I've been ruminating, off and on, with increasing frequency, for
years, over switching to a vegetarian diet (lacto-ovarian).

I'm still thinking about it, and it's 50/50 between health benefits
and animal rights...so can someone explain why, um, "whole-hog" vegan
instead of simply lacto-ovo vegetarian?? I mean, I was never sure how
animals would be harmed by us using their surplus milk and
unfertilized eggs (assuming they are free-range, etc.), but now I've
just found out that eggs and dairy is supposed to be *harmful* to us
somehow???

I still don't have a lot of motivation to become either vegetarian or
vegan just yet -- my vanity as a bodybuilding weight-lifter precludes
it, I'm afraid, though there are a few famous vegetarian or vegan
bodybuilders and strength athletes -- but I will be ready soon to give
at least a vegetarian diet a 30-day "shareware" trial, just to really
see what it's like (I've done a day or two at a time already, but
haven't noticed much of a change besides hunger sometimes!)....

I once thought that I would defer any vegetarian or vegan switch until
old age when bodybuilding and that kind of strength won't matter, but
God damn it's really disgusting how cattle, livestock, and seafood are
raised these days -- no, "raised" is too generous a term: they're
practically manufactured!

Forget about the acts of sheer cruelty we see on the evening news, bad
as that is: just the whole cooped up experience of being raised in a
cage, living with no space to turn around, is ****ing sick!! I really
try not to think about it, but in trying to live a conscious life of
awareness and self-realization, there's no way but to also live
conscientiously, for all sentient beings...hard-scrabbled ******* that
I am, it's the least I can do to not put such food in my mouth, to
fuel my lifts at the gym on the lifelong suffering of animals -- never
mind all the health reasons!

So anyway, just thinking out loud again on usenet...any relevant
advice appreciated. My fear as a lifter is that I would somehow lose
muscle, or not gain, or gain as much or as fast...is that a valid
concern at all? It won't stop me from doing at least a vegetarian
diet in another year or two, but I'm curious about any such
consequences.

My plan is to do 30-day vegetarian trials, just to "acclimate"
myself...though many claim to feel so good that doing another 30 days,
then another, then another, just becomes second nature! But why all-
out vegan? What's wrong with lacto-ovo?

And, just for curiosity's sake...is it true that growing kids simply
cannot realize their full physical potential on a vegetarian and/or
vegan diet??

TIA!

"Prisoner at War" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've been ruminating, off and on, with increasing frequency, for
> years, over switching to a vegetarian diet (lacto-ovarian).
>
> I'm still thinking about it, and it's 50/50 between health benefits
> and animal rights...so can someone explain why, um, "whole-hog" vegan
> instead of simply lacto-ovo vegetarian?? I mean, I was never sure how
> animals would be harmed by us using their surplus milk and
> unfertilized eggs (assuming they are free-range, etc.), but now I've
> just found out that eggs and dairy is supposed to be *harmful* to us
> somehow???
>
> I still don't have a lot of motivation to become either vegetarian or
> vegan just yet -- my vanity as a bodybuilding weight-lifter precludes
> it, I'm afraid, though there are a few famous vegetarian or vegan
> bodybuilders and strength athletes -- but I will be ready soon to give
> at least a vegetarian diet a 30-day "shareware" trial, just to really
> see what it's like (I've done a day or two at a time already, but
> haven't noticed much of a change besides hunger sometimes!)....
>
> I once thought that I would defer any vegetarian or vegan switch until
> old age when bodybuilding and that kind of strength won't matter, but
> God damn it's really disgusting how cattle, livestock, and seafood are
> raised these days -- no, "raised" is too generous a term: they're
> practically manufactured!
>
> Forget about the acts of sheer cruelty we see on the evening news, bad
> as that is: just the whole cooped up experience of being raised in a
> cage, living with no space to turn around, is ****ing sick!! I really
> try not to think about it, but in trying to live a conscious life of
> awareness and self-realization, there's no way but to also live
> conscientiously, for all sentient beings...hard-scrabbled ******* that
> I am, it's the least I can do to not put such food in my mouth, to
> fuel my lifts at the gym on the lifelong suffering of animals -- never
> mind all the health reasons!
>
> So anyway, just thinking out loud again on usenet...any relevant
> advice appreciated. My fear as a lifter is that I would somehow lose
> muscle, or not gain, or gain as much or as fast...is that a valid
> concern at all? It won't stop me from doing at least a vegetarian
> diet in another year or two, but I'm curious about any such
> consequences.
>
> My plan is to do 30-day vegetarian trials, just to "acclimate"
> myself...though many claim to feel so good that doing another 30 days,
> then another, then another, just becomes second nature! But why all-
> out vegan? What's wrong with lacto-ovo?
>
> And, just for curiosity's sake...is it true that growing kids simply
> cannot realize their full physical potential on a vegetarian and/or
> vegan diet??
>
> TIA!

animals have no rights

On Feb 16, 3:06*am, Prisoner at War > wrote:
> I've been ruminating, off and on, with increasing frequency, for
> years, over switching to a vegetarian diet (lacto-ovarian).
>
> I'm still thinking about it, and it's 50/50 between health benefits
> and animal rights...so can someone explain why, um, "whole-hog" vegan
> instead of simply lacto-ovo vegetarian?? *I mean, I was never sure how
> animals would be harmed by us using their surplus milk and
> unfertilized eggs (assuming they are free-range, etc.), but now I've
> just found out that eggs and dairy is supposed to be *harmful* to us
> somehow???
>
> I still don't have a lot of motivation to become either vegetarian or
> vegan just yet -- my vanity as a bodybuilding weight-lifter precludes
> it, I'm afraid, though there are a few famous vegetarian or vegan
> bodybuilders and strength athletes -- but I will be ready soon to give
> at least a vegetarian diet a 30-day "shareware" trial, just to really
> see what it's like (I've done a day or two at a time already, but
> haven't noticed much of a change besides hunger sometimes!)....
>
> I once thought that I would defer any vegetarian or vegan switch until
> old age when bodybuilding and that kind of strength won't matter, but
> God damn it's really disgusting how cattle, livestock, and seafood are
> raised these days -- no, "raised" is too generous a term: they're
> practically manufactured!
>
> Forget about the acts of sheer cruelty we see on the evening news, bad
> as that is: just the whole cooped up experience of being raised in a
> cage, living with no space to turn around, is ****ing sick!! *I really
> try not to think about it, but in trying to live a conscious life of
> awareness and self-realization, there's no way but to also live
> conscientiously, for all sentient beings...hard-scrabbled ******* that
> I am, it's the least I can do to not put such food in my mouth, to
> fuel my lifts at the gym on the lifelong suffering of animals -- never
> mind all the health reasons!
>
> So anyway, just thinking out loud again on usenet...any relevant
> advice appreciated. *My fear as a lifter is that I would somehow lose
> muscle, or not gain, or gain as much or as fast...is that a valid
> concern at all? *It won't stop me from doing at least a vegetarian
> diet in another year or two, but I'm curious about any such
> consequences.
>
> My plan is to do 30-day vegetarian trials, just to "acclimate"
> myself...though many claim to feel so good that doing another 30 days,
> then another, then another, just becomes second nature! *But why all-
> out vegan? *What's wrong with lacto-ovo?
>
> And, just for curiosity's sake...is it true that growing kids simply
> cannot realize their full physical potential on a vegetarian and/or
> vegan diet??
>
> TIA!


Y'know...if you need some one to explain it to you, you probably don't
have the brain power to understand it anyway.

On 2008-02-16, Prisoner at War > wrote:

> So anyway, just thinking out loud again on usenet...any relevant
> advice appreciated. My fear as a lifter is that I would somehow lose
> muscle, or not gain, or gain as much or as fast...is that a valid
> concern at all? It won't stop me from doing at least a vegetarian
> diet in another year or two, but I'm curious about any such
> consequences.

I've done the lifting thing both while veg and while non-veg (wasn't that
good at lifting either way though I did deadlift more than you ;-). I don't
think you'll suddenly atrophy.

> My plan is to do 30-day vegetarian trials, just to "acclimate"
> myself...though many claim to feel so good that doing another 30 days,
> then another, then another, just becomes second nature! But why all-
> out vegan? What's wrong with lacto-ovo?

Start with ovo-lacto. That way, you can still take whey protein.

Would suggest surviving on that for a while before trying all-out vegan
(which is much harder to pull off)

Cheers,
--
Elflord

On 2008-02-16, Doug Freese > wrote:
>
> "David" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> animals have no rights
>
> And neither do plants. Whose says that plants don't have feelings. With

I say there is no credible evidence that plants have feelings.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

On Feb 16, 5:06*am, Prisoner at War > wrote:
> I've been ruminating, off and on, with increasing frequency, for
> years, over switching to a vegetarian diet (lacto-ovarian).
>
> I'm still thinking about it, and it's 50/50 between health benefits
> and animal rights...so can someone explain why, um, "whole-hog" vegan
> instead of simply lacto-ovo vegetarian?? *I mean, I was never sure how
> animals would be harmed by us using their surplus milk and
> unfertilized eggs (assuming they are free-range, etc.), but now I've
> just found out that eggs and dairy is supposed to be *harmful* to us
> somehow???
>
> I still don't have a lot of motivation to become either vegetarian or
> vegan just yet -- my vanity as a bodybuilding weight-lifter precludes
> it, I'm afraid, though there are a few famous vegetarian or vegan
> bodybuilders and strength athletes -- but I will be ready soon to give
> at least a vegetarian diet a 30-day "shareware" trial, just to really
> see what it's like (I've done a day or two at a time already, but
> haven't noticed much of a change besides hunger sometimes!)....
>
> I once thought that I would defer any vegetarian or vegan switch until
> old age when bodybuilding and that kind of strength won't matter, but
> God damn it's really disgusting how cattle, livestock, and seafood are
> raised these days -- no, "raised" is too generous a term: they're
> practically manufactured!
>
> Forget about the acts of sheer cruelty we see on the evening news, bad
> as that is: just the whole cooped up experience of being raised in a
> cage, living with no space to turn around, is ****ing sick!! *I really
> try not to think about it, but in trying to live a conscious life of
> awareness and self-realization, there's no way but to also live
> conscientiously, for all sentient beings...hard-scrabbled ******* that
> I am, it's the least I can do to not put such food in my mouth, to
> fuel my lifts at the gym on the lifelong suffering of animals -- never
> mind all the health reasons!
>
> So anyway, just thinking out loud again on usenet...any relevant
> advice appreciated. *My fear as a lifter is that I would somehow lose
> muscle, or not gain, or gain as much or as fast...is that a valid
> concern at all? *It won't stop me from doing at least a vegetarian
> diet in another year or two, but I'm curious about any such
> consequences.
>
> My plan is to do 30-day vegetarian trials, just to "acclimate"
> myself...though many claim to feel so good that doing another 30 days,
> then another, then another, just becomes second nature! *But why all-
> out vegan? *What's wrong with lacto-ovo?
>
> And, just for curiosity's sake...is it true that growing kids simply
> cannot realize their full physical potential on a vegetarian and/or
> vegan diet??
>
> TIA!

I'm not a vegetarian, but I share some of your thoughts and feelings.

You might want to follow elflord's advice and do the lacto-ovo thing
for a while.
Vegan is harder.

Remember when eating your veggies that Mikie likes it!

http://www.naturalphysiques.com/cms/...php?itemid=166
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/mahler21.htm

On Feb 16, 11:53 am, Cheese Wheels > wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:46:17 +0000 (UTC), Elflord >
> wrote this stuff here :
>
> >On 2008-02-16, Doug Freese > wrote:
>
> >> "David" > wrote in message
> . au...
>
> >>> animals have no rights
>
> >> And neither do plants. Whose says that plants don't have feelings. With
>
> >I say there is no credible evidence that plants have feelings.
>
> >Cheers,
>
> ANIMALS , in the wild, eat other animals though.
> It is natural and normal to eat meat as a human being.

Animals in the wild have a *life*...that was the point of my concern
over the ethics of it all.

And now, it's even an environmental problem, all the shit generated!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/we...yt&oref=slogin

EXCERPTS

Like oil, meat is subsidized by the federal government. Like oil, meat
is subject to accelerating demand as nations become wealthier, and
this, in turn, sends prices higher. Finally -- like oil -- meat is
something people are encouraged to consume less of, as the toll
exacted by industrial production increases, and becomes increasingly
visible.

....

Grain, meat and even energy are roped together in a way that could
have dire results. More meat means a corresponding increase in demand
for feed, especially corn and soy, which some experts say will
contribute to higher prices.

....

Because the stomachs of cattle are meant to digest grass, not grain,
cattle raised industrially thrive only in the sense that they gain
weight quickly. This diet made it possible to remove cattle from their
natural environment and encourage the efficiency of mass confinement
and slaughter. But it causes enough health problems that
administration of antibiotics is routine, so much so that it can
result in antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten the usefulness
of medicines that treat people.

Those grain-fed animals, in turn, are contributing to health problems
among the world's wealthier citizens -- heart disease, some types of
cancer, diabetes. The argument that meat provides useful protein makes
sense, if the quantities are small. But the "you gotta eat meat" claim
collapses at American levels. Even if the amount of meat we eat
weren't harmful, it's way more than enough.

....

Longer term, it no longer seems lunacy to believe in the possibility
of "meat without feet" -- meat produced in vitro, by growing animal
cells in a super-rich nutrient environment before being further
manipulated into burgers and steaks.

Another suggestion is a return to grazing beef, a very real
alternative as long as you accept the psychologically difficult and
politically unpopular notion of eating less of it. That's because
grazing could never produce as many cattle as feedlots do. Still, said
Michael Pollan, author of the recent book "In Defense of Food," "In
places where you can't grow grain, fattening cows on grass is always
going to make more sense."

But pigs and chickens, which convert grain to meat far more
efficiently than beef, are increasingly the meats of choice for
producers, accounting for 70 percent of total meat production, with
industrialized systems producing half that pork and three-quarters of
the chicken.

Once, these animals were raised locally (even many New Yorkers
remember the pigs of Secaucus), reducing transportation costs and
allowing their manure to be spread on nearby fields. Now hog
production facilities that resemble prisons more than farms are
hundreds of miles from major population centers, and their manure
"lagoons" pollute streams and groundwater. (In Iowa alone, hog
factories and farms produce more than 50 million tons of excrement
annually.

On Feb 16, 9:35 am, Elflord > wrote:
>
>
> I've done the lifting thing both while veg and while non-veg (wasn't that
> good at lifting either way though I did deadlift more than you ;-). I don't
> think you'll suddenly atrophy.

Hehe...I'm positively ****ed that my deadlifts and squats are so
puny...I'm still in consultation with that laser spinal surgery place
in FL...sigh....

> Start with ovo-lacto. That way, you can still take whey protein.

I've bought some soy isolate now and will be trying that out soon.
It's not too much more expensive, though I have no problems with whey.

> Would suggest surviving on that for a while before trying all-out vegan
> (which is much harder to pull off)

So you say you've "done" this thing...sounds like you gave it up?? Or
maybe it was the weight-lifting you gave up?

I'm looking forward to my experiment...I'll be living my usual
lifestyle, especially WRT weights and running, but doing lacto-ovarian
for thirty days...I have an initial acclimatization phase where I
reduce my intake of meat each day until I'm having it only once a
week, while substituting eggs, cheeses, and tofu, along with protein
powders (not just with my workouts anymore)...once that's settled, the
experiment will begin with the first week of absolutely no meat at
all, which will probably be in early March....

> Cheers,
> --
> Elflord

On Feb 16, 10:44 am, Bartleby > wrote:
>
>
> I'm not a vegetarian, but I share some of your thoughts and feelings.
>
> You might want to follow elflord's advice and do the lacto-ovo thing
> for a while.
> Vegan is harder.
>
> Remember when eating your veggies that Mikie likes it!
>
> http://www.naturalphysiques.com/cms/...n/mahler21.htm


Thanks, man; good to see a fellow traveler among fellow lifters!

I've already started cutting back on meat consumption, and I expect to
have eased into a fully lacto-ovo diet by early March...I will keep up
my usual volume and intensity of weight-lifting and report back to the
group sometime in April! I often hear of runners gaining more energy
than ever while on vegetarian and vegan diets, but maybe that's just
'cause those guys and gals lose weight and muscle mass! What would be
interesting is to see if that results for a weight-lifter...thirty
days should be enough time to determine that, I hope....

On 2008-02-16, Cheese Wheels > wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:46:17 +0000 (UTC), Elflord >
> wrote this stuff here :
>
>>On 2008-02-16, Doug Freese > wrote:
>>>
>>> "David" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> animals have no rights
>>>
>>> And neither do plants. Whose says that plants don't have feelings. With
>>
>>I say there is no credible evidence that plants have feelings.
>
> ANIMALS , in the wild, eat other animals though.
> It is natural and normal to eat meat as a human being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Cheers,
--
Elflord

On 2008-02-16, Prisoner at War > wrote:

> So you say you've "done" this thing...sounds like you gave it up?? Or
> maybe it was the weight-lifting you gave up?

I did some weight lifting before I started with the veg diet, then stopped
for a while, then started again after being on the veg diet. I stopped lifting
eventually because I was doing much better at running.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

On Feb 16, 5:06 am, Prisoner at War > wrote:
> I've been ruminating, off and on, with increasing frequency, for
> years, over switching to a vegetarian diet (lacto-ovarian).
>
> I'm still thinking about it, and it's 50/50 between health benefits
> and animal rights...so can someone explain why, um, "whole-hog" vegan
> instead of simply lacto-ovo vegetarian?? I mean, I was never sure how
> animals would be harmed by us using their surplus milk and
> unfertilized eggs (assuming they are free-range, etc.), but now I've
> just found out that eggs and dairy is supposed to be *harmful* to us
> somehow???

Way, way, way back in the pre-history of the smn newsgroup animal
rights wackjobs took control of this forum. Which resulted in a
movement to turn smn into a moderated newsgroup.

That never happened. And, animal rights wack-jobs are still nuts,
IMHO.

As michael savage wrote: "Liberalism is a form of mental illness."
http://prosites-prs.homestead.com/

You have to eat to live. And, that means animals have to die. Heck,
you cannot even walk with killing some type of life form.

Between me, and some animal it is going to be me every time.

Elflord wrote:
> On 2008-02-16, Cheese Wheels > wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:46:17 +0000 (UTC), Elflord >
>> wrote this stuff here :
>>
>>> On 2008-02-16, Doug Freese > wrote:
>>>> "David" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> animals have no rights
>>>> And neither do plants. Whose says that plants don't have feelings. With
>>> I say there is no credible evidence that plants have feelings.
>> ANIMALS , in the wild, eat other animals though.
>> It is natural and normal to eat meat as a human being.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

But this sword cuts two ways:

"Appeal to nature is a commonly seen fallacy of
relevance consisting of a claim that something is good
or right because it is natural, or that something is
bad or wrong because it is unnatural. "

Very often in these newsgroups, "vegans" and other
breeds of vegetarian try to bolster their position by
claiming that meat eating is "unnatural" for humans.
First of all, they're wrong: eating meat is completely
natural for humans. Humans evolved as a meat eating
species. Secondly, their claim, which is wrong, would
do nothing to support their prior claim that eating
meat is wrong if done by humans.

Humans and their predecessor hominid species naturally
ate meat before the development of morality. "vegans"
are faced with the task of showing how the development
of morality somehow invalidated a biologically natural
function of eating meat. They've never been able to do it.

Cheese Wheels:
> ANIMALS , in the wild, eat other animals though.
> It is natural and normal to eat meat as a human being.

And humans "in the wild" in some primitive societies or outside
society altogether often kill each other, sometimes even eat each
other, and engage in all kinds of behaviors you'd find abhorrent and
thoroughly unwelcome.

Ethics is not the same as "what's natural". From some angles it looks
like an antidote to, or at least checks and balances against, natural
instincts and behaviors.

I eat other animals, con mucho gusto, and agree with your point that
in doing so we are acting within a well established tradition
throughout the animal kingdom for zillions of years - it's hardly as
if us uniquely diabolical humans invented oppression, "murder", and
consumption of other beings. Just saying, you can't expect people who
disagree with eating animals on an ethical basis to find "it's
natural" a very satisfying rebuttal.

P.S. Soylent Green is people.

On Feb 16, 1:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
> But this sword cuts two ways:
>
> "Appeal to nature is a commonly seen fallacy of
> relevance consisting of a claim that something is good
> or right because it is natural, or that something is
> bad or wrong because it is unnatural. "
>
> Very often in these newsgroups, "vegans" and other
> breeds of vegetarian try to bolster their position by
> claiming that meat eating is "unnatural" for humans.
> First of all, they're wrong: eating meat is completely
> natural for humans. Humans evolved as a meat eating
> species. Secondly, their claim, which is wrong, would
> do nothing to support their prior claim that eating
> meat is wrong if done by humans.
>
> Humans and their predecessor hominid species naturally
> ate meat before the development of morality. "vegans"
> are faced with the task of showing how the development
> of morality somehow invalidated a biologically natural
> function of eating meat. They've never been able to do it.

I've always been concerned over the fact that evolutionary theorists
attribute meat-eating to our species' increased brain volume and
power...would seem like there *was* a place for meat-eating...but
perhaps it's just another evolutionary vehicle which we should perhaps
abandon now??

On Feb 16, 1:32 pm, Elflord > wrote:
>
>
> I did some weight lifting before I started with the veg diet, then stopped
> for a while, then started again after being on the veg diet. I stopped lifting
> eventually because I was doing much better at running.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Elflord


Ah, I see. I would be giving up running, too, as it seems to really
exacerbate bad back symptoms, if it weren't for the fact that I just
love the activity, even though I can't even sprint anymore!

You know, I wonder...how come them great apes get so big and strong
simply on a mostly vegetarian diet?? I would have thought that their
muscles were like ours -- if so, there's definite proof one needn't be
a typical American meat-eater to be a strength athlete!

On Feb 16, 1:33 pm, Mr-Natural-Health <john-h-
> wrote:
>
>
> Way, way, way back in the pre-history of the smn newsgroup animal
> rights wackjobs took control of this forum. Which resulted in a
> movement to turn smn into a moderated newsgroup.

Hmm, really! Sounds bad, though I am interested in their health
claims about animal products being bad.

> That never happened. And, animal rights wack-jobs are still nuts,
> IMHO.
>
> As michael savage wrote: "Liberalism is a form of mental illness."

Speaking of mental problems, I find that conservatives lack a sense of
historical memory. I don't know of any conservative figure that's
ever advanced human society and civilization. Think about it: all the
leaders, in any field, are by definition liberals WRT their
discipline! Economics, the arts, science, politics,
philosophy...conservatives have **never** contributed to the
advancement of life! Think about that...name one conservative who
actually moved the world forward...it's amazing, though kind of
obvious once you realize it, since conservatives by definition do not
want change and wish to remain in the status quo...I can't think of
one conservative figure in *any* endeavor who made a direct positive
contribution to his or her field of expertise or interest.

I mean, it was almost certainly a liberal who said, hey guys, let's
get down from these trees....

> http://prosites-prs.homestead.com/

I hate sites that stall my system while loading Java or multimedia
unasked.

> You have to eat to live. And, that means animals have to die. Heck,
> you cannot even walk with killing some type of life form.
>
> Between me, and some animal it is going to be me every time.

That's a choice you make, but it's simply not true that animals must
be killed for food in order for us to live or be strong.

What I'm still uncertain about is whether children do need animal
products, even if only lacto-ovo fare, to grow to their full physical
and mental potential.

On Feb 16, 2:21 pm, Prisoner at War > wrote:
> > You have to eat to live. And, that means animals have to die. Heck,
> > you cannot even walk without killing some type of life form.
>
> > Between me, and some animal it is going to be me every time.
>
> That's a choice you make, but it's simply not true that animals must
> be killed for food in order for us to live or be strong.

I prefer to walk, myself.

I bet driving your automobile to work everyday has killed 1,000's of
lifeforms. Why do you discriminate?

It has been conclusively proven by research that a vegetarian diet
causes brain rot.

You have my condolences.

On Feb 16, 2:32 pm, Mr-Natural-Health <john-h-
> wrote:
>
>
> I prefer to walk, myself.

Yes, walking and bicycling should probably even be enforced!

> I bet driving your automobile to work everyday has killed 1,000's of
> lifeforms. Why do you discriminate?

I don't drive (not that I can't; I usually don't), but as to the point
of your question, no, bacteria and bugs don't count in the same way
that an embryo or (very primitive?) fetus doesn't for me.

> It has been conclusively proven by research that a vegetarian diet
> causes brain rot.
>
> You have my condolences.

My my, such defensiveness...sounds like you're fighting against your
better self more than any imagined vegetarian or vegan agitator....

On Feb 16, 2:37 pm, No one > wrote:
>
>
> Michael Savage is mentally ill. He and Ann Coulter are vying for the
> "biggest nutcase" award.


How come no one (heh, no pun intended) seems to ever bring up the fact
that political conservatism has made *no* contribution to society?
I'm really hard-pressed to find even one example of a lasting societal
benefit that's come about as a result of political conservatism. I
wasn't a poli-sci major but I don't recall any conservative actually
advancing civilization as a direct result of their policies.

Now that's not to say there haven't been very otherwise intelligent
conservatives, but in their field of expertise or interest, I can't
think of one conservative figure who's ever advanced their field,
whether it involves war or peace, art or science, business or
politics. Somebody name someone, please! I've been realizing that
there isn't any, not a one whatsoever! Even in the military, where
conservatives overwhelmingly predominate, it's the "liberal" or
"radical" thinkers of military strategy and application who have
changed warfare.

The plight of animals in our food industry is a valid concern. I have loved
dogs, yet in Asia they would be slaughterred for food. It is not a huge
jump to assume that other animals are worthy of considerate handling.

However, consider the life of these animals in nature. The weak and the
unlucky are taken by preditors. Many animals live in constant vigilance for
their very lives 24/7. A life of fear ended with being eaten alive.

My feeling is that the food industry is necessary to proper human nutrition.
The answer is not to destroy one's health by pretending to be an herbivore.
Supporting regulation of the handling of animals in the food industry makes
more sense.

If I had not eaten for a week, and had the opportunty to kill and eat a cute
bunny rabbit, I would forget about animal rights. Maybe, I would reflect on
things later, but the rabbit would still be dead.

On 2008-02-16, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Elflord wrote:
>> On 2008-02-16, Cheese Wheels > wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:46:17 +0000 (UTC), Elflord >
>>> wrote this stuff here :
>>>
>>>> On 2008-02-16, Doug Freese > wrote:
>>>>> "David" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> animals have no rights
>>>>> And neither do plants. Whose says that plants don't have feelings. With
>>>> I say there is no credible evidence that plants have feelings.
>>> ANIMALS , in the wild, eat other animals though.
>>> It is natural and normal to eat meat as a human being.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
>
> But this sword cuts two ways:

Not in this thread, it doesn't.

> "Appeal to nature is a commonly seen fallacy of
> relevance consisting of a claim that something is good
> or right because it is natural, or that something is
> bad or wrong because it is unnatural. "
>
> Very often in these newsgroups, "vegans" and other
> breeds of vegetarian try to bolster their position by
> claiming that meat eating is "unnatural" for humans.

I agree that if someone were to make that argument, it would
be fallacious.

However, it is not at all clear who you are arguing with, because
you don't cite your source. A fierce rebuttal of a fallacious
argument from an uncited source is a digression at best, but since
you post this in response to me as though it's supposed to be some
kind of rebuttal, it also has the unfortunate appearance of a
"straw man" argument.

[ digression snipped ]

> Humans and their predecessor hominid species naturally
> ate meat before the development of morality. "vegans"
> are faced with the task of showing how the development
> of morality somehow invalidated a biologically natural
> function of eating meat. They've never been able to do it.

First, unless these vegans are trying to recruit you, the only "task" they are
faced with is finding good vegan food. They do not owe you an explanation.

But I'd like to address this anyway. Omnivore diets don't survive on the basis
of morality, they survive because they make sense on a cost-benefit basis for
most people living in today's societies.

Based on the prevalence of laws against animal cruelty in nearly every civilised
country, I would argue that the debate on the desirability of causing less harm
to animals is largely settled discussion. That doesn't "invalidate" eating meat
but it does make a veg diet a commendable choice for those who are willing to
swim against the societal inertia.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

On Feb 16, 2:37 pm, No one > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> Mr-Natural-Health > wrote:
> > As michael savage wrote: "Liberalism is a form of mental illness."
> >http://prosites-prs.homestead.com/
>
> Michael Savage is mentally ill. He and Ann Coulter are vying for the
> "biggest nutcase" award.

Savage is a man of Science. Plus, he does not like his write up in
Wikipedia.

http://www.nndb.com/people/588/000044456/
University: BS Biology, Queens College New York (1963)
University: MS Anthropology, University of Hawaii (1970)
University: MS Ethnobotany, University of Hawaii (1972)
University: PhD Nutritional Ethnomedicine, University of
California at Berkeley (1978)

Author of many books:

Plant a Tree: A Working Guide to Regreening America (1975)
Bugs in the Peanut Butter: Dangers in Everyday Food (1976)
Man's Useful Plants (1976)
The Taster's Guide to Beer: Brews and Breweries of the World (1977)
Earth Medicine, Earth Food: Plant Remedies, Drugs, and Natural Foods
of the North American Indians (1980)
Weiner's Herbal: The Guide to Herb Medicine (1980)
The Way of the Skeptical Nutritionist: A Strategy for Designing Your
Own Nutritional Profile (1981)
The Art of Feeding Children Well (1982, with Kathleen Goss)
Vital Signs (1983)
Nutrition Against Aging (1983)
Secrets of Fijian Medicine (1983)
Getting Off Cocaine (1984)
The People's Herbal: A Family Guide to Herbal Home Remedies (1984)
The Complete Book of Homeopathy (1986, with Kathleen Goss)
Maximum Immunity (1986)
Reducing the Risk of Alzheimer's (1989)
Earth Medicine, Earth Food (1990)
The Herbal Bible: A Family Guide to Herbal Home Remedies (1992)
Healing Children Naturally (1993, with Kathleen Goss)
Herbs That Heal: Prescription for Herbal Healing (1994, with Janet
Weiner)
The Antioxidant Cookbook (1995)
The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our
Borders, Language and Culture (2003)
The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our
Schools, Faith, and Military (2004)
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder (2005)
The Political Zoo (2006)

Elflord wrote:
> On 2008-02-16, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Elflord wrote:
>>> On 2008-02-16, Cheese Wheels > wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:46:17 +0000 (UTC), Elflord >
>>>> wrote this stuff here :
>>>>
>>>>> On 2008-02-16, Doug Freese > wrote:
>>>>>> "David" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> animals have no rights
>>>>>> And neither do plants. Whose says that plants don't have feelings. With
>>>>> I say there is no credible evidence that plants have feelings.
>>>> ANIMALS , in the wild, eat other animals though.
>>>> It is natural and normal to eat meat as a human being.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
>> But this sword cuts two ways:
>
> Not in this thread, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.


>
>> "Appeal to nature is a commonly seen fallacy of
>> relevance consisting of a claim that something is good
>> or right because it is natural, or that something is
>> bad or wrong because it is unnatural. "
>>
>> Very often in these newsgroups, "vegans" and other
>> breeds of vegetarian try to bolster their position by
>> claiming that meat eating is "unnatural" for humans.
>
> I agree that if someone were to make that argument, it would
> be fallacious.

A moron named lesley who posts in
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian and alt.food.vegan under
the highly inapt name "pearl" makes that argument all
the time.


>
> However, it is not at all clear who you are arguing with, because
> you don't cite your source. A fierce rebuttal of a fallacious
> argument from an uncited source is a digression at best, but since
> you post this in response to me as though it's supposed to be some
> kind of rebuttal, it also has the unfortunate appearance of a
> "straw man" argument.

Look at any post by "pearl" in the thread "Destruction
of rainforest accelerates despite outcry" in a.a.e.v.


>> Humans and their predecessor hominid species naturally
>> ate meat before the development of morality. "vegans"
>> are faced with the task of showing how the development
>> of morality somehow invalidated a biologically natural
>> function of eating meat. They've never been able to do it.
>
> First, unless these vegans are trying to recruit you, the only "task" they are
> faced with is finding good vegan food. They do not owe you an explanation.

"veganism" is inherently evangelistic. They owe an
explanation.

Prisoner at War wrote:
>
> I'm still thinking about it, and it's 50/50 between health benefits
> and animal rights...so can someone explain why, um, "whole-hog" vegan
> instead of simply lacto-ovo vegetarian?? I mean, I was never sure how
> animals would be harmed by us using their surplus milk and
> unfertilized eggs (assuming they are free-range, etc.), but now I've
> just found out that eggs and dairy is supposed to be *harmful* to us
> somehow???

Compared to what? Meat?

You can have a perfectly healthful diet, even as a body builder,
on ovo-lacto vegetarianism. It's much more difficult to
formulate a good diet as a vegan, but it is possible. It would
require you to develop a good knowledge of the vitamins and
amino acids that a vegan diet would lack, and what sources of
those nutrients would be acceptable.

Serious body-builders follow a high-protein, low-fat diet.
Egg whites are an excellent source of low-fat complete protein,
so that covers all of the amino acids.

The main vitamin concern is B-12. A little runny egg yolk will
cover that need (B-12 is destroyed by heat, so fully cooked
egg yolk is not nearly so good a source, but that has to be
balanced against the salmonella risk from undercooked eggs).
Egg yolk contains a significant amount of cholesterol, so it
should be used sparingly. Cheese also provides B-12, but it
is rich in saturated fat and therefore is a cardiovascular
disease risk.

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Prisoner at War wrote:
>> I'm still thinking about it, and it's 50/50 between health benefits
>> and animal rights...so can someone explain why, um, "whole-hog" vegan
>> instead of simply lacto-ovo vegetarian?? I mean, I was never sure how
>> animals would be harmed by us using their surplus milk and
>> unfertilized eggs (assuming they are free-range, etc.), but now I've
>> just found out that eggs and dairy is supposed to be *harmful* to us
>> somehow???
>
> Compared to what? Meat?
>
> You can have a perfectly healthful diet, even as a body builder,
> on ovo-lacto vegetarianism.

That isn't vegetarianism at all. Eggs and milk are
animal protein products - period.


> It's much more difficult to
> formulate a good diet as a vegan, but it is possible. It would
> require you to develop a good knowledge of the vitamins and
> amino acids that a vegan diet would lack, and what sources of
> those nutrients would be acceptable.
>
> Serious body-builders follow a high-protein, low-fat diet.
> Egg whites are an excellent source of low-fat complete protein,
> so that covers all of the amino acids.
>
> The main vitamin concern is B-12. A little runny egg yolk will
> cover that need (B-12 is destroyed by heat, so fully cooked
> egg yolk is not nearly so good a source, but that has to be
> balanced against the salmonella risk from undercooked eggs).
> Egg yolk contains a significant amount of cholesterol, so it
> should be used sparingly. Cheese also provides B-12, but it
> is rich in saturated fat and therefore is a cardiovascular
> disease risk.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> >
> > You can have a perfectly healthful diet, even as a body builder,
> > on ovo-lacto vegetarianism.
>
> That isn't vegetarianism at all. Eggs and milk are
> animal protein products - period.

That's the religious point of view, yes.

I was responding to the nutritional aspects.

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> You can have a perfectly healthful diet, even as a body builder,
>>> on ovo-lacto vegetarianism.
>> That isn't vegetarianism at all. Eggs and milk are
>> animal protein products - period.
>
> That's the religious point of view, yes.

No, that's a fact.


>
> I was responding to the nutritional aspects.

Eggs and milk are not vegetables in any aspect.

On 2008-02-16, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>> Not in this thread, it doesn't.
>
> Yes, it does.

It's not clear what your point is (you don't appear to have one). If you're
trying to argue that there are some vegans who make dumb arguments, I won't
contest that, but I don't find the observation interesting or relevant.

> A moron named lesley who posts in
> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian and alt.food.vegan under
> the highly inapt name "pearl" makes that argument all
> the time.

I cannot account for what "pearl" or "lesley" post.

> "veganism" is inherently evangelistic. They owe an
> explanation.

It isn't, they don't, but I provided one anyway. Since you snipped my explanation,
and didn't further inquire, I hope that I have settled this perceived "debt" to
your satisfaction.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

On Feb 16, 4:08 pm, "Doug Freese" > wrote:
>
>
> Why? There is nothing wrong with meat in general unless we pump it
> full of roids etc. The greedy meat farmer wants the animal to go from
> birth to full maturity in 10 minutes in a closet. The meat that was
> chomped may years back we're not abused by man. If anything, return to
> natural range fed.
>
> -D

Even if the animals didn't suffer and even if there was no inherent
danger to meat-eating as some vegans claim, I do think the whole
notion of depriving another living thing of life is morally
problematic. I mean, scientists have even confirmed that cows have
accents! Yeah, no joke, a cow in England moos differently than one in
Wales!

And how about lobsters...apparently, these things never age!
Seriously, they just keep growing and growing...no one has ever
observed a lobster to die of strictly old age...their cells don't ever
stop dividing for some reason -- which means, in effect, that they
never "age" because they're always regenerating...I mean, stuff like
that causes a kind of wonder and awe at the phenomenon of *life
itself*...and...well, it just becomes harder and harder (though
admittedly not yet hard enough) to justify my consumption of living
beings when it's not necessary at all, now that I read more and more
about bodybuilders and strength athletes who are well-developed
despite vegetarian/vegan diets -- indeed, they all seem to claim that
they've made such progress precisely because of such diets!

So once again it's a whole nexus between animal suffering, health
benefits, and just plain morality that makes it harder and harder for
me to continue eating meat...it's so weird, but this has only just
happened like a day or two ago when I just, like, woke up and the
thought simply arose in my mind to go vegetarian...and it's not like
I'd just seen a really graphic snuff video of animals at the
slaughterhouse or something...it's like waking up once day to find
you've lost weight or gained an extra inch on your arms...I mean, this
kind of a quality makes it feel so *true*...I'm not going on a sudden
surge of emotions here, actually...I just woke up and thought, felt,
that I shouldn't be eating meat.

I'm just curious now about why vegans don't think lacto-ovo is good
enough. I'm also curious whether children could grow to their full
potentials on vegan or even vegetarian diets. And lastly, I'm curious
what vegetarians and vegans might make of their meat-eating pets! Any
vegans with pet snakes here??

On Feb 16, 3:01 pm, "Cubit" > wrote:
> The plight of animals in our food industry is a valid concern. I have loved
> dogs, yet in Asia they would be slaughterred for food. It is not a huge
> jump to assume that other animals are worthy of considerate handling.

Even though it was recently claimed by research scientists that
lobsters have no way of feeling pain (like when dropped live into a
boiling pot), I'm still bothered by the moral issue of taking
another's life to sustain my own -- though I'm much less concerned
about non-mammals, to be sure.

> However, consider the life of these animals in nature. The weak and the
> unlucky are taken by preditors. Many animals live in constant vigilance for
> their very lives 24/7. A life of fear ended with being eaten alive.

Yes, I agree. I wonder what vegetarians/vegans say to that, though I
imagine it might be what I would say right now -- I do what *I* can.

> My feeling is that the food industry is necessary to proper human nutrition.
> The answer is not to destroy one's health by pretending to be an herbivore.
> Supporting regulation of the handling of animals in the food industry makes
> more sense.

Sounds like a good compromise, except that no industry gives a damn
about people, much less animals. There's even been some expose of
free-range chickens, I understand, where the chickens are not caged
but that's all and thus given the appellation "free-range."

IOW, I'm not sure a mindset which sees people as just cogs in the
machine could care about animals at all.

> If I had not eaten for a week, and had the opportunty to kill and eat a cute
> bunny rabbit, I would forget about animal rights. Maybe, I would reflect on
> things later, but the rabbit would still be dead.

Yes, perhaps -- but obviously none of us usenet typists are anywhere
near such a situation.

So the issue remains for me: meat-eating is immoral...until I can wean
myself off it. Which, like a junk-food snarfing fatbody, I've
recently begun slowly doing.

I hope my muscles don't stop growing or start disappearing...but it
seems like they won't.

On Feb 16, 3:32 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>
>
> Compared to what? Meat?

Compared to a vegan diet. Apparently eggs and dairy are also bad for
human consumption???

I used to think that was just extreme, but someone I really respect
has recently made that comment and I wonder what he meant.

> You can have a perfectly healthful diet, even as a body builder,
> on ovo-lacto vegetarianism. It's much more difficult to
> formulate a good diet as a vegan, but it is possible. It would
> require you to develop a good knowledge of the vitamins and
> amino acids that a vegan diet would lack, and what sources of
> those nutrients would be acceptable.

Yeah, that's another issue, too, the practical one: I can barely bring
myself to grocery-shop and cook, much less go on a treasure hunt, as
it were, looking for each individual vitamin and mineral!

Still, I feel really certain that I just have to go vegetarian...I
don't know why, there's no obvious reason, but I just woke up like two
or three days ago and my thinking simply changed. Weird. Kinda like
how one day in the gym you just don't bother with the free-weights and
decide to try a machine (or vice-versa). What's got me really
convinced about the "correctness" of all this is that there's no great
surge of emotion involved at all...I just want it, but there's none of
the usual intensity of emotions behind a desire. Isn't that just
weird? Even just going to the gym often requires that I psych myself
up a little bit. But not with this veggie thing.

> Serious body-builders follow a high-protein, low-fat diet.
> Egg whites are an excellent source of low-fat complete protein,
> so that covers all of the amino acids.

Tofu has 'em all, too, right? A complete protein as well -- though
one might have to eat more of it, as measure by weight, say, than one
would of eggs...?

> The main vitamin concern is B-12. A little runny egg yolk will
> cover that need (B-12 is destroyed by heat, so fully cooked
> egg yolk is not nearly so good a source, but that has to be
> balanced against the salmonella risk from undercooked eggs).

Apparently liquid egg whites takes care of that somehow....

> Egg yolk contains a significant amount of cholesterol, so it
> should be used sparingly. Cheese also provides B-12, but it
> is rich in saturated fat and therefore is a cardiovascular
> disease risk.

Yeah, thanks for the reminder. This'll take some work. It's quite a
curiosity that I'm not put off by that, for a change.

On Feb 16, 4:16 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
> No, that's a fact.
>
> Eggs and milk are not vegetables in any aspect.

Semantics. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with the label "lacto-
ovo vegetarianism."

On Feb 16, 8:46*am, Elflord > wrote:
> On 2008-02-16, Doug Freese > wrote:

> I say there is no credible evidence that plants have feelings.

Mimosa pudica has feelings -- it reacts to being touched.

--
Ron

On Feb 16, 3:32*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Prisoner at War wrote:
>
> > I'm still thinking about it, and it's 50/50 between health benefits
> > and animal rights...so can someone explain why, um, "whole-hog" vegan
> > instead of simply lacto-ovo vegetarian?? *I mean, I was never sure how
> > animals would be harmed by us using their surplus milk and
> > unfertilized eggs (assuming they are free-range, etc.), but now I've
> > just found out that eggs and dairy is supposed to be *harmful* to us
> > somehow???
>
> Compared to what? *Meat?
>
> You can have a perfectly healthful diet, even as a body builder,
> on ovo-lacto vegetarianism. *It's much more difficult to
> formulate a good diet as a vegan, but it is possible. *It would
> require you to develop a good knowledge of the vitamins and
> amino acids that a vegan diet would lack, and what sources of
> those nutrients would be acceptable.
>
> Serious body-builders follow a high-protein, low-fat diet.
> Egg whites are an excellent source of low-fat complete protein,
> so that covers all of the amino acids.
>
> The main vitamin concern is B-12. *A little runny egg yolk will
> cover that need (B-12 is destroyed by heat, so fully cooked
> egg yolk is not nearly so good a source, but that has to be
> balanced against the salmonella risk from undercooked eggs).
> Egg yolk contains a significant amount of cholesterol, so it
> should be used sparingly. *Cheese also provides B-12, but it
> is rich in saturated fat and therefore is a cardiovascular
> disease risk.

Nothing wrong with an egg a day. And you don't have to kill the bird
or treat it cruelly to get the egg.

"There is only a weak relationship between the amount of cholesterol a
person consumes and their blood
cholesterol levels or risk for heart disease." If one has diabetes or
high cholesterol, maybe an egg a day
wouldn't be such good advice.

"Recent research by Harvard investigators has shown that moderate egg
consumption--up to one a day--
does not increase heart disease risk in healthy individuals.(5) While
it's true that egg yolks have a lot of
cholesterol--and, therefore may slightly affect blood cholesterol
levels--eggs also contain nutrients that
may help lower the risk for heart disease, including protein, vitamins
B12 and D, riboflavin, and folate.

So, when eaten in moderation, eggs can be part of a healthy diet.
People with diabetes, though, should
probably limit themselves to no more than two or three eggs a week, as
the Nurses' Health Study
found that for such individuals, an egg a day might increase the risk
for heart disease. Similarly,
people who have difficulty controlling their blood cholesterol may
also want to be cautious about eating
egg yolks and choose foods made with egg whites instead."

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html

Elflord wrote:

> On 2008-02-16, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>> "veganism" is inherently evangelistic. They owe an
>> explanation.
>
> It isn't, they don't,

It is, and they do. You're full of shit.

"I'm just curious now about why vegans don't think lacto-ovo is good
enough. "

"There is only a weak relationship between the amount of cholesterol a
person consumes and their blood cholesterol levels or risk for heart disease"

'Plasma lipids and diet groups
...
The most striking results from the analysis were the strong positive
associations between increasing consumption of animal fats and
ischemic heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for
the highest third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects
with no prior disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat,
2.77 (1.25, 6.13) for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96)
for dietary cholesterol; P for trend: <0.01, <0.01, and <0.001,
respectively]. In contrast, no protective effects were noted for
dietary fiber, fish, or alcohol consumption. Consumption of eggs
and cheese were both positively associated with ischemic heart
disease mortality in these subjects (P for trend, < 0.01 for both
foods).
...'
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S

'There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
rates. - Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative
diseases: perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59
(5 Suppl):1153S-1161S.'

'William C. Roberts, M.D., Professor and Director of the Baylor
University Medical Center, and Editor in Chief of the American
Journal of Cardiology, stated in this peer-reviewed journal,

Thus, although we think we are one and we act as if we are one,
human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals
to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which
contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for
human beings, who are natural herbivores.[11] [- frugivores]
...
[11] Roberts, William C. American Journal of Cardiology.
Volume 66, P. 896. 1 Oct, 1990 .
...'
http://animalliberationfront.com/Phi...f_property.htm

Cancer:

'*Meta-Analysis: "Milk consumption is a risk factor for prostate
cancer.... In conclusion, we found a positive association between
milk consumption and prostate cancer."
Nutr Cancer. 2004;48(T):22-7. [Search Pubmed.org for 15203374.]

* "Among the food items we examined, cheese was most closely
correlated with the incidence of testicular cancer at ages 20-39,
followed by animal fats and milk.... Concerning prostatic cancer,
milk was most closely correlated with its incidence, followed by
meat and coffee.... The food that was most closely correlated
with the mortality rate of prostatic cancer was milk, followed by
coffee, cheese and animal fats." Int J Cancer. 2002
Mar 10;98(2):262-7. [Search Pubmed.org for 11857417.]
...
* "Suggestive positive associations were also seen between fatal
prostate cancer and the consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and
meat. There was an orderly dose-response between each of the
four animal products and risk." Am J Epidemiol. 1984
Aug: 120(2):244-50. [Search PubMed.org for 6465122.]
...
* "Positive correlations between foods and cancer mortality rates
were particularly strong in the case of meats and milk for breast
cancer, milk for prostate and ovarian cancer, and meats for colon
cancer." Cancer 1986 Dec 1;58(11):2363-71. [Search Pubmed.org
for 3768832.]
.....'
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...57/ai_n7638034

'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
(white meat - fish, poultry)
...
Strong positive trends were shown for red meat intake among
subjects who consumed low levels (0-<1 time/week) of white meat
and for white meat intake among subjects who consumed low levels
of (0-<1 time/week) of red meat. The associations remained evident
after further categorization of the red meat (relative to no red meat
intake): relative risk (RR) for >0-<1 time/week = 1.38, 95 percent
CI 0.86-2.20; RR for 1-4 times/week = 1.77, 95 percent CI 1.05-
2.99; and RR for >4 times/week = 1.98, 95 percent CI 1.0-3.89
and white meat (relative to no white meat intake): RR for >0-<1
time/week = 1.55, 95 percent CI 0.97-2.50; RR for 1-4 times/
week = 3.37, 95 percent CI 1.60-7.11; and RR for >4 times/week
= 2.74, 95 percent CI 0.37-20.19 variables to higher intake levels.
...'
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf

'I'm also curious whether children could grow to their full
potentials on vegan or even vegetarian diets. "

'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are
appropriate for all stages of the lifecycle, including during
pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence.
Appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful,
nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the
prevention and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain
diseases' are the killer epidemics of today - heart disease,
strokes, cancers, diabetes etc.

This is the view of the world's most prestigious health
advisory body, the American Dietetic Association and
Dietitians of Canada, after a review of world literature.
....'
http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html

'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators
and others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is
leading to policy recommendations. He mentioned three:

* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet,
the greater the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of
known and unknown nutrient needs.

* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity,
a healthful and nutritionally complete diet can be attained
without animal-based food.

* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal
heating, salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl..._Study_II.html

"I've always been concerned over the fact that evolutionary theorists
attribute meat-eating to our species' increased brain volume and
power...would seem like there *was* a place for meat-eating..."

'Brown says that pushing the emergence of Homo sapiens from
about 160,000 years ago back to about 195,000 years ago "is
significant because the cultural aspects of humanity in most cases
appear much later in the record - only 50,000 years ago - which
would mean 150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff,
such as evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, anything to do with
music (flutes and that sort of thing), needles, even tools. This
stuff all comes in very late, except for stone knife blades, which
appeared between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, depending on
whom you believe."

Fleagle adds: "There is a huge debate in the archeological literature
regarding the first appearance of modern aspects of behavior such
as bone carving for religious reasons, or tools (harpoons and things),
ornamentation (bead jewelry and such), drawn images, arrowheads.
They only appear as a coherent package about 50,000 years ago,
and the first modern humans that left Africa between 50,000 and
40,000 years ago seem to have had the full set. As modern human
anatomy is documented at earlier and earlier sites, it becomes
evident that there was a great time gap between the appearance of
the modern skeleton and 'modern behavior.'"
...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0223122209.htm

'Frugivory is an intellectually demanding feeding behaviour demanding
the development of strategic planning, whereas the folivores feeding
behavior engages relatively simple tactics. According to Caroline
E. G. Tutin et al. 'Allometric analyses suggest a relation between brain
size (relative to body mass) and diet, with frugivores having relatively
larger brains . . . Maintaining a frugivorous diet presents huge
intellectual challenges of memory and spatial mapping compared with
the relative ease of harvesting abundant foliage foods.
..
Anthropologies 'Man The Hunter' concept is still used as a reason
for justifying the consumption of animal flesh as food. This has even
extended as far as suggesting that animal foods have enabled or
caused human brain enlargement. Allegedly this is because of the
greater availability of certain kinds of fats and the sharing behaviour
associated with eating raw animal food. The reality is that through
natural selection, the environmental factors our species have been
exposed to selected for greater brain development, long before raw
animal flesh became a significant part of our ancient ancestors diet.
The elephant has also developed a larger brain than the human brain,
on a diet primarily consisting of fermented foliage and fruits. It is my
hypothesis that it is eating fruits and perhaps blossoms, that has, if
anything, contributed the most in allowing humans to develop
relatively larger brains than other species. The ability of humans to
develop normal brains with a dietary absence of animal products is
also noted.
...
Given a plentiful supply of fruits the mother does not have to
risk expending much of her effort obtaining difficult to get foods
like raw animal flesh, insects, nuts and roots. Furthermore, fruits
contain abundant supplies of sugars which the brain solely uses
for energy. The mother who's genes better dispose her for an
easy life on fruits would have an advantage of those who do not,
and similarly, the fruit species which is the best food for mother
and child nutrition, would tend to be selected for. There is now
little doubt amongst distinguished biologists that fruit has been
the most significant dietary constituent in the evolution of humans.
...
What are the essential biochemical properties of human metabolism
which distinguish us from our non-human primate relatives? One,
at least, is our uniquely low protein requirement as described by
Olav T. Oftedal who says:

"Human milk has the lowest protein concentration (about 7% of
energy) of any primate milk that has been studied. In general, it
appears that primates produce small daily amounts of a relatively
dilute milk (Oftedal 1984). Thus the protein and energy demands
of lactation are probably low for primates by comparison to the
demands experienced by many other mammals." The nutritional
consequences of foraging in primates: the relationship of nutrient
intakes to nutrient requirements, p.161 Philosophical Transactions:
Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270

One might imagine that given our comparatively 'low protein' milk,
we would not be able to grow very fast. In fact, as the image on the
right shows, human infants show very rapid growth, especially of
the brain, during the first year of life. Human infants are born a full
year earlier than they would be projected to, based on comparisons
with other animals. This is because of the large size their brains
reach. A human infant grows at the rate of 9 kg/year at birth, falling
to 3.5 kg/year a year later. Thereafter its growth rate is about half
that of a chimpanzees at 2 kg/year vs. about 4.5 kg/year. Humans
are relatively half as bulky as the other great apes, thus allowing
nutrients to be directed at brain development and the diet to be less
demanding. The advantages of such an undemanding metabolism
are clear. Humans delay their growth because they 'catch up' later,
during puberty as seen on the graph. Even so, the growth rate never
reaches that of a newborn infant who grows best by only eating
breast milk.
....
According to Exequiel M. Patiño and Juan T. Borda 'Primate milks
contain on the average 13% solids, of which 6.5% is lactose, 3.8%
lipids, 2.4% proteins, and 0.2% ash. Lactose is the largest
component of the solids, and protein is a lesser one'. They also say
that 'milks of humans and Old World monkeys have the highest
percentages of sugar (an average of 6.9%)' and when comparing
human and non human primate milks, they have similar proportions
of solids, but human milks has more sugar and fat whereas the non
human primate milks have much more protein. They continue 'In
fact, human milk has the lowest concentration of proteins (1.0%)
of all the species of primates.' Patiño and Borda present their
research in order to allow other primatologists to construct artificial
milks as a substitute for the real thing for captive primates. It is to
be expected that these will have similar disasterous consequences
as the feeding of artificial bovine, and other false milks, has had on
human infants.

Patiño and Borda also present a table which compares primate
milks. This table is shown below and identifies the distinctive
lower protein requirements of humans. [see link]

Undoubtedly these gross metabolic differences between humans
and other mammals must have system wide implications for our
metabolism. They allow us to feed heavily on fruits, and may restrict
other species from choosing them. Never the less, many nutritional
authorities suggest that adult humans need nearly double (12% of
calorific value) their breast milk levels of protein, although it is
accepted that infant protein requirements for growth are triple those
of adults. The use of calorific values might also confuse the issue
since human milk is highly dilute (1% protein), and clearly eating
foods that might be 25 times this concentration, such as meat, are
massive excesses if constantly ingested. Certainly the body might
manage to deal with this excess without suffering immediate
problems, but this is not proof of any beneficial adaptation. It also
needs to be pointed out that berries, such as raspberries, may yield
up to 21% of their calorific value from protein, but are not regarded
as 'good sources' of protein by nutritional authorites. There are
millions of fruits available to wild animals, and blanked
generalisations about the qualities of certain food groups, need to
be examined carefully, due to some misconceptions arising from
the limited commercial fruits which we experience in the domestic
state.

The weaning of a fruigivorous primate would clearly demand the
supply of a food with nutritional characteristics similar to those
of the mothers milk. We must realise that supportive breast
feeding may continue for up to 9 or 10 years in some 'primitive'
peoples, and this is more likely to be representative of our
evolutionary history than the 6 month limit often found in modern
cultures. This premature weaning should strike any aware
naturalist as being a disasterous activity, inflicting untold damage.
However, what we do know of the consequences is that it
reduces the IQ and disease resistance of the child, and that the
substitute of unnatural substances, like wheat and dairy products,
is pathogenic.

Finally we need to compare some food group compositions with
human milk in order to establish if any statistical similarity exists.
This would demonstrate that modern humans have inherited their
ancient fruigivorous metabolism. This data is examined below in
the final sections of the article.
.....'
http://tinyurl.com/dahps

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> Elflord wrote:
>
> > On 2008-02-16, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >> "veganism" is inherently evangelistic. They owe an
> >> explanation.
> >
> > It isn't, they don't,
>
> It is, and they do. You're full of shit.

'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'

The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

"Prisoner at War" > wrote in message
...
> On Feb 16, 1:32 pm, Elflord > wrote:
> >
> >
> > I did some weight lifting before I started with the veg diet, then stopped
> > for a while, then started again after being on the veg diet. I stopped lifting
> > eventually because I was doing much better at running.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > --
> > Elflord
>
>
> Ah, I see. I would be giving up running, too, as it seems to really
> exacerbate bad back symptoms, if it weren't for the fact that I just
> love the activity, even though I can't even sprint anymore!
>
> You know, I wonder...how come them great apes get so big and strong
> simply on a mostly vegetarian diet?? I would have thought that their
> muscles were like ours -- if so, there's definite proof one needn't be
> a typical American meat-eater to be a strength athlete!

This may be of interest too..

'The patas monkey (Cercopithecus patas) is the most terrestrial
of guenons, and is one of the most terrestrial primates. It inhabits
open grasslands and marginal areas of savannah woodlands,
avoiding predation primarily by camouflage, stealth, and vigilance.
Its reddish pelage blends into the predominantly red African soils.
Adult males perform decoy and defensive behaviors. Male patas
monkeys, capable of sustaining running speeds of 50 km per
hour, are unique among nonhuman primates. Even though some
mammalian predators can manage short dashes of more than
100 km per hour, no predator on the African savannah can
outrun an adult male patas except in ambush.
...
The male patas monkey performs a role of vigilance and decoy.
When a troop approaches a dangerous area, such as a water
source (ambush predators find water sources convenient places
to hunt), the male approaches first and is not joined by the group
until he finds it safe and proceeds to drink. If a predator is
encountered in a context dangerous to the troop, the male may
run near the predator in a conspicuous display. If the predator
gives chase, the male runs just fast enough to maintain a safety
margin against a sudden dash by the hunter as pursuit lures the
danger away from the troop. [..] Patas monkeys forage
throughout the grasslands eating seeds, shoots, fruits, berries,
gums, and beans from savannah grasses shrubs and trees. The
troop disperses widely in relaxed circumstances so that adjacent
individuals are sometimes out of sight of each other. Troops are
territorial and their home ranges often exceed 5,000 ha. Patas
day ranges are second in size only to humans among primates.
....'
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblet/ant301/eight.html

"hypothesis that it is eating fruits and perhaps blossoms, that has, if
anything, contributed the most in allowing humans to develop
relatively larger brains than other species. The ability of humans to
develop normal brains with a dietary absence of animal products is
also noted."

Not so say those whose study such things, switch to including meat led
to larger brain:

Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley
anthropologist specializing in diet

By Patricia McBroom, Public Affairs

BERKELEY-- Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of
Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in
their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of
plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University
of California, Berkeley.

It was this new meat diet, full of densely-packed nutrients, that
provided the catalyst for human evolution, particularly the growth of
the brain, said Katharine Milton, an authority on primate diet.

Without meat, said Milton, it's unlikely that proto humans could have
secured enough energy and nutrition from the plants available in their
African environment at that time to evolve into the active, sociable,
intelligent creatures they became. Receding forests would have
deprived them of the more nutritious leaves and fruits that
forest-dwelling primates survive on, said Milton.

Her thesis complements the discovery last month by UC Berkeley
professor Tim White and others that early human species were
butchering and eating animal meat as long ago as 2.5 million years.
Milton's article integrates dietary strategy with the evolution of
human physiology to argue that meat eating was routine. It is
published this month in the journal "Evolutionary Anthropology"
(Vol.8, #1).

Milton said that her theories do not reflect on today's vegetarian
diets, which can be completely adequate, given modern knowledge of
nutrition.

"We know a lot about nutrition now and can design a very satisfactory
vegetarian diet," said Milton, a professor in the Department of
Environmental Science, Policy & Management.

But she added that the adequacy of a vegetarian diet depends either on
modern scientific knowledge or on traditional food habits, developed
over many generations, in which people have worked out a complete diet
by putting different foods together.

In many parts of the world where people have little access to meat,
they have run the risk of malnutrition, said Milton. This happened,
for instance, in Southeast Asia where people relied heavily on a
single plant food, polished rice, and developed the nutritional
disease, beriberi. Closer to home, in the Southern United States, many
people dependent largely on corn meal developed the nutritional
disease, pellagra.

Milton argues that meat supplied early humans not only with all the
essential amino acids, but also with many vitamins, minerals and other
nutrients they required, allowing them to exploit marginal, low
quality plant foods, like roots - foods that have few nutrients but
lots of calories. These calories, or energy, fueled the expansion of
the human brain and, in addition, permitted human ancestors to
increase in body size while remaining active and social.

"Once animal matter entered the human diet as a dependable staple, the
overall nutrient content of plant foods could drop drastically, if
need be, so long as the plants supplied plenty of calories for
energy," said Milton.

The brain is a relentless consumer of calories, said Milton. It needs
glucose 24 hours a day. Animal protein probably did not provide many
of those calories, which were more likely to come from carbohydrates,
she said.

Buffered against nutritional deficiency by meat, human ancestors also
could intensify their use of plant foods with toxic compounds such as
cyanogenic glycosides, foods other primates would have avoided, said
Milton. These compounds can produce deadly cyanide in the body, but
are neutralized by methionine and cystine, sulfur-containing amino
acids present in meat. Sufficient methionine is difficult

to find in plants. Most domesticated grains - wheat, rice, maize,
barley, rye and millet - contain this cyanogenic compound as do many
beans and widely-eaten root crops such as taro and manioc.

Since plant foods available in the dry and deforested early human
environment had become less nutritious, meat was critical for weaned
infants, said Milton. She explained that small infants could not have
processed enough bulky plant material to get both nutrients for growth
and energy for brain development.

"I disagree with those who say meat may have been only a marginal food
for early humans," said Milton. "I have come to believe that the
incorporation of animal matter into the diet played an absolutely
essential role in human evolution."

Milton's paper also demonstrates that the human digestive system is
fundamentally that of a plant-eating primate, except that humans have
developed a more elongated small intestine rather than retaining the
huge colon of apes - a change in the human lineage which indicates a
diet of more concentrated nutrients.