Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Longevity

Im confused.. I need to find out if vegetarians do live longer and if so how long. I know it already has a part on it but i dont really understand it.. Any decoders out there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.8.10 (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I can make out, it's saying that pesca-vegetarians, vegetarians and low-meat eaters live a little bit longer and vegans are the same when compared to a diet high in meat. Of course, this article is glossing over the fact that the study presented concludes that vegetarians actually had a higher overall mortality rate, and were only significantly less likely to die from ischemic heart disease - hooray for POV issues! Actually, this is an issue that really needs to be addressed. Jgr2 (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. People should study the long term effects of a vegetarian diets by looking at what is happening in India, as in here. Rises in Heart disease amongst vegetarians have been explained by "genetic mutation", yet less than 4% of India population is affected by this mutation. Lets be honest. A balanced diet is good for you. Not one that means you lack B12, vitamin D and Iron. Some further studies here. Let's be honest. It is a balanced diet that helps, not a vegetarian diet.I haven't eaten flesh, or eggs in years, but under medical advice I may start to eat eggs.--Sikh-history (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Dubious Source(s)

Source 106, Diet by Design by Tyler Stanley, seems pretty crackpot, honestly. The tone of the book is fanatical, and it's self-published. He may be citing credible sources, but I can't see them in the book previews on Google Books. Because of these indicators I've gone ahead and removed most references to it from the article per WP:RS. Actually, several of these sources seem to be in the same vein, and could use cleaning up. Jgr2 (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We can discuss about if that book is or not reliable, but the fact is that you had deleted a lot of information well referenced, so I have restored it. If you had seen some "copyright infringement", please say where. Akhran (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I take it by well-referenced information you refer to the lengthy (not to mention copied word-for-word from the sources in question, thus the copyright infringement) discussion of H5N1, a matter completely irrelevant to the article at hand, as well as repeated references to a cancer virus (which, while they do exist, are in this case species specific and thus not relevant)? If you notice, my edits kept the same general information while removing the unnecessary abundance of "facts" from a non-reliable source, as well as a little repetition. Keep in mind that this article is already overly long, and I was merely attempting to make it more readable, as well as a bit less biased. The book, however, is clearly not a reliable source per the guidelines of WP:RS. Jgr2 (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The part about "the Animal-to-human disease transmissions" is really relevant because explain some of the reasons that makes a people go vegetarian. Anyway, you are right about the copyright infringement, so I had rewrited and summarized the part about H5N1, without (I think) any missing of important information. Akhran (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That bit is better now, agreed, but I still say that the Stanley source is unreliable and information that has it as its source should be removed, especially as I can't find anything providing corroborating evidence for his claims. Also, I'm going to go back and re-change the stuff that I did that was purely grammatical editing. Jgr2 (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

After my most recent edit, I noticed several references were from Answers.com (i.e. the bits on Neopaganism and factory farming), which for the most part just mirrors wikipedia articles. These are also not acceptable sources, and new ones should be found. Jgr2 (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

vitamin b12

Taken from Talk:veganism

i read on the internet that Dr. james halsted was working with persian iranian vegans who did not get b12 deficiency and discovered they were using humanure to grow there food.Username 1 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's some info about this - it's called Indirect coprophagy - [1]. Not sure if it's worth a mention, though. One would think that the human manure used would have to come from non-vegans, too. Bob98133 (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not worth a mention; this is a very edge case source of B12, and has not been shown to provide adequately for vegan nutritional needs. Kellen^T 21:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is a bit bizarre, but if there are good refs for it (not the one I cited above), I don't think that a mention would be out of place. As you say, Kellen, it would require good research to prove that this method does provide adequate B12, but if that proof exists, a mention would be OK with me. If Username is interested in documenting this, maybe he/she can post the refs to talk and we can discuss this again. Bob98133 (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

i'm looking for more than a mention. note that the b12 is not left over from the food remains of non-vegans, but from the bacteria in the large intestines in vegans before it is excreted. Vitamin B12 cannot be made by plants or animals as only bacteria have the enzymes required for its synthesis. Also on the internet i found a study in which scientist cured vitamin b12 def. in vegans by giving them concentrated doses of b12 from there own fecal matter, which proves there is enough b12 in the feces but that perhaps only barely enough b12 survives the second time through. I found this as well:

"Studies have shown that those eating an omnivorous diet require more vitamin B-12 than vegans. This is because the typical diet leads to digestive atrophy. Because vitamin B-12 is peptide bound in animal products and must be enzymatically cleaved from the peptide bonds to be absorbed, a weakening of all gastric acid and gastric enzyme secretions (due to a cooked food diet) causes an inability to efficiently extract vitamin B-12 from external food." Username 1 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have also seen studies showing that eating food contaminated with shit may contain B12. However, I have not seen a reliable source indicating that fruitarians specifically may meet their B12 requirements in this way. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep it civil. Username, if you have a reliable source for that which you can show the rest of us, rather than quoting from something that sounds like a tertiary source, I see no real reason why it shouldn't be at least mentioned. It is a little gross, though. Jgr2 (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)