This question has been quite one sided so far. This post is going to be quite one-sided, but the other way, against vegetarianism. Don't discount this because it isn't what you asked for; even if you have to do it about the advantages, and you disagree with the points I make, I assume you know the joys of counter-arguments. Putting arguments from the other side can strengthen your point, if you successfully argue against them, and in English lessons it normally gets you more marks.
Besides, I don't agree with most of the supposed advantages of vegetarianism.
And Kyle, don't jump down my throat again.
There aren't any real health benefits no not being veggie per se. True, veggies can be just as healthy as normal people, and some are healthier. However, this has much more to do with eating a wide range of fruit and veg and being more health conscious, as veggies often are, than not eating meat, and as such those benefits can be got without omitting meat from ones diet. A poorly planned veggie diet can be very bad for health. There are many nutrients essential to the human diet that are found, normally, only in meat; if one does not manage to get these from other sources they can get a deficiency, which is very unhealthy and dangerous.
Many veggies claim that meat is unhealthy; this is a fallacy, meat isn't unhealthy, it is the most nutritious foodstuff available to us, and as such our body is perfectly adapted to deal with it without any adverse effects.
Here is part of a study I saw:
"It is well established that eating meat improves the quality of nutrition, strengthens the immune system, promotes normal growth and development, is beneficial for day-to-day health, energy and well-being, and helps ensure optimal learning and academic performance.
A long term study found that children who eat more meat are less likely to have deficiencies than those who eat little or no meat. Kids who don’t eat meat — and especially if they restrict other foods, as many girls are doing — are more likely to feel tired, apathetic, unable to concentrate, are sick more often, more frequently depressed, and are the most likely to be malnourished and have stunted growth. Meat and other animal-source foods are the building blocks of healthy growth that have made America’s youngsters among the tallest, strongest and healthiest in the world.
Meat is an important source of quality nutrients, heme iron, protein, zinc and B-complex vitamins. It provides high-quality protein important for kids’ healthy growth and development.
The iron in meat (heme iron) is of high quality and well absorbed by the body, unlike nonheme iron from plants which is not well absorbed. More than 90 percent of iron consumed may be wasted when taken without some heme iron from animal sources. Substances found to inhibit nonheme iron absorption include phytates in cereals, nuts and legumes, and polyphenolics in vegetables. Symptoms of iron deficiency include fatigue, headache, irritability and decreased work performance. For young children, it can lead to impairment in general intelligence, language, motor performance and school readiness. Girls especially need iron after puberty due to blood losses, or if pregnant. Yet studies show 75 percent of teenage girls get less iron than recommended.
Meat, poultry and eggs are also good sources of absorbable zinc, a trace mineral vital for strengthening the immune system and normal growth. Deficiencies link to decreased attention, poorer problem solving and short-term memory, weakened immune system, and the inability to fight infection. While nuts and legumes contain zinc, plant fibre contains phytates that bind it into a nonabsorbable compound.
Found almost exclusively in animal products, Vitamin B12 is necessary for forming new cells. A deficiency can cause anaemia and permanent nerve damage and paralysis. The Vitamin B12 in plants isn't even bioavailable, meaning our body can't use it.
Why not buy food supplements to replace missing vitamins and minerals? Some people believe they can fill those gaps with pills, but they may be fooling themselves. Research consistently shows that real foods in a balanced diet are far superior to trying to make up deficiencies with supplements."
While I think that is over-exaggerating at best, there are good points.
Someone has posted:
"You won't have a cholesterol problem."
They betray their ignorance. Studies have shown that your average veggie is less likely to get high cholesterol and related diseases, but it is only 2 or 3%, more so for vegans. In addition most veggies don't smoke, drink, eat junk food and are quite health conscious, all of these will have quite a substantial effect on the results, meaning the results are suspect. Your body on average creates four to five times more cholesterol than the average person consumes, and compensates by creating more when less is consumed, meaning veggies can still get high cholesterol. Cholesterol isn't evil, it is essential; it makes up the waterproof linings of all our cells and without it we would die. Too much can be bad, but as with saturated fats there are more healthy ways of disposing of it, like regular exercise.
Some people have mentions saturated fat. Meat does contain saturated fat; so does margarine and olive oil, and they're vegan suitable (in fact the hydrogenated fats in Marge can be very bad, but that's another story). Besides, any excess calories in your diet, any excess sugar, starch or carbohydrates are stored in your body for later use. This is done by turning them into saturated fats. You can end up with just as much saturated fat in your body, even if you don't consume any.
Another poster: "Greater likelihood of meeting dietary recommendations for percentage of fat, carbohydrate and protein than in a typical omnivorous diet"
Once again, quite misleading. We've already looked at fat, but what aboutcarbohydrates and protein? Protein is essential for us, and for maintaining and building muscle, and growth, and development. There is much more protein in meat than there is in any plant source, and it's better quality, because our body is better able to absorb it. And as for carbs, meat eaters in general still eat plenty of plants, and that argument that your more likely to meat your recommendations for carbs has nothing to do with not eating meat, making it pointless.
Yes, there are things in meat that there is some evidence can cause cancer in some people, but there are nas many in plants too. Soy especially has some very potent carcinogens. Processing of soy protein results in the formation of toxic lysinoalanine and highly carcinogenic nitrosamines.
Soy phytoestrogens disrupt endocrine function and have the potential to cause infertility and to promote breast cancer in adult women. Also they are potent antithyroid agents that cause hypothyroidism and may cause thyroid cancer. In infants, consumption of soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid disease.
Soy is bad for numerous other reasons, but that isn't the point, I'm just using it as a quick example relating to cancer risks not being exclusive to some animal products. The evidence that claims meat does cause cancer is patchy anyway.
Someone also claimed there is bacteria in meat. Yes, that's true, there are poisons in some plants we eat; in both cases we cook them to make them edible, and the is very little chance of you getting ill from meat if you are used to it. If you ate raw meat all your life, you'd be able to cope with it without many problems (of course, it would never be as safe as cooked meat). It's a question of your body being able to cope, any ours can cope with meat, and is adpated to get rid of any harmful byproducts or bacteria.
Oh, any how many people have you ever met with BSE? Getting that is phenomenally rare, so it's safe to just discount that.
We are designed, by evolution, to eat meat. Some people claim that we aren't, they are wrong. They claim that our digestive system is quite long and that we produce amylase, a starch splitting catabolic enzyme, akin to herbivores and unlike carnivores. Apparently this clearly shows that we were designed to eat plants only. Such people should go and look up 'omnivore' in a dictionary. They have also been known to cite other reasons we are like herbivores and unlike carnivores: that we suck water instead of lapping it, and that we perspire through our skin like the herbivores, such things have nothing at all to do with whether or not we were designed to eat meat.
The fact is Humans are omnivores, with the ability to eat nearly everything. By preference, prehistoric people ate a high-protein, high-mineral diet based on meat and animal sources, whenever available. Their foods came mainly from three of the five food groups: meat, vegetables and fruits. As a result, big game mammoth hunters were tall and strong with massive bones. They grew six inches taller than their farming descendants in Europe, who ate mostly plant foods, and only in recent times regained most of this height upon again eating more meat, eggs and dairy foods. We are adapted to eat meat, and it is just as natural as eating plants.
Some also claim that the digestion of meat releases harmful byproducts into our system. This is true, however such are our adaptations to eating meat that our bodies are quite able to dispose of said products without any adverse effects.
God knows the only reasons ever cited aren't all to do with health, there are ethical and environmental reasons. Ethics is odd, by not eating meat, you aren't really stopping the suffering of animals, just disassociating yourself from it. Most cattle have much healthier, stress free lives than they would in the wild anyways.
Meat consumption is rising, despite all the veggies these days, and the meat industry certainly isn't suffering. Besides, think what would happen to all livestock if no one ate meat anymore; no profit, no one would keep them and, as releasing them is impossible, they'd all go to the chop.
As for environment, there are those who say if we stopped eating meat we'd have enough food to feed the third world. Yes, but it is an argument which ignores that we have more than enough food to feel the entire world anyway. The problem in the third world is poverty, and one of economics, they can't afford the food.
Also they say arable farming takes land which could otherwise be used for crops. Well, most of the land that is used for farming cattle is quite poor, and couldn't sustain crops well at all. The land could be artificially improved but that'd be hugely expensive. Without the animals being raised on them, these lands, much of which are uplands and moors, would have no use whatsoever. Because of this, if we got rid of all our meat we wouldn't have enough food to go round and we would starve.
There, that took me a while to write. I hope you get a good mark, and I hope you can use this, at least for the sake of counter argument.
EDIT: I'd just like to take this opurtunity to shout at people, YOU CANNOT GET BIRD FLU FROM EASTING POULTRY!
2006-08-03 12:09:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by AndyB 5
·
2⤊
3⤋