I guess I should say one more thing about meat ... You can eat it and yet still not support the big meat industry. My wife and I get all of our meat from organic, free range sources ... Small farms, many very old-school traditional outfits that don't use chemicals and don't use up half of the countryside. You pay more, but because one doesn't need to eat huge quantities of meat anyway, it doesn't break the bank. Another potential barrier is that you need access to a farmer's markey or natural food store. There's no shortage of sources here in Calgary ... Maybe someone in a smaller centre would have more trouble.
Many people seem to have an arbitrary moral problem with it, but hunting is another natural option. But I don't want to start that debate!
Facts from "eatwild.com" strike me as tilted towards the meat industry. Would you believe any facts posted from a PETA website? How about if a cigarette company posted there are no scientific facts connecting smoking and cancer?
facts are facts. if you bothered to look; you would see that the CLA study was done in france. as seen in the references below (and posted on the study); you will see that the studies were not done by ranchers. i noticed one reference from JAMA. now tell me the american medical association is tilted toward the meat industry.
1.Rule, D. C., K. S. Brought on, S. M. Shellito, and G. Maiorano. "Comparison of Muscle Fatty Acid Profiles and Cholesterol Concentrations of Bison, Beef Cattle, Elk, and Chicken." J Anim Sci 80, no. 5 (2002): 1202-11.
2. Davidson, M. H., D. Hunninghake, et al. (1999). "Comparison of the effects of lean red meat vs lean white meat on serum lipid levels among free-living persons with hypercholesterolemia: a long-term, randomized clinical trial." Arch Intern Med 159(12): 1331-8. The conclusion of this study: "... diets containing primarily lean red meat or lean white meat produced similar reductions in LDL cholesterol and elevations in HDL cholesterol, which were maintained throughout the 36 weeks of treatment."
3. Siscovick, D. S., T. E. Raghunathan, et al. (1995). "Dietary Intake and Cell Membrane Levels of Long-Chain n-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and the Risk of Primary Cardiac Arrest." JAMA 274(17): 1363-1367.
4. Simopolous, A. P. and Jo Robinson (1999). The Omega Diet. New York, HarperCollins. My previous book, a collaboration with Dr. Artemis P. Simopoulos, devotes an entire chapter to the vital role that omega-3s play in brain function.
5. Rose, D. P., J. M. Connolly, et al. (1995). "Influence of Diets Containing Eicosapentaenoic or Docasahexaenoic Acid on Growth and Metastasis of Breast Cancer Cells in Nude Mice." Journal of the National Cancer Institute 87(8): 587-92.
6. Tisdale, M. J. (1999). "Wasting in cancer." J Nutr 129(1S Suppl): 243S-246S.
7. Tashiro, T., H. Yamamori, et al. (1998). "n-3 versus n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids in critical illness." Nutrition 14(6): 551-3.
8. Duckett, S. K., D. G. Wagner, et al. (1993). "Effects of time on feed on beef nutrient composition." J Anim Sci 71(8): 2079-88.
9. Lopez-Bote, C. J., R.Sanz Arias, A.I. Rey, A. Castano, B. Isabel, J. Thos (1998). "Effect of free-range feeding on omega-3 fatty acids and alpha-tocopherol content and oxidative stability of eggs." Animal Feed Science and Technology 72: 33-40.
10. Dolecek, T. A. and G. Grandits (1991). "Dietary Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and Mortality in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT)." World Rev Nutr Diet 66: 205-16.
11. Dhiman, T. R., G. R. Anand, et al. (1999). "Conjugated linoleic acid content of milk from cows fed different diets." J Dairy Sci 82(10): 2146-56. Interestingly, when the pasture was machine-harvested and then fed to the animals as hay, the cows produced far less CLA than when they were grazing on that pasture, even though the hay was made from the very same grass. The fat that the animals use to produce CLA is oxidized during the wilting, drying process. For maximum CLA, animals need to be grazing living pasture.
12. Ip, C, J.A. Scimeca, et al. (1994) "Conjugated linoleic acid. A powerful anti-carcinogen from animal fat sources." p. 1053. Cancer 74(3 suppl):1050-4.
13. Aro, A., S. Mannisto, I. Salminen, M. L. Ovaskainen, V. Kataja, and M. Uusitupa. "Inverse Association between Dietary and Serum Conjugated Linoleic Acid and Risk of Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women." Nutr Cancer 38, no. 2 (2000): 151-7.
14. Smith, G.C. "Dietary supplementation of vitamin E to cattle to improve shelf life and case life of beef for domestic and international markets." Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1171
it seems you people only read what you want to hear and ignore the rest. making ignorant statements only reflects back on you.
I guess I should say one more thing about meat ... You can eat it and yet still not support the big meat industry. My wife and I get all of our meat from organic, free range sources ... Small farms, many very old-school traditional outfits that don't use chemicals and don't use up half of the countryside. You pay more, but because one doesn't need to eat huge quantities of meat anyway, it doesn't break the bank. Another potential barrier is that you need access to a farmer's markey or natural food store. There's no shortage of sources here in Calgary ... Maybe someone in a smaller centre would have more trouble.
Many people seem to have an arbitrary moral problem with it, but hunting is another natural option. But I don't want to start that debate!
http://www.eatwild.com has a list of farms and ranches that provide free range meats accross the us and canada. in most cases; it's cheaper to buy farm direct. for example; i sell my sirloins at $18.03 BELOW market price.
bovines are sacred in the hindu religion. other meats can and are eaten.
I'm a meat eater, and so will defend meat eating. However, I do want to point out that many, many Hindu are vegetarians for religious reasons. Most of the ones who aren't are more "modernized" and western. Traditionally, vegetarianism is considered the ideal.
Are you trying to tell me that a cattle rancher posting data from a website that represents cattle ranchers might not be completely unbiased?!!?!
Everyone has an agenda and someone has to pay for the research. I have no problems when research is attacked based on the science but your method of discounting research makes all research invalid.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
http://www.eatwild.com has a list of farms and ranches that provide free range meats accross the us and canada. in most cases; it's cheaper to buy farm direct. for example; i sell my sirloins at $18.03 BELOW market price.
On an wholly unrelated note, I love the guns/pencils quote.
a veggie diet causes brain damage by depriving it of necessary compounds for healthy opperation. here's one reference and when i have time; i can find you more.
Simopolous, A. P. and Jo Robinson (1999). The Omega Diet. New York, HarperCollins. My previous book, a collaboration with Dr. Artemis P. Simopoulos, devotes an entire chapter to the vital role that omega-3s play in brain function
the portion of the article below from the journal of nutrition shows the absorbable vitamins available through free range meat. vitamins not readily absorbed in other forms. this backs an earlier comment someone made.
Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, with one out of every two adults burdened by excess weight. To help trim the fat, Procter and Gamble has given us Olestra, "the no-fat cooking oil with the full-fat flavor." There are a couple of problems with Olestra. First, it cuts down on your body's absorption of beta-carotene and vitamin E. Second, it can cause "bloating, cramping, nausea, and loose stools or diarrhea."
Nature has given us a healthier alternative to weight control—eat meat from animals raised on fresh pasture. Meat from grassfed animals has about half the fat as meat from grainfed animals and significantly fewer calories. It also gives you a bonus supply of vitamins E, A, D, and beta-carotene.
Burton P. Koonsvitsky et al, "Olestra Affects Serum Concentrations of Alpha-Tocopherol and Carotenoids" J of Nutrition, Vol. 127 No. 8 August 1997, pp. 1636S-1645S.
Everyone has an agenda and someone has to pay for the research. I have no problems when research is attacked based on the science but your method of discounting research makes all research invalid.
the national institute of health is funded by tax dollars and grants. many other research facilities are funded by grants and donations.
many sites like PETA only print the sections that support thier cause; but i trust sites that show side by side comparisons; and can back the results with references that can be verified.
Everyone has an agenda and someone has to pay for the research. I have no problems when research is attacked based on the science but your method of discounting research makes all research invalid.
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with the research, I'm sure it's fine. I'm just saying that there's a ton of equally valid research showing that a vegetarian diet is beneficial, and you're not going to find it on a cattle rancher's site. And that given the vast amounts of research on both sides, it's impossible to draw any conclusions as to which diet is "better" for you.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
a veggie diet causes brain damage by depriving it of necessary compounds for healthy opperation. here's one reference and when i have time; i can find you more.
Simopolous, A. P. and Jo Robinson (1999). The Omega Diet. New York, HarperCollins. My previous book, a collaboration with Dr. Artemis P. Simopoulos, devotes an entire chapter to the vital role that omega-3s play in brain function
the portion of the article below from the journal of nutrition shows the absorbable vitamins available through free range meat. vitamins not readily absorbed in other forms. this backs an earlier comment someone made.
Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, with one out of every two adults burdened by excess weight. To help trim the fat, Procter and Gamble has given us Olestra, "the no-fat cooking oil with the full-fat flavor." There are a couple of problems with Olestra. First, it cuts down on your body's absorption of beta-carotene and vitamin E. Second, it can cause "bloating, cramping, nausea, and loose stools or diarrhea."
Nature has given us a healthier alternative to weight control—eat meat from animals raised on fresh pasture. Meat from grassfed animals has about half the fat as meat from grainfed animals and significantly fewer calories. It also gives you a bonus supply of vitamins E, A, D, and beta-carotene.
Burton P. Koonsvitsky et al, "Olestra Affects Serum Concentrations of Alpha-Tocopherol and Carotenoids" J of Nutrition, Vol. 127 No. 8 August 1997, pp. 1636S-1645S.
How in the hell does this show that a vegetarian diet causes brain damage?! It does not mention vegetarianism. It says that ONE WAY to control your weight and ingest certain nutrients is to eat meat from pasture-raised animals. It does not say that this is the ONLY way, and it certainly does not say that vegetarianism damages your brain!
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
How in the hell does this show that a vegetarian diet causes brain damage?! It does not mention vegetarianism. It says that ONE WAY to control your weight and ingest certain nutrients is to eat meat from pasture-raised animals. It does not say that this is the ONLY way, and it certainly does not say that vegetarianism damages your brain!
True enough ... But I am not aware of any studies which demonstrate that a meat-free diet is at all superior to a diet that includes an appropriate amount of animal protein. I am sure that if one compares vegetarians with people who eat steak four or five times a week, you'd see some health differences. People do not compare pure veg. diets with balanced diets that include meat, though.
True enough ... But I am not aware of any studies which demonstrate that a meat-free diet is at all superior to a diet that includes an appropriate amount of animal protein. I am sure that if one compares vegetarians with people who eat steak four or five times a week, you'd see some health differences. People do not compare pure veg. diets with balanced diets that include meat, though.
Personally, I don't think it is superior. I think both are fine, it's a matter of personal preference. I'm certainly not making any health claims on either side. I tend to think that if you're eating a balanced diet of fresh, high-quality food, you're alright. I would prefer that people stay away from factory-raised meat for both health and moral reasons, but I see nothing wrong with eating wild or naturally raised and humanely slaughtered animals.
The studies are out there. I have neither the time nor the interest to dig them up, but when you have cancer everyone has advice. I've been given books and pamphlets and emails by half the people I know, all of them complete with studies showing why I should eat meat, or why I shouldn't. I've read enough of it to know that you can convince yourself of whatever you want to believe and find plenty of data to back it up.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I'm an environmentalist and I eat way more meat than I should. Ideally I would love to become an (almost) full-time vegetarian, however, I admit I'm much too undisciplined to make the switch. I used to eat meat 3 meals a day and I'm now down to maybe 2 meals per week.
A high meat diet is incompatable with an environmental philosophy. The primary reason it there is a much higher footprint when you produce meat. Even if it is local and free range, the amount of land it takes to raise cattle/livestock and the amount of resource it takes to feed, transport, slaughter etc make it very inefficient compared to agriculture. That said, I don't think people should stop eating meat period, but drastically reduce their reliance on it as a primary food source.
Personally, I don't think it is superior. I think both are fine, it's a matter of personal preference. I'm certainly not making any health claims on either side. I tend to think that if you're eating a balanced diet of fresh, high-quality food, you're alright. I would prefer that people stay away from factory-raised meat for both health and moral reasons, but I see nothing wrong with eating wild or naturally raised and humanely slaughtered animals.
The studies are out there. I have neither the time nor the interest to dig them up, but when you have cancer everyone has advice. I've been given books and pamphlets and emails by half the people I know, all of them complete with studies showing why I should eat meat, or why I shouldn't. I've read enough of it to know that you can convince yourself of whatever you want to believe and find plenty of data to back it up.
eating commercial meat is bad for you and contains chemicals that increase the risk or growth of cancer. properly raised meat on the other hand is extremely healthy. point being that you must know what exactly is being tested and compared. if you're comparing commercial meat to a veggie diet; the veggie diet looks better in most cases. on the other hand; compare a diet of properly raised meat to a veggie diet and the nutritional benefits outweigh the veggie diet.
I'm an environmentalist and I eat way more meat than I should. Ideally I would love to become an (almost) full-time vegetarian, however, I admit I'm much too undisciplined to make the switch. I used to eat meat 3 meals a day and I'm now down to maybe 2 meals per week.
A high meat diet is incompatable with an environmental philosophy. The primary reason it there is a much higher footprint when you produce meat. Even if it is local and free range, the amount of land it takes to raise cattle/livestock and the amount of resource it takes to feed, transport, slaughter etc make it very inefficient compared to agriculture. That said, I don't think people should stop eating meat period, but drastically reduce their reliance on it as a primary food source.
thus the need for balance. if the manure is used as fertilizer the cycle of nature is completed. veggies eat plants fed chemicals and dyed and ripened in a truck with etheline (sp?) gas. commercial veggies are no better than commercial meats.
I'm an environmentalist and I eat way more meat than I should. Ideally I would love to become an (almost) full-time vegetarian, however, I admit I'm much too undisciplined to make the switch. I used to eat meat 3 meals a day and I'm now down to maybe 2 meals per week.
A high meat diet is incompatable with an environmental philosophy. The primary reason it there is a much higher footprint when you produce meat. Even if it is local and free range, the amount of land it takes to raise cattle/livestock and the amount of resource it takes to feed, transport, slaughter etc make it very inefficient compared to agriculture. That said, I don't think people should stop eating meat period, but drastically reduce their reliance on it as a primary food source.
There's a lot of false assumption in what you've posted. Many farm raised animals get raised on land that could not be used for cultivating agriculture. So using this land for cattle is an extremely efficient use of this land. Many crops are not at all efficient in their use of water or other resources per calorie of food produced, and in fact use more water and othe resources and leave a larger environmental footprint than cattle per calorie of food produced. Most websites do it per pound of food and many vegetables have a caloric content per pound that make them ineffecient when judged per calorie. And humans need calories to survive and not pounds of food.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
There's a lot of false assumption in what you've posted. Many farm raised animals get raised on land that could not be used for cultivating agriculture. So using this land for cattle is an extremely efficient use of this land. Many crops are not at all efficient in their use of water or other resources per calorie of food produced, and in fact use more water and othe resources and leave a larger environmental footprint than cattle per calorie of food produced. Most websites do it per pound of food and many vegetables have a caloric content per pound that make them ineffecient when judged per calorie. And humans need calories to survive and not pounds of food.
dude; you really know your stuff. i'd like to add that the hundreds of thousands of acres owned by the government can be used for grazing (open range) but not cultivated or irrigated for veggie production. the manure fertilizes the land replenishing nutrients taken by vegetation; increasing vegetative growth which purifies the air. once nutrients are taken from the land; the air purifiing vegetation won't grow. grazing on this land also reduces the risk of wildfire.
The evidence is overwhelming. I'm trying to find the link, but this same study mentioned that the meat industry contributes more to global warming than all the cars in the world combined.
The evidence is overwhelming. I'm trying to find the link, but this same study mentioned that the meat industry contributes more to global warming than all the cars in the world combined.
eat more meat and get rid of all the animals faster.
Misinformed...really? Please don't hold back...enlighten us.
Other people in this thread have already done a fine job of that. I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said, in terms of health reasons and evolution of the human species. My contribution was to point out that eating meat does not have to translate into supporting the big meat industry, and onelongsong expanded upon the point.
I would recommend any Vegetarian to drink whey products like Optimal nutrition's 100 whey, and Dymatize elite whey. 2 best brands for the price. Health benefits through the roof, pure protein totally complete branch chain aminos. This stuff has THE highest biological value of any protein source (eggs, meat, soy... etc..)
If someone's too much of a vegetarian to drink whey then...oh well...good luck with that!!
btw...this stuff tastes really damn good considering. No exaggeration.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Other people in this thread have already done a fine job of that. I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said, in terms of health reasons and evolution of the human species. My contribution was to point out that eating meat does not have to translate into supporting the big meat industry, and onelongsong expanded upon the point.
Ok, that's fine. However, nobody seems to acknowledge the fact that the meat industry is quite possibly the biggest contributor to global warming on the planet. We can all quote reports about which diet is healthier, carniviore vs. omnivore, etc. I could argue all day with people who think non-human animals are here for us to exploit. Ethics aside, there's no denying the fact that a vegetarian diet is the number one thing any person can do to help reduce global warming and enviromental devastation.
There's a lot of false assumption in what you've posted. Many farm raised animals get raised on land that could not be used for cultivating agriculture. So using this land for cattle is an extremely efficient use of this land. Many crops are not at all efficient in their use of water or other resources per calorie of food produced, and in fact use more water and othe resources and leave a larger environmental footprint than cattle per calorie of food produced. Most websites do it per pound of food and many vegetables have a caloric content per pound that make them ineffecient when judged per calorie. And humans need calories to survive and not pounds of food.
Good points but GENERALLY meat production is more inefficient. I'm not saying that agriculture can be practiced poorly and have huge ramifications on the environment (aquifer contamination, wasted water etc) but many instances where livestock is raised on agriculturally inefficient land (ie brazil) are likely better off left untouched than logged or eliminated for food production. Once again, I'm not saying that we should all STOP eating meat but I think it may be a good idea to reduce the amount of meat that we consume. Meat can be produced responsibly but because of the great demand to produce it in the volumes that we eat it, we are using a lot of land that could be better used to produce it. Not sure if that was coherent
I think one myth about food production is that we need to produce more. The reality is that we do produce more than enough food to feed everyone but poor distribution and waste of food is what is allowing people to starve, but perhaps that is for another thread.
I would recommend any Vegetarian to drink whey products like Optimal nutrition's 100 whey, and Dymatize elite whey. 2 best brands for the price. Health benefits through the roof, pure protein totally complete branch chain aminos. This stuff has THE highest biological value of any protein source (eggs, meat, soy... etc..)
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Ok, that's fine. However, nobody seems to acknowledge the fact that the meat industry is quite possibly the biggest contributor to global warming on the planet. We can all quote reports about which diet is healthier, carniviore vs. omnivore, etc. I could argue all day with people who think non-human animals are here for us to exploit. Ethics aside, there's no denying the fact that a vegetarian diet is the number one thing any person can do to help reduce global warming and enviromental devastation.
I wouldn't go so far as saying its the number 1 thing we can do, but I do agree that it is a significant factor in climate change.
Good points but GENERALLY meat production is more inefficient. I'm not saying that agriculture can be practiced poorly and have huge ramifications on the environment (aquifer contamination, wasted water etc) but many instances where livestock is raised on agriculturally inefficient land (ie brazil) are likely better off left untouched than logged or eliminated for food production. Once again, I'm not saying that we should all STOP eating meat but I think it may be a good idea to reduce the amount of meat that we consume. Meat can be produced responsibly but because of the great demand to produce it in the volumes that we eat it, we are using a lot of land that could be better used to produce it. Not sure if that was coherent
I think one myth about food production is that we need to produce more. The reality is that we do produce more than enough food to feed everyone but poor distribution and waste of food is what is allowing people to starve, but perhaps that is for another thread.
why wasn't the enviornment being destroyed before the europeans came to america? if you think about; there were tens of thousands of buffalo roaming the country. add in all the deer; elk; moose and other animals; and the actual animal population is about the same. since elk; moose; and buffalo are larger than cattle; we're close pound for pound.
the difference is that there was a balance and man disrupted this balance. if animals are having a negative impact on the enviornment; it's because man did something to cause that situation. don't blame the animals.
Comments
Many people seem to have an arbitrary moral problem with it, but hunting is another natural option. But I don't want to start that debate!
facts are facts. if you bothered to look; you would see that the CLA study was done in france. as seen in the references below (and posted on the study); you will see that the studies were not done by ranchers. i noticed one reference from JAMA. now tell me the american medical association is tilted toward the meat industry.
1.Rule, D. C., K. S. Brought on, S. M. Shellito, and G. Maiorano. "Comparison of Muscle Fatty Acid Profiles and Cholesterol Concentrations of Bison, Beef Cattle, Elk, and Chicken." J Anim Sci 80, no. 5 (2002): 1202-11.
2. Davidson, M. H., D. Hunninghake, et al. (1999). "Comparison of the effects of lean red meat vs lean white meat on serum lipid levels among free-living persons with hypercholesterolemia: a long-term, randomized clinical trial." Arch Intern Med 159(12): 1331-8. The conclusion of this study: "... diets containing primarily lean red meat or lean white meat produced similar reductions in LDL cholesterol and elevations in HDL cholesterol, which were maintained throughout the 36 weeks of treatment."
3. Siscovick, D. S., T. E. Raghunathan, et al. (1995). "Dietary Intake and Cell Membrane Levels of Long-Chain n-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and the Risk of Primary Cardiac Arrest." JAMA 274(17): 1363-1367.
4. Simopolous, A. P. and Jo Robinson (1999). The Omega Diet. New York, HarperCollins. My previous book, a collaboration with Dr. Artemis P. Simopoulos, devotes an entire chapter to the vital role that omega-3s play in brain function.
5. Rose, D. P., J. M. Connolly, et al. (1995). "Influence of Diets Containing Eicosapentaenoic or Docasahexaenoic Acid on Growth and Metastasis of Breast Cancer Cells in Nude Mice." Journal of the National Cancer Institute 87(8): 587-92.
6. Tisdale, M. J. (1999). "Wasting in cancer." J Nutr 129(1S Suppl): 243S-246S.
7. Tashiro, T., H. Yamamori, et al. (1998). "n-3 versus n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids in critical illness." Nutrition 14(6): 551-3.
8. Duckett, S. K., D. G. Wagner, et al. (1993). "Effects of time on feed on beef nutrient composition." J Anim Sci 71(8): 2079-88.
9. Lopez-Bote, C. J., R.Sanz Arias, A.I. Rey, A. Castano, B. Isabel, J. Thos (1998). "Effect of free-range feeding on omega-3 fatty acids and alpha-tocopherol content and oxidative stability of eggs." Animal Feed Science and Technology 72: 33-40.
10. Dolecek, T. A. and G. Grandits (1991). "Dietary Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and Mortality in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT)." World Rev Nutr Diet 66: 205-16.
11. Dhiman, T. R., G. R. Anand, et al. (1999). "Conjugated linoleic acid content of milk from cows fed different diets." J Dairy Sci 82(10): 2146-56. Interestingly, when the pasture was machine-harvested and then fed to the animals as hay, the cows produced far less CLA than when they were grazing on that pasture, even though the hay was made from the very same grass. The fat that the animals use to produce CLA is oxidized during the wilting, drying process. For maximum CLA, animals need to be grazing living pasture.
12. Ip, C, J.A. Scimeca, et al. (1994) "Conjugated linoleic acid. A powerful anti-carcinogen from animal fat sources." p. 1053. Cancer 74(3 suppl):1050-4.
13. Aro, A., S. Mannisto, I. Salminen, M. L. Ovaskainen, V. Kataja, and M. Uusitupa. "Inverse Association between Dietary and Serum Conjugated Linoleic Acid and Risk of Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women." Nutr Cancer 38, no. 2 (2000): 151-7.
14. Smith, G.C. "Dietary supplementation of vitamin E to cattle to improve shelf life and case life of beef for domestic and international markets." Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1171
it seems you people only read what you want to hear and ignore the rest. making ignorant statements only reflects back on you.
http://www.eatwild.com has a list of farms and ranches that provide free range meats accross the us and canada. in most cases; it's cheaper to buy farm direct. for example; i sell my sirloins at $18.03 BELOW market price.
http://hinduism.about.com/cs/vegetarianism/a/aa261003a.htm?terms=non+violence
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
On an wholly unrelated note, I love the guns/pencils quote.
a veggie diet causes brain damage by depriving it of necessary compounds for healthy opperation. here's one reference and when i have time; i can find you more.
Simopolous, A. P. and Jo Robinson (1999). The Omega Diet. New York, HarperCollins. My previous book, a collaboration with Dr. Artemis P. Simopoulos, devotes an entire chapter to the vital role that omega-3s play in brain function
the portion of the article below from the journal of nutrition shows the absorbable vitamins available through free range meat. vitamins not readily absorbed in other forms. this backs an earlier comment someone made.
Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, with one out of every two adults burdened by excess weight. To help trim the fat, Procter and Gamble has given us Olestra, "the no-fat cooking oil with the full-fat flavor." There are a couple of problems with Olestra. First, it cuts down on your body's absorption of beta-carotene and vitamin E. Second, it can cause "bloating, cramping, nausea, and loose stools or diarrhea."
Nature has given us a healthier alternative to weight control—eat meat from animals raised on fresh pasture. Meat from grassfed animals has about half the fat as meat from grainfed animals and significantly fewer calories. It also gives you a bonus supply of vitamins E, A, D, and beta-carotene.
Burton P. Koonsvitsky et al, "Olestra Affects Serum Concentrations of Alpha-Tocopherol and Carotenoids" J of Nutrition, Vol. 127 No. 8 August 1997, pp. 1636S-1645S.
the national institute of health is funded by tax dollars and grants. many other research facilities are funded by grants and donations.
many sites like PETA only print the sections that support thier cause; but i trust sites that show side by side comparisons; and can back the results with references that can be verified.
True enough ... But I am not aware of any studies which demonstrate that a meat-free diet is at all superior to a diet that includes an appropriate amount of animal protein. I am sure that if one compares vegetarians with people who eat steak four or five times a week, you'd see some health differences. People do not compare pure veg. diets with balanced diets that include meat, though.
I'm a meat eater.
Why?
Because I was born with teeth that were designed to eat meat.
It's nature.
7-6-2006 Las Vegas. 7-20-2006 Portland. 7-22-2006 Gorge. 9-21-2009 Seattle. 9-22-2009 Seattle. 9-26-2009 Ridgefield. 9-25-2011 Vancouver.
11-29-2013 Portland. 10-16-2014 Detroit. 8-8-2018 Seattle. 8-10-2018 Seattle. 8-13-2018 Missoula. 5-10-2024 Portland. 5-30-2024 Seattle.
The studies are out there. I have neither the time nor the interest to dig them up, but when you have cancer everyone has advice. I've been given books and pamphlets and emails by half the people I know, all of them complete with studies showing why I should eat meat, or why I shouldn't. I've read enough of it to know that you can convince yourself of whatever you want to believe and find plenty of data to back it up.
A high meat diet is incompatable with an environmental philosophy. The primary reason it there is a much higher footprint when you produce meat. Even if it is local and free range, the amount of land it takes to raise cattle/livestock and the amount of resource it takes to feed, transport, slaughter etc make it very inefficient compared to agriculture. That said, I don't think people should stop eating meat period, but drastically reduce their reliance on it as a primary food source.
eating commercial meat is bad for you and contains chemicals that increase the risk or growth of cancer. properly raised meat on the other hand is extremely healthy. point being that you must know what exactly is being tested and compared. if you're comparing commercial meat to a veggie diet; the veggie diet looks better in most cases. on the other hand; compare a diet of properly raised meat to a veggie diet and the nutritional benefits outweigh the veggie diet.
thus the need for balance. if the manure is used as fertilizer the cycle of nature is completed. veggies eat plants fed chemicals and dyed and ripened in a truck with etheline (sp?) gas. commercial veggies are no better than commercial meats.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
dude; you really know your stuff. i'd like to add that the hundreds of thousands of acres owned by the government can be used for grazing (open range) but not cultivated or irrigated for veggie production. the manure fertilizes the land replenishing nutrients taken by vegetation; increasing vegetative growth which purifies the air. once nutrients are taken from the land; the air purifiing vegetation won't grow. grazing on this land also reduces the risk of wildfire.
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3956
The evidence is overwhelming. I'm trying to find the link, but this same study mentioned that the meat industry contributes more to global warming than all the cars in the world combined.
Misinformed...really? Please don't hold back...enlighten us.
eat more meat and get rid of all the animals faster.
Other people in this thread have already done a fine job of that. I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said, in terms of health reasons and evolution of the human species. My contribution was to point out that eating meat does not have to translate into supporting the big meat industry, and onelongsong expanded upon the point.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/whey.html
If someone's too much of a vegetarian to drink whey then...oh well...good luck with that!!
btw...this stuff tastes really damn good considering. No exaggeration.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Ok, that's fine. However, nobody seems to acknowledge the fact that the meat industry is quite possibly the biggest contributor to global warming on the planet. We can all quote reports about which diet is healthier, carniviore vs. omnivore, etc. I could argue all day with people who think non-human animals are here for us to exploit. Ethics aside, there's no denying the fact that a vegetarian diet is the number one thing any person can do to help reduce global warming and enviromental devastation.
I think one myth about food production is that we need to produce more. The reality is that we do produce more than enough food to feed everyone but poor distribution and waste of food is what is allowing people to starve, but perhaps that is for another thread.
It's okay, hemp has me covered. http://nutiva.com/
Environmentally, it's make much more sense to me to eat straight from the source. Go Veggies!!!!
http://www.petaliterature.com/images/300-VEG200.jpg
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
why wasn't the enviornment being destroyed before the europeans came to america? if you think about; there were tens of thousands of buffalo roaming the country. add in all the deer; elk; moose and other animals; and the actual animal population is about the same. since elk; moose; and buffalo are larger than cattle; we're close pound for pound.
the difference is that there was a balance and man disrupted this balance. if animals are having a negative impact on the enviornment; it's because man did something to cause that situation. don't blame the animals.
wouldn't the diesel burning tractors used to cultivate the land produce a bigger footprint than the animals?