Meat Eaters Club [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

Virgil

01-21-2007, 12:29 AM

Look, I don't want to disrupt the Veggie Club thread. I'm starting this thread because I wish to dispell this myth that eating meat is bad for you or the converse that vegetarianism is better for you. I've got some steaks on the barbecue, some ribs, chicken, and juicy hot dogs. Help yourself to some wine, or grab a bottle of beer and lets talk about this. Even you Vegetarians, I'll have some roasted vegies for you. Stop by and disagree with me. I won't mind.

First, I said it elequently on that other thread, so here's what I said there:

I don't understand why we must applaud vegetarianism. What is so noble about it? I can understand vegetarians who do it for religious reasons. And I do beleive that in the U.S. we probably eat more meat than is healthy for us. But that does not mean that no meat is healthier than some meat. I have never seen a statisitic that showed vegetarians having a longer life expectancy. Human beings have teeth designed for both meat and vegetables and a digestive system that accomodates both. It is natural for humans to eat meat. There is a higher concentration of nutrition packed in meat than in fruits and vegetables. It is healthy to have meat. It is human to have meat.

Let me also say I do not deplore vegetarianism. Those that do it for religious reasons have my deepest respect. Those that do it out of choice, OK, you do it. But two things raised the hair on my back. One is that there is some moral virtue in vegetarianism, and of course the the converse would apply that there is some moral vice in eating meat. Based on what? My religion doesn't seem to think so, and most religions (other than Hindu I don't know any other) don't think so. Second, there is this illusuon that vegetarianism is healthier than than having meat. Well, the modern world has not extinguished old wives tales; we create myths just as much as previous eras, and this is one of them. I believe the contrary. I believe it is less healthy to be a strict vegetarian. And I'll prove that as this thread continues.

bluevictim

01-21-2007, 12:37 AM

Virgil

01-21-2007, 12:37 AM

I posted a couple of articles in that other thread that should go here. They show how eating meat was part of human diet from the very begininng.

NEW TESTING ON FOSSIL REMAINS INDICATES PREHISTORIC MAN ATE BALANCED DIET
By ROBERT REINHOLD, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: January 9, 1982
A rich new understanding of the evolution of the human diet is beginning to emerge as a result of sophisticated chemical and microscopic tests on the fossil remains of prehistoric humans.

The results of these tests are challenging some long-held notions about the daily life of prehistoric people, particularly on the importance of meat in the ancient diet. According to one study, early man was neither so carnivorous nor so herbivorous as some previous studies have indicated, but instead had a more balanced diet. When Did Meat Enter the Diet?

Reports on the new tests were present ed at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which ended today, at the Washington Hilton Hotel. Glynn L. Isaac, an anthropologist at the University of Californi a at Berkeley, said the session was aimed at stimulating interest in this neglected aspect ofhuman evolution. Until now, research has been limited because the evidence was fragmentary and because direct e xperimental tests were not available.

Since today's primitive people who depend on hunting and gathering consume four to five times as much meat as nonhuman primates, a major question is when and how meat became a substantial part of the human diet.

One school of thought has held that early manlike creatures that flourished in Africa two million years ago were carnivores with males playing the key role in food gathering; the other has held that the diet was based more on vegetation, with females playing a dominant role.

Neither view is correct, according to Professor Isaac and two associates, Richard B. Potts, a lecturer at Yale University, and Henry T. Bunn, a doctoral student at Berkeley. Th e team has been examining the tools and food refuse in early hominid sites in Kenya and Tanzania. Microscopic examination of animal bones and stone toolsshowed signs of butchering and scraping of meat.

''We have direct evidence that early hominids did leave stone cuts on a variety of animals,'' Mr. Bunn said. But while this indicated meat eating was important, he said that the team advocated a ''balanced view,'' stating that the evidence did not suggest meat was used to the exclusion of plants. ''There is no reason to jump to the conclusion that early hominids, with half our brains, could successfully hunt and kill large animals,'' he said.

''Most of us who study early prehistory,'' Professor Isaac said, ''are firmly convinced that fruits, nuts and perhaps tubers, dug up with simple tools, were the mainstay of life.

''The interest in confirming that meat, too, had become more important than it was for monkeys and apes is that this may have helped produce a situation in which collective social acquisition of food was more advantageous than the individualistic feeding characteristic of our primate relatives. Strontium Levels Examined

''Collective acquisition of food may in turn have stimulated the development of language ability and of intricate social patterns.'' Other new techniques involve examining fossil teeth under an electron microscope for ''microwear'' clues to the type of food chewed and how it was obtained, and making chemical and carbon isotope analyses of skeletal remains for indications of lifetime diet.

For example, Margaret Schoeninger of the Johns Hopkins University and Andrew Sillen of the Smithsonian Institution have seized on new techniques of geochemistry to indicate that carnivores could be expected to have much lower levels of strontium in their bones than herbivores. Strontium, a major component in the earth's crust, is retained at different rates by animals and plants.

The two scientists theorized that fossil humans, as omnivores, would show strontium levels between those of carnivores and herbivores. This is exactly what was found when Dr. Sillen analyzed 10,000-year-old remains of humans and animals found in a cave in the western Galilee section of Israel. However, the strontium analysis was useless when attempted on 20,000-year-old specimens.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9803E6DB1038F93AA35752C0A964948260

Virgil

01-21-2007, 12:40 AM

Here's the other:

The Fossil-Record Evidence
about Human Diet

Introduction
Meat a part of human diet for ~2.5 million years

The evidence of the fossil record is, by and large, clear: Since the inception of the earliest humans (i.e., the genus Homo, approximately 2.5 million years ago), the human diet has included meat. This is well-known in paleoanthropological circles, and is discussed in Setting the Scientific Record Straight on Humanity's Evolutionary Prehistoric Diet and Ape Diets.
The current state of knowledge regarding the diet of our prehistoric ancestors is nicely summarized in Speth [1991, p. 265]:

[S]tone tools and fossil bones--the latter commonly displaying distinctive cut-marks produced when a carcass is dismembered and stripped of edible flesh with a sharp-edged stone flake--are found together on many Plio-Pleistocene archaeological sites, convincing proof that by at least 2.0 to 2.5 Ma [million years ago] before present (BP) these early hominids did in fact eat meat (Bunn 1986; Isaac and Crader 1981). In contrast, plant remains are absent or exceedingly rare on these ancient sites and their role in early hominid diet, therefore, can only be guessed on the basis of their known importance in contemporary forager diets, as well as their potential availability in Plio-Pleistocene environments (for example, see Peters et al. (1984); Sept (1984). Thus few today doubt that early hominids ate meat, and most would agree that they probably consumed far more meat than did their primate forebears. Instead, most studies nowadays focus primarily on how that meat was procured; that is, whether early hominids actively hunted animals, particularly large-bodied prey, or scavenged carcasses...
I fully concur with the view that meat was a regular and important component of early hominid diet. For this, the archaeological and taphonomic evidence is compelling.

Early hominid diet was mixed, not exclusive

The comments in Mann [1981, pp. 24-25] further illuminate the above:

Nevertheless, given the available archaeological evidence and what is known of the dietary patterns of living gatherer/hunters and chimpanzees, it appears unlikely to me that all early hominids were almost exclusively carnivorous or herbivorous. It is more reasonable to suggest that the diet of most early hominids fell within the broad range of today's gatherer/hunter diets, but that within the wide spectrum of this adaptation, local environmental resources and seasonal scarcity may have forced some individual populations to become more dependent on vegetable or animal-tissue foods than others.

The remarks by Mann remind us of the obvious: that early hominid diets, like hunter-gatherer diets, are a function of local flora and fauna; such diets are limited to the local food base (and to food acquired via trading).

"Natural" behavior a function of evolution

The evidence that meat has been part of the human diet for ~2.5 million years, thus, directly implies that meat is a "natural" part of the human diet, where "natural" is defined as: those foods one is adapted to consume by evolution. (Side note to vegetarians: The fact that meat is a natural part of the evolutionary diet does not imply that one must, or even should, eat meat.)
Some raw dietary advocates, in apparent denial of the evolutionary evidence, try to turn "opportunistic feeding" into a straw-man argument. The straw-man argument they construct is that the claim meat can be a natural part of the diet is based solely on the idea that humans can (and do) eat meat; they then claim it is circular logic, asserting that the "possibility" is not evidence it is "natural." However, this type of criticism or straw-man argument is based on a rather astonishing ignorance of--or at least certainly a denial of--evolutionary adaptation and how it occurs (discussed below). As such, the anti-"opportunistic feeding" straw-man argument is logically invalid.

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-3a.shtml

Like I said, it is human to eat meat.

Virgil

01-21-2007, 12:44 AM

OK, I brought some meat:
http://www.mehdiplugins.com/ze/Barbecue-1x-original.jpg

As for the topic, I don't know whether eating meat is healthier or not, but I do think people who choose not to eat meat because they feel it is unethical deserve some respect. It may not be much, but they are making a real sacrifice for what they believe in. I don't think that this necessary implies that people who eat meat deserve disrespect.

Yes, I agree. If vegetarians do it for how they rationalize it as ethical, then they deserve respect. But I will show that they are kidding themselves if they think it's healthier.

Barbecue looks great! :)

kathycf

01-21-2007, 12:50 AM

Hi Virgil.

I have posted in the veggie thread, and I really don't see anybody there who has adopted some holier than thou attitude. I certainly hope I haven't conveyed that attitude, because that would make me a hypocrite.

I am not a vegetarian, I just have my personal prefereces and beliefs and I don't try to shove them down anybody's throat. Just as a personal anecdote (nothing scientific) the only change in my diet I made was cutting out meat (although not dairy) and I lost 35 pounds in 5 months. I still ate my popcorn on Friday nights, still had M & M's, just not burgers or steaks. I was not a big meat eater before I did this, but still...35 pounds and 10 points of my cholesterol is nothing to sneeze at.

So, what kind of beer do you have here? http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h56/kathycf/smileys/beer.gif

Virgil

01-21-2007, 12:53 AM

Myth number one:

Meat-Eaters Have Higher Rates of Heart And Kidney Disease, Cancer, Obesity and Osteoporosis Than Vegetarians
Such stupendous claims are hard to reconcile with historical and anthropological facts. All of the diseases mentioned are primarily 20th century occurrences, yet people have been eating meat and animal fat for thousands of years.

Further, there are several native peoples around the world (the Innu, Masai, Swiss, Greeks, etc.) whose traditional diets are very rich in animal products, but do not suffer from the above-mentioned maladies (18). This shows that other factors besides animal foods are at work in these diseases.

Several studies have supposedly shown that meat consumption is the cause of heart disease, cancer and bone loss, but such studies, honestly evaluated, show no such thing (19).

For example, the studies that supposedly proved that meat consumption among the Innuit caused high rates of osteoporosis, failed to note other dietary factors that contributed to bone loss (and to the other chronic diseases listed in myth #5). Things such as refined sugar consumption, alcoholism and a junk food consumption equalled more bone loss were not done with real meat but with fractionated protein powders (20).
Certainly, when protein is consumed in such an unnatural fashion, separated from the fat-soluble nutrients required for its absorption and assimilation, it will lead to problems. Because of this, the current use of fat-free protein powders as "food supplements", and low-fat or non-fat dairy products should be avoided. Trimming off visible fat from meats and removing duck and chicken skin before eating should also be discouraged.

Despite claims that studies have shown that meat consumption increased the risk for heart disease (21), their authors actually found the opposite. For example, in a 1984 analysis of a 1978 study of Seventh Day Adventists (who are largely vegetarian), H. A. Kahn concluded, "Although our results add some substantial facts to the diet-disease question, we recognize how remote they are from establishing, for example, that men who frequently eat meat or women who rarely eat salad are thereby shortening their lives" (21). A similar conclusion was reached by D.A. Snowden (21). Despite these startling admissions, the studies nevertheless concluded the exact opposite and urged people to reduce animal foods from their diets.

Further, both of these studies threw out certain dietary data that clearly showed no connection between eggs, cheese, whole milk, and fat attached to meat (all high fat and cholesterol foods) and heart disease. Statistician Dr. Russel Smith concluded, "In effect the Kahn [and Snowden] study is yet another example of negative results which are massaged and misinterpreted to support the politically correct assertions that vegetarians live longer lives." When all of the data are taken into account, the actual differences of heart disease between vegetarians and non-vegetarians in these studies was less than 1%: hardly a significant amount (22).

It should be noted here that Seventh Day Adventists are often studied in population analyses to prove that a vegetarian diet is healthier and is associated with a lower risk for heart disease and cancer (but see the last paragraph in this section). While it is true that most members of this Christian denomination do not eat meat, they also do not smoke, drink alcohol, or drink coffee or tea, all of which may be factors in promoting cancer and heart disease (23).

The Mormons are a religious group often overlooked in vegetarian studies. Although their Church urges moderation, Mormons do not abstain from meat. Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith, declared a diet devoid of animal products as "not of God." As with the Adventists, Mormons avoid tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine. Despite being meat eaters, a study of Utah Mormons showed they had a 22% lower rate for cancer in general and a 34% lower mortality for colon cancer than the US average (24). A study of Puerto Ricans, who eat large amounts of fatty pork, nevertheless revealed very low rates of colon and breast cancer (25). Similar results can be adduced to demonstrate that meat consumption by itself does not correlate with cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, kidney disease, or obesity (26). Obviously, other factors are at work.

It is usually claimed that vegetarians have lower cancer rates than meat-eaters, but a 1994 study of California Seventh Day Adventists (who are largely vegetarian) showed that, while they did have lower rates of some cancers (e.g., breast), they had significantly higher rates of several others (brain, skin, uterine, cervical and ovarian)! (27)

http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vegetarian-diet-issues-disease.htm

Virgil

01-21-2007, 12:55 AM

Virgil

01-21-2007, 12:59 AM

Myth number two: You can get all your nutrition from vegetables.

Can The Body Convert Omega-6 Fatty Acids Into Omega-3 Fatty Acids As It Needs?
Omega 3 and 6 fatty acids are polyunsaturated fats of which two, linolenic (an omega-3) and linoleic (an omega 6), are essential to human life and must be obtained from food as the body cannot synthesise them. Although very small amounts of omega 3 linolenic acid are found in whole grains and dark green leafy vegetables, it is principally found in animal foods (especially fish and eggs), as well as flax seed oil. Omega 6 linoleic acid is mostly found in vegetables, but small amounts are present in certain animal fats.

To assuage vegans who fear they may not get enough omega 3 linolenic acid, some vegetarian sources assert that the body can simply convert excess omega 6 linoleic acid into omega 3 linolenic acid, and other omega 3 fatty acids such as EPA and DHA, two fatty acids intimately involved in the health of the brain and immune system.

Renowned lipid biochemist Dr Mary Enig, of the University of Maryland, and other authorities have shown that the body cannot change the omega number of fatty acids.

The body can change the fatty acid's degree of saturation and also its molecular length, but not its omega number (12). In other words, omega 6 fatty acids can only be converted into other omega 6 fatty acids; omega 3s only into other omega 3s.

Again, I have seen the results of this misinformation in my practice. I've had several patients of Northern European descent with severe mental and immune problems caused by a lack of EPA and DHA, two omega-3 fatty acids not found in plant foods (DHA is found in small amounts in some algae). People native to warmer climates in the world can manufacture these fatty acids from other omega-3s, but those of Northern European or Innuit descent cannot. Since their ancestors ate so much EPA- and DHA-rich fish, their bodies eventually lost the ability to manufacture these fatty acids (13). For these people, vegetarianism is impossible; they must consume either eggs or fish in order to survive.

There is also a very real danger from consuming too many omega-6 fatty acids, principally found in vegetables. The body requires both omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids. However, when the body's cells are overloaded with omega-6s, their ability to utilise the omega-3 is inhibited (14).

Chronically low levels of omega-3 fatty acids are associated with higher cancer rates and immune dysfunction. Excessive levels of omega-6 fatty acids are also strongly correlated with a high incidence of cardiovascular disease (as is excessive consumption of refined sugar and trans-fatty acids) [15].

http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vegetarian-diet-issues-fatty-acids.htm

kathycf

01-21-2007, 12:59 AM

Bass is very good, but only half a bottle for me...alcohol is bad for you. :p

*ducks at the barrage of hotdogs being thrown at her*

I'm sorry, I couldn't help it. Just teasing you. ;) Actually beer and wine in moderation are pretty benign, I say half a bottle because that is all I can drink without getting tipsy. :D :)

Virgil

01-21-2007, 01:01 AM

Myth number two, continued:

Can Vitamin B12 Be Obtained from Plant Sources?
Vegans who do not supplement their diet with vitamin B12 will eventually get anaemia (a fatal condition) as well as severe nervous and digestive system damage (6). Claims are made that B12 is present in certain algae, tempeh (a fermented soy product) and brewer's yeast. All of them are false.

Like the niacin in corn, the B12 analogues present in algae and tempeh are not bioavailable. We know this because studies done on people's blood levels of B12 remained the same after they ate spirulina and tempeh; there was no change, clearly indicating no absorption by the body (7). Further, the ingestion of too much soy increases the body's need for B12 (8). Brewer's yeast does not contain B12 naturally; it is always fortified from an outside source.

Some vegetarian authorities claim that B12 is produced by certain fermenting bacteria in the intestines. This may be true, but it is in a form unusable by the body. B12 requires intrinsic factor from the stomach for proper absorption in the ileum. Since the bacterial product does not have intrinsic factor bound to it, it cannot be absorbed (9).

It is true that vegans living in certain parts of India do not suffer from vitamin B12 deficiency. This has led some to conclude that plant foods do provide this vitamin. This conclusion, however, is erroneous as many small insects, their eggs, larvae and/or residue, are left on the plant foods these people consume, due to non-use of pesticides and inefficient cleaning methods. This is how these people obtain their vitamin B12. This contention is borne out by the fact that when Indian Hindus migrated to England, they came down with pernicious anaemia within a few years. In England, the food supply is cleaner, and insect residues are completely removed from plant foods (10).

The only reliable and absorbable sources of vitamin B12 are animal products, especially organ meats and eggs (11). Though present in lesser amounts, milk products do contain B12. Vegans, therefore, should consider adding dairy products into their diets. If dairy cannot be tolerated, eggs, preferably from free-run hens, are a virtual necessity.

That vitamin B12 can only be obtained from animal products is one of the strongest arguments against veganism being a "normal" way of human eating. Today, vegans can avoid anaemia by taking supplemental vitamins or fortified foods. If those same people had lived just a few decades ago, when these products were unavailable, they would have died.

http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vegetarian-diet-issues-vitamin-b12.htm

kathycf

01-21-2007, 01:03 AM

Are they adoting a holier than thou attitude? No, but when one states a position, the converse is implied.
See, I don't agree with that. People can have subjective opinions about something without making the opposite bad. I can say that I am not a follower of religion, and that does not mean I think religion is bad or that people who follow a faith are bad. It simply means I choose not to have an organized faith.

Virgil

01-21-2007, 01:03 AM

Virgil

01-21-2007, 01:05 AM

See, I don't agree with that. People can have subjective opinions about something without making the opposite bad. I can say that I am not a follower of religion, and that does not mean I think religion is bad or that people who follow a faith are bad. It simply means I choose not to have an organized faith.

OK, perhaps they are not all. I don't want to put motives into people's mouths. Nonetheless there is this politically correct notion out there that is developing.

Virgil

01-21-2007, 01:10 AM

Myth number three: It is more natural to be vegetarian:

The "Cave Man" Diet Was Low-Fat and/or Vegetarian
Our Neolithic ancestors were hunter-gatherers, and two schools of thought have developed as to what their diet was like. One group argues for a high-fat and animal-based diet supplemented with seasonal fruits, berries, nuts, root vegetables and wild grasses.

The other argues that primitive peoples consumed small amounts of lean meats and large amounts of plant foods. Once again, such notions of a "low-fat diet" are hard to reconcile with what we know of modern-day hunter-gatherer societies. Present-day African tribes readily consume the fatty portions of animals, especially organs such as the brain, liver and tongue. The Aborigines, another hunter-gatherer society, also have a diet rich in saturated animal fats (47).

Explorers such as Stefansson reported that the Innuit and North American Indian tribes would worry when their caches of caribou were too lean: they knew sickness would follow if they did not consume enough fat (48).

Canadian Indians would deliberately hunt older male caribou and elk, for these animals carried a 50-pound slab of back fat on them which the Indians would eat with relish. Native Americans would also refrain from hunting bison in the springtime (when the animals' fat stores were low, due to scarce food supply during the winter), preferring to hunt, kill and consume them in the fall when they were fattened up.

More interesting is the way political prisoners are sometimes tortured in South and Central America: they're fed a diet of lean meat and they die quickly. Why? Without the fat-soluble vitamins contained in animal lipids, the body is unable to utilise and synthesise the proteins and other nutrients present in the meat (49).

On his journeys, Dr Price never once found a totally vegetarian culture. Anthropological data support this: throughout the globe, all societies show a preference for animal foods and fats and people only turn to vegetarianism when they have to (50). Nutritional anthropologist H. Leon Abrams, Jr, has shown that prehistoric man's quest for more animal foods spurred his expansion over the Earth, and that he apparently hunted certain species to extinction (50).

Price also found that those peoples who, out of necessity, consumed more grains and legumes, had higher rates of dental decay than those who consumed more animal products (51). Archaeological evidence supports this finding: skulls of prehistoric peoples who were largely vegetarian have teeth containing caries and abscesses and show evidence of tuberculosis (50, 51).

Based on all of this evidence, it is certain that the diets of our ancestors, the progenitors of humanity, ate a very NON-vegetarian diet that was rich in saturated animal fat.

http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vegetarian-diet-issues-cave-man.htm

B-Mental

01-21-2007, 02:12 AM

Three cheers for Virgil...., "Yay MEAT! YAY MEAT! YAY MEAT!:thumbs_up :thumbs_up

Two thumbs up Virgil. I used to date a veghead once, *cringes*. Nothing sadder than a vegetarian that eats the same crud over and over. Poor veggies. The only thing good about it is I came up with my favorite recipe, a black beans and rice dish. Makes a mean quesadilla. I make it with Beef, Chicken, Pork, Venison, Elk, Duck, and Goose. The best was the venison and wild goose quesadilla, *droools*

kathycf

01-21-2007, 03:22 AM

Fruits, vegetables, grains and legumes have lots of variety. A vegetarian can have all sorts of things to eat and is not limited to the "same old crud", just as the person who sits down to steak every night of his or her life could be said to have an extremely monotonous diet. I hope that we as a community find the things we have in common with each other and not focus on our differences.

Now, I am going to go off and eat chocolate. Yay, chocolate. :D :D :D

B-Mental

01-21-2007, 04:12 AM

Umm wrong thread Kathy you want the "If it grows shoot it club"

dramasnot6

01-21-2007, 04:45 AM

Umm wrong thread Kathy you want the "If it grows shoot it club"

Wouldn't that mean ALL foods, animal and plant alike? Everything grows.

Madhuri

01-21-2007, 07:15 AM

Another thread started....Where are we heading towards....:confused:

Virgil, I havent read all you posts, but here is something that I have to say:

There is nothing to be applauded in being a vegan or a meat eater, its just a way of living some people have adopted.

However, I do think, that being a vegeratian, by default attaches some goodness to this way of eating, which I think is because it does not involve 'killing' animals. This is what I think you are trying to say, that being a vegan doesnt mean goodness, which I understand. The word 'Kill,' is what makes most people think that being a non-vegetarian is not so good (I think that is the primary reason).

But, but, but....I dont not think that being a vegetarian will make anybody healthy, neither will being a meat eater, its 'eating right' that will ensure good health. I somehow have this notion (I could be wrong though), that eating a certain quantity of meat will give protein equal to two or three times the legumes, which could also mean that the person would have to eat legumes the whole day to get enough protein. I wonder if there will be any space left in the stomach to accomodate more food.

Being a Hindu does not mean that person is a vegetarian, it will be determined by the Caste to which he/she belongs. Not all Hindus are vegetarians, and this caste distinction is increasingly becoming less, so you'll find meat-eaters and vegans in all Hindu communities.

All those who have become vegetarians by choice, have had the opportunity to become one. I think that the colder nations, where vegetation is less has cheaper meat and costlier vegetables, and also that meat is easily available, that predominantly they are meat-eaters. But this has changed (I think), now, everything is available in all seasons all through the year. that is why people can now choose either ways, if they like. Also, becoming a vegan should not be because eating meat is 'unhealthy' which I think is not. Eating right amount of everything and exercising is what will make a person fit.

So, just be happy that we have enough to eat and what all we want to eat.

With that note -- I have no recipe to post here...Oh, but I do know how to boil eggs and make an omlette :D. If anyone is interested I can post it here:D.....but plzzz, dont 'kill' me if it doesnt taste very well....:p :D Btw, I can boil eggs better...:D

Happy Meat eating everyone.....

I shall go and have some chocolates, now....and then perhaps some Palak Paneer...

Nightshade

01-21-2007, 07:55 AM

ok low fat doesnt need to be veggie, Im not veggie myself but Im soory Virg, by your own definition your slamming them and thats hardly fair, My mums a veggie becasue she doesnt like the taste of meat( although she will eat pigeon and small amounts when were visiting in egypt so as not to offend people.) One of the women at work has been a veggie since she was 5 or 6 I asked her why and she says when she sees a pice of meat all she sees is blood and veins and the idea of eating it makes her sick. I dont understand or pretend to understand how anyone cant love taste of meat, but at the same I understand that people dont and that there are people who dont like sprouts, or onions, or spinach or carrots or beetroot or anything I adore.

Now I couldnt be a veggie but either way like maddie I dont think either really is healthy its eating right that is the point.

I might just add noone ever got mad-cow disease by being a veggie! And I wont even get into the whys and ifs about certain types of meat.

Koa

01-21-2007, 08:12 AM

point 1: this forum is getting mad... one thread is started, another one appears in contrast (eg boys VS girls), and they all say the same things...

point 2: I am not a veggie and for a few things I agree with Virg, but I'm not sure which is healthier. I guess everything in a balanced quantity is the healthy option.

point 3: as I said before, I met a lot of people saying "I'm a veggie, but I didn't like meat before anyway"... well that's ok, but there's nothing to "admire" in that case, it's not a ethical choice or anything. I hate cheese, but there's no diet or category that would allow me to say I don't eat cheese and be "respected". Of course I respect choices etc, but it's not like doing it for deeper reasons or religious reasons. Which I can't understand either, but if you've grown up in that religion, what you or not eat is a part of your habits. Brits find it weird that horse meat is eaten, while it's perfectly normal in Italy...

I'm not sure about cold places having less veggies, in my mind it is such a Northern thing... I remember when iw as studying German and I read an article about how fashionable, or common anyway, it was for German teenagers to be veggies. I had never met a veggie in real life up to then. The first one I've ever met was at uni, and the funny thing is that she had lived in Germany during her teens, which in my mind got linked to that article though Germany might have nothing to do with that. After her, I've only met one more veggie in real life. Besides people claiming to be veggies and then eating fish or other meat stuff, which was just showing they simply didnt like meat.

Nightshade

01-21-2007, 08:24 AM

Well yes and I suppose there are those veggies who do it for ethical reason , I dont really understand that but then again you could almost say its part of my religion to accept eating meat. But part of the regulations of our eating meat is that it is humanly reared and slaughtered ( and our definiton of humanly killed does not include the bolt or the injection.) And acttually it makes a very clear differance in taste which I noticed when we couldnt get Hala meat and were eating normal supermarket meat.
But its like eggs it doesnt matter that I can really afford it if I bye eggs they are free range organic not battery hens, which is just evil.

Koa

01-21-2007, 08:28 AM

Oh about eggs... another crazy thing about the UK. I go to the supermarket, and there are 45 kinds of eggs :confused: I thought eggs were eggs...

Oh I've always been meaning to ask, ehm, what does Halal exactly mean? :blush: that it's reared that way you said? or that it is cut in a certain way? (or maybe that's jewish..). I'm really ignorant of these things, but now I see it written everywhere...

Nightshade

01-21-2007, 08:38 AM

ACtually both, it has to be reaerd a certain way and then slaughter very ver fast by sliting its throat with a very very sharp blade, in a clean room( as in no blood all over the place) on its own so it cant witness or be witnessed dying by any other future meat, so that they are not afraid or aware of what is about to happen to them. Umm what else... oh yes They have to be slaughtered in the name of the one God and not any other, and they have to be cleaned and the blood drained a certain way.

Halal acttualy means allowed or accepitable religiously.its the opposite of Haraam that means banned ( but the problem with this word is there are many many different words routing in this that youcant show the differance in wriiten english becasue the ifferance is so slight.

Thats about it.

dramasnot6

01-21-2007, 08:45 AM

Niamh

01-21-2007, 08:51 AM

i once lived with two vegies. i ate healthily back then as we use to do communal cooking. Once a week i'd cook for myself and have some lamb or chicken. I Always took into consideration that they dont eat meat and always did yummy stirfrys with fried rice. I was off dairy for a while at that point so no cheese etc for me, just soya products. You could always be sure that one of them would forget this and put dairy in the dinner they cooked. My friend Mikaela thought it was very inconsiderate if them.

We had a christmas party in the house and i made mini chicken fajitas and mini vegie fajitas woth soya curd for everyone and labeled them. My Housemate Eve thought it would be ok to write a sign saying, 'this is the flesh of a thousand rotting carcases' and put it in front of the chicken ones.:( They were still eaten though but i didnt think it was nice that she tried to make people not eat them especially after i'd worked hard making them.

Personally i think we should all respect each others beliefs and not mock one person for being a vegie or one for eating meat. :)

dramasnot6

01-21-2007, 08:56 AM

i once lived with two vegies. i ate healthily back then as we use to do communal cooking. Once a week i'd cook for myself and have some lamb or chicken. I Always took into consideration that they dont eat meat and always did yummy stirfrys with fried rice. I was off dairy for a while at that point so no cheese etc for me, just soya products. You could always be sure that one of them would forget this and put dairy in the dinner they cooked. My friend Mikaela thought it was very inconsiderate if them.

We had a christmas party in the house and i made mini chicken fajitas and mini vegie fajitas for everyone and labeled them. My Housemate Eve thought it would be ok to write a sign saying, 'this is the flesh of a thousand rotting carcases' and put it in front of the chicken ones.:( They'll were still eaten though but i didnt think it was nice that she tried to make people not eat them especially after i'd worked hard making them.

Personally i think we should all respect each others beliefs and not mock one person for being a vegie or one for eating meat. :)

Really well put Niam! I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE! By no means was the veggie thread or do i haveany beliefs to "mock" meateaters or make them inferior in terms of health, morals or anything else.

Madhuri

01-21-2007, 09:44 AM

Just to point out The Veggie thread has no intention of establishing a "superior" diet or trying to " I believe it is less healthy to be a strict vegetarian. And I'll prove that as this thread continues." I am in no way in competition or anything and respect everything everyone's lifestyles, eating habbits, EVERYTHING. I AM NOT establishing a holier than thou attitude, i am NOT stating anything is better then anything else. I'm sorry iof anyone was offended or misunderstanding.

Drame, dont feel so guilty, you must have read everyone post and you'll see that no one is trying to prove anything is superior. So, just relax, have a litchie and read on.....pass on the fruit bowl to me as well.....:)

Oh, I wonder, who will start 'Lamb is good for health' thread or 'Potato is good for health' thread....:lol:

:D :D

Nightshade

01-21-2007, 10:19 AM

hey lamb is meat as is chicken, I dont really count fish as meat but I suppose thats only becasue the hala divison for that is differant. Who was it who said its all about your background? I agree with that...

Virgil

01-21-2007, 10:22 AM

Virgil, I havent read all you posts, but here is something that I have to say:

There is nothing to be applauded in being a vegan or a meat eater, its just a way of living some people have adopted.
...
I completely agree. I said in the other thread, we in the west probably-and I use that word trying not to imply scientific proof-eat too much meat.

However, I do think, that being a vegeratian, by default attaches some goodness to this way of eating, which I think is because it does not involve 'killing' animals. This is what I think you are trying to say, that being a vegan doesnt mean goodness, which I understand. The word 'Kill,' is what makes most people think that being a non-vegetarian is not so good (I think that is the primary reason).
But the killing of animals for food has always been a part of humanity. If there is a religious line of thought that leads one to say it is a higher, more devine plane to not kill animals, then I understand that. But let me tell you some of the vegetarians here in New York that I have met deplore killing of animals and then have no compunction supporting abortion, the killing of unborn babies. But that's another issue which would take us into a political direction.

Being a Hindu does not mean that person is a vegetarian, it will be determined by the Caste to which he/she belongs. Not all Hindus are vegetarians, and this caste distinction is increasingly becoming less, so you'll find meat-eaters and vegans in all Hindu communities.
Oh really. I didn't know that. Verey complicated.

So, just be happy that we have enough to eat and what all we want to eat.
That is the greatest point of all. Thanks Maddie.

Virgil

01-21-2007, 10:31 AM

Just to point out The Veggie thread has no intention of establishing a "superior" diet or trying to " I believe it is less healthy to be a strict vegetarian. And I'll prove that as this thread continues." I am in no way in competition or anything and respect everything everyone's lifestyles, eating habbits, EVERYTHING. I AM NOT establishing a holier than thou attitude, i am NOT stating anything is better then anything else. I'm sorry iof anyone was offended or misunderstanding.

It's more an implied thing Drama. I did not feel you were looking to slight people who are not vegetarians. But I hope you can see that the converse (that meat is bad for you) can be implied. In fact Sleepy said it explicitly in your thread. If no one spoke up to present the other side, a certain belief system would settle in.

By the way, I'm not a completely crazed meat eater. :) I have a couple of vegetarian cook books and I do cook non-meat meals. ;) But I do believe that one should not go more than a couple of days without having some sort of meat in a meal.

Virgil

01-21-2007, 10:38 AM

point 1: this forum is getting mad... one thread is started, another one appears in contrast (eg boys VS girls), and they all say the same things...

You are right Koa. I tried to dissent in the Veggie thread, but I got the feeling I was ruining the thread for others. So I started my own. But in fairness we also have threads that are not split, like the interview thread, or the photos thread.

B-Mental

01-21-2007, 12:08 PM

OK, Fish is meat! I know there are people that say, "I don't consider fish meat." Fish is meat, period. You aren't a vegetarian if you eat meat. I don't know why some people treat fish as a non-meat. Some of my research points at the Roman Catholic church. It was the dominant church in Europe for over one and a half millenia. The church had the clean and unclean thing going during lent. Fish that was cured in salt was considered clean meat. It was also one of the easier to obtain foods. Most of the fish was caught and salted on the same vessels, and then shipped to ports around Europe. The funny thing is that the nations that controlled the salt, encouraged the Pope to declare the fish clean. IMO that is the source of this fish isn't meat myth. Anyways, FISH IS MEAT! :)

ennison

01-21-2007, 02:21 PM

Eat everything that is not poisonous. The Chinese have the right healthy attitude. And look they're very plentiful.

Madhuri

01-21-2007, 02:50 PM

But the killing of animals for food has always been a part of humanity. If there is a religious line of thought that leads one to say it is a higher, more devine plane to not kill animals, then I understand that.

hmmm...perhaps....

If a person does so because they believe in what the religion says, its fine. But, there are some who do it like "Oh, its written in the books." Maybe because they are afraid of what will others say or how will it be taken in the society.

Like you said, it becomes implied that meat-eating is not so good and vegatarianism is good. I was trying to say the same thing, because the word 'kill' gets attached to it. When somebody says "I am a vegetarian" what is the first thought that comes to the mind....."oh good" These are the feelings that cannot be seperated from either concept. Plz do not take it as if I am advocating that one is good and the other bad.....its just that something by default comes with these concepts.

But let me tell you some of the vegetarians here in New York that I have met deplore killing of animals and then have no compunction supporting abortion, the killing of unborn babies. But that's another issue which would take us into a political direction.

:nod: no politics.......

Hey...since this thread started no one has posted any recipe....Dont tell me you guys dont know how to cook....:eek2: Or is it that you cannot go beyond 'boiling water'....:rolleyes: :p :D

ennison

01-21-2007, 03:09 PM

Some of them would burn the water!!!

Madhuri

01-21-2007, 03:13 PM

They burn water too...:eek2: No wonder...:rolleyes: :lol:

kathycf

01-21-2007, 03:26 PM

Umm wrong thread Kathy you want the "If it grows shoot it club"
Eh??? All I meant was that anybody can eat the same old crud whether they are a vegetarian or a meat eater.

@ everybody:

I think we need to stop focusing on our differences as forum members and look it the things we have in common. Books, wasn't it? :D

No offense to either Virgil or Drama, but for now on I am not going to post in either the veggie club OR the meateater's club. Opinions are great and everybody has them, but it just seems to oversensitive me that this whole thing is getting divisive and I don't like that feeling. So have fun, and I will see you in the chocolate thead or all the other spots I frequent here at LitNet. :)

*edit* just to be clear, I am not blaming anybody else here. I am oversensitive and I worry alot and that is the way my mind is. I just worry that people are going to get angry or upset and I don't want to see that happen.

Virgil

01-21-2007, 05:22 PM

Myth #4: Vegetarians live longer. Just the opposite.

Vegetarians Live Longer And Have More Energy and Endurance Than Meat-Eaters
Surprising as it may seem, some prior studies have shown the annual all-cause death rate of vegetarian men to be slightly more than that of non-vegetarian men (0.93% vs 0.89%). Similarly, the annual all-cause death rate of vegetarian women was shown to be significantly higher than that of non-vegetarian women (0.86% vs 0.54%). (40)

Russell Smith, PhD, in his authoritative study on heart disease, showed that as animal product consumption increased among some study groups, death rates decreased! Such results were not obtained among vegetarian subjects. For example, in a study published by Burr and Sweetnam in 1982, analysis of mortality data revealed that, although vegetarians had a slightly (.11%) lower rate of heart disease than non-vegetarians, the all-cause death rate was much HIGHER for vegetarians (41).

It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their longevity (at least before colonisation by Europeans). Within Aboriginal society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42). Obviously, if no old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs of elderly native peoples from around the world (42). Explorers such as Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Inuit (again, before colonisation). (43)

Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the shortest life-spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples whose diets were largely vegetarian (42).

http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vegetarian-diet-issues-lifespan.htm

The numbers in the article are footnotes, not ages. This is my final posting as to why vegetarianism is actually less healthy. I hope everyone that has read this and previous posts here now understands that the notion that vegetarianism is more healthy is a perception, a 20th/21st century old wives tale. If you choose vegetarianism, fine, but don't kid yourself that you are being healthier.

I leave you with this thought. Have you ever seen an olympic or other first class athlete that is a vegetarian? Think about it.