Vegetarianism

[JustARandomPanda]

I was amazed at the quote posted in this thread by someone about what John Chang "got" about this subject when asked. It was EXACTLY what I have gotten in meditation. And I had never read the referenced book. And I don't offer this as "proof" to anyone out there but as conversation to you.

 

 

That would be madMUHHH who posted it:

 

A little fun fact to conclude my post: As many of you may already know:,John Chang asked "God" whether it is okay to eat meat and God said that it is:

 

"I asked Him about hunting and killing game. I detected amusement in His voice when he answered that question, because He said: 'You are asking Me about this because you killed a wild boar last week to eat, didn't you? It's okay to kill for food; all of nature is a struggle for survival. But you must never kill for sport or for pride, because all of nature belongs to God.'"

 

The Magus of Java, page 125

 

 

I hope my Library has a copy of that book.

[de_paradise]

This sounds suspiciously like you are on a veggie loaded CRON diet. It's similar to the way Okinawans eat. It may be the CRON that is delivering these results and not necessarily the veggies. Until you self-tested the same amount of calories you have weekly on veggies with several months on one with same cals using animal sourced foods (preferably organic only and local raised to boot) you can not be sure.

 

I'm sorry you are so depressed about this thread.

 

It's just a bunch of peeps trying to make sense in their lives. If I could afford to live somewhere where I could grow my own food perhaps I would be fully organic vegetarian. I'd still eat my own chicken-laid eggs though. I do have real world experience my body does better with eggs. Taking lecithin supplements, B12 and other Life Extension vitamins/minerals doesn't deliver the same results as the real deal.

 

I don't eat modern factory made Soy however. But that's just me.

 

Thanks for your reply S-B. I'll read the links carefully. Sounds like the Cron diet. I just had the most amazing pinapple off the truck, Taiwan has such great fruit and vegetables.

Its not the thread that depresses me, its the disappointment of the cold intellectualizing style of many posters here (and in other threads in TB's, often I see them so off the mark because they are stuck in their heads), makes me feel often estranged in this forum. Yes I feel strongly that vegetarianism is part and parcel of the evolved state that we can acheive due to having widened your compassion from just humans to include other sentient beings.

[madMUHHH]

Sorry but this is plain wrong.

You have obviously never been on a farm [which i spent half my childhood on].

1.) Cattle munches grass down to its roots, and leave pastures looking like they have had a Brazilian. Go any where, where grass grows and there is no cattle and you will see thick, wild and wooly grass, which you'll never see on a pasture.

2.) Grass does not produce nearly as much oxygen as trees, which were cleared to make room for pastures and the crops to feed the cattle.

3.) Cows pass something like 12 liters of methane gas a day.

 

 

Seth.

 

Hi there seth,

first of all, I did not spend my childhood on a farm, but my grandfather had his own farm when I was younger and I come from avery small village of which people say that there are more cows living here than humans (which is of course wrong, but whatever ). And

 

1.) So what? Perhaps I expressed myself wrong, but grass being short is in not necessarily a contradiction to grass growing faster. The grass on most pastures certainly doesn't look ultra lush and wild and stuff, but it doesn't look dangerously short either. It's probably also a matter of how much cows per acre you keep.Of course I cannnot prove this from personal experience, but I have read several times that when grass is being cut (as in "eaten") it actually grows faster, which would result in more biomass produced (even if the cows munch it down to a short length) and more carbon dioxide fixed. Obviously I don't have the experience to be exactly sure, whether this is really true (I've never watched grass grow), so you might aswell be right, but I guess you don't have the necessary experience either, do you?

 

Answers to 2.) and 3.) will soon follow, gotta go now.

[madMUHHH]

Oh, and before I continue, two more additions to 1):

a) Actually, you really can't compare some random patch of grass with pasture. That patch has usually been left alone for YEARS. Of course it's gonna be much denser than most pastures, even if the grass on there is growing only half as fast.

 

b ) Also, in my village, there is a pasture, if you can call it that, with a lot of thick grass and bushes and trees and all that. It looks like a very natural environment more than anything and in my opinion, that is exactly how cattle is supposed to be kept.

Edited March 11, 2012 by madMUHHH

[Seth Ananda]

 

1.) So what? Perhaps I expressed myself wrong, but grass being short is in not necessarily a contradiction to grass growing faster. The grass on most pastures certainly doesn't look ultra lush and wild and stuff, but it doesn't look dangerously short either.

 

Cool, but I should have been more clear that I was addressing your point a:

a) this makes the grass grow faster and thus is a good way to fix carbondioxide

This makes no sense to me as the grass [as you said] is thicker wilder and lusher outside a pasture, and even if eating it does make it grow faster, when the top is eaten by a cow, there is far less of the leaf to produce oxygen and absorb carbon dioxide.

 

So therefore, a pasture does less for our global problems than a plain old field. It is not the growing speed that counts, it is the presence of ample leafage that does the world good.

[Seth Ananda]

Hi Seth,

I am not going to even answer your reply post to me about the vegetarianism on a detailed basis because you have so many things inaccurate that it will take way too much time to address them individually.

Hmm, really? I feel an answer coming on...

 

Your assumptions are completely baseless and you didn't really address my points. You insist that your flawed analysis is correct because you BELIEVE it is.

 

hmm that large genetically diverse communities, of life long vegetarians do just fine is just my belief?

 

As an example of your flawed analysis: poison spray airplanes drop poison spray over your house and you call to lodge a complaint and find out the "board of discipline" consists of only poison spray applicators. Of course they "prove" to you that it isn't a problem. But you know it is. This is exactly the same as you using a group of vegetarians to "prove" you are correct.

Ok, but my vegetarians live in reality! I don't need to prove it, they exist and they are not some lab cooked data. 16.3 million, in just one community. Many who have faced trials with their diets, and found vegetarian solutions...

Just because there are some quacks out there who will tell an anemic person that eating meat is the only cure, doesn't mean they are right, just because you have 'clinical experience'...

 

You also eat meat so appear to have no personal experience. I DO have personal experience but you don't THINK that has any bearing because you don't BELIEVE it does.

I was vegetarian for 9 years with some periods of more extreme dietary experiments. In the end I got sick, as I was a lazy vego. My doc said to eat meat, but instead I got some obsessed vego friends to help me change my vego diet to a better one. That fixed me right up. But I am to lazy to spend that much time preparing meals, so eventually I tried meat. Did the trick, and until I have streamlined my life more to be able to be a very healthy vego I will continue to eat meat occasionally.

 

You change what I say, ignore what I say, only respond to a portion of my points and make assumptions on what you THINK I say rather than what I actually say. The "studies" referred to are case histories which are exactly that. They are not and cannot be judged as wrong or flawed because they are simply what they are. How can one debate with that? If you want, see my post above for more info as to why you are dead wrong. I can see that you appear incapable of a rational debate on this and I can see that nothing can change your flawed opinion.

i am sorry but I do not believe that I have changed anything you have said. That is a nasty allegation, but if I have, please show me and I will apologize at once. I am passionate about honesty and specific details, hence when I argue, I like to try to address every point I see... Not that I am always successful.

 

As for the case studies. I am not saying they are wrong. But I am challenging the conclusions that someone may draw from such studies...

Vego's and anemia = Long history for certain dispositions and possibly blood types.

 

I am not arguing there.

But to conclude that: "Eating meat is the Only Only ONLY solution for this person, and they can Never never NEVER be a healthy vegetarian!!!" is plain wrong.

 

That is all I have been challenging right from the start.

 

Now I am also not addressing 'meat as medicine' which may be valuable for certain conditions, and possibly more speedily effective than other options, but I am not going to say that there are not Vego options as well.

 

I stand by my statement, That everyone can be a Healthy Vegetarian. I don't at all believe that that means that everyone 'should' be a vegetarian.

 

You are obviously not a rancher or farmer to say the above. I am. Pasture management is complex, and animals can do much to improve the pastures. Have you never heard of rotational grazing?

Have a great day!

Lol, yes i have 'heard' of it. I have never seen a pasture with any of the vitality and wonder of Natures wild places, which were clear felled for your pasture

 

Enjoy your day as well

[Ya Mu]

Hmm, really? I feel an answer coming on...

 

 

 

hmm that large genetically diverse communities, of life long vegetarians do just fine is just my belief?

 

 

Ok, but my vegetarians live in reality! I don't need to prove it, they exist and they are not some lab cooked data. 16.3 million, in just one community. Many who have faced trials with their diets, and found vegetarian solutions...

Just because there are some quacks out there who will tell an anemic person that eating meat is the only cure, doesn't mean they are right, just because you have 'clinical experience'...

 

 

I was vegetarian for 9 years with some periods of more extreme dietary experiments. In the end I got sick, as I was a lazy vego. My doc said to eat meat, but instead I got some obsessed vego friends to help me change my vego diet to a better one. That fixed me right up. But I am to lazy to spend that much time preparing meals, so eventually I tried meat. Did the trick, and until I have streamlined my life more to be able to be a very healthy vego I will continue to eat meat occasionally.

 

 

i am sorry but I do not believe that I have changed anything you have said. That is a nasty allegation, but if I have, please show me and I will apologize at once. I am passionate about honesty and specific details, hence when I argue, I like to try to address every point I see... Not that I am always successful.

 

As for the case studies. I am not saying they are wrong. But I am challenging the conclusions that someone may draw from such studies...

Vego's and anemia = Long history for certain dispositions and possibly blood types.

 

I am not arguing there.

But to conclude that: "Eating meat is the Only Only ONLY solution for this person, and they can Never never NEVER be a healthy vegetarian!!!" is plain wrong.

 

That is all I have been challenging right from the start.

 

Now I am also not addressing 'meat as medicine' which may be valuable for certain conditions, and possibly more speedily effective than other options, but I am not going to say that there are not Vego options as well.

 

I stand by my statement, That everyone can be a Healthy Vegetarian. I don't at all believe that that means that everyone 'should' be a vegetarian.

 

 

Lol, yes i have 'heard' of it. I have never seen a pasture with any of the vitality and wonder of Natures wild places, which were clear felled for your pasture

 

Enjoy your day as well

Re: Psture

seth said "1.) Cattle munches grass down to its roots, and leave pastures looking like they have had a Brazilian."

I said "Have you never heard of rotational grazing". This of course solves the problem you mention as 1)

 

you said "I have never seen a pasture with any of the vitality and wonder of Natures wild places, which were clear felled for your pasture"

I also prefer woods over pasture.

But your implication here, as I understand it, is that people having pastures is not a good environmental thing, or at least, not as good as having trees. I agree, to an extent. But do you have a proposed moral what is best for humanity solution? Is it for everyone to plant trees and totally do away with pastures or do you have another?

 

Back to veg club

This "Hmm, really? I feel an answer coming on... " is a simple attempt by you to discolor what I really said, which was to the effect that I would not list your posts individual points because that would take too much time and that those points were illogical so why bother. I didn't say "I will not answer your post" then answer, which is what you imply. Just another way you have of twisting what a person really says so as to add one more point of discoloration. You have used this style consistently here.

 

I have said all along "Some people do not do well on vegetarian diets while some do."

You say "ALL people can do well on vegetarian diet."

 

Now, before we can have ANY rational discourse, are you, in a deluded thinking manner, going to disagree with the statement: "If just ONE person out of humanity doesn't do well with a vegetarian diet, then NONE can say "ALL people can do well on a vegetarian diet." If your answer is yes, I agree, then you have just disproved your illogical argument. If your answer is "NO" then we have nothing further to say due to your illogical thinking.

 

Also, you say that "studies" can be flawed. Congratulations! Very true. It is also true that I used the word "studies" because these cases were a study for me. But in the technical sense I admit to a mistake here. They are case histories, not studies. A case history is simply that. It is not a subject for debate. It simply is. A person is either having a problem or not. If your answer to this question is "yes" a case history is just that and is not a debatable thing, then we can continue. But if your answer is "no" then you obviously have no understanding of what a case history is and we have no basis for a "debate", as it is not a logically debatable thing.

 

You also seem to think you have all the answers and that if a person isn't doing well that they simply have not tried the "right" approach. I addressed this and told you these particular people tried everything known about eating vegetarian to increase their iron, zinc, b12, calcium, and other nutrients lacking in a vegetarian diet. and you would not respond to this other than saying you THINK they simply haven't tried the "right approach".

 

Here, since you have all this vast clinical experience and you THINK you know, it would be nice of you to list everything YOU would suggest they do. This list may even help SOME of those experiencing difficulties. I will say that b12 shots DID help some but not all of these people and if they were willing to go get regular b12 shots they may or may not have pulled out of their situation. These same people tried every available form of oral b12 supplementation and it didn't work for them. What worked for the majority of people was simply adding meat into their diet. So we are back to the point that do these people NEED to add meat to their diet. I grant you that they could have just continued on their path of ill health and in that sense they didn't NEED to do anything. But if a person has tried all known solutions proposed by all the people, internet sources and any other form of information, and it didn't work for them, and yet adding meat to their diet did, it is illogical to say that they didn't need to add meat to their diet to maintain health, as this was the only solution which worked.

 

Now other vegetarians do just fine with a rich diet but these people didn't. Now what part of this do you not understand? How can this possibly be a debatable thing? They either did well or they did not. One can say all sorts of things that they THINK they know, but one can't debate something that simply is. Your only possible argument to this is that they didn't "do it right" which is something you can't possibly know. Now, if your answer to that statement of you can't possibly know whether they "did it right" or not is "yes", how is it possible that this is debatable? How is it possible to continue this conversation? If your answer is "no", it isn't by any type of logical thinking, which apparently, judging by your responses, you lack in, and we have no reason to talk about this subject.

 

And I presented a FACT that these over 250 people didn't do well on a vegetarian only diet. You discard this for some irrational reason and call it a "theory". I can't help your thinking along, only you can do that. Again, the only possible argument to this would be that they "didn't do it right". And since, by logic and rational thinking, we have already determined that you can't possibly know that. I, however did invite you to list YOUR solutions.

 

Or are you challenging the diagnosis of anemia? Can't help you there as this is one of those things that they either are or are not. And, the thing is, even if the tests were screwed up and the doctor was wrong in all of these over 250 cases, there remains a FACT that these people weren't doing well. This is not a debatable subject, they either were or were not. The variable here was adding meat to the diet, which worked.

 

I don't know why you insist on keeping on about another of your illogical thinking arguments. Your whole argument is centered by your statements about x number of people, who are vegetarians, do just fine. Congratulations! This is a true statement. But, logic dictates that a statement of truth that x number of people do well does not mean that x number of people don't. How is this a debatable thing? It is not. It is only a true statement. There is no debate to it. I did point this out to you and you ignored it and have kept using this statement as your main point. The conclusion here is that there is nothing to debate about.

 

This whole thing boils down to the fact that seth THINKS he knows but simply has not had the real world experience to see that he doesn't and that what he says doesn't apply to every person. And apparently utilizes fallacious and illogical arguments to justify said thinking.

 

Edit: AND, Have a great day!

 

Edit 2:

On second thought: I realize you enjoy debating. I don't. I don't post to debate but to share experience. One thing I want to accomplish, when I post, is to help people. A debate really never does that, the only thing it accomplishes is to find out who is a better wordsmith. What is almost NEVER accomplished, is to help with the subject being posted. That is what I want to do. I am not a wordsmith nor do I really have the time to sit there, copy someones long reply and respond to each sentence in the manner you like to do. On this thread, my original post was to add some thought and another view that was designed to counter the me-too view that all is hunky dory fine with a vegetarian diet and to counter what I know as false view that this is tied into being "spiritual". I explained all of the points about this.

I just can't see where a debate when one person has already made up their mind and wishes to debate the point while ignoring simple facts has any merit; it helps nobody.

So here it is seth, the big moment you have been striving for: Get Ready: you win. Happy? Glad I was able to contribute to your happiness. Knock yourself out on posting whatever you wish.

Edited March 11, 2012 by Ya Mu

[madMUHHH]

 

This makes no sense to me as the grass [as you said] is thicker wilder and lusher outside a pasture, and even if eating it does make it grow faster, when the top is eaten by a cow, there is far less of the leaf to produce oxygen and absorb carbon dioxide.

 

 

Ahh, okay, now I see what you meant. This is actually a bit more complex than I made it out to be, thanks for addressing that.

 

So, basically my thought was, that if grass grows faster it obviously produces more biomass per period of time. So if we assume that every gram of grass fixes a certain amount of carbon (actually the correct term is fixing carbon and not carbon dioxide, isn't it? I mixed that up) than it would logically follow that there is more carbon fixed overall.

Why is that? Shouldn't a longer blade of grass when it is left alone fix more carbon than a shorter blade, even if that one regrows very fast? I don't think so. When you just look at the baseline metabolism a longer blade will obviously need more carbon dioxide than a short one. But I don't think that baseline metabolism is what counts here. After all, all that carbon dioxide that is absorbed through photosynthesis (or most of it) will return to the atmosphere at night, when the plant is "breathing". So the only time a plant will actually fix carbon and not "emit" it back to the atmosphere is when it is using that carbon for structural needs, growth, repair and so on. And a faster growing (and re-growing) blade of grass will obviously do better at that.

 

That's my take at least.

 

Back to your other two arguments:

 

2.) Grass does not produce nearly as much oxygen as trees, which were cleared to make room for pastures and the crops to feed the cattle.

3.) Cows pass something like 12 liters of methane gas a day.

 

2.) You are right about that. We have much more need for reforestation than we have for pastures. Trees certainly shouldn't make room for pastures, I completely agree with you there. But even a natural environment is not completely made up of ultra-dense forests (depending on which part of the planet you are living on, obviously). So there will always be some places where cattle naturally fits in. That certainly won't be enough to "procude" the amount of meat that is consumed currently, but that can only be a good thing in my opinion. Overall, people really should reduce their meat consumption. But that does not mean, that there are no sustainable, eco-friendly ways to procuce meat.

 

3.) Yes, but keep in mind that those measurements have probably been made with grain-eating cows. There are people who say that cows only pass so much methane, because they are being fed a food, they can't properly digest and that grass-eating cows only pass a fraction of that amount of methane. However, I can't back that claim up scientifically (but it does sound sensible to me).

Edited March 11, 2012 by madMUHHH

[JohnC]

On second thought: I realize you enjoy debating. I don't. I don't post to debate but to share experience. One thing I want to accomplish, when I post, is to help people. A debate really never does that, the only thing it accomplishes is to find out who is a better wordsmith. What is almost NEVER accomplished, is to help with the subject being posted. That is what I want to do. I am not a wordsmith nor do I really have the time to sit there, copy someones long reply and respond to each sentence in the manner you like to do. On this thread, my original post was to add some thought and another view that was designed to counter the me-too view that all is hunky dory fine with a vegetarian diet and to counter what I know as false view that this is tied into being "spiritual". I explained all of the points about this.

I just can't see where a debate when one person has already made up their mind and wishes to debate the point while ignoring simple facts has any merit; it helps nobody.

 

REPOSTED FROM LOMAX FOR +10 Insight.

 

John

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I guess I'll also add that I think one of the reasons eating vegan or vegetarian makes me feel spiritually lighter is that it is easier to digest vegetable proteins in legume and grains along with carbs than meat protein along with carbs. So I have more energy and a "lighter" feeling. If you can separate carbs and protein without feeling hungry then that may be the same thing, at least for that effect....

[de_paradise]

REPOSTED FROM LOMAX FOR +10 Insight.

 

John

 

We all want to share and help, but as soon as the post gets written, the debates start. Nature of language and forums. The irony is we are guilty of something we accuse others of.

 

Noone is saying you need to be vegetarian to be spiritual, I am saying its skillful in the Buddhist point of view, and its indicative of a broader compassion for animals.

 

You may have noticed that alot of the new agey types, the people who tend to be the spontaneous kundalini types, with all sorts of odd beliefs--these people tend to gravitate towards veganism---they are not being brainwashed or adhering to some fake idea---its just happening naturally--the ideas build and stick by their own forces underneath conscious level thinking. Notice this, ask why, ask is this is a trend that is building on its own, is there a social evolution happening based on broader compassion? If you don't notice this or question its statistical valibility, then maybe you are missing something. My feeling is that there is something to this trend, there is something worthwhile in trying to understand.

[JohnC]

We all want to share and help, but as soon as the post gets written, the debates start. Nature of language and forums. The irony is we are guilty of something we accuse others of.

 

Noone is saying you need to be vegetarian to be spiritual, I am saying its skillful in the Buddhist point of view, and its indicative of a broader compassion for animals.

 

You may have noticed that alot of the new agey types, the people who tend to be the spontaneous kundalini types, with all sorts of odd beliefs--these people tend to gravitate towards veganism---they are not being brainwashed or adhering to some fake idea---its just happening naturally--the ideas build and stick by their own forces underneath conscious level thinking. Notice this, ask why, ask is this is a trend that is building on its own, is there a social evolution happening based on broader compassion? If you don't notice this or question its statistical valibility, then maybe you are missing something. My feeling is that there is something to this trend, there is something worthwhile in trying to understand.

See the debate is fine, as long as people are willing to actually look at their beliefs and ideas, examine them, and if found lacking change them.

 

Which is the real purpose of debate.

 

This takes a certain amount of humility and vulnerability in accepting that you may be wrong(as if that matters) but more a focus on accuracy and living the best way vs being right.

 

Not, at all, to present your ideas looking for validation, or agreement. Or speaking them to get others to believe in them or do things your way. When that happens your just masturbating with others about how you all are right, and all others aren't or whatever.

 

Because as soon as it's about being right, the debate is worthless and more about your ego and feeling good about yourself.

 

The point being, the more secure you are in your beliefs and ideas about the world, the less you need others to agree with you, or see things in your way.

 

Likewise the less secure, the more you need others to validate you, in agreeing with you.

Usually I see this as people getting agitated because it brings up in them that they may be wrong.

 

John

[mYTHmAKER]

.

Edited March 12, 2012 by mYTHmAKER

[Seth Ananda]

You also seem to think you have all the answers and that if a person isn't doing well that they simply have not tried the "right" approach. I addressed this and told you these particular people tried everything known about eating vegetarian to increase their iron, zinc, b12, calcium, and other nutrients lacking in a vegetarian diet. and you would not respond to this other than saying you THINK they simply haven't tried the "right approach".

Wrong! I don't at all think I have all the answers, but there are countless studies showing that a proper vegetarian diet is not lacking in any nutrients vitamins or minerals whatsoever! Bad Vego diets definitely can be lacking. But not good ones.

 

Here, since you have all this vast clinical experience and you THINK you know, it would be nice of you to list everything YOU would suggest they do.

Um I do not have clinical experience, but just because you do, it does not make your argument more valid. I could find you 10 different clinicians who will all have their own differing beliefs based on their own experiences, and who would argue with you as well - and each other. So clinical experience means nothing.

 

But science has shown, many times that you can get the same amount of needed nutrients in a vego diet as from a meat one.

 

So a scientific conclusion that can not be argued with, is that a meat diet offers the same nutrients as a good vego diet. So how can one be lacking in something unless they are on a Bad vegetarian diet?

 

Its all there in the bare elements.

 

The reason I am arguing with you is because you are presenting your self as an authority on the subject, and as far as I am concerned, you are not. You may be greatly skilled at your trade and even treat very successfully, but I don't think that at all means your conclusions are Infallible, or the opinions you have formed.

 

You keep pulling the 'I have clinical experience and you don't' card. but your opinion becomes just that, an opinion, when there are other clinicians of differing opinion out there as well. Why should I/we believe you over them?

 

I know you hate your 'authority' being challenged, as whenever this happens you get very personal, aggressive, and often nasty, but how are you different to any Doctor who pulls rank on their client, saying "Don't question me, I am an MD!"?

 

This list may even help SOME of those experiencing difficulties. I will say that b12 shots DID help some but not all of these people and if they were willing to go get regular b12 shots they may or may not have pulled out of their situation. These same people tried every available form of oral b12 supplementation and it didn't work for them. What worked for the majority of people was simply adding meat into their diet.

 

I agree. Meat is probably one of the better options, for speedier healing, and one I would take as well, but it is not the only option.

 

Also, If they had had a better vego diet in the first place, they would not be in this situation. Most bad vego diets are highly lacking in Iron and B vitamins, and to go years on this is bad news...

 

So we are back to the point that do these people NEED to add meat to their diet. I grant you that they could have just continued on their path of ill health and in that sense they didn't NEED to do anything. But if a person has tried all known solutions proposed by all the people, internet sources and any other form of information, and it didn't work for them, and yet adding meat to their diet did, it is illogical to say that they didn't need to add meat to their diet to maintain health, as this was the only solution which worked.

 

I see what you are saying, but I can't fully agree. I personally say anything that works is good, but I can't say that it is not possible by other methods.

 

And what person has tried ALL known solutions?

 

And again here you are talking about Meat as medicine. I won't argue that that can be good, but an already healthy person, can stay healthy on a Vegetarian diet for their life time if they eat right.

 

Hence I still stand by my saying that Everyone 'can' be a healthy vegetarian.

 

Anyway I feel I have said my piece and adequately explained my ideas. I am off to work in the country for the week, and wont have computer access so I wont be able to respond to what ever reply you think up.

 

Enjoy!

[de_paradise]

The point being, the more secure you are in your beliefs and ideas about the world, the less you need others to agree with you, or see things in your way.

 

Sure, but then you can take the individual "I" and broaden it, and it no longer is just about your own secure beliefs. I mean to say, beyond one's own individual ego struggle with piecing together a map of the world that works, there is a whole spectrum of interacting for the benefit of others. When you speak to someone who knows nothing about the path of spirituality, you are speaking for their benefit, not to merely bolster your own ego's version of truth. That is called "Dao De"

 

The basic message that you dont need to be a vegetarian to be spiritual is what they are trying to express, I am trying to express that its helpful, skillful, perhaps has a larger context in human's evolution.

 

[Aetherous]

Hence I still stand by my saying that Everyone 'can' be a healthy vegetarian.

 

This is true. You can. If you eat nutritional yeast, fortified foods, or if you are lacto-ovo, then you will get the vitamin B12 which is lacking in your diet.

 

Something to consider is that eating nutritional yeast or fortified cereals in order to stave off anemia is not a natural diet. Period. The human body was not designed to be vegan. Vegans are designed to slowly die off in a "natural world" scenario. Human beings are omnivores, and benefit from being so. Many of the key nutrients we seem to thrive on come strictly from animal sources.

 

But due to our modern society, anything can work. So whatever you choose...enjoy! I'm sure you can live a long and fairly healthy life thanks to human ingenuity. As long as you are smart about it.

 

Also, there are people in here referencing scientific studies, but not citing them. Who knows if these studies even exist!? So if you're going to say that science has proven something to be true, please cite the source so that others can look into it for themselves. Please, especially, don't say that there are "countless studies" and leave it at that. I don't trust any of you, on either side of the debate!

 

Here is a trustworthy source of information on "Food sources of important nutrients" for vegetarians: http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=6374

 

I'm surprised that they didn't add Omega-3 sources onto the list for vegans, since it seems dieticians tend to strongly recommend getting more of those. At first glance, this link appears to be useful: http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/omega3

[JustARandomPanda]

But science has shown, many times that you can get the same amount of needed nutrients in a vego diet as from a meat one.

 

So a scientific conclusion that can not be argued with, is that a meat diet offers the same nutrients as a good vego diet. So how can one be lacking in something unless they are on a Bad vegetarian diet?

 

 

Its all there in the bare elements.

 

This is true. Of the nutrients we know about. That's the biggie. We don't know about everything that makes up our food.

 

Believe me Seth. If I knew of a way supplements could duplicate the results I get from eggs I'd try to find a way to afford it. But NONE of the components of eggs when taken in supplement form have the same result as simply eating eggs. I mean...part of me wonders why this isn't one reason why a lot of Nutritionists and Dieticians say you should get most of your body's necessities from real food. Otherwise we could all pig out on crap food but make it "nutritious" with massive doses of a variety of nutrients and phyto-nutrients. But nowhere have I ever seen that posited as a way to make a junk food diet become a miraculously nutritious one.

 

 

 

Also, If they had had a better vego diet in the first place, they would not be in this situation. Most bad vego diets are highly lacking in Iron and B vitamins, and to go years on this is bad news...

 

Meh. That's true of most of Western Civilization. According to the latest WHO statistics - believe it or not - Mexico has now surpassed the U.S. as having the largest percentage of both "fat" and officially medically-defined "obese" people within a country. And they are nowhere near as rich a country as Australia. New stats coming out of France show they're not the amazingly slender people they once were. The U.S. was the Canary in the Coal-Mine but the rest of the world is fast catching up and in some places - like Mexico - is now surpassing the U.S. population in unhealthy eating and food supply and thus showing the results in their waistlines.

 

 

Check this latest book:

 

The World is Fat: The Fads, Trends, Policies and Politics That are Fattening the Human Race

 

 

It's gone Global. Unhealthy eating is creeping up on all but the most remote of indigenous populations. So you can't just lay that solely on either unhealthy animal products diets nor unhealthy vegetarian diets. Not when our PETS (including horses and donkeys!) world wide are getting more obese right alongside the humans.

 

 

And what person has tried ALL known solutions?I see what you are saying, but I can't fully agree. I personally say anything that works is good, but I can't say that it is not possible by other methods.

 

 

Well...if you got any new supplements, fats, phyto-nutrients, omegas or whatever that are in eggs that I haven't tried shoot me a PM please. I'll see if A ) I can afford it or B ) have already tried it. Believe me...I've tried just about everything I can think of so I'm all ears on this one for me personally.

 

And what person has tried ALL known solutions?

 

And again here you are talking about Meat as medicine. I won't argue that that can be good, but an already healthy person, can stay healthy on a Vegetarian diet for their life time if they eat right.

 

Hence I still stand by my saying that Everyone 'can' be a healthy vegetarian.

 

Maybe. Maybe not. I still maintain Science does not yet know all of what makes up our food. Hell...it still denies the existence of Chi simply because no instrument has been devised to detect it yet. I don't think any Inner Alchemy practitioner much doubts the existence of Chi (and certainly none who've gone through a Kundalini Awakening doubts it) despite Science saying there's no evidence it exists.

 

There are way too many variables in the "can" statement. Why can no supplements I've taken not duplicate the effect of eggs on my hair and nails? The stuff I've taken is supposed to be Turbo-charged. I convinced my mom to pay for the Uber Expensive Life Extension vitamins, minerals, omegas, GLAs, ALAs, lecithin and phyto-nutrients, etc (expensive cause LEF has them made in the U.S., not China like the majority of Supplement companies these days). Man...nothing duplicates eggs. I have run out of variables to test.

 

Seriously. If you know of one that's new or that I haven't covered already I'm all ears. I've got 4 cabinets full of life extension vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids of all types in my icebox, creams with extracts in airtight containers (air degrades nutrients), etc.

 

That appeal is open to ANYBODY. You got a nutrient in eggs that might do the trick stick it in this thread or PM me and I'll see if I've already tried it for several months (since hair grows so slowly/faster with nails though). If it's new I'll try to see if I can get some and try it out.

 

 

I also remain a skeptic of Scotty's answer. However, he has good info. But maybe he can suggest some egg supplement that I haven't yet tried that will deliver the result of eggs.

 

Now...whether it will be as *affordable* as eggs is another matter but I don't mind seeing if I could try something out.

 

 

 

And as to the countless studies...

 

 

A) Check out Beyond 120 Year Diet - has a very good end notes section with exactly the type of references wanted. That's one reason why I liked that book so much. You can actually track down and read for yourself the papers, research the author is drawing from. Of course the book is more pleasant to read than a bunch of old studies but still the sources are good.

 

But if you don't trust us Scotty why not do what I do? Just start using PubMed or Google? I've had people surprised I find out weird stuff but really all it takes is just starting to throw words together with a + symbol in front and coming up with weird combos to string together and poof - you find out stuff you never would otherwise.

 

It's good for people to read up on stuff for themselves. Anyway, as good as Beyond 120 Year Diet is it's now 'old news'. The author died many years ago and it hasn't been updated. But I'll swing by PubMed and see what I can dig up on the newest submissions for Calorie Restriction studies. I can recommend some excellent resources for someone else who is a fan of wanting to begin to try to be a self-made lab rat and take advantage of the latest research.

 

 

SereneBlue side note: There is a movement afoot in Academia to make publishing to the Web one's latest research and have it peer reviewed there be the norm now and do away with publishing in academic journals altogether. It's free. The public has already paid for the research with their tax dollars and the scientist's who do the actual "peer review" always do their work 'pro bono' (aka for free). The For Profit academic journals have banded together to sneak a law into Congressional Appropriation Bills to force the public to pay again for research that's already been paid for.

 

Go to Scientific American to read about the lobbying being done by the For Profit Science Journals.

 

 

 

Go check out some of these resources Scotty (I am assuming you don't know of them already, if you do my apologies for presuming too much).

 

1. SENS.org

 

2. Fightaging.org

 

3. Longcity.org - scroll down to their section on Calorie Restriction. You can get lots of research oriented stuff and people APPLYING that research in a NEWS-YOU-CAN-USE fashion to themselves and their families. Very cool. I'm a member of their forums.

 

4. LEF.org - this Org used to be more cool than it is now. About 10 years ago it got overrun by a bunch of peeps with the 'we're only in this for the money' mentality and they no longer really adhere to their "R&D and Report" vision they once had. But it can be a good place to look for getting an idea on stuff then you go to some of the other places I mentioned to get the real low-down on what research really says both pro and con.

 

 

Some more good resources for info on Nutrition

 

 

I'm a huge fan of the following books:

 

 

Biochemical Individuality <- anyone who is arguing with Ya Mu NEEDS to read this book PRONTO. I promise you. The SCIENCE of this book is what YA MU was trying to get across to all the naysayers.

 

and

 

the followup

 

The Wonderful World Within You

 

 

 

 

 

p.s. Biochemical Individuality is pretty dense reading. It helps if you understand at least basic chemistry. And especially chemistry as applied to biological organisms. It also helps if you understand research design and statistics. But assuming you do...that book is amazing. Believe it or not...that book was written for a lay audience.

 

Ah...science must have been better known back then among the populace than it is these days.

Edited March 12, 2012 by SereneBlue

[JustARandomPanda]

Ok.

 

Here's for encouraging EVERYONE to READ for themselves both pro and con. Few things in life are ever black and white so there's good arguments on all sides in this thread.

 

 

Here's what I pulled up just a few seconds ago on PubMed

 

I used:

 

Calorie Restriction +Life Extension

 

for the search query:

 

 

Here are the Results for today:

 

Enjoy!

 

 

 

p.s. Senescence is fancy "science-speak" for "growing old".

Edited March 12, 2012 by SereneBlue

[JustARandomPanda]

Look at this nice little Abstract for one of the papers I pulled up a few seconds ago.

 

As I said: The World is Catching Up with the U.S. - Even in Okinawa!

 

 

 

Abstract

Longevity in Okinawa is considered to be a result of traditional low calorie diet. Le Bourg suggests that Okinawa is an example of severe malnutrition, which is harmful for later generations. We believe that current loss of longevity advantage in Okinawa is a result of diet westernization and that the dietary restriction is a valid way of life extension in humans.

 

 

Here's the results I got when I did a query for

 

Meat +Health

 

 

 

Ok. I apologize about the earlier post in saying Mexico is fatter than the U.S. I swear I read somewhere a few weeks ago that that was true. However, this just goes to show I should track down my own sources and try to keep them. I can't find that source anymore.

 

The only source I found was this one:

 

Obesity Stats per Country

 

 

Thing is - I can not find a date on that chart so I have no idea how current it is. It may be brand new or it might be several years old. I can't tell.

 

 

Here is the World Health Organization's own webpage on the topic.

Edited March 12, 2012 by SereneBlue

[Aetherous]

Thanks for the resources, Serene! I am looking into the calorie restriction ones you provided.

 

As for the egg substitute, I have no idea.

 

All of this food talk is making me salivate. Which reminds me of The Flavor Bible which is my favorite cookbook (although it's not really one) in the world! Allows for total creativity.

[JustARandomPanda]

Thanks for the resources, Serene! I am looking into the calorie restriction ones you provided.

 

As for the egg substitute, I have no idea.

 

All of this food talk is making me salivate. Which reminds me of The Flavor Bible which is my favorite cookbook (although it's not really one) in the world! Allows for total creativity.

 

I know! The egg thing has baffled the heck out of me! I simply do not understand it because in practice I have duplicated everything an egg possesses and in theory it should work! But the supps don't freakin work the same way. What gives? I have no freaking clue so I am not trying to put anyone down or say that your PoV is somehow less valid or accurate than mine. I just don't understand what's going on.

 

I got on this kick because I'm trying to grow my hair very, very long. Like down to where one's butt and legs join. Think Lady Godiva. On the Haircare boards I'm a member of they call it "Classic Length." So yeah..vanity is the reason I got interested in doing these experiments. Believe me...us long hair devotees are avid Self-Made Lab Rats. We are always trying to figure out a way to make our hair grow faster or thicker or grow back if it's thinning (yes, there are guys on those boards too), etc.

 

Nothing has worked like eggs.

 

And they don't even have to be fancy organic or omega-3 eggs! They're plain ordinary, battery farm, factory-farm eggs. Now...I don't buy those kind of eggs anymore. I try to stick with the range-free eggs if only as a salve to my conscience when I can. But that's *why* I first began actually running these kinds of tests.

 

If anyone wants to join me (male or female) at the Long hair board I go to check out

 

 

LongHairCommunity.com

[suninmyeyes]

 

Something to consider is that eating nutritional yeast or fortified cereals in order to stave off anemia is not a natural diet. Period. The human body was not designed to be vegan. Vegans are designed to slowly die off in a "natural world" scenario. Human beings are omnivores, and benefit from being so. Many of the key nutrients we seem to thrive on come strictly from animal sources.

 

But due to our modern society, anything can work. So whatever you choose...enjoy! I'm sure you can live a long and fairly healthy life thanks to human ingenuity. As long as you are smart about it.

Well human body is obviously designed to be vegan as well as it there are so many healthy vegans and has always been, actually human body has incredible capasity . As long as there are vegans in the world it must be as nature itended for those indviduals.

What I am trying to say is that majority does not necessary equal natural.It simply means majority.

Who knows maybe we are going to pop only some pills in future for our food, it may become our natural way of life (hopefully not ).

It is worth taking in consideration the fact that everything constantly changes too ,as you mentioned yourself about modern society and humans adapt and change too.

Actually as I stated before nature is not tame and one dimenisoned , she expresses her self in so many different ways at the different times through all the physical manifestations. So I dont believe in labeling things per masses as unshakable rule ,rather taking in consideration an individual.

 

Maybe eating vegan was our frist diet too , it is a possibility. By the way I am not claiming anything becouse I simply honestly dont know.

Edited March 12, 2012 by suninmyeyes

[Ya Mu]

I guess I'll also add that I think one of the reasons eating vegan or vegetarian makes me feel spiritually lighter is that it is easier to digest vegetable proteins in legume and grains along with carbs than meat protein along with carbs. So I have more energy and a "lighter" feeling. If you can separate carbs and protein without feeling hungry then that may be the same thing, at least for that effect....

A good point. I have seen over and over that food combining is one of the keys to eating. I hear from too many people that says meat doesn't digest well. If folks simply didn't combine it with carbs it digests very well, for most people.

 

... If you eat nutritional yeast, fortified foods, or if you are lacto-ovo, then you will get the vitamin B12 which is lacking in your diet.

...

For most people this is true. This was one of the things tried in the folks I saw and for some it didn't seem to make any difference. Which I think points to some of the other nutrients other than vit B12 which is the common lacking nutrient, or it could be an individual assimilation thing. We are all different. Not a fan of "fortified foods", though.

 

This is true. Of the nutrients we know about. That's the biggie. We don't know about everything that makes up our food.

 

Believe me Seth. If I knew of a way supplements could duplicate the results I get from eggs I'd try to find a way to afford it. But NONE of the components of eggs when taken in supplement form have the same result as simply eating eggs. I mean...part of me wonders why this isn't one reason why a lot of Nutritionists and Dieticians say you should get most of your body's necessities from real food. Otherwise we could all pig out on crap food but make it "nutritious" with massive doses of a variety of nutrients and phyto-nutrients. But nowhere have I ever seen that posited as a way to make a junk food diet become a miraculously nutritious one.

 

 

 

 

 

Meh. That's true of most of Western Civilization. According to the latest WHO statistics - believe it or not - Mexico has now surpassed the U.S. as having the largest percentage of both "fat" and officially medically-defined "obese" people within a country. And they are nowhere near as rich a country as Australia. New stats coming out of France show they're not the amazingly slender people they once were. The U.S. was the Canary in the Coal-Mine but the rest of the world is fast catching up and in some places - like Mexico - is now surpassing the U.S. population in unhealthy eating and food supply and thus showing the results in their waistlines.

 

 

Check this latest book:

 

The World is Fat: The Fads, Trends, Policies and Politics That are Fattening the Human Race

 

 

It's gone Global. Unhealthy eating is creeping up on all but the most remote of indigenous populations. So you can't just lay that solely on either unhealthy animal products diets nor unhealthy vegetarian diets. Not when our PETS (including horses and donkeys!) world wide are getting more obese right alongside the humans.

 

 

 

 

 

Well...if you got any new supplements, fats, phyto-nutrients, omegas or whatever that are in eggs that I haven't tried shoot me a PM please. I'll see if A ) I can afford it or B ) have already tried it. Believe me...I've tried just about everything I can think of so I'm all ears on this one for me personally.

 

 

 

Maybe. Maybe not. I still maintain Science does not yet know all of what makes up our food. Hell...it still denies the existence of Chi simply because no instrument has been devised to detect it yet. I don't think any Inner Alchemy practitioner much doubts the existence of Chi (and certainly none who've gone through a Kundalini Awakening doubts it) despite Science saying there's no evidence it exists.

 

There are way too many variables in the "can" statement. Why can no supplements I've taken not duplicate the effect of eggs on my hair and nails? The stuff I've taken is supposed to be Turbo-charged. I convinced my mom to pay for the Uber Expensive Life Extension vitamins, minerals, omegas, GLAs, ALAs, lecithin and phyto-nutrients, etc (expensive cause LEF has them made in the U.S., not China like the majority of Supplement companies these days). Man...nothing duplicates eggs. I have run out of variables to test.

 

Seriously. If you know of one that's new or that I haven't covered already I'm all ears. I've got 4 cabinets full of life extension vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids of all types in my icebox, creams with extracts in airtight containers (air degrades nutrients), etc.

 

That appeal is open to ANYBODY. You got a nutrient in eggs that might do the trick stick it in this thread or PM me and I'll see if I've already tried it for several months (since hair grows so slowly/faster with nails though). If it's new I'll try to see if I can get some and try it out.

 

 

I also remain a skeptic of Scotty's answer. However, he has good info. But maybe he can suggest some egg supplement that I haven't yet tried that will deliver the result of eggs.

 

Now...whether it will be as *affordable* as eggs is another matter but I don't mind seeing if I could try something out.

 

 

 

And as to the countless studies...

 

 

A) Check out Beyond 120 Year Diet - has a very good end notes section with exactly the type of references wanted. That's one reason why I liked that book so much. You can actually track down and read for yourself the papers, research the author is drawing from. Of course the book is more pleasant to read than a bunch of old studies but still the sources are good.

 

But if you don't trust us Scotty why not do what I do? Just start using PubMed or Google? I've had people surprised I find out weird stuff but really all it takes is just starting to throw words together with a + symbol in front and coming up with weird combos to string together and poof - you find out stuff you never would otherwise.

 

It's good for people to read up on stuff for themselves. Anyway, as good as Beyond 120 Year Diet is it's now 'old news'. The author died many years ago and it hasn't been updated. But I'll swing by PubMed and see what I can dig up on the newest submissions for Calorie Restriction studies. I can recommend some excellent resources for someone else who is a fan of wanting to begin to try to be a self-made lab rat and take advantage of the latest research.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go check out some of these resources Scotty (I am assuming you don't know of them already, if you do my apologies for presuming too much).

 

1. SENS.org

 

2. Fightaging.org

 

3. Longcity.org - scroll down to their section on Calorie Restriction. You can get lots of research oriented stuff and people APPLYING that research in a NEWS-YOU-CAN-USE fashion to themselves and their families. Very cool. I'm a member of their forums.

 

4. LEF.org - this Org used to be more cool than it is now. About 10 years ago it got overrun by a bunch of peeps with the 'we're only in this for the money' mentality and they no longer really adhere to their "R&D and Report" vision they once had. But it can be a good place to look for getting an idea on stuff then you go to some of the other places I mentioned to get the real low-down on what research really says both pro and con.

 

 

Some more good resources for info on Nutrition

 

 

I'm a huge fan of the following books:

 

 

Biochemical Individuality <- anyone who is arguing with Ya Mu NEEDS to read this book PRONTO. I promise you. The SCIENCE of this book is what YA MU was trying to get across to all the naysayers.

 

and

 

the followup

 

The Wonderful World Within You

 

 

 

 

 

p.s. Biochemical Individuality is pretty dense reading. It helps if you understand at least basic chemistry. And especially chemistry as applied to biological organisms. It also helps if you understand research design and statistics. But assuming you do...that book is amazing. Believe it or not...that book was written for a lay audience.

 

Ah...science must have been better known back then among the populace than it is these days.

I don't think it would be a substitute for eggs, but I do know of a concentrated nutrient derived from eggs that you could try and even think you may find it helpful. I personally don't find anything wrong with eating farm fresh eggs as we have about 20 chickens running around. Pasture raised, of course. BIG difference in omega 3 versus store bought and always fresh. I don't eat the eggs everyday, though. Send me a PM or preferably an email and I will give you a link.

 

This is true. Of the nutrients we know about. That's the biggie. We don't know about everything that makes up our food.

 

Very true. As grand as science can be it doesn't have everything figured out.

 

Biochemical Individuality <- anyone who is arguing with Ya Mu NEEDS to read this book PRONTO. I promise you. The SCIENCE of this book is what YA MU was trying to get across to all the naysayers.

 

Thanks for posting the link. Yes, this is exactly what I have been referring to.

 

Anyone who thinks I presented myself as an authority on vegetarianism has not bothered to actually read my posts or has misinterpreted my posts. I said I happen to have experience with this issue which is not the same thing. Nowhere did I say "I am an authority on vegetarianism." What I do know is that foods are complex and individual people's biochemical makeup including genetics is different, and anyone that makes a blanket statement that ALL people can do this - this is science - simply doesn't understand this. Clinical experience is simply that and no more. But it does give a broad overview and insight into these human complexities that others would never see or think about. I do fully understand that when one hasn't seen these complexities then absolutes of cut & dried become the norm. Life is not cut & dried, by any means. I remember a time long ago when I thought all laminectomies didn't work for people. A stupid view of course. My wife reminded me of something that should have been obvious to me but was not because I had seen hundreds of these failures and had never seen a success; the only people who came to see me were the failures. The fact that my limited life experience didn't include the successes didn't mean they didn't exist.

[JustARandomPanda]

I didn't know about this. No wonder Ya Mu says he sees sick chi radiating off grocery store ground beef.

 

 

Is Pink Slime in the Beef at Your Grocery Store?

 

 

Sigh...

 

Well I am trying to move in a more Vegetarian direction. This just kinda adds impetus for that.

[steve]

I didn't know about this. No wonder Ya Mu says he sees sick chi radiating off grocery store ground beef.

 

 

Can you imagine feeding this shit to our children?

 

Is the Pink Slime in Your Child's Lunch?