Dr. Doug Graham (80-10-10 raw vegan)

[Aractus]

No, you shouldn't. You didn't even know what cholesterol is.

How did you determine that?

You've demonstrated it.

Vegan diets often lead to cholesterol deficiency

Your (not anecdotal) evidence is?

Look it up yourself that's a fact that stands out very clearly.

Everyone has to die eventually.

Why? Who decided that? Even if that is true, would that mean we should not try to prevent death?

Are you fucking serious?

As you can clearly see, the condition is much more prevalent among older people. And this is just people with the condition, not necessarily people that go on to die from that particular condition. Of people aged 45-54, 23% had CVD.

Take a look at this:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx...eid=286620

300 autopsies were performed on US battle casualties in Korea, the average age was 22. I quote:

In 77,3% of the hearts, some gross evidence of coronary arteriosclerosis was found.

Okay, that was in 1953, where if the USA was similar to Australia CVD prevalence peaked:



How is that relevant to now?

In this context, gross evidence means visible to the eye. In some of the soldiers, some arteries were clogged for 90%. This publication shows that heart disease starts decades before the age CVD is a clinically recognized problem (before symptoms arise).

And that's why I gave you the proper estimated numbers and not the diagnosed numbers.

A similar study with over 1500 autopsies confirmed the findings. This study found fatty streaks, the first stage of atherosclerosis, in almost a 100% of children of age 10.

That was in 1968. That field of research ultimately lead to the USA surgeon general issuing the warning that animal fat causes coronary problems (which we now know isn't true), and recommended decreasing animal fat by 1/4. Despite accomplishing this, the health of the USA continued to decline to the present.

No, you don't. When I pressed you to answer whether someone should continue veganism if they find that it's bad for their health, you gave me some nonsense about CVD

I told you that they should improve their diet because it is probably faulty, but if there is no other way by all means they should eat meat.

I'm surprised to hear you finally admit that.

However, for the huge majority of people a vegan diet is not unhealthful at all.

That's not what the archaeological record shows. Loren Cordian read thousands of peer-reviewed published articles, and thoroughly researched it. His 1999 peer review paper I linked to in the previous thread. When ancient bones have been tested in laboratories across the world, human bones that go back 200,000 years, every single one of them until 10,000 years ago (with the development of agriculture) obtained all of their protein from animal sources (meats). 100%. When agriculture came, wheat and its derivatives became a staple and then serious public health problems occurred including as I mentioned tooth decay (note though that they still all ate some meat). There has not been a single ancient vegan human ever discovered older than the last 200 years. And those who were, were usually facing famine or other stresses and did very poorly.

Furthermore, whenever grain-based diets were adopted there were serious chronic public health problems that followed - this is true in Ancient Egypt, in China and Asia, and right across the ancient world. And certainly all the evidence shows that until 10,000 years ago not a single human didn't eat either meat or fish.

You know, edible is a pretty vague term. Where do you draw the line between bad food and not food? Dirt is not food, but are donuts? Are extremely alcoholic drink, decisively bad for our health? Please define what you mean by edible.

Alcohol provides energy, while having an inverse effect on cognitive function. Also, fermentation provides sanitation to the water (while converting it to wine or vinegar) and there are a number of examples both ancient and more modern where this lead to public health benefits. Doughnut also provide energy. Dirt and grass do not provide humans with any energy.

I agree, our teeth are designed by evolution to be able to shear meat. That proves nothing more than that we are designed to be able to eat some meat, and says nothing about if it is healthy. Also, I don't think cavities are relevant as they have little effect on natural selection.

Right, and yet there is an abundance of evidence that suggests that cereal grains are the root cause of the increase in chronic diseases. The reason being that they don't provide any nutrition besides energy. They are very very low in vitamins and minerals and generally contain little to no protein. Furthermore they also inhibit absorption of vital minerals, essential amino acids and vitamins. This, again, is talked about in scientific literature going back at least 100 years. The recent research done continues to support the findings.

So in order for you to have a new diet, a new way of eating that is different to what humans have done for 200,000 years or longer you need to provide hard credible evidence, other I believe that we are evolutionarily geared towards eating the diet that our ancestors adopted and maintained and thrived upon.

---

Well, we do need to feed the livestock with plants, so that does not seem relevant especially as 50% of the world's grains are fed to livestock.

Where did you pull that figure from? Livestock in Australia primarily eat grass. Dairy cows for instance only eat grass, and would only be fed grain when grass was unavailable. Of the cattle reared for beef, 20% only fed grass, and 80% are fed wheat in the last 2 months or so prior to slaughter in order to fatten them up.

And if you're really that concerned you can always insist to buy grass-fed beef or lamb. For lamb, feedlots only provide a very limited financial benefit and are not used anywhere near as widely (although I'll admit I haven't looked it up). In any case, sheep are primarily fed pasture.

"100% free-range Australian Lamb is all-natural, grass-fed, pasture-raised and free of artificial additives and hormone growth promotants—a pure product of its pure environment. Lambs graze on natural Australian grasslands throughout their lives. (If a regional drought occurs, local feeding may, by necessity, be temporarily supplemented with grain, usually wheat and/or oats until the drought is alleviated.)"

The very last thing humanity needs is to be eating more grains, so if some of that grain is used for rearing livestock that's perfectly fine.

Because livestock can process things which are not useful to us into that which is useful to us

Albeit not very efficiently, and we might as well start growing things that are useful to us instead.

No, they can do it very efficiently. You can have sheep or cattle eat nothing but grass and pasture and produce meat. Most of the land in Australia used for rearing livestock is unsuitable for agriculture and is the best use of the land.