vegan diet
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »forwardmoving wrote: »I have never seen a response from vegans regarding this question.
Have you read a lot of vegan literature and websites?
I've read some but not extensively. But why wouldn't this be answered in these forums?
This is a discussion board and have seen this questions asked on many threads with no answer.
I'm not trying to attack veganism. If I was a vegan, I would ask myself the same question.0 -
I have never seen a response from vegans regarding this question.
Generally vegan is about reducing suffering. Is it always the best way in this context, I'd have to say in the big scheme of things, it probably is, if your vegan and playing the ethical card. My opinion differs. There are scenarios where living creatures could be eaten and reduce overall suffering to a larger degree, but vegan morality will never be able to justify that stance.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »I have never seen a response from vegans regarding this question.
Generally vegan is about reducing suffering. Is it always the best way in this context, I'd have to say in the big scheme of things, it probably is, if your vegan and playing the ethical card.
Yeah, that what I have thought that would be the response from vegans. Or that there is some hierarchy i.e
cattle > rodents>insects.
But haven't seen it explained by vegans.
0 -
forwardmoving wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »forwardmoving wrote: »I have never seen a response from vegans regarding this question.
Have you read a lot of vegan literature and websites?
I've read some but not extensively. But why wouldn't this be answered in these forums?
This is a discussion board and have seen this questions asked on many threads with no answer.
I'm not trying to attack veganism. If I was a vegan, I would ask myself the same question.
I asked simply because sometimes when people say "I've never seen a vegan answer that," they mean that they've read a lot and never seen it addressed. Or they just mean that the vegans they've personally encountered didn't answer it. If you said, "Yeah, I've read all these authors and never see it addressed," my answer might be somewhat different than if you simply meant it hadn't been answered in your conversations with vegans.
I don't speak for all vegans, but I can give my answer.
Veganism is avoiding animal exploitation to the extent that is possible and practicable. As we need to eat, competing with animals for resources isn't necessarily ruled out in that formulation, including some animal deaths when we harvest crops. Additionally, much grain harvested is actually fed to animals used in food production. If one is concerned with the deaths of animals during harvesting, reducing consumption of animal products is still a way to address that issue, as it typically takes about 13 pounds of grain to product a pound of meat (so I can reduce the amount of grain needed overall by simply eating it myself).
In ethical issues, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. A world without animal suffering isn't possible. But a world without human suffering isn't possible and we still take steps to reduce our participation in human exploitation. Vegans simply take the logic that most of us apply to our own species and attempt, as far is as possible and practicable, to apply it to our daily consumer/consumption choices.
Different vegans may have a different answer than I do.0 -
And there it is right there, reduce suffering by eating grain where animals are known to be harmed, directly and indirectly. Personally I find this conundrum difficult to suffle aside. Hopefully we all take some responsibility and adopt a lifestyle that supports some degree of reduced suffering for the creatures that are in our care.janejellyroll wrote: »forwardmoving wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »forwardmoving wrote: »I have never seen a response from vegans regarding this question.
Have you read a lot of vegan literature and websites?
I've read some but not extensively. But why wouldn't this be answered in these forums?
This is a discussion board and have seen this questions asked on many threads with no answer.
I'm not trying to attack veganism. If I was a vegan, I would ask myself the same question.
I asked simply because sometimes when people say "I've never seen a vegan answer that," they mean that they've read a lot and never seen it addressed. Or they just mean that the vegans they've personally encountered didn't answer it. If you said, "Yeah, I've read all these authors and never see it addressed," my answer might be somewhat different than if you simply meant it hadn't been answered in your conversations with vegans.
I don't speak for all vegans, but I can give my answer.
Veganism is avoiding animal exploitation to the extent that is possible and practicable. As we need to eat, competing with animals for resources isn't necessarily ruled out in that formulation, including some animal deaths when we harvest crops. Additionally, much grain harvested is actually fed to animals used in food production. If one is concerned with the deaths of animals during harvesting, reducing consumption of animal products is still a way to address that issue, as it typically takes about 13 pounds of grain to product a pound of meat (so I can reduce the amount of grain needed overall by simply eating it myself).
In ethical issues, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. A world without animal suffering isn't possible. But a world without human suffering isn't possible and we still take steps to reduce our participation in human exploitation. Vegans simply take the logic that most of us apply to our own species and attempt, as far is as possible and practicable, to apply it to our daily consumer/consumption choices.
Different vegans may have a different answer than I do.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »Michael Greger M.D.
Dr. Greger is a physician, author, and internationally recognized speaker on nutrition, food safety, and public health issues. A founding member of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Dr. Greger is licensed as a general practitioner specializing in clinical nutrition. Currently he serves as the public health director at the Humane Society of the United States. Dr. Greger is a graduate of the Cornell University School of Agriculture and the Tufts University School of Medicine.
Yeah, no bias there. [/sarcasm]
Heavy on opinion, light on facts. Complete absence of references and peer review. Can you offer anything of value to support your position?
I can't believe that if you actually have several Dr's with the education, degrees, case studies with actual patients and scientific evidence and research it's not compelling enough for you to open your eyes! LOL
People would just rather believe anything that supports their eating habits like following fitness gurus who sell and take drugs and supplements saying how healthy and natural they are.
Where are the studies showing you that including meat and dairy in your diet prevents or reverses heart disease, diabetes, or cancer?
Show me where I said anything about fitness gurus or drugs. Greger is an HSUS hack and an animal rights extremist. Doctors and scientists are guilty of pet theories, bias and data mining all the time; having an advanced degree is not a shield from bias. Appeal to authority is a pretty bad foundation for an argument, in any case, even if referenced and peer-reviewed research makes excellent support for one.
I don't make any magical claims for food. I'll leave that to vegans and other people who need to make such claims to make their diets attractive. I eat all the meat I can afford and consume a lot of dairy because of the milk I get from my goat. I have lost almost 61 pounds in the last year. I have gone from having an average fasting bgl of 131 to an average fasting bgl of 93. Make all the claims you want, but there are plenty of fat vegans out there and I have never met one who looks healthy.
How many vegans have you met? Is it possible that you have met vegans and not known it?
I would guess that most of my co-workers (except for the ones that I socialize with regularly or are on my travel team) have no idea that I'm vegan.
Also, there are many vegans who make no magical claims for food. There absolutely can be fat and unhealthy vegans. There can also be vegans who eat healthfully, just as omnivores can. Avoiding animal products isn't required for health. But consuming animal products isn't required for health either.
We agree on one thing, anyway.
You aren't interested in discussing the rest of my post?
You have some really strong ideas about vegans that seem to be based on personal experience. I'm curious how many vegans you met to form those impressions.
No, I have no desire to derail the thread in an off-topic discussion with you. I've personally met enough vegans and had experience with plenty more to form my opinions. I miss being able to use the block function on MFP, since vegans were the primary recipient of that action.
I apologize. I thought you were open to discussion on the topic of the thread. Avoiding threads about veganism may help until MFP brings back the block feature.
Geez, Jane is one of the most knowledgeable people on this board when it comes to veganism and is always polite. I got your back, Jane!
Cosigned
0 -
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »Michael Greger M.D.
Dr. Greger is a physician, author, and internationally recognized speaker on nutrition, food safety, and public health issues. A founding member of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Dr. Greger is licensed as a general practitioner specializing in clinical nutrition. Currently he serves as the public health director at the Humane Society of the United States. Dr. Greger is a graduate of the Cornell University School of Agriculture and the Tufts University School of Medicine.
Yeah, no bias there. [/sarcasm]
Heavy on opinion, light on facts. Complete absence of references and peer review. Can you offer anything of value to support your position?
I can't believe that if you actually have several Dr's with the education, degrees, case studies with actual patients and scientific evidence and research it's not compelling enough for you to open your eyes! LOL
People would just rather believe anything that supports their eating habits like following fitness gurus who sell and take drugs and supplements saying how healthy and natural they are.
Where are the studies showing you that including meat and dairy in your diet prevents or reverses heart disease, diabetes, or cancer?
Show me where I said anything about fitness gurus or drugs. Greger is an HSUS hack and an animal rights extremist. Doctors and scientists are guilty of pet theories, bias and data mining all the time; having an advanced degree is not a shield from bias. Appeal to authority is a pretty bad foundation for an argument, in any case, even if referenced and peer-reviewed research makes excellent support for one.
I don't make any magical claims for food. I'll leave that to vegans and other people who need to make such claims to make their diets attractive. I eat all the meat I can afford and consume a lot of dairy because of the milk I get from my goat. I have lost almost 61 pounds in the last year. I have gone from having an average fasting bgl of 131 to an average fasting bgl of 93. Make all the claims you want, but there are plenty of fat vegans out there and I have never met one who looks healthy.
How many vegans have you met? Is it possible that you have met vegans and not known it?
I would guess that most of my co-workers (except for the ones that I socialize with regularly or are on my travel team) have no idea that I'm vegan.
Also, there are many vegans who make no magical claims for food. There absolutely can be fat and unhealthy vegans. There can also be vegans who eat healthfully, just as omnivores can. Avoiding animal products isn't required for health. But consuming animal products isn't required for health either.
We agree on one thing, anyway.
You aren't interested in discussing the rest of my post?
You have some really strong ideas about vegans that seem to be based on personal experience. I'm curious how many vegans you met to form those impressions.
No, I have no desire to derail the thread in an off-topic discussion with you. I've personally met enough vegans and had experience with plenty more to form my opinions. I miss being able to use the block function on MFP, since vegans were the primary recipient of that action.
I apologize. I thought you were open to discussion on the topic of the thread. Avoiding threads about veganism may help until MFP brings back the block feature.
Yes, I'm in for the topic of discussion: veganism. No, I am not in for your desired off-topic discussion of my history with vegans or why I feel the way I do about them. I choose not to engage, thanks. However, you've said it yourself: veganism is not a miracle diet. It is, rather, a way of life that turns eating into a moral act. Food is food. Food is fuel. It is no more ethical to eat a plant than it is to eat a rabbit. It is no less ethical to eat a cow than it is to eat a carrot. You can still get fat choosing a vegan lifestyle and you can still have plenty of energy and good health on an omnivorous one.Raw whole food plant based diet is the healthiest in the world. Research proves it. I would suggest you search engine Dr Joel Furhman or others. I agree you can have an unhealthy Vegan diet just like you can eat unhealthy by going CICO.
There is nothing magical about raw food. Raw food is often less healthy for you than cooked food, even raw vegetables. The only special thing about a raw, whole food, plant-based diet is that it adds another level of restriction to add to the satisfaction some people get from being super-special food martyrs.
You know, if someone else isn't foisting their ethics onto you, why are you so fussed about their personal choices?
I'm not a vegan, btw.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
And there it is right there, reduce suffering by eating grain where animals are known to be harmed, directly and indirectly. Personally I find this conundrum difficult to suffle aside. Hopefully we all take some responsibility and adopt a lifestyle that supports some degree of reduced suffering for the creatures that are in our care.janejellyroll wrote: »forwardmoving wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »forwardmoving wrote: »I have never seen a response from vegans regarding this question.
Have you read a lot of vegan literature and websites?
I've read some but not extensively. But why wouldn't this be answered in these forums?
This is a discussion board and have seen this questions asked on many threads with no answer.
I'm not trying to attack veganism. If I was a vegan, I would ask myself the same question.
I asked simply because sometimes when people say "I've never seen a vegan answer that," they mean that they've read a lot and never seen it addressed. Or they just mean that the vegans they've personally encountered didn't answer it. If you said, "Yeah, I've read all these authors and never see it addressed," my answer might be somewhat different than if you simply meant it hadn't been answered in your conversations with vegans.
I don't speak for all vegans, but I can give my answer.
Veganism is avoiding animal exploitation to the extent that is possible and practicable. As we need to eat, competing with animals for resources isn't necessarily ruled out in that formulation, including some animal deaths when we harvest crops. Additionally, much grain harvested is actually fed to animals used in food production. If one is concerned with the deaths of animals during harvesting, reducing consumption of animal products is still a way to address that issue, as it typically takes about 13 pounds of grain to product a pound of meat (so I can reduce the amount of grain needed overall by simply eating it myself).
In ethical issues, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. A world without animal suffering isn't possible. But a world without human suffering isn't possible and we still take steps to reduce our participation in human exploitation. Vegans simply take the logic that most of us apply to our own species and attempt, as far is as possible and practicable, to apply it to our daily consumer/consumption choices.
Different vegans may have a different answer than I do.
Which is why I distinguished between exploitation and suffering in my answer.
Would you have those who are interested in reducing suffering eliminate direct and indirect consumption of grain? That option is available for those who are uncomfortable with the death involved in agriculture.
I am not convinced that competing with other species for resources (including the use of land) is unethical, even if it does result in the unintentional death of animals. But this is my opinion and there is a wide variety of opinions within veganism. Regardless, anyone who does conclude that it is unethical would still have to ensure that the animals they were using for food were pastured and were not raised or finished on grain (which is an option that omnivores can take). But then we have the ethical issue of what happens to those animals (which is addressed in various ways by omnivores).
0 -
Expanding agricultural land around the world for crops and the destruction that ensues is not unintentional, we know exactly what is going to take place, but who know maybe many don't really grasp those ramifications, not to mention the further management of those crops that also ensures no encroachment occurs. Of course reducing human populations would reduce overall suffering, but I don't think mass suicide is in the cards. just kidding.janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
And there it is right there, reduce suffering by eating grain where animals are known to be harmed, directly and indirectly. Personally I find this conundrum difficult to suffle aside. Hopefully we all take some responsibility and adopt a lifestyle that supports some degree of reduced suffering for the creatures that are in our care.janejellyroll wrote: »forwardmoving wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »forwardmoving wrote: »I have never seen a response from vegans regarding this question.
Have you read a lot of vegan literature and websites?
I've read some but not extensively. But why wouldn't this be answered in these forums?
This is a discussion board and have seen this questions asked on many threads with no answer.
I'm not trying to attack veganism. If I was a vegan, I would ask myself the same question.
I asked simply because sometimes when people say "I've never seen a vegan answer that," they mean that they've read a lot and never seen it addressed. Or they just mean that the vegans they've personally encountered didn't answer it. If you said, "Yeah, I've read all these authors and never see it addressed," my answer might be somewhat different than if you simply meant it hadn't been answered in your conversations with vegans.
I don't speak for all vegans, but I can give my answer.
Veganism is avoiding animal exploitation to the extent that is possible and practicable. As we need to eat, competing with animals for resources isn't necessarily ruled out in that formulation, including some animal deaths when we harvest crops. Additionally, much grain harvested is actually fed to animals used in food production. If one is concerned with the deaths of animals during harvesting, reducing consumption of animal products is still a way to address that issue, as it typically takes about 13 pounds of grain to product a pound of meat (so I can reduce the amount of grain needed overall by simply eating it myself).
In ethical issues, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. A world without animal suffering isn't possible. But a world without human suffering isn't possible and we still take steps to reduce our participation in human exploitation. Vegans simply take the logic that most of us apply to our own species and attempt, as far is as possible and practicable, to apply it to our daily consumer/consumption choices.
Different vegans may have a different answer than I do.
Which is why I distinguished between exploitation and suffering in my answer.
Would you have those who are interested in reducing suffering eliminate direct and indirect consumption of grain? That option is available for those who are uncomfortable with the death involved in agriculture.
I am not convinced that competing with other species for resources (including the use of land) is unethical, even if it does result in the unintentional death of animals. But this is my opinion and there is a wide variety of opinions within veganism. Regardless, anyone who does conclude that it is unethical would still have to ensure that the animals they were using for food were pastured and were not raised or finished on grain (which is an option that omnivores can take). But then we have the ethical issue of what happens to those animals (which is addressed in various ways by omnivores).
0 -
. Food is food. Food is fuel. It is no more ethical to eat a plant than it is to eat a rabbit. It is no less ethical to eat a cow than it is to eat a carrot. You can still get fat choosing a vegan lifestyle and you can still have plenty of energy and good health on an omnivorous one.
[/quote]
You can't decide what is ethical for who. Ethical and morals are a VERY personal matter. For me it is 100% more ethical to eat vegan. And it is EXTREMELY unethical to eat a cow. And a huge piece of the world agrees with me and has for thousands of years. I am all for you get your ethics and morals and I get mine. But don't go saying that some how yours are facts. They are not anymore than mine are. They are my beliefs. I respect people's choices I expect the same from others.
I don't think being vegan is some silver bullet to weight loss.
And yes you can get fat as a vegan I have more than once in 25 years.
[/quote]
I think Loup might of meant that seance there both living things to pick one over the other is just as morally wrong if you are going with the moral stand point. I believe there was a study way back that found broccoli has a nervice system. all in all we should treat all living things with respect. Im not trying to start anything so no one yell at me. Or Loup might of meant something entirely different 0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Expanding agricultural land around the world for crops and the destruction that ensues is not unintentional, we know exactly what is going to take place, but who know maybe many don't really grasp those ramifications, not to mention the further management of those crops that also ensures no encroachment occurs. Of course reducing human populations would reduce overall suffering, but I don't think mass suicide is in the cards. just kidding.janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
And there it is right there, reduce suffering by eating grain where animals are known to be harmed, directly and indirectly. Personally I find this conundrum difficult to suffle aside. Hopefully we all take some responsibility and adopt a lifestyle that supports some degree of reduced suffering for the creatures that are in our care.janejellyroll wrote: »forwardmoving wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »forwardmoving wrote: »I have never seen a response from vegans regarding this question.
Have you read a lot of vegan literature and websites?
I've read some but not extensively. But why wouldn't this be answered in these forums?
This is a discussion board and have seen this questions asked on many threads with no answer.
I'm not trying to attack veganism. If I was a vegan, I would ask myself the same question.
I asked simply because sometimes when people say "I've never seen a vegan answer that," they mean that they've read a lot and never seen it addressed. Or they just mean that the vegans they've personally encountered didn't answer it. If you said, "Yeah, I've read all these authors and never see it addressed," my answer might be somewhat different than if you simply meant it hadn't been answered in your conversations with vegans.
I don't speak for all vegans, but I can give my answer.
Veganism is avoiding animal exploitation to the extent that is possible and practicable. As we need to eat, competing with animals for resources isn't necessarily ruled out in that formulation, including some animal deaths when we harvest crops. Additionally, much grain harvested is actually fed to animals used in food production. If one is concerned with the deaths of animals during harvesting, reducing consumption of animal products is still a way to address that issue, as it typically takes about 13 pounds of grain to product a pound of meat (so I can reduce the amount of grain needed overall by simply eating it myself).
In ethical issues, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. A world without animal suffering isn't possible. But a world without human suffering isn't possible and we still take steps to reduce our participation in human exploitation. Vegans simply take the logic that most of us apply to our own species and attempt, as far is as possible and practicable, to apply it to our daily consumer/consumption choices.
Different vegans may have a different answer than I do.
Which is why I distinguished between exploitation and suffering in my answer.
Would you have those who are interested in reducing suffering eliminate direct and indirect consumption of grain? That option is available for those who are uncomfortable with the death involved in agriculture.
I am not convinced that competing with other species for resources (including the use of land) is unethical, even if it does result in the unintentional death of animals. But this is my opinion and there is a wide variety of opinions within veganism. Regardless, anyone who does conclude that it is unethical would still have to ensure that the animals they were using for food were pastured and were not raised or finished on grain (which is an option that omnivores can take). But then we have the ethical issue of what happens to those animals (which is addressed in various ways by omnivores).
I agree that reducing human populations would reduce overall suffering. Unfortunately, it's hard to think of a way to do it and balance individual autonomy.0 -
cacklingcat wrote: »
I think Loup might of meant that seance there both living things to pick one over the other is just as morally wrong if you are going with the moral stand point. I believe there was a study way back that found broccoli has a nervice system. all in all we should treat all living things with respect. Im not trying to start anything so no one yell at me. Or Loup might of meant something entirely different
I am not sure what she meant, but no study has ever located a nervous system in a plant.0 -
LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »Michael Greger M.D.
Dr. Greger is a physician, author, and internationally recognized speaker on nutrition, food safety, and public health issues. A founding member of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Dr. Greger is licensed as a general practitioner specializing in clinical nutrition. Currently he serves as the public health director at the Humane Society of the United States. Dr. Greger is a graduate of the Cornell University School of Agriculture and the Tufts University School of Medicine.
Yeah, no bias there. [/sarcasm]
Heavy on opinion, light on facts. Complete absence of references and peer review. Can you offer anything of value to support your position?
I can't believe that if you actually have several Dr's with the education, degrees, case studies with actual patients and scientific evidence and research it's not compelling enough for you to open your eyes! LOL
People would just rather believe anything that supports their eating habits like following fitness gurus who sell and take drugs and supplements saying how healthy and natural they are.
Where are the studies showing you that including meat and dairy in your diet prevents or reverses heart disease, diabetes, or cancer?
Show me where I said anything about fitness gurus or drugs. Greger is an HSUS hack and an animal rights extremist. Doctors and scientists are guilty of pet theories, bias and data mining all the time; having an advanced degree is not a shield from bias. Appeal to authority is a pretty bad foundation for an argument, in any case, even if referenced and peer-reviewed research makes excellent support for one.
I don't make any magical claims for food. I'll leave that to vegans and other people who need to make such claims to make their diets attractive. I eat all the meat I can afford and consume a lot of dairy because of the milk I get from my goat. I have lost almost 61 pounds in the last year. I have gone from having an average fasting bgl of 131 to an average fasting bgl of 93. Make all the claims you want, but there are plenty of fat vegans out there and I have never met one who looks healthy.
How many vegans have you met? Is it possible that you have met vegans and not known it?
I would guess that most of my co-workers (except for the ones that I socialize with regularly or are on my travel team) have no idea that I'm vegan.
Also, there are many vegans who make no magical claims for food. There absolutely can be fat and unhealthy vegans. There can also be vegans who eat healthfully, just as omnivores can. Avoiding animal products isn't required for health. But consuming animal products isn't required for health either.
We agree on one thing, anyway.
You aren't interested in discussing the rest of my post?
You have some really strong ideas about vegans that seem to be based on personal experience. I'm curious how many vegans you met to form those impressions.
No, I have no desire to derail the thread in an off-topic discussion with you. I've personally met enough vegans and had experience with plenty more to form my opinions. I miss being able to use the block function on MFP, since vegans were the primary recipient of that action.
Um, you read the thread title, right? WhaLoupGarouTFTs wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »LoupGarouTFTs wrote: »Michael Greger M.D.
Dr. Greger is a physician, author, and internationally recognized speaker on nutrition, food safety, and public health issues. A founding member of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Dr. Greger is licensed as a general practitioner specializing in clinical nutrition. Currently he serves as the public health director at the Humane Society of the United States. Dr. Greger is a graduate of the Cornell University School of Agriculture and the Tufts University School of Medicine.
Yeah, no bias there. [/sarcasm]
Heavy on opinion, light on facts. Complete absence of references and peer review. Can you offer anything of value to support your position?
I can't believe that if you actually have several Dr's with the education, degrees, case studies with actual patients and scientific evidence and research it's not compelling enough for you to open your eyes! LOL
People would just rather believe anything that supports their eating habits like following fitness gurus who sell and take drugs and supplements saying how healthy and natural they are.
Where are the studies showing you that including meat and dairy in your diet prevents or reverses heart disease, diabetes, or cancer?
Show me where I said anything about fitness gurus or drugs. Greger is an HSUS hack and an animal rights extremist. Doctors and scientists are guilty of pet theories, bias and data mining all the time; having an advanced degree is not a shield from bias. Appeal to authority is a pretty bad foundation for an argument, in any case, even if referenced and peer-reviewed research makes excellent support for one.
I don't make any magical claims for food. I'll leave that to vegans and other people who need to make such claims to make their diets attractive. I eat all the meat I can afford and consume a lot of dairy because of the milk I get from my goat. I have lost almost 61 pounds in the last year. I have gone from having an average fasting bgl of 131 to an average fasting bgl of 93. Make all the claims you want, but there are plenty of fat vegans out there and I have never met one who looks healthy.
How many vegans have you met? Is it possible that you have met vegans and not known it?
I would guess that most of my co-workers (except for the ones that I socialize with regularly or are on my travel team) have no idea that I'm vegan.
Also, there are many vegans who make no magical claims for food. There absolutely can be fat and unhealthy vegans. There can also be vegans who eat healthfully, just as omnivores can. Avoiding animal products isn't required for health. But consuming animal products isn't required for health either.
We agree on one thing, anyway.
You aren't interested in discussing the rest of my post?
You have some really strong ideas about vegans that seem to be based on personal experience. I'm curious how many vegans you met to form those impressions.
No, I have no desire to derail the thread in an off-topic discussion with you. I've personally met enough vegans and had experience with plenty more to form my opinions. I miss being able to use the block function on MFP, since vegans were the primary recipient of that action.
I apologize. I thought you were open to discussion on the topic of the thread. Avoiding threads about veganism may help until MFP brings back the block feature.
Yes, I'm in for the topic of discussion: veganism. No, I am not in for your desired off-topic discussion of my history with vegans or why I feel the way I do about them. I choose not to engage, thanks. However, you've said it yourself: veganism is not a miracle diet. It is, rather, a way of life that turns eating into a moral act. Food is food. Food is fuel. It is no more ethical to eat a plant than it is to eat a rabbit. It is no less ethical to eat a cow than it is to eat a carrot. You can still get fat choosing a vegan lifestyle and you can still have plenty of energy and good health on an omnivorous one.Raw whole food plant based diet is the healthiest in the world. Research proves it. I would suggest you search engine Dr Joel Furhman or others. I agree you can have an unhealthy Vegan diet just like you can eat unhealthy by going CICO.
There is nothing magical about raw food. Raw food is often less healthy for you than cooked food, even raw vegetables. The only special thing about a raw, whole food, plant-based diet is that it adds another level of restriction to add to the satisfaction some people get from being super-special food martyrs.
Well, since you were basing your statements about vegans on your prior experiences with them, I thought they were legitimate grounds for discussion. I can understand why you wouldn't want to open it up to back-and-forth -- opinions about entire groups of people based on personal experiences tend to be very subjective and anecdotal. But as you were using your history with vegans to make a claim about vegan health, I don't know if discussing it was off-topic.
As far as eating being a moral act, I disagree that our consumption choices are immune from ethical consideration. I doubt that you even think that -- there are probably consumption choices that you would find unethical. The difference is our area of ethical concern, most likely, in that you might limit it to humans and I would include animals.
Food is fuel, but that doesn't mean that any choice we make to fuel ourselves is divorced from ethical considerations. From there we can discuss how choices impact certain individuals and whether or not it is something we should concern ourselves with. That is where the real disagreement is -- not on whether or not eating is a moral act. There are almost certainly some choices that we could agree could present a moral problem within the context of eating.
As far as being able to be fat choosing a vegan lifestyle: I agree. That's actually why I'm here -- I'm looking to lose about fifteen pounds of the thirty I gained in the last two years (due to changes in my activity level without changing my calorie consumption). And I also agree that one can have plenty of energy and health as an omnivore -- to deny that would be to deny what is abundantly obvious.
Then why go through all the fuss, bother, and silliness connected with a vegan diet? There are a lot of ovolacto vegetarians out there and none of them eat animals. Heck, some people claiming to be vegans even eat shrimp and shellfish, because they talk themselves into these creatures' rudimentary nervous systems as keeping them from counting.
Would I shy from eating people. Why sure, outside of "soccer team plane crash-landing in the Andes" sorts of situations, there are plenty of other food sources. Including animals. The major problem (among many others) with cannibalism is that it's generally connected with murder--it can't be done legally. Eating animals is legal. Therefore, the argument is not valid on its face.
Wait, what? That's the main problem with cannibalism? Remind me to never go camping with you, dude *shudders*0 -
You can't decide what is ethical for who. Ethical and morals are a VERY personal matter. For me it is 100% more ethical to eat vegan. And it is EXTREMELY unethical to eat a cow. And a huge piece of the world agrees with me and has for thousands of years. I am all for you get your ethics and morals and I get mine. But don't go saying that some how yours are facts. They are not anymore than mine are. They are my beliefs. I respect people's choices I expect the same from others.
. Food is food. Food is fuel. It is no more ethical to eat a plant than it is to eat a rabbit. It is no less ethical to eat a cow than it is to eat a carrot. You can still get fat choosing a vegan lifestyle and you can still have plenty of energy and good health on an omnivorous one.
I don't think being vegan is some silver bullet to weight loss.
And yes you can get fat as a vegan I have more than once in 25 years.
[/quote]
Lots of small critters get killed in the course of plowing fields and harvesting plant foods. Is that also EXTREMELY unethical? Sincere question. [/quote]
It's a good question. Considering that for each calorie of animal products consumed, there are several calories of crops needed to create it (cows don't grow out of thin air), That's an argument for veganism, not against. If people stopped eating meat, there would be no need for the millions of acres of grains currently being raised to feed the livestock industry.
According to this Cornell ecologist, it takes, on average, 28 calories of inputs to produce 1 calorie of animal food for human consumption in the US. Red meat is over 54:1
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »forwardmoving wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »forwardmoving wrote: »I have never seen a response from vegans regarding this question.
Have you read a lot of vegan literature and websites?
I've read some but not extensively. But why wouldn't this be answered in these forums?
This is a discussion board and have seen this questions asked on many threads with no answer.
I'm not trying to attack veganism. If I was a vegan, I would ask myself the same question.
I asked simply because sometimes when people say "I've never seen a vegan answer that," they mean that they've read a lot and never seen it addressed. Or they just mean that the vegans they've personally encountered didn't answer it. If you said, "Yeah, I've read all these authors and never see it addressed," my answer might be somewhat different than if you simply meant it hadn't been answered in your conversations with vegans.
I don't speak for all vegans, but I can give my answer.
Veganism is avoiding animal exploitation to the extent that is possible and practicable. As we need to eat, competing with animals for resources isn't necessarily ruled out in that formulation, including some animal deaths when we harvest crops. Additionally, much grain harvested is actually fed to animals used in food production. If one is concerned with the deaths of animals during harvesting, reducing consumption of animal products is still a way to address that issue, as it typically takes about 13 pounds of grain to product a pound of meat (so I can reduce the amount of grain needed overall by simply eating it myself).
In ethical issues, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. A world without animal suffering isn't possible. But a world without human suffering isn't possible and we still take steps to reduce our participation in human exploitation. Vegans simply take the logic that most of us apply to our own species and attempt, as far is as possible and practicable, to apply it to our daily consumer/consumption choices.
Different vegans may have a different answer than I do.
Good answer and a respectable stance. This stance is certainly more nuanced than the absolutist position that it is always EXTREMELY unethical to eat a animals.
0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »
You can't decide what is ethical for who. Ethical and morals are a VERY personal matter. For me it is 100% more ethical to eat vegan. And it is EXTREMELY unethical to eat a cow. And a huge piece of the world agrees with me and has for thousands of years. I am all for you get your ethics and morals and I get mine. But don't go saying that some how yours are facts. They are not anymore than mine are. They are my beliefs. I respect people's choices I expect the same from others.
. Food is food. Food is fuel. It is no more ethical to eat a plant than it is to eat a rabbit. It is no less ethical to eat a cow than it is to eat a carrot. You can still get fat choosing a vegan lifestyle and you can still have plenty of energy and good health on an omnivorous one.
I don't think being vegan is some silver bullet to weight loss.
And yes you can get fat as a vegan I have more than once in 25 years.
Lots of small critters get killed in the course of plowing fields and harvesting plant foods. Is that also EXTREMELY unethical? Sincere question. [/quote]
It's a good question. Considering that for each calorie of animal products consumed, there are several calories of crops needed to create it (cows don't grow out of thin air), That's an argument for veganism, not against. If people stopped eating meat, there would be no need for the millions of acres of grains currently being raised to feed the livestock industry.
According to this Cornell ecologist, it takes, on average, 28 calories of inputs to produce 1 calorie of animal food for human consumption in the US. Red meat is over 54:1
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat
[/quote]
Fair enough. So eating a free range, grass fed bison be okay then.
0 -
-
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »
You can't decide what is ethical for who. Ethical and morals are a VERY personal matter. For me it is 100% more ethical to eat vegan. And it is EXTREMELY unethical to eat a cow. And a huge piece of the world agrees with me and has for thousands of years. I am all for you get your ethics and morals and I get mine. But don't go saying that some how yours are facts. They are not anymore than mine are. They are my beliefs. I respect people's choices I expect the same from others.
. Food is food. Food is fuel. It is no more ethical to eat a plant than it is to eat a rabbit. It is no less ethical to eat a cow than it is to eat a carrot. You can still get fat choosing a vegan lifestyle and you can still have plenty of energy and good health on an omnivorous one.
I don't think being vegan is some silver bullet to weight loss.
And yes you can get fat as a vegan I have more than once in 25 years.
Lots of small critters get killed in the course of plowing fields and harvesting plant foods. Is that also EXTREMELY unethical? Sincere question.
It's a good question. Considering that for each calorie of animal products consumed, there are several calories of crops needed to create it (cows don't grow out of thin air), That's an argument for veganism, not against. If people stopped eating meat, there would be no need for the millions of acres of grains currently being raised to feed the livestock industry.
According to this Cornell ecologist, it takes, on average, 28 calories of inputs to produce 1 calorie of animal food for human consumption in the US. Red meat is over 54:1
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat
[/quote]
Fair enough. So eating a free range, grass fed bison be okay then.
[/quote]
I was only responding to the other poster's question about the effect of plant food farming. From that standpoint, yes it would be better, but there's more to the equation. Like the bison.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
okay, so lets consider the bison. That one bison could supply you and whole bunch of other people a whole lot of nutritious calories for a whole long time. (I'm assuming freezers are available.). Or...you could leave the bison be, drive to the supermarket, and fill up your shopping cart with plant based foods. But critters die in the production of plant foods too. Seems like either way your leaving some suffering in your wake. I'm not sure why the vegan holds the moral high ground over an omnivore here.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
okay, so lets consider the bison. That one bison could supply you and whole bunch of other people a whole lot of nutritious calories for a whole long time. (I'm assuming freezers are available.). Or...you could leave the bison be, drive to the supermarket, and fill up your shopping cart with plant based foods. But critters die in the production of plant foods too. Seems like either way your leaving some suffering in your wake. I'm not sure why the vegan holds the moral high ground over an omnivore here.
If you feel that is the most moral diet, you should go for it. I don't know if there are enough people living solely on pastured animals to make it a pressing issue to address in terms of reducing animal suffering.
I don't think the elimination of suffering is possible, as I explained above. We can't eliminate it for humans, eliminating it for animals would be (probably) even harder.
What we can address is our participation in exploitation. Veganism is about reducing our participation in animal exploitation to the extent that is possible and practicable. As far as never causing suffering: I don't think that is a claim made for veganism. If it is, it shouldn't be.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions