "good" in this regard and others "bad."  I meant that live plant food emits harmonious frequencies because it supports cell function.  Cooked vegetables have less of this energy.  Dead meat, on the other hand, has ZERO electromagnetic energy.  Examples of harmful frequencies are found in man-made sources such as electronics.  This has also been pretty well-established.  The WHO even admitted that living close to a source of high electromagnetic radiation from electronic sources can increase the risk of cancer.  As far as bad and good foods, I never said anything about that and don't claim to know.  I am simply saying that live plant food gives energy while dead matter gives less, depriving your system of energy through the concept of diminishing returns.


It is possible to actually MEASURE the magnetic field and electromagnetic radiation from various sources of human technology.  They can be reproduced in a lab and you can determine the effect on animals, to some extent, of being exposed.  NONE of that is true for whatever it is you are claiming is coming from food.  It has never been measured so what you say about harmonious frequencies and the different energies in plant food versus meat is pure fabrication.

----------


## fade

> Why do you hate vegetarians?  You are willing to give up logic in order to attack vegetarianism.  That is not fair.  You're even willing to believe a lie so that you can attack us as "less healthy" even though that is not factual.  Sigh.  This is why I avoided these discussions.


I went as far to say that it is POSSIBLE that you may be able to be just as healthy on a vegetarian diet. Somehow that wasn't good enough for you.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Ultra marathons are not healthy in themselves. When this guy's heart gives out in a few years, just remember that I told ya so. As for his diet, I don't really care. So he ate vegan and did well at some ultra marathons... Well Lance Armstrong eats meat - so what?


I think you and I both know that is a very good case that demonstrates that veganism is at least not un-healthy.  As for ultramarathons, they may or may not be healthy because putting that strain on the system can have negative effects on the cellular level, but that is not really what's being discussed, is it?  The point isn't whether ultramarathons are healthy or not.  The question is how can this guy keep himself properly fueled for years doing such rigorous training?  If you have ever run an ultramarathon, then you know it takes a phenomenal amount of time and energy to keep up that sort of training, not to mention performing at such an elite level as Scott Jurek.  It is pretty obvious that veganism has been able to fuel this guy for years while doing an astronomical amount of physical exertion with almost superhuman strength and endurance.  I highly doubt his heart will give out, considering that he's been in great health for all these years.  If his health were deteriorating, his performance and/or his body would be showing signs of it.

----------


## Yieu

> I went as far to say that it is POSSIBLE that you may be able to be just as healthy on a vegetarian diet. Somehow that wasn't good enough for you.


It was nice of you to go that far, but you said it wasn't probable.  There is nothing in meat, that the human body requires, that is not _readily and easily_ available in plant sources or milk.  That means meat is 100% optional based on one's taste preference.  Nothing wrong with you eating what you want, but don't use your taste preference to demonize my taste preference...  There is no nutritional requirement to eat meat, only a taste preference reason.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sure.  He says that those who argue that humans are by nature meat eaters do so on the basis of the presence of canine teeth.  That's the strawman.  He then proceeds to knock down the strawman.  although not very well.


You may be looking at the wrong article.  I was talking about the one I linked to on electromagnetic energy.  It discusses its presence in nature and artificial sources, as well as its observable effects on biological systems and cells in the human body.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If you didn't mean x-rays and gamma rays, you shouldn't have listed them off.  Why would it be obvious that you didn't mean what you said?
> 
> I think you heard someone talk about electromagnetic waves in food and you just bought into it without giving it any critical thought.


Sorry, but that is simply not the case.  I was merely using x-rays and gamma rays as an example of electromagnetic energy along a SPECTRUM of frequencies.  X-rays and gamma rays are toward the top of that spectrum.

----------


## fade

> I think you and I both know that is a very good case that demonstrates that veganism is at least not un-healthy.  As for ultramarathons, they may or may not be healthy because putting that strain on the system can have negative effects on the cellular level, but that is not really what's being discussed, is it?  The point isn't whether ultramarathons are healthy or not.  The question is how can this guy keep himself properly fueled for years doing such rigorous training?  If you have ever run an ultramarathon, then you know it takes a phenomenal amount of time and energy to keep up that sort of training, not to mention performing at such an elite level as Scott Jurek.  It is pretty obvious that veganism has been able to fuel this guy for years while doing an astronomical amount of physical exertion with almost superhuman strength and endurance.  I highly doubt his heart will give out, considering that he's been in great health for all these years.  If his health were deteriorating, his performance and/or his body would be showing signs of it.



What if the guy could keep himself fueled while eating junk food? Would that be healthy?'

Oh and here's an article discussing a STUDY for you:

http://www.active.com/running/Articl...ck_factors.htm

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It is possible to actually MEASURE the magnetic field and electromagnetic radiation from various sources of human technology.  They can be reproduced in a lab and you can determine the effect on animals, to some extent, of being exposed.  NONE of that is true for whatever it is you are claiming is coming from food.  It has never been measured so what you say about harmonious frequencies and the different energies in plant food versus meat is pure fabrication.


It is not based on measurements like those from artificial sources.  It has a basis in theory as well as observation.  Nobody knows how it works just like nobody really knows how an aspirin cures a headache.  That doesn't mean they don't use aspirin.  Its effects are observable and have solid theoretical rooting, although we don't know enough to establish a mechanism for how it works.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What if the guy could keep himself fueled while eating junk food? Would that be healthy?'
> 
> Oh and here's an article discussing a STUDY for you:
> 
> http://www.active.com/running/Articl...ck_factors.htm


I already told you this is not about the physiological effects of marathon or ultramarathon running.  Good luck finding a runner of his caliber who eats nothing but junk food.

----------


## fade

> I already told you this is not about the physiological effects of marathon or ultramarathon running.  Good luck finding a runner of his caliber who eats nothing but junk food.


Is Michael Phelps of his caliber? May not be a marathon runner, but surely he is pretty good at what he does 

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/08/...ry-it-at-home/

Breakfast: Three fried-egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions and mayonnaise. Two cups of coffee. One five-egg omelet. One bowl of grits. Three slices of French toast topped with powdered sugar. Three chocolate-chip pancakes.

Lunch: One pound of enriched pasta. Two large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayo on white bread. Energy drinks packing 1,000 calories.

Dinner: One pound of pasta. An entire pizza. More energy drinks.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Is Michael Phelps of his caliber? May not be a marathon runner, but surely he is pretty good at what he does 
> 
> http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/08/...ry-it-at-home/
> 
> Breakfast: Three fried-egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions and mayonnaise. Two cups of coffee. One five-egg omelet. One bowl of grits. Three slices of French toast topped with powdered sugar. Three chocolate-chip pancakes.
> 
> Lunch: One pound of enriched pasta. Two large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayo on white bread. Energy drinks packing 1,000 calories.
> 
> Dinner: One pound of pasta. An entire pizza. More energy drinks.


There is a difference between eating junk food and not eating enough food.  Michael Phelps' body doesn't have to deal with the stress on his joints and muscles and bones of running thousands of miles per year and the impact of each footstep.  Michael Phelps trains a lot, but probably not nearly as much as this guy.  As for junk food, it depends on the body's ability to deal with toxins in its system.  If you are eating enough vitamins and minerals along with the junk food, then your body can still deal with the junk food to an extent.  However, if he were DEFICIENT in anything, it would show in his performance.  People can get away with a bad diet for years, but if they are depriving their bodies of nutrients, like acala is arguing, then they wouldn't have a chance.  It really depends on the person's genetic make-up how long they last on a junkfood diet, but there is no doubt in my mind that they would at least feel BETTER if they did not eat junk food because it just unnecessarily taxes the system even though the system can usually deal with it and has a high tolerance.

----------


## LeJimster

*Sigh* - while I agree we do not need milk in our diet to be healthy.  Using the argument baceteria is in raw milk is weak.  You forget to mention all the good things it's loaded with.  I've heard of people who are lactose intolerant being able to drink raw milk.  There was a strange case of a man who couldn't keep down solid food and he lived of Raw milk and water alone and was really healthy..  Of course if you get too much bad bacteria or a particular nasty virus that has infected your milk, it's the risk you take with unpasteurized milk.  But you can minimize the risks if the cows are fed and treat properly.

----------


## Acala

> It is not based on measurements like those from artificial sources.  It has a basis in theory as well as observation.  Nobody knows how it works just like nobody really knows how an aspirin cures a headache.  That doesn't mean they don't use aspirin.  Its effects are observable and have solid theoretical rooting, although we don't know enough to establish a mechanism for how it works.


Show me a way to measure it objectively and reproducibly in a double blind scenario and I will call you master.  Until then, all the talk about this food or that food having more or less of this supposed energy has exactly as much substance as astrology, which is none.

Oh, and we do know how aspirin works - it inhibits the production of prostaglandins.  And it does so in conjunction with omega 3 fatty acids.  Which is why, if you use aspirin as an anti-inflammatory you need to be particularly careful to keep your omega 6 intake down and your omega 3 up.  Really hard to do on a veggie diet.

And with this I will bid this thread a fond farewell.

----------


## Kregisen

not reading 25 pages of this thread - but to all the milk naysayers - I'm guessing you guys weigh 80 pounds. Milk has a $#@!load of protein and calcium which builds both strong bones and muscles....I've witnessed this myself as I've a *lot* of milk growing up. It may be fun to be part of a counter-culture on some issues, but some people here literally think that all mainstream ideas are wrong.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> *Sigh* - while I agree we do not need milk in our diet to be healthy.  Using the argument baceteria is in raw milk is weak.  You forget to mention all the good things it's loaded with.  I've heard of people who are lactose intolerant being able to drink raw milk.  There was a strange case of a man who couldn't keep down solid food and he lived of Raw milk and water alone and was really healthy..  Of course if you get too much bad bacteria or a particular nasty virus that has infected your milk, it's the risk you take with unpasteurized milk.  But you can minimize the risks if the cows are fed and treat properly.


You may have a point there.  I may switch from thinking that raw milk is bad to the jury still being out on that one for me.  However, according to what I know about raw plant food, I have my suspicions, considering that we are the only animal who consumes the milk of another species.  To me, even the idea that we have to regulate the cow's life in order to make sure the milk is "safe" suggests to me that it wasn't meant to be consumed by us.  I'm not offering this as a reason you should not consume raw milk, but simply suggest that you may not have the whole story on it.  I will admit I once attributed all of the things I heard about pasteurized milk to all milk without really knowing what raw milk was, but to me there is at least sufficient evidence that you don't really need it to live a healthy lifestyle.  If you don't need the milk of another species to survive, then why would you drink it other than taste preference?  That's just my feeling on it, and I suggest you consult the book The Detox Miracle Sourcebook by Robert Morse for more information on why I feel this way.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> not reading 25 pages of this thread - but to all the milk naysayers - I'm guessing you guys weigh 80 pounds. Milk has a $#@!load of protein and calcium which builds both strong bones and muscles....I've witnessed this myself as I've a *lot* of milk growing up. It may be fun to be part of a counter-culture on some issues, but some people here literally think that all mainstream ideas are wrong.


I weigh 150 pounds.  The high-protein myth as well as the calcium myth and the vitamin D myth have all been discussed.  Is it hard to get everything from plant sources?  Sure.  Is it impossible?  Heck no.  Will it probably make you a hell of a lot healthier and feel a lot better if you manage to do so?  Heck yes.  It has worked for me and it has worked for some of the world's best athletes as well.

----------


## Yieu

> not reading 25 pages of this thread - but to all the milk naysayers - I'm guessing you guys weigh 80 pounds. Milk has a $#@!load of protein and calcium which builds both strong bones and muscles....I've witnessed this myself as I've a *lot* of milk growing up. It may be fun to be part of a counter-culture on some issues, but some people here literally think that all mainstream ideas are wrong.


Yeah, milk does a body good.  We can live off milk alone, it is a gift from God.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Pffft.

Enjoy your food, good eats are part of a life well lived and remember that no matter how careful you are about your diet and health, we're all dead in the end.

----------


## ChaosControl

Milk in general isn't good for you. Cow milk is for a calf, not a human. The only milk meant for human consumption is breast milk, and that is really only meant for babies. Dairy as a whole is something that should be avoided. No, it is not necessary for calcium like most quacks like to say it is.

But if you're going to consume it, realize that the more pasteurized it is, the more nutrients it loses and the even more worthless it is. I love the taste of it and love dairy, but really it is something you shouldn't consume.

Essentially, yes, the OP is right in all said.

----------


## PaulineDisciple

The only way I can think of that raw milk is bad for you, is it could get you and your family swat-teamed and possible die from it.

----------

