Going Vegan

[cheesecats]

this is an interesting read:

[alexa.]

it's all well and good to criticize modern agricultural production methods. but they have lowered costs, increased availability, and improved nutrition for billions of people around the world.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b7zJ-hx_c[/youtube]

http://www.geofflawton.com/fe/74613-per ... for-profit
http://www.geofflawton.com/fe/74946-per ... n-paradise (Hawaii farm with abnormal production rates)
(you have to register but everything is free.)

Watch, cuz you have been misinformed.

[Gone Fission]

I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals. I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants.

[tabbycat]

I can't comment that much about strict vegan stuff but I've been a vegetarian for more than 15 years, I get pretty full health check-ups for work including blood tests, etc. every year (as does everyone working in Japan) and I have no deficiencies whatsoever. And I don't take any supplement. I just eat good stuff, avoid junk food, etc. As I said, I'm not a vegan so I do eat milk-based products (I'm french, I need cheese) and eggs. But no fish/meat/seafood/etc.

So yeah, tabbycat's post does contain bits of truth but it also contains a sizeable amount of bullshit...

hey oscillateur, a vague and dismissive thing to say re 'bullshit'. best to be specific if there's a point you take issue with.

the thread title and op's original comment was about going vegan (giving up all animal and animal derived products), which is what i was addressing.

a vegetarian who consumes milk and eggs (animal products) will be healthier than a vegan. and the reason why they will be healthier is because they are consuming more animal products. your eggs and milk will provide good quality protein (no issues with complete and incomplete proteins, non-animal-product-consuming dieters have to combine foods to achieve a decent complete protein intake), easy to assimilate (animal origin) iron and calcium also choline, (some, though maybe not enough) easily assimilable best (dha-type) omega 3 in the eggs. all of these absent from a vegan diet, yet all essential for optimum health. that was my point.
the fact you are supplementing your vegan (for all intents and purposes) diet with animal products would suggest you accept my argument (for not giving up animal products) in your actions, while dismissing it in concept (the 'bullshit' comment).

a vegatarian who consumes eggs and milk will always be better nourished than a vegan.
furthermore, in my opinion, based on all i've read (and have read considerably on the subject), if you added regular intake of high quality omega 3 rich fish to your diet, and occasional high quality organic lean red meat, you would be healthier still.
we agree on the first bit (as your diet indicates) and disagree on the second. we can agree to disagree.

i'm a pescatarian, eat eggs (and cheese rarely). i know all about the french cheese thing. i lived near marseille for six months and it was served at pretty much every sit down meal. the mediterranean diet is recognised as being a superb diet to aspire to. includes lots of seafood, high quality meat, eggs, milk, etc. people live long and healthy lives there.
japanese eat a great diet too. again lots of seafood, greens (marine and land, i wish good seaweed was easier to get in the west), beans, some eggs. you're in the right place to eat well. i use unpasturised brown rice soya miso on a daily basis.

Maybe I've missed something -- why are we ignoring the moral and ecological/economic arguments?

as to why i'm a pescatarian, it's partly ethical and eco. not ok with the way most (land living) meat is produced and processed. if i were to go back to small quantities (one or twice a week) of red meat (best quality iron and b vits) it would be via organic free-range game. but the reason i don't is the same reason i tried vegetarianism and veganism in the first place. i feel a bit awkward about the moral side of it. while i can be confident about the valid scientific basis underlying the physiological argument for retaining animal products in the human diet, morally i'm fudging it. which is why i put the disclaimer about that side of it right at the start of my original comment, before all else in fact. as it's a big part of the broader issue. but one which you can separate out if you want to make a specific physiological point, as i was doing.

i love animals so the idea of killing them for food troubles my conscience. so the pescatarianism is a fudge of kinds, based on the reality that of all meat, fish live the most uncompromised and natural (absolutely 'free-range') of lives prior to being caught (game being the other, which is why i mentioned that as a red meat option i would consider).
the killing of fish to eat is still on my conscience, but i accept that (with unease) as an inevitable consequence of being the species i am, with that dictating the fundamental dietary needs i have.
so that's where i am with the moral side of it. a best compromise situation.
that's open to criticism and debate while the scientific fact re the known shortcomings of a vegan diet is not really.

[MEC]

a vegatarian who consumes eggs and milk will always be better nourished than a vegan.

This is a blanket statement void of enough information to make any type of conclusion at all.

[alexa.]

Well, the Mediterranean diet worked back in the day that people were actually fishing with nets not with fishing boats. Exercise was a big part of it. Free-roaming animals were a big part of it. Clean air as well. These factors have for the most part disappeared, and it is visible on the current population, at least on the islands in Croatia.

The thing is, meat is ok to eat.. ONCE A WEEK! Like we used to do 50-70 years ago, all the way to when we were monkeys (the further back in time you go, the less meat we had).
The new "eat meat" agenda is complete bull. So is "sugar is in everything".
These new trends that are far more dangerous to health then veganism and vegetarianism COMBINED, but are a lot less discussed and stigmatized. Not even mentioning environmental impact here..

Healthy balance is the key, it always was; the main problem in this story is that the mainstream accepts "healthy balance" to be "eat meat everyday".

[tabbycat]

a vegatarian who consumes eggs and milk will always be better nourished than a vegan.

This is a blanket statement void of enough information to make any type of conclusion at all.

information requested:
good quality eggs = easily assimilable dha omega 3, complete proteins (most non-animal source protein is incomplete protein, lacking full spectrum of amino acids for humans to be able to effectively assimilate), choline inositol, decent quantity of non-haem iron (not as good as haem iron (easiest for humans to assimilate and only found in meat) but better than nothing). all difficult or impossible (dha omega 3 especially) to find in sufficient quantity or quality in any version of a vegan diet.

if you want more information, research 'ala versus dha omega 3' in relation to human diet, 'complete and incomplete protein amino acid chains' in relation to human diet, 'haem and non-haem iron' assimilation in relation to human diet, 'best sources of assimilable choline inositol' in realtion to human diet.

have already posted too much. but thoroughly recommend the chapter on the pros v cons of vegetarianism in this book for anyone interested in the subject http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Health-Delu ... 1848506864

eat what you want and enjoy what you eat.

[cheesecats]

it's all well and good to criticize modern agricultural production methods. but they have lowered costs, increased availability, and improved nutrition for billions of people around the world.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b7zJ-hx_c[/youtube]
Watch, cuz you have been misinformed.

i think this is a pipe dream given the realities of today's world. efforts are being made to mitigate the harmful effects of intensive agriculture on natural resources, but to think we can totally go back to methods used centuries ago is, to me, ridiculous. as i said, there is no easy fix. there has been much research into this issue in recent decades, and it seems to me flexible, localized solutions are called for and being implemented. but even the experts are divided and disagree on many of the issues.

http://www.misa.umn.edu/Search_and_Ask/ ... /index.htm

[alexa.]

it's all well and good to criticize modern agricultural production methods. but they have lowered costs, increased availability, and improved nutrition for billions of people around the world.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b7zJ-hx_c[/youtube]
Watch, cuz you have been misinformed.

i think this is a pipe dream given the realities of today's world. efforts are being made to mitigate the harmful effects of intensive agriculture on natural resources, but to think we can totally go back to methods used centuries ago is, to me, ridiculous. as i said, there is no easy fix. there has been much research into this issue in recent decades, and it seems to me flexible, localized solutions are called for and being implemented. but even the experts are divided and disagree on many of the issues.

http://www.misa.umn.edu/Search_and_Ask/ ... /index.htm

Pipe dream.. even tho thousands of people are using it with results agriculture can't even dream of?
Have you even watched the whole video? The two videos I posted under it, show already working and established systems that work commercially, mind you.

No seriously, I stand that people are just plainly indoctrinated when it comes to agriculture. Even the UN classified eco and organic agriculture as viable food sources a couple of years ago; and permaculture is FAR more efficient then that.
Fear mongering people into famine, cuz you need to buy the oil based products to make agriculture work. No oil-based products and you'd have no pesticides, no fertilizers, no gas for the machinery.. monopoly party wooo

snap out of it

[alexa.]

[cheesecats]

Pipe dream.. even tho thousands of people are using it with results agriculture can't even dream of?
Have you even watched the whole video? The two videos I posted under it, show already working and established systems that work commercially, mind you.

No seriously, I stand that people are just plainly indoctrinated when it comes to agriculture. Even the UN classified eco and organic agriculture as viable food sources a couple of years ago; and permaculture is FAR more efficient then that.
Fear mongering people into famine, cuz you need to buy the oil based products to make agriculture work. No oil-based products and you'd have no pesticides, no fertilizers, no gas for the machinery.. monopoly party wooo

snap out of it

i did watch the video. and i understand permaculture.i agree with you that these production systems are great, and they should be used where they can be. but there's no way they will feed the world, at least not anytime soon. and there are trends working against sustainable agriculture, like the increase in Asia, Africa, and Latin America in the demand for and consumption of meat, sugar, and processed foods that rises in concert with income levels. groups are working hard in these areas to use sustainable practices, but it's a challenge.

[Blunderbus]

The statements on how else are we going to feed the world can be solved pretty easily. In the states 90% of the soy, 80% of the corn and 70% of the grains grown is to feed livestock. This is mostly genetically modified crops. On top of this the beef is grown with hormones to maximize the meat yield and antibiotics are used to prevent livestock from getting sick. As they are crowded in small areas, their health becomes an issue more easily. On top if this cows are bred to produce more and more and more milk as well. 20 years ago the average liters a cow would give was around 21 liters. Nowadays there are cows giving over 100 liters a day. This all is not healthy and normal.

To change the aforementioned ratio of crop usage, we should start eating less meat. Instead of everyday, maybe consume meat 3 times a week. And eat a vegetable or legume instead on the other days.

Same goes for chicken and pork!

I am vegetarian for my own conscience. If another person is proud carnivore and desires to consume meat, by all means! No hard feelings!

[Faldoe]

This doc "Cowspiracy" is interesting. I'd ask folks not commit any fallacies and dismiss the film on the name alone.

Here is a link to the film page and in particular a "facts" page for the information/statistics they use in the film:

http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

A widely cited 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Livestock's Long Shadow, estimates that 18 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions are attributable to cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels, pigs, and poultry. But recent analysis by Goodland and Anhang finds that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294

[mathias]

I know enough to know not to comment on this thread. Sorry, OP, but this is not the place to get info about being vegan, apparently. Best bet is friends and family who are vegan, and maybe have them cook you a meal or two before you decide.

[backwardsvoyager]

All i'm gonna say is make any transitions gradually, there's no point rushing anything so even if you're committed to going vegan it's worth substituting things one by one just to ease yourself into it and make sure your body can cope, this stuff really varies person to person. Nobody can think worse of you if you decide to go vegan and still eat animal products occasionally for a month or a year or however long it takes.
I was underweight when i went pescetarian and have gone even further underweight since then so i've put off dropping any other animal products for now, but i'd like to get better at it eventually. If i had a little more faith in humanity it would probably be easier.