Eight and a half reasons NOT to be a vegetarian. Part 2
Continuation. The beginning of the article – Eight and a half reasons NOT to be a vegetarian. Part 1
Already at the very end of the discussion after the material "THERE IS NO NEED TO BLAME THE MIRROR, IF THE FACE IS CROOKED.
Vegetarianism is not a lifestyle, but a mistake of nature" I was asked to comment on the "10 reasons to be a vegetarian" published in Medical Blogs. No problem – let's figure it out.
6. Improving external data
As a rule, vegetarians are slimmer than meat eaters. The diet of vegetarians contains fewer calories than the diet of meat eaters. Vegetarians are less likely to suffer from diseases associated with weight deviations.
You'd think we don't have slender meat–eaters - yes, as many as you like. There are slimmer gazelles. And if the French, who do not even think of giving up meat, build a ruler, then any vegetarian will envy. And they are slim not because they don't eat meat, but because they don't overeat.
But with vegetarian calories, foreign researchers clearly lied. Yes, most vegetables have a low calorie content – from 10 kcal (in cucumbers) to 83 kcal (in potatoes). But, firstly, it is necessary to calculate not the caloric content of the product as such, but the caloric content of the daily diet in aggregate. Those who wish can count on their own. But that's not the main thing. It is more important what will happen second. And here it is necessary to take into account that vegetarians should replace meat with vegetables with a high protein content. Let's look at their energy value: 100 g of ripe peas (23 g of protein) contains 303 kcal, lentils (24.8 g of protein) – 310 kcal, beans (22.3 g of protein) – 309 kcal. And let's compare these indicators with meat: in 100 g of beef – 144 and 187 kcal, depending on the place of "occurrence", in pork – 316 and 365 kcal, in lamb – 164 and 203 kcal. That's the whole calorie fairy tale.
That is, the argument about external data and calories is clearly rigged.
7. Saving money
By replacing meat and fish with fruits and vegetables, you save an average of $4,000 per year. (approx. translation: A controversial point. And the figure is relevant for Americans).
Well, even the translator did not agree. And he is right, the nameless worker of the pen and dictionary. Indeed, let's remember arithmetic and calculate a little to find out what our wallet costs more – meat or vegetable food.
Depending on the situation (age, weight, chronic diseases, etc.), it is enough for a person to eat an average of 100 g of meat per day, and vegetables and fruits – 500-600 g. (this does not include potatoes, cabbage, onions and carrots, which are used to prepare cabbage soup, soups and side dishes, and also do not include here bread and cereals for porridge). A kilogram of pork and beef in Moscow cost almost the same – 250-280 rubles. Well, let's take 300 rubles each – let's give the vegetables a head start for twenty. This means that 30 rubles are required for meat per day.
The prices for vegetables and fruits I specially went to look at the cheapest store, and there they cost: cucumber – 100 rubles (in the average minimum, depends on the length of the fruit, there are 170), tomato – 110 (in the average minimum, there are 140), eggplant – 120, zucchini – 140, sweet pepper – 140, apples – 60, oranges, tangerines – 60 (in the medium-minimum). The average price for this list vegetable fruit for me after counting was 104 rubles per kg. Therefore, 500 g of a daily diet will cost 52 rubles. But... for a meat eater! A vegetarian will have to replace meat with additional vegetables. Protein products are most often included in the diet: beans, peas, soy products, etc. And this is an additional cost.
I know, I know, now someone will remember about summer - we all often think about it in winter. And the sun warms, and vegetables and fruits are incomparably cheaper. However, the season of vegetable cheapness lasts only 3 months a year.
So, sorry, the "saving money" argument is untenable.
8. Helping the environment
You will contribute to reducing waste and air pollution. 4 farms in Utah, which raise 2.5 million pigs every year, create more waste than the whole of Los Angeles. And these are just a few farms.
Sorry, good gentlemen from Utah and Los Angeles, you just don't need to get overgrown with feces. In Russia, a long time ago, all manure was exported to the fields as fertilizer. By the way, it is much more environmentally friendly and more effective than chemical top dressing. And in the southern regions, dung is made from manure, with which huts are heated in winter. The most magnificent fuel! And in Central Asia and the Caucasus, sorry for naturalism, they build villages and villages out of animal shit. And very warm housing turns out, unlike American cardboard villas, because dried shit, it's so porous. And the air inside is not thermally conductive.
In general, you need to be smart and not be lazy, and not give up meat.
The argument of "Helping the environment" does not stand up to any criticism.
9. Efficiency
72 percent of all grain grown in the United States goes to feed animals raised for slaughter. 7 kilograms of feed give half a kilo of meat. If these grains were given directly to people, then it would be possible to feed the entire planet. In addition, the use of land for animal husbandry is inefficient in terms of maximizing the production of products. According to Soil and Water magazine, 23 tons of tomatoes, 18 tons of potatoes, 13.5 tons of carrots and only 113 kilograms of beef can be grown on one acre of land.
Unlike the previous reasons, which do not stand up to criticism, this argument is controversial. I would double-check the numbers.
In domestic agriculture, there is such a thing as a "feed cow". When I first came across this case in my practice, this concept touched me inexpressibly – it seems that there is a cow, but on the other hand, there is no cow. She "lives" only on paper. Which shows how much that cow gives milk, how much different feed is released for her needs. It would be good to compare domestic and foreign figures. Something tells me that they will be different. Because I am convinced that the cow is not fed up with grain alone. And the Alpine "burenka" grazes the grass on the slopes of the mountains, and the domestic "dawns" and "pestrukhs" walk on pastures while nature allows, and the American ones do not stand still on local ranches. Again, fodder corn is cut more than once per season on the same hectare. But in order to understand all this exactly, you need a professional agricultural economist.
On the other hand, this reason is silent on one point – the proportion of meat in the human diet is 8-10 times less than vegetables, fruits and grains combined. Considering all this, I think the situation is not as catastrophic as the Americans draw it.
And yet, "the use of land for animal husbandry is inefficient" – it really is. Therefore, we can only half agree with the "Efficiency" argument.
10. Morality
Did you know that 22 million animals are killed just to satisfy the Americans' need for meat?
Philosophy is very strong. It's powerful! But personally, for some reason, my philosophy is associated with a prostitute who is ready to lie down under any circumstances, receiving a fantastic fee for this - the consent of a person with himself. Sitting on the toilet with a morning newspaper – this will be one philosophy, after the presence of the condemned at the execution – another, and if your own child falls into the hands of a sexual maniac – there will be a philosophy that completely denies everything previous.
Not to eat animal meat, because of the SLAUGHTERED, this is a very strong argument. I can only wish in this regard: God forbid someone one day to be in some desert without a sip of water and a crust of bread. Because changing philosophy is always painful…
Ending: Vegetarianism – take three
Portal "Eternal youth" www.vechnayamolodost.ru
26.02.2008