Is there a word for someone who doesn't eat red meat? They eat chickent, turkey, seafood, etc., but don't touch beef, pork, etc. Is there just no word for this? This has bugged me for a while, anyone who knows and can tell me would be greatly appreciated.
This was just being discussed on another thread. As far as I know, there isn't a word for what you describe. Pescotarian is the word for a vegetarian who eats fish. And you can't say "I don't eat red meat" because people insist on pork being white meat.
Thank you very much. Looked it up on Wikipedia and found it's exactly what I was looking for. "Pesco/pollo vegetarianism", "pescetarianism", and "semi-vegetarianism" are neologisms coined to describe certain lifestyles of restricted diet. Most commonly, these include the practice of not eating certain types of meat (most commonly "red" meat such as beef, pork, lamb) while allowing others, such as seafood. There are usually no restrictions on non-flesh animal products such as dairy, eggs, or leather. Those observing such a diet often do so for health reasons although many do practice for ethical or religious reasons.
Ahhh, I just found this site http://www.answers.com/topic/pesco-pollo-vegetarianism and was about to post it for you. I've heard Pescotarian used quite often, but I've never heard pollovegetarian or pesco-pollo vegatarian. Makes sense though, and it's no more awkward than saying Lacto-ovo vegetarian.
I think the phrase for this kind of person is "hungry". Eat 'yer meat!! Kidding, of course. I can appreciate people's beliefs, decisions, and philosophies. I just enjoy my carnivorism. That reminds me of my friend Columbian Dave. His bumper sticker read: "Save a Cow, Eat A Vegetarian." Thank you everybody, have a great night.
i want that sticker i had an ex who was a veggie-terrorist. I respected her beliefs, but her attitude was so out of balance. She got so hung-up about food that she eventually got really ill and ended up developing loads of food allergies. In the end what she eventually allowed herself to eat meant her diet was so restricted she was permenantly ill. It all looked psychological to me.
I have a question and I hope it's not gonna bother "vege*" people. I can fully understand why someone would be a vegan (no wool, red meat, fish, milk etc. etc.) Because of the exploitation of animals and killing them blah blah I won't go further. Taking this into consideration, why would people just stop eat red meat and at the same time eat chicken,fish,dairy products and everything else that comes from animals ? Isn't it, not being constant ? I know that, not eating red meat is still better than nothing, but still... I want to know! Thanks
Because chicken, while still pretty frickin' fatty, is a lot better for you than beef. I don't believe I know anyone who won't eat red meat but will eat any other meat strictly for moral reasons. It's always a health concern.
why don't you guys check this out: Big study links red meat diet to cancer Sarah Boseley, health editor Guardian, Wednesday June 15, 2005 nternational scientists yesterday delivered a long-awaited verdict on red meat, concluding in a definitive study of the eating habits of half a million people that beef, lamb, pork, veal and their processed varieties such as ham and bacon, increase the risk of bowel cancer. Those who eat two portions a day - equivalent to a bacon sandwich and a fillet steak - increase their risk of bowel cancer by 35% over those who eat just one portion a week, the study found. The World Health Organisation's international agency for research on cancer (IARC) called for everybody to eat more fish and less meat. details: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1506696,00.html There are many reasons not to eat (especially) red meat.
Until I've seen a proper abstract for that study I'll make a guess in that it only applies to fat or old people. What the news people fail to mention is that the mere process of eating produces free radicals which help to slowly kill us. It's part of an inbuilt self-destruct system to kill us before we get too old and start wasting our children's resources. IMO. :woo:
Here is the actual abstract, easy enough to obtain: http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jnci;97/12/906 Almost 500 000 people were involved, and they were 'using a proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, energy (nonfat and fat sources), height, weight, work-related physical activity, smoking status, dietary fiber and folate, and alcohol consumption, stratified by center '. I don't need more proof than that: red meat is just not healthy.
Right, so first off this only applies to people who are aged, in the 50-60 age bracket. The difference between 1.86% and 1.28% seems marginal to me. I think we have known that eating a lot of meat isn't ideal for a while now, in fact eating full stop isn't that wise to be honest. I think this study raises the question of whether you want to eat nuts, seeds and spinach milkshakes and spend the last 30 years of your excessively prolonged life in an old folks home, or eat/drink whatever you want, without being silly, and live a reasonable average lifetime. Or perhaps that you can eat as much meat as you want until you start to go grey, and then you know your body isn't the lean, mean, cancer-crunching machine it was in your 20s and 30s and begin to eat less? Like with smoking.
I've never had a spinach milkshake in my life, but haven't touched red meat for about 15 years and don't miss it. I don't think it's a matter of punishing yourself now and living longer versus having fun and not.... it's a matter of reducing the red meat in your diet as a possible life saving measure--particularly if you have a family history of cancer. I don't think you have to cut it out completely, but obviously eating a lot of red meat is worse for you in terms of cancer than eating a lot of vegetables and white meat. In a decade or so, you'll probably realize 50 is a heck of a lot sooner than you think it is.
That's dropping a worm in the water, and was unneccessary. Let's not go revisiting that "discussion" again. Actually, it is absolutely possible to include lean red meat into a well-rounded nutritional program, which also includes a variety of poultry, fish, fruits, veggies, and grains. The benefits of lean cuts of red meat (terrific protein source, natural creatine source, some healthy fats, etc.) will outweigh the negatives, provided you have a well-rounded diet. I'd be much more interested to see a study on the colorectal cancer risks of competitive athletes, the vast majority of whom, I suspect, are happy carnivores.
Like everyone has said before, cutting out red meat is a very easy way to improve your health and do a little extra for the environment. A lot of people can handle not eating red meat, very few can handle being a vegan. Personally, I've tried being vegan a few times, and I just can't do it. I'll get a glimpse of a cheese enchilada or some frozen yogurt, and it's all over for me, but I have no trouble at all staying away from fowl, beef or pork. On the other hand, I have several friends who are longtime vegans, and don't miss dairy or eggs at all. It really depends on the person. Also, if anyone's driven by a feed lot, you've seen first hand the environmental devastation factory farming style cattle ranching can cause. Cattle ranching produces methane gas, destroys soil, causes erosion, and consumes 10 lbs of grain for every 1 lb of meat produced. For a lot of people who want to do a little something but can't find the willpower or desire to go all the way, cutting out beef is an easy way to go about it. Also, as someone who's been vegetarian a very long time, my diet has been fluid over the years. Some years I'll be vegan, sometimes I can't stay away from dairy. Right now I'm eating fish do to health problems, but I'm aiming to stop eating it once I've gotten myself sorted out.
