Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Does Meat Rot In Your Colon? No. What Does? Beans, Grains, and Vegetables!
sp_BlogLink Read the original blog post
October 1, 2012
12:56 pm
Avatar
Halifax, UK
Gnoll
Forum Posts: 364
Member Since:
June 5, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I did know this, but not all supermarket ghee is the same - check the ingredients. Buffalo milk is, indeed, very fatty - mozzarella is from buffalo, giving an idea of how fatty the milk is. Lovely stuff, if you can get the milk but there are so few producers and largely, they turn it straight into cheese and butter for ghee.

One milk I would love to get my hands on is reindeer. Apparently, it's so fatty, it's difficult to make ice cream with it.

Living in the Ice Age
http://livingintheiceage.pjgh.co.uk

October 1, 2012
11:10 pm
Avatar
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2045
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Kris:

I do mention olive oil as an excellent condiment and salad dressing -- but cooking with it isn't the best idea, since (as Paul mentioned) it burns.  I usually use coconut oil and ghee.

I also agree with Paul on the nut issue.  They're fine as condiments, but not as a mainstay of the diet.

I'm not seeing a link nor any pictures in any of your comments.

Macadamia nut oil is something I've been meaning to try, but it's hard to get and very, very expensive where I live.

I didn't know most Indian ghee was made from buffalo milk!

Another excellent source for scientific studies on dietary fat, cholesterol, and why they're not to be feared is David Evans' Healthy Diets and Science.

JS

October 9, 2012
6:20 am
Dave
Guest

I've been reading The Stone Age Diet (1975) by Walter L. Voegtlin, M.D., F.A.C.P., this weekend. I saw it referred to on some Paleo blogs and decided to look it up. The book is out of print and apparently cannot be purchased at this time. I'm reading a PDF that someone scanned and put up on the net. The scan quality is fair, but readable. There is some question over the copyright, the author being deceased, so I will not provide a direct link to the file here. Seek and ye shall find.

Dr. Voegtlin covers similar ground to the topic of this blog article by J Stanton. He compares the digestive anatomy of carnivores and herbivores, providing details on dogs, sheep, and humans. I'm afraid that the frugivores reading this may disagree with his conclusions, no doubt because their reading comprehension is limited by the lack of essential docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in their diets. 😉

Dr. Voegtlin provides a short history of human evolution and the likely dietary changes that have occurred over millions of years. I'm sure that some of the information is now out of date, given that he wrote his book 37 years ago. However, I did find his examination of the progression of dietary changes from the early neolithic to modern man to be instructive.

One point in particular in Dr. Voegtlin's book that grabbed my attention was about the origin of the modern dogma on the necessity of raw fruits and vegetables as essential for human health. It seems to be an almost unquestioned 'fact' nowadays no matter which end of the dietary spectrum one believes in that one will become vitamin and mineral deficient without eating lots fruits and vegetables. Some extreme vegan diets advocate eating nothing but raw plants. In the Paleo arena, it is taken for granted that our ancestors gathered loads of vegetable matter for consumption in addition to meat. For example, Dr. Terry Walhs advocates eating something like nine cups of vegetables per day. Is this really necessary? Frankly, was it even possible before the advent of modern systems of global transportation and storage? Why do we assume that vegetables contain nutrients we can't just get in more assimilable form from animal sources?

In the preceding chapter, mention was made of a mysterious illness descending upon many unsuspecting Orientals coincidentally with a greatly increased consumption of rice. This augmented use of rice in the diet followed the discovery of a method of processing (polishing) which made it more palatable, more digestible, less bulky, and less prone to spoilage.

This exotic malady, apparently limited to Asians living in the Orient, attracted the interest of a Polish-American biochemist, one Casimir Funk. By ingenious pioneer research Funk, about 1911, found a cure for this illness in the cast-off bran from the polished rice and established it as a deficiency or nutritional disease. The malady was named "beri-beri." It could be cured rapidly and specifically by feeding rice bran, or by injecting an extract of the rice polishings. Funk considered this unknown substance contained in the rice bran to belong in a class of chemicals called amines, and since it appeared to be vital to health, suggested the term vitamine, later contracted to vitamin. In 1927, Dutch chemist Jansen isolated Funk's vitamin and named it thiamine. Eventually it was placed in the vitamin inventory and classified as Vitamin B1.

It was immediately apparent to those interested in nutritional problems that, since beri-beri did not afflict the millions of people who had never tasted rice, Vitamin B1 could not possibly be a vital principle found only in rice bran. A search for it among other nutriments found thiamine to be widely distributed in nearly all foods. The Japanese and Chinese had succumbed to beri-beri because the thiamine-deficient polished rice had crowded out nearly all other foods which did contain the vitamin. The concept of vitamins was a thrilling and challenging discovery in medical research - a field of science which had been rather barren since Jenner's discovery of vaccination against smallpox over a century before. In rapid succession, other vitamins were discovered: Vitamin A (1913), Vitamin D (1918), Vitamin C (1919), Vitamin E (1922), Vitamin B3 (1928), Vitamin B5 (1930), Vitamin B2 and K (1938), etc.

Today we know that vitamins cure nothing that is not the result of a vitamin deficiency, and that vitamin deficiencies have always been rare indeed, except in a few instances such as alcoholism, food fad-ism [like eating 30 bananas a day?!], starvation, abnormalities of absorption, or chronic illness with loss of appetite. However, the early nutritionists knew little about vitamin potentials or limitations. Only apparent was the fact that here were a number of remarkably powerful substances, an appropriate pinch of which would snatch a patient succumbing to beri-beri, scurvy, or pellagra from the graveside, and in a few days restore him to health and vigor. These were truly wonder drugs, almost magical in their ability to heal and restore health.

Perhaps, mused the nutritionist, a lack of vitamins causes us to grow old, or hardens our arteries, or allows our hair and teeth to fall out. Perhaps an increased intake of these vitamins would prevent cancer and many other diseases beside beri-beri. scurvy, and pellagra. Was it possible that Ponce de Leon's fountain of youth could be as simple as a chemical mixture of vitamins?

It appeared reasonable to all concerned that increased vitamin intake would be of great benefit to mankind.

There was, however, one difficulty. In the mid-twenties, one could not go to the drug store and buy a bottle of high potency multi-vitamins. At that time the only vitamin preparation to be found on the druggist's shelves was cod liver oil. Synthesis and commercial production of vitamins lagged far behind their discovery and chemical identification. Concentrated preparations of vitamins were fantastically valuable and were to be found only in the research laboratories. It was not until World War II that the first preparations of four different vitamins in a single capsule were offered for sale. These early capsules were lacking in some as yet undiscovered vitamins, not always of standard potency, and entirely too expensive to take just for fun.

It had been noted that if a carrot, for instance, was boiled, a significant amount of its Vitamin A seemed to be destroyed. Soon it was found that many of the other vitamins were heat-labile, that is, they were destroyed or reduced in potency by heating. An excellent answer to the lack of commercially available, cheap vitamins appeared to be: eat your fruits and vegetables raw.

At this point much of the digestive difficulties with which we are beset today would have been avoided, had someone stopped to examine three questions:

1. Can man actually digest, without difficulty, a much greater and more constant intake of raw fruits and vegetables than he had ever attempted in the past?
2. Does man actually succeed in absorbing more vitamins from raw plant material than from cooked?
3. Would human health actually be improved if vitamin intake could be increased past the level supplied by conventional diets of the time?

Had these questions been examined critically, a great skepticism would have answered the first, for the material
presented in Chapters 4 and 6 of this book [comparing the digestive tracts of dog, sheep, and man] would have been appreciated.

From the historical context of human nutrition, the modern preoccupation with vitamins, and by extension vegetables, was not due to any real deficiency with our evolutionary diet of animal foods. Instead it came from the population boom of the early industrial age combined with massive poverty in overpopulated cities.

Here is an excerpt discussing the difference between putrefaction and fermentation in the colon:

Putrefactive bacteria, or proteolytic organisms, as they may be euphemistically designated, when they attack meat and fat change those substances into fatty acids, glycerine, and conglomerates of amino acids called proteases and peptides. In other words, bacterial decomposition of meat and fat by putrefactive bacteria in the colon yields the same products as does normal digestion by the pancreatic juice. However, these bacteria, if offered simply carbohydrates, are capable of decomposing them also, but when this happens acid and gas are produced.

Fermentative organisms act only upon carbohydrates or plant food. This process is called fermentation. This process of fermentation is one of the most important biological reactions in nature. It is used industrially in the manufacture of many different acids.

When fermentation takes place in your colon, the products are carbon dioxide (a gas) and alcohol. The latter is promptly fermented further to acid, such as acetic acid or vinegar.

The carnivorous animal, eating nothing but meat and fat, cannot possibly allow carbohydrates of any sort to reach its colon, for there is none of it in his diet. Therefore no food arrives there to support a fermentative colony. The proteolytic bacteria live happily on the minute amount of protein and fat which escapes carnivorous digestion and prosper, maintaining a thriving bacterial community. Since there is no carbohydrate present they cannot produce any acid, and the resulting alkaline reaction of the colon is very much to the liking of these organisms.

Civilized humans rarely eat nothing but meat and fat; there is nearly always carbohydrate of some sort in each meal, usually a large amount. This means that more or less carbohydrate escapes digestion and reaches the colon. Even small amounts of carbohydrate may support a modest fermentative community. If the amount of carbohydrate is larger, a more flourishing fermentative population develops, and if there is, in addition, a considerable proportion of highly indigestible carbohydrate in the diet, the fermentative organisms become overwhelming. The production of acid zooms and the fermenters not only multiply but also invite their cousins - the yeasts, molds, and fungi - to settle in this Promised Land of acid and carbohydrate you offer them. The latter are also efficient fermenters and, as their numbers increase, a vicious cycle is established wherein more and more of the carbohydrate escaping digestion in the small intestine is changed to acid. The colon gets more and more irritated and irritable. Diarrhea and abdominal distress appear.

I'll leave it to you good people to find the book and read the rest of it for yourself.

October 12, 2012
1:07 am
Avatar
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2045
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Dave:

I find the idea that non-starchy plant foods were a major contributor to our diet implausible due to the simple fact that they contain so few calories.  As I point out, an asparagus spear contains four calories, which is most likely less than the energy required to chew and digest it.

Also recall that modern plants are the product of centuries of careful breeding to minimize toxins and maximize nutrition.  Paleolithic plants would not have been so congenial!  

I suspect their use would have been primarily medicinal, not nutritional.

JS

October 12, 2012
6:39 am
Madison, WI, USA
Gnoll
Forum Posts: 75
Member Since:
September 24, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

J.,

 

I'm finally begining to understand this, as lately I've been experiencing digestive issues after every meal inwhich I add plant matter to it (minus spices and kelp flakes).  That, and I also notice undigested parts of plant foods in my bowels.  Time to cut out the steamed/cooked veggies for awhile to and see if it helps.  I am after all a predatorSmile

 

Besides, it accurred to me last night, that I was really using those steamed veggies as something to put my Ghee on!

 

Jen W.

"Often we forget . . . the sky reaches to the ground . . . with each step . . . we fly."  ~We Fly, The House Jacks

October 16, 2012
10:18 pm
Avatar
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2045
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Jen W:

My opinion on leafy vegetables: eat them when you desire them, but don't stress about any sort of quota.  If your body needs them, it's likely that you'll crave them and they'll make you feel better: if it doesn't, it's likely they'll make you feel worse.

JS

November 10, 2012
1:19 am
Jason
Guest

Interesting... If I eat pizza, 1 out of 2 chances that I will end up with a temporary hemroids for a while, and it's mostly from the dough.
Only overcooked (reheated pizzas) dough though, and only dough used in pizzas.

I digest meat well enough, only if it's freshly made meaty food though...
Once it involved reheating and leftovers, that's when problems start to occur...

I've heard or read somewhere that said leftovers is really bad for humans... Even if it's refrigerated.

November 18, 2012
7:52 pm
Avatar
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2045
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Jason:

I can't think of why that would be -- but if avoiding leftovers keeps you healthy, I certainly won't advise you to change!  (Hopefully you've got a family or some roommates who will eat them, so the food doesn't all go to waste...)

JS

November 20, 2012
8:42 pm
Kat
Guest

Im fascinated by this article! I use to think the more often and larger your stool was the healthier you were. This became my goal, lived on RAW fruits and a lot of RAW veggies years on end..
What happens differently in the body between raw and cooked vegetables?
My colon is worn out after years on ONLY raw produce.
Would the steamed veggies absorb like meats because the cell walls are are broken down by the cooking pocess?

November 21, 2012
3:05 am
Avatar
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2045
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Kat:

Steaming your veggies helps break down some of the cellulose in the cell walls, so that more of the nutrients (which are found inside the cells) can be absorbed.  Our own digestive enzymes still won't digest the remainder...however, the remaining "fiber" will, at least, be much less abrasive.

Juicing does the same thing by physically tearing the cell walls apart, and by physically separating out much of the "pulp" (cellulose) -- so that's another approach you can try.

JS

November 21, 2012
7:52 am
Kat
Guest

Thank you JS! I love love your blog!

I was a whole foods vegan for 20+ years, raw vegan for the half of that. As a vegan in general I lost my menestral cycles on and off the whole 20 yrs. (I went 7 yrs straight without one! But I'm anti BC so i tried to follow more vegan guro advice instead ), no sex drive what so ever, bone fractures came easily the last several yrs, sugar cravings -I had to sweeten everything, stomach bloat after every meal, always hungry, cavities & root canals all of a sudden during raw vegan stage, brain fog, moody, I'did not sleep well, constipated cooked vegan, raw vegan gave me IBS .... The worst diet i followed, to a T,was 80/10/10. Still recovering from that.

This article really gave me peace about meat. If it were healthy to never have to poo again I would think I was in heaven!

How many grams of fiber is really necessary anyways for a good digestive system? Have you come across the truth on that matter??

Happy Thanksgiving!
If you can't tell yet- I'm pretty thankful I came across your blog 🙂

November 22, 2012
7:00 pm
Avatar
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2045
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Kat:

First, it's important to distinguish soluble fiber vs. insoluble fiber.

Soluble fiber is just starch in a form that our digestive enzymes can't break down...but the bacteria in our colon can.  ("Resistant starch" is soluble fiber: so are "probiotics" like inulin.)  For some people, some types of soluble fiber cause gas and other digestive distress (see: FODMAPs)...but others find it helps maintain healthy gut flora. 

Insoluble fiber is vegetable matter, like cellulose and lignin, that not even our bacteria can digest, and which we excrete unchanged.  (Psyllium husk and all forms of "bran" are insoluble fiber.)  There is zero research proving insoluble fiber is healthy, and the only controlled study on it proves that fiber from whole grains, at least, has a negative effect on lifespan!  (Although that might be the grains, not the fiber per se.)  

I see no evidence that insoluble fiber is necessary at all...and soluble fiber is only good if it doesn't trigger your IBS or other problems.  And despite decades of attempted proofs, no one has yet determined that eating your "5 a day" of veggies has any positive effect on health or lifespan...so I don't stress about it either way.  If I want a salad or some blueberries, I eat a salad or some blueberries.  If not, I don't.

JS

November 26, 2012
8:41 pm
Andrew
Guest

What I find interesting that no one seems to have mentioned our teeth in accordance with what we should be eating. If you want to a clear indication of our own natural and balanced diet then it seems only logical to take an inventory of our own teeth, and their individual types & functions, of both primitive and modern man. In my personal opinion cereals should be approximately 50% of the diet, fruits and vegetables - 35-40%, meat - 10-15%. If factoring the laws of nature to our diet in accordance with our teeth I would challenge anyone to take down a cow with their bare hands and teeth and consume it...at best I think I could wrestle down and eat a Barracuda.

We consume a sickening overabundance of meat, and most of it is wasted, thanks to the fast food industry and chain restaurants. Although I am a vegetarian (and also a bodybuilder who does not take supplements) I don't deny that meat is a contributing factor in a healthy diet, but I simply have lost all faith in meat production. I feel we as a race have placed far too much trust in an industry which inundates livestock with antibiotics, steroids, and hormones - even to perfectly healthy animals. What these compounds are doing to the human body over time is quite literally killing us. The criteria for which meat is considered certified and fit for human consumption is obscene, but most of this goes unnoticed by the general populace. I spent five years of my life working for a reputable meat packing company and I tell you, if I never eat meat again it will be too soon. We seemed to have stopped questioning what we are putting into our bodies and from where it comes from. There is already so much crap in our environment today, which inevitably comes out in our meat, and, yes, vegetables too, but if you take into account all the unnatural elements we add on top of this, we the consumers are the only losers. Corporate fat cats and their sidestepping and avoidance of proper and humane health standards just to make the almighty buck are the winners every time.

I know after writing this I could come under attack because of the large level of pollutants (crap) also existing in the fundamentals of a vegetarian diet but I have the luxury of living close to the country and I am able to buy as natural food as possible. Nothing is perfect, but I guess what I am trying to say is that everything should be balanced. Constantly question the fuel your giving your body's engine. Listen to your body and don't blindly follow the supposedly undisputed guidelines of the latest diet or some unknown 'diet guru' that manages to sell a book or two. You know inside what is right and what is wrong.

Also, in regards to the digestion issues I have been reading, I think most people forget to chew their food properly. We live in such a fast paced society and gulping or rushing down a meal is usually the culprit for many issues. I suffered from Irritable Bowel Syndrome for many years and only took control of it after my MD enquired as to whether I was masticating my food properly. I realised after my appointment that in fact I wasn't chewing nearly enough, if my mother was to be believed. As laborious as the procedure was I persevered to start chewing my food 30-40 times with each bite (excruciatingly dull at times) until the stuff in my mouth was almost liquid. There is a lot to be said of the mechanics of chewing/saliva and its purpose of pre-digesting food before it reaches the stomach and intestines. Anyways, not a cure by any means but I have not had a problem with bloating since....that only comes now with drinking too much Guinness.

BTW Marmite is an excellent source of B12. You either 'love it' or you 'hate it'.

Andrew

November 27, 2012
5:11 am
Indiana
Gnoll
Forum Posts: 37
Member Since:
September 20, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I'm replying because this household is not part of the 'you' and 'we' that you refer to that eats industrially processed meats.  I may be an outlaying statistic.  But many others like me exist.

Please let me tell you about where my husband and I get our food and what we do with the waste.  If you want any details about how our meat-stuff is fed, I can tell you because I've talked with the farmers.

 

Lamb/beef/pork (this is 80-90%+ of the meat we eat) suppliers are Abby, Jeff, Sarah, Graham (and the three other kids who only occasionally make it to the farmer's market)

 

Turkey: Rob and Rebecca hatched and raised on open fields the turkey we consumed for Thanksgiving last week. 

 

Chicken: We don't eat much of it, tough to find birds not fed soy.  We have frozen 15+ chickens from a co-op we went in on with a friend (I eviscerated).  We own 3 hens that give us eggs occasionally.

 

Fish, etc: We don't fish yet, we're getting to it.  My husband will likely bow-hunt deer next year.  If we had a suppressor we'd consider culling out some of the rabbits that infest our neighborhood, though they'd be pesticide laiden (having lived on the sad excuse for subdivision lawns).

 

Vegetables, other stuff: I go to the market for vegetables not in season (or something like tinned smoked oysters, a huge weakness of mine).  I'll mail order food if I see fit.  I grow some of our own herbs. I generally have a 'black thumb'.  Dog and cat food does get purchased.

 

Meat waste: I make bone stock. Bones are pretty much disintegrated by the time I get done with them. Dogs help with the bones too.

 

Vegetable waste: The waste from the few vegetables I can eat get fed to the chickens or go on the compost pile.

 

The food I eat nourishes my body and helps me and my husband stay happy and as active as we choose to be. It is not wasted.

December 3, 2012
8:26 pm
Avatar
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2045
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Andrew:

"If you want to a clear indication of our own natural and balanced diet then it seems only logical to take an inventory of our own teeth, and their individual types & functions, of both primitive and modern man."

Apparently you've read the vegan propaganda instead of the archaeology.  Our teeth haven't been adapted to high fruit consumption since the Pliocene, as I discuss in Part III of my series on hominin archaeology.

Also, at no point have our teeth been adapted to eating cereal grains!  In fact, in every case for which we have data, our dental health, without exception, deteriorated dramatically when we took up agriculture and a cereal-based diet.  Just to take one example, one tribe of hunter-gatherers in North America averaged less than one cavity per person: the agriculturalists who replaced them averaged over 7.5 cavities.  (More.)

The reason we don't have huge, meat-shredding canines is because we've always used stone tools to butcher our meat.  No one disputes that Neanderthals were basically carnivorous, yet they don't have teeth like a lion or hyena.

 

Next, meat isn't wasted.  The much maligned "pink slime" is what happens to all the little bits that get scraped off.  "Chicken nuggets" use the skin and odd bits that people won't otherwise eat.  Then there is gelatin...

If we're wasting good beef tallow (I don't know if any of it is thrown away, or if it's just sold cheaply...the fact that it costs the same as soybean-based shortening argues against that assertion), it's because the government has deliberately chosen to push chemically-extracted seed oils made from GMO grains in order to dispose of an agricultural surplus created by a policy that rewards Big Ag for overproducing corn and soybeans that no one would eat otherwise.  And the reason we have such a nutrition and agricultural policy is partially because of the vegetarians!  (The Senate staffer who wrote the McGovern "Dietary Guidelines for Americans", which told us to stop consuming animal fat, was a vegetarian.)

Yes, feedlots are disgusting...but the main reason we have feedlots is because of the corn/soy surplus created by our agricultural policy.  It's simply not economic to feed cattle that much corn at its real market price..."corn-fed beef" was a luxury item before the subsidy era.

In short: intensive industrial GMO monocrop agriculture is an environmental and nutritional disaster, whether its products are fed to cattle or to people.

 

Also, note that I just bought a half beef from a local producer of sustainable, grass-finished meat...and the paleo movement not only emphasizes consumption of local, sustainably raised meat and produce whenever possible, it emphasizes avoidance of the heavily-subsidized grains (soy, corn) that make feedlots possible.  I don't think we're the problem!

JS

December 29, 2012
12:55 pm
Sara
Guest

I truly enjoyed your article, you are a good teacher . I will look to see if you have any other articles later, I have to run, and think about what I will eat next . Good job !!!

January 4, 2013
12:16 pm
kenneth kagame
Guest

My cow has been stealing my dog's food that included chunks of meat. Now the cow has lost lots of wait despite good apetite. I suspect the meat has affected it since it can not digest it. Any expert opinion? And treatment

January 4, 2013
5:44 pm
Avatar
Halifax, UK
Gnoll
Forum Posts: 364
Member Since:
June 5, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Cows eat grass. They cannot tolerate anything else – not even grain. When a cow is grain finished, it is placed into a state of bulking and slow death. I don't want to eat that cow any more than that cow wants to eat grain.

Yours is eating dog food? Prevent it! That is how BSE started – forcing animals into cannibalism and then wondering why it fucked up in our faces. Talk about "Duh!" …

It really doesn't need an expert and really doesn't need treatment - push it back into a field and let it live.

Living in the Ice Age
http://livingintheiceage.pjgh.co.uk

January 6, 2013
1:21 pm
Avatar
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2045
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Kenneth:

I'm not sure what happens when a ruminant tries to digest meat, but I suspect it throws off the bacterial balance of the rumen over time.  As Paul suggested, I'd get it back on its natural diet of grass as quickly as possible -- if you're grain-feeding it, I'd cease that too for a while in order to get its gut back in order.

Meanwhile, I'd strongly recommend you speak to some people with more experience raising cattle!

JS

January 25, 2013
1:33 pm
Ellease
Guest

Judging from the debate, it seems to me, that there are a number of reasons why people do and don't eat meat. I for one don't eat meat or fish for that matter; it is out of pure awareness for the universal commonality of man and beast as a whole. Personally, I don't think anything conscious should needlessly suffer, just so as I can indulge in my sense of taste. After all you can just as easily condition yourself to any particular diet as you can with anything else in life. Millions upon millions are religiously condition but at the drop of an hat, they can decide not to believe. It is out of a certain level of self realisation, that one reaches a level of maturity; that can only be to the common good of all in consciousness. You may call me a vegetarian; if you ask me, I'm not in any category. All categorisations arise out of the mind and therefore have personal bias in there nature; the world in which we all share is impersonal and common to all. We all perceive, this is fact; but what we perceive on a personal basis can only be subjective and therefore only relative. The worlds that we create are personal and bias to our own prejudices. So the debate for eating meat and not eating meat is inexhaustible; how long have you got? A diet of bacon, eggs, milk , cheese; meat and two veg could keep one man healthy but yet make another sick. The same principle applies to the vegetarian diet. What is the common ground? It is all a question of what is in the mind and not in the body. Sure you can borrow a ton of medical fact and little nuggets of information to defend your argument, but it will not change anything. People will still be eating meat as well as not eating meat; there will be those healthy eating meat and there will be those health not eating meat and vice versa.
One must realise, in reality existence always maintains the balance, there is [you] the reality, then there is your [mind] the illusion; between the two, there is the balance. The mind is merely a reflection of the inner. When all is said and done, opinions matter very little, all opinions are variably attached to the mind; you are not the mind, but an invariable source of awareness. For every point in conscious, there is the propensity to expand; you can call this the mind or life force. in this respect mind becomes a mechanism of exertion, then all organic life can be said to have a mind; albeit not as advanced as man himself. Even this is not true, since there are animals far more intelligent. From the lowest forms of life [the most subtle] to the highest form [the most gross] all in existence serves to protect, expand and perpetuate its self in consciousness. Man is the highest form of organic life, he has the most developed of all minds in terms of cognitive functioning. Whether he is intelligent or not is debatable but he most certainly has the highest capacity for memory as far as we know.
Mind and consciousness appears as two aspects of the same phenomenon, in reality they are one; since only one can arise out of the other. You cannot have consciousness without a mind; neither can there be a mind without consciousness. Mind in itself is not the problem, it is the identity with the mind and its content; bewildered by wrong ideas the mind constantly thinks, creates and as a variate; imagines all that exists.
In its confusion, it invents personal ideas and identifies with such. In our arguments and defence we create belief systems out of borrowed knowledge and call this the truth. Without looking at the common grounds, we draw the conclusion based on our likes and dislikes. If meat sustains one mans health and deteriorate another, there can be no truth in its argument for and against. Just as it is with stealing, if nobody owned anything, then what would be there to steal? It is simple psychology. If we didn't have it in mind to eat the meat, then who would kill the animal in the first place for mass meat production and profit? We can consider the paleo dietary facts but it has nothing to do with the reality, since it is all in your memory of borrowed knowledge. We are here; now, not in the times of pre historic man. All too often we are tide up in personal ideas that do nothing for the common good of man as a whole; that unless man matures and grows in awareness as opposed to just growing old; there will be no change. We continue to nit-pick and niggle like children in kinder garden for no other purpose than self gratification. Food is food at the end of the day, it has its purpose for the body only; of course those who are intelligent enough, will realise that what you eat ultimate effects how you think. The body is a product of your mind, not the other way round. Without you to posses a mind, there could be no body for you to feed.

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 230

Currently Online:
11 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 1770

Members: 10077

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 2

Topics: 250

Posts: 7108

Administrators: J. Stanton: 2045