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: 32
27
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by WiseIsAwoken


So much for vegetarians
en.wikipedia.org...
"Brokpa vary with respect to the amount of meat (mainly mutton) that they eat."





That is a wiki entry so the validity of it is subject. Every other source I've read has stated they are strict vegans. Even if I'm wrong and they do eat meat it doesn't really matter, this was just used as a arguing point against your extremely ignorant b12 argument.

Most importantly of all, however, is the hidden fact that in any healthy human body, production and absorption of vitamin B12 will take place on a large scale in the small intestine, in the folds of the tongue, around the teeth and tonsils, in the esophagus, the bronchial tubes and all along the intestinal tract. Even without any dietary source of B12 (which, as demonstrated, would be practically impossible, as all plant foods contain B12), it would still be virtually impossible for a person living on a frugivore diet to experience a B12 deficiency.

www.frugivorelifestyle.com...

If you think humans need meat for b12 then eat all the meat you care for. Your body is gonna be the one paying for it. I on the other hand know for a fact you don't and that's all the prove i need.

FYI for anyone thinking about supplementing, vitamin b12 supplement can be potentially dangerous and will screw with your bodies natural production of b12




posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Rawhemp
 


Something else I've found interesting about B12 is that it naturally forms in dirt. So if we're talking about eating as 'nature intended' argument; early humans wouldn't have the obsessive compulsive behavior we see in food care today. So B12 in their diet would have been in excess. Te recommended dose is only 2.4 milligrams per day.

So if it's abundant in dirt... what does that say about meat production?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
it says to me that after not eating meat for years, and still being alive, i dont need as much b12 as teh cannibals on this thread would suggest.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by STFUPPERCUTTER
it says to me that after not eating meat for years, and still being alive, i dont need as much b12 as teh cannibals on this thread would suggest.


Cannibalism is:



1 : the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being
2 : the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind
3 : an act of cannibalizing something


Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

Not: when a human buys chicken for dinner. Your use of it in this context, is incorrect. No need to start calling each other names. This is a civil discussion

- Carrot

[edit on 12/7/2009 by CA_Orot]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
well, considering the fact most of the meat eaters ive encountered on this board are no better than the swine they consume with reckless abandon, i think the term fits nicely.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by CA_Orot
 


I don't know, I think cannibalism (if you strip out the ritualistic part in most cultures who practice it) is really just a subcategory of meat consumption. Many meat eating species perform this act. So one must ask, if it's not so unusual for carnivores in nature... why is it repulsive to you?

www.pbs.org...


[edit on 12.7.2009 by Avarus]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by STFUPPERCUTTER
well, considering the fact most of the meat eaters ive encountered on this board are no better than the swine they consume with reckless abandon, i think the term fits nicely.


Right, well just as you are free to your own opinions, I'm not going to argue semantics with you about this. Bad call, on your part. This is a discussion, not a name-calling contest. Just because I feel some posters on this board might be jerks, doesn't give me the right to call them as such.

Moving on:

DevolutionEvolvd - Hey man




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.


Agreed - but the problem is with ALL things on the food-guide. How is someone supposed to get 5 - 10 servings of dairy, vegetables, fruits, and grains, etc... etc..

The problem is also with slack food regulations. Pre-packaged foods are ALSO a part of the problem. Refined Sugars, bleached flour etc...

My Science teacher said something one day that totally changed my outlook on food "If it doesn't mould, it probably isn't very good for you." She was referring to a loaf of White Wonderbread that had sat in her newly deceased parents kitchen, for almost 3 months, before someone found it in the bread-box. No mould.

So what about personal responsibility? Instead we've been blinded by the area of convenience that surrounds pre-packaged dinners, and heat-and-go soups. AND a government telling us the approrpiate servings of whatever it is we're eating.

I'm a firm believer that anything grown in your backyard, or naturally raised (fish, cattle, chickens etcc) is far healthier than anything that can be bought in the supermarket...and if I grew weat to make my own flour - I'd bake with that over Robin Hood flour anyday.


@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?


Rats are closer in proximity in physiology. Plus, it's less frowned upon by Ethics committee's to test on rats, then it is to test on cats which have become domesticated.


@STFUPPERCUTTER



***spoiler alert***
its 2009, and your using the internet ona compuer.
your ancestors would even agree that its not nescessary to murder livestock with all the avaiable resources man has at its disposal now. if you think they respected animals, they would probably agree with the concept of unecessary killing bringing aobut bad karma.

*Bolding is my emphasis.

So... in terms of the bolded: You have proof that this poster's ancestors would agree its not necessary to murder livestock? Speculation, at best.

And actualy, I'd like if the Native American poster (if you're still following the thread
), could again grace us with his presence and weigh in on the above post in terms of unnecessary killing and karma, in the native american culture.

It is my understanding that Native Americans dont do "unnecessary killing" in that they take only what they need to survive....


@Rawhemp

Lets see first off humans clearly aren't designed to live in cold weather, our natural habitat is the tropics.


So... should Canada evacuate? Alberta winters fare anywhere from -20*C to -55*C (and that's not even all the way north, thats central Alberta) from around November to May.

Do you have a reference that supports your inference that Humans "clearly" aren't designed to live in the tropics? I might have actually been sleeping during that part of my History class so I'm not really identifying with that statement as being true, but like I said I could have been sleeping through that class (which is entirely possible, I had a horrible History teacher).

I get the scientific reasoning behind it, that we don't have "hair" on our bodies that make us fit for cold enviornments, but to be honest - the amount of hair on a persons body is also coupled with genetics, and dominant and recessive gene's within a family. We also have sweaters now, and warm blankets to help keep us warm.


Your argument has no basis in fact and on top of that you try to turn it into some weird peta retard crap. Get a clue dude.


To point out - the poster who you are referring to, was not pulling "PETA crap", the poster was pointing out the hypocrisy of humans screaming for animal rights in relation to our diet, and ignoring animal cruelty in relation to puppymills, bunnies, and clubbing seals.

@dzontas

Maybe there really is coldblooded humans?


Yes. The politically correct term for us is Canadians.




- Carrot






[edit on 12/7/2009 by CA_Orot]

[edit on 12/7/2009 by CA_Orot]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avarus
reply to post by CA_Orot
 


I don't know, I think cannibalism (if you strip out the ritualistic part in most cultures who practice it) is really just a subcategory of meat consumption. Many meat eating species perform this act. So one must ask, if it's not so unusual for carnivores in nature... why is it repulsive to you?


Perhaps it is a subcategory for meat consumption --to you-- but the context of the post I was referring to, was derrogatory, uncalled for, and misplaced. Consuming a cow, is not cannibalism for a human - by my definition in concurrance with Anthropology and MW's definition.

It's repulsive to me, due to the studies that have been conducted on the affects of cannibalism and psychology.

- Carrot



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by CA_Orot
 


would you prefer the term "vampires" or "flesh monger" or "savages"? they all pretty much sum up the activites you involve yourselves in when you rip flesh from bone and consume all the fluids from a lifeless corpse.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rawhemp

Maybe go back in this thread and read some of my posts, i specifically stated eating meat is only for times of extremely scarcity.

Meat should never be a necessity tho if you live in mans natural habitat


As much as you think this to be true, it's not.

The consensus among anthropologists and paleontologists is we, homo sapiens, consumed plant food and fruits in times of scarcity of meat. In fact, our closest ancestor Homo neanderthalensis, according to archeological evidence, were carnivores.

It's also quite evident that humans did not evolve consuming glucose rich foods. The fact that there is only ONE hormone to lower blood sugar and multiple hormones that raise blood sugar is one example. And, typically, the pancreas overreacts and produces too much insulin in response to glucose, causing hypoglycemia; the body then has to release more hormones, such as glucagon, to raise blood glucose back to normal.

-Dev



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avarus
reply to post by CA_Orot
 


So one must ask, if it's not so unusual for carnivores in nature... why is it repulsive to you?

[edit on 12.7.2009 by Avarus]


I'll answer that, if you don't mind.

It's repulsive because, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, STFUPPERCUTTER's posts are nothing but personal attacks and off-topic baiting/mockery, and there is no reason to assume that this comment regarding cannabalism is any exception.

-Dev



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
The big cat observation did not take into account the process in which big cats in captivity and Inuits get their Vitamin D respectively.


Again, my point wasn't about big cats 'in captivity'.


Of course not, demonstrating, once again, that you are either taking my quotes out of context and/or twisting my points, purposefully or unwittingly, just to argue with me. Or are you doing this because it is YOU who is "back paddling?"


The report about big cats can easily show the dietary needs of all big cats, even mostly those not in captivity -- by contrast! I also took in account the wild.


Why this is still being discussed, I have no clue. The initial post regarding big cats by rawhemp included a source that described the nutritional guidelines for captive felines. Why, I ask you, do you have to jump into this preaching about wild cats?

The diets that a captive big cat eats is very different from that of a wild big cat, and it is that difference that causes the deficiency observed by rawhemp. An observation that was somehow related to human meat consumption. Please tell me how this makes any sense at all.


How a specific culture 'eats animals' and how the greater poulation 'eats animals' is apples and oranges, or maybe I should say chickens and cows.


So, first it was, "Meat is making us sick." And this statement has been the mantra of nearly every vegetarian/vegan in this thread and is so of a majority of vegetarians/vegans throughout the world.

And now, since evidence has been presented absolutely dismantling this hypothesis, the argument has evolved into one of semantics. Now it matters what kind of meat, and how fatty it is, and how many "protective" nutrients they consume.

Cows? The traditional Masai of Kenya lived primarily on cow's milk, meat and blood. They were not inflicted by the diseases of civilization.

Had the Inuit consumed a "balanced" diet and experienced the health and vitality they did then their observation alone would not be sufficient, as there could have been many dietary factors involved. However, they are an extreme case that identifies a carviorous culture experiencing health, which limits the number of factors that could possibly be involved.

Add the fact that Stefansson and his colleague experienced perfect health on the diet; and the fact that once starchy, processed foods and vegetable oils were added to the diet (westernized) they immediately began experiencing diseases of civilization.

It's also worth noting that the Masai experienced this same phenomenon. Once the european settlers introduced processed carbohydrates to their diet, they started getting sick.




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



Well then, I was mistaken. As I thought westernized also includes the mere exposure of the one culture to another.


It's quite obvious we're discussing a westernized in regards to diet.


Tuberculosis was one disease that Inuit found hard to survive through

We could say the westernized world was more healthy tan the Inuit since the westernized people were somehow immune to tuberculosis,


Yes, it's hard to survive an infectious disease that has never been introduced to your society.

-Dev

[edit on 7-12-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Maybe there really is coldblooded humans?

[edit on 7-12-2009 by dzonatas]


Ummmm.....no. Cold blooded animals (reptiles), or ectotherms, rely on external sources to control body temperature. In order to maintain homeostasis they must constantly migrate back and forth from sun bathing to shade. Most would die in a cold environment.

Warm blooded animals (mammals), or endotherms, rely on internal sources to control body temperature. Metabolism is adjusted in accordance to external temp. If it goes down, the metabolism goes up and subsequently so does body temp. And vice versa. Because of this....Humans, and many mammals, can thrive in a variety of climates.

To relate this to our topic: There are pros and cons of each.

- Though endomorphs aren't as dependent on external temps, the metabolic rate increases to regulate metabolism, which employs the majority of calories consumed. Therefore, we must in regular intervals.

- Contrarily, ectomorphs depend on external temps to live, yet because they don't expend calories to regulate body temp, they can go long periods without eating at all.



If the Inuits didn't consume a 75% fat diet they would literally die of starvation because their bodies consume so many calories to keep them warm.

If you eat less, or are starving (even at the cellular level), metabolism slows and body temp drops and less calories are consumed. Which is why exercise and calorie restriction don't work.

-Dev



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Just in case it hadn't been noted yet...


We wouldn't be where we are today in terms of intelligence if we did not eat meat. A diet high in protein from a constant source like fish or local/raised game gave our brain the energy it needed to perform at continually higher levels. Your brain needs a lot of energy to run properly and to maintain certain elements like the myelin sheath.

No meat? No higher intelligence.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parabol
We wouldn't be where we are today in terms of intelligence if we did not eat meat.

If that's true, then you've just pointed out another bad thing about eating meat. Had humans still been swinging from the top of trees or living in caves, the Earth wouldn't be such a trashed and polluted planet today. Thanks, I'll add that item to that ever growing list of CONS related to eating death for dinner.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Parabol
Just in case it hadn't been noted yet...


We wouldn't be where we are today in terms of intelligence if we did not eat meat. A diet high in protein from a constant source like fish or local/raised game gave our brain the energy it needed to perform at continually higher levels. Your brain needs a lot of energy to run properly and to maintain certain elements like the myelin sheath.

No meat? No higher intelligence.

meat is great for the brain, when its not being destroyed from the prions i guess.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
The big cat observation did not take into account the process in which big cats in captivity and Inuits get their Vitamin D respectively.


Again, my point wasn't about big cats 'in captivity'.


Of course not, demonstrating, once again, that you are either taking my quotes out of context and/or twisting my points, purposefully or unwittingly, just to argue with me. Or are you doing this because it is YOU who is "back paddling?"


Oh my gooseness! No. No. And, No.


Why this is still being discussed, I have no clue.


As obviously evident from your accusation above, you ignored the logic to compare and contrast points that are being brought up.

You have not shown any science of what a Inuit needs -- only what they do eat in the wild, yet the report about big cats obviously implied what they need in comparison to those of the wild.

The Maasai obviously were exposed to cows -- unlike the Inuit. You only provided further evidence to the point I made about tuberculous from mere westernization.

You never made the point clear that you intended to take westernization out of context and ignore all other effects of westernization when you used the word. Now you made clear the Humpty Dumpty language behind your use of the word westernization.

“The beginning of love is to let those we love be perfectly themselves, and not to twist them to fit our own image. Otherwise we love only the reflection of ourselves we find in them.” - Thomas Merton

[edit on 8-12-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by STFUPPERCUTTER

Originally posted by Parabol
Just in case it hadn't been noted yet...


We wouldn't be where we are today in terms of intelligence if we did not eat meat. A diet high in protein from a constant source like fish or local/raised game gave our brain the energy it needed to perform at continually higher levels. Your brain needs a lot of energy to run properly and to maintain certain elements like the myelin sheath.

No meat? No higher intelligence.

meat is great for the brain, when its not being destroyed from the prions i guess.


Prions and their effects on human health are a controversial science, currently.

And there are some data that suggest our brains have evolved, and grown larger, as a direct result of consuming meat, and more specifically Bone Marrow.

-Dev



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas


As obviously evident from your accusation above, you ignored the logic to compare and contrast points that are being brought up.


Ignored? I'll outline the exact exchange that took place:

I posted, in response to another poster, that the Inuit can not be ignored.


Rawhemp brought up Big Cats: (A) I gathers Rawhemp posted it because they eat only meat;


No. That is not why he brought up the post. Rawhemp believes that an all meat diet leads to osteoporosis. It's quite obvious that he/she simply searched for associated information to support his/her belief/ideology/hypothesis and then posted the findings. Here was the post:


Calcium deficiencies are most obvious in young, growing animals or those that are nursing young. When great cats consume whole animals including bone they ingest calcium and phosphorus in a ratio of approximate two parts calcium to one part phosphorus. This is an ideal ration allowing for the growth and maintenance of strong bones and joints. When they eat primarily chunk meats without the bones, this ratio is reversed (1:15 to 1:30). After a period of time on a reversed Ca: P ratio young animals develop a bone and joint disease called rickets while older animals develop soft bones, bone and joint pain, arthritis and lameness (osteomalacia). To prevent these diseases, the diets of captive cats must be fortified with calcium at one-half to one percent of the dry weight of the diet.


This is about big cats but can obviously be applied to humans


I addressed this post by disagreeing; the observation alone can not be applied to humans. I then followed by comparing and contrasting the diet and other exogenous sources that contribute to calcium deficiencies in big cats and humans. Found here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Big cat's in captivity can do not receive enough vitamin d or calcium in their diet. Wild cats, much like the Inuit, get vitamin d and calcium from their diet.

Rawhemp's response:


[the point was] to demonstrate that humans can clearly not eat bones therefore clearly can't consume meat without creating an extreme CA/P imbalance.


I addressed this issue directly with this post in which I provided a peer reviewed aritlce describing the inconsistancies of the calcium/phosphorus hypothesis.

You then joined the discussion:

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


I never said I would ignore the observation, I simply said it couldn't be applied to humans. Yet another example of you twisting my words and misquoting me. As far as his sources.......I had to ask for it.

You then addressed the issue that the Inuit, much like big cats, can't synthesize vitamin d from exposure to sunlight. A valid point, however, I addressed this issue by explaining how the Inuit receive vitamin d through their diet, unlike captive big cats.


You have not shown any science of what a Inuit needs -- only what they do eat in the wild, yet the report about big cats obviously implied what they need in comparison to those of the wild.


If you're referring to minimum vitamin d levels needed by inuits, well, it would be the same that any human needs.


The Maasai obviously were exposed to cows -- unlike the Inuit. You only provided further evidence to the point I made about tuberculous from mere westernization.


Tuberculosis is an infectious disease. Eating animals has nothing to do with tuberculosis.


You never made the point clear that you intended to take westernization out of context and ignore all other effects of westernization when you used the word. Now you made clear the Humpty Dumpty language behind your use of the word westernization.


I'm sorry, did you miss the last 30 pages of this thread discussing dietary habits and their effects on health? Did you miss the context in which I posted the initial point of Pre-westernized/traditional Inuit? You're really, really stretching to try and find things to argue with here.

-Dev



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join