It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eating Animals is Making us Sick

page: 29
27
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

I took the example of your post and tried to put it back in on-topic context. You wanted to bring up a culture of all meat eaters. I had to go out of my way to find an article that is actually on topic. You could have found that article yourself and posted it, and then your post would have been on-topic.


I don't understand why I need to find an article to relate to a factual post. Once again, I simply referred to a group of individuals that thrive on meat without incidence of the diseases of civilization and then said it can't be ignored.......

YOU found an article that linked their omega-3 consumption and I provided a source that discusses a similar paradox, and why researchers search for SOMETHING because they KNOW meat is unhealthy.


You ask for sources, yet you don't provide them yourself.


I ask for sources.......because RAWHEMP is posting direct quotes and not providing a source. That's called plaigarism.


And yet, you clearly said you will ignore the observation Rawhemp brought up about large cats. Rawhemp even posted sources!


He posted a source once I asked for it; a source that was a feline nutritional website and is hardly a reliable source when discussing human nutrition. And no, I didn't ignore his/her "observation." If you'll go back and look, I wrote a post detailing why his/her claim was absolutely ridiculous.

In fact, I used ACTUAL sources. You know, peer reviewed, published articles. Studies. Conducted by the scientists that you and rawhemp despise.



It's possible that an isolated population could consume a certain food healthily and that the same food could cause problems in other isolated populations that did not evolve consuming said food.


It's possible that an isolated population of Big Cats that eat meat... but you said...



And no, it can not be applied to humans based on this observation alone.


Can you elaborate on how meat is not meat? Or, is this your mere opinion to avoid some contradiction.


Firstly, you've taken two quotes out of context. The first quote was speaking of a population of humans. The second quote, which was in a completely different post, was referring to rawhemp's suggestion that since Big Cats become calcium deficicent eating chunks of meat, perhaps humans will too.

Nice try though.



So Big Cats have fur coats so you claim they don't get sunlight to produce vitamin D.

From another source:


With this temperature range and the smaller amount of sunlight the Inuit have not been able to become true agriculturalists.


So Inuit wear coats and the they don't get sunlight like the rest of 6+ billion.

Do you have any source to claim Inuits get more sunlight than Big Cats in regard to vitamin D production?


It's very true that living at that longitude can nearly prevent any synthesis of vitamin d from sunlight. However, you have to consider the fact that they consume a diet of marine animals. Those animals are vitamin d rich. So no, they don't produce more than big cats.....they get more from their diet than big cats.




Again, Rawhemp was obviously ahead of you on this one on being able to understand nutritional research and being able to present sources. Use your head.


Right, way ahead of me. Even a highschooler can see how incredible rawhemp's sources are compared to mine.

-Dev




posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
The Inuit are not the only people that can survive healthily on meat. They are, however, an extreme case that simply creates a paradox that can not be ignored.


Their so-called 'all meat' diet is not all varieties of meat. The only paradox that happens here is when people try to use the Inuit's mostly marine diet as to suggest that any kind of meat is healthy. It could also be said that they only eat land animals for fat and not for their meat itself. Brains, when digested, is very high in fat with no meat.

I do not consider fat the same as meat.


This comment, along with other member's comments in response, paved the foundation and direction of the discussion.


People do generally eat more protein then they need. That is because people seem to think their only way they get protein is to eat another source that already has protein. The body can generate protein, yet if for someone that has sustained a high protein diet then their body may think it doesn't need to generate protein on its own. It's called a physical addiction (and sadly often without the high).


But, what you're completely disregarding is the fact that we're speaking of prewesternized inuits.


I did say prewesternized, so how is that in disregard?


At the end of the year, he was in prime physical and mental health.


My point being that you compare apple and oranges between: A) fat and meat, and B) the phrase 'mostly marine diet' to the phrase 'an all meat diet' as if meat meant any kind of meat. Ask yourself: Is human meat the same as Big Cat meat? Is human meat the same as marine meat?

Vegetarian Vampires want to know!


I don't rant to against vegetarians. I have a problem with vegetarians/vegans/raw foodies claiming that meat is unhealthy. I have a problem with vegans/veges/raw foodies talking with a holier than thou attitude and attacking me for my dietary choice.


I tried to find an objectionable ground here. You brought up the Inuit, whom don't eat diary. Vegetarians also do not eat dairy (even if some Lacto-Vegets still eat cheese they don't eat the meat.)


Could've fooled me. [...] It's also a very broad statement that can have many meanings. But, I'm assuming you're just making a point.


Beside the dairy/non-diary, like, how 'all meat' doesn't mean 'any meat' or meat with no fat.


I don't understand why I need to find an article to relate to a factual post.


You answered yourself:


You know, peer reviewed, published articles. Studies. Conducted by the scientists that you and rawhemp despise.


Treat those how you wish to be treated? Post a source if you want others to post sources -- factual or not. Also, while sources may be an excellent medium for data, they scientifically prove nothing until you take the steps of the scientific method yourself to prove it for yourself. That's the difference between 'science' of 'knowing' and 'science' of 'taking someone word's for it'. Even if someone could prove to you everything they know, it still is all considered subjective until you do the process yourself. The 'factualize point of subjectivity' should be enough for you to realize you need to go easier on others because you own words are just as subjective. Otherwise, it's called being an ass.

I don't despise scientist. I despise ad populum.


It's very true that living at that longitude can nearly prevent any synthesis of vitamin d from sunlight. However, you have to consider the fact that they consume a diet of marine animals. Those animals are vitamin d rich. So no, they don't produce more than big cats.....they get more from their diet than big cats.


I do and have considered that they do consume a diet of marine animals and not an 'all meat' diet like that of the westernized world. I think it was hard for you to back-paddle lightly about this point, yet at least you probably realize now that the causes of sickness are found near those that get sick and not of those that don't get sick unless you want the contrast.



[edit on 5-12-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Rawhemp
 


you're still incredibly confused about what science it, and how it works. you're still deciding that all of today's research is bunk, despite the clear and obvious beneficial results. and to claim your own observations of your own individual diet are actual science, is flat bunk.



less weed, more school son.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by STFUPPERCUTTER
 


so, it's better to arrive at a decision based on sesationalistic names for what we eat?

gimmie a break.

why is it you extremist veg heads are all so hateful towards science?

don't you see how that kind of, makes you look like troglodyte creationists? new age fundamentalists?

oh well. it's good for a laugh at least, watching the tantrums of the willfully ignorant.

makes me wanna eat rotting pig flesh





posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   


human are omnivores much like bears. Ever seen a bear only eat leafs and be happy?


if bears and people are both omnivores we must have similar teeth...

but we dont

we have teeth more like horses and cows while bears have teeth more like a dogs.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by watcher73
 


that kind of argumentation is really baseless.

if we were supposed to eat only vegetables and whatnot, why don't we have two stomachs like a cow? or hooves like a giraffe?

how come our closest genetic relatives, chimps, eat meat?

this whole discussion is truly absurd. there's no 'should' in terms of diet, and the longest lived people on the planet, when you study populations, all eat SOME meat. best example is the okinawans, who eat pork and fish.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by WiseIsAwokenThis is not my opinion, this is not fear mongering, this is FACT.


It is a FACT that we have discussed the subject of your opinion already in this thread. No need for a circular argument being made.

---

As for how TT continues to twist my words, meh.


It is indeed FACT that it has been discussed in this thread, but it is also FACT that no one in this thread has made a compelling argument against it. So like I said before, this is not my opinion, this is FACT.

[edit on 12/5/2009 by WiseIsAwoken]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
THATS WHY EVEN TOMATOES EAT ANIMALS

they want to be sick too



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by WiseIsAwoken
It is indeed FACT that is has been discussed, but it is also FACT that no one in this thread has made a compelling argument against it. So like I said before, this is not my opinion, this is FACT.


Huh?

Do you mean you have FACTS that each and every factory farm condition is perfectly sanitary?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rawhemp

Originally posted by WiseIsAwoken

Its probably the wisest thing you could do, all i hear from you is fear monger this, fear monger that. The b12 has been brought up time and time again, what you meat eaters always neglect to mention is that people on a standard american diet have higher instances of b12 deficiency then vegans.
Thought this article was interesting for you guys touting the longer life theory,
scientists have long believed that an ultra low calorie diet - aproximately 60 per cent of normal levels - can lead to greater longevity. But now a team of British researchers have discovered that the key to the effect is a reduction in a specific protein and not the total number of calories.
www.telegraph.co.uk...

[edit on 4-12-2009 by Rawhemp]


I didn't neglect to mention anything, I don't follow the standard american diet. My diet consists of water, fatty beef(ribeye,chuck steaks) or bison every now and then. The SAD diet on the other hand, contains meat, but is not entirely composed of it, which is the point I'm trying to make. Even if the SAD diet did consist primarily of meat, you neglect to mention that in every case of B12 deficiency related to it, in no instance is it related to the consumption of meat. The only instances where it is related to diet is the consumption of alcohol or grains.

While it may seem that Vegans have a much lower rate of the deficiency, that's easily contributed to the fact that they make up a much smaller pool of the population than SAD dieters. In reality, both SAD dieters and Vegans naturally have an equal chance of gaining the deficiency because its major causes are not related to diet at all, rather, genetic factors. However, when you add the fact that most Vegans realize their diet is breathtakingly low in B12, they supplement or consumefortified foods. By supplementing B12 or consuming fortified foods, the false impression is given that they have lower rates. Let me also mention that the many Vegans are encouraged to take B12 either when they start their diet or after they've encountered problems with deficiency. This skews the results even more because non vegans wouldn't find the need to ever supplement their diet with B12. Which in turn, artificially decreases the natural occurrence amongst the Vegan population and in turn inflates it amongst SAD dieters, when in reality it is actually vastly higher amongst Vegans because their diet by nature is highly void of B12 not to mention other nutrients lacking in vegetables/fruits.

On the subject of methionine and its restriction being the magic behind calorie restriction, it simply is not true, let me explain. There is no evidence to prove that limiting any amino acid won't have the same effect, why? The same type of study was done with leucine and other amino acids as well and had the same result: Proof

Also here: More proof

"Are these beneficial effects only specific for the dietary restriction of one amino acid or does limiting other amino acids achieve similar beneficial effects? It is not clear at this point but modest increases in mean and maximal lifespan extension has been observed in flies and in rodents that have diets lacking other amino acids such as glutamine and asparagine. However, another study showed that although limiting the amount of tryptophan in the diet increases the mean and maximal lifespan, this same study revealed that tryptophan restriction also leads to increased mortality early in life in rodents."



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by WiseIsAwoken
It is indeed FACT that is has been discussed, but it is also FACT that no one in this thread has made a compelling argument against it. So like I said before, this is not my opinion, this is FACT.


Huh?

Do you mean you have FACTS that each and every factory farm condition is perfectly sanitary?


I don't need facts that every factory farm condition is perfectly sanitary, because they're not. However, you know as well as I know that every nut, bean, corn, squash, carrot, whatever vegetable it is that you eat isn't exposed to enough dirt, manure or bacteria to ever match the B12 levels that are needed to sustain your health long term. If it wasn't true, why is it that I can't find a Vegan website that doesn't warn about the dangers of low b12 and why I should make sure to supplement or eat fortified foods?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by STFUPPERCUTTER
 


so, it's better to arrive at a decision based on sesationalistic names for what we eat?

gimmie a break.

why is it you extremist veg heads are all so hateful towards science?

don't you see how that kind of, makes you look like troglodyte creationists? new age fundamentalists?

oh well. it's good for a laugh at least, watching the tantrums of the willfully ignorant.

makes me wanna eat rotting pig flesh



1. i dont hate science at all, i liek it.
2. if you dont think your flesh peices are rotting, why are you using a refrigerator and a freezer?? leave the meat at room temperature, see how tasty it becomes in jsut 1 or 2 days. its rotting bro, dont front.
3. your use of big words is VERY impressive, seriously, you must be really smart.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by STFUPPERCUTTER

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by STFUPPERCUTTER
 


so, it's better to arrive at a decision based on sesationalistic names for what we eat?

gimmie a break.

why is it you extremist veg heads are all so hateful towards science?

don't you see how that kind of, makes you look like troglodyte creationists? new age fundamentalists?

oh well. it's good for a laugh at least, watching the tantrums of the willfully ignorant.

makes me wanna eat rotting pig flesh



1. i dont hate science at all, i liek it.
2. if you dont think your flesh peices are rotting, why are you using a refrigerator and a freezer?? leave the meat at room temperature, see how tasty it becomes in jsut 1 or 2 days. its rotting bro, dont front.
3. your use of big words is VERY impressive, seriously, you must be really smart.


Here you go again, off on a tangent. The point is not whether the meat is tasty if its rotting or if its rotting at all. The point is, is it killing us? And for the record, vegetables and fruit will rot if you leave them out long enough too BRO...



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by WiseIsAwoken
If it wasn't true, why is it that I can't find a Vegan website that doesn't warn about the dangers of low b12 and why I should make sure to supplement or eat fortified foods?


Just because a website tells you to do something doesn't make it fact, most mainstream nutritionist would have me believe i need meat and dairy. B12 supplementation is absolutely unnecessary if you eat a proper diet.

www.thehindubusinessline.com...

5000 year old vegan tribe that doesn't take any fortified foods or supplements, there goes your theory



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rawhemp

Originally posted by WiseIsAwoken
If it wasn't true, why is it that I can't find a Vegan website that doesn't warn about the dangers of low b12 and why I should make sure to supplement or eat fortified foods?


Just because a website tells you to do something doesn't make it fact, most mainstream nutritionist would have me believe i need meat and dairy. B12 supplementation is absolutely unnecessary if you eat a proper diet.

www.thehindubusinessline.com...

5000 year old vegan tribe that doesn't take any fortified foods or supplements, there goes your theory


I've found two websites that contradict that article:

#1
"1) Basic diet is grains (whole grain and sprouted), vegetables (raw or steamed), fruits (fruits are dried and reconstituted in water or diced and served in gelatin (goat and mutton tendon and cartilage). Meat at 2 to 4 pounds per week (i.e. - mutton, goat, yak, beef, poultry, brain, kidney, liver, etc.) is eaten as available; dairy (i.e. - whole milk, soured milk, yogurt, cheese and butter) is a staple. Grape wine known as Pani is consumed daily."

#2
"Milk products form the backbone of the Hindu diet, with clarified butter (ghee) and fermented curds eaten with every meal. "The cows are our friends, they give food, they give strength, they likewise give a good complexion and happiness,"
said Gautama Buddha."

So it appears the Hindu of the Himalayans do not sustain on plant foods alone, nor have they for, what, 5000 years, sure...

My theory still stands, and to add more salt to the wound, what about the traditional Inuit? Why were they immune to the diseases of civilization? How could they survive eating nothing but animals?


[edit on 12/5/2009 by WiseIsAwoken]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by WiseIsAwoken

My theory still stands, and to add more salt to the wound, what about the traditional Inuit? Why were they immune to the diseases of civilization? How could they survive eating nothing but animals?


[edit on 12/5/2009 by WiseIsAwoken]


You clearly didn't read the article. Hindu people do eat dairy and perhaps meat but this is a tribe that just happens to live in india. Seriously read the article instead of just the web address before you try to dismiss something as false...

Just in case that's too much for you too read

There are about 1,000 descendants of the Aryan tribes and they live scattered around Gilgit, Hunza, Kargil and Leh. Being nature worshippers, they celebrate the Bononah (nature) festival and are strict vegans, which means they are not only strictly vegetarian but also don't consume milk or milk products.

The few thousand Brok-pa Aryans have over 5,000 years lived in these hostile terrain at 15,000 ft altitude, subsisting on a vegan diet.


The Inuits are one case. They don't have the longevity of the primarily vegetarian and vegan tribes of the world tho. The Inuits clearly make it work out of necessity, if they had the choice of picking primarily plant foods I'm fairly certain there diet would be different. Remember tho the Inuits eat almost 100% animal products so trying to justify your diet with there habits is pretty ridiculous unless you do the same.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by Rawhemp]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas
Their so-called 'all meat' diet is not all varieties of meat. The only paradox that happens here is when people try to use the Inuit's mostly marine diet as to suggest that any kind of meat is healthy. It could also be said that they only eat land animals for fat and not for their meat itself. Brains, when digested, is very high in fat with no meat.

I do not consider fat the same as meat.


That's fine. But most people do. Meat is comprised of different ratios of protein to fat. They consumed a variety of land mammals, sea mammals, fish and birds.

en.wikipedia.org...


They still hunt whales, walrus, caribou, seal, polar bears, muskoxen, birds, and at times other less commonly eaten animals such as the Arctic Fox.

In the 1920s anthropologist Vilhjalmur Stefansson lived with and studied a group of Inuit.[30] The study focused on the fact that the Inuit's extremely low-carbohydrate diet had no adverse effects on their health, nor indeed, Stefansson's own health. Stefansson (1946) also observed that the Inuit were able to get the necessary vitamins they needed from their traditional winter diet, which did not contain any plant matter.



This comment, along with other member's comments in response, paved the foundation and direction of the discussion.



People do generally eat more protein then they need. That is because people seem to think their only way they get protein is to eat another source that already has protein. The body can generate protein, yet if for someone that has sustained a high protein diet then their body may think it doesn't need to generate protein on its own. It's called a physical addiction (and sadly often without the high).


You obviously have a very skewed undestanding of the biochemistry regarding protein synthesis.

Without essential amino acids, the body can not produce all the proteins it needs.

The body can't tell the difference exogenous and endogenous amino acids/protein. This is because dietary proteins are disassembled andthe amino acids are used to build new proteins.



I don't understand why I need to find an article to relate to a factual post.


You answered yourself:


You know, peer reviewed, published articles. Studies. Conducted by the scientists that you and rawhemp despise.


Once again, you're quoting out of context. I have linked all relavent peer reviewed articles that support my stance. I have purposefully abstained from posting non scientific sources, or articles/blogs that aren't peer reviewed. Wikipedia being the only exception.

My question was: why should I post some article when I'm asking a question about an observation?

Here's the post I was replying to:


Originally posted by STFUPPERCUTTER
i tihnk we should have an ATS challenge!
veggieheads vs. fleshmongers
all the vegetarians can eat only fruits and veggies and all the vampires can eat only meat for the duration of the contest.
last team left alive wins!


This is where I asked a simple question: If you're implying an all meat diet is unhealthy then why do traditional inuit live healthily eating nothing but meat? Why would I search for an article about CHD after posting this question?


Treat those how you wish to be treated? Post a source if you want others to post sources -- factual or not.


I asked for the source to the big cat post becaue rawhemp has posted multiple quotes without sourcing. There are many problems with this. It's plaigarism and there is no way for me to review the information and check for points made out of context, or simply incredible information.


Also, while sources may be an excellent medium for data, they scientifically prove nothing until you take the steps of the scientific method yourself to prove it for yourself. That's the difference between 'science' of 'knowing' and 'science' of 'taking someone word's for it'. Even if someone could prove to you everything they know, it still is all considered subjective until you do the process yourself.


This is laughable. The whole point of clinical trials and scientific method applied to nutrition is to test a hypothesis for possible health detriments so YOU don't have to endure any side effets of a poor dietary choice.


I think it was hard for you to back-paddle lightly about this point,


Back paddle? Seriously? I addressed your point with an answer...that traditional inuit get vitamin d from the diet. Big cats in captivity don't get it from diet in optimal quantities and they don't get it from the sun at all. How the hell is this back paddling?

-Dev



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
You obviously have a very skewed undestanding of the biochemistry regarding protein synthesis.


Without essential amino acids, the body can not produce all the proteins it needs.

That is a flippant way to agree with me, so it seems clear you argue to just argue.


The body can't tell the difference exogenous and endogenous amino acids/protein.


Of course! Let me say it again this way: Vegetarians/Vegans are really people who eat a diet of precursorial foods and have adapted to generate the essential proteins and such. Carnivores rather eat meat that already have such proteins generated and are not so adapted to generate them.

Vegetarians are not physically addicted to meat. That is the point you disagree with here in this tread. Meat eaters are addicted to their diet.


Once again, you're quoting out of context.





peer reviewed articles


Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed primary source. That is the one you have quoted often. If you want to use wikipedia, then you go directly to the source and not wikipedia itself. The sources are listed at the bottom of wikipedia article. It's not hard to pick one or a few out and cite them here directly. Until then, quotes from wikipedia are considered ignored (and plagiarism by your standards). Anybody who has spent quote a decent amount of time to contribute to wikipedia learn just why not to use wikipedia. You serious lose all credibility when you quote directly from wikipedia as a 'peer-reviewed' or primary source.


This is where I asked a simple question: If you're implying an all meat diet is unhealthy then why do traditional inuit live healthily eating nothing but meat?


Maybe you haven't realized that this is not the thread for that question. I think other have had lots of patience to try to show you the difference between what this thread is about and what you want it to be about.

Vegetarians who don't eat meat get sicknesses from the proximity to those that do eat meat? This thread pointed out the conditions of how food is produced rather than pick on a particular diet.


This is laughable. The whole point of clinical trials and scientific method applied to nutrition is to test a hypothesis for possible health detriments so YOU don't have to endure any side effets of a poor dietary choice.


It's all phenomena. It doesn't matter if it is you observation, my observation, or the observations made by those at clinical trials. There is no magic authority there in regards to science.


Big cats in captivity don't get it from diet in optimal quantities and they don't get it from the sun at all. How the hell is this back paddling?


There is another one of your 'out of context' preemptive attempts. When I brought up the big cats, I narrowed down to how they only eat animals and contrasted that about health issues.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by STFUPPERCUTTER
dzonatas 1
devolutionevolvd 0

that's a matter of scientific/non scientific opinion...



dzontas
Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed primary source. That is the one you have quoted often.


I believe DEVO said :



have purposefully abstained from posting non scientific sources, or articles/blogs that aren't peer reviewed. Wikipedia being the only exception.


You have basically have not read his posts properly and rather read with skewed vision to keep a arguement going, and have completely misrepresented what he said to us reading this thread for info.....

Anyway, this thread has been very useful for me as a vegetarian, and I personally have learned that eating animals doesn't make you sick from the arguements presented....Doesn't mean Im going to start eating them



[edit on 6-12-2009 by zazzafrazz]




top topics



 
27
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join