[boomana]

Edwood, I don't want to argue with you and I have the feeling that we're much closer than apart in our ideas of healthy diet. I started this thread, based on another thread, where I felt there were a lot of misconceptions about a vegetarian diet and lifestyle, and simply wanted to explore the benefits of a plant-based diet, which, as I seem to continually need to state, does not have to mean cutting out meat completely, but certainly means relying on plants more than meat as food.

In answer to your last comments directed at me:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's not what I was posting, I was posting information pros and cons of vegan dietary nutrition for those that might be interested. The site I referenced was in fact a pro-vegan site. But please, feel free to further twist my postings.

Quote:

Did you even bother to read the entire article I posted a link to? Here it is again, so you can ignore it again. http://www.veganhealthstudy.org/ClinicalSummary.html

I didn't ingore the article, which was excellent. I also didn't ignore how you presented it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif For those that are considering or are vegans, please check out this article and scroll to the bottom. The Risks and Possible Disadvantages list is huge. It's a lot of work to get full nutrition in a purely vegan diet. Not meant to scare or anything, but a handy list and guidelines for successful nutrition check list and supplements. http://www.veganhealthstudy.org/ClinicalSummary.html -Ed

or this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, I was just trolling the vegetarian headphone thread with sarcasm. This thread, no trolls present from my end. And I'll put it plainly, it's the Militant PETA Card Carrying Vegan contingent that primarily gives the idea of a Vegan or Vegetarian diet a bad name. It becomes a political issue rather than a nutritional issue. I have been blessed/cursed with the fact that my wife's current occupation deals with nutrition and diet. She counsels a lot of vegans that have failed miserably in a proper diet and nutrition. But she never judges, she simply tells them the truth and gives them options. (she pointed me to that Vegan Health Study site, BTW.). -Ed

or this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif LOL, I remember your thread about the vegan clones of canned food like Tuno. Definitely have your wife read this webpage, all the way to the bottom of the page. There are a LOT of health risks from malnutrition on a vegan diet for children especially. http://www.veganhealthstudy.org/ClinicalSummary.html

In my intitial post I asked why people weren't more open to exploring the benefits of a vegetarian or plant-based diet and at times seemed hostile toward even talking about it. Do you see why I might get that impression?

Quote:

Never posted any position against meat eaters? Really? What is this thread about exactly? Benefits of a Plant-based Diet as being better than a meat based one? (I'm not saying I don't agree with the root meaning of your thread, but you're kidding yourself when you say you aren't taking a position.)

Again, why get..uh...hostile? I never said I wasn't taking a position, but it is for a plant-based diet, not against a healthy diet which may include some meat, though I openly admit I believe less is better. Find one post of mine which takes a position against meat-eaters.

Quote:

Sure, let's talk about the environment and global warming more. It'll get this thread closed faster. -Ed

I don't want to/never wanted to talk about global warming. Just because I said there are benefits to reducing the amount of natural resources used to support the factory farming of animals for food, doesn't mean we jump to straight to global warming. I didn't even think of that until you mentioned it. I was talking about the amount of fresh water used to make one pound of beef. Simple facts, nothing more or less. I think they're worth knowing about. If some fool wants to turn it into a political issue, I'd report it. But what, assuming fools don't enter, is wrong with simply exploring environmental benefits? I thought of it as a good thing, not a contentious one.

This thread has actually been instructional to me. I started by asking why people weren't more open to exploring the benefits of a plant-based diet, and also held distorted or even hostile views about or towards vegetarians, even vegetarians who express no hostility towards them. I still don't have an answer as to why, but this thread and the thread in the headphone forum have more or less demonstrated that my impressions, at least in part, hold true

If people have no interest in discussing the the purpose for which I started this thread, that's fine, but I never wanted to talk about vegetarians versus meat eaters because I personally don't see why they have to be in opposition. Others seem to want to make it so. I'm also not going to futher engage or add to the increasingly nasty mood or direction this thread is going. So, to people who are interested, there's plenty of information out there. To those who don't, fine and dandy. And to all, bon appetit!

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boomana /img/forum/go_quote.gif E I don't want to/never wanted to talk about global warming. Just because I said there are benefits to reducing the amount of natural resources used to support the factory farming of animals for food, doesn't mean we jump to straight to global warming. I didn't even think of that until you mentioned it. I was talking about the amount of fresh water used to make one pound of beef. Simple facts, nothing more or less. I think they're worth knowing about. If some fool wants to turn it into a political issue, I'd report it. But what, assuming fools don't enter, is wrong with simply exploring environmental benefits? I thought of it as a good thing, not a contentious one.

Actually, it seems that the meat industry is going to surpass the auto industry in pollution. While cars get more fuel efficient, meat industry becomes less so.

The Global Warming Survival Guide - WHAT YOU CAN DO - Skip the Steak

Better to Driver a Hummer than to Eat a Hamburger

Time to sell my fuel efficient Honda Fit and buy a Hummer. Too bad I missed out on that juicy $100,000 tax write off years ago. Much more than the piddly $3000 tax write off for a hybrid.
I can fit a lot more veggies in a Hummer than in a Honda. And think off all the top dollar organic products I can buy with the money I saved.

Oh well, hindsight is 20/20, right?

-Ed

 

[boomana]

Hah! You couldn't resist, could you

Though I think the second article chose statements more dramatic than accurate, I gotta say I like the "SUV-style diet." That's pretty funny.

As a total side shot: How do you like your Fit? It's on my short list for new cars, non-leather seats, of course.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boomana /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hah! You couldn't resist, could you Though I think the second article chose statements more dramatic than accurate, I gotta say I like the "SUV-style diet." That's pretty funny. As a total side shot: How do you like your Fit? It's on my short list for new cars, non-leather seats, of course.

It's a great car. Especially for a small family with drivers of different heights. I'm 5'10" and my wife is 5' tall and we can both drive the Fit with minimal seat adjustments (plenty of room between our chests and the steering wheel too.)

Also, leather upholstery is not even an option for the Fit currently in the USA. Although the Sport model has a leather wrapped steering wheel, but save yourself the extra money and get the cruelty free base model. They are both identical except for about 40 lbs of decorative plastic, bigger alloy wheels, slightly better stereo (not really), paddle shifters (auto trans only), and of course the leather wrapped steering wheel.

Not to derail your thread even further, I did have a long thread about my shopping experience. I'll try to find it.

*Edit: here it is. http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=177097

-Ed

 

[Edwood]

A bit more on topic....

This thread got me thinking. What if it were possible to create fish or some other animal that could feel no pain, regrow flesh, and basically be a renewable source of animal protein? No need to kill the animal to harvest the food. Most vegetables are completely killed in order to turn it into food. Do plants not have any right to life as well? There is plausible research that many plants, especially trees are actually capable of communications with each other.

Or even better yet, to grow meat in labs rather than on a farm, requiring slaughtering. Simple cloning is already leading to that possibility. While many scientists were focused on cloning an entire living animal, they missed out on a better solution, cloning just the meat protein parts, not an entire living animal.

http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/...ArticleID=1098

So, I think it would be better instead to culture our meats. Also, to have renewable, more efficient vegetable crops. Imagine a tree that grows very thick limbs that can be trimmed off and used for paper and lumber mills, rather than killing the whole tree and replanting. Or vegetables that grow their leaf sections in ways that can be plucked rather than killing the whole plant. Maybe we can even grow our meat on special meat plants. The possibilities are endless. The current irrigation and crop production method is still too wasteful. We need a more self-sustaining system of crops that do not need to be murdered in each generation to feed people. I think too many people are afraid of technology rather than using it for good. At the rate of population growth, we simply cannot sustain it, even with organic, vegan diets. Either government reproductive control or genocide (probably via another world war) will control the population, or we can adapt our technology to feed ourselves more efficiently and more responsibly.

This is the 21st century afterall, we can live in a world where we can grow everything we need. Maybe even power. (well, hopefully not Matrix style.)

-Ed

 

[Torula Yeast]

Quote:

Do plants not have any right to life as well? There is plausible research that many plants, especially trees are actually capable of communications with each other.

Before we go further, I'm going to kindly ask that this part of the discussion be relegated to the dustbin. I've had many, many online discussions of vegetarianism with omnivores, and this one always -- always, mind you -- comes up.

I'll admit, I didn't go to college. But even I recall high school biology, where one learns that plants don't have a CNS, let alone anything resembling even the most primitive of brains to interpret signals delivered by a CNS. Sure, plants thrive, grow, react to light, move with it, even display a quick reflex action as in the case of the venus flytrap (plants eating meat -- now *there's* a topic for debate, eh?). But they would seem to operate the way an animal - including human - body woud operate robbed of its higher brain functions. Purely on genetic programming, with no "central processor" capable in the least of assessing stimuli X as being pleasurable, frightening, painful, or whatnot. I'm not going to cry for the dead plants. Please don't ask me to. (Side comment: Why do so many who would deny that sentient animals have even the most rudimentary of emotions such as those humans feel want to rush in with arguments based on ascribing anthropomorphic qualities to simple plants? Not directed at you, Ed Wood, but just something I've encountered much of.)

Moving on...

So far as the proposition that we culture animal-based muscle tissue rather than cause the conception of, raise, and slaughter an entire living, sentient creature: On its surface, I would applaud the idea, but on a practical level, I would see this as having a long, rough road to gaining acceptance by the public at large. For starters, look at the hoopla raised, especially in Europe, over GMO vegetables. Also, meats from animals that are cloned in their entirety are being met with widespread rejection.

How finicky are people about the origins of their food? I'll give an example. I used to work for a non-profit, one program of which was creating a food product fortified with vitamin A for cultures that primarily ate rice, which product would resemble rice while delivering the aforementioned vitamin to a populace much in need of this nutrient. The initial idea was to fortify rice kernels and mix them with the overall supply. The result was kernels that appeared darker than regular white rice granules, and as a result were picked out from the unfortified rice and discarded by the consumers. In short, because the "healthier" rice looked different, it was rejected. It was back to the drawing board for the fortified rice project.

How the hesitance of a populace to consume an "unnatural" food product designed to aid their health can be reconciled with the acceptance in America of something so unnatural and unhealthful as transfat oils is beyond me. (OK, not entirely beyond me, as I know that the proponents of hydrogenated oils used deception to create the illusion that natural oils such as that from coconut were in fact the harmful choice.) But I do think it points to the difficulty of getting "animal-less" meat tissue to be accepted by the teeming masses.

Again, I don't think it's a bad concept. Not one I'd be interested in partaking of, but nevertheless not bad. But its execution, it seems to me, would be frought with challenges regarding acceptance, if not actual safety perils.

Don't get me wrong. I love, love, love scientific progress. But I understand that it, like so many things in our life, is a landmine of unintended consequences which need to be given due consideration.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torula Yeast /img/forum/go_quote.gif Before we go further, I'm going to kindly ask that this part of the discussion be relegated to the dustbin. I've had many, many online discussions of vegetarianism with omnivores, and this one always -- always, mind you -- comes up. I'll admit, I didn't go to college. But even I recall high school biology, where one learns that plants don't have a CNS, let alone anything resembling even the most primitive of brains to interpret signals delivered by a CNS. Sure, plants thrive, grow, react to light, move with it, even display a quick reflex action as in the case of the venus flytrap (plants eating meat -- now *there's* a topic for debate, eh?). But they would seem to operate the way an animal - including human - body woud operate robbed of its higher brain functions. Purely on genetic programming, with no "central processor" capable in the least of assessing stimuli X as being pleasurable, frightening, painful, or whatnot. I'm not going to cry for the dead plants. Please don't ask me to. (Side comment: Why do so many who would deny that sentient animals have even the most rudimentary of emotions such as those humans feel want to rush in with arguments based on ascribing anthropomorphic qualities to simple plants? Not directed at you, Ed Wood, but just something I've encountered much of.)

Yet, fish and crustaceans do not have a central nervous system like "sentient" animals have, and vegans will not eat them. Also, many people are highly protective of trees, many of which live thousands of years, but they also lack the capacity to have a central nervous system and "think" like more developed animals do. So people give a sweeping protection to one class of living organisms and not to another.



Quote:

So far as the proposition that we culture animal-based muscle tissue rather than cause the conception of, raise, and slaughter an entire living, sentient creature: On its surface, I would applaud the idea, but on a practical level, I would see this as having a long, rough road to gaining acceptance by the public at large. For starters, look at the hoopla raised, especially in Europe, over GMO vegetables. Also, meats from animals that are cloned in their entirety are being met with widespread rejection........ Don't get me wrong. I love, love, love scientific progress. But I understand that it, like so many things in our life, is a landmine of unintended consequences which need to be given due consideration.

Oh, yeah. No way will the general public accept food grown in a lab as the norm. But eventually, if it is a viable technology, it will happen. Probably not in our lifetime.


"Great Grandpa. Tell me about the food you ate when you were a kid?"

"Why, certainly, sonny. We used to have things called farms and gardens where plants were grown in the soil. After a certain amount of time, they would be harvested and sold in the supermarket. Animals were kept in different farms as well, some large and some small. After a certain amount of time, they would be harvested and sold in the supermarket.

"You..you... ate living things that were killed and made them into food?"

"We did, all the time. We don't have that fancy shmancy sythesized stuff you all call "food" these days. When I was a kid, you could tell where your food came from. And it was darn tootin tasty too."

"What were they like.... I mean vegetables and animals?"

"They were beautiful. So many of them, everywhere. We didn't eat all of them, mind you, but you could see them whenever you wanted, and not in some museum or holovid. That was a long time ago, before the alien overlords took over."

"Great Grandpa, do you hear that?"

"Yes, I know dear. It's the harvest time. The overlords are going to take me away to processing. Don't worry, it's the circle of life. I've lived a long and full life."


-Ed

 

[Edwood]

Even if you are not a Trekkie, you'll have to admit that many aspects of the science fiction series has come true. The communicators gave rise to the invention of the cell phone. Antimatter was even created. There is an excellent and entertaining documentary called "How William Shatner Changed the World."

And one Star Trek feature that should be invented is the "replicator". Any kind of food can be created instantly. No more farming, irrigation, slaughter of animals or vegetables. Now that invention we'll probably never actually see in our lifetime (at least in any sort of healthy way), but I'd rather be optimistic about our future in a Trekkie kind of way, rather than a bleak apocalyptic kind of way.

-Ed

 

[F107plus5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even if you are not a Trekkie, you'll have to admit that many aspects of the science fiction series has come true. The communicators gave rise to the invention of the cell phone. Antimatter was even created. There is an excellent and entertaining documentary called "How William Shatner Changed the World." And one Star Trek feature that should be invented is the "replicator". Any kind of food can be created instantly. No more farming, irrigation, slaughter of animals or vegetables. Now that invention we'll probably never actually see in our lifetime (at least in any sort of healthy way), but I'd rather be optimistic about our future in a Trekkie kind of way, rather than a bleak apocalyptic kind of way. -Ed

Ah; the ol' nano-replicator-compiler! I'd really like me one of those!

I always liked the Di-lithium crystals; always reminded me of Lithium deuteride. Fun play on words.

Yup; Star Trek really stared on a downward spiral when they abandoned the up-beat style of the original two series and went toward the dark and somber, and yes bleak, tone to their last few series.

Sad; very sad.

 

[Torula Yeast]

Quote:

Yet, fish and crustaceans do not have a central nervous system like "sentient" animals have, and vegans will not eat them. Also, many people are highly protective of trees, many of which live thousands of years, but they also lack the capacity to have a central nervous system and "think" like more developed animals do. So people give a sweeping protection to one class of living organisms and not to another.

We can't really know how a fish perceives. They do seem to respond to unpleasant stimuli; the question is, is this purely reflex, or is it perceived by them as painful, anxiety-causing, etc. I don't pretend to know. And while I do like halibut and salmon, I tend to avoid them as food simply to err on the side of caution. The octopus, on the other hand, is demonstrably able to "problem solve," apparently able to figure out how to remove a screw-top lid on a jar to get at tasty treats inside. That's fairly evolved, hence, no octopus for me. So far as crustaceans go - yeah, their CNS is pretty primitive, but I can't get past the fact that they're basically bugs that live in the sea. I'm no more interested in eating a shrimp than I am eating some random beetle.

Now trees are just awesome (and petrified trees rock! -- bu-du-bum! -- and hey, don't forget to tip your server!

), but the type of protectionism for single trees I believe you're referring to is directed at old growth trees, which a) are vital parts of the ecosystem in which they reside, and b) are symbolic, at least here in the lower 48 of the U.S., of our dwindling inventory representing the natural majesty of this great land before European colonization and the subsequent mass harvesting of its resources. I have not sat in an old growth tree to protest its scheduled felling, but my heart is with those that do.

Also, regarding food sources and necessity, for a thought experiment there's always the movie Soylent Green, where food for the starving masses is so scarce, no one questions the origins of those little nutritional squares.

So far as the food replicators of the Star Trek franchise; yes, well, in space, you need people willing to make certain sacrifices, so sure here you could assemble a crew open to the concept that their food was created from some sort of base, nutritional goo, or however those things are supposed to work.

The latter subject sets me to wonderin'; would this board enjoy a Star Trek appreciation thread? Could be fun! I'm not familiar with the latter spinoffs, am only somewhat familiar with TNG, but was spoon-fed on the original series growing up.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torula Yeast /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now trees are just awesome (and petrified trees rock! -- bu-du-bum! -- and hey, don't forget to tip your server! ), but the type of protectionism for single trees I believe you're referring to is directed at old growth trees, which a) are vital parts of the ecosystem in which they reside, and b) are symbolic, at least here in the lower 48 of the U.S., of our dwindling inventory representing the natural majesty of this great land before European colonization and the subsequent mass harvesting of its resources. I have not sat in an old growth tree to protest its scheduled felling, but my heart is with those that do.

You would think that, but some people really attach emotions to other trees. My neighbors were all but chaining themselves to the ficus trees that had to be cut down because their roots were breaking drainage pipes and cracking building foundations. They were originally planted without any thought as to their growth rate and space requirements.

Yeah, the enormous forests of trees that line the edges of the arctic are one of the most important for our very climate and air we breathe. Fortunately, it's completely inhospitable to any humans, so it will be there for some time. (at least until it melts) But climate change and pollution may end up killing these forests ironically, rather than chainsaws.


Quote:

Also, regarding food sources and necessity, for a thought experiment there's always the movie Soylent Green, where food for the starving masses is so scarce, no one questions the origins of those little nutritional squares.

LOL, caught my little joke there, I see.

Yeah, I guess technological food in the future could go in a bad direction too.


Quote:

So far as the food replicators of the Star Trek franchise; yes, well, in space, you need people willing to make certain sacrifices, so sure here you could assemble a crew open to the concept that their food was created from some sort of base, nutritional goo, or however those things are supposed to work. The latter subject sets me to wonderin'; would this board enjoy a Star Trek appreciation thread? Could be fun! I'm not familiar with the latter spinoffs, am only somewhat familiar with TNG, but was spoon-fed on the original series growing up.

Heheh, reminds me of the Matrix and their complaining about the nutritional goop they ate on the ship. Even though it was everything their bodies needed, the mind needed something as well. Food is as much sustainance as pleasure for humans.

As for a Star Trek thread, there have been a few, but I'm more than certain that people here would be interested in another one (coughPlainsongcough), especially given the new Star Trek movie in preproduction now based on the original Star Trek crew's early days before the original series.

-Ed

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by F107plus5 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah; the ol' nano-replicator-compiler! I'd really like me one of those! I always liked the Di-lithium crystals; always reminded me of Lithium deuteride. Fun play on words. Yup; Star Trek really stared on a downward spiral when they abandoned the up-beat style of the original two series and went toward the dark and somber, and yes bleak, tone to their last few series. Sad; very sad.

As Torula Yeast brought up, we should start a new Star Trek thread, perhaps, the upcoming Star Trek movie is in preproduction now.

Heheh, Di-Lithium. Kind of like saying Dihydrogen Monoxide. It's odorless, colorless, lethal when inhaled, and it's everywhere! Beware of Dihydrogen Monoxide!!!

-Ed

 

[plainsong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrvile /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think a huge reason for so few people actually converting to vegetarianism is that meat, well, tastes good. I personally wouldn't mind being a vegetarian at all, but I can't give up meat because of that.

Very true. I can't give up meat because I like things that taste good. I've tasted the vege alternatives and they taste worse than crap. I've not ever tasted crap, but it must be better then that.

I, like humans in general, have been programmed and designed to be omnivorous.

But the cool thing about being human is that we can choose whether or not to have meat in our diets, and if you can go without and don't mind bland icky food for the rest of your life, then more power to you.

When it comes to citing benefits and drawbacks of a vege diet, well, you can find as much research for as against, so I don't give any of those arguments any credibility whatsoever, at least not in a headphone forum. In the absence of anything other than Internet Experts, it's just personal choice, and more power to ya.

But I'm guessing this thread has already been crapped on, which is a pity. I'm only responding the OP here.

 

[Torula Yeast]

Quote:

don't mind bland icky food for the rest of your life, then more power to you.

Gotta take exception to that. I *don't* subsist on a bland diet. I know how to cook, I know how to use spices and seasonings, and I only eat food I adore. Hell, I'm trying to lose some weight right now because I eat so darn well! (And I'm not doing it by depriving myself yummy foods, I'm doing with vigorous workouts that are good for me, anyway.) Nor do I miss meat in the least, or am ever even remotely tempted to stray when eating amongst omnivores.

Sorry to go off, but that seemed like pointless swipe. Being a vege-head does *not* mean self-deprivation. I'm glad you like your diet, but you should know I like mine very well.

 

[usc goose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by plainsong /img/forum/go_quote.gif if you can go without and don't mind bland icky food for the rest of your life, then more power to you.

Bland and icky? Well, I never really got into the meat substitute vegetarianism. I guess I understand if that's to what you're referring. But vegetarian food not trying to be meat can be pretty good. I mean, who doesn't like PB&J?