Switching to a Vegetarian Diet

[Created4]

TRADITIONAL Asian diets do not have large concentrations of soy. Looking at what modern day Asians eat is kind of pointless, since the whole world follows what Americans do now. Again, look at the research. The research is prevalent. Everyone in America is already consuming large amounts of soy because it is in everything, so most people are trying to reduce their consumption of soy, not increase it. Soy protein and their plant-based estrogen is the cause of many modern health problems, particularly hypothyroidism in females. Did you even read the article at the link? Written by an Asian doctor...

I didn't say to make it the main part of your diet, I just said that it is healthy to eat once in a while because it is a complete protein. As long as you eat other proteins as well, I think you're fine.

Secondly, I don't buy that it CAN'T be eaten on a regular basis, I just don't recommend it because perhaps, for some people (and maybe not all people) it may have a negative impact in large quantities.

Soy milk and tofu are all over the place in asia, and there are a lot of dishes from there that have tofu. There are a lot of Asians who are vegetarian for religious reasons, and many eat tofu somewhat regularly. I've heard the argument that there aren't, I just don't believe it based on my experiences.

 

[sratiug]

There are so many books out there. it is rather easy to pit them against each other. For example: Go Read the Blood Type diet, according to that author: grains are ideal for certain blood types (A), dairy is ideal for (B), meat is ideal for (O).

Yeah, there are lots of books. But very few with actual facts. Peskin's book is well documented with facts from medical textbooks and journals that are overlooked and over-shadowed by bad studies.

Grains are not good for anybody. You may as well eat sugar. Complex carbs only delay the insulin response a few minutes.

From the October14, 2000 edition of Lancet - "The people eating the most fiber get the most colon cancer". The fiber found worthless to protect against colon cancer was the highly promoted soluble fiber.

Textbook of medical physiology 9th edition page 834 - "No enzymes capable of hydrolyzing [breaking down] cellulose [fiber] are secreted in the human digestive tract. Consequently, fiber cannot be considered a food for the human being."

Journal of clinical nutrition, 2000, 71:466-471 - "Women eating the most fiber and the lowest amount of fat had the lowest calcium retention."

According to the textbook of medical physiology there is only about 1 teaspoon of sugar in your blood stream. Five grams of carbs dumps another teaspoon of sugar into your blood which must be removed by insulin and stored as fat to keep you from dying. Carbs overload your pancreas which has only 1% of its mass devoted to carbohydrate processing. Only 1% of your body is carbohydrate and carbs are not vital to any function of your body. Your body makes sugar as needed from fats and protein.

The Textbook of Medical Physiology - pages 869, 871, 936 - "Specific sugars [carbohydrates] ARE NOT REQUIRED in the diet".

What is required is fat and protein, and Peskin emphasizes getting a 2.5 ratio of unadulterated parent omega 6 oils to parent omega 3 oils. Hemp oil is a good source.

 

[trey4sports]

its all bullshit. Eat what makes you feel healthy and tastes good.

 

[specsaregood]

Yeah, there are lots of books. But very few with actual facts. Peskin's book is well documented with facts from medical textbooks and journals that are overlooked and over-shadowed by bad studies.

Grains are not good for anybody. You may as well eat sugar. Complex carbs only delay the insulin response a few minutes.

Yes, well facts and medical findings change over the years, the book I mentioned is filled with citations and quotes and references to journals, studies, etc -- hell what decent book isn't?. If you are interested, read the book, if not that is your choice. I think it is clear that no diet works for everybody.

 

[Yieu]

Vessol, I am very glad that you are choosing 'The Non-Aggression Principle Diet'. I'm glad to hear you chose the Non-Aggression Principle Diet too, Bryan! +rep to both! Applying the non-aggression principle (a principle which I firmly believe originates from ancient religion, and is known as ahimsa in Sanskrit) is quite a liberating experience -- especially karmicly, and spiritually. I don't consider eggs to be vegetarian (though dairy is), but it's a step closer towards it.

I do not understand why The Non-Aggression Principle Diet so often attracts unwarranted attacks from those who do not follow or understand it, but don't let it bother you! I tend to dislike discussing the subject because people often baselessly attack the idea that humans can be just as healthy without flesh, but if it can be discussed civilly without attacks, that would be enjoyable. There is a nice informative book called "You Don't Need Meat", and another titled "The China Study" which show how meat is purely optional, and never a nutritional requirement for any human of any blood type. DISCLAIMER: I am not saying it is wrong or less healthy to eat meat, feel free to eat meat if you desire, but just realize that is not eaten for health reasons -- it is eaten purely for the taste preference and that's fine, but it is important to understand that there is nothing in meat that the human body requires that is not easily found in plants or milk. Anyway, arguing against the vegetarian diet in a thread about becoming vegetarian is a distraction from the topic, and is off topic. It would be nice to stay on topic.

Anyway, back on topic -- the non-aggression principle, or ahimsa, applies to all living entities. It is easier to realize this from a religious or spiritual understanding, which I believe involves a more full and detailed understanding of the ethics or karma behind applying the non-aggression principle to one's every action and diet. The spirit/soul is what animates the body with life; without spirit/soul, a body would be a dead, lifeless lump of flesh. The same kind of spirit/soul that animates humans, animates all other living entities in the same way, thus compassion for all living entities and not just for other humans makes sense in a religious or spiritual context. This is explained nicely in the following verse:

Chapter 5, Verse 18.
The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [outcaste].

Image depiction of the verse.

It goes deeper still, into spiritual philosophy, which is explained nicely by the Vedas. All religions can appreciate the non-aggression principle, and the diet which results from following it. Though it is more clearly expounded upon in some religions more than others, the essence of the instruction is there in all.

 

[sevin]

If the non-aggression principle applies to all living things, then do animals have the same rights as humans? Should animals in zoos be set free? Should humans stop building on new land because it drives out the animals that live there?

 

[Yieu]

If the non-aggression principle applies to all living things, then do animals have the same rights as humans? Should animals in zoos be set free? Should humans stop building on new land because it drives out the animals that live there?

While the non-aggression principle applies, one must also keep in mind the differences between the animal kingdom and human civilization. The rules of karma do not apply to animals between each other the same way it applies to all human actions. The difference between humans and animals is that we have a greater capacity for intelligence, and thus for civilization -- but the whole purpose of our intelligence is for understanding God/Krishna. Therefore, our intelligence is meant to be applied toward that end.

Animals do not have "rights" in the same way that humans do, as many of our rights are a reflection of our intellect, but when a humans aggresses upon animals it does bring negative karma upon them because it is a violation of ahimsa, the non-aggression principle. Those rights which are a reflection of the soul are universal, such as the right to life. Animals do not have to follow the non-aggression principle, because they are governed by the rules of the animal kingdom, so it is not so terrible for a lion to kill a gazelle. But for humans there is a different set of standards for interaction with other beings, and it is based on spiritual principles.

One can keep a pet without merely keeping it being an act of aggression. This can be applied to zoos too, unless perhaps if the zoo is directly harming the animal in some way. Study the laws of karma (which can be read about in Vedic texts), and the answers of what is aggression and what is not aggression will become more clear.

 

[amy31416]

One can keep a pet without merely keeping it being an act of aggression. This can be applied to zoos too, unless perhaps if the zoo is directly harming the animal in some way. Study the laws of karma (which can be read about in Vedic texts), and the answers of what is aggression and what is not aggression will become more clear.

You'd like Kruger National Park in South Africa. I always described it as a "reverse" zoo, where the animals roam pretty much freely, and the humans are in the cages for purposes of observation.

It's pretty nifty, the camps have like 30ft fences around them (monkeys can still get in), and once you're driving on the trails, you are strictly forbidden from getting out of your vehicle, for obvious reasons. They give some basic training on how to deal with confrontations with elephants, rhinos, hippos and other animals who can harm you even in a vehicle. It was an amazing place to go.

First animal I saw upon entrance:

Now that's quite a rack!

 

[Yieu]

Sounds like fun! Merely by observing animals, even without studying religious or philosophical texts such as the Vedas, one can clearly see that they are animated by the same type of essence/soul that animates us, if you know how to look. They are not dead machines, they are alive with personality. Nature is so beautiful, because it was designed by God and He can be seen throughout it.

 

[dannno]

I demineralized due to soy and now have two front teeth broken off. One from pizza crust and the other from a chicken wrap with stale chicken. I have done every diet and am now back to what i ate as a kid and never got a cavity from, walked miles to school and back and often ate no lunch. Steak, burgers fried in butter, all grass fed, with chicken and fish, alot of berries, concord grape juice and fruit like peaches and bananas. I love bread but am allergic to gluten..not bad but enough to give me swollen eyes and heartburn. I know folks who it will make them walk with a cane they are in so much pain. Frankly, I feel healthy and strong again. But my genetic is northern european forests so I am basically eating the diet my ancestors did for 50k+ generations. I think my trying to switch to a completely different ungulate diet after only two or three generations was a mistake for me and my teeth and muscles cost dearly from that. I am now getting younger and stronger. I use veggies for medicine.

Rev9

What is your blood type?

 

[dannno]

TRADITIONAL Asian diets do not have large concentrations of soy. Looking at what modern day Asians eat is kind of pointless, since the whole world follows what Americans do now. Again, look at the research. The research is prevalent. Everyone in America is already consuming large amounts of soy because it is in everything, so most people are trying to reduce their consumption of soy, not increase it. Soy protein and their plant-based estrogen is the cause of many modern health problems, particularly hypothyroidism in females. Did you even read the article at the link? Written by an Asian doctor...

No, a lot of Buddhists and Hindus are vegetarian. It has nothing to do with western culture and everything to do with religion. I keep hearing these arguments, but they don't make any sense to me.

 

[specsaregood]

You'd like Kruger National Park in South Africa. I always described it as a "reverse" zoo, where the animals roam pretty much freely, and the humans are in the cages for purposes of observation.

OffTopic: one of the best purchases since our kid arrived was a family annual-pass to the local zoo. It makes for inexpensive family outings and something to do when all the out of town relatives/friends show up to see new member of the family.

 

[Yieu]

No, a lot of Buddhists and Hindus are vegetarian. It has nothing to do with western culture and everything to do with religion. I keep hearing these arguments, but they don't make any sense to me.

This is all true. Humans have been vegetarian for as long as they have eaten meat as well. Vegetarianism is as ancient as meat eating, and abstaining from flesh is primarily due to religious morals (such as observance of the laws of karma (good deeds and sins), but it goes deeper). Hinduism, being the oldest religion, has rooted the moral principle of vegetarianism for over 5,000 years (this is as long as Western history is willing to look back, but it goes much, much further).

But aside from that, the person you replied to primarily was talking about soy. I want to make it clear that it is not necessary to have soy to be vegetarian, and Hindus (and some Buddhists) have thrived healthily for thousands of years without having to rely on soy. Soy has of course been used for thousands of years for Asian vegetarians including Asian Buddhists, and it is not as bad as some demonize it to be. But having soy is not necessary by any means to be vegetarian, there are plenty of other beans to eat too, if you really don't like soy, even though it's not that bad.

 

[sratiug]

Yes, well facts and medical findings change over the years, the book I mentioned is filled with citations and quotes and references to journals, studies, etc -- hell what decent book isn't?. If you are interested, read the book, if not that is your choice. I think it is clear that no diet works for everybody.

Real science doesn't change over the years. I read the book ten years ago. I've read many books on health and nutrition. Brian Peskin's are the best. Here's what he has to say about the blood type diet in his book "The 24 Hour Diet".

"If you are interested in science, forget this theory. The very concept that you need to understand 50 or more foods that are good for you but not for me is lunacy. Think about it - do animals get different diets based on blood type? Don't embarrass yourself by asking your veterinarian this question."

Of course now that pet foods have moved to carbohydrates diabetes and cancer are becoming as prevalent in dogs as they are in people. People are much closer to wolves in their dietary needs than sheep. Don't be a sheep.


The fallacy that complex carbs are better than sugar was proven wrong long ago.

British Journal of Nutrition 2004 June - "There was no association between Glycemic Index and Insulin Index (the amount of insulin generated)...
"In conclusion, the present results show that the GI of mixed meals calculated by table values DOES NOT predict the measured GI."

Total insulin generated is the key factor, and the only way to reduce that amount is by reducing carbs.

Textbook of Medical Physiology 4th edition page 908 - "Carbohydrates slow the metabolism compared to consuming natural fats and proteins."

Textbook of Medical Physiology pages 974, 975 and 977 - "An excess of carbohydrates in the diet not only acts as a fat sparer (you won't burn your own bodyfat) but also increases the fat in the fat stores (making you fatter). In fact, all the excess carbohydrate not used (immediately through strenuous exercise) for energy or stored in the small glycogen deposits of the body is converted to fat and stored as such."

 

[sratiug]

I demineralized due to soy and now have two front teeth broken off. One from pizza crust and the other from a chicken wrap with stale chicken. I have done every diet and am now back to what i ate as a kid and never got a cavity from, walked miles to school and back and often ate no lunch. Steak, burgers fried in butter, all grass fed, with chicken and fish, alot of berries, concord grape juice and fruit like peaches and bananas. I love bread but am allergic to gluten..not bad but enough to give me swollen eyes and heartburn. I know folks who it will make them walk with a cane they are in so much pain. Frankly, I feel healthy and strong again. But my genetic is northern european forests so I am basically eating the diet my ancestors did for 50k+ generations. I think my trying to switch to a completely different ungulate diet after only two or three generations was a mistake for me and my teeth and muscles cost dearly from that. I am now getting younger and stronger. I use veggies for medicine.

Rev9

Textbook of Medical Physiology - "...protein functions in ... these cells to transport calcium into the cell cytoplasm... The rate of calcium absorption seems to be directly proportional to the quantity of this calcium-binding protein."

Lack of protein is one of the significant causes of osteoporosis. More calcium cannot correct a protein deficiency. I've seen this personally in my aunt who insisted on eating lots of mineral leaching fiber and grains and became stooped nearly to the floor and is now bedridden despite taking calcium supplements religiously.

 

[Acala]

I'll not go down the road we went in another recent thread. So I will just say WATCH YOUR FATTY ACID INTAKE! You MUST keep your omega 6/ omega 3 ratio around 3/1 or even 1/1. If you don't, you WILL adversely impact your nervous sytem. A recent scientific study shows measurable brain shrinkage in vegans, almost certainly for this reason.

The standard American diet (SAD) has an average ratio or 20/1 or more. This is because they put high omega 6 oil in EVERYTHING! Corn oil, canola oil, safflower oil, all bad news. Olive oil, coconut oil, and palm oil (all unmodified of course) are good. Hemp oil also has a good balance IF you strictly control your other sources of Omega 6. The problem is that omega 6 and omega 3 compete for limited metabolic pathways. If you have too much omega 6 it will overwhelm the omega 3. The result will be, among other things, the production of inflammatory compounds. So just boosting omega 3 with, for example, fish oil or kelp, will not do the job. You have to control omega 6.

So I suggest trying to eliminate all vegetable oils other than olive, coconut, and palm. And if you won't eat seafood, eat kelp.

Good luck!

 

[Yieu]

I'll not go down the road we went in another recent thread.

Thanks for not going down that road. This time your advice was not so targeted. I agree, fatty acids are important. Some of the best sources are flax oil and hemp seed oil. If you want to avoid certain vegetable oils, ghee (clarified butter) is a great cooking oil and augments vegetable dishes with a delicious buttery flavor.

As for the general discussion of anti-vegetarian talk... why bother? All it does is attack those who are just trying to live peaceful lives, it isn't friendly. Just try to accept that meat is an option that we can either live with or without, and we'll all get along peacefully without problems. Attacking vegetarians just because you don't want to accept their dietary preference is unnecessary, just stirs up trouble, and is way off topic.

 

[sratiug]

Fish oil is mostly derivatives of the parent omega 3 oil that is vital and thus it is not very healthy. Flax and hemp oils are much better.

 

[Yieu]

Fish oil is mostly derivatives of the parent omega 3 oil that is vital and thus it is not very healthy. Flax and hemp oils are much better.

I agree. Flax oil is wonderful, so is hemp oil. Fresh flax oil tastes kind of like almonds -- it's a little strange at first, but if you get a good brand and it's fresh, it can taste alright, just have a tablespoon of it in the morning.

 

[dannno]

Real science doesn't change over the years. I read the book ten years ago. I've read many books on health and nutrition. Brian Peskin's are the best. Here's what he has to say about the blood type diet in his book "The 24 Hour Diet".

"If you are interested in science, forget this theory. The very concept that you need to understand 50 or more foods that are good for you but not for me is lunacy. Think about it - do animals get different diets based on blood type? Don't embarrass yourself by asking your veterinarian this question."

That's a bad argument against the blood type theory, although I don't believe that blood type is an absolute indicator of what your diet should be in my experience talking with people it is a good indicator. In other words, blood type itself may have nothing to do with diet (or maybe it does?), but the fact that it is an indicator of where you came from is often helpful for helping to determine what type of diet you thrive on. It's possible that rabbits from a certain region might thrive on certain plants, while rabbits from another region thrive on different types of plants. If you can tell the difference by what their fur looks like, great, if you can't tell the difference by their fur, but you could tell the difference between these rabbits based on blood type it would be the same thing.

People who have type A+ GENERALLY do better on a vegetarian diet, more often than not. Those who have O+ GENERALLY do better on a primarily meat based diet, more often than not. These two blood types often have difficulty with the other type of diet.

Other blood types generally are able to be more flexible, but some should be weary of grains or dairy, etc. It's true that many people of certain cultures often cannot handle milk or grains very well, so I don't see how this doesn't make sense or help us at least be able to try things with our diet that can help lead us in the right direction.