Veganism

What are all your thoughts on this? I think that is a complex issue. I know that it has a demand for a long response.

Post 1

Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 12:42am

What's your question?

Post 2

Monday, July 14, 2003 - 4:02pm

Nate,

Regarding Veganism (a radical type of vegetarianism, where ALL animal products are shunned), the only valid reasoning allowed against the backdrop of the currently-available scientific evidence on the matter is to either choose it for non-physiological reasons, or reject it for physiological reasons (there is no third option).

In other words, the weight of the publicly-available scientific evidence stands against pure "Veganism" as a path to physiological health in humans (although this doesn't preclude choosing veganism for non-pysiological reasons, such as for religious reasons).

While there are several good reasons for not choosing veganism, one of the "biggies" (one that is both objectively verifiable and absolutely clear & certain) is the extreme lack of vitamin B-12 in the vegetable kingdom.

Humans need B-12 Nate, and vegetables don't provide it (various occult sources of B-12 that may have snuck into vegetables can be neglected as categorically inadequate).

Ed

Post 3

Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 8:21am

Given a choice between eating vegan and eating the gun, I'll have me a hot lead sandwich. Enough said.

Or maybe not. Take a good look at your teeth. You've got edged teeth, pointed teeth, and blunt teeth. If you were truly a herbivore, you'd have nothing but molars, like a horse's teeth. If you were truly a carnivore, your teeth would be more similar to a cat's teeth. Instead, human beings are omnivores; we can eat just about anything: meat, plant, or fruit.

If you want to deprive yourself by eating vegan, go right ahead. Just make sure to take your vitamins unless you like the idea of rickets or scurvy or other fun vitamin deficiencies.

Me, I'm looking forward to a dish of tabasco couscous with chicken strips for lunch.

Post 4

Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 11:25am

i have a friend who is a vegetarian not because she loves animals, but because she "doesn't like housepets, so it only seems fair to not like to eat them, too."

i could only imagine if she was a vegan...

Post 5

Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 12:03pm

A, what is your friend smoking, and where can I get some? I could make a killing selling that stuff in Amsterdam.

Post 6

Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 3:28am

That's a good policy for dealing with people you don't like. I don't like Communists, so I guess I'll have to stop having them for supper. Tell your friend thanks for the help, a! :)

(that sucks, cuz those free-range commies have such tasty meat....eating all that shoe leather makes em nice and tender.)

Post 7

Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 4:41am

And Republicans taste much better than pork, too. Maybe I should stop eating the other "other white meat". And environmentalists are so good for the digestion, all that roughage.

And don't forget the Christians... Mmmm, soul food. >^..^<

Post 8

Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 8:28am

On a rather interesting side not, generally speaking, all of the vegans and/or vegetarians that I personally know are very unhealthy.

Post 9

Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 6:17pm

Whilst surfing for decent web sites to discuss Objectivism, I came across this one. As a vegetarian and sometime vegan, this thread caught my interest.

Alas, the spirit of Objectivism and scientific inquiry is dead in this thread. Do any of the posters, other than Ed, have anything beyond ill-informed personal prejudices to contribute? Ed gets it right when he says that veg-heads like myself have to worry about B-12.

Unfortunately, that is about the only intelligent thing said in this thread. To Matthew, who suggests vegans are likely to suffer from scurvy - do you have any idea (obviously not) what causes and prevents scurvy? (Hint: It isn't pork chops.)

Now, granted there are unhealthy vegans, as there are unhealthy carnivorous people. However, this is, in my experience, because certain young people become vegans to spare the animals and fail to eat a balanced diet. After all, potato chips, Coke, and pot are all vegan, but none really qualify as healthy diet items.

If you want to actually have some data about veganism and its health benefits, read Diet for a New America of Fit for Life. Yes, some ranting occurs, but the scientific evidence is rather conclusive. Suffice it to say, veg-heads live longer and healthier lives, though of course, these people are also more health-conscious generally.

Post 10

Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 10:04pm

As a matter of fact, Bgor, I know that eating citrus prevents scurvy. I'm also a member of PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals).

Post 11

Monday, July 21, 2003 - 6:51pm

Bgor,

Why are you a "veg-head"? Is it for health reasons? If so, please provide these reasons(preferably as a simple listing of them).

Do you advocate the reasoning marshalled by Harvey Diamond or John McDougall? (I can show that their reasoning is faulty - but would this matter to you?)

Existing data on pure veganism and all-cause mortality aren't as promising as lactoovo- or peso-vegetarianism ("dairy/egg-"; "fish-"). In fact, as far as health is concerned, fruit, veggie, & fish consumption trump all other dietary variables. In other words, meat isn't unhealthy if you eat your fruits, veggies, & fish.

If you don't respond, I'll have to assume that you were never really very much concerned with understanding & truth regarding this important issue.

Ed

Post 12

Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 5:32pm

The trouble with veganism and vegetarianism is not really the diet (which if well planned, can be perfectly nutritious), but the religious "tone" of such a lifestyle choice. Like many "isms" these dietary inclinations are often accompanied by a drive to convert others.

Many vegans, for example, are probably more concerned about not killing animals - than their own personal health.

There are plenty of facts and research to indicate that a diet low in animal fats is better for your cardiovascular health.

I even saw the following this morning - while reading online papers:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health/story.jsp?story=426768

About two years ago I spent a lot of time researching the issue of cholestrol and blocked arteries etc - and concluded that any reduction in the intake of animal fats was a good thing.

The proof of my course of action followed six months later, when having an annual medical checkup. My cholestrol had dropped significantly.

I loathe eating habits driven by religion/ideology - so usually follow the maxim that anything in moderation will be fine. However, I have found that reducing the amount of animal fats in my diet has been beneficial. And the other thing I've noticed is this is what I prefer now - as a matter of taste choice.

Post 13

Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 7:29pm

David,

A reduction in cholesterol is not always a good thing (the mortality rate actually increases if total cholesterol drops too low; or if the "protective" cholesterol - HDL - drops more than LDL does). HDL is a key here. Most vegetarian diets decrease HDL. Their only saving grace is that they also drop LDL ...

As far as predicting health outcomes with variations in cholesterol level, there is a race going on here; and the LDL/HDL ratio - or Total/HDL ratio - determines the winner in this race (these ratios are stronger predicters of outcome than total cholesterol is).

David, what has happened to your HDL level in the past 6 months? Has your LDL/HDL ratio changed? What about your triglyceride (triacylglycerol) level?

If you don't respond, I'll have to assume that you were never really very much concerned with understanding & truth regarding this important issue.

Ed

Post 14

Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 6:20pm