Need Fact-Based or Solid Rational Reasons Against Ethical Vegetarianism

[namandixit]

How come Humans get non-veg anyway while most of the other ape-like animals stay more or less veg? Definitely not due to big black monoliths presented to moonwatcher, I guess

[Michael63129]

@namandixit

How come Humans get non-veg anyway while most of the other ape-like animals stay more or less veg? Definitely not due to big black monoliths presented to moonwatcher, I guess

Our closest cousins, chimpanzees, regularly eat meat; for example, they will hunt down and eat monkeys. They also eat insects, especially termites, which I count as meat (although other people may beg to differ, but if it is an animal, meaning it moves on its own, eats food, has legs, eyes, brains, etc, its meat).

And of course, humans differ markedly from chimps in their brains, which leads to this:

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

Also, as for claims that Americans eat too much meat, meat contributes less than 20% of daily calories (around 480), compared to about 40% for nutritionally worthless added fats and sugars (around 1,000), which is where our diet really goes off the rails (replace added fats and sugars with fruits and vegetables, minus excess calories, which would blow by all recommendations to eat more of these, roughly quadrupling intake, and you probably come close to the “ideal” human diet).

[DrDeth]

@Michael63129

Also, as for claims that Americans eat too much meat, meat contributes less than 20% of daily calories (around 480), compared to about 40% for nutritionally worthless added fats and sugars (around 1,000), which is where our diet really goes off the rails (replace added fats and sugars with fruits and vegetables, minus excess calories, which would blow by all recommendations to eat more of these, roughly quadrupling intake, and you probably come close to the “ideal” human diet).

Yes, we do eat a little too much meat, but we eat HWAAAY too much empty carbs.

[Ferret_Herder]

Remember, animals aren’t always the ones to look to as best judges of their own diets, either. I own a rabbit who tries to eat chicken (which is absolutely not good for their digestion), and likes to drink vodka or sweetened coffee if he can get hold of them. They’re supposed to be more strict in their diet than a raw-foodist vegan.

[Kaio]

@Michael63129

Also, as for claims that Americans eat too much meat, meat contributes less than 20% of daily calories (around 480), compared to about 40% for nutritionally worthless added fats and sugars (around 1,000), which is where our diet really goes off the rails (replace added fats and sugars with fruits and vegetables, minus excess calories, which would blow by all recommendations to eat more of these, roughly quadrupling intake, and you probably come close to the “ideal” human diet).

That chart is fascinating. What the hell happened in 1999 that we suddenly started guzzling buckets of fat? Whoa.

[DSeid]

Beware unsourced graphics.

MMWR Report 1971 to 2000. Graphs on the site.

The percentage of kcals from total fat decreased from 36.9% to 32.8% (p<0.01) for men and from 36.1% to 32.8% (p<0.01) for women. In addition, the percentage of kcals from saturated fat decreased from 13.5% to 10.9% (p<0.01) for men and from 13.0% to 11.0% (p<0.01) for women. A slight decrease was observed in the percentage of kcals from protein, from 16.5% to 15.5% (p<0.01) for men and from 16.9% to 15.1% (p<0.01) for women.

The decrease in the percentage of kcals from fat during 1971–1991 is attributed to an increase in total kcals consumed; absolute fat intake in grams increased (5). USDA food consumption survey data from 1989–1991 and 1994–1996 indicated that the increased energy intake was caused primarily by higher carbohydrate intake (6). Data from NHANES for 1971–2000 indicate similar trends. The increase in energy intake is attributable primarily to an increase in carbohydrate intake, with a 62.4-gram increase among women (p<0.01) and a 67.7-gram increase among men (p<0.01). Total fat intake in grams increased among women by 6.5 g (p<0.01) and decreased among men by 5.3 g (p<0.01). …

… USDA survey data for 1977–1996 suggest that factors contributing to the increase in energy intake in the United States include consumption of food away from home; increased energy consumption from salty snacks, soft drinks, and pizza (8); and increased portion sizes (9).

Since then:

Energy intake appeared relatively stable over the 10-year period from 1999-2008; there were no statistically significant linear increases or decreases in total energy intake.
There were statistically significant trends in intake of the macronutrients: average carbohydrate intake decreased and average protein intake increased in both men and women. … There were no significant trends in total fat intake in men and women of all race-ethnicities combined

Not sure where that graph got its information but there does not seem to have actually been any explosion of fat intake in 1999.

[DSeid]

Some more stats on American meat consumption.

Food availability data indicate that overall meat consumption is on the rise in the developed nations of the world and that the U.S. remains the highest consumer of total meat. Despite a shift toward increased poultry consumption, red meat still represents the largest proportion of meat consumed in the U.S. and nearly a quarter of the meat consumed is processed. Meat selection and consumption behaviors appeared to vary by education, race, age, and gender.

Despite near record-high per capita consumption of total meat in recent years, the proportion of fat, particularly saturated fat, in the U.S. food supply from meat, poultry, and fish has been slowly declining(30). Public health and consumer concerns regarding fat and cholesterol in the late 1980s led to greater demand for lean meat and poultry, increased trimming of visible fat on meat at the retail level, and consumer substitution of poultry for red meat(30, 31). Reports on fat consumption trends in the U.S. have shown a marked reduction in the proportion of fat from foods identified as major sources of saturated fat, including red meat (pork and beef) over the past several decades(32, 33).

Previous reports have shown that consumer’s knowledge and awareness of diet and health may affect the proportion of red versus white meat consumed both at home and away from home(34). Chronological USDA data suggest that although poultry consumption has increased, red meat consumption has decreased comparably little, leaving total meat on the rise. Both loss-adjusted USDA data and intake values in NHANES suggest that current total meat intake for adults in the U.S. ranges from 100 to 150 g/day with more than half (50 to 90 g/day) coming from red meat

I’d love to see processed meat intake broken out further than its percent (22%) of total intake. Any trend over time?

[DSeid]

Ah. The why that reported increase in that graphic (warning, fairly large pdf):

One important caveat about the added fats and oils data is that the number
of firms reporting vegetable oil production to the U.S. Census Bureau
increased noticeably in 2000. As a result, the availability of salad and
cooking oils and shortening rose from 50 pounds per person in 1999 to 65
pounds person in 2000, a 31-percent increase.

A fluke of the reporting process.

No debate though with the point that we eat too much food like substances (highly palatable processed crap with added fats, oils, and sugars) and not enough real food.

[manila]

Vegetarianism is subversive against the human species. The evolved ability to digest animal proteins meant we didn’t have to spend 23 hours a day foraging and grazing. Most herbivores had to evolve huge frames to carry the proportionally large stomach needed to process inferior nutrient sources.

The ability to digest animal matter gave our bodies the option to successfully evolve smaller stomachs and larger brains and spend less time looking for new pastures.

If we were to revert to vegetarianism in a few hundred thousand years we would be back in the meadows standing on all fours chewing the cud!

I rest my case!

[Chimera]

Somewhere on a Soybean farm…

[Kaio]

As a result, the availability of salad and
cooking oils and shortening rose from 50 pounds per person in 1999 to 65
pounds person in 2000, a 31-percent increase.

Okay, I found that confusing. Do they mean that the availability actually rose (as in, more companies were producing salad dressing and therefore more people were eating it), or that it only appeared to rise (as in, all these companies had been making salad dressing all along, but never mentioned it to the Census Bureau, and therefore all the salad dressing we’d already been eating hadn’t been counted before then)? Wouldn’t it make more sense to survey the consumers of food instead of the producers?

Also, the Census Bureau keeps track of food?

[Two_Many_Cats]

There are also other reasons that we humans kill living creatures. Would your friend object to using an exterminator to kill cockroaches or bedbugs? Would he be content to die from an infectious disease rather than kill the microbes within his body? His body is killing living creatures even as he breathes.

[DSeid]

@Kaio

Okay, I found that confusing. Do they mean that the availability actually rose (as in, more companies were producing salad dressing and therefore more people were eating it), or that it only appeared to rise (as in, all these companies had been making salad dressing all along, but never mentioned it to the Census Bureau, and therefore all the salad dressing we’d already been eating hadn’t been counted before then)? Wouldn’t it make more sense to survey the consumers of food instead of the producers?

Also, the Census Bureau keeps track of food?

Well it is clearly where whoever made that graphic Michael63129 got their data from (see page 13).

What the authors of that report track is “supplies moving through production and trade channels for domestic consumption … not a direct measure of actual consumption but is useful to understand trends over time …” which they then adjust “for spoilage and other losses …”

In the case of added fats and oils the sudden rise in 1999 was not that manufacturers were suddenly making and selling more, but that they started to report the added oils they had already been selling. Nevertheless the authors believe that there was a gradual modest long term trend of added oils per their methods.

Yes, surveying consumers directly (rather than producers) makes much more sense and that sort of survey data is what those MMWR reports are based on. And yes, the Census Bureau keeps track of food availability.

The point is a bit of a hijack but the thread is a somewhat reanimated one anyway. Added oils (and “seed oils” are sometimes pointed at) are no more the culprit for Western obesity and health problems than is meat or carbohydrates, at least not in any direct fashion. Indirectly maybe. Foods (and drinks) with lots of fats, simple refined carbs/sugars, salt, so on, are just so damn appealing to us that we apparently can’t help ourselves from buying and eating lots of it, and realizing that manufacturers are more than happy to oblige and process, market and sell more and more of it.

[Broomstick]

@tdn

This was going to be my argument. Meat is the only source of all of the protiens you need. Eggs probably count. Dairy is kind of a weak source, IIRC.

^ This is incorrect. You do NOT need meat to get complete protein.

The only nutrient you can NOT get from plants is B12… and that is found in eggs and dairy so certainly an ovo-lacto vegetarian diet (which is what your friend follows) is entirely adequate for human needs.

[DrDeth]

@Broomstick

^ This is incorrect. You do NOT need meat to get complete protein.

The only nutrient you can NOT get from plants is B12… and that is found in eggs and dairy so certainly an ovo-lacto vegetarian diet (which is what your friend follows) is entirely adequate for human needs.

He is correct. Meat (and other animal products) is the only single source of all of the proteins you need, altho I have added one word to make it more clear. In order to get the proper blend of Aminos from plants you must eat a moderately carefully balanced selection.

[Kaio]

He is correct except that he misspoke? Are you a politician?!

[Jackmannii]

Need Fact-Based or Solid Rational Reasons Against Ethical Vegetarianism

One word: barbecue.

[tomcar]

@DrDeth

He is correct. Meat (and other animal products) is the only single source of all of the proteins you need, altho I have added one word to make it more clear. In order to get the proper blend of Aminos from plants you must eat a moderately carefully balanced selection.

And if you eat meat you have to eat a carefully balanced diet. Heart disease and obesity are rampant. Generally vegs are more careful with dietary needs than meat eaters. I have known hundreds of vegetarians in my life and maybe 1 out of 20 is obese.

[Ferret_Herder]

@DrDeth

He is correct. Meat (and other animal products) is the only single source of all of the proteins you need, altho I have added one word to make it more clear. In order to get the proper blend of Aminos from plants you must eat a moderately carefully balanced selection.

You mean like beans and rice? That’s hard!

Really, as long as you don’t eat the same thing for every meal - same as for your average eater - you’re almost certainly OK as a vegetarian.

[DrDeth]

@tomcar

And if you eat meat you have to eat a carefully balanced diet. Heart disease and obesity are rampant. Generally vegs are more careful with dietary needs than meat eaters. I have known hundreds of vegetarians in my life and maybe 1 out of 20 is obese.

Sure, if you cut any major food group out of your diet you will lose weight.

But the problem today is not meat anywhere near as much as it is HFCS, empty carbs and veg oils, in other words junk snack foods. Fast food is part of the problem, and yes, there cheap hamburger is part of the problem.