View Full Version : The Chemicals We Eat
fitnessdave September 21st, 2004, 04:03 PM My wife has recently decided to cut out meat completely from her diet. She is also only eating organic fruits and vegetables. I'm proud of her new vegan lifestyle and support it, she isn't preaching others to do the same - it's just for her.
I have read some literature lately and do see some of the points she has (however, I love meat too much to ever stop eating it). I just wondered what everyone here thought about it though. Do you know what they put into these animals? Sure, chicken is a great source of protein and it taste so damn good - but most of these chickens are pumped full of hormones and steriods (not to mention if you look into the ethical side of things). However, purely from a health standpoint, do you think that these hormones, steriods and other chemicals in the meat we eat greatly affect us. Or do you think that the toxins are low enough that we work them out by proper exercise and a quality diet?
Also, what's your take on pesticides and other chemicals used on the fruit and veggies we eat?
Anyways, all of us are trying to get healthy and I think having meat can be a great part of our diets, but when it has so much crap in it I really wonder if it is substantial enough to hurt us.
hobowitharolex September 21st, 2004, 04:09 PM perdue dosent use chemicals
i think not eating meat is fairly unhealthy unless your supplementing with ammino acids
fitnessdave September 21st, 2004, 04:17 PM She is of course using supplements. Meat does contain good stuff and she knows that, but she'd rather not have the bad stuff that comes along with it (as well as the whole ethical side of things that I won't even get into).
I know Sanderson also has chicken that is natural... no hormones or steroids, but do you know if this is a great deal more in cost?
Thanks for your post by the way.
taffer September 21st, 2004, 08:43 PM you can get chemical/hormone free, organic, free-range chicken
although you are going to pay for it, if you take out the "organic" part the price halves, i get chem/hormone free, free range chicken, i only get the normal stuff when i run out (as i can only buy the free range stuff once a week, at the price i get it)
as for organic vegies, they are better for you, but i simply cant afford them, they cost at least 3 times more than the regular stuff, and i eat way to many vegies to be able to afford that ;)
fitnessdave September 21st, 2004, 10:25 PM I appreciate the input. I'll have to look into the costs of the hormone/steroid free range chicken and see if it is something feasible at this point. Thanks!
PeteBDawg September 22nd, 2004, 12:49 PM Supplements don't have fewer chemicals in them than whole foods.
Vegetables don't have fewer or more benign chemicals used in their preparation than meats.
Being able to call something "Organic" does not require that you refrain from using a lot of these chemicals, either.
Poisons and additives are in everything we eat; there's really no way around them. The primary cause for a lot of this is pollution - cutting down on pollution is the only way to get any reasonable assurance that you're not getting poison in your food.
Studies have generally found that vegetarians and vegans have the same levels of toxins in their bodies as carnivores, because you take in a lot more poison in the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the food you eat that comes from industrial pollution than that comes from agricultural additives.
And "mistreating" animals is only unethical if you follow an ethical system that requires you not "mistreat" animals. There are plenty of very viable ethical standards out there that make no such demand - logically speaking, many of them are just as robust as the Peter Singer brand of utilitarianism that is so popularly regarded as the only viable ethical system around.
But I digress. Obviously, trying to avoid pesticides and whatnot is a good idea, and I support it. I just think a person is making a mistake if they are trying to eliminate toxins from their diet and look first to any other source than industrial pollution, which more or less equally affects everybody, regardless of diet.
I would say the main quantifiable side effect of the processing of food in agribusiness and the best reason to eat "organic" is the adding of harmful food products that are more or less "natural" and wouldn't qualify as poisons, like High Fructose Corn Syrup and Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil - which are as big if not more of a problem to vegans as to carnivores.
fitnessdave September 22nd, 2004, 01:09 PM Studies have generally found that vegetarians and vegans have the same levels of toxins in their bodies as carnivores, because you take in a lot more poison in the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the food you eat that comes from industrial pollution than that comes from agricultural additives.
Do you have any sources for any of these studies? Not that I disbelieve you, I'd just like to take a further look into this. I do agree that you take in a lot more poison in the air you breathe, water, etc. However, I'm surprised that studies show "carnivores".... I suspect you are referring to humans who eat both meat and plants (omnivores) have the same amount of toxins in their bodies.
But I digress. Obviously, trying to avoid pesticides and whatnot is a good idea, and I support it. I just think a person is making a mistake if they are trying to eliminate toxins from their diet and look first to any other source than industrial pollution, which more or less equally affects everybody, regardless of diet.
Trying to avoid pesticides is most definitely a good idea and I'm glad you support it. I guess why I posted about the toxins in food (even though it may be substantially less that the toxins in the air) is that it is much easier to control what food we put into our body than controlling the quality of the air we breathe. Hence the subject is entitled, "The Chemicals We Eat".
Skoorb September 22nd, 2004, 02:07 PM They should treat chickens better.
Anyway, that said, I don't worry about these chemicals. Longevity in our society is getting better - even including the gross obesity problems and pervasive sedentary lifestyles. With my genes and my life style I expect to live well into my 80s. If I had to give up meat and anything else I liked to do it, I would not bother.
That's if I had to, and I don't think that I do. I would consider a vegan lifestyle to be inconvenient, exceptionally costly, and not particularly proven as really enhancing longevity all that much. I would bet that the reason a lot of vegetarians increase their quality of life is not so much by avoiding meat, but by cutting down on calories, taking more control over their health, etc.
Malkavian September 22nd, 2004, 02:08 PM I'd be all for free range chicken and beef, however I simply can't afford it (College student, no job) I do get free range eggs, because they're only a buck more per dozen; chem free chicken and beef howerver I can't even look at unless it's something marked down.
I've read lots of speculation on the effects of hormone laden chicken and eggs on children (mostly linked to girls hitting puberty and "developing" years younger these days) but nothing concrete that I recall. My mother is convinced eating too much pork will be bad for you due to hormone conecntrations but I try to lay off excess pork anyway due to nutrition (which sucks..i love my barbecue)
As for ethics, I'm in favor of free range programs and fewer hormone dosages, in principle, but unless the price on the meat raised in that way comes down...
the vegan diet...it's not for me (protien issues aside I love meat too much!) but bets of luck to your wife in getting it to work and mantaining (and perhaps improving) her health!
kentnutrition September 22nd, 2004, 03:46 PM This may not answer your question directly, but it is in the ballpark. :)
At a place I used to work, the owner spent tons of cash ordering only organic beef because he was concerned about hormones, which generally show up as estrogen in beef. We took a store bought t-bone and had it tested for estrogen. There was enough there, although I no longer recall the exact numbers, to cause some concern. Of course, the fatty deposits on the steak had much more estrogen than the lean portions. Once the meat was cooked, the estrogen dropped to undectable levels, even in the portions which contained a substantial amount of fat. If hormones are a concern, it would appear that cooking the meat takes care of most of this issue for you.
NEdge September 22nd, 2004, 04:23 PM I've read lots of speculation on the effects of hormone laden chicken and eggs on children (mostly linked to girls hitting puberty and "developing" years younger these days) but nothing concrete that I recall.
Yes this often makes me chuckle. Women hitting puberty at 10 or 8? Oh my, but were not allowed to have sex untill we are 18, so women can't possibly hit puberty that young! Just go look at the third world (well at least Africa) where women are often having kids at 10-12 years old. And 'we' talk about how kids are growing up too fast nowadays .... OK seperate rant, shut down now!
fitnessdave September 22nd, 2004, 04:37 PM If hormones are a concern, it would appear that cooking the meat takes care of most of this issue for you.
I wondered about if hormone levels would decrease greatly after being cooked. You, my friend, have answered that question. Thanks!
Skoorb September 22nd, 2004, 04:43 PM Yes this often makes me chuckle. Women hitting puberty at 10 or 8? Oh my, but were not allowed to have sex untill we are 18, so women can't possibly hit puberty that young! Just go look at the third world (well at least Africa) where women are often having kids at 10-12 years old. And 'we' talk about how kids are growing up too fast nowadays .... OK seperate rant, shut down now!Girls hitting it earlier probably has a great deal to do with better nutrition - not just hormones. A healthier person would surely reach child-bearing age at an earlier stage than somebody malnurished.
taffer September 22nd, 2004, 07:34 PM At a place I used to work, the owner spent tons of cash ordering only organic beef because he was concerned about hormones, which generally show up as estrogen in beef. We took a store bought t-bone and had it tested for estrogen. There was enough there, although I no longer recall the exact numbers, to cause some concern. Of course, the fatty deposits on the steak had much more estrogen than the lean portions. Once the meat was cooked, the estrogen dropped to undectable levels, even in the portions which contained a substantial amount of fat. If hormones are a concern, it would appear that cooking the meat takes care of most of this issue for you.
So if you eat meat raw, like a real MAN, you will turn into a woman! :confused:
does that mean there is no difference between free-range and regular chicken, as long as you cook it?
i'd still think the free-range stuff would be better quality, taste better and be better for you (surely cooking it wouldnt get rid of all the evils?)
fitnessdave September 23rd, 2004, 12:03 AM I agree. I'm going to buy free range chicken so long as my wallet allows. Although, if what is said is true... that most "bad stuff" is minimized after cooking I still have that cozy feeling in my stomach (and the rest of my body) knowing there was nothing bad put into these free range chickens to begin with.
Human Clay September 23rd, 2004, 01:24 AM As much as I'd love to go chemical and hormone-free, and all-organic (trust me, I would. I spent a great deal of time on a farm with fresh, 'imperfect', but otherwise tasty fruits and veggies), I can't afford it right now. I'm more concerned with how my big fat ass contributes to my health than a few chemicals. Plus I think being surrounded by pollution from cars and cigarettes and other crap causes more damage... yup... I can't wait to buy my own little slice of rural veggie-growing heaven.
I'm not ready to quit meat. It tastes too good, and other animals in the world eat meat, too. We were originally meant to eat meat, but we're unique in that we developed consciences. While I have some ethical issues with the idea of food animals being born in captivity and therefore not having a fair chance at life, I think I have more of an issue with several billion humans all trying to individually hunt down and butcher their food. Somehow the processing plant is still more efficient, which makes the suffering shorter.
I will throw one thing in here (disclaimer: this information is provided by my former sadistic Irish meat cutting chef instructor, and he claims that it still goes on in spite of updated regulations. I don't know if he actually visited the plants, although he was quite old and really cool... so probably). As far as chickens go, one thing that they eat is a certain 'protein feed'... made up of defective and unwanted chickens. When they sex baby chicks, where do you think all of those extra males go?...
girlcop1 September 23rd, 2004, 01:38 AM Ok, so I have to say it. I gave up meat for five years. Until I got pregnant with my son, who then took over my cravings and I wanted steak everyday, or any kind of meat. For the first time in five years I am not anemic. However, now I am cutting out the meats again and here is why; I can't digest them, meaning I can't go for weeks. So anemic I am again. What's a girl to do?
Human Clay September 23rd, 2004, 03:43 AM Ok, so I have to say it. I gave up meat for five years. Until I got pregnant with my son, who then took over my cravings and I wanted steak everyday, or any kind of meat. For the first time in five years I am not anemic. However, now I am cutting out the meats again and here is why; I can't digest them, meaning I can't go for weeks. So anemic I am again. What's a girl to do?
Are you sure that it's the meat and not just that you need more fibre? Of course, if you really must cut out the meat totally, a little advice: "beans, beans, the musical fruit..." :D. Being vegetarian doesn't mean that you have to be anemic (it just means that you have to eat a lot of the stuff your mother could never get you to like as a kid :whistle: )
Some cultures use meat more like a condiment than a main ingredient, maybe you could try that.
fitnessdave September 23rd, 2004, 09:08 AM Iron!
kentnutrition September 23rd, 2004, 10:56 AM does that mean there is no difference between free-range and regular chicken, as long as you cook it?
i'd still think the free-range stuff would be better quality, taste better and be better for you (surely cooking it wouldnt get rid of all the evils?)
No idea on chicken. The study we did was strictly on beef to determine how much growth implants actually effect the meat you eat vs. organic beef which by definition would have been raised without the use of growth implants. I dont really know what is done to a chicken during raising or processing. The free range stuff probably is better. :nod:
Banditfist September 23rd, 2004, 11:26 AM "Bacon taste good!"
"Pork chops taste good!"
We are omnivores.
I got my bow all set up. Hunting season just opened last week. Saturday I am getting my first chance to head out to my club's land. I can't wait for Bambi to make it into my sights. I am hoping to get 3 deer this year. That should fill up my freezer nicely and still have some extra to give to family and friends. Free range chicken? Give me some free range venison!
Gotta be careful when I am field dressing my kill. My wife said that she would kill me if I mess up her tenderloin.
|
|