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: 30
27
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
I don't really care what people say about it, I am not giving up my cheeseburgers! I mean really what good would it be to live, if you can't eat a cheeseburger, think about it. This is a shoutout to all those who love the American cheeseburger as much as me, they are going no-where.




posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 03:46 AM
link   
this thread got so derailed its not even funny.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   
'First Nations people and Inuit have higher rates of injury, suicide and diabetes.' www.hc-sc.gc.ca...

'Pibloktoq (hysteria) and Inuit nutrition: possible implication of hypervitaminosis A.
Landy D.

The hysterical reaction among Eskimo peoples known as pibloktoq, one of a group of aberrant behaviors occurring among Arctic and Circumarctic societies termed 'arctic hysterias', has been explained by a variety of theories: ecological, nutritional, biological-physiological, psychological-psychoanalytic, social structural and cultural. This study hypothesizes the possible implication of vitamin intoxication, namely, hypervitaminosis A, in the etiology of some cases of pibloktoq. Its biocultural approach implicates elements of several explanatory classes, which are not mutually exclusive. Experimental and clinical studies of nonhumans and humans reveal somatic and behavioral effects of hypervitaminosis A which closely parallel many of the symptoms reported for Western patients diagnosed as hysterical and Inuit sufferers of pibloktoq. Eskimo nutrition provides abundant sources of vitamin A and lays the probable basis in some individuals for hypervitaminosis A through ingestion of livers, kidneys, and fat of arctic fish and mammals, where the vitamin often is stored in poisonous quantities. Possible connections between pibloktoq and hypervitamonosis A are explored. A multifactorial framework may yield a more compelling model of some cases of pibloktoq than those that are mainly unicausal, since, among other things, the disturbance has been reported for males and females, adults and children, and dogs. ' www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

'American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 27, 916-925, 1974 Bone mineral content of North Alaskan Eskimos Richard B. Mazess Ph.D.1 and Warren Mather B.S.1 . 1 From the Bone Mineral Laboratory, Department of Radiology (Medical Physics), University of Wisconsin Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin 53706

Direct photon absorptiometry was used to measure the bone mineral content of forearm bones in Eskimo natives of the north coast of Alaska. The sample consisted of 217 children, 89 adults, and 107 elderly (over 50 years). Eskimo children had a lower bone mineral content than United States whites by 5 to 10% but this was consistent with their smaller body and bone size. Young Eskimo adults (20 to 39 years) of both sexes were similar to whites, but after age 40 the Eskimos of both sexes had a deficit of from 10 to 15% relative to white standards. Aging bone loss, which occurs in many populations, has an earlier onset and greater intensity in the Eskimos. Nutritional factors of high protein, high nitrogen, high phosphorus, and low calcium intakes may be implicated. ...
'http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/9/916

'For First Nations aged 45 years and older, circulatory disease was the most common cause of death. ..'
www.mail-archive.com...@yahoogroups.com/msg07080.html

'Except for male prostate cancer, First Nations cancer mortality rates are lower than those for the overall Canadian population. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) rates among First Nations are about 20% higher than the Canadian rate, and stroke rates among First Nations are almost twice as high as the comparable Canadian figure.

All rates are age-standardized to the 1991 Canadian population.
..'
www.hc-sc.gc.ca...

[[ 'The most striking results from the analysis were the strong positive associations between increasing consumption of animal fats and ischemic heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for the highest third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects with no prior disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat, 2.77 (1.25, 6.13) for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96) for dietary cholesterol; P for trend:



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz


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.....


You left me completely clueless to why your appearance in this thread is to only make such an accusation.
Was that towards me or someone else?

Just because research is of scientific basis with all the peer review possible doesn't mean the research should be used in a thread in a out of context manner.

Devo brought up the Inuit: (A) I gathered that Devo posted it because they eat meat; (B) he conjectured about the appearance of how the Inuit seem immnue to sickness, and Devo said that why they shouldn't be ignored; (C) the Inuit do not live in captivity.

Rawhemp brought up Big Cats: (A) I gathers Rawhemp posted it because they eat only meat; (B) article was about the diet Big Cats need in order for them to be immune to sickness, and I thought that shouldn't be ignored; (C) there are many Big Cats that do not live in captivity,

To compare and contrast an 'all meat' diet ("eating animals") and its health issues ("is making us sick") is neither so-called skewed nor an attempt to misinterpret.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rawhemp

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]


I did read your article, how do you think I knew who the Hunza were? Why would I include an article just about them? So, again, from the same link as before, the Hunza, they don't eat just vegetables.

#1
"the land of the Hunza in northern India- all three use whole milk products. The people of Hunza and Kashmir consume whole fermented goat milk products (kefir); inhabitants of Vilcabamba consume raw cows milk which they usually separate into cream cheese and whey;"

And again from the other article I linked before, the Hunza from the article you linked.

#2
"even more extraordinary, when his rats were fed the same diet as that of the Hunzas, a diet limited to locally produced grain, vegetables, fruits, and unpasteurized goats milk and butter,"



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by WiseIsAwoken

I did read your article, how do you think I knew who the Hunza were? Why would I include an article just about them? So, again, from the same link as before, the Hunza, they don't eat just vegetables.

#1
"the land of the Hunza in northern India- all three use whole milk products. The people of Hunza and Kashmir consume whole fermented goat milk products (kefir); inhabitants of Vilcabamba consume raw cows milk which they usually separate into cream cheese and whey;"

And again from the other article I linked before, the Hunza from the article you linked.

#2
"even more extraordinary, when his rats were fed the same diet as that of the Hunzas, a diet limited to locally produced grain, vegetables, fruits, and unpasteurized goats milk and butter,"



All that cooked food clogging your brain??? Its not about the Hunzas either
. Someone needs to go back to grade school to learn some reading comprehension. The people are called the Brok-pa Aryans, did you not read the quotes i posted? the only place it even mentions hunza is when it says what region they live in.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by Rawhemp]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Pearl999
 



Looks like there only argument, the great inuits!!!, aren't so healthy after all....


www.uic.edu...
One 50 year-old woman showed evidence of malnutrition as a child; she had also lost her front teeth probably from a life of chewing skins. She also had an extensive cancer behind her left eye

Inuits may have been able to dodge heart cancer, probably due to there very active lifestyle, but clearly there all meat diet was not the epitome of health.



[edit on 6-12-2009 by Rawhemp]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by xAZIMUTHpx
I mean really what good would it be to live, if you can't eat a cheeseburger, think about it.


The funny thing is i used to think like this, till i actually felt what true health is. Living a healthy productive life>>>>>Life with cheeseburgers



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 




Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed primary source

I was referring specifically to the one accusation you made of him using wikpedia as a scientific resource after he specifically stated it was not , infact he said quite the opposite that it was the exception he used for non peer reviewed sources, so you were misrepesenting a point in his debate, and to the average reader like me it appeared so as to simply to have a point to argue? Perhaps I was wrong??? But the posts speaks for itself and this "source debating" (u both did it) is frustrating I want to stick to learning about about meat versus vegetarian diet .....The other points of discussion you listed, thanks, but I was able to discern from reading the thread and didn't require a summary.

I was not reffering to your entire posting history being misrepresentative, so pls dont be upset.

There are people who lurk and read threads and don't require to post, dont be suprised if we "appear out of nowhere"
we are entitled to be passivley active in a thread ... as a vegeatrian I have really enjoyed this thread so will continue to read it, and look forward to more discussion on the debate regarding meat eating is bad for you and not just argue offtopic about source validity, cheers.




[edit on 6-12-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by dzonatas
 


I was referring specifically to your accusation him of using wikpedia as a scientific resource and he specifically stated it was not , infact he said quite the opposite that it was the exception he used for non peer reviewed sources, so you were misrepesenting a point in his debate, and to the average reader like me it appeared so as to simply to have a point to argue? Perhaps I was wrong???


I didn't question the 'science' behind the quotes, I questioned the credibility of the quotes being that wikipedia was specifically quoted.

If you have ever edited an article on wikipedia, you know the text changes. You also know that the list of source changes with the text on wikipedia. When you link to wikipedia, you link to the latest version of the text. When you quote from wikipedia, you quote from the version that you linked to at the time of the article. This is a severe problem. It can be grounds for plagiarism when the quoted text is actually taken from another source, but the link refers to a page that no longer lists that source because the page has changed. It's not that the person plagiarizes wikipedia, they plagiarize the source that wikipedians used to write the page.

That is not all. Even though the text is free to edit on wikipedia, it is under the GNU Free Docuementation License, which doesn't mean it gives you the freedom to quote however you want. It is a strict license that specifically states what you must include when you make copies of the work. For example, you must include a copy of the history page (GFDL section 4.I). You do that because you must list each author that is responsible for that text (GFDL section 4.B).

Further, many pages are now under its Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. It requires the same basic attribution requirements of the GFDL to list each author for proper attribution.

Is this legal work that ATS wants to worry about? A simple single link to wikipedia is not enough to satisfy a legal, proper citation of text quoted from wikipedia.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by dzonatas]

[edit on 6-12-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
There are people who lurk and read threads and don't require to post, dont be suprised if we "appear out of nowhere"


(Hey Zaz
)


The issue is that posters are trying to make this into an extremities discussion: All Meat diet, vs. All Veggie Diet... yet no one is really discussing the advantages and disadvantages of a moderate diet... the way I looked at this post first was: Commercial meat is making us sick... which is the belief system I currently have.

In terms of extremities:
Yes, too much of anything is probably not good for you (probably why most doctors agree with the 3-cigarette/day rule - 13 cigarettes/day = heavy smoker)

As I mentioned, I did the Vegetarian thing for over a yearish - my first post explains the problems that I had with Vegetarianism and why I am not one now.

I was never a Vegetarian for: Animal Rights. I tried being vegetarian as a method of being safe in what I ate, after the Lysteria breakout in Canada.

I was a vegetarian so I couldn't get sick, from eating the hormone-crammed meat, and/or sick from improper handling.

When the e.coli outbreak happened 2 years ago (in spinach) I stopped eating Spinach... until one day I thought "You know, I'm being too extreme with this, and besides, Spanokopita is just too de-lish, for me not to be eating it.

Did anyone consider, that free-range, fresh-caught, and organically fed animals, could be another variable in this discussion?

--Right, I've read the comments of "Isn't it funnny how everyone on ATS seems to have a friend of a friend who raises their own cattle, and chickens, and catches fish... blah blah blah"

And you know what?

It's rude. There are people who DO NOT live the commercial lifestyle, people who ARE NOT slaves to coroporate Amercia - YES, there are some of us left - so drop the insinuating attitude. And really - is it THAT hard to imagine that there would be members on ATS who fall into that category? We're conspiracy thinkers for godssake! Some of us can find a conspiracy in ANYTHING. Why WOULDN'T there be people on ATS who live this lifestyle? And why should FOOD be the exception to conspirical thinking when we lump Guns, Free-speak, and Human Rights into the equation too?

Not to mention from an Economical point of view: that getting your meats from Henry down the road supports the BUY LOCAL mentality, which ultimately supports your local economy. Why wouldn't you buy local?

Why wouldn't people support Henry when your fathers fathers, bought from Henry's father - it's like an unspoken relationship: I'll buy my meat from you, and you get your guns cleaned by me. This type of lifestyle and thinking is NOT completely extinguished, there are people who conitnue to live this way - and have NOT become dependant on Commercialism.

Meat:
Have we considered:

What about the affects of eating meat 3-5 times a week - litterally. In terms of: If you eat 3 meals a day, 7 days a week - thats 21 meals in one week - what if 3 -5 of those meals, include meat?

What are the health issues with a moderate diet, such as this?


- Carrot



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by CA_Orot


The issue is that posters are trying to make this into an extremities discussion: All Meat diet, vs. All Veggie Diet... yet no one is really discussing the advantages and disadvantages of a moderate diet...
In terms of extremities

Did anyone consider, that free-range, fresh-caught, and organically fed animals, could be another variable in this discussion?


Meat:
Have we considered:

What about the affects of eating meat 3-5 times a week - litterally. In terms of: If you eat 3 meals a day, 7 days a week - thats 21 meals in one week - what if 3 -5 of those meals, include meat?

What are the health issues with a moderate diet, such as this?


- Carrot



Hey girl!, Wow ace rant, Im jealous!

I couldn't agree with you more, this is extreme spectrum is also glaring to me, I think the 'all meat' arguement came in to try and prove those who eat are able to manage a per capita healthy lifelstyle and was a valid point inititally, that said, I do hope your 2 above points are are deemed fit to be adressed as they are pertenant, as most people consume this way, not like inuits or vegans....

[edit on 6-12-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
I think the 'all meat' arguement came in to try and prove those who eat are able to manage a per capita healthy lifelstyle and was a valid point inititally, that said, I do hope your 2 above points are are deemed fit to be adressed as they are pertenant, as most people consume this way, not like inuits or vegans


I compeltely agree: it was a valid point initially that inuits survive on an all-meat diet (thus helping support that meat isn't all that bad - as well, they have adapted to live in these conditions.

But you're correct: The inuits and the vegans - are not as prominent in society as the moderate eaters....


- Carrot



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by WiseIsAwoken
 


of course veggies also rot.

i think you missed the fact that I was just teasing the other poster.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
There is a "glaring" problem with moderation as well. All one needs to do is check the mortality rates of Americans and it becomes very clear that the US Dietary Guidelines of "eat in moderation" are killing us.

The traditional/pre-westernized Inuit are an extreme example of human beings thriving on a diet of 75% fat and nearly 100% animal products without any infliction of the diseases of civilization, the chronic diseases that have infected most of the modern world.

Are animals making us sick? Well, in the case of the traditional Inuits......NO. This observation alone is enough to falsify the title of this thread.

Does eating meat cause cancer? Epidemiolgoy has positively associated meat consumption with cancer incidence. But there are a few problems. Some observational studies have produced no association between cancer and meat consumption. The biggest reason why the answer is still unclear is that there is no consensus among cancer researchers, nor are there any conclusive clinical data, as to the physilogical effect of meat that causes cancer formation and/or growth.

Contrarily, epidemiology has positively associated sugar/processed carb consumption with cancer. And rarely are there any observations that conflict. There has been a physiological effect of sugar, through its effects on insulin, identified that increases cancer cell proliferation and inhibits apoptosis, programmed cell death.

If anything, there is much more evidence, both observational and clinical, in support of the hypothesis that sugar and processed carbohydrate consumption causes cancer than there is that meat causes cancer.

Does meat cause heart disease? The only evidence that suggests this is epidmiological. It's purely observational and speculative. It's based on the lipid hypothesis which says that Saturated fat consumption, through it's effects on cholesterol, causes atherosclerosis. This observation has not been proven clinically.....because it's not true. Here's the Biochemistry lesson......

Just a few facts:

- Beef meat is half saturated fat and the other half is a monounsaturated fat called Oleic acid, the same "heart disease preventing" fat found in OLIVE OIL.

- Saturated fat increases total cholesterol by increasing HDL (the good cholesterol). It does not increase LDL (the "bad cholesterol").

- Total cholesterol is not indicative of heart disease risk.

- Monounsaturated fat, the kind found in beef meat, lowers LDL and increases HDL.

- Carbohydrates in the blood stream are converted into triglycerides (VLDL) which are precursor to LDL, the "bad" stuff.

- Insulin causes LDL to become small and dense, which makes them easier to become stuck in between the cells that line the arterial wall. The negative stimulus of insulin (the absence of it) causes LDL to become large and fluffy, which makes it flow through the blood stream and back to the liver.

- The best markers for heart disease risk are LDL quantity, LDL size and Triglycerides/LDL ratio, all of which are negatively affected by blood glucose.

The notion that saturated fat causes heart disease by increasing cholesterol is bogus science. Here's a recent thread of mine discussing the cholesterol paradox: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Does meat consumption cause type 2 diabetes? Why anyone would think this is beyond me. All observational evidence suggests that processed carbohydrates are to blame and clinical evidence supports the epidemiology immensely.

Does meat consumption cause Obesity? Meat consumption is loosely associated with obesity, according to epidemiology. But...What is Obesity?

Obesity is a chronic condition of excess fat accumulation. The very next question should be: What regulates fat accumulation?

The answer is Insulin. Countless studies on animals and humans since the early 1900's have demonstrated:

- Overeating is a symptom of obesity.
- Sedentary behaviour is a symptom of obesity.
- Retarded metabolism is a s ymptom of obesity.
- Insulin regulates fat metabolism.
- Insulin regulates hunger.
- Insulin will lock fat in adipocytes independent of calories consumed. Hunger will ensue.

It is very clear that fat accumulation is caused by excess insulin, which is caused by excess blood glucose, which is caused by easily digestible carbohydrates. This is not controversial and is in every biochemistry/metabolism texbook.

Every one of the aformentioned diseases are atop the list for all cause mortality in the United States and are considered "diseases of civilization." They are typically blamed on the westernization of diet, which is a very vague accusation as it fails to distinguish the exact cause.

Some people think lifestyle is the major contributing factor for these diseases. Exercise, however, was unheard of before the 1960's. Many of the healthiest people in the world are very sedentary, an example would be pre-westernized Inuit women.

The truth is, there is one dietary factor that is very obviously causing most of the problems we see. Just as the traditional inuit thrived on an all meat diet, many people, as pointed out in this thread, have lived on plants alone. Nuts and seeds, even. The one dietary factor, the western part of the "westernized" diet, is processed carbohydrates and fats.

If you can healthily survive on a plant based, raw food diet, that's great. It's not easy, but it's possible. If you can survive healthily on a diet of meat and whole foods, great. It's easier. But you can't survive healthily if you're consuming processed carbs/sugars/easily digestible carbs and processed fats.

If you can't hunt it or gather it, it probably isn't very healthy. That's my outlook.

-Dev



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pearl999
'First Nations people and Inuit have higher rates of injury, suicide and diabetes.' www.hc-sc.gc.ca...


We are referring to the traditional Inuit.


'Pibloktoq (hysteria) and Inuit nutrition: possible implication of hypervitaminosis A.
Landy D.

The hysterical reaction among Eskimo peoples known as pibloktoq, one of a group of aberrant behaviors occurring among Arctic and Circumarctic societies termed 'arctic hysterias', has been explained by a variety of theories: ecological, nutritional, biological-physiological, psychological-psychoanalytic, social structural and cultural. This study hypothesizes the possible implication of vitamin intoxication, namely, hypervitaminosis A, in the etiology of some cases of pibloktoq. Its biocultural approach implicates elements of several explanatory classes, which are not mutually exclusive. Experimental and clinical studies of nonhumans and humans reveal somatic and behavioral effects of hypervitaminosis A which closely parallel many of the symptoms reported for Western patients diagnosed as hysterical and Inuit sufferers of pibloktoq. Eskimo nutrition provides abundant sources of vitamin A and lays the probable basis in some individuals for hypervitaminosis A through ingestion of livers, kidneys, and fat of arctic fish and mammals, where the vitamin often is stored in poisonous quantities. Possible connections between pibloktoq and hypervitamonosis A are explored. A multifactorial framework may yield a more compelling model of some cases of pibloktoq than those that are mainly unicausal, since, among other things, the disturbance has been reported for males and females, adults and children, and dogs. ' www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Once again, we're referring to the traditional Inuit. This study was conducted in '85 when the traditional diet had been infected by "westernized" foods.


'American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 27, 916-925, 1974 Bone mineral content of North Alaskan Eskimos Richard B. Mazess Ph.D.1 and Warren Mather B.S.1 . 1 From the Bone Mineral Laboratory, Department of Radiology (Medical Physics), University of Wisconsin Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin 53706

Direct photon absorptiometry was used to measure the bone mineral content of forearm bones in Eskimo natives of the north coast of Alaska. The sample consisted of 217 children, 89 adults, and 107 elderly (over 50 years). Eskimo children had a lower bone mineral content than United States whites by 5 to 10% but this was consistent with their smaller body and bone size. Young Eskimo adults (20 to 39 years) of both sexes were similar to whites, but after age 40 the Eskimos of both sexes had a deficit of from 10 to 15% relative to white standards. Aging bone loss, which occurs in many populations, has an earlier onset and greater intensity in the Eskimos. Nutritional factors of high protein, high nitrogen, high phosphorus, and low calcium intakes may be implicated. ...
'http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/9/916


If these Eskimos weren't consuming the traditional diet that is rich in Vitamin D, then it is safe to assume that calcium deficiencies could cause of bone loss.


'For First Nations aged 45 years and older, circulatory disease was the most common cause of death. ..'
www.mail-archive.com...@yahoogroups.com/msg07080.html

'Except for male prostate cancer, First Nations cancer mortality rates are lower than those for the overall Canadian population. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) rates among First Nations are about 20% higher than the Canadian rate, and stroke rates among First Nations are almost twice as high as the comparable Canadian figure.

All rates are age-standardized to the 1991 Canadian population.
..'
www.hc-sc.gc.ca...

[[ 'The most striking results from the analysis were the strong positive associations between increasing consumption of animal fats and ischemic heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for the highest third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects with no prior disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat, 2.77 (1.25, 6.13) for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96) for dietary cholesterol; P for trend:



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Rawhemp
 


Congratulations, you've identified information on ONE Inuit mummy from greenland.

My original point about the traditional Inuit was based on the findings of Vilhjalmur Stefansson, the anthropologist that spent years with the Inuit while eating their meat based diet.

You're saying that it must be physical work that is preventing heart disease, but this is very assumptive on your part. This is directly from Stefansson's book, Cancer, Disease of Civilization. Quotes are from anthropologist Dr. John Murdoch:


"They are large eaters, some of them, especially the women, eating all the time..." ...during the winter the Barrow women stirred around very little, did little heavy work, and yet "inclined more to be sparse than corpulent"


Women were less active and were leaner.

In the early 1900's Stefansson spent 1 year with the Inuit while being monitored by the American Medical Association. Their findings, that Stefansson and his colleague were in perfect health, were published in The Journal of American Medical Association: Lieb, Clarence W. "The Effects on Human Beings of a Twelve Months' Exclusive Meat Diet," Journal of the American Medical Association, 6 July 1929.

Think cancer was a problem? Think again:


A study was published in 1934 by F.S. Fellows in the U.S Treasury's Public Health Reports entitled "Mortality in the Native Races of the Territory of Alaska, With Special Reference to Tuberculosis". It contained a table of cancer mortality deaths for several Alaskan regions, all of them Westernized to some degree. However, some were more Westernized than others. In descending order of Westernization, the percent of deaths from cancer were as follows:




Think the Inuit didn't live long enough becuase of their food choice?

First of all, living in such a harsh environment for any length of time is a very hard task to accomplish, especially without modern medicine. Most of their deaths were attributed to infant mortality, warfare, infectious diseases and accidents. Not diseases of civilization. Here's a good post on the subject: wholehealthsource.blogspot.com...

Other source: wholehealthsource.blogspot.com...

-Dev



[edit on 6-12-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by WiseIsAwoken
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


There is plenty of evidence that something happens, as stated in the article Advances in aging research: why methionine restriction is an attractive life-extension strategy


Scientists have shown that curtailing methionine, an essential amino acid, from a normal diet is sufficient to achieve the long-term beneficial effects of caloric restriction in rats (Richie et al., 1994; Oreintreich et al., 1993;Miller et al., 2005). Indeed, dietary methionine restriction is sufficient to increase mean and maximal lifespan in rats even when rats were allowed to eat as much (ad libidum) as they wanted (Miller et al., 2005). Moreover, dietary methionine restriction paralleled and recapitulated the beneficial effects of caloric restriction by robustly decreasing the serum levels of insulin, glucose and thyroid hormone and IGF-1 (Miller et al., 2005). Other benefits of methionine restriction in rodents included a significant decrease in body mass (about a 30% decrease in total body mass observed in rodents), preserving insulin sensitivity in old rats and a drastic reduction in adiposity (body fat) (Malloy et al., 2006).


It seems odd to me that someone would want to simply ignore the subject of big cats just because they aren't human when these dietary studies are done on rats (and fruit flies), which are also not human. Should we ignore these studies above that use rats?

That article actually asks that question, too. It's evidence that something happens in general that can be applied to organisms with similar digestion, but its not evidence to give a solid authoritative direction for health issues for humans.

There is evidence that amino acids are more significant than vitamins and minerals. The research seems to have done the opposite of the studies above. The main paper is published in Dec 2nd's issue of Nature, but you can read this: Amino acid recipe could be right for long life


Many animals on low-calorie diets shut down their reproductive systems. Female fruit flies, for example, don’t lay eggs when fed the calorie-restricted diets. The effect makes sense, says study coauthor Matthew Piper of University College London in England.


It goes on to relate in the study how they added extra methionine to the fruit flies' diet, which then increase their egg count.

Consider that for a moment for what factory farms would do with that information. Maybe they already know and didn't want to tell us, or there are many who disagree with the study. If they add extra methionine to the diet for livestock, they could increase the reproduction rates of their farms -- if they aren't already doing this.


Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
All of the above diseases were observed once the Inuit began adding "westernized" food into their diet.


Then you know it isn't just observation that 'eating animals' makes people sick, especially if they eat "westernized" food. I've started to wonder now why you call it westernized, not that I don't have a clue of the usual blame on the west for its industry. That industry is the main subject of the OP. Now, why should we ignore it?

[edit on 6-12-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
If the Inuit aren't good enough for you.....then you can do some reading on the Masai of Kenya.

wholehealthsource.blogspot.com...

They live almost entirely off of their own cattle, or atleast they did. Milk, meat and blood. Consuming loads of fat and cholesterol, yet they have lower serum cholesterol levels than the average american man.

-Dev



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas


It seems odd to me that someone would want to simply ignore the subject of big cats just because they aren't human when these dietary studies are done on rats (and fruit flies), which are also not human. Should we ignore these studies above that use rats?


Of course not. Because they're clinical STUDIES conducted on animals that are very similar to humans physiologicaly. The big cat observation did not take into account the process in which big cats in captivity and Inuits get their Vitamin D respectively.


Then you know it isn't just observation that 'eating animals' makes people sick, especially if they eat "westernized" food. I've started to wonder now why you call it westernized, not that I don't have a clue of the usual blame on the west for its industry. That industry is the main subject of the OP. Now, why should we ignore it?

[edit on 6-12-2009 by dzonatas]


No, it's an observation that eating animals DOESN"T make us sick.

"Westernized," in the case of the Inuits, means foods such as flour, sugar and vegetable oils.

-Dev

[edit on 6-12-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]




top topics



 
27
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join