The Vegetarian Myth

odyssic

The Force is Strong With This One
Hi Richard,

While treating various patients for cancer and other illnesses, Max Gerson discovered that removing fat helped heal the tumors. Not quite the same as 'excess good fat causes cancer', though that could be possible. What types and how much is I suppose the question. At first he cut them all out, and then began to include fats back in so that patients could get the essential fats. Purportedly he tried numerous vegetable fats and oils, and all of the ones he tried seemed linked to the return of the tumors. He found that flax oil in a limited amount (2 tbsp a day) was an effective way to get essential fats without exacerbating the condition. Flax seeds he believed had an enzyme that inhibited digestion. I'm not sure about all of the fats he tried yet, though it might be contained in his studies. I read his daughter's Gerson Therapy book and practiced the diet myself.

Gerson treated 100's of patients over decades, and put his research into a study and a few articles, like A Cancer Treatment- The Result of 50 cases.

I agree. The 'bad foods' they gave up seemed to be animal products, dairy, most fat, and salt. While supplementing deficiencies with green juice and whole foods. It's a very simple, whole food, vegan diet, until 6 weeks in, when yogurt was included, if patients could handle it. So in my mind, this seems like evidence of a very effective healing diet. Also, coffee enemas and some supplementation as needed.

This is not really a low carb diet (fruits, oatmeal, rye bread, rice once per week, are allowed), though again it is very low protein, salt, and fat. The reason I'm giving it attention is because it has been tested on so many different people / diseases (there are still Gerson centers in operation).

Yes, I agree, on putting together the big truth. From the little truths.

Thanks for the further 'food' for thought.

curious_richard said:
I am wondering about the success in fighting cancer you mentioned above with dietary changes. Could it be that the success is not so much from the fruits and vegetables, but more because the patient is FINALLY giving up the bad foods that helped the cancer grow?

Also, there are good fats and bad fats. If a study makes health claims about fats, it should clearly identify the fats tested. Otherwise, the conclusions are probably useless.

About the groups who historically eat little or no meat, it seems to me that these groups probably enjoy the benefits of "calorie restricted" diets, where well-fed and over-fed Western people suffer from the many effects when the body tries to store all those calories year after year after year.

Too much protein can be a problem. We have discussed this in depth here, and a good search term might be MTOR, the Mamalian Target Of Rapamycin.

I have yet to read any study showing good fats as a cause of cancer, when protein and carb intake is reasonable. I HAVE read much speculation, though, that excess fat and excess carbs can lead to all kinds of problems.

I would think that there are a lot of small truths out there, and we have to carefully put them together if we are to get a big truth.
 

nicklebleu

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
One should also not forget that the COMBINATION of carbs and fat is a deadly mix. So eliminationg one factor out of the equation might already be beneficial - together with what has already been mentioned: the elimination of inherently unhealthy foods (processed, pesticide-laden etc.).

But I have always been intrigued by the Gerson diet, because it runs counter to our own research. Again this probably shows us, that we don't completely understand the factors involved in what makes a food or food group "beneficial" or "unhealthy" yet, apart from the obvious ones.

Maybe toxicity is the key here again? Was the Gerson diet maybe particularly adept at getting the body to offload toxins, thus enabling the body to heal itself?
 

odyssic

The Force is Strong With This One
nicklebleu said:
One should also not forget that the COMBINATION of carbs and fat is a deadly mix. So eliminationg one factor out of the equation might already be beneficial - together with what has already been mentioned: the elimination of inherently unhealthy foods (processed, pesticide-laden etc.).

But I have always been intrigued by the Gerson diet, because it runs counter to our own research. Again this probably shows us, that we don't completely understand the factors involved in what makes a food or food group "beneficial" or "unhealthy" yet, apart from the obvious ones.

May I ask what research this is?

[/quote] Maybe toxicity is the key here again? Was the Gerson diet maybe particularly adept at getting the body to offload toxins, thus enabling the body to heal itself?
[/quote]

I think that was the key. Gerson broke it down into detoxing and nourishment. He attempted to strike a balance between the two.

As for detox, there are the slow grind juices every hour, some green and some fruit. (Green for building, fruit for cleansing). And coffee enemas multiple times per day, to cleanse bowels and liver.

There are ways to detox faster, perhaps, like a fruit mono diet, fruit juice fast, or water fast for limited durations? However, I guess he had to also factor in that some of his patients were so thin they couldn't afford to lose much more weight.
 

Oxajil

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
curious_richard said:
I am wondering about the success in fighting cancer you mentioned above with dietary changes. Could it be that the success is not so much from the fruits and vegetables, but more because the patient is FINALLY giving up the bad foods that helped the cancer grow?

nicklebleu said:
One should also not forget that the COMBINATION of carbs and fat is a deadly mix. So eliminationg one factor out of the equation might already be beneficial - together with what has already been mentioned: the elimination of inherently unhealthy foods (processed, pesticide-laden etc.).

But I have always been intrigued by the Gerson diet, because it runs counter to our own research. Again this probably shows us, that we don't completely understand the factors involved in what makes a food or food group "beneficial" or "unhealthy" yet, apart from the obvious ones.

Maybe toxicity is the key here again? Was the Gerson diet maybe particularly adept at getting the body to offload toxins, thus enabling the body to heal itself?

odyssic said:
I think that was the key. Gerson broke it down into detoxing and nourishment.

When I did some research on cancer a couple of years ago I did come across diets that helped cancer patients (though I'm not familiar with Gerson's) and most of them were indeed vegetarian, a diet including mostly (organic) vegetables and fruits and lots of juicing - and of course supplements for detoxing (like vit C). I think it is not per se the veggies and fruits that might've helped these patients, but like you said it could be from not eating harmful food such as fast food, and the detox part probably played a big role as well, not to mention the mental aspect of it (becoming hopeful?). Their chances are probably already increased by avoiding chemotherapy (based on statistics done so far on how noneffective and actually damaging it can be). So I also think it's probably a combination of factors. Having said that, I also highly recommend reading The Vegetarian Myth, I think that in the end for most, if not all, people a vegetarian diet will impact one's health negatively, sooner or later! And knowing how it affects the planet is important too. Fwiw.
 

odyssic

The Force is Strong With This One
I'm reading the Vegetarian Myth. Listening, actually, to the audio.

The research, which is interesting, is sort of skewed by the bizarre assumptions about the author's own life. Does anyone have this impression?

It's easy to hear what we want to hear, when it isn't necessarily true, so I try to catch myself in that mode.

For instance, she ate vegetarian for 20 years, her health fell apart and she was depressed, therefore a vegetarian diet is bad for you. WHAT????

My history: I ate meat for 20 years, my health fell apart too... therefore an omnivorous diet is bad for you.

There are many factors other than animal product consumption to consider, right? Sleep, emotional patterns, environmental pollutants, quality of diet, fitness routines. Etc etc. A 'Vegetarian diet' could consist of nothing but tofu slabs and mac and cheese. That diet will kill you as fast as any, though it's vegetarian.

Then she essentially says, now I eat meat, so I feel better in some ways (emotionally) and my spine has healed (a little), but I have to live with all of the damage the vegetarian diet did to me. So she thinks she is doing better on a meat based diet. But some days she barely has enough breath to get through the whole day. (Because of what the vegetarian diet did to her).

In other words, she wasn't thriving on a poorly conceived, seemingly little researched vegetarian diet, and she isn't thriving on a meat based one.

I'm more concerned about the health arguments at this point than the moral ones. My own morality I can decide for myself. So what makes her an expert, I wonder? If she hasn't done the research to make either diet work, and coupled it with actual experience?

There are people who thrive on a vegan diet. Athletes and non athletes. Certainly not the majority. There are people who thrive on a meat based diet.

Most of the US (which is where I'm located) does not thrive, I think we would agree. What percentage is vegetarian? According to wikipedia, 1.9% in 2014. .5% vegan. Ok. So, one of the countries with the lowest quality of health in many categories, is also the lowest percentage of vegetarians. Hmmm... Should we blame meat? Not necessarily. Again, too simple.

The author perhaps ate food that wasn't suited to her body, so she suffered for it. She keeps mentioning soy, too. Soy is not an ideal food. Vegetarians and meat eaters are recommended not to eat it, unless it is fermented. Who, who has done research, is confused about this?

If she wants to heal her spine, I'm sorry but the only diet I've heard of that heals bones is mostly vegan, Gerson Therapy, which has documented healing slipped disks, disk erosion, etc etc. I don't know if one can heal that deeply eating meat because, regardless of the argument for the health qualities of meat, high protein foods do seem to slow the detox process, and a person needs to detox to regain absorptive potential and heal. At least, according to Gerson. (I use that therapy as an example, because it is well documented and relatively simple). And a few others.

I don't exactly understand being on a diet for 20 years, (a diet with only a small percentage of the population) for moral reasons or otherwise, and not doing any research on the health quality of her version of it, esp. since her health fell apart almost right away.

From what I've discovered, through experience, in books and via youtube, the people who thrive on vegan diets (or vegetarian) long term seem to eat mostly fruits and vegetables and supplement their diet with other things. The people who suffer on it eat mostly grains, dairy, faux meats, etc. Because they really never let go of animal products, so they are suffering emotionally anyway, by trying to adhere to a diet that doesn't fit them.

Also, a few of her polemics against the sanity of vegan arguments are directed at anonymous posters on unnamed forums, and are some of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read (heard). One 'vegan' posted that the African Savannah should be divided into two so that there would be more death. And the author heroically sweeps in to let us know that that would not be a good idea, because eco systems are complex. I think anyone who's seen the Lion King and is older than 12 probably has an idea of the circle of life. In other words, if she wanted to have an actual argument, she could easily choose more eloquent voices for the vegan / vegetarian stance. There are people who've been arguing it eloquently for 30 years (like John Robbins, for instance).

And then there is food combining, another principle which needs to be considered.

That is my impression thus far.
 

curious_richard

Jedi Master
odyssic said:
For instance, she ate vegetarian for 20 years, her health fell apart and she was depressed, therefore a vegetarian diet is bad for you. WHAT????
My history: I ate meat for 20 years, my health fell apart too... therefore an omnivorous diet is bad for you.
Both generalities are lacking in logic. Is that your point?
In other words, she wasn't thriving on a poorly conceived, seemingly little researched vegetarian diet, and she isn't thriving on a meat based one.
I do not remember that from the book, but that is an interesting observation. My impression is that her health improved a lot after giving up vegetarian rules.
Most of the US (which is where I'm located) does not thrive, I think we would agree. What percentage is vegetarian? According to wikipedia, 1.9% in 2014. .5% vegan. Ok. So, one of the countries with the lowest quality of health in many categories, is also the lowest percentage of vegetarians. Hmmm... Should we blame meat? Not necessarily. Again, too simple.
Agreed, it is not simple. Most of the US diet has a lot of meat, but it is still crap. I don't think it is easy to get useful stats comparing paleo versus vegan diets when the data is full of crap.

I agree about soy products. I used to eat all kinds of chemically altered soy foods, but now I try to limit it to soy sauce and miso paste, and very low quantities.

I also agree about grains. Yes, they have provided calories for untold billions of people, but they have a cost in health. We have discussed this in the forums here.

I am not sure if I agree with your conclusions, but I do respect that you are looking for the truth. I wish you all the best!
 

Gaby

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
odyssic said:
I'm more concerned about the health arguments at this point than the moral ones.

That is interesting because the health arguments are pretty straightforward. Even some of those who adhere to strong moral ones find those hard to ignore.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Gaby said:
odyssic said:
I'm more concerned about the health arguments at this point than the moral ones.

That is interesting because the health arguments are pretty straightforward. Even some of those who adhere to strong moral ones find those hard to ignore.

Yeah. Reminds me of Edgar Cayce saying "I can read reincarnation in the Bible while another person can read it out." I think it depends on what "reality" the person lives in.
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Odyssic, I do understand the criticisms of Lierre's lack of knowledge about vegetarian nutrition... anecdotes after all cannot really illustrate trends in full in a topic as complex as nutrition. I do like her dissection of the philosophical/moral arguments, since moral grounds are what largely motivated me to become a (poorly informed) pescetarian in uni. :lol:

If you're more interested in the nutritional merits of omnivory over vegetarianism/veganism, you could also look into Nora Gedgaudas' work Primal Body, Primal Mind. It covers the nutritional benefits of a paleo/keto diet over a diet based on vegetarianism or carbohydrates. Other works pertaining to this model include Keto Adapted and The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living. Although the latter two have more to do with fat-burning versus sugar-burning diets, it's pretty hard to find all the essential saturated fats and cholesterol in plants, making consumption of animal products pretty much mandatory.

If she wants to heal her spine, I'm sorry but the only diet I've heard of that heals bones is mostly vegan, Gerson Therapy, which has documented healing slipped disks, disk erosion, etc etc. I don't know if one can heal that deeply eating meat because, regardless of the argument for the health qualities of meat, high protein foods do seem to slow the detox process, and a person needs to detox to regain absorptive potential and heal. At least, according to Gerson. (I use that therapy as an example, because it is well documented and relatively simple). And a few others.

Interesting. Just looking at Gerson Therapy... being comprised mostly of fruit and vegetables, it seems essentially vegan/paleo, since the dieter is cutting out grains, dairy, and legumes: all common inflammatory foods, which certainly do their part in damaging nutrient absorption, connective tissue, bone, etc. As for meat burdening detox, I think that's true if the meats are conventionally grown and exposed to synthetic hormones, antibiotics, heavy metals, pesticides, etc. But fat plays an essential role in helping the liver detox, not to mention stimulating the elimination of waste products via bile salt secretion. Including sufficient antioxidants and other beneficial phytochemicals by eating plants isn't contrary to that, OSIT. Supplementing with iodine, DMSA, and other detox agents can also be a way to enhance body detox without compromising nutrition on other areas by eliminating meat. That is my opinion.

Looking at wikipedia (for what that's worth... I know it has an agenda):

[quote author=wiki]Gerson therapy can lead to several significant health problems. Serious illness and death have occurred as a direct result of some portions of the treatment, including severe electrolyte imbalances. Continued use of enemas may weaken the colon's normal function, causing or worsening constipation and colitis {not to mention potentially inoculating the colon with mycotoxins}. Other complications have included dehydration, serious infections and severe bleeding.[/quote]

Also, a few of her polemics against the sanity of vegan arguments are directed at anonymous posters on unnamed forums, and are some of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read (heard).

I blame the degeneration in her mylenation. :cool2:
 

odyssic

The Force is Strong With This One
curious_richard said:
For instance, she ate vegetarian for 20 years, her health fell apart and she was depressed, therefore a vegetarian diet is bad for you. WHAT????
My history: I ate meat for 20 years, my health fell apart too... therefore an omnivorous diet is bad for you.

Both generalities are lacking in logic. Is that your point?

Yes, that was my point. Sorry I realize I didn't round out the whole thought.

In other words, she seemed to have been on a high grain, high bean vegan diet, which are not ideal foods I'd agree. I also agree with the destructive force that agriculture can be.

I do not remember that from the book, but that is an interesting observation. My impression is that her health improved a lot after giving up vegetarian rules.

My impression was that her health was 'bad' and then evolved to 'slightly better.' Though the depression lifted, which I'm happy to hear, the physical issues were still present. Again, that was at the time of the writing. Things could have improved, or not. Again, probably depends on a lot of factors outside of meat versus no meat. And again, I suppose we'd have to track her health over a longer term.

If you're more interested in the nutritional merits of omnivory over vegetarianism/veganism, you could also look into Nora Gedgaudas' work Primal Body, Primal Mind. It covers the nutritional benefits of a paleo/keto diet over a diet based on vegetarianism or carbohydrates. Other works pertaining to this model include Keto Adapted and The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living. Although the latter two have more to do with fat-burning versus sugar-burning diets, it's pretty hard to find all the essential saturated fats and cholesterol in plants, making consumption of animal products pretty much mandatory.

I am, thank you for the resources. I will look into them.

I'm reading a book currently in the complete opposite spectrum called The Detox Miracle Sourcebook by Dr. Morse. Raw Vegan advocate, but also with a track record of a few decades, his own clinic, etc. It explains the opposite. Why meat and animal-based fats are detrimental to healing. I got to the book based on recommendations from a friend who healed a toxic mold allergy using it, so I thought I would check it out.

If she wants to heal her spine, I'm sorry but the only diet I've heard of that heals bones is mostly vegan, Gerson Therapy, which has documented healing slipped disks, disk erosion, etc etc. I don't know if one can heal that deeply eating meat because, regardless of the argument for the health qualities of meat, high protein foods do seem to slow the detox process, and a person needs to detox to regain absorptive potential and heal. At least, according to Gerson. (I use that therapy as an example, because it is well documented and relatively simple). And a few others.

As another example... from the above book...

"Out of 100 people who come to us with various types of cancer, approximately 70 percent cure themselves, 20 percent can’t do the program and 10 percent are too advanced or don’t want to live. Our success with regeneration in spinal cord injuries is also phenomenal: a thirty-two-year-old female, who had severed her upper cervical spine (a C3-C4 spinal cord severation) twelve years previously, came to our clinic. In eleven months she had complete feeling and movement throughout her body. A young Amish man who had a tractor accident, which left him a quadriplegic at the C4-C5 level, in six months had total feeling in his toes."

Morse, Robert (2013-09-11). The Detox Miracle Sourcebook: Raw Foods and Herbs for Complete Cellular Regeneration (Kindle Locations 259-263). SCB Distributors. Kindle Edition.

Those, if valid, are pretty good statistics.

So there are two factors I am interested in.

1. The most effective healing diet for critical cases.
2. The most beneficial diet for long term.


My long and winding road of research and personal experimentation has brought me to a vegan approach seemingly being the fastest path to healing for the critical cases, so I'm trying that out. That's my priority currently because there are things I am trying to heal. I'm actually trying mostly fruit and raw vegetables / juices with some cooked vegetables. Based on Gerson and leading into the Dr. Morse technique.

I was on a Keto diet for the end of last year, inspired by this book Man: 2.0. Unlocking the Alpha. It's a workout program and keto diet. It felt good on some levels, energy wise. On other levels, my health got worse (inflammation-wise). Again, it's complex, but it did inspire more searching.

Personally, I enjoy the idea of not eating animals that I myself would or could not kill. It feels good to me. If it can align with vitality, wonderful.

Interesting. Just looking at Gerson Therapy... being comprised mostly of fruit and vegetables, it seems essentially vegan/paleo, since the dieter is cutting out grains, dairy, and legumes: all common inflammatory foods, which certainly do their part in damaging nutrient absorption, connective tissue, bone, etc. As for meat burdening detox, I think that's true if the meats are conventionally grown and exposed to synthetic hormones, antibiotics, heavy metals, pesticides, etc. But fat plays an essential role in helping the liver detox, not to mention stimulating the elimination of waste products via bile salt secretion. Including sufficient antioxidants and other beneficial phytochemicals by eating plants isn't contrary to that, OSIT. Supplementing with iodine, DMSA, and other detox agents can also be a way to enhance body detox without compromising nutrition on other areas by eliminating meat. That is my opinion.

I think you could do it that way. And I think it would be most effective. That might be quite torturous for some, just because of the lack of calories. The highest calorie count would come from the 2 tbsp of flax oil per day. For grains, they also eat oatmeal daily, and white potatoes are a staple. And brown rice once a week. I think he was trying to balance practicality with efficaciousness, possibly?

Another consideration is the Rice Diet, devised by Kemper, also with a track record of healing hypertension, diabetes, obesity. It goes against much of my own experience to think that a diet of mostly white rice and fruit and fruit juice could heal those things (an many other things) but there it is. They also have many clinical case studies, as Kemper used to work with Duke University when he was creating the diet.

Looking at wikipedia (for what that's worth... I know it has an agenda):

[quote author=wiki]Gerson therapy can lead to several significant health problems. Serious illness and death have occurred as a direct result of some portions of the treatment, including severe electrolyte imbalances. Continued use of enemas may weaken the colon's normal function, causing or worsening constipation and colitis {not to mention potentially inoculating the colon with mycotoxins}. Other complications have included dehydration, serious infections and severe bleeding.

[/quote]

Yes, I saw that. You mean the agenda of... if you offer an alternative to chemo and radiation, especially if it is even remotely effective, the powers that be will swoop in deter people, so that they instead buy into their profitable 'treatments?' It's like Hulda Clarke. I don't know why she was so vilified by big pharma. Seems like a sign that she was onto something (though her little 'shocker' device didn't seem to do much for per personally).

All of those wiki objections are covered in Gerson's daughter's book pretty sufficiently and some seem groundless. 'Gerson therapy CAN lead to..' I suppose. 'Death has occurred as a direct result of some portions of the treatment.' Which they're referring to coffee enemas and electrolyte imbalance. Which has not happened on the diet, but to people doing coffee enemas uniformed in different contexts. On Gerson there are at least 3 glasses of fresh juice per enema to prevent this.

I did the Gerson therapy for a few months, and it evolved into this other approach.

Secondarily, after I find what works best for me, I want to recommend something to my mother for MS (since I know we have similar constitutions). I wanted to try it out first to see how likely it would be for her to stick with it. She's on Wahl's paleo now. Her symptoms stopped getting worse for a while (but not better) and then started getting worse again after about a year. I know there are other factors to consider.

Thanks for the engaging comments. I thought it might support some people to share my perspective / experience. And I'm enjoying the Vegetarian Myth book. Though I don't necessarily agree with some of the conclusions, much of it is very thoroughly researched and interesting.
 

Pierre

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Odyssic said:
Personally, I enjoy the idea of not eating animals that I myself would or could not kill. It feels good to me. If it can align with vitality, wonderful.

I enjoyed this idea too, that was actually the main reason why I was a vegetarian for 11 years. But Keith clearly shows that it was a sweet illusion. Ironically, by eating veggies or grains we further the destruction of the natural habitat of the animals we sought to preserve. One of the most sustainable way of producing food is actually free grazing cattle. In any case with 7 billion people on this planet no food production is sustainable any more.

I've seen vegetarians thrive on their diet, I've seen others decline. So, in the end, there's no one size fits all solution. I guess each of us has to research, experiment and find the diet that is the most suitable.
 

SeekinTruth

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Didn't Steve Jobs go on a raw vegan diet for his cancer and diet not too long after?

Have you read about the Warburg Effect, odyssic? It was discovered in the 1930's by a German physician that cancer is part of a metabolic problem, and that cancer cells revert back to only being able to use fermentation of sugar metabolism. So after quite a bit of evidence collected, he, and others later, used the approach that if a cancer patient goes into ketosis, the cancer cells will starve while the normal cells will thrive (if you check out the books linked above - Primal Body, Primal Mind; and Art & Science of Low Carb, you'll see that ketone bodies are a much more efficient and clean fuel for health and longevity). Do keep in mind though, that Art & Science of Low Carb is not that good with choosing fat sources (many ketogenic diets / recipes use really bad quality fats mixed with healthier ones). So according to the Warburg Effect, being on a vegan or vegetarian diet is the opposite of what would be needed, as it would be a high carbohydrate diet (all carbs other than fiber which humans can't digest, digests to sugar, basically, pretty quickly or a little less quickly) which besides allowing the cancer to have its only source of fuel, is also very problematic with AGE's (advanced glycation end-products), etc., etc.

I think when you get down to the nitty-gritty of metabolism and biochemistry and pathways critical for health and functioning, though there's definitely no one size fits all solutions, low carb, high fat, moderate protein is what comes closest to being the best diet for humans. There are very long threads with studies and personal experiments and testimonials on the forum, and many articles on SOTT, if you're interested in looking closer into why high carb diets accelerate aging, etc., even when the worst things like grains are eliminated. So if you want more details use the search function.
 

nature

Dagobah Resident
Pierre said:
Odyssic said:
Personally, I enjoy the idea of not eating animals that I myself would or could not kill. It feels good to me. If it can align with vitality, wonderful.

I enjoyed this idea too, that was actually the main reason why I was a vegetarian for 11 years. But Keith clearly shows that it was a sweet illusion. Ironically, by eating veggies or grains we further the destruction of the natural habitat of the animals we sought to preserve. One of the most sustainable way of producing food is actually free grazing cattle. In any case with 7 billion people on this planet no food production is sustainable any more.

I've seen vegetarians thrive on their diet, I've seen others decline. So, in the end, there's no one size fits all solution. I guess each of us has to research, experiment and find the diet that is the most suitable.

I share this idea too (not eating animal). However, our health lies on animal based food (food chain), and we can't be opposed to Nature.
Being obliged to eat animals is maybe a lesson, a trial for those who have got compassion, a message of the Nature to remind us that we are still predators, that this is the conterpart of physicallity. Let's never forget to be thankfull to animals (and even plants) when we sit at table for lunch, to remind that an animal had sacrified its life to nourrish us, humans.
 

Beau

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Odyssic said:
Personally, I enjoy the idea of not eating animals that I myself would or could not kill. It feels good to me. If it can align with vitality, wonderful.

If you think that when you eat a plant or vegetable that you're eating something that didn't feel pain or wasn't "alive", I hate to tell you that you are mistaken. Have you not read of the studies done that show that plants feel pain and respond to their environment?. So your moral righteousness, your "alignment with vitality", really has no basis in reality. Animals have to eat plants to survive, other animals have to eat those animals to survive, and humans eat animals and plants for our survival. It is the way nature has made it

http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-Life-Plants-Fascinating/dp/0060915870

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants

http://gizmodo.com/nice-try-vegans-plants-can-actually-hear-themselves-b-1599749162

http://www.dw.com/en/when-plants-say-ouch/a-510552-1
 

curious_richard

Jedi Master
Yes. And sprouting seeds is another form of lying or deception. "Yes, my little seeds, sprout so that you can be new plants to make more seeds and make more of your plants." Then, the result is "HA! I am eating your sprouts, and your young will die as I eat them! Thanks for giving me your young to eat!"
 
Top Bottom