Results 101 to 125 of 180
Thread: Is it wrong to be an Omnivore?
plustheharm likes this post
Meat taste too good to give up.Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.8GHz | Nvidia 970 GTX | 6 GB Corsair Xms 1333 Mhz | 1 TB Seagate HDD | 250 GB WD HDD | Windows 7 Ultimate |
The evolution analogy moving forward is kind of wrong I mean we can't evolve past not eating animals. (well who knows perhaps in a few million years if we live out in space) Don't think we've physically evolved past not eating meat.. I mean us on an island with some bush animals.. it's not like we physically cannot eat what we can to survive.
As a society we can evolve/change not to eat meat... like certain sects of some religions don't. But physically not in a while... if ever.
In the end it's a moral stance.
Some people do not eat meat at all, some people (like me) try to make sure that all the meat we consume is hand slaughtered and where it is from, and others don't mind at all.
and some do it for lifestyle only not really for the moral stance. (Heavy meat or Vegetarian or Mediterranean)
Last edited by Firefox; 04-01-2012 at 03:01.
Vegan_mekey, my concern is that if you go completely vegan, you have to take supplements and that's usually a bad idea too. How do you deal with that?
First, You are incorrect we have already physically evolved past not eating meat. For instance, looks at the adherents to those religions which are briefly mentioned in your second paragraph. (i.e. 20-40% of India's 1.2 billion population is vegetarian). This is makes it glaringly obvious that humans have evolved past having to eat meat. .
The rest of this arguement is a very interesting contradiction. You essentially invalidated your arguement. My statement is that due to current societal progression, in first world countries we can continue to move forward. Your attempt in providing a hypothetically situational rationalize (If we lived on an island then..., If an asteriod hit the earth,... etc.) does not take into account current societal progression or evolution. Therefore it is unrealistic, as in developed societies, we: (A) don't live on an island, (B) No longer need to sustain ourselves on animal flesh (C) Our continual use of animal flesh is only preference.
Is it solely an moral issue? Perhaps when relative to the animal that was murdered strictly for our preference to eat their dead flesh. But what about majority of people starving in third world countries? We create largely inefficient protein/calories sources of animal flesh in developed societies by intentional feeding larges amount of grain and potable water. These protein/calories/hydration yield of dead animals mass produced is developed is exponentially low protein. When we solely propogate these systems we essentially are ensuring that there is less grain/vegetable protein and safe, clean drinking water to share with the rest of the human race (specifically the millions of starving people in the world). It seems more ethical to reduce our intentional consumption of mass produced flesh in developed societies to ensure that the rest of the human species can sustain. (i.e. for more information look into feed conversion ratios).
Supplementation is bad? Then the near entirety of the American population is making a significant Faux Pas.
The major source of vitamin D is exogenic or supplementation into our food in milk. For instance, a 2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition survey found that near 41.5% of US adults are deficient in vitamin D. The study found that non-daily consumption of milk (or other supplemented sources) significant toward this deficiency. Therefore, the 58.5% that were not deficient were deriving the majority of their vitamin D from food supplementation.
How does this differ from vegans needing B12?
1. Forrest KY, Stuhldreher WL. Prevalence and correlates of vitamin D deficiency in US adults. Nutr Res. 2011 Jan;31(1):48-54.
I was just talking about words.. I never made a point of whether eating meat is right or wrong my island example had NOTHING to do with the entire meat argument in this thread only word use. Funny how you automatically assume I was trying to rationalize something and argue points I never made.
I'm not trying to argue with you.. your use of the word evolution and my use was different. That is all.
My island example wasn't trying to argue about meat in the slightest it was just a made up sentence to talk about the word evolved it was just outlining my use of the word.. saying that its not like we can't physically not eat meat like other species. So I was just talking about the word.
Last edited by Firefox; 04-01-2012 at 15:13.
Of course you will post a response to this but just know that you were talking about being evolved past being able to not eat something and I was talking about like other species actually not being able to do it (key word able) like in India it is a few people's choice based on religion. (I went to south India before so I didn't really see any signs of vegetarians there .. every stall with meat etc.. so probably the north )
So yea since we both talked about two different things arguing will be pointless.
So really I should have made it clear I was trying to discuss my use of the word and not meat.
Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk
Last edited by Firefox; 04-01-2012 at 15:23.
Either way, I thought it was common knowledge that it's better to get the vitamins naturally than through supplements.
Do you feel that we shouldn't eat animals because it's cruel to them or because it's not good for us?
Obtaining nutrients naturally is more beneficial than supplementation. The reason is that (plant) foods provide many non-nutritive substances that confer tremendous health benefits. These are refered to as polyphenols or phytochemicals (i.e. anti-oxidants being one subset). Plant-based diets are rich in these nutritive substances, but if we only supplement our diet instead of increasing our intake of nutritive-rich, plant foods then we decrease our intake of bioactive, protective substances. This increases the risk of health problems that occur from the overconsumption of foods that displace the plant-food in our diet (particularly animal flesh and other high saturated fat items). Particularly, the recent rise of Heart Disease (#1 Killer), Diabetes and certain forms of cancer, due to lifestyle factors (overconsumption of animal flesh -saturated fat, cholesterol - abdominal obesity, lack of physical activity, lack of fiber from plant-foods, and lack of non-nutritive protective substances found in plant foods).
I don't eat dead animal flesh because the methods which animals are raised and slaughtered in this developed society is horrific. Furthermore, the overconsumption of dead animal flesh has many negative affects upon human health, while a plant-based diet confers many health related benefits. Then, of course, there is the environmental toll that animal agriculture produces.
What substitutes do you use for things like cream, butter, cheese and yogurt?
The whole idea is to stop animal cruelty which is understandable but I think being a vegetarian is not good enough, you have to be a vegan to really stop everything...to be a vegan is not an easy task...not at all. Either that or there's not enough information out there because I tried being a vegetarian and being in a hectic schedule like mine, it's easier to consume meat than veggies...just more meat options out there and just seems easier to cook meat than vegetables that are (hate to say it) tastier to consume.
Was it tough for you to be a vegan at first?
@Sufi I read articles on Summer Tomato.. and the site creator did a video on this very topic.
She addresses the myths (ie. wrong Saturated Fat argument for or the wrong it's not health argument against) for and against, diet, reasons why you why want to become vegetarian/vegan etc...
She is a PHD in all this stuff from university.. so she knows her stuff.
Last edited by Firefox; 04-01-2012 at 23:15.
You are saying our biological cosmology requires that it is necessary for us to meat? I thought we have already evolved to not need meat for sustenance/nutrition. What about the millions of vegetarians? What about religious adherents that have followed vegetarian diets for since 6th Centery BCE? How can they exist/survive, if they didn't already evolve no longer require meat?
Do these people have "the gene" to not need nutrients from meat? From my understanding, as a clinical dietitian, it's only patients with Genetic Errors of Metabolism that often have genetic codes that causes them to "need to nutrients from meat survive." Yeah, Genetic Errors is what requires meat. Nearly everyone else has "genes" that allow them to survive without eating meat.
Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as a dick.
I tend to drink a cup of soymilk a day. Mostly as a convenient source of calcium/Vitamin D. I also take Vitamin D supplement because I live in a Northern Latitude. As for supplements.
I really don't do many food supplements. Instead of butter, I use Olive Oil, as is rich in mono-unsaturated fatty acids making it "heart healthy." If you are into baking, there are expeller pressed margarines. For "buttering" something, I'm much of a fan of Natural nut butters, (mostly peanut as it is the cheapest), as they are rich in nutrients.
I'm not a big fan of fake cheese at all. Mainly because it sucks. Daiya is pretty amazing, but still I'm not into cheese. My biggest recommendation: if you decide to stop eating cheese, don't have "fake" cheese until at least 1 year later. A comparative analysis, between real and vegan cheese, I bet is horrible. I waited until being vegan for 3 years before I tried vegan cheese (and I thought someone tricked me and put real cheese in my food!)
If you like Yogurt, the best bet is soy yogurt. I actually love this stuff, but it is hard to come by in my new city (it's quite rural).
My biggest recommendation, regardless of your diet, is to plan ahead. When you plan ahead for meals/snacks you are able to make much healthier choices and avoid temptations (Sorry I teach a lot of weight loss classes). For instance, every sunday I make a lunch meal to eat everyday for the rest of the week. (By thursday it gettings boring eating the same thing though). Some people will just have leftovers for the next day's lunch, which is a great use of portion control and planning ahead. Healthy snacks is very important too. Carrying around fruit is always great, but sometimes you need something "meatier." I've lately been making my own trail mix by mixing almonds, walnuts, sunflower seeds, pumpkin seeds, cheerios, raisins, and cranberry raisins. I portion 1/2 cup servings into ziplock bags and bring them with me whenver I know I'll be out of the house for a while.
I found something interesting. What does it say about vegan diet? Do these people not know what vegan diet is maybe? I want to hear from vegans themselves.
I found a few more articles but I wanted to hear about this one first.
Death by Veganism
By NINA PLANCK
Published: May 21, 2007
Correction AppendedWHEN Crown Shakur died of starvation, he was 6 weeks old and weighed 3.5 pounds. His vegan parents, who fed him mainly soy milk and apple juice, were convicted in Atlanta recently of murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty.
This particular calamity — at least the third such conviction of vegan parents in four years — may be largely due to ignorance. But it should prompt frank discussion about nutrition.
I was once a vegan. But well before I became pregnant, I concluded that a vegan pregnancy was irresponsible. You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants.
Indigenous cuisines offer clues about what humans, naturally omnivorous, need to survive, reproduce and grow: traditional vegetarian diets, as in India, invariably include dairy and eggs for complete protein, essential fats and vitamins. There are no vegan societies for a simple reason: a vegan diet is not adequate in the long run.
Protein deficiency is one danger of a vegan diet for babies. Nutritionists used to speak of proteins as “first class” (from meat, fish, eggs and milk) and “second class” (from plants), but today this is considered denigrating to vegetarians.
The fact remains, though, that humans prefer animal proteins and fats to cereals and tubers, because they contain all the essential amino acids needed for life in the right ratio. This is not true of plant proteins, which are inferior in quantity and quality — even soy.
A vegan diet may lack vitamin B12, found only in animal foods; usable vitamins A and D, found in meat, fish, eggs and butter; and necessary minerals like calcium and zinc. When babies are deprived of all these nutrients, they will suffer from retarded growth, rickets and nerve damage.
Responsible vegan parents know that breast milk is ideal. It contains many necessary components, including cholesterol (which babies use to make nerve cells) and countless immune and growth factors. When breastfeeding isn’t possible, soy milk and fruit juice, even in seemingly sufficient quantities, are not safe substitutes for a quality infant formula.
Yet even a breast-fed baby is at risk. Studies show that vegan breast milk lacks enough docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, the omega-3 fat found in fatty fish. It is difficult to overstate the importance of DHA, vital as it is for eye and brain development.
A vegan diet is equally dangerous for weaned babies and toddlers, who need plenty of protein and calcium. Too often, vegans turn to soy, which actually inhibits growth and reduces absorption of protein and minerals. That’s why health officials in Britain, Canada and other countries express caution about soy for babies. (Not here, though — perhaps because our farm policy is so soy-friendly.)
Historically, diet honored tradition: we ate the foods that our mothers, and their mothers, ate. Now, your neighbor or sibling may be a meat-eater or vegetarian, may ferment his foods or eat them raw. This fragmentation of the American menu reflects admirable diversity and tolerance, but food is more important than fashion. Though it’s not politically correct to say so, all diets are not created equal.
An adult who was well-nourished in utero and in infancy may choose to get by on a vegan diet, but babies are built from protein, calcium, cholesterol and fish oil. Children fed only plants will not get the precious things they need to live and grow.
Nina Planck is the author of “Real Food: What to Eat and Why.”
Correction: June 8, 2007
An Op-Ed article on May 21, about veganism, mischaracterized an aspect of traditional
Indian diets. Generally, these diets are lacto-vegetarian; they do not include eggs. vegetarianhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/op...anck.html?_r=1
I feel weird coming in this thread in the midst of debate, but I don't think it's immoral to be an omnivore. We've been eating meat even before we formed real civilized societies.
Perhaps the way we treat animals in the meat industry is immoral, but the act of eating meat is not immoral.
Tapatalking from my bed. Ya mutha says hi.Thanks to Kwesnoth for the sig!
TheCinemaJack Movie Reviews!
And Sufi that's terrible for parents to not feed their baby properly. The kid has to have either breast milk or a proper baby formula. You have to know how to take care of your kids and make sure the grow up strong.
People can eat whatever they like. I'm a full omnivore and I'm fine with that.
Focus. Control. Conviction. Resolve. A true ace lacks none of these attributes. Nothing can deter you from the task at hand except your own fears. This is your sky.
Nina Planck has no credentials or scientific background in nutrition. She is a member of the Weston Price Foundation which often decry evidenced-based, scientifically verified dietary recommendations in favor of the group's financial supporters (typically, raw dairy, egg and meat farmer coalitions).
Her exagerated, disconnected nutritional assumptions are often misled and incorrect. Unfortunately the general public does not have adequate understanding of nutritional needs (or even basic nutritional biochemistry) and tend to buy her "opinions" as fact because they often corroborate with their lifestyles (i.e. current obesity epidemic/Standard American Diet).
Numerous qualified (Ph.D and Master Degree level Dietitians/Nutritionists) have offered corrections and rebuttals to the outrageous nutritional claims purported by Nina Planck (whose only qualification is working at a Farmer's Market).
P.S. I'm a Clinical Dietitian currently in pursuit of another Advanced Degree in Nutritional Science.
Last edited by Chille; 06-02-2012 at 14:42.
Ok a few things here. I pretty much tune out any argument that brings up evolution because at that point you can't prove it. It's just proselytizing. You can say we have evolved beyond eating meat, but the body needs protien. You can get protien from a variety of sources, but meat is a significant source of that which means it is more logical to eat meat than a bunch of nuts and whatnot. That being said I am a meat eater. I probably have meat 4 or 5 days a week. What it comes down to is a moral argument on animal cruelty. Now you can tote on about all these vegetarians in India, but it's not a moral argument there it's an economic one. People can't afford to eat meat regularly there.
Somebody get me a doctor, I ain't feelin' ill ...But I ain't feelin' this at all...
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
- San Antonio, TX
- PSN ID
- Rep Power
The only things that I eat that's green are pickles, cucumbers, and avocados.Thanks to THUGGEDOUT for the sig, The Black Wolf for the av.Life's too short to be sober! Drunk with power!
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- In the 36 Chambers
- PSN ID
- Rep Power
$Greatness$ likes this post
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)