DIVERSIONARY TACTICS: PERSONAL ATTACKS AND NITPICKING

I am both pro-vegetarian and pro-raw. Readers should be aware that I am a long-time vegetarian (since 1970), a former long-time (8+ years) fruitarian (also a former vegan), have followed natural-hygiene-style and living-foods-style raw vegan diets, and am both pro-vegetarian and pro-raw. However, I am definitely not a promoter of, or a "missionary" for, any specific diet. In reality, I am tired of seeing raw and veg*n diets promoted in negative ways by extremists whose hostile and dishonest behavior is a betrayal of the positive moral principles that are supposedly at the heart of veg*nism. (See the site article Assessing Claims and Credibility in the Realm of Raw and Alternative Diets for insight into the behavior of extremists.)

I suggest that readers ignore personal attacks and nitpicking, and focus on the actual issues rather than getting sidetracked by such diversions. Instead, focus on evaluating the myths, fallacious logic, crank science, and unsubstantiated claims that are prevalent in the raw/veg*n movement, and ask yourself: Do I really want to participate in (or condone) promoting the raw/veg*n movements using such dubious means?

Needless to say, such assumptions are outrageous. I hope that you share my view that raw/veg*n diets can and should be promoted in honest, positive ways, with legitimate science, and with complete respect for those who choose other diets. There is no need for myths, crank science, or dietary racism in promoting raw/veg*n diets.

Should You Eat Meat?

The objective of this paper has been to examine the claims made in various comparative "proofs" of diets, and not to promote one diet over another. Similarly, this website does not seek to promote a particular diet. Instead, the focus here is on providing you with information for your consideration and evaluation.

With that in mind, the question of whether you should eat meat is a question that only you can answer. The role of spiritual or moral factors in such a decision is at your discretion, i.e., you choose whether to include such factors in the decision process. As a veg*n for moral/spiritual reasons, I strongly encourage you to consider such factors, if appropriate in your case.

It is certainly not my intent here to promote meat-eating, only to clarify the scientific facts, and to hopefully dispel some of the myths/crank science associated with raw/veg*n diets. However, ultimately, diet is your personal responsibility, and your personal decision, as well.

A few comments are relevant here, in context.

• The fact that domesticated/feedlot meat is potentially harmful has been mentioned a number of times in this paper.

• SAD diet not a good idea. As the SAD/SWD diets have (deservedly) bad reputations and use domesticated/feedlot meats, adopting or following such a diet is not a very good idea.

• Propensity to consume fauna might not serve best interests in modern society. Hamilton and Busse [1978, p. 765] note:

  The human propensity to expand dietary meat consumption seems to be a legacy from our omnivorous primate heritage. Humans apparently share with most primates a tendency to increase the proportion of dietary animal matter whenever it is economical to do so. We inherited dietary preferences for animal matter, which historically have been limited by economics and a hierarchical society. Under current luxury diet circumstances, no such balance of diet to resource availability prevails and preference betrays best interest.

• Times have changed, but the calorie content of fat has not. Allman [1994] summarizes the dietary paradox we face rather nicely (p. 204):

  The human body absorbs 95% of the fat we ingest, suggesting that this compact source of calories was extremely hard to come by in ancient times. This legacy of our ancestor's eating has created a psychology of food preference that is celebrated in the local burger palace. Having existed for eons in an environment where only lean meat was available, our ancestors would have found a fast-food hamburger a gustatorial paradise. It is precisely what our ancestors loved about fat--its incredibly rich content of calories--that makes it so bad in modern times, when fat is available in great quantities. This evolutionary legacy in our food psychology is the reason fatty foods cause so much trouble for those of us who who live in the food-rich industrialized West today: Having evolved in an environment where fat was scarce, our modern-day minds have a hard time knowing when to stop.

• Possible approximation of hunter-gatherer diets, in modern societies. Although the evolutionary hunter-gatherer diet is not feasible for most people at present, it may be possible to approximate it via a diet that includes:
  • Grass-fed buffalo, yak, emu, duck, or other less-domesticated animals (perhaps even pastured beef, assuming you can find it).

  • Wild fish are a possibility as well since in many cases they fairly closely approximate key characteristics of land game (low saturated fat, abundant in EPA/EFAs, appropriate omega-3 to omega-6 ratio, etc.), though fish are not regarded as completely strict evolutionary foods in general, as many of our ancestors lived inland and lacked fishing technology. (The assertion that fish are not completely within the definition of an evolutionary diet is somewhat controversial, however, and subject to some debate.)

  • Non-hybrid vegetables and wild plant foods, as available (using commercial plant foods--but no grains or legumes, when wild is not available). As well, many commercial plant foods, depending on the item in question (low glycemic index, for example, as one criterion), may be close enough to the profile of wild plant foods to include in a paleo-style diet.

  • Insects, as an animal-food source, are also within the evolutionary definition.

A New Beginning?

Newer knowledge can help in self-assessment. I hope that the information in this paper has been of interest to you. I also hope that you don't react with denial (rationalizations, excuses) or hostility (attacks, threats). Instead, I hope that you use the process of "mentally digesting" the information here as an opportunity for in-depth self-examination of the attitudes you may hold toward diet, and as a real opportunity to expand your vision about the human species'--your own--actual dietary heritage.

This common heritage we all share has had a profound impact on human physiology and anatomy, and also exerts its effects internally (mentally) in how we experience our bodies' programmed biological reactions to different foods. A helpful result of knowing this is that it more thoroughly explains why we crave certain food types, giving a better perspective on the challenges facing those of us in modern times eating diets that may significantly differ from the species' evolutionary diet.

The pervasive nature of the false claim that "humans are natural veg*ns" has had its own, long-term, impact on the veg*n movement. Unfortunately, many veg*ns have developed very strong attachments to their "lunch philosophy," and it has become a pseudo-religion for some (with the dietary extremists being, in effect, hateful and fanatical followers of the pseudo-religion). However, if you follow a veg*n diet because of underlying moral or spiritual factors, please stop and think:

• You really don't need the naturalness claim to be a veg*n! That is, moral/spiritual reasons alone are adequate to justify following a veg*n diet (assuming the diet works for you, of course).

• Further, if the motivation for your diet is moral and/or spiritual, then you will want the basis of your diet to be honest as well as compassionate. In that case, ditching the false myths of naturalness presents no problems; indeed, ditching false myths means that you are ditching a burden.

Myths and crank science: a good basis for the raw/veg*n movements? And now, consider whether these factors--myths, logical fallacies, crank science, hostile behavior by some raw/veg*n extremists--are a good basis for the long-term growth of the raw/veg*n community. Are these the factors that will expand the community and build a stable basis for the future? Or, rather, are such factors simply the seeds of a long-term, self-destructive erosion of the raw/veg*n community's credibility? An erosion that only stands to spread as the increasing influence on nutritional science of emerging evolutionary knowledge sets the record straight and exposes the above myth-making to a wider public for what it is?

Personal choice: myths and crank science, or reality and honesty? Each of us has a choice: we can cling to false myths and crank science, or we can open up to reality and strive for an honest basis for our own diets, and for the larger raw/veg*n communities as well. I hope that you will give serious thought to your choice.

EPILOGUE: A Personal Note to the Reader

Writing this paper has been a major effort for me. It consumed most of my spare time for months: evenings, holidays, Saturdays, Sundays, and so on. Believe it or not, this paper was a real labor of love. My motive for having written it is to educate individuals about the myths of raw/veg*n diets, and thereby to help in what way I can to encourage reform on these issues in the raw/veg*n movements; to encourage the raw/veg*n movements toward a more consistently honest basis; and to encourage people to be skeptical of the dishonest and/or delusional crank science and myths that are promoted by far too many "diet gurus."

I hope that you have enjoyed this paper. If so, I encourage you to read more of the material on this website, and also to invite your friends to visit the site and read the material here.

Thank you for reading, and I wish you good health, and good thinking!

P.S. I encourage all to also read Appendix 1. It is relevant to the subject and will likely be of interest to many readers.

--Tom Billings

Before writing to Beyond Veg contributors, please be aware of our
email policy about what types of email we can and cannot respond to.

Return to beginning of article

SEE REFERENCE LIST

SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR:
PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 PART 5 PART 6 PART 7 PART 8 PART 9

---

GO TO PART 1 - Brief Overview: What is the Relevance of Comparative Anatomical and Physiological "Proofs"?

GO TO PART 2 - Looking at Ape Diets: Myths, Realities, and Rationalizations

GO TO PART 3 - The Fossil-Record Evidence about Human Diet

GO TO PART 4 - Intelligence, Evolution of the Human Brain, and Diet

GO TO PART 5 - Limitations on Comparative Dietary Proofs

GO TO PART 6 - What Comparative Anatomy Does and Doesn't Tell Us about Human Diet

GO TO PART 7 - Insights about Human Nutrition & Digestion from Comparative Physiology

GO TO PART 8 - Further Issues in the Debate over Omnivorous vs. Vegetarian Diets

GO TO PART 9 - Conclusions: The End, or The Beginning of a New Approach to Your Diet?

Back to Research-Based Appraisals of Alternative Diet Lore