Vegetarianism

[Felix]

Felix is right: meat also provides CONVIENIANCE. It has a lot of what the body needs in a handy, tasty package. Oh, and show me one vegetarian bodybuilder...

Tony Robbins is one. He wrote the foreword to John Little's new book. He is actually a strict raw vegan. The nutritional regimen he follows is this one:

Alkaline Diet

It claims that all disease comes from eating too much acid food and that people become fat to protect themselves against this acid as fat neutralizes it somehow. Then, once your body is acidic, yeast grows inside of you and you get sick. In addition to that, your cells mutate. It goes against current biology, but it may be worth a read. Maybe Burghess knows more about this, because this sounds a lot like what he's doing.

The nutritional advice follows that of the Diamond's Natural Hygiene program which is also vegan but incorporates fruit, too, which is banned in Young's theory. In fact this is some sort of a vegan low-carb diet.

Quite interesting, actually, but I never read the book. But this Robert Young doesn't look very healthy to me and he sells his products via some MLM-scheme.

Therefore I still safely hold that man needs meat because he adapted to it.

[Inspector]

Tony Robbins is one.

Ah, that Tony Robbins. He is a strange one.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

I assume you guys are just teasing me now as you know I am not a vegetarian, and you are presenting your personal preferences in taste as a means of determining what is right for you, which we all know is silly.

Bodybuilders, bah!.... I suspect that it is possible but the amount of beans one would have to eat in order to bulk up in muscle mass would make one a very unsuitable dinner partner or movie companion. hahaha.

Felix, you are asking questions about why someone might be vegetarian, but I already answered these in previous posts in this thread. Clearly, the physical goals of a vegetarian (leanness, endurance, etc.) would be different than those of a bodybuilder. Personally, I can see no scientifically proven health benefit to eating meat, because B vitamins are available in veggies and other non-meat sources. I know many perfectly healthy vegetarians. (This is a purely intellectual matter, not a personal one for me, as I have no interest in becoming a vegetarian at the moment.)

As for what is "natural" for humans, what is natural is not always what is good. Multiple female mates per male is probably "natural" for humans, but that doesn't mean I think it's good. I'd rather let my mind determine what is good. As for meat being easy to eat, in this day and age, I would agree with you. But as for humans being carnivores, we are not. We have been omnivores for at least 10,000 years because plant products were much more dependable and that is why we started to make the shift. Meat takes incredible energy to hunt, much more so than gathering or cultivation. Also, plants are a much more dependable source of food. You cannot cause a plant species to go extinct if it is dependent upon you for survival (most of our cultivated crop plants could not survive in the wild: it is physically impossible for these species to disperse their seeds properly on their own). Furthermore, ten times more biomass can be produced per acre by growing crops than by raising game. This is because at each increase in the trophic level, there is a 90% loss of energy as heat. So, only 10% of the plant biomass that an herbivore eats (such as a cow or a deer) actually winds up as MATTER in animal flesh. (kind of like not all the gas in your engine is transformed into power when it's burnt, a lot of it is lost as heat.) THis is not a serious issue for us in the US, as we have bountiful natural resources. But it is definitely an issue for those in third world countries as to getting the best nutrition out of small, nutritionally impoverished plots of land. Would you rather have one 50 pound goat or 500 pounds of vegetable matter if you have to survive for a year off of what you did with your land?

As for vitamin C, I guess you're just using that as some sort of example? Because as far as I know, vitamin C is found only in plants, at least in sufficient quantities for the human diet.

As for man needing meat because he adapted TOWARD it, no! Man has been moving away from it for the past 10,000 years!

Edited October 17, 2005 by Liriodendron Tulipifera

[Felix]

As for what is "natural" for humans, what is natural is not always what is good. Multiple female mates per male is probably "natural" for humans, but that doesn't mean I think it's good.

That's because you're female.

As for meat being easy to eat, in this day and age, I would agree with you. But as for humans being carnivores, we are not. We have been omnivores for at least 10,000 years because plant products were much more dependable and that is why we started to make the shift.

10.000 years is nothing in terms of evolution. You don't get much genetical change in this short period of years. As far as I have read, today's man's genes are 99.998% the same as those of man before the agricultural revolution.

Meat takes incredible energy to hunt, much more so than gathering or cultivation. Also, plants are a much more dependable source of food. You cannot cause a plant species to go extinct if it is dependent upon you for survival (most of our cultivated crop plants could not survive in the wild: it is physically impossible for these species to disperse their seeds properly on their own).

This is one of the things that puzzles anthropologists. Growing food is actually more time-consuming than hunting. In addition to that it is detrimental to their health. They even ponder theories saying that early crops were addictive and that people became setetary to have more of them. The addictive substances are called exorphins. Personally, I think this theory is crap, but it shows how desperate anthropologists are to explain this shift to agriculture. I think the reason is overpopulation and quarrels over important places where animals reside which leaded to private property and civilisation. But this is just my ungrounded theory and it is not to be taken serious. It's not backed by data since I never cared to collect any.

Furthermore, ten times more biomass can be produced per acre by growing crops than by raising game. This is because at each increase in the trophic level, there is a 90% loss of energy as heat. So, only 10% of the plant biomass that an herbivore eats (such as a cow or a deer) actually winds up as MATTER in animal flesh. (kind of like not all the gas in your engine is transformed into power when it's burnt, a lot of it is lost as heat.) THis is not a serious issue for us in the US, as we have bountiful natural resources. But it is definitely an issue for those in third world countries as to getting the best nutrition out of small, nutritionally impoverished plots of land. Would you rather have one 50 pound goat or 500 pounds of vegetable matter if you have to survive for a year off of what you did with your land?

This is a common argument and it is wrong. Most of this plant food is inedible or poisonous to a human being. You can't eat grass. But a cow can and you can eat the cow. The same is true for most other animals.

And on most places on earth, you can't grow crops but you can grow grass.

Besides, this issue has nothing to do with the health benefits of vegetarianism.

As for vitamin C, I guess you're just using that as some sort of example? Because as far as I know, vitamin C is found only in plants, at least in sufficient quantities for the human diet.

As for man needing meat because he adapted TOWARD it, no! Man has been moving away from it for the

past 10,000 years!

Yes, man may need plant food, too. My point is, however, that man objectively needs meat to thrive. But I read that raw meat contains a lot of vitamins, too. The Inuit eat only meat and fish. And they live fine. They even don't have any health problems like diabetes. I also read about a man who ate only meat for over two years and was surveyed in a hospital. He was healthy throughout the entire period of time. His name was Viljamur Steffansson (something like that, damn Swedish names - or was it Norvegian-I don't know) and wrote extensively on that.

Yes, man will adapt to his new diet, but it hasn't happened yet. 10.000 years is not enough time. Therefore I stick to the meat.

[HaloNoble6]

Pros of eating meat:

-Tasty

-Convenient

Cons of eating meat:

-Possibility of health issues

Pros of vegetarianism:

-Avoid possible health issues in eating meat

Cons of vegetarianism:

-Pricey

-Not as tasty as eating meat

-Possibility of its own health issues

Please add any items I've missed.

My point is that the answer as to whether to eat meat or not is contextual. It involves knowing the particular physiology of the person in question, the availability/price of meats and vegetables, etc. I think Liriodendron is arguing from a "all things being equal with respect to availability, convenience, taste, etc. (that is, from strictly a health perspective)," one could reach optimal health through vegetarianism. Liriodendron was responding to the blanket statement by someone else saying that vegetarianism is unhealthy and worth avoiding in the person of a romantic partner. But now also Liriodendron wants to know if meat is a, biologically, necessary item in a human's diet.

So with this brief summary, I say we've reached the point where we can say both a meat-inclusive and a meat-exclusive diet can be healthy, depending on physiology, but one diet may be more tasty and convenient than the other. Either way, so long as a person does what is objectively best for them, things are ok. I'd say the only thing left unresolved is the question as to whether meat is a necessary food, that is, whether meat provides something that non-meats can't provide for a "normal" human seeking optimal health.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Growing food is actually more time-consuming than hunting.

Hunting is much more dangerous. I suspect at this point that this is the only reason I am arguing against all you men. Because you would rather be prehistoric and hunt with stones and sticks and assert your manliness, leaving us women to stay home to tend the corn. (just kidding)

Most of this plant food is inedible or poisonous to a human being. You can't eat grass. But a cow can and you can eat the cow.

Well of course. But you are assuming that we can't plant something else there, beside the grass that grows there? That we can't plow the ground and plant something else there? Good God, what do you think grows in most of the American midwest? Prairie grass? Hell, no! Corn, silly. And corn is a grass. And wheat rye, and oats, sugar beets, etc. We could convert pretty much any fertile land that grows plants into agricultural land, at least in the US. There are whole genetic engineering projects going on to turn salty wastelands into a place to grow halophytic plants.

Besides, this issue has nothing to do with the health benefits of vegetarianism.

The difference between life and death for a poor family living in the third world has nothing to do with the health benefits of vegetarianism? Talk some sense, man.

My point is, however, that man objectively needs meat to thrive.

That's your point, but I'm asking you, all of you that keep asserting this on this thread, to simply prove it. Scientifically.

10.000 years is not enough time.

I don't know that it's not enough time, but considering that we are 99% similar to chimps and they eat mostly bananas, I think that that 0.001% difference in genetics over the past 10,000 years might be significant. In fact, the human race is incredibly young, only 60,000 to 80,000 years old.

[Inspector]

That's your point, but I'm asking you, all of you that keep asserting this on this thread, to simply prove it. Scientifically.

Are you asserting that the primary thing that is keeping the third world starving is that they or someone else is eating too much meat? Because that is silly. Their problem is that they are socialist pest-holes. If they were capitalists, they could easily afford to eat whatever they wanted.

[Unconquered]

I am not a vegetarian but the view that "man needs meat in order to live and thrive" can be charitably characterized as grossly ignorant and grossly misinformed from an avalanche of contrary data in the form of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of individuals who live without eating meat for many years. This article indicates that there are 220 million strict vegetarians in India alone.

This article from the American Dietetic Assocation (undoubtedly a more scientific and informed source than the random junk being thrown around in this thread) states:

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.

It might also be worth noting that Leonardo da Vinci was a noted vegetarian - not exactly a dysfunctional, dumb guy. He lived to be 67, not a bad age for being born in 1452.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Are you asserting that the primary thing that is keeping the third world starving is that they or someone else is eating too much meat? Because that is silly. Their problem is that they are socialist pest-holes. If they were capitalists, they could easily afford to eat whatever they wanted.

Please don't be daft. I didn't say any such thing. I don't even care if I receive a warning for this, so I'm going to say it. Instead of talking out of your --- and putting words in my mouth, go back and read again what I actually wrote. All I am suggesting is that there is a limited amount of suitable land in this world for raising domesticated crops and animals (is there such thing as an infinite quantity to an entity?), that we in the United States are lucky to have our nation on the land that we do, and that it is up to landowners worldwide to decide for themselves which is more profitable, either in cash or raw survival for those not lucky enough to live in capitalist countries: raising animals or raising crops. These statements were made in response to the constant assertions on this thread, not backed by any proof, that MAN NEEDS MEAT TO THRIVE.

Here are some more facts about the relation of plants to people from Raven and Raven (2005).

The genus Homo has been around for about 2 million years. Up until about 34,000 ybp, Homo species survived by scavenging dead animals (oooh doesn't that sound yummy), gathering roots and other wild plant matter, and limited hunting. About 34,000 ybp, Homo sapiens developed tools for hunting. About 18,000 ybp, humans began deliberately planting wild seeds. At 10,000 ybp, serious domestication of wild animals and plants occurred. The domestication of plants occurred independently around the world, is a global phenomenon, and was not a random event. Here is a partial list of what began to be cultivated in each area.

Asia: soybean, rice

Tropical Asia: mangoes, rice, citrus, taro, banana

Africa: sorghum, millet, okra, yams, coffee

Middle East: barley, wheat, lentils, peans, olives, pmegranates, vetch, grapes, flax

The Americas: many beans, many cucurbits (squashes and pumpkins), corn, peppers, tomatoes, tobacco, cacao (chocolate), pineapple, manioc, quinoa, sunflowers, and avocados.

This is, of course, not to mention all the scores of wonderful herbs and spices that make our meat and veggies taste good.

Six species of plants alone account for 80% of the calories ingested by humans: wheat, rice, corn, potatoes, sweet potatoes, and manioc. 70% percent of the protein ingested by humans worldwide comes from plant sources.

Ahh, reason and facts. They trump raw emotion, every time.

Raven, P.H., R.F. Evert and S.E. Eichhorn. 2005. Biology of Plants. 7th Edition. W.H. Freman and Company. New York, NY, USA

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

I'd say the only thing left unresolved is the question as to whether meat is a necessary food, that is, whether meat provides something that non-meats can't provide for a "normal" human seeking optimal health.

Exactly. Which is the only thing I have really been arguing against at all in this entire thread, not whether meat or animal products are bad or vegetables are good. Thank you, Unconquered, for finally putting the last nail in the coffin of this ridiculous idea. Hopefully.

[softwareNerd]

This led to a discussion on limited/unlimited resources which I have split into a thread of its own (link) .

[fatdogs12]

Exactly. Which is the only thing I have really been arguing against at all in this entire thread, not whether meat or animal products are bad or vegetables are good. Thank you, Unconquered, for finally putting the last nail in the coffin of this ridiculous idea. Hopefully.

I don't know, I have a pretty strict diet. Other than an occasional piece of chicken (once every two months) I never eat meat. I don't miss it and I don't think that meat tastes any better than vegtables. Other than that chicken I eat pretty much vegan. I don't drink milk or eat eggs or anything. Ever since I went off meat/dairy/sugar I have felt fantastic. When I was eating them I was much more sluggish. On an average night before I would sleep about 9 hours. Now I rarely sleep more than 6 and generally when I wake up I don't feel grogy.

I don't do any of this stuff for moral reasons (which kinda makes it hard to talk to other vegitarians because most of them are doing it for moral reasons) but I love the effects I have got from it. Allows me to be more productive and have a lot more "mental clarity". I'm not saying people shouldn't eat meat, that is everyone's choice, I'm just mentioning my experiance. Really once you go without those things for a month or so you really dont miss them anymore. Now when I eat that occasional piece of meat I can just feel it sit in my stomach. I'd much rather eat some vegtables which can pass through my system in 18-24 hours rather than 80-100.

[Felix]

Hunting is much more dangerous. I suspect at this point that this is the only reason I am arguing against all you men. Because you would rather be prehistoric and hunt with stones and sticks and assert your manliness, leaving us women to stay home to tend the corn. (just kidding)

Hunting is mostly dangerous for the prey, not for the hunter. (Just asserting my manliness )

The difference between life and death for a poor family living in the third world has nothing to do with the health benefits of vegetarianism? Talk some sense, man.

I did. Health benefits of vegetarianism regard the individual vegetarian. The third world problem is another issue. They don't starve because we have too much meat but this is handled in another thread now. Besides, I don't think that vegetarianism has benefits.

That's your point, but I'm asking you, all of you that keep asserting this on this thread, to simply prove it. Scientifically.

What you mean by that is that you want me to find a magic ingredient that is only available through meat and nothing else. Honestly, I can't do that, but I already stated that in the very beginning. My argument was based on man's evolution towards meat in contrast to chimpansees, some of our closer relatives in the animal kingdom. We started agriculture less than 750 generations (given that women gave birth at the age of 15 (which is low) and real agriculture started 10.000 years ago it's only 666 generations, but I heavily rounded upwards in your favor) ago and you claim that this is enough to make us adapt to such a major shift in our diet, switching from a mainly meat-based diet to a diet made of corn and potatoes and rice. My position is that this is not enough. That is my argument for man's need for meat.

I already stated that it is very well possible to live a healthy vegetarian diet, but that it is a worthless exercise for a normal human being, because this is merely an approximation of man's natural diet and takes too much time to be done properly.

And yes, since the last 10.000 years man evolves towards a corn/wheat/rice/potato-based diet. But he hasn't arrived there, yet. Most allergies today still are caused either by wheat or milk. And one in three people in the western world today suffer from diabetes, which occurs because the pancreas collapses because it can't produce that high amount of insulin over the lifetime of a human being. We will adapt to it, because evolution isn't over, but we haven't done so, yet. That's why I'm not a vegetarian anymore and I was a harcore vegan. That's also the reason I'm so active in this thread. This issue is important to me. If it turns out that I was wrong, then I'll have to be a vegan again. *Sigh*

Edited October 18, 2005 by Felix

[~Sophia~]

It is a well known fact that soy products are a staple in many vegetarian diets. It's also a well known fact in some informed circles that soy is harmful when ingested.

Dangers of Soy in diet:

http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/index.htm

Soy alert:

http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html

Soy Online Service:

http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/

Sorry for bumping an old thread.

I read today that a woman ingesting only 60mg of soy a day gains an average of 2 1/2 days on her menstrual cycle (who would want that?). Soy also lowers the levels of both follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) as it has a component which mimics estrogen.

For men, this is causing lower sperm counts (not enough to cause infertility in a healthy male but for those with a lower sperm count to begin with this can be of significance). Furthermore, studies show that soy protein causes up to 76% decrease in testosterone production (soy contains phytates which are known to interfere with Zinc absorption - Zing is strongly tied to sperm production and testosteron matabolism). The estrogens in soy also interfere with the thyroid's ability to absorb iodine further having the effect of lowering libido.

[KevinDW78]

Furthermore, studies show that soy protein causes up to 76% decrease in testosterone production

WHOA! Ever notice how so many gay men are vegetarians?

[~Sophia~]

WHOA! Ever notice how so many gay men are vegetarians?

This is up to. I have also noticed how many Asians are there in the world but it does not mean that there is no effect on fertility*. More research is underway and I am sure the numbers will change slightly but when something mimics such a significant compound ...

(I forgot to mention that a lot of processed, Western foods contain soy. 60mg a day for women is not difficult to reach depending on how much processed foods one consumes.)

----------------------------------------------------------

*Link to Human Reproduction article

expert: The inverse relation between soy food intake and sperm concentration was more pronounced in the high end of the distribution (90th and 75th percentile) and among overweight or obese men.

Asians are pretty slim on average. Weight is a significant factor because heavier men naturally have higher esterogen levels. Perhaps an increase resulting from soy intake creates a level which is necessary to produce that effect.

Edited August 26, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[D'kian]

Sorry for bumping an old thread.

I read today that a woman ingesting only 60mg of soy a day gains an average of 2 1/2 days on her menstrual cycle (who would want that?).

60 mg of plain soy? that's way too small a number. it takes 1,000 mg to make one gram, and that's 1/32nd of an ounce. IN other words, a teaspoon of soy sauce probably contains many times 60 mg of soy. I'd check that number.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

It's actually about 1/28th of an ounce--unless you are talking troy ounces (31.1 grams apiece). Food is not measured in troy ounces though.

[Jake]

60 mg of plain soy? that's way too small a number. it takes 1,000 mg to make one gram, and that's 1/32nd of an ounce. IN other words, a teaspoon of soy sauce probably contains many times 60 mg of soy. I'd check that number.

1 oz = 28.3 g (to be more exacterer )

According to this site, there are 3 grams of protein in 1 ounce of soy sauce made from actual soy - it's only ~1 gram if made from hyrolyzed protein.

[volco]

most animals either are or have parts that are delicious!

Until we can properly and automatically screen our nutrient intake, I'd go for eating a lot of different things as varied as they can be, never shunning one part of the edible biosphere as non kasher. In the case of meat I don't think it't too good to eat a lot of it, but not bad to eat some.

[JASKN]

Animal Rights:

Animals have the right to be tasty.

Edited August 27, 2008 by JASKN

[Jake]

I had a friend in high school with a shirt that said:

P.E.T.A.

People for the Eating of Tasty Animals

[D'kian]

It's actually about 1/28th of an ounce--unless you are talking troy ounces (31.1 grams apiece). Food is not measured in troy ounces though.

Thank you.

Actually I blame the Imperial System. It is thoroughly irrational and hard to keep straight.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Thank you.

Actually I blame the Imperial System. It is thoroughly irrational and hard to keep straight.

it's even worse than you think. There are Imperial quarts (pints, gallons, etc) in use in the UK when they aren't being metric, and US quarts (pints, gallons, etc.). The US quart is smaller than a liter, the Imperial one is larger.

Needless to say this causes confusion when I am talking with (non-Objectivist!) people in the UK about gas prices--they helpfully try to convert their pounds-per-liter price to dollars per gallon by converting from liters to Imperial gallons, convert pounds to dollars by multiplying by 2 (which historically is rarely correct, until not too terribly long ago a pound was $1.60 or so), then, having made two mistakes that make their situation look even worse than it is, tell us they are paying even more than they are, in dollar terms, and then demand to know what we are whining about.

(I am whining, of course about the fact that governments have caused the high prices--and I would be even more upset over there since taxes are a much bigger part of *their* prices--but somehow they seem to think higher prices are something we should catch up to. )

[D'kian]

it's even worse than you think. There are Imperial quarts (pints, gallons, etc) in use in the UK when they aren't being metric, and US quarts (pints, gallons, etc.). The US quart is smaller than a liter, the Imperial one is larger.

So when can we expect the US to switch to the Metric system? Mind you I'm looking for an answer other than "When Hell freezes over twice."