Do we need to eat meat to be healthy?

[parmalee]

You obviously haven't actually priced them, because the difference is pretty trivial. You might spend a few more dollars/week.

Not even. For just eggs--if you eat 2 a day--about $1.75/week. And who eats 2 fucking eggs a day?! (see above)

 

[thinking]

I hear about how humans are naturally omnivores, but does this mean merely that we can survive on meat if we have to or that we actually need it for health?

I have been a vegetarian since I was old enough to talk (yes, literally. I threw a tantrum if asked to eat fish...). I am over average height for a female, and no health problems other than a mild head rush from standing.

So, do we actually need to eat other animals to stay healthy? I'm sure I am not the only one who doesn't.

as long as your getting the protein that the body needs ......

 

[Slysoon]

Nasor

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...

I realize that plant products, taken in careful variety, can accommodate for the absence of meat products (and in some cases, animal products) in one's diet in terms of proper amino acid intake. As such, I wrote:

"Most sources of nutrition can be found in plant products, but not with the ease and convenience in which they are found in animal products."

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.

"Useful amounts" is a curious phrase. Tempeh in the United States and Europe cannot be relied upon as a Vitamin B12 source, because studies have revealed that tempeh native to those regions contain little to no Vitamin B12, but instead have an inactive analogue content. Tempeh in Indonesia and Thailand fared slightly better in testing, but even they should not be relied upon as a Vitamin B12 source, which I will elaborate on soon.

Seaweed - a type of algae suspected to carry Vitamin B12 - has been shown to have a marginal Vitamin B12 content, the only exception being dulse seaweed, which is a red algae seaweed that grows along the shorelines of the North Atlantic and Northwest Pacific. However, even dulse seaweed should not be relied upon as a source of Vitamin B12, similar to tempeh and chlorella, because the Vitamin B12 within has not been demonstrated to display sufficient activity. You can consume all of the Vitamin B12 you want, but the amount is of little importance next to the activity. To test whether a source of Vitamin B12 should be relied upon or not, tests involving methylmalonic acid are conducted. Because the reduction of methylmalonic acid in the bloodstream relies strictly upon the activity of Vitamin B12, MMA levels in the bloodstream are measured before and after Vitamin B12 consumption to see whether or not the Vitamin B12 source is useful. Plant products such as tempeh, seaweed, and chlorella have not been demonstrated to supply active Vitamin B12 in sufficient amounts, which is why animal products or supplements must be relied upon.

The Vitamin B12 supplements you use do not contain the chemicals displaying B12 activity naturally biosynthesized by various bacteria. Vitamin B12 supplements largely offer cyanocobalamin, a synthesized chemical with B12 activity which does not occur naturally. In the body, cyanocobalamin is converted into methylcobalamin and adenosylcobalamin, and leaves behind small traces of toxic cyanide. Vitamin B12 from animal sources are naturally biosynthesized by various bacteria and pose no potential health hazards.

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.

Easy in industrialized nations in 2009, impossible worldwide not very many decades ago. Regardless of era and region, there are many nutritional needs which can be met with more ease and convenience through consumption of animal products, and some nutritional needs must be met through consumption of animal products.

 

[Nasor]

I realize that plant products, taken in careful variety, can accommodate for the absence of meat products (and in some cases, animal products) in one's diet in terms of proper amino acid intake. As such, I wrote:

"Most sources of nutrition can be found in plant products, but not with the ease and convenience in which they are found in animal products."

You are still perpetuating the bullshit myth that plants must be "taken in careful variety" and "not with the ease and convenience in which they are found in animal products." In fact, there are so many plant products that are so high in essential amino acids that no particular thought or planning is necessary. Most vegetarians simply eat whatever they want without putting any thought into what plants contain what amino acids, and virtually all of them get more than enough of all the essential amino acids.

The Vitamin B12 supplements you use do not contain the chemicals displaying B12 activity naturally biosynthesized by various bacteria. Vitamin B12 supplements largely offer cyanocobalamin, a synthesized chemical with B12 activity which does not occur naturally. In the body, cyanocobalamin is converted into methylcobalamin and adenosylcobalamin, and leaves behind small traces of toxic cyanide. Vitamin B12 from animal sources are naturally biosynthesized by various bacteria and pose no potential health hazards.

Again, bullshit. You are trying to make it sound as if commercially-available B12 supplements are scary poisons that aren't as safe or effective as "natural" B12. The risk from the cyanide in B12 supplements is zero, because the dose is far, far below the threshold needed to cause toxic effects. It has been studied and approved by the FDA as a safe source of B12. You will start to have health problems from B12 overdose long before you started having any effects from the tiny amount of cyanide in cyanocobalamin.

Also, if you're an anti-chemical nut who is afraid of cyanocobalamin despite the vast mountain of evidence that it's safe, you can still get "natural" B12 supplements made from bacteria cultures.

Easy in industrialized nations in 2009, impossible worldwide not very many decades ago.

Fortunately, I'm pretty sure everyone here at sciforums lives in an industrialized nation in 2009.

Regardless of era and region, there are many nutritional needs which can be met with more ease and convenience through consumption of animal products, and some nutritional needs must be met through consumption of animal products.

First off, the OP asked about meat, not "animal products." Second, you have yet to give a singe example of a nutritional need that can't be easily met without animal products.

 

[iceaura]

Sure, it's hypothetically possible that it could happen, but in the real world it's a non-issue.

In the real world, people in the US - especially young women - suffer from low grade dietary deficiencies (iron, calcium, vitamin B, for example) at fairly high rates.

You obviously haven't actually priced them, because the difference is pretty trivial.

And you obviously aren't a single woman with an average job, or raising a child or two.

The fact remains that it is trivially easy to get all the nutrients you need from non-meat sources.

And trivially easy to get the education, etc, necessary to distinguish the various B vitamins, figure out which ones you need bottles of pills for, and adjust your dosage to make up for the shortage of meat in your diet. All these various technical adjustments made possible by our modern industrial food industry - B vitamins, iron, calcium, cholesterol, amino acid balances, even glucosamine and omega 3 stuff and the like, etc etc - all are reasonably possible - but they all have to be made, by those adopting a vegetarian diet.

These days I'm disinclined to even attempt to argue in the accepted fashions.

I was assuming more of an attempt to make sense, in the context of the unfashionable discussion in progress. But carry on.

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.

They are not as consistently vegetarian as you presume, and not nearly as healthy as someone with a choice in the matter would prefer. (I recall the contractors hiring local labor for construction projects in South America discovering that dosing their laborers - average height less than 5' 6" - with iron pills at company expense was well worth it, in physical effort gained.).

First off, the OP asked about meat, not "animal products."

Not that simple. One of the corollary threads here, for example, is about a video of cute baby chickens being shoved alive into industrial grinders, and most of the responses seem to involve vegetarianism. Do we agree that such scenes - which are consequences of "animal products" (in this case, eggs) - have no bearing on vegetarian diet as a choice?

 

[Nasor]

In the real world, people in the US - especially young women - suffer from low grade dietary deficiencies (iron, calcium, vitamin B, for example) at fairly high rates.

I was talking specifically about getting enough of all the essential amino acids. Although looking back, I see that you appeared to be talking about all nutrients (not just amino acids), so I have to agree with you. But I doubt that the average meat-eating American is any less deficient than the average vegetarian. I have seen studies showing that vegetarians are on average less overall deficient in nutrients than meat-eaters. I don't have them handy, but I can probably dig them up if you want.

And you obviously aren't a single woman with an average job, or raising a child or two.

Please. I doubt that paying the extra $1.50 for a dozen eggs is going to push your hypothetical single mother into bankruptcy.

 

[iceaura]

But I doubt that the average meat-eating American is any less deficient than the average vegetarian. I have seen studies showing that vegetarians are on average less overall deficient in nutrients than meat-eaters. I don't have them handy, but I can probably dig them up if you want.

I agree that seems likely, except possibly for iron - anemia seems to be unusually prevalent in the local food-coop crowd - and maybe some kind of trace immune system regulator.

But the vegetarians I know pay a lot more attention to diet in general, and know better, and manage their lives better. "Meat eaters" includes the fast food addicts, the institutionalized, the alcoholic and meth addicted and the like in general. A comparison among similarly well-educated and attentive and disciplined people would throw up somewhat different stats, I suspect.

Please. I doubt that paying the extra $1.50 for a dozen eggs is going to push your hypothetical single mother into bankruptcy.

An extra thousand or two a year for food would be a hardship - is a hardship - for many. And it can easily amount to that.

There is nothing hypothetical about mothers, or children, in discussions of human nutrition. Within reason, they should be the standard human under discussion - the type.

 

[Nasor]

An extra thousand or two a year for food would be a hardship - is a hardship - for many. And it can easily amount to that.

$1000 would be the price difference for something like ten thousand free-range eggs rather than cheap eggs. That single mother and her family must be eating an astonishing number of eggs indeed.

There is nothing hypothetical about mothers, or children, in discussions of human nutrition. Within reason, they should be the standard human under discussion - the type.

Except that most of us aren't poor single mothers. Look, if you really are a poor single mother who is going to be crushed by paying $2.75 for a dozen eggs instead of $1.50, okay, I guess I don't blame you. Just like I don't blame some poor Congoese tribesman living in a grass hut for not having access to multivitamin supplements. But those people's situations aren't applicable to the vast majority of us.

Similarly, I don't see why people keep making such a big deal out of the fact that vitamin supplements are a recent invention, or a product or industrial society. Don't we all live in the 21st century? Doesn't everyone posting here live in an industrial society? What is is point of quibbling over what types of food and supplements were available 50 years ago? If industrial society collapses next week, then I guess we'll have to reevaluate the question of whether or not it's possible to get all your required nutrients from non-meat sources. Unless and until that happens, the answer is an obvious "yes".

 

[PsychoTropicPuppy]

What about the Shaolin monks? They follow the Buddhist principles which excludes eating meat. They don't seem to suffer from any particular health issues that would stem from their vegetarian diet. At least..it doesn't seem like it's hindering them at partaking in martial arts.

"The Shaolin vegetarian diet includes grains and vegetables without spices. We eat fruits but nothing too spicy. No ginger or garlic. Monks do not eat anything from animals, garlic, ginger, or onions - nothing spicy or odiferous. We don't eat eggs but can use milk."

Pretty much a macrobiotic diet, hm?

________

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=589

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

So, do we actually need to eat other animals to stay healthy? I'm sure I am not the only one who doesn't.

It's quite possible in the 21st century to eat a meatless diet and be perfectly healthy physically. If you're an ovo-lacto-vegetarian you're getting your essential amino acids (and I assume your B12) from your eggs and dairy products. So you just need to make sure you get adequate quantities of the other vitamins and minerals. If you're a vegan it's much harder but lots of people do it.

As for emotional health, that's an individual question. I'd go nuts if I had to go very long without meat, although not as quickly as if I had to go without chocolate--which is a vegetable.

Not so sure whats so high tech about being vegetarian

Historically of course, getting nutrition from vegetable sources required the invention of one of our key technologies: cooking. Our ancient ancestors had to be carnivores because they didn't have the ability to digest nutrients locked in uncooked cellulose.

Welcome to the 21st century, mate! There are, in fact, some more recent texts--and updated and all with actual facts and shit, like--than Laurel's Kitchen and all that 70's hippy shit that went on--with good intentions and all--about "complete proteins" and whatnot.

Tell me more. I still remember Diet for a Small Planet. Are you saying that the bit about the "nine essential amino acids" has been revised? That vegans don't have to carefully balance the protein from grains and legumes against the protein from nuts and seeds in order to stay healthy?

For just eggs--if you eat 2 a day--about $1.75/week. And who eats 2 fucking eggs a day?

I eat two eggs every day. I wish they came in packs of fourteen instead of a dozen.

 

[parmalee]

Tell me more. I still remember Diet for a Small Planet. Are you saying that the bit about the "nine essential amino acids" has been revised? That vegans don't have to carefully balance the protein from grains and legumes against the protein from nuts and seeds in order to stay healthy?

Rather, the notion that one must combine these proteins in a single meal, or even over the course of a single day, has been revised. That was the model proposed in Diet for a Small Planet and countless subsequent nutrition texts. I'll try to locate some specific sources, but that wiki link (on protein combining) mentioned earlier contains some links.

And keep in mind, the OP pertains to a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet, rather than vegan.

I eat two eggs every day. I wish they came in packs of fourteen instead of a dozen.

You could implement a one-day-egg-fast into your diet; alternately, you could arrange your life around a six day week.


Edit: Here's one, from the original proponent (Frances Moore Lappe) of the idea herself:

In 1971 I stressed protein complementarity because I assumed that the only way to get enough protein ... was to create a protein as usable by the body as animal protein. In combating the myth that meat is the only way to get high-quality protein, I reinforced another myth. I gave the impression that in order to get enough protein without meat, considerable care was needed in choosing foods. Actually, it is much easier than I thought.

With three important exceptions, there is little danger of protein deficiency in a plant food diet. The exceptions are diets very heavily dependent on [1] fruit or on [2] some tubers, such as sweet potatoes or cassava, or on [3] junk food (refined flours, sugars, and fat). Fortunately, relatively few people in the world try to survive on diets in which these foods are virtually the sole source of calories. In all other diets, if people are getting enough calories, they are virtually certain of getting enough protein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_combining
Diet for a Small Planet, 1981, p.162 (revised edition)

 

[Slysoon]

Nasor

You would be foolish to think cyanocobalamin was as healthy as naturally biosynthesized B12 vitamins, and as well-received by the liver. Besides, the primary purpose behind consuming dietary supplements is to supplement your body with the nutrients it is either lacking completely or lacking in sufficient amounts due to insufficient dietary consumption. Taking supplements - in this case, supplements for a near total vitamin B12 deficiency - is foolish when naturally biosynthesized sources in the form of a food source, as opposed to chemically synthesized sources in the form of a pill, are readily available.

Beyond B12 vitamins, there are plenty of other nutrients, such as proteins, iron, and cholesterol - to name but a few examples - which can be consumed through animal products (and especially meats) with much greater ease than in plant products. To offer one simple example, we all know proteins are found in both animal and plant products; however, the properties of the proteins found within the two sources differ. The quality of proteins, and their digestibility, are superior in animal products in comparison to plant products, as ranked by the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS).

You frequently mention that nutrients of all kinds - including B12 vitamins, proteins, iron, and cholesterol - can be easily consumed through vegetarian and vegan diets in industrialized nations. Biologically, my counterargument is simple: it is easier to consume nutrients of all kinds - including B12 vitamins, proteins, iron, and cholesterol - when meats and other animal products are included in one's diet. Judging by your persistence, I can only assume that you are not interested in a biological explanation, but instead wish to argue the morality behind eating meats (and perhaps animal products altogether). Sadly, I do not care for the morality behind this subject, and refuse to argue it. It is wholly unscientific and inappropriate considering the setting. As a compromise, I will debate you on whether humans are naturally omnivores or not, if you wish.

 

[S.A.M.]

I hear about how humans are naturally omnivores, but does this mean merely that we can survive on meat if we have to or that we actually need it for health?

I have been a vegetarian since I was old enough to talk (yes, literally. I threw a tantrum if asked to eat fish...). I am over average height for a female, and no health problems other than a mild head rush from standing.

So, do we actually need to eat other animals to stay healthy? I'm sure I am not the only one who doesn't.

I was asked to contribute in this thread but really the OP says it all. If you're still alive and healthy after a decade or more of going vegetarian then clearly you don't need to eat meat to be healthy

 

[dixonmassey]

Somehow I greatly doubt that Frankenstein meat products so popular these days contain much of B-12 or any other vitamin for that matter. Today meat byproducts are so processed they don't taste at all (McD patties are totally tasteless without chemical flavoring, salt, pepper, etc.). If taste is lost, vitamins 100s times lost.

In (formerly) Industrialized nations industrially raised meat - food of the poor. I can't imagine an average American Family who can afford well balanced, fresh, diverse vegetarian diet. It's too expensive, it takes dedication and sacrifice. If we'll start talking organic it's prohibitively expensive. Neither I can imagine a feedlot executive having beef stake which was roaming pugnacious wasteland of the feedlot just yesterday.

In the developing nations meat - status symbol people crave regardless of B-12 and iron

 

[Nasor]

Nasor

You would be foolish to think cyanocobalamin was as healthy as naturally biosynthesized B12 vitamins, and as well-received by the liver.

This is the part where you provide references for peer-reviewed scientific studies showing that it is less healthy to take cyanocobalamin supplement than "natural" B12. Go ahead, we'll wait.

Besides, the primary purpose behind consuming dietary supplements is to supplement your body with the nutrients it is either lacking completely or lacking in sufficient amounts due to insufficient dietary consumption. Taking supplements - in this case, supplements for a near total vitamin B12 deficiency - is foolish when naturally biosynthesized sources in the form of a food source, as opposed to chemically synthesized sources in the form of a pill, are readily available.

Only if you have some coherent reason to believe that getting the B12 from meat is more healthy than getting it from a supplement. Despite your claims that you want to have a biological discussion, you appear to be making a vague philosophical argument here about what is "natural" being "better".

Beyond B12 vitamins, there are plenty of other nutrients, such as proteins, iron, and cholesterol - to name but a few examples - which can be consumed through animal products (and especially meats) with much greater ease than in plant products. To offer one simple example, we all know proteins are found in both animal and plant products; however, the properties of the proteins found within the two sources differ. The quality of proteins, and their digestibility, are superior in animal products in comparison to plant products, as ranked by the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS).

Beef ranks 0.92 on PDCAAS while soy is 0.91. Pardon me if I fail to see the drastic advantage of eating meat. Also, you again seem to be conflating "meat" with "animal products."

 

[Orleander]

For me to be mentally healthy, I need to eat meat. No ham or turkey on holidays??!!....I'd cry myself into a coma.

 

[iceaura]

Except that most of us aren't poor single mothers.

Most of us aren't any one given kind of person.

I think the type human that should be central to discussions of human dietary health is the reproductive woman - menstruating, pregnant, lactating, feeding a couple of children economically, etc.

- - - I am over average height for a female, and no health problems other than a mild head rush from standing.

So, do we actually need to eat other animals to stay healthy? I'm sure I am not the only one who doesn't.
”
I was asked to contribute in this thread but really the OP says it all. If you're still alive and healthy after a decade or more of going vegetarian then clearly you don't need to eat meat to be healthy

In my experience, a vegetarian's personal assessment of health frequently conflicts with my impression of their health. To mention one extreme: I met a woman who had a vegetarian Great Dane she insisted was perfectly healthy - the Humane Society eventually stepped in, and the pathetic animal enjoyed a happier second half of its life. She was also healthy, by her own account - but frail, easily tired, and eventually (currently) suffering from early onset osteoporosis.

If she had become pregnant, some serious ethical issues would have arisen, IMHO.

The big benefit of vegetarian dining for me is the cleanliness of the kitchen - the ease of washing up.

 

[visceral_instinct]

For me to be mentally healthy, I need to eat meat. No ham or turkey on holidays??!!....I'd cry myself into a coma.

For me to be mentally healthy, I need to eat children. No babies for dinner? I'd cry myself into a coma.

(Please do not take that literally, I am just making a point...)

 

[iceaura]

(Please do not take that literally, I am just making a point...)

Keep in mind that there is no moral superiority to vegetarian diets - they are fully as destructive of environments, cruel to the living beings of the planet, etc.

The spread of industrial plant agriculture, the banishment of mixed farming to the margins and the installment of row crop monoculture with fossil fuel based fertilizer at the center of our food supply, is the plague of our times, not the eating of meat. The plow has done far more harm than the sword, to the ecosystems of the world.

 

[visceral_instinct]

In my experience, a vegetarian's personal assessment of health frequently conflicts with my impression of their health...She was also healthy, by her own account - but frail, easily tired, and eventually (currently) suffering from early onset osteoporosis.

You're talking about exactly that, an extreme.

I'm not frail or easily tired, and seeing as I've subjected my body to fairly vicious impacts and not had fractures, I'ma gonna tentatively diagnose myself as not having osteoporosis.