Why aren't more environmentalists vegetarians?

Rushlimbo

onelongsong wrote:

look back a page; i posted the evidence to back lucy's statement.

That is not evidence.

polaris

at the end of the day ... if everyone on this planet ate as much meat as us - can the planet sustain it? ... not likely ...

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

yes it does. but if you look at the post i replied to; you will see it was a question about meat and asking proof of a meat diet being good for you. this site does just that. if you look further; you will find additional information like:

CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) is a cancer-fighting fat that is most abundant in grassfed products. Two new European studies link a diet high in CLA with a lower risk of breast cancer. In Finland, researchers measured CLA levels in the serum of women with and without breast cancer. Those women with the most CLA had a significantly lower risk of the disease. Meanwhile, French researchers measured CLA levels in the breast tissues of 360 women. Once again, the women with the most CLA had the lowest risk of cancer. In fact, the women with the most CLA had a staggering 74% lower risk of breast cancer than the women with the least CLA.
The most natural and effective way to increase your intake of CLA is to eat the meat and dairy products of grassfed animals.
A. Aro et al, Kuopio University, Finland; Bougnoux, P, Lavillonniere F, Riboli E. "Inverse relation between CLA in adipose breast tissue and risk of breast cancer. A case-control study in France." Inform 10;5:S43, 1999

the point here being that properly raised meat IS good for you.

A vegetarian diet is also good for you. If I felt like spending the time, I could post links that show vegetarians having a lower risk of this, that and the other type of cancer. Then someone else could come along and show some research indicating that people who eat a lot of brussels sprouts have a lower risk of lymphoma but a higher risk of multiple sclerosis, and people that eat a lot of lamb don't come down with diabetes but do seem to have more than their share of skin cancer. The point is, these studies linking one particular nutrient to one particular disease don't tell us anything about how your overall diet affects your overall health.

I don't doubt that this CLA stuff is good for you, but because it gives some level of protection against breast cancer doesn't mean it will protect against other forms of cancer, and it doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't increase your risk of something else going wrong. We can't begin to tell people that a vegetarian diet or a meat-eating diet will make them live longer or protect against certain diseases, there are too many variables involved to make that claim.

onelongsong

Rushlimbo wrote:

That is not evidence.

so scientific studies by dozens of scientists and nutritionalists is wrong but you're right even though you can't produce evidence of your claims?

onelongsong

hippiemom wrote:

A vegetarian diet is also good for you. If I felt like spending the time, I could post links that show vegetarians having a lower risk of this, that and the other type of cancer. Then someone else could come along and show some research indicating that people who eat a lot of brussels sprouts have a lower risk of lymphoma but a higher risk of multiple sclerosis, and people that eat a lot of lamb don't come down with diabetes but do seem to have more than their share of skin cancer. The point is, these studies linking one particular nutrient to one particular disease don't tell us anything about how your overall diet affects your overall health.

I don't doubt that this CLA stuff is good for you, but because it gives some level of protection against breast cancer doesn't mean it will protect against other forms of cancer, and it doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't increase your risk of something else going wrong. We can't begin to tell people that a vegetarian diet or a meat-eating diet will make them live longer or protect against certain diseases, there are too many variables involved to make that claim.

once again; read further. the study posted ONLY dealt with breast cancer. CLA is a cancer fighting fat. proven to help fight all types of cancer and in some cases; cure cancer all together.

Kann

why the debate? any nutritionist in his right mind will tell you that excess is dangerous. Eating too much or too little meat isn't good either way.

Rushlimbo

onelongsong wrote:

so scientific studies by dozens of scientists and nutritionalists is wrong but you're right even though you can't produce evidence of your claims?

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?

hippiemom

Rushlimbo wrote:

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?

Are you trying to tell me that a cattle rancher posting data from a website that represents cattle ranchers might not be completely unbiased?!!?!

rebornFixer

Many vegatarians are nice wonderful people. Who happen to be misinformed ... Bad ideology, good people. I'll leave it at that.

rebornFixer

Kann wrote:

why the debate? any nutritionist in his right mind will tell you that excess is dangerous. Eating too much or too little meat isn't good either way.

for sure.

rebornFixer

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!

onelongsong

Rushlimbo wrote:

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.

onelongsong

reborncareerist wrote:

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.

RainDog

onelongsong wrote:

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.

rebornFixer

Re. Hindus and vegetarianism ...

http://hinduism.about.com/cs/vegetarianism/a/aa261003a.htm?terms=non+violence

surferdude

hippiemom wrote:

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.

rebornFixer

onelongsong wrote:

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.

onelongsong

Riverrunner wrote:

Don't forget the superior intelligence.

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.

onelongsong

surferdude wrote:

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.

hippiemom

surferdude wrote:

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.