Based on reader response from my "Meat People Push Back" of post two weeks ago, there are some very angry carnivores out there.
Anger is a natural human response to crisis. It gives you a shot of adrenaline and cortisol, your fight or flight hormone. You're focused, three espressos worth of revved. If you were graded by the Department of Homeland Security, you'd be in a state of red alert.
This is useful in a crunch situation, but a steady diet of anger isn't good for you. It locks up your muscles and sends your blood pressure and heart rate skyward. Too much cortisol over too much time results in a fat gut and a slow brain. Anger can make you fat, stupid or dead.. So chill, guys. One way to do that is to give up meat.
Recent research by Arizona State University showed omnivores who went meatless felt better emotionally. Of the 39 people studied, one group kept to their omnivorous ways, a second group ate fish but no other source of animal protein, the third group ate no fish, no meat, no eggs. The first two groups reported no change in emotion or cognition. The plant-based party reported they felt more relaxed and focused than they did eating meat. I'm not saying all meat eaters are stupid. I'm saying there's a real correlation between how eating meat and feeling anger affect the body.
The Harvard School of Public Health examined 1,300 men in their 60s over the course of seven years and found the angriest guys were likelier to develop heart disease than those who could ride life's highs and lows without losing it. In another study, the Harvard School of Public Health showed eating bacon, salami, sausage, hot dogs, any meat that's been processed or cured or salted, jacks up your risk of heart disease by 42 percent and your risk of diabetes by 19 percent. Feeling anger poses a lot of the same health risks as eating meat does.
Centuries before modern science noted what meat does to your body and mood, another science, Ayurveda, Sanskrit for the science of life, noted what it does to your karma, Sanscrit for action. Karma says we will experience the consequences of our actions, what goes around comes around.
Ayurveda, or balance, separates food and states of being into three categories. There's sattvic -- lightness and balance (spirit) rajasic -- change and energy (life), and tamasic -- heavy and dark (death). Guess which category meat falls under? The Surangama Sutra tells us that "if we eat the flesh of living creatures, we are destroying the seeds of compassion." That's the opposite of sattva, which strives for ahimsa, universal love, non-violence.
There's no meat in a sattvic diet, just fresh organic fruits and vegetables, beans, whole grains, raw nuts and seeds and organic dairy. These foods are believed to energize and nourish the body without taxing it, providing the gateway to higher consciousness.
Does this piss you off? It could be you have a meat-related anger management issue and everyone around you is too afraid to tell you. Perhaps you'd benefit by swapping that steak for something sattvic.
Giving up meat doesn't mean depriving yourself of pleasure. You can be enlightened and peaceful and still eat fabulous food. You'll be on your way to a healthier body, a happier life and a lighter karma, too.
Meat out. Peace out.
Sattvic Mung DalDal, or split peas, are a cornerstone of ayurvedic cuisine. Beans provide protein and fiber, and since these are small and already split, are quick to cook and easy to digest.
The downside of a purely sattvic diet for me is that garlic, onion and chilis, my culinary triumvirate, are ix-nayed. They're too exciting. Too rajasic. However, you can make a perfectly sultry, perfectly sattvic curry of mung beans using warming spices like cumin, ginger, coriander and turmeric.
2 cups split mung beans
1 tablespoon coconut oil or ghee (Indian clarified butter)
2 tablespoons fresh ginger, chopped fine
1 teaspoon turmeric
1 teaspoon cumin
1 teaspoon coriander
4 cups vegetable broth or water
1 bunch fresh cilantro, chopped
sea salt to tasteRinse mung beans and let drain.
Meanwhile, heat oil or ghee in a large pot over medium-high heat. Add chopped ginger, turmeric and coriander. Stir until the ginger softens and the spices darken and turn fragrant, about 3 minutes.
Add mung beans and water or broth.
Stir and let mixture come to boil. Then cover and reduce heat to low for 30 minutes, until liquid is mostly absorbed and beans are tender.
Add chopped cilantro and sea salt to taste.
Serves 4 to 6.
Follow Ellen Kanner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/edgyveggie1
Ellen Kanner: Meatless Monday: Still, Life With Eggplant
Ellen Kanner: Bloomsday: Celebrate James Joyce With A Meatless Recipe
They're basing their findings of (assuming here) 13 people who gave up meat. No offense, but let me know when a real study is done with more than a classroom full of people.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to HAPPILY eat some pulled pork.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-goldwyn/vegans-starting-to-sound_b_537604.html
So, lacking data and evidence showing the PROPORTIONAL incidence of violence among vegans and omnivores, I think it would be very easy to demonstrate that when it comes to civility, vegans lose. Big time.
I said it before, and I will say it again, you have my utmost respect for having the guts to actually respond to comments and enter into dialogue on the forums that accompany your articles.
It is irritating when someone, such as this "author", makes inflammatory claims, apparently, to garner hits, and then sits back and avoids the discussion that rages around their opinion.
Thanks again for the wonderful recipes and the dialogue.
As a movement unfortunately it is the vocal minority that seems to draw the most attention and of course the media is drawn to the more sensationalist and controvertial elements. The reasonable majority on the other hand are by nature more reasonable and less newsworthy.
The incidence of violence acts committed by animal activists as abruptly increased as of 2003.
http://www.americanscientist.org/include/popup_fullImage.aspx?key=uK4t+WejolwpwveHm5iAE6kL0h1Mjs3Mba1HnWhG5l8rpYc79yrZJ1G177vA4PO+
The reference shows a six-fold increase in violent acts as follows:
Average before 2003; 15 acts per year
Average since 2003: 90 acts per year.
These violent acts break down as follows:
Bombing: ....... 7%
Arson: .......... 10%
Vandalism.: ... 45%
Harassment .. 15%
Theft: ............ 23%
With Lierre Keith, we can now add "assault" to above list.
So the behavior of the militant faction of veganism has changed. The change is alarming.
Anyway, I brought it up because I felt it was relevant in context on the article on anger. I've heard meat-eaters get defensive but never break into groups and talk about eradicating vegetarians/vegans.
Some of my articles are about cooking meat. Some about veggies. Whenever I write about meat, very angry mean people do what I call drive-by puking. They don't read the article. They just go to the comments and accuse me of being a murderer and similar things. When I write about cooking veggies, I NEVER have omnivores do drive-by pukings.
Omnivores are not the only angry people in the world.
Saw your blog on the pulled pork a few weeks and might try your recipe. One unrealistic ingredient I noticed in the recipe however... you called for a 6 pack of beer.... dude... this is cooking for 8-12 hours, don't you think a 12 pack would be more appropriate =)
Circulation 2010;121;2271-2283. The conclusion was: "Consumption of processed meats, but not red meats, is associated with higher incidence of CHD and diabetes mellitus." Kanner didn't mention that part of the study. The authors speculate that it is the high sodium and nitrate/nitrite content of processed meats that cause the association with diabetes and heart disease. Interestingly, processed meats were lower in cholesterol.
It would be interesting to see if processed vegetables had the same effect-- kimchee vs fresh cabbage, for instance.
We have fought very hard, as a people, to have all of the choices available to us that we do. Those choices are precious. So please, try to have an open mind and an open heart when it comes to the lifestyles of others. Do you choose to be vegan? That's wonderful if it makes you happy. Leave it at that. For me, I know what my needs are, and seeking to fulfill them has nothing to do with my moral character. Let's allow each other the respect and courtesy of choice, free from judgment, venom and sanctimonious lectures.
Do take good, vigilant care of yourself.
Two years ago, I lost my best friend quite suddenly to lymphoma and leukemia. It was the most earth-shattering, soul-destroying experience that I would never wish upon anyone, or on their families (he left behind a wife and 4 year old twins). As the person who knew me better than anyone and loved me, when I lost him I not only lost someone I had known since birth, but I felt like I lost myself, too. And it hurts terribly to know that his death was almost certainly completely preventable with proper care.
Thank you for the links - I know I need to take my own advice about vigilance.
You certainly are not venomous, berrynoir and I believe your heart is in the right place, but your lecture about freedom from judgment and sanctimonious lectures does seem a bit disingenuous.
One cannot remove morality from choice -- one can choose to ignore that our choices have impact and that others' choices have impact on us, but denial and wishful thinking don't change that reality.
We _are_ our choices and our choices reflect our character. On can debate the true moral implications of certain choices, but it's silly to pretend there isn't an expression of morality in what we choose.
Someone who honestly owns their choice to participate in the abuses of factory farming by buying products from those farms, for instance, is so much more "moral" than someone who participates indirectly (or directly) in those abuses but dishonestly claims exemption from responsibility for that choice. The former choice is still deeply unfortunate but at least it's not accompanied by self-righteous rationalizations and cognitive padding.
One single sustainably pastured cow could supply your primary protein for an entire year while dramatically improving the quality of the soil, preventing water runoff, and enriching the perennial grasses that filter nutrients to the entire ecosystem.
Conversely, the amount of land that has to be used to make up the difference for a vegan diet will wipe out huge swaths of animal habitat, create a land surface with water runoff not much better than a parking lot, massively decrease biodiversity, and countless small animals will be killed in the agricultural process to put all those extra grains on the plate of a vegan.
Another outlandish fairytale that vegans tell themselves is that they don't depend on animal products every bit as much as everyone else. Most vegans are so completely removed from the realities of food production that they are completely oblivious of the incontrovertible fact that the vast majority of organic vegetables that they enjoy are grown with animal products such as manure, blood, and bonemeal. And of those that aren't the vast majority are grown with extremely polluting and unsustainable fertilizers derived from petrochemicals.
Seriously, reading Lierre Keith's The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability would probably do you a world of good.
Huh? Does your CHOICE to respond in an incredibly sanctimonious manner reflect your CHARACTER?
Mischarazies most participantsNo mention of the contra hominem attacks and misrepresentations of facts from certain few - but very vocal - vegan people in the Recip4es topic.
Some vegans even go so far as to assert that no person who eats meat could even care about the welfare of a vegan. Caring about health? Rendering CPR and first aid? Warning of danger to save life and limb?
Unthinkable!
Yet in the face of such blatant bigotry, this whole blog starts out by representing the people who do choose to eat meat, who do say everyone has a right to their own choice for diet, and who do contribute vegetarian recipes - they are the ones who have "anger management issues."
With vegan faces thrust into ours insisting that no-one who chooses to eat meat has any right to that choice, we all must adopt the militant vegan world view.
This article starts out prejudiced for a display of one-sided judgmentalism.
From "An Open Letter to Gary Conklin and the Workers of the Conklin Dairy Farm"
Anjushri May 29, 2010 at 01:32:31
"... we must acknowledge that ... all animal use is morally unjustifiable and the way to acknowledge this and the way to live nonviolence in our lives is to become vegan and not talk about it as abstract thought."
Fallopia Tuba 04:24 PM on 5/29/2010
"The answer is ... abolition. Use of animals—for food, for clothing, entertainment, and research—is not necessary ..."
Lisa Q 04:59 PM on 5/29/2010
"It is very difficult for non-vegans to get the point. ... they are causing all of this and that they can stop it by ending all of their uses of animals for any purpose."
vivalalibertine 11:09 PM on 5/3/2020
"Anything that goes against the interest of nonhuman animals is exploitation ... Having a nonhuman individual serve you in any shape or form is exploitation regardless of whether there was physical violence present ... Determining who's economically beneficial is also speciesist, exploitative and denotes slavery.
"Owning" animals is unethical but it is the result of breeding for human enjoyment. Until breeding subsides, there will be 'ownership.'"
"These are all nuances of abuse.
"... Attacking the root is what solves the problem. In this case, being vegan and criticizing the practice of breeding of all types and for all purposes. Shrugging one's shoulders keeps one as a bystander."
Does this mean we have to cover ourselves with carot juice and pelt them with swedish meatballs?
=D
I say roast the carrots and serve the meatballs with gravy and mashed potatoes.
No sense wasting good Swedish meatballs on an unappreciative audience. Though when they're made with cheap meat and overcooked into hard rubberiness, well, it's real tempting.
I recommend puke shields up and stand fast. Stick to facts, references, and logic.
Is the ludicrously outlandish hypocrisy of this article really lost on some of you people? Amazing.
If the above was an article about vegans being angry, immoral, spiritually bankrupt people that are building up piles of "bad karma" because of their misguided diet, would all of the vegangelicals here be happy about it, and treat it as a positive learning experience, as they have asked of the omnivores? Of course not.
If you consider that for just a moment, it does indeed draw attention to the outlandishly hypocritical double-standards of "some" of the vegangelicals here. I have mentioned on numerous occasions that I have more vegan friends than I could count. What I was referring to there was vegangelical hypocrisy. As I see it, it may be a dirty job, but someone has to do it ;)
Concerning the article.. I do agree that vegetarians can be quiet and relaxed but that does not mean they can not rise to anger. Just read the comments across HP to see the attacks and Caps (shouting).
And what is this ! and I quote: "Does this piss you off? It could be you have a meat-related anger management issue and everyone around you is too afraid to tell you. Perhaps you'd benefit by swapping that steak for something sattvic."
A little anger problem showing through Ellen :-) !
That's because it's deeply offensive. There are so many perfectly good, simple, 100% truthful arguments for cutting down on meat, it would be such a logical choice for most people if it weren't for this type of endlessly ignorant, obnoxious, self righteous dravel confusing the issue.