Vegetarian Discussion: VEGETARIANS LIVE LONGER, HEALTHIER LIVES

VEGETARIANS LIVE LONGER, HEALTHIER LIVES
Posts: 24

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

And/or Www.mantra.com/jai Dr. Jai Maharaj
2009-05-11 16:06:56 EST
Forwarded message from Ted:

WHAT MIGHT BE THE GREATER LIFESPAN OF VEGETARIANS?

Scharffenberg [John Scharffenberg PROBLEMS WITH MEAT, 1989]
drawing upon epidemiological data provided by Lemon &
Walden (JAMA, 1969, 18:950) reported that the best diet for
human beings in terms of health and longevity is
vegetarian. In general, vegetarians live about 6 years
longer than their meat eating counterparts (i.e., meat-
eating Seventh Day Adventists).

If we select as our comparison group only those Seventh Day
Adventists who still eat meat AND who do not smoke, it
turns out that their total vegetarian counterparts still
out live them by 3 years. Hence, even when we use a
somewhat CONSERVATIVE comparison group (remember, even
though not all SDA's are vegetarian but on the whole they
would still eat less meat then the average North American)
and thereby control for known life style hazards like
smoking, VEGETARIANS STILL LIVE LONGER (ABOUT 3 YEARS) THAN
EVEN MODERATE MEAT EATERS, and here we are talking a
comparable comparison group of meat eaters who otherwise
share essentially the same life style. This is still a
substantial difference and it would appear that the hazards
of meat eating are on the same level as that of smoking
(which as we have seen shortens this comparison group's
life-span by about 3 years).

Also, keep in mind that the observed-to-expected coronary
heart disease mortality among total vegetarians is only
14%. Vegetarians, of course, do have heart attacks but they
occur approximately 20 years later in life than for meat
eaters. Thus, not only is longevity increased but so is the
quality of health for the life span that one does live out.
This is important, especially if we hope to live a robust
and vital life and not end up being a valetudinarian or
invalid during our "golden" years, which indeed should be
golden.

Now, it is the case that the 3 year figure I cited for
greater longevity of vegetarian SDAs over their meat-eating
SDA counterparts (after activity levels, smoking, etc. had
been controlled) would LIKELY BE GREATER between
vegetarians and non-vegetarians in the population at large.
There is a greater heterogeneity (or heteroscadasticity, if
you wish) of dietary practices in the larger population.
That is, North Americans as a whole eat about twice as much
meat as even our SDA omnivores. Hence, our "with-in"
population comparison of SDA vegetarians with SDA non-
vegetarians is more homogeneous with respect to meat
consumption and would therefore likely manifest a smaller
magnitude of difference.

Also, when attempting a proper longitudinal follow-up study
there are real-world constraints that WORK AGAINST the
comparison. That is, many omnivores in our SDA population
during the interim of a longitudinal study actually reduce
their meat consumption or even become vegetarians. For
instance, Snowdon and Phillips (AMER. JOURNAL OF PUBLIC
HEALTH, 75(5): 507-12) found in their 21 year long follow-
up study that meat consumption patterns changed as follows
in a sample of 7,012 SDA's:

1960 1976
<1 day/wk (vegetarian) 12% ate meat at least >1 day/wk

1-2 days/wk 49% " " " " " "
3-5 days/wk 72% " " " " " "
6+ days/wk 83% " " " " " "

Hence, some vegetarians during the interim became meat-
eaters and many meat-eaters became vegetarians. This change
of dietary habits does NOT explain the finding of why
vegetarians live 3 years longer but works AGAINST it.
Hence, this 3 year figure is a very conservative
underestimation of the even the actual difference, let
alone the potential difference of how vegans and meat-
eaters in the population at large would compare..

This figure of three years is therefore a CONSERVATIVE
figure and one can say, therefore, that vegetarians live AT
LEAST 3 years longer than omnivores. And this is not even
taking into account the greater difference that likely
would further occur if vegans rather than just lacto-ovo-
vegetarians were instead used as our comparison group. It
is this figure, conservative as it is, that ought to be the
figure you cite since at least we here a figure that is
empirically justified and applicable to the North American
situation. Incidentally, I've seen higher estimates but I
can't find them right now.

One last note. The biologic cost of a North American
omnivorous diet is only partly given by life expectancy
estimates. Certainly, the quality of life is reduced when
one has to suffer from, say, non-lethal but debilitating
strokes and heart attacks. Problems of obesity, reduced
endurance, crapulence, and so on are not to be ignored.
Even the cognitive contradiction of being one who loves
animals but who would still sit down at dinner to eat dead
animals might also be something that detracts from enjoying
a quality life, a life in which one can say

"I lived a good life and in my small way helped to
mitigate some of the suffering in the world instead of
helping to increase it".

Ted

End of forwarded message

Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

H*@indero.com
2009-05-11 16:22:41 EST
But how does this explain why the longest lifespans are found in e. asia
where animal producs are a common diet item? Coming close is the so
called mediterranean diet area for health level and lifespan, where
animal products are a common diet item?

How does it explain that india far from the most animal product
consuming country, has the world's highest level of diabetes and heart
disease and other nutritional diseases?

And/or Www.mantra.com/jai Dr. Jai Maharaj
2009-05-11 16:44:40 EST
BMA - VEGETARIANS LIVE LONGER

Enviro: Meat & Health (fwd)

Forwarded article <32ddqm$...@ionews.io.org>,
from e...@io.org (eye WEEKLY):

eye WEEKLY August 11 1994

Toronto's arts newspaper .....free every Thursday

ENVIRO

IN MY FIFTH DECADE, I'M ENTERING MY SALAD DAYS

By
Bob Hunter

It has been eight months since I have eaten any meat. When
my wife and I decided to get serious about becoming
vegetarians, it required a fair amount of bracing of the
shoulders and a deep breath or two. I fully expected it to
be an ordeal. But the principles involved were clear
enough. I mean, at what level do you want to enter the
debate?

There's the ethical side, to do with not wanting to be part
of the horrendously cruel agri-business farming system. In
Canada, some 400 million farm animals are killed every
year, in most cases after having endured appallingly
crowded living conditions.

Apart from the cruelty, which can be remedied by treating
the animals well, there's the moral issue of killing and
eating anything.

And then there's the human health question.

For us, all three were factors, but it was certainly the
health issue that gave us the strongest push. I'd worked in
a slaughterhouse as a young man, and still managed to carry
on eating meat through my adult life until now, so
obviously I was impervious to the ethical and moral
arguments.

But when you enter the fifth decade of your life, you begin
to pay attention to details of bodily maintenance that
could be ignored before because death seemed so far away.
As your own personal expiry date approaches, you realize
that, barring accident, it is pretty much up to you whether
you will be departing from this world sooner or later.

If you want to make it later, there are a few obvious
things you can do, like exercise, quit smoking, take
vitamins, stay out of the sun and don't drink excessively.
Until very recently, it hasn't been anywhere near so
obvious that the other thing you ought to do is cut meat
out of your diet.

The medical debate over the health problems posed by a meat
diet had been raging below the surface of the media for
years. By that, I mean coverage has been just about zilch.
The meat industry has, indeed, faced some tough scrutiny
and criticism, but nothing on a scale such as the tobacco
drug lords have faced.

That is, until the results of a recent British study were
released. And even now, press reports have been shockingly
brief.

For some reason, probably the usual media unwillingness to
rock the boat, the story has been played down. The Globe
and Mail saw fit to run two paragraphs. Yet it is arguably
one of the biggest pieces of news of the year.

In case you somehow missed it, let me bring you up to
speed. The ultra-conservative British Medical Association
has released a report stating categorically that
vegetarians live longer than meat eaters.

Vegetarians, the report concludes, have a 28 per cent lower
risk of dying from heart disease and a 39 per cent lower
risk of dying of cancer. These figures are based on 12
years of collecting data on 5,015 British meat eaters and
6,115 non-meat eaters.

It was a thoroughly controlled study which took into
account the effects of living conditions, social status,
weight, job hazards and smoking, and still ended up
pointing the finger at meat.

I must say I had not seen any of these figures when I
started onto my own vegetarian diet, for the simple reason
they hadn't been released, but they certainly confirm the
general material I had been reading beforehand.

What is bizarre about the British study was the fact that
its authors said they were "unable to pinpoint exactly what
in the vegetarian diet contributed to increased longevity."

Good grief, it's not a question of what's in a vegetarian
diet, it's a matter of what's not in it! And what's not in
it is meat, period. Scientists only make idiots of
themselves when they refuse to face the implications of
their work.

What they should be asking now is what is it about meat
that kills? The irony of people dying from consuming the
flesh of the animals they have slaughtered is like some
interspecies retribution horror tale. Call it The Revenge
of the Cows.

According to the Arthur Upton, director of the National
Cancer Institute in the U.S., "up to 50 per cent" of all
forms of cancer are caused by diet. Yet only 1 per cent of
that organization's budget is dedicated to doing anything
about it.

According to John Robbins, author of Diet For A New
America, "there is not a single population in the world
with a high meat intake which does not have a high rate of
colon cancer."

Oh, and by the way, I'm feeling great. Haven't felt better
in years. Doing cold turkey on meat has turned out to be
surprisingly easy. Hardly any withdrawal. I just keep
thinking I don't want to drive a steak through my heart, or
impale myself on one either.

Bob Hunter is a co-founder of Greenpeace
and ecology specialist for CITY-TV.

Retransmit freely in cyberspace Author holds standard
copyright Full issue of eye available in archive ==>
gopher.io.org or ftp.io.org Mailing list available
http://www.io.org/eye e...@io.org "Break the Gutenberg
Lock..." 416-971-8421

[End of forwarded article]

> Forwarded message from Ted:
>
> WHAT MIGHT BE THE GREATER LIFESPAN OF VEGETARIANS?
>
> Scharffenberg [John Scharffenberg PROBLEMS WITH MEAT, 1989]
> drawing upon epidemiological data provided by Lemon &
> Walden (JAMA, 1969, 18:950) reported that the best diet for
> human beings in terms of health and longevity is
> vegetarian. In general, vegetarians live about 6 years
> longer than their meat eating counterparts (i.e., meat-
> eating Seventh Day Adventists).
>
> If we select as our comparison group only those Seventh Day
> Adventists who still eat meat AND who do not smoke, it
> turns out that their total vegetarian counterparts still
> out live them by 3 years. Hence, even when we use a
> somewhat CONSERVATIVE comparison group (remember, even
> though not all SDA's are vegetarian but on the whole they
> would still eat less meat then the average North American)
> and thereby control for known life style hazards like
> smoking, VEGETARIANS STILL LIVE LONGER (ABOUT 3 YEARS) THAN
> EVEN MODERATE MEAT EATERS, and here we are talking a
> comparable comparison group of meat eaters who otherwise
> share essentially the same life style. This is still a
> substantial difference and it would appear that the hazards
> of meat eating are on the same level as that of smoking
> (which as we have seen shortens this comparison group's
> life-span by about 3 years).
>
> Also, keep in mind that the observed-to-expected coronary
> heart disease mortality among total vegetarians is only
> 14%. Vegetarians, of course, do have heart attacks but they
> occur approximately 20 years later in life than for meat
> eaters. Thus, not only is longevity increased but so is the
> quality of health for the life span that one does live out.
> This is important, especially if we hope to live a robust
> and vital life and not end up being a valetudinarian or
> invalid during our "golden" years, which indeed should be
> golden.
>
> Now, it is the case that the 3 year figure I cited for
> greater longevity of vegetarian SDAs over their meat-eating
> SDA counterparts (after activity levels, smoking, etc. had
> been controlled) would LIKELY BE GREATER between
> vegetarians and non-vegetarians in the population at large.
> There is a greater heterogeneity (or heteroscadasticity, if
> you wish) of dietary practices in the larger population.
> That is, North Americans as a whole eat about twice as much
> meat as even our SDA omnivores. Hence, our "with-in"
> population comparison of SDA vegetarians with SDA non-
> vegetarians is more homogeneous with respect to meat
> consumption and would therefore likely manifest a smaller
> magnitude of difference.
>
> Also, when attempting a proper longitudinal follow-up study
> there are real-world constraints that WORK AGAINST the
> comparison. That is, many omnivores in our SDA population
> during the interim of a longitudinal study actually reduce
> their meat consumption or even become vegetarians. For
> instance, Snowdon and Phillips (AMER. JOURNAL OF PUBLIC
> HEALTH, 75(5): 507-12) found in their 21 year long follow-
> up study that meat consumption patterns changed as follows
> in a sample of 7,012 SDA's:
>
> 1960 1976
> <1 day/wk (vegetarian) 12% ate meat at least >1 day/wk
>
> 1-2 days/wk 49% " " " " " "
> 3-5 days/wk 72% " " " " " "
> 6+ days/wk 83% " " " " " "
>
> Hence, some vegetarians during the interim became meat-
> eaters and many meat-eaters became vegetarians. This change
> of dietary habits does NOT explain the finding of why
> vegetarians live 3 years longer but works AGAINST it.
> Hence, this 3 year figure is a very conservative
> underestimation of the even the actual difference, let
> alone the potential difference of how vegans and meat-
> eaters in the population at large would compare..
>
> This figure of three years is therefore a CONSERVATIVE
> figure and one can say, therefore, that vegetarians live AT
> LEAST 3 years longer than omnivores. And this is not even
> taking into account the greater difference that likely
> would further occur if vegans rather than just lacto-ovo-
> vegetarians were instead used as our comparison group. It
> is this figure, conservative as it is, that ought to be the
> figure you cite since at least we here a figure that is
> empirically justified and applicable to the North American
> situation. Incidentally, I've seen higher estimates but I
> can't find them right now.
>
> One last note. The biologic cost of a North American
> omnivorous diet is only partly given by life expectancy
> estimates. Certainly, the quality of life is reduced when
> one has to suffer from, say, non-lethal but debilitating
> strokes and heart attacks. Problems of obesity, reduced
> endurance, crapulence, and so on are not to be ignored.
> Even the cognitive contradiction of being one who loves
> animals but who would still sit down at dinner to eat dead
> animals might also be something that detracts from enjoying
> a quality life, a life in which one can say
>
> "I lived a good life and in my small way helped to
> mitigate some of the suffering in the world instead of
> helping to increase it".
>
> Ted
>
> End of forwarded message
>
> Jai Maharaj
> http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
> http://www.mantra.com/jai
> http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
> Om Shanti
>
> Hindu Holocaust Museum
> http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
>
> Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
> http://www.hindu.org
> http://www.hindunet.org
>
> The truth about Islam and Muslims
> http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
>
> DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS
>
> o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
> purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
> have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
> poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
> fair use of copyrighted works.
> o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
> considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
> e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
> o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
> not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
>
> FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
> which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
> owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
> understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
> democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
> that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
> profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
> information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
> subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
> go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
> If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
> your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
> copyright owner.

And/or Www.mantra.com/jai Dr. Jai Maharaj
2009-05-11 16:47:32 EST
McDonald's issues formal apology to vegetarians

By Som Chivukula, in New York
Rediff
Wednesday, June 5, 2002

Fast-food chain McDonald's has issued a formal apology to
Hindus and vegetarians over the alleged use of beef
flavouring in their French fries, settling a year-long
class action lawsuit.

It also agreed to pay $10 million to different
organisations that promote vegetarianism.

"This is a new era for the fast-food industry and sets a
new standard of disclosure," claimed Seattle-based
attorney Harish Bharti, who filed the lawsuit. "Because
of this lawsuit the food disclosure standards have been
enhanced."

Despite the monetary settlement, Bharti is still
sceptical whether McDonald's will pay.

"I'll get much better sleep if all the deserving
organisations get paid. My hope is that the judge takes
control rather than their lawyers deciding which
organisations gets the money," he said.

"I'm kind of still losing sleep. The judge should appoint
a court representative to oversee the distribution so
that there is no bias or complaints from the
organisations," he said.

McDonald's on its Web site said, "We regret we did not
provide these customers with complete information, and we
sincerely apologise for any hardship that these
miscommunications have caused among Hindus, vegetarians
and others."

"We should have done a better job in these areas and
we're committed to doing a better job in the future."

Bharti has not yet been paid for his services, but
expects a payment from McDonald's after the final
approval on August 22.

"I haven't seen a single dime yet. After the final
approval, I will file a petition before the court to have
my fees paid by the defendant," he said. "This amount
(not yet determined) will not be from the $10 million
settlement."

Last month, Bharti also filed a lawsuit against the
Dallas-based Pizza Hut alleging the company of using beef
enzymes in the cheese used to top its 'veggie lover's'
pizzas.

"It's way too early to discuss the case (in terms of
settlement)," he said.

http://rediff.com/us/2002/jun/05us.htm

Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti


Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

And/or Www.mantra.com/jai Dr. Jai Maharaj
2009-05-11 16:51:50 EST
Vegetarians have a better antioxidative status

Forwarded message begins

i*.@aol.comdoe (doe) posted:

Physiol Res. 2004 Apr;53(2):219-224. Related Articles, Links

Lipid peroxidation and nutrition.

Krajcovicova-Kudlackova M, Spustova V V, Paukova V V.

Institute of Preventive and Clinical Medicine, Limbova 14, SK-833 01
Bratislava, Slovak Republic. kudlack...@upkm.sk

Levels of conjugated dienes of fatty acids (first
peroxidation product) in relation to their substrates and
promotors (triacylglycerols, homocysteine, iron) as well as
to their inhibitors (essential antioxidative vitamins) were
assessed in a vegetarian group (n=24) and compared with
subjects on a mixed diet (traditional nutrition, n=24).
Positive significant linear correlation between conjugated
dienes and triacylglycerols, homocysteine, iron as well as
inverse relationship between conjugated dienes and vitamin
E, vitamin C, beta-carotene were observed in pooled groups.
Lipid peroxidation risk in vegetarians seems to be caused
predominantly by hyperhomocysteinemia, whereas in a mixed
diet group this was due to a higher supply of substrates or
risk iron values. The incidence of only 8 % of risk
conjugated diene values in vegetarians in contrast to 42 %
in the group with traditional diet indicates that
vegetarians have a better antioxidative status as a
consequence of regular consumption of protective food.

PMID: 15046560 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

- - - - -

Who loves ya.
Tom

Jesus Was A Vegetarian!
http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com

Man Is A Herbivore!
http://pages.ivillage.com/ironjustice/manisaherbivore

DEAD PEOPLE WALKING
http://pages.ivillage.com/ironjustice/deadpeoplewalking

End of forwarded message

Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

And/or Www.mantra.com/jai Dr. Jai Maharaj
2009-05-11 16:57:10 EST
MEAT INDUSTRY'S FAT LIES

Excerpts

Meat Industry's Fat Lies

The meat and dairy industries have spent many millions of
dollars to promote the belief that carbohydrates, such as
potatoes, bread and pasta are the real culprits that cause
excess weight gain. But literally thousands of impartial
studies have shown this to have no basis in fact. Due to
their high fat content, meats are far indeed from "calorie
conscious."

The renowned Harvard nutritionist, Dr. Jean Mayer,
explained the matter this way:

"In becoming a vegetarian, you will eat a greater
percentage of your calories from cereal grains, dried beans
and peas, potatoes and pasta -- the very foods most dieters
avoid with zeal. And you will lose weight."

Because people eating the standard American diet eat such a
very high percentage of their calories as fat, most of them
fight a never-ending "battle of the bulge." But obesity is
not merely an aesthetic issue. It has been found to be a
significant co-factor in all the degenerative diseases that
cripple and kill modern man.

The obese, and to a lesser but still significant extent the
overweight, have higher rates of heart disease, diabetes,
liver disorders, gallbladder disease, cancer, arthritis,
and virtually every other degenerative disease. Infant
mortality rates are far higher for babies born to obese
mothers. Obese teenagers have a life expectancy that is 15
years shorter than normal.

Clinically, the term "obesity" refers to excessive levels
of body-fat. It is, quite literally, a case of being fat.

>From a clinical standpoint, the body weight most of us
think as "normal" is anything but healthy. As one authority
wrote:

"A teenager who remains 20% under the normal weight enjoys
a 15-year increase over and above normal life expectancy.
Lower than normal weight is also associated with marked
reductions in the incidence of cancer, cardiovascular
disease, diabetes, and other degenerative diseases. In a
very real sense, then, U.S. and European weight standards
are excessive, and the overwhelming majority of Americans
and Europeans are detrimentally overweight . . . The U.S.
Public Health Service estimates 60 million Americans are
overweight. In reality, the number of Americans who are
above optimal weight may be three times the government
estimate." [That is 3 out of 4 Americans.]

When we realize that so-called "normal" weights are
actually too high for optimum health, and a very high
percentage of Americans are above even these weights, a
picture emerges that is neither flattering nor healthy.
What is considered "normal" in our culture is actually a
moderate form of obesity.

So, if you are concerned about your health and our
environment, eliminate meat from your diet.

- Mayer, J. and Goldberg, J., "Nutrition" (a syndicated
column) Washington Post, July 26, 1981

- Tartter, P., "Cholesterol and Obesity as Prognostic
Factors..." Cancer, 47:2222, 1981

- Donegan, W., "The Association of Body Weight with
Recurrent Cancer...," Cancer, 41:1590, 1978 Editorial,
"Obesity -- The Cancer Connection," Lancet, 1:1223, 1982

- Hur, R., "Foor Reform: Our Desperate Need" Neidelburg
Publishers, 1975, pg 74

Source of excerpts - Robbins, John, "Diet For A New
America" Stillpoint Publishing, Walpole, NH; 1987.

Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

And/or Www.mantra.com/jai Dr. Jai Maharaj
2009-05-11 17:04:51 EST
VEGETARIANS ENJOY LONGEST LIFESPANS

Excerpts

Longevity and Health

"The cultures with the longest lifespans in the world are
the Vicambas, who reside in the Andes of Ecuador, the
Abkhasians, who live on the Black Sea in the former USSR,
and the Hunzas who live in the Himalayas of northern
[Bharat, aka India].

Researchers discovered a striking similarity in the diets
of these groups, scattered though they arein different
parts of the planet. All three are either totally
vegetarian or close to it. The Hunzas, who are the largest
of the three groups, eat almost no animal products. Meat
and dairy products combined account for only 1-1/2% of
their total calories.

Particularly striking to researchers who have visited
these cultures is that the people not only live so long,
but that they enjoy full, active lives throughout their
many years, and show no signs of the many degenerative
diseases that afflict the elderly in our culture.

They work and play at 80 and beyond; most of those who
reach their 100th birthday continue to be active, and
retirement is unheard of. The absence of (excess protein)
in their diets engenders slower growth and slim, compact
body frames. With age, wisdom accumulates, but physical
degeneration is limited so the senior citizens of these
remote societies have something unique to contribute to the
lives of others. They are revered.

- Leaf, A., National Geographic, 143:93, 1973.

- Hur, Robin, 'Food Reform: Our Desperate Need,'
Heidelburg, 1975, pg. 95."

Source - Robbins, John, DIET FOR A NEW AMERICA, Stillpoint,
1987, pg. 155.

Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti

Dutch
2009-05-11 17:09:26 EST

<*r@indero.com> wrote
> But how does this explain why the longest lifespans are found in e. asia
> where animal producs are a common diet item? Coming close is the so
> called mediterranean diet area for health level and lifespan, where
> animal products are a common diet item?
>
> How does it explain that india far from the most animal product
> consuming country, has the world's highest level of diabetes and heart
> disease and other nutritional diseases?

Radical vegetarians like Jay Not-a-Hindoo are not interested in reasonable
debate, but thanks for trying.


And/or Www.mantra.com/jai Dr. Jai Maharaj
2009-05-11 17:15:34 EST
Non-Vegetarians, Reduced Sperm Counts and Birth Defects

"Farhan Siddiqui" <siddi...@digiplace.com> wrote:
> The other side of the argument would be, may be all
> that vegetarianism caused . . . impotency . . .

Scientific studies have provided conclusions about sexual
and reproductive problems related to the animal-based diet.
Please consider these facts:

"Ominously, a recent government study found PCB's
present in 100% of the human sperm samples tested.[75] They
also found a correlation between high PCB levels and low
sperm count.[76] PCB's are considered one of the chief
reasons for the staggering fact that the average sperm
count of the American male is today *only 70% of what it
was only 30 years ago.*[77]

"Tests done at several major universities have found
that nearly 25% of today's college students are
sterile.[78] This is a terrifying trend. Only thirty-five
years ago, the sterility rate was less than one-half of one
percent.[79]

[...]

"Men who think they may someday wish to father a child
would do well to realize that the toxic chemicals they
ingest today, including those specially damaging to sperm
cells, tend to collect and concentrate in the male
reproductive tract.[147] The result is that a very high
number of birth defects stem form the male's absorption of
these chemicals. . . .

[...]

"Even if a man does not father a child, he should be
concerned. His sperm will still collect these chemicals.
And, during intercourse, they will be transmitted to the
female.[149] She will absorb them through her vaginal
mucosa, and then store them in her womb, like the worst
kind of biological time bomb, waiting to cause birth
defects and cancer.

"Fortunately, wise food choices today can do a great
deal to protect the health of the as-yet unborn.

[...]

"Toxic chemical authorities agree that human
contamination with PCB's come mainly from eating fish from
waters in which PCB levels are high.[82] . . . The EPA
estimates fish can accumulate up to 9 million times the
level of PCB's in the waters in which they live![83]...

[...]

"Livestock in today's factory farms are fed huge
quantities of fish meal. Half of the world's fish catch is
fed to livestock.[87] In fact, more fish are consumed by
U.S. livestock than by the entire human population of all
the countries of Western Europe combined.[88]

[...]

"'Foods of animal origin (are) the major source of...
pesticide residues in diet.'[19]"

Excerpts from Robbins, J., "Diet For A New America,"
Stillpoint Publishing, 1987.

Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti

And/or Www.mantra.com/jai Dr. Jai Maharaj
2009-05-12 00:49:24 EST
Most Pesticides Come from the Meat Diet

[View table with a fixed-width font]

Pesticide Residues in U.S. Diet


DDT, 0.3-
DDE, | .281
TDE | XXXX
R | XXXX
E | XXXX
S 0.2- XXXX
I | XXXX
D | XXXX
U | XXXX
E | XXXX .112
S 0.1- XXXX XXXX
| XXXX XXXX
in Parts | XXXX XXXX .041
per | XXXX XXXX XXXX .036 .027 .026
Million | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX .008 .007 .003
0.0- ---------------------------------------xxxx--xxxx--xxxx-
Meat Dairy Oils Leaf Fruit Leg- Grain Root Pot-
1964-68 Fish Prod. Fats Veg- umes Cereal Veg- ato-
Levels Pou- Sho- eta- eta- es
ltry rte- bles bles
ning

Source: Cornellusen, P.E.
"Pesticide Residues in Total Diet"
Pesticides Monitoring Journal
2:140-152, 1969

Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron