Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 4

Vegetarian cooking
The claim "In order to create complete protein, legumes and grains should be consumed together. For example, rice and beans or pita bread and hummus create a source of complete protein..." This is not supported, and has long since been refuted as a myth. I.e., you do not have to eat them at the same time. See  "Not all types of plant       foods need to be eaten at the same meal, since the amino acids are combined    in the body's protein pool." 69.108.111.43 01:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Vegetarian cooking requires creativity and innovation because a healthy vegetarian diet is based on variety and moderation" "requires creativity and innovation" is not NPOV and is highly subjective. 69.108.111.43 01:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Second that, this is a typical non-vegetarian viewpoint, as is the statement "an adequate amount of protein is a concern of any vegetarian diet," which is highly questionable (multiple sources downplay the modern fixation on protein; a common vegetarian diet includes ample protein as it is). I would suggest replacement of the former with something along the lines of "Vegetarian cooking may require a higher degree of planning than omnivorous diets depending on the level of vegetarianism (vegans, for example) need to be more conscious of vitamin B12 intake)", and the latter statement with "Likewise, some vegetarians need to be careful to include ample protein sources in their meals." --Whit 05:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We also need to be careful we don't: 1. Give instructions. This is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide 2. Be too culturally specific. Most vegetarians aren't from Western backgrounds, so identifying them in relation to a typical western diet would be quite parochial. Ashmoo 06:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Template?
There are a lot of vegitarianism-related topics, perhaps one of those sidebar-box-template things would be in order?24.23.195.170 04:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Country specific information
Potential GFDL Violation by: . Reported to Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz --Mig77(t) 10:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Opening reference to fruitarianism
The reference to fruitarinism has been removed from the opening paragraph. This is because: - Fruitarianism does not flow on logically from the motivations of Vegetarianism as is implied by such a prominant reference. - Many other diets could in theory be listed there but the focus of the paragraph should be vegetarianism, not other diets. - True fruitarianism is vanishingly rare, far less common than other listed diets which could be mentioned instead.

Indian vegetarians
Do the majority of Hindu's practise lacto-ovo vegetarianism or lacto vegetarianism, or is it 50/50? There seems to be some inconsistency on the articles. nirvana2013 19:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In my experience lacto vegetarianism is found more in cultures associated with the Dharmic Religions (especially Hinduism and Jainism), than anywhere else particularly - but as Hinduism itself is not a consistent body of fixed beliefs then the diets of practitioners are highly varied from one tradition to the the next. Statistically the largest section within Hinduism is Vaishnavism ref, and amongst Vaishnavas the lacto vegetarian diet is by far the most popular. Within the second largest group Shaivism I'm not sure if this is the case, I can't see it mentioned in the [Shaivism] wiki article. Another factor which comes into place is how strict people wish to be with their own eating habits, compared to what is promoted as the ideal. Best Wishes, ys, GourangaUK 08:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record here is the inconsistency, from the vegetarianism article; "Today, Indian vegetarians, primarily Lacto-ovo vegetarians, are estimated to make up more than 70% of the world's vegetarians. They make up 20 to 30% of the population in India, while occasional meat-eaters make up another 30%."

and from the lacto vegetarianism article: "The greatest proportion of vegetarians such as those in India or those in the classical Mediterranean lands such as the Pythagoreans are or were lacto vegetarian." nirvana2013 19:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The first edit was changed to lacto ovo here on Aug 10th without any explanation. I will change it back. good catch!--Pranathi 05:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

List of famous vegetarians
Hi Mig77, Thanks for deleting by list. Also note that wikipedia is not a debating tool. It would be normal to add to any entry about food habits a list of people in history that have followed that food habit. I will put my change back. Your comments about posing "Appeal to authority" is in valid as I am not agruing that being a vege is good nor bad. Just stating a history of people that have been veges. Please reply before deleteing.
 * I do not believe that a list of vegetarians is of any interest. Would you also have a list of Famous people who had Beards? If someone was vegetarian or not MAY be of interest in an article on that person. A list of vegetarians adds nothing, especialy one headlined by a Cartoon character. (ps Please register, you dont have to supply an email if you dont want). --Mig77(t) 14:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Is a beard a lifestyle choice?
 * Yes, so is Vegetarianism -m77


 * Is a beard a political statement against the ethics involved in eating meat?
 * No, neither is Vegetarianism -m77


 * Is a beard a statement against the lack of ecological viability in eating meat?
 * No, neither is Vegetarianism -m77


 * Is a beard a means of speaking out for your beliefs?
 * Yes, It can be but not necissarily, and same goes for Vegetarianism -m77


 * Is a beard a religious ideaology?
 * Yes, It can be but not necissarily, and same goes for Vegetarianism -m77


 * Is a beard a political ideaology?
 * No, neither is Vegetarianism -m77


 * Is a beard an uncommon thing?
 * It depends where you are, same with Vegetarianism. -m77

It's worth pointing out, I'm not a vegetarian, but by all means I can point out flawed logic when I see it. 211.30.71.59 18:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC) (Not the guy who started this thread, just cruised on in and noticed a logical fallacy in motion.)
 * So is that a message of support? but for which side? By all means person X may be Vegetarian and that may tell you something about that person, but being Vegetarian tells you very little of value about Vegetarianism. Please if somebody is vegetarian, note it on their biography, and link it here! (You can see what links here by clicking on Toolbox -> What links here). Listing people because they are vegetarian is a pointless waste of space (cant wait for the list of famous people with blonde hair - now THAT would be informative :P. --Mig77(t) 07:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It certainly doesn't belong in this entry, but a list of well-known vegetarians surely has a place on Wikipedia, if List of teetotalers, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and Oolong 12:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Second (third?) that - as a long-time vegetarian I *am* interested in well-known people who are vegetarian, and I should think that a person who was interested in becoming one might be encouraged if they saw some of the most respected names in history on such a list. I'm ambivalent about where it goes, but the list should exist. --Whit 07:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or was the list supposed to be back up. It certainly should be, so if someone can put it back up that would be great. We should also get it protected.

Physiological Section

 * Dogs, cats or lions are examples, while plant-eating animals (such as horse and deer) have no sharp teeth or claws to tear meat. Humans occupy a middle ground between the two having no claws and mostly blunt teeth (molars) but also a pair of sharp canine teeth designed for tearing which would be useless in a purely herbivorous animal.

I've heard many vegetarians and non-vegetarians alike argue that human canines, being vastly inferior to carnivores canine teeth in any way, are designed for ripping into the flesh of harder fruits? I find the above argument that a pair of sharp canine teeth is 'designed for tearing flesh' to be very presumptuous. 211.30.71.59 15:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Canines dont tell you if an animal is a carnivore or not. Mountain gorilla has huge fangs, but is a herbivore (for hard fruit, and also as a weapon). However the validid criticism of the argument is seperate to the argument itself and should be seperate --Mig77(t) 13:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the last sentence here, are you saying that the statement should not be changed? Your previous statement is exactly why I visited this discussion - the fact that gorillas have large canines would at the very least suggest that the statement, as written, is simply incorrect. If we want to include an explanation of the difference in human and gorilla canines, so be it, but clearly sharp canines are not "useless in a purely herbivorous animal". --Whit 07:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The argument is used and thus it should be documented. The fact that it is factualy incorrect should also be documented, but only after the flawed argument has been presented (since it is common this "myth" should be explained strongly, before being thouroughly refuted. --Mig77(t) 11:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you're saying and I agree - the concept/myth of human canines proving that man is naturally omnivorous should be included but disputed by, at the very least, the gorilla counter example. However, loath as I am to suggest it (being a veg proponent), we should probably also include the fact that other primates are not strictly vegetarian and will on rare occasions kill and eat other animals. --Whit 04:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Who wrote the section about lips? It's horrible!
 * Plant eating animals like cow, horse drink water by lips unlike lions, dogs, cat who drink water by tongue, humans drink water by lips and so it is considered that humans are vegetarians by nature.

I fixed the grammer somewhat, but since this person obviously doesn't know English very well, I'm suspect of his argument. I marked it as "citation needed" because I question the validity of it.--24.209.219.84 15:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Freeganism
I don't know where the person who wrote the definition of Freegan got it, but it wasn't really that accurate. It would have made a better definition of "Vegan" than Freegan. --SutekhStorm

List of Vegetarians
We need to make a list of notable vegetarians. And when it is being done, each person should have a citation like the list of vegans do. That is probably why the last one got deleted, too much vandalism. Brainboy109 October 18, 2006 16:13 (UTC)

Vegetarian
A vegetarian does not consume animals, dairy or eggs. A vegan does this as well as not using things made from and tested on animals, so I changed the "vegan" to "vegetarian". If I am not correct, I apologise. I also added the meaning of veganism underneath.
 * You are incorrect. The term "vegetarian" does not preclude the consumption of dairy or eggs, and veganism is a type of vegetarianism. Fixed. --Whit 20:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry.

Neutrality?
I find this article highly bias. Why does almost every commentary on the internet about vegitarianism have to be a bunch of vegitarian propaganda? The "Criticism" section is littered with arguments for vegitarianism and is written in such a way that it neatly dances around or fails to mention any convincing counter arguments, of which I can think of plenty. The end subsection of the criticism section is even worse as it blatantly supports vegitarianism despite being categorised as criticism. Am I the only one who sees a problem here? Also the arguments about longevity conveniently ignore how Inuits, eating diets of almost 100% meat have mantained life expectectencies which are still high by modern standards over the past thousands of years. I believe it is essential for this article to give a balanced view rather than the radically pro-vegitarian view which it currently expresses.
 * Troll. Otherwise supply your arguments. The Inuit have a low life expectancy, if you have a credible reference that says otherwise, post it. --Mig77(t) 13:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is biased
There is a lot of faulty science used here. The 'safety' part especially. E. coli bacteria can grow on vegetables, and there was a big outbreak in spinach. Not to mention the Botulism outbreak in carrot juice. These outbreaks are worse in vegetables, because you are more likely to eat them raw, whereas cooking hamburger meat properly will kill any E. coli if it is infected.


 * I wouldn't say biased, but a few biased editors wouldn't let others to add such content. This revert was basically in poor taste given the ongoing concern on food contamination in spinach. I'd say some editors here and in Veganism do resort to mocking others like User:NTK in the edit summary. I've readded it for now. Idleguy 12:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Vegetarian Propaganda Article
I would realy like to know how does a vegetarian get enough protein from grains. Grains are not protein. Beans are not protein either. This is an encyclopedia. Not assertions by vegetarians who believe killing animals is a crime. Soy is low quality protein. BV is 74. Whey is 104. Eggs is 88. Also, a lot of people are allergic to soy. This entire article is dancing around every issue. POV city here. If someone added some facts about reality I bet it would be reverted by people who don't want to here the truth. Just an onlooker 08:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would realy like to know how does a vegetarian get enough protein from grains.?
 * The answer is pretty simple: Protein from Vegetarian sources.
 * Regards, GourangaUK 09:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * how could you miss Just an onlooker's statement which show that there are different type of protein which vegetarian source cannot provide?

Yes I agree. When GourangaUK said... "I would realy like to know how does a vegetarian get enough protein from grains.? Please provide the scientific study where plant ingredients such as grains can maintain nitrogen balance with protein utilization of plant ingredients to meet human requirements daily. That link is to a bias website that is an article about opinions and assertions which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about science. Soy and other plant ingredients serverly lack in protein quality. I merely make a comment here in the talk page and then someone tries to put the brakes on me. Not so fast. If you take a closer look at the joker article you will notice right away it has absolutey no listing of any scientific references whatsoever at all. This entire vegetarism article is POV heaven! Just an onlooker 09:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your comment doesn't have any scientific referencing for your assertion that "Soy and other plant ingredients serverly lack in protein quality", either. ;) Davidjk 09:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello David,

Your wish is my command!*** Here is a start below to work on to fix the POV in this article. Just an onlooker 10:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply

 * Do you really believe this? See below reports...
 * Nutrition hotline: this issue's Nutrition Hotline reviews scientific studies that put into perspective the media-hyped reports that suggest that a vegetarian lifestyle is unhealthy - Brief Article
 * A compilation of articles
 * Yours sincerely, GourangaUK 10:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Amusing
GourangaUK, I think you could do better than quote "Vegetarian Journal" or the the vegetariansite.com who have just handpicked what they want you to see. It only makes Just an Onlooker's points more valid given he has cited from relatively unbiased sources. Idleguy 12:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I'm glad I amused you at least. From the first article I posted (not from a 'pro-vege' source) you would have found the following:


 * "The largest study conducted on vegetarians combined data from four different countries to compare a total of 27,808 vegetarians to approximately 48,000 non-vegetarians. This study found that vegetarians had a 24% lower mortality from heart disease than did non-vegetarians. While there was no significant difference in mortality from cerebrovascular disease or cancer of the stomach, colon, lung, breast, or prostate in vegetarians when compared to non-vegetarians, this study certainly suggests that vegetarianism is a viable dietary choice, offering health benefits."
 * A lot of the nutritional information below seems more suited to pages on individual food items (soy) or Vegetarian nutrition as posted by Mig77. Ys, GourangaUK 11:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Move this trash to Vegetarian nutrition where it "belongs". --Mig77(t) 06:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

One man's trash is another man's treasure. I can handle the TRUTH! Do you believe this? A brief mention of the real facts about vegetarianism is valid and relevant in the Criticism Section of this article. Nonetheless, I agree with Mig77's explanation of where it "belongs", in the vegetarian nutrition article too. Thanks for your support. --Just an onlooker 19:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

- I'd just like to comment by saying that many of the references for this article are re-postings of existing research which is itself not linked to, or are from significantly outdated studies (the 1920s and 1930s), so I would question the validity of some of the references made here. It is also worth noting that a number of fast-food restaurants are referenced, who may have commercial interests in the results or published data being referenced. Davidjk (msg+edits) 10:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello David, I removed commerical links and removed old studies. Any more suggestions for improving stub would be helpful. Soon this info will find a home in this article. (David is referring to the Alternative Vegetarian Article.***) Please check again. Thanks. --Just an onlooker 12:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

- Hi, always happy to give feedback :) Parts of the content below seems to use weaselly language - for example, "Some studies suggest" and "has been suggested to". I think they'd benefit from a small rewrite so the language is more readable. I would also question the inclusion of this sentence:"A protein deficiency may cause health problems including eye cataracts." - wouldn't that be better left in an article on protein deficiency in general?

Also, The sentence relating to soy consumption is very unreadable and doesn't seem to contain anything useful: "Soy consumption has been popularized by natural food companies and the soy industry's aggressive marketing campaign in various magazines, tv ads, and in health food markets." could really use a citation, since that seems to be purely based on opinion. "Research has been conducted examining the validity of the beneficial health claims with regard to the increase in consumption of soybeans which mimic hormonal activity." is very awkard to read, and doesn't actually say anything - simply stating that a study has been carried out is a useless addition to the encyclopedia. Some kind of brief form of the study's conclusion should be listed, as has been done with the other citations. Other than that, this looks fairly sound. Davidjk (msg+edits) 12:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You can help David (or any Wikipedian for that matter) by updating the stub*** below. I don't get it David. You are writing but not showing me the true path for improvemnt. If you think you know better. I would hope you would give it a swing to make the sentences more encyclopedic! Good luck. I wonder if you are just talking or are you serious? Let's wait and see if Davidjk will step up to the plate or will take a pass. Go for it David (Take a swing at the stub.***). Its your choice if you want to get in on the action. The first pitch is a foul ball (as the crowd roars with excitement). Thanks. Just an onlooker 12:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're going with that statement. I was making suggestions rather than changes because I thought that you might complain if I just went ahead and reworded the piece and took parts out without collaborating with other editors, so I guess I'll go ahead and change it now. Davidjk (msg+edits) 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC) - Changes made. If you are going to comment on them, please do so in a more constructive manner than your previous comment.

And to comment yet again: I think the information about soy would be better placed in the article on soy, not the article on vegetarianism. The main article is quite long, and as such it is better to keep information pertaining to different topics within the articles on those topics. Davidjk (msg+edits) 13:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Having read the article on soy, it seems to already contain all of the information which you are proposing to add to this article under the heading "soy protein concerns" [], so I've removed that content from this page as a duplicate. If you think that this is inappropriate, please contact me via my talk page. Thankyou. Davidjk (msg+edits) 14:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed additions to the article***
I removed all the trash as you like. Just an onlooker 07:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Best proteins are from vegetable or animal sources of protein???
Vegetarians could have a protein shortage due to the lack of protein quality obtained from vegetable sources of protein daily. --Just an onlooker 07:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ah, as you can see from my edit that I'm not a veggie fundies. But, in wikipedia, we don't care about "truth". What we care is verifiability of information. Yes, this article has too much of trash information from pro vegetarian sites, which should never have been included in the first place. I would appreciate if you can source your information about different type of protein from the verifiable sources, which generally mean "third party source with editorial oversight" (i.e. academic journal, newsmedia and so on). If information is from verifiable source, it is immune from POV delete/edit attempt. You are also free to raise verifiability objection to "trash". This article need clean up anyway. Vapour

Research

 * This article seems to indicate protein levels between meat eaters and vegetarians.
 * This table shows how much protein are in grains.
 * It seems that endosperm contains the largest amount of protein in grains. (If I read that correctly :\)
 * Nuts are also a good source of protein.
 * Although not entirely scientific, does this seem to calm things down a bit? Kil  o • T  12:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being honest about they are not entirely scientific. Actually they are totally unscientific. The references you provided do not explain anything at all about protein values. It has nothing to do with protein quanitity. It has everything to do with protein quality or values such as the Biological Value of protein and so forth. Just an onlooker 17:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability
I have refered to several scientific articles in criticism section. Human need only small amount of protein a day. If you reduce your meat intake to around that level and eat lot of green vegetables, your diet is probably optimal. Problem of vegetarian propaganda is that it obscure the difference between the issue of unbalanced diet and meat eating. It's more ingenious considering that vegan diet which is more difficult to exercise in healthy way, is often defended on exactly the same reasong that vegan diet is not inherently unhealthy.

If you eat unbalanced diet, its bad for you whether your diet is vegetarian, vegan or unrestricted. Vegan tend to have shorter lifespan as seen by number of scientific studies probably due to difficulty achiving neutrition balance in such a restrictive diet. People whose diet is unrestricted (hence include meat) tend to have unbalanced diet because most don't care what they eat. It is categorically incorrect to imply that diet with meat, vegetarian and vegan diet are "inherently" unhealthy or healthy. As an encycropedia, we owe it to the readers to provide accurate information about what is a good diet. It is unencycropedic, and unsicentific to imply that vegetarian or unrestricted diet is inherently healty or unhealthy. Vapour


 * Granted, that vegans may or may not have difficulty in following a balanced died this article is about Vegetatianism, not veganism. This article is also not about balanced vs unbalanced diets. However there is a popular misconceptions that a Vegetarian diet is unhealthy because it is inherently deficient. Thus it is important for the article to indicate that it is possible to have a healthy vegetarian diet. --Mig77(t) 14:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous version of this article was propagating the idea that diet with meat is unhealthy because meat is inherently toxic (cholestole, fat and so on). It's bit sleazy to dodge the issue once one's advocacy spin is exposed. Plus, I'm inclined to believe that Just an onlooker's argument about protein is correct given that techinical information is less easier to fake. Still, even if vegetable can't provide high grade protein, it doesn't appear to be too important element given that longivity of vegetarian are only second to fish eaters. So I can accept edit which say one can achieve "healthy" diet with vegetarianism. However, that is not the same as achieving "optimal" diet. Various studies I cited indicate this fairly well. Of course, moral argument for vegetarianism is a separate matter. Buddhist section highlight some of the issue involved with it. It's interesting to see how ancient debate in India fit into modern philosophical debate over deontological (animal right), consequential (minimizing killing) and virtue (compassion) argument. Buddhism appear to argue that, animal right argument would lead to sucide, utilitarianism (consequentialism) is non essential, while there are some valid case for virtue (compassion) argument. I always suspected that eating whale meat probably entitle miminum indirect killing per weight of protein. Vapour

Hello Vapour, I have a simple question for you. I have asked many Vegetarians this simply question without a valid answer.

Please explain to me specifically what sources of protein can a vegetarain eat, especially when soybeans may cause cancer. Additionally, when soy may cause allergies and worse increase hormonal levels, acting like hormone replacement drugs, what is left to eat for protein? Mixing beans and grains is a good sources of fiber and carbs but not protein. These sources such as beans, rice, and corn are very low in branched chained amino acids necessary for muscle growth. Just an onlooker 03:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume the question is rhetorical. You already seems to know the answer. Well, you can drive car with some low grade oil. And vegetarian seems to make up for it in other departiment given their longivity. Moreover, it is incorrect to imply that one can't grow muscle without eating meat. Anyway, it is fairly undisputed fact that people in developed countries eat too much meat. Just that the optimal leve of meat is not zero as vegetarian/vegan advocacy group imply. For me, it is no brainer given that human physical trait clearly show that we are suited to eating both meat and vegetables. Vapour
 * Brown rice (see Protein combining). This is just an example of one vegetable source of dietary protien. Although I suspect most would find such a diet monotonous. --Mig77(t) 14:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * All of the protein in any meat has ultimately come from a non-meat source originally so where is the argument? Maybe we should start feeding pork to the African elephants incase they are suffering from a protein deficiency? Humans are built so that we have a choice in types of diet, why push it one way or the other to such extremes? GourangaUK 15:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced Opinions about a Vegetarian Diet has a significant advantage?
''A significant advantage that a vegetarian (particular vegan) diet has is that is reduces the intake of cholesterol, which has been linked to several health problems related to heart. Even though cholesterol is also produced in human body, it is also present in meat and dairy products. For people whose bodies naturally produce higher amounts of cholesterol, vegetarian diet may offer means to reduce or completely eliminate external cholesterol intake.''

These sentences above are unsourced, opinions, and speculation that I removed. Egg whites have no cholestrol which is an animal source of protein. How is a vegetarian diet a significant advantage then? A vegetarian diet is NOT a significant advantage! A non-vegetarian can reduce cholestrol intake by eating egg whites. I hope this clears this up now. Thanks. Just an onlooker 16:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to avoid edit war, take it slow. You can add Fact to unsourced statement first, leave it for a while, then delete. If someone is eating at KFC or McDonald every day, then switching to vegetarianism would be a great idea though switching to subway might do the trick equally well. However, I do agree that because vegetarianism draw line between meat or no meat and ignore the idea of optimal level of meat eating, their argument for health is inherently sub optimal. Vapour
 * Just an ..., You did read that Vegetarians do eat eggs, and dairy right? A meat eater can reduce their cholesterol by eating things with no cholesterol? Good idea. Please state which meat contains no cholesterol. --Mig77(t) 15:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are such thing as right level of cholesterol. Idea that cholesterol is inherently bad is another lie. Same with fat. Human need fat, just not at the level of being obese. Plus, as just a onlooker indicated, meat provide high quality protein, though different grade of protein doesn't appear to be crucial to human longevity. As I stated previously, you can achieve healthy but non optimal diet with vegetarianism. But the difference between healthy and optimal is so thin that it doesn't matter to most people. For me, sensible rule of thumb is to include more green vegetables in diet and avoid junk food. Vegetarian pizza is still junk food to me. I lived in Sri Lanka and there are lot of fat Hindu vegetarian over there.Vapour
 * "These sentences above are unsourced, opinions, and speculation" --Mig77(t) 16:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)