Vegetarianism

[angelnstix]

I'm happy being a vegetarian...and unlike my faith in Christ, I don't feel the need to encourage others to become a vegetarian. Its a very personal choice. I don't tell others what they can and cannot eat...so I ask that others don't try to tell me what I can and cannot eat. So there.

I agree it is a personal choice.

 

[Beastt]

Why.....why??? Be so crude? I find your post to be distasteful in many ways. But I am not surprised in the least. I give up.

I'm not sure what was in my post that you felt was crude. All I presented were facts. Different people in different parts of the world do find a variety of things that we would never consider eating to be delicacies. Is it crude to mention that human tastes vary and that people can develop a taste for a variety of things?

Possibly the comparison with a promiscuous appetite was offensive? I just don't know Angelnstix; there is nothing crude about that. It's just a fact that many people seem to desire more than one partner. But most of us are able to curb that because we know of the damage such a life style can cause and we value our monogamous relationships. When you compare the damage of promiscuity to that of unnatural food choices, it rapidly becomes obvious that when hundreds of millions of people begin to make unnatural demands on natural resources, the environment suffers as do the people.

Nothing in my posts should be found offensive and nothing is a personal attack. It is simply information and perspective. People are free to make their own choices but few really know all of the facts. Without the facts, people rarely make the best choice. When tobacco was first linked to cancer, those making a living in the tobacco industry felt it was an attack on them. It was nothing of the sort. It was an attempt to make sure that people were aware of the facts before deciding to take up smoking. This is no different. We all know the risks of smoking these days and the tobacco industry is still flourishing.

I apologize that you interpreted anything I said as having crude intentions. It seems no matter what I say, you find issue with it. But I fail to see anything I've said which a reasonable person would find offensive.

 

[King Element]

From a physician's standpoint, I'd like to intercede my comment on this topic, for what that is worth. I've seen several references to meat being necessarily bad for the GI tract as well as vegetable matter being necessarily good for it. That's a labeled approach and I tend to take that sort of commentary with a grain of salt. Most gastroenterologists will readily agree that while meat does, in fact, have a longer GI transit time than vegetable matter, the recurrent problems seen with patients who have GI motility problems tend to be associated with consumption of nuts, seeds and popcorn--which have a very high propensity for creating or aggravating bowel blockages. Now that's not to say that nuts, seeds and popcorn are hazardous to your health, but in moderation I think they have their place in a healthy diet. As to the notion that meat stays for a necessarily longer time in the digestive tract, again, it depends on what you're referring to by comparison. All in all, meat takes longer to digest based on it's digestion profile, but I have not seen cases where meat putrefaction in the bowels has created problems except in cases where people who have undertaken long-term "meat only" diets. These patients have been shown to have a greater likelihood for GI distress, impaction and blockages by comparison than strict vegetarians. But these are both the extremes of the spectrum and do not represent the vast majority of the population in this country. I certainly take issue with the widespread use of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone in the beef industry as well as the deplorable conditions associated with poultry. I'm not particularly keen on high amounts of dairy consumption either, although probably for different reasons. It sickens me every time I catch 15 minutes of a television program to know that in the commercial break there will be at least one reference to a fast food restaurant. To clarify, I do think that the Standard American Diet is grossly lacking in vegetable consumption and extremely high in consumption of processed carbohydrates and food additives. It's also my opinion that a diet high in fat complicates the issue and aggravates any predisposition to health problems, including those of dietary origin. However, I am not of the opinion that consumption of meat should be labeled as responsible for all of the cardiovascular problems found in the civilized societies. Exercise, or lack thereof--which seems to be increasingly worse through the decades--is a major contributor that I have not seen sufficiently mentioned in this topic. I think it's jumping the gun to conclude that meat consumption for them is the causative factor when there are so many other variables to consider. It would also stand to reason that people who consume a significant amount of fast food are neither likely to not be vegetarian, nor are they likely to be actively involved in regular and appropriate cardiovascular exercise. Many of you will note that I have been a proponent of low carbohydrate diets for several years now from purely a weight loss standpoint. However, one of the greatest injustices is when I hear of someone saying they are eating a low carb diet consisting of meat almost exclusively. That's not a low carb diet, that's an almost meat-only diet and shouldn't be construed as anything else. Even Atkins himself did not advocate meat only for anything more than short periods of time. If people would pay particular attention to his dietary guidelines in the various stages of his plan, it would be clear and evident that only the vegetable matter highest in sugar content is recommended to be avoided once a specific weight loss goal had been obtained. With that being said, there are patients to whom I would not recommend the Atkins diet in it's entirity, just as there are also patients whom I do not feel could tolerate rapid transition to an all vegetable diet without restriction. We are all different physically and we all have different needs; just as the recommended daily allowance for vitamins and minerals are different for individuals for a variety of reasons, their macronutrient ratios will also be different and varied. So I would hardly suggest one diet fits all approach and would caution against anyone else doing it.

 

[angelnstix]

From a physician's standpoint, I'd like to intercede my comment on this topic, for what that is worth. I've seen several references to meat being necessarily bad for the GI tract as well as vegetable matter being necessarily good for it. That's a labeled approach and I tend to take that sort of commentary with a grain of salt. Most gastroenterologists will readily agree that while meat does, in fact, have a longer GI transit time than vegetable matter, the recurrent problems seen with patients who have GI motility problems tend to be associated with consumption of nuts, seeds and popcorn--which have a very high propensity for creating or aggravating bowel blockages. Now that's not to say that nuts, seeds and popcorn are hazardous to your health, but in moderation I think they have their place in a healthy diet. As to the notion that meat stays for a necessarily longer time in the digestive tract, again, it depends on what you're referring to by comparison. All in all, meat takes longer to digest based on it's digestion profile, but I have not seen cases where meat putrefaction in the bowels has created problems except in cases where people who have undertaken long-term "meat only" diets. These patients have been shown to have a greater likelihood for GI distress, impaction and blockages by comparison than strict vegetarians. But these are both the extremes of the spectrum and do not represent the vast majority of the population in this country. I certainly take issue with the widespread use of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone in the beef industry as well as the deplorable conditions associated with poultry. I'm not particularly keen on high amounts of dairy consumption either, although probably for different reasons. It sickens me every time I catch 15 minutes of a television program to know that in the commercial break there will be at least one reference to a fast food restaurant. To clarify, I do think that the Standard American Diet is grossly lacking in vegetable consumption and extremely high in consumption of processed carbohydrates and food additives. It's also my opinion that a diet high in fat complicates the issue and aggravates any predisposition to health problems, including those of dietary origin. However, I am not of the opinion that consumption of meat should be labeled as responsible for all of the cardiovascular problems found in the civilized societies. Exercise, or lack thereof--which seems to be increasingly worse through the decades--is a major contributor that I have not seen sufficiently mentioned in this topic. I think it's jumping the gun to conclude that meat consumption for them is the causative factor when there are so many other variables to consider. It would also stand to reason that people who consume a significant amount of fast food are neither likely to not be vegetarian, nor are they likely to be actively involved in regular and appropriate cardiovascular exercise. Many of you will note that I have been a proponent of low carbohydrate diets for several years now from purely a weight loss standpoint. However, one of the greatest injustices is when I hear of someone saying they are eating a low carb diet consisting of meat almost exclusively. That's not a low carb diet, that's an almost meat-only diet and shouldn't be construed as anything else. Even Atkins himself did not advocate meat only for anything more than short periods of time. If people would pay particular attention to his dietary guidelines in the various stages of his plan, it would be clear and evident that only the vegetable matter highest in sugar content is recommended to be avoided once a specific weight loss goal had been obtained. With that being said, there are patients to whom I would not recommend the Atkins diet in it's entirity, just as there are also patients whom I do not feel could tolerate rapid transition to an all vegetable diet without restriction. We are all different physically and we all have different needs; just as the recommended daily allowance for vitamins and minerals are different for individuals for a variety of reasons, their macronutrient ratios will also be different and varied. So I would hardly suggest one diet fits all approach and would caution against anyone else doing it.

Thanks for your input Doc, it is appreciated!

 

[Beastt]

I wish to echo Angelnstix's sentiments in thanking you for sharing your experiences and opinions. I have a great deal of respect for anyone who first, chooses to devote their life to caring for others and, secondly, can successfully complete years and years of medical school.

As for the negative aspects of vegetarianism and veganism, there are several. As one who was a vegetarian for the first 31 years of life and a vegan ever since, I can tell you that you're labeled and teased. Restaraunts are a difficulty as many don't serve any dishes without meat, poultry or fish. That, of course, affects the ability to socialize over a meal. But all of the problems associated with such diets are social rather than health related.

I've seen several references to meat being necessarily bad for the GI tract as well as vegetable matter being necessarily good for it. That's a labeled approach and I tend to take that sort of commentary with a grain of salt. Most gastroenterologists will readily agree that while meat does, in fact, have a longer GI transit time than vegetable matter, the recurrent problems seen with patients who have GI motility problems tend to be associated with consumption of nuts, seeds and popcorn--which have a very high propensity for creating or aggravating bowel blockages. Now that's not to say that nuts, seeds and popcorn are hazardous to your health, but in moderation I think they have their place in a healthy diet.

Though I certainly respect your privacy and the confidentiality of your profession, would it be possible to give some basic numbers? Just a rough representation of how many patients you've seen suffering lower GI distress and a ballpark percentage of how many of those are suffering bowel blockages due to nuts, seeds and other plant matter?

The whole reason we see an abundance of available fiber supplements is to make up for the fact that most people consume too little fiber to promote healthy colons. Within the sacculated interior of the human bowel, fiber helps to keep things moving. Since meat contains zero fiber and almost all plant matter contains at least some, the idea that nuts and seeds are creating these problems seems contrary to the whole purpose of fiber and roughage. Is it more a matter of poorly chewed foods which are relatively hard or quite fiberous and therefore attempt to pass in large pieces? Or perhaps the consumption of materials which cannot be digested and shouldn't be consumed such as the shell of sunflower and pumpkin seeds? These would be the only scenarios I would think likely to cause such obstructions.

In the 1970s the Journal of the National Cancer Institute was among the first to begin to report what was then seen as startling news. Researchers were finding that incidence of colon cancer were highest in precisely those regions where meat consumption was high. Conversely, colon cancer rates were lowest where meat consumption was low.
Wynder, E., "Dietary Fat and Colon Cancer," Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 54:7, 1975
Berg, J., "Can Nutrition Explain the Pattern of International . . . Cancers?" Cancer Research, 35:3345, 1975
Wynder, E., "The Dietary Environment and Cancer," Journal of the American Dieticians Association, 71:385, 1977
Weisburger, J., "Nutrition and Cancer—On the Mechanisms Bearing on Causes of Cancer of the Colon, Breast, Prostate, and Stomach," Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 56:673, 1980
Reddy, B., and Wynder, E., "Large Bowel Carcinogenisis: Fecal Constituents of Populations with Diverse Incidence of Colon Cancer," Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 50:1437, 1973
Hill, M., "Colon Cancer: A Disease of Fiber Depletion or of Dietary Excess," Digestion, 11:289, 1974
Hardinge, M., "Nutritional Studies of Vegetarians: III. Dietary Levels of Fiber," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 6:523, 1958

As to the notion that meat stays for a necessarily longer time in the digestive tract, again, it depends on what you're referring to by comparison. All in all, meat takes longer to digest based on it's digestion profile, but I have not seen cases where meat putrefaction in the bowels has created problems except in cases where people who have undertaken long-term "meat only" diets.

Is that to say that it's not unhealthy to have meat rotting in the digestive tract?

These patients have been shown to have a greater likelihood for GI distress, impaction and blockages by comparison than strict vegetarians. But these are both the extremes of the spectrum and do not represent the vast majority of the population in this country.

So we do see an increase of bowel obstructions on pure meat diets. We also know that fiber is assistive to moving digestive matter through the digestive system and we know that meat contains no fiber. Much literature exists which suggests that vegetarians are more regular, suffering far less from constipation and that they suffer proportionately fewer cases of colon cancer.

Dr. John Berg, of the National Cancer Institute, headed research to determine if genetic factors might explain why the Japanese displayed lower rates of colon cancer, rather than the fact that, per capita, they consumed less meat.

In conducting the study, Japanese immigrants who adopted an American diet were found to display cancer rates which equalled that of Americans. Of course, this doesn't let fast food off the hook and may help to implicate it further.
Journal of the American Cancer Institute, Dec. 1973, pg 1771

I certainly take issue with the widespread use of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone in the beef industry as well as the deplorable conditions associated with poultry. I'm not particularly keen on high amounts of dairy consumption either, although probably for different reasons.

I find it hard to imagine how anyone could not object to such practices. In addition to growth hormones there are antibiotics, relatively high concentrations of pesticide residues, chloramphenicol and a host of other drugs/chemicals in common use, some of which have been banned in other countries.

It's also my opinion that a diet high in fat complicates the issue and aggravates any predisposition to health problems, including those of dietary origin. However, I am not of the opinion that consumption of meat should be labeled as responsible for all of the cardiovascular problems found in the civilized societies.

Certainly not all cardiovascular disease is directly attributable to the consumption of animal-based foods. But based on the research and the evidence it seems likely to be directly tied to the majority of cases.

A vast and still growing body of evidence strongly indicates that diets high in saturated fat and cholesterol raise the level of cholesterol in the blood and produce atherosclerosis, which leads to cardiovascular disease. The number of studies which confirm these findings is staggering.
Gordon, T, "Premature Mortality from Coronary Heart Disease: The Framingham Study," Journal of the American Medical Association, 215:1617, 1971
Kannel, W., "Incidence and Prognosis of Unrecognized Myocardial Infarction—An Update on the Framingham Study," New England Journal of Medicine, 311:1144, 1984
Ellis, F, "Angina and Vegan Diet," American Heart Journal, 93:803, 1977
Editorial: "Trials of Coronary Heart Disease Prevention," Lancet, 2:803, 1982
Zampogna, A., "Relationship Between Lipids and Occlusive Coronary Artery Disease," Archives of Internal Medicine, 140:1067, 1980
Kannel, W., "Cholesterol in the Prediction of Atherosclerotic Disease: New Perspectives Based on the Framingham Study," Annals of Internal Medicine, 90:85, 1979
Page, I., "Prediction of Coronary Heart Disease Based on Clinical Suspicion, Age, Total Cholesterol, and Triglyceride," Circulation, 42:625, 1970
Kannel, W., "Cholesterol in the Prediction of Atherosclerotic Disease: New Perspectives Based on the Framingham Study," Annals of Internal Medicine, 90:85, 1979
Shekelle, R., "Diet, Serum Cholesterol and Death From Coronary Heart Disease," New England Journal of Medicine, 304:65, 1981

Exercise, or lack thereof--which seems to be increasingly worse through the decades--is a major contributor that I have not seen sufficiently mentioned in this topic.

Certainly there is no argument there. Exercise is always a part of being healthy no matter what one chooses to eat. Without exercise no diet can possibly succeed in producing optimum health.

I think it's jumping the gun to conclude that meat consumption for them is the causative factor when there are so many other variables to consider.

Certainly in every case there is more than one factor. But based on what we know and have known about saturated fats and cholesterol in cardiovascular disease, they must be considered major contributing factors.

It would also stand to reason that people who consume a significant amount of fast food are neither likely to not be vegetarian, nor are they likely to be actively involved in regular and appropriate cardiovascular exercise.

This is true, but what are the primary characteristics of fast food which cause health problems? Saturated fats, sugar, cholesterol, highly processed carbohydrates. Two of those four are attributable primarily to animal products.

Many of you will note that I have been a proponent of low carbohydrate diets for several years now from purely a weight loss standpoint. However, one of the greatest injustices is when I hear of someone saying they are eating a low carb diet consisting of meat almost exclusively. That's not a low carb diet, that's an almost meat-only diet and shouldn't be construed as anything else. Even Atkins himself did not advocate meat only for anything more than short periods of time. If people would pay particular attention to his dietary guidelines in the various stages of his plan, it would be clear and evident that only the vegetable matter highest in sugar content is recommended to be avoided once a specific weight loss goal had been obtained. With that being said, there are patients to whom I would not recommend the Atkins diet in it's entirity, just as there are also patients whom I do not feel could tolerate rapid transition to an all vegetable diet without restriction. We are all different physically and we all have different needs; just as the recommended daily allowance for vitamins and minerals are different for individuals for a variety of reasons, their macronutrient ratios will also be different and varied. So I would hardly suggest one diet fits all approach and would caution against anyone else doing it.

Though nutritive requirements do vary from person to person, we are all of the same species. It would be inappropriate to insinuate that because the nutritive requirements of large cats varies from animal to animal that some will do fine eating leaves and grass. They're carnivores and as such remain healthiest on a carnivorous diet. A rabbit will fare no better eating only meat. The nutritive requirements for humans is likely no more diverse than for any other species. As you've pointed out, people who eat a pure meat diet run a greater risk of suffering health problems related to such a diet. Indeed any animal, which attempts to eat a diet substantially different than what anatomy shows to be natural for that particular species, is more likely to suffer related health issues than one which eats a natural diet. By "natural", I refer to the diet suggested by the anatomy of a given species. At this juncture it's worth pondering that statistically, vegetarians and vegans suffer fewer health problems than those consuming an omnivorous diet.

 

[Shalico2007]

I don't eat meat all the time I do not believe your body needs it all the time. I'm trying to eat a lot healthier by eating salads; I also like cheese, eggs, beans, and certain kind of fruits. Also nuts and granola. Ya know -- the stuff that cleans you out!!

Once in a while, as a treat, I do eat "unhealthy", but you know, it's all in the balance.

 

[angelnstix]

I love cheese! Colby is my favorite!

 

[Beastt]

As a former vegetarian, now a vegan, I'm very familiar with the appeal of cheese. Oddly enough, I found it not nearly as difficult to give up as I had expected. Within a week of asking that it be left out of food I ordered in restaurants, I found that I didn't really miss it. Within three weeks, I found that I actually preferred the food without the cheese. I never expected that. I was the sort who felt that the option of "extra cheese", added to a pizza just meant, not nearly enough cheese. I never really put much thought into why cheese is so alluring to people. Certainly it's fatty and people like fat. It's also high in sodium which is likely the second or third most popular ingredient in snack foods. But still, there was something more about cheese, much like chocolate, that seems to go beyond mere taste.

Well, as it turns out, there are a number of foods which have a strong addictive effect on us. Sugar, chocolate, cheese and meat are primary among them. Researchers have done some rather interesting studies in regard to the effects of these foods. Emergency rooms use a drug called Naloxone to treat drug overdoses. Naloxone blocks the receptors in the brain so that morphine and heroin can't occupy those receptors. The effect of the drug taken in the overdose is stopped at the receptor level of the brain and the patient recovers rapidly. Naloxone is among a group of drugs known as opiate-blockers.

In studies, people who love chocolate and cheese were administered Naloxone and then offered some of these favorite foods. Their response was one of apathy. They could eat the foods but felt no strong draw for them.

It turns out that Chocolate, in particular, contains traces of mild opiates, amphetamine-like compounds and caffeine. The levels are comparable to a "slight whiff" of marijuana. Of course chocolate also contains sugar which has it's own addictive effects and fatty oils which we already like.

Cheese contains concentrations of casein, the main protein in dairy. When casein molecules are digested, they release opiate molecules known as casomorphins.

The strong allure we find in these foods isn't just a matter of taste. They affect brain chemistry which can elevate our mood and offer a moderate level of addiction, though nothing close to that from drug-level morphine, heroin or other amphetamines. And the news isn't all bad. Some researchers point out that an ounce or so of chocolate two to three times each week provides antioxidants.

Bernard, N., Dr., "Breaking the Food Seduction," St. Martins Press
http://www.vegforlife.org/resources_houston.htm
http://www.worldveganday.org/html/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=193

 

[jameseb]

Can someone tell me exactly what the difference is between a "vegetarian" and a "vegan?" I thought they were the same till now.

 

[Beastt]

Can someone tell me exactly what the difference is between a "vegetarian" and a "vegan?" I thought they were the same till now.

Certainly. Vegetarians don't consume meat but do consume some animal products such as eggs and milk. They're sometimes referred to as, "lacto-ovo vegetarians". Some consider themselves to be vegetarians but still consume fish and/or poultry, though this is a stretch of the term "vegetarian".

Vegans consume no animal products, only plant-based foods. That means no eggs, no milk, no meat, no fish, no poultry, no gelatin, etc.

 

[jameseb]

Certainly. Vegetarians don't consume meat but do consume some animal products such as eggs and milk. They're sometimes referred to as, "lacto-ovo vegetarians". Some consider themselves to be vegetarians but still consume fish and/or poultry, though this is a stretch of the term "vegetarian".

Vegans consume no animal products, only plant-based foods. That means no eggs, no milk, no meat, no fish, no poultry, no gelatin, etc.

Ahhhhh. Well, ya learn something new every day. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[sothankful]

I have never found a reason to find anything against Vegetarianism. I am not one, but I am also a light meat eater, eat not very often.

If I find one, I will sure pass it on. My only concern would be the fact that God created animals to nourish his people.

If you aren't going to nourish on the opportunity that God created to keep us healthy, then make sure you go to a Health Food Store and purchase the man made, replacements that your missing in meat, and take those.

Our bodies need certain vitamins, minerals, etc... to keep us healthy.

Meat is needed, without indulgence, by our bodies to keep some of our body funcitions
functioning properly. Just don't indulge, that is where all the problems stem from, over indulging.

Either way, make sure your getting your vitamins. :O)

God Bless.

 

[Beastt]

I have never found a reason to find anything against Vegetarianism. I am not one, but I am also a light meat eater, eat not very often.

If I find one, I will sure pass it on. My only concern would be the fact that God created animals to nourish his people.

Let me start by saying that I'm a vegan and an atheist so I don't put much stock in what the Bible says. But obviously you do. So I might point out that according to the Bible, God originally made man as a vegan. But the Garden of Eden also had a serpent -- an animal. So to conclude that animals were created to nourish people would seem to be in error.

If you aren't going to nourish on the opportunity that God created to keep us healthy, then make sure you go to a Health Food Store and purchase the man made, replacements that your missing in meat, and take those.

People who don't eat meat aren't missing anything. In fact, they consistently show better health than those who do eat meat.

Our bodies need certain vitamins, minerals, etc... to keep us healthy.

Our bodies do need certain things to maintain health. But poor health can also be the result of eating things the body wasn't intended to eat. Most of the diseases in developed countries are connected not to deficiencies in the diet, but with excesses. Vegans and vegetarians get all of the vitamins, minerals, proteins, carbohydrates and fats they need. This is not a surprise to those who have studied anatomy and physiology since man's physiology shows him not as a carnivore or an omnivore, but a herbivore. Our bodies are designed to obtain all of the nutrients we need without resorting to eating flesh or other animal-based foods. The only concern is for vegans who may wish to suppliment their vitamin B-12. We could get all of the B-12 we need from the bacteria in the soil in which our vegetables are grown but we nearly scrub the skins off of produce today, which removes the bacteria and the vitamin B-12. So without suppliments, we may suffer a deficiency. We need only about 1 microgram of Vitamin B-12 daily and our bodies recycle between 70%-75% of the B-12 we use. The liver can store enough B-12 to last for about six months. This would seem to indicate that our bodies are designed to operate with very little B-12. But what is needed is absolutely essential.

Meat is needed, without indulgence, by our bodies to keep some of our body funcitions functioning properly. Just don't indulge, that is where all the problems stem from, over indulging.

Well, actually meat isn't needed to maintain optimum health. In fact, if you eat meat, even the small 3 oz. servings often recommended, you sharply increase your chances of a number of potentially fatal diseases.