My situation is very similar to yours giant. I haven't eaten meat on a regular basis in a long time, but I've been a lot of places and done a lot of things. After years without meat I almost died eating some goat meat in Africa. I was a three day hike from anywhere but my body couldn't handle the stuff. So I try to keep my body from being that deprived in case I end up in a situation where I have to eat meat.
I horked down a Teen Burger from A&W a couple of months ago. It tasted good, but I puked the $$$$er out about an hour later. I also puked eating asparagas when I was a kid. Point to this? No.
Anyway. Um.
What the hell would I eat if I didn't eat meat? What's left? There's like... chicken soup... errr... broth, spaghetti and meatballs... err.. spaghetti, uh, cereal, beans.... uh... like, soup.... uh...
Sorry, meat is too yummy, I like eating chemicals, and since I have conditioned myself not to think about the animals, it's pretty easy not to feel bad about it.
heh
You can't even have broth because it often has a meat stock. You have to actually check with restaurants to see if the soup in question is made with vegetarian stock. Believe me, my mom is a vegetarian and I work part-time in a restaurant. So you're left with beans.
Tobacco? Are you serious? Because every vegetarian eats tobacco
What about the guy who EATS 12 ounces of broccoli vs the rib-eye every day? Yeah, thats what I thought.
No, but they eat other things that could also be as vaguley carcinogenic as meat. Tobacco is of course an most extreme example of a plant that WILL give you cancer. There are other plants, seeds, byproducts that people do eat that also increase the risk of cancer.
Great, so what about fish, other seafood, poultry, pork, etc? Show me a scientific study that directly correlates the consumption of "meat" to increased chances of getting cancer and heart disease...other than something I'd find sponsored by PETA.
Great, so what about fish, other seafood, poultry, pork, etc? Show me a scientific study that directly correlates the consumption of "meat" to increased chances of getting cancer and heart disease...other than something I'd find sponsored by PETA.
Here's the first thing that popped up in the most obvious google search
"However these results are preliminary and were obtained from analysis of only three individuals.
"Large-scale population studies would be needed to prove if this molecule has any role in human disease including cancer."
A spokesman for the British Dietetic Association told BBC News Online: "We would encourage people to eat a balanced diet based mainly on starchy carbohydrates, fruit and vegetables with small amounts of protein from a variety of sources, including dairy, vegetables, meat, fish and poultry."
They make no claims that the particular sugar causes cancer. They only say hypothetically it's possible, because it might activate your immune system somehow. That's almost like saying catching a cold increases your risk of cancer.
They make no claims that the particular sugar causes cancer. They only say hypothetically it's possible, because it might activate your immune system somehow. That's almost like saying catching a cold increases your risk of cancer.
Dr. Eugene to the rescue. Holding uninformed opinions and still didn't even think that there might be evidence suggesting a link between that particular sugar and cancer.
Then we have BR scans the article for whatever he can attack, ignoring that all the study showed was that the human body absorbs it. Nice try at a stupid attack.
Clearly, both of you just want to argue without actually spending any time learning about it.
Anyway, I don't know one way or the other. I don't do the research and don't have the training to understand the links. The one thing I do know is that I hear left and right about studies suggesting a link to cancer. To be honest, I really don't think about it at all, but now that I have as a result of this thread, I'll probably keep my eyes peeled.
Here's another thing that came up in the same search.
[B]the problem with (most) vegetarians is that they are snobs and think they are up on some pedastal.
Some kind of pedestal? Please do go and explain this one. Let me make this clear.
*I* was uncomfortable with eating meat. *I* had a problem with it. *I* had problems with animal cruelty. *I* made a decision. Never once did I say you were wrong or immoral or an idiot for eating meat, unlike many here who make fun of vegetarians for simply being vegetarian.
Quote:
don't tell me I don't care. I have no idea what values I have and what i care about. People have eaten meet for thousands of years and only the minority now don't.
Honestly, if it mattered all that much to you, you would do it. If something bothers you, you fix it or do what you can. That's my opinion on things.
If you have no idea what values you have or care about that's a problem for you and your therapist. Oh, and for the record, people have been killing each other for thousands of years too. Does that make it any better?
Quote:
I burn thousands of calories everyday, I need protein. Meat is an important part of my diet. I know and understand what goes on in the raising of animals. and I would support any cause to stop the problems. But I'm not going to stop eating meat.
Everyone needs protien. You just don't need animal protien. I burn off thousands of calories everyday too, and I'm in perfect health. It's the protien that's important, not the meat. So you care about the problem, but you just don;t do anything to stop it? Is this a new definition of "care" that someone came up with?
I believe, that some people go on these crusades for animal protection, as a method to make themselves feel as if they are doing something to change the world, while knowingly, ignoring the larger more important issues. We have a fundamental obligation to protect human rights for all, and should not turn our attention away, even though the task is difficult.
Or some people take those larger issues to bigger depths. I am politicaly active. I am active in helping and volunteering for all causes I believe in. Human rights is one, the environment is another, and a push toward rational and effective poltics is my favorite. I am as outspoken on those as I am on any and every cause I believe in.
What's wrong with trying to make the world a better place?
I'd say that, in general, the human body needs *way* less meat than most people eat. I'd even go so far as to say that for most people, meatless is a viable alternative.
Seemingly not for this body, after years of attempts at a vegetarian diet. \
I see eating meat as a dietary 'restriction', rather like a medical diet. I eat it because if I don't, I feel like utter crap after a while (a few weeks), and *nothing* I have found, from all of the highly supportive vegan and vegetarian friends and family, has done any good over the months that follow. Just red meat. There's something about it that my body craves, on a very deep level. After years of fighting it, I decided to just listen to my damned body, and give it what it asks for. Which is mostly fruits and veggies, as little refined sugar as possible, some bread, cheese, and... red meat every so often. Beef only because it's easier to get, my body really wants venison or buffalo. *shrug* (Ostrich isn't a bad substitute, and rather tasty.)
Because I choose to eat it, I find the most humane sources I can, and only support those wherever possible. It's that whole voting with my wallet as a consumer thing...
I mean come on, the Dalai Lama eats meat on the advice of his doctor. Think of it as a medical necessity for some people. \
I have no problems with that. My cousin had to start eating meat again for health reasons, he kept losing weight. And after he hit about 100 lbs the doctor told him he had no choice.
Participating in life means causing death. No way around it. And we all draw lines about what's okay to kill, and what's not okay to kill.
No, killing another living being is bad. Unless it's for survival. And I don't need to kill to survive, especially in today's world.
Quote:
Even the most dedicated vegan has an immune system that kills microorganisms and more complex multicellular parasites. If you're going to chant "A rat is an alligator is cow is a man", then why not add "...is a plasmodium falciparum is a bacillus anthracis"? (Okay, not counting the fact that those words are a lot harder to chant.)
We kill insects and arachnids all of the time, purely by accident or disregard, even when we don't go out of our way to kill them. A lumbering human body, especially one that wields large machinery, can't help but crush tiny lives all of the time. For instance, I've founds moths and spiders crushed in the hinges of doors. We are forced by merely existing to make choices about what organisms will die and which will get our protection. Perhaps there is something noble in trying to expand the circle of protection that we recognize, but that circle can never be inclusive of all life.
Bacillius Antracius? Way to kill a chant there buddy... If it's me or a virulent bacteria, it's the bacteria that's going down. i'm talking about a living breathing animal and not single celled organisms that kill everything in their path. Next you'll be trying to save the necrotizing fasciatus... :P
Quote:
Okay, then. Perhaps you only care about what happens to warm, fuzzy or feathery animals, especially the ones humans often consider "cute". You're still imposing your own human standards on what lives and dies, but if it that makes you feel righteous, so be it. You're still not off the hook.
Yes because cows and chickens are just as cute as dogs and cats. What makes you think that you aren't imposing human standards on what lives and dies by eating meat?
And I made no claims about being righteous, all of you others made claims about my righteousness. Guess what? righteousness belongs in discussion of religion and not here. I am merely doing what I think is the right thing, and is in fact, the right thing for ME. I never made any claims that you were a barbarian for eating meat.
Quote:
I'm also not convinced that humans can be totally free of animal products in their diets. From everything that I've heard, no strictly animal-product free diet contains all of the nutrients needed for human health. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at some point you'll need at least traces of animal-derived nutrients or you'll get very ill, if not die. Perhaps someday we'll be able to chemically synthesize these nutrients without the use of animals, but this certainly won't help support the pretense of veganism being "natural".
Let me correct you here. SOME people need animal enzymes and protiens. If you're anemic or what not you do. I take b-12 and make sure to eat as properly as I can with balanced meals. Like I said before 12 years and as healthy, if not more so than any of you meat eaters. Without being vegetarian, my cholesterol would be terrible (it's genetic). So actually I've been healthier since I turned. I have a cousin who'se been vegan for almost 30 years. She's had 6 kids and is in perfect health.
Quote:
I'm all for reducing meat consumption, both for health and so that we can feed more people more efficiently. I'm all for improving the treatment of animals that are raised for food. Back to the original thread topic, I'm all for not causing animals pain in order to appease stupid human ideas about animal fashion. But I'm also tired of vegetarians and vegans with their blinders up, who don't understand the big picture of the cycle of life and death in which they are firmly embedded along with everyone else.
Almost as bad as blind meat eating ditto heads who don't care or understand about what they put in their bodies or how it gets there. As long as they fill their belly with meat it's all ok.
For the record, human beings have removed themselves form the "circle of life" nonsense you people are spewing. We have seperated from nature a long long time ago. We have created our own food chain.
They make no claims that the particular sugar causes cancer. They only say hypothetically it's possible, because it might activate your immune system somehow. That's almost like saying catching a cold increases your risk of cancer.
There have been studies for years showing that animal cells carry more carcinogens than plant cells. and other studies that have shown a 15% decrease in cancer among vegetarians.
There have been studies for years showing that animal cells carry more carcinogens than plant cells. and other studies that have shown a 15% decrease in cancer among vegetarians.
Most of them seem to deal specifically with trans-fats and the ways in which the meat is cooked or not cooked enough. Any links to studies that avoid these clichéd findings would be nice.
Most of them seem to deal specifically with trans-fats and the ways in which the meat is cooked or not cooked enough. Any links to studies that avoid these clichéd findings would be nice.
I'll see what's published online. And the studies I read were not about cooking or not. It was about how animal fat cells carry more carcinogens, either picking them up while alive or what have you.
Cliched findings? How can a scientific study be cliched?
giant, what do you mean parts WE skipped over? They're YOUR links, we merely used YOUR links to disprove themselves.
Your latest link provides two explanations. The first is that char is bad. I'm shocked. Really! The second is that nitrates may also be bad. Well, nitrates occur naturally in vegetables too. ... possibly because preservatives are more important to seeds, fruit, etc. in nature than they are to meat...
Did you hear it, or summarize it to yourself that way? If I've ever heard that it was maybe years ago from one of my sister's friends in middle school when she still loved ponies. Maybe you spend your time around imbiciles or maybe you are just creating a straw man to try to be clever. Whatever the case may be, it's a stupid argument.
For the record, nutritionists agree that there it's not a question of meat or vegetables, it's a question of a balanced diet.
Humans are like bears : omnivorous. What is important is to avoid any excess, and eat various food. So eating only eat is bad for us, and eating only vegetables is bad also.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
My situation is very similar to yours giant. I haven't eaten meat on a regular basis in a long time, but I've been a lot of places and done a lot of things. After years without meat I almost died eating some goat meat in Africa. I was a three day hike from anywhere but my body couldn't handle the stuff. So I try to keep my body from being that deprived in case I end up in a situation where I have to eat meat.
That's spot-on exactly what I'm trying to avoid.
Originally posted by murbot
I horked down a Teen Burger from A&W a couple of months ago. It tasted good, but I puked the $$$$er out about an hour later. I also puked eating asparagas when I was a kid. Point to this? No.
Anyway. Um.
What the hell would I eat if I didn't eat meat? What's left? There's like... chicken soup... errr... broth, spaghetti and meatballs... err.. spaghetti, uh, cereal, beans.... uh... like, soup.... uh...
Sorry, meat is too yummy, I like eating chemicals, and since I have conditioned myself not to think about the animals, it's pretty easy not to feel bad about it.
heh
You can't even have broth because it often has a meat stock.
Originally posted by Eugene
Who's going to get cancer first, the guy who chews on 12 ounces of tobacco or 12 ounces of rib-eye every day?
Tobacco? Are you serious? Because every vegetarian eats tobacco
What about the guy who EATS 12 ounces of broccoli vs the rib-eye every day? Yeah, thats what I thought.
Originally posted by Willoughby
Tobacco? Are you serious? Because every vegetarian eats tobacco
What about the guy who EATS 12 ounces of broccoli vs the rib-eye every day? Yeah, thats what I thought.
No, but they eat other things that could also be as vaguley carcinogenic as meat. Tobacco is of course an most extreme example of a plant that WILL give you cancer. There are other plants, seeds, byproducts that people do eat that also increase the risk of cancer.
Great, so what about fish, other seafood, poultry, pork, etc? Show me a scientific study that directly correlates the consumption of "meat" to increased chances of getting cancer and heart disease...other than something I'd find sponsored by PETA.
Originally posted by Eugene
Great, so what about fish, other seafood, poultry, pork, etc? Show me a scientific study that directly correlates the consumption of "meat" to increased chances of getting cancer and heart disease...other than something I'd find sponsored by PETA.
Here's the first thing that popped up in the most obvious google search
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3149062.stm
That's about I know, though
Originally posted by giant
Here's the first thing that popped up in the most obvious google search
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3149062.stm
That's about I know, though
"However these results are preliminary and were obtained from analysis of only three individuals.
"Large-scale population studies would be needed to prove if this molecule has any role in human disease including cancer."
A spokesman for the British Dietetic Association told BBC News Online: "We would encourage people to eat a balanced diet based mainly on starchy carbohydrates, fruit and vegetables with small amounts of protein from a variety of sources, including dairy, vegetables, meat, fish and poultry."
They make no claims that the particular sugar causes cancer. They only say hypothetically it's possible, because it might activate your immune system somehow. That's almost like saying catching a cold increases your risk of cancer.
From the article:
"However these results are preliminary and were obtained from analysis of only three individuals."
Laughable.
Originally posted by Eugene
They make no claims that the particular sugar causes cancer. They only say hypothetically it's possible, because it might activate your immune system somehow. That's almost like saying catching a cold increases your risk of cancer.
Dr. Eugene to the rescue. Holding uninformed opinions and still didn't even think that there might be evidence suggesting a link between that particular sugar and cancer.
Then we have BR scans the article for whatever he can attack, ignoring that all the study showed was that the human body absorbs it. Nice try at a stupid attack.
Clearly, both of you just want to argue without actually spending any time learning about it.
Anyway, I don't know one way or the other. I don't do the research and don't have the training to understand the links. The one thing I do know is that I hear left and right about studies suggesting a link to cancer. To be honest, I really don't think about it at all, but now that I have as a result of this thread, I'll probably keep my eyes peeled.
Here's another thing that came up in the same search.
http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/bo.../meatcrca.html
Don't let me stop you from arguing like a chicken with no head, Eugene.
Edit: I should just also point out what you guys skipped over:
Dr Julie Sharp, from Cancer Research UK, said a third of all cancers were linked to diet.
"There is good evidence that a diet rich in fruit, vegetables and fibre and low in fat and red meat can reduce the risk of the disease.
Who knows though, right? Clearly not either of you.
Originally posted by applenut
[B]the problem with (most) vegetarians is that they are snobs and think they are up on some pedastal.
Some kind of pedestal? Please do go and explain this one. Let me make this clear.
*I* was uncomfortable with eating meat. *I* had a problem with it. *I* had problems with animal cruelty. *I* made a decision. Never once did I say you were wrong or immoral or an idiot for eating meat, unlike many here who make fun of vegetarians for simply being vegetarian.
don't tell me I don't care. I have no idea what values I have and what i care about. People have eaten meet for thousands of years and only the minority now don't.
Honestly, if it mattered all that much to you, you would do it. If something bothers you, you fix it or do what you can. That's my opinion on things.
If you have no idea what values you have or care about that's a problem for you and your therapist. Oh, and for the record, people have been killing each other for thousands of years too. Does that make it any better?
I burn thousands of calories everyday, I need protein. Meat is an important part of my diet. I know and understand what goes on in the raising of animals. and I would support any cause to stop the problems. But I'm not going to stop eating meat.
Everyone needs protien. You just don't need animal protien. I burn off thousands of calories everyday too, and I'm in perfect health. It's the protien that's important, not the meat. So you care about the problem, but you just don;t do anything to stop it? Is this a new definition of "care" that someone came up with?
Originally posted by Mac Man 020581
I believe, that some people go on these crusades for animal protection, as a method to make themselves feel as if they are doing something to change the world, while knowingly, ignoring the larger more important issues. We have a fundamental obligation to protect human rights for all, and should not turn our attention away, even though the task is difficult.
Or some people take those larger issues to bigger depths. I am politicaly active. I am active in helping and volunteering for all causes I believe in. Human rights is one, the environment is another, and a push toward rational and effective poltics is my favorite. I am as outspoken on those as I am on any and every cause I believe in.
What's wrong with trying to make the world a better place?
Originally posted by Kickaha
I'd say that, in general, the human body needs *way* less meat than most people eat. I'd even go so far as to say that for most people, meatless is a viable alternative.
Seemingly not for this body, after years of attempts at a vegetarian diet.
I see eating meat as a dietary 'restriction', rather like a medical diet. I eat it because if I don't, I feel like utter crap after a while (a few weeks), and *nothing* I have found, from all of the highly supportive vegan and vegetarian friends and family, has done any good over the months that follow. Just red meat. There's something about it that my body craves, on a very deep level. After years of fighting it, I decided to just listen to my damned body, and give it what it asks for. Which is mostly fruits and veggies, as little refined sugar as possible, some bread, cheese, and... red meat every so often. Beef only because it's easier to get, my body really wants venison or buffalo. *shrug* (Ostrich isn't a bad substitute, and rather tasty.)
Because I choose to eat it, I find the most humane sources I can, and only support those wherever possible. It's that whole voting with my wallet as a consumer thing...
I mean come on, the Dalai Lama eats meat on the advice of his doctor. Think of it as a medical necessity for some people.
I have no problems with that. My cousin had to start eating meat again for health reasons, he kept losing weight. And after he hit about 100 lbs the doctor told him he had no choice.
Originally posted by shetline
Participating in life means causing death. No way around it. And we all draw lines about what's okay to kill, and what's not okay to kill.
No, killing another living being is bad. Unless it's for survival. And I don't need to kill to survive, especially in today's world.
Quote:
Even the most dedicated vegan has an immune system that kills microorganisms and more complex multicellular parasites. If you're going to chant "A rat is an alligator is cow is a man", then why not add "...is a plasmodium falciparum is a bacillus anthracis"? (Okay, not counting the fact that those words are a lot harder to chant.)
We kill insects and arachnids all of the time, purely by accident or disregard, even when we don't go out of our way to kill them. A lumbering human body, especially one that wields large machinery, can't help but crush tiny lives all of the time. For instance, I've founds moths and spiders crushed in the hinges of doors. We are forced by merely existing to make choices about what organisms will die and which will get our protection. Perhaps there is something noble in trying to expand the circle of protection that we recognize, but that circle can never be inclusive of all life.
Bacillius Antracius? Way to kill a chant there buddy... If it's me or a virulent bacteria, it's the bacteria that's going down. i'm talking about a living breathing animal and not single celled organisms that kill everything in their path. Next you'll be trying to save the necrotizing fasciatus... :P
Quote:
Okay, then. Perhaps you only care about what happens to warm, fuzzy or feathery animals, especially the ones humans often consider "cute". You're still imposing your own human standards on what lives and dies, but if it that makes you feel righteous, so be it. You're still not off the hook.
Yes because cows and chickens are just as cute as dogs and cats. What makes you think that you aren't imposing human standards on what lives and dies by eating meat?
And I made no claims about being righteous, all of you others made claims about my righteousness. Guess what? righteousness belongs in discussion of religion and not here. I am merely doing what I think is the right thing, and is in fact, the right thing for ME. I never made any claims that you were a barbarian for eating meat.
Quote:
I'm also not convinced that humans can be totally free of animal products in their diets. From everything that I've heard, no strictly animal-product free diet contains all of the nutrients needed for human health. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at some point you'll need at least traces of animal-derived nutrients or you'll get very ill, if not die. Perhaps someday we'll be able to chemically synthesize these nutrients without the use of animals, but this certainly won't help support the pretense of veganism being "natural".
Let me correct you here. SOME people need animal enzymes and protiens. If you're anemic or what not you do. I take b-12 and make sure to eat as properly as I can with balanced meals. Like I said before 12 years and as healthy, if not more so than any of you meat eaters. Without being vegetarian, my cholesterol would be terrible (it's genetic). So actually I've been healthier since I turned. I have a cousin who'se been vegan for almost 30 years. She's had 6 kids and is in perfect health.
Quote:
I'm all for reducing meat consumption, both for health and so that we can feed more people more efficiently. I'm all for improving the treatment of animals that are raised for food. Back to the original thread topic, I'm all for not causing animals pain in order to appease stupid human ideas about animal fashion. But I'm also tired of vegetarians and vegans with their blinders up, who don't understand the big picture of the cycle of life and death in which they are firmly embedded along with everyone else.
Almost as bad as blind meat eating ditto heads who don't care or understand about what they put in their bodies or how it gets there. As long as they fill their belly with meat it's all ok.
For the record, human beings have removed themselves form the "circle of life" nonsense you people are spewing. We have seperated from nature a long long time ago. We have created our own food chain.
Originally posted by giant
That's spot-on exactly what I'm trying to avoid.
Stay out of africa then.
Originally posted by Eugene
They make no claims that the particular sugar causes cancer. They only say hypothetically it's possible, because it might activate your immune system somehow. That's almost like saying catching a cold increases your risk of cancer.
There have been studies for years showing that animal cells carry more carcinogens than plant cells. and other studies that have shown a 15% decrease in cancer among vegetarians.
Originally posted by FaydRautha
There have been studies for years showing that animal cells carry more carcinogens than plant cells. and other studies that have shown a 15% decrease in cancer among vegetarians.
Most of them seem to deal specifically with trans-fats and the ways in which the meat is cooked or not cooked enough. Any links to studies that avoid these clichéd findings would be nice.
Originally posted by Eugene
Most of them seem to deal specifically with trans-fats and the ways in which the meat is cooked or not cooked enough. Any links to studies that avoid these clichéd findings would be nice.
I'll see what's published online. And the studies I read were not about cooking or not. It was about how animal fat cells carry more carcinogens, either picking them up while alive or what have you.
Cliched findings? How can a scientific study be cliched?
Your latest link provides two explanations. The first is that char is bad. I'm shocked. Really! The second is that nitrates may also be bad. Well, nitrates occur naturally in vegetables too. ... possibly because preservatives are more important to seeds, fruit, etc. in nature than they are to meat...
Originally posted by FaydRautha
Cliched findings? How can a scientific study be cliched?
The same way anything else can become cliché? ... like the evil dark meat vs. green vegetable of good argument altogether.
We should bookmark this page and see who's alive in 50, 70, 90 (?) years to provide an anecdote.
Originally posted by giant
Did you hear it, or summarize it to yourself that way? If I've ever heard that it was maybe years ago from one of my sister's friends in middle school when she still loved ponies. Maybe you spend your time around imbiciles or maybe you are just creating a straw man to try to be clever. Whatever the case may be, it's a stupid argument.
says you.
Humans are like bears : omnivorous. What is important is to avoid any excess, and eat various food. So eating only eat is bad for us, and eating only vegetables is bad also.
The key word here is balanced.