P.E.T.A.

[soilman 0]

Zennie writes

Quote

A good friend of mine who is a surgeon told me he knew of several surgeons who will NOT operate on vegetarians. Why? Because their tissues are so fragile that it's often extremely difficult to suture them.

Goodness gracious. I've been vegan for 35 years. I wonder why I was up and walking around 4 hours after my bilateral inguinal hernia surgery, done with an anterior approach suture technique. A Shouldice repair was done, no mesh was used.

Why was I climbing stairs and doing situp, leglifts, and a few deep knee bends, the next day, lifting tool boxes and moving furniture 3 or 4 days later, and back to moving pianos 3 weeks later? And yes, jumping out of an airplane less than a year later though I could have done it a week later?

And yes, I told my surgical group, before the surgery, that I was a vegetarian, and my surgeon didn't comment about it relative to my surgery, and only commented about it relative to what I needed to be fed during my week in the hospital.

____________________________________
Animal husbandry may not be necessary. We can maintain soil quality, for plant husbandry, with green manures and cover crops.

[freeflybella 0]

Zennie and peacefuljeffrey -

You both are making statements about experiences - that while they may have seemed true to you (except for the surgery/fragility thing) - may not be or have been what you thought they were.

I can't really comment further except to say that unless you're super focused on nutrition and exercise - it seems exaggerated to say one day of not eating meat made someone weak. Or even, 2 years really - maybe you were lacking in omega-3 which - when I supplement with flax, gives me TONS of energy!

Or that suggesting eating meat is the solution to a nutritional deficiency that results in fatigue. You may have been vitamin deficient, but again, there is nothing in meat that you can't get from a veg diet. (B12?)

I'd guess if you're an avid meat-eater (once a day), you'd need to give your body some time to adjust to a new diet. But those changes aren't drastic, or even terribly noticeable right away. And honestly, it's a pretty wonderful thing to experience.

VEGETARIAN ATHLETES:
Carl Lewis, “Olympian of the Century,” Olympic medalist in track
Ruth Heidrich, Ironman triathlete, age-group record holder
Martina Navratilova, tennis champion
Desmond Howard, Heisman trophy winner
Stan Price, world-record holder in bench press
Bill Walton, NBA Hall of Famer
Phoebe Mills, Olympic medal-winning gymnast
Billie Jean King, tennis champion
Bill Manetti, powerlifting champion
Bill Pearl, four-time Mr. Universe and bodybuilder
Al Oerter, discus thrower and winner of four Olympic gold medals
Keith Holmes, WBC World Middleweight Champion
Robert Parish, one of the NBA’s “50 Greatest Players”
Jack LaLanne, fitness legend and media star
Edwin Moses, two-time Olympic Gold medalist in hurdles

(Source: Vegetarian Times Magazine)

If you get tired and weak from a veg diet - I'd suggest there is something more going on than just not eating meat.

And the surgery thing - NEVER heard that claim made EVER! I'll check with my best friend - an orthopedic surgeon - and get back to you!

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[soilman 0]

Unfortunately, these lists of "vegetarian atheletes" or "famous vegetarians" that one or another magazine publishes, seem to be based on information gleaned from similar reports from similar magazines -- all the articles seem to have the same misinformation. I wouldn't be surprised if one magazine makes a mistake, the reporter for another magazine reads it and reports it as fact, and then the reporter for the first magazine reports what he read in the second magazine -- as it this was a good source.

If you go to Jack LaLanne's own web site, you will see that he states that he was a vegetarian for many years, but that he no longer is. Though he says he eats flesh in moderation.

People often find out that these circularly circulataed lists contain misinformation, and in the long run their publication does more harm than good, toward persuading people to go vegetarian. Or worse, some celebrety that people are prone to emulate goes vegetarian one week, and decides to go on the pork-only diet the next week -- and those people who choose their diet based on emulation of sports celebreties, or entertainment celebreties, rather than on knowledge about diet, or concern about what is really cool (in other words, they watch what I eat) follow right along on the celebrety's next diet.

OK, here is my favorite link, about the utility of a vegetarian diet. It is the position paper of the American Dietetic Association and Dieticians of Canada which are organizations of food and nutrition professionals, that disemminate scientific knowledge about human nutrition. They are not a vegetarian organizations, and have no reason to be biased in favor of a veg diet.

____________________________________
Animal husbandry may not be necessary. We can maintain soil quality, for plant husbandry, with green manures and cover crops.

[freeflybella 0]

Point taken about the lists.
And a good source link.

Just a reminder to ayone still reading, it's not about being 'pure' and 'holier-than-thou' and 'righteous' or 'cool' or following a fad diet or whatever.

It's about caring and the ability to care without having to worry about one's own nutritional health.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[SpeedRacer 1]

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!!

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!!

No, it's if you don't beat your meat, you can't make any pudding.

. . =(_8^(1)

[winsor 236]

Quote

Not flaming you in anyway bro but I dunno, think about how we call troll, etc when someone comes on here and makes trouble, yet it's ok to go do that on another board? Life's about tolerance. Let people believe in what they want to.

Tolerance is all about condescensýon.

You don't tolerate something you think is okay - you accept it. You have to think something is fundamentally fucked up in order to tolerate it, which is a rather sanctimonious standpoint.

To reject something is a hell of a lot more honest than to tolerate ýt.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Not flaming you in anyway bro but I dunno, think about how we call troll, etc when someone comes on here and makes trouble, yet it's ok to go do that on another board? Life's about tolerance. Let people believe in what they want to.

Tolerance is all about condescensýon.

You don't tolerate something you think is okay - you accept it. You have to think something is fundamentally fucked up in order to tolerate it, which is a rather sanctimonious standpoint.

To reject something is a hell of a lot more honest than to tolerate ýt.


Blue skies,

Winsor

Winsor, Mr. Few-and-far-between, much-missed"! Where ya been? Miss your gun posts!

Um, here, I don't know if we quite agree. When it comes to people living other lifestyles, with which one might disagree, sometimes the best that can be hoped for is tolerance/i.e. condescension. Can people really fairly be expected to be "accepting" of all other lifestyles, even if according to what they have learned or been taught, or according to their feelings and moral sense, the other lifestyle is wrong? I don't think so. I think that it is enough to ask that someone just be willing to leave the others, with whom they disagree, alone (that condescending "tolerance").

Maye we should talk about whether it's okay or not to hold the view that something is fundamentally fucked up.

I personally think that a lot of religious views are "fundamentally fucked up." But that doesn't mean that I can never like someone who is religious. When I meet a person who holds these kinds of "fucked up" views, I generally separate that part of them, mentally, from the rest of the parts which I do like. It means I tolerate it. I can never get myself to "accept" it, because that would mean seeing things their way, in which case I would then also hold their religious views. I'm talking about "tolerating" people for the parts that I will never be able to agree with them, which enables us to be civil, even friendly. "Acceptance," in my view, is too much to ask, and it's not fair to demand. Not everyone is going to concede the legitimacy of every single other point of view out there. Some points of view are going to be seen by some as silly, illegitimate, illogical, goofy, or just plain offensive or objectionable. Should everyone be forced to grant equal legitimacey (i.e. "acceptance" rather than just "tolerance") to every other way of life? I can think of a ton of examples that I think are hard to accept. Infanticide among the Spartans, or the Chinese (leaving weak infants or girl-children to die because they're not wanted); Chinese foot-binding;
Arab subjugation of women; African genital mutilation (clitorectomies) of women... These are all things I guess I "tolerate" in other societies, and certainly they are not attributes for which I respect those societies, but I'm neither going to support them nor try to put a stop to them -- that is their business, i.e. "tolerance."

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

People who, rightly or wrongly, have disdain for animal rights activism, and also have disdain for animal rights actvists, may have disdain for me -- assuming I am an animal rights activist, even though I am not an animal rights activist.

WOW?


Did Kerry write that?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[pajarito 0]

PETA's got a new crusader!