This page is part of the archives of the IshCon.org discussion forums, as they existed from November 2002 to January 2007. Some links and other content references may be outdated or broken. For more information about IshCon, visit www.ishcon.org.
Topic: vegetarians
Part of the forum "Speakers Corner" in the IshCon Forum Archive
| Poster and Date | Post |
| vertigo Mon Dec 5th, 2005 at 04:47 PM |
just a quick question... ive been hearing alot of vegetarians say that they dont eat meat because they dont want to kill anything to fill their bellies. my question is this...if you dont want to kill soemthing to feed yourself then why is it ok to kill a plant to feed yourself? now i realize that not all of them say this so please dont take any offense. just curious. |
| jefgodesky Mon Dec 5th, 2005 at 04:53 PM |
The Hypocrisy of Vegetarianism |
| Hypnopompia Mon Dec 5th, 2005 at 05:14 PM |
Yeah. What's more moral, killing one cow or a field of wheat? It's just animals are better than plants because people are animals. I eat vegetarians, what do you think cows are? |
| Ghost Mon Dec 5th, 2005 at 06:11 PM |
Holy shit, Jason, you have WAY too fucking much free time 8) I'm laughing in my semi-recumbant chair :D Contrary to popular belief, vegetarians don't become functionally retarded when we consume vegetables. Worst case scenario, our forearms expand and get magical anchor tattos and we say "ahg, ahg, ahg, agh." I think the average vegetarian is aware that plants are living organisms. Didn't they cover that in grade two :-k Seriously though, I'm a vegan. I think that most vegans and vegetarians are just not pleased with factory farming. At least today. I know for sure that Oscar Wilde referenced vegetarians in the 19th century. For me, it's about both factory farming and saturated fats and to a lesser degree, the questionable value of meat in our diet. But I bite the shit out of parsley :werd: So it's a funny argument to me, primarily because it comes up all the time. There is this wierd reaction amonst meat eaters that causes them to try and discredit vegetarianism. It's like a homophobia kind of thing. It's pretty funny to watch. Frankly, it's not a lifestyle that needs to be defended. It's just a choice. I've been a vegetarian for five years at least and a vegan for three and I can leg press 1 000 lbs and run a half marathon. I guess that means I'm healthy. Granted, there are some vegetarians that are dumb like Bush I'm sure. I imagine they sound like that guy in Fight Club who can barely get a sentence out. BTW - I took absolutely zero offence. By the by the way - There was an interesting thread about a year ago about plant sentience and the ethical ramafications of consuming them. PS: You don't have a fucking leg to stand on there, Ben... you eat a god damned paleolithic diet :twisted: Heat mutherfucker... use it! Boil a fucking potato. Eat some oatmeal! Holy shit... are you allowed drinking beer? Fuck that noise, where's my Guiness :~~ ON EDIT: There is a sect of vegetarians that wear masks so that they don't inadvertantly breathe in microbial life. I think they're Jainists. Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| vertigo Mon Dec 5th, 2005 at 06:17 PM |
i love animals they are delicious |
| Nene Mon Dec 5th, 2005 at 06:21 PM |
Hey -- In my experiance there are a variety of different 'kinds' of vegetarians. There is the 'Matt' kind -- disgust at factory farming is totally laudable and I agree completely -- but I take a different route and try to focus on organic, free range, grass fed etc... Then there is the 'health food' kind -- I disagree with the premise that meat is unhealthy so I find this kind of silly -- but understandable with the contradictory research and mass marketing of the 'meat is bad for you' meme. Then there is the 'environmentalist' kind. Meat production DOES take more resources than vegetarian options... but do we really want to expand our population even further? The there is the 'cute and fuzzy bunny' kind. These are the ones that you can ask the 'what about killing plants' question. Usually the response is that it is a 'lesser' evil... but I would find it interesting to really expand that discussion some day and see where it leads... BTW, Matt... that article was written by Guili... not sure if you caught that.... Janene |
| Devin Mon Dec 5th, 2005 at 06:42 PM |
I think he was commenting on the fact that Jason replied in 6 minutes. Either that or that he has an article to link to for damn near every subject, whether he's written it or not. Now me, I have a ton of free time. Reading and discussing and thinking about things non-stop is typically how I fill it up. I'll maintain general bodily functions -- eating/sleeping/breathing/etc -- but that's about the extent of it. Once a week on sunday I leave the house to go to church. I used to go running every couple of days or so, when it was warmer, but now it's cold and I'll exercise indoors if at all. THAT, my friends, is a lot of free time. :D |
| ProjectPurity Mon Dec 5th, 2005 at 07:13 PM |
Vegetarianism and veganism as a mindset and a corrisponding lifestyle is the sum result stemming from the opposition to modern meat ag. Nobody had a problem with eating animals until it became a far and away issue... when you start getting your meat from the freezer instead of the cow, only later to learn that those cattle live in poor conditions and die odd deaths at best.... the backlash is natural, and vegan / vegetarian... it's all how far you want to go with it and how deeply it effects you. Humans became humans learning how to suppliment their diets with fish and animals.... i wouldn't want to defy that. Although the amount of meat that we eat in global civ is certainly disproportionate to any leaver situation.... I guess meat is our preferred food. I think the figure for most indigenous hunter gatherers is something like 70% of calories come from forrage and only 30% come from hunting... if people would follow that example.... and i'm sure it's not just what they preferr to do, but rather what's the most effective, a lot of people wouldn't have the health problems that they do. Nothing against vegetarians or vegans, i used to be one... but from an evolutionary standpoint and from a practicality standpoint, it just doesn't make sence. |
| Menrandes Mon Dec 5th, 2005 at 08:26 PM |
I like meat. I like veggies and fruits too. I eat more of those than the meats, especially since Ben converted me to paleo (I was probably eating more bread before then). Right around the time that I started paleo, I had a persuasive speech to give to my classmates. My topic was factory farming. I remember it well, especially researching it before hand and finding I had little stomach for eating much meat. When I presented it, the thing I remember most was watching a rather arrogant (he acted extremely arrogant and high and mighty for the duration of the class) guy put his breakfast of mcdonalds down and not touch it again, half eaten. Remembering the things I learned, the things I saw and what the animals go through, it's hard to resign yourself to just go back to doing things the way you did before. Organic meats is defintely a solution to that. I know that when I just eat vegetables and fruits I don't feel quite as healthy as I do when I add some meat in there every once in a while. |
| jefgodesky Mon Dec 5th, 2005 at 09:38 PM |
I didn't even write that one--Giuli did. And she only eats the organic meat, so she's effectively vegetarian. Vegetarian because factory farming is vile? I commend you. In it for the health benefits? That's just pop culture nonsense; humans evolved to eat meat (and a lot of it), and we're at our healthiest when we do. "Ethical vegetarian" against killing anything to stay alive? Then you're a hypocrite who can't face the reality of the world and is too disgusted by the community of life to ever be part of it. Very civilized. No veggie-phobia here, Matt; just sick of being told how I'm a filthy murderer for chowing down like my Mesolithic ancestors did. |
| ProjectPurity Mon Dec 5th, 2005 at 10:10 PM |
geeze, you two just try to find conflict..... Jason, was i off on the 70/30 calorie thing? I'm very unpolished on my tribes knowledge so i could very well be off. You did say A LOT of meat, and i don't think that was always the case.... i mean, the Inuit subsited primarily on fatty whale, but i don't think they were the rule. I think that the most important thing to consider in your daily life is that to live, you must take life. It's like a path where you are living and the life that you have is the sum total of the life you took in eating. I'm thankful to every cow I eat or every chicken or pig.... they died so that i can live.... easy as that. And i get such static for teaching my sone that in so many words.... pathetic. |
| Hypnopompia Mon Dec 5th, 2005 at 10:25 PM |
Well....no, no beer. But I have the run on wine. Grapes, grapes, grapes. Very tasty. |
| jefgodesky Mon Dec 5th, 2005 at 10:58 PM |
Cordain, et al, 2000. "Plant-Animal Subsistence Ratios and Macronutrient Energy Estimations in Worldwide Hunter-Gatherer Diets" [PDF] |
| WackyMorningDJ Mon Dec 5th, 2005 at 11:20 PM |
About six (or so) years ago my mom went straight from being vegetarian to paleo (or, as we called it in middle school the "caveman diet"). Took her a while to adjust to eating red meat... I don't think she actually ate any for around a year. Breads and butter was easily her favorite food beforehand. Right about that time is when I started cooking a lot. My favorite thing to do was bake breads and cakes and pies :D . Consequently, she's not a particularly "strict" cavewoman at times. |
| arkface Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 01:23 AM |
i am a vegatarian. i am greater than all of you. but, sometimes i have urges to eat meat like NO OTHER. just not factory farmed meat. oh and... i cast an evil veggie spell on you! we veg'uns have alot of good spells to help others to our causees. like faulty research. lots of books "detailing the abuse humans have put on animals." we make alot of money converting alienated coffee shop revolutionaries. and we just can't get our eyes off those cute kittens. think of the kittens! *ends the CALL* |
| Ghost Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 10:22 AM |
Hey, ho. Sorry about the Giuli thing. I skimmed over the article. My bad. Like I said, this argument, at its heart, is silly. Both sides can trot out all kinds of facts and arguments and pie charts (mmmmm... pie) but the bottom line is, there is no one right way to eat. Vegetarianism in many forms has been around for a very long time and is rooted in a lot of religions. There is no such thing as one reason for being a vegetarian from person to person, whether you're a live foodist, a vegan, an ovo-lacto vegetarian or a fruitarian. On the historical tip, I have my reservations. Personally I find the link between eating meat and becoming smart a little fatuous. There are a million other ways to get amino acids and a million other animals that eat meat. I fail to see how it directly made a contribution. But that's just me. Also, humans were simply not designed to eat meat every day; the male gut is proof of that and we certainly weren't designed to eat it more than once a day. At best, it's supposed to suplement our diets. The Inuit ate whale blubber because the whales ate algae and stored vitamins in their fat. The Inuit live in permafrost. There is no vegetation to eat, so the only source of vitamins is the whale blubber. Otherwise they'd be eating fruit and broccoli. Granted, most hard core North American diets like veganism and live-foodism are technological diets. We both have to supplement things like vitamin b-12 because we can't get them from food. So it's not like I'm saying that humans were designed to be vegans because we aren't. One thing is for certain, the health benefits of a zero meat diet are not pop culture nonsense. Humans are certainly not at their healthiest when they eat a lot of meat, quite demonstrably the opposite, they're at their heart-attackiest. If someone here could point me to some vegetarian literature that states that it's wrong to kill ANY living organism, I'd like to see it. The closest thing I can think of is a Jainist sect of fruitarians that only eat fruit that has fallen off the tree. So I think the hypocricy argument is a little silly. I hereby appologise on behalf of all vegetarians for the few one-right-wayers that take a flying shit on meat eaters. WE don't even like PETA. The vast majority of us could give two shits what you do in the privacy of your own kitchen 8) For real though, this kind of argument happens all the time. Why are people vegetarians? Isn't it silly? They must be foolish/wrong/evil/trying to take away my lifestyle. We could be having this same argument about homosexuality. Are people designed to be gay? Is it wrong? Stop telling me that I should accept/ban homosexuality! It don't matter. It's there. That's the only truth. We're here, we're queer. We know the score, we're herbivores. Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| jefgodesky Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 10:26 AM |
It would be silly if we were saying that carnivorism was the one right way to eat, but you must remember, Matt, you are a prince among vegetarians. :) Not all of your fellow herbivores are as enlightened as you, and we have many times had to endure their abuse as they tell us how evil we are for eating the way humans evolved to eat. Vertigo and Giuli were responding to that, and in fact echoing your same sentiment, telling such vegetarians that theirs is not the One Right Way, and that they have no monopoly on ethics. "Matt" wrote: One thing is for certain, the health benefits of a zero meat diet are not pop culture nonsense. Humans are certainly not at their healthiest when they eat a lot of meat, quite demonstrably the opposite, they're at their heart-attackiest. Even wild game? Because hunter-gatherers eat almost nothing but meat. Inuit get all their vegetables from the stomach contents of caribou. Their cholesterol is through the roof, but these are some of the healthiest people on the planet. Your average 60 year old hunter-gatherer can run a marathon--through a brick wall. |
| Ghost Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 10:33 AM |
Fine, but the reverse is true. I can't count the amount of times I've been shit on and dismissed by meat eaters. There are always people on either side of an argument ready to be jerks. But to dismiss anothers argument in any way because there are jerks arguing that same point is silly because everyone does it. So I've apologised for jerky vegetarians, who's going to apologise for jerky jerky manufacturers :D Like I said, it's a silly argument with only one truth... thre are meat eaters and vegetarians and everyone in between and they're all valid. ON EDIT: to respond to your edit... By definition, hunter-gatherers DON'T eat almost nothing but meat because then they'd be called hunters. I already commented on the Inuit's need to get vitamins from what their game eats, the important point being that they NEED vitamins. There is no such thing as an all meat diet without supplements any more than there is such thing as an all vegan diet without supplements. For humans at any rate. The rest of what you said was pretty generalised. Inuit need fat to survive the cold, but there is no comparing them to a Bushman. I think it's safe to say that in some cases, the level of activity of some aboriginal hunter-gatherers who eat tons of meat counteracts the negative health effects of their diet and accounts for their general good health. North Americans, the rootin-tootinist, meat-eatiest, obesiest, hart-attackingist people in the history of the human race, aren't so lucky :( Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| jefgodesky Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 10:40 AM |
I will. We often overreact from one group of vegetarians, and poop on all y'all, and that's uncalled for. I hereby apologize on behalf of red-blooded, red-meat eating 'merikans from the United States of Cholesterol. |
| tonyz Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 10:41 AM |
just as no one can actually be fully Jain without being fully dead, neither can one be fully vegan and still be alive, too. I'm not making a poke here, but if you really thought about it, and went down to the insect amd microbe level, you would have anything left to eat. ANd I dont' know anyone that easts only meat. (But I do have a friend that LOVES the cock...) So no one's perfect. Now there's an interesting topic of conversation. Love and Strength, TonyZ |
| Nene Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 11:10 AM |
Hey -- On Hunter-Gatherer Diets... I think one thing that frequently gets glossed over, nutritionally, is how VITALLY important the diverstiy of a hunter gatherer diet is. It has less to do with how much meat they eat (although I think the big point here is that, on volume they may eat relatively little meat -- but calorically a little meat may be the majority of thier diet) but rather the huge variety of roots, berries, nuts etc that they have available to them. This makes a huge difference in total nutrition compared to modern americans meat + six vegetable/fruit varieties and lots of grain.... On the health argument for vegetarians vs paleo... there is lots of evidence that red meat leads to heart attacks... there is also evidence to suggest that as our diet has switched away from meats that heart disease has increased. But the grain lobbies and marketing boards are much more powerful (and PC) so that this research never gets out to the public. So who is right? I tend to figure that if you lean toward naturally lean meats, (like wild game) and as much fruit/vegie variety as possible, and as little processed foods as you can manage, that's probably your best bet. Janene |
| jefgodesky Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 11:16 AM |
The idea that hunter-gatherers ate little in the way of meat comes from a study by Lee. But then it was shown that his study relied almost solely on the !Kung, who are atypical in that they are obsessed with their mongongo nuts. As the Cordain study I linked above shows, a more cross-cultural analysis of hunter-gatherer diets shows that they vary by latitude, from near 100% meat by volume at the poles, to "merely" 65% meat by volume at the equator. But no matter where you go, your average hunter-gatherer eats more meat than anything else by a good amount. Meat wasn't only a source of protein, it also replaced carbohydrates as their primary source of energy. Wild edible plants provided important micronutrients, vitamins and minerals, almost like the vitamin supplements of our Mesolithic ancestors. |
| Ghost Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 12:06 PM |
Like I said, there are a million facts and figures on both sides of the arguments and a lot in between. In the end, diet boils down to two things, situation and choice. Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| WackyMorningDJ Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 12:14 PM |
Yeah, it's definitely important to point out that one of the major premises behind paelo is that much fat + much carb = bad, but much fat = energy to burn. If you're an average meat eater here, you're eating tons of breads too, burning that energy, and letting the fats from your meat just sit and clog up everything. If you're a paleo-person, you're eating plenty of meant, burning that fat, and nothing gets to sit and clog. |
| raku Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 12:59 PM |
Good point, Mike. Eating lots of meat might be great if you've gotta spend the energy stalking, killing, skinning, and preparing your meat. If you're sitting on your butt all day in front of a computer, lots of meat might not be the greatest for you. You can't separate the energy source from the energy use. I think another thing that might be good to consider is the nature of your bioregion. Would your region support your eating habits, or would your food have to be trucked in from somewhere in the off-season (or because there's no room for it)? Eating lots of meat suits the Inuit because they have long periods with no vegetation, and cold weather that burns lots of fat, and the animals are there. People in more temperate zones might eat lots of plants in the warm season and more meat in the colder months, and people in warm places might be able to live all year on fruits and veggies with minimal meat. I read somewhere that people whose diets are high in meat need to be careful to eat organs and other parts of the animal in order to get the proper nutrients. If you can figure a way to get the foods you want without the civilized infrastructure, and you can get all your nutritional requirements out of it, then that's great! |
| TwoRoadsTom Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 02:05 PM |
You know, re: diet, I have been tempted to put up a paleo-style website called "Not-a-cow.com" It's an anti-grass, anti-milk, pro-burger kind of place. :) Me, not so much the big fan of grass because you have to cook the crap out of it and it generally tastes like sh*t. Of course, the exceptions (sugarcane), when cooked up, really f---'s you up internally. Hmph. But hey, there's an alternative for all you who wish to be more-than-vegans! Breatharians! All you have to do is breathe and occasionally drink your own urine. Of course, if you do it wrong, apparently, you cough up black bile and die but hey, it's a small price to pay for not killing anything, right? 8O I love people. They're funny. And tasty with some lemon butter and shallots. Quote: Everything in this room is eatable. Even Im eatable. But that is called cannibalism, my dear children, and is in fact frowned upon in most societies. --- Willy Wonka |
| prometheus235 Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 02:09 PM |
Quote: But hey, there's an alternative for all you who wish to be more-than-vegans! Breatharians! All you have to do is breathe and occasionally drink your own urine. Of course, if you do it wrong, apparently, you cough up black bile and die but hey, it's a small price to pay for not killing anything, right? put down the Transmetropolitan and step away slowly....... lol lol and triple lol R |
| jefgodesky Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 02:17 PM |
Lemon butter and shallots, you say? Have you ever tried rotisserie? |
| TwoRoadsTom Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 02:51 PM |
No, I was told it was too dry. Have I erred? :twisted: Quote: "Try an actor! They're compacter..." "But always arrive overdone." Mr. Todd & Mrs. Lovett [/b] |
| jefgodesky Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 03:17 PM |
I always found it very juicy. |
| Menrandes Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 04:04 PM |
"TwoRoadsTom" wrote: Quote: Everything in this room is eatable. Even Im eatable. But that is called cannibalism, my dear children, and is in fact frowned upon in most societies. --- Willy Wonka that has to be my favorite quote from that movie.... |
| TwoRoadsTom Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 04:44 PM |
And just so I can't be accused of completely derailing the topic... :D I've read a couple of comments here suggesting we can't determine a solid course of nutrition (hope that's phrased correctly). I've heard many times the same suggestion out here among my friends. Respectfully, I disagree. I think there are a couple of things we were never meant to eat. First, the grasses and mothers' milk. Mothers' milk is meant for babies of their species. Unless you wish to traffic in human milk, you are damaging yourself with balances skewed for a different animal. Although, maybe you could get away with primate milk. A cold glass of bonobo milk for anyone? Grasses... wow. Toxic without cooking, protective of their nutrients in the extreme. I know Leavers eat them as well but, IMHO they are linked to civ and to the unhealthiness that pervades the culture. Leave the grasses to our four-legged friends. (and then eat them). And then there's the animals. I think the message is clear with them (though it applies to all life equally). Eat them as you will but let them live the lives they were meant to live. Don't put them in cages or stables or houses. Don't make them live like humans. Let the herd be the herd. Let the birds fly free. Let the occasionally one be lost to the coyote or the cougar. This grows healthy animals and eating healthy animals grows healthy humans. See, the funny thing is, let's say we as a group (Ishcon) decide grasses are bad, dairy is bad, and factory farming is bad. That leaves us with 75,000 other choices to eat, no two diets alike, each tailored to your eco-region and bodily needs. Of course, the sad part is we still live in civ. So, grass will be in most things we eat. Mothers' milk (including the colostrum, I now see in Whole Foods! :O== ) will be sold on TV commericals as the ultimate food. And the slaughterhouses will keep pumping out that Jimmy Dean sausage. :cry: So, that's my opinion. And now I duck and wait for the retort. Best Bill Maxwell |
| jefgodesky Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 04:48 PM |
The seeds are toxic without cooking, but all grasses are okay for chewing on. Doesn't make much of a meal, but it's nice to munch on. It's the juices inside that have any kind of nutritional content. |
| TwoRoadsTom Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 04:56 PM |
Point taken |
| Menrandes Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 05:02 PM |
Milk always had a way of kind of oooking me out. Milk from your mother's breast is designed with you in mind. Milk from a cow is not. Any wonder that lactose intolerance is abundant? After Paleo, my stomach can't stomach milk and cheese any more, a fact that I was sad about at first, since I loved cheese, but got over it pretty quickly after sampling some cheeses and finding myself in pain for a while. Like Bill said, there are so many things out and about there to eat. MC says there is not, says that only the stuff that is packaged as food is food. I wrote about that briefly in my paper. Agriculture Paper excuse the shameless plug please. :D |
| jefgodesky Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 05:08 PM |
It's a very recent mutation that allows for adult production of lactase. I was taught it originated in northern Europe, but there are some other parts of the world where milk and dairy are big down in the Middle East, India and thereabouts, so that can't be entirely correct. But, being one of those wierd mutants, we talk of "lactose intolerance." In fact, all other mammals, and most human populations, stop producing lactase once they reach maturity. It's lactose tolerance that's wierd. |
| WackyMorningDJ Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 05:44 PM |
Good points Bill. Most civilized diets are composed of things we really can't eat... It's a shame really. (so, just to derail a bit more...) Quote: Mrs. Mooney has a pie shop Does a business but I notice something weird Lately all her neighbors' cats have disappeared -Mrs. Lovett |
| TwoRoadsTom Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 05:55 PM |
Mmmm.... cats. :) |
| grischa Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 06:16 PM |
you all forget one point. To produce 1 kg of meat you need 9 kg of plants. So, for eating more meat you need more agricultural space. this leads to more rain forest being cut (look at south america). i agree with the point that meat eating is natural and healthy. But there are only two posibilities for a more sustainable lifestyle: be vegetarian/vegan or eat people. i for my part haven't taken a decision yet. greetings from europe |
| JCamasto Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 06:20 PM |
I'm strictly omnivore. -Jim |
| WackyMorningDJ Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 06:22 PM |
A lot of environmentalist/vegetarians cite that as one way to become a sustainable world. Of course, this is operating from the standpoint that we've got this many people in the world, and we'll have more in the future, so all we need to do is figure out how to feed them. In terms of feeding 10 billion people, yeah, vegetarianism is the way to go, but that's definitely not my, or many people's, goal. 10 billion isn't sustainable no matter how they're fed. You might be able to feed them, but that's not the whole picture. Coincidentally, my vision of sustainability includes a much lower population, and the ability to eat meat. |
| TwoRoadsTom Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 06:23 PM |
Grischa, I didn't forget it at all. But perhaps you don't need more agricultural space. Perhaps what you need is better environments, so that a variety of species using a variety of different plants can eat. Besides, plant or animal, if agriculture is how they are being grown (and yes, I'm using the metaphor of cows being 'grown' like crops), it's fundamentally unsustainable! So there's problems enough with that. What could be decided / discussed (whatever) here, is what kind of diets will give us the best health to survive the transition to a new lifestyle. The one we're currently stuck in doesn't work. |
| Menrandes Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 06:34 PM |
"WackyMorningDJ" wrote: Coincidentally, my vision of sustainability includes a much lower population, and the ability to eat meat. I Agree. Right now, sure, eating meat the way we do now with the amount of people we have now is not a sustainable practice. We'll run out of resources to accomodate for the Agricultured land or we'll run out of resources to accomodate an overpopulation problem. Wild game and meat like that certainly could not be done for everyone on the planet, which is why we have the meat we eat locked away in cramped little cages pumped full of antibiotics just to keep them alive long enough so we can eat them. It's a sick practice and it wont last. I see a world of a lower population where going out and getting wild game just takes a trip into the woods and some skill, not licenses and fees and only selected areas. |
| Hypnopompia Tue Dec 6th, 2005 at 10:29 PM |
Actually, in most cases eating more plants wouldn't really affect the food supply the way you think. Cows, sheep, and the like can graze on land completely unsuited to farming, and often do. This is not a universal, but there are many circumstances in which this is so. |
| grischa Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 05:27 AM |
you're all right. of course that being vegetarian ain't sustainable. But while we're converting more people to animalists this is the most realistic way to have a little more time. Or we all start eating humans now but this will have a little consequence from our governments. sorry for my bad english, it's a long time ago that i've spoken it. |
| jefgodesky Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 09:41 AM |
Or you could hunt. And gather. :) |
| Ghost Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 11:45 AM |
Random rantiness... On the Inuit tip, they got their nutrients frome eating a lot of FAT, not meat. Blubber you know. Scientific edification. Calorically, carbohydrates and proteins are identical at 4cal/g. Fat is higher at 9cal/g. A calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one litre of water by one degree centigrade. 3 500 calories = 1 pound of stored fat. ATP-CP has been found to have a short time use (about 10 seconds) and after that, your body relies on anaerobic glycosis. Your body perfers to use carbohydrates as fuel and complex more than simple. It's easy for your body to convert it into glucose for use or glycogen for storage. Your body has a harder time using protein for energy. From a fat perspective, too much meat is dangerous because of high levels of saturatied fats that contain high levels of LDL cholesterol which contribute heavily to arterial sclerosis and increased chance of heart attack and stroke (one of the reasons that most fitness professionals were flabberghasted when the Atkins diet took off). Low activity coupled with high caloric intake accounts for fat North Americans. There have been some serious studies that have shown a link between low-caloric diets and longer life. I'm with y'all on the no cow's milk tip, but I'm adicted to me wheat. I know it's bad, but it tastes soooooo good. It's like you and meat. And potatos... might as well face it, I'm addicted to spuds! I have yet to hear of a good fuel energy replacement for grains and potatos that can provide athletic level energy and be satisfying. Breatharianism sounds wonky for sure, but I've heard some interesting things about it. Probably better not to mock it until you/I get more serious and unbiased info. Factory farming is the most sadistic and psychotic form of sanctioned torture the world has ever seen and a prime source of environmental devastation. So yeah, I am in TOTAL agreement on the let-the-animals-roam-free tip; however, an intersting note, if that was the case, NO ONE would be eating meat every day. It's much harder when you have to catch it and when you can't artificially inflate their populations (there are about 730 million pigs, 1 billion cattle and about 24 billion chickens world-wide). Dark leafy greens and sprouts are your friends. High in nutrients and high in high-quality bioavailable protein. The protein source of choice for me and silverback gorillas the world over :D It takes far more resources to support our animal herds than it would to just eat their food ourselves; however, if we killed the billions of farm animals we have tomorrow, a HUGE niche would open in the food supply and babies would POUR into it; balooning our population to outrageous levels. So a population reduction strategy needs to involve an across-the-board reduction in grain and produce production as well as meat production. From my experience, some vegetarians, like myself, have no problem excluding meat from their diets. For some other vegetarians, it is a daily struggle to resist temptation. I don't know what that is. I always say, listen to your body and do what you like; however, always be aware of the consequences of your actions. Hey, grischa. Your English is fine and your company her at IshCon is welcome :D Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| prometheus235 Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 11:56 AM |
Quote: Breatharianism sounds wonky for sure, but I've heard some interesting things about it. Probably better not to mock it until you/I get more serious and unbiased info. lol, i thought it was just a joke from a funny comic book. i'll have to google it for some good laughs. R |
| jefgodesky Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 12:03 PM |
There's a difference between fat and protein, yes, but they're all meat--which is good for you, unlike wheat. :) |
| Ghost Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 12:08 PM |
"Jason" wrote: There's a difference between fat and protein, yes, but they're all meat... Uhmm... come again. Are you saying that olive oil is meat? Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| jefgodesky Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 12:12 PM |
No, the fat in meat. It's part of the meat. Foragers get most of their energy from animal fat, not plant carbohydrates, so they get it from the meat. You made that distinction as if the fat was somehow not part of the meat. |
| Ghost Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 12:53 PM |
There is fat in a remarkable number of sources and it's from the NON-ANIMAL sources that we get our most healthy fats; the monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. I don't think that it's a fair statement that foragers get most of their energy from animal fat; but I could be wrong. I would imagine from simple deduction that they get a number of carbohydrates from plant sources because most plants contain carbohydrates. So yeah, I do make a distinction that fat is not a part of meat. Saturated fats are present in meat though and its the saturated fats that present the highest health risks to us. Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| jefgodesky Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 01:11 PM |
See Cordain, above. They separate out plant and animal fat, and it's clearly animal fat they're getting most of their energy from. About 65% of the forager diet is meat. |
| JCamasto Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 01:17 PM |
Breatharianism thread (white-bred breath power!) -Jim |
| Nene Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 01:21 PM |
Hey -- I was gonna post yesterday, more about some of the health issues... but then I had to leave and when I came back y'all were talking about about willy wonka 8O But now Matt brought the subject back around again... gotta love the ghost 8) Jason -- you said that study claims 65-100% meat products by volume... but in looking at the abstract it implied that it was considering meat products by energy (or caloric content). However, I did not read the whole darn thing... can you clarify? (Just thinking that you can eat three cups of vegies without reaching the caloric content of an ounce of meat) So on that note... Matt... gotta say that if veganism works for you (and I know it does) then that's awesome. However, I really strongly disagree about a lot of the health considerations. And I really strongly believe that much of the 'studies say' stuff is more poilitcal than anything else. "Matt" wrote: It's easy for your body to convert it into glucose for use or glycogen for storage. Your body has a harder time using protein for energy. I would agree with this statement -- but I would interpret exactly the opposite as you have. We know that sugars (and other highly processed or 'simple' carbs) are bad for you simply because they are so easy for our body to use. So might it not follow that protien energy sources are also better than simple carbs for the same reasons? Aside from the fact that the protien itself is so important for good health... The latest studies are now telling us that eating cholesterol has NOTHING to do with our body creating cholesterol in our blood vessels. Makes one wonder if we over produce cholesterol in response to not getting enough of it in our diet.... More importantly, multi-generational studies comparing 'traditional' Western diets (1900-1950) with modern 'healthy diets' shows a dramatic increase in blood cholesterol levels, heart disease and death from heart attacks. Some research even shows that eating meat provides substances that help maintain healthy cholesterol levles -- in addition to Vitamin K which is ONLY available from animal products. We KNOW that grains are toxic in thier raw form... that aught to tell us something all by itself. However, unlike the die-hards, I do not tend to advocate the paleo diet... what i have found very interesting is the info out there on traditional preparation methods... lacto-fermentation and other techniques that add natural digestive enzymes to our food. One of the best ways to do this is with dairy enzymes naturally present in cows milk etc. Problem is, modern pastuerization kills all of those enzmes so that we have a hard time digesting the milk and no opportunity to use those enzmes to help digest other foods. But there is definately something to it, because lightly fermenting beans (like an overnight soak -- so the flavor alteration is unnoticable) removes all of those unsocial traits of bean eaters :twisted: "Matt" wrote: I have yet to hear of a good fuel energy replacement for grains and potatos that can provide athletic level energy and be satisfying. Well now you have... when I was serious about high protien, lactose fermentation, minimal starches and grains (and only 'whole' grains) I found that I not only lost weight and gained muscle tone, but I also had virtually boundless energy, minimal hunger and all around felt awesome. O' course, ANY bit of sugar or simple carbs that I ate immediately led me into a craving cycle that would last about 24 hours... and gods forbid, I had simple carbs two days in a row -- then the cravings would last for a week. So in order to get back on, I need to get a complete handle on my lifestyle to prevent it from becoming a constant battle. "Matt" wrote: Dark leafy greens and sprouts are your friends. High in nutrients and high in high-quality bioavailable protein. I'm with you on the nutrients... but protien in greens? Maybe a gram if you eat a gllon or two... but hardly qualified as a dietary protein source.... Anyway, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to change your ruitine... but for those interested in these matters, there is a whole lot of info out there -- much of it contradictory -- and worthwhile to research, IMHO...so I couldn't keep quiet :wink: Janene |
| jefgodesky Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 01:42 PM |
The abstract's about energy, but they mention volume along the way. Mind you, vegetables also have less volume than meat, being all leafy and what have you. |
| Nene Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 01:44 PM |
Hey -- hmmm..yeah...if by volume you mean mass :twisted: Janene |
| jefgodesky Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 01:47 PM |
No, volume. Don't count all that volume of air between the leaves, just count the actual volume taken up by plant cells. The actual volume of the plant is pretty deceptive, because of all those leaves--looks like a lot more volume than it really is. |
| Ghost Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 02:04 PM |
Hey, ho. Like I said, there are a million studies on all sides. It's primarily because fitness is like computers. Every six months someone releases a new study that challenges everything that's come before. The result is that there are a million schools of thought. I doubt the 65% thing, but hey, who knows. Hey, Janene, gotta say that if carnivourism works for you (and I know it does) then that's awesome. However, I really strongly disagree about a lot of the health considerations. And I really strongly believe that much of the 'studies say' stuff is more political than anything else. :twisted: Complex carbs are far better for your body than simple carbs. Protein is just a poor energy source by comparison. Granted, I don't know what the point at which proteins are more readily converted into energy than carbohydrates by glycemic value is, so perhaps you have a point. But I believe that proteins are your body's least favourite energy source. Protein is moderately important for good health. The Canada's food guide suggests that a mere 15% of your diet should come from protein (not meat mind you, protein in a general sense). North Americans eat more protein than any other humans in the 4 million year history of our species. That's a big statement, but quite true. The fact is that there are TONS of studies and suggestions about the carb/fat/protein macronutrient ingestion ratio and the only thing that they all agree on is that you should eat all three is some quantity. There are studies coming out that are telling us that cholesterol has nothing to do with arterial sclerosis; however, that doens't mean that they're being accepted. On vitamin K, its either not an essential vitamin or you can get it from non-animal sources because I haven't eaten animal products in three years and I haven't keeled over. B-12 however, is a real bitch for vegans. For me the argument that grains are toxic in their raw form and therefore terrible for you is spurrious. It's called chemistry. You add energy and you alter the chemical composition of something. It's possible that cooking renders the harmful substances innert. Now I'm not saying grain is great. Just that saying they're bad because they're toxic raw doesn't make any sense. Live foodists sprout their beans before eating them. On the energy tip, I was talking fueling someone who wants to run a marathon rather than 'pep' or 'vim'. Granted, there is a lot of information about starch addictions. "Janene" wrote: I'm with you on the nutrients... but protien in greens? Maybe a gram if you eat a gllon or two... but hardly qualified as a dietary protein source.... Sorry, Janene. You're flatly incorrect on this one. You think that it might be possible that the US meat production lobby has a stake in maintaining the notion that meat is the single best and only source of protein? Answer this question. If gorillas are as large as they are and they don't eat meat, where the hell do they get their protein from? Not only can I leg press 1 000 lbs, but I went from being able to press 500 lbs to 1 000 lbs in only 10 weeks. Primary protein source? Dark leafy greens and sprouts. "Gabriel Cousins, PhD" wrote: " Avocados provide all of the essential amino acids, with 18 amino acids in all, plus 7 fatty acids, including Omega 3 and 6. Avocados contain more protein than cow's milk. A small avocado will provide more usable protein then a steak because cooked protein in meat is denatured and mostly unavailable (he's refering to bioavailabilty) to our liver, the organ that makes all of our body's protein." "Out of the 22 amino aids found in the body, 8 must be derived from food. All 8 are abundantly available in raw plant food, especially greens. As suggested by David Wolfe, "green leafed veggies are the true body builders" (p186, The Sunfood Diet Success System). Examples of animals who build enormous musculature on green leafy vegetation include: gorilla, giraffe, hippo, elephant, horse. People think they need flesh protein to build flesh protein. If that were true then cows would need to eat flesh to get protein. Usable protein is the key. Cooking denatures protein molecular structure and creating free radicals, which destroy enzymes, amino acids & other cellular elements." -SOURCE But, again, for the millionth time, do vegetarians think they can get away with not killing anything? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Are there a million conflicting studies out there? You bet. Does it matter what people are eating provided that it works well for them? Nope. Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| jefgodesky Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 02:14 PM |
I don't know a thing about "fitness." Seems to change every week, so I don't bother with it. I know humans evolved in a certain context, I know foragers are healthy, so no amount of the latest studies can dissuade me that eating like a forager is unhealthy. |
| Ghost Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 02:24 PM |
But you make it sound like there is a single universal forager diet. Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| jefgodesky Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 02:32 PM |
Not at all. My point's only that the forager mean is not nearly where we expect. The heart and soul of the civilized diet is a huge shift towards vegetables, especially cereal grains. That diet has, so far, been disastrous. The last humanoid to eat that kind of diet was Paranthropus robustus, and we're not even related to him. There's a huge diversity in forager diets, but the most herbivorous of them still eat more meat than the most carnivorous of civilized folk. I was really surprised when I found that out. |
| Nene Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 03:09 PM |
Hey -- Matt, you are a naught naught boy :lol: According to a quick research, modern americans average 60-80% of thier food from animal sources... that is really damn high, but not quite the same as 60-80% from meat. What that means in the grand scheme of things I'm not sure.... On Vitamin K -- apparently there are three different varieties of vitamin K -- K3 can only be found in animal sources... but K1 is available in dark leafy greens. So I'm gonna have to go back to my source and research a little more on that one. My bad -- I've found a couple errors in this particular source that I have yet to reconcile but some day I'll get it all figured out :wink: I agree that just because something is not edible raw is not a reason to dismiss it entirely... I keep trying to 'convince' Jason that he should give Poke Weed a chance... but I also think that it is reasonable to keep those limitations in mind and consider them when making your food choices. Not only 'can I eat it raw?' but also, if not 'why?' Poke weed contains a toxic substance -- jsut like acorns and thier tanins. Wheat is different in that it is fundamentally difficult to digest in addition to being chemically toxic. Does this mean don't eat it? No... but be aware and consider... I'm all over the sprouting of beans... I tried to sprout some soybeans for our IshCon Dinner last spring... but they got rancid so we had to skip that in the vegie stir fry :cry: On the energy bit... granted its no marathon (which I wouldn't reccommend to someone interested in good health) but I was doing an hour of Tae Bo and a regular weight training regime at the time.... so I know what you're talking about... Protien and greens... a cup of cooked collard greens contains (depending on the source) between 1.5 and 5 grams of protien. To get a cup of cooked greens, you need about a quart of raw greens. So I wasn't that far off, depending, again, on the source. Now, that being said, there are lots of good vegetarian protien sources... beans, nuts, seaweeds, olives and avocado (probably any high fat fruit/vegie)... but for all thier awesome nutritional content, I would not consider greens to be a good, primary protien source. As a supplement... sure. Concerning gorrilas etc... I don't know what a gorillas diet looks like. I am not suggesting in any way that vegetarianism cannot provide good protien... cows, for example, primarily eat grasses and other grains... that's a high protien source and thier gut is designed to digest it. I assume that other vegetarian species are comparably designed to work with thier food. I simply don't understand why you are so intent on showing that the diet we evolved to eat is not a good (or even superior) guideline ofr nutritional concerns.... In other words.. I'm NOT saying that we cannot find alternatives that we can live with, and even be fairly healthy in the process. I AM saying that looking out our evolutionary adaptations is a Good, and Useful, guideline for good health. Just like we are all appalled when we hear about them dumping beef biproducts into cow feed... Janene |
| Ghost Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 03:29 PM |
Hey, Jason. I'm really surprised too. I don't believe it, but it's a shocking assertion. Hey, Janene. Yes I am 8) The North American diet is shit. Pointe finale. On that, I think we can all agree. On K. It's only a problem is its an essential vitamin. Otherwise our bodies can just manufacture it. On energy, I know that there are alternative food sources for good energy. I just don't know enough about them to make them a practical part of my diet. I know what I get when I eat complex carbohydrates and can plan my day accordingly. I've wanted to become a live-foodist for a long time, but the price of transition and the price of the kinds of food they eat, coupled with a general lack of knowledge has seriosuly restricted my forays into that diet. Cooked greens? There's your problem right there. Cooking greens destroys everything of value and denatures the protein. Then you talk about bioavailability, which is how available the protein is to your body so it can process it into something useable. Protein from greens is VERY bioavailable and much moreso than meat protein. Couple all of this with the fact that contrary to popular belief, humans don't need all that much protein. For real. I've eaten high protein diets and low protein diets and I'm still 220 lbs. "Janene" wrote: I simply don't understand why you are so intent on showing that the diet we evolved to eat is not a good (or even superior) guideline ofr nutritional concerns.... Slow down. Where have I said that? I've said there are a million different sources with a million different opinions and that they're all valid provided they work. I've even said that veganism and live-foodism are technological diets. Someone's projecting 8) Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| Nene Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 03:44 PM |
Hey -- Yeah, you've said that... but you also have a bit of tone when you talk food and nutrition... but mostly I was just going for a reality check for all of us :twisted: Janene |
| Ghost Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 03:52 PM |
Bit of a tone? What tone is that? Eh? Tell me. Go ahead. I dare you. I double dog dare you... :D For real, I'm laid back about food; however, I do prefer to be validated than dismissed when talking about my life choices. I just want to be loved, is that so wrong? I'm not big on received wisdom, so hey, if some studies come out that show that maybe everything we evolved with/to do isn't sacrosanct (sicle cell anyone), I'm hip to challenge :D I'm no veganazi though. I talk pretty clinically about fitness because I'm a fitness teacher/instructor so, well, it's my job 8) I'm no nutritionist though so I can't be so smug about that 8) Smug, smug, smug, smug, smug, smug. Smug, smug, smug, smug, smug, smug. I am evil Homer. I am evil Homer. Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| Talvir Wed Dec 7th, 2005 at 10:20 PM |
LOL...:) Just for the record, I'm vegetarian. Meats don't really work well for me. YMMV. Ghost made all the good points. Personally, I avoid factory produced animal products whenever possible :) Any thoughts on bioaccumulation of toxins / pollutions? I suspect that's another issue with meats these days, but I don't know. |
| Hendrixangus Thu Dec 8th, 2005 at 12:21 AM |
I LOVE COW Eating meat is natural i understand the arguments about animal treatment and antibiotics, hormons and such, but still I LOVE COW is that so wrong :?: |
| Menrandes Thu Dec 8th, 2005 at 12:28 AM |
no, it's not wrong, but have you considered the organic meat options? |
| Hendrixangus Thu Dec 8th, 2005 at 12:30 AM |
i'm a college student right now i don't have the money and meat is not the most questionable thing in my diet. i ate a milk dud i found on the flor today! :lol: |
| Hypnopompia Thu Dec 8th, 2005 at 12:19 PM |
WTF! Man, you stole my milkdud? That means war, dude. |
| Menrandes Thu Dec 8th, 2005 at 12:21 PM |
milk duds are cheating Ben!!! And you know IT! :twisted: |
| Hendrixangus Thu Dec 8th, 2005 at 04:15 PM |
bring it on! :twisted: |
| odb_fan_1 Sun Jan 15th, 2006 at 08:15 PM |
I'm so sick and tired of the apologetic liberal/radicals who attack vegetarianism. Quote: "I love animals - they taste good" "PETA stands for people for the eating of tastey animals" etc that's such conservative ass-clownery. Quote: Eating meat is natural Yeah, and it's too bad there's no such thing as "natural." Quote: humans evolved to eat meat we evolved TO eat meat? ever heard of teleology? ever heard of Stephen Jay Gould's "Full House"? Read it. Quote: (and a lot of it), and we're at our healthiest when we do. This whole D'adamo-esque nonsense gives me an ulcer. There are plenty of cultures who rolled with predominately vegetarian diets. (If you want me to get mad citations, you're going to have to tell me to, because that's going to require me to crack open some books.) And perhaps you could explain the success of the Macrobiotic diet. Or Dean Ornish's program...? Quote: "Ethical vegetarian" against killing anything to stay alive? Then you're a hypocrite who can't face the reality of the world and is too disgusted by the community of life to ever be part of it. Very civilized. why the harsh tone? ohhhh, is it because you're a radical-apologetic? Go ahead and check out "Animal Liberation" by Peter Singer. Apparently you're not familiar with the Ethical logic behind vegetarianism. Here is a real quick introduction: If the only reason you eat meat is because you like the taste, it does not justify the suffering (of an animal). If you require meat to be healthy (and you certainly dont ; ) then it's more justified. If you require meat to stay alive (again, I doubt any of you do), then it's pretty much completely justified. This applies to cultures like the Ihalmiut, Inuit, etc. Any vegetarian who says they dont eat meat because it's "killing" has a point. But you skew the point when you play the "fallacy of equivocation" card. Are you enjoying that card? - because you're using fallacious reasoning. When people talk about killing "living beings," you're playing devil's advocate. You know what they're saying, you're just playing a fucking semantic game. You think you're winning the argumentative war because you one-upped via semantics? CHEAP. PS: How does one NOT be a part of the community of life? Quote: just sick of being told how I'm a filthy murderer for chowing down like my Mesolithic ancestors did. Just because they did doesn't make it right. I'm sure they killed each other and molested children too. Do you do that as well? Quote: I'm thankful to every cow I eat or every chicken or pig.... they died so that i can live.... easy as that. Wrong. They died so you could enjoy the taste of their flesh. Quote: What's more moral, killing one cow or a field of wheat? Some of the stupidest shit I constantly hear. This isn't a fucking game or a joke. Millions of animals are being ultra-brutalized because we can't figure this one out. A field of wheat doesn't have the capacity to suffer the way we do. Yes, I know about Backster and Jensen's "Language..." and "The Plants Respond" too. But this isn't all that tricky. Romance aside, cows suffer more than wheat. Pretend it's rape. Is it worse to rape a man/woman or to rape a mound of dirt? Dont forget that we are animals. Any of this silly-assed relativity applies to us too. NOT TO MENTION THE ECONOMICS OF MEAT PRODUCTION: It kills TONS of vegetables (and therefore tons of other animals like rabbits, mice, coyotes, etc) to produce meat. Meat is inefficient. If you're worried about the plants, eat plants. Otherwise you kill multiple times more plants to eat meat. But you're not REALLY worried about plants are you? Quote: I can leg press 1 000 lbs OHHHHHH MY GODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was stoked back in middle school to do 300 pounds. Quote: Nobody had a problem with eating animals until it became a far and away issue It goes back farther than freezers. Quote: Because hunter-gatherers eat almost nothing but meat. Well John Zerzan's "Running On Emptiness" would have to disagree. There's a part where he says that Hunter-Gatherers would be more appropriately called Gatherer-Hunters (or Gatherer-Gatherers; i dont remember which) because they predominately gathered. Quote: I know humans evolved in a certain context I've heard stuff that says most were predominately vegetarian. And you "know"? Where's the skeptic? Quote: so no amount of the latest studies can dissuade me that eating like a forager is unhealthy I will make a bold claim: No forager in The History of FUCKING EVER, has ate meat to the degree that we do. Nor have they ate it with dioxin added. on "evolving to eat meat": DITCH THE TELEOLOGY AND READ GOULD'S "FULL HOUSE"!!!! where are the evolution buffs? |
| Nene Sun Jan 15th, 2006 at 08:29 PM |
Hey Adam -- Just curious... what do you recall from Full House that you want everyone to read? Obviously, the semantics of 'evolved to do X' is bad... but that statement could (and should) read 'evolved with meat eating as an adaptive trati'... but I get the feeling there's more and I can't think what... Janene |
| TwoRoadsTom Sun Jan 15th, 2006 at 08:33 PM |
odb_fan An interesting post. But I retort, somewhat quietly, that you are wrong. There is a natural way to eat. It's just so incredibly diverse that we have plenty of room for choices. My body, the shape of my teeth, my belly, my digestive system, the way I react to foods, shows me I am an omnivore. Hell, even my ape brothers snacked on bugs and dead things. I also take responsibility for all life that I kill, vegetable or otherwise. When you refer to rape, you are referring to the wrong crime. What you should be saying is murder. Yes, I murder my plants and I murder my meat. I deliberately kill so I can live. Now as for rape, let's move on to factory farming. I don't give a shit whether you are forcing cows into little boxes or using dioxin on a field a wheat. It's still rape. Rape of the land. Rape of life. Rape. It's disgusting no matter whether it's used against plants or animals, including man. I know humans have eaten meat because I've sat down and talked to folks who've lived a certain way for thousands of years. How much meat? It varies. I don't care. I'll eat the amount of meat that makes my body feels comfortable. That's more than some, less than others. And as for your bold claim? You're wrong. The Inuit ate pretty much 100% meat. They had to. They lived in a world where there was no plants for them to eat, save the nutrients they got from eating meat. So, you want to bring on citations? Bring them on! It doesn't change basic biology. But, far more effective, bring on the recipes! I want more healthy vegetarian recipes in my life! Fuck wheat and beans and potatoes and the stuff the Neolithic brought into my world. Give me some great veggie recipes that fit into my growing paleo diet -- let me have more variety than what is offered! Share with us ways to eat, not ways we shouldn't eat! Best Bill Maxwell Loving the Coyote And the Dinners he brings home. |
| Nene Sun Jan 15th, 2006 at 08:41 PM |
Hey -- Bill, you asked for it... if you like spinach.... saute sliced mushrooms and onions in a little butter (or olive oil for total paleo), add olive oil (if using butter) and then as much spinach as will fit into the pan until it wilts. Much better than 'traditional' creamed spinach :-) Janene |
| odb_fan_1 Sun Jan 15th, 2006 at 09:45 PM |
Quote: Just curious... what do you recall from Full House that you want everyone to read? that there is no teleology in evolution. Quote: Obviously, the semantics of 'evolved to do X' is bad... but that statement could (and should) read 'evolved with meat eating as an adaptive trait'... but I get the feeling there's more and I can't think what... Well despite having just wrote this reply like 30 mins ago, I can't remember exactly what i was getting at. Too many people think "we evolved to eat meat" though, and when i see it literally written here, I flipped out. There still is absolutely no moral connection between "my ancestors did it!" and "I should do it now!" I'm even trying to stay away from my moral relativism formulation. I dont even think there's a biological connection. It's logical to look to the past for a general illumination, but we're not them. We're changing. This whole "Look at me! I'm a caveman!" thing is really annoying to me and I can't wait to further investigate and disparage it. "TwoRoadsTom" wrote: There is a natural way to eat. There is no such thing as "natural." Quote: My body, the shape of my teeth, my belly, my digestive system, the way I react to foods, shows me I am an omnivore. By the relativity of taxonomy? You could eat vegan and be an herbivore. Quote: When you refer to rape, you are referring to the wrong crime. What you should be saying is murder. What are you talking about? I'm using logic. I'm taking a logical structure ("it's ok to do it because ancestors did it" and "is it more wrong to do something to plants or to do it to animals?") and applying different variables. Quote: I know humans have eaten meat because I've sat down and talked to folks who've lived a certain way for thousands of years. I haven't done that, and I'm still pretty sure that people have eaten meat. What are you getting at? Quote: And as for your bold claim? You're wrong. The Inuit ate pretty much 100% meat. They had to. They lived in a world where there was no plants for them to eat, save the nutrients they got from eating meat. Remember when ODB_FAN_1 (aka Colonel Pimp) wrote about the Inuit? I'm not 100% sure on the portion sizes of meat with the Inuit. So if anyone has them, let's compare US meat consumption. Quote: So, you want to bring on citations? Bring them on! It doesn't change basic biology. I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Quote: Give me some great veggie recipes that fit into my growing paleo diet -- let me have more variety than what is offered! Why are you on the "paleo" diet? Quote: Share with us ways to eat, not ways we shouldn't eat! By showing you ways to eat, i'm showing you ways not to. You can't be neutral on a moving train serving dinners. |
| TwoRoadsTom Sun Jan 15th, 2006 at 10:32 PM |
Janene, Thank you! I just got a bunch of fresh organic spinach in so that should be a wonderful recipe to try out. BTW, been off all wheat & dairy for a couple of years now. Because of household politics, still eating some rice, corn, potatoes, & beans (oh yeah, and the demon cane sugar too). So, no full paleo yet :( And now back to our regularly scheduled program... "odb_fan_1" wrote: Well despite having just wrote this reply like 30 mins ago, I can't remember exactly what i was getting at. Too many people think "we evolved to eat meat" though, and when i see it literally written here , I flipped out. We did evolve to eat meat. We need the proteins and fat to maintain our big brains. "odb_fan_1" wrote: There still is absolutely no moral connection between "my ancestors did it!" and "I should do it now!" I'm even trying to stay away from my moral relativism formulation. I dont even think there's a biological connection. It's logical to look to the past for a general illumination, but we're not them. We're changing. We are? Since when? 10,000 years is a flyspeck evolution-wise. And I certainly don't see vegans producing obviously different physiologies than the rest of us. And this doesn't even get to the point that a number of vegans are generally eating healthier food than the rest of society if only because they are deliberately choosing what they're eating! I imagine a vegan who's sole source of nutrition is hamburger buns, pickles, and ketchup at McDonalds will be as much the picture of health as the person eating the crappy burger served in between those buns. "odb_fan_1" wrote: This whole "Look at me! I'm a caveman!" thing is really annoying to me and I can't wait to further investigate and disparage it. So you'd like to disparage the people on this planet who were eating and living healthier lives? Cool. Go to it. "odb_fan_1" wrote: (quote="TwoRoadsTom")There is a natural way to eat.(/quote) There is no such thing as "natural." Okay... Um. Maybe we're stuck in semantics. Let's put it differently. If I want a healthy, efficient body that lasts me until the day I die, the first thing I will do is examine my body. Then I will try and find foods that fit what my body, at first glance, seems to want to tell me to eat. Then I will gauge my reaction to what I eat. That which makes me feel good and healthy, lo, I will continue to eat it. Thankfully, some others have done some of this exploration as well, so I don't have to do this process with everything. "odb_fan_1" wrote: What are you talking about? I'm using logic. I'm taking a logical structure ("it's ok to do it because ancestors did it" and "is it more wrong to do something to plants or to do it to animals?") and applying different variables. Um. I re-read it. I didn't see logic so much as metaphor, and a faulty one at that. You said: "odb_fan_1" wrote: Pretend it's rape. Is it worse to rape a man/woman or to rape a mound of dirt? So you compare a cow to a man/woman and wheat to dirt? Come on! Wheat is still alive but, hey, if we're going to say it's all about suffering, great! Shellfish don't have a nervous system like we've got so I can eat all the shellfish I want? Rock on, dude! Let's go suck down some live scallops! "odb_fan_1" wrote: (quote:I know humans have eaten meat because I've sat down and talked to folks who've lived a certain way for thousands of years./quote) I haven't done that, and I'm still pretty sure that people have eaten meat. What are you getting at? What I'm getting at is happy, healthy people eat meat. And that these are not Gatherer-Hunters or Hunter-Gatherers or Forager-Foragers. They're people. They think meat is a healthy part of our everyday diet. But if you ask them how much, they'll differ depending on tradition and eco-region. "odb_fan_1" wrote: (quote:And as for your bold claim? You're wrong. The Inuit ate pretty much 100% meat. They had to. They lived in a world where there was no plants for them to eat, save the nutrients they got from eating meat./quote) Remember when ODB_FAN_1 (aka Colonel Pimp) wrote about the Inuit? I'm not 100% sure on the portion sizes of meat with the Inuit. So if anyone has them, let's compare US meat consumption. So you're worried about portion sizes and not the fact that we eat meat? I hesitate to generalize but I'd say most people on this board know that civilization is a devouring maniac in most situations -- plant or animal based eating regardless. To be clear, civilized eating is insane. For instance, for a while the single most destructive force to the rain forests was no longer cattle ranching -- it was soy bean fields being planted for the vegetarian market. And there's some indication now that it's vegetable-oil crops for the bio-diesel market. "odb_fan_1" wrote: (quote:So, you want to bring on citations? Bring them on! It doesn't change basic biology./quote) I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Then let me be clear. Unless you've got some wonder-science behind you, saying that we've changed to adapt to an all-veggie diet is wrong. Can we eat all vegetarian? Sure. Just like we can eat all meat. Is it healthy? Under certain circumstances, sure (like the Inuit). Is it the right way to live? No. There is no one right way to live. Am I being clear? "odb_fan_1" wrote: (quote:Give me some great veggie recipes that fit into my growing paleo diet -- let me have more variety than what is offered!/quote) Why are you on the "paleo" diet? Because I found out that wheat and dairy fuck with your head. Because I prefer to trust my body and to trust it, I go back to where it came from. Because I learn from the past and adapt it to the present. That's why. To understand who we are, go pre-civ and then move onward from there. "odb_fan_1" wrote: (quote:Share with us ways to eat, not ways we shouldn't eat!/quote) By showing you ways to eat, i'm showing you ways not to. You can't be neutral on a moving train serving dinners. I'm still not seeing any recipes, though, am I? |
| WackyMorningDJ Mon Jan 16th, 2006 at 12:59 AM |
I decided to start eating paleo a very very short while ago. Curiously, after having spent the fall baking breads, and biscuits, and cakes, et cetera, I'm not really particularly missing them (although, I discovered that mashed up almonds can probably substitute for flour fairly well - 'course, that's a rather expensive and time consuming substitute). I found a meatloaf recipe that substituted chopped up cabbage for bread crumbs (I don't really recommend that if you really want a meatloaf though). It tasted more like a large burger mixed with a salad, which was pretty good, although not very meatloaf-y. I made an apple crisp (sort of) for a potluck tonight... I decided that I probabaly wasn't going to be able to eat paleo that night, so I was just going to make a normal crisp. I discovered however, a pretty decent alternative way to make it, involving partially mashed almonds, almond butter, maple syrup, and cinnamon (oh man was that great). Hmm... Paleo Pastry Chef. Has a nice ring to it. La la la... -Mike |
| TwoRoadsTom Mon Jan 16th, 2006 at 01:35 AM |
Oh man... keep sharing recipes! My wife loves (loved?) to bake & would adore finding new apple crisp recipes! :) Best Bill Maxwell |
| starfish Mon Jan 16th, 2006 at 07:09 AM |
I saw this recipe on Good Eats the other day. I'm sure you can adapt it to the paleo diet, maybe replacing the sugar and butter with honey and omitting the panko. Or maybe you could replace it with shredded coconut? http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/recipes/recipe/0,1977,FOOD_9936_26283,00.html You can also use it as a crust for fish: http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/recipes/recipe/0,1977,FOOD_9936_26281,00.html Also, apple juice concentrate makes a good sweetner for fruit desserts. Vicky |
| Ghost Mon Jan 16th, 2006 at 09:01 AM |
Oh, snap. Adam's in da house 8) You're calm like a bomb, dude! People didn't evolve TO eat meat. Meat eaters were selected. I've always disagreed with the idea that hunter-gatherer's ate primarily meat. It makes very little sense. One of the reasons that the male gut was selected was because hunters often had to trek for a number of days to track their meat and needed a reserve to carry them through. Also, if 30 people were eating meat every day, I imagine they'd rip through the local population quick, fast and in a hurry. My understanding is that humans ate meat maybe once a week or a couple times a week. It's only now that humans eat it every day. Soy is terrible for you. Stop cooking your vegetables. You're killing everything of value. "It's ok spinach, I'll protect you from meanie Janenie." "twisted: Also, just to point out again, vegetarians aren't retarded. By that I mean two things. We don't NEED meat to maintain our brains. Veggies do it just fine. Protein is a matter of amino acids, not meat. Also, I don't know any vegetarians who are brain-dead enough to think that eating a plant isn't taking life. That's not the concern. Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| Nene Mon Jan 16th, 2006 at 09:28 AM |
Hey -- Matt -- I've seen things on Raw Food stuff that includes heating food, just not cooking the bejebus outta it... so is wilted spinach really cooked? Janene |
| Ghost Mon Jan 16th, 2006 at 09:41 AM |
Hey, Janene. Quote: What is live-food? Live food is food that is essentially living. 'Living' or 'raw' food is food that has not been microwaved, radiated or heat processed above 110 degrees Fahrenheit , this includes cooking. As a result, none of the heat-sensitive micronutrients have been destroyed and the full life force and energetic cellular pattern of the living plant are best preserved so that it can transfer the highest amount of its life force to us. SOURCE Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| jefgodesky Mon Jan 16th, 2006 at 09:42 AM |
"Matt" wrote: I've always disagreed with the idea that hunter-gatherer's ate primarily meat. It makes very little sense. One of the reasons that the male gut was selected was because hunters often had to trek for a number of days to track their meat and needed a reserve to carry them through. Also, if 30 people were eating meat every day, I imagine they'd rip through the local population quick, fast and in a hurry. My understanding is that humans ate meat maybe once a week or a couple times a week. It's only now that humans eat it every day. Do you know how long one deer can last? I'm in Western PA--lots of hunters out here. I know lots of people that bag one deer in the fall, and they feed their family venison every other night all winter long. So, let's say that comes out to about 100 days they eat venison. Average 5 per family, that's 500 meals out of one deer. But, logic means nothing in the face of evidence: see Cordain's study [PDF] It doesn't matter how logical a theory is, if the evidence contradicts it. |
| Ghost Mon Jan 16th, 2006 at 09:44 AM |
But doesn't that require a freezer? I don't think the San had freezers. Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| Nene Mon Jan 16th, 2006 at 10:14 AM |
Hey -- ummm, Matt? 30 people 3ish meals per day... so if they hunt once per week, they can feed the group all thier meals for five days -- which probably correlates pretty well with how long it stays fresh.... Janene |
| Ghost Mon Jan 16th, 2006 at 10:52 AM |
Would you eat a steak that was not refrigerated for 5 days? Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| jefgodesky Mon Jan 16th, 2006 at 11:01 AM |
Would? Heh ... have. :) |
| Nene Mon Jan 16th, 2006 at 02:18 PM |
Hey -- My cousins deer hunt. Lots. The carcasses usually hung from the tree outside my grandmothers front window for up to a week from when they were shot to when they were sent to the butcher. So, uhh, yeah, I have too :-) Janene |
| odb_fan_1 Mon Jan 16th, 2006 at 05:53 PM |
Quote: You're calm like a bomb, dude! Yeah :oops: I'm a delicate flower. You should've heard me during the whole "chrismas vs holiday" gig. I also have a mini magnum opus that is pretty stellar if you want to read it. "TwoRoadsTom" wrote: So you'd like to disparage the people on this planet who were eating and living healthier lives? Cool. Go to it. I question the "evidence." "odb_fan_1" wrote: So you compare a cow to a man/woman and wheat to dirt? That was more to make the act of sex slightly more enjoyable. I could've said a tree, but merely thinking of danderphilia chaffed me. But yes, a cow to a man/woman. Remember, we're talking about "animals." Quote: Shellfish don't have a nervous system like we've got so I can eat all the shellfish I want? Correct. Gauge your actions by suffering and compassion. "odb_fan_1" wrote: What I'm getting at is happy, healthy people eat meat. Thanks for that news flash by the way. Quote: So you're worried about portion sizes and not the fact that we eat meat? Proportionately (Per person), I'm saying that more animals are killed in civilization for "food." With that said, i'm still sticking by "No forager in The History of FUCKING EVER, has ate meat to the degree that we do." And I'm pretty sure I'm right about this based on obesity and the other perks of industrial agriculture. I can't really picture an obese forager - an obese pastoralist yes; forager, no. Quote: For instance, for a while the single most destructive force to the rain forests was no longer cattle ranching -- it was soy bean fields being planted for the vegetarian market. Ha! That seems pretty unlikely seeing that about 80% (i'm being conservative) of soybeans have been grown for livestock animal consumption. Quote: Unless you've got some wonder-science behind you, saying that we've changed to adapt to an all-veggie diet is wrong. I dont think we're even close to the same page. Do you think that I'm saying that the vegan diet is biologically where we should be? That's definitely not what I'm saying. Quote: Is it the right way to live? No. There is no one right way to live. LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME! Every time someone on this board evokes The Quinn Adage, I go sterile for 3 weeks. Quote: Because I found out that wheat and dairy fuck with your head. Can you elaborate? Quote: Because I prefer to trust my body and to trust it, I go back to where it came from. Because I learn from the past and adapt it to the present. That's why. So your diet will change if new facts emerge and the paradigm shifts? And it's weird that you say "your body" and then constantly refer to other people's bodies. A while back some raw foodists were on here talking about experimenting with different foods for different times to see the results. You could always try that, since you seem to want to be in tune with "your" body. I'm guessing you also exercise? Quote: To understand who we are, go pre-civ and then move onward from there. I dont even think it's safe to assume that everyone pre-civ was the archetype of good health. The Noble Savage? How about The Dietician Savage? anyways I've heard that the people that Sahlins studied were actually malnourished. After thinking about that, I figured it was probably because they had been marginalized off of lush lands into more desolate ones, but I'm still not sure. |
| jefgodesky Mon Jan 16th, 2006 at 06:11 PM |
Quote: Proportionately (Per person), I'm saying that more animals are killed in civilization for "food." With that said, i'm still sticking by "No forager in The History of FUCKING EVER, has ate meat to the degree that we do." And I'm pretty sure I'm right about this based on obesity and the other perks of industrial agriculture. I can't really picture an obese forager - an obese pastoralist yes; forager, no. What would make you think meat has anything to do with obesity? The main thing your body stores as body fat is carbohydrates--no carbs in meat. But I can understand where you'd get that impression. I had that impression, too, until I actually researched the question. In fact, compared to forager diets, ours are quite remarkable--for how much vegetable matter is involved. We eat far LESS meat than foragers, who count on meat not only for protein, but also for energy. They rely on animal fat, rather than carbs, as their primary source of energy. Fat you eat can't really be converted very well into body fat (fat doesn't make you fat--bread does). Now, the vegetables we eat aren't of the green, leafy variety. They're cereal grains--predominantly, bread. Hence, obesity. An understandable mistake, but completely untrue. |
| Talvir Mon Jan 16th, 2006 at 09:07 PM |
I'd guesstimate that the type of meat is different too. Could it be that "game" meats are healthier than our civvie-grown meats? Perhaps less saturated fats and some such. Less antibiotics and stress hormone and all that. I'd eat meat if I felt it was safe to eat (which I don't think it is, relative to vegetables - esp. E.coli , that s*%t messes you up good) and if I could accept its relatively low efficiency vs. veggies. |
| Ghost Mon Jan 16th, 2006 at 09:23 PM |
A moment of respect for Walkerton... Ok, Jason. You and I ain't gonna agree on the forager:meat ratio thing. That's cool. So how about some half way action? I can buy that SOME foragers ate primarily meat diets. We both agree (I think) that the Inuit ate primarily meat and blubber for the simple fact that there ain't nothin' else to eat on the tundra. But the notion that ALL foragers ate predominantly meat diets seems about as unlikely to me as saying all blacks are dumb. It's far too general to be of any use whatsoever. How bout it? Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
| foolish_yeti Mon Jan 16th, 2006 at 10:32 PM |
I would say it depends on the climate- during winter (especially in Canada), I would guess that meat would be a main staple to survive. |
| jefgodesky Tue Jan 17th, 2006 at 09:23 AM |
"Talvir" wrote: I'd guesstimate that the type of meat is different too. Indeed. Wild game tends to be more "dark" meat. It's leaner. "Matt" wrote: I can buy that SOME foragers ate primarily meat diets. We both agree (I think) that the Inuit ate primarily meat and blubber for the simple fact that there ain't nothin' else to eat on the tundra. But the notion that ALL foragers ate predominantly meat diets seems about as unlikely to me as saying all blacks are dumb. It's far too general to be of any use whatsoever. How bout it? There's GREAT diversity among forager diets, naturally. Cordain discusses this. Our first impression came from Lee's numbers on the !Kung, and that turned everyone's assumptions upside-down, because it was all vegetable matter. People started talking about how foragers were primarily vegetarians, and started up phrases like "gatherer-hunters," and such, but anthropologists began to wonder how much we could assume from just one forager group. Cordain's study made for another sea change, because they did a cross-cultural study, and found out that the !Kung are rather anomolous, in that they have an almost unhealthy obsession with their mongongo nuts. Cordain's study showed that the meat:vegetable ratio varied with latitude--more meat at the poles, more vegetables nearer the equator. However, even at the equator, they ate more meat than us (something like 50% of the diet). The overall average came out to be something like 68% of their diet was meat. No need for us to try to reach a logical compromise when we have actual data to refer to, right? |
| Corrina Tue Jan 17th, 2006 at 10:48 AM |
BEEF BY KRS-ONE Beef, what a relief When will this poisonous product cease? This is another public service announcement You can believe it, or you can doubt it Let us begin now with the cow The way it gets to your plate and how The cow doesn't grow fast enough for man So through his greed he makes a faster plan He has drugs to make the cow grow quicker Through the stress the cow gets sicker Twenty-one different drugs are pumped Into the cow in one big lump So just before it dies, it cries In the slaughterhouse full of germs and flies Off with the head, they pack it, drain it, and cart it And there it is, in your local supermarket Red and bloody, a corpse, neatly packed And you wonder about heart attacks? Come on now man let's be for real You are what you eat is the way I feel But, the Food and Drug Administration Will tell you meat is the perfect combination See cows live under fear and stress Trying to think what's gonna happen next Fear and stress can become a part of you In your cells and blood, this is true So when the cow is killed, believe it You preserve those cells, you freeze it Thaw it out with the blood and season it Then you sit down and begin eatin it In your body, it's structure becomes your structure All the fear and stress of another Any drug is addictive by any name Even drugs in meat, they are the same The FDA has America strung out On drugs in beef no doubt So if you think that what I say is a bunch of crock Tell yourself you're gonna try and stop Eatin meat and you'll see you can't compete It's the number one drug on the street Not crack, cause that was made for just black But brown beef, for all American teeth Life brings life and death brings death Keep on eatin the dead and what's left Absolute disease and negative Read the book 'How to Eat to Live' By Elijah Muhammad, it's a brown paperback For anybody, either white or black See how many cows must be pumped up fatter How many rats gotta fall in the batter How many chickens that eat shit you eat How much high blood pressure you get from pig feet See you'll consume, the FDA could care less They'll sell you donkey meat and say it's FRESH! For nineteen-ninety, you SUCKERS BLVR |
| Talvir Tue Jan 17th, 2006 at 03:36 PM |
"Corrina" wrote: BEEF BY KRS-ONE Beef, what a relief When will this poisonous product cease? Tee hee. I like that one :) |
| odb_fan_1 Tue Jan 17th, 2006 at 03:47 PM |
whoa! corrina! good call! pro-liberation hiphop = warms my heart. Quote: What would make you think meat has anything to do with obesity? I'll admit i'm not a dietician, but i'm pretty certain that all calories lead to fat. you can't just eat all the mutton you want without weight gain. impossible. has the paradigm shifted THAT hardcore that i'm wrong? |
| jefgodesky Tue Jan 17th, 2006 at 04:04 PM |
A calorie is a unit of energy: how much energy it takes to raise the temperature of 1cc of water 1 degree centigrade. So, no, not all calories create fat. You could measure fire in calories, but I don't care how much fire you try to eat--lots of bad things will happen to you for the attempt, but weight gain won't be one of them. Now, weight is your body's store of subcutaneous fat. To gain weight, your body needs to convert the food you eat into fat. Your body has chemicals to do this, but those chemicals only react to certain kinds of nutrients. Animal fat is not one of them. Your body cannot turn animal fat into fat around your stomach. Animal fat may lead to cholesterol, but the role of cholesterol is a lot more hotly debated and ambiguous than the popular press would have you believe. I don't know what to think about cholesterol. Anyway, what your body does convert to fat, primarily, is carbohydrates. Most popular renditions don't bother distinguishing between "calories" and "calories of carbohydrates" because, well, the overwhelming majority of the American diet comes in the form of cereal grains, making the two virtually synonymous in the American diet. This is why the Atkins diet is so effective for losing weight (it's also completely unsustainable, because it lacks fruit, but that's a different story altogether). |
| odb_fan_1 Tue Jan 17th, 2006 at 04:28 PM |
dude, do you realize what you're saying is completely contrary to pretty much every dietician i've ever talked to? the calorie paradigm has like meannie-pants 40+ year studies to back it up. atkins diet works because of ketosis. homeboy even says it - then has a heart attack. ghost, why aren't you speaking up on this? are you aware of a paradigm shift that i'm not? |
| jefgodesky Tue Jan 17th, 2006 at 04:39 PM |
Atkins didn't die of a heart attack, and I don't know what journals you're reading, but this is all stuff they figured out in the 1980s. Granted, you'll get a different story from the various pop diet books out there, but this is what you'll find in the journals. Yes, it's ketosis that makes you lose weight. You don't gain weight because there's nothing to gain--you're not taking in anything your body is capable of turning into body fat. A better example, then: the Paleo Diet. No ketosis, but the same weight loss. And it's sustainable. |
| odb_fan_1 Tue Jan 17th, 2006 at 04:42 PM |
i didn't say he died of one - for the record. but he did have one. at least one. and the "pop diet books" i've read refer constantly to journals. and i'm guessing the dieticians i talk to are reading the journals too. |
| jefgodesky Tue Jan 17th, 2006 at 04:48 PM |
It's easy to pick and choose which journals you're going to listen to. I don't know what dieticians you're talking to, but they need to brush up. They apparently stopped staying on top of the latest news about a quarter of a century ago. |
| Devin Tue Jan 17th, 2006 at 09:50 PM |
Corrina, that was awesome. Everyone else: I don't really have much to offer on this whole debate other than this: my mom is a dietitian, and you're all spelling it wrong. :roll: I guess I do have something to say, after all. My general principle is this: eat what you want, just as long as it isn't hurting anyone else, and you can have a clear conscience about what you're eating. If you're not following this principle, it's not that big of a deal, but you probably can't have a clear conscience about it. As for whether or not it's healthy -- well, most of the studies out there are so general and based on correlation that getting any kind of a conclusion from the data is difficult. Most of the conclusions that ARE out there are purely speculative. My mom tells me all the time how they continually reverse old dietary standards. That's why I say eat what you want -- if you die, you die. It's not a big deal, is it? All you have to do is figure out whether you want to eat something or not. (And, of course, this is the hard part.) But that's an individual decision. |
| Talvir Tue Jan 17th, 2006 at 09:52 PM |
"jefgodesky" wrote: It's easy to pick and choose which journals you're going to listen to. I don't know what dieticians you're talking to, but they need to brush up. They apparently stopped staying on top of the latest news about a quarter of a century ago. Isn't there something semi-contradictory there? :D ;) Anyhoo, I've heard some things that agree, and some that disagree with your position. Food being so politicized, I'm not so sure I'd trust any studies. As for animal protein not being converted into fat, that doesn't sound right. I've never heard that idea from a respectable source. Where did you learned about it? I'd be concerned that that idea came from one of those "new idea this week" that Ghost talked about previously. Edit: for what it's worth, Wiki mentioned this: "Wikipedia" wrote: Strictly speaking, carbohydrates are not necessary for human nutrition because proteins can be converted to carbohydrates. The traditional diet of some cultures consists of very little carbohydrate, and these people remain relatively healthy. However, carbohydrates require less water to digest than proteins or fats and are the most abundant source of energy. Proteins and fat are vital building components for body tissue and cells, and thus it could be considered advisable not to deplete such resources. Very low carbohydrate diets can slow down brain and neural function because the nervous system especially relies on glucose. Some problems have been cited for the long term effects of a no-carbohydrate diet for some individuals. Athletes, for instance, or those that participate in high intensity activities, will have a considerable reduction in performance, due to having little to no glycogen supplies stored in muscle tissue. Additionally, nephrotoxicity may occur, particularly in persons that are not very well hydrated. Some examples of different carbohydrate rich foods are beans, bread and pasta. |
| jefgodesky Tue Jan 17th, 2006 at 10:32 PM |
It was the subject of one of my lectures in "Anthropology of Food," when we were discussing the chemical reactions of the stomach and small intestine. |
| odb_fan_1 Wed Jan 18th, 2006 at 03:59 PM |
1) this isn't sarcastic. if it's hard to digest meat, and it takes a long time to get out of the system, how can it be evolutionarilly-jazzy? 2) ditto the preface of #1: if you eat 30 pounds of mutton and bacon every day, how is it possible to not gain weight? Where does it go? What does it turn into? |
| jefgodesky Wed Jan 18th, 2006 at 04:04 PM |
Quote: this isn't sarcastic. if it's hard to digest meat, and it takes a long time to get out of the system, how can it be evolutionarilly-jazzy? We have whole sections and chemicals of our digestive tract dedicated specifically just to digest meat. We require vitamins and minerals that are nearly impossible to find, except in animals. Our teeth and digestive tract are those of an omnivore, not an herbivore. Quote: ditto the preface of #1: if you eat 30 pounds of mutton and bacon every day, how is it possible to not gain weight? Where does it go? What does it turn into? Amino acids get broken down into proteins, fats get broken down for energy. My guess is you'd shit out 29 lbs. of crap every day on that diet. |
| odb_fan_1 Wed Jan 18th, 2006 at 04:23 PM |
"jefgodesky" wrote: We have whole sections and chemicals of our digestive tract dedicated specifically just to digest meat. We require vitamins and minerals that are nearly impossible to find, except in animals. More questions: 1) does all animal flesh have the same mineral and vitamin contents? 2) what about foragers who rarely got meat? 3) i heard that B12 used to be in the water up in here and now isn't. assuming that, what other stuff used to be up in here pre-agriculture and domestication? 4) are you suggesting that foragers wore the nutrition crown? i'd be more inclined to think they were, maybe not always, but often malnourished. Quote: Our teeth and digestive tract are those of an omnivore, not an herbivore. Notice we also dont have the predator instincts. Right? (I'm referring to Fromm's "Anatomy of Human Destructiveness") Quote: Amino acids get broken down into proteins, fats get broken down for energy. My guess is you'd shit out 29 lbs. of crap every day on that diet. That sounds too ridiculous for me to swallow (that and i can't swallow 29 lbs of shit). I'm going to have to talk to some dieticians . |
| Nene Wed Jan 18th, 2006 at 04:27 PM |
Hey-- Just an add on... The fact that meat digests more slowly is actually one of its benefits... rahter than getting a quick nurst of energy that is just as quickly gone (Diabetes, anyone?), you get a slow, constant source of available energy... as a result, you also feel satiated more quickly and for longer periods of time. Both sides of this lead to fewer total calories eaten for the same 'felling' of being fed and energetic. And, uhh, yeah, 30 pounds 'o meat? yeah, somebodies getting fat on that. But really, a healthy person would be quite unable to eat that kind of quantity... typically, you might see 1/2 - 1 lb of meat pre day, combined with your fresh fruits and vegies in, ideally, a fifty-fifty ratio.(obviously more in the summer, less in the winter) Janene |
| tonyz Wed Jan 18th, 2006 at 04:45 PM |
so it's decided: grainarians(so-called vegetarians) are the problems and meat and vegetables are the solution hahaha who did I make mad today.... |
| Nene Wed Jan 18th, 2006 at 05:14 PM |
Tony -- You are such a shit! :lol: :lol: Janene |
| TwoRoadsTom Wed Jan 18th, 2006 at 05:25 PM |
Hey Tony, Was talking to a First Nations fellow just a few days back. I explained us (that is, Taker civ) as "Children of the Grass." Think about it: wheat, corn, rice, even sugar cane. :) Damn grainarians. Heh Best Bill Maxwell |
| jefgodesky Wed Jan 18th, 2006 at 09:18 PM |
Well, Cordain's measurements indicate that it's more of a 68:36 spread for the meat:vegetable ratio, not 50:50.... |
| Talvir Wed Jan 18th, 2006 at 09:20 PM |
Its settled then. Ghost stops eating grains and jefgodefsky stops eating non-organic meat and junk food. :P :lol: :wink: |
| jefgodesky Wed Jan 18th, 2006 at 09:30 PM |
Dude--I know it's not good for me, but a guy's got a budget, aight? |
| muddles Thu Jan 19th, 2006 at 04:05 AM |
Something that might be overlooked here in this discussion are the principles of mastication. You can, certainly, eat just about anything, and your body will be able to digest and neutralize it, granted you chew it enough times (at least 50 times, if you are going to be eating questionable foods). I think Americans in general eat too much, and don't chew their food enough. In my opinion this causes a lot of the health related problems we have. On a different note, however, I am macrobiotic, and have been for several years. I eat mostly whole grains, brown rice, to be specific (about 60-70% of my diet is brown rice). I supplement this with a balanced selection of certain vegetables, that are neither to rich in acids or alkalines. I also, very rarely, eat fish (white meat fish, like sole, halibut, cod, etc.), only a handful of times a year, and in very small quantities. I eat legumes occassionally as well, usually only certain kinds, however. Sea vegetables are also used, but to a lesser extent and mostly to flavor foods or to supply certain essential vitamins and nutrients. I don't really ever eat fruit, very rarely, I will have an apple. I have eaten ONLY brown rice for over 10 days at a time (only 8oz of water a day, during this period as well), and have experienced excellent health. Zero fatigue, and heightened mental acuity--more so then I have ever experienced in life. I know that one can not effectively live on just brown rice, but I believe very strongly in the health benefits it provides. I know that it is possible to eat a diet of strictly grains and vegetables and experience perfect health, because I have done it for very long periods of time. I used to be completely vegan (still macrobiotic, but just didn't eat fish), and it has only been recently that I have started eating small amounts of fish. I have not been sick in over 2 years (basically since I fully implemented the macrobiotic practice into my life), not even a cold. I have more energy then I have ever had, and do not experience headaches or other ailments that I constantly see friends and family battling with. I used to get sick quite often; the flu and colds mostly. But other sicknesses as well. I exercise regularly, and work full time and go to school. (this is to clarify that I do require as much energy as the next person) Overall, I have noticed numerous benefits from eating macrobiotically. Generally, I only sleep 4-5 hrs a day, and very rarely suffer from fatigue. Once I began fully implementing macrobiotic philosophy into my life, I have not once had a desire to go back to my old methods of eating. Which predominately consisted of meat, and run of the mill supermarket foods. I think another note of interest would be, that Americans mostly eat highly chemicalized, refined, and genetically modified foods. Eating organically will definitely eliminate a lot of problems associated with diet. I know that many valid methods of eating exist, but I do not agree that humans evolved to eat meat. And in my experience, meat has never done me any good. I look at my friends, who eat like typical Americans, and I constantly see things in their lives that are health related that could easily be resolved with a better diet, consisting of less meat. Its not so much meat that is the problem, its the kind of meat that is available to us. Eating raw meat would definitely be the best, if one insisted on eating meat. The reason I choose not to eat meat, is because I consider it inferior compared to other foods available to me (and it causes certain health risks). I eat fish, simply for pleasure, not necessarily because I feel that I need it. According to the Harvard School of Health (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramids.html), red meat should be eating sparingly if at all. I don't know much about the science of foods, but I do know what works for me, and macrobiotics has definitely worked for me. Not to say that this will work for everyone, but I highly suspect it would. Macrobiotics is also a very valid method of reversing the effects of disease and restoring the sick, and cancer afflicted people to perfect health (this process does not take long, either). From what I have gathered, just about everyone on this forum is quite a bit more knowledgeable than myself, especially when it comes to science, and anthropology, however, I would like to submit some ammunition of my own. I am by no me |