For those interested in a raw vegan lifestyle!

[farros]

Originally Posted by robbyblade

You are very gullible to believe all the mystique and folklore about a bunch of puny Asian men who practice martial arts in the mountains.

Have you seen ANY of these men fight bigger men like myself?

Have you seen any of them fight at all?

I never said certain levels of health and fitness are not possible on meat-free diets, but if two guys of equal size are training to fight, and you put one on a vegan diet, and one a healthy raw animal food diet, the one one raf will win after months of training.

Maybe you've played too many video games, or watched too many kung-fu movies.

Being gullable has nothing to do with it RB. Ive practised martial arts for nearly 10 years (tai chi, wing chun, kickboxing) and its easy to distinguish people who train properly to hobby martial artists (ie 1 hour a week types) you just gotta look at their posture. The strength of these guys is not in their bicep, but in their overall conditioning. Strength is not limited to lifting weights. I havent seen them fight no, but I havent seen Bruce Lee fight either, but sure he could beat you . A gymnast would probably give a lot of martial artists a good beating if it really came down to it. Gymnasts have some of the best conditioning and posture in any form of fitness. Their strength is balanced evenly from their core, the same with monks with the elaborate forms they do.

But to say No you don't. Vegans and vegetarians are too skinny and weak. is just ridiculous. A comment like that would justified 50 years ago, but today is just silly.

Shaolin warrior training - full documentary. The point is if shaolin monks can thrive without meat on their level of training, anyone can. Whether they are tough in combat or not is irrelevant.

Shaolin warrior training - YouTube

Shaolin warrior training - YouTube

[vegan_on_the_land]

Originally Posted by plam

The special thing about meat

Where's the yawning smilie?

Originally Posted by robbyblade

Grains destroy your intestines.

That means that most humans in the last many thousands of years have destroyed their intestines by all the grain they ate.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

My twin gear juicer breaks down the cellulose in vegetables, but you still couldn't get the amount of nutrients that you get from meat.

We get more vitamins and minerals from some plant foods than we could do from meat. And at least as much protein.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

No, cooking only helps us get nutrients from vegetables. It does nothing to help us get more from meat, or fruit. You don't need grains, tubers, or roots.

I couldn't care less how much or less nutrients come from cooked meat than from raw meat. But cooking does help us to absorb more nutrients from some plant foods. Fruits are best eaten raw except tomatoes, the lycopene of which can be better absorbed when cooked and mixed with fat. We might not need grains but they are an excellent source of many nutrients and the human species would still be in small numbers without it. Tubers and roots are also excellent sources of nutrients.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

That whole lycopene thing with tomatoes is bullshit. Lycopene is not necessary for human health. It is just a carotene, and actually has no vitamin A activity. Raw tomatoes are better than cooked.

Tomatoes are a wonderful food to include in the diet. Avoid them at your own risk.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

Grains are not healthy for you. People turn disease around by simply eliminating grains from their diet.

You get nutrition from grains, but they destroy your insides at the same time.

It only shows up in later generations. This is why so more and more people are having to eliminate gluten.

Grains are healthy. People have improved their health by including them in their diets - probably mainly from the fibre they contain which helps gut health.

More and more people are eating more and more highly processed grains with things added to them. That is what is causing the problems.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

No they didn't. They were all very healthy. They didn't suffer from disease until some adopted sugary western foods.

As I posted elsewhere, Eskimo bodies from centuries ago, frozen soon after death, were found to have osteoporosis and it was said their high protein diets were to blame.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

I eat tons of lamb liver and my blood tests have been normal.

The whole vitamin A toxicity thing is overblown and usually happens from synthetic supplements.

As liver contains iron you will be getting too much. Too much can lead to colon cancer, Alzheimers' disease and Parkinson's disease. Take heed before it is too late. Repent, repent!

Originally Posted by robbyblade

Like I said, some will seemingly be fine. They will just never know how much better they could be with raw animal foods.

And some meat eaters will seem to be all right. They could do much better if they adopted a vegan diet.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

I just know that they are not getting the best foods, which are raw animal foods.

You just think it is but have no proof. Because it's not.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

No, grain is bad. It is very bad and unnecessary.

You keep saying it's bad but you have no proof. And don't post anything unless it refers to whole grains.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

Prehistoric human bones were tested, and found to have the exact same carbon isotope make-up as that of African Lions, meaning that they ate an all-meat diet.

No, they showed that the people ate either the animals who ate the plants or that they ate the plants directly. But who says early humans didn't eat meat?

Originally Posted by robbyblade

Our bodies turn protein and fats into glucose AS NEEDED. Too much glucose has to be compensated for, and does harm. You don't need tubers and roots to fuel your brain.

It is better for us to get glucose directly from carbohydrate food. It is easier for the brain to use it. And along with it comes lots of good nutrients - such as vitamins and minerals that are in greater amounts than found in meat. Too much of anything can do harm. There is no need to have too much glucose. Active people make use of the glucose in their meals. The muscles soak it up becasue, in active people, the glucose soon gets used up and their muscles make use of the new supply from the next meal.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

Vegan children don't develop properly.

What a load of tosh. Where's your evidence? It would be more accurate to say that the sun goes round the earth.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

Where did you get pig stem cells, and fish brains from shellfish from?

I referred to the stem cells in bone marrow, and the high fatty acid profile of shell fish.

Good ol' Vegan on the Land, trying to twist people's words into some crazy sounding shit to make them sound bat-shit crazy.

You said:

Brains, bone marrow, and shell fish have fatty acids, and even stem cells and God knows what else, that people theorize helped develop our larger brains.

I naturally assumed you meant that the stem cells that were eaten contributed to our stem cells that made our brains bigger. Just like you seem to say that the fat eaten contributes to the fatty composition of the brain. Nothing was twisted. I quoted your words for all to see. But it doesn't matter because carbs made our brains bigger.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

If you didn't cook vegetables, you wouldn't absorb ANY nutrients. You can't get enough nutrients from vegetables to equal that of raw animal foods.

What do you mean by 'vegetables'? We don't need to cook young, tender leaves, we don't need to cook carrots - although it's better to cook carrots to get more carotene. We can get carbs out of tubers and roots, although most do need cooking. The carbs that were so necessary to fuel our bigger brains. And that are so beneficial to the rest of our bodies - which is why endurance athletes do carb loading. There's no better fuel for the brain or for muscles.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

Vegetables cannot provide enough for humans. Fruits might have a lot of vitamins, but there is too much sugar. Raw animal foods have more protein and minerals.

Plant foods provide more potassium, magnesium, vitamin C, and other things. Some plant foods provide as much, if not more, protein - not that we need much. There is not too much sugar in fruits. If we eat what we need we won't get too much sugar. And wild fruits contain less sugar. Wild fruits are what our ancestors ate.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

You must understand that humans' digestive systems cannot digest cellulose, which is the fiber that surrounds the cells of vegetables, which contain the nutrients.

But the bacteria in our guts do digest some of the cellulose and they help to protect us from gut cancer by doing so. More than likely, our ancestors had the microbes in their guts that could digest huge amounts of cellulose - like our ape cousins. And their bigger jaws and guts would have helped to grind down and digest the cellulose.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

We cannot eat grass.

We eat leaves. And the seeds of grass. A bit of cooking or sprouting and the seeds are easy to digest.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

if two guys of equal size are training to fight, and you put one on a vegan diet, and one a healthy raw animal food diet, the one one raf will win after months of training.

You are making assumptions. You cannot possibly know that a meat eater would beat a non-meat eater. You believe all the nonsense about the need for meat to build strength.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

What a lot of them don't know, and what I found out is that grains are terrible for the digestive system and were never ideal for human nutritional needs.

You don't want to be stronger? Fine, but raw animal foods are also better for your digestive system, which is even more important. It's also better for your bones. (I'm talking raw, healthy sourced animal foods here.)

You just think it's better. Grains/fibre help to protect us from various cancers. Raw meat can contain pathogens - which are not good for your digestive system.

[robbyblade]

I eat tomatoes. I just said you don't need to cook them to make them better because more lycopene does nothing to improve health.

Raw tomatoes are good for you.

Anyone who reads my post will see that I never said pig stem cells or fish brains.

You brought the word "pig" into your response to try to make my theories sound weird, and fish brains. Shell fish don't even have brains, or central nervous systems.

You do that shit all the time.

If glucose was all that was need to give humans their superior brains, all these fruit-eating animals would be way more advanced.

Grain eaters will suffer damage. I didn't say that their digestive systems would get completely destroyed.

You exaggerate the ends to make the means look stupid.

Vegan humans can and do live well-contented lives on their diets.

They would be healthier, and stronger with raw animal foods.

Their digestion would be BETTER.

It's all about the ERs, boys.

Those monks would be STRONGER! Do you understand me now?

If you are happy with your vegan life that's fine. But some people NEED animal foods. I saved my life with them. Not everyone will need to do what I did to be happy, but they could see improvements if they were seeking them.

[raw rob]

Interesting argument. I think the point both sides are missing is that a vegan diet works for some, but definitely doesn't work for everyone.

Preformed vitamin A is not available in vegan foods, some people can make the conversion from beta-carotene to vitamin A, but not everyone can do this, and the people who can do it, all have differing abilities to make the conversion. So people who can make the conversion well will have more success on a vegan diet.

Then there is vitamin K - K2 is plentiful in various vegan foods, but K1 is generally only available in animal foods, and it is K1 that our bodies need. There is not enough research on this topic, but it seems that some people can convert K2 to K1, but others can't.

These are just examples, there are more, which makes me come to the conclusion that not everyone can be vegan.

The related issue to this is "selection bias" - the vegans that people point to who are doing well, are obviously vegans that can do well on a vegan diet. Those who get ill on a vegan diet don't stay on it anymore.

Robby, you mentioned about wanting to share your story - I publish a magazine on the topic of raw foods and would be interested in publishing your story, and you could stay anonymous if you want. Let me know if you are interestedby emailing me on magazine@funkyraw.com

Rob

[_z3n_]

Originally Posted by robbyblade

If glucose was all that was need to give humans their superior brains, all these fruit-eating animals would be way more advanced.

But don't you see the contradiction here? Fruit eating animals are the most intelligent.

[_z3n_]

Originally Posted by raw rob

I think the point both sides are missing is that a vegan diet works for some, but definitely doesn't work for everyone.

It depends on your definition of "works". I would argue that the statement above is ridiculous. Every species on the planet has a species-specific diet which is the optimal diet for that species. Humans are no different in this respect -- although different cultures have gone down different dietary paths within the last hundred thousand years or so, in the grand scheme of evolution our dietary needs will have remained largely unchanged.

Different diets do "work" for different people in the sense that they can survive off them, but that mentality ignores the probability that there is a diet which humans as a species are biologically designed for.

[raw rob]

Originally Posted by _z3n_

It depends on your definition of "works". I would argue that the statement above is ridiculous. Every species on the planet has a species-specific diet which is the optimal diet for that species. Humans are no different in this respect -- although different cultures have gone down different dietary paths within the last hundred thousand years or so, in the grand scheme of evolution our dietary needs will have remained largely unchanged.

Different diets do "work" for different people in the sense that they can survive off them, but that mentality ignores the probability that there is a diet which humans as a species are biologically designed for.

Fair enough, but then by your definition, the vegan diet is not the diet we are biologically designed for, because it definitely doesn't work for everyone. It didn't work for me, and I know many people who have tried vegan diets and it didn't work for them.

Rob

[_z3n_]

Originally Posted by raw rob

Fair enough, but then by your definition, the vegan diet is not the diet we are biologically designed for, because it definitely doesn't work for everyone. It didn't work for me, and I know many people who have tried vegan diets and it didn't work for them.

Rob

"Vegan diet" can mean potato chips and twinkies. It can also mean tons of olive oil and nut butter, calorie restriction, soy products, etc. Obviously none of these are the diet we were biologically designed for.

[vegan_on_the_land]

Originally Posted by robbyblade

If glucose was all that was need to give humans their superior brains, all these fruit-eating animals would be way more advanced.

If animal flesh was all that was needed to give humans superior brains, tigers, lions and badgers would be winning Nobel Prizes.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

Grain eaters will suffer damage. I didn't say that their digestive systems would get completely destroyed.

You exaggerate the ends to make the means look stupid.

You said grains would destroy the intestines of grain-eating humans. I merely repeated what you said and didn't say 'completely'. No exaggeration.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

Vegan humans can and do live well-contented lives on their diets.

They would be healthier, and stronger with raw animal foods.

Their digestion would be BETTER.

It's all about the ERs, boys.

Those monks would be STRONGER! Do you understand me now?

It is just your opinion that vegans would be stronger with meat or that digestion would be better. I am stronger now than I was before I became a vegetarian or vegan. I would probably be as strong if I had continued to eat meat. Not eating meat hasn't harmed me.

Fibre is great for digestion. It feeds microbes that are necessary to gut health. And they manufacture valuable products for us to use.

Those 'monks' are boys aged about 10. The few men there are not muscular. This will be because they don't do resistance training. And many Chinese are naturally slim of build.

Originally Posted by raw rob

Preformed vitamin A is not available in vegan foods, some people can make the conversion from beta-carotene to vitamin A, but not everyone can do this, and the people who can do it, all have differing abilities to make the conversion. So people who can make the conversion well will have more success on a vegan diet.

Then there is vitamin K - K2 is plentiful in various vegan foods, but K1 is generally only available in animal foods, and it is K1 that our bodies need. There is not enough research on this topic, but it seems that some people can convert K2 to K1, but others can't.

I doubt that anyone can't convert beta carotene to vitamin A. Some might not be as efficient at it as others but they should make sure they are cooking the food and having it with oil. And get their thyroid checked. Various diseases and poor nutrition can result in low levels of retinol. As well as hypothyroid conditions, poor liver function, lack of zinc, protein, iron and calories and poor fat absorption can cause problems with vitamin A storage and conversion. Various gut and pancreatic disorders can cause problems.

I also doubt that there are any people who can't convert K1 to K2. If there are any people who are not as efficient as others it is probably an imbalance in their gut microbes that is the cause - and that could be due to bad diet or medications. Poor liver function is also a cause. They could get this sorted out. Most of the forms of K2 are converted from K1 by microbes. the M4 type is converted in various tissues of our bodies. The M4 in farm animals is there mostly because they are given supplements of 2-methyl naphthoquinone - a synthetic form of vitamin K. Only small amounts of M4 come from animal products. If people can't easily convert K1 to K2 I doubt if they'd get enough from meat.

There is a lot of K2 in natto (though not the M4 type). This should be tried first by anyone supposedly unable to convert K1 to K2.

If some people find it more difficult to convert these two plant food ingredients it is quite likely that consumption of meat has weakened their ability - their bodies get some of the target substances directly from animal flesh and have lost some efficiency in making the conversions.

[jon galt]

i agree with raw foods at least in theory (ie i like cooked meals), all food is broken down by the body in to amino acids and various chemicals to be used, i believe by cooking food plant or meat, that the amino acids ect not only bond, but some can also be damaged. ive also been reading about harmfull chemical that be than this process can produce

[robbyblade]

Originally Posted by vegan_on_the_land

If animal flesh was all that was needed to give humans superior brains, tigers, lions and badgers would be winning Nobel Prizes.

Go back and read the theories that I mentioned.

I specifically said that some theorize that humans evolved beyond other predators because we CRACKED OPEN the skulls and bones of animals getting the brains and bone marrow out. Lions and tigers do not eat bone marrow or brains.

The OTHER theory was that we progressed because we started eating a large amount of shell fish. Lions and tigers don't eat shell fish.

I never said that we evolved because we ate flesh.

I'm not even sure if I believe these theories, but I surely don't believe your glucose theory. I don't know what happened, and neither do you.

Originally Posted by vegan_on_the_land

You said grains would destroy the intestines of grain-eating humans. I merely repeated what you said and didn't say 'completely'. No exaggeration.

No, you said, "If that were true, all humans that ate grains before would have destroyed their intestines."

In that context, you made it sound as if their intestines would be completely destroyed. You are intellectually dishonest on here and you know it.

Grains are not good for the digestive system, even though many get away with it their whole lives. They tear down the system over a LONG period of time, depending on how much you eat. Raw animal foods do not hurt the digestive system at all. That is the difference.

Originally Posted by vegan_on_the_land

It is just your opinion that vegans would be stronger with meat or that digestion would be better. I am stronger now than I was before I became a vegetarian or vegan. I would probably be as strong if I had continued to eat meat. Not eating meat hasn't harmed me.

You would be stronger if you ate raw animal foods.

You never have. That's why you don't know.

I've been on your diet.

You haven't been on mine.

Originally Posted by vegan_on_the_land

Fibre is great for digestion. It feeds microbes that are necessary to gut health. And they manufacture valuable products for us to use.

Soluble fiber in fruit is fine and good for you.

Fiber in vegetables and grains is insoluble and useless. It actually irritates the intestines. It's only needed by people who eat cooked food, food that they weren't supposed to eat in the first place.

Don't eat toxic cooked food.

Originally Posted by vegan_on_the_land

Those 'monks' are boys aged about 10. The few men there are not muscular. This will be because they don't do resistance training. And many Chinese are naturally slim of build.

Thank you for proving my point.

That's why they are not very good examples of STRONG VEGANS.

Who gives a fuck if some guys in the mountains who like to see how flexible they are, and keep their bodies light, don't eat animal foods.

They are slim of build because they have not included enough animal foods in their diet. It is passed down from generation to generation.

It's why the Massai tribes in Africa DOMINATE the more vegetarian tribes around them.

The more humans deny themselves animal foods, the physically less impressive they are. (How much other crap food, and the quality of the sources matters too of course.)

[tenzingnorgay]

Originally Posted by _z3n_

But don't you see the contradiction here? Fruit eating animals are the most intelligent.

Sperm whales eat fruit?

[_z3n_]

Originally Posted by tenzingnorgay

Sperm whales eat fruit?

wtf? Sperm whales are not the most intelligent animals. Please take note of the context when you reply.

[tenzingnorgay]

Originally Posted by raw rob

Interesting argument. I think the point both sides are missing is that a vegan diet works for some, but definitely doesn't work for everyone.

....
Rob

And vegan diets don't work at all unless you are extremely knowledgeable about nutrition issues. The percentage of vegans who understand nutrition very well is probably in the 5% range of total vegans.

[jon galt]

Originally Posted by tenzingnorgay

And vegan diets don't work at all unless you are extremely knowledgeable about nutrition issues. The percentage of vegans who understand nutrition very well is probably in the 5% range of total vegans.

i agree with this. i am also of the opinion that vegans need supplements or at least a vast variety of different foods, so in that sense is not natural, ie before tescos ect it would be near imposable to get all these food sources from gathering in a local area

Grains are not good for the digestive system, even though many get away with it their whole lives. They tear down the system over a LONG period of time, depending on how much you eat. Raw animal foods do not hurt the digestive system at all. That is the difference.

even oats? i think the damage is more to do with bleached grain that are void of most of their original nutrition.

[jon galt]

Originally Posted by robbyblade

Grass-fed meat/fat has more vitamins than any other food.

The Liver of grass-fed animals packs even more of punch as for water-soluble vitamins.

Body fat, and butter from the milk of grass-fed animals has all the fat-soluble vitamins.

It is all a human needs to thrive.

eskimos go further surviving only on meat and fat, they seem healthy with no increased health problems as a group.

[vegan_on_the_land]

Originally Posted by robbyblade

Go back and read the theories that I mentioned.

A brain won't get bigger if the owner eats brains or shell fish. It will get bigger if it has a reliable supply of fuel and if genetic changes take place. If the changes are useful they will be passed on to future generations.

There's an interesting piece in the PaleoVegan's blog about a new theory that our ancestors may have been given a boost in brain evolution by moving into new territories. This makes sense to me as new territories require new learning and new ways of living. Look how there's usually a surge in creativity and enterprise when people go to a new country that is undeveloped in their terms.
http://www.paleovegan.blogspot.co.uk...at-really.html

Originally Posted by robbyblade

No, you said, "If that were true, all humans that ate grains before would have destroyed their intestines."

Yes, because you said grains destroy intestines. If that were true, generations of humans would have destroyed their intestines.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

Grains are not good for the digestive system, even though many get away with it their whole lives. They tear down the system over a LONG period of time, depending on how much you eat. Raw animal foods do not hurt the digestive system at all.

You keep saying these things because you believe them. The bacteria in our guts feast on the fibre in grains. They make the gut healthier. Raw meat can damage the gut with all its pathogens and lack of fibre.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

I've been on your diet.

You haven't been on mine.

I doubt you've been on my diet. If you were, and it didn't suit you, you were intolerant or allergic to something - possibly gluten. When you stopped eating it you healed. Let's hope it's permanent. You say you eat yoghurt, well, that's good for the gut because of the bacteria in it.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

Fiber in vegetables and grains is insoluble and useless.

The insolubility makes it useful because it provides fuel for bacteria.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

That's why they are not very good examples of STRONG VEGANS.

Eating meat wouldn't make them stronger or more muscular. Resistance training would.

Originally Posted by robbyblade

They are slim of build because they have not included enough animal foods in their diet. It is passed down from generation to generation.

It's why the Massai tribes in Africa DOMINATE the more vegetarian tribes around them.

They are slim because they are slim. Just like the Masai - with all the animal products they consume and have done for generation after generation. Skinny Masai.

Originally Posted by jon galt

i am also of the opinion that vegans need supplements or at least a vast variety of different foods, so in that sense is not natural,

Our ape and monkey cousins eat dozens of different plants. We don't live in our natural habitat which is the tropics. The more variety (of plant foods) we have, the better.

Originally Posted by jon galt

eskimos go further surviving only on meat and fat, they seem healthy

They weren't healthy. Admittedly, they did quite well for people on such an unnatural diet.