Re: B12 - is there something wrong with nature?
Point taken, I think the study did narrow it down though, but I think you're right in noting that B-12 probably comes from plant sources more than insects or bacteria. The raw-foodist did make a point in saying that the body itself when running effeciently does produces small amounts. I think that the unnatural enviroments do have alot to do with it. Clothing is more needed in the northern/southern climates from the equator, but I know that in the hot weather I feel like running around naked. My body feels much better and I'm not too far away from wearing the loin cloth if not nothing at all in the 90 dergee or hotter weather. Nature always wins by default to me. If you go against nature you go against yourself. Humans have been so denatured that we sometimes have to take other steps to combat what has happened.
Regarding cultivated food versus wild food I think David Wolfe had a good point in saying that a wild apple has a flavor where tartness, sweet, spicy, mineral type taste come out of it as opposed to cultivated apples. I've eaten many wild nature seeded foods when I was in the islands of the Carriebean and there is no contest. I also believe that eating foods with your hands taste much better than with utensils and maybe it carries a different energy. Then there's the debate on cutting foods as opposed to breaking or crushing them. Garlic produces another compound when crushed {I think it's allicin, not sure}. Natives of certain cultures use to say that when you cut food you cut the soul of it. All of this is something that warrants further investigation and it just makes my mind drool over the possibilities that could be there. You have me doing a little research on this Sunday so we can have some very profound discussions. Thanks
Re: B12 - is there something wrong with nature?
Quote:
Korn
Unlike many other species, humans obviously are meant to 'cultivate nature', this COULD be that case for B12 as well: that in order to get all the nutrients we need, we need to cultivate them, ie. by cultivating B12 from bacteria (the way B12 in supplements are created). So in a way, there's no need to insist that nature provides us with all we need, and that we don't need to cultivate anything. After all, we don't walk around or sleep naked all life, in all seasons, without roofs protecting us from rain or walls protecting us from the wind. Having said that, it definitely looks to me like nature 'by default' is providing enough B12, it's just that most of us don't live in a natural 'default' environment...
in my opinion:
humans aren't MEANT to cultivate nature, but because of the way evolution has taken, it just so happens they do. some of the "unnatural" things we do aren't neccessary (most, i'd think)
for example, according to evolution theories, man originated in equatorial regions, where there would have been no need for clothing. assuming that man then migrated into colder climates not because of necessity, but for other reasons, one could thus say that man has created a need for clothing.
just my humble opinon :) we don't want to anger the boss :p
Re: B12 - is there something wrong with nature?
When I think about it I'm not really sure if we were meant to cultivate nature. When things are grown wild they do posses a different energy as opposed to things cultivated especially in rows, and you are what you eat. Wild foods might make a person free at heart, while cultivated foods might make one more complacent, who knows, but I'd would behoove us to look into this more, I actually think our future depends on it, depends on knowing where we really came from so we can understand where we're going. I wonder every night "what" was it that forced the evolutionary jump so fast with humans, and "are" we really indigenous to this planet? These questions ring clearly within my mind. Humans were given something that allowed them to upset the balance that everything else has to respect. What was it? Because we can clearly see that there is a serious difference between us and every other life form on this planet.
Re: B12 - is there something wrong with nature?
Quote:
Koolvedge
...
Humans were given something that allowed them to upset the balance that everything else has to respect. What was it? Because we can clearly see that there is a serious difference between us and every other life form on this planet.
i was thinking along the same lines as i was writing my post. but, hey, i prefer not to go there...let's not get too philosophical :p i can't stand philosophical debates.
not that that makes the subject any less interesting, mind you
Re: B12 - is there something wrong with nature?
Quote:
Korn
Actually, I don't think there was a study...
There was, it was either, "The Raw food diet", or something published by Gary Null, no reason for me to make that up, but I did read it a long time ago.
Quote:
All B12 - both the B12 in animal products and B12 in water, plants soil - and guts - starts with cobalt - and micro-organisms/bacteria...
Really, is this a scientific analasys? or studies, ect., sounds interesting.
Quote:
I totally agree. But 'nature' doesn't mean that we should just sit and watch nature, we are a part of nature and we can acknowledge that our actions can be pro-natural or anti-natural. When a baby is born, it comes with a umbilical cord - we're not just watching that cord, we are a part of nature and see that doing 'doing something' is needed. We can cultivate nature without destroying it. Other forms of 'cultivating nature' means disturbing it's own development, and means against nature instead of with it...
Now I do believe we may have to cultivate only because I believe humans have been altered from the normal evolutionary process, either sped up or something, but I don't think it's the way that Darwin or most current evolutionist view it. Many cultures do live with {in cooperation} nature, and you're right, we can live with the land, leaving as little of a mark as possible. A biodegradable coexistence with nature that lets us create clothing and shelter that goes right back into the Earth, this I really agree with. Tribal living does show this, but something intervened, and it seems to have started with the manipulation of fire and metal. I don't see how people evolve in a way to understand how to smelt Iron from rock, or in any case how to grind grain mix it with water and then cook it. That denaturizing process was something {to me} that was introduced instead of evolved. Just my opinion
Quote:
Being naked is great, but even in warm countries it can be cold during the night, especially in some seasons. Birds are making nests, and we can make houses or cloths too, without damaging nature. Cultivating certain food types rich in certain nutrients could be part of that. It just seems very unlikely that we would have needed to do that in order to get all the B12 we needed, if we would have been eating fresh, organic food not exposed to chlorinated water and not would have exposed ourselves to so many
B12-killers...
We have altered things on the planet so much that I don't think that there's any turning back. B-12 killers are here an we're going to have to deal with them, so the cultivating process is here for now. I can see where humans might reach a pinnacle of technology in which everything will crumble, and not religously saying, but the meek might just inherit the Earth, going back to that wild uncultivating status where we live in balance with nature, not above it, or thinking we're above it. If we had lived in cooperation with it before and not poisoned other cultures with whatever technology was given to us then this unnatural rise may not have happened, but it did, therefore there's no going back, the technologist won't allow it.
Quote:
But do you agree that there are two different ways of cultivating it? If you are in India, not very far from Equator, in January, it's really cold in the morning an in the night. And it can rain for weeks. Against, birds build their nests... why shouldn't humans build a house? When we open a coconut or peel a banana, we already interact with nature, but in a non-damaging way...
Intertacting without damaging is the key, I could imagine the rain, there would have to be cultivation of shelter, no question about it, and cold nights and mornings would require some sort of clothing. Clothing is the one thing I don't see any other animal on earth using, shelter yes, but not clothing. This brings up serious questions about our naturalness altogether. I'm not saying that we shouldn't cultivate, and I'm still not sure about totally being on the biodegradable wagon, becasue this allows the techs to gain rise and impose their will on the non-techs, which we see has happened in all of the invasions of tribal peoples until we've reached this state of madness {factory farming, deadly chemical production, mass weaponry, ect.} Good points you brought up.
Re: B12 - is there something wrong with nature?
Quote:
korn
People who believe that there is no B12 whatsoever except in animal products like to thing that if vegans actually consume B12, it comes from insect droppings or dirt/uncleanliness...
I think that calling dirt unclean is just a judgement. The Raw-Foodist make some really good points in saying that some dirt contains many essential things that the body uses {not that I advocate eating it}, but when I spoke with David Wolfe at lectures then when I met him again in on 14th st. just walking, we had some really good conversations on the subject {and he did talk about eating it?}
Quote:
Well, I have said that in the past too, but I can't say the same about ie. clothes. Unlike many other species, humans obviously are meant to 'cultivate nature', this COULD be that case for B12 as well: that in order to get all the nutrients we need, we need to cultivate them, ie. by cultivating B12 from bacteria (the way B12 in supplements are created).
Which brings me to believe that we {humans} are not so natural after all.
Quote:
So in a way, there's no need to insist that nature provides us with all we need, and that we don't need to cultivate anything. After all, we don't walk around or sleep naked all life, in all seasons, without roofs protecting us from rain or walls protecting us from the wind. Having said that, it definitely looks to me like nature 'by default' is providing enough B12, it's just that most of us don't live in a natural 'default' environment...
Even if we did {live in a natural default} I think that when we look at the structure of our bodies, our alteration would still require us to wear some clothing {early morning and evening} or we would have to possibly stay within the shelters that we build for those uncomfortable periods, and there's the question of lattitude, which would definately require some clothing and even a migratory type of lifestyle, which some natives had.
Re: B12 - is there something wrong with nature?
Quote:
Korn
But do you agree that there are two different ways of cultivating it?
sure. as i see it, the difference is that the one way evolves from the other. once humans' ancestors did something that involved changing the original "natural" state of things, that thing led to the next and so on. which is basically what kool pointed out in one of his replies. for example, we start working food with our hands ( for what reason heaven only knows). next thing u know, the species is not developing baboon's teeth anymore. ok, that i just got from ther top of my head, this example may be total and utter crap, but you get the point.
Quote:
Korn
If you are in India, not very far from Equator, in January, it's really cold in the morning an in the night. And it can rain for weeks. Against, birds build their nests... why shouldn't humans build a house?
which is why i pointed out that (if i'm not mistaken) our origins are to be found in the african equatorial region which (at least now) is rainforest, and i doubt very cold.
as i said above, if one of our ancestors happend to be in india, well, he has to build a shelter coz it's cold. but that is necessary only because he moved in the 1st place.
of course the reasons as to why we first stepped out of the line (migration, whatever..) is a different question altogether
Re: B12 - is there something wrong with nature?
Quote:
Romac
B-12 breakthrough!
Nature rules!
Stolen from the veggieboards:
http://www.notmilk.com/vitaminb12.html
Vitamin B-12, Sex & Internal Secretions
Warning to my readers:
Today's column contains explicit sexual themes. If you embarrass easily, or if your religious, moral, or ethical beliefs prevent you from reading material of a sexual nature, please, read no more. In today's commentary, I discuss the science of sex in as dignified and delightful a manner as I am able, sometimes using a bit of humor, but continuously recognizing that such concepts may be offensive to some people, so please, if you find such discussion inappropriate, stop reading immediately. If you are easily offended by material of a sexual nature, please exercise the use of your delete button now.
Without embarrassment, this is a subject that needs to be discussed. I am past the point of being disgusted by know-it-all vegetarian and vegan nutritionists and dieticians who believe that one must take artificial supplements derived from cow intestines, containing Vitamin B-12 in order to maintain good health. The fact that vegans have B-12 in their bloodstreams is evidence enough that we're somehow obtaining it. Low dose, high dose, it really doesn't matter. Fact is that we need just a few micrograms of B-12, and a five-year supply is stored in the average human liver. That fact alone negates the scare tactics of those who criticize
the pure vegan diet, or dispense supplements as a part of their self-sustaining practices.
Vegan blood contains some B-12. In that, there is no debate. Vegan semen and vaginal secretions contain many times more Vitamin B-12 than does human blood.
The solution? Make love. Enjoy oral sex. The ingestion of sexual body secretions from your lover will insure good health for you.
\.
I was wondering that myself, especially since fiance is an omni.;)
(Yes I realize that meat eaters have low B-12 too, this is how I convinced myself to supplement even though "there's nothing missing from the vegan diet.")
I'm wondering how many time can you and your lover recycle your B-12 amongst each other before running out? Or is B-12 made inside the sex organs through some bacterial process? I'm afraid that something might be missing here:(
Re: B12 - is there something wrong with nature?
I know a very strong and working Vegan of 90 in my city..who treats himself naturally..he does not know the word Vegan..but i know him closely he is naturopath, he does not use dairy product and no other animal product for use/wear. He is not aware about B-12 thing. He does not take any supplements, he eats Raw mainly. He is still working actively in his hospital.
Manish Jain
Re: B12 - is there something wrong with nature?
wow...lol..my boyfriend will be pleased! ;)
Re: B12 - is there something wrong with nature?
Quote:
Seaside
If B12 is produced by bacteria, why can't they just isolate the bacteria like they do with other probiotics so people can take them instead of actual Vitamin B12? No one makes a fuss at all about supplementing their diets with probiotics if they have been through a course of antibiotic drugs, or are battling yeast infections. If the modern lifestyle kills these beneficial bacteria, needing to replace them is crucial for everyone, not just vegans. Having a colony of B12-producing bacteria inside your gut that is harmed by the pollutants in the environment, and needing to replace it when this happens, is no different for meat eaters than it is for vegans, and I would rather consume beneficial bacteria than corpses OR tablets. Its no different than a doctor recommending a source of Lactobacillus (usually from yogurt, but it doesn't have to be) after a patient has had a course of antibiotics.
Yes, there are things about nature that are not good. Other things about it are good.
B12 is produced by bacteria that live in the small intestine, but b12 absorbed only by the stomach. Simply having the bacteria flourishing in your intestine, is not enough to supply you with vitamin b12. Unless you have been recently taking antibiotics, you probably have b12-producing bacteria flourishing in your small intestine. But it won't do you much good unless you somehow get that b12 that they produced, into your stomach.
Re: B12 - is there something wrong with nature?
That's true, Soilman... but have you seen the Do vegans need less B12 than others?-thread.
Our ancestors have - throughout history - had periods where there were no other choices than either to consume animal products or die. I'm thinking of volcanic winters/the ground covered with ash, ice age, draught, hunger catastrophes and so on. Our bodies reduced ability to synthesize and reabsorb B12 could be a natural result of an increased and ongoing intake of external B12.
Lack of healthy B12/cobalt levels in water and soil (and therefore plants) - and all the other, external reasons that we may not get all the B12 nature 'intended' to give us (pollution, pharmaceuticals, pesiticides, antibiotics, mercury, nitrous oxide from cars and all that) may not be the only reason vegans and many others need to pay extra attention to B12.
Maybe our bodies detect that too much B12 isn't good for us? Even if that would be the case, reduced B12 reabsorbation/synthesiz doesn't have to do with this, but only that we through generations have been consuming so much B12 that we don't need to keep rebsorbing/synthesizing our own. Therefore, that process may - through evolution - simply have been "downgraded", for the same reason that our muscles, if they are not in use, are weakened. Body parts we don't need may also gradually disappear in the evolutionary process.
Re: B12 - is there something wrong with nature?
Quote:
Romac
Vegan blood contains some B-12. In that, there is no debate. Vegan semen and vaginal secretions contain many times more Vitamin B-12 than does human blood. The solution? Make love. Enjoy oral sex.
This is VERY interesting but I'd reach the opposite conclusion.
Do NOT waste B12 with masturbation and too much sex,
in nature we wouldn't do it half as often as we do in fact.
So what I learn from what you said is
that people who masturbate a lot or have a lot of sex are probably more
at risk of losing a lot of B12..
Very interesting...
Thanks
Re: B12 - is there something wrong with nature?
I haven't read the entire entry, but the semen bit is all quite interesting.
I take a B12, D and multi-vitamin as well, I do believe our bodies make as many vitamins and enzyme co-factors that we really need. As long as our bodies get a good intake of carbs, proteins and fats (I'm obviously seriously simplifying it), I really do believe you can sustain yourself. It may not be an extremely healthy, but you'd survive. I really just take the B12 for energy and to maintain a good metabolism. However, if it's available in a cruelty-free form, why not take it? (Beware the gelatin capsules though)
Vitamin B12 helps in DNA synthesis and a deficiency in it and sometimes the lack of the intrinsic factor, haptocorrin (necessary to be absorbed by the small intestine), causes anemia.
I appreciate the concern for what's 'natural' and things like that, but isn't the vegan lifestyle about taking new leaps and considering things that weren't in the past (i.e., the animal's welfare)? I do believe that humans ate meat in pre-historic times (at the very least) - but that's for a different time, different thread. Let's face it, our lifestyle isn't the easiest and if you don't scrutinize what you're eating, it can sometimes lead to illnesses or other health problems. Looking at things now, however, we have these items available, it is healthy to take vitamins and supplements (to a point) in place of consuming it from our foods. Evolve and don't be stuck in the past, eat vegan!
Should life be measured by quantity or quality? We don't have to compromise a long, healthful life, to live it compassionately. Isn't this compassion and empathy the reason we turned vegan anyway?
Re: B12 - is there something wrong with nature?
Hi Anna, and welcome! :)
Quote:
annakarrot
I take a B12, D and multi-vitamin as well, I do believe our bodies make as many vitamins and enzyme co-factors that we really need. As long as our bodies get a good intake of carbs, proteins and fats (I'm obviously seriously simplifying it), I really do believe you can sustain yourself. It may not be an extremely healthy, but you'd survive.
Since we want to be healthy, and not only survive, it's important to be aware of which nutrients we would lack on a plant based diet - in such a 'denaturalized' environment as we live in (air, soil, water etc)... because otherwise, maybe we actually wouldn't survive - or be healthy. The same goes for meat eaters: they also need to make sure they get the nutrients they need in order to avoid serious health problems.
Quote:
I really just take the B12 for energy and to maintain a good metabolism. However, if it's available in a cruelty-free form, why not take it?
There's no particular reason not to take B12 (unless we're talking about too high amounts), but I guess the main topics (related to this thread) are:
Does it matter if it's natural or not?
If it's not 'natural', does it matter how 'nature-friendly' something is?
Do vegans actually need to supplement with B12 - or: do vegans need to take more supplements than non-vegans?
How many plants have been measured in a reliable way - a way that shows proper info about the active B12 vs. inactive B12 analogue ratio - and where is that list?
Don't get this wrong, but in a way it doesn't really matter much what the current, relatively low amount of vegans think about natural or not. In order to understand why the ninenty-something percent of all people who are not vegans think, we need to look at their viewpoints on 'vegan' vs. 'natural' vs. 'B12'. There isn't much 'natural' about the diet these people live on: factory animals get supplements, are killed by machines, and wouldn't even exist (in the amounts we are talking about) if they wouldn't have been mass "produced" in factory farms.
But many meat eaters still have a glorified view on an ideal way of living 'naturally', which includes consuming some amounts of meat and fish etc. from wild animals. They believe that by living this way, they'd get B12 naturally from the animal products they consumed - while vegans other vegetarians wouldn't. That's why they think that eating animal products is a better solution than not doing it.
They don't really care if some vegans think that natural doesn't matter or not. They continue to eat animal products because they think it's a more 'natural' choice for humans, based on the idea that these animal products contain higher amounts of bioavailable B12 (they usually think 'the more B12, the better') some of them even base their assumption on vegan sources. Many of them assume that they wold lack a lot of nutrients in their life - not only B12 - if they's go vegan.
I think the topic is interesting because it seems that B12 actually occurs naturally in sea water, river water, soil and plants - at least B12 seems to have been available in non-animal soruces in healthy amounts in not-too-distant the past - bioavailable for humans who would eat fresh, organic plants and drink fresh, non-chlorified water. If this is the case - and I think we can say with more than 90% confidence that this is a valid assumption - the whole "is eating a omnivorous diet 'more natural' than living on a vegan diet' discussion is already over.
The ironic thing is of course that many omnivores who question if a vegan diet is natural usually don't even try to strive for a natural diet or life style - they're only interested in how natural our lifestyle is.
Quote:
Let's face it, our lifestyle isn't the easiest and if you don't scrutinize what you're eating, it can sometimes lead to illnesses or other health problems.
I think our lifestyle is easy, and I know many non-vegans who actually want to become vegans, but admit that they're hooked on old habits. I really think habits as such represent much more of a problem than the idea that a vegan lifestyle isn't easy... and the idea that vegans risks becoming deficient in more nutrients than non-vegans is an old myth (check this thread). The fact that many well informed people start to eat vegan for health reasons alone doesn't go very well along with the idea that vegans risk more serious health problems than others. Many non-vegans now accept that we have a lifestyle that most likely is a lot more healthy than theirs - partially because so many (non-vegan) health professionals now state that it is.
We could possible deny using any supplements and go hunting for nutrients in woods, jungles, rivers, get them from bark, leaves; plants that aren't commercially available where we live etc. - and spend a lot of time on making sure we only eat fresh, organic produce (B12 levels are reduced over time)... but personally, I don't do that. I probably wouldn't do it even if a dozen, major scientific studies would be published, confirming that I could be 100% certain that I'd get enough of all the nutrients humans need by living that way.
It's just too time consuming, or maybe I'm too lazy. I think nobody discussing 'natural' on this forum suggest that only consuming non-cultivated, natural produce is right /everything else is wrong, let alone that everything that "occurs in nature" is healthy for us. We know this isn't true.
Quote:
We don't have to compromise a long, healthful life, to live it compassionately.
Sure! :)
Re: B12 - is there something wrong with nature?
Quote:
vegetarian_cat
This is VERY interesting but I'd reach the opposite conclusion.
Do NOT waste B12 with masturbation and too much sex,
in nature we wouldn't do it half as often as we do in fact.
So what I learn from what you said is
that people who masturbate a lot or have a lot of sex are probably more
at risk of losing a lot of B12..
Very interesting...
Thanks
vegetarian_cat, Mother nature wouldn't have made sex bad for us like that it doesn't make sense. B12 must be created in the fluids from bacteria. Also yu don't need to "do it" that much to get all you need because we only need a tiny bit. Also, referring back to the time when we wouldn't have "done it" that much, in that time we would also have been less hygienic. Less hygiene = more bacteria=more vitamin B12.
Romac's post just confirmed what I've always thought. I was going to post my theory and then I read that and now I know it's fact.
Firstly, I would like to state that I'm a prude and don't like discussing such things, and I'm sorry if any of this comes across as coarse.
I always wondered what the true biological purpose of oral sex was (apart from bonding etc), and then when I went vegan I realised that it must be a source of B12. I mean why do most people seem to have the urge to do something seemingly so unhygienic? What is mother nature's reason for giving vegan's a more pleasant taste? What is the purpose of putting body hair in an area that is likely to get dirty? Why do people often get the urge to taste themselves during masturbation?
I am absolutely sure that the vegan way is the way forward for the human race and that's what nature intended for us. That, and that there is a biological reason for everything are my fundamental beliefs and basis for my theories and thoughts. How could the vegan diet possibly be so perfect health-wise, spiritually and morally, and be consistantly good in every way then have one little flaw with B12? It doesn't make sense and I strongly believe this sexual fluids are the natural source. I've never heard an example of a vegan getting a B12 deficiency anyway.
The only potential problem with this theory is how children get B12. in the wild they would be breast-fed until age 5 or 6, which would be their initial source. Children are less hygienic than adults and would probably get some B12 from being generally dirty. also most children masturbate but are told not to by their parents. In the wild they would have probably masturbated then tasted their own fluids, because children are curious like that.
Another thing I suspect is that female ejaculation fluid will contain more than the lubrication fluid.
I wish authors of vegan nutrition books would put this in their books. It's only because it's a sensitive topic.