Vegan/Vegetarian?

[Hoplite]

I was talking to a friend the other day who has recently gone vegan.

I cant pretend I understand his decision, I have to say I dont really understand the drive to go vegetarian or vegan at all. A lot of people I've spoken with have cited the treatment of animals destined for dinner plates, and that does have merit, but there are ways to get meat that wasn't mistreated.

The health argument seems to be the biggest one though and this one I truly dont understand.

A vegan or vegetarian diet can lack iron, calcium, zinc, omega 3, b12, and possibly iodine. Yes, there are ways to get some of these nutrients through plant sources however your nutrient to amount of food ratio is balanced against the possibility that you're getting everything you need on a consistent basis.

For instance, take iron (http://www.mckinley.illinois.edu/handouts/dietary_sources_iron.html). In 3 ounces of lean ground beef, there are about 4 milligrams of iron. However it takes a cup of Lima beans to give you 4 and a half grams of iron. It's a lot easier to eat 3 ounces of ground beef than a cup of Lima beans.

Or calcium (http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/calcium/), an ounce and a half of cheddar cheese contains roughly 300 milligrams of calcium. You would have to eat 2 and a half cups of cooked Spinach (120 milligrams per half cup) to equal an ounce and a half of cheese.

You will have to constantly monitor what you eat and ensure you are getting enough of what you need. Additionally, you need to physically eat MORE food to get the same nutritional value and I dont see that people are willing or able to do that on a consistent basis.

Our bodies are MUCH better at getting the nutrition we need from a varied and omnivorous diet. Yes, we CAN function on a vegan or vegetarian diet, however I dont think it's a good idea and that it's not a safe or reasonable choice for the vast majority of individuals that have a limited budget and limited time.

I dont fault someone for making the choice to be vegan or vegetarian, I just cant pretend I understand it.

[Ele'ill]

I would suggest using the forum's search function to find all of the threads regarding keywords 'vegan' 'animal' 'vegetarian'.

My biased opinion is to talk to TC or Free Focus (or myself but I'm talking to you right now and suggesting a forum search first so you can eliminate some of your questions)

[TC]

A lot of people I've spoken with have cited the treatment of animals destined for dinner plates, and that does have merit, but there are ways to get meat that wasn't mistreated.

All commercially available animal products come from animals that lived their lives in torturous conditions, (with the exception of fish and honey). Free range is a joke - a joke that doesn't stop farmers from keeping their animals confined most of the time or cutting off the toes and beaks of hens or castrating pigs and cows without anesthesia.

But this is in a lot of ways besides the point. To kill someone to eat their flesh is to mistreat them - the animals people commonly eat feel pain, and they feel pleasure, and it is in their interests to avoid pain to go on feeling pleasure - even if you could kill them painlessly (which never happens) you would still deprive them of their future positive experiences. You'd take their lives away, everything they have, just like if you killed a human.

The only way to obtain meat without mistreating animals is to grow it in-vitro or to genetically engineer animals without brains (or rather, with only brainstems but with no cerebrum and no cerebellum).


The health argument seems to be the biggest one though and this one I truly dont understand.
The most relevant issue for health is really foods ratio of calories to micro-nutrients - with the more micro-nutrients to calories the better. Green vegetables and legumes have an overwhelming advantage over all animal foods in this regard.

Meat is also strongly associated with a variety of cancers whereas a plant based diet extends lifespan and reduces disease. This is just a statistical fact.


that have a limited budget and limited time.As has been discussed in many threads - vegan food is cheaper to buy and faster to make than meat.

Anyways I probably wont invest a huge amount of time in this thread because its been discussed a lot already.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Yeah, I'm with Mari3L. This has been done a bit lately.

Suffice to say, I'm in agreement with you, Hoplite.

I would like to clarify something that isn't so clear in your OP - that an omnivorous diet in-and-of-itself is not enough to guarantee you cover all your nutritional bases. Today in the western world we are struck by a dilema that would have been seen as impossible for the entire course of human history. This is the phenomenon of people who are obese (or even morbidly so) and yet have vitamin and nutrient deficiencies! In other words, despite consuming enormous amounts of food and energy, they haven't even been able to meet basic the micronutritional demands of their bodies to keep them from falling ill.

An omnivorous diet - consisting of whole foods a variety of meat sources, fruits, vegetables, as well as a healthy balance of monounsaturated, polyunsaturated and saturated fats - will make it much easier to not only meet our body's basic nutritional demands, but also at an optimal level for good health and wellbeing.

It's possible to meet your basic nutritional demands on a vegetarian diet and it's also possible to maximise such a diet for optimal benefit. However it is much more difficult. This is a fact that no vegetarian can deny (unless you want to argue that meat or other animal products are outright harmful, in which case, you've got a hell of a case on your hands!)

Just because you and I are able to see these things, doesn't mean people aren't entitled to eat the way they choose. So I wouldn't make it an issue. Unless you are their sports coach or nutritional advisor or whatever, it's not your job to bust their balls.

Nic.

P.S. This omlette with raw spinach and side of fresh pineapple and green tea is delicious!

[Niccolò Rossi]

Meat is also strongly associated with a variety of cancers whereas a plant based diet extends lifespan and reduces disease. This is just a statistical fact.

A 'statistical fact' that, despite you have been throwing about in every recent thread on the topic of nutritition, you have yet to demonstrate.

Nic.

[praxis1966]

A 'statistical fact' that, despite you have been throwing about in every recent thread on the topic of nutritition, you have yet to demonstrate.

Nic.

Here: http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/071211/high-meat-consumption-linked-to-heightened-cancer-risk.htm Now you can't claim that you win by default.

Anyway, there are other arguments in favor of a vegetarian/vegan diet because of the environmental impact of industrialized agriculture. Basically, that impact is that you can't under any economic system provide for the nutritional needs of all humans without horrendously adversely affecting the environment if people are going to continue to eat omnivorously. A link to that effect: http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm

EDIT: Actually, it's exceedingly easy for me to balance my diet. Then again, I have been a vegetarian since the womb (my mother was one when she conceived me) and I'm 32 now, so it's kinda second nature.

[tbasherizer]

I'm going freegan for health reasons. This will require me to plan out my meals nutrient-wise and be more conscious of what I eat. After maybe a year of this I'll revert to meat but hopefully maintain gastronomical self-consciousness. I also like the quirky nature of portmanteauing 'free' and 'vegan'.

EDIT: I just discovered that freeganism is freeness applied to food in general, not just meat. Which means that its adherents go dumpster-diving a lot. Just to be clear, I meant that I only eat meat when it's offered to me for free.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Here: http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/071211/high-meat-consumption-linked-to-heightened-cancer-risk.htm Now you can't claim that you win by default.

Well, let's have a look.

Without even going further than the title of the article itself:
"High Meat Consumption Linked to Heightened Cancer RiskU.S. study finds the more red meat and processed meat you eat, the higher the risk"

My emphasis added. Note, the article doesn't claim meat consumption in-and-of-itself is associated with an increased risk of cancer. Infact near the end of the article another study in the August 17 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association, is cited, showing that "colon cancer patients who eat a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, poultry and fish can significantly lower the risk of their cancer returning"! [My emphasis added]

Eitherway, a news article published on usnews.com is certainly not a peer-reviewed scientific research paper. This really doesn't give us much to go by at all. The possible mechanism for increased cancer risk and red meat consumption are not stated clearly or fleshed out adequately (it's a news story after all). Nor is sufficiently quantitative data provided for measuring the increased risk.


EDIT: Actually, it's exceedingly easy for me to balance my diet. Most people would descirbe what they eat as 'balanced'. Both my parents have become increasingly obese in the last decade and both claim to eat a 'balanced diet'. My mother has trouble admitting her diet is a problem at all. 'But we eat healthy...' - well yes, except for skipping meals, intermittent snacking, a diet high in refined carbs and fats...

Unless your willing to post up a weeks worth of eating and details about your physical health, medical background, daily habits, occupation, excercise routine, height, weight, age, etc. etc. etc. claiming you've achieved a 'balance' doesn't really mean much. (Please don't interpret this as a challenge). It's purely subjective and anecdotal.

Nic.

[kafkaesque]

I'm a carnivore personally.

[praxis1966]

Well, let's have a look.

Without even going further than the title of the article itself:
"High Meat Consumption Linked to Heightened Cancer RiskU.S. study finds the more red meat and processed meat you eat, the higher the risk"

My emphasis added. Note, the article doesn't claim meat consumption in-and-of-itself is associated with an increased risk of cancer. Infact near the end of the article another study in the August 17 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association, is cited, showing that "colon cancer patients who eat a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, poultry and fish can significantly lower the risk of their cancer returning"! [My emphasis added]

Right, and I would argue that the benefits seen by a diet like the one at the end of this quote reduces cancer risk primarily because of two factors: 1) Fruits and vegetables tend to be higher in antioxidants that are known to aid in cancer prevention. 2) If you've increased poultry and seafood intake as your primary sources of protein in a 2000 cal/day diet, then that necessarily decreases the amounts of red meat you're eating. Therefore, I would argue that it's not necessarily the poultry and fish in and of itself which is bettering your odds at that point. While we're at it, though, didn't you tell us that this keto diet you're so fond of relies on disproportionately high levels of bacon, one of the things the article warned the strongest against?


Eitherway, a news article published on usnews.com is certainly not a peer-reviewed scientific research paper. This really doesn't give us much to go by at all. The possible mechanism for increased cancer risk and red meat consumption are not stated clearly or fleshed out adequately (it's a news story after all). Nor is sufficiently quantitative data provided for measuring the increased risk.

Yeah, but it's based on research done by the USDA in attempt to replicate experiments done by the WHO... The latter at least being a fairly reliable source. At any rate, if you wanna pay for a subscription so I can have access to something other than just the abstracts of peer reviewed studies, I'd be happy to take it. That's the trouble, you're unwilling to accept news articles written in lay terms and I don't have the cash to get access to the information you're demanding. Anyway, I have a feeling you know damned well what consumption of red meats does, you just don't want to admit it because you like eating it. In which case, fair enough. I'm not going to tell you to stop. But don't tell me that there's never been any research done...


Most people would descirbe what they eat as 'balanced'. Both my parents have become increasingly obese in the last decade and both claim to eat a 'balanced diet'. My mother has trouble admitting her diet is a problem at all. 'But we eat healthy...' - well yes, except for skipping meals, intermittent snacking, a diet high in refined carbs and fats.

Unless your willing to post up a weeks worth of eating and details about your physical health, medical background, daily habits, occupation, excercise routine, height, weight, age, etc. etc. etc. claiming you've achieved a 'balance' doesn't really mean much. (Please don't interpret this as a challenge). It's purely subjective and anecdotal.

Yeah, I'm not gonna do that just because it's a huge waste of time just to try and prove a point on the innerwebz, lol. You'll just have to take my word for it that at the height of 5'11" (180.3 cm), I don't think 180 lbs (81.6 kg) is all that bad. Of course, I could be in better shape, but I'm not what you'd call obese if that's any evidence at all.

Anyway, I noticed you ignored the environmental argument... Nice one.

To the OP: Hey, man, don't blame vegans and vegetarians because you don't know thing one about nutrition. Just to pick the most obvious points, try looking up tofu sometime... Far higher in calcium than cheddar cheese. You're being completely intellectually dishonest. Anyway, my personal favorite part:


A vegan or vegetarian diet can lack iron, calcium, zinc, omega 3, b12, and possibly iodine.

So can somebody who eats meat. What's your fucking point?

Anyway, here's a question for both Nicoli and Hoplite: Why can't people who eat meat [I]mind their own business? You don't see me starting threads about other people's lifestyle choices...

[Ele'ill]

This thread was already done. All these points by the meat eaters have already been addressed.

[Stand Your Ground]

This has been talked about many times before on here, but anyway, there are many ways to get the nutrients you need while being vegetarian/vegan.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Right, and I would argue that the benefits seen by a diet like the one at the end of this quote reduces cancer risk primarily because of two factors: 1) Fruits and vegetables tend to be higher in antioxidants that are known to aid in cancer prevention.

No doubt.


2) If you've increased poultry and seafood intake as your primary sources of protein in a 2000 cal/day diet, then that necessarily decreases the amounts of red meat you're eating.

Well actually, no. This isn't necessarily true at all. I can very easily increase my consumption of poultry and/or fish by:
- Increase my total daily calorie consumption
- Decrease my relative consmuption of fruits, vegetables, grains or other non-red meat foods in my diet
- Decrease my relative consumption of red meat

This isn't a point I'd like to dwell on really. There's really no point here to make.


While we're at it, though, didn't you tell us that this keto diet you're so fond of relies on disproportionately high levels of bacon, one of the things the article warned the strongest against?

Keto diets do what they do well. They are not (necessarily) healthy long term diets and I don't advocate them as such. Bacon is perfectly compatible with the macronutrient requirements of a ketogenic diet. It's not compulsory to eat bacon - that would be rediculous. Infact I'm well aware of the potentially harmful carcinogenic effects of nitrates contained in cured meats suck as bacon, hence why I dropped eating bacon altogether after the first fortnight eating keto.

For the record, in case anyone is keeping tabs, I concluded my keto diet 2 weeks ago, having been satisfied with my fat loss and dissatisfied with my athletic performance. I'm now eating a more 'balanced' diet, rich in lean proteins, fruit, fiberous vegies, a very small amount of starchy carbs and a balance of monounsaturated, polyunsaturated and saturated fats.


Anyway, I have a feeling you know damned well what consumption of red meats does, you just don't want to admit it because you like eating it. In which case, fair enough. I'm not going to tell you to stop. But don't tell me that there's never been any research done...

Again, it's very easy for me to lie, especially on the internet. For what it's worth (not much), I don't believe eating a diet high in whole meats poses a signficant risk to me contracting cancer. Infact I'm so sure of it, my daily meat consumption (white, red and fish) is 5 times what the article posted here previously claimed was the studies bench mark for what it considered 'high'. Wagering your life isn't something you do lightly.


Yeah, I'm not gonna do that just because it's a huge waste of time just to try and prove a point on the innerwebz, lol.

Yeah, that was my point. My demands where rhetorical.


Anyway, I noticed you ignored the environmental argument... Nice one.

I've ignored it because frankly I think its shit and it doesn't really interest me (contrary to the nutritional debate). Suffice it to say, capitalism is the motor for environmental destruction. Me choosing not to eat meat is not going to lead to any significant change in the production of meat or on the environmental effects of said production. In a communist society, yes, this will be something we will have to deal with. However, in a communist society the entire way in which we procure our food and what that food consists of will be altered in my opinion, so it's not really relevant.


To the OP: Hey, man, don't blame vegans and vegetarians because you don't know thing one about nutrition.

[...]

Anyway, here's a question for both Nicoli and Hoplite: Why can't people who eat meat mind their own business? You don't see me starting threads about other people's lifestyle choices...

The OP isn't 'blaming' anything on vegetarians or vegans. He is curious about his friends decision and trying to understand it. Is that a crime? Should people not be entitled to try and gain a better understanding of things they are unfamiliar with or disagree about?

Nic.

[praxis1966]

Mostly, you've actually been pretty reasonable, Nico, which is why I'm not going to dwell on most of the issues raised. Beyond that, there isn't much that the OP can't find out by searching for old threads on this board or some simple Googling... There are just a couple of things I'd like to address, though.


Again, it's very easy for me to lie, especially on the internet. For what it's worth (not much), I don't believe eating a diet high in whole meats poses a signficant risk to me contracting cancer. Infact I'm so sure of it, my daily meat consumption (white, red and fish) is 5 times what the article posted here previously claimed was the studies bench mark for what it considered 'high'. Wagering your life isn't something you do lightly.

There's a lot here, but I'm going to try to deal with it anyway, lol... The article deals primarily with red meat, processed meat and cancer, that's true enough. What you're talking about in re your own diet is all meats, which is something very different and probably why the benchmark is lower than your own. In any event, we haven't yet touched on the link between the saturated fats and cholesterol in those same types of meats and heart disease... A pretty well established fact. Now there are things you can do to offset that risk [exercise and consuming lots of fruits/vegetables] but let me ask you this... Let's say you have 4 people, all else being equal, one smokes 20 cigarettes a day, one 10, one 5, and the last 0? Who would you say has the lowest risk of lung cancer? Certainly not the person who smokes 5 cigarettes a day... What I'm trying to stress here is that there is a huge difference between risk management and risk abstinence. As an aside, there's also the small matter of environmental contaminants in seafood and that (at least in the US) it's perfectly legal to sell poultry products with tumors in them. Those issues most certainly can be blamed on capitalism as they're the result of deregulation in the Reagan and Bush II administrations, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation.


I've ignored it because frankly I think its shit and it doesn't really interest me (contrary to the nutritional debate). Suffice it to say, capitalism is the motor for environmental destruction. Me choosing not to eat meat is not going to lead to any significant change in the production of meat or on the environmental effects of said production.

So, essentially your argument is that so many people are contributing to the problem that you're going to contribute to it as well? Pardon me if I don't think this bit is logically consistent.


The OP isn't 'blaming' anything on vegetarians or vegans. He is curious about his friends decision and trying to understand it. Is that a crime? Should people not be entitled to try and gain a better understanding of things they are unfamiliar with or disagree about?

Actually, yes he is. His first couple of lines pretend that he's posting out of curiosity, but the rest of the post really is an argument and criticism. He's articulated an about other people's lifestyle choices which frankly is ill informed and none of his business. If he were really posting simply out of curiosity, he would have stopped after his second sentence.

Now, I honestly do apologize if it sounds like I'm getting worked up here, but I've been dealing with this kind of crap my entire life. I've heard it all, including the accusation (before the USFDA changed from the "four food groups" paradigm to the "food pyramid" paradigm) that I wasn't a vegetarian because "you eat peanut butter and peanuts are part of the meat group, so you do eat meat." For the life of me, I honestly feel at this point in my life that many people who eat meat (not saying this applies to you or the OP, mind you) feel somehow threatened by the simple existence of those who don't... Hence, meat eaters' rush to constant judgment, criticism and derision. So yeah, this kinda thing pushes a button on me, lol...

Lastly, let me just reiterate for the record though that it seems you're a little more considerate and knowledgeable than the average omnivore, so I hope you'll forgive any misdirected hostility, lol.

[Niccolò Rossi]

What you're talking about in re your own diet is all meats, which is something very different and probably why the benchmark is lower than your own.

Red meat - I eat a pound worth of lean beef (in the form of a burger/patty). that's still 4 times higher than the benchmark for the 'high' red meat consumption. But meh, it's not really relevant is it?


In any event, we haven't yet touched on the link between the saturated fats and cholesterol in those same types of meats and heart disease... A pretty well established fact.An establish fact I and many nutritionists would contest.


Now there are things you can do to offset that risk [exercise and consuming lots of fruits/vegetables] but let me ask you this... Let's say you have 4 people, all else being equal, one smokes 20 cigarettes a day, one 10, one 5, and the last 0? Who would you say has the lowest risk of lung cancer? Certainly not the person who smokes 5 cigarettes a day... What I'm trying to stress here is that there is a huge difference between risk management and risk abstinence. The logic is flawless, I'm not going to argue with you on that. However this kind of 'risk abstinence' in general is also the excuse par excellence for mediocrity.


So, essentially your argument is that so many people are contributing to the problem that you're going to contribute to it as well? Pardon me if I don't think this bit is logically consistent.I don't think it's logically inconsistent. at best you might call it a cop out. Either way, I leave 'consumer power' for the liberals.


Now, I honestly do apologize if it sounds like I'm getting worked up here, but I've been dealing with this kind of crap my entire life.Understandable of course. And no, you don't sound worked up. But I, on the other hand, probably do sound like a ****. And it's probably because it's true in this case aswell, haha


For the life of me, I honestly feel at this point in my life that many people who eat meat (not saying this applies to you or the OP, mind you) feel somehow threatened by the simple existence of those who don't... I have a sincere objection to vegetarians giving nutritional advice, because I think they are wrong. This is as far as any percieved threat goes.


Lastly, let me just reiterate for the record though that it seems you're a little more considerate and knowledgeable than the average omnivore, so I hope you'll forgive any misdirected hostility, lol.I'm glad you think so, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. Now, I must away. i'm running late for my next class. :)

Nic.

[RedAnarchist]

Red meat - I eat a pound worth of lean beef (in the form of a burger/patty). that's still 4 times higher than the benchmark for the 'high' red meat consumption. But meh, it's not really relevant is it?

An establish fact I and many nutritionists would contest.

The logic is flawless, I'm not going to argue with you on that. However this kind of 'risk abstinence' in general is also the excuse par excellence for mediocrity.

I don't think it's logically inconsistent. at best you might call it a cop out. Either way, I leave 'consumer power' for the liberals.

Understandable of course. And no, you don't sound worked up. But I, on the other hand, probably do sound like a ****. And it's probably because it's true in this case aswell, haha

I have a sincere objection to vegetarians giving nutritional advice, because I think they are wrong. This is as far as any percieved threat goes.

I'm glad you think so, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. Now, I must away. i'm running late for my next class. :)

Nic.

You must know by now that that particular word is banned. Consider this a verbal warning.

[Summerspeaker]

I used to obsess about getting enough of specific nutrients, avoiding empty calories, and so on. These days I just eat whatever plant products I can scavenge and don't worry about it. Health is a bourgeois decadence, anyway. :lol:

[Niccolò Rossi]

You must know by now that that particular word is banned. Consider this a verbal warning.

Took you long enough! Please make sure you check all my other week old posts for any such indiscretions. It's comforting to know you have better things to do.

Nic.

[RedAnarchist]

Took you long enough! Please make sure you check all my other week old posts for any such indiscretions. It's comforting to know you have better things to do.

Nic.

To be fair, I only saw this thread the day I gave you the warning.