you have a greater chance of eating a fertile egg that way. I don't eat babies.
uke:I know, I know, its not really a baby, but when I crack open an egg and see that little circle, I just can't.
Do we need to eat meat to be healthy?
- Thread starter visceral_instinct
- Start date
you have a greater chance of eating a fertile egg that way. I don't eat babies.
uke:I know, I know, its not really a baby, but when I crack open an egg and see that little circle, I just can't.
? You appear to be having difficulties. Perhaps I can simplify things for you: there have never been any known human peoples - ethnicities, cultures, tribes, etc - who ate no meat whatsoever.parmalee said:
There are dozens of possible problems, from the common such as iron and calcium deficiency to the more arcane such as chronic cholesterol shortage (leads to a higher incidence of strokes).phlogistician said:
Of course they are avoidable - but not always easily, and generally not without the advantages of reasonable wealth and modern technology as well as the knowledge to make use of them. Vegetarianism without risk of damage to health - especially in reproducing women - is a modern, industrial, high tech option.
I've never been to Chicago but I imagine that it has supermarkets much like the rest of america
seriously, aside from heroin addicts, the high tech dietary issues of the western world are far, far, far more about curbing indulgence than malnutrition.
try living in Montana, Alaska, South Dakota, etc. People can live hours from the nearest store.
They go out and kill it. They have a huge garden and can/freeze like crazy after harvest. They go into town about once every other month and stock up on what they can't kill/grow.
I grew up with kids who's parents signed over guardianship so they could live in town, otherwise it was a 2 hr one way drive to school every day. Ranchers/farmers can't afford that gas/time lost.
1. What is "health"?
2. How do a person's circumstances (environmental, the work they do, the people they associate with, and the state of their body) and outlooks influence the requirements for them to be "healthy"?
I think we can all agree that there are different requirments for "maintaining health" if one lives as a monk in a Mediterranean monastery high up in the moutains, as opposed to living as a poor worker in a diamond mine in tropical Africa.
Likewise.
But first, you wrote:
That you said "strictly vegetarian" and then alluded to the need for an "animal protein source" suggested that you were speaking of vegans rather than lacto-ovo vegetarians; after all, eggs and dairy products are also "animal protein source(s)."
But as re: the other misunderstanding, on your part, I wrote:
Why did you conclude that I was referring to the whole of an ethnicity, culture, or tribe? Obviously, there has not likely ever been an entire ethnicity, culture, or tribe (though this one be debatable) that were vegetarian; nevertheless, there have always been a significant number of vegetarians (i.e. folk) amongst any such group--whether they be Cynics, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, or whatever. And I'm certainly not suggesting that all amongst the aforementioned were vegetarian even, but a not inconsiderable some.
I was simply taking you to be attempting relevance - there have been ostensibly (this is seldom closely investigated) vegetarian monks, small religious groups, etc in many cultures, and quite possibly they have suffered few noticeable ill effects (possibly an increase in the death rate by stroke, or something like that, but nothing that stands out) compared with the rest of their culture.parmalee said:
But as I have repeated several times now, the question is not the possibility but the difficulty and complexity of a balanced, healthy vegetarian diet. And the critical demographic, for us humans, is reproductive women.
Pointing to cultures of short, shortlived, disease ridden, high infant mortality people who don't eat much meat, as evidence of the adequacy of a vegetarian diet, is not that persuasive anyway.
And I invited you to count the continents involved, along with the transportation infrastructure and book knowledge and expenditure, in obtaining a healthy vegetarian diet from these supermarkets.light said:
It's high tech, modern, and not that easy.
Pointing to cultures of obese, disease ridden, high stress people whose only aim in life is to gratify the flimsy senses, pointing to such cultures as evidence of the adequacy of a meat diet, is not that persuasive either.
What, in our high tech, modern, and not that easy world isn't?
It's not like eating a "healthy meat diet" would be easy.
you have a greater chance of eating a fertile egg that way. I don't eat babies.
I know, I know, its not really a baby, but when I crack open an egg and see that little circle, I just can't.
I always get rid of those if I see them.
Is that because of the iron?
Only animal sources contain all nine essential amino acids in a single food. It is quite easy to get all nine essential amino acids from plant sources if you simply eat more than one kind of plant. It's usually not even necessary to think about what plants you are eating and what amino acids they provide, because eating a small variety of plants will cover everything. It would be a rare vegetarian indeed who only ever ate one type of plant.
Also, since most vegetarians do indeed eat eggs and dairy, this isn't particularly relevant anyway...
Actually there are some plants that provide useful amounts of B12, but they aren't commonly eaten outside of Asia. It's pretty much a non-issue though, since B12 supplements are so widely available and inexpensive. And again, vegetarians will get all the B12 they need from dairy sources, so it's only an issue for vegans.
All nutritional needs can be easily met with non-meat products, assuming you aren't living in some third-world shit hole of a country.
Did anyone here say that they expect Congolese villagers to be vegan? How is that at all relevant?
You can do it, but you have to eat a lot of "unusual" bits of the animal to get many of the nutrients that you would normally get from plants.
Not only the presence overall, but the rate and amount of supply, matters. You can't necessarily make up for week long deficiencies with Sunday's special hot dish.nasor said:
If you don't think about it, and figure out what you are doing, you run a serious risk of dietary deficiencies with a variety of side effects.
The eggs and dairy available to the ethical vegetarian are pretty expensive, the supplements are high tech, a lot of people can't handle milk well, and so forth.nasor said:
The ethical considerations of dairy cattle and laying hens - what happens to the males, the aging, etc, even given decent husbandry - trouble the vegetarian approach. If you don't eat roosters, what do you do with them?
Meanwhile: If you have to take pills and medicine to supplement its deficiencies, I think there's something wrong with your diet.
The idea of protein combining remains controversial, but many health organizations have discredited such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_combining
Unless you've got a propensity towards mono-diets, you don't really have to think about it that much.
The price of a dozen free-range eggs at the store nearest my house: $3.60
The price of a dozen regular eggs: $2.20
So, if one eats two free-range eggs a day (a bit more than I would certainly be inclined), one must spend a whole $7 per month more. Big difference, that one.
I don't know anyone who really feels a need to supplement their diet with vitamins, minerals, and such; but of those who do, I'm willing to bet there's as many vegetarians as non-vegetarians (on a per capita basis, that is).
Correct. However even taking that into account, there are so many different kinds of plants that are so high in almost all of the essential amino acids that no real thought is required, unless you eat the same protein source every single day.
No, actually if you don't think about what you're doing you run a trivially small risk of "dietary deficiencies with a variety of side effects," for the reasons explained above. Sure, it's hypothetically possible that it could happen, but in the real world it's a non-issue. Most vegetarians don't make any particular effort to think about where they get the different essential amino acids, and end up getting plenty of all of them anyway.
Edit: In fact the vast majority of people, even vegetarians, get far more protein than they need, and much of it ends up being simply burnt for calories because the body has no other use for it.
You obviously haven't actually priced them, because the difference is pretty trivial. You might spend a few more dollars/week.
At my local pharmacy you can buy a bottle of 300 daily B-12 supplements for about $7. Forgive me if I fail to see the problem for vegans.
You are free to think that there is "something wrong with it" if you wish. The fact remains that it is trivially easy to get all the nutrients you need from non-meat sources.
Last edited:
Meh. Might as well...
And that is where you err, though it's certainly an understandable one. These days I'm disinclined to even attempt to argue in the accepted fashions. Laziness or sometimes genuine lack of interest perhaps, but more of a predilection and possibly even choice to be digressive, tangential, oblique, irrelevant, irreverent, etc. I can see how it might be frustrating for many, but I figure people can just choose to ignore me if they so wish... (Anyhow, not really seeing a lot of facts here, so I don't see why it would really matter anyway.)
I certainly agree that vegetarianism can be more a challenge for menstruating and pregnant women, though I think you may exaggerate the degree to which this is the case.
As to the technological part, consider the bioregional/transportational aspect specifically: it is in fact quite easy for tropical and mediterranean folks to be exclusively bioregional--and vegetarian (as per the viability for the educated and moderately affluent Western man angle)--and this is even possible for those in many parts of America and Europe, though perhaps somewhat more of a challenge. And certainly, somewhat advanced agricultural methods are necessary for sustaining large populations, but this is the 21st century and much of the world (not just the affluent Western nations) avails themselves to these methods.
As to the relative affluence requirement: it is largely the poor of the world who are vegetarian, and not so much by choice but by economic necessity and, in many instances, religious proscription. (And we all know the anecdotes about the wealthy Buddhists, say, who get around the imperative to vegetarianism by having their poor servants buy and prepare the meats for their meals; consequently, the poor servants are more likely to be vegetarian, again by necessity. An even more "persuasive," heh, anecdote of one: I was homeless for a couple of years, owing largely to mental/neurological illness (and at other times, by choice), and likewise quite poor--often with no money; yet I had no difficulty remaining vegetarian and even physically (at least) healthy. True, I was living largely off the spoils of the rich, but still...)
I don't see why vegetarianism is more viable ("good idea") for the moderately affluent Western man, than it is for anyone else. Nor do I see why it's necessarily "difficult," and accepting that some degree of technological advancement may be necessary, given that much of the world has these technologies, how does this in any way narrow the demographics for whom vegetarianism may be viable?
Is there any evidence which suggests that the vegetarianism practiced by poor, lesser educated folks about the world (for whom knowledge of and access to specialized nutritional supplements/fortified foods and balanced diet "handbooks" are restricted) is somehow directly correlated to a detrimental state of health (or for that matter, to higher infant mortality rates and decreased longevity)? I think the poor and poorly educated vegetarians throught the world are doing just fine, at least with respect to the meat eaters within their cultures.
I'll agree that education certainly makes vegetarianism more viable, but it's not as though uneducated meat eaters are necessarily doing just fine; in the U.S. at least, it seems that the average meat eater could use an education given the astronomical rates of obesity and it's related health complications (which are also related to excessive consumption of certain meats).
And that is where you err, though it's certainly an understandable one. These days I'm disinclined to even attempt to argue in the accepted fashions. Laziness or sometimes genuine lack of interest perhaps, but more of a predilection and possibly even choice to be digressive, tangential, oblique, irrelevant, irreverent, etc. I can see how it might be frustrating for many, but I figure people can just choose to ignore me if they so wish... (Anyhow, not really seeing a lot of facts here, so I don't see why it would really matter anyway.)
I certainly agree that vegetarianism can be more a challenge for menstruating and pregnant women, though I think you may exaggerate the degree to which this is the case.
As to the technological part, consider the bioregional/transportational aspect specifically: it is in fact quite easy for tropical and mediterranean folks to be exclusively bioregional--and vegetarian (as per the viability for the educated and moderately affluent Western man angle)--and this is even possible for those in many parts of America and Europe, though perhaps somewhat more of a challenge. And certainly, somewhat advanced agricultural methods are necessary for sustaining large populations, but this is the 21st century and much of the world (not just the affluent Western nations) avails themselves to these methods.
As to the relative affluence requirement: it is largely the poor of the world who are vegetarian, and not so much by choice but by economic necessity and, in many instances, religious proscription. (And we all know the anecdotes about the wealthy Buddhists, say, who get around the imperative to vegetarianism by having their poor servants buy and prepare the meats for their meals; consequently, the poor servants are more likely to be vegetarian, again by necessity. An even more "persuasive," heh, anecdote of one: I was homeless for a couple of years, owing largely to mental/neurological illness (and at other times, by choice), and likewise quite poor--often with no money; yet I had no difficulty remaining vegetarian and even physically (at least) healthy. True, I was living largely off the spoils of the rich, but still...)
I don't see why vegetarianism is more viable ("good idea") for the moderately affluent Western man, than it is for anyone else. Nor do I see why it's necessarily "difficult," and accepting that some degree of technological advancement may be necessary, given that much of the world has these technologies, how does this in any way narrow the demographics for whom vegetarianism may be viable?
Is there any evidence which suggests that the vegetarianism practiced by poor, lesser educated folks about the world (for whom knowledge of and access to specialized nutritional supplements/fortified foods and balanced diet "handbooks" are restricted) is somehow directly correlated to a detrimental state of health (or for that matter, to higher infant mortality rates and decreased longevity)? I think the poor and poorly educated vegetarians throught the world are doing just fine, at least with respect to the meat eaters within their cultures.
I'll agree that education certainly makes vegetarianism more viable, but it's not as though uneducated meat eaters are necessarily doing just fine; in the U.S. at least, it seems that the average meat eater could use an education given the astronomical rates of obesity and it's related health complications (which are also related to excessive consumption of certain meats).