Vegetarianism

Bad Santa

blatantrereg wrote: »

You haven't stopped going on since you posted that, I see from reading through the thread. You opened your reply to me with an insult and have ignored evidence contradicting your opinions. Pot kettle black tbh.

Pay no mind, sure I was accused of having brain damage from not consuming meat apparently. Even though in the very post the user was replying to, I stated that I did eat meat. As ever, the side of the debate having to resort to insults is quite often a sure sign that they running out of satisfactory, or sufficing, retorts to points being put. The sanctimonious cries of "troll" are just a confirmation of it.

blatantrereg wrote: »

Omega 3 fatty acids are not generally found in significant levels in meat. They are actually found in higher levels in plant foods than in fish. However the plant based ones are ALA omega 3s, while DHA and EPA are the beneficial ones. Humans can convert the former to the latter, but we are not hugely efficient at doing so. There's no requirement to consume DHA and EPA directly, though it is probably beneficial to do so.

On Omega fats, here is a study from a couple of years back which found that non-fish eaters actually began to better assimilate Omega fats when not eating them from a preformed source :

Omega-3: ALA intakes enough for EPA/DPA levels for non-fish eaters?

The conversion of the plant-based omega-3 ALA to the long-chain EPA and DHA may be increased in vegans and vegetarians who do not eat fish, suggest results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC).

Despite having significantly lower intakes of EPA and DHA (associated with fish consumption), blood levels of EPA and DHA in vegans and vegetarians were approximately the same as regular fish eaters, according to findings published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The results indicate that when people do not consume adequate levels of EPA and DHA, like vegans and non-fish-eating vegetarians, their bodies respond by increasing the conversion levels of ALA to EPA.

“The implications of this study are that, if conversion of plant-based sources of n-3 PUFAs were found to occur in intervention studies, and were sufficient to maintain health, it could have significant consequences for public health recommendations and for preservation of the wild fish supply,” wrote the researchers, led by Ailsa Welch from the University of East Anglia in England.

Background

Alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) omega-3 is an essential fatty acid that the body cannot make, and therefore must be consumed in the diet. Good sources of ALA include: flaxseed, soybeans, walnuts, and olive oil. The U.S Institute of Medicine recommends an ALA intake of 1.6 grams per day for men and 1.1 grams per day for women.

The health benefits associated with alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) consumption include cardiovascular effects, neuro-protection, a counter to the inflammation response, and benefits against autoimmune disease.

However, the longer-chain eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) have received more study from scientists and more attention from the consumers.

Much attention has been paid to the conversion of ALA to the longer chain EPA, with many stating that this conversion is very small. According to an article in Nutrition Reviews (Vol. 66, pp. 326-332), between eight and 20 per cent of ALA is converted to EPA in humans, and between 0.5 and nine percent of ALA is converted to DHA.

In addition, the gender plays an important role with women of reproductive age reportedly converting ALA to EPA at a 2.5-fold greater rate than healthy men.

This conversion obviously contributes to the body's pool of EPA and DHA, which play a key role in, amongst other things, maintaining cardiovascular health.

“Because fish and fish oils are the most concentrated sources of EPA and DHA, individuals who do not eat fish or fish oil (eg. vegans and non-fish-eating vegetarians and meat eaters) could be at risk of low or inadequate n-3 PUFA status,” wrote the researchers.

“In addition, because the supply of wild fish is under threat and supplies are compromised, if the maintenance of adequate n-3 PUFA status via conversion of plant-derived ALA was possible this could reduce the requirements for fish and help preserve the fish supply,” they added.

Study details:

Dr Welch and her co-workers analyzed intakes of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), and correlated with blood levels of ALA, EPA, and DHA in fish-eaters and non-fish-eating meat-eaters, vegetarians, or vegans. The researchers included 14,422 men and women aged between 39 and 78 participating in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort. Blood levels of fatty acids were measured in 4,902 people.

Results showed that omega-3 intakes were between 57 and 80 percent lower in the non-fish-eaters, compared with fish-eaters. However, for plasma levels of DHA and EPA between the groups the differences were much smaller. Indeed, the average EPA level in fish eaters was 64.7 micromoles per liter, compared with 57.1, 55.1, and 50 micromoles per liter for non-fish-eating meat-eaters, vegetarians, or vegans. Furthermore, the average DHA level in fish eaters was 271 micromoles per liter, compared with 241.3, 223.5, and 286.4 micromoles per liter for non-fish-eating meat-eaters, vegetarians, or vegans.

“One explanation for this observation may be due to increased conversion, and our data suggest that the precursor-product ration from plant-derived ALA to circulating long chain n-3 PUFAs was significantly greater in non-fish eaters than in those who ate fish,” wrote the researchers.

“Although there have been many small, careful metabolic studies determining the extent of conversion, we believe this to be the first large population study to investigate intakes, status, and the precursor-product ratio by using statistical models as, surrogate, estimates of conversion of ALA to long chain n-2 PUFAs in different dietary habits.”

Biochemistry:

The conversion of ALA to EPA involves the delta6-desaturase enzyme to form stearidonic acid (SDA). An enzyme (malonyl co-enzyme A) then elongates the SDA from an 18-carbon chain to a 20-carbon chain, and further desaturation, this time by the delta5-desaturase enzyme, results in the production of EPA.

The study was welcomed by Loren Ward, director of research for Glanbia Nutritionals. "This is a very interesting study that enhances our understanding of the conditions needed to convert the essential fatty acid, ALA, to EPA and DHA," said Ward.

"Quantifying dietary intake of ALA, DHA and EPA and measuring plasma levels of ALA, DHA and EPA allowed the researchers to calculate a conversion ratio. While there were very large differences in dietary intake, plasma levels did not show the same degree of variation. The differences in plasma were much smaller than what would be expected and results suggested that the best conversion rates are by individuals that don't consume DHA and EPA.

Nutra Article

Benny_Cake

HTML5! wrote: »

Going to do a bit of a shop tomorrow and get some Quorn stuff and veg, especially lots of spinach!

As Zillah said, veg stir fry with lots of spices is a quick and easy meal. If you are buying Quorn stuff, I find the mince great for chilli or spaghetti bolognese. Best of luck with it, and if it's not for you, at least you gave it a shot!

Snickers Man

I love vegetarian food.

I find it is an excellent accompaniment to meat.

As long as you slather it all in BUTTER that is.

Three things that will never pass my lips:

1) A cigarette

2) Another man's penis

3) Margarine.

kylith

Zillah wrote: »

You can start getting more adventurous with lentils, quinoa and chick peas later too

I'd really like to see this fashion for quinoa end. The indigenous people who've depended on it for generations can no longer afford it because of demand from overseas, meaning that they've had to turn to the less nutritious rice, and now risk malnutrition.
http://www.heifer.org/blog/2011/03/quinoa-craze-dents-access-in-bolivia.html

Shenshen

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

News just in, traces of animal DNA found in Quorn products.

How is that surprising? It contains eggs, after all, they state that clearly on the label.

blatantrereg

kylith wrote: »

I'd really like to see this fashion for quinoa end. The indigenous people who've depended on it for generations can no longer afford it because of demand from overseas, meaning that they've had to turn to the less nutritious rice, and now risk malnutrition.
http://www.heifer.org/blog/2011/03/quinoa-craze-dents-access-in-bolivia.html

Yes that is a poor country. It's important that we don't buy its exports. Logical solution that.

--Kaiser--

blatantrereg wrote: »

Meat eating didn't shape our evolution much - if it did at all. We're physiologically only slightly different to herbivores. [many comparisons are online - eg here]. Eating meat doesn't influence brain development. The elephant is one of the most intelligent animals, and it is a herbivore. There is a theory that eating fish might have shaped our evolution significantly however, including influencing the development of our brains. I posted a link to it here before your reply.

Just stop it. Fossil records have proven that pre-humans were eating meat for millions of years. The fact that humans were meat-eating omnivores is a fact only disputed by a handful of questionable 'academics' who have a vegan agenda. And the the Aquatic Ape Theory has been heavily debunked years and years ago. And I'm not sure why you are mentioning it as it would make us omnivores. But maybe you're confused.

Plenty of herbivores can digest meat. They even consume it on occasion.

Name some. I imagine what you're actually going to name is a bunch of omnivores.

I already provided a comparison above for physiological differences/similarities, but I can add to it. If rabbits are supposed to be human food, why don't we salivate when we see them. Doesn't matter how hungry you are, you don't salivate when you see a rabbit.

This is my face after reading this bit ---->

We also would never get heart disease from eating cholesterol. Omnivores don't, no matter how much cholesterol they eat (even if it is 100 times what humans do). Herbivores develop it pretty easily if they are fed food high in cholesterol or saturated fat. These facts were published in The American Journal of Cardiology. They are in themselves proof that we are not natural meat eaters.

Except there's no connection between dietary cholesterol and blood serum cholesterol. Shows a simplistic understanding of nutrition. And we're no herbivores you many how many times you people re-iterate this drivel.

Vitamin B12 is a bacteria found in dirt and bugs. Human ancestors didn't require meat for it as they would have consumed dirt and bugs with vegetable foods. Meat eaters today get it by eating animals that eat dirt and bugs.

Vitamin B12 is only available in non-animal source from from the sh1t of animals (which is actually an animal source). Enjoy!

Omega 3 fatty acids are not generally found in significant levels in meat. They are actually found in higher levels in plant foods than in fish. However the plant based ones are ALA omega 3s, while DHA and EPA are the beneficial ones. Humans can convert the former to the latter, but we are not hugely efficient at doing so. There's no requirement to consume DHA and EPA directly, though it is probably beneficial to do so.

A diet including fish and no meat has historically probably been the healthiest. Today vegetarians can supplement with DHA and EPA from algae, and fish is increasingly contaminated by pollution: So vegetarianism might now be a healthier choice now.

Animal do provide significant amounts of Omega 3, certainly more than plants, and it's also more complete and bioavailable from animal sources. You do realise a fish is an animal, right? And not a type of plant? As in, eating fish makes you an omnivore, not a herbivore?

You haven't stopped going on since you posted that, I see from reading through the thread. You opened your reply to me with an insult and have ignored evidence contradicting your opinions. Pot kettle black tbh.

Contradicting evidence my hole, if you'll excuse my eloquence

CreepingDeath

blatantrereg wrote: »

If rabbits are supposed to be human food, why don't we salivate when we see them. Doesn't matter how hungry you are, you don't salivate when you see a rabbit.

That's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard on this thread.
You don't salivate after digging up a potato caked in dirt either.
There's an element of preparation and presentation involved.

Anyway, when it comes to food, smell and taste are more important.
Don't tell me people don't like the smell of meat cooking away in the kitchen.

blatantrereg wrote: »

We also would never get heart disease from eating cholesterol. Omnivores don't, no matter how much cholesterol they eat (even if it is 100 times what humans do). Herbivores develop it pretty easily if they are fed food high in cholesterol or saturated fat. These facts were published in The American Journal of Cardiology. They are in themselves proof that we are not natural meat eaters.

No.

The reason we're getting cholesterol problems is because our diet is rich in excess carbohydrates, causing our metabolism to burn less efficiently.

Much in the same way that a calorie restricted diet can reverse type 2 diabetes, a carbohydrate restricted diet can cause the body to switch how it processes and metabolises food... see ketosis and it's link to lowering cholesterol.

So in the past, we'd have no problems with cholesterol because we never had such easy access to refined sugars.

_GOD_

HTML5! wrote: »

A lot of interesting replies! Thanks.

Well I've been mulling it over and I think it would be hypocritical of me not to at least try it for a while given how I feel about animals.

Also I want to see if my health improves. I've had some minor issues lately for the last few months so I'll be interested to see what a vegetarian diet does for me personally.

I'll try it for a month starting tomorrow and see how I get on.

I've just been looking up some recipes. I need to get a lot more creative, but cooking interests me anyway so I think I'll enjoy it that aspect of it

I don't think I'm ready to go vegan just yet!!!!

If you want any recipes or help you can PM me or get onto the guys in the vegan and vegetarian forum

ruthloss

It has to be 'mate' at least once a day., "none of that aul grass stuff"!!:(

kylith

blatantrereg wrote: »

Yes that is a poor country. It's important that we don't buy its exports. Logical solution that.

Buy its exports, sure, just don't fad-diet its people to death.

judgefudge

Talking about whether we are naturally meat eaters or not is kind of irrelevant IMO. I mean I believe we are naturally opportunistic omnivores.

But what matters is that nowadays it is possible to have a complete healthy and nutritionally valuable diet without including meat. I also believe you can have a healthy diet with meat.

What it comes down to is that many people simply really like meat and don't want to cut it out. Therefore they try and argue vegetarian opinions as much as they can. Just be happy with yourself and your personal choices, and let vegetarians be happy with theirs.

--Kaiser--

judgefudge wrote: »

Talking about whether we are naturally meat eaters or not is kind of irrelevant IMO. I mean I believe we are naturally opportunistic omnivores.

You can believe what you want but we were not 'opportunistic' or scavenging omnivores (except way back in our prehistory). We were hunters. For animals. Hence all the flint arrow heads and spear heads and what not that are found in great numbers all over the world. Not opinion. Fact.

And I don't see how the diet a species evolved with is irrelevant to determine the ideal diet of that animal. That said, I believe a vegetarian diet including a significant amount eggs and dairy can be a reasonably healthy one. But support of raising animals for milk/eggs but not for humane slaughter is illogical, frankly

Zombienosh

judgefudge wrote: »

What it comes down to is that many people simply really like meat and don't want to cut it out. Therefore they try and argue vegetarian opinions as much as they can.

This is what I see sometimes, They like eating meat but maybe a small part of them feels guilty or can relate to the ethics/moral side of not eating meat and when they start violently defending or justifying the eating of meat it comes across that they more so trying to convince/reassure themselves.

judgefudge

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

And I don't see how the diet a species evolved with is irrelevant to determine the ideal diet of that animal. That said, I believe a vegetarian diet including a significant amount eggs and dairy can be a reasonably healthy one. But support of raising animals for milk/eggs but not for humane slaughter is illogical, frankly

I don't understand why you are so resistant to other people's decisions and beliefs. A vegan lifestyle is healthy when done right. That's a fact. Many vegans are so because they don't agree with the raising animals for milk/eggs or "humane" slaughter. Many people are vegetarian because they want to reduce their impact on their carbon footprint, for health reasons, personal preference, to try out different foods. You name it. It's not always about animal welfare.

Zillah

Zombienosh wrote: »

This is what I see sometimes, They like eating meat but maybe a small part of them feels guilty or can relate to the ethics/moral side of not eating meat and when they start violently defending or justifying the eating of meat it comes across that they more so trying to convince/reassure themselves.

I find a lot of people just get confrontational and uncomfortable about the very idea of people doing something that goes against such a pervasive status quo as eating meat. I've had people start laughing that nervous, self-conscious laughter when they hear I'm a vegetarian as if the very idea has made them extremely ill at ease. I've also had people ask me why I am a vegetarian, and immediately dismiss the entire topic either aggressively or with embarrassment before I've even finished a sentence.

It's weird, quite frankly, how people react sometimes. It's easier being gay than vegetarian most of the time.

Benny_Cake

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

You can believe what you want but we were not 'opportunistic' or scavenging omnivores (except way back in our prehistory). We were hunters. For animals. Hence all the flint arrow heads and spear heads and what not that are found in great numbers all over the world. Not opinion. Fact.

And I don't see how the diet a species evolved with is irrelevant to determine the ideal diet of that animal. That said, I believe a vegetarian diet including a significant amount eggs and dairy can be a reasonably healthy one. But support of raising animals for milk/eggs but not for humane slaughter is illogical, frankly

A person might adopt a vegetarian diet for a number of reasons unrelated to animal welfare. Even if animal welfare is a factor in the decision, the person could look at vegetarianism as a means of reducing the suffering caused by the food we consumers. It's imperfect, but what isn't? I may go all the way to a vegan diet sometime, I may not, but even then, I have cats which, unlike me, are obligate carnivores, so I'll still be purchasing meat-related products.

I don't get why someone else's diet would upset people so much. It certainly doesn't bother me when others eat meat, although I'd prefer if people exercised more discretion in buying good quality, ethically produced meat which takes account of animal welfare-as we've seen recently, cheap meat is cheap for a reason.

My name is URL

I already provided a comparison above for physiological differences/similarities, but I can add to it. If rabbits are supposed to be human food, why don't we salivate when we see them. Doesn't matter how hungry you are, you don't salivate when you see a rabbit.

That's a weird statement.

I have, at different times over the last number of years kept lambs, pigs and chickens and have looked forward to eating them when the time came. I may not 'salivate' when I see them, but I wouldn't salivate at the site of a parsnip growing either. When the meat is prepared for cooking I sure as hell do start to salivate though!

Theatricality and deception

judgefudge wrote: »

Talking about whether we are naturally meat eaters or not is kind of irrelevant IMO. I mean I believe we are naturally opportunistic omnivores.

But what matters is that nowadays it is possible to have a complete healthy and nutritionally valuable diet without including meat. I also believe you can have a healthy diet with meat.

What it comes down to is that many people simply really like meat and don't want to cut it out. Therefore they try and argue vegetarian opinions as much as they can. Just be happy with yourself and your personal choices, and let vegetarians be happy with theirs.

You simply can't be as healthy without eating meat. There is no alternative that can replace it.

Vegetarians would be healthier if they included red meat in their diet. The evidence is overwhelming at this stage.

Tombo2001

Theatricality and deception wrote: »

You simply can't be as healthy without eating meat. There is no alternative that can replace it.

Vegetarians would be healthier if they included red meat in their diet. The evidence is overwhelming at this stage.

There's an element of truth in this.

But the reality is that Vegetarians are healthier than Meat Eaters, as most meat eaters eat too much meat and the wrong types of meat.

--Kaiser--

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I don't get why someone else's diet would upset people so much. It certainly doesn't bother me when others eat meat, although I'd prefer if people exercised more discretion in buying good quality, ethically produced meat which takes account of animal welfare-as we've seen recently, cheap meat is cheap for a reason.

I do not give a shit what you eat. I'm merely debating the points given in this thread. That's generally what fora are for

Dravokivich

Theatricality and deception wrote: »

You simply can't be as healthy without eating meat. There is no alternative that can replace it.

Vegetarians would be healthier if they included red meat in their diet. The evidence is overwhelming at this stage.

As shown by the many veggies that live to old age....

It's a shíte arguement, my da's stronger than yours! That's all these threads scream of to me.

You can be healthy eating based solely on veg.

You can be healthy eating based primarily on meat.

You can be unhealthy eating based solely on veg.

You can be unhealthy eating based primarily on meat.

ALL FOUR ARE TRUE!

Theatricality and deception

Tombo2001 wrote: »

There's an element of truth in this.

But the reality is that Vegetarians are healthier than Meat Eaters, as most meat eaters eat too much meat and the wrong types of meat.

It is true full stop. Vegetarians would be healthier if they ate red meat. I never said they weren't healthier than the average person who eats junk food and watches tele all day.

What meat is the wrong meat?

Theatricality and deception

Dravokivich wrote: »

As shown by the many veggies that live to old age....

It's a shíte arguement, my da's stronger than yours! That's all these threads scream of to me.

You can be healthy eating based solely on veg.

You can be healthy eating based primarily on meat.

You can be unhealthy eating based solely on veg.

You can be unhealthy eating based primarily on meat.

ALL FOUR ARE TRUE!

Don't be ridiculous.

Vegetarians simply don't get the same nutrients without eating meat. If they added meat they would be healthier.

The paleo diet is pretty much the healthiest way to eat. Cut out grains, wheat being the worst an you will see huge improvements.

Tombo2001

Theatricality and deception wrote: »

It is true full stop. Vegetarians would be healthier if they ate red meat. I never said they weren't healthier than the average person who eats junk food and watches tele all day.

What meat is the wrong meat?

Processed meat.

Look, point well made.

However, as already pointed out, you can be very healthy on a vegetarian diet. I don't think your point diminishes vegetarianism as a dietary choice. To say something could be better doesnt mean necessary imply that its bad.

Shenshen

Theatricality and deception wrote: »

It is true full stop. Vegetarians would be healthier if they ate red meat. I never said they weren't healthier than the average person who eats junk food and watches tele all day.

What meat is the wrong meat?

In all honesty, one thing all the clinical studies I've seen so far agree on is that vegetarians are on average healthier than omnivores.
Now, it's debatteable if this is in fact due to their avoidance of meat or just generally healthier diet, but the fact that they are on average healthier does remain.

In that light I'm finding it rather ridiculous to propose that vegetarians would be healthier if they ate meat.
They already ARE healthier on average than people who do eat meat.

--Kaiser--

Shenshen wrote: »

In all honesty, one thing all the clinical studies I've seen so far agree on is that vegetarians are on average healthier than omnivores.
Now, it's debatteable if this is in fact due to their avoidance of meat or just generally healthier diet, but the fact that they are on average healthier does remain.

In that light I'm finding it rather ridiculous to propose that vegetarians would be healthier if they ate meat.
They already ARE healthier on average than people who do eat meat.

Correlation does not equal causation. Vegetarians tend to be wealthy westerners, who already tend to be healthier than the average person. Add to that someone who has gone to the effort of changing their diet is likely to be more conscientious about other aspects of their life.

If we're citing observational studies then have a look at this one.
Vegetarians have more mental issues than non-vegetarians

Tombo2001

To swerve the debate for a moment,

One area where vegetarianism falls down in my view is how it presents itself....

Its usually pitched along either health or ethical grounds.

You rarely hear the line "vegetarian food is really delicious"......yet in my book the nicest food in the world is found in India, and thats a largely vegetarian country.

Cafe Paradiso in Cork is an eye opener for anyone who hasnt been there, absolutely fantastic food, but also quite rich.....not what you associate with a vegetarian restaurant.

What I really appreciate about good vegetarian food is that it requires a lot of imagination to do it well......unlike say a steakhouse where they buy in a good cut of steak, fry it up and out it goes, €25 thanks very much.......anyone could do that at home.

judgefudge

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Correlation does not equal causation. Vegetarians tend to be wealthy westerners, who already tend to be healthier than the average person. Add to that someone who has gone to the effort of changing their diet is likely to be more conscientious about other aspects of their life.

If we're citing observational studies then have a look at this one.
Vegetarians have more mental issues than non-vegetarians

Have you read anything about the china study? Where richer families in china (with a western diet that included animal products) were found to have higher incidences of many types of cancer.

Theatricality and deception

Shenshen wrote: »

In all honesty, one thing all the clinical studies I've seen so far agree on is that vegetarians are on average healthier than omnivores.
Now, it's debatteable if this is in fact due to their avoidance of meat or just generally healthier diet, but the fact that they are on average healthier does remain.

In that light I'm finding it rather ridiculous to propose that vegetarians would be healthier if they ate meat.
They already ARE healthier on average than people who do eat meat.

Yea true, also true is that people without a moustache are healthier than those with a moustache.