It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why I am not a Vegetarian by Dr. William T. Jarvis

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   
From the American Council of Science and Health....maybe people will listen to science...who knows?



Why I Am Not a Vegetarian
Printer Format icon Printer Format
Email Information icon E-mail Information

By Dr. William T. Jarvis
Posted: Tuesday, April 1, 1997

ARTICLES
Publication Date: April 1, 1997

Vegetarianism has taken on a "political correctness" comparable to the respectability it had in the last century, when many social and scientific progressives advocated it. Today, crusaders extol meatless eating not only as healthful but also as a solution to world hunger and as a safeguard of "Mother Earth." The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) aggressively attacks the use of animal foods and has proposed its own food-groups model, which excludes all animal products.

I disclaimed vegetarianism after many years of observance. Although the arguments in favor of it appear compelling, I have learned to be suspicious, and to search for hidden agendas, when I evaluate claims of the benefits of vegetarianism. Vegetarianism is riddled with delusional thinking from which even scientists and medical professionals are not immune.

Don't get me wrong: I know that meatless diets can be healthful, even desirable, for some people. For example: (a) Men with an iron-loading gene are better off without red meat, because it contains heme iron, which is highly absorbable and can increase their risk of heart disease. (b) Because vegetarian diets are likely to contain less saturated fat than nonvegetarian diets, they may be preferable for persons with familial hypercholesterolemia. (c) Vegetables contain phytochemicals that appear protective against colorectal cancer. (d) Homocysteinemia (elevated plasma homocysteine) approximately doubles the risk of coronary artery disease. Several congenital and nutritional disorders, including deficiencies of vitamins B6 and B12 and folic acid, can cause this condition. Since folic acid occurs mostly in vegetables, low intakes of the vitamin are less likely among vegetarians than among nonvegetarians. (e) Some people find that being a vegetarian helps to control their weight. Vegetarianism tends to facilitate weight control because it is a form of food restriction; and in our overfed society, food restriction is a plus unless it entails a deficit of some essential nutrient.

However, one need not eliminate meat from one's diet for any of the foregoing reasons. Apparently, it is ample consumption of fruits and vegetables, not the exclusion of meat, that makes vegetarianism healthful....


Read the full article here

[edit on 6/16/2008 by Mad_Hatter]

[edit on 6/16/2008 by Mad_Hatter]




posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Also consider that, if you happen to put any credibility in the Theory of Evolution, that our ape-like ancestors diverged from the other primate species because of an increase of animal proteins in their diet.

Our most distant ancestors, like other primates, did have a limited intake of animal proteins (insects!) but never started to evolve larger brains until we supplemented protein intake with scavenged animal meat. As brains grew larger, we began to observe & puzzle out the Natural Laws so that we could make the jump from prey to predator, actively stalking animals for food.

As brains grew bigger yet, we began to diverge from our root-species even more. Some would think that homo sapiens sapiens is the "chief product" of those past millions of years of evolution, but as long as we keep sufficient meats in our diet we'll continue to evolve (assuming we don't destroy ourselves first).



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Perhaps many people, like me, choose a vegetarian diet simply because we never much cared for beef, pork, poultry or seafood. It's not always about some "agenda" or other. Really. Besides, what's it to you, anyhow? Mind your own business. You want to eat meat? Go ahead. Knock yourself out. Have fun. Heck, I'll even grill it for you, for crying out loud. But dohn't try and entice me to take, "just a little taste." At this point I'd rather eat my own fecal matter. Ok? Thanks.



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link   
I use to be anti vegetarian. That's just stupidity upon stupidity.

I'm not a vegetarian now, but the majory of my diet is.

a serving size of meat is 4oz. You're not a big guy, you don't need more then that. You're lying to yourself if you want to believe that is the case.

When was the last time anyone who eats meat ate a 3-4 oz serving size? Go to any steakhouse and the smallest steak you'll find is 8oz if you're lucky.

Eating vegetarian is far more healthy then the stupidity of glutonius meat eating. You'll live longer and they will be far better years of life.

Mind you, vegetarianism is MORE UNHEALTHY if not done right.

I use to be anti-vegetarian. Now I'm just antistupidity. Peta and people who act and speak like peta are stupid. So too are people who think they eat meat in a diet when they eat 6-8 survings of meat a day with 2 breads and 1 and 1/2 survings of veggies.

Especially when they both come on the internet arguing about it. Their time would be better spend planning meals, researching serving sizes and understanding better the food pyrimid.


Hope this helps!

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Also consider that, if you happen to put any credibility in the Theory of Evolution, that our ape-like ancestors diverged from the other primate species because of an increase of animal proteins in their diet.

Our most distant ancestors, like other primates, did have a limited intake of animal proteins (insects!) but never started to evolve larger brains until we supplemented protein intake with scavenged animal meat. As brains grew larger, we began to observe & puzzle out the Natural Laws so that we could make the jump from prey to predator, actively stalking animals for food.

As brains grew bigger yet, we began to diverge from our root-species even more. Some would think that homo sapiens sapiens is the "chief product" of those past millions of years of evolution, but as long as we keep sufficient meats in our diet we'll continue to evolve (assuming we don't destroy ourselves first).


This, ofcourse is all speculation; we have no direct evidence that meat has offset evolution; furthermore, the THEORY of evolution is flawed.
According to this principle, hunting animals that live mostly on meat would have out-evolved us already a long time ago...
It is more likely that we grew a larger brain, got smarter and stopped being food for carnivorous animals, because we had invented weapons due to the larger brain size. It is a typical mistake of people to assume that our brains grew because of our carnivorous diet. No evidence supports this.
All we can rightfully prove is that to have meat in the diet makes for a more aggressive, more competitive person. THAT may account for our success as a species compared to other, bigger, more aggressive carnivores.
Also, it is a wellknown, given fact that our body has much more trouble digesting meat; more trouble getting energy from meat, so, to have more directly available energy, we should preferably have a mostly vegetarian diet.
The thing with protein and anything else for that matter, is NOT the amount of protein that we ingest that is important; it is the amount of protein that becomes AVAILABLE that is important. Plant-diet has lots more available protein and the combining of foods makes that even more so.
Also, brains work mostly on sugars, so it is more likely that we got smarter from eating more fruits.

It has been an ongoing zealous task of meateaters to try and dis vegetarian diet. There is no scientific evidence that supports the carnivorous diet/ mental capacity claim.
Also, the delusional thinking is solely in the eyes of mr Jarvis.
To know anything about the physical changes from eating vegetarian, one has to at least becaome a vegetarian. Any "scientific evidence" for the abovementioned theory is totally lacking; even anecdotal evidence supporting the claim is solely from the minds of meateaters.
I have been a vegeatarian for over twenty yaers and I have only known positive changes; even tho we only ate meat like two times a week in our house.
The most radical change I have experienced was the benefit of not drinking milk or eating milk-related products. That kinda solved most of the little physical problems I did have as an adolescent, like clogged nose, crusty eyes (I used to wear glasses, quite strong ones too; -4.5 and -5!) and bad eyesight.
I now do not use glasses anymore and my vision is almost 100%; I do not need correcting anymore. My nose is always open, both nostrils (science claims we have one clogged nostril always; it changes from side to side).
I never have a cold or the flu anymore; even tho I do not use any inoculation; I never finished my said-to-be-necessary inoculations as a child...I have only had one childrens disease (measels) as a very small kid.
Anyway, I could go on and on and on, but let it suffice to say that my experience has totally disproven the theory about braingrowth and other ANTI-vegetarian nonsense for me.
Life without rotting animal protein in the body is, for me, the answer to almost any of the little problems that accompany eating meat...

Oh, and my temper has improved so much that it is now a joy to live; I look forward to every day, without any of the little jealousies that meateaters know.
AND, one thing that really surprized me, was the fact that my sexual stamina has improved dractically. I now am in the position of having women learn the true meaning of multiple orga(ni)sms. It made me realize that the ejaculation is neither the goal of sex nor preferable .
Ofcourse, lots of people would rabidly and rapidly try to debunk this statement, but to be honest, I dont even listen to them anymore, because of their little theories about "the more you come, the more you produce"; which is only true if you do not look at reality. Ofcourse, one cant just NOT spend one's jizm, you have to process it, but still.

Ofcourse, one has to understand that changing from a meat-saturated-diet to vegetarianism will come with a distinct and lingering feeling of physical discomfort, especially when you are quite fat. It may even be very dangerous to change the diet in these cases. One has to change in stages, to let the body adapt to the diet-change. The total change to a different diet is only complete after something like six/seven years, when all the cells in the body have regenerated and adapted.
The most important thing in all this is the realization that to change ones diet means to change one's behaviour, one's way of thinking, one's total being even. The quality of the energy one gets from food is directly related to the availability of the necessary factors of food, like vitamins, minerals, protein, etcetera. Different combinations of these factors make for different availability of energy in the different organs of the body.

The lobby of meat producers in the world is very dependant of the unavailability of information like this and will take every and any oportunity to ridicule vegetarianism/veganism/macro-biotics and such.
The religious lobby is very dependant on the herd-animal-diet that is most common in most religions; the energy of herd-animals is slow-realeased energy; half-digested meat makes for ammonia in the body...herd-animals are docile and credulous...
The fast-food lobby is very dependant on the cheaply produced meat of the abovementioned meat-producers lobby.
Meat is addictive. Meat contains a lot of tryptophane, which is a sleeping medicine.
Anyway, the list goes on.
And I am not deluded...



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
And what this post has to do with the conspiracy forum is totally obscure to me, unless it is the conspiracy of the meat-producers against vegetarians.
Of the murder-prone against the non-violent. Of the merchants against the free people.
So much lies have been spread to protect investments, that reality itself has suffered.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   
I am a vegetarian. And it's not just consumption of vegetable that make vegetarians healthy, eating meat requires your body to work harder to break up proteins into amino acids, and that's very stressful for the body. I cannot imagine animals being slaughtered, and what if we are like animals, and we are bred for our souls? And our death is our slaughtering? I want all animals to have a long and fulfilling life. I want to try to eliminate most suffering. After not eating meat for a while, I craved it, but when I smell BAKED CHICKEN, it smells NASTY now. My body does not recognize it as food any longer. There are many forms of protein I can take, which is beans, and rice protein, which is already broken down for me, so the body does minimal work digesting it. I must admit, I am often low on energy, but I'm more calm, compared to when I used to eat meat. It's hard for me to do a lot of exercise at once, yoga is good. Like I said, I feel more calm after become a vegetarian.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:00 AM
link   
One term that is very describing for most elaborate presentations on extreme stances on diet (mostly in relation to the question of consumption of animal products) is.. fanaticism. Vegetarianism and Veganism are elitist lifestyles in modern society that is counter-productive in respect to the ethical aspects of said diets. The same can be said for the meat-eating lifestyle. You typically have the anti-feminist hard men who have 90% of their diet consisting of meat. Vegetarians are fairies, and meat consumption is paramount to securing your manhood and avoiding that your reproductive organ falls off. In my opinion, diet is important, and so are ethics (and moral (as well as rite and law) for the religiously inclined), but in my experience there is way to much black and white in this global debate, and because of the fanaticism and extremist rhetoric needed to support that fanaticism, the misinformation has blown out of all proportions.

One one side you have the hysterical part of the animal rights movement (those who share the most extreme views on no-compromise diet (extreme militant animal liberationists are not counted here, as that is an entirely different sort, although the two flow into each other at different stages of the movement)), and on the other side you have the meat production lobbyists and the part of the population who feels most threatened by the concept of not being allowed to consume meat (political correctness is a silly term they usually hide behind, but that is understandable, as I have witnessed first had how sick the witch hunt on meat-eaters can become.). Both of the last two share many of the same characteristics in how they spread misinformation and general contempt of vegetarianism though very authoritarian rhetoric. And that applies to the vegetarians and anti-meat people as well.

Now days I have a perfectly mixed diet, with all of my meat coming from hunted game. Earlier I have personally been a vegetarian though, and was a vegan even for 4 years. This was a result of me not being able to ethically support the consumption of meat and animal products from industrialized domestication of animals. It was sort of a boycott action against the meat and diary industry. Animal Rights was, and still is important to me. I have always been opposed to consequent lifestyles though, as they are rarely constructive. I viewed my choice of going vegetarian solely as a way to reduce the amount of suffering I contribute to. Being totally consistent in animal rights, human rights, environmental issues and the concept of individual and collective freedom is impossible, and as a result I view lifestyles based on "ethical diets" to be fanatic and not in harmony with reality. They are hurtful and dishonest. In my opinion, the important issue here is to strive to reduce the amount of compromise you make at the expense of your own ethical views. In my case that is, among other things, to reduce the amount of suffering I contribute to, without preaching a lifestyle I know at best is not better than most others.

I support the concept of an omnivorous human, but try to front the idea of taking ethics into consideration for what you consume. I personally still mostly boycott the animal product industry. All the meat I eat I either hunt myself, or get from friends and my father-in-law who themselves hunt. In my opinion hunting is fair hunting/gathering of resources from the nature on the nature's own premises. Naturally there are a number of ways to hunt and act in the wilderness, but I can only speak for the hunting I participate in myself. In my opinion it is a very ecologically sane way to get food.

Where I feel most of the irrelevant bull# emerges, is in the health and nutrition debate. From a purely individual standpoint being a vegetarian is perfectly healthy, and usually more healthy than most meat diets.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   
The protein intake in the western world is sky high, so a reduction or removal of meat from our diets is perfectly sensible. There IS be a health bonus involved for most, but the most viable excuse for going vegetarian is the animal rights and humanitarian reasons. Anyone who knows anything about how domesticated animals are raised as food in the meat industry knows how it affects production of food and how we directly distribute nutrition. It is arguably a huge waste of food and water resources to produce meat. And I guess I don't have to elaborate on the animal rights issue.

There are numerous ethical arguments to support a vegetarian diet. The problem is the health arguments. They are usually plain wrong. Anti-vegetarian activists are usually perfectly correct when they speak out against raising chidren as vegetarians for example. A huge emphasis on nutrition study, and usually a lot of effort is needed to ensure that a child gets the necessary protein (for non-vegans, only iron and omega3 (for those who doesn't eat fish) are relevant apart from protein). Vegetarians cling to a constructed view on vegetarianism and health to further their agenda. That is an observation i have done while being active in the animal rights movement. Their actions in relation to actual animal rights are usually lacking, while the lifestyle and diet hysteria becomes more and more extreme.

When you become a vegetarian, it should be with knowledge of what you are doing and why you are doing it. For my part, I became increasingly healthy as a vegan, but there where downsides as well... I developed muscles more slowly while exercising daily because it was hard for me to keep my diet mixed at the same time as I consumed enough protein relevant to when I exercised. There was also a problem for me with getting enough omega3. This was the primary reason why I started to move away from consistent veganism and started to eat fish I cough myself. When I found myself unable to consume omega3 apart from the minimal amounts you can get from some seaweed and linseeds, I was in danger of developing serious illness. In addition I found that I was in danger of going low on iron at some points and that veganism in itself was expensive, demanded a lot of effort and nutrition study, and that it is largely domesticating of myself as an individual. You will usually have huge problems eating well as a vegan outside of big cities. So instead of falling ill, or burning out as a result of having to think about what I eat all the time, I decided to start eating fish from reliable sources, and eventually I started eating meat from wild game and got my own hunting permit.

It's easy to get lost in extreme lifestyles based on ethics, and usually you will end up eating special soy product imported from Australia as an alternative to animal products, and with that you have totally failed in your quest to live according to ecological standards. In short, I find the health discussion to be important, but the way the discussion is going today is just sad. For me the health aspect of vegetarianism came second to the ethical factor anyway. I find that I can live up to that ethical standard a lot more effectively by eating a healthy combination og vegetables, fruit, grains, fish and meat from wild game. That is my choice alone, and even though I may preach ethic related consumption from time to time, I feel it is extremely important that we stop demonising each other across the lines we draw as advocates of different diets. We should all strive to reach conclusions in consensus about nutrition and ethics... if we did that instead of spreading misinformation and pursuing agendas without regard for the truth on all the extreme sides of the specter, we would be so much better off



[edit on 17-6-2008 by me_ofef_seraph]

[edit on 17-6-2008 by me_ofef_seraph]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   
I have heard everything written by Dr. William T. Jarvis before, and it is perfectly uninteresting. He does capture the essence of what I myself say in my post..


One can spot ideologic vegetarians by their exaggerations of the benefits of vegetarianism, their lack of skepticism, and their failure to recognize (or their glossing over of) the potential risks even of extreme vegetarian diets. Ideologic vegetarians make a pretense of being scientific, but they approach the subject of vegetarianism more like lawyers than scientists. Promoters of vegetarianism gather data selectively and gear their arguments toward discrediting information that is contrary to their dogma. This approach to defending a position is suitable for a debate, but it cannot engender scientific understanding.


He is correct in claiming that a lot of (very far from all) ideologic vegetarians will do just this, and it is exactly the kind of counter-productive bull# and extremist and alienating stuff I mentioned above, but even though he is writing on behalf of himself as an individual, he can't ignore the fact that the opposite side does exactly the same. The extremism is evident on both sides of this discussion, simply because it is a discussion about lifestyle, and people are unable to question their own lifestyle most of the time. We get defensive, aggressive and stupid. PETA is a shining example of a soup of stupidity and extremism (supporting some forms of domestic terrorism doesn't even come close to how extremist their view on lifestyle is), and the same can be said for the meat industry lobbyists and those who listens to them. On both sides there are "leaders" who have an agenda, and to help further this agenda, they spread misinformation and fanatic BS. They both have their doctors and professors. I stopped listening to them all a long time ago. Diet and lifestyle is an individual choice. Ethic consumption should be a means to reduce suffering, it shoudl NOT be a lifestyle.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by me_ofef_seraph]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
This is clearly biased. You can say the same arguments about non vegetarians - idealogical and scientifically.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Does anyone know if this Dr. William T. Jarvis is the same Dr. William T. Jarvis that advocates fluoride in our drinking supply...?

If so... I'm gonna guess he has an agenda - like maybe he owns a cattle CAFO.*

*Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   
From what I've read the omega-3 in fish was the biggest factor to increasing our IQ. The omega-3 in fish is superior to the brain than the flax seed one. But meat itself was primarily a survival food for long winters, its actually hard on our system to digest it and causes health problems. Too much to have to re-research but that is my basic understanding of it. We are partial vegetarians, and usually have meat a couple times a week, though after the last videos I saw on the slaughter house, plan on making that change as soon as it can be done.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I used to be vegetarian and even flirted with vegan for awhile. I then switched back to fish and seafood for 10 years before I started eating bird and recently I have tried pork, lamb and beef. Now I eat fish twice a week and fowl once a week. I eat pork about once every two weeks and the rest way less frequently.

The main arguements against meat are:
1) Cruelty to animals - you know what I mean. Giant corporate animal factories.
2) adverse impact on health
and
3) Environmental degredation and heavy use of resources.

Therefore, I choose to buy my meat (and produce) from local (organic or sustainable) farmers for the most part. Lamb burgers are $$$$.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I will say this: If I ate only vegetables, I'd balloon up like the michellan man. However, when I go on all protein/fat meals, I never, ever, have to worry about my weight.

While I have no problems if someone wants to be a vegan, don't get on my case for loving beef, chicken, etc., etc., etc. It's the only way I can maintain my weight, even when on a severely caloric restricted diet. On the other hand, if I eat only meat and fat, I can eat as much as I want, never go hungry, and still lose weight at a phenomenal rate.

I think, as the doctor said, that there are particular people that thrive on being carnivores, and there are particular people that thrive while being carnivores.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I will say this: If I ate only vegetables, I'd balloon up like the michellan man. However, when I go on all protein/fat meals, I never, ever, have to worry about my weight.

While I have no problems if someone wants to be a vegan, don't get on my case for loving beef, chicken, etc., etc., etc. It's the only way I can maintain my weight, even when on a severely caloric restricted diet. On the other hand, if I eat only meat and fat, I can eat as much as I want, never go hungry, and still lose weight at a phenomenal rate.

I think, as the doctor said, that there are particular people that thrive on being herbivores, and there are particular people that thrive while being carnivores.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by sir_chancealot]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join