Alcohol causes cancer

[Broomstick]

Another measure of addiction, besides simple quantity, is also how easily someone can give the substance up. If someone is accustomed to drinking two glasses of wine with dinner every night, but can give it up easily because of, say, needing a medication or a reason requiring him/her to drive after dinner, or because there was a job loss and now a need to cut back on luxuries, then they are not addicted. On the other hand, someone who HAS TO have a drink a day, even if it's only one, and can't give it up willingly really does have a drinking problem. You don't have to be a falling down, puking, homeless drunk to have a problem with alcohol.

In this case, the study in the OP defined "moderate". Wong is correct that "alcohol apologists" usually use a different definition and there is a strong tendency to substitute their definition for the study's.

[Colonel Olrik]

Once again, as stressed several times already, it all depends on what you think "moderate" means. Colonel Olrik defines it as "a drink now and then", which seems to be well below the threshold of anything that the study concerns itself with. On the other hand, the average alcohol apologist seems to define it as "anything short of binge drinking", even if that means you consume a few alcoholic drinks every single day, and that sounds an awful lot like an addiction to me.

I agree. I literally mean "now and then". My last alcoholic drink was IIRC last Tuesday and the last time I drank more than one in one day was in September, during Oktoberfest. I'd say that my average is around 1/2 to 1 drink /week, more often beer which has a low alcoholic content in comparison to most. Drinking should be a pleasurable indulgence - comparable to eating a dessert, for example, and it does help to provide a relaxed mood that makes social occasions easier. Hell, my girlfriend is a very occasional drinker and I probably wouldn't have met her if she hadn't decided to go to the party to drink and relax for some hours during her exams.

I'd say that someone who drinks everyday, or that drinks to get drunk, has serious problems, being likely in the same situation of addiction as smokers and injury the body the same way. In this regard the big difference between alcohol and smoke is the addiction level, like Spin Echo mentioned. While nearly all of the people I know are occasional drinkers, only one or two of my friends who smoke qualify as occasional smokers - the rest need to smoke all the time.

[Colonel Olrik]

I'm also vegan for both personal as well as health reasons, but I don't feel I'm missing out on anything there either. It's funny, I spent the first ~23 of my 33 years eating an omnivorous diet, but since I stopped eating animal products, I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.

I'm honesly curious, if you're a real vegan. Are you strong/muscled and fit? The couple of vegans I know look like weaklings. It must be a bitch for you to get enough protein without cheating with animal products. It's a bitch for me to get it even if I find fish, meat and dairy products very tasty.

[Molyneux]

I'm also vegan for both personal as well as health reasons, but I don't feel I'm missing out on anything there either. It's funny, I spent the first ~23 of my 33 years eating an omnivorous diet, but since I stopped eating animal products, I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.

I'm honesly curious, if you're a real vegan. Are you strong/muscled and fit? The couple of vegans I know look like weaklings. It must be a bitch for you to get enough protein without cheating with animal products. It's a bitch for me to get it even if I find fish, meat and dairy products very tasty.

Two phrases:
Soy, and peanut butter! Both are good sources of protein, and as far as I know are good for vegans.

[Justforfun000]

I'm honesly curious, if you're a real vegan. Are you strong/muscled and fit? The couple of vegans I know look like weaklings. It must be a bitch for you to get enough protein without cheating with animal products. It's a bitch for me to get it even if I find fish, meat and dairy products very tasty.

Actually, I believe that's more related to circumstance then causal effect. In general....how many mesomorphically built people do you know are inclined towards fringe ideas of health? Have you ever noticed that as a general rule, it's 97 pound weaklings or fat cows that gravitate towards the extreme of diet?

The exceptions to the rule, like bodybuilder Bill Pearl:

Vegetarian and Vegan Bodybuilding

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Pearl is probably the most well-known of vegetarian bodybuilders. At his own peak as a bodybuilder when he last won the Mr. Universe in 1971, Bill weighed 242 pounds at a height of 5'10" and his arms measured 21 inches! Bill stopped using steroids by 1961.

He won the professional Mr. Universe title in 1971, at the age of 41, without the use of steroids and as a vegetarian, and is recognized as one of the all-time greats of bodybuilding. Bill's diet is lacto-ovo vegetarian, which means he eats eggs and dairy products.

He describes his experiences with the conversion to vegetarianism. "With each succeeding year the diet (lacto-ovo vegetarian), I've felt better. I'm more healthy, I can train with more energy, and I'm not as much of a "hard guy" as I used to be. I've become more concerned with my fellow man and the other inhabitants I share the planet withI have now been vegetarian for almost 20 years. We have no fish, fowl, or red meat in our diet. Yet I can still carry the same amount of muscle as I did in winning my four Mr. Universe titles. People can't believe it. They think that to have big muscles you have to eat meat - it's a persistent and recurring myth. But take it from me, there's nothing magic about eating meat that's going to make you a champion bodybuilder. Anything you can find in a piece of meat, you can find in other foods as well."

Bill Pearl, was one of the strongest bodybuilders ever, and for years he performed feats of arm strength few can match. He could twist a horseshoe like a pretzel, rip licence plates like cardboard, and bend a railroad spike into a "U" shape.

Back in the 60's Bill Pearl had a strong Man show, and did these things on a regular basis. Chuck Sipes copied Bill's routine. You can do a search and find out if I am correct. He would test horseshoes by smacking them against his open palm. Said he could tell if one had a stronger alloy, and that some were just impossible to bend. Arnold Schwarzenegger stated that Bill Pearl had a profound influence on him and although he never converted him to vegetarianism, he convinced him it was possible...

A couple of quick finds...

The first is from testosterone magazine; the second from Planet Muscle.
http://www.t-mag.com/nation_articles/226gd.html

"Finally, the rough guys out there who think lifting heavy weights is only part of real strength will dig "Tough Guys," a look at the various feats performed by Bill Pearl and Chuck Sipes. These included bending steel bars, spikes, and horseshoes, tearing phone books and license plates, blowing up hot water balloons, snapping lengths of chain, and taking tops off some of those child-proof aspirin bottles. Once Pearl slipped with a spike and wound up driving it straight through his palm like Jesus. Ouch! I think I'll stick to lifting weights, how about you?"

http://www.planetmuscle.com/articles...ngest_man.html

"Likewise I can't count four times NABBA Mr. Universe Bill Pearl when he used to tear two license plates in half at once, although with California DMV fees as high as they are, anyone who could do this stunt should have a reduction in their fees."

[Colonel Olrik]

Actually, I believe that's more related to circumstance then causal effect. In general....how many mesomorphically built people do you know are inclined towards fringe ideas of health? Have you ever noticed that as a general rule, it's 97 pound weaklings or fat cows that gravitate towards the extreme of diet?

Since I only know a couple male vegans, you're right that I don't exactly have a big comparison base. However, while being mesomorphically built helps to have a good constitution, you can perfectly have that kind of body and be unfit. Regarding the two men I know, I can't think of any friend of mine who appears "weaker" than they are. Women can get away with it easier, since they don't have such a big muscle mass to keep.

The exceptions to the rule, like bodybuilder Bill Pearl:

Vegetarian and Vegan Bodybuilding

He's not a vegan, though, but a vegetarian that includes dairy in his diet. You get a lot of protein this way. To sustain his muscle mass I bet that he ate a lot of animal based products, and plenty of protein shakes as well. A true vegan I assume doesn't do that.

[Justforfun000]

He's not a vegan, though, but a vegetarian that includes dairy in his diet. You get a lot of protein this way. To sustain his muscle mass I bet that he ate a lot of animal based products, and plenty of protein shakes as well. A true vegan I assume doesn't do that.

No I doubt you could attain that size on a vegan diet. Personally I don't think it's a truly healthy diet. It's going too far. We are omnivores no matter what bullshit argument vegetarians try to skew otherwise. Yes we SHOULD eat more vegetables than meat. No one who is informed will deny this, but nowhere does the evidence say that COMPLETELY removing animal products is superior to some in your diet.

[Covenant]

Like any bizzare eating habit, you can make it work if you want to try at it. It's not a choice I'd like to make or would enjoy making, but it's really not a threat to modern life. I think that there's way too many fair-weather vegetarians who end up eating poorly but claiming they feel great and would never touch meat again. Someone who does it wisely, gets all their proteins and such, hey, whatever, good for them. I find the cruelty arguement to be rather ridiculous, but then again, I also posted the article about the whales getting shot at so I do draw the line somewhere when it comes to gnawing on organs.

They may sound shrill and annoying, much like Apple users or us Liberals, but if they have a point it'll be found out in a scientific test and we'll all get to hear about it. If, however, it turns out (as it has appeared so far) that it matters what you put in, but not really the way in which you put it in, then all the Vegetarians will be able to claim is that they're eating a less cruel, more sustainable form of food. And they're probably right about that. But I'll take some chicken on my salad, thank you.

[FSTargetDrone]

I'm honesly curious, if you're a real vegan. Are you strong/muscled and fit? The couple of vegans I know look like weaklings. It must be a bitch for you to get enough protein without cheating with animal products. It's a bitch for me to get it even if I find fish, meat and dairy products very tasty.

Sorry Colonel Olrik, just saw your post. I'm 5'9" and weigh 170 lbs. which is pretty much the same weight I was in high school. I've been eating this way for 10 years now and see a doctor regularly. My non-veg doctor has no problem with my diet and all my bloodwork and other tests routinely show good numbers. I take supplements and all that good stuff. I guess you can say I'm of "average" build, but I'm not scrawny by any means.

[FSTargetDrone]

They may sound shrill and annoying, much like Apple users or us Liberals, but if they have a point it'll be found out in a scientific test and we'll all get to hear about it. If, however, it turns out (as it has appeared so far) that it matters what you put in, but not really the way in which you put it in, then all the Vegetarians will be able to claim is that they're eating a less cruel, more sustainable form of food. And they're probably right about that. But I'll take some chicken on my salad, thank you.

I hope I don't come across that way. I've no intention of preaching to the masses here about my diet. I only bring it up when it's related to the matter at hand (sometimes tangentially, I admit!) or when someone else mentions vegetarians or vegans.

[Covenant]

I wouldn't say you, since debating it intellectually is different than getting in my face over a meal. Debate and discussion of things like vegetarianism, veganism and such is healthy and worthwhile since it's easy to see we don't eat a wide enough range of fruits and vegetables, and that our reliance on one type of meat for a majority of our protein is unnecessary and at times unhealthy.

Besides, it was mostly a joke, since I was drawing a paralell to two other groups that I doubt most people would call irrational as well. There's a wide gulf between the average person who makes an ethical and nutritional decision to avoid animal products, and hopes it's healthier while also feeling better, and someone who would call that octo-lacto whatever vegetarian type dude a murder-eater or something. It's not like vegetarians are one monolithic group with a handbook that says what's okay and what's not.

Also, remember, most guys' first experience with a vegetarian is a whiny little dude, or a chick--neither of which are manly--or quite possibly having your friend turned into a vegetarian by his new girlfriend. When suddenly someone's dietary requirements change to the point they can't come over for BBQ, grab some burgers at a late-night coffee shop with you, or lecture you about what you eat, you tend to take it out on the vegetarians. But look how far they've come so far--they went from being this bizzare fringe group of PETA activitsts to being an entirely normal dietary option at most resturants. The ethics issue is a little hard to swallow (pun intended) but the health benefits are definately going to move more mainstream. That's good for everyone.

[Darth Wong]

There are two kinds of vegans: the people who think that it's a healthier lifestyle and the people who think it's morally unacceptable to kill animals or cause their deaths, even for sustenance. The former are usually quite reasonable. The latter tend to be nuts.

One thing they were right about, however, is the whole red meat thing. The EPIC study has made it obvious that we should really cut down on our red meat consumption.

[Justforfun000]

I've been down the road myself. From the age of 19 until 26 or so, I ate no red meat and I was going to try to go even further. I changed my mind and accepted that we are omnivores and we are better to have some meat in our diet.

I do love animals in general, and it did bother me that we have to kill them to eat them. However, as one very comprehensive book was trying to stress, (Diet for a New Planet), it's one thing to argue against the killing and eating of animals, and another to be against the way they are TREATED. I really abhor some of the methods of raising and essentially torturing these poor animals just to maximize profit.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to not want to inflict pain and suffering on animals. I hate to see any living thing suffer. I would go out of my way and even pay more money if given the choice between one set of animals raised humanely compared to others.

So although Mike is correct in noting most "animal rights" activists are a little nutty, their basic heart is in the right place. There is a middle ground we should be able to find, but naturally we're dealing with the issue of profit. That's always the stumbling block when it comes to concerns of this nature.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Some of them act crazy, true. Some which are are those who try to argue that it's always wrong to kill or eat other animals and that they have some innate right to life or that they are equal to humans in value. I would disagree on those.

My goal is to minimize the amount of suffering, and I try to cut down significantly on the amount of meat, and I encourage it, in order to cut demand. I most dislike the massive factory farming schemes because they are horrible things.

If you need to eat to survive, though, or need to kill other animals to survive or maintain their populations, I don't see a problem. People are animals do, and killing isn't inherently wrong. It's about the utility of doing so.

I am not a vegetarian, but I have been thinking about it. I don't know where to get reliable information on diet though. Some of the sources I have found list some interesting places to get food to avoid the stresses of factory farming. For instance, I sometimes shop at White Dog or buy from Trader Joe, which tend to have more humane supply agreements for eggs, etc. The problem's that they are often more expensive. But I shouldn't be eating that much of the stuff anyway.

I try to supplement the diet artificially, and there are ways, but it's usually more work and not everyone wants to do that.

[Justforfun000]

I am not a vegetarian, but I have been thinking about it. I don't know where to get reliable information on diet though.

Studies done in universities tend to be less biased then ones from Food-related industries. I'd suggest going to that special Google search engine...trying to remember the name..Ah yes. Google Scholar. Do a search in that for vegetarianism, and you'll generally end up with high-quality studies.

We know that as a rule the Food guide pushing the lions share of veggies and breads, fruits and nuts with limited amounts of meat and dairy, is basically correct. If we ate about 25% of our daily calories from meat and dairy, we'd be pretty healthy. Realistically most people probably eat the opposite. 75% of meat and dairy with all the rest in the remaining 25%. Not good.

[Darth Wong]

It's actually pretty disturbing to realize how much of our knowledge of nutrition comes from people selling something. How many studies on the health benefits of <insert food here> are actually funded by the people who make and sell that particular food?

[Dooey Jo]

It's actually pretty disturbing to realize how much of our knowledge of nutrition comes from people selling something. How many studies on the health benefits of <insert food here> are actually funded by the people who make and sell that particular food?

We'll also hear much more about the studies funded by the food industry, since they have the means to advertise their new, oh so objective studies... This probably plays a large part in why what's considered healthy food (beyond vegetables) changes every ten years or so.

[Covenant]

If you have healthcare coverage, you could try to see a dietician--not a nutritionist. That would give you a professionally made dietary information package you could use to adjust your eating habits. But it's really no great mystery, as science keeps verifying the old adages of eat smart and exercise. If you want an idea of what to eat, check out the new food pyramid. It's pretty baffling how many people eat so amazingly horribly, despite the relative ease at which you can find this info, and how--by now--common sense it is to eat more fresh fruit and more fresh veggies (or cooked, but not processed or canned in heavy syrup) than they do meat, and to tone down the carbohydrate intake in relation to that (since you don't want a zillion calories) and to exercise.

[Justforfun000]

If you have healthcare coverage, you could try to see a dietician--not a nutritionist. That would give you a professionally made dietary information package you could use to adjust your eating habits. But it's really no great mystery, as science keeps verifying the old adages of eat smart and exercise. If you want an idea of what to eat, check out the new food pyramid. It's pretty baffling how many people eat so amazingly horribly, despite the relative ease at which you can find this info, and how--by now--common sense it is to eat more fresh fruit and more fresh veggies (or cooked, but not processed or canned in heavy syrup) than they do meat, and to tone down the carbohydrate intake in relation to that (since you don't want a zillion calories) and to exercise.

There are a few major reasons why people do not eat healthy, and some of it is not their fault. At least when dealing with ordering out and availability. Vegetables tend to be more time consuming to wash, prepare and cook. Especially PROPERLY. The way you cook vegetables for example is huge on their taste. Great example. Steam broccoli for 5 minutes and it's beautiful. Springy, bright green and with the right amount of butter and salt, delicious. Cook it 8 minutes or so in water, drain it (along with a huge portion of the vitamins and minerals that go right down the drain), and it's now the colour of pea soup, tastes slightly sulfurous and mushy. Barely palatable.

Salads are great for you with all of the mixtures of antioxidants and flavenoids, but look at the pain in the ass of getting it ready? Meat is relatively simple for the main fast foods. Throw on a burger and fry the shit out of it. Throw a chicken in the oven with some salt and butter slapped on it and take it out ready in an hour.

Plus meat (arguably) tastes better then vegetables. It's a more intense flavour, and we naturally prefer it.

It's more convenience then anything else though, not to mention profit. Meat will always be the main 'course' when you get food from a restaurant, and they offer potato or french fries 99% of the time as the main side and charge you a lot more to add a salad instead. Potatoes are cheap, and even though they are vegetables, the inside of it is mostly starch. All the nutrients are focused in the skin and how many people commonly eat that? People undernourish themselves all the time because of these common habit patterns of restaurants or fast food meals at home.

Thankfully I go out of my way to eat salads at least 3 times a week, and have 2 to 3 vegetables cooked properly in my evening meal. If able, I try to have more at lunch too.

Most people get too lazy to put in the effort to include vegetables in the proportions necessary. Sad, because they will undoubtedly directly affect your longevity.

[FSTargetDrone]

I am not a vegetarian, but I have been thinking about it. I don't know where to get reliable information on diet though. Some of the sources I have found list some interesting places to get food to avoid the stresses of factory farming. For instance, I sometimes shop at White Dog or buy from Trader Joe, which tend to have more humane supply agreements for eggs, etc. The problem's that they are often more expensive. But I shouldn't be eating that much of the stuff anyway.

Whatever you decide, do some research first, as suggested here. As some of the people have pointed out above, it can be a bit confusing looking at what different studies tell you and who funds the studies themselves. It's interesting to look at, say, the argument against meat-eating in terms of the water and grain used to produce the meat vs. using the water and grain to feed people directly.

Leaving aside the question of runoff from factory farming and its impact on the environment, the fuel used to transport cattle to and meat from the facilities, etc, let's look just at the issue of the water and grain used in meat production. People who oppose eating meat will say a lot of water and grain used to produce meat is wasteful and that those resources could be more efficiently used. The meat industry will tell you that the large amount of resources apparently used to produce meat is take out of context, that the "wasteful" aspect is overblown.

So I just Googled the above and the first result I got that wasn't from a distinctly pro-meat or pro-vegetarian site happened to be from Cornell University, from 1997:

"If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million," David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, reported at the July 24-26 meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science in Montreal. Or, if those grains were exported, it would boost the U.S. trade balance by $80 billion a year, Pimentel estimated.

With only grass-fed livestock, individual Americans would still get more than the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of meat and dairy protein, according to Pimentel's report, "Livestock Production: Energy Inputs and the Environment."

An environmental analyst and longtime critic of waste and inefficiency in agricultural practices, Pimentel depicted grain-fed livestock farming as a costly and nonsustainable way to produce animal protein. He distinguished grain-fed meat production from pasture-raised livestock, calling cattle-grazing a more reasonable use of marginal land.

Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein, according to the Cornell ecologist's analysis.

Tracking food animal production from the feed trough to the dinner table, Pimentel found broiler chickens to be the most efficient use of fossil energy, and beef, the least. Chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. (Lamb meat production is nearly as inefficient at 50:1, according to the ecologist's analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. Other ratios range from 13:1 for turkey meat and 14:1 for milk protein to 17:1 for pork and 26:1 for eggs.)

Animal agriculture is a leading consumer of water resources in the United States, Pimentel noted. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. "Water shortages already are severe in the Western and Southern United States and the situation is quickly becoming worse because of a rapidly growing U.S. population that requires more water for all of its needs, especially agriculture," Pimentel observed.

...

"More than half the U.S. grain and nearly 40 percent of world grain is being fed to livestock rather than being consumed directly by humans," Pimentel said. "Although grain production is increasing in total, the per capita supply has been decreasing for more than a decade. Clearly, there is reason for concern in the future."

As you can see, that 10 year old article about that study certainly suggests that (if one will continue to eat meat) chicken is far more preferable as opposed to beef, in terms of minimizing the waste of water and grain. I'd prefer that more people eat less meat, but what I really find horrendous is the waste. Not to mention the costs of treating the health of those people who eat poorly that everyone eventually pays to treat.

[FSTargetDrone]

Whoops, I just realized I left in the stuff about fossil fuel use in the thing above, when I meant to just point out the water usage. Sorry about that!

[Broomstick]

Back when meat animals such as cattle, goats, and sheep were mainly feed grasses things made more sense - people can't eat grass, but cows can, and when they do the result is food for people. The stupidity is feeding what could be people food to animals that don't require it in order to make meat for the table.

(Some animals, such as pigs, can't live on grass anymore than we can, but they'll happily eat our table scraps so in many ways they can be used as a form of recycling of food waste. That technique, however, does carry some potential hazards.)

[Turin]

Back when meat animals such as cattle, goats, and sheep were mainly feed grasses things made more sense - people can't eat grass, but cows can, and when they do the result is food for people. The stupidity is feeding what could be people food to animals that don't require it in order to make meat for the table.

I guess this is as good a time as any to point out that grass-fed meat is becoming more widely available than it used to be (although you may pay a premium on it, of course). "Free range" meat also has the advantage of being a better lifestyle for the animal when it's alive, which goes a long way towards alleviating any moral concerns in my eyes.

Obviously this isn't quite possible for everyone, but with a little effort it can be had. Even if you don't want to/can't shell out a little extra for Whole Foods Certified Organic Free Range Chicken (or whatever), you might be able to find a farmers market in your community where such food is available, at least in the US. Because you're cutting out the wholesaler, the costs are lower too. It just won't have a government-approved sticker on it saying Certified Organic / Free-Range, because those certifications cost money.

Just pointing out that there are options between "eat disease-ridden environment-destroying factory-farmed meat" and "eat no meat at all." (Which is a giant sidetrack from Alcohol Causes Cancer, but if mods are discussing it who am I to say anything! )

[Kanastrous]

I do love animals in general, and it did bother me that we have to kill them to eat them.

They like it even less if you eat them without killing them first.

Take my word for it.

[rhoenix]

(Tangent: My humble thanks to Justforfun00 and Kanastrous for my new signature.)