What is your take on a Fully Raw Vegan Lifestyle?
Replies
-
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Now that logic confuses me.
One is controllable. The other, less so.
is it? how is an individual refusing to buy meat products at the supermarket any more impactful on animal cruelty than refusing to spend money on any other good or service, the proceeds of which almost certainly end up contributing to human cruelty?
what makes one more controllable than the other?
Honestly, you have totally lost me (honestly confused not being snarky).
going to the store and purchasing a breast from a chicken which has already been slaughtered is no more a direct contribution to cruelty against other creatures than paying your taxes.
not buying meat will not save any animals. those animals will still be treated poorly and slaughtered indiscriminately (much as human cruelty will continue to be perpetuated across the globe). if you do not buy the meat, even if no one buys the meat, it will sit on the shelf until it expires and is simply discarded. the empty spot on the shelf will immediately be filled with yet more meat from yet more dead animals.
is it not hypocritical to abstain from meat in the spirit of ethics while simultaneously contributing to far greater cruelties in the same indirect manner simply by earning a paycheck?
and again, in response to your first reply, what makes animal cruelty more "controllable" than human cruelty?Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Sounds like moral nihilism argument. The fact that you can't perfectly avoid being part of some kind of suffering doesn't mean you give up minimizing suffering. Plus the one solution to that attempt at moral paradox is anarcho-veganism, and that's even more annoying to hear about.
are you sure that's moral nihilism?
the real crux of my argument is that abstaining from meat has absolutely zero impact on suffering. I make no claim that cruelty to animals is amoral.
The money spent creates demand which in a free market will consequently increase supply. If meat starts spoiling on the shelves in greater quantities, producers will scale back production.
And yes, one single decision has negligible impact, but that argument is like saying there's no point voting because one vote doesn't matter in the grand scheme.
the difference there is that voting is part of a social institution, whereas veganism is assuredly not. it's a way to feel "moral" while sitting comfortably at home, making no real contribution or impact. at least go join PETA and hand out some fliers or throw blood on a rich socialite or some other *kitten*. or do something real like join Habitat for Humanity and build a house for someone less fortunate.
Way to make assumptions there!!!0 -
Boring, unnecessary, untasty, restrictive, difficult, unsustainable, potentially malnutritious.a fully raw vegan lifestyle ... what is your take on this lifestyle?
I like salmon, and bacon, and chicken noodle soup, and pizza, and beer, and frozen fudge
pops, and tapioca pudding, and pasta, and even salad dressing ...
But if it's what you want to do, have at it. Why should my opinion matter?
If you just want to experiment, try it for a couple months. Keep a detailed diary of how you feel
physically & mentally. Be honest with yourself. Maybe even keep track of how easy or hard it is to
do various exercises, how long/fast you can run, how much you can lift, etc.
At the end of the experimental period, look back & compare, see if there's been any change, and
if so is it for good or ill?
If there's no change, is the moral high ground worth the fuss & difficulty? If so, keep at it.
0 -
Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Now that logic confuses me.
One is controllable. The other, less so.
is it? how is an individual refusing to buy meat products at the supermarket any more impactful on animal cruelty than refusing to spend money on any other good or service, the proceeds of which almost certainly end up contributing to human cruelty?
what makes one more controllable than the other?
Honestly, you have totally lost me (honestly confused not being snarky).
going to the store and purchasing a breast from a chicken which has already been slaughtered is no more a direct contribution to cruelty against other creatures than paying your taxes.
not buying meat will not save any animals. those animals will still be treated poorly and slaughtered indiscriminately (much as human cruelty will continue to be perpetuated across the globe). if you do not buy the meat, even if no one buys the meat, it will sit on the shelf until it expires and is simply discarded. the empty spot on the shelf will immediately be filled with yet more meat from yet more dead animals.
is it not hypocritical to abstain from meat in the spirit of ethics while simultaneously contributing to far greater cruelties in the same indirect manner simply by earning a paycheck?
and again, in response to your first reply, what makes animal cruelty more "controllable" than human cruelty?Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Sounds like moral nihilism argument. The fact that you can't perfectly avoid being part of some kind of suffering doesn't mean you give up minimizing suffering. Plus the one solution to that attempt at moral paradox is anarcho-veganism, and that's even more annoying to hear about.
are you sure that's moral nihilism?
the real crux of my argument is that abstaining from meat has absolutely zero impact on suffering. I make no claim that cruelty to animals is amoral.
I meant that buying meat or not is more controllable than spending money. Your comment about contributing to more cruelties by earning a paycheck comment has me just as confused with its logic - or at least application to real life. Maybe if you explain what 'far greater cruelties' will happen 'just by earning a paycheck' it may become clearer.
I have a couple of issues with your logic re the filling the shelves comment, the main one of which is the lack of supply and demand considerations - if no-one buys meat, those shelves will not be filled.
Also, I think the term 'ethical' has been pulled out of the vernacular to imply that anyone who says that they are an ethical veg*n thinks that anyone who eats meat is unethical. That is just not the case for everyone. The term "ethical' is often used to be clearer as to why someone does not eat meat - e.g.. not for health or weight loss reasons - not that they think people who eat meat are unethical as people, or that they are more ethical as people.
I do not like the term personally, as it does smack of elitism/holier then thou to me - although I have used the term as its an easy identifying in some situations.
I honestly still do not get your logic or your confusion about why people may be veg*ns. People are veg*ns for many reasons. Many times it is as simple as "I feel better about myself if I do not eat meat'. We are emotion driven creatures and not Vulcans....although Spock did not eat meat (but that was physiological and not emotion driven).
I certainly see where you are coming from, especially regarding the potential vagueness or misappropriation of the term "ethical" in this context. and I also see how doing it could simply people feel better about themselves.
I could merit the supply and demand argument holding more water if veganism were a widespread consumer movement (i.e. boycotting and other PETA-like actions), rather than just a diet. but it's just a diet.
my mention of "far greater cruelties" is just an analogy to illustrate the weak correlation between an individual purchasing meat and the provider of that meat committing cruel acts. an individual is no more responsible for the cruelty incurred in the procurement of that meat than they would be responsible for war crimes committed by their government simply because they pay taxes to that government.0 -
I like the occasional raw vegan coconut cookie (by occasional I mean eating the whole bag at one sitting) but overall I could never give up meat or cooking and it seems kinda silly to try. There is zero evidence that it is in any way beneficial. I hear some people say "oh I feel so much better" but when you look at the before and after pictures of them they look like they have contracted some disease that is slowly wasting them away. Instead of looking healthy but trim they look sunk in and their skin seems dull and lifeless.
Unfortunately I have to agree with this. Those of my friends who eat this way look like they are on chemo. Usually after several years I have noticed they switch to "regular" vegetarianism or even pescatarianism. One guy went back completely to meats, poultry and fish along with the veg and dairy and he is doing so much better both physically and mentally.
Humans have evolved to be omnivores. You *can* survive doing otherwise, and it is of course your right to eat as you wish, but on a health level, I have to consider it suboptimal. Absent medical conditions that demand you do otherwise, I am a proponent of the old fashioned 4 food groups, portioned out in the modern "my plate" method.
0 -
Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Now that logic confuses me.
One is controllable. The other, less so.
is it? how is an individual refusing to buy meat products at the supermarket any more impactful on animal cruelty than refusing to spend money on any other good or service, the proceeds of which almost certainly end up contributing to human cruelty?
what makes one more controllable than the other?
Honestly, you have totally lost me (honestly confused not being snarky).
going to the store and purchasing a breast from a chicken which has already been slaughtered is no more a direct contribution to cruelty against other creatures than paying your taxes.
not buying meat will not save any animals. those animals will still be treated poorly and slaughtered indiscriminately (much as human cruelty will continue to be perpetuated across the globe). if you do not buy the meat, even if no one buys the meat, it will sit on the shelf until it expires and is simply discarded. the empty spot on the shelf will immediately be filled with yet more meat from yet more dead animals.
is it not hypocritical to abstain from meat in the spirit of ethics while simultaneously contributing to far greater cruelties in the same indirect manner simply by earning a paycheck?
and again, in response to your first reply, what makes animal cruelty more "controllable" than human cruelty?Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Sounds like moral nihilism argument. The fact that you can't perfectly avoid being part of some kind of suffering doesn't mean you give up minimizing suffering. Plus the one solution to that attempt at moral paradox is anarcho-veganism, and that's even more annoying to hear about.
are you sure that's moral nihilism?
the real crux of my argument is that abstaining from meat has absolutely zero impact on suffering. I make no claim that cruelty to animals is amoral.
I meant that buying meat or not is more controllable than spending money. Your comment about contributing to more cruelties by earning a paycheck comment has me just as confused with its logic - or at least application to real life. Maybe if you explain what 'far greater cruelties' will happen 'just by earning a paycheck' it may become clearer.
I have a couple of issues with your logic re the filling the shelves comment, the main one of which is the lack of supply and demand considerations - if no-one buys meat, those shelves will not be filled.
Also, I think the term 'ethical' has been pulled out of the vernacular to imply that anyone who says that they are an ethical veg*n thinks that anyone who eats meat is unethical. That is just not the case for everyone. The term "ethical' is often used to be clearer as to why someone does not eat meat - e.g.. not for health or weight loss reasons - not that they think people who eat meat are unethical as people, or that they are more ethical as people.
I do not like the term personally, as it does smack of elitism/holier then thou to me - although I have used the term as its an easy identifying in some situations.
I honestly still do not get your logic or your confusion about why people may be veg*ns. People are veg*ns for many reasons. Many times it is as simple as "I feel better about myself if I do not eat meat'. We are emotion driven creatures and not Vulcans....although Spock did not eat meat (but that was physiological and not emotion driven).
I certainly see where you are coming from, especially regarding the potential vagueness or misappropriation of the term "ethical" in this context. and I also see how doing it could simply people feel better about themselves.
I could merit the supply and demand argument holding more water if veganism were a widespread consumer movement (i.e. boycotting and other PETA-like actions), rather than just a diet. but it's just a diet.
my mention of "far greater cruelties" is just an analogy to illustrate the weak correlation between an individual purchasing meat and the provider of that meat committing cruel acts. an individual is no more responsible for the cruelty incurred in the procurement of that meat than they would be responsible for war crimes committed by their government simply because they pay taxes to that government.
There are also some veg*ns that act like that who are not 'ethical' veg*ns, but are ones because of some strong (and misguided) conviction of the health benefits.
I think you will find that many vegans that are 'ethical' vegans do actually do a lot of those things (many do not though) - it really depends on their motivation and other individual aspects/convictions.
I am not a vegan, but a vegetarian and am responding from my perspective (as you initially categorized as the lack of logic of not eating meat in general - therefore including vegetarians). Personally, it would be hypocritical of me to think others unethical or that I am better than people who eat meat for many reasons, one of which is that I drink a lot of milk and that milk is not produced without a certain amount of suffering of cows, either directly or indirectly from the slaughter of the male calves. I recognize this, eating meat is just too direct and the thought of it makes me feel pretty ill (well, except bacon..my mouth still waters when I smell bacon cooking and I have not eaten it for over 25 years!!).
Re the spending money point - we all do that so we are all on a level playing field with that one - which is what I meant as not as controllable - but I think we were coming at the point from different angles.
I am not sure what the consumer movement has to do with the supply and demand point - unless you are saying that there are not enough people to make a single bit of difference, which I would suggest is a flawed conclusion. I personally think it makes a difference (its just economics) and that makes me feel better (about myself, not than others).
I have seen a lot of posts from people who are pompous about the 'moral' side of not eating meat. I also have a lot of people on my FL who do not play that card at all - they just happen not to be comfortable with eating meat for them personally.
My main point really is that people are vegans or vegetarians for many reasons and have a varied outlook on people who do eat meat (even if they use the term 'ethical') and assumptions about the whats and the whys will be wrong for many.
0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Now that logic confuses me.
One is controllable. The other, less so.
is it? how is an individual refusing to buy meat products at the supermarket any more impactful on animal cruelty than refusing to spend money on any other good or service, the proceeds of which almost certainly end up contributing to human cruelty?
what makes one more controllable than the other?
Honestly, you have totally lost me (honestly confused not being snarky).
going to the store and purchasing a breast from a chicken which has already been slaughtered is no more a direct contribution to cruelty against other creatures than paying your taxes.
not buying meat will not save any animals. those animals will still be treated poorly and slaughtered indiscriminately (much as human cruelty will continue to be perpetuated across the globe). if you do not buy the meat, even if no one buys the meat, it will sit on the shelf until it expires and is simply discarded. the empty spot on the shelf will immediately be filled with yet more meat from yet more dead animals.
is it not hypocritical to abstain from meat in the spirit of ethics while simultaneously contributing to far greater cruelties in the same indirect manner simply by earning a paycheck?
and again, in response to your first reply, what makes animal cruelty more "controllable" than human cruelty?Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Sounds like moral nihilism argument. The fact that you can't perfectly avoid being part of some kind of suffering doesn't mean you give up minimizing suffering. Plus the one solution to that attempt at moral paradox is anarcho-veganism, and that's even more annoying to hear about.
are you sure that's moral nihilism?
the real crux of my argument is that abstaining from meat has absolutely zero impact on suffering. I make no claim that cruelty to animals is amoral.
The money spent creates demand which in a free market will consequently increase supply. If meat starts spoiling on the shelves in greater quantities, producers will scale back production.
And yes, one single decision has negligible impact, but that argument is like saying there's no point voting because one vote doesn't matter in the grand scheme.
the difference there is that voting is part of a social institution, whereas veganism is assuredly not. it's a way to feel "moral" while sitting comfortably at home, making no real contribution or impact. at least go join PETA and hand out some fliers or throw blood on a rich socialite or some other *kitten*. or do something real like join Habitat for Humanity and build a house for someone less fortunate.
So, just to make sure I understand you here:
You are judging me for my dietary practices, because you think they imply that I am judging you for your dietary practices?
Seems legit.0 -
I like the occasional raw vegan coconut cookie (by occasional I mean eating the whole bag at one sitting) but overall I could never give up meat or cooking and it seems kinda silly to try. There is zero evidence that it is in any way beneficial. I hear some people say "oh I feel so much better" but when you look at the before and after pictures of them they look like they have contracted some disease that is slowly wasting them away. Instead of looking healthy but trim they look sunk in and their skin seems dull and lifeless.
Unfortunately I have to agree with this. Those of my friends who eat this way look like they are on chemo. Usually after several years I have noticed they switch to "regular" vegetarianism or even pescatarianism. One guy went back completely to meats, poultry and fish along with the veg and dairy and he is doing so much better both physically and mentally.
Humans have evolved to be omnivores. You *can* survive doing otherwise, and it is of course your right to eat as you wish, but on a health level, I have to consider it suboptimal. Absent medical conditions that demand you do otherwise, I am a proponent of the old fashioned 4 food groups, portioned out in the modern "my plate" method.
Vegetarianism is suboptimal from a health perspective as compared to an omnivorous diet?0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »MakePeasNotWar wrote: »Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Now that logic confuses me.
One is controllable. The other, less so.
is it? how is an individual refusing to buy meat products at the supermarket any more impactful on animal cruelty than refusing to spend money on any other good or service, the proceeds of which almost certainly end up contributing to human cruelty?
what makes one more controllable than the other?
Honestly, you have totally lost me (honestly confused not being snarky).
going to the store and purchasing a breast from a chicken which has already been slaughtered is no more a direct contribution to cruelty against other creatures than paying your taxes.
not buying meat will not save any animals. those animals will still be treated poorly and slaughtered indiscriminately (much as human cruelty will continue to be perpetuated across the globe). if you do not buy the meat, even if no one buys the meat, it will sit on the shelf until it expires and is simply discarded. the empty spot on the shelf will immediately be filled with yet more meat from yet more dead animals.
is it not hypocritical to abstain from meat in the spirit of ethics while simultaneously contributing to far greater cruelties in the same indirect manner simply by earning a paycheck?
and again, in response to your first reply, what makes animal cruelty more "controllable" than human cruelty?Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Sounds like moral nihilism argument. The fact that you can't perfectly avoid being part of some kind of suffering doesn't mean you give up minimizing suffering. Plus the one solution to that attempt at moral paradox is anarcho-veganism, and that's even more annoying to hear about.
are you sure that's moral nihilism?
the real crux of my argument is that abstaining from meat has absolutely zero impact on suffering. I make no claim that cruelty to animals is amoral.
The money spent creates demand which in a free market will consequently increase supply. If meat starts spoiling on the shelves in greater quantities, producers will scale back production.
And yes, one single decision has negligible impact, but that argument is like saying there's no point voting because one vote doesn't matter in the grand scheme.
the difference there is that voting is part of a social institution, whereas veganism is assuredly not. it's a way to feel "moral" while sitting comfortably at home, making no real contribution or impact. at least go join PETA and hand out some fliers or throw blood on a rich socialite or some other *kitten*. or do something real like join Habitat for Humanity and build a house for someone less fortunate.
So, just to make sure I understand you here:
You are judging me for my dietary practices, because you think they imply that I am judging you for your dietary practices?
Seems legit.
that is not my argument (or judgement) in the slightest. you are free to follow any diet you wish, as I am free to object to such a diet being touted as an "ethical" decision.
it is often a luxury to even be able to consider such a diet in an industrialized nation. it does not involve hardship (other than self-imposed hardship if you do not enjoy the diet), in fact, as a luxury, it would be difficult to adhere to if enduring actual hardship. but that is not my point either.
the argument that it is an ethical practice is fallacious in that there are no premises which can stand to support it. I have already given my argument against supply and demand, as well my argument of the negligible impact, as well as my argument of the indirect (at best) guilt/responsibility of the consumer. and in regards to you specifically, your comparison between eating meat and voting (in terms of negligibility of impact) did not hold.
if it makes you feel better about yourself, then I have no issue. but it is not a moral high point, and it is not beneficial to animals. it is just a diet.0 -
Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Now that logic confuses me.
One is controllable. The other, less so.
is it? how is an individual refusing to buy meat products at the supermarket any more impactful on animal cruelty than refusing to spend money on any other good or service, the proceeds of which almost certainly end up contributing to human cruelty?
what makes one more controllable than the other?
Honestly, you have totally lost me (honestly confused not being snarky).
going to the store and purchasing a breast from a chicken which has already been slaughtered is no more a direct contribution to cruelty against other creatures than paying your taxes.
not buying meat will not save any animals. those animals will still be treated poorly and slaughtered indiscriminately (much as human cruelty will continue to be perpetuated across the globe). if you do not buy the meat, even if no one buys the meat, it will sit on the shelf until it expires and is simply discarded. the empty spot on the shelf will immediately be filled with yet more meat from yet more dead animals.
is it not hypocritical to abstain from meat in the spirit of ethics while simultaneously contributing to far greater cruelties in the same indirect manner simply by earning a paycheck?
and again, in response to your first reply, what makes animal cruelty more "controllable" than human cruelty?Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Sounds like moral nihilism argument. The fact that you can't perfectly avoid being part of some kind of suffering doesn't mean you give up minimizing suffering. Plus the one solution to that attempt at moral paradox is anarcho-veganism, and that's even more annoying to hear about.
are you sure that's moral nihilism?
the real crux of my argument is that abstaining from meat has absolutely zero impact on suffering. I make no claim that cruelty to animals is amoral.
I meant that buying meat or not is more controllable than spending money. Your comment about contributing to more cruelties by earning a paycheck comment has me just as confused with its logic - or at least application to real life. Maybe if you explain what 'far greater cruelties' will happen 'just by earning a paycheck' it may become clearer.
I have a couple of issues with your logic re the filling the shelves comment, the main one of which is the lack of supply and demand considerations - if no-one buys meat, those shelves will not be filled.
Also, I think the term 'ethical' has been pulled out of the vernacular to imply that anyone who says that they are an ethical veg*n thinks that anyone who eats meat is unethical. That is just not the case for everyone. The term "ethical' is often used to be clearer as to why someone does not eat meat - e.g.. not for health or weight loss reasons - not that they think people who eat meat are unethical as people, or that they are more ethical as people.
I do not like the term personally, as it does smack of elitism/holier then thou to me - although I have used the term as its an easy identifying in some situations.
I honestly still do not get your logic or your confusion about why people may be veg*ns. People are veg*ns for many reasons. Many times it is as simple as "I feel better about myself if I do not eat meat'. We are emotion driven creatures and not Vulcans....although Spock did not eat meat (but that was physiological and not emotion driven).
I certainly see where you are coming from, especially regarding the potential vagueness or misappropriation of the term "ethical" in this context. and I also see how doing it could simply people feel better about themselves.
I could merit the supply and demand argument holding more water if veganism were a widespread consumer movement (i.e. boycotting and other PETA-like actions), rather than just a diet. but it's just a diet.
my mention of "far greater cruelties" is just an analogy to illustrate the weak correlation between an individual purchasing meat and the provider of that meat committing cruel acts. an individual is no more responsible for the cruelty incurred in the procurement of that meat than they would be responsible for war crimes committed by their government simply because they pay taxes to that government.
There are also some veg*ns that act like that who are not 'ethical' veg*ns, but are ones because of some strong (and misguided) conviction of the health benefits.
I think you will find that many vegans that are 'ethical' vegans do actually do a lot of those things (many do not though) - it really depends on their motivation and other individual aspects/convictions.
I am not a vegan, but a vegetarian and am responding from my perspective (as you initially categorized as the lack of logic of not eating meat in general - therefore including vegetarians). Personally, it would be hypocritical of me to think others unethical or that I am better than people who eat meat for many reasons, one of which is that I drink a lot of milk and that milk is not produced without a certain amount of suffering of cows, either directly or indirectly from the slaughter of the male calves. I recognize this, eating meat is just too direct and the thought of it makes me feel pretty ill (well, except bacon..my mouth still waters when I smell bacon cooking and I have not eaten it for over 25 years!!).
Re the spending money point - we all do that so we are all on a level playing field with that one - which is what I meant as not as controllable - but I think we were coming at the point from different angles.
I am not sure what the consumer movement has to do with the supply and demand point - unless you are saying that there are not enough people to make a single bit of difference, which I would suggest is a flawed conclusion. I personally think it makes a difference (its just economics) and that makes me feel better (about myself, not than others).
I have seen a lot of posts from people who are pompous about the 'moral' side of not eating meat. I also have a lot of people on my FL who do not play that card at all - they just happen not to be comfortable with eating meat for them personally.
My main point really is that people are vegans or vegetarians for many reasons and have a varied outlook on people who do eat meat (even if they use the term 'ethical') and assumptions about the whats and the whys will be wrong for many.
I have no argument against this. it is very thoughtful and well-worded.
per the economic aspect, I am not an economist and so I probably undervalue the effect of individuals in such systems.
my initial comment was an offhanded sentiment at most, although when pressed repeatedly to elaborate, it is obvious that I do have a particular mindset which would inspire me to make such a comment.
perhaps it is an overly reactionary stance on my part, especially regarding what may come across as egregious assumptions. I would highlight being browbeat with ethical veganism as an impetus for such a mindset, but of course ultimately the buck stops here.
I'm continue to kick up dirt when I get a smarmy response from someone about animal cruelty, if for no other reason than my own entertainment. but maybe only when it's obviously warranted.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Before you take the leap, please watch this video (nine minutes long). I would love to hear your opinion on this scientist's findings.
https://www.ted.com/talks/suzana_herculano_houzel_what_is_so_special_about_the_human_brain?language=en
I loved the video, thank you
Michael Pollan talks about the same thing here,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVyo712BBRk
16 minutes in.0 -
Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Now that logic confuses me.
One is controllable. The other, less so.
is it? how is an individual refusing to buy meat products at the supermarket any more impactful on animal cruelty than refusing to spend money on any other good or service, the proceeds of which almost certainly end up contributing to human cruelty?
what makes one more controllable than the other?
Honestly, you have totally lost me (honestly confused not being snarky).
going to the store and purchasing a breast from a chicken which has already been slaughtered is no more a direct contribution to cruelty against other creatures than paying your taxes.
not buying meat will not save any animals. those animals will still be treated poorly and slaughtered indiscriminately (much as human cruelty will continue to be perpetuated across the globe). if you do not buy the meat, even if no one buys the meat, it will sit on the shelf until it expires and is simply discarded. the empty spot on the shelf will immediately be filled with yet more meat from yet more dead animals.
is it not hypocritical to abstain from meat in the spirit of ethics while simultaneously contributing to far greater cruelties in the same indirect manner simply by earning a paycheck?
and again, in response to your first reply, what makes animal cruelty more "controllable" than human cruelty?Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Sounds like moral nihilism argument. The fact that you can't perfectly avoid being part of some kind of suffering doesn't mean you give up minimizing suffering. Plus the one solution to that attempt at moral paradox is anarcho-veganism, and that's even more annoying to hear about.
are you sure that's moral nihilism?
the real crux of my argument is that abstaining from meat has absolutely zero impact on suffering. I make no claim that cruelty to animals is amoral.
I meant that buying meat or not is more controllable than spending money. Your comment about contributing to more cruelties by earning a paycheck comment has me just as confused with its logic - or at least application to real life. Maybe if you explain what 'far greater cruelties' will happen 'just by earning a paycheck' it may become clearer.
I have a couple of issues with your logic re the filling the shelves comment, the main one of which is the lack of supply and demand considerations - if no-one buys meat, those shelves will not be filled.
Also, I think the term 'ethical' has been pulled out of the vernacular to imply that anyone who says that they are an ethical veg*n thinks that anyone who eats meat is unethical. That is just not the case for everyone. The term "ethical' is often used to be clearer as to why someone does not eat meat - e.g.. not for health or weight loss reasons - not that they think people who eat meat are unethical as people, or that they are more ethical as people.
I do not like the term personally, as it does smack of elitism/holier then thou to me - although I have used the term as its an easy identifying in some situations.
I honestly still do not get your logic or your confusion about why people may be veg*ns. People are veg*ns for many reasons. Many times it is as simple as "I feel better about myself if I do not eat meat'. We are emotion driven creatures and not Vulcans....although Spock did not eat meat (but that was physiological and not emotion driven).
I certainly see where you are coming from, especially regarding the potential vagueness or misappropriation of the term "ethical" in this context. and I also see how doing it could simply people feel better about themselves.
I could merit the supply and demand argument holding more water if veganism were a widespread consumer movement (i.e. boycotting and other PETA-like actions), rather than just a diet. but it's just a diet.
my mention of "far greater cruelties" is just an analogy to illustrate the weak correlation between an individual purchasing meat and the provider of that meat committing cruel acts. an individual is no more responsible for the cruelty incurred in the procurement of that meat than they would be responsible for war crimes committed by their government simply because they pay taxes to that government.
There are also some veg*ns that act like that who are not 'ethical' veg*ns, but are ones because of some strong (and misguided) conviction of the health benefits.
I think you will find that many vegans that are 'ethical' vegans do actually do a lot of those things (many do not though) - it really depends on their motivation and other individual aspects/convictions.
I am not a vegan, but a vegetarian and am responding from my perspective (as you initially categorized as the lack of logic of not eating meat in general - therefore including vegetarians). Personally, it would be hypocritical of me to think others unethical or that I am better than people who eat meat for many reasons, one of which is that I drink a lot of milk and that milk is not produced without a certain amount of suffering of cows, either directly or indirectly from the slaughter of the male calves. I recognize this, eating meat is just too direct and the thought of it makes me feel pretty ill (well, except bacon..my mouth still waters when I smell bacon cooking and I have not eaten it for over 25 years!!).
Re the spending money point - we all do that so we are all on a level playing field with that one - which is what I meant as not as controllable - but I think we were coming at the point from different angles.
I am not sure what the consumer movement has to do with the supply and demand point - unless you are saying that there are not enough people to make a single bit of difference, which I would suggest is a flawed conclusion. I personally think it makes a difference (its just economics) and that makes me feel better (about myself, not than others).
I have seen a lot of posts from people who are pompous about the 'moral' side of not eating meat. I also have a lot of people on my FL who do not play that card at all - they just happen not to be comfortable with eating meat for them personally.
My main point really is that people are vegans or vegetarians for many reasons and have a varied outlook on people who do eat meat (even if they use the term 'ethical') and assumptions about the whats and the whys will be wrong for many.
I have no argument against this. it is very thoughtful and well-worded.
per the economic aspect, I am not an economist and so I probably undervalue the effect of individuals in such systems.
my initial comment was an offhanded sentiment at most, although when pressed repeatedly to elaborate, it is obvious that I do have a particular mindset which would inspire me to make such a comment.
perhaps it is an overly reactionary stance on my part, especially regarding what may come across as egregious assumptions. I would highlight being browbeat with ethical veganism as an impetus for such a mindset, but of course ultimately the buck stops here.
I'm continue to kick up dirt when I get a smarmy response from someone about animal cruelty, if for no other reason than my own entertainment. but maybe only when it's obviously warranted.
:flowerforyou:
0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
How are those two things even remotely connected?
They're not.
ETA: I replied before reading the rest.
0 -
carakirkey wrote: »My colleague has a raw vegan diet and is very healthy and educated about it. She didn't adapt that for weight loss though, more for health and ethical reasons.
Do the veggies scream if you steam them or something?
0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »allbarrett wrote: »Make sure you tell your health care provider about your dietary changes. There are vitamins and such that are easier to get through eating meat or other non-vegetarian/non-vegan products and you'll want to make sure that you aren't developing any deficiencies (usually entails slightly more detailed blood work when you have your normal check ups).
Sorry this is just a myth as a Vegan (not a Raw one) for 20 years plus the only thing that is difficult to get through a Vegan diet is Vitamin B12 which is easily available via fortified foods or a supplement.
As for talking to a health care provider most are pretty clueless about any Non meat eating diet and will be pretty useless
As for the Raw Vegan lifestyle I have no issues if it works for people but my opinion on it is the same as a normal Vegan diet it is not some panacea to health. You can have bad Vegan diets the same way you can have good ones containing animal products. I am a Vegan for ethical reasons and would live this way no matter what.
I would caution about starting a diet that you do not plan living that way for the rest of your life.
Why not just eat a varied vegan/vegetarian diet based mainly around wholefoods but without depriving yourself of things. That to me is a much more sustainable long term way of thinking about food
Good luck
don't worry bro for every animal you don't eat I probably eat 5
so I'm like -5 vegans
Laughsss0 -
This content has been removed.
-
isulo_kura wrote: »allbarrett wrote: »Make sure you tell your health care provider about your dietary changes. There are vitamins and such that are easier to get through eating meat or other non-vegetarian/non-vegan products and you'll want to make sure that you aren't developing any deficiencies (usually entails slightly more detailed blood work when you have your normal check ups).
Sorry this is just a myth as a Vegan (not a Raw one) for 20 years plus the only thing that is difficult to get through a Vegan diet is Vitamin B12 which is easily available via fortified foods or a supplement.
As for talking to a health care provider most are pretty clueless about any Non meat eating diet and will be pretty useless
As for the Raw Vegan lifestyle I have no issues if it works for people but my opinion on it is the same as a normal Vegan diet it is not some panacea to health. You can have bad Vegan diets the same way you can have good ones containing animal products. I am a Vegan for ethical reasons and would live this way no matter what.
I would caution about starting a diet that you do not plan living that way for the rest of your life.
Why not just eat a varied vegan/vegetarian diet based mainly around wholefoods but without depriving yourself of things. That to me is a much more sustainable long term way of thinking about food
Good luck
The only thing I will caution is as a woman who may want to have children there are issues when you become pregnant.
I have vegetarian friends and in order to ensure the health of their children they had to start eating some form of meat/animal products while pregnant as it can cause health issues with the babies...
One women (not a friend) developed an inability to process certain nutrients (can't remember which one) late in her pregnancy (it reversed itself after the child was born)but her child was born with it and can't at all and will never be able too...
along with other issues.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/159182750 -
isulo_kura wrote: »allbarrett wrote: »Make sure you tell your health care provider about your dietary changes. There are vitamins and such that are easier to get through eating meat or other non-vegetarian/non-vegan products and you'll want to make sure that you aren't developing any deficiencies (usually entails slightly more detailed blood work when you have your normal check ups).
Sorry this is just a myth as a Vegan (not a Raw one) for 20 years plus the only thing that is difficult to get through a Vegan diet is Vitamin B12 which is easily available via fortified foods or a supplement.
As for talking to a health care provider most are pretty clueless about any Non meat eating diet and will be pretty useless
As for the Raw Vegan lifestyle I have no issues if it works for people but my opinion on it is the same as a normal Vegan diet it is not some panacea to health. You can have bad Vegan diets the same way you can have good ones containing animal products. I am a Vegan for ethical reasons and would live this way no matter what.
I would caution about starting a diet that you do not plan living that way for the rest of your life.
Why not just eat a varied vegan/vegetarian diet based mainly around wholefoods but without depriving yourself of things. That to me is a much more sustainable long term way of thinking about food
Good luck
The only thing I will caution is as a woman who may want to have children there are issues when you become pregnant.
I have vegetarian friends and in order to ensure the health of their children they had to start eating some form of meat/animal products while pregnant as it can cause health issues with the babies...
One women (not a friend) developed an inability to process certain nutrients (can't remember which one) late in her pregnancy (it reversed itself after the child was born)but her child was born with it and can't at all and will never be able too...
along with other issues.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15918275
You can get all those nutrients noted in the study while being a vegetarian - you just need to be mindful of the fact that they are often lower in 'typical vegetarian foods'. You need to be even more mindful when a vegan as it is even more restrictive. A meat eater who eats very little fruits and veggies also runs the risk of being deficient.0 -
My take is you will get very few dinner party invitations
0 -
I've been a vegan-leaning vegetarian (not raw) for almost 25 years now, during which time I gave birth to 2 children, who have always been and are still healthy vegetarians, ages 19 and 22. No issues at all during pregnancy, and I've eaten both healthy and not so healthy (my reason for being on MFP now!) during that time. Vegan diets are not automatically healthy, though eating vegan does keep me conscious of food, nutrition, and especially vegetables. I really don't understand the whole raw thing, personally. As for the diet being boring--Not for me-It's encouraged me to try recipes from all over the world, using ingredients most of my omnivorous friends have never heard of. As for the diet being socially limiting--Sometimes. I tend to eat dairy and eggs when we are visiting people because even cooking ovo-lacto can be a stretch for some folks, let alone vegan. But it's nothing that can't be worked around. I'd examine your reasons for wanting to make the change. Try eating vegan for awhile without making a declaration about it and take a multivitamin. Raw, I don't know...0
-
Danielle721007 wrote: »Well thank you all for your opinions ! I personally love to eat raw veggies and of course yummy fruits and nuts so it doesn't bother me as far as eating goes. In terms of the "healthier" mention, what I should have clarified was referring to it is healthier in terms of most people don't eat as much or even half veggies and fruits as a person should based on the nutritional daily amount. Of course grains and meats are consumed more (by those who do not adapt an evenly nutritional lifestyle) that is. My reason for excluding meat is merely because my body feels better and I don't feel so lethargic after meals.
While I am on a weight loss journey, this is not a diet or ploy to lose my weight. I am simply eating this way because I enjoy the way my body feels eating these delicious fruits and vegetables.
So why not just focus on upping your veggie and fruit intake, instead of making drastic cuts from your diet? It would be much easier, and more sustainable long term, to add things instead of arbitrarily cutting things out.
0 -
No meat, no eggs, no dairy, no fun.
I could not live without butter, ice cream and other sweets made with butter and eggs, beef, and pork.0 -
Does it really have zero impact on animal suffering? Sure, any one person making a decision won't stop the meat industry, but eventually reduced demand will filter into less animals being killed - at the very least, the person has disassociated themselves from the system of suffering to the extent they can. That it would take everyone else doing it is where preachy vegans (looking at you PETA) come out and give most vegans a bad name.
are you sure that's moral nihilism?
the real crux of my argument is that abstaining from meat has absolutely zero impact on suffering. I make no claim that cruelty to animals is amoral.
I'm neither vegan nor vegetarian, but I look at it morally the same as giving charity to the poor. I don't consider it a moral requirement to do so, but I'll say anyone that can make the sacrifice is being more moral than me.0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »allbarrett wrote: »Make sure you tell your health care provider about your dietary changes. There are vitamins and such that are easier to get through eating meat or other non-vegetarian/non-vegan products and you'll want to make sure that you aren't developing any deficiencies (usually entails slightly more detailed blood work when you have your normal check ups).
Sorry this is just a myth as a Vegan (not a Raw one) for 20 years plus the only thing that is difficult to get through a Vegan diet is Vitamin B12 which is easily available via fortified foods or a supplement.
As for talking to a health care provider most are pretty clueless about any Non meat eating diet and will be pretty useless
As for the Raw Vegan lifestyle I have no issues if it works for people but my opinion on it is the same as a normal Vegan diet it is not some panacea to health. You can have bad Vegan diets the same way you can have good ones containing animal products. I am a Vegan for ethical reasons and would live this way no matter what.
I would caution about starting a diet that you do not plan living that way for the rest of your life.
Why not just eat a varied vegan/vegetarian diet based mainly around wholefoods but without depriving yourself of things. That to me is a much more sustainable long term way of thinking about food
Good luck
The only thing I will caution is as a woman who may want to have children there are issues when you become pregnant.
I have vegetarian friends and in order to ensure the health of their children they had to start eating some form of meat/animal products while pregnant as it can cause health issues with the babies...
One women (not a friend) developed an inability to process certain nutrients (can't remember which one) late in her pregnancy (it reversed itself after the child was born)but her child was born with it and can't at all and will never be able too...
along with other issues.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15918275
You can get all those nutrients noted in the study while being a vegetarian - you just need to be mindful of the fact that they are often lower in 'typical vegetarian foods'. You need to be even more mindful when a vegan as it is even more restrictive. A meat eater who eats very little fruits and veggies also runs the risk of being deficient.
agreed, just more about education than anything...I am not a vegetarian but read that article and was shocked by it..I had no idea and to be honest neither did a lot of my friends who are vegetarian and female...most just eat that way because they don't like meat and didn't think it would affect them during pregnancy....
As long as women are aware of this and supplement all is good.0 -
...is being more moral than me.
I don't see a question of more vs less moral.
One might choose for ethical reasons to minimise ones adverse effects on animals, how that manifests is up to the individual. That may mean opting for a vegan lifestyle, a vegetarian diet, organically sourced animals or indeed rearing and slaughtering oneself.
Similarly one might consider ones impact in other ways.
Viewing ones morality or ethics as superior drives both the preachiness alluded to upthread, and the defensiveness demonstrated by others in the thread. It also depends on having a shared framework of morals or ethics.
0 -
I like the occasional raw vegan coconut cookie (by occasional I mean eating the whole bag at one sitting) but overall I could never give up meat or cooking and it seems kinda silly to try. There is zero evidence that it is in any way beneficial. I hear some people say "oh I feel so much better" but when you look at the before and after pictures of them they look like they have contracted some disease that is slowly wasting them away. Instead of looking healthy but trim they look sunk in and their skin seems dull and lifeless.
Unfortunately I have to agree with this. Those of my friends who eat this way look like they are on chemo. Usually after several years I have noticed they switch to "regular" vegetarianism or even pescatarianism. One guy went back completely to meats, poultry and fish along with the veg and dairy and he is doing so much better both physically and mentally.
Humans have evolved to be omnivores. You *can* survive doing otherwise, and it is of course your right to eat as you wish, but on a health level, I have to consider it suboptimal. Absent medical conditions that demand you do otherwise, I am a proponent of the old fashioned 4 food groups, portioned out in the modern "my plate" method.
I have seen the very same thing also.0 -
Been there done that got fat again-The whole raw vegan thing, growing wheat grass the enemas, the colonics, blah blah blah. From what I experienced of the diet itself and the community involved in it, it's another way to turn eating into a religion, be fashionable or use it for one-up-man ship.
However, on the plus side, there are some very nice recipes from Julian Brotman and Ani Phyo that are just good food. If you abide by the Anne Wigmore approach, the food is so bad, you won't want to eat. I'll stick with a mix of easily sustained whole foods including a variety of animals, a mix of cooked and raw, skipping most industrial processed foods.
There were a few good things I learned as a raw vegan, and one was that when I use a whole food, using soaked ground dates as a sweetener instead of pure sugar for example, I didn't have the urge to overeat. That's a good thing because a lot of raw vegan recipes have extremely high calorie counts due to the dried fruits and nuts.
After being raw vegan I lost some weight but not as much as I hoped,and it seems to have ruined my metabolism. I gained back at least double the weight I lost. My metabolism still hasn't recovered.
Common problems with vega ism in general- vegans are known for having many dental problems due to the diet. Even taking B12 supplements, According to my doc, I wasn't getting enough of this nutrient. I was exhausted all the time.
Some people like this way of eating and if it works for them fine. I do know of someone who turned his heart disease around with this but went on to a normal healthy diet once heart ok. So it may be good as a temporary measure to address some health issues,but whether or not it will work is a gamble. It has failed for many. I wish I had not eaten that way and I'm hoping I can get my metabolism back on track. I would not recommend this or any other extremist form of eating to anyone.0 -
Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Just because your ethical about animals does not mean you not ethical around humans. I try to live as ethically as I can through all streams of my life. I do not believe in the needless slaughter and exploitation of people the same way I do not believe in the needless exploitation or slaughter of animals.
Your argument that not eating meat or animal products will not save animals because they will be replaced by others is just a silly argument. It's an argument never to do anything that could have a positive effect. It's like saying there's no point teaching people to swim because if they don't drown they'll be replaced by another child. Rather than thinking well if we teach one person to swim and others realise that this is good thing more people swim so eventually lives will be saved. Luckily a lot of people do not think like you and believe it worthless to do something because it does not have a major change. All large changes in society and big political/ethical movements started with small steps and people doing things that may not have an immediate effect but there opinions actions spred
This thread is a prime example of as soon as someone mentions as they are a Vegan (normally because someone asked them) they suddenly get accused of preaching. The title of this thread is about Vegans if you don't want to hear about it dont read it otherwise they'll be Vegan content
As for shoving veganism in people's faces as Vegan's get accused off. Have you seen all the advertising and television. Watch your favourite TV program if you can come back and tell me that 20% of the adverts have a Pro Vegan Agenda then you may have a point but you'll be lucking to see less than 1% mentioning a plant milk. There is far more preaching about and using animal products than there is of Vegan ones
I always find it rather sad that as soon as someone mentions that they are Vegan, Numerous comments come out about Bacon and how many animals you eat in comparison to a Vegan. Why would anyone think this is funny? Personally that response is rather sad and I think it's more of a sub conscious self defense because just by using the Word Vegan your ethics are being challenged
I'm not on MFP to preach my Personal ethics I very rarely even go into Vegan threads because of the small minded approach some people seem to take. I probably wont go into one again for a long time. Those who know me know I don't preach my ethics at others I engage if people ask me other than that your ethical choices are your decision. Those of you in this thread who immediately attack vegans or feel the need to reply with childish comments about bacon or the amount of animals you can eat I would ask you to take a step back and think about why you respond like that? Yes there are some pushy vegans who will preach at people but compare that to other people who preach at you and it's a small minority. Most vegans are like me just normal people who have mad a choice and just get on with their lives.
Luckily on my friends list I have many people who eat both Omnivorous and Vegan/vegetarian lifestyles who do not feel the need to try and put peoples ethical opinions down. I do not believe a Vegan diet is better than anyone else's you can nutritionally have good and bad Vegan diets the same way you can have good and bad involving animal products.
Also to those of you who say you could not be a Vegan because you could not live without Cheese or Bacon. I'd like to tell you you can. You just stop eating it *simples*
I will no revert to my quiet avoiding Vegan threads state. Make your own ethical choices but don't think that because someone's else's are different to yours you immediately should attack because that says more about you than them. Have a Good Day0 -
I can't even think myself as a vegitarian . I love meat.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions