Let's talk about food

quote:

---

Actually I don't live in a city, and I spend nearly zero time in the sun. And it has nothing to with fear, it has to do with preference. I've always loved rainy days.

​

Stop being such a fool. Obviously different carcinogens have different potencies and risks.

---

Exactly.

quote:

---

If someone close to you suddenly started smoking 3 packs a day, would you be concerned?

---

\Yes.

quote:

---

Or would you throw up your hands and proclaim, "hell, everything causes cancer, so you might as well smoke 'em up!"

---

Last I checked, there were zero health benefits to smoking, and many detrimental aspects, only one of which is cancer. There's also a greater chance of stroke, emphysema and chronic bronchitis, coronary artery disease, high blood pressure, gum disease, birth defects, blood clots, infertility, ear infections and more frequent colds and flu in the children of smokers and in the smokers themselves, aggravates asthma, erectile dysfunction and macular degeneration.Moderate, appropriat meat consumption, by contrast, has the following benefits:It is a good source (depending upon the meat) of zinc and iron, Niacin, B6, B12, complete protein.Heme iron found in meat and not in plants, is absorbed better by the body. Certain compounds found in vegetables and grains inhibit the uptake of both iron and zinc.http://www.healthyweightnetwork.com/zart6.htm Now, can you please tell me how occasional meat consumption is just as bad as smoking 3 packs a day?

quote:

---

Carcinogens from meat are the most potent naturally occuring dietary carcinogens that I am aware of in standard diet (few people chow down on cycad nuts, for example). Meat-based carcinogens really are in a potency class far above other common dietary carcinogens.

---

I'd like to know why you completely disregard what the American Cancer society says about vegetarian diets not being shown to lower cancer risk.Do you have any studies which show that a vegetarian diet has a lower incidence of cancer than a mediterranean diet?

quote:

---

In any case, I don't see why you think it is appropriate to attack my personal health choices.

---

Because you attacked mine.

quote:

---

Also, I was thinking about your refusal to believe my clarification on the infamous "golden retriever" question. How would you have responded if you had known I was a meat-eater or animal researcher? If you would have responded differently, you were indeed being prejudicial in your response to me.

---

All I'm saying is that you very much came across as a self-righteous vegetarian trying to make me feel that my eating meat was tantamount to eating a cute, fluffy golden retreiver or cannibalism.I find it pretty reasonable on my part to think you were judging me after such questions, but if you weren't, then I apologize for not believing you.I suggest that you might wat to tone down the hyperbolic comments in the future to those of us who have been harrangued by holoer-than-thou vegetarians aon a regular basis.

I never said that; in fact I said: You should know because you quoted it.I stated that eating a diet containing red meat would expose you to a greater carcinogenic effect than eating a diet free of red meat. Do you disagree? But these Laramie cigarettes taste so smooth! And they relax me after a long day at the mine! Plus they make me look sooooo cool! Did I claim I had any?All I said was that meat, particularly red meat, contains potent carcinogens; and that red meat consumption has been correlated to cancer incidence (and a host of other diseases).I didn't say a vegetarian diet was perfect. I didn't say that meat didn't contain nutrients. I didn't say that humans were not omnivores.Yet you continue to argue as if I had made those arguments. Where?I do recall you telling me that the reason I'm a vegetarian is because I live in fear. I consider that an attack. I never disregarded it. I simply stated that I never made that claim. I had stated that red meat consumption increases cancer risk, NOT that a vegetarian diet reduces cancer risk. You never answered my question; but I assume that if you knew I was a meat-eater when I asked you that question, you would have taken it on face-value, instead of calling me a judgemental hypocrite, then a liar when I tried to clarify. Which means you had a prejudicial reaction against someone because they were a vegetarian, a reaction that you maintained throughout the discussion. Thanks for at least a half-hearted apology. (Truthfully I was more bothered by being called a liar when I tried to clarify). If I want to ask someone their thoughts on eating human or dog flesh in the future, I will - I've had that conversation several times with various people and never been attacked like I was here. In fact, when I asked one person the question I found out that they had indeed eaten dog on several occasions.I don't see how such a question (or any open-ended question) qualifies as a "hyperbolic comment."

The Sas has changed from pink to aquatic, hrrrmm?I read this book recently. I'd be interested in what folks think. It seems the best study of nutrition to date and it does implicate all animal food in what Campbell calls the diseases of afluence:heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc. Campbell seems to know how to do good science but I don't know what the peer review of this is. It's a book written for the lay public.
I'd love to hear what you or anyone else thinks.lfen

Look, if you aren't claiming that a vegetarian diet actually reduces the incidence of cancer, then what are you claiming?First you say that "of course there are differential cancer risks for all sorts of things", but then start talking about smoking 3 packs a day and implying that eating red meat is similar.You are criticizing meat consumption, mentioning cancer (and comparing meat consumption to smoking), but then when I ask you to provide some kind of comparative research which actually shows that a vegetarian diet really does decrease cancer incidence compared to, say, a Mediterranean diet, you then try to say that you are making no such claim?Again, I ask you, if you aren't claiming that a vegetarian diet actually reduces the incidence of cancer, then what are you talkng about?

Already answered directly in the post you are responding to: Do you really not understand? Or are you just looking for something to be argumentative about?An analogy: "Cigarette smoking" is associated with an increased cancer risk. "Not cigarette smoking" is not associated with a reduced cancer risk. No I am not. Already explained that several times. Meat contains carcinogens and is associated with cancer incidence - you yourself provided a reference to that effect.The comparison holds that both red meat and cigarettes contain carcinogens. There is a correlation between the consumption of each and the initiation of cancer. That does mean that the consumption of the two is equivalent in all ways or in net health effect.Again, I already explained that to you. I never made such a claim, so why should I provide research for it? (And again, I already explained that too...)Schraf - When you (or holmes or crash) give reasons for your dietary choices, you see yourself as sane and normal. When I give reasons for my dietary choices, I am being "preachy", "holier-than-thou", "judgemental", "moralizing", and "scared" - not to mention a liar, plus: psychologically-disturbed, guilt-ridden, unhealthy, incapable of enjoying life, non-sensual...This is apparently how you and others prejudge me and others simply because I am a vegetarian.On top of that, you are obviously more interested in being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative than having a decent discussion, to the point that your entire posts are arguing against claims I never made.I will NOT be responding to you again in this thread.

Hi lfen,Good to talk with you again after my absence (and pigmentary metamorphosis).There have been some peer-reviewed studies showing that many Asian diets are extremely healthy - including some that contain essentially no (non-seafood) meat or dairy.One interesting thing that came out of one several years ago was a revamping (for some) of the measure of health for a country - 'lifespan" was generally used, and the US ranked well. However, if "disease-free lifespan" is used, the US falls in the ranks - we are apparently very good at keeping people alive a long time in miserable health with little quality of life.I believe Okinawa ranked first in disease-free lifespan, and their diet consists mainly of lots of fresh vegetables and lots of fresh seafood (I don't remember off-hand if they are big soy/tofu consumers...) Soooo... Okinawans (?) don't live as long as Americans, but they are healthy longer, essentially til they drop dead one day.One concern I have with the Okinawan diet is the increasing levels of toxins present in sea-life (mercury, arsenic, etc...) I wonder if people who follow that diet for the next hundred years with fare as well as their ancestors...

Campbell's conclusions from his nutritional studies, especially the ongoing China study, have led him and his family to become vegan. If I recall correctly the Okinawans eat a very large amount of soy. I presently eat little meat but I do have an occasionaly tin of sardines or smoked herring. I've read these fish feed low on the feed chain and are often young so have accumulated fewer toxins. I do also give in to the occasional slice of pizza with pepperoni. I just can't go pizza free. I am working on eating more lettuce and greens which are not that appetizing to me.Having visited in nursing homes I am very threatened by the ability of our health care system to prolong the suffering of ill health in old age. And there is nothing about that I want for myself or would wish for anyone else for that matter.lfen

Does anybody know how to cook fish so it's not so tasteless?

I resemble that remark. That's why I eat extremely high cocoa content organic chocolate!lfen

I was thinking of something a little more . . . uh . . .alcoholic.

I recall eating this incredible meal at a Mandarin Chinese restaurant. One course was a good sized whole fish that had been coated in peppers and baked whole, head, tail, fins at all. I had a napkin in my left hand to wipe away the tears flowing from my eyes as my right kept reaching for more chunks of this fiery hot but oh so delicious fish. Now that was an extremely tasty experience.Taste is such a personal thing. I used to love wild trout, but now that so much trout is hatchery raised I find it bland and boring. I love salmon or halibut. I don't love sardines but I've been eating them a bit this year for the omega 3 oils.After reading Campbell's book The China Study I'm attempting to become vegan with exceptions like chocolate chip cookies that have butter and eggs and the occasional slice of pizza. What I have is a sweet tooth and what I like are desserts and baked things plus chips. But tastes do change. I found after giving up chips for a while that when I tried them again they weren't as good as I remembered them tasting.I recall some tv program years ago about Siberia. There was this old guy missing teeth who mostly ate frozen fish. He caught the fish himself and they pretty much froze up as soon as they were pulled from the water. He was demonstrating the eating of frozen fish and just before he ate it he said something in Russian like, " and the most important thing about eating the frozen fish ..." and reaching into a cupboard with a big grin he pulled out a bottle, " is the Wodka!"You are probably forgetting the Wodka.lfen

Chocolate is my drug of choice! Relatively inexpensive, widely available it smells good, tastes wonderful, and makes me feel great, plus cocoa is extremely high in antioxidants!lfen

quote:

---

I believe Okinawa ranked first in disease-free lifespan, and their diet consists mainly of lots of fresh vegetables and lots of fresh seafood (I don't remember off-hand if they are big soy/tofu consumers...) Soooo... Okinawans (?) don't live as long as Americans, but they are healthy longer, essentially til they drop dead one day.

---

Um, well, Okinawa is known as the pork-consumption capital of Japan.Two of our best friends lived in Okinawa for several years at various times, and another friend has visited there. They were treated to many dinners out at very traditional Okinawan restaurants and were served one fatty, rich pork dish after another.Page Not Found - Okinawa.com

quote:

---

Does anybody know how to cook fish so it's not so tasteless?

---

1) Buy high quality fish, preferably wild caught, not farmed.2) Buy cold water, fatty fish like salmon, bluefish, and tuna.3) Do not overcook it.4) Most fish is supposed to be fairly delicate, so don't expect t-bone flavor from red snapper, for example.

quote:

---

I had stated that red meat consumption increases cancer risk, NOT that a vegetarian diet reduces cancer risk.

---

Is your point that there is a third option: non-vegetarian but no red meat? Because you certainly have not always said 'red meat', and your analogy below suggests you really are comparing meat vs. no-meat:

quote:

---

"Cigarette smoking" is associated with an increased cancer risk. "Not cigarette smoking" is not associated with a reduced cancer risk.

---

That doesn't make sense. If X > Y, the it MUST follow that Y < X.If someone smokes, they increase their risk of cancer.If someone doesn't smoke, they reduce their risk of cancer.So, not smoking is associated with a reduced cancer risk.