Thinking of going veggie, need some advice??

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Apr 11 2007, 10:06 PM) [snapback]421861[/snapback]</div>

Getting very technical, it's just "To Serve Man."

Shame on me for being so politically-correct.

 

I remember an interesting anthropology study a couple of years ago that gave good evidence of early humans being scavengers rather than hunters.

So our friends here at PC who are so sure they are following the naturally ordained way of life would do well to go out to the backyard and start digging. You never know what Fido has buried somewhere.

 

Ive been veggy for quite some time its cheap to live that way, If I get hungry I just pull over and eat some grass.....

Chicken and fish are ok too

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jesart @ Apr 8 2007, 04:18 PM) [snapback]419931[/snapback]</div>

It may be a little late for you to consider that now as I see by your profile you are 99 years old. Born in 1908

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mayathystle @ Apr 11 2007, 10:20 PM) [snapback]421878[/snapback]</div>

Attempting to deflect from actually answering the questions, yet again?

 

Disclaimer: We never eat meat in the home but last night I had 25 cent wings at the pub and today a can of salmon. My friend used to say, "If God didn't want us to eat animals, then why did he make them out of meat!" That always made me chuckle.

Still I'm pro-vegetarian and here's why:

I'd like to boil down what I know about the issue via the following questions:

I have an inkling that the answer to all of the following questions is "No"

1) Should a person eat one of beef, pork, chicken, or fish at every meal - is that necessary for optimum health?

Similarly,

2) Do all of the essential amino acids need to be present in every meal - is that necessary for optimum health?

3) Do typical North Americans eat enough fruits and vegetables to obtain optimum health?

4) Has anybody ever contracted the human form of mad cow disease from eating a carrot?


I feel that the answer to the following questions is "Yes"

5) Should the optimum human diet be low in saturated fat?

6) Should we/do we have any moral obligations to other animals besides humans?

7) Should every meal have a good balance of carbs, fats and proteins?

8) When they do eat meat or fish, do North Americans typically eat too much at one sitting?

9) Do plant based foods contain an enormous variety of phyto nutrients that are beneficial to human health?

10) Do factory farmed meats contain hormones, antibiotic residues and/or nitrates that may prove harmful to humans?

11) Does the meat industry carelessly take advantage of and exploit its workers, including illegal immigrants?

12) Does the factory farming of meat products waste enormous amounts of water, grains and energy?

13) Do cows belching methane contribute to global warming?

14) Are the lungs of the planet - the tropical rainforests - being cut down to make room for more beef farming?

15) Are nasty new flus being created and spread to humans via the poultry and livestock industries?

16) Is e-coli contamination from the meat industry responsible for much (largely unreported) death and suffering?

I think I'll stop now. In a nut shell, I can't escape the idea that reducing if not all but eliminating meat consumption must be a good thing. I know I haven't supported my yes and no answers with hard evidence. I not interested in doing that for you, sorry. Take from it what you will. Though, I do recommend you read Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser.

 

To each their own is what I say. IF becoming a veg only because you think it will help end the poor slaughter practices, well, it wont. OTOH, if you are doing it because you think you will eat healthier, well, dont forget the Beano! If nothing else, a good well planned out diet with a combination of all the right food stuffs, really is the best way to go. We humans are omnivores, we eat plant and meat, thats how our bodies are designed, without meats, we lack certain nutrients, so suppliments are a must.

Case in point, Cats MUST have meat in their diets, without it, they will die, but dogs OTOH, can go strictly veg and be fine. I for one am glad that recent news regarding the horse slaughter facility in Il was shut down, one down, one to go. Now if congress and the senate can get together and do a total ban on horse slaughter I will be one very happy camper.

In this day and age, our biggest enemies are fast food joints. Too easy and tempting to get a fast unhealthy but very tasty meal that is loaded with calories. Gone are the days of the blue plate special where a good meal can be had quickly. Another drawback of convenience are the microwave meals, they look small so they should be good for you, but they are loaded with sodium and other not so good things. When I was growing up, our dinners consisted of meat, potatoes and at least two or three veggies, along with applesauce and cranberry sauce. We were never overweight and always healthy, now times have changed, hectic schedules, no time to cook etc, and now fat and unhealthy. Trying to do the subway thing for lunch, and avoiding the fast food joints.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 12 2007, 06:14 PM) [snapback]422228[/snapback]</div>

Unless you have a demonstrated correlation between dietary sat fat intake and exceptionally high blood lipid profile (hyperlipidemic) or you are eating a very high-carbohydrate diet, especially one full of refined carbohydrates, the answer is "no", it's an entirely unnecessary restriction. The only fats that need restricting are all those that involve manufacturing and processing including transfats and canola oil and the like.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 12 2007, 06:14 PM) [snapback]422228[/snapback]</div>

Depends entirely what on what you mean by 'balance.' I just love it when folks use the terms 'balance' and 'moderation' but never concretely say what they mean by that. My definition of 'balance' probably means something entirely different that what you think it means. By 'balance' do you mean an even distribution of calories among the three macronutrients (ie: a meal of 900 calories is balanced as 300 calories of protein, 300 calories of carbohydrate, 300 calories of fat)? Is a 40-30-30 ratio 'balance' to you? Is a high-carbohydrate (say 70%), ultra-low-fat (10%) ratio 'balance to you?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 12 2007, 06:14 PM) [snapback]422228[/snapback]</div>

No. Protein and fat foods, particularly protein foods, are entirely self-limiting. Carbohydrate consumption, particularly refined carbohydrate consumption, is not. People binge on starches and sweets. They don't (typically, anyway) binge on meat or fish. Nonetheless, what exactly do you define as 'too much'?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 12 2007, 06:14 PM) [snapback]422228[/snapback]</div>

Yes, and those of the non-starchy variety (which are the most nutrient-dense) should be the greatest volume of one's diet. Do animal fats contain an enormous variety of essential vitamins and minerals that it is never credited for containing? (ie: one serving of butter contains 8% of one's RDA of Vitamin A)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 12 2007, 06:14 PM) [snapback]422228[/snapback]</div>

Are factory farmed meats the only meats available?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 12 2007, 06:14 PM) [snapback]422228[/snapback]</div>

Is meat not also raised on small family farms?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 12 2007, 06:14 PM) [snapback]422228[/snapback]</div>

Does grass-fed meat raised on small family farms?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 12 2007, 06:14 PM) [snapback]422228[/snapback]</div>

Does wild elk, bison and deer belching (and farting) contribute to global warming?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 12 2007, 06:14 PM) [snapback]422228[/snapback]</div>

Are tropical rainforests being cut down to make room for more soybean and other plant production and the exploding populations where said tropical rainforests are located?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 12 2007, 06:14 PM) [snapback]422228[/snapback]</div>

Are flus a new thing created by this industry? Doesn't the travel industry have some responsibility regarding rapid distribution in this one?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Apr 12 2007, 08:23 PM) [snapback]422278[/snapback]</div>

You're making Dr. Atkins proud. Too bad he's not around to see it.

All ya'll--separate corners. Fib222 made some good points...and yes, methane from cows on factory farms IS a problem. And the amount of meat America consumes requires factory farms.

I drive a Prius because I believe it helps the environment, and I want to reduce my own carbon footprint. My neighbor drives a Tahoe--can't stop it, that's what they do. Doesn't change the fact that my decision to drive a Prius is right for me. I'm not going to lambast my neighbor for their decision, just as I won't lambast an "omnivore" who doesn't buy family farm-raised meat, milk, and eggs (even though I do).

If folks like Fib222 choose to reduce/eliminate their meat-eating to help the environment, then good for them. Factory farms are breeding grounds for e-coli, excessive methane, and runoff pollutants. It's no different than me driving a Prius, trying to do my own little part to help the environment. Just 'cause our neighbors won't do the same doesn't mean we all can't do our part.

In fact, if folks want to be vegetarians/vegans for whatever reason, good for them, too.

The people who are getting so irritated on this thread are doing so because of people saying doofus-y things like "all vegetarians are pasty and sickly." I'd get irritated, too.

 

Is there a limit of 10 quotes per post? This is the tail end of my previous post...only way I could get the quotes to work.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 12 2007, 06:14 PM) [snapback]422228[/snapback]</div>

Is e-coli contamination a problem in small family run farms? How much is 'largely unreported'? If it is ‘unreported' how would anyone know how ‘large’ a problem it is?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 12 2007, 06:14 PM) [snapback]422228[/snapback]</div>

:lol: No kidding.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mayathystle @ Apr 11 2007, 10:20 PM) [snapback]421878[/snapback]</div>

He is obviously very knowledgable. I've read most of the things he has spoken of or talked about it with my peers.. He's right on.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Apr 12 2007, 07:47 PM) [snapback]422287[/snapback]</div>

I don't think ANYONE has said that ALL vegetarians are pasty and sickly..

*I* damn well said that MOST of the ones I see are.

Except one of my Hindu friends.. he has a huge belly. He is a vegetarian because of religious reasons and I highly respect that... but that belly. Too many carbs I guess.

If anyone gets "EXTREMELY OFFENDED" as someone else put it because I said most vegetarians I see look sick, then I probably struck a cord with them because they're one of them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 11 2007, 07:53 AM) [snapback]421461[/snapback]</div>

That's a really useful line of work to be in.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 11 2007, 07:53 AM) [snapback]421461[/snapback]</div>

You have a point, though I think we have different estimations of how much of a factor this is. Personally, I suspect that it's not so much a matter of people believing industrial farming is bad and turning a blind eye as honestly believing it's not bad. You use Wal-Mart as an example, and I'll use it is an example too. I honestly believe Wal-Mart is a great thing and the savings directly improve the lives of mostly low-income customers. I may be completely wrong, but it's what I honestly believe, and I suspect more people believe that than you realize.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 11 2007, 07:53 AM) [snapback]421461[/snapback]</div>

I think that's a better point. There is potentially a cost in desensitizing slaughterhouse workers to death. But I don't have any idea how much effect it really has. I could imagine that it has a great effect on many workers. I could also imagine it really doesn't have much effect at all and being used to seeing animals die doesn't otherwise have much effect on someone's interactions with other people. I'd be interested in seeing some data to judge between the two possibilities.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 11 2007, 07:53 AM) [snapback]421461[/snapback]</div>

I'll agree with that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Apr 12 2007, 07:47 PM) [snapback]422287[/snapback]</div>

Only if America requires cheap meat. Corn fields could be converted into far more natural grazing fields, but that practice is not subsidized by the US goverment where corn production is. Feed-lot factory farming is generally not practiced in Europe. It's actually illegal in Australia and New Zealand. And really, small family farmed grass-fed organic meat isn't that much more expensive in the big picture.

Americans are willing to pay practically anything for presciption medications (even those that aren't really needed, like most statin prescriptions), but continue to insist that they eat cheaply, then that's exactly the lifestyle they're gonna get and require those meds in the long run from the damage they do to themselves with that cheap diet.

Like the 'organic' foods movement, the 'local' foods movement is just getting started. Formerly idle farms in my area are slowly reingaging and supporting the choices of those who want to eat a clean natural omnivorous human diet as possilbe.

 

Pardon me if this is already covered somewhere in posts about 20 thru 150 and if it is just say so, but I have always been curious why marine animal life is considered distinct enough from land animal life that some "vegetarians" will eat fish (and other marine life). I'm sure many fishing methods are just as unpleasant for fish as are cruel land animal farming practices, so I don't think ethical treatment of animals is the issue (or shouldn't be a legitimate one). So why the distinction?

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Apr 11 2007, 08:33 AM) [snapback]421489[/snapback]</div>

You make a good point and I'm glad you bring it up, so I can expand a bit on the idea of respect for differences in ethics.

I didn't claim that I had equal respect for all ethical systems, or that others should have equal respect for all ethical systems. What I was trying to get at is that not all differences in ethical systems mean we have to have no respect for each other and no common ground. If we can see that each other's ethical systems have a lot in common and even share most of the core values, we can respect each other better.

In fact, the cannibalism example shows how similar most of our ethical systems are. Nearly everyone on here, I'd guess, no matter how much they think eating an animal is bad, would choose eating an animal over eating another human being. To some extent or another, most of us consider a single human life to be more important than a single animal life. And probably everyone here would agree that eating a human is wrong (well, at least they'd agree that killing a person to eat is wrong when there's an alternative).

The differences are in to the degree to which we apply the ethical system we have for treating other humans to animals.

The more someone can be aware of the commonality of our core ethical beliefs and dwell on that, rather than losing respect entirely for each other over some of the details, the more I tend to respect that person.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Apr 12 2007, 09:58 AM) [snapback]422008[/snapback]</div>

Early humans also probably flung feces at each other too.. Early humans probably cannabalized because they would starve.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Apr 12 2007, 08:27 PM) [snapback]422314[/snapback]</div>

Well first, if someone eats marine animal life, they aren't vegetarians. Period. (that's been covered)

But I think that there are those who have a serious problem with the animal "cuteness" factor. They can't cope with the idea of eating 'Bambi' or something they imagine is warm and cuddly or that they have anthopomorphized into something with the equivalence of human emotions and values.

Marine animal life is quite foreign, very "out of sight, out of mind" and for the most part, even the cuteness-factor people just aren't gonna get the warm fuzzies over cold fish, so their 'guilt' in eating it over land amimals is significantly tempered.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 11 2007, 10:55 AM) [snapback]421554[/snapback]</div>

If no biological organism is better or more important than another, then we should wipe out all animals, because animals eat plants, and killing off the animals will be more than offset by the benefit to plants. Then we've provided the most benefit to the most organisms.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Apr 11 2007, 11:24 PM) [snapback]421881[/snapback]</div>

This is what I referred to in my post (#99 in this thread), but perhaps I was too subtle...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 12 2007, 09:32 PM) [snapback]422318[/snapback]</div>

And we still do, here in FHOP, albeit digital feces! :lol: