• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Pain

Secret Chief

Secret Chief

Very strong language
ChristineM said:
Another a down side.
Click to expand...
Anyhoo, teddy borg is just the snuggliest thing there is!

IMG_7270.jpeg
 
ADigitalArtist

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Rival said:
According to sources I've read, meat has some nutrients only it has.

According to sources you've read, we don't need meat.

I'm guessing there's a lot of lobbying here, on both sides, and accurate information is hard to come by.

I maintain that what I've read seems correct to me and that's all I can go on; esp. re D3 in cold climates. I'm going to eat meat as I believe it's essential to a healthy diet given articles from peer reviewed literature. It's obviously different for folks who may have read different studies.
Click to expand...
I don't know what lobbying power you think 'big veggie' has but I assure you meat is a much bigger industry with more to lose.

The biggest problem with studying vegetarian diets holistically is that people with varied diets for health reasons tend to be paying better attention to their health as a whole. So when you look at vegetarian vs meat eating, the latter of which includes most of the general population, you'll find vegetarians are far and away healthier, with longer lives, because a significant portion of them take better care of their health in other areas like exercise, meditation, etc. How much of thay owes to their vegetarian diet vs just living a healthy active lifestyle is unknown and difficult to study meaningfully. Which is why I always caution using raw data studies to draw conclusions because correlation vs causation is a very very common problem.

With that said, it's not contested in the global nutrition studies (I'm talking World Health Organization Cancer: Carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat in example) that vegetarian diets have less but not deficient iron, iodine, calcium and b12, but meat diets have over and away more health threatening impacts on cholesterol, and cancer causing substances, especially red meat. And the number one global threats to health in both our country isn't b12 deficiency (especially since most our cereals and dairies are fortified), it's heart attacks. What you think you lose in vitamins causing health issues, which can easily be rectified with varied eating, is more than made up for in other avenues of health.
 
Secret Chief

Secret Chief

Very strong language
Debater Slayer said:
About a third of my closer friends are either vegetarian or vegan, and they are all healthy. As far as I know, they have also gotten normal results when they have had blood work done.

Of course, this is just anecdotal, but there is no shortage of examples and studies demonstrating that a vegetarian diet can provide all necessary nutrients and not compromise one's health at all.
Click to expand...
Here's some more personal anecdote: low bp, low pulse rate, low cholesterol, bmi bang in the middle of "healthy."
 
Secret Chief

Secret Chief

Very strong language
ADigitalArtist said:
I don't know what lobbying power you think 'big veggie' has but I assure you meat is a much bigger industry with more to lose.

The biggest problem with studying vegetarian diets holistically is that people with varied diets for health reasons tend to be paying better attention to their health as a whole. So when you look at vegetarian vs meat eating, the latter of which includes most of the general population, you'll find vegetarians are far and away healthier, with longer lives, because a significant portion of them take better care of their health in other areas like exercise, meditation, etc. How much of thay owes to their vegetarian diet vs just living a healthy active lifestyle is unknown and difficult to study meaningfully. Which is why I always caution using raw data studies to draw conclusions because correlation vs causation is a very very common problem.

With that said, it's not contested in the global nutrition studies (I'm talking World Health Organization Cancer: Carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat in example) that vegetarian diets have less but not deficient iron, iodine, calcium and b12, but meat diets have over and away more health threatening impacts on cholesterol, and cancer causing substances, especially red meat. And the number one global threats to health in both our country isn't b12 deficiency (especially since most our cereals and dairies are fortified), it's heart attacks. What you think you lose in vitamins causing health issues, which can easily be rectified with varied eating, is more than made up for in other avenues of health.
Click to expand...
B12 is goddam everywhere! Quick photo off the oat milk carton in the fridge:

IMG_7271.jpeg
 
ADigitalArtist

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Rival said:
I'm not arguing that it is.

I'm arguing that B12 is not naturally occurring in plants.
Click to expand...
It's not naturally occurring in meat either, by the same argument, since both we and other animals get it from bacteria in soil or parts of the ocean. I just skip the middle man(meat.)
 
Rival

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
Secret Chief said:
You've not established your claim. Meat is not needed in the human diet. Humans are not obligate carnivores, they are omnivores. A balanced healthy diet does not require meat.
Click to expand...
Yes it does.

According to the information from which I've learned.

I'm not arguing further, this is a circle. You obviously have your view and I have mine.
 
Hermit Philosopher

Hermit Philosopher

Selflessly here for you
Rival said:
I've been having a discussion with @ChristineM about wearing fur.

I wonder if some ideologies are seeking too much to avoid pain and suffering. I agree that any kind of farming is generally not pleasant and most people despair of killing animals for food or other reasons, but have ways of mitigating this. Historically we saw that killing as a sacrifice and raised the animal to something holy.

Are were trying to avoid the realities of life by trying to get rid of pain and suffering? Why does it disturb us so, given we've been doing it for so long? Is it that we are now sheltered from the outside world so much when we see it we're horrified?

I'm not heartless, but farming is normal; hunting and eating animals has been normal for all of human history.

Are we stuck in an ideology that makes us too disturbed by reality?
Click to expand...
In minus 35 degrees, the modern alternative to fur is down filled, water resistant, breathable synthetics. It’s production is not environmentally friendly and it won’t keep you nor as warm or as dry + down-plucking too, is controversial. But that’s sometimes what’s available to purchase, so there’s not always that much choice.

Synthetic fleece is another warm option, but the current process used to turn plastics into the warmer types of fleece is in fact directly environmentally bad - I personally stay well away.

Boiled wool clothing is better but not warm enough in less than ca minus 15 degrees and not commonly available nowadays + yes, it requires sheep (though they need a trim anyways, so not a bad option).

I guess, what I’m saying is that fur has its place (the real cold) and far from all types are farmed for fur alone.


Humbly,
Hermit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top