Skinny Bi**h Book

No. No. No. No.

'Skinny Bi*ch' doesn't sound like something to aspire to be.

I'd read a book called 'Healthy, Decent Human Being'.

Do what works for you. If you agree with their points and try what they recommend, and it works for you, go for it. I personally quite liked the book and fit their recommendations into my life in a way, but more for weight reasons than ethical ones, and I do what works for me, eg. I don't have fruit for breakfast. I do find that all raw food doesn't cause cravings and is more satifying.

Was it in the comedy section?

Chuckles

Hey babe! I became vegetarian 6 years ago after watching and reading about the various cruelties that animals are subjected to...just for our tastebuds. After I gave up eating meat and eggs, I lost 25 pounds, my body felt cleaner, and I felt better about myself knowing that I do not support the slaughter of those poor animals. Many people believe that animals are treated well at these "family farms", but it's a sad misconception, if you don't take my word, I suggest you watch the documentary "Meet Your Meat" on YouTube. I know it's really hard to watch, but it's essential, ignorance is not always bliss! It's awesome that you are even considering becoming vegetarian, and I hope you'll make the best choice for your health and the animals.

. So please don't group every family farm in there.

Word. These people don't have a choice. Either raise these chickens or grow this corn/soy, or lose your livelihood by being blacklisted.

I'm all for treating animals fairly but I'm not about business bullying the American farmer.

I've read the book too and found some of the information interesting.

I agree with the focus on veggies and fruit in the book. Many people lose sight of the importance of eating enough in a day.
But I will not agree with the idea of becoming a full vegetarian. Meat is such an important part to your diet.

I was a vegetarian for 3 years, and I'll never go back and here's why:
It's much more difficult to find a balance in your diet; regardless of what vegetarians say - they will all try and convince you that their diet is balanced and that they are very healthy because they plan their meals = false. I know a lot of vegetarians and most of them have busy lives and would resort to quick options that didn't have a balanced diet (eg. veggies and dip - where's the protein?).
My best friend was a vegetarian for 15 years. I met her in law school and she was tired 24/7. The school load was difficult and she couldn't find the time to make proper meals and always resorted to quick options - most of them were still considered "healthy", but just not balanced. I convinced her to try meat again and she will never go back.

I completely agree with the fact that the meat industry has awful ways of treating their animals; however, there are ways to get around that. Eg. purchase free-range eggs (chickens that aren't in cages); purchse meat from local farms (where you can see how they are raised) etc. It'll depend on where you live, but there are ways of feeling better about your meat purchases.

People, people.

Join me in making cruelty free meat. Duck season starts soon. Just need a shotgun.

If you have ethical objections to the treatment of factory animals, there are things you can do that stop short of becoming vegan.

First, get involved and do something about it. Write your elected officials and demand legislation regarding animal cruelty in our food chain. Stop buying factory farmed meats and dairy...they're often full of antibiotics and hormones anyway.

Second, buy local, non-factory meats and dairy.

I know that in large cities, this could be more of an issue. I'm fortunate that I live in a fairly rural area. We have farms which let the public come and visit, and they sell meat, dairy and produce at the farm and in the local co-op and farmer's markets. You can see the animals and how they're treated, and how clean their environment is. These products also taste better. Grass fed beef tastes like a whole different animal, and has far more nutritional value. Fresh unrefrigerated eggs are amazingly creamy.

*TW* Rape occurs in nature among other animals, but I sincerely doubt you'll find a sane person who thinks rape is ethical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

Seriously? You're touting Ivy league? pfffft. Back to the studies for you.

Total meat consumption was not significantly associated with colorectal cancer risk.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.10126/full

That's from the IJC, There are more, this was just the first I found. What you're missing is that your statement is wholly predicated on OVER consumption (which brings in other confounding variables) where you are assuming that research shows ANY consumption is an indicator of increased risk. That's simply not supported by the articles I've read.

Go forth and pubmed.

Can't watch youtube at work. But I'm assuming you didn't really have anything interesting to say and were just mocking me.

As I said, I'm not touting. I did say that it makes me sound like a jacka$$ to talk about it. But I was using my professor as the source, not me. I haven't done any research on meat consumption and cancer.

I just did.

And note "meat consumption" not "eating meat at all"

Also a quote from the study I linked. "In recent meta-analyses of colorectal cancer that included studies published up to 2005 summary associations indicated that red meat intakes were associated with 28%–35% increased risks while processed meats were associated with elevated risks of 20%–49%."

Enjoy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/pubmed/24842864

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/pubmed/24847855

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/pubmed/23563998

And while obesity may be a confounding factor when looking at general population studies, it's been found to be associated regardless of BMI.

TL;DR

Eating meat causes cancer. That's what ivy league educators are saying so you know it's true.

Increased risk.

But thanks for trying. I appreciate your attempt to summarize for me.

"I don't believe you because I don't want to" - Guy on the internet

You know it's true when random guys on the internet say things.

You know, I don't think she really went about it in the right way, but the girl talking about how vegetarian diets are healthier is in fact correct. I'm a public health student at an Ivy League university and was taught this information. I sound like a total a$$hat for saying that but I feel like I need some credibility.

I also found this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121650/ simply by googling. If you think a professor of public health at an Ivy is wrong, want to disagree with the NIH?

Meat consumption is linked to increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and metabolic syndrome- basically all chronic diseases.

Also there is no ethical argument to support meat consumption. Just because our bodies can do it does not make it ethical. Just because it happens in nature does not make it ethical. *TW* Rape occurs in nature among other animals, but I sincerely doubt you'll find a sane person who thinks rape is ethical.

That all being said, I'm an omnivore. I like burgers. I need more protein. I know it's not ethical and increases my risk for chronic disease but I do it anyway. I'm too lazy to do it and I like my meat foods too much.

There's nothing wrong with being an omnivore, but even if I don't want to go veg or vegan, I accept that I would be a more ethical and perhaps healthier person if I did.

From the study you linked

"In interpreting the findings from studies of meat intake and cancer, it should be noted that individuals who consume a diet high in red and processed meat typically also consume large amounts of foods such as butter, potatoes, refined grains, and high-fat dairy, all components of a westernized diet [60]. Thus red and processed meat intake might not be solely responsible for higher cancer risk. Additionally, meat intake is usually correlated with higher energy intakes [61,62] and obesity [63], so residual confounding may be present. Research aimed at understanding how foods and nutrients interact to promote or prevent carcinogenesis may provide a better understanding of potential etiological pathways and may explain some of the heterogeneity of published results."

None of the blue zone populations, which are the healthiest and longest living populations in the world, follow a strictly vegetarian or vegan diet.

Thank you for bringing some sanity to this loony bin.

Can't watch youtube at work. But I'm assuming you didn't really have anything interesting to say and were just mocking me.

Watch it at home then, it's quite relevant to your comment.

But I was using my professor as the source, not me. I haven't done any research on meat consumption and cancer.

Then cite them, not attendance at a bastion of inflated tuition. Having worked with people from Dartmouth, Cornell, Harvard, and a couple others. Only thing impressive has been the network they have.

And note "meat consumption" not "eating meat at all"

What you keep missing is something basic, and this is wholly inline with attendance at Ivy leagues. Consumption does not show causation. OVER consumption does. It's a tiny word, I know. 4 letters. However, it's an extremely important modifier.

No need to thank me, it's a public service I provide.

Yeah.... see, I'm bored at my internship and procrastinating on a project. I don't think I'll be watching it at home but thanks anyway.

I agree that Ivy does not equal intelligence. I know some really stupid people in my program. But teaching at an Ivy is different. Especially when it's one of the top schools in receiving funding from the NIH. The professor I'm lazily quoting has his specialty in oncogenetics and cancer research and has published for the National Academy of Science. Now, you can say what you will about academia not necessarily being based on intelligence either, but I think it hits a little closer to the mark.

Thanks for being so condescending. That's incredibly sweet of you. Thank you for that public service.

Here, let me teach you a new word too! It's called dose-response. It's often used to chart the effects of an exposure based on differing amounts. Now, meat consumption and colorectal cancer have been shown to have what's called a "linear dose-response", this means that any amount increases risk and the more you consume, the greater your risk.

This paper has a graph of it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108955/

I know that pictures can be easier to understand than words.