Veggies vs Meat

_VoV

Being able to choose what we eat or don't eat is a luxury.

Yes. Absolutely it is. But given that in the Western world we have that luxury, isn't it better to do less harm and not kill to satisfy our wants?

^^THIS.

savage22hp

Water and minerals and permissible to scavenge for the recently deceased but plants are living too ! Don't discount the worth of their life simply because it doesn't have commonality with our existence .

ninerbuff

However, studies show that consuming large quantities of red meat, preserved meats, salt-preserved meats, and salt probably increases the risk of stomach and colorectal cancers. Research also shows that a diet high in fruits and vegetables may decrease the risks of these cancers. And calorie restriction has been shown to reduce cancer risk for several cancer types.

Eat a healthy calorie-restricted diet rich in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables. Avoid consuming large amounts of fatty foods, red meats, salt, or salt-preserved food.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/understandingcancer/environment/page1/AllPages

Note that it says LARGE quantities of red meat, salt and salt preserved food. Lol, but Asians have been eating SPAM since it's inception!

Point is that anything over consumed could end up being problematic. Eat too many prunes or coconuts and watch what happens.
Key is balance. Protein which is easily derived from meat sources, is essential so to eat meat would make sense if you want to try to keep calories down and still get in plenty of protein. To match some of the same protein content, a vegetarian may have to eat more in volume and calories to comp.

100g or spinach has 2.8g of protein and 24 calories
100g or sirloin has 6.6g of protein and 38 calories

So you'd have to eat double the amount of spinach+ to reach the equivalent protein in sirloin. That would also mean more calories. Not much more, but it's still more.

A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

fteale

Water and minerals and permissible to scavenge for the recently deceased but plants are living too ! Don't discount the worth of their life simply because it doesn't have commonality with our existence .

By eating other animal's meat but not humans, you are drawing the same distinction. It's all about where you personally draw a line. I draw mine at not being responsible for the death of sentient beings. Others draw their's at only stuff that has meat that looks different to our own, others at meat that comes prepackaged so they don't have to think too much about where it comes from, and others at anything but humans. It's all where you are on the line.

vitafabula

However, studies show that consuming large quantities of red meat, preserved meats, salt-preserved meats, and salt probably increases the risk of stomach and colorectal cancers. Research also shows that a diet high in fruits and vegetables may decrease the risks of these cancers. And calorie restriction has been shown to reduce cancer risk for several cancer types.

Eat a healthy calorie-restricted diet rich in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables. Avoid consuming large amounts of fatty foods, red meats, salt, or salt-preserved food.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/understandingcancer/environment/page1/AllPages

Note that it says LARGE quantities of red meat, salt and salt preserved food. Lol, but Asians have been eating SPAM since it's inception!

Point is that anything over consumed could end up being problematic. Eat too many prunes or coconuts and watch what happens.
Key is balance. Protein which is easily derived from meat sources, is essential so to eat meat would make sense if you want to try to keep calories down and still get in plenty of protein. To match some of the same protein content, a vegetarian may have to eat more in volume and calories to comp.

100g or spinach has 2.8g of protein and 24 calories
100g or sirloin has 6.6g of protein and 38 calories

So you'd have to eat double the amount of spinach+ to reach the equivalent protein in sirloin. That would also mean more calories. Not much more, but it's still more.

A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

What source are you using? 100g of sirloin has approximately 185 calories...

chefkev

as a chef, I like to cook and eat all kinds of things.
as a former diabetic, I knew that for MY body, starch and sugars were not good. Like alcohol to an alcoholic.

So, I made MY diet to fit MY body. I don't particularly care what anyone eats. I know, with years of practice, what works for me.

savage22hp

Sometimes you are the windshield , sometimes you are the bug ..... folks it all comes down to what you personally can or can't do . There is no right or wrong in what you eat . If you attribute the same value on animal life as you do your own then you are right to not eat meat .If I think that is a leap and contrary to my thoughts then meat it is ....

ninerbuff

However, studies show that consuming large quantities of red meat, preserved meats, salt-preserved meats, and salt probably increases the risk of stomach and colorectal cancers. Research also shows that a diet high in fruits and vegetables may decrease the risks of these cancers. And calorie restriction has been shown to reduce cancer risk for several cancer types.

Eat a healthy calorie-restricted diet rich in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables. Avoid consuming large amounts of fatty foods, red meats, salt, or salt-preserved food.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/understandingcancer/environment/page1/AllPages

Note that it says LARGE quantities of red meat, salt and salt preserved food. Lol, but Asians have been eating SPAM since it's inception!

Point is that anything over consumed could end up being problematic. Eat too many prunes or coconuts and watch what happens.
Key is balance. Protein which is easily derived from meat sources, is essential so to eat meat would make sense if you want to try to keep calories down and still get in plenty of protein. To match some of the same protein content, a vegetarian may have to eat more in volume and calories to comp.

100g or spinach has 2.8g of protein and 24 calories
100g or sirloin has 6.6g of protein and 38 calories

So you'd have to eat double the amount of spinach+ to reach the equivalent protein in sirloin. That would also mean more calories. Not much more, but it's still more.

A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

What source are you using? 100g of sirloin has approximately 185 calories...

Crap, I wrote it wrong. Let me fix it now.

10z/28g of sirloin has 6.6 grams of protein and 38 calories.

100 grams of sirloin has 23.5 grams of protein and 135 calories

So you'd have to eat at least 700 grams of spinach and 168 calories

A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

afugua0002

I just don't understand why people are so angry about this! Live and let live! Who cares if so and so wants to eat steak and if someone else wants to eat a salad?! Everyone has their own reasons, ethical and health for eating the way they do! Why be defensive about it, and that goes for either side! I just started cutting out a lot of things I didn't eat before and I feel a lot better, but my husband thinks I'm silly. That is his opinion alone and I don't get defensive with him, I just keep doing it because it makes me feel better! Okay, rant finished

_VoV

"So, if the OP wants an intelligent debate, why doesn't he/she just google both sides of the argument?"



We vegetarians were helping a poster seeking meatless recipes on another thread. It was disrupted by meat-lovers. Some of the discussion was quite interesting, but inappropriate there. So, we brought it here. If you don't like it, you don't need to read it.

VegesaurusRex

I just don't understand why people are so angry about this! Live and let live! Who cares if so and so wants to eat steak and if someone else wants to eat a salad?! Everyone has their own reasons, ethical and health for eating the way they do! Why be defensive about it, and that goes for either side! I just started cutting out a lot of things I didn't eat before and I feel a lot better, but my husband thinks I'm silly. That is his opinion alone and I don't get defensive with him, I just keep doing it because it makes me feel better! Okay, rant finished

Live and let live. I agree with that. Let's apply that to animals as well.

tidmutt

It doesn't take a Ph.D to understand why relying on univariate correlations is a mistake. It's a complex universe, numerous variables interact in unexpected ways, we cannot know everything. This is why controlled studies are so much more powerful in that at least some variables can be controlled for.

Univariate correlations? The most frequent criticism of the Campbell study that I have seen was that he looked a too many correlations, not too few.

Some of his conclusions rely on simple correlations such as animal protein and cholesterol. It's right there in his study, in fact, he said so himself.

fteale

I just don't understand why people are so angry about this! Live and let live! Who cares if so and so wants to eat steak and if someone else wants to eat a salad?! Everyone has their own reasons, ethical and health for eating the way they do! Why be defensive about it, and that goes for either side! I just started cutting out a lot of things I didn't eat before and I feel a lot better, but my husband thinks I'm silly. That is his opinion alone and I don't get defensive with him, I just keep doing it because it makes me feel better! Okay, rant finished

Live and let live. I agree with that. Let's apply that to animals as well.

I was about to say the same.

VegesaurusRex

Sometimes you are the windshield , sometimes you are the bug ..... folks it all comes down to what you personally can or can't do . There is no right or wrong in what you eat . If you attribute the same value on animal life as you do your own then you are right to not eat meat .If I think that is a leap and contrary to my thoughts then meat it is ....

I respect the lives of other creatures and I see no reason to kill them. I also have read dozens and dozens of articles about the health benefits of vegetarianism (Sadly, I have read nothing about the health benefits of meat, other than what is sponsored by the meat and dairy industry.) Even if vegetarianism were unhealthy, which emphatically it is not, I would still be a vegetarian. As someone who was brought up Christian, I always wondered how humans could expect to receive the Grace of God, if they failed to show grace to animals. I guess you can call it karma.

tidmutt

So the burden is on the POSTER to prove why a study is flawed because a guy with a Ph.D. only found CORRELATION and not causation.
If you're going to make assumptions and blanket statements based off of a CORRELATION, then the study is obviously flawed. That's Stats 101, right there. Data Interpretation.

Yup. He is the one claiming the study is flawed. His reason: common sense. If you truly buy that as a legitimate criticism, then you didn't learn much from your statistics course.

Wow, way to misconstrue. My reason as to why I did not put much faith in the conclusions from the study was that correlation <> causation. I said that this is common sense, and I believe it is. One doesn't need to be a statistician to know that correlations can be found just about anywhere, especially if you are looking.

sunkisses

But I have a question about my period.

Oh and here's a link to one of the vegetarian groups. Looks like it might be good with gravy on top.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/219-mfp-vegetarians

sunnyday789

I just don't understand why people are so angry about this! Live and let live! Who cares if so and so wants to eat steak and if someone else wants to eat a salad?! Everyone has their own reasons, ethical and health for eating the way they do! Why be defensive about it, and that goes for either side! I just started cutting out a lot of things I didn't eat before and I feel a lot better, but my husband thinks I'm silly. That is his opinion alone and I don't get defensive with him, I just keep doing it because it makes me feel better! Okay, rant finished



I have no problem with people eating vegetarian and have respect for those who don't eat meat for ethical reasons. I just don't hold the same world view and I can agree to disagree on that. Others may want to debate that as well. But start putting out information re health benefits and I might question your sources. That shouldn't bother you and it's not an attack.
What bothers you about debate? People learn from debate, and yes minds can be changed. Most social change comes from questioning commonly held views.

savage22hp

I think the scavenging idea was too quickly discounted , everything has its natural life cycle .

_VoV

However, studies show that consuming large quantities of red meat, preserved meats, salt-preserved meats, and salt probably increases the risk of stomach and colorectal cancers. Research also shows that a diet high in fruits and vegetables may decrease the risks of these cancers. And calorie restriction has been shown to reduce cancer risk for several cancer types.

Eat a healthy calorie-restricted diet rich in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables. Avoid consuming large amounts of fatty foods, red meats, salt, or salt-preserved food.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/understandingcancer/environment/page1/AllPages

Note that it says LARGE quantities of red meat, salt and salt preserved food. Lol, but Asians have been eating SPAM since it's inception!

Point is that anything over consumed could end up being problematic. Eat too many prunes or coconuts and watch what happens.
Key is balance. Protein which is easily derived from meat sources, is essential so to eat meat would make sense if you want to try to keep calories down and still get in plenty of protein. To match some of the same protein content, a vegetarian may have to eat more in volume and calories to comp.

100g or spinach has 2.8g of protein and 24 calories
100g or sirloin has 6.6g of protein and 38 calories

So you'd have to eat double the amount of spinach+ to reach the equivalent protein in sirloin. That would also mean more calories. Not much more, but it's still more.

A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

What source are you using? 100g of sirloin has approximately 185 calories...

Crap, I wrote it wrong. Let me fix it now.

10z/28g of sirloin has 6.6 grams of protein and 38 calories.

100 grams of sirloin has 23.5 grams of protein and 135 calories

So you'd have to eat at least 700 grams of spinach and 168 calories

A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

This is a huge mistake, which a nutrition expert would never make. Plus you are still wrong, and you aren't comparing protein-dense foods like tofu/tempeh/beans with sirloin. That might make an honest comparison.

tidmutt

Ultimately this thread has little to do with continuing the scientific debate around meat consumption that started in the other thread. It's about the persecution complex that many vegetarians suffer from. I sympathize with them, it's tough to go against social norms. I experience the same push back when I tell people I eat Paleo/Primal, people often look at me in horror and tell me I'm going to die of a heart attack, they often clutch their chests too. Very dramatic.

I have nothing against vegetarians, I never said anything negative about them, I respect your choices even if I don't agree with them.

VegesaurusRex

So the burden is on the POSTER to prove why a study is flawed because a guy with a Ph.D. only found CORRELATION and not causation.
If you're going to make assumptions and blanket statements based off of a CORRELATION, then the study is obviously flawed. That's Stats 101, right there. Data Interpretation.

Yup. He is the one claiming the study is flawed. His reason: common sense. If you truly buy that as a legitimate criticism, then you didn't learn much from your statistics course.

Wow, way to misconstrue. My reason as to why I did not put much faith in the conclusions from the study was that correlation <> causation. I said that this is common sense, and I believe it is. One doesn't need to be a statistician to know that correlations can be found just about anywhere, especially if you are looking.

Okay, if I misunderstood, what PRECISELY were you objecting to in the Campbell study. I have the book right here so if you want to cite page numbers, that would be fine.

_VoV

Ultimately this thread has little to do with continuing the scientific debate around meat consumption that started in the other thread. It's about the persecution complex that many vegetarians suffer from. I sympathize with them, it's tough to go against social norms. I experience the same push back when I tell people I eat Paleo/Primal, people often look at me in horror and tell me I'm going to die of a heart attack, they often clutch their chests too. Very dramatic.

I have nothing against vegetarians, I never said anything negative about them, I respect your choices even if I don't agree with them.

Actually, huge efforts were made to continue that debate. That's actually what I found interesting on the other thread, but thought that was the wrong venue. But, some people complained about the big words. Others posted pictures of bloody meat on a plate. That was not what this thread was created for. Bring on the debate...

VegesaurusRex

Ultimately this thread has little to do with continuing the scientific debate around meat consumption that started in the other thread. It's about the persecution complex that many vegetarians suffer from. I sympathize with them, it's tough to go against social norms. I experience the same push back when I tell people I eat Paleo/Primal, people often look at me in horror and tell me I'm going to die of a heart attack, they often clutch their chests too. Very dramatic.

I have nothing against vegetarians, I never said anything negative about them, I respect your choices even if I don't agree with them.

What exactly is paleo/primal? I have heard that term but do not know what it refers to.

xtinalovexo

I rest my case.

I love meat, I love meat that is well done.. but that just made me want to become a vegetable eater only

Same here tbh. Im pretty much a carnivore, but it has to be well done, no pinkness etc.

i think its on the rag...

tidmutt

So the burden is on the POSTER to prove why a study is flawed because a guy with a Ph.D. only found CORRELATION and not causation.
If you're going to make assumptions and blanket statements based off of a CORRELATION, then the study is obviously flawed. That's Stats 101, right there. Data Interpretation.

Yup. He is the one claiming the study is flawed. His reason: common sense. If you truly buy that as a legitimate criticism, then you didn't learn much from your statistics course.

Wow, way to misconstrue. My reason as to why I did not put much faith in the conclusions from the study was that correlation <> causation. I said that this is common sense, and I believe it is. One doesn't need to be a statistician to know that correlations can be found just about anywhere, especially if you are looking.

Okay, if I misunderstood, what PRECISELY were you objecting to in the Campbell study. I have the book right here so if you want to cite page numbers, that would be fine.

I've given you all the specifics you need. He found correlations, that's not sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. By all means investigate those correlations further using better tools like randomized, controlled studies. Don't expect me to believe his personal conclusions based just on those correlations.

mcdonl

Yeah... Umm... lets say I read the whole thread....

I have only one point to make...

If you eat less then you burn for calories, I do not really think that anything remotely resembling a balanced diet will be bad for you... if you prefer meats over veggies, but burn more calories than you eat than I am guessing you are eating a healthy amount of meats.

artemis222

I stopped reading after the first 3 pages, I admit.

First of all, I am an omnivore not a carnivore, a vegetarian is not the same as a vegan, etc nomenclature and things....

For the whole "meat gives you cancer" idea...In my short lifespan I've come to realize that anything and everything will in some way/shape/form kill me. When I was in eighth grade I remember hearing that a group of Swedish scientists had performed a study showing that fruits and vegetables gave you cancer. In a recent study they proved that hotdogs give you cancer. What they DIDN'T tell you is that these people were required to eat only hotdogs and massive quantities of hotdogs.

I guess my point is that too much of anything can be bad for you. A vegan who doesn't do their homework on what to eat won't be eating very healthy. (As in not getting the proper amount of protein because they don't eat enough of certain veggies.) A person who eats TONS of meat and not very much else is obviously unhealthy. A person doing too much exercise is unhealthy.

In the end we're all going to grow old, we're all going to get wrinkles and we will all...eventually...die.

Wait, what were we arguing about again?

VegesaurusRex

So the burden is on the POSTER to prove why a study is flawed because a guy with a Ph.D. only found CORRELATION and not causation.
If you're going to make assumptions and blanket statements based off of a CORRELATION, then the study is obviously flawed. That's Stats 101, right there. Data Interpretation.

Yup. He is the one claiming the study is flawed. His reason: common sense. If you truly buy that as a legitimate criticism, then you didn't learn much from your statistics course.

Wow, way to misconstrue. My reason as to why I did not put much faith in the conclusions from the study was that correlation <> causation. I said that this is common sense, and I believe it is. One doesn't need to be a statistician to know that correlations can be found just about anywhere, especially if you are looking.

Okay, if I misunderstood, what PRECISELY were you objecting to in the Campbell study. I have the book right here so if you want to cite page numbers, that would be fine.

I've given you all the specifics you need. He found correlations, that's not sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. By all means investigate those correlations further using better tools like randomized, controlled studies. Don't expect me to believe his personal conclusions based just on those correlations.

I guess I am asking you WHAT correlations you are referring to. Clearly there was a correlation found in several parts of China between the percentage of plants in the population's diet, and the health benefits in terms of chronic disease. The population was large and was followed for ten years. What exactly are you saying that Campbell missed?

tidmutt

What exactly is paleo/primal? I have heard that term but do not know what it refers to.

It's an approach to nutrition based on eating what we supposedly ate for the majority of our evolution, at least in our current form. There are various forms including Paleo which often excludes dairy and Primal which allows diary if you tolerate it. Personally I subscribe to Primal which allows for a greater emphasis on n=1 and I feel is not as dogmatic. It's difficult to lock down exactly what our Paleolithic diet is since it would have varied greatly depending on geographic location but in a nutshell it focuses on whole foods, a good amount of vegetables and fruits, animal protein, fat and little processed carbohydrates. Animal protein such as beef should come from pastured, grass fed animals for it's superior omega 3/6 ratio.

Saturated fat is the most controversial aspect of Primal (some versions of Paleo are leaner) and is what often causes dieticians to have fits and start speaking in tongues (my sister included).

AudgePaudge

I'm a meat eater...always will be! BTW, meat just tastes better when you kill it yourself :happy: