Jeremy u have a good point on that wolf thing, it is true that the deer does suffer when it dies, just like the animals that get killed to be processed, but like u said it does not have a choice at what it eats the wolf is just that way it eats meat.
But us on the other hand have a choice and this is why we eat meat because some of use perfer the nice steak and a side of salad, or just the salad, or just the steak, what it all comes down to is that we have a choice at whether we want a poor defenseless animal to die so it can become our meal or not.
One cant get mad at someone for choosing to eat meat, it is there choice u can try and change their opinon of eating meat but thats all.
Truebalance you said that u have been a vegetarian for a year or so, so before that u didnt know that poor animals were being killed so u could eat , i mean u must of knew at a young age that animals were being killed so that u could eat some of your most favorite meals.
Also the video states that the grain and water could be used to feed 3rd world, well okay i am for that but then again we feed them, they have food in their tummys now but they are still poor, overcrowded, crime is still rampent, and still sick and ill and dying, but hey they have food as long as that counts right.
Please Watch this (vegetarianism)
-
TrueBalance
- 100-Watt Warlock
- Posts: 106
- Joined: 15 Mar 2004 21:08
-
greenground
- Shredaholic
- Posts: 138
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 17:36
TrueBalance wrote: ooo rub me RIGHT THEREOH YEAH OH PLANET!! OH!!OOOO
Haha, but i guess your right about the giving them hope, but really my last thread was trying to be about that you really should call people names because they choose to eat meat, none of us are making fun of u or calling u names for choosing to be a vegitarian, YOU HIPPIE.
i also most say this thread is becoming quite intresting.
never play leap-frog witha unicorn
Peter Pham
Peter Pham
-
Seath
- Craptacular Spatula
- Posts: 2126
- Joined: 29 Sep 2003 12:16
- Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canadia
- Contact:
Lets just send 3rd world countries a bunch of McChickens, free of charge, Mcdonalds can afford it.
People here also seem to be overlooking the fact that every individual person's optimal diet is different. There are vital nutrients found only in meat, and for vegetarians/vegans/herbivores, to say that everyone should abstain from meat is ignorant as being a vegetarian may not be the healthiest choice for everyone.
I have eye teeth, they're good at ripping meat, and I have a crazy metabolism and am very active so I don't really care much about getting fat from eating meat. I think a major problem here is people are associating animals with us in the sense that they are equal to us. Personally, and this is just personally, if I subscribed to this view then I'd feel awful every time I kill a mosquito when it tries to suck my blood.
Kill em quick and harmless, but dont feel bad about them, they're just animals.
The following article shows why almost all the facts stated in the video are mis-informed and, kinda sheds a sort of propoganda-ish light on the whole video.
MYTH #1:
Meat consumption contributes to famine and depletes the Earth's natural resources.
Some have argued that cows and sheep require pasturage that could be better used to raise grains to feed starving millions in Third World countries. Additionally, claims are made that raising livestock requires more water than raising plant foods. Both arguments are illogical and simplistic.
The pasturage argument ignores the fact that a large portion of our Earth's dry land is unsuited to cultivation. The open range and desert and mountainous areas yield their fruits to grazing animals (1).
Unfortunately, the bulk of commercial livestock are not range fed, but stall fed. They do not ingest grasses and shrubs (like they should), but are fed an unnatural array of grains and soybeans. It is true that these foods could be fed to humans. The argument here, then, is not that eating meat depletes the Earth's resources, but that commercial farming methods do. Such methods also subject livestock to deplorable living conditions where infections, antibiotics, steroids and synthetic hormones are common. These all lead to an unhealthy animal and, by extension, an unhealthy food product. Organically raised livestock, then, is a healthier and more humane choice (see myth #15 for more on this topic).
As for the claims that raising livestock requires more water than raising plant foods, water that livestock drink would be drunk by them anyway, even if they were not being raised for food. Additionally, the urine of grazing animals, which mostly comprises water, is rich in nitrogen which helps replenish the soil. Much of the water used in commercial livestock farming, however, is used up in growing the various grains and soybeans fed to the animals. If a concerted effort were made to return to the ecologically sound "mixed farm," (described below), then such huge expenditures of water would be unnecessary.
A far more serious threat to humanity, and the Earth, is the monoculture of grains and legumes, advocated by some vegetarian groups, which depletes the soil and requires the heavy use of artificial fertilisers and dangerous pesticides; pesticides that must first be tested on animals for safety (2). The solution? Astute writers on this dilemma have pointed out:
The educated consumer and the enlightened farmer together can bring about a return of the mixed farm, where cultivation of fruits, vegetables and grains is combined with the raising of livestock and fowl in a manner that is efficient, economical and environmentally friendly. For example, chickens running free in garden areas eat insect pests, while providing high-quality eggs; sheep grazing in orchards obviate the need for herbicides; and cows grazing in woodlands and other marginal areas provide rich, pure milk, making these lands economically viable for the farmer. It is not animal cultivation that leads to hunger and famine, but unwise agricultural practices and monopolistic distribution systems. (3)
The "mixed farm" is also healthier for the soil, which will yield more crops if managed according to traditional guidelines. British organic farmer and dairyman Mark Purdey has accurately pointed out that a crop field on a mixed farm will yield up to five harvests a year, while a "mono-cropped" one will only yield one or two (4). Which farm is producing more food for the world's peoples? Purdey well sums up the ecological horrors of "battery farming" by saying:
Our agricultural establishments could do very well to outlaw the business- besotted farmers running intensive livestock units, battery systems and beef-burger bureaucracies; with all their wastages, deplorable cruelty, anti-ozone slurry systems; drug/chemical induced immunotoxicity resulting in B.S.E. [see myth # 13] amd salmoella, rain forest eradication, etc. Our future direction must strike the happy, healthy medium of mixed farms, resurrecting the old traditional extensive system as a basic framework, then bolstering up productivity to present day demands by incorporating a more updated application of biological science into farming systems. (5)
MYTH #2:
Vitamin B12 can be obtained from plant sources.
Of all the myths, this is perhaps the most dangerous. Vegans who do not supplement their diet with vitamin B12 will eventually get anaemia (a fatal condition) as well as severe nervous and digestive system damage (6). Claims are made that B12 is present in certain algae, tempeh (a fermented soy product) and brewer's yeast. All of them are false.
Like the niacin in corn, the B12 analogues present in algae and tempeh are not bioavailable. We know this because studies done on people's blood levels of B12 remained the same after they ate spirulina and tempeh; there was no change, clearly indicating no absorption by the body (7). Further, the ingestion of too much soy increases the body's need for B12 (8). Brewer's yeast does not contain B12 naturally; it is always fortified from an outside source.
Some vegetarian authorities claim that B12 is produced by certain fermenting bacteria in the intestines. This may be true, but it is in a form unusable by the body. B12 requires intrinsic factor from the stomach for proper absorption in the ileum. Since the bacterial product does not have intrinsic factor bound to it, it cannot be absorbed (9).
It is true that vegans living in certain parts of India do not suffer from vitamin B12 deficiency. This has led some to conclude that plant foods do provide this vitamin. This conclusion, however, is erroneous as many small insects, their eggs, larvae and/or residue, are left on the plant foods these people consume, due to non-use of pesticides and inefficient cleaning methods. This is how these people obtain their vitamin B12. This contention is borne out by the fact that when Indian Hindus migrated to England, they came down with pernicious anaemia within a few years. In England, the food supply is cleaner, and insect residues are completely removed from plant foods (10).
The only reliable and absorbable sources of vitamin B12 are animal products, especially organ meats and eggs (11). Though present in lesser amounts, milk products do contain B12. Vegans, therefore, should consider adding dairy products into their diets. If dairy cannot be tolerated, eggs, preferably from free-run hens, are a virtual necessity.
That vitamin B12 can only be obtained from animal products is one of the strongest arguments against veganism being a "normal" way of human eating. Today, vegans can avoid anaemia by taking supplemental vitamins or fortified foods. If those same people had lived just a few decades ago, when these products were unavailable, they would have died.
In my own practice, I recently saved two vegans from death from anaemia by convincing them to eat generous amounts of dairy products. Both of these sickly gentlemen thought their B12 needs were being met by tempeh and spirulina. They weren't.
MYTH #3:
The body can convert omega-6 fatty acids into omega-3 fatty acids as it needs.
This falsehood is akin to myth number two. Omega 3 and 6 fatty acids are polyunsaturated fats of which two, linolenic (an omega-3) and linoleic (an omega 6), are essential to human life and must be obtained from food as the body cannot synthesise them. Although very small amounts of omega 3 linolenic acid are found in whole grains and dark green leafy vegetables, it is principally found in animal foods (especially fish and eggs), as well as flax seed oil. Omega 6 linoleic acid is mostly found in vegetables, but small amounts are present in certain animal fats. To assuage vegans who fear they may not get enough omega 3 linolenic acid, some vegetarian sources assert that the body can simply convert excess omega 6 linoleic acid into omega 3 linolenic acid, and other omega 3 fatty acids such as EPA and DHA, two fatty acids intimately involved in the health of the brain and immune system.
Renowned lipid biochemist Dr Mary Enig, of the University of Maryland, and other authorities have shown that the body cannot change the omega number of fatty acids. The body can change the fatty acid's degree of saturation and also its molecular length, but not its omega number (12). In other words, omega 6 fatty acids can only be converted into other omega 6 fatty acids; omega 3s only into other omega 3s.
Again, I have seen the results of this misinformation in my practice. I've had several patients of Northern European descent with severe mental and immune problems caused by a lack of EPA and DHA, two omega-3 fatty acids not found in plant foods (DHA is found in small amounts in some algae). People native to warmer climates in the world can manufacture these fatty acids from other omega-3s, but those of Northern European or Innuit descent cannot. Since their ancestors ate so much EPA- and DHA-rich fish, their bodies eventually lost the ability to manufacture these fatty acids (13). For these people, vegetarianism is impossible; they must consume either eggs or fish in order to survive.
There is also a very real danger from consuming too many omega-6 fatty acids, principally found in vegetables. The body requires both omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids. However, when the body's cells are overloaded with omega-6s, their ability to utilise the omega-3 is inhibited (14).
Chronically low levels of omega-3 fatty acids are associated with higher cancer rates and immune dysfunction. Excessive levels of omega-6 fatty acids are also strongly correlated with a high incidence of cardiovascular disease (as is excessive consumption of refined sugar and trans-fatty acids) [15].
MYTH #4: The body's needs for vitamin A can be entirely obtained from plant foods.
Vitamin A is principally found in animal products. Plants do contain beta-carotene, a substance that the body can convert into vitamin A. The impression given by some vegetarian sources is that beta-carotene is just as good as vitamin A. This is not true.
Firstly, the conversion from carotene to vitamin A can only take place in the presence of bile salts. This means that fat must be eaten with the carotenes to stimulate bile secretion. Additionally, infants and people with hypothyroidism, gall bladder problems or diabetes either cannot make the conversion or do so very poorly. Lastly, the body's conversion from carotene to vitamin A is not very efficient: it takes 46 units of carotene to make one unit of vitamin A. What this means is that the sweet potato (containing about 25,000 units of beta-carotene) you just ate will only convert into about 4,000 units of vitamin A (assuming you ate it with fat and do not have a thyroid or gall bladder problem) [16].
Relying on plant sources for vitamin A, then, is not a very wise idea. This is why good-old-fashioned butter is a virtual must in any diet. Butter from pasture-fed cows is rich in vitamin A and will provide the intestines with the fatty material needed to convert vegetable carotenes into active vitamin A. Vitamin A is all-important in our diets, for it enables the body to use proteins and minerals (17).
MYTH #5: Meat-eaters have higher rates of heart and kidney disease, cancer, obesity and osteoporosis than vegetarians.
Such stupendous claims are hard to reconcile with historical and anthropological facts. All of the diseases mentioned are primarily 20th century occurrences, yet people have been eating meat and animal fat for thousands of years. Further, there are several native peoples around the world (the Innu, Masai, Swiss, Greeks, etc.) whose traditional diets are very rich in animal products, but do not suffer from the above-mentioned maladies (18). This shows that other factors besides animal foods are at work in these diseases.
Several studies have supposedly shown that meat consumption is the cause of heart disease, cancer and bone loss, but such studies, honestly evaluated, show no such thing (19). For example, the studies that supposedly proved that meat consumption among the Innuit caused high rates of osteoporosis, failed to note other dietary factors that contributed to bone loss (and to the other chronic diseases listed in myth #5). Things such as refined sugar consumption, alcoholism and a junk food consumption equalled more bone loss were not done with real meat but with fractionated protein powders (20).
Certainly, when protein is consumed in such an unnatural fashion, separated from the fat-soluble nutrients required for its absorption and assimilation, it will lead to problems. Because of this, the current use of fat-free protein powders as "food supplements", and low-fat or non-fat dairy products should be avoided. Trimming off visible fat from meats and removing duck and chicken skin before eating should also be discouraged.
Despite claims that studies have shown that meat consumption increased the risk for heart disease (21), their authors actually found the opposite. For example, in a 1984 analysis of a 1978 study of Seventh Day Adventists (who are largely vegetarian), H. A. Kahn concluded, "Although our results add some substantial facts to the diet-disease question, we recognize how remote they are from establishing, for example, that men who frequently eat meat or women who rarely eat salad are thereby shortening their lives" (21). A similar conclusion was reached by D.A. Snowden (21). Despite these startling admissions, the studies nevertheless concluded the exact opposite and urged people to reduce animal foods from their diets.
Further, both of these studies threw out certain dietary data that clearly showed no connection between eggs, cheese, whole milk, and fat attached to meat (all high fat and cholesterol foods) and heart disease. Statistician Dr. Russel Smith concluded, "In effect the Kahn [and Snowden] study is yet another example of negative results which are massaged and misinterpreted to support the politically correct assertions that vegetarians live longer lives." When all of the data are taken into account, the actual differences of heart disease between vegetarians and non-vegetarians in these studies was less than 1%: hardly a significant amount (22).
It should be noted here that Seventh Day Adventists are often studied in population analyses to prove that a vegetarian diet is healthier and is associated with a lower risk for heart disease and cancer (but see the last paragraph in this section). While it is true that most members of this Christian denomination do not eat meat, they also do not smoke, drink alcohol, or drink coffee or tea, all of which may be factors in promoting cancer and heart disease (23).
The Mormons are a religious group often overlooked in vegetarian studies. Although their Church urges moderation, Mormons do not abstain from meat. Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith, declared a diet devoid of animal products as "not of God." As with the Adventists, Mormons avoid tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine. Despite being meat eaters, a study of Utah Mormons showed they had a 22% lower rate for cancer in general and a 34% lower mortality for colon cancer than the US average (24). A study of Puerto Ricans, who eat large amounts of fatty pork, nevertheless revealed very low rates of colon and breast cancer (25). Similar results can be adduced to demonstrate that meat consumption by itself does not correlate with cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, kidney disease, or obesity (26). Obviously, other factors are at work.
It is usually claimed that vegetarians have lower cancer rates than meat-eaters, but a 1994 study of California Seventh Day Adventists (who are largely vegetarian) showed that, while they did have lower rates of some cancers (e.g., breast), they had significantly higher rates of several others (brain, skin, uterine, cervical and ovarian)! (27)
MYTH #6:
Saturated fats cause heart disease and cancer, and low-fat, low-cholesterol diets are healthier for people.
Despite claims that primitive societies are/were largely vegetarian, diets of native peoples the world over are rich in saturated fats and animal foods (28) and, as noted above, heart disease and cancer are primarily modern diseases. Saturated fat consumption, therefore, cannot logically cause these diseases. As with the poorly done studies of the Inuit, modern-day researchers fail to take into account other dietary factors of people who have heart disease and cancer. As a result, the harmful effects of eating refined sugar, nutrient-poor "foods," trans-fats (found in margarine and hydrogenated oils) and vegetable oils get mixed up with animal fat consumption. It is commonly believed that saturated fats and cholesterol "clog arteries", but such ideas have been shown to be false by such scientists as Linus Pauling, George Mann, John Yudkin, Abram Hoffer, Mary Enig and others (29). On the contrary, studies have shown that arterial plaque is primarily composed of UNsaturated fats, particularly polyunsaturated ones, and not the saturated fat of animals, palm or coconut (30).
Trans-fatty acids, as opposed to saturated fats, have been shown by researchers such as Enig, Mann and Fred Kummerow to be causative factors in atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, cancer and other assorted diseases (31).
A recent study of thousands of Swedish women showed no correlation between saturated fat consumption and increased risk for breast cancer. However, the study did show a strong link between vegetable oil intake and higher breast cancer rates (32).
The Framingham Heart Study is often cited as proof that dietary cholesterol and saturated fat intake cause heart disease and ill health. Involving about 6,000 people, the study compared two groups over several years at five-year intervals. One group consumed little cholesterol and saturated fat, while the other consumed high amounts. Surprisingly, Dr William Castelli, the study's director, is quoted in the Archives of Internal Medicine (July 1992) as saying:
In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's serum cholesterol ... we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active.
It is true that the study did show that those who weighed more and had higher serum cholesterol levels were more at risk for heart disease, but weight gain and cholesterol levels had an inverse correlation with dietary fat and cholesterol intake. In other words, there was no correlation at all (33).
In a similar vein, the US Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial, sponsored by the National Heart and Lung Institute, compared mortality rates and eating habits of 12,000+ men. Those who ate less saturated fat and cholesterol showed a slightly reduced rate of coronary heart disease (CHD), but had an overall mortality rate much higher than the other men in the study (34).
The few studies that indicate a correlation between saturated fat reduction and a lower CHD rate also clearly document a sizeable increase in deaths from cancer, suicide, violence and brain haemorrhage (34). Like the bone density experiments, such things are not told to the public.
Low-fat/cholesterol diets, therefore, are decidedly not healthier for people. Studies have proven over and over that such diets are associated with depression, cancer, psychological problems, fatigue, violence and suicide (35).
Children on low-fat diets suffer from growth problems, failure to thrive, and learning disabilities (36). Despite this, sources from Dr. Benjamin Spock to the American Heart Association recommend low-fat diets for children! One can only lament the fate of those unfortunate youngsters who will be raised by unknowing parents taken in by such misinformation.
There are many health benefits to saturated fats, depending on the fat in question. Coconut oil, for example, is rich in lauric acid, a potent antifungal and antimicrobial substance. Coconut also contains appreciable amounts of caprylic acid, also an effective antifungal (37). Butter from free-range cows is rich in trace minerals, especially selenium, as well as all of the fat-soluble vitamins and beneficial fatty acids that protect against cancer and fungal infections (38).
In general, however, saturated fats provide a good energy source for the vital organs, protect arteries against damage by the atherogenic lipoprotein (a), are rich in fat-soluble vitamins, help raise HDL levels in the blood, and make possible the utilisation of essential fatty acids. They are excellent for cooking, as they are chemically stable and do not break down under heat, unlike polyunsaturated vegetable oils. Omitting them from one's diet, then, is ill-advised (39).
MYTH #7:
Vegetarians live longer and have more energy and endurance than meat-eaters.
Surprising as it may seem, some prior studies have shown the annual all-causedeath rate of vegetarian men to be slightly more than that of non-vegetarian men (0.93% vs 0.89%). Similarly, the annual all-cause death rate of vegetarian women was shown to be significantly higher than that of non-vegetarian women (0.86% vs 0.54%). (40)
Russell Smith, PhD, referred to in myth # 5, in his authoritative study on heart disease, showed that as animal product consumption increased among some study groups, death rates decreased! Such results were not obtained among vegetarian subjects. For example, in a study published by Burr and Sweetnam in 1982, analysis of mortality data revealed that, although vegetarians had a slightly (.11%) lower rate of heart disease than non-vegetarians, the all-cause death rate was much HIGHER for vegetarians (41).
It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their longevity (at least before colonisation by Europeans). Within Aboriginal society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42). Obviously, if no old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs of elderly native peoples from around the world (42). Explorers such as Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Inuit (again, before colonisation). (43)
Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the shortest life-spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples whose diets were largely vegetarian (42).
It is popular in sports nutrition to recommend "carb loading" for athletes, to increase their endurance levels. But recent studies done in New York and South Africa show that the opposite is true: athletes who "carb loaded" had significantly less endurance than those who "fat loaded" before athletic events (46).
MYTH #8:
The "cave man" diet was low-fat and/or vegetarian.
Our Neolithic ancestors were hunter-gatherers, and two schools of thought have developed as to what their diet was like. One group argues for a high-fat and animal-based diet supplemented with seasonal fruits, berries, nuts, root vegetables and wild grasses. The other argues that primitive peoples consumed small amounts of lean meats and large amounts of plant foods. Once again, such notions of a "low-fat diet" are hard to reconcile with what we know of modern-day hunter-gatherer societies. Present-day African tribes readily consume the fatty portions of animals, especially organs such as the brain, liver and tongue. The Aborigines, another hunter-gatherer society, also have a diet rich in saturated animal fats (47).
Explorers such as Stefansson reported that the Innuit and North American Indian tribes would worry when their caches of caribou were too lean: they knew sickness would follow if they did not consume enough fat (48).
Canadian Indians would deliberately hunt older male caribou and elk, for these animals carried a 50-pound slab of back fat on them which the Indians would eat with relish. Native Americans would also refrain from hunting bison in the springtime (when the animals' fat stores were low, due to scarce food supply during the winter), preferring to hunt, kill and consume them in the fall when they were fattened up.
More interesting is the way political prisoners are sometimes tortured in South and Central America: they're fed a diet of lean meat and they die quickly. Why? Without the fat-soluble vitamins contained in animal lipids, the body is unable to utilise and synthesise the proteins and other nutrients present in the meat (49).
On his journeys, Dr Price never once found a totally vegetarian culture. Anthropological data support this: throughout the globe, all societies show a preference for animal foods and fats and people only turn to vegetarianism when they have to (50). Nutritional anthropologist H. Leon Abrams, Jr, has shown that prehistoric man's quest for more animal foods spurred his expansion over the Earth, and that he apparently hunted certain species to extinction (50).
Price also found that those peoples who, out of necessity, consumed more grains and legumes, had higher rates of dental decay than those who consumed more animal products (51). Archaeological evidence supports this finding: skulls of prehistoric peoples who were largely vegetarian have teeth containing caries and abscesses and show evidence of tuberculosis (50, 51).
Based on all of this evidence, it is certain that the diets of our ancestors, the progenitors of humanity, ate a very NON-vegetarian diet that was rich in saturated animal fat.
MYTH #9:
Meat and saturated fat consumption have increased in the 20th century, with a corresponding increase in heart disease and cancer.
Statistics do not bear out such fancies. Butter consumption has plummeted from 18 lb (8.165 kg) per person a year in 1900, to less than 5 lb (2.27 kg) per person a year today (52). Additionally, Westerners, urged on by government health agencies, have reduced their intake of eggs, cream, lard, beef and pork. Chicken consumption has risen in the past few decades, but chicken is low in saturated fat (chicken skin contains primarily polyunsaturated fat).
Furthermore, a survey of cookbooks published in the last century shows that people of earlier times ate plenty of animal foods and saturated fats. For example, in the Baptist Ladies Cook Book (Monmouth, Illinois, 1895), virtually every recipe calls for butter, cream or lard. Recipes for creamed vegetables are numerous as well. A scan of the Searchlight Recipe Book (Capper Publications, 1931) also has similar recipes: creamed liver, creamed cucumbers, hearts braised in buttermilk, etc. British Jews, as shown by the Jewish Housewives Cookbook (London, 1846), also had diets rich in cream, butter, eggs, and lamb and beef tallows. One recipe for German waffles, for example, calls for an entire pound of butter! A recipe for Oyster Pie from the Baptist cookbook calls for a quart of cream and a dozen eggs, and so forth and so on.
It does not appear, then, that meat or saturated fat consumption has risen in this century. What has gone up, however, is consumption of margarine and other trans-fatty acids, lifeless, packaged "foods," processed vegetable oils, pasteurised/homogenised milk, commercially raised livestock and plant foods, and refined sugar. These, along with exposure to a growing number of environmental poisons, are our real culprits in the modern epidemics of cancer and coronary heart disease (and other chronic illnesses) [53].
MYTH #10:
Soy products are adequate substitutes for meat and dairy products.
The billion-dollar soy industry has profited immensely from the anti-cholesterol, anti-meat gospel of current nutritional thought. Whereas, not so long ago, soy was an Asian phenomenon, now soy products proliferate in the North American market. While the traditionally fermented soy products of miso, shoyu, tempeh and natto are definitely healthful in measured amounts, the hyper-processed soy "foods" are not.
Non-fermented soybeans are extremely high in phytic acid (54), an anti-nutrient that binds to minerals in the digestive tract and carries them out of the body. Vegetarians are known for their high rates of iron and zinc deficiencies (55).
Soybeans are also rich in trypsin inhibitors, which hinder protein digestion. Textured vegetable protein (TVP), soy "milk" and soy protein powders, and popular vegetarian meat and milk substitutes are entirely fragmented foods made by treating soybeans with high heat and various alkaline washes to extract the beans' fat content or to neutralise their potent enzyme inhibitors. These practices completely denature the beans' protein content, rendering it very hard to digest. MSG, a neurotoxin, is routinely added to TVP to make it taste like the various foods it imitates (56).
On a purely nutritional level, soybeans, like all legumes, are deficient in cysteine and methionine, vital sulphur-containing amino acids (56). Soybeans are also lacking in tryptophan, another essential amino acid (56).
Furthermore, soybeans contain no vitamins A or D, required by the body to assimilate and utilise the beans' proteins (56). It is probably for this reason that Asian cultures that do consume soybeans usually combine them with fish or fish broths, The New Zealand government is considering removing soy formula from the market and making it available only by prescription (58).
Though research is still ongoing, some recent studies have indicated that soy's phyto-oestrogens could be causative factors in breast cancer and infantile leukaemia (59). Regardless, soy's phyto-oestrogens, or isoflavones, have been shown to depress thyroid function and cause infertility in some animals (60). As a practitioner, I have seen more than my share of vegetarians with hypothyroidism. They invariably rely on soy foods to get their protein.
MYTH #11:
The human body is not designed for meat consumption.
Some vegetarian groups claim that since humans possess grinding teeth like herbivorous animals and longer intestines than carnivorous animals, this proves the human body is better suited for vegetarianism (61). This argument fails to note several human physiological features which clearly indicate a design for animal product consumption.
First and foremost is our stomach's production of hydrochloric acid, something not found in herbivores. HCL activates protein-splitting enzymes. Further, the human pancreas manufactures a full range of digestive enzymes to handle a wide variety of foods, both animal and vegetable.
While humans may have longer intestines than animal carnivores, they are not as long as herbivores; nor do we possess multiple stomachs like many herbivores, nor do we chew cud. Our physiology definitely indicates a mixed feeder, or an omnivore, much the same as our relatives, the mountain gorilla and chimpanzee (who have been observed eating small animals and, in some cases, other primates) [62].
MYTH #12:
Eating animal flesh causes violent, aggressive behaviour in humans.
Some authorities on vegetarian diet, such as Dr Ralph Ballantine in Transition to Vegetarianism (63), claim that the fear and terror (if any, see myth #15) an animal experiences at death is somehow "transferred" into its flesh and organs and "becomes" a part of the person who eats it.
In addition to the fact that no scientific studies exist to support such a theory, these thinkers would do well to remember the numerous studies that show that low saturated-fat consumption CAUSES violent behaviour in people (see notes to myth #7). Furthermore, in his travels, Dr Price always noted the extreme happiness and ingratiating natures of the peoples he encountered, most of whom were heavy meat-eaters (see references to Weston Price in notes).
MYTH #13:
Animal products contain numerous, harmful toxins.
A recent vegetarian newsletter claimed the following: "Most people don't realise that meat products are loaded with poisons and toxins! Meat, fish and eggs all decompose and putrefy extremely rapidly. As soon as an animal is killed, self-destruct enzymes are released, causing the formation of denatured substances called ptyloamines, which cause cancer." (64) This article then went on to mention "mad cow disease" (BSE), parasites, salmonella, hormones, nitrates and pesticides as toxins in animal products.
If meat, fish and eggs do indeed generate cancerous "ptyloamines," it is very strange that people have not been dying in droves from cancer for the past million years. Such sensationalistic and nonsensical claims cannot be supported by historical fact.
Hormones, nitrates and pesticides are present in commercially raised animal products (as well as commercially raised fruits, grains and vegetables) and are definitely things to be concerned about. However, one can avoid these chemicals by taking care to consume range-fed, organic meats, eggs and dairy products which do not contain harmful, man-made toxins.
Parasites are easily avoided by taking normal precautions in food preparations. Pickling or fermenting meats, as is custom in traditional societies, always protects against parasites. In his travels, Dr Price always found healthy, disease-free and parasite-free peoples eating raw meat and dairy products as part of their diets.
Similarly, Dr Francis Pottenger, in his experiments with cats, demonstrated that the healthiest, happiest cats were the ones on the all-raw-food diet. The cats eating cooked meats and pasteurised milk sickened and died and had numerous parasites. Salmonella can be transmitted by plant products as well as animal (65).
Mad Cow Disease is probably not caused by cows eating animal parts with their food, a feeding method that has been done for over 100 years. British organic farmer Mark Purdey has argued convincingly that cows that get Mad Cow Disease are the very ones that have had a particular organophosphate insecticide applied to their backs (see notes to myth #1) or have grazed on soils that lack magnesium but contain high levels of aluminium. Small outbreaks of "mad cow disease" have also occurred among people who reside near cement and chemical factories and in certain areas with volcanic soils.
Purdey theorises that the organophosphate pesticides got into the cows' fat through a spraying program, and then were ingested by the cows again with the animal part feeding. Seen this way, it is the insecticides, via the parts feeding (and not the parts themselves), that has caused this outbreak. As noted before, cows have been eating ground up animal parts in their feeds for over 100 years. It was never a problem before the introduction of these particular insecticides (66).
MYTH #14: Eating meat or animal products is less "spiritual" than eating only plant foods.
It is often claimed that those who eat meat or animal products are somehow less "spiritually evolved" than those who do not. Though this is not a nutritional or academic issue, those who do include animal products in their diet are often made to feel inferior in some way. This issue, therefore, is worth addressing.
Several world religions place no restrictions on animal consumption; and nor did their founders. The Jews eat lamb at their most holy festival, the Passover. Muslims also celebrate Ramadan with lamb before entering into their fast. Jesus Christ, like other Jews, partook of meat at the Last Supper (according to the canonical Gospels). It is true that some forms of Buddhism do place strictures on meat consumption, but dairy products are almost always allowed. Similar tenets are found in Hinduism. As part of the Samhain celebration, Celtic pagans would slaughter the weaker animals of the herds and cure their meat for the oncoming winter. It is not true, therefore, that eating animal foods is always connected with "spiritual inferiority."
Nevertheless, it is often claimed that, since eating meat involves the taking of a life, it is somehow tantamount to murder. Leaving aside the religious philosophies that often permeate this issue, what appears to be at hand is an understanding of the life force and how it works. Modern peoples (vegetarian and non-vegetarian) have lost touch with what it takes to survive in our world, something native peoples never lose sight of. We do not necessarily hunt or clean our meats: we purchase steaks and chops at the supermarket. We do not necessarily toil in rice paddies: we buy bags of brown rice; and so forth, and so on.
When Native Americans would kill a game animal for food, they would routinely offer a prayer of thanks to the animal's spirit for giving its life so that they could live. In our world, life feeds off life. Destruction is always balanced with generation. This is a good thing: unchecked, the life force becomes cancerous. If animal food consumption is viewed in this manner, it is hardly murder, but sacrifice. Modern peoples would do well to remember this.
MYTH #15:
Eating animal foods is inhumane.
Without question, commercially raised livestock live in deplorable conditions where sickness and suffering are common. Additionally, some prescription drugs are derived from animals (e.g., Premarin) in torturous ways. In America, at least, livestock animals are exempted from anti-cruelty laws and, typically, commercially raised livestock animals are slaughtered in ways that promote adrenaline release, which could have harmful effects on the people who eventually consume them. In countries like Korea, food animals such as dogs are killed in horrific ways, i.e., beaten to death with a club. Our recommendations for animal foods consumption most definitely do not endorse such practices. As noted in our discussion of myth #1, commercial farming of livestock results in an unhealthy food product, whether that product be meat, milk, butter, cream or eggs. Our ancestors did not consume such substandard foodstuffs, and neither should we.
It is possible to raise animals humanely. This is why organic, "free-range" farming is to be encouraged: it is cleaner and more efficient, and produces healthier animals and foodstuffs from those animals. Each person should make every effort, then, to purchase organically raised livestock (and plant foods). Not only does this better support our bodies, as organic foods are more nutrient-dense and are free from hormone and pesticide residues, but this also supports smaller farms and is therefore better for the economy (67).
Orthodox Jewish and Muslim slaughtering methods (kosher and hallal, respectively) are similar to those practised by organic farms, in that the animals are slain in a state of tranquillity‹unlike their unfortunate battery-farm cousins. Such practices minimise, if not eliminate, the release of harmful stress hormones and are therefore more humane to the animal and more healthful to us.
Nevertheless, many people have philosophical problems with eating animal flesh, and these sentiments must be respected. Dairy products and eggs, though, are not the result of an animal's death and are fine alternatives for these people.
http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm
People here also seem to be overlooking the fact that every individual person's optimal diet is different. There are vital nutrients found only in meat, and for vegetarians/vegans/herbivores, to say that everyone should abstain from meat is ignorant as being a vegetarian may not be the healthiest choice for everyone.
I have eye teeth, they're good at ripping meat, and I have a crazy metabolism and am very active so I don't really care much about getting fat from eating meat. I think a major problem here is people are associating animals with us in the sense that they are equal to us. Personally, and this is just personally, if I subscribed to this view then I'd feel awful every time I kill a mosquito when it tries to suck my blood.
Kill em quick and harmless, but dont feel bad about them, they're just animals.
The following article shows why almost all the facts stated in the video are mis-informed and, kinda sheds a sort of propoganda-ish light on the whole video.
MYTH #1:
Meat consumption contributes to famine and depletes the Earth's natural resources.
Some have argued that cows and sheep require pasturage that could be better used to raise grains to feed starving millions in Third World countries. Additionally, claims are made that raising livestock requires more water than raising plant foods. Both arguments are illogical and simplistic.
The pasturage argument ignores the fact that a large portion of our Earth's dry land is unsuited to cultivation. The open range and desert and mountainous areas yield their fruits to grazing animals (1).
Unfortunately, the bulk of commercial livestock are not range fed, but stall fed. They do not ingest grasses and shrubs (like they should), but are fed an unnatural array of grains and soybeans. It is true that these foods could be fed to humans. The argument here, then, is not that eating meat depletes the Earth's resources, but that commercial farming methods do. Such methods also subject livestock to deplorable living conditions where infections, antibiotics, steroids and synthetic hormones are common. These all lead to an unhealthy animal and, by extension, an unhealthy food product. Organically raised livestock, then, is a healthier and more humane choice (see myth #15 for more on this topic).
As for the claims that raising livestock requires more water than raising plant foods, water that livestock drink would be drunk by them anyway, even if they were not being raised for food. Additionally, the urine of grazing animals, which mostly comprises water, is rich in nitrogen which helps replenish the soil. Much of the water used in commercial livestock farming, however, is used up in growing the various grains and soybeans fed to the animals. If a concerted effort were made to return to the ecologically sound "mixed farm," (described below), then such huge expenditures of water would be unnecessary.
A far more serious threat to humanity, and the Earth, is the monoculture of grains and legumes, advocated by some vegetarian groups, which depletes the soil and requires the heavy use of artificial fertilisers and dangerous pesticides; pesticides that must first be tested on animals for safety (2). The solution? Astute writers on this dilemma have pointed out:
The educated consumer and the enlightened farmer together can bring about a return of the mixed farm, where cultivation of fruits, vegetables and grains is combined with the raising of livestock and fowl in a manner that is efficient, economical and environmentally friendly. For example, chickens running free in garden areas eat insect pests, while providing high-quality eggs; sheep grazing in orchards obviate the need for herbicides; and cows grazing in woodlands and other marginal areas provide rich, pure milk, making these lands economically viable for the farmer. It is not animal cultivation that leads to hunger and famine, but unwise agricultural practices and monopolistic distribution systems. (3)
The "mixed farm" is also healthier for the soil, which will yield more crops if managed according to traditional guidelines. British organic farmer and dairyman Mark Purdey has accurately pointed out that a crop field on a mixed farm will yield up to five harvests a year, while a "mono-cropped" one will only yield one or two (4). Which farm is producing more food for the world's peoples? Purdey well sums up the ecological horrors of "battery farming" by saying:
Our agricultural establishments could do very well to outlaw the business- besotted farmers running intensive livestock units, battery systems and beef-burger bureaucracies; with all their wastages, deplorable cruelty, anti-ozone slurry systems; drug/chemical induced immunotoxicity resulting in B.S.E. [see myth # 13] amd salmoella, rain forest eradication, etc. Our future direction must strike the happy, healthy medium of mixed farms, resurrecting the old traditional extensive system as a basic framework, then bolstering up productivity to present day demands by incorporating a more updated application of biological science into farming systems. (5)
MYTH #2:
Vitamin B12 can be obtained from plant sources.
Of all the myths, this is perhaps the most dangerous. Vegans who do not supplement their diet with vitamin B12 will eventually get anaemia (a fatal condition) as well as severe nervous and digestive system damage (6). Claims are made that B12 is present in certain algae, tempeh (a fermented soy product) and brewer's yeast. All of them are false.
Like the niacin in corn, the B12 analogues present in algae and tempeh are not bioavailable. We know this because studies done on people's blood levels of B12 remained the same after they ate spirulina and tempeh; there was no change, clearly indicating no absorption by the body (7). Further, the ingestion of too much soy increases the body's need for B12 (8). Brewer's yeast does not contain B12 naturally; it is always fortified from an outside source.
Some vegetarian authorities claim that B12 is produced by certain fermenting bacteria in the intestines. This may be true, but it is in a form unusable by the body. B12 requires intrinsic factor from the stomach for proper absorption in the ileum. Since the bacterial product does not have intrinsic factor bound to it, it cannot be absorbed (9).
It is true that vegans living in certain parts of India do not suffer from vitamin B12 deficiency. This has led some to conclude that plant foods do provide this vitamin. This conclusion, however, is erroneous as many small insects, their eggs, larvae and/or residue, are left on the plant foods these people consume, due to non-use of pesticides and inefficient cleaning methods. This is how these people obtain their vitamin B12. This contention is borne out by the fact that when Indian Hindus migrated to England, they came down with pernicious anaemia within a few years. In England, the food supply is cleaner, and insect residues are completely removed from plant foods (10).
The only reliable and absorbable sources of vitamin B12 are animal products, especially organ meats and eggs (11). Though present in lesser amounts, milk products do contain B12. Vegans, therefore, should consider adding dairy products into their diets. If dairy cannot be tolerated, eggs, preferably from free-run hens, are a virtual necessity.
That vitamin B12 can only be obtained from animal products is one of the strongest arguments against veganism being a "normal" way of human eating. Today, vegans can avoid anaemia by taking supplemental vitamins or fortified foods. If those same people had lived just a few decades ago, when these products were unavailable, they would have died.
In my own practice, I recently saved two vegans from death from anaemia by convincing them to eat generous amounts of dairy products. Both of these sickly gentlemen thought their B12 needs were being met by tempeh and spirulina. They weren't.
MYTH #3:
The body can convert omega-6 fatty acids into omega-3 fatty acids as it needs.
This falsehood is akin to myth number two. Omega 3 and 6 fatty acids are polyunsaturated fats of which two, linolenic (an omega-3) and linoleic (an omega 6), are essential to human life and must be obtained from food as the body cannot synthesise them. Although very small amounts of omega 3 linolenic acid are found in whole grains and dark green leafy vegetables, it is principally found in animal foods (especially fish and eggs), as well as flax seed oil. Omega 6 linoleic acid is mostly found in vegetables, but small amounts are present in certain animal fats. To assuage vegans who fear they may not get enough omega 3 linolenic acid, some vegetarian sources assert that the body can simply convert excess omega 6 linoleic acid into omega 3 linolenic acid, and other omega 3 fatty acids such as EPA and DHA, two fatty acids intimately involved in the health of the brain and immune system.
Renowned lipid biochemist Dr Mary Enig, of the University of Maryland, and other authorities have shown that the body cannot change the omega number of fatty acids. The body can change the fatty acid's degree of saturation and also its molecular length, but not its omega number (12). In other words, omega 6 fatty acids can only be converted into other omega 6 fatty acids; omega 3s only into other omega 3s.
Again, I have seen the results of this misinformation in my practice. I've had several patients of Northern European descent with severe mental and immune problems caused by a lack of EPA and DHA, two omega-3 fatty acids not found in plant foods (DHA is found in small amounts in some algae). People native to warmer climates in the world can manufacture these fatty acids from other omega-3s, but those of Northern European or Innuit descent cannot. Since their ancestors ate so much EPA- and DHA-rich fish, their bodies eventually lost the ability to manufacture these fatty acids (13). For these people, vegetarianism is impossible; they must consume either eggs or fish in order to survive.
There is also a very real danger from consuming too many omega-6 fatty acids, principally found in vegetables. The body requires both omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids. However, when the body's cells are overloaded with omega-6s, their ability to utilise the omega-3 is inhibited (14).
Chronically low levels of omega-3 fatty acids are associated with higher cancer rates and immune dysfunction. Excessive levels of omega-6 fatty acids are also strongly correlated with a high incidence of cardiovascular disease (as is excessive consumption of refined sugar and trans-fatty acids) [15].
MYTH #4: The body's needs for vitamin A can be entirely obtained from plant foods.
Vitamin A is principally found in animal products. Plants do contain beta-carotene, a substance that the body can convert into vitamin A. The impression given by some vegetarian sources is that beta-carotene is just as good as vitamin A. This is not true.
Firstly, the conversion from carotene to vitamin A can only take place in the presence of bile salts. This means that fat must be eaten with the carotenes to stimulate bile secretion. Additionally, infants and people with hypothyroidism, gall bladder problems or diabetes either cannot make the conversion or do so very poorly. Lastly, the body's conversion from carotene to vitamin A is not very efficient: it takes 46 units of carotene to make one unit of vitamin A. What this means is that the sweet potato (containing about 25,000 units of beta-carotene) you just ate will only convert into about 4,000 units of vitamin A (assuming you ate it with fat and do not have a thyroid or gall bladder problem) [16].
Relying on plant sources for vitamin A, then, is not a very wise idea. This is why good-old-fashioned butter is a virtual must in any diet. Butter from pasture-fed cows is rich in vitamin A and will provide the intestines with the fatty material needed to convert vegetable carotenes into active vitamin A. Vitamin A is all-important in our diets, for it enables the body to use proteins and minerals (17).
MYTH #5: Meat-eaters have higher rates of heart and kidney disease, cancer, obesity and osteoporosis than vegetarians.
Such stupendous claims are hard to reconcile with historical and anthropological facts. All of the diseases mentioned are primarily 20th century occurrences, yet people have been eating meat and animal fat for thousands of years. Further, there are several native peoples around the world (the Innu, Masai, Swiss, Greeks, etc.) whose traditional diets are very rich in animal products, but do not suffer from the above-mentioned maladies (18). This shows that other factors besides animal foods are at work in these diseases.
Several studies have supposedly shown that meat consumption is the cause of heart disease, cancer and bone loss, but such studies, honestly evaluated, show no such thing (19). For example, the studies that supposedly proved that meat consumption among the Innuit caused high rates of osteoporosis, failed to note other dietary factors that contributed to bone loss (and to the other chronic diseases listed in myth #5). Things such as refined sugar consumption, alcoholism and a junk food consumption equalled more bone loss were not done with real meat but with fractionated protein powders (20).
Certainly, when protein is consumed in such an unnatural fashion, separated from the fat-soluble nutrients required for its absorption and assimilation, it will lead to problems. Because of this, the current use of fat-free protein powders as "food supplements", and low-fat or non-fat dairy products should be avoided. Trimming off visible fat from meats and removing duck and chicken skin before eating should also be discouraged.
Despite claims that studies have shown that meat consumption increased the risk for heart disease (21), their authors actually found the opposite. For example, in a 1984 analysis of a 1978 study of Seventh Day Adventists (who are largely vegetarian), H. A. Kahn concluded, "Although our results add some substantial facts to the diet-disease question, we recognize how remote they are from establishing, for example, that men who frequently eat meat or women who rarely eat salad are thereby shortening their lives" (21). A similar conclusion was reached by D.A. Snowden (21). Despite these startling admissions, the studies nevertheless concluded the exact opposite and urged people to reduce animal foods from their diets.
Further, both of these studies threw out certain dietary data that clearly showed no connection between eggs, cheese, whole milk, and fat attached to meat (all high fat and cholesterol foods) and heart disease. Statistician Dr. Russel Smith concluded, "In effect the Kahn [and Snowden] study is yet another example of negative results which are massaged and misinterpreted to support the politically correct assertions that vegetarians live longer lives." When all of the data are taken into account, the actual differences of heart disease between vegetarians and non-vegetarians in these studies was less than 1%: hardly a significant amount (22).
It should be noted here that Seventh Day Adventists are often studied in population analyses to prove that a vegetarian diet is healthier and is associated with a lower risk for heart disease and cancer (but see the last paragraph in this section). While it is true that most members of this Christian denomination do not eat meat, they also do not smoke, drink alcohol, or drink coffee or tea, all of which may be factors in promoting cancer and heart disease (23).
The Mormons are a religious group often overlooked in vegetarian studies. Although their Church urges moderation, Mormons do not abstain from meat. Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith, declared a diet devoid of animal products as "not of God." As with the Adventists, Mormons avoid tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine. Despite being meat eaters, a study of Utah Mormons showed they had a 22% lower rate for cancer in general and a 34% lower mortality for colon cancer than the US average (24). A study of Puerto Ricans, who eat large amounts of fatty pork, nevertheless revealed very low rates of colon and breast cancer (25). Similar results can be adduced to demonstrate that meat consumption by itself does not correlate with cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, kidney disease, or obesity (26). Obviously, other factors are at work.
It is usually claimed that vegetarians have lower cancer rates than meat-eaters, but a 1994 study of California Seventh Day Adventists (who are largely vegetarian) showed that, while they did have lower rates of some cancers (e.g., breast), they had significantly higher rates of several others (brain, skin, uterine, cervical and ovarian)! (27)
MYTH #6:
Saturated fats cause heart disease and cancer, and low-fat, low-cholesterol diets are healthier for people.
Despite claims that primitive societies are/were largely vegetarian, diets of native peoples the world over are rich in saturated fats and animal foods (28) and, as noted above, heart disease and cancer are primarily modern diseases. Saturated fat consumption, therefore, cannot logically cause these diseases. As with the poorly done studies of the Inuit, modern-day researchers fail to take into account other dietary factors of people who have heart disease and cancer. As a result, the harmful effects of eating refined sugar, nutrient-poor "foods," trans-fats (found in margarine and hydrogenated oils) and vegetable oils get mixed up with animal fat consumption. It is commonly believed that saturated fats and cholesterol "clog arteries", but such ideas have been shown to be false by such scientists as Linus Pauling, George Mann, John Yudkin, Abram Hoffer, Mary Enig and others (29). On the contrary, studies have shown that arterial plaque is primarily composed of UNsaturated fats, particularly polyunsaturated ones, and not the saturated fat of animals, palm or coconut (30).
Trans-fatty acids, as opposed to saturated fats, have been shown by researchers such as Enig, Mann and Fred Kummerow to be causative factors in atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, cancer and other assorted diseases (31).
A recent study of thousands of Swedish women showed no correlation between saturated fat consumption and increased risk for breast cancer. However, the study did show a strong link between vegetable oil intake and higher breast cancer rates (32).
The Framingham Heart Study is often cited as proof that dietary cholesterol and saturated fat intake cause heart disease and ill health. Involving about 6,000 people, the study compared two groups over several years at five-year intervals. One group consumed little cholesterol and saturated fat, while the other consumed high amounts. Surprisingly, Dr William Castelli, the study's director, is quoted in the Archives of Internal Medicine (July 1992) as saying:
In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's serum cholesterol ... we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active.
It is true that the study did show that those who weighed more and had higher serum cholesterol levels were more at risk for heart disease, but weight gain and cholesterol levels had an inverse correlation with dietary fat and cholesterol intake. In other words, there was no correlation at all (33).
In a similar vein, the US Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial, sponsored by the National Heart and Lung Institute, compared mortality rates and eating habits of 12,000+ men. Those who ate less saturated fat and cholesterol showed a slightly reduced rate of coronary heart disease (CHD), but had an overall mortality rate much higher than the other men in the study (34).
The few studies that indicate a correlation between saturated fat reduction and a lower CHD rate also clearly document a sizeable increase in deaths from cancer, suicide, violence and brain haemorrhage (34). Like the bone density experiments, such things are not told to the public.
Low-fat/cholesterol diets, therefore, are decidedly not healthier for people. Studies have proven over and over that such diets are associated with depression, cancer, psychological problems, fatigue, violence and suicide (35).
Children on low-fat diets suffer from growth problems, failure to thrive, and learning disabilities (36). Despite this, sources from Dr. Benjamin Spock to the American Heart Association recommend low-fat diets for children! One can only lament the fate of those unfortunate youngsters who will be raised by unknowing parents taken in by such misinformation.
There are many health benefits to saturated fats, depending on the fat in question. Coconut oil, for example, is rich in lauric acid, a potent antifungal and antimicrobial substance. Coconut also contains appreciable amounts of caprylic acid, also an effective antifungal (37). Butter from free-range cows is rich in trace minerals, especially selenium, as well as all of the fat-soluble vitamins and beneficial fatty acids that protect against cancer and fungal infections (38).
In general, however, saturated fats provide a good energy source for the vital organs, protect arteries against damage by the atherogenic lipoprotein (a), are rich in fat-soluble vitamins, help raise HDL levels in the blood, and make possible the utilisation of essential fatty acids. They are excellent for cooking, as they are chemically stable and do not break down under heat, unlike polyunsaturated vegetable oils. Omitting them from one's diet, then, is ill-advised (39).
MYTH #7:
Vegetarians live longer and have more energy and endurance than meat-eaters.
Surprising as it may seem, some prior studies have shown the annual all-causedeath rate of vegetarian men to be slightly more than that of non-vegetarian men (0.93% vs 0.89%). Similarly, the annual all-cause death rate of vegetarian women was shown to be significantly higher than that of non-vegetarian women (0.86% vs 0.54%). (40)
Russell Smith, PhD, referred to in myth # 5, in his authoritative study on heart disease, showed that as animal product consumption increased among some study groups, death rates decreased! Such results were not obtained among vegetarian subjects. For example, in a study published by Burr and Sweetnam in 1982, analysis of mortality data revealed that, although vegetarians had a slightly (.11%) lower rate of heart disease than non-vegetarians, the all-cause death rate was much HIGHER for vegetarians (41).
It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their longevity (at least before colonisation by Europeans). Within Aboriginal society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42). Obviously, if no old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs of elderly native peoples from around the world (42). Explorers such as Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Inuit (again, before colonisation). (43)
Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the shortest life-spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples whose diets were largely vegetarian (42).
It is popular in sports nutrition to recommend "carb loading" for athletes, to increase their endurance levels. But recent studies done in New York and South Africa show that the opposite is true: athletes who "carb loaded" had significantly less endurance than those who "fat loaded" before athletic events (46).
MYTH #8:
The "cave man" diet was low-fat and/or vegetarian.
Our Neolithic ancestors were hunter-gatherers, and two schools of thought have developed as to what their diet was like. One group argues for a high-fat and animal-based diet supplemented with seasonal fruits, berries, nuts, root vegetables and wild grasses. The other argues that primitive peoples consumed small amounts of lean meats and large amounts of plant foods. Once again, such notions of a "low-fat diet" are hard to reconcile with what we know of modern-day hunter-gatherer societies. Present-day African tribes readily consume the fatty portions of animals, especially organs such as the brain, liver and tongue. The Aborigines, another hunter-gatherer society, also have a diet rich in saturated animal fats (47).
Explorers such as Stefansson reported that the Innuit and North American Indian tribes would worry when their caches of caribou were too lean: they knew sickness would follow if they did not consume enough fat (48).
Canadian Indians would deliberately hunt older male caribou and elk, for these animals carried a 50-pound slab of back fat on them which the Indians would eat with relish. Native Americans would also refrain from hunting bison in the springtime (when the animals' fat stores were low, due to scarce food supply during the winter), preferring to hunt, kill and consume them in the fall when they were fattened up.
More interesting is the way political prisoners are sometimes tortured in South and Central America: they're fed a diet of lean meat and they die quickly. Why? Without the fat-soluble vitamins contained in animal lipids, the body is unable to utilise and synthesise the proteins and other nutrients present in the meat (49).
On his journeys, Dr Price never once found a totally vegetarian culture. Anthropological data support this: throughout the globe, all societies show a preference for animal foods and fats and people only turn to vegetarianism when they have to (50). Nutritional anthropologist H. Leon Abrams, Jr, has shown that prehistoric man's quest for more animal foods spurred his expansion over the Earth, and that he apparently hunted certain species to extinction (50).
Price also found that those peoples who, out of necessity, consumed more grains and legumes, had higher rates of dental decay than those who consumed more animal products (51). Archaeological evidence supports this finding: skulls of prehistoric peoples who were largely vegetarian have teeth containing caries and abscesses and show evidence of tuberculosis (50, 51).
Based on all of this evidence, it is certain that the diets of our ancestors, the progenitors of humanity, ate a very NON-vegetarian diet that was rich in saturated animal fat.
MYTH #9:
Meat and saturated fat consumption have increased in the 20th century, with a corresponding increase in heart disease and cancer.
Statistics do not bear out such fancies. Butter consumption has plummeted from 18 lb (8.165 kg) per person a year in 1900, to less than 5 lb (2.27 kg) per person a year today (52). Additionally, Westerners, urged on by government health agencies, have reduced their intake of eggs, cream, lard, beef and pork. Chicken consumption has risen in the past few decades, but chicken is low in saturated fat (chicken skin contains primarily polyunsaturated fat).
Furthermore, a survey of cookbooks published in the last century shows that people of earlier times ate plenty of animal foods and saturated fats. For example, in the Baptist Ladies Cook Book (Monmouth, Illinois, 1895), virtually every recipe calls for butter, cream or lard. Recipes for creamed vegetables are numerous as well. A scan of the Searchlight Recipe Book (Capper Publications, 1931) also has similar recipes: creamed liver, creamed cucumbers, hearts braised in buttermilk, etc. British Jews, as shown by the Jewish Housewives Cookbook (London, 1846), also had diets rich in cream, butter, eggs, and lamb and beef tallows. One recipe for German waffles, for example, calls for an entire pound of butter! A recipe for Oyster Pie from the Baptist cookbook calls for a quart of cream and a dozen eggs, and so forth and so on.
It does not appear, then, that meat or saturated fat consumption has risen in this century. What has gone up, however, is consumption of margarine and other trans-fatty acids, lifeless, packaged "foods," processed vegetable oils, pasteurised/homogenised milk, commercially raised livestock and plant foods, and refined sugar. These, along with exposure to a growing number of environmental poisons, are our real culprits in the modern epidemics of cancer and coronary heart disease (and other chronic illnesses) [53].
MYTH #10:
Soy products are adequate substitutes for meat and dairy products.
The billion-dollar soy industry has profited immensely from the anti-cholesterol, anti-meat gospel of current nutritional thought. Whereas, not so long ago, soy was an Asian phenomenon, now soy products proliferate in the North American market. While the traditionally fermented soy products of miso, shoyu, tempeh and natto are definitely healthful in measured amounts, the hyper-processed soy "foods" are not.
Non-fermented soybeans are extremely high in phytic acid (54), an anti-nutrient that binds to minerals in the digestive tract and carries them out of the body. Vegetarians are known for their high rates of iron and zinc deficiencies (55).
Soybeans are also rich in trypsin inhibitors, which hinder protein digestion. Textured vegetable protein (TVP), soy "milk" and soy protein powders, and popular vegetarian meat and milk substitutes are entirely fragmented foods made by treating soybeans with high heat and various alkaline washes to extract the beans' fat content or to neutralise their potent enzyme inhibitors. These practices completely denature the beans' protein content, rendering it very hard to digest. MSG, a neurotoxin, is routinely added to TVP to make it taste like the various foods it imitates (56).
On a purely nutritional level, soybeans, like all legumes, are deficient in cysteine and methionine, vital sulphur-containing amino acids (56). Soybeans are also lacking in tryptophan, another essential amino acid (56).
Furthermore, soybeans contain no vitamins A or D, required by the body to assimilate and utilise the beans' proteins (56). It is probably for this reason that Asian cultures that do consume soybeans usually combine them with fish or fish broths, The New Zealand government is considering removing soy formula from the market and making it available only by prescription (58).
Though research is still ongoing, some recent studies have indicated that soy's phyto-oestrogens could be causative factors in breast cancer and infantile leukaemia (59). Regardless, soy's phyto-oestrogens, or isoflavones, have been shown to depress thyroid function and cause infertility in some animals (60). As a practitioner, I have seen more than my share of vegetarians with hypothyroidism. They invariably rely on soy foods to get their protein.
MYTH #11:
The human body is not designed for meat consumption.
Some vegetarian groups claim that since humans possess grinding teeth like herbivorous animals and longer intestines than carnivorous animals, this proves the human body is better suited for vegetarianism (61). This argument fails to note several human physiological features which clearly indicate a design for animal product consumption.
First and foremost is our stomach's production of hydrochloric acid, something not found in herbivores. HCL activates protein-splitting enzymes. Further, the human pancreas manufactures a full range of digestive enzymes to handle a wide variety of foods, both animal and vegetable.
While humans may have longer intestines than animal carnivores, they are not as long as herbivores; nor do we possess multiple stomachs like many herbivores, nor do we chew cud. Our physiology definitely indicates a mixed feeder, or an omnivore, much the same as our relatives, the mountain gorilla and chimpanzee (who have been observed eating small animals and, in some cases, other primates) [62].
MYTH #12:
Eating animal flesh causes violent, aggressive behaviour in humans.
Some authorities on vegetarian diet, such as Dr Ralph Ballantine in Transition to Vegetarianism (63), claim that the fear and terror (if any, see myth #15) an animal experiences at death is somehow "transferred" into its flesh and organs and "becomes" a part of the person who eats it.
In addition to the fact that no scientific studies exist to support such a theory, these thinkers would do well to remember the numerous studies that show that low saturated-fat consumption CAUSES violent behaviour in people (see notes to myth #7). Furthermore, in his travels, Dr Price always noted the extreme happiness and ingratiating natures of the peoples he encountered, most of whom were heavy meat-eaters (see references to Weston Price in notes).
MYTH #13:
Animal products contain numerous, harmful toxins.
A recent vegetarian newsletter claimed the following: "Most people don't realise that meat products are loaded with poisons and toxins! Meat, fish and eggs all decompose and putrefy extremely rapidly. As soon as an animal is killed, self-destruct enzymes are released, causing the formation of denatured substances called ptyloamines, which cause cancer." (64) This article then went on to mention "mad cow disease" (BSE), parasites, salmonella, hormones, nitrates and pesticides as toxins in animal products.
If meat, fish and eggs do indeed generate cancerous "ptyloamines," it is very strange that people have not been dying in droves from cancer for the past million years. Such sensationalistic and nonsensical claims cannot be supported by historical fact.
Hormones, nitrates and pesticides are present in commercially raised animal products (as well as commercially raised fruits, grains and vegetables) and are definitely things to be concerned about. However, one can avoid these chemicals by taking care to consume range-fed, organic meats, eggs and dairy products which do not contain harmful, man-made toxins.
Parasites are easily avoided by taking normal precautions in food preparations. Pickling or fermenting meats, as is custom in traditional societies, always protects against parasites. In his travels, Dr Price always found healthy, disease-free and parasite-free peoples eating raw meat and dairy products as part of their diets.
Similarly, Dr Francis Pottenger, in his experiments with cats, demonstrated that the healthiest, happiest cats were the ones on the all-raw-food diet. The cats eating cooked meats and pasteurised milk sickened and died and had numerous parasites. Salmonella can be transmitted by plant products as well as animal (65).
Mad Cow Disease is probably not caused by cows eating animal parts with their food, a feeding method that has been done for over 100 years. British organic farmer Mark Purdey has argued convincingly that cows that get Mad Cow Disease are the very ones that have had a particular organophosphate insecticide applied to their backs (see notes to myth #1) or have grazed on soils that lack magnesium but contain high levels of aluminium. Small outbreaks of "mad cow disease" have also occurred among people who reside near cement and chemical factories and in certain areas with volcanic soils.
Purdey theorises that the organophosphate pesticides got into the cows' fat through a spraying program, and then were ingested by the cows again with the animal part feeding. Seen this way, it is the insecticides, via the parts feeding (and not the parts themselves), that has caused this outbreak. As noted before, cows have been eating ground up animal parts in their feeds for over 100 years. It was never a problem before the introduction of these particular insecticides (66).
MYTH #14: Eating meat or animal products is less "spiritual" than eating only plant foods.
It is often claimed that those who eat meat or animal products are somehow less "spiritually evolved" than those who do not. Though this is not a nutritional or academic issue, those who do include animal products in their diet are often made to feel inferior in some way. This issue, therefore, is worth addressing.
Several world religions place no restrictions on animal consumption; and nor did their founders. The Jews eat lamb at their most holy festival, the Passover. Muslims also celebrate Ramadan with lamb before entering into their fast. Jesus Christ, like other Jews, partook of meat at the Last Supper (according to the canonical Gospels). It is true that some forms of Buddhism do place strictures on meat consumption, but dairy products are almost always allowed. Similar tenets are found in Hinduism. As part of the Samhain celebration, Celtic pagans would slaughter the weaker animals of the herds and cure their meat for the oncoming winter. It is not true, therefore, that eating animal foods is always connected with "spiritual inferiority."
Nevertheless, it is often claimed that, since eating meat involves the taking of a life, it is somehow tantamount to murder. Leaving aside the religious philosophies that often permeate this issue, what appears to be at hand is an understanding of the life force and how it works. Modern peoples (vegetarian and non-vegetarian) have lost touch with what it takes to survive in our world, something native peoples never lose sight of. We do not necessarily hunt or clean our meats: we purchase steaks and chops at the supermarket. We do not necessarily toil in rice paddies: we buy bags of brown rice; and so forth, and so on.
When Native Americans would kill a game animal for food, they would routinely offer a prayer of thanks to the animal's spirit for giving its life so that they could live. In our world, life feeds off life. Destruction is always balanced with generation. This is a good thing: unchecked, the life force becomes cancerous. If animal food consumption is viewed in this manner, it is hardly murder, but sacrifice. Modern peoples would do well to remember this.
MYTH #15:
Eating animal foods is inhumane.
Without question, commercially raised livestock live in deplorable conditions where sickness and suffering are common. Additionally, some prescription drugs are derived from animals (e.g., Premarin) in torturous ways. In America, at least, livestock animals are exempted from anti-cruelty laws and, typically, commercially raised livestock animals are slaughtered in ways that promote adrenaline release, which could have harmful effects on the people who eventually consume them. In countries like Korea, food animals such as dogs are killed in horrific ways, i.e., beaten to death with a club. Our recommendations for animal foods consumption most definitely do not endorse such practices. As noted in our discussion of myth #1, commercial farming of livestock results in an unhealthy food product, whether that product be meat, milk, butter, cream or eggs. Our ancestors did not consume such substandard foodstuffs, and neither should we.
It is possible to raise animals humanely. This is why organic, "free-range" farming is to be encouraged: it is cleaner and more efficient, and produces healthier animals and foodstuffs from those animals. Each person should make every effort, then, to purchase organically raised livestock (and plant foods). Not only does this better support our bodies, as organic foods are more nutrient-dense and are free from hormone and pesticide residues, but this also supports smaller farms and is therefore better for the economy (67).
Orthodox Jewish and Muslim slaughtering methods (kosher and hallal, respectively) are similar to those practised by organic farms, in that the animals are slain in a state of tranquillity‹unlike their unfortunate battery-farm cousins. Such practices minimise, if not eliminate, the release of harmful stress hormones and are therefore more humane to the animal and more healthful to us.
Nevertheless, many people have philosophical problems with eating animal flesh, and these sentiments must be respected. Dairy products and eggs, though, are not the result of an animal's death and are fine alternatives for these people.
http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm
Ok. You have strong beliefs about your vegetarianism and that's great. But the moment you personalized it with hatred/contempt and anger towards others for non-conformity to your ideals, that's where you went overboard. It's great to be passionate about something, but don't expect everyone to conform to your standards; swearing and name-calling certainly won't help you spread the joy some call vegetarianism.TrueBalance wrote:God, I didn't think so many footbaggers would be so stupid. ... Thats plain stupid. ...that is being cruel. ...By eating meat you are being selfish and evil. STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT! LOL. STOP FUCKING KILLING THINGs. ...There is no good argument for eating meat. You will have to use shitty faulty logic or just lie to yourself and be an asshole.
...
Like I'm gonna get beef jerkey while I write this post. You know what? You are gonna be a cow in your next life. I hope you are tortured before you are killed. You will also live in a very poor environment before you are killed.
...
Also, it is not healthy to eat meat. You must be educated by McDonalds.
...
What a bunch of selfish losers who can't control their urges.
For what it's worth, I variate my diet omnivorously.
not to dis the vegetarians or anything but this video is indeed propaganda. all of the footage inside the meat packing plants (animals hung upside down and stabbed) are from KOSHER meat preparation. so when people try to defend third world nations they should probably try to ask why these third world nations also believe in the most brutal way anyone can think of to prepare meat (hanging/bleeding them to death from one gapping hole in their neck. This takes about an hour). real meat packing plants do indeed have goals on efficiency and painlessness. though death is wrong isn't this better? i doubt the visual of the hillbilly hitting the pig with a brick was bob evans himself preping some sausage. but try to research not just from vegetarian sources but from the otherside, the meaties, to get your own interpretation of the real story instead of bias.
second of all, it'd be nice to see some sort of scientific eveidence to how eating meat causes impotency and how eating vegetables "reverses heart disease." What does that mean? does this mean that doctors should be prescribing brocolli to patients on their deathbed?
third, the water issue. i once read an article in the Scientific Skeptic (I think that's what it was called) about the recycling of water through digestion and expulsion and the rest of the world. animals consuming water isn't quite an issue because in the environment water will be recycled, unfortunately most of it goes to the ocean. even without this arguement, I ask that if we had this abundant supply of water not consumed by animals, are we willing to spend money to ship it to third world nations for consumption on a large-scale basis? the reasons these nations are in drought is because their location is not near large bodies of water. i doubt a cow in the US can change geography.
again, i must stress that i'm not disrespecting vegetarians decisions. i admire your faith to the subject. i just wish fact would be separated from bias and propaganda.
second of all, it'd be nice to see some sort of scientific eveidence to how eating meat causes impotency and how eating vegetables "reverses heart disease." What does that mean? does this mean that doctors should be prescribing brocolli to patients on their deathbed?
third, the water issue. i once read an article in the Scientific Skeptic (I think that's what it was called) about the recycling of water through digestion and expulsion and the rest of the world. animals consuming water isn't quite an issue because in the environment water will be recycled, unfortunately most of it goes to the ocean. even without this arguement, I ask that if we had this abundant supply of water not consumed by animals, are we willing to spend money to ship it to third world nations for consumption on a large-scale basis? the reasons these nations are in drought is because their location is not near large bodies of water. i doubt a cow in the US can change geography.
again, i must stress that i'm not disrespecting vegetarians decisions. i admire your faith to the subject. i just wish fact would be separated from bias and propaganda.
Steel City Freestyle
Caleb Abraham
Caleb Abraham
-
wolfpac444
- Your Friendly Admin
- Posts: 1890
- Joined: 24 Mar 2003 00:07
- Contact:
Seath, did you actually look at that article or did you carelessly post it? Have you seriously looked at the sources for that article? I'm pretty busy with school and finals week, etc., but I'll take the time to take a look closer at the sources used for Myth #1.
The first source is Sally Fallon's "Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats". Note that the purpose of this book is to be bought by consumers, and should not be mistaken as scientific research. Sally Fallon is described as a "journalist, chef, nutrition researcher, homemaker and community activist" (http://www.newtrendspublishing.com/Sall ... allon.html), which leads me to believe that she has her own agenda that she is pushing. Although Dr. Mary Enig, Ph.D., "co-authored" the book, her realm of expertise is fatty acids, not the environmental impact of farming methods. Both of Ms. Fallon's degrees (bachelor's and master's) are in English. You may also want to notice that Sally Fallon founded the Weston A. Price Foundation, which coincidentally has a copy of Byrnes's article: http://westonaprice.org/myths_truths/my ... anism.html.
For these reasons, I am somewhat skeptical of what she has to say.
Next on the list is a source by Mark Purdey. Byrnes is using information from Purdey's "The (Vegan Ecological) Wasteland". This was published in the Journal of the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, which is a foundation in the name of the aforementioned Weston A. Price. This "journal" obviously has an agenda as seen here, and does not seem to even be peer-reviewed. Despite the questionability of the journal, it is somewhat non-obvious that a "vegan agriculture" would indeed "indirectly exacerbate the current use of millions of live animals in the horrendous trials legally imposed upon the licensing procedures for Agrochemicals."
The next three sources are again Fallon et al and Purdey.
For a differing view, a quick search yielded http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5303e/x5303e00.htm and
http://www.epa.gov/region09/cross_pr/an ... oblem.html. I have a much better time believing that the FAO and EPA are a bit more objective and unbiased on this issue.
You can go down the entire list and do this. For example, source #40 is incredibly old and outdated, and almost all recent studies have found no statistical difference in longevity between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.
Moral of the story: don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
The first source is Sally Fallon's "Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats". Note that the purpose of this book is to be bought by consumers, and should not be mistaken as scientific research. Sally Fallon is described as a "journalist, chef, nutrition researcher, homemaker and community activist" (http://www.newtrendspublishing.com/Sall ... allon.html), which leads me to believe that she has her own agenda that she is pushing. Although Dr. Mary Enig, Ph.D., "co-authored" the book, her realm of expertise is fatty acids, not the environmental impact of farming methods. Both of Ms. Fallon's degrees (bachelor's and master's) are in English. You may also want to notice that Sally Fallon founded the Weston A. Price Foundation, which coincidentally has a copy of Byrnes's article: http://westonaprice.org/myths_truths/my ... anism.html.
For these reasons, I am somewhat skeptical of what she has to say.
Next on the list is a source by Mark Purdey. Byrnes is using information from Purdey's "The (Vegan Ecological) Wasteland". This was published in the Journal of the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, which is a foundation in the name of the aforementioned Weston A. Price. This "journal" obviously has an agenda as seen here, and does not seem to even be peer-reviewed. Despite the questionability of the journal, it is somewhat non-obvious that a "vegan agriculture" would indeed "indirectly exacerbate the current use of millions of live animals in the horrendous trials legally imposed upon the licensing procedures for Agrochemicals."
The next three sources are again Fallon et al and Purdey.
For a differing view, a quick search yielded http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5303e/x5303e00.htm and
http://www.epa.gov/region09/cross_pr/an ... oblem.html. I have a much better time believing that the FAO and EPA are a bit more objective and unbiased on this issue.
You can go down the entire list and do this. For example, source #40 is incredibly old and outdated, and almost all recent studies have found no statistical difference in longevity between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.
Moral of the story: don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
Mike Hansen
TrueBalance wrote: If you kill something that doesn't want to die just to eat it, that is being cruel.
Hmmm
Name two.TrueBalance wrote: Also, there are lots of starving people in the world right now. They could be fed if the grain and water used to raise livestock were directly fed to starving humans.
Hmmm, I suppose it is much more manly to kill something anchored to the fucking ground.TrueBalance wrote: though they scream when we fucking kill them and try their hardest to escape.
Meat tastes good. Why else do they have vegee bacon, vegee burgers, vegee milks, vegee cheeses.TrueBalance wrote: There is no good argument for eating meat. You will have to use shitty faulty logic or just lie to yourself and be an asshole.
I've lived in Flint, Detroit, and now Oakland. Damn, I guess that was your point.TrueBalance wrote: You will also live in a very poor environment before you are killed.
While there are exceptions to the rule, most olympic gold medalist are omnivores. Certainly the eating of meat is not preclusive to a healthy lifestyle.TrueBalance wrote:Also, it is not healthy to eat meat.
Is eating meat worse than living in a smog pit ?
What if a vegetarian lifestyle reduces the lifespan 75% ?
You can spend a lot of energy controlling your urges, but it doesn't make it a natural lifestyle.TrueBalance wrote:What a bunch of selfish losers who can't control their urges.
Fighting urges leads to stress, heart disease, and excessive pornography browsing.
--Tsiangkun
Last edited by Tsiangkun on 03 May 2004 13:36, edited 2 times in total.
-
carl winslow
- Atomsmashasaurus Dex
- Posts: 994
- Joined: 14 Jun 2003 21:54
-
mosher
- brutal footbag cronie
- Posts: 6177
- Joined: 22 Jan 2004 23:30
- Location: Toronto, Ontario
- Contact:
I don't think a pile of lettuce huggers are going to change shit.
There are way too fucking many meat eaters to ever let the meat industry die.
I had a pile of points, but I hate arguing.
And to be completely honest, I had a big chunk of BUFFALO jerky hanging from my mouth, not beef jerky.
Also Sam, calling everyone dicks is fucking stupid. That changes you from being informative and encouraging open discussion to just being a preacher with pms.
I'm not going to post in this thread anymore.
There are way too fucking many meat eaters to ever let the meat industry die.
I had a pile of points, but I hate arguing.
And to be completely honest, I had a big chunk of BUFFALO jerky hanging from my mouth, not beef jerky.
Also Sam, calling everyone dicks is fucking stupid. That changes you from being informative and encouraging open discussion to just being a preacher with pms.
I'm not going to post in this thread anymore.
Tom Mosher
hate is a waste of passion!
hate is a waste of passion!
-
carl winslow
- Atomsmashasaurus Dex
- Posts: 994
- Joined: 14 Jun 2003 21:54
-
TrueBalance
- 100-Watt Warlock
- Posts: 106
- Joined: 15 Mar 2004 21:08
-
greenground
- Shredaholic
- Posts: 138
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 17:36
if rob said this to me id be pretty pissed off at him. you guys are arguing like children. more facts, less insults please.Rob wrote: Heil the fucking fuhrer.
Calling people who eat meat selfish fucking losers? Why don't you grow up and stop trying to force your beliefs on everyone else. Or better yet go crucify people so at least we can get some entertainment out of your psycho crusades.
Now go back to masturbating to a picture of yourself because it's all you're doing in this thread.
i read that some animals kill for sport. should we put them in jail?
-
wolfpac444
- Your Friendly Admin
- Posts: 1890
- Joined: 24 Mar 2003 00:07
- Contact:
I think a lot of the facts given on both sides of the argument are incomplete. They only seem to give the information that supports their side. Not like it makes a big difference... I dont think anyone here will seriously decide on being a vegetarian or not based on what Earth can sustain more of.
Plus the personal insults and general childishness need to go before this can turn back into a serious discussion. Granted, in a debate about vegetarianism, there's always gonna be that one 10-year-old who'll just be like "Neener! I'm eating meat and it's hanging out of my mouth and there's nothing you can do about it! Boy I really showed you!", and we all know that's not very productive.
...which brings up another point. A lot of people eat meat and that probably won't change for quite awhile, but you can at least have the decency to respect an animal for what it did for you. I mean, it died so you could go just one more day without being hungry, and meat-eaters should at least recognize that those animals deserve their respect.
By the way, seitan simply tastes better than meat. No good reason not to substitue it in whenever possible.
Plus the personal insults and general childishness need to go before this can turn back into a serious discussion. Granted, in a debate about vegetarianism, there's always gonna be that one 10-year-old who'll just be like "Neener! I'm eating meat and it's hanging out of my mouth and there's nothing you can do about it! Boy I really showed you!", and we all know that's not very productive.
...which brings up another point. A lot of people eat meat and that probably won't change for quite awhile, but you can at least have the decency to respect an animal for what it did for you. I mean, it died so you could go just one more day without being hungry, and meat-eaters should at least recognize that those animals deserve their respect.
By the way, seitan simply tastes better than meat. No good reason not to substitue it in whenever possible.
I didn't say it was a good justification. All it said was THAT IS the reason people eat meat(for the most part at least). You don't go around eating foods u don't like. It's that simple.wolfpac444 wrote:Do really think that simply liking to do something is sufficient justification for actually doing it?
Hello, my name is Iain George.