Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Vegetarianism Is Irrelevent ?

inferno
Posts: 10,565
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 12:17:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Vegetarians actually do not live longer than the average person. It is nothing significant about the diets that they choose to follow. Meats have been a part of the human diet for centuries way before this veggie thing took place.
Both vegetarians and non vegetarians have disadvatages. Vegetarian diets tend to be rich in antixodidants, some vitamins, and healthy fats. Non vegetarian diets by contrast, tend to contain more protein, zinc, iron, calcium, and vitamin B-12.
Those are things that the vegetarians lack. This can cause them to have less muscle mass, thinner hair, and dry skin. Meats are healthy if it is in the natural, as are most foods. I think this vegetarian thing is overrated and totally irrelevent.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 5:28:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 12:17:09 PM, inferno wrote:
Vegetarians actually do not live longer than the average person.

Can you back that up with a citation. Major studies have found the opposite to be true:

http://www.ajcn.org...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.llu.edu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

It is nothing significant about the diets that they choose to follow. Meats have been a part of the human diet for centuries way before this veggie thing took place.

Centuries? It's probably more than that but what is the relevance.

Both vegetarians and non vegetarians have disadvatages. Vegetarian diets tend to be rich in antixodidants, some vitamins, and healthy fats. Non vegetarian diets by contrast, tend to contain more protein, zinc, iron, calcium, and vitamin B-12.
Those are things that the vegetarians lack. This can cause them to have less muscle mass, thinner hair, and dry skin. Meats are healthy if it is in the natural, as are most foods.

This is just ratiocination. Is there any evidence that you can point to to back up these claims. If there isn't then it isn't justifiable to accept these claims.
I think this vegetarian thing is overrated and totally irrelevent.

The increase in longevity is not irrelevent to people who want to live longer and who want to live lives which are disease-free as much as possible.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 3:06:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I debated this with vbaculum http://www.debate.org...

The references are cited in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org... A metastudy combines data from a number of studies. "The metastudy reported mortality ratios, where lower numbers indicated fewer deaths, for fish eaters to be 0.82, vegetarians to be 0.84, occasional meat eaters to be 0.84. Regular meat eaters and vegans shared the highest mortality ratio of 1.00. The study reported the numbers of deaths in each category, and expected error ranges for each ratio, and adjustments made to the data. However, the "lower mortality was due largely to the relatively low prevalence of smoking in these [vegetarian] cohorts."

Non-strict vegetarians (who eat fish or dairy or a little meat) are better off than indiscriminant meat eaters. Vegans, however, are no better off than burger chompers. It's certainly possible to get all the nutrients required from a strict vegetarian diet, but doing so takes a great deal of care. I think it requires keeping a spreadsheet to track nutrients. Apparently most vegans don't take the care required.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 5:59:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 3:06:00 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I debated this with vbaculum http://www.debate.org...

The references are cited in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org... A metastudy combines data from a number of studies. "The metastudy reported mortality ratios, where lower numbers indicated fewer deaths, for fish eaters to be 0.82, vegetarians to be 0.84, occasional meat eaters to be 0.84. Regular meat eaters and vegans shared the highest mortality ratio of 1.00. The study reported the numbers of deaths in each category, and expected error ranges for each ratio, and adjustments made to the data. However, the "lower mortality was due largely to the relatively low prevalence of smoking in these [vegetarian] cohorts."

Non-strict vegetarians (who eat fish or dairy or a little meat) are better off than indiscriminant meat eaters.

Just to clarify, lacto-ovo vegetarians live longer than standard meat eaters and lacto-ovo-pesca vegetariarians live the longest. It should be noted - and Roy will back me up on this - that most vegetarians and vegans refrain from eating meat on moral grounds and furthermore, most are not educated in nutrition. So, when it is pointed out that vegans have the longevity of standard meat eaters, it must be kept in mind that the studys that indicate this used a pool of subjects who are ill-informed on preparing proper vegan diets (Roy points this out later in this post). As vegans become more sophisticated about diet and as companies start manufacturing foods that are fortified for the needs of vegans, instead of for the needs of meat eaters, we should expect to see greater longevity in vegans compared with meat eaters. In health food stores, you are now seeing nutrition lables that are targeted to vegan nutrient needs (specifically B-12 and Omega-3).

Vegans, however, are no better off than burger chompers. It's certainly possible to get all the nutrients required from a strict vegetarian diet, but doing so takes a great deal of care. I think it requires keeping a spreadsheet to track nutrients.

Roy likes to argue that vegans have to carry around spreadsheets with them everywhere and that vegan diets are so difficult to develop and adhere to that they are beyond the average person. As a vegan, I always get a chuckle out of this because I eat very healthy (and very well) and it is not hard. These are just baseless assertions that can't be substatiated by evidence. It's part of carnist mythology; a vast subject indeed.

Apparently most vegans don't take the care required.

This is probably true, but will probably improve in the future, as I explained above. The important thing is that if you adopt a vegan diet, and do it right (which is very easy), then you will lower your cholesterol (vegan diets contain no LDL), eliminate many carinogens from your diet (meat consumption is linked to may forms of cancer), and lose on average about 5-30 pounds, thus reducing your risk of obesity and diebetes. You will improve your longevity on a well planned vegan diet.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
lotus_flower
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 7:18:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 12:17:09 PM, inferno wrote:
Vegetarians actually do not live longer than the average person. It is nothing significant about the diets that they choose to follow. Meats have been a part of the human diet for centuries way before this veggie thing took place.

You have obviously not done your research. The earliest records of vegetarianism as a concept and practice amongst a significant number of people concern ancient India, and the ancient Greek civilization in southern Italy and in Greece. In both instances the diet was closely connected with the idea of nonviolence toward animals and was promoted by religious groups and philosophers. As far as us not living longer, that is just bullsh*t. The most impressive data arises from a study of 1904 vegetarians over 21 years by the German Cancer Research Center (Deutsche Krebsforschungszentrum). The study's shocking results: vegetarian men reduced their risk of early death by 50%! Women vegetarians benefit from a 30% reduction in mortality. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Both vegetarians and non vegetarians have disadvatages. Vegetarian diets tend to be rich in antixodidants, some vitamins, and healthy fats. Non vegetarian diets by contrast, tend to contain more protein, zinc, iron, calcium, and vitamin B-12.
Those are things that the vegetarians lack. This can cause them to have less muscle mass, thinner hair, and dry skin. Meats are healthy if it is in the natural, as are most foods. I think this vegetarian thing is overrated and totally irrelevent.

There is no basis for your beliefs. http://2.bp.blogspot.com...
"Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it."
- Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
*******************************************************
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 1:19:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 12:17:09 PM, inferno wrote:
Vegetarians actually do not live longer than the average person. It is nothing significant about the diets that they choose to follow. Meats have been a part of the human diet for centuries way before this veggie thing took place.
Both vegetarians and non vegetarians have disadvatages. Vegetarian diets tend to be rich in antixodidants, some vitamins, and healthy fats. Non vegetarian diets by contrast, tend to contain more protein, zinc, iron, calcium, and vitamin B-12.
Those are things that the vegetarians lack. This can cause them to have less muscle mass, thinner hair, and dry skin. Meats are healthy if it is in the natural, as are most foods. I think this vegetarian thing is overrated and totally irrelevent.

I doubt all of this is entirely true, but for me to get all the nutrients I need I do need to follow an omnivourous diet. Just one of the many downfalls of being an extremely fussy eater. :/
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 1:32:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 1:19:53 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/15/2011 12:17:09 PM, inferno wrote:
Vegetarians actually do not live longer than the average person. It is nothing significant about the diets that they choose to follow. Meats have been a part of the human diet for centuries way before this veggie thing took place.
Both vegetarians and non vegetarians have disadvatages. Vegetarian diets tend to be rich in antixodidants, some vitamins, and healthy fats. Non vegetarian diets by contrast, tend to contain more protein, zinc, iron, calcium, and vitamin B-12.
Those are things that the vegetarians lack. This can cause them to have less muscle mass, thinner hair, and dry skin. Meats are healthy if it is in the natural, as are most foods. I think this vegetarian thing is overrated and totally irrelevent.

I doubt all of this is entirely true, but for me to get all the nutrients I need I do need to follow an omnivourous diet. Just one of the many downfalls of being an extremely fussy eater. :/

Can you give us an example. What animal product do you rely upon for a nutrient which you wouldn't want to get from a plant source. What is the nutrient.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 2:04:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 3:06:00 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I debated this with vbaculum http://www.debate.org...

The references are cited in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org... A metastudy combines data from a number of studies. "The metastudy reported mortality ratios, where lower numbers indicated fewer deaths, for fish eaters to be 0.82, vegetarians to be 0.84, occasional meat eaters to be 0.84. Regular meat eaters and vegans shared the highest mortality ratio of 1.00. The study reported the numbers of deaths in each category, and expected error ranges for each ratio, and adjustments made to the data. However, the "lower mortality was due largely to the relatively low prevalence of smoking in these [vegetarian] cohorts."

Non-strict vegetarians (who eat fish or dairy or a little meat) are better off than indiscriminant meat eaters. Vegans, however, are no better off than burger chompers. It's certainly possible to get all the nutrients required from a strict vegetarian diet, but doing so takes a great deal of care. I think it requires keeping a spreadsheet to track nutrients. Apparently most vegans don't take the care required.

Boo-yea, I'm the healthiest of them all motherf8cker.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 1:20:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 5:59:06 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Roy likes to argue that vegans have to carry around spreadsheets with them everywhere and that vegan diets are so difficult to develop and adhere to that they are beyond the average person. As a vegan, I always get a chuckle out of this because I eat very healthy (and very well) and it is not hard. These are just baseless assertions that can't be substatiated by evidence. It's part of carnist mythology; a vast subject indeed.


My evidence is that in fact the average vegan is not eating a diet any healthier than the burger chomper. If it were easy or natural, that would not be the case. It's quite possible it will improve in the future. There are precedents with vitamin D being added to milk and iodine to salt to benefit traditional diets. People couldn't tell on their own if they were getting enough vitamin D or iodine. So it's possible that vegan foods can be developed that will not require spreadsheets.

However, I don't believe that a present day vegan can know whether he is getting enough nutrients in all the categories without a spreadsheet. How could he possibly know he was getting enough iron or B-12 or even protein? One way is to keep a spreadsheet for a while and adjust supplements accordingly, then stick to that diet plan thereafter. I know of a vegan family that mainly eats bread. They are eventually going to succumb to something strange.

It's true a vegan diet can be perfectly health. Obviously it's a lot easier to have a healthy low meat diet, because the data shows it is. The aren't too many people on high meat diets, but studies of Eskimos shows that can be healthy too. The way the Eskimos survive without spreadsheets is that the body produces natural cravings for nutrients in odd organ meats and the vegetable matter in the intestinal tracks of animals. Doesn't sound like a lot of fun, but it works. That method doesn't work for vegans, because anything desired that's not vegetable is forbidden. No Cheese Whiz, no matter what.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 5:04:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 1:20:47 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/16/2011 5:59:06 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Roy likes to argue that vegans have to carry around spreadsheets with them everywhere and that vegan diets are so difficult to develop and adhere to that they are beyond the average person. As a vegan, I always get a chuckle out of this because I eat very healthy (and very well) and it is not hard. These are just baseless assertions that can't be substatiated by evidence. It's part of carnist mythology; a vast subject indeed.


My evidence is that in fact the average vegan is not eating a diet any healthier than the burger chomper. If it were easy or natural, that would not be the case. It's quite possible it will improve in the future. There are precedents with vitamin D being added to milk and iodine to salt to benefit traditional diets. People couldn't tell on their own if they were getting enough vitamin D or iodine. So it's possible that vegan foods can be developed that will not require spreadsheets.

I mentioned that these already exists (while contending that spreadsheets have always been irrelevent to vegans).


However, I don't believe that a present day vegan can know whether he is getting enough nutrients in all the categories without a spreadsheet. How could he possibly know he was getting enough iron or B-12 or even protein? One way is to keep a spreadsheet for a while and adjust supplements accordingly, then stick to that diet plan thereafter. I know of a vegan family that mainly eats bread. They are eventually going to succumb to something strange.

There's a difference between a vegan diet and a bad diet. You could eat a peanut a day and call it a vegan diet, but something like that should really be called a starvation diet.


It's true a vegan diet can be perfectly health. Obviously it's a lot easier to have a healthy low meat diet, because the data shows it is.:

I don't know of any study that measure ease with regard to health.

The aren't too many people on high meat diets, but studies of Eskimos shows that can be healthy too. The way the Eskimos survive without spreadsheets is that the body produces natural cravings for nutrients in odd organ meats and the vegetable matter in the intestinal tracks of animals. Doesn't sound like a lot of fun, but it works. That method doesn't work for vegans, because anything desired that's not vegetable is forbidden. No Cheese Whiz, no matter what.

So we agree that the evidence indicates that vegans and meat-eaters share roughly the same lifespans. So why would you say vegans need spreadsheets and meat eater don't. It would be easier to argue the opposite.

As noted in our debate, the WCRF and the AICR tell us that exceeding 18oz of red meat a day will lead to high rates of cancer.

The leading cause of premature deaths in Western countries is heart disease. High cholesterol is obviously a major risk factor in causing this ailment.

*Meat-eaters* ought to bring scales around with them and a laptop to database their meat intake to ensure they don't exceed the recommended 18oz limit. Without sophisticated nutrient management software, how is a meat-eater to know how much cholesterol they've consumed on any given day. If they don't want to fall victim to heart disease, shouldn't the meat-eater have software to instruct them when they've had too much cholesterol - so they can stay in some sort of "safe range" of LDL intake. And let's not forget the added calories from fat (saturated and otherwise) that meat-eater on average consume. Meat-eaters will need statistical analysis software to calculate the safe ranges of these substances as well to guard against obesity and diabetes.

Unlike iron and protein deficiencies that carnists say vegans are vulnerable to, heart disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes are major health concerns that kill millions of people a year. They are definitely linked to meat consumption.

There isn't evidence that suggests vegans suffer from the deficiencies that you describe. However, the worst thing that could happen to someone diagnosed with an iron or protein deficiency is a prescription for more lentils. The problems meat consumption causes are considerably more significant.

There are 2 nutrients that vegans need to be concerned about: B-12 and omega-3. If you ensure that one of your staple has B-12 and make sure you have a good source of omega-3 in your diet (flaxseed oil and walnuts are the best sources) you've done half the work toward becoming a healthy vegan. A good selection of vegetable (beans, grains, fruits, nuts) will take care of the rest. Veganism is very easy and very healthy.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
inferno
Posts: 10,565
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 11:49:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 1:20:47 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/16/2011 5:59:06 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Roy likes to argue that vegans have to carry around spreadsheets with them everywhere and that vegan diets are so difficult to develop and adhere to that they are beyond the average person. As a vegan, I always get a chuckle out of this because I eat very healthy (and very well) and it is not hard. These are just baseless assertions that can't be substatiated by evidence. It's part of carnist mythology; a vast subject indeed.


My evidence is that in fact the average vegan is not eating a diet any healthier than the burger chomper. If it were easy or natural, that would not be the case. It's quite possible it will improve in the future. There are precedents with vitamin D being added to milk and iodine to salt to benefit traditional diets. People couldn't tell on their own if they were getting enough vitamin D or iodine. So it's possible that vegan foods can be developed that will not require spreadsheets.

However, I don't believe that a present day vegan can know whether he is getting enough nutrients in all the categories without a spreadsheet. How could he possibly know he was getting enough iron or B-12 or even protein? One way is to keep a spreadsheet for a while and adjust supplements accordingly, then stick to that diet plan thereafter. I know of a vegan family that mainly eats bread. They are eventually going to succumb to something strange.

It's true a vegan diet can be perfectly health. Obviously it's a lot easier to have a healthy low meat diet, because the data shows it is. The aren't too many people on high meat diets, but studies of Eskimos shows that can be healthy too. The way the Eskimos survive without spreadsheets is that the body produces natural cravings for nutrients in odd organ meats and the vegetable matter in the intestinal tracks of animals. Doesn't sound like a lot of fun, but it works. That method doesn't work for vegans, because anything desired that's not vegetable is forbidden. No Cheese Whiz, no matter what.

I agree. Those who are vegetarians do not live a noticeably longer life.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2011 12:32:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 5:04:50 PM, vbaculum wrote:
There isn't evidence that suggests vegans suffer from the deficiencies that you describe. However, the worst thing that could happen to someone diagnosed with an iron or protein deficiency is a prescription for more lentils. The problems meat consumption causes are considerably more significant.

The data shows that vegans live no longer than promiscuous meat eaters. What reason can there be other than something wrong with their diet?

It's not true that deficiencies all have simple cures. Anemia from lack of iron has to be diagnosed by a doctor. Calcium deficiency leads to the problems of lower bone density. There's a long list.

Tell me, how would you know if you were running a calcium deficiency?

Omnivores generally don't need spread sheets because natural cravings lead to eating a reasonably balanced diets. That was the discovery of how it's possible for Eskimos to survive past the age of 22. If, for example, their principles forbid eating organ meats, they'd have serious deficiencies.

It's fair to note that omnivores suffer from over eating. That's because the food tastes good. The cure to that is also a spreadsheet, counting calories


A good selection of vegetable (beans, grains, fruits, nuts) will take care of the rest. Veganism is very easy and very healthy.

Seems short of iron and calcium.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2011 11:49:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/22/2011 12:32:30 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/18/2011 5:04:50 PM, vbaculum wrote:
There isn't evidence that suggests vegans suffer from the deficiencies that you describe. However, the worst thing that could happen to someone diagnosed with an iron or protein deficiency is a prescription for more lentils. The problems meat consumption causes are considerably more significant.

The data shows that vegans live no longer than promiscuous meat eaters. What reason can there be other than something wrong with their diet?

The data we have on vegan longevity is based in a time when veganism was even more in its infancy than it is now. The fact that pesca-vegetarians live the longest of all the other groups suggests that omega-3 is really the key. Like I said in my last post, a vegan diet - with a good source of omega-3 (and B12) - is ideal. My conjecture is that in the past, vegans have not had the support (in terms of education, restaurant availability and food fortification) for obtaining these nutrients. If these nutrients are in a vegan diet - which is easy to accomplish - then vegans should be able to surpase pesca-vegetarians in longevity since the would consume less LDL and toxins like mercury.

It's not true that deficiencies all have simple cures. Anemia from lack of iron has to be diagnosed by a doctor. Calcium deficiency leads to the problems of lower bone density. There's a long list.

You still haven't shown any data indicating vegans have these deficiencies.


Tell me, how would you know if you were running a calcium deficiency?

What do you mean? I suppose by going to the doctor. The same way one would determine if they have high cholestrol. As I hoped to show in my last post, these types of arguments are more effective when used against the meat-eater than the non-meat-eater. Still, where is your evidence that calcium defeciencies are an issue for vegans.


Omnivores generally don't need spread sheets because natural cravings lead to eating a reasonably balanced diets. That was the discovery of how it's possible for Eskimos to survive past the age of 22. If, for example, their principles forbid eating organ meats, they'd have serious deficiencies.

Where is your evidence that vegans don't naturally crave plant-based foods which contain nutrients they need. The foods I'm drawn too happen to be nutrious and it's likely not a coincedence.


It's fair to note that omnivores suffer from over eating. That's because the food tastes good. The cure to that is also a spreadsheet, counting calories

Vegan food is wonderful. Food is wonderful and if you remove the dead animals and puss filled lactations from you meal it still tastes good.

Vegan diets, on average, contain less fat. Fat has 9 calories per gram (protein and carbs have 4). Meat has more calories. Thats why meat eaters are vulnerable to obesity diebetes and the science bares this out.

A good selection of vegetable (beans, grains, fruits, nuts) will take care of the rest. Veganism is very easy and very healthy.

Seems short of iron and calcium.

"Seems" and "is" are the key words here.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 2:16:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 2:04:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/16/2011 3:06:00 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I debated this with vbaculum http://www.debate.org...

The references are cited in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org... A metastudy combines data from a number of studies. "The metastudy reported mortality ratios, where lower numbers indicated fewer deaths, for fish eaters to be 0.82, vegetarians to be 0.84, occasional meat eaters to be 0.84. Regular meat eaters and vegans shared the highest mortality ratio of 1.00. The study reported the numbers of deaths in each category, and expected error ranges for each ratio, and adjustments made to the data. However, the "lower mortality was due largely to the relatively low prevalence of smoking in these [vegetarian] cohorts."

Non-strict vegetarians (who eat fish or dairy or a little meat) are better off than indiscriminant meat eaters. Vegans, however, are no better off than burger chompers. It's certainly possible to get all the nutrients required from a strict vegetarian diet, but doing so takes a great deal of care. I think it requires keeping a spreadsheet to track nutrients. Apparently most vegans don't take the care required.

Boo-yea, I'm the healthiest of them all motherf8cker.

Yay! We have stuffs in common!

I would have stuff to add.. but everything I would have said has been said!!
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
inferno
Posts: 10,565
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 8:53:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/5/2011 2:16:21 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 11/17/2011 2:04:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/16/2011 3:06:00 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I debated this with vbaculum http://www.debate.org...

The references are cited in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org... A metastudy combines data from a number of studies. "The metastudy reported mortality ratios, where lower numbers indicated fewer deaths, for fish eaters to be 0.82, vegetarians to be 0.84, occasional meat eaters to be 0.84. Regular meat eaters and vegans shared the highest mortality ratio of 1.00. The study reported the numbers of deaths in each category, and expected error ranges for each ratio, and adjustments made to the data. However, the "lower mortality was due largely to the relatively low prevalence of smoking in these [vegetarian] cohorts."

Non-strict vegetarians (who eat fish or dairy or a little meat) are better off than indiscriminant meat eaters. Vegans, however, are no better off than burger chompers. It's certainly possible to get all the nutrients required from a strict vegetarian diet, but doing so takes a great deal of care. I think it requires keeping a spreadsheet to track nutrients. Apparently most vegans don't take the care required.

Boo-yea, I'm the healthiest of them all motherf8cker.

Yay! We have stuffs in common!

I would have stuff to add.. but everything I would have said has been said!!

I can live off of fruits and veggies and will probably live just as long as anyone who eats vegetables only. I think this is overrated if you ask me. And many people have gotten sick due to lack of protein and calcium in their diet. Dont forget about the necessary amounts of sugar that we need.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 9:37:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 8:53:26 AM, inferno wrote:
At 12/5/2011 2:16:21 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 11/17/2011 2:04:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/16/2011 3:06:00 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I debated this with vbaculum http://www.debate.org...

The references are cited in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org... A metastudy combines data from a number of studies. "The metastudy reported mortality ratios, where lower numbers indicated fewer deaths, for fish eaters to be 0.82, vegetarians to be 0.84, occasional meat eaters to be 0.84. Regular meat eaters and vegans shared the highest mortality ratio of 1.00. The study reported the numbers of deaths in each category, and expected error ranges for each ratio, and adjustments made to the data. However, the "lower mortality was due largely to the relatively low prevalence of smoking in these [vegetarian] cohorts."

Non-strict vegetarians (who eat fish or dairy or a little meat) are better off than indiscriminant meat eaters. Vegans, however, are no better off than burger chompers. It's certainly possible to get all the nutrients required from a strict vegetarian diet, but doing so takes a great deal of care. I think it requires keeping a spreadsheet to track nutrients. Apparently most vegans don't take the care required.

Boo-yea, I'm the healthiest of them all motherf8cker.

Yay! We have stuffs in common!

I would have stuff to add.. but everything I would have said has been said!!

I can live off of fruits and veggies and will probably live just as long as anyone who eats vegetables only. I think this is overrated if you ask me. And many people have gotten sick due to lack of protein and calcium in their diet.

Again, you're not citing sources. Provide a source that says vegans or vegetarians are likely to get sick from a lack of protein or calcium.

Dont forget about the necessary amounts of sugar that we need.
Not sure what to make of this.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 10:04:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 8:53:26 AM, inferno wrote:
At 12/5/2011 2:16:21 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 11/17/2011 2:04:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/16/2011 3:06:00 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I debated this with vbaculum http://www.debate.org...

The references are cited in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org... A metastudy combines data from a number of studies. "The metastudy reported mortality ratios, where lower numbers indicated fewer deaths, for fish eaters to be 0.82, vegetarians to be 0.84, occasional meat eaters to be 0.84. Regular meat eaters and vegans shared the highest mortality ratio of 1.00. The study reported the numbers of deaths in each category, and expected error ranges for each ratio, and adjustments made to the data. However, the "lower mortality was due largely to the relatively low prevalence of smoking in these [vegetarian] cohorts."

Non-strict vegetarians (who eat fish or dairy or a little meat) are better off than indiscriminant meat eaters. Vegans, however, are no better off than burger chompers. It's certainly possible to get all the nutrients required from a strict vegetarian diet, but doing so takes a great deal of care. I think it requires keeping a spreadsheet to track nutrients. Apparently most vegans don't take the care required.

Boo-yea, I'm the healthiest of them all motherf8cker.

Yay! We have stuffs in common!

I would have stuff to add.. but everything I would have said has been said!!

I can live off of fruits and veggies and will probably live just as long as anyone who eats vegetables only. I think this is overrated if you ask me. And many people have gotten sick due to lack of protein and calcium in their diet. Dont forget about the necessary amounts of sugar that we need.

I've done pretty well myself for the past 8 or 9 years. I'm pretty sure that vegetarians, on average, have a similar life expectancy to non-vegetarians. But vegetarians have lower risk of heart problems like heart disease, high cholesterol, heart attacks, etc. Anyway, whether vegetarians live longer or not is actually the irrelevant thing. There are many other, more important, things at play in the decision to become vegetarian besides whether it will extend one's life by a few years.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
inferno
Posts: 10,565
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 10:33:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 10:04:21 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/13/2011 8:53:26 AM, inferno wrote:
At 12/5/2011 2:16:21 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 11/17/2011 2:04:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/16/2011 3:06:00 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I debated this with vbaculum http://www.debate.org...

The references are cited in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org... A metastudy combines data from a number of studies. "The metastudy reported mortality ratios, where lower numbers indicated fewer deaths, for fish eaters to be 0.82, vegetarians to be 0.84, occasional meat eaters to be 0.84. Regular meat eaters and vegans shared the highest mortality ratio of 1.00. The study reported the numbers of deaths in each category, and expected error ranges for each ratio, and adjustments made to the data. However, the "lower mortality was due largely to the relatively low prevalence of smoking in these [vegetarian] cohorts."

Non-strict vegetarians (who eat fish or dairy or a little meat) are better off than indiscriminant meat eaters. Vegans, however, are no better off than burger chompers. It's certainly possible to get all the nutrients required from a strict vegetarian diet, but doing so takes a great deal of care. I think it requires keeping a spreadsheet to track nutrients. Apparently most vegans don't take the care required.

Boo-yea, I'm the healthiest of them all motherf8cker.

Yay! We have stuffs in common!

I would have stuff to add.. but everything I would have said has been said!!

I can live off of fruits and veggies and will probably live just as long as anyone who eats vegetables only. I think this is overrated if you ask me. And many people have gotten sick due to lack of protein and calcium in their diet. Dont forget about the necessary amounts of sugar that we need.

I've done pretty well myself for the past 8 or 9 years. I'm pretty sure that vegetarians, on average, have a similar life expectancy to non-vegetarians. But vegetarians have lower risk of heart problems like heart disease, high cholesterol, heart attacks, etc. Anyway, whether vegetarians live longer or not is actually the irrelevant thing. There are many other, more important, things at play in the decision to become vegetarian besides whether it will extend one's life by a few years.

And there are also vegetarians who have gotten sick because of their rejections of other forms of carbs, protein, calcium, etc. Vegetarinism is only an option, and to others it is a choice influenced by propaganda. Meat has always been a part of the human diet. Much of the post World War 1 generation is proof of this as they are the generation that have seen the least of these modern day problems such as obesity and heart disease.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 2:26:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 10:33:31 AM, inferno wrote:
At 12/13/2011 10:04:21 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 12/13/2011 8:53:26 AM, inferno wrote:
At 12/5/2011 2:16:21 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 11/17/2011 2:04:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/16/2011 3:06:00 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I debated this with vbaculum http://www.debate.org...

The references are cited in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org... A metastudy combines data from a number of studies. "The metastudy reported mortality ratios, where lower numbers indicated fewer deaths, for fish eaters to be 0.82, vegetarians to be 0.84, occasional meat eaters to be 0.84. Regular meat eaters and vegans shared the highest mortality ratio of 1.00. The study reported the numbers of deaths in each category, and expected error ranges for each ratio, and adjustments made to the data. However, the "lower mortality was due largely to the relatively low prevalence of smoking in these [vegetarian] cohorts."

Non-strict vegetarians (who eat fish or dairy or a little meat) are better off than indiscriminant meat eaters. Vegans, however, are no better off than burger chompers. It's certainly possible to get all the nutrients required from a strict vegetarian diet, but doing so takes a great deal of care. I think it requires keeping a spreadsheet to track nutrients. Apparently most vegans don't take the care required.

Boo-yea, I'm the healthiest of them all motherf8cker.

Yay! We have stuffs in common!

I would have stuff to add.. but everything I would have said has been said!!

I can live off of fruits and veggies and will probably live just as long as anyone who eats vegetables only. I think this is overrated if you ask me. And many people have gotten sick due to lack of protein and calcium in their diet. Dont forget about the necessary amounts of sugar that we need.

I've done pretty well myself for the past 8 or 9 years. I'm pretty sure that vegetarians, on average, have a similar life expectancy to non-vegetarians. But vegetarians have lower risk of heart problems like heart disease, high cholesterol, heart attacks, etc. Anyway, whether vegetarians live longer or not is actually the irrelevant thing. There are many other, more important, things at play in the decision to become vegetarian besides whether it will extend one's life by a few years.

And there are also vegetarians who have gotten sick because of their rejections of other forms of carbs, protein, calcium, etc.
[citation needed]
Vegetarinism is only an option, and to others it is a choice influenced by propaganda. Meat has always been a part of the human diet.

Appeal to nature

Much of the post World War 1 generation is proof of this as they are the generation that have seen the least of these modern day problems such as obesity and heart disease.

I'm certain that this is because this generation consumed less animal producs. See Wikipedia's article on "diseases of affluence" (http://en.wikipedia.org...). According to it, these dietary diseases are caused by "Higher consumption of meat and dairy products".
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 7:38:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here's the thing.

I am personally very carnivorous, but my girlfriend is a vegetarian. That puts me in the same predicament as Jules from Pup Fiction, and there are days that a Big Kahuna Burger sounds fantastic.

Nonetheless, I can honestly say that vegetarian diets are not limited at all.

To put it in perspective, there is enough variety in fruits, vegetables, and grains that it's likely impossible for you to eat one serving of each kind in a single day.

Being a vegetarian makes you ridiculously more healthy. It also appears to make your body more efficient.

However, when I play along for too long, I get really skinny. Really skinny.

Oh, and to correct the OP (just a little more), many significant cultures have been vegetarian. Entire cultures. See: India.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 12:23:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 7:38:26 PM, Ren wrote:
Here's the thing.

I am personally very carnivorous, but my girlfriend is a vegetarian. That puts me in the same predicament as Jules from Pup Fiction, and there are days that a Big Kahuna Burger sounds fantastic.

Nonetheless, I can honestly say that vegetarian diets are not limited at all.

To put it in perspective, there is enough variety in fruits, vegetables, and grains that it's likely impossible for you to eat one serving of each kind in a single day.

Being a vegetarian makes you ridiculously more healthy. It also appears to make your body more efficient.

However, when I play along for too long, I get really skinny. Really skinny.

Poor thing :)

I can go both ways. If I eat indiscriminately, I get up to 220 pounds. I recently dieted and now I'm at 160 - a much healthier weight. It was hard work but I think being vegan made it a lot easier.

When you "play along" (I think that means you refrain from eating meat) are you eating mostly low cal foods. I would think increasing your bread, oils and nut intake would get you back to a correct weight.


Oh, and to correct the OP (just a little more), many significant cultures have been vegetarian. Entire cultures. See: India.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it