I'm happy doing the LC thing. I'm an ethical vegetarian and preached to all who would let me -- for years -- that a diet full animal fat is bad for you, as well as unethical (in terms of our duties to animals and the planet).

Well, check out the surprises that life had in store for me. Now that I'm eating tons of animal fat in the form of cheese, mayonnaise, butter, and eggs, I'm losing weight, my cholesterol is down, my fingernails are healthy & strong for the first time in years, my hair is thicker, I have more sustained energy . . . . etc.

I buy all my animal products from humane and organic producers so I don't feel TOO bad about it.

But I had one concern. Diverticulitis runs in my family and I'm worried about colon cancer.

When I was eating a high carb diet, I would poop about three times a day (no kidding), and was sure that I would never develop colon cancer.

Now that I poop maybe once every other day, I'm worried.

Thoughts?

How many vegetables are you eating per day? Are you still in Induction and getting just three cups?

Three times a day? Wow.

Such frequent movements often indicate (or foreshadow) Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) or Ulcerative Colitis (UC) - both of which are associated with a hightened risk of cancer.

Low carb diets often help with these diseases (something to which I can attest to personally in the case of UC).

Well...first of all, there is no direct link between how many times a day you move your bowels and colon cancer. Since the bulk in your diet has decreased, it's only natural that the amount of fecal matter to be eliminated would also decrease. As you move through the different phases of low carb towards maintainance, you should be gradually increasing your daily carb allowance and using mostly veggies and some fruits as well as nuts and seeds to achieve that increase. By the time that you get to maintainance, you may be eating more veggies (and a greater variety of them) than you ever have in your life along with some fruits and whole grains as well.
Recent studies have shown that there is no direct link between the consumption of animal proteins and colon cancer and as for the diverticulitis, it's more likely to be aggravated by grains than beef. Same goes for IBS.

Edited to add: I moved this post to the General Health forum in hopes that more people would see it and be able to add their knowledge and experience to the topic.

Thanks for the replies!

I thought though that colon cancer was caused by the very slow movement of animal protein through the digestive tract? Animal protein takes so long to digest, that it rots in there for days, becoming toxic. Vegetable matter, by contrast, moves quickly and doesn't have the chance to become so toxic.

I also thought that there was a correlation between the length of an animal's intestines (short for meat eaters and long for primarily vegetable eaters) and what it should be eating. Since we have very long intestines, we should be eating mostly vegtable matter.

I agree, you know, this concern will probably resolve itself once I reach my goal weight and increase the number of veggies in my diet.

Those arguments (food digestion speed, “rotting”, and intestine length) are propounded and spread by the literature of the Hare Krishna’s – a strongly vegetarian-oriented faith. This fact doesn’t make the arguments wrong in and of itself, but the actual scientific foundation for the arguments is lacking.

First, they assume that creatures are either plant eaters or flesh eaters. Humans, apes and many other animals are omnivores – we can and do eat both plants and animals.

Second, both plant and animal tissues are digested just fine in the intestines of omnivores (and rot rather nicely outside of it). Their use of the term “rot” is a scare-word, designed to elicit an emotional response, not a scientific one.

Third, meat doesn’t linger in the intestines for days nor become toxic any more than vegetable matter does. One can get food poisoning from contaminated vegetables as well as meats. The only “linger” exception occurs in those prone to constipation – and if you are getting enough fiber, the “lingering” disappears.

Obesity is a major threat – for cancer, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc. The question for me becomes one of the balancing of risks – even if meat bumps up the colon cancer risk, to me, the decline of the other risks does more to offset other risks. Interestingly, studies that have shown increased colon cancer for meat-eaters show little difference in mortality, suggesting that the meat-related cancers are more benign and treatable than other types.

Also, there is a quality of life issue here as well – getting and being thinner is improving my life in many ways. If it came down to it, I’d rather have 20 more good years than 30 more miserable ones.

I'm a vegetarian, and not a "Hare Krishna." Don't lump all vegetarians into some fruity cult.

There are many good reasons not to eat meat.

1. Eating meat means that you are cruel to animals. I wouldn't kick my dog, and for the very same reason, would not eat an animal (unless I had absolutely no alternative). But many people who like to think of themselves as kind are perfectly willing to have animals kept in crowded and inhumane conditions, then slaughtered, so that they can eat them.

2. Eating meat means that you are harming the planet and its people. It takes more than a 100 gallos of water to produce a pound of animal protein, and about 1/5 that to produce a pound of vegetable protein. It also takes more fuel, more pesticide, more fertilizer, more land. When the majority of the world's population is starving, it makes no sense to devote most of arable land to the production of grain that will be fed to animals that will -- very, very inefficiently -- go to feed a tiny fraction of the world's wealthiest and most privileged people. It's disgusting and morally wrong.

3. Eating meat is irrational. People who eat meat say "they're just animals," or "they can't speak," or "they can't think." So? The issue is, "Can they suffer?" When it comes to inflicting pain on another living being, the only considerations should be, 1. Can this being feel pain -- i.e., does it have a central nervous system? and 2. Can this pain possibly be avoided?

Many many people are vegetarians because they want to live a life that is as free of violence and cruelty as is possible. And yes, I understand that it is NOT possible to live COMPLETELY free from inflicting violence and cruelty on other living beings. And yes, I understand that there are OTHER ways of reducing the amount of violence and cruelty in the world, and that vegetarianism is not the only way. Please don't oversimplify what I am saying here. All I am saying is that vegetarianism is a rational, pragmatic (and not perfect) way to try to live in a humane and responsible way.

"Fruity cult"? Isn't that a bit abusive towards that gentle, veggie faith? Yours are violent and cruel words, I think. Are you sure about those plants you've been eating?

If I were you, I'd be nicer to those fellow travelers who espouse the same ideology as you - indeed, they published it years ago in almost exactly the same word-for-word treatment as your earlier post.

Personally, I love the Hare Krishna's. Their food is great (if too carby), their worship and artwork are colorful, and their devotion seems genuine. They are no more fruity than any other religion.

My point was, their viewpoint (and your arguments) come more from religious inspiration than scientific rigor.

1. Eating veggies means that you are cruel to plants. At least the animals can cry out and run away - plants suffer in silence. People who think of themselves as kind will still happily rip a defenseless carrot from the arms of its warm Mother Earth - or worse, pay for others to do it for them.

2. Eating plants means that you are harming the planet and its peoples. Agricultural land practices - plowing, fertilizing, and using pesticides - kill far more creatures than living off free-range grazing animals.

3. Eating meat is rational - indeed, recent studies show it IMPROVES brain function as well as improving physical health.

Despite these shortcomings, I really don't mind vegetarians at all - in fact, every person I can convert to vegetarianism means more meat is left for me!

Wow.

I am really, realy offended by your inaccurate and careless spouting of preconceived notions about me and my "fellow travelers."

You did not even bother to read what I said and yet you feel qualified to tell me why I am a vegetarian and what's wrong with my views.

OK, actually, I admit, know very little about the Hare Krishnas. What I do know about them is not very positive -- they do seem like a cult to me. I have read accounts of people who have left the Hare Krishnas and felt that they had been brainwashed and exploited. But I am willing to be corrected on that.

But as for telling me that I have no right to have an opinion that others might not agree with -- Did you even bother to read my post? I did not say I was -- or that vegetarianism is - perfect. I did not say that vegetarians never got irritated, or espoused controversial views.

It was not inconsistent with my position to call Hare Krishnas a cult, and had you bothered to read my post you would have understood that. I was saying that vegetarianism is consistent with an ATTEMPT -- again, did you catch that? -- ATTEMPT -- to live a less violent and cruel life.

As for kindness to my "fellow travelers" -- Excuse me?

You obviously think there are about 50 vegetarians in this world and we can all be lumped into one little group and we all think the same.

Please trust me when I tell you, YOU COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG.

There are millions of people all over the world who practice vegetarianism for so many different reasons that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for me to agree with all of them on every issue.

Again, since you seem not to be a very careful reader, let me reiterate: I cannot possibly be expected to agree with every living vegetarian on the planet about every issuse.

And no, I am not "religiously" inspired.

You have so many misconspetions that it is really hard to address them all.

As for religious inspiration -- Let me be CLEAR here:

I do not believe in God,

or any religious system,

and don't tell me I do when you know virtually nothing about me.

I was inspired to become a vegetarian by a Moral Philosophy course I took in college. OK? Want proof? Want the phone number of my philosophy professor? Want the titles of the books I read?

Try reading Pater Singer's "Animal Liberation" if you want to understand my motivations for becoming a vegetarian. Otherwise, please, please, don't tell me who I am or why I do what I do -- especially when you don't even bother to read my posts -- the ONLY source of information about me that you have.

Intellectual rigor -- NOT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS -- inspired me to become a vegetarian.

OK, as for cruelty to plants.

Let me reiterate:

question one is,

CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEMS?

and question two is,

AVOIDABLE PAIN?

Remember? When the question of cruelty comes up, you must ask yourself two questions,

First, "Does this creature have the capacity to feel pain?"

Second, "Is this pain avoidable?"

To adddress your (almost certainly sarcastic and mocking) "concerns":

1. PLANTS ALMOST CERTAINLY DO NOT FEEL PAIN AS THEY LACK CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEMS.

2. BUT, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, LET US ASSUME THEY FEEL PAIN.

IF THEY DO FEEL PAIN, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO AVOID INFLICTING IT ON THEM WITHOUT DYING OURSELVES BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NOTHING LEFT TO EAT AT ALL.

THEREFORE THE "PAIN" IF ANY TO ANIMALS IS NOT AVOIDABLE WITHOUT DYING OURSELVES.

MY GOAL -- REMEMBER? -- IS TO AVOID INFLICTING UNNECESSARY PAIN WHILE REMAINING ALIVE MYSELF. AS I SAID, I WOULD EAT AN ANIMAL IF THERE WERE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT EATING MEAT OR DYING.

3. IF YOU TRULY WISH TO REDUCE UNNECESSARY DEATHS OF PLANTS, THEN BECOME A VEGETARIAN. PRESENTLY YOU ARE CAUSING THE UNNECESSARY DEATHS OF MILLIONS MORE PLANTS BY EATING MEAT -- FED ON PLANTS -- THAN YOU WOULD BY SIMPLY EATING THE PLANTS THEMSELVES.

If you had read my post you would have understood that.

Good luck to you. I hope that someday you learn the meaning of the phrase "intellectual rigor."

No need to shout, dear. I heard you; I just didn't believe you were correct.

I've read your posts - indeed, I responded to them, point by point, 1-2-3. Just because I read your posts doesn't mean I have to agree with you - do you believe everything that you read? Disagreement is a natural part of any rational, truth-seeking process - a good thing. I'm surprised I have to explain that to a lawyer.

Quote: "I am really, realy offended by your inaccurate and careless spouting of preconceived notions about me and my 'fellow travelers.'"

The offending words in question were mostly yours. I tweaked them slightly, of course, to show you how they applied to your own position. For example, your "preconceived notion" was that "many people who like to think of themselves as kind are perfectly willing to have animals kept in crowded and inhumane conditions, then slaughtered, so that they can eat them." My reply, that plant-eaters did the same to defenseless plants, merely echoed (and parodied) your own prejudices.

Quote: "But as for telling me that I have no right to have an opinion that others might not agree with ..."

Really? Where did I say or even imply that?

I disagree with your opinions, yes, but I never said you didn't have the inalienable personal right to any errant idea you may fancy.

Quote: "I was saying that vegetarianism is consistent with an ATTEMPT -- again, did you catch that? -- ATTEMPT -- to live a less violent and cruel life. "

Yes dear, I heard. While "attempting" is admirable, actually succeeding in one's attempts is better. Claiming a feeble moral justification despite one's admitted moral failings just doesn't sound flattering to one's position, don't you think? It sounds to me like a defense of "well, yes, Your Honor, I did shoot him, but it is okay, because I really didn't like the fact that I did."

Quote: "You obviously think there are about 50 vegetarians in this world and we can all be lumped into one little group and we all think the same.."

Actually, I think there are 0 actual vegetarians, since all vegetables contain microscopic animals that one cannot avoid ingesting. Seriously, though - you had no hesitation adopting yours as a nominal vegetarian position - why are you so enraged and offended when someone else dares to question the assumptions behind it? After all, if you don't want to defend a vegetarian position you can always stop replying to my posts.

Quote: 'First, "Does this creature have the capacity to feel pain?"'

How carno-centric of you to assume that central nervous system pain is the only meaningful source of suffering. Left without water in the sun, for example, plants suffer and die. Experiments have shown that stressed plants communicate that stress with each other via chemical messengers passed back and forth between in their root systems. Hell, even non-biological legal fictions like "corporations" can suffer pain in the form of "growing pains", "economic pain", and "regulatory pain".

Quote: 'Second, "Is this pain avoidable?"'

In the case of plants - no, or at least, not yet: we don't yet know enough about botanical pain (or economic pain, for that matter) to relieve the sufferings of those mercilessly harvested for food (or corporate greed). In the case of large animals, however, we could relieve their suffering if we wanted to - anesthetic technology is easily advanced enough to curtail central nervous system pain during animal harvest. At present, most food animals have quick deaths with minimal pain - and given that I have to die, too, someday, that is how I'd want to go. (Being shot post-coitus by a 21-year-old girlfriend's jealous husband would be ideal).

Quote: 3. "If you truly wish to reduce unnecessary death of plants, then become a vegetarian..." [to avoid the additional deaths of plants fed to meat animals].

I'm not sure why you've switched from "pain" to "death" as the thing to be avoided - they are not at all the same, after all - but since you brought it up, let's take a moment to consider avoiding death instead of avoiding pain as the superior moral good. Grazing animals typically don't KILL the plants they eat - they are more like lawn mowers, trimming the leaves back without causing mortal suffering. For plants, this might be painful, but it also might be no worse than trimming hair or shedding skin cells. Most agriculture practices, by contrast, kill the plants wholesale during harvest or ingestion - the carrot dies bite-by-bite between your molars.

As an afterthought...

Here's a link to a Hare Krishna-run vegetarian website: http://society.krishna.org/Articles/2002/05/035.html . The issues raised and words used are eerily similar to yours, even if there is no actual link between them and you. As an atheist myself, I guess I'd be really disturbed and upset if some religion echoed my thoughts so closely, too.

There very well may be some overlap between the reasons compelling Hare Krishnas and the reasons that other ethical vegetarians choose not to eat meat.

I really don't know and I don't care.

You're the one who brought up the Hare Krishnas, with your notion that my vegetarianism is provoked by "religious" impulses.

I would appreciate it if you would have the courtesy and honesty to admit that you were wrong about that notion.

The one relevant thing you said about the Hare Krishnas is that I don't know enough about them to dismiss them as a "fruity cult."

I agree. That was an ill-considered remark. I really do not have enough information about that group to take a position on them.

You see, I do try to acknowledge areas in which I am relatively ignorant, and I do try to admit that there are things I do not know.

I wish you would do the same.

You clearly have not read any animal rights philosophers and, just as I am in no position to debate the merits of the Hare Krishnas, you are in no position to debate ethical vegetarianism until you are better educated.

As for your analogy about "It's ok that I shot him, you honor, because I felt bad about it afterwards" --- I honestly do not see what point you're trying to make here.

It's not that I DISAGREE with your point. It's that I have utterly no idea what it is.

Thatanalogy seems to have something with my point that most nonvegetarians -- just as you do here -- try to attack vegetarianism by pointing the finger at a given vegetarian and saying "Look at this person's moral failings! Aha! See, I can dismiss vegetarianism!" (For example, your position in an earlier post was that if I am opposed to cruelty I should not scoff nastily at Hare Krishnas.)

You're probably right. I shouldn't scoff nastily at Hare Krishnas -- or at you, for that matter.

I just don't see what my moral failings have to do with vegetariansim.

Ethcal vegetariansim was the topic under discussion.

I believe that the merits or otherwise of ethical vegetarianism have very little to do with me.

Consider this: Martin Luther King Jr was an imperfect eprson. He was, for example, terrible womanizer, something many would consider a moral failing because it is likely to inflict pain on those close to the womanizer.

Yet many of his positions about civil rights were highly ethical.

It would be just plain stupid to reject civil rights on the grounds that some of its advocates were not completely kind in all their actions.

Similarly, it would be just plain stupid to reject ethical vegetarianism because some of its advocates are not completely kind in all their actions.

I don't know if this is what you were saying or thinking when you pointed out my failings, but if it was, it was not relevantto the question of the ethics of vegetarianism.

The issue is ethical vegetarianism, not me.

I certainly don't reject the idea that we should all STRIVE to be ethical and kind in all our actions.

(Was this the point you were trying to make in the "it doesn't matter that I shot him You Honor because I feel bad about it" analogy?)

Good lord. If that what you think I'm saying -- STOP! It's NOT!

Of course I am a seriously flawed person -- and so are you.

Of course, we should strive to be ethical and kind in all our actions. We will fail but we should try.

I was merely pointing out that if you are attacking ethical vegetarianism because vegetarians are not unimpeachably ethical in all their acts, you are making no sense.

Also, I am not saying that vegetarianism is the only way to be a kind person or help the planet.

Maybe you are right about free range cattle. Maybe that is a humane and ecologically sound option.

I really don't know, because I have not studied it, and do not choose to debate issues that I have not studied.

As for your position that plants "suffer." Perhaps they do. Again, I do not know because I have not seen the studies that prove this. What you say about "sending stress signals" to other plants does not sound like pain as I know it.

1. Physical pain, as I experience it, depends on a central nervous system.

2. I know that physical pain, as I experience it, can be horrible, and I know that it is wrong for others to inflict physical pain on me without my consent or any benefit to me.

3. I also know that I wish to avoid death for as long as possible. I believe that it would be wrong for another to inflict death on me without my consent.

4. I believe that most human beings share my feelings about unnecessary pain and death.

5. Therefore, I believe it is unethical to inflict unnecessary pain or death, generally speaking, on other human beings, because they usually do not consent to it.

[It would not, for example, necessarily be unethical to inflict pain on a human being who needed some medical procedure involving unavoidable pain and who consented to it; not would it necessarily be unethical to inflict pain on a person who was seeking pain for masochistic purposes and who consented to the pain. Similarly, it would not necessarily be unethical to assist in the suicide of a person who had good reasons to want to die and who consented to the activity.]

Generally speaking, however, it is unethical to inflict pain or death on human beings who wish to avoid pain and death, do not consent, and do not experience any benefit from their own pain or death.

Next,

1. I also believe that other non human beings possessed of a central nervous system have very much the same experience of pain that I do.

2. I also believe that they also seek to avoid death for as long as possible.

3. I believe that in the desire to avoid pain and death so far as possible, nonhuman animals are very similar to human animals.

4. I believe that this similarity between human and nonhuman animals is significant.

5. I believe that if it is unethical for me to inflict unnecessary physical pain or death on another human being without that person's consent, it is also unethical for me to inflict pain or death on a nonhuman animal without that animal's consent.

The reason is, there is no significant difference between the animal's basic desire to avoid pain and death and my desire to avoid pain and death.

There are many differences between human and nonhuman animals, but in this regard, the desire to avoid pain and death, I am convinced that there are no significant differences.

I have several important assumptions here:

1. Assumption number one:

I am assuming that animals do not consent to the pain or death they experience when we keep them in inhumane conditions and slaughter them.

[However, it may be ethical under some conditions to kill animals. I recently read an interesting book about an Aboriginal people who DO ask for animals' consent before eating them. This people lives in near-starvation and total poverty and truly eat barely enough to survive. They have no agriculture and simply wander. They never know where their next meal is coming from, Their way of life does not strike me as unethical, because -- whether or not the animals truly consent -- this people is wholly committed to living at peace and in harmony with their environment and each other. This is not my belief system, however. For the world in which I live, I believe that vegetarianism make more sense.

Similarly, I believe some medical and scientific research on animals may be necessary. I would hope that animal researchers would do their best to treat the animals humanely.]

2. Assumption number two:

I am assuming that if plants experience stress, it is not pain as I know it, and that the moral implications for me of plant stress are not the same as the moral implications of animal stress.

I am relatively confident that plant "stress" is not suffering as I know it because (1) plants lack a central nervous system similar to my own and (2) the pain response in human beings and animals serves an evolutionary purpose: it incites them to flee from attackers, but generally cannot serve such a purpose in plants that cannot flee predators.

If anything, plants BENEFIT from those that eat them:for many plants, being eaten is crucial to their propagation -- it's how they spread their seeds.

3. Assumption number three:

The significant differences between human and nonhuman animals do not obliterate the important similarities between their desires to avoid pain and death.

Just as the fact that the person sitting next to me may have gifts that are more valuable to the world than mine does not give that person the right to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on me,

so it is also true that my different abilities do not give me the right to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on animals.

A being's capacity to make the world a better place is not relevant to that being's basic rights to be free from unnecesary pain or death.

4. Assumption number four:

I do not believe that killing an animal is as wrong as killing a human being.

5.

Also, I am not saying that vegetarianism is the only -- or even one of the best -- ways to be a good and nonviolent person.

For example, I sometimes think that driving a car every day and living a life rich in consumer good is more violent and more morally wrong than eating meat. (If I really have enough money to go to New York for a weekend then why don't I have enough money to donate the same sumto the homeless? If I can buy season tickets to the opera why am I not supporting Oxfam? The way I am consuming a disproportionate share of this world's wealth is morally indefenisble and probably worse than eating meat.)

I'm not trying to shift the debate back to me and whether I am a good person. Rather, I'm saying, vegetarianism isn't the end of the story.

However, I am completely convinced that NOT killing beings fully as capable as ourselves of desiring life and freedom from pain is better than killing them.

Here are some links about the myths of vegetarianism.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/ca...comparison.html

You have the right to eat as you wish, but be informed.



Your body seems to agree with what you are doing for it.

Beth

hi raz,
see why i did not want to get into the meat-eating discussion on my thread ? i know where it digresses. LOL.

we should not kill animals. there are no qualifications. each animal has a right to its life, irregardless of its ability to make the world a better place. but boy, if that were the qualification, then we should obliterate humans completely. we do not make this world a better place.

anyone who thinks that humans in someway are needed for the survival/betterment of the earth, are really off their rockers. we are about the only species on the earth that continually disrupts the ecology of the planet.

some of us may indeed make the world nicer for humans, but certainly not for the earth. and then, only for a certain grouping of other humans. mostly what we do, is do things for the betterment of ourselves, with little regard for others. that would be much more indicative of human behavior.

if some alien life form, that found us tasty, ever inhabited the earth, people would very quickly change their minds. but it is my belief that any society that ever developed enough for interstellar travel, would have also developed the wisdom not to hurt other beings. but perhaps i am too optimistic about that one.

OK, thanks for the links.

I'm willing to think that the health benefits of vegetarianism mayhave been exaggerated.

But I will never agree with anyone who thinks there's no moral value in avoiding inflicting unnecessary pain or death on living beings that wish to avoid unnecessary pain and death just as much as we do.

Elihnig: this part of one of those posts is just WRONG: "A question frequently posed by vegetarians is: how can you justify killing an innocent animal for food? This question may seem difficult to answer at first but really it is not. Would it be reasonable to ask a lion to justify his killing of an innocent gazelle? Of course not: it is natural for the lion to kill the gazelle and that is justification enough. And what of a gazelle's right not to be eaten? Put this way, you can see that such questions are really meaningless. The same is true for us, for we are not a vegetarian species. "

The lion has no choice but to eat a gazelle.

We have a choice.

It's this simple:

Imagine a person driving down a road at night. A deer is caught in his headlights, stunned, frozen.

He's driving a big huge SUV.

He COULD choose to wait for the deer to come to its senses and bound off into the forest. But he likes the taste of venison so he plows the deer down, takes it home, butchers it, and eats it.

It is absolutely CLEAR to me that he made the wrong choice. Clearly the more moral choice would be to wait a few moments, allow the deer to go off and live its life, and then go home and eat some tofu.

However, most meat eaters don't see this choice with any moral clarity because they do not actually SEE the animal suffer and die. Since they don't see it, they don't think about it.

And yes, there are some who actually do kill their own meat. Yuck.