I'm now a vegetarian!!!

[darkpenguin]

Although we can't digest cellulose it is still a vital part of our diet because we need the roughage or fiber. The reason for me bringing up this biological talk is to back up darkpenguin’s statement that we don’t need meat to survive. Our bodies will be perfectly fine if we don’t eat meat. I know that our stomach’s are not like a cow’s but our intestines are three times shorter than a lion’s. They digest and eliminate meat before it becomes petrified. I’m just saying that we have more in common with herbivores. If you don’t think so, then fine…you are entitled to your opinion. I’m just here to support darkpenguin with his new decision.

And a huge help you've been too, thankyou!
2 days without meat now and I can honesty say that I'm not bothered or even craving.
I thought I'd even miss meat ball subway but as I said to my fiance, they can be made at home using meat free balls and would probably be tastier and healthier.
I know that one person isn't going to make much of a difference but I don't care, I don't want dead animals on my conscience!

 

[michel]

I applaud both of you. I wish I had the will power to watch those videos.

I applaud both of them too; I did watch the video - I saw the programme darkpenguin mentioned. Strangely, I was thinking about it this morning; thinking about the fact that - yes, the way the animals were treated was horrendous - of that there is no doubt; but what on earth did you expect?

I hold all life as sacred; that means that a vegetable has just as much right to a life as a pig. To exist, I have to eat - that, to me is the saddest part of being a human being - the fact that other life forms have to suffer for my belly to be filled.

How I look forward to the hereafter, when (I am sure) I will have no hunger - because there will be no need to eat.

All I can do now, is to give thanks to the life that was sacrificed so that I may be nourished..................

Now, if, someday. a scientist managed to produce nutrients that could entirely replace all the food that we now eat, count me in!!

 

[darkpenguin]

I applaud both of them too; I did watch the video - I saw the programme darkpenguin mentioned. Strangely, I was thinking about it this morning; thinking about the fact that - yes, the way the animals were treated was horrendous - of that there is no doubt; but what on earth did you expect?

I hold all life as sacred; that means that a vegetable has just as much right to a life as a pig. To exist, I have to eat - that, to me is the saddest part of being a human being - the fact that other life forms have to suffer for my belly to be filled.

How I look forward to the hereafter, when (I am sure) I will have no hunger - because there will be no need to eat.

All I can do now, is to give thanks to the life that was sacrificed so that I may be nourished..................

Now, if, someday. a scientist managed to produce nutrients that could entirely replace all the food that we now eat, count me in!!

Out of curiosity did you see all 4 programs and if so did you think that it was purposely done in the way that anything after the cow would seem alot less harsh to watch?
Also thankyou for your words of support!

 

[Hema]

And a huge help you've been too, thankyou!
2 days without meat now and I can honesty say that I'm not bothered or even craving.
I thought I'd even miss meat ball subway but as I said to my fiance, they can be made at home using meat free balls and would probably be tastier and healthier.
I know that one person isn't going to make much of a difference but I don't care, I don't want dead animals on my conscience!

Aw, us vegetarians have to stick together! You're just one person though. There are many more of us and if we don't make a big difference, we make a little difference. If all vegetarians were meat eaters, the demand would be greater and more animals would be slaughtered to meet that demand. Even if it's only one animal less, we made a difference to that one animal. That one animal will be glad to be alive.

 

[MaddLlama]

I’m just saying that we have more in common with herbivores. If you don’t think so, then fine…you are entitled to your opinion. I’m just here to support darkpenguin with his new decision.

The problem is that we don't really have a whole lot in common with herbivores. The way they digest plant material is totally different from the way we do, and their system make-up is also very different. For herbivores, the ingestion and digestion of cellulose is essential for energy and the digestive process. For us, it is only a small part of the last leg of digestion, and it's only function is in aiding excretion. Herbivoers also eat pretty much constantly, because the energy they get from digesting plants is much lower than the energy given by digesting meat. Herbivores can also be ruminants - which means they have multiple stomachs and their digestion process includes cud (swallowing a bolus and then regurgitating it and then chewing it). Their digestive process also relies on micro-organisms. Our system relies on the use of enzymes to break down food.

Look, I appreciate that you want to support him in his decision. I have no problem with that. Just, stop using bad science to do it. If you dont believe me, you can read this chapter in a book on vetinary physiology.

 

[Jaymes]

I know that one person isn't going to make much of a difference but I don't care, I don't want dead animals on my conscience!

Don't ever tell yourself you don't make a difference, because it's not true. You do. Every bit of chicken and fish and beef you pass up is chicken and fish and beef that wasn't killed for you. You're taking away from the market demand for it; when enough people get together, that makes a difference. But it wouldn't be able to make a difference if there weren't many individual people making an effort.

 

[Hema]

The problem is that we don't really have a whole lot in common with herbivores. The way they digest plant material is totally different from the way we do, and their system make-up is also very different. For herbivores, the ingestion and digestion of cellulose is essential for energy and the digestive process. For us, it is only a small part of the last leg of digestion, and it's only function is in aiding excretion. Herbivoers also eat pretty much constantly, because the energy they get from digesting plants is much lower than the energy given by digesting meat. Herbivores can also be ruminants - which means they have multiple stomachs and their digestion process includes cud (swallowing a bolus and then regurgitating it and then chewing it). Their digestive process also relies on micro-organisms. Our system relies on the use of enzymes to break down food.

Look, I appreciate that you want to support him in his decision. I have no problem with that. Just, stop using bad science to do it. If you dont believe me, you can read this chapter in a book on vetinary physiology.

Thank you but again, I still stand by my opinion. There is a comparison of the anatomies of herbivores, carnivores and omnivores with humans at http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/Gesundheit/taxonomy.html adapted from The Comparative Anatomy of Eating by Milton R. Mills, M.D.

Similarly, Ram Kakkar researched the anatomy of the human digestive system and this is part of what he noted: (taken from http://www.vegetariansocietymauritius.org/site02.htm)

"Virtually the human body is unsuitable for meat eating. Humans have physiologically, more in common with herbivores than with carnivores. For example, carnivores have sharp claws and elongated teeth for rearing flesh. Their digestive tract is only 3 times the body length (to expel decaying flesh rapidly), and they gel large amounts of acidic saliva in the system. Furthermore, they can metabolise almost unlimited amount of cholesterol and fats without any adverse effects. Whereas herbivores, including humans, have molars for grinding food, a perspiration system to expel toxic substances, and get alkalinised saliva in the stomach. The intestines of the digestive system are convoluted and are 12 times the body length. The meat to be digested inside the stomach requires juices high in hydrochloric acid that we produce in low amounts; rather it is 20 times weaker than in carnivores. Meat produces poisonous wastes in the stomach. These toxic wastes were stopped in the animal's blood stream at the time of slaughtering. By the time the human produces enough hydrochloric acid in the stomach, the meat is practically rot ting in the intestine, releasing toxic substances. This causes the problems in- the system like stomach pains, indigestion, constipation, diarrhoea, etc. The kidney, another important organ which extracts wastes from the blood, is heavily strained by the overload of poisons introduced by meat consumption. Even a moderate meat eater demands 3 times more work from his kidneys than does a vegetarian. The risk of kidney failure increases, as we grow older. Studies have established direct relationships between colon cancer and meat eating.

Meat introduces an excessive amount of saturated fat, cholesterol, and protein into the diet and is devoid of two important components; fibre and carbohydrates. Over a period of many years, an excess of fatty deposits accumulate on the inner walls of arteries, clogging the flow of blood to the heart - a potent for heart attacks, strokes, and blood clot. With the high level of animal protein intake, lesser intake of fibre, it is not surprising that 1 in 3 Americans get cancer and 1 in 4 get heart problems. There are 50 million Americans with high blood pressure, and annually about 1.2 million die of heart disease. Stroke, cancer or other chronic diseases all of which are conclusively linked with the consumption of animal flesh products. The American Medical Association, The American Heart Association, and The National Academy of sciences have, all reported that 90 -97% of heart diseases could have been prevented by vegetarian diet. The meat diet of today is contaminated with dangerous toxic residues of pesticides, herbicides of cattle feed and antibiotics and chemicals like DDT; arsenic -growth stimulant: sodium sulphate, DES -a synthetic hormone (a known human carcinogen) etc. Interestingly, of all antibiotics used in America. 55% are fed to livestock for beef growth. These toxic chemicals weaken our immune system and its capability to fight 'disease. Again, due to the unhygienic nature of the slaughterhouses, there is possibility of meat contamination with deadly bacteria. Legally, the business can sell up to 49% of raw ground poultry and 2.7% of red meat contaminated with deadly salmonella and E-coli bacteria. Further, by and. large, the diseased animals are slaughtered for beef. USDA inspectors cannot detect the presence of microscopic bacteria. Inspection is often compromised to protect the profits of the beef industry .A new innovation of the modern high tech factory farming; the remains of dead animals (including sheep with Scrapie and cows with Mad Cow Disease) are converted into animal feed for the growth of high protein beef. No doubt, this kind of meat diet will pass on incurable diseases to the human ace. Next to tobacco, the use of meat is the single largest cause of mortally in USA."​

I know that humans have adapted to eating meat and it is a personal choice.

 

[MaddLlama]

We may have similar appearance in systems, but this chart ignores the fact that the function of those parts of the system are differet, and they digest food differently.

 

[Hema]

We may have similar appearance in systems, but this chart ignores the fact that the function of those parts of the system are differet, and they digest food differently.

See my previous post.

 

[MaddLlama]

See my previous post.

Well, the answer is simple. We aren't carnivores. And, we aren't herbivores either. So, to compare humans to either is just a silly and unnecessary idea.

What difference does it make to you which animal we're most like? Do you feel better about being a vegetarian by trying to find some sort of biological reason? Why can't you just be happy with your decision?

And, the idea that meat is the only, or major source of fat and cholesterol in the diet is rediculous. Yes, meat has saturated fat and cholesterol, and eating a ton of meat is not good for you, but vegetarians are not exempt from those problems. If you eat any sort of dairy food, eggs, or anything with butter, you've got saturated fat, and cholesterol. Even tofu has saturated fat in it. Besides, you need certain types of fat and cholesterol in your diet. A diet devoid of fat is an unhealthy diet. And, meat may be devoid of carbs and fiber, but it has protein, which is something that most plants don't have. The idea that meat is bad because it lacks carbohydrates is laughable, and makes me question whether or not he really knows what he's talking about. Being a mechanical engineer, I'm not sure that I would trust him with scientific research of human anatomy.

Humans have no problem digestic meat and other animal products. That doesn't make us carnivores. The idea that humans lack the ability to properly digest meat is absurd to both real medical study of the human body and common sense. Really, after reading that quote it seems like the equivalent of vegetarian propaganda. I seriously hope you'll consider reading some real scientific or medical material over this sort of stuff.

 

[Hema]

Well, the answer is simple. We aren't carnivores. And, we aren't herbivores either. So, to compare humans to either is just a silly and unnecessary idea.

What difference does it make to you which animal we're most like? Do you feel better about being a vegetarian by trying to find some sort of biological reason? Why can't you just be happy with your decision?

And, the idea that meat is the only, or major source of fat and cholesterol in the diet is rediculous. Yes, meat has saturated fat and cholesterol, and eating a ton of meat is not good for you, but vegetarians are not exempt from those problems. If you eat any sort of dairy food, eggs, or anything with butter, you've got saturated fat, and cholesterol. Even tofu has saturated fat in it. Besides, you need certain types of fat and cholesterol in your diet. A diet devoid of fat is an unhealthy diet. And, meat may be devoid of carbs and fiber, but it has protein, which is something that most plants don't have. The idea that meat is bad because it lacks carbohydrates is laughable, and makes me question whether or not he really knows what he's talking about. Being a mechanical engineer, I'm not sure that I would trust him with scientific research of human anatomy.

Humans have no problem digestic meat and other animal products. That doesn't make us carnivores. The idea that humans lack the ability to properly digest meat is absurd to both real medical study of the human body and common sense. Really, after reading that quote it seems like the equivalent of vegetarian propaganda. I seriously hope you'll consider reading some real scientific or medical material over this sort of stuff.

I have read many similar articles. I know that dairy products have saturated fat. Cholesterol only comes from animal and dairy products. Most oils have saturated fats which turn into cholesterol. Olive oil has the good HDL cholesterol which gets rid of the bad LDL cholesterol. Humans can get enough protein without eating meat. I am very happy being a vegetarian, apart from biological reasons and I'm not saying that everyone else has to be, it is a personal choice.

 

[MaddLlama]

I have read many similar articles.

Any article that says "meat is bad for you" is wrong. Sorry. Meat is not the problem.

I know that dairy products have saturated fat. Cholesterol only comes from animal and dairy products. Most oils have saturated fats which turn into cholesterol. Olive oil has the good HDL cholesterol which gets rid of the bad LDL cholesterol. Humans can get enough protein without eating meat. I am very happy being a vegetarian, apart from biological reasons and I'm not saying that everyone else has to be, it is a personal choice.

Then, why do you need to bring up biology at all? Why is it so important to you that you have to hold onto the idea that humans and herbivores are closely related? Why can't you just say that it's a personal choice and leave it at that?
Saying "you can choose to be a vegetarian if you want, but you know we're really not meant to eat meat" is teetering on the border of telling all meat-eaters that your way of eating is more correct than theirs.

And, BTW, olive oil is good, but it's still about 15% saturated fat, and not a lot of essential omega 3. Canola oil is better.

 

[Hema]

Any article that says "meat is bad for you" is wrong. Sorry. Meat is not the problem.

That is your opinion and I respect it but I do not share that opinion.

Then, why do you need to bring up biology at all? Why is it so important to you that you have to hold onto the idea that humans and herbivores are closely related? Why can't you just say that it's a personal choice and leave it at that?
Saying "you can choose to be a vegetarian if you want, but you know we're really not meant to eat meat" is teetering on the border of telling all meat-eaters that your way of eating is more correct than theirs.

Because to me we have more in common with herbivores. The only reason I brought it up in the first place is to prove that we don't need meat to survive. This is my opinion and I won't change it. If you disagree then you have every right to. If you don't want to change your mind you have every right to. Sometimes people have to agree to disagree.

And, BTW, olive oil is good, but it's still about 15% saturated fat, and not a lot of essential omega 3. Canola oil is better.

We sometimes use canola oil mainly for frying. Canold has the least amount of saturated fat but olive oil has the most monounsaturated fat.

 

[MaddLlama]

That is your opinion and I respect it but I do not share that opinion.

Because to me we have more in common with herbivores. The only reason I brought it up in the first place is to prove that we don't need meat to survive. This is my opinion and I won't change it. If you disagree then you have every right to. If you don't want to change your mind you have every right to. Sometimes people have to agree to disagree.

That's fine, but I'm not going to treat your opinion as scientifically valid. Science isn't a matter of opinion

We sometimes use canola oil mainly for frying. Canold has the least amount of saturated fat but olive oil has the most monounsaturated fat.

Yes, but polyunsaturated fat is good for you too. If you've ever heard health nuts talk about "essential fatty acids" or omega 3 or 6, those are the polys.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Although we can't digest cellulose it is still a vital part of our diet because we need the roughage or fiber. The reason for me bringing up this biological talk is to back up darkpenguin’s statement that we don’t need meat to survive. Our bodies will be perfectly fine if we don’t eat meat. I know that our stomach’s are not like a cow’s but our intestines are three times shorter than a lion’s. They digest and eliminate meat before it becomes petrified. I’m just saying that we have more in common with herbivores. If you don’t think so, then fine…you are entitled to your opinion. I’m just here to support darkpenguin with his new decision.

I have nothing but support for young bickie and his decision to become meat free. More power to him, I hope he does well with it, and I also hope if he falls of the wagon that he doesn't beat himself up over it.
But then he's not bandying about twaddle and calling it biology, or claiming that humans are more like cows than other primates. It's not my opinion that we have more in common with chimps than cows, sheep or little fluffy rabbits, it's scientific fact. I also never said that cellulose wasn't important, I just said we don't effectively digest it, unlike herbivores which rely on it.
If you're going to give what you claim is scientific evidence, look for an unbiased source. We can all come up with things that swing in favour of our opinion if we type 'Justify my position' into a search engine.

 

[Mathematician]

Unbiased source is an oxymoron, heh.

Congratulations on going vegetarian, darkpengiun. I stopped eating meat as a result of my own moral convictions -- being that I took up the Jain idea that killing should be limited to bare necessity. I'll reiterate the statement that I won't try to force meat-eaters to stop, but if they're willing to listen I'll ask that they stop.

Concerning our biology, I'm still unsure on the matter. For those of us who believe in macro-evolution, the answer could probably be found in what our primate ancestors were. Baboons eat meat, but from what I understand most primates don't. But then chimps eat small monkeys....

 

[James the Persian]

At first I was under the delusion when I first stopped eating meat that my actions resulted in no death ever. I know now that that's not the case. However, if given a choice between causing bugs to suffer and causing something with a complex nervous system to suffer, I'm gonna choose the bugs.

Well, I don't agree with making that distinction at all (perhaps it's one of my last vestiges of Buddhism) but each to their own.

Besides, you're deluding yourself if you think the same things don't go into feeding the animals grains and whatnot. Only the end result with it is that you also cause unnecessary suffering with yet another animal.

Well, actually not only am I not deluding myself (because I'm only too aware of the fact that anything I eat will cause some suffering and have accepted it) but I'm in a position where I can actually minimise the suffering. In fuelling demand for organic, natural and humanely farmed meat, I actually reduce this kind of thing. The small amount of beef, for instance, that I actually eat, is outdoor reared and fed on grass (even the winter feedstock is not grain) and hence I'm not adding an extra layer on top of crop production. Under those circumstances, not only is livestock rearing less destructive than arable farming but it's actually often essential for the wellbeing of other creatures that it continues - witness the number of species dependant upon the continuation of sheep farming in UK hill regions.

James

 

[Hema]

That's fine, but I'm not going to treat your opinion as scientifically valid. Science isn't a matter of opinion

Okay then but I'm not going to treat your opinion as scientifically valid either.

Yes, but polyunsaturated fat is good for you too. If you've ever heard health nuts talk about "essential fatty acids" or omega 3 or 6, those are the polys.

Yes I knew that, thank you. I've heard that canola oil has some of these fatty acids.

 

[Hema]

I have nothing but support for young bickie and his decision to become meat free. More power to him, I hope he does well with it, and I also hope if he falls of the wagon that he doesn't beat himself up over it.
But then he's not bandying about twaddle and calling it biology, or claiming that humans are more like cows than other primates. It's not my opinion that we have more in common with chimps than cows, sheep or little fluffy rabbits, it's scientific fact. I also never said that cellulose wasn't important, I just said we don't effectively digest it, unlike herbivores which rely on it.
If you're going to give what you claim is scientific evidence, look for an unbiased source. We can all come up with things that swing in favour of our opinion if we type 'Justify my position' into a search engine.

Even without using a search engine it is obvious that we don't have claws or fangs and we are the only species who have to cook the meat to eat it. It is also a scientific fact that carnivores have longer intestines and much more hydrochloric acid in their stomachs for digesting meat. The meat is digested and eliminated before it rots and toxifies the body. This is not the case with humans. Yes humans have evolved to eat meat but just because we can digest meat does not mean that it is the ideal diet for humans. We can digest cardboard but is it good for us? It is a scientific fact that the bad LDL cholesterol comes only from animal and dairy products. This increases one's risk of heart attacks, heart disease etc. If you want an unbiased source, here are excerpts from an FDA site:
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/reprints/fatguide.htmlhttp://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdfats.html


"All the cholesterol the body needs is made by the liver. It is used to build cell membranes and brain and nerve tissues. Cholesterol also helps the body produce steroid hormones needed for body regulation, including processing food, and bile acids needed for digestion. People don't need to consume dietary cholesterol because the body can make enough cholesterol for its needs. But the typical U.S. diet contains substantial amounts of cholesterol, found in foods such as egg yolks, liver, meat, some shellfish, and whole-milk dairy products. Only foods of animal origin contain cholesterol."

"In 1916, Cornelius de Langen, a Dutch physician working in Java, Indonesia, noticed that native Indonesians had much lower rates of heart disease than Dutch colonists living on the island. He reported this finding to a medical journal, speculating that the Indonesians' healthy hearts were linked with their low levels of blood cholesterol. De Langen also noticed that both blood cholesterol levels and rates of heart disease soared among Indonesians who abandoned their native diet of mostly plant foods and ate a typical Dutch diet containing a lot of meat and dairy products."


"After World War II, medical researchers in Scandinavia noticed that deaths from heart disease had declined dramatically during the war, when food was rationed and meat, dairy products, and eggs were scarce. At about the same time, other researchers found that people who suffered heart attacks had higher levels of blood cholesterol than people who did not have heart attacks. Since then, a large body of scientific evidence has been gathered linking high blood cholesterol and a diet high in animal fats with an elevated risk of heart attack."

 

[James the Persian]

Even without using a search engine it is obvious that we don't have claws or fangs and we are the only species who have to cook the meat to eat it.

We don't actually have to cook meat to eat it any more than we have to cook plants to eat them (actually, some plants you do, but never mind). Haven't you heard of steak tartare or carpaccio, amongst other things? Humans are perfectly capable of digesting raw meat.

It is also a scientific fact that carnivores have longer intestines and much more hydrochloric acid in their stomachs for digesting meat. The meat is digested and eliminated before it rots and toxifies the body. This is not the case with humans.

But was anyone trying to argue that humans are carnivores? If so then they are, of course, quite wrong, but so are you to argue for vegetarianism from dissimilarities between humans and carnivores. You actually need to look at the similarities between us and other omnivores, such as pigs. And yes, our digestive tracts are more like theirs than like either herbivores or carnivores.

Yes humans have evolved to eat meat but just because we can digest meat does not mean that it is the ideal diet for humans.

Why would we evolve the ability to digest meat if it did not confer some advantage to do so? The idea that such is even possible runs counter to the whole idea of natural selection. There must be some evolutionary advantage conferred on us by eating meat otherwise we, and our closest cousins the chimpanzees, would be vegetarian like one of our slightly less close cousins, the gorilla. To be honest, whilst you can make religious, cultural and ethical arguments for vegetarianism that are good, trying to make the same arguments on biological premises is a complete non-starter.

James