the great vegetarian debate

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: Gaining weight while beeing vegetarian?

Postby Simon E. » Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:16 am

TaTa I have a number of excess pounds which I am quite happy to donate to you...completely free of charge. :smile:
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2141
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:18 am

Nilasarasvati wrote:...I fail to see how it invalidates my observation that on a meal-by-meal basis, agrobusiness + factory farming kills more, harms more than agrobusiness without factory farming. They're both interconnected, interdependent industries...


Actually, if one counts all the insects, worms, and small woodland creatures that are killed either when the land is tilled, or when it is sprayed with pesticides (and yes, organic produce farmers do still use them) or killed in traps set for them, it's hard to say whether farming vegetables or raising animals for meat results in more beings' deaths. And of course with either, practitioners can form a very meaningful karmic link with the beings killed that will eventually enable us to help them once we're able.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Gaining weight while beeing vegetarian?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:21 am

Thrasymachus wrote:You could consume more milk and milk products, but milk is physiologically no different than meat, infact the best way to think of it as liquid meat. It has lots of cholesterol, saturated fat and not to mention it probably is contaminated with antibiotics and growth hormones.
Organic milk is an option.
You can gain more weight drinking more milk and eating more cheese, but at the cost of your health.
Notice I did not recommend cheese? You see whole fat cow milk only has about 3-4% fat (10g) in it and 33mg of cholestrol per cup (240g). Hardly a cause of concern when you compare it to the leanest of lean meat which has up to 18% (18g) of fat and 78mg cholesterol per 3.5oz (100g) serving. Cheese (except for cottage cheese) goes way off the fat and cholesterol scale. Anyway, the OP asked about a vegetarian diet not a vegan diet.
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7937
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Mon Jun 24, 2013 12:47 pm

Adamantine wrote:
seeker242 wrote:I also see both sides but only can argue one side because only one side has a reasonable argument.


Then you clearly are not seeing both sides.


Sorry, that is not true. People who think both sides are reasonable, are the people who are not clearly seeing both sides.

Unless the person is an eskimo living in the Alaskan tundra, then it would be a reasonable argument. However, for people who shop at a supermarket with many different choices to make, there simply is no reasonable argument to be made in favor of choosing meat. Such an argument does not exist! Every single argument that is made in favor of eating meat, when a person can easily chose not to, is unreasonable. Yes, is is true, some people believe they need to eat meat to be healthy. Many people also have no knowledge of nutritional science and no knowledge of how to eat a balanced vegetarian diet!

And this shows that you are uninformed. I myself was a strict vegetarian for years, and then developed a serious digestion problem that no doctors could diagnose. I lost so much weight I began to look skeletal. I literally had to eat some meat and meat broths to get adequate nutrition and build my system back. It was not pleasant, but it did help.


Anecdotal evidence is not evidence and using it shows that you are misinformed. Does the average person have digestive problems? No they don't. Is there any scientific evidence that vegetarianism causes digestive problems? No, there isn't! Is there any real evidence that not eating meat caused your digestive problem? No, there isn't! Pretending that this is evidence is not a reasonable argument. Reasonable arguments have actual facts supporting them.

Tibetan Medicine is said to originate from the Buddhas themselves, and Malcolm is a practicing Tibetan doctor and speaks from that nutritional perspective earlier in this thread.... it speaks of different types of individuals who require different diets for their health-- some of which (the Vata types) do require meat in the diet. And TCM nutrition is heavily adamant about the need for animal proteins.


And the biological sciences have debunked the need for "animal protein" with valid scientific method. There is no such thing as "animal protein". Protein is amino acid and it is the same if it comes from a plant or an animal. Lysine is Lysine regardless if it comes from a plant or an animal, it is the exact same substance. Was it not the Dalai Lama himself that said if modern science proves something to be wrong, then it should change? Yes, he did say that!

Regarding your previous post re: the Dalai Lama and Tibetan doctors not understanding a proper vegetarian diet.. I think this is grossly misinformed.


No, it is not grossly misinformed when you consider what the Dalai Lama was eating when he turned vegetarian in 1960's. There is evidence to suggest that he subsisted on a completely bizarre diet consisting entirely of milk and nuts. This is a very unhealthy diet by any standards. Actual evidence supports the idea that the Dalai Lama had no idea how to eat a proper vegetarian diet. And of course, if you have no idea how to eat a vegetarian diet, of course you will have problems. But the problem is not the vegetarian diet, the problem is the persons lack of nutritional knowledge. People say things like "I went vegetarian and I became sick, therefore I need meat". That is not a reasonable argument. The reason why it's not reasonable is because there is nothing there to support the conclusion other than a guess. A valid conclusion need something besides a guess supporting it. A reasonable conclusion needs actual facts supporting it, not guesses and unfounded assumptions.


Pema Rigdzin wrote:
Nilasarasvati wrote:...I fail to see how it invalidates my observation that on a meal-by-meal basis, agrobusiness + factory farming kills more, harms more than agrobusiness without factory farming. They're both interconnected, interdependent industries...


Actually, if one counts all the insects, worms, and small woodland creatures that are killed either when the land is tilled, or when it is sprayed with pesticides (and yes, organic produce farmers do still use them) or killed in traps set for them, it's hard to say whether farming vegetables or raising animals for meat results in more beings' deaths. And of course with either, practitioners can form a very meaningful karmic link with the beings killed that will eventually enable us to help them once we're able.


Actually it's quite easy to discern that many more insects, worms, and small woodland creatures are killed when the harvest is turned into meat instead of eating it directly. Simply due to the fact that these large animals eat much more food than a human does. A typical beef cow eats 2% to 2.5% of it weight in vegetable matter every day. That is close to 30 lbs of vegetable matter a day. No human being even comes close to eating 30 lbs of vegetable matter a day. When you have to quadruple, or more, the amount of land being tilled, the insects, worms, and small woodland creatures that are killed when the land is tilled also increases. It's just basic mathematics. If harvesting one plot of land kills a certain number of living things, then harvesting 5 plots of land kills 5 times more living things.
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: Gaining weight while beeing vegetarian?

Postby mandala » Mon Jun 24, 2013 1:09 pm

Don't forget the good oils like coconut oil, flax oil.. avocado.. almond butter...

What about smoothies with almond milk and bananas...
User avatar
mandala
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 7:51 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jun 24, 2013 1:32 pm

seeker242 wrote:He did not say that about growing vegetables!


Yes, in fact for monks, cultivating vegetables is wrong livelihood because digging in the ground etc., causes harm to sentient beings.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10217
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Gaining weight while beeing vegetarian?

Postby Ayu » Mon Jun 24, 2013 1:49 pm

Yes, avocados are the heaviest vegetable on the list of calories.
When i tried to lose weight i completely delisted avocado, because it doesn't fill as much as it has calories.
Avocado with a little salt on a slice of bread - tasty. :smile:
Because, if our mothers, who have been kind to us
From beginningless time, are suffering,
What can we do with (just) our own happiness?
From 10th of 37 Bodhisattva Practices
User avatar
Ayu
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:23 pm

seeker242 wrote: For example, Malcome says many things that are true AND many things that are false in many people eyes! He is using the same red herring and ignoring the fact that there are varying degrees of harm caused and one can choose to participate in more harm or less harm. He says

"Many vegetarians argue the deaths caused by agriculature is unavoidable. And I agree with them. But they never accept responsibility for the deaths of creatures caused by agriculture, and do their best to pretend they have no karmic responsibility for them."


Like I said before, no one in their right mind believes this! This is a strawman!


I have heard many vegetarians and vegans claim only meat eating causes death and suffering and the vegetarianism/veganism is exempt. I've had to remind a few of the death and suffering that does in fact come with both diets. I've also seen a fair share of vegetarian/vegan products with labels that claim that no animals were harmed in the making of these products. So, not so much a straw man. I personally think vegetarianism is a fine lifestyle, as is veganism, and have no bias against them at all. I also have reasons for not making a big deal about eating some meat from time to time.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:52 pm

When he was at Samye Ling CTR had large freezers installed so that whole carcasses of sheep or cattle could be purchased. He explained the rationale for this being that a cow or or sheep carcase equals the death of one sentient being . A bag of rice equals the death of countless sentient beings.
'But' he said.' You are westerners , you assume that a cow is more important than an ant. It never occurs you to question that. '
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2141
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:23 pm

Malcolm wrote:
seeker242 wrote:He did not say that about growing vegetables!


Yes, in fact for monks, cultivating vegetables is wrong livelihood because digging in the ground etc., causes harm to sentient beings.


What about laypersons? How many people here are actual beggar monks? The Buddha's monks did not have a "livelihood" to begin with. They were poor beggars. They did not have jobs or a way to make a living earning money, AKA a livelihood. If there was no difference between the two kinds of foods, then why did the Buddha say nothing about it for laypersons? If there is really no difference, then it should be the same rule, no business in meat and no business in vegetables.

If there was no difference between the foods, then why did the Buddha permit his monks to eat meat only under very specific circumstances? Meanwhile, there were no prohibitions of that sort when it came to vegetables? "If it is seen, heard or suspected that a carrot was uprooted on your behalf, then it is to be refused". The Buddha never such a thing to anyone. Why? The reason why is because there is a difference. If there was no difference, then why was a monk prohibited from eating meat that was killed for him? The reason why is because there is a difference.

Simon E. wrote:When he was at Samye Ling CTR had large freezers installed so that whole carcasses of sheep or cattle could be purchased. He explained the rationale for this being that a cow or or sheep carcase equals the death of one sentient being . A bag of rice equals the death of countless sentient beings.
'But' he said.' You are westerners , you assume that a cow is more important than an ant. It never occurs you to question that. '


That is interesting. However, he fails to acknowledge that many more ants were killed by the animal being born and raised to begin with. How much rice or other grain did the animal eat during it's lifetime? I'm sure it was more than one bag! Why does he not count them too? Are they not important too?! Of course cows raised on a pasture would be less, but that is not how it's done in the modern day mass production in the west.
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Simon E. » Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:44 pm

The point he was making is that sentient existence always involves the death of other sentient beings to maintain life. Purity is not an option....Gratitude is.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2141
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Adamantine » Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:45 pm

seeker242 wrote:
That is interesting. However, he fails to acknowledge that many more ants were killed by the animal being born and raised to begin with. How much rice or other grain did the animal eat during it's lifetime? I'm sure it was more than one bag! Why does he not count them too? Are they not important too?! Of course cows raised on a pasture would be less, but that is not how it's done in the modern day mass production in the west.


So clearly you make a distinction between grass-fed (i.e.) grazing animals vs. ones fed diets of cultivated corn or hay? So you would be willing to concede that it is more harmful to eat a vegetarian diet than natural grass-fed beef?

EDIT: by the way.. I made the exact same argument as you earlier in this thread.. years ago now. I like to think I have a bit more subtlety of thought and acceptance of the complexity of the situation, and acceptance of other's views these days. Buddhist practice is not about developing more rigid minds, or more dualistic ways of thinking, in my opinion or experience.
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
Adamantine
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2680
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Adamantine » Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:49 pm

seeker242 wrote:
And this shows that you are uninformed. I myself was a strict vegetarian for years, and then developed a serious digestion problem that no doctors could diagnose. I lost so much weight I began to look skeletal. I literally had to eat some meat and meat broths to get adequate nutrition and build my system back. It was not pleasant, but it did help.


Anecdotal evidence is not evidence and using it shows that you are misinformed. Does the average person have digestive problems? No they don't. Is there any scientific evidence that vegetarianism causes digestive problems? No, there isn't! Is there any real evidence that not eating meat caused your digestive problem? No, there isn't! Pretending that this is evidence is not a reasonable argument. Reasonable arguments have actual facts supporting them.


I was not talking about the "average person" but people with health issues that may need to eat meat for various reasons.. if you have absolute faith in Western medical science over traditional medicines that is fine but that is faith-based and other people have different views. You can start your own thread in Open Dharma questioning the basis of traditional medicines but this is not the place. Facts, are also relative. The facts of my experience are indeed facts: I ate meat out of desperation and it did help my condition. I never said NOT eating meat caused my problem. However, eating meat helped it. Also, the times I tried to be extreme and be completely vegan I always got weak and sick. I needed some animal proteins, eggs or milk and cheese, etc. despite knowing well the recommendations for vegan diets and following them diligently.
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
Adamantine
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2680
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Adamantine » Mon Jun 24, 2013 4:55 pm

seeker242 wrote:
And the biological sciences have debunked the need for "animal protein" with valid scientific method. There is no such thing as "animal protein". Protein is amino acid and it is the same if it comes from a plant or an animal. Lysine is Lysine regardless if it comes from a plant or an animal, it is the exact same substance. Was it not the Dalai Lama himself that said if modern science proves something to be wrong, then it should change? Yes, he did say that!


There is such a thing as the body's ability to digest and absorb different sources of protein. .every body is different.. some are allergic to all grains, for instance, etc. Some digest certain sources of protein better than others. So far, I know of no one that relies on amino acid pills to give them their protein requirements.

Regarding your previous post re: the Dalai Lama and Tibetan doctors not understanding a proper vegetarian diet.. I think this is grossly misinformed.


No, it is not grossly misinformed when you consider what the Dalai Lama was eating when he turned vegetarian in 1960's. There is evidence to suggest that he subsisted on a completely bizarre diet consisting entirely of milk and nuts. This is a very unhealthy diet by any standards. Actual evidence supports the idea that the Dalai Lama had no idea how to eat a proper vegetarian diet. And of course, if you have no idea how to eat a vegetarian diet, of course you will have problems. But the problem is not the vegetarian diet, the problem is the persons lack of nutritional knowledge. People say things like "I went vegetarian and I became sick, therefore I need meat". That is not a reasonable argument. The reason why it's not reasonable is because there is nothing there to support the conclusion other than a guess. A valid conclusion need something besides a guess supporting it. A reasonable conclusion needs actual facts supporting it, not guesses and unfounded assumptions.


I don't know if your source is correct about his diet or free of bias. Please prove this was his diet. And even if it was, why do you think this was the diet recommended by Tibetan Doctors? I am sure that it was not. Perhaps he was emulating Ghandi's diet. Regardless, there is no proof of what his diet was at the time or that it caused him any problems.
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
Adamantine
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2680
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby dzogchungpa » Mon Jun 24, 2013 5:15 pm

seeker242 wrote:And the biological sciences have debunked the need for "animal protein" with valid scientific method.

This is interesting to me. Can you provide a reference?
Also, I would point out that proteins are not the only macronutrients.
ཨོཾ་མ་ཧཱ་ཤུནྱ་ཏཱ་ཛྙཱ་ན་བཛྲ་སྭཱ་བྷཱ་བ་ཨཱཏྨ་ཀོ་྅ཧཾ༔

The thousands of lines of the Prajnaparamita can be summed up in the following two sentences:
1) One should become a Bodhisattva (or, Buddha-to-be), i.e. one who is content with nothing less than all-knowledge attained through the perfection of wisdom for the sake of all beings.
2) There is no such thing as a Bodhisattva, or as all-knowledge, or as a ‘being’, or as the perfection of wisdom, or as an attainment.
To accept both these contradictory facts is to be perfect.
- Conze
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 1472
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:34 pm

Simon E. wrote:The point he was making is that sentient existence always involves the death of other sentient beings to maintain life. Purity is not an option....Gratitude is.


Yes, that is a good point! My point was just that is does not even address the issue that the "westerners", that he criticizes, are concerned about.
Adamantine wrote:
seeker242 wrote:
That is interesting. However, he fails to acknowledge that many more ants were killed by the animal being born and raised to begin with. How much rice or other grain did the animal eat during it's lifetime? I'm sure it was more than one bag! Why does he not count them too? Are they not important too?! Of course cows raised on a pasture would be less, but that is not how it's done in the modern day mass production in the west.


So clearly you make a distinction between grass-fed (i.e.) grazing animals vs. ones fed diets of cultivated corn or hay? So you would be willing to concede that it is more harmful to eat a vegetarian diet than natural grass-fed beef?

EDIT: by the way.. I made the exact same argument as you earlier in this thread.. years ago now. I like to think I have a bit more subtlety of thought and acceptance of the complexity of the situation, and acceptance of other's views these days. Buddhist practice is not about developing more rigid minds, or more dualistic ways of thinking, in my opinion or experience.


No, I would not be willing to concede that! I said pasture raised beef is less harmful than mass produced CAFO beef. I did not say that natural grass beef is less harmful than no beef. I accept other views no problem, I just don't agree with them! I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

Adamantine wrote:
seeker242 wrote:
And this shows that you are uninformed. I myself was a strict vegetarian for years, and then developed a serious digestion problem that no doctors could diagnose. I lost so much weight I began to look skeletal. I literally had to eat some meat and meat broths to get adequate nutrition and build my system back. It was not pleasant, but it did help.


Anecdotal evidence is not evidence and using it shows that you are misinformed. Does the average person have digestive problems? No they don't. Is there any scientific evidence that vegetarianism causes digestive problems? No, there isn't! Is there any real evidence that not eating meat caused your digestive problem? No, there isn't! Pretending that this is evidence is not a reasonable argument. Reasonable arguments have actual facts supporting them.


I was not talking about the "average person" but people with health issues that may need to eat meat for various reasons.. if you have absolute faith in Western medical science over traditional medicines that is fine but that is faith-based and other people have different views. You can start your own thread in Open Dharma questioning the basis of traditional medicines but this is not the place.


This is not the place for a "vegetarian debate"? Of course it is! The title of this very thread is "the great vegetarian debate". Why should one aspect of it be prohibited from being debated? After all, this thread is THE place to debate ALL aspects of vegetarianism. The mods specifically set it up that way.

Facts, are also relative. The facts of my experience are indeed facts: I ate meat out of desperation and it did help my condition. I never said NOT eating meat caused my problem. However, eating meat helped it. Also, the times I tried to be extreme and be completely vegan I always got weak and sick. I needed some animal proteins, eggs or milk and cheese, etc. despite knowing well the recommendations for vegan diets and following them diligently.


Again, anecdotal evidence is not evidence!

Adamantine wrote:
seeker242 wrote:
And the biological sciences have debunked the need for "animal protein" with valid scientific method. There is no such thing as "animal protein". Protein is amino acid and it is the same if it comes from a plant or an animal. Lysine is Lysine regardless if it comes from a plant or an animal, it is the exact same substance. Was it not the Dalai Lama himself that said if modern science proves something to be wrong, then it should change? Yes, he did say that!


There is such a thing as the body's ability to digest and absorb different sources of protein. .every body is different.. some are allergic to all grains, for instance, etc. Some digest certain sources of protein better than others. So far, I know of no one that relies on amino acid pills to give them their protein requirements.

Regarding your previous post re: the Dalai Lama and Tibetan doctors not understanding a proper vegetarian diet.. I think this is grossly misinformed.


No, it is not grossly misinformed when you consider what the Dalai Lama was eating when he turned vegetarian in 1960's. There is evidence to suggest that he subsisted on a completely bizarre diet consisting entirely of milk and nuts. This is a very unhealthy diet by any standards. Actual evidence supports the idea that the Dalai Lama had no idea how to eat a proper vegetarian diet. And of course, if you have no idea how to eat a vegetarian diet, of course you will have problems. But the problem is not the vegetarian diet, the problem is the persons lack of nutritional knowledge. People say things like "I went vegetarian and I became sick, therefore I need meat". That is not a reasonable argument. The reason why it's not reasonable is because there is nothing there to support the conclusion other than a guess. A valid conclusion need something besides a guess supporting it. A reasonable conclusion needs actual facts supporting it, not guesses and unfounded assumptions.


I don't know if your source is correct about his diet or free of bias. Please prove this was his diet. And even if it was, why do you think this was the diet recommended by Tibetan Doctors? I am sure that it was not. Perhaps he was emulating Ghandi's diet. Regardless, there is no proof of what his diet was at the time or that it caused him any problems.


There certainly is evidence supporting ideas of what his diet was and it supports the idea that it was not balanced. In his 1990 autobiography (pp. 184-185) we read his account of how he became a carnivore (again). I summarize and quote: He enthusiastically followed a vegetarian regimen in 1966. Few Tibetan dishes are vegetarian, but the cooks experimented with milk and nuts to provide him with protein. He liked these dishes. “I felt really well on them.” Then, “after twenty months I contracted a severe case of jaundice.” Luckily, “eventually the illness, which turned out to be Hepatitis B, cleared up, but not before I had consumed large quantities of Tibetan medicine.” His doctors advised him to cut the grease, milk, and nuts and “to start eating meat again.” So “reluctantly I returned to being non-vegetarian. Today I eat meat except on special occasions required by my spiritual practice.” This is the currently accepted account of his diet during that time and it is accepted that his vegetarian diet was unbalanced. These statements are corroborated by the memoirs of Olga La Marquise de St. Innocent' published in 1974. Olga was the wife of Woodland Kahler, President of International Vegetarian Union from 1960-71, who personally advised the Dalai Lama on vegetarianism when he came to the bi-annual World Vegetarian Congress in India where he gave a speech at the opening ceremony.

Regardless if the Dalia lama is vegetarian or not, what he eats or not, the fact still remains that non vegetarian food is more harmful than vegetarian food. To choose the more harmful option is not the compassionate choice!
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:44 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
seeker242 wrote:And the biological sciences have debunked the need for "animal protein" with valid scientific method.

This is interesting to me. Can you provide a reference?
Also, I would point out that proteins are not the only macronutrients.


The most recent reference that I know of comes from the "American Dietetic Association", now known as "The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics" and is the world's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals. They published a well referenced position paper on it. It can be found here. The abstract is pretty self explanatory. http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=8357
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:02 pm

seeker242 wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:
seeker242 wrote:And the biological sciences have debunked the need for "animal protein" with valid scientific method.

This is interesting to me. Can you provide a reference?
Also, I would point out that proteins are not the only macronutrients.


The most recent reference that I know of comes from the "American Dietetic Association", now known as "The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics" and is the world's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals. They published a well referenced position paper on it. It can be found here. The abstract is pretty self explanatory. http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=8357


Bunch of quacks.


    A 1995 report noted the AND received funding from companies like McDonald's, PepsiCo, The Coca Cola Company, Sara Lee, Abbott Nutrition, General Mills, Kellogg's, Mars, McNeil Nutritionals, SOYJOY, Truvia, Unilever, and The Sugar Association as corporate sponsorship.[16] The AND also partners with ConAgra Foods, which produces Orville Redenbacker, Slim Jims, Hunt’s Ketchup, SnackPacks, and Hebrew National hot dogs, to maintain the American Dietetic Association/ConAgra Foods Home Food Safety...It's in Your Hands program.[48] Additionally, the AND earns revenue from corporations by selling space at its booth during conventions, doing this for soft drinks and candy makers.[16][49]

    In April 2013, a dietitian working on a panel charged with setting policy on genetically modified foods for the academy contended she was removed for pointing out that two of its members had ties to Monsanto, one of the biggest makers of genetically modified seeds.[50] The resulting controversy highlighted the fact that Ms. Smith Edge, chairwoman of the committee charged with developing the GMO policy, is a senior vice president at the International Food Information Council, which is largely financed by food, beverage and agriculture businesses, including companies like DuPont, Bayer CropScience and Cargill, companies that were among the biggest financial opponents of a State of California GMO labeling initiative.[51]

    The AND maintains that being at the "same table" with food companies is important in order to exert a positive influence over their products and message, although critics describe this as an “unhealthy alliance” between the AND and junk food companies.[49][52] The accusation is that despite what good may come of such programs, it ultimately whitewashes (similar to the greenwashing efforts of environmentally irresponsible companies) the brand’s role in the country’s food ecosystem. Watchdogs note that the AND rarely criticizes food companies, believing it to be out of fear of "biting the hand that feeds them."[53][54][55] Nutrition expert Marion Nestle opined that she believed that as long as the AND partners with the makers of food and beverage products, “its opinions about diet and health will never be believed [to be] independent.”[49] A 2011 survey found that 80% of Academy members are critical of the Academy's position. They believe that the Academy is endorsing corporate sponsors and their products when it allows their sponsorship.[56]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of ... _Dietetics
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10217
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Stewart » Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:12 pm

Beat me to it M. I take ages to type :smile:
s.
Stewart
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:40 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby seeker242 » Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:29 pm

Malcolm wrote:Bunch of quacks.


    A 1995 report noted the AND received funding from companies like McDonald's, PepsiCo, The Coca Cola Company, Sara Lee, Abbott Nutrition, General Mills, Kellogg's, Mars, McNeil Nutritionals, SOYJOY, Truvia, Unilever, and The Sugar Association as corporate sponsorship.[16] The AND also partners with ConAgra Foods, which produces Orville Redenbacker, Slim Jims, Hunt’s Ketchup, SnackPacks, and Hebrew National hot dogs, to maintain the American Dietetic Association/ConAgra Foods Home Food Safety...It's in Your Hands program.[48] Additionally, the AND earns revenue from corporations by selling space at its booth during conventions, doing this for soft drinks and candy makers.[16][49]

    In April 2013, a dietitian working on a panel charged with setting policy on genetically modified foods for the academy contended she was removed for pointing out that two of its members had ties to Monsanto, one of the biggest makers of genetically modified seeds.[50] The resulting controversy highlighted the fact that Ms. Smith Edge, chairwoman of the committee charged with developing the GMO policy, is a senior vice president at the International Food Information Council, which is largely financed by food, beverage and agriculture businesses, including companies like DuPont, Bayer CropScience and Cargill, companies that were among the biggest financial opponents of a State of California GMO labeling initiative.[51]

    The AND maintains that being at the "same table" with food companies is important in order to exert a positive influence over their products and message, although critics describe this as an “unhealthy alliance” between the AND and junk food companies.[49][52] The accusation is that despite what good may come of such programs, it ultimately whitewashes (similar to the greenwashing efforts of environmentally irresponsible companies) the brand’s role in the country’s food ecosystem. Watchdogs note that the AND rarely criticizes food companies, believing it to be out of fear of "biting the hand that feeds them."[53][54][55] Nutrition expert Marion Nestle opined that she believed that as long as the AND partners with the makers of food and beverage products, “its opinions about diet and health will never be believed [to be] independent.”[49] A 2011 survey found that 80% of Academy members are critical of the Academy's position. They believe that the Academy is endorsing corporate sponsors and their products when it allows their sponsorship.[56]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of ... _Dietetics


So your argument against the vegetarian paper is simply to call the organization quacks? Without even addressing the article or ANY of the points in the article? Or ANY of the studies from various research organizations referenced in the article?

This is not a reasonable argument. This is known as "argument ad hominem". An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance.

Thank you for providing further support to my previous assertion that there is no reasonable argument in favor of eating meat. All you can provide is unreasonable arguments, over and over.

Why don't you address the points made in the paper itself or the studies referenced therein? Because you can't. Because Tibetan doctors are quacks! Yes, name calling is quite productive, isn't it?...

Name calling is not debating...If all you want to do is call people names, you should probably start a new thread. This is a thread for debating, not name calling!
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lotus108, MSN [Bot] and 12 guests

>