scratch-mark

A Simple and Modest Suicide Meal, The Vegan Menace, Pain and Redemption

Want a dose of insanity? Probably not, but if you’re feeling masochistic today (and since you eat meat, well, there you go right there — masochistic and suicidal all in one) go read through the comments here. Mind you, I do this only under the strict warning that doing so could be hazardous to your mental health.

The vegan Menace is an interesting sort in that their claims vary from vegan to vegan, and they dance around the points they do try to make. For instance, did humans evolve eating meat, or not? Depends on who you ask, of course, but even those who will acknowledge it ultimately dismiss it as "just an act of survival and desperation in the face of starvation." …As if the evolution of species happens because they’re warm, well fed & cozy, livin’ la vida Eden.

Or, you’ll get the cart before the horse: "we evolved brains large enough to fashion tools for hunting, butchering and that’s why we began eating meat." …Which raises the question of why we’re not observing brain growth and gut shrink in the many species of frugivores.

And maybe you point out that there were no fruit stands along the way of migratory routes around the globe out of Africa (See: Don Matesz) only to be rebuffed: "they had to eat meat to get to where they were going, but then could have settled down to their natural, optimal diet of fruit." …As if we’re having to erect barriers at the gates of Africa to prevent all the primates from undertaking 50,000 year migrations across the planet.

Human Migration
Human Migration

But there’s also the favorite claim that well, "every cell in our bodies use glucose as a primary fuel," seemingly forgetting that every cell in the bodies of all animals, including obligate carnivores like cats & wolves use glucose just as well.

…Or that we "don’t possess the claws and fangs of carnivorous hunters," blanking out the fact that we don’t need them because we have big, tool making brains that serve as our killing weapon.

And you know what? "We can’t outrun predators, just like the frugivores can’t." But the big cats, wolves & bears aren’t the chief human predator…other humans are.

"Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"Friar William of Ockham

Or, in today speak: "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one." Want a simple explanation? Somewhere, someplace, long, long ago (millions of years long ago) some population(s) of primates discovered something compelling, that there were a lot of carnivore kills ’round and about and that wow, if you took some of the large bones like femurs and the skulls and smashed them against rocks or smashed them with rocks, that you could break them open and discover a rich bounty of high nutritional density, packed with the prime nutrient that comprises our brains: fat; and specifically, omega-3 fats.

Already accustomed to eating some animal protein and fat via bugs, grubs, worms, snails — and even others of their species or close cousins, it was not a big leap to eat marrow and brain pudding. But evolution takes a long time…but it was also a very long time ago. I don’t know if there’s an answer to the question of how long it actually took from that very first encounter to the birth of the first true upright walking, larger brained and smaller gutted hominid, but the question is immaterial: it took as long as it took and we weren’t coming along until it did.

And so that was the point of singularity, the point of no turning back. Our primitive primate ancestors had evolved to the point that they were no longer primates, anymore, but proto-humans on an entirely different evolutionary path. They had millions of years in which to fully adapt to a new diet which continued to evolve them toward larger brains, more efficient upright mobility, greater stature, far more generalist in terms of nutrient sourcing an utilization — from sea to shining sea and pole to pole. Soon enough, we were no longer niche specialists but could exist, thrive and migrate on virtually anything that didn’t kill us. Hormesis likely played a large role over these millions of years.

Finally, some small bands of hominids were sufficiently prepared to undertake the greatest migration ever in the history of the planet. A migration that took not years, but many thousands of years. Tens of thousands of years. Generations. It wasn’t those coming out of Africa who got to see the Amazonian Rain Forests but their great, great, great, great…grandchildren.

Imagine a bunch of fruit eating chimps pulling that off? And yet, here we are in 2011, millions of years later, and this meal is suicide. Click for the hi-res, but you might want to put on a protective lead vest, first. I’ll explain below.

Meat and Veggie Simplicity
Meat and Veggie Simplicity

The weather is beginning to turn a bit warmer, a bit nicer, so I fired the grill for the first time this year. In tow was one artery-clogging, grassfed filet from Marin Sun Farms and one of their New York cuts as well. Rather than the typical red wine reduction sauce that simply has to be bad for you on some level because it’s not raw fruit and doesn’t have much sugar in it, I opted for heart-attack-inducing pastured butter. And I cooked it, which is bad because it’s not raw, not to mention bad bad bad. It’s just bad. I browned it, too, which has to be bad because of fat oxidation and whatnot. And cooking is just bad.

Then I added in a clove of fresh, chopped garlic, which isn’t fruit — I think. At the end I added in a bit of saving grace: fresh squeezed lemon juice. Whew!

I gather together some carrots, celery, cauliflower and broccoli and totally ruined it all as best I could. I tossed it in the devil of all fats incarnate: coconut oil; 89% artery-clogging, heart-attack inducing, stroke promoting saturated fat. Not even offering up your firstborn in ritual sacrifice is gonna get you off the hook here.

You’re dead. Screwed. Game over, man.

From this point, out of fear, loathing and a measure of desperation I dug through the pantry and came up with a tin of Indian curry. Can I be saved, after all? It is an ancient vegetarian culture and oh, what the hell; so with sweat beginning to bead on my forehead and while saying a little prayer, I closed my eyes to hold back tears of longing for the will to live clean and pure…and I sprinkled a tablespoon over the vegetables. Would it be enough? I added a bit more.

Aw, fuck it. Life is to be lived, after all, no matter how short. I tossed them altogether, arranged them on a cookie sheet and put them in the oven to roast.

We sit down to eat, heads bowed in shame. With much trepidation I raise my knife & fork but then realize that grace and virtue comes in small doses and unforeseen ways. I can trim the fat! I can trim the fat! Relief sets in. Guilt assuaged, I dig in knowing it’s by far from perfect but also knowing to what lengths I have gone to to mitigate evil.

…And I’ll be dammed but that Lucifer himself didn’t have it out for us. Turns out that grilled grassfed steaks have amazingly succulent fat. No, God and Lucifer, in league! Did heaven & hell team up against us when I wasn’t looking? Are we not now caught right in the middle?

We ate all the fat. Not just the evil browned butter with neutral garlic and grace saving lemon, but the fat on the meat. We. Ate. The. Fat. On. The. Meat! No more point in denying this. Sin is sin. I quickly grab for my iPad. Any churches open at this hour taking confession. …Now where’s my Rosary?

But it was too late. Already feeling the wrath and weight of God, the Devil, Heaven and Hell all at once — and that’s just the mental aspect of the thing — and beginning to feel a little sick and tight in the chest, I resorted to the only thing I knew or could grasp, given my state: SUPERFOOOD!

By the grace of all that that is good, virtuous and most importantly, ecologically sustainable, I crawled over to the kitchen to look; to find, and, #WINNING Yes, there, right before my eyes: the key to Heaven, to health, a long life, and the respect of smelly 20-somethings on Santa Cruz Avenue sporting tie-dyes and dreads: BLUEBERRIES (local and organic, or course). As quickly as I could, I got a handful of them into my mouth; relieved, tasting of their magical powers of life and longevity…as blue juice dribbled down my chin.

As one drop hit the grease stained linoleum, I thought I saw a flash of light. It resembled a halo.

And though the shame and guilt of a debaucherous undertaking lingers I am, at least for now, spared another day.

Don’t share this on Facebook or Twitter. I have enough blood on my hands already.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

94 Comments

  1. Dan on March 9, 2011 at 14:00

    “Imagine a bunch of fruit eating chimps pulling that off?”

    Imagine ’em pulling this off..

    • Gene on March 9, 2011 at 18:01

      Awesome clip! Now I’m hungry.

    • TJ on March 9, 2011 at 23:29

      You need testosterone-engorged cojones to do that, not shriveled grapes…

  2. Melissa McEwen on March 9, 2011 at 11:46

    I’m studying physical anthropology and there are a fair number of phys anthropologists who are vegetarian or vegan. However, they all accept the FACT that humans are not frugivores. Seriously, where do people get this stuff? Pick up an good textbook like The Emergence of Humans. Or even Richard Wrangham (respected phys anthologist and also vegetarian) Catching Fire.

    Unfortunately even paleos hew to some popanthrojunk, like Lierre Keith, who believes humans were peaceful before civilization. I have a couple of shot at point blank paleolithic skulls in the lab I’d love to show her, but in cases of popanthrojunk it’s almost always a case of willful ignorance. War Before Civilization has been out for awhile.

    • LCforevah on March 9, 2011 at 12:20

      Melissa, has there been something on her blog that implies the peaceful before civilization thing?. I’ve read her book twice and she has a lot of examples of tribal, non-agricultural, violence aimed at women. I don’t think she sees non-agra cultures as peaceful so much as incapable of doing the level of biological violence that agricultural cultures do–not to mention full scale war engaged over farmland versus tribal skirmishes over hunting territory, perceived insults etc.

    • J. Stanton on March 9, 2011 at 16:56

      I think most of that fallacy goes back to Margaret Mead. “Coming of Age in Samoa” was the most popular anthropology book ever.

      It is true, however, that large-scale war is a unique feature of agricultural society, as there is simply no archaeological evidence of it previous to permanent settlements. (AFAIK…if this has changed recently, please let me know.)

      And most of the comparisons of violence rates between agriculture and pre-agriculture conveniently forget to count the hundreds of millions of deaths from war and its consequences (e.g. starvation) in the violent death totals for agricultural society:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

      Hunting and gathering was absolutely not a mindless Eden! Clearly it was extremely challenging, more so than agriculture…otherwise our huge brains wouldn’t have been selected for, and they wouldn’t have shrunk once we took up farming. But the idea that foraging was more savage than agriculture isn’t supported by the data. We’re living in an anomalously peaceful time in a geographically isolated nation that is part of the most powerful culture in history, and it dramatically skews our perceptions.

      JS
      http://www.gnolls.org

  3. John on March 9, 2011 at 11:48

    Richard
    Don’t you live in California?
    As someone who is looking out his window at a couple inches of new snow on the ground I have to say that if I lived in California (and yes I know what the climate is like my Mother in law lives in the bay area) I’d have the grill out year round and pay the price of being a little chilly in return for meat cooked on the grill.
    I in truth have broken down and gone out in more than a foot of snow to get a grill going and char some meat.

  4. Emerald on March 9, 2011 at 11:48

    This cracked me up. Well done sir, well done. If that meal is wrong then I don’t want to be right.

  5. Kris @ Kris Health Blog on March 9, 2011 at 11:50

    I just ate a pound of beef myself, I think I feel the big G calling out my name already.

  6. Marcus on March 9, 2011 at 11:54

    Good one Rich… (and I finally sipped the last of that Macallan)

  7. CG on March 9, 2011 at 12:19

    The problem with arguing with most people about diets, is that it’s a lot like religion. Once someone ‘believes’ something no matter how much science, or evidence you throw at them it doesn’t change a damn thing (so I guess it applies to anything people believe in really, including politics). They have to convert themselves.

  8. Bodhi on March 9, 2011 at 13:00

    I have 3 t-bones steaks waiting on me at home. I can’t wait to throw them on the grill. Say a little prayer for me. Great story.

  9. Asclepius on March 9, 2011 at 13:19

    There is some good stuff buried away in those comments!

    One thing I’d like to know (and I’ve asked it elsewhere), why has Harley suddenly become more muscular – I don’t believe it is simply from eating more LFRV food. Most of the videos I have seem of him over the past few years he has no muscle to speak of. He has definitely put on a bit more recently. Something smells – and it ain’t durian! You might want to ask this of him in the debate.

    Given the LFRV approach I am curious as what is the likely evolutionary destiny of returning to frugivorism?

  10. Brett Legree on March 9, 2011 at 13:34

    Most awesome thing I’ve read all week… I eat so many meals that look just like that one, I must be on a suicide watch or something 🙂

  11. Monica on March 9, 2011 at 13:49

    Hey Richard, I hope it’s not a coincidence that this post is on the day when Lent begins, given that it used to be meat and dairy that the Church commanded everyone to forsake during the Middle Ages, before everyone got a little smarter and said, “Fuck that.”

    Amen, brother. Pass the bacon.

  12. Gabe on March 9, 2011 at 14:07

    And so what if that meal is tantamount to suicide? In the words of the great mixed martial arts fighter Chris Cope, “you’re born dead.” Cheers!

  13. julianne on March 9, 2011 at 14:13

    It was the Bonobos chimps that were supposedly entirely fruit loving. Not so:
    Despite ‘peacenik’ reputation, bonobos hunt and eat other primates too
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/cp-dr100608.php

  14. Dale on March 9, 2011 at 15:56

    Why do people assume we ALL came out of Africa.My theory is that we came out of Africa and South America.You can travel from SA all the way to Asia and see that the people are one and the same,that is the native Americans.You get closer to Asia and you have Asians that act just like Indians.I even have Asian friends who say they are related to Native American Indians(all the way down to the bottom of SA).

    Its a mystery why this is not common knowledge to me.The Americans changed as they headed North and turned into Asians in the same way that Africans changed into Europeans.Though there is the theory that as they migrated from Africa and thru Spain they mixed with the last remnants of Cro-magnon’s.

    • Richard Nikoley on March 9, 2011 at 16:27

      Is there a competing out of South America theory?

      • Dregs on March 9, 2011 at 20:04

        They have recently been some studies putting forward evidence of interbreeding among neanderthals, denisovans and early humans. The differing levels of interbreeding may have led to significant genetic differences among races, and could be taken as an alternative to the “out of Africa” theory in that the interbreeding should be marked as different starting points for different branches of our race. It is looking more like “out of Africa, out of Europe and out of Asia”.

        Here are some links that discuss and provide further links to information about the study.

        http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/12/out-of-africa-with-benefits.html

        http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/hbd-human-biodiversity/interbreeding-and-the-human-family-tree/



      • A.Stev on January 10, 2012 at 17:29

        It’s been confirmed now through genetic evidence that Eurasians are pretty much all part Neanderthal (between 1 and 4%).

        That said, even though Neanderthals were European and Near Eastern, their ancestors came from Africa too. There were lots of waves of migration, but it can all be traced back to Africa.



    • Richard Nikoley on March 9, 2011 at 16:28

      The weird thing is that you would have to have had independent evolution from primate to hominid, and in an identical way. Seems unlikely as I think evolution is so tied to environmental pressures.

    • Gene on March 9, 2011 at 18:17

      That’s impossible.
      That would mean there would be 2 different instances of humans evolving from primates.
      We all had to have come from 1 place. Whether that’s Africa or not could be debated I guess, but you can’t say we evolved in TWO different places!

      • Richard Nikoley on March 9, 2011 at 18:57

        that was my immediate thought, Gene. This is why you have such variety of species, because of the environments. So, while you have primates that evolved on both continents, they are wildly different, as are birds, and every other thing you can think of.



    • J. Stanton - gnolls.org on March 9, 2011 at 19:52

      Actually, it’s the other way around: the Asians came to the Americas. This probably happened in two waves: one coastal, seafaring culture that arrived first and showed up at Monte Verde and the Channel Islands, and the Clovis culture that arrived later, through Beringia, after the glaciers melted enough to let them through.

      So you’ve got the relationships right, but the timing backwards.

    • Jared on March 9, 2011 at 22:42

      You have it backwards. Y-chromosome studies clearly show that native americans came from Asia. Who came from Africa. 70,000 years ago the gene pool all of us are from had only ~2000 members and they were probably located in Africa.

      • A Eilola on March 10, 2011 at 06:57

        Recently they found 100,000 years old human bones in China.



      • J. Stanton - gnolls.org on March 10, 2011 at 09:35

        There were multiple waves of migration out of Africa, which led to species like the Neanderthals and the Denisovans (theorized to be Homo erectus). But Homo sapiens only left Africa ~65,000 years ago.

        The issue is complicated by the fact that some populations of Homo sapiens apparently interbred somewhat with the previous emigrants. Europeans and their descendants have a little bit of Neanderthal in them, New Guineans have a little bit of Denisovan in them.



      • Jared on March 10, 2011 at 11:27

        I think the ones you’re talking about are 40,000 years old…



  15. julianne on March 9, 2011 at 16:03

    In the news today
    “Early humans began in southern Africa, study suggests”
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12665643

    • Richard Nikoley on March 9, 2011 at 16:30

      Yea, saw that. But that’s an adjustment to the place of absolute origin, but a hypothesis that we evolved in two or more places.

  16. Tyler on March 9, 2011 at 16:17

    I live in hippie-central humboldt county california and I get to see a lot of vegans and vegetarians around. I can tell you from 4 years of personal observations they are sick FAR more than the average meat eater, even someone who doesn’t have a healthy lifestyle.

    A vegetarian friend of mine came to town a couple weeks ago, so I obliged them and went to a vegan restaurant… can you guess what I saw?

    Four vegans walk in, emitting an aura of moral superiority, promptly sit down and order salads with bread. But here’s the kicker… all of them were a good 20-30 lbs overweight!

    And they did not look healthy.

  17. Trish on March 9, 2011 at 16:35

    Damn you, Richard, I was all ready to use #WINNING and you fucking beat me to it. You suck.

    😀

    • Richard Nikoley on March 9, 2011 at 16:57

      and what a good use it was, eh?

  18. J. Stanton - gnolls.org on March 9, 2011 at 17:10

    Richard: I was very glad when you came in. Trying to hold back the avalanche of stupidity by myself was like trying to stop the tide with a blue tarp and some rebar.

    Seriously, when that one guy claimed “the body uses carbohydrates preferentially as a source of fuel (an indication that our evolutionary diet must have predominated in carbohydrates)”, I about crapped a brick. Every living animal cell uses glucose as fuel…that’s how cellular respiration works! Obligate carnivores like lions and wolves convert protein to glucose via gluconeogenesis. Guess what? So do humans. (Though we’re not as good at it as pure carnivores are.)

    I think the quote “as they are my “beliefs”, no real evidence is necessary” (from el-bo, in response to me) neatly sums up the entire discussion. Veganism is a religion – and all the justifications for it are retroactive pseudoscience, just like the “creation scientists” who try to dress up their religion in a lab coat.

    JS

    • Richard Nikoley on March 9, 2011 at 17:21

      Yep, J. Those are about the Cliff Notes on the whole deal.

    • julianne on March 9, 2011 at 17:23

      J. and Richard – thanks for your input, much appreciated!

    • el-bo on March 10, 2011 at 12:19

      @js :

      “I think the quote “as they are my “beliefs”, no real evidence is necessary” (from el-bo, in response to me) neatly sums up the entire discussion. Veganism is a religion – and all the justifications for it are retroactive pseudoscience, just like the “creation scientists” who try to dress up their religion in a lab coat.”

      actually, you’ve misunderstood….but you’ve put the word “beliefs” in inverted commas which makes my job a bit easier

      your first mistake would be to assume that my beliefs are fixed….far from it…i’m old enough and ugly enough to “never say “never”, again” (or should it be, “never say, “never again” ?? i guess both make sense)….what i “believe” is a fluid thing…..i keep a very open mind and am interested in hearing other views

      my beliefs tend to fill in certain gaps in my knowledge and change based on my experience, and that of my peers…..maybe that’s something i need to work on

      your next mistake is to assume i have any interest in forcing my beliefs on others…life’s too short; there’s music to be made…i don’t care what you do….truly…..

      so, my quote above, is an admittance that (at this point) i believe certain things to be true and, because i’m not trying to convince you of anything, i don’t need to be able to provide evidence to you….a few of your crew ‘believe’ themselves to not have any deficiencies, yet none seem to have any evidence to support such beliefs…i have asked…i’m not criticising them for their beliefs, just pointing out that, without evidence, they are just ‘beliefs’

      so i might, and currently do, believe that we were originally frugivores…i can’t prove this to you and nor, does it seem, that you can prove we weren’t…..so, it’s kind of irrelevant to me (yeah, i’m an idiot right ??)…what’s important to me, in the context of and was the premise of the blog post (one that seems to have been totally ignored by all the off-piste evolutionary talk) is that it is possible to live this way should we choose to…

      the nutritionist in julianne had it’s interest piqued by harley’s ‘textbook’ bloodwork and daily nutritional sample…it seems she was the only one….none of you seemed to take an interest in harley’s apparent health, resorting to cussing him on his physique (not a product of diet)….not to mention the ragging on doug graham for not looking too hot (if that’s your take)….that’ll get the mob jumping, but try implying that jimmy moore’s looking a little ‘sickly’ and incur the full wrath of “the animal”…doug graham has had many health issues in his life and has made mistakes and he just suggests that people use his mistakes to avoid there own…to stand on his shoulders and aim higher…not too dissimilar to richard’s ‘the student outdoing the master’ (or words to that effect)….let’s leave the physical criticisms out of it, especially in the face of good, documented health results…if this, selective, physique assassination on harley’s part is so detestable, then why ‘ape’ 🙂 him ??

      as for “neatly sums up the entire discussion.” doesn’t even come close……nothing neat about it….sprawling diversions into pointless ‘ideal diet’ territory and vague interest in the topic, at hand….nothing is ‘summed up’

      and then there’s, “Veganism is a religion”…..is it ?? or is it just the case that SOME of the ‘ethical’ vegans act like it ?? and even then, isn’t it just the more vocal of those that you take exception to ?? or do you seek to broadly condemn a whole group, based on your incorrect ‘beliefs’ ?? there are many vegans who don’t support the actions of those you mention…there are also many ethical vegans who detest the that vegans can be so ‘unethical’ in their treatment of other human animals…clearly, i’m building a case against your generalisations and your blanket, unsupported beliefs…maybe time to think , and look, outside these boxes of yours

      “all the justifications for it are retroactive pseudoscience”…..are they ?? ALL of them ?? *sigh……that statement is just incorrect…i don’t ‘believe’ i really need to explain…and even if you were correct (which you aren’t), does choosing not to eat animals need justification ??

      “just like the “creation scientists” who try to dress up their religion in a lab coat.”…err, nope 🙂 ‘creation’ has absolutely no grounding in science, but harley’s bloodwork does…you seem to have learnt how to pass off incorrect similies at the same school as harley…i think he’s gonna compile them in a book; i reckon you’re gonna love it :)……..

      although you had no interest in doing so on julianne’s blog, perhaps now try to explain, referring to harley’s results how scientifically unsound veganism might actually be

      as for holding back “the avalanche of stupidity by myself”…maybe you were just stemming the flow, biding time, place marking for someone else to come along and actually finish what you had started…i’ve known adam for a couple of years now….he is open-minded and will, seemingly, never turn down the opportunity of learning…so, rather than coming back here, ‘behind closed doors’ and jeering, backslapping, insulting etc, why not go back and continue your discussion with him…if you have something to teach, go teach

      anyways, i’m gonna keep this brief lolz 🙂 ..i don’t feel i belong here (something that has nothing to do with y’all eating meat)…and i wont be contributing any further, to either blog (lucky you)….

      it’s been edumacative

      • Asclepius on March 10, 2011 at 14:26

        “the nutritionist in julianne had it’s interest piqued by harley’s ‘textbook’ bloodwork and daily nutritional sample…it seems she was the only one….none of you seemed to take an interest in harley’s apparent health, resorting to cussing him on his physique (not a product of diet)”

        el-bo, aren’t you curious about the recent change in Harley’s physique? Given that he seems to mock or gently chide protein supplementation here (but with a wink):

        His physique has clearly changed but there is no indication he is doing less cycling or has changed to hypertrophy oriented work. Nor is there any indication that his diet has moved away from LFRV. (If anything I understand he his more strict about this).

        So what is prompting and fuelling this change? His blood work is laudible, but is understandable if, for example, he is taking periodic supplements to promote hypertrophy, and that self same muscle is on occasion cannibalised by the body. (Just rough speculation). I don’t know – after seeing his scrawny ass on videos/photos from the past few years, I just can’t help but think there is something we are not being told – and it ain’t that he is eating an extra banana a day!



      • el-bo on March 10, 2011 at 15:01

        “el-bo, aren’t you curious about the recent change in Harley’s physique? Given that he seems to mock or gently chide protein supplementation here (but with a wink):”

        who knows ?? i am curious, but whereas you are lead by suspicion, i reckon he is probably working out, differently and just eating more, getting more protein by default…maybe he doesn’t want to be seen as scrawny and is trying to do the best he can, without compromising his cycling….

        his physique has changed, but i don’t think it’s a huuuuuuge difference…..one photo is just relaxed (save for the watermelon lift), one is showboating and ‘popping’ his muscles…somewhere in between is a better physique, for sure

        though i’m not disagree with many things that fall out of his mouth, i have no reason to suspect he’s lying on the supplement front

        my speculation is pointless, why don’t you ask him ??



      • el-bo on March 10, 2011 at 15:03

        i meant to say “though i disagree”



      • el-bo on March 10, 2011 at 12:24

        and in your science quest, remember that b12 is a moot point…some vegans have tested fine without supplementation….and environmental availability would have served early frugivores very well



  19. Jeremy on March 9, 2011 at 20:34

    Thanks Richard, I needed a good laugh. Btw, I made the recipe you posted up the other day; Pork Spare ribs and sauerkraut. I only did 4 lbs of boneless for me and the 3 little kids, and I should have done more. It was that and a head of cabbage, chunked and drizzled with bacon grease and roasted at 400 for awhile. I caught my kids licking their plates clean.

  20. tracker on March 10, 2011 at 07:38

    I eat butter. By the slice. I’m going to hell. But I already knew that.

    I just want to point out that if you search through the academic literature, that it is replete with examples of butchered bones that date back hundreds of thousands of years. Just search “midden” in any academic database. Anyone who says that paleolithic people did not eat much meat because they weren’t very good at hunting (that’s the argument I always hear) is full of it. I once had an archaeology professor who was obsessed with weaponry and the archaeology of it. He liked to talk a lot about atlatls, and how effective they were for hunting. Even a child could use one to bring down a large land mammal, like a mammoth.

    If our ancestors had wasted time trying to find fruit through most of our evolutionary history on much of this planet, we wouldn’t be here having this conversation. Indeed, we wouldn’t be here period.

  21. Walter on March 11, 2011 at 01:48

    Richard, I checked out many of the links that were in the article. Did you check out this link?
    Interview With an Ex-Vegan: Erim Bilgin?

    Thought you might find it interesting.

    • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 08:58

      yes I have, Walter. It may even be in this comment thread where I spoke of my deep disagreement with his philosophy. I plan to blog about that soon.

  22. Marc on March 10, 2011 at 11:33

    “At the end I added in a bit of saving grace: fresh squeezed lemon juice. Whew!”

    Gd I love you! Thanks for the crack up.
    Hope all is well Richard.

    Marc

  23. Dave, RN on March 10, 2011 at 12:39

    And now the vegan front group Physicians for Resposible Medicine is suing the FDA because they disagree with the food pyramid. While the food pyramid stinks, the PCRM has differnt reasons. What they disagree with of course is the food pyramid not being vegan. The PCRM argues that “there is no scientific basis for including meat or dairy groups in dietary guidanance material” because people who avoid those foods have lower rates of diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease.”
    And so they are suing.

  24. ryboto on March 10, 2011 at 12:41

    So what if his bloodwork is good? 1 person does not a conclusion make in this case. When I get my bloodwork done, I’ll compare to Harley’s. He’s taking a supplement, right? Either way, until more of his followers post up numbers and more primal eaters post numbers, we have very little data to really compare. Just because his body can handle a huge carb input and almost no fat doesn’t mean that mine will be able to do the same and maintain my current health.

    • ryboto on March 10, 2011 at 12:41

      This was meant in response to el-bo…

      • el-bo on March 10, 2011 at 12:55

        actually, there are others…i can’t track them as i’m no longer a member of their site, but harley isn’t the only one

        and the ONLY conclusion i would draw from this is that it is possible..i’m not gonna make any claims, either way, except that it’s no longer so easy to demonise fruit or assert that a vegan diet is , in and of itself, a deficient diet

        harley does supplement b12, but so do a huge amount of meat eaters….other vegans with bloodwork, have tested okav without (some not)…so, supplementing doesn’t really undermine the diet, b12 would be all around in a foraged, unsanitised frugivore lifestyle (replete with inadvertent bug consumption and contact with fecal matter)

        as for comparing vegan data against vegan data ?? perhaps it would be better to compare vegan to paleo; that is, if any paleos were interested in anything but their lipid panel (julianne excepted)

        but, maybe you wouldn’t respond well to it….so forget the ‘ideal’ bit and, perhaps, understand choices and their health implications…maybe, one day, like grok you will dare to try it



      • ryboto on March 11, 2011 at 05:53

        From a health perspective, I just don’t see how consuming that much sugar can benefit my body. I had soft enamel as a child, I don’t want to damage my teeth any further with that much sugar consumption. Diabetes also runs in my family, so the less I’m reliant on sugar for energy, the better.

        Now, that doesn’t even touch on the resources required to supply my body with that much fruit. Not only would I require a shit-ton, it’s all going to have to be imported. Instead, I can buy local meats, local veggies almost year round, minimizing my environmental impact while supporting local business.



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 07:39

        “From a health perspective, I just don’t see how consuming that much sugar can benefit my body”

        you don’t see it ?? as long as you’re sure

        “I had soft enamel as a child, I don’t want to damage my teeth any further with that much sugar consumption”

        you’re assuming they will be damaged….there are tips to help avoid issues

        “Diabetes also runs in my family, so the less I’m reliant on sugar for energy, the better.”

        that’s unfortunate..however, if any of them suffer type II, i would urge you to extend your sphere of knowledge…type II doesn’t fare very well in a high-fruit, low-fat environment….reversal is very common

        as for type I…can’t really offer any cures, but here’s someone that might interest you (or other members of your family

        http://robbybarbaro.org/

        he’s type I, and has significantly reduced his insulin dependance on the 80/10/10 diet…you can check the mountains of fruit he eats, daily, from this site…

        “Now, that doesn’t even touch on the resources required to supply my body with that much fruit. Not only would I require a shit-ton, it’s all going to have to be imported. Instead, I can buy local meats, local veggies almost year round, minimizing my environmental impact while supporting local business.”

        perhaps you could supply some concrete figures, comparing the resources from local, grass-fed meats vs imported fruits…maybe then i can share them with his guy

        http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/blog/?p=1830

        i know he’s not offering any concrete figures, but we have to start somewhere



      • ryboto on March 11, 2011 at 08:33

        Look, you aren’t going to change my mind. I’m healthy now, feel better than I ever have,a nd I’m in better shape than I’ve ever been. And yes, I don’t see how living off of sugar can be beneficial in the long term. Maybe it’d be a good diet for losing weight fast? Regardless, I eat locally grown produce, supporting local business, potentially reducing fossil fuel usage vs importing vast amounts of fruits. And while your link suggest the transportation resources aren’t nearly the bulk of the resource consumption for produce, I think it’s a safe bet that a grazing cow that eats unfertilized grass in a pasture less than 20miles from where I’m standing consumes fewer resources than the hundreds of pounds of fruit I’d have to eat to match the amount of food that cow would produce.

        But not just that, it’s also an availability thing. I know that locally I can rely on certain foods year round. I can’t say that for imported fruits, be it seasonal shortages, natural disasters, oil prices. I’m eating things I’ve always loved eating, I don’t avoid fat, and in the end I’m still slowly losing weight.



      • ryboto on March 11, 2011 at 08:37

        *not match the amount of food, but match the caloric quantity of the food the cow produces



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 09:31

        well, i’m not convinced either way….on face value, i would agree with you on the resources front….but, without any concrete figures, i’m not making any “safe bets”

        “Look, you aren’t going to change my mind.”

        just me, or will you resist any other opinion to the contrary ??

        “I’m healthy now, feel better than I ever have,a nd I’m in better shape than I’ve ever been.”

        i have no reason to wish you bad health…i will say, that health is a relative state….you are in a better way than you have ever been..that’s fine….doesn’t mean that you can’t achieve even greater…you’re happy as you are…cool, but maybe hold off “And yes, I don’t see how living off of sugar can be beneficial in the long term” for those who are willing to try it

        clearly, there isn’t anything more to say but i’d urge you look into the robby barbaro link i sent you…..if you’re gonna demonise sugar, then you might start at speculating why a sugar-metabolic disorder, such as diabetes, would respond so well to eating a ton of fruit sugar….the biggest shame about your unwillingness to consider such things is that this info might never filter down to those of your family who might find relief or reduction of their diabetes symptoms

        as for avoiding fats ?? that’s not what 811 is about…look at harley’s figures again….it’s impossible to avoid fats, as fruits and greens all have ’em….10% fat, by calories (on a high calorie diet) can easily provide the fats we need…..in harley’s case, reducing the calories and upping denser fat sources (avocado, durian, seeds etc) would also work out fine

        we should probably stop here..i can see it getting personal, and that aint good

        you’re happy with your current health…good for you



      • ryboto on March 11, 2011 at 10:27

        you really think me eating fruit would trickle down/up to my nearly 80 year old grandfathers? EVEN IF I did change my diet, to show them the supposed benefits I’d need to first become diabetic and then cure it with the diet. Good argument bro!

        You keep suggesting things I’ve already denounced as far as what I consider reasonable. I will not be adding tons of different imported fruits to my diet, it doesn’t make sustainable sense. I’m thriving with my current health, thanks for the kind words!



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 10:40

        “you really think me eating fruit would trickle down/up to my nearly 80 year old grandfathers? EVEN IF I did change my diet, to show them the supposed benefits I’d need to first become diabetic and then cure it with the diet. Good argument bro!”

        that is not my argument….your argument was that diabetes runs in the family, so you don’t want to be reliant on sugar…i gave you a link to explore the idea that fruit consumption and diabetes can be a very positive relationship

        what you consider reasonable is your business, but you have no proof of the sustainability of one over the other and neither do i..

        “I’m thriving with my current health, thanks for the kind words!”

        thriving is a relative state, and with no bloodwork to prove you have it all covered, you are just guessing….i don’t think i’m being unkind, and i do wish you well



      • ryboto on March 11, 2011 at 11:42

        “.the biggest shame about your unwillingness to consider such things is that this info might never filter down to those of your family who might find relief or reduction of their diabetes symptoms”

        That’s what you said, go back and read it. you adapted this as your argument, so, yes, it was your argument.

        You have no proof, and that’s your fall back. Straw-man crap. Nice. You’re going to honestly tell me that you believe it’s no less sustainable to live off of foreign imports or fruit that needs to travel hundreds, possibly thousands of miles rather than buy locally produce food?

        is your health as best it can be? I surely hope for your sake it is. Look at that Erim guy, his bloodwork was great, but his health supposedly wasn’t.



      • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 12:09

        “Look at that Erim guy, his bloodwork was great, but his health supposedly wasn’t.”

        Which says a lot about the value of blood work as seen in a vacuum.



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 12:13

        it is not ‘everything’, you are correct

        doesn’t stop you being proud to display your lipid pamels



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 12:20

        “You have no proof, and that’s your fall back. Straw-man crap. Nice.”

        it’s not my “fall back”, just an admission i have no proof….and even though i have stated that it would seem localvorism to make more sense, i’m just not sure…and, nether are you

        read the diabetes link or don’t….but if you don’t, maybe hold back on the sugar/diabetes demonising

        have a good life



      • ryboto on March 11, 2011 at 12:42

        ok, I’ll read it, then I’ll tell my grandfather to put himself in a diabetic coma by switching from his low sugar diet to an all fruit, sugar rich diet.

        And still, you wont admit that my scenario of local food is at least seemingly more sustainable. Avoidance is awesome!



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 12:49

        “And still, you wont admit that my scenario of local food is at least seemingly more sustainable.”

        actually, i did…twice, at least

        “ok, I’ll read it, then I’ll tell my grandfather to put himself in a diabetic coma by switching from his low sugar diet to an all fruit, sugar rich diet.”

        if that’s the conclusion you draw from it, do what you want…just that one of your reasons for not trying a high fruit diet was because of the diabetes in your family….ignoring even the ‘reasonable doubt’ of the evidence that link provides displays an equal measure of misunderstanding and closed-mindedness

        the only thing i’ll avoid is this place



      • ryboto on March 11, 2011 at 12:58

        Alright, you did admit it might make more sense, which is still fairly rotten reasoning. Does it take more added energy to grow crops of food, and transport it, or let a cow graze locally, and simply eat it? Still, you’ll respond with “neither of us can know”.

        You’re right, it’s ONE of my reasons, and it isn’t even the strongest one. I’m not at a point where I need to give up eating the way I do to help with diabetes, because I’m not a diabetic! Did you ever think that most diabetics would probably do well to simply be off of processed sugars and grains? I’m not close minded to any ideas.

        Aside from all of my other arguments against a fruit-only diet, I wouldn’t be happy on it. I love eating what I eat now, and I don’t see any reason to stop or change. I love fruit, and I eat it when I want to. I don’t see the point of putting up a ridiculous limitation on everything else I enjoy consuming.



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 13:13

        “Does it take more added energy to grow crops of food, and transport it, or let a cow graze locally, and simply eat it?”

        do you know something i don’t..when i say i don’t know, i don’t know

        “Did you ever think that most diabetics would probably do well to simply be off of processed sugars and grains? I’m not close minded to any ideas.”

        of course, it helps…..but i’m not the one claiming “my grandfather to put himself in a diabetic coma by switching from his low sugar diet to an all fruit, sugar rich diet.”……

        i don’t remember ever telling you not to eat what you are eating…some who have changed their diets by limiting/cutting out meat, and increased fruit consumption have increased their health…aint nothing ridiculous about that



      • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 21:04

        People wanna see ’em. So I post them. But I have blogged about discounting them.



    • rob on March 10, 2011 at 13:29

      We can have a Bloodwork Duel … the two parties walk ten paces, turn, and reveal their bloodwork …. to the death!

      • el-bo on March 10, 2011 at 13:36

        “We can have a Bloodwork Duel … the two parties walk ten paces, turn, and reveal their bloodwork …. to the death!”

        haha 🙂

        winning is determined by the one who can read the other’s from the 20-pace distance, effectively silencing the arguments for or against pre-formed vitamin A



  25. Becky on March 10, 2011 at 15:47

    If going to heaven (eating purity, closer to god, blah, blah, blah) means I have to give up butter, steak, liver, free range eggs from my hens….then fuck heaven…and fuck veg*nism as well. Living in Ontario Canada, I’m sick of the cold, anyway! Bring on the eternal fires of damnation…my toes are cold.

    I’m counting the days till I can fire up the grill for the first time and in the mean time working on plans for a wood burning b-b-q.

  26. TJ on March 10, 2011 at 21:25

    If you think the 30 BAD crowd has a fucked-up, incomplete attitude towards food, look at their beliefs about sex:

    http://www.30bananasaday.com/forum/topics/nonorgasmic-sex-an-important

    Some of the commenters equate orgasms with heroin highs and others say that cutting out orgasmic sex (maybe a moot point with their anti-mojo diet) makes the raw vegan lifestyle more sustainable.

    WTF?

    • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 01:40

      of course, all 4500 members believe this

      why don’t you read the book, in question, and make up your own minds

      ignorance aint bliss; it’s just ignorance

      • TJ on March 11, 2011 at 07:12

        Hence the use of the word “some” and the phrase “and others.”

        BTW, the next time you imply somebody is ignorant, have less grammar and punctuation errors…



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 07:28

        i guess i was referring to your opening gambit about, referring to the “30bad crowd” and “their beliefs”

        my bad

        as for ignorant ?? don’t be so defensive. if i thought you to be THAT kind of ignorant, i wouldn’t have suggested you read the book.

        ——————————
        ig·no·rant adj \ˈig-n(ə-)rənt\
        Definition of IGNORANT

        1
        a : destitute of knowledge or education ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified
        ——————————-

        i was referring to the second which is something that reading the book might rectify

        as for my grammar ?? i know..i get really mixed up with all the rules…bad net habits make things even worse…don’t worry, i have every intention about being less ignorant of proper usage…i could start, by , getting, rid, of, all , those, fucking, commas !! “)

        p.s i think the ‘full-stop’ in “and others.”should fall outside the quotation marks 🙂



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 07:29

        * every intention OF



      • TJ on March 11, 2011 at 10:09

        Not in American English; but of course, you’re an Aussie, right?



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 10:30

        my bad…i thought that rule of keeping the full stop inside only applied to using speech marks for speech, and only at the end of a sentence….but you are quoting, and what you are quoting doesn’t have a full stop…it is the end of the sentence in which you quote, which is why i think the full stop belongs outside

        i’m sure you are right

        and no, i’m no aussie 🙂



      • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 08:51

        I love the non-argument “read the book,” as if people have the time or inclination to read fringe, obscure works of which there are legions.

        There are plenty of established evolutionists, biologists and anthropologists to keep me in pages for decades to come. Fortunately, it’s still real science enough that I have seen the science evolve and get better over the years. So long as that’s still happening I really have little fear I might miss out on something revelatory. Possible? Yes. Likely? I doubt it.



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 09:17

        there would seem to be far more to that book than any evolutionary implications….you don’t want to read it, that’s fine

        evolution is your thing…i get it…i’m absolutely ignorant in comparison…but, over the las few days, i haven’t got a sense from anyone that evolution shows us what are optimal diet is…it has been suggested that there isn’t one, as we have all adopted to whichever area we ended up living

        examining a certain “vegan menace shithead” with glowing health results shows the possibility of great health from a frugivore lifestyle…if evolution only shows us adaptations and our amazing survival mechanisms (but not our optimum diet) why would it be relevant to discussing the, apparent, health of a vegan ??

        as for people’s time or inclination to read fringe, obscure works…why not ?? we don’t all share the same interests



      • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 09:23

        “over the las few days, i haven’t got a sense from anyone that evolution shows us what are optimal diet”

        That’s only because you insist against all rational logic that the optimal diet is the one we evolved eating in the wild, which contain animal bits, just as it does for all primates and even herbivores.

        How ridiculous does it get?

        Well, as any zoologist if there is any problem anywhere in the world figuring out what the optimal diet is for any species.

        There is zero problem. Zero issue.

        Humans are the only ones, apparently, afflicted with the self-imposed stupidness disease.

        Rule number 1 is don’t be stupid.



      • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 20:24

        “and i have also credited you FOR your evolutionary knowledge, so my motivation for asking questions is innocent…that i have to ask again, in different ways is because i haven’t been getting a clear answer…of course, it turns out there isn’t one, but that wasn’t so clear before”

        Precisely. You always have to feign interest in evolution, as questions, pretend to be open but your mind was already made up long ago.

        “i’m really arguing for the health implications of choices that go against what we seemed to evolve on…”

        Right there exposes your ignorance. The fact of millions of years of successful survival long before the saftety net of civilization precisely argues for the prudence of looking to evolution — meat eating — for the potentially best human diet.

        ” i do believe that we were frugivorous creatures, at one point”

        No, h. Sapiens have never, ever been frugivorous, excepting of course a small fringe group who call themselves vegans and unlike every other species on the planet goes out of their way to avoid nutrition any other creature would readily eat.

        yes, we evolved from species who were umpteeen millions of years ago frugivorous and hundreds of millions of years before that, ocean dwellers. Go back far enough and we ought to just eat plankton.

        You are no understanding, not even a little bit. I don’t know what it is, but I don’t care, either. You do not have the slightest grasp of how evolution works, so far as I can tell.

        Why don’t you actually get a solid book on evolution and just read the damn thing?

        This one’s excellent.



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 09:43

        “That’s only because you insist against all rational logic that the optimal diet is the one we evolved eating in the wild, which contain animal bits, just as it does for all primates and even herbivores.”

        i’m not insisting against rational logic….i make no claims on an optimal diet as you do…i’ve told ya, i’m open minded

        as we are not obligate carnivores, we have choices..your evolution shows we have eaten meat but i’m missing the part that says we need to…as you think i’m stupid, i’m happy for you to make the explanation as dumb as you like 🙂

        what is it about harley’s health results that aren’t looking ‘optimal’ ??



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 09:45

        p.s i have a black belt in self deprecation..you won’t insult me better than i can insult myself…so, perhaps lay off the schoolyard antics, si ??



      • Richard Nikoley on March 11, 2011 at 10:56

        “i make no claims on an optimal diet as you do”

        Oh cut the mutherkucking crap, el-bo, you persistent fuck.

        Do you think for a second I don’t know who you are? You’re the simplest of interlocutors the world ever knew: pretend to take no stand. Don’t argue any position. Just “ask questions.” “Be open minded.” That way, you get to irritate the fuck out of everyone…not by making them think at all, but by saying the same thing over and over in slightly different ways and being a general irritant by posing unanswerable questions and pretending that if one has no answer their knowledge is somehow deficient.

        It’s a profoundly dishonest approach.

        It’s very simple: until PROVEN otherwise, the “optimal diet” for any species is the one they have evolved eating.

        You see, that’s your con. You assert there’s no proven “optimal diet” when in fact it’s a non-concept. All we know for any species is “good enough,” a-priori given the very fact they evolved and survived in the first place.

        Moreover, there is no point in seeking “optimal” beyond that because, well, evolution always takes care of that.

        You’re either a fool for no seeing what’s right in front of you or you’re on a fool’s errand, believing there’s an objective answer or any such thing to the question of “optimal diet.”



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 12:10

        “Do you think for a second I don’t know who you are? You’re the simplest of interlocutors the world ever knew: pretend to take no stand. Don’t argue any position. Just “ask questions.” “Be open minded.” That way, you get to irritate the fuck out of everyone…not by making them think at all, but by saying the same thing over and over in slightly different ways and being a general irritant by posing unanswerable questions and pretending that if one has no answer their knowledge is somehow deficient.”

        clearly, you know nothing about me….i’m not looking to irritate you…despite a little teasing and slight provocation, i’m not responsible for your reactions…..

        you’ve already chided me for my lack of knowledge (and stupidity), and i have also credited you FOR your evolutionary knowledge, so my motivation for asking questions is innocent…that i have to ask again, in different ways is because i haven’t been getting a clear answer…of course, it turns out there isn’t one, but that wasn’t so clear before

        “It’s a profoundly dishonest approach.”

        well, i’m sure you don’t believe me even though i’ve tried to explain

        “You see, that’s your con. You assert there’s no proven “optimal diet” when in fact it’s a non-concept”

        i have NO “con”….despite it being a non-concept doesn’t seem to stop you from discussing it further

        “All we know for any species is “good enough,” a-priori given the very fact they evolved and survived in the first place.”

        okay, so we agree with the idea of “good enough”

        “It’s very simple: until PROVEN otherwise, the “optimal diet” for any species is the one they have evolved eating.”

        this is a really strange statement…you have already declared it a non-concept and i think it’s just about “good enough”…so how do we disprove a non-concept ??

        i’m really arguing for the health implications of choices that go against what we seemed to evolve on and whether, from a health point of view, they are sustainable…i am NOT disputing your knowledge of evolution, nor in its role of continuing our species

        “You’re either a fool for no seeing what’s right in front of you or you’re on a fool’s errand, believing there’s an objective answer or any such thing to the question of “optimal diet.”

        i don’t believe there’s an objective answer or an optimal diet…haven’t we got past that ?? i do believe that we were frugivorous creatures, at one point….i’m sure you think i’m an idiot for holding that belief, but at this point it’s maybe a product of just not reading the right things….i am open minded, and those beliefs are open to change in the face of reading the evidence…it is not a baseless belief, as i have read (up till now) a lot of material that would seem to suggest it, but don’t call me an idiot just for not having been exposed to ‘correct’ materials

        i’ll say it again, what i’m really arguing for is the choice to not eat animals, should one decide to…fuck ‘optimal’….can a meatless diet lead to health ?? even, great health ??……it would seem so

        anyways, i’m really out this time….y’all seem to be quite upset by my presence, despite me being such a fool…and you (richard) seem to be on the brink of getting frustrated to the point of real nastiness…..i can’t be bothered with any of that nonsense

        believe it or not, i wish you well



      • ryboto on March 11, 2011 at 12:39

        one example of health does not lead me to the same conclusion of “it would seem so”. Until we have long term evidence that you can sustain a healthy lifestyle just eating fruit, all we have to go on are the testimonials of many 30BaD users that have had to change their diets because of deteriorating health after being told to eat more and more fruit. Rotting/sensitive teeth, poor energy levels, among other issues have been reported.

        You’re using 1 person as an example to prove a point, not a very strong argument.



      • Brendan on March 13, 2011 at 07:26

        Why would someone risk their health by following a suboptimal diet by not eating animals?

        I don’t see how a low fat frugivorous vegan diet can leads to “Great Health”. Homo Sapiens for the past 2.5 millions years were never frugivores or vegan so naturally it is not logical to say it may leads to “Great Health”. Some may do ok on it, but most will not.



      • ryboto on March 11, 2011 at 10:29

        “glowing health results”….he looks emaciated. He sleeps 16 hours a day. He takes supplements. I really should reconsider this banana thing!



      • el-bo on March 11, 2011 at 10:51

        i think he actually sleeps more like 10 hours, though it varies….he uses one supplement and emaciated ?? his physique is not borne of sickly malnutrition and is not representative of all vegans or 811’ers



      • ryboto on March 11, 2011 at 11:44

        he looks emaciated. that he has to supplement at all is worth noting. All I know is that the low-fat vegans I’ve seen look very unhealthy.



  27. zombiegirl2010 on March 11, 2011 at 13:23

    I just wanted to say that the dish looks delicious!!

  28. Tomasz on March 14, 2011 at 16:55

    Funny thing, certain vegans have already answered question about what to eat in colder climates… by claiming that humans shouldn’t live there.

    http://mangodurian.blogspot.com/2010/05/interview-with-fruitarian-35-robert.html

    0:08 “I was born in Scotland, but raised in New Zeland, both cold climate countries. Always had a desire when I was growing up in New Zeland to move to more tropical area, which I felt was more naturally inclined where humans should really be and finding their true sense of nutrition mainly in a tropical area where it is easier and not so much hardship on the body as living in a colder climate”

    Interesting is that in the early human prehistory most population invasions were from the north to the south, due to better weapons and tougher people – benefits of having to endure harships. So these hunters, with better weapons, wend south and wiped out preexisting populations that relied more on fruits.

    http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/05/out-of-north-eurasia.html

    Other quotes from the fruitarian interview:
    9:27 “our purpose on the Earth is to propagate trees”
    24:14 “it doesn’t really matter if the human specie survive in the long term”

    BTW. What’s with this guy’s chest musculature? Is this related to “Dry fasts” (7:33), or his plans to eat even less (25:00) “I’d say my diet would improve not by eating more but by eating less”?

    • Richard Nikoley on March 14, 2011 at 17:28

      Tomasz:

      You raise points that have seemed intuitive to me for a long time. It was back, living in France in the early 90s and having dumped religion and begun thinking in terms of human Evolution I noted that all the Industrial countries were relatively cold and colder in the winter.

      In discussing this with the French navy officers I worked with they all agreed, relating stories of the general “laziness” of the indigenous populations of Tahiti, Fiji and other S Pacific islands with a French presence that they’d either vacationed in or done a post of duty.

      I still remember how one officer put it: “Why go fishing? We have fish.”

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780