Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Plant-based Diets Login/Join
 
posted Hide Post
Question #Veg.32 What is a list of some dangers of excess protein.

1. Surplus protein ends up being stored as fat. Both meat and cheese have much more fat then protein in them.
2. Animal protein usually contains excess fat and excess cholesterol, these increase the risk of chronic diseases such as: arthritis, diabetes, cancer.
3. “According to a report by the National Research Council, fat is not the only thing that promotes tumor growth. At the very least, the cancer-stimulating effects of excess fat and protein may turn out to reinforce each other.” (Food and Nutrition Board) Moreover, the extra ammonia that results from the breakdown of excess protein has even been thought to hasten cell proliferation and to contribute to the development of malignant growths.” (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition)
4. “Researchers (Journal of American College of Nutrition) have shown that even purified animal protein, devoid of cholesterol, when substituted for vegetable protein, is associated with a significant rise in serum cholesterol.”
5. Protein breaks down into ammonia and urea both of which are possible toxic nitrogen by-products. Ammonia is carcinogenic and urea promotes arthritis. “Dr. C. L. Elvehjem in ‘Amino Acid Supplementation of Cereal’ warns that twice the daily requirement of certain amino acids in food leads to toxic cell disturbance. Dr. Bieler states that one of the main sources of over acidity in the body is an excess of amino acids which disturbs the nitrogen balance.”
6. The sulfur by-product needs alkaline reserves to neutralize it, yet most people’s Standard American meat-based diets, are acidic.
7. Bone minerals, calcium and magnesium are used to neutralize sulfur causing a loss of these bone minerals, and possibly causing osteoporosis. (Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery)
“Throughout the world, the incidence of osteoporosis correlates directly with protein intake. In any given population, the greater the intake of protein, the more common and more severe will be the osteoporosis. In fact, the world health statistics show that osteoporosis is most common in exactly those countries where dairy products are consumed in the largest quantities - the United States, Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.” (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition)
8. “One study showed that even a daily 2,300-milligram supplement of calcium could not compensate for the mineral-robbing effects of excess protein, and many other studies have documented the adverse effects of excessive protein intake on calcium loss as well. (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition; Journal of Nutrition)
9. Amyloid deposits cause degenerative changes, a shorter lifespan and premature aging from excess protein.
10. Cooking meat creates mutagens which alters the DNA of a cell increasing the risk of cancer and other degenerative diseases.
11. Research suggests that excess protein can be damaging to the kidneys and that high-protein diets may well contribute to the decline in kidney function that occurs as one grows older, usually this is attributed to old age. “It is important to recall that current experiments suggest that excess protein can be damaging to the kidneys. (New England Journal of Medicine) Researchers also feel that high-protein diets may well contribute to the decline in kidney function that occurs as one grows older and that has been attributed to normal aging.
12. Other studies suggest that diets high in animal protein increase one’s risk of kidney stones and gallstones. (Clinical Science)
13. The world’s food reserves are used up faster by those who eat excess protein since meat protein takes far more food reserves then does vegetable proteins. A person can live on one acre of soy protein but it takes 8 acres to live off of meat.
14. Meat stirs up lust, anger, greed and other negative passions of the soul, which increases violence, rape and murder. Monastics referred to the negative passions of the soul concerning meat eating and thus many were vegetarians.
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Plant-based Health and History

Question #Veg.33 What about vegetarian detoxification and health?

To have a superior healthy vegetarian dietary lifestyle has two parts: Diet and Detox. This two-fold system is necessary for a person to attain Superior Health. It is one thing to take the right foods in but it is also necessary to detox and get the wastes and poisons and toxins out of the body too. In a way diet and exercise is learning to manage your personal energy. As we move along we learn to use whatever is needed to get the maximum energy needed for our life. Whereas half the battle is getting the nutrients in the other half is the detox and getting out what should come out.

Detox means detoxification and also the detoxification system. The natural way everybody detoxifies is through defecation and urination, sweating and sneezing, etc. But because of our diet and other things these natural ways are not enough anymore. But there are other ways and here are some of the other commonly used methods of detoxification.

1. Exercise and Aerobics.
2. On a daily basis drink lots of water.
3. Fasting (once a week and a yearly long fast)
4. Enemas and Colonics.
5. Sauna’s and hot baths.
6. Massage, Dry Skin Brush Massage and Reflexology.
7. Polarity Therapy, Acupuncture...
8. Herbs and Supplements that detox.
9. Living Food diets can be helpful in detox.

There is a little known system in the body called the detoxification system. We have many different systems in the body: the respiratory system; the cardiovascular system; the gastrointestinal system; the musculoskeletal system; the endocrine system; the nervous system; the immune system; and the detoxification system. This is a biochemical system used to clean out toxins in the body. But in order for the detoxification system and most other body systems to work properly the right amount and kind of nutrients are needed.
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Question #Veg.34 What is the Ideal or Perfect diet for humans?

The ideal diet is found in the Garden of Eden, but we cannot go back to there so we accommodate and get close to it which is 100% Living Foods. The ideal diet would be the 100% Raw Living Foods Vegan Lifestyle, with organic produce. But this ideal could be difficult to achieve for some and for others a transition period may be needed, and others may have a hard time obtaining organic produce. In addition the consensus of the Living Foods community varies as to the exact nature of a raw living foods lifestyle. Some emphasis only 100% raw others, 95%, others 80/20. Some emphasize no grains others limited use of grains.
Some emphasize only organic others it doesn’t matter that much. Some exclude certain foods, others use all types of foods. Some exclude any use of supplements others encourage it. But the Living Foods community consensus is much closer and better defined then the medical and academic community on diet.

Consensus in the medical and academic community takes a long time. It took 30 years to prove that high cholesterol levels cause heart disease. A more reasonable holistic approach is to consider the animal and cell culture studies data as preliminary since some of these are controversial and could be wrong (ex. Shark cartilage to reduce cancer). When there’s a majority of clinical studies present then there is a very good chance it is true. Good science should be based mostly on clinical studies. For over 40 years studies (scientific, cross-cultural and historical) have been done on vegetarians and have proven time and time again that a vegetarian diet is healthier, yet the majority of the medical and academic community does not listen.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jim T.,
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Question #Veg.35 What about the different dietary schools of thought?

Most every book that you pick up on health food emphasizes that there are some foods that are good for you and some foods are not very good for you. Or perhaps it would be better stated, some foods and diets are very good, some are just O.K. and some are very poor for individuals. Most of these books try to move people away from eating meat and fat, processed and cooked foods, to a more vegetarian diet. There is some real truth in these facts and beliefs.

Different cultures require different dietary patterns for their country. Moreover each individual has slightly different physiological needs, genetically. Even seasonal changes; fall, winter, spring, and summer have different demands on the human body and would require a different dietary need. On top of this is the need for individual healing that may require a certain dietary orientation for a while. Thus there is not one diet that is the perfect diet, individually or globally. As an old saying goes, one shoe does not fit all. But some are better than others.

There are dozens of schools of thought and many books have been written on these. Most of them can be put into categories or clusters of theories and practices. We are not interested in the many meat-based diet schools of thought, for reasons stated. Raw food cuisine has shunned the stigma of “health food” and is becoming known as a new exciting food group that is actually superior to health foods. And it brings superior health, beyond what the standard American diet or even health food diets can bring. And there are well known professionals in the field that give the movement validity and a solid foundation.

A distinction needs to be made from the Whole Living Foods Vegan movement and the vegetarian movement that has been around for many years in many different ways. These are two different dietary lifestyles or clusters. Most of these vegetarian diets out today would fall more into the Health Food Diet cluster but some of the stricter vegetarians and the vegans could be considered the Raw Vegan or Living Foods Diet cluster.

I would hypothesize that there seems to be three basic clusters of dietary health, one on top of the other. Within each circle are numerous smaller groups of the various Nutritional Schools of Thought and Theories. Like a snowman with three balls of snow one bigger at the bottom a smaller in the middle and a small head at the top.

The first, highest and healthiest cluster of dietary theories are the Vegan and Raw Vegan Diets which has a very small following, it is not easy living in the world today to live up to those standards. By Raw I mean Raw Living Foods, a little to no cooking, at least 80/20 or above (80% raw, 20% or less cooked or processed. Raw live fruits and vegetables are the basis.

The second cluster is the Health Food Diets cluster which is growing bigger and used by most people in the preventative health field today. This is a mixed bag and is composed of numerous health food oriented diets and practices and schools of thought. What puts them in this category is that they all have different variations of cooked and processed foods with an emphasis on grains as the basis.

The third and largest cluster is the Standard American Diets (SAD) cluster which is where most people are involved today, unfortunately it is a diet of slow suicide through poisons and toxins in foods. This is the standard meat and potatoes, with milk and cookies diet of the U.S. population. The SAD diet is the Standard American Degenerative Diet.

There is a natural tendency in our bodies to evolve but this takes time. The important thing is to start moving your diet from the Standard American Diet to a Health Food Diet that would be a great accomplishment in and of itself. Then follow your Heart and move into the Raw Food movement and Living Foods. A Raw or Live-Foods diet is superior and optimal to other dietary lifestyles; it is the best diet and brings the most health and longest life.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jim T.,
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Question #Veg.36 Is there a historical progression of health movements?

Yes, there is a historical progression. The history of clinical nutrition can be divided into four distinct eras: the first began in the nineteenth century and extended into the early twentieth century when it was recognized for the first time that food contained constituents which were essential for human function and that different foods provided different amounts of these essential agents.

The second era was initiated in the early decades of the twentieth century and might be called “the vitamin period.” Vitamins came to be recognized in foods and deficiency syndromes were described. In the third era of nutritional history in the early 1950's to mid 1960's, vitamin therapy began to fall into disrepute. Concommitant with this, nutrition education in medical schools also became less popular.

As this educational vacuum developed, due to the reduced emphasis on nutrition in medical institutions, it was filled by lay nutritionists and individuals who purported to have miracle cures using nutritional remedies. As a result, in the 60’s and 70’s have seen a reputation surrounding nutrition grow as a “soft science” with little relevance to clinical medicine as long as a person is consuming foods from the four food groups.

Due to the recognition of the relationship of disease to the malnutrition of overconsumption/ under-nutrition, there has been a winning back of the sympathies of many health practitioners as to the importance of nutrition in terms of reflection upon the total diet and the impact of diet on specific individuals in the prevention of nutrient-related syndromes. This signals the fourth period of nutrition evolution in the early 1980’s, which has witnessed the reintroduction of nutrition courses within the curricula of many schools training health practitioners and a new heightened emphasis on nutritional biochemistry and the role that nutrition can play in a total preventive health-care program. Raw vegan and Living Foods started in the 70’s and 80’s.

Now a fifth era of nutrition has opened up in the 1990’s in the area of the Raw, Living Foods Vegan movement, not only in terms of personal health but also in terms of clinical application. It is the highest and most optimal form of dietary lifestyle. Raw Living Foods have been around since the time of Adam and Eve in the Garden and people though-out history have eaten this way. But in the last twenty to thirty years (1980’s to 2013) this era of nutrition has matured both in science and in the practice of the Live-Foods culinary arts.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jim T.,
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Question #Veg.37 Is religion a factor with plant-based diets?

Most of the major religious leaders were vegetarian or close to it. See Jim Tibbetts book: Jesus and Mary were Kosher Vegetarians, the evidence from the Bible, the early Church and Nutrition.

One researcher noted: “Those people who are observant of a religious faith (regardless of which particular sect or denomination) enjoy lower incidence and mortality than the general population. Regular attendance at church services has been associated with lowered mortality from several chronic diseases. The possibility that some aspect of spiritual life or some other lifestyle highly correlated with spirituality explains the lower cancer risk in religious denominations that espouse vegetarianism must be considered.”

The Seventh Day Adventists are a group that has been studied because of their beliefs and diets. In a medical journal, Dr. Jeremiah Stamler, a cardiologist was talking about lifestyles and demonstrated with statistics on death rate quotes. He noted that: “An additional comparison has recently become available, with data on mortality for three groups of California Seventh Day Adventists (non-vegetarian, lacto-ovo-vegetarian and pure vegetarian) compared with the California general population. Seventh Day Adventists have lower mean serum cholesterol levels than Americans generally. For 47,000 Seventh Day Adventist men (aged 35 and over, age-sex-standardized) mortality rates were 34% lower for non-vegetarians, 57% lower for the lacto-ovo-vegetarians and 77% lower for the pure vegetarians compared to the general population. The results were evident that the strict dietary standards of the Adventists made them much healthier. The Adventist men had a heart attack mortality rate only 12 percent that of the average California male. Lung cancer was reduced 80 percent; uterine cancer in women was reduced 46 percent. In nearly every major disease, Adventists ranked well below the average in risk. And they lived an average of ten years longer than the average Californian.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jim T.,
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
...Protection to the Environment
.
Question #Veg.38 Is animal protein a problem for the environment?

Bal tashchit, is a Jewish law or tenet which means to give protection to the environment. Protection of the environment (bal tashchit) means that the earth is the Lord’s and the people are partners and co-workers with God in protecting the environment. “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.” Ps 24:1

Another ‘bal taschit’ definition is that it means, Conservation of Resources. Waste or unnecessary destruction is prohibited as given in Deuteronomy 20:19-20,
which prohibits the destruction of fruit bearing trees (in time of warfare).

Global Warming has three main causes:
Automobiles, Industry and Cattle!

Pollution and CO2 from cars and industry is well understood but the third reason cattle and the meat-based diet needs some explanation. Feeding massive amounts of grain and water to animals on factory farms, trucking the animals around slaughtering them, and refrigerating their bodies so that they don’t rot wastes a ton of energy. In fact, producing 1 calorie of meat uses more than 10 times the amount of fossil fuel that it takes to produce 1 calorie of plant foods, like beans, veggies, and grains. Some of the main problems with the environment which are either directly or indirectly related to a meat-based diet are as follows.

A person can live on one acre of soybeans but it takes 8 acres for a person to live off of animal products. Figuring the fossil fuels in concerning animal production and sales it takes upwards of 15 times over plant-based fossil fuel productions.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jim T.,
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Question #Veg.39 What does the United Nations say about animal foods?

According to the United Nations, raising animals for food is ‘one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.

On C-Span (4/2012) there was a conference on; “Global Renewable and Sustainable Energy Development,” by the Center for Global Development. A number of professionals in this field spoke including the United Nations Secretary General: Ban-Ki-Moon. He explained that today “we are using 1.3 times the earth’s resources that we have.” “If we continue this way, it’s like we have 5 planet earths, what we are doing is acting as if there is no tomorrow.” “The leaders are most important, it is important to have leaders commit themselves to change.”

He stated that he was speaking to finance ministers from around the world and stated that, “challenges are of such immense magnitude that it requires nothing more than paradigm shifts, in order to achieve a green economy.” “We have to change our behavior patterns since we have limited resources.” He explained that we are heading towards a tipping point (for the worst) in climate change. Of the different issues he listed one was the food crisis another was water resources. “The power of partnership is needed for this endeavor.” He and others spoke at this event.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jim T.,
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Question #Veg.40 What about land and water usage concerning meat?

One source stated that a person can live on one acre of soybeans for a whole year, but for a cow it takes 8 acres of land to provide protein for one person for a year; this is a 8 to 1 ratio. Another source cited below gives a 12 to 1 ratio. Even though there is a debate in the math, it is at least 8 to 1.

“There is only about one acre of agricultural land on this earth, per person, at the present population level. One fourth of an acre or less is needed to feed a person if he lives on a vegetarian diet. But three acres or more are needed if he depends on animal protein for food. (a) While one acre will produce, as beef 77 days’ worth of protein for a man, the same acre would produce 236 days of protein in milk, 877 days in whole wheat, or 2,224 days in soybeans. (b)”

“A beef animal must consume one hundred calories to produce ten calories in meat. It takes twenty-one pounds of protein fed to cattle to get one pound of protein in return. Pigs and chickens do a little better, but averaging all classes of food animals, eight pounds of protein in feed are required to get one pound of protein in return.”

Animal agriculture uses 70 percent of the world’s agricultural land and 30 percent of the planet’s total land area.

Water Usage
“Another matter: More and more, water is being recognized as a resource in short supply. An all-vegetarian regimen requires 300 gallons of water daily for each person. A mixed animal and vegetable diet requires 2,500 gallons daily per person. The cost of water per pound is 25 times that of the cost per pound of vegetarian food.”

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jim T.,
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Question #Veg.41 What about medical expenses and animal consumption?

Medical costs are indirectly related to the environment. The annual medical costs in the United States directly attributable to smoking: $65 billion. The annual medical costs in the United States directly attributable to meat consumption: $60-120 billion. This figure greatly increases if the costs of degenerative diseases is added since a lot of evidence shows a meat-based diet is a primary cause or one of the causes of diseases like heart disease.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jim T.,
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Question #Veg.42 What about CO2 pollution increasing and animals?

Methane is a ‘greenhouse gas’ which traps about 25 times as much solar heat as CO2. Annually the world’s 1.3 billion cows produce about 100 million tons of methane.

The U.S. lost 70 million acres of forest land during 70 years last century, over two thirds of it to grazing land. In Latin America, the demand for cattle grazing land is the cause of the ongoing destruction of the tropical rain forest. About a 1000 acres a year are lost in Latin America. All of this caused increased CO2 and reduced Oxygen levels.

The greenhouse effect of the destruction of the ozone layer is caused in large part by pollution from cattle. “Loss of forest land in the United States is a serious problem, rapidly getting worse. In 1900, there were about 509 million acres of non-federal forest land in the United States, but by 1950 this had declined to 420 million acres, and in 1975 it had declined further to 376 million acres. (a) Analysis of use conversion between 1967 and 1975 reveals that most conversions of forest land were to grazing land. We lost 70 million acres of forest land during this time, over two thirds of it to grazing land. (b)” “What is the cause of the ongoing destruction of tropical forest? In Latin America, the demand for cattle grazing land is probably the dominant factor.”

“Every nation’s relative contribution to global warming includes the United States (30.3%); which is responsible for more greenhouse gas pollution than South America (3.8%); Africa (2.5%); the middle East (2.6%), Australia (1.1%); Japan (3.7%); and Asia, India, China (12.2%), all put together. All of Europe (27.7%); Russia (13.7%) and Canada (2.3%).”

“In another example on the carbon emissions per person, the world average is 1 ton of carbon per person, whereas for the U.S. it is 5.5 tons of carbon per person. In another example; “At no point in the last 650,000 years before the pre-industrial era did the CO2 concentration go above 300 parts per million.” Now it is about 375 and in 45 years it’ll be above 600.

The fall of 2011 the world’s population reached 7 billion people, the increase in population has decreased the amount of oxygen in the air and increased the amount of CO2 in the air. Both the loss of vegetation and the increase in human population has caused the increase in CO2. About 4% of the human race who live in the United States produce about 25% of the carbon dioxide. About 40% of global warming is the U.S. responsibility.

Measurements of oxygen trapped in rocks about ten thousands of years ago showed that the earth had about 39% oxygen in the air back then. Today the amount of oxygen in the air is about 18 to 20%.

In January of 2008 a leading climatologist, Jim Hansen at NASA, and his team published a paper saying that they looked at all the paleoclimate data and they looked at the observational data from the last few years and finally were able to say: “any value of carbon in the atmosphere greater than 350 parts per million is not compatible with the planet on which civilization developed and to which life on the earth is adapted.” As noted above the CO2 level in 2006 was 375 parts per million and it is rising about 2 parts per million
per year.

Bill McKibben an author in this area writes in an article, “What It Will Take to Return the Globe to 350” that in 2010 the world was 390 parts per million. “We are already way past where we should be. [350] That is why the arctic is melting. That is why the ocean is 30 percent more acid than it used to be, and why it is beginning to unravel the marine food chain. It is why all of these things are going on. It is why we are really in the process of de-creating the planet in a very powerful ways. So that is the bad news.

“The scientists’ proclamation about 350 parts per million was the good news to us as organizers because the two things that translate across the world’s frustrating linguistic boundaries are musical notation and Arabic numbers. Having this number, 350, meant that we could try to build a global campaign. …”

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jim T.,
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Phil
posted Hide Post
Jim, that's an impressive amount of information and research you have shared. My son (4th year med student) has been reading "The China Study" and sharing some of the info. Very interesting . . . and sobering!

Is this all in a book you have published, or plan to publish?
 
Posts: 3522 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 27 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Question #Veg.43 What about the increasing population and food production?

“Increasing food production on a global scale is a problem of critical importance and it is exacerbated further by the addition of 200,000 persons per day in the world population. However, the increasing world’s need for food is due, not only to the growing population, but also to rising affluence. In some developing countries, the average person is sustained by the equivalent of about 400 lb of cereal per year, consumed directly, whereas in the United States, per capita requirement for cereal grain is nearly 2000 lb, most of it fed to animals and consumed ultimately as meat, eggs, and dairy products. It has been estimated that 91% of the cereal, legume, and vegetable protein produced in the United States, and suitable for human use, is fed to livestock.”

“While the rich are dying from diseases of affluence, the poor of the planet languish from want of the bare essentials of life. The injustice imposed on the world by the twentieth-century protein chain is unprecedented; a billion people gorging and purging, mired in excess fat, while a billion more waste away, unable to provide their bodies with the minimum nutrient requirements necessary to maintain a healthy existence. The World Bank estimates that between 700 million and 1 billion people live in absolute poverty around the world. Contrary to popular belief, the poor are getting poorer each year. Forty-three developing nations finished the 1980’s poorer than they were at the beginning of the decade. Approximately 20 million people die each year around the world from hunger and related diseases. Over 15 million children die every year from diseases brought on by or complicated by malnutrition.”

“A Harvard nutritionist, Jean Mayer, estimates that reducing meat production by just 10% would release enough grain to feed 60 million people. The shocking and tragic truth is that 80-90% of all grain grown in America is used to feed meat animals.” Another work also states, “In this country one half of our harvested agricultural land is planted with feed crops. In fact, we feed 78 percent of all our grain to animals. The high quality food we feed to livestock is wasted. Cattle, sheep, and goats do not need to eat protein in order to produce protein.”

About the year 1800 there were 1 billion people. Between 1930 and 1999 the world grew from 2 billion to 6 billion. Between 2000 and 2011 the world grew to 7 billion. Thus in 70 years the world grew by 4 billion and in the last 10 years it grew another 1 billion people. In 30-40 years we could reach 10 billion people.

Back in the 1980’s China’s scientists did the math and realized that their country, which now has a billion people, could only support so many people with their limited land mass. So they instituted the one child policy per family. The world’s population is now at 7 billion people and estimates show that around 10 billion people is the limit since the earth’s resources cannot support that large number of people for a long time.

The carbon footprint of a meat-based diet is huge, much bigger than a plant-based diet. Now with 7 billion people, the world needs to go back to its vegetarian roots.
.

.
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Question Question #Veg.44 What about increasing temperatures, sea levels and hurricanes?

As noted previously cattle and animal food production is affecting the climate and fossil fuel usage, water, land and other issues. These then in term affect increasing temperatures, sea levels and hurricanes.

The earth’s mean temperature has not varied more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit since the last Ice Age, 18,000 years ago. Many scientists now predict a 4- to 9-degree rise in the earth’s surface temperature over the next fifty years as we continue to spew carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and chloroflurocarbons into the atmosphere, blocking solar heat from escaping the planet.

A temperature change of this magnitude is likely to plunge the world’s ecosystems and human civilization into the throes of an unprecedented crisis. Again the increased temperatures caused by Global Warming are directly connected to the meat-based diet.

NASA said that 2010 had the warmest twelve months on record. The first three months of 2012 are clearly the warmest months in U.S. history, it will probably beat 2010.

Scientists predict a three- to five- foot rise in seawater level by the year 2050 as a result of thermal heat expansion of the oceans. If the polar icecaps melt, the rise in water level would be even higher and whole landmasses will disappear from the face of the earth.

The Environmental Protection Agency predicts that a five-foot rise in sea level would destroy up to 90 percent of America’s remaining wetlands.

“On July 31, 2005, less than a month before Hurricane Katrina hit the United States, a major study from MIT supported the scientific consensus that global warming is making hurricanes more powerful and more destructive. Major storms spinning in both the Atlantic and the Pacific since the 1970’s have increased in duration and intensity by about 50%. The cost: Great Weather and Flood Catastrophes, Losses in Billions of U.S. dollars: 1960-1969 about 25 billion; 1980-1989 about 50 billion; 1988-1997 about 275 billion; 1998-2005 about 675 billion.

In 2011 and 2012 in the U.S. there is some concern the number of increasing tornados over previous years and also about their increased level of intensity.
.
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Question #Veg.45 What is an Environmentally Conscious Eating approach?

An Environmentally Conscious Eating approach is understanding diet from the perspective of its impact on the topsoil, water supplies, air, animal population, human population, and its effect on peace in the world and avoidance of sins!

Former Vice President Al Gore outlines the major problem of Global Warming in his book (2006), An Inconvenient Truth. Al Gore opened the book: “We have everything we need to begin solving this crisis, with the possible exception of the will to act. But in America, our will to take action is itself a renewable resource.” “And those with the most technology have the greatest moral obligation to use it wisely.”

Mr. Gore pointed out that the number of peer-reviewed articles dealing with ‘climate change’ published in scientific journals during the previous 10 years: 928. Percentage of articles in doubt as the cause of global warming: 0%. Articles in the popular press about global warming during previous 14 years: 636. Percentage of articles in doubt as to the cause of global warming: 53%. This conclusion is that the scientific community does not have doubt as to the cause!

Rabbi Gabriel Cousens, MD, an internationally known raw food medical doctor gives a good statement about how diet relates to the environment in his book, Conscious Eating. “A conscious eating approach to a healthy diet includes going beyond our personal biochemistry to understanding diet as a way of consciously relating to the world. I call this the harmony of wholeness. It is understanding diet from the perspective of its impact on the topsoil, water supplies, air, animal population, human population, and its effect on peace in the world….The general diet that best fits with the harmony of conscious eating is vegetarian.”

A Pastoral Letter on the Environment (1998) from Cardinal Law and eighteen other Bishops of New England is entitled, “And God Saw That It Was Good.” After giving the Biblical basis and the Church teaching for taking care of the environment they quote another religious leader:

“Many others from Christian religious tradition have contributed to the needed public dialogue. One outstanding example of this is His All Holiness, Bartholomew I. The Ecumenical Patriarch has declared boldly, ‘To commit a crime against the natural world is a sin. For humans to cause species to become extinct and to destroy the biological diversity of God’s creation; for humans to degrade the integrity of the earth by causing changes in its climate, by stripping the earth of its natural forests, or destroying its wetlands; for humans to contaminate the earth’s waters, its land, its air and its life with poisonous substances - these
are sins.’”

We as the people of God need to accept our responsibility for our bodies and for our environment. This is a biblical mandate and also common sense. As has been noted the vegetarian diet is the best diet for both the human body and for the environment.
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Hi Phil,
After all that back and forth with the cancer blog, I came up with this approach as a good way to introduce a blog. This answers the majority of the questions, or I can just refer them to the sequence of numbers for them to look at and read.

In the process of putting all this together I decided that it would make a nice little book or booklet. It comes out of all my other books so I'll have to go back and put the footnotes back into it for a book. I think it gives a good overview and summary of the plant-based lifestyle. Thanks, talk later.
Jim T.
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Phil
posted Hide Post
That's a lot of work you did, Jim. Thanks for sharing it with us.

Perhaps you'd share at some time how a plant-based diet might actually be enjoyable. I have this image of endless smoothies and salads, and that doesn't much appeal to me.

I'm in touch regularly with nuns at a motherhouse where there's amazing longevity, and they eat meat two or three times a day. There are a number of them in good health in their 90s and a couple over 100. Many are still working well into their 80s. It doesn't seem like meat has hurt them much, though I guess you could make the point that they might be even healthier if they didn't eat so much of it. I guess I'm just not convinced that it's all that bad for us. The environmental concerns you raised speak more to me than those about personal health.
 
Posts: 3522 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 27 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Hi Phil,
The aspects of a longer life are discussed around sections 7 to 10 or so. Look at those sections for reasons for a long life. One of the reasons is Inner Calm, being at peace, a vegetarian diet properly done helps to bring more peace.
Nuns pray a lot and have almost total security and great deals of peace. Praying a lot can create an alkaline environment in the body keeping it healthy longer. Praying a lot helps to deal with sin and psychological dis-function, bringing peace. I've noticed that really prayerful people often have a very smooth good looking complexion. The power of prayer and lack of negative desires as a nun helps with the peace and detoxification in the body helping one to look better. Peace.
 
Posts: 57 | Registered: 12 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jim T.:
Question #Veg.45 What is an Environmentally Conscious Eating approach? ....... cut

Rabbi Gabriel Cousens, MD, an internationally known raw food medical doctor gives a good statement about how diet relates to the environment in his book, Conscious Eating. “A conscious eating approach to a healthy diet includes going beyond our personal biochemistry to understanding diet as a way of consciously relating to the world. I call this the harmony of wholeness. It is understanding diet from the perspective of its impact on the topsoil, water supplies, air, animal population, human population, and its effect on peace in the world….The general diet that best fits with the harmony of conscious eating is vegetarian.”


Jim, i've enjoyed your sharing. It's been a while since i read Dr. G. Cousens book on "The
Rainbow Diet". Now we're finding out about all
the many antioxidants in the colors of food.

He wrote about the cosmovital approach to health. A term expressed by Dr. Edmond Bordeaux Szekely. All sounds interesting to me. I have recently returned to eating meat.
But will introduce some live foods into my diet
as well.
 
Posts: 370 | Registered: 01 April 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Phil
posted Hide Post
quote:
The power of prayer and lack of negative desires as a nun helps with the peace and detoxification in the body helping one to look better.

It's also a less stressful lifestyle, in many ways, with their basic living requirements and medical needs taken care of (though sisters in leadership have to stay on top of the finances to meet these needs, of course).

- - -

quote:
Jesus and Mary were Kosher Vegetarians, the evidence from the Bible, the early Church and Nutrition.

You sent me your book on this topic sometime back and I see you mention it in this thread. I don't agree that we can say this of Jesus and Mary, especially after a recent Sunday Gospel where Jesus was grilling fish for the apostles on the the lake shore. The whole thrust of New Testament teaching on food is that we are no longer bound by Hebrew dietary laws. We can even eat pork now! Wink

There is nothing in Jesus' teaching to indicate that he emphasized any particular diet. The evidence you present in your book is largely hypothetical and I think it weakens the points you're making here regarding nutritional and ecological considerations.

- - -

One other thought: sometimes low carb diets can be effective medical interventions. A man I know controls his diabetes by consuming less than 20 g of carbs of day -- essentially first phase of Atkins. When he goes off of this, his blood sugar is dangerously erratic. Vegan diets were of no use; he tried. At his last checkup, blood pressure, cholesterol and triglyceride levels were also very good.

There's clearly no one-size-fits-all when it comes to diet.
 
Posts: 3522 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 27 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
quote:
There's clearly no one-size-fits-all when it comes to diet


I have the same opinion. Much depends on the person (genetic composition etc).

I try to avoid to eat animals as much as possible: fish, chicken, mammals, ... but eat their produce (cheese, milk, ...). Once every week or two weeks, I eat one meat-based meal. This has worked out fine so far. When I feel an illness is upcoming, I eat meat daily until I have recuperated (occurred only once over the last 1.5 years).

I decided to do so because of several reasons:
- If it is not necessary to eat living beings for the upkeep of my physical body, I will try to avoid it.
- Kundalini: for manipura to function well, the diet is important, and less meat was very benificial (in my case at least). Once the chakras are better equilibrated and kundalini more awake, dietary "restrictions" become less important, especially in the "psychological sense".
 
Posts: 20 | Location: Ouranos | Registered: 17 June 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Phil
posted Hide Post
Here's a study that throws a monkey wrench into the discussion about the value of vegetarian diets.
- http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/20...fe-than-meat-eaters/
quote:
Overall, vegetarians were found to be in a poorer state of health compared to other dietary groups. Vegetarians reported higher levels of impairment from disorders, chronic diseases, and “suffer significantly more often from anxiety/depression.”
 
Posts: 3522 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 27 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
By the sounds of it, that was a purely observational study as opposed to an interventional study. People with health problems may have a greater tendency to adopt vegetarian diets. You'd need to take a group of meat-eaters and randomly assign half of them to begin a vegetarian diet to see the effects of diet itself.
 
Posts: 909 | Location: Canada | Registered: 03 April 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2