Vegetarians are smarter than meat eaters

[Danger]

My ancestors spent several million years clawing their way to the top of the food chain just so I could feast upon the losers. It would be unthinkable to disrespect their efforts.

 

[arildno]

My ancestors spent several million years clawing their way to the top of the food chain just so I could feast upon the losers. It would be unthinkable to disrespect their efforts.

You have it right.

Submit to your superiors, and feast on the flesh of everyone else.

 

[radou]

You have it right.

Submit to your superiors, and feast on the flesh of everyone else.

...and wear their furry skin.

 

[arildno]

Or weary their smooth skin.
Be wary of tears, though..

 

[Moonbear]

Maybe the title should read: Vegetarians WERE smarter than meat eaters...until they grew up and became vegetarians.

 

[turbo]

Maybe the title should read: Vegetarians WERE smarter than meat eaters...until they grew up and became vegetarians.

They'll pay for their habits. Notice that all the people getting dangerous e coli infections from food are the ones that ate the scallions, lettuce, and salads, not the ones who stuck with the ribs and chops.

 

[Mk]

Then again there was the mad cow scare last year.

 

[Moonbear]

Then again there was the mad cow scare last year.

And how many people were infected with mad cow disease? There's a difference between actual E. coli outbreaks infecting 100s of people and a mad cow scare where the disease was detected before the meat even made it to market.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Mad Cow raises an interesting point.

The US reports in excess of 60000 people/year die from influenza. The US currently has a lot of unused influenza vaccine. Meaning people are not moved enough to bother with getting protection against a known killer - but go berserk over Mad Cow Disease. Go figure.

 

[verty]

The US reports in excess of 60000 people/year die from influenza. The US currently has a lot of unused influenza vaccine. Meaning people are not moved enough to bother with getting protection against a known killer - but go berserk over Mad Cow Disease. Go figure.

Yes, but were those people poor, old, etc?

 

[ShawnD]

That shouldn't be very surprising. It's much easier to be vegetarian in open-minded and intellectual environments, where smart people often end up. I'd like to see this done with more control for environment.

I think tiger may be right on this one. Good observation

edit: if this is true, it would mean meat-eaters in the same environment would score just as high

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Mmmmmmm, that long-pig was tasty and smart.

Don't forget the Fava beans and a nice glass of Chianti.

 

[Evo]

I think tiger may be right on this one. Good observation

edit: if this is true, it would mean meat-eaters in the same environment would score just as high

How do we explain why vegans scored an average 10 points lower than average on IQ tests?

 

[Moonbear]

How do we explain why vegans scored an average 10 points lower than average on IQ tests?

You can't be very smart to choose a completely vegan diet?

 

[ShawnD]

How do we explain why vegans scored an average 10 points lower than average on IQ tests?

That's because Vegans are idiots. Your standard vegetarian probably has a good idea of what is being given up and how it should be replaced. Carbs from pasta, protein from beans, fats are everywhere, most vegetables count as fibre, most vegetables contain vitamins, milk has lots of good stuff in it. Completely balanced. To become a vegan you need to throw common sense out the window and decide that you would rather get your calcium from a bunch of pills instead of drinking a glass of milk. Or in some cases, not at all. Do a google search for "osteoporosis vegans".

 

[mathwonk]

because vegetarians are indians and meat eaters are americans.

face it, we are good guys but we are morons.

 

[Cyrus]

because vegetarians are indians and meat eaters are americans.

face it, we are good guys but we are morons.

Is that sarcasm?

 

[Danger]

No way to tell. It's obvious that his brain has been addled by carrots.

 

[ShawnD]

No way to tell. It's obvious that his brain has been addled by carrots.

Danger, you're still my hero.

I think he's joking. The Cree Indians around Edmonton were by no means vegetarians.

 

[Cyrus]

I think he means indians from india.

 

[ShawnD]

I think he means indians from india.

Don't they eat meat as well?

 

[Cyrus]

By and large, I think they are vegetarians.

 

[mathwonk]

geez kapeez.

 

[Cyrus]

Razzle Dazzle?

 

[mathwonk]

i thought champions were kids who ate wheaties.

 

[Cyrus]

http://www.rpspecialt.com/mawheatiesfront.jpg

Its "the breakfast of champions"...ali has two scoops for your, say AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...scrumptious.

 

[Danger]

Danger, you're still my hero.

I think he's joking. The Cree Indians around Edmonton were by no means vegetarians.

Thanks, dude.
W is Cree, from near Lloyd, and you should see her gnaw through a rack of ribs. She gets those dentures going like a buzz-saw. I'm pretty sure that she actually has a rotary joint in her jaw, but it moves too fast for me to prove it.

 

[Skyhunter]

They'll pay for their habits. Notice that all the people getting dangerous e coli infections from food are the ones that ate the scallions, lettuce, and salads, not the ones who stuck with the ribs and chops.

Speaking of corn fed and the connection to E. coli.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/5383/1666

The gastric stomach of humans is a barrier to food-borne pathogens, but Escherichia coli can survive at pH 2.0 if it is grown under mildly acidic conditions. Cattle are a natural reservoir for pathogenic E. coli, and cattle fed mostly grain had lower colonic pH and more acid-resistant E. coli than cattle fed only hay. On the basis of numbers and survival after acid shock, cattle that were fed grain had 106-fold more acid-resistant E. coli than cattle fed hay, but a brief period of hay feeding decreased the acid-resistant count substantially.

So because of the greed of the cattle industry, and the ignorance of the average meat eater, we all must suffer.

Here is a study of corn fed -vs- barley.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15083716&dopt=Abstract

There is a petition by the UCS to the USDA, asking that they raise the standard for grass fed beef from 80% to 99%.

Here is another good article about grain fed cattle and the acid resistant E. coli.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/980911075347.htm

In studies performed at Cornell, beef cattle fed grain-based rations typical of commercial feedlots had 1 million acid-resistant E. coli, per gram of feces, and dairy cattle fed only 60 percent grain also had high numbers of acid-resistant bacteria. In each case, the high counts could be explained by grain fermentation in the intestines.

By comparison, cattle fed hay or grass had only acid-sensitive E. coli, and these bacteria were destroyed by an "acid shock" that mimicked the human stomach, the microbiologists report in Science.

And then how about the cows themselves.

http://www.foodrevolution.org/grassfedbeef.htm

Author and small-scale cattleman Michael Pollan wrote recently in the New York Times about what happens to cows when they are taken off of pastures and put into feedlots and fed grain:

"Perhaps the most serious thing that can go wrong with a ruminant on corn is feedlot bloat. The rumen is always producing copious amounts of gas, which is normally expelled by belching during rumination. But when the diet contains too much starch and too little roughage, rumination all but stops, and a layer of foamy slime that can trap gas forms in the rumen. The rumen inflates like a balloon, pressing against the animal's lungs. Unless action is promptly taken to relieve the pressure (usually by forcing a hose down the animal's esophagus), the cow suffocates.

A corn diet can also give a cow acidosis. Unlike that in our own highly acidic stomachs, the normal pH of a rumen is neutral. Corn makes it unnaturally acidic, however, causing a kind of bovine heartburn, which in some cases can kill the animal but usually just makes it sick. Acidotic animals go off their feed, pant and salivate excessively, paw at their bellies and eat dirt. The condition can lead to diarrhea, ulcers, bloat, liver disease and a general weakening of the immune system that leaves the animal vulnerable to everything from pneumonia to feedlot polio."
All this is not only unnatural and dangerous for the cows. It also has profound consequences for us. Feedlot beef as we know it today would be impossible if it weren't for the routine and continual feeding of antibiotics to these animals. This leads directly and inexorably to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. These are the new "superbugs" that are increasingly rendering our "miracle drugs" ineffective.

So what is the produce industries plan to cope with the problem created by the cattle industry?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...N291V1.DTL&hw=glen+martin+coli&sn=001&sc=1000

The recent scares over deadly bacteria in California produce may hurt farm programs aimed at restoring wildlife habitat and cutting water pollution.

Such environmental programs could be at odds with "clean farming techniques" promoted by food processors. Those techniques encourage growers to remove grassy areas that are planted to reduce erosion and trap pesticides before they reach waterways. The practices also discourage habitat zones that might attract animals that carry bacteria like E. coli or salmonella.

I guess we need to sterilize the entire planet and only keep those species that we like to eat.

I think a better solution is to stop fighting nature and learn to live more harmoniously in the natural world.

 

[Skyhunter]

How do we explain why vegans scored an average 10 points lower than average on IQ tests?

That is easy. The first thing is to take the point in context. Your conclusion was just a matter of emphasis. Sometime sknown as "observer bias."

Among those who had taken vegetarianism to its logical conclusion (“gone the whole hog,” as it were) and become vegan (no animal products), mean IQ scores were lower.On average, vegans had a childhood IQ score that was nearly 10 points lower than other vegetarians: mean (SD) IQ score 95.1 (14.8) in vegans compared with 104.8 (14.1) in other vegetarians (P = 0.04), although this estimate must be viewed with caution as only nine participants were vegan.

See the difference in emphasis:

Among those who had taken vegetarianism to its logical conclusion (“gone the whole hog,” as it were) and become vegan (no animal products), mean IQ scores were lower.On average, vegans had a childhood IQ score that was nearly 10 points lower than other vegetarians: mean (SD) IQ score 95.1 (14.8) in vegans compared with 104.8 (14.1) in other vegetarians (P = 0.04), although this estimate must be viewed with caution as only nine participants were vegan.

I know many vegans, most of them are quite intelligent professionals. They are learned on many subects and fascinating to talk to.

I also know many people that are are vegan for reasons of compassion who do not really have a clue.

 

[Skyhunter]

You can't be very smart to choose a completely vegan diet?

And why would that be?

I think that http://www.human.cornell.edu/che/bio.cfm?netid=tcc1 and Caldwell B. Esselstyn Jr. would disagree with you.

 

[Skyhunter]

That's because Vegans are idiots.

Idiocy is not the realm of diet. If you wish to make such an offensive ad hominem attack you should provide some evidence to support your point.

Your standard vegetarian probably has a good idea of what is being given up and how it should be replaced. Carbs from pasta, protein from beans, fats are everywhere, most vegetables count as fibre, most vegetables contain vitamins, milk has lots of good stuff in it. Completely balanced. To become a vegan you need to throw common sense out the window and decide that you would rather get your calcium from a bunch of pills instead of drinking a glass of milk. Or in some cases, not at all. Do a google search for "osteoporosis vegans".

The rest of your statement just supports my suspicion that you are quite ignorant about nutrition.

To start with you do not get carbs from meat, so this point is meaningless.

Protein comes from many other sources than beans. The best sources, with the fewest side effects (heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc.) are green leafy vegetables. Kale anyone?

You do not get vitamins from meat. The best source of vitamins are plants. Isn't it convenient for us that we have a digestive system specifically evolved to digest plants.

Milk does not have a lot of good things in it. More than half of it's calories come from saturated fats. It has some riboflavin, calcium, and vitamin A, however since 7 out of 10 people are lactose intolerant, I think we can get these nutrients from better (plant based) sources.

I took your google suggestion.

Here was the first hit.

When we eat beef, pork, lamb, chicken, or other foods from animals, our bodies take in proteins that may be rich in sulfur. That's unlike the proteins in plant foods—fruits, veggies, nuts, grains, or legumes like peas or dry beans. As we digest animal proteins, the sulfur in them forms acid. A slight, temporary acid overload—called acidosis—may result.


To regain our natural balance of acidity to alkalinity, or pH, in the bloodstream, our bodies must buffer the influx of acid. One possible buffer is calcium phosphate, which the body can
borrow from our bones—the body's main storage depot for this essential mineral.

From the same USDA study.

Less Bone Formed


But two findings were unexpected. First, bone resorption—in which calcium is taken away from bones via the bloodstream—was the same for omnivore women as for vegan women.


"The current model predicts increased bone resorption for people who consume large amounts of animal protein, so it was somewhat surprising that bone resorption was the same for both groups of our volunteers," Van Loan notes.


Second, bone formation was significantly less in omnivore women than in vegan women. This happened even though the omnivore women had a higher calcium intake than did the vegan volunteers. (The volunteers did not differ in their intake of other nutrients that affect bone health, such as magnesium.)


Using the model as a basis, "one would not have predicted a significantly greater amount of bone formation for vegan volunteers than for omnivore volunteers," Van Loan adds.


The implication for people who eat high amounts of animal protein may be important: Specifically, over time, the net effect of a lower amount of bone formation would likely be a decrease in bone density. Explains Van Loan, "If you have less bone formation, the result is the same as if you had an increase in bone resorption. So, even though bone resorption was the same in both groups of volunteers, the lower amount of bone formation in the omnivore women could lead to a decrease in their bone density."

Since bone is metabolically more active than muscle, I think that physical activity may play a more important role than diet. Vegans are generally more active, especially in their later years than meat eaters.

 

[Evo]

We're just teasing you Skyhunter because we know you're vegan.

The entire research was skewed, obviously performed by meat eaters.

 

[Skyhunter]

We're just teasing you Skyhunter because we know you're vegan.

The entire research was skewed, obviously performed by meat eaters.

I found the study to be quite silly. I don't mind the teasing, it gives me the opportunity to share some of the knowledge and information I acquired during my journey to becoming vegan.

BTW the healthiest diet is one where 10% or less of ones calories are derived from animal foods. You mentioned to me once that you eat meat only occasionally. I think you are probably destined for a long and healthy life.

The problem most unhealthy vegans have is:

1) Access to convenient healthy vegan food.

2) The same problem that most meat eaters have, ignorance of nutrition in general.

[edit]As to the teasing, I actually started it with the OP. So turnabout is fair play. [/edit]

 

[sog]

Some people stop eating meat, because of cholesterol. That doesn't neccessarily make a person smarter than meat eaters, but it might make a person live longer. Some might rather die than live without meat. Some have more important reasons to live.

 

[Weave]

For every animal you don't eat...I'll eat three

 

[tehno]

For every animal you don't eat...I'll eat three

I read this sentence like this:"For every animal you don't eat...I'll eat tree".

 

[Weave]

I'd look again

 

[turbo]

We evolved as omnivores and our bodies are optimized for a hunter-gatherer diet. Before agrarian societies developed, and some people stayed tied to the land, with facilities for storing food (granaries, etc), the availability of vegetables and grain as food was not very reliable. Anybody who would not eat mammals, fish, birds, amphibians and insects, as well as the eggs and larvae of such would probably not have survived. At the least, their need for protein and some minerals and other nutrients would not have been met, putting them a disadvantage.

The Inuit have survived for many generations on a diet that is predominantly meat, fat, and fish, with blueberries and other vegetable additions as available. Until recently, with the introduction of foods from our western/temperate diet, they had a very low incidence of arteriosclerosis and other diseases we usually associate with a high-fat diet. Depending on where they live and what is available as prey, they may eat mostly fish or mostly marine mammals, caribou, etc. The common factor in their diet is that until recently, vegetables were very scarce and only available seasonally.

 

[Moonbear]

Until recently, with the introduction of foods from our western/temperate diet, they had a very low incidence of arteriosclerosis and other diseases we usually associate with a high-fat diet. Depending on where they live and what is available as prey, they may eat mostly fish or mostly marine mammals, caribou, etc. The common factor in their diet is that until recently, vegetables were very scarce and only available seasonally.

Also, don't forget that meat obtained from hunting wild animals is often much leaner than that obtained from farm-raised animals, so if you're eating what you hunt, you can avoid a lot of the problems that come from eating very fat, farm-raised animals. Of course, the farm-raised animals are bred that way because that's what the consumer prefers. In some animals, like pigs, more demand for leaner meats have spurred on a shift in the breeding practices to produce leaner animals (though, there's also still plenty of a market for the fatty versions). It's not meat, per se, that's the problem, but overconsumption of the fat in the meat (and overconsumption of food in general).

 

[Quaoar]

I don't really like the need to apply a label to oneself. People seem to take great pride in the fact that they eat absolutely ZERO meat or ZERO animal-derived products, and that ANY meat-eating is bad.

I personally don't eat red meat more than once a month (mostly because I'm not a big fan of the taste/texture), and I probably eat poultry/fish 1-2 times per week. I think this is a rather healthy balance, yet it doesn't really fall under any specific dietary category. My diet is better than the average person's diet, and less things die because of my infrequent meat-eating; however, since I can't really label myself as a "vegetarian," I'm lumped in with my fellow carnivores. There's just so much pride in these sorts of lifestyle choices that people champion the label to make themselves feel righteous.

 

[turbo]

Also, don't forget that meat obtained from hunting wild animals is often much leaner than that obtained from farm-raised animals, so if you're eating what you hunt, you can avoid a lot of the problems that come from eating very fat, farm-raised animals. Of course, the farm-raised animals are bred that way because that's what the consumer prefers. In some animals, like pigs, more demand for leaner meats have spurred on a shift in the breeding practices to produce leaner animals (though, there's also still plenty of a market for the fatty versions). It's not meat, per se, that's the problem, but overconsumption of the fat in the meat (and overconsumption of food in general).

There's probably a big difference in the quality of the fat, too. It's likely that whale blubber is far healthier for you than the intramuscular fats and suets from beef and pork. Certainly the fish oils from cod, salmon, etc are beneficial to those Inuit who have diets high in cold-water fish.

 

[Skyhunter]

We evolved as omnivores and our bodies are optimized for a hunter-gatherer diet. Before agrarian societies developed, and some people stayed tied to the land, with facilities for storing food (granaries, etc), the availability of vegetables and grain as food was not very reliable. Anybody who would not eat mammals, fish, birds, amphibians and insects, as well as the eggs and larvae of such would probably not have survived. At the least, their need for protein and some minerals and other nutrients would not have been met, putting them a disadvantage.

The Inuit have survived for many generations on a diet that is predominantly meat, fat, and fish, with blueberries and other vegetable additions as available. Until recently, with the introduction of foods from our western/temperate diet, they had a very low incidence of arteriosclerosis and other diseases we usually associate with a high-fat diet. Depending on where they live and what is available as prey, they may eat mostly fish or mostly marine mammals, caribou, etc. The common factor in their diet is that until recently, vegetables were very scarce and only available seasonally.

Have you seen http://www.bizarro.com/videos/mov/VeganVideoWeb.mov

[Edit]It is amusing as well as educational.[/edit]

No doubt in an environment of scarcity, almost anything organic can and will be eaten by a human. We are very highly adapted to eat a very varied diet. Diet in an affluent country is completely a matter of choice. Our body can metabolize a myriad of different foods, both plant and animal. But the question is what are we optimized for?

The answer to me is obvious. Eating meat is like putting kerosene in your gas tank. Your car/body will still run, but not as efficiently.

 

[Skyhunter]

There's probably a big difference in the quality of the fat, too. It's likely that whale blubber is far healthier for you than the intramuscular fats and suets from beef and pork. Certainly the fish oils from cod, salmon, etc are beneficial to those Inuit who have diets high in cold-water fish.

On fat, specifically omega-3 to omega-6 ratios. It is this ratio that has the most statistically significant relationship to heart disease. People with high levels of omega-6 are at risk for heart disease, but if they also have high levels of omega-3s the risk is greatly reduced.

 

[Skyhunter]

There's just so much pride in these sorts of lifestyle choices that people champion the label to make themselves feel righteous.

I would not necessarily call it pride. There is a bias toward vegetarians and vegans. I can't tell you how many times when I have told someone I was vegan that they apologize for no apparent reason.

I once asked the waitress at a midwestern restaurant if the vegetable soup had a beef base. She told me it was a vegetable base, so I ordered it. When it arrived there was a big chunk of beef in the center of the bowl. When I sent it back she just rolled her eyes and lost her tip.

Being vegan puts one in an extreme minority. Maybe we need some affirmative action for vegans.

 

[Skyhunter]

About the study.

Did anyone find it ironic that the smartest people in the study were those who ate fish and chicken. Yet mistakenly considered themselves to be vegetarians?

This study actually may say more about the intelligence of the people in Great Britain.

[shrug] I'm just saying, something not adding up here.

 

[Moonbear]

The answer to me is obvious. Eating meat is like putting kerosene in your gas tank. Your car/body will still run, but not as efficiently.

I don't know why you come to that conclusion. Meat is more efficient than vegetables for us to digest and use. You wouldn't expect that hunters would get meat daily, nor are fruits and vegetables available year round in temperate climates. In winter, those deer are better at digesting twigs than we are, so it makes sense to eat the deer meat, but in summer, we might find it costs more energy to obtain meat than to just pick the ripe berries off the bushes. A varied diet is what we are most "optimized" to eat.

 

[Moonbear]

About the study.

Did anyone find it ironic that the smartest people in the study were those who ate fish and chicken. Yet mistakenly considered themselves to be vegetarians?

This study actually may say more about the intelligence of the people in Great Britain.

[shrug] I'm just saying, something not adding up here.

Yeah, I had noticed that, which is why I mentioned a while ago that it really should have concluded there were no differences. You mentioned observer bias when we were joking about the vegans in the study, but the entire study seems to be an example of observer bias, trying to push that a vegetarian diet is somehow linked to intelligence, yet overtly dismisses the fact that a subset of their "vegetarians" weren't vegetarian at all.

 

[Quaoar]

I would not necessarily call it pride. There is a bias toward vegetarians and vegans. I can't tell you how many times when I have told someone I was vegan that they apologize for no apparent reason.

I once asked the waitress at a midwestern restaurant if the vegetable soup had a beef base. She told me it was a vegetable base, so I ordered it. When it arrived there was a big chunk of beef in the center of the bowl. When I sent it back she just rolled her eyes and lost her tip.

Being vegan puts one in an extreme minority. Maybe we need some affirmative action for vegans.

Frankly I think the problem is just crappy service in the food industry in general. I'm not a fan of tomatoes, and I usually ask for "no tomatoes" on most things I order. I would say that 10-15% of the time, I get tomatoes anyway. I don't think there's any particular bias against people who ask for no meat products (other than ignorance in what is a meat product). It sounds to me like that waitress was just too lazy/stupid to communicate what you really wanted with the chef.

Anyhow, the problem with simple rules is that they're usually not the best for your health. The key emphasis should be on moderation, not abstinence. Unfortunately, most people find it very difficult to moderate themselves because they can't track the quantity of each type of food they consume. It's much easier to track that "I have eaten 0 lbs meat this month" than "I have eaten 1 lb of meat this month."

 

[Skyhunter]

I don't know why you come to that conclusion. Meat is more efficient than vegetables for us to digest and use. You wouldn't expect that hunters would get meat daily, nor are fruits and vegetables available year round in temperate climates. In winter, those deer are better at digesting twigs than we are, so it makes sense to eat the deer meat, but in summer, we might find it costs more energy to obtain meat than to just pick the ripe berries off the bushes. A varied diet is what we are most "optimized" to eat.

Not more efficient to digest. Carnivores have short smooth intestines and stomach acids 20 times stronger than ours. Our intestines are long and rough, much more suited for a high fiber diet. There is zero fiber in meat.

Probably the most significant, immediate change that one notices when they switch to a plant based diet is the regularity of bowel movements. it is not at all uncommon for a vegan to have a bowel movement shortly after each meal. Most people that eat a meat based diet are lucky to have one a day.

Perhaps more efficient to use, meat does have more calories, so for short term energy needs, especially in colder temperatures, meat is a better source of dense calories. And like I said before, humans are highly adapted to survive in multiple environments, eating many different foods. Our bodies produce an enzyme that has no other obvious purpose but than to aid in the degestion of meat. The most extensive studies in regard to health and diet however all agree that a diet where less than 10% of the calories come from animal foods are optimum.

[edit]
I define a plant based diet as one consisting of whole plant foods, not processed.
[/edit]

 

[Moonbear]

Not more efficient to digest. Carnivores have short smooth intestines and stomach acids 20 times stronger than ours. Our intestines are long and rough, much more suited for a high fiber diet. There is zero fiber in meat.

We don't digest fiber. Our intestine has neither a functional cecum (just a non-functional appendix) nor a rumen, which herbivores capable of digesting fiber has.

Probably the most significant, immediate change that one notices when they switch to a plant based diet is the regularity of bowel movements. it is not at all uncommon for a vegan to have a bowel movement shortly after each meal. Most people that eat a meat based diet are lucky to have one a day.

More frequent bowel movements aren't an indicator of better efficiency, it's an indicator of more waste! All that undigestible fiber runs right through the digestive system quickly rather than being utilized.