From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 12:08:46 MDT
gts wrote,
\> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> > So you do see a reason to avoid some meats as unhealthy.
>
> I do not avoid meats, nor do I recommend that others do so. I am
> merely very
> selective about them because of the way modern farmers raise their cattle.
> And I do sometimes order natural wild game or range-fed meats.
I said "some" meats, not all meat. Being selective means you avoid some and
choose others.
> You on the other hand argue that you don't like farm-fed meats but you do
> not seem to be opposed to the notion of eating natural meats. Or
> are you? If
> you are open to eating natural meats then I would say you are not
> actually a
> vegetarian in any ideological sense.
This is true. When I turned vegetarian, I knew of know source of healthy
meat. I chose to be vegetarian for longevity purposes. With modern
technology and "natural" sources of lean meat, it may be possible to get
meat that is healthy enough. However, it still may contain some saturated
fat and cholesterol. I prefer to avoid all of it. I do not miss meat at
all, and see no reason to risk even a little saturated fat or go through any
hassle to get it. However, I would be the first one to admit that I cannot
claim that it is impossible to eat meat as part of a healthy diet. I just
believe it is easier to eat a vegetarian healthy diet, so that is what I
choose. The typical food offerings today are so bad, that I don't think
anybody can have good health without careful nutritional planning. Using
supplements, eating a special diet, or ordering specialized foods that are
outside the mainstream, some sort of thought and planning is required to
avoid common nutritional pitfalls.
>
> As for tofu, it does not contain many of the substances found in meats
and
> it contains many other substances not found in meats. We evolved on meats,
> not soy, and I don't try to second-guess nature. I also have reservations
> about soy in terms of nutrition science. It contains, among other things,
> phytates which disturb the digestion process by binding to minerals.
> Phytates are not removed during the process of making tofu (though some
> other forms of processed soy do not contain them). Some
> researchers believe
> phytates are "anti-nutrients," while others disagree. I know only
> this much:
> we did not evolve on a diet rich in phytates as found in non-paleolithic
> foods like soy.
This is such a non-issue to me, that I don't care. I use supplements to get
optimal amounts of life-extending minerals, such as selenium. These levels
are so far beyond what is found in meat or tofu or vegetables, that arguing
over these small amounts has no effect on my dietary input. If you insist
on being "natural" without "technological intervention", then these issues
might come up. But for a life-extensionist on a good supplement program,
deficiencies are not an issue. This fits my transhumanist lifestyle better,
in my opinion.
The fact that phytates might reduce mineral absorption by a few percent is
minor compared to the fact that saturated fats and cholesterol definitely
have life-threatening qualities. I don't see how anybody can argue that
scientific evidence shows meat to be safer than tofu, except as a matter of
faith that evolution got it right and current science must be wrong.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 12:22:30 MDT