Veggies vs Meat
Replies
-
Of course the China study does not "prove" that eating vegetables and not meat "cures" any disease. I believe, however, that it shows a strong correlation. For what it is, it is a remarkable study, showing at least what I consider to be a correlation. You may disagree, but I would then suspect you are being uneven in your standards. For example, you follow the primal diet. Why? What study did you follow that led you to the conclusion that that was the proper diet. I assume whatever study you followed was not subject to the same complaints you are raising against the China Study.
I never said it wasn't remarkable, it's a monumental effort no doubt. I never said it didn't show correlations but the issue is that causality was implied from the correlations. That is not appropriate. It's intuitive and tempting to believe that correlation = causation because humans naturally look for patterns but thousands of years of science has demonstrated otherwise. It's an inconvenient truth.
I try to think critically about my own choices and avoid bias, it's very difficult to do so, but I try nonetheless. My sister is a highly educated dietician who constantly questions my diet so I really have no choice but to attempt to justify it pretty regularly to someone who knows far more about biochemistry than I do. There are no studies that compare a Primal/Paleo diet to other common diets, I wish there was. There is lots of science covering aspects of it though such as reduction in the consumption of refined carbohydrates, increased consumption of vegetables, consumption of grass fed beef, wild caught fish (muddy one that one), avoidance of some polyunsaturated fats, consumption of saturated fat (that's a whole other argument - lol).
When I looked at starting on this WOE (Way Of Eating) I looked at it like this:
1) I would eat a lot more veggies (I suspect we'll agree on that one being good)
2) I would focus on eating "cleaner" meat (grass fed beef for example)
3) Increase consumption of omega 3
4) Increase fish consumption
5) Remove the majority of refined carbs that offer little other than cheap calories
Based on that, it was a no-brainer. Saying that, I was comparing it to my standard low-fat, high carb diet I was eating and not to a vegetarian or vegan diet.
Okay, but was your choice informed by a study? Remember you are criticizing a fairly sophisticated study, because it doesn't cover all possibilities and it may have only SEEMED like there was causality between eating veggies and lowering your risk of certain diseases. Yet, you are saying you chose a diet based upon what you read. What was more convincing about what you read than the China study? Are you using the same standard in promoting a diet for yourself as you are in discounting the China Study? If not, why? The China study may not be deductive reasoning, but it is damn convincing, and people who follow its advice generally feel they are benefiting.0 -
I rest my case.
How can you eat meat that is that OVERCOOKED!! If it's not still cold in the middle, it's not worth eating.0 -
uponthisrock knows what he is talkin' about ...add some sauteed mushrooms and onions to that please0
-
Pardon the bump for later perusal0
-
One word to rule them all: BACON0
-
I will look at these, but from your description they appear anecdotal or hypothetical. Also there is the problem of what stage of evolution do you look at to find what the "historical" human diet was. Australopithecus, for example would be the ancestor I would choose to show how our genome developed. Even then Australopithecus had 98% of our genome. If you go back to only 10,000 years ago, you are scarcely talking about evolution, but more like recent humans. Again, as you say Anatomically Modern Humans' diets varied considerably depending upon where they lived. The vast majority were vegetarian, however. If you go back 6,000 years to the Fertile Crescent, they relied mostly on Barley and other grains. Eventually they became pastoralists, but the mainstay of their diet was still grains.
Primal/Paleo diets attempt to reconstruct the nutritional profile of a human diet prior to agriculture.
It's a difficult area to study, the tools don't give us exact results and it's probably not exactly a priority in terms of funding. Modern hunter gathers are sometimes used as a proxy but that has it's issues as well of course. I've seen stable isotope studies for example looking at the mineral composition of bone suggesting high protein intake.
Here is one:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440399905204
There are others. It's obviously not conclusive but then neither is support for a vegetarian diet based on paleolithic evidence.
One debate is how much our genome could have adapted since we were able to harvest grain in large quantities (10,000 years or so I believe). If you believe we have evolved sufficiently to consume the large amounts of grain we now consume then the Paleo diet is null and void. Of course, it's complicated by the fact that we eat grain that has been cross bread, genetically modified and highly refined in many cases and that has happened more recently.0 -
I rest my case.
How can you eat meat that is that OVERCOOKED!! If it's not still cold in the middle, it's not worth eating.
You know you can actually score more points by using words, not provocative photos. Try expressing yourself with language if you can. What exactly do you think you are accomplishing putting up a photo of a stake? Seriously.0 -
I rest my case.
How can you eat meat that is that OVERCOOKED!! If it's not still cold in the middle, it's not worth eating.
You know you can actually score more points by using words, not provocative photos. Try expressing yourself with language if you can. What exactly do you think you are accomplishing putting up a photo of a stake? Seriously.
Stake:
Steak:
0 -
I will look at these, but from your description they appear anecdotal or hypothetical. Also there is the problem of what stage of evolution do you look at to find what the "historical" human diet was. Australopithecus, for example would be the ancestor I would choose to show how our genome developed. Even then Australopithecus had 98% of our genome. If you go back to only 10,000 years ago, you are scarcely talking about evolution, but more like recent humans. Again, as you say Anatomically Modern Humans' diets varied considerably depending upon where they lived. The vast majority were vegetarian, however. If you go back 6,000 years to the Fertile Crescent, they relied mostly on Barley and other grains. Eventually they became pastoralists, but the mainstay of their diet was still grains.
Primal/Paleo diets attempt to reconstruct the nutritional profile of a human diet prior to agriculture.
It's a difficult area to study, the tools don't give us exact results and it's probably not exactly a priority in terms of funding. Modern hunter gathers are sometimes used as a proxy but that has it's issues as well of course. I've seen stable isotope studies for example looking at the mineral composition of bone suggesting high protein intake.
Here is one:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440399905204
There are others. It's obviously not conclusive but then neither is support for a vegetarian diet based on paleolithic evidence.
One debate is how much our genome could have adapted since we were able to harvest grain in large quantities (10,000 years or so I believe). If you believe we have evolved sufficiently to consume the large amounts of grain we now consume then the Paleo diet is null and void. Of course, it's complicated by the fact that we eat grain that has been cross bread, genetically modified and highly refined in many cases and that has happened more recently.
And I frankly doubt you have any prospective longitudinal studies of that time period, as you do for the modern China Study. May I suggest that even if you have a few dozen studies relying upon analysis of what certain individuals consumed during your selected period, you are relying upon anecdotal inferences, and that certainly has far less value, in my opinion than a longitudinal study of a huge population followed for years. Also, if you know your paleoanthropology, you know that in the period 10000 to 6000 BCE, agriculture developed, at least in Mesopotamia. But then, you could say agriculture developed with Horticulturalists who preceded this period. You have to go back to the Hunter Gatherers.0 -
I rest my case.
How can you eat meat that is that OVERCOOKED!! If it's not still cold in the middle, it's not worth eating.
You know you can actually score more points by using words, not provocative photos. Try expressing yourself with language if you can. What exactly do you think you are accomplishing putting up a photo of a stake? Seriously.
Stake:
Steak:
Okay, I said Stake instead of Steak. Both will stop your heart from beating.0 -
Okay, I said Stake instead of Steak. Both will stop your heart from beating.
So will car accidents, food poisoning from tainted veggies, and a million other things.0 -
Okay, another string got hijacked by meat eaters which wasn't fair to the OP who was just trying to get vegetarian recipes. However, my wife did not want to be messed with by the meat lovers so I suggested opening this thread. Let's talk about the merits of vegetarianism, or if you prefer, carnivorism. And let's talk about why we are all vegetarians by design, or if you prefer, carnivores. Let's throw in physiology, anthropology, and paleo-ism. Open team tag match. GO!
... Humans can't really be carnivores. The word implies that you only eat meat.0 -
Okay, I said Stake instead of Steak. Both will stop your heart from beating.
So will car accidents, food poisoning from tainted veggies, and a million other things.
Food poisoning from "tainted vegetables" e.g., e coli, generally originates with animal products, such as fecal matter from livestock used for fertilizer.0 -
Okay, another string got hijacked by meat eaters which wasn't fair to the OP who was just trying to get vegetarian recipes. However, my wife did not want to be messed with by the meat lovers so I suggested opening this thread. Let's talk about the merits of vegetarianism, or if you prefer, carnivorism. And let's talk about why we are all vegetarians by design, or if you prefer, carnivores. Let's throw in physiology, anthropology, and paleo-ism. Open team tag match. GO!
... Humans can't really be carnivores. The word implies that you only eat meat.
Look up the definition of carnivore;
A carnivore ( /ˈkɑrnɪvɔər/) meaning 'meat eater' (Latin, carne meaning 'flesh' and vorare meaning 'to devour') is an organism that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue,
Mainly or exclusively.0 -
Now I'm getting bored. I will come back tomorrow morning to see if Tidmutt has responded.0
-
Crap, I wrote it wrong. Let me fix it now.
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!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
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...
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
[/quotI
Can you fix it again? I think you meant spiinach has 6.6 g protein??? but I am not sure.0 -
I will look at these, but from your description they appear anecdotal or hypothetical. Also there is the problem of what stage of evolution do you look at to find what the "historical" human diet was. Australopithecus, for example would be the ancestor I would choose to show how our genome developed. Even then Australopithecus had 98% of our genome. If you go back to only 10,000 years ago, you are scarcely talking about evolution, but more like recent humans. Again, as you say Anatomically Modern Humans' diets varied considerably depending upon where they lived. The vast majority were vegetarian, however. If you go back 6,000 years to the Fertile Crescent, they relied mostly on Barley and other grains. Eventually they became pastoralists, but the mainstay of their diet was still grains.
Primal/Paleo diets attempt to reconstruct the nutritional profile of a human diet prior to agriculture.
It's a difficult area to study, the tools don't give us exact results and it's probably not exactly a priority in terms of funding. Modern hunter gathers are sometimes used as a proxy but that has it's issues as well of course. I've seen stable isotope studies for example looking at the mineral composition of bone suggesting high protein intake.
Here is one:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440399905204
There are others. It's obviously not conclusive but then neither is support for a vegetarian diet based on paleolithic evidence.
One debate is how much our genome could have adapted since we were able to harvest grain in large quantities (10,000 years or so I believe). If you believe we have evolved sufficiently to consume the large amounts of grain we now consume then the Paleo diet is null and void. Of course, it's complicated by the fact that we eat grain that has been cross bread, genetically modified and highly refined in many cases and that has happened more recently.
And I frankly doubt you have any prospective longitudinal studies of that time period, as you do for the modern China Study. May I suggest that even if you have a few dozen studies relying upon analysis of what certain individuals consumed during your selected period, you are relying upon anecdotal inferences, and that certainly has far less value, in my opinion than a longitudinal study of a huge population followed for years. Also, if you know your paleoanthropology, you know that in the period 10000 to 6000 BCE, agriculture developed, at least in Mesopotamia. But then, you could say agriculture developed with Horticulturalists who preceded this period. You have to go back to the Hunter Gatherers.
Yes, hunter gatherers is usually the assumed model. We do have a fair amount of information on what modern hunter gatherers ate and their health prior to many of them being taintedby Western civilization. As I said they are often used as a proxy.
I don't agree, I think your reasoning is flawed. The china study did not set out to prove that a vegetarian diet is healthier (at least I early hope not, if so, we have nothing more to discuss and I win - lol) it merely showed some correlations that some interpret as meaning a plant-based diet results in better health outcomes. Thus, to compare it we don't need a study of primal eaters (although that would be interesting) just a study of similar macros and nutrient intakes. There are plenty of those although none would be exactly equal to primal but then most vegetarians wouldn't be able to reproduce the exact nutritional profile of a family from some province in China. In fact the China Study shows no direct correlation between animal protein and CVD in fact in same cases it show's a negative association. Whatit does show is a correlation between animal protein and cholesterol levels. That's just one example but ti's telling because it took the introduction of a third variable to to support the hypothesis yet what matters is the actual outcome not another variable which may or may not be correlated with bad health. I suggest you google for some critical analyses of the china study and read some opposing points of view. You can then draw your own conclusions.
Beyond that In our discussion regarding the validity of the conclusions around the China Study it's not relevant to question the validity of my diet choices. The question is about the study, whether primal is well supported by evidence or not it has no bearing on the validity of the conclusions dawn from the china study. Saying that it's interesting to discuss primal/Paleo diets although they could well just be called moderately low carb whole food diets and remove Paleo from it completely. Sometimes I think it would be a savvy move since very few people will argue against that sort of diet other than the saturated fat aspect although there are low fat Paleo diets. The Paleo food concept is a useful framework though and I hope more research is done on ancestral nutrition either way, knowing what we ate for a good part of our recent evolution would be useful.0 -
Meat and Veggies: A burger, bacon and onion rings.
Way to sabbotage my healthy thinking LMFAO:huh: :laugh:0 -
One word to rule them all: BACON
Really? I think it smells like burning human flesh. Whenever I smell bacon I get mental images of people being burned at the stake and start retching.0 -
Okay, another string got hijacked by meat eaters which wasn't fair to the OP who was just trying to get vegetarian recipes. However, my wife did not want to be messed with by the meat lovers so I suggested opening this thread. Let's talk about the merits of vegetarianism, or if you prefer, carnivorism. And let's talk about why we are all vegetarians by design, or if you prefer, carnivores. Let's throw in physiology, anthropology, and paleo-ism. Open team tag match. GO!
... Humans can't really be carnivores. The word implies that you only eat meat.
Look up the definition of carnivore;
A carnivore ( /ˈkɑrnɪvɔər/) meaning 'meat eater' (Latin, carne meaning 'flesh' and vorare meaning 'to devour') is an organism that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue,
Mainly or exclusively.
Are dogs classified as carnivores? They eat plants and grains too.0 -
Must be the rice.......................Asians have some of the highest rates of stomach cancer...
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Or all the stir fry...0 -
I will look at these, but from your description they appear anecdotal or hypothetical. Also there is the problem of what stage of evolution do you look at to find what the "historical" human diet was. Australopithecus, for example would be the ancestor I would choose to show how our genome developed. Even then Australopithecus had 98% of our genome. If you go back to only 10,000 years ago, you are scarcely talking about evolution, but more like recent humans. Again, as you say Anatomically Modern Humans' diets varied considerably depending upon where they lived. The vast majority were vegetarian, however. If you go back 6,000 years to the Fertile Crescent, they relied mostly on Barley and other grains. Eventually they became pastoralists, but the mainstay of their diet was still grains.
Primal/Paleo diets attempt to reconstruct the nutritional profile of a human diet prior to agriculture.
It's a difficult area to study, the tools don't give us exact results and it's probably not exactly a priority in terms of funding. Modern hunter gathers are sometimes used as a proxy but that has it's issues as well of course. I've seen stable isotope studies for example looking at the mineral composition of bone suggesting high protein intake.
Here is one:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440399905204
There are others. It's obviously not conclusive but then neither is support for a vegetarian diet based on paleolithic evidence.
One debate is how much our genome could have adapted since we were able to harvest grain in large quantities (10,000 years or so I believe). If you believe we have evolved sufficiently to consume the large amounts of grain we now consume then the Paleo diet is null and void. Of course, it's complicated by the fact that we eat grain that has been cross bread, genetically modified and highly refined in many cases and that has happened more recently.
And I frankly doubt you have any prospective longitudinal studies of that time period, as you do for the modern China Study. May I suggest that even if you have a few dozen studies relying upon analysis of what certain individuals consumed during your selected period, you are relying upon anecdotal inferences, and that certainly has far less value, in my opinion than a longitudinal study of a huge population followed for years. Also, if you know your paleoanthropology, you know that in the period 10000 to 6000 BCE, agriculture developed, at least in Mesopotamia. But then, you could say agriculture developed with Horticulturalists who preceded this period. You have to go back to the Hunter Gatherers.
Yes, hunter gatherers is usually the assumed model. We do have a fair amount of information on what modern hunter gatherers ate and their health prior to many of them being taintedby Western civilization. As I said they are often used as a proxy.
I don't agree, I think your reasoning is flawed. The china study did not set out to prove that a vegetarian diet is healthier (at least I early hope not, if so, we have nothing more to discuss and I win - lol) it merely showed some correlations that some interpret as meaning a plant-based diet results in better health outcomes. Thus, to compare it we don't need a study of primal eaters (although that would be interesting) just a study of similar macros and nutrient intakes. There are plenty of those although none would be exactly equal to primal but then most vegetarians wouldn't be able to reproduce the exact nutritional profile of a family from some province in China. In fact the China Study shows no direct correlation between animal protein and CVD in fact in same cases it show's a negative association. Whatit does show is a correlation between animal protein and cholesterol levels. That's just one example but ti's telling because it took the introduction of a third variable to to support the hypothesis yet what matters is the actual outcome not another variable which may or may not be correlated with bad health. I suggest you google for some critical analyses of the china study and read some opposing points of view. You can then draw your own conclusions.
Beyond that In our discussion regarding the validity of the conclusions around the China Study it's not relevant to question the validity of my diet choices. The question is about the study, whether primal is well supported by evidence or not it has no bearing on the validity of the conclusions dawn from the china study. Saying that it's interesting to discuss primal/Paleo diets although they could well just be called moderately low carb whole food diets and remove Paleo from it completely. Sometimes I think it would be a savvy move since very few people will argue against that sort of diet other than the saturated fat aspect although there are low fat Paleo diets. The Paleo food concept is a useful framework though and I hope more research is done on ancestral nutrition either way, knowing what we ate for a good part of our recent evolution would be useful.
No, the China Study did not set out to show the superiority of a vegetarian diet, but that study in combination with many others (I mentioned the Framingham Study before) clearly does in my opinion. There have been other studies which show that when families with vegetarian diets move to, say the United States, the incidence of heart disease, cancer and osteoporosis increases. Yeah, you could claim it is because they are learning to speak English, but I think the more likely reason is because they changed to a meat centered diet. There is an impressive study of German Vegetarians (http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/vegetarians-live-longer.html) which shows that Germans, from a normally meat eating culture, who become vegetarian, live longer than other Germans who remain with a meat centered diet. Of course, that study was criticized because the German Vegetarians were demographically from the upper class, better educated and much wealthier than the average German. I believe they had higher IQs as well. But there it is a question of chicken or the egg. Do brighter people choose to become vegetarian because it is the more logical choice and appeals to brighter people, or does being vegetarian make them brighter. Serious question. Animal fat occludes arteries, including those to the brain, and causes the death of brain cells, among others. In any event there are an OVERWHELMING number of studies that all point in the same direction: vegetarians live longer healthier lives. You might object to one of these studies, but the shear number of them and the overwhelming amount of evidence must be considered, and as a logical person, which you seem to be, it would seem that the conclusion in favor of vegetarianism is mandated.
And yes, my asking you about your reasons for selecting the primal diet is quite justified and logical after your attack on the China Study. If you are not a hypocrite, you will apply the same standards to yourself as you apply to others.
Finally, having said all that my own reasons for being a vegetarian have nothing to do with any of the studies. Vegetarianism is the moral way to live. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do not kill. Do not claim to be ethical if you believe in murder. Sorry. But nothing riles me up more than the hypocrites who claim they love animals and then go out and eat a burger. If someone is going to eat meat. let them be honest - they do not believe in the Golden Rule, and they do not love animals.0 -
[/quote]
How can you eat meat that is that OVERCOOKED!! If it's not still cold in the middle, it's not worth eating.
[/quote]
You know you can actually score more points by using words, not provocative photos. Try expressing yourself with language if you can. What exactly do you think you are accomplishing putting up a photo of a stake? Seriously.
[/quote]
And a right bloody disgusting photo at that. It is not only cringe worthy, it's very nearly vomit inducing. Yuck!0 -
Okay, another string got hijacked by meat eaters which wasn't fair to the OP who was just trying to get vegetarian recipes. However, my wife did not want to be messed with by the meat lovers so I suggested opening this thread. Let's talk about the merits of vegetarianism, or if you prefer, carnivorism. And let's talk about why we are all vegetarians by design, or if you prefer, carnivores. Let's throw in physiology, anthropology, and paleo-ism. Open team tag match. GO!
... Humans can't really be carnivores. The word implies that you only eat meat.
Look up the definition of carnivore;
A carnivore ( /ˈkɑrnɪvɔər/) meaning 'meat eater' (Latin, carne meaning 'flesh' and vorare meaning 'to devour') is an organism that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue,
Mainly or exclusively.
Are dogs classified as carnivores? They eat plants and grains too.
I was being dismissive and somewhat flippant when I categorized the meat eaters on this board as carnivores. In reality, assuming they are normal human beings, they are living in a body designed to eat vegetables. Physiologically, humans are a vegetarian species. Yes, vegetarian species can eat meat, just as carnivores can eat fruit. However, as studies of heart disease, cancer and other chronic diseases show, we were not designed to eat meat.
As for the dog, they are carnivores. Open their mouths and look at their teeth, and look at their incisors. My dog (a vegan by the way) has incisors that are about three times longer than mine. Dogs large intestines are much shorter than humans as well allowing them to expel animal waste quickly. unlike humans where eating meat causes colon cancer. So carnivores are physiologically different than vegetarian species.0 -
I rest my case.
Overcooked, but only slightly. Mmmm.0 -
A good site to visit if you are confused by whether we are a carnivore species or a herbivore species:
http://www.peta.org/living/vegetarian-living/the-natural-human-diet.aspx0 -
@Tidmutt: You impress me as wanting hardcore scientific evidence for vegetarianism: prospective, controlled studies with an adequate 'N' to say once and for all whether a plant-based diet holds any health advantage over any other. That is, afterall, what sparked this discussion. It would only make sense to me that someone with such a sophisticated desire for evidence-based proof would apply the same standard to his own diet. I was expecting you would be citing all sorts of hardcore science to back up paleo. But, then you demured. What's up with that?0
-
Aww
I don't eat anything with a heart beat...
Don't eat steak, chicken, pork, ribs, bacon, ground beef, meat broths, sushi, tuna, etc. Never had a hamburger in my life!0 -
Yes. I'm taking Saskatoon off my travel plans, and putting vegan-friendly Portland, Oregon on.
I notice many meat-loving posters here added to the thread by simply adding pictures of meat or comments which translate to: 'I like the taste of meat' and be damned the health or ethical aspects of that. This, to me, is the most honest response, but of course, I would hope that at some point in their lives, they turn this idea around to see all sides of it with some depth. May or may not happen. I get that.
I've been a vegetarian since 1973, but in my 'pregan' (pre-vegan) days, my family raised our own animals for slaughter. I didn't have the excuse of not knowing where meat came from. I knew EXACTLY where meat came from and my 'meat' had names and faces attached to them. Yet, it took me a while to stop eating them, even with that knowledge. So, I need to be mindful of that, and know that some tastes are like addictions--very difficult to kick.0 -
I love these conversations. I have never seen a person swayed one way or another. Mostly people want proof to support their own beliefs.Yes. I'm taking Saskatoon off my travel plans, and putting vegan-friendly Portland, Oregon on.
I notice many meat-loving posters here added to the thread by simply adding pictures of meat or comments which translate to: 'I like the taste of meat' and be damned the health or ethical aspects of that. This, to me, is the most honest response, but of course, I would hope that at some point in their lives, they turn this idea around to see all sides of it with some depth. May or may not happen. I get that.
I am unable to give up bacon. The argument ends there.
And vegetarians are here because they are fun to poke fun at.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions