Why are you not vegan....

[hood1971]

No valid ones.

Meat consumption in US a been declining for decades yet poor health has been on the rise.

The US is one of the largest spenders in the world for health care.

Correct more to it not only about consuming meat but to try to disregard it when you must have forgotten to do your history our species consumed only this for millions of years.

So an Oxford study that covering 1.4 million people over 30 years is not valid?

Red and processed meat linked to increased risk of heart disease, Oxford study shows | University of Oxford

Largest review of all large-scale studies to date finds red and processed meat increase the risk of heart disease.

www.ox.ac.uk

I have stated a few times that poor health is due to multiple factors, and high intake of red meat is one of them. Whilst US consumption has been declining they still consume more than double the 50g the study shows does risk health.

Also whilst the US spend a fortune on health care, both quality and outcomes are not very good.

U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2019: Higher Spending, Worse Outcomes?

Americans are living shorter, unhealthier lives. Yet, the United States outspends other wealthy nations when it comes to health care, according to a new Commonwealth Fund report. This analysis compares the U.S. to 10 other high-income nations on spending, outcomes, risk factors, and quality.

www.commonwealthfund.org

The Complex Relationship between Cost and Quality in US Health Care

Many treatments are given to patients who have little to gain from them.

journalofethics.ama-assn.org

 

[Combat squirrel]

Hey guys, (now ive got you with that title) so I went vegetarian about 9 months ago after struggling with the idea of eating meat for quite a while and have recently gone vegan after seeing footage of a cow get bolt gunned in the head.

I think the main problems are ignorance and cultural conditioning, I recently found that baby male chicks are either ground up alive or gassed at 1 day old because they're useless in the egg industry. And piglets have their teeth "trimmed" and tails "docked" to reduce tail biting amongst other pigs which is a symptom of mental stress, gee I wonder why they might be stressed....

So why are you not vegan....

Edited the title just due to the backlash

Documentary on UK farming - https://www.landofhopeandglory.org/

Document on the misery of broiler or "meat" birds https://www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/staticImages/BroilerCampaign/EatSitSufferRepeat.pdf

A factual post for sure.

There has been 47 pages of replies, some daft, some ignorant, some defiant no doubt, some plain stupid.

The answer I believe is ignorance, people enjoy their cosy little lives & don't want to think about the reality of their world, they like being good little worker bees & 9-5 it & because they grow old, deem themselves successful.

Eating meat is part of that mind set - the UK has a rife 'traditionalism' problem, about half the UK thinks that they can, should and only must live the way their parents did, to suggest otherwise is offensive to these sorts, and you often get called a 'leftie' for not doing 'what we've done in the uk for centuries'

It is that mindset, along with rife capitalism, advertising & social conditioning that people think they must drink baby cow food, eat the dead bodies of them, etc.

I think meat eating, like other 'traditions' will go the same way, just as slavery & wide spread murder were once deemed socially acceptable, it's now no longer the case, in 100 years people will look back in the same way at consuming meat (assuming humanity continues to evolve, which is at times, hard to believe these days as we are slipping gradually back to the right).

Its just the way of humanity, you have your traditionalists & you have your progressive thinkers (which are usually the sorts to pay more attention to science/fact), in time meat will drop in popularity as education & social norms change.

Well done for going Vegan, it will make you happier, healthy & help avoid many western diseases such as cancer & heart issues.

 

[andybird123]

have stated a few times that poor health is due to multiple factors, and high intake of red meat is one of them. Whilst US consumption has been declining they still consume more than double the 50g the study shows does risk health.

It's not even just "red meat", as most of the red meat eaten in the US is in the form of highly processed red meat. You're being so incredibly selective to the point of disingenuous. I mostly eat chicken and fish, lean white meat, how much of a health benefit is going vegan going to give me a realistically given that I don't eat much processed food and cook everything fresh?
As it turns out, the vegan food I had been buying was worse than the meat I'd replaced it with. People living on sausages and burgers are not suddenly going to eat healthier, they are going to eat fake burgers and fake sausages rammed with palm oil and salt.

 

[krooton]

From what I have read, high LDL being bad shouldn't be looked at in isolation, it's the LDL:HDL ratio that matters, so as long as you also increase your HDL intake to keep this ratio in check, that increased risk factor from red meat is somewhat mitigated.

Also, no-one knows what their baseline risk factor for things are. If I have a baseline risk factor of developing coronary disease at 10%, eating 200g of red meat a day would only increase that to 13.6%, a gamble I am willing to take for a more enjoyable time alive (not that I eat 200g of red meat every day, chicken is far more common in my diet).

 

[Hagar]

...and don't get me started on halal and kosher. We had in this country acceptable methods of slaughter, as humane as possible. We are not in the middle east, we do not get daytime temperatures in the high thirties. We don't get flyblown pork. Letting animals bleed out as they die. We have good refrigeration for killed meats and a high standard of practice. An unknown but therefore relatively small number of people are poisoned by their food.

So why do we accept archaic beliefs into the food chain. As a reasonably educated and prosperous country we should have outlawed all this guff and make sure that the quickest and most painfree methods are used. Not those outlined in the Torah or the Koran or some similar text from the middle ages of this country.

An atheistic omnivore.

 

[Raymond Lin]

So an Oxford study that covering 1.4 million people over 30 years is not valid?

Red and processed meat linked to increased risk of heart disease, Oxford study shows | University of Oxford

Largest review of all large-scale studies to date finds red and processed meat increase the risk of heart disease.

www.ox.ac.uk

I have stated a few times that poor health is due to multiple factors, and high intake of red meat is one of them. Whilst US consumption has been declining they still consume more than double the 50g the study shows does risk health.

Also whilst the US spend a fortune on health care, both quality and outcomes are not very good.

U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2019: Higher Spending, Worse Outcomes?

Americans are living shorter, unhealthier lives. Yet, the United States outspends other wealthy nations when it comes to health care, according to a new Commonwealth Fund report. This analysis compares the U.S. to 10 other high-income nations on spending, outcomes, risk factors, and quality.

www.commonwealthfund.org

The Complex Relationship between Cost and Quality in US Health Care

Many treatments are given to patients who have little to gain from them.

journalofethics.ama-assn.org

1.4 million is still smaller than 120 million of Japanese. That's like 1% of the Japanese population who eats meat and lives very long life.

What they don't eat that much is PROCESSED meat. Plus their cows are VERY fatty, but it's so fatty they don't eat much of it, it's very expensive and it gets sickly quickly. You don't want a 16oz of it for sure.

Which to me suggest the problem isn’t so much about meat, or even red meat, but how much you eat. Small amount, NON-Processed is fine, 120million proved it so.

I wouldn’t expect eating a steak twice a year is going to increase my chance of cancer by 9%. If I eat a McDonald’s everyday, sure!

 

[hood1971]

It's not even just "red meat", as most of the red meat eaten in the US is in the form of highly processed red meat. You're being so incredibly selective to the point of disingenuous. I mostly eat chicken and fish, lean white meat, how much of a health benefit is going vegan going to give me a realistically given that I don't eat much processed food and cook everything fresh?
As it turns out, the vegan food I had been buying was worse than the meat I'd replaced it with. People living on sausages and burgers are not suddenly going to eat healthier, they are going to eat fake burgers and fake sausages rammed with palm oil and salt.

You do realise that chicken and fish are not considered red meat? Or are you being selective? Numerous times I have stated that healthy diet and lifestyle cannot be down to one thing, but high consumption of red/processed meat has been proven to be unhealthy.
As a society we need to reduce meat consumption for environment, whilst reducing red meat can help health. I have also stated that I am a hypocrite in that I do eat meat, though mostly chicken and fish and understand the harm this causes around the world.

 

[edGfaCTor]

From what I have read, high LDL being bad shouldn't be looked at in isolation, it's the LDL:HDL ratio that matters, so as long as you also increase your HDL intake to keep this ratio in check, that increased risk factor from red meat is somewhat mitigated.

Also, no-one knows what their baseline risk factor for things are. If I have a baseline risk factor of developing coronary disease at 10%, eating 200g of red meat a day would only increase that to 13.6%, a gamble I am willing to take for a more enjoyable time alive (not that I eat 200g of red meat every day, chicken is far more common in my diet).

If you have low you die humans require it we naturally produce 80% of cholesterol and the LDL/HDL ratio is made up to sell pills. (only one type of cholesterol)

Risk factor equals cause/effect almost all the studies which try to claim something are by association not valid science all made up to sell pills.

People still keep going on about red meat this or that this shows it that does no it doesn't as pointed out no proper controlled studies have ever been conducted the other issue is with all these studies as I said before The Randle Cycle which wont be engaged if you was to consume only red meat but if you have it with bread or other high carb foods which people always do in the studies it is then nothign to do with red meat the study is invalid.

I already mentioned before how a lot of these claimed studies are questionnaire ones as well with adjusted statistics to meet the goal of the people running the study. (these people are paid a lot of money not for the truth)

You do realise that chicken and fish are not considered red meat? Or are you being selective? Numerous times I have stated that healthy diet and lifestyle cannot be down to one thing, but high consumption of red/processed meat has been proven to be unhealthy.
As a society we need to reduce meat consumption for environment, whilst reducing red meat can help health. I have also stated that I am a hypocrite in that I do eat meat, though mostly chicken and fish and understand the harm this causes around the world.

Correct those are not red meat the poster clearly knows this.

There is no evidence at all red meat is unhealthy stop coming out with lies provide the controlled studies which shows "causation"

Next part again lies people who are going to keep making claims need to stop recycling the mainstream line and do some proper research.

 

[andybird123]

You do realise that chicken and fish are not considered red meat? Or are you being selective? Numerous times I have stated that healthy diet and lifestyle cannot be down to one thing, but high consumption of red/processed meat has been proven to be unhealthy.
As a society we need to reduce meat consumption for environment, whilst reducing red meat can help health. I have also stated that I am a hypocrite in that I do eat meat, though mostly chicken and fish and understand the harm this causes around the world.

A continuing theme of this thread is "vegan food is more healthy than meat", so I was responding to you on that theme, I apologise if I misunderstood the gist of your post.

On a side note, we've always been told that cheese will give you a heart attack because it has high levels of saturated fat, but 2 recent studies have shown that people who eat 60g or more of cheese per day are less likely to have heart disease. Needless to say, the context of those studies needs to be examined further before drawing too many conclusions.

 

[Freefaller]

From what I have read, high LDL being bad shouldn't be looked at in isolation, it's the LDL:HDL ratio that matters, so as long as you also increase your HDL intake to keep this ratio in check, that increased risk factor from red meat is somewhat mitigated.

Also, no-one knows what their baseline risk factor for things are. If I have a baseline risk factor of developing coronary disease at 10%, eating 200g of red meat a day would only increase that to 13.6%, a gamble I am willing to take for a more enjoyable time alive (not that I eat 200g of red meat every day, chicken is far more common in my diet).

Spot on with regards to cholesterol ratio - that's the most important factor. That and triglycerides.

I eat a varied diet (à la Mediterranean - as those are my roots and where I learned to cook/eat), and my "good" cholesterol is high, and my "bad" cholesterol is well below the threshold as are my triglycerides. I do eat good quality meats, lots of fats (40% of my calories come from fats of some kind) but they are good fats (oily fish etc...), but also lots of vegetables. So clearly I'm either an oddity or my diet is perfectly healthy because it is varied.

 

[Hagar]

Spot on with regards to cholesterol ratio - that's the most important factor. That and triglycerides.

I eat a varied diet (à la Mediterranean - as those are my roots and where I learned to cook/eat), and my "good" cholesterol is high, and my "bad" cholesterol is well below the threshold as are my triglycerides. I do eat good quality meats, lots of fats (40% of my calories come from fats of some kind) but they are good fats (oily fish etc...), but also lots of vegetables. So clearly I'm either an oddity or my diet is perfectly healthy because it is varied.

Sardines on olive bread toast with a splash of pepper sauce for luncheon. Mmmm

 

[moon man]

On the other hand, the sardines were found to contain levels of arsenic (0.9 to 2.2 ppm) similar to that in many canned tunas. Although none exceeded official avoidance levels for arsenic, it would seem prudent not to consume more than one serving of sardines daily — particularly those with higher arsenic levels.

I recommend 50 tins a day to non vegans ,clean this thread up a little
Edit not really the seas have Been destroyed enough

 

[wesimmo]

...and don't get me started on halal and kosher. We had in this country acceptable methods of slaughter, as humane as possible. We are not in the middle east, we do not get daytime temperatures in the high thirties. We don't get flyblown pork. Letting animals bleed out as they die. We have good refrigeration for killed meats and a high standard of practice. An unknown but therefore relatively small number of people are poisoned by their food.

So why do we accept archaic beliefs into the food chain. As a reasonably educated and prosperous country we should have outlawed all this guff and make sure that the quickest and most painfree methods are used. Not those outlined in the Torah or the Koran or some similar text from the middle ages of this country.

An atheistic omnivore.

You might want to read up on halal and what it means, you appear to have been 'educated' by right wing sensationalism, probably the Fail or Express?

Ethical, organic, safe: the other side of halal food

With concern over animal welfare, supermarkets and restaurants under fire and fears about 'foreign ways', halal meat is food's most politically charged subject. But it's now a £1bn a year market in the UK alone – and growing fast. Carla Power reports

www.theguardian.com

 

[200sols]

You might want to read up on halal and what it means, you appear to have been 'educated' by right wing sensationalism, probably the Fail or Express?

Ethical, organic, safe: the other side of halal food

With concern over animal welfare, supermarkets and restaurants under fire and fears about 'foreign ways', halal meat is food's most politically charged subject. But it's now a £1bn a year market in the UK alone – and growing fast. Carla Power reports

www.theguardian.com

Are you defending the slitting of non stunned animals throats?

 

[Hagar]

On the other hand, the sardines were found to contain levels of arsenic (0.9 to 2.2 ppm) similar to that in many canned tunas. Although none exceeded official avoidance levels for arsenic, it would seem prudent not to consume more than one serving of sardines daily — particularly those with higher arsenic levels.

I recommend 50 tins a day to non vegans ,clean this thread up a little
Edit not really the seas have Been destroyed enough

That's the thing with an omnivore diet, there is no need to eat the same thing for weeks or months. I keep a couple of tins in as part of a basic pantry. Eat them once or twice a month as a salad or with pasta. Your parts per million sounds horrific but most processed food suffers from some unwanted by products of industry. Agriculture uses many chemicals to feed the ever growing world population.

 

[Bassmansam]

Why is it progressive, or why is progressive a good thing to do if it involves not eating tasty animal parts.

 

[Hagar]

You might want to read up on halal and what it means, you appear to have been 'educated' by right wing sensationalism, probably the Fail or Express?

Ethical, organic, safe: the other side of halal food

With concern over animal welfare, supermarkets and restaurants under fire and fears about 'foreign ways', halal meat is food's most politically charged subject. But it's now a £1bn a year market in the UK alone – and growing fast. Carla Power reports

www.theguardian.com

How I ended my post should have given a clue. I don't believe that religion and religious observance should be a criteria in the food industry and how animals are slaughtered to provide food. If even the RSPCA agree, this is a win as we do not often concur.
Bringing medieval practice into 21st century hygiene and humane operations is abhorrent. A rabbi or imam has no qualification to determine animal husbandry except to ban normal developed systems for humane killing as against the wishes of their particular god and written down hundreds of years ago when refrigeration would have been satanic.

I could go on but I won't. I am right of centre but in this case it is hypocrisy that gets my goat (pun intended).

 

[wesimmo]

Are you defending the slitting of non stunned animals throats?

No, what I'm saying is that the emotive stuff about animals bleeding slowly to death is rubbish. It's in the article. And ok its an old article, but the vast majority of halal meat was being stunned at the time the article was written.

 

[Thekwango]

The answer I believe is ignorance

ignorance is most definitely rife in this thread.

There has been 47 pages of replies,.........some plain stupid.

yea.....no **** Sherlock.

It is that mindset, along with rife capitalism, advertising & social conditioning that people think they must drink baby cow food, eat the dead bodies of them, etc.

 

[Freefaller]

It's tough as Europeans, or at least part of the western world, we should be doing our utmost to minimise the suffering of animals and maximising the quality of life for the animals, and things like halal whilst I'm sure if done properly isn't too bad, still doesn't feel "right" to me. Being in the UK we should conform to the highest standards all the time, with no compromise, even for religious beliefs. Halal/Kosher products perhaps will need to be imported instead? Or is that not inclusive enough and actually unfair?