What are your opinions of the vegetarian diet? Is it healthier than eating meat? Are there pros and cons of both?

My opinion is that our species evolved consuming both plants and animals and is obviously what our bodies naturally crave and need. Sure, a person can lead a happy and healthy vegetarian lifestyle, but is it more happy and healthy than the meat-eating lifestyle? And I'm not referring to that segment of the meat-eating population that eats too much cholesterol via red meat and eggs and saturated fat. Please compare vegetarians to people that eat chicken, fish, and other healthier meats primarily, and then have some red meat on occasion.

Chris

---

Is it true that vegetarians typically live longer than meatasauruses?

---

I'm going to post links as I find them.

Vegetarian Diet May be Healthy For Teens

---

I've yet to read the following link, but I'm going to have to trust what they say. I don't want to catch myself committing the confirmation bias, so I'll approach the article with an open mind.

Chris

---

4 Kids and my wife are vegetarians. The kids do eat milk and cheese, so they are not vehan.

My kids are the among the healthiest (ie: most friends are fat), kindest (most friends are obnoxius) and smartest (especially my one daughter...she was reading chapter books BEFORE entering kindergarden) in town. I am proud of that.

Vegetarianism is very good. I was a vegetarian at one time, 2 years...I have not felt as healthy as I did at that time.

I have read/heard that humans were originally vegetarian and that we adapted carnivorous behavior. I dont know if that is true...so I am simply stating this at this time.

Maybe meat eating would not be so bad if we as a society did not pump animals with hormones and antibiotics! And some people shun Organic farming and production like it taints the food somehow (I have heard this from a few people).


Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Nick

Thanks for posting on this topic. Recently I was in a discussion with a few vegetarians and I took the position that the vegetarian diet is no more healthy than an omnivorous diet. I used evolution as the foundation.

I'm trying to figure out if I'm full of shit. Any additional information you have would be appreciated. Hearing you say that you felt better on the veggie diet tells me something. Sounds like you aren't a vegasaurus right now. What lead you away from it if it caused you to feel so good?

Quote:

---

I have read/heard that humans were originally vegetarian and that we adapted carnivorous behavior. I dont know if that is true...so I am simply stating this at this time.

---

This is something I'd love to explore further. A time scale would be helpful. When were we herbivores? Does anyone reading this have any information about our early diet?

Chris

---

From the first link:

Quote:

---

Vegetarians live longer and become sick less often.

---

I would be interested in knowing where this bit of information comes from. I didn't find any sources for it on the page. In particular, I would like to know if vegetarians as a group were compared against non-vegetarians as a group. I think this would produce an inaccurate result. I would venture to say that most vegetarians more consciously eat healthy, and perhaps even live other aspects of their lives in a more health conscious way, which would result in less sickness that is not necessarily because of the vegetarian diet. Also, if you compare a vegetarian to a meat and potatoes diet, of course the vegetarian is going to be healthier. Eating meat as the main part of one's subsistence with lots of starchy things like bread and potatoes being the next major part of one's diet, with maybe some canned corn or canned peas as a small side dish is not a healthy diet. If you compare someone who eats like that with someone who eats lots of fresh vegetables as the main course, of course the person eating more vegetables is going to be healthier.

I don't think that a vegetarian diet is more healthy than a diet that consists of a base of fruits and vegetables (preferably raw) that includes meat. Not meat as a main part of the diet, but as more of a side dish or accent. But don't take my word for it; I freely admit that I have no interest in becoming a vegetarian because I love meat. Also, my mother is a cattle rancher.

But do believe me when I say that most of the meat eater's diets in the U.S. are horrible. Too much meat is unhealthy. Part of the problem is that the federal guidelines for how we should eat is wrong. Vegetables and fruits should be the base layer of our diet, not breads. A huge problem in American diets is also because the more foods are processed, the less nutritional value they have. Unfortunately, processed foods are so much more convenient. White bread doesn't do your body any good. Pasta also loses a lot of it's nutritional value when it's made. Whole grain products are better, but I would not be able to tell you how much nutrition you are actually getting from them normal store bought whole grain bread or pasta.

Cooking vegetables also sucks nutrients out of them. It is better to eat them raw or steamed if raw is too crunchy for you. Have you ever looked at the nutrition label on a can of vegetables? There is hardly any nutrients in them.

Taking supplements might do some good, I don't know enough to say whether they are or aren't worth taking, but your body does not absorb even close to most of what the package says is in there. I have been told that cheap brands of vitamins don't even get broken down by the body, they just remain a lump of unusable nutrients. The first site you listed did touch on this. I don't know how accurate the description was of how it works, but it is true that the way nutrients are packaged in natural food is the best way that our bodies can absorb the nutrients.

On a side note of that, our bodies also are not very good at absorbing calcium from milk. Have you noticed the change in milk advertising in the last ten or so years? They used to say milk does a body good. Now they just say "Got Milk?" This is because milk is not as good for you as they want you to think it is and they got sued. I couldn't find anything specifically on the lawsuit, but here are a couple of articles on milk:
milk link
yummy milk
more milk

The milk industries ability to get milk recommended is a good example of why the U.S. federal recommendations for how we should eat are so messed up. The milk industry spent enough money to get their own food group. It has now changed to a food pyramid, but they still have a pretty prominent place in the stack. If one spends any time researching nutrition, it is pretty obvious that what the government recommends is not the best way to eat, but the food pyramid is taught in schools, and how many of those students do you think are interested in actually doing any more research outside of school? The good news is that there are people pushing for change.

I was completely unimpressed with the first link's addressing of protein. Anyone who is looking into becoming a vegetarian needs to research what they need to do in order to get all 8 of the amino acids. Anything I have ever read does not agree that vegetarians can just eat whatever and their amino acids will take care of themselves, as well as my health class professor who is a vegetarian. She might be wrong, and I might have simply never read any correct information, but I would never become a vegetarian so I'm not going to look it up myself.

And don't think that I actually follow my own advice. I used to eat McDonald's almost everyday. I would live on pizza alone if I could get my husband to agree to it. And now that I live close to my mom I get awesome range fed beef, and just a sliver to decorate my broccoli is not enough. And just hearing the word bacon puts me in a trance....mmmmm, bacon........

Quote:

---

Sounds like you aren't a vegasaurus right now. What lead you away from it if it caused you to feel so good?

---

I tend to do things that are bad for me! Like smoking...I just f'n like it...BUT...I have quit smoking recently (about 1+ months).

I grew up on meat and love a good steak. Simply, I just like it. I am not like most humans who try to do anything to extend their lives by a year or so...I want to enjoy myself. So if I die at 71 and had a t-bone every so often, followed by a smoke...whereas I would have lived to 74 without em...I say medium rare and gimme a light!!


Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

scrumfish

I too would be interested in knowing where this information comes from!

Quote:

---

I would venture to say that most vegetarians more consciously eat healthy, and perhaps even live other aspects of their lives in a more health conscious way, which would result in less sickness that is not necessarily because of the vegetarian diet.

---

Excellent point. This is the problem with statistics. They can be made to show anything you want. Correlation doesn't imply causation.

I agree with every word you typed. Meat as a side dish or special treat is the way we evolved. Animals were killed and consumed periodically - not every single day. For hundreds of thousands of years we had no means of preserving meats, so meat wasn't included in every meal. Our diets consisted primarily of nuts, berries, fruits and vegetables. We gathered everyday and hunted sporadically.

I had never heard anything about milk being shown to not be as healthy as once believed. Any additional info on that topic would be appreciated, but don't worry if you're not interested in the topic. The "Got Milk" campaign is definitely a different approach to marketing milk.

And your point about the dairy industry sneaking onto the food pyramid is very true. Check out the very bottom small print on the next food pyramid chart you see. The dairy industry created the damn chart!!! They've got quite a scam going I'd say.

And here is how I know milk isn't a normal part of the human diet. Close your eyes and imagine how we, as a species, incorporated dairy products into our diets back in paleolithic times. Not an easy task is it? Did we run out into a field, flop down below a wild cow, and then start sucking milk directly from its udders?

For the majority of our species history we were wanderers. We wandered from place to place and gathered food from the lands. Periodically we used a manmade weapon to take down an animal. But primarily we wandered about eating off the land. Yes, domesticated plants and animals came about later, but in the big scheme of things, this was a recent change.

I think the milk industry is full of shit. Milk is NOT a food group. Cheese is not required or even remotely in our best interest. Absolute propaganda.

What we require are vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and some meat here and there. I think I've heard this called the "Cave Man" diet, and it makes sense. I don't advocate doing such a diet strictly as civilization has brought much good along with the bad. Personally, I choose to eat tasty foods, even if processed, once in awhile. But the staple of our diets should be what I've mentioned above.

Chris

---

Cows milk is for baby cows...human milk is for baby humans. That is the jist of it. That is how we know it was not meant for human consumption.

Yet breastfeeding is taboo in our civilized world...go figure!

Maybe we should put lactating women on an assembly style line and suck milk out of them and market that...it would be more natural and healthier for us!

All my kids were breast fed and I think that has much to do with how healthy they have been. But that is another topic.


Another question: Are apes and orangutans meat eaters? This would help in deciding if humans were, for we are kin with these beings.

If you look at our phisiology, what traits do we REALLY share with true predators? If we are not predators and yet still were made to eat meat...are we scavengers?

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Human Diet

Quote:

---

Introduction: the main claims

Oversimplistic either/or views of carnivorous adaptations. The various comparative "proofs" of vegetarianism often rely heavily on comparisons with true carnivores, e.g., lions, tigers, etc. The basic arguments made are that meat cannot be a "natural" food for humans, because humans don't have the same physical features characteristic of the small group of animals that are considered to be "true" carnivores. However, such arguments are based on an oversimplified and flawed view of adaptation; that is, the underlying assumption being that there is only one--or at least one main set of--physical adaptation(s) consistent with eating meat. Such arguments also ignore the high intelligence and adaptive behavior of humans.
Let's examine some of the claims made in Mills' The Comparative Anatomy of Eating, plus a few additional claims made in a recent extremist fruitarian book. (Out of politeness and to avoid what some might construe as inflammatory, the latter book will not be identified other than to say that it is a massive plagiarism of the book Raw Eating, by Arshavir Ter Hovannessian--a book published in English in Iran in the 1960s.)

Flawed comparisons that pit humans against "true" carnivores. The claims are made that the human body lacks the features of certain carnivores, hence we should not eat meat, as it is not "natural." The differences are as follows; carnivores have, but humans do not have:


Sharp, pointed teeth and claws for tearing into the flesh of the prey.

A jaw that moves mostly up and down, with little lateral (side-to-side) movement; i.e., the jaw has a shearing motion.

A head shape that allows the carnivore to dig into prey animals.

Additionally, carnivores are different from humans (and herbivores) in that carnivores usually swallow their food whole (humans chew their food). Also, carnivores generally do not have starch-digesting enzymes in their saliva, whereas humans do. Note: Claims regarding the morphology of the gut (digestive system) are discussed in the next section.

In The Comparative Anatomy of Eating, Mills summarizes the above analysis with the statement that:

An animal which captures, kills and eats prey must have the physical equipment which makes predation practical and efficient.

We shall see that this claim by Mills is incorrect if one interprets it only in morphological terms. Without further delay, let's now examine the above claims.

---

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

HEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. P

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

I'm not a bodybuilder (naturally scrawny weight pusher), but although all amino acids are the same, to get freakishly huge the combination must be nearly perfect. Seems like that combo would be much more difficult to maintain with veggy food. Oh yeah, steroids too.

Just realized I was a vegan today, maybe you're rubbing off already. Need to grab s'more carrots and beer.

I can't really comment on the combination of amino acids that would be required to get that large since I'm certainly no expert in the area. The combination of amino acids would vary between animal sources as well, so it wouldn't just be protein required from animal sources, but specific animal sources, if it were that precise.


Careful of that beer, Lan - not all beer is vegan!

OBJECTIVE: A survey of present results about deficient intake of nutrients and resulting health complications in vegetarians in the course of pregnancy and lactation.

DESIGN: A review of literature. SETTING: Charles University, Pharmaceutical Faculty, Hradec Kralove.

METHODS: Review of literature and publications from medical data bases.

CONCLUSIONS: Deficient intake of nutrients and associated development of pathological conditions were described in vegetarians in the course of pregnancy and lactation. Deficient intake of certain amino acids, vitamin B12, calcium, iron, zinc and iodine, n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and restriction of energy intake were demonstrated. The health complications included hypoproteinemia, edemas, abortion, the delivery of children of lower birth weight, megablastic and sideropenic anemia, spastic conditions, weak labor, atonic bleeding, mental retardation of the conceptus.

These side effects were diminished to nearly nil with proper supplements but in some cases they persisted despite the addition of supplemental vitamins and protein.

Another problem involves the processing of soy and soy based meat like products.

because the soybean contains large quantities of a number of harmful substances. First among them are potent enzyme inhibitors which block the action of trypsin and other enzymes needed for protein digestion. These "antinutrients" are not completely deactivated during ordinary cooking and can produce serious gastric distress, reduced protein digestion and chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors cause enlargement and pathological conditions of the pancreas, including cancer. The soybean also contains hemaglutinin, a clot promoting substance that causes red blood cells to clump together. Trypsin inhibitors and hemaglutinin have been rightly labeled "growth depressant substances." They are deactivated during the process of fermentation. In precipitated products, enzyme inhibitors concentrate in the soaking liquid rather than in the curd. Thus in tofu and bean curd, these enzyme inhibitors are reduced in quantity, but not completely eliminated.

Vegetarians who consume tofu and bean curd as a substitute for meat and dairy products risk severe mineral deficiencies. The results of calcium, magnesium and iron deficiency are well known, those of zinc are less so. Zinc plays a role in protein synthesis and collagen formation; it is involved in the blood sugar control mechanism and thus protects against diabetes; it is needed for a healthy reproductive system. Zinc is also a key component in numerous vital enzymes and plays a role in the immune system. Phytates found in soy products interfere with zinc absorption more completely than with other minerals.

Are soy products easy to digest, as claimed? Fermented soy products probably are; but unfermented products with their cargo of phytates, enzyme inhibitors, rancid fatty acids and altered proteins most certainly are not.

During my search I found several websites with pro vegan threads, many were discussing the stomach problems that many beginning vegans suffer. This seems to support the difficult to digest theory.

Later

I found some more interesting reading.

The FDA confirmed on October 4 that the Solae Company has withdrawn its petition for a soy protein and cancer health claim. Had this health claim been approved, it would have doubled the sales of soy protein in this country, bringing huge profits to the soy industry while putting American men, women and children at risk.

"This represents a major blow to the soy industry," says Kaayla T. Daniel, PhD, author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America's Favorite Health Food. "The FDA advised Solae on at least one occasion that it had not convincingly established that soy can prevent cancer and that it had failed to counter massive evidence that soy can cause, contribute to or accelerate cancer growth."

Later