Vegetarianism

ScumLord

Bad Santa wrote: »

No, the point here is, that humans don't need to eat animals in order to get sufficient nutrition.

No they don't. But then there are humans that live exclusively on monster munch so you don't need vegetables either.

It's not simply a choice of what you eat either, we eat meat, we always have eaten meat. You can't just expect an entire species to decide to eliminate a large chunk of their diet for no good reason. It's like saying you have the choice between taking the train to work or spending 2 hours walking to work. You take the easiest option and wouldn't consider walking.

miss no stars

Bad Santa wrote: »

LMAO!

She tried to prove you couldn't survive on raw carrots??

Can you show me one person advocating a raw diet that suggests eating only carrots??

The main raw vegan diet is the 80/10/10 diet and the vast majority of that diet (around 85%) is recommended to come from high sugar or high starch Fruits or high fat foods like Coconuts and Avocados. Seriously, if you want to try and rubbish something, at least know what you are rubbishing.

Jesus, I wasn't saying it's impossible to survive on. She was highlighting the evolutionary benefit of cooking. When such a simple tool is available, why exactly would one choose to put one's body through the rigour of having to constantly digest raw food only when we've evolved from ancestors (even those that pre-date humans) who were naturally selected in favour of those who ate cooked food. In other words, it's in our genes to cook food, we've evolved to eat cooked food and we're extraordinarily well suited to eating cooked food, so what benefit does raw food only give you? It goes completely against how we've evolved. How does bucking against the physical reality of how we have evolved benefit a person? Surely we should be trying to eat as naturally as we possibly can. For humans, that means cooked food.

Bad Santa

ScumLord wrote: »

No they don't. But then there are humans that live exclusively on monster munch so you don't need vegetables either.

Not for long they wouldn't and you can hardly compare someone eating Monster Munch with those who have followed a Raw Vegan diet for ten years and have blood work to back up the fact that they are doing just fine and don't have any deficiencies.

It's not simply a choice of what you eat either, we eat meat, we always have eaten meat. You can't just expect an entire species to decide to eliminate a large chunk of their diet for no good reason.

First of all, you don't know that humans have "always eaten meat" and secondly "no good reason" are you for real? Have you taken a look at the statistics on the rise in heart disease, MS, cancer, motor neuron disease etc etc? People are turning away from the way we have been eating as they are literally dying from it.

miss no stars wrote: »

Jesus, I wasn't saying it's impossible to survive on. She was highlighting the evolutionary benefit of cooking. When such a simple tool is available, why exactly would one choose to put one's body through the rigour of having to constantly digest raw food only when we've evolved from ancestors (even those that pre-date humans) who were naturally selected in favour of those who ate cooked food. In other words, it's in our genes to cook food, we've evolved to eat cooked food and we're extraordinarily well suited to eating cooked food, so what benefit does raw food only give you? It goes completely against how we've evolved. How does bucking against the physical reality of how we have evolved benefit a person? Surely we should be trying to eat as naturally as we possibly can. For humans, that means cooked food.

You made a nonsense comment and I addressed it. Nobody has to munch on vegetables for eight hours a day to eat a raw vegan diet. It's rubbish. Cooking food also brings with it health risks also you do relaise. Making starch more readily available is not always a good thing and has been linked to obesity and all the diseases that go with it.

Acrylamide is a chemical created by cooking food which has been linked to many diseases for example and cooking carbohydrates creates glycotoxins, which have also been linked to many disease states. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and Heterocyclic Amines (HCAs) are both also created by cooking foods and again, linked to diseases such as Alzheimers and many cancers.

Time to go mobile

Bad Santa wrote: »

Not for long they wouldn't and you can hardly compare someone eating Monster Munch with those who have followed a Raw Vegan diet for ten years and have blood work to back up the fact that they are doing just fine and don't have any deficiencies. First of all, you don't know that humans have "always eaten meat" and secondly "no good reason" are you for real? Have you taken a look at the statistics on the rise in heart disease, MS, cancer, motor neuron disease etc etc? People are turning away from the way we have been eating as they are literally dying from it.

You made a nonsense comment and I addressed it. Nobody has to munch on vegetables for eight hours a day to eat a raw vegan diet. It's rubbish. Cooking food also brings with it health risks also you do relaise. Making starch more readily available is not always a good thing and has been linked to obesity and all the diseases that go with it.

Acrylamide is a chemical created by cooking food which has been linked to many diseases for example and cooking carbohydrates creates glycotoxins, which have also been linked to many disease states. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and Heterocyclic Amines (HCAs) are both also created by cooking foods and again, linked to diseases such as Alzheimers and many cancers.

There's no logically sound evidence that meat causes heart disease, cancer etc.

Grains ( especially wheat) and vegetable oils are much more likely to cause the above illnesses.

ScumLord

Bad Santa wrote: »

Not for long they wouldn't

She's in her 40s now I think. I don't understand it either but it can be done. There are plenty of tails of monks living on grass or tree bark. The human body is a starvation surviving machine we can make do on extremely little.

First of all, you don't know that humans have "always eaten meat"

Yes I do, it's a fact at this stage that the primate that would become human was a meat eater. There was very little else for an ape to eat once it's forest habitat had disappeared.

and secondly "no good reason" are you for real?

Yes giving up meat is pointless from a health point of view unless your over doing it. A percentage of meat won't do you any harm.

Have you taken a look at the statistics on the rise in heart disease, MS, cancer, motor neuron disease etc etc? People are turning away from the way we have been eating as they are literally dying from it.

Humans have eaten meat long before these became a problem. We live in disease ridden cities, eat processed food, live longer, are around more radiation and don't get any exercises. To say meat is the cause of the rise is nonsense.

alphabeat

yawn

jesus not this sad sh1t3 again

who cares what anyone eats ??????

just be thankful you get to eat

kylith

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Humans can't acquire sufficient sustenance from plant foods, that's the point

Not from raw plant foods, no. Cooking them breaks the cell walls and lets us access the nutrients in them.

miss no stars wrote: »

For those thinking of following those ridiculous raw diets... I urge you to look at the first 3 minutes of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VVgydE6mAE


Cooking food is to your benefit. Instead of spending 8 hours a day munching away on raw veg, you could spend 3-4 hours a day eating the same veg cooked and get more calories out of it.

miss no stars wrote: »

Jesus, I wasn't saying it's impossible to survive on. She was highlighting the evolutionary benefit of cooking. When such a simple tool is available, why exactly would one choose to put one's body through the rigour of having to constantly digest raw food only when we've evolved from ancestors (even those that pre-date humans) who were naturally selected in favour of those who ate cooked food. In other words, it's in our genes to cook food, we've evolved to eat cooked food and we're extraordinarily well suited to eating cooked food, so what benefit does raw food only give you? It goes completely against how we've evolved. How does bucking against the physical reality of how we have evolved benefit a person? Surely we should be trying to eat as naturally as we possibly can. For humans, that means cooked food.

Time to go mobile wrote: »

There's no logically sound evidence that meat causes heart disease, cancer etc.

Grains ( especially wheat) and vegetable oils are much more likely to cause the above illnesses.

You've made my point much better than I could, thanks

blatantrereg

Time to go mobile wrote: »

There's no logically sound evidence that meat causes heart disease, cancer etc.

Grains ( especially wheat) and vegetable oils are much more likely to cause the above illnesses.

High [LDL] cholesterol is an absolute prerequisite for heart disease. Without high cholesterol you can have hypertension, diabetes, be obese, sit on your ass all day smoking cigarettes - and you won't develop heart disease.

The only ways you can acquire high cholesterol are by consuming animal foods or consuming processed vegetable fats like hydrogenated oils and margarine. Using vegetable oil in cooking won't cause the chemical changes that have occurred in such processed oils.

That is as straightforward and as logically sound as you can get.

source* - Peer reviewed publications by William C Roberts - renowned expert on heart disease (who is not a vegetarian).

*Apologies for the repost of the link. I promise not to derail the thread this time. (Even if horses do sweat and don't lap water).

--Kaiser--

blatantrereg wrote: »

High [LDL] cholesterol is an absolute prerequisite for heart disease. Without high cholesterol you can have hypertension, diabetes, be obese, sit on your ass all day smoking cigarettes - and you won't develop heart disease.

The only ways you can acquire high cholesterol are by consuming animal foods or consuming processed vegetable fats like hydrogenated oils and margarine. Using vegetable oil in cooking won't cause the chemical changes that have occurred in such processed oils.

That is as straightforward and as logically sound as you can get.

source* - Peer reviewed publications by William C Roberts - renowned expert on heart disease (who is not a vegetarian).

*Apologies for the repost of the link. I promise not to derail the thread this time. (Even if horses do sweat and don't lap water).

This post is brought to you by '100% bullsh1t' and 'I really don't have a clue what I'm talking about'!

--Kaiser--

My last post was a tad indecorous but just about every single sentence you posted was incorrect.

blatantrereg wrote: »

High [LDL] cholesterol is an absolute prerequisite for heart disease. Without high cholesterol you can have hypertension, diabetes, be obese, sit on your ass all day smoking cigarettes - and you won't develop heart disease.

High cholesterol most certainly isn't an 'absolute requisite' for heart disease (which isn't even a distinct disease, by the way). A meta analysis of 11 studies involving thousands of people "determined that there was absolutely no relationship between total cholesterol levels and mortality from cardiovascular or any other causes."

The only ways you can acquire high cholesterol are by consuming animal foods or consuming processed vegetable fats like hydrogenated oils and margarine. Using vegetable oil in cooking won't cause the chemical changes that have occurred in such processed oils.

This is nonsense. Cholesterol levels don't correlate with either saturated fat intake or with cholesterol intake. I don't know where you got the idea that these are the only way to raise cholesterol levels but is quite easy to disprove.
Fructose casues high cholesterol
Fructose raises LDL levels
Sugar raises cholesterol levels

That is as straightforward and as logically sound as you can get.

Straightforward? Sure. Logical? Maybe. Complete rubbish? Yes.

source* - Peer reviewed publications by William C Roberts - renowned expert on heart disease (who is not a vegetarian).

*Apologies for the repost of the link. I promise not to derail the thread this time. (Even if horses do sweat and don't lap water).

William C Roberts may not be a vegetarian but he is a proponent of the woefully incorrect idea that humans are natural herbivores (otherwise known as morons). The fact that he has an academic background but still believes this claptrap makes it even worse. (I've listed the various reasons and proofs that humans are not herbivores countless times in this thread so I won't repeat myself.)

blatantrereg

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

My last post was a tad indecorous but just about every single sentence you posted was incorrect.



High cholesterol most certainly isn't an 'absolute requisite' for heart disease (which isn't even a distinct disease, by the way). A meta analysis of 11 studies involving thousands of people "determined that there was absolutely no relationship between total cholesterol levels and mortality from cardiovascular or any other causes."



This is nonsense. Cholesterol levels don't correlate with either saturated fat intake or with cholesterol intake. I don't know where you got the idea that these are the only way to raise cholesterol levels but is quite easy to disprove.
Fructose casues high cholesterol
Fructose raises LDL levels
Sugar raises cholesterol levels



Straightforward? Sure. Logical? Maybe. Complete rubbish? Yes.




William C Roberts may not be a vegetarian but he is a proponent of the woefully incorrect idea that humans are natural herbivores (otherwise known as morons). The fact that he has an academic background but still believes this claptrap makes it even worse. (I've listed the various reasons and proofs that humans are not herbivores countless times in this thread so I won't repeat myself.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Fair enough; you can add eating loads of processed sugars to the list of ways to get high cholesterol and high LDL cholesterol. Thanks, that's interesting and useful to know. The article I linked here shows that it's proven to be true in rabbits, which are herbivores.

It's not that surprising that such refined processed foods lead to the condition - I already pointed out the dangers of processed oils. Cholesterol levels and LDL cholesterol levels do correlate with saturated fat intake also however. The fact that trans fats are worse doesn't erase that fact.

I indicated in my post the danger of high LDL cholesterol to humans, and it is explained in the article I linked as well. However you ignored the fact that it doesn't matter how much LDL cholesterol a meat eating animal has in their system, they don't develop heart disease - so you're missing the point really.

Didn't read the thing about total cholesterol effects, as it's a bit of a non-sequitor to the points I wanted to address.

If you're human and you eat a vegetable-based diet which excludes processed sugars and oils you won't get heart disease. Not unless you've a 1 in 500 genetic defect. If you're a carnivore you won't get heart disease no matter what you eat - not unless your thyroid is removed.

Not a moron thanks. Calling William C Roberts a moron is silly and arrogant. You're best off examining your own understanding before attacking established experts on a subject.

ScumLord

blatantrereg wrote: »

Not a moron thanks. Calling William C Roberts a moron is silly and arrogant.

He's hardly a moron but it seems like he has an agenda and when there's an agenda behind science the results can be tainted. Even the creationists use science to back up their beliefs.

To say humans are herbivore is in direct contrast to the fact humans are eating meat and always have eaten meat is bizarre. It's not as easy to just point out some similarities between species. If we were to compare a human to a dog you'd find more similarities than you would find difference and the same goes for comparing humans to sheep.

Humans don't need to evolve like other animals do. We've found a very successful physique and brain match up that means we bend nature to our will rather than being forced to change to the environment. That fact can't be overlooked when it comes to comparing humans to any other animal.

--Kaiser--

blatantrereg wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Fair enough; you can add eating loads of processed sugars to the list of ways to get high cholesterol and high LDL cholesterol. Thanks, that's interesting and useful to know. The article I linked here shows that it's proven to be true in rabbits, which are herbivores.

Seeing we are not herbivores, this has next to no relevance.

It's not that surprising that such refined processed foods lead to the condition - I already pointed out the dangers of processed oils. Cholesterol levels and LDL cholesterol levels do correlate with saturated fat intake also however. The fact that trans fats are worse doesn't erase that fact.

I indicated in my post the danger of high LDL cholesterol to humans, and it is explained in the article I linked as well. However you ignored the fact that it doesn't matter how much LDL cholesterol a meat eating animal has in their system, they don't develop heart disease - so you're missing the point really.

No, you're missing the point as there is no connection between high cholesterol and heart disease, or a connection between detary cholesterol and blood serum cholesterol.

Didn't read the thing about total cholesterol effects, as it's a bit of a non-sequitor to the points I wanted to address.

Not at all, but I don't really care as you're generally clueless about the subject matter.

If you're human and you eat a vegetable-based diet which excludes processed sugars and oils you won't get heart disease. Not unless you've a 1 in 500 genetic defect. If you're a carnivore you won't get heart disease no matter what you eat - not unless your thyroid is removed.

We're not carnivores, we're omnivores, remember? And if you can get high cholesterol from fructose (as has been shown) then you obviously don't need to eat animal products to get high cholesterol. Logic, see?

Oh yeah, I might mention the fact that Eskimos have low to non-existent levels of atherosclerosis despite eating almost nothing but animal products. Boom!

Not a moron thanks. Calling William C Roberts a moron is silly and arrogant. You're best off examining your own understanding before attacking established experts on a subject.

Yawn. Appeal to authority. I couldn't care less if he was the lovechild of Stephen Hawking and Einstein. If someone thinks something despite all scientific and archaeological proof to the contrary, what do you call them? A fantasist? Delusional? Contrarian? I call em morons

Squiggle

blatantrereg wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Cholesterol levels and LDL cholesterol levels do correlate with saturated fat intake also however. The fact that trans fats are worse doesn't erase that fact.

I indicated in my post the danger of high LDL cholesterol to humans, and it is explained in the article I linked as well.

It's the LDL particle size and amount that you need to be concerned about, not the total LDL number that a regular test shows. A VAP test would be needed to indicate whether you have large fluffy benign LDL particles or the small dense dangerous stuff that's easily oxidised, can penetrate arterial walls and once there start forming arterial plaque. Saturated fat raises HDL and big fluffy harmless LDl, sugar and vegetable oil raises the bad LDL.

GalwayGuy2

Wow, this thread has gone on for a surprising amount of time.

ScumLord

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Wow, this thread has gone on for a surprising amount of time.

Longer than you can imagine. The debate started many thousands of years ago when one of our ancestors got too attached to one of the cows. There have been many never ending threads and there will be many, many, many more. Never an agreement made. For ever and ever and ever.

jonnyfingers

As I mentioned earlier in this thread I'm currently trying a vegan diet to research the supposed health benefits of a wholefoods plant-based diet. As this thread was started asking if Vegetarianism has health benefits the OP might find an update on my situation of interest.

I've been vegan for nearly 7 weeks now. In that time I've been vegan over 90% of the time and vegetarian most of the rest of the time (mainly due to eating out where some animal products have been unavoidable, e.g. cheese, milk, yoghurt, etc.). I've eaten meat on about 3 separate occasions during that time, during moments of extreme hunger.....old habits die hard! But mostly I've had no problem with my vegan food choices, and haven't gone hungry unless I deliberately dropped the ball when it comes to preparing breakfast, lunches, etc.

Anyway onto the supposed health benefits...

A little about me, I'm 31 and I started around last summer looking to lose 40 lbs in weight. I'm not obese by any stretch but I do need to lose a couple of stone to get down to my ideal weight for my age and height. I also snore quite badly, always have done but the extra weight doesn't help, and I find I sleep poorly at times and am often very tired and cranky in the mornings. My blood pressure has been slightly elevated for as long as I've known, even when I was a super fit teen. My resting heart rate bpm has always been in the 70s.

To achieve my main goal of losing some weight I tried reducing portion sizes, cutting down on alcohol and sweet foods, eating far more healthier foods and exercising more. Although doing all of the above it's safe to say I failed miserably at my goal and ended up actually putting on a few pounds by the end of the year! :eek:

So I decided to give veganism a try as a friend of mine made the change a few years ago and found his health improved. Some books and documentaries I read and saw suggested the same results, but I had to try for myself.

So 7 weeks in......

• I've lost 10lbs in weight. I've lost it gradually at around 1-2 lbs a week.
  
• My snoring has decreased, not a huge amount but it is better.
  
• I find I sleep less but am more awake in the morning. I feel mentally more clear too, if that makes sense, and have become more productive in everyday life.
  
• My resting heart rate has gone from 72 bpm to 59 bpm.

I've not had a chance to have my blood pressure checked but will definitely try to get it, and my cholesterol, checked in the near future.

My fiancée has also started trying the vegan diet too, although she's only around 3 weeks in. However already she has noticed her skin has cleared up a fantastic amount, her asthma has almost totally disappeared and cramps she has gotten every month for years (ladies you know the ones!) were totally absent recently.

So the results of cutting out animal products have been promising enough at the moment, however we need to give it a much longer trial period to determine any long term benefits, rule out coincidences, placebo effects, etc.

Then again maybe it's just cutting out all the horse meat that's making the difference!

I'll give it a few months and report back, probably in a different thread rather than resurrect this one again.

miss no stars

jonnyfingers wrote: »

As I mentioned earlier in this thread I'm currently trying a vegan diet to research the supposed health benefits of a wholefoods plant-based diet. As this thread was started asking if Vegetarianism has health benefits the OP might find an update on my situation of interest.

I've been vegan for nearly 7 weeks now. In that time I've been vegan over 90% of the time and vegetarian most of the rest of the time (mainly due to eating out where some animal products have been unavoidable, e.g. cheese, milk, yoghurt, etc.). I've eaten meat on about 3 separate occasions during that time, during moments of extreme hunger.....old habits die hard! But mostly I've had no problem with my vegan food choices, and haven't gone hungry unless I deliberately dropped the ball when it comes to preparing breakfast, lunches, etc.

Anyway onto the supposed health benefits...

A little about me, I'm 31 and I started around last summer looking to lose 40 lbs in weight. I'm not obese by any stretch but I do need to lose a couple of stone to get down to my ideal weight for my age and height. I also snore quite badly, always have done but the extra weight doesn't help, and I find I sleep poorly at times and am often very tired and cranky in the mornings. My blood pressure has been slightly elevated for as long as I've known, even when I was a super fit teen. My resting heart rate bpm has always been in the 70s.

To achieve my main goal of losing some weight I tried reducing portion sizes, cutting down on alcohol and sweet foods, eating far more healthier foods and exercising more. Although doing all of the above it's safe to say I failed miserably at my goal and ended up actually putting on a few pounds by the end of the year! :eek:

So I decided to give veganism a try as a friend of mine made the change a few years ago and found his health improved. Some books and documentaries I read and saw suggested the same results, but I had to try for myself.

So 7 weeks in......

• I've lost 10lbs in weight. I've lost it gradually at around 1-2 lbs a week.
• My snoring has decreased, not a huge amount but it is better.
• I find I sleep less but am more awake in the morning. I feel mentally more clear too, if that makes sense, and have become more productive in everyday life.
• My resting heart rate has gone from 72 bpm to 59 bpm.

I've not had a chance to have my blood pressure checked but will definitely try to get it, and my cholesterol, checked in the near future.

My fiancée has also started trying the vegan diet too, although she's only around 3 weeks in. However already she has noticed her skin has cleared up a fantastic amount, her asthma has almost totally disappeared and cramps she has gotten every month for years (ladies you know the ones!) were totally absent recently.

So the results of cutting out animal products have been promising enough at the moment, however we need to give it a much longer trial period to determine any long term benefits, rule out coincidences, placebo effects, etc.

Then again maybe it's just cutting out all the horse meat that's making the difference!

I'll give it a few months and report back, probably in a different thread rather than resurrect this one again.

First off, fair play to you for making the effort and doing so well with eating healthily and it sounds like you're reaping the rewards.

As a genuine question - is your diet better overall? The reason I ask is that it sounds like your diet has improved massively so that could (would?) be a lot to do with your health improvements and the not eating meat products could be only part of it. For instance, if you were to say, have a grilled chicken breast or a can of tuna mixed into a salad once a day, would that negatively affect you? Have you tried adding in good lean, healthy meat in small amounts and seen whether it makes a difference?

jonnyfingers

miss no stars wrote: »

First off, fair play to you for making the effort and doing so well with eating healthily and it sounds like you're reaping the rewards.

As a genuine question - is your diet better overall? The reason I ask is that it sounds like your diet has improved massively so that could (would?) be a lot to do with your health improvements and the not eating meat products could be only part of it. For instance, if you were to say, have a grilled chicken breast or a can of tuna mixed into a salad once a day, would that negatively affect you? Have you tried adding in good lean, healthy meat in small amounts and seen whether it makes a difference?

It's a fair question and I would say that my diet has improved. However really the only thing that has changed has been replacing meat and animal products with other plant based foods, and that seems to me what has improved the diet in my opinion.

Not to blow my own trumpet but I'm a good cook and mostly prepare my own meals. I used to swim competitively and did triathlons for a few years so have learned a lot about nutrition and what to eat. Before my diet change I ate plenty of salads and vegetables and consumed mostly white meat, usually stir fried or baked/grilled, with occasional red meat. I'd eat out or get a takeaway about as often as most others. In fact I've eaten out about the same amount since the diet change, just now I go for veggie options, usually Indian, Chinese or Thai.

My biggest weakness probably would have been sugary foods and things like chocolate. Now cutting out dairy has meant I've cut out chocolate so that would definitely contribute to some weight loss. But other than that I still eat vegan crisps and have the occasional soft drinks.

Regarding adding some lean meat and fish to my diet, that's really what I was like before. So I think I'm going to give veganism at least 6 months to establish a base line, then I might make some small changes. One think I have noticed on the few occasions I've eaten meat over the past 7 weeks is that it no longer tastes very nice! It's as if my taste buds have become used to vegetables and meat now tastes a bit like cooked dead flesh!!

What I'm particularly interested in is any change in my cholesterol level from giving up meat so I really do need to get that checked.

It's early days yet but I'm definitely leaning towards a heavily biased plant-based diet, with a small amount of fish and some meat to provide Vitamin B12, being the optimum diet for me.