The Naïve Vegetarian

re: The Naïve Vegetarian

lylastreet — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:59:28 GMT

HEburnLL, I followed your suggestion and researched the Buddhist and Jainism diets. I read that the diets provide ample amounts of fruits and vegetables along with grains but I also read that there have been monks who have dealt with renal failure and B-12 deficiencies both due to insufficient protein intake. Interesting......

re: The Naïve Vegetarian

lylastreet — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:43:02 GMT

The information that Dr. Mercola sites regarding animal farming is very intriguing. There is validity in the observation that we as species would starve to death if we all became vegetarians. I believe our Creator intended for us to have animal farms and to eat a varied diet, which includes animal protein raised organically without hormones and antibiotics.

Also, we are unique individuals requiring differing amounts of macro and micro nutrients. Some folks may do better (like you, HEburnLL) on a more vegetarian diet but others, like myself, would do horribly on a plant-based diet as I've experienced first hand in the past (low-energy, muscle weakness, weight-gain, moodiness, etc). I personally eat quality red meat several times a week. I am lean and strong, I have low blood pressure, great energy and my cholesterol and triglycerides are perfect! I look many years younger than my age of 43. In essence, vegetarian diets are not the optimum diet for everyone!

re: The Naïve Vegetarian

floatinganchor — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 04:03:52 GMT

ive come to love vegan Field Roast grain meat. the sausages, deli slices, celebration roasts are all simply tasty and nutritious! www.fieldroast.com

re: The Naïve Vegetarian

vadik — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 21:46:17 GMT

hi HEburnLL i'm interested in what you have to say I too find many flaws in this article. can you send me some links that you think would be useful to read. vadik8745@hotmail.com

re: The Naïve Vegetarian

nectoxicdragon — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:11:24 GMT

Hellburn, you must be a Vegetarian, because you are too stupid to read what was written, The name of the fatty acids is Long Chain Fatty Acids. LCFAs are only available from animal sources and when lacking in the diet of children it results in low intellect, such as yours. Face it, a lay person such as yourself has no ability to argue the information contained herein.

re: The Naïve Vegetarian

HEburnLL — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:55:04 GMT

...continued from my third comment

Because he leaves out which fats are good for brain development leads me to believe that he doesn't want his readers to know. So which fats are plants missing that are found in meat? None. You can get ALA Omega 3 fatty acids from plants, flax seeds being just one of them. Omega 3 DHA & EPA, which are also good for brain development aren't as easily found in plant foods as they are in animal foods, but the body is able to convert ALA fatty acids to DHA & EPA at a rate of about 10%. But Mercola purposely leaves this out because this may lead us to believe that maybe meat isn't as important for getting our fatty requirements than he leads us to believe.

I could go further, but he's already proven he isn't a strong authority on Vegetarianism, so this article should be taken with a grain of salt.

re: The Naïve Vegetarian

HEburnLL — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:28:58 GMT

...continued from my second comment

Next, Mercola attempts to simply dispel Vegetarian's argument that it is morally wrong to kill and eat animals. His basic argument is, if a lion is allowed to eat a gazelle, we should be allowed to eat animals! Flawless logic again here. First felines are not biologically equipped to eat anything but meat. So he is comparing the diet of a Carnivore with the diet of a human omnivore. The difference being that the lion has to hunt and eat other animals, or die; where as humans don't. Vegetarians and strict vegetarians have been around for thousands of years. Just do a search on Buddhists and also Jainism. These are people that have either gone with out meat and/or dairy to survive, and are still around today. Kinda blows through that theory that humans need meat to survive.

When discussing our ancient ancestor's diets, I was puzzled to see him make this statement: "It is obvious, therefore, that we can survive on a wide variety of foods. " There it is! put a fork in it, you're done! There are ancient societies that survived largely on meats, and there are ones that survived on plants. Both survived and prospered! Why does he continue to go on about how we need meat when he has clearly stated that there have been societies that survived without it! But he continues to say make bold statements and put words into Vegetarians mouths stating that the whole Vegetarian hypothesis says that our evolution had nothing to do with eating meat. I don't think all vegetarians or even most vegetarians are saying this. But do we need meat to evolve? He cites no evidence to support this.

Then he tries to say that fats and proteins from animals are why our brains developed and that we never would have evolved with out it, but then contradicts himself by saying that plants, namely soybeans do contain the complete proteins. As for the fats, he does not talk about which fats are in animal flesh that are not in plant foods.

More continued next...

re: The Naïve Vegetarian

HEburnLL — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:13:17 GMT

It's sad that there are people walking around who call themselves experts writing articles like this. There are so many assumptions, fallacies, and flawed logic here, I can't help but address this.

Re: Page 1

The Author's first of several mistakes begins with how he handles the British Vegetarian society allowing it's members to eat chicken. While looking at his references, and there being no evidence to support this, his attempt at dealing with this issue is to stoop to the lowest common denominator and crack jokes suggesting that this society considers chicken a vegetable. This to me says that this low blow anecdote is more a ploy to give some false hypocrisy within the society, than taking time to look at Vegetarianism itself. Even if this society were to allow chicken to be eaten by its members, the actions of one group does not represent a way of life or ideology, and does not suggest that vegetarianism at its core is full of hypocrisy.

He also uses key words that mislead the casual reader such as calling Vegan diets "extreme". I don't know about you, but planting a seed, and growing a fruit or vegetable is much less extreme than, killing an animal and eating it's flesh. To choose that word to describe Vegan diets is misleading and manipulative. We've barely scratched the surface of the article and already this author has a clear and biased agenda.

He also uses another tactic by writing up a fictitious story about how he thinks a person becomes a vegetarian as a result of only being a "little" informed. This suggests that the ignorant bliss of not knowing about what is in our food, and factory farming is better for us. People go Vegetarian or Vegan for thousands of reasons. To use a made up belittling story, is just another weak ploy to show everyone that he "understands" how vegetarians think, and therefore knows why their lifestyle is flawed and wrong.

More flaws continued in next comment...