Insect-Eating
Question:
"Since
we're using our fellow frugivores (primates) as models to follow
in determining which foods we should eat, isn't it true that
all primates and even some human tribes consume some insects
and/or animal protein in small amounts? Wouldn't we be doing
this unconsciously, at least, if we were eating our fruits as
they are presented to us in nature? We are just conditioned
to think insects are not human food as many cultures do eat
them."
Janie
-------------------------------------
Janie,
It may seem like it's impossible to know if our repulsion at
the idea of eating insects is innate or is a product of cultural
programming, but this is because we've gotten so far away from
trusting our bodies to give us accurate information. Of course
we can know with certainty whether or not insects are food,
although it may require getting back to our whole natural selves
first. Our culture teaches us that determining what to eat is
an intellectual process that requires research, studies, so-called
scientific 'proof', etc., but in reality all of this is borne
of confusion and ignorance of nature's ways. And, in fact this
is why we feel we have to justify our food choices by citing
the dietary behaviors of other primates. None of this is necessary,
because once we begin to reject all the brainwashing that our
society puts on us with regard to food selection, we become
invulnerable to those ideas and we gain the confidence and security
of knowing whether our choices are correct. Like energy versus
stimulation, hunger versus appetite, real joy versus fake joy,
however, we can't really understand what this confidence feels
like until we experience it.
In
the meantime, it's certainly feasible for anyone who wonders
if insect eating is proper for human beings to experiment with
it. Take some ripe fruit of your choice with you on a hike in
the woods and when you're hungry, collect a few insects. The
bigger ones would be best since these would give you more return
for your investment. Compare the way your body reacts to the
prospect of eating the fruit versus eating the insects. Most
people would have to overcome some very strong feelings of revulsion
in order to eat the insects, and I don't think we can assume
this is all cultural conditioning. The 'tribes' you refer to
who do eat insects use cultural conditioning to override these
feelings of repulsion the same way our culture conditions people
to ingest very harmful substances like alcohol and tobacco.
It would be hard to imagine, but if you happen to be very adventurous
and extremely open-minded and decide that eating insects is
something you want to experience, you should closely observe
your bodily sensations as you eat them. I don't know what would
happen because I've never eaten insects and certainly have no
desire to do so, but it would be these sensations that would
allow you to dispel any doubts you might have had about whether
insects are human food. For most people, this is not necessary.
It
is the feelings in our bodies that should drive our food choices,
not the ideas in our heads. Once you learn to trust those feelings,
you can be as confident in them as you are that it's not a good
idea to jump off a cliff or stand in front of a moving bus.
In the same way that we can be sure via our bodily feelings
that NOT ingesting cooked foods, alcohol, etc., is correct,
we can know with as much certainty that the foods we DO choose
are correct.
As
I've mentioned before, it is often the case that people experiencing
symptoms think of nutrient deficiency before addressing the
myriad mistakes they're making that are causing the problems.
When they hear that primates have been observed eating insects,
they reckon that insect-eating represents the 'missing link'
in their diets. Naturally nobody wants to eat insects, so they
allow themselves to be convinced that supplementing or eating
animal products is the answer. Since the ingestion of these
'foods' often does cause their symptoms to either change or
go away, people assume that eating them was the right thing
to do. Meanwhile, the real causes of the problems go unaddressed.
This is just one of the ideas that can send new raw fooders
veering off track.
Thanks for your question.
Nora
=====================================
Primal
Diet Question:
Dear
Nora,
During
the past 6 months I have been practicing the "Primal Diet"
and my health has improved. The thing is though I eat a lot
of raw steak, raw chicken, raw dairy and very little vegetables
(occasional salads) and no fruits. I feel great and for the
first time in my life I have experienced NO food cravings. I
have access to fresh, unheated milk and I love raw cheese and
raw meat. Intuitively, I feel there should be something more…
Raw vegans are very adamant about meat and dairy being bad.
Raw meat eaters are very adamant about it being good. The problem
with the raw vegan dieters that I see is they are talking about
cooked or pasteurized meat and dairy products.
Have
you come across any information about nutrition aspects of raw
meat or dairy? I am not talking about the bacteria and parasite
risks because I know there are not any. I am looking for someone
who can tell me why raw, organic meat and unpasteurized milk
is unhealthy. What are your thoughts on the matter?
Janet
-------------------------------------
Hi
Janet,
Thanks
for writing to me. I appreciate your sincere desire to learn,
and your open-minded approach.
I'm
glad you realize that the bacteria/germ connection to disease
is largely an invention. This is a step in the right direction.
The information you're seeking has to do with whether the human
body has need of animal products, whether they can be properly
utilized (digested) by the human body, and if their consumption
is a good practice for long-term health.
We
don't have to speculate about what our natural foods are. There
is plenty of clear evidence to guide us. I wouldn't be a raw
vegan if I hadn't been convinced by this evidence and my own
experience that humans have no need of animal products. Certain
facts about human physiology provide the strongest basis for
this conclusion. Animals are scientifically classified according
to their diets and their corresponding physiological adaptations.
Granivores eat primarily grains, insectivores eat mostly insects,
and so on. When we compare human digestive faculties to those
of other species, we find that we are distinctly different from
granivores, carnivores, insectivores, herbivores and even omnivores
(such as pigs and bears). We find, though, that we are remarkably
similar to our primate cousins, who are all frugivores. When
we get down to comparing which of the other primates we most
resemble, we find that our physiology is nearly identical to
that of the Bonobo monkey. We've learned from observing the
Bonobo that they eat mostly fruit, and when they can't get fruit
they'll eat tender young shoots of plants. Occasionally, they'll
eat concentrated protein in the form of nuts, seeds, and insects.
These concentrated protein foods comprise 1-2% of their diets.
There
are other facts of human anatomy that serve to contradict the
idea that we are supposed to eat meat. Our bodies are not suitably
equipped to chase down and dispatch other animals, and by the
time our species invented artificial weapons, we had already
adapted our biological requirements over millions of years.
This being the inarguable case, raw meat advocates sometimes
posit that early humans ate the rotting leftover prey of carnivorous
animals. With this theory, we are asked to believe that early
humans (with their hands and other eating faculties being perfectly
suited to the gathering and eating of fruit), chose to pass
up the sweet, fragrant, ripe fruit hanging from the trees in
favor of rotting carrion. This seems a highly unlikely scenario
in all but cases of extreme food scarcity. There is no doubt
that ancient humans were forced to eat meat during certain phases
of history when food was unavailable, due to migration or climate
change, etc. Humans might have even survived on meat for extended
periods; however, this did not change our basic physiology,
which is still intactly frugivorous, as evidenced by the similarities
between us and other frugivorous animals. Additionally, it makes
no sense to allow what humans might have done in times of food
scarcity to influence our dietary decisions now when our food
choices are virtually unlimited.
We
should also consider the vast differences between our senses
and those of animals that eat meat. Carnivores don't see in
color, for example. They don't need to because they basically
just eat anything that moves. So, they are much more attuned
to movement, and are much quicker to respond to movement than
we are. Do you salivate when a bug runs past your foot? Can
you catch, kill and eat a mouse in a dark room? These are the
natural skills and adaptations of true carnivores and omnivores.
We humans, on the other hand, see in color because our food
is colorful. We appreciate the contrast of a red berry against
a background of green. We can smell the fragrance of ripe fruit.
We crave the sweet taste of fruit. We have the delicate touch
needed to pick fruit without damaging it. Indeed, all of our
senses seem geared toward finding, gathering and eating fruit.
A
look at our digestive chemistry provides even more evidence
that fruit is our primary natural food. We have enzymes that
easily break down simple carbohydrates, but we lack those needed
to fully break down complex sugars like grains and tubers. We
also have very little of the enzyme necessary to break down
meat (uricase). We can break it down, of course, but doing so
is extremely costly in terms of body energy. That's why people
lose weight on high protein diets -- the energy "cost"
of meat is more than it returns to our bodies. Meat digests
very slowly and is not entirely utilized by the body, whether
eaten cooked or raw, which means it creates a great deal of
waste for our bodies to eliminate. One particularly harmful
waste product of meat consumption is uric acid, which deteriorates
joints and causes arthritis. These waste products over-burden
the elimination processes of our bodies. Meat moves so slowly
through us, because of the convoluted and alkaline nature of
our digestive systems, that there is no way to prevent putrefaction
from occurring in our guts. Putrefaction produces waste products
that are toxic to us. Since it is the overburdening of waste
in the body that creates ALL disease, it is easy to see how
meat-eating is especially destructive of health.
Two
points are often made by raw meat advocates in their attempts
to provide support for the practice of eating meat. One is that
there are certain native peoples who eat raw meat and have done
so for centuries and who exhibit superior health. What citers
of these studies fail to note is that the natives follow other
lifestyle practices that lend themselves to good health. They
work and live outside in the sunshine and fresh air, they have
the emotional support and psychological security of their close-knit
communities, they don't eat processed food, they rest when they
are tired, they are physically active throughout their lives,
they don't take medications or vaccines, etc. There are, in
fact, so many other factors that contribute to their level of
health that it might be said that they are healthy in spite
of their raw meat diets, not because of them. In addition, it
should be remembered that the level of health that we in civilized
society enjoy is the standard by which these natives are judged.
It would be difficult to find a more disease-ridden culture
than ours to compare them to. Considering this, can it be said
that their level of health is ideal? They may enjoy better health
than we do, but this does not mean that they couldn't do better
if they were following ALL of nature's directives, including
eating foods that are biologically appropriate. The other study
that is often cited as proof that raw meat is healthy food is
the Pottenger cat study. This is simply a study of cooked versus
raw, and the food in question (meat) is known to be the primary
natural food of the subject species (cats). It does not provide
any logical argument for the human consumption of meat, cooked
or raw.
Although
some people feel that it may be possible to construct a cogent
argument for the eating of eggs, what we know about their chemical
make-up offers good reasons not to. Even if eaten raw, eggs
are very high in sulfur and are hard on the liver and kidneys.
Additionally, whether ancient humans had regular and frequent
opportunities to consume eggs may be open to debate, but if
they did they most certainly did not have the devices necessary,
nor the inclination, to cook them or to combine them with other
foods. There can certainly be no reasonable argument made for
either of these two practices. It has to be a source of curiosity,
as well, what would motivate a human being to eat eggs if other
foods that are more appealing to the senses were available.
One is moved to theorize that eggs would only be eaten in times
when more appealing foods were unavailable. Naturally, this
would not bear upon our food choices during times of abundance.
If eggs were only eaten as a secondary source of nourishment,
our bodies would not have adapted a need for their regular consumption.
Further evidence comes from our lack of ability to reliably
obtain eggs - we can't smell them, they are most often hidden,
and even when found they have no external indication that they
are a consumable food. When an animal has a true nutritional
requirement for a particular food, the physiological adaptations
that facilitate acquisition of that food are present in the
animal's physiology. Nuts, for example, are a challenging source
of nourishment for us, but are an effortless staple for squirrels.
It can be logically assumed, then, that squirrels have a nutritional
requirement for nuts and we do not (although they make a fine
transitional food for new raw fooders).
Eggs
are also very high in protein. It is often assumed that more
is better where protein is concerned, which is not true. Any
protein that we consume in excess of our bodies' true need must
be eliminated, which taxes and overburdens our organs of elimination.
The relative protein content of mother's milk provides us with
the closest we can come to a universal guideline regarding protein.
At no stage of a human being's life is there a greater need
for protein than infancy, and this is amply provided by mother's
milk. Yet this perfect, natural food for proper human growth
has a relatively small percentage of protein - only 1-4%, depending
on the growth stage of the infant. It is no coincidence that
the protein content of mother's milk is similar to fruit, which
ranges from 1-6% on average. What we find when we look at the
evidence objectively is that human beings actually have very
low protein requirements. Beliefs to the contrary are due largely
to advertising claims made by the industries which directly
benefit from the idea that we can never get enough protein.
The
case for the consumption of milk products is shakier still.
Apart from what we know about the problems they create in our
bodies when we consume them, it is difficult to imagine a credible
scenario where early humans would have availed themselves of
the milk of another species, at least to the extent that would
have been necessary for our bodies to have adapted a need for
it. The milk of each species is distinctly composed of nutrients
that are needed by the young of that particular species and
is suitable for consumption by that species only. Cow's milk
contains a growth factor which helps calves mature as they should
but causes the following problems in humans: excessive height,
excess secretion of mucus and urine, constipation, diarrhea,
bowel impaction, nausea, gas, increased blood pressure, edema
and numerous digestive and respiratory problems. These problems
are created whether the milk products eaten are raw or cooked,
although pasteurized dairy products are even more destructive
of health than the raw versions. Every nutrient that is contained
in dairy foods is amply supplied by foods to which our bodies
have a biological adaptation, like fruit and green leafy vegetables.
The criteria that any food must pass in order to be deemed appropriate
for our consumption go far beyond the specific nutrients it
contains. Tree bark is high in some nutrients, as are daffodil
petals and hemlock leaves. Unfortunately, there are also chemical
compounds in these "foods" that make them unsuitable
or even poisonous to us. The same is true of dairy foods. Everything
that is believed to be beneficial about them originates not
from the fact that they are suitable foods, but, once again,
from the fine job of advertising which has been done by the
dairy industry over the last 5 or 6 decades.
To
summarize, whether animal products are raw or cooked, the human
body is constitutionally unsuited to their consumption. The
health improvements that people experience when they go from
SAD (Standard American Diet) eating to RAF (Raw Animal Food)
eating speaks to the improvement that even eating a diet of
raw animal products represents over the SAD way of eating. That
is to say, it is impossible to find a way of eating that creates
worse health problems than SAD. This does not provide a good
argument, however, for adopting a diet which can be shown to
be inferior to a raw food diet based on fruit, greens, and modest
amounts of nuts and seeds.
With
regard to cravings, these are often produced when we adopt a
"cleansing" diet of fruits and vegetables as the stored
residues of our previous unhealthful food choices re-enter our
bloodstreams on their way out of the body. Naturally, then,
cravings would not be present if you are eating a diet which
requires your body to expend all its energy on digestion rather
than cleansing and purification. Cravings are an unpleasant
reality of dietary transition but they can be managed in any
number of healthful ways, rather than resorting to the eating
of foods which are known to cause disease.
There
seems to be little question that human beings are best suited
to a diet of plant foods - primarily, fruits, greens and small
amounts of nuts and/or seeds. The main problem with adopting
a 100% raw vegan diet is that people tend to do it haphazardly,
without having a full understanding of the healing process.
This is the equivalent of adopting an all animal product diet
and mistaking the stimulative effects of those foods for increased
energy or vitality. Meat produces chemicals in our bodies that
are similar in composition to caffeine. So in addition to weight
loss, people experience effects that they erroneously perceive
to be positive or health-building when actually the opposite
is happening. Conversely, living in accord with our biological
adaptations by adopting a raw vegan diet can produce symptoms
that are mistakenly thought to be signs of "deterioration"
or "deficiency". We've all been taught that when symptoms
are absent, we are healthy. When they are present, we are sick.
In truth, however, when a transition to a healthy lifestyle
is undertaken, the body produces symptoms temporarily as it
conducts its internal restorative work. Intermittent symptoms
might persist for months or even years depending on many factors
specific to the individual in question. It is reasonable to
expect that a body which has been abused for decades might take
a year or even 3 or 4 years to fully recover. In cases of degenerative
disease where tissues and organs have irreversibly lost function
(a relatively rare occurrence), symptoms may never completely
go away. They will not get worse, however, if the individual
follows health-building practices including eating only biologically
appropriate raw foods. What all this means is that patience,
trust, cooperation and understanding, not to mention emotional
resolve and fortitude, are as vital to the healing process as
healthy practices are. Unfortunately, most of us enter the healing
process with expectations that are built upon our experiences
with remedies. Remedies work very quickly because they cause
the body to stop its symptomatic expression and instead go into
a mode of emergency elimination. Suppression of symptoms should
not be confused with healing, however. Real healing, like disease
formation, is SLOW.
You
are clearly on to something with your intuitive questioning
of eating only animal products, and you are asking some good
questions. You will find that the best books and articles, which
impart the most self-evidently truthful understanding of human
health requirements, are written by Natural Hygiene authors
like Art Baker, Herbert Shelton, TC Fry, David Klein and Vivian
Vetrano, among many others. Thanks again for writing and best
of luck in your quest for health.
Regards,
Nora
