Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The health effects of vegetarianism...


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... - 5/14/2009 8:56:22 PM   
LadyHibiscus


Posts: 27124
Joined: 8/15/2005
From: Island Of Misfit Toys
Status: offline
While they are not VEGAN, oreos are indeed vegetarian.  http://www.vegsoc.org.au/product_list.asp?ProductID=55 

_____________________________

[page 23 girl]



(in reply to LadyConstanze)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... - 5/14/2009 9:04:50 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline
Lady C

I think you're missing a basic point- which if the anthropologists did their work well- the conclusion is that since people lived healthier lives as hunter-gatherers- there was no need for better medical care.  The need for better medical care arose during the middle ages, when the population got sicker.

In terms of longevity- don't have the data so I can't answer you- but I wouldn't be surprised if the hunter gatherers lived on average, longer than the folks in the Middle Ages.  The increase in longevity is a recent phenomenon from the turn of the 20th century.

In terms of dental health- again- you're ignoring the data for your own prejudices.  People in the Middle Ages had lousier teeth and gums than the hunter gatherers- and while the poor had issues with malnutrition and loosing teeth due to diseases like scurvy-, the richer folks still weren't doing as well as the hunter gatherers centuries before.

The point of the article was that humans did not get healthier with the rise of civilization- they got sicker.  I think there's a myth that somehow the farmers during the middle ages were actually healthy, but it's far from the truth.  And what I think also pokes holes in the myth of an idyllic agrarian existance is that the hunter gatherers centuries before were healthier.  I just added in the comment about vegetarianism because I get a little aggravated about proselytizing vegetarians- and clearly, they're on very shaky ground claiming a vegetarian diet is healthier than an omnivore diet.


Sam

(in reply to LadyConstanze)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... - 5/14/2009 9:11:03 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline
Lady H

You're correct- I'm a bit more out of date than I realized.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-oreo-3,0,332212.story

However, it turns out that they may have been healthier when they were made with lard....

Sam

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... - 5/14/2009 9:14:02 PM   
LadyHibiscus


Posts: 27124
Joined: 8/15/2005
From: Island Of Misfit Toys
Status: offline
People got sicker in the middle ages as cities grew larger, and sanitation was poor to nonexistent.  The streets ran with sewage, baths were irregular, the water supply was iffy, and vermin spread disease in a close-living population.  The Church suppressed much medical knowledge, and there were few real cures available.  Bleeding, anyone?

How "healthy" are current hunter-gatherer populations?  We certainly have no idea how they were in the past to any degree, since they don't maintain written histories.   How are we defining "health", anyway?  Lifespans are averages---the extremely high infant AND MATERNAL mortality rates in previous centuries skew the numbers.  Folks were not dropping dead at 35 in the middle ages. If a woman could survive past menopause, she was likely to live a reasonably long life.  

_____________________________

[page 23 girl]



(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... - 5/14/2009 9:47:10 PM   
igor2003


Posts: 1718
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
Fast reply

A few nights ago there was a special program on TV about the "blue zones" of the world. Blue zones are areas where, for some reason, people tend to live longer and have less cancer, heart disease, and other ailments. The program went into what it was about each of these areas that contributed to the inhabitants longevity and good health. Here is a link to some of what they have found. http://health.howstuffworks.com/blue-zone.htm/printable

A lot of what they have found seems to be a more vegetarian diet, or at least diets with less red meat. Other things seem to include things as simple as afternoon naps, less stress, more physical activity, and even drinking goats milk.

Just thought I'd throw it in for what it's worth.

< Message edited by igor2003 -- 5/14/2009 9:49:47 PM >

(in reply to LadyHibiscus)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... - 5/14/2009 9:49:00 PM   
LadyConstanze


Posts: 9722
Joined: 2/18/2005
Status: offline
As to the first basic point, no amount of health can make up for accidents (hunter & gatherers would have been prone to them), appendicitis can happen to the most healthy individual, complications at birth, etc. You do need basic health care, it doesn't arise because your diet gets poorer, I would say most Native American Indians had a fairly healthy lifestyle as hunters and gatherers, yet they still had shamans who often also were their medicine men. Living healthy doesn't mean you will never fall, get a burn, lose a limb, get sick, etc.
Btw western medicine has its roots in teachings of the Ancient Greek, a lot of that got lost in the middle ages due to church issues, that would discount your argument that in the middle ages the need for medical care arose, the middle ages actually had the worst medical care possible, I think more people died from the attentions of "doctors" than would have died if they wouldn't have been treated.

You brought up the fact that the farmers were healthier than the ones living in the cities unless extremely rich due to eating more meat, now see some of the examples above, why I have trouble accepting it because the rich who ate lots of meat had a ton of other problems.

One fact that you absolutely seem to discount is the extreme vulnerability of the hunters and gatherers, a winter that was too long or too harsh meant certain death for a lot of them because there was not enough food stored up, if prey migrated to other places, a lot of people starved until you found new prey, most of the tribe being whipped out, etc., then due to the life-style they were extremely accident prone (so they would have needed a rather high level of medical care). Somehow that doesn't sound so healthy to me. Actually that could also be a reason for the bone findings, if you think about it, only the very fit and very healthy got to old age and burials that allowed preservation were possibly (due to the labour involved) only available for a select few, the leaders, the others might have just perished and in turns been food other meat eating animals...

Not every vegetarian diet is healthier than every omnivore diet, but if you look at medical statistics today, heart diseases amongst vegetarians are much lower than among people who eat meat.

As I said, I really have no problem with people eating meat, but I think a lot of the problems today come from eating too much meat and especially eating bad quality meat, that doesn't make a balanced diet that includes meat unhealthy. Additionally meat tends to be more nutritious than most vegetarian foods, starvation isn't a problem in Europe and the US, quite the opposite.

I think the focus should be on healthy diets, and healthy diets can or can't include meat, that is up to the individual and their preferences but in general most diets are damned unhealthy. So I would say the theory that eating meat makes people healthier doesn't even stand on shaky ground, it's wobbling a lot, too much protein in your diet can cause all sorts diseases.

I don't know if you are familiar with Celtic mythology and the rites, a lot of the druids were not allowed to eat meat, as they believed it interfered with their ability to communicate with their deity (quite a lot of religions actually have this), there are not a lot of stories of a lot of them dying early, actually I believe most of them outlived the "normal" people. Though since most of it was not written down due to religious taboos, I would not declare this as scientific evidence, but at the same time I would not completely discount it, as they certainly didn't have an agenda to promote a vegetarian life-style.

I can assure you I am not for nor against vegetarianism, since I do eat fish I am not a vegetarian as I do consume the flesh of a dead animal. I just don't think the theory that not eating meat caused all sorts of problems in the past, that's a bit far fetched.

There are some diets for blood groups out there, in principle they make a lot of sense, unfortunately my blood group is O

"Blood Group O was the first blood type to be identified, although how we know this is anyone’s guess – we’re talking about our hunter-gatherer ancestors who were around in 50,000 B.C! Nevertheless, Dr D’Adamo believes because our type O ancestors survived and thrived on a high-protein, meat-based diet, that’s the type of diet blood group Os should follow in the 21st century."

Doesn't quite explain why my system seems to be fairly intolerant when it comes to red meat, given what I seem to thrive on and what I don't digest so well, I should be A. But I guess I might just be nature's freak card...




_____________________________

There are 10 kinds of people who understand binary
Those who do and those who don't!

http://exdomme.blogspot.com/2012/07/public-service-announcement.html

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... - 5/15/2009 2:39:52 AM   
housesub4you


Posts: 1879
Joined: 4/2/2008
Status: offline
If we had been vegetarians oh so long ago we (speaking as humans) never would have left Africa and populated the world.  Eating meat allowed us to live in cold climates and travel without having to worry about storing nuts for the winter.

So Veggies, say what you will, but if humans did not eat meat chances are we would not be where we are today.

(in reply to LadyConstanze)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... - 5/15/2009 5:16:30 AM   
LadyConstanze


Posts: 9722
Joined: 2/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: housesub4you

If we had been vegetarians oh so long ago we (speaking as humans) never would have left Africa and populated the world.  Eating meat allowed us to live in cold climates and travel without having to worry about storing nuts for the winter.

So Veggies, say what you will, but if humans did not eat meat chances are we would not be where we are today.



Now I never claimed that vegetarianism is the cure all or that it is automatically healthier (as mentioned previously, I am NOT a vegetarian, I do eat meat) but it is a fact that if you take 100 random meat eaters and 100 random vegetarians, the vegetarians seem to be the healthier ones, hardly ever any issues with cardiological problems. Tons of statistics from independent researchers.

Since we are not in a situation anymore where we have to worry about storing nuts for the winter to survive or brave the ice age with only the pelts of animals we hunted, maybe it is time to look at our health and why so many people are sick, a lot of it is due to our diet and meat eating has increased dramatically. In Europe and the US we don't worry about starving anymore, obesity and bad diets are the major health problems that need to be addressed.

If you're going on about what happened at one point in our evolution and because it was good then it must be good now, then you might as well argue that guys should get clubs out and club women over the head, drag them into their cave to mate, or you could argue that because infections were a problem and that people had to have amputations in order to survive, we should do that again, why use antibiotics, right?

I can only repeat, I am not saying people should eat no meat, I am saying people should take a closer look at their diets and eat healthier. There is a world of difference between eating no meat or eating a sensible amount of lean, high protein meat and gorging ourselves on low quality meat, including the whole chemical and hormonal treatment a lot of farmed animals go through.

Again, if somebody wants to eat meat and likes meat, their choice and as long as they aren't overdoing it and their diet consists mainly of meat products and saturated fats, it is not an issue but let's face it, most people eat unhealthy.

This whole argument could be about alcohol, you know there is a middle ground between being an alcoholic and being tee total, an occasional glass of beer or wine will not do much damage (unless you are one of the rare people who can't tolerate alcohol at all or have been an alcoholic), but being drunk every day will cause a lot of damage. Moderation is the key and if I look at most diets, they are everything but moderate!

And please give me a break with labeling me as a vegetarian, fish were animals the last time I checked and look at the bleeping avatar, I'm wearing LEATHER, how many vegetarians do you know who have a leather fetish?



_____________________________

There are 10 kinds of people who understand binary
Those who do and those who don't!

http://exdomme.blogspot.com/2012/07/public-service-announcement.html

(in reply to housesub4you)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... - 5/15/2009 6:40:58 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline
Lady C

Point of methodology-

A single skeleton from a time period provides a snapshot of how that individual lived and possibly died, along with what they ate.  Previous studies have used single skeletons or a few skeletons as examples.  It was very easy to counter that since there were so few skeletons, they didn't provide a movie of what life was like at that period in time.  However, with lots of skeletons, our picture of what life was like back then gets fleshed out (OK, I have got to stop punning on this thread.) so to speak and we can form a movie that allows us to reach much firmer conclusions.

In terms of the dental health issue- Let me make some guesses as to how those conclusions were reached-

Let's say that there are several hundred hunter gatherer skeletons from 1900 BCE to 1500 BCE found.  Now let's look at a subset- males, aged 25-35 which can be determined by analysis of the bones.  (I'm assuming the anthropologists can do this- I'm a chemist, and I'd resort to some form of isotopic analysis which may not be as accurate.)  Looking at their teeth what we find is that of the 100 people in the subset we've selected- there are 99 of them with healthy teeth at the time of their death.  Now if we look at a subset of 100 males aged 25-35 during 1500-1700 CE and look at their teeth, we discover that 50% of them have some form of tooth decay.  (I'm making up the numbers off the top of my head to illustrate a point.)  Since tooth decay is generally an indicator for other forms of ill health, we know that these people were sicker overall than the hunter gatherers.

If we look at the subset of skeletons from 1500-1700, we can see that depending on where people were buried, we can infer their economic status.  The folks that were wealthy were taller and their skeletons showed less signs of malnutrition.  Did these people eat more meat than the poorer folks?  Odds are good that they did, since meat was expensive.

This is where science debunks myth.  Your myth is that since there is a phrase referring to gout as a rich man's disease, that all rich people at the time were ill.  However, the science is showing that the rich people during the middle ages were less sick than the poor folks.  Rich folks, eating a diet with more meat in it, were healthier than the poor folks.  You can't throw the data away because you disagree with what it's showing.  In science we call that data falsification and people get in trouble for it.  Yes, there may have been a few people who gorged themselves on meat and got sick because of that.  But focusing on these few obscures the real picture here.

In terms of why this information is relevant to us today... Because genetically our ancestors of 3000 years ago are pretty much indistinguishable from humans today.  Swap babies using a time machine, doubt you could tell the difference.  So here we have a real life laboratory of what happens when humans eat unprocessed foods (largely unprocessed) and made without modern day pesticides, fertilizers, etc.  What the data are showing is that the omnivore diet- one with a high meat/grain ratio- is healthier than the diet with a much lower meat/grain ratio.  We can't do this experiment anymore, because most infants consume processed foods and it would be a very expensive and lengthy trial to select several hundred people at random, isolate them, and see what effect diet has.  Also- our assumption is that back then, either hunter gatherers or agrarian dwellers got plenty of exercise- something which is hard for modern individuals to claim.  To your point that if you took 100 vegetarians today versus 100 omnivores, the vegetarians would be healthier.  Possibly true- but the vegetarians are largely a self selected group who are probably more interested in health issues than omnivores.  If we took a selection of 100 vegetarians and 100 omnivore athletes all of the same age- my money's on the omnivores to outperform the vegetarians.

I think this thread also shows why people struggle with the conclusions of science.  It's OK when they either don't understand it or they don't think its relevant to the way they lead their lives. But when science upsets the applecart (there I go again) of a belief system- the results are queried (generally with theories that are irrelevant such as how modern human medicine effects the conclusions here) and often rejected.

From my perspective- if the data had shown a different conclusion- i.e. that the agrarian dwellers who ate lots of grains compared to meat would have been healthier than the hunter gatherers- I'd have no problem with that either.  Then I'd have to say that the damn vegetarians have been on the right track all along.

Personally, I find that justifying moral decisions on the basis of diet is pretty silly.  Humans should eat what makes them healthy and quit considering themselves as separate from "nature".

Sam

< Message edited by samboct -- 5/15/2009 6:43:56 AM >

(in reply to LadyConstanze)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... - 5/15/2009 8:06:38 AM   
LadyConstanze


Posts: 9722
Joined: 2/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct


This is where science debunks myth.  Your myth is that since there is a phrase referring to gout as a rich man's disease, that all rich people at the time were ill.  However, the science is showing that the rich people during the middle ages were less sick than the poor folks.  Rich folks, eating a diet with more meat in it, were healthier than the poor folks.  You can't throw the data away because you disagree with what it's showing.  In science we call that data falsification and people get in trouble for it.  Yes, there may have been a few people who gorged themselves on meat and got sick because of that.  But focusing on these few obscures the real picture here.


Let me debunk this myth, you assume that the people were healthier because they ate more meat, not taking into consideration that their living conditions were better, for example they didn't have to eat bread that had gone mouldy, could afford fresh vegetables, etc., the poor had to eat what they will find, their nutrition was in GENERAL better, you know it also counts as data falsifications to leave aspects out and it absolutely obscures the picture. You know they didn't just eat meat.

As for gout, most medical experts agree that most cases are due to life-style choices we make, too much booze, a diet that is too rich, high levels of fat and cholesterol in the blood. There are a lot of historic texts about rulers suffering from gout, it was almost unknown to the general population, so that would be strong evidence that it had to do something with the diet of the upper classes.

Seriously, what you are arguing here is not science, you pick certain aspects of science and only accept what fits into the solution you have already drawn for yourself, aka lots and lots of meat is good for you, that's pseudo-science, that's like going into a starvation area, checking people's cholesterol and assuming because that is OK, they must be healthy. Would I have presented my professors with something like "Well, I decided that since the Norman the conquerer invaded England in 1066, all influences on the language are due to that" - there are a lot of influences, but additionally a lot of other nations invaded, he would have tossed my thesis out and told me to look at the whole picture and take everything into consideration.

Now if you care to just search for research on vegetarian diets

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Vegetarian_eating?OpenDocument

Or the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/vegetarian_foods.html

"Vegetarian diets—naturally low in saturated fat, high in fiber, and replete with cancer-protective phytochemicals—help to prevent cancer. Large studies in England and Germany have shown that vegetarians are about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat-eaters.1-3 In the United States, studies of Seventh-Day Adventists have shown significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat.4,5 Similarly, breast cancer rates are dramatically lower in nations, such as China, that follow plant-based diets.6 Interestingly, Japanese women who follow Western-style, meat-based diets are eight times more likely to develop breast cancer than women who follow a more traditional plant-based diet.7 Meat and dairy products contribute to many forms of cancer, including cancer of the colon, breast, ovaries, and prostate.

Harvard studies that included tens of thousands of women and men have shown that regular meat consumption increases colon cancer risk by roughly 300 percent.8,9 High-fat diets also encourage the body’s production of estrogens, in particular, estradiol. Increased levels of this sex hormone have been linked to breast cancer. A recent report noted that the rate of breast cancer among premenopausal women who ate the most animal (but not vegetable) fat was one-third higher than that of women who ate the least animal fat.10 A separate study from Cambridge University also linked diets high in saturated fat to breast cancer.11 One study linked dairy products to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. The process of breaking down the lactose (milk sugar) into galactose evidently damages the ovaries.12 Daily meat consumption triples the risk of prostate enlargement. Regular milk consumption doubles the risk and failure to consume vegetables regularly nearly quadruples the risk.13

Vegetarians avoid the animal fat linked to cancer and get abundant fiber, vitamins, and phytochemicals that help to prevent cancer. In addition, blood analysis of vegetarians reveals a higher level of “natural killer cells,” specialized white blood cells that attack cancer cells.14

Beating Heart Disease

Vegetarian diets also help prevent heart disease. Animal products are the main source of saturated fat and the only source of cholesterol in the diet. Vegetarians avoid these risky products. Additionally, fiber helps reduce cholesterol levels15 and animal products contain no fiber. When individuals switch to a high-fiber, low-fat diet their serum cholesterol levels often drop dramatically.16,17 Studies have demonstrated that a low-fat, high-fiber, vegetarian or vegan diet combined with stress reduction techniques, smoking cessation, and exercise, or combined with prudent drug intervention, could actually reverse atherosclerosis—hardening of the arteries.18,19 Heart diets that include lean meat, dairy products, and chicken are much less effective, usually only slowing the process of atherosclerosis.

Lowering Blood Pressure

In the early 1900s, nutritionists noted that people who ate no meat had lower blood pressure.20 They also discovered that vegetarian diets could, within two weeks, significantly reduce a person’s blood pressure.21 These results were evident regardless of the sodium levels in the vegetarian diets. People who follow vegetarian diets typically have lower blood pressure.22-24 No one knows exactly why vegetarian diets work so well, but probably cutting out meat, dairy products, and added fats reduces the blood’s viscosity (or “thickness”) which, in turn, brings down blood pressure.25 Plant products are generally lower in fat and sodium and have no cholesterol at all. Vegetables and fruits are also rich in potassium, which helps lower blood pressure."

You now, somehow that doesn't sound terribly unhealthy to me!

Now you are talking that omnivores are more healthy and vegetarians are unhealthy, current scientific data would dispute that fact.

As I said, I have no agenda to turn anybody into a vegetarian, I'm not even one myself, but I find it a bit irresponsible to claim that eating lots of meat is healthy, our life-styles are completely and utterly different than the life-style of 3000 years ago, how many people back then did spend most of their time in an office without much physical exercise? If you would take one of their babies into our time and would raise it on our diet and with our life-style, I'm positive that it would have the same health issues we are having today.

Look, my partner is a lot taller than I am, exercises a hell lot more than I do and has weight issues, he actually eats less but he does eat different food, he likes meat and would have it 3 times a day would it not be a health concern, he lies fry ups, he has to rein himself in to not overeat. Me? I eat when I'm hungry, regularly 5 to 10 times a day, I eat what I feel like eating because I believe my body is healthy and naturally tells me what it needs because I didn't dampen all my natural reactions with tons of sugar and additives.

I can only repeat, putting it down to "meat eaters healthy" or "vegetarians unhealthy" is rubbish and highly unscientific, the clue is to have a balanced diet, get the right amount of proteins, carbs, the right fats (preferable unsaturated) and enough vitamins and then pick and eat what you like, be it vegetarian or meaty, as long as the nutritional balance is right, it doesn't matter. If your diet is too one-sided and is lacking an essential element while being too heavy on another element, your body has problems processing it. I think of my metabolism as a highly efficient motor, you give the motor what it needs, you wouldn't put diesel in a petrol engine or the other way round and expect no problems?

Simply take into account the fact that your diet should give you what you require according to your exercise and living conditions, and those have changed a lot over the past few hundred or thousands of years. An athlete will eat a lot more than a couch potato without gaining weight or having health issues. A hunter and gatherer who was basically on the move all the time would use more energy, exercise his muscles more, burn more energy, be more muscular and therefore would require more protein - for how many of us does that ring true? If you feed your regular worker with the diet the hunter and gatherer ate, I'm almost willing to bet that there would be health issues due to too much protein.

_____________________________

There are 10 kinds of people who understand binary
Those who do and those who don't!

http://exdomme.blogspot.com/2012/07/public-service-announcement.html

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... - 5/15/2009 8:34:30 AM   
LadyHibiscus


Posts: 27124
Joined: 8/15/2005
From: Island Of Misfit Toys
Status: offline
I was trained as a scientist, and I heart science.  But, there is a lot more to the reasons for why and how folks lived and died than their diet.  Living conditions, including sanitation and clean water, climate, the types of things they did for a living, many things factor in.    The genetic component can't be ignored, either. 

Historically, people ate what was available, when it was available.  They did not have the luxury of choice, they went after what was in their immediate environment.  They were hungry a lot.  They got sick from bad food a lot.  The Michigan native tribes ate a lot of maple syrup... their teeth rotted to hell, too!  The Inuit ate lots of seal blubber, along with the meat.  Just how many vegetables are there in the arctic? 

We're all here, whether our ancestors ate grubs, roasted swans, or kohlrabi. 

_____________________________

[page 23 girl]



(in reply to LadyConstanze)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... - 5/15/2009 9:03:03 AM   
LadyConstanze


Posts: 9722
Joined: 2/18/2005
Status: offline
I think diet is a contributing factor for health, but you can keep a person on a healthy diet in a small and wet cell without sanitation or the means to exercise, he won't stay healthy for long.

_____________________________

There are 10 kinds of people who understand binary
Those who do and those who don't!

http://exdomme.blogspot.com/2012/07/public-service-announcement.html

(in reply to LadyHibiscus)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... - 5/15/2009 9:03:20 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
LadyC, I am a long time advocater of eating meat, but for totally different reasons. I agree that it would be possible to live well without meat but for a couple of things.

When you first farm a piece of land it is usually repleat with essential minerals. These minerals are absorbed by the the plants and are converted into organic forms which our bodies can use. But like any other chemical factory if you do not have the proper raw ingredients you simply cannot make the finished product.

Eventually it gets to the point where the plants will no longer grow, and that is when the farmer must fertilize of course. I believe it was SBFY who pointed out that it is simply impossible to grow everything organically, but did not go on to say that it is simply impossible to restore what I would term the original "mineral signature" to the land. So we fertilize the ground with what the plants need and not more. And as he pointed out, nobody is going to do this at a loss, you simply have to make money, so things are not likely to change.

So now the farmers are also feeding these mineral depleted grains and feeds to their cattle and whatnot, they are not gaining weight as well, infant mortality is up, profits are down. Animal husbandry professionals come in and identify the problem, which is of course mineral deficiencies and they give them supplements, supplements that some others and I would like to get our hands on for personal use. Actually via testing etc. they identify the specific minerals needed and it is either added to the feed or the water, something.

Animals need more of a complex "mineral signature" for good health than plants. It might be because we move, breathe and see, stuff like that. Plants are easy to please. By eating meat we secondarily get the benefits of the supplements given to the livestock during their life cycle.

Incidentally, I recently read something about some forty year old research (all legit) linking vitamin C to heart disease. Stating that the RDA is way too low, citing animal studies among species' that do not, like us, manufacture their own vitamin C. Linus Pauling was convinced enough to write a paper on it and it was the first time one of his papers had ever been rejected by an authoritative or peer review type publication. Look how much money has been made since.

However this applies to the thread here because it is pretty plain that a vegetarian would ingest more vitamin C, and as far as the lack of other minerals goes, all that is in vitamin C is carbon, hydrogen and oxygen I think. In fact you find very little in the way of essential minerals in the chemical formulae of what are designated vitamins. Maybe some cobalt or nitrogen here and there, but that's about it. Yet 24 minerals are considered essential.

The question there becomes how does the C, H and O molecule survive the vat of hydrochloric acid you dump it into when you ingest it ?

In short (I know it's too late) I think while eating only veggies might've been just fine a few hundred years ago, it is alot harder now. Getting complete proteins is only part of the big picture. I would say today, if you want to go veg, start a garden.

T

(in reply to LadyConstanze)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... - 5/15/2009 9:31:57 AM   
LadyConstanze


Posts: 9722
Joined: 2/18/2005
Status: offline
Hi T,

I agree with a lot of what you said, and as I said, I am really not against people eating meat, but too much meat is also not good. I think moderation is the key, or as Paracelsus said "Everything can be a poison, everything depends on the dose", I see meat a bit like red wine, a glass a day can be great for the health, a bottle or more a day - not so much.

The reason why I avoid red meat is simply that my system tends to react badly, I feel like I'm having a hangover, so obviously it's not right for my diet, but I can supplement that easily. I would not dream of forcing my diet upon somebody who is healthy and happy eating meat instead of fish.

I think a lot of vegetarians are more careful with the oils and fats they use, instead of using lard or saturated oils for cooking, they tend to use flaxseed oil, etc.

My mother is always shocked that I like fish that's high in fat, like mackerel and tells me I shouldn't have much leaner fish, blah blah, much healthier, absolutely rubbish, your body needs oils, again, it depends how much you eat, would I eat fatty fish morning, noon and night, yeah, it might be an issue. Same with meat...

I said it before, my main issue with meat is not just the supplements the animals get that are good for them, it's also the "other" supplements to make them gain weight quick, the hormones, the antibiotics. I think actually that animals that graze naturally are more healthy than animals that are fed on grain, it's what their designed to eat, they might grow slower but the quality of the meat seems significantly different. I can't say much about the taste, but friends told me that it does taste a lot better. One thing I noticed for myself is, if I buy and cook meat (I do that for friends if they are coming to visit), the meat from the supermarket seems to shrink up to 1/3rd of the size, which would indicate that most of it is water, the meat from the butcher down the road who only buys from farmers who keep their animals out on the fields, it shrinks a little bit but not quite so dramatically... Judging from human medicine, water retention is not a sign for good health, so I'm assuming the supermarket meat is a lot less healthy than the organically grown meat.

It's like the old myth that "all things fatty" are bad for you, absolutely not true, the body does need oils, if you give your body tons of saturated fats, you are having a problem, now most diets that are too heavy on meats are also very high in saturated fats.

Again, nothing against meat and eating meat at all, but I do believe eating massive quantities of it does cause a lot of health problems.

_____________________________

There are 10 kinds of people who understand binary
Those who do and those who don't!

http://exdomme.blogspot.com/2012/07/public-service-announcement.html

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... - 5/15/2009 3:09:12 PM   
UncleNasty


Posts: 1108
Joined: 3/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze


quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Like many myths, the health effects of vegetarianism are well known.  It's much healthier to eat vegetarian than say, an omnivores diet which includes things like red meat- right?

Well, not so fast...in the May 1, 2009 edition of Science there's an article which reports on a meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (March 31- April 4 of this year) where some new data led to some surprising conclusions.  The study presented was the first large scale study of 11,000 human skeletal remains which where pooled from 72 researchers- a meta study if you will.  These European individuals lived from 3,000 years ago till about 200 years ago.  Note that most anthropological studies on humans have been done with relatively few skeletons from burial sites- often where the sick folks got buried.  Hence, they weren't very representative of the population as a whole, but this meta study is.

What they found was that as humans transitioned from hunter gatherers to a more agrarian existence- they got sicker based on skeletal analysis.  They document shrinking sizes, (the average human male decreased from 173 cm in 400 BCE to 166 cm in the 1600s) along with diseases such as leprosy, tuberculosis, and all sorts of awful dental decay which was based on a more limited diet and one with more sugars.  The one advantage to living in towns was that they suffered less bone trauma- i.e. fewer broken bones, but living in towns definitely made people sicker.  In the Middle Ages, living on a farm led to taller individuals, generally a sign of better nutrition.  In town, if you weren't part of an elite, you were pretty sick.

My conclusions on this one- eating a restricted diet- including one heavy in grains, is not the healthiest thing to do.  Be an omnivore- eat everything.

In terms of modern day data, humans in the US are shrinking since the 1950s- coupled with increasing rates of obesity.  What does this suggest about our modern diet?   Much as I'd like to say that it shows the dangers of vegetarianism (I thought about putting this post in the politics and religion forum- it seems to me that proselytizing vegetarianism is indeed some form of religion.) I think it probably shows that modern day highly processed foods aren't a good idea either.  The data on vegetarianism is shown by the study on historical humans.  Food for thought? 


Sam  (ducking and running...)


I think it is a myth that vegetarianism makes you sick, eating bad food makes you sick, simple as that. A vegetarian who lives of veggy fast food is just as likely to get sick as your regular fast food addict.

As to your Middle Ages theory, I would suggest you check the facts again, if you OWNED a farm, you might have lived better and healthier, if you were a serf, you had hard work, bad food and usually died fairly early, so no difference to the town situation.

I know a few people with heart problems, a lot of their problems have been solved by switching them to a diet that is free of red meat.
Have you checked what too much animal proteins do to your arteries and heart? Most of our modern day diseases are due to nutrition, nobody would expect a car engine to run well on low quality food, yet we expect our bodies to run well on crap food.

Additionally, our bodies are all different, what might be the ideal diet for one person will not work for the next person, our metabolisms are pretty individual. I'm not a gung ho vegetarian, I never got into vegetarianism as a fashion statement, but from an early age on I didn't like eating certain types of meat, most meat causes me to feel really bad, sluggish, bloated and for me it just doesn't taste good, a pretty good sign that it is not right for my metabolism. I do like fish though, so about once week I'll have fish, but if you'd be offering me pork or lamb, I'd turn green, even the smell of it is nauseating for me.

Highly processed food is poison for your system, most people don't have enough fibers in their diet, the salad leaf in a burger (no matter if meat or veggy) doesn't make up for a balanced diet, as a whole we don't exercise enough and eat too much and the wrong food.

I think a vegetarian can live just as healthy as an omnivore, provided both approach their diet clear headed and look for balanced meals.

Actually, you know the whole data you threw up with more diseases now, you could easily link that to people now eating more meat than they used to. Think about something like gout, it was something only rich people got because they were the ones who could afford to eat meat regularly, for the poorer classes (country and city) meat was something that was served on Sunday, now people not only have it every day, a lot of them have it at least 3 times a day, and not always the most healthy kind, highly processed, etc. If you think about the way that meat is "produced", animals are given everything to grow in weight as fast as possible, drugs to stop them from getting diseases because they are living in conditions that are contrary to their normal conditions, drugs to keep them alive during the transport... Where do you think all that stuff goes? The blood stream will transport it in each and everyone of their cells and every piece of meat you eat will have it in it. Sounds very very healthy to me...

As to your point of dental decay, brush your teeth regularly, floss, keep up a good and steady dental hygiene and visit a dentist at least twice a year for checkups. It makes a hell lot of a difference because he will see a problem appearing and can treat it before your teeth start rotting away.

I dare say while my diet is very very low on meat, I'm a good deal fitter and healthier than most of my peers and I'm not following fad diets. I had eating disorders in my teens, but I haven't counted calories in years, it's fairly simple, I exercise regularly, take a bike instead of a car and walk, ignore lifts and take the stairs and I don't do fast food or ready meals. Last time my dentist needed to do something (apart from the regular check-up and polishing session with the hygienist) was 3 years ago when I broke a piece of a molar off (gotta love it if you bite on a tiny piece of stone that somehow found its way into your lunch), I don't think that including steaks or pork into my diet would make me much healthier or fitter.




Beef production techniques and the beef industry have been through some dramatic changes since the Great Depression. There have been mostly negative effects in these changes, both for the cattle and the people that eat them - with the exception of the bottom line becoming better for the larger producers.

The fat content in the average cow has gone up significantly so people that eat red meat have increased fat consumption in comparison to pre-depression era folks.

Cows are grass eaters by nature. Ruminants. Grass is a product of the sun. Today, however, most cattle are fed on a diet mostly of corn. Modern corn is a product of oil - petrochemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides. So modern cattle, while naturally "sun" eaters, have been turned into "oil" eaters. An interesting way to look at it.

Cattle that are fed grass and hay for two weeks before slaughter have an incidence of e-coli that is almost nonexistant. Compare that to the rates of same for grain fed beef.

It could be that the heart issues "cured" by eliminating red meat could have also been cured by eating natural grass fed beef.

From 2000 until my accident in 2007 my red meat intake was almost exclusively venison. A more natural and healthy source of red meat would be hard to find. Extremely lean and very tasty. It took me a little while to adjust to the differing cooking techniques - it gets dry and tough if not properly prepared.

As for expecting cars to run well on poor quality food I don't expect them to run well on high quality food either. Try stuffing fruits, veggies, grains and/or naturally fed meats and see how well yours runs, LOL (sorry, I couldn't resist). 

Uncle Nasty

(in reply to LadyConstanze)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... - 5/15/2009 6:28:17 PM   
janiebelle


Posts: 332
Joined: 4/29/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty

Cattle that are fed grass and hay for two weeks before slaughter have an incidence of e-coli that is almost nonexistant. Compare that to the rates of same for grain fed beef.

It could be that the heart issues "cured" by eliminating red meat could have also been cured by eating natural grass fed beef.

From 2000 until my accident in 2007 my red meat intake was almost exclusively venison. A more natural and healthy source of red meat would be hard to find. Extremely lean and very tasty. It took me a little while to adjust to the differing cooking techniques - it gets dry and tough if not properly prepared.


Uncle Nasty


The lower concentration of coliforms in grass fed beef is likely due to pasturing.  The crowding of the feedlot invariably results in higher counts than in animals at pasture who are not standing in their own waste.
Wholehearted agreement on venison.  Properly prepared, many people grow to prefer it to commodity meats. 
j

(in reply to UncleNasty)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... - 5/15/2009 7:53:09 PM   
DavanKael


Posts: 3072
Joined: 10/6/2007
Status: offline
OP, I just got back to this thread and think that Lady Constanze has done such an exquisite job of refuting your reply to me that really my additional input on those points is minimal.  (Giving a respectful nod to Lady Constanze).  Essentially, I was refuting your generalization of then to now via the examples I gave and also pointing out that agrarian does not equal vegetarian.  You're using shifty ideas of science; via such things, I could take just about any point and prove it out if I wanted to use research to my own goals. 

LadyConstanze, I giggled when you mentioned no veggie having a leather fetish.  While I don't have a leather fetish, I've considered the scent of leather erotic for as long as I remember.  My first couple years of realizing that as a vegetarian, I was upset by that but talked some sense into myself when I stopped being as reactionary a teenager: I like the scent, it's not hurting anyone or anything.  Within the past year, I have made the decision to use/wear used (Donated or given away or otherwise recycled) leather as a way of honoring the animal and not having the hide go to waste without, in any way, feeding into the meat industry.  I would also wear leather/eat meat from an accidental kill (Like, hit by a car) or euthanized for mercy (Ie: it was njured beyond saving) assuming it was safe to do so (THough, I haven't been afforded that opportunity and hope not to be: I would rather the animal be safe, healthy, and alive!). 

Housesubforyou, there are numerous theories on brain development and such related to the ingestion of meat (Ie: thought that we developed/evolved more quickly/better as a species because of meat consumption).  I believe them.  Would vegetarianism thousands of years ago been contra-survival.  Yep.  Is it now?  I don't think so.  I am a vegetarian because I have the mental capacities, thanks to our progenitors, to make that choice.  Is it counter-instinctual?  Yep.  Do I believe my choice is ultimately detrimental to humanity at large?  No.  If I were to breed and was told that my being a vegetarian threatened the fetus I was carrying, would I eat meat?  You betcha, would kill the animal myself if I needed to, and would honor its sacrifie regardless.  I've spoken with numerous doctors and dieticians, though, who have told me that were I to decide to have a child, that I could do so, without detriment to said progeny, via care in dietary choice.  And, by the way, my current (And probably decade-plus stance) is that I would not raise a child a vegetarian, I would let them choose.

I'm back to reiterating that with reasonable prudence (And not even care), one can healthfully be a vegetarian in modern society: I've been a vegetarian for over 20 years and I'm a hearty creature (knock-on-wood). 

It occurs to me, OP, that there are groups in the world that are and have been vegetarians for generations...many Hindus, for examples are vegetarian.  Were someone to study remains of vegetarian Hindus from several thousand years ago, several hundred years ago, and very recently, and compare the differences (Though accounting for changes as I noted previously), that may be a bit more sound. 
Agrarian does not equal vegetarian nor does it interpolate there-to. 
  Davan

_____________________________

May you live as long as you wish & love as long as you live
-Robert A Heinlein

It's about the person & the bond,not the bondage
-Me

Waiting is

170NZ (Aka:Sex God Du Jour) pts

Jesus,I've ALWAYS been a deviant
-Leadership527,Jeff

(in reply to janiebelle)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... - 5/17/2009 6:55:09 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline
"Let me debunk this myth, you assume that the people were healthier because they ate more meat, not taking into consideration that their living conditions were better, for example they didn't have to eat bread that had gone mouldy, could afford fresh vegetables, etc., the poor had to eat what they will find, their nutrition was in GENERAL better, you know it also counts as data falsifications to leave aspects out and it absolutely obscures the picture. You know they didn't just eat meat.

As for gout, most medical experts agree that most cases are due to life-style choices we make, too much booze, a diet that is too rich, high levels of fat and cholesterol in the blood. There are a lot of historic texts about rulers suffering from gout, it was almost unknown to the general population, so that would be strong evidence that it had to do something with the diet of the upper classes.

Seriously, what you are arguing here is not science, you pick certain aspects of science and only accept what fits into the solution you have already drawn for yourself, aka lots and lots of meat is good for you, that's pseudo-science, that's like going into a starvation area, checking people's cholesterol and assuming because that is OK, they must be healthy. Would I have presented my professors with something like "Well, I decided that since the Norman the conquerer invaded England in 1066, all influences on the language are due to that" - there are a lot of influences, but additionally a lot of other nations invaded, he would have tossed my thesis out and told me to look at the whole picture and take everything into consideration."

Excuse me Lady C- but what you've done is throw out the data because it doesn't fit your preconceived (sp?) notions.  None of what you posted explains that data that the omnivores were healthier than the people eating the agrarian (largely vegetarian) diet.  Nor is your hyperbole bolstering your implied claim that what you're doing is science and what I'm doing is not.  In reality, all I did was draw what are admittedly some provocative conclusions from a study- but one which I think is well done. 

Example "not taking into consideration that their living conditions were better".  Were the living conditions of omnivore hunter/gatherers better than people that lived on a farm?  I don't know, but I kind of doubt it.  One of the major advantages of farming was it reduced the need to travel, increased literacy (bureacracy and accounting were a necessity of any functioning economy) and allowed the construction of permanent dwelling places which should be a lot nicer to live in than either tents or caves.  Yet even with these advantages, the hunter gatherers were healthier.

Example "for example they didn't have to eat bread that had gone mouldy,"- if you're living on a farm and produce lots of grain for bread- why should you eat the moldy stuff?  Wouldn't it go to feed the livestock?  I don't think hunter gatherers ate bread though- or at least not much.

Example of hyperbole-"only accept what fits into the solution you have already drawn for yourself, aka lots and lots of meat is good for you, that's pseudo-science"

Please put your money or intriguing photos of yourself where your mouth is.  I'll put up one of my chocolate desserts- have to be something that can travel- probably a decadence.  Find anything in this thread where I claimed that eating lots of meat was good for you- I dare you.  What's your wager?


Sam


(in reply to DavanKael)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... - 5/24/2009 4:42:18 PM   
krazykatelyn


Posts: 27
Joined: 2/15/2008
Status: offline
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3881515735687284929 

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... - 5/24/2009 9:13:21 PM   
PyrotheClown


Posts: 1950
Joined: 5/18/2009
Status: offline
screw vegetarians (literally)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTdPRlHB4Os

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094