Going veggie shrinks the brain

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Very nicely put. Bravo. Seriously, I can tell you that the majority of people that eat meat do not even have a the slightest idea of how these animals are treated while they are fattened up. They lead miserable lives and are generally murdered in a very distasteful and inhumane manner. Just because we think we have higher intelligence we feel that these creatures are ours to do with as we will.

Oops, I think that is what is taught in a particular religious text. My bad.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
All you guys are arguing opinions. Is anyone going to do some digging. Maybe find some factual data? I'll happily volunteer.

Most people who successfully follow a vegetarian diet do research. You pretty much have to.

If you are trying to show meat is a biological necessity, you arent. You are showing that in some sports, eating meat gives one a competitive edge. So do illegal steroids. This does not make taking illegal steroids a biological necessity.

It makes taking steroids or eating meat a strategic decision if you are trying to achieve a certain end, in this case, a particular body composition (for bodybuilding) or performance level in strength sports. Simply finding something that says meat gives an edge in some areas and then concluding that it is a necessity IS research, but it is not good analysis of what has been found via research.


How you ended your post was much more in line with what research says. It really is a matter of choice. Humans can do just fine and live long productive lives on a vegetarian diet as long as they are careful to ensure they get their needs met, which means planning and paying attention.

The same can be said for meat eaters. Eating meat can lead to long healthy lives if the person is careful about how they balance their diet and ensure they do not overindulge.

I think that evolutionarily speaking, we are clearly omnivores, and as such eating meat is NOT a "sin" or deviant behavior for humans. In fact some of the very best diets (in terms of longevity and health) do include meat, they are the calorie restrictive diets.

However, most of the people I know who are vegetarians are not doing so solely with the intent to increase their own life span, but rather to improve the quality of their lives regardless of life span. They feel bad about eating meat. So they stop. If they are careful to get everything they need nutritionally, they could very well see an increase in their lifespan over those who just eat anything and everything without being mindful of amount and type of food.

From the ADA. (You are also free to check other sources, the WHO, Oxford has done studies, etc.)

www.vrg.org...

Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian Diets (1997)
Scientific data suggest positive relationships between a vegetarian diet and reduced risk for several chronic degenerative diseases and conditions, including obesity, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and some types of cancer. Vegetarian diets, like all diets, need to be planned appropriately to be nutritionally adequate.


POSITION STATEMENT

It is the position of The American Dietetic Association (ADA) that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, are nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.

Originally posted by lee anoma

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
So, instead of looking at what these "arrogant rich kids" had to say, you simply justified your meat consumption because you actually knew where your food was coming from and all the work it had taken to consume it, and you used that to leverage what you thought was right against their opinions. Correct?

Originally posted by lee anoma No.

I don't feel I have to justify what I eat to anyone.
They were just the ones that had a tendency to expect me to.

Well, why would it even be of any memorable significance to you? You were pissed because some snudy vegan was telling you how you should live and now you're going to post a thread on a conspiracy website about an intriguing study, but hype it up a bit and than defend a brand new - 100 person study after reading one article? That sounds like some sort of trivial revenge, rather than it sounds like a pursuit of truths.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Murder - to kill or slaughter inhumanely or barbarously.
Kill - to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.

Originally posted by lee anoma Those are two different words and definitions you understand that, correct?

I didn't say animals weren't "killed" I said animals killed in a human fashion is not murder by definition.
Do you consider carnivores in nature murderers?

I was correlating the two, as Murder implies to "kill." Killing implies "to deprive of life." To murder, you must kill, but you don't necessarily have to kill to murder.

A,B,C,D, Etc... Relevant because for meat, we have to take the life of an animal as to use it for whatever it is being processed for. Murder is a very human definition that correlates with a fairly universal one.

And the second part of your question is thread worthy alone.

A few relevant reasons I disassociate the killing of an animal with the murder of one is circumstances.

As humans we have incredible - near self sustaining industries that provide us with an abundance of food without taking any sentient life.

And as you know a lion does not have any sort of "industry," but relies on it'sprimitive hunting techniques. Not only that, but where they are a bonafide carnivore, humans have the adaptability to eat almost anything, anywhere. In this modern age, we should pay attention to common sense and our respective conscience'.

Originally posted by lee anoma Have you ever justified on this site why I shouldn't?
Perhaps we both need to spare each other this sort of conversation.

I have tried indeed and persuaded a few to use a conscience mind to analyze the detrimental effects the meat industry has on our water supply, land consumption/designation, and C02 emissions. If you'd like, I would be more than happy to have it out with you on a new thread with proper designation as to not muck up the breaking news. I'll make you work for it, though, as I have some pretty bullet proof studies hotlinked to my web browser. They haven't failed me yet.

So YOU say.

That is your opinion not fact as again it does not fall under the definition if done lawfully and humanely. Beating a dog to death for kicks and killing a cow to provide food to the masses for consumption are two different things.

I didn't think that needed to be pointed out.

Well, let's see.

Cultivate - 1. to prepare and work on (land) in order to raise crops; till.
2. to promote or improve the growth of (a plant, crop, etc.) by labor and attention.


That's exactly what they're doing with livestock. They're pumping them full of hormones, genetically modified feeds, and keeping them in tight confined spaces until plump enough to be slaughtered. These are unnatural conditions, allowing cows to grow massive in size, while the hormones and lack of activity make for good meat (refining a process) and eventually led to slaughter. They are slaughtering these animals for food consumption at the rate of 30,000,000 heads of cattle a year. If that's not a smooth operation, I don't know what is.

So, it's not so much my opinion more than it is fact. As it isn't happenstance that these cattle are killed. They are cultivated. This is an industry.

In some way, you can consider it a "genocide" as it is species specific.

No you can't.
Unless you want to redefine genocide.

It would be considered genocide if we systematically planned to eradicate all cows from the face of the earth. Do you believe this is happening?

No, it isn't genocide at all.

I'm very particular about my wording. Notice I said "In some way.." Because genocide isn't just the eradication, but also described in the dictionary:
Genocide - systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

And that's exactly what it is. They are sparing most, singling out some.

While you're still dancing around words, this is staring you right in the face. As I say in most my threads, we can talk about words all day long or we can cut the beating around the bull[snip] and get straight to the facts.

According to the nature of the food chain some forms of life is consumed to sustain another. Done in balance or even through symbiotic relationships, neither is outright destroyed or eliminated entirely. They need each other and meet each others needs.

Exactly. And at this stage in this romantic affair humans have with science, why are we still consuming sentient life to better our own? We can easily take a life off our hands and replace it with something that can benefit the world entirely (through cutting grazing land, which accumulated totals almost 1/3 of the habitable land in the world), clean up water sources for everybody around the globe (as the meat industry is one of the worst water polluters/consumers in the entire world), and take some blood of our hands at the sake of minimal amounts of muscle mass (being as the nation is 50% obese and showing an exponential rise in the trend, I doubt we would care much).

Now, this is where "SO I SAY" comes into play. That is my opinion, backed by verifiable facts that pushed me to say "hey, I could do more." This isn't an "I'm better than you" competition, or whatever your previous experience was. This is what it is. I can look a fairly conclusive report, analyze it, and make a judgment call from there. It's not like my lifestyle is structured under any false pretenses or fads. As a person of integrity, I think it's absolutely necessary to sacrifice comfort, satisfaction, or luxury to help counter act the negative repercussions my prior actions may have caused.

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." - Albert Einstein

Or as Pearl Jam would say, "It's evolution, baby!"

Transcendence of our current state of evolution now will determine the success of our species later on. Physically, mentally, and emotionally.

Originally posted by lee anoma
You may actually be surprised at how many people try it on a whim, a fad, or just out of curiosity and don't know what they are doing.

that's a good point that I totally overlooked. I agree, lots of people approach veganism as though it were some weight-loss diet, or a trend. It is most certainly an extremely radical change in diet (compared to being a meat eater).

I was a vegetarian (not vegan) for a couple of years, but I never found anything to replace my love of (eating) chicken. Also, it was near impossible to eat in restaurants and etc. At a certain point, it wasn't about "sticking with" the diet - rather, I was confined to just eating vegetables for a while because eating meat would make me sick instantly.

I suppose that if anyone makes a drastic change in their diet without knowing more about the consequences, there will be plenty of surprises.

reply to post by scientist


What was your initial reasoning for becoming vegetarian?

[edit on 17-9-2008 by DeadFlagBlues]

ha, the driving factor for it was pretty much to follow a trend, mixed with some disgust for the assembly-line type industrial farming. It had nothing to do with health at that point.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
Well, why would it even be of any memorable significance to you? You were pissed because some snudy vegan was telling you how you should live and now you're going to post a thread on a conspiracy website about an intriguing study, but hype it up a bit and than defend a brand new - 100 person study after reading one article? That sounds like some sort of trivial revenge, rather than it sounds like a pursuit of truths.

Paranoid a little?

So now you question the powers of my memory?
You want me to subjectively debate with you what I consider “memorably significant?”
How have you determined what is memorably significant to another mind, and by what do you judge this?

Please spare me the armchair shrink bit.

I married a vegetarian. I have in the past and currently do live with another vegetarian in addition to my wife. I suppose in your paranoid mind you may wish to twist this into some new sort of complex revenge scenario so be my guest in proving yourself right as this sort of presumptive attack may work for you. You may however just be placing more significance on your own lifestyle in the minds of others than it actually deserves.

Sorry but I don't wake up planning my next attack on the plant eaters of the world.

Is it possible that the memory was not significant and simply brought back through association from a statement made?

The response you judgmentally question was made in regards to a statement about growing your own food. I mentioned that I did this. It wasn’t a prepared statement, a talking point, or some memorized blow I used on any vegan/vegetarian that disagreed with me. In fact, I never told them about my past at all unless they directly inquired. It never came up in a debate with them. Like you the ones I mentioned made assumptions, which was fine by me. Unlike you though, I am not making those sorts of assumptions regarding all vegetarians or otherwise I would have a very uncomfortable living arrangement.

Making assumptions is one thing but trying to pompously use them as a fact is another. Is it possible that you have been attacked over your lifestyle and now see an attack that isn't there?

You asked me a personal question about my experiences and I answered it.
Unless you know otherwise about me there is nothing to debate.

- Lee

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
As humans we have incredible - near self sustaining industries that provide us with an abundance of food without taking any sentient life.

Yes I understand this.
So what is the point here?

That we have created in some parts of the world conditions that allow us the opportunity or luxury to do this (if you can afford it) does not make this or the opposite right or wrong. This is still not a justification to not eat meat but merely provides an option. Like I said, if you can afford the option then kudos.

It comes down to your personal and philosophical beliefs regarding the eating of animals and whether or not you personally believe it is wrong.

I don't under these contemporary circumstances or in a primitive setting.

I'm very particular about my wording. Notice I said "In some way.." Because genocide isn't just the eradication, but also described in the dictionary:
Genocide - systematic killing of a racial or cultural group.

I picked up on your wording, what I said is that it is an inaccurate consideration.

"Eradication" is used in some of the definitions of genocide but nevertheless Websters defines genocide as "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group."

Not just simply killing. You are oversimplifying here. Cows are needed by the meat industry so to destroy them would bring about their own demise. The equating of eating meat to genocide was a territory PETA crossed into when they foolishly decided to compare meat to Jews, and meat eaters to Nazis.

This of course upset MANY Jews, including the vegetarian ones.
Rightfully so in my opinion.

The funny thing is that Nazi's were actually supporters of animal rights and protection, just not the rights of certain humans.

I have tried indeed and persuaded a few to use a conscience mind to analyze the detrimental effects the meat industry has on our water supply, land consumption/designation, and C02 emissions.

The food market is an industry itself not just meat. Those stores that cater to vegetarians are there to make money, not simply raise the human consciousness. It's a business. I've shopped in some and it is an expensive one as well. Not too affordable in my opinion for the average middle class American family.

I disagree with inhuman treatment of animals and the killing of animals strictly for fashion. The meat industry is a mess and needs some serious overhaul and a lot of changes need to be made to correct many egregious actions allowed simply because of greed. I know this already.

Should we continue, though?

You seem to have already concluded that those who disagree with you do not have a conscience mind.

It's a bit close minded in my opinion and leads nowhere.

- Lee

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
That's exactly what they're doing with livestock. They're pumping them full of hormones, genetically modified feeds, and keeping them in tight confined spaces until plump enough to be slaughtered. These are unnatural conditions, allowing cows to grow massive in size, while the hormones and lack of activity make for good meat (refining a process) and eventually led to slaughter. They are slaughtering these animals for food consumption at the rate of 30,000,000 heads of cattle a year. If that's not a smooth operation, I don't know what is.

Do "they"?

Is it the preparation and conditions you have a problem with or the "killing"?
If animals are humanely contained and killed then this is fine?

You're still generalizing though. I've lived with and by farmers that don't do this so I suppose their eating of meat should be fine then.

Look although a large majority of the major industry do the things you have mentioned, and I agree that it is a mess, there are other options. Here's a simple idea...try and buy free range and hormone free meat.

It exists you know?

What You Can Do?
There are many small family farmers who don’t use artificial hormones on their animals. By purchasing your milk and meat from local, sustainable farms, you are supporting a system that ensures the health and welfare of the farm animals, and protects you and your family from hormone-related health risks.

• Choose hormone-free beef and rBGH-free dairy products at the supermarket. Foods that carry the “USDA-certified organic” label cannot contain any artificial hormones. When purchasing sustainably raised foods without the "organic" label, be sure to check with the farmer to ensure no additional hormones have been administered.
  
• Visit the Eat Well Guide for an online listing of stores, restaurants and producers that sell hormone-free meat and dairy products.
  
• Use Sustainable Table and Food and Water Watch’s rBGH-free dairy list to find a list of rBGH-free brands available in your state.
  

sustainabletable.org

Until the meat industry is fully cleaned up, there are other options than simply removing meat from your diet.

If you choose to though then that's fine too.

- Lee

Solid advice - if you aren't already getting organic foods and rBGH-free & free range meat, etc. I would highly recommend it. Not only is it better for you, but it tastes much better too. Plus - you are supporting local / small farmers, as opposed to the industrial farmers, that have been putting the salt of the earth out of business.

Hopefully they will just ban BGH in the states at some point, like everywhere else in the civilized world.

reply to post by scientist


Thanks, and yes the answer I posted about those types of products is what I choose to do.

Anyway thats my solution however temporary.
I don't buy meat or eggs otherwise and my wife wouldn't allow me to if I wanted it.

- Lee

reply to post by scientist


You know that assembly line is still a churnin' right?

But... What's integrity?

Originally posted by lee anoma


Paranoid a little?

So now you question the powers of my memory?
You want me to subjectively debate with you what I consider “memorably significant?”
How have you determined what is memorably significant to another mind, and by what do you judge this?

Please spare me the armchair shrink bit.

I married a vegetarian. I have in the past and currently do live with another vegetarian in addition to my wife. I suppose in your paranoid mind you may wish to twist this into some new sort of complex revenge scenario so be my guest in proving yourself right as this sort of presumptive attack may work for you. You may however just be placing more significance on your own lifestyle in the minds of others than it actually deserves.

Sorry but I don't wake up planning my next attack on the plant eaters of the world.

Is it possible that the memory was not significant and simply brought back through association from a statement made?

The response you judgmentally question was made in regards to a statement about growing your own food. I mentioned that I did this. It wasn’t a prepared statement, a talking point, or some memorized blow I used on any vegan/vegetarian that disagreed with me. In fact, I never told them about my past at all unless they directly inquired. It never came up in a debate with them. Like you the ones I mentioned made assumptions, which was fine by me. Unlike you though, I am not making those sorts of assumptions regarding all vegetarians or otherwise I would have a very uncomfortable living arrangement.

Making assumptions is one thing but trying to pompously use them as a fact is another. Is it possible that you have been attacked over your lifestyle and now see an attack that isn't there?

You asked me a personal question about my experiences and I answered it.
Unless you know otherwise about me there is nothing to debate.

- Lee

I'm not paranoid about anything. I'm done "debating" with you as well. I never said you were out for blood, but it's obvious where your sentiments lie with the lifestyle and have formulated some obvious stereotype of vegans/vegetarians. I'm not here to make a judgement call on your character, either, I just feel like your recollection was a little Columbinesque, is all.

Originally posted by lee anoma

Wow, very interesting.

Vegetarians and/or Vegans have often condemned omnivores on a moral basis for meat-eating but there seems to be a basic necessity involved in the process, and it is driven by a human (biological) need for it.

I've always played the middle ground with my meals, not eating too much red meat and primarily sticking to fish, chicken, and vegetables but it appears meat should not be ruled out of our diet entirely or there is a price to pay.

Thoughts?

- Lee

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 14-9-2008 by lee anoma]

Well for myself, I eat a mostly meat based diet because of a stomach condition.

Now that being said, if our remote ancestors never ate meat, we wouldn't be having this conversation now as meat is responsible for our brain enlargement. So it does make sense that removal of said meat would shrink the brain.
And a complete vegan diet is unhealthy for many reasons. But of course vegans will deny this. My response is, you can deny you're on fire but at some point you must admit you're burning

I haven't read through the whole thread so maybe someone has already said this. Forgive me if they have. And FYI I am not a vegetarian although i somewhat envy those that are able to be.

Has it occured to anyone that Vegans have smaller brains because they are able to use their brain cells more efficiently and the body thus gets rid of the excess cells? Now that I think of it, although i may be making way too broad of an generalization, that most mentally challenged folks actually have big heads and most probably big brains as well. Their brain cells don't work as well so they need more of them?

Originally posted by disgustedbyhumanity
I haven't read through the whole thread so maybe someone has already said this. Forgive me if they have. And FYI I am not a vegetarian although i somewhat envy those that are able to be.

Has it occured to anyone that Vegans have smaller brains because they are able to use their brain cells more efficiently and the body thus gets rid of the excess cells? Now that I think of it, although i may be making way too broad of an generalization, that most mentally challenged folks actually have big heads and most probably big brains as well. Their brain cells don't work as well so they need more of them?

Mice have small brains also. I'm guessing they're not mental giants As a matter of fact, I've beat every mouse I've run against in the maze race

Originally posted by lee anoma


Yes I understand this.
So what is the point here?

Forget so soon? As I was comparing why lions need to kill and why humans could abstain. You can clip and edit my pieces, but I'm hoping you're reading them in their entirety. There has been numerous times when we are more so debating your editing choices of my posts than we are tangible subjects. That could say a lot about your "debating" skills or maybe I'm just not making myself clear enough.

That we have created in some parts of the world conditions that allow us the opportunity or luxury to do this (if you can afford it) does not make this or the opposite right or wrong. This is still not a justification to not eat meat but merely provides an option. Like I said, if you can afford the option then kudos.

And as an industrialized leader in meat, we should look at what we're doing around the world. With very little research, a few Googles, you can see that our 'luxury" has incredible side effects to most of the rest of the world.

My initial reasons for taking on veganism were based around compassion. The reason I remained vegan was because I saw the devastation that indifference and apathy can do. My life isn't my own but has far reaching effects, and not just regarding animals, but people and the environment. No shrug of the shoulders or self righteous justification is going to take back the havoc that's rampaged the land for sake of industry. Abstaining, promoting, and helping those who are interested is a small way I give back. If you're content, you're content, and that's totally fine. That's why we have free will. Do what you may.

It comes down to your personal and philosophical beliefs regarding the eating of animals and whether or not you personally believe it is wrong.

I don't under these contemporary circumstances or in a primitive setting.

Exactly. It comes down to you and what you think is "right." I know I will never perpetuate or enable something that I know is single handedly destroying the environment. If the U.N. steps in and is concerned about the long lasting effects of the meat trade, than you know there is true cause for concern. If your moral and ethic code allow you to turn a blind eye while any industry has it's way with the world, than that's on you. Even those who don't think they're doing much harm because they just eat off a value menu every now and again are enabling this industry to continue it's rampage. Simply because a potential customer means a potential profit. If there was no demand, there would be no supply. Modern day civil disobedience and revolutionary acts can come simply in the form abstinence.

I'm very particular about my wording. Notice I said "In some way.." Because genocide isn't just the eradication, but also described in the dictionary:
Genocide - systematic killing of a racial or cultural group.

I picked up on your wording, what I said is that it is an inaccurate consideration.

"Eradication" is used in some of the definitions of genocide but nevertheless Websters defines genocide as "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group."

Thanks, because I was under the impression that it was very well analyzed and laid out for you. You can't use a words single one meaning. The dictionary has a slew of meanings and because something doesn't fit your current agenda, doesn't mean it can be overlooked and disregarded because that's not what you're saying. The definition stands, and I'm sure you disagree with it and you being corrected, but denying the meaning of a word is kind of ludicrous. "It doesn't mean that in what I AM trying to say, so it doesn't mean that."

Not just simply killing. You are oversimplifying here. Cows are needed by the meat industry so to destroy them would bring about their own demise. The equating of eating meat to genocide was a territory PETA crossed into when they foolishly decided to compare meat to Jews, and meat eaters to Nazis.

This of course upset MANY Jews, including the vegetarian ones.
Rightfully so in my opinion.

The funny thing is that Nazi's were actually supporters of animal rights and protection, just not the rights of certain humans.

Igh... PETA. Well regardless of what they said, it's not some sort of vegetarian standard. I personally wouldn't call it a genocide, but I can absolutely agree that if an industry is partial to cows or pigs, and only process those kinds of animals, than that in itself is a genocide of a species. It is done with purpose and for profit. If the industry wasn't so specific and were throwing anything in their meat mills, like dogs, cats, boa constrictors, etc...Then that would just be mass killing of animals, but the specifics correlate with the definition.

I disagree with PETA (as I do most the time, because they're turds) polarizing an issue with the use of something horrific like the holocaust. Maybe they thought it was a smart idea to make the relation between millions of animals trapped in cages being slaughtered by the thousands as some sort of visual aid for those who disagree with them. I don't agree with their statement and think it's juvenile, just as I think your linking of Nazi's and the support of animals rights. As the argument in itself isn't "Did the Nazi's support animal rights?" Or "Is PETA/Vegetarianism bad because the Nazi's had certain respects for animals?"

No, it's not. It's polarization and on the level that you might see on Bill O'Reilly or Hannity. Misguided irrelevant relation to bad things to fill an agenda or make a point.

The food market is an industry itself not just meat. Those stores that cater to vegetarians are there to make money, not simply raise the human consciousness. It's a business. I've shopped in some and it is an expensive one as well. Not too affordable in my opinion for the average middle class American family.

I know the stores you're talking about. Wild Oats, Good Earth, Nature Foods, Etc... I think that's another stereotype as I've been shopping at the same store since I've been vegan. I've even seen it comes around, adding more "organic" choices in canned foods, breads, produce, and even junk food. You don't have to shop at a specialty store to get what you need, and a diet change doesn't require you to make some incredible lifestyle change. It's a store and there to make money, but the difference between a Wild Oats and a Wal-Mart grocer is their impact. Where as a Wal Mart Neighborhood Grocer (or whatever they're calling those dreadful things) could careless where the product is being made, how it is being made, and the implications of carrying that product on a mass scale. The neo-hippie corporateers are nuts over that. All the boxes for the product are recyclable, organic, they buy a lot of local produce and support small local industry, and even have their floors made out of some gross looking recyclable material. As they're making a profit, I would much rather support their attempt at business than a faceless corporation.

I like my little store, though, so I'm not buying into those types either.

I disagree with inhuman treatment of animals and the killing of animals strictly for fashion.

So you don't wear leather?

The meat industry is a mess and needs some serious overhaul and a lot of changes need to be made to correct many egregious actions allowed simply because of greed. I know this already

Should we continue, though?

You seem to have already concluded that those who disagree with you do not have a conscience mind.

It's a bit close minded in my opinion and leads nowhere.

I don't understand how you can claim the meat industry is a "mess" and in need of serious "overhaul," but at the same time, you're supporting it that "mess." You're allowing them to get away with what they're doing, being concerned but refusing to go out of your way to do anything about it. I disagree with the mess in a whole. Land is destroyed, water is polluted, C02 emissions are out of control, cattle is ruining our national parks, the faceless corporations are walking all over their foreign and domestic workers, the industry is a magnet for illegal employment and has no safeguard for that or the care of those that are working illegally, meat subsidies, and last but not least, the killing of animals.

And I haven't really concluded anything. All I've said that is if you know it's wrong, don't enable them. As I brought up my own experience and justifications for being vegan. I believe the meat industry is a full spectrum burden to the people on this planet and I'm not going to disagree with something and support it. That would be hypocritical of me.

My principles differ from yours. That we cannot argue. It is what it is.

I find this study as interesting as anything else regarding FOOD and DIETS. As someone already noticed, there are loads of different studies and opinions about the same food or diet, so there is really no point judging the whole diet based on just one study. I seriously doubt about the study shown here. I.e. there was way too small number of people tested and I didn't even find information _what kind of vegetarian diet_ they were following. If the result can be confirmed with a better study, we should study next whether the brain shrinkake has actual negative effects on intelligence or some of our other qualities/functions. As I have also seen some studies showing vegans to be a bit more 'intelligent' than average, I find this very unlikely. (I think someone already pasted those studies in this thread )

If it will be shown that the shrinking is true/inevident AND it has some
negative effects, we should of course find out what is the primary cause and
whether it can be fixed without eating meat, as many of us veg(etari)ans don't find going back eating meat an option. As suggested, a lack of B12 vitamin could be one thing to look at, but there has been many recent studies showing that majority of vegans/vegetarians do not suffer from the defiency of B12 vitamin so it might be a dead end too.

I do wonder why some of you have such a hostile attitude towards people with different diet than your own. If we simplifie this thing a bit, it's no different than talking about how a lot of very fatty red meat on your diet could cause serious health problems. There would still be people who would say those same "I still love my bacon and beef and I'm gona eat those ever"-things but not half as agressively as you do it in this thread (and almost all threads concerning vegetarianism).

I'm also very tired of 'defending' my own choices but I most certainly don't preach against eating meat to my friends/family - nor do I do it here on the
internet. I'm always ready to change opinions and talk about my own views but only when both sides want to.

At the moment I don't fear of loosing my brains or becoming a moron (assuming I'm not already a one) but new information is always welcome. I've been a vegetarian for 14 years now. My health is excellent, I've been practising martial arts for whole of my life and no problems so far. I'm studying to become a professional personal trainer/coach and naturally I try to keep up with the news about different diets (and the human anatomy/health).

My own B12-vitamin 'reserve' was quite recently tested and was found to be
very good, even though I very rarely take any extra vitamins nor do I plan my diet very carefully. I just donated my sperm to a (just opened) fertility clinic in here and my sperm count and overall quality was said to be excellent. I've gotten migraine since childhood, still got seizures sometimes
when stressed but it's been a lot better since becoming a vegetarian. I'm 31
years old now and my biggest health issue is a nerve damage on my left hand (prolapsed dorsal disc that had to be removed completely, a bit too harsh training when I was young and stupid..) and my skin. I still got a mild acne like when I was 14 and it becomes hell if I touch something like
chips/chocolate/(fatty) dairy products/fastfood. It's ok when I eat 'healthy'
but I'm just a human..

I'd warmly recommend vegetarian diet to anyone, but I do realize it's everyones own choice and even the vegan diet is _different to everyone_. Most likely no two vegans eat exactly the same, no matter how much they know - or don't know..

(Btw. the crappy language and grammar is not because of my shrinking vegetarian brain but because I'm Finnish and I'm still trying to get hold of this language..)

I am glad to see a discussion about how food is produced. I like the "permaculture" approach as being the very best of product, sustainability and spirit.
I was first introduced to permaculture in David Blumes' book "Alcohol Can Be A Gas".
The brief description on the permaculture.com web site doesn't really do the book justice but here is the link.
permaculture.com.
There is also a permaculture.org web site.
Americans in South and Central America have been killed for teaching permaculture to the locals. It is a threat to funneling all of the agri-money through the powerful few.
The powerful few sponsor studies like the one mentioned.
Many farmers have said to their children that "I wish there was a better way." Well there is a better way.
I am thankful that humans can survive on the mass produced foods until we can get together on a better community produced supply chain.

So here's my two cents worth.
The "5-Hour Energy" that I drink has 8000% of the RDA of vitamin B-12. My brain must be huge!

Also, I don't get any spam mail telling me I can grow an impressive head organ.

reply to post by lee anoma

I'd like to point out that as far as I can tell this study, published in the journal Neurology, was not done on vegetarians, but rather, "normal" elderly people. I'm not sure then, why the article connects going "veggie" to B12 deficiency: B12 deficiency in the elderly is nothing new, and it is usually caused by the lack of an enzyme necessary to digest B12 from food, called the Intrinsic Factor. Many peoples' digestive system stops producing the Intrinsic Factor as they age, and even if they were to consume loads of the vitamin B12 in their food, it would not be absorbed. Clearly, eating more meat would not benefit these people.

Also, B12 deficiency from diet is rare: the liver can store B12 for up to 3 years, and some B12 is produced by healthy intestinal flora. Even so, most vegans or strict vegetarians are aware that B12 is the one and only nutrient that is not begotten by plant foods, and so take a supplement or consume foods like soy milk or cereal fortified with B12. Most soy milks are fortified, as are most cereals in the U.S.

I think what's ironic is that B12 is produced by bacteria found in healthy soil, which is then (theoretically) consumed by livestock, thus delivering B12 in milk and meat. However, assuming that most livestock today are consuming grass grown in healthy soil is an iffy assumption at best. Instead, many livestock are fed grain and other feeds that may not harbor any B12 from soil. So to say vegetarians are more at risk than non-vegetarians is quite SENSATIONAL at the least, and ridiculous at best.

Just funny that, since the author of the article didn't exactly say this. She actually said something closer to what I've already written.