Citazione:

GRAZIE! Sono contento che la pensi così...sai qui non tutti la pensano come te e il solito intellettualoide "sotuttoio" mi considera un povero estremista ecopazzo!

Citazione:

Anche perche' entrambi potrebbero trarne giovamento reciproco

Citazione:

Vallo a spiegare con chi pensa sia un "falso problema"! Per fortuna rimangono ben evidenti nella discussione documenti e testi che spiegano un bel po' di cose sui benefici di un cambio di alimentazione.


Citazione:

Ho incontrato un sacco di bambini che non sapevano quante zampe avesse un pollo. Evidentemente è un'astuta strategia quella di togliere dal pezzo di carne che compriamo ogni riferimento all'animale che ne era legittimamente proprietario.


Citazione:



Citazione:

Forse hai fatto un errore di battitura? Anche perche' non credo che la cucina biologica e vegan sia "vomitevole"..evidentemente ti riferivi alla "fusion"..

Ciao e leggi tutto, mi raccomando

il solito intellettualoide "sotuttoio" mi considera un povero estremista ecopazzo!

Gli argomenti abbondano...

Citazione:

ecco volevo aprire una piccola parentesi su questa affermazione.

Dunque, ho gia premesso che simpatizzo per l'alimentazione vagetariana, e aggiungo che nella preparazione dei pasti introduco la carne in misura di due volte la settimana, alternandola a pesce,uova e fomaggi.
Non è un granchè (dal punto di vista vegan) ma la vedura e i carboidrati, assumono un ruolo primario, a discapito delle proteine animali.

Detto ciò aggiungo che sono una discreta cuoca.
Mi piace cucinare, e adoro la cucina regionale (l'emilia è terra di bongustai...) ma... non disdegno le novità.
Così qualche tempo fa ho acquistato "il cucchiaio verde" (la bibbia della cucina vegetariana, come recita la sua introduzione...) e ho incominciato ad applicarmi.

In primo luogo ho trovato difficile reperire gli ingredienti.
per le prime esperienze mi sono basata sull'esperienza personale (in fatto di cucina) e sono incappata in fallimenti clamorosi.
I cibi, privati di ingredienti base (il sale, i condimenti..) sapevano di niente..
Così ho incominciato a dedicarmi alla caccia all'ingrediente.
Ho svaligiato un negozio di alimenti macrobiotici (in verità è il negozio che ha "svaligiato" me...) e sono tornata a casa con una borsina della farmacia, e una " bella cinquantaeuro" in meno.
D'accordo sul discorso della qualità da preferire alla quantità, ma quando torni a casa con un alga kombu puzzolente (mi scuso l'aggettivo ma a me pareva tale) e una serie di misture di dubbia origine (almeno a me sono parse tali..) e cinquanta euro in meno, due conti te li fai.
Isomma per farla breve, ho seguito le ricette al millimetro.
Il risultato è stato migliore rispetto ai tentativi precedenti, ma non del tutto soddisfacente.
ora io mi chiedo, se con tutti gli ingredienti (parlo di vegetali et simili) che ho a disposizione in questo occidente generoso, io debba caricarmi di sostanze che non hanno nulla a che fare con le mie latitudini e il mio palato, e che oltrettutto non sono come dove e quando si producano...

Guardando anche al portafoglio (ed io modestamente.. un po' ci guardo) non capisco per quale motivo io per seguire un dettame debba acquistare cibi carissimi e francamente garantiti quanto quelli che trovo al mercato...

L'alga kombu, ad esempio dove si produce?
Sarà mica che viene da quella melma che è il mar della cina..?
(non so, faccio un ipotesi..)

Citazione:

Ho scritto in fretta , intendevo riferirmi al biologico. Oggi è difficile abituarsi a livello di gusto , di palato a certi cibi assolutamente biologici. Ho vissuto per un periodo in una cominità di vegetariani che coltivavano tutto biologicamente, e per un periodo con gli Amish che cucinano come secoli fa.
In questo senso intendevo dire che il gusto vero dei cibi biologici è troppo forte.

Nulla a che fare con l’ argomento vegan . Forse era leggermente OT.

Tanto per pigrizia - e perche' illustra piuttosto bene il mio punto di vista e cioe' che la gente dovrebbe mangiare quello che il proprio corpo suggerisce e che riesce a trovare, oltre che seguire preparazioni che sono scaturite da culture millenarie - espongo qui sotto un paio di stralci che si possono trovare su The Myths of Vegetarianism di Stephen Byrnes:

"many of the vegetarian claims cannot be substantiated and some are simply false and dangerous. There are benefits with vegetarian diets for certain health conditions, and some people function better on less fat and protein"
"MYTH #1: Meat consumption contributes to famine and depletes the Earth's natural resources.
Some vegetarians have claimed that livestock require pasturage that could be used to farm grains to feed starving people in Third World countries. It is also claimed that feeding animals contributes to world hunger because livestock are eating foods that could go to feed humans. The solution to world hunger, therefore, is for people to become vegetarians. These arguments are illogical and simplistic.

The first argument ignores the fact that about two-thirds of our Earth's dry land is unsuitable for farming. It is primarily the open range, desert and mountainous areas that provide food to grazing animals, and that land is currently being put to good use.1

The second argument is faulty as well because it ignores the vital contributions that livestock animals make to humanity's well-being. It is also misleading to think that the foods grown and given to feed livestock could be diverted to feed humans:

Agricultural animals have always made a major contribution to the welfare of human societies by providing food, shelter, fuel, fertilizer and other products and services. They are a renewable resource, and utilize another renewable resource, plants, to produce these products and services. In addition, the manure produced by the animals helps improve soil fertility and, thus, aids the plants. In some developing countries the manure cannot be utilized as a fertilizer but is dried as a source of fuel.

There are many who feel that because the world population is growing at a faster rate than is the food supply, we are becoming less and less able to afford animal foods because feeding plant products to animals is an inefficient use of potential human food. It is true that it is more efficient for humans to eat plant products directly rather than to allow animals to convert them to human food. At best, animals only produce one pound or less of human food for each three pounds of plants eaten. However, this inefficiency only applies to those plants and plant products that the human can utilize. The fact is that over two-thirds of the feed fed to animals consists of substances that are either undesirable or completely unsuited for human food. Thus, by their ability to convert inedible plant materials to human food, animals not only do not compete with the human; rather, they aid greatly in improving both the quantity and the quality of the diets of human societies.2

Furthermore, at the present time, there is more than enough food grown in the world to feed all people on the planet. The problem is widespread poverty, making it impossible for the starving poor to afford it. In a comprehensive report, the Population Reference Bureau attributed the world hunger problem to poverty, not meat-eating.3 It also did not consider mass vegetarianism to be a solution for world hunger.

What would actually happen, however, if animal husbandry were abandoned in favour of mass agriculture, brought about by humanity turning towards vegetarianism?

If a large number of people switched to vegetarianism, the demand for meat in the United States and Europe would fall, the supply of grain would dramatically increase, but the buying power of poor [starving] people in Africa and Asia wouldn't change at all.

The result would be very predictable: there would be a mass exodus from farming. Whereas today the total amount of grains produced could feed 10 billion people, the total amount of grain grown in this post-meat world would likely fall back to about 7 or 8 billion. The trend of farmers selling their land to developers and others would accelerate quickly.4

In other words, there would be less food available for the world to eat. Furthermore, the monoculture of grains and legumes, which is what would happen if animal husbandry were abandoned and the world relied exclusively on plant foods for its food, would rapidly deplete the soil and require the heavy use of artificial fertilisers, one ton of which requires ten tons of crude oil to produce.5

As far as the impact on our environment is concerned, a closer look reveals the great damage that exclusive and mass farming would do. British organic dairy farmer and researcher Mark Purdey wisely points out that if "veganic agricultural systems were to gain a foothold on the soil, then agrichemical use, soil erosion, cash cropping, prairie-scapes and ill health would escalate".6 Neanderthin author Ray Audette concurs with this view:

Since ancient times, the most destructive factor in the degradation of the environment has been monoculture agriculture. The production of wheat in ancient Sumeria transformed once-fertile plains into salt flats that remain sterile 5,000 years later. As well as depleting both the soil and water sources, monoculture agriculture also produces environmental damage by altering the delicate balance of natural ecosystems. World rice production in 1993, for instance, caused 155 million cases of malaria by providing breeding grounds for mosquitoes in the paddies. Human contact with ducks in the same rice paddies resulted in 500 million cases of influenza during the same year.7

There is little doubt, though, that commercial farming methods, whether of plants or animals, produce harm to the environment. With the heavy use of agrichemicals, pesticides, artificial fertilisers, hormones, steroids and antibiotics common in modern agriculture, a better way of integrating animal husbandry with agriculture needs to be found. A possible solution might be a return to "mixed farming", described below.

The educated consumer and the enlightened farmer together can bring about a return of the mixed farm, where cultivation of fruits, vegetables and grains is combined with the raising of livestock and fowl in a manner that is efficient, economical and environmentally friendly. For example, chickens running free in garden areas eat insect pests, while providing high-quality eggs; sheep grazing in orchards obviate the need for herbicides; and cows grazing in woodlands and other marginal areas provide rich, pure milk, making these lands economically viable for the farmer. It is not animal cultivation that leads to hunger and famine, but unwise agricultural practices and monopolistic distribution systems.8

The "mixed farm" is also healthier for the soil, which will yield more crops if managed according to traditional guidelines. Mark Purdey has accurately pointed out that a crop field on a mixed farm will yield up to five harvests a year, while a "mono-cropped" one will only yield one or two.9 Which farm is producing more food for the world's peoples? Purdey well sums up the ecological horrors of "battery farming" and points to future solutions by saying:

Our agricultural establishments could do very well to outlaw the business-besotted farmers running intensive livestock units, battery systems and beef-burger bureaucracies, with all their wastages, deplorable cruelty, anti-ozone slurry systems, drug/chemical-induced immunotoxicity resulting in BSE and salmonella, rainforest eradication, etc. Our future direction must strike the happy, healthy medium of mixed farms, resurrecting the old traditional extensive system as a basic framework, then bolstering up productivity to present-day demands by incorporating a more updated application of biological science into farming systems.10

It does not appear, then, that livestock farming, when properly practised, damages the environment. Nor does it appear that world vegetarianism and exclusively relying on agriculture to supply the world with food are feasible or ecologically wise ideas."

"MYTH #15: Eating animal foods is inhumane.
Without question, some commercially raised livestock live in deplorable conditions where sickness and suffering are common. In countries like Korea, food animals such as dogs are sometimes killed in horrific ways, e.g., beaten to death with a club. Our recommendations for animal foods consumption most definitely do not endorse such practices.

As noted in our discussion of Myth #1, commercial farming of livestock results in an unhealthy food product, whether that product be meat, milk, butter, cream or eggs. Our ancestors did not consume such substandard foodstuffs, and neither should we.

It is possible to raise animals humanely. This is why organic, preferably biodynamic, farming is to be encouraged: it is cleaner and more efficient, and produces healthier animals and foodstuffs from those animals. Each person should make every effort, then, to purchase organically raised livestock (and plant foods). Not only does this better support our bodies--as organic foods are more nutrient-dense132 and are free from hormone and pesticide residues--but this also supports smaller farms and is therefore better for the economy.133

Nevertheless, many people have philosophical problems with eating animal flesh, and these sentiments must be respected. Dairy products and eggs, though, are not the result of an animal's death and are fine alternatives for these people.

It should also not be forgotten that agriculture, which involves both the clearance of land to plant crops and the protection and maintenance of those crops, results in many animal deaths.134 Therefore, the belief that "becoming vegetarian" will somehow spare animals from dying is one with no foundation in fact"

Mangiate cosa vi pare, meglio se non arriva dal supermercato, ma direttamente dal piccolo contadino della vostra regione, dal vostro orto o dalle vostre bestie.

E non date mai retta ai fanatici, la via per l'inferno e' lastricata di buone intenzioni.

Grazie Pikebishop
Era propio quello che stavo cercando...
Qualcuno che lo traduca!?(io "capisco" l'inglese,ma le mie traduzioni fanno ca...are!)

Ahiahiahi.... 'sti debunker!!


Death of a "Debunker"


Stephen Byrnes, once termed by IVU-Sci's own Stephen Walsh as a "myth-making debunker," scorned vegetarian diets and claimed that advice to lower cholesterol to decrease heart disease risk is dangerous. He advocated a meat- and dairy-heavy diet as the best insurance to protect your heart and health. Byrnes died on June 17, 2004, of a stroke. From his C.V., he appears to have been around 40 years old, at most.

-Jeff Nelson veganoutreach



A Critique of "The Myths of Vegetarianism" by Stephen Byrnes http://energygrid.com/health/2002/06ap-stephenbyrnes.html


The Myths of Vegetarianism was originally published in the Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients, July 2000, a revised version of which was published in Nexus Magazine (Vol 9, 3 & 4) and on the author's, Stephen Byrnes', website. Whilst I agree with Byrnes on some points, and applaud him for bringing some pertinent issues to the attention of vegetarians, I believe that much of what he has written is invalid and distorted.

I KNOW VEGETARIANS who seem distinctly unhealthy: pale faced, weak and unable to concentrate. I also know meat-eaters that are equally unhealthy: red-faced, gasping for air and with high cholesterol. Stereotypes for sure! There are also both vegetarians and meat-eaters who are very healthy — like Byrnes himself who looks the picture of health! That said, statistically, vegetarians are healthier than meat-eaters and there is, contrary to what Byrnes tells us, much supporting evidence for this.

Of course there will be "several authorities" that question this data… there are authorities who question global warming, whether BSE could affect humans, and the wisdom of farming without pesticides and herbicides. Experts have different opinions and anyone who has been in the academic world will be aware that, after degree level, scientific knowledge is often conflicting and open to much interpretation. These "several authorities" have probably been "ignored" (presumably by vegetarians) because most vegetarians are primarily making an ethical stand rather than merely choosing a more healthy lifestyle (unless they have been scared off a meat-based diet by BSE!).

Byrnes' article is very useful to the vegetarian community because it reiterates the fact that just because a diet is vegetarian doesn't automatically mean it healthy — an assumption that has seen many a healthy omnivore turn into an unhealthy vegetarian. Byrnes does us all a favour by bringing this important issue to light. However, in the process, it would seem that he has been overzealous in his dismissal of vegetarianism, to the point whereby he has presented some arguments that make no sense, others that are contradictory, and selected research that that in no way is representative of the pervading opinion on these matters which is based on the total research done in this area. This, of course, is his prerogative, but in doing so he actually ends up diluting the pertinence of his message by trying to make the scope of his argument a little too broad—the "myths" a little too numerous. This is a shame as it is essential to be quite mindful when eating a vegetarian diet to make sure that we get all the nutrients that we need for our particular body type. By dismissing everything about vegetarianism out of hand, Byrnes becomes as imbalanced as the "vege-fanatics" he derides.

I shall go through his article myth by myth, giving what I believe is a much more balanced point of view. Some of his myths I actually agree with and others I am not able to comment upon at greater length as I am not up on the current scientific research.

Myth #1: Meat consumption contributes to famine and depletes the Earth's natural resources.

The first myth certainly exposes Byrnes' biasness. I am surprised that he would put this as his first myth as it is certainly his weakest point. Meat consumption today certainly does contribute to both famine and the depletion of Earth's natural resources.

Byrnes' arguments here do not make a lot of sense. First of all, if Earth's dry land is suitable for grazing animals, it is entirely possible to make it suitable for farming (unless it is extremely rocky and / or mountainous); methods and technologies do exist that can enrich thin soils and produce fantastic yields in these sorts of dry areas. Stating that this land is "currently being put to good use" seems rather an odd statement when one considers how destructive grazing animals are at converting scrubland to desert. Contrary to what Byrnes' believes, you cannot graze a modern cattle herd on thin scrubland or desert. They need a constant and abundant supply of rich grasses, fattening feeds and huge amounts of water. Herds end up stripping away the grass protection for the topsoil and lowering the water tables, a combination that creates thousands of square miles of empty desert every year. What is more they create a significant proportion of greenhouse gases. The cattle are just moved on to put another area of land "to good use", whilst the deserts never ever recover.

Byrnes then quotes from Breeds of Livestock (University of Oklahoma, Department of Animal Science) which over-simplifies the contribution of agricultural animals and has an obvious bias! Whilst it is true that animals have made a major contribution to human welfare, it is simply not true that they provide a "renewable resource". Sure herds are renewable, but the effects of those herds on the land is certainly anything but renewable. And manure produced by these animals is in such large quantities that it is now poisoning the water supplies with nitrates. (And burning this manure is hardly the solution for the large herds that now dominate the modern meat industry!)

Breeds of Livestock then goes on to state that "over two-thirds" of the feed fed to animals consists of substances that are either undesirable or completely unsuitable for human food, and uses this fact to dismiss the argument that vegetable matter can more efficiently be fed directly to humans rather than to cattle which in turn feed humans. This is illogical: two-thirds of the feed fed to animals is precisely that which is undesirable to humans because it is being grown specifically for animals! Otherwise the land would be used to grow crops suited to human consumption.

Byrnes then states that widespread poverty is responsible for lack of food, not the ability of the world to product it. But he does not question why people are so poor in the first place and why food is so expensive. In many Third World countries, the people are starving whilst these countries are exporting expensive meat products. Had they been growing vegetables instead, the cost of the food would be significantly less and exporting less of an attractive money-spinner. And of course the Population Reference Bureau would not attribute world hunger to meat-eating when they are, according to their own information, "funded by government contracts, foundation grants, individual and corporate contributions… " Considering that the US government strongly supports the meat industry, and that the meat industry is infinity more wealthy than those who advocate vegetarianism and therefore is much more likely to be contributing to the Population Reference Bureau, it is hardly surprising that they do not denounce the meat industry in their reports!

Then something quite astonishing happens. Byrnes, an academic, quotes an opinion posted on an anti-animal rights website forum as justification that food availability would actually decrease if we all became vegetarians. His concern at a decrease in food production is a little misplaced because, in preceding paragraph, he states that "at the present time, there is more than enough food grown in the world to feed all the people on the planet". But a potential decrease in food production is only one opinion from a site that is supporting a very profitable industry, and not widely held. It is much more likely that food production and availability would be increased as grain used to feed animals is either used directly or upgraded for human use, and land used for cattle grazing is turned into arable production. (Three hectares can produce either one tonne of beef, or 50 - 100 tonnes of grains, pluses and vegetables.) This increase in availability (even if overall production is decreased — which is unlikely) would drive down prices. Less land would be needed to feed the world and so land would not be so attractive to large producers allowing local farmers to grow their own crops. Rainforest would be less at risk, water tables given a chance to recover, desertification would be massively reduced and the methane production would plummet.

It is laughable to state that it is basically animal husbandry that is keeping the world from becoming a crop monoculture! This is happening anyway, in the meat industry as well, as food production reaches ever larger scales. In fact, it could be argued that if less monoculture crops were grown for animals, which are given a very basic diet, and more for humans, there would be increased demand for variation. As for the heavy use of fertilizers that would be needed for crops, Byrnes forgets that he has argued previously that there would actually be a drop in overall vegetable food production. In fact, as crops grown for animal feed have less stringent pesticide residue requirements, the overall pesticide use could be substantially reduced. And there is little point bemoaning the fact that one ton of fertiliser requires 10 tons of crude oil to produce when at the present moment huge amounts of grain crops need to be grown to feed animals which then feed people, a hugely inefficient use of crude oil. And what about the poisons used to kill parasites on animals, the steroids used to make them grow faster and the antibiotics used to cover up their ill health?

In the next paragraph, Bynres quotes a British organic dairy farmer who is obviously no impartial observer. Mark Purdey erroneously points out that a predominantly vegetable farming system would produce soil erosion (but forgets to add that animal farming produces a lot more erosion for the equivalent calorific production), agrichemical use (but does not add that, as explained above, pesticide use is likely to be reduced), cash cropping (meat is far the biggest cash crop around), prairie-scapes (like the sort used to graze animals?) and ill health (spoken just like someone in the meat industry). Mark Purdey understandably has a rose-tinted view of meat production around the world.

It is very easy to list the evils of large scale arable monoculture. Most vegetarians oppose this sort of farming as well. However, when one compares the effects of large scale crop monoculture with large scale meat production, the former "wins" hands down in terms of environmental impact. Aware of this, Byrnes resorts to the absurd comparison between small scale animal/mixed farming and large scale arable monoculture production. Clearly, the latter has a greater environmental impact. He fails to mention that the arguments in favour of mixed crop farming are even more applicable to mixed vegetable crop farming as they are to vegetable/animal mixed farming. It is all very well for Purdey, a small scale farmer, to critisize intensive agribusiness and favour the resurrection of "the old traditional extensive system" but he fails to outline exactly how this system could cope with the massive demand for food today. The fact is, that for the foreseeable future and until farmers become better educated in ecological farming practices, large scale intensive farming is going to pick up the load whether we are meat-eaters or vegetarians, and large scale vegetable farming is certainly environmentally preferable to large scale meat production.

After quoting Purdey, Byrnes finishes off this "myth" with the remarkable assertion that "It does not appear, then, that livestock farming, when properly practised, damages the environment." This is a little strange when one considers that Purdey, in the sections quoted, does not mention or give evidence for this conclusion at all. Byrnes has drawn this conclusion out of thin air. He then asserts that world vegetarianism could not be supplied by agriculture (a very curious statement considering that already enough vegetable matter is produced to feed the world) and that trying to do so would not be ecologically wise — as if supplying the world with meat is a better solution! These are completely illogical arguments.

Myth #2: Vitamin B12 can be obtained from plant sources.

I agree with Byrnes on this one: it is essential for all vegans to include a B12 food supplement in their diets (these supplements are made from bacterial cultures and so can be taken by vegans). There is some evidence that certain foods like Klamath Blue Green Algae contain available (non-analogue) B12, and that this vitamin can be manufactured by intestinal flora and that it might be in the soil residues, but it is dangerous to rely on these sources for such an essential vitamin (although many people have and with fair results). The risks are too great not to supplement. Byrnes last statement that vegans a few decades ago would have died as they did not have supplements or fortified foods is not true as veganism is not a modern invention!

Myth #3: Our needs for vitamin D can be met by sunlight.

I also agree with Byrnes on this, and it is important for vegans to mindfully include quantities of alfalfa, sunflower seeds and avocados in their diets. Supplementation is also an option. That said, short periods of exposure to sunlight (15 minutes a day or more) are enough to prevent deficiency, although those with darker skins need more.

Myth #4: The body's needs for vitamin A can be entirely obtained from plant foods.

Once again, supplementing vitamin A is no problem, although it has to be said that vitamin A deficiency is quite rare in vegans who have adequate beta-carotene. Byrnes does point out that "infants and people with hypothyroidism, gall balder problems and diabetes have difficulty making the conversion from beta-carotene to vitamin A" which is useful for vegans to know.

Myth #5: Meat-eating causes osteoporosis, kidney disease, heart disease and cancer.

Here, Byrnes returns to grinding his axe. Clearly, there is little point comparing the modern Western meat-rich diet with that of other cultures. The meat is entirely different and is often eaten raw. The Masai, for example, are remarkably healthy primarily on a diet of raw blood and raw milk which are unaffected by cooking or the toxins associated with modern cattle farming, although it should be pointed out that the average Masai lifespan is much shorter than that in the West, making comparisons more difficult. The Innuits also eat large quantities of animal fat, but again they eat it raw. Eating meat in its raw state (although not recommended in the West because of parasites and infections) can sometimes be healthier, but as we will see, this does not exclude these cultures from problems associated with a meat-based diet.

Osteoporosis: It is not true that meat consumption has no impact on bone density. Recently, there was an interesting article in New Scientist (15 Dec 2001 / No. 2321) entitled Hard Cheese by Douglas Fox which gives a detailed overview of this the effect of an acid diet on osteoporosis. Accoridng to the biggest and best study to date, the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF)—which has followed nearly 10,000 elderly women since 1986—more than half of all hip fractures are actually due to dietary acid load. According to Uriel Barzel, an endocrinologist at the Albert Einstein College of in New York, acidity in diet is "probably more important than the amount of calcium in the diet." Deborah Sellmeyer of the University of California states that this metabolic acidosis is produced by eating "a lot of cheese, bread (to a lesser extent) and meat". In fact, a huge meta-analysis of over 87 different studies found that the amount of acid produced by typical diets in 33 countries can account for over two-thirds of the variation in hip fractures between these countries. "The richest, like Germany and Sweden with their high-protein meat, cheese and fish diet, had 40 times as many hip fractures as poorer nations like Thailand." And the Innuit that Byrnes refers to, who consume one of the highest amounts of animal protein, have the highest rate of osteoporosis in the world. As Deborah Sellmeyer summarises, "A high ratio of dietary animal to vegetable protein increases the rate of bone loss and the risk of fracture… "

Kidney Disease: Animal foods clearly do form acid in the body and so Byrnes' assertions here are simply spurious. Meat based diets are also much higher in protein which puts stress on the kidneys.

Heart Disease: Like any disease, risk factors are often offset by other factors. In the case of the French, their high per-capita meat consumption is offset by not only fresh vegetables and less junk food, but bioflavanols in the copious amounts of wine that they drink (the so called French Paradox). The same is true in the Mediterranean countries mentioned by Byrnes. Byrnes must be well aware that the causes of heart disease are quite a complex interaction of different factors, and singling out one, albeit important one, such as meat consumption in cultural comparisons without taking into account these other factors is likely to lead to confusing results. Meat is high in certain saturated fats which, compounded by one or more of the following factors — high stress levels in the body, genetic factors, high blood pressure, sedentary lifestyles, diabetes and smoking — will cause problems in the body such as thickening of arterial deposits. Vegetarian diets high in dairy and cheese products are often just as bad at putting these types of fats into our bodies and so are little healthier (vegetarians tend to live more conscious lifestyles, however, which reduces some of the other factors in heart disease). Vegan diets, on the other hand, are significantly healthier provided that they include essential fatty acids in the diet (from seeds and especially flax seed oil). A healthy vegetarian diet can actually reverse the symptoms of arteriosclerosis as has been used successfully in many a raw food clinic.

Cancer: As with heart disease above, the cause of cancer can be quite complex, involving several factors. As Byrnes correctly points out, comparisons between different groups can be meaningless if most other factors are not taken into consideration, which is why many of the studies undertaken in this area of research seem to throw up conflicting information. That said, most dietetic researchers would agree that a vegetarian diet does significantly reduce certain forms of cancer, especially colon and stomach cancer. Apart from the carcinogenic content of cooked and processed meats in the intestinal system, this may be due to the higher immunity (100% higher NK cell activity) that German researchers have found in vegetarians. Another factor might be acidosis — the tendency of meat based diets to have an acidic effect on the internal environments in the body, something which actually encourages cancer cell growth. Examples of this cancer causing effect of meat are as follows: a study of 35,000 older women which showed that those with diets high in meat and animal fat, especially hamburgers, doubled the risk for lymph node cancer — also known as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. And the Journal of the National Cancer Institute recently (1999) published research that indicated a link between high animal fat intake and prostrate cancer. In fact, every year more evidence is gathering as to the link between high meat consumption and cancer, which is why the American Cancer Society recommends, amongst other things, that to help reduce cancer, people need to "choose most foods from plant sources, limit intake of high-fat foods — particularly from animal sources." Byrnes' focus on religious groups is misleading as, similar to heart disease, other causative factors such as stress, relationships, background radiation, pollution, genetic disposition (many religious groups tend to keep quite genetically isolated). Although, just because there are other factors at work, does not mean that meat is not one of them!

Myth #6: Saturated fats and dietary cholesterol cause heart disease, atherosclerosis and/or cancer, and low-fat, low-cholesterol diets are healthier for people.

This, as Byrnes rightly points out, is not a vegetarian myth and is one that many researchers now agree with. (A vegetarian diet can be just as high in saturated fats as a meat based diet, although cholesterol is only found in animal products.) Personally, as a vegetarian, my preference has always been for butter over margarine any day as the hydrogenation process undertaken in the manufacture of margarine (poisonous nickel or other heavy metal catalysts are also used) produces a lethal cocktail of trans fatty acids and metal residues. Traditional margarines are one of the unhealthiest substances that we can take into the human bodies.

Fortunately, the dangers of trans fatty acids are only now starting to be acknowledged and in some countries maximum levels have been set (less than 0.1%) and margarine manufacturers are producing healthier products — although those in English speaking countries may contain a much higher amount (30-50%!). However, for many decades, margarine has been unfortunately cited as the healthy alternative to butter, and much damage has been done as a result. This may well be why some studies of certain groups of vegetarians show just as much atherosclerosis as meat-eaters. That said, the homogenisation of dairy milk is certainly cause for alarm as it increases the absorption of a substance called Xanthine Oxidase which destroys arterial walls, helping plaque to build up. Once again, the factors involved in atherosclerosis are complex and to single out saturated fat per se without any other consideration is foolish. More research certainly has to be done in this area, preferably with non-margarine eating vegans.

Myth #7: Vegetarians live longer and have more energy and endurance than meat-eaters.

Byrnes rightly points out that although vegetarians tend to live healthier lifestyles, it is difficult to ascertain whether increases in longevity are due to dietary influences or overall lifestyle choices (that include diet). Overall, vegetarians do live longer than meat-eaters, but there are so many other factors involved in longevity — such as genetics, culture, physical activity, beliefs, smoking, alcohol consumption, etc. — that is almost impossible to pin down the exact role that diet has. Studies that match people in all these influences tend to be small in scale (due to the difficulty in finding matches) and so statistically less significant.

Byrnes quotes Dr. Russel Smith's study as showing that a meat diet was healthier for "some" study groups. But with so many interrelated factors to take into consideration this sort of confusion and contradiction is what we might expect in comparing dissimilar groups of people. As Tarasuk and Brooker write in the September 1997 edition of the Journal of Nutrition, "A dietary factor which appears to be important may simply be acting as a proxy for some other factor which has not been measured but which is also commonly found in the dietary patterns observed… unless both factors are considered, it will be difficult to discern the true dietary effect". They go on to state that, "To be considered causal, an association between a specific dietary factor and disease occurrence should be observed consistently across a number of population-based studies, conducted by different research groups in different settings. Conclusions cannot generally be drawn from a single study." There is little point, therefore, in Byrnes quoting isolated studies whilst ignoring the main accumulating body of evidence.

Much of Byrnes' article focuses on the work of Dr. Weston Price, a dentist who did a tour of the world in the early 1930s to understand the effect of modern diet on teeth and health. (Byrnes is on the honorary board of directors of the Weston A. Price Foundation, so it is no surprise to see him base much of his article on Price's work.) Price noted that the traditional peoples around the world, who ate their traditional diets, were much healthier and had fewer dental cavities than their modern counterparts. He noted that much of the food they ate was raw and that they included animal products in their diets.

The problem with Price's work is that it was undertaken 70 years ago, in cultures that are very different from ours. Price, as with scientific understanding of his day, did not grasp the complexity of health and so relentlessly pursued a simplistic diet-based causality in his research, whilst ignoring many other factors such as genetics, lifestyle, physical exertion, mortality rates etc. Indeed, being a dentist, he may not have been the ideal person to judge how healthy an individual was outside of tooth health (which is not necessarily the best indication of health as malnourished people often have few cavities.) His research did indicate, as many others' have before and after him, that a modern diet of processed foods, high in sugar and refined flours, is decidedly unhealthy. We all know that. It is also undeniable that the less processing foods go through, the healthier they are to our bodies. However, drawing the conclusion that Price's research indicates that a meat-based diet is healthier than a vegetable-based diet is to draw a very weak inference from his observations, especially considering that "Price was on the lookout for a vegetarian culture, but he came up empty"—so he had nothing to make a comparison with. (In Price's day, vegetarianism was also unheard of in Western society, and so he would hardly be researching it per se.) Even just from a tooth cavity point of view, meat is not necessarily healthier as New Zealand has one of the highest per capita consumptions of meat in the world and yet suffers from some of the worst tooth decay. Byrnes also mentions that the largely vegetarian Hindus of southern India have the shortest lifespan in the world, but that is due largely to extreme poverty, extremely high infant mortality rates, overcrowding, and poor sanitation.

What Price does not mention is that many of the traditional people he examined had and continue to have shorter life expectancy than modern people and far higher infant mortality rates. When we see traditional people living to a very healthy old age it is easy to forget that for each one of them there are many others that died a lot earlier. Traditional lives are extremely tough which tends to weed out the weaker individuals, so that the old that survive tend to be stronger and healthier than the average Westerner of a similar age.

As for "fat-loading" before an athletic event, short one week periods of high fat diets may shave off a few seconds from an athletic performance as the body has become adapted at burning fat more efficiently, but to do this longer term is definitely not a healthy option. Fat adaptation is also unlikely to be the answer to increasing everyday stamina for non-athletes.

Myth #8: The "cave man" diet was low-fat and/or vegetarian. Humans evolved as vegetarians.

There is no evidence that early humans were vegetarians, and it is very likely that most had hunter-gatherer diets that included a lot of meat. (The fact that certain essential nutritional factors such as B12 which can only be found in animal product diets indicates that humans must have had meat-based diets for considerable period of time.) When survival is difficult and you can't digest cellulose, you need to be able to be quite flexible in terms of diet. Of course, what is essential for survival is not necessarily what is best for health: the biological success of a population depends only upon its reproductive success, not on overall lifespans and health into old age. In fact, animal product diets are known to shorten the time to reproductive maturity. So just because the diet on which humans developed was likely to be predominantly meat-based and very high in fat, does not mean that this diet is the most healthful for people today for whom overall health and longevity is at least as important as reproductive success.

Having said that, the meat and animal products available to most of us today are a far cry from those eaten by our ancestors. Today we live longer, sedentary lifestyles with exposure to a huge array of toxins and chronic psychological stresses. Under these conditions a Palaeolithic diet may not be as healthful as some popular diet books would suggest. Humans may well have had extended periods during their evolution on a meat-based diet, but we are a long way from having the physiology of carnivores. Evidence is suggesting that a vegetarian diet, with the appropriate vitamin and mineral supplementations, may well be the most healthful diet that we could possibly choose for living today.

Myth #9: Meat and saturated fat consumption have increased in the 20th century, with a corresponding increase in heart disease and cancer.

Meat and diary products in the early part of the 20th century are very different product to what we see on our supermarket shelves today. The mass production of these foods has meant that processing techniques have had to be introduced which had not only allow "fresh" products to appear in all supermarkets nationwide, but makes them quite deadly in the process. And of course, other processing that has gone on with other products makes modern processed food poisonous biologically. (Even raw cuts of meat are rife with bacteria, parasites and toxins.)

So there is little point making comparisons of heart disease and cancer rates with people living 100 years ago. The only point that Byrnes can rationally make is that cleanly produced meat, with a low bacteria, parasite and toxin level, was not a primary cause of heart disease and cancer for the average person living in the context of life in the first half of the 20th century and before. Today is quite a different matter, and new research, rather than invalid historical comparisons, is necessary to find which group of factors is important for modern societies.

Myth #10: Soy products are adequate substitutes for meat and dairy products.

Soy products are not the health food that they are currently being marketed as, and Byrnes does all of us a favour in reminding us of this fact. Nexus Magazine published a very good article on the dark side of soy products here and there is a great site dedicated to the whole issue here. The problem is that the soy industry, which has grown extremely rich supplying much of the world's animal feed, has jumped on the health bandwagon and are using their huge political and economic clout to push soy as a health product. There are, however, alternatives to soy, including oat and rice milks which are a tasty alternatives to indigestible soy milk. Soy beans are also more likely to have been genetically modified, but that is another issue!

Myth #11: The human body is not designed for meat consumption.

Like that of other primates, the human digesting system can cope with many different diets, including meat-based, vegetarian (although some vegetable matter needs to be cooked to release the nutrition), fruitarian and omnivorous. Humans seem to be remarkably adaptable to different diets. Quite what we have been "designed" for is open to conjecture, and probably the most accurate statement would be to say that we have been designed to be quite flexible in our diets.

Anatomical comparisons are useful only as a rough guide of what food types we can cope with or not (for example, we do not have a ruminant, and so we could never be grazers) but in nature, the rule of the game is survival to reproduction and not optimum life-span and wellbeing. Our pretty universal digestive system has been pivotal in making the human species one of the most successful on this planet, and also means that we have the design to pretty much choose which diet we want to follow (although the more restrictive the diet, the more the possibility that certain nutritional needs will not be met).

Myth #12: Eating animal flesh causes violent, aggressive behaviour in humans.

The statement that Byrnes makes in brackets in the following quote is astonishing. He states, "the fear and terror (if any; see Myth #15) an animal experiences at death… " If any??? I am sure if Byrnes visited to a modern abattoir he would describe the very visible fear of these poor animals as "a simple autonomic response to an unfamiliar environment". And he mockingly says that this supposed fear "somehow" gets transferred to the flesh and organs. This is from a doctor who must be well aware of the hormone system in the body, and that fact that adrenaline and other hormone levels in the deceased can give an indication in autopsy of stress levels at time of death. As for Price's note of extreme happiness and ingratiating natures of the peoples he encountered, considering that Byrnes states that Price didn't find a single totally vegetarian culture, this observation cannot be used to condone a meat-based diet, but probably does say something about primitive society and culture.

Myth #13: Animal products contain numerous harmful toxins.

It is accepted scientific fact that animal products are potentially a lot more toxic than vegetable products. They do contain parasites, salmonella, hormones, nitrates and pesticides. As Eric Schlosser reports in his book Fast Food Nation, "A serious of tests conducted by Charles Gerba, a microbiologist at the University of Arizona, discovered far more fecal bacteria in the average American kitchen sink [from meat] than on the average American toilet seat. According to Gerba, "You'd be better off eating a carrot stick that fell in your toilet than one that fell in your sink." And there is little point stating that some of these toxins are also in "commercially raised fruits, grains and vegetables" as the vast difference in levels and extensiveness makes the comparison misleading. Animals concentrate pesticide levels in their feed and toxins in the environment, and are exposed to extremely toxic chemicals during their lives. Animal products are also far more susceptible to bacterial infection. And although theoretically true, it is a very weak assertion that "Salmonella can be transmitted by plant products as well. " When a family member or friend gets food poisoning, the first thing we think of is what meat, eggs or dairy products he or she might have eaten!

Much of the toxic levels in animal produce are a result of how the meat is produced, handled, and how old it is when it is eaten. There is little point bringing up Price's observation of health in traditional societies that eat meat (often raw) because there are so many other factors to take into consideration that comparison to the modern diet is invalid. Byrnes then discusses Pottenger's observation that a raw meat diet is better than a cooked meat diet for cats, which of course has nothing to do with whether meat is good for you or not, but more to do nutritive destruction by heat. His point that the cats feed cooked meats had numerous parasites where as those that ate raw didn't seems misplaced considering that just a paragraph earlier he states that "Parasites are easily avoided by taking normal precautions in food preparation."—which presumably means cooking.

Finally, Byrnes harps on about Mark Purdey's very probable theory on the cause of BSE and how it was caused by organophosphates and "not cuased by cows eating animals parts in their food". This is a little odd as investigative journalist, George Monbiot, states in an article supporting Purdey's theory, "Mark Purdey accepts that the horrible practice of feeding dead animals to cows has a role in the development of the disease."

Myth #14: Eating meat or animal products is less "spiritual" than eating only plant foods.

Religions have grown over the generations and have had to endorse a meat diet because under the circumstances of the past, a vegetarian diet was often not feasible for the survival of the nation. But now, as people become more aware of diet and its impact in terms of the suffering of animals, more are choosing to minimise their impact. Religions evolve, and today there are strong groups of Christian vegetarians (and I am sure they are aware that Jesus ate meat), Jewish vegetarians (the Chief Rabbi of Ireland, David Rosen, has stated that "the consumption of meat is halachically unacceptable."), Hindu vegetarians (in fact there are more faith based vegetarians in India than any other place in the world) and Muslim vegetarians (the Prophet Mohammed stated that it "there is a meritorious reward for kindness to every living creature".)

The Dali Lama comes from a Tibetan monastic culture where meat was an important for survival, and yet he has stated that given the choice he prefers a vegetarian diet because it minimises the suffering of other creatures. The world does move on as it becomes more aware. Israel, for example, has now the largest number of faith based vegetarians in the world outside India — and this is a country that that Byrnes rightly points out has involved meat in its religious rituals for thousands of years!

Byrnes comes up with an unusual justification for meat-eating by stating that if we didn't eat meat, the "life force would become cancerous". Presumably by the same reasoning, we should congratulate ourselves on our healthy homicide rates. What strikes me about Byrnes's response here and in the next section is its total lack of compassion and empathy. This is an intellectual response — cold and academic — and one can see why such a man has difficulty understanding why some people should be vegetarians, outside of the intellectual stance that "philosophical problems with animal flesh must be respected".

Myth #15: Eating animal foods is inhumane.

Without question, MOST commercially raised livestock live in deplorable conditions! There is no need to go to Korea to find animal suffering for it is endemic to the Western agribusiness system that supplies 90% of our animal food supplies. (If you don't believe me, just visit your average slaughter house or factory farm.) There is little point Byrnes stating that "our recommendations for animal foods consumption most definitely do not endorse such practices" because it would be impossible to supply a whole nation with meat from small "humane" farms. There just isn't the land or the profitability for that sort of luxury. So by recommending an animal diet, you can only but support cruelty to animals.

It is also remarkable that Byrnes' only complaint against commercial farming is that it produces "an unhealthy food product". He goes on to recommend organic production because it is "cleaner and more efficient". Not a single word about animals' feelings and wellbeing outside of affecting the quality of the finished product! Clearly Byrnes is a man who sees animals as meals on legs. (His choice of links at the end of his article show his lack of compassion towards animal suffering.)

Of course it is possible to raise animals humanely, but is the brutality in killing them ever humane? It is naïve of Byrnes to state that dairy products and eggs are somehow separate from this deadly trade when under the current system that supplies just about all our eggs and dairy products (including the organic industry), when an animal is no longer able to sustain a ridiculously high level of milk or egg production, they are immediately killed for their meat. (Egg-laying chickens also have their beaks cut off so that they don't peck each other in the cramped conditions in which they are invariably raised.) Dairy production, egg production and the meat industry are part of the same process in most farms. And his weak observation at the end that the growing of crops involves many animal deaths anyway is a bit like saying that because some people die under medical care that we should not bother caring at all. Byrnes once more shows himself to be completely unable to understand a heart-felt intention.

Perhaps the best judge on inhumanity is someone who has suffered it to the extreme. Edgar Kupfer wrote in Dachau, a Nazi concentration camp, "I refuse to eat animals because I cannot nourish myself on the suffering and by the death of other creatures. I refuse to do so because I have suffered so painfully myself that I can feel the pains of others by recalling my own sufferings."

Biochemical, Genetic Individuality and Conclusion

There is metabolic variance within the human species which means that there is no one diet that will suit everyone. Usually, it is best to follow your instincts when it comes to choosing food, but these can often be warped by the addictive quality of high fat, high sugar and high salt fast food that so many of us gorge ourselves on today. Byrnes is right in saying that humanity evolved on a diet that often had a significant meat content. But it does not necessarily follow that following that sort of "caveman" diet will necessarily be healthful, as the animal products today are entirely different from those of times past, and modern man has to cope with many other factors such as pollution, an extended lifespan, higher health expectations into old age, chronic stresses, drugs (both prescription and recreational), sedentary lifestyles, and dietary foods (such as margarine and milk) that are extremely unhealthy. Quite what the consequences of this modern cocktail of factors is to our health must be investigated by science today, and not by completely invalid historical comparisons, where these other factors, including genetics, are completely ignored.

Evolution is about species survival, and does not have a much to do with optimising either lifespan or health after reproductive years. Often some of the most badly nourished and unhealthy societies on our planet have the highest population growth rate, which from an evolutionary point ensures the survival of the species. Natural selection only selects for those that are fittest in reproducing. But modern society is entirely different. The weaker ones of us are not weeded out as they were in primitive societies with their extremely high infant mortality rates, and we grow up in a world with entirely different biological stressors. And after giving birth, most modern women expect to live at least another 30 to 50 years or more. The sort of diet that is optimum for this sort of existence is unlikely to be the same as that of our Neolithic ancestors. What is more, the density of people living on the planet now requires entirely different methods of food production, methods that could never supply us with the diet of a hunter/gatherer — a diet that requires vast areas to feed small numbers of people.

Should we include some animal products? If we are a vegetarian, it is perfectly possible with modern supplements (such as B12 supplements among others) to get all the factors that we need and still maintain an almost complete vegetarian diet. In this way suffering on the planet can be minimised. Just because the whole human race cannot be completely vegan without some supplementation (either artificial health supplements or with some animal products) does not mean that vegetarianism is unhealthy or that that we should not bother because it is an unattainable ideal. (Human rights is an ideal but because universal recognition of them is currently unattainable in the world does not mean that we should not strive for their application.) Our existence, even a vegan's, is very much dependent on animals (even car tires contain gelatine). But only an uncivilised society would not try to minimise the suffering of other creatures. Given the technology that we have, and our dietary know how (which could always be better but is certainly workable), it is now perfectly possible to be vegan and still be healthy. In fact, there the bulk of evidence does indicate that vegans and vegetarians have lower mortality from certain degenerative diseases, although more research needs doing.

Byrnes quotes H. Leon Abrams at the end stating that vegetarians "suffer from debilitated conditions of health". This is only true when vegetarianism is combined with extreme poverty (in a resource sense of the word), so that the diet is not only completely inadequate but there are numerous other factors leading to ill health. (Unless one has the land resource to hunt and gather, meat eaters can often be just as undernourished when faced with a lack of resources.) One such place that has this combination of poverty and vegetarianism happens to be India, which has the most vegetarians of any society in the world. It is pointless drawing the conclusions that vegetarians are unhealthy because most of them (which happen to live in India) are unhealthy. The only reliable comparison can be made with vegetarians who share our society, and they are at least as healthy, if not more, than their meat-eating counterparts.


Pur essendo molto moderato (non eco-estremista pazzo) e seriamente attento ad alcune considerazioni sollevate da Byrnes, l'articolo evidenzia la malafede o la pochezza di argomentazioni su moltissimi punti del suo "famoso" articolo di demitizzazione della dieta vegetariana. Cosa che lo porta inevitabilmente e ingenuamente a creare lui stesso dei contro-miti che non si reggono da soli. Senza aggiungere la totale mancanza di compassione verso la sofferenza animale.


Riporto da sopra (mith #15):

Citazione:

Citazione:

é normale...bisogna riabituare il palato ai sapori veri e non al sapore datoci dal glutammato, dagli esaltatori di sapidità e soprattutto dai grassi saturi!


Citazione:


ma bella mia! In un libro di mille e passa ricette ti sei scelta proprio quelle asiatiche o macrobiotiche??

Citazione:

Ma chi ti ha suggerito di acquistare prodotti così cari? forse è meglio iniziare con le splendide ricette della nostra cucina mediterranea, molte delle quali sono già vegetariane se non vegan! Il cucchiaio verde non è un buon libro, ti suggerisco quelli di ricette vegan che ti spiegano com'e' facile (e buono) cucinare con piccoli accorgimenti e sostituzioni. Eccone alcuni

Per quanto riguarda il prezzo, anche io ci tengo molto. Ma avendo eliminato pesce, carne, uova, latte e formaggi e considerando che cereali e legumi (anche bio) sono tutt'altro che cari, riesco a bilanciare e a permettermi l'acquisto di frutta e verdura bio per esempio.

Citazione:


Alga Kombu


È un'alga ricca di polisaccaridi e minerali come ferro, calcio, iodio, magnesio, e viene raccomandata in casi di sclerosi, nel trattamento delle artriti, nell'iper e ipotensione, negli squilibri ghiandolari, nelle malattie polmonari, e cardiovascolari, malattie della tiroide, come anche nella prevenzione delle malattie degenerative.

Tale alga è ricca di acido alginico, forte sostanza collosa che sostiene la struttura della pianta e che la rende abbastanza flessibile tanto da sopportare l'andirivieni della risacca , tipica del suo habitat naturale.

L'acido alginico di per sè non è digeribile ed ha un forte potere legante, agisce come un depurativo naturale dell'intestino, raccogliendo le tossine lungo le pareti del colon e consentendo la loro naturale eliminazione; la kombu rinforza anche gli intestini e una preparazione giapponese di nome shio-kombu è stata usata per molti secoli come rimedio per la colite. La shio-kombu si prepara ammollando la kombu e tagliandola in quadratini, cucinandola con shoyu ed acqua finché non sia morbida e l'acqua non sia del tutto evaporata. Qualche pezzetto, servito ai pasti, è più che sufficiente.

La kombu è anche ricca di acido glutammico, versione naturale della sostanza aromatizzante detto glutammato monosodico, oggi sintetizzato chimicamente a partire dalla melassa.

La kombu contiene anche due zuccheri semplici: glucosio e mannitolo, importanti per i diabetici, poiché non elevano il tasso di glucosio nel sangue.

È una delle alghe più ricche di iodio e per secoli i cinesi l'hanno usata per curare il gozzo. In Estremo Oriente, la kombu è consumata regolarmente.

Contiene anche certi amminoacidi che agiscono da leggeri stimolanti delle membrane mucose e del sistema linfatico ed ha una funzionalità regolatrice dell'alta pressione sanguigna, specialmente negli anziani. Poiché promuove un assorbimento ed una distribuzione equilibrata delle sostanze nutritive nel corpo, la kombu è anche benefica sia per le persone in sovrappeso che in sottopeso, aiutandole a ripristinare il peso ottimale. Dei quattordici elementi essenziali per un corretto funzionamento metabolico dell'organismo umano, tredici sono presenti

Pare abbia buone potenzialità...

"ora io mi chiedo, se con tutti gli ingredienti (parlo di vegetali et simili) che ho a disposizione in questo occidente generoso, io debba caricarmi di sostanze che non hanno nulla a che fare con le mie latitudini e il mio palato"
++++++++++
qui va molto a gusti.
per parte mia, non vedo perche' limitarsi agli alimenti tipici di una certa zona, nel momento in cui esiste la possibilita' di reperire anche cose di altri paesi e di informarsi su di esse.

Bandit scrive :per parte mia, non vedo perche' limitarsi agli alimenti tipici di una certa zona, nel momento in cui esiste la possibilita' di reperire anche cose di altri paesi e di informarsi su di esse...
certo, bandit... nulla vieta.
Però... personalemente, preferisco affidarmi ai prodotti autoctoni e raccolti in stagione.

Un esperimento ogni tanto lo posso pure fare... ma perchè devo "torturare" il mio palato e quello dei miei familiari, tutti i giorni?

Tu l'hai assaggiata l'alga kombu?

"Tu l'hai assaggiata l'alga kombu?"
++++++++
si' Bianca e non mi e' piaciuta, ma sono abbastanza sicuro di aver fatto casino io nella preparazione. quando capita ci riprovero'.
invece consumo abitualmente la nori e la dulse (e mi piacciono).
tempo fa in una pescheria trovai delle alghe "nostrane" che assomigliavano anche come sapore ai fagiolini verdi. purtroppo non ricordo il nome.
comunque sono robe che "devono" piacere, nel senso che sono d'accordo con te quando dici che se e' una tortura, tanto vale lasciar perdere.
a me, cibi e sapori di paesi lontani hanno sempre incuriosito, per cui...

Capiamoci Bandit,
io non ho nulla contro le alghe, né contro un certo tipo di alimentazione.
Volevo solo sottolineare che spesso, non è così semplice, per vari fattori, seguire uno stile.
Tra i vari fattori non trascuro naturalmente l'abitudine, e parlando personalmente, anche l'inclinazione a "mangiare come parlo".

Citazione:

Farò una domanda di ordine pratico e forse non di ordine etico: «Come ve la cavate da vegan quando dovete viaggiare per lavoro o andate in vacanza o mangiate al ristorante? Trovate sempre cibo per nutrirvi? E tutti quegli alimenti dove ci sono uova e burro ad esempio dolci , biscotti, salse etc…? ».

Capita spesso di trovarsi in luoghi dove è difficile reperire frutta e verdure.

Si è costretti a mangiare cereali, sempre che si trovino, o riso e nessuna proteina: non si rischia l’obesità?

I bambini cresciuti vegetariani, non vegani, quindi con l’ammissione di derivati del latte come il burro e i formaggi e le uova tendono alla obesità o almeno questo è quello che ho visto.

L’alimentazione vegetaliana o vegan è senz’altro la migliore: ma non comporta sacrifici notevoli e a volte il digiuno all’ estero?

Se si mangia a casa propria e si cucina tutto quello che si mangia si riesce a rimanere ligi alla alimentazione , ma se si viaggia cominciano i problemi, soprattutto di portafoglio. O no?

Non serve andare lontano, basta andare in Germania o in Inghilterra, non parliamo della Svizzera o del Giappone o dell’ Australia.

Dopo un viaggio dove non si trovavano verdure, legumi , soia, frutta e cereali a sufficienza, sono tornata a mangiare il pesce (sic).
Credevo di finire all’ ospedale, invece è andato tutto bene.
Ma c’è un piccolo problema e cioè che percepisco sempre quando il pesce è di allevamento e nutrito con farina di carne () e smetto di mangiarlo.
Ormai il mio senso del gusto, il mio palato, è abituato da troppo tempo a non mangiare carne.

Lo so è stranissimo che un vegetaliano torni dopo tanto tempo a mangiare carne, anche se di pesce, soprattutto dopo avere disintossicato il corpo per così tanto tempo. Da lì il passo è breve, mangio anche uova e carne bianca.

Quindi non sono più vegana e nemmeno una vera vegetariana, da pochi anni ( ) .

Pena l’obesità o il digiuno.
Nemmeno la cosiddetta “dieta mediterranea” funziona: troppa pastasciutta!

Migiu
Citazione:

Si vede che tu mentre posti i tuoi miliardi di links (ignorando quelli che li smentiscono a volte, ma fa niente) dimentichi di leggere i post altrui...

Ho scritto abbastanza chiaramente (poi mi scuso se non so esprimermi in modo tale da farmi capire, questo è un altro effetto delle proteine animali forse sul mio cervello) che se devo parlare con una persona vegana che parte dal presupposto che il suo stile di vita sia l'unico in grado di salvare il mondo passo, non mi interessa.
Io ho questa impressione del tuo atteggiamento, quindi passo.

Conosco persone vegetariane, non vegane, ci parlo tranquillamente, su molte cose si va anche d'accordo, ma partono (almeno un paio) da presupposti totalmente diversi dai tuoi. Questo mi conforta sul fatto che forse non sono io a non essere in grado di reggere una discussione su questi argomenti...

Ivy, te l'appoggio.

Citazione:

Cara Ivy
scusa se ho postato tanti link, ma se rileggerai con attenzione i vari post sono stato attaccato e/o deriso da più persone. A memoria ricordo il post orribile di Linucs (che nulla c'azzeccava). E' stata la prima risposta figurati! eppure non mi conosceva affatto, perche' un attacco gratuito? e soprattutto nei confronti di un forumista appena entrato?
Poi c'e' chi mi ha dato del visionario, ecopazzo, pieno di problemi...chi ha preso in giro parlando delle "scorregge" delle mucche, chi ha postato foto di bambini moribondi come se fossi io la causa del loro terribile stato. Sono stato da solo (a parte daemon) ad affrontare questi personaggi, mentre altri per fortuna sono più aperti a discussione e confronto.Non volevo creare un simile scontro, ciò che conta sono le informazioni, i links verso studi scientifici (ecco il perche' di tanti links) solo così si può discutere seriamente e, perche' no, animatamente!
Sai spesso parlando a dei "convinti" consumatori di carne, pur approcciandoli con maniere gentili e spontanee, si ricevono indietro delle risposte incattivite, quasi li stessimo offendendo a morte... Ma come possiamo volere l'offesa di qualcuno se propongo (proponiamo) anche una alimentazione SALUTARE?
Continuo a ritenere che non si voglia guardare relamente a ciò che c'e' nel piatto, questo il motivo del veleno e della derisione.
Se sei rimasta delusa abbandona pure la discussione, mi dispiace. Spero che qualcun'altro più bravo di me riesca a farti capire quanto salutare, allegra e coscienziosa sia la scelta vegetariana/vegan. Se sono stato così acceso è perche difendo una mia teoria, perche ci credo realmente..se fossi solo dubbioso non sarei stato qui. E' la stessa passione con cui difendiamo la tesi "alternativa" all'11 settembre. Eppure un paio di anni fa avremmo deriso colui che ce l'avesse proposta e difesa così attivamente. Un saluto

c'e' chi mi ha dato del visionario, ecopazzo, pieno di problemi...chi ha preso in giro parlando delle "scorregge" delle mucche, chi ha postato foto di bambini moribondi come se fossi io la causa del loro terribile stato. Sono stato da solo (a parte daemon) ad affrontare questi personaggi, mentre altri per fortuna sono più aperti a discussione e confronto.

Ammazza che piagnone!

E sì che da queste parti se ne sono visti parecchi, ma tu sei un fuoriclasse!

Sarà la dieta vegetariana? riequilibri i liquidi in questa maniera?

Citazione:


Ciao nike13 e grazie per le tue domande davvero molto pertinenti!

La risposta è che col tempo ci fai l'abitudine ed è sufficiente leggere l'etichetta per scartare prodotti con burro e uova. Molto spesso i dolci e le merende te le puoi portare con te..noci, mandorle e frutta essicata sono davvero ottimi spuntini durante un viaggio. Per cio' che riguarda i ristoranti, dipende molto dal luogo in cui vai: in Germania ed Inghilterra la percentuale di vegetariani e vegan è molto ma molto più alta che qua. Ne consegue che si troverà sempre un ristorante con delle opzioni senza carne o latte, appositamente create per vegetariani. in Italia -tanto per cambiare- il processo è molto più lento: solo da poco una catena di autogrill ha inserito nel proprio menù delle portate per vegetariani. Forse qualcosa si sta smuovendo. Anche l'odiato McDonald sta puntando molto sulle insalate (ma è mera operazione di marketing..).


Citazione:

Non trovare insalata e frutta è un bel problema anche per chi è onnivoro, visto l'importanza che hanno... Se vuoi un consiglio i cereali ed anche il riso andrebbero consumati integrali, in modo da ricevere tutte le sostanze nutritive presenti nella "buccia" e che scompaiono con il processo di raffinazione (quello per intenderci che fa diventare bianco il riso..). I cereali integrali sono ricchi di proteine ed alcuni -come il grano Kamut- competono benissimo con la carne!

Citazione:

Hai ragione!! e sai perche'? perche' questa infondata paura di carenze alimentari -ad esempio proteine- porta i neo-vegetariani a consumare larghissime quantità di latte e formaggi, con conseguente aumento dell'obesità (tra le varie conseguenze). La dieta onnivora è già iperproteica e non serve aver paura di carenze che non potranno mai esserci passando alla dieta veg.

Citazione:

Sì, a volte sacrifici ci sono, ma chi è che non è disposto a farne se c'e' in gioco la propria salute (volendo rimanere nel proprio orticello...).


Citazione:

ma infatti!! come hai fatto a riprendere? il sapore della carne -quando si sta molto tempo senza mangiarne- diventa disgustoso...

Citazione:

davvero nike13 se il tuo problema è l'obesità, punta molto sui cereali integrali (riso, pasta, pane, farina ecc).Elimina tutti i prodotti raffinati, con particolare riguardo allo zucchero bianco! Avrai sicuramente maggiori benefici!

Citazione:


Azz..hai vinto tu!
lo sapevo che mi avresti dato del piagnone o del vittimista, volevo anticipare io questa tua scontatissima osservazione!

tu invece mi sa dovresti smettere col 3x2 della Yomo

lo sapevo che mi avresti dato del piagnone o del vittimista, volevo anticipare io questa tua scontatissima osservazione!

Peccato! Ritenta, sarai più fortunato!

Citazione:

Per quanto mi riguarda queste affermazioni non sono esatte,perchè ragiono in grande scala,ossia vedo in maniera globale il problema,e risolvere una piccola parte non significa che si risolva tutto,anzi si corre il rischio di peggiorare ulteriormente e creare nuovi problemi.
Tutto è collegato nella ns.società moderna,fatta di profitto su larga scala e quando si insiste,come fai tu nell'aver trovato la panacea nel vegan,ci vedo dietro molte altre cose annesse,connesse ed indotte.
Finchè ti limiti ad affermare che alcune persone ne possono trarne giovamento non discuto,ma ciò non è applicabile in toto a tutti perchè dimentiche quelle problematiche da me fatte notare,magari con sarcasmo,che che non puoi negare che siano vere.
Se ti limiti al fatto personale,io ti rispondo personalmente che avendo problemi di salute i legumi,di cui sono ghiotta,non li posso mangiare,così pure i latticini e certe verdure. Ma se tu parti a razzo come una crociata,non ci stò e fare il paragone con l'11/9 non ci azzecca niente.

sinceramente io non vedo dove sia il problema.
mgiui2 non ha mica proposto una legge che impone a tutti lo stile vegan.
ha semplicemente fatto un po' di pubblicita' ad una cosa cui crede, che e' cosa del tutto lecita. chi vuole puo' confrontarsi, chi vuole puo' informarsi, chi non vuole, quale che sia il motivo, puo' cambiare canale.

Evidentemente Bandit ti sei perso qualche post

Salute a tutti,vediamo se riesco a impressionare qualcuno...con questa tirata visionar-futurista-mangereccia che mi risponda,almeno... lacerando l'indifferenza che sembra avvolgere i miei post sui vari argomenti.. Allora, io credo,spero:Nel mondo che verrà,dopo le grandi "tribolazioni" ci sarà rispetto per tutti i viventi,animali e vegetali compresi,che quindi non useremo più come cibo (morto).. La razza umana superstite ed evoluta,sarà infatti in grado di trarre le energie necessarie al sostentamento della macchina-corpo da alimenti chimico-sintetico artificiali che conterranno tutte le sostanze necessarie e utili per il benessere psico-fisico delle persone che sapranno scegliersi le "diete" più confacenti... Va da sè che in uno scenario del genere l'allevamento del bestiame e la coltivazione dei vegetali,sarebbero superati e anzi resi" tabù", con le grandi implicazioni positive che un fatto del genere comporterebbe,non ultima quella di affrancare dal duro lavoro milioni e milioni di allevatori-coltivatori...Spariranno stalle e fienili e al loro posto avremo tanti laboratori che sforneranno benefici asettici pastiglioni... che ne dite? accetto qualsiasi tipo di commento..

che ne dite? accetto qualsiasi tipo di commento..

Dove si firma?

Paxtibi,son contento che ti piaccia questa utopistica mia visione... Citazione: ma nel registro collettivo dell'immaginario,ovviamente..
O.T. come và ad Atene? ci sono stato una volta,tanti anni fà,mi ricordo la Placca Turca,una gran folla e tanto smog...Ciao..

Citazione:

Ciao Migiu2,
il mio problema non è l’ obesità, ma grazie per avermelo chiesto! Non sono poi così superficiale! Anche perché penso che l’ obesità e anche il sovrappeso sia frutto di un “vizio” alimentare, di qualsiasi tipo sia, anche quello di nutrirsi di cereali anche se integrali per giorni.

Citazione:

Capita che finisci durante il viaggio i fichi e le noci () e quando arrivi in qualche altro paese diverso da l’Italia o la Francia dove abbondano le verdure e la frutta, l’ unica verdura che trovi sono le patate o le pannocchie e devi comprare una cassa di frutta al primo mercato che trovi, tenertela in camera d’ albergo e mangiare quando torni da un ristorante o dopo una giornata di lavoro. E c’è da sperare che non ti invitino al ristorante dove farai finta di mangiare e se potessi nasconderesti il cibo in borsa per non offendere , come accade in certi paesi, chi ti invita.

Il problema è che dovresti avere una casa dove cucini tu o chi per te in ogni luogo e forse riesci, forse, a rimanere “purista”.

Conclusione il problema etico esiste fintanto che tu stesso riesci a sopravvivere nutrendoti come dovresti , ma capita che non puoi; si dovrebbero cambiare molte più cose anche il tipo di lavoro ad esempio e stabilirti in un luogo, rimanerci, e cucinare i tuoi pasti vegani.
Non vorrei essere stata troppo drammatica , ma questa è l’ esperienza personale di anni.

Quindi evitando la carne rossa in assoluto compresi i derivati del latte come burro , latte stesso e formaggi il compromesso c’è stato; mangio pesce e qualche volta uova e carne bianca , selvaggina per lo più. Questo non mi fa cambiare idea su il fatto che parte dall’ individuo il nostro contributo nei confronti del “regno animale”, “vegetale” e “umano”. E soprattutto nei confronti di noi stessi.

Migiu,
posso capire che le risposte di alcuni ti possano sembrare dure, ma le mie fanno parte di quelle?
Per quanto a volte sicuramente le mie risposte non siano state tenere, lo ammetto, non ti ho mai detto che sei "ecopazzo", visionario, problematico... Assolutamente.
Anzi, se rileggi i miei post capirai che la mia critica verso il mondo vegan non è assolutamente "etica", anzi...
Io mi pongo problemi pratici, che ho dovuto affrontare personalmente, e che non ho potuto risolvere con il metodo "vegetale", tutto qui.
Poi io non amo particolarmente la carne, se poi parliamo di quella "rossa" figurati, eviterei proprio di mangiarla. Ne mangio poca e perchè obiettivamente mi serve: pensi sul serio che ritenga un vegan pazzo?
Per questo l'unica critica che ho mosso e che continuo a muovere è sempre la stessa, e cioè: è inutile colpevolizzare chi mangia carne per fargli capire le questioni legate alla scelta vegan.
Per quanto quelle questioni possano essere valide, ed alcune lo sono, cosi non passeranno mai, e poi si leggono i post a cui ti riferivi tu...
E' inutile citare 100.000 links "medici", perchè ce ne sono altrettanti che dicono il contrario, o comunque che li ridimensionano...
In qualche post si era scritto, non tutti i medici la pensano nello stesso modo (poi c'è chi pensa che la diversità di pensiero dipenda solo da interessi economici, io non penso sia cosi).
E' l'approccio, come ho già detto, che secondo me è scorretto.
Poi con me si può parlare secoli, io non diventerò mai vegetariana e tantomeno vegana, ma non per questo ritengo di essere la causa principale del disfacimento del pianeta.

Poi, per favore, non paragoniamo questioni imparagonabili...
11 settembre è un'altra cosa, e lasciamo la questione fuori da questo thread...

Citazione:

Ciao nike13
mi viene spontaneo osservare che se molti avessero il tuo regime alimentare sarebbe già un grande risultato! Come vedi non sono un estremista che vuole convincere tutti al vegetarianismo stretto! Certo che se tutti riducessero il consumo di carne (conosco gente che la mangia regolarmente a pranzo e a cena e sportivi che si portano il petto di pollo in palestra..) forse si aprirebbe qualche spiraglio in più nel mondo dell'informazione.
Dico questo perche' l'argomento -se ci fai caso- non viene mai trattato se non in presenza del professore di turno (Cannella -sapevo che è legato a qualche industria ma mi devo informare) che ci mette in guardia sui rischi che possiamo correre. Ma stranamente non citano mai gli ormoni, le amine eterocicliche, le tossine, ptomaine, l'acidificazione del sangue derivati dal consumo di carne.

Per quanto riguarda la storia dei viaggi di lavoro..beh si tratterebbe di una piccola % dei lavoratori totali. Se proprio non trovassi nulla potresti mangiare ciò che vuoi, nessuno ti punta la pistola contro, non è mica una religione estremista, non trovi? già per il fatto che hai eliminato carne rossa, burro e formaggi vuol dire che hai avuto una bella presa di coscienza ed hai compiuto una scelta importante. Almeno dal punto di vista salutistico. Un saluto

Citazione:

Il fatto è che le tematiche che entrano in gioco con la scelta dell'uomo di nutrirsi di carne e latte sono talmente tante che anche solo esponendole sembra di "colpevolizzare" l'onnivoro di turno, che si sente caricato e/o accusato di responsabilità che nella maggior parte dei casi -e qui si è visto- tende a respingere con fermezza o derisione o ironia...

Citazione:

Ok tieni presente pero' che ci sono dei dati innegabili che nessun medico o articolo potrà cammuffare, mi riferisco ad esempio alle condizioni di vita indegne degli allevamenti, al carico di sostanze nocive presenti nel latte e nella carne (ormoni, pesticidi, grassi saturi......mucca pazza, polli alla diossina e i prossimi che arriveranno), all'inquinamento ambientale degli allevamenti ed al fatto che per 1 chilo di carne ci vogliono 10 chili di vegetali e fino a 100000 litri di acqua potabile...questi sono dati reali ed alcuni dei quali si sono manifestati a noi tutti in maniera plateale (vedi mucca pazza).
L'importante è che si abbia la percezione di questi fatti, poi ognuno sceglierà con la sua testa cosa è meglio per sé ed i propri bambini.