Is there more flatulence in a vegetarian diet?

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

Now, Mr. Cecil, the “Ignorance Fighter,” comments on flatulence in a vegetarian diet by consulting google instead of a professional to find the “correct” answer to his question, because obviously when one contacts google, it is bound to produce the most scientifically accurate reponse to the query entered. This is not to bind ourselves by facts which would lead one to believe the highest connected websites are displayed on top in the google engine… which is how it works… scientifically… but we are fighting “ignorance” here and must not concern ourselves with silly notions of an empirical system.

Which brings us to the fantastic logic Mr. Cecil disposes on our wanting souls: since an inquiry to google produces a such amount of hits, then the item in question must be true. Now, this seems like a sure-fire way to pave the golden road to supreme knowledge. Perhaps other professionals like Nasa personel could figure out if they’ve landed on the moon or not using this perscribed, useful method handed down from the fighter of “Ignorance.” (Since 1973).

Our question now turns to one of gas in a vegetarian diet. Calling upon an old grade school hymn, we can easily conclude vegetarians do have more gas, mainly, “the more you eat, the more you toot.” Also, if we look at how a cow’s digestive system works (since we have a very equal amount of stomachs) we can also ascertain that the human digestive system (which MUST be very similar, using simple “ignorance” free logic) is quite similar.

Way to go, Cecil.

Now I know that I am the ignorant one and wish not to tread in your holy waters, but it seems to me a vegetarian can supplement the lack of protein with other nutrients readily available such as whey or the like.

The advantages of a vegetarian diet are not in saving poor bambi.

Let me ask you what makes a good piece of meat taste good? The large amount of protein? The, ah, great taste of the flesh? Hmmm… let me think, I know this is ignorant - but perhaps it is the fat in the meat which makes it taste good. And if you look at the current - Atkins/meat craze - diet scheme and see well over a million over weight americans, it makes me wonder, in my ignorant world, of course.

Not to say meat is the sole responsible agent in making people fat but, excuse me, it is your exact ignorance of other dieting options which is making people fat and slow. I’m not advocating a meat-free diet, but the idea that meat is some wonder food which can not be done away with is a well, ummm, the most ignorant, stupid, thing I’ve heard of in a while.

Get a new search engile Cecil.

Good Night.

Matt White.

P.S. (I realize this is a digression from the subject, but one that needed to be addressed in more detail to keep the pigs at bay)

2

Oooooooookay, then.

3

Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards, whit5492, we’re glad to have you with us.

When you start a thread, it’s helpful to other readers if you provide a link to the column you’re commenting on. Helps keep us all on the same page, saves search time, and is generally a Good Thing to Do. No biggie, I’ve edited a link into your OP. You’ll know for next time.

Now, to your comments: you make an interesting but somewhat flawed point about Google searching. Cecil’s point about the number of hits was that the topic has aroused some interest, not that he was swayed by majority vote on the issue.

The reality is that there are plenty of biased sources out there, and so a Google search can reveal ALL sources – professional, biased, idiotic, whatever. Not all professional sources are unbiased on this topic. And while Cecil is commenting with a sort of droll humor on the number of hits, that’s not what he’s using to base his conclusions. He certainly knows the difference between reasonable and unreasonable sources for use.

Your NASA point is a good one. If you really thought the moon landing might be a hoax, would you expect to get an honest answer from NASA (who would have been the original hoax perpetrators)? Not at all. But a google search would reveal plenty of sources – including valid, respectable astronomers – who all come down firmly on the side of “Yes, the moon landing really happened” … and lots of conspiracy-loony sites. Now, you have some comfort level, because you’ve got plenty of independent resputable sources backing up the NASA position.

The situation is slightly reveresed here. Any website that’s pushing vegetarianism is obviously biased from the get-go, so you need to find reputable, reliable, respectable sources that DON’T have a particular bias. Hence, a Google search to try to find some unbiased sources.

On the question of cows, I suggest you read a little more of Cecil’s columns, and perhaps you’ll catch on to the concept of “joke.” However, his point is not that cow stomachs and human stomachs are physically interchangable, but that the chemical processes involved in digestion are similar.

4

Especially similar in regards to gas production (which is the point on which Cecil was comparing them) since in both cases it is gastrointestinal bacteria who are munching on the polysaccharides and producing the hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and methane.

5

Of course, ruminants rely on their bacteria to a far greater degree than we do. Ours basically just get the left overs from digestion, while in cows the bulk of their caloric intake gets the microbial once-over. So, from a total environmental impact, clearly the minimal gas production scenario lies firmly with the vegatarians. But, from a personal comfort standpoint, proximity is as important as volume. Ozzy Osbourn can blast his speakers as loud as he likes, as long as he does it 30 miles outside of town, and not, say, in the apartment below me. Which (to wring the very last bit of humor out of it) is the whole point of Cecil’s bon mot.