Yet another person's opinion. What a bunch of biased crap. I was a vegan for 3 1/2 years and I've been vegetarian off at various times since I was a teenager. This type of crap really gets old.

Mark, I understand that you seem to be a big fan of Paul Chek. That's great. I'm sure he is a knowledgable individual with some things, but I'm also pretty sure that his specialty is not the vegetarian diet. Personally, I don't think there is only one ideal diet that is perfect for everybody. Paul, however, has a lot of books to sell, and I guess he is supposed to have some sort of perfect ideal nutrition ironed out for everybody who wants to buy his books. But, seriously, the concept of "one perfect diet" is just flawed from the beginning. There is not one human being who has enough experience with all diets. The comparisons which lead to ancestor's diets from thousands of years ago are flawed comparisons. Not only did our ancestors live very short lives, but they were also were generally more active than people from today. There are lots of things to consider when comparing people from today with our ancestors. There are lots of variables left out of the comparison. Our ancestors were very limited geographically and educationally. Those serious limitations do not exist today, which allows a person today to possibly eat a healthy vegetable-based diet.

I seriously doubt Paul's (or anybody's) personal experience with studying multiple diets. Firt of all, his bias is ridiculously obvious. But also, I would like to understand Paul's personal experience with having a vegetarian or vegan diet. How long did he live on a vegetarian diet? How did he feel? What did he eat? What vegetarian foods did he have good experience with? What vegetarian foods did he have problems with?

Of course, I'm assuming that he has no personal experience with a vegetarian diet. He mentions in his article that "because in my career I have worked with many unhealthy vegetarians."

No shit...

"Often my vegetarian patients were in need of animal nutrition yet, for one or more of the above reasons were initially resistant to my suggested inclusion of animal foods for regaining their health."

He says they were in need of animal nutrition. Can you be more specific? Do you mean they were in need of additional protein? Vitamin B-12? More iron? Why would you jump to the conclusion that they absolutely needed to get their nutrition from animal sources? Again, more obvious bias.

How many healthy vegetarians has Paul worked with? How many serious athletes has he worked with that have a "successful" vegetarian diet? It seems to me that people come to him BECAUSE they are unhealthy....so no wonder that the vegetarians that he meets are unhealthy. In fact, I'll bet that out of all of his customers, he likely has had far many more omnivorous people than vegetarians. Yet, that he doesn't see that as a reason to dismiss having an omnivorous diet.

"Q: I don’t want to eat meat because to do so would retard my spiritual development.

Paul Chek: This is a common misconception.
"

How in the hell can you logically call someone's FAITH a "misconception"? If someone believes that eating meat is not good for their spirituality, then that is not something that can really be argued, anymore than a belief in god can be argued. Faith is not grounded in rationale. It's called FAITH for a reason.

Mark, I also don't think nature intended for humans to consume cow's milk at all...raw or otherwise. Are you a cow?

Look...I just got through eating a fish sandwich about an hour ago. I ate a turkey sandwich yesterday, and a chicken sandwich the day before. I'm further experimenting with my diet. I'm obviously no longer a vegetarian or vegan, but when people like Paul write articles such as this, they have an agenda. He sites some references to back up some of his beliefs. If he were a realistic researcher, he would submit multiple sides of the equation. He would seek out those who have a successful vegan/vegetarian diet. He would find those people who don't rely on meat as a nutrition source, and he would point out references that supported multiple viewpoints. Instead, he just dug up whatever research backed up his own opinions. That is what everyone does, and I thikn it's really lame.

Mark, you seem to be treating this Paul Chek guy like a god. That can be very dangerous. It's called faith for a reason.