Vegetarianism is Not for Everyone - The China Study refuted... again!

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by beast

What? I care lots about humans. I also love dogs. I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

And it isn't ironic. PETA also hates women and loves dogs.

And that's not ironic? To care for a non human life form while not caring about one equal to us.

And, if you would castrate someone for having dog fights, then, no that can't be mutually exclusive. That's hypocritical, in my opinion.

[James81]

A vegetarian debate thread? We haven't had one of these for a while.

[beast]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

And that's not ironic? To care for a non human life form while not caring about one equal to us.

And, if you would castrate someone for having dog fights, then, no that can't be mutually exclusive. That's hypocritical, in my opinion.

No, it's not ironic, perhaps you are confused about the definition of the word "irony".

Nor is my stance on Michael Vick hypocritical. It wouldn't even be hypocritical had it been serious.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

Comparing women to animals? I pity your mate, even if you were trying to be sarcastic.
But, in this culture, Michael Vick gets prison time for abusing dogs while Ben Rothleisberger gets a slap on the wrist for abusing women.

Thankyou.

[Beuford]

I'm a vegan. Maybe it works for me because I get all the nutrients I need and I eat like 3000kcal a day or more, or less if we're short on food, but generally that much.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by beast

Ah, bummer. I don't think I could stomach meat at this point. I was so thoroughly indoctrinated as the child of two big hippies that I'm pretty sure I'm just a lost-cause.

Sometimes meat doesn't sit well in my stomach, and that's the only issue I have with eating it at the moment.

I eat it for the same reasons that you eat eggs though you find them gross...for the energy , and for me, the instant feeling of being grounded here.

I know there are exercises I can do to achieve that grounding feeling, and I do them as well, but the meat is something I take when I need a real jolt of energy and iron.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Beuford

I'm a vegan. Maybe it works for me because I get all the nutrients I need and I eat like 3000kcal a day or more, or less if we're short on food, but generally that much.

I've met healthy vegans, who have done their homework and get what they need, and i respect them for that, and they have helped me to see that there are actually some vegans and vegetarians that do it the intelligent way, and it can be done.

[supertom]

Originally Posted by elucidate

I have been on the receiving end of that, AND I've mentioned it here on this forum before. I find it a little distasteful that you would bring that up to be honest with you, but I can see your argument.
The fact that you think rape is about someone having their Lust satiated, shows how little you know about the subject, but you feel qualified enough to compare it to the slaughter of an animal.
A slaughtered animal does not have to deal with any aftermath of being killed...it's dead, and usually it dies a very fast death, almost instantaneous. A rape victim has to deal with a whole bunch of stuff that you will probably never know about, so it's not a very good analogy after all, is it?



You are entitled to think what you will, and spoken like a true vegetarian you think that because vego food works for you and others like you, that it must therefore work for everyone, and if they say it doesn't, it's because they are covering for being lustful. Funny how vegetarians are so wise they even know what is best for someone elses body!

I know that I have worked 15 hours shifts as a waitress before, and the only thing that gave me the energy I needed for that kind of work was some chicken. I didn't feel horny when I ate it, it just helped me feel more grounded. I don't eat a lot of meat btw...but when I do, I feel much more energized than I do eating purely vegetarian food, which I also enjoy!

I honestly didn't remember that when i posted it otherwise I wouldn't have. I will remove the post if you want since it is directed at you.

Your wrong i'm not a vegetarian I was for about a 1-2 year but i found out that a some meat work well for my body, but I can admit it is a selfish thing i do for myself, I don't delude myself into thinking that its some kind of win-win situation for me and the animal, or that by expressing gratitude that somehow its well and good between me and the animal, I know if the animal could express itself, will hate me, I made the meaning of its life was just so i could feel better but I can accept that, I dont delude myself into thinking that what works for me is best for everything involved.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by supertom

I honestly didn't remember that when i posted it otherwise I wouldn't have. I will remove the post if you want since it is directed at you.

You do what feels right for you.

Your wrong i'm not a vegetarian I was for about a 1-2 year but i found out that a some meat work well for my body, but I can admit it is a selfish thing i do for myself, I don't delude myself into thinking that its some kind of win-win situation for me and the animal, or that by expressing gratitude that somehow its well and good between me and the animal, I know if the animal could express itself, will hate me, I made the meaning of its life was just so i could feel better but I can accept that, I dont delude myself into thinking that what works for me is best for everything involved.

Well, you could have fooled me. The way you came at me sounded just like the way a vegetarian would argue the matter.

I don't delude myself either. You seem fairly certain that animals feel strong emotions as we do, like hate. I'm not convinced they do, though I know they do feel things. I honestly don't think they are like us in that respect though...so, to me, that's delusion...AND human projection to assume that they would hate me for eating them! Animals aren't humans, so you can't know what or HOW they feel.

I honestly don't get that feeling from them...since they are so detached from death, unlike us.

[supertom]

Originally Posted by elucidate

You do what feels right for you.



Well, you could have fooled me. The way you came at me sounded just like the way a vegetarian would argue the matter.

I don't delude myself either. You seem fairly certain that animals feel strong emotions as we do, like hate. I'm not convinced they do, though I know they do feel things. I honestly don't think they are like us in that respect though...so, to me, that's delusion...AND human projection to assume that they would hate me for eating them!

I honestly don't get that feeling from them...since they are so detached from death, unlike us.

I think I was projecting my emotions. Nothing I can prove thou.


I think there is some evidence.

Emotional Intelligence of Animals

Cows are capable of strong emotions such as pain, fear and even anxiety about the future.

"They will also dislike other cows, and can bear grudges for months or years."

[elucidate]

As I said, I have no doubt that animals do feel certain emotions, and they definately love to lie around in the sun and derive pleasure from it...you only have to observe them to know that.

We were talking about how they feel about us killing and eating them, and you were fairly convinced that they would hate you, and I'm assuming , anyone who does eat them, correct?

Of course if the roles were reversed, and a giant cow came up to me with a bolt gun and shot me in the head with it, I probably would fear them for the whole split second...and then...nothing! That's me projecting my own human thoughts on how I would feel if it were me. I'm not a cow though, so I don't know how they feel, and maybe they do hold a grudge?

This is what I mean about most people not even thinking about this stuff though. They are so disconnected with the process that goes on behind the scenes. All they see is the end result...a lump of red meat, packaged in the supermarket meat section. So, it's easy for them to suppress any guilt or "just not think about it" and appease their consciences.

I don't like that animals have to die, but the fact is, their flesh also contains concentrated amounts of stuff that humans need. Why would that be the case if we weren't meant to eat them?

Yes, these things can be found in other ways, and it's good that vegetarians and vegans set the standard for having more compassion when it comes to animals.

Anyway, this conversation is turning into another debate about morals and that isn't what the thread is about, so I'm gonna leave it there.

Thanks for the link.

Originally Posted by supertom

I think I was projecting my emotions. Nothing I can prove thou.


I think there is some evidence.

Emotional Intelligence of Animals

Cows are capable of strong emotions such as pain, fear and even anxiety about the future.

"They will also dislike other cows, and can bear grudges for months or years."

[Cado]

If an animal is capable of feeling in the way we'd define feelings, then I'd imagine they're just as capable of respecting the process of life as they would be of hatred.

Everything has to die, and everything has to kill something else in order to live. That's built in to all of us. Some fight and fear it, some live in total indifference until their time comes, and a rare few look death in the eye unblinking and embrace it with dignity.

As a human being, I could respect a man who killed me if we were rivals and fought in an honorable duel. If I were allowed to live a full life and then I was killed to feed another then perhaps I could accept that too. I don't know because I wasn't born into that kind of situation and I would never accept it were I thrust into it now, but I imagine gratitude for a good life could trump resentment.

If animals are truly as intelligent as some would claim then it's impossible to generalize what and how they feel. I'll admit I don't really care that much-it's so far removed from me that while it would be nice for them to live in better conditions I'm not at all moved to act. I want to eat organic not because of how animals are raised but because I want meat that's not pumped with antibiotics and hormones.

If someone wants to make the push I'd be with them. The whole industry is in need of reform, it's just not going to come from people who deny its right to exist. There's no win-win in a world where I can't get what my body needs to sustain itself and if we're gonna win-lose I'd rather be on the winning side.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

I want to eat organic not because of how animals are raised but because I want meat that's not pumped with antibiotics and hormones.

I think that's a reasonable enough reason to eat organics, and at least you're honest. Respecting your body as your temple means not filling it with unnecessary crap.(Which I'm aware in saying that, may spark another vegetarian onslaught my way, but hey...bring it on)

[Andrew Gubb]

Guess what? I gave "The China Study" to my father for christmas and it convinced him. He's not predisposed towards a vegan diet, as far as I know I heard him criticise it pretty harshly before.

He's only a biologist though. I guess all those glaring faults in the science must have slipped out of his net.

I actually like this though:

Read whoever you want but don't follow anyone, Campbell or me, just because you believe what we say makes sense.

It's way too easy to lose the forest for the trees in diet. Personal testing the number 1 way of knowing what's right (for you, or perhaps for the human species as a whole -- who knows?).

Anyway my objection is that the meat eating camp is trying to paint The China Study in such a bad light at every turn. Why are you so invested in it being wrong? I don't go around tearing apart books like "The Vegetarian Myth" in this forum. I don't feel threatened by them at all.

I kind of just want to make a post and say look -- hey -- if you aren't firmly in the meat eating camp T. Colin Campbell actually wrote a pretty good book. I don't want people to be discouraged reading it just because of all of these "refutations" on the forum.

The fact that other people don't post an equally authoritative sounding rebut for every "refutation" doesn't mean that "The China Study" is such a hopeless, worthless, useless book so lacking in real science as some would have you believe.

Give it a chance.

[russianrocket]

Because Campbell is so gungho that he is absolutely right and it is one size fits all and made for everyone. Kinda like you actually, so I see why you like him. And people are actually following his teachings, even with all the glaring omissions that have clearly been shown. But to the lay person, his book would seem perfectly reasonable, and would convert people just for that fact alone. All while ignoring real facts that he just so kindly leaves out of his book, to further his agenda. It's easy to see why someone who reads the book, can be convinced. But unless your dad thoroughly analyzed the book, then I don't see why he would say it's wrong. Like the people who HAVE thoroughly analyzed the book.

It has plenty of real science. But, the refutations that have been shown, paint it in the REAL light that it is. He's created the bible for vegetarians, essentially.

[beast]

I agree with you, Gubb, that "The Vegetarian Myth" absolutely plays as fast and loose with the facts as "The China Study". I trust that we're all sensible adults and can take in all this information with a critical eye and adopt the diet which seems best for us, makes us feel good and, let's not forget, tastes delicious.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

He's only a biologist though. I guess all those glaring faults in the science must have slipped out of his net.

And? That doesn't mean anything. Anybody can be convinced by bad science if they they want to be, particularly if they don't care to scrutinize the methodology.

The China Study is very popular amongst the vegetarian camp right now and it's also potentially dangerous for anyone who's unaware of its flaws. In the end people have to make their own choice but I don't see the problem with ensuring it's an informed one.

Honestly, you sound like you're just as invested in it being right as the people you accuse of being overly invested in proving it wrong. That stonewalls any kind of discussion.

[Brutha]

He's only a biologist though. I guess all those glaring faults in the science must have slipped out of his net.

Big hospitals who do scientific research have usually a statistic department to check that the statistics that the doctor produce are in order.

Why? Doctors or biologists aren't well trained in statistics and need someone else to spot when statistical arguments fail. That doesn't mean that biologists are useless. They have a huge amount of knowledge of various details of the human body. They however aren't trained in statistics expect hearing some dumbed down introductory course when they try to memorize the formulas. That how doctors and biologists approach learning. They want something to memorize.
Those courses aren't about critically assessing the limits of the statistical tools.

[wolfgang]

Is this a myth? :

The resources used to feed livestock to feed people with the livestock is very inefficeint. If instead the resources were used on plant based crops, many more people could be fed across the planet.

[firenexx]

No, it's simply derived from the basic principles of bio-availability. You probably learned about it in biology class in high school. It's that thing where a certain percent of the fuel consumed at one level of the food chain is available to the next level (the predators of the lower level.)

I don't remember the exact numbers or percents. Nor can I compare bio-availibility of resources used to grow livestock vs. bio-availability of resources used to grow plants. I just know that the principle does exist and it is often used in discussions of resources used to raise livestock. That is all.

[Brutha]

The resources used to feed livestock to feed people with the livestock is very inefficeint. If instead the resources were used on plant based crops, many more people could be fed across the planet.

In the West we already overproduce food and throw it away after having found out that it's ineffective to pump the food into the third world because that destroys their local economy.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Brutha

In the West we already overproduce food and throw it away after having found out that it's ineffective to pump the food into the third world because that destroys their local economy.

Not to mention how much food we throw away because it doesn't look pretty. the food we feed live stock really shouldn't even be fed to them, but we have to do something with the "useless" prat of the harvest.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by beast

I agree with you, Gubb, that "The Vegetarian Myth" absolutely plays as fast and loose with the facts as "The China Study". I trust that we're all sensible adults and can take in all this information with a critical eye and adopt the diet which seems best for us, makes us feel good and, let's not forget, tastes delicious.

Absolutely.

The issue I see with "best diet" arguments is the definition of "best". People like to feel different ways, people value different things, and in some cases (although I think this factor is highly over-attributed in the diet issue) there are genetic differences.

Also, no two diets are exactly the same. We may argue all day over a "vegan diet", and people may even could contribute experiences over how My Vegan Diet is The Best in the World, or I Felt Like Crap--and could be talking about the difference between a farmer's market vegan and a McVegan. (And even the diets under those labels wouldn't be exactly the same).

For the record I eat a vegan diet, and feel best on 100% lots and lots (and lots!) of fresh fruit and green veggies, but for financial or social purposes I'll sometimes have other stuff.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by beast

I agree with you, Gubb, that "The Vegetarian Myth" absolutely plays as fast and loose with the facts as "The China Study". I trust that we're all sensible adults and can take in all this information with a critical eye and adopt the diet which seems best for us, makes us feel good and, let's not forget, tastes delicious.

And note-I don't support books that favor meat eating and play loose with the facts, either. There's misinformation on both sides. This isn't just a matter of shouting "SCIENCE!" and presenting a case, that would be no different than dogma. We have to have standards by which we determine the validity of the findings otherwise it's just as bad as religion.

That's the issue with dietary debates-it's like a religion, and when something one side presents is thoroughly debunked people are no more inclined to let go of it than they would be had it been validated.

"The China Study" is, frankly, indefensible. Can people live well on a vegetarian diet? Absolutely. Might there be some good information in there? Sure. But does the book contain bad science? Unquestionably, absolutely, yes. Anyone who reads it should go in forewarned that it's extremely biased and they should take anything it says with a grain of salt. There's no excuse for doing otherwise unless you have an agenda to push.

[pyrogen]

We're all different. There may be certain human populations that are more adaptable to a vegetarian diet, and others that require more meat.

Okay, this is anecdotal, it's from the Dalai Lama's autobiography, "Freedom in Exile". Tibetans (being from a cold high-altitude climate) traditionally subsist on a heavily animal-based diet. After their country was conquered by Maoist China, those who fled to India were forced to subsist upon the local, largely vegetarian diet... and became very ill until meat was re-introduced into their diet. I used to know a few Tibetans and they verified that this was an issue for them, they don't do well on vegetarian diets.

I don't do well as a vegetarian, either. I actually do best on something resembling the paleo diet. I do best on a diet that consists of fruit, vegetables, and meat, and probably a higher fat content than some people can stomach. I feel a distinct difference in my well being after I eat meat, especially red meat and fatty fish.

I feel some degree of sick otherwise. I supplement my fat intake by taking coconut oil. I didn't know the difference until I was low carb and felt *well* for the first time in my life - sick had been my normal. Soy and legumes also don't agree very well with me. Eggs don't give me much at all. Dairy makes me feel heavy. So, that rules out being a vegetarian, more or less, unless I were to do raw vegan... which is more extreme a step than my present lifestyle and budget can presently support... and when I have eaten raw vegan, I feel spacy and weird if it's for more than a few meals in a row. I feel too ethereal and I feel hyper and bounce off of the walls. Meat grounds me.

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by pyrogen

We're all different. There may be certain human populations that are more adaptable to a vegetarian diet, and others that require more meat.

Okay, this is anecdotal, it's from the Dalai Lama's autobiography, "Freedom in Exile". Tibetans (being from a cold high-altitude climate) traditionally subsist on a heavily animal-based diet. After their country was conquered by Maoist China, those who fled to India were forced to subsist upon the local, largely vegetarian diet... and became very ill until meat was re-introduced into their diet. I used to know a few Tibetans and they verified that this was an issue for them, they don't do well on vegetarian diets.

I don't do well as a vegetarian, either. I actually do best on something resembling the paleo diet. I do best on a diet that consists of fruit, vegetables, and meat, and probably a higher fat content than some people can stomach. I feel a distinct difference in my well being after I eat meat, especially red meat and fatty fish.

I feel some degree of sick otherwise. I supplement my fat intake by taking coconut oil. I didn't know the difference until I was low carb and felt *well* for the first time in my life - sick had been my normal. Soy and legumes also don't agree very well with me. Eggs don't give me much at all. Dairy makes me feel heavy. So, that rules out being a vegetarian, more or less, unless I were to do raw vegan... which is more extreme a step than my present lifestyle and budget can presently support... and when I have eaten raw vegan, I feel spacy and weird if it's for more than a few meals in a row. I feel too ethereal and I feel hyper and bounce off of the walls. Meat grounds me.

Great post! That is exactly how I feel as well. Meat, and fish give me energy, and make me feel whole.

[sk8joyful]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

Using the China Study to argue that vegetarianism is correct for everyone, is FLAWed.

There is No Perfect Diet for Everyone

Right like some of us have been teaching & guiding people for years, wait - decades

The best way to discover how to help yourself thrive...:
know your (genetic) Blood-type, & eating accordingly...to your Optimum health!!
.