V is for Vegetable

[Mandrake]

First of all, when it comes to the how-to of eating, I'm not obsessing over details since  I don't think eating is a golden bullet to longevity, and secondly, I'm happy to be wrong when I can see adequate, accumulated studies after some decades still holding up.

The body is incredible in how it can survive in a multitude of conditions. We as a human species have survived in ace-age environments, deserts, rain-forests, coastal areas, and you name it. I learned that we are not made of glass, but some purists seem to believe that based on their attitudes to nutrition.

Suffice to say, I've experimented wildly with diet: I've been a vegan, vegetarian, raw-vegan, followed the Zone-diet, paleo, and some other tweaks. Nowadays I eat and change my diet to accommodate to the state at hand. My goal is to thrive, to have energy, and health. This mostly trumps all the other personal values I have on the ladder. Naturally, there are tons of situations that would change how I eat: being in retreat, having an extremely physically active life-style, being ill, undergoing surgery or skin-grafts, etc.

Regarding Adventists, these people are religious, and I have a small amount of scepticism to groups whose founder got revelations from a god about diet (check it up). Lot of the reviewers were Adventists themselves, or vegetarians. Of course this blurs the lines.
To contrast, Gary Fraser at Loma Linda University found that holding on to the diet lived 10 years longer. But, those who added fish to their diet lived longer than the vegans in the community.

The point is that there is a difference between zero intake of specified nutrient, and some intake. We have a lot of micro-nutrients that we need in small quantities, but if they are not there, that's problematic. And if we get them in large quantities on the other hand, that's problematic too. So veggies vs meat is a false dichotomy. As studies I looked at indicate, the differences between health-conscious meat eaters vs vegetarians aren't that big at all.
And then we have India with the worlds biggest population of vegetarians, and apparently no blue zones at all, not particularly renowned for their longevity. Contrast that with the healthiest countries in Europe (Switzerland, Scandinavian countries, Iceland) which all have quite high consumtion of animal protein. So it's a bit complicated. But I agree that the conclusion isn't "devour tons of steak and eat no vegetables." So yes, you're right in "minimal" if that means occasionally.

The reasons that debates like this seldom lead to anything is that people have different innate values. And you know what, values aren't like physics where you do an experiment and discover something that holds true; values are subjective. I could switch between two opposing values that aren't inherently wrong, and still be well-argued.

For me, one of those values is Nature and eco-systems. Not-killing isn't. So agriculture in general, even vegetables, destroy whole populations of species, kills animals, poisons future generations, destroy lands. So when people go vegan/vegetarian because they don't want to kill, I perceive that as dishonest. We're in a massive chain of death and life, and conveniently sealing off different aspects of how we live and turn a blind eye to some, does not work for me. Californian almonds, cotton, some varieties of salad, palm oil... are examples of crops that either take massive amounts of resources and/or cause extreme damage to eco-systems. But, I don't see people having the same vehement responses to people who consume these crops.

 

In the end, there's lots that we can agree on. More variety in the diet is probably one point, and stop eating meat that is fed crap is another, veggies are delicious is yet another - out of many.

 

 

M

[CloudHands]

Ultimately there isnt a separation between meat and vegetables. 

 

From certain perspectives we even look like them. 

 

nerves ?

[CloudHands]

 

The healthiest modern people -- those with the lowest incidence of chronic disease, those who live the longest, those who live the longest with good health, and who apparently enjoy life very well -- all eat a minimal, minimal amount of meat, if any at all.

 

I agree with that.

 

Teeth teeth teeth. Look at our teeth. It's certainly not meat eater teeth. I acknowledge the value of it as a supplement to an "ordinary" diet but...

 

From a global vision meet is disastrous on every step, water, pollution, global human alimentation capacity, ethic, health, spiritual inclination. No wonder why there is so much fire people nowadays, for sure we got the fuel but nothing meaningful to do with it (as societies). But yeah eat it, go on we have to decrease I heard.

 

About the B12 vitamin... It's the product of a bacteria that lives in the ground or in animal's stomaches. So it's naturally present on everything you grab from the ground and you don't wash.

For the story since we fed betail we have to had B12 artificially in the meat.

 

 

Eating meat everyday ahah it was all a dream!!! Why not champagne when we thirstay ?

[CloudHands]

[dust]

Regarding Adventists, these people are religious, and I have a small amount of scepticism to groups whose founder got revelations from a god about diet (check it up). Lot of the reviewers were Adventists themselves, or vegetarians. Of course this blurs the lines.

To contrast, Gary Fraser at Loma Linda University found that holding on to the diet lived 10 years longer. But, those who added fish to their diet lived longer than the vegans in the community.

 

I'm very sceptical of religious folk, but the origin of their dietary tradition doesn't change its efficacy.

 

Yes, I've wondered about bias in some of these earlier Adventist studies, but some (such as this) are based on database figures. Relatively simple comparisons, as far as I can tell, with pretty clear results.

 

And if you have evidence for this claim about fish, please share it. Seriously, share it.

 

 

And then we have India with the worlds biggest population of vegetarians, and apparently no blue zones at all, not particularly renowned for their longevity. Contrast that with the healthiest countries in Europe (Switzerland, Scandinavian countries, Iceland) which all have quite high consumtion of animal protein. So it's a bit complicated. But I agree that the conclusion isn't "devour tons of steak and eat no vegetables." So yes, you're right in "minimal" if that means occasionally.

 

You don't see other factors involved here? Healthcare? Population problem? Caste system? Extreme poverty?

 

https://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2015/12/16/is-india-winning-the-fight-against-childhood-malnutrition/

 

Note: There are many many many factors in India's malnourishment, and vegetarianism is rarely cited as a root cause

 

Note2: No, because a person doesn't eat meat of course does not automatically mean she will be healthy! But if a person cannot afford food, of course they will be unhealthy regardless of their dietary inclination.

 

 

 

For me, one of those values is Nature and eco-systems. Not-killing isn't. So agriculture in general, even vegetables, destroy whole populations of species, kills animals, poisons future generations, destroy lands. So when people go vegan/vegetarian because they don't want to kill, I perceive that as dishonest. We're in a massive chain of death and life, and conveniently sealing off different aspects of how we live and turn a blind eye to some, does not work for me. Californian almonds, cotton, some varieties of salad, palm oil... are examples of crops that either take massive amounts of resources and/or cause extreme damage to eco-systems. But, I don't see people having the same vehement responses to people who consume these crops.

 

Dishonest to try and reduce the amount of suffering in the world?

 

Well I'm fucking sorry for that...

 

And yes, there are products that don't directly involve killing animals, but indirectly involve destroying entire ecosystems. A good person, veggie or not, should not be consuming palm oil products, among other things.

 

 

Why eat meat?  For the nutrtion.  Here`s an article that explains some of the nutritional benefits of meat eating.  

 

https://paleoleap.com/meat-protein/

 

Here`s a link specifically about the health benifits of the much maligned "red meat."

 

https://chriskresser.com/red-meat-it-does-a-body-good/

 

I personally believe that different people need different things, and we`re all better off tuning into our own bodies.  For some, a vegetarian diet may indeed be useful or, at least, OK.  But I believe that most people are nutritionally better off with at least some animal products.  Of course quality matters; I`m not taking processed bologna.  Grass fed beef.  Wild salmon.  Eggs from free-range chickens.

 

These aren`t scientific studies, just articles from the popular literature.  But I think it shows that there are intelligent knowledgable people who don`t toe the vegetarian line.  It`s far from a settled question.  

 

You know Luke, you seem like a very nice person but on this issue you really know how to pull my strings...

 

The first link you posted.. I believe I wrote a post somewhere with similar nutrient comparisons showing that eating a variety of plant foods, there's no nutrient missed. It's harder to find a couple of things, like B12 and Omega-3s, but they are available in plants (as CloudHands says, B12 is in the soil, in the intestine..but most people now get it from it being injected into the meat). The point is that, yes, there are nutrients in cows -- nobody's disputing that -- but there are the same (and more) nutrients in plants and less that we don't want.

 

http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/advantages-lentils-over-beef-4364.html

 

Here we see that "The lentils provide 32 percent of the daily value for fiber, which helps you feel full and lowers your risk for heart disease, and only trace amounts of fat. The ground beef provides 23 percent of the DV for total fat and 25 percent of the DV for saturated fat and no fiber."

 

See, we could play this game all day, but eventually it would become apparent that meat is not necessary, even if it has more riboflavin than a particular vegetable.

 

I post various scientific literature; you're not convinced. I ask for scientific studies in return; nope.

 

And again, you say "I believe most people are better off with animal products" but with no reason why. Not a single good reason why it's better to eat a cow sometimes.

 

At least you admit that what you're showing me isn't scientific, I guess.

Edited April 15, 2017 by dust

[liminal_luke]

Hi Dust,

 

You seem like a very nice person too, and I don`t mean to pull any strings.  If it`s any consolation, the string pulling is mutual.The whole vegetarian-is-best meme really bugs me.  Ask most people on the street, even inveterate carnivores, and they`ll repeat what they`ve been taught about the virtues of abstaining from meat.  It`s exasperating!

 

Have you heard of the work of Dean Ornish?  He`s one of the foremost exponents of a super low-fat vegetarian diet.  My mom followed his program to prevent breast cancer -- and got breast cancer.  Now who knows, perhaps her diet staved off the disease.  Still, I can`t help but think that maybe she would never have gotten sick if only she`d eaten more salmon.  I warned her off the diet before the onset of her illness but there was no stopping her: she`d bought the vegetarian line.

 

She`s fine now, thank goodness.  And, for the record, I know you`re not advocating the no-fat thing. But I just cringe to think how people like my mom are being hurt by well-meaning but misinformed vegetarian propaganda.

 

You want scientific studies, and maybe I should try to dig some up.  It`s not really my thing.  Would you read them if I did?  I mean really read them, with an open mind and a critical eye?  I wouldn`t really blame you if the answer is no; most people won`t change their mind about diet unless health issues come along and force reconsideration.

 

Just in case you are open, here`s something that might pique your interest.  You know the China Study?  It`s one of the biggest, most well-known, studies extolling the virtues of vegetarianism.  In the link below Denise Minger explains why we shouldn`t be convinced.

 

https://deniseminger.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ 

 

ps...You say I didn`t provide any reasons for my opinion that some meat eating is best for health.  Actually I did, they were just in the links.  Here are some of the reasons...

 

(1) Some nutrients are not available on a vegan diet. Vitamin B-12 and conjugated linoleic acid.

 

(2) Some nutrients are technically available on a vegan/vegetarian diet but not in the same form as in animal products and not as easily assimilated: vitamin K2, iron, vitamin A, omega 3 fats.

Edited April 15, 2017 by liminal_luke

[vonkrankenhaus]

Are not humans freely eating the whole cosmos?

 

Are they not also becoming food themselves?

 

 

 

 

 

 

- VonKrankenhaus