Posted by Larry Hoover on March 3, 2005, at 16:35:35
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 0:26:38
> > I hope you've noticed I've tried to steer clear of the ethical issues.
>
> But this thread was supposed to be an ethical discussion!Sorry. I wished only to ensure consistency of argument with empirical evidence.
> > I'm still not convinced of the healthiness of vegetarian diets, even with supplements. I've seen too many "walking ghosts"... errrr....committed vegetarian skeletons, often skulking about in the shadows of health food emporiums.
> Ah. And by the same logic you would not believe how many grotesquely overweight meat eaters I have seen.
Meat eating is not associated with obesity, per se. Overconsumption is. In fact, adipose fat, the stuff that accumulates when we become overweight, is near totally composed of fats that are synthesized in one's own liver from carbohydrate, via a mechanism known as de novo lipogenesis. In fact, alternating intake of complex and simple carbs (starches and sweets, in general) switches that process into high gear. Of all the dietary constituents one might consider *least* a part of homo sapien's natural diet, grains are that constituent. Agriculture is primarily grain farming, and it only goes back perhaps 6000 years. In evolutionary terms, that is too short a period to have observed adaptation. Celiac sprue and the various milk intolerances are evidence against grain and dairy as having been substantial components of our ancient diets.
> All I am saying is that the ethical considerations mean that we should at least give it a hell of a good try.
I feel even more unwell on a vegetarian diet.
> > It illustrates the variability within a population. What suits one, or a group, does not suit all.
>
> It falsifies the stats as showing us what we 'need' to be healthy. There are living counter-examples. The stats don't tell us that we need to eat meat anyway...It doesn't falsify anything. The normal distribution of required intakes falls across a vast realm of actual intakes. Some individuals are thriftier, or more efficient, or less genetically unstable, and get by on a lesser quality of food. That is not a generalizable characteristic. The range of actual required intakes is probably greater than one order of magnitude in scope.
> >I believe there is a lot of that sort of inappropriate generalization, a true logical fallacy, in nutritional science. Some *can* do it. *All* cannot.
>
> Ah. So *some* may need suppliments... whereas others may not... This still doesn't tell us that we have to eat meat...And it does not falsify the conclusion that some may do best with meat.
> > > > In all America, I should think there are more than a handful of intelligent vegetarians, but only those using supps get enough iron and zinc.
>
> But *enough* may actually be a lot lower than FDA requirement for many... So they may actually be getting as much as they needThose that do, I am certain, loudly proclaim their success to all who will listen. That is no basis to conclude that the particular individual's case is representative or even commonplace.
> > > I don't think the FDA 'requirements' you site are an adequate measure of what 'enough' is.
>
> > I've studied their methodology at some depth, and it really is both rigorous and conservative. That would be the National Institutes of Health, a member of the Academy of Sciences, rather than the FDA.
>
> Hmm. What about the British FDA requirements then??? How is their methodology? Apparantly it is possible to eat a balanced diet and meet that FDA standard of health... That is the system nutritionists study over here.The British measure is called the Reference Nutrient Intake, but it is defined indentically to the US RDA (which is being superceded by the DRI, or Daily Reference Intake). I haven't seen the underlying assumptions which inform the British values.
> > What is astounding, IMHO, is not the setting of the RDAs. It is what we commonly accept as normal and healthy. One if five with active mental illness. One in five with a bowel disorder. One in five with circulatory disease. One in five with blood sugar dysregulation. And so on. I'm starting to wonder just who the "normal healthy" individuals upon whom the RDAs were based actually are.
>
> Indeed...
>
> > > I am not sure about how well we are able to absorb suppliments...
>
> > Yellow pee is proof enough.
>
> Proof that some of the colouring goes straight through us...The "colouring" of which you speak is the flavinoid B-vitamin known as riboflavin. For it to enter one's urine, it must first have entered the bloodstream, and gotten past the liver. At that point in time, it is available to all bodily tissues and organs. The kidneys are too unselective to retain most nutrients in the blood, allowing them to spill into the urine. The yellow stain is proof of uptake.
> > ... but they're the best estimates yet.
>
> What about the English system???In a later post.
> > But I've always been drawn to sliced corpse as a central part of my diet. And I've yet to have the urge to change that.
>
> I don't know what to say.
> You don't mind that animals suffer.
> There isn't anything I can say in response to someone who truely doesn't mind.I have no interest in suffering. I kill mice which invade my pantry. I shan't have little beasties pooping in my food. My cat kills mice for its own reasons, and I do not judge it. Not all behaviours lend themselves to being weighed on the ethical balance.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:461535
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/466066.html