Going vegan?

Here's a few good quotes from a thread at a bodybuilding/general health site entitled 'too much fruit?':

"stay away from the fruits. The fructose goes right to the liver, bypassing the muscles. Fructose doesn't allow the pancreas to release insulin like when other sugars are present in the bloodstream".

Once your liver is full of glycogen, and your muscle glycogen stores are full, all foods after that which are converted to glycogen in the blood will then be stored as fat.it is common for fruits such as oranges to be picked before ripening, injected with high fructose corn syrup and colored. Unless you are buying all organic fruits, you are probably not eating what you think you are".

"No you can't eat all the fruits you want and not gain weight, but it is one of the healthier things you can eat especially if you are active and constantly draining your liver of glycogen, though in general 10 pieces a day starts getting a lot of fructose, above 50 g a day has health drawbacks, Lyle Macdonald wrote a heavily referenced article on this a few years back.

As for it being low GI and thus its good, this is a pretty sili arguement, butter is much lower GI than fruit, its also much more nutrient dense aside from fibre".

The reason why I posted these quotes was, once again, to dispel the myth of us being primarily frugivores. Fruit IS healthy, but we'd have to consume it in such ridiculously high amounts that it (the FRUCTOSE) would become a hazard to our liver if we were to rely on it as our primary source of nutrition.

Shafty, you post a link to something which counters YOUR argument and then you try to backpedal and add your own interpretation of what the article was talking about. The study states what it states. Everybody here can read what it says. I quoted one part of the conclusion. Sorry you don't like what it's saying. But you're the one who posted it. Next time, be sure to read the entire article before posting a link to it.

And now you're quoting from some bodybuilding site. And these are quotes from whom? What are their respective scientific backgrounds? Is it an article or from a forum? You mention Lyle Macdonald. Any links to this material you're talking about?

It didn't counter my argument in any way. My argument was that excessive fructose is neither healthy or natural for humans, so don't try and twist my words around. You only pointed out the fact that fruit is healthy overall. My point was that fructose (which is what the calories in fruit come from) is unhealthy and unnatural to humans; something our bodies aren't well adapted to process. So how exactly did I backpedal? (another one of your "you're contradictiong yourself arguments, eh?). You seem to have problems understanding what I post, or maybe you're just desperate to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about. Keep trying...

The only reason why I posted any of this in the first place was to dispel the ludicrous claims of the article you posted on humans being frugivores. It would be a contradiction in nature itself if what the site claimed were true.

And now you're demanding I present you with links? It is something I read on a very prestigious forum a while back, but I do not know these people or their scientific background. I do however know that Lyle Mcdonald is one of the most esteemed nutrition/health experts out there, and since these people were relying on what he had written, I have no reason to suspect they aren't clued up on what they're talking about. Indeed, it is most often fanatically dedicated bodybuilders who have the most knowledge on these matters; true knowledge that comes from a burning desire to understand EVERY biological process in the human body down to the minute detail. Most life long natural bodybuilders amass this knowledge through trial and error. Some more so than others.
Now that I mentioned the source of the quotes, feel free to disregard them and rely on your own beliefs. I know you will probably never believe a word that comes out of a bodybuilder's mouth, so I see little point in trying to convince you about the authenticity of what these men said.
And no, I cannot find the link any longer.

"Fructose has no enzymes, vitamins, and minerals and robs the body of its micronutrient treasures in order to assimilate itself for physiological use.

Fructose browns food more readily (Maillard reaction) than with glucose. This may seem like a good idea, but it is not.

The Maillard reaction, a browning reaction, happens with any sugar. With fructose it happens seven times faster with than glucose, results in a decrease in protein quality and a toxicity of protein in the body.

This is due to the loss of amino acid residues and decreased protein digestibility. Maillard products can inhibit the uptake and metabolism of free amino acids and other nutrients such as zinc and some advanced Maillard products have mutagenic and/or carcinogenic properties. The Maillard reactions between proteins and fructose, glucose, and other sugars may play a role in aging and in some clinical complications of diabetes.

Research showed that in subjects that had healthy glucose tolerance and those that had unhealthy glucose tolerance, fructose caused a general increase in both the total serum cholesterol and in the low density lipoproteins (LDL) in most of the subjects. This puts a person at risk for heart disease.
Another study showed that the very low density lipoproteins (VLDL) increased without an apparent change in high density lipoproteins (HDL). The VLDL and the LDL should be as low as possible and the HDL should be as high as possible.
There is a significant increase in the concentration of uric acid that is dependent on the amount of fructose digested. After glucose no significant change occurs. An increase in uric acid can be an indicator of heart disease.
Fructose ingestion in humans results in increases in blood lactic acid, especially in patients with preexisting acidotic conditions such as diabetes, postoperative stress, or uremia. The significance to human health is that extreme elevations cause metabolic acidosis and can result in death.
Fructose is absorbed primarily in the jejunum and metabolized in the liver. Fructose is converted to fatty acids by the liver at a greater rate than is glucose. When consumed in excess of dietary glucose, the liver cannot convert all of the excess of fructose in the system and it may be malabsorbed. What escapes conversion and being absorbed into the cells may be thrown out in the urine. Diarrhea can be a consequence.
Fructose interacts with oral contraceptives and elevates insulin levels in women on "the pill."
Fructose reduced the affinity of insulin for its receptor. This is the first step for glucose to enter a cell and be metabolized. As a result, the body needs to pump out more insulin, to handle the same amount of glucose.
Fructose consistently produced higher kidney calcium concentrations than did glucose in a study with rats. Fructose generally induced greater urinary concentrations of phosphorus and magnesium and lowered urinary pH compared with glucose.
The balance of minerals in the body is very important for the function of vitamins, enzymes and other body function. When the minerals are out of the right relationship, the body chemistry suffers. The presence of diarrhea might be the cause of decreased absorption of minerals.

Fructose-fed subjects lose minerals. They had higher fecal excretions of iron and magnesium than did subjects fed sucrose. Apparent iron, magnesium, calcium, and zinc balances tended to be more negative during the fructose feeding period as compared to balances during the sucrose feeding period.
A study of 25 patients with functional bowel disease showed that pronounced gastrointestinal distress may be provoked by malabsorption of small amounts of fructose.
Many times fructose and sorbitol are substituted for glucose in parenteral nutrition (intervenious feeding, IV). This can have severe consequences with people with hereditary fructose intolerance, a congenital disorder affecting one in 21,000. A European doctor declared: "Fructose and sorbitol containing infusion fluids have no further place in our hospital pharmacies."
There is significant evidence that high sucrose diets may alter intracellular metabolism, which in turn facilitates accelerated aging through oxidative damage. Scientists found that the rats given fructose had more undesirable cross?linking changes in the collagen of their skin than in the other groups.
These changes are also thought to be markers for aging. The scientists say that it is the fructose molecule in the sucrose, not the glucose, which plays the larger problem.

Fructose is not metabolized the same as other sugars. Instead of being converted to glucose which the body uses, it is removed by the liver.
Because it is metabolized by the liver, fructose does not cause the pancreas to release insulin the way it normally does. Fructose converts to fat more than any other sugar. This may be one of the reasons Americans continue to get fatter.
Fructose raises serum triglycerides significantly. As a left-handed sugar, fructose digestion is very low. For complete internal conversion of fructose into glucose and acetates, it must rob ATP energy stores from the liver.

Fructose inhibits copper metabolism. A deficiency in copper leads to bone fragility, anemia, defects of the connective tissue, arteries, and bone, infertility, heart arrhytHydromaxias, high cholesterol levels, heart attacks, and an inability to control blood sugar levels.
It seems that the magnitude of the deleterious effects varies depending on such factors as age, sex, baseline glucose, insulin, and triglyceride concentrations, the presence of insulin resistance, and the amount of dietary fructose consumed.

Some people are more sensitive to fructose. They include hypertensive, hyperinsulinemic, hypertriglyceridemic, non?insulin dependent diabetic people, people with functional bowel disease and postmenopausal women.

There is a continuing increase in sugar consumption in the United States. We now eat 153 pounds of sugar per person per year.

This increase is mostly in the form of fructose. From the research presented, it seems that this increase is going to have a negative influence on our health.

Nancy Appleton, Ph.D. is a clinical nutritionist, researcher, lecturer, and author of Lick the Sugar, Healthy Bones, Heal Yourself With Natural Foods and the Curse Of Louis Pasteur and her new book Lick the Sugar Habit Sugar Counter."

As you can clearly see, fructose is inferior even to sucrose if you ask the human body. Now, back to the claim of us being frugivores:
If that indeed were the case, then we'd need to eat such massive amounts of fruit daily to get even the minimum amount of calories we need that the amounts of fructose we'd be getting would easily reach harmful levels. IF we were intended to rely on fruit as our primary nutrition, our bodies WOULD be better adapted to handling its primary nutrient. The fact that even refined sugar is less harmful in large amounts tells me that we cannot possible be classified as fructivores.

This is an interesting thread. I have just begun a vegan diet after reading about the general level of acididity found in westerners. Vegetables are alkanizing and are therefore what any healthy diet should be based on. Having an acidic system that results from eating acidic foods such as meat and dairy products leads to almost all illness including cancer and heart disease. Here is a link for more info. www.innerlightfoundation.org . I believe that pH is the most important thing when considering overall health. I agree with shafty that fruit is not good for us. Contrary to prior belief. The reason for this is that is acidic and that leads to a whole host of problems.

Shafty, your argument on fructose is so far off base, it's almost laughable. Please re-read the .pdf you posted so that you understand what form of fructose these studies are talking about. There's a big difference between high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and naturally occuring fructose found in fruit, among other foods. The part of the study I quoted even states such. Pick up a bottle of Coca-Cola, or just about any soda, and read the ingredients. These 'bad sugars' are the processed HFCS. The fructose is removed from a food, processed, and reused in other products. It's a highly-concentrated form of fructose, and used in many processed foods. I haven't read Nancy Appleton's book, but I would imagine, from the title of the book, that what's she's talking about is the HFCS found in today's processed foods, and not natural foods.

As far as bodybuilders, I'm sure they have a very good knowledge of diet and nutrition. But you must temper that with the fact that their number one priorty for their diet and nutrition is for strength and to look good for competition, and overall health takes a second fiddle to the competition aspect. It may or may not be healthy, but if it wins you the competition today, we'll worry about the health implications tomorrow. You see it all the time in competitive sports. The most recent being the steroid use in MLB.

Anyway, if you want some good reading on your side of the fence, and to show I'm not some vegan zealot and am open to all viewpoints, here's a link I'm sure you'll like:

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carn_herb_comparison.html

It basically runs counter to my first link and should give you enough ammunition to add another six pages to this thread. Have fun.

Oh boy.... this thread is starting to sound like a broken record! :D

The only difference between HFCS and naturally occuring fructose is a matter of quantity. If you want to sustain your life on fruits alone (fuck that- let's just say fruits as your main source of calories), you will HAVE TO CONSUME SUCH ENORMOUS AMOUNTS THAT THE LEVELS OF FRUCTOSE WILL BECOME UNHEALTHY. There is no essential difference between processed and unprocessed fructose, as long as the quantities are similar (similar as in small amount of HFCS = a large amount of fruits). Of course you'll be better off eating several portions of fruit a day than not eating fruit at all, but if you eat truckloads of fruit (which would be needed just to stay alive, if that is what you base your diet on), your body won't discriminate. Too much fructose = too much fructose. It is irrelevant whether or not we're talking about fruits or corn syrup. There is nothing laughable about any of what I've said. My info comes from reputable sources (Lyle McDonald being one of them).

Besides, all of this fructose bullshit is distracting us from what we were originally debating. Hell, I can't even remember what that was anymore!

And your comment on bodybuilders neglecting their health in favor of looks and strength is only half true. I was mainly talking about natural amateur BBers (amateur as in non competing), who are just about as health conscious as it gets. At least the ones who are serious about what they do. Personally I've never felt better after I got into it and fixed my eating habits to support the lifestyle AND my health.

Oh yeah, and I never thought you were a vegan zealot. I can recognize such a person the minute he/she speaks or types down a sentence. I just recognize in you a person whose views on these matters are at the opposite end of the spectrum as mine.

Okay, my state of mind after reading this thread is one of the main reasons I finally decided to start posting here on MOS. I'm 32 years old and have been a strict vegetarian for nine years come this March. I'm what is referred to as a lacto-vegetarian. This means in addition to vegetable and grain based foods I also consume dairy products and eggs. Although the last couple of years I have lost a lot conditioning due to lack of exercise I am and always have been in superb shape. I'm 5' 11" and flucuate between 170-180 lbs (180 when I don't exercise for long periods of time). I'm an avid long distance runner and do weight training although I prefer body weight exercises like pull-ups, dips, push-ups, hanging leg raises, etc. I have a pretty much muscular build and all my life those around me have always wondered how I keep in such good shape.

I dabbled in vegetarianism during my teens, but only for short periods. I joined the U.S.M.C staight out of high school and that is when I really started leaning away from meat. When ever I deployed overseas and especially on ship my "mode" really changed. During these periods I really became more focused on all levels not just the physical. I can't tell you why I started to not eat meat at those times, it just kind of happened. I have no other family members that are vegetarian nor did I have friends or aquantaintices that were either. I noticed that when I quit eating meat I just "felt" better. I felt lighter on my feet and my endurance was through the roof ( although I must admit I have always been very strong with high stamina). And you know what? The whole tree hugger, granola eating, chicken soup for the soul, let's just get along and praise mother earth crowd really annoys the hell out of me. But, you know what? They have a very valid point. I can honestly say that when I adopted a vegetarian diet I actually felt better spiritually. I cannot tell you why, I just did. When ever I got back stateside I always seemed to lose my focus and would revert back to meat in my diet, although I always was a running and workout fanatic.
When I left the service in 95' I was pretty much a mess for reasons I don't feel like getting into right now. I was drinking and smoking heavily (I think I'm probably the only idiot in history to letter in his high school cross country team while simultaneously puffing away 1/2 pack camel straights a day). After about a year I was getting the better of my demons for once. While hung over one day on my way home I had one of those so called "moment's of clarity". I can't say why, but I just quit drinking,smoking, and became a strict vegetarian and have been every since. The whole lighter on my feet sensation and spiritual focus has become much stronger since. I don't crave meat in the slightest and I'm not frikkin' anemic. The idiots that get like that don't know first thing about proper diet or complete proteins. And to those of you who say you can't get all the essential amino acids,vitamins,and minerals and such from a diet that doesn't include meat you're talkin' out of your ass. Do some research. And I mean "real" research. Spend a good month online or at your local library and put in some true effort. Who knows, you might ACTUALLY TRY IT, AND THEN MAKE YOUR OWN JUDGEMENT?!?! I mean come on, were all members of natural penis enhancement forum. There's a lot of idiots out there who say pe doesn't work, but I frikkin' guarantee they never tried it and truly put in an effort. All of you who know pe works because you TRIED IT come off as morons when you knock vegetarians and vegans yet you never even TRIED that type of diet and lifestyle. Don't talk shit about something you know nothing about or don't even have any personal experience in. If I've offended anyone it's because you offended me to begin with and I'm just trying to set the record straight. And to those of you that actually take some of your time and spend it reading this post let me say thanks. I appreciate it.

Hey everyone,

I just thought I'd put in my two cents on this topic about my personal experiences.

I recently returned to college after a nice winter break, and during that break, my diet drastically changed, and now is changed back. There were some interesting effects. The pre winter diet was fairly vegetarian, the winter diet was about as anti vegetarian as you could get, and now I'm back to my semi vegetarian diet. First, know that I am an amateur bodybuilder thinking of competing within the next few years (5', 9'', 182 lbs).

Pre/post winter break diet looked a bit like this:
Protein: Egg whites (20 or so daily), nonfat milk (40 oz.), Whey Protein powder, some fish, almonds (1 oz. daily)
Carbs: Total Raisin Bran (3 bowls), Oatmeal, Whole wheat bread
Fat: Omega 3 from fish, flax seed oil, almonds
And a good ol plate of plain lettuce a few times a week

So that was what I ate for about 3 months because my college form entrees are full of crap and would ruin my physique. And being a poor college student left little money to get a lot of groceries, so the salad bar was my main prey.

During this time, I found that my weight dropped, much to my anger and frustration. I lost nearly 9 pounds over that 3 months, and my strength suffered just a little bit. The main problem was that eating all that food was a very big chore. It seemed that nutrient values in those foods were lower than when I ate more meat (I'm no expert so I'm not sure), and I would need to eat more food to maintain muscle. At first I ate till I was full, just as I had before college, but soon realized that it was not enough.

That's not to say that there was nothing good about this. My fat percentage dropped by from 5.9% to 4.1%, and I looked a little more ripped than before. Strength went down, endurance went up. Protein, Carb, Fat ratio was probably 55/35/10.

Ok, fine. So what happens next?

Winter break diet:
Protein: Skinless Chicken Breast(24 oz daily), Eye of Round Steak(12 oz a week), nonfat milk (32 oz.), Turkey breast slices (roughly 16 oz. a week), Whey Protein
Carbs: White rice(I'm Asian! And I cant say no to food my mom makes), Total Raisin Bran, Whole wheat bread
Fat: Almonds, flax seed oil
And a good ol plate of lettuce once a week

Granted, not the most healthy thing I could do, but I was desperate to gain back the lbs.

Alright, as you can see, a LOT more meat. I consumed a pound and a half of chicken EVERY DAY. EVERY DAY I went to the grocery store to buy another tray of chicken! Effects? Well, I gained back the weight I lost . My fat % went up 1%, and I only needed to eat till I was full. My strength also back to normal.

So what happened that was bad? I lost a bit of energy. I felt more...down and weak than normal, despite my strength going up in the gym. I felt groggy at times too. Protein/Carb/Fat ratio was probably 70/20/10.

Alright, comparison.

In my semi vegetarian diet, I definitely felt a little more healthy than I did on my animal death diet, though strength was down, and the ability to get stronger seemed hindered. Looking more ripped on semi vegi, looking bigger with meat. Didnt need to eat as much in terms of volume when on meat diet as well.

Conclusion?

I love meat. I love it more than any food type in the world. If it is a love of death that makes me love meat so much, so be it. My natural bias is towards meat.

HOWEVER, it is my firm belief that it is very much possible to live healthy and powerfully, and support lean muscle mass on a vegetarian diet. Granted, my body composition while on and off a vege diet will be different, I still essentially will have the same body. I do feel more healthy on a more vege oriented diet, but that might just be from popular culture raging about health and vegetables. I agree with mogli when he says that all the environmental activists and such have a valid point (though also annoying the hell out of me). I also agree with Shafty about fructose and the evolutionary roles that large herbivores take. Gorillas were designed to get big and huge and strong just as how humans were designed to design ways to consume meat or blow up cities, or make their penises bigger. There is a lot of science on this topic, but more will always surface, and opinions will be changed. Or it could just be a personal experience like mine, where before I never thought I would ever be able to be strong without meat. Sure, some things cannot be replaced by vegetables, but maybe some things in vegetables cant be replaced by meat either. I'm no scientist.

So basically, every point is valid, and we shouldn't be stubborn in our opinions.

I still eat any lean meat whenever I can, but if I had to go vegetarian, I think I'd be just fine.

Now, off I go to make my penis bigger!

Good day,
ManofPrinciples

I'd like to say that Stuff brought some very good points altogether.

I'm also a vegetarian (after being a super meat eater) and I cannot emphasize enough how much better I feel today than when I was eating meat.

I'm still trying to find the right balance in my diet (maybe becoming vegan one day) and having a tough time deciding what to do with soy. To eat it or not to eat it?

Any insights?

Eat up on soy if you want to boost your estrogen. That is the real problem with a vegan diet, for those that wish to be athletic and active. It is not so bad for those that are bookworms or computer geeks (not to be derogatory, but I don't know anything better than those cultural terms), but no one could seriously argue that a vegan diet is good for a highly active, competitive person. That being said, there is a world of difference between vegetarian and vegan. There is nothing wrong with a vegetarian diet, though I myself live off the normal, unhealthy American diet.

penguinsfan said:

Eat up on soy if you want to boost your estrogen. That is the real problem with a vegan diet, for those that wish to be athletic and active. It is not so bad for those that are bookworms or computer geeks (not to be derogatory, but I don't know anything better than those cultural terms), but no one could seriously argue that a vegan diet is good for a highly active, competitive person. That being said, there is a world of difference between vegetarian and vegan. There is nothing wrong with a vegetarian diet, though I myself live off the normal, unhealthy American diet.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that's true at all. Back in the '90s, or maybe even more recently, I can't remember right now, but there was a 3- or 4-time triathelete champion that was a vegetarian, and maybe even a strict vegan.

I love a mixed diet, that included meat and veg.
A good varied diet wont do anyone any harm, some meat is good for you.

jGman said:

I don't believe that's true at all. Back in the '90s, or maybe even more recently, I can't remember right now, but there was a 3- or 4-time triathelete champion that was a vegetarian, and maybe even a strict vegan.

Click to expand...

It's possible to perform at such a level as a vegan, though difficult. Certainly, triathlon competitions would require far more cardiovascular training than anaerobic strength and the carbohydrates are readily available in a vegan diet.

It depends what you're interested in. Could you be a marathon runner as a vegan? Sure, I think you could. Could you be a competitive bodybuilder or an NFL lineman? No, I doubt it's even possible. If it is, it would be with massive amounts of steroids and soy protein. Mind you, I never said you can't get the protein, just that soy is about the only source for a vegan and that soy is not good for you as the primary source of protein.

Also, as for the triathelete you mentioned, there is a world of difference between a vegetarian diet and a vegan diet. A vegetarian diet is perfectly healthy, but is simply a difficult option for a person such as myself. No one could seriously argue that a vegan diet is the least bit natural and it is not ideal for health. If it weren't for the modern, processed food products that are readily available, organic and whole food stores, and the prepared foods that cater to vegans, a vegan diet would be nearly impossible for anyone to follow. The vegan trend is the end result of some UC Berkeley hippie that actually pursued a marketing degree.

penguinsfan said:

No one could seriously argue that a vegan diet is the least bit natural and it is not ideal for health. If it weren't for the modern, processed food products that are readily available, organic and whole food stores, and the prepared foods that cater to vegans, a vegan diet would be nearly impossible for anyone to follow. The vegan trend is the end result of some UC Berkeley hippie that actually pursued a marketing degree.

Click to expand...

How is a vegan diet not 'natural'? It consists mostly of fresh fruit and vegetables. Are you saying it is much more natural to eat a cow or chicken from a meat factory than it it to eat apples and oranges?

jGman said:

How is a vegan diet not 'natural'? It consists mostly of fresh fruit and vegetables. Are you saying it is much more natural to eat a cow or chicken from a meat factory than it it to eat apples and oranges?

Click to expand...

The "not natural" part referred specifically to the fact that most vegans get their protein from artificial, processed soy products. Meat is still meat and most any meat product is a hell of a lot more natural than a soy "hamburger".

I've done some reading up on a few warrior tribes and studied what kind of diet they followed. Our ancestors did eat substantial amounts of fruits and vegetables and the average person would do well to make this a higher percentage of his diet. Eskimos lived nearly entirely off animal meat before being introduced to the Western diet. Native Americans had a diet high in animal products and considered organ meat to be the most nutritious. The Aboriginal diet had substantial amounts of eggs and shellfish. Many people around the Mediterrian added cheese and dairy products as well. I stand by my belief that a vegan diet is not at all a natural one.

penguinsfan said:

The "not natural" part referred specifically to the fact that most vegans get their protein from artificial, processed soy products. Meat is still meat and most any meat product is a hell of a lot more natural than a soy "hamburger".

Click to expand...

I don't know. With the amount of growth hormones and antibiotics that are pumped into livestock these days, it's getting harder and harder to consider them a natural product.

Personnally, when I was a vegan for a couple years, I rarely ate soy products.

Oh come on now. Soy is just a bean. You can just have any other bean instead of soy. That's all a bunch of nonsense you're making up to try and make murder sound more natural than life. You do not need soy to get by on a vegan diet. And if you want soy you could just have the bean itself cooked in a bean dish, though lentils are the most nutritious bean. There's nothing better than a good dhal.

I think that a vegan diet plus milk is the most natural diet of them all, which simply means all natural sources of food are included. There is nothing 'limiting' about it, there is so much choice. All it doesn't include is meat (fish is meat) and eggs. It is the most civilized, humane, and healthy diet, for you, and for the animal that you didn't slaughter. If we do not need to kill to survive, then are we not murderous beasts without a cause when we do kill to eat? Come on now, lets not get ridiculous. Many of the greatest thinkers of our age were vegetarian, would it not be wise to follow in their footsteps?

[Oh yeah.. all that stuff about only eating fruit, well that was a weird conversation in the first place. Sure you shouldn't live off fruit alone, that would be weird. A balanced diet includes grain, fruit, vegetable, legume, nuts, and dairy. You can still be healthy (moreso than the flesh eater), without soy and dairy, but a diet that includes dairy is the most natural, most perfect diet. (and I thought this thread was long buried. )]