(August 11, 2014 at 12:11 am)bennyboy Wrote: I think the key word here is "processed," not "carbs" or "meat." In general, it seems pretty obvious that humans are omnivores, and that a balanced diet of various food-types, in a fairly natural form, should be most suitable to our digestive system.

-but why should food, in it's "natural" form be "most suitable" to our digestive systems? I think the the trouble, more accurately stated, is not that it -is- processed, but -how- it is currently processed.

Process the shit out of it(as thats how we get the most bang for our buck) - but process it with nutrition and not the bottem line in mind.

If I get lost in the woods with a friend, I hope they're vegan. Much tastier. :-)

I found those studies after some searching, and tons like them. "After adjusting for BMI" really stood out. Including hot dogs, bologna, cured meats, and bacon as red meat also stood out. Pastrami is not the same thing as venison and equating them is rather silly.

I am not going to convince you, however, and you are not going to convince me. Problems are that both sides have clear biases. A high protein diet works for me, and I feel really crummy when I go without meat for a while. I can't eat fish (which is what a lot of places recommend) so my only options are poultry and red meat. My diet consists of fresh fruit, raw veggies, some dairy, and grain fed free range meat (and wild game). And this works for me. And there's some data to show that this is a fairly good dietary plan.

(August 11, 2014 at 6:21 pm)Natachan Wrote: I found those studies after some searching, and tons like them. "After adjusting for BMI" really stood out. Including hot dogs, bologna, cured meats, and bacon as red meat also stood out. Pastrami is not the same thing as venison and equating them is rather silly.

I am not going to convince you, however, and you are not going to convince me. Problems are that both sides have clear biases. A high protein diet works for me, and I feel really crummy when I go without meat for a while. I can't eat fish (which is what a lot of places recommend) so my only options are poultry and red meat. My diet consists of fresh fruit, raw veggies, some dairy, and grain fed free range meat (and wild game). And this works for me. And there's some data to show that this is a fairly good dietary plan.

Both venison and pastrami are red meats and therefore contain high amounts of haem iron, excess of which has been associated with diabetes as demonstrated in the link I provided previously. There is a clear mechanism involved. Perhaps you are right, but people should make an informed decision about the relative risks, not one just based on wishful thinking, cultural norms or habits.

For a high protein vegan diet see this study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24500611

A diet that includes red meat might work for you now, but it might not work in the long term, and it certainly does not work out well for the animals who have their lives cut short. If the latter does not fill you with a sense of injustice, or even just unease, then yes, I suspect there there will be no convincing you.

I feel worse about the deer who starve due to them exceeding the carrying capacity of the habitat. I feel bad about the areas that are picked clean, leaving nothing for other animals living in the woods. All due to the removal of apex predators from these areas by human action. I feel incredibly saddened by the wastefulness of this. I feel no sadness or guilt about killing one, eating the muscle, and tanning the hide for later use.

I'm a chef and I don't want to believe any of this stuff. Being totally ignorant on the subject, where's a good reputable site to start finding out more?

(August 11, 2014 at 5:29 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 11, 2014 at 12:11 am)bennyboy Wrote: I think the key word here is "processed," not "carbs" or "meat." In general, it seems pretty obvious that humans are omnivores, and that a balanced diet of various food-types, in a fairly natural form, should be most suitable to our digestive system.

-but why should food, in it's "natural" form be "most suitable" to our digestive systems? I think the the trouble, more accurately stated, is not that it -is- processed, but -how- it is currently processed.

Process the shit out of it(as thats how we get the most bang for our buck) - but process it with nutrition and not the bottem line in mind.

Okay, I accept this.

(August 12, 2014 at 7:01 pm)Natachan Wrote: I feel worse about the deer who starve due to them exceeding the carrying capacity of the habitat. I feel bad about the areas that are picked clean, leaving nothing for other animals living in the woods. All due to the removal of apex predators from these areas by human action. I feel incredibly saddened by the wastefulness of this. I feel no sadness or guilt about killing one, eating the muscle, and tanning the hide for later use.

Habitat destruction because of over population of certain animals is very sad indeed. That however does not justify any action you want to remedy the situation, especially when your chosen means is to so completely devalue the animal that you would use it as a commodity. Is disgusting and wrong, it it treating a sentient being as merely a thing, and therefore denying it an intrinsic right not to be used as merely an means to an end. Even more so when there are non lethal options for controlling deer populations

So your options aside from the natural one of killing and eating them is to either spend tons of money to sterilize them, or to mess with the forest and habitat by selection of plants and by spraying nasty chemicals? Sorry, I find that a slight bit more unethical (which is a fascinating thing, now that I reflect on it, that I find poisons, plant manipulation, and sterilization less ethical than hunting). My reasons are that I believe the best solutions to these problems are natural ones. Plus I hate messing with native plants, let the habitat control itself with as little interference as possible. And chemicals in the environment have unforeseen long term effects. Messing with a chaotic system in unnatural ways is never wise.

Do I see animals as a commodity? No. I see them as animals. I am an animal. I don't condemn bears for eating meat, or coyotes for eating rabbits, or chimpanzees from hunting and eating meat. Why am I different? Because I have an understanding of other minds? So what. It might change the way I view feed lots, but it doesn't mean I am separate from other animals, or that I should reject my own biology. As long as an animal lives naturally I see no problem with ending it's life to eat on it, as it would end it naturally without our interference. The only difference is that less of the animal will be wasted if used by a human than if killed by say a coyote or a cougar.

(August 13, 2014 at 7:27 pm)Natachan Wrote: Why am I different? Because I have an understanding of other minds?

Yes, and because you have the capacity to formulate moral ideas based on an understanding of the suffering of those other minds.

Quote: So what. It might change the way I view feed lots, but it doesn't mean I am separate from other animals, or that I should reject my own biology.

Hands up people who live naturally. *waits for hands*
Meat-eaters seem pretty content to live in artificial homes, use electricity to stay warm or cool, and surf the internet for cosplay porn. But when it's dinner time, and you pull out that Swanson's TV Dinner, then suddenly the meat is "natural" and therefore necessary or at least justified.

Quote:As long as an animal lives naturally I see no problem with ending it's life to eat on it, as it would end it naturally without our interference.

How about ending a human life if you have a craving? Heard it tastes like pork.

Quote:The only difference is that less of the animal will be wasted if used by a human than if killed by say a coyote or a cougar.

There's another difference: human selection will be random at best, or favor the healthiest members of a food species at worst, while coyotes and cougars are statistically more likely to capture weak, slow, or unintelligent members of the species.

In the former, there's a net loss in the quality of the species. In the latter, there's a net gain-- the suffering of the individuals is compensated by the advantage to the survival of the species overall.