Vegetarianism

judgefudge

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.

If you're going to make a statement so absurd then you could at least present this "overwhelming" evidence.

--Kaiser--

judgefudge wrote: »

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.

Oh, I was just waiting for someone to mention The China Study, or as I call it, The Extensively Debunked China Study . 200+ posts before a vegetarian mentioned The China Study? I'm actually shocked

Edit: Two more eviscerations of the study;
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
http://anthonycolpo.com/the-china-study-more-vegan-nonsense/

Shenshen

--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

Thanks for repeating what I already said in my post, as well as in several previous posts.

I am generally sceptical of anyone proclaiming the health benefits of any particular diet, especially if that person then starts recommending others change their diet.

Indeed, all we have at this point is correlations. There is no hard evidence on the health benefits of any diet, even studies into what would be considered very bad diets (high sugar, junk foods, etc.) tend to contradict each other.
There are people out there thriving on diets that most in the medical profession would tell you should kill them, and there are people out there on very healthy diets but still feeling sickly.

And to recommend a diet change based on prejudice and very shaky possible scientific connections is rather irresponsible in my view.

judgefudge

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Oh, I was just waiting for someone to mention The China Study, or as I call it, The Extensively Debunked China Study . 200+ posts before a vegetarian mentioned The China Study? I'm actually shocked

I was wary that you linked to a blog of all places. And a lot of it is just rambling about peer review in literature. I'm going to read some of the papers it links to when I get back to work out of interest. But having worked in beef research I know from experience that many studies can and do often have ambiguous and conflicting results. Some of which are just plain wrong and some of which require further research to fully understand.

I'm interested to read these anyway. But I would like to see if there are actually any strong studies that show that a lack of meat in your diet is detrimental.

wolfpawnat

Back in the time of Henry VIII the wealthy ate copious amounts of meat and bread, very little vegetables, while the poor ate mostly vegetables and bread. Guess which ones were the ones with gout? Henry VIII suffered agonisingly with it.

Nutritionists these days suggest meat in your diet, but not as a main part of it. If you are going to take it out, you are going to have to replace it with something that is filled with the essentials the hold, proteins, etc. If you take care of that then I think you'd be able to live a very healthy life. That said a lot of people who eat meat don't eat enough veg either and they are just as unhealthy as unhealthy vegetarians.

Me personally, it's not a dinner if there isn't some form of meat in it. I love just enough to add to the meal, not a 12oz steak, just a fillet of chicken, a small bit of steak with potatoes and veg, etc. Can't beat it.

osarusan

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.

Specifically, what are the things in meat that cannot be replaced?

And can you present some of the 'overwhelming' evidence?

Tar.Aldarion

I'd be interested to know why it's not perfectly healthy, and what he knows that national dietic bodies don't know, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition doesn't know and the World Health Organisation doesn't know. Even when they say it is ok to eat meat, they recommend something like once a week, and other people disagree and so on saying meat is ok. That said, the official stance by these bodies is that it is healthy.

Let's look at some reasons why people stating facts here are ridiculous. There are studies like these (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/526S.long whether they be right or wrong), thousands by this stage about diet and they often have differing outcomes. Yet people here who can't possibly read a fraction of them, don't even work in the field come along with their 'matter of fact' knowledge that they know something is healthy and not healthy. A lot of the time they are just looking for any evidence at all that what they want to be right, is right.

Zillah

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Oh, I was just waiting for someone to mention The China Study, or as I call it, The Extensively Debunked China Study . 200+ posts before a vegetarian mentioned The China Study? I'm actually shocked

Edit: Two more eviscerations of the study;
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
http://anthonycolpo.com/the-china-study-more-vegan-nonsense/

It'd be nice if you could tone down the rhetoric a little bit. We've had a few exchanges and I don't think we're in disagreement over anything other than I'm not happy with animals dying so we can eat them and you are. Saying "vegetarians this" and "vegetarians that" as if it was some organisation that we signed up to is a pretty crappy way to talk about people.

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.

Yes, I too would like to know what, specifically, I am desperately lacking as a vegetarian. I get a wide variety of proteins from various grains, beans and peas, not to mention cheese and eggs. Vitamins and minerals I have an abundance of. Energy is supplied through carbohydrates. Even iron, the one thing that vegetarians need to be very careful with, I get from spinach and other dark leafy veg. I can take a supplement if I'm concerned.

So what, exactly, is it that we're lacking?

judgefudge

I too would be wary of anyone who claims to know what is right. On either side of the argument. Generally people who work and research in the area of nutrition (and most areas of health sciences) don't state findings as "facts". Our knowledge changes constantly and new things come to light.

Everyone should be willing to question and learn about their diet. And be open to others opinions.

Capt'n Midnight

Shenshen wrote: »

I know of a good few animals who would laugh at that claim... tigers, sharks and the occasional Boa Constrictor spring to mind.

and crocs

ScumLord

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.

Eating fish probably did affect us, back when we were fish too. Eating meat did have a huge affect on the development of the primates that were around at the time. They simply couldn't have lived on a vegetarian because there was nothing around for them to eat and what was around was inedible to them. The only food source left was whatever was left over at a bigger predators kill. All you have to do is compare a picture of a chimp to a picture of a human to see we have very different guts. Humans are the descendants of animals that made those adaptations. Humans didn't come up with meat eating, we evolved from a line of meat eaters.

We only got to spend less time finding and eating food with the development of agriculture. The development of the first civilisation in Egypt was facilitated by fertile floodplains in the Nile basin [as well as the concentration of population that resulted from having that in the middle of a desert].

The Egyptians were not the first civilisation. Just one of the more famous ancient civilisations.

I'd love to know were this information is coming out of?

blatantrereg

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

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.

Most humans weren't eating meat most of the time. I provided the source of that which is the American Dietetics Association. A reputable body which has no vegan agenda at all.

I mentioned the aquatic ape theory because it's relevant to the topic. I don't filter things out just because they don't fit in with some agenda. It says a lot about your own approach to this discussion that you are confused by it.

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

Deers, hippos, antelope have all been recorded eating meat. Hippos have even taken to killing and eating livestock on rare but documented occasions.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/files/imagecache/photo-gallery/photo/7/Picture1.jpg

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

Why? People don't naturally perceive animals as food. People do naturally perceive fruit as food.

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.

It's been proven that there is though. It's also been proven that we are herbivores.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/

William C Roberts has no vegetarian agenda. He is not vegetarian himself. He is a leading cardiologist. Editor of the American Journal of Cardiology and the Baylor University Medical Centre Proceedings... among numerous other accolades. But he's iterating drivel apparently, and you are right, random angry man on the internet...

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?

I don't eat fish. Again - including things that don't directly support my own poisition indicates a rational mindset, not confusion. Not sure what you're getting at. Do you think that algae are animals? That seems to be what you're indicating.

Meat is generally a bad source of omega 3s. Fish might contain almost 3% omega 3s, which is good. Plants can contain over 18% omega 3s though (flax). If you take the oil alone, rather than the whole food, then linseed oil contains about 6 times as many omega 3s as fish oil.

I already explained the difference between the different specific oils and their sources. Talking about bioavailability and completeness doesn't really suggest you know what you're on about. Fish contain DHA and EPA. Plants only contain ALA. ALA is useful in itself and humans can convert it to DHA and EPA to varying extents. All three of them are bioavailable and complete.

My name is URL

blatantrereg wrote: »

Why? People don't naturally perceive animals as food. People do naturally perceive fruit as food.

Do you drink milk? Is consuming something from the tit of a different species something that people naturally do?

Humans perceive as food, that which they know and accept as food. There's nothing natural about it other than the way we are taught.

smash

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I'd be interested to know why it's not perfectly healthy, and what he knows that national dietic bodies don't know, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition doesn't know and the World Health Organisation doesn't know. Even when they say it is ok to eat meat, they recommend something like once a week, and other people disagree and so on saying meat is ok.

You've become awful defensive since your girlfriend made you go veggie! :pac:





Only joking man :P

ScumLord

blatantrereg wrote: »

Most humans weren't eating meat most of the time.

How could they eat meat all the time. They had a varied diet where meat was the most valued of all foods. Meat has been part of the human diet since before we were human. Just because some civilisations choose not to eat meat doesn't mean that in general people didn't eat meat.

Modern human hunting tribes in Africa don't eat a lot of meat, they get the majority of their food through foraging done by the women. It doesn't mean they don't value meat highly it's just they can't bring in enough of it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/

William C Roberts has no vegetarian agenda. He is not vegetarian himself. He is a leading cardiologist. Editor of the American Journal of Cardiology and the Baylor University Medical Centre Proceedings... among numerous other accolades. But he's iterating drivel apparently, and you are right, random angry man on the internet...

I have a few issues with the claims made in that link.

The teeth of carnivores are sharp; those of herbivores are mainly flat (for grinding).

Herbivore teeth are also known to grow continuously something our teeth don't do. If I compare a dogs teeth to sheep teeth, mine look a lot more like dogs than sheep.

The intestinal tract of carnivores is short (3 times body length); that of herbivores, long (12 times body length).

He doesn't go onto say ours are somewhere in the middle. Omnivore.

Body cooling of carnivores is done by panting; herbivores, by sweating.

That's not true, sweating is pretty unique to humans, pigs do it too but the majority of animals cool by panting. We used to hunt on the principle that the herbivore we were chasing would over heat before we did.

Carnivores drink fluids by lapping; herbivores, by sipping.

I don't think that's true either.

blatantrereg

ScumLord wrote: »

How could they eat meat all the time. They had a varied diet where meat was the most valued of all foods. Meat has been part of the human diet since before we were human. Just because some civilisations choose not to eat meat doesn't mean that in general people didn't eat meat.

Modern human hunting tribes in Africa don't eat a lot of meat, they get the majority of their food through foraging done by the women. It doesn't mean they don't value meat highly it's just they can't bring in enough of it.

The actual quote from the American Dietetics Association is "most of mankind for most of human history has lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets". You interpretted my paraphrasing of it in a way that lost the meaning of the original quote - which is pretty non-ambiguous.

I have a few issues with the claims made in that link...

Well you shouldn't really, given the source. It's not claims - it's peer-reviewed literature written by a leader in the area of cardiac health. He has written the same things in leading journals; some of which are in the references. You might consider the idea that you suffer from bias on the subject when you find yourself rubbishing this sort of stuff.

Also we do have the same digestive tract:body size ratio as herbivores. He's not trying to trick people with some funny misrepresentation you know. He's absolutely nothing to gain from his position. He's just presenting what has been proven through sound scientific investigation.

ScumLord

blatantrereg wrote: »

The actual quote from the American Dietetics Association is "most of mankind for most of human history has lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets". You interpretted my paraphrasing of it in a way that lost the meaning of the original quote - which is pretty non-ambiguous.

Humans are unique animals, most omnivores start carnivorous and start eating fruits, where as we started herbivore and became carnivorous. Humans have always eaten meat. Some humans throughout history have decided to not eat meat, especially since farming came about. Before farming it wasn't an easy choice to not eat meat throughout the winter.

We're too good at killing other animals to decide to wait 6 months for vegetables to grow. The subsistence hunters that came out of the plains of Africa would have made easy pickings of any animal they crossed in Europe. It's impossible to think they decided not to eat those animals and spent their days finding, picking and processing plant life to survive.

Well you shouldn't really, given the source.

At best he is being misleading. The bit about herbivores sweating is just complete nonsense.

blatantrereg

ScumLord wrote: »

At best he is being misleading. The bit about herbivores sweating is just complete nonsense.

Cattle, horses, camels, zebras sweat. They are all herbivores. Pigs have ineffective sweat glands.

The definition of delusion is the persistence of a belief after seeing evidence that it's incorrect. Your refusal to countenance or credit information from the most credible sources that exist suggests something like that.

Miss Lockhart

ScumLord wrote: »

That's not true, sweating is pretty unique to humans, pigs do it too but the majority of animals cool by panting.

You would really want to examine your own facts before challenging a peer-reviewed paper.

Pigs do not sweat in any meaningful amount. Horses on the other hand....

If you post such factually incorrect nonsense as supposedly knowledgable opinion, then I think we can view the rest of your arguments with a more than a little hint of scepticism.

ScumLord

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

You would really want to examine your own facts before challenging a peer-reviewed paper.

Pigs do not sweat in any meaningful amount. Horses on the other hand....

What's your point? What I said was true, sweating is not restricted to herbivores. All over sweating as a method of cooling is not at all common throughout the animal kingdom and is fairly unique to humans.

blatantrereg

ScumLord wrote: »

What's your point? What I said was true, sweating is not restricted to herbivores. All over sweating as a method of cooling is not at all common throughout the animal kingdom and is fairly unique to humans.

Horses do sweat to cool down, as do the other animals I listed.

Zillah

This has descended into utter ridiculousness.

ScumLord

blatantrereg wrote: »

Horses do sweat to cool down, as do the other animals I listed.

But it's not a trait restricted too or even common in herbivores.

blatantrereg

Zillah wrote: »

This has descended into utter ridiculousness.

Haha true.

Vegetarianism thread - Page 18 summary: Which animals sweat?

Miss Lockhart

ScumLord wrote: »

What's your point? What I said was true, sweating is not restricted to herbivores. All over sweating as a method of cooling is not at all common throughout the animal kingdom and is fairly unique to humans.

My point is that what you said is not true (pigs do not sweat), and if you are passing off incorrect information as fact, then why should we bother with the rest of your "issues" with a peer-reviewed paper.

As has been pointed out, sweating is not unique (in any sense of the word) to humans and is more common in herbivores.

There could be many legitmate challenges to that paper, but challenges based on factually incorrect information is pointless.

Theatricality and deception

Red meat is highly nutritious and people should eat it regularly.

http://robbwolf.com/2012/03/14/red-meat-part-healthy-diet/


http://www.marksdailyapple.com/red-meat-study/#axzz2KCQGj9Nk

Roam

HTML5! wrote: »

I've read articles claiming it's healthier to be one. Is it really though?

Anyone ever tried it?

Any converts that are feeling way better since becoming one?

I think it would be far too difficult for me to give up meat!

On a similar note, have you ever considered a pescatarian diet?

I eat fatty fish; I don't eat other types of meat. I use soya products instead of dairy. I don't eat white bread, white rice nor junk food. I try to get my sugar from a natural source like fruit rather than the processed kind and I feel great.

--Kaiser--

blatantrereg wrote: »

The actual quote from the American Dietetics Association is "most of mankind for most of human history has lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets". You interpretted my paraphrasing of it in a way that lost the meaning of the original quote - which is pretty non-ambiguous.

Blatant Appeal to Authority there blatantrereg, which itself is a logical fallacy, but who are these people and why should I care about their ridiculously incorrect statements about humans? I mean to make this statement you would have to ignore the following points (amongst many others)

a) the archaeological record stretching back millions of years showing humans and our predecessors did eat quite a lot of meat
b) the fact that we have meat digesting enzymes
c) the fact that at least two essential nutrients, Vit B12 and Omega 3 fatty acids are only available significantly in animal products
d) our all-pupose teeth - biting, tearing and grinding


In fact, you'd have to be a complete and total bell end to make this statement

Zombienosh

eugh hurry up and close this thread so someone else can start a thread about 3 weeks from now and we can all argue about which animals sweat all over again.

reprazant

I always find it amusing how absolutely condescending people can be for no particular reason other than somebody has a different opinion to them.

I have also noticed that meat eaters seem to be very insecure and feel the need to always show why people need to eat meat and if they don't, they are fools in any thread about vegetarians and I say that as a meat eater myself.