The Truth About Meat and Dairy

[phill4paul]

If you don't mind me asking, did you give it a shot for health reasons? Because what I have noticed is that many people who try it for health reasons end up going back to their normal diet. But when someone does it for ethical reasons, it's a whole different thing. It's hard to put it into words, and some of you won't like hearing this, but it's almost like an awakening... a life-changing thing that happens and you can't go back to thinking of meat in the same way.

No. I was healthy. I just lived in a hippy town in '87, working at a ski slope and in the summer doing construction, where all the employees were Deadheads. Everyone else was doing it. So I gave it a go. Within six months it destroyed my health. And it's not like the food I learned to eat and prepare wasn't good. I'll still take it as a side dish today. lilymc, everyone is different. Everyone. I know people that one toke knocks them out and people that can, honestly, smoke a quarter and still claim to not be stoned. My body needs meat. Yours may not, but, mine does.

[lilymc]

She's from the onion! Fake.

Besides, how much flavor is there in meat when you don't season it or prepare it a certain way? How many people would want to eat roadkill? The taste is primarily in the seasoning and the way you cook it. And believe it or not, you can get non-meat alternatives to taste that smoky, delicious way, just through the seasonings and how you cook it.

[lilymc]

So, I once did a stint with fruitarianism. No taking of life whatsoever. Eating only what nature provided as a means of reproduction. (Some plants create fruit to attract other animals to help spread their seed.) It was as pure from a philosophical point as I could get.

I'm glad I did it because it provided me some enlightenment I wouldn't have gotten otherwise, but it wasn't sustainable. I discovered that life consumes other life. It's natural. We are no more "taught" to eat animals than a baby lion is "taught" to eat a gazelle. Human beings are omnivores by nature. I've come to terms with it. And it's not an immoral thing (if done properly).

I agree that that's the way the world is today, but I disagree that it's 'natural' in the sense of how we were originally designed. What many people aren't thinking about (or simply disagree with, based on their worldview) is that we are living in a fallen world, what's happening now is not the way it was designed to be.

Both human beings and animals were plant-based originally (Genesis 1:29-31) and both will be ultimately (Isaiah 11:1-10).

From a Christian perspective, shouldn't we be aiming for God's perfect will, which is peace and harmony and compassion, and living by the Golden rule? If you're not a Christian, then no worries, we can just agree to disagree.

No. I was healthy. I just lived in a hippy town in '87, working at a ski slope and in the summer doing construction, where all the employees were Deadheads. Everyone else was doing it. So I gave it a go. Within six months it destroyed my health. And it's not like the food I learned to eat and prepare wasn't good. I'll still take it as a side dish today. lilymc, everyone is different. Everyone. I know people that one toke knocks them out and people that can, honestly, smoke a quarter and still claim to not be stoned. My body needs meat. Yours may not, but, mine does.

Well there's definitely a way to do it wrong. One of the most common mistakes that people make when they go vegetarian or vegan is to not get enough calories, or to eat only fruits or vegetables and not things like potatoes, beans, healthy fats, etc. But there is nothing in meat and dairy that you cannot get in a whole foods, plant-based diet. It comes down to that we've been lied to, for a very long time, by these industries that profit off the suffering of animals... and look at how many people in Western countries have cancer, heart disease, etc. So I absolutely disagree that the diet doesn't work for some people.

I think that people simply do not want to give up what they're so accustomed to, and I get that.

[phill4paul]

Well there's definitely a way to do it wrong. One of the most common mistakes that people make when they go vegetarian or vegan is to not get enough calories, or to eat only fruits or vegetables and not things like potatoes, beans, healthy fats, etc. But there is nothing in meat and dairy that you cannot get in a whole foods, plant-based diet. It comes down to that we've been lied to, for a very long time, by these industries that profit off the suffering of animals... and look at how many people in Western countries have cancer, heart disease, etc. So I absolutely disagree that the diet doesn't work for some people.

I think that people simply do not want to give up what they're so accustomed to, and I get that.

You make it sound like I did it wrong. You ain't right.

[lilymc]

You make it sound like I did it wrong. You ain't right.

I don't know what you did. I'm just saying that some people who try it out for a period of time either don't get enough calories or restrict themselves to only certain things and may not get all the nutrients that they need. Because there's no way that eating a whole foods plant-based diet the right way could destroy someone's health. In fact, there are numerous studies and testimonies that show it not only prevents disease but can actually reverse disease.

[heavenlyboy34]

She's from the onion! Fake.

Besides, how much flavor is there in meat when you don't season it or prepare it a certain way? How many people would want to eat roadkill? The taste is primarily in the seasoning and the way you cook it. And believe it or not, you can get non-meat alternatives to taste that smoky, delicious way, just through the seasonings and how you cook it.

Same as there is in plenty of vegan foods. (i.e. spinach salad, a plain potato/yam, etc) Careful, you're in the neighborhood of snobbery and virtue-signaling. :P

[lilymc]

Same as there is in plenty of vegan foods. (i.e. spinach salad, a plain potato/yam, etc) Careful, you're in the neighborhood of snobbery and virtue-signaling. :P

I agree that many foods are better when you add seasoning to them or mix them with something else. But just to play devils advocate, you don't need to add meat to plantfoods to make them taste better… But you do need to add herbs or other plantfoods to meat to make it taste better. I don't think that's getting in the neighborhood of snobbery... although I guess I could see how that could sound divisive. But I was mostly responding in a half-joking way anyway, to that video she posted.

[GunnyFreedom]

You make it sound like I did it wrong. You ain't right.

Well, it wouldn't be a panacea if you had done it right, and it surely can't NOT be a panacea, therefore ipso-facto hocus-pocus you must have done it wrong.

[VIDEODROME]

[angelatc]

She's from the onion!

She works at The Onion. She became a vegetarian in the 4th grade, then came to her epiphany at age 32. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-Chicago.html

[Natural Citizen]

Gunny don't put no seasons in his meat.



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5701359

[lilymc]

She works at The Onion. She became a vegetarian in the 4th grade, then came to her epiphany at age 32. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-Chicago.html

I still think it's one big troll.… Or a publicity stunt for that restaurant.

And based on the best rated comment, I'm not alone on that:

[lilymc]

Gunny don't put no seasons in his meat.



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5701359

Does he eat it that way, with no seasoning?

[CaptUSA]

Does he eat it that way, with no seasoning?

I generally prefer meat with no seasoning other than salt and a little char/smoke. Red meat at least. Chickens are just bland.

But bacon?! Come on... don't tell me bacon needs seasoning.

[Natural Citizen]

Actually, with bacon, it has no flavor until it gets sent to the smokehouse where it gets smoked and seasoned.

My dad used to send his pigs in and he always ordered half of the bacon 'fresh' and half the bacon 'smoked'

If you never had 'fresh' bacon, trust me, don't try it. No flavor at all. It doesn't really cook crisp either. Just kind of chewy.

[Natural Citizen]

Does he eat it that way, with no seasoning?

I dunno. He never invite me over for canned meat. He only invites his friends over.

Anyway, I remembered his canned meat thread when you all were talking about seasoning in meat.


Proceeed...

[Natural Citizen]

Oh wait, you know what tastes better than bacon? Some pan fried fatback. Some ol country boys around here might know what some pan fried fatback tastes like.

[lilymc]

I generally prefer meat with no seasoning other than salt and a little char/smoke. Red meat at least. Chickens are just bland.

But bacon?! Come on... don't tell me bacon needs seasoning.

Bacon is processed meat. So you don't have to add seasoning to it because it's already been added when they processed it They add that smoky flavor, salt, and other seasonings… And I didn't know this in the past, but you can get that same exact taste, which doesn't come from the meat itself, it comes from how it's prepared, to plant-based (and cruelty-free) alternatives.

Plus, bacon is classified as a carcinogen… So if you can get that same smoky, salty flavor in plant-based alternatives that are cruelty-free and not cancer-causing carcinogens… Why not do so?

[lilymc]

Actually, with bacon, it has no flavor until it gets sent to the smokehouse where it gets smoked and seasoned.

My dad used to send his pigs in and he always ordered half of the bacon 'fresh' and half the bacon 'smoked'

If you never had 'fresh' bacon, trust me, don't try it. No flavor at all. It doesn't really cook crisp either. Just kind of chewy.

THANK YOU!!!

[GunnyFreedom]

Does he eat it that way, with no seasoning?

Most of it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Bacon is processed meat. So you don't have to add seasoning to it because it's already been added when they processed it They add that smoky flavor, salt, and other seasonings… And I didn't know this in the past, but you can get that same exact taste, which doesn't come from the meat itself, it comes from how it's prepared, to plant-based (and cruelty-free) alternatives.

Plus, bacon is classified as a carcinogen… So if you can get that same smoky, salty flavor in plant-based alternatives that are cruelty-free and not cancer-causing carcinogens… Why not do so?

All very hot liquids are classified as carcinogens too. Therefore, stop with the tea and coffee!!!11!11!!! #letsscaremonger

[Dr.3D]

All very hot liquids are classified as carcinogens too. Therefore, stop with the tea and coffee!!!11!11!!! #letsscaremonger

Yeah, it's a good thing we all don't live in California. So many things there are carcinogens.

[lilymc]

All very hot liquids are classified as carcinogens too. Therefore, stop with the tea and coffee!!!11!11!!! #letsscaremonger

Where does it say it's a type 1 carcinogen? I didn't see that in the article. Unless I missed it, it seems to be a "probable" carcinogen which is not the same thing as a known carcinogen, based on hundreds of studies.

But I know you just like to debate.

[phill4paul]

Oh wait, you know what tastes better than bacon? Some pan fried fatback. Some ol country boys around here might know what some pan fried fatback tastes like.

I've eaten it as pork rinds aka 'cracklings.' It's also good in a mess of green beans.

[heavenlyboy34]

Where does it say it's a type 1 carcinogen? I didn't see that in the article.

Same place bacon is listed as type 1 in your link-nowhere.



But, see this...

While the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) was unable to find conclusive evidence to suggest coffee itself causes cancer, a review released on Wednesday of 1000 humans and animals found that any liquid consumed when hotter than 65 degrees celsius is probably doing carcinogenic damage to your oesophagus.

But I know you just like to debate.

That and question spurious claims.

[lilymc]

Same place bacon is listed as type 1 in your link-nowhere.



But, see this...



That and question spurious claims.

http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

How is it a spurious claim when you can go right to the source and see that processed meat is listed as a type 1 carcinogen?

So my question remains, where is hot liquids listed as a type 1 carcinogen? Yes, you do like to argue.

[Jamesiv1]

I wouldn't mind a couple cans of that potted meat and crackers. mmm hmmm

[heavenlyboy34]

http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

How is it a spurious claim when you can go right to the source and see that processed meat is listed as a type 1 carcinogen?

For some reason I couldn't find the bit about processed meat before. :/ I avoid the stuff myself(have for many years) and am not surprised.

So my question remains, where is hot liquids listed as a type 1 carcinogen? Yes, you do like to argue.

Did you not see the hyperlinked text in my post? It's very blue and obvious. Here's the plain link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/201...er_a_21396241/
Drinking 'Very Hot Liquids' May Cause Oesophageal Cancer

Coffee and tea will not cause the disease, unless you drink them piping hot.



It seems like every couple of months there's a new link to the dreaded c-word, so what could it possibly be now?
According to the World Health Organisation's cancer agency, it's any liquid that could be described as "very hot".

While the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) was unable to find conclusive evidence to suggest coffee itself causes cancer, a review released on Wednesday of 1000 humans and animals found that any liquid consumed when hotter than 65 degrees celsius is probably doing carcinogenic damage to your oesophagus.

Christopher Wild, Director of IARC, said in a press release: "These results suggest that drinking very hot beverages is one probable cause of oesophageal cancer and that it is the temperature, rather than the drinks themselves, that appears to be responsible."

The study found that drinks such as mate, an Argentinian tea infusion, and other drinks from parts of Asia, South America and Africa develop carcinogenic effects such as oesophageal tumours when drinking temperatures rise above 65 degrees, according to the ABC.

Dana Loomis, the deputy head of IARC's monograph classification department, said in a press conference: "[This] does not show that coffee is certainly safe ... but there is less reason for concern today than there was before,
"It doesn't matter what the liquid is . . . What matters is the temperature."
So how serious is this, and is 65 degrees celsius really drinkable?
Bruce Armstrong, emeritus professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney doesn't believe so.
"The probable mechanism here is chronic inflammation of the tissues that are affected by the very hot liquids," he told The Huffington Post Australia.
"Very few people would be able to drink any significant quantity of liquid at a temperature of 65 degrees or above, it'd be too hot and at most they'd simply sip it."

The findings come a year after the IARC reported that consumption of processed meats such as bacon can also be carcinogenic, but the risk is lowered when eaten in moderation.
David Spiegelhalter, a professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at Britain's University of Cambridge, said: "In the case of very hot drinks, the IARC concludes they are probably hazardous, but can't say how big the risk might be," according to the Australian Financial Review.
"This may be interesting science, but makes it difficult to construct a sensible response."

[lilymc]

Did you not see the hyperlinked text in my post? It's very blue and obvious. Here's the plain link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/201...er_a_21396241/
Drinking 'Very Hot Liquids' May Cause Oesophageal Cancer

Coffee and tea will not cause the disease, unless you drink them piping hot.



It seems like every couple of months there's a new link to the dreaded c-word, so what could it possibly be now?
According to the World Health Organisation's cancer agency, it's any liquid that could be described as "very hot".

While the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) was unable to find conclusive evidence to suggest coffee itself causes cancer, a review released on Wednesday of 1000 humans and animals found that any liquid consumed when hotter than 65 degrees celsius is probably doing carcinogenic damage to your oesophagus.

Christopher Wild, Director of IARC, said in a press release: "These results suggest that drinking very hot beverages is one probable cause of oesophageal cancer and that it is the temperature, rather than the drinks themselves, that appears to be responsible."

The study found that drinks such as mate, an Argentinian tea infusion, and other drinks from parts of Asia, South America and Africa develop carcinogenic effects such as oesophageal tumours when drinking temperatures rise above 65 degrees, according to the ABC.

Dana Loomis, the deputy head of IARC's monograph classification department, said in a press conference: "[This] does not show that coffee is certainly safe ... but there is less reason for concern today than there was before,
"It doesn't matter what the liquid is . . . What matters is the temperature."
So how serious is this, and is 65 degrees celsius really drinkable?
Bruce Armstrong, emeritus professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney doesn't believe so.
"The probable mechanism here is chronic inflammation of the tissues that are affected by the very hot liquids," he told The Huffington Post Australia.
"Very few people would be able to drink any significant quantity of liquid at a temperature of 65 degrees or above, it'd be too hot and at most they'd simply sip it."

The findings come a year after the IARC reported that consumption of processed meats such as bacon can also be carcinogenic, but the risk is lowered when eaten in moderation.
David Spiegelhalter, a professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at Britain's University of Cambridge, said: "In the case of very hot drinks, the IARC concludes they are probably hazardous, but can't say how big the risk might be," according to the Australian Financial Review.
"This may be interesting science, but makes it difficult to construct a sensible response."

You didn't answer the question! I don't care with the Huffington Post says, I would like to know if it's on the official list of group 1 carcinogens. That's all I wanted to know.

Honest question, because I didn't see it. But if you can prove that wrong, please do.

[lilymc]

I see that you edited the first part your previous post, about processed meats. It's OK, we don't have to keep arguing.