The Vegetarian Myth

[mkrnhr]

Yes, it is documented that vegetarianism has some effect on some people's cognitive stances and attitudes. And it is about SOME vegetarians, and the righteous vegetarians above all. Read the book, all this is explained. The thread is based upon the book with the same title. Maybe you can start there to have the whole context.

 

[mpescador]

My blood works really well, it moves around my body and when there is a whole in my skin it comes out red and fluid.

And I eat meat, spend my time in ketosis, so what problem could there be?

 

[mpescador]

Yes, it is documented that vegetarianism has some effect on some people's cognitive stances and attitudes. And it is about SOME vegetarians, and the righteous vegetarians above all. Read the book, all this is explained. The thread is based upon the book with the same title. Maybe you can start there to have the whole context.

I have the book. And thank you for acknowledging that this thread is also about vegetarians, not just their -ism. Makes it easier to communicate.

 

[anart]

My blood works really well, it moves around my body and when there is a whole in my skin it comes out red and fluid.

And I eat meat, spend my time in ketosis, so what problem could there be?

The obvious problem here, mpescador is your attitude. I have no idea why you think you can enter this forum and be rude and obnoxious, but you have been. Enough is really enough. If you can't behave yourself and treat others with respect, stop the arguing for argument's sake and generally behave like a normal, decent, respectful human being, then you will be removed. Please re-read the forum guidelines so you get the gist of them and decide whether you want to participate here or not. If you do not, continue on in your current state, and arguing for argument's sake.

 

[mkrnhr]

No, you still do not understand: it's about vegetarianism and its effect on humans, on nature, and on the stream of life on Earth.
You want to hear what you want to hear and it is only hypocrisy and "mauvaise foi". The other solution of course is that you can't understand the nuance, in which case you are somehow excusable. Most people are programmed to think in black and white terms nowadays.

 

[Renaissance]

Yes, it is documented that vegetarianism has some effect on some people's cognitive stances and attitudes. And it is about SOME vegetarians, and the righteous vegetarians above all. Read the book, all this is explained. The thread is based upon the book with the same title. Maybe you can start there to have the whole context.

I have the book. And thank you for acknowledging that this thread is also about vegetarians, not just their -ism. Makes it easier to communicate.

Well, it does follow that the reason vegetarianism is being examined is too look at any effects and results it can bring for people. The two are not exclusive. The difference is you're stating such things are attacks. Nothing you quoted was evidence of that. You even mention that you've seen how vegans can be fanatical. But when it is observed and stated by others, it is an attack?

 

[Possibility of Being]

[...]
and this?

The self-righteousness and sense of superiority is always present

.... not sure I can be bothered to paste more, and the last one gets us full circle anyway

Mpescador, as it was already said, this is a research forum. One day we started researching vegetarianism. As always, we tried to be as objective as possible and get to the core of it with no bias on one side or the other. And the closer we were to the conclusion that vegetarianism was not what many of us thought it was, the more vegan defenders kept appearing and disrupting the research process.

I personally have exactly the same experience on my blog where I post diet related articles among many other topics. There are a very few topics that attract the same kind of fanatic attacks as meat based diet does. Those people are just totally deaf and close-minded to any rational arguments. They are not only fanatics, they do feel superior and express it openly. That's simply crazy. So it is only natural that you start thinking that perhaps that's what vegan/vegetarian diet does to them.

Anyway, we do spend some time and energy trying to keep a reasonable dialog with those people, even though that's a distraction to what we are here to do. You can easily see this pattern when you read this thread and not just scan through it. Keep in mind that that's not us going to a vegetarians' forum to convince them they are wrong. That's vegetarians that appear here like mushrooms after rain to show us how wrong and evil we are.

And frankly, I really can't find anything wrong with the comments you quoted above. There is no personal attack there, just members sharing their experience and/or what they can see.

 

[Chrissy]

There was a study being propagated on the radio yesterday about the benefits of being a vegetarian. It was stated that vegetarians have a 32% decreased risk of being hospitalized or death from heart disease compared to people who eat meat and fish. There were no facts given really, just that 32% being thrown out. I have been trying to find more information on this study, probably because it irritated me that this was a newscast that was so swayed toward vegetarianism with nothing to back it up. I believe it's this study from Oxford University.

_http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2013/130130.html

_http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/01/30/ajcn.112.044073.abstract?sid=313781f0-04f6-40af-8e4c-7f3bf07f1565

They stated:
"The Oxford researchers arrived at the figure of 32% risk reduction after accounting for factors such as age, smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, educational level and socioeconomic background."

Close to 45,000 people were in this study. People's diets vary so much, I don't see how they could believe they got accurate findings.

 

[dugdeep]

There was a study being propagated on the radio yesterday about the benefits of being a vegetarian. It was stated that vegetarians have a 32% decreased risk of being hospitalized or death from heart disease compared to people who eat meat and fish. There were no facts given really, just that 32% being thrown out. I have been trying to find more information on this study, probably because it irritated me that this was a newscast that was so swayed toward vegetarianism with nothing to back it up. I believe it's this study from Oxford University.

_http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2013/130130.html

_http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/01/30/ajcn.112.044073.abstract?sid=313781f0-04f6-40af-8e4c-7f3bf07f1565

They stated:
"The Oxford researchers arrived at the figure of 32% risk reduction after accounting for factors such as age, smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, educational level and socioeconomic background."

Close to 45,000 people were in this study. People's diets vary so much, I don't see how they could believe they got accurate findings.

It runs into the same problem that all of these studies run into. Since vegetarianism is considered to be the pinnacle of health, those who are interested in maintaining their health will tend towards vegetarianism and will do a number of things to be healthy, while those with the least interest in healthy living will eat meat (crappy meat, no doubt) as well as engaging in many other health damaging behaviours. You'll notice things like sugar consumption, organic vs. non-organic food choices, use of supplements and other healthy behaviours aren't controlled for (or at least not mentioned). Eating factory farmed "meat" is unhealthy, but it would be much more telling to compare true paleo dieters, with their grass-fed meats and clean fats, to those same vegetarians. This study proves nothing except that people drawn to vegetarianism are more interested in maintaining their health.

 

[Alana]

There was a study being propagated on the radio yesterday about the benefits of being a vegetarian. It was stated that vegetarians have a 32% decreased risk of being hospitalized or death from heart disease compared to people who eat meat and fish. There were no facts given really, just that 32% being thrown out. I have been trying to find more information on this study, probably because it irritated me that this was a newscast that was so swayed toward vegetarianism with nothing to back it up. I believe it's this study from Oxford University.

_http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2013/130130.html

_http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/01/30/ajcn.112.044073.abstract?sid=313781f0-04f6-40af-8e4c-7f3bf07f1565

They stated:
"The Oxford researchers arrived at the figure of 32% risk reduction after accounting for factors such as age, smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, educational level and socioeconomic background."

Close to 45,000 people were in this study. People's diets vary so much, I don't see how they could believe they got accurate findings.

It runs into the same problem that all of these studies run into. Since vegetarianism is considered to be the pinnacle of health, those who are interested in maintaining their health will tend towards vegetarianism and will do a number of things to be healthy, while those with the least interest in healthy living will eat meat (crappy meat, no doubt) as well as engaging in many other health damaging behaviours. You'll notice things like sugar consumption, organic vs. non-organic food choices, use of supplements and other healthy behaviours aren't controlled for (or at least not mentioned). Eating factory farmed "meat" is unhealthy, but it would be much more telling to compare true paleo dieters, with their grass-fed meats and clean fats, to those same vegetarians. This study proves nothing except that people drawn to vegetarianism are more interested in maintaining their health.

Not only that but I would venture to say that most people who choose to be vegetarians for health reasons are usually people from the middle/higher levels of socioeconomic and educational background, and perhaps able to afford to deal through healthy ways with life's stresses, like pay for yoga classes, massage, have better health insurance and access to medical treatments, things like that.

Having said that, we've seen many studies coming up with so called conclusions that are not in rapport with reality, because of the scientists' preconceived notions, bad analysis of the data, not taking into account important other elements, and so on. And I am with you Chrissy, I really get mad when I hear about such studies!

Edit: and I just caught up with this thread, we are not the only ones
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,30415.0.html

 

[mcb]

Pro-vegetarian studies tend to be riddled with "confounders" -- unaccounted for variables that scramble the results. Unfortunately, the problem isn't limited to pro-vegetarian studies.

If you have been a vegan or vegetarian (and I have), it can be hard to believe that so much sincerely-offered information from well-meaning (and well-educated) sources could have been false. But yes, it's false, and "sincerity" of that flavor is worthless.

 

[Medulin]

I don't like eating meat (except for occasional poultry), because I don't like it.
And I don't like vegetables and starch since they give me gastric problems. (My stomach can't process raw vegetables in the right way, and if you boil vegetables, you loose a lot of their nutritive content).

But, I'm a fish freak. I just love eating fish, especially fatty fish (like sardines, salmon, tuna, cod)...
So, I eat fish, shellfish, and nuts mostly, and eggs...

All studies have shown fish-based diet being superior to vegetarian/vegan diet.

Further categorization of diets showed that, in comparison with regular meat eaters, mortality from ischemic heart disease was 20% lower in occasional meat eaters, 34% lower in people who ate fish but not meat, 34% lower in lactoovovegetarians, and 26% lower in vegans.

_http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479225

-34 % risk in fish-eaters vs
-26 % risk in vegans

So, fish wins.

And yes, fish and (wal)nuts and eggs make a great keto-combo. :)

 

[dugdeep]

Just read this review of "The Meat Fix" by John Nicolson. Sounds like another one similar to "The Vegetarian Myth", but possibly adds more insight. Original is here http://www.westonaprice.org/thumbs-up-reviews/the-meat-fix-by-john-nicholson

[quote author=Zoey Harcombe]
The Meat Fix: How a Lifetime of Healthy Eating Nearly Killed Me!
By John Nicholson
Dialogue Press, 2012

Funny, angry, insightful, informative and narrative—these are the five words I would use to describe The Meat Fix by John Nicholson. It is a unique book and a welcome and important addition to the growing number of books advising fellow humans that the dietary messages coming from our governments are terribly, dangerously wrong. From Dr. Kaayla Daniel to Barry Groves to Mark Sisson to Dr. Malcolm Kendrick—there is no shortage of outstanding literature, whether on general dietary advice or specific tomes on soy or cholesterol. What is unique about this contribution is the raw, personal nature of the writing and the nothing-spared approach Nicholson has to telling his story.

And it is a story—a story of a young couple who left the modern world to live closer to nature, who decided that they couldn’t kill the animals in their new environment and so it would be unethical to eat animal products if they could not kill themselves. They became vegan. The book becomes the most graphic documentary of what happened next that you may ever read.

In the brilliant The Vegetarian Myth, Lierre Keith only touches on the legacy of damage that her veganism left. If you want a blow-by-blow account of how a vegan deteriorates physically, mentally and emotionally—Nicholson delivers. Sometimes crude, often painful, always heartfelt. If you don’t want to become intimately acquainted with conditions such as hemorrhoids and the bowel consequences of eating “more fibre than a horse,” then don’t read this book—or skip the passages that spell it out.

If you don’t like swear words, then don’t read this book. However, destroying one’s body from the inside out, because you thought you were the role model for healthy eating, is likely to make one pretty angry and the cursing made me laugh rather than cringe.

My husband read this book first and my curiosity was aroused when I heard him laughing on several occasions. “Bloke humor,” I thought, but then I read it and heard myself laughing out loud. It’s very much a case of “You’ve got to laugh or you’d cry.”

Nicholson shares the conditions he and his life partner, Dawn, developed by eating fruit, vegetables, healthy whole grains and soy. As Nicholson says, “I would wager that no one reading this, not one person, has eaten more soya foods than me.” The prize for this "exemplary" behaviour? Irritable bowel syndrome; acid reflux; no energy; no libido; obesity; forgetfulness; headaches; bloating; muscle loss; sleep loss; impaired mood; and everything that could go wrong with one’s gut having done so.

The couple’s interactions with the British medical profession are horrific and funny at the same time. They became their own healers and worked out what they needed to do. Dawn was the first to suggest that maybe meat could be their fix and, if a vegan or vegetarian has ever wondered—how do you start eating animals again—this book will tell you. What do you buy? From where? What does it taste like? How will you feel? What happens next? From vegan to virtually Paleo, the whole journey is shared.

As “the meat fix” was prescribed and administered, Nicholson learned a vast amount along the way. The book moves from his experience of medical conditions to his learning about nutrition. He does a fine job of covering the key factors in the main areas of debate taking in fat generally, saturated fat specifically, as well as cholesterol, sugar, soy, salt, five-a-day and all the nutritional myths that need slaying.

While The Meat Fix is not intended to be a diet book, Nicholson’s final chapter is an excellent summary of what to eat and what not to eat—no government plates or pyramids, just the facts about what should be in your consideration set and what shouldn’t be.

We then have a postscript “. . . And in the end,” which is the best summary of the conflict of interest-blocking change that I have yet seen. “If you’re a government do you really want to push a message that might keep the population healthier but would also undoubtedly mean the collapse or decline of a lot of the food processing and agrarian industries, which employ a lot of people and give up a lot of tax dollars?” Quite so.

The biggest problem with this book is that the people who most need to read it—the Nicholsons "before"—are those least likely to read it. The Nicholsons "after," or the we-were-never-as-daft-as-the-Nicholsons-in-the-first-place, are those most likely to read and appreciate this narrative. This is no fault of the book, of course —it’s the price that some people will pay for not listening to their bodies or not rethinking beliefs when more information becomes available. The Weston A. Price Foundation knows all about this. As Sally Fallon Morell says: “It’s no longer the survival of the fittest; it’s the survival of the wisest!”

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Summer 2012.
[/quote]

 

[fabric]

Thanks Dugdeep,

That sounds like an interesting book! Gonna put it on the wishlist for now ;)

Funny isn't it? Like the reviewer says, ..."the people who most need to read it—the Nicholsons "before"—are those least likely to read it. The Nicholsons "after," or the we-were-never-as-daft-as-the-Nicholsons-in-the-first-place, are those most likely to read and appreciate this narrative. " So very true.

 

[Voyageur]

Thanks Dugdeep,

Make that two.

Here is another review:

_http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/books-arts/review-food-the-meat-fix-by-john-nicholson-26843253.html

14 April 2012

Twenty-six years ago, journalist John Nicholson, previous nominee for the Sports Book Of The Year award in the UK, decided to move with his partner to a rural cottage.

While there, they decided, they would live as naturally as possible, keeping chickens for eggs and meat.

However, when they tried to dispatch one of the birds, the results were so gross they decided to never do it again.

So, went their logic, if they weren't prepared to kill their own food then they wouldn't feel morally comfortable asking someone else to do it for them so they decided to become vegetarian.

It's an argument proffered by many vegetarians who argue that anyone who eats pork or beef should go to an abattoir and see where their meat actually comes from.

It's fine as far as it goes, but like a lot of arguments in favour of vegetarianism, it's simplistic -- a bit like saying that if you can't fly a plane then you shouldn't use air travel.

But Nicholson decided that they would live the veggie life -- lots of beans and pulses, plenty of soy products and, in general, they would have a healthy lifestyle. In fact he went to the next stage and became a vegan.

There was, however, one problem -- Nicholson spent the next 26 years feeling awful, in discomfort or pain from Irritable Bowel Syndrome, overweight and lacking in energy.

Anyone who gets through his chapter on how he coped, and sometimes didn't, with his constant need to go to the bathroom will understand just how awful it was. He pulls no punches and you have to admire him for being so honest about such an embarrassing condition.

But this is not a book of self pity -- it's a book of humour, some exquisite writing and, most importantly, a terrible burning anger; an anger against elements of the vegetarian movement, an anger against himself for believing some of the things he had been told, but most of all, an anger against the medical establishment, in particular the dieticians and nutritionists of the NHS, as well as the GPs who failed to take his predicament seriously.

After all, he told them, he was living a healthy life, he didn't eat meat or processed food and he should be the poster boy for healthy living. Yet here he was, plagued with stomach problems, depressed and constantly farting -- and that was the least of his physical woes.