no more vegan babies

[OutThere]

Studies have shown that children raised from before birth on an entirely vegan diet are at a strong disadavantage, and often mentally and physically retarded due to their lack of meat/animal products. Interesting stuff, makes you think about the reasons that people raise their babies on a vegan diet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4282257.stm

[Lacero]

Do vegan mothers breast feed their babies? Obviously, babies need the protein and fat present in milk to grow and develop. It only becomes a matter of logic that as humans, we need to both consume meat as well as plant matter. People have been eating fish and grazing animals for hundreds and thousands of years.

[Leareth]

believe it or not there are some idiot vegan parents that claim any milk whether human, cow or goat is bad for babies and try to raise their kids on a vegan diet, instead of milk they use fruit juice and nut "milks", the up side to this is kids raised this way will be too stupid and messed up to breed and produce more idiot vegan parents. I can understand going vegan when you are an adult, but in the growing years kids need more fat and protein than a vegan diet can provide as well studies show that kids even on a vegetarian diet do not get enough nutrients due to the bulking up effect of the vegetarian diet, so they feel full but in reality haven't consummed enough calories and nutrients to keep them healthy.

[mkrishnan]

Interesting stuff, makes you think about the reasons that people raise their babies on a vegan diet.

Well, I doubt there are many who know about this and accept that this applies to them and still go out and do it.

She accepted that adults could avoid animal foods if they took the right supplements, but she said adding animal source food into the diet was a better way to tackle malnutrition worldwide than quick fixes with supplements in the form of pills.

The fact that there are no confirmatory studies that are performed naturalistically on vegans by choice in developed countries is problematic though...the study in Africa only proves that it is *possible* to malnourish your child if you raise it vegan from birth. I would submit it's quite possible to do that if you're omnivorous too....

FWIW, I'm vegetarian, but not vegan. I was raised in young childhood vegetarian (and my people have been doing that for hundreds of, if not a thousand or more, years...). I have gone through phases of eating meat, but at current, I do eat dairy products, eggs rarely, and meat once in a great, great while, to humor a friend (like once a yearish). But otherwise I'm vegetarian....

[Lord Blackadder]

The problem with the vegan diet is that it is first and formost an ethical statement or religious/cultural tradition, not a health choice.

It may be a loaded term, but I will go so far as to say that it is an unnatural diet. Of course, most of us have an unnatural diet in the sense that we eat processed foods, but any "unnatural" diet is unhealthy without supplement. Atkins, anyone?

In the case of developing children I will say that everything I have seen in the healthcare industry and in college has suggested to me that breastfeeding, when possible, is by far the best option. Anything else has proven to be nutritionally inferior, including other animal milk. A good deal of statisitcal work has been done (available on PubMed) detailing this.

Adults are much more resistant to nutritional distress; A weaning child's immune system is highly sensitive to malnutrition, especially in the first two years of life. Malnutrition during this period has been incontrovertably proven to cause lifelong defects and developmental issues. I belive the study is accurate, and suitable for extrapolation to vegans by choice. The UK Vegan Society's response that a vegan diet is "bursting with goodness" sounds like marketing speak, not exactly the most stunning rebuttal. The only differences are that "first world" vegans have access to state of the-art-healthcare and supplement pills. But pills are only good if you intake the proper amounts, which varies a lot between individuals. Even then, pathologies can alter your dietary needs significantly without you knowing it.

As for me, I love cheese, so I could never be a "strict" vegetarian or vegan, but being onmivorous there is a lot of latitude in what it is helathy to consume - to a point. Sorry if it's a long post, but I just got into a discussion with somebody about this and it's fresh in my mind. :D

[Brize]

I wish that people would approach such research findings critically, rather than simply accepting them as truth. Any research that claims to have established something unequivocally should always be approached with caution. It's also somewhat alarming that the researcher herself has used inflammatory rhetoric in the presentation of her research findings. This alone indicates a lack of objectivity.

If we look at the design and methodology of this experiment, it immediately becomes clear that there is no basis upon which to generalise these findings:

The 544 children studied had been raised on diets chiefly consisting of starchy, low-nutrition corn and bean staples.

And guess what? When those children were fed meat and milk, their physical and cognitive development advanced dramatically. No *****! How many vegans do you know that live primarily on low-nutrition corn and bean staples? Nope, me neither.

In addition, the researcher, Lindsay Allen, works for the US Agricultural Research Service, who are responsible for 'ensuring profitability for farmers and processors', according to their website (http://www.ars.usda.gov/). Now there's a surprise.

[Brize]

It only becomes a matter of logic that as humans, we need to both consume meat as well as plant matter.

Err…that's actually completely illogical. There are millions of vegetarians in the world, so we clearly don't need to consume meat.

[MacAztec]

Where to vegetarians get their protein? Soy beans? Tofu? I will stick to my steak/salad menu, it is way healthier then the vegan stuff. I think once you go vegan, you are just trying to make a statement. you WANT to tell everyone "hey look at me, I am in no way affiliated with the consumption/killing of animals". Animals have been used for THOUSANDS of years as a food, and a resource. Humans were MADE to eat meat. Look at our teeth. We can chew anything.

[MongoTheGeek]

believe it or not there are some idiot vegan parents that claim any milk whether human, cow or goat is bad for babies and try to raise their kids on a vegan diet, instead of milk they use fruit juice and nut "milks", the up side to this is kids raised this way will be too stupid and messed up to breed and produce more idiot vegan parents. I can understand going vegan when you are an adult, but in the growing years kids need more fat and protein than a vegan diet can provide as well studies show that kids even on a vegetarian diet do not get enough nutrients due to the bulking up effect of the vegetarian diet, so they feel full but in reality haven't consummed enough calories and nutrients to keep them healthy.

That's insane. Babies need milk. Preferably human breast milk.

Children do need a lot of protein and probably far more fat than adults.

There is one of the B vitamins (b12 I think) which isn't produced by plants or people but is needed by the human body. The amount needed is fairly small and a normal diet for the first couple of decades gives almost a life-time supply of it. There are a few other non animal sources but quantities of it are hit and miss.

[Peterkro]

That's insane. Babies need milk. Preferably human breast milk.

Children do need a lot of protein and probably far more fat than adults.

There is one of the B vitamins (b12 I think) which isn't produced by plants or people but is needed by the human body. The amount needed is fairly small and a normal diet for the first couple of decades gives almost a life-time supply of it. There are a few other non animal sources but quantities of it are hit and miss.
B12? Brewers Yeast + all the Amino Acids.

[Lord Blackadder]

I wish that people would approach such research findings critically, rather than simply accepting them as truth. Any research that claims to have established something unequivocally should always be approached with caution. It's also somewhat alarming that the researcher herself has used inflammatory rhetoric in the presentation of her research findings. This alone indicates a lack of objectivity.

If we look at the design and methodology of this experiment, it immediately becomes clear that there is no basis upon which to generalise these findings:

The 544 children studied had been raised on diets chiefly consisting of starchy, low-nutrition corn and bean staples.

And guess what? When those children were fed meat and milk, their physical and cognitive development advanced dramatically. No *****! How many vegans do you know that live primarily on low-nutrition corn and bean staples? Nope, me neither.

In addition, the researcher, Lindsay Allen, works for the US Agricultural Research Service, who are responsible for 'ensuring profitability for farmers and processors', according to their website (http://www.ars.usda.gov/). Now there's a surprise.

You make some good points, but before you pass out the conspiracy hats remember that the small amount of meat given during the study was intended to function as a supplement without providing a huge caloric increase. 2oz per day is a very small amount in caloric terms, but can function very effectively as a dietary supplement, which was the point of her study. If she were giving them a prime rib dinner instead I'd be suspicious. :rolleyes:

I would never rule out bias altogether (it is impossible and silly to do so), but I still think that the study is a useful piece of basic research that can be further developed. More importantly, I don't belive that a vegan diet is appropriate for a developing child, for reasons that I stated previously.

[Brize]

Where to vegetarians get their protein?

What's important is the amount of protein per calorie. Quorn--which is a popular meat substitute in the UK--contains 14g of protein per 100 kcal. Steak generally has about 17g of protein per 100 kcal, so they're pretty comparable.

The idea that humans are 'made' to eat meat doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Unlike carnivorous animals, our digestive tracts are very long, and far more conducive to processing vegetation than meat. Vegetarians and Vegans generally have far better digestive health; they rarely get stomach cramps, food poisoning, colon cancer, etc. The way in which we process meat is surprisingly inefficient; traces have reportedly been found in people who haven't eaten meat for 15 years plus.

Then again, if God didn't want us to eat animals, why would he have made them out of meat? :D

[virividox]

Then again, if God didn't want us to eat animals, why would he have made them out of meat? :D

amen to that, preach it brother!!!
quorn is nasty

i say give the kid the proper nutrition during their formative years, and let make their diet choice later in life when they can understand why they have to eat certain things

[unfaded]

Alright, did anyone actually read this?

To some groups they gave meat, which is known to have certain vitamins, and to another group they gave a VITAMINLESS ALTERNATIVE.

Why is this surprising then that those babies were lacking in those vitamins?

I currently eat meat, but have been a vegan and a vegetarian in my life, and this is the stupidest study I have ever seen in my life. A vegan diet is perfectly fine when supplemented with B12 (and, as recent studies have shown, supplementing a vegan diet with creatine, which is found very abundantly in meat as its stored in muscle, also helps).

Worst. Study. Ever. Almost makes me pissed off enough to go back.

[wdlove]

As mentioned many times, the best thing a person can do, it having a diet in moderation. Following the government suggest "Food Pyramid" is a very important guideline.

http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/food/food-pyramid/main.htm

[jayscheuerle]

Unlike carnivorous animals, our digestive tracts are very long, and far more conducive to processing vegetation than meat.

Actually, our digestive systems have a lot more in common with dogs than sheep.

comparison (http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carn_herb_comparison.html)

or an alternative view (http://www.earthsave.bc.ca/materials/articles/articles/health/comparative_p7.html) .

Any agendas here?

[codycartoon]

Don't get vegan diets confused with vegetarian diets guys. A huge misconception is how much protein a person needs, Americans generally have waaayyy to much protein in their diets, it turns in to fat. There are plenty of other places to get protein; Beans and Nuts for example. And yes Milk, Cheese, Eggs, and other dairy products. Most vegetarians eat these products. As far as child birth goes, there have been many books written about the subject that says a vegetarian diet for an infant is perfectly all-right, as long as he or she gets the right amount of nutrients.

I have been vegetarian for about a year and a half. It truly is wonderful, it's much easier than I thought it was(Once I discovered the veggie burrito at Chipotle). I have more energy and generally feel better. I'm not doing this for the animals either, honestly screw the animals, especially cattle. I'm doing it because it's a better more fulfilling lifestyle choice.

There is a lot of arrogance on this subject. I can't tell you how many times I have been asked where I get my protein or how "unnatural" is it.

All I ask is think about what you are putting in your mouths guys.

You are what you eat.

-cody

[Brize]

Lord Blackadder: The issue here is that this researcher is making a concrete assertion based on research that has absolutely no relevance to that assertion.

All she's managed to establish is that corn and bean staples (a wholly inadequate diet by anyone's standards) is less conducive to healthy development than the same diet supplemented by small amounts of meat or milk. I'm sure we could all have come to that conclusion by ourselves.

The researcher has stated that it's unethical to raise children on a vegan diet. Did she, during the course of her experiment, raise any children on a typical vegan diet? No, she didn't, and she therefore has no empircal evidence to support her claim. (None that we're aware of, anyway.)

It's analogous to establishing that a G5 is faster than a Xeon, and then inferring that it's also faster than an Opteron, because they're both x86 chips.

I imagine this experiment was simply designed to establish whether the health of young African children could be vastly improved by a relatively inexpensive dietary supplement. The research seems to indicate that it can, and this has positive implications that have so far been overlooked, both on the BBC site, and in this thread.

[Lacero]

A vegan diet is perfectly fine when supplemented with B12

So are you saying a strictly vegan diet without supplements is unhealthy? I'd rather chew on a chicken drumstick then pop pills.

[Peterkro]

So are you saying a strictly vegan diet without supplements is unhealthy? I'd rather chew on a chicken drumstick then pop pills.
He said supplemented not supplements most vegans use Brewers yeast , see my post ^ there.

[VincentVega]

I've been a vegetarian for 15 years or so. I don't eat meat, fish but eat dairy products (milk, cheese). I'm considering becoming a vegan, but haven't committed to it yet.

Countless studies have shown that breastfeeding a baby is the best approach. Even if you are a vegan, is it really worth compromising your baby's health in that way? I have no qualms with breastfeeding. It's important to give your young child a balanced diet: if this means feeding them milk, then so be it. Once they're older, then you can confine them to a vegetarian diet.

Reading the article, it seems to me as if they've gone for the most "extreme" vegans they can find and used fairly ridiculous arugments. If you feed a child a diet based on "starchy, low-nutrition corn and bean staples" that lack essential vitamins, then of course they're going to be unhealthy! Duh. If you fed them nothing but Big Macs or 12oz steaks, they'd be just as unhealthy.

Fact is, vegetarian and vegan diets, if you watch what you eat and try and maintain a balanced diet, are good for you. I certainly suffer no side effects having been a vegetarian for 15 years. I don't miss meat at all. For me, it was an ethical and health-based decision.

Just a general point (not targetted at anyone here in particular), I find that my and others' vegetarianism and veganism often arouse strong feelings of contempt and displays of intolerance by meat eaters. Certainly, I get mocked for being a vegetarian by 250lb guys who eat a lot of meat (I'm around 170lb). However, I *never* raise objections to them eating meat. I wonder why they fail to show consideration towards me. Ignorance? A lack of respect? Plain bad manners? The mind boggles.

[Littleodie914]

Amen to the subject of no more vegan babies... Seems like a really bad idea if you ask me. Little dudes need all the protein and beefy stuff they can get. In my personal opinion, I could never go vegan... People were meant to be beefy! Eating greens all my life would wither me down to a twig and no doubt have a negative effect on my energy. Plus, who can deny a nice T-Bone with a bottle of A1? :D ;)

[Apple Hobo]

The idea that humans are 'made' to eat meat doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

Millions of years of eating meat can't be wrong. :D

Now on the subject...

A local 5-month-old child was killed, and the parents were arrested for feeding the malnourished child a raw diet. The parents' defense is trying to say a genetic disorder is the cause of death, but that was recently ruled out. The case is still under trial, but I think the parents will charged with neglecting their child.

I also have my doubts over people putting their carnivore pets on a vegan diet. :rolleyes:

[Makosuke]

Yeah, that's pretty messed up both scientifically and in just common sense. "We fed these kids an unhealthy diet, and they didn't do well. Give them better nutrition, and they do." Yeah, we needed a scientific study on real humans to figure that out.

Personally, I'll eat just about anything (certainly a lot of stuff most Americans would never even touch--raw horsemeat, dried squid leather, fish eyes, slime-molded soybeans with raw egg, etc). But, even if humans are obviously omnivorous I have no issue with people who choose, for ethical or health reasons (though the latter is based on shaky assumptions) to eat healthy vegitarian or vegan diets. Why the animosity? It's their choice, and we can live just as well on vegtables as a dog can live on kibble.

Now, stupid vegitarians/vegans are a whole 'nother matter, and REALLY annoying. As with any diet, you've got to balance it to stay healthy, and it takes more thought to do so if you're not eating meat. Just eating salad every day is NOT a health concious decision, it's as dumb as eating nothing but steak every day--both will eventually kill you from malnutrition (seen the former nearly happen do dumb vegan kids, and the latter to an uncle on a crazy fad diet).

Not feeding your kid breast milk is flat-out wrong; gee, perhaps we're, I don't know, DESIGNED to develop drinking that stuff? Not like we evolved for that to be the perfect source of infant nutrition... no, wait, we did. Just as sick as the people who formula-feed their babies because they're too lazy to nurse them.

Still, you can be quite healthy if you eat a carefully balanced vegitarian, or even vegan, diet, so don't give the smart eaters a hard time just because they eat different from you.

[Littleodie914]

Yeah, that's pretty messed up both scientifically and in just common sense. "We fed these kids an unhealthy diet, and they didn't do well. Give them better nutrition, and they do." Yeah, we needed a scientific study on real humans to figure that out.

Personally, I'll eat just about anything (certainly a lot of stuff most Americans would never even touch--raw horsemeat, dried squid leather, fish eyes, slime-molded soybeans with raw egg, etc). But, even if humans are obviously omnivorous I have no issue with people who choose, for ethical or health reasons (though the latter is based on shaky assumptions) to eat healthy vegitarian or vegan diets. Why the animosity? It's their choice, and we can live just as well on vegtables as a dog can live on kibble.

Now, stupid vegitarians/vegans are a whole 'nother matter, and REALLY annoying. As with any diet, you've got to balance it to stay healthy, and it takes more thought to do so if you're not eating meat. Just eating salad every day is NOT a health concious decision, it's as dumb as eating nothing but steak every day--both will eventually kill you from malnutrition (seen the former nearly happen do dumb vegan kids, and the latter to an uncle on a crazy fad diet).

Not feeding your kid breast milk is flat-out wrong; gee, perhaps we're, I don't know, DESIGNED to develop drinking that stuff? Not like we evolved for that to be the perfect source of infant nutrition... no, wait, we did. Just as sick as the people who formula-feed their babies because they're too lazy to nurse them.

Still, you can be quite healthy if you eat a carefully balanced vegitarian, or even vegan, diet, so don't give the smart eaters a hard time just because they eat different from you.Hear hear :cool:

[jywv8]

I think once you go vegan, you are just trying to make a statement. you WANT to tell everyone "hey look at me, I am in no way affiliated with the consumption/killing of animals".

A friend of mine suffered from rheumatoid arthritis for many years. Since going vegan 10 years ago, she has been able to get off all medication and has been pain-free. So while I'm sure there are some people who go vegan to "make a point", there are other who do so for health reasons.

For the record, I am a meat eater.


Not feeding your kid breast milk is flat-out wrong; gee, perhaps we're, I don't know, DESIGNED to develop drinking that stuff? Not like we evolved for that to be the perfect source of infant nutrition... no, wait, we did. Just as sick as the people who formula-feed their babies because they're too lazy to nurse them.

My mother didn't breast-feed me or my sister. We are fine and healthy. Calling her, by implication, "sick" is...um...a bit extreme and rather odd.

[Peterkro]

I may have missed something here but I don't understand where the Vegan mothers don't breastfeed their babies bit comes from. Its a totally natural process and something the vast majority of Vegan mothers do. Its the multinational food industry(e.g. Nestle) who promote formula feeding.

[BillHarrison]

Personal choice is just that, but I don't feel that someone eating a vegan diet is necessarily any healthier than someone who eats meat. Meat is an excellent source of protein, which the body needs for muscle growth. If we were not designed to eat meat, we simply would not be able to. Last time I checked, most things we are not designed to eat simply are not digestable.

The fact that its easily digested by our bodies tells you we are designed for it. Now if you prefer not to eat it, thats your business. I will take a juicy steak any day :D

[Peterkro]

Personal choice is just that, but I don't feel that someone eating a vegan diet is necessarily any healthier than someone who eats meat. Meat is an excellent source of protein, which the body needs for muscle growth. If we were not designed to eat meat, we simply would not be able to. Last time I checked, most things we are not designed to eat simply are not digestable.

The fact that its easily digested by our bodies tells you we are designed for it. Now if you prefer not to eat it, thats your business. I will take a juicy steak any day :D
I know this may be contentious for some people but we've evolved we haven't been designed.

[wdlove]

Not feeding your kid breast milk is flat-out wrong; gee, perhaps we're, I don't know, DESIGNED to develop drinking that stuff? Not like we evolved for that to be the perfect source of infant nutrition... no, wait, we did. Just as sick as the people who formula-feed their babies because they're too lazy to nurse them.

Still, you can be quite healthy if you eat a carefully balanced vegetarian, or even vegan, diet, so don't give the smart eaters a hard time just because they eat different from you.

I'm also one of those that will eat just about anything, but food that is considered to be normal human food. Of the few things that I don't like is raw oysters, cooked oysters, or clams.

I'm was breast fed also. Studies show that it has many positive effects. I disagree with your comment against that haven't or don't. When I grew up it was before the popularity of formula. Today I think that formula manufacturers are to blame for breast feeding falling out of favor.

I will also add that it isn't always that easy to breast feed. When I was in the USAFR doing my two weeks active duty each year, I was in the Nursery.
Part of my duty was to observe and assist when necessary the the infants were nursing properly. Some of the mothers had difficulty. It takes patients and both the mother and infant need to be relaxed.

[codycartoon]

Millions of years of eating meat can't be wrong.

You are absolutely right. Millions of years of rape, greed, and murder can't be wrong. After all, if it happened in the past it's perfectly acceptable.

Not that eating meat is even close to the level of rape and murder. But I think defending something with "it happened in the past" is silly.

-cody

[unfaded]

You are absolutely right. Millions of years of rape, greed, and murder can't be wrong. After all, if it happened in the past it's perfectly acceptable.

Not that eating meat is even close to the level of rape and murder. But I think defending something with "it happened in the past" is silly.

-cody

Better would have been "hundreds of years of the slavery of non-white races."

Either way, this article actually made me so angry at its sheer stupidity (oil vs. milk or meat? I mean, come ON, people...) that I've decided to go back to vegetarianism.

[Makosuke]

My mother didn't breast-feed me or my sister. We are fine and healthy. Calling her, by implication, "sick" is...um...a bit extreme and rather odd.No, I'm sorry my phrasing wasn't clear; I'm not calling your mother or necessarily anybody else who doesn't breast feed sick--there are many legitimate reasons to use formula supplimentarily or exclusively.

What I was trying to say is that the unnecessary reliance on artificial food for infants, more in a society-level sense, is sick--it is an attempt to replace a perfectly designed and balanced food that is, in most cases, readily and freely available, with something expensive and artificial for no reason other than convienence or, worse, a misguided sense of modernity.

To a great deal the corporate advertising push of baby formula as somehow superior to natural breast milk that others mentioned is responsible for this, but it's just generally a bad idea. And, at least personally, I think it's a little sad that there are still women who look at the milk their own body produces for their baby and choose instead to feed them something mixed from a dehydrated powder either to save some hassle or because they honestly believe that whatever is in the box is better for the kid than what's in their own body.

[MIADolFan]

I also have my doubts over people putting their carnivore pets on a vegan diet. :rolleyes:

Thats just stupid. Dogs, cats, birds, sharks, and even most marine (saltwater) fish eat meat. Dogs and cats for that matter are primarily meat eaters. Why else can dogs chow down bones like they are nothing? Humans are omnivorous. We even have 2 teeth that are not far off from being fangs. Some people have more pronounced fangs than others.

Some people seem to think the only animals (yes people are animals too) that have the right to eat meat are the ones that hunt it down like lions with teeth as the primary weapon. Every genus and species of carnivore or onmivore has its own method of captuing its meat diet. Whether its a cheetah thats blessed with speed to chase antelope, a bat that uses its saliva to eat into the hide of other animals, or canines that function as natures clean-up crew and eat whats leftover including the skeletons ,and last but not least we have us humans that use out ingenuity to capture and breed our food. There are even PLANTS that eat meat such as a pitcher plant or a venus fly-trap.

Meat eating is in no way shape or form cruel... its the way of life. I dont mind those who go against nature and choose veggie only. By all means do what makes you happy! It only pisses me off when I get blasted by some of them for eating meat.

If people are looking for something in our diets to get rid of that is unhealthy... look no further than sugar which I might add comes from a plant. Sugar is the most detrimental thing in our diets today.

[Lacero]

Vegetarians I have nothing against. It's those wack-nut vegans I have a problem with. They remind me of those people who go too far with their plastic surgeries.

[Counterfit]

Vegetarians I have nothing against. It's those wack-nut vegans I have a problem with. They remind me of those people who go too far with their plastic surgeries. It's militant vegans that bug me. Heck, militant anythings generally bug me (especially militant feminists!).

[Vanilla]

My Personal opinion is that we are neither carnivores or vegetarians, our bodies have evolved to be omnivorous ie, we thrive best on a balanced diet of both meat and vegetables. It's just the way we are.

A diet of fresh vegetables, regular supply of fresh fruit, good quality meat & oily fish, eggs, milk and cheese, together with liberal (but not excessive) quantities of water, moderate consumption of alcohol (preferably red wine) and the odd chocolate/sweet based treat, plus regular exercise, no smoking and good quality sleep is boring, old-fashioned and works.

My Italian side of the family thrives on this anyway and I was brought up the same, to no - apparant - ill effects.

Vanilla

[BillHarrison]

My Personal opinion is that we are neither carnivores or vegetarians, our bodies have evolved to be omnivorous ie, we thrive best on a balanced diet of both meat and vegetables. It's just the way we are.

A diet of fresh vegetables, regular supply of fresh fruit, good quality meat & oily fish, eggs, milk and cheese, together with liberal (but not excessive) quantities of water, moderate consumption of alcohol (preferably red wine) and the odd chocolate/sweet based treat, plus regular exercise, no smoking and good quality sleep is boring, old-fashioned and works.

My Italian side of the family thrives on this anyway and I was brought up the same, to no - apparant - ill effects.

Vanilla

Excellent advice, something alot of us could use.

[MongoTheGeek]

B12? Brewers Yeast + all the Amino Acids.

Its an inconsistent source. Some times it has a high yield other times it doesn't. Vegan websites suggest even not trusting it for b12 and to get fortified foods.

[evoluzione]

Where to vegetarians get their protein? Soy beans? Tofu? I will stick to my steak/salad menu, it is way healthier then the vegan stuff.


there are plenty of ways of getting enough protein, stop being so ignorant.

is steak that's raised on antibiotics and all manner of goodness know what, really healthier than eating "the vegan stuff" (which may well be organic and free from harmful pesticides etc)??

my girlfriend and i are eating less and less meat, and we feel so much better for it too. i don't know if we'll ever give it up completely (only eating naturally raised, local meat) but there's something beneficial about cutting out a lot of the crap on the market (that's also advertised as being healthy, when in reality, it's far from it)



Following the government suggest "Food Pyramid" is a very important guideline.

why? it's completely wrong. we're told to eat wholegrain stuff, butif we do, it's quite often coated in high fructose corn syrup and other sweetners/preservatives. this is not healthy, and all it does is make people unhealthy. there are many more examples of this food pyramid being bad/wrong which i'll not go into now...

[jayscheuerle]

Eating meat isn't the source of our health problems. If you avoid anything that comes in a box, bag, can or bottle, you can't go wrong. Feed children from the teats of their own species. Avoid anything that has become available due to manufacturing processes in the past 100 years. Be afraid of the words "refined" and "bleached". Stick to fruits, vegetables and flesh and you'll be as healthy as ever as long as those aren't tainted by our meddling or pollution.

It's all that simple and we all know this stuff. We just don't do it. Myself included. I dunked Nutter Butters in my coffee this morning for breakfast, followed it with a banana at work and am eyeing the mini-snickers in my drawer as we speak.

As a disclaimer, I do realize that many of our manufacturing processes allow us to consume foods without disease, taint, or rot, as well as allowing us to feed a whole lot of people with a little amount of acreage, so this isn't an anti-technology rant, but our gastrointestinal systems haven't evolved in the past 100 years to allow us to be healthy with the crap we put in us.

What was the topic here again? :D

[jayscheuerle]

Following the government suggest "Food Pyramid" is a very important guideline.


Unfortunately, the "Food Pyramid" reflects special interest groups more than it does sound science...

Think of all your taxpayer money that went into producing the "Got Milk" campaigns. This is for a substance which many of people can't digest (because we're not baby cows) and has been shown to cause bones that fracture more easily (than non-milk drinker's bones). Why do you think that campaign was so huge?

[technocoy]

Better would have been "hundreds of years of the slavery of non-white races."


why don't we do some research and quell all forms of racism and quit feeling sorry for ourselves in our little ethno-centric worlds where only OUR people are the ones who were hurt or deserve better. i'd put a wager that just as many in the "white" "asian" "etc" races have been subjected to slavery, genocide, etc. just because the most recent is the most memorable doesn't make it any worse. ALL slavery and racism is WRONG, period. If i didn't love so much culture and versatility that has come from millenia of being different "races" i would say let's put the term to bed altogether. we are humans, men, women and children – and in some way, shape or form, we are ALL brothers and sister's born from the same set of parents no matter what your view is.

sorry to hi-jack the thread, that post just bothered me.

peace,
technocoy

[Brize]

technocoy:

On a general note, the idea that we should cease to acknowledge our cultural, racial, and gender differences is incredibly dangerous, and divorced from reality.

Your point that we're all essentially the same is of course true. The colour of our skin, our religion, or our sexual orientation shouldn't be emphasised over our humanity; however, the fact remains that it very often is.

When we deliberately neglect to acknowledge these socially-constructed differences (as you're suggesting), we become unable to recognise the oppressive power dynamic that exists between minority groups and those in positions of power.

The fact is that people of colour, homosexuals, various other minority groups, and even women, still face discrimination on a daily basis. As individuals, we may not agree with this and we may not even be complicit in this, but it's not going to stop if we simply ignore it.

[Lacero]

Brize, please speak English. ;)

[blackfox]

In my mind, the two greatest (albeit unwitting) historical contributors (people) to our current unhealthy eating habits are:

1. The Earl of Sandwich
2. Louis Pasteur

The former because the human stomach is not designed to breakdown a protein and a starch/carbohydrate simultaneously, hence a piss-poor job is done utilising either. The bread is of limited consequence, but the meat, not broken down effectively, moves along the digestive track and becomes toxic (since it rots).

The latter because now everything is pasteurized for "safety", robbing us of the necessary enzymes to utilize/extract the nutrition from many foodstuffs. The most egregarious example is milk, which unpasteurized, is imo, one of the unhealthist things you can consume.

Vegitarians avoid one of these two things (often), and Vegans avoid both. It is my opinion that they are subsequently more healthy by this coincidence.

[jayscheuerle]

The fact is that people of colour, homosexuals, various other minority groups, and even women, still face discrimination on a daily basis. As individuals, we may not agree with this and we may not even be complicit in this, but it's not going to stop if we simply ignore it.

Discrimination in itself is not a bad thing. It's kept us alive since before we were us. Knowing how to discriminate between two differing situations, people or mushrooms is essential. The innateness of it is why it's so difficult to suppress, even though the suppression of it is essential to the functioning of a democratic society. Discrimination happens across the boards, but there is little sympathy when it is against those in power. We refer to that as "reverse discrimination", which is an odd political term. It's discrimination, pure and simple. "Reverse discrimination" would really be "indiscriminate", which is a fine way to go if you want to be a sucker or die early.

Oh yeah... uh, vegan babies...

[jayscheuerle]

Vegitarians avoid one of these two things (often), and Vegans avoid both. It is my opinion that they are subsequently more healthy by this coincidence.

Outside of their own communities, the common image of vegitarians and vegans is of pasty, weak individuals. Hardly the image of health. I'm not saying this image is correct, but there is veracity in ALL stereotypes.

On the other hand, nobody ever conjures up images of v&vs that are obese and looking like they are on death's bed from overconsumption...

[Lacero]

You can tell a Vegan just by the way they look and by the way they smell. But I guess the same is true for someone who eats lots of lard and tubs of chocolate.

[jayscheuerle]

You can tell a Vegan just by the way they look and by the way they smell. But I guess the same is true for someone who eats lots of lard and tubs of chocolate.

Gee, I always thought it was by the air of superiority... Gotta get my nose and eyes checked...

[technocoy]

I agree with your statement, and i think maybe i didn't articulate it well enough or venture to explain it more. my main argument was the thought and notion that only non-whites have suffered any great tragedy in the form of racism and slavery, and that is an untruth that is being pushed in our modern society. my statement on culture may have been loose-lipped and not explained well. my casual writing is to blame. i was saying that cultures (and the differences they bring) are beautiful and intrinsic. so much value there. my sadness comes from what seems to be the fact that we cannot seem to preserve those things and see below the skin and differences to the fact that we are all the same and related in some way. I would never in a million years want to see the eradication of different cultures. I'm sorry if i wasn't very clear in my original post. Mostly a post against ethno-centricity. (my own little bubble snydrome).

sorry again for the side conversation that i have started!

[Brize]

Discrimination in itself is not a bad thing. It's kept us alive since before we were us. Knowing how to discriminate between two differing situations, people or mushrooms is essential. The innateness of it is why it's so difficult to suppress, even though the suppression of it is essential to the functioning of a democratic society.

You're conflating two different meanings of the word discrimination.

The first has to do with discriminating between items based on their different characteristics, which is the definition you rely upon in your response. The second is a socio-political term that has to do with discriminating against people, based on something other than their individual merit.

The validity of the bio-psychological paradigm* is another discussion, but yes, I agree that we have an innate ability to discriminate in the first sense of the word. Our 'fear of the other', however, is socially constructed.

* With apologies to Lacero. :p

[jayscheuerle]

You're conflating two different meanings of the word discrimination.

The first has to do with discriminating between items based on their different characteristics, which is the definition you rely upon in your response. The second is a socio-political term that has to do with discriminating against people, based on something other than their individual merit.

The validity of the bio-psychological paradigm* is another discussion, but yes, I agree that we have an innate ability to discriminate in the first sense of the word. Our 'fear of the other', however, is socially constructed.

* With apologies to Lacero. :p

Perhaps, but often founded. I'll happily back-up my girlfriend's crossing over to the empty side of the street when she sees a hooded figure coming down the walk. The 2nd term was born of the first. If we wait to determine "individual merit", we stand to lose a lot (life perhaps). Non-discrimination is a fine ideal, but one that's better kept in discussion groups and politics, as it's dangerous to uphold in its purest form in real life. Some call it discrimination. I prefer 6th sense or intuition, because words do matter, especially politically tinged ones.

The line becomes troublesome when its crossed in non-potentially-dire situations, when it becomes a knee-jerk in the absence of a threat, when it becomes a tool of oppression.

Our "fear of the other" maybe socially constructed, but in this construct, both the victims and the victimizers play their parts very well. Maybe that's why it continues on all sides.

[maya]

Meat and Vegetables, should be a balanced 20% and 80%.

There are too many illnesses that have been associated with only or mainly meat diets then with vegetable diets.


Just balance your diet with proper portions to your height/weight/workout routine everyday. With that in mind you should be fine. :)

[rueyeet]

I know this may be contentious for some people but we've evolved we haven't been designed.Many people refer metaphorically to the changes accumulated during the eons-long process of evolution in the as "design". In those terms, you could say that humans are "designed" to eat meat simply because we are able to do so. So the question becomes whether it's enough to accept the product of evolution, or whether changing our diet--either through the invention of agriculture or the application of technology--is a valid application of our intelligence and ethical sense to change what raw biology has dictated.

For vegetarians and vegans, the answer to that is yes: that for health or moral concerns, a carefully altered diet is worth stepping outside our "design specs", as it were. That's a choice that each individual has every right to make, and I'm willing to respect anyone's choice for a vegetarian/vegan diet who's willing to respect my choice against one.

I'm personally of the mind that the more we meddle with what nature has wrought, the more we discover we should have been more careful. So while a modern, first-world diet admittedly bears only a passing resemblence to what we evolved to eat, my gut feeling is that any diet that seeks to exclude or severely limit a particular nutrient is probably too extreme.

What I don't understand is why a vegetarian or vegan mom would object to breastfeeding. No animal is being harmed, and breast milk has been carefully tailored by evolution for our own children. Is it that strict vegans don't want their kids to have any animal protein at all, even if it's human proteins meant for human offspring?

[Brize]

technocoy:

No worries; I think I understand where you're coming from.

my main argument was the thought and notion that only non-whites have suffered any great tragedy in the form of racism and slavery, and that is an untruth that is being pushed in our modern society.

I'd be interested if you could elaborate on this and perhaps provide examples.

[Peterkro]

rueyeet thats what I don't understand. The article didn't mention breastfeeding and my (admittedly small) experience is that Vegan mothers I know have breastfeed no problem.

[Brize]

rueyeet thats what I don't understand. The article didn't mention breastfeeding and my (admittedly small) experience is that Vegan mothers I know have breastfeed no problem.

Absolutely. People become vegans not necessarily because they don't want to consume meat or animal produce, but because they don't want to kill or support cruelty to animals in order to sustain their own lives. Breastfeeding isn't an issue for vegans.

[Apple Hobo]

You are absolutely right. Millions of years of rape, greed, and murder can't be wrong. After all, if it happened in the past it's perfectly acceptable.

Not that eating meat is even close to the level of rape and murder. But I think defending something with "it happened in the past" is silly.

-cody

Your example is illogical. You can't compare rape and other atrocities with natural eating habits that go back millions of years. You can't compare them in any way. Apples and oranges and all that stuff...

[Brize]

jayscheuerle:

There are essentially two issues here: personal discrimination and institutional discrimination. I think we're agreed that institutional discrimination is extremely problematic.

In terms of personal discrimination, I agree that it's a sensible precaution to cross the road if you're confronted by a hooded figure whom you consider to be a threat. However, we should also question why it is that we identify various groups as a potential threat to our wellbeing. More often that not, our perceptions are clouded by the media and by erroneous information from other unreliable sources.

The groups that people identify as a threat are invariably those from ethnic minority and low socio-economic status backgrounds, i.e. those who face discrimination on a daily basis. If you discriminate against people and deny them the opportunity to fulfil their potential and become useful members of society, they're more likely to become a real or perceived threat.

To return to your example, we'd likely find that we wouldn't need to discriminate in the first sense of the word if we didn't discriminate in the second.

[iGary]

One of my sister's has raised their family (4 kids, all smarter than can be) on a vegetarian diet, not vegan....

Their kids literally drool at Thanksgiving time.

Ooops, sorry, no turkey for you, that'd be mean to the turkey.

Awww, sorry, no stuffing that has sausage in it.

Oh, damn, you can't have the gravy either, that has giblets in it. :D

[Mord]

and often mentally and physically retarded

i find that word offensive :mad:.

i'm a vegan and always have been i may not be the strongest person in the world but i'm defiantly not "mentally retarded", i would say it depends on weather they are breast fed which i was, meat has little to do with it, if a kid dosent get enough calcium he's going to get bone problems :rolleyes:.

it's very possible to be vegan and health, i'm 6'2" and 160 pounds, and i'm not exactly weedy.

you have no idea how annyoing it is when non-vegans/vegeterians ask you "questions" like: "where do you get your calcium/protine ect", "what do you eat" and "why not eat meat it tastes so good"

i'm a vegan because of an allergy and a vegeterian because of ethical reasons i always have been, i have never eaten meat and guess what i dont drink soya milk i dont eat tofu and i dont eat "meat subsitutes"

what i do eat is food that I like like tival foods are nice as is rice milk, i also dont drink fizzy drinks i'd rather pop a can of v8 over a can of pepsi any day of the week, for protein my main source is brown rice, i happen to like vegetables but not the way most people cook them, most people over boil vegetables untill they are all mushy as a rule of thumb: pulses: 5 mins, cabbages 7-8 mins broccoli: 5 mins peas: instant, i dont cook them i dump them in boiling water and wait to reboil then strain.

i cook allot and enjoy it with no meat or dairy :D

[jayscheuerle]

The groups that people identify as a threat are invariably those from ethnic minority and low socio-economic status backgrounds, i.e. those who face discrimination on a daily basis. If you discriminate against people and deny them the opportunity to fulfil their potential and become useful members of society, they're more likely to become a real or perceived threat.

Well... from the neighborhoods i've lived in and around, many people not only face discrimination, but have well earned it. On top of that, the people they fear the most and who harm them the most are themselves. Unfortunately, ideology breaks down at street level where what you see often IS the full potential of people. The biggest concern is trying to figure out how to stop the cycle of ignorance from passing on from generation to generation. I see it all around me, walking to work, riding with my daughter on the bus to school. Nothing's more depressing than realizing that a 9 year old is well on his or her way to becoming a worthless member of society. Imagine the depression at realizing this about an entire BUS of 9 year olds, set to fulfill their destinies. Nobody has figured out how to stop the cycle yet...

[Counterfit]

Nobody has figured out how to stop the cycle yet... I wonder how many people don't even realize that there is a cycle :(

[Brize]

jayscheuerle:

I think it's more depressing that you consider a nine year-old child to be a lost cause. The only reason those kids are on the wrong path is a lack of decent parenting and decent education. And how do they end up in this situation? Because their parents and grandparents were probably denied the same.

It's extremely disappointing that you consider these people to have fulfilled their potential. Even the brightest child will struggle to get ahead if he or she is denied the opportunities in life that many of us take for granted.

[Dutch13]

Where to vegetarians get their protein? Soy beans? Tofu? I will stick to my steak/salad menu, it is way healthier then the vegan stuff.

As far as I can tell, protein is just strings of amino acids, and amino acids are amino acids--it doesn't matter where it comes from, be it plant or animal. Your body will not know the difference. When you eat meat, the protein is broken down into amino acids by your body which then reassembles those building blocks into different proteins as needed. (The protein you swallow in meat does not just travel through your stomach and end up as part of your body unaltered) You can get all of the amino acids you get from meat from the right balance of plant foods. In fact you can get ALL nutrients needed by your body from plant foods with the exception of vitamin B12. And the 6mcg you need each day is easily obtained from a vitamin, or as someone else mentioned, from brewer's yeast.

As for health, the problem with meat is all of the other things that come along with the protein--like fat, cholesterol, pathogens, and carcinogens. Studies have shown that eating meat increases your risk of heart disease and cancer. Across the board, studies have shown that vegetarians have lower rates of these illnesses than meateaters. And vegans have lower rates than vegetarians. So in short, every scientifically sound study I have come across has found that a well balanced vegan diet is better than a carnivorous one. And btw, a diet consisting soley of corn is not a vegan diet, it is a stupid unbalance diet.

As for breastfeeding...I don't think that veganism has anything to do with denying a baby breastmilk. I believe the issue is the milk of other species. By the way, Dr Spock (not Star Trek, the other one), advocates not feeding children dairy milk after they are three years old. Also, I think the idea that a vegan mother's breastmilk is defective is wrong. If she is healthy from maintaining a balanced vegan diet then her breastmilk is no less nutritious to her baby than that of a meateater. In fact it may be healthier because it may contain less contaminants like dioxin which concentrated in meat.

Anyway, just wanted to set a few facts straight. Whatever you decide to eat is up to you, but at least base it on facts and not supposition.

[Dutch13]

if a kid dosent get enough calcium he's going to get bone problems :rolleyes:.


Here's something interesting about milk/meat/calcium and bone strength.
http://www.cyberparent.com/nutrition/osteoporosisimpotencecancer.htm

Basically, the article talks about Harvard's Nurses' Health Study that found a positive correlation between high dairy intake and hip fractures. So drinking more milk to get more calcium actually weakens your bones. One of the reasons mentioned is that as your body processes the high protein intake, acidity levels in your body rise and to counteract that, your body leeches calcuim from your bones to neutralize the acid. This in turn weakens your bones.

Interesting that some science goes directly against what we all take for granted. But then, I wonder if we all think milk is good for our bones because of the advertising by the milk industry.

[Lacero]

Are we so vain as to think we know everything thing there is to know about the effects of eating plant matter or meat has on our bodies? Have we discovered every possible amino acid and every enzyme in foods that make our bodies sick or healthy? I don't think so. So for you to say we can get all the nutrition we need from plant matter is simply unfounded, and probably dangerous on the assumption.

As for the issue of calcium consumption as a way to strengthen bones, I agree with you that drinking milk is totally unnecessary in keeping healthy strong bones. Sources of calcium can be found in many vegetables and fruits and the key to strong bones, is regular exercise where demands are placed on the bones. Impact resistance training such as lifting weights and running, all strengthen bones. But exercising causes an increase acidic level in your body, so consuming plenty of water and leafy green vegetables help to neutralize these acids.

[jayscheuerle]

jayscheuerle:

I think it's more depressing that you consider a nine year-old child to be a lost cause. The only reason those kids are on the wrong path is a lack of decent parenting and decent education. And how do they end up in this situation? Because their parents and grandparents were probably denied the same.

It's extremely disappointing that you consider these people to have fulfilled their potential. Even the brightest child will struggle to get ahead if he or she is denied the opportunities in life that many of us take for granted.

Brize, you're handing me textbook, not real life. Rotten parenting, kids raising kids, tired grandparents raising kids, these are the situations. Passed on habits of indecency, violence, laziness, poor nutrition, low expectations and unrealistic ideals of entertainment careers are all problems. The seeds of a decent education are available to these kids, but teachers can't teach amid a classroom of chaos, a classroom full of kids that don't respect authority, a classroom full of kids whose parents expect the school to raise them. The problem is that a negative attitude and mindset are often sculpted before a child even enters school. Did you ever see a 3! year old kid riding on his 13 year old brother's handlebars while the older brother/babysitter and his buddies curse and litter and insult and teach the kid by example how to live his life? This happens every day. This IS everyday. There's no denial here. A few driven kids use the tools provided to them and better their lives every day. It's an inability to escape a cycle and an inability to recognize opportunity when it's right in front of you that is the problem.

I'm worried that the 9 year olds will live up to their potential. I've seen this potential and read about it every day in the paper. This is not a simple problem of giving more, being more open-minded, more understanding, more shepherding. Complacency and sympathy are problems, because they hold society responsible for personal failures. How do you break into the cycle, into the family, and show a child that there are better alternatives to life? How do you teach respect, work ethics and nutrition to a kid who's going to have it all whisked away the moment he's back in his everyday surroundings?

This is a huge and difficult long-term problem with the best of solutions probably entailing sacrifice from those who are affected. How do you convince an adult that it's better to raise 1 child well than half a dozen not at all and yet not interfere with their reproductive rights? I could go on and on. Obviously, sticking our heads in the sand will do nothing to better the situation, and it's one that's only getting worse because we've ignored the real problems for so many decades. Opportunities are there for everyone willing to work and sacrifice. - j

[Dutch13]

Are we so vain as to think we know everything thing there is to know about the effects of eating plant matter or meat has on our bodies? Have we discovered every possible amino acid and every enzyme in foods that make our bodies sick or healthy? I don't think so. So for you to say we can get all the nutrition we need from plant matter is simply unfounded, and probably dangerous on the assumption.


You are right. There is plenty that is still unknown about how our bodies work and certainly even much much more that I don't know. But I don't think my claim is based on vanity. Amino acids are fairly simple and have been studied down to the atomic level. I think you will be hard pressed to find a scientist that believes we contain an unknown amino acid. As for enzymes, which are protiens and more complex, I can't say, you may be right. Bioflavinoids are even more of an unknown. But I don't think that leads to your assertion that what I said is unfounded.

Since plenty of vegans live healthy lives for long periods of time, that in itself shows that it is possible to get all the nutrition we need from plant foods. And studies that compare the health of vegetarians/vegans to meateaters, measured by longevity and the incidence of disease, generally show that vegetarians tend to have better health. Of course many things affect health in addition to diet so it's unwise to rely on just one study or even a few. But when examined as a whole, that trend seems to be there.

There will always be unknowns--that does nothing to support conclusions on the benefits or detriments of meat or plant foods. But perhaps what you are getting at is that since not everything is known, we should stick with the status quo. While a reasonable idea, I would suggest that the problem with that line of thinking is that it assumes the status quo is a good thing. Personally, I'm bothered by the status quo of obesity, heart disease, and cancer.

[bryanc]

Have we discovered every possible amino acid...

Um...yeah, we have. There are 20 naturally occurring amino acids, and this has been known for a long time. You can get all of them from plant sources (although some plant proteins are low in certain amino acids).


So for you to say we can get all the nutrition we need from plant matter is simply unfounded, and probably dangerous on the assumption.

It's not an assumption. There are many strictly vegetarian cultures, and those people are healthy after countless generations without meat. In fact, it has been known by nutritionists that the less meat in one's diet the better for decades. No meat is best. Eliminating meat from your diet reduces the chances of getting various cancers by up to 40%, increases longevity, and dramatically reduces the environmental impact (references available, but not handy...The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has hundreds of peer-reviewed research studies (i.e., real science, unlike the study cited at the beginning of this thread) that demonstrate the benefits of reduced meat intake). But getting the average American to quit eating meat is going to be harder than getting them out of their SUVs.

I don't understand why so many people find vegetarians threatening. Perhaps it is like PC-users who find Mac-users threatening because they're different, and they might be right.

Y'all know that Steve Jobs is a vegan, right?

Cheers

[Lacero]

Y'all know that Steve Jobs is a vegan, right?

Isn't he a vegetarian?

[Peterkro]

Steve Jobs has been a Vegan for 30 years.

[Lacero]

Steve Jobs has been a Vegan for 30 years.

That may explain why he looks really old for a 50 year old.

[Mord]

he dosent look that old :rolleyes:, he may have looked like crap last expo because of his cancer recovery.

[jayscheuerle]

I don't understand why so many people find vegetarians threatening. Perhaps it is like PC-users who find Mac-users threatening because they're different, and they might be right.

I'd say more off-putting than threatening, often projecting a holier-than-though attitude with a generous heaping of self-righteousness. Perhaps those attitudes some from vegs who claim to do so for ethical reasons. Frankly, I prefer not to know about someone's eating choices unless I'm picking the restaurant or about to fire up the grill...

Now about that steak I cooked the other night with a wasabi-butter sauce...

[Brize]

Rotten parenting, kids raising kids, tired grandparents raising kids, these are the situations. Passed on habits of indecency, violence, laziness, poor nutrition, low expectations and unrealistic ideals of entertainment careers are all problems. The seeds of a decent education are available to these kids, but teachers can't teach amid a classroom of chaos, a classroom full of kids that don't respect authority, a classroom full of kids whose parents expect the school to raise them. The problem is that a negative attitude and mindset are often sculpted before a child even enters school. Did you ever see a 3! year old kid riding on his 13 year old brother's handlebars while the older brother/babysitter and his buddies curse and litter and insult and teach the kid by example how to live his life? This happens every day. This IS everyday. There's no denial here. A few driven kids use the tools provided to them and better their lives every day. It's an inability to escape a cycle and an inability to recognize opportunity when it's right in front of you that is the problem.

J: For the most part, I take no issue with this; we're both able to identify and agree upon the factors that underlie social deprivation. On the one hand, you say that we all have the same opportunities available to us, and on the other, you provide reasons as to why that's not the case. How can a child from the environment that you depict possibly have the same opportunity as a regular middle-class kid to make something of his or her life?

My main concern here is the attribution of blame. You're seemingly comfortable in attributing blame to the siblings, parents, grandparents, etc., yet at the same time, you recognise that these people are themselves trapped in a vicious circle that goes back decades. Most of us have sympathy for kids who don't stand a chance in life, but we're quick to judge them on our own terms when they become parents themselves.

How do we empower people to break the cycle? I'm not sure. Again, this is where our points of view diverge. If we consider the cycle to be a result of a series of personal failures, there's very little that we can do. If, on the other hand, we consider that these communities have been marginalised by society, we've a responsibility to intervene. Clearly, the only way to break the cycle is to target the deep-rooted causes rather than the symptoms, but that's probably best left for another discussion.

[bryanc]

I'd say more off-putting than threatening, often projecting a holier-than-though attitude with a generous heaping of self-righteousness. Perhaps those attitudes some from vegs who claim to do so for ethical reasons.

My experience has been that, if you politely decline a meat-based dish, you will generally get "what, are ya a vegetarian or somethin'?" and if you answer "yes, actually I am" many people will respond defensively or even with open hostility and contempt. Those who aren't immediately hostile will sometimes ask why I'm a vegetarian, and I'll explain the environmental, ethical and health-based reasons I don't eat meat, and that will usually trigger hostility, despite my best efforts to present my personal rationale in a non-judgmental way.

I've pretty much given up, and will simply eat meat in social settings, because not doing so seems to upset so many people.

Cheers

[LimitedEdition]

Even if I was a vegan I would still cook steaks for growing children. These people scare me frankly.

[Peterkro]

Even if I was a vegan I would still cook steaks for growing children. These people scare me frankly.
And have them drop dead in their twenties from arterial clogging(happens more and more with fast food diets e.g. steaks)

[vixapphire]

I wish that people would approach such research findings critically, rather than simply accepting them as truth.

If we look at the design and methodology of this experiment, it immediately becomes clear that there is no basis upon which to generalise these findings:

The 544 children studied had been raised on diets chiefly consisting of starchy, low-nutrition corn and bean staples.

And guess what? When ... How many vegans do you know that live primarily on low-nutrition corn and bean staples? Nope, me neither.

In addition, the researcher, Lindsay Allen, works for the US Agricultural Research Service, who are responsible for 'ensuring profitability for farmers and processors', according to their website (http://www.ars.usda.gov/). Now there's a surprise.


Man, you had me at hello; I'm with the program most of the way through this post; you're right-on about the need for more critical consumption of all the "science" that's out there, and your debunking of the example lifted from the article illustrates your point well.

However, I think you're getting carried away in your last point, which attacks the motives of the scientist based on who he/she works for. Why waste your time when you've already done a fine job attacking the apparently flawed study on the merits? That last point about the "G" makes less of your overall argument because it implies that nothing that any interest-affiliated (including without limit the gov't) study brings to light can ever be trusted. That is not only incorrect, it's imbecilic. Grow up and look around; the government - yes, even the Ag dept. - isn't just out there trying to maximize profits at the expense of health. Please get a grip on the over-generalizations, they're just not credible.

I'm sorry your otherwise compelling statement/argument ended not with a bang but a whimper...

[vixapphire]

And have them drop dead in their twenties from arterial clogging(happens more and more with fast food diets e.g. steaks)

dude, fast food diets = steaks?

c'mon now.

a nice piece of meat cooked at home once in awhile might get you a multiple bypass in your 50's or 60's, but don't be ridiculous; to equate that with the type of junk-food overkill that's got today's youngsters coming down with cardiorespiratory ailments to complement their morbid obesity is totally asinine. when i was a kid in the '70s, we ate steak at home a few times a week. 4 growing kids, what do you want? but we rarely went out for junk food. my dad had a quad bypass in his upper 60's; us kids have all been pretty much off beef since the 80's and we've got no complaints. we're all fit and healthy and within our proper BMI weight range.

so, how's that again about youthful steak-eating leading to "dropping dead" in one's twenties? i'm the youngest of 4 and i'm in my mid-thirties. you wouldn't happen to have an axe to grind, would you?

[bryanc]

Even if I was a vegan I would still cook steaks for growing children. These people scare me frankly.

I guess the millions of children raised in vegetarian cultures must be malnourished. Looking at the rate of obesity and related diseases in American school children suggests to me that being raised vegetarian (or even vegan) would be better for them than the current situation.

That being said, growing children have different dietary needs than adults. These needs can easily be met with a vegetarian or vegan diet, but it may not be the same vegetarian or vegan diet that the parents consume.

My 4-year-old is thriving, but we ensure that he's getting lots of protein (a common misconception is that plants don't have enough protein in them) and he does get the occasional bit of meat. We never have any meat at home, but when we visit other people we eat what they eat, which is usually meat. Our digestive systems are the extremely flexible systems required by the omnivorous opportunists our ancestors were, and meat certainly won't hurt us in the short term. The evidence is that long-term consumption of meat-heavy diets is very likely to cause all kinds of bad things, but the occasional bit of bacon or beef is certainly no threat to anyone but the animal that was killed to obtain it.

The one issue that I rarely hear discussed when considering vegetarianism is the ecological impact of eating meat. Few people, it seems, are aware of the 'trophic pyramid' we teach about in ecology. The energy trapped in chemical bonds by photosynthesis is utilized with only about 10% efficiency by the animal that eats the plant. So, if we choose to eat plants, we're getting the calories and the energy we need to live with about a 10% efficiency. To get the same number of calories from, say, a salmon, you're effectively consuming thousands of times more energy, because, in order to make the chemical bonds that contained the energy in the salmon, that salmon had to eat smaller fish, which ate smaller fish, which ate smaller crustaceans, which ate zooplankton, and so on until you get to the primary producers in the ecosystem, the phytoplankton. And at each stage, only about 10% (roughly speaking) of the stored energy was passed onto the consumer by digestion.

So consuming at lower trophic levels (plants) greatly reduces our environmental impact. This is my primary reason for not eating meat. The health and ethical reasons are also valid, but are secondary for me.

Cheers

[vixapphire]

My experience has been that, if you politely decline a meat-based dish, you will generally get "what, are ya a vegetarian or somethin'?" and if you answer "yes, actually I am" many people will respond defensively or even with open hostility and contempt. Those who aren't immediately hostile will sometimes ask why I'm a vegetarian, and I'll explain the environmental, ethical and health-based reasons I don't eat meat, and that will usually trigger hostility, despite my best efforts to present my personal rationale in a non-judgmental way.

Cheers

you know, people can be pretty lame. gotta wonder why they care so much about your dietary habits as to get defensive or hostile! wow to humankind's tendency to meddle, i guess.

[areyouwishing]

Animals have been used for THOUSANDS of years as a food, and a resource. Humans were MADE to eat meat. Look at our teeth. We can chew anything.

As a vegetarian I chose to not eat meat because of the way animals are treated. Is it "human" to throw innocent animals against a wall while still alive? Is it human to do all the horrible things that factory farms do to all these helpless animals. I chose to not support the cruelties of humans by not eating meat, I do not do it to save a life... that is an added bonus.

We live in an advanced society yet we do pointless acts of cruelty to those who don't deserve it, Technology is advanced enough to where we do not need meat to survive. Some day when nothing can survive on the planet that we destroyed by our own arrogance everyone will be eventually be vegan... mark my words.

Edit: BTW Steve Jobs is vegan.

[Brize]

However, I think you're getting carried away in your last point, which attacks the motives of the scientist based on who he/she works for. Why waste your time when you've already done a fine job attacking the apparently flawed study on the merits? That last point about the "G" makes less of your overall argument because it implies that nothing that any interest-affiliated (including without limit the gov't) study brings to light can ever be trusted. That is not only incorrect, it's imbecilic. Grow up and look around; the government - yes, even the Ag dept. - isn't just out there trying to maximize profits at the expense of health. Please get a grip on the over-generalizations, they're just not credible.

On the contrary; this was perhaps the most important point. If you had an understanding of the way in which science has been used over the years to further the agendas of groups with social and political interests, you'd be better placed to understand the significance of my comment.

It's well established, certainly within the soft sciences, that research funded by institutions that have a vested interest in the findings should be approached with extreme caution. When evaluating the validity of research findings, it's always recommended that you try to ascertain which organisation(s) initiated and funded the research.

If we come across a study that claims to have established racial differences in IQ, for example, and then find that the research was funded by an organisation with links to white supremacist groups, it should be fairly obvious that we need to be suspicious of the findings.

The truth is that science can be used to 'prove' just about anything. It's an incredibly powerful device, and the tool of choice for organisations looking to justify their position or policies. This is all the more relevant in an age where organisations are able to use the media as a conduit by which to disseminate their research findings.

Proper quantitative research (the kind that appears in peer-reviewed journals) doesn't claim to prove anything. Rather, it merely establishes significant probability. In this case, the researcher has used inflammatory language to make a concrete assertion that has no relevance to her research, and this alone indicates that something is seriously amiss.

It could be that she's simply a poor scientist; it could be that experimenter bias is at play, or it could have something to do with the fact that the study was commissioned by the US Agricultural Research Service and partially funded by the National Cattleman's Beef Association*. More than likely, it's a combination of all three.

* According to their website, the NCBA ( http://www.beef.org/) is a non-governmental organisation that works to achieve a dynamic and profitable beef industry, and looks to consistently meet global consumer needs and increase demand.

[jayscheuerle]

As a vegetarian I chose to not eat meat because of the way animals are treated. Is it "human" to throw innocent animals against a wall while still alive? Is it human to do all the horrible things that factory farms do to all these helpless animals. I chose to not support the cruelties of humans by not eating meat, I do not do it to save a life... that is an added bonus.

Seeing as we are animals equipped to eat meat and have done so for as long as we've been a species, do you think it would be more "human" or humane if we hunted an animal down with our bare hands and killed it by twisting it's head off or used a spear that we made without modern materials to take it down? Or are you putting humans on another, non animal plane? It's not a pretty sight to see a lion take down a wildebeest baby, but it's how the game is played. Should we put them to sleep with an injection while Mozart is being played in the background before we slit their throats, drain their blood and THEN cook them up?

I think all this concern for the animals we eat is absurd. We've been at the top of the food chain for a relatively short period of time and you know what? It's not going to last forever. Enjoy it while we can. We'll probably screw it up, but that is our nature. Life always goes on, with or without us. The only thing that will die out with us "intelligent" beings is the burden of guilt that accompanies our big brains. Dinosaurs ruled the earth for over a hundred million years and never thought twice about ripping another creature limb from limb. To think that we're any better than them is absurd until we've lasted as long as they did. Let's revisit this in a hundred million years or so...

[Aeolius]

I’m a second-hand vegetarian; I only eat animals that eat vegetables. :D

[Aeolius]

My experience has been that, if you politely decline a meat-based dish, you will generally get "what, are ya a vegetarian or somethin'?"...

I’m more particular than a vegan or vegetarian... I am that most dreaded of all creatures; the fussy eater.

I don’t each chicken or other poultry because I don’t like the taste, smell, or texture. I won’t eat pork tenderloin, because it tastes like chicken, but I do eat bacon and BBQ. I like seafood, excluding oysters (yuck...), but dislike freshwater fish. I don’t particularly care for steak, because I only eat the lean meat (fat....blech) and frankly, it’s too much work cutting it up to enjoy eating it.

I don’t like the taste of artificial sweeteners and honey gives me headaches. I drink my coffee black, unless it’s Starbucks, which I dislike the taste of. It’s a bit too “chocolatey”, for my taste. Did I mention that I don’t care for chocolate? ;)

I don’t drink milk, but I love cheese. I don’t care for wine or liquor but I’ll drink anything Anheuser-Busch puts in front of me. I don’t care for peaches or pears, but I crave pomegranates.

Welcome to the Aeolius diet. ;)

[jayscheuerle]

My main concern here is the attribution of blame. You're seemingly comfortable in attributing blame to the siblings, parents, grandparents, etc., yet at the same time, you recognise that these people are themselves trapped in a vicious circle that goes back decades. Most of us have sympathy for kids who don't stand a chance in life, but we're quick to judge them on our own terms when they become parents themselves.


Absolutely comfortable. Accepting blame (and responsibility) is empowering! If I'm responsible for where I am (or believe so), the I know the ability to move on is possible as well. It's up to me! By shuffling the blame to someone else, especially a nebulous entity, then I have to wait for things to get better or trust that someone else is taking care of it. That's like being a slave to a higher power. Who should settle for that?

As a personal example: I went through a divorce in the past year. Wife cheated on me. I could have pointed all fingers at her with a big F.U. and moved on bitterly, but instead chose to focus on my part in it and have worked on understanding certain A-hole tendencies or communication blunders of my own that contributed to the demise of our marriage. I'm a better person because of it. My relationship with my daughter (who I have half the time) has improved dramatically and I've got a great girlfriend that I partner with way better and more openly than I ever did with my wife. Accepting my faults and my problems led me to my solutions and my improvements and ended up giving me a better life of my sculpting. By taking blame for the problem, I can take the credit for my present happiness. Blame can be an excellent motivator!

My own best-guess solution is to tie parenting classes (including basic economics and nutrition) to either welfare money or tax-refunds. You can't work with children alone because everything you teach during the day is undone at home. Parents must be involved. Bad or non-parenting affects society as a whole. We've really screwed kids up in the past 25 years or so by lowering expectations and offering blanket praise when there should be none in order to boost their self-esteem. Self esteem without merit doesn't translate in the real world. Trying isn't enough. Ask Yoda. :)

[Dagless]

id be a vegetarian if meat didn't taste so good. it really saddens me when my parents buy full chickens at Sainsburys for like 4.99. i mean is that all its life was worth?

but i bloody love chicken and bacon. dont eat fish, dont like the smell :D, dont eat beef often.

as for kids? no way. thats just parents being controlling. fairplay it may be THEIR morals and values but kids need all the protien, fat and everything they can get. maybe its just a coincidence but the only vegetarian people in my school (going back 4 years) were also the thinnest, palest, most sickly looking kids there.

lasagne for tea!

[Dagless]

...We live in an advanced society yet we do pointless acts of cruelty to those who don't deserve it, Technology is advanced enough to where we do not need meat to survive. Some day when nothing can survive on the planet that we destroyed by our own arrogance everyone will be eventually be vegan... mark my words.

Id rather eat an animal than a tablet. nature vs. man made. isnt the Birds Eye slogal "we dont play with your food" referring to the fact that nobody wants food mauled by scientists or machines in a lab.

we're all talking about how killing animals, may i spout the sacred words "halal meat"?
now my facts are just what ive been told so i dont know if these are 100% true but apparently they cut the animals throat letting it bleed to death, slowly. the meat is left on a pile for weeks and then ends up in the 'culture' section of the meat aisle. hmmm.

if i was going to be killed id rather it was a quick injection, shot to the head, something instant. cutting my throat would kinda annoy me, ditto with a spear through my stomach.

the future wont be any different.

[Lacero]

I’m a second-hand vegetarian; I only eat animals that eat vegetables. :D

You may be joking but this brings up an important point about meat. There are healthy and unhealthy types of meat. Any meat we consume that comes from animals that are "grazers", is healthy and full of nutrients. Animals such as chicken, fish that feed on algae or plankton, cows, deer, lamb and sheep are healthy. Unhealthy meats include pork, fishes such as catfish, seafood (crabs, lobster, shrimp) are unhealthy.

I believe if we reduce or cut off from eating unhealthy meats such as bacon, porkchops, shrimp, etc. we would dramatically reduce the cancer rates. There is a basis for this in some religions, but I believe not all meats are healthy for us to consume.

[Aeolius]

... Unhealthy meats include pork, fishes such as catfish, seafood (crabs, lobster, shrimp) are unhealthy.

While shrimp are bottom-feeders, thus high in cholesterol, lobster are actually filter-feeders and are a healthier food choice than chicken. Granted, after dipping them in melted butter, the health benefits go right out the window. ;)

[Brize]

J: In light of your last post, you may want to change your user profile. ;)

[jayscheuerle]

J: In light of your last post, you may want to change your user profile. ;)

Dag... Is a threeché better than a touché? Ouch...

[Brize]

Dag... Is a threeché better than a touché? Ouch...

I'm a little disappointed that I felt obliged to point that out. It was the funniest profile on MacRumors by far. :D

[jayscheuerle]

I'm a little disappointed that I felt obliged to point that out. It was the funniest profile on MacRumors by far. :D

Nah, humble pie is best served with a side of hypocrisy. No doubt that came from a pre-epiphany mindset and I can see a lot of energy wasted on anger at that point. Live, laugh and learn. Come to think of it, I need to update my profile in my businesses directory... :)

[Brize]

Great post J; I hope that things continue to work out for you. All the best.

[bryanc]

While shrimp are bottom-feeders, thus high in cholesterol, lobster are actually filter-feeders and are a healthier food choice than chicken. Granted, after dipping them in melted butter, the health benefits go right out the window. ;)

I'm not a lobster biologist, but I can assure you that they are not filter feeders. I think some lobsters are active predators (of shell-fish... hence the crushing claw), and others are primarily scavengers like crabs.

I think the central concept here is that of bio-accumulation. As well as the wasted energy that results from eating high on the trophic pyramid, you also face increasing risks of consuming toxins the further up the food-web you move. Low levels of pollutants and other toxins present in the environment will be present in the tissues of any animal living in that environment. However, animals that eat other animals will often bio-accumulate those toxins to very high levels. One classic example of this was DDT that bioacumulated in the apex predators of grasslands in the 70's (raptors) and prevented them from successfully breeding, nearly driving several species extinct. This remains true today, and many of the chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, hormones, etc.) used in agribusiness accumulate to alarming levels in the tissues of animals that are then consumed by people. What the long term effects of dosing ourselves with these chemicals will be no one can say.

Cheers

[Dutch13]

You may be joking but this brings up an important point about meat. There are healthy and unhealthy types of meat. Any meat we consume that comes from animals that are "grazers", is healthy and full of nutrients. Animals such as chicken, fish that feed on algae or plankton, cows, deer, lamb and sheep are healthy. Unhealthy meats include pork, fishes such as catfish, seafood (crabs, lobster, shrimp) are unhealthy.

I believe if we reduce or cut off from eating unhealthy meats such as bacon, porkchops, shrimp, etc. we would dramatically reduce the cancer rates. There is a basis for this in some religions, but I believe not all meats are healthy for us to consume.

huh?...okay, let's hope the cancer fairy is listening. Maybe if we all click our heels while we're at it, that may help too. Btw, I've never seen any grazing pastures in cattle feedlots or chicken factory farms. Just curious, did you actually get this information from a source or did you just make it up?

[Leareth]

I really have no problem with people choosing a vegan or vegetarian diet for themselves, especially if they do it right, too many pale teen vegans around... I do have a problem when these same people have kids and put their kids on this kind of diet, kids have a different nutritional demands from adults, just like teens have different ones from adults, and the parents dont take that into account when feeding their kids. Vegan mothers who dont breastfeed because of the vegan diet, should not have kids, that to me borders on child abuse...
As to what we eat, humans have a digestive system that can digest meat but in most people the gene that produces the enzyme that breaks down milk, lactase, gets turned off by between age 3-5, which means adults cannot break down milk products and have what is called lactose intolerance. Milk is a bad food for adults and growing children, there is a definite link between the growth hormones in the milk as well as all the plastic in our food and water supply, triggering puberty early in females, there are more and more kids whose menarche happens at age 8 or 9, and it is really freaky to see 12 year olds with D cup breasts...

There are problems associated with modern meat, the growth hormones, antibiotic and transferable diseases for sure have an impact.
Look at mad cow, people can get it by consuming nervous tissue of cattle, a couple of weeks ago they discovered BSD in goats, but not only in nervous tissues but the muscles as well, sheep will probably be next to get it...
I wont even get started on pork, just to sum it up, pigs have a biochemistry very similar to ours.
chickens- overmedicated, overbred need I say more

I do eat meat , just not everyday and I try to get it from local farmers not from factory farms but on a student budget that is not always plausible.

I always have a problem with people saying plant foods have less of an environmental inmapct then animal foods, umm pesticides and fertilizer leaking into groundwater, GMO's, clearcutting of forests to make farmland...
and why do so many people have wheat gluten allergies???

[bryanc]

I always have a problem with people saying plant foods have less of an environmental inmapct then animal foods, umm pesticides and fertilizer leaking into groundwater, GMO's, clearcutting of forests to make farmland...

Some farming methods have higher environmental impacts than others, but given the same methodologies used to grow the crops, eating the crops ourselves will have a much lower impact than feeding them to livestock and then eating them. So, other things being equal, a vegetarian diet will have much lower impact than a meat-based diet.

But you are entirely correct that modern agribuisness is extremely environmentally hostile, weather they're growing canola or cattle. That simply isn't relevant to the fact that eating lower on the trophic pyramid reduces your environmental impact.

Cheers

[liqincao]

National Cattlemen's Beef Association pays for Sadistic Anti-Vegan "Study"

http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/ncbs_vegan_study.htm

[Brize]

National Cattlemen's Beef Association pays for Sadistic Anti-Vegan "Study"

http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/ncbs_vegan_study.htm

I'm glad that somebody else picked up on that small funding issue.

What an absolute crock that study was.

[mike czech]

Boy oh boy. There are some REALLY misguided thoughts on this thread. Here's a PERFECTLY HEALTHY 100% VEGAN BABY - mine:
http://neckexersize.com/miles12-Pages/Image4.html

I don't go around telling people how to eat, that's their own personal decision. It just stuns me to hear so many people who have NO IDEA about what veganism is about, or for that matter know much about nutrition aside from what the dairy and cattle industry pays to have them know. Get a clue folks, vegans aren't about giving their kids tree bark or low nutrient corn 3 times a day. My 16 month old son will kick anyone's butt who says he isn't properly fed and raised.

Thanks for listening.

-Mike

[obeygiant]

what erks me is vegans or macrobiotics who preach about animal murder and that we've evolved to eat plants and all that, but still wear leather shoes and belts. But my all time favorite are vegans who are totally against killing animals for food and support abortion at the same time. It makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

[.Andy]

But my all time favorite are vegans who are totally against killing animals for food and support abortion at the same time. It makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

Yeah because abortion is the same as killing animals for the sole purpose of providing something to eat. You sir are a champion :rolleyes:.

How about you keep your inflammatory connotative remarks to yourself if you've got nothing of substance to add?

You make me laugh :p.

[Dutch13]

what irks me is that all the posts by people threatened or offended by vegans are so consistently factually baseless. Can't one of you guys surprise me by stringing together a reasonable arguement, instead of just pulling stuff out of your butt?!

[lmalave]

technocoy:

No worries; I think I understand where you're coming from.



I'd be interested if you could elaborate on this and perhaps provide examples.

I can jump in here. As far as examples of whites that have been opressed:
Irish (by English). Greeks (by Ottoman Turks). White women everywere (by white men). White homosexuals. White religious minorities (e.g. Puritans that after all founded the U.S.).

But more to the point, the opression of "non-whites" by "whites" is a relatively recent phenomenon. It started when Europe started to gain a technological advantage with the Renaissance and Enlightenment, and accelerated with the later Industrial Revolution.

Before that people had been opressing each other since the beginning of human history. Empires rose and fell and people often lived in terror of their opressors. Just to give a couple of examples that come to mind:

- The Aztecs' reign of terror over meso-America.
- Chinese domination over all of Asia (esp. Southeast Asia)

...but you can think of just about any Empire. Yes, every Empire believes they are benevolent and are bringing "order", "civilization", and "culture" to their subjugated peoples. But I'm sure if you spoke to one of their non-native subjects that are treated as 2nd class citizens, they would feel very differently.

[vixapphire]

On the contrary; this was perhaps the most important point. If you had an understanding of the way in which science has been used over the years to further the agendas of groups with social and political interests, you'd be better placed to understand the significance of my comment.

The truth is that science can be used to 'prove' just about anything. It's an incredibly powerful device, and the tool of choice for organisations looking to justify their position or policies. This is all the more relevant in an age where organisations are able to use the media as a conduit by which to disseminate their research findings.

Proper quantitative research (the kind that appears in peer-reviewed journals) doesn't claim to prove anything. Rather, it merely establishes significant probability. In this case, the researcher has used inflammatory language to make a concrete assertion that has no relevance to her research, and this alone indicates that something is seriously amiss.


Dude,
I guess you're right. I'm just soooo "not placed" to understand these things, being rather over-educated and with plenty of work experience to boot. Maybe it's my capitalist, rather than Marxist, predelictions, I dunno...

All's I was saying was that your last swipe at the lady was unnecessary to your argument; you had won the point splendidly and you blew it by throwing in something superbly stifling, namely that when one comes across an argument or data point (or whatever you want to call it) with which one disagrees, it is NOT ENOUGH to simply discredit the fact; we MUST attack and seek to thoroughly discredit the author as well! Heaven forbid that this person ever be taken seriously again - the mere opportunity of further scholarship by this person should never be allowed to see the light of day. Not just because we know she's a shoddy researcher who comes up with pretty worthless "science", but because she's part of a vast conspiracy of red meat promoting corporate swine whose main interest is in the subversion of freedom and the cradle-to-grave forced-feeding of beef to women, children and vegetarians.

Now, are we getting an idea of how the concept of "overkill" works yet?

The thing I find most interesting about red meat and beef in general is that somewhere in the 80's, beef was anointed very unhealthy, to be substituted with chicken, fish and pasta. then, in the late 90's, all of a sudden beef was back in a big way, and pasta has been sidelined as "unhealthy". Where's the science in that, Brize? If I showed you JAMA studies and all the rest, you'd probably be able to trace 'em all back to some corporate sponsor, Halliburton or something.

All of which is simply to say, when you can find a handful of studies on either side of just about every issue, at some point you've gotta admit that, regardless of each side's politics, on the merits one or another is either "right" and one's "wrong" on the point. While each of us would naturally be inclined to call "correct" the argument with which one's already in agreement, that ain't science. Anyway, I'm not saying anything new here; anyone who's been watching the ongoing circus/debate about "global warming" (which was formerly debated as "global cooling" in the 60's, if you recall (thus the irony quotes)) has likely muttered the same things to him/herself...

And by the way, I don't disagree with much of what was in your response; in fact, most of it is pretty elementary commonsense that most any 5th grader has clued into - do you really think your observations are news to anyone reading this thread? The fact that you've condescended in the manner you did above doesn't really justify a response, but consider my two-handed nose-trumpet pointed right back in yer direction, mod note: NO PERSONAL INSULTS.

[polyesterlester]

Has anyone checked the Google ads at the bottom of this page? I haven't refreshed to see if it's constant, but at least right now, they're all for meat.

By the way, I'm a 6'3", 195lb. vegan. So I'm not weedy either. I am awfully white, though, but that has nothing to do with me being vegan, I was equally white before. I just don't tan well ;)

And I don't have any problems with all you meat eaters, either. All my friends eat meat.

[jayscheuerle]

And I don't have any problems with all you meat eaters, either. All my friends eat meat.

Heh... All your friends are meat! :D

[Pat McCarthy]

I don't eat meat because it is unhealthy, cruel and uneconomic - you need several times the amount of land to get food as meat rather than food as cereal, pulse, veg or fruit.

My 16 year old son has never eaten meat. He is over six feet and top of his year (of 250) in Maths and English.

Some think that too much meat leads to too much aggression - maybe a little less meat and countries like the US and UK might not keep marching off to war.

[jayscheuerle]

I don't eat meat because it is unhealthy, cruel and uneconomic - you need several times the amount of land to get food as meat rather than food as creal, pulse, veg or fruit.

My 16 year old son has never eaten meat. He is over six feet and top of his year (of 250) in Maths and English.

Some think that too much meat leads to too much aggression - maybe a little less meat and countries like the US and UK might not keep marching off to war.

This is the kind of self-righteous crap which gives vegetarians and vegans a bad name.

There is NOTHING inherently unhealthy, cruel or uneconomic about eating meat. Eating anything in excess is unhealthy. Health is about a balance of nutritionally rich foods. You can thank your meat-eating ancestors for our big brains that give us the capacity to feel guilt about the "cruel" way which we mass-harvest flesh, but you're telling me that catching a fish and eating it is cruel? The method of mass production may be seen as cruel, but not the act of eating. That's simply carnivorous. I'm sure "uneconomic" comes from the whole cattle-grazing, rain-forest thing. That doesn't mean that all forms of meat eating is uneconomic. Your blanket generalizations show little thought, just diatribe and regurgitation.

Eskimos eat nothing but flesh and they don't have a lot of wars. Hindus don't eat their sacred cows and yet possess a little device called the nuclear bomb. Your correlation between meat-eating and war-mongering is absurd and should have demanded a little more, or any thought before posting.

Healthy people eat meat. Healthy people avoid it. Sickly people eat meat. Sickly people avoid it. Aggressive people eat meat. Aggressive people avoid it. It takes all kinds. - j

[Lacero]

I don't eat meat because it is unhealthy, cruel and uneconomic

:rolleyes: Umm ok. Tell that to lions, tigers, polar bears, sharks, wolves, coyotes, eagles, etc, etc.

Before you cast every normal person as cruel, perhaps you should rethink your completely nonsensical statements.

[Lord Blackadder]

Wow, this thread got a bit nasty. :eek:

Where's Rodney King when you need him?

[jayscheuerle]

Wow, this thread got a bit nasty. :eek:

Where's Rodney King when you need him?

We already have Elmer FUD... :p

[Pat McCarthy]

:rolleyes: Umm ok. Tell that to lions, tigers, polar bears, sharks, wolves, coyotes, eagles, etc, etc.

Before you cast every normal person as cruel, perhaps you should rethink your completely nonsensical statements.

Carnivorous animals, including the lion, dog, wolf, cat, etc., have many unique characteristics which set them apart from all other members of the animal kingdom. They all possess a very simple and short digestive system -- only three times the length of their bodies. This is because flesh decays very rapidly, and the products of this decay quickly poison the bloodstream if they remain too long in the body. So a short digestive tract was evolved for rapid expulsion of putrefactive bacteria from decomposing flesh, as well as stomachs with ten times as much hydrochloric acid as non-carnivorous animals (to digest fibrous tissue and bones). Meat-eating animals that hunt in the cool of the night and sleep during the day when it is hot do not need sweat glands to cool their bodies; they therefore do not perspire through their skin, but rather they sweat through their tongues. On the other hand, vegetarian animals, such as the cow, horse, zebra, deer, etc., spend much of their time in the sun gathering their food, and they freely perspire through their skin to cool their bodies. But the most significant difference between the natural meat-eaters and other animals is their teeth. Along with sharp claws, all meat-eaters, since they have to kill mainly with their teeth, possess powerful jaws and pointed, elongated, "canine" teeth to pierce tough hide and to spear and tear flesh. They do NOT have molars (flat, back teeth) which vegetarian animals need for grinding their food. Unlike grains, flesh does not need to be chewed in the mouth to predigest it; it is digested mostly in the stomach and the intestines. A cat, for example, can hardly chew at all.

[polyesterlester]

A cat, for example, can hardly chew at all.

And that's why it's so cute watching them try.

[Xtremehkr]

Apparantly human intestines are too long for us to have been true meat eaters, the length leads to digestion of fats and other things that more developed carnivores don't. Dogs and other meat eaters for example have much shorter intestines that are more suited for eating meat.

Not that I don't eat meat, but I realize that it is not the best thing for me.

A diet consisting of fish, breads, vegetables and fruit is what is considered to be best for humans.

I prefer fish, so that hasn't been much of a problem. There is a lot more evidence showing meat is detrimental though, denying it doesn't change anything, neither does ignorance.

[jayscheuerle]

Apparantly human intestines are too long for us to have been true meat eaters, the length leads to digestion of fats and other things that more developed carnivores don't. Dogs and other meat eaters for example have much shorter intestines that are more suited for eating meat.

There is a lot more evidence showing meat is detrimental though, denying it doesn't change anything, neither does ignorance.

Hmm... and more hmmm....

[Xtremehkr]

Maybe later I'll dig up the article, I'll have to google it. According to your graphic though, it is impossible for humans to survive without animal protein, is that true?

Oh, and why don't dogs get heart disease? as often as humans who eat a lot of red meat do?

A loooooong explanation (http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-1b.shtml)

Meat has been apart of the human diet, but up until recently is was the lean meat and organs of wild game which is a lot healthier than what we are eating today.

The rest (and proabably majority) of our diet was made up of fruit, grains, leaves, and bugs. This study is a lot more recent than the one I was referring to.

[jayscheuerle]

Maybe later I'll dig up the article, I'll have to google it. According to your graphic though, it is impossible for humans to survive without animal protein, is that true?

Oh, and why don't dogs get heart disease? as often as humans who eat a lot of red meat do?

Heck if I know. We can find articles to support just about any argument that backs up our own personal point of view. On the first page of this thread, I posted a link to the above and a link that had the opposite viewpoint.

It's absurd to point out that we don't have claws like dogs while ignoring that we're even further away from having hoofs like horses, cows or sheep.

Hey! We're not cats! We're not water buffalo! I think our evolutionary line split from them quite a while ago. Monkeys and apes eat lots of fruit, but they also eat insects, bird eggs and the occasional small mammal. Our split from them was millions of years ago anyway. Don't you think we've developed and refined our own nutritional needs during this time?

Meat may be bad for you, but I bet you that most of these people you've seen living to over 110 years old probably ate meat for the majority of their lives. Half of them probably smoked too. There is too much conjecture and sculpted fact in this meat eater vs. vegan debate to come to ANY definitive conclusion.

Bon appetite! - j

(and seriously, would you expect a website called "Beyond Vegetarianism" to have a non-biased selection of studies?)

[Xtremehkr]

That article explains things in detail. Our digestive system is unique and designed to be adaptable. The fact that we evolved eating the lean meat of wild game and are now eating the meat of animals that get little or no exercise (and is a lot fattier) probably makes a difference. Course, meat was also not as prominent as it is now.

Of course, that website may be a little biased too, but it is pretty well researched and comes to the conclusion that meat is apart of our diet but not the main part.

[vixapphire]

Carnivorous animals, including the lion, dog, wolf, cat, etc., have many unique characteristics which set them apart from all other members of the animal kingdom. They all possess a very simple and short digestive system -- only three times the length of their bodies. They do NOT have molars (flat, back teeth) which vegetarian animals need for grinding their food. Unlike grains, flesh does not need to be chewed in the mouth to predigest it; it is digested mostly in the stomach and the intestines. A cat, for example, can hardly chew at all.

I was just brushing my two abyssinian cats' teeth last night (must've been Sunday); tactile feedback from my fingers sure made it seem like they have molars or something close enough to molars back there. strange.

[vixapphire]

There is too much conjecture and sculpted fact in this meat eater vs. vegan debate to come to ANY definitive conclusion.

I wonder if the above-referenced fact was body-sculpted, or if it's just sculpted?

[jayscheuerle]

I was just brushing my two abyssinian cats' teeth last night (must've been Sunday); tactile feedback from my fingers sure made it seem like they have molars or something close enough to molars back there. strange.

They DO have teeth back there, but molars are generally considered to be flat, grinding teeth, not sharp, ripping teeth. Cats (and other pure carnivores) have molars like the Himalayas. Herbivores have flat molars like mesas.

[~loserman~]

What's important is the amount of protein per calorie. Quorn--which is a popular meat substitute in the UK--contains 14g of protein per 100 kcal. Steak generally has about 17g of protein per 100 kcal, so they're pretty comparable.

The idea that humans are 'made' to eat meat doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Unlike carnivorous animals, our digestive tracts are very long, and far more conducive to processing vegetation than meat. Vegetarians and Vegans generally have far better digestive health; they rarely get stomach cramps, food poisoning, colon cancer, etc. The way in which we process meat is surprisingly inefficient; traces have reportedly been found in people who haven't eaten meat for 15 years plus.

Then again, if God didn't want us to eat animals, why would he have made them out of meat? :D

In the animal kingdoms there is another tell tell sign besides just the teeth.
carnivores have eyes that look forward whereas herbivores have eyes on the sides of there heads.

If people eat vegetables....
Then what is food going to eat?

[pseudobrit]

In the animal kingdoms there is another tell tell sign besides just the teeth.
carnivores have eyes that look forward whereas herbivores have eyes on the sides of there heads.

Who's going to break the news to birds of prey (other than owls)?

[skunk]

And sharks? Who's going to tell them?

[Taft]

Who's going to break the news to birds of prey (other than owls)?

Come on, guys. We're really going to compare mammals with birds and fish? Why not just include insects and worms, as well? I'm sure a comparison of our digestional tracts to those of worms would be TERRIBLY useful. :rolleyes:

This whole conversation is silly. As one of the links in the discussion points out, there are boatloads of books written to back up any one of the thousands of different diets out there. Most "evidence" used in these books amounts to physiological comparisons between animals and "common sense" nutritional facts. Both of these ignore what really needs to be studied: how our bodies process food into substances which have an effect by the body and into waste products. All the rest is hand waving.

How many times have you heard the line: I gave up [insert foodstuff here] and I lost 50 pounds, have more energy and am feeling great! How many times did you believe it?

The militants have been pushing diets on me for years, but I'm not having any of it. I have a balanced diet high in veggies and fruit and feel I have all the energy and nutrition I will ever want. Atkins, veggies, and vegans are free to eat how they please, but leave me out of it.

Taft

[jayscheuerle]

Who's going to break the news to birds of prey (other than owls)?

Surely you know their eyes face forward? :confused:

Stereoscopic vision is extremely important to animals that eat things that move. Attacking some thing that moves while you are moving yourself makes it even more so.

[~loserman~]

Come on, guys. We're really going to compare mammals with birds and fish? Why not just include insects and worms, as well? I'm sure a comparison of our digestional tracts to those of worms would be TERRIBLY useful. :rolleyes:

This whole conversation is silly. As one of the links in the discussion points out, there are boatloads of books written to back up any one of the thousands of different diets out there. Most "evidence" used in these books amounts to physiological comparisons between animals and "common sense" nutritional facts. Both of these ignore what really needs to be studied: how our bodies process food into substances which have an effect by the body and into waste products. All the rest is hand waving.

How many times have you heard the line: I gave up [insert foodstuff here] and I lost 50 pounds, have more energy and am feeling great! How many times did you believe it?

The militants have been pushing diets on me for years, but I'm not having any of it. I have a balanced diet high in veggies and fruit and feel I have all the energy and nutrition I will ever want. Atkins, veggies, and vegans are free to eat how they please, but leave me out of it.

Taft

I guess I should have been a little more specific and talked about mammals instead of saying animal kingdom.

I'm with you as to people telling me how I should eat or live my life.
If people want to be Vegans then thats fine with me. If people want to eat meat thats fine with me. Why dont people just leave other people's choices alone.

[Taft]

Surely you know their eyes face forward? :confused:

Stereoscopic vision is extremely important to animals that eat things that move. Attacking some thing that moves while you are moving yourself makes it even more so.

You are dead on. For those looking for more info, read this: http://birding.about.com/library/weekly/aa021498.htm?once=true&

From the article:


The eyes of most birds are on the side of their heads. This placement allows them to be able to see the things on each side at the same time as well as in front of them. This type of vision is called monocular vision. Birds with eyes placed like this get a wide area of vision to be able to see danger as quickly as possible. For instance, Rock Doves (pigeons) can see 300 degrees without turning their head. Some birds, like Woodcocks, have their eyes placed far back on the sides of their heads, allowing them even to see danger behind them. However, with monocular vision, birds have a harder time judging distances and have worse depth perception.

The vision that occurs when the field of vision from each eye overlaps is called binocular vision. Birds, like raptors, have their eyes placed far to the front giving them binocular vision as people have. These birds may have a 180 degree field of overall vision with much of that binocular. They have much sharper vision to the front than than their monocular cousins. For instance, the Rock Doves may only have 30 degrees of binocular vision.


Taft

[pseudobrit]

Surely you know their eyes face forward? :confused:

Stereoscopic vision is extremely important to animals that eat things that move. Attacking some thing that moves while you are moving yourself makes it even more so.

Not as much as ours.

My point was that it's silly to judge the positioning of an animal's eyes as a concrete determining factor of what their diet is. Where are an alligator's eyes?

We're scavengers, hunters... omnivores. Like many other animals. Our increasingly diverse genetic mixtures have provided us with infinite combinations of dietary needs and each person needs to find what hers is.

[jayscheuerle]

Not as much as ours.

My point was that it's silly to judge the positioning of an animal's eyes as a concrete determining factor of what their diet is. Where are an alligator's eyes?


Oh YEAH?!! :p

Makes me wonder though... Do WE eat any animals that have forward facing eyes? Do any herbivores have forward facing eyes?

On the sides you have cows, pigs, chickens, alligators, fish, goats, lamb, deer, rabbit, buffalo, horse, ostrich..

In front? Some people eat bear I guess, but they're anything but herbivores.. deep red-brown meat too..

Are any animals that have forward facing eyes NOT predators (at least omnivores?)...

Intersting...

[Rower_CPU]

Oh YEAH?!! :p

Makes me wonder though... Do WE eat any animals that have forward facing eyes?...

Who's "WE"? In some cultures cats and dogs are eaten, and I'm sure you've heard of cannibalism. Beware of painting with too broad a brush...

[jayscheuerle]

Who's "WE"? In some cultures cats and dogs are eaten, and I'm sure you've heard of cannibalism. Beware of painting with too broad a brush...

WE, you know, ME and the other members of this forum. ;)

Any cat eaters here? Puppy chowers? Monkey munchers?

I'm not trying to prove a point. I'm just curious here...

[Lacero]

Not all meats are healthy, just like not all plant matter is healthy.

And I don't think you can make the basis of eating meat if the animals have forward-facing or side-facing eyes. Healthy meats are from herbivore animals. Animals that chew cud, and which animals have cleft hooves.

[jayscheuerle]

... herbivore animals. Animals that chew cud, and which animals have cleft hooves.

Guess I haven't eaten with or looked at a vegan's feet recently...

[katchow]

Maybe later I'll dig up the article, I'll have to google it. According to your graphic though, it is impossible for humans to survive without animal protein, is that true?

Oh, and why don't dogs get heart disease? as often as humans who eat a lot of red meat do?

A loooooong explanation


perhaps if dogs lived to be 30+ they would?

[jayscheuerle]

perhaps if dogs lived to be 30+ they would?

Dogs DO live to 30. They just do it in 4 years...

[Mord]

Guess I haven't eaten with or looked at a vegan's feet recently...

as a vegan i can tell you i have size 13 (14 us size) feet with one toe missing on the toe next to my big toe on my right foot, no cleft hooves anywhere.

[takao]

Dogs DO live to 30. They just do it in 4 years...

if it's the same for cats than theym ust be wicked old already ;)

one is 15 and the other one 13 ;)

[Mord]

i know someone with a 20 year old blind deaf cat that has a lame leg, it still gives you hell if you try and pick her up.

[skunk]

And the connection to vegan babies is? :confused: :rolleyes:

[vixapphire]

And the connection to vegan babies is? :confused: :rolleyes:

it's the cloven hooves thing: don't eat cloven-hoofed animals if your name is Rosemary and you're a vegan babe, because you'll give birth to a devil of a movement afterwards! :eek:

v