C. James Strutz wrote:

>> > You're right that overpopulation is a problem. However, I contend that
> not
>> > eating meat and dairy raises the quality of life rather than lowering
>> > it....
>>
>> How?
>
> Because it's more healthful in the long term.

Healthier *how*?

> There are many studies
> showing that people live longer healthier lives on vegetarian diets.

What studies? Can you provide specific references? BTB, southern India has
a primarily vegetarian diet. Southern Indians also have a higher rate of
heart related diseases and don't live particularly longer than Americans.
Additionally, the longest lived population (Asian) have a diet rich in
meat. But, I await your study references.

--
Darryl L. Pierce >
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/c/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

C. James Strutz wrote:

>> >Because it's more healthful in the long term. There are many studies
> showing
>> >that people live longer healthier lives on vegetarian diets.
>> >
>> There are also many studies showing that people who ingest large
>> quantities of animal fat and protein live a longer healthier life.
>
> Please produce some links to these studies you mention. I'd like to read
> them for myself.

You first, mate.

--
Darryl L. Pierce >
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/c/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

COTTP wrote:

>> You need only interact with common pets to know that animals have
>> instincts, intellect, emotion, and can feel pain. I think that animals
>> also have souls.
>
> Stimulus response and independent intellect are two different things.
> Ever hear of Pavlov? As to a soul, I'm not even certain that we human
> beings possess such a thing.

Strutz is making what Ryle called a category error. But, before even
entering into philosophical debate, I would first have to ask Strutz to
define what a "soul" is and then provide objective evidence for its
existence. *Then* we would be in a position to debate whether animals also
have this property.

--
Darryl L. Pierce >
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/c/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

Marcelino >, using stinkbait, trotlined in message
om...
[snip drivel and dreck]

Sung to the Tune of Rawhide

Keep trollin', trollin', trollin',
Though they're disapprovin',
Keep them bubettes rollin', rawhide.
Don't try to understand 'em,
Just rope 'em, throw, and brand 'em.
Soon we'll be spankin side by side.
My hands a hardnen',
My subbie will be waitin',
Be waitin' at the end of my ride.

Move 'em on, head 'em up,
Head 'em up, move 'em on,
Move 'em on, head 'em up, rawhide!
Head 'em out, ride 'em in,
Ride 'em in, let 'em out,
Cut 'em out, ride 'em in, rawhide!

The ending lyrics a

Keep trollin',trollin', trollin',
Though your shaft is swollen,
Keep them bubettes rollin', rawhide.
Through chains and cuffs and feathers,
Hell bent for leather,
Wishin' my sub was by my side.
All the things I'm missin',
Good spankins, love and kissin',
Are waiting at the end of my ride.

Move 'em on, head 'em up,
Head 'em up, move 'em on,
Move 'em on, head 'em up, rawhide!
Head 'em out, ride 'em in,
Ride 'em in, let 'em out,
Cut 'em out, ride 'em in, rawhide!
RAWHIDE!!!

Here is a starting point:

http://www.gastronomica.org/gastro/pages/sample3.1.html

It is about the fallacies of the low fat diet, but does look at meat in
the diet also.

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>>
> Yeah, I didn't even get into the issues of feeding antibiotics, steroids,
> growth hormones, etc. to livestock to bring them to market faster. NOt to
> mention e-coli, salmonella, trichinosis, listeriosis and other bacterial
> infections. More good reasons to avoid meat products.


Do you have any idea how many bacteria exist in the human body? That are
passed from person to person on a daily basis?

Bacteria is no reason to avoid a food....simply take precautions and use
common sense. If you choose not to eat meat, that is your choice...but it is
no better or worse than anyone else's choice.

As to steroids and such, careful choosing of suppliers can avoid that.

kimberly

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Please produce some links to these studies you mention. I'd like to read
> them for myself.
>
>

You clearly own a computer. Just google Inuit diet. Or high protein diets.
The bottom line is, the more natural foods you eat, and the less unnatural
processed foods you eat, the higher your quality of life, generally
speaking.
Even that is no guarantee. Plenty of people who eat vegetarian diets die of
heart disease, cancer and other problems. Sometimes, it's just the luck of
the draw.

kimberly

"j*ni p." > wrote in message
...
> Hark! I heard "Mike Pearce" > say:
>
> <snip>
> > most of these animals are little things like lizards, rodents,
> > snakes, etc. that we don't like anyway
>
> This isn't aimed at Mike or anyone in particular:
>
> We've wandered far afield here (imagine that!), but I did want
> to put in a good word for non-poisonous snakes & spiders, as well
> as lizards and bats. These are great critters with bad reputatons;
> they help keep the bug population under control and generally are
> not a hazard to us. I'm terrified of spiders, but I don't kill them,
> I gently move them outside of the house. I'd much rather have these
> animals around than a swarm of mosquitos (yuck!).
>
> Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now... ;-)
> j*ni p. ~ mom, gamer, novice cook ~
> ...fish heads, fish heads, eat them up, yum!

I only move the spiders out if they're really ugly! lol My daughter gets
freaked out over the big ones, but daddy long legs are okay.
We have a desert landscaped yard with aloe, cactus, dragon trees and sago
palms....perfect environment for lizards, snakes, and spiders, of which we
have plenty. On the other hand, we don't have many mosquitoes, flies, or
other nuisance pests, so it all evens out IMO. I'll happily keep the ones I
have!

kimberly

"Curly Sue" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:14:02 -0500, Pan Ohco > wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:22:29 GMT, "Marcelino"
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Please examine what we do to animals on factory farms and in
> >>slaughterhouses, denying animals everything that is natural to them
> >
> >What we do to animals is to restrict their movements. If they were
> >thinking beings that might be a problem. But they are not. Other then
> >that the human feed & water them and keep them alive longer then if
> >they had been in the wild.
>
> Yes, it's a problem, even if you mistakenly believe that only humans
> think. How could anyone who claims to have humanity not be disgusted
> by veal crates, gestation cages, or discarding half-dead animals in
> piles?
>
> Sue(tm)
> Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Those conditions are hardly the standard, with the possible exception of the
veal, which I wouldn't eat on a bet.
The poster was, I believe, referring to reputable farms that are run
properly.
I come from a long line of farmers, none of which own veal crates, or
gestation cages...and they certainly don't discard half dead animals in
piles.
Of course there are going to be people who are callous and cruel in the
farming industry....just as there are in every walk of life. That doesn't
mean the whole industry is bad, just those people.

kimberly

"Marcelino" > wrote in message
om...
> What place better to post such a link.A Food Group..And surprised at the
> reactions I recieved.Not at all.I expected it.This is a food group
right.Now
> If I had posted it in a (for Instance) Vega group.Wouldn't recieve such
> stupid answeres from them.On my Meat eaters Like 99%of you hear..<Do not
> take responsibility for my action..> What ,,You all know I started the
> post.So I guess I am guilty,Guilty for the link yes.Guilty for what
> ignorance you have ,Not at all..Well..I think I am actually done with this
> newsgroup.All you people just Messed it up with your stupidityAnd I should
> have know that 90%of all post were done by Males..who have to compete with
> one another..Compete with whomever you like.finish your little war against
> one another,I have better thinks than to argue who is right or who is
> wrong.I gave the link and you all destroyed the newsgroup with your
> uneducated minds.So.....

I would argue with you dear, but why waste my time with someone who can't
seem to form a complete sentence?

kimberly



> "Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
> news
> > On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 00:24:20 GMT, "Marcelino"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >If you are refering to me as Him Travis..You should be saying to
HER..Yes
> I
> > >have laughed to the post because if you have read it all you would know
> > >why..All this is about now is who can slam the other person harder ..I
> > >laughed at one asshole here.He knows who he is..For the simple fact
that
> he
> > >is here to start trouble and call me names because I proved him wrong
so
> now
> > >he wants to get back at me by slandering my Mothers Name..Come on
> people.All
> > >I did was (like I said before).Post a link and the rest of the
newsgroup
> > >took it over..Do with it what you will.You people seem like all you
want
> to
> > >do is turn this into a game to see who is going to win.I was serious
> about
> > >the link and wanted other to view it..
> >
> > Marcelino,
> > By posting a link, you appear to support the basic thrust of that
> > page.
> > You posted a link to a PETA page.
> > You posted it to a food group.
> > PETA opposes the eating of animals.
> > And you are surprised at the reaction that you received?
> > Are you that incredibly naive, or do you not take responsibility for
> > your actions?
> > Pan Ohco
>
>

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
...
> Marcelino >, using stinkbait, trotlined in message
> om...
> [snip drivel and dreck]
>
> Sung to the Tune of Rawhide
>
> Keep trollin', trollin', trollin',
> Though they're disapprovin',
> Keep them bubettes rollin', rawhide.
> Don't try to understand 'em,
> Just rope 'em, throw, and brand 'em.
> Soon we'll be spankin side by side.
> My hands a hardnen',
> My subbie will be waitin',
> Be waitin' at the end of my ride.
>
> Move 'em on, head 'em up,
> Head 'em up, move 'em on,
> Move 'em on, head 'em up, rawhide!
> Head 'em out, ride 'em in,
> Ride 'em in, let 'em out,
> Cut 'em out, ride 'em in, rawhide!
>
> The ending lyrics a
>
> Keep trollin',trollin', trollin',
> Though your shaft is swollen,
> Keep them bubettes rollin', rawhide.
> Through chains and cuffs and feathers,
> Hell bent for leather,
> Wishin' my sub was by my side.
> All the things I'm missin',
> Good spankins, love and kissin',
> Are waiting at the end of my ride.
>
> Move 'em on, head 'em up,
> Head 'em up, move 'em on,
> Move 'em on, head 'em up, rawhide!
> Head 'em out, ride 'em in,
> Ride 'em in, let 'em out,
> Cut 'em out, ride 'em in, rawhide!
> RAWHIDE!!!


Why, Ranger....who knew? ;-)

kimberly

>C. James Strunz wrote:
>
SHADDUP PITA ASS****.

















---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

>C. James Strunz wrote:
>
YER MOMMA'S **** STINKS FROM DONKY ***, PITA *******.











---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

>Marcelino THE TROLL!

**** YOU SHADROOL DOUCHE BAG.


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 17:31:20 -0700, "Nexis" > wrote:

>
>"Curly Sue" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:14:02 -0500, Pan Ohco > wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:22:29 GMT, "Marcelino"
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Please examine what we do to animals on factory farms and in
>> >>slaughterhouses, denying animals everything that is natural to them
>> >
>> >What we do to animals is to restrict their movements. If they were
>> >thinking beings that might be a problem. But they are not. Other then
>> >that the human feed & water them and keep them alive longer then if
>> >they had been in the wild.
>>
>> Yes, it's a problem, even if you mistakenly believe that only humans
>> think. How could anyone who claims to have humanity not be disgusted
>> by veal crates, gestation cages, or discarding half-dead animals in
>> piles?
>>

>Those conditions are hardly the standard, with the possible exception of the
>veal, which I wouldn't eat on a bet.

No one said they were "standard."

>The poster was, I believe, referring to reputable farms that are run
>properly.

No, the poster didn't qualify the comment at all.

>I come from a long line of farmers, none of which own veal crates, or
>gestation cages...and they certainly don't discard half dead animals in
>piles.

No one said your family does.

>Of course there are going to be people who are callous and cruel in the
>farming industry....just as there are in every walk of life. That doesn't
>mean the whole industry is bad, just those people.

So what do you do about the callous and cruel ones? Just shrug your
shoulders?

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 08:33:06 -0500, Pan Ohco > wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 22:25:01 GMT, (Curly
>Sue) wrote:
>
>
>>>What we do to animals is to restrict their movements. If they were
>>>thinking beings that might be a problem. But they are not. Other then
>>>that the human feed & water them and keep them alive longer then if
>>>they had been in the wild.
>>
>>Yes, it's a problem, even if you mistakenly believe that only humans
>>think. How could anyone who claims to have humanity not be disgusted
>>by veal crates, gestation cages, or discarding half-dead animals in
>>piles?
>
>Sue have you ever interacted with a cow?

No. No cows.

>And what is your proof that not only humans have independent thought.?

Cats and dogs.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

>>> >On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:22:29 GMT, "Marcelino"
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>Please examine what we do to animals on factory farms and in
>>> >>slaughterhouses, denying animals everything that is natural to them
>>> >

I have to agree. Pork should be worshipped. I worship it all the
time. Pork chops, bacon, country ham.... *drool* Here is my tribute
to worshipping pork. I'm the fat pork-eating guy with the pony-tail
and big fat gut and tattoos in these pictures: (I promise I treated
the pig corpse with the utmost respect while preparing it for
consumption.)

http://bugadventures.dyndns.org/pig.html


The last picture is of me harvesting the skin so I could cut it into
bite-sized squares and deep-fat-fry it and put some salt and hot sauce
on it. YUM! Nothing quite like homemade pork skins/rinds with hot
sauce. *drool* You can cut the skin into little squares and freeze
them, then deep-fat-fry them later as a spur-of-the-moment thing for
delicous hot pork rinds. Oh golly, I'm feeling the need to call the
butcher and reserve a nice plump pig right about now.


--
Travis
FOR SALE: '63 VW Camo Baja... $1000 *FIRM*
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...tem=2436447561
http://bugadventures.dyndns.org
Words that soak into your ears are whispered, not yelled.


:wq!

"Curly Sue" > wrote in message
...
> >And what is your proof that not only humans have independent thought.?
>
> Cats and dogs.
>
> Sue(tm)

LOL, *so* true...

Stace

In article <6JIgb.15883$gi2.4551@fed1read01>, says...
>
> "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> > Yeah, I didn't even get into the issues of feeding antibiotics, steroids,
> > growth hormones, etc. to livestock to bring them to market faster. NOt to
> > mention e-coli, salmonella, trichinosis, listeriosis and other bacterial
> > infections. More good reasons to avoid meat products.
>
>
> Do you have any idea how many bacteria exist in the human body? That are
> passed from person to person on a daily basis?
>
> Bacteria is no reason to avoid a food....simply take precautions and use
> common sense. If you choose not to eat meat, that is your choice...but it is
> no better or worse than anyone else's choice.
>
> As to steroids and such, careful choosing of suppliers can avoid that.
>
> kimberly

Not to mention ground dwelling and airborne bacteria that end up on
plants, vegetables and fruits.

Curly Sue wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 08:33:06 -0500, Pan Ohco > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 22:25:01 GMT, (Curly
>> Sue) wrote:
>> Sue have you ever interacted with a cow?
>
> No. No cows.
>
>> And what is your proof that not only humans have independent
>> thought.?
>
> Cats and dogs.

Except cats is nuts. Which buttresses your point I suppose but cats is on a
whole different level from dogs. Speaking from one whose experience is
almost exclusively with cats who adopted me and does not believe in 'indoor
cats'.
Dogs want to be part of the pack, cats hate packs.
As for cows, cows are dumb.

-Hound

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 10:59:28 -0400, "C. James Strutz"
> wrote:

>
>"Richard Periut" > wrote
>> Marcelino wrote:
>> > You really need to check this out... Pork eater especially.
>> > http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs....nahan-pig-farm
>> >
>> A video which portrays a few sick and frustrated freaks, doesn't stand
>> as the standard for killing pigs in the pork industry.
>>
>> It's just amazing the way these hypocrites try to raise awareness of
>> animal suffering, without shedding an iota of evidence to human
>> suffering; the children dying of hunger and *Curable* diseases in
>> Africa, India, et cetera.
>>
>> I'm sure these people, with their cotton candy lives, driving their
>> BMW's, and drinking California wine, would rather see a whale, a pig, a
>> chicken, or a mink saved, before 10 human children can be fed and healed.
>
>Raising livestock as a food source is a huge inefficiency of resources. The
>amount of grain used to feed livestock could feed many times the number of
>people than the meat could feed. Livestock also consume huge amounts of
>fresh water which is in short supply in many parts of the world.

And non-food animals don't?

>Furthermore, many of the hungry people of the world couldn't afford to buy
>meat even if you could get it to them easily (it must be refrigerated).

As a recent book about the history of commercial ice use (drat, can't
find it) details, refrigeration only became common in industrialized
countries around the time of WWII. OTOH, people have been eating
animals (and fish and fowl) for all of human history. The relative
expense of animal protein is vastly dependent on local conditions.

>It's
>the meat eaters of the world who are contributing more to world hunger...

Bosh. If one chooses vegetarianism out of ethical, religious, or
health reasons, I have no quarrel. However, "world hunger" is caused
by many factors, not least of which is war and civil chaos. There was
plenty of food in Somalia as we all watched video of starving
children. If I stop eating chicken, it's not going to make it
economically feasible to ship surplus US grain to Africa.

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:22:29 GMT, "Marcelino"
> wrote:

>Please examine what we do to animals on factory farms and in
>slaughterhouses, denying animals everything that is natural to them and then
>killing them in gruesome ways, and try to tell me that this is moral.

It isn't. And I believe ongoing efforts to treat food animals in
reasonably "humane" ways is an excellent idea. I do, however, value
human lives above those of animals. That is, the conditions engendered
by huge poultry 'factories' aren't ideal for the chickens, but are
*also* miserable and exploitative of human workers in the 'industry.'
Rather than try and convert us all to vegetarianism, how 'bout a push
to pay a bit more for 'ethical' meat products? If more expensive
'organic' fruit and veg are economically viable, why not ethical beef
and chicken?

While I realize that outrageous PR is used by many groups to 'shock
and awe' people, I was much more impressed when PETA (headquartered in
the area) had a very quiet program that built and delivered dog houses
to homes and farms where dogs were observed outdoors without shelter.
Prancing around naked to promote a message butters no parsnips, IMHO.
There must be more benign efforts to actually *improve* the conditions
of animals than nasty and unproductive confrontation.

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:14:02 -0500, Pan Ohco > wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 18:22:29 GMT, "Marcelino"
> wrote:
>
>
>>Please examine what we do to animals on factory farms and in
>>slaughterhouses, denying animals everything that is natural to them
>
>What we do to animals is to restrict their movements. If they were
>thinking beings that might be a problem. But they are not. Other then
>that the human feed & water them and keep them alive longer then if
>they had been in the wild.

Recent research shows that pets (companion animals) *do* have
discernable feelings for their people. While a cow's thoughts may not
be particularly philosophical, I wouldn't regard it as an "unthinking"
animal. There's no particular reason to make any creature's life
miserable. Sensational TV shows that many serial killers began as
children torturing animals. Brrr. As a carnivore, I can't start
viewing every pig as 'Babe' -- at least that is an expression of our
natural sympathy with other living things. And a tendency to
anthropomorphize. One doesn't have to set up retirement homes for old
cattle to still believe food animals should enjoy reasonably "natural"
lives. As should we all.

"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message
s.com...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
> >> > You're right that overpopulation is a problem. However, I contend
that
> > not
> >> > eating meat and dairy raises the quality of life rather than lowering
> >> > it....
> >>
> >> How?
> >
> > Because it's more healthful in the long term.
>
> Healthier *how*?

Plant based foods are lower in saturated fat and cholesterol, which are
known to contribute to coronary heart disease. Plant based foods are also
free of steroids, antibiotics, and growth hormones which have been linked to
cancer.

> > There are many studies
> > showing that people live longer healthier lives on vegetarian diets.
>
> What studies? Can you provide specific references?

There are at least 5 recent studies (Oxford Study, Adventist Mortality
Study, Health Food Shoppers Study, Adventist Health Study, and the
Heidelberg Study) indicating that vegetarians have lower incidents of
various diseases and increased longevity than comparable non-vegetarians.
Here are a few links.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/70/3/525S.pdf
http://www.eatright.org/Public/Gover...s/92_17084.cfm
http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/heal...arian-diet.htm
http://www.ivu.org/oxveg/Talks/veglongevity.html

Okay, I have given you references to studies supporting vegetarian diets for
better health. Now I would be interested to see if you can produce
references to comparable studies (comparing plant-based diets with
meat-based diets) with opposite results.

> BTB, southern India has
> a primarily vegetarian diet. Southern Indians also have a higher rate of
> heart related diseases and don't live particularly longer than Americans.
> Additionally, the longest lived population (Asian) have a diet rich in
> meat. But, I await your study references.

Diet is only one factor in health and longevity. There are others.

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 09:53:18 -0400, "C. James Strutz"
> wrote:


>> >Yes, it's a problem, even if you mistakenly believe that only humans
>> >think. How could anyone who claims to have humanity not be disgusted
>> >by veal crates, gestation cages, or discarding half-dead animals in
>> >piles?
>>
>> Sue have you ever interacted with a cow?
>
>You need only interact with common pets to know that animals have instincts,
>intellect, emotion, and can feel pain. I think that animals also have souls.
>
Instinct and emotions are not thinking. You would have to give your
definition of intellect , so that I could respond.

>> And what is your proof that not only humans have independent thought.?
>
>You are asking her to prove something that she never claimed. It makes it
>look as though you're propping up your beliefs by discrediting her.
>
If you would read her statement closely, "if you mistakenly believe
that only humans think" , you will see that she is making that claim.
Pan Ohco

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 11:14:40 -0400, "C. James Strutz"
> wrote:


>> >Because it's more healthful in the long term. There are many studies
>showing
>> >that people live longer healthier lives on vegetarian diets.
>> >
>> There are also many studies showing that people who ingest large
>> quantities of animal fat and protein live a longer healthier life.
>
>Please produce some links to these studies you mention. I'd like to read
>them for myself.
>

Cant give you a link, but the study was done on Iceland(?) and it on
the eskimos, who eat mostly animal proteins, and a large amount of
fat. They live quite a long and healthy live, for the environment that
they live in.
Pan Ohco

Pan Ohco > wrote in message >. ..
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 11:14:40 -0400, "C. James Strutz"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> >Because it's more healthful in the long term. There are many studies
> showing
> >> >that people live longer healthier lives on vegetarian diets.
> >> >
> >> There are also many studies showing that people who ingest large
> >> quantities of animal fat and protein live a longer healthier life.
> >
> >Please produce some links to these studies you mention. I'd like to read
> >them for myself.
> >
>
> Cant give you a link, but the study was done on Iceland(?) and it on
> the eskimos, who eat mostly animal proteins, and a large amount of
> fat. They live quite a long and healthy live, for the environment that
> they live in.
> Pan Ohco

The study cannot have been made in Iceland as there are no Eskimos
living there. Iceland has a temperate climate, the Eskimos live in the
Polar regions.

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...

> > Healthier *how*?
>
> Plant based foods are lower in saturated fat and cholesterol, which are
> known to contribute to coronary heart disease. Plant based foods are also
> free of steroids, antibiotics, and growth hormones which have been linked
to
> cancer.

But full of bacteria, pathogens and pesticides, to name but a few.
Inuits diets consist of protein and fat and very little vegetation, yet they
don't have a high rate of heart disease like most of the US.
Yes, vegetables are healthy...but there is no solid evidence to show that
eating vegetation *alone* is any healthier than eating and omnivorous diet.
For every study that exists showing the benefits of vegetables, there's
another showing the benefits of protein, or carbs, or whatever.
Oh, and, a longer life doesn't necessarily mean a better life. There are
people who belief and have *studies* to *prove*, that very low calorie diets
(to the point of semi-starvation) will help *them* live much longer
lives....and they might...but at what cost??? Who the hell wants to subsist
on a few lettuce leaves and a stick of celery for each day?

Bottom line is, if you want to be a vegetarian or a vegan then by all means
you should do so. That doesn't mean that it's the right choice for everyone
else.

C. James Strutz wrote:

>> >> > You're right that overpopulation is a problem. However, I contend
> that
>> > not
>> >> > eating meat and dairy raises the quality of life rather than
>> >> > lowering it....
>> >>
>> >> How?
>> >
>> > Because it's more healthful in the long term.
>>
>> Healthier *how*?
>
> Plant based foods are lower in saturated fat and cholesterol, which are
> known to contribute to coronary heart disease. Plant based foods are also
> free of steroids, antibiotics, and growth hormones which have been linked
> to cancer.

The additives such as steroids, etc, notwithstanding, plants can't provide
the necessary amounts of protein required by the human body. Also, a
sedentary lifestyle also is a major contributing factor, more so than the
fats and cholesterol, to CHD. As for cholesterol, the majority of the
cholesterol in your system comes from your own liver and not from the
dietary intake.

>> > There are many studies
>> > showing that people live longer healthier lives on vegetarian diets.
>>
>> What studies? Can you provide specific references?
>
> There are at least 5 recent studies (Oxford Study, Adventist Mortality
> Study, Health Food Shoppers Study, Adventist Health Study, and the
> Heidelberg Study) indicating that vegetarians have lower incidents of
> various diseases and increased longevity than comparable non-vegetarians.
> Here are a few links.
>
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/70/3/525S.pdf

Couldn't read this one. Unfortunately, the PDF data is corrupted and my
reader choked.

> http://www.eatright.org/Public/Gover...s/92_17084.cfm

This one makes no comparison that I saw stating that vegetarian was better
than non-vegetarian. It merely states that vegetarians can receive adequate
nutrition from an "appropriately planned" vegetarian diet. Hardly support
for the claim that non-vegetarian is better, since such a conclusion would
be non sequitor.

> http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/heal...arian-diet.htm

This is not a study, but is an article that draws conclusions from other
sources without direct references, including 5 studies that are decades
old. It is also biased in that it comes directly from a pro-vegetarian
source.

> http://www.ivu.org/oxveg/Talks/veglongevity.html

Another biased article. This webpage, which is also not a study, references
from the 50s, 70s and 80s, with only one more contemporary study from the
90s.

None of the studies make note of the activity levels of the subjects
studied, which is a *major* factor when assessing CHD. Also, family medical
histories are also of major importance when discussing CHD. Coming from a
family with a history of heart disease, this is something I'm somewhat
familiar with from personal experience.

None of these studies include mention of the *types* of meats being
consumed either. Were the non-vegetarians eating red meat? White? In what
ratios? How were the meats prepared? Did they include the ancillary fats of
sauces, etc? There's more to it than "they ate meat and that increased
their mortality rate".

Based on the data made available, one could easily conclude that being a
Seventh Day Adventist would increase your life expectancy.

> Okay, I have given you references to studies supporting vegetarian diets
> for better health. Now I would be interested to see if you can produce
> references to comparable studies (comparing plant-based diets with
> meat-based diets) with opposite results.

I made no such claims. Instead, I questioned your's.

>> BTB, southern India has
>> a primarily vegetarian diet. Southern Indians also have a higher rate of
>> heart related diseases and don't live particularly longer than Americans.
>> Additionally, the longest lived population (Asian) have a diet rich in
>> meat. But, I await your study references.
>
> Diet is only one factor in health and longevity. There are others.

Yes, I know. The webpages you referenced didn't take those factors into
consideration, or if they did they didn't mention them.

--
Darryl L. Pierce >
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/c/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

In article m>, "Darryl
L. Pierce" > wrote:

> C. James Strutz wrote:

> > Plant based foods are lower in saturated fat and cholesterol, which are
> > known to contribute to coronary heart disease. Plant based foods are also
> > free of steroids, antibiotics, and growth hormones which have been linked
> > to cancer.
>
> The additives such as steroids, etc, notwithstanding, plants can't provide
> the necessary amounts of protein required by the human body. Also, a
> sedentary lifestyle also is a major contributing factor, more so than the
> fats and cholesterol, to CHD. As for cholesterol, the majority of the
> cholesterol in your system comes from your own liver and not from the
> dietary intake.


Plant based foods *can* provide the necessary amounts of protein required
by the human body. Dried beans, corn, rice and potatoes all contain
significant amounts of protein. As long as you eat a variety of plant
protein, you will be OK. If you also eat dairy and eggs, it will be even
easier to get the correct quality of protein. If you only eat one kind of
plant protein, you will have a protein deficiency, since no one plant
protein has the balance of protein that humans need. No argument on the
exercise thing. As for cholesterol, last I heard the jury was still out
on whether dietary cholesterol is a problem for some people.


> This one makes no comparison that I saw stating that vegetarian was better
> than non-vegetarian. It merely states that vegetarians can receive adequate
> nutrition from an "appropriately planned" vegetarian diet. Hardly support
> for the claim that non-vegetarian is better, since such a conclusion would
> be non sequitor.


I believe that a vegetarian diet *can* be better for some people. It all
depends on what you eat!


:-)


I ain't giving up my meat, though!

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

Hark! I heard "Nexis" > say:

<snip>

> Bottom line is, if you want to be a vegetarian or a vegan then by all means
> you should do so. That doesn't mean that it's the right choice for everyone
> else.

Hey Kimberly, didn't you know that you're not allowed to make sense
on Usenet..? ;-)


--
j*ni p. ~ mom, gamer, novice cook ~
...fish heads, fish heads, eat them up, yum!

Dan Abel > wrote:
>> The additives such as steroids, etc, notwithstanding, plants can't provide
>> the necessary amounts of protein required by the human body. Also, a
>> sedentary lifestyle also is a major contributing factor, more so than the
>> fats and cholesterol, to CHD. As for cholesterol, the majority of the
>> cholesterol in your system comes from your own liver and not from the
>> dietary intake.
>
> Plant based foods *can* provide the necessary amounts of protein required
> by the human body.

Sorry, that should have been "can not _efficiently_ provide". My bad for
not being clear enough. Animal protein provides a better concentration
of the necessary proteins, as well as other elements such as iron.

> Dried beans, corn, rice and potatoes all contain
> significant amounts of protein.

Partial proteins at best. Potato is starch, rice is a simple
carbohydrate, corn is starch and beans are simple carbohydrates that,
combined with another SCH can provide a complete protein.

> As long as you eat a variety of plant
> protein, you will be OK. If you also eat dairy and eggs, it will be even
> easier to get the correct quality of protein.

Eggs would be considered a meat source.

> If you only eat one kind of
> plant protein, you will have a protein deficiency, since no one plant
> protein has the balance of protein that humans need. No argument on the
> exercise thing. As for cholesterol, last I heard the jury was still out
> on whether dietary cholesterol is a problem for some people.

On this last part, yes, I'm sure that debate's going to be going on for
decades at least <g>. And, yes, it's true that a variety of vegetables
would be required to take in the proteins that are more efficiently
delivered in animal protein.

>> This one makes no comparison that I saw stating that vegetarian was better
>> than non-vegetarian. It merely states that vegetarians can receive adequate
>> nutrition from an "appropriately planned" vegetarian diet. Hardly support
>> for the claim that non-vegetarian is better, since such a conclusion would
>> be non sequitor.
>
> I believe that a vegetarian diet *can* be better for some people. It all
> depends on what you eat!

Yes, it all depends on _what_ is eaten. People who preach the
"vegetarian is better" are only considering one side of the argument and
assuming the conclusions.

> :-)
>
> I ain't giving up my meat, though!

Same here. I did my time as a (brief) vegetarian and, I'm sorry, but the
siren song of the sirloin steak swayed me slowly the surrender...

--
Darryl L. Pierce >
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/c/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

In article m>, "Darryl
L. Pierce" > wrote:

> Dan Abel > wrote:


> > Dried beans, corn, rice and potatoes all contain
> > significant amounts of protein.
>
> Partial proteins at best. Potato is starch, rice is a simple
> carbohydrate, corn is starch and beans are simple carbohydrates that,
> combined with another SCH can provide a complete protein.


The nutritional database that I usually search is not available. However,
all of the above sources provide enough protein for human needs. We don't
need that much protein, in comparison to our need for calories to fuel the
body. For instance, if you get 10% of your RDA for calories from
potatoes, you will also get 10% of your RDA for protein. I don't know the
numbers for the other foods, but I believe that they are comparable, or
higher. What is an SCH?


> > As long as you eat a variety of plant
> > protein, you will be OK. If you also eat dairy and eggs, it will be even
> > easier to get the correct quality of protein.
>
> Eggs would be considered a meat source.


We're talking about vegetarians vs non-vegetarians. Some vegetarians eat eggs.



I'm not advocating that anyone become a vegetarian. I'm not and I don't
want to be. My daughter and sister are vegetarians, and because they eat
eggs and dairy, they don't need to worry about protein. However, a
vegetarian who eats no eggs or dairy, but eats a variety of plant based
foods high in protein, will not have a protein problem either.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

Dan Abel > wrote:
>> > Dried beans, corn, rice and potatoes all contain
>> > significant amounts of protein.
>>
>> Partial proteins at best. Potato is starch, rice is a simple
>> carbohydrate, corn is starch and beans are simple carbohydrates that,
>> combined with another SCH can provide a complete protein.
>
> The nutritional database that I usually search is not available. However,
> all of the above sources provide enough protein for human needs. We don't
> need that much protein, in comparison to our need for calories to fuel the
> body. For instance, if you get 10% of your RDA for calories from
> potatoes, you will also get 10% of your RDA for protein. I don't know the
> numbers for the other foods, but I believe that they are comparable, or
> higher.

There's quite a difference between the calories you get from starches
and the proteins you take in. Your body can't easily convert the
calories themselves. If you ate a diet containing strictly vegetables
such as rice, protatoes and corn, you would be severely malnourished.
You need to take in at *least* a complimentary carbohydrate such as
beans, legumes, etc. to give you body the *complete* protein that it
needs. Yes, potatoes and the like give you some protein, but they're
*incomplete* proteins. Your body can't work solely with just those.

> What is an SCH?

Simple carbohydrate.

>> > As long as you eat a variety of plant
>> > protein, you will be OK. If you also eat dairy and eggs, it will be even
>> > easier to get the correct quality of protein.
>>
>> Eggs would be considered a meat source.
>
> We're talking about vegetarians vs non-vegetarians. Some vegetarians eat eggs.

I know a few vegetarians who eat fish. But, when I think vegetarian, I
think of my friends who basically stick with the philosophy of "if it
has a birthday or a mother, it's not to be eaten".

> I'm not advocating that anyone become a vegetarian. I'm not and I don't
> want to be. My daughter and sister are vegetarians, and because they eat
> eggs and dairy, they don't need to worry about protein. However, a
> vegetarian who eats no eggs or dairy, but eats a variety of plant based
> foods high in protein, will not have a protein problem either.

Absolutely. We're in complete agreement.

--
Darryl L. Pierce >
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/c/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

In article m>, "Darryl
L. Pierce" > wrote:

> Dan Abel > wrote:

> > The nutritional database that I usually search is not available. However,
> > all of the above sources provide enough protein for human needs. We don't
> > need that much protein, in comparison to our need for calories to fuel the
> > body. For instance, if you get 10% of your RDA for calories from
> > potatoes, you will also get 10% of your RDA for protein. I don't know the
> > numbers for the other foods, but I believe that they are comparable, or
> > higher.
>
> There's quite a difference between the calories you get from starches
> and the proteins you take in.

There is no difference at all. Calories are a measure of the amount of
energy. Food calories used to be measured by taking a sample of the food,
burning it, and measuring the amount of heat produced.


>Your body can't easily convert the
> calories themselves.

If your body needs energy, it converts the foods you eat into glucose,
which then travels in the blood to deliver energy where it is needed.
Sugar is the most easily and quickly digested. Protein is the most
difficult to digest. However, your body will not digest protein for
energy unless it is excess. Your body first digests proteins into their
component amino acids. It then uses the amino acids as building blocks to
create human protein. The mix of amino acids needed to create human
protein is considerably different than that of plant proteins.



> If you ate a diet containing strictly vegetables
> such as rice, protatoes and corn, you would be severely malnourished.
> You need to take in at *least* a complimentary carbohydrate such as
> beans, legumes, etc. to give you body the *complete* protein that it
> needs. Yes, potatoes and the like give you some protein, but they're
> *incomplete* proteins. Your body can't work solely with just those.


I don't understand your usage of "vegetables" and "carbohydrates".
Carbohydrates are a component of foods. Rice, potatoes and corn all
contain a lot of carbohydrates. If you want to call rice a vegetable,
then beans are vegetables also. As far as "complementary" goes, that
refers to protein or food. Foods are complementary if they contain
complementary proteins. Corn and beans are complementary because the
amino acids that one is short of, the other one has lots of. Thus, eating
corn and beans together gives a mix of amino acids that is closer to that
of human protein.


> I know a few vegetarians who eat fish. But, when I think vegetarian, I
> think of my friends who basically stick with the philosophy of "if it
> has a birthday or a mother, it's not to be eaten".


My sister always says that she doesn't eat anything with a face.


:-)

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:36:02 -0700, (Dan Abel) wrote:

>"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote:

> Dan Abel > wrote:

> > The nutritional database that I usually search is not available. However,
> > all of the above sources provide enough protein for human needs. We don't
> > need that much protein, in comparison to our need for calories to fuel the
> > body. For instance, if you get 10% of your RDA for calories from
> > potatoes, you will also get 10% of your RDA for protein. I don't know the
> > numbers for the other foods, but I believe that they are comparable, or
> > higher.
>
>> There's quite a difference between the calories you get from starches
>> and the proteins you take in.
>
>There is no difference at all. Calories are a measure of the amount of
>energy. Food calories used to be measured by taking a sample of the food,
>burning it, and measuring the amount of heat produced.

Nonsense. You might just as well say there's no nutritional difference
between sugar, beef, and carrots. Proteins are complicated organic
(chemistry) compounds necessary for the building and repair of human
and animal tissue. Sugars and simple carbohydrates are fuels. If only
calories (the measure of fuel energy) were required for human health,
we could just eat a 5lb bag of sugar each week and never have to cook.

10% of a day's calories are by no means 10% of the a day's recommended
allowance of protein. Nor do they necessarily contain the various
vitamins, minerals, and fats required for normal nutrition.

Some substances, the so-called "non-essential" amino acids, can be
manufactured by the body. The "essential" ones can only be supplied by
foods. A food that has all the essential amino acids is a "complete"
protein (meat, fish, dairy, eggs). Plant food which has some, but not
all of the essential amino acids is said to supply "incomplete"
protein. Combinations of plant foods -- rice&beans, beans&corn, etc.
-- can supply complete protein in the form of complimentary amino
acids.

A totally vegan diet is, I believe, missing one essential vitamin (one
of the B's), and it is recommended that vegans add this through
supplements.

My too sense

http://www.whocutthecheez.com/Pix/Ch...screatures.jpg

Dan Abel > wrote:
>> There's quite a difference between the calories you get from starches
>> and the proteins you take in.
>
> There is no difference at all. Calories are a measure of the amount of
> energy. Food calories used to be measured by taking a sample of the food,
> burning it, and measuring the amount of heat produced.

Proteins are _not_ just calories. Proteins are a complex carbohydrate
molecule that provide more than just energy (calories). Simple
carbohydrates have to be combined (requiring more energy) to create
proteins, which is the basic building block for the body. Proteins
provide the full molecule that can then be adapted, as opposed to
constructed, by the body.

>>Your body can't easily convert the
>> calories themselves.
>
> If your body needs energy, it converts the foods you eat into glucose,
> which then travels in the blood to deliver energy where it is needed.

I'm not talking about metabolizing CH for energy, which is not the sole
reason for eating. I'm talking about protein intake.

<snip about energy>

>> If you ate a diet containing strictly vegetables
>> such as rice, protatoes and corn, you would be severely malnourished.
>> You need to take in at *least* a complimentary carbohydrate such as
>> beans, legumes, etc. to give you body the *complete* protein that it
>> needs. Yes, potatoes and the like give you some protein, but they're
>> *incomplete* proteins. Your body can't work solely with just those.
>
> I don't understand your usage of "vegetables" and "carbohydrates".
> Carbohydrates are a component of foods. Rice, potatoes and corn all
> contain a lot of carbohydrates. If you want to call rice a vegetable,
> then beans are vegetables also.

I called beans that as well. I'm referring to the person having to be
very careful in what they eat, being sure to match up one vegetable with
another (for example, a rice or potato with a bean or similar vegetable)
in order to get a complete protein in the meal. This is something a
person eating meat wouldn't have to do, since the meat is provide the
*completed* protein to the eater.

> As far as "complementary" goes, that
> refers to protein or food.

And *that* is what I've been talking about; protein. It was your message
here that followed the calorie/energy path, not mine. I even said that
the person eating just vegetables would have to be very careful or they
would be *malnourished*. Malnourishment is more than just calories for
energy; it's about providing the building blocks the body needs to
grown, maintain and repair its structural parts as well as providing
energy. Protein is this basic building block, and providing it piecemeal
(via partial proteins and, worse yet, only part of the partial protein
in a poorly organized vegetarian diet) is not as efficient as providing
the proteins whole (via animal protein).

> Foods are complementary if they contain
> complementary proteins. Corn and beans are complementary because the
> amino acids that one is short of, the other one has lots of. Thus, eating
> corn and beans together gives a mix of amino acids that is closer to that
> of human protein.

What do you think I was talking about? Please re-read my posts, as I
believe you've missed my point or perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you.

>> I know a few vegetarians who eat fish. But, when I think vegetarian, I
>> think of my friends who basically stick with the philosophy of "if it
>> has a birthday or a mother, it's not to be eaten".
>
> My sister always says that she doesn't eat anything with a face.
>
> :-)

My sister just said she didn't like me...

--
Darryl L. Pierce >
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/c/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 17:21:07 -0700, Nexis wrote:

> Even that is no guarantee. Plenty of people who eat vegetarian diets die of
> heart disease, cancer and other problems. Sometimes, it's just the luck of
> the draw.

Everyone has to die of something.
--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

Richard Periut wrote:
>A video which portrays a few sick and frustrated freaks, doesn't stand
>as the standard for killing pigs in the pork industry.

If there's anything worse than clubbing baby seals to death, it's
creating a web page which requires cookies and embeds a "player"
object. Why can't they just give us the download links? PETA should
know better -- every time someone creates an unusable web page, God
kills a kitten.

--
Lucian