I thought this was kind of an amusing article in context of all the talk on "eating meat kills you."

Global report: Obesity bigger health crisis than hunger

pen0id wrote:

anime and manga is the solution...

http://kotaku.com/5968090/colin-powells … at-protein

NOT.

Seems to me like a generation less focused on prolific consumption and proliferation is a good thing...

Japan is too crowded anyway.

With regards to the whole people-fainting-after-going-vegan thing: This is clearly a bad sign, but I don't think it necessarily means that these people aren't able to adapt to a vegan diet. I've heard too many (firsthand) stories about long-term vegetarians that became violently ill after eating some meat to be surprised that suddenly removing all animal products from your diet would also have a negative effect. It doesn't mean that your body can't get what it needs from vegan sources; it just means that your body adapts to whatever your normal diet is,  and copes badly with sudden large changes.

P.s. It goes without saying, but I'm not  a doctor or nutritionist and I'm not claiming to know what's healthy. I'm just sharing my thoughts.   

Last edited by Splatted (2012 December 14, 8:02 pm)

nadiatims wrote:

@vix86
You're right about the density, but the tokyo metropolitan area (including yokohama etc) is the largest in the world at 37,000,000. Also while not dense by global standards, it is some what dense by western standards. But looking at wikipedia, it's quite interesting to see that seoul-Incheon is over twice as dense, and places in Bangladesh, India, The Philippines and China even denser still. Dhaka is almost 10 times as dense as Tokyo.

Right, if you are talking about the Greater Tokyo Area, which includes many other prefectures (as suburbs), then the population sky rockets to 37 million. Population density doesn't change that much either. The Greater Tokyo area has a metro pop. density of about 2,500/km2. The Greater London area has a population dens. of 5,200/km2 (not sure if this is urban or metro though). Paris's aire urbaine is around 700/km2 as is the New York greater area. Greater LA is about 500/km2. Looking at the Wiki list of metro areas (which seems to not reflect other page's numbers) shows that there are places with more density than Tokyo, though they have less population. So ya, it would seem that Greater Tokyo is slightly more dense in some cases. But definitions on what is considered part of "a metropolitan area" can vary quite a bit. Notice that the NYC metro area in the prior list has an area of 17,000km2 while Tokyo's is only 8k. Moscow is 14k.

Irregardless, comments on "Japan is too crowded," and the implication that it needs to shrink more, are ridiculous in my opinion.

China has a number of cities which are growing at a frightening rate. I can't recall what list on wiki I was looking at last night but it was a Top 50 or 100 I think, and the bottom 20-30 slots were nothing but cities in China

Spasmophilia is basically a calcium&magnesium deficit with really nasty consequences (it's a bit more complicated than that, but I'm no doctor). It's really common where I'm from, at least. (I just looked it up, and apparently It's not that common in the US and other well-developed countries; again, I'm no doctor, but I think the fact that real food was hard to come by a few decades ago might have helped....). Mostly affects women, and it's genetic, though it can be caused by poor diets to begin with apparently. All women in my family have it to some extent, and I've met plenty of girls who had it running in their families as well. Basically you have to eat lots of dairy and milk to compensate for your body's inability to store them properly. Or you can go for pill-popping (unfortunately severe cases can't be solved by diet, and IV calcium is the only choice). Usually a combination, especially more recently since dairy has to go through EU standards and I can't get mine off the farms and have to get the readily processed (really kills the nutrients). Either way, I'm pretty much OK with it these days thanks to good diet practices, but most people aren't as lucky. If I ignore my diet for too long my calcium stats go down the drain though.

Sure, this one's just in my area apparently, but there are lots of deficits which can be compensated for by good diets, and meat/dairy are on the top of the recommended list for most health-based diets I know. Sure, red meat is on the forbidden list for most (I don't eat beef anyway), but that's because fats are generally on the "bad foods" list.  Fish and poultry and dairy, however, do wonders for your body.

P.S. It wasn't a vegan establishment per se, it was a one week event for which we only had vegan food (since vegans and activists mingle well around here). The food was delish (basically stews but with soy instead of meat), but it just wasn't nutritious enough for people that don't have the luck to be fully healthy and not requiring certain things in their diets. No drugs, we still had coffee. And though I'm the most avid coffee drinker, caffeine withdrawal isn't that big of an issue. My family's also tried fasting back in the day, but after seeing how sickly we'd get after a while we dropped the habit. I've also met some people who didn't feel that well during the fast, but it's hard to get any legit links since all the news articles I found regarded the crazy "foodless" fast, rather than the normal fast which is basically a vegan diet .

So yeah, vegan diets might work for some people, but definitely not for everyone.
Re: lactose intolerance. We don't have that around here. But aren't lactose intolerant people allergic to something in the dairy products which can be removed, thus being still able to consume certain dairy products?

Zgarbas wrote:

But aren't lactose intolerant people allergic to something in the dairy products which can be removed, thus being still able to consume certain dairy products?

They lack an enzyme known as lactase which is used to break down lactose, a complex sugar. Its not an allergic reaction either, its simply the gut bacteria feasting on the lactose and causing it to ferment. They sell lactose free products or lactase which can be added to stuff to make it lactose free. But you are still looking at having to probably pay a bit more for these products.

nadiatims wrote:

Also why does spasmophilia not have a wikipedia article?

I had been wondering about that too since I had never heard the term before, but googling it seems to find hits about it.

Last edited by vix86 (2012 December 15, 4:06 am)

Zgarbas wrote:

Wiki France has a pretty thorough article about it, for example (interestingly enough the English variant of it redirects to Hyperventilation syndrome...I think wiki needs to work on that).

That would be because the term Spasmophilie in French, actually refers to the definition of "hypervenilation" in English. Try translating the page into English with Google or something. You can even see it mentioned in the first sentence on the page really

La spasmophilie, parfois nommée syndrome d'hyperventilation

Sorry for the long absence! I didn't get back from seeing my family in Japan until this week. Food-wise I felt like I was on a different planet after getting so used to shopping at Whole Foods and having vegan bakeries and restaurants nearby. There's been so many posts in the mean time that I have no idea where to start replying

Zgarbas wrote:

Because hey, who needs proteins, iron and various vitamins+satiating delicious food in their diet, eh?

And sure, over-agriculturizing crops leads to a slow but sure desertification of the areas and cultivating enough veggies to feed all the people in the world would turn all land into a desert by the end of our lifespan probably.
But hey. Cow farts.

I need to buy a Troll Detector, because I can never tell when people are just sincerely uninformed about a topic, or trying to be ridiculous on purpose. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and think you're serious. Have you actually read the thread? The topic about nutrients has been addressed so many times. That meat, eggs, and dairy have any nutrients that can't be obtained in a vegan diet is a crazy myth, pure and simple. I don't want to write ad nauseum about this topic since it's been beaten to death, so just Google it, or read the previous posts about nutrition.

It does lead to something I've been thinking about a lot lately, though: Why do the majority of consumers believe that meat, eggs, and dairy are necessary in the diet, that they are tied to strength and masculinity, and that there's no moral dilemma? The marketing tactics of the dairy, egg, and meat industries to fool the public and hide the reality from them is fascinating. Here's an awesome in-depth look at animal advertising in a journal I read recently, if anyone is interested.

www.antennae.org.uk/ANTENNAE%20ISSUE%2023.pdf

I really need to research how the public image of tobacco changed in the US despite the influential marketing campaigns and political power of the tobacco industry, because it often feels to me that industries can make the public think and feel any way they want about a product with enough advertising. At this point the views on milk, dairy, and meat are self-perpetuating; they've become such a part of the cultural psyche that the majority of the advertising is done not by the corporations, but by normal people. Screenwriters showing musclemen characters eating meat heavy meals in movies, manga artists influencing the younger generation to think meat is tied to strength by showing their warrior protagonists getting their strength from meat, like Pop Eye from spinach (I'm looking at you, One Piece!), short characters in media being jokingly told they're short because they didn't drink enough about milk, etc. All our media constantly perpetuates the myths and lies of the meat, dairy, and egg industry. No idea how to counter the public perception at this point, but the activists fighting the tobacco industry eventually won against the advertising of tobacco being sexy, cool, and safe, so hey I have hope.

chamcham wrote:

I think one reason a lot of strong men eat meat is because it is more calorie-dense than vegetables. The way bodybuilders and athletes "get big" is by consuming a ton of calories (much more than the average human) with a lot of it being lean (i.e. not fatty) protein. That just how you get huge. It's hard to do that with vegetables since they have far fewer calories. For a professional athlete, that increased mass makes a huge difference. Since athletes are often considered the epitome of physical conditioning, people will likely imitate their diet.

I think there's a misconception that veganism/vegetarianism = eating vegetables. Vegetables are only one group of foods in the veg diet. Beans, legumes, grains, and oils are generally way more calorie dense than meat. 100g of chicken is only 165 calories, but 100g of pasta is 350 calories, 100g of rice is 370, etc. To gain body mass of course there needs to be a caloric surplus, but you can easily get a surplus of calories without meat in your diet. There are many world-class athletes that are vegan and vegetarian, like the reigning welterweight champion of the world Tim Bradley, or Carl Lewis, winner of 9 Olympic gold medals. For sheer muscle mass, there are vegan bodybuilders who have won Mr. Universe. One of my vegan friends is the most ripped guy I've personally met, and he gained something like 40lbs of muscle in the years following his change to a vegan diet.

There's no doubt that bodybuilding and sports in general are a very meat-heavy subculture, but that doesn't mean that athletes actually need the meat to look a certain way or have a certain athletic performance. Nutrients, genetics, talent, and hard work are what create a body and its physical skills, and veganism is on an equal playing ground with a meat diet since there's no nutrients in meat, eggs, or dairy that you can't get from vegan sources.

Speaking of the brain, soymilk is often frowned upon for babies because they need the fat and other nutrients from milk for neural development.

Yeah, soy milk by itself isn't suitable as an infant formula, just like cow's milk isn't either. Infant formulas are heavily modified; ones that use cow's milk are altered so the protein is more digestible, some of the dairy fat is replaced with vegetable fat, the whey and casein ratios are changed, and then the formulas are heavily fortified with additional nutrients. A century ago cow's milk was fed plain to babies, because people were convinced it was a healthy substitute for breast milk, but we know now that the intestines of babies are not designed for cow's milk, and that it can lead to internal bleeding, nutritional deficiencies, and bowel disorders. Not surprising, since human babies should be drinking human milk. Feeding a child milk that is designed for a baby cow's body is as weird and nonsensical as if a cat were using an elephant's milk to try to breastfeed its kittens There are great vegan infant formulas out there based on soymilk, but just like formula made from cow's milk, they are altered and fortified to try to more closely mimic the nutrients of breastmilk.

chamcham wrote:

So naturally we look down on any other creature and see them as sub-human. Any time humans view anyone or anything as sub-human, you can bet that morality will often go out the window (slavery and genocide come to mind). Another example is that "putting down" cats or dogs is OK. But putting down another human would be a major no-no.

Every time I turn on the news and see all the latest tragedies it becomes pretty hard to believe in a world where we're compassionate towards other species. Many people can't even handle being compassionate to their fellow men, let alone a chicken in a battery cage. But even if we live in a world of dehumanizing others outside our in-groups, where rape, slavery, murder, exploitation, and genocide are a reality, I like to believe that compassionate people are the majority, and that step by step we're creating a better world, even if occasionally we make steps backwards

Last edited by Aijin (2013 January 18, 11:36 pm)

I think there's a misconception that veganism/vegetarianism = eating vegetables. Vegetables are only one group of foods in the veg diet. Beans, legumes, grains, and oils are generally way more calorie dense than meat. 100g of chicken is only 165 calories, but 100g of pasta is 350 calories, 100g of rice is 370, etc. To gain body mass of course there needs to be a caloric surplus, but you can easily get a surplus of calories without meat in your diet. There are many world-class athletes that are vegan and vegetarian, like the reigning welterweight champion of the world Tim Bradley, or Carl Lewis, winner of 9 Olympic gold medals. For sheer muscle mass, there are vegan bodybuilders who have won Mr. Universe. One of my vegan friends is the most ripped guy I've personally met, and he gained something like 40lbs of muscle in the years following his change to a vegan diet.

I can't imagine many people wanting to replace meat with rice and pasta. Yes, like I mentioned vegan/vegetarian athletes are out there. But these days we have HGH and other kind of illegal drugs for doping. So it's possible that diet doesn't matter as much anymore.

Also, for most people, meat simply tastes better than vegetables. Humans tend to prioritize taste over health. Meat has a rich flavor that is often lacking in vegetables. There's just something about the taste of meat that people are crazy about. I often have cravings for meat, but rarely have cravings for vegetables (and I eat a ton of vegetables compared to everyone I know). So I think there's something in our body that knows what it wants. So when we crave meat, it is sometimes because our body is lacking something.

It is similar to people who eat chalk. It might sound weird, but there are times when people (often pregnant women) crave chalk and get addicted to eating it. It has been linked to a calcium deficiency (chalk has calcium). I doubt most people even know that chalk is calcium carbonate, but somehow your body knows it even if you don't. So my guess is that subconsciously there is something our body knows about meat that makes us favor it over vegetables. So naturally, if meat is your favorite food and you have to eat a lot of lean protein to get big, you're going to eat a ton of meat.

Last edited by chamcham (2013 January 19, 4:19 pm)

vix86 wrote:

Miguelitius wrote:

Oh, and to those saying that meat/dairy in moderation is fine:
We are not carnivores nor omnivores (if you think otherwise, research a little, get past the cognitive dissonance, come back), so we don't have a short intestinal tract. What happens is that meat stays too long in our intestines and we start to absorb what we are not supposed to, thus, clogging our arteries (BTW, NO animal has clogged arteries if it eats his natural diet). Not only that though, with the meat starting to rot... just go read some studies about cancer and nutrition.

You know, instead of telling people to go and "research a little" or "go read some studies on cancer." You could have posted these studies that you think are cornerstones in the debate that show whatever it is you think they show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30gEiweaAVQ
Jaw-dropping. You'll probably start laughing uncontrollably at the sheer ridiculousness of this whole situation... Just try to not close the video yelling "Bullshit!!!" at some of the facts you'll be faced with.

Last edited by Miguelitius (2013 January 19, 11:14 am)

Speaking of which, I spent a few hours today researching the corruption of the National Dairy Council, and the Associated Milk Producers, Inc, and how for decades they've used lobbying and hordes of money to not only convince the public that dairy is necessary in the diet, but got the federal government to sponsor dairy in the national dietary guidelines.

Long story short: The committee that designed the national nutritional policies, like The Food Pyramid, and its replacement My Plate, had a strong conflict of interest due to ties with the dairy industry. For example, Cutberto Garza (chairman of the committee) had ties with the National Dairy Council, Richard Deckelbaum  received grant funding from the National Dairy Promotion and Research Program, Johanna Dwyer  was sponsored by the National Dairy Council, Roland Weinsier received $500,000 from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Mead Johnson, a company that sells and promotes dairy-based products, and Eileen Kennedy served as an adviser to a dairy company.

The dairy industry had such a strong influence over the government in the creation of My Plate that Harvard's School of Public Health called bullshit on it, and created their own version. The striking difference being that while the government told people to drink milk with every meal, Harvard removed the dairy category completely, replacing it with water, and said to limit dairy to 1-2 servings per day.

In the words of the esteemed Walter Willett--professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition and chair of the Department of Nutrition at HSPH, "Unfortunately, like the earlier U.S. Department of Agriculture Pyramids, MyPlate mixes science with the influence of powerful agricultural interests, which is not the recipe for healthy eating,”

"[The USDA] recommends dairy at every meal, even though there is little evidence that high dairy intake protects against osteoporosis but substantial evidence that high intake can be harmful."

For a flash from the past, apparently president Nixon was bribed with millions by the AMPI, and in turn he passed legislation which resulted in the dairy industry making hundreds of millions more in profit that year. Oh Nixon, you bad boy you.

chamcham wrote:

So if what they crave is oils, salt, and spices, why not just skip the meat and veggies, and just eat oil, salt, and spices?

I don't think many people like veggies without oil, salt, and spices either. Veggies without seasoning is just as bad as meat without seasoning.

Marketing/advertising will increase foot traffic and get people into a restaurant, but it's the taste that brings people back to eating the same food. If they like it the first time, they'll buy it again.

Hey, scary as it is I've seen some people put as much salt and oil on their food as there is actual food But yeah, oil, salt and spices by themselves are nasty most would agree; there has to be some substance to go along with it.

I'm not a fan of raw veggies, but fruit and grains taste excellent raw to me. Especially fruit; if someone started dousing their strawberries in pepper and oil we'd think they were born without tastebuds. Whether or not grains are yummy raw seems to depend on one's food culture, though: people who grow up eating plain rice might think it sinful to distort it with tons of seasonings, whereas some people can't eat rice without soy sauce or something on it.

I'm definitely not saying people don't physically enjoy eating meat. If they didn't, they wouldn't continue buying it regardless of the amount of advertising. But you can't separate the food itself from our food cultures and the marketing. People from different food cultures eat things that would absolutely disgust people from other cultures. Why do some children eat fish eyes as though they were candy, whereas an American child would likely vomit? It's a matter of what our parents feed us since we are children, and what we grow up seeing those around us eat, more so than any innate drive.

You can see what I'm talking about by looking at things like sugar and salt. If you grow up on a diet low in salt and sugar, then when you taste foods that are very heavy in them, like fast food or soda, they're overpowering and frankly disgusting from my experience. But if you're used to it, and those high quantities become your norm, then when foods don't have them they seem tasteless. Our palette is really malleable, and defined by whatever we're accustomed to.

American culture really reinforces meat and dairy consumption, teaching kids that vegetables are undesirable and meat and milk yummy from a very young age. When I babysit kids and sit and watch TV like Cartoon Network with them, pretty much every show that has food in the episode shows characters being disgusted by veggies, but merrily gulping down milk and stuffing their faces with meat. When you're constantly surrounded by those media images from birth, it's very hard to separate the cultural influence from any innate desire for animal products.

Will check out that gene study, thanks for posting it

Whenever reading a study, you should always first consider the author, the publisher, and their interests. There is more business and politics in publishing than most people think.

Absolutely. But just because someone is trying to support a particular view doesn't necessarily make their information invalid. The comparison of physiological characteristics between herbivores/carnivores is pretty straightforward science rather than influenced by opinion. I've seen similar articles by more neutral medical publications in the past, but with a quick Google search I couldn't relocate them in the first few pages. Like any other topic, there are definitely crappy articles about veganism with poor sources and distorted information to try and prove a point, but there are also brilliant articles with great information out there.