Vegetarianism is a Higher level View

@manored,

manored;50601 wrote:

My current definition of stupid, from the special point of view, is that which has little to none learning capability.

Some humans are like that. Should we eat them too?

@Zetherin,

Here's what I don't understand . . . why does eating meat (or not) have to be a "moral" issue?

I stopped eating meat in 1972, for health reasons. I first found that meat takes a lot of energy to digest, and doing without it gave me a net gain in energy. As my body cleansed itself of 25 years of eating dead rotting flesh (no prejudice intended Smile

), I went through majorly disgusting eliminations, of which I won't elaborate specifics.

Next I found myself more sensitive to everything . . . sounds, sights, but especially tastes were accentuated (or de-dulled?).

And then, I started feeling a great empathy for all life like I'd never felt before, even bugs.

Now 36+ years later I like being so sensitized to reality, and I like caring for the pain of my fellow creatures. I think it is truly barbaric how we treat animals awaiting slaughter . . . chickens raised in cages, cows never leaving pens, letting the animals hear their buddies being killed before they get theirs. Geez, couldn't we do it more humanely???

That said, it is hard to find eating meat (if humanely butchered) "immoral." After all, if God does not see a problem with predators feeding off other animals, who am I to question the order of things.

Bottom line, be a vegetarian for your own good, and only insist others be more humane as they indulge in pterodactylism :bigsmile:

@MJA,

Quote:

I stopped eating meat in 1972, for health reasons

I'm curious, which health reasons? I know of absolutely no health reasons which would force someone to stop consuming all meat.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;50647 wrote:

I'm curious, which health reasons? I know of absolutely no health reasons which would force someone to stop consuming all meat.

Well, then you haven't read the studies that show the increase of cancer rates and heart disease in proportion to the amount of meat eaten. However, the only health reasons I gave were ease of digestion and increased sensitivity to taste, etc. I will now add: a dramatic decrease in colds and the flu, and when I did catch something, I suffered far less and recovered equally faster.

I am a mere witness, with no "cause" to push. I don't care one bit if anyone else eats meat or dies a long, slow agonizing death from consuming dead rotting flesh :devilish:. Take my report for whatever worth you might find in it. Basically I'd sum it up like this, not eating meat made me feel better, have more energy, taste more, get sick less, and suffer less when I do get sick. Also, as a gourmet cook (or so I fancy myself) I love astounding my pterodactyl friends who say "really Les, is there no meat in this?"

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth;50674 wrote:

Well, then you haven't read the studies that show the increase of cancer rates and heart disease in proportion to the amount of meat eaten.

These studies do not provide any generalizable evidence that NO meat should be eaten.

LWSleeth wrote:

the only health reasons I gave were ease of digestion and increased sensitivity to taste, etc. I will now add: a dramatic decrease in colds and the flu, and when I did catch something, I suffered far less and recovered equally faster.

Which studies show that these effects are generally true among vegetarians compared with age-matched and comorbidity-matched meat eaters?

@MJA,

Quote:

Well, then you haven't read the studies that show the increase of cancer rates and heart disease in proportion to the amount of meat eaten. However, the only health reasons I gave were ease of digestion and increased sensitivity to taste, etc. I will now add: a dramatic decrease in colds and the flu, and when I did catch something, I suffered far less and recovered equally faster.

Cancer: If there's an increased risk of cancer, it's not the meat that's the culprit -- it's the hormones, sedatives, chemicals and other additives you may find in modern grocery meat.

Colds and Flu: I'd say this is all in your mind. Consuming animal fats and animal proteins have no bearing on getting over a cold or flu. Perhaps you had corrected vitamin deficiencies you had prior to your vegetarianism, perhaps you exercised more often due to your increased energy, perhaps you're in a generally better mood due to your obvious excitement for this diet. Meat, itself, however, would have no bearing on this, as far as I know.

Quote:

Basically I'd sum it up like this, not eating meat made me feel better, have more energy, taste more, get sick less, and suffer less when I do get sick

Fair enough, and I feel great consuming meat in my diet, have loads of energy, have an above average palette (used to be involved in culinary arts), and I rarely get sick. Take that for what it's worth, too.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;50682 wrote:

Cancer: If there's an increased risk of cancer, it's not the meat that's the culprit.

The studies don't parse that out, and he is right about an association. So while you may also be right, we don't know that for sure -- all we know is what the epidemiology tells us. On the other hand, it's hard to control for all the possible variables in these case-control studies, they inherently have a methodological limitation and need to be interpreted very cautiously.

We'd be remiss not to mention the beneficial effects of polyunsaturated omega-3 fats from oily fish, which are clinically very well established. While some plants (like nuts, flax, rapeseed, olives, eggplant, okra) are rich in these, the actual fats from plants are much less bioavailable than the ones in fish.

@Aedes,

Quote:

The studies don't parse that out, and he is right about an association. So while you may also be right, we don't know that for sure -- all we know is what the epidemiology tells us. On the other hand, it's hard to control for all the possible variables in these case-control studies, they inherently have a methodological limitation and need to be interpreted very cautiously.

It's hard for me to believe there's a direct connection with animal meat, in general, and cancer. Many cultures, for centuries, have lived off of animal proteins and fats, almost exclusively -- and have lived long, healthy lives, cancer-free. We don't know for *sure*, but I'm positive there are a plethora of food items we could make this same judgment concerning. I'm more inclined to believe it's the addition of nitrites and nitrates, hormones, and other such chemicals added to our food items without mercy. Not to mention the hundreds of other ingredients added to modern food items that distributors don't even have to label as they've lobbied the FDA. If we want to get into cancer, let's not forget those cancers now being thought to be stemmed from the pesticides sprayed onto our vegetables.

Quote:

We'd be remiss not to mention the beneficial effects of polyunsaturated omega-3 fats from oily fish, which are clinically very well established. While some plants (like nuts, flax, rapeseed, olives, eggplant, okra) are rich in these, the actual fats from plants are much less bioavailable than the ones in fish.

Indeed, some of the highest quality (biological value) proteins are from animals. Meat, poultry, eggs, fish, milk, and cheese provide all essential amino acids, which is good news for those that exercise, and even for those that don't as everyone needs general maintenance and repair of muscle fiber. Nutrient-wise, organs like liver, can be very densely nutritious, and are known as the "building blocks" of many bodybuilding diets. But, like anything, there should be moderation.

As long as we show both sides to this issue, instead of advocating vegetarian because we had a good experience, I don't find it to be a problem. Yes, one can be healthy from a variety of different diets, and due to the multitude of options we have in our modern grocery stores and vitamin shops we can correct almost any deficiency we encounter.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;50693 wrote:

It's hard for me to believe there's a direct connection with animal meat, in general, and cancer.

It's epidemiology. This is not causal research, it's associative research, and it's impossible to control for exposure to heterogeneous additives over the course of a lifetime. I'm sure some are harmful, but it's a very difficult thing to demonstrate.

Zetherin;50693 wrote:

Many cultures, for centuries, have lived off of animal proteins and fats, almost exclusively -- and have lived long, healthy lives, cancer-free.

How do you know they're cancer free? Cancer is a common word for about a billion diseases that are mostly unrelated to one another except for a couple common themes. ALL peoples have cancer. Secondly, there are so many other differences between us and other indigenous and historic cultures that the role of this one variable cannot be discerned. Finally, since in past eras people mainly died of infections earlier in life, cancer tended not to be as predominant a cause of death. It's mainly limitation of death from infections and from heart disease that has made cancer grow as a cause of death in our society.

Zetherin;50693 wrote:

I'm more inclined to believe it's the addition of nitrites and nitrates, hormones, and other such chemicals added to our food items without mercy.

Maybe it's all of the above. Maybe it's some of the above including meat itself. You can't make policy without data, and no amount of speculation is going to stand in for data.

Zetherin;50693 wrote:

Indeed, some of the highest quality (biological value) proteins are from animals.

It's all the same no matter where you get your amino acids from.

Zetherin;50693 wrote:

As long as we show both sides to this issue, instead of advocating vegetarian because we had a good experience, I don't find it to be a problem

Agreed. Hopefully you can see I'm trying to take a middle ground here, neither extreme is correct from a purely medical point of view (as far as we know).

@Aedes,

Aedes;50679 wrote:

These studies do not provide any generalizable evidence that NO meat should be eaten.

I know, I figured since this was "off topic" I would offer up my unverified opinion. Some people seem to do better with meat than others (genetics?).

Aedes;50679 wrote:

Which studies show that these effects are generally true among vegetarians compared with age-matched and comorbidity-matched meat eaters?

I claimed no general truth (did I?). I gave a report, and I'll leave you all to make of it what you will. I have absolutely no cause or morality to push, so when I say the ONLY reason I don't eat meat is because it makes me sick (or feel less fit than I do now) to eat it, you can probably trust my neutrality.

After being taunted for over 3 decades about my eating preferences, believe me when I say I couldn't possibly care less if others eat meat or bugs or want to deep fry everything they put in their mouth.

@MJA,

Aedes wrote:

It's all the same no matter where you get your amino acids from.

As far as I know, proteins that do not contain all amino acids are not as readily utilized by the body for muscle repair, gain, or maintenance. This is why it's generally advocated to consume a nice variety of high-quality proteins daily. If one only ate processed, denatured proteins daily (such as processed deli meats, etc.), I don't feel this would be as beneficial to the body. If you'd like some case studies, I believe I have some medical journals concerning the benefit. Just ask.

Quote:

How do you know they're cancer free? Cancer is a common word for about a billion diseases that are mostly unrelated to one another except for a couple common themes. ALL peoples have cancer. Secondly, there are so many other differences between us and other indigenous and historic cultures that the role of this one variable cannot be discerned. Finally, since in past eras people mainly died of infections earlier in life, cancer tended not to be as predominant a cause of death. It's mainly limitation of death from infections and from heart disease that has made cancer grow as a cause of death in our society.

I wasn't referring to past eras, actually. Even my grandparents used to live off of whole milk and meats, and lived into their 90's -- this was fresh food, not contaminated by modern measures of preservation and 'sanitation' (oh, the irony). Many cultures do this. My Turkish and Serbian friends eat lots of pork, fish, and beef, as have their generations of family members, and most are still alive to gather around the dinner table 50+ (albeit those that were infected by the radiation in the Serbian wars)... [Noted: This is just as much a report as LW has written, and obviously my experience doesn't imply conclusiveness]

So, how do I know they're all cancer-free? I don't, you're right. And I shouldn't have implied this is what I knew, it was foolish. I'm also not versed in all the definitions of "cancer", but what I can see is that inclusion of meat in diets does not necessarily equate to unhealthy people, or, at the least, any more unhealthy than those that don't include meat in their diets.

Also, if you have anything hinting at the fact that meat itself causes cancer, please provide me the links. I understand it would be associative research, but if you could even show me that. This is a new concept for me.

@Aedes,

Aedes;50697 wrote:

It's all the same no matter where you get your amino acids from.

Why not get it from road kill dead 10 days? Why not eat pure pork and eggs at every meal? When it comes to eating, you can never get anything without what comes along with it.

There is a well-documented method of getting one's protein through "complimentary proteins." Some plant foods, grains generally, provide some essential amino acids; other plant foods, beans and legumes generally, provide the rest. Eat both in the same day and you can get all the essential amino acids without the cholesterol, difficulty of digestion, predicted cancer risks, or worries about what torture the animal went through on its way to your plate.

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

Why not get it from road kill dead 10 days? Why not eat pure pork and eggs at every meal? When it comes to eating, you can never get anything without what comes along with it.

There is a well-documented method of getting one's protein through "complimentary proteins." Some plant foods, grains generally, provide some essential amino acids; other plant foods, beans and legumes generally, provide the rest. Eat both in the same day and you can get all the essential amino acids without the cholesterol, difficulty of digestion, cancer risks, or worries about what torture the animal went through on its way to your plate.

Yes, as long as you actually get all of the essential amino acids, the protein sources don't matter. The problem is, if all one eats are processed, denatured proteins with broken amino acid chains (or, have some other kind of bio-availability problem), it's less likely to receive all that nutrition. This is why I advocate fresh food - whether meat or vegetables. The closer to nature the better, I say.

As for eggs, I've done lots of research concerning the saturated fat and cholesterol, and it's not necessarily as bad as many people think. I eat 6-7 eggs a day and know many that do, and my cholesterol, blood pressure, and arteries are fine. I think this whole stay away from saturated fat, and this fear of cholesterol really has gone overboard. If you actually do the research concerning saturated fat you'll see there's nothing conclusive pairing saturated fat with heart disease -- it's all still up the air. Associative research, as Aedes notes.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;50712 wrote:

Yes, as long as you actually get all of the essential amino acids . . .

Brown basmati rice and aduki beans, peanut butter on whole wheat bread, minestrone soup (made with beans and pasta), hummus (garbanzo paste) in pita bread, tofu burgers on buns, split pea soup with hearty bread, kasha and lentils, miso soup with couscous, tortillas with refried beans, 100% sprouted bread (Food for Life brand is made from sprouted grains, beans and legumes) . . . all these food combinations are complete proteins. Add a little cheese with a meal here and there, or some milk with your espresso in the morning, and there is very little to worry about protein-wise. I eat like a bird and have no problem maintaining my 165 lb. weight, or avoiding colds.

@LWSleeth,

From another forum called TOEQuest were I have the same thread started comes these important thoughts:

Vincent Wee-Foo
1st degree Black Belt

http://www.toequest.com/forum/images/ranks/black-1.gif

http://www.toequest.com/forum/images/avatars/Monsters%20Inc/Mike%20Wazowski.gif

Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 255
8</SPAN>

http://www.toequest.com/forum/fusion/reputation/reputation_pos.gif

Quote
#48 (permalink)
Yesterday, 11:20 AM Re: Vegetarianism is a Higher level View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graybeard

http://www.toequest.com/forum/fusion/buttons/viewpost.gif

Hi Mikey ....

If Homo-Sapiens started out as Omnivores 200,000 years ago and we inherited this from our earlier hominid ancestors ... then at what point (in your opinion) did it become inhumane to eat meat ?

What I am saying is that we evolved to eat meat as well as fruit and nuts. In fact the paleo diet of the early american peoples is now found to be possibly the one we should all be on. This recommends lean meat around once a week. Some fat is OK, but not often. The diet is around 14,000 years old (and most probably much, much older than that) and its taken us that long to realise what we forgot, that this is a balanced diet ...

This diet has yet to be officially approved. But in relation to this post there is no argument that this was the diet of stone age peoples .... how can it now be inhumane to live on this diet which is responsible for supporting our ancestors and thereby producing us ? And if it is inhumane, at what point did it become so ?

cool bananas ... greg

Hi Greg,

Good question with indepth probes.

IMHO:

At the point of realization.

An intellectual point of having crossed over from not realizing the acts of inhumane that paradoxically perceive such acts as norm for daily necessity for survival in a shut-off state of not realizing the essence of being humane, and therefore not aware at all on the acts of being inhumane.

Two very interesting and prominent presidents of U.S.A had arrived at this point of realization. Abraham Lincoln and Barrack Obama.

Barack Obama: "I Am Now a Vegan".

Best regards,

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Vegetarianism is certainly a personal choice: just as my carnivorous tendencies, despite the fact that I theoretically find meat eating to be morally reprehensible in most circumstances, is a personal choice.

But, even if we admit that the decision is ultimately a personal one, the question of the morality of eating meat remains.

I think that a person who goes out into the woods and kills an animal is a murderer. Its cruel and unusual. I'll buy my meat at the store.:listening:

@Poseidon,

Poseidon wrote:

So then, other people who cry when I punch them, are not actually suffering.
And when I throw a stone at the irritating next door neighbors dog, who never stops barking, and I hit it, and it yelps and runs away, and stops barking for the rest of the day - it did not actually suffer. hmmmm. right.

Again, I touch a worm gently and it writhes like a person in extreme pain.

We cannot say that the experience is similar just because a dog exhibits behavior similar to a person's if it is struck with a stone.

@Elmud,

First of all:

Day 3

Third day of vegetarianism and I am finding subtle differences in several areas. For one, I seem to have hit a spirt of acne (first time in years). I attribute this to the cleansing process and have purchased some special soaps. Along with the intake of a strict vegetarian diet, I am also taking a few supliments to wein myself off of meat including a protien supliment and and a few B vitamins and so forth.

So far, my energy level has increased a good deal and my bowl movements have increased in frequency almost 4 fold. I have also noticed a decrease in sexual desire and motivation. As my energy level increases I find it more difficult to concentrate on tasks at work, especially those of high stress. These are mild changes at the moment but I am recording the trends in order to provide an accurate report by the end of my study.

I have spoken to a good number of my vegetarian friends who are skeptical to say the least but none the less, they helped plan out a healthy diet and informed me of the best places to purchase foods. They have also convinced me to extend my trial period to one month in order to see the most drastic effects.

My current Diet:

Breakfast=
Grains
Dried fruit
8 fl oz. orange juice
16 fl oz. water.

Lunch=
Salad with low fat vegan dressing
Peanut butter and jelly sandwich (wheat bread) with rice cakes
A piece of fresh fruit
12 fl oz. fruit juice
24 fl oz. water

Dinner=
Rice and Beans
Salad /No dressing
1 Red Apple
Curry with tofu and noodles
various other dishes which I have not tried yet but are on my list
10 fl oz. Red Wine
16 fl oz. water

Various grain bars, dried fruits, so forth as snacks in between and a total of 2 liters of water per day.

Second of all:

I just thought that I would point out how comical it is that we discuss the morality of this situation when there is no such thing as vegetarianism or veganism in third world countries. Does this make all third world people immoral?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;50702 wrote:

As far as I know, proteins that do not contain all amino acids are not as readily utilized by the body for muscle repair, gain, or maintenance.

I understand what you're saying, but I'll clarify this for you.

Our DNA can specify 20 amino acids that comprise the proteins and enzymes we need for life.

While we need to have protein in our diet, a reasonably well-nourished person has enormous protein stores (in your own muscle), so what you do with this or that meal doesn't really matter in the big picture.

Furthermore, we can can synthesize de novo 12 of the 20 dietary amino acids. So only 8 are essential to get from our diet.

It is easy to have a vegetarian diet in which you get all 20 necessary amino acids in abundance. You're not going to find all 20 in a single food, but it doesn't matter so long as the diet overall is well balanced. Vegans can still do it using combinations of legumes, whole grains, and rice. Vegetarians who drink dairy have it easy.

Next, processed and cooked meats are probably more bioavailable (easily digested and absorbed). That doesn't mean they don't give you a crapload of sodium or whatever, but that's not what we're talking about.

Zetherin wrote:

If you'd like some case studies, I believe I have some medical journals concerning the benefit. Just ask.

Go for it, but I'm going to look at the methodology and not just the conclusions if you post an article. The generalizability of a study is inextricably linked to its methods.

Zetherin wrote:

what I can see is that inclusion of meat in diets does not necessarily equate to unhealthy people, or, at the least, any more unhealthy than those that don't include meat in their diets.

If you control for ALL other variables, like age, demographics, comorbidities (other illnesses), body habitus, physical activity, etc, I'd bet that you're right -- that it would take a study of millions of people to show any difference between the two.

I'd bet, on the other hand, that meat eaters are more likely to have gout and high cholesterol if you study it right.

Zetherin wrote:

Also, if you have anything hinting at the fact that meat itself causes cancer, please provide me the links. I understand it would be associative research, but if you could even show me that. This is a new concept for me.

I never said "causes cancer". That's not the argument.

There are over 1400 articles in the medical literature that look into this question some way or another, and they are not unanimous (but the study populations and study questions are very different). There is a consistent trend towards showing that high fruit/veggie and low meat diets are protective. Here are a few citations that show up in the first page of my search.

Nutr Cancer. 2009;61(2):179-93. Colon cancer (and obesity) were associated with a higher meat diet and negatively associated with a high fruit / vegetable diet. This was an interview-based study of >600 colon cancer patients and >1000 controls in North Carolina.

Minerva Stomatol. 2009 Jan-Feb;58(1-2):25-34. Fruits and vegetables were associated with a lower risk of oropharyngeal cancer.

Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Feb 11. [Epub ahead of print] Lower risk of breast cancer in Asian-American women with low meat consumption (This study is contradicted by a better study that also has come out in 2009)

Cancer Res. 2009 Feb 1;69(3):932-9. Epub 2009 Jan 13 Red meat was independently associated with lung cancer among non-smokers. They also looked into processed meat and 'meat mutagens' (produced by high cooking temperatures) and found that they were also associated with lung cancer.

Zetherin wrote:

Yes, as long as you actually get all of the essential amino acids, the protein sources don't matter.

And it doesn't all have to be in one mouthful. It can be different meals or different days.

Zetherin wrote:

The problem is, if all one eats are processed, denatured proteins with broken amino acid chains (or, have some other kind of bio-availability problem), it's less likely to receive all that nutrition.

That has been contradicted by some research that shows that cooked foods are 30% more bioavailable than uncooked foods (including meat). Who cares if amino acid chains are broken, we secrete gastrin from the stomach and trypsin and chymotrypsin from the pancreas specifically to break polypeptides into single amino acids.

Zetherin wrote:

As for eggs, I've done lots of research concerning the saturated fat and cholesterol, and it's not necessarily as bad as many people think. I eat 6-7 eggs a day and know many that do, and my cholesterol, blood pressure, and arteries are fine.

N=1. There is a strong genetic component to this. You cannot and should not generalize based on your own fortunate ability to handle a load of dietary saturated fat or cholesterol. I don't eat even close to that amount of eggs or meat, yet I've got to take Crestor to keep my LDL down -- and it runs in the family.

Zetherin wrote:

I think this whole stay away from saturated fat, and this fear of cholesterol really has gone overboard. If you actually do the research concerning saturated fat you'll see there's nothing conclusive pairing saturated fat with heart disease -- it's all still up the air.

Wrong. That's some of the strongest research we have. Saturated fats are directly linked to mortality, not just heart disease.

@Aedes,

Clean living way to beat cancer

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45508000/jpg/_45508471_apple226.jpg

A healthy diet can help

Over 40% of breast and bowel cancer cases in rich countries are preventable through diet, physical activity and weight control alone, experts say.
Simple measures like cycling to work and swapping fatty foods for fruit can make all the difference for these and many other cancers, they say.
Globally, each year there are millions of these preventable cancer cases, the World Cancer Research Fund estimates.
Its report makes recommendations for "clean living" policies.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif

After not smoking, it is clear that diet, physical activity and weight are the most important things people can do to reduce their cancer risk

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif

Professor Mike Richards
National Clinical Director for Cancer

According to the report, about a third of the 12 most common cancers in high-income countries and about a quarter in lower income countries could be prevented through diet, exercise and weight control. This include cancers of the throat, lung and bowel.

& You have to watch this!

http://www.themeatrix1.com/

Philosophy Forum

Vegetarianism is a Higher level View

Quick Links

My Account

able2know