|
Post by spamchow on Aug 27, 2010 6:27:51 GMT -5
I, like others on the south pole, am an omnivore. I do, however, lean heavily towards pescetarianism. I don't like eating pork or beef, so the only red meat I prefer to eat is chicken, and I eat sushi. I eat eggs and milk and cheese. I just think, that after watching so many movies about the state of the meat industry (Fast Food Nation in particular,) that people deserve to be informed about how disgusting the treatment of these animals and the way the meats are produced. I'm not a vegetarian, but I am someone who believes in ethical treatment for every living creature.
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Aug 29, 2010 22:04:42 GMT -5
Hoo boy, lot of things to discuss here...
First of all, humans, from the evolutionary perspective, haven't advanced much since our hunter gatherer days - humanity advanced way too fast since the dawn of agriculture (which has led to poor diets, expansionism, and every pandemic ever) our bodies are still best suited to the diets of a hunter gatherer, which is mostly fruits, berries, and meat - we slowly adapted to wheat and milk and honey and stuff like that, but there is still a heavy prevailence of dietary conditions like lactose intollerance, glutin intollerance, stuff like that - humanity has yet to fully adapt to the common diet.
You can argue that going vegetarian made you healthier, but you'll never be quite as healthy as John Durant.
You can also argue that meats cause cancer - what doesn't? Cancer is a natural thing - everybody is susceptable to cancer, since the dawn of man there's been cancer - as long as you have DNA, you're at risk of cancer - now, there are a lot of things that increase the likelyhood of getting cancer, such as smoking, certain plastics, many chemicals, and even high-fat meats, but you can always offset the risk from meat with known cancer-reducing agents, like tea. I'm slightly paraphrasing, since I can't access my usual sources until school starts, but one study shows that drinking 4 cups of green tea a day for a week can reduce your risk of cancer (and every other disease, pretty much) by as much as 30%. What that paragraph is sorta saying is "drink tea, dammit!" but I digress.
Now, I live in Canada, so every meat product I buy is 100% meat, unless otherwise stated (as per Federal Law) - every fast food burger is advertised as 100% beef because it IS 100% beef (from Alberta ^_^) - if the ground beef you're buying also contains pork, it says so. Most beef sold in Canada is lean or extra lean, which removes a LOT of the fat (extra lean meat pretty much all of it, and most Chinese butchers DO remove all of it) and the fat is where most of the carcinogens found in beef lay. In Canada at least, arguing that meat causes cancer is silly, limiting the argument to just pork isn't, but meat as a whole is.
You can also say that going veg has suddenly made you more active, and healthier - it's possible that the reason you suddenly became more active and healthier is because you also cut back massively on all the known unhealthy stuff - colas, sugery foods, and the like - you can SAY it was because you stopped eating meat, but I can say that you're using meat as a scapegoat. Look at it this way, I stopped eating excessive amounts of sugar all the time, and I was suddenly more alert, and did better in class.
Now, let's look at the diet of a vegetarian - you need protien, so how are you going to get it? If it's just a straight vegetarian, you can still rely on animal products like eggs and milk, but if you're going full on vegan? Well, you can eat mushrooms - of all the meat alternatives, mushrooms are the best protien replacement. But what if you don't like mushrooms? Or you're allergic? You need to do a lot of research into this, because beans and soy are good, but they're not perfect (you'll be eating a lot of beans and spinach, and protien supplements are available - spinach is also your calcium replacement) Also, gelatin - it's most likely the boiled animal bones variety - they use them for a LOT of meds as a binder - just sayin'.
So - going over the reasons to go veg - I've demonstraited that humans are not wired to be vegetarians, I've pointed out that meat isn't the only carcinogenic food - junk food is more likely then red meat. I've argued that being a vegetarian isn't necessairally easier. I've pointed out that some un-named arguers were using a life example, but could be padding their case. The only other pro-veg argument is the moral implications, being animal treatment and environmental impact.
Well, I have nothing to argue against that - it's true that it's a big negative impact on the environment, and it's inhumane treatment. But we can't make beef farms use the same practices they do in Japan - Kobe/Wagu beef is expensive because the farming practices involved with it are EXTREMLY cost ineffective - we can't keep cows in nice compartments and give them massages every day, nor can we humainly euthanize them before they are processed into the cuts - beef farmers can't afford it. I have to be on the farmer's side until there is a better solution, and until that point there's little choice, isn't there?
Spiel about PETA:
Also - don't listen to PETA, the people in charge there don't follow their own rules - it's a massive double standard - their real message is "Everybody must negate use of any animal product - don't eat meat, don't kill insects, don't keep pets, don't euthanize animals, and if you're a Type 2 diabetic, you're SOL - also, this does not apply to us" One of the co-presidents is a Type 2 diabetic - she doesn't appear to be dead, so I'm going to go ahead and assume that she's still using her insulin (inb4 any argument - insulin comes from animal pancreases, no ifs, ands, nor buts about it). There's also the fact that PETA is notorious for murdering strays in freezers (which is certainly more inhumane then the option that vets usually use) there's also their sponsering of break-ins, their bombings, and who knows what else?
And now the backlash begins.
|
|
bullskitur
Planet
Intelligence requires not confusing what you believe with what you know
Posts: 306
|
Post by bullskitur on Aug 29, 2010 22:59:30 GMT -5
Short thought
|
|
|
Post by austkyzor on Aug 29, 2010 23:13:07 GMT -5
^ that made my day
|
|
|
Post by struwwel on Sept 10, 2010 12:52:36 GMT -5
Ok I am a vegetarian but not for any specific health benefits or for any moral reason, it doesn't bother me that other people eat or like meat I personally just don't like the taste.
Ironically I live with someone who is at the exact opposite end of the spectrum who has meat for every meal and will refuse to eat almost anything resembling a fruit or vegetable. I've seen this person forcibly give himself 'meat sweats' in a meal just because he can and to be honest for his weight and appearance i'm pretty sure it doesn't do him any favours.
Also I'll admit that being a complete vegetarian is a luxury of a consumer culture which does allow you the chance to pick and choose with out so much of a risk of you sacrificing your nutritional requirements. However it is also due to this there are a large number of people who tend to eat meat in excess due not only to it availability but also due to the fact that we now are able to preserve meat. As part of a hunter gatherer society meat would have been rare and when it was available it would have to be eaten quickly to stop it form making us ill. All shop bought meat now is filled with preservatives (potassium nitrate usually I think) to prevent the development of particularly harmful bacteria which normally would form after a few days. Due to meat being made safe in this way it's allowed for an excessive over consumption. Up to the 50s a family would have meat a part of a meal rather as the main dish or would have only had on large meat meal a week.
Humans are wired to have the ability to digest meat and the past it would have been an essential part of our diet, now however do to consumerism it's now viable to not to. People tend to go associate vegetarianism with being healthy because at the opposite end of the spectrum you have the examples of obesity and illnesses that come with eating meat excessively.
We are also not the only animal with is designed to eat meat but in cases abstains, panda's have both the teeth and the stomach to live a diet of meat however don't as do some other forms of ape.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Sept 11, 2010 10:00:39 GMT -5
Ah, now you see, I will agree with the concept that eating only a smaller amount is healthier for you. While I continue to disagree with the thought that eliminating meat from one's diet is a good health strategy, a lot of people definitely eat more than they should. If you have bacon in the morning, a beef sandwich at lunch and a large steak at dinner, you probably overdid it.
Incidentally, pork isn't strictly a worse choice than beef; it can depend on one's health needs, and what the cut is. Pork tenderloin cuts contain much less fat than a top sirloin for example, and the pork fats have more monounsaturates (good by comparison) compared to beef's saturated fats (bad). However, pork also has a lot more calories per unit mass, making it a poor choice for weight loss. People hear pork and think bacon, but a lot of the better pork cuts are healthier choices than other common meats, as long as you're not drowning them in oil or grease.
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Sept 11, 2010 21:43:17 GMT -5
Pork tenderloin cuts contain much less fat than a top sirloin for example, and the pork fats have more monounsaturates (good by comparison) compared to beef's saturated fats (bad). I bet you'd be surprised to hear saturated fat isn't bad. Just look around the internet and you'll find the scientific literature. However, pork also has a lot more calories per unit mass, making it a poor choice for weight loss. And also that calories are not the main means of fat regulation, which means more calories doesn't necessarily cause weight gain. The main means of fat regulation is insulin, and insulin is released almost entirely in response to carbs. Which means carbs lead to weight gain (and all the diseases fat has been labeled to cause, e.g. cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic degenerative diseases). Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by elephantshoes on Sept 11, 2010 22:41:27 GMT -5
Who gives a damn? If I don't want to eat meat then good for me. If I want to eat meat then suit myself. If I want to eat "unhealthy" foods (even though healthiness is relative) then who cares!! Why bother trying to justify your diet and how it's superior to anyone else's? Why do you care if someone chooses to eat whatever it is they're eating? Just let it be! Let the issue of one's health be up to that person because there's no set in stone definition of health and therefore we cannot set a standard and expect everyone to meet it. We are a diverse bunch and what works for me could work for you.. or might not at all.. Whatever!
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Sept 11, 2010 22:51:26 GMT -5
elephantshoes This is the debate/discussion section of the forum, people are going to ask questions and state their opinions as if their were fact... I think you're in the wrong place if you're going to just question the topic of the thread.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Sept 12, 2010 3:40:34 GMT -5
qooqǝɯɐƃ: I was concerning myself more with achieving weight loss than preventing weight gain, which can be different beasts. Even then it varies from person to person to an extent what works; one of many reasons for this is that different physical activities result in different ratios of the types of calories being burned. Endurance work (like jogging) increases the carbs being burned. Strength work (like weight lifting) burns proteins. A person attempting to lose weight by including a lot of cardio in their exercise would do well to ensure they're consuming complex carbs, while keeping their intake of calories from fat and protein lower, while a serious weight lifter needs more protein*, but probably not as many carbs. I admit my knowledge of the types of fats aren't as complete as they perhaps could be, but monounsaturates are still a preferable choice whenever cholesterol is an issue, as just one example. Which all boils back to my first sentence in my second paragraph before, where I mentioned that which is better (beef or pork) depends on the person eating it, as well as the cut of the meat and so forth. Incidentally, even carbs can come in both good and bad varieties, and are also calories themselves. It's also worth noting that most of the low-carb style weight lost diets are more myth than fact. Losing weight really is mostly about calories in versus calories out, and when you get into carbs (1g=4cal) versus proteins (1g=4cal) versus fats (1g=9cal), you're really just arguing about which calories. Much better than cutting just carbs or cutting just fats is a diet that cuts bad carbs and bad fats as much as possible. *Unless doing really heavy duty weight lifting or working out for more than an hour, protein doesn't need to be significantly raised. The vast majority of people need only about 0.5g protein per 1kg body mass per day, even if doing some strength-based exercises.
|
|
Quinn
Star
[AWD:191c07]
The eye of compromise.
Posts: 580
|
Post by Quinn on Sept 12, 2010 13:42:01 GMT -5
I think it is a lot healtier to have meat and animal flesh in your system, and killing an animal is worth it in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Sept 12, 2010 15:44:25 GMT -5
qooqǝɯɐƃ: ... I admit my knowledge of the types of fats aren't as complete as they perhaps could be, but monounsaturates are still a preferable choice whenever cholesterol is an issue, as just one example. Sounds like you only know the mainstream shpeel of cholesterol. ...It's also worth noting that most of the low-carb style weight lost diets are more myth than fact. *facepalm* Yea that's what everyone seems to believe because of a certain myth that saturated fat is bad for the heart (which stems from the belief that it raises cholesterol creating plaques in the arteries which rupture and create heart attacks.) Once you understand A) what regulates fat tissue and B) what causes heart disease you can stop blaming (saturated) fat for obesity and heart disease. Losing weight really is mostly about calories in versus calories out, and when you get into carbs (1g=4cal) versus proteins (1g=4cal) versus fats (1g=9cal), you're really just arguing about which calories. No, it's not. Like I said, losing weight (and keeping it off) is about controlling intake of sugar and easily digestible carbs. Because carbs and sugar create a spike of insulin in the blood, and insulin is the hormone in control of fat tissue, i.e., reduce insulin in the blood --> reduce storage of fat. Do you really think 200 million Americans would be obese or overweight if it was simply about the calories? You could blame it on their lack of willpower... but I doubt 200 MILLION people are simply lacking the willpower to keep on their diet. But when you put the blame on sugar everything makes sense. Americans (and in Canada and the UK) have been bombarded with a message to lower fat intake, and so they have. But there has still been an increase in heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity (and other chronic degenerative diseases). Yet sugar and carb intake has increased dramatically. Read Gary Taubes book Good Calories, Bad Calories or find one of his lectures on YouTube. (Here's one)
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Sept 12, 2010 16:09:15 GMT -5
Ok, so I've done a little research. What you're talking about is called the "Glycemic Index" and it's a theory that states quickly digested carbs, because they increase blood sugar quickly, result in faster production of insulin. This production supposedly has a link to a lower rate of fat burning.
Now, the diet does have a basis in reality. It started with obvious facts like "sugar is bad" and "veggies are good" which makes it seem legitimate. It's possible to lose weight well by following it simply because most of the advised diets use foods that would be healthy even if one wasn't considering a GI diet. However, according to this theory something like greasy hamburgers are also totally acceptable. Very low glycemic load, low carbs, most of the calories are fatty or protein. Yet we know that eating greasy hamburgers will get you fat. So there's a flaw there somewhere.
It seems there was a long-term study held by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition comparing high-GL (glycemic load) to low-GL diets. Both varieties were relatively healthy diets, the only significant variable being the glycemic load (that is, content in foods likely to increase insulin production, such as simple carbs). No significant difference was found in the health of the subjects.
Now, I agree with you that sugars are bad. You'll notice that I said we should, in fact, be avoiding bad carbs. Just not all carbs. And in fact, if you look up the sort of diets you're referring to in more detail, you'll find that they tend to agree -- complex carbs do not have a high glycemic load because they are not absorbed quickly by the blood. Besides, while carbs (versus other sources of energy (calories)) are not particularly better or worse for weight loss, an excess of simple carbs certainly can be responsible for conditions like diabetes.
So I agree wholeheartedly that simple carbs should be kept to a minimum. And certainly, that hasn't happened. No disagreement there either. However, complex carbs and carbs in general are not a bad thing. Consider fibre, which can in fact be a valuable carb to have (within reason, of course).
Fat (as in the sort in our bodies, not what we measure in our food) is basically just a storage for energy. Calories are just the unit by which we measure energy. When you burn more calories than you intake, what you are actually doing is burning off energy from your fat reserves. Similarly when you intake more calories than you burn, that energy is being stored in fatty tissues. In humans, 1lb of fat stores somewhere between 3500-4000 calories of energy or so. Most people can lose 1lb by maintaining a deficit of that many calories (it can vary).
And I think that's where things get hung up for a lot of people. 3500 calories is a LOT. You cannot cut that out of your diet in a day. In fact, it's a challenge to try burning that much extra off in a week, and you have to be careful about how you do it. This makes weight loss very slow. And that slowness makes people look to alternatives that may or may not work. But the fact is, fat is stored energy. Energy is measured in calories. Expend more energy than you take in, and fat will be burned off.
Yes, it's oversimplified a bit. No, it's not nearly as easy as that makes it sound. But it's true.
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Sept 12, 2010 17:11:29 GMT -5
Ok, so I've done a little research. What you're talking about is called the "Glycemic Index" and it's a theory that states quickly digested carbs, because they increase blood sugar quickly, result in faster production of insulin. This production supposedly has a link to a lower rate of fat burning. The glycemic index is an oversimplified version of what I'm talking about. Now, the diet does have a basis in reality. It started with obvious facts like "sugar is bad" and "veggies are good" which makes it seem legitimate. It's possible to lose weight well by following it simply because most of the advised diets use foods that would be healthy even if one wasn't considering a GI diet. However, according to this theory something like greasy hamburgers are also totally acceptable. Very low glycemic load, low carbs, most of the calories are fatty or protein. Yet we know that eating greasy hamburgers will get you fat. So there's a flaw there somewhere.Here's the flaw "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes, "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes", 1892 (It's in your reasoning). It seems there was a long-term study held by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition comparing high-GL (glycemic load) to low-GL diets. Both varieties were relatively healthy diets, the only significant variable being the glycemic load (that is, content in foods likely to increase insulin production, such as simple carbs). No significant difference was found in the health of the subjects. I wouldn't form an opinion based on one study. Fat (as in the sort in our bodies, not what we measure in our food) is basically just a storage for energy. Calories are just the unit by which we measure energy. When you burn more calories than you intake, what you are actually doing is burning off energy from your fat reserves. Similarly when you intake more calories than you burn, that energy is being stored in fatty tissues. In humans, 1lb of fat stores somewhere between 3500-4000 calories of energy or so. Most people can lose 1lb by maintaining a deficit of that many calories (it can vary). And I think that's where things get hung up for a lot of people. 3500 calories is a LOT. You cannot cut that out of your diet in a day. In fact, it's a challenge to try burning that much extra off in a week, and you have to be careful about how you do it. This makes weight loss very slow. And that slowness makes people look to alternatives that may or may not work. But the fact is, fat is stored energy. Energy is measured in calories. Expend more energy than you take in, and fat will be burned off. Yes, it's oversimplified a bit. No, it's not nearly as easy as that makes it sound. But it's true. I guess you didn't watch the vid I linked above, hear him out. As I quoted above: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." That becomes abundantly clear when you research diet and health deep enough(*cough* Ancel Keys *cough*). So here it is again.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Sept 12, 2010 17:52:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Sept 13, 2010 20:26:52 GMT -5
I think I've stayed out of this topic because a lot of vegetarians try to guilt trip me into whatever they believe...
|
|
Quinn
Star
[AWD:191c07]
The eye of compromise.
Posts: 580
|
Post by Quinn on Sept 15, 2010 16:53:26 GMT -5
I think I've stayed out of this topic because a lot of vegetarians try to guilt trip me into whatever they believe... same here???
|
|
|
Post by struwwel on Sept 16, 2010 9:23:43 GMT -5
I think I've stayed out of this topic because a lot of vegetarians try to guilt trip me into whatever they believe... vegans are even worse I find a lot of them have a sense of moral superiority even with out bringing diet into account. Those that try to put people on a guilt trip are a very vocal minority, but remember that it works both ways most vegetarians have to put up with constantly being asked: "why" "how can you live with out meat, it's so delicious" "So you wouldn't eat meat even if you had to starve to death" or worse "Oh but you should try this it's really good"
|
|
ryan
Moon
Posts: 110
|
Post by ryan on Feb 13, 2011 14:04:24 GMT -5
i think its natural...like certain animals eat things alive.....so its just meat../
|
|
ryan
Moon
Posts: 110
|
Post by ryan on Feb 15, 2011 16:28:40 GMT -5
look at the food pyramid....
|
|