men and wolves (were Re: Lance Armstrong & physical abilities

[Guest guest]

-

>What is the meaning of all of this? That we are bound to have a meat-

>based diet? Probably yes, though I personally find a more varied diet

>more appealing, economical, social and colourful and less monotonous.

>But of course more liable to mistakes, no?

Well, I'd argue that any meat-free diet is going to doom its practitioner

to sub-optimal health, so I guess so, yes.

>Yet I find difficulty in comparing men to wolves. Wolves are

>*natural* hunters or predators, while men are *opportunistic*. In

>other words, I have difficulty in considering man to strictly be a

>carnivore (meat-eater). I would even go as far as to say that modern

>man could live on very little meat or even no meat at all, with the

>proviso that he might get his protein from fish, eggs or both. I

>don't expect to find a lot of people sharing this view, though.

I honestly don't see the separation between meat and fish that many people

do. Both are the flesh of animals. Obviously there are various

nutritional differences, but I think " vegetarians " who eat fish aren't

really vegetarians. Certainly a " vegetarian " who eats fish, dairy and eggs

is in a whole different class from a vegan. Vegans are completely

screwed. Ovo-lacto-pesco-vegetarians can sometimes enjoy decent health.

That said, I think red meat from ruminants has a lot of really valuable

nutrients that are hard to find elsewhere. Our ancestors killed and ate

lots of grazing megafauna on the savannahs.

-

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> -

>

> >What is the meaning of all of this? That we are bound to have a

meat-

> >based diet? Probably yes, though I personally find a more varied

diet

> >more appealing, economical, social and colourful and less

monotonous.

> >But of course more liable to mistakes, no?

>

> Well, I'd argue that any meat-free diet is going to doom its

practitioner

> to sub-optimal health, so I guess so, yes.

>

> >Yet I find difficulty in comparing men to wolves. Wolves are

> >*natural* hunters or predators, while men are *opportunistic*. In

> >other words, I have difficulty in considering man to strictly be a

> >carnivore (meat-eater). I would even go as far as to say that

modern

> >man could live on very little meat or even no meat at all, with the

> >proviso that he might get his protein from fish, eggs or both. I

> >don't expect to find a lot of people sharing this view, though.

>

> I honestly don't see the separation between meat and fish that many

people

> do. Both are the flesh of animals. Obviously there are various

> nutritional differences, but I think " vegetarians " who eat fish

aren't

> really vegetarians. Certainly a " vegetarian " who eats fish, dairy

and eggs

> is in a whole different class from a vegan. Vegans are completely

> screwed. Ovo-lacto-pesco-vegetarians can sometimes enjoy decent

health.

>

> That said, I think red meat from ruminants has a lot of really

valuable

> nutrients that are hard to find elsewhere. Our ancestors killed

and ate

> lots of grazing megafauna on the savannahs.

>

>

>

>

> -

:

I am not concerned with vegans. Veganism doesn't make sense to me,

although you often find people (mostly on the Net) claiming they are

totally vegan (without cheating) and enjoy radiant health.

Until sometime ago most if not all fish were fished, while most if

not all meat was raised. In many cases, that made a difference. Of

course ocean fish has a lot of problems nowadays, but in my mind you

can live and thrive on fish and seafood as excellently as on meat

(red or white). I would say that ovo-pesco-vegetarians (however

bizarre such a denomination is) can actually have excellent (not

simply decent as you put) health, even without meat. Of course, if

the only flesh you eat is fish and seafood, you may be creating a

rather dull diet for yourself, for meat adds a lot of variety, too.

But in terms of protein, EFAs, minerals, and digestibility, fish and

seafood seems to offers all you need and to be on the same level as

meat if not superior. And maybe it is silly to add this, but... since

fish are cold-blooded animals and rather apathetic (unless I am very

wrong), you don't usually feel an intense connection with them and so

killing them is less of an emotional issue than killing a warm-

blooded mammal.

Regards,

JC