Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 150-200 killed by mad cow is nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands saved with Heparin, which is a byproduct of cattle and pork.
Heparin is not a good axample...there is/was a lot of contaminated heparin recently. Similarly, warfarin sodium (coumadin) works just as well, but it's been around so long that drug companies dont make profit off of it, so they had to come up with something like heparin.
There are not better, healthier, and more efficient sources of protein than eating meat (and, last I looked, chicken and fish were not vegetable or mineral). In my own case, for whatever reason, fish, pork, and chicken (except for shrimp, oddly enough) doesn't have the same effect as beef, due to my particular physical make-up. Trust me, I've tried - I must have beef or shrimp two or three times a week (note, not every meal, not a pound at every meal, but two or three times a week) in order to maintain health.
When I eat beans and rice (and cornbread), which I do, it's a comfort food for me, I eat significantly more than when I eat beef. Not intentionally, just until I feel comfortably full. Thus my question - does anybody know of a reliable (as in, not by an agency with an agenda either to get people to eat beef or to get people NOT to eat beef - both are significantly biased) analysis of the nutrient values of beef versus vegetables? I'd be really interested in seeing such a thing.
There are not better, healthier, and more efficient sources of protein than eating meat (and, last I looked, chicken and fish were not vegetable or mineral). In my own case, for whatever reason, fish, pork, and chicken (except for shrimp, oddly enough) doesn't have the same effect as beef, due to my particular physical make-up. Trust me, I've tried - I must have beef or shrimp two or three times a week (note, not every meal, not a pound at every meal, but two or three times a week) in order to maintain health.
When I eat beans and rice (and cornbread), which I do, it's a comfort food for me, I eat significantly more than when I eat beef. Not intentionally, just until I feel comfortably full. Thus my question - does anybody know of a reliable (as in, not by an agency with an agenda either to get people to eat beef or to get people NOT to eat beef - both are significantly biased) analysis of the nutrient values of beef versus vegetables? I'd be really interested in seeing such a thing.
I said BEEF not meat...And beef is the most inefficient foodsource out of all of them. See the link and source previously posted:
The amount of energy that goes into producing food has a lot to do with the farming practices employed as well as the type of food being produced. Grain production in the US yields, on average, 1 unit of food energy for every 3.3 units of fossil fuel. In terms of meat production, chicken is the most efficient with a ratio of 1:4. Beef weighs in as the most inefficient with 54 units of fossil fuel needed to produce a single unit of food energy.
It is not a significant source of vitamins not listed. It is a biased site, but from your point of view. We will say that 3 ounces of beef, on average, contains 25g of protein. Also note the amount of cholesterol in a 3 ounce portion as well as the amount of calories from fat, even in the "lean" products. I dont know many people who only eat 3 ounces of beef at a time.
Here is some info on tofu from what appeears to be a non-biased site (seems to provide info on all different kinds of food, even meat) Tofu is just cutrdle soybeans:
Soybean or Tofu nutrtion is well studied and appreciated, especially among people keen to avoid meat products. Tofu/soybean is rich in protein, unsaturated fat, and a good source of calcium, iron, phytoestrogens. The protein in tofu or soybean is complete with all the amino acids, which makes soybean protein comparable to animal protein. The fat in tofu or soybean is mostly polyunsaturated fat (54% of the total fat), and monounsaturated fat (23 % of the total fat. Tofu/soybean is also a good source of omega-3 fatty acids. Tofu or soybean is cholesterol and lactose free. However, tofu is low in dietary fiber.
How about that potential breast cancer problem with soy products that mimic estrogen? That one's still being sorted out, and that's with supplements, not with soy as a major part of the diet.
Here's a link (with copious cites) on the nutritional value of grass-fed beef.
Note, again, the problem is not with the beef itself, but with how it's raised. That addresses the feedlot/factory farming issue, not whether eating meat is better than/worse than vegetarianism.
Heparin is not a good axample...there is/was a lot of contaminated heparin recently. Similarly, warfarin sodium (coumadin) works just as well, but it's been around so long that drug companies dont make profit off of it, so they had to come up with something like heparin.
Um, Heparin has been around for almost 100 years. It's older than the FDA. It's been in widespread use since the 1930s. The recent Heparin recall was limited to product from a particular plant in China. Coumadin didn't enter clinical use until the 1950s.
How many recalls have we seen in the past few years for domestic spinach and other crops, by the way?
Groove1, cows are raised for much more than just meat. If you single out meat production when you are doing your statistic your data is of course going to be skewed.
A cow is at least 120 times more massive than a chicken, and virtually every part of the cow is used. About half of it is used for meat. Cows can also convert things that humans can't digest into something that humans thrive on, which is a pretty good trade off. It's pretty cool how they can convert grass and water into leather, medicine, milk and steak.
How about that potential breast cancer problem with soy products that mimic estrogen? That one's still being sorted out, and that's with supplements, not with soy as a major part of the diet.
Here's a link (with copious cites) on the nutritional value of grass-fed beef.
Note, again, the problem is not with the beef itself, but with how it's raised. That addresses the feedlot/factory farming issue, not whether eating meat is better than/worse than vegetarianism.
There is no hard evidence on that either way. Also, you have to remember that like most other foods Americans consume, soy is often consumed processed. Soy lecithin is added to just about everything from chocolate to ketchup.
I'm not saying eating beef is better or worse than vegeterianism. What I'm saying is that eating anything more than very small amounts of beef is detrimental to your health.
For the adventurous at heart, take this Mystery Meat Macrophotography tour on the website of the Health Ranger, Mike Adams. This is not the prettiest thing you've ever seen, so be forwarned. If you truly love meat, you might want to skip this tour.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
