Disputes between meat eaters and raw foodists

In a society made raw foodists believe that the government, medicine, food industry moguls and others. Lie and distort the truth about nutrition, because such aggression to people feeding traditionally and in general to the system. I can not say that I love the system, but has recently changed his temper justice with mercy. I suddenly opened a completely different perspective, namely, just ignorance. And its scope is staggering, about nutrition, about urban life, health, but note there is progress among all sectors and that sooner or later all will change!
All these errors in diet, treatment, etc., It is not a lie in order to harm, not stubbornness, but a simple, banal ignorance of the habits and supported by the authorities. Yes, probably, there are people who already know and cowardly silence, they, too, can be understood. Many raw foodists, ordinary people who are not in power, and the pair are afraid to say their discovery related to the food, as it can be a completely inadequate response, although often this is due to the very speaker, smaller Ponto, arrogance, and then you will be heard.
People make a lot of it is harmful, instill habits of "healthy food such as milk or meat," but it is simply out of ignorance at the level of the masses.

For example, medicine, raw foodists like her urge to criticize, but it was born at a time when people lived in conditions of survival, and was aimed at the treatment of established diseases. Probably at that time, few could associate the disease with food, as, for example, in the north in the human periods of adaptation to the conditions of nature, food raw food all year round was very difficult. Perhaps, kill some of the animals to eat and it was relatively justified for the level of development of the intellect and the moral values ​​of a person of that time! While those who did not eat meat, of course, were always healthier and certainly these people were then. Now medicine is also not always looking to the "essence" of problems, but more often they simply decide how best he can, but there are people who can look beyond the usual and more!

Apparently eating meat and so on. Delights food traditions today, it is only the echoes of the past, an echo from the time of adaptation and means of survival. On the other hand now it is not justified and is still going on, although the availability of plant food already allows ubivat.A stop because hard running wheel to stop quickly, it requires "stopping distance". Plus all heavily veiled. For example the same meat-eating, it did not even murder, as the shout vegans, as now, the fact of the killing of the animal is covered with the usual phrases - chicken, pork, beef, chicken, sausage, sausage. If you are written "dead cow muscle, muscle chicken, rooster, baby goats, sheep, baby pig, lamb, etc." I think the meat-eaters would be less ... Yes. there are certainly frank title, the ventricles, liver, again, "beef" (who this beef? Is the animal?), and so forth. But this is not all aware of where it came from, so if in the eyes of the right to run. Morgan, then killed, then yes, the ugly. And few would have been wanting. Because we are by nature no predators. And just to imitate them.
Yes, yes, our entire world as one big imitation of life.

As for the rest of the food industry, such as sweet. Most desserts simulate fruit. All the sugar that is used is not nothing but a craving for sweet fruit and try to replace them, only now it is time to understand that you can eat the fruit themselves, and not their pathetic imitation, which is also harmful. Look at all the candy in disguise fruit. Imitation of sweet strawberries, cherries, apples. Mermaids with raspberry flavor, "lollipop" with strawberries, etc. And all your favorite cakes, pastries, desserts, ice cream? They cover the fruit, add flavors made to simulate fruit, add the fruits themselves. Filling out of a jam, fruit, etc. Perhaps mankind has come to this instinctively, for reasons of some ancient genetic memory of what you need to eat in nature, namely sweet, our body requires constant monosaccharides. And since nothing like this, for example in the Nordic countries, it is not growing, people intuitively found ways how to make up. Of course the best of intentions. Who knew that it would be a poison that destroys the body. The disease was considered and is considered - the norm and very few people would associate it with food

. Yet, the subject of debate, it raw foodists who insist that it is necessary to eat what grows where you were born.
And if you're born in the desert, not, well, that's true, and if? And if a giraffe born in Chukotka, in the zoo than to feed it? Animals in zoos are always fed that food that eats their kind in the world, because it is very dangerous for the animal, give something more! Even if the animal was not born in its breadth of his feed so that it is necessary in nature.
I think there need to reflect and draw conclusions that man as a species "of animals, though reasonable, originally dwelt clearly not in the north, I do not fit our body to such conditions! And that means that we do not eat potatoes and cabbage, and something more sweet and soft. Namely tropical fruits. And during that short period of time until we migrated, we as a species have not changed significantly and our digestion even more, too short a time. So, rather strange to say that the need to train eat what grows where you were born.
One of the arguments for the debate: "all the different organisms", which is born out of ignorance
. In fact, this is just a crap level organism at all different. For one and the same product can have diverse effects. But the body is exactly the same, this whole medical research holds, anatomy and physics has not been canceled, and argue with this rather strange. We have the same set of atoms, and we need the same set of trace elements and substances.
But who is that these substances are used "to produce", this is different for everyone. And the degree of "resistance" poisons, also at all different as innate "endurance" of the body.
From which it follows that the power of all, ideally, should be the same from birth. Then the health of all will be roughly the same, and the body's needs. A claim that someone carnivore because he has such a body, they say requires meat, not apples, it's absurd, the body simply trying to get him the desired substance from the fact that you give him. Although the packaging of chips, though the apple, though the meat. Just meat to get right. It takes a lot of time and effort, and the resulting material will be scanty quantity. And there is nothing even to argue.
And yet, even in this case, it's only out of ignorance of how the man himself and his body, which is always accustomed to produce the desired substance through the difficulties of complex products and for him.
The man for the most part, just not yet know that it is possible to be healthy so easy. But when he finds out and tries to imagine, that it is difficult to challenge the true value of the power of live plant food.
And we must remember that raw foodists do not always understand what they are doing, and they do not always know, because you need to read and study, and then draw conclusions.

Because, dear russules, condemn and stop arguing, blame food tycoons and international conspiracies, and simply shows by example how to be healthy, and it is best to eat, and not have to feel your best! But first, learn, become knowledgeable.

And in addition. When I moved to fruitarianism, I suddenly saw a different future for our planet.
If all the people will eat fruits and greens will change the world. He will come to life again. Do not need to produce more than half of the goods and food products, the city will be less, gardens more, all this will seriously affect the climate and the nature and the planet will cease to die. There will also develop technology, but they will change the channel.
It would seem that such a simple solution, and shall entail such global changes.

Everything written is more reflection, because no footnotes and references to sources there, all of the head and is based on the collective knowledge and experience.


See also

New and interesting