Meat Eaters Beware!

Originally posted by Mozzy
reply to post by HereBy1

 

if god wanted us to be vegetarians then why did he make animals out of meat?

(god i would love to claim that. i'm fighting my conscious here people. arrrrrghhh i lose... that is a steven wright quote)

and please, don't try and make vegetarians look healthy or something. eating 10 pounds of french fries is no better than 10 pounds of steak.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by Mozzy]

What the hell? Animals where not made to eat. They where ment to LIVE. They feel pain like us and have family. They interact with each other in a different way than us. Just because they are different than us does NOT make it ok to kill and eat them. They Live too and feel emotions.

BTW Everything in moderation, who the hell will eat ten pounds of french fries?

[edit on 23-3-2009 by HereBy1]

[edit on 23-3-2009 by HereBy1]

I agree and disagree with this report. Having grown up in urban areas since birth, we always had store bought beef, pork, lunch meat, ect.

Four years ago the wife and I moved to the heart of farm country. Many folks out here raise cows, pigs, hogs, sheep, and chickens. Much of their stock is sold at market from time to time but they keep a small portion for slaughter and personal consumption.

About three years ago we began buying ¼ portions cow and pig, handmade sausage, and sandwich cuts (farmers’ version of lunch meat). The quality of the home grown and slaughtered meat is like night and day from store bought.

No hormones, antibiotics, preservatives, or dyes. Home grown meat looks, smells, cooks and tastes completely different from store bought.

My point here is that I do not think the health issues are with meat itself but more of how it is commercially raised and processed.

Just my 2 cents worth.
Peace

reply to post by HereBy1


i think a 1,000 lions disagree with you. although you'd have strong support with the elephants and pandas.

yes i feel sorry for the chickens. they've been enslaved for 10,000 years and going strong. but you know what? #*$# the chickens, that's what.

Originally posted by Mozzy
reply to post by HereBy1

 

i think a 1,000 lions disagree with you. although you'd have strong support with the elephants and pandas.

yes i feel sorry for the chickens. they've been enslaved for 10,000 years and going strong. but you know what? #*$# the chickens, that's what.

Wow, very ignorant. Look at us do we have claws? Do we have large sharp teeth? Can we open our jaws 2 feet wide? Do we have the agility of a Lion? The answer is No. A Lion has all that therefore It only consumes eat meat.

reply to post by tsrk30


In a few years, little over a decade, it likely won't really matter. Gene therapy technology has been progressing rather swiftly lately, and we have already identified the genes necessary to provide humanity with a practical immunity to Atherosclerosis - with really no regard to diet.

Read the first entry on this page, .0001.

This doesn't account for the increased risk of cancer associated with red meat, but it's a good start.

Originally posted by Holly N.R.A.
Everything in moderation, people....and the fresher your red meat, the better...and btw...Eskimos, the Inuit people and all other Native Americans balance out their meals by incorporating grains,vegetables, fish, nuts, fruits and berries. Same with the Orientals, and other cultures throughout the world.

Pre-Westernized Eskimos ate an almost zero carb diet that consisted mainly of fat and protein. Cancer and Heart Disease was nonexistent.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
We live longer now than at any time in our History despite our diet.

Depends on who "we" is. Our ancestors, if given the same technological advancements in medicine we have today, would have lived much longer, they just never had a chance to.

We're literally getting fatter and sicker every year while breakthroughs in medicine are happening at the same pace, if not faster. Does that really makes sense?



Oh, I see. A rehashing of the "Red Meat Causes Colon Cancer" study, with a broader focus on mortality. I have a few questions after reading this article from the Washington Post, which is still not the original source.

If this is much like the previous study, was it observational?

Considering that the study focused on mortality, were all deaths included in the statistics, including those that are obviously unrelated?

I guess I'll be the first to retrieve the actual study....

Methods The study population included the National Institutes of Health–AARP (formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons) Diet and Health Study cohort of half a million people aged 50 to 71 years at baseline. Meat intake was estimated from a food frequency questionnaire administered at baseline. Cox proportional hazards regression models estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) within quintiles of meat intake. The covariates included in the models were age, education, marital status, family history of cancer (yes/no) (cancer mortality only), race, body mass index, 31-level smoking history, physical activity, energy intake, alcohol intake, vitamin supplement use, fruit consumption, vegetable consumption, and menopausal hormone therapy among women. Main outcome measures included total mortality and deaths due to cancer, cardiovascular disease, injuries and sudden deaths, and all other causes.

archinte.ama-assn.org...


Both observational and including all deaths. The mortality aspect I can deal with, not the study method itself.

Here's my problem with these types of studies. Isn't it possible that those with heart disease and cancer are driven to eat more red meat for some unknown reason? Could it be a certain food that is eaten in conjunction with red meat that is actually contributing more?

How many subjects acurately filled out there daily dietary logs? Who lied to the surveyors?

Who measured the quality of the meat consumed? And on and on and on....The truth is, observational studies, such as this one, are inacurate due to the amount of factors that need to be considered.

Just to prove a point.....

We have demonstrated an increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality among men who shave infrequently
*snip*
Over the 20-year follow-up period, 835 men (34.3 percent) died, of whom 312 died from coronary heart disease and 81 from lung cancer. There were 534 coronary heart disease events and 216 stroke events, 63 of them fatal, during the follow-up period. Of the 521 men who shaved less frequently than daily, 45.1 percent died during the follow-up period, as compared with 31.3 percent of men who shaved at least daily (2 = 34.7, p < 0.0001).

aje.oxfordjournals.org...

That's right guys, better start shaving more frequently lest you like the thought of death by cardiovasular disease.

An observational study is only good for constructing a hypothesis. Causality should not be drawn from such studies as they should be taken as the first step in the right direction, not the last.

-Dev




[edit on 24-3-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]

Anecdotal, from me

When I lived in Ireland as a young man, I used to eat meat every day - at that time, Irish people didn't consider it a meal if it didn't have meat (well, the ones I know and am related to) sometimes more than once a day.

This was invariably red meat, with little in the way of chicken or fish.

Since I moved back to the UK, some 15 years ago, I have pretty much given up red meat - I eat it maybe once a week at most.

I also eat chicken and fish quite sparingly.

Mostly I eat vegetables, with wholegrain rice or pasta, and as much fruit as I can, which is a struglle as I don't really like fruit that much (the way I do it is to make fresh fruit smoothies)

I eat little in the way of dairy.

I eat wholegrain breads.

I don't drink coffee, but I do have one or two cups of tea per days, and in the evenings I drink herbal tea with honey.

Since I changed my diet I have noticed that I feel better all round.

I am no longer "sluggish", sleep well and have relatively good energy levels.

I am also now a grazer - in other words I eat small amounts of food throughout the day.

There is no doubt in my mind that I am healthier now that I don't have meat every day.

And here's the thing - as hunter gatherers our bodies handle the constant influx of small amounts of food, with occasional meat.

Our distant ancestors certainly didn't eat meat every day.

We are omnivores (IMO) but not programmed like a lion to eat meat all the time.

More like bears, which eat what they forage, and occasionally eat meat.

Don't take my word for it - give it a try and see for yourselves.

You might be surprised at the results.

reply to post by HereBy1

Wow, very ignorant. Look at us do we have claws? Do we have large sharp teeth? Can we open our jaws 2 feet wide? Do we have the agility of a Lion? The answer is No. A Lion has all that therefore It only consumes eat meat.

Humanity didn't evolve from carnivores, we evolved from omnivores. We didn't need claws or jaws capable of delivering a killing bite, because our ancestors usually only scavenged their meat sources - and during a hunt we had a far more effective killing weapon than claws or fangs. Intelligence.

Humans are a branch of Great Apes, and even a cursory look at our closest cousins (Bonobo chimps) reveals, although not a staple of their diet, that they also eat meat and hunt for prey. Often other primates. Gorillas are also omnivores, though the meat they consume is generally restricted to insects. Orangutans, similarly, are omnivores - getting most of their diet from fruits and nuts, but also subsisting on insects and bird eggs.

Indeed, primates in general (both ape and monkey) are omnivorous.

You're right in that our digestive system isn't optimal for digesting meat. It's not optimal for digesting vegetables either. It's a compromised system that trades specialization in digestion for a wider variety of food sources. The biggest boon to humanity (and our earlier sister species, like Neanderthal) was the taming of fire. Cooking food may strip many of it's nutrients out, but was a benefit by allowing the food to be more easily digested and thus - allow us to absorb more of the nutrients present in the food than we would normally get if we ate them raw.

Why didn't we evolve fangs, claws, and all that? Because we're not Carnivores. We're omnivores. Meat is important to our diet, but secondary to fruits and vegetables.

I hate when these "studies" come out by vegan whack jobs. If being a vegetarian is so healthy then why does the slightest hint of meat in a broth for instance make them so sick? Besides that, they all seem like I can crush their bones with one hand.
How can being so sickly and small be a good thing? Besides so what if I don't live long enough to have my kids changing my diaper because I can't walk on my own?

I am sure most of you agree me with my choice in living happy instead of long

reply to post by thebeast87


Well, my GF is a vegan, and she's healthy to the point of rubenesque.

She's also pretty damn strong.

All the vegans I know, who eat properly look no different from anyone else.

Frankly, your "theory" is more than a little wide of the mark and smacks of prejudice.


[edit on 30/3/2009 by budski]

Food eaters beware...

Beware of the plastic you eat from the fish you consume...
...yes fish eat plastic.

Beware of the genetically modified fruit you eat.

Beware of the genetically modified vegies you eat.

Beware of the preservatives you eat.

Beware of the pesticides you eat.

Beware of the fake sugar you eat that gives you diabetes.

Beware of the laundry detergent you drink that does not decompose.

Beware of the fluoride you drink.

Beware of the pharmaceuticals you drink.

Oh and btw.. ya that red meat.. its REALLY BAD FOR YOU!

See how much I care anymore??


[edit on 30-3-2009 by Techsnow]

The problem with many of these studies is that they look for a specific condition, and then try and make it fit their models. They stuck to men 50 and over, and we all know that people born in the 1950 had different diets than we do today. They has less access to fresh fruit and vegetables year round, and Meat and Potatoes with lots of butter and fat was the common faire. Grease(lard) was commonly used for cooking instead of more healthy olive oil.

If one eats meat in moderation, combined with sufficient fruit, vegetables and other plant fibers, there is little increased risk of colon cancer. Nuts are particularly good for you.

As for the whole idea that humans were not designed to eat meat..... Millions of years of evolution tend to prove you wrong on that score. Our genetic lineage and history is one of being omnivores. We have incisors and canines to cut flesh, not simply molars to chew cud. If you look at the evolution of cognitive neurology and the formation of complex synapses, you will see that higher protein content in meat allowed us to develop more complex brains. Hunting prey gave us faster reflexes, the ability to run long distance to chase game, and the hand eye coordination to make and use hunting weapons. Our Ape ancestors did not need to run after game, create and use weapons and today they remain primarily herbivores, with some animal protein in their diets on occasion. Chimpanzees do indeed hunt and kill smaller monkeys to eat. We are the only ape that has evolved bipedalism which allows us to run long distances. You do not need to run after an eggplant.

...Not only can humans outlast horses, but over long distances and under the right conditions, they can also outrun just about any other animal on the planet—including dogs, wolves, hyenas, and antelope, the other great endurance runners. From our abundant sweat glands to our Achilles tendons, from our big knee joints to our muscular glutei maximi, human bodies are beautifully tuned running machines. "We're loaded top to bottom with all these features, many of which don't have any role in walking," Lieberman says. Our anatomy suggests that running down prey was once a way of life that ensured hominid survival millions of years ago on the African savanna.

In a race against the eggplant, humans win before the race has even started.

[edit on 30/3/09 by Terapin]

Originally posted by Techsnow
Beware of the fake sugar you eat that gives you diabetes.

Well, that's total BS. Fake sugar? Are you making things up again? Overconsumption of sugars, or carbohydrates, causes diabetes.

Originally posted by Terapin
The problem with many of these studies is that they look for a specific condition, and then try and make it fit their models. They stuck to men 50 and over, and we all know that people born in the 1950 had different diets than we do today. They has less access to fresh fruit and vegetables year round, and Meat and Potatoes with lots of butter and fat was the common faire. Grease(lard) was commonly used for cooking instead of more healthy olive oil.

Unfortunately, it's studies like these that have labeled lard and butter as artery clogging, cholesterol raising, heart attacks in a bucket/stick. The truth is, lard and butter are much more healthy to cook with. Cooking at high heat with olive oil is just as bad as eating trans-fats via margerine.

-Dev

Its not surprising considering the hormones, steroids and other chemicals they put into processed meat these days not to mention any other type of processed food. I think the Inuits are a great example of you are what you eat. They hunt their meat so its all natural. No preservatives, steroids, hormones, and chemicals.

If we (culture wise) were to live the same way I bet out health issues concerning red meat wouldn't be the problem it is today.

There's something to be said about all natural foods.

Sorry but i don't buy this at all!

The health problems from eating meat occures because of our cooking and preparation methods. Cooking fats at high temperatures produce carcinogens and other free radicals which damage our bodies.

We can greatly cut these risks from eating meat simply by maarinating and pre cooking in a microwave for 2 minutes, problem solved!

why do you think animals etc dnt die prematurely from these diseases? Well they dont cook there meat

[edit on 1-4-2009 by tommyb0y]

reply to post by tommyb0y


That just depends on the type of fat your using to cook with. Cooking with unsaturated fats, that includes olive oil, is not healthy as these fats break down, or oxidize, in high heat. Saturated fats, on the other hand, do not. Using coconut oil, butter or lard to cook with a cut of read meat is ideal.

Simply heating a steak will not break the hydrogen bonds within a saturated fatty acid chain.

-Dev

reply to post by Lasheic


Great reply. You seemed to cover just about everything. Moderation is the key. I've tried a strictly vegetarian diet and while it seemed to work out in the beginning, man oh man were there long term consequences. It's nearly impossible to get adequate zinc & b12 from a fruit and veggie diet. I still have issues with anemia from that err in diet.

As for red meat. I rarely eat it. Stick to chicken and turkey, mostly. It just seems to work better with my genetics and taste, but to each their own.

Could be that most people who eat red meat also consume foods fried and made with hydrogenated vegetable oils.

Hydrogenated vegetable oils WILL kill you early. The body see it as food, but cannot process it, so it collects... until your blood stops flowing.

This study does nothing more than prove that those with unhealthy diets expire before those with healthy diets.

The study focuses on the double-meat with cheese and 4 strips of bacon crowd, rather than the folks who sit down do a grilled buffalo flank with green beans and carrots.

Remember "30 days"? Does anyone really think Mr. Spurlock suffered all those ill affects because it was red meat? Or could it be all the other crap that went along with getting his red meat in the form of a big mac? Hamburgers make up the majority of the red meat consumed in America. Hamburgers are generally served greasy, with greasy sides and carbonated fructose. Those who eat one of these meals a day, as in the study, are going to experience some health issues.

The fact of the matter is, most Americans who sustain themselves primarily on red meat, have an overall unhealthy diet. There are however, plenty of people who eat primarily red meat, but also subscribe to a healthy diet of fresh vegetables and avoid unhealthy, processed foods, greasy subsidies and sugar based beverages. I get my meat directly from a cattle rancher in his 90's. He's eaten red meat every day of his life, and is as healthy as I am in my 30's.

The "others" that the study refers to, are dietarily conscious in the first place. That's why they don't live off of red meat. Those that eat primarily fish, and poultry do so because they're consciously attempting to put healthy food in their bodies. Instead of a pound of greasy fries and a liter of cola to wash their meat down with, they have a salad and a glass of water.

The study leaves out an entire group of people, who have well balanced diets. They eat red meat, white meat and fish. They eat fresh greens and vegetables. They drink water and tea.

In the end, this "study" is a waste of time, money and resources that would be better spent on something not obvious, like cancer research. We've all heard "you are what you eat" since we can remember, we didn't need a big fancy study to prove that there's something to it.

My grandmother, a wise old woman, once told me years ago, people sholdnt eat red meat. When i say red meat, i mean as in cooked rare* still bloddy, especially hamburger, becuase bits fo it taht dint digest gets stuck in yuor intestines, and eventually in time, whatever the connection is, it cuases people to die younger. This was when i was in my teens, back in the early 90's. So, for me at least, this is not new news to me. We do need meat as a form of protein for nourishment, but meat can have tough fibers, and it over time accumulates in yuor bowels. Hence forth, this is why at local stores, yu find products like colon cleans. I once heard, byt he time th average human os 72, i think its the age, he can have as much as 5 lbs of undigested red meat in his bowels.