I was waiting to you to try and reform him by mentioning Taubes. I'm grateful you still keep your love advice separate from your blog life. I'm impressed! That's some tricky juggling.

Regarding the advice, I would say "spot-on" in 99.9% of the cases. I do know one person who subscribes to raw-veganism, but he has done this only for health reasons. He's quite the lean, mean, fighting machine now. And he's off insulin. Well, not much of a fighter. He says he was chase home every day after school sometimes caught and beaten up because his classmates said he killed Christ. He had a sense of humor about it, though. He confessed to the crime but felt after 2000 years there should be a statute of limitations.

I have never felt that he was trying to convey moral superiority when eating out with him. Just doing what he feels works for him. Before he made the conversion, we used to dine out together and we had some fun with our choices on the menu. "Hey, eat your bacon like a good Jew, Herbie."

But you did allow for the very remote possibility that Vegans don't necessarily feel morally superior. Except that he admitted he did.

And you even managed to address his attitude without letting it slip how silly you undoubtedly think veganism is.

It's true that most vegetarians feel morally superior to people who don't eat meat. But that doesn't really make them much different from anyone else.

I believe that in How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie said that most people you meet will feel superior to you in some way, and finding out what that is goes a long way towards influencing them to your advantage. I work in sales, and so knowing these things really helps me a lot.

sorry, typo: first sentence should be "people who eat meat".

I don't trust people who don't eat meat. I think Amy just sniffed out why that's always been the case...

In some cases, it's not about superiority, it's about the tendency for meat to bleed, contain gristle and other remnants from the cutting room floor that gross me out. And it gets stuck in my teeth. It's my diet that tends to be vegetarian, not me.

Were it not for the marvels of modern medical and physical science(in the form of the internal combustion engine) anyone atempting a veagan diet would die.

Couple of idiotic parents our here tried it o their infants, apparently even breast milk was 'bad' to those morons. They're both in jail, though I would have pushed for the death penalty.

To all the Vegans out there - how do you blance your diet against the harm mechanised farming does to the inscet population? Or arnet insects deserving of your adoration as fellow members of the animal kingdom?

The bottom line is, humans are omnivours. We are supposed to eat both meat and veggies. Besides, as John Cleese once said, "If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them taste like meat!" o.O

Oooops! Should have typed "omnivORES. It's early and I need some coffee...

Seems like LW's issue should be pretty easy to address: just push her to the "No" pile and not worry about it.

On the other hand, if the lady really wanted to mess with the LW, she could have given him a lecture on Plant Sensitivity, ending with an emotional appeal like, "Don't you hear the screams of the wheat as they fall under the farmer's scythe?"

I've been waiting for this one to be posted! I'm rather Seitanic myself (Vegetarian, not Vegan). Here's my take...

Yes. Most vegetarians are in it for moral reasons. Yes. We will downplay that fact to avoid confrontation. No, it doesn't always work, we get subjected to long rants about meat by our dinner companions the moment we ask if the soup on the menu is made with vegetable broth. It's just a fact of life.

So yes, we (in general) think that not eating meat is more moral than eating it.

HOWEVER

And this is a major HOWEVER

I know of no vegetarians who judge on that issue alone. Maybe there are some, but I haven't met them.

For example, my mom is vegetarian and my dad eats meat. Do I think my mom is a more moral person than my dad? No. On that one issue, sure, but in general, no, my dad has a lot of good qualities, and my mom has some flaws (my dad does too, of course, my mom is a lovely woman, I'm not trying to say she is some psycho) and all in all, I think it balances out.

Can any of you non-vegetarians honestly say that you don't make judgements about people based on their behavior? Can you honestly say you don't judge people because they've had an abortion, gotten into a fight, work in a profession you disapprove of, said something snarky, etc? Are you one-issue judgers, or do you look at the whole person? My guess is most of you, like most vegetarians, look at the whole person.

Lujlp, I'll answer your question as well as the "what about the poor carrots". The answer is unless you are buying very specialized meat products, more plants and insects get killed farming meat than veggies. Why? Because the cows and goats and such usually eat farmed grains! And it takes a lot more plants to feed a cow than a person. So there you go.

I will say that I hate that question because it gets asked a LOT. I will say if you are going to heckle vegetarians, you should come up with something original and witty. I will also say, I have a lot of respect for vegetarian-hecklers that can come up with something entirely new. (It is a current challenge I have going with some friends of mine.)

In any case, Amy, meateating isn't necessarily a deal breaker for most vegetarians. It is something that a lot of couples work through. My parents have dealt with it for almost 40 years. I'm working through it now.

I will say, if you ARE a vegetarian and only want to cook vegetarian... you better be a damn good cook. You better be serving some rockin' vegetables.

So my point is... are vegetarians judging you on your meat eating? Probably. Is that the only thing they are judging you on? No. They are also judging you on how well you tip, how you interact with others, all the usual things people judge you on.

Are vegetarians going to think you are a bad person just because you eat meat. Most decidedly not.

Incisors are for cutting meat, molars are for grinding veggies... there is a reason we have both.

My ex has been vegetarian for over 40 years, and he never expected me to become one. As controlling as he is about other things that was truly one area where he didn't proselytize. He was just twisting lobsters tails off one day and hearing them scream underwater did it for him. He thought if he couldn't kill a creature himself, he didn't want to pay for them to be killed so he could eat them. It was merely a personal choice.

I became a very good vegetarian cook, but I always ate meat, and that was never an issue between us, so I don't think the LW necessarily has to only date other vegans. It is kind of like religion. Some view their faith as a personal, philosophical choice and others view it as the ONLY choice.

BTW, Flynne, I'm not sure we are omnivores. Our intestinal tracts are very long, which is more consistent with herbivores. The rate of colon cancer in various countries directly correlates with meat consumption. Although I like a good steak now and then (and have been eating more meat trying to adhere to a low-carb diet) I really believe heavy meat consumption is unhealthy.

I have a 5 year old that adores meat, and her twin sister won't eat it. She told a schoolmate very matter of factly one day that chickens live on farms, and they chop their heads off and pull off their feathers and cook them. We've never been the kind of parents that shy away from "yes, hamburger is cow", but I'm not sure where she got that from. Anyway, when I overheard that, I went and bought a vegetarian cookbook. I'm not going to force her to eat meat if she feels strongly against it. And since I can't be cooking 2 separate meals, I imagine we'll al be eating less meat that we would otherwise. Tis a'ight, meat's expensive anyway.

Your daughter may be too young to have seen them herself, but there are many videos on the internet now showing what happens in chicken processing plants and slaughterhouses, not to mention dolphins being clubbed to death in Japan. Kids talk about this at school, and view the clips, and so my daughter and quite a few of her friends are vegetarian. My daughter will still break down and have chicken or fish sometimes, but one her gfs is very strict.

I grew up on a farm, and I used to help my dad take cows to the slaughterhouse. It is pretty repulsive, just what I saw, and I was never allowed in much past the opening. But today, kids can see the whole horror of the process and the inhumane treatment of the livestock.

Back in my experimental days, I tried vegetarianism for about six months, just to see what would happen. I didn't notice any health benefits, nor did I feel morally superior. Actually, I felt rather silly.

What I observed, hanging around other vegetarians, is that a lot of them were doing it not because they had reasoned out the moral implications, but because they were looking for something to rationalize their eating disorders. Like the one guy who would not eat anything that was red, at all. He said that red things reminded him of blood. It's strange; I don't look at an apple or a radish and think "blood". A lot of them ate the exact same meals, every day, over and over. Some of them put on airs of moral superiority, but I think this was really just trying to hide their collection of insecurities.

Sure, there were some vegetarians who did in fact do it for carefully considered philosophical and/or health reasons. But IMO, they were in the minority. And I never met a vegan in that crowd. Every vegetarian that I ever asked thought that veganism was extreme.

It seems silly to make your dating life revolve around one factor unless that factor is a deal breaker for you, and it doesn't appear to be for the LW.

I know my fiance feels intellectually superior to me, and you know what? That's OK, because he really is smarter than I am. He's smarter than most of the people I know. We aren't all equal, and feeling superior on some level is not a sign that you don't respect someone.

Anonymiss:

it's about the tendency for meat to bleed, contain gristle and other remnants from the cutting room floor that gross me out.

It's a good thing it's not about judging or feeling superior to those of us who just adore drinking blood, crunching up bones, and removing gristle from our teeth.

I'm a vegetarian. I cook meat. I am no saint. I don't *ever* proselytize (it's a very personal decision) but when people ask why I'm a vegetarian I tell them. I certainly don't think I'm more moral than others just because I choose to be a vegetarian. As NicoleK points out, morality is multi-faceted.

What I think is missing from this conversation is that meat-eaters often heckle me. Sure there are ones who are genuinely curious - they have a very different tone. But it seems like some people want to get a rise or are polemic. What I find interesting is that I am continually taken to task and told I can't get proper nutrition. I'm serious - this scalding tone happens all the time. While you have to pay more attention to get a balanced diet as a vegetarian, it is absolutely possible. I find this attack especially bizarre we have a nutrition crisis in our country (and obviously this is mostly meat-eaters).

You'd be surprised how belligerent people become when challenging my vegetarianism - and this tone is in response to a simple 'I'm a vegetarian' statement. And such people can go on and on prodding and goading - it's really quite unseemly. I've learned to deflect the belligerence, use humour and get away. (I hope you don't mind me using seitan worshiper - it's bloody brillant).

I think this possibility is missing from your answer Amy. The potential date might have kept goading the vegan. I think it would be helpful for the vegan guy to focus on avoid engagement with her, sidestep graciously and cross her off the list. He did himself no favours.

To add to AntoniaB:

I was raised as a vegetarian. Now I eat chicken and turkey and have tried other meats (and will try meat, if presented with something new). I found most other meats don't taste good to me or have an unappealing texture.

That being said, I think that eating is one of the most personal things we do and it is up to the individual to choose what they eat.

People tend to want to discuss what a vegetarian eats/doesn't eat. My boyfriend's family is as southern and country as they come. Making dinner or at dinner, it is usually, "Will Esther eat this?" "Can Esther eat that?"

This would frustrate me because everyone else was allowed to select what they wanted and to leave behind what they didn't want without any discussion from the rest of us at all. All that I wanted was to be allowed to choose what I wanted to eat without it being the center of conversation.

Some vegetarians are vocal about their food choices, "Oh I can't eat this, it has meat in it!" If I was ever in doubt about meat in a dish, I'd quietly move on to the next dish. Just like someone who doesn't like green beans and skips on over to the mash potatoes.

Also, what you eat does say SOMETHING about you. Eating at McDonald's drive-thru everynight says something about who you are as does watching what you eat. Like NicoleK said you can't judge the WHOLE person on that alone.

Bang on Esther - friends and family are often well-meaning and want to be considerate of your needs. My favorite is when the person I'm dining with at a restaurant tells the waiter I'm a vegetarian. I always appreciate the intent - it comes from a good heart, but I would think for most vegetarians the best those around us can do is just carry on as normal.

Daughter #1's best friend is a vegetarian. She just became so last year (I think) because, she said, she was disgusted with the whole meat industry. She will, however, eat venison that my BF has harvested. She and both my daughters watched him bring home a deer that he shot (with an arrow, one clean shot through the lungs), hang it, skin it, clean it, and butcher it. He explained each process to them as he went along. #1's friend said that he was the most humane hunter she had ever known, and had no problem eating dinner with us that night (although I know she likes my mashed taters, too). I made back straps sauteed in a little butter, garlic powder and cracked black pepper, mashed potatoes with mushroom gravy (I use corn starch instead of flour when I make gravy), and asparagus with butter and lemon pepper. Strawberries with whipped cream for dessert. Yum!

Flynne - have you read 'The Omnivore's Dilemma' - your daughters and her friend would love it. It's bang on your point.

@Flynne: "I made back straps sauteed in a little butter, garlic powder and cracked black pepper, mashed potatoes with mushroom gravy (I use corn starch instead of flour when I make gravy), and asparagus..."

Yum indeed! I was about ready to go out and find your house 'til you got to the part about the asparagus, which I consider an abomination against nature...

Per our sommelier friend, asparagus is the only food that can't be paired with wine.

It does sound like the potential date was a little harsh on the LW; it would be interesting to know what was actually said. I have to admit, however, that a man being a vegan actually WOULD be a deal-breaker for me. Of course, that means I wouldn't even entertain the possibility that I would date one.

Some vegetarians are high maintenance, some aren't. A person who showed up at one of our parties a month or so ago kept pestering me for something that didn't have any meat or animal products. I believe I found her some pineapple. This person knew she was going to a barbeque. I did't care much for her.

ahw: very poor veggie/guest etiquette. For a barbeque I would consult with host on a veggie side and something veggie for the grill - kebabs are good for this (I usually bring enough for others as often it's popular).

People tend to want to discuss what a vegetarian eats/doesn't eat.

No we don't. Many vegetarians MAKE A HUGE DEAL out of their diets, and LOVE to play the victim when their requirements aren't met. So in order to avoid a confrontation, we try to address your vegetarianism.

Mairomo - it goes both ways. Some veggies turn it into a drama, some meat-eaters create the drama.

Lets just all remember to join hands and sing kumbaya.

I'm with old rpm ...

Funny the things people need pointed out to them. When she started getting pushy, he could have just said, "Thanks, I have to go do anything else right now, bye!"

~~~

I'll be listening to TOOL later with my hamburger ...

And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber. And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself. And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest. And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil. One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear. And terror possesed me then. And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?" And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust." And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared, "Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!" Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah? Thank you Jesus.

This is necessary. (x2)

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on........

This is necessary.(x2)

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life ...

Thank you, AntoniaB, I'll look into that...anything to get the girls to read!

Oh c'mon, old rpm daddy, try 'em, you'll like 'em - asparagus is great! I like to get the small spears and put 'em in cream of mushroom soup, man that's good!

MeganNJ, you're too funny, spanks for sharing!

As a vegetarian, I don't make a big deal about my dietary needs, although I do sometimes ask at restaurants if an item is vegetarian. I have never seen a vegetarian do this, so I'm not sure why people seem so threatened by us.
Often, for no apparent reason, meat-eaters will go on and on about how much they love meat and how I'm just as cruel for harming plants. I wonder why? Are they insecure, deep down, about their contribution to the slaughter of millions of animals? Do they think I'm judging them? (I'm not--just judging their insensitive rant.) They all love to say how I cause pain to plants. #1. Plants don't have the same type of nervous system as animals. I doubt the pain is nearly as severe. #2. Even if it is, a vegetarian diet harms fewer plants overall compared to meat-based diet, so I'm doing the best I can.
What bothers me is not if you choose to eat meat, ESPECIALLY if you hunt it yourself (the animal was able to live a natural life until it was hunted), but the hypocrisy of people who "love animals so much" and then eat factory-farmed meat. At least think through what you are doing and saying.
My opinion on dating: If you really love each other, a vegetarian/vegan and a meat-eater can live happily ever after, but if you're searching, you'll probably be happy finding someone who shares your lifestyle. Try to find other vegetarians/vegans to date, before you give up. It will make your life so much easier and more fun (cooking together, sharing meals at restaurants, etc!)

A Partial List of Famous Vegetarians:

Charles Manson (criminal)

Pol Pot (brutal dictator)

Adolf Hitler (genocidal dictator)

River Phoenix (died of self-induced drug overdose)

Alanis Morissette (abused public airwaves with her alleged "music")

A great many vegetarians may be ethical people, but a vegetarian diet is apparently not capable of keeping someone from acting unethically (or self-destructively, or annoyingly.)

Ahh Rooster - you made me smile with your very original goad! I think we've all been agreeing that choice of diet doesn't translate into overall morality. Do you think otherwise?

"Can any of you non-vegetarians honestly say that you don't make judgements about people based on their behavior?"

Non-vegetarians aren't the ones who out-of-the-blue blurt out their dietary preferences.

90% of the vegetarians I've met do it for show. (An anecdote, of course.)

I have my own theories...

Gee, let's make a list of all the non-vegetarians who are/were awful people. BTW, I like Alanis - completely unfair to compare her to Hitler.

I agree that it's often the vegetarian who is hassled. I saw that many times with the ex - friends and family simply wouldn't drop the issue. In fact, when he first became vegetarian, it was in the early 70s and very uncommon throughout most of the country. Waiters and other diners would often be rude to him when he requested a vegetarian meal. Finally, he started simply telling them he was "allergic" to meat products and then they would become understanding and helpful.

There are more vegetables than meat, so it's usually not that hard for a vegetarian to have choices - at least those who eat dairy and eggs. Vegans, on the other hand, have such a restrictive diet, and are much more concerned with how food is prepared, so they are more likely to say something or make special requests.

When we traveled to England in the 90s, I was worried it would be difficult for my ex to find anything to eat, but almost every pub had a vegetarian special. Surprisingly, they seemed a little more progressive about it than here.

I was looking for the cancer stats today because of this thread, and I found tons of data. Like I said, I eat meat, but after reading all this, I feel like restricting it more from my diet. I certainly wouldn't try to talk a vegetarian into eating meat or tell them it was less healthy.

http://www.cancerproject.org/survival/cancer_facts/meat.php

Please calm down, lovelysoul. It's called a joke, 'kay?

My point wasn't that veggies are bad people, only that vegetarianism didn't seem to make people any better or worse than they'd be otherwise. If I pointed out that Hitler liked to wear uniforms, I'm not necessarily saying that all the people who wear uniforms, or even that subset of uniform wearers who actually like to wear uniforms, are bad.

Of course there'd be a lot more rotten folks on list of non-vegetarians, because there are so many more omnivores than there are vegetarians. It's as if Cincinnati, Ohio declared itself a nicer place to visit than New York City, because more murders take place in New York per annum than in Cincy. Never mind that NYC has more than ten times Cincinnati's population!

Lovely Soul - the US is definitely not as veg friendly as the UK. There are a huge number of veggies in the UK, especially when compared to the US.

Clarification: I meant my inclusion of Alanis on my little "rogues gallery" was a joke.

I may not be the most original guy on the 'net, and I may be the smart-alec who "Godwined" this thread (apologies to Our Esteemed Hostess for the minor faux pas), but give a provocateur his due, AntoniaB. Do you really believe that if LW had written that he believed himself morally superior due because he was a teetotaler, or a German, and the tetotalers, or the Krauts, went on a spree of self-congratulation in the comments thread, that the name of Adolf Hitler wouldn't have come up sooner or later? What if LW were a holier-than-thou Christian?

But yes, on the whole, I agree that "[C]hoice of diet doesn't translate into overall morality." Of course, if I wanted to be really naughty, I might offer a counter-balancing thought: Would it have been nearly so easy for me assemble a list of famous villains (Phoenix and Morissette aside), if the diet we were talking about were kosher, rather than vegetarian? Probably not.

"Lovely Soul - the US is definitely not as veg friendly as the UK. There are a huge number of veggies in the UK, especially when compared to the US."

Why do you think that is, AntoniaB? Is it because there's a larger Indian/Hindu population? I figured it might also be due to Linda McCartney being such a well-known vegetarian there.

I knew you were mostly joking, Rooster. I was joking back. You're right that there's nothing dietary that can make a person moral or ethical.

You're right that there's nothing dietary that can make a person moral or ethical.

Unless you're eating people you hunted yourself.

This guy got lucky. She showed her true colors before they were heavily involved.

Run, run as fast as you can.

Speaking in generalities- I think women try to change men than men try to change women.

This isn't the Ted Nugent fan forum, MonicaP

When you're having someone over for dinner, its always nice to know if they have food restrictions. My brother's gf won't eat mammals so I've learned to make a lot of dishes I might have made with beef or pork with turkey or chicken (FWIW: ground white meat works almost the same as ground beef, not so much ground thigh -- meatball mush...blech!) We have a friend who's child can't eat gluten, so when they're coming over, I'll stop in at the health food store and pick up the gluten free pizza or fish sticks he likes. As a hostess, I'd feel badly if I prepared a casserole or lasagna and my guest only ate the green beans. I'd still make the main dish for everyone else, but I'd add an extra, suitable dish if I knew. Maybe I'm just old fashioned in wanting to host my guests.

Well that tears it. Amy brings up the cuteness factor, which forces me to recall the time those crackpots at PETA tried to get the world to call fish "sea kittens" so the children would be horrified and go vegetarian. Or something.

Cousin Dave, I've also seen vegetarians who do it to cover up their eating disorders, particularly anorexics.

"All studies are flawed - some are just more or less flawed than others. Can you read these studies to a point where you can see if they had adequate sample size, that it was adequately controlled, etc., etc., and can you spot the limitations, etc.?"

There are just too many studies linking meat consumption to cancer, Amy. I know you're big into Taubes right now, and I do believe that the high protein/low carb diet results in weight loss. I know it does, that's why I've been following it myself.

But I also know that true carnivores have very short intestinal tracts. The food goes in and gets pooped out right away. Yet, we have what, like, miles of intestines (someone here knows the exact yardage, I just don't want to look it up)? So, the meat just sits there, rotting in our intestines and putrifies for quite awhile, collecting bile and cancer-causing bacteria, before being expelled. That isn't good. Almost every study ever done links meat consumption to cancer.

The fact that Japan had almost no breast cancer until they adopted the western diet of meat consumption says a lot.

I have friends who only eat "free range" organic meats, and maybe that makes a difference, since most major US companies pump the cows with hormones, but I personally believe that our intestinal tract was never designed to process meat at all. We are designed to be herbivores - eating fruits and vegetables for optimal health.

I suspect humans are designed to eat anything that doesn't eat us first.

I live in Montana, and we're still giggling over the Whitefish, Montana sea-kittens thing.

I am a happy omnivore. There are so many dee-lishus foods out there, with so many incredible combinations. and so far there are only two foods that I cant't stand--peas and brussel sprouts.

I read that this was due to certain chemicals that you either taste or you don't. Brussel sprouts taste very bitter to me, and peas just plain stink.

It's great that these days we can pick and choose our dietary styles but this wasn't always the case. Humans adapt, and have managed to survive on what was available. It's one of the things we're best at, and it's reflected in what we eat.

Get too specialized in your diet and you just might starve to death.

Regarding the meat in the intestines: we have approximately 33 feet of small intestine, (less of large)and if you're really worried about meat rotting in there (which really is crap-hah! PUN!)just have a colonoscopy. You won't worry about it any more.

Well, I have nothing against Gary Taubes, but I'd like to know how he can disprove all the studies linking meat consumption to cancer. If he can, that would be great, as I like eating meat. I'd be interested in hearing his dispute of the studies like the ones below:

http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Red-meat-and-colon-cancer.shtml

Here's a JAMA study and detailed analysis

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/293/2/172

Another analysis of a study from AARP:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121650/

This is from a further analysis of the AARP study, which was of 500,000 men and women followed for 10 years.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20090323/eating-red-meat-may-boost-death-risk

"To reduce cancer risk, the web site of the American Institute for Cancer Research recommends eating no more than 18 ounces of red meat (cooked weight) per week (or about 2.5 ounces a day.) It recommends avoiding processed meat, noting that research suggests that cancer risk starts to increase with any amount.

Popkin agrees that processed meats are worse than red meats from a health point of view. He says the new study results suggest consumers can reduce their risk of dying from cancer, heart disease, or other problems by curtailing their intake of red and processed meats."

from the JAMA meta-analysis..
High intake of red and processed meat reported in 1992/1993 was associated with higher risk of colon cancer after adjusting for age and energy intake but not after further adjustment for body mass index, cigarette smoking, and other covariates.

I don't know whether the long term intake of high quantities of meat presents an actual risk, but I do know that Public Health is the one medically related field that endorses lying as a core ethic. They espouse a sort of precautionary principle whereby falsehoods and exaggerations that support a plausible theory of harm are allowed. So you have to be very careful when analyzing the 'findings' of these parties.

Colorectal cancers, arising from diet, are probably best understood as resulting from poor digestive mechanics and metabolism - your body isn't expelling these wastes efficiently. That's why fatty, sinewy, and hardened granular (i.e. charred) meats seem to present the highest risks. They get stuck in your lower gastrointestinal tract.

That seems to be the only reasonable argument one could make against the studies - that people who eat large quantites of meat may also have other bad habits, like smoking and sweets. But, all studies combined, it's kind of hard to argue that there's no reason for concern. The preponderance of evidence seems to link meat with higher cancer risk.

Until they do a study with two groups of people, one eating th crap meant that is pumped full of hormones and all other sorts of crap and antother group eating grass fed beef aged naturally and not thru cemical maniputaion those syudies dont mean shit,

For all we know it the accumulation of bovine growth hormones that is causing cancer

Couple of idiotic parents our here tried it o their infants, apparently even breast milk was 'bad' to those morons. They're both in jail, though I would have pushed for the death penalty.

What a stupid thing to do! Whether or not you consider humans to be vegetarians is a whole other discussion, but we're also mammals. And while there are many things that mammals have in common, the defining characteristic of mammals is that they nurse their babies.

I'm reminded of my classes in German that I had to take while in the Army. One of the things about the German language that entertained us to no end was their names for certain things seemed so direct and prosaic. A turtle or a tortoise, for instance, in German is a Schildkroete (which literally means shield-toad). And a mammal is a Saeugetier (which literally means sucking-animal).

While it is undoubtedly true that vegetarians often feel morally superior to meat-eaters, this is not really that different from most people.

For example, I am sure that a lot of Muslims and Jews feel morally superior due to not eating 'unclean' foods. Yet I wouldn't strike up a conversation with "it must be a great comfort to you, knowing all us swine-loving infidels will end up in the fires of hell".

As I say, most people you meet will feel superior to you in some way. I don't see how vegetarians are really all that different. There is plenty of piety, moral vanity and self-righteousness to go around. It is one of the great renewable resources.

I agree, Nick S. It sounds like his date pushed him until he admitted he felt a sense of superiority, but you could probably do that with Jews, Catholics, or people who attended certain colleges or drive expensive cars. Almost everyone has a little smugness about something.

It's funny to me how defensive people are about meat. I enjoy meat too, but at least I realize it's because of how I was raised culturally, not because meat is necessarily better to eat.

If meat had never been introduced into our diets, we might find the thought of it repulsive - like that TV show where the guy goes to other cultures and eats disgusting things. Well, it's pretty gross when you think of what goes into a hotdog - scraps of cow and pig parts - yet we plop it on a bun and eat it like other cultures eat grasshoppers. It's no different. We're just used to it, so we believe it's better.

Yet, there must be few, if any, studies showing how HEALTHY meat consumption is or the meat industry would be touting them.

So, in the best case scenario, meat has absolutely no health effect, positive or negative. The worst case scenario is that it can likely cause a multitude of cancers and health problems.

I don't know about you all, but that's enough to make me want to cut back.

If meat had never been introduced to our diets our brain would still be the size of our anscestors, we'd still be walking on our hands and be covered in fur.

If our prehominid anscestors had never eaten meat we'd still be part of the food chain and not the only species in the last half a billion years to out hunt the shark

Got to love the irony though, were it not for our ancestors eating meat we would be incapable of discussing the morailty of eating meat

I hate cooking meat (it feels icky on my haaaaands! *sensory processing disorder alert!*) but I surely do love eating it. I use the crock pot a lot, so I can just throw it in there and minimize touching.

Veggies, on the other hand, I loooooooove to chop, dice, mince, whatever! I am a mass vegetable murderer.

Melissa: Gloves. I'm just sayin'.

Amy: Why, because they aren't as cute as cows?

I haven't actually asked -- the only relevance it has to me is when they're coming for dinner. I think its because we're mammals so she feels some sort of kinship and therefore some moral twinge about eating something of the same Class. Clearly, she draws the line after Phylum. Seems illogical to me, but that's why I don't ask her about it. I don't want to get that, "What, are you retarded?" look on my face. My brother's the one who has to live with her...not me!

I have a large enough yard that I raise my own beef, and let me tell you the difference in color alone was enough to convince me to never buy meat at a supermarket again

LS, I looked at that JAMA study, and there are literally hundreds of confounding factors that it doesn't and can't control for. Here's my rule of thumb on epistemological studies: 99.999% of them are utter crap. Especially in nutrition, which as practiced today is a pseudo-science up there with astrology and tea leaf reading. If a study reaches a conclusion based solely on weak statistical correlation, without controlling for or even bothering to discuss confounding factors, and makes no attempt to find cause and effect, it belongs in the trash. If I were in charge of the National Science Foundation, I'd immediately de-fund all epistemological studies except for the handful that could prove that they were rigorously controlled and had some basis in reasonably sound theory, and I'd put the money towards actual cause-and-effect research. We'd probably be a lot further along with cancer treatments now if the NSC had taken this approach back in the 1970s.

This guy is a weenie. He wrote for advice help on the basis of a flopped exchange of e-mails with a loonie? Does he, or anyone else for that matter, have any real problems?
I poop down on this weenie-man.

There is an insane amount of bad/flawed science in many cancer studies. They never filter out types of meat. Preserved / sausage type meat has lots of nitrates. Those studies never differentiate between processed and fresh meat.

The new vegetarian bible, “The China Study” that supposedly proves animal products cause cancer is so statistically bad it is laughable. I actually spoke in person to the author T. Colin Campbell to show him the errors. He effectively closed his eyes, stuck his fingers in his ears and said la-la-la.

I ate in a vegan manner for 16 years. I stopped after my hair was falling out and my health was in bad shape. The first time I ate meat after 16 years. I experienced what can only be described as a body orgasm. I pure physical bliss was incredible. I also stopped getting bronchitis 2-3 times a year once I started eating meat.

http://www.beyondveg.com/

Butthole of the Universe: If you don't mind my asking a personal question, just how old are you? I thought you were like 40-50 something, but your posts make you seem, ahem, considerably younger...

Beth: The ugly truth is that I am 50-something. I am trying to be hip and use foul language here, to show I am cool to intragroup recognitors.
I mean more expletives than descriptive words seems to be the rule.
Besides, did I not make a valid point? This guy has a flopped e-mail exchange on a dating site, and he writes for advice? That's a problem one needs to seek help with? And did a waitress frown at him at the coffee shop? Maybe we can help him with that too.
Is that not the definition of a weenie? (Plus he's a vegan, and they are always weenies).
Or is my "Butthole of the Universe" tagline getting to you.
Buttever.

"The fact that Japan had almost no breast cancer until they adopted the western diet of meat consumption says a lot."

Not unless you can isolate all variables. Of which there are thousands. So no, you can't draw any conclusions from that at all.

"For example, I am sure that a lot of Muslims and Jews feel morally superior due to not eating 'unclean' foods"

Actually most just do it because that's what they've been taught from age 0. They don't think about it, it's automatic and completely neutral ... the moralizing is in your head, not theirs.

Amy,

Furthermore, nutritional anthropologist Marvin Harris found reason to believe that Jews and Muslims banned pork because pigs were a very land-intensive animal, in a place that was mostly desert.

Also important for Jews in Spaaaaace!

Amy, can you tell me why you ask the "why, because they're not cute" question when someone says they eat one kind of meat, but not another? Like with people that will eat fish, or poultry, etc.? I'm really curious about this.

This may be semantics since I never read Marvin Harris; however, pig is resource intensive.

Pigs (omnivores) require lots of water and human type food/garbage. Grazing animals are useful to convert semi-arid grazing land that may not be useful for growing food. Pork taboos don’t exist in lusher areas.

“Furthermore, nutritional anthropologist Marvin Harris found reason to believe that Jews and Muslims banned pork because pigs were a very land-intensive animal, in a place that was mostly desert.”

Sure, it's easy to find flaws with the studies, and I agree that there are many factors to be considered that probably haven't been, such as our high sugar/ processed food consumption.

We certainly need to know if there's a difference between organic and free-range meats vs the highly processed meats, as I suspect there is. I grew up on a farm and feel fortunate that we killed what we ate, so much of my lifetime meat consumption has been(hopefully) the "good," non-processed kind. That said, there was also a high rate of cancer in the farming area where I grew up, even though, at the time, most people there ate fresh meat and grew their own vegetables.

If you compare carnivores and herbivores, we are clearly closer to herbivores. Our long intestinal tract is that of an herbivore. Our saliva is alkaline, not acidic. Carnivores have 20x more acids in their stomachs and much smoother, shorter bowels. Humans aren't really designed for meat consumption. The fact we adapted to it doesn't really make it the healthiest way for us to eat.

And, if so, where are all the healthy meat studies? If meat is so good for us there should at least be some conflicting studies proving that a diet heavy in meat and lower in fruits/vegetables would produce health benefits. I mean, many populations in the world, particularly farming populations, do not eat the processed meat/sugars we do, so are there no studies showing how beneficial meat is?

Although I haven't found the study, I believe the colon cancer risk correlates with meat consumption across the globe, country to country. If true, that's pretty damning evidence. Not every country has as bad a diet as we Americans do. Maybe it was just western countries though. I'm still looking for the study - I've been traveling the past few days, and yes, I ate some crappy processed turkey meat in the airport today. Gotta love those nitrates.

I began researching into diet and nutrition pretty intensely about three years ago...and I eventually went "PRIMAL." Low carb/high fat/high protein diet.

One of the things I discovered was that much of the "studies" that try to link meat eating with cancer or other diseases are pretty much all BUNK.

From the "Seven Country" debacle by Ancel Keys to the Framingham Heart Study, just about every time an article is written advocating a "Plant-Based Diet" the research cited takes you to a study that is based on QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEYS and statistical analysis of those survey responses.

In other words, the "researchers" send out a many paged, multiple choice questionnaire that asks the respondents questions like this:

"In the last year, how many times did you eat hamburgers, pizza or hotdogs? 1 time a week - 2-4 times - 5-8 times"

After getting all of those questionnaire results, they compile the data than compare it to fatalities from the respondents years later. From this, they reach their predetermined conclusion - AHA, Meat (or saturated fat is often the alternate food targeted for dishonest demonization) where they say they found a 'Significant indication that meat/fat is linked with cancer."

It's all lies.

The real reason, I believe, is that the biggest money corporations in this country are the giant agricultural corporations who's corn, soy, wheat and cottonseed oil are used in just about any and every manufactured, processed food item sold in the stores today.

I believe they somehow fund these bogus studies to generate the scare headlines like "Meat and/or Saturated Fat linked to cancer" and you get these public service announcements telling everyone to eat a "plant-based" diet.

That way people don't think twice about loading up their shopping carts with all of that "plant-based" foods and think they are eating healthy because they're avoiding meat and/or saturated fats.

Tom Naughton has a pretty good blog post breaking down these "dieatary surveys" methodology and how they are used to promote such lies to influence consumers into thinking meat is unhealthy and a 'plant-based diet' is the key to good health.

http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2009/07/07/warning-bologna-may-cause-cancer-headlines/

If you compare carnivores and herbivores, we are clearly closer to herbivores. Our long intestinal tract is that of an herbivore. Our saliva is alkaline, not acidic. Carnivores have 20x more acids in their stomachs and much smoother, shorter bowels. Humans aren't really designed for meat consumption. The fact we adapted to it doesn't really make it the healthiest way for us to eat.

You are completely mistaken, LS.

Google up Dr. Michael Eades and his two part article, entitled "Are we meat eaters or vegetarians?"

Michael Eades is selling a low carb diet. He and his wife make millions from book sales. They aren't concerned with cancer, just weight loss. Low carb/high protein diets clearly work for weight loss.

Google whether we are carnivores or herbivores and you'll find ample evidence that we are closer to herbivores than carnivores.

Look at this from food and health:

http://www.foodandhealth.com/cpecourses/fiber.php

If you read all the studies, it's pretty obvious that red meat inatke is not healthy. In fact, there isn't ONE study showing that it IS healthy.

An exerpt:

"So why is the incidence of colorectal cancer only 1/8 as common in India as the U.S.? In India, much of the population is Hindu and cattle are considered sacred. As a result, India has one of the lowest intake of red meat of any country. Indeed, all countries where the intake of colorectal cancer is low also have a low intake of red meats."

In the face of the evidence, even as flawed as it may be, there is NOTHING to warrant being a big meat eater if one really cares about long-term health, not just weight loss. Why anyone would argue otherwise is beyond me. No proof of meat health benefits is offered. It's just personal choice. And I'm a meat eater too, but I still realize that this has nothing to do with health. I am probably gambling with my health, the same as anyone who smokes or drinks is. Like you, I may enjoy it, but don't act like there are no risks.

If you read all the studies, it's pretty obvious that red meat inatke is not healthy.

I just told you that in fact I HAVE read a lot of the studies. Invariably, whenever you drill down through all of the cited footnotes, it ALWAYS leads to a research study that involves self-reporting food questionnaire surveys...surveys with questions that are so prone to error and inaccuracy, it's ludicrous to think that one could actually draw any significant conclusions from them.

Did you read the link I posted, LS, from Tom Naughton?

I did something similar to Tom, with the cancer projects claims about a "plant-based" diet.

I read the Diet and Cancer Research page on the Cancer Project website.

When I got to the concluding sentence of the introductory paragraph (which is usually where a thesis statement placed in an exposition written to convince the reader of some position,) was this:

Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat. 4

Ok....so I check the citation: Barnard ND, Nicholson A, Howard JL. The medical costs attributable to meat consumption. Prev Med 1995;24:646-55.

I than googled: Prev Med 1995;24:646-55

I read the report...and sure enough, the study is based on a self-reporting questionnaire. Better yet, they refer to a specific food questionnaire..the Block Food Questionnaire.

They offer an online survey like the one they used in the Cancer Project's "Study."

Here is one of the questions that demonstrates EXACTLY what I mean when I say these questionnaires are full of bunk:

Margarine, butter or mayo on bread or potatoes

Margarine, butter or oil in cooking

Put aside all of the problems associated with self-selection, sample size and all the other statistical-related reasons for skepticism pointed out by Tom Haughton in that link I provided...and consider this: the "conclusions" that have become conventional wisdom because the likes of Hannibal Lecter taking to the airwaves to spread the word that A PLANT BASED DIET is the key to avoiding cancer, the actual questionnaire they use to get these results to reach their conclusions makes no differentiation between animal-based butter and plant-based margarine.

How's that for SCIENCE, eh?

I challenge you, LS, to do as I did, and not accept any of these claims at face value.

Follow up on their citations, look at the actual methodology. I promise you, you will not fine A SINGLE SCIENTIFIC STUDY THAT PROVES MEAT CAUSES CANCER OR IS BAD FOR HUMAN HEALTH.

You will only find diet survey questionnaires and highly questionable statistical manipulations to reach predetermined conclusions.

Oh, and the next time your grocery shopping, you can feel fine that you've loaded up your cart with "plant-based" high fructose corn syrup, and "plant-based" partially hydrogenated soybean oil, and "plant-based" hydrolized soy protein! Those are all products that are GREAT for health! After all, you're not eating meat!

This post got sent to Amy's spam folder because of all the links I provided. So I'll leave it at this: Everything I write here, I can most assuredly provide you all of the links to, I just had to re-post this and remove all the links so Amy's spam filter doesn't automatically junk it.

I assure you, LS, I didn't stop at one instance of researching these claims.

I had a friend email me an article from Dr. Popkins, entitled Eat Meat, Die Sooner: Red Meat Boosts Risk of Early Death
Meat Consumption Associated with Premature Death Risk

Rather than bothering to try and read the author cited in this article, I go straight to source he cites, the National Cancer Institute. On their website, I search for "Red Meat" to find their article citing the research.

The first graph displayed on that page purports to show the amount of meat eaten by individuals that participated in the survey. From the reference to that first graph, I'm able to google up the website of the source of that questionnaire used to generate this graph...which is the basic means of gathering information used for the statistical analysis that eventually lead to "experts" promoting the propaganda that red meat causes cancer.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_189.pdf

The food frequency portion of the questionnaire begins on page 176 of the PDF document.

How can such a study take a generalized question structure like this and even hope to get "accurate" data, to recommend making such life changing behaviors to people? Can YOU remember how many times you ate steak in the past year? Hot Dogs? Pizza?

Furthermore, there is almost no distinction between quality of food! It asks about fried foods...but no distinction about what oils it is fried in nor at what temperatures (who could remember that anyways? Do you know what kind of oil your french fries were made in a year ago at that one McDonalds you had lunch at?)

It asks about food like Pizza. Is there not substantial difference between cheap, frozen pizza versus home-delivered vs. home made? And is not the toppings of a pizza, and the ingredients for the crust extremely variable? If you're trying to determine the role of meat in causing cancer, would you at least ask if the person ate meat lovers Pizza versus a vegetarian supreme?

Yet this is the sort of data we are supposed to TRUST the researchers will use to create reliable and accurate dietary advice?

No matter how accurate these self-reported results are, can you not see the very fundamental flaw regarding the methodology?

That one could supposedly look at the sum totality of a reported diet, and point to red meat and/or saturated fat as the culprit?

Well, what sort of studies would be ok? There are tons of studies showing smoking causes cancer. Are those not self-selected questionaires? "Do you smoke?" Yes or no.

It's likely that someone who smokes may also drink. They may also buy sweets at the local bar where they smoke. They may put butter or margarine on their bread, or drink diet soda. But, over time, and through numerous additional studies, it becomes pretty obvious that the incidence of lung cancer can logically be related to smoking.

At the VERY LEAST there are NO studies - questionaire, self-selected, or otherwise - that report a POSITIVE outcome from smoking. So, can you really say the problem is all in the studies? I've asked you meat-believers to show one study proving that meat consumption is a positive health beneifit, and all you do is attack the numerous studies showing that it isn't. You offer no proof that a meat-based diet is healthy, so I'm asking why should any rational person take the risk that you are right and all the studies are wrong? Why should anyone presume that a meat-based diet is superior to a plant-based diet, which numerous studies suggest is better?

All I hear are attacks of the current studies, which suggests to me a weak position. You have absolutely no proof that a meat-based diet is healthy. Your only argument is to suggest that the studies are flawed, so it probably isn't as "unhealthy" as it seems. That's not very convincing. By that logic, I should start smoking too.

LS, you are drawing a false comparison. It's quite easy to track a single variable like a smoker and lung cancer statistics.

That's a far cry from self reported questionnaires regarding how much of a type of food any person has eaten in the last year, and than draw conclusions from it.

Furthermore, it's obvious you didn't really read any of the links Amy or I provided...probably because you are an ideological vegetarian. You have FAITH and you just KNOW that eating meat is wrong.

Let me refer you to someone that actually spent 20 years as a vegan, and finally saw the light:

Lierre Keith, and her book The Vegetarian Myth. Google it and read up on it.

Oh, and if you REALLY care to, there are certainly a LOT of material out there proving a "meat-based" diet works.

If you truly care to read up on things that challenge beliefs you hold so dear, check out all of the personal stories of people that 'went Primal' on Mark's Daily Apple website.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-book/success-stories/

Dave, I did read the links. In fact, I had read the original Fumento's article that the reason.com link discussed, which actually seemed quite a good critique of Taubes to me.

But I don't really know much about him or the Eades, except that I have been following a low-carb diet for a year or more, and read/contribute to several low carb blogs, so I know that these people are revered in the low carb diet world.

That doesn't mean they're correct. Quoting Taubes, Eades or Atkins as proof of meat-consumption being healthy isn't science. They're just trying to discredit whatever studies conflict with their beliefs. They have a vested interest in doing so. And their focus is on weight loss, not long-term health.

I'm not a vegetarian, though my ex has been for 40+ years and is in excellent health at age 60. Yet, I never could follow anything quite that extreme. Vegans, for instance, seem too restrictive, and it doesn't surprise me that they may suffer health consequences. I can't see how they can get the proper nutrients. Low carb is one thing - there are actually low-carb vegetarians, who do very well. I believe in low-carb.

All things in moderation is my motto. I just believe that based on what objective studies we have at the moment, avoiding heavy meat consumption is wise. I cannot see how anyone can argue otherwise. There's just no proof that a meat-based diet is healthier and a whole lot of potential proof that it's not. Therefore, I think it's irresponsible to contend that eating lots of meat won't harm you. Even if the free-range/organic meat is harmless, that's not what most people on these diets are eating. Let's be real. They're eating heavily-processed meats.

All things in moderation is my motto. I just believe that based on what objective studies we have at the moment, avoiding heavy meat consumption is wise. I cannot see how anyone can argue otherwise. There's just no proof that a meat-based diet is healthier and a whole lot of potential proof that it's not.

You say you read the links...but that there is no proof?

If you read those links, you would have discovered that the studies WERE NOT OBJECTIVE to begin with.

My 2 cents on vegetarianism:

I'm 19 and I became a vegetarian 7 years ago, when I was 12. I BECAME vegetarian for moral reasons, but I STAYED a vegetarian because meat never appealed to me all that much, it was surprisingly easy to give up, and I've never craved it since.

I don't think that being a vegetarian makes me morally superior or necessarily healthier. It's just a personal dietary preference that's ingrained in me out of habit. If I ever felt the urge to eat meat, I would, but so far that hasn't happened. Plus once you stop eating a food for a long you lose the ability to digest it, so I know that eating a hamburger would make me sick, which is a pretty strong disincentive.

The diet industry wants us to believe that there's just ONE right way to eat, and that's just not true. There are a lot of different ways to eat healthy, and if what you're eating makes you look good and feel good, then you're probably fine. Once you accept that there's no one magic way to eat, then you don't have to take other people's diets as a personal affront. For example, I would never want to eat the way that Amy does (greasy hamburgers, fatty bacon, vegetables cooked in butter, no fruit) but I'm not going to attempt to argue against when it's 100% clear that it works great for her.

I also think that people get too fixated on using science to justify what amounts to personal dietary preferences.I honestly don't care about how long our colons are or what prehistoric people ate or whether or not raw vegetables have 10% more vitamins than cooked. I'm just going to eat what I like and what feels intuitively healthy to me. Life is too short for anything else.

Plus the science is continually changing. Just 10 or 15 years ago "science" said that we should all eat high-carb, low-fat diets. Everyone who jumped on that bandwagon undoubtably suffered adverse health effects. It's much better to pay attention to your own body than eat in a way that makes you feel unhealthy, tired, or miserable.

"Avoiding meat consumption is not what the science suggests we should be doing, but avoiding carbohydrate consumption, and more than anything, the consumption of sugar."

Yes, if you're trying to lose weight, no question. But prevent cancer? Show me something NOT by these low carb gurus that proves heavy meat consumption prevents cancer, or that populations with heavy meat consumption have little or no cancer.

It seems to me that "star-worship" is more about blindly believing people who tell you the science is wrong because that's the diet you want to follow.

But, actually, the low-carb diet, and science behind it, doesn't mandate heavy meat consumption, just higher protein. That's just the way it's been interpreted in this meat-loving country, and capitalized on by low carb authors - because it's easier to tell people to eat all the meat they want. But there are plenty of low-carb followers who still have the sense to realize that eating heavily processed, hormone-laden meat isn't a good idea.

I said we're not designed to be carnivores. There's very little dispute on that:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_humans_omnivores_or_herbivores

What do you think happens to meat when it's passing through an intestinal tract 10 to 11 times longer than our bodies? Meat is much harder than plant-based food to break down, particularly for herbivores, since we lack the acids.

I suppose you have some "proof" from Taubes or Eades that none of this is true and that meat is easily digestable, and, in fact, humans are carnivores.

You repeatedly ignore my request for even one study showing heavy meat consumption is healthy for any population, while simply maintaining that it is. How is that relying on "evidence-based" science? If meat is so healthy, there should be ample proof.

Just because the studies haven't effectively ruled out all other factors, like sugar or carbs, doesn't translate into ruling out meat. It is still a common denominator in these unhealthy diets. You may CHOOSE to believe it's all sugar or carbs, but that doesn't serve as proof that meat is benign.

This NY Times article really demonstrates the whole process that our simple hamburgers go through before they reach our table. It's pretty disgusting if anyone cares to read the whole thing. I personally didn't realize that scraps and fat, often uninspected, were brought in from slaughterhouses in other countries to mix in with our meat.

This young woman was paralyzed by an e-coli infection and they traced the hamburger she ate through its processing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?_r=1

So now you're gonna try the PeTA method?

Sorry. Humans have canine teeth for a reason.

If we weren't built or evolved for eating meat, we wouldn't have the involuntary salivary reaction to the smell of meat cooking.

LS, your not even trying to be objective.

But since you ask for it, here's what I found with only 30 seconds of Googling "Healthy Meat"

http://www.healthylivingnyc.com/article/117

Also, if you read the Weston A. Price Foundation's website, it has extensive articles written by Phd researchers as well as citing the works of Dr. Price, who travelled the world and observed many of the indigenous populations in the 1930's. His studies give more than enough evidence to show how many many meat-based eating cultures thrived in good health...and how those indigenous peoples that switched to western diets -- "Plant based" such as flour and sugar -- have all had dramatic declines in their health.

Finally, you are arguing a false premise here. No one is claiming that humans are carnivores. We are OMNIVORES. Fresh vegetable and fresh fruits are certainly a part of any healthy diet. The only real contention here is that shunning meat and saturated fats is NOT the healthy dietary practice people like you claim it is.

The so-called "science" to back that point of view up is certainly questionable, as I've belabored to show you.

You say you want evidence?

Read this free online book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects. It goes into heavy details about Weston Price's observations of native peoples and their diets...many of whom subsisted on diets that were 80-90% meat and fat...like the Lakota, the Inuit, Samoans and a whole host of other cultures the world over who all had fantastic health - until they started eating the western "plant-based" diet.

His observations of native peoples on traditional diets were particularly relevant because they served as the perfect "control" group to compare them to those natives that adopted Western diets. The contrast in health and well being are patently obvious.

I think I trust this sort of study far more than the bogus questionnaire methods and statistical manipulations masquerading as "science."

Well, that's what I've been asking for, Dave, thanks. Unfortunately, however, we're not eating an Intuit or Lakota diet of freshly killed meat, even if Price's research proves they lived long and healthy, disease-free lives, which I haven't actually found proof of yet.

And the first link is about child development, which is vastly different from long-term health risks, such as cancer.

I agree it's wrong to raise children on a strictly vegan diet. Vegans may argue with that, but I believe, to be safe, children need milk for growing bones, and eggs for protein, but I don't buy the theory at all that you can't raise healthy vegetarian children - at least ovo-lacto vegetarians. I know many people who have raised strong, healthy children on such a diet, so that's completely bogus.

There is a big difference between regular vegetarians (those who simply don't eat meat) and vegans (those who don't eat meat, eggs, dairy, or anything that may contain a meat biproduct, which is an ever-increasing list, including things like jello and most cheeses). As vegans keep finding more and more foods with meat bi-products in them, a vegan diet these days is very restrictive.

So, it's just as incorrect to lump the two diets together in studies of vegetarianism as it is arguably wrong to lump meat eaters and sweet eaters together. It's impossible to know for sure whether the study results are due to a lack or meat or dairy or any of the other forbidden foods. Just as it has been argued that there are too many cofounding factors in the meat studies.

But the main issue is that most meat-eaters in the west are not eating the free-range, fresh meats like I enjoyed growing up on a farm. If you read that NY times link I posted, THAT is the kind of meat most Americans are eating regularly. So, I'm just saying it seems best to cut back as much as possible on most of the meat products we are typically served in this country. Unless you can afford to buy all organic, and only eat at restaurants that serve fresh, organic meats, it seems to me that you're taking a risk with your health.

Although studies may not completely prove the meat/cancer link, it still seems like a pretty reasonable hypothesis...at least enough of one to warrant more concern than you all seem to be showing. I'm not advocating total vegetarianism. I'm not going to do that myself, but, in light of the potential risks, I am going to watch my meat consumption more closely.

Gosh, Dave, that "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects" is very old, and he writes in such a borderline racist, elitist, moralizing way, I can't stand to read it. Maybe you can cite the major points with regards to meat consumption and primitive peoples. All I got so far is that they had better teeth.

LS, it's now quite obvious you WANT to cling to your beliefs and cannot objectively assess any evidence that runs counter to your faith-based ideas.

Excuse me, Dave, but I don't think some weird disertation from the 1930s by some obviously elitist and moralistic old guy obsessing over "savage's" dental bridges and the "degeneration of our racial stock" makes for solid proof of anything.

I think it's much more fanatical and "faith-based" to keep believing meat is the healthiest food product you can shove into your gut, sans any real evidence, and in the face of plenty of doubt. Frankly, it's kind of creepy - like a "hamburger religion."

Go ahead and stuff yourself with all the meat you want. Why does it bother you so much that others may wish to take a more prudent approach? I kinda see what the LW was dealing with. You meat-worshipers are a pretty angry group.

Amy, I realize that, and I've been following a low-carb diet myself for quite awhile, even though a lot of the medical establishment is critical of LC diets. It doesn't make me angry. The meat debate concerns me for health reasons. Although I see how easy it is to lose weight eating steak, chicken, and pork, I personally never feel particularly healthy eating it (especially after reading how it's processed). The fact that many studies suggest a link to cancer or other long-term health problems is something I just can't dismiss entirely.

But I'm not threatening anyone else's meat consumption. That's how it feels whenever I say I plan to cut back. There seems to be this hostile response, which I've witnessed first-hand when meat-eaters are confronted with someone on a vegetarian diet. They get hostile, like someone choosing a plant-based diet is a direct insult to them and the way they eat.

Do I think it's unwise to eat lots of processed meats - not just because of the studies, but because of the hormones injected and chemicals used? Yes. Am I trying to stop you or anyone else from eating all the meat you want? No.

I may be wrong. You may be wrong. Seems to me that the studies leave enough ambiguity that either or us can choose to believe the way we do. You can suspect sugar/carbs or other factors are the major culprits in disease, and I can still believe meat may play a role too.

No question people lie in self-reported dietary studies, but from what I've read, they tend to understimate consumption of "bad" foods and overestimate consumption of "good" foods, like fruits and vegetables.

So, it really gets down to sugar/carbs and meat. We can assume their vegetable/fruit intake is much lower than reported. Yet, the implication I've seen from people trying to debunk these studies in favor of meat, is just to say "People lie on questionaires". The implication is that they may not have been eating meat at all.

That's illogical and misleading. No one is going to lie and say they ate meat when they didn't. If anything, their consumption is probably higher than reported (to make up for all the fruits and veggies they're lying about).

And it's pretty easy to estimate how much meat one eats in a week. I do my family's shopping, so I know our basic menus, and if I had to guess, I might be off a meal or two, but I'd come pretty close - particularly with meat, as it's something I must buy in a specific section and the cost is a factor. Most people can accurately remember if they tend to eat meat for breakfast, lunch or dinner, or if they don't.

But, obviously, they are probably lying about sugar/carbs. No question. It is human nature to eat that donut, then go into denial about having eaten it. The blame can easily be placed on sugar/carbs. I just don't believe that fully acquits meat. Until we really know more, I'm going to cut back. But you all are free to eat/believe whatever you want.

Excuse me, Dave, but I don't think some weird disertation from the 1930s by some obviously elitist and moralistic old guy obsessing over "savage's" dental bridges and the "degeneration of our racial stock" makes for solid proof of anything.

The fact that you cannot get beyond politically correct dogma to see the truths of Dr. Price's observations really shows just how stuck into believing what you want to believe, even when the evidence is right there for you to see.

Sure he has a pre-civil rights mentality and language...but if you take the entire presentation of his book, you would understand that he is in fact saying that all of these "savages" and "natives" all have developed diets unique to their environments, and that they are superior to the Western diets of starches and sugars.

And one thing common with all of their diets was the predominance of meat and fat in their diets.

But if you are so wedded to adhering to political correctness and will only accept any observations or studies that adhere to your sense of "social justice," than by all means, keep accepting the conventional wisdom as truths.

Again, I say to you LS, I challenge you to try and produce a SINGLE SCIENTIFIC STUDY that shows the meat/cancer connection, that is based on the Scientific method rather than highly questionable and subjective food questionnaire surveys and statistical manipulations to reach predetermined conclusions.

Search all you like, you'll find just as I have - every single study and every single claim of the meat/cancer connection is always based on food questionnaire surveys.

"I finally conceded a belief that vegans are more evolved from a spiritual standpoint."

And yet you are probably a lapsed Jew, and support abortion, and pretty much live life based around what makes you feel good, superior or both.

Real evolved.

Half of the commenters here talk like your choice is either a high fat, high meat, low carb diet or else a highly processed, full-of-sugar vegan diet. Well, there are other, healthier choices besides these two extremes.

Yeah, the low-fat craze with all the fake sugar-laden food was completely ridiculous. But with all respect, I don't think the low carb craze is much better. Correct me if I'm wrong about this (I'm sure you will), but I seem to recall reading that while Taubes is a scientist, he has no medical or nutritional background. He may be qualified to critique the scientific methodology of previous studies, but I'm not so sure about his qualifications to recommend a healthy diet.

Yeah, cut out food groups and stick to it, and you'll be thin. No doubt people lose weight on low carb diets. I know lots of people that lost weight on low-fat diets, too. (The problem is when you go OFF the diet.) However, I'm not at all convinced either type of diet is the best thing for your overall long-term health, and that's what I care about.

I follow, and always have, a diet with whole grains, fresh meat, cheese and fish, lots of fruits and veggies and a healthy but not ridiculous amount of olive oil and butter. I eat few processed foods and keep the sugary stuff and stuff like bacon as an occasional treat. I also keep the portion sizes reasonable. I'm in my 40's, slim, eat like a horse, have gobs of energy, absolutely no health problems, "good" cholesterol hovering near 100, and dense bones. I couldn't get any healthier than I am, and for the life of me I can't see why on earth I should deny myself carbs and start slurping bacon fat instead (or cut out my butter and meat and eat nothing but sprouts).

Nonetheless, my less healthy, less slim low-carbing acquaintances keep shoving their goddamn diet at me! The vegans and kooky raw food fanatics are just as bad. I'll keep doing what I'm doing, thanks. And if one more dumpy, pasty slob tells me that something I'm eating is "poison", I'll fucking slap him. Or maybe I'll just outrun him.

wasn't the original point about whether or not vegetarians or vegans (not the same, as pointed out by lovelysoul) can maintain a satisfactory relationship with people who eat meat? i would say yes, but so many of the people who clearly support eating meat on this board seem to be offended at the very idea of somebody in their presence not eating meat, and i can't imagine a vegetarian who would want to be with them. this whole discussion makes me thankful for my friends--those who do eat meat--who, apparently miraculously, manage to treat me with respect. (many of them have their own food qualms as well--such as not eating onions.) this also includes my significant other, who eats meat, but is always accommodating to my dietary wishes, going so far as cooking meat-free almost every night of the week.

It's "utter idiocy" to suggest that a background in nutrition and/or medicine might possibly be more relevant than Taube's background in physics when it comes to diet? Huh. And to compound my idiocy, I'd say that a political blogger/romantic advice columnist is even less qualified to put people on diets! But hey, it's a free country (at least for the time being), and people should follow whatever diet guru they want. I'm slim, fit, strong, and ludicrously healthy, all of which encourages me to forge forward with my foolhardy concept of a well-rounded diet. If I ever do bloat up forty pounds or develop any health problems, perhaps I'll see the error of my silly ways.

Actually, I'm not following credentials (although that said, I do think if you're going to follow credentials, it makes sense to follow relevant ones). Nor would I ever presume to put my friends on diets, as you do. All I'm doing is following my life-long practice of eating a well-rounded diet consisting mostly of things that my mother, grand-mother and great-great-great grandmother would have recognized as food, which includes whole grains and butter too. And yeah, once in a while it includes a small amount of sugar (although way less than most Americans eat.) And I'm going to keep following that practice as long as my health and weight continue to be excellent.

It's you following the credentials -- you're positively obsessed with Taubes. In my opinion you sounded a lot more sensible a year or so ago when you were posting photos of bakery shop windows and telling everyone to eat like French women -- moderate portion sizes, healthy amounts of fat, some nice cheese, and a reasonably-sized pastry now and again. (The thin, healthy French women I know absolutely are not following Taubes' diet. They wouldn't give up their baguettes or their occasional pastry.) You were thin and healthy on that diet, but now you seem to attribute your slimness solely to Taubes and tubs of bacon fat, and you regard a pastry as "poison". Well, whatever.

There are plenty of studies to show that by and large it's over-eating -- not carbs and not fat -- that make you fat. I don't know any fat people who don't eat too much -- whatever it is they eat. And I don't know anyone who eats a moderate amount and yet is fat, even if they eat way too much sugar. For example, I absolutely would NOT follow this guy's diet, but at 5'10" and 150 pounds, 51-year-old Paul Rudnik is certainly not fat on his diet that consists almost entirely of refined carbs and sugar. Actually, if you check out the photos, he looks pretty damn good. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/dining/28Rudn.html I have a much-too-thin running friend who has a serious sweet tooth, eats gobs of candy, but she won't eat butter or cheese and has her salad sans dressing. She scares me, and I don't think her diet is healthy, but she's certainly thin. Another non-running friend of mine got down to (an unhealthily low) 105 pounds on one of those low fat/high carb diets back in the 80's. Lots of other friends lost weight on them. Again, I DON'T think those high carb/low fat/fake food diets are healthy either, and I have never followed one. I like my butter! But it does go to show that unless you overeat, you don't generally get fat on them.

I'm into moderation. And I'm not particularly into telling people what to eat. I shrug my shoulders at my raw-food friend, my vegan friends, and my low-carbing friends. I honestly don't care what they eat and I don't care what you eat either. But I'm sick to death of people telling me what to eat when in fact I'm not only perfectly healthy, but healthier than they are. I've maintained my high school weight since high school. And I get both my bread and my butter, and an occasional pastry too. Why on earth would I change and deny myself foods I love?

Food isn't medicine or science to me. I don't deny myself things -- I just eat them in moderation. And it seems to be working just fine, despite the "poison" I occasionally ingest.

Before Taubes came along, it sounds like you used to eat pretty much the same way I did (I've followed your blog off and on for a couple of years). And from the sound of things, you were perfectly healthy and slim. And the gobs of French women you used to tout as examples did and do eat much the way I do, and they stay healthy and slim. So far, despite the baguettes and pastry we enjoy, we don't seem to be "poisoned", and we're not fat. Quite the contrary.

I'll agree with you (and Taubes) that TOO MUCH refined carbohydrates and sugar are certainly a bad thing, and that too many Americans garbage up on crap and avoid real food. I'll also agree that the ultra-low-fat craze was silly. But I remain convinced that my beloved steel-cut oatmeal and whole-wheat bread are a genuinely healthy part of my diet. And I'm also convinced that, consumed in moderation, a crusty baguette or piece of chocolate is a yummy and happy thing -- and it won't kill you. If so, it's taking the long way to kill off me and my 97-year-old grandmother. (She's always been thin too, by the way.)

Anyway. I really don't have anything else to add, so I'll shut up at last and get back to work.

While you're right that the woman LW chatted with was clearly indicating that they shouldn't date, this does not mean LW can't get along just fine in a relationship with a meat-eater.

My best relationship ever was with someone who was vegetarian for moral reasons. As were her married sister and her mother. All three couples got along just fine on that score. While we guys may have eaten vegetarian meals rather more often than we normally would have, there was no lack of family barbecues with plenty of flesh, and a hamburger at the restaurant was never a problem.

You're right that he has to consider carefully what he's willing to accept, but I know plenty of vegetarians and vegans who are just fine with someone eating meat in front of them. He may be one of those.

And yes, those women are more moral than me in that particular respect, I think. None of us is sinless, and we all compromise on certain moral ideals.

We cannot also deny the fact that some people are used to eating meats since their birth. While eating must not interfere relationship, but sometimes you cannot help it when both of you comes to a table, she orders her food with meat, and we vegan, holds our feeling seeing those pity animals on the table. But still we enjoy the moment with someone we inspire to be with.

What is good is when our love ones realized the health risk from eating flesh foods, they come to a decision when they want to become vegan or vegetarian too. Still we can encourage them to eat alkaline foods to have a healthier life, and love to eat fruits and vegetables instead.