Philosophical Vegan Forum

gogogadgetarms wrote:Here is a comprehensive study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479225

gogogadgetarms wrote:Eating meat is good for you

[/quote]

The study you posted debunks your claim that eating meat is good for you. We could have had an interesting conversation if instead you had written that eating fish is good for you, but since you didn't, the study pretty much closes the issue.

To clarify : just because you believe in something strongly doesn't mean it's true.

gogogadgetarms wrote:Okay. Here is a comprehensive study that claims vegetarians and people who only eat fish have an equally lower mortality rate than occasional meat eaters and vegans.

Okay, so at best this proves fish is not bad for you (it doesn't do that either though), which is something entirely different from meat (including non-marine animals) being GOOD for you. I think you need to find other evidence or adjust your claim.

miniboes wrote:

gogogadgetarms wrote:Okay. Here is a comprehensive study that claims vegetarians and people who only eat fish have an equally lower mortality rate than occasional meat eaters and vegans.

Okay, so at best this proves fish is not bad for you (it doesn't do that either though), which is something entirely different from meat (including non-marine animals) being GOOD for you. I think you need to find other evidence or adjust your claim.

Proving something is bad or good for you is difficult as the word is unfortunately too general to tackle. I thought risk of disease and health problems would be a good place to start. Unfortunately the study doesn't specifically cover lean meat eaters. I would be interested to learn how they hold up regarding disease versus other people. It's good to know eating fish isn't bad for you according to this study.

I know I would be stretching it if I said fish and meat are the same, but allow me to adjust my claim for personal reasons.
I'm interested mainly in fish or invertebrates consumption. I am aware tuna buffet and English style fish and chips should be avoided, although I think clams and some of the smaller prey fish species are fine.

gogogadgetarms wrote:I'm interested mainly in fish or invertebrates consumption.

Here is a good article about fish: http://www.pcrm.org/health/health-topic ... ealth-food

gogogadgetarms wrote:It's good to know eating fish isn't bad for you according to this study.

You need to be more critical; you can't just accept something because one study seems to point towards it. This study compares pescetarians and vegetarians, not vegans. Both groups have in common that they dropped non-marine meat, which lowers their heart disease risk. However, both still consume animal products: the pescetarians consume fish and the vegetarians consume dairy and eggs. It is no suprise that they would get similar scores. If you compare a high fiber (plant-based/vegan) diet to a pescetarian diet it becomes clear fish is not healthy. Jebus posted a good article to look at.

miniboes wrote:This study compares pescetarians and vegetarians, not vegans. Both groups have in common that they dropped non-marine meat, which lowers their heart disease risk. However, both still consume animal products: the pescetarians consume fish and the vegetarians consume dairy and eggs. It is no suprise that they would get similar scores. If you compare a high fiber (plant-based/vegan) diet to a pescetarian diet it becomes clear fish is not healthy. Jebus posted a good article to look at.

Well said.

Fish is probably healthier than eggs and milk, and one important thing to understand is that lacto-ovo-vegetarians tend to increase their consumption of those animal products to replace meat, whereas a fish eater might displace milk and eggs with fish protein.

It's long been known that vegetarians who eat milk and eggs aren't much better off than meat eaters.

The healthiness of a thing is relative. It's not just based upon its own composition, but upon opportunity cost in the diet (or what is displaced).
If you stop eating one unhealthy thing, and just replace it with another equally or more unhealthy thing, you're not doing much good.

"Coconut oil is healthy!" But wait, that's only if you replace butter with coconut oil. It's not 'healthy', it's just healthier than butter.

Well then:

"Canola oil is healthy!" But wait, that's only if you replace other unhealthy fats with canola oil, which is healthier. It's not just healthy to top off your diet with extra oil.

"Apples are healthy!" Yes, if they're replacing pork. But not if they're replacing broccoli.

Things are only more or less healthy than other things, in particular contexts.

Cyanide is healthy! ...Compared to Ricin.
Ricin is healthy! ...Compared to Botulinum toxin.

gogogadgetarms, hopefully that clarifies things for you.

When you make the claim "X is healthy!" in a non-contextualized dietary context, what you're saying by default is that this item is health-promoting when added or increased in amount, or in the very least that decreasing it would be detrimental, in the average diet where you're making that claim.

That is certainly not the case for meat in the average North American or European diet.

In regions of Africa where people are starving? Possibly, but that's only because it's healthier than nothing at all.

gogogadgetarms wrote:Unfortunately the study doesn't specifically cover lean meat eaters. I would be interested to learn how they hold up regarding disease versus other people. It's good to know eating fish isn't bad for you according to this study.

Please see my post above first.

Lean meat isn't health promoting; it's only health promoting if full fat meat is replaced by lean meat. Lean meat is worse than fish, which is worse than vegetables.

Fish is bad for you. But not compared with milk and eggs. The average diet benefits by replacing even less healthy things with fish. Replacing vegetables with fish would not be a good idea.

gogogadgetarms wrote:I'm interested mainly in fish or invertebrates consumption. I am aware tuna buffet and English style fish and chips should be avoided, although I think clams and some of the smaller prey fish species are fine.

Smaller, particularly herbivorous fish or filter feeders, are healthier than larger fish. This is due to bioaccumulation (and the lack there of in the smaller animals).
Oysters would be your best bet for marine life. They are probably the closest you can come to harmless where animal tissue is concerned.

They're not better than vegetables (vegetables being high in antioxidants, fiber, etc.), but then, they're also probably harmless to the environment (if rope grown), and oysters probably are not sentient. As far as I know, they are least among nutritional evils, and possibly even beneficial to the environment.
I wouldn't judge somebody for eating oysters. It's kind of like a vegan doughnut; still a little bad for you, but it doesn't hurt anybody else in the process as far as we know.