And also a bait and switch - first nitrates and now its all about migranes?
They are triggers for migrains and BTW, I did give you some facts, with links, so I don’t know why you are trying to give me links. As I said, I have worked with my dr concerning migraines for years. Seems to me, you didn’t look at the links I gave you.
I have not been discussing Migranes which is what your links were for - the forum topic is “vegetarian?” not “Migrane?”
The links I provided were direct refutation of your claim that there are no nitrates in veggies. But it seems abundantly clear that if these migranes are triggered by nitrates than they would be triggered by chicken, soy, cheese, or vegetable nitrate as well. And QED vegetables have some of the highest concentrations of nitrates.
Oddly the links you provide do not mention nitrate.
Though according to a review noted in my favorite wiki there seems to be little or no scientific evidence for nitrate or most other food related alleged triggers.
A 2005 literature review found that the available information about dietary trigger factors relies mostly on the subjective assessments of patients.[46] Some suspected dietary trigger factors appear to genuinely promote or precipitate migraine episodes, but many other suspected dietary triggers have never been demonstrated to trigger migraines. The review authors found that alcohol, caffeine withdrawal, and missing meals are the most important dietary migraine precipitants, that dehydration deserved more attention, and that some patients report sensitivity to red wine. Little or no evidence associated notorious suspected triggers like chocolate, cheese, histamine, tyramine, nitrates, or nitrites with migraines.
And I’m giving you reasons (more then one, not just migraines) as to why some people are vegetarians, but I guess you want to stereotype and have your own opinions. Wickedpedia is not a reliable source and I take it with a grain of salt. The links I provided DO mention luncheon meats and the reason is because of nitrates. Once again, it seems you know little about migraines and such source as wickedpedia are not reliable. IMO, that site should be avoided at all costs.
Be that as it may, I have listed more reasons for vegetarianism than just your stereotype.
I’ve found Wikipedia generally to be a very good source. That’s not to say that everything written there is correct, of course it’s not. But one cannot simply dismiss it, and using derogatory terms like “wickedpedia” isn’t fair.
First, on another site where I am a member, someone has the signate.
Meat is MURDER
Hot, greasy, tasty murder!
Yes, i’m a veggie, but i still find that very funny.
Second.
I was at a ski resort having dinner with the group I has been skiing with that day. It came up in conversation that the coach hunts. He challenges himself to get as close to his prey as possible, then he shoots it, skins it, cooks it and eats it. Bearing in mind that i was the only vegetarian at the table, it was a little odd that i was the only one there who didn’t have a probelm with that. He killed it and then ate it, good. (if you kill it, you should eat it) also, by stalking it, he ensures that he kills it in the most humane manner. That has to be better than simply going into the woods and blatting away, leaving animals to suffer.
as i say, odd that the meat eaters at the table found this very strange and i believe a little disconcerting.
I’ve found Wikipedia generally to be a very good source. That’s not to say that everything written there is correct, of course it’s not. But one cannot simply dismiss it, and using derogatory terms like “wickedpedia” isn’t fair.
Agreed ... it’s on the same level as those who refer to a well known OS as “Windoze” just because they dislike it. I, for one, find wikipedia very useful as a starting point whilst accepting that it is unlikely to be authoritative in any real sense.
Maybe we could have a thread on the pros and cons and such of Wikipedia. I find it to be an interesting concept, and something of an experiment in the decency of consensus.
When I first joined this forum last September, I can remember having a disagreement with someone about the meaning of the word label “antitheist.” I was pointed to Wikipedia as an authority on the term and disagreed strongly with the definition that it gave. It said something quite slanderous that I felt was unfair to the many great minds, and kind persons, that have embraced the term… equating them with fascism and such. So I went ahead and changed the definition to suit my own liking and created an entry for my own coined term “antitheistic nonsense.” After a couple of weeks I had noticed that someone had edited my edits out, much to my chagrin, and flagged my entry for “antitheistic nonsense.” A couple of weeks later my invented term “antitheistic nonsense” was subsequently deleted.
I have had similar frustrations over various other religious entires that I have attempted to edit. For example, I went through a short stint of pasting in factual information about Martin Luther’s anti-semtism, which was challenged and removed, then re-added by me, then removed… back and forth a dozen or so times. The same interchange occurred a few times over factual errors that I attempted to correct regarding christian history. At any rate, it all started to feel juvenile to me to keep up the interplay, as the most persistent voice tends to win out as the authority on Wikipedia.
Interestingly, however, the “antitheism” definition that so bothered me is quite different now than it was nine months ago. And I find it much more satisfactory, discussing some of the perspectives of persons who embrace the term positively. Check it out… antitheism. Wikipedia is a fascinating phenomenon. Some of the information that it provides is horribly written and flat out wrong. But some of its entries are incredibly informative. Indeed, vastly superior to those of any other encyclopedia on the market.
After all that I just said about Wikipedia, I should say that I agree with Mriana’s basic point that one should not accept Wikipedia entries as authorities in settling disagreement during argumentative discussions. Firstly, because there is much misinformation on Wikipedia. And secondly, because there is a certain manner in which such link references tend to function more as appeals to authority then they do as points of reasoned argument. It is one thing to provide a link to a snippet of information that serves to explain the thinking behind one’s argument. It is another thing to suggest that the person you are arguing with just needs to “read up” from an expert source. Such is not a presentation of evidence in support of an argument. And I think that this point would apply whether our appeal were to Wikipedia or to a Harvard professor.
Nitrates aside, I also don’t see any reason to believe that Mriana’s experience with migranes is any less real than she says it is.
I’ll leave comments about wikipedia for that thread. As far as nitrites and migraines, I think this is a tempest in a teapot. My impression was that Chris was simply pointing out that Mriana’s experiences, or those of her sons, are anecdotes, and as such they aren’t really reliable evidence for generalizations about cause and effect. She may be correct or not about the connection, and her experiences are certainly real, but it is fair to point out that such anecdotes don’t constitute evidence of a causal relationship. People on both sides of the vegetarian/meat-eater argument, and frankly on different sides of most disagreements, place far more emphasis on their personal experiences as proof of their theories or suppositions than is justified, and a lot of time is wasted arguing back and forth about who’s right when no one really has any data. It seems to me this simply point has grown into a bit of a personalized argument over a tangential issue.
Thanks Brennen, glad someone got that. Actually I was curious about what he could eat, and why other nitrate food seemed OK. Which causes suspicion of the nitrate-in-food hypothesis. As a chef I am quite up-to-date on the scare tactics of various groups, like Anti MSG and Nitrate groups Their anti-scientific tactic feels like that of the anti-MMR vaccine groups. It is a concern, and if someone I now has been hoodwinked it is doubly so.
As you know, and should be noted, clinicians practice a lot of art in their science. So a doctors advice must be taken with some grains of salt (sodium nitrate if you like). They are concerned with making you feel better and may suggest things that have no scientific validity. Good, at least you feel better. But ,ore better still is to try to understand the real underlying cause. That takes a lot more time, and may be fruitless (I have no idea why my sentences are full of food terms).
And I was also Using all parts of that post (not just the one sentence about nitrate) to point out that a lot of people make all sorts of dietary decisions without understanding the facts of the matter. Like switching to only eggs and dairy for animal cruelty concerns is probably not solving that problem very well.
Anyway. I feed people for a living. I don’t care what they choose to eat, I’ll gladly cook it, and do my best to make it outstanding and nutritious no matter what it is. I like the challenge of cooking tasty vegan food. I have cooked a whole heard of steak in my life and its not that challenging, but to create a dish, abundant in flavors, textures methods, without using animal products...well that is an exciting challenge to any chef and I welcome it.
I do agree that there are ethical concerns for reducing or eliminating animal products, but I am in just as much favor of lab grown meat as now anyway...essentially a Wagyu steak is just about lab grown (in that they use a scientific feeding and upbringing method with no surprises).
On eliminating meat from the farm, there seems to be a lot of info on sustainable farming that says that is actually an unhealthy step. what farms need is variety of animal and plant life. BUt maybe one day those who follow in the footsteps of Norman Bourlog will figure out the biology well enough that a world of 7, 9, 12 billion can all eat healthy wholesome, satisfying meals without harming any life...ethically that would be great, but I think in both technology and desire we are a long way off.
Regarding my use of Wikipedia in this discussion, I noted a study that I found through wikipedia. An independent, peer reviewed, published study, If you link on the study (footnote 46 on wikipedia) you find essentially the same words as I quoted. So yes its odd to denigrate wikipedia, but more odd to denigrate a scientific study.
as i say, odd that the meat eaters at the table found this very strange and i believe a little disconcerting.
Ski.
Agreed. I am often dumbfounded when westerners come to our glorious fresh food “wet” markets and actually see whole source food products - even in the vegetable realm. They seem taken aback by what food looks like in its fresh from farm state, or still alive. They almost immediately cast dispersion in regards to hygiene or civility. All the while ignoring what must be going on out of site in their own countries food chain.
I was also always a bit flummoxed by the whole screech in Great Britain when Jamie killed a lamb with his Italian hosts. Right on Jamie, keep it real.
Agreed. I am often dumbfounded when westerners come to our glorious fresh food “wet” markets and actually see whole source food products - even in the vegetable realm. They seem taken aback by what food looks like in its fresh from farm state, or still alive. They almost immediately cast dispersion in regards to hygiene or civility. All the while ignoring what must be going on out of site in their own countries food chain.
I was also always a bit flummoxed by the whole screech in Great Britain when Jamie killed a lamb with his Italian hosts. Right on Jamie, keep it real.
I am dumbfounded when I go to an organic food store to get veggies and fruit, and people reject the food because of the blemishes present BECAUSE PESTICIDES WERE NOT USED!
I am dumbfounded when I go to an organic food store to get veggies and fruit, and people reject the food because of the blemishes present BECAUSE PESTICIDES WERE NOT USED!
I tend to avoid meat when I can, but when a group I was with celebrated a friend’s wife’s birthday at an excellent fish restaurant, I ordered and enjoyed poached salmon. I think I understand the disconnect between gallaga’s comment and Mriana’s reaction. He was being scientifically precise in pointing out that anecdotal evidence can’t be used as a valid argument, and he’s correct. However, I don’t think Mriana meant her statement about her son’s reaction to nitrates to be offered as a premise that nitrates can cause physical reactions in people who are sensitive to them.
I had an interesting situation occur a few years ago. My daughter was coming to visit, so I made a three of my favorite Indian dishes: green lentils, cauliflower/bell pepper/carrots, and potato/onion/garlic/zucchini. They didn’t happen to contain any meat because I knew that my daughter, like I, didn’t go out of our way to eat it. She enjoyed the meal greatly. The next night we headed for a Chinese restaurant. She asked the hostess if they used monosodium glutamate (MSG) in their cooking and was told that they did. We had to find another place to eat because, as she explained she was very allergic to MSG and got severe headaches, flushing, and hives. This was the first I had heard of her sensitivity, because if I had, I wouldn’t have used quite a bit of MSG in the three Indian dishes the prior evening. Strangely, she didn’t have any problem from them. I never told her.
