Vores (great website references for both sides)

[Guest guest]

Here is a great site with critique of eating meat and the idea that

humans are omnivores

 

http://www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html

 

He sounds a little fanatical in places but there is some real science

to be filtered out of a lot of it.

 

 

And here is a great site which talks about the diet our paleolithic

ancestors would have eaten, what some might call a " natural " diet (not

to be confused with " best " diet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

 

http://www.paleodiet.com/

 

 

 

So, perhaps there is both a NATURAL diet, and a BEST diet, and they

are not the same. Interesting. It would depend on what YOU, as an

INDIVIDUAL, define as " best " , " natural " , and how far back in time you

would like to go. My definition for natural is what science tells us

we did/ate as cavemen. My definition for best would be what makes us

live longest. Depending on which axioms and precepts you wish to

weight more or less or what matters more to you, or if you do not wish

to separate " best " from " natural " (as I just did) your definitions

will be different.

 

Cheers, have fun reading!

 

Joe

[Guest guest]

> So, perhaps there is both a NATURAL diet, and a BEST diet, and they

> are not the same.

 

That doesn't make sense to me. The best diet for any animal is their

natural diet. So they would be one and the same. Now, what man CAN

eat and what man was DESIGNED to eat -- THOSE are " two differnet

things " . But optimal diet can only be the natural diet for man.

 

My definition for natural is what science tells us

> we did/ate as cavemen.

 

My definition for natural is definitely NOT what people did in times

of desperation. How is that anything close to ideal? Cavemen didn't

exactly thrive - they merely survived. Big difference! They aren't

exactly noted for their brilliance, either.

 

My definition for best would be what makes us

> live longest.

 

Honestly, science has concluded that the human body is designed to

last upwards of 140 years. In some cultures, centarians (?) are very

common. Neither paleolithic man or present day man has achieved

this, so why look to the cavemen? They didn't live the longest by a

landslide.

[Guest guest]

On Monday 17 September 2007 18:01, Joe Postma wrote:

> Here is a great site with critique of eating meat and the idea that

> humans are omnivores

>

> http://www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html

>

> He sounds a little fanatical in places but there is some real science

> to be filtered out of a lot of it.

>

>

> And here is a great site which talks about the diet our paleolithic

> ancestors would have eaten, what some might call a " natural " diet (not

> to be confused with " best " diet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

>

> http://www.paleodiet.com/

>

>

>

> So, perhaps there is both a NATURAL diet, and a BEST diet, and they

> are not the same.  Interesting.  It would depend on what YOU, as an

> INDIVIDUAL, define as " best " , " natural " , and how far back in time you

> would like to go.  My definition for natural is what science tells us

> we did/ate as cavemen.  My definition for best would be what makes us

> live longest.  Depending on which axioms and precepts you wish to

> weight more or less or what matters more to you, or if you do not wish

> to separate " best " from " natural " (as I just did) your definitions

> will be different.

>

> Cheers, have fun reading!

>

> Joe

 

I'll check those out later, thanks.

 

I had been wondering today about some of the earliest so called civilizations,

prior to the development of farming and cultivation. How they predominantly

developed around the coastal areas and lived mainly on a diet of sea food.

(although personally, I can't abide sea food).

 

neal.

[Guest guest]

Hi Erica,

 

I will repeat

 

" Depending on which axioms and precepts you wish to

weight more or less or what matters more to you, or if you do not wish

to separate " best " from " natural " (as I just did) your definitions

will be different. "

 

And your conclusions will be different too. " Ideal " can mean many

different things, and not necessarily long life. We tend to make the

assumption that the longest life is best, but this is only because we

are afraid to die and experience that ultimate of spiritual existence.

The assumptions we make and take for granted can have a drastic

effect on the outcome of our reasoning, but those are the ones which

usually need questioning.

 

There's elements of truth in ALL of our conclusions. I do appreciate

you sharing your way of defining things and concluding things and that

it is different from mine...this is what gives life flavor and passion!

 

Cheers,

 

Joe

 

 

rawfood , " Erica " <schoolofrawk wrote:

>

>

> > So, perhaps there is both a NATURAL diet, and a BEST diet, and they

> > are not the same.

>

> That doesn't make sense to me. The best diet for any animal is their

> natural diet. So they would be one and the same. Now, what man CAN

> eat and what man was DESIGNED to eat -- THOSE are " two differnet

> things " . But optimal diet can only be the natural diet for man.

>

> My definition for natural is what science tells us

> > we did/ate as cavemen.

>

> My definition for natural is definitely NOT what people did in times

> of desperation. How is that anything close to ideal? Cavemen didn't

> exactly thrive - they merely survived. Big difference! They aren't

> exactly noted for their brilliance, either.

>

> My definition for best would be what makes us

> > live longest.

>

> Honestly, science has concluded that the human body is designed to

> last upwards of 140 years. In some cultures, centarians (?) are very

> common. Neither paleolithic man or present day man has achieved

> this, so why look to the cavemen? They didn't live the longest by a

> landslide.

>

[Guest guest]

> I will repeat

>

> " Depending on which axioms and precepts you wish to

> weight more or less or what matters more to you, or if you do not

wish

> to separate " best " from " natural " (as I just did) your definitions

> will be different. "

>

> And your conclusions will be different too.

 

Joe -

 

It's funny - I almost put that of course QUALITY OF LIFE almost

surpasses longevity, although since we are talking about health here

I figured it is assumed that we the quality would be high. I agree -

being 97 but incoherent and incontinent is not a good gauge of

health. I also agree most are afraid of death (I really am not,

though).

 

Still, how is it true that SCIENTIFICALLY there could be two

different answers as far as what the natural/ideal diet is for man?

It is not possible. Within the animal kingdom, every single species

eats one diet. One zebra will not eat a high meat diet while one

zebra only eats vegetation, etc. They all eat the same. Ditto for

all creatures in nature. Except of course for man, who believes they

are smarter than nature and can do a better job than God.

 

Based on our digestive type, the digestive enzymes we have, our

manual dexterity, our lack of bloodlust, our low HCL content, among

other tell-tale characteristics, it is easy to see we are designed

to eat and that of course it should be raw, like every other

species.

 

That we stray from that is not an indication that we are so much

more complex than other species, it is an indication that we are

that much further apart from nature. This is also obvious by all the

human-exclusive dis-eases we get.

 

Furthermore, let's not forget the impact of eating animals on the

environment. That people would still argue for the breeding and

killing of other animals for " human health " purposes is simply

ridiculous.

[Guest guest]

Living by the design of nature, and figuring out what that design is,

is the question, I believe. I believe the natural hygienists have

answered that question better than any I have read to date.

 

Also, I believe the labels " omnivore, carnivore, herbivore " are used

to describe what CAN be eaten, and not what the body was DESIGNED to

eat most efficiently.

 

For those interested in learning more about natural hygiene, writings

by Dr. Herbert Shelton can be found at www.soilandhealth.org.

 

Janet

 

rawfood , " Joe Postma " <joepostma wrote:

 

Here is a great site with critique of eating meat and the idea that

humans are omnivores http://www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html He sounds a

little fanatical in places but there is some real science to be

filtered out of a lot of it.

 

 

And here is a great site which talks about the diet our paleolithic

ancestors would have eaten, what some might call a " natural " diet (not

to be confused with " best " diet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

 

http://www.paleodiet.com/ So, perhaps there is both a NATURAL diet,

and a BEST diet, and they are not the same. Interesting. It would

depend on what YOU, as an INDIVIDUAL, define as " best " , " natural " , and

how far back in time you would like to go. My definition for natural

is what science tells us we did/ate as cavemen. My definition for

best would be what makes us live longest. Depending on which axioms

and precepts you wish to weight more or less or what matters more to

you, or if you do not wish to separate " best " from " natural " (as I

just did) your definitions will be different.

 

Cheers, have fun reading!

 

Joe