And you really base this all on just one book from 1939? And a probably outdated and very biased one? That is also a bit of 'conjecture' for me.

It is also only one study and it has furthermore been criticised, as one can read, e.g. regarding certain biases, no control groups, range of aspects examined, ignorance of other influential factors, etc.

I don't like quoting from Wikipedia but here's for the sake of finding sth fast:

"A 1981 editorial by William T. Jarvis published in Nutrition Today was more critical, identifying Price's work as a classic example of the "myth of the healthy savage," which holds that individuals who live in more technologically primitive conditions lead healthier lives than those who live in more modern societies. The review noted that Price's work was limited by a lack of quantitative analysis of the nutrition of the diets studied, and said he overlooked alternative explanations for his observations, such as malnutrition in primitive societies and overindulgence in the Western diet, rather than the diet itself, as a cause for poorer health. The review makes the assertion that Price had a preconceived positive notion about the health of primitive people, which led to data of questionable value and conclusions that ignored important problems known to afflict their societies, such as perodontal disease. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_Price#Nutrition
So his book seems to contain a bit of positive stereotypes or even a bit of positive racism ("myth of the healthy savage")? Moreover, today fortunately we do not need the ability to be stronger than other tribes in order to dominate (kill?) them. (Btw, it would ironically confirm the thesis made in the title of this thread regarding non-violence .)

And what is overlooked most, also by this study: there are many other (environmental, genetic, diseases-related, socio-cultural, historical) factors that come into play when it comes to the physical development and properties of populations. Making it dependent on eating habits only is probably a bit pseudo-scientific if you ask me.

Some comments on Vitamin A:

I do not contend that vitamin A from animal meat is healthy, it certainly is. But you get enough preformed Vit A from milk and eggs too. And you can even overdose preformed Vit. A with toxic effects - and the body gets rid of the surplus. The body synthesises the necessary beta-carotenes from it , e.g. take carrots where you have beta-carotenes directly which is even better! So you do not need direct/preformed Vitamin A (which indeed is found more in animals). A necessary provitamin A carotenoid is beta-carotene and the body converts it all into the 'active' vitamin A - you do not ingest any 'active' Vitamin A. Beta-carotene is plant and even preformed A can also be found in dairy products. There you have it. You don't need meat for this necessarily, animal source for preformed A yes (but due to milk it's still vegetarian) but not meat. The active vitamin A comes about in the body anyway metabolised from its precursors. Moreover, beta carotene ingestion (from many plants, e.g. carrots) would already be sufficient for its (active A) production. It's even better as it avoids the overdose toxicity problem!

Two forms of vitamin A are available in the human diet: preformed vitamin A (retinol and its esterified form, retinyl ester) and provitamin A carotenoids (...). Preformed vitamin A is found in foods from animal sources, including dairy products, fish, and meat (especially liver). By far the most important provitamin A carotenoid is beta-carotene; other provitamin A carotenoids are alpha-carotene and beta-cryptoxanthin. The body converts these plant pigments into vitamin A. Both provitamin A and preformed vitamin A must be metabolized intracellularly to retinal and retinoic acid, the active forms of vitamin A, to support the vitamin's important biological functions (...)
(...)
The foods from animal sources (...) contain primarily preformed vitamin A, the plant-based foods have provitamin A, and the foods with a mixture of ingredients from animals and plants contain both preformed vitamin A and provitamin A.
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Vit...ofessional/#h3

I assume Weston Price did not know about these biochemical interior physiological facts of Vitamin A synthesis in 1939, which largely debunks from today's viewpoint his assumptions. We cannot blame him for that of course.

Some comments on Vitamin D:

Not sure if I understand your comment or question regarding Vit. D deficiency in your last post. Yes, Vitamin D is special issue (such as Vitamin B12 for vegans btw - but not for vegetarians who consume dairies) - but not exclusive to vegetarians/vegans at all.

Yes, Vit. D you get mostly from fish, especially cod liver oil - which is of course a healthy source. If you are an eat meater you should eat mostly fish, it also has lots of vital omega fats (which however you also find in plants, etc.). I've read also that some algae (chlorella) and some veggies (e.g. sauerkraut) have vitamin D.

However: actually we could not eat that much fish (or eggs, or cod liver oil, or any meat) to cover our supposed deficiency. It's not possible! You cannot ingest that much. And this I heard in a presentation by an expert on Vitamin D (... yes, I am doing these things as a naturopath, I attend regular presentations lectures on orthomolecular and probiotic medicine over the internet via a medical laboratory analysis academy, don't want to be a know-it-all, just back up where I got it from).

The decisive fact is this: Vitamin D "IS" the very 'sun vitamin', it is not nutritional in the first place - although one can argue that we eat necessary precursors for the later synthesis of it, e.g. cholesterol.

Still: It's sun exposure that does the greatest part. What you get from any (!) food is miniscule in comparison! It's the sun, nothing but the sun.

Indigenous people or/and our tribal ancestors were much longer in the sun than we are today. The indigenous people (or our ancestors) mentioned are/were mostly living outside in warm climate conditions, so they had lots of time, plus exposure due to their usual spare clothing, in the sun to metabolise Vitamin D pre-forms in their overall skin (which then is further refined in the liver and finalized in the kidneys). That in my view is the main reason that they have more D, not nutrition. It's the sun exposure. It's the enviromment, the living conditions. But not the food.
Maybe one exception: northern indigenous people (e.g. eskimos) who get most of their Vit. D from fish, but they have it almost as their only food source. (I would also never expect them to change their diet into a meat-free one, that would be impossible in the first place and not recommendable, either).

This sun/climate-factor might also have been one factor that was overlooked by Weston Price, one among his many errors, as it seems. The sun has many beneficial health reasons. I've read in past life regression transcripts that the sun alone could heal people in ancient times. (And then we have the sungazing / UV-light diet practice too! But this leads us too far out now.).

In sum, your assertion that meat is needed for Vitamin D and A is imv largely debunked.

Back to the general topic:

Many vegetarians and vegans are pretty healthy. Many studies prove this. There was one recently trying to prove the opposite but they applied a cheap trick because they attributed illnesses to vegetarians who that had been former meat eaters and only had changed diet for their health later on. Here's a translation of an analysis (it's in German, therefore the translator):

http://translate.google.com/translat...und&edit-text=

Here's some more info, there are many studies out there proving that vegetarians live healthier or at least are not unhealthier than meat-eaters:

http://time.com/9463/7-reasons-vegetarians-live-longer/

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/261511.php

There were 2,570 deaths among the study participants during a mean (average) follow-up time of almost six years. The overall mortality rate was six deaths per 1,000 person years. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality in all vegetarians combined vs. nonvegetarians was 0.88, or 12 percent lower, according to the study results. The association also appears to be better for men with significant reduction in cardiovascular disease mortality and IHD death in vegetarians vs. nonvegetarians. In women, there were no significant reductions in these categories of mortality, the results indicate.

"These results demonstrate an overall association of vegetarian dietary patterns with lower mortality compared with the nonvegetarian dietary pattern. They also demonstrate some associations with lower mortality of the pesco-vegetarian, vegan and lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets specifically compared with the nonvegetarian diet," the authors conclude.
If vegetarians are sick and it is due to nutrition (if at all which isn't always easy to prove!) then they maybe made mistakes in their diet, which you of course can - e.g. one who only eats dairies instead of enough vegetables and fruit. There are many who do it the wrong way, that's for sure. But so it is for other types of diets.

And let's not forget: Meat (esp. porc) is cancerous esp. for the intestines, it is the main reason for bowel cancer actually. Meat also is the main factor for arterial / cardiovascular diseases (heart attack, insufficiency, angina pectoris, etc.). Not to speak of the entire overweight plague issue (esp. in the US) which however is also caused by too much refined sugar, to be fair. This all is rather undoubted even by modern orthodox medicine today.

But you don't need studies pro and con, it is actually common sense. In my view the fact of many healthy (healthier!) vegetarians pretty much debunks your assertions that vegetarians lack something in nutrition.

And then please also consider fruitarians and their raw diets: Many eat only raw vegetables and fruit and they are pretty healthy, never see a doc. So how come they are not all ending up in hospitals now immediately, which they should according to your views? They don't. And many of them do not even take in any supplements.

Of course, if you believe meat is good and necessary for you, it's fine, of course you should keep eating it then. No one forbids you to do that. I also think everyone should eat what they like and think it is good for them. I also assume you promote a kind of 'paleolithic' diet which is also 'in vogue' now. I believe too this is a good thing as the kind of meat you then eat is better than our industrial Western meat. Still, the fact that are you inexpicably then claiming with the same breath that vegetarian diet is unhealthy, lacking and even dangerous and should to be replaced by (your) paleolithic diet, needs to be called and exposed clearly for what it is: Sheer nonsense. Sorry. But it must be said this way.

(Ps: I am NOT in this forum to argue about this topic any longer, so I will refrain from further posting and reading in THIS thread. The reason also is: I've done defending vegetarianism against biases and pseudo-science already elsewhere and I'm really a bit fed up with it. I also don't want to give any lenghty essays on nutrition anymore. Sorry. Plug needs to be pulled. No offense meant, nothing personal, so please excuse me, I respect every opinion on the subject. Still, if you write an answer, bear in mind that I do not read it. Thanks.)