Why meat is not good? - Page 2 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 75Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 Old 02-12-2016, 10:35 AM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
While my rants might be somewhat dickish, I think it would be a good idea to make a few perpetual threads about meat, milk, eggs, proteins, fat, etc. and do pin them. Just to make sure that the valuable information on a topic stays in a single thread and then it will be easier for future readers to make use of it. For example this thread can be such a perpetual thread about meat.
There is always something new and such information can be posted in the same thread, leaving the thread open forever.

Just my two cents, of course.
spaveg is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 Old 02-12-2016, 10:38 AM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post
Oh, what peer reviewed studies tell us that we actually need to eat meat? Links, please.
The scientists, doctors, the nutritionists, and the health organizations who recommend to eat meat rely on scientific studies.
They know better than me, so you should ask them, I guess.
spaveg is offline  
#33 Old 02-12-2016, 10:43 AM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post
If you click this link, you wil find studies referenced. Wanna know why the USDA doesn't attack the meat industry? Follow the money, as usual....
Thanks. And then the logical conclusion is that the government advice and the scientists advice is quite unreliable when it comes to nutrition, isn't it? (USDA is government and they employ scientists in order to create their advice (guidelines))
spaveg is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#34 Old 02-12-2016, 10:43 AM
Super Moderator
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post
The scientists, doctors, the nutritionists, and the health organizations who recommend to eat meat rely on scientific studies.
They know better than me, so you should ask them, I guess.
You seem to not recognize the difference between meat being necessary or being one viable possibility. Meat isn't inherently unhealthy, which is not to say even that it's inherently healthy, let alone that it's a necessary part of a healthy diet. Health organisations don't advocate eating only what is absolutely necessary for optimal health. Rather, they suggest practical guidelines for healthy eating which they believe their citizens can reasonably follow, such as eating more fruits and veggies and less fizzy drinks or deep-fried foods. It is entirely possible to eat a healthy diet which includes meat or a healthy diet which excludes meat. Why would a health organization, which has no ethical or environmental considerations to take into account, advocate one over the other? Their refusal to advocate exclusively for a vegan diet in no way suggests a belief that a vegan diet is unhealthy or that "science is wrong."
LedBoots and Thalassa4 like this.

Last edited by no whey jose; 02-12-2016 at 10:50 AM.
no whey jose is offline  
#35 Old 02-12-2016, 10:52 AM
Super Moderator
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post
Thanks. And then the logical conclusion is that the government advice and the scientists advice is quite unreliable when it comes to nutrition, isn't it? (USDA is government and they employ scientists in order to create their advice (guidelines))
No, that isn't a logical conclusion at all.
LedBoots, TailFin and David3 like this.
no whey jose is offline  
#36 Old 02-12-2016, 10:59 AM
Veggie Regular
 
TailFin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
Honestly, it feels like you're trying to turn this into another discussion about how science is wrong. You'll never win that argument. Something isn't wrong just because it isn't what you want to hear.
Agreed, and I think it has already with the past few posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post
While my rants might be <snip>
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post
Thanks. And then the logical <snip>
Science nor the United States government works the way you think it does. You're obviously not familiar with either.

(Or, you are and are just being a troll.)
LedBoots, no whey jose and Jenn2 like this.
TailFin is offline  
#37 Old 02-12-2016, 11:39 AM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by no whey jose View Post
I don't understand. None of those scientists says anything about meat being a necessary part of a healthy diet. They reiterate the WHO's claims about red and processed meats being linked to cancer and suggest a moderate reduction in the consumption of said meats. On an individual level, eating a small amount of meat isn't going to have a significant negative effect on a person's health, so this is a reasonable suggestion. This is all in line with what we've been telling you. Where do you see a contradiction?
At least the first one said that meat is an important source of X,Y and Z. I've seen that as suggesting that meat was necessary. But maybe I was wrong.

Quote:
Even if you were to find a handful of fringe scientists or medical professionals who claim that the consumption of meat is necessary for one's health (and it wouldn't surprise me if you did, since educated people are just as capable of having strange ideas as anyone else), this wouldn't be of any relevance to this conversation because the scientific consensus-- which is to say what MOST scientists believe, what has been borne out by numerous studies and experiments-- is that vegetarian diets are as healthy as those containing meat. To verify this for yourself, just check the statements on vegetarian diets from any major health organization.
Yes, like for example this one:
In 2009, the American Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics, the U.S.’s oldest, largest and foremost authority on diet and nutrition, also recognized that humans have no inherent biological or nutritional need for animal products:
In 2013, leading U.S. health care provider Kaiser Permanente, with more than 9 million health insurance subscribers, published an article in its medical science journal recommending that physicians consider recommending a plant-based diet for all their patients.
See more at: http://freefromharm.org/health-nutri...meat-argument/

So I have another question: Why do you think it took them so long to admit that? Vegetarians and studies on vegetarians existed with many many decades before 2009.

Quote:
Scientific consensus isn't the same as "a doctor I knew said something once,"
That was just an example. Some 20 years ago, most of the doctors and medicine students were getting infuriated if you said you don't need to eat meat, at least in some parts of Europe.

Quote:
and general practitioners aren't experts in nutrition, receive very little training in nutrition, and are not required to stay up to date on the latest nutritional research.
Then the system (based on science, not on shamanism, that is) who trains and gives licences to all those doctors kinda sucks, isn't it? We are talking about very basic information that any medic should know.

Quote:
By virtue of promoting vegetarian diets, the USDA does say that. If it were believed that meat is necessary for human health, then the USDA would not offer resources for those seeking to try vegetarianism, which they do on their website: https://fnic.nal.usda.gov/lifecycle-...rian-nutrition
Can you be more specific please? USDA making it clear that "nobody in the scientific community believes that we need to eat meat"? Where?
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion - The creation of the Center came at a time when the American public was becoming increasingly aware of the importance of diet, yet was receiving conflicting nutrition messages.
Since there was (and still is) so much confusion, then why not to make sure to remove all that confusion? After all, the CNPP itself was created specifically for addressing the confusion.

Quote:
Once again, the fact that a diet without meat is universally regarded as healthy by scientists and nutrition experts DOES NOT MEAN that a diet containing meat is necessarily regarded as unhealthy. There are many ways to eat healthily and some of those ways involve eating animal products. Animal products are not necessarily unhealthy. A diet which contains meat is not necessarily unhealthy-- which isn't the same as saying that meat is a necessary part of a healthy diet. Do you see the distinction?
Of course I understand that. So, in other words, in your view, a diet without meat is just as healthy as a diet containing meat and none of them is better than the other, right?

Quote:
I don't understand where this question comes from. Can you clarify what you mean?
Same logic applied by those who think that eating raw food implies eating over-sized meals in order to get enough nutrients, since the cooked food makes some nutrients more available. If others can use that logic, that means I can use it too, or at least I can put it to the test.
spaveg is offline  
#38 Old 02-12-2016, 11:45 AM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by TailFin View Post
Agreed, and I think it has already with the past few posts.





Science nor the United States government works the way you think it does. You're obviously not familiar with either.

(Or, you are and are just being a troll.)
I have no idea what you think about what I think about Science or the United States government. I have my own clear opinions about them I just don't understand what do you believe I think about them.
Indeed, I want to start a thread about how reliable is the science in the field of nutrition, so I would like to go for now and come back in a week or two. Or a month if you wish. To reduce the suspicions that I'm a troll.
And then I will start that thread and I can ask the moderators to move the last posts in that new thread.
What do you think?
spaveg is offline  
#39 Old 02-12-2016, 11:56 AM
Vegan since 1991
 
David3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 3,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post
Thanks. And then the logical conclusion is that the government advice and the scientists advice is quite unreliable when it comes to nutrition, isn't it? (USDA is government and they employ scientists in order to create their advice (guidelines))

The USDA does employ scientists to make dietary recommendations. However, the USDA doesn't always follow the recommendations of those scientists.


The U.S. Dietary Guidelines are formulated by this process:

1. A Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is selected. This committee is tasked with making dietary recommendations based on peer-reviewed evidence. The committee publishes its findings in an advisory report, which you can see here: http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/...ntific-report/

2. There is a 75-day public commentary period. During this time, federal government representatives receive the public's comments and recommendations for healthy eating: http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/...c-comments.asp

3. A public meeting is held, wherein the public's spoken comments are heard by federal government representatives: http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/...ic-meeting.asp

4. The USDA and HSS (Department of Health & Human Services) write and publish the official Dietary Guidelines: http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/


Here's the problem: The USDA and HSS don't necessarily follow the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. If you read the Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee ( http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/...ntific-report/ ), and compare it to the actual Dietary Guidelines ( http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/ ), you'll see they are not the same.

The Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is actually scientifically solid. It cites hundreds of peer-reviewed studies. The Report recommends greater consumption of whole grains, fruits, beans, and vegetables. The Report discourages the consumption of red meat, processed meat, refined grains, added sugar, and alcohol.

In contrast, the actual Dietary Guidelines are not scientifically solid. They ignore the Advisory Committee's recommendation to discourage red meat and processed meat. They ignore the advice of their own Scientific Advisory Committee.

So, in this case, the scientists are acting responsibly, but the government is not. It's not valid to say that scientists and the government are the same, in terms of ethics.
LedBoots, spaveg and Thalassa4 like this.

_________

Specific recommendations for a healthy diet include: eating more fruit, vegetables, legumes, nuts and grains; cutting down on salt, sugar and fats. It is also advisable to choose unsaturated fats, instead of saturated fats and towards the elimination of trans-fatty acids."
- United Nations' World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/topics/diet/en/

Last edited by David3; 02-12-2016 at 01:15 PM.
David3 is offline  
#40 Old 02-12-2016, 12:42 PM
Vegan since 1991
 
David3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 3,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post
But USDA recommends us to eat meat:
"Such foods contribute important nutrients, such as protein, calcium, iron, and zinc" - http://www.dummies.com/how-to/conten...your-diet.html
So, by not eating meat, we reduce our chances to be healthy. And then it's unhealthy not to eat meat.

Spaveg, you omitted content from your own citation. The complete passage states:

"The USDA Food Pyramid recommends that you include 2-3 servings of meat, poultry, eggs, dried beans or nuts in your daily diet. Such foods contribute important nutrients, such as protein, calcium, iron, and zinc."
.
.
LedBoots, Thalassa4 and TGreene like this.

_________

Specific recommendations for a healthy diet include: eating more fruit, vegetables, legumes, nuts and grains; cutting down on salt, sugar and fats. It is also advisable to choose unsaturated fats, instead of saturated fats and towards the elimination of trans-fatty acids."
- United Nations' World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/topics/diet/en/

Last edited by David3; 02-12-2016 at 01:16 PM.
David3 is offline  
#41 Old 02-12-2016, 01:17 PM
Super Moderator
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post
At least the first one said that meat is an important source of X,Y and Z. I've seen that as suggesting that meat was necessary. But maybe I was wrong.
Why would that be so? Meat is a very good source of iron, but so are beans.


Quote:
Why do you think it took them so long to admit that?

Perhaps they wanted to be absolutely certain that the claims they were making were accurate.

Quote:
Then the system (based on science, not on shamanism, that is) who trains and gives licences to all those doctors kinda sucks, isn't it? We are talking about very basic information that any medic should know.
Not necessarily. The role of a general practitioner is to diagnose various ailments and refer to a specialist if needed. While I don't think it would hurt for every doctor to receive more nutrition education, it hardly seems reasonable to expect it from those who don't specialize in the subject.

Quote:
Can you be more specific please? USDA making it clear that "nobody in the scientific community believes that we need to eat meat"? Where?
I really don't know how to make it any clearer. If humans NEEDED to eat meat, then it would be irresponsible (and possibly illegal) for a health organization to encourage anyone to go without it. Humans NEED water, so you won't find a page on the USDA's website full of helpful resources for those trying to quit drinking water. What you will find is a page full of links to vegetarian starter kits, vegetarian recipes, nutritional information on vegetarian diets and other resources for those interested in quitting meat. Clearly, it is not the opinion of the USDA that meat is necessary for a healthy diet.

Quote:
Of course I understand that. So, in other words, in your view, a diet without meat is just as healthy as a diet containing meat and none of them is better than the other, right?
It's not my opinion, but yes. In some cases, a diet containing meat is healthier than a vegetarian diet-- for instance, a diet of vegetables and whole grains plus a small amount of chicken would be healthier than a vegetarian diet of Oreo cookies and onion rings. Likewise, a vegetarian diet of vegetables and whole grains is healthier than a non-vegetarian diet of buffalo wings and ice cream. The presence or absence of meat alone doesn't determine whether or not a diet is healthy. However, it DOES determine whether or not a diet is compassionate towards animals, which is where my interest lies.

Quote:
Same logic applied by those who think that eating raw food implies eating over-sized meals in order to get enough nutrients, since the cooked food makes some nutrients more available. If others can use that logic, that means I can use it too, or at least I can put it to the test.
I'm sorry, I still don't know what you're talking about here.
LedBoots and David3 like this.
no whey jose is offline  
#42 Old 02-12-2016, 04:38 PM
Out of the veg closet :)
 
TGreene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegan Dave View Post
Start here:

THE CHINA STUDY

FORKS OVER KNIVES

PREVENTING AND REVERSING HEART DISEASE

VEGUCATED

THE PETA WEBSITE

THE ASPCA WEBSITE

THE ENGINE 2 DIET

BETTER THAN VEGAN

I could go on......

Good list! And there's a show on the Engine 2 diet called "Engine 2 Kitchen Rescue". Anything from T. Colin Campbell and Caldwell Essylstein are extremely compelling. After seeing them in shows they really helped solidify my vegan choice.

To the OP: Also documentaries called Earthlings; Hungry For Change; PlanEAT, Food Inc; Supercharge Me; Breakthrough; Simply Raw Reversing Diabetes In 30 Days.

Plus here is a simple way I look at itjust from a dietary standpoint not even getting into any ethics of it), Meat is NOT essential. We can absolutely live without meat or ANY animal products. Think of it this way: we can literally get every nutrient and then some that we need to live and be happy from a healthy, diverse plant-based diet. If you took away all plant foods and ate ONLY meat and dairy, you would get ill. You would NOT be able to get every nutrient you need from just animal sources. So, in my opinion, since we can totally get any and every possible nutrient needed for life from plants, there is no real need to eat animals or any of their byproducts.

Hope this helps!!!!
Jenn2 likes this.

No cause is lost if there is but one fool left fighting for it.

Last edited by TGreene; 02-12-2016 at 04:39 PM. Reason: spelling
TGreene is offline  
#43 Old 02-12-2016, 04:51 PM
Out of the veg closet :)
 
TGreene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 41
Let's not all forget that it is pretty much known fact that the US Government works hand-in-hand with the US meat and dairy industry. They work together and it makes them both more money, which is what they care about most when it comes right down to it. That's why at schools they push items in school lunches as "recommended healthy choices for kids" like hamburgers, chicken nuggets, all the milk a kid can drink and tons of cheese. That's why there are no huge pushes for fruits and veggies at schools. A lot of members on the boards of organizations like the FDA, USDA and such work for the companies they are wanting funded, they hire a bunch of scientists and throw out the "evidence" and reports/findings from the ones that won't benefit what the organizations want. They pick and choose. So I really don't pay all that much attention to what the government says in terms of health.
LedBoots, veg4ever and Thalassa4 like this.

No cause is lost if there is but one fool left fighting for it.
TGreene is offline  
#44 Old 02-12-2016, 07:41 PM
Veggie Recycler
 
Thalassa4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 556
There's now a USDA approved vegan pyramid. Of course that doesn't tell us why meat is "bad"...let's then go past the ethical or suffering argument (so many people are deaf/blind to this without some sort of awakening that I don't see it as a "go to" personally, though I agree with the reasoning myself) ...show them The China Study, Forks Over Knives, and Cowspiracy. I think Cowspiracy is especially powerful for both environmental reasons and anti-corporate/big business reasons.

I find the environmental argument extremely compelling, and since many people are secular humanists or conservative Christians in the West, use the human starvation argument, because it's truthfully relevant, and an extension of environmental.
Thalassa4 is offline  
#45 Old 02-12-2016, 07:48 PM
Veggie Recycler
 
Thalassa4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post
The scientists, doctors, the nutritionists, and the health organizations who recommend to eat meat rely on scientific studies.
They know better than me, so you should ask them, I guess.
You really should see this. Scroll down, be amazed.

http://eatlocalgrown.com/article/150...ased-diet.html
Thalassa4 is offline  
#46 Old 02-13-2016, 06:26 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 17
Heme iron found in meat which may produce compounds that can damage cells and lead the cancer in your body.
andylewis is offline  
#47 Old 02-15-2016, 10:46 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Gita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mexas
Posts: 1,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaveg View Post
Thanks, I knew that already, however, do you have some links to scientific studies about those negative effects?

I am a professional. I'll do some research for you, for 25$ an hour. Just PM me your billing information!
Gita is offline  
#48 Old 02-15-2016, 12:16 PM
Newbie
 
veg4ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 14
Geeeeeesh spaveg! some great responses/comments to spaveg. Bottom line-3 answers
1) who in their right mind cannot agree that factory farming IS cruelty to animals 2) the environment is affected BIG time by this and we all know it 3) the government does not care about our health!!! it's all about money and it always will be!!!
Naturebound likes this.
veg4ever is offline  
#49 Old 02-15-2016, 02:42 PM
Don't Eat Animals.
 
Vegan Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 1,291
Name:  indaa3ex.jpg
Views: 68
Size:  19.1 KB

Name:  indaaaex.jpg
Views: 65
Size:  12.1 KB

Name:  index.jpg
Views: 61
Size:  12.7 KB

Name:  inqqqqdex.jpg
Views: 65
Size:  13.3 KB

Name:  inqqwdex.jpg
Views: 64
Size:  18.5 KB

Name:  519Q9TknGNL._SX940_.jpg
Views: 66
Size:  32.1 KB

Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-02-15 at 4.44.46 PM.png
Views:	54
Size:	437.1 KB
ID:	13713

Go to www.peta.com to view the videos.

I could go on.....for the people that like visuals.....like me.
LedBoots likes this.

All animals should be respected & should have the ability to lead a natural & enjoyable life. This means not eating them, or abusing them in any way.

Last edited by Vegan Dave; 02-15-2016 at 02:59 PM.
Vegan Dave is offline  
#50 Old 02-22-2016, 08:37 AM
Banned
 
spaveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 96
Great answers, thanks a lot!

First of all, I would like to apologize to no whey jose and to many others for misunderstanding the term "anecdotal evidence" in the other thread. I wasn't looking in a dictionary and I assumed that the term "anecdotal evidence" comes from "anecdote" (joke, comedy, hilarious), therefore I assumed the term means "ridiculous claims".
So I was wrong in that.
To be honest, I find this term somewhat a pejorative (=ridiculing) form of the term "personal evidence".

I am sorry for persisting in that error, and I would like to ask to unlock that thread if possible, it was locked right after no whey jose explained the term, so I had no chance to apologize there. I think that "the reasons to go raw" is a big topic that really deserves to be discussed and should not be closed because someone misunderstood a term. I would also like to reply to some relevant statements and claims in that thread.

While I might clearly disagree with no whey jose on certain nutrition topics, in the same time I think she does a very good job as a moderator and I want to say thanks to everyone who make this web forum happen.


I will come back in a few days, starting a topic about "how reliable is the scientific community and the government in the field of nutrition", in case I will be allowed to do that.
Thanks

P.S.: Oh, and meanwhile I am trying to do my homework: chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/44513/is-it-true-that-human-cells-grow-in-levorotation

Last edited by spaveg; 02-22-2016 at 09:31 AM.
spaveg is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off