Thinking of going veggie, need some advice??

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 13 2007, 02:52 PM) [snapback]422908[/snapback]</div>

The only byproducts are water and glycerin. The tritration process, called transesterification, is what converts VO or WVO into bio diesel by seperating the glycerin from the oil. There are 3 ingredients for bio d, Vegetable Oil(VO) and Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO), Methanol, and Lye. During the process, a specific amount of methanol and lye is blended with the oil, in some cases heated to speed up the process, and then settled. After several hours the glycerin seperates from the Bio D, and gets skimmed from the tank. To meet certain standards an additional process called washing is used to remove any leftover methonal and lye, but isnt neccesary in order to use it. The only real drawbacks of Bio D is it makes an excellent cleaner, tends to soften rubber hoses (use Nitrile instead), and solidifies below 40* so anti gellers are needed. The good part is it is non toxic. Here is a breakdown of materials in the production of Bio D.

12% Alchohol
1% Catalyst (lye, sodium or potasium Hydroxide)
87% oil

Here is what you get in return,

4% Alchohol (which can remain int the Bio D, or be washed out)
1% Fertilizer
9% Glycerin
86% MEthyl Esters (Bio Diesel)

Good breakdown as far as I can tell. I would like to see the production breakdown for Ethanol. Depending on climate, you may not even need to heat it up for the catalyst to work. Heating up to 150* speeds up the catalysts, but aside from the pumps and stirring, very little else is required to comvert used vegetable oils into bio D.

 

Very cool. Thank you for taking the time to post that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Apr 13 2007, 02:37 PM) [snapback]422895[/snapback]</div>

Because it tastes better.

So yes, I'm serious, I try to only purchase free-range "organic" beef from Whole Foods / Central Market.

Mmm...

The only problem is that it's like 17 bucks a pound.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jesart @ Apr 8 2007, 02:06 PM) [snapback]419865[/snapback]</div>

Well yes, I am one. Actually I am mostly vegan, and I say mostly because in my house we don't use any animal products or byproducts, but sometimes when we go out to eat (rare) we may inadvertently take in some.

I grew up on a dairy farm in WI and was definitely a carnivore, but I was also somewhat overweight and teased when I was a child. My whole family is short and some what large, and when I was 12 I decided to become a vegetarian because I heard it was healthier. Then after I got married I decided to become vegan.
I will tell you that I live an enjoyable life and if you compare it with the rest of my family, I am happier and healthier. That said, it requires more work and more education to be able to fill your diet with all the necessary nutrients. The general rule of thumb is more color. Here is a website that will help you http://www.vegsoc.org/info/goingveg.html or try this one http://www.veggieglobal.com/features/veggieguide.htm.

Also, don't buy into the myth that you will waste away because your body was designed to eat meat. I weigh about 195, and I am 5'10". You can do it, but it requires committment.

Good luck and happy hunting (of non animals).

BTW, I don't know your belief structure, but as a Christian, God's perfect diet (read Genesis 1:29) only included vegetation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(faith2walk @ Apr 15 2007, 02:23 PM) [snapback]423720[/snapback]</div>

I think Genesis could be interpreted to read God cursed Cain (the agriculturalist) and favored Abel (the pastoralist) because Cain shed the blood of Abel to take more land for his own idea of the perfect diet (lifestyle and worldview). Just an interpretation.

Genesis

Chapter 3
3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.


Chapter 4

4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

4:11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;

4:12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 15 2007, 05:47 PM) [snapback]423726[/snapback]</div>

You could take that approach, but I would have to admit your interpretation would be subject to speculation for not understanding the storyline. Following that line of interpretation would continually lead to a belief structure out of context.

Abel's sacrifice was accepted by God, as evidenced by the fire which came down from heaven to consume it, but Cain's was not, because of his disobedience. The lamb was to be slain as a representation of Christ's death (quote, "...the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Rev. 13:8) and the offering of vegetation by Cain was not only disobedience, but insulting, since only the blood of the lamb (Christ) could atone for sin. In his anger at not having his offering accepted, Cain killed his brother, and he was cursed for it the rest of his life. When God approached Cain about the whereabout's of his brother, he basically asked, "What have you done! The innocent blood of your brother cries out to me."

This had nothing to do with diet, but sacrifice and obedience. If you would like to enter a conversation about religion, please do a little more research.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(faith2walk @ Apr 15 2007, 03:25 PM) [snapback]423736[/snapback]</div>

I understand your interpretation but you must understand I do not believe in a god or take the bible for a truth so to me it is all about interpretations. In that you can use my example to mean that Cain was a tiller of the soil much like our totalilitatian agriculturalists of today. They kill off anything that would compete with them for their crops and when their population outstrips the land they move to a new area or simply expand to feed the growing population. In the above interpretation Cain needed to expand and in doing so he ran into the land of Abel, the Semites, when Abel refused to accept Cain's ways Cain then killed Abel. This is just as good as an interpretation as any IMO because history has shown us to do just that. We have continually overharvested our lands then moved on to new areas and assimilated or destroyed the indigenous people of that land and what was out motto? "You savages are not using the land as god intended, either join with us under god or we will destroy you and take your land as use it as we were destined to do."

We could argue all day long about interpretations and the missuse or the destructiveness of various religions but one cannot argue with recent history and its effects on nature and indigenous peoples.

Forvive me for not being as steeping in mythology as I should be but everyone is entitled to an opinion no?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(faith2walk @ Apr 15 2007, 04:23 PM) [snapback]423720[/snapback]</div>

Wow. You actually lived on nothing but meat and meat products like a feline or bird of prey?

(Whaddid I say earlier folks?! :lol: :lol

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 15 2007, 06:45 PM) [snapback]423742[/snapback]</div>

Let me agree you with on one point, for the sake of dialogue...everyone is entitled to their opinion, regardless of the topic and their belief structure or lack thereof.

I was not trying to insult your choice or lack there of, but the plain reading of the text, no interpretation or inference does not allow for your opinion to be presented as logical. If you were to read from the beginning and finish through chapter 4, just taking it for the story content, the text mentions that it was Cains lack of obedience...it is not opinion but declaration from the text. You are right in that Cain was a tiller of the soil, but for his disobedience the soil would no longer yield it's strength to him - in other words, he would have to work 10x harder to get the same produce. Should you choose not to believe the text, that is your choice but to take the stated facts of the text and misconstrue them to your opinions, doesn't speak well for your character. Do you do that often?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(faith2walk @ Apr 15 2007, 04:28 PM) [snapback]423756[/snapback]</div>

I guess you would have to know the origins of my interpretation and read it in its entirety for it to make sense. Ahh well, I;m not attempting to convert your faith so it doesn't really matter. If you are curious you an fnid this fun interpretation here.

I'll assume you are new to FHoP and have not viewed enough of my posts to get a good idea of my character so I will just say that I like to weigh all of the data and make choices from that and do not base it on faith or a preset frame in which I toss out facts simply because it conflicts with my feelings or convictions (I do not have many of those). With so many versions of religious myths and philosophy in this world both past and current I would say that interpretation and context is everything. I mean no malice in my post, I just like putting up interesting thoughts.

"Ishmael's interpretation of Genesis 2.4

Ishmael points out that the story was written by the Semites, and later adapted to work within Hebrew and Christian belief structures. Ishmael proposes that Abel and his extinction metaphorically represents the nomadic Semites and their losing conflict with agriculturalists. As they were driven further into the Arabian peninsula, the Semites became isolated from other herding cultures and, according to Ishmael, illustrated their plight through oral history, which was later adopted into the Hebrew book of Genesis.

Ishmael denies that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was forbidden of humans simply to test human's self-control. Instead, Ishmael proposes that the Tree represents the choice to bear the burden of responsibility of deciding which species may live and which should die. This is a necessary decision agricultural peoples must make when deciding which organisms to cultivate, which to displace, and which to kill in protection of the first.

Ishmael explains that the Fall of Adam represents the Semitic belief that once mankind usurps this responsibility--historically decided through natural ecology (i.e. food chains) -- that mankind will perish. He cites as fulfillment of this prophecy contemporary environmental crises such as endangered or extinct species, global warming, and modern mental illnesses."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 15 2007, 07:52 PM) [snapback]423762[/snapback]</div>

Ok...well, point taken, I don't know you well enough.

I also mean no malice in my post. I enjoy a good debate, but it is hard when you don't know the terms upon which the debate is to be based.

I would only recommend one thing: since the two books in question are vastly different (one claims to be a novel and one claims to be truth, likewise I am not trying to convert you, unless you would like to be) maybe we should compare like with like. Daniel Quinn makes no bones about the fact that his work is just a novel, while the Bible claims to provide the truth, and also claims that interpretation can be made from within the text. If I had known we were debating an extended fictional idea (Ishmael) I would have dropped the conversation, but you responded to my use of the Bible and we were debating what it plainly says (not even looking for hidden meaning).

Thanks for the dialogue. Since I have not read Daniel Quinn's book, I am afraid am may be done, since I cannot offer you meaningful conversation about a topic with which I am not versedunless you wish to ask more questions about the Bible or my beliefs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(faith2walk @ Apr 15 2007, 05:13 PM) [snapback]423768[/snapback]</div>

Thank you for your offer. If I should be wanting for more information regarding theology I will look you up. You seem to me a bit easier to understand and less vengeful than some of our resident biblical gurus. I appologize for misleading you, it was not my intent. I view both books as fictional and it was my mistake and lapse of reason for ot taking that into consideration before posting. I'm Justin, nice to meet you by the way.


To get back on topic. I was reading up on the virues of coconut oil (not for tanning, I tried that and it hurt, I have pics to prove it!) and I keep seeing hemp oil tauted as being one of the best for omega-3/omega-ratios. Anyone have any knowledge in this?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 15 2007, 07:24 PM) [snapback]423771[/snapback]</div>

Hemp oil is 3:1 omega-3, which, on the surface appears to be a fabulous thing. But, like flax seed oil, the type of omega-3 is prediminantly alpha linoleic acid (ALA). While ALA is the precursor to the truly essential omega-3 fatty acids docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and that ALA may be of some benefit on its own, unconverted, it is not the ideal way to get your EFA's. Flax seed oil and hemp oil are heavily promoted by veg*n culture as obviously both are plant-based products. However, many, if not most people do not convert ALA to DHA and EPA effectively, particularly men. Another problem with flax seed oil is that an unacceptable correlation between its use by men and prostate cancer has been seen in more than one scientific study. These are inconvenient facts that you'll certainly never hear from veg*n propagandists.

To get the essential oils in the DHA and EPA form you can immediately use them, you really need to take fish oil. I personally use Carlson's The very Finest Fish Oil liquid. I no longer use capsules, except when traveling, as you wouldn't know if the oil inside has gone rancid (oxidized into free-radicals), unless you bite into them. Always keep fish oil refrigerated.

None of these oils should ever be heated as they will immediately oxidize.

In addition to taking 2 teaspoons of the fish oil per day (one AM, one PM with food) I strictly limit oils which are high in polyunsaturated fats (predominently omega-6, which left unbalanced are highly inflammatory at the cellular level) in order to maintain an omega balance of approximately 1:3 (omega-3 to omega-6).

 

So it is a bioavailability issue then?

I catch myself reducing the EFAs to just omega-3 or 6 and not taking into consideration the further break down to different types (EPA, ALA, DHA etc).

Now for my next question. If you are eating a "healthy" diet in which you are controlling your intake of grains and proceced food (ie more grains) then going with a 1:1 ideal ratio would sound good but what about those who tend to eat a lot of grain, processed food, and grainfed farm-raised meat (fish, beef, poultry etc)? Should the latter be more concerned with higher percentages of omega-3s since their diet would consist of a much higher omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of say 15:1 or worse?

 

Regarding flax-seed oil: I was at a spa (to lose weight) where they gave us a low-calorie diet and took us hiking in the mountains every day. (The hiking was my principal reason for going there, but I also needed to lose some weight.) The last year I went there they had increased their flax oil recommendation from 1 T per day to 2 or 3, and it upset my stomach so badly that I quit taking it entirely. They made extreme claims for the oil, of which I was and am extremely skeptical. However, I had begun eating fish a few years previously, for the health benefits. I am of the opinion that the actual food is always better than supplements made of extracts. I.e. fish is better than fish oil.

 

I take organic ground flaxseed almost daily and have never encountered any problems with this. I'm aware that its compound must be converted by the body to Omega 3, but I hope for the best as ingestion of fish oil isn't gonna happen.

Interestingly, I was watching something that we taped from CNN over the weekend. It was a special on longevity. I've heard of this before, but my memory was refreshed after watching this show. There are a few spots globally where people tend to live longer, healthier lives. I know that many variables can be discussed, such as physical activity, reduced caloric intake, low stress level, etc. But in one of the areas, specifically Okinawa, the residents eat very little meat and instead subsist on vegetables, seafood. grains, and yes, processed soy. This is the exact diet to which I adhere that some people on this thread are advising is not healthy. My question is, if this diet is as unhealthy as some espouse, then how is it feasible that these folks are living to 110 even with these other variables taken into account? This area has the highest living percentage of centenarians. To my knowledge, they don't ferment their foods before ingesting either. Thoughts?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Apr 16 2007, 10:24 AM) [snapback]423989[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, here's a thought: I thought you previously made it clear that you were a vegan. Now this is the 'exact diet you adhere' that includes 'very little meat' and seafood?

My further thought would be: how much seafood does their diet consist of. My bet is that it is comparable to the highest meat diets.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Apr 16 2007, 10:24 AM) [snapback]423989[/snapback]</div>

Whole or fresh-ground flax seed has not been implicated in a correlation with prostate cancer, only the oil. It is speculated that the oils have already begun to turn rancid and that is the problem with it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 15 2007, 08:23 PM) [snapback]423792[/snapback]</div>

The ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 in the typical American diet can be as bad as 45:1 or worse. The biggest culprits for excessive amounts of omega-6 are the processed foods which contain copius amounts of soybean oil and other very unhealthful oils that are highly processed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Apr 16 2007, 11:57 AM) [snapback]424036[/snapback]</div>

No, I'm not a "true" vegan. Meaning I participate in yogurt and cheese once in a great while. I'm closer to being vegan, than I am a vegetarian. No, I cannot bring myself to eat seafood. But, if processed soy and unfermented grains, beans where so hazardous, why aren't these ill effects showing up in this population? The benefits of one sole food group cannot offset any ill effects of other that are ingested on a daily basis. That's how I'm looking at this.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Apr 16 2007, 12:09 PM) [snapback]424049[/snapback]</div>

Then their diet is NOT AT ALL the exact diet that you which you adhere. You are a vegetarian (even if your inclusion of dairy is only occassional) and they are clearly omnivorous as their diet includes animal flesh.

I'd need to see quantities of the various foods eaten. Again, my clear suspicion is that their diet is based on seafood and that they eat very little soy. Also, how exactly is their soy 'processed' and how does that 'process' compare to American processed soy?

And you can be certain that the 100% whole grains they eat were well cooked, which, by the way, I didn't say there was any thing wrong with, only that I personally can't tolerate much of it and it cannot be considered natural food of the omnivorous human as it requires cooking.

 

From what I've found, they eat fish 3/week and meat makes up less than 3% of their diet. They eat soy and tofu daily in their diet.

Rate of heart disease, cancer and stroke are the lowest in the world, at least according to one site.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Apr 16 2007, 12:18 PM) [snapback]424058[/snapback]</div>

Worded wrong, I was speaking of the unfermented grains and soy that I've been informed were so dangerous.