Jump to content

fish as a "health" food


madcat
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think eating fish is healthy. Fish oil is a better source of omega3s than flax.

 

pcrm.org would beg to differ with you on that one Will.

 

I really wouldn't trust a single shred of medical advice from PCRM. The head guy isn't even a real doctor, and is so closely affiliated with PETA and their questionable agenda that it's hard to take them seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I’m just trying to have a debate w/ you …or anyone else who cares to join. Share views, not preach or be aggressive/ in your face in any way.

 

Dose she ever ask questions? From what I’ve seen of her posts she seem to be a pent up animal activist. Which is fine but go to the world, not a vegan forum and please tone it down a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wouldn't trust a single shred of medical advice from PCRM. The head guy isn't even a real doctor, and is so closely affiliated with PETA and their questionable agenda that it's hard to take them seriously.

Yes, the do have an agenda and it's good to be aware of that. But this does not mean they are lying. All research has to get funding. The diary industry etc, funds studies also. As with politics, expose yourself to different viewpoints (each of which is biased despite journalists on the MSM pretending otherwise) and come to your own conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wouldn't trust a single shred of medical advice from PCRM. The head guy isn't even a real doctor, and is so closely affiliated with PETA and their questionable agenda that it's hard to take them seriously.

Yes, the do have an agenda and it's good to be aware of that. But this does not mean they are lying. All research has to get funding. The diary industry etc, funds studies also. As with politics, expose yourself to different viewpoints (each of which is biased despite journalists on the MSM pretending otherwise) and come to your own conclusion.

 

They're not necessarily outright lying, so much as twisting their 'research' to support their agenda. They're an animal rights organization so naturally all of their research is going to reflect that, regardless of whether it's the truth or not. So of course, according to them, eating fish is unhealthy because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s a good point… do you think that obesity has more to do with diet or lack of exercise? Obviously it’s some of both, but do you think one is more to blame then the other?

 

Probably more because of diet. Food is now very cheap and very easily available. That wasn't always the case.

 

It is also to do with lifestyle - we lead very sedentary lifestyles compared to our ancestors - they used to do much more physical work, work longer hours etc, they had to walk all the time. Today a lot of people sit at desks for their job, we use cars etc etc. Man never used to have to exercise as in the way we describe it today - his lifestyle meant there was no need to exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But is there any way to even know that it's not contaminated?

 

Catching it yourself is the best way I know of. The local government samples bodies of water around here regularly and makes the record public so you know what kind of junk is floating around in it. I'm not sure if they do that in other places or not

 

Ya but can you trust the government to do a competent job or disseminate info in a timely fashion? Wasnt there a situation in California where fish waters were contaminated for a while before the gov noticed/told people, meanwhile people had consumed tones of fish from that bay? I recall the author describing himself as one such unfortunate person in Diet for a Poisoned Planet.

 

Same could be said for the "organic" label enforced by the gov't, but I'm not going to stop eating organic vegetables just because the governor of California screwed up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meat and Dairy is full of hormones. Chickens, Cows, & Pigs are all on steroids to make them fatter and "produce more meat". Chicken is much fattier than it used to be.

 

Some links:

http://www.mercola.com/2003/oct/29/agribusiness.htm

 

http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg2.htm

 

It also seems to me children are entering puberty earlier. 8 & 9 year old girls with periods & breasts. Walked into a 6th grade class lately, some of these girls have such large chests it's ridiculous! Research has shown it is from pesticides and hormones.

 

http://umanitoba.fitdv.com/new/articles/article.html?artid=16

http://www.ghchealth.com/puberty-too-soon.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who have come from a meat/farming background and have switched to veganism have credibility with me. Neal Barnard came from a animal farming background as far as I know. Robbins came from an icecream background. Lyman was a former cattle rancher. If they say something is wrong with these things and defect, that gets my attention.

 

As far as somebody's comment about how you cant trust pcrm because they are associated with peta, who has a "questionable agenda", just because pcrm is associated with peta, that doesnt mean that their message is b.s. AND, I DONT THINK THAT PROMOTING VEGANISM AS THE HEALTHIEST DIET IS A "QUESTIONABLE AGENDA," BUT A SOUND ONE. HEEELLLOOOO????

 

And, obviously the California governor was one example of government incompetence. There are many.

 

And as far as your comment Will about how just because the gov is a moron you arent going to stop eating your organic veggies, you are missing the point. You have to eat something. Falsely labelled organic veggies seems to be more innocuous than contaminated fish. I refuse to trust my health to the government, and thus I still wash "organic" veggies thoroughly with natural fruit/veggie wash before I eat them, even though they are "certified organic" by the gov. I cant wash the potential contamination out of fish though, can I. Government certification means SQUAT to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meat and Dairy is full of hormones. Chickens, Cows, & Pigs are all on steroids to make them fatter and "produce more meat". Chicken is much fattier than it used to be.

 

Some links:

http://www.mercola.com/2003/oct/29/agribusiness.htm

 

http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg2.htm

 

It also seems to me children are entering puberty earlier. 8 & 9 year old girls with periods & breasts. Walked into a 6th grade class lately, some of these girls have such large chests it's ridiculous! Research has shown it is from pesticides and hormones.

 

http://umanitoba.fitdv.com/new/articles/article.html?artid=16

http://www.ghchealth.com/puberty-too-soon.html

I have a theory that eating meat is a signal to your body that the environmental situation is dire and the body responds by trying harder to reproduce thus passing the genes on. I have read somewhere that vegan women hit puberty later and menopause sooner.

 

As far as plastic causing it, the average number of sperm in male ejaculate is less than half of what it was 50 years ago. It is theorized all the plastic might be a main cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meat and Dairy is full of hormones. Chickens, Cows, & Pigs are all on steroids to make them fatter and "produce more meat". Chicken is much fattier than it used to be.
beef, lamb and dairy in countries with "free range" farming like NZ is free of hormones.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meat and Dairy is full of hormones. Chickens, Cows, & Pigs are all on steroids to make them fatter and "produce more meat". Chicken is much fattier than it used to be.
beef, lamb and dairy in countries with "free range" farming like NZ is free of hormones.

 

Unfortunately, not in the US, which is why we keep making 'em bigger and fatter. They even had to come up with a different label, now we have "super obese"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn’t mean exercise as in going to the gym and working out, but the things that you described…. Walking and manual labor.

 

We have made our lives too easy. Imagine how much work even something like cleaning used to take. Now all we have to do is turn of the washing machine to do laundry and there is no need for scrubbing with all the cleaners available now… nothing takes any work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know a girl who was vegetarian but then gave it up. Recently I asked her why she had gone back, she told me that she had been on birth control pills but had to stop. After she stopped using them she started craving meat. Her reason, she says the fat in animal meat hold more hormones in your body. I’m not talking about anything that was given to the animals, but rather something that your body dose naturally when you eat animal fat. She have pretty much gone through withdrawal after her hormone levels dropped and her body triggered a craving for meat to get the level back up.

 

If its true that could also be why vegans start puberty later and menopause earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sinister, at least some of the links you posted, such as the consumer freedom one, are HIGHLY questionable. Do you not know anything about "The Centern for Consumer Freedom"? It is backed by the dairy, meat, tobacco, and vivisection lobby, to put it quite simply. It is HARDLY any more objective than the group you are trying to discredit here - i.e. pcrm.

 

The Center for Consumer Freedom is also against "Mothers Against Drunk Driving". So give me a freakin' break - as if they are a credible source of attack on the pcrm.

 

 

if you are anti-tobacco, anti-fatty foods, anti-pesticides, anti-drunk driving you are likely to be on their hitlist. That is somewhere that I wouldnt mind being at all, considering their questionable agenda, which is not environmentally friendly, animal friendly, or health friendly.

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

Edited by compassionategirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sinister, at least some of the links you posted, such as the consumer freedom one, are HIGHLY questionable. Do you not know anything about "The Centern for Consumer Freedom"? It is backed by the dairy, meat, tobacco, and vivisection lobby, to put it quite simply. It is HARDLY any more objective than the group you are trying to discredit here - i.e. pcrm.

 

The Center for Consumer Freedom is also against "Mothers Against Drunk Driving". So give me a freakin' break - as if they are a credible source of attack on the pcrm.

 

Notice that's not the only source I provided though, and one is from a Newsweek article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sinister, cross post on my edit. Yes, I know, that is why I said at least some of the links you provided. I havent read the other ones yet, but am familiar with the "Center for Consumer Freedom" so I posted my comment right away. I also editted to add a link to some info about them, but you posted on my edit cross post.

 

Now I will take a look at the other links you provided.

Edited by compassionategirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I have looked at some of the other links you posted Sinister (briefly) and activistcash.com and animalscam.com are websites of Center for Consumer Freedom, so there goes their credibility.

 

One of the articles complains that the PCRM says that meat and dairy are unhealthy, for example.

 

And so what's the problem? Meat and dairy are unhealthy.

Ask Seasiren and brenden brazier for example, who have reaped very tangible health benefits from going from omni to vegan (just to name two examples that I actrually know of).

 

They are in favour of finding non-animal research methods. Again, so what? They have never denied their ideological orientation. You go to their site and you know exactly what they are all about. By all means, if you can provide me with an example of misrepresentation on their site, please do so so I may consider it.

 

I dont feel like analyzing the links in an effort to persuade you. You are going to thing what you are going to think regardless. You have your opinions on which groups and links deserve the benefit of any doubt, and so do I. let's just leave it at that. I'm too tired to go rounds on this.

 

I will say though that at first glance, none of the links seem any more "objective" than the pcrm. I'll just leave it at that. As for the Newsweek article, I couldnt find the actual article?I would rather read an article myself than go with somebody else's interpretation of it before I make up my mind. And at any rate, most of Newsweek's advertising money comes from those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of animal and environmental exploitation. Of course, I dont know that for sure, but I would presume that to be the case.

 

I will take one more look to see if I missed the actual Newsweek article.

Edited by compassionategirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As can be seen from scrolling down and reading from the link I posted, it is interesting to note that some of the major financial contributions to CCF come from some of the most despicable animal abusing food giants whose abuses have been documented and exposed by undercover peta investigators. Other unethical companies are also included as CCF's major contributors. They include:

 

Coca-Cola Company $200,000

 

Excel/Cargill $200,000 (caught on tape abusing and torturing animals, exposed by Peta)

 

Monsanto $200,000

 

Tyson Foods $200,000 (caught on tape torturing animals, exposed by peta, confirmed by former Tyson Employee of the Month Virgil Butler, now vegetarian and animal advocate after working on the "dark side").

 

Wendy's International, Inc. $200,000

 

Outback Steakhouse $164,600

 

Pilgrim's Pride Corp. $100,000 (again, caught on tape and exposed by peta)

 

Perdue Farms, Inc. $40,000 (again, caught on tape torturing animals and exposed by peta).

 

Applebee's International, Inc. $15,000

 

Coldwater Seafood $15,000

 

National Steak and Poultry $10,000

 

Packaging Corporation of America $10,000

 

 

Ummm, is it any surprise then that the CCF has tried to discredit groups like PETA, PCRM, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, etc etc. among other environmental and social justice groups? In view of their sponsors and officers and executives, does this surprise you? Do you you think that these people could be objective about the unhealthiness of meat, fish or dairy? About attempts to regulate corporate impact on the environment?

 

C'mon, let's get real here. The link lists many more companies as well as the directors and board members of CCF, all of whom have vested interests in discrediting social justice, environmental and animal rights activists that threaten their profit margins. I only listed the ones that really stuck out for me. If your curiousity is peaked about what the CCF is REALLY about, this is the link:

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

 

In short, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (which is responsible for the other links you posted Sinister) claims that its mission is to defend the rights of consumers to choose to eat, drink and smoke as they please. In reality, CCF is a front group for the tobacco, restaurant and alcoholic beverage industries, which provide all or most of its funding.

 

Scroll down to locate the info I reproduced above if one is interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the problem is eating a little meat (like once or twice a month) is the problem. The problem is that people eat meat 3 times a day. At the same time they don't eat beans, fruit, veggies or nuts. This diet is of course totaly out of balance.

 

Concerning the fish I agree with willpeavy. The two health argument one might have on fish is contamination and animal protein. And again, a little animal protein won't kill you it's the amount that people eat that kills them.

And fish oil is better than flax simply because it contains EPA and DHA. DHA is already available for vegetarians and I think EPA will be available too some time soon. Then you can make "fake fish oil" without contaminants.

Fish don't synthezise DHA or EPA in their bodies, they get it from their diet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@the fishoil-fans: Fish is just not meant to be eaten by humans. Of course one can argue a little animal protein wont kill anyone and of course it is possible to find a scientific study which says: "fishoil is best" but this is not the point. Fish is decaying muscle tissue of fishes. It is not meant to be eaten by humans and by that cannot be indispensable for a healthy diet. The fact that not everybody eating it (like meat, eggs and dairy) dies immediately does not mean that these "food" are healthy at all.

The problem is that even many vegans think their diet is deficient and therefor are vulnerable to "vegan-diet-lacks-this-and-that-arguments". Of course argueing with a lot of science is nice (and usually serious scientists support a plant based diet) but sometimes it is just down to common sense and logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...