Are we designed or 'meant' to eat meat?

[Kiran]

we WERE meant to eat meat.

No we were not. The teeth of carnivores are adapted to eat they flesh of their prey. At the front of the mouth the teeth are sharp and pointed. There are four which are longer than the others. These are called the canine teeth. I don't think nature/god/evolution has equipped humans with such a powerful canine teeth sturucture. The typical canine teeth structure of a carnivore is shown below.

http://www.saburchill.com/images02/080106029.jpg

[RedWellies]

That looks like one of your old avatars, Kiran.

[John]

The thing that is so unique about human beings is that we are not "meant" to do anything. For whatever reason we have an amazing freedom to do what we want.

[fiamma]

I think all this talk of what we were "meant" to do is irrelevant. It seems like a way for meat eaters to defend their meat eating, their way of "doing harm". Man has the intelligence to choose between different ways of eating the way that other animals cannot, and surely decades of healthy vegans have shown that man can choose to live without meat quite happily.

[Korn]

It seems like a way for meat eaters to defend their meat eating, their way of "doing harm". Sure - it shows a lack of real arguments pro eating meat. They look at what some humans did at a certain point in history, and say that we're meant to do the same today, but won't use the same fake arguments to say that we should eg. eat insects or have much shorter lives. I saw a documentary recently saying that 9000 years ago, humans had a life expectancy of circa 24 years only, but have never heard anyone say that we're not 'meant to' become 30 or 60 or 90 years old...

[Seaside]

"People often say that humans have always eaten animals, as if this is a justification for continuing the practice. According to this logic, we should not try to prevent people from murdering other people, since this has also been done since the earliest of times." ~ Isaac Bashevis Singer (author, Nobel 1978)

[Jugurtha]

I believe that we are naturally omnivorous, that meat would have made up a small percentage of our diets and that the choice to become a vegan is an ethical one. I concur with Marika5 (above).

In the first post in this thread Milton R Mills MD says:


One would expect an omnivore to show anatomical features which equip it to eat both animal and plant foods. According to evolutionary theory, carnivore gut structure is more primitive than herbivorous adaptations. Thus, an omnivore might be expected to be a carnivore which shows some gastrointestinal tract adaptations to an herbivorous diet.

The devil is in the detail here - note especially the 'might' in the last sentence. Equally, one could propose: an omnivore could be expected to be an herbivore which shows some gastrointestinal tract adaptations to a carnivorous diet (convergent evolution is the principle I'm working by here).

It's also disingenuous to say that 'carnivore gut structure is more primitive than herbivorous adaptations.' It is simpler simply due to the pressures of natural selection - when somethings works well it doesn't tend to change.

Bears are more closely related to cats and dogs than humans. The comparison that needed to be drawn is between us and other primates. Any other is specious.

Humanity's tool usage means we don't need carnivorous teeth and claws.

There are many debatable points throughout the piece (and the table Korn posted; generalisations...) - I'm not going to go through all of them.

Please note I am not attacking veganism - I think it is an admirable ethical stance - I am debating sloppy reasoning.

[Korn]

Hi Jugurtha, and welcome!


I believe that we are naturally omnivorous, that meat would have made up a small percentage of our diets and that the choice to become a vegan is an ethical one. If meat 'would have' made up a small percentage of human diets (we know that both meat eating and non-meat eating cultures have existed for thousands of years), wouldn't that suggest that you believe that humans were, and not are natural omnivorous?


Humanity's tool usage means we don't need carnivorous teeth and claws.

Here are some common definitions of 'natural':

"Produced or existing in nature; not artificial or manufactured"

"Occurring in nature"

"Existing in nature or created by the forces of nature, in contrast to production by man; not made, manufactured, or processed by humans"

If humans don't have carnivorous teeth and claws, and we need tools in order to kill animals, and man made tools definitely are within the definition of 'culture', and not 'nature', isn't the only logical conclusion (whether we at some point in history were natural omnivorous or not) that we are not natural omnivorous anymore?

Human evolution started with Australopithecus Afarensis (3-4 million years ago) - and apparently, they were herbivores. 1-2 million years ago Homo Habilis apparently started to include meat in their diet. We know that today, hundreds of millions of people are not eating meat, and this has been going on for thousands of years.

Our ancestors have had periods where most of them did not eat meat, periods where some/many/most of them ate a least some meat, and today, humans can 'catch', 'kill' and digest plants without tools, but in order to catch and kill animals, we are dependent tools that are 'manufactured' (read: not occurring in nature, but produced by humans = not within the definition of natural)... and therefore not natural omnivorous?

Some people will say that it's natural to eat meat because we are capable of digesting it. But being capable of doing something doesn't mean that it's natural or that we are 'meant to' do it. There are many vegan bodybuilders out there, they are all capable of beating me up, but let's hope that we agree that this doesn't mean that it's 'natural' for them to do it! :) Plus - and this is important - if we are natural omnivorous, why is it that...



Human anatomy is much more similar to herbivores than carnivores.
Mixed diets of plants and animals promote heart disease, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, and every other major degenerative disease.
Physical performance is superior on all-plant diets. (From Eating meat isn't natural (http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html))



The comparison that needed to be drawn is between us and other primates.
Frankly, I don't think any comparison is needed at all, because even if someone would prove that some primates would eat other animals, or other members of their own species, that wouldn't mean that you or I should do the same. Plus, why look at another species - we could look at our own, and if even we should follow a philosophy saying that 'it's natural for us to eat what others living beings, similar to us are eating' why not look at humans, living today, and simply acknowledge that there are hundred of millions of humans who don't eat meat - they are more similar to us than primates, so if we need someone similar to us to back something up, look at all the vegetarian humans. They are living, today, they are humans, so all guesswork about what some prehistoric human ate millions of years ago isn't needed. Whatever we did or ate in the past, we know that we have developed into a species that can survive perfectly well without including any meat or other animal products in our diet, so my personal opinion is that we should ignore what some humans may or may not have been doing thousands or millions of years ago. That's what our ancestors, Homo Habilis did when they - unlike their ancestors, Australopithecus Afarensis - included meat in their diet.

It's normal to mix the term 'natural' with 'normal'. It may have been normal to eat meat ******** years ago, but in a way that's irrelevant: it's normal to eat meat today, so if 'normal' should be a reference, we don't need to look into the past...

If we would have been 'designed to' eat meat (maybe our ancestors at some point were?), we still need to face the fact that cosnuming meat is associated with a lot of health problems - and many environmental issues (with today's population). In another thread about the same topic, Vagetarian wrote that "In my opinion the most "natural" diet is the one that let's a person survive as long as possible in the environment where he/she lives with the resources of that environment" - which makes a lot of sense, but I'd add a few extra premises: one of them being health. 'As long as possible' isn't always good: I'd rather become 90 years old and have a healthy, happy life, than become 120 and spend the last 30 years in agony. But - it doesn't matter which of these criterions we look at: in both cases, avoiding meat is the best solution, and can a diet that makes humans live shorter and become more ill really be the natural solution?


That was the long version. Here is the short version: :)
Something isn't natural if it needs man made tools, or isn't occurring naturally in nature
We don't even need to be 'natural' (chairs don't grow on trees either!)
We don't need to do something even if we are capable of doing it, and this was true for our ancestors too (but some of them may have killed in order to survive)
The fact that we don't have or need carnivorous teeth and claws (because we can make tools) doesn't mean that it's natural for us to use the tools we can make in order to kill.
Natural, or 'designed to' is different from 'normal'
If both humans and animals are more healthy and happy without killing each other, why bother about what may or may not have been natural or necessary for human ancestors living under totally different conditions?


PS - we also have these threads:
Was meat-eating essential for human evolution? (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=208569)
B12: How natural is the vegan diet? (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=232702)

[Jugurtha]

Korn,

thank you sincerely for your welcome and your comments. There are a few concerns you raise that I would elaborate upon.

When I said we are naturally omnivorous, I meant over a time scale of millions of years - evolution is not a process that occurs quickly.

We're an opportunistic species with a remarkable ability to adapt to our circumstances. Chimpanzees (our closest relatives on the planet today) utilise stalks of grass to 'fish' termites out of their mounds. The grass grows - it is a natural resource, but is used as a tool by the chimpanzees. By sitting at the termite mound and catching termites, it means that the chimpanzee expends less energy in amassing nutrients - in particular protein - than it would were it to have to forage over an area, which in turn means that it is more likely in the genealogical stakes to pass on its DNA: survival of the fittest.

I believe that it's wooly thinking to try to link veganism to our biological ancestory. The firmest ground upon which vegans stand is ethical. Humanity knows enough about nutrition now to not have to rely on animals for protein or products. We don't have to deny where we come from to be where we are.

[Korn]

When I said we are naturally omnivorous, I meant over a time scale of millions of years - evolution is not a process that occurs quickly.

While our ancestors may have been natural omnivorous, this doesn't imply that today's humans are.

There are a few problems associated with such a time span:
Scientist don't agree in what humans did or how they lived a few million years ago, or if all (vs. most, some) of our ancestors lived they way they did or ate what they did.

Even if they know that some pre-humans ate eg. fish, this doesn't mean that all our ancestors did: Take a look at these (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10818&postcount=21) findings, for example.
My main point is that even if human ancestor may have eaten meat without all the health issues meat eaters experience today, this doesn't mean that humans living today are natural omnivorous, does it?


We're an opportunistic species with a remarkable ability to adapt to our circumstances.
...and we don't have the claws etc. that animals 'designed to' eat meat have, so we obviously aren't naturally equipped to kill other animals (anymore). Since we are not, is it then natural for us to do so?


Chimpanzees (our closest relatives on the planet today) utilise stalks of grass to 'fish' termites out of their mounds. The grass grows - it is a natural resource, but is used as a tool by the chimpanzees.
That would suggest that we are capable of eating animals that only needs a stalk of grass to be killed, which raises two questions:
Is it natural (or 'are we designed') to eat insects, just because we are capable of doing it?
We don't need to look at termites, we can catch ants with our bare hands, but does this mean that people who think we should to everything are capable of, just because we are capable of doing it, suggests that our ancestor ate insects, or that it's natural for humans to eat termites or ants, or that we should do it? There is no link between 'capable of' and 'natural', but IMO there's a link between 'not capable of' an unnatural.


By sitting at the termite mound and catching termites, it means that the chimpanzee expends less energy in amassing nutrients - in particular protein - than it would were it to have to forage over an area, which in turn means that it is more likely in the genealogical stakes to pass on its DNA: survival of the fittest.

We don't need to look at grass, chimpanzees or termites...

1) I'm not a chimpanzee. :)
2) As we all know, getting enough protein without eating termites is not a problem - look here (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3696).

Is it relevant that chimpanzees, who are not humans, are capable of eating termites? I'm a human, I can eat ants without using tools, but does that really tell me anything at all about what's natural for me - eg. that I'm natural omnivorous, or that humans are 'designed to' eat ants? Or to eat meat? A human hand is capable of catching an ant, but are we meant to eat ants? I don't think so.

I don't think we are meant to make bombs either, in spite of the fact that we have the brains and tools to make them.

Women have been suppressed by men throughout history - nobody is denying that - but this doesn't mean that it's natural to do it because that's 'where we're coming from'.


We don't have to deny where we come from to be where we are.
I don't think anyone is denying that some/many of our ancestors or close relatives have eaten some/a lot of meat - or termites, or even other humans...

The word 'natural' can be confusing, because while a stone is considered natural, and a nuclear bomb is not, we can also say that it's 'natural' for a person in desperate need for food to do whatever he can to get some nutrients, and there have been many situations throughout history which may have 'forced' humans to kill in order to survive. If I lived 10,000 years ago, was in the middle if a hunger catastrophe, and had a family who was starving, maybe it would feel 'natural' to eg. eat insects, because the only other alternative was death. So, while humans may have learnt to kill and create tools in order to survive, because it was a natural reaction to a specific situation in their life at some point, this doesn't make it 'natural' to kill. There have been incidents of cannibalism among non-cannibals, and all these people involved in these situations may have died if some of them wouldn't have been eating some of the others, but that doesn't make us 'natural cannibals' - it only says something about what humans may do in a life/death emergency situation.

Of course, a lot more people have been eating meat from non-human animals than from humans throughout history, but this only says something about how common/normal meat eating has been, and tells us nothing about being natural omnivorous or that we are meant to eat meat.

"History is more or less bunk. " (Henry Ford).

I wouldn't eat meat even if it could be proven that all other humans - living and dead - were meat eaters... I don't want to, I don't need to, and the animals certainly don't want to become food. Unlike lions, tigers and bears, I'm definitely not designed to kill animals, birds or fish. The idea of killing an animal feels totally un-natural to me.

It doesn't feel like I'm 'meant to' do it, which is all I need to know - plus: by being a vegan - even if one would be the only one on the planet - in two million years from now, someone could look back and say that the first known case of humans living on a vegan diet was found two million years ago!



:)

[frank language]

Why can't there be some mainstream paper about this; no matter how right-on Neal Barnard is, he's not a "real" doctor like Dr. Mercola! (That is,omnivores complain there are no mainstream voices in our camp, only fringey fanatics like Dr. Spock and John Robbins.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoatBoy
Why do we need it cooked to stop it from being poisonous?

Steak tartare isn't poisonous. (Help! call poison control; I just ate steak tartare!)

[Korn]

Why can't there be some mainstream paper about this; no matter how right-on Neal Barnard is, he's not a "real" doctor like Dr. Mercola! (That is,omnivores complain there are no mainstream voices in our camp, only fringey fanatics like Dr. Spock and John Robbins.)
There are loads of 'real' doctors in' our camp'. What is it with Benjamin Spock and John Robbins that makes them fanatics?

[frank language]

I'm just saying that when I've cited them and quoted [John Robbins or Dr. Spock, for instance], people want to know why it wasn't the top story on ABC News. Instead the top story ends up being toxic spinach, and the newspeople conveniently downplay that the source of contamination was runoff from animal agriculture.

The world isn't ready for vegans; it may be trendy to be a vegan, but it's too extreme a "lifestyle choice" for most people. And in truth, any progress we're making is "too little, too late;" the environment is going to hell in spite of stopgap measures like importing less bottled water from Fiji and filtering tap water instead.

Life expectancy (http://www.ac.wwu.edu/%7Estephan/Animation/pyramid.html) continues to rise, no matter what people eat. And last I looked, even the Bubonic Plague has only temporarily slowed world population growth.

[Korn]

What you describe reminds a bit of how the US (and other) governments are elected: it's very hard to get a lot of support and media coverage if you represent a small political party, which means that people have to decide if they're going to give up their opinions and vote for a bigger party, or if they're going to be stubborn (in a positive sense) and keep believing in what they believe in.

Lots of stuff that's 'big' now only caught interest by a small minority at some point. Rock. Interest in environmental issues. Internet. Christianity, Buddhism.... the list is long.

The reason that vegan issues aren't the top stories in media is because media is controlled both by the desire to get a lot of viewers/readers, and because the representation of vegans working in media probably is the same as in the rest of the world.

Frankly, I don't think you're improving this situation much by saying that the only vegan doctors you mention are 'fringey fanatics', or claim nonsense like 'you can only be a member of the forums if you agree with everyone else' or describe other vegans as 'weird obsessive-compulsive people'. From the outside, it looks like you're not improving the situation re. progress for vegan viewpoint at all...

Vegan doctors are fringey fanatics because they're not the top stories on ABC news? Maybe I just don't understand what you are trying to say.

Back to the request for a 'mianstream paper' - are you looking or stuff like this (see below)?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12826028&dopt=Abstract



It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Approximately 2.5% of adults in the United States and 4% of adults in Canada follow vegetarian diets. A vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat, fish, or fowl. Interest in vegetarianism appears to be increasing, with many restaurants and college foodservices offering vegetarian meals routinely. Substantial growth in sales of foods attractive to vegetarians has occurred and these foods appear in many supermarkets. This position paper reviews the current scientific data related to key nutrients for vegetarians including protein, iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin D, riboflavin, vitamin B-12, vitamin A, n-3 fatty acids, and iodine. A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, use of fortified foods or supplements can be helpful in meeting recommendations for individual nutrients. Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence. Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fibre, magnesium, potassium, folate, antioxidants such as vitamins C and E, and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than non-vegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease, lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer. While a number of federally funded and institutional feeding programs can accommodate vegetarians, few have foods suitable for vegans at this time. Because of the variability of dietary practices among vegetarians, individual assessment of dietary intakes of vegetarians is required. Dietetics professionals have a responsibility to support and encourage those who express an interest in consuming a vegetarian diet. They can play key roles in educating vegetarian clients about food sources of specific nutrients, food purchase and preparation, and any dietary modifications that may be necessary to meet individual needs. Menu planning for vegetarians can be simplified by use of a food guide that specifies food groups and serving sizes.

[Mahk]

Why can't there be some mainstream paper about this; no matter how right-on Neal Barnard is, he's not a "real" doctor like Dr. Mercola! (That is,omnivores complain there are no mainstream voices in our camp, only fringey fanatics like Dr. Spock and John Robbins.)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here frank language, but Dr. Neal Barnard, M.D. (http://www.nealbarnard.org/bio.htm) is very much a real doctor. He may not be as well know as the anti-vegan Dr. Mercola you mentioned, because he doesn't shamelessly self promote himself with a cult-like, 3-times-a-week newsletter of propaganda. He also doesn't launch fake members to our forum who are actually spammers sent to plant enticing come-ons to lure people to his snake-oil merchandising site (which has received reprimands from the FDA (http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g6034d.htm)). Korn warned us of this behavior in another thread (http://veganforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=330732&postcount=130), recently.* I'd also in no way call him a "mainstream voice" in the medical community, he's actually quite the opposite. His number of beliefs that go against mainstream science and medicine could easily fill an entire book, but just to give you a small sampling of some of his claims:

-vaccinations are bad
-magnets cure disease
-pasteurized milk causes autism in kids
-we should eat 5 raw egg yolks a day and not worry about salmonella/cholesterol
-fluoridation of water is evil...

We have an entire thread on Dr. Mercola's antics here (http://veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3136&highlight=mercola).

*[Korn, is this a common ploy?]

[cobweb]

Frank Language I'm sorry for you that see us all as weird, it must be terribly hard for being a vegan as you have such a low opinion of vegans/veganism.

I see 2 real, bona-fide, medical doctors quite regularly who would love for all their patients to become vegans. They are impressed at my low blood pressure and high levels of iron and b-vits, even though I am over my ideal weight. They are not 'flaky' vegans but they see the 'diet' part of veganism as being the optimal way of eating - if done properly of course with a good nutritional balance :cool: .

[frank language]

Now, I cited Dr. Mercola because he's a bigger quack than most--and therefore an easy target.

His number of beliefs that go against mainstream science and medicine could easily fill an entire book, but just to give you a small sampling of some of his claims:

-vaccinations are bad...
-fluoridation of water is evil...

I'm inclined to agree with these; vaccinations are overused--as are antibiotics--and fluoridation of water can cause serious health problems, as cited in this link (http://www.holisticmed.com/fluoride/) (not affiliated with Dr. Mercola.)


I see 2 real, bona-fide, medical doctors quite regularly who would love for all their patients to become vegans. They are impressed at my low blood pressure and high levels of iron and b-vits, even though I am over my ideal weight. They are not 'flaky' vegans but they see the 'diet' part of veganism as being the optimal way of eating - if done properly of course with a good nutritional balance
To address cobweb's comment: I'm sorry if you see my remarks as self-deprecating; I'm really parroting the way "normal" people see vegans. (The people who "don't eat anything." (http://www.supervegan.com/blog/entry.php?id=866)) I also see doctors who congratulate me for lowering my cholesterol so radically in such a short period of time, and for losing weight, although they'd never dream of giving up dairy products, which my GP insists are "a good source of protein and calcium."

Since I'm not ache-and-pain-free, no one who knows me feels my lifestyle is worth trying. And most people I've ever met say, "I could never be a vegan because..." [fill in the blank.] It's too extreme for most people, that's all--no right or wrong--and the "step-on-a-crack, break-your-mother's-back" vegans are a real turnoff to "normal" people, where their guidelines for living start looking like superstition. I've been accused more than once of veganism being my "religion."

[Risker]

The thing that is so unique about human beings is that we are not "meant" to do anything. For whatever reason we have an amazing freedom to do what we want.

In my opinion nothing was either designed or 'meant' to do anything, otherwise we would all have a purpose and an overall goal - I suppose this constitutes a religious comment but thats the fault of the thread title.

[Mahk]

--and fluoridation of water can cause serious health problems, as cited in this link (http://www.holisticmed.com/fluoride/) (not affiliated with Dr. Mercola.)
Thanks, but over a third of those hyperlinks on that link merely link back to a different page of the same site!:p That's like giving yourself as a reference on your resume. The other "facts" are addressed well by the last link I give in our fluoride thread (http://veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15269&highlight=fluoride). Any further discussion on fluoride should probably be carried over to there.

Also, I think I kind of get your point now, at least better than before, that people tend to lump us together with freegans, extremists, etc. But it doesn't matter what other people think of us, what matters is how we think about ourselves.

I hope you feel better and have less aches and pain.:)

[Korn]

Since I'm not ache-and-pain-free, no one who knows me feels my lifestyle is worth trying.
Although many (non-vegan) doctors recommend people eg. with arthritis staying away from animal products, they misunderstood something very basic if they think that veganism is a cure-all diet for all kinds pains and ahce. 'The vegan lifestyle isn't worth trying unless it cures all kinds of ache and pain'... Never heard that one.


And most people I've ever met say, "I could never be a vegan because..." [fill in the blank.] It's too extreme for most people
You keep posting quotes from most people as if you agree with them... wouldn't it better if - if YOU think veganism is 'too extreme' for most people - that you explain us why you think so? And, if you are only referring to that they assume that it's too extreme for them (which they of course do, based on how media presents veganism etc) please write that you think they believe it's too extreme for them. Eating vegan isn't more extreme than eating a standard diet, but it's less normal - simply because there are less vegans than non-vegans.

[cobweb]

I don't even think it's particularly true nowadays, lots of people are leaning more towards veganism, it's becoming a lot more 'mainstream' (thank goodness).

[Tibetan Snake]

Also, I think I kind of get your point now, at least better than before, that people tend to lump us together with freegans, extremists, etc. But it doesn't matter what other people think of us, what matters is how we think about ourselves.

I hope you feel better and have less aches and pain.:)
http://www.veganforum.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://www.veganforum.com/forums/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/report.php?p=332012)
my folks thourt that Veganisam was just a phase I'd come out of in 1985, the only way to knowingly come out of it for me is to sees my beating heart,
My father had crippling Gout, took pills still had it, stoped eating all meat and hay no Gout and no pills. His docktor had never neard of such a thing in all his years as a GP. Not eating meat is a fact in his Gout free life now. My father that is not his GP.
As for should we or shouldn't we? we can be lasy and will eat what ever is closest to us and takes the least enagy to get untill we get realy realy nafft off with eating it and go and get something els, untill we became Agreculturilists ( not that long aog ) and dominated our environment and stoped the need to be GATHERERS and hunters.
The closest beeing to us is the Gorilla and if it weren't for some of our speeces then they wouldn't be dooing to badly, as Vegans.
My feet realy hurt ( bad shoose for to meany years ) My trigger finger realy hurts ( lack of use ) My back realy hurts ( T1 and T2 are realy close together ) haveing to move things that way 500kg on shitty shopping trolly wheels for to meny years, bending twisting lifting pushing pulling. I won't go on...............
DON'T BEEMOAN THE DARKNESS LIGHT A CANDLE AND SHOW THE WAY.

[frank language]

My father had crippling Gout, took pills still had it, stoped eating all meat and hay no Gout and no pills. His docktor had never neard of such a thing in all his years as a GP. Not eating meat is a fact in his Gout free life now. My father that is not his GP.
Most people with gout are just told to "limit" the amount of meat they eat, or the kinds of meat. Gout (http://ww2.arthritis.org/conditions/DiseaseCenter/gout.asp) is a form of arthritis (sometimes called "gouty arthritis") caused by the formation of uric acid crystals in the joints. Sufferers are told to avoid foods high in purines (a lot of which are meat and animal products) but never told they'd feel better if they abstained from all meat.

Congratulations to your father that he found the way!

[Tibetan Snake]

Hoorah

[VeggieFrank]

i take issue with this black and white argumentation. the basic premise here seems to be, if we're omnivore, we should eat an omnivore diet, but if we're herbivore, an herbivorous diet is what we should consume.

while i understand the reasoning from, perhaps, a health or a philosophical perspective, it adds nothing to the pro-vegetarian arguments of doing the least harm to other creatures and the environment (and ultimately oneself.)

these, in my opinion, supersede.