Forbzy wrote
> More than a year ago Paul Tindle sent the message below my signature block
> to Science Matters. I forwarded his message to a professional exercise
> physiology email discussion group. It generated a lengthy and lively
> discussion. In turn, this led me to write to an article which has just been
> published in an electronic sports science journal.
> If you would like to read the article, go to:
>
> http://sportsci.org
>
> Scroll down to the heading 'Perspectives'.
>
> Chris Forbes-Ewan
Thank you for the article, Forbzy.
The vegan person (a woman) in our office has read the article and has a
number of comments, which I have summarised
below:
... the discussion is most interesting
and I will show the article to a number of friends who have similar interests,
... the emphasis of this article is on
sport rather than health, although the aims of sport and of a healthy life-style
are similar in my view and experience,
... the environmental responsibility of
the various diets is not examined, although this is probably a minor omission,
... the word phosphorus (when used as
a noun) is shown as phosphorous (an adjective),
... where do you adverstise to meet a
vegan (or even a vegetarian) male interested in endurance training and
physical sciences?
I could not possibly comment any further.
Toby Fiander, 10/7/2002
At 07:11 11/07/02 +1000, Toby Fiander wrote:
>... the emphasis of this article is on sport rather than health, although the aims of sport and of a healthy life-style are similar in my view and experience,
Which was made quite clear by the author. He said quite openly that vegetarianism is a good option for those who simply want to improve their health, but he had found that the vegan diet limited his power-weight ratio. Most people don't need to worry too much about power-to-weight.
>... the environmental responsibility of the various diets is not examined, although this is probably a minor omission,
Firstly, the author wasn't dealing with it. Secondly, the environmental advantage of vegetarianism is grossly inflated. By and large, the environmental advantage is calculated by working out how much water goes into each kg of beef and comparing it to how much water goes into each kg of vegetables, and going "Aha! If all that beef pasture was turned into market garden, we could feed the world!" But this entirely ignores the fact that different soils are suitable for different things. You can't just rip up pasture and plant orchards. It doesn't work that way. Yes, vegans have a smaller impact on the environment than omnivores, but it's not nearly as big a difference as the vegan propaganda makes out. The major problems with the environment include issues like fertiliser run-off, salinity, erosion, etc., and these problems apply as much to vegetable farming as to meat. Ecologically appropriate farming is much more important that crop vs. pasture.
regards, Chris Lawson
Chris Lawson pointed out:
> Ecologically appropriate farming is much
more important that crop vs. pasture.
Exactly.... In any case, farmers on two continents are paid to not produce or, in some cases, paid in spite of production. Based on my calculations the world is capable of producing about twice as much food as it currently does with very little effort. Further, that which is already produced is not all consumed.
However, logic does not necessarily apply where eating habits are concerned - examine any vegan and almost any diet, lifestyle or sports training website for abundant evidence.
I am a confirmed omnivore myself. However, if you happen to know of an single young herterosexual vegetarian male living in the Sydney metropolitan area, it would solve some of my current staffing problems....Toby
