Quote:
Originally Posted by mapuc
It's interesting to read about your Meat diet and reading about the battle between Illustrated Science and our Vegan organisation.
I.S had an article where it said that meat was important for our health and this Vegan organisation is saying the article is sooo wrong.
Markus
|
If you eat only meat, you get all nutrients your body needs, if you only eat plants and grains, you stay deficient, there are nutrients that you need but plants and fungi do not give you. If you eat only meat (fish), you may get some of these nutrients like Vitamine C or A in small amounts only (yes, meat gives you both), but the fans of Carnivore diet argue that the whole metabolism of a pure carnivore changes (by self observation I can confirm that by tendency at least) and then needs less of these nutrients than an omnivore, which makes sense since an omnivore/herbivore eats plenty of botanic toxins his body then must try to cope with, for which much of these nutrients are consumed, and still our "adaptation" to this unwise food is inadequate. Also, anti-nutirents in plants serve like a magnet for the body's stored nutrients and minerals, and deplete the body of these. This effect is not present if you avoid plants. This is what it is about
: plants are poisonous for us, in many different ways. They contain
- 1 million of plant-made pesticides,
- a three digit range of active carcinogens,
- anti nutrients as described,
- fibre (which not for no reason in German are called "
Ballaststoffe": ballast stuff),
- phytines,
- phytates,
- oxalates,
- tannins,
- hormone dispruptors,
- goitrogens,
- light-sensitivity enhancing toxins,
- general toxins,
- nightshades,
- lectines.
None of that is good for us, none of that we have the anatomical, metabolical, digestion-related means to deal with. Its species-inadequate food. Our body from head to toe identifies us as a non-herbivore, and as a carnivore. We eat this nature's wonderful and admirable huge arsenal of chemical weapons day in day out, and then wonder why we get immense autoimmune problems? Nutrient defiencies? Inflammations? Bowel troubles? And the rat tail of follow-up health problems from these?
Dont be angry at the plants. They want to get eaten as much as you or I.
On fibre, some plant eaters considering themselves ahead of the veg-crowd argue the fibre is not eaten for us, our metabolism, but is the food needed for the microbiom in the guts, because that feast on fibre. However, that microbiome changes dramatically when you stop eating pants and only eat meat and fish, it is then made of bacteria that do not need and cannot make use of fibre. In other words and hear the message:
YOU DO NOT NEED FIBRE if you eat a species-adequate diet that reflects our carnivore nature. In fact, fibre does damage to our guts, exhaust it due to the overtime work it must do, and then you wonder why you have pain and cramps and form diverticles and inflammations in the intestines. Really...?
This was day 20 of my experiment . Preparation of the meal in the kitchen has become a routine that now runs automatic. Shopping has become so comfortable, and easy, and I save so much time. I still have work to do, however: I must lower my beer consumption, however, it feels great, but is too high. No, I am not an alcoholic, and I am NEVER drunk, but in summer it can get 4 icecold bottles (0.5l, both alc-free white bear and alcoholic beer), its not about the "dangers of alcohol" for me - its about the carbs in it. I hope with falling temperature my appetite for it wanes, and I can stick more easily to water. Or my body plays tricks on me, it cant get the sweets (absolutely no sweetness from chcolate and sugar since three weeks, zero, rien, nada, not even in my coffee) , so it takes the alcohol and the carbs from the beer as compensation, and makes me craving for these .
While I think of that last statement, it acually makes an awesome lot of sense, I realise. In the brain, the neural structures rewarding us with pleasure if we take sweetnees, salt and heavy drugs - are one and the same structure, not three different ones. Thats why it is dangerous if a baby gets born with the Mum not having taken in enough salt : the baby starts into life with a very sensitve salt sensor then, and that can also make it more prone for becoming diabetic from taking too much sweet stuff, and even can become addicted to heavy drugs. They showed some years ago in a statistical metaanalysis that this indeed is the case, salt-deficient babies have a higher probability later in life to crave for sweet taste and drugs and thus getting problems with that. Thats why in Germany doctors are called by law for mandatorily telling expecting women that they must raise their salt intake. But almost no doc does it, they are intimidated by the salt-blood-pressure thesis (which is totally wrong).
On a sidenote, like with salt: same with iodine, moms give all the few iodine reserves of theirs to the baby short before delivery and afterwards are "empty", and literally totally empty of iodine. Cases of sudden death short after delivery might be related to this. Expecting women should drastically increase their intake of salt and iodine, for these reasons. In some Asian places, after giving birth they
immediately get a soup that is loaded with plenty of salt and seafruits and kelp with fantastic doses of iodine.