5000 year old tribe still on a vegan diet

[Gliondrach]

Can you please provide more information about Azerbaijans of the Caucasus? Because Azerbaijanis a muslim country and I haven't heard about them being vegans, or even vegetarians.

Azerbaijan is a moslem state but there is a large Armenian Christian enclave there. The country used to be a centre of Zoroastrianism and there might be some old pagans in outlying areas. There are still pagans in Iran - even after the Islamic revolution there. Perhaps some of these Azeri pagans or the Christians are vegetarians.

[rianaelf]

The best part is they're 5000 years old. That's proof positive that vegans live longer. I'd love to see omnivores try to argue against THAT one.

hahaha, lol, yeah, 5000 years <giggles> i didn't know vegans could live THAT long!!!

[eve]

Can you please provide more information about Azerbaijans of the Caucasus? Because Azerbaijanis a muslim country and I haven't heard about them being vegans, or even vegetarians.

Azerbaijan hss one of the most corrupt governments around, and the population in general is brought up that way. Somehow I can't imagine their being veg*an

[cedarblue]

i'm a bit late here but that is a wonderful article to read.

[lilmisatyr]

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_269.html

That is the Aryan info....Hitlers propaganda is widely believed but Aryan has nothing to do with hair or eye color.

[IndigoSea]

Let's move!

[Ava Odoéména]

Hello, German vegan here...

I was irritated when I saw the link in a German blog, already expecting utter nonsense and this irritation was further intensified when I read the article, which is saturated with rather bizarre associations of "pure" "Aryan" "high cheek bones". You know, all that racist bullshit. I think the story is interesting from a view of probably a desperately unsuccessful journalist sucking this story out of his fingers. Now its pretty irrelevant what sort of cultural fantasies these group of ethic people entertain about where they come from, but to write a story about them without DNA proof is boring at best.

India, being an incredibly ethnocentrist / racist society itself, obsessed with skin color, would of course find people of "fair complexion" interesting the same way people in the West with similar notions of seeking to project a superior race at least into someone else. The motive of the Indian reader I imagine to be something of "feeding" on the "superiority" of these "pure Aryans" a superiority he himself perhaps does not feel he has, for whatever reasons. A reader of the West would more likely enjoy the "allowance" of letting racist superiorist fantasies flow freely into this limited context of these "pure Aryans" "somewhere far away in India".

How these self-esteem lacking fantasies are driven is exposed even more clearly in another article I found about these mountain villagers:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/200...trum/main1.htm
Here, the absurdity is topped by inventing German women who seek to breed with Brogpa men in order to have "racially pure children". Note there are no German men seeking to breed wih Brogpa women, I wonder why? Could it be a dose of Indian sexism where quality focus is "of course" focused on men? We will never know.

Now, the fantasies such myths initiate naturally resonate differently in the group which produces them. Here, in this forum, what was admired is a life "close to nature" free of "B12 tablets" they are "beautiful people" (How could you judge based on few photograph models. While Claudia Schiffer is beautiful, trust me, we have some pretty ugly Germans...) and "one with nature". And of course, based on one unsupported claim that this ethic group is vegan, we now have "proof" (!) that vegan societies have existed for at least 5000 years.

However, these people are not vegan by the plain fact that they are wearing wool clothes, now and traditionally, where there is wool there is meat, or at the very minimum, milk. And even if these people do not drink milk, their source of B12 is likely bacteriologically contaminated small intestines, a sideeffect of "living close to nature". As you either do or should know, bacteria in the small intestine where nutrients are absorbed is not exactly a good thing to happen, and B12 producing bacteria in the lower intestine can't be absorbed because that section doesn't absorb nutrients.

What irritated me as a German vegan about the whole story, was that the link was posted into a blog by the blog administrator without elaborating the things I was going into here. And naturally one poster just had to associate veganism with fascism because speciesists seem to have this built in reflex of having to obsessively seek ways to discredit veganism in order for the next chunk of corpse to slide down the throat without interference of conscience....

A word on B12. I notice over and over again that some people idolize nature, or rather their fantasy of what nature constitutes, and go on to confuse natural with good. In their use of language, they begin substituting "good" with "natural" and this eventually is fatal for vegans who suffer from this sort of neo-animism. Because suddenly a substance fermented in a manner very similar to bakers yeast, nothing else is B12, becomes _unnatural_ because, well because it didn't grow on some darn tree. However, given that B12 is always a product of bacteriological fermentation, it's completely irrelevant for its quality whether it was made inside a cows stomach or a fermentation kettle. Fermented B12, thus B12 which was derived in perfectly ethical manner from bacteria, rather than shooting a cow/pig/sheep in the head, suddenly becomes evil.

The irony of this, is that the information about the presumed unnaturalness of fermented B12 is spread on a network of computers made from plastic and driven with petrol-energy.

B12 isn't evil of course, what makes it "awkward" for some people is that it must be integrated into the vegan diet in pure form, it's an essential nutrient which if you wanted to source it "naturally", would imply that you had to eat your own feces. Feces are a rich source of bioactive B12, or dirty water, however while these sources are "natural" they are neither _good_ nor _healthy_. The B12 discussion therefore, is mainly a psychological one. As most discussions are...

[Korn]

Nobody on this site has said that a 'pure' race is better than an 'unpure' race, that high cheek bones are any better than other cheek bones, or that it matters wether this tribe is Aryan or non-Aryan, or that Aryan in any ways should represent anything superior to non-Arian.

Neither have anyone said that B12 cultivated/fermented in a kettle has a lower quality than B12 made inside a cow's stomach.


Many people think that if all nutrients can be obtained directly from plants, they conisder the vegan diet a natural choice for humans, but if not - if we need animal products or fermentation for B12 - they think we're 'meant to' eat animal products. We have several threads discussing this topic, for example: "B12 - how natural is the vegan diet?".

If you look around in the B12-forums, Ava, you'll see that your statement about eating your own faeces is wrong - please continue the B12 disuccsion over there if you'd like to.

Back to the 'racism bullshit'... I think nobody in here cares if they are ancestors of some Aryan tribe, if they are of a 'pure' race or where in their face their cheekbones happen to be.

The title of the thread is about a group of people living on a vegan diet, and not claiming that these people are not using eg. wool.

You seem to have generated a lot of irritiation out of.... nothing, and mixing in your opinions about ugly Germans, Claudia Schiffer etc. has IMO no relevance to this article.

This site is as non-racist as it gets.

[Russ]

pwned.

[Korn]

Not pwned, but encouraged to take a reality check.

For example, to claim that faeces is are a rich source of bioactive B12 is an 'interesting' statement - normally planted by trolls and meat-eaters. There has been made studies on the relationship between bioavailable B12 and passive B12 analogues, and 95% of the B12 in faeces were B12 analogues.

The statement about having to eat your own faeces to source B12 "naturally", is normally also posted exclusively by trolls/meat eaters, and is wrong.

Re. that Himalayan tribe and how vegan they are - I may check it out one day myself, and I'm totally prepared to learn that some journalist has twaeked or distorted the facts - they often do. Why misinterpret a line from the original article ('One of the women photographed at Dah could have easily been mistaken for a German tourist') as if the writer of the article is having any interest in / preferences towards people looking like German tourists, or that mentioning that someone was blonde and had high cheekbones or 'unmistakable German features' as something positive?

Since we know that the vegan diet both is healthy and that some of the pioneers of western veganism lived long and healthy lives, we already know what we need to know. I don't subscribe to the 'it's only possible if someone has done it before'-party, and don't mind being a pioneer. It doesn't matter if these people were Aryans or vegans for me personally, but if the article is right, people who think we should eat and do what humans did thousands of years ago may be interested.

We know that the human ancestors both ate insects and snails - they also ate each other now and then, and were herbivores at some point. We also know that meat eaters and anti-vegan trolls who put emphasis on what our ancestors did suddenly lose the interest in that subject the moment they are presented with those facts anyway - all of a sudden they won't let the diet of people who lived thousands or millions of years ago have any relevance when deciding what they'll have for dinner...

[Ava Odoéména]

Nobody on this site has said that a 'pure' race is better than an 'unpure' race, that high cheek bones are any better than other cheek bones, or that it matters wether this tribe is Aryan or non-Aryan, or that Aryan in any ways should represent anything superior to non-Arian.

I didn't claim that... My post is pretty clear on the dynamics I was addressing, it wasn't necessary for you to suggest things that I didn't say or imply.

Neither have anyone said that B12 cultivated/fermented in a kettle has a lower quality than B12 made inside a cow's stomach.

I didn't claim that either... *I* said that there is no difference in quality.

Many people think that if all nutrients can be obtained directly from plants, they conisder the vegan diet a natural choice for humans, but if not - if we need animal products or fermentation for B12 - they think we're 'meant to' eat animal products.

Well exactly a point around delusional thinking around B12 was what I was addressing , but since you're in defense mode, and I guess I as "the stranger" presumably the threat/meat troll, it's likely you fail to see the context.

Back to the 'racism bullshit'... I think nobody in here cares if they are ancestors of some Aryan tribe, if they are of a 'pure' race or where in their face their cheekbones happen to be.

I disagree. I believe the "melting adoration" and overall lack of suspicion speaks volumes at least to the point that the "Aryan" factor played part of the fascination. I'm married to an African, so I _live_ within the racism of "non-racists" be they vegan or not.

The title of the thread is about a group of people living on a vegan diet, and not claiming that these people are not using eg. wool.

My post was a general reply on information absorbed *in* the thread here and elsewhere - what *the title* of the thread says seemed pretty irrelvant to me when I was writing it.

You seem to have generated a lot of irritiation out of.... nothing, and mixing in your opinions about ugly Germans, Claudia Schiffer etc. has IMO no relevance to this article.

I find it honoralbe that you seek to defend "your group", at the same time I note that you avoid or deny any of my actual arguments with distortionist tactics.

This site is as non-racist as it gets.

Uncritical obsession and adoration (even within a hipocritical pretense of "only focusing on the vegan aspect") about a concept containing racial superiority and racial purety is as non-non racist as it gets.

Sometimes it is not exposing what is said, but what isn't said.

[John]

I'm somewhat skeptical of this article too. But that's no reason to get all bent out of shape.

[Ava Odoéména]

Not pwned, but encouraged to take a reality check.

What makes you so absolutely certain it is me who needs a reality check? Let's see:

For example, to claim that faeces is are a rich source of bioactive B12 is an 'interesting' statement - normally planted by trolls and meat-eaters.

Well they are right. Rabbits use it, as do Gorillas whereby rabbits sprodce a "special feces" apart from digested plant matter.

There has been made studies on the relationship between bioavailable B12 and passive B12 analogues, and 95% of the B12 in faeces were B12 analogues.

This is correct too, yet the presence of analogues does not mean the present bioactive B12 can't be detected nor absorbed while the analogues can't be rejected.

The statement about having to eat your own faeces to source B12 "naturally", is normally also posted exclusively by trolls/meat eaters, and is wrong.

This is false on two levels. First of all it suggests that I claimed that the only way to get B12 naturally is to eat feces, this wrong because I totally reject the notion of naturality as perpetuated by neo-animistic esoterics. Secondly, I reject the notion that you seek to suggest in a defamatory manner that I'm a meat eater troll, an accusation which any Goolge search on my posting name which happens to be my actual name will quickly evaporate.

Re. that Himalayan tribe and how vegan they are - I may check it out one day myself, and I'm totally prepared to learn that some journalist has twaeked or distorted the facts - they often do. Why misinterpret a line from the original article ('One of the women photographed at Dah could have easily been mistaken for a German tourist') as if the writer of the article is having any interest in / preferences towards people looking like German tourists, or that mentioning that someone was blonde and had high cheekbones or 'unmistakable German features' as something positive?

Because obviously, the jounalist was toying with fascist ideology, as did the other one in the link I supplied. German->Aryan->Hitler->pure race->superiority. It's all in there, undeniably.

Since we know that the vegan diet both is healthy and that some of the pioneers of western veganism lived long and healthy lives, we already know what we need to know. I don't subscribe to the 'it's only possible if someone has done it before'-party, and don't mind being a pioneer. It doesn't matter if these people were Aryans or vegans for me personally, but if the article is right, people who think we should eat and do what humans did thousands of years ago may be interested.

I think it would both be catastrophic politically and scientifically if that article was used as a support for veganism. Veganism doesn't require these sort of "supports", as ethics is all that is required. There is absolutely no evidence that this ethnic group is a) vegan (even in restricted, dietary sense), that they have been existing for any time longer than say 100 years. The fact that many healthy vegans exist NOW in the West is a much more profound evidence that the vegan diet can be adequate, anyone rejecting that *actual* evidence has no interest in honest debate.

The article is catastrophic politically if presented in a vegan context *because* Hitler was toying with fantasies of "purety" and "vegetarianism" and why anyone would allow vegan ethics to be discredited by associating it with fascist idiology is beyond me really.

We know that the human ancestors both ate insects and snails - they also ate each other now and then, and were herbivores at some point. We also know that meat eaters and anti-vegan trolls who put emphasis on what our ancestors did suddenly loose the interest in that subject the moment they are presented with those facts anywa - all of a sudden they won't let the diet of people who lived thousands or millions of years ago have any relevance when deciding what they'll have for dinner...

I have honestly no idea what you're saying here. It's completely irrelevant what our ancestors ate, fact is that since humans can sustain themselves perfectly on a vegan diet, this creates the ethical imperative to accept the vegan diet as the only ethical alternative.

[Ava Odoéména]

I'm somewhat skeptical of this article too. But that's no reason to get all bent out of shape.

I don't see how a passionate debate equals "getting bent out of shape". Don't worry, over time, you'll adapt to my style.

[John]

It's OK. You can get bent out of shape/passionate. However, I think the accusatory tone may keep some people from seeing your point. But you can do as you please.

[Korn]

For example, to claim that faeces is are a rich source of bioactive B12 is an 'interesting' statement - normally planted by trolls and meat-eaters.

Well they are right. Rabbits use it, as do Gorillas whereby rabbits sprodce a "special feces" apart from digested plant matter.

We know that some animals eat their faeces, but that's a different story. What you bring up, is a statement saying that faeces are a rich source of bioactive B12, while there are studies showing that most of the B12 in faeces is not bioactive. Maybe they need the B12 analogues, and maybe they eat their faeces for other reasons, bit the tribe discussed here does not, and seem to be both healthy and have long lives.

There has been made studies on the relationship between bioavailable B12 and passive B12 analogues, and 95% of the B12 in faeces were B12 analogues

.

This is correct too, yet the presence of analogues does not mean the present bioactive B12 can't be detected nor absorbed while the analogues can't be rejected.

Sure. But that's a totally different discussion; it suggests that even if something contains a mix of bioactive B12 and passive B12 analogues, the B12 analogues inside that mixture doesn't really represent a problem in this context. And if passive B12 analogues in a mixture doesn't represent a problem when consuming something with bioavailable B12 in, a major question needs to be raised regarding those who say that B12 analogues in plants are so troublesome, because they prevent the bioavialable, active B12 to be absorbed. If B12 analogues together with active B12 - even in a 95:5 ratio, doesn't represent a problem, where does that leave the people who ignore all B12 found in plants because of the problems represented by the B12 analogues?

It's all about amounts, and about what we know as opposed to what we assume. A study showing the levels of B12 in animals after having eaten their faeces would make this discussion a lot more interesting - especially if the B12 levels in animals would be the topic of the thread.

Please compare your two statements (my underlining):

First of all it suggests that I claimed that the only way to get B12 naturally is to eat feces, this wrong because I totally reject the notion of naturality as perpetuated by neo-animistic esoterics.

B12 is

an essential nutrient which if you wanted to source it "naturally", would imply that you had to eat your own feces.

You seem to make a point of the difference between natural and "natural".

Instead of adding to the confusion, let me rather ask you if you think the tribe discussed in this thread can get useful B12 from sources like plants or drinking water? If not, where do you think they get their B12 from? If they don't get the amount of B12 we think they need, could it be that they need less B12 than we assume?

Do you think the only way to get useful B12 is if humans decide to cultivate B12 by conscious use of fermentation?

Secondly, I reject the notion that you seek to suggest in a defamatory manner that I'm a meat eater troll, an accusation which any Goolge search on my posting name which happens to be my actual name will quickly evaporate.

I wrote that "to claim that faeces is are a rich source of bioactive B12 is an 'interesting' statement - normally planted by trolls and meat-eaters", which is correct, but according to your self, you haven't "claimed that the only way to get B12 naturally is to eat feces" - so this would apply to you, as you wrote "natural", and not natural... I also wrote that "to claim that faeces is are a rich source of bioactive B12 is an 'interesting' statement - normally planted by trolls and meat-eaters" is also correct, but in your last post you confirm that 95% of the B12 in faeces were B12 analogues is correct, so this doesn't apply to you either. The way you write (in this and that other thread) is very similar to how trolls and meat eaters write - but I'm not afraid of trolls, and I'm glad if you can contribute to the B12 discussion in a positive way.

Because obviously, the jounalist was toying with fascist ideology, as did the other one in the link I supplied. German->Aryan->Hitler->pure race->superiority. It's all in there, undeniably.

No. If a fascist for some reason is interested in carrots, and I also state that I'm interested in carrots, I'm not toying with fascist ideology. I'm not even interested in the race aspect of that Brokpa tribe, and think nobody here is. One can talk about a tribe that apparently is living on a vegan diet, and which maybe happens to have some relationship to a topic nazis are interested (probably against the tribe's own knowledge) - without in any ways sharing any of the viewpoints these nazis represent. You wrote "the article, which is saturated with rather bizarre associations of "pure" "Aryan" "high cheek bones". You know, all that racist bullshit", but the journalist you referred to wasn't at all toying with fascist ideology. One doesn't become a racist or fascist by using the word 'race' or 'German'.

I think it would both be catastrophic politically and scientifically if that article was used as a support for veganism.

We agree that we don't need that kind of support, but if these people live on a vegan diet, which they do according to the writer, the article may be interesting for people who claim that no tribes are living on a vegan diet, or people who claim that they won't become vegans because no tribes are vegan. IMO, there's no political or scientific catastrophy in sight.

The article is catastrophic politically if presented in a vegan context *because* Hitler was toying with fantasies of "purety" and "vegetarianism" and why anyone would allow vegan ethics to be discredited by associating it with fascist idiology is beyond me really.

First of all, we'd ban people for posting fascist/nazi ideology on this site, and again: you totally miss the point. The point isn't how 'pure' or how 'aryan' these people are. We can't avoid talking about someone because someone else, whom we disagree with, may have been talking about something involving some of the same people. Look beneath the surface.

Apparently Hitler wasn't a vegetarian, but if he would have been, that wouldn't suggest a reason not be a vegetarian or talk about vegetarianism. I'm toying as little with fascist ideology when I write about this tribe as I would be toying with nazism by using the word 'German'. The article would has been just as interesting (or un-interesting) if it would have been about the discovery a secret, plant-eating ancient chinese tribe trombone-players living in the outskrits of Freiburg.

I totally reject the notion of naturality as perpetuated by neo-animistic esoterics

Please explain... (here, for example?)... Thanks!

[rianaelf]

eek

[absentmindedfan]

Well since people have finished throwing their toys out the pram I'd like to say that whatever the intention of the article, and frankly who cares, the fact that this society exists is fabulous. I will be using it in my visualisations as a place to escape to when omni-world gets too much

I will also be using it as a big factual stick to hit ignorant omnis with

[Russ]

I much prefer to hit omnis with a big literal stick.

[IndigoSea]

Honestly I don't see how acknowledging racial differences = racism. I simply thought it was a beautiful view of a culturally and racially unique tribe of people.
Why does everyone have to trip themselves up over race all the time? sigh.

[rianaelf]

yeah, totally <nod nod>
by the way, i love ur avvy

[Apple_Blossem]

I notice that many of my friends will verbally attack people who even mention race or who even find differences between each race interesting to discuss. To me, race is as general as hair color -- and it seems like we cannot distinguish between a blonde and a brunette without the world crying foul :P

There are other funny areas of conversation where people take offense and verbally attack others in the US, too:
In Canada, I can say, "he's from mexico..." just I could say "You're from Ireland."

As soon as I returned to the US, I had to remember how people become so upset if you say, "Are you from Mexico?" or "Are you mexican?" But can say, "Are you German?" :P

[kriz]

That's so true, apple blossom.

[rianaelf]

yeah, cos its like types of cats or dogs or somethink.
you cant deny your white or black or chinese or whatever but why does it ever have to be an issue?

[mango]

"I totally reject the notion of naturality as perpetuated by neo-animistic esoterics"

I've heard this one before, mate. You're making a big jump by assuming that anyone who uses the word 'natural' is a 'neo-animistic esoteric' (a phrase which I presume has been invented as a strawman position). What do you mean by esoteric? Something you don't understand? Aren't you being esoteric by throwing this jargon around when very few people will understand it to cover the weakness of your own position?

Why does the concept 'nature' have to involve 'animism'? (Don't forget that 'animism' is used by people representing the global economic system as a racist term to describe the 'religious' belief systems of people outside the global economic system, and can be translated fairly accurately as "don't know, don't care").

I believe that the human posture of rational domination over nature, both inner and outer, has been shown both theoretically and practically to have failed catastrophically. Maybe 'natural' is not an absolute but it can certainly have a relative meaning. Are you perhaps stuck in the old-leftist idea that human progress equates with technological elaboration?

[BlueMonarch]

lol, well, I’m a year late, but I really felt the need to thank Korn for posting this.
I get the impression that Ava wouldn’t believe me, but I don't care where these people come from, what they are called by outsiders, what they call themselves, what they do or don't look like, what language they speak, etc. And yes, the image posted is beautiful. lol, so sue me.

I wanted to say that this article made me feel really good, that some 5000 year old tribe is still on a vegan diet. That’s wonderful news. Its quite reassuring. Although I completely agree with Korn that “I don't subscribe to the 'it's only possible if someone has done it before'-party, and don't mind being a pioneer.” But as proud as I am, as confident as I am, as well as dedicated, I still find it difficult to satisfy Omni’s and their scepticism. No, I don’t need to prove them wrong, and I know I’m right, but when you don’t have research papers to back you up - its hard to make any kind of valid point sometimes.

And, although this tribe might not be up to par with the Vegan Society’s standards, or every Vegan’s standards, this a is truly comforting discovery. I didn’t need it, but I do love it It just adds to my certainty.
Honestly, I would just leave them alone, as I’m not so interested to know if they are “truly” vegan to the point of intruding into these peoples lives. Unless they were willing to leave it enough to discuss their lifestyles, etc - I don’t think it’s alright to go to them.

Maybe I just don’t like reporters, researchers or scientists visiting me on my doorstep that makes me say that - I’d rather take an appointment and go to them. Who knows! I might be in the middle of celebrating some holiday with my family, or taking a shower! Lol

[brokecollegeveg]

i agree, beautiful article. it makes you feel good when you read it...dreamy and optimistic. roadtrip! haha

[Purple Monkey]

This is lovely to see! Many people argue that Veganism is a modern fad and without tofu and soya based food it wouldn't be possible to be Vegan. This tribe has proved them wrong so thanks!

[songlife]

wow!!

[tsunami]

My mom recently saw show about a Russian tribe that are vegan. I will post more info when I find it.

[clare155]

My mom recently saw show about a Russian tribe that are vegan. I will post more info when I find it.

That would be great tsumani if you can find anything!

[indianvegan]

@ Korn and others.


Murli Menon who visited tribal area visited my home just today........Yahoooo.

[indianvegan]

According to Murli Menon, there are several vegan tribal community across the world.

[rainleaf]

i dont want to make anyone unhappy here... been in india many times, and as you can see the article is fr the HINDU. my point is that i have been disapointed MANY times in india, evertime i read/heard about a vegan restaurant. in india. they sometime say vegan but actually they mean vegetarian with no egg , but of course with dairy..... as you might know, indans sees the cow as holy and they use ghee, milk, cream, butter in their ayurvedic health food and healht cures, because they beleive that milk products are healing.... unfortunately. veganism as we know it, is extremely rare in india

[Korn]

i have been disapointed MANY times in india, evertime i read/heard about a vegan restaurant.

Interesting. I've been to India 4-5 times, and never seen any restaurant that claims to be vegan. On the other hand, I spoke with an Indian waitress not long ago who told me that more and more vegetarians in North India - which is known for using much more cow's milk than South India - now avoid dairy products for heath reasons. Her family don't use dairy products at all, and they add dairy products to the recipes at their restaurant only because their customers are used to Indian food with dairy products.

In areas with many Jains, dairy products are also often avoided.

[SamFast]

Really nice info..I would really visit these are sometimes.Thanks for your contribution

[RainInStarlight]

i dont want to make anyone unhappy here... been in india many times, and as you can see the article is fr the HINDU. my point is that i have been disapointed MANY times in india, evertime i read/heard about a vegan restaurant. in india. they sometime say vegan but actually they mean vegetarian with no egg , but of course with dairy..... as you might know, indans sees the cow as holy and they use ghee, milk, cream, butter in their ayurvedic health food and healht cures, because they beleive that milk products are healing.... unfortunately. veganism as we know it, is extremely rare in india

Interesting to see the cow as holy, yet steal her milk that she uses to feed her babies....

Ah well....I will never understand...

[harpy]

I think the idea is sometimes that the cow "gives" her milk to humans...but even if they accept that idea in principle a lot of people realise that it's not compatible with current dairy industry practice. This page is quite interesting I think:

http://www.youngindianvegetarians.co...d_hinduism.htm

[Andrew Gubb]

The link in the OP is dead, but I found a copy of it: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=496218993890

[TarekF]

So i managed to dig up the National Geographic piece about the centenarians in the Caucasus, Vilcabamba (South America) and Hunza (Pakistan area).

The info about diets is mixed. It is likely other factors are more important such as sexual activity, cardiovascular exercise, the altitude, etc.

But here is is:

"Scant Diet Promotes Long Life?

By contrast, I found the diets of Vilcabamba and Hunza strikingly similar to each other-- and substantially lower than the U.S. recommendations. In a survey of 55 adult males in Hunza, Pakistani nutritionist Dr. S. Maqsood Ali found an average caloric intake of 1,923, with 50 grams of protein, 36 grams of fat, and 354 grams of carbohydrate. Furthermore, meat and dairy products constitute only 1.5 percent of the tota [emphasis mine]. The absence of pastureland makes animal husbandry nearly impossible, and the few livestock are usually killed for food during the festival season in winter. Fats of animal origin are scarce; instead, oil obtained from apricot seeds is generally used for all culinary purposes.

Dr. Guillermo Vela of Quito found a strikingly low caloric consumption also among the elderly of Vilcabamba. The average daily diet provided 1200 calories. The daily protein intake was 35 to 38 grams, and of fat only 12 to 19 grams; 200 to 260 grams of carbohydrate completed the diet. Protein and fat again were largely of vegetable origin with only some 12 grams of protein daily from animal source [emphasis mine]." (Leaf, "Every Day" 102)

So that seems to be a pretty good correlation, two cultures on opposite ends of the globe (ish) and both having similar diets (fairly plant based) and many healthy centenarians.

Heres the puzzling news:

"Georgians Muddle the Myth

My confidence in the importance to health and longevity of a low-animal fat, low-cholesterol, low-caloric diet was somewhat shaken, however, by eating habits in the Caucasus. There Dr. Pitzkhelauri and a colleague, Dr. Deli Dzhorbenadze, have studied the dietary habits of 1,000 persons above the age of 80, including more than 100 centenarians. The old people consume 1,700 to 1,900 calories daily, considerably more than do most people os such advanced age.

Sixty percent ate a mixed diet of milk, vegetables, meats and fruits. Seventy percent of the calories were of vegetable origin and the remainder from meat and dairy products [emphasis mine]. Seventy to 90 grams of protein were included in the diets. Milk was the main source of protein; sour milk and cheese were widely used at all meals in all seasons. Georgian cheeses are low in fat content, however, so that the daily fat intake was only 40 to 60 grams.

Bread provides the major source of carbohydrate..." (Leaf "Every Day" 102).

So later in the article they talk about other habits such as hard labor, genes, sexual activity, and even amount of children born (more kids seemed to imply longer life) (Leaf "Every Day 110-113)

I think one of the main takeaways for me is 1) hard labor is almost always seen in long lived societies (labor well into old age) 2) usually the lifestyle is somewhat carefree and there is an expectation to live long (Leaf "Every Day" 114), 3) diet doesn't seem to be all that necessary, but lower fat diets are prevalent in all these centenarian societies, 4) whether you eat more or less animal products isn't a huge indicator (these societies range from 1.5% to 30% of calories being from animal products) 5) lower caloric intakes are definitely associated with longer lifespans.

Either way i think it is a fascinating thing to study, maybe not all that helpful to veganism (though it does show that plant based societies exist and thrive) as most societies at least have some animal products. Though obviously we don't need them to live (we all are living proof of that).

I am also unsure about if we should study the Aryan people in the himalayas, not sure whether we should meddle with them but at the same time natural curiosity does exist, because it would serve to shut up a gigantic meat eater rationalization (one which philosophically amounts to nothing but is used nonetheless).

Leaf, Alexander M.D. "Every Day Is a Gift When You Are Over 100". National Geographic Jan. 1973: 92-119.

[Korn]

Either way i think it is a fascinating thing to study, maybe not all that helpful to veganism (though it does show that plant based societies exist and thrive) as most societies at least have some animal products. Though obviously we don't need them to live (we all are living proof of that).

Most of the Hunzas/Aryans/Brokpas etc may at least have some animal products - but the article about this tribe in India is about a group which is reported to eat no animal products...

Maybe it doesn't make sense - for several reasons - to 'invade' some Indian tribe to prove that they don't eat animal products.... but it doesn't really make sense to me to write about other tribes and emphasizing that they use some animal products either - both because we already know that most people use animal products, and because - as you say - we are already living proof that we don't need animal products.

Imagine some tribe, say, 5000 years ago, considering going all vegan. Would they be worried about going vegan if there was no scientific proof that there was no other tribe that had been living on a vegan diet for thousands of years? Probably not, because there's no reason to only keep what people have been doing in the past. The reference to this and other vegan tribes is only useful for people who won't do/think something/follow a diet if it hasn't been proven that it hasn't been done before. Personally I'm in the other end of that scale of conservatism - humans are currently struggling with a lot of problems - in terms of health, economy, terrorism, racism, stress, environmental issues and so on, so we should think of what the bst way forward is - completely independent of what has been done/said/eaten before.

"I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been." (Wayne Gretzky)

Ironically, the people who stress that some apparent vegan tribe may after all eat a minimal amount of animal products are people who use this to justify using a massive amount of animal products. This illogical conclusion reminds a little bit about people who go back to a standard diet because if there's one product (honey, "free-range" eggs) that they'd like to continue with: "I'm not a vegan anyway, so now I'll just include all animal products I used to eat before my vegan period."

Maybe Pakistani Hunzas have a different diet than Hunzas living in India. And maybe the Brokpas in Eastern Bhutan eat something which Brokpas in Indias don't. But I'm sure none of them care.

[TarekF]

"Maybe it doesn't make sense - for several reasons - to 'invade' some Indian tribe to prove that they don't eat animal products.... but it doesn't really make sense to me to write about other tribes and emphasizing that they use some animal products either - both because we already know that most people use animal products, and because - as you say - we are already living proof that we don't need animal products. "

For sure, i had just remembered that someone posted about the Vilcabamba, Hunza and Georgian people, and thought i would just clear up the information a bit since my parents have a big Nat Geo collection.

"Ironically, the people who stress that some apparent vegan tribe may after all eat a minimal amount of animal products are people who use this to justify using a massive amount of animal products. This illogical conclusion reminds a little bit about people who go back to a standard diet because if there's one product (honey, "free-range" eggs) that they'd like to continue with: "I'm not a vegan anyway, so now I'll just include all animal products I used to eat before my vegan period.""

I have never understood this "logic" either, nevertheless it is a frequent irrational rationalization

[LouiseAbel]

Lol, they pride themselves on being a pure race? Whether Hitler's involved or not, that's kind of... retro. I love the clothes - don't they look like wool, though? Anyway, interesting story.