# Raw Vegans?



## VeganSailing

Wondering if anyone else out there with a boat that could use could help for the ride. I'm in 'new england' now but looking to sail to the pacific and to a tropical area.


----------



## capta

If you are serious about going ocean sailing, I'd lose the vegan stuff. It's hard enough to produce interesting meals at sea that everyone can enjoy w/o having someone on a special, very restricted diet onboard.
Thinking that one can keep fresh foods for even 2000 miles on a 3000 mile crossing is a bit far from reality without a nice, climate controlled, walk in freezer. Canned foods and things w/lots of preservatives are your friends on long passages and things like Cabin Bread pizza the special meals.
I think you have a choice to make.


----------



## VeganSailing

No thanks. Things like Raw Walnuts, Almonds, Peanuts, Dates, Figes, unripe avocadoes and other fruit don't need refrigeration or chemical preservatives. You can also jar raw kraut, kimchi, pickles without refrigeration. Have a good one.


----------



## VeganSailing

You can also freeze fruit and nuts if necessary


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

In 9 years I have met a few people who are vegetarians. But no raw vegans.

It will be difficult to find a boat liking that and wishing for crew.

PS you are right about unripe avocados. They keep well for the few days till ripe.

Some onions last some of the long Pacific passages.


----------



## VeganSailing

I always get hopeful and supportive replies on here lol.


----------



## capta

VeganSailing said:


> unripe avocadoes and other fruit don't need refrigeration or chemical preservatives


Dream on. I tried to carry avocados from Hawaii to Tahiti for planting there and at most they lasted 10 days w/o refrigeration.
What do you have to offer a boat owner, other than your dietary demands?
Flexibility is the key to traveling on small craft and getting along with people, and you don't sound like a very flexible person, from your posts.


----------



## capta

VeganSailing said:


> I always get hopeful and supportive replies on here lol.


I'm really sorry we can't tell you what you want to hear w/o lying to you.
I've taken crew from docks all over the world and sailed the seas for over half a century. I personally wouldn't take the chance of being stuck at sea for long periods w/someone who has any special dietary needs or is so different from the rest of the crew.
It is what it is, sorry.


----------



## krisscross

As long as you promise not to bite my nuts... OK, maybe that was not very helpful, but I could not resist...
I have been a long term vegetarian and that is not a big deal on a long passage, but I would not think of imposing my dietary requirements on the rest of the crew, unless I brought all my grub with me.


----------



## willyd

In my opinion, avocados go straight from unripe to inedible.

Wasn't there a Japanese guy that crossed the Atlantic in a super tiny boat that only ate nuts? I can't find the reference but I remember seeing a picture.


----------



## Minnewaska

Since you titled the thread Raw Vegans, are you strictly looking for a crew dedicated to that diet? A crew accepting of that diet? What's the point of making it a point?

You've posted this before, looking for passage from St Croix to Puerto Rico. Now you're in New England. Did you make a passage? I may be mistaken, but I think I recall you're not an experienced ocean passage sailor. That correct?

Maybe most important of all. What does "Location: Flat Earth Plane" mean? If it's not a confusing humorous entry, I think you'll find more raw vegans making passage to the South Pacific than folks that can imagine putting up with a flat earther.


----------



## Barquito

I wonder if you would find getting a crew position easier if you offered to provide all of your own food. It would save the captain a few $'s, and you could control what you eat. You may also volunteer to make a few meals that are acceptable to the rest of the crew.


----------



## capta

krisscross said:


> As long as you promise not to bite my nuts... OK, maybe that was not very helpful, but I could not resist...
> I have been a long term vegetarian and that is not a big deal on a long passage, but I would not think of imposing my dietary requirements on the rest of the crew, unless I brought all my grub with me.


From what I understand there is a huge difference between being a vegan and being a vegetarian, especially if the vegetarian eats fish, cheese and eggs. I can't imagine one would have much energy after a week or so of eating nothing but nuts & cereals under the physical rigors of being on a small craft at sea 24/7. 
And should a vegan have to begin eating foods with preservatives (like canned foods) out of necessity, they might be too sick for some days to be of any help aboard. I just don't see the plus for the boat or the vegan.


----------



## krisscross

capta said:


> From what I understand there is a huge difference between being a vegan and being a vegetarian, especially if the vegetarian eats fish, cheese and eggs. I can't imagine one would have much energy after a week or so of eating nothing but nuts & cereals under the physical rigors of being on a small craft at sea 24/7.


You are right about huge difference in diet between these two. I know people in both groups. Personally, I don't eat fish or eggs (these are not typical in a vegetarian diet) but I do eat milk products when available (I provision canned and powdered milk for example). As to physical fitness, IMO that is mostly a function of one's body condition, not diet. I can outperform most meat eaters my age and size. I provision a lot of beans (dry and canned), as well as protein powder to maintain muscle mass.


----------



## Turnin Turtle

Vegetarian: An ancient word meaning "Lousy hunter"

Vegan: An even older word meaning "Use this annoying person for lion bait"


----------



## Barquito

There are plenty of people out there with jobs, or lifestyles that require far higher energy demands than sailing, who are vegans. You can get complete proteins, and plenty of calories. Plus, an added benefit, that when captain Ron crashes onto the deserted island, the vegan crew will be be able to whip up a feast from the detritus on the beach.


----------



## krisscross

Turnin Turtle said:


> Vegetarian: An ancient word meaning "Lousy hunter"


The only thing you folks hunt now is bargains in your local supermarket. The ancient word for that is "scavenger" or less charitably: "maggot". irateraft:


----------



## SVAuspicious

krisscross said:


> I would not think of imposing my dietary requirements on the rest of the crew, unless I brought all my grub with me.


Still not okay. More storage (limited), more dishes to wash (water impact), more time (less rest for everyone) = not okay.


----------



## 433050

I think you could probably be on a boat with others and eat your lifestyle as long as you did not freak out or make comments about what other people eat and you would have to contribute to the food budget that will be for everyone, and not make others pay extra for your raw items. I would plan to have plenty of my own money on the side for items that are specific to the raw vegan diet. It is important if you are a vegan to be aware that not everyone agrees with your food choices, so as not to make waves just eat the foods you like and be prepared to COOK conventional for others if it is your turn and be gracious about it. 

Now, are there any gentlemen out there looking for a mate in her 60's who is wanting to sail the world?


----------



## RegisteredUser

Jeez...

People create these mini religions...join some group.
It's The Way...new found, enlightening..etc.
They were once lost, but not now...all listen.
Everybody else is wrong.
Looking for something to latch on to and receiving validation, and now happy. 

Lose a turn or 2 on that mental tourniquet.

We tend to make all of this life stuff harder than it needs to be.

Did Lassie take her sailing lessons, or not?


----------



## krisscross

SVAuspicious said:


> Still not okay. More storage (limited), more dishes to wash (water impact), more time (less rest for everyone) = not okay.


Yes, that is a typical attitude. Fortunately I always owned my boat and never had to look for crewing opportunities. But I did sail with others when invited (my diet was no secret to anyone), and always brought my own provisions. I did my share of chores, including cooking for all. If I was an added burden, no skipper ever complained. Maybe because they were my friends and did not mind accommodating my preferences.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Hang on. Beans, dried, and pulses etc can't be eaten raw. Yhis guy is a RAW vegan... so can only have fresh food. Uncooked.

He wants a vegan boat because, no doubt, is a nutter who hates the smell of cooking meat. (Love my nutter pun??)

So any captain would need to look at energy levels. Uncooked vegetable just ain't so nutritious. We would still be Australopithecines if we could. 

Brains cane either from cooking, meat or fish. They don't know what but it sure wasn't baboon food.


----------



## Minnewaska

At the risk of arguing the exceptions, I find vegetarians have typically chosen a diet, vegans have chosen a lifestyle. The OP seems to be searching for a boat that shares their lifestyle, not simply one willing to accommodate their diet.

Personally, I drop all food preferences and restrictions on passage. Good food = good morale. 

My only issue is that I can't swallow a salt and vinegar potato chip. They make me gag. I would not make a good vegan.


----------



## SVAuspicious

krisscross said:


> Yes, that is a typical attitude. Fortunately I always owned my boat and never had to look for crewing opportunities. But I did sail with others when invited (my diet was no secret to anyone), and always brought my own provisions.


In my experience, significant passages offshore (five days or more) just getting food on the table can be an exercise. Multiple diets do have an impact on efficiency and morale.

If you're coastal cruising I can see the impact being manageable. There is still a real impact. In your case your company and contribution may have been worth it. I can assure there is an impact on the rest for others, the storage space, electrical power consumption, water use, and risk.



Minnewaska said:


> At the risk of arguing the exceptions, I find vegetarians have typically chosen a diet, vegans have chosen a lifestyle. The OP seems to be searching for a boat that shares their lifestyle, not simply one willing to accommodate their diet.


Which does make sense. If everyone eats the same all my objections evaporate. Just because I don't understand doesn't mean I don't support. If I signed on to a raw vegan boat I would not expect anything other than raw vegan and certainly would not think I could bring meat products and processed food on board. I'd sure miss hot food on a cold night watch but I'd keep my opinions to myself and eat what was served.

I have some friends who are long-term liveaboard cruisers who are vegan. I don't expect anything different on board. While I accommodate them when they visit. That doesn't mean they don't have to deal with what I serve if by some miracle (not their thing) they came offshore with me.



Minnewaska said:


> My only issue is that I can't swallow a salt and vinegar potato chip.


No chips at all on my boat, or my deliveries, Steve. Greasy fingers aren't good for fabrics or raw teak. You'll be safe sailing with me. No salt and vinegar potato chips. *grin*


----------



## Minnewaska

SVAuspicious said:


> ....No chips at all on my boat, or my deliveries, Steve. Greasy fingers aren't good for fabrics or raw teak. You'll be safe sailing with me. No salt and vinegar potato chips. *grin*


I would look forward to a passage one day. Bring extra lasagna!


----------



## mbianka

I tend to eat more of a vegetarian diet when I'm on board. Things like a swiss cheese sandwich with some lettuce and tomato or Greek Salad just taste fine for lunch in the cockpit. Though sitting here in Key West I just finished a delicious Cuban Pork sandwich too.  Interesting that some red flags are being raised regarding some of the more extreme diets for younger folks: 'Clean eating' is a ticking timebomb that puts young at risk of fractures


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

VeganSailing said:


> Wondering if anyone else out there with a boat that could use could help for the ride. I'm in 'new england' now but looking to sail to the pacific and to a tropical area.


I smell troll...


----------



## VeganSailing

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> I smell troll...


?? You are smelling yourself huh?


----------



## VeganSailing

Turnin Turtle said:


> Vegetarian: An ancient word meaning "Lousy hunter"
> 
> Vegan: An even older word meaning "Use this annoying person for lion bait"
> 
> If Meat Eaters Acted Like Vegans - Ultra Spiritual Life episode 35 - YouTube


Ignorance and fools all over...


----------



## aeventyr60

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> I smell troll...


I was wondering if the guy was going to have to wear Patchouli oil as part of his raw vegan hygiene regimen too.


----------



## VeganSailing

Can all the vampire possessed insane humans please stop replying to posts by vegans or those who care about animals and all life. Thanks. Stop stalking and bothering us. WHere are the moderators?


----------



## Minnewaska

How about the Flat Earth thing?


----------



## krisscross

Minnewaska said:


> How about the Flat Earth thing?


You did not get the email about this? Here is a summary:


----------



## Jeff_H

VeganSailing said:


> Can all the vampire possessed insane humans please stop replying to posts by vegans or those who care about animals and all life. Thanks. Stop stalking and bothering us. Where are the moderators?


I have been following this thread as a moderator and as a member. Speaking as someone who has been a vegetarian on ethical grounds for nearly 50 years, I am sympathetic to the sense that many of the comments are not supportive and at odds with your beliefs. But I also believe that the majority of the comments reflect the reality of the views generally held within the cruising community at large and to one degree or another are constructive comments.

That said, some of the comments do cross a line in terms of being the type of ad hominem attacks that are discouraged by the forum rules. I ask everyone to dial it back. Its not appropriate to call someone a troll, nor is it permitted to refer to "Ignorance and fools all over..."

In terms of the substance of the discussion, it has been easy for me to provide my own provisions when only doing coastal cruising or a short hop of a few days. I have even provisioned and done the cooking for the entire crew when it was agreed that everyone was comfortable being a vegetarian for the duration of the passage.

But I agree with the point raised by others that on longer voyages, it is not practical to have a person on board with their own unique diet because it means some mix of that person preparing their own food and therefore either not being able to serve a full watch, or get as much rest during their off-watch, or requiring someone else to prepare their food, thereby eliminating that person from serving a full watch or being able to rest fully during their off watch.

That is in large part the reason that I chose to have my own boat, and/or not do long passages on boats with people who are not vegetarians (even if these are people I respect and might enjoy sailing with.)

I suspect that there are people out cruising who are Vegan. I imagine there might be people out there who may be raw vegan (although is not clear to me how that would actually work on a long passage). In an ideal world, you might try to get aboard a boat with one of them since they are more likely to be sympathetic to your beliefs. I wish you luck in finding a suitable situation to ship out with.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## capta

mbianka said:


> Interesting that some red flags are being raised regarding some of the more extreme diets for younger folks: 'Clean eating' is a ticking timebomb that puts young at risk of fractures


This is nothing new. Ever since the 60's there have been warnings that just stopping their intake of meat products or as some have said to me, "I don't eat anything with eyes." is not healthy. A vegetarian, as all committed vegetarians well know, requires at lot of thought and planning to replace the animal products with a diet that substitutes what is necessary to maintain a healthy body.


----------



## 433050

Yes, Lassie took her lessons. I am ready to learn more. You can only learn so much on a lake. Had I been paying attention all those years in the SF Bay area as a guest on numerous sail boats I would probably have some good skills by now. Having a lot of Vegan and Vegetarian friends from the SF Bay area, I think any kind of diet can be done if one is committed and they do not take time away from things they are expected to do for their food prep. I do agree with some folks though about the equipment needed because I think a dehydrator which is fairly large is something raw vegans use quite frequently. They tend to take up a lot of space but maybe you can find a small one. When there is a shortage of food, sometimes the raw vegan will do better because they tend to package up their raw foods for later use. I have had some great energy bars made by these folks that were fantastic and very healthy. I would say they had more nutrients in them than the store bought genetically modified laced with pesticides stuff. At least in the island communities you can find a lot of fresh produce than can be dried for later use, but fresh stuff goes bad fast so you might be spending a lot of time preparing your foods and maybe taking time away from your duties unless of course your whole crew was raw vegan and you all worked it out. As for water usage, I do not see how a raw vegan could use up more water than normal. Raw Vegans are not cooking anything and if anything would use less.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Lassiegirl said:


> I do agree with some folks though about the equipment needed because I think a dehydrator which is fairly large is something raw vegans use quite frequently. They tend to take up a lot of space but maybe you can find a small one.


If sous vide is cooking, why is dehydration not cooking? If ceviche is cooking (and it is) what does that mean?


----------



## jwing

mbianka said:


> ...Interesting that some red flags are being raised regarding some of the more extreme diets for younger folks: 'Clean eating' is a ticking timebomb that puts young at risk of fractures


There is lots of bad nutritional information available; I think that article is a good example of bad writing. The headline is sensational and misleading. The body of the text has nothing but broad stroke generalities and unsubstantiated speculation. There are some true statements; that is the hallmark of all propaganda. To me, it reads like it came straight from a dairy industry hack.

My advice is to ignore all nutritional advice that comes in the form of a general-interest article. Any article that mentions the 'food groups' should automatically be rejected. Study what the body hackers are doing - they are way out in front of the old-school nutritionists, and they are generally more open and honest about their results. One of the things that every body hacker will tell you is that all bodies are different, so each person must experiment, monitor the results, and figure out the best approach for themselves.

Any nutritional advice that advocates a one-plan-fits-all is probably wrong.


----------



## jwing

willyd said:


> In my opinion, avocados go straight from unripe to inedible.


Not sailboat-specific: I found a way to prolong the shelf life of avocados:

Buy green avocados. Set them on the counter to partially ripen. Transfer to the refrigerator to retard ripening. If an avocado in the refrigerator are not perfectly ripe when you are ready to use one, set it out overnight.

I always have perfectly ripe avocados to eat, but that maybe because I buy a week's worth and eat one every day. They don't last forever, even in the refrigerator. I have not tried putting green avocados in the fridge.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

jwing said:


> Any nutritional advice that advocates a one-plan-fits-all is probably wrong.


But not all diets/plans are healthy.
Clearly raw vegan is not healthy.

In fact it's illegal in some countries.

Italian parents who force vegan diets on children face jail time under new law

Anyway most vegans, as someone said, is a lifestyle.
A lifestyle that often includes young people with a tribute I do not respect including hygiene factors that I don't appreciate... smell.

Those doing it without affectation are different. If their decision is founded on more than emotion then I don't impugn their choices.

☺


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

jwing said:


> I have not tried putting green avocados in the fridge.


It should be ok as they come from cold storage before being put on the supermarket shelves.

I love avocados :kiss


----------



## willyd

Avocados are evil and don't belong on my boat. Avocado obsession is causing deforestation in Mexico | Metro News

So, you have to ask yourself, would you kill a Monarch butterfly for some guacamole?


----------



## Jeff_H

mbianka said:


> Interesting that some red flags are being raised regarding some of the more extreme diets for younger folks: 'Clean eating' is a ticking timebomb that puts young at risk of fractures


Not to put to strong a point on this, but articles like that have been around for a very long time and as others have said, they don't fully and therefore accurately reflect current thinking with regards to the nutritional science behind their reporting. When I became a vegetarian in the 1960's, people routinely told me that being a vegetarian was unhealthy and would eventually kill me. There was an article on nutrition in one of the major popular magazines from that era which seemed to support that case. Similarly, in the 1970's there were articles in major popular magazines that touted vegetarianism as a panacea for all that might ail someone. Neither are the case.

The linked to article only tells part of the story. My understanding of osteoporosis is that there are a range of factors which are determinant in who gets it. Generally the actual dietary intake of calcium only plays a minor role and rarely is the primary cause of osteoporosis. Much more significant is the individual's ability to absorb and use the calcium that is taken in. Current scientific thinking seems to suggest that the major factors which control the body's ability to uptake and absorb calcium include genetics, the make-up of the foods containing calcium that the individual eats, weight bearing exercise throughout one's life but especially in the period from childhood through one's late 20's, the acidity of foods eaten with higher calcium carrying foods, and in the case of women, whether they have had children, or early onset menopause.

But what the article might rightly suggest is that to have a healthy diet as a vegan or a vegetarian, one needs to be aware of what they eat and have a reasonably good understanding of how to balance their body's nutritional needs. But frankly, no matter what type of diet someone chooses for themselves, I firmly believe that a truly healthy diet requires more care than most of us care to give it. As others have said, there is no one size fits all diet. Too much or too little of any nutritionally needed dietary element is not healthy either on a short term or long term basis.

I think that its pretty clear that the typical U.S. diet is not inherently healthy, being to heavily laden with sugars, fats, proteins, and arguably containing too many calories and potential carcinogens. But I also think it is too simplistic to simply look at diet in isolation since physical activity, environmental exposure to harmful materials, and other lifestyle realities play such an important role in good health.

It is for these reasons that even though I have chosen to be a vegetarian, I neither advocate it nor discourage being a vegetarian for others.

Jeff


----------



## Sal Paradise

I figure that by the time I get to the Mexican restaurant, the avocado is already there, man. I'm not gonna waste it.


----------



## ScottUK

Jeff_H said:


> Speaking as someone who has been a vegetarian on ethical grounds for nearly 50 years,


I find no compelling argument to support the claim of ethical grounds. A compelling argument can be presented in it's opposition. It can be reasonably argued the domestication and cultivation of plants has had, by far, the greatest impact on the environment. The clearing of land for cultivation has directly led to the extinction of species of animals and plants. Most other environmental damage up to now can be shown to be directly or indirectly related to this technological "advance".

I can expand on this theme but the causality of the argument is so simple and apparent that it not warranted.


----------



## jwing

willyd said:


> Avocados are evil and don't belong on my boat. Avocado obsession is causing deforestation in Mexico | Metro News


I wonder: Do people get paid to rewrite questionable information, add a couple of stock photos, and the slap on a misleading, fear-mongering title? I guess everything is fair is the world of click-bait.

I'm NOT saying that avocado production is not harmful in some way. I AM saying that neither the article at the link, nor the article that was plagiarized convinced me of anything. The article suggests that 1700 forested acres per year are being converted to avocado orchard. If that was happening in the county where I live in Alabama, it would take over 300 years to cover the county with avocado trees. Would that be significant on a world scale? I don't know, but I'm guessing that it wouldn't be considered "destroying the world's forests." And that is the headline of the article.


----------



## Jeff_H

ScottUK said:


> Jeff_H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as someone who has been a vegetarian on ethical grounds for nearly 50 years,
> 
> 
> 
> I find no compelling argument to support the claim of ethical grounds. A compelling argument can be presented in it's opposition. It can be reasonably argued the domestication and cultivation of plants has had, by far, the greatest impact on the environment. The clearing of land for cultivation has directly led to the extinction of species of animals and plants. Most other environmental damage up to now can be shown to be directly or indirectly related to this technological "advance".
> 
> I can expand on this theme but the causality of the argument is so simple and apparent that it not warranted.
Click to expand...

I see no point in debating a topic like this. I personally chose to be a vegetarian because I personally saw it as a more ethical way for me personally to live my life. If you


ScottUK said:


> find no compelling argument to support the claim of ethical grounds.


 then don't be a vegetarian. Its just that simple.

To expand on that, I think that, at least in the abstract, there are basic ethics we can all might agree upon such as: its is unethical to commit murder, or robbery, or rape.

But I also believe that beyond those more universally held ethical beliefs, we all have our own system of ethics that we try to abide by. Those personal systems of ethical behavior vary from person to person. Part of my ethics is not to try to superimpose my beliefs on others, and within reason to try to avoid being judgmental.

I can usually explain (or rationalize) why I chose to do something, which when it comes to personal ethics, means that I usually have reasons why some choice makes sense for my own actions. That does not mean that I expect anyone else to buy into my view, let alone do as I do. From my perspective, you get to draw the lines where your own draw the lines. As long as I don't violate a more universally accepted ethical imperative, I also get to draw the lines where I think appropriate. For my life, choosing to be a vegetarian falls in that category.

To give an only slightly related example of how I see these kinds of things, its a bit like the ethics of recycling. I choose to be aggressive with minimizing packaging and recycling whatever I can. Its seems right to me. But someone else might easily argue that comparatively little of the separated material actually gets recycled, any specific individual's role has minimal impact, perhaps that there may be more pollution released from a second waste disposal vehicle, that humans can't live without some waste, and any other number of objections to recycling. My choice does not inherently make me better or worse than that person; choosing to recycle just makes me more comfortable with my own personal decisions.

It is similar with my decision to be a vegetarian. When it comes to why I believe that it is more ethically compelling for me personally to be a vegetarian, the reasons are diverse. Some can be categorized as simply emotional; such as emotionally, it is upsetting to me to think of raising an animal simply to be slaughtered for my own consumption, and that I personally am not comfortable with the way that animals are raised and brought to market. I completely understand that someone else might argue these points some other way, and allow that to drive their personal decision in a different direction.

But at the heart of the bigger and perhaps more science based collection of issues for me is the other side of the coin that is raised in your post. There is no doubt that you are essentially right that "domestication and cultivation of plants has had, by far, the greatest impact on the environment. The clearing of land for cultivation has directly led to the extinction of species of animals and plants. Most other environmental damage up to now can be shown to be directly or indirectly related to this technological "advance"...."

One of many possible ways that I choose to view that quote pertains to why I view my decision to be a vegetarian as based on ethical grounds. I believe that the cultivation of land to feed food animals significantly increases the amount of land under cultivation. To explain the basis of this point of view, while the specific values shown in the chart below may be debated, the broad generalities being shown in the chart do at least in part the provide a foundation for my view that the cultivation of land to feed food animals increases the amount of land under cultivation.. 


(Quoting the explanation or the chart from the article this came from:"The top row is the amount of grain required to produce a pound of raw animal (or milk). Percent edible weight, well, that is self-explanatory. The third row shows how much grain is required to produce one pound of edible meat. The fourth row is the efficiency with which plant protein is converted to animal protein.")

You may choose not to believe this chart and not act upon it. But I personally am of the opinion that it is essentially accurate and therefore that not eating animals reduces my impact on the amount of land being cultivated. I readily acknowledge that the impact of my decision is quite small. And while this small impact is significant for me, it may not be significant to anyone else, and as such, I have no problem if someone chooses to live their life a different way.

And again, while I am not trying to convince anyone else that there has been or that there continues to be a man-made impact on climate, I, myself, do chose to believe it. You may not and that is your business. (Besides, this is not the place to argue that point.)

But in the process of putting my actions where my belief system is, I have chosen to do my tiny part in minimizing my footprint. I chose to see being a vegetarian as a part of my tiny part in minimizing my footprint.

Again, you may choose not to accept the following figures, but they resonate with me. (Quoting again) "Depending how the figure is calculated, livestock account for anywhere between 18 and 51 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. Even the conservative estimate of 18 percent is a higher share than all transport-cars, trucks, planes, airplanes and mopeds-put together. This number is reported in CO2 equivalent because many of the gases released by agriculture, such as methane, have 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2. Nitrous oxide, of which livestock is responsible for 65 percent of anthropogenic output, has 296 times the GWP of CO2."

These kinds of numbers resonate with me so strongly that, (whether they are accurate or not), it adds to my sense that my decision to be a vegetarian seems to be a more ethical way for me to choose to live, than to not choose. Back in the 1960's that decision made sense for a range of other reasons, which have changed in importance over time. I do not hold my views as an example for anyone to follow, except myself. This explanation is not meant to change anyone's mind, but to merely explain the statement of mine that you quoted above.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## jwing

Jeff and ScottUK: Good discussion. I wonder what would happen if the USA and Canada curtailed grain production, allowed the Great Plains revert back to their natural state - no herbicide, no pesticide, no artificial habitat management - and allowed bison to graze at will (no beef cattle). Like it was before the white man eradicated nature. Would the Plains allow enough bison to be grown to feed our population and how would that fit on the efficiency table that Jeff presented? 

I think we can, and should eliminate grain production if the Plains could support enough meat production. There's enough acreage now under ornamental grass lawns to grow vegetables for everybody. I pulled that last statement straight out of my butt, but it might be true


----------



## krisscross

ScottUK said:


> I find no compelling argument to support the claim of ethical grounds.


Have you ever been to a slaughterhouse? Have you ever butchered an animal yourself? Compare that to gardening and maybe you will understand what ethical grounds means in this context. And your other argument makes no sense either, as most agriculture is done to feed the animals you eat.


----------



## Sal Paradise

ScottUK said:


> I find no compelling argument to support the claim of ethical grounds.


You must never have worked on a large farm, or brought animals to the slaughterhouse. I did for two years, to provide meat for people who , no doubt, also" saw no compelling argument". But those people wouldn't ever go near the blood and heartbreak of the slaughterhouse. I did. I saw animals that I raised - slaughtered. I will spare you the details that I am forced to carry around in my head, 30 years later. So if you have never even seen the slaughter, suffice it to say I did and I see Jeff's argument a little differently. Ethical, yes. And I'm not 100% vegan, (I admit that I eat meat)....but neither am I ignorant of the facts.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Sal Paradise

Wow this is some introductory thread!!!!!

Nice to meet you, vegan.


----------



## ScottUK

Jeff, I was not trying to get too personal but I must confess I did take some exception to the statement of yours I had quoted. I do not think my interpretation of what you had stated in your post is in error as written but it appears from your rebuttal it has been misconstrued.

Many of the self professed "vegetarians" I have met appear to have an air of moral superiority I believe is not justified as outlined above. I was going to qualify my above post but I recall another recent topic where this subject came up and the OP seemed to me to have this mentality and in your posts on that topic you appeared to tacitly agree with her reasoning. 

The statistics you have listed are well known though I believe the majority of cultivation is to feed the masses. The points you listed were tertiary considerations for my only eating meat that I had killed myself when that was a viable option. The main reason was not wanting to ingest hormone laced meat.


----------



## ScottUK

krisscross said:


> Have you ever been to a slaughterhouse? Have you ever butchered an animal yourself? Compare that to gardening and maybe you will understand what ethical grounds means in this context. And your other argument makes no sense either, as most agriculture is done to feed the animals you eat.


Yes I have. Again, yes I have. Can you show the statistics that most agriculture is done to feed animals worldwide?


----------



## jwing

krisscross said:


> Have you ever been to a slaughterhouse? Have you ever butchered an animal yourself? Compare that to gardening and maybe you will understand what ethical grounds means in this context. And your other argument makes no sense either, as most agriculture is done to feed the animals you eat.


I don't know about ScottUK, but I have shot many deer and fish. Yes, I have field dressed deer, had my arms completely covered in blood and deer guts, then brought the big chunks of carcass to the house and cut them up into tasty and nourishing pieces of meat. I have filleted hundreds of fish.

I have also seen deer die of starvation in the dead of winter, I've watched others taken down and eaten by coyotes and cougars. I've seen countless smaller animals taken by eagles and hawks, then have their flesh ripped off their bones while they are still alive. I've seen big fish eat small fish, then get eaten by bigger fish, or bear, or birds, or me. Snakes around my house swallow mice and chipmunks, lizards eat bugs in the grass, armadillos dig up my garden to get to the bugs living in the dirt. Viruses and bacteria are always nipping at my heels, trying to find a crack in my defenses that they can exploit.

My point is: The predator/prey relationship is an essence of nature. And by that I mean that it essential. Morality and/or ethic is an imaginary construct that some people try to superimpose on the cycle, and it works for some of them. Trying to shame other people into opting out of their natural survival instinct that drives them to eat animals cannot possibly work, just as wishing that animals wouldn't capture and shred each other alive is folly.

On the other hand, we certainly can do a much better job of raising animals for our consumption. Some of our animal production practices are atrocious and harmful to humans and to the planet. Have you ever read any of Temple Grandin's work? It's fascinating. She showed the cattle industry that humane treatment of livestock was more profitable than the barbaric practices that they had been using. The cattle still died and ended up as people food.


----------



## Minnewaska

I guess, when we were discussing how difficult it is to integrate unique dietary needs on a sailboat, this was modestly sailing related. 

That rule has been abandon. 

I still want to know what Flat Earth Plane means. I'm thinking we have something there to get us off arguing the merits of one's dietary choice.


----------



## ScottUK

Sal Paradise said:


> You must never have worked on a large farm, or brought animals to the slaughterhouse. I did for two years, to provide meat for people who , no doubt, also" saw no compelling argument". But those people wouldn't ever go near the blood and heartbreak of the slaughterhouse. I did. I saw animals that I raised - slaughtered. I will spare you the details that I am forced to carry around in my head, 30 years later. So if you have never even seen the slaughter, suffice it to say I did and I see Jeff's argument a little differently. Ethical, yes. And I'm not 100% vegan, (I admit that I eat meat)....but neither am I ignorant of the facts.
> 
> Have a nice day.


I have worked on a farm and have spent many days on a tractor and own farmland property I currently lease out. I have slaughtered animals while hunting.


----------



## jwing

Minnewaska: I've had similar conversations while sitting in sailboat cockpits, enjoying meals that featured seafood harvested just minutes prior. Some of those conversations included vegetarians who were feeling a bit guilty about enjoying such tasty and nourishing animal flesh. The predator/prey talk assuages their guilt and they can relax and enjoy the sailing trip. So, we ARE having a sailing-related conversation, as far as I'm concerned


----------



## ScottUK

Minnewaska said:


> I guess, when we were discussing how difficult it is to integrate unique dietary needs on a sailboat, this was modestly sailing related.


As my father use to say to me and my brothers "eat it or wear it".


----------



## capta

willyd said:


> Avocado obsession is causing deforestation in Mexico | Metro


OK, that's it!
I'll stop eating flora *AND* fauna on ethical grounds because some actually believe that plants have feelings too, and eating them can cause deforestation.
So this is to inform y'all that as of this moment I shall become a *Breatharian*.
Well, maybe not quite this moment as I'm a bit peckish, so I'll have a big chef's salad with slices of smoked chicken breast, cheese, tuna, eggs, onions and olives, topped with avocado.
Then I'll become a *Breatharian*.


----------



## willyd

When I was ten I swore to become completely carnivorous when I grew up. I'm still working on it, but with little success. And I need to confess that I actually voluntarily ate an avocado last summer in a moment of weakness.

I kind of like the gluten-free Great Plains idea, and totally agree that we could produce edible plants everywhere we can grow lawns, and not import it all from California or wherever, which is a hugely wasteful practice.

I would be curious to see what a vegan or at least vegetarian boat menu would look like. I think the OP has been scared off, but if anyone else has some ideas, I'd like to see them. 

I recently read Kenichi Horie's book on crossing the Pacific, hoping in part to get some insight into different ideas about what someone from Japan would carry as food, but I was disappointed in that regard.


----------



## willyd

capta said:


> OK, that's it!
> I'll stop eating flora *AND* fauna on ethical grounds because some actually believe that plants have feelings too, and eating them can cause deforestation.
> So this is to inform y'all that as of this moment I shall become a *Breatharian*.
> Well, maybe not quite this moment as I'm a bit peckish, so I'll have a big chef's salad with slices of smoked chicken breast, cheese, tuna, eggs, onions and olives, topped with avocado.
> Then I'll become a *Breatharian*.


You can avoid eating both. Just eat https://media.whatscookingamerica.net/2015/03/16183728/Vegemite21.jpg


----------



## SVAuspicious

There is only one life form on this planet of which there is no shortage. Consider the ethical implications of that.


----------



## krisscross

ScottUK said:


> Can you show the statistics that most agriculture is done to feed animals worldwide?


"Livestock is the world's largest user of land resources, with pasture and land dedicated to the production of feed representing almost 80% of the total agricultural land." Meat and Animal Feed
I grew up on a farm.


----------



## ScottUK

SVAuspicious said:


> There is only one life form on this planet of which there is no shortage. Consider the ethical implications of that.


Directly due to the domestication and cultivation of plants.


----------



## krisscross

jwing said:


> Have you ever read any of Temple Grandin's work? It's fascinating. She showed the cattle industry that humane treatment of livestock was more profitable than the barbaric practices that they had been using. The cattle still died and ended up as people food.


I grew up on a farm and lived out in the countryside most my life. I visit large animal feed and meat processing plants as part of my job. While morality may be just a human construct, I see my diet as being less of a burden on earth and other creatures. For me, that has meaning and value. I don't care what other people eat, but I dislike ignorance on this subject.


----------



## ScottUK

krisscross said:


> "Livestock is the world's largest user of land resources, with pasture and land dedicated to the production of feed representing almost 80% of the total agricultural land." Meat and Animal Feed
> I grew up on a farm.


I would say arable land and cultivation are two different things. I have also seen figures around 50%. The argument is specious in the present context as animal husbandry is a derivative of plant domestication and cultivation.

My point is and has been that if it was not for plant domestication we would not have what some find "unethical" and that the impacts of this 'technological advance" are much, much greater than what many vegetarians find objectionable and appear to be oblivious or obtuse about.

Not that it has any bearing but I grew up in the farm industry too.


----------



## Minnesail

I'm always a little confused by the vitriol some people heap on vegetarians. They accuse vegetarians of being sanctimonious, but I don't see that to be the case. I haven't seen any vegetarians in this thread preaching from a high horse. Most of the vegetarians I know personally are a bit apologetic about it, in case they're causing others any trouble.

Being vegetarian is mainstream these days, and in most places it's pretty easy. Being vegan is quite a bit more restrictive, but also fairly common.

What the original poster asked about, raw veganism, is quite different. In my opinion that crosses over from a normal dietary choice to a fad diet.



Someone asked about a vegetarian diet on a boat. Here's a day we did when there were a couple vegetarians aboard (note: just a short charter, not crossing an ocean).

Breakfast: Scrambled eggs, asparagus, cuban beans, biscuits, bacon. All the vegetarians had to do was skip the bacon.

Lunch: Sandwiches. The vegetarians just had cheese and lettuce sandwiches, while the rest of us had turkey, ham, and cheese sandwiches. I believe some of the hummus we had along for snacking also ended up in the vegetarians' sandwiches.

Supper: Chili, cornbread, and crudités. I made the chili without meat and used vegetable stock instead of the chicken stock I'd normally use. After the vegetarians dished up I stirred in some browned ground beef, let it simmer for a couple minutes, then the rest of us dished up.


So for the whole day I, as cook, only had to make two small changes to accommodate the vegetarians. No. Big. Deal.


----------



## jwing

Minnesail said:


> I'm always a little confused by the vitriol some people heap on vegetarians.


My hypothesis is that vegetarianism is something that is perceived as a liberal thing. And some portion of our nation has been thoroughly conditioned to loathe liberals. Vegetarianism, like driving a Prius, riding a bicycle, or even having sails on a boat instead of many horsepowers worth of gasoline engine, is seen as a choice that deviant people make to flaunt their hatred of 'traditional' values. These types are to be feared and scorned by 'normal' people. Heaping vitriol on weidos is a way to indicate that you are one of us, thank God.


----------



## krisscross

ScottUK said:


> My point is and has been that if it was not for plant domestication we would not have what some find "unethical" and that the impacts of this 'technological advance" are much, much greater than what many vegetarians find objectionable and appear to be oblivious or obtuse about.


Dude, you are the one being obtuse and claiming that if we just continued to live as hunters/gatherers like our forefathers 10,000 years ago the Earth would be in pristine shape and people would not suffer from ethical doubts. What kind of imaginary logic is that? We are here and now, and have to do the best we can with the reality that is kicking our rear end. When I said I grew up on a farm I meant that I saw how we used the land and how most of what we grew went to feed the animals we raised. Maybe you grew up on a different farm but a pig will eat more than 2 or 3 people. And if you actually visited a slaughterhouse and still claim that there is nothing unethical about eating meat, we will probably never find a common ground. Have a nice day.


----------



## ScottUK

Minnesail said:


> I'm always a little confused by the vitriol some people heap on vegetarians. They accuse vegetarians of being sanctimonious, but I don't see that to be the case.


Applying ethical standards is by definition sanctimonious.


----------



## ScottUK

krisscross said:


> Dude, you are the one being obtuse and claiming that if we just continued to live as hunters/gatherers like our forefathers 10,000 years ago the Earth would be in pristine shape and people would not suffer from ethical doubts. What kind of imaginary logic is that? We are here and now, and have to do the best we can with the reality that is kicking our rear end. When I said I grew up on a farm I meant that I saw how we used the land and how most of what we grew went to feed the animals we raised. Maybe you grew up on a different farm but a pig will eat more than 2 or 3 people. And if you actually visited a slaughterhouse and still claim that there is nothing unethical about eating meat, we will probably never find a common ground. Have a nice day.


You continually make false assumptions. I have never claimed anything about going back to being hunter/gatherers. What I have pointed out is the inconsistency of the ethical question posed by some vegetarians when the impact of plant domestication is much broader and inconsistent than their smaller concerns. As I have pointed out there has been and likely still are plant and animal extinctions going on due to cultivation. Should that not have a bearing on the matter? Your whole slaughterhouse aside is irrelevant.

I do not know why you respond to my posts when you appear to make up arguments so you can counter yourself. Maybe comprehension is not a strong suit.

If you expect a response to your next fictitious post there will not immediately be one as cocktails in the cockpit are now in order. Good night!


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

This thread is exactly why crew on a boat need to have the same diet as the skipper & owner.

No 'bring your own food'

:captain:


----------



## SVAuspicious

Minnesail said:


> Being vegetarian is mainstream these days, and in most places it's pretty easy. Being vegan is quite a bit more restrictive, but also fairly common.


Media that supports vegetarian and vegan choices report 3.2% of Americans are vegetarian and 0.5% are vegan. I don't think that is mainstream.

People have the right to make their own choices and I will support and defend those rights.

To say that dietary choices like veg and boutique diets don't make a difference on passage is short sighted.

If someone can put together a crew with like expectations that's fine. It's great in fact. If I'm in the minority I'll be quiet and eat.

There is a big difference between being a good guest for a day sail bringing something you can eat and being crew expecting to bring all your own provisions.


----------



## twoshoes

MarkofSeaLife said:


> This thread is exactly why crew on a boat need to have the same diet as the skipper & owner.
> 
> No 'bring your own food'
> 
> :captain:


I could eat fried bolonga sandwiches for a week straight no problem. Pork, beef, soy, veggie, whatever. Beyond that I'd probably need a menu changeup and/or some bacon. I've heard good things about Lasagna on a passage. :wink


----------



## jwing

twoshoes said:


> I could eat fried bolonga sandwiches for a week straight no problem. Pork, beef, soy, veggie, whatever. Beyond that I'd probably need a menu changeup and/or some bacon. I've heard good things about Lasagna on a passage. :wink


I'm a tolerant guy. You can eat fried pork skins rolled in artificial chocolate sauce or you can refuse everything but raw, organic, heirloom kumquats, I don't care. But...soy!?!? That's fightin' words and you are gonna lose, sport,:batter

Seriously, don't eat soy.


----------



## Sal Paradise

MarkofSeaLife said:


> This thread is exactly why crew on a boat need to have the same diet as the skipper & owner.
> 
> No 'bring your own food'
> 
> :captain:


I assume "bring your own beer" is still okay.


----------



## jwing

ScottUK said:


> Applying ethical standards is by definition sanctimonious.


I don't believe that living to your own ethical/moral standards is necessarily sanctimonious. I'm sure that there are sanctimonious vegetarians, but the ones I've known were far from sanctimonious.

I've been married to a vegetarian, she was crazy but not preachy. If a woman wants to be in a relationship with me, she'd better be non-judgmental. I've had nice romantic relationships with three other vegetarians. Come to think of it, they were all crazy, too. Well, one of them became uncrazy when she started eating meat again. Getting your brain properly nourished on a non-animal diet is challenging. I tried it twice and I was crazy both times.


----------



## 433050

I wonder how many of the professed meat eaters are also taking some sort of pharmaceutical drug for your many ailments. I would bet that the majority of them are on the pharma roller coaster. Vegetarians and Vegans tend to be much healthier when they take their diet seriously and do not pile on sugar and other unhealthy items. I can only post from my own personal experience and as a vegan for over 20 years, I look at least 20 years younger than I am and everyone I meet cannot believe my age. Yet the people I meet who are my age all look years older than me and are full of ailments. I have observed the majority of meat eaters I meet who live in the retirement community I live in go through the revolving door of doctors, drugs and all form of ailments from what they put in their mouths, yet myself and most of my vegan friends are not on that train wreck. Many of us who eat organic and do not put things in our mouth that are laced with pesticides or GMO's are not sickly either. It all boils down to choice and lifestyle. We are fortunate to have freedom of choice with what we eat. No one is right or wrong here. Some people love to eat meat, and that is their choice. Others choose to abandon the practice for a variety of reasons as we have seen on this thread. I tend to agree with Jeff's posts. It does not make it right or wrong. I think we should respect the choices of others and not take to name calling and bashing others for their choices.


----------



## capta

Lassiegirl said:


> in the retirement community I live in


You didn't mention your age, but I found this bit of your post most interesting.
There are a considerable number of us on this and other forums, 70 and above, who are out and about sailing in many parts of the world and not consigned to retirement communities.
Perhaps it's good genes or blind luck, but I hardly think that for most of us, any special diet has contributed significantly to our health and well being. Apparently, beef, pork, seafood, whisky, rum, beer, preservatives and modern medicine aren't as bad for everybody as you seem to believe.


----------



## twoshoes

Lassiegirl said:


> Many of us who eat organic and do not put things in our mouth that are laced with pesticides or GMO's are not sickly either.


My wife's family owns and operates a certified organic farm. They still use chemical pesticides and fungicides, lots of them. To be certified organic the chemicals used must be derived from natural sources. But the natural requirement only applies to pesticides, fungicides, and fertilizers. The list of ingredients, both synthetic and non-synthetic, that are allowed in foods labeled as organic or in their production (but not used as a pesticide, fungicide, or fertilizer) including crops is quite extensive, some of which are produced from animal byproducts and/or are known to be carcinogenic.

*Here's a small selection:* Isopropanol, Calcium hypochlorite, Chlorine dioxide, Sodium hypochlorite, Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate, Ammonium carbonate, Boric acid, Sucrose octanoate esters, Ferric phosphate, Aqueous potassium silicate, Copper sulfate, Hydrated lime, Hydrogen peroxide, Lime sulfur, Peracetic acid, Potassium bicarbonate, Elemental sulfur, Humic acids, Lignin sulfonate, Magnesium sulfate, Soluble boron, Liquid fish products, Sulfurous acid, Ethylene gas, Sodium silicate, Hydrogen chloride, Microcrystalline cheesewax, and on and on and on.

The list gets much bigger if you include livestock that is certified organic.



The USDA said:


> Organic is a labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural product has been produced through approved methods that integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used.


Foods certified as organic have never been proven to be safer or healthier, nor is that the intended purpose of certified organic foods.


----------



## jwing

twoshoes - What IS the intended purpose of certified organic foods?


----------



## Minnewaska

Come on people, Flat Earth, let's hear about the Flat Earth. I see it remains the OP's location.


----------



## twoshoes

jwing said:


> twoshoes - What IS the intended purpose of certified organic foods?


I'm no expert on organic farming, I just happen to know people that are.

In a nutshell:



> Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony.


It's basically about sustainability and productivity of the ecosystem/environment. Soil regeneration, water conservation, animal welfare, etc.

*I'm not trying to bash organic foods or the people that enjoy them. Organic farming is a good and positive thing.*

But you won't find the words 'healthy' or 'healthier' anywhere in this 31,000 word document. 'Health' is used, but only as it pertains to the ecosystem and welfare of livestock.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Minnewaska said:


> Come on people, Flat Earth, let's hear about the Flat Earth. I see it remains the OP's location.


I think we have given this guy enough curry in this thread and I shall back off from criticism.

In a general thought:
In advertising and job applications it's important to put over the information you want in a honest and non-sarcastic/humorous way.
If one calls themselves a "vegan flat earther" to reader will think "denier of science/limited IQ/religious creationist, dope smoking hippy with a bone in his nose and ear things who doesn't wash often".

Very few of these things may be right but the 'normal' cruiser is older, retired, wealthier and has a lot of assets tied up in his boat.
That boat can be confiscated if a crew member has drugs on board. It's NOT Seattle!
Marijuana is a death sentence in some countries. The 'difference' between hash and dope is nothing when you are hanging by your neck in some Asian jail.

And for prospective crew members: if you sign into a boat of drug-f'ed morons you go to jail with them for their drug possession.
And don't say it couldn't happen! I was crewing on a boat and the drug moron hid his dope in MY cabin!


----------



## SVAuspicious

twoshoes said:


> I could eat fried bolonga sandwiches for a week straight no problem. Pork, beef, soy, veggie, whatever. Beyond that I'd probably need a menu changeup and/or some bacon. I've heard good things about Lasagna on a passage. :wink


Which does go to one's expectations. One of my friends, arguably a better sailor than I, provisions entirely in the frozen food aisles and mostly in the prepared food chillers. I've sailed with him and eat what he provides. I will admit it sure is easy offshore. *grin* Boring and doesn't taste like much but it keeps you going.

I provision for interesting and varied meals three times a day plus snacks. Reality doesn't always work out (usually because of weather). The reality of two burners, often poor cookware, and almost universally poor knives also intrudes.

I understand eating for fuel. The first ten years out of college I ate cereal (Cheerios and Grape-Nuts mixed together) for breakfast and ham and cheese sandwiches and a prepared yogurt for lunch every work day. Every one. For ten years. Dinners were a pretty balanced diet by meat-eater standards although I spread things out when I was cooking for only myself: big salad on Monday, lots of steamed broccoli on Tuesday, chicken on Wednesday, baked potato on Thursday, .... Janet wants four things at every dinner, all on the same day. *grin*


----------



## SVAuspicious

I forgot one very important maxim:

Bacon is a vegetable.


----------



## jwing

twoshoes said:


> I'm no expert on organic farming, I just happen to know people that are.
> 
> In a nutshell:
> 
> It's basically about sustainability and productivity of the ecosystem/environment. Soil regeneration, water conservation, animal welfare, etc.
> 
> *I'm not trying to bash organic foods or the people that enjoy them. Organic farming is a good and positive thing.*
> 
> But you won't find the words 'healthy' or 'healthier' anywhere in this 31,000 word document. 'Health' is used, but only as it pertains to the ecosystem and welfare of livestock.


I believe that industrial agriculture / food manufacturing is an experiment that is beginning to show results. Obesity, for example. More results are forthcoming, I believe. I also believe that the effects of eating mostly "Organic" labeled food have yet to be realized. For now, it makes sense to me to reduce my exposure to synthetic chemicals as much as I can.

Ironically, considering the gist of twoshoes's point, I am more easily convinced that large- and medium-scale organic farming is often more harmful to the surrounding environment. Too much organic fertilizer spread on the fields; get washed off; pollutes waterways and wetlands. But I'm no expert either; I have to rely on what I read and hear; much of that is written/told by other non-experts.


----------



## SVAuspicious

jwing said:


> I believe that industrial agriculture / food manufacturing is an experiment that is beginning to show results. Obesity, for example. More results are forthcoming, I believe.


I tend to agree. I think that there are economic factors that simply aren't well accounted for. For many people of limited means McDonalds is cheaper than organics. There are emotional issues with GMO that defy science. Economies of scale have not been balanced against organics and organics are not as "clean" or "green" as reputed. I don't think there are easy answers this side of Soylent Green.

We all have to make our own choices.


----------



## Minnesail

SVAuspicious said:


> Media that supports vegetarian and vegan choices report 3.2% of Americans are vegetarian and 0.5% are vegan. I don't think that is mainstream.


That survey is from 2008, I'm sure the number is higher now. According to Wikipedia:


> In 1971, 1 percent of U.S. citizens described themselves as vegetarians.[104] In 2008 Harris Interactive found that 3.2% are vegetarian and 0.5% vegan,[105] while a 2013 Public Policy Polling survey of 500 respondents found that 13% of Americans are either vegetarian or vegan-6% vegetarian and 7% vegan.


I question that last survey, it's only 500 people and it shows more vegans than vegetarians. However the number of people eating vegetarian or vegan is definitely increasing, so I'd say it's at least 10%. I guess there's no strict definition of what constitutes "mainstream" so 10% may or not make the cut, but it's definitely not a fringe thing.



SVAuspicious said:


> To say that dietary choices like veg and boutique diets don't make a difference on passage is short sighted.


I have never been on an extended passage, but I love reading your reports and I definitely agree with you: having crew members with strict dietary restrictions could be very difficult.

Thanks again for sharing stories of you offshore experiences with us!


----------



## capta

Minnewaska said:


> Come on people, Flat Earth, let's hear about the Flat Earth. I see it remains the OP's location.


All the OP needs to do is put an X at his/her location.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Minnesail said:


> I question that last survey, it's only 500 people and it shows more vegans than vegetarians. However the number of people eating vegetarian or vegan is definitely increasing, so I'd say it's at least 10%. I guess there's no strict definition of what constitutes "mainstream" so 10% may or not make the cut, but it's definitely not a fringe thing.


Layne Pagley reports 5.5% in the US are lacto-ovo vegetarians in 2015. No sources.

The 2008 study by Vegetarian Times cited 3.2% follow a "vegetarian-based" diet.

The 2013 Public Polling study had a tiny sample (only 500) and there are methodology questions; "consider themselves" is not a good question. As you say, not a good source.

The 2016 Vegetarian Resource Group study (who used Harris Polls) asked great questions (from a polling point of view); they report 3.3% of Americans are vegetarian or vegan. Interestingly they found many more Americans are eating less meat without giving it up entirely. Their sample size of 2,015 people is small but still statistically significant. Their methodology will over report young people and under report older folks.

I think your 10% number is too high. I defer to the Vegetarian Resource Group and respect their 3.3% number. More interesting is the really high number (37% I think - I didn't copy that number down) who sometimes or always eat vegetarian when dining out. To me that says meatless or low meat meals are more acceptable, and that a growing number of people consider or accept meat as a condiment (of sorts) as opposed to a centerpiece.

As you note there is no clear definition of "mainstream." Without agreed numbers opinion rules. It's like agreeing on what "offshore" or "bluewater" means. To me, based on the data, real vegetarianism (i.e. no cheating) is bigger than "fringe," probably a solid "niche," and not nearly "mainstream." YMMV. I think the increased acceptance of meatless/low-meat diets is both most interesting and more meaningful than the numbers who commit to a full-time vegetarian diet.

The OP launched a really interesting discussion.

I still don't see myself taking on anyone as crew with a fundamentally unusual diet like raw veganism. They have every right to their choices but 1. it is an imposition on other crew members and 2. I'd have to spend a lot of meal planning time to balance all the dishes I could not use. *grin*

I have a friend who is medically diagnosed celiac (not just boutique gluten-free) and has serious diary issues (not just gassy lactose intolerance). She's a mess. We work together on menus for short trips but I wouldn't take her on a long one. Frankly I don't know how she avoids starving to death. *grin*

One of my "in the can" presentations is _A Delivery Skipper Cooks_. It's gotten a fairly major refresh based on this discussion. Thanks to all, especially the OP. I'm rolling out a new webinar platform. When it's ready(ish) I'll use _A Delivery Skipper Cooks_ as a test case and offer a freebie to SailNet.


----------



## Ulladh

I have a colleague (not a sailor) who after some serious health issues went on a vegan diet then transitioned to a raw vegan diet. The change produced in part a definite "spring" in his step. 

Grains like barley can be soaked and cooked with citric acid then used in a salad with julienned or grated root vegetables and dried fruit. Dicing, shredding and mashing are some of the techniques along with using fruit acids that can change food textures making them more digestible and nutrients more available.

I enjoy the challenge of working with a restricted diet for a quest, but without some serious advanced planning this is not something I would like to do on a boat for other than a day sail.


----------



## Sal Paradise

ScottUK said:


> Applying ethical standards is by definition sanctimonious.


Thank you for being honest. No need for further explanations.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Ulladh said:


> I have a colleague (not a sailor) who after some serious health issues went on a vegan diet then transitioned to a raw vegan diet. The change produced in part a definite "spring" in his step.
> 
> Grains like barley can be soaked and cooked with citric acid then used in a salad with julienned or grated root vegetables and dried fruit. Dicing, shredding and mashing are some of the techniques along with using fruit acids that can change food textures making them more digestible and nutrients more available.
> 
> .


Well it killed my father.

Mark


----------



## skipmac

Sal Paradise said:


> You must never have worked on a large farm, or brought animals to the slaughterhouse. I did for two years, to provide meat for people who , no doubt, also" saw no compelling argument". But those people wouldn't ever go near the blood and heartbreak of the slaughterhouse. I did. I saw animals that I raised - slaughtered. I will spare you the details that I am forced to carry around in my head, 30 years later. So if you have never even seen the slaughter, suffice it to say I did and I see Jeff's argument a little differently. Ethical, yes. And I'm not 100% vegan, (I admit that I eat meat)....but neither am I ignorant of the facts.
> 
> Have a nice day.


An oft repeated cliche, "if everyone had to butcher the animals that supply the meat there would be a lot more vegetarians in the world."

Like you I have been involved in that process and choose to no longer do it.


----------



## SVAuspicious

skipmac said:


> An oft repeated cliche, "if everyone had to butcher the animals that supply the meat there would be a lot more vegetarians in the world."


I definitely agree. I saw a letter to the editor in a local newspaper that objected to hunting as cruel to animals and suggested that hunters get their meat from supermarkets so no animals would be hurt.

You just can't fix stupid.


----------



## jwing

If everybody had to grow their own vegetables, there would be a lot fewer vegetable-eaters in the world. If everybody had to grow their own grains, there would be a lot few grain-eaters in the world. If everybody had to brew their own beer, there would be a lot fewer beer-drinkers in the world.


----------



## Jeff_H

ScottUK said:


> Applying ethical standards is by definition sanctimonious.


I have to think that you and I must have different definitions of ethical standards and sanctimonious. If we agree that the word 'sanctimonious' means 'hypocritical piousness ' then at least in my mind, the difference between ethical standards and being sanctimonious is being hypocritical about those standards.

For example, I would speculate that a majority of sailors believe in the ethical standard of the sea which would have us rescue a sailor in distress if at all possible without grossly endangering the lives of their crew.

The extent to which each of us would take risks to rescue a sailor in distress will certainly vary, but I would guess that there is little to no hypocrisy in the manner in which most of us articulate and hold to this ethical standard.

As such I would therefore suggest that it is not by definition being sanctimonious to believe in and follow the ethical standard of rescuing a sailor in distress.

And so I also don't believe that applying an ethical standard is inherently sanctimonious.

Jeff


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

skipmac said:


> An oft repeated cliche, "if everyone had to butcher the animals that supply the meat there would be a lot more vegetarians in the world."
> .


If every person who sails had to climb a mast every day they sail there would be far fewer sailors.

Now can we compare all people who eat meat to Hitler so we can get back to this thread... Or another more interesting one?


----------



## Sal Paradise

I see a hunter who follows good practices,for instance only takes a clean shot - who obtains meat that way - as very ethical. Perhaps even necessary to control certain populations in the absence of wolves and mountain lions. 

I try and stick to chicken and fish, but I occasionally stray to a little beef or pork. But I try to limit that.


----------



## krisscross

jwing said:


> If everybody had to grow their own vegetables, there would be a lot fewer vegetable-eaters in the world.


I grow my own veggies every year, and every season. They are absolutely delicious and far better than the veggies from the store. I would dare to say that gardening makes people eat more veggies. I used to brew beer too, but I started to become a border line alcoholic and gave that up. :boat :


----------



## capta

Sal Paradise said:


> I try and stick to chicken and fish, but I occasionally stray to a little beef or pork. But I try to limit that.


And then there's the mercury in fish and I'm sure there's something in chicken, if one looked hard enough.
I wouldn't trade 10 years at the end of my life for the all wonderful eating experiences I've had of meat, fish or poultry or vegetables, for that matter. All over the world I've tried food bought from street side venders or in little restaurants from menus I couldn't read and folks who couldn't explain what I was eating. Most were great, some weren't. The monkey soup in Indonesia was terrific, however I didn't know it *was* monkey soup until a little black hand came up in my spoon. That didn't make it any less good.
If someone wants to eat raw nuts and grains instead of barbecued ribs or southern fried chicken, well that certainly is their choice. No sweat off my back. But a raw vegan can die just as quickly and easily from an accident or whatever, as someone who eats everything, so making it a choice for longevity may be fruitless in the long run.
Dream as if you will live forever, live as if you will die tomorrow.


----------



## skipmac

jwing said:


> If everybody had to grow their own vegetables, there would be a lot fewer vegetable-eaters in the world. If everybody had to grow their own grains, there would be a lot few grain-eaters in the world. If everybody had to brew their own beer, there would be a lot fewer beer-drinkers in the world.


I sincerely appreciate the humor in your reply but you do of course know that this totally misses the point I was making?

It has nothing to do with work and skill involved in raising and/or butchering an animal vs the work and skill required to grow a food plant. I has to do only with a person understanding on a fundamental level that that the steak he/she is eating used to be a living, breathing creature that does feel pain and experience fear.

Lots of people, especially those that lived or worked on farms do understand this and are OK with it and I have absolutely no problem with that. However there are many people who just do not relate at all to the details of how that hamburger arrived in the bun and I have read more than a few stories by those who gave up meat after experiencing first hand the process.


----------



## skipmac

OK, let me first agree that there are vegetarians and vegans that are judgemental and aggressive in their beliefs. Generally I guess they are the true believers and believe they must go out and change the world. 

At the same time there are omnivores that are aggressive towards vegetarians. Perhaps because he/she had to deal with a particularly obnoxious veggie or maybe because that person feels threatened by the concept. 

Regardless, in my experience, the overwhelming majority of people on both sides of the issue go about their lives and eat what they eat and don't make a big deal about it. Personally I could care less what anyone else eats. 

On health basis a balanced diet with or without meat is best. Of course moderation in all things is generally best. Regarding a veggie diet not being suitable for a healthy, vigorous person, bull. There have been vegetarians that were professional athletes. My daughter has never eaten meat and she's in pretty good condition at 35.

I do think that beef production has a much bigger impact on the planet, environment and resources that production of plant proteins. Pork a bit less than beef.


----------



## midwesterner

ScottUK said:


> Many of the self professed "vegetarians" I have met appear to have an air of moral superiority I believe is not justified as outlined above.......


I believe that it is sometimes a misperception on the part of non-vegetarians. When I was more committed to a vegetarian diet, I would encounter that feeling from meat eaters when I would eat at someone's house. They would offer me a burger or a steak and I would try to say, in as kind and non-judgemental a tone of voice as I could, "No thank you. I am perfectly fine with the salad, green beans, and corn." I would sometimes even avoid declaring myself a vegetarian . I would just say that I'm not that hungry and that I really love salad, green beans and corn. But still I often perceived a tone of defensiveness from my hosts.

They would apologize for not having more vegetables and sometimes would apologize for having meat. I really didn't care. It's a personal choice for me and a personal choice for everybody else. I really don't pass judgement. Then they would want to know why I chose to be a vegetarian. They would interview me as to whether or not it was on health or moral grounds, I guess, so they could decide on what grounds I was judging them, which I wasn't. I would often tell people that I was just trying it as an experiment to see if I could do it and see what it was like. It was annoying how often people assumed that I would be judgmental just because I chose not to eat me and they did.


----------



## midwesterner

SVAuspicious said:


> krisscross said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not think of imposing my dietary requirements on the rest of the crew, unless I brought all my grub with me.
> 
> 
> 
> Still not okay. More storage (limited), more dishes to wash (water impact), more time (less rest for everyone) = not okay.
Click to expand...

In my younger backpacking and canoe floating days, I got tired of carrying a backpacking cook stove, fuel and cooking equipment. There was a long time that I brought only nuts, dried fruits, apples and peanut butter, and carrots and celery, and powerbars.

This diet fueled me just fine for entire days of arduous hiking, often in mountainous terrain, or a day of rigorous paddling. I would be done with my breakfast while my camping companions were still cooking their meal. I had extra time to help take down their tent for them while they were still cleaning up dishes.

And, the poor health and low energy level with a vegetarian diet is a myth. I was a complete vegetarian through much of my college days (not a vegan because I occasionally ate cheese and drank milk), and routinely ran 4 to 6 miles everyday and competed in several 10K and 5K races every year, and I never had a problem with a lack of energy.


----------



## mbianka

midwesterner said:


> In my younger backpacking and canoe floating days, I got tired of carrying a backpacking cook stove, fuel and cooking equipment. There was a long time that I brought only nuts, dried fruits, apples and peanut butter, and carrots and celery, and powerbars.


Dehydrated foods like fruits are great to have on board. Not only for quick snacks but also for emergency rations. I tend to skew toward more vegetarian type of meals when cruising. Not because of any empathetic diet concerns. It's just that keeping meat from spoiling on board requires much more energy consumption than fresh veggies. I also carry dehydrated vegetable mixes that can be added into making a quick soup or added to Raman noodles. I can bake bread on board and that with some tomato slices, mozzarella cheese, a dribble of olive oil, salt and pepper is a pinch me meal. Homemade Hummus is just right for sundowner drinks too. I just find it much more convenient to eat more vegetarian when away from land and requires less trips back to it.

Though two quotes keep popping into my head in regards to this discussion. One is the title of a Firesign Theater album called "Eat or be Eaten" The other is a Hunter Thompson Quote: 
_"It was the Law of the Sea, they said. Civilization ends at the waterline. Beyond that, we all enter the food chain, and not always right at the top." _-Hunter S. Thompson
It's a reminder to me that the animals we might eat are not always emphatic in their diets. Polar bears even bears in general will look at us as a meal. Fish will too when given the chance. Certainly there are plenty of things in the Africa plains from small wild dogs to the Lions that will kill us for food. Hardly a week goes by without some backpacker being killed by some animal in the woods or an alligator grabbing some unsuspecting jogger in Florida. IMO It's just the nature of the beast including us. We will all end up feeding something.


----------



## Philabaco

Agreed minimal fads. Maximum fun


----------



## SVAuspicious

jwing said:


> If everybody had to grow their own vegetables, there would be a lot fewer vegetable-eaters in the world. If everybody had to grow their own grains, there would be a lot few grain-eaters in the world. If everybody had to brew their own beer, there would be a lot fewer beer-drinkers in the world.


When I was a kid we had a huge garden and grew most of our vegetables. My Dad, who is kind of a butthead (wait - he is a complete butthead), calculated the cost of our vegetables from the garden. It was huge. My Mom was crushed. My sister and I still learned a lot from growing our own food.

The lesson that economics of scale are real and many things don't scale down well was very helpful.



Sal Paradise said:


> I see a hunter who follows good practices,for instance only takes a clean shot - who obtains meat that way - as very ethical. Perhaps even necessary to control certain populations in the absence of wolves and mountain lions.


If you want to come sit on our back deck with a rifle I'll feed you and house you and split the venison with you. The only animal we have more of than deer around here is human.



skipmac said:


> I do think that beef production has a much bigger impact on the planet, environment and resources that production of plant proteins. Pork a bit less than beef.


My understanding is that beef is one of the least efficient ways to move energy (calories) to people. On the other hand chicken and pork, at least here on Chesapeake Bay has a huge environmental impact from run-off and is detrimental to the Bay.



mbianka said:


> Dehydrated foods like fruits are great to have on board.


Dehydrated fruit is a dandy snack but I question it's value as an emergency food. There are few emergency situations where water is not an issue. Canned goods, rotated, are the way to go.


----------



## mbianka

SVAuspicious said:


> Dehydrated fruit is a dandy snack but I question it's value as an emergency food. There are few emergency situations where water is not an issue. Canned goods, rotated, are the way to go.


Good point. I am reminded of how Hannes Lindeman stocked his canoe for his second attempt at crossing the Atlantic with cans of beer. His reasoning it provided water and carbohydrates at the same time. He rationed it to one can a day. YMMV. 

Meanwhile I'm currently on an Amtrak train traveling from Miami to New York. Yesterday All I had to eat was Hummus and some pretzels I bought with me. I felt pretty good so I skipped going to the dining car for any other meal. Slept pretty good too with the train car rocking like being on a boat. Though I did have a dream that someone prepared a meal of beef, chicken and pork filets with gravy and mashed potatoes. Talk about withdrawal symptoms.


----------



## Minnewaska

mbianka said:


> .....Meanwhile I'm currently on an Amtrak train traveling from Miami to New York......


Did that exact route on Amtrak, many, many years ago. It was excruciatingly long. I think I would rather eat vegan, even raw vegan, for the 24 hours that ride took, in exchange for a plane ride. 

I still take Amtrak from RI to NYC from time to time. 3ish hours. That's nice. With the variable of city traffic, that's a good trade and a plane is no faster, given TSA and getting a taxi into the city.


----------



## skipmac

SVAuspicious said:


> When I was a kid we had a huge garden and grew most of our vegetables. My Dad, who is kind of a butthead (wait - he is a complete butthead), calculated the cost of our vegetables from the garden. It was huge. My Mom was crushed. My sister and I still learned a lot from growing our own food.
> 
> The lesson that economics of scale are real and many things don't scale down well was very helpful.


When my mother was growing up on a farm in the 1930s their vegetable garden kept them fed, at least fed much, much better than they could have afforded buying from the store. Today, as you note, the economics don't work. Even adding profits for farmer, processor, truckers, retailers, etc it is often cheaper to buy from the store. BUT, if you have ever compared a home grown tomato to the cardboard and mush round, red, blob from the grocery you will see why a garden can be worth the effort.



SVAuspicious said:


> My understanding is that beef is one of the least efficient ways to move energy (calories) to people. On the other hand chicken and pork, at least here on Chesapeake Bay has a huge environmental impact from run-off and is detrimental to the Bay.


For a while I was peripherally involved with the swine business, working with a company developing some bioactive products to deal with the huge waste and odor generated by pig growing. The problem is huge and the impact on people and the environment for miles is major.

Chicken production also generates waste and odor but not as bad as pigs. It is also one of the most efficient ways to produce animal protein.


----------



## mbianka

Minnewaska said:


> Did that exact route on Amtrak, many, many years ago. It was excruciatingly long. I think I would rather eat vegan, even raw vegan, for the 24 hours that ride took, in exchange for a plane ride.
> 
> I still take Amtrak from RI to NYC from time to time. 3ish hours. That's nice. With the variable of city traffic, that's a good trade and a plane is no faster, given TSA and getting a taxi into the city.


I thought that too. So this year I decided I would fly down to Miami and take the train back. Train schedule gets me into Miami late afternoon and I make my first stop Key Largo about sunset. Booked an early flight thinking I would get a jump on the day and hang out by the pool in Key Largo in the afternoon. Flight was ok landed on time around 11:30AM. Trek to baggage claim and got luggage. Then walked what seemed like a mile to the rental car area. Waited an hour on line for a rental car. Seems like the Spring Breakers don't always return their cars on time.  Got the car headed to Key Largo hit bumper to bumper traffic from Florida City all the way to Key Largo. Accident down the Keys blocked traffic both directions. Got to Key Largo around sunset anyway.
Was glad to take the train back. Some advantages of the train:

1) Only need to carry one bag that stays with you.
2) Can set up your own bar in your roomette. Amtrak supplies free ICE
3) Only need to take escalator down one flight of stairs and I can take the Long Island Railroad home. No dealing with airport traffic.
4) Bring your own snacks/meals including Hummus or raw vegetables.
5) Much more scenic and the ability to lay down and take naps as needed.
6) Less chance of weather delays

I think I will again take the train both ways next year after this years experience.


----------



## Minnewaska

mbianka said:


> .....2) Can set up your own bar in your roomette.......


Roomette. I have ridden Business Class, but not with a room. Wow. Pricey?


----------



## krisscross

SVAuspicious said:


> When I was a kid we had a huge garden and grew most of our vegetables. My Dad, who is kind of a butthead (wait - he is a complete butthead), calculated the cost of our vegetables from the garden. It was huge. My Mom was crushed. My sister and I still learned a lot from growing our own food.
> 
> The lesson that economics of scale are real and many things don't scale down well was very helpful.


Not sure how he calculated that huge cost. Maybe by pricing child labor at pipefitter union rates. 
But you are right about kids learning priceless life lessons from that experience.

I spend very little on seeds and seedlings, make my own compost and mulch, the water is from my well. It costs me very little to grow more veggies than I can use myself. And the labor of love doing all that instead of working out in the gym.


----------



## Minnesail

skipmac said:


> When my mother was growing up on a farm in the 1930s their vegetable garden kept them fed, at least fed much, much better than they could have afforded buying from the store. Today, as you note, the economics don't work. Even adding profits for farmer, processor, truckers, retailers, etc it is often cheaper to buy from the store.


Assuming my time is valued at $0 / hour then I think I make out OK with my tiny garden, especially if you don't count the initial cost of building raised beds.

For kicks I have weighed some of my produce, to see how much I'm getting per area. I have a ten square foot carrot patch and I usually get about 8 pounds of carrots. So that's a $2 packet of seeds turning into about $12 worth of carrots. Winning!

I have a 16 square foot potato patch, and I've gotten as much as 20 pounds of potatoes out of it. When I read The Martian I got a kick out of Mark Watney doing the same calculations. So $5 worth of seed potatoes turns into about $20 worth of potatoes.

The garlic is where I really make out! 10 square feet of garlic produces all the garlic we use in a year, and I save some of the cloves to plant next year's crop so it's free!

But I'm a gardener, not a farmer. It's a hobby and is in no way cost effective. Much like sailing, for me it's a hobby not a practical means of transportation.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

mbianka said:


> Was glad to take the train back. Some advantages of the train:
> 
> 1) Only need to carry one bag that stays with you.
> 2) Can set up your own bar in your roomette. Amtrak supplies free ICE
> 
> I think I will again take the train both ways next year after this years experience.


I love trains!
Took the Trans Siberian Railway once. 7 days Beijing to Moscow. Fantastic!

Would have done some in the USA last year but ran out of time.


----------



## Sal Paradise

SVAuspicious said:


> If you want to come sit on our back deck with a rifle I'll feed you and house you and split the venison with you. The only animal we have more of than deer around here is human.


That sounds cool. I'm a decent shot with a good scope, out to about 100 yards. Maybe further if the deck has a nice railing for a rest. Usually I'm climbing up a mountain in the dark with heart pounding and breathing hard. Makes it hard to get the cross hairs to settle down.


----------



## twoshoes

Sal Paradise said:


> That sounds cool. I'm a decent shot with a good scope, out to about 100 yards.


Aww, come on, did you leave a zero off of that range? I'm good hitting a 12 inch round plate at 1000 yards prone and 700 yards on a silhouette after a quarter-mile jog. Admittedly I'm not trying to hit a live target though so I'll give you that. Also, my rifle cost more than my boat did and goes a long way in reducing my accuracy handicap. It almost shoots itself!










Oh, and to stay on-topic, I bet a vegan could do much better shooting off the bow of a boat than a meat-eater.


----------



## skipmac

twoshoes said:


> Oh, and to stay on-topic, I bet a vegan could do much better shooting off the bow of a boat than a meat-eater.


Not a vegan but a vegetabletarian and I have tried shooting off a boat. Now I am NOT an ex-Navy Seal but I did qualify expert, was captain of the high school rifle team and used to be a pretty good wing shot with a shotgun.

Have a SS Ruger mini-14 that I used to keep on the boat and one day decided I should see how well it would work. Tossed in an empty bottle and started plinking. Even under 100' from the boat I never came close to hitting it. At 100 yards I consistently missed by 20-30-40'. This was on a 34' sailboat, 10-12 kt winds, max 2-3' swells.

Now maybe someone trained in shooting from a moving platform could do dramatically better but I was not impressed with my own performance.


----------



## mbianka

Minnewaska said:


> Roomette. I have ridden Business Class, but not with a room. Wow. Pricey?


Did business class once too. Could never get comfortable in the seats. Roomette was only about $138 more. Made for two but, only if you like looking into each others face for 24 hours. Very comfortable for one. Like having a private bunk on a boat. Even has a head in the space and sink. Seats fold down into a bed nice for taking a nap and very comfortable for sleeping. I'm 6'2" and could stretch out fully.


----------



## mbianka

skipmac said:


> When my mother was growing up on a farm in the 1930s their vegetable garden kept them fed, at least fed much, much better than they could have afforded buying from the store. Today, as you note, the economics don't work. Even adding profits for farmer, processor, truckers, retailers, etc it is often cheaper to buy from the store. BUT, if you have ever compared a home grown tomato to the cardboard and mush round, red, blob from the grocery you will see why a garden can be worth the effort.
> .


I'm sure a lot of people like me would love to garden but, I spend most of the summer on board the boat. Would love to have a small hydroponic setup on board for tomatoes etc, but would need to be totally isolated from the saltwater marine environment I suspect. Has anyone tried it?


----------



## Sal Paradise

twoshoes said:


> Aww, come on, did you leave a zero off of that range? I'm good hitting a 12 inch round plate at 1000 yards prone and 700 yards on a silhouette after a quarter-mile jog. .


Impressive. Nicegun. Looks expensive.

I regretted writing that, didn't want to offend veggie. But I meant the paper target with a .22,. And only if I get a good hold, on a good day and hold my breath.Usually I'll get like a 4 inch group. Good for me. Good enough to hunt. I mostly target shoot a .22

I think I've abused the thread here too much, the guy was honestly looking for a ride and we just hijacked the whole thing,

apologies,

Sal


----------



## Donna_F

Sal Paradise said:


> I think I've abused the thread here too much, the guy was honestly looking for a ride and we just hijacked the whole thing,
> 
> apologies,
> 
> Sal


Not to worry. He abandoned all hope around here four days ago. But yes. The thread has veered way off topic (although it was informative).


----------



## 433050

twoshoes said:


> My wife's family owns and operates a certified organic farm. They still use chemical pesticides and fungicides, lots of them. To be certified organic the chemicals used must be derived from natural sources. But the natural requirement only applies to pesticides, fungicides, and fertilizers. The list of ingredients, both synthetic and non-synthetic, that are allowed in foods labeled as organic or in their production (but not used as a pesticide, fungicide, or fertilizer) including crops is quite extensive, some of which are produced from animal byproducts and/or are known to be carcinogenic.
> 
> This is exactly why the serious organic folks have abandoned the Certified Organic label fiasco of allowable contaminants and have gone to Certified Naturally Grown which was started by a bunch of Organic Farmers who were fed up with the FDA and their lax rules on what can now claim to be Certified Organic along with the outrageous fees that the FDA charges Organic Farmers. Now the FDA allows Bio Sludge to be used on Organic farms. Bio Sludge is human waste from the sewage treatment plants that is neatly packaged up under several different names and sold to Organic Farmers and other growers as organic fertilizer. A real abomination to the organic movement, so we had to form our own certification which does not allow the very things mentioned above. Your farm would not qualify to these standards. Big agra business always wants to make a profit at the expense of the people and will do whatever they can to change the rules to make it more convenient for them to continue to poison the unknowing and trusting public.


----------



## twoshoes

Lassiegirl said:


> This is exactly why the serious organic folks have abandoned the Certified Organic label fiasco of allowable contaminants and have gone to Certified Naturally Grown which was started by a bunch of Organic Farmers who were fed up with the FDA and their lax rules on what can now claim to be Certified Organic along with the outrageous fees that the FDA charges Organic Farmers. Now the FDA allows Bio Sludge to be used on Organic farms. Bio Sludge is human waste from the sewage treatment plants that is neatly packaged up under several different names and sold to Organic Farmers and other growers as organic fertilizer. A real abomination to the organic movement, so we had to form our own certification which does not allow the very things mentioned above. Your farm would not qualify to these standards. Big agra business always wants to make a profit at the expense of the people and will do whatever they can to change the rules to make it more convenient for them to continue to poison the unknowing and trusting public.


But CNG by their own admission adheres to the the same standards as the NOP. Their stated primary purpose is to lower the cost barrier to providing certification to smaller farming operations that serve their local communities, not to produce crops and livestock that are healthier for consumption.



> *The CNG Standards and growing requirements are based on the USDA National Organic Program rules.* They are no less strict- in fact CNG farmers are constantly improving their soil and striving to increase the sustainability of their farming operations. The primary difference between CNG and the USDA Organic program is cost to farmers and paperwork requirements.





> CNG is tailored for direct-market farmers producing food for their local communities. These farmers often find the NOP's heavier paperwork requirements are not a good fit for their small-scale operations. CNG enables them to get credit for their practices while offering accountability to their customers. *Some CNG farmers become certified organic after a few years with CNG, and we think that's just super.*


So while they may strive for, and even be able to achieve higher standards of sustainability and soil quality, the idea that the products their farmers produce is healthier isn't something they are even claiming. Nor should they, it's something that's never been proven to be true.


----------



## SVAuspicious

SVAuspicious said:


> One of my "in the can" presentations is _A Delivery Skipper Cooks_. It's gotten a fairly major refresh based on this discussion. Thanks to all, especially the OP. I'm rolling out a new webinar platform. When it's ready(ish) I'll use _A Delivery Skipper Cooks_ as a test case and offer a freebie to SailNet.


My new webinar platform is coming together nicely. _A Delivery Skipper Cooks_ should be ready the first or second week of May and will be free to SailNetters. I will be spending a little time on specialized diets.

When I can commit to a specific date I'll start a new thread. I'll wait for a read from the moderators that it is okay to give something away to SN that I will be selling later. *sigh* Yes - I'm reporting myself again. *grin* You can count on 8pm US ET which means folks on the left coast can listen in on their commute home and our good friends like @rdw in the South Pacific can listen in the morning (I think). The quid pro quo is to tell me what you think of the webinar (not the subject - how the webinar works).


----------



## miatapaul

13 pages and not one recipe for a raw Vegan. I am more partial to cooked vegans, especially dry rubbed and smoked low and slow.... (though that is hard to do on the boat)


----------



## midwesterner

miatapaul said:


> 13 pages and not one recipe for a raw Vegan. I am more partial to cooked vegans, especially dry rubbed and smoked low and slow.... (though that is hard to do on the boat)


I really don't think you'd be happy with a slow smoked, soy and alfalfa fed vegan. I think you would be happier with a large bellied, beefeater with the higher fat content and the smell of animal tallow dripping Into the fire.


----------



## miatapaul

midwesterner said:


> I really don't think you'd be happy with a slow smoked, soy and alfalfa fed vegan. I think you would be happier with a large bellied, beefeater with the higher fat content and the smell of animal tallow dripping Into the fire.


That's why you do it low and slow. Natural grass feed is quite tough, but the slow cooking tenderizes it. But I imagine a nice acid would help make ceviche quite tender as well.


----------



## 433050

twoshoes;38943377
So while they may strive for said:


> Anyone can troll the internet and pull up quotes, who cares. We know our food is healthier and although our hands are tied to claim any health benefits due to the FDA, nevertheless it is absolutely proven to be true. Perhaps you might want to educate yourself instead of justifying your use of pesticides. You are not real organic, like the fake news, your farm is the fake organic movement. Over and out on this thread.


----------



## zeitgeist

capta said:


> ... I can't imagine one would have much energy after a week or so of eating nothing but nuts & cereals under the physical rigors of being on a small craft at sea 24/7.
> ...


A little research reveals that "...vegan ironmen Jason Lester and Rich Roll finished each triathlon on a different Hawaiian island in seven days, something that had never been done before. It spawned the creation of Jason's EPIC5 Challenge, in which world-class athletes compete for charity..."

...so it seems that plenty of energy can be mustered by those eating "...nothing but nuts and cereals...". Enough to complete five triathalons, at least.


----------



## capta

zeitgeist said:


> ...so it seems that plenty of energy can be mustered by those eating "...nothing but nuts and cereals...". Enough to complete five triathalons, at least.


Is there or is there not a big difference between vegans and raw vegans, which the OP claims to be. Is there not a pretty big difference between having an unlimited budget (an assumption on my part, but quite likely for a world class triathlete, wouldn't you think?) and the ability to purchase the freshest of high quality foods every day, and the stores of fresh food one might still have after a week or two at sea on a small craft?
I hardly think the two are comparable.


----------



## zeitgeist

Turnin Turtle said:


> Vegetarian: An ancient word meaning "Lousy hunter"
> 
> Vegan: An even older word meaning "Use this annoying person for lion bait"


Ironic hypocrisy: Insulting vegetarians and vegans then posting a video that shows how annoying vegans are with all of their judgmental attempts to force their perspective on others.

I haven't seen much on this thread in the way of anyone claiming to be vegan trying to convert, criticize or otherwise demean other dietary lifestyles/choices.

But the criticism, nay-saying and general harassing/ribbing from the flip side seems to be in every other comment. Vegans are the annoying, in-your-face, inflexible ones?


----------



## zeitgeist

ScottUK said:


> I find no compelling argument to support the claim of ethical grounds. A compelling argument can be presented in it's opposition. It can be reasonably argued the domestication and cultivation of plants has had, by far, the greatest impact on the environment. The clearing of land for cultivation has directly led to the extinction of species of animals and plants. Most other environmental damage up to now can be shown to be directly or indirectly related to this technological "advance".
> 
> I can expand on this theme but the causality of the argument is so simple and apparent that it not warranted.


Here's a fairly simple logical argument for you:

Taking what you've said about the "...domestication and cultivation of plants has had, by far, the greatest impact on the environment. ..." which is, I believe self-evident to be true. Consider that to produce "X"lbs of animal flesh for human consumption, "X" times "Y" pounds of plant matter must be fed to the animal.

One pound of corn requires the resources to produce one pound of corn.
One pound of beef requires the resources to produce multiple pounds of corn.

There are many examples out there if you want specific ones you can google them easily. They will outline for you how much energy (kCals) can be produced on say 1,000 acres that is producing beef and another 1,000 acres that is producing corn. Also, how many thousands of acres of corn that will need to be produced to feed the 1,000 acres of cows that will be slaughtered for beef.

So if cultivation of plants is bad, then the cultivation of MORE plants to feed animals to give us LESS output (in the form of kCals) is even WORSE, right?

I hope that is simple enough.

Mathematically, it can be expressed as : x < xy
where x is plants and y is animals
with the understanding that animals need to consume plants in order to live and grow.
Another consideration is water, which also follows the same formula.


----------



## zeitgeist

capta said:


> Is there or is there not a big difference between vegans and raw vegans, which the OP claims to be. Is there not a pretty big difference between having an unlimited budget (an assumption on my part, but quite likely for a world class triathlete, wouldn't you think?) and the ability to purchase the freshest of high quality foods every day, and the stores of fresh food one might still have after a week or two at sea on a small craft?
> I hardly think the two are comparable.


I don't think that the differences between an omnivore having "unlimited" access to stores and restaurants on land and not having them at sea is that much different than a vegan in a similar situation.

When it comes to not being able to eat things like beans, rice, stuff out of cans, etc, I can certainly see it as more of a handicap. I'm not sure what they can/can't eat but I'm guessing they can get it at the store before they set sail and should have a plan in place to preserve their food.

If one is opposed to using refrigeration, dehydration, salting, etc.... then that's just more self-handicapping. But I'm not one to naysay, if there are solutions for these issues then I say go ahead and try it out! I would certainly prefer to eat more fresh foods than processed things out of cans if it was an option!

Oh yeah and the point about the vegans doing five triathlons in a week was to answer to your claim that a vegan is going to be weak from diet. This is a common belief but I've not seen any evidence to support the idea that people eating plants can't keep up with people eating animals.


----------



## Minnewaska

I will eat absolutely anything you will eat (except salt and vinegar potato chips), whether you're vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, kosher, adkins, whatever. If you won't eat what I will eat, you're a liability aboard, but I don't begrudge anyone their choice on how they want to live. You just need your own boat. 

Personally, I don't want a diet that is dependent on industry to synthesize protein for me to live. If lost in the woods or adrift in my liferaft, I wish to be able to eat anything I can gather or hunt to survive. I'm willing to bet most Vs would drop the ethics in that foxhole too.


----------



## twoshoes

Lassiegirl said:


> Anyone can troll the internet and pull up quotes, who cares.


The first quote is direct from the current Certified Naturally Grown website, and the second is from the former Certified Naturally Grown website. Note the web address when you hover the cursor over the link, before it redirects. Those are CNG's own words, not mine, nor are they from anyone attempting to debunk them.



Lassiegirl said:


> We know our food is healthier and although our hands are tied to claim any health benefits due to the FDA, nevertheless it is absolutely proven to be true.


Please cite the sources of your proof.



Lassiegirl said:


> Perhaps you might want to educate yourself instead of justifying your use of pesticides. You are not real organic, like the fake news, your farm is the fake organic movement.


I'm quite comfortable with my education on this matter, and think it highly likely I've educated quite a few others as well. I stand by my former statement that organic farmers, and will add that CNG farmers, are doing good work. I hope they keep it up.

Oh, and once again, it's not my farm, it's my in-laws'. It's not even in the same state I live in.



Lassiegirl said:


> Over and out on this thread.


See ya.


----------



## PhilCarlson

Note to self: The only topic on this forum that is more contentios than guns is dietary preference.


----------



## jwing

zeitgeist said:


> Here's a fairly simple logical argument for you:
> 
> One pound of corn requires the resources to produce one pound of corn.
> One pound of beef requires the resources to produce multiple pounds of corn.


One pound of corn has almost no nutritional value to a human, except for calories.
One pound of beef and great nutritional value to a human, including plenty of calories.
Beef requires zero corn. When I eat beef, it is grass-fed beef. The North American continent was predominantly grassland before agriculture was introduced.



zeitgeist said:


> So if cultivation of plants is bad, then the cultivation of MORE plants to feed animals to give us LESS output (in the form of kCals) is even WORSE, right?
> 
> I hope that is simple enough.
> 
> Mathematically, it can be expressed as : x < xy
> where x is plants and y is animals
> with the understanding that animals need to consume plants in order to live and grow.
> Another consideration is water, which also follows the same formula.


That's a poor argument. First, if 'y' is any quantity that is more than zero, like the number of keys in my pocket, the equation works, but is not meaningful. Your equation should be something like:
x < y 
where 'x' is agriculture required to feed humans with plants only and
'y' is agriculture required to feed humans a combination of plants and animals.

However, hominids and other animals were roaming the planet, and killing/eating each other long before humans started agriculture. As late as 150 years ago, North American meat-dependent cultures existed with 0 agriculture and almost 0 impact on their natural environment. 
In that scenario: x=y=0 and z > 0
where 'z' is the number of animals available for human consumption.

From practical perspectives, z could have been considered infinity, until Europeans displaced the wild animals with agriculture and domestic animals.

Who knew that ecosystem arithmetic could be so complicated?


----------



## jwing

zeitgeist said:


> Oh yeah and the point about the vegans doing five triathlons in a week was to answer to your claim that a vegan is going to be weak from diet. This is a common belief but I've not seen any evidence to support the idea that people eating plants can't keep up with people eating animals.


Those who complete five triathlons in a week are outliers, regardless of their nutritional plans. As such, they prove only that what they do is possible for them; it does not prove anything about everybody or even most people. I've seen plenty of evidence that at least some people do better on a diet that includes animal products than they do on vegan diets - especially long-term and especially in mental functionality.

Different people have different nutritional needs. Think about that; it is a brilliant evolutionary adaptation.


----------



## zeitgeist

jwing said:


> One pound of corn has almost no nutritional value to a human, except for calories.
> One pound of beef and great nutritional value to a human, including plenty of calories.
> Beef requires zero corn. When I eat beef, it is grass-fed beef. The North American continent was predominantly grassland before agriculture was introduced.


Perhaps I was too simple. If you require more complexity, please substitute "mixed grains and vegetables" for "corn". Now you have lots of nutrition, vitamins and proteins as well as calories and less saturated fats, BGH, fecal matter and HDL cholesterol. As long as you are willing to concede the requirements are similar for cultivation of various plant crops (though yes, I understand that they are not EXACTLY the same and different amounts of water, types of fertilizer, etc are used for corn vs. soy vs. broccoli, etc. I don't think many if any come close to the requirements for cattle.)

While in your adherence to grass fed beef only, you may personally avoid McDonald's and the major players of the fast food industry, regular restaurants looking to minimize cost and also the majority of beef that is sold in supermarkets is grain fed, the truth is the current beef industry DOES use corn, and LOTS of it.

I do admire your tenacity in only eating grass fed beef, not an easy feat if you eat out much. But your personal anecdotal experience is aberrant from the norm (80%-90% of fed cattle coming from larger grain fed operations)

Yes, cows naturally eat grass and grain is unnatural for them. Which is probably why a large portion of the cows raised for slaughter are sickly. Of course, it might not be the corn. It could be the remnants of other cows that are fed to them. Or the cramped conditions, abundance of fecal matter, flies and maggots, etc, etc. Lots of factors there.



jwing said:


> That's a poor argument. First, if 'y' is any quantity that is more than zero, like the number of keys in my pocket, the equation works, but is not meaningful. Your equation should be something like:
> x < y
> where 'x' is agriculture required to feed humans with plants only and
> 'y' is agriculture required to feed humans a combination of plants and animals.


 I feel this only further illustrates my point, rather than proving it to be a "poor argument". If there are more than zero animals being raised, then yes, the equation comparing animals being raised to plants works. That was the intention. If y = zero = no animals, the equation does not apply. But whatever equation helps you paint the picture, I have no problem with your alternate example which also illustrates that more resources are needed to feed humans animals and plants than just plants. I think the thing I intended to illustrate is the fact that it is a MULTIPLIER, rather than just a vague "more". There was actually an earlier post (I think it was Jeff?) where he had an actual chart showing something like 20:1 ratio for beef. I didn't see a response or objection to his comment and if that chart is easier to understand let's go with that. It's much more professional than my off the cuff attempt at a simple equation.



jwing said:


> However, hominids and other animals were roaming the planet, and killing/eating each other long before humans started agriculture. As late as 150 years ago, North American meat-dependent cultures existed with 0 agriculture and almost 0 impact on their natural environment.
> In that scenario: x=y=0 and z > 0
> where 'z' is the number of animals available for human consumption.
> 
> From practical perspectives, z could have been considered infinity, until Europeans displaced the wild animals with agriculture and domestic animals.


I couldn't agree more. The issue is not really eating animals. The issues are agriculture which leads to overpopulation which leads to specialization and monoculture required to sustain things like giant cities of 10 million + people, or even a city of 1 million for that matter. If our numbers were small enough that a lack of deer in an area meant that the locals didn't have enough energy to breed and have more offspring, our population would be in harmony with natural laws.

But we don't live in harmony with nature. We live in dominion of it. We create feed lots and warehouses filled with crates of chickens stacked upon chickens so overwhelmingly toxic that the effects are felt in the Gulf of Mexico when all that chicken **** and the chemicals used in their raising runs downstream (or on the east coast as someone else already mentioned).

And there's really no way the 17 million + residents of New York City can reasonably expect to be able to trot into the woods and all shoot a deer for dinner. Or even pick berries. We are trapped by our own overpopulation into a heavy dependence on agri-business. (as well as other industries such as oil, if we want ANOTHER tangent)

To continue kind of on the original topic and switch gears, I've been thinking for off shore cruising a good provisioning plan would be a large store of rice and beans, other dried goods like pasta and then to get fresh fruit and veg when you can and keep it fresh as long as you can. As for animal products, I figure the wife and I can get by fine on whatever fish we catch along the way. I had a great experience sailing up the Red Sea in 2007 and we caught 3 large fish (a dorado, a sailfish and a tuna) that kept us well provisioned on that front for the month.


----------



## Minnewaska

I have a great cruising cookbook that talks about what to stock up for a long journey. It's reflects on the common thought to fill the boat with rice and beans and beer. Then goes on to point out that those are the three things most abundantly available throughout the world. 

You should stock up on toilet paper, which is not.  Hey, it's vegan.


----------



## jwing

zeitgeist said:


> Perhaps I was too simple.


Well yes, you were. Adding complexity didn't help your case. I'm not attempting to speak for ScottUK, but his assertion was that agriculture is a greater damage to the earth's ecosystem than animal production, and in fact, animal production is a direct result of agriculture. Your argument that animal production is a multiplier of agriculture isn't saying much. Nor does any study that is more scientific, unless it considers nutritional value. A pound of wheat or corn does not come attached with as much nutritional value as does a pound of meat or kale. Even limiting the discussion to only calories, a pound of meat is richer than a pound of grain. Therefore, studies that rank Efficiencies of Animal Food Production by the ratio of feed grain in pounds to the pounds of edible animal weight are specious when used by vegans to convince themselves or others that veganism is environmentally superior.

The truth is that animals do not need farm-produced grains. Humans do not need grains, either. The evidence is solid and increasing that grains are actually unhealthy for cows, swine, fowl, and humans.



zeitgeist said:


> The issue is not really eating animals. The issues are agriculture which leads to overpopulation which leads to specialization and monoculture required to sustain things like giant cities of 10 million + people, or even a city of 1 million for that matter. If our numbers were small enough that a lack of deer in an area meant that the locals didn't have enough energy to breed and have more offspring, our population would be in harmony with natural laws.
> 
> But we don't live in harmony with nature. We live in dominion of it. We create feed lots and warehouses filled with crates of chickens stacked upon chickens so overwhelmingly toxic that the effects are felt in the Gulf of Mexico when all that chicken **** and the chemicals used in their raising runs downstream (or on the east coast as someone else already mentioned).
> 
> And there's really no way the 17 million + residents of New York City can reasonably expect to be able to trot into the woods and all shoot a deer for dinner. Or even pick berries. We are trapped by our own overpopulation into a heavy dependence on agri-business. (as well as other industries such as oil, if we want ANOTHER tangent)


Yes, of course. Agriculture has allowed overpopulation. This is the heart of the matter, and it's my take away on ScottUK's assertion. It's also a tough pill to swallow for vegans/vegetarians who claim a moral high ground based on environmental considerations. Because they know that they are part of the problem no matter what they eat.


----------



## SVAuspicious

jwing said:


> From practical perspectives, z could have been considered infinity, until Europeans displaced the wild animals with agriculture and domestic animals.


I suggest the problem is that we have too many people.


----------



## Minnesail

To quote Douglas Adams:

"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."


----------



## 433050

Perhaps these firefighters who are vegan may enlighten some of you. Here are the top 7 myths about being a Vegan. And this website was started by a NYC firefighter and his parents, (his father is a doctor) and these parents are well into their 80's and healthy. The whole firehouse is on a vegan diet for many years now. Forks Over Knives is a wealth of information showing how a plant based diet can reverse all sorts of diseases and people have lost tremendous amounts of weight changing their diet to eliminating meat and dairy and gained muscle and strength in the process. Anyone who seriously cares about their health would benefit from checking out this site. This site is a wealth of information. Cows, elephants, and many other animals do not eat meat and they get plenty of nutrition from the plants which debunks the protein myth promoted by the meat and dairy industry to shreds that one has to have animal protein to survive. I hope some of you will find the way to better health through this website.

https://www.forksoverknives.com/top...&utm_source=Email&utm_term=Vegan-myths-busted


----------



## Brnstrmr

So how many more people can a pig eat than 2 or 3?


----------



## jwing

Lassiegirl said:


> ... Cows, elephants, and many other animals do not eat meat and they get plenty of nutrition from the plants which debunks the protein myth promoted by the meat and dairy industry to shreds that one has to have animal protein to survive.


And fish do not breathe air, yet they get plenty of oxygen.

That was too easy; I couldn't resist. I'll let everybody who wants to have the last word on me take their best shots now; this discussion doesn't seem to be teaching anybody anything.


----------



## troy2000

Something that seems to be missing in this thread so far: what's the rationale for a *raw* vegan diet? What are those following one trying to say or do? Is it a moral stance, where they're out to save veggies from a scalding death in stock pots, or what? Because I don't see a reasonable *nutritional* argument for such a diet...

In fact, it's generally conceded that being able to extract more nutrition from our food by cooking it was a major evolutionary advancement. Not to mention that cooking destroys pathogens, and also allows us to eat foods that would otherwise be poisonous, like kidney beans...

I'm not biased against raw veggies; I eat a lot of them. But I also eat a lot of cooked veggies, along with my share of meat and dairy products.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Lassiegirl said:


> Here are the top 7 myths about being a Vegan.


I read the article and a number of the links. I suggest that the author promotes as many myths as she attempts to debunk.

I weigh 180 lbs and am 5'10". While I would like to be 165 lbs I firmly believe the path to that is more exercise not less food. That's my problem. Regardless a 2" diameter rice and bean burger is not a serving and that isn't about the rice and beans - it's about the size. That's just silly. Throughout, including the exercise in eating economically there just isn't enough food. This comes from someone who is regularly asked if I had enough to eat. The article and internal links are not realistic about a "serving." A healthy diet needs more food than listed and most people want a lot more food.

I'm not even talking about meat, just calories.

I'm betting the "boyfriend" in the article stopped at McDonalds on the way home.

People should be able to (and in the US they can) do what they like with their diets. No one should force another to either eat or eschew meat based on today's science or on ethics (at least mine).

That doesn't mean one person can drive a crew of four or five offshore. Most people (96.7%, see research above) eat meat. I'm going to feed it to them offshore. There are unlikely to be enough calories and certainly not enough space and water and time for multiple diets on board.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

SVAuspicious said:


> I firmly believe the path to that is more exercise not less food.


It's neither.

Google: You can't outrun a bad diet.

Neither is it calories. Sugar and starch loading at very few calories will still make you fat.
Good fatty red meat at high calories will make you lose weight.

Google it all and read only science paper not sponsored by Coke and food companies or Harvard.

:grin


----------



## SVAuspicious

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Google: You can't outrun a bad diet.


I agree with you in the general case. I was talking about _MY_ 15 extra pounds, not anyone else's. My diet might not pass the standards of a raw vegan but by conventional standards it's pretty good. There isn't much room for improvement there. _MY_ big problem is not enough regular exercise. I know that. I just have to do something about it. *sigh*

I suggest that while you can't outrun a bad diet you also cannot outeat insufficient exercise.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

SVAuspicious said:


> _MY_ big problem is not enough regular exercise. I know that. I just have to do something about it.
> 
> I suggest that while you can't outrun a bad diet you also cannot outeat insufficient exercise.


A) You didn't Google it so there us no use discussing where, how and why you are wrong.
B) Gym will do you good. Very good. At our age and older we realy need 2 forms: something to get the heart rate above 150 for 15 minutes 3 times per week. And weight training where we lift heavy weights until muscle failure.

I wrote my previous post just before I went to the gym. Which was lunch time in this part of the world I never eat lunch. I got back from the gym and was famished so ate a ton of good blue cheese, normal cheese and salami.... all good stuff that wouldn't raise my insulin. . But the point is I ate all that because I had just done lots of exercise.

You wont be putting 2 and 2 together because you won't take advice to do something so simple as Google something.
But at least you are going to do some exercise. That's great. We all need it.

BTW 5 10" at 180lbs is not too bad at all. I am 5 12" and 175. It's not like you are 250 pounds and have 25 nails in your coffin.


----------



## willyd

MarkofSeaLife said:


> BTW 5 10" at 180lbs is not too bad at all. I am 5 12" and 175. It's not like you are 250 pounds and have 25 nails in your coffin.


Five feet twelve inches is almost six feet.


----------



## willyd

I found this video really informative and encouraging, and I think it corroborates what Mark's getting at. I'm also 15-20 lbs over what I could be. It's too bad they don't sell resolve in small bottles somewhere.


----------



## Minnesail

willyd said:


> Five feet twelve inches is almost six feet.


Five feet twelve versus six feet. Meh. Quarter ounce of one, seven grams of the other.


----------



## SVAuspicious

MarkofSeaLife said:


> A) You didn't Google it so there us no use discussing where, how and why you are wrong.


I did Google it and I read about six articles and followed a bunch of links. No real surprises and my diet is good. No fried foods, limited saute, very limited red meat, lots of fruit and veg, good portion control. I am serious that my problem is exercise.

The important thing is that people like me are not statistically significant. The big issue for Americans is poor diet as I see it. People look at the egg roll and see all the veg inside and ignore the fried wrapper. I might eat a small handful of French fries twice a year.

The food you hear me talk about on delivery is the cool stuff that is a treat offshore and doesn't happen at home. Well, except the pork loin.

My real weakness is not getting regular exercise. Yes, most Americans have bad diets and should address that. The statistics on that are pretty clear. In my case I just need more exercise. I feel bad about it but that isn't the same as getting off my butt and going to do it.

Potato-leek soup and a big salad for dinner.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

SVAuspicious said:


> My real weakness is not getting regular exercise...... I feel bad about it but that isn't the same as getting off my butt and going to do it.


It is difficult!
I decided to get fit and delved into the science of it. It's totally different than what many think. People told to do a brisk walk round the block. That's dogs bollocks. It's gotta be on a treadmill at max inclination, no holding on, but quite slow, keeping heart rate at 150 for 15 mins.
The only way to do it is with the specialized equipment at a gym. Which many won't go to... And I know why... A gym is hideous! All these people invading our personal space with their set routines looking like they know what they're doing.
I quickly found out they don't! They're just bumbling about wasting 90% of their time there.

Personal Trainers are my pet hate. They get some new person and work them so hard they never ever come back! I see it so often!

So I developed my own scientifically proven gym routine that gets me in and out quick and has vastly superior benefits than anyone except really talented pro body builders and athletes.

With the motivation part. I find the gym helps because its easy and close. I pay by the month and hate wasting money (I can be a tight wad) and I know that I will die sooner if I don't do it.

*********

Ok, now the whole bit on Can't Outrun a Bad Diet comes from Dr Assem Malhotra, one of the UKs hottest cardiologists whose young and smart. He is very Low Carb to prevent heart disease and reverse diabetes. 
The British Journal of Sport Science has this article You Can Outrun a Bad Diet.
It's sensational and in the last 18 months has made a dramatic change to the way the smart doctors look at keeping people fit skinny and healthy

It is time to bust the myth of physical inactivity and obesity: you cannot outrun a bad diet | British Journal of Sports Medicine

I commend it to you for a great read.


----------



## troy2000

MarkofSeaLife said:


> ...The only way to do it is with the specialized equipment at a gym.


I think you're getting a little carried away there, sport. There's more than one way to skin a cat...

Two years ago, I dropped from 211 lbs to 185 in a few months, and I didn't go anywhere near a gym. Instead, I switched from mostly sedentary, rotating 12-hr shifts at work to 5 eights a week, where I was on my feet and moving most of the day. I also started paying more attention to what I eat, but I didn't go crazy.

Unfortunately, I got tossed back into shift work - and in the last year, I've gained back about half of what I lost.


----------



## twoshoes

When the pants start getting a bit tight on me, I find I can start giving a sh!t about what I eat and can drop about 10 pounds, at which point I plateau. I can then start either eating like a rabbit, or start moving more and can drop another 10. Beyond that 20 pounds I have to do a serious combination of diet and exercise to lose any more. It gets harder with each passing year.

Each and every person is different in their own way, I know fat guys that could run circles around me if it came to it, and skinny guys that get winded carrying a gallon of milk from the car to the house.

Each person more or less knows what they need to do to get themselves "healthy" if that's their goal. It's just that "It's time to give a f*ck" moment that eludes more of the population than not.


----------



## aeventyr60

Since the nut jobs, fruit cakes and cave men have all come out here, I wonder what the OP as a special needs sailing wannabe has to offer the cruising yachtsman?

Any special skills you have that might ease the burden of catering to your needs? Any sailing experience? Line handling skills Mechanical aptitude? Can you read a compass? Follow a prescribed course? Operate a GPS? AIS? Radar?

How do you function under duress? Lack of sleep? Physical strain? Mental fatigue? How will you function away from a daily wifi/internet connection? Maybe no contact with your followers for weeks at a time if you cross any oceans?

Tell us what you have to offer?


----------



## Minnewaska

aeventyr60 said:


> ....Tell us what you have to offer?


Lol. Their location still says Flat Earth Plane. What more do you need to know about their nav skills? 

It could be a joke, but I think we've chased them away with a vegan stick.


----------



## willyd

Speaking of SAILING, I get quite a bit of exercise just going out in my boat. If I haven't sailed for awhile, I'm sore after a day of sailing, especially my thighs. Perhaps it helps having a boat that wants to heel all the time, and where nothing runs back to the cockpit or is automated?


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

troy2000 said:


> I think you're getting a little carried away there, sport. There's more than one way to skin a cat...
> 
> Two years ago, I dropped from 211 lbs to 185 in a few months, and I didn't go anywhere near a gym.


Ummm as I said: gym and weight loss are ... oh, just re-read it 

The point about specialised equipment is to keep ones heart rate at a precise level for a set time: 150 beats per minute for 15 minutes. It's not easy so it's a technique and equipment.

But it's nothing to do with weight loss. Nothing. It's to do with general health ☺


----------



## Sal Paradise

Mark is on the right track. I also have been doing research and cutting carbs out. Insulin has some nasty side effects, such as making you store fat, but by changing your diet you can "train" your body to run on fat and protein. So it doesn't produce much insulin. I have lost almost 20 lbs in 2 months doing this without exercise but now that I am adjusted to low carb I'm starting to lift weights and hike. Check the science , also google "redddit keto" and you can pick up the science of it pretty quickly.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Janet has a nice stationary bike that has sensors for heart rate. Not getting enough exercise is entirely my responsibility. I would just have to mop the sweat off. *grin*


----------



## Minnesail

OK, so I Googled "flat earth plane" and wow did I end up wackocrazistan. It led me to a website called "The Bible and the Flat Earth Plane" which sells totally respectable and not at all looney tunes DVDs like:

• The Tremendous Benefits of Being a State Citizen, and How to Become One

• The Future of the Libertarian Movement

• The Miracle of Oxygenation

• A Complete Course in Sovereignty - 2 DVD Set

• The Flat Earth Conspiracy

"Why can you see cities and skylines 40-60 miles away without curvature, when if the Earth were curved, they would be under the horizon and your line of sight? Why did renowned expeditioner Admiral Richard Byrd report there was a tropical land with vegetation beyond the South Pole? Why was Antarctica closed to almost everyone when Byrd said it contained an unexplored area bigger than the size of the US, full of natural resources such as coal, oil and uranium? Could it be that humanity has been deliberately lied to about the very structure and shape of our world? A very thought-provoking presentation. 109-min. DVD"


----------



## willyd

Minnesail said:


> OK, so I Googled "flat earth plane" and wow did I end up wackocrazistan.


Was there anything there about celestial navigation? Are sextants instruments of the devil?


----------



## Minnesail

willyd said:


> Was there anything there about celestial navigation? Are sextants instruments of the devil?


Using a sextant you can prove that the sun is 32 nm in diameter and about 3000 nm away.

Power of sun

I really need to stop googling this stuff. The stupid, it is melting my brain. But I guess why would we trust universities and textbooks and experts when there's BibleIsTrueCookieMonster32 on the internet to show us the light?


----------



## miatapaul

Lassiegirl said:


> Anyone can troll the internet and pull up quotes, who cares. We know our food is healthier and although our hands are tied to claim any health benefits due to the FDA, nevertheless it is absolutely proven to be true. Perhaps you might want to educate yourself instead of justifying your use of pesticides. You are not real organic, like the fake news, your farm is the fake organic movement. Over and out on this thread.


Actually the FDA lets you say anything you want to about food, as long as you have scientific evidence to back up your statements. If you have a double blind study that proves your point no one is going to say that you can't say things about food. Now if your Uncle Bob ate nothing but kale for 9 months and has lost 200 pounds and now is fit as a fiddle and strong as an ox, well that is not scientific evidence but is anecdotal evidence. It never ceases to amaze me how much even the Amrican Medical association will follow anecdotal evidence.


----------



## aeventyr60

willyd said:


> Was there anything there about celestial navigation? Are sextants instruments of the devil?[/QUOTE
> 
> Using those devices will surely lead to hairy palms and blindness too.


----------



## aeventyr60

MarkofSeaLife said:


> It should be ok as they come from cold storage before being put on the supermarket shelves.
> 
> I love avocados :kiss


These are fresh off the the tree in Sumatra. Less then a buck a kilogram. Heard they make Avocado smoothies, will have to try one in the next few days.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

aeventyr60 said:


> These are fresh off the the tree in Sumatra. s.


Yum!


----------



## 433050

troy2000 said:


> Something that seems to be missing in this thread so far: what's the rationale for a *raw* vegan diet? What are those following one trying to say or do? Is it a moral stance, where they're out to save veggies from a scalding death in stock pots, or what? Because I don't see a reasonable *nutritional* argument for such a diet...
> 
> OK perhaps I can clear this up for you. Eating your produce raw you will benefit from the nutrition of the plant. That is why many people are also into juicing their fruits and vegetables. They want to maintain the healthy nutrients. When cooked above 100 degrees it destroys most of the nutrients. Evidence also shows that the more food is cooked the harder it is to digest and metabolize. The higher the temperature that food is cooked, the longer it stays in the gut and the more difficult it becomes for our digestive mechanisms to digest it. This makes it more difficult for the food to absorb and function at a cellular level where it needs to work. When the food can not function in the cells, the cells can become deficient and/or toxic which leads to deficiency and toxicity of the whole body making the body less able to function optimally. This is true of any food.
> 
> Research has shown that if the food was processed or heated beyond a certain temperature it caused a rise in the number of white blood cells. Foods that had been refined, homogenized, pasteurized, or preserved causes the greatest increase in white blood cells which harms the body.
> 
> We have come from early man eating foods in certain chemical configurations. We have the digestive enzymes to digest foods with those chemical configurations. When food is heated past the heat-labile point, its chemical configuration changes.
> 
> Pasteurization, deep-frying, and barbecuing are all forms of cooking where food is heated past the heat labile point. The body does not understand these new chemical configurations and does not have the enzymes to digest the food easily.
> 
> When the food does not digest properly, it can sit in the gut, unable to be assimilated completely and it starts to become toxic. The carbohydrates start to ferment, the proteins begin to putrefy and the fats become rancid. These toxins irritate the lining of the gastrointestinal tract mucosa.
> 
> This can poison the gut bacteria causing the ecology of the gut to become upset. Three hundred to four hundred of the bacteria species can become upset causing overgrowth of candida and other pathogens. The irritation also makes the cells on the lining of the gastrointestinal tract to enlarge.
> 
> When the cells become larger, the putrefied, undigested or partially digested food slips into the blood stream, called the leaky gut syndrome or gut permeability. Most people have this condition and are unaware of it.
> 
> When they get into the blood stream they are called free radicals. Your gut is your immune system. That is where all auto-immune response comes from. What you eat and how you eat it is directly related to the overall health of your body. Since it is the liver's job to detoxify toxins, the liver becomes overloaded and less able to do its job. This undigested or partially digested food moves through the blood stream causing havoc in the body. This is a form of food allergy.
> 
> The macromolecules can go to the head and cause the classic symptoms of allergy such as runny eyes, scratchy throat, itchy ears, sinusitis, and sneezing. They can go to the brain and cause headaches, anger, fatigue, schizophrenia, and perspiration.
> 
> This putrefied food can go to the joints or tissues and cause arthritis, or to the nerves and cause multiple sclerosis. These macromolecules can also go to the skin and cause acne, edema, psoriasis or rashes. It can lodge anywhere in the soft tissues in the body and cause problems, straining whatever a person's weak link may be.
> 
> Finally the immune system comes to the defense of the body, and makes these undigested particles back into substances that the body can use or escorts them out of the body. The immune system is asked to do the job that our digestive system did not do.
> 
> The immune system was not designed to do this on a daily basis, every time we eat over-cook foods or over-processed foods. Over a period of time the immune system becomes exhausted and the door is opened to infectious and degenerative diseases.
> 
> From this research and the principle of the heat labile point, it seems that the best way to cook food is the least way.
> 
> The more food that you can eat raw, the better. I hope this will help you understand the benefits of eating your vegetables and fruits raw. As for meat, while it putrefies in the gut and due to the long length of our intestines this magnifies the problem.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Lassiegirl said:


> OK perhaps I can clear this up for you.


Can you provide credible footnotes? Peer reviewed science, not Food Babe alternative facts. What you say just doesn't make sense to me so educate.


----------



## sailpower

Lassiegirl said:


> We have come from early man eating foods in certain chemical configurations. We have the digestive enzymes to digest foods with those chemical configurations. When food is heated past the heat-labile point, its chemical configuration changes.
> 
> Pasteurization, deep-frying, and barbecuing are all forms of cooking where food is heated past the heat labile point. T*he body does not understand these new chemical configurations and does not have the enzymes to digest the food easily.*


I guess "new" is a relative term. It seems that our bodies would have evolved to deal with what we have been eating for hundreds of years.


----------



## Minnewaska

That raw food info above is seriously misinformed overall. Not worth arguing about, look up the real science. There are shades of fact, interspersed with flat earth stuff.

This seems to have firmly drifted away from a sailing topic.


----------



## 433050

SVAuspicious said:


> Can you provide credible footnotes? Peer reviewed science, not Food Babe alternative facts. What you say just doesn't make sense to me so educate.


I suggest you go do your own homework. I am not your secretary or wikipedia. If one wants to know the information it is readily available to the serious seeker and of course there is just as much from the de-bunkers as well. I provided information to someone's question and I have also used my own lifestyle in other posts. If it does not make sense to you, that is not my problem, if you want to clean up your life's eating habits, then educate yourself. Doctor's will not tell you these things, if they did, they would have no patients because everyone would become well. Sometimes one has to rise above the propaganda and do their homework. That is your task and if you have a discerning mind, you will find the truth. If you follow the propaganda narrative of fake everything, then perhaps not. Peer reviewed is nothing more than the blessings of the propaganda money driven system of keeping one sick and tethered to pharma drugs, so you will not find your answers there. There is a very good site called The Truth about Cancer - Ty Bolinger that may enlighten you as well as Dr. Mercola. If you are mainstream in the herd of the sheep, then you will never find your answers.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Lassiegirl said:


> I suggest you go do your own homework. I am not your secretary or wikipedia.


.sorry, but when someone comes up with such utter codswallop as you have then you need to have your drivel supported by facts.

But I shall play your delinquent game.



> No human foragers have been recorded as living without cooking, and people who choose a 'raw-foodist' life-style experience low energy and impaired reproductive function. This suggests that cooking may be obligatory for humans. The possibility that cooking is obligatory is supported by calculations suggesting that a diet of raw food could not supply sufficient calories for a normal hunter-gatherer lifestyle. In particular, many plant foods are too fiber-rich when raw, while most raw meat appears too tough to allow easy chewing. I


?Cooking as a biological trait?



> cooking has critical effects not easily achievable by non-thermal processing, including the relatively complete gelatinisation of starch, efficient denaturing of proteins, and killing of food borne pathogens. This means that however sophisticated the non-thermal processing methods were, cooking would have conferred incremental energetic benefits


The energetic significance of cooking

So find science to debunk mine. You can't.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...man+evolution&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1


----------



## troy2000

Minnesail said:


> OK, so I Googled "flat earth plane" and wow did I end up wackocrazistan. It led me to a website called "The Bible and the Flat Earth Plane" which sells totally respectable and not at all looney tunes DVDs like:
> 
> • The Tremendous Benefits of Being a State Citizen, and How to Become One
> 
> • The Future of the Libertarian Movement
> 
> • The Miracle of Oxygenation
> 
> • A Complete Course in Sovereignty - 2 DVD Set
> 
> • The Flat Earth Conspiracy
> 
> "Why can you see cities and skylines 40-60 miles away without curvature, when if the Earth were curved, they would be under the horizon and your line of sight? Why did renowned expeditioner Admiral Richard Byrd report there was a tropical land with vegetation beyond the South Pole? Why was Antarctica closed to almost everyone when Byrd said it contained an unexplored area bigger than the size of the US, full of natural resources such as coal, oil and uranium? Could it be that humanity has been deliberately lied to about the very structure and shape of our world? A very thought-provoking presentation. 109-min. DVD"


Thank you for destroying more potentially useful hours of my life - because now I *gotta* go there. I may wind up wasting more time than I did entertaining myself by reading up on the 'serpent seed' doctrine a few years ago...


----------



## SVAuspicious

Lassiegirl said:


> I suggest you go do your own homework.


If you sling unsubstantiated opinion around as fact you should expect to be challenged.

To call peer-reviewed science "the blessings of propaganda" is the mantra of alternative fact.


----------



## mbianka

Lassiegirl said:


> OK perhaps I can clear this up for you. Eating your produce raw you will benefit from the nutrition of the plant. That is why many people are also into juicing their fruits and vegetables. They want to maintain the healthy nutrients. When cooked above 100 degrees it destroys most of the nutrients.


Looks like one can't go wrong with a Swiss Cheese sandwich with Lettuce, Tomato, Red Onion, Mayo, Oil, Vinegar, salt and pepper. Which is often my go to lunch on board.


----------



## RegisteredUser

At the ends, before you would drop over the edge......most good charts were noted: Diets Lie Here.


----------



## Aswayze

Looks like this thread could you some lightening up.

To the OP, here's to hoping that you end up finding the right boat. It does seem as though a vegan raw boat might otherwise have a tough time finding a crew so you'd be a perfect match.


----------



## SVAuspicious




----------



## 433050

To: Mark of Sealife, I need not waste my time with you. I am not here to change anyone, so an argument from me you will not find nor will I answer to any challenge. They say ignorance is bliss so enjoy your bliss.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Lassiegirl said:


> To: Mark of Sealife, I need not waste my time with you. I am not here to change anyone, so an argument from me you will not find nor will I answer to any challenge. They say ignorance is bliss so enjoy your bliss.


Don't be so rude!

Where's your manners?

Mark


----------



## troy2000

Lassiegirl said:


> troy2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something that seems to be missing in this thread so far: what's the rationale for a *raw* vegan diet? What are those following one trying to say or do? Is it a moral stance, where they're out to save veggies from a scalding death in stock pots, or what? Because I don't see a reasonable *nutritional* argument for such a diet...
> 
> OK perhaps I can clear this up for you. Eating your produce raw you will benefit from the nutrition of the plant. That is why many people are also into juicing their fruits and vegetables. They want to maintain the healthy nutrients. When cooked above 100 degrees it destroys most of the nutrients. Evidence also shows that the more food is cooked the harder it is to digest and metabolize. The higher the temperature that food is cooked, the longer it stays in the gut and the more difficult it becomes for our digestive mechanisms to digest it. This makes it more difficult for the food to absorb and function at a cellular level where it needs to work. When the food can not function in the cells, the cells can become deficient and/or toxic which leads to deficiency and toxicity of the whole body making the body less able to function optimally. This is true of any food.
> 
> Research has shown that if the food was processed or heated beyond a certain temperature it caused a rise in the number of white blood cells. Foods that had been refined, homogenized, pasteurized, or preserved causes the greatest increase in white blood cells which harms the body.
> 
> We have come from early man eating foods in certain chemical configurations. We have the digestive enzymes to digest foods with those chemical configurations. When food is heated past the heat-labile point, its chemical configuration changes.
> 
> Pasteurization, deep-frying, and barbecuing are all forms of cooking where food is heated past the heat labile point. The body does not understand these new chemical configurations and does not have the enzymes to digest the food easily.
> 
> When the food does not digest properly, it can sit in the gut, unable to be assimilated completely and it starts to become toxic. The carbohydrates start to ferment, the proteins begin to putrefy and the fats become rancid. These toxins irritate the lining of the gastrointestinal tract mucosa.
> 
> This can poison the gut bacteria causing the ecology of the gut to become upset. Three hundred to four hundred of the bacteria species can become upset causing overgrowth of candida and other pathogens. The irritation also makes the cells on the lining of the gastrointestinal tract to enlarge.
> 
> When the cells become larger, the putrefied, undigested or partially digested food slips into the blood stream, called the leaky gut syndrome or gut permeability. Most people have this condition and are unaware of it.
> 
> When they get into the blood stream they are called free radicals. Your gut is your immune system. That is where all auto-immune response comes from. What you eat and how you eat it is directly related to the overall health of your body. Since it is the liver's job to detoxify toxins, the liver becomes overloaded and less able to do its job. This undigested or partially digested food moves through the blood stream causing havoc in the body. This is a form of food allergy.
> 
> The macromolecules can go to the head and cause the classic symptoms of allergy such as runny eyes, scratchy throat, itchy ears, sinusitis, and sneezing. They can go to the brain and cause headaches, anger, fatigue, schizophrenia, and perspiration.
> 
> This putrefied food can go to the joints or tissues and cause arthritis, or to the nerves and cause multiple sclerosis. These macromolecules can also go to the skin and cause acne, edema, psoriasis or rashes. It can lodge anywhere in the soft tissues in the body and cause problems, straining whatever a person's weak link may be.
> 
> Finally the immune system comes to the defense of the body, and makes these undigested particles back into substances that the body can use or escorts them out of the body. The immune system is asked to do the job that our digestive system did not do.
> 
> The immune system was not designed to do this on a daily basis, every time we eat over-cook foods or over-processed foods. Over a period of time the immune system becomes exhausted and the door is opened to infectious and degenerative diseases.
> 
> From this research and the principle of the heat labile point, it seems that the best way to cook food is the least way.
> 
> The more food that you can eat raw, the better. I hope this will help you understand the benefits of eating your vegetables and fruits raw. As for meat, while it putrefies in the gut and due to the long length of our intestines this magnifies the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a pretty deep pile of pseudo-scientific gibberish, Lass. I'm not even going to try to refute it all; I'll settle for pointing out that poorly digested food doesn't set in our gut and rot. Everything there moves on through and out...
> 
> If cooking food is so inherently unhealthy, how do you account for the fact that there are no cultures anywhere in the world today that don't cook, and no cultures in recorded history that didn't do so?
Click to expand...


----------



## troy2000

Here's a long but interesting read on the subject of raw vs. cooked foods... it's from a website called Beyond Vegetarianism (http://www.beyondveg.com/index.shtml).

Raw Foods vs. Cooked Foods--Looking at the Science


----------



## SVAuspicious

I found an article in Scientific American that is a survey of recent literature from five or six different peer-reviewed journals. While Scientific-American is not itself a peer-reviewed journal they have an excellent reputation and the probability that the article misstates anything from the science is quite low. This is real science.

My conclusion is that some vitamins and enzymes are enhanced by cooking and others are present in greater amounts in raw food. Cooking consistently makes food easier to digest and in many cases tastes better (N.B. except okra - nothing makes okra taste better) so people eat what they should. By the way the article does not address (although the underlying research may) whether the reduced amount of less stable vitamins such as vitamin C is still sufficient for good health.

The psuedo-science, gobbledy-****, and downright untruths of the rabid raw foodists in our population are misleading and a disservice to science. They represent the foolishness that the March for Science on April 22 was organized to protest.

The article is easy to read. I commend it to you.


----------



## Minnewaska

Cooking does chemically change food, along with reduce pathogens. Claiming that it has a net negative impact on health is flat earth stuff. Cooking clearly allowed the human race to thrive. 

If one really wanted to improve their food quality, I am a believer that all the chemicals we add, either directly to the plants or via the animal, are the problem. Figure that out. Sometimes these off the wall diets are inadvertently fixing a different problem, simply by sourcing less chemically laden food, but the studies draw an indirect conclusion.

Our chemical proliferation is going to eventually be considered the dark ages equivalent of leaches or bleeding, as we're playing with a concoction of stuff we don't really understand. It's only tested one at a time, never the complete cocktail we all consume and/or breath.


----------



## krisscross

The way I see it, the proof of any given diet is in the results. If you feel good while on it, don't get sick too often, have energy and stamina, the diet obviously works for you. Eating quality food of wide variety supplies your body with what it needs. From there it is up to you to take advantage of these nutrients to stay in good physical shape.
As to cooking vs raw, it all depends on the product. Cooking starches makes them more valuable and taste better. Cooking fruit mostly just ruins them. Same with many vegetables. I eat raw okra: it tastes great and is very nutritious. Cooked okra is a disgusting abomination.


----------



## SVAuspicious

krisscross said:


> The way I see it, the proof of any given diet is in the results.


This is true to the extent that the results are measurable and statistically relevant. Otherwise people are just making stuff up and we end up with foolishness like the Food Babe.



krisscross said:


> I eat raw okra: it tastes great and is very nutritious. Cooked okra is a disgusting abomination.


I hope my attempt some lighthearted jest above did not offend. I really don't like okra and enough other people feel the same that I thought it would be funny to comment on it. I could have picked something like cilantro (which I think is great but other people think smells like soap and tastes like bugs).


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

SVAuspicious said:


> I could have picked something like cilantro (which I think is great but other people think smells like soap and tastes like bugs).


Indeed, strong interindividual differences, apparently partly genetical and partly acquired: Why Cilantro Tastes Like Soap, for Some - The New York Times


----------



## krisscross

SVAuspicious said:


> This is true to the extent that the results are measurable and statistically relevant. Otherwise people are just making stuff up and we end up with foolishness like the Food Babe.


 If we don't know what type of diet works for us and have to look for statistical validation, we are probably not very observant or in tune with our body. And I don't believe you would ever become vegetarian just because there are plenty of statistics out there showing that it is a healthy diet. So that is BS.


----------



## mbianka

SVAuspicious said:


> My conclusion is that some vitamins and enzymes are enhanced by cooking and others are present in greater amounts in raw food. Cooking consistently makes food easier to digest and in many cases tastes better (N.B. except okra - nothing makes okra taste better) so people eat what they should. By the way the article does not address (although the underlying research may) whether the reduced amount of less stable vitamins such as vitamin C is still sufficient for good health.
> .


I still love Okra! Cooked with Grits and a little drizzle of sesame oil it makes for a fine breakfast alternative to Oatmeal. My only complaint is it goes bad so fast so I rarely have it on board. The idea of making a nice Gumbo without it is shear blasphemy.


----------



## Minnewaska

You simply can not "feel" how food is systemically influencing your body. You might feel bloating and in some cases, you might even feel the impact of certain nutrition on serotonin levels, which does affect mood. You might be allergic to some foods. 

However, that's a pretty narrow set of diagnostic criteria. I feel really good, when drinking beer, but don't delude myself into thinking it's good for me. Saying one hasn't been sick much also doesn't mean anything.


----------



## krisscross

Minnewaska said:


> You simply can not "feel" how food is systemically influencing your body.


Of course you can. It only takes a bit of common sense and observation. This is something inherent to every natural human culture. People try various foods all the time and determine whether they like them, and whether they agree with their body. Over a long period of time they can assemble a diet which they like and which likes them back. It is not at all complicated. But you also have people who all the time eat stuff that makes them unhealthy. It is all our choice. Don't want to spend time preparing tasty, nutritious food? No problem. There are thousands of places which will feed you all kinds of stuff. Some good, some bad. Again, the choice is yours.


----------



## Minnewaska

krisscross said:


> Of course you can. It only takes a bit of common sense and observation......


Have at it all you like. I'm only compelled to say to others that this is not true. You can feel great eating many foods that are not good for your health. The best you can do is identify food that disagrees with your system. You can't find the false positive.


----------



## krisscross

I have been a vegetarian since I was 17 and I have met hundreds of people experimenting with various diets. I did too. Raised 3 kids who are vegetarian, and know lots of parents raising kids and being very conscious of what they eat. Been growing food all my life. So for me and many, many people I know, it is not at all complicated. You can tell what type of food is good for you. Without question. Maybe some people can't, but they are an evolutionary dead end (pun intended). Just about every critter out there knows what food is good for them. It is part of our evolution.


----------



## gbennett

Sorry I have not read all 200 posts - raw fish is commonly known as Sashimi, what is raw vegan known as?

Just Asking


----------



## Ulladh

Sashimi is a type of preparation of raw fish, there area many other preparations of raw fish, just as there are many ways to prepare other raw foods including vegetables.


----------



## 433050

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Don't be so rude!
> 
> Where's your manners?
> 
> Mark


You said this to my post:
.sorry, but when someone comes up with such utter codswallop as you have then you need to have your drivel supported by facts.

Well, I think my manners are appropriate given that you took the liberties of insulting and mud slinging at me - so what goes around comes around. I suppose I could find more of your offensive remarks given that you troll almost every post on this site giving your opinions as if they were to be the only ones that matter if I really cared which I don't. If suspect that if you were in such great health, you would be out sailing and not sitting around eating artery clogging salami and cheese after going to the gym. It is obvious you clearly know nothing about real healthy food. And I would bet you are on some sort of meds for that diet of yours. But hey, whatever floats your boat.


----------



## RegisteredUser

Codswallop futures are directly affected by retail bacon prices.
Most people don't know this.
It can lead to volatile trading...


----------



## Donna_F

Peoples. C'mon. 

Have some pity on your most female moderator who was just trapped in an MRI machine for 20 minutes listening to hip hop and who has foregone wine for the past five days whilst on anti-inflammatory meds.

Civility is the new diet trend.


----------



## RegisteredUser

Lassiegirl said:


> ...It is obvious you clearly know nothing about real healthy food.....


Some one-way streets can be deadends.
Leave yourself some wiggle room...so you can get back out..to roam around again....


----------



## Minnewaska

krisscross said:


> ....So for me and many, many people I know, it is not at all complicated. You can tell what type of food is good for you. Without question.....


By your own description, you can only tell what food makes you feel good, which I do not begrudge you. I hope you live a long healthy life, but you just can't say that feeling good is being good. Feeling good can simply be avoiding an irritant. That only proves the negative, not the positive of what's left.

My Grandmother smoked until she was in her 90s and died of old age. Never got lung or heart disease. She could not eat seeds, without intestinal problems. That doesn't mean that avoiding seeds, but continuing to smoke is healthy.


----------



## Minnewaska

Donna_F said:


> Peoples. C'mon.
> 
> Have some pity on your most female moderator who was just trapped in an MRI machine for 20 minutes listening to hip hop and who has foregone wine for the past five days whilst on anti-inflammatory meds.
> 
> Civility is the new diet trend.


I'll take your MRI in place of my colonoscope. 42 hours with no food at all. I'll take 20 mins listening to hip hop. Hope you are well. I made out just fine, but will be back in 5 years, which I guarantee will be the next time I voluntarily forgo a meal for 42 hours.


----------



## AJC506

Minnewaska said:


> I'll take your MRI in place of my colonoscope. 42 hours with no food at all. I'll take 20 mins listening to hip hop. Hope you are well. I made out just fine, but will be back in 5 years, which I guarantee will be the next time I voluntarily forgo a meal for 42 hours.


Fasting was by far the worst part of the procedure for me. I'm also on the 5 year plan and it will be 5 years before I can even look at a green Jolly Rancher again.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## krisscross

Minnewaska said:


> My Grandmother smoked until she was in her 90s and died of old age. Never got lung or heart disease. She could not eat seeds, without intestinal problems. That doesn't mean that avoiding seeds, but continuing to smoke is healthy.


Dude, please don't tell me your Grandma did not know smoking was bad for her. Lots of people know something is bad for them, yet they still do it, for one reason or another. I smoked just a few cigarettes in my life and knew right away they are bad for me. I did not need a warning on the packet from the Surgeon General telling me that. So I never smoked again. And that is my point: as a species we have an evolutionary ability to tell what is good for us. If we chose to ignore that, we work against Nature.


----------



## jongleur

Someone brought up cilantro. Horrible, 
just horrible. I dislike it
so much that I will not even be visiting 
this thread again.


----------



## Minnewaska

krisscross said:


> Dude, please don't tell me your Grandma did not know smoking was bad for her......


Okay, that wasn't my point and I think you know it. It's only whether one can feel what's good or bad for them with complete accuracy. It takes a bit of science to figure that out. I'm truly not trying to criticize your choice, I'm only pushing back on what you're trying to tell others will work for them. Namely that how you feel will fully guide your choices. It can take decades for a poor diet to reveal a deficiency or poor choice, while you feel great. Things that make you feel bad are a small subset of nutritional diagnostics.

Let's drop the debate and agree to disagree.


----------



## SVAuspicious

krisscross said:


> So for me and many, many people I know, it is not at all complicated. You can tell what type of food is good for you. Without question.


Correlation does not imply causation.



Lassiegirl said:


> .sorry, but when someone comes up with such utter codswallop as you have then you need to have your drivel supported by facts.


You yourself refused to offer up or even point to facts in your long post, filled with errors, fantasy, and untruths.

So lets look at the science.

The USDA Dietary Guidelines reflect the best science we have. They reflect an incredibly broad range of peer-reviewed research, which means that individual equities generally get weeded out.

Recent guidelines (they get updated every five years) have recognized that dietary patterns are important to healthy eating. This is a change from the triangle and pyramid view of food groups most of us grew up with. It also means wading through some rather dense descriptions. The guidelines represent a totality and you cannot cherry pick what you quote and what you ignore.

From the executive summary the key recommendations are:



> Follow a healthy eating pattern across the lifespan.
> 
> Focus on variety, nutrient density, and amount.
> 
> Limit calories from added sugars and saturated fats and reduce sodium intake.
> 
> Shift to healthier food and beverage choices.
> 
> Support healthy eating patterns for all.
> 
> A healthy eating pattern includes:
> 
> A variety of vegetables from all of the subgroups-dark green, red and orange, legumes (beans and peas), starchy, and other vegetables
> 
> Fruits, especially whole fruits
> 
> Grains, at least half of which are whole grains
> 
> Fat-free or low-fat dairy, including milk, yogurt, cheese, and/or fortified soy beverages
> 
> A variety of protein foods, including seafood, lean meats and poultry, eggs, legumes (beans and peas), and nuts, seeds, and soy products
> 
> Oils


So what can we conclude? Well first it is clear that the USDA style guide requires an Oxford comma which is of course as it should be. *grin* Remember that each sentence in the Executive Summary is based on paragraphs if not pages in the full report and volumes in the underlying research. Before gleefully parsing any particular sentence you should look under the curtain.

In my own words, based on the report, human beings have evolved as omnivores. We perform best on a varied diet. Cooking is not bad. Meat is not bad. Moderation and variety are good. Pay attention to added sugars, saturated fats, and salt. Conventional wisdom is correct for a change that cheap fast food and soda is not a healthy choice.

The implications are that vegetarians like @krisscross can eat a healthy diet by paying attention to protein intake and the use of supplements (note that fortified products are fundamentally supplements). Omnivores like me need to pay attention to saturated fats. Everyone needs to pay attention to added sugar and salt.

Since made-up science is a lie, and we already know that @Lassiegirl presented a long post with demonstrable errors in fact and science she is either purposely promulgating untruths or has fallen under the sway of someone (such as but not necessarily the Food Babe) who themselves is purposely promulgating untruths.

For those of us who do not really understand vegetarians and vegans (remember best current estimate is 3.3% of the American population - footnotes in my previous post in this thread) we should not confuse people like @krisscross whose diet is consistent with albeit more restrictive by their choice than the best dietary science and those like @Lassiegirl whose mumbo-jumbo represents made-up pseudo-science.


----------



## Donna_F

While I can't argue the science, I can theorize that this thread has gone way outside of the topic of sailing and the original introduction and if anyone would like to continue it, please sidle over to the Off Topic forum and continue to your heart's content.


----------

