the great vegetarian debate

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

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Nemo » Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:52 am

edearl wrote:
Nemo wrote:The science behind the claims in Forks Over Knives is so selectively chosen that it can't really be taken seriously. Though the subjects on the low animal protein group did not exhibit cancer 40% of them died and exhibited greater levels of liver necrosis than the high animal protein group. 100% of the high animal protein group survived.

The science so far says that in large groups it all evens out. There is very little difference between veggies and ominvores outcomes. Some sub groups thrive on either diet. One in 40,000 can actually die from a purely vegetarian diet. Many others thrive once they give up meat products, especially the saturated fat.

I'm finding that I can go veggie for days now by supplementing carnitine. I merely have to up from 500mg a day to 1 gram. This is quite fascinating.


Please give references.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14326435
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4294825
http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/2010/ ... er/#indian
User avatar
Nemo
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:09 am

When I don't eat meat, I am not a meat eater. When I do eat meat, I am a meat eater.
"Vegetarian" and "non-vegetarian" are just labels used to assert the continuous existence of a self.
I used to be a librarian, but I never ate any books, although I have devoured a few novels.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2796
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Vegan Diet

Postby AdmiralJim » Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:03 am

I think anyone can take anything to extremes. I remember a couple of parents at a paediatric clinic whose children were suffering from iron deficiency anaemia and Rickets disease. It was traced back to their poor nutrient deficient vegan diets - we were blasted as propaganda doctors biased against veganism - they had to be threatened with social workers to get them to even give their children supplements - they didn't like modern medicine either. They had just recently moved to northern Scotland from abroad and didn't seem to appreciate that the sun doesn't shine enough to produce enough vitamin D for a growing child without eating fortified food or dairy products - it is so bad the government are considering fortifying common foods with Vit D as the sunlight problem is also linked to Scotland having the worst rate of multiple sclerosis in the world. All their crowing about us being biased fell on its face when we pointed we had to recently had to treat a child for Scurvy - yeah this shit happens in Scotland LOL - because all they ate was hamburgers and no vegetables.
I don't know where we are going but it will be nice when we get there
User avatar
AdmiralJim
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Re: Vegan Diet

Postby rory » Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:31 am

I take vitamins and Vit D supplements, it is very important, Ihave a physician who is also vegetarian so it's very helpful in discussing daily diet and what I am doing.

a good quick meal is the Adventist haystack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haystack_% ... _haystacks
here is a link to the various Adventist health studies:
http://www.llu.edu/public-health/health/index.page
gassho
rory
Honmon Butsuryu Shu USA http://www.beikokuhbs.com/about-us.html

NamuMyohoRengeKyo
User avatar
rory
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 8:08 am
Location: SouthEast USA

Re: Vegan Diet

Postby Nemo » Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:55 pm

edearl wrote:
Nemo wrote:Forks Over Knives is very ironic at times. About 15 minutes in they talk about diets high in animal protein causing cancer. In an Indian study mice on a very low animal protein diet exhibited less cancer than mice on a high animal protein diet. The mice were poisoned by aflatoxin. A fungal toxin found on fruits, veggies and grains. Especially nuts and legumes like peanuts. Liver cancer being one of the most common cancers among Vegans who ate tons of nuts back in the day when we didn't check for aflatoxin, probably including Steve Jobs.

Rats on the high animal protein diet got cancer. Fact! *
*But they all lived.
40% of the low animal protein diet rats died and the survivors showed significantly more liver necrosis than the carnivores.

But they didn't get cancer.

Stats show an insignificant difference between the cancer rates of veggies and omnivores.


Reference please.

One can be poisoned by salmonella from eating chicken and other birds, and other pathogens that consume other kinds of meat. One must be careful not to eat any food that is infested with a pathogen.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14326435
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4294825
http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/2010/ ... er/#indian
User avatar
Nemo
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Nemo » Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:48 pm

The monkey studies used in Forks over Knives bring the picture into sharper focus. Aflatoxin destroys liver cells. A low protein diet prevents enzyme production that detoxifies aflatoxin and the liver cannot replace cells lost to necrosis because of a lack of raw materials. Higher protein diets give more resistance to diseases like cancer. Cellular reproduction increases the chances of cancer cell production especially in the presence of environmental stress. A 5% protein diet is very unhealthy as your body cannot replace cells lost to stress or wear and tear and this leads to premature death. Campbell’s own studies indicate that by adding lysine to wheat protein it became cancer promoting as well. All the lysine did was make it a complete protein.

The only thing to take away from this is to get good protein in your diet. A diet high in protein promotes protein synthesis. Which is something both you and your cancer need to survive. Starving cancer by depriving yourself only increases cellular morbidity from other causes and shortens lifespan.

Since most vegetarians are subject to much more possible aflatoxin exposure they should be careful what they eat to prevent liver damage. Just like meat eaters should watch the saturated fat to prevent cardiac problems. I could go on if anyone actually cares about the misinformation in this movie. Maybe it is better to say that the health reasons to become a vegetarian are inconclusive. Become a vegetarian because you have a heart and love sentient beings. Isn’t that worth it even if it damaged your health a bit?
User avatar
Nemo
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby edearl » Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:23 pm

Nemo wrote:
edearl wrote:
Nemo wrote:The science behind the claims in Forks Over Knives is so selectively chosen that it can't really be taken seriously. Though the subjects on the low animal protein group did not exhibit cancer 40% of them died and exhibited greater levels of liver necrosis than the high animal protein group. 100% of the high animal protein group survived.

The science so far says that in large groups it all evens out. There is very little difference between veggies and ominvores outcomes. Some sub groups thrive on either diet. One in 40,000 can actually die from a purely vegetarian diet. Many others thrive once they give up meat products, especially the saturated fat.

I'm finding that I can go veggie for days now by supplementing carnitine. I merely have to up from 500mg a day to 1 gram. This is quite fascinating.


Please give references.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14326435
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4294825
http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/2010/ ... er/#indian


I agree that everyone should avoid aflatoxins, including aflatoxins that end up in cows milk when cows eat grain containing aflatoxins. However, these references do not appear to be an indictment against eating vegan.

The blog says that Campbell's study is interesting but inconclusive.
HHDL: "My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."
User avatar
edearl
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:11 pm
Location: USA, Texas

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Nemo » Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:50 pm

His proclamations that a vegan diet is a cure for cancer are ridiculous though. If the science he chose himself refutes his own theories so completely one wonders at his competency. He is just another shyster with an axe to grind.
User avatar
Nemo
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby edearl » Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:48 pm

Nemo wrote:His proclamations that a vegan diet is a cure for cancer are ridiculous though. If the science he chose himself refutes his own theories so completely one wonders at his competency. He is just another shyster with an axe to grind.


One inconclusive study does not mean a vegan diet does not help one's body avoid and/or cure cancer, as demonstrated by many case histories (Ref: Documentaries Forks Over Knives and The Gerson Miracle which are currently on Netflix.)

See also:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048091/
the book "The China Study" cited in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Study
HHDL: "My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."
User avatar
edearl
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:11 pm
Location: USA, Texas

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Nemo » Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:09 pm

Do you mean Campbell's book on it or the actual study. In the actual China Study participants heart disease was inversely related to meat intake. Those who ate the least meat, who were most likely the poorest of peasants, had more heart disease.

Some correlations in the study between food intakes and heart disease;

Plant protein has a correlation of 0.21 with heart disease (positive)
Non-fish animal protein has a correlation of 0.01 with heart disease (neutral)
Fish protein has a correlation of -0.11 with heart disease (inverse)
Meat intake has a correlation of -0.28 with heart disease (strongly inverse)
Fish intake has a correlation of -0.15 with heart disease (inverse)
Egg intake has a correlation of -0.13 with heart disease (inverse)
Wheat has a correlation of 0.67 with heart disease(The highest correlation of all.)

The study is only correlations. There is a correlation between ice cream intake and sunburns. Does ice cream cause sunburns?

Every piece of science used in the movie is so misleading and presented so inaccuratley as to be fraudulent. It's slickly produced propaganda. So far the correlations of health benfits from a veggie diet are negligible. You'll have to find another better reason to give up eating animals.
User avatar
Nemo
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Jikan » Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:49 pm

Nemo wrote: You'll have to find another better reason to give up eating animals.


I don't eat animals because I object to factory farming on environmental & ethical grounds. I'm not convinced a vegetarian diet is more or less healthy, or even more or less palatable. It's certainly less convenient.
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Stewart » Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:57 pm

Well how about this as an alternative?....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17113214
s.
Stewart
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:40 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby JinpaRangdrol » Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:17 pm

samdrup wrote:Well how about this as an alternative?....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17113214

Wow!!!!!
I'd eat it... Wonder what HH the Karmapa would say about using this meat for Tsog...
User avatar
JinpaRangdrol
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:22 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Nemo » Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:28 pm



User avatar
Nemo
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby catmoon » Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:31 am

It seems to be standard procedure nowadays that if an inconvenient fact arises, well, just deny it. Call it a myth and get a zillion people on the internet to support you. However:

Wikipedia:"Hitler followed a vegetarian diet.[326] At social events he sometimes gave graphic accounts of the slaughter of animals in an effort to make his dinner guests shun meat.[327] A fear of cancer (from which his mother died)[328] is the most widely cited reason for Hitler's dietary habits. An antivivisectionist, Hitler may have followed his selective diet out of a profound concern for animals.[329] Martin Bormann had a greenhouse constructed near the Berghof (near Berchtesgaden) to ensure a steady supply of fresh fruit and vegetables for Hitler throughout the war. Hitler despised alcohol[330] and was a non-smoker. He promoted aggressive anti-smoking campaigns throughout Germany.[331] "

From The Medical Casebook of Adolf Hitler, by Leonard and Renate Heston:

What he did do about his illness was entirely in character: he treated himself. Gradually, he adopted an eccentric diet that was nearly vegetarian. Guided, no doubt, by the effects of particular foods on his pain, he eliminated rich pastries and meat and continued to eliminate foods until his basic diet was vegetables and cereal--a major change for a man who had a reputation as a lover of cakes and sweets. 'Even bread and butter gave him trouble. Zwieback, honey, mushrooms, curds, and yogurt became his standard diet.' At times, even milk products were eliminated and some vegetables, especially cabbage and beans, were also troublesome. Though occasionally he lapsed and would again try the rich foods he previously had enjoyed, Hitler generally followed a very stringent diet from the middle 1930s on.

In a 1938 magazine article published in the UK, Ignatius Phayre wrote:

A life-long vegetarian at table, Hitler's kitchen plots are both varied and heavy in produce. Even in his meatless diet Hitler is something of a gourmet--as Sir John Simon and Anthony Eden were surprised to note when they dined with him in the Presidential Palace at Berlin. His Bavarian chef, Herr Kannenberg, contrives an imposing array of vegetarian dishes, savoury and rich, pleasing to the eye as well as to the palate, and all conforming to the diatetic standards which Hitler exacts.

Boria Sax has some interesting things to say in her book "Animals In The Third Reich: Pets, Scapegoats, and the Holocaust"

'Hitler was a vegetarian, probably in emulation of the composer Richard Wagner,' Boria Sax asserts, but claims, as vegetarian historian Rynn Berry and others have documented, that 'Hitler was probably not entirely consistent in his vegetarianism.'

Adds Sax, 'Several leading figures in the [Nazi] government followed Hilter's example, including [Rudolph] Hess and [Joseph] Goebbels; Heinrich Himmler, who was influenced by Buddhism, even mandated vegetarian meals for leaders of the SS. It is true that the Nazi leaders never tried to promote vegetarianism beyond the ruling circles,' Sax allows. 'An entry in Goebbels' diary dated April 26, 1942 stated that this omission was dictated by necessity. According to Goebbels, Hitler was more deeply convinced than ever that eating meat was wrong, but Hitler could not revolutionize food production while the war was in progress.'

YIKES influenced by Buddhism? My that is an inconvenient fact, but I'm not going to deny it, nor am I going to deny the Holocaust, Global Warming or the radically anti feminist attitudes of most of my ancestors. Hitler's vegetarianism is hugely documented, by friends, enemies and neutral parties, by contemporaries and later historians, and attempting to deny it is just an indulgence in self righteousness.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Nighthawk » Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:32 am

Just had a couple double cheeseburgers and I really feel like killing someone right now.... watch out!

:rolleye:
User avatar
Nighthawk
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:04 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby tomamundsen » Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:33 am

catmoon wrote:It seems to be standard procedure nowadays that if an inconvenient fact arises, well, just deny it. Call it a myth and get a zillion people on the internet to support you.

Hey brother. I'm sorry if I stepped on a nerve or something. I honestly wasn't trying to "deny an inconvenient fact." I basically just Googled "hilter vegetarian," found the Wiki page, and then read this section - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitl ... etarianism - a folly to state as fact information sourced from Wikipedia, I suppose.

catmoon wrote:Gradually, he adopted an eccentric diet that was nearly vegetarian.

This is the point. The evidence to the contrary says that he did in fact reduce meat consumption, but wasn't completely vegetarian. And then his diet change was exaggerated as propaganda for various reasons.

catmoon wrote:YIKES influenced by Buddhism? My that is an inconvenient fact, but I'm not going to deny it, nor am I going to deny the Holocaust, Global Warming or the radically anti feminist attitudes of most of my ancestors. Hitler's vegetarianism is hugely documented, by friends, enemies and neutral parties, by contemporaries and later historians, and attempting to deny it is just an indulgence in self righteousness.

Yea, again, I don't have any need to deny someone like Hitler being a vegetarian. I know a few vegans who are possibly more evil than Hitler. I mean, I do live in LA. :lol:
User avatar
tomamundsen
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:50 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby David N. Snyder » Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:16 pm

There seems to be some evidence out there that Hitler was vegetarian or near vegetarian and about an equal amount of other evidence that he was not vegetarian and preferred meat.

In any event, it doesn't matter, because all such arguments are association fallacies. There are plenty of murderers who eat meat, but that doesn't mean that all meat eaters are murderers. There are plenty of murderers who are vegetarian, but that doesn't meant that all vegetarians are murderers. Such arguments are meant to divert attention away from the real issues by association with someone evil. That is why those arguments are considered logical fallacies.
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby edearl » Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:14 am

Nemo wrote:Do you mean Campbell's book on it or the actual study. In the actual China Study participants heart disease was inversely related to meat intake. Those who ate the least meat, who were most likely the poorest of peasants, had more heart disease.

Some correlations in the study between food intakes and heart disease;

Plant protein has a correlation of 0.21 with heart disease (positive)
Non-fish animal protein has a correlation of 0.01 with heart disease (neutral)
Fish protein has a correlation of -0.11 with heart disease (inverse)
Meat intake has a correlation of -0.28 with heart disease (strongly inverse)
Fish intake has a correlation of -0.15 with heart disease (inverse)
Egg intake has a correlation of -0.13 with heart disease (inverse)
Wheat has a correlation of 0.67 with heart disease(The highest correlation of all.)

The study is only correlations. There is a correlation between ice cream intake and sunburns. Does ice cream cause sunburns?

Every piece of science used in the movie is so misleading and presented so inaccuratley as to be fraudulent. It's slickly produced propaganda. So far the correlations of health befits from a veggie diet are negligible. You'll have to find another better reason to give up eating animals.


I do not have a copy of the book, and cannot comment about your interpretation. However, my health has significantly improved since becoming vegan only 3 months ago, including my cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure, eye sight, neuropathy, and chronic neuropathic pain.
HHDL: "My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."
User avatar
edearl
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:11 pm
Location: USA, Texas

Re: Vegan Diet

Postby Adumbra » Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:25 am

Restricting the amount of meat in your diet is definitely healthy no matter your age or constitution. I myself went from being a heavy meat eater (ate meat every single day) to being totally vegan over a course of 2 years. While I have since started eating a small amount of seafood and dairy again, the experience taught me how dramatically diet impacts both physical and mental health. Even now I wish I could be totally vegan and not exploit and harm animals at all, but my body just doesn't seem to agree with me.

Personally, I'd like to be a breatharian since even with conventional agriculture you still have to kill vermin like insects and rodents as well as clear forests, pollute water and deplete soil. If it were possible to live on pure prana or chi like some Taoists can allegedly do, then no killing or exploitation would be necessary. I'm obviously not ready for such a change yet but I am working towards it. Maybe in a few years I will give it a try.
Adumbra
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: Port Townsend, WA U.S.A.

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Johnny Dangerous, smcj and 17 guests

>