Are any of you not vegetarians?

Then I suppose you are a biological anomaly. If you do have an illness there may be something to that so that makes it somewhat more believable. Although I don't see what the difference would be. It could be a few things:

1. You simply weren't eating the same number of calories. Quite possible.
2. You dramatically decreased your protein intake and a lot of what you lost was muscle. Possible but you said you were a lightweight so you probably didn't have had that much muscle to begin with.
3. Something to do with your illness, but I'm not a doctor so I couldn't comment on that.

Either way it's unimportant. One thing I will say though is that while meat may be good for gaining weight, carbs are equally as good and someone who isn't eating any meat is probably eating more carbs.

To put it simply, I'm confused, heh.

Nice. That's real-world proof that a vegan diet done right is one of the healthiest things someone can do.

I think the reason for your vitality is the complete lack of inflammatory animal protein. Only in the last few years has the real truth about non-seafood animal protein come out regarding inflammation and the word is spreading. Before all anyone could say bad about meat is that it was high in saturated fat and calories, but it really takes a toll on the digestive and immune system.

 

Couldn't dietary concerns be because of the hormones and shit in the red meat though?
Fish doesn't undergo that human molestation that the Western World's meat does.

I mean, supposedly free range organic meat is far healthier - so, how do we know that's what's being used in these studies?

 

stabby please refrain from trying to solve my problems, thank you.
it will only confuse you more

 

Beef in particular isn't a huge culprit in inflammation. It still has a lot of arachidonic acid but not nearly as much as other "meats" (pork, chicken, etc). I should make that distinction.

It could very well be that completely organic beef wouldn't be a hard on the body and it could very well be that the people in studies that link beef consumption to disease weren't eating organic beef, in fact almost certain since few people anywhere eat organic beef.

The problem with beef in particular is that it's naturally very difficult for our bodies to digest. You could get completely organic beef and it would still take a very long time to digest, it would still be very hard on the digestive system and the absorption of nutrients from anything else you ate would be hindered. It would still be highly acid-forming and would still be very high in saturated fat. If someone has a diet completely free of beef or any non-seafood animals (especially pork) then their body simply doesn't have to deal with a whole category of substances that it doesn't process very well and contains substances that does it damage.

 

I have bowel problems due to anxiety disorder, and really, things that are tough to digest can be rather good for me. (Cause when the bowel problems get bad, I get more stressed, and the vicious cycle gets nasty.)
So, it's kinda funny to me that you are using this as a reason I should stop eating meat.

I am shocked that poultry and pork are more inflammatory though. They are such milder and gentler meats than beef.

 

They are in all aspects other than inflammation. You're right about organic animals not being as inflammatory as the farm-raised ones. The problem is that hardly anyone goes to organic markets to get organic meat, and the ones who do go don't consume anywhere near as much meat as the general population. Organic food isn't a sustainable industry and if everyone wanted to eat only organic meat it would be impossible to do.

But it still stands that even organic meat is difficult to digest, acid-forming, and high in saturated fat. Vegans really are doing themselves a favor in the long run.

 

I think that's still arguable.

I know plenty of vegans that have had lots've health troubles - iron and protein related especially. One friend was ordered to eat meat again ("at least fish") by a doctor, after a few different supplements hadn't helped multiple deficiencies. She tried it, it helped, she went vegan again anyways =P
Last time I talked to her she wasn't bitching about her health and I didn't think to ask, so the story ends there for me.

 

1/ i love meat
2/ meat is good
3/ meat is tasty
4/ i like to hunt

(hunting goes in there cuz i like eating meat. but i love eating meat that I killed)

 

Well that's true. It depends on the vegan. There are a lot of people who go vegan completely for their ethical reasons and don't pay any mind to nutrition and end up with certain problems and deficiencies. But that's vegan done extremely wrong. Vegan diets done right are incredibly healthy. If you cut out the junk food first and then take the farm-raised animals out of a diet and replace them with more plant-based foods and supplements you're basically cutting out your only remaining part of a diet that will be pernicious to your health. There's nearly nothing left in your diet to cause diet-related illness and the result will be slower aging, less disease and greater vitality.

Ever since I cut about half of the animal products out of my diet I've felt a lot healthier and sunfighter is aging remarkably slowly so there's some anecdotal evidence there, although it can't possibly serve as fact. The question stands: what in a junk-free, true vegan (or vegan with fish) diet with all nutrient requirements met will cause damage to the body?

 

that's propaganda.

pork (general pork, you could argue different cuts of pork have different values, but if we just say "pork) are 3:1 i.e. a pig needs 3 lbs of viable food per lb of viable flesh (viable food)

now, if we're talking pastrami, then, yes, there are only six lbs of pastrami per cow.

The problem is that these numbers that you're presenting have been finessed (they're lies)

if you assume a whole cow is pastrami, then they are actually an understatement (or that a whole cow costs as much to produce as a pound of pastrami)

and if one were to finesse the numbers based on what an "average american family" consumes, then you're closer to those numbers (you see the methodology is already twisting)

the problem is that "average american family" already has some pretty twisted methodology in it's acquisition

Your numbers are shit.

Go spend some time around livestock, and not artificial inflated and finessed numbers used for the sake of propaganda.

I could generate just as twisted numbers for the same kind of propaganda, using similar techniques, I won't, because, though I know that meat is bad for the environment, I know HOW bad it is for the environment, and compared to the monoculture farming that organics have encouraged (need bug resistant apples, don't we?) it's NOTHING.

 

this thread is full of fucking lulz

 

Watching Tarzan is enough to make anyone not wanna be mean to animals.

 

Good to hear you bending a little on this fallacy of composition argument (I love that expression by the way, I hope you don't mind if I plagiarize it in the future).

I can respect that a vegetarian diet is generally healthier, but I can also appreciate there are worlds of differences between the crap you get at the grocery store and the organic cow I've seen grazing in a field near where I live that ends up in my freezer. I'd rather eat that cow than an ear of genetically modified corn.

Obviously if you have a condition that prevents you from eating meat, that's a different story, but that's true for any problem food.

When my lady was in the Peace Corps in South America, she observed that most of the indigenous people couldn't afford a purely vegetarian diet, the land simply wouldn't sustain it. The point is that meat is not necessarily more a drain on resources, it depends on where it comes from.

So aside from the meat-vs-vegetarian nutrition argument, what about the big picture? I'm a little younger than sunfighter, but I can relate, having just come from a physical myself a few months back, being told as always I'm in impeccable health and I'll probably live well into my 90's or beyond. The doc thanked me for taking such good care of myself 'cause it made his job easier. I exercise daily, and I'm in better shape now than I was in my 20's, yet I still eat meat and put what some might consider other poisons in my body. I just don't overdo the poisons, and I detoxify when I do by physical activity. I'm far more concerned about stuff like meds and pollution than I am about my diet.

I tend to think physical activity is more important than diet. I've met a few vegetarians who are couch dwellers, I don't see them having fewer health problems than my carnivorous friends later in life. The regional Master of my martial art is practically eighty, yet he's amazingly agile. He eats meat, drinks whiskey, and smokes cigarettes like a chimney, yet he'll probably outlive most of us.

When you think about it, what are you really gaining by avoiding foods you love? I pity the poor fool who, after avoiding meat his entire life, steps off the curb and gets hit by a bus. Is that what they call vegetarian martydom?

 

Heh yeah I love busting people for fallacy of composition. It happens so much in nutrition since every food product has multiple negative and positive aspects to it. It's far to easily to deceive oneself and focus only on the positives.

I wouldn't touch inorganic animals with a 10 foot poll but I think that organic animals can have a small role in a healthy diet. The problem is people trying to base more than a quarter of their diet off of animal products. Maximum 3 servings a day (maybe more if the additional ones are wild fish), for real. Most days should be fish and poultry, and beef should be less frequent. If someone feels that they need more protein they should get a healthy organic protein supplement. That's what I do. Maximum 3 servings of organic animals a day and a vegan protein supplement. The bulk of any healthy diet comes from plants.

As for exercise, everyone should be getting daily exercise. Sedentary lifestyles are very dangerous and you really can't compare inactive and active people. This doesn't mean that exercise-aholics are completely exempt from eating healthily. Someone who exercises but doesn't have a healthy diet is quite simply not going to live as long and have as great vitality as someone who exercises and has a healthy diet. So it does matter. It matters a lot. Is the goal to outlive sickly people or is it to be as healthy as possible? If the latter, then good nutrition isn't optional.

In summary, vegan + fish (or at least fish oil) is the optimal diet, but a couple of servings of organic animals a day isn't anything to fret about. I realize that for most people simply couldn't give up meat for good, and I don't think a moderate amount of organic meat is much of a concern.

 

Perhaps you've heard of Owsley Stanley aka "Bear"? If not, look him up in Wikipedia.

He has eaten nothing but meat, eggs, butter, and cheese since 1959. When I met him in 1996 when he was 61, he looked very healthy, bulging with muscles.

Please, I'm not advocating his diet! But it is kind of incredible, isn't it?

 

Yeah I wouldn't recommend that to anyone who wants to have a bowel movement more than once a month. This guy is definitely a biological anomaly if that's true. Most people would be dead within a few years from that. We all have certain metabolic types and some of us should really be limiting or eliminating meat and some of us handle it better but even the ones whose metabolic type is more suited to it should still be limiting it.

 

Maybe it's the acid, LOL. A lot of hard core friends of mine are in really good shape. It's almost as if we push ourselves harder to compensate for the crap we put in our bodies, or maybe it's that we reward ourselves for our hard work, which makes the workouts that much more attractive. 'Nothing like burning one on the way to the gym to make the experience that much more fun. 'Course I might get lung cancer, but these lungs are pretty healthy from all that trail running.

The bottom line is everybody's different. Metabolism, digestive health, enzymes, food allergies, exercise, health conditions, many factors to consider when making dietary choices, so it's dangerous to make blanket statements.

 

Although there's no way around nutrient deficiency and harmful things WILL hurt you. Everyone should make their diet as healthy as possible and the mainstream definition of healthy still applies, complete and utter biological anomalies aside.

Instead of doing some healthy things and some unhealthy things why not do all healthy things?

 

HAHAHAHA - you just made my day. Thanks