Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 4

message: The claim "In order to create complete protein, legumes and grains should be consumed together. For example, rice and beans or pita bread and hummus create a source of complete protein..."  This is not supported, and has long since been refuted as a myth.  I.e., you do not have to eat them at the same time.  See   "Not all types of plant       
foods need to be eaten at the same meal, since the amino acids are combined    
in the body's protein pool." 69.108.111.43 01:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Second that, this is a typical non-vegetarian viewpoint, as is the statement "an adequate amount of protein is a concern of any vegetarian diet," which is highly questionable (multiple sources downplay the modern fixation on protein; a common vegetarian diet includes ample protein as it is). I would suggest replacement of the former with something along the lines of "Vegetarian cooking may require a higher degree of planning than omnivorous diets depending on the level of vegetarianism (vegans, for example) need to be more conscious of vitamin B12 intake)", and the latter statement with "Likewise, some vegetarians need to be careful to include ample protein sources in their meals." --Whit 05:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We also need to be careful we don't: 1. Give instructions. This is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide 2. Be too culturally specific. Most vegetarians aren't from Western backgrounds, so identifying them in relation to a typical western diet would be quite parochial. Ashmoo 06:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegetarian cooking 

message: There are a lot of vegitarianism-related topics, perhaps one of those sidebar-box-template
things would be in order?24.23.195.170 04:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template? 

message: Potential GFDL Violation by: 
. 
Reported to Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz
--Mig77(t) 10:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country specific information 

message: Do the majority of Hindu's practise lacto-ovo vegetarianism or lacto vegetarianism, or is it 50/50? There seems to be some inconsistency on the articles. nirvana2013 19:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience lacto vegetarianism is found more in cultures associated with the Dharmic Religions (especially Hinduism and Jainism), than anywhere else particularly - but as Hinduism itself is not a consistent body of fixed beliefs then the diets of practitioners are highly varied from one tradition to the the next. Statistically the largest section within Hinduism is Vaishnavism ref, and amongst Vaishnavas the lacto vegetarian diet is by far the most popular. Within the second largest group Shaivism I'm not sure if this is the case, I can't see it mentioned in the [Shaivism] wiki article. Another factor which comes into place is how strict people wish to be with their own eating habits, compared to what is promoted as the ideal. Best Wishes, ys, GourangaUK 08:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first edit was changed to lacto ovo here  on Aug 10th without any explanation. I will change it back. good catch!--Pranathi 05:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian vegetarians 

message: ::Dogs, cats or lions are examples, while plant-eating animals (such as horse and deer) have no sharp teeth or claws to tear meat. Humans occupy a middle ground between the two having no claws and mostly blunt teeth (molars) but also a pair of sharp canine teeth designed for tearing which would be useless in a purely herbivorous animal.
I've heard many vegetarians and non-vegetarians alike argue that human canines, being vastly inferior to carnivores canine teeth in any way, are designed for ripping into the flesh of harder fruits?  I find the above argument that a pair of sharp canine teeth is 'designed for tearing flesh' to be very presumptuous. 211.30.71.59 15:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Canines dont tell you if an animal is a carnivore or not. Mountain gorilla has huge fangs, but is a herbivore (for hard fruit, and also as a weapon). However the validid criticism of the argument is seperate to the argument itself and should be seperate --Mig77(t) 13:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the last sentence here, are you saying that the statement should not be changed? Your previous statement is exactly why I visited this discussion - the fact that gorillas have large canines would at the very least suggest that the statement, as written, is simply incorrect. If we want to include an explanation of the difference in human and gorilla canines, so be it, but clearly sharp canines are not "useless in a purely herbivorous animal". --Whit 07:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument is used and thus it should be documented. The fact that it is factualy incorrect should also be documented, but only after the flawed argument has been presented (since it is common this "myth" should be explained strongly, before being thouroughly refuted. --Mig77(t) 11:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see what you're saying and I agree - the concept/myth of human canines proving that man is naturally omnivorous should be included but disputed by, at the very least, the gorilla counter example. However, loath as I am to suggest it (being a veg proponent), we should probably also include the fact that other primates are not strictly vegetarian and will on rare occasions kill and eat other animals. --Whit 04:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Plant eating animals like cow, horse drink water by lips unlike lions, dogs, cat who drink water by tongue, humans drink water by lips and so it is considered that humans are vegetarians by nature.
I fixed the grammer somewhat, but since this person obviously doesn't know English very well, I'm suspect of his argument. I marked it as "citation needed" because I question the validity of it.--24.209.219.84 15:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Physiological Section

message: A vegetarian does not consume animals, dairy or eggs. A vegan does this as well as not using things made from and tested on animals, so I changed the "vegan" to "vegetarian". If I am not correct, I apologise. I also added the meaning of veganism underneath.
:You are incorrect. The term "vegetarian" does not preclude the consumption of dairy or eggs, and veganism is a type of vegetarianism. Fixed. --Whit 20:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vegetarian

message: I find this article highly bias.  Why does almost every commentary on the internet about vegitarianism have to be a bunch of vegitarian propaganda?  The "Criticism" section is littered with arguments for vegitarianism and is written in such a way that it neatly dances around or fails to mention any convincing counter arguments, of which I can think of plenty.  The end subsection of the criticism section is even worse as it blatantly supports vegitarianism despite being categorised as criticism.  Am I the only one who sees a problem here?  Also the arguments about longevity conveniently ignore how Inuits, eating diets of almost 100% meat have mantained life expectectencies which are still high by modern standards over the past thousands of years.    I believe it is essential for this article to give a balanced view rather than the radically pro-vegitarian view which it currently expresses.
:Troll. Otherwise supply your arguments. The Inuit have a low life expectancy, if you have a credible reference that says otherwise, post it. --Mig77(t) 13:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality? 

message: There is a lot of faulty science used here. The 'safety' part especially. E. coli bacteria can grow on vegetables, and there was a big outbreak in spinach. Not to mention the Botulism outbreak in carrot juice. These outbreaks are worse in vegetables, because you are more likely to eat them raw, whereas cooking hamburger meat properly will kill any E. coli if it is infected.
:I wouldn't say biased, but a few biased editors wouldn't let others to add such content. This revert was basically in poor taste given the ongoing concern on food contamination in spinach. I'd say some editors here and in Veganism do resort to mocking others like User:NTK in the edit summary. I've readded it for now. Idleguy 12:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is biased 

message: :Do you really believe this? See below reports...
:*  Nutrition hotline: this issue's Nutrition Hotline reviews scientific studies that put into perspective the media-hyped reports that suggest that a vegetarian lifestyle is unhealthy - Brief Article
:* A compilation of articles
:Yours sincerely, GourangaUK 10:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: I removed all the trash as you like. Just an onlooker 07:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed additions to the article***

message: *This article seems to indicate protein levels between meat eaters and vegetarians.
*This table shows how much protein are in grains.
*It seems that endosperm contains the largest amount of protein in grains. (If I read that correctly :\)
*Nuts are also a good source of protein.
:Although not entirely scientific, does this seem to calm things down a bit? Kilo•T 12:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Research