Does it start with us?

> Another
>interesting idea the book presents is the fact that the body
>becomes really acidic when dairy is ingested caused the bones
>to lose it's calcium. The body actually takes in more calcium
>from plant based foods than from dairy.

Actually there are several acid-producing amino acids in animals products, and consumption of animal products in general can cause an acidic state in the body, as can consumption of white sugar, white flour and many processed foods.

More and more, I'm reading about how disease cannot grow in an alkaline environment, but that most Americans are creating an acidic environment in their bodies due to diet (nutritional stress) as well as stress in general(the effects of which can be counteracted with propoer nutritional support). The DVD 'Eating" (from www.theravediet.com ) presents the cases of several people (MD's) who had cancer, one of whom was given no chance to live more than a year or so) who reversed the disease by changing to a plant-based diet. I don't remember if they particularly mention the acid/alkaline theory, but it could very well be because of that.
 
>>I have a friend who actually
>blames the government for her chubbiness because "If I didn't
>have to go out and work to support myself in a Western
>economy, I would have time to exercise."

(We definitely don't have the appropriate smilies to express my reaction to that!!)
 
It always bothers me when specific foods are seen as the cause of all evil. Humans are ominvores and our bodies can survive and even thrive on a wide range of foods. Milk itself is not evil, to take just one food as an example. There are indigenous tribes that owe their survival to the consumption of milk and milk products (cow's milk, yak milk, reindeer milk). The problem isn't drinking milk--the problem is that as individuals in rich countries, we have access to nearly unlimited calories--yet the calorie demands of our lives are not those of indigenous tribes facing daily hard work, freezing temperatures, limited food supplies, etc. I also happen to believe the same reasoning applies to meat. It's not that it's bad for you per se--it's that we can base our entire diets upon meat, ignoring other substances. Even native people in China--the ones studied in the China study--eat meat at times. Just small quantities, because it's too expensive.

I think I remember seeing a really biting criticism of the China Study somewhere--if I have time, I will try to look it up at work.

Just my opinions here. :)
 
There will always be criticism of vegetarianism in any form. There is way too much emphasis placed on animal products in our society to ever allow a book like this to go uncriticized. I understand that some tribes have survived because they had a milk supply to keep them going. Does that make milk the best and most natural choice for a human? Of course it doesn't. I also seem to remember learning about some tribes engaging in cannibalism. I'm sure it helped keep them alive as well but of course we frown on such things. My question is, if you can not only survive but thrive on a plant based diet, then why would you not? Why would you not choose to live in the most natural and least cruel way possible? Doing almost anything in small amounts does not make something bad for you per se, but it doesn't make it good for you and it doesn't make it right.

Carolyn
 
I just saw a special on the History channel that went into why certain civilizations were stronger than others. It was pretty much based on the type of foods that were available in the advanced societies versus the societies that were not as strong. According to this special, the societies that thrived were the ones that domesticated animals for food, clothing and other necessities.

Also, I read not too long ago in a special US News and World Report article that there were great leaps in intelligence and advancement when people started consuming animal protein.
 
>I just saw a special on the History channel that went into
>why certain civilizations were stronger than others. It was
>pretty much based on the type of foods that were available in
>the advanced societies versus the societies that were not as
>strong. According to this special, the societies that thrived
>were the ones that domesticated animals for food, clothing and
>other necessities.
>
>Also, I read not too long ago in a special US News and World
>Report article that there were great leaps in intelligence and
>advancement when people started consuming animal protein.
>
>
>Sounds like corelation not necessarily causation. I for one am not interested in what people used to eat or how they used to live. It's great for a historical knowledge but of course that doesn't mean it has to apply to us today. Just think of how our own country came to be. It's not a pretty picture and I hope we have learned from our terrible and cruel mistakes. One could also make the arguement that our nation thrived as it did because of the way we treated the indigenous people. We may have become a stronger nation for it, but it doesn't make it right. I would bet that our ancestors didn't have slaughter houses that murdered thousands upon thousands of animals a day either. That's really a modern invention that I wish never existed.

Carolyn
>
 
Carolyn

I was just stating what I have learned through reading and watching television. I really don't feel strongly one way or the other about eating meat. I don't see the idea of a food chain as right, or wrong or cruel. Evidentely you feel passionately about it which is your right.

I do get quite impatient with conspiracy talk though and is certainly resonating (sp) in this discussion.

I just wanted to interject some additional information I have learned from other sources. The article and television show was very thought provoking as is this discussion.

Something else just occured to me...if all you had available was animal protein, would you starve or eat it? Just wondering. It's wonderful that we live in a country where we actually have a choice of several food groups at our fingertips.

P.S. If I was a chicken, cow or turkey I'm sure I would have a different opinion :)
 
>According to this special, the societies that thrived
>were the ones that domesticated animals for food, clothing and
>other necessities.

I'm sure that allowed them to spend their energies on things other than hunting and gathering, thus conserving energy, both physical and mental, so it makes sense to me. I'm sure they also probably started domesticating plants at around the same time.

I just don't see the what impact these studies have on modern humans, anyway? Just because primitive humans had a certain lifestyle (at a time when they didn't have many options available), doesn't mean that is the best lifestyle for intelligent, evolved and free-thinking modern humans.
 
Something else just occured to me...if all you had available
>was animal protein, would you starve or eat it?

Some other hypotheticals:
If you were starving, and the only source of food available was another human (not even related or a friend), would you eat them?

How about: if you were in a boat with your two children and spouse, and the boat capsized, they were knocked unconscious, and you could only save one, who would you save?

Kind of shows how vain hypothetical arguments are.


But, I'll answer: If animal foods were the only foods available to me and I would otherwise starve and die, of course I would eat them. But unless Armageddon happens soon, that's not very likely!
 
Candi,


I'd have to agree with Kathryn on this one. For the sake of my own survival I would eat animal protein. Thank God I live in a world where I don't have to make that decision though. What you should really ask me is if I would be willing to eat cabbage...now THAT would be disgusting!! Just kidding!!:)

Carolyn
 
My point wasn't that it is right or wrong to be a vegetarian. It just bothers me to see some foods or food groups demonized. Here in the modern world, we are lucky enough and rich enough to be able to make our food choices based on what is healthiest given our standard of living, and also perhaps based on other goals, such as reducing pollution, cruelty, etc. That said, humans have survived on all kinds of foods for thousands of years, without developing the diseases of modern civilization (heck, no, they died early from infection, accident, childbirth....). But you name it and some humans somewhere have eaten it without ill effects.
 
I'm not convinced that you can say that humans have eaten anything without any ill effects. Think of all the people each day that become sickened by uncooked meat or unsanitary cooking conditions. I'm sure this happened ALL of the time to ALL cultures in our history, they just didn't know what it was. And of course heart disease and other diet related illnesses are not new to the modern world, they were just not as documented before. And, just because you can survive on something does not make it healthy or good for you. It just means you can survive DESPITE what you eat, not because of it. But I agree that we do live in an amazing time in nutrition history. We have some an amazing array of choices in our lives no wonder obesity is such a problem. The point now is to figure out what we need in our diets and what we don't need, what is good for us and what isn't.

Carolyn
 
>There is some of the book where you could take it or leave
>it. But I was most affected by the chapters where he discusses
>how the food, medical, and pharmaceutical industries are all
>motivated by more, more, more profits and will do anything to
>achieve that end, even if it means compromising the American
>public's health. My family and I will not be compromised by
>some CEO of a drug or food company simply trying to make his
>wallet fatter. As Kevin says, "It's all about the money".

Nope, nope, nope...I'm not going to read anything written by someone convicted TWICE of a felony and banned in every state from making infomercials because of misleading and false claims. Coral calcium curing cancer and Biotape permanently cure or relieve pain...now who is the profiteer (our drug companies???)? Yep, it sounds like it is all about the money... and Kevin Trudeau is certainly not getting mine.

Robin
 
>If you were starving, and the only source of food available
>was another human (not even related or a friend), would you
>eat them?
>

Absolutely! :D In fact, when ever someone dies on LOST it irritates me that they bury the body instead of sticking it in the hatch freezer for future use...:p

Sparrow

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming ‘Wow - what a ride!’ — Peter Sage
 
"Something else just occured to me...if all you had available was animal protein, would you starve or eat it? Just wondering."

Candi- It's really not necessary to post everything that occurs to you. This is a very good example of a thought that would be much better kept to yourself, and left to pass like so much gas.

-Nancy
 
> This is a very good example of a thought that
>would be much better kept to yourself, and left to pass like
>so much gas.

ROFLMAO!

Oh, if I could only use this one on one of my students! I'm SOOOO tempted!}(
 
Nancy,

I was surprised to see such a nasty comment from you. Never suspected this coming from such a proper, etiquette driven personality.

I hope you felt much better after writing it...like passing so much gas a :)
 
Carolyn,

I love cabbage :9

I was thinking about this discussion on my way home last night. I admit I admire the energies expended by some on proper nutrition. We are what we eat, after all.

Maybe later in my life I might feel the same way some of you do about animal protein. Let's face it...there is so much confusing information out there on what good nutrition is, how many hours a week one should exercise, whether one should do more cardio or less cardio, etc, etc.

I will do what seems to work for me :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top