Ultimately only our bodies can tell us what is best. We are all unique. Our needs change and we need to remain flexible and open enough to roll with the changes.

Please forgive my ignorance, for am I not nearly as well read (or practiced) as you are on matters of nutrition, etc. So, instead, I’ll pose a rather long-winded question.

A few years back, I found myself in the middle of a heated argument amongst friends regarding the values of a vegan lifestyle. I have always been an advocate, on a political and environmental level, for choosing not to eat meat and dairy products, as it does seem to matter what food industries we support. But as a weekend athlete (cycling, hiking), I also appreciate a boiled egg or chicken breast every now and then, and precisely for the energy it provides (protein, fat, etc.). So, I was pretty much a passive audience in the debate, and to this day I can’t absolutely identify with one position or the other. Those kinds of dualisms get boring, and quick.

However, at one point, one of my good friends said something very interesting, and it is an idea that has stuck with me ’til now. He claimed that Veganism, as it were, is problematic because it is not really a viable nutritional alternative for the vast majority of people around the globe. He further suggested that in many cultures worldwide animal-based protein sources are not a choice but an historical and physical necessity, and the benefits of a fruit and veggie diet can only be exploited in developed countries where nutritional (and culinary) plurality has already been established through the generations. Essentially, he believes we westerners (from a European background especially) contemplate and engage in vegan diets because biologically and physically we are able to do so–we are capable of such diverse changes to our system–whereas the same cannot be said about folks in other parts of the world who have entirely different bodies, histories, and natural environments.

Again, I’m no expert on these matters, but this seems like a valid opinion and a perspective that speaks to my personal experience with dietary effects. For example, I used to live in Tucson, Arizona, which sits just to the east of the Tohono O’odham native-American reservation. It is common knowledge in the American southwest that the Tohono O’odham community is currently suffering from almost epidemic rates of obesity, and subsequent health ailments thereof (heart disease, acne, etc.).

This has become a serious problem that has many causes, of course, but the most obvious and immediate is their radical change in diet in the last century. The Tohono O’odham have gone from a primarily desert meat (venison) and desert veggie diet (cactus buds, etc.), to a high-sugar and high-fat, European diet (tragically, this often means fast-food). I have included this link for your review:

http://www.wkkf.org/default.aspx?tabid=55&CID=4&ProjCID=19&ProjID=120&NID=28&LanguageID=0

Here’s my question: is it possible that the premise of the two books you mentioned, though sincerely articulated both, are nonetheless biased towards a specifically European biological system? Is it possible that bio-regionalism and personal ancestry play a much larger role in determining the most beneficial diet for any given individual? Perhaps meat or no meat debates are simplistic in that they don’t consider the cell-level differences between humans? Is there any mention of similar studies in the developing world?

My wife is Chinese. I’m a southern, white boy from the States. We can’t ever seem to find a suitable diet that meets both of our needs, and we’re beginning to think that we may have to dine separately from here on out. At this point (and beyond the obvious gender distinctions), my only working hypothesis is that we’re just built differently. Hopefully, I’m wrong and we’ll hit on something soon, but if I have to eat one more pork dumpling…

Anyway, thank you for your post, and any insight you might provide regarding my question. I enjoy your blog quite a bit, actually. It was first brought to my attention from a professor at the Victorian College of the Arts, a school at which I will be pursuing my Master’s in Community Cultural Development starting this winter. I am so syked, therefore, to have been given this link! Great stuff!

I’ll be watching/reading, respectfully, from afar. Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Ryn Shane-Armstrong

P.S.

I can’t buy your book in Shanghai yet, so it’ll have to wait until January. I look forward to the read…

About 12 years ago I made a graph depicting the lifespans of presidents of the United States. To simplify things, I averaged their ages at time of death in groups of five (or four if an assassination occurred). It turns out to be a u-shaped curve. The first five presidents lived an average of 79. 6 years. At the beginning of the 20th century the average lifespan was 60.2 years – almost a 20 year drop. Our recent president’s longevities have brought the curve back up where it nearly matches the first five.

You know those first five presidents did not have access to good quality medical care. In fact, George Washington was likely killed by his physician’s choice of treatment. So what does this have to do with the above discussion? Well, I’m just pointing out that sugar and refined flour consumption rose steadily throughout the 19th century with a concurrent decline in mental and physical health. I mention mental health because it wasn’t until the assassination of our 16th president that any president died at the hand of a possibly mentally unstable individual. After Lincoln’s death there were assassinations or assassination attempts every 20 years or so like clockwork.

So your point regarding conventional assertions, orthodoxies, and forgone conclusions is well taken. Thanks.