FormicaLinoleum

i fucking love coffee. pour me another big cup of of that stupid useless weakness. That's how I feel about it. I love the taste of coffee. The caffeine doesn't affect me much. I decided to try giving it up to see if it would have any kind of effect--I've been drinking it pretty much daily since I was a teen 23 years ago, so I don't really know what life without coffee is like! Anyway, I gave it up for a month or two and felt no difference. As I love it so much, I decided I'd keep drinking it as it has no noticable affect. I don't rely on it for energy or to get through slumps or anything. I do know that it is most likely having an effect on my body that I'm not noticing, but I just figure as my life is not improved in any noticeable way by giving it up, why bother? I don't drink it every single day any more, though--more like a few times a week, some weeks less often than others.

I have a really basic question. What difference does it make when the HSPs start working? What advantage is it if they start working 30 min after a workout relative to 60 or 90 min after a workout?

V&M is closed now.

It's not like that at all. What happened to me this morning is likely to be related to or affect what is happening to me now. What may happen to me or what I want to happen to me may be affected by the choices I make now. It makes sense for me to take these things into consideration when I am making a decision now. However, even though these are parts of my life, if they actually had no effect on or were not affected by my choice right now, then it wouldn't be unreasonable for me to ignore them in making my choices here and now. Sure, in a general sense history is interesting and can be relevant, just like predictions and hopes for the future can be. However, that does not mean that every aspect of the past/future is relevant to every aspect of the present. And whether or not it was possible to be vegan in the past or it will be in the future is simply irrelevant to whether I can or should be a vegan now. If you disagree, explain how it's relevant and how it would change my decision to be vegan.

As I explained in my post above, the desert island scenario is not hypothetical or impossible.It has only been possible to live as vegans for the last few centuries, for the other hundreds of thousands of years, veganism has been a hypothetical and impossible scenario. The only reason we can be vegans is due to our supermarkets - the increase in world food trade, which is highly irregular in context of the overall human state of civilisation. If this network and infrastructure were ever to break down, which it will, I am afraid our veganism would be virtually impossible in any part of the world. Your view on this subject I am afraid is totally the opposite way around. I am making this point to you because its only a matter of time before someone else does it to you in an argument, and I hate it when us vegans look bad in an argument! The point is that it’s not relevant to my life right now, right here. Who cares whether I couldn't have been vegan 1,000 years ago or couldn't be vegan right now if I lived in a rural village on a mountain top? I don't live in that time or in that place. So why should I base my decision about what to do here and now on what would or would not be possible in some completely different situation? I base my decisions on the situation I actually am in. I wouldn't have been able to use the internet 1,000 years ago either, but I certainly don't consider not using it now just because of that. Why would I? These scenarios are hypothetical for me because they are not the situations I am currently in. And I'm not likely to be in them. I'm certainly not likely to be transported thousands of years into the past! I am also not likely to end up on a desert island. If our structures happen to completely break down within my lifetime and make veganism impossible, at that point I would obviously not be vegan (by definition I could not do the impossible). Again, who cares? This has zero implication for my current veganism. I’d be complete idiot to not be a vegan now, or even to have any doubt in my current veganism, just because it could be impossible for me to be one in some far-fetched scenario. If a non-vegan were to ask these questions of me, I’d respond just the way I have to you. This wouldn’t make me look bad because my response is entirely reasonable.

Cows don't have a wild state. Cows used for milk are entirely domesticated and shaped by humans to maximize milk production. These animals can't just be turned out into the wild. If you are talking about wild relatives of cows, I don't think it would actually be possible to just go get milk from them now and then when we felt like it. They'd be wild, and wouldn't just stand there and allow humans to come up to them and pull on their udders. Would we be able to walk up to herd of zebra and wildebeast and milk them? In order for us to be able to take their milk, we'd have to keep them domesticated and controlled, and I have a moral objection to that. As for using the meat and skin of animals that die naturally, why don't we already do that? Health and safety regulations forbid it. I can't imagine things changing so much that it would become legal for the meat of animals found dead to be sold. OK, maybe skin, as that doesn't have the same health implications, but not meat. If individuals wanted to forage around for dead animals and eat them themselves, that would be legally OK, but people would not be able to sell such meat to anyone else. I really don't see the point of considering what we'd do in these hypothetical and frankly impossible scenarios. Whether I'd be vegan under these world conditions is about as relevant to my veganism in the real world as is that old 'if you were stranded on a desert island with no plants...' hypothetical. They don't raise any meaningful issues regarding our veganism in the world and our societies as they actually are or have potential to become.

I second what VeganEssentials has said. I am against animals being 'owned' by humans, period. The very idea of animals being possessions and property is morally objectionable to me. No matter what kind of fantasy, 'ideal' farm scenarios anyone can think of, they all necessarily involve animals being property and I therefore have a problem with them. This isn't a knee-jerk vegan reaction. My objection to animals as property is the root of my veganism and it's something I have thought through carefully. I came to the conclusion that I am against it by thinking through what I believe, and only then discovered that other people had already come to the same conclusion! I'm not against it because I think I'm supposed to be as a vegan, or anything like that. I don't see any moral problem with eating roadkill or found dead animals, but it's certainly not something I would do. I find all meat gross--a rotting carcass out in the sun would be even more so!

I think she is OK. I don't see that she's especially annoying. It does suck that she is still spokeswoman for Cover Girl. On the other hand, she is massively increasing the visibility of veganism, just because of the huge audience she has and the fact she's not afraid to have vegan stuff on her show. She also has vegan stuff and resources on her website. Given that her audience is pretty mainstream and not likely to be people who are vegan already or even know much about veganism, she's bringing information to a lot of people. When she first came out as a lesbian, one of the evangelical TV personalities in the US called her Ellen DeGenerate. So I associate calling her that with being ciritcal of the fact that she is gay.

In what way is she a degenerate?

Thanks to everyone who voted -- WE WON!

Seriously... sooooo many people are being exposed to veganism through her show, including loads of people who otherwise would probably never give a thought to it. And her website has info about veganism and vegan recipes! http://ellen.warnerbros.com/thoughts/

Thanks for the votes! Has anyone tried to register and been unable to? Apparently some US rollergirls who have tried to vote have been unable to register, and we're trying to figure out why that is.

The all-star team of my roller derby league (London Rollergirls) is planning to go over to the US to train with and play against some of the top leagues over there. It just so happened that we discovered that British Airways is having a competition for free flights for 'Great Britons'--if we won it would be a massive help to our fundraising for the trip. I'd be super grateful if you would go vote for us to help us win! Here is the profile (it's for our captain, but if she wins we get flights for the whole team). http://www.greatbritons.ba.com/users/23247

Have you? The only reaction I have ever seen to PETA's 'stunts' has been and anger. I hear from so many people who can't stand PETA. And unfortunately, some people see all animal activists and vegans in a negative light because of their feelings about PETA. I do think that PETA does some good things that get people thinking, like Meet Your Meat and other videos and straightforward information. Their stunts and ad campaigns like 'save the whales' do seem to get a lot of media attention, but the reactions I have seen to them have been almost universally negative, which makes these approaches counterproductive. I completely, utterly disagree with the idea that using sexist imagery or otherwise being offensive to groups of humans is OK as long as it helps animals. (Ignoring for now my opinion that it actually does nothing at all to help animals.) It's not OK to be crap to humans to help animals. It not like the only way to help animals is to make sexist or offensive ads. You can help animals without relying on that crap, so as they have a choice, the better, more ethical one, is clearly to help animals without demeaning humans. Wanting to help animals is not an excuse or justification for letting regard of fellow humans fly out the window. And, yes, women can be sexist. Women can make mistakes. Just because a woman does something 'of her own free will' does not mean that it was the right thing to do.

Bad food is probably the most addictive substance on the planet. Hell of alot more obese people then serious drug addicts. It's easy to compare hard drugs to junk food. Both do nothing positive for the body or your life except that temporary imjoyment you get. There's a reason people do drugs and that is it makes them feel great. Whats worse? who knows both have there own problems they casue and it all depends on the person and the usage. Herion addict might sell his house, lose everything and end up on the street. a serious junk food eat will lose his house and everything he owns due to medical bills. Medical problems are the leading cause of bankroupcy in this country. Like i said before no one dies from one cookie or cup cake, but likewise with doing a moderate amount of any substance. the problem inlies when it becomes a daily thing. I know many people that get messed up here and there on some hard drugs and it doesn't effect there life at all becasue they do it once in a while This is getting pretty far off track. What I have been saying is that for people who already have healthy diets and are already committed to eating well, having some junk food now and then is not a big health risk and not something to worry about. What I am talking about are people who otherwise are quite similar to the type of person who is described in that article—people who try to eat whole foods, organic foods, etc.—but who do not aim for complete and total purity and eat ‘junk’ on occasion and don’t feel guilt or anxiety about doing so. Those people are not going to be affected in any meaningful kind of way by that bit of junk they allow themselves. That’s it—that’s my point. The rest of what you have said doesn’t really address that point, but I’m going to respond to them anyway. I’m not talking about people whose diets revolve around junk food and who eat little of nutritional value. I’m not talking about people who are obese. Yes, this is a major problem in the US and many other countries, but the reasons for that are much more complex than junk food being addicting. Some of the factors that go into this ‘epidemic’ are that there are lots of people who have been raised on poor diets and who find anything else weird and funny tasting, our lives being largely inactive unless we make the effort to get exercise for the sake of exercise, junk foods often being easier to find and much cheaper than whole foods, many of us being busy so we don’t cook and therefore rely on prepared foods and restaurants. But again, this is not the issue I am talking about. I’m not talking about people whose diets are all-around crap and who are sedentary and who would need major education and lifestyle changes to become healthier. I still don’t think that poor foods can be compared to hard drugs. We all have to eat; we all need to take in food. We all have to make choices about what foods to eat and how much of it to eat. Taking drugs is not a basic biological need that we need to fulfil in order to stay alive. We can all simply ignore drugs and have nothing at all to do with them if we wish. We can’t ignore food. You try to draw a solid line between ‘good’ food and ‘bad’ food and treat ‘bad’ food as drugs, but all food is really on a continuum of goodness/badness and we all have to decide where to draw a line. Junk food might not contain much in the way of nutrients, but it will give you energy if you are in need of it. So it can indeed provide something your body needs. If I’m really, really hungry and all there is to eat is chocolate chip cookies, eating some will make me less hungry, will make me feel better, and will provide my body with energy it needs. It’s not as black and white as you are trying to make it—junk food can indeed provide us with useful things, physically and socially. As for junk food doing nothing positive for your life other than providing temporary enjoyment, the same can pretty much be said for everything we do. If I go on holiday to the beach, no matter how much I enjoy sitting there watching the sunset, all it is giving me is temporary enjoyment. All enjoyment is temporary. Finally, I want to point out that people who eat well and exercise can get ill and lose their houses to medical bills if they don’t have insurance as well. We all, regardless of what we eat, are going to die in the end. And the vast majority of us are going to get medical treatment as we approach that end. Sure, if your lifestyle is ‘perfect’, your chances of getting cancer at 50 are lower, but you aren’t invulnerable to it. And maybe instead of cancer at 50, you’ll have dementia at 92. (Yes, I know that a person who has a very unhealthy lifestyle will be more likely to need more extensive than someone who has a very healthy lifestyle, but medical treatment is by no means the domain solely of those who eat poorly and don’t exercise.)

Yes, that was exactly my point. People are acting like 'orthorexia' is some diagnosis that would apply to anyone who tries to eat healthy. Without commenting on the validity (or lack thereof) of this diagnosis, I am just trying to point out to people that they are getting it a bit wrong. The diagnosis would apply only to people who had obsessive or invasive thoughts and behaviours surrounding food. It's like saying anorexia isn't a valid diagnosis because it could apply to anyone who goes on a diet or tries to lose a little weight. Anorexia doesn't apply just to people trying to lose weight--there are far more severe criteria than that. Similarly, orthorexia wouldn't apply just to people trying to eat well.

I completely agree that we over diagnose and over medicate. However, I think that people are missing the point that this is a disorder only if it reaches the point of obsession and interferes with the ability to live one's life. Like it's not necessarily bad to wonder if you left the stove on, but if such thoughts become invasive and you can barely leave the house because you have to go back and check 5 times whenever you go out, then it's a disorder.

There's no point comparing cookies to heroin. Heroin is highly addictive, and if you do get addicted to it, it can ruin your life (as in cause you to lose your job, friends, home, etc.), not just make your diet less than ideal. Seriously, cookies and cake aren't going to kill you. They aren't going to ruin your life. Seeing cookies as akin to herion is blowing things completely out of proportion. Again, I agree that it's great to aim for a good diet. But a good diet can include nutritionally poor foods. And I don't mean just once a year--we can eat much more junk than that. If you focus on what you do eat and make sure that you get your veg and other good stuff, go ahead and have the cookies as well! Sure, there are some situations when a person who is trying to make a big change in their diet might need to cut out all junk in order to realign their taste buds so they can start to taste the more subtle flavours of real food and come to enjoy it. But most of us aren't in that situation.

I don't need to do roller derby, but it enhances my life, so it's worth the small risk it brings with it. I imagine lots of us are like that. We do some things that carry risk because they make life enjoyable, not because they are necessary. I'm not aware of any evidence that eating foods like cookies on occasion has a negative effect on one's health, assuming one is also eating a variety of veg, grains, legumes, fruit, and so on and meeting one's nutritional needs through whole foods. Eating some cake in addition to that has basically negligible risk. Also, eating these 'poor' foods does do something positive. They taste good! Eating a cupcake makes me happy--that's something positive! It's even positive for the body for us to do things that make us happy. I completely agree that we shouldn't base our diets on nutritionally poor foods. But I don't see the harm in eating poor foods within an otherwise varied and healthful diet. Food is not purely a digestive, metabolic function. Food can be part of socializing. Food can be enjoyed for its taste. Worrying purely about what happens when your body takes in a digests food, and discounting all the other functions food can have in the lives of humans is kind of like reducing us to machines rather than the complex social animals we are.

Driving or riding in a car, at any speed, can result in a car wreck. Yet people get in cars all the time--would you say it's best for everyone to abandon cars completely because being in one increases the risk of a car wreck? My risk of being run over is much higher if I go near a road. Maybe I should never go near one. My chances of another person harming me is higher if I leave my house, so maybe I should stop doing that. There's risk in the world. It's good to be aware of that and not take too many, but we can't avoid them all, so we always have to determine which risks are 'worth it' and which aren't. I used to mountain bike and now I do roller derby, which increase my risk of injury. But I do it anyway. Maybe this is a 'bad thing' that never should be done because it carries a risk of harm, but I don't care. It gives me enjoyment and I have weighed that this outweighs the risk for me, personally. Eating cake and cookies now and then isn't going to break my leg or cause me to drop dead tomorrow. It's probably going to have negligible effect on my health overall. So why worry about it so much? Just like getting in a car, crossing the street, or playing roller derby, there might be some small risk attached to it, but it's not enough to make me consider it to be something so horrible it can never be done. I can understand people who say that they won't allow themselves one cookie because they know themselves and they know that if they allow themselves one, they won't be able to stop and their entire diet will soon decline. I can't understand people who think that the actual act of eating a single cookie is harmful enough in and of itself to be worried about.

Thanks for that explanation. It's like how having a fear of heights is sensible and all of us have some level of it, to prevent us from falling to our deaths. But if the fear becomes unreasonable for the risk and starts to interfere with a person's life, it becomes a diagnosable problem.

Hey now, RLS isn't bogus! I actually suffer from it--it's real and it sucks! My grandmother, mother, and brother all have/had it as well. We used to call it 'jumpy leg' until we learned that the was a name for it. Sure, it's not life threatening or anything, but it's a real thing and it is really unpleasant.

Actually, I kinda agree. I don't know if it's actually a diagnosable disorder, but I'd say that obsession over total purity is a problem. Sure, it's a good thing to think about what you eat. It's good to make sure that you eat a range of fruit, veg, grains, beans, etc. It's great to ensure that your diet is not based on nutrient-devoid items like white bread and cakes. It's good to eat organic foods when you can. However, if you are doing those things--if your diet is made mostly of healthful whole foods, having something 'bad' now and then, like a cookie or a slice of cake, is not going to kill you. If one is at a point where one can't eat a cookie ever because absolutely everything must be 'good', I'd agree that's most likely a problem. I think that being vegan would be excluded, assuming it's for ethical reasons. That's not about making sure that everything you put in your body is 'pure', as evidenced by the fact that veganism isn't just about food.

So your daily deficit is at least 1400 calories, and possibly as high as 2200?? That kind of deficit is like an inactive person eating basically nothing at all! Your body is definitely starving. I'm actually amazed that you are feeling and functioning OK at that level. Are you sure those numbers are correct? My advice is definitely to eat more--lots more!

Actually, vitamin b12 comes from the plant kingdom, or if you prefer on the soil where plant-based foods grow, doesn't come from animal foods; animals get it from plants or animals that ate plant foods so then its in their muscles/meat. If you eat organic vegetables that grow on a soil rich in minerals and vitaminb12 and you dont rinse the vegetables too much because there is no insecticides on it, you get b12. But even in processed foods like all flour products, some of the dirt, insects and b12 are in the final product. Also, the main problem with b12 is not that b12 is missing in the diet, it is that the absorption is deficient, due to bad intestinal flora, bad food combinings causing some vitamins, minerals, proteins and calories to not even being digested so its flushed. its always unhealthy people that get b12 deficient. They're not unhealthy because they're deficient in b12, they are deficient in b12 because they are unhealthy. why do meat eaters get b12 deficiency? This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. Nowhere did I state, or imply, that I am under the impression that B12 is an animal product. I am very well aware that it is not. If it were an animal product, my B12 spray wouldn't be vegan. So I don't know why you felt the need to "correct" me on that. However, it is NOT from the plant kingdom. It is synthesized by bacteria. That's still vegan, though. It has NOT been demonstrated that organic vegetables, flour, or whatever else has any B12 content. The only sure sources of B12 are supplements and supplemented food. Yes, SOME people have trouble absorbing B12, so intake is not going to help their deficiency and this is unrelated to diet. However, most people (especially younger people) can absorb it, so these people will have deficiency only if they are not taking in a sufficient level of B12. Anyone who want to be sure that he/she is getting sufficient B12 (as we all should) should be taking/eating supplements, not taking a wild gamble that there is going to be enough insect parts in their flour to provide for their needs! B12 deficiency can result in irreversible damage to the nervous system. This is why I think it is highly irresponsible to go around telling people that they can get enough B12 through unwashed veggies (they can get e coli through that source, too) or flour. If you personally want to take that gamble, go for it, but don’t try to talk other people out of supplementing. Read this very thorough article on B12 (link taken from beforewisdom's B12 sticky post in this forum.): http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/all. It addresses all the myths about B12 that you bring up.