Holy crap mark.

Your third post back covered just about every topic possible. Eskimo women who pop out their babies without their husband's help? I'm not sure how that is related. Does that determine health somehow?

"Price found 0!! healthy native populations on veg diets"

That does not mean that it is impossible to live a very healthy lifestyle on a veg diet. There are obviously a lot of other variables involved.

"Everywhere he went he found native groups and as long as they were on thier native diet they were bloody healthy. (I have shown you some pics which you discount as they don't fit in your belief system instead of looking into it)"

What pics are you talking about that I discredited? How did that guy determine their health? Did he consider lifestyle differences? Or did he just establish the conclusion that it was diet-related?

"Native Indians being bloody healthy-I have mentioned many times some of the sources . You simply discount. If you would actually like to do some of the research I'll give you them again."

Go ahead. I would like to know what metric was used to determine "bloody healthy" that would suggest that it was diet-related rather than simply life-style related (tribal groups being more active than colonized groups).

You keep saying that I "simply discount" your sources. I haven't discredited them completely, but I have read some and I do see evidence of bias and agenda. Namely, they don't report ANYTHING positive about a veg diet. Why is that? What kind of balanced reporting are they doing? If you read only their research, it almost seems like eating a veg diet will make you shrivel up and die a slow painful death.

Even so, there may be some good information within their research. However, I doubt that the research is really balanced. I've suggested before that you have an agenda with your research that keeps you from researching things that give opposing views to what you already believe. It seems like you go searching for the answers that you want to find. For example, you won't research positive research about Soy because you've already made up your mind, etc.

I think I'm making a pretty valid point here.

If I had more time, I would read more of your sources. I've read some in the past that you've posted. I would just like to see more balance from your sources. Why don't you post some opposing viewpoints as well? "This is what this guy says...but here's another guy that makes a good opposing point." I'll bet somewhere in between will be the truth.

I just wanted to give an example of a vegan athlete (Mac Danzig) who seems to be doing quite well. I don't think the number of healthy vegetarian tribal groups that Weston Price researched a hundred years ago makes any difference in this Mac Danzig's life today. Somehow, this guy is breaking natural laws of some kind because he is vegan and he is in damn good shape and strong and healthy...and plenty aggressive (counter to the typical stereotype of vegetarians).

How do you explain that?

How can this guy's achievements counter, by example, just about everything that Weston A. Price's research on vegetarian diets suggests? Is this kid somehow supernatural?

I'm not trying to be a vegan evangelist here...I'm just trying to make a point by example.

Here are a couple videos of Mac Danzig in competition.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ljp6Upjdz4s
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0BAWOiiKKV8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=w4YH4v3ssnw

Tell me this guy isn't healthy.
Tell me he is lacking aggression.
Tell me he is lacking strength.
Is Mac Danzig defying the laws of nature???

I think someone needs to inform him that vegans are weak and unhealthy.