Vegans Charged With Murder for Allegedly Starving Toddler on Raw Food Diet

[CWayne]

How does red meat cause diabetes when meat (a protein source with no carbohydrates) barely cause a rise in insulin production?

Type II diabetes is a disease in which the hormone insulin is hypersensitive to blood glucose. The excess consumption of carbohydrates causes insulin levels to rise so that the glucose in the bloodstream can be targeted for use as energy, or most often, stored as energy for later use. Since we, as a nation, consume so many carbohydrates, the blood glucose is always more than the body needs to burn. That means that insulin always acts as a door for storing fat.

When carbs (sugars) are kept to a minimum or eliminated completely, the insulin then acts in the opposite. The blood glucose is low or baseline and the insulin must then release the stored fat for the body to have energy.

Meat barely moves the insulin needle.
Fats do not move the insulin needle.

It has been shown in studies that the body will convert excess proteins to glucose, but then the liver quickly uses it up and then converts the rest to keystones.

Once the liver has detoxed from all the carbs and switches over to produce ketones, the body becomes more efficient at burning energy.

Since 1 gram of fat is 9 calories, you actually get more energy from fat than you do from carbs, which is only 4 calories per gram.

You didn't say whose studies. Who debunked the other studies? Can't just move on and skip the question. I'm willing to discuss it, but you have to tell us whose studies you're using to make your claim. Who debunked the other studies? What did they study? Did they study processed red meat, unprocessed red meat, there's all sorts of things involved with studies. How do you even debunk studies anyway?

You'll have to give me some time to go find them. I don't save that kind of thing in the hopes of using it in an online debate forum.

If you're actually interested in knowing, just do some research on Ketogenics. They started their research based on the old practices of doctors who would treat schizophrenia patients. They noticed not only did it help them, but they also lost weight and had remarkable improvements, if not outright remission, of diabetes.

Here is an article on this.

Chronic Schizophrenia Put Into Remission Without Medication

Here too is an article on how they got red meat wrong, done in a quick two-second search.

https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20190930/controversial-studies-say-its-ok-to-eat-red-meat

Use these keywords in a google search. "ketogenic diet research 2018"

And, of course, there are youtube videos that discuss keto diets and they cover how the Standard American Diet (SAD) is not healthy.

 

[CWayne]

Red and Processed Meat Guideline Recommendations | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians

 

[CWayne]

NIH study finds heavily processed foods cause overeating and weight gain

 

[CWayne]

The grain and sugar industry sure pulled a coup when they managed to get grains made the biggest part of the US dietary recommendation chart. Coupled with low-fat fad that uses sugar to replace the mouth-feel of the tasteless garbage they were promoting, American's bought into it hook, line, and sinker.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I knew you were talking about the Keto diet. Ha. I've read quite a bit on it. I know a lot of keto folks, actually. That's always been a hot topic of debate. I've likely already read much of what you just shared here, but I'll flip through it some time today anyway. Thanks for taking the time to post links. I have to get rolling for now.

 

[CWayne]

Okay, here is a video that is primarily on diabetes on a low carb study. She does talk about weight loss, but the important part is about diabetes.

 

[CWayne]

Last post-off-topic, but here is a good presentation of the data backing a low carb diet.

 

[buttercup]

How does red meat cause diabetes when meat (a protein source with no carbohydrates) barely cause a rise in insulin production?

Type II diabetes is a disease in which the hormone insulin is hypersensitive to blood glucose. The excess consumption of carbohydrates causes insulin levels to rise so that the glucose in the bloodstream can be targeted for use as energy, or most often, stored as energy for later use. Since we, as a nation, consume so many carbohydrates, the blood glucose is always more than the body needs to burn. That means that insulin always acts as a door for storing fat.

When carbs (sugars) are kept to a minimum or eliminated completely, the insulin then acts in the opposite. The blood glucose is low or baseline and the insulin must then release the stored fat for the body to have energy.

Meat barely moves the insulin needle.
Fats do not move the insulin needle.

It has been shown in studies that the body will convert excess proteins to glucose, but then the liver quickly uses it up and then converts the rest to keystones.

Once the liver has detoxed from all the carbs and switches over to produce ketones, the body becomes more efficient at burning energy.

Since 1 gram of fat is 9 calories, you actually get more energy from fat than you do from carbs, which is only 4 calories per gram.

You didn't say whose studies. Who debunked the other studies? Can't just move on and skip the question. I'm willing to discuss it, but you have to tell us whose studies you're using to make your claim. Who debunked the other studies? What did they study? Did they study processed red meat, unprocessed red meat, there's all sorts of things involved with studies. How do you even debunk studies anyway?

You'll have to give me some time to go find them. I don't save that kind of thing in the hopes of using it in an online debate forum.

If you're actually interested in knowing, just do some research on Ketogenics. They started their research based on the old practices of doctors who would treat schizophrenia patients. They noticed not only did it help them, but they also lost weight and had remarkable improvements, if not outright remission, of diabetes.

Here is an article on this.

Chronic Schizophrenia Put Into Remission Without Medication

Here too is an article on how they got red meat wrong, done in a quick two-second search.

https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20190930/controversial-studies-say-its-ok-to-eat-red-meat

Use these keywords in a google search. "ketogenic diet research 2018"

And, of course, there are youtube videos that discuss keto diets and they cover how the Standard American Diet (SAD) is not healthy.

I'm sorry, but I fully reject the whole "keto" thing, and most of the claims behind it. It may be great for short term weight loss, but based on everything I have seen, it is one of the worst things people can do as a long term diet. For a number of reasons.

Also, the studies exonerating meat are almost always industry-funded, and later shown to be faulty and misleading. But most people don't realize that, and just believe whatever "study" happens to promote the foods they already WANT to eat. I mean, what average (non-vegan) person DOESN'T want to eat beef, bacon, butter, cheese, etc? People love all those things and are addicted to them.... so when a "study" comes along saying, "Guess what! Our study shows butter is good for you, and so is bacon and red meat!" of course people who already love those "foods" are going to take a study like that and believe it.

There's a quote by Dr. McDougall: "People love to hear good news about their bad habits." I think that quote perfectly sums up why keto is popular.

 

[buttercup]

Red and Processed Meat Guideline Recommendations | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians

This was posted on an earlier thread, and this is an example of what I was talking about in my previous post; conflicts of interest, and studies that go against the totality of the science, for decades, in an attempt to promote meat.

Some quotes from a Washington Post article…

“Undisclosed in the study was that NutriRECS, a consortium of about 20 researchers, has also formed a partnership with an arm of Texas A&M University partially funded by the beef industry.”

AND it turns out the lead author has a track record of not disclosing conflicts of interest:

“Last week, the New York Times published a story that revealed Johnston had not disclosed a conflict of interest on a similar study in 2016 in the Annals of Internal Medicine that aimed to debunk sugar consumption’s association with health risks. The study had been paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute, which has been financially supported by companies such as McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Cargill.”

According to those who have already debunked the study, several of the authors are proponents of the “Paleo” diet and eaters of red and processed meat, so it seems clear to me that it was biased from the start.

 

[CWayne]

How does red meat cause diabetes when meat (a protein source with no carbohydrates) barely cause a rise in insulin production?

Type II diabetes is a disease in which the hormone insulin is hypersensitive to blood glucose. The excess consumption of carbohydrates causes insulin levels to rise so that the glucose in the bloodstream can be targeted for use as energy, or most often, stored as energy for later use. Since we, as a nation, consume so many carbohydrates, the blood glucose is always more than the body needs to burn. That means that insulin always acts as a door for storing fat.

When carbs (sugars) are kept to a minimum or eliminated completely, the insulin then acts in the opposite. The blood glucose is low or baseline and the insulin must then release the stored fat for the body to have energy.

Meat barely moves the insulin needle.
Fats do not move the insulin needle.

It has been shown in studies that the body will convert excess proteins to glucose, but then the liver quickly uses it up and then converts the rest to keystones.

Once the liver has detoxed from all the carbs and switches over to produce ketones, the body becomes more efficient at burning energy.

Since 1 gram of fat is 9 calories, you actually get more energy from fat than you do from carbs, which is only 4 calories per gram.

You didn't say whose studies. Who debunked the other studies? Can't just move on and skip the question. I'm willing to discuss it, but you have to tell us whose studies you're using to make your claim. Who debunked the other studies? What did they study? Did they study processed red meat, unprocessed red meat, there's all sorts of things involved with studies. How do you even debunk studies anyway?

You'll have to give me some time to go find them. I don't save that kind of thing in the hopes of using it in an online debate forum.

If you're actually interested in knowing, just do some research on Ketogenics. They started their research based on the old practices of doctors who would treat schizophrenia patients. They noticed not only did it help them, but they also lost weight and had remarkable improvements, if not outright remission, of diabetes.

Here is an article on this.

Chronic Schizophrenia Put Into Remission Without Medication

Here too is an article on how they got red meat wrong, done in a quick two-second search.

https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20190930/controversial-studies-say-its-ok-to-eat-red-meat

Use these keywords in a google search. "ketogenic diet research 2018"

And, of course, there are youtube videos that discuss keto diets and they cover how the Standard American Diet (SAD) is not healthy.

I'm sorry, but I fully reject the whole "keto" thing, and most of the claims behind it. It may be great for short term weight loss, but based on everything I have seen, it is one of the worst things people can do as a long term diet. For a number of reasons.

Also, the studies exonerating meat are almost always industry-funded, and later shown to be faulty and misleading. But most people don't realize that, and just believe whatever "study" happens to promote the foods they already WANT to eat. I mean, what average (non-vegan) person DOESN'T want to eat beef, bacon, butter, cheese, etc? People love all those things and are addicted to them.... so when a "study" comes along saying, "Guess what! Our study shows butter is good for you, and so is bacon and red meat!" of course people who already love those "foods" are going to take a study like that and believe it.

There's a quote by Dr. McDougall: "People love to hear good news about their bad habits." I think that quote perfectly sums up why keto is popular.

That is absolutely wrong. There are over 60 studies touting the health benefits of a low carb diet. The largest benefit is the reversal of Type II diabetes. Weight loss is great and everything, but when they measure the blood chemistry of people who follow a low carb diet, they find that all the bad chemistry is gone and blood chemistry is normal.

Now, as for those who have a motive, look no further than the processed food and medical industry. The medical profession, with exceptions, have a vested interest in keeping people sick, and Type II diabetes is a money maker.

I know you won't watch it, but there may be others who have open minds about the current health crisis and the part that refined carbohydrates play in it.

 

[CWayne]

Red and Processed Meat Guideline Recommendations | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians

This was posted on an earlier thread, and this is an example of what I was talking about in my previous post; conflicts of interest, and studies that go against the totality of the science, for decades, in an attempt to promote meat.

Some quotes from a Washington Post article…

“Undisclosed in the study was that NutriRECS, a consortium of about 20 researchers, has also formed a partnership with an arm of Texas A&M University partially funded by the beef industry.”

AND it turns out the lead author has a track record of not disclosing conflicts of interest:

“Last week, the New York Times published a story that revealed Johnston had not disclosed a conflict of interest on a similar study in 2016 in the Annals of Internal Medicine that aimed to debunk sugar consumption’s association with health risks. The study had been paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute, which has been financially supported by companies such as McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Cargill.”

According to those who have already debunked the study, several of the authors are proponents of the “Paleo” diet and eaters of red and processed meat, so it seems clear to me that it was biased from the start.

The totality of our current advice on diet and nutrition is profit-driven and the proof of how bad it is can be seen in study after study.

When you have a cause of insulin resistance and the totality of the science says to continue to eat the cause, you have to question their motives along with their science.

 

[CWayne]

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Damn, she looks 60 not 35

 

[Yarddog]

A Florida couple who fed their children only raw fruits and vegetables was charged Wednesday with murder for the death of their 18-month-old son, authorities said.

Ryan Patrick O’Leary, 30, and Sheila O’Leary, 35, were indicted by a Lee County grand jury on charges of first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter, child abuse, and two counts of child neglect, State Attorney Amira Fox said at a Wednesday press conference.

Florida Vegans Charged With Murder for Allegedly Starving Toddler on Raw Food Diet
---------------

Just look at the photos of them in the article. Just look at the left wing woman. Nothing more annoying, more arrogant or dumber than a left wing woman. Then look at the schmuck guy she married.

Vegans folks. What losers.

These vegans in these days are really dumb. Children has a higher metabolism than an adult athlete. Because they are still growing. They need to eat lots of protein foods like peanut butter and beans, and vegetables and fruits, that is if they are going to be raise up as a vegan. Basically they will need to be grazing all day on food like a cow to keep up with their daily supply of nutrients. In these days, that it is hard to raise a child to be a vegan because of the price of organic produce. And it is not be worth being a vegan if you are eating GMO produces. That it cost more to raise children as vegans than raising them up as organic meat eaters. And Vegans don't consume dairy products which it is a good source for protein and good fats. Without enough protein in the body, that it will cause mental and physical damage. The heart is a muscle, and it needs lots of protein and vitamin B's to keep it pumping. We burns up vitamin B's constantly. That is why at the end of the day, we are very tire. And the food we eat doesn't completely circulate through the body until we are asleep. That is when the nutrients goes where it is needed.


A Vegetarian or Vegan Diet Puts You at Risk of Heart Disease


Chelsea Clinton No Longer Vegetarian, Never a Vegan : Ecorazzi

Babies need mothers milk because of the protein and other minerals. Then they need cooked vegetables because their digestive system is not yet formed enough to handle raw veggies. Most likely raw vegetables would pass right through the kids system without even being digested. next a little cooked meat would have been great. Kids need meat and protein, not a vegan idiot diet. Vegans are mentally ill from their diets or on the way there.

 

[buttercup]

Red and Processed Meat Guideline Recommendations | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians

This was posted on an earlier thread, and this is an example of what I was talking about in my previous post; conflicts of interest, and studies that go against the totality of the science, for decades, in an attempt to promote meat.

Some quotes from a Washington Post article…

“Undisclosed in the study was that NutriRECS, a consortium of about 20 researchers, has also formed a partnership with an arm of Texas A&M University partially funded by the beef industry.”

AND it turns out the lead author has a track record of not disclosing conflicts of interest:

“Last week, the New York Times published a story that revealed Johnston had not disclosed a conflict of interest on a similar study in 2016 in the Annals of Internal Medicine that aimed to debunk sugar consumption’s association with health risks. The study had been paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute, which has been financially supported by companies such as McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Cargill.”

According to those who have already debunked the study, several of the authors are proponents of the “Paleo” diet and eaters of red and processed meat, so it seems clear to me that it was biased from the start.

The totality of our current advice on diet and nutrition is profit-driven and the proof of how bad it is can be seen in study after study.

When you have a cause of insulin resistance and the totality of the science says to continue to eat the cause, you have to question their motives along with their science.

I was talking about the science, not general diet advice. The science has been consistent for a long time in regard to red and processed meat. Then you get a new "study" that goes against the totality of the science saying "hey wait a minute, keep eating meat, we took a second look and it's good for you!" Those types of studies are almost always industry funded, and as I pointed out in my previous post, the lead author of that particular one has a history of not disclosing blatant conflicts of interests.

As for Keto and low-carb, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I completely reject the whole idea behind keto, and the science backs up that it is dangerous in the long run. There are GOOD carbs that are unfortunately getting slandered by those pushing a high meat / low-carb diet. Don't even get me started, lol.

Btw, if you haven't already, please watch the documentary "The Game Changers." It's on Netflix and everywhere. It goes over some of the things we've been talking about, and more.

 

[Yarddog]

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but how could the baby die if food was still being fed to it?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Because the food was inadequate to sustain life.

That is what is wrong with this story. Something isn't being reported. A vegan diet, even for a child, is adequate for all nutritional needs.

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but how could the baby die if food was still being fed to it?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Because the food was inadequate to sustain life.

That is what is wrong with this story. Something isn't being reported. A vegan diet, even for a child, is adequate for all nutritional needs.

The baby was half the wheight it should have been for his age, so obviously something was very wrong. Probably not being fed enough, but then as well babies cant handle raw vegetables. Its too much fiber for their undeveloped digestive system. It probably cause the other food to just pass through as well without being digested properly. They are idiots.
Babies need protein. mostly milk. you can learn from the animals as they don't seem to have this mental problem of trying to reinvent the wheel. bears feed their babies what? milk. same for wolves, cows, pigs, sheep, dogs etc. etc.
Only some humans seem to have a problem of not knowing what to feed a baby.

 

[CWayne]

Red and Processed Meat Guideline Recommendations | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians

This was posted on an earlier thread, and this is an example of what I was talking about in my previous post; conflicts of interest, and studies that go against the totality of the science, for decades, in an attempt to promote meat.

Some quotes from a Washington Post article…

“Undisclosed in the study was that NutriRECS, a consortium of about 20 researchers, has also formed a partnership with an arm of Texas A&M University partially funded by the beef industry.”

AND it turns out the lead author has a track record of not disclosing conflicts of interest:

“Last week, the New York Times published a story that revealed Johnston had not disclosed a conflict of interest on a similar study in 2016 in the Annals of Internal Medicine that aimed to debunk sugar consumption’s association with health risks. The study had been paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute, which has been financially supported by companies such as McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Cargill.”

According to those who have already debunked the study, several of the authors are proponents of the “Paleo” diet and eaters of red and processed meat, so it seems clear to me that it was biased from the start.

The totality of our current advice on diet and nutrition is profit-driven and the proof of how bad it is can be seen in study after study.

When you have a cause of insulin resistance and the totality of the science says to continue to eat the cause, you have to question their motives along with their science.

I was talking about the science, not general diet advice. The science has been consistent for a long time in regard to red and processed meat. Then you get a new "study" that goes against the totality of the science saying "hey wait a minute, keep eating meat, we took a second look and it's good for you!" Those types of studies are almost always industry funded, and as I pointed out in my previous post, the lead author of that particular one has a history of not disclosing blatant conflicts of interests.

As for Keto and low-carb, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I completely reject the whole idea behind keto, and the science backs up that it is dangerous in the long run. There are GOOD carbs that are unfortunately getting slandered by those pushing a high meat / low-carb diet. Don't even get me started, lol.

Btw, if you haven't already, please watch the documentary "The Game Changers." It's on Netflix and everywhere. It goes over some of the things we've been talking about, and more.

That is just a flat out lie. The science has never been based in anything remotely close to science.

Again, I doubt you'll watch it, but here is the history of the lie about fat and its correlation to heart disease.

 

[CWayne]

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but how could the baby die if food was still being fed to it?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Because the food was inadequate to sustain life.

That is what is wrong with this story. Something isn't being reported. A vegan diet, even for a child, is adequate for all nutritional needs.

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but how could the baby die if food was still being fed to it?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Because the food was inadequate to sustain life.

That is what is wrong with this story. Something isn't being reported. A vegan diet, even for a child, is adequate for all nutritional needs.

The baby was half the wheight it should have been for his age, so obviously something was very wrong. Probably not being fed enough, but then as well babies cant handle raw vegetables. Its too much fiber for their undeveloped digestive system. It probably cause the other food to just pass through as well without being digested properly. They are idiots.
Babies need protein. mostly milk. you can learn from the animals as they don't seem to have this mental problem of trying to reinvent the wheel. bears feed their babies what? milk. same for wolves, cows, pigs, sheep, dogs etc. etc.
Only some humans seem to have a problem of not knowing what to feed a baby.

Again, you can get all the protein you need from the vegetable.

Baby food is nothing but pureed vegetables. Eating food (by definition, food is something that is not processed) is always a healthy thing to do, for all levels of life and development. Clearly, you don't give raw food to infants and you only introduce food in slow stages.

It may be that the baby was allergic. It certainly didn't help that the mother had stopped breastfeeding.

I don't disagree that the parents hold some criminal liability. But not because of the diet. A vegan diet is not an unhealthy one.

 

[buttercup]

Red and Processed Meat Guideline Recommendations | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians

This was posted on an earlier thread, and this is an example of what I was talking about in my previous post; conflicts of interest, and studies that go against the totality of the science, for decades, in an attempt to promote meat.

Some quotes from a Washington Post article…

“Undisclosed in the study was that NutriRECS, a consortium of about 20 researchers, has also formed a partnership with an arm of Texas A&M University partially funded by the beef industry.”

AND it turns out the lead author has a track record of not disclosing conflicts of interest:

“Last week, the New York Times published a story that revealed Johnston had not disclosed a conflict of interest on a similar study in 2016 in the Annals of Internal Medicine that aimed to debunk sugar consumption’s association with health risks. The study had been paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute, which has been financially supported by companies such as McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Cargill.”

According to those who have already debunked the study, several of the authors are proponents of the “Paleo” diet and eaters of red and processed meat, so it seems clear to me that it was biased from the start.

The totality of our current advice on diet and nutrition is profit-driven and the proof of how bad it is can be seen in study after study.

When you have a cause of insulin resistance and the totality of the science says to continue to eat the cause, you have to question their motives along with their science.

I was talking about the science, not general diet advice. The science has been consistent for a long time in regard to red and processed meat. Then you get a new "study" that goes against the totality of the science saying "hey wait a minute, keep eating meat, we took a second look and it's good for you!" Those types of studies are almost always industry funded, and as I pointed out in my previous post, the lead author of that particular one has a history of not disclosing blatant conflicts of interests.

As for Keto and low-carb, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I completely reject the whole idea behind keto, and the science backs up that it is dangerous in the long run. There are GOOD carbs that are unfortunately getting slandered by those pushing a high meat / low-carb diet. Don't even get me started, lol.

Btw, if you haven't already, please watch the documentary "The Game Changers." It's on Netflix and everywhere. It goes over some of the things we've been talking about, and more.

That is just a flat out lie. The science has never been based in anything remotely close to science.

Again, I doubt you'll watch it, but here is the history of the lie about fat and its correlation to heart disease.

Yeah, I've heard it before. Time and time again it has been shown that the "science" which supposedly backs what that guy is promoting is almost always industry funded, or pushed by people who are selling a book or certain products because those types of diets are very trendy right now.

You are dismissing not just one or two studies, but tons of different studies from all over the world, for decades. In other words, you are dismissing an overwhelming amount of evidence, in order to believe those who are promoting currently trendy diets, like paleo or keto (and now, even the "carnivore" diet.) As I said before, people LOVE to hear good news about bad habits. Who doesn't want to hear "Eat more bacon!" ? In addition to that, I think the popularity of those diets is, in part, a response to the growing move toward plantbased eating and veganism. There is a war going on, as people simply hate the idea of ever giving up the "foods" they have loved for so long.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you that too much sugar is bad, and of course I think we ALL agree that highly processed foods are bad, as well as junk food. And of course we need fats in out diet! But that doesn't mean using bacon grease (I'm using hyperbole here, but it's basically what that crowd pushes) to "fuel" our body, which to me is beyond idiotic, and I would have said the same thing even in my meat-eating, pre-vegan days. HEALTHY fats are necessary, of course, but our bodies were not designed to run on fat as our primary fuel, for a long period of time. That is a scam, which btw has caused several people who promote that scam to die early deaths.

 

[irosie91]

A Florida couple who fed their children only raw fruits and vegetables was charged Wednesday with murder for the death of their 18-month-old son, authorities said.

Ryan Patrick O’Leary, 30, and Sheila O’Leary, 35, were indicted by a Lee County grand jury on charges of first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter, child abuse, and two counts of child neglect, State Attorney Amira Fox said at a Wednesday press conference.

Florida Vegans Charged With Murder for Allegedly Starving Toddler on Raw Food Diet
---------------

Just look at the photos of them in the article. Just look at the left wing woman. Nothing more annoying, more arrogant or dumber than a left wing woman. Then look at the schmuck guy she married.

Vegans folks. What losers.

These vegans in these days are really dumb. Children has a higher metabolism than an adult athlete. Because they are still growing. They need to eat lots of protein foods like peanut butter and beans, and vegetables and fruits, that is if they are going to be raise up as a vegan. Basically they will need to be grazing all day on food like a cow to keep up with their daily supply of nutrients. In these days, that it is hard to raise a child to be a vegan because of the price of organic produce. And it is not be worth being a vegan if you are eating GMO produces. That it cost more to raise children as vegans than raising them up as organic meat eaters. And Vegans don't consume dairy products which it is a good source for protein and good fats. Without enough protein in the body, that it will cause mental and physical damage. The heart is a muscle, and it needs lots of protein and vitamin B's to keep it pumping. We burns up vitamin B's constantly. That is why at the end of the day, we are very tire. And the food we eat doesn't completely circulate through the body until we are asleep. That is when the nutrients goes where it is needed.


A Vegetarian or Vegan Diet Puts You at Risk of Heart Disease


Chelsea Clinton No Longer Vegetarian, Never a Vegan : Ecorazzi

Babies need mothers milk because of the protein and other minerals. Then they need cooked vegetables because their digestive system is not yet formed enough to handle raw veggies. Most likely raw vegetables would pass right through the kids system without even being digested. next a little cooked meat would have been great. Kids need meat and protein, not a vegan idiot diet. Vegans are mentally ill from their diets or on the way there.

vegetarian is ok ----with careful attention to completing the protein
with the right combinations--------VEGAN for an infant----NEVAH !!
veggies----milk-------and---a bit of egg could work. Persons called
JAINS manage-----gawd only knows how-----but they seem to thrive