• H&R Moderators: streaM Freak

Oysters instead of B12 supplements, for a raw food vegan diet?

Holy shit, I didn't read the use-by date on the mussels. They are alive, but they expire today. So, I guess I'm going to be eating 30 of them for dinner... Oh, well. That should catch me up on my B12, since I haven't consumed any for two weeks.

If you're willing to bend your veganism to shellfish, then what about insects, snails, or larger fish?

Snails are okay, but I'm not sure where to find them. As for insects, they have brains. (Although I doubt they are sentient, I'm not convinced either way.) Fish also have brains and the fishing industry is harmful in many ways. I don't want to overly complicate things. I'd prefer to eat molluscs during this diet, than snails (never tried them, raw) or insects (I used to catch and eat them all the time as snacks).
 
Thanks for the link.

At a 73 pages, however, it's a bit too long for me to read. I don't have the time to read an entire e-book about B12. I skimmed it, however, and have concluded that it is better to consume B12 naturally (which is the whole point of this thread) than through (most) supplements.

I'm now consuming raw scallops/oysters/mussels on a daily basis, and the e-book you provided lists scallops in the top 10 healthiest foods containing natural sources of B12. So, I'm pretty happy with what I'm doing.

Having said that, I don't trust the e-book. It is badly written, overly long and full of fear-mongering. Saying that almost everyone is deficient in B12 and that doctors won't test for it properly, so you'll never really know if you are, doesn't make any sense. I mean: if it isn't tested for sufficiently, then how can the author conclude that everyone is B12 deficient? (Seems like a direct contradiction, to me.) Coupling this with scare tactics about how B12 deficiency causes irreversible brain/liver damage, and adding links to various businesses (including the author's own website), screams self-investment to me. It doesn't come across - in any way - as a reliable scientific document... It comes across as a bit of a scam.

There are entire countries/religions that adhere to a strict (yet balanced) raw food diet. If this diet was as problematic as the book suggests, then there would be evidence. (Conveniently, the evidence doesn't exist because it isn't tested for properly. Apparently this guy knows more than all doctors, pathologists and nutritionists. Good for him.)
 
Having said that, I don't trust the e-book. It is badly written, overly long and full of fear-mongering. Saying that almost everyone is deficient in B12 and that doctors won't test for it properly, so you'll never really know if you are, doesn't make any sense. I mean: if it isn't tested for sufficiently, then how can the author conclude that everyone is B12 deficient? (Seems like a direct contradiction, to me.) Coupling this with scare tactics about how B12 deficiency causes irreversible brain/liver damage, and adding links to various businesses (including the author's own website), screams self-investment to me. It doesn't come across - in any way - as a reliable scientific document... It comes across as a bit of a scam.

There are entire countries/religions that adhere to a strict (yet balanced) raw food diet. If this diet was as problematic as the book suggests, then there would be evidence. (Conveniently, the evidence doesn't exist because it isn't tested for properly. Apparently this guy knows more than all doctors, pathologists and nutritionists. Good for him.)

Touché. Very well put. But it was all I could offer you.
 
I appreciate the gesture.

The guy who wrote the e-book doesn't have any scientific/medical qualifications.
(MA generally stands for Master of Arts, but - in this case - it should stand for Master of the Art of bullshit.)

:)

If you google his name, the first result is davidrainoshek.com and the description is:

davidrainoshek.com said:
There are some people who you just know are smart. David is one of them. He stands out among his peers. He's also diligent. He's a true researcher.

It's a quote from another website, "Renegade Health". By no co-incidence, it is the same unaccredited website that he used quotes from in his e-book \ brain-washing manual. (The website - Renegade Health - sells the B12 patch that Rainoshek says in his e-book you need to avoid irreversible brain damage.)
 
Last edited:
I appreciate the suggestion, I do, but it requires too much preparation to fit into my dietary plan. I'd prefer to eat entirely fresh food that is not prepared in any way, whatsoever. I'm basically trying to revert back to a "natural" diet that would be possible if I was an animal. The bacteria that grows on fermented cabbage may have B12, but it doesn't really fit into what I'm trying to do. I'd rather eat oysters.

Animals eat fermented food all the time, in the form of spoiled foods that have been left on the ground for a time. That's how sauerkraut was discovered: someone left a bunch of cabbage in salt water and it went off.

Honestly, I don't really understand the reasoning behind what you're trying to do. Your body needs what it needs, so just do that instead of all the ideological non-sense. Humans have cooked food since the dawn of time. Some food is cooked while other food is eaten fresh. Humans historically have not eaten a 100% fresh, unprepared diet, ever.

Besides... if you really want lots of nutrition in raw form, you should just eat raw liver. Oysters are a luxury food -- most prehistoric humans never even ate them. But they did eat pieces of raw liver, straight out of the animal they killed. Some modern people blend it up with veggies and other stuff. Liver, pound for pound, is the best source of iron, B12, and vitamin A. You can eat a couple ounces of it once a week and never have to worry about those nutrients again. I'd never do it because liver is nasty... but it sounds like your ideological kick means more to you than rational eating so have at it. ;)
 
I don't really understand the reasoning behind what you're trying to do. Your body needs what it needs, so just do that instead of all the ideological non-sense.

No, thanks. You can do that if you like. As I said, I don't want to. And, it's not non-sense.

Humans have cooked food since the dawn of time. Some food is cooked while other food is eaten fresh. Humans historically have not eaten a 100% fresh, unprepared diet, ever.

And when the first person ate an oyster, someone probably said WTF. Lots of people have raw diets. They're becoming more and more popular. So you can't really argue against uncooked diets. I understand your confusion about the non preparation aspect and I will explain as best I can. I don't think what I'm doing is difficult to understand. It's unusual, sure, but it makes sense.

I'm trying to find a perfectly balanced natural diet. By "natural" I don't mean I want to regress to a prehistoric man / ape diet, I mean naturally occurring food. The reason I said I want to my diet to be possible for an animal is: I don't want to consume anything that requires any processing (accidental or otherwise) in order to consume it.

B12 supplements are way out of the question because they require chemicals to bind the pills together and machines to produce them. (Not to mention all the processing required to produce concentrated B12.)

I don't think Sauerkraut is necessary. If it was necessary, then I would have to include it. I may have to, if I can't perfect my diet without it.

Besides... if you really want lots of nutrition in raw form, you should just eat raw liver.

Like most vegans, I have a problem with consuming sentient animals. And, like raw food diets, you can't argue against veganism. It's too widespread. Honestly, I don't see why anyone would - given the choice - want to inflict harm upon innocent (and potentially sentient) animals.

...

There is a big spiritual aspect to this diet. To a certain extent, it is an exercise in discipline. I am quite religious. I want to consume natural foods that God has created, rather than food cooked/processed by man. That might sound ludicrous to you. I suspect that it does. But, I don't see why you would bother to object to it if I'm getting the right minerals/ vitamins and I'm not hurting anyone in the process.

Another thing is: I'm consuming foods separately of each other, and discovering - by doing so - how my body re-acts to each individual "ingredient". I've had problems digesting gluten my entire life, which have resulted in embarrassing constipation/diarrhea/flatulence. This has contributed to a low self-image. Only recently have I discovered that I am much healthier and happier without gluten in my life. Which has lead me to think, perhaps there are other foods that I shouldn't be eating. I am on a mission - in other words - to find a perfect diet, for me. And I've made significant progress.

My body doesn't re-act particularly well to onions or leafy vegetables. So, onions are out and I'm trying to phase out leafy vegetables (although this has proved to be difficult).

Mankind has been consuming wheat and potatoes for a long time, but largely due to the threat of starvation. It's not practical to eat either, without cooking/processing. Indian people started consuming dairy, for the same reason. (Hence, the Holy Cow.) That threat (starvation) doesn't exist anymore, so there is no issue in removing these things from my diet. I don't need them.

I've literally been to hell a couple of times (I don't want to get into this) and I know for a fact that we all pay for our wrongdoings upon death. I'm not comfortable, deep down, causing pain to animals for my convenience - so that, for me, is a wrongdoing. This diet is seriously inconvenient, but I believe it is the right thing to do. Therefore, knowing what I know, it is what I must do. And, in the end, it isn't as bad as hell.

As for supplements, I don't want to consume pills on a daily basis because:

a) they remind me of drugs.
b) relying on supplements as a source for vitamins/minerals has, during past efforts to become vegan, caused me to neglect my food intake.
c) they taste like shit.

...

My diet is approaching perfection. It is difficult to adapt permanently, though. I've grown so accustomed - over the years - to eating cooked food and associating various childhood favourite meals and treats with happiness. Whenever I smell food being cooked (my girlfriend cooks food in my house every day), it's seriously tempting. That's why I'm being realistic and setting myself a year. Last time it was 6 months.

I hope that's cleared everything up.

...

P.S. Do you work in the sauerkraut marketing division or something?

P.P.S. I didn't realize that humans existed during "the dawn of time".
 
Last edited:
me said:
oysters aren't sentient

bit_pattern said:
How could you possibly know that for a fact?

Indeed. How can anybody possibly know anything as an absolute "fact"?

All reputable scientific research that I've read indicates that oysters are not sentient. I don't know it as an absolute fact. I never said I did. I do believe it, however, based on what I have read and my arguably limited understanding of how sentience relates to anatomy. The oyster doesn't have a brain. Instead, it has a small cluster of cells that do not appear to allow for sentience. If it is sentient, then perhaps plants are sentient. And, I have to eat something. So I'd rather eat something less sentient than more sentient.

I could cut and paste your question into a practically infinite number of threads/conversations. In the end, it is very difficult to prove something to someone who stubbornly doesn't want to know. The "you can't definitively prove that!" argument is a last resort, reserved by people who are otherwise out of options. I'm not going to bother having a creationist argument with a fundamentalist Christian and I'm not going to bother explaining myself any further to you. (No offence.)

bit_pattern said:
I don't know about that. Shellfish was a huge part of any coastal dwelling hunter gatherer society, as the ancient midden-heaps testify to

http://articles.philly.com/1995-04-1...ls-stones-tool

Thank you. That was extremely useful.
 
Words have variable meanings, not absolute meanings. The meanings of words change over time and they also differ from person to person.

I don't want to debate the definition of the word vegan.

You're having a discussion with nobody.
 
One year without B12 unless you have a disorder where your body dumps it or can't recycle it well, won't hurt you, more than likely. Stress however will.
 
I'm not comfortable, deep down, causing pain to animals for my convenience
It seems as though you're holding very rigidly to your idea of a "perfect" or "harm-free" diet (as well as many other views it seems), however such a thing does not exist. It's just not as simple as that, and you cannot live a "harm-free" life. Have you considered any of the potential suffering involved in the harvesting and production of the vegan food you intent to consume? Small animals and microorganisms are certainly harmed and killed during the churning of earth required to harvest produce on a mass scale. Perhaps you intent to grow your own food, which I suppose would lessen this to an extent. Or have you considered the suffering that arises when companies produce the computer you're using or the clothes you're wearing or the gas in your car/bus (It should not need pointing out that many of these "Big name" electronics companies that may have made your computer or smart phone or xbox etc. work their employees in horrid conditions.) However, I mean only to use these example to illustrate a point. I could go on and site many others, but I feel this should be sufficient to get my point across.

Don't get me wrong, it's great that you want to reduce the suffering inherent in the animal foods industry, or to at least reduce or eliminate your sense of responsibility. A simple awareness of this suffering is the correct first step indeed. A larger view of context is needed as well however.
I feel that your inflexibility will harm you in the long run in certain ways. For example, there is absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain IMO from taking a simple B12 supplement when necessary. Would you object to using iodized salt because the salt has been "processed" in a way? I should hope not. In the same way, a B12 supplement is there to be used, poses very little risk or harm, and may very well keep you from deficiency. You mentioned that one reason to avoid taking pill supplements is because they remind you of taking drugs. I would point out that B12 supplements are also made as liquid droppers and are tasteless.

[My diet is more like 1000 calories. Does this affect my B12 RDI?
No, RDIs and similar numbers usually represent the bare minimum(or very slightly above) what is needed to prevent deficiency. They are not meant to reflect what is needed for optimum health. There are complex idiosyncratic and ambient factors at work that make it impossible for me to say what is "optimal" for you.

I believe nori is considered a fine source of B12 btw

You mentioned a few times that you are not interested to debate definitions of these moral issues, however it seems to me that the way in which you posted inevitably invited such debate. Perhaps this was unintentional?
 
Welcome to Bluelight.

That was quite a first post.

To answer (respond to) your questions (statements):

1. Yes, I intend to grow my own food.
2. I also intend to generate my own electricity.
3. There is no processed salt in my diet, or anything else that is processed.
4. If I'm not getting B12 adequately from natural sources, I may have to switch to supplements. (I will have my levels tested regularly, starting in 2 weeks.) But, I don't think that is the case.
5. Liquid droppers remind me of LSD and other drugs.

It seems as though you're holding very rigidly to your idea of a "perfect" or "harm-free" diet (as well as many other views it seems), however such a thing does not exist. It's just not as simple as that, and you cannot live a "harm-free" life.

Yes, you can. I've known people all over the world who live off the land with zero carbon emissions. Since I was brought up in a technological world and trained to not care about the environment, however, it requires - for me - a considerably lengthy (and difficult) adjustment period.

You mentioned a few times that you are not interested to debate definitions of these moral issues, however it seems to me that the way in which you posted inevitably invited such debate. Perhaps this was unintentional?

I don't want to debate the definition of the word vegan because that's just pedantry, but I have no issue with discussing what I'm doing.

Thanks for your reply, particularly the stuff pertaining to RDI and the Nori suggestion (very useful).

Nori has jumped into the lead. I just need to investigate how it is processed, how expensive it is, and where it is available. Also: whether or not it can be cultivated on a small scale.
 
Last edited:
Welcome to Bluelight.
Thank you.
but I have no issue with discussing what I'm doing.
Good, then please allow me to continue :)

Yes, you can. I've known people all over the world who live off the land with zero carbon emissions. Since I was brought up in a technological world and trained to not care about the environment, however, it requires - for me - a considerably lengthy (and difficult) adjustment period.
Unfortunately, carbon emission are not the signpost for how much suffering one creates during his/her lifetime. This food your plan to grow for yourself, I trust you'll be using an aeroponic technique right? Surely you would not risk the lives of so many worms, small creatures, and bacteria/fungi just in order to enjoy the ease and luxury of a dirt garden. I really wish it were possible by a few simple actions to completely erase any further "karmic foot print" in this world. I get it, you didn't read the fine print about the suffering inherent in life when you were born and took your body. None of us did, it's ok ;)
For what's it worth, I believe your intentions are good.
 
Top