Lewis Hamilton went vegan after watching this documentary

Canis Lupus

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Many people accept documentaries like gospel. A film-maker can spin almost any tale or narrative he/she pleases,

If someone went to the effort to make a movie or even a youtube video then they must be telling the truth.

razorblunt

If I had to live my life using Lewis Hamilton as my inspirational guide I'd take myself off to Switzerland for a dose of euthanasia.

Eathrin

Wibbs wrote: »

Chickpeas or chicken. I know which I'd prefer

You're entitled to prefer one thing over another. That doesn't make it right to do it.

gozunda

Eathrin wrote: »

I haven't seen the documentary but why all the negativity towards him for making this change? Why do people insist on vegetarianism and veganism on being acts of pretentiousness?

In reality;
(1) meat production is one of the largest contributors to climate change
(2) slaughtering animals for food is unnecessarily cruel
(3) one can live a perfectly healthy life as a vegetarian/vegan and often consumption of meat is the direct cause of many health issues inlcuding cancer.
(4) Meat production is an extremely inefficient use of land, energy and resources such as water in a world with ever increasing population

Nothing wrong in choosing a plant based diet as preference - what I can't stand is the stench of sanctimony from extreme vegan preachers.

So here's an alternative view of life ...

1) it is believed that human based activities are the main contributors to climate change

2) Animals have been eating other animals since the dawn of time. Happily we no longer run down animals over cliffs with flint topped spears

3) Humans who eat meat as part of a balanced diet are less prone to deficiencies and other diet related problems

4) The main problem in the world is overpopulation. The rest is moving chairs on the Titanic

5) Vegan based propaganda wants me to aaarrrghhhh .....

VinLieger

Eathrin wrote: »

You're entitled to prefer one thing over another. That doesn't make it right to do it.

Conversely it doesn't make it wrong either as you seem to be implying

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

jacksie66 wrote: »

That documentary is ridiculous. It claims eating a few eggs a day is the same as smoking a box of fags. Even has a clip of a woman serving fried cigarettes to her kids. Pure militant vegan nonsense.

Also that thread name is pure click bait.

Watched some of the video and they're using the classic emotional triggers.

1. Scary words (Cancer / diabetes).
2. Science that doesn't work.
3. Vegan solution.
4. Sob story.
5. Tears.
6. HALLELUJAH; It's a miracle; I'm cured in two weeks flat.
7. Spend money here to learn how.

gozunda

Eathrin wrote: »

Livestock covers 45% of global land. I'm sure some of it would be suitable for crops

Grassland makes some 40.5 percent of the terrestrial area excluding Greenland and Antarctica (World Resources Institute, 2000, based on IGBP data).

Much of this is natural grassland such as North American Prairie, the South American Pampas, and the East European Steppe.

Do you know what happened in the US during the dust bowl era where natural grassland areas had their protective grassland cover removed? Look it up.

Eathrin wrote: »

In fact... we wouldn't even need to assign any of this land to crop production. We already grow enough food to feed everyone on earth, extremely comfortably. The problem is that most of this food goes to feeding livestock.

Absolutely untrue. Most of the food fed to livestock (outside of cattle directly eating grass hay etc ) is the left over byproducts of the human food industry. Ie what is left over after feeding humans is fed to cattle and other ruminants

The problem is that there are too any humans (probably)

sbsquarepants

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I'LL COPY LEWIS

Me too. When do I get my shot of Nicole Scherzinger?


Is it not a pretty much accepted fact though, that a vegan diet is much healthier than any other?

I wouldn't be into it myself, I could probably manage without the meat but no milk? No eggs? That's what cakes and biscuits are made from:eek:

Eathrin

gozunda wrote: »

Nothing wrong in choosing a plant based diet as preference - what I can't stand is the stench of sanctimony from extreme vegan preachers.

So here's an alternative view of life ...

1) it is believed that human based activities are the main contributors to climate change

2) Animals have been eating other animals since the dawn of time. Happily we no longer run down animals over cliffs with flint topped spears

3) Humans who eat meat as part of a balanced diet are less prone to deficiencies and other diet related problems

4) The main problem in the world is overpopulation. The rest is moving chairs on the Titanic

5) Vegan based propaganda wants aaarrrghhhh .....

Human based activities include modern farming. Do you deny that farming has no major contribution to climate change? That's real head in the sand stuff.

I suppose what we really need is a good old fashioned cull of the population. Perhaps a new plague or a holocaust. I mean, we have enough food to feed everyone as it is, but no, feck em right?

VinLieger

Eathrin wrote: »

I suppose what we really need is a good old fashioned cull of the population. Perhaps a new plague or a holocaust. I mean, we have enough food to feed everyone as it is, but no, feck em right?

What a pathetic and disgusting attempt at a strawman

VinLieger

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Is it not a pretty much accepted fact though, that a vegan diet is much healthier than any other?

Depends entirely on the person, some it may work for some it won't, there is no one perfect diet to fit every human being.

Effects

Hande hoche! wrote: »

On a vaguely related note, that trolling campaign by the national dairy council is amusing.

You can't make a complaint about it anymore as they've had so many complaints already.

kylith

Eathrin wrote: »

Livestock covers 45% of global land. I'm sure some of it would be suitable for crop production.

Absolutely! Lets plough up all that meadow biodiversity and plant mile after mile of monoculture.

Eathrin wrote: »

I'd agree with that to an extent, but my question was as to why it is not actually possible to be a healthy vegan if one can be a healthy vegetarian.

Because a vegetarian diet includes things like milk, eggs, and cheese, all of which are great sources of proteins and vitamins (such as B12) that are absent in a vegan diet.

Let me put it this way: I could go out tomorrow and buy 5 acres of land, plant vegetables, and get a goat and a few chickens, maybe a pair of dexter cows, and I would be able to live very happily off of all that I farmed within that area. That is not possible if I attempted to live as a vegan on the same area of land. I would be malnourished in short order because it's simply not a sustainable diet without dependence on foreign imports and synthetic supplements.

Effects

Hande hoche! wrote: »

The combination of snapback cap and man bun make it hard for me to take that chap seriously.

Are you mixing him up with someone else? I can't remember him ever having a man bun.

Alun

kylith wrote: »

Let me put it this way: I could go out tomorrow and buy 5 acres of land, plant vegetables, and get a goat and a few chickens, maybe a pair of dexter cows, and I would be able to live very happily off of all that I farmed within that area. That is not possible if I attempted to live as a vegan on the same area of land. I would be malnourished in short order because it's simply not a sustainable diet without dependence on foreign imports and synthetic supplements.

This is an important aspect of both typical vegan and vegetarian diets that is often overlooked. In order to make both diets in any way interesting and varied, you have to import an awful lot of exotic vegetables, seeds, nuts etc. that either won't grow in our climate at all or if it did would need to be grown in heated greenhouses. This has an energy impact too.

Eathrin

kylith wrote: »

Let me put it this way: I could go out tomorrow and buy 5 acres of land, plant vegetables, and get a goat and a few chickens, maybe a pair of dexter cows, and I would be able to live very happily off of all that I farmed within that area. That is not possible if I attempted to live as a vegan on the same area of land. I would be malnourished in short order because it's simply not a sustainable diet without dependence on foreign imports and synthetic supplements.

I'd argue that you've mad a massive error in your assumption there, in that the average person consumes far far more meat, dairy and eggs than you would be able to farm for yourself there.

Commercial farming is definitely necessary to satisfy a modern person's dietary requirements. It's what we farm that has to change.

kylith

Alun wrote: »

This is an important aspect of both typical vegan and vegetarian diets that is often overlooked. In order to make both diets in any way interesting and varied, you have to import an awful lot of exotic vegetables, seeds, nuts etc. that either won't grow in our climate at all or if it did would need to be grown in heated greenhouses. This has an energy impact too.

Not just an energy impact. The quinoa explosion in the west has priced the people who have depended on it for centuries out of the market leading to malnutrition and, ironically, a higher level of meat eating. And not just meat; low-quality, cheap meat raised in battery conditions or with inadequate veterinary care.

Dempsey

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't overly care what Lewis Hamilton eats and his vegan or non vegan diet is probably very healthy. However he really isn't the sharpest tool in the box. I found it very amusing when he started explaining how is vegan diet much better for the environment and how that influenced his decision. The same man is constantly travelling around in a private jet.

And yes I am a bitter Ferrari fan...

His tax strategy to buy and run that jet has cost how many millions to public service such as healthcare and environment protection. He doesnt care about the welfare of people, animals etc as much as he claims to. He does care alot about his bank balance though

kylith

Eathrin wrote: »

I'd argue that you've mad a massive error in your assumption there, in that the average person consumes far far more meat, dairy and eggs than you would be able to farm for yourself there.

Commercial farming is definitely necessary to satisfy a modern person's dietary requirements. It's what we farm that has to change.

I don't know the figures as I havent' worked it out, but I do know that the dozen hens my brother keeps produce so many eggs he now gives them away to neighbours, and a dexter cow will produce 10-12 litres of milk daily. So at ~5 eggs per hen per week plus 10l of milk per cow per day my problem in that regard would appear to be one of oversupply.

Eathrin

kylith wrote: »

Absolutely! Lets plough up all that meadow biodiversity and plant mile after mile of monoculture.

Did we not lose an enormous amount of woodland to agriculture in the past few centuries? It was probably more diverse back in the day.

Also as I've said before, we really wouldn't need all that much cropland to make up for the loss. Livestock farming, as I've said before, is a terribly inefficient use of land, water and food.

Eathrin

kylith wrote: »

I don't know the figures as I havent' worked it out, but I do know that the dozen hens my brother keeps produce so many eggs he now gives them away to neighbours, and a dexter cow will produce 10-12 litres of milk daily. So at ~5 eggs per hen per week plus 10l of milk per cow per day my problem in that regard would appear to be one of oversupply.

So where's the meat?

kylith

Eathrin wrote: »

Did we not lose an enormous amount of woodland to agriculture in the past few centuries? It was probably more diverse back in the day.

Also as I've said before, we really wouldn't need all that much cropland to make up for the loss. Livestock farming, as I've said before, is a terribly inefficient use of land, water and food.

So, your plan is to make it even less biodiverse, because last I checked you can't grow soy plantations in forests.

Eathrin wrote: »

So where's the meat?

I did say I could live on a vegetarian diet sustainably.

However, I'd probably eat the old chickens. Waste not, want not.

VinLieger

Eathrin wrote: »

So where's the meat?

You need to start fully reading peoples post's, the example was quite obviously comparing vegetarianism to veganism and how veganism in comparison is unsustainable without outside help

jmayo

joefromireland wrote: »

Lewis Hamilton went vegan after watching a documentary called What The Health
Do you think he has put his health at risk by not eating any meat or dairy?
...

Maybe he just realised he couldn't get meat cheaper by diverting it through Isle of Man.

I wonder if someone showed him a documentary about paying taxes might he, you know, pay some more of them ?

Ronin247 wrote: »

Personally I think Mr Hamilton is an obnoxious little boll1x and couldn't care less what he does.

Nail on head.

Wibbs wrote: »

Not far off. Long gone are the days of regular mayhem, death and injury in F1. I remember watching it with my dad as a kid in the 70's and crashes and fiery death, or in the case of Niki Laura, fiery death? Fcuk you, were a regular occurrence. Oh and overtaking and drivers with panache and character, not macrobiotic eating midgets with a soulectomy, where pit lane comms are often ore interesting than the processions races. Ditto of the days of Group B rallying, where the men were men - or women like Michelle Mouton, a giant of a driver. Ovaries of steel - and cars were dangerous.

I agree most motor sports, especially F1, have become processions where the biggest money is assured the winner.

Michelle was a damn good one who drove a beast of a car, the Audi Quattro, and nearly won the World Championship.

BTW Niki Lauda didn't die just fried a little.
Actually speaking of Lauda, he was one of the first to introduce the very healthy lifestyle, the exact opposite to his one time adversary James Hunt.

Effects

kylith wrote: »

I'd think that dairy and eggs would be seen as better than eating meat. After all neither causes any harm to the animal.

Completely untrue.

kylith

Effects wrote: »

Completely untrue.

Go on

Eathrin

kylith wrote: »

So, your plan is to make it even less biodiverse, because last I checked you can't grow soy plantations in forests.


I did say I could live on a vegetarian diet sustainably.

However, I'd probably eat the old chickens. Waste not, want not.

VinLieger wrote: »

You need to start fully reading peoples post's, the example was quite obviously comparing vegetarianism to veganism and how veganism in comparison is unsustainable without outside help

Apologies, my mistake.
And eating old chickens, sure, that's sustainable.

Also, I don't have any great plans to cover Ireland in soybean. As I said before, I'm not vegan. I'm not arguing that we should be vegans unconditionally either, more exploring the arguments.

I think you are ingnoring facts Kylith. I don't think you understand the scale of the land inefficiency.

kylith

Eathrin wrote: »

Apologies, my mistake.
And eating old chickens, sure, that's sustainable.

Also, I don't have any great plans to cover Ireland in soybean. As I said before, I'm not vegan. I'm not arguing that we should be vegans unconditionally either, more exploring the arguments.

I think you are ingnoring facts Kylith. I don't think you understand the scale of the land inefficiency.

Well, old chicken whose laying days are behind them are just going to die anyway. What else should I do with them? Let them go to waste? As for sustainability; you can use chickens to make more chickens, you know.

I am open to being educated about the scale of this land inefficiency, so go ahead.

RWCNT

Wibbs wrote: »

The vast majority of intelligent animals are meat eaters. The plant eaters are almost always food for same. A bit "trolly"? Yeah, but not far off the truth. Humans became what we are because of a switch from a near exclusively plant based diet to one that included meat. Otherwise we would have remained an odd short arsed bipedal ape with big flat teeth and a fat belly in Africa.

Plenty of disagreement around that point. Other scientists argue that it was glucose from root vegetables and tubers that contributed to human development, facilitated by the discovery of cooking allowing us to eat these foods in greater amounts.

kylith

RWCNT wrote: »

Plenty of disagreement around that point. Other scientists argue that it was glucose from root vegetables and tubers that contributed to human development, facilitated by the discovery of cooking allowing us to eat these foods in greater amounts.

Cool. Any link to that?

Everything I've read on the subject to now has been pretty unanimous that it was the greater caloric value in meat that enabled the brain growth necessary to work out how to cook anything in the first place.

I do somewhat disagree with Wibbs' point that the majority of intelligent animals are meat eaters. They tend not to be exclusively meat eaters, though it does take a lot more smarts to catch a gazelle than it does to sneak up on a piece of grass, they tend to be omnivores.