Well, since you prefer Ubizmo, I'll leave you with his words...

LOL! You're quoting somebody who's quoting you!

He's not quoting me, he's reminding you of what I previously "pointed out"...which you claim never happened. (And he's a smart guy who agrees with me. )

The blog author tries to show that the Inuit ate plant matter for the purpose of nourishment. The Biosphere 2 project is presented as evidence against her proposition. Let's look at her arguments more closely to see if she succeeds even a little.

Right away, we see that there's very little to support her starting claim.

As I pointed out, we go to great lengths to acquire plant matter for the purpose of pleasure amongst other things. Maybe the Inuit women did the same thing here with those "seemingly trivial tiny plants".

We can see here that one orange contains 95mg of vitamin C. This would mean that the stuff she talks about contains at least 650mg of vitamin C. We don't need so much vitamin C every day. But maybe vitamin C is therapeutic at in such large quantities.

We ferment grains to produce beer. Hardly for the purpose of nourishment. Granted, traditional populations ferment all kinds of stuff then eat that stuff. Maybe it's not all clear why they eat that stuff.

Desert is not for the purpose of nourishment.

Treats are not for the purpose of nourishment.

Deserts and treats are usually sweet. Maybe they gathered those tiny sweet roots for the same reason.

And I say, "don't eat the roots at all, and you won't be constipated ever". The point is, why even eat the stuff in the first place?

Again with the fermentation but look at this little hint of opposition: "Humans can't eat lichens". Alright, I'll bite. Why can't humans eat lichens?

Am I the only repulsed at the thought of eating partially digested stuff? Maybe the running gag has gone too far.

OK, so no fungus or teas except if it's contained within animal flesh, or if it's for the purpose of medicine.

Is it just me, or is there nothing in there that is even remotely close to an argument in favor of plants-as-food, i.e. for the purpose of nourishment?

And I'm reminding you that you didn't point out anything. You just talked about hypothetical fears and stuff. I like how you tried to use a vegan vitamin B12 deficiency, which is caused by the lack of animal flesh in the diet, as an example of a potential deficiency that an all-meat diet could cause. Well, at least, an all-meat diet won't cause a vitamin B12 deficiency, will it.

You made the claim, it's up to you to substantiate it. That's the way it works. You haven't come close to doing that yet. Telling other people to prove you're wrong doesn't cut it.

My vegan B-12 example shows that there are problems that don't arise until after one year. Your claim that the Bellevue experiment was long enough simply because no deficiencies appeared is ridiculous. A one year vegan trial would also not uncover any deficiencies. And your assertion that there are no healthy, thriving vegans is simply absurd. If you don't personally know any, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

We're going 'round and 'round because you still refuse to provide any other basis for your claims than your blind faith.

You disagreed, it's your job now to support your disagreement. As far as I can see, you didn't do that. We can go like this all day, if you want.

But isn't it ironic that you would use vitamin B12 as an example, when it's obvious that this particular example can't apply to an all-meat diet. It'd make a stronger point if you used an example that could apply to an all-meat diet. What about calcium status, that would work? It's not yet shown that an all-meat diet is what caused this calcium status, or that it would go on until a calcium deficiency would develop.

See, the blog author is trying very hard to show that the Inuit ate plants for food. or at least, that the plants they ate provided some nourishment. Why don't you try to show how those plants she mentioned could provide the missing calcium of an all-meat diet? Bear in mind, it's not all to show that the plants could provide it, we must also show that the calcium contained therein is absorbed and metabolized, i.e. the negative calcium status of the Bellevue experiment is reversed by the ingestion of said plants. Now considering that osteoporosis is a rampant disease in our civilization, and considering that we supplement with a boatload of calcium, I doubt that adding any amount of calcium in any form will have any effect on calcium status. No, I think that the problem with calcium is not directly related to calcium but to something else, like vitamin D for example.

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=420443

To counter your argument about thriving vegans, I can personally attest to reading about the personal experience of 4 different vegans who reported feeling much better after switching to a vegan diet. Interestingly enough, If you had asked them at the end of year one if they could maintain perfect health indefinitely on an all-vegetable diet, they would have said categorically said yes. However years later they were forced, very reluctantly, to drop the vegan diet due to health issues which were immediately corrected when they resumed eating meat.





Your assertion is that one year is enough to prove that perfect health can be attained on a diet. Our assertion is that we have proof that is not correct.

Oh Martin, your arguments are so ridiculous I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you. But you do give me a good laugh.

Also, lets not forget that Martin has publicly admitted to eating one meal per week at his mother's....where he consumes plants....and wine!!
So ....he is not even zero carb himself.

ducking and running away now

Correction, we have proof that a vegan diet is deficient. The evidence we have on an all-meat diet says there is no indication that anything will go wrong. Furthermore, the deficiencies that will develop on a vegan diet are due to a lack of animal flesh. An all-meat diet is, eum, full of animal flesh. The example of deficiency of a vegan diet can't be extrapolated to an all-meat diet for this reason. All other evidence of deficiencies in any other diet can probably be traced back to the same lack of animal flesh and the essential nutrients it contains, and/or the existence of certain agents that we know cause deficiencies like refined carbs and such.

Strange, I thought I hadn't used my personal experience in this discussion just yet. Was that a preemptive strike on your part then?

Well, I'm glad one of us is having fun. Just kidding, I'm having a blast pointing out the glaring errors in everybody else's arguments. It's food because we eat it?!? It's food because it contains a boatload of a nutrient that we don't need so much of?!? It's food because it gives us pleasure?!? It's food because we use it as medicine?!? Come on.

I don't want anybody to be left out. So let's have some fun. Define food! Which of these defines food?

1. cake, pie, fruit, pudding, ice cream, etc., served as the final course of a meal.


2. any nourishing substance that is eaten, drunk, or otherwise taken into the body to sustain life, provide energy, promote growth, etc.


3. any substance or substances used in treating disease or illness; medicament; remedy.


4. any article, other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of humans or other animals.


5. a habit-forming medicinal or illicit substance, esp. a narcotic.


6. to take into the mouth and swallow for nourishment; chew and swallow (food).


If a thing contains some essential nutrient, is it food? If not, why not? If yes, then can this single food item be eaten exclusively indefinitely with no ill effect?

Thank you, Angeline.