Vegetarians - why?
- Thread starter Hader
- Start date
Ok well my mistake for name. I don't do Spanish so there is no chance of me remembering it. Well it was a well regarded vegetarian/vegan restaurant where I got it. I think I eat big lunches so that probably contributed. Tofu just tasted like air. Although it was in Miso soup(which was kinda crap) so it wasn't a proper Tofu portion if you know what I mean. Just a small block at the bottom.Liudeius said:
I have no problem with eating fruit and vegetables. I am more talking about pure vegetarian meals. From my experience of vegetarian meals so far they are ridiculously unfilling. Although I do plan to keep trying the odd time to see if I can find something I like. Haven't had a great first experience.
I can see clearly the string of contorted rationalisation as you conflate one with another, then another to say that all Meat Production is Torture. Then accuse me of guilt in this concocted reality.psyks said:
That is nonsense. That is cognitive dissonance. You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with yourself, this tirade is for your own benefit.
Factory farming (by the broad definition that catches 99% of American agriculture) is not torture. It is not. Stop piling exaggeration on top of exaggeration.
You continue to ignore the distinction between beliefs and the rationale behind them. THAT is what I dispute with you, your reasoning and justification. You can go on being vegetarian but you must end this delusion of torture, or it may drive you to do something crazy.
Your petty personal attacks are completely unjustified: Comparing me to a tea party activist... patronising me for using "big words"... calling me egotist and consumed by gluttony.
You twist my words, to imply I called you an extremist "for trying to escape from that sordid industry" when I called you an extremist for taking humility towards animals too far and losing sight of the virtue of humility in general. I must respond to that, you may call it nit-picking and it may be a throw away remark for you, but it is still defamatory and deceptive.
You should take those comments back.
I don't want you to start eating meat again, not unless you really want to.
Homo Carnivorous said:
You've done research, but not enough: (From http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropmajor.html)
The sales of corn equal $15.1 billion
The sales of Soybeans equal $12.5 billion.
Those are the two major crops grown in the USA and the vast majority goes towards feeding livestock and being used in industry. Businesses like Monstano rely on the meat industry, it's their #1 customer.
You're entire argument is completely moot with this bit of information.
This also means those multi-billion dollar agricultural companies you think are "vegetarians' friends" are just another contributor to pro-meat & dairy lobbyists... who are the ones dictating what we should eat.
(And... um... you do realize that Monsanto was the company responsible for Agent Orange... and we now trust them with our food?!)
I was also in college when that "egg scare" occurred. We studied it because it was a major PR campaign and that was my major (Recall "The Incredible, edible egg"?) Funny how no one in the public looked at the boxes that closely. They actually increased our daily recommended dosage of cholesterol, therefor making the % in eggs go down - problem solved, eggs are now healthy for us again! There wasn't any miraculous scientific breakthrough involved, it was all marketing.
It's not research. It's a persuasive essay written by a proponent of your point of view. He cites other persuasive essays written by proponents of his point of view as "sources". You have to go at least 4 layers deep to find anything objective or scientific. You might as well cite the mission statement of the North American vegetarian society as "proof" of something.Chased said:
As for a position, you made a statement that suggested that we have verifiable evolutionary data on the pH of human saliva (we don't. In fact it varies from person to person based on diet).
You then implied carnivores invariably have more acidic saliva than herbivores (they don't).
You then said we have "the same" intestines as an herbivore, when the length of the human alimentary tract is actually variable from person to person and can change in a person's lifetime based on diet (also... you know... we can't digest cellulose, which is something that pretty much every dedicated herbivore on the planet can do).
You also completely neglected the fact that there are nutrients required for human life for which there are no natural vegetable sources, such as cobalamin (aka vitamin B 12)
You then said our canines are the same as those of other "plant eaters such as primates". We are primates. Most other species of primates are omnivorous, as well, and pretty much any anthropologist on earth will tell you so. Even the essay you cited admits that, but says "most of the meat they eat is termites." Most? Most? Most?
Here's a video of our closest animal relatives eating "mostly termites".
<youtube=KTPkmH4hWCs>
I'll get off my high horse as soon as you make sense. Until then, it's too much effort, and I can see better from up here.
They weren't eating bugs, dude. You should probably watch it. It pretty much destroys your notion of primates as "plant eaters". And a video of them behaving this way is what's known as a "primary source". It's considered a much more powerful piece of evidence than anything you presented.Chased said:
Yes, because that actually has something to do with the discussion. You base your entire argument against dental arguments for an omnivorous diet on the notion that primates are "plant eaters" and I show you a video of chimps killing and eating a monkey, a decidedly non-herbivorous behavior.Chased said:
You respond with a comedic video of people pissing? I think I can go ahead and declare victory. I'll expect a written concession by the end of the week.
Some chocolate ice cream I like, but for the most part, vanilla, or butterscotch, or ripple or something like that is for me, strawberry or something. I can't just eat plain chocolate ice cream, I need it to be chocolate pecan or something.Onyx Oblivion said:
I tried once, I sort of fell for peta's lies...that only lasted about 4 months, bacon made me crack, oh, and Penn and Teller's Bullshit episode about peta.
I spent a little time researching the meta-analysis that HomoCarniv. provided - and thanks, HC, for the link. What I discovered:Lerxst said:
* Funding for Hu came from the National Dairy Industry
* While saturated fat may only be a piece of the puzzle, cholesterol levels definitively have been proven to impact CVD
This is a pretty good link with some references and recommended reading; it's a website for health professionals --->
http://www.rd411.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1452:saturated-fat-and-cholesterol-a-look-at-the-conflicting-information&catid=98:heart-health&Itemid=392
Bottom line(s):
So, I can eat as much fatty meat and butter as I want?
Absolutely not. A past president of the American Heart Association has cautioned people to not overinterpret the results of this research. Many studies have shown that saturated fat will raise cholesterol levels, and the advice to limit intake is not likely to change in the near future.
Research is beginning to show that it is not just cholesterol intake, saturated fat consumption, or any other single thing that leads to heart disease. The shift is toward ?a whole diet? approach to wellness, rather than a series of recommendations that each hone in on one single piece of the puzzle. It seems that a combination of saturated fat, sugar, and refined carbohydrates seem to increase the risk of heart disease and stroke.
And:
For instance, a study published in Circulation in December 1993 examined the diets and heart disease rates of people in Finland and France. The risk of CHD was four times what it was in France, and yet their intake of cholesterol and saturated fat were very similar. After adjusting for cholesterol and saturated fat, the components of milk were further studied. It was discovered that more milk and butterfat were consumed in Finland than in France. Furthermore, the French ate more plant foods.
The authors concluded:
?Over the years, France and Finland, with similar intakes of cholesterol and saturated fat, consistently have had very different CHD mortality rates. This paradox may be explained as follows. Given a high intake of cholesterol and saturated fat, the country in which people also consume more plant foods, including small amounts of liquid vegetable oils, and more vegetables (more antioxidants) had lower rates of CHD mortality. On the other hand, milk and butterfat were associated with increased CHD mortality, possibly through their effects on thrombosis as well as on atherosclerosis.?
The Mediterranean diet, a diet high in fruits, vegetables, fatty fish, nuts, olive oil, and whole grains, has consistently proven itself to decrease the risk of heart disease. Of course, this diet also is pretty low in saturated fat. If you want to avoid heart disease, it seems sensible that you would also end up decreasing your intake of saturated fat, as a matter of course in embracing your new lifestyle.
I haven't seen ANYthing (and I mean ANYthing) out there that looks reputable in terms of saturated fat actually being GOOD for you; period, nada, zip. Even HC's meta-analysis simply was attempting to prove that saturated fat might not have as much impact on CVD as we think - which is good news. But you take that with all the other information...
Also, I thought it was kind of amusing:
http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/bunk28.html
It's the Skeptic's Dictionary talking about the first doctor, Uffe Ravnskov, that HC mentioned as "proof" that meat was good for you. Or cholesterol wasn't bad. Or something like that.
I'm not going to make the sweeping ethical statements of some vegans in that a vegan diet is necessary to save the Earth, more humane, etc., but out of the thousands of studies, meta-analysis, and time spent in the medical and nutritional fields myself I can pretty much conclusively say that any diet - including meat or not - benefits from including a healthy variety of fruits and vegetables. The phytonutrients, antioxidants, etc., from consuming plants probably go far beyond cardiovascular protection.
Michael Pollen's advice is looking pretty good still.
TL;DR - I don't think that any medical advice is going to come out, ever, that says "don't eat vegetables, they're bad for you" - meat may or may NOT be bad for you depending on other health factors - refined carbohydrates are pretty much universally agreed upon as horrible.
Me, I'll continue to eat a vegan/Mediterranean style diet as I've found that it's tasty, easy to do, and causes my total cholesterol (which I still think is an important CVD risk indicator) to be extremely low and also keeps my weight low even in periods of relative inactivity. It's focused around legumes/beans, vegetables, fruits, and some seeds and nuts with grain not really being a centerpiece; but whole grains occasionally doing a cameo.
I will of course adjust my diet and opinion if I gain new data that I find conclusive. Thus far most of the paleo diet people seem to be doing what most diet gurus are doing - trying to make money and sell supplements.
Sorry, I was just responding to your patronising comments with my own remarks.Treblaine said:
I think I can see where we disagree and it's in your disregard for the suffering of animals. Just tell me you don't care and this would be easier to sort out. I think we can both agree that animals who are factory farmed are kept in poor conditions. They feel pain and fear and all the rest because they have an interest in surviving, an interest humans obviously deny them. Now, you take the position, which in my opinion is rather entitled, of humans being evolutionarily superior and thus morally superior to the animals we farm. The reason I don't share that position is because I don't need to eat meat to survive, but more importantly, I don't believe I'm entitled to the life of an animal. I don't think that's extreme humility. It'd be extreme if I only ate berries that had already fallen on the floor, or if I only drank water that was offered to me by a cloud. But, when it comes to the life of an animal, I don't feel superior enough to make a chicken be debeaked or be forced into half a square foot of space or to feel fear and pain in those conditions. Call me an extremist, but that life doesn't belong to me or anyone and it's rather gross and entitled to inflict fear and pain for something we don't need to survive.
This is one of the simplest minded questions i ve ever seen.
Has it ever occured to you that not EVERYONE likes meat?
Also did you know that some like animals more than they like eating them?
You dont need an answer for this, just think outside your own head.
Has it ever occured to you that not EVERYONE likes meat?
Also did you know that some like animals more than they like eating them?
You dont need an answer for this, just think outside your own head.
Supposedly vegetarianism is healthier. Then there's a case to be made about the environment, and the horridly inefficient land and energy use of livestock farming as opposed to crop farming.
There's also the animal rights activism side of it, too.
But I am of the mindset that all of these useless livestock animals would go extinct if we didn't want to eat them, so really, vegetarians aren't helping the animals at all.
Besides, if activist vegetarians have their way and meat demand goes down, meat consumption might suddenly rise, oddly enough. Once the price goes down due to the demand drop, alot more people will be able to afford meat.
I dunno. My main point is that if you're going to be a vegetarian, do it because of food preference and not out of some deluded sense of helping the animals.
Also, the extremist-vegetarians who call meat-eaters cannibals are just idiotic.
There's also the animal rights activism side of it, too.
But I am of the mindset that all of these useless livestock animals would go extinct if we didn't want to eat them, so really, vegetarians aren't helping the animals at all.
Besides, if activist vegetarians have their way and meat demand goes down, meat consumption might suddenly rise, oddly enough. Once the price goes down due to the demand drop, alot more people will be able to afford meat.
I dunno. My main point is that if you're going to be a vegetarian, do it because of food preference and not out of some deluded sense of helping the animals.
Also, the extremist-vegetarians who call meat-eaters cannibals are just idiotic.
No such page. I have done my homework.Lerxst said:
getting rid of the overprodcution caused by forcing crop prices below the cost of producing them. What you should read is. "We only actually need about 12% of the crop we yield" That means, the rest is overproduction they need to get rid off. And they do. They feed it to animals that in turn get sick from it and become more in need of drug treatments.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYH/is_3_6/ai_82780651/
which is mostly grains according to them. Why do you think that is? It's not just the cows that are these peoples wastebin.
I dont. organic freerange. The cows are so feral that you have to shoot them at a distance, because if you get near them they will attack.
so what? The cholesterol scare was pulled out of Ancel keyes backside. They can set all the levels they want to, its still pretty much BS.
They were never unhealthy to begin with.
So? They have an interrest in having the study done obviously. Guilt by association?
please quote from the paper.
that would be the organisation that calls Cocoa Puffs heart healthy, yes?
No, you should eat some heart healthy cocoa puffs instead.
I agree with this. you have to make a choice since running on fat and protein and running on carbohydrates requires different environments in the body. eating too much of both at the same time, all the time, will cause problems. Refined anything by itself it troublesome.
apparently ignored that Finns are heavy drinkers as a nation and eat A LOT of sugar.
its also pretty low on sugar and refined grains.
you cant see what you wont see. People like gary taubes has plowed through the litterature, this is what Uffe Ravnskov and may other quilafied people are doing to.
and rely on studies that "forget" about such factors as sugar consumption, refined grain consumption,
Also, I thought it was kind of amusing:
its called "sceptic", so it must be true. The writer whom I dont know have an opinion, I disagree with it and would go as far as to call it misleading.It's the Skeptic's Dictionary talking about the first doctor, Uffe Ravnskov, that HC mentioned as "proof" that meat was good for you. Or cholesterol wasn't bad. Or something like that.
...that I find conclusive. Ok.
edit: Paleo is a term someone came up with to sell books and deer placenta. What it really covers is "eat like your great grandparents" (and supplement with deer placenta).
I hope it hasnt been lost on anyone that the whole world started to get really fat and heartsick once we adopted the "food pyrmid". A couple of articles to for your reading pleasure:
"Since the early 1970s, for instance, Americans' average fat intake has dropped from over 40% of total calories to 34%; average serum cholesterol levels have dropped as well. But no compelling evidence suggests that these decreases have improved health. Although heart disease death rates have dropped--and public health officials insist low-fat diets are partly responsible--the incidence of heart disease does not seem to be declining, as would be expected if lower fat diets made a difference. This was the conclusion, for instance, of a 10-year study of heart disease mortality published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1998, which suggested that death rates are declining largely because doctors are treating the disease more successfully. AHA statistics agree: Between 1979 and 1996, the number of medical procedures for heart disease increased from 1.2 million to 5.4 million a year. "I don't consider that this disease category has disappeared or anything close to it," says one AHA statistician.
Meanwhile, obesity in America, which remained constant from the early 1960s through 1980, has surged upward since then--from 14% of the population to over 22%. Diabetes has increased apace. Both obesity and diabetes increase heart disease risk, which could explain why heart disease incidence is not decreasing. That this obesity epidemic occurred just as the government began bombarding Americans with the low-fat message suggests the possibility, however distant, that low-fat diets might have unintended consequences--among them, weight gain. "Most of us would have predicted that if we can get the population to change its fat intake, with its dense calories, we would see a reduction in weight," admits Harlan. "Instead, we see the exact opposite." -gary Taubes (http://www.timinvermont.com/fitness/fat.htm)
...
"The medical establishment blames cholesterol for everything from heart disease and stroke to Alzheimer's. It has long blamed saturated fat for raising cholesterol levels, and now claims saturated fat interferes with blood vessel function as well.
On the other hand, many "cholesterol skeptics" claim that blood lipids have absolutely or virtually nothing to do with disease.
Which is correct?
In the articles located on the left, I argue that it is not lipids such as fats and cholesterol in and of themselves that cause these diseases, but the degeneration these lipids, especially the oxidation of the polyunsaturated fatty acids found in the vegetable oils that we have been told for decades are healthier for us than animal fats. -Chris Masterjohn (Associate of Weston A Price foundation http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/cholesterol-and-disease.html )
"Since the early 1970s, for instance, Americans' average fat intake has dropped from over 40% of total calories to 34%; average serum cholesterol levels have dropped as well. But no compelling evidence suggests that these decreases have improved health. Although heart disease death rates have dropped--and public health officials insist low-fat diets are partly responsible--the incidence of heart disease does not seem to be declining, as would be expected if lower fat diets made a difference. This was the conclusion, for instance, of a 10-year study of heart disease mortality published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1998, which suggested that death rates are declining largely because doctors are treating the disease more successfully. AHA statistics agree: Between 1979 and 1996, the number of medical procedures for heart disease increased from 1.2 million to 5.4 million a year. "I don't consider that this disease category has disappeared or anything close to it," says one AHA statistician.
Meanwhile, obesity in America, which remained constant from the early 1960s through 1980, has surged upward since then--from 14% of the population to over 22%. Diabetes has increased apace. Both obesity and diabetes increase heart disease risk, which could explain why heart disease incidence is not decreasing. That this obesity epidemic occurred just as the government began bombarding Americans with the low-fat message suggests the possibility, however distant, that low-fat diets might have unintended consequences--among them, weight gain. "Most of us would have predicted that if we can get the population to change its fat intake, with its dense calories, we would see a reduction in weight," admits Harlan. "Instead, we see the exact opposite." -gary Taubes (http://www.timinvermont.com/fitness/fat.htm)
...
"The medical establishment blames cholesterol for everything from heart disease and stroke to Alzheimer's. It has long blamed saturated fat for raising cholesterol levels, and now claims saturated fat interferes with blood vessel function as well.
On the other hand, many "cholesterol skeptics" claim that blood lipids have absolutely or virtually nothing to do with disease.
Which is correct?
In the articles located on the left, I argue that it is not lipids such as fats and cholesterol in and of themselves that cause these diseases, but the degeneration these lipids, especially the oxidation of the polyunsaturated fatty acids found in the vegetable oils that we have been told for decades are healthier for us than animal fats. -Chris Masterjohn (Associate of Weston A Price foundation http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/cholesterol-and-disease.html )
Hmm, you know science is not dogma. Standards can change with new evidence.Lerxst said:
If evidence points to the "recommended intake" (not dosage, it isn't a medicine) should be higher then it is raised. Just because a company funds research that does not mean they then have the power to falsify results or can suppress results they didn't seek. It's like a man accused of murder hiring a lawyer, the lawyer still has to present the evidence to CONVINCE to acquit his client.
And the scientific establishment is far more rigorous than the legal system with those oh so fallible juries.
If you are suspicious of the conclusions then I suggest you earn a university degree to be qualified on such matters and actually look at the evidence rather than make accusation based on the fallacious "who benefits" idea for change.
Remember some All Powerful Corporation will ALWAYS BENEFIT.
If you lower the cholesterol limit: favour the drug companies making Statins
Increase the cholesterol limit: favour the food companies.
Consider that it ISN'T all a massive conspiracy and that the world is NOT all a perfectly executed illusion and deception, in fact sometimes shit happens.