Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?

[James2014]

From this study

"Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality...

In the substitution analyses, replacing 1 serving of total red meat with 1 serving of fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy products, or whole grains daily was associated with a lower risk of total mortality: 7% for fish, 14% for poultry, 19% for nuts, 10% for legumes, 10% for low-fat dairy products, and 14% for whole grains."

Still rolling on the floor laughing out loud?

So I need to eat more chicken and fish an a little less steak. No problem thanks for the tip.

No worries.

Additionally this study says

"these data indicate that both red meat and white meat consumption increase the risk of colon cancer"

[anonymous108]

yes, I'm vegetarian Hare Krishna. We all are vegetarians.
Vegetarian doesn't mean that you just eat veg food and don't offer it to Krishna no.
Any vegetarian food must be offered to Krishna before you eat it. then it is purified. also some kinds of food are not allowed even of vegetarian kind - we avoid onions garlics etc, coffee, tea... and we drink milk, eat dairy. we are lacto-vegetarians.

[KUSA]

No coffee? Screw that. I won't ever be a hairy krishna.

[StoryBook]

You do know that pre-veterinarians,veterinarians, and even veterinary technicians, have to learn chemistry; right? (and it is not just basic chem.)

---

All those un-healthy carnivores .

It is very basic chemistry they learn. Do you agree that there is no chemical in meat that could not in principle be synthesised to make a vegan pet food? The fact that the vet got this question wrong merely highlights how basic their understanding of chemistry is.

We are not carnivores. We are omnivours, with a number of physiological adaptions to be ABLE to eat meat. Never the less the evidence shows that vegans have an increased life expectancy

So, 8 years of chemistry, biochemistry, and organic chemistry, is just basic chemistry? Yea just can't take you seriously now.

That "evidence" you show is not controlled enough to tell me anything. It doesn't say exactly what they ate. Was there even meat in that test. It needs to tell what they are eating and how much. We also need to know if it's organic or not.

[James2014]

So, 8 years of chemistry, biochemistry, and organic chemistry, is just basic chemistry? Yea just can't take you seriously now.

That "evidence" you show is not controlled enough to tell me anything. It doesn't say exactly what they ate. Was there even meat in that test. It needs to tell what they are eating and how much. We also need to know if it's organic or not.

Vets do not spend 8 years of chemistry, biochemistry, and organic chemistry. They study some in preclinical years, which in the UK generally comprise the first 3 years intermixed with physiology, pharmacology etc, and they certainly conduct no significant research. They don't even study chemistry or biochemistry to final year undergraduate degree level in those subjects, let alone postgraduate (ie PhD) level.

Regardless, please answer the question, do you agree that all chemicals in meat could in principle be synthesised or derived from non meat sources and used to create a healthy vegan cat food?

So you are willing to dismiss all the evidence that eating meat is bad for ones health, but you are happy to believe organic food is healthier than non-organic based on what evidence?

[StoryBook]

So, 8 years of chemistry, biochemistry, and organic chemistry, is just basic chemistry? Yea just can't take you seriously now.

That "evidence" you show is not controlled enough to tell me anything. It doesn't say exactly what they ate. Was there even meat in that test. It needs to tell what they are eating and how much. We also need to know if it's organic or not.

Vets do not spend 8 years of chemistry, biochemistry, and organic chemistry. They study some in preclinical years, which in the UK generally comprise the first 3 years intermixed with physiology, pharmacology etc, and they certainly conduct no significant research. They don't even study chemistry or biochemistry to final year undergraduate degree level in those subjects, let alone postgraduate (ie PhD) level.

Regardless, please answer the question, do you agree that all chemicals in meat could in principle be synthesised or derived from non meat sources and used to create a healthy vegan cat food?

So you are willing to dismiss all the evidence that eating meat is bad for ones health, but you are happy to believe organic food is healthier than non-organic based on what evidence?

We have different standards here in the USA. My friend I went to college with has/still is taking chemistry classes(She is in vet school now).

Synthesized, possibly; healthy, no. All the vegan cat foods have too much fiber for a carnivore. Also most have corn, which my cat is allergic to(cheap cat foods use corn as a filler). My cats are on grain free food(no corn,wheat,or soy), same for my dogs.

Organic does not have pesticides or other harmful things. Organic meat tends to come from grass fed cows, not on fattening corn.

[Aractus]

That "evidence" you show is not controlled enough to tell me anything. It doesn't say exactly what they ate.

That's exactly what I said!

---

Synthesized, possibly; healthy, no. All the vegan cat foods have too much fiber for a carnivore. Also most have corn, which my cat is allergic to(cheap cat foods use corn as a filler). My cats are on grain free food(no corn,wheat,or soy), same for my dogs.

Agreed - just because you can in principle synthesize the required proteins as an artificial supplement doesn't mean that a domestic cat should consume vegetable based foods which they lack the ability to properly digest.

---

As to animal testing, I am ambivalent on the matter because we don't know how science would progress without it, and what the effect would be of diverting funding to science that does not use animals. Certainly though a lot of medical science is of very poor statistical quality and is no benefit to anyone. Nor is it done with the ethical principle of the three Rs that many animal research advocates would claim. All these things make it almost impossible to judge if the suffering caused to animals is greater or less than the suffering to humans if we did not.

With meat though there is no such ambiguity. It is wrong and cruel. Cruel not just to the animals, but cruel to the people who think that meat is healthy but is in fact increasing their risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes, resulting in years being taken off their life.

Well you say that much of medical science is junk, yet the studies you produced to defend the health benefits of vegan diets - as I pointed out to you - are total junk.

What about wool? Without wool what would you use for upholstery? Cotton or Synthetic fabric? Not hard-wearing, fails rub tests. Synthetic fibers are bad for the environment. Leather? Yes it works - but it does get hot if in the sun (car seats, etc). Vinyl? Vinyl is hard-wearing, but uncomfortable because the material doesn't fold and conform to body shapes, as such you could use it but it would certainly NOT be ergonomic or comfortable. You could use silk - it'd be expensive, and for some reason neo-veganists view it as cruel as well...

---

Well the difficulty with that question concerns the link between things that make us unhealthy and ethics. For me as I don't find eating meat palatable, it would be wrong to eat it. For some one who enjoys meat, they would have balance that enjoyment against the increased chance of cardiovascular disease etc and negative effects on society of that increased burden of ill health. A difficult balance. Its similar to asking if it is wrong to smoke. Its a difficult one, but I would lean on the side of it being marginally wrong, but perhaps the best of all likely outcomes.

Your reasoning sounds a lot like that of somebody suffering from an eating disorder and makes me wonder if vegans can develop ED's from following their lifestyle?

A person with an ED may actually vomit involuntarily when fed a normal meal, and eating "normal" also causes anxiety, stress, fear/dread and depression. All of these things are negative, and is therefore a circle of logic going back to to comfort of the ED.

Re smoking: It's not morally wrong to smoke in moderation. It's also not negative for your health to do so - there are no studies that show somebody who smokes socially/occasionally has a different risk level for cancer than a non-smoker. Think about cholesterol - cholesterol is good for you, but too much of it in your diet can be very bad and have serious consequences on your health.

[James2014]

We have different standards here in the USA. My friend I went to college with has/still is taking chemistry classes(She is in vet school now).

Synthesized, possibly; healthy, no. All the vegan cat foods have too much fiber for a carnivore. Also most have corn, which my cat is allergic to(cheap cat foods use corn as a filler). My cats are on grain free food(no corn,wheat,or soy), same for my dogs.

Organic does not have pesticides or other harmful things. Organic meat tends to come from grass fed cows, not on fattening corn.

Does your friend actually do any significant chemistry research? ie not just weekly practical sessions or short projects?

So you agree it could be synthesised, then surely one could in principle just remove the fibre. Simple.

Re organic food, What you say is just conjecture, you present no studies. In fact our bodies are very good at metabolising pesticides at the levels that are found on non organic fruits and veg. Organic beef does not mean that cows are fed only on grass, they can also be fed organic grain/corn. Grass feeding will decrease the amount of fat in the meat, but there will still be a lot of saturated fat, I see no reason why it would affect the amounts of many other toxic chemicals in meat eg high levels of haem iron and carnitine, in addition to the toxins created when meat is cooked at a high temperature.

Well you say that much of medical science is junk, yet the studies you produced to defend the health benefits of vegan diets - as I pointed out to you - are total junk.

Most medical science is junk because the statistics they use in their analysis is of poor quality. Most epidemiology and randomised controlled studies are actually of much higher statistical quality, but most medical science however comprises of animal studies with very low sample sizes. You however have no reason to dismiss the studies I quote as junk other then your own bias ie, if they are cherry picked studies then produce some studies showing the opposite.

What about wool? Without wool what would you use for upholstery? Cotton or Synthetic fabric? Not hard-wearing, fails rub tests. Synthetic fibers are bad for the environment. Leather? Yes it works - but it does get hot if in the sun (car seats, etc). Vinyl? Vinyl is hard-wearing, but uncomfortable because the material doesn't fold and conform to body shapes, as such you could use it but it would certainly NOT be ergonomic or comfortable. You could use silk - it'd be expensive, and for some reason neo-veganists view it as cruel as well...

Synthetic fibres are not bad for the environment (or at least any worse than deriving it from farmed animals, which produce a huge amount of methane as well as the CO2 produced form the infrastructure required to farm animals), and there are plenty of artificial leather alternatives. Furthermore its hardly beyond the realms of conceivable science that even better alternatives could be made should we choose to invest in the research.

Your reasoning sounds a lot like that of somebody suffering from an eating disorder and makes me wonder if vegans can develop ED's from following their lifestyle?

A person with an ED may actually vomit involuntarily when fed a normal meal, and eating "normal" also causes anxiety, stress, fear/dread and depression. All of these things are negative, and is therefore a circle of logic going back to to comfort of the ED.

Re smoking: It's not morally wrong to smoke in moderation. It's also not negative for your health to do so - there are no studies that show somebody who smokes socially/occasionally has a different risk level for cancer than a non-smoker. Think about cholesterol - cholesterol is good for you, but too much of it in your diet can be very bad and have serious consequences on your health.

Regarding eating disorders, this is just another ad hominem attack. You are the one so obsessed with meat that despite all the evidence that veganism is healthy you still cling to anecdotes that people need meat.

Regarding smoking, even occasional smoking is associated with ill health. . There is no known level of smoking that has been shown to not impact on health, but we do know on the other hand that smoking in general causes disease. Similarly, there's is no known level of meat eating that has been shown to not impact on health, but we do know on the other hand that meat eating in general causes disease. We also know that meat and smoking contain a number of toxins that harm health. Vegan food however is protective against a number of diseases, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Additionally, we do not need any cholesterol from our diet to be healthy. The liver produces all we need from other fats. At the very least all the evidence shows that you should eat less meat to be healthy. If that is enough to convince you to reduce your meat intake, and produce less suffering for yourself, for animals, and reduce the burden of illness on society then that is all a good thing.

[Aractus]

You however have no reason to dismiss the studies I quote as junk other then your own bias ie, if they are cherry picked studies then produce some studies showing the opposite.

The SDA one is not objective - it's data mining. That's my reason. Why are you saying I have no reason?

Synthetic fibres are not bad for the environment (or at least any worse than deriving it from farmed animals, which produce a huge amount of methane as well as the CO2 produced form the infrastructure required to farm animals), and there are plenty of artificial leather alternatives. Furthermore its hardly beyond the realms of conceivable science that even better alternatives could be made should we choose to invest in the research.

So once again you're dodging the question. Office chairs, Lounges and Car seats that are to be upholstered in fabric and not Leather or Vinyl (and I don't understand why you and others use the phrase "artificial leather" to describe Vinyl?) Synthetic fibres are not strong enough. I don't want to hear nonsense about "maybe someday".

And as for your rhetoric about the environment - why would I consider a non-recyclable synthetic fabric that doesn't break down easily in landfill to be more environmentally friendly than natural fibres that do break down and are recyclable?

Regarding eating disorders, this is just another ad hominem attack. You are the one so obsessed with meat that despite all the evidence that veganism is healthy you still cling to anecdotes that people need meat.

You are the one so obsessed with not eating meat or animal product that you literally view them as not an option.

Regarding smoking, even occasional smoking is associated with ill health. . There is no known level of smoking that has been shown to not impact on health, but we do know on the other hand that smoking in general causes disease. Similarly, there's is no known level of meat eating that has been shown to not impact on health, but we do know on the other hand that meat eating in general causes disease. We also know that meat and smoking contain a number of toxins that harm health. Vegan food however is protective against a number of diseases, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease.

See this is what I mean. "We don't know X so thus we're assuming Z".

Additionally, we do not need any cholesterol from our diet to be healthy. The liver produces all we need from other fats. At the very least all the evidence shows that you should eat less meat to be healthy. If that is enough to convince you to reduce your meat intake, and produce less suffering for yourself, for animals, and reduce the burden of illness on society then that is all a good thing.

Really?

• While it is true that the body manufactures cholesterol in the liver, this does not mean you can cut all cholesterol out of your diet and expect to be healthy. In fact, if you are on a diet extremely low in cholesterol, you can expect quite the opposite to happen.
  
  It`s understandable that many people would balk at this suggestion. After all, nearly everyone has heard time and time again how dietary cholesterol is detrimental to your health. However, many studies have shown that diets which include saturated fats and cholesterol do not cause high cholesterol levels.
  
  

And...

• Too little of one type of cholesterol has been linked to memory loss and Alzheimer's disease.
  
  Scientists studied more than 3,500 civil servants to investigate how levels of HDL or "good" cholesterol were associated with memory. HDL cholesterol can influence the formation of the beta-amyloid "plaques" that are a distinctive feature in the brains of Alzheimer's patients.
  
  Higher levels of HDL are also believed to protect against damage to blood supply caused by the narrowing of the arteries.
  
  After the five-year study period, the researchers found that people with low levels of HDL were 53 percent more likely to suffer memory loss than people with the highest levels of HDL.
  
  Those with impaired memory are at an increased risk of developing dementia later in life.
  
  

You are giving people here extremely bad advice - how do you not see this??

[bennyboy]

I think this thread is spinning off into a red-herring fest.

The philosophical issue with eating meat is simple:
-Humans suffer, and don't like it.
-We've therefore decided that causing human suffering is immoral.
-Animals suffer, but are not human.

The question is clear: is it causing suffering which is immoral, or is it only causing suffering in humans which is immoral? And the secondary question: how are we to decide between the two?

So far, people on both sides of the question have ignored the second question: it seems the actual answer (buried as it is under rhetoric and anecdote) is that each person has adopted the life choice that feels right to him. Is it that all moral systems are really a kind of democratic reconciliation of our instincts or learned feelings about things, rather than logic?

Maybe morality itself is wrong then, because I can think of no cases where this isn't the case.