• 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!

Vegetarianism is one of the best things you can do for the enviroment

Me Myself

Back to my username
Actually, no. There are complex protiens in meat that do not appear in plants, requiring the consumption of a variety of different plants to obtain them. You can nibble grass all day, but I'll take mine in concentrated steak form, thanks.

Actually, yes. And we need far fewer protein than what you would imagine.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Actually, yes. And we need far fewer protein than what you would imagine.
It depends on what you're trying to do.

On the spectrum of sedentary people to moderately active people to athletes, there are different protein needs.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
It depends on what you're trying to do.

On the spectrum of sedentary people to moderately active people to athletes, there are different protein needs.

True, but even then, athletes are already watching out their diets, so they don´t have problem either with full vegetables. A lot of runners and other kinds of athletes have evidenced this already.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
True, but even then, athletes are already watching out their diets, so they don´t have problem either with full vegetables. A lot of runners and other kinds of athletes have evidenced this already.
This doesn't exactly address the point. The idea that we need far less protein than imagined is inaccurate for athletic people.

Sedentary people don't need much protein, but athletes need quite a bit.

The tricky part about being a vegetarian athlete is not about getting enough protein. It's about getting enough protein while not getting too much carbohydrates or calories in general, because almost every plant-based food has more carbohydrates than protein.

Therefore, supplemental protein powder is often important. Especially when specific strength or power goals are being aimed for.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
This doesn't exactly address the point. The idea that we need far less protein than imagined is inaccurate for athletic people.

Sedentary people don't need much protein, but athletes need quite a bit.

The tricky part about being a vegetarian athlete is not about getting enough protein. It's about getting enough protein while not getting too much carbohydrates or calories in general, because almost every plant-based food has more carbohydrates than protein.

Therefore, supplemental protein powder is often important. Especially when specific strength or power goals are being aimed for.

1- Most people aren´t athletes

2-Athletes still way less protein than people think athletes need.

3- Carbohydrates are more important than proteins for athletes (yes they need both, but they need more carbs than prot)
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
1- Most people aren´t athletes
This thread appears to be about an ideal scenario.

An ideal scenario is where people are athletic, not sedentary.

Athlete doesn't mean top 0.0001% of human population. It's something most people can achieve, apart from physical handicaps.

2-Athletes still way less protein than people think athletes need.
Based on what? Have you tried it?

What variables are you going with here? How much protein do people think athletes need, in this scenario?

3- Carbohydrates are more important than proteins for athletes (yes they need both, but they need more carbs than prot)
Only if athlete is assumed to equal marathon runner.

Martial artist, powerlifter, sprinter, football player, etc.

Carbohydrates serve relatively little purpose above a certain point for overall athletic ability outside of a primarily endurance-based activity.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
"Having children is the surest way to send your carbon footprint soaring, according to a new study from statisticians at Oregon State University.



The study found that having a child has an impact that far outweighs that of other energy-saving behaviors.


Take, for example, a hypothetical American woman who switches to a more fuel-efficient car, drives less, recycles, installs more efficient light bulbs, and replaces her refrigerator and windows with energy-saving models. If she had two children, the researchers found, her carbon legacy would eventually rise to nearly 40 times what she had saved by those actions.


“Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle,” the report states.


The impact of children varies dramatically depending on geography: An American woman who has a baby will generate nearly seven times the carbon footprint of that of a Chinese woman who has a child, the study found..."


Having Children Brings High Carbon Impact - NYTimes.com
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
This thread appears to be about an ideal scenario.

An ideal scenario is where people are athletic, not sedentary.

Athlete doesn't mean top 0.0001% of human population. It's something most people can achieve, apart from physical handicaps.


Based on what? Have you tried it?

What variables are you going with here? How much protein do people think athletes need, in this scenario?


Only if athlete is assumed to equal marathon runner.

Martial artist, powerlifter, sprinter, football player, etc.

Carbohydrates serve relatively little purpose above a certain point for overall athletic ability outside of a primarily endurance-based activity.

Except for football players I´ve already heard people being any of those while being vegan/vegetarian.

I myself am not sedentary at all.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
"Having children is the surest way to send your carbon footprint soaring, according to a new study from statisticians at Oregon State University.



The study found that having a child has an impact that far outweighs that of other energy-saving behaviors.


Take, for example, a hypothetical American woman who switches to a more fuel-efficient car, drives less, recycles, installs more efficient light bulbs, and replaces her refrigerator and windows with energy-saving models. If she had two children, the researchers found, her carbon legacy would eventually rise to nearly 40 times what she had saved by those actions.


“Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle,” the report states.


The impact of children varies dramatically depending on geography: An American woman who has a baby will generate nearly seven times the carbon footprint of that of a Chinese woman who has a child, the study found..."


Having Children Brings High Carbon Impact - NYTimes.com

Agreed, not having children is a bigger service than anything you can do by lifestyle. I am not at all debating that. As I said in the Thread title, vegetarianism is one of the best things you can do for the enviroment.

Not having children would be the very best. Though I would believe that it is harder to give up on meat than give up on children for people that want each respectively, but again, I do think not having children would be a grater service.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
Also, while I am not a powerlifter, I did do weights since before vegetarianism and noted my advances in weighlifts, etc. I did not decrease the rate in which I added reps or weight to my regular workout since I became vegetarian, so I do know I didnt have any protein problems. My nutritionist saw my blood and it was really good, so sure, I can talk from personal experience.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Except for football players I´ve already heard people being any of those while being vegan/vegetarian.

I myself am not sedentary at all.
There are football players that have temporarily gone vegetarian or vegan. There was a QB that was vegetarian for a while. Another guy tried to be but eventually stopped.

Arian Foster has been vegan since July, but I'll see if he can maintain it. Fortunately maintaining strength is easier than building strength.

Also, while I am not a powerlifter, I did do weights since before vegetarianism and noted my advances in weighlifts, etc. I did not decrease the rate in which I added reps or weight to my regular workout since I became vegetarian, so I do know I didnt have any protein problems. My nutritionist saw my blood and it was really good, so sure, I can talk from personal experience.
In order to perform well at strength activities, I had to consume whey protein. Not doing so affected improvements (and it's not due to gender). I could potentially get enough protein without it, but it would involve consuming large amounts of carbs and overall calories, which would mean weight gain.

And when I was vegan, it was pea/rice protein.

Supplements, in other words. To approximate the same protein/carb/fat ratios of a non-vegetarian diet.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
It´s not impossible your problems were mostly psychological, but that is only one hypothesis. To avoid getting weight even when eating much carbs, sprinting is ideal, which is ever more "ideal" so it could easily be done. 3 sprints a week and limiting high caloric intake to after workout/sprints and I guarantee you you can eat all the non-meat non-sugar food you want and maintain a very healthy fat percentage with an improvement on strength lifting or strength related activities.

Muscle is mostly water then carbohydrates then protein in that order. and MOST of it is water.
 

nameless

The Creator
it was a vegetarian(the only vegetarian in the competetion) who won a silver medal in a wrestling event at the 2012 london olympics. :)
 
Last edited:

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It´s not impossible your problems were mostly psychological, but that is only one hypothesis. To avoid getting weight even when eating much carbs, sprinting is ideal, which is ever more "ideal" so it could easily be done. 3 sprints a week and limiting high caloric intake to after workout/sprints and I guarantee you you can eat all the non-meat non-sugar food you want and maintain a very healthy fat percentage with an improvement on strength lifting or strength related activities.

Muscle is mostly water then carbohydrates then protein in that order. and MOST of it is water.
I did (and do) sprinting.

We may or may not be talking about the same strength/weight ratios. I was getting dietary and training advice from people who were at professional level status.

What I found with years and years of vegetarianism/veganism was a somewhat ironic problem. On those diets, I lost weight, down to levels that were too skinny. My natural appetite didn't want to eat enough. When trying to gain strength, I had to eat more, but in order to get enough protein without eating an absurd amount of food meant supplementation (which would not have had to occur on an omnivorous diet).

Even people who eat meat when trying to gain strength often consume extra protein, so doing it from a vegetarian perspective made that even more important.

The point is, people who do considerable training do need significant amounts of protein. Getting enough of it without getting an abundance of carbs is not simple matter.

Also I don't think post 68 was ever addressed for some reason.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
I did (and do) sprinting.

We may or may not be talking about the same strength/weight ratios. I was getting dietary and training advice from people who were at professional level status.

What I found with years and years of vegetarianism/veganism was a somewhat ironic problem. On those diets, I lost weight, down to levels that were too skinny. My natural appetite didn't want to eat enough. When trying to gain strength, I had to eat more, but in order to get enough protein without eating an absurd amount of food meant supplementation (which would not have had to occur on an omnivorous diet).

Even people who eat meat when trying to gain strength often consume extra protein, so doing it from a vegetarian perspective made that even more important.

The point is, people who do considerable training do need significant amounts of protein. Getting enough of it without getting an abundance of carbs is not simple matter.

Also I don't think post 68 was ever addressed for some reason.

But then we are moving the ideal from being better to the environment to having the most optimal (specifically strength oriented) physical performance. On which you admit that even on a meat diet supplementation would be better.

I do concede you the point of maybe being more problematic for strength training specifically given your experience seems more reliable than mine on this subject for what I am hearing. The quick references I drew from sites after reading you said either than the vegetarian diet is better for resistance sports and a better Heart rate recovery after sports and inferior for strength improvements or that simply not enough information has been drawn to get a conclusive answer on these things. So I do put that for clarifying purposes on what we were talking about: you may be right, and for now your experience sounds way better quality than mine on the subject :D.

So back on subject: optimal strength improvement for everyone is:

1- Not really related with the sustainable environment ideals we are talking about.

2- Not necessarily more healthy. Yes, I agree that it is healthy to do work out and to improve strength, but when you overdo the strength focus you do lower your natural defenses because the body is working on reconstructing muscle tissue (so that it can be reconstructed bigger and stronger ;) ) . So I take this chance as I do like to try and improve my strength and muscle mass with time, but I am aware I am doing it for vanity. Yes, I have health benefits, but the most optimal health benefit is not going to be well measured with the amount of weights I can carry.

Gainning muscle is a great way to lose body fat depending on how you do it, and it´s great if that´s the look you are aiming for. I do it myself. This doesn´t mean it is the most "ideal" thing every human needs to do. I do it cause I like the look, and there are other ways of maintaining healthy body fat percentage aside from intense muscle training (like a veggie diet)
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
Two issues I see with that link are that, unless I missed them:
a) I don't see any mention of fish.
b) I don't see any mention of transportation costs.

I spent around 10 years as a vegetarian after considering the arguments for it, but then after that added some fish into my diet after considering the arguments for the importance of that. So for the most part I understand the vegetarian viewpoint, although even when I was one, I didn't discount the importance of locally produced animals.

Fish:
I've seen fairly good arguments that dietary EPA and DHA omega 3 fatty acids are helpful for optimal health and played a role in human brain development, considering that the production of EPA and DHA from ALA omega 3 fatty acids (the kind that can generally be found in some plants) is inconsistent. It's pretty difficult to get EPA and DHA naturally without fish. (They get it from algae where we can get it too if we eat a lot of it.)

And while overfishing is a problem like any other area of food, I don't think it would be optimal if the world did not fish at all.

If the world needs an amount of food equal to X, and we decide to get that food strictly by land, when we have to use an amount of land to get that food. If we utilize the other two thirds of the world that consists of water in addition to land, then we can get the same amount of food X, but spread over a larger area and therefore make less strict use of land resources.

Transportation:
Generally, I suspect that the chicken my bf eats that is raised by Amish people within driving distance is better for the environment overall than my South American apples.

There's the carbon emissions but there's also the highway maintenance, manufacturing costs of extra vehicles, polluted waters from shipping boats, etc.

Integrated Farms:
A problem with raising animals is getting rid of the waste.

A problem with growing plants is getting enough extra nutrients to them.

Nature avoids these problems by having animals and plants together in a cycle. When humans try to separate and industrialize them, we create extra problems.


Overall, I think the #1 thing we can do for the environment (other than cannibalism, extra warfare, etc.) would be to consciously choose to have no more than two children per couple. Or at least two children or fewer per couple, on average. We can optimize our food sources as much as we want but if population keeps inching upward then we run into a wall at some point.

Ah, actually, the fish part aside I can mention about this right now:

Yes, your south american apples I would guess have a higher environmental impact, but buying local vegetables and fruits would have even lower environmental impact than buying local meat.

And yes, I think that indeed one of the best things we could do for the environment and probably the best (that I can think now at least?) would be limit human production :D . Some kind of high taxation might make sense... but in general it is a very messy/problematic subject. I do hope somehow we manage it. We do need less people (I propose more homosexuals :D)
 

Freedomelf

Active Member
Animal products in general are bad for you, although most people are too brainwashed to believe it. Milk is particularly bad for everyone, but nearly everyone you ask thinks that it is good, because of the calcium. The Cincinnati Clinic did a study with rats (by the way, they are the most prestigious research facility in Ohio). Feed the rats milk, cancers go way up; feed no animal products, the same rats go into remission, then put them back on milk, and zoom, up it goes again.

There was an amazing correlation during wartime Europe; I believe it was Denmark but it might have been Norway. The Nazis came into the country and commandeered all of the country's beef and milk cows in order to feed their army. They literally had NO cows during the war. Cancers went down to about 3 percent of the number that the country had before the war. After the war, when the people were able to again have cows, cancers shot up.

Another study in China looked at this more carefully. The only thing they took out of peoples' diet was milk. Yep...cancers way down. Put milk back in; cancers way up. Over and over and over again.

Calcium is found in many, many foods. It isn't necessary or wise to get it from milk. I haven't touched milk in several months; I drink almond milk now. And the P.A.D. that the doctor told me was degenerative, and that they couldn't cure....well, they were wrong. I have gone from being able to be on my feet for 15 minutes at a time to being able to do so for 90 minutes. And that is just in the course of a few months. No one needs meat or milk. Cows milk is not good for babies. Cows milk is only meant for cows.

For a good discussion on this subject, check out many many videos on the market. One really good one is Forks Over Knives. Blessings to all.
 

Freedomelf

Active Member
As far as limiting children goes, I agree that it would be good (although I don't put my money where my mouth is, since I have four children.) However, when we get into China's one child, forced sterilization policy, we tread into dangerous territory. No one should have to endure a forced abortion. I would be against any serious hardships imposed upon women. What if a woman were pregnant because her birth control failed, even though she was conscientious? Would she have to be faced with a choice of forced abortion or a high dollar penalty? If she can barely afford the child, a high penalty would only make it less likely for the child to have good nutrition and all the things a child needs. However, I agree in spirit that voluntary limits should be in place. And, if you average out kids in my family, I think we come out with a net plus for the planet, since none of my children, ages 39,37, 28 and 19, have had any children yet. That's unusual. They are trying to save the planet by being environmentally conscious (and probably making up to planet Earth for Mom, lol.)

Yeah, gays may be our ticket to saving the planet, lol. I like that idea, even though I'm not gay. There should be more freedom of choice. :)
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
As far as limiting children goes, I agree that it would be good (although I don't put my money where my mouth is, since I have four children.) However, when we get into China's one child, forced sterilization policy, we tread into dangerous territory. No one should have to endure a forced abortion. I would be against any serious hardships imposed upon women. What if a woman were pregnant because her birth control failed, even though she was conscientious? Would she have to be faced with a choice of forced abortion or a high dollar penalty? If she can barely afford the child, a high penalty would only make it less likely for the child to have good nutrition and all the things a child needs. However, I agree in spirit that voluntary limits should be in place. And, if you average out kids in my family, I think we come out with a net plus for the planet, since none of my children, ages 39,37, 28 and 19, have had any children yet. That's unusual. They are trying to save the planet by being environmentally conscious (and probably making up to planet Earth for Mom, lol.)

Yeah, gays may be our ticket to saving the planet, lol. I like that idea, even though I'm not gay. There should be more freedom of choice. :)

Yeah, it definitely gets messy when it comes to any kind of regulation beyond propaganda to promote people having less children... and that in itself doesn´t sound like it will be mighty effective. This would indeed be the biggest contribution one can make thought.
 
Top