CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Nutrition
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Nutrition Diet, supplements, weightloss, health & longevity

Thread Tools
Old 06-29-2006, 03:21 PM   #21
Charlie Jackson
Banned Charlie Jackson is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Santa Carlos  New Mexico
Posts: 204
Remember that it was people who ate meat who created this cushy society that is prosperous enough that people have the choice *not* to eat meat.

You'll find that most of their calories came from whole grains, corn, potatoes and other non-paleo foods.

If you are concerned about animal lives, then it is by no means obvious that vegitarianism is the right approach.

Not possible to kill fewer animals by using them for food.

However, if you want to couch your discussion in terms of ethics, then (and this is the second point) you don't get a free ride to ethical relativism.

So if it doesn't bother my conscience, then it shouldn't bother his. That's pretty much what you are saying and it's obviously not true.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2006, 03:56 PM   #22
Michael Hill
Member Michael Hill is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 76
This post made me remember an article I read a few years ago. It presents a slightly different take on the issue. Here's the link:
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2006, 04:23 PM   #23
David Cynamon
Member David Cynamon is offline
David Cynamon's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Baltimore  MD
Posts: 79
Many times when I bought kale, spinach, or other vegetables I found small insects on the leaves. Must one check fruits and vegetables in order to avoid eating them?

Are insects (and roadkill?) more "ethical" sources of protein? do they also have b12 and EPA/DHA? The local petshop sells crickets and mealworms.

Where do you draw the line of what's ethical and what's not? To what extent must one go in order to be sure that no animal suffering came about from one's actions? Is it unethical to poison mice and rats in one's home, or is it the same as a burglar breaking in? Must one only buy products that didn't require the destruction of animal habitat?(can one use paper?) How can one live in a home in a city that once used to be the habitat of animals?

Do people often use ethics as an excuse for a particular behavior to justify it?
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2006, 05:12 PM   #24
Michael Forge
Member Michael Forge is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wilmington  DE
Posts: 105
There are more things in heaven and Earth, Marc, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

If you read my first post to Doug, I actually tried to steer the conversation away from ethics in the theoretical sense that you are using it. I'm using the word in the more liberal sense as a synonym for personal beliefs. And, no, I don't believe that there is one TRUE set of beliefs and that anything to the contrary is false.

As I said, you can philosophize, intellectualize, and rationalize it all you want. Bottom line is if you put a calf in front of me and tell me you'll make me the most delicious burger I've ever had if I bash its head in, it ain't going to happen. And I'm not about to eat that burger just because someone else did the dirty work for me.

I've learned that my intuition is a much better guage of what's right or wrong, at least for me, than my mind. I KNOW killing animals is not right for me and that is the basis of my actions. As a philosopher/intellectual you'll likely scoff at that, but, again, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, nor gain anyone's seal of approval for my beliefs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2006, 05:20 PM   #25
Michael Forge
Member Michael Forge is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wilmington  DE
Posts: 105
So, what's your point, David: Since a certain degree of animal sufferting and harm is built in to our modern industrialized society, we should all say to Hell with it and embrace the wholesale breeding and slaughter of billions of sentient animals a year for our hot dogs and Chicken McNuggets?

(Message edited by maffy on June 29, 2006)
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2006, 05:54 PM   #26
Marc Moffett
Member Marc Moffett is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Laramie  WY
Posts: 141
Michael, I did read your post. What you did was to encourage Doug to adopt a specific stance--one which I find to be both morally and rationally repugnant. (However Doug ultimately adjudicates the issue, I seriously hope he isn't at all tempted by the out you offered him.) Rationally repugnant because it encourages the uncritical acceptance of a particular set of beliefs; morally repugnant because the uncritical acceptance of normative beliefs is itself a morally irresponsible position. You are right that each of us ultimately has to make our own decisions, but that you decide a moral decision (especially a pressing one) one way at the moment isn't an excuse for becoming complacent about that position.

The bottom line is this: whether directly or indirectly, your very existence is predicated on the deaths of many thousands of sentient beings. This is an inexorable fact, or very nearly so. You say above that you aren't willing to let someone else do the dirty work for you. But in the end, you do just that--you push the deaths off at one more level of remove and tell yourself that this is the ethical thing to do. As Leopold once said, "There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes fro the grocery, the other that heat comes from the furnace."
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2006, 08:15 PM   #27
Robert Wolf
Member Robert Wolf is offline
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chico  CA
Posts: 2,669
This can’t be done in a way different than what I'm advocating for many people. Stick all these folks on a grain, legume, dairy, and egg diet and watch the fun:

These folks express a susceptibility to these Neolithic foods the same way everyone else does, simply to a greater degree. They are literally the canaries in the coalmine.

My old roommate had a 2.2xbw bench press, could do a planch pushup his first try and when he did standing back flips he did a gainer nearly 7 feet in front of where he started. His diet? that he did not eat meat but his supper frequently consisted of jalapeno poppers from jack-in-the-box, Arizona ice tea and popcorn. He has about 5% body fat and the beginnings of cardiomyopathy due to his constantly elevated insulin levels. He is 28. His father had his first heart attack at the age of 32. Second at age 45. I know this in no way emulates your diet but my point is that sometimes genetics can mask a diet that is at odds with health.

Who invited me? Doug did when he asked if it was possible to do right by his health and be vegetarian. Because YOU have no overt signs of pathology is an anecdotally valid point but you seem to imply that my experience, both as a researcher and someone with celiac gives me no insight into this. Additionally you have absolutely no basis to judge what you are doing compared to a paleo approach until you DO the paleo approach. Would your blood lipids improve? Inflammatory cytokines? Recovery? You dismiss this and say what you are doing is "good enough" but that skirts the issue of what’s "best".

We have some hard, factual ways to assess this but you bow out on this. Fine, but don't claim a better product unless you have proof. This is the essence of CrossFit, free markets and many other things most everyone here holds near and dear. This is the point that’s buggaring me. You won't do a comparison; yet claim to have the same thing. And for some reason because I advocate this as a superior nutritional approach, and base it not only on my own experience but also on the foundations of evolutionary biology and can dismiss it all with your sample of one...and no direct comparison. What I've always advocated is try both approaches, have an objective set of criteria, and see which one delivers.

I know that since you are an unswayable rugged individual this will carry no weight for you but Keith Thomas was vegetarian for 15+ years and fit, strong and healthy. He went paleo and became more so. Give it a read if you like:

He even has an interesting look at vegetarianism:

Now that all addressed, very specifically, if a paleo diet is a better option than vegetarian. You refuse to play that game and so fall back on the morality card as a validation of your stance. The conversation now grinds to a halt. When we start bringing in morality all kinds of fun stuff happens. Case in point: The teenage birthrate is near zero in Germany due in large part to a fairly non-religious population and the adoption of vigorous sex-ed and condom distribution. Now in Ireland things are a bit different. Highly religious population, virtually no sex ed, poor access to condoms by teenagers and a teen birthrate that is nothing short of remarkable. Now, by your argument I cannot assail the Irish for their belief system that guarantees suffering and destitution for many, despite the fact that a close European neighbor has a far better system...because the Irish (like you) FEEL they have the right answer despite facts to the contrary.

Michael, you are trying to make two points: 1-vegetarianism is=paleo diet. It’s not. You are also trying to make the point that vegetarianism is a moral high ground. Again, it is not. As both Mark and I have pointed out you choose to distance yourself from the carnage and call it a day.

I know this is ****ing away an enormous amount of time and if I have stepped over the line and made this personal I apologize, but there are hundreds if not thousands of websites devoted to vegetarianism, Triathalon, yoga and the like. There is ONE site where you can find the best in elite athletics and nutrition and I’ll be damned if I’m going to roll over on this. If the act of basing my arguments on fact, personal experience, epistemology and the foundations of logic places me in the category “Zealot”, I guess I’m ok with that.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2006, 10:39 PM   #28
Ron Murphy
Departed Ron Murphy is offline
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 103
so often I here you can't be healthy without eating animal products or you can't get enough protien eating only a plant based diet,especially from people on this board. These statements are plain wrong.
Even dr ,g the very well respected dr on this board has admitted in past posts that he has seen exceptions. I too have seen numerous "exceptions".
The people I know that eat a plant based diet from whole unprocessed fruits and veggies,nuts and seeds, that also get plenty of real exercise are very healthy. Dr .g never sees these people in his practice. I feel he draws his conclusion about a vegetarian diet from his personal experience,which didn't work for him and the sick vegetarains he sees in his practice.I also have seen many sick vegetarians. If I only saw these people I would have probably come to the same conclusion he came too
Dr G . I should eat animal products so I will be better prepared if WW 111 comes! Thats getting a little out there. I will cross that bridge when the time comes.
As for me I have been eating this plant based diet about 5 years longer than Dr. G. has been born! I also have aways got plenty of exercise in my life.
you all can continue your love affair with eating animal products, I really don't care.
doug if you do it right, thats without dairy, you can be healthy and not have to kill any animals.
For those people who feel they have to eat fish to get there EPA/DHA? please read the link below, pollution in fish is a real concern
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2006, 03:10 AM   #29
Michael Forge
Member Michael Forge is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wilmington  DE
Posts: 105

What places you in the category of zealot is the same thing that defines all zealots, a belief that their way is THE way. You are so blinded by your belief that you don't even really listen to what I've said. I did not, in any way, suggest "vegetarianism is=paleo diet." And I have little doubt that the introduction of some animal flesh into my diet would indeed elevate my ability to maximize my performance. What I said was I'm willing to accept the performance hit, and even, if it exists, the slight nutritional hit, for the sake of not killing unnecessarily. Millions of people for thousands of years have lived on vegetarian, or near vegetarian diets. I am certainly no medical anomaly in that I have no health contradictions whatsoever. I guarantee you there is no heart attack in my future because of my diet. I thrive on whole grains and vegetables, as have thousands of years of my ancestors. You have celiac disease? I sympathize, but don't foist your digestive limitations on me.

Then you claim that I am playing "the morality card in validation of my stance." Again, not at all the case. I never suggested that not eating animals is morally superior to eating them, and that people who don't have a problem with it should stop. Unlike you and Marc, I have the capacity to accept a way of thinking that is diametrically opposed to my own. I have emphasized over and over that I don't eat animals because I don't feel right about it. Although I find the suggestion that eating animals is no more harmful to them than not eating them ludicrous, I readily acknowledge that I, by virtue of my inclusion in modern society indirectly cause significant animal harm. It is virtually impossible to avoid that. And to the extent that it is possible, I still could avoid it MUCH more than I do. Everyone has to decide where they draw the line for themselves. For me, that point is supporting animal suffering and death not as a by product of modern life, but as an industry in and of itself. For you and Marc to claim that this is no less harmful to animals than a vegetarian diet is so ridiculous it's hard for me to seriously respond to it.

And, no, Doug did not ask "if it was possible to do right by his health and be vegetarian." He asked if it was possible to reconcile a Paleo or Zone diet with vegetarianism. Those are two totally different questions. You could have easily answered the latter without shooting off to the former. But, as I said, you and others on this board seize any post that mentions vegetarianism as an opportunity to malign it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2006, 03:21 AM   #30
Michael Forge
Member Michael Forge is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wilmington  DE
Posts: 105

Allow me to cut through your Philosobabble, and state my case again: I am not advocating a stance for ANYONE. I recognize and accept your right to eat all the animals you want. If you wish to do so behind a veil of philosophical rationalization that suggests this is no worse than the unavoidable indirect harm of sentient beings inherent in modern society, I recognize your right to do that to. I have no interest in convincing you to do otherwise. But it's not, and never will be, for me. If you consider that "morally and rationally repugnant" I don't think I'll lose too much sleep over it.

(Message edited by maffy on June 30, 2006)
  Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Have Paleo Diet for Athletes; Need Paleo Diet Also? Brad Davis Nutrition 3 07-22-2007 09:22 PM
What the Paleo Diet has done for me James Lewis Nutrition 24 03-15-2007 03:41 PM
Against the Paleo Diet? Travis Mulroy Nutrition 2 06-15-2005 05:06 AM
Paleo-zone diet = anti-rhabdo-diet? Seth Drown Nutrition 3 04-05-2005 11:03 AM
Paleo Diet.... Jay Edvardz Nutrition 4 12-15-2003 11:54 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:05 AM.

CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.