Meat Free Mondays

[Militant_Vegan_]

Tell that to the Inuit.

great point. Inuits don't age well, are barely adapted to their diet. and you aren't an inuit. High school argument.

In his book, "Health Conditions and Disease Incidence Among The Eskimos of Labrador," Dr. Samel Hutton reported on the Inuit before the addition of western foods.

He studied them personally from 1902 to 1913, and had access to the detailed birth and death records kept by missionaries from the previous century.

Hutton said: "Old age sets in at fifty and its signs are strongly marked at sixty. In the years beyond sixty the Eskimo is aged and feeble. Comparatively few live beyond sixty and only a very few reach seventy. Those who live to such an age have spent a life of great activity, feeding on Eskimo foods and engaging in characteristically Eskimo pursuits."

The more you study Eskimo culture, the more you realize it was never free from disease, and, in fact, people of the culture suffered from a number of disorders we associate with meat-centric diets today.

The Eskimos were very familiar with constipation due to their low-fiber diet, and they created the spirit Matshishkapeu, the most powerful spirit in their mythology, to embody it. The spirit's name literally translates into "Fart Man." In Inuit stories, he is known to inflict painful cases of constipation upon people and other gods (7).


Criticism on the Inuit diet | Mark's Daily Apple Health and Fitness Forum

 

[Scrabaholic]

great point. Inuits don't age well, are barely adapted to their diet. and you aren't an inuit. High school argument.

In his book, "Health Conditions and Disease Incidence Among The Eskimos of Labrador," Dr. Samel Hutton reported on the Inuit before the addition of western foods.

He studied them personally from 1902 to 1913, and had access to the detailed birth and death records kept by missionaries from the previous century.

You're quoting something from over 100 years ago??? Bahahahahahahaha!

BTW, what makes you think you know anything about me?

 

[Militant_Vegan_]

You're quoting something from over 100 years ago??? Bahahahahahahaha!

BTW, what makes you think you know anything about me?

yes. You're reading comprehension is terrible. the studies were on inuits eating their native diet. your dumb claim

 

[the_recruit]

I've been trying to convince my friends and family to add more insect protein to their diets, but none of them will take me up on it.

Have you tried your Aunt?

 

[spud_meister]

Just tonight? Nothing measurable.

What if I do this meat free Mondays thing for a year and assume I have a boring diet. I don't eat 200g of lean beef for 52 meals, so that's roughly 10kg of meat I'm missing out on per year. How much healthier am I, given I'm slightly overweight to start with and my diet has too much fat and sugar anyway? :lol:

The point I'm making is that intentionally going meat free is purely a symbolic gesture, as the benefits to my health would be negligible when taking the entirety of my diet into account.

 

[spud_meister]

you'd have a lower risk of heart disease, obesity, or plenty of other common health problems many americans suffer from at astoundingly higher rates today than they ever have before.

Really? How much lower?

 

[Excon]

What can we do to feed the world's growing population and protect the environment at the same time? We need to change our diets..

1. We shouldn't be feeding any of the world's population. They should be providing for their own.
2. We do not need to change our diets. We need to reduce the population.

 

[Militant_Vegan_]

1. We shouldn't be feeding any of the world's population. They should be providing for their own.
2. We do not need to change our diets. We need to reduce the population.

That's the most childish thing I've read in this forum. Congratulations.

 

[OpportunityCost]

That's the most childish thing I've read in this forum. Congratulations.

Well, in all fairness you haven't been here that long.

 

[Excon]

That's the most childish thing I've read in this forum. Congratulations.

iLOL

Obviously you didn't read your OP.

By the way, I smell hosiery.


But no, it wasn't childish at all, population control is a real solution.

Feeding those who can not feed themselves just leads to more problems.

 

[Mithrae]

1. We shouldn't be feeding any of the world's population. They should be providing for their own.
2. We do not need to change our diets. We need to reduce the population.

There's a limited amount of land suitable for agriculture on this planet. We can make a little more by - for example - clearing large swathes of the Amazon rainforest for cattle ranching, but it's still ultimately limited. Some sources suggest that there is no longer a global food surplus, despite ongoing increases to production. But even when there was a food surplus, billions in the world were undernourished whilst many rich countries suffered from obesity 'epidemics.' The world's population is feeding us, for the simple reason that we can pay more. Lucky us.

And how would you plan on reducing the population, I wonder?

Pregnant Silence
It’s about time we discussed the real population crisis.
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 18th November 2015

. . . .
Such is the momentum behind population growth, an analysis in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences discovered, that were every government to adopt the one-child policy China has just abandoned, there would still be as many people on Earth at the end of this century as there are today. If two billion people were wiped out by a catastrophe in mid-century, the planet would still hold a billion more by 2100 than it does now.

If we want to reduce our impacts this century, the paper concludes, it’s consumption we must address. Population growth is outpaced by the growth in our consumption of almost all resources. There is enough to meet everyone’s need, even in a world of 10 billion people. There is not enough to meet everyone’s greed, even in a world of 2 billion people.

So let’s turn to a population crisis over which we do have some influence. I’m talking about the growth in livestock numbers. Human numbers are rising at roughly 1.2% a year. Livestock numbers are rising at around 2.4% a year. By 2050, the world’s living systems will have to support about 120m tonnes of extra human, and 400m tonnes of extra farm animals(2).

Raising them already uses three quarters of the world’s agricultural land. One third of our cereal crops are used to feed them. This may rise to roughly half by 2050. More people will starve as a result, because the poor rely mainly on grain for their subsistence, and diverting it to livestock raises the price. Now the grain that farm animals eat is being supplemented by oil crops, particularly soya, for which the forests and savannahs of South America are being cleared at shocking rates.

This might seem counter-intuitive, but were we to eat soya, rather than meat, the clearance of natural vegetation required to supply us with the same amount of protein would decline by 94%. Producing protein from chickens requires three times as much land as protein from soybeans. Pork needs nine times, beef 32 times.​

Of course, I love getting a bit of nice warm meat in my mouth as much as the next man. It's pretty hard to be perfect, but there's nothing wrong with trying to do a little better. I do try to substitute chicken for beef, and a meat-free day sounds like a good idea too

 

[zyzygy]

We just had avocado & tomato sandwich Toasted bread drizzled W/ olive oil . Meat free every day for me Thank you Sir Paul!

I too once ate an avocado and tomato sandwich. I remember the occasion quite clearly.

 

[zyzygy]

I do try to substitute chicken for beef, and a meat-free day sounds like a good idea too

Omnivores like me have many meat free days. Vegans and vegetarians seem to believe that meat eaters spend their days stuffing huge gobbets of meat into their mouths.

 

[Mithrae]

Omnivores like me have many meat free days. Vegans and vegetarians seem to believe that meat eaters spend their days stuffing huge gobbets of meat into their mouths.

I would if weight, ethics and budget permitted it (in that order :lol: ). Though the same could be said of potato crisps - and bourbon if it weren't for hangovers. We (western countries at least, dunno about elsewhere) certainly do eat a lot more meat than we did a century or two ago. But I'll grant you that joining a forum as 'Militant Vegan' and starting a one-track-record series of shallow and barely politically-related threads probably isn't the most effective way for a person to get their message across.

 

[Ntharotep]

I'm closer to the carnivore end of the spectrum but I might give it a try. I doubt it will hurt my diet any.
I might have to have a glass of milk out of natural rebellion though...

Omnivores like me have many meat free days. Vegans and vegetarians seem to believe that meat eaters spend their days stuffing huge gobbets of meat into their mouths.

I resemble that remark!

Actually, I generally eat meat at night for dinner and my work days are mostly crackers, potatoes (the place across the street has potato logs to die for), cucumbers in a bowl and soda which is probably worse for me than any meat...

 

[tres borrachos]

I really wish the OP would stop with these really ignorant trolling threads. I'm a vegetarian who would love to see meat intake reduced, but the way this guy is going about it is just wrong, ignorant, and truly not helpful. It also brings about stupid jokes about meat eating.

I wish the mods would start consolidating these threads.

 

[Excon]

There's a limited amount of land suitable for agriculture on this planet. We can make a little more by - for example - clearing large swathes of the Amazon rainforest for cattle ranching, but it's still ultimately limited. Some sources suggest that there is no longer a global food surplus, despite ongoing increases to production. But even when there was a food surplus, billions in the world were undernourished whilst many rich countries suffered from obesity 'epidemics.' The world's population is feeding us, for the simple reason that we can pay more. Lucky us.

And how would you plan on reducing the population, I wonder?

Pregnant Silence
It’s about time we discussed the real population crisis.
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 18th November 2015

. . . .
Such is the momentum behind population growth, an analysis in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences discovered, that were every government to adopt the one-child policy China has just abandoned, there would still be as many people on Earth at the end of this century as there are today. If two billion people were wiped out by a catastrophe in mid-century, the planet would still hold a billion more by 2100 than it does now.

If we want to reduce our impacts this century, the paper concludes, it’s consumption we must address. Population growth is outpaced by the growth in our consumption of almost all resources. There is enough to meet everyone’s need, even in a world of 10 billion people. There is not enough to meet everyone’s greed, even in a world of 2 billion people.

So let’s turn to a population crisis over which we do have some influence. I’m talking about the growth in livestock numbers. Human numbers are rising at roughly 1.2% a year. Livestock numbers are rising at around 2.4% a year. By 2050, the world’s living systems will have to support about 120m tonnes of extra human, and 400m tonnes of extra farm animals(2).

Raising them already uses three quarters of the world’s agricultural land. One third of our cereal crops are used to feed them. This may rise to roughly half by 2050. More people will starve as a result, because the poor rely mainly on grain for their subsistence, and diverting it to livestock raises the price. Now the grain that farm animals eat is being supplemented by oil crops, particularly soya, for which the forests and savannahs of South America are being cleared at shocking rates.

This might seem counter-intuitive, but were we to eat soya, rather than meat, the clearance of natural vegetation required to supply us with the same amount of protein would decline by 94%. Producing protein from chickens requires three times as much land as protein from soybeans. Pork needs nine times, beef 32 times.​

Of course, I love getting a bit of nice warm meat in my mouth as much as the next man. It's pretty hard to be perfect, but there's nothing wrong with trying to do a little better. I do try to substitute chicken for beef, and a meat-free day sounds like a good idea too

That is not a solution as the population continues to grow and resources will not. It is unsustainable in the long term.

Controlling the size of the population is the only solution.

 

[soot]

It also brings about stupid jokes about meat eating.

Agreed.

It gave me this cool new sig:

 

[bg85]

Do most vegans think people who eat meat actually eat it every day?

most americans who eat meat actually eat it every day. if you don't, then you are the exception.

 

[bg85]

What if I do this meat free Mondays thing for a year and assume I have a boring diet. I don't eat 200g of lean beef for 52 meals, so that's roughly 10kg of meat I'm missing out on per year. How much healthier am I, given I'm slightly overweight to start with and my diet has too much fat and sugar anyway? :lol:

The point I'm making is that intentionally going meat free is purely a symbolic gesture, as the benefits to my health would be negligible when taking the entirety of my diet into account.

no, they really wouldn't be negligible. i'm not sure how your'e making that determination. either way, most people eat more than 1400g of meat per week.

not to mention that part of the idea is to change habits and discover new foods. you'd likely start having more meat-free meals throughout the week as you discover meals that you like and enjoy preparing.

 

[bg85]

Really? How much lower?

that depends on how your habits would change. it would also depend on your own personal body chemistry. asking someone to specifically quantify how much lower the risk would be is unreasonable and not even a doctor would be able to give you an exact figure. you know this. don't be a troll. again, obviously the idea is that it's something to try and that may lead you to develop better eating habits - you might even find you like it.

 

[bg85]

Omnivores like me have many meat free days. Vegans and vegetarians seem to believe that meat eaters spend their days stuffing huge gobbets of meat into their mouths.

most americans eat meat every day. many eat it with every meal. that you understand how to exercise moderation does not mean that it isn't good advice for others.

 

[bg85]

That is not a solution as the population continues to grow and resources will not. It is unsustainable in the long term.

Controlling the size of the population is the only solution.

most studies i've read say the population will naturally start to level out around at a little over 10 billion.

 

[Excon]

most studies i've read say the population will naturally start to level out around at a little over 10 billion.

Still too many in the long term.
It needs to be manged just like everything else.


Either we do it now peacefully without actual suffering, or the population will eventually do it to itself with massive suffering.

 

[bg85]

Still too many in the long term.

um...why?