An article in the WSJ today is headlined the 247-lb Vegan, about a veggie-loving tight end for the Kansas City Chiefs, is pretty good. But it does make me wonder if the headline writer, like, read the whole thing:
Mr. Gonzalez considered scrapping the diet altogether and returning to the Chiefs' standard gut-busting menu. First, though, he called Mr. Campbell, who put him in touch with Jon Hinds, himself a vegan and the former strength coach for the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team. Mr. Hinds suggested plant foods with more protein.The Chiefs' team nutritionist, Mitzi Dulan, a former vegetarian athlete, did not believe that was enough. With the team's prospects and Mr. Gonzalez's legacy at stake, she persuaded the tight-end to incorporate small amounts of meat into his plant diet. Just no beef, pork or shellfish, he said; only a few servings of fish and chicken a week.
When I was a vegetarian, I was always annoyed by the "vegetarians" who turned out to eat fish and chicken. I wasn't annoyed because I cared about what they ate, but because their fast-and-loose standards meant that I too often showed up at a dinner party to find that the hostess thought "vegetarian" included "smoked salmon". Now apparently "vegan" is going the same way.
When I was a vegetarian, I was always annoyed by the "vegetarians" who turned out to eat fish and chicken.
This suggest to me that, although there isn't a Supreme Church of Veganism, that it would be beneficial if there were. They could set standards, publish them for the convenience of dinner party hostesses, and excommunicate heretics.
You wonder if the headline writer read the whole thing? I wonder how you missed this paragraph:
"Mr. Gonzalez joined a handful of elite athletes who have put the vegan diet to the test, either for their health or because they oppose using animals as food. But he was the first pro-football superstar to try. And the first to fail."
The point of the article is that this guy couldn't maintain his weight on a vegan diet, so he gave up on the vegan diet. Now he eats animal protein. It is not a story about a vegan who eats meat. Unlike all those arcane terms you throw around without explanation, this article clearly defines what a vegan is and uses the term consistently throughout.
They don't need a religion. An ethical organization will do, something like the AMA, except the American Vegan Associatoin. Then, when someone is caught eating fish or eggs they'll have to move to another state to keep using the title "vegan".
The print edition reads: "The 247 pound Vegan *(with a little bit of salmon)."
You wonder if the headline writer read the whole thing? I wonder how you missed this paragraph:
Mortimer, did you know that headline writers are generally not the journalists who write the article? You're correct that the article is quite accurate, and the journalist who wrote it could be commended, but that's a different issue from the headline writer.
That said, I suspect that the headline writer thought it was snappier than "The 247-lb Failed Vegan Who Now Just Eats Fish and Chicken Occasionally."
This suggest to me that, although there isn't a Supreme Church of Veganism, that it would be beneficial if there were. They could set standards, publish them for the convenience of dinner party hostesses, and excommunicate heretics.
Now now, that's kind of a ridiculous hyperbole if you consider the actual definition of the word vegan... which means "a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet."
It would simply be a misclaim to refer to someone as a vegan who isn't even a vegetarian. As for whether people who eat chicken or fish should claim to be a vegetarian, semantically I suppose it would be incorrect, but I think it also depends on their reasoning for being a vegetarian in the first place (health, morals, whatever). However, if you want to get nitpicky about the issue, I don't understand how moral vegetarians, especially evangelical types, are okay with eating eggs (at least not the kind that come from a local farm) if you consider the treatment of the chickens who lay them.
As for whether people who eat chicken or fish should claim to be a vegetarian, semantically I suppose it would be incorrect
And my point is that it would be both more convenient and highly entertaining for the rest of us to elevate such semantic differences into religious ones, with all the bitterness and occasional violence over tiny differences that outsiders can't grasp that that implies. That's also why I don't think Njorl's suggestion of a professional discipline system is adequate; too boring.
Highly entertaining, yes. I don't know how convenient that would actually be though.
In retrospect, I suppose I could have structured my response better. Now that I look at it, I see it's probably unclear that I was addressing the thoughts of two different people.
Speaking of fast and loose standards... perhaps they come from respect for other people, not from hypocrisy and weak wills? I have a few friends who generally adhere to vegetarian diet, yet at a party, they do not turn up their noses from a salad with seafood in it, or whatnot (I can imagine that after a few incidents like that nobody would invite the overzealous).
As to the definitions of terms: I have always thought Vegans are the aliens from Vega system (and I can appeal to no less an authority than Dr. Asimov to support this). And vegetarians are people who found that meat does not agree with them. I have no idea what to call those who object to consumption of animal protein on moral, ethical or religious grounds... and in deference to our hostess I won't offer any suggestions.
Why would anyone invite a vegetarian to a dinner party? We entertain frequently, but I gave that up years ago.
Gonzalez may have been the first profootball superstar to try true veganism, and find it to be inadequate to his nutritional needs, but he certainly is not the first elite athlete to have done so. Yes, I am sure there are some elite athletes who can be vegans and maintain peak performance, but many cannot. Like or not, human beings, on average, find it easier to be able to engage in explosive muscular movement if they consume at least some protein from animal sources.
"When I was a vegetarian, I was always annoyed by the 'vegetarians' who turned out to eat fish and chicken.-MM
Yeah. Right on Megan. "Vegetarians" who eat salmon are very annoying. What's next? Classical liberals for Marx?
What about "Pythagoreans"
who eat beans. Nothing upsets me more than a so-called Pythagorean who eats beans. Pinto beans, green beans, whatever...
Well, it could be worse than this. I've even heard of a small band of "libertarians" for Obama. Can you believe it?
Plesae tell me this was supposed to appear on April 1st.
If not a church, than a Committee that had the power to compel "vegetarians" and "vegans" to demonstrate their purity and that encouraged others to report any violations by self-titled veg*ns. It might not be quite as much fun as watching religious wars over the fine points of veg*nism, but it could still be pretty entertaining.
Personally, if I were a professional athlete, I would take advantage of the fact that I burned calories like crazy to eat all kinds of things I can't eat now with a desk job.
A linebacker for the Raiders claimed that Gonzales bit him several times during a game last fall- quote, "He was trying to gnaw my arm off!"
Ok, I fabricated most (all) of that story.
Vee wrote: I don't understand how moral vegetarians, especially evangelical types, are okay with eating eggs (at least not the kind that come from a local farm) if you consider the treatment of the chickens who lay them.
I've dealt with chickens on occasion, and my grandparents raised them full time during their younger years. I daresay the average sewer rat would be more put out by the conditions an industrial chicken is subjected to, than the chicken ever would be.
Yancey Ward wrote: Ok, I fabricated most (all) of that story.
Yeah, it would have performed better if you could have worked Tyson into it somehow -- idally both Mike and the poultry products vendor.
Will Allen writes: "Yes, I am sure there are some elite athletes who can be vegans and maintain peak performance, but many cannot. Like or not, human beings, on average, find it easier to be able to engage in explosive muscular movement if they consume at least some protein from animal sources."
Quite a few top long-distance runners and triathletes prefer a veg*an diet. Carl Lewis and Edwin Moses are examples of "explosive muscular movement" athletes who believed being veg*an was beneficial. (And of course there's always Tony La Russa.)
When I was a vegetarian, I was always annoyed by the "vegetarians" who turned out to eat fish and chicken.
Actually, I very much agree with this sentiment. Words should mean something. If someone eats a non-vegetarian diet, why are they claiming to be a vegetarian? It makes no sense.
I agree with Mrs. H. Why would anyone invite a vegan for dinner. Enjoy some other activity with them. It's like inviting someone who thinks all alcohol is immoral to your blowout, hangover the next morning, party. Tends to put a damper on things.
I, too, don't understand having Vegans for dinner-they're all gristle. (Acknowledging the writers of The Simpsons)
Umm... because first-generation Russian immigrants do not internalize the concept of a party without dinner and [significant quantities of] alcohol? No, really. Even the [almost]vegetarian teetotalers. One of them has a birthday tomorrow, and I am not at all counting on coming back fit and sober.
Yancey, but what if they're free-range rude vegans? That's gotta make it different.
Quite a few top long-distance runners and triathletes prefer a veg*an diet. Carl Lewis and Edwin Moses are examples of "explosive muscular movement" athletes who believed being veg*an was beneficial. (And of course there's always Tony La Russa.)
Carl Lewis took numerous gold medals before adopting a vegan diet in 1990. His 1991 performance might not be a long enough span to determine whether his body was actually going to deteriorate long-term from the limitations of his new diet.
Edwin Moses has all of his glory in the 400m hurdles, which is primarily an endurance sport.
Neither of these compares to the "explosive muscular movement" required to play American football (or the high-weight maintenance, an activity which is completely foreign to runners and jumpers).
People who eat meat occasionally are not "vegetarians", and really should stop calling themselves that.
Unless it's bacon.
Yeah, but what about Tony La Russa? Don't tell me that arguing with umpires doesn't involve explosive muscular movements!
Ron Paul has a plan to prevent vegan inflation: he will end the creation of counterfeit vegans by fiat (i.e. they "say" they're vegans).
Lord, studying for another bar sucks.
I could never figure out what vegan meant anyway. I always thought it had something to do with lesbians.
"Why would anyone invite a vegetarian to a dinner party? We entertain frequently, but I gave that up years ago.
Posted by Mrs. H."
Why would anyone case pain, suffering, and the slaughtering of innocent animals just to satisfy their (and their guests') desire for the taste of flesh?
I always thought the vegan lifestyle was exclusively the province of neurotic urban women, so file this under "you learn something every day."
I always thought it had something to do with lesbians.
I believe you're thinking of "vagitarians," a different but overlapping species.
When I was a vegetarian, I was always annoyed by the "vegetarians" who turned out to eat fish and chicken.
That's cause you're a moral veg'n. Even though you never proselytize these people, you always thought they're beneath you.
What an upper class twit.
When I was a vegetarian, I was always annoyed by the "vegetarians" who turned out to eat fish and chicken. I wasn't annoyed because I cared about what they ate, but because their fast-and-loose standards meant that I too often showed up at a dinner party to find that the hostess thought "vegetarian" included "smoked salmon".
I know exactly what you mean. I was a vegetarian for a couple of years, and I was always getting questions from my mom like, "but can you eat chicken?" or "you can eat fish, right?" That, and the occasional promise of "vegetable soup" that turned out to contain big chunks of beef....
I like the term "Moosewood vegetarians" for fish-eaters. (The Moosewood, now a pale shadow of its former self, serves fish dishes on weekends but is otherwise vegetarian.) I've never figured out what to call the fish-and-chicken-but-nothing-else folks....perhaps "non-mammaltarians"?
I'll admit, strict vegans are unusually difficult to cook for. I have several vegetarian friends and can easily accommodate them when entertaining, even if most of the guests are omnivorous. I've thrown parties where every dish but one or two was veggie, and even the carnivores left stuffed and happy. No problem.
Vegans, though....no cheese, no eggs, no cream....that's tough. Especially when some of the other people in the crowd are low-carb oriented, which means that pasta-and-grains can't dominate, either. Sauteed vegetables, salad, soup and seitan/tempeh/tofu is pretty limiting.
I've never tried cooking for a fruitarian. If I do, it's going to be "Here's an apple. Enjoy."
I'm not vegan or vegetarian, but I find it hard to believe you wouldn't be able to maintain muscle mass on a vegan diet. All the animals we routinely eat, made all that animal protein by eating vegan for long periods and vegetarian for the others (except for some crazy stuff before the Mad Cow craze).
If you eat sufficient calories you will get sufficient protein. If you eat sufficient calories you will get all the minimum amounts of all the essential amino acids. Even thinking about protein intake is the result of decades of marketing by the USDA and meat and dairy producers.
Eating protein will not build muscles nor will it change the types of muscles built. Strength training will build muscles but age will reduce muscle mass (Mr. Gonzales is probably mid-thirties). Of course, there are certain substances a mid-thirties athelete can inject that will build muscle mass, when combined with strength training. Maybe you need to eat much higher protein amounts to get the benefit of these substances?
"Why would anyone invite a vegetarian to a dinner party? We entertain frequently, but I gave that up years ago.
Posted by Mrs. H."
Why would anyone case pain, suffering, and the slaughtering of innocent animals just to satisfy their (and their guests') desire for the taste of flesh?
Asked and answered.
If someone eats a non-vegetarian diet, why are they claiming to be a vegetarian?
For the same reason so many of the Kos kiddies claim to be patriotic Americans, I suppose.
All the animals we routinely eat, made all that animal protein by eating vegan for long periods and vegetarian for the others
True. Of course, they also have digestive systems with are a teensy bit different from ours; 3 extra stomachs, cud chewing, etc.
So their nutritional needs may also be a bit different.
Elaine: You don't care that innocent defenseless animals are being tortured so
that you can look good?
George: Could we talk about this some other time?
Ava: Are you a vegetarian?
Jerry: Here we go.
Elaine: Yeah, I eat fish occasionally.
Ava: So you're a hypocrite.
George: Hey, I've eaten frogs, so nobody's perfect. Anyway-
Ava: Well, talk to me when you stop eating fish.
Elaine: Fish don't feel any pain.
Ava: How do you know? Do you communicate with fish?
Elaine: Well, they're not kept in little cages.
Ava: Ever seen a goldfish?
George: Goldfish.
Elaine: Yeah, yeah I've seen goldfish. They're not unhappy.
Ava: Oh yeah, right. Swim around in a bowl for two weeks and get flushed down
the toilet, that's a good life. (To George) Let's go.
Elaine: Oh yeah, that's right. Go ahead, go ahead, maybe you can run over a
squirrel!
George: That's why we're here in America.
There's a whole lot of attempt here to pass off snarkiness for wit, but very little consideration of others.
Vegans are people who have made fairly substantial changes to the way they live their lives in order to prevent unnecessary suffering and exploitation of other sentient beings, creatures who deserve equal consideration where our interests overlap (such as an interest in not suffering). Rather than mocking such individuals for making choices that are actually rather consistent with how most of us feel about animals, they should be applauded.
If you're having so much trouble cooking for them, then maybe it's a good time to pick up a couple of new cookbooks, like Veganomicon and The Joy of Vegan Baking. You may just look at veganism in a whole new (and more tolerant) light.
Eric P.: I'm sorry, but you and a few other vegans in this thread are walking examples of why some folks find vegans annoying and don't want to invite them to dinner.
In four sentences, you paint yourself as more enlightened than us heathens, shed a tear for how the world doesn't respect you, and then suggest that people go to extra effort and expense on your behalf in the name of tolerance. All on the grounds of "consideration for others". Mote, meet beam.
Now me, I've always believed in Miss Manners' philosophy about hosts and guests. If you're a guest, you eat whatever you can at the party, inquiring about ingredients if necessary, and smile and say everything's lovely. Declining subsequent invitations, or smuggling fruit leather in for emergency sustenance, is OK if done discreetly.
Hosts, in turn, should do what they can to make their guests comfortable. Guests with severe dietetic restrictions are inherently harder to accommodate than the omnivores, but a gracious host should try to make sure that at least a couple of dishes fit their needs. (Some guests are no-hopers; my kitchen is not kosher, so very strict observance would require a guest not to eat anything prepared in it.)
What I'll do also depends on how much cred you have with me. One of my best friends is a vegetarian who is also allergic to mushrooms; if I know she's coming to a party, I'll jigger the menu so she can eat 80% of what's served. She, in turn, is faultlessly polite at parties where all she can eat is salad and dinner rolls.
As a vegan, you would probably be able to eat a couple of dishes at any meal I made; there's almost always something like a salad and sauteed veggies and quinoa. If I knew you were coming, I might see to it that a tofu dish hit the table, too. However, if you are one of 15 people at a party, and you're going to hector me for not being "tolerant" enough for cooking the entire meal to suit your desires, then you're welcome to stay home next time.
I find the irony almost overwhelming. Vegans go to great lengths, as Eric P. pointed out, to live their lives according to ethical standards many tout, but few practice. If you have never eaten a restrictive diet (kosher, halal, vegan, etc) you may not realize how difficult it is. They do at every meal. And then you complain the few times you are inconvenienced by their dietary choices?
See the ADA statement on Vegetarian Diets on the appropriateness of the diet and for the Why?'s.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
First everybody snots out his round of abuse, and when someone reasons against that, that is used as a justification for that abuse. Now, where have we seen THAT before?
BTW. I'm one of those vegans who confirm the stereotype, the "in your face" type who wouldn't even be interested to come to YOUR dinner party if corpse or secretions is on the offer. I don't go to child molesters for video night either. If animal abusers just had the slightest idea how grotesque their behavior is from a vegan perspective. I have to compromise enough for being surrounded by YOUR world day in day out, I can't take one step out of the house without seeing people who thinks it's normal to wear the skin of someone on their feet... So in my leisure time, I prefer to hang with people who share my ethical values.
BTW, thinking of it, I probably am a neurotic urban female.
About the article. Like every month there is an article of a pseudo-vegan who has trouble doing what an elephant has no trouble doing...who eats grass which is about the least nutritious plant out there. As humans we have much greater variety of vegan foods (plants and otherwise) than grass...
And interestingly, when a positive example is given, like the six times Utramarathon winner, then it is disregarded because "it's an endurance sport". The vegan German bodybuilder champion is then disregarded on the basis of "genetics" or "steroid use". An ethical vegan eating steroids. YEAH RIGHT. And so it goes on and on, etc. ed nauseum.
Of course the list of possible defamations is shrinking constantly. But then, everybody already knows everything can be done on the vegan diet...
BTW, I just wish people would learn to differentiate between vegan dieters and vegans, because vegan dieters tend to give us a bad name given the mixed messages they send out. To call vegan dieters vegans is like calling someone with the family name Bush the president.
VEGANISM IS NOT A DIET. Not at all. The vegan diet is a _consequence_ of the vegan philosophy. People who just follow a plant based diet are not vegans. If you are a vegan dieter who wears wool, leather, silk or shops for cosmetics you know were tested on animals, you are NOT a vegan. Don't call yourself a vegan. You are just a vegan _dieter_. Everybody can be a vegan dieter by just deselecting meatmilkeggs from ones nutrition. It's very easy to do. But BEING a vegan is a whole different ballgame.
And yes, us vegans actually have a right to define OUR identity and reject those who seek to appropriate and colonize veganism for their own motives, especially if those motives are egoistical rather than altruistic.
Why would anyone think that insisting on your rights lends itself to ridicule.
Where did we have THAT before? HM?
vegans are all dumb broads or fags
vegans are all dumb broads or fags