Why people should not eat animals

Ever wake up with the answer to a question you didn’t know you asked? It felt that way to me this morning. I awoke with the reason why people should not eat meat. It’s a really simple concept and it doesn’t involve the dreaded four letter word FEAR. It’s all about the body ridding itself of triggers what would have toxic side effects.

If you haven’t noticed, I’ve been reading The China Study by T. Colin Campbell (and others) for a while and it was the last thing that I read before falling asleep.

This book is all about the links between animal based proteins and common disease. The authors have done an amazing job taking a second look at scientific studies from a nutritional point of view. I highly recommend giving it adequate time (and I’m only half way through it) yet I’ve already drawn one connection that makes the reading all worth it.

Before falling asleep last night, I read through the Autoimmune Diseases chapter (9) and highlighted this section:

What does all of this have to do with what we eat? It so happens that the antigens that trick our bodies into attacking our own cells may be in food. During the process of digestion, for example, some proteins slip into our bloodstream for the intestine without being fully broken down into their amino acid parts. The remnants of undigested proteins are treated as foreign invaders by our immune system, which sets about making molds to destroy them and sets into motion the self-destructive autoimmune process.

This is basically saying that there is a point during the digestion process where the intestines can absorb molecules and it is long before the amino acid level. This leads us too; when you eat, not only do you get the atomic acids that are the fundamental building blocks for life, but you get some of the ‘life’ of the previous animal too!

In other words, the animal that you’re eating had to create protein complexes that it used for cellular life. Sequences of proteins that unlocked its DNA are now floating around in your biological system.

As Dr. Campbell points out, the autoimmune system discovers these foreign protein complexes and replicates another protein to break it down.

Now the real question comes to play – why?

To understand why, we have to look at the work of Dr Lipton:

You remember reading through that book? If not, you can always revisit the lecture series that I blogged about a short while ago (Unlocking your DNA). One of the key things that Dr. Lipton demonstrates is that protein molecules perform functions within the body as stimuli and/or triggers. If you need a refresher, start at the fourth video for there he talks about primary and secondary stimuli and then leads into how the cell replaces the proper effecter for the stimuli by using the DNA to replicate the desired response protein.

Dr. Lipton points out that when a cell doesn’t have the right response for a stimuli in the environment, the signal molecules unlock the DNA in order for the cell to create the correct response to handle the environmental signals.

With this as background, let’s add the two together and see what happens.

Some animal dies for our food. In that animal’s cells (just before and after death) there are an un-measureable number of complex (and simple) protein molecules that work as both the signal and response proteins for that animal’s cells. We than consume these cells in large quantities where not all the proteins are broken down to their basic amino acids. This means that both signal and response proteins could be floating around in the bloodstream triggering cells to behave in ways that the ‘brain’ (or central controller) never intended. As an emergency response to the float of signals in the bloodstream, the autoimmune system quickly replicates the ‘anti-molecule’ to inhibit the invasion of proteins. Yet, sometimes, because the animal proteins may be very similar to human proteins, the ‘anti-molecule’ ends up attacking a similar useful protein in the body (like the pancreas that causes type-1 diabetes). Also, if the autoimmune system can’t get to all of them fast enough, some of them may actually trigger the chain reaction on the surface of a cell that eventually causes some relatively dormant function in the cell to awaken and to successfully service the signal, some primitive section of the DNA gets unlocked and harmful proteins are reproduced to service the trigger.

Said differently, when we consume protein molecules that were other animal triggers and responses, we end up introducing ‘foreign’ forms of life into our biological system. How those other life forms work and respond may not be aligned with what should be done for humans.

What about plants? When you read The China Study, it’s pretty clear that the differentiating line is between animal proteins and plant proteins. Could it be that Mother Nature thought of all this ahead of time so as to make the signals and triggers different between animals and plants? Also, maybe our bodies are specifically designed to NOT break down molecules into their basic amino acid so as to allow for absorption of molecules like chlorophyll. Chlorophyll is so close to the form of Hemoglobin that it doesn’t make sense for the body to break it down all the way, but rather absorb it and let the body tweak it from one form to another. It would save lots of energy to not break something down just to have to rebuild it again.

Also, the simple concept that plants take in animal waste and animals take in plant waste is a pretty good sign that the relationship is synergetic.

So, what was the realization that I woke up with?

It’s this, when we consume animal protein, because our system doesn’t completely digest all molecules, many different types of molecules enter the bloodstream through digestion rather than being released through our glandular systems. When this happens, our bodies respond through our immune system to remove the invaders before they do damage to the cells. Unfortunately, if the amount of animal protein is too high (or they enter the blood too fast) the defense mechanisms of the body can’t keep up and these proteins act upon our cells as if they would in the animal!

This idea would seem to give more meaning to the phrase – you are what you eat!

This also ties in well with a video that I came across a long time ago from The Raw World TV Show. As luck would have it, I’ve found that old show.  Here it is:

I remember when I first watched this being struck by the idea that it wasn’t just giving up animal proteins, but giving up cooking as well. This would make sense for when you cook Chlorophyll molecules, they break apart into molecules that would be absorbed, yet they would also be ‘toxic’ substances that the immune system would have to deal with. That is not the case when you go raw!

At this point, it seems to me that when we cook food we denature molecules that the body expects to see in its natural state. Likewise, when we consume animal proteins, we willingly accept signal and response molecules that may or may not have unexpected effects on the body.

Waking up with this understanding gives me a new perspective on what I eat!  If it also does for you, let me know.

Have a great day!

8 thoughts on “Why people should not eat animals

  1. Hi Dave-
    Re: the Amino Acid remarks–the gist of the main dialogue was regarding protein, and I was just following that track to keep it simple.
    The human body does not absorb the “bad” cholesterol–it makes it. Our diet determines which cholesterol will be made–hence the importance of good diet.
    And yes, glad for this discussion–will check into Lipton.

  2. Eleanor, I totally appreciate our interaction for it has forced me to look deeper into this subject looking to see if things are as black and white as you state.
    I agree mostly with what you say here “the reactions are done by a system of lock and key connections, and if the fit not exact, you block the reaction, …” My research has lead me to discover that the connections that are made may not be fool proof one-to-one operations. In other words, it may be that one catalyst can connect too many different forms of a molecule. This may be the case with the catalyst that absorbs cholesterol. If the body could tell the difference between the good cholesterol and the bad ones, you would think that the human body would have evolved to not absorb the bad compound. Yet, both are absorbed by the body but only one is beneficial.
    If you do have an open mind to seeing things from a different perspecitive, I would highly recommend an introduction to Dr. Lipton’s work via the article that I posted which has his video series (a simple demonstration).
    Finally, you seem pretty firm that the body breaks everything down into simple Amino Acids. If that is the case, how can the body absorb vitamins? Or other helpful molecules that don’t qualify as amino acids? You’re statement almost makes it sound like we can live on amino acids alone. What about sugar? It’s not an amino acid. There are many examples that stand outside this view.
    In any case, thanks again for the interaction. I feel your dialog has strengthened my understanding and, for that, I am thankful.

  3. Hi Dave-
    you are correct-I have not read Lipton–will do so when have the time, because if correct this info would open so many new doors– but
    your write “The molecular form might be so close to what our own bodies create that these molecules actually trigger reactions in the cells before our defense system can counter the actions”– My understanding is that the reactions are done by a system of lock and key connections, and if the fit not exact, you block the reaction, but can’t create another action that could create–you might impede the body’s getting what it needs–and of course, you will get your immune system activated as it tries to get rid of the non-absorbable fragment.
    So, what I am saying is that the body is “programmed” to do certain things, and cannot change that process without some sort of intervention–and I think you are saying that Lipton is saying this is an intervention that could change the body’s basic
    way of operating.
    But my objection stands–if you do not break the protein down to the AA’s, the body will reject it–
    signal and response molecules become neutral AA’s, or are attacked by the immune system.

  4. From eleanor @ this location.
    “when we consume protein molecules that were other animal triggers and responses, we end up introducing ‘foreign’ forms of life into our biological system. How those other life forms work and respond may not be aligned with what should be done for humans”–
    this is flawed thinking–our bodies are designed to break down what we eat to the basics–protein to amino acids, etc.–wht enters our stomachs does not enter into our system until broken down to essential units via process of digestion-
    so what finally enters our system is what you could call “neutral”–ie, plant or animal protein is by that time broken down to the same essential amino acid units.

    eleanor 2011-02-19 15:38
    HI Dave
    Intestinal absorption stops at the point at which it was designed for–to break food to the elements that the body needs for repair and sustinance, and that are able to be absorbed thru the intestinal lining–it is an intricate system, and does have controls and limits. It ejects (unless unwell, damaged) what is foreign. Our digestive enzymes can only go so far, are not capable of breaking food down to the individual CHO atoms.
    I think you are mixing the body and consciousness here. The body has limits, and cannot do the things you ascribe to it. BUT there is much to think about re: consciousness, and our sensitivity to the consciousness of the animal in its meat that we eat–but that consciousness is not something that is a body function within the digestive tract .

  5. Hi Eleanor,
    What you are expressing seems similar to how I thought before the revelation that I came to which I blogged about.
    I will try to make this short.
    I had to look closely at intestinal digestion before things starting making sense to me. I will try to share that understanding using different words.
    Generally speaking, yes, the process of intestinal digestion breaks down ‘larger’ items into ‘smaller’ items. But at what point does it stop? If we take it to the extreme, ‘smaller’ would be atomic. That is, what we consume would be broken down into individual carbon, hydrogen and oxygen (etc) atoms. What we could consider the smallest units that are commonly recognized.
    But it’s pretty easy to argue against this. If the intestinal digestive process broke food down to its atomic level, molecules like sugar would be dissolved before ever reaching the cells. We know that cells get energy from breaking down sugar or other protein molecules. Thus simple logic would support what you’re saying that intestinal digestion breaks foods down, but not so far as to render the molecules useless to the cells.
    Thus, I would agree with you when you say “our bodies are designed to break down what we eat to the basics–protein to amino acids”. If you perform a quick search on Wikipedia for ‘amino acid’, you’ll find that they are molecules of many atoms. Likewise, if you look up ‘cellular respiration’ you’ll find that simple sugars are also multi atom structures. Our bodies absorb molecules.
    We also know, as you mentioned in your previous comment, that “… once these large molecules get into our circulation, yes, then the immune system attacks them.” Studies have also shown that when people consume cooked food the body’s white blood cell count climbs (indicating that the body is fighting off an invader) whereas when people eat raw food the body doesn’t respond the same way. There is relatively no increase in the white blood cell count.
    I would be willing to bet that we both agree that the body absorbs relatively ‘small’ molecules – but they are not absolutely broken down into simple sugar or single amino acids.
    At this point, we consider the work of Dr. Lipton. His work pretty clearly outlines the concept of triggers and receptors. There are molecules that perform both functions. Trigger molecules can be hormones, ‘food’ or other molecules. When there is a trigger in the system, the cells respond to it.
    The intuitive moment that I had is that when we consume animal proteins, when our bodies break the larger ‘food’ down into absorbable molecules, it may be that these molecules may already be in a form that makes it act like a trigger. The molecular form might be so close to what our own bodies create that these molecules actually trigger reactions in the cells before our defense system can counter the actions.
    Likewise, these protein molecules might also have the ability to trigger the cells into unlocking particular parts of the DNA that would replicate items that the body had not intended to create. Drugs can work this way, yet they are a bit more pronounced.
    I appreciate you’re feedback but get the feeling you haven’t looked at Dr. Lipton’s work. If you haven’t, I would highly suggest.
    To those of you that have looked into his work, don’t rule out light as a trigger.
    Good day.

  6. Thanks. The breakthrough for me came when it dawned on me that our bodies absorb molecules AND those molecules could also be trigger molecules. I’m willing to bet that there are significant differences between plant cellular life triggers and animal cellular life triggers that they don’t interfere with each other.

    I first started down this path when you look at what cooking does to food. The rise in temperature causes molecules to break down. Thus, when you ingest them, your body absorbs broken molecules that trigger an autoimmune response. People have known about this for a long time, but it’s only after reading The China Study’s chapter on autoimmune disorders that I realized why.

    Overall, it’s one thing to know something and something completely different to actually practice it. For now, I’ve reduce significantly the amount of cooked food that I’m consuming along with nearly illuminating cheese. My meat consumption is probably halved from a couple years ago. Now if only my wife were open to changing her diet. If so, I could see me going raw and her going partly raw. 🙂

Leave a Comment