From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Apr 29 2003 - 17:04:54 MDT
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> There's a very obvious third argument, which is that a
> vegetarian diet is beneficial to health in the present
> environment with the present availability of foods, whether
> we're "adapted" to it or not.
Not really, in my view.
This goes to a problem with meanings that I think has stymied my
communications with several people here in these diet threads. Unless we are
including unnatural supplements and medicines in the definition of diet, it
is in my view a logical and scientific mistake to make a distinction between
the terms "optimally healthy diet" and "diet to which one is best adapted."
To me these terms are synonymous. The optimally healthy diet, whatever it
might be, is *defined* as the diet to which one is best adapted.
Similarly, nutrient-rich foods are not good for us for the reason that
nutrition scientists tell us so. Rather, nutrition scientists tell us they
are good for us for the reason that they have discovered them to be the
foods to which are best adapted. Scientists don't dictate nature. They
discover it.
And there is still much remaining to be discovered by nutrition science. I
don't presume to know more than mother nature. This is why I look first to
evolution science to guide my diet, and why I demand solid scientific proof
to justify any deviations from the diet upon which my species evolved.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 29 2003 - 17:13:53 MDT