Not sure what your point is Nickolas. It's works the other way too. What your posts tells me is that you've reprogrammed your mind and that your eating meat or not comes from intellectual decisions. Should you decide to eat meat again in ten or twenty years, what you may find is that your body will have to learn how to digest meat again and it won't be over night.
Interesting observation Grasshopper. Not sure how that is cruel to red fleshed animals. And most 'allergens' are intolerances brought on by industrial food practices eg many people who can't handle cow's milk do ok if they eat it raw, organic, unhomogenised, or naturally processed (yoghurt).
Very good point!! I fully agree! Dairy's a whole different story from other foods, we're the only animal who drinks milk beyond infancy, so it's no wonder some of our population can't tolerate it.
i had no intentions of staying on a meat free diet when i first started it, i only started it because i could not afford to buy meat for a few weeks as i was inbetween jobs. i had no intellectual decisions about it with anyone in the beginning as i thought it was not going to last. i didn't realy care at one stage if i whent back to eating meat or not but then i would smell it being cooked and i would start to feel ill about eating it again.
No, that's not exactly true. Henry David Thoreau noted that squirrels will take acorn nuts and pile them into mini-compost piles that do indeed, over winter, cook some of the acorn nuts. Source: "Wild Apples" Also, don't ants harvest and grow fungi as well?
Oh yeah, I wanted to point something out about that "Wild Apples" book. It contains the secret to NOT getting BLIGHT on your apple trees, short answer... ..if you have an apple tree in a forest, you never have to worry.
We're the only animal that does lots of things, but that doesn't negate my point. Cooking food breaks it down more making it easier to digest, which although this does have to do with our diet, is actually the exact opposite of my overall point here. No one is allergic to cooked foods, as far as I know (unless you count burnt food being a carcinogen as an allergy), but many people are allergic to milk. When we started eating non-human dairy past birth, when most humans were accustomed to losing their lactase enzyme as they got older, of course there's going to be some problems. Perhaps sometime in the future, all humans will be able to eat dairy, once we all evolve a persistent lactase enzyme (although with how many vegans and currently lactose intolerant people there are out there, that's not likely to happen).
As a side note, when humans first started drinking animal milk, it was reserved exclusively for children, to supplement their diet and make them grow up strong. Obviously, older people wanted in on the fun eventually, but at it's discovery, dairy was just for children. Also, yes, ants farm fungus as well as aphids. We're not the only ones who do lots of things, but because of how good we are at altering our environment, and because it's us, we think we're very special in many of things we do, when in reality, we're just doing it much more destructively and unnecessarily complicatedly (irony intended).
What I understand is that some cultures, that have traditionally eaten dairy, haven't had large rates of diary intolerance until recently. There are cultures where drinking milk has been happening for thousands of years. The theory is that homogenisation and pasteurisation of milk, as well as modern industrial diary farming practices have changed milk fundamentally, and so humans find it difficult to digest. I say theory because there hasn't been much science done on this, but there is alot of empirical evidence from people who have tried these things out for themselves. Homogenising milk changes protein structure, and pasteurisation kills beneficial microbes necessary for digestion. We can no longer talk about milk as one thing. The milk I drink (raw, organic, cow) is a different food than what most people buy at the supermarket. Also, many other modern practices affect digestion, from our general diets, to lack of exercise, stress, environmental pollutants etc. AFAIK true lactose intolerance is not that common. Can you please give a source for that? Are you talking about archeological evidence? " is actually the exact opposite of my overall point here" I thought your point was that because no other animals drink milk as adults there was something wrong with humans doing it ;-)
Fair enough Nickolas. I'm still not sure what your point is though. You talked in the previous post about undoing childhood programming. You seem to be saying now that this was not to do with belief or ideas about meat. I find it very hard to believe that it was simply a physiological process, finding meat smell off putting after only a few days.
There's no doubt that raw, organic, non-antibiotic milk is a totally different food from pasteurized, anti-biotic, blood/puss laden (from overworked udders) milk. I agree with you on that one. However, I would personally like to see sources cited for there being any difference in digestion capability between raw and non-raw milk. I believe you that there are microbes in raw milk, but whether they aid in digestion or not, I'm not sure. It's something I'd definitely be curious of though, and something that I'm sure could be a compelling case for those fighting for the right to consume and sell raw milk! "United States The prevalence of primary lactose intolerance varies according to race. As many as 25% of the white population (prevalence in those from southern European roots) is estimated to have lactose intolerance, while among black, Native American, and Asian American populations, the prevalence of lactose intolerance is estimated at 75-90%.[2] International Of the world's population, 75% is estimated to be lactose-deficient. Lactose intolerance is very common among Asian, South American, and African persons." https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/187249-overview#a0199 Even if well over half of that percentage is only intolerant of processed milk, I would still say that "true" lactose intolerance is still pretty damn common. An additional quote from that article that further illustrates my point that we're not "naturally" meant to drink milk, but because we have for so long, those in that particular genetic line have developed a tolerance to it: "Within the animal world, nonhuman mammals usually lose the ability to digest lactose as they reach adulthood. Some populations of the human species, including those of Asian, South American, and African descent, have a propensity for developing lactase deficiency. By contrast, races descended from northern Europe or from the northwestern Indian subcontinent are likely to retain the ability to absorb lactose into adulthood." I'm not saying it's wrong, just that many/most of us are not naturally inclined to do so. It's a great, nutritious, delicious food, and I personally eat it almost daily, so I'm not arguing against it, just that it's a recent addition to our diet, and requires a specialized enzyme to digest. If you don't eat it on a regular basis, which means that your body doesn't need to produce that enzyme, or your genetics are such that you can't produce that enzyme past infancy, then raw or not, you're going to be allergic to milk. Maybe over time you can "wean" yourself onto it little by little, as I'm sure our ancestors had to do Although in doing some research, I found that they believe that several genetic factors, such as mutations and natural selection (those who were able to drink milk in times of famine were able to reproduce more) led to a general tolerance for dairy in certain populations. I looked into it, and couldn't find a source for it, but I heard someone talking about it on the radio the other day. It makes sense if you think about it, but I unfortunately can't prove it. :/
It's not just lactose intolerance that is the issue with milk. There's also casein allergy and betacasomorphin 7 sensitivity.
I'm aware of the ethnicity differences with regards to lactose intolerance. Personally I think the Chinese are crazy to be pushing milk products on their population and that it will lead to some serious problems. However, when I see a secondary source makings statements that include the words 'as many as' and 'estimated' I want to see the science that was used to come up with those figures. Were they measuring lactose deficiency(and how) or where they going off reported symptoms? From your same link: "Symptoms of lactose intolerance include loose stools, abdominal bloating and pain, flatulence, nausea, and borborygmi" All I can say is that in the over 4 decades I've been alive I've not come across that many people that talk about those symptoms in relation to dairy. And I have always been around people with a high degree of awareness of health. So when you make statements like 'most/many' I am skeptical. I'm not saying that lactose intolerance doesn't exist, but I am challenging the intellectual pathway that goes from "some people can't drink milk without causing problems in their body" to "dairy is not a natural food for humans, or most humans aren't inclined to do so". My own philosophy is that diet is a very personal thing, and certainly if I were Asian or descended from parts of Africa that have no history of drinking milk then I would be looking at whether milk worked for me as a food. But I wouldn't be saying that most humans shouldn't be drinking milk. I would also be looking at other issues too. The research you cite is almost certain to have been done on the US population, who eat a very strange diet by human historical standards. Like I said, many things affect digestion and in order for science to be more useful those things would need to be taken into account. Have you read much on this? As I said, not much mainstream science has been done on this, but there is plenty of empirical evidence. It's not rocket science to drink a glass of raw milk and find one's digestion improving. I've certainly experienced this. I don't drink pasteurised milk because of this. I don't have lactose intolerance btw, but have other dairy allergies and need to be careful of how much I eat. I've also read alot of first person reports from people whose health has improved from drinking raw milk including people who can tolerate raw milk but not pasteurised/homogenised. What would be really good now would be some solid scientific investigation into this phenomena, but until that happens I'm willing to believe people's accounts. "I looked into it, and couldn't find a source for it, but I heard someone talking about it on the radio the other day. It makes sense if you think about it, but I unfortunately can't prove it. :/" No worries. I'm not sure if it does make sense. I would think about it in terms of peoples who domesticated mammals eg horses and goats, and using milk to supplement babies would evolve alongside other uses of milk including adults drinking/eating it. It would make sense that they would make use of such a fine source of nutrients from their animals especially in pre-ag cultures where it would provide a stable source of food, and fits very well with permaculture/multiple use. Humans domesticated mammals long before they started growing grains, so we are talking about more than 10,000 years ago. That is easily enough time to adapt to eating dairy.
After a few days at least 99% of the meat is out of your system and you are no longer sweating the residue of the meat out of your pores! when you stop eating meat you stop sweating it out and if you stay away from other people that eat meat you stop smelling the meat residue sweat type smell altogether and then you stop getting used to it, this is how a most mammals can tell the difference between herbivore's and carnivores. the process is similar to someone who lives in a pigsty of a house, they will not think that it smells because they live there but if you bring someone who is blind folded and who comes from living in a clean house then they will think that the pigsty of a house smells horrible.
So are you saying you can tell what I had for breakfast just by smelling my sweat? What a novel skill, you should take that on the road! Seriously though, I'd like to see the science on that one. I know our chemistry changes depending on your diet, but I've been a vegetarian for at least 6 years now, and I still find the smell of meat delicious. Granted, I'm not a true vegetarian anymore, but even when I was, I would smell meat, even the most disgusting meat like burger king, and it would smell like deliciousness. It may have been the case for you, but I think you're just projecting your ideological beliefs onto science. Show me the study that says that our sweat composition changes whether we eat more or not, and therefor if you don't eat meat you're disgusted by the smell, and I'll eat my words, but otherwise, please base your statements on science, not ideology.
I think what Nickolas has just written is idiotic (more in a minute), but I do think body smell changes depending on what ones eats. Just not in the way that Nickolas says. So yeah, where's the evidence?
This is such crap. When I started eating meat again, I often went days or weeks without eating meat, and still ate a predominantly vegetarian diet. For years. So according to your theory, every time I didn't eat meat for a few days I stop sweating meat and therefore don't want meat anymore. Didn't happen. Your second paragraph is just plain offensive. Eating meat is not a form of uncleanliness. I am sorry if you can no longer tolerate the smell of meat or meat eaters, but I now consider you to have an eating disorder. Many people who don't eat meat don't find meat eaters a problem, so there is nothing inherent in being vegetarian that makes one pure and means one can't live easily alongside meat eaters. I suspect you have philosophies that promote ideas of purity and uncleanliness. Such ideas are anti-life and have done numerous damage to the planet and humans through the ages. We are NEVER going to be a vegan or vegetarian species. If you cannot live with that without negative judgements, then you have a serious problem.
I don't understand this thread, and I am surprised by its 'popularity'. The whole premise is insulting.
It's an interesting subject to discuss, but I generally agree with your sentiment Grahame. Also, pebble, while I generally agree with your overall point, I think that those who have chosen to lead a meat-free life should be respected and equally not criticized, so long as they are eating conscious of how their foods are grown, and don't criticize others for their dietary choices. I do think it's acceptable to preach about animal cruelty, because that is a legitimate issue. Factory farms are a bane to the earth's ecosystemic stability, and so the more people who know about how incredibly atrocious these operations are, the better. If you feel moved to eliminate meat from your diet entirely, fine, but once you start lumping those who eat meat ethically, sustainably, and healthfully, with those who don't, we're no longer on the same page. I suppose it's really just a matter of opinion, but I generally agree, for various reasons, both ecological and social, we will never be a totally vegetarian or vegan species. Even when the earth warms to the point of being entirely covered in forests, I'm sure people will still be eating meat for nutrition and taste. It's far too ingrained in our cultures and preferences.
