In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

With respect, gratitude, and a conscious effort to minimize or eliminate pain.

But it's still an act of violence.

Case in point:

2 murderers. 1 of them killed his human victim swiftly. The other tortured her for many hours before killing her. In a court of law, the murder with torture is considered far more heinous than the one without torture. But, both are considered acts of violence.

I have seen plenty of meat eaters also that do not get enough protein. As far as I am aware, an active human body requires 1.0-1.5 grams of protein per kilogram body weight daily. If there is new info out there on this, I would like to see it!

The Dr. Cousens interview and books have a great deal of cutting-edge info. I'm not sure what exact amount of protein he advocates, but I do know that not all protein is equal. This is easily proven by those bodybuilders. If/when you watch the videos, you will see that the cab driver - the one with the biggest muscles - eats relatively little protein, considering his bulk. But it's all raw plant-based. And look at Markus Rothkranz. He's got incredible muscle and he lives on mostly weeds! He gets his protein the same ways cows and horses do - from greens.

Even gorillas get most of their protein from leafy greens. If I remember correctly, the natural diet of the gorilla in the wild is just leafy greens and fruit, with only a few bugs thrown in. Yet look at how strong they are! And human anatomy is the closest to the ape.

The thing is, most people don't eat much in the way of raw leafy greens. Until now...with high speed blenders like the VitaMix...now it's possible to down a huge amount of greens, so we don't have to spend all day chewing like gorillas do.

It could be argued that using a VitaMix to make green smoothies isn't 'natural' but then if humans were meant to fly we'd have wings, right? I see no reason not to use technology to achieve the desired purpose.

The VitaMix, dehydrator, and water ionizer are the new standard kitchen appliances for raw vegans. These cutting-edge devices change everything. They make it possible to eat highly nutritious, yet delicious foods, and drink water that can be found only in freshly melted glaciers, in Nature. They are tools for healing, and helping the body adapt to a higher frequency.

But anyway, I am not advocating here for meat eating nor claiming that it is healthier to eat meat. What I was trying to get at is that the most important thing, from a health standpoint, is to get the proper nutrition. This can certainly be done with a vegetarian diet, but to say a vegetarian diet is automatically superior, simply because it lacks meat is also erroneous.

Ah, thank you for that clarification! This is a very long thread, and much has already been discussed. I've stated previously that just cutting out meat doesn't make one's diet healthy, but perhaps you missed those old posts. I absolutely agree that just being veg doesn't make one healthy.

When I stated that vegetarians have lower risks of diseases, this was based on statistics that had already been adjusted to account for lifestyle factors such as smoking, exercise, etc. Certainly there are vegetarians who eat junk, smoke, etc. and some of these were included in the samples, along with the meat-eaters who ate junk, smoked, etc. But despite that, the vegetarians still had lower risks overall.

These are just statistics, so of course there are undoubtedly vegetarians who eat a lot of junk, who aren't healthy.

When I first became a vegetarian, I didn't know what I was doing, and didn't have much in the way of resources. This was 30 years ago! So my diet wasn't very healthy either at first. But since health was one of my reasons (along with spiritual, etc.) for going veg, I continued to learn as I went.

My husband and I have often marveled at people we know who are vegans yet smoke. It seems ludicrous to us, but those particular vegans obviously didn't become vegan for health reasons.

What, then, do vegetarians die of? Or do vegetarians all die peacefully in their sleep?

Oh, probably air pollution and fluoride...

Seriously, I have no idea. They certainly aren't immune to everything. We live in a very toxic environment. So obviously there are many factors to health besides diet. Still, being veg is something we can do, to minimize dietary risks.

I'm being a bit facetious, of course. I won't get into the whole China Study debate, but I'm pretty sure it didn't find low to moderate meat consumption to be significantly associated with higher disease rates. Correct me if I am wrong!

From what I understand, there was a direct correlation between animal 'foods' and cancer. The more animal 'foods' (including dairy) in the diet, the higher the risk of cancer.

Even Dr. Cousens acknowledges that some people can eat low to moderate amounts of meat and still be healthy. Some can get away with it and some can't, due to genetics etc. Being veg. isn't a surefire guarantee of anything. We all know the story of the man who smoked 2 packs of cigs a day and lived to be 95!

But just look at the stats. In the US, 1 in 2 people now get cancer at some time in their lives. 1 in 2! Children get cancer. I saw in the paper recently that diabetes is becoming rampant in children. And teenagers now have high cholesterol! And get this: there are now babies being born with cancer! Babies!! That's just wrong.

Obviously meat isn't the only factor here. We live in a toxic soup. But the body can eliminate or neutralize a lot of those poisons, if we consume lots of greens. Meat just adds to the problem because it's carcinogenous itself.

I guess the relevancy is getting back to the idea that vegetarianism is better simply because it is vegetarianism, and not because it is higher quality food. But it is mostly irrelevant to the main thrust of the post.

I understand your point, but only partially agree. I think vegetarianism is healthier for several reasons:

1. As you say, it's better quality food. Although not all vegetarians eat healthily, overall as a group they do tend to eat more fruits and veggies.
2. The carcinogenous meat has been eliminated.
3. Digestion is more efficient, because veg. foods pass thru the body faster. (I'm sure you've heard the argument about the digestive tract of carnivores vs. herbivores.)
4. Raw fruits and veggies help eliminate toxins from the environment, so have benefits beyond their nutritional profile.
5. Vegans aren't ingesting the hormones that were injected into the animal.
6. Vegetarians aren't ingesting the hormones that were produced by the animal when in a state of fear, just before being slaughtered.

There are probably more, but those are just off the top of my head.

But I do see your point. A person who eats a lot of junk food isn't going to be any healthier just because they give up meat.

There is a great deal of evidence to suggest different diets for different bodies. A breakthrough study not to long ago found that human beings fall into three distinct types, based on differences in gut bacteria, which affect (among other things) how food is processed.

I'm not familiar with that. But just as with the nutritional requirements, the raw diet may change everything. Those 3 types of people in that study might show different results if they switched to a raw vegan diet. Diet affects inner terrain.

But I do agree consciousness is also a factor.

You are right, he did not. But then those ideas are backed by... what then?

The 80-10-10 diet is one of many schools of thought, each one having its proponents who claim experience with patients or clients. In the 80-10-10 diet, the leading proponent is an athlete who has worked with many athletes. But essentially, it is still theoretical, as are all other specific dietary formulas. There are so many different diets out there, each one claiming to be 'the' right one.

Of those, raw vegan has the best track record for getting people off their deathbeds, so that says a lot. Check out some of the many books written by people who were on their cancer deathbeds, and survived and are now thriving, by doing some version of a vegetarian, mostly or all-raw diet, with lots of veg. juices. There are many thousands of those stories out there. The more radical the diet in terms of raw vegan, the faster the recovery, seems to be the trend. (This is my observation here; I'm not citing any particular study on this. But I've met some of those people and their protocols tend to be very similar: detox and rebuild, with plant foods.)

I will check out that info as I am always open to new ideas.

Great! I look forward to discussing it with you, if you're interested.

Though I will say your reply skirted around the issue that Yossarian's "healthiest possible human diet" can clearly be improved upon from a nutritional standpoint. Without having to add in meat, of course!

I agree with yossarian that a raw vegan diet is the healthiest possible human diet. Whether it's 80-10-10 or some other ratio, has not been determined, and it may be that different ratios may be appropriate for different people. While I do believe that a raw vegan diet is the eventual destination for 3D entities as they transition to 4D, I do acknowledge that slight variations of that might be appropriate for different people. Obviously, and athlete will have different needs than a sedentary person. I just don't take the 'different strokes for different folks' to the degree of some requiring meat and others not. With a few rare exceptions, maybe, but even then, I think the raw vegan diet would likely work in those cases too, provided the consciousness embraces it.

In other words, I think anyone who is attracted to the raw vegan diet, can make it work. But they may need to make some adjustments. Dr. Cousens elaborates on this. He says that some people who try the raw vegan diet but crave meat, are able to succeed by adding in superfoods like bluegreen algae, chlorella, bee pollen, etc. This eliminates the meat cravings. It's because we are in a transitional stage and our environment is so toxic. Once the planet is cleaned up, superfoods shouldn't be necessary. But right now, our produce is a mere shadow of its former self. You can compare USDA figures from half a century ago and see that foods have a fraction of the nutrients they had back then.

Mmmmm I will debate you on that one. I see a lot of people whose bodies do not produce enough digestive enzymes break down cooked food, much less raw food.

Cooking destroys enzymes, so more are needed to break down cooked foods. Raw foods still have enzymes intact.

And what is the evidence that makes the RDA values obsolete?

I don't claim to have evidence. It's simple observation. Since the vast majority of the population eats mostly cooked food, then it follows that the tables were based on humans who eat mostly cooked food. They haven't made a new table based on the needs of raw vegans. If they did, they would likely find the requirements different, or they might find that the requirements are the same, but they are met more efficiently.

Case in point: Vitamin supplements are often much higher than the RDA, because most of the vitamin goes thru the body and down the toilet. It isn't absorbed.

Yeah, I have seen some of those guys. Obviously, they are doing something right! Again, nothing in my post was meant to insinuate that one must or should eat meat in order to be healthy..

OK thanks.

I'm not talking about the experts here. I'm talking about your everyday people who decide on a whim to become vegetarian and think that an iceberg lettuce salad with two slices of cucumber and a cherry tomato is a good choice. You obviously have taken the time to educate yourself on the matter. Many people do not.

Agreed! And yet, despite that, vegetarians as a group still fare better than the meat-eaters as a group. Both groups have health-conscious people and junk-food people.

Don't really have a comment yet, but I wanted to acknowledge that I heard you.

Thank you!

Yes, I see the incongruency, and will ponder it.

Fair enough! I commend you for that. Many people won't even ponder ideas outside their paradigm.

Right. About 90% of the cells found in or on the human body are bacterial cells. The body also devotes a large portion of its available energy to identifying which ones will be allowed to grow and which will be eliminated. So in a very fundamental way, life and death are inextricably linked. At least here in 3D. The body must take life in order to have life.

Exactly! Which is exactly why I think, at this stage in our evolution, we have to do the best we can to minimize violence towards other beings, while recognizing that we cannot totally escape this cycle of life and death. We cannot avoid breathing in microbes; thus, I doubt that being breathed in is traumatic for the microbes. It is apparently a natural part of their life cycle.

Likewise, it's quite clear that plant foods are sustaining and healing. The nutrients (vitamin C, antioxidants, etc.) that have been proven to strengthen the immune system, decrease cancer risk, etc. tend to be found in...plant foods! While the destructive substances (saturated fats, etc.) tend to be found in animal 'foods'.

Could this be a clue?

I cannot prove that the carrots in my garden don't mind being uprooted. I believe that, when I eat them, their consciousness merges with mine. I cannot prove that either. But it makes sense to me that the very foods that have been proven to be healing, wouldn't be traumatized by being harvested and used for this very purpose.

Whereas, animals are clearly traumatized when they're slaughtered, whether in a 'humane' way or not. And animal 'foods' are unmistakeably associated with higher risk of diseases.

A clue?

What I'm saying is, until we get to the point (in 5D?) where we consume only 'living nectar' then it seems reasonable that we pay attention to what helps us thrive and what doesn't, as clues to understanding what we really should be eating. We can't avoid breathing in microbes. And if we want to be healthy, we really do need some plant foods in our diets. Whether the diet includes meat or not, there is no question that plant foods are necessary for good health. So it doesn't appear that eating plant foods - like breathing in microbes - is traumatizing to any entities. It just seems to be the natural way.

People do not need to kill each other in order to live in peace.

Right. And they don't need to kill animals to be healthy!

The only real reasons for vegetarianism that hold water are:

1. Unwillingness to participate in a system which perpetuates cruelty to animals.

2. The claim that vegetarianism is healthier for the body.

So basically you and I agree on the reasons to be vegetarian. No?

Well, you then said that you didn't agree with #2, and then proceeded to explain why the veg. diet wasn't necessarily healthier. So I took that to mean you only really agreed with #1. And even that was later confused, with the statement about an apple being the same as a hamburger.

Thank you for clarifying your views!

I can now say I agree with both of those reasons for being veg, but they aren't the only reasons. I would add: spirituality and environmental reasons, and even economic reasons as well. All are valid reasons. For me, it's all of the above.

Y'all jumped right past the first half of the post in which I was talking about philosophical arguments for vegetarianism based on an extreme ideal of harmlessness that is impossible to embody in the 3D world.

Sorry. I should have stated that I do agree with you on that. It truly is impossible.