PETA must have choked when praise for red-meat diet poured in
 

PETA must have choked when praise for red-meat diet poured in

The Virginian-Pilot
© November 20, 2002

Monday may have been the darkest day ever suffered by my good friends at the downtown international PETA enclave, where, given the opportunity, folks would sooner take a hatchet to Oscar Mayer than to Osama bin Laden.

That was the day that serious scientists, tugging thoughtfully at their serious-scientist goatees, began to wonder aloud if there might actually be something to the widely debated Atkins diet plan.

News stories of this event, on each of the three networks I saw, were accompanied by footage of huge piles of raw meat being grilled on an open flame.

Succulent sausages, beautifully marbled steaks, massive patties of gorgeous ground chuck, all of them splattering and simmering and searing away, as the news-readers told the grim tale of reality: In a scientific test of the high-fat Atkins diet against the American Heart Association's low-fat, live-forever diet, the Atkins eaters lost more weight and had better cholesterol readings than the tofu-and-turnips crowd.

For my friends at PETA, this had to have been the worst news since word leaked out that the Dalai Lama likes to end his day with a feisty slab of filet mignon.

Meanwhile, in a receding market, shares of pork-happy Smithfield Foods rose steadily Monday.

I have never studied nor adopted the Atkins diet plan, but if I understand it correctly, it works like this: If you largely replace the fruits, vegetables, pasta, bread and other carbohydrates in your diet with meat, eggs, cheese, butter, shellfish and other stuff that's supposed to be bad for you, you'll lose lots of weight because your body will get really hungry and begin to eat itself. Or something like that.

Atkins-diet proponents say they look and feel great. Their opposition is prone to argue that Atkins is a sort of auto-cannibalism, a great way to leave a slimmer, splendid-looking corpse.

And therein lies the conundrum. Each side can trot out serious scientists, dedicated doctors and respected researchers who will swear on a stack of ham bones that their way is the only true way to a longer, happier life. And that's supposed to be the goal, all in all -- a longer, happier life.

Which makes me wonder why another scientific study, released the very same day, got absolutely buried in all the screeching over meat vs. lettuce. In The New York Times, the story ran under this headline: ``Power of Positive Thinking Extends, It Seems, to Aging.''

The story said that 660 people over the age of 50 were interviewed back in 1975 about their attitudes toward life. When researchers returned nearly 25 years later and interviewed those who were still alive, they found that ``those who viewed aging as a positive experience lived, on average, 7.5 years longer than those who took a darker view.''

(It didn't say how many of them were vegetarians. However, I was living in Ohio in 1975, and I'd guess that in a crowd of 660 Ohioans in 1975, roughly one of them would have been a vegetarian -- and he would have been beaten up by the other 659.)

The story said, further, that happiness seemed to be ``an advantage far greater, researchers point out, than what can be gained from lowering blood pressure or reducing cholesterol, each of which has been found to lengthen life about four years. It also beats exercise, not smoking and maintaining a healthy weight, strategies that add one to three years.''

Still, one researcher warned that the reasons for all this are ``complicated'' and that it's too simplistic to say to somebody, ``Just cheer up and you'll live longer.''

I would imagine that applies in particular to people whose definition of total happiness is a pack of Marlboros, a bag of Doritos, and a La-Z-Boy's autumn worth of NFL football.

So who's right? The meat gurus? The veggie gurus? The happiness gurus?

Well, the scientists say that before we can know for certain, it will take more study -- probably with government grants, which makes the scientists very happy, which means that at least they'll live a lot longer.

For my part, I'm betting on a formula that says ``Eat what you like, but less of it, drink a little red wine, and smile as you do both.''

I just hope that I live long enough to be proven right.

Contact Dave at 446-2726 or dave.addis~cox.net

http://www.pilotonline.com/opinion/op1120add.html

well....
 

Dave seems to be missing some important puzzle pieces about the Atkins diet..
I wish they would research..before sticking their pens in their mouths!

What's wrong with PETA
 

What's wrong with PETA?

I always thought it stood for:

People
Eating
Tastie
Animals

TMR

Re: PETA must have choked when praise for red-meat diet poured in
 

Well, I'm quite happy when I'm eating meat and vegetables, so I guess I've got it made. :p

Alan

TMR

It IS possible to be low carb and vegetarian. PETA may go over the top sometimes, bu they do a lot of good work. I am sorry, but I find your post offensive.

Ugh!!!!! It was a joke. It was supposed to be funny.

It clearly posts that this is a sugar-free zone, but I wasn't aware that it was also a sense-of-humor free zone as well.

Please accept my apologies. I will try to make no further attempts at humor in the future.

TMR

Well, I thought it was funny, TMR! :lol:

I do know a lot about PETA and their mission and support some of their views. However, I draw the line at some of their ideas.

I cannot imagine being a vegetarian! If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them out of meat?

Let's lighten up.

It's just that PETA gets labelled as a group of fanatics often is all. There are some psychos there who think we all should be vegans etc. but most ppl in that organisation do tremendous work to help the lives of animals. It's not about eating meat, it's about treating animals well while they are alive, not caging them or testing cosmetics on them or making them take part in ciruses.

I just posted this because there is a vegetarian forum here and I think that comment would be offensive to them as it belittles a great organisation. I am not vegetarian but I just don't delight in meat eating. If I wasn't ill with PCOS and IR I wouldn't eat it at all.

I am sorry if i hurt your feelings TMR. I just admire PETA's work greatly.

PETA is a propaganda organization whose stated goals are to end all human dependence on and use of animals. They spend less than 1% 0f their budget on actually doing the things they seem to get credit for here (by their own figures). Comments here seem like praising the Natzis for making the trains run on time.
Their are plenty of organizations who promote the humane treatment of animals, who actually do something, starting with your local humnane society, and I don't mean the Humane Society of the United States which is barely one cut above PETA.

And Please don't get this wrong
 

But frankly I haven't respected the work that they do.
We do need to be more responsible.
We do need to stop uneeded suffering by animals.. but facts are we are part of this whole chain.
To eat.. we kill something whether it be plant or animal.
That we need to be more like that people that were on this land before we came.. is unquestioned.. that we replace to the land more than we take..
But the fact is one way or the other we still take.
So those organizations that teach responsibility are the work that I admire.
Not some progranda grandstand not care who they hurt work.
And it was in fun.. and folks also probably need a good dose of humor..
If we don't start learing that in general..its soon going to be wrong to laugh about anything.
Poofie

Well PETA does a lot of work to try and stop animal testing, I know that for sure.

I know you all thought that was funny but I don't and surely I am entitled to express my opinion?

Hi Scarlet, yes, everyone is entitled to think what they want about PETA.

However, I don't think low-carbers would sympathize much with PETA's agenda. True, on face value, they appear to be defending animals and advocating against animal abuse. But in reality, they think eating animals is abuse, which has no logical bases. Animals eat animals, why don't they protect animals from being eaten by other animals? If they did, they will be responsible for endangerment of all species.

So, they are only against one animal, humans, eating animals. So it is not based on logic, it's based on religion, mainly veganism. They're not just vegans, who don't eat meat, they are vegans who don't want anyone else to meat. They want us all to be vegans. And they are willing to do anything in their power to stop everyone else from their natural birthright to eat animals, just as we did from our earliest known origins.

Not to mention the various terrorist methods they use to spread their beleifs, they just don't make sense. And if you don't make sense, it's natural that people will make such comments, since they really look foolish, except to their followers, and to those who don't know much about them, except the headline/mission statement, in isolation of their reality.

Being against PETA, does not mean someone doesn't love animals, quit the contrary.

Wa'il

Everyone has a right to their opinion here as long as it's expressed respectfully. When opinions differ, perhaps it's good to just agree to disagree and move on.
I'm sure that those who founded PETA had good intentions and that perhaps they still do, but when they start allying themselves with groups like ALF who are considered a terrorist group by the FBI, it doesn't do their reputation much good. You are, after all, known by the company you keep.
I agree that animals should be protected against cruelty and neglect and that there are many fine organizations that have that as their objective such as local humane societies, animal shelters and the ASPCA.
Whether you are vegan for moral or religious resons, I can respect that. If you don't have a moral objection to eating animals, I respect that as well; I personally don't.
Since TMR posted what she did here and not in the vegetarian forum I don't think she wasn't posting to deliberately offend the vegans on this board; it was just a bit of humor based on her perspective/opinion of PETA.

As Sigmund Freud once said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." ;)

Not her.....
 

Firstly, TMR is a male, not a female.

Secondly, there are religions other than veganism. This will no doubt offend some, but....

Genesis 9:1-4
(1)Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.
(2)The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands.

(3)Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

(4)But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

The God of the Bible, the Creator of all living things, gave us permission to eat them. He did not order us to eat them, so we may obstain if we wish. However, it would be wrong to engage in any activity, or to align ourselves with any organization that engages in any activity, design to deny anyone there God given right. To do so would be to claim that God was wrong, and that they are smarter and more compasionate than God.

People don't easily or readily deny the God of the Bible, but they do have a tendency to invent there own God that is more to there liking, and then call them one and the same.

Again, I am sorry if I've offended the vegans. Perhaps they should consider who they might be offending when they force there religion on others.

TMR (no humor intended)

I know TMR was not trying to get at vegans or vegetarians - I just wanted to point out that there are ppl on this forum who are veggie is all.

I have apologised to TMR however.

My feeling is that there are indeed radicals in every organisation, but I just feel there are also a lot of ppl who are working hard to try to save animals from cosmetics testing and circus torture in that association.

I think we will just agree to disagree.