Vegetarian tennis juniors

[borg number one]

TWoody, I agree with you that processed foods are a big problem. See excerpt below from http://nutrition.about.com/od/askyournutritionist/f/processedfoods.htm.

"Processed foods that may not be as healthy as fresh foods include:

* canned foods with lots of sodium
* white breads and pastas made with refined white flour, which are not as healthy as those made with whole grains
* packaged high-calorie snack foods, like chips and cheese snacks
* high-fat convenience foods, like cans of ravioli
* frozen fish sticks and frozen dinners
* packaged cakes and cookies
* boxed meal mixes
* sugary breakfast cereals
* processed meats

Processed meats might be some of the worst of these foods. Eating these meats may increase your risk of colorectal, kidney and stomach cancer. Processed meats include hot dogs, bologna, sausage, ham and other packaged lunch meats."

These processed foods and prepackaged meals are very convenient and popular. If you do shop for these foods, be sure to look for products that are made with whole grains, low in sodium and calories, and free of trans fats. Make sure you pay attention to serving size, too, and balance out the processed foods you eat with a delicious fresh salad and some whole grain bread."


Yet, how about meat from "factory farms" which comprises about 99% of meat consumption in the U.S.? Factory farms are notorious for causing major health hazards for those eating such meat. So, it's not just processed foods that are in reality the source of the myriad of health problems in the U.S.

Why is the United States experiencing so many health problems I ask? It cannot be just a sedentary lifestyle, logically. What is the biggest factor? No country consumes as much meat as America. It's NOT EVEN CLOSE. Diet is a HUGE factor when it comes to health. What is your explanation for the horrible health of so many Americans, when besides just the "processed foods" mentioned above, they also consume far and away more meat than folks in other countries, including such things as: steaks, hamburgers, pork, chicken in all forms, fried seafood, and the list goes on and on?

You can't dispute that these meat items are consumed in large quantities by many here in the U.S. and that Americans have so many health problems relative to other folks around the world, including cancer rates and heart problems. That cannot be solely because of processed foods, though they are a valid source of concern as well.

 

[borg number one]

See:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/23/healthmag.red.meat.lifespan/index.html

"Want to live longer? Cut back on red meat"

 

[borg number one]

In terms of health concerns as far as meat intake, see this article:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0562e/t0562e05.htm

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

 

[borg number one]

See the following helpful discussion on protein supplements:
http://your-doctor.com/patient_info/nutrition_supplements/protein_supplements.html

This is from DoctorsCorner.Com. It also mentions the following as to amino acids:

"Vegetable combinations, such as corn and beans, do contain all essential amino acids. Although it takes a little extra work determining vegetable combinations that provide all essential amino acids such combinations provide excellent quality protein free of fat and cholesterol."
"

 

[borg number one]

I think overall, we'll see meat consumption continue to decline in the U.S. and other industrialized countries, as well as in "emerging economies" that have gradually shifted towards a more "western diet".

As we see evidence of the health benefits of restricting meat intake and see more evidence as to the detrimental effects of meat consumption, meat consumption will change both qualitatively and quantitatively. Just look at the last ten years alone, when they established the positive link (as I long suspected) between red meat and cancer rates.

 

[borg number one]

Interesting Jewish take on Meat and Morality:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0405/aaron_meat.php3

 

[borg number one]

Sureshs, as to the military, at least for the U.S., there are indeed vegetarian choices there as well:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080121094541AACl2Zg

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

One argument against vegetarianism is how small and weak vegetarian kids look. I've read on line that this is a myth, but in my experience (I live in California - lots of Vegetarians and Vegans) vegetarian children are small, scrawny and weak looking.

Either vegetarianism is not optimal for the developing child/athlete or many vegetarians are doing a poor job of getting proper nutrition for their children.

Are these kids truly "small, scrawny and weak looking" or are they "small, scrawny and weak looking" compared to carnivore kids who are somewhat obese? Perhaps the vegans & vegetarians of not getting enough rBST and other added animal growth hormone from treated milk, meat and poultry.

 

[WildVolley]

Are these kids truly "small, scrawny and weak looking" or are they "small, scrawny and weak looking" compared to carnivore kids who are somewhat obese? Perhaps the vegans & vegetarians of not getting enough rBST and other added animal growth hormone from treated milk, meat and poultry.

The babies are definitely smaller and thinner, though obvious body fat (baby fat) in babies doesn't have much to do with obesity.

The children have also been thinner and shorter in height. I've met obese women who claim to be vegetarians, but I don't recall ever seeing a vegetarian child who was fat. There may be a bit of a selection bias to my observation, as a lot of vegetarians proselytize, so I tend to remember how the children look.

There does seem to be a correlation to more consumption of animal protein, milk, and animal fat and increased height. Both the Chinese and Japanese are growing taller as they eat more meat and drink more milk. I'd be shocked if this were the result of growth hormone in the milk, but who knows.

 

[T Woody]

Okay borg, here is the logic for the conclusion you've drawn...

Americans are fatter and unhealthier than in any other country. Americans eat more meat than in any other country. Thus, meat will make you fat and unhealthy.

This is a perfect example of the logic people use to demonize meat even though the reasoning is unsound. The reason we're fatter and unhealthier than any other country is because, in addition to low activity levels (despite high gym memberships), we eat far more CALORIES than any other country.

You even mentioned it yourself when you said what about the documented longevity in low calorie diets. That is 100% true. Here is a great paper from Time Magazine studying cultures with the highest rate of people to live over 100 years.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994967-1,00.html
The main conclusions are that there is no single type of diet that promotes longevity. The biggest similarities between all the diets were that they are low in calories and composed of natural food. Some have high meat content, some have high rice content, etc. So yes, I'm in total agreement with you about the Mediteranean diet. Also, an interesting subject to research is the French paradox, which describes how the French eat an abundance of cheese and bread yet remain trim. There we see it again that natural food in low quantities is the key to health and longevity.

I think you and I both know the real culprit is portion size, not meat. Do you really think if they banned meat, yes banned it altogether, that people in this country would magically get thin? No, they'd simply increase consumption of pasta, pizza, candy, pop tarts, cereal, bread, cheese, ice cream, brownies, french fries, popcorn, and especially soda. All of these things mentioned (most of which contain high fructose corn syrup) have had a FAR greater impact on our health decline over the past 50 years than the consumption of meat.

I'm no scientist so my only sample size is myself and I can tell you I eat a large portion of meat at every single meal on every day of the week. And I hardly every touch that processed stuff I mentioned above with the exception of an occasional bowl of ice cream. I maintain low bodyfat, excellent health markers, and don't think I've been sick in over a year. I'm telling you, it's not the meat. There are other factors at play and it's unfair to make meat out as the scapegoat.

 

[borg number one]

TWoody, we are in agreement as to caloric intake and meat, but that's not my central argument in the postings above.

You are absolutely right that you can be EXTREMELY unhealthy and fat so to speak and not eat one ounce of meat. There's no question. I've met and know MANY very chubby vegetarians, but not really obese ones such as the folks you see in the United States. They tend to not exercise, eat too much sugar, and eat too much oil. Yet, I never see say 300 pound vegetarians. Meanwhile there are PLENTY of 300+ pound meat eaters. I agree that such 300+ pound people DO TEND to eat a lot of processed foods also, but they do consume a lot of processed meat (hot dogs, cold cuts, etc) PLUS a lot of red meat, which is unquestionably very high in calories and saturated fat.

I have travelled quite a bit and have seen people in many different countries, and read a lot as well.

Yet, what you do get with meat is the saturated fat and cholesterol, as WELL as high calories. There can also be the problem of sodium intake.

I do agree with you though that high calories and processed foods can equal a extremely unhealthy diet though.

High calories are only one part of the problem and it is not the central focus of why meat is bad for you.

Focusing only on the processed non-meat items that Americans tend to eat a lot of is only one small piece of the diet puzzle. That should not be one's sole focus.

If you were to take the average American who eats a lot of meat, and quite a fee processed foods (including hot dogs, etc), and you removed ONLY the non-meat processed foods, that surely would not avoid the higher chance of heart disease, higher chance of cancers, increased saturated fat, etc. due solely to the high meat (especially red meat) intake.

Having said that, what's your take on the research above in the CNN article as to longevity and meat intake, as well as the data correlating cancer and red meat intake?

For all these reasons, Meat does have a correlation with less health and less longevity, as do processed foods. You certainly can't blame bad health among many Americans on JUST processed foods with all the data as to meat and adverse health effects. Especially when as a % of caloric intake, meat would constitute a majority of the calories that the average American consumes.
Look at the % of fat calories from this example of a 3 oz. serving of ground beef for example.
http://www.thecaloriecounter.com/Foods/1300/13316/Food.aspx

http://www.thecaloriecounter.com/ (see nutrition/calorie data for foods in general)


It's more than 2/3 of total calories as to this example for just a 3 oz serving of ground beef. That's a problem, especially when Americans consume so much beef.

 

[T Woody]

Thanks for the links you listed. I'll look them over and respond tomorrow. One thing I'd like to mention about processed meat...I'd be about as likely to eat that stuff as I would to eat cotton candy. Things like deli meat, hot dogs, lunchables, taco bell ground beef, etc can barely be classified as meat.

You using that as your argument against meat is kind of like me saying tofu is bad for you because deep fried tofu covered in sweet and sour sauce is bad for you. Or that corn is bad for you because processed corn like corn muffins, corn bread, and corn flakes are bad for you.

I know meat is a calorie dense food, but I think you're underestimating the amount of sugar americans eat every day. The real key to solving the puzzle is to look at it on a hormonal level. I'm not sure how familiar you are with nutrient metabolism and the role of insulin in controlling the blood sugar, but it's the key here. The real epidemic that has mirrored obesity is that of type II diabetes, which is caused by repeatedly jacking up your blood sugar and insulin until the cells blow out their insulin receptors. Type II diabetics are typically overweight and have significantly greater risk of heart problems. The way in which you repeatedly spike blood sugar is by consuming massive amounts of processed sugar over and over at every meal. This processed sugar is metabolized lightning quick, sending you blood sugar skyrocketing with insulin levels not far behind. On the other hand, meat (and pure protein foods in general) have virtually no effect on blood sugar, allowing insulin levels to remain normalized and within a healthy range. The real problem comes when people consume high amounts of sugar AND meat at the same time. This is like the recipe for the time bomb that skyrockets blood sugar and promotes significant fat storage. So here we are back to meat getting a bad rap because it's being eaten along with a bunch of other crap that destroys our hormonal balance.

 

[borg number one]

TWoody, it's not just meat "getting a bad rap". The evidence is very compelling as to the link between meat consumption and both cancer and heart disease (2 PRIMARY health problems we as Americans face).

Heightened Cancer Risk:
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/hea...sumption-linked-to-heightened-cancer-risk.htm

Heart Disease and Cancer:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032301626.html

I understand that you have a high meat diet, but obviously you avoid processed foods of all kinds and keep your sugar intake at a moderate level, but meat in and of itself has health drawbacks. That is especially true when high meat consumption is involved. Let's be clear, what percentage of Americans avoid processed meats, avoid red meat, and MODERATELY eat other meats? That percentage is extremely low.

 

[sureshs]

One argument against vegetarianism is how small and weak vegetarian kids look. I've read on line that this is a myth, but in my experience (I live in California - lots of Vegetarians and Vegans) vegetarian children are small, scrawny and weak looking.

Either vegetarianism is not optimal for the developing child/athlete or many vegetarians are doing a poor job of getting proper nutrition for their children.

Are you sure race/ethnicity is not the reason? Not trying to be politically correct here. Most vegetarian kids will be of Indian origin, and specially in the childhood phase, will lag behind Caucasian and African-American kids in size. The correct comparison should be with kids with origin from China, Japan, Korea etc. My son is an exception, mainly due to genetics (tall mother, tall uncles, etc), but I was careful from the get go to provide him protein supplements precisely for the reason you mention.
It tends to get adjusted later though. By the time they are adults, they are basically average in size.

 

[sureshs]

Americans are huge because their genetics makes them so. Have you not seen movies where the "natives" come across Westerners and are intrigued by their size?

The other part is eating habits, but it is not the only thing. That is not going to make them much taller, which they are. They are big guys who need more food than others. This is true both for Caucasians and African-Americans. Show me a place which can produce comparable NFL and NBA players.

Affordability of food has also made it easy to overindulge.

 

[sureshs]

The truth is there is exactly ONE country where a large number of people are vegetarians, and then too it seems that the %tage is about 40%, not even a majority. These people make up 70% of the world's vegetarian population. Many of the remaining 60% would probably eat meat much more frequently if it was cheaper and more hygienic (refrigeration of meat is difficult in most households). The McChicken Maharaja has become so popular that McDonald's ran out of it in 2 cities and stopped their ads.

So vegetarianism is just not prevalent world-wide. Frankly, I find that only Indian vegetarian cooking is palatable. The "garden burgers", simulated meat Chinese cuisine, and so on, just don't cut it. Of the Indian vegetarian cuisine, most of the tasty stuff is unhealthy and that is what restaurants provide - excessive use of cheese, oil or spices. If you look at the traditional Indian home vegetarian cuisine, it is frankly not tasty at all. It may be a heresy to say this, but I read articles in the Indian media now which quite frankly state that the simple vegetarian tests of the older generation don't satisfy the palates of the new generation. The new generation has what is called a "sophisticated palate." Whenever they eat outside, they do NOT order the home-style food, but rather unhealthy cheesy and oily fried stuff, whether the Indian kind or pizza. This was a big issue for me growing up, and led to confrontations with my parents. At least now I see my point of view expressed openly - that Indian home-style "simple" vegetarian cooking is not satisfying to more and more people (though it is a healthy choice).

 

[borg number one]

Sureshs, I agree with much of the above in your posts. Pure vegetarian, traditional Indian cooking is extremely difficult to make well. I love it! I agree that most "vegetarian" food here is not tasty (I avoid it).

Yet, I do like some italian dishes, as well as some mexican food. The food I eat tends to be pretty spicy.

I'm very old fashioned though I've grown up and lived in the U.S. nearly my whole life. Plus, I'm blessed with a mother and wife who are great when it comes to cooking traditional vegetarian Indian food. I am also super picky about what I eat. For example, no mayonnaise, no egg based dressing, not very much garlic, no raw onions (only cooked/fried), no eggs.

In India with the more western diet, you are also seeing lots of weight problems among those kids that don't exercise much. I agree that the majority of kids in India are shifting away from many traditional foods.. That's a shame in my opinion, because I think traditional, spicy, vegetarian Indian food is hands down the most tasty and healthy food you can eat. There have been studies that show that such spices (ginger, turmeric, cumin seeds, etc.) also have health benefits (ayurvedic properties). I would never shift away from it. Yet, I realize that my family tends to be unique.
Having said that, I think everyone can eat healthy vegetarian dishes and find what "balance" works best for them. It is EXTREMELY difficult to really change your diet once it is set at a young age.

 

[T Woody]

TWoody, it's not just meat "getting a bad rap". The evidence is very compelling as to the link between meat consumption and both cancer and heart disease (2 PRIMARY health problems we as Americans face).

Heightened Cancer Risk:
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/hea...sumption-linked-to-heightened-cancer-risk.htm

Okay, I'll bite on the studies. This is exactly the type of research I'm talking about. The vast majority of these types of studies are observational and uncontrolled. They ask tens of thousands of people to participate then call them every few years and ask them questions about dietary habits. It just so happens that the people in the category who ate more meat had more health problems. Again, they do not control for other factors.

Put it this way, they could divide people into groups based on broccoli consumption and if the group with the highest consumption of broccoli also happened to down a two liter bottle of coke every day, I'd wager my income that they would have the highest incidence of disease. Would you conclude broccoli causes cancer?

I know your answer to this...You'd say, but people who eat more broccoli are more likely to eat more healthy in general and people who eat more meat are less likely to eat healthy in general. Yes, probably true. Also, people who eat more meat are probably likely to eat MORE FOOD in general. But that doesn't mean MEAT is bad for you. It means eating unhealthy foods and too much food leads to disease and cancer.

I'm telling you, most of these studies you can't take with a grain of salt. I know I probably won't change your mind on this, but it's a good discussion. I'll look at some of the other studies too.

 

[sureshs]

Sureshs, I agree with much of the above in your posts. Pure vegetarian, traditional Indian cooking is extremely difficult to make well. I love it! I agree that most "vegetarian" food here is not tasty (I avoid it).

Yet, I do like some italian dishes, as well as some mexican food. The food I eat tends to be pretty spicy.

I'm very old fashioned though I've grown up and lived in the U.S. nearly my whole life. Plus, I'm blessed with a mother and wife who are great when it comes to cooking traditional vegetarian Indian food. I am also super picky about what I eat. For example, no mayonnaise, no egg based dressing, not very much garlic, no raw onions (only cooked/fried), no eggs.

In India with the more western diet, you are also seeing lots of weight problems among those kids that don't exercise much. I agree that the majority of kids in India are shifting away from many traditional foods.. That's a shame in my opinion, because I think traditional, spicy, vegetarian Indian food is hands down the most tasty and healthy food you can eat. There have been studies that show that such spices (ginger, turmeric, cumin seeds, etc.) also have health benefits (ayurvedic properties). I would never shift away from it. Yet, I realize that my family tends to be unique.
Having said that, I think everyone can eat healthy vegetarian dishes and find what "balance" works best for them. It is EXTREMELY difficult to really change your diet once it is set at a young age.

The traditional vegetarian diet was required only for the priestly class. The merchant, warrior and service classes were largely meat eaters. Many Westerners think that vegetarianism is part of Hinduism. Actually, it was a requirement only for priests. The popularity of vegetarianism is in large part due to Jainism, which preaches total non-violence to any creature. Today, if you look at the manual labor classes, they eat meat whenever they can afford it. It was always a part of their diet for centuries. If you look at the rural people who migrated to Singapore and Malaysia as laborers under British rule due to famines in India, they took with them the meat and fish habits which are a staple in their diets there now (sometimes in unmodified form). Many Westerners make a mistake of thinking of India as a vegetarian country.

 

[sureshs]

Should stop posting here. I was about to send an email to a colleague asking him to attend a meating, when I caught the typo

 

[sureshs]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/world/europe/23degrees.html?em

 

[T Woody]

Thanks for the article sureshs. Sustainability is a whole other can of worms, but a very important one indeed. People really underestimate how much energy they can save by simply buying locally grown fruits and vegetables that are in season. Transportation costs and food produced in hot houses contribute to significant CO2 emissions.

It's also satisfying to go to a farmer's market and give money directly to the farmer who grew or raised the food you're buying. Always best to avoid the middle men like Con Agra and General Mills and pay the people who are actually producing your food.

 

[borg number one]

Sureshs, yes I've grown up eating a traditional, pure vegetarian Brahmin diet, as I was born next to a temple and started eating that food. My family makes great traditional Indian food, and I eat rice but also a lot of breads, as well as dosas, etc., plus we make so many different dishes (all different and pure vegetarian), with plenty of vegetables and protein (lentils, such as garbanzo beans, dals, etc.).

It's also spicy, including spices with digestive and other benefits. These dishes have been passed down in families for many thousands of years, and tastes great in my opinion. I find it to be extremely tasty food, that keeps me very healthy, combined with lots of exercise of course. I really enjoy it and never get tired of it. My whole family is the same.

My father is 74, has run 10 marathons, and goes to the gym every morning. He's the guy that took me to all those tennis tournaments and my inspiration really, because he's the one that used to say, go run 3 miles!! LOL..

See wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisine_of_Kerala

See weblink:

 

[borg number one]

Sureshs, here are some current statistics, from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_in_India


Jainism sprung out of Hinduism of course, but you are right that besides Brahmin Hindus, Jainism has had a big influence on vegetarianism.


See excerpts from the links above:

"In India vegetarianism is usually synonymous with lacto vegetarianism, although lacto-ovo vegetarianism is practiced as well. Most restaurants in India clearly distinguish and market themselves as being either "Non-Vegetarian", "Vegetarian" or "Pure Vegetarian" (lacto vegetarian). Vegetarian restaurants abound, and usually many vegetarian (Shakahari: plant-eater, in Hindi) options are available. Animal based ingredients (other than milk and honey) such as lard, gelatin and meat stock are not used in the traditional cuisine.

According to the 2006 Hindu-CNN-IBN State of the Nation Survey, 31% of Indians are vegetarians, while another 9% consumes eggs. Among the various communities, vegetarianism was most common among Jains, Brahmins at 55%, and less frequent among Muslims (3%) and residents of coastal states respectively. Other surveys cited by FAO, and USDA estimate 20%-42% of the Indian population as being vegetarian. These surveys indicate that even Indians who do eat meat, do so infrequently, with less than 30% consuming it regularly; although the reasons are partially economical.

India has devised a system of marking edible products made from only vegetarian ingredients, with a green dot in a green square. A mark of a brown dot in a brown square conveys that some animal based ingredients were used. Even medicines are similarly marked: a well-known Omega-3 capsule made from flax seeds is marked with a red dot as the capsule uses non-vegetarian ingredients.

Recent growth in India's organized retail has also been hit by some controversy. Strict vegetarians are demanding meatless supermarkets.

In India, Vegetarianism is promoted by most Dharmic religions."


http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/indiapopulation.htm (indian population)

If we use 35% of Indians being vegetarians in India, with a total population of 1.15 Billion, that translates to nearly 400 million vegetarians in India at the 2009 population, plus you have lots of Indians that live in other countries as well that are both Hindu and Vegetarian.

 

[sureshs]

Sureshs, here are some current statistics, from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_in_India


Jainism sprung out of Hinduism of course, but you are right that besides Brahmin Hindus, Jainism has had a big influence on vegetarianism.


See excerpts from the links above:

"In India vegetarianism is usually synonymous with lacto vegetarianism, although lacto-ovo vegetarianism is practiced as well. Most restaurants in India clearly distinguish and market themselves as being either "Non-Vegetarian", "Vegetarian" or "Pure Vegetarian" (lacto vegetarian). Vegetarian restaurants abound, and usually many vegetarian (Shakahari: plant-eater, in Hindi) options are available. Animal based ingredients (other than milk and honey) such as lard, gelatin and meat stock are not used in the traditional cuisine.

According to the 2006 Hindu-CNN-IBN State of the Nation Survey, 31% of Indians are vegetarians, while another 9% consumes eggs. Among the various communities, vegetarianism was most common among Jains, Brahmins at 55%, and less frequent among Muslims (3%) and residents of coastal states respectively. Other surveys cited by FAO, and USDA estimate 20%-42% of the Indian population as being vegetarian. These surveys indicate that even Indians who do eat meat, do so infrequently, with less than 30% consuming it regularly; although the reasons are partially economical.

India has devised a system of marking edible products made from only vegetarian ingredients, with a green dot in a green square. A mark of a brown dot in a brown square conveys that some animal based ingredients were used. Even medicines are similarly marked: a well-known Omega-3 capsule made from flax seeds is marked with a red dot as the capsule uses non-vegetarian ingredients.

Recent growth in India's organized retail has also been hit by some controversy. Strict vegetarians are demanding meatless supermarkets.

In India, Vegetarianism is promoted by most Dharmic religions."


http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/indiapopulation.htm (indian population)

If we use 35% of Indians being vegetarians in India, with a total population of 1.15 Billion, that translates to nearly 400 million vegetarians in India at the 2009 population, plus you have lots of Indians that live in other countries as well that are both Hindu and Vegetarian.

It is not well known that priestly communities in 2 states are allowed to eat meat by tradition. One of them is a place with a lot of ponds with fish, and they consider fish to be not meat (like Cindy). Other is in a very cold mountainous area where it is difficult to grow crops. So it seems religion can be bent as necessary when it comes to protein sources. Such is the importance of protein.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

It is not well known that priestly communities in 2 states are allowed to eat meat by tradition. One of them is a place with a lot of ponds with fish, and they consider fish to be not meat (like Cindy). Other is in a very cold mountainous area where it is difficult to grow crops. So it seems religion can be bent as necessary when it comes to protein sources. Such is the importance of protein.

Jewish and Catholic religious law also makes a distinction between fish and meat. Meat, in this context, usually refers to mammal meat but can also apply to fowl. There are exceptions tho'. Some acquatic mammals have been defined as "fish" so that Catholics in some areas have a fish alternative on Ash Wednesday & Good Friday. In the past, when these laws were made, Catholics were asked to abstain from meat on every Friday.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

...

There does seem to be a correlation to more consumption of animal protein, milk, and animal fat and increased height. Both the Chinese and Japanese are growing taller as they eat more meat and drink more milk. I'd be shocked if this were the result of growth hormone in the milk, but who knows.

Greater milk and meat consumption for Asians in the US is part of the equation. However, I believe that in the US and other areas where growth hormone is allowed in meat, poultry and milk, the effect is more pronounced. It appears that kids develop and reach puberty at a much younger age in these areas. I believe that, in Euro countries and other areas that drink milk but do not allow growth hormone in the food, this effect has not been seen.

 

[borg number one]

Sureshs, I really don't worry too much about what some Hindu priests might do or not do. Priests, just like all of us, don't always do what is "optimal" or "ideal". I avoid all fish, meat, and eggs as well. Meanwhile, as far as fish is concerned and those priests, that's obviously a personal choice. Personally, I can't stand even the smell of fish and try to keep as far away from it as humanly possible. Those priests could easily obtain enough protein from other sources, such as lentils and milk. Believe me, I often talk to the priests near our temple in India to this day, and they are all very traditional eaters, but practices do vary from region to region in India. At our temple, if priests wanted to eat fish, they would not be allowed to serve as priests at the temple, as our temple is very orthodox in its approach to Hinduism.

I tend to focus on the traditional view in terms of vegetarianism and Hinduism, because such an approach to life has worked for me and my family so beautifully. Meanwhile, I am heartened by the continuing and growing influence of vegetarianism all over the World.


See this synopsis of "Vegetarianism in Hinduism", from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_in_Hinduism

Most major paths of Hinduism hold vegetarianism as an ideal. There are three main reasons for this: the principle of nonviolence (ahimsa) applied to animals; the intention to offer only "pure" (vegetarian) food to a deity and then to receive it back as prasad; and the conviction that non-vegetarian food is detrimental for the mind and for spiritual development. Additionally there is a belief that meat consumption is generally detrimental to physical health. As examples are given animal diseases such as BSE, Foot and Mouth, Swine Fever, Swine Flu.

Through consumption of meat we are also thought to absorb the vibration of the fear of death, the pain and the despair of the animal. This fear sinks into our subconscious and will have to be confronted with in the future. The fear many times surfaces during prayer and meditation which causes people to be afraid of anything related to religion.

Nonviolence is a common concern of all the vegetarian traditions in Hinduism; the other aspects are relevant for those who follow special spiritual paths.

Many Vaishnavas, especially Gaudiya Vaishnavas follow a strict vegetarian diet, abstaining from meat, fish and eggs. They also abstain from garlic and onions.

Since Hinduism is practiced by majority of India's populace, Indian cuisine is characterized by its wide variety of vegetarian delicacies. However, the food habits of Hindus vary according to their community and according to regional traditions. Hindu vegetarians usually eschew eggs but consume milk and dairy products, so they are lacto-vegetarians. Milk and milk products are vital in the traditional food habits of India. According to Hindu philosophy, a cow gives milk happily, once the calf is fed well. So milk taken after calf is fed is a gift from cow and so it a pure non violent food. Many coastal habitants of India are also fish eaters.

 

[borg number one]

See the following article entitled "Nutritional Considerations for Vegetarian Athletes" (PDF File).

http://www.laney.peralta.edu/Projects/31114/Bio_28_Human_Nutrition/Articles/vege_athlete2.pdf

It's pretty on point as far as answering some of the questions raised in this thread, and it may be very useful for a young tennis player that is also vegetarian.

 

[borg number one]

See this ESPN article:

"Who says you have to eat meat to be a successful athlete":
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=keri/080616