How did it not do that? There are other experiments with plant food that show that plant food is outright inadequate for humans. How did these experiments show that plant food was bad for us? It just showed us, that's all. So you ask, how did the Bellevue show us? It just showed us, that's all. If you still have doubts, then it's a problem of perception, not of the experiment itself, isn't it.

But let's be more pointy so that the question will be put to rest once and for all. If that's even possible.

What's the condition that you'd like to see addressed with an all-meat diet? See if the Bellevue experiment showed us that it did not address it. It doesn't need to look for it actively for it to be addressed. It only needs to have gone on long enough for the condition in question to have shown up. If the condition did not show up, then we can conclude that it will never show up.

Then there's the bit about plants being indigestible to humans because of natural selection. Those plants that remained indigestible lived on and thrived in a pile of crap, those that were digestible just died out. More precisely, those plants which seeds were indigestible lived on.

This doesn't make any sense at all. If a certain (hypothetical) deficiency takes say, three years to show up, then an experiment that lasts only one year is inadequate. There are many people who not only survive but thrive on a vegan diet for years before they begin to have problems. Therefore, obviously, a one-year trial of a vegan diet would not prove anything.

You have self-servingly omitted the fact that you claimed that the Bellevue experiment shows that "we can maintain perfect health indefinitely on an all-meat diet." It does not.



Karsten Andersen's health markers were not measured for a week in August, due to pharyngitis, i.e., throat inflammation. Whether or not that can be blamed on diet is open to debate (shouldn't his immune system have been capable of resisting this?), but it is a departure from perfect health. It is therefore false to claim that the Bellevue experiment shows that perfect health can be maintained indefinitely on an all-meat diet. Andersen's health wasn't perfect, and a limited-time study can never warrant conclusions about indefinite continuation.

We may also wonder about the health significance of Andersen's dyslipidemia, without introducing the lipid hypothesis of cardiovascular disease. Is there no medical significance to cholesterol levels as high as 800, and more often around 600?

The biggest logical mistake here is the assertion that the supposition that plants are food is "made invalid" by the Bellevue experiment. Since the experiment involved no plant foods, other than coffee, it has absolutely no implications concerning plant foods. Similarly, the case of that elderly man who ate nothing but boiled eggs for years does not "make invalid" the claim that beef is food.

Ubizmo

What doesn't make sense is to argue the hypothetical when we have facts about the same subject. Take the thing you want tested and see if it was tested with the Bellevue experiment.

I don't know of anybody who thrived on a vegan diet for any length of time. Because I don't know of anybody who actually ate a vegan diet. And if they did, they didn't actually thrive. From my point of view, your argument is still hypothetical.

What condition do you think only shows up after 3 years, and how do we induce this condition, and has there been a test already about it? Do be vague, give us a specific condition we can argue. As far as I know, deficiencies develop quickly and obviously. If it takes years, then it's not a deficiency, but something else like atherosclerosis, obesity, diabetes and cancer, to name a few.

That's not my reasoning. I knew that plants are food for humans before reading any of this. Plant foods provide energy and various nutrients and sustain life, i.e., they keep it going. A starving person's life can be saved (sustained) by means of plant foods. People have used plant foods for sustenance where and when they could. The argument that plants are not necessary for survival, therefore they are not food, has no merit. Likewise, the fact that plants alone do not sustain good health indefinitely does not show that they are not food. There is nothing in the definition of food that entails that for something to count as food, you must be able to thrive on that particular thing exclusively for an indefinite period.

Ubizmo

So you're willing to take on faith that there is no deficiency or disease state or anything else detrimental to health that takes more than one year to show up?

(As for your not knowing anyone who actually ate a vegan diet and thrived...well, maybe you need to meet more people. Or try Google.)

Now it's you who self-servingly choose to instill doubt where there is none.

"Indefinitely" is exactly what the Bellevue showed. There was no indication that the subjects' health would degrade at any point past the experiment, were they to continue to eat an all-meat diet. If you disagree, then tell us how the Bellevue did not show us "indefinitely".

The claim is not that an all-meat diet is protective against infections. Though I posit that proper diet will maintain health to a degree that allows the immune system to do its job of fighting infections. An improper diet will allow the same infection to take over and maim or kill the host.

Dyslipidemia could be the result of the high carb diet Anderson ate before the experiment. It sure is the result of the high carb diet for pretty much everybody who lives now. What changed between then and now?

The biggest mistake is to take your hypothetical arguments for facts. We have facts, use them.

Are you willing to take on faith your suppositions and hypothetical questions? You still haven't given us squat about supposed deficiencies that develop over longer than a year. Until then, the facts suffice for my argument.

Correction, you assumed that plants are food for humans before reading any of this. Consequently, all your arguments tend to favor this underlying idea. What proof do you have that plants are food for humans? Please show us. "That we eat it" is not sufficient.

Don't be so sad, the blog author couldn't do it either on the first try. But maybe if we give her more time.

Ubizmo, let's play with the idea that plants-as-food was used for sustenance.

I give you two experiments that should show we can sustain life adequately for long enough time to survive and reproduce. The Ancel Keys semi-starvation experiment, and the Biosphere 2 project. As far as I can see, they failed to show us that we sustained our lives for any length of time on a diet that contained any significant amount of plant matter in our historical past. Unless you believe that emaciation and neurosis is what sustenance means?

No, no, no...back up. My first post to you asked how "the Bellevue experiment showed us that we can maintain perfect health indefinitely on an all-meat diet" when the experiment in question lasted for only one year. The burden of proof is on you for your assertion. One year does not equal indefinitely. A one year experiment proves a one year outcome and nothing more.

Actually, the burden of proof is on the one who opposes the claim. Where is the evidence that refutes the claim? It certainly does not come from the experiment itself, so where does it come from if not from your own mind, realized as vague doubtful hypothetical questions?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? A one-year experiment does not prove an indefinite outcome. Healthy vegans (whom you claim do not exist) don't show signs of B-12 deficiency for years. Again, I ask - why are you willing to believe that there are NO deficiencies or other problems that might take more than one year to become manifest?

No. Let's rather stay with your claims. Was Karsten Andersen's health perfect, for the duration of the experiment? Answer that and we'll move to the next point.

Ubizmo