Question on hypertrophy

[Falcon]

B12?

Okay, I don't want to turn this into a Paleo vs. Vegan thread, but still, everyone can believe what is best for him.

[Larry Roseman]

B12?

Okay, I don't want to turn this into a Paleo vs. Vegan thread, but still, everyone can believe what is best for him.

B12 is about it.

It always impresses me how bulls can develop massive muscles eating grass and grain. Horses do ok too.

Not that we are bulls or horses. At least most of us

[WitnessTheFitness]

Do I remember it right that D3-vitamin can also be made from vegan sources?

From food sources cholecalciferol (D3) only comes from the lanolin in sheep's wool, so there isn't a vegan source. Ergocalciferol (D2) is the most common vegan alternative, though there is plenty of debate on D2 vs D3. But since the skin can naturally synthesize D3 from sunlight I don't consider it falling into the "only can be found in animal sources," despite there being no D3 in plant foods. If someone doesn't have exposure to the sun then it's more of an issue, but there's always D2 to fall back on.

B12?

Okay, I don't want to turn this into a Paleo vs. Vegan thread, but still, everyone can believe what is best for him.

A lot of foods are fortified with B12 these days, so it's incredibly easy to get into one's diet. Though you're right that B12 isn't in plant sources, it is very available as a supplement.

I don't consider veganism any healthier than other diets, and hopefully I'm not coming across as pitting it against other diets in a versus match. My reasons for being vegan are ethical rather than nutritional. Paleo works fantastic for a lot of people, and they seem to really thrive on it. All I really care about is dispelling the myth in the fitness world that soy and plant proteins turns guys into girly men with lactating man-boobs, whereas animal sources will make them big, strong, and the second coming of Conan the Barbarian (I'm exaggerating, but you know what I mean.) Both plant and animal sources will develop muscle mass, so it's really left up to the person's preferences for which they choose. If someone wants to eat a steak, more power to them. And if someone wants to eat tofu instead then that's perfectly fine as well

[Josh Schmitter]

He said he added 13 pounds of muscle mass as a vegan. Not good enough?

Ha, sorry for the late reply...I usually require 18.4lbs for proof, but I might let this one slide .

I don't consider veganism any healthier than other diets, and hopefully I'm not coming across as pitting it against other diets in a versus match. My reasons for being vegan are ethical rather than nutritional. Paleo works fantastic for a lot of people, and they seem to really thrive on it. All I really care about is dispelling the myth in the fitness world that soy and plant proteins turns guys into girly men with lactating man-boobs, whereas animal sources will make them big, strong, and the second coming of Conan the Barbarian (I'm exaggerating, but you know what I mean.) Both plant and animal sources will develop muscle mass, so it's really left up to the person's preferences for which they choose. If someone wants to eat a steak, more power to them. And if someone wants to eat tofu instead then that's perfectly fine as well

Very well put. You will get a lot of people out of the 'versus match' from that first sentence alone . I think that most gains have to do with training programs and genetics. I used to be vegan myself(for ethical reasons as well) and after much research, determined that a paleo-like diet was healthier for me. As for the ethical side, I could write a book...but the short version is my views are more in line with the Native American relationship of animals/living things. Keep it going on here/PM me if you want to keep discussing, as it would be more than welcome.

[Philip Chubb]

Has anyone read the Poliquin article about soy? (Not a good mark for soy) Or the book The Whole Soy Story. Both seem like strikes against the stuff. Pretty bad ones at that. Veganism is a different subject completely but soy is way scarier. Although maybe some people are better adapted to eating it than others.

[Joshua Naterman]

I loved how the Native Americans handled meat, at least the general process I am familiar with. You kill what you eat, and you use as much of it as humanly possible. You show respect to the animal when it dies and try to give it a clean death.

[Philip Chubb]

Being part Native American, I feel the exact same way. I actually would like to learn to hunt for that very reason.

[Josh Schmitter]

I loved how the Native Americans handled meat, at least the general process I am familiar with. You kill what you eat, and you use as much of it as humanly possible. You show respect to the animal when it dies and try to give it a clean death.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. This link has a lot of info on the not so mainstream facts about animal welfare and grain/big business. There is some good stuff on both sides in the plethora of comments, but there is also some serious ridiculousness to sift through(on both sides) as well.

http://www.foodrenegade.com/why-im-not-vegan/

“Feed the soil, not the plant,†was the first commandment of organic growing. I had to feed the soil because it was alive.

Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium — NPK — is the Triple Goddess of gardeners, the Troika of elements that rule plant growth. What did soil and plants eat and where would I get those substances? I hadn’t learned the phrase “closed-loop system,†but that was what I was after. Nitrogen was the big one. There are plants that fix nitrogen. Wasn’t that enough for my garden? Couldn’t it be? I begged. But I was begging a million living creatures who had organized themselves into mutual dependence millions of years ago. They had no use for my ethical anguish. No nitrogen-fixing plant could make up for all the nutrients I was taking out. The soil wanted manure. Worse, it wanted the inconceivable: blood and bones.

There were other sources of nitrogen I could have applied. Right now, fossil fuel provides the nitrogen to grow crops the world over. Synthetic fertilizer is what created the green revolution, with its 250 percent increase in crops. Besides the fact that nothing made from fossil fuels is sustainable—we can’t grow fossil fuel and it doesn’t reproduce itself—synthetic fertilizers eventually destroy the soil.

So synthetic nitrogen was out. And that left me facing animal products. Of course, the irony is that either source of nitrogen, synthetic or organic, comes from animals. Oil and gas are what’s left of the dinosaurs. So my choices—our choices, actually—were nitrogen from dead reptiles or from living ruminants.

My garden wanted to eat animals, even if I didn’t."

The Vegetarian Myth

Also an excerpt from the comments that I thought made a good point about animals living/dying naturally in the wild:

In nature, with few exceptions, animals die terrible deaths. I would not be one to jusitify the cruel, cold and heartless treatment and killing of animals that factory farms of the mega-argo-industies do. A organic pasture farmer that has passion for his/her craft treats animals with dignity and respect throughout there lives and death. No animal in the “wild†gets this. Animals do not lay down and have a last sleep before returning to the earth, the tranisition from life to death is a violent and painfull end for all of them in fact. This is not bad or evil, it just is.

[Blairbob]

At least in a factory or a farm, animals get killed before they started getting eaten. That sucks.

Remember the Velociraptor story from Jurassic Park? I was watching some Animal Channel the other day and I guess a half dozen lions were munching on a water bison for maybe an hour as it was crying out for it's brethren. Way more gruesome than watching zombies eat people on the big screen. Something to be said about a quick death.

I don't think it justifiies being caged for a lifetime.

I've wondered whether the newer filtration techniques make soy far more bio available. It's something I wonder about but I'm still too skeptical to care about too much. Oh yeah, it tastes really bad so that pretty much stops my wonder.

[Josh Schmitter]

I don't think it justifiies being caged for a lifetime.

Agreed, which is why factory farming and the like suck.

I've wondered whether the newer filtration techniques make soy far more bio available. It's something I wonder about but I'm still too skeptical to care about too much. Oh yeah, it tastes really bad so that pretty much stops my wonder.

Ha.

Also just read this; #15 being the most relevant to the topic at hand.

http://rajganpath.com/2011/11/03/very-random-thoughts/

15. Meat is murder. So is agriculture. Anything and everything you do to ensure you don’t kill, is just your way of convincing yourself that you are doing the right thing. Kind of like giving money to a beggar. Once you realize that for you to live something has to die, you’ll live a guilty and guilt-free life. You’ll understand when you get there.

[Rafael David]

I loved how the Native Americans handled meat, at least the general process I am familiar with. You kill what you eat, and you use as much of it as humanly possible. You show respect to the animal when it dies and try to give it a clean death.

They show respect to the animal because they know more of the true meaning of life than most of the so-called "civilized men".

This is how civilized people show respect to animals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8div3AxqtI

[Rafael David]

Also an excerpt from the comments that I thought made a good point about animals living/dying naturally in the wild:

In nature, with few exceptions, animals die terrible deaths. I would not be one to jusitify the cruel, cold and heartless treatment and killing of animals that factory farms of the mega-argo-industies do. A organic pasture farmer that has passion for his/her craft treats animals with dignity and respect throughout there lives and death. No animal in the “wild†gets this. Animals do not lay down and have a last sleep before returning to the earth, the tranisition from life to death is a violent and painfull end for all of them in fact. This is not bad or evil, it just is.

Are you serious? In nature animals die terrible deaths? Are you kidding, right? Animals eat each other to maintain balance in equilibrium. In nature there is no good or evil, better or worse, these are human things. Nature is like it should be. If you do not know why nature is like that okay, but do not make snap judgments of something that was perfectly designed, this just show your ignorance.

[WitnessTheFitness]

Has anyone read the Poliquin article about soy? (Not a good mark for soy) Or the book The Whole Soy Story. Both seem like strikes against the stuff. Pretty bad ones at that. Veganism is a different subject completely but soy is way scarier. Although maybe some people are better adapted to eating it than others.

Are you talking about this article?

http://www.charlespoliquin.com/Articles ... f_Soy.aspx

It contains very common myths about soy (such as it decreasing testosterone), which have been dispelled by numerous studies, and doesn't provide any citations for the claims, so I wouldn't use it as the basis for one's opinions on soy.

Since I consume such a ridiculous amount of soy I've done a lot of research into it, and have yet to find a high quality study demonstrating health risks, or negative effects for things like strength training. You'll find plenty that weren't done with the greatest methodology, and with small sample sizes, that were what led to the initial myths about soy being circulated through fitness magazines and other media (cultivating into all the misinformation that's so widespread today), but all the reviews of current scientific literature, and the best studies I've seen, are all in soy's favor.

Of course with nutrition there are conflicting studies about everything, and sometimes it's best to err on the side of caution until more data is collected, but for the present there's no more reason to be afraid of soy than there is the boogeyman Unless, of course, one is allergic. If eating soy makes someone feel shitty in any way then they should avoid the stuff like the plague.

At least in a factory or a farm, animals get killed before they started getting eaten. That sucks.

Remember the Velociraptor story from Jurassic Park? I was watching some Animal Channel the other day and I guess a half dozen lions were munching on a water bison for maybe an hour as it was crying out for it's brethren. Way more gruesome than watching zombies eat people on the big screen. Something to be said about a quick death.

(this is meant as a general reply to other posts in the thread as well; I can't get multi-quoting to work well, so am cramming it all in here)

*Cue "The Circle of Life" from The Lion King*

Nature is pretty horrific at times, and suffering is certainly a natural part of existence, but unlike lions we humans are given the choice of whether we want to contribute to the world's suffering, or do our best to diminish suffering through our daily actions.

It's hard to argue that eating animals is "wrong" since the top of the food chain killing off those lower on it to sustain their own life is simply how the animal kingdom works, but I do believe for humans it's unnecessary, since in this day and age we can easily gain all our micro and macro nutrients from plant and synthetic sources.

Though I won't argue against the act of killing animals itself, I will argue against the unnecessary suffering and disregard for life in modern animal industries, where profit is the only bottom line. Corporations of course advertise the "happy cows frolicking on green meadows" image, and the majority of consumers have a complete disconnect from the food on their plate and the process by which it gets there. The famous "if slaughterhouses had glass walls everyone would be a vegetarian" quote is an exaggeration, but it holds an important question: How many people would be morally repulsed if they saw how their food was being raised and brought to slaughter? And the sad truth is: a lot.

We shouldn't ever have reason to feel horrified, guilty, or shocked because of what we put in our mouths. The act of slaughtering animals for food isn't the issue, it's the industry's way of going about it. So while I don't think think it's necessarily bad to eat animals, I do strongly believe that consumers should purchase meats raised ethically over the mass-produced meat of the major slaughterhouses. Does it cost more to give animals a happier state of living? Undoubtedly. But what are a few dollars when it means you'd be reducing so much suffering? While it's easy for a lot of people to just shrug it off and view meat as inanimate objects to be eaten, it's important to remember that the mammals we eat have highly developed central nervous systems.

Speaking of which: the morality of killing/eating animals really does exist in a spectrum, which is why equating the deaths that occur during agriculture to slaughterhouses is ridiculous. Suffering and significance of death depends upon the specific organism. That spectrum also means that if someone is against killing animals it doesn't mean they have to turn completely vegetarian or vegan. Some people are perfectly okay with eating bivalve mollusks (scallops, oysters, clams, etc.) because they only have ganglia for a nervous system, whereas they won't eat the more intelligent invertebrates such as cephalopod mollusks (squids, octoupuses), and some people only refrain from eating mammals. It's not as clear cut as "killing animals = bad." A better definition of veganism and vegetarianism, to me, is simply trying to eat a diet that inflicts the least amount of suffering.

Since morality is so damned subjective, though, it's not really a defense for veganism/vegetarianism that I bother with. Everyone has their own moral compass, and while mine is to avoid animal products, I don't think someone's morals are any less valid or right if they choose to eat animal products. A far better argument is the environmental effects of the animal industry. According to the 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization:

- Livestock is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent, and 64% of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, a significant cause of acidification of ecosystems.

- Livestock consumes over 8% of global human water use, and is a leading sector for water pollution

- One of the key factors in deforestation (in the Amazon 70% of previous forested land is consumed by pastures and feedcrops), which in turn causes severe loses in biodiversity.

And then there's all the woes of overfishing and other tidbits.

It'd be ridiculous to ask people to give up meat entirely, and there are certainly tons of other actions we can all make to have a more positive impact on the planet, but things like the "Meatless Monday" program are great, I think. Just limiting our consumption even one day a week can have great environmental benefits.

[Philip Chubb]

Yes that article. I have to agree to disagree with you. I trust Poliquin and I never read studies. I haven't seen one that I couldn't find flawed in some way. However, if I hear of a guy who can change certain fat sites by manipulating certain hormones and he tells me soy lowers testosterone, I will give it a thought. I do think it may only be that way for people who are allergic to it though. I think more people are than not. Unless its fermented maybe. Until then, I will stick to grass fed beef which I believe is a bit better for the t levels.

I do agree on the animal treatment though. I only buy from humane sources. No more eating concentration camp beef. Happier animals are healthier animals are healthier food. Ironically, if we are going to make meat a big food source, we should make sure were getting the best. It would be like vegetarians not planting vegetables with any fertilizer.

[Larry Roseman]

Phillip has a muscular mind. You're not going to change it. Don't even try

While humans have a choice, we are fundamentally omnivores, meaning to say that we can thrive

on both meat and "vegetarian" diets - lumping together all non-meat food sources - and combinations of the two.

It's literally in our bones - our jaws - to eat multiple ways. So having an either or argument is senseless. If you don't want to eat meat, don't. If you do, do. It's that simple. No one is forcing anyone to eat any way, as adults at least.

That said, I also agree with the points Aurele made in that great post discussing the ethical treatment of animals and impact on the environment. It would be best if world-wide governments enforced a high standard, but forget that ever happening.

(Although, they are doing a fairly good job, though not stellar, in the near and inland fisheries lately.)

So all we can do is make the best choices possible taking ethical, environmental, nutritional, taste, time, and

financial factors in mind. Everyone will have a different tipping point, holding the varying factors in different proportions.

No one is a leper for chosing one over the other. By the way, no insult intended any lepers.

Hey I was going to mention it elsewhere, but I just came across a product in my local grocery.

It seems to be have great grades on the ethical and enviormental scale, as well as the financial and taste!

They are New Zealand Greenshell Mussles. I never liked mussles before but these were amazing. The best I ever had.

Big, juicy, clean tasting, almost no grit. Lots of protein and EPA per serving. I paid $2.50CAD for a pound frozen half-shells which is unbeleivable to me for the quality. http://aquaculture.org.nz/products/greenshell-mussels/

I would propose a slogan for them that Phillip would appreciate: Mussels down, Muscles up!

[Josh Schmitter]

Going to respond to a lot of this later, this is just to reminder. Also just wanted to get this out there: I can come off as very condescending/downright mean a lot of times and I in no way wish to portray this in my writing so please call me out(logically with examples) if this is the case. Thanks again all to the engaging comments, will digest and get back.

[Philip Chubb]

Haha good call FIN! I don't mean to sound like a guy who just got his beef stolen though! I fully admit I am definitely a bit biased since I am allergic to the stuff. Which is why I wrote that last part. I think eating anything you are allergic to would lower testosterone and it isn't so much because soy is some sort of t-killer. I'm pretty sure gluten does the same for gluten intolerant people. Obviously for Aurele though, the stuff works. Which is why I also mentioned ferminting it.

[Larry Roseman]

Haha good call FIN! I don't mean to sound like a guy who just got his beef stolen though! I fully admit I am definitely a bit biased since I am allergic to the stuff. Which is why I wrote that last part. I think eating anything you are allergic to would lower testosterone and it isn't so much because soy is some sort of t-killer. I'm pretty sure gluten does the same for gluten intolerant people. Obviously for Aurele though, the stuff works. Which is why I also mentioned ferminting it.

I'm also a bit allergic to the soy isolate powder, unfortunately. Makes my nose run, throat scratch and eyes itch.

Got a great deal on it from T.P. but now I can't use it

You know what else has been found to lower T? You probably know. Intercourse and ejaculation! It takes a few days

to build back up. It won't effect athletic performance but if absolute levels matter, it won't be as high after as before - at least that's my understanding! It also partly explains why men feel and behave one way before, and another way after.

[Philip Chubb]

Also true! But I feel like there is a kickback isn't there? The more often you ermm..engage in the act, the higher it goes afterward? If I can only have one though, I think I will give up the soy.

Being in a commited marriage with kids also lowers it. Go figure. So the idea for making great gains is to stay single and childless. Actually the childless part is probably actually true.

[Josh Schmitter]

I loved how the Native Americans handled meat, at least the general process I am familiar with. You kill what you eat, and you use as much of it as humanly possible. You show respect to the animal when it dies and try to give it a clean death.

They show respect to the animal because they know more of the true meaning of life than most of the so-called "civilized men".

This is how civilized people show respect to animals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8div3AxqtI

Totally agreed factory farming/peta style slaughtering is not humane or remotely acceptable to me. The definition of civilized changes with the society so it's really a moot point. That being said, it is also kind of a straw man argument against humane farms(if it was an argument against that)as we are discussing free range/open pasture sustainable farming practices.

Also, personally anything with PETA and, even more so, Paul Mccartney will automatically be assumed untrue and somewhat evil until proven otherwise(Note: Sarcasm and Ad Hominem fallacies acknowledged ). PETA is mainly about hate and violence towards people not in line with their views, though no real secret there.

Also an excerpt from the comments that I thought made a good point about animals living/dying naturally in the wild:

In nature, with few exceptions, animals die terrible deaths. I would not be one to jusitify the cruel, cold and heartless treatment and killing of animals that factory farms of the mega-argo-industies do. A organic pasture farmer that has passion for his/her craft treats animals with dignity and respect throughout there lives and death. No animal in the “wild†gets this. Animals do not lay down and have a last sleep before returning to the earth, the tranisition from life to death is a violent and painfull end for all of them in fact. This is not bad or evil, it just is.

Are you serious? In nature animals die terrible deaths? Are you kidding, right? Animals eat each other to maintain balance in equilibrium. In nature there is no good or evil, better or worse, these are human things. Nature is like it should be. If you do not know why nature is like that okay, but do not make snap judgments of something that was perfectly designed, this just show your ignorance.

Not sure what exactly you mean, but I'm going to go with we are all nature...humans are nature, society is nature. Nature is the environment around us, made by man or the earth. We are nature as well. It also says at the end "this is not bad or evil, it just is." Maybe I'm just not reading your response correctly, but some further explanation would be awesome so I can fully see the point your making.

*Cue "The Circle of Life" from The Lion King*

Nature is pretty horrific at times, and suffering is certainly a natural part of existence, but unlike lions we humans are given the choice of whether we want to contribute to the world's suffering, or do our best to diminish suffering through our daily actions.

It's hard to argue that eating animals is "wrong" since the top of the food chain killing off those lower on it to sustain their own life is simply how the animal kingdom works, but I do believe for humans it's unnecessary, since in this day and age we can easily gain all our micro and macro nutrients from plant and synthetic sources.

Though I won't argue against the act of killing animals itself, I will argue against the unnecessary suffering and disregard for life in modern animal industries, where profit is the only bottom line. Corporations of course advertise the "happy cows frolicking on green meadows" image, and the majority of consumers have a complete disconnect from the food on their plate and the process by which it gets there. The famous "if slaughterhouses had glass walls everyone would be a vegetarian" quote is an exaggeration, but it holds an important question: How many people would be morally repulsed if they saw how their food was being raised and brought to slaughter? And the sad truth is: a lot.

We shouldn't ever have reason to feel horrified, guilty, or shocked because of what we put in our mouths. The act of slaughtering animals for food isn't the issue, it's the industry's way of going about it. So while I don't think think it's necessarily bad to eat animals, I do strongly believe that consumers should purchase meats raised ethically over the mass-produced meat of the major slaughterhouses. Does it cost more to give animals a happier state of living? Undoubtedly. But what are a few dollars when it means you'd be reducing so much suffering? While it's easy for a lot of people to just shrug it off and view meat as inanimate objects to be eaten, it's important to remember that the mammals we eat have highly developed central nervous systems.

Speaking of which: the morality of killing/eating animals really does exist in a spectrum, which is why equating the deaths that occur during agriculture to slaughterhouses is ridiculous. Suffering and significance of death depends upon the specific organism. That spectrum also means that if someone is against killing animals it doesn't mean they have to turn completely vegetarian or vegan. Some people are perfectly okay with eating bivalve mollusks (scallops, oysters, clams, etc.) because they only have ganglia for a nervous system, whereas they won't eat the more intelligent invertebrates such as cephalopod mollusks (squids, octoupuses), and some people only refrain from eating mammals. It's not as clear cut as "killing animals = bad." A better definition of veganism and vegetarianism, to me, is simply trying to eat a diet that inflicts the least amount of suffering.

Since morality is so damned subjective, though, it's not really a defense for veganism/vegetarianism that I bother with. Everyone has their own moral compass, and while mine is to avoid animal products, I don't think someone's morals are any less valid or right if they choose to eat animal products. A far better argument is the environmental effects of the animal industry. According to the 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization:

- Livestock is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent, and 64% of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, a significant cause of acidification of ecosystems.

- Livestock consumes over 8% of global human water use, and is a leading sector for water pollution

- One of the key factors in deforestation (in the Amazon 70% of previous forested land is consumed by pastures and feedcrops), which in turn causes severe loses in biodiversity.

And then there's all the woes of overfishing and other tidbits.

Very well put. I agree with a lot of this, especially when it is read with the backdrop of "The Circle of Life" . As far as the agriculture is also murder argument, it's not just about the insects/microscopic life, it is more about displacing habitats and destroying the soil 10 times over. As for the environmental studies, I believe most of that is based on the factory farming template; i.e. there is much more emissions/deforestation. With natural, small farming I believe this is much less of an issue as the animals eat what they need, replace all the nutrients in the soil, and the cycle continues.

As for overfishing(and a lot of these type of issues) I think it is a Tragedy of the Commons issue

(http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/TragedyoftheCommons.html) and these things could be solved by privatizing land/sections of ocean, therefore making it in the owners best interest to make the fishing/grazing/whatever sustainable.

[WitnessTheFitness]

Also, personally anything with PETA and, even more so, Paul Mccartney will automatically be assumed untrue and somewhat evil until proven otherwise(Note: Sarcasm and Ad Hominem fallacies acknowledged ). PETA is mainly about hate and violence towards people not in line with their views, though no real secret there.

I have very mixed feelings about PETA. On the one hand they do bring to light a lot of animal abuse incidents, and do a lot to circulate the tragic realities of our animal industries, but on the other hand a lot of their confrontational tactics seem to just paint vegans as extremists, and to bring about derision and scorn on the entire movement, making it just that much easier for consumers to continue supporting the industries. No one likes to be told that they're immoral, and taking the self-righteous stance tends to just piss people off and make them even less likely to consider what's being said. It's perfectly understandable for people to get into a "we gotta change the world!" mind frame if they're repulsed by the current state of the animal industry, and I see a lot of people harbor anger and resentment towards those who do continue to support slaughterhouses, but hatred really doesn't win anyone over. The best method, in my opinion, is to simply present the facts as plainly as possible, and let people come to their own beliefs and conclusions based on those facts. Fortunately there are vegan outreach programs that do just that, and it somewhat counterbalances the whole PETA image.

[Josh Schmitter]

Also, personally anything with PETA and, even more so, Paul Mccartney will automatically be assumed untrue and somewhat evil until proven otherwise(Note: Sarcasm and Ad Hominem fallacies acknowledged ). PETA is mainly about hate and violence towards people not in line with their views, though no real secret there.

I have very mixed feelings about PETA. On the one hand they do bring to light a lot of animal abuse incidents, and do a lot to circulate the tragic realities of our animal industries, but on the other hand a lot of their confrontational tactics seem to just paint vegans as extremists, and to bring about derision and scorn on the entire movement, making it just that much easier for consumers to continue supporting the industries. No one likes to be told that they're immoral, and taking the self-righteous stance tends to just piss people off and make them even less likely to consider what's being said. It's perfectly understandable for people to get into a "we gotta change the world!" mind frame if they're repulsed by the current state of the animal industry, and I see a lot of people harbor anger and resentment towards those who do continue to support slaughterhouses, but hatred really doesn't win anyone over. The best method, in my opinion, is to simply present the facts as plainly as possible, and let people come to their own beliefs and conclusions based on those facts. Fortunately there are vegan outreach programs that do just that, and it somewhat counterbalances the whole PETA image.

Agreed. There are always going to be the extreme groups that do the opposite of what they intend, and the groups who honestly want to spread their message, the only way being open dialogue and understanding. When you have the: "Diversity is disagreement, disagreement is treason" mentality, it is not really possible to get anywhere substantial. As far as PETA it is kind of hard to talk about ethical treatment of any living creature or promoting the least amount of suffering when you don't apply that to every living thing; i.e. people who don't subscribe to your views.

Also, these are the types of dialogues I look forward to; Two people with different and conflicting ideas able to disagree, knowing that it is OK, and still being open to new ideas and further communication. Only from there can learning of either side begin.

[ASForum]

World championship Gold goes to humble Indian Veg Wrestler

[Larry Roseman]

Also, personally anything with PETA and, even more so, Paul Mccartney will automatically be assumed untrue and somewhat evil until proven otherwise(Note: Sarcasm and Ad Hominem fallacies acknowledged ). PETA is mainly about hate and violence towards people not in line with their views, though no real secret there.

I have very mixed feelings about PETA. On the one hand they do bring to light a lot of animal abuse incidents, and do a lot to circulate the tragic realities of our animal industries, but on the other hand a lot of their confrontational tactics seem to just paint vegans as extremists, and to bring about derision and scorn on the entire movement, making it just that much easier for consumers to continue supporting the industries. No one likes to be told that they're immoral, and taking the self-righteous stance tends to just piss people off and make them even less likely to consider what's being said. It's perfectly understandable for people to get into a "we gotta change the world!" mind frame if they're repulsed by the current state of the animal industry, and I see a lot of people harbor anger and resentment towards those who do continue to support slaughterhouses, but hatred really doesn't win anyone over. The best method, in my opinion, is to simply present the facts as plainly as possible, and let people come to their own beliefs and conclusions based on those facts. Fortunately there are vegan outreach programs that do just that, and it somewhat counterbalances the whole PETA image.

I agree with what you are saying - rather eloquently. Although sometimes it's nice to see a high falutin star

covered in the blood :oops: And since one of your last posts I did look into sources of grass-fed beef and free range chickens.

But my main concern with ethical, grass-fed meat is will consumers who perhaps have minimized meat for

health and ethical reasons suddenly feel all is beautiful and increase consumption? Similar things have happened with low-tar cigarettes. They were perceived as being safe, which led to people smoking more not less, and people getting sicker not healthier. No more low-tar anymore!

The higher cost of green food may prevent this for now, however costs do come down with volume.

I'm not sure that eating an eqiv amount of "green" meat would be any better for the environment than factory meat. They live longer and grow slower so may pollute more. It might better, I'm just not sure. As far as the animal's life goes, it may be nicer, but it's still ripped from them to satisfy my whim. Killing a factory animal is a mercy killing.

So if there is an ethical advantage it is not very large to me. Environmental may be a wash. Health advantages may be larger, though may be negated by over-consumption.

Bottom line, going green means going green, aka vegan/vegietarian, and I'm not going to do that. But we eat mostly lower , smaller lifeforms and can certainly look at adding a regular meatless dinner a week to the menu .

Cheers!

[Joshua Naterman]

Lol

Well, I think there are far too many humans to really sustain on a high meat diet with proper pastoral practices... kind of sucks. I definitely think that moderation is the answer, and perhaps becoming more intelligent about what we feed cows. If we didn't use so many chemicals on our lawns we could literally use lawn clippings as feed. I wonder if there is a way to make grass farms using high rise buildings, make feed from the grass, and thus be able to have more grass-fed cattle. I've got no idea if this is feasible.