70 replies to this topic

[EmbraceUnity]

What the hell? A vegetarian that eats dairy, eggs and fish?

Why not just call yourself a non-meat eater? That seems more accurate to me.

Calling yourself a vegetarian, while eating fish and eggs is extremely hypocritical in my opinion.

Considering that most people don't think very much at all about their diet or the nutrition, ethics, or ecological issues surrounding it, there aren't exactly a lot of commonly used terms to describe the various diets. A few people might understand the terms pescatarian or flexitarian, but most don't. I think it is perfectly reasonable for such people to just say that they are "vegetarian."

The whole issue is as silly as the term "pro-life." I doubt anyone is truly pro-life no strings attached, because it is not the biological category called "life" that we value, but rather more abstract things like consciousness, the feeling we get when looking at things we find beautiful, etc.

Likewise, it isn't the non-eating of meat that vegetarians value, but the welfare of animals. If we could print out meat from a machine, which isn't too far down the road, technologically speaking, then I should think any rational vegetarian would have no ethical qualms with it.

[TheFountain]

It is probably safe to assume that the average vegetarian, whether of the 'junkfood' or 'healthy' diet variety, will suffer from a range of imbalances and modest deficiencies without using CRON-o-meter, just different ones compared to omnivorous diets.

yea, thats the key... that nearly EVERYONE is going to be lacking certain MN if their diet isnt studied and somewhat planned out, vegetarian or not. When i talk about diets being adequate or not, as they relate to the type of people who frequent these forums, i'm talking about a researched, strategic diet that doesnt take huge amounts of effort to adhere to... not the SAD style eating, be it vegetarian or not. No one is going to be able to eat as they please and hit 100% RDA on everything, vegetarian or not.

having to plan in sources of zn, b12 etc does not somehow make the vegetarian diet intrinsically lacking... no more than having to plan in sources of mn, mg & cu would make a omnivorous diet somehow intrinsically lacking. i'm a vegetarian & personally have never had any problem hitting 100% every day, even with a fairly diverse diet.

i do not, however, think that unsupplemented vegan diets are healthy.

the question of whether or not to be a vegetarian is PURELY ethical imo... its kind of pointless to argue for or against it based simply on health reasons, because in truth, both vegetarian and omnivorous diets can be perfectly healthy.

The reason I am doing an aqua-vegetarian diet at this time (including some seafood) is because I simply cannot afford the exotic protein sources of a full fledged vegan diet.

consuming animal flesh in any form excludes your from being a vegetarian. aqua-vegetarian or pescetarian are misnomers.... there is no such thing. consuming flesh, in any form, makes you an omnivore.

Would you define shrimp as 'animal flesh'? Really? I would define it as the meat of crustaceans but not 'animals' per se. People call the contents of a coconut 'the meat' of it as well. Of course coconuts have no nervous systems, but I always saw shrimp as being something less akin to animal-life than cows, chickens, pigs, etc. But then again the ethical argument is not where I propel myself from within the spectrum of vegetarian and quasi-vegetarian diets. It has always been that animal based diets are pro-aging (specifically land based animals and their biproducts).

[ajnast4r]

Calling yourself a vegetarian, while eating fish and eggs is extremely hypocritical in my opinion.

egg are not alive, and therefor fit into the definition of vegetarian

Would you define shrimp as 'animal flesh'? Really? I would define it as the meat of crustaceans but not 'animals' per se. People call the contents of a coconut 'the meat' of it as well. Of course coconuts have no nervous systems, but I always saw shrimp as being something less akin to animal-life than cows, chickens, pigs, etc. But then again the ethical argument is not where I propel myself from within the spectrum of vegetarian and quasi-vegetarian diets. It has always been that animal based diets are pro-aging (specifically land based animals and their biproducts).

shrimp are lower life forms than say a cow, but they are sentient and dont fall into the technical definition of vegetarianism.

Edited by ajnast4r, 21 May 2010 - 05:25 PM.

[TheFountain]

While I love the low-carb paleo style diet, I wouldn't prescribe it to my 60-something parents.

I think a diet with a lot of wild caught fish, lots of leafy greens, naturally occurring animal and plant fats, some nuts, low-sugar fruit and berries, and nutrient rich tubers is probably ideal. Throw in some raw dairy / artisan cheese for good measure.

That's the route I've been pushing my parents. I've got them switch out white potato for sweet potatoes, some canola oil based spread for organic pastured butter, and to ditch the sodium and preservative laden processed meats. No more bread at dinner and to do a steak salad for lunch. One step at a time I guess. It has already done wonders for my mothers lipid profile.

What's the significance of raw dairy or dairy in general? According to everything I have read dairy seems to be pro-aging (casein raising IGF-1 markers). Whey might be the only milk protein I can tolerate, it is lactose/casein free when properly processed.

[TheFountain]

Calling yourself a vegetarian, while eating fish and eggs is extremely hypocritical in my opinion.

egg are not alive, and therefor fit into the definition of vegetarian

Would you define shrimp as 'animal flesh'? Really? I would define it as the meat of crustaceans but not 'animals' per se. People call the contents of a coconut 'the meat' of it as well. Of course coconuts have no nervous systems, but I always saw shrimp as being something less akin to animal-life than cows, chickens, pigs, etc. But then again the ethical argument is not where I propel myself from within the spectrum of vegetarian and quasi-vegetarian diets. It has always been that animal based diets are pro-aging (specifically land based animals and their biproducts).

shrimp are lower life forms than say a cow, but they are sentient and dont fall into the technical definition of vegetarianism.

I thought sentience required a higher nervous system as opposed to the very basic one shrimp possess. If the argument is that shrimp react to being poked by trying to defend themselves then venus flytrap flowers must also be sentient because they react to external stimulus (drawing in and consuming creatures) as well? And if so does that call into question whether or not other plant life is sentient? I don't believe this, I am just offering up a suggestion. I believe more than physical reaction is required for sentience. Show of emotion is a number one criterion. As we know all land based animals show some semblance of emotion/pain when they are slaughtered. Can shrimp me slaughtered?

[Forever21]

If Vampires exist with their immortality, heightened senses, amazing speed, high intelligence, would they be justified in killing us to get our blood for their survival?

[gzz]

I think hypnotoad hit the nail as close to the head as anyone in this thread. The argument between veganism and omnivorism is as facile as the argument between theism and atheism. As products of our environment, we will thrive on whatever our genetic lines have historically had the most long term exposure to. The real essence of good nutrition isn't in counting the specific nutritional chemical compounds we have so far discovered and researched, its in consuming the enormously complex biochemical organisms that our ancestors had access to, unaltered from their most natural state, in their freshest, richest forms. Unfortunately, both meat and plant foods have been immensely altered by human design. Its truly our own ingenuity that has failed us in this respect.

We have only recently reached a society of abundance. For millions of years the struggle has been simply to have enough food to survive and mate, and although our brains have developed greatly, deep in our programming we're just made to survive and prosper in the best way we can. If a pig farmer finds an easy way to fatten up his sow's for market, he'll do it because that gives his family security. If theres a way to increase corn yields, and improve sales, we'll do it. That means if you can design your crops to grow on soil that is lacking in a certain mineral, the corn that shows up in supermarkets will be lacking in that mineral, and any animal that is fed that corn will also be lacking that mineral.

The more any food is changed from its most natural state, the more it will lack the chemistry necessary to sustain life. Unfortunately most of society that is even interested in health has been blinded by modern science, and we become obsessed with hitting the numbers we've been told we need to hit. Agriculture done right takes care of nutrition for us, and its not nearly as simple as slapping an "organic" sticker on everything before we eat it.

Taking synthetically derived single chemical compounds in the absence of natural food isn't the answer either. There is certainly synergy between the many constituents of the complex organisms we consume, I've even seen studies that suggest this. There seems to be much more to nutrition than the classical set of nutrients most of us grew up with. When I see a study showing the cancer preventative properties of a "non-essential" nutrient, I can't help but think "Not having cancer sounds pretty f'ing essential to me". As science continues to progress, we'll undoubtedly discover more and more of these, and I wonder at what point will we have to abandon the traditional views of nutrition and accept that nutrition is a much bigger creature than can fit onto a tiny label on some packaging.

I don't have abstracts to back up anything i say, but for those who like anecdotes, I'm really enjoying raw veganism, but I won't truly be happy until I'm growing most of it myself.

[e Volution]

^ Well said, welcome to the forum gzz Despite being firmly of the opinion a meat including [paleo type] diet is optimal for health, I completely agree with everything you said... This is where scientific debate can be so powerful, the picture is still so unclear and so many unknowns that all we can do right now is weigh the evidence and see where we stand. Until we know a lot more most of these [evidence-based] arguments are pretty reasonable positions, if only atheism vs theism was this genial...

[Brafarality]

I don't advocate just any kind of vegan diet, I advocate a diet focused on water, legumes, fresh vegetables, whole grains, and wise use of supplements; while avoiding acidic foods (including coffee, tea, and alcohol), processed foods (including oils and juices), sweets, most artificial additives (including sweeteners), unfermented soy, and "carb junk" (including potatoes, refined flour, white rice, most fruits, honey, etc). Beans, pea soup, buckwheat and other "super-grains", multi-whole-grain protein-enriched home-baked bread, and THC-free hemp are major staples, with water the only beverage, while most variety comes from vegetables.

Also, people tend to become vegan / vegetarian for different reasons, and it would make sense to me that falling for the "animal rights" delusion would correlate with the "poorer mental health" and not the diet itself. People who change their diet for reasons of alleged compassion are also more likely to have experienced health problems beforehand - "your own suffering makes you more aware of the suffering of other animals", blah, blah, blah. So those are very good reasons to avoid the correlation==causation fallacy and look further.

Good morning!
I cannot help but disagree with this at several points:
1- have "water, legumes, fresh vegetables, whole grains, and wise use of supplements": GOOD. Few could argue here.
2- "avoiding acidic foods (including coffee, tea, and alcohol)": DISAGREE. Iced venti soy chai from Starbucks every morning and a few times throughout the day on many occasions. And, as for alcohol, the anti-alcohol sentiment baffles me. Once every few weeks, I have 3-4 stouts/lagers/ales with a few friends. It is doubtlessly healthy on every level.
3- avoid "oils and juices": DISAGREE. Earth Balance buttery spread, Simply Apple apple juice, to name two, and Whole Foods 365 versions of a bunch of the same.
4- "Beans, pea soup, buckwheat and other "super-grains", multi-whole-grain protein-enriched home-baked bread, and THC-free hemp are major staples": DISAGREE. While beans and pea soup are good, protein enriched anything is not.
5- "while most variety comes from vegetables" DISAGREE. Most vegetables are too difficult to digest. A narrow diet consisting of a few types of nuts and legumes, a handful of vegetables either grilled, sauteed, steamed or occasionally fried, principally garlic, potatoes, eggplants, cauliflower, carrots, stuff like that, and grains, wheat is quite ok unless allergies are present, and maybe oats or rice. Buckwheat is a TV character and super grains are a complete waste of time for personal health purposes, though, it is possible that they may one day alleviate food shortages in parts of the world.
6- ""animal rights" delusion would correlate with the "poorer mental health" and not the diet itself": DISAGREE. Compassion for sentient life is one of the most enlightened reasons for becoming a vegan. Yes, a vegan diet still causes animal suffering, but it is a sliding scale that can only be slid as much toward the kindness end as possible.

Additionally useless: lean cuts of beef, supplement "stacks", power bars, quinoa, etc.
The biggest enemy: protein.
The biggest waste of time: green leafy vegetables
Not useless: organics

And, I am not sure where I read it, but someone on these forums wrote recently that almond butter was bad for you, or that it had high AGEs, or something like that. That is a horrible falsehood. Anyone who would have otherwise had almond butter but who is swayed by such disinformation is missing out on nature's ambrosia. Almond butter=near perfect food. Be warned.

Locke: "Me, well, I'm a man of faith."

[adamh]

I think the "more vegetarian than thou" argument is as phony as the holier than thou argument. Then we have the vegans who are more vegan than anyone. They don't wear leather, don't use any product that was tested on animals and so on. But to say your type of animal tissue is ok but someone else's is not, come on.

If you get right down to it no one is a total vegan even if they try. Cereal grains and many foods are contaminated with small insects and their eggs. The fda has a secret level of tolerance for insects and their parts, so many per ounce. Are people who eat these grains and other foods total strict vegans?

If someone calls themselves a vegetarian and eats eggs, so what? If they eat a little fish or take fish oil, so what? If they call themselves vegan then I would think they should not do any of that but what do I know?

The point is that meat contains hormones and higher levels of many toxic substances than plant foods, plus mad cow. Being higher on the food chain means concentrating these toxins in their tissues and those who eat the animals concentrate even more. I try to eat organic to avoid that very thing.

[mentatpsi]

One more particular nutrient which should have attention called upon it:

Creatine <= link from my blog. Particular research item of interest is in regards to nootropic activity in vegetarians.