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.

 

Diets and Diseases

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 



Well, you managed to step around every point I made, referring to every disease as "cancer" and thinking that inflammation plays some role in that specific disease process.


All I've learned from that comment is that you either can't read or you have no rebuttal so feel the need to insert words where they don't exist. Please indicate where I called *EVERY* disease "cancer". Or else learn to flipping read a simple sentence before you make any remark on it.


I find it very funny that your failure to produce any studies is your way of "not holding my hand". Sounds like a piss-poor excuse to me. I'll gladly pull references once I see yours.


GREAT! So we both had PISS POOR arguments as NEITHER OF US posted sources in favor of our own argument. Gee, I feel the need to bitch about how much of a hypocrite you are for bitching about the very thing even YOU failed to do. Hypocrite.


OK, now it's your turn!!!oneoneone111!!!


[edit on 11-5-2010 by sirnex]




posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by whitewave
 


What do you know about those HCG drops?
That is what I am starting very soon and
thought I would ask for your opinion.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
The OP was an interesting read.

About 2 years ago I decided to start eating healthier. In my experience, the single most effective change in my diet was when I (mostly) cut out processed "foods". Last year I decided to eat fully vegan. I'm the healthiest I've ever been. My skin looks a lot healthier too.

It's a myth that a high protein diet is difficult to maintain without animal protein. Especially with the supplements available. The only supplement I've felt the desire to use has been hemp protein powder, mixed in fruit smoothies after a workout.

My next test is to completely cut out gluten and see what happens. (I already know it has to be bad for me because seitan tastes too good to be healthy)



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
not to play on any sterotypes, but the meat eaters in this thread seem to be pretty agressive and get angry pretty easily
you would be pleasantly surprised if you gave up eating meat for a while. what is there to be so afraid about?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
*sigh* I'll be the bigger person between the two of us and post references. I trust you'll do the same, though keep in mind any source that is selling a book, refers to itself as a reference, or doesn't provide any supporting data will be ignored as misleading.



I think maybe you may need to re-read the OP. Notice I said *disease*, that's a huge contextual clue. If you don't understand context I will be more than happy to go over it with you in U2U.


Again, please re-read the OP. You asserted in your post that eating meat leads to disease. Nothing in the OP would lead me to believe that. Rather, it suggests that certain diseases lead to an inability to properly digest certain components of meat.



There are numerous cancer studies I have read around the web all indicative of red meat consumption being linked to various diseases and cancers. All you've told me was that, yes they do, but poultry contains more of one specific inflammatory compound.


Please cite these cancer studies. Also, bear in mind that inflammation (which is what you were referring to before you changed the subject) is not an indicator of cancer, nor is it required for oncogenesis.

It's also interesting to note that red meats have been shown to have anti-inflammatory action, and the link between such meats and cancer has been shown to be tenuous at best. In fact, the cancer/red meat link has been explored further, with studies demonstrating that only individuals with certain genetic mutations see an increased risk due to red meat consumption.

Red Meat Anti-Inflammatory Components and Poor Cancer Linkage

Genetic Component to Cancer/Red Meat Linkage

Pooled Data Shows No Causal Link Between Cancer and Red Meat/Processed Meat




If you do your research, grains are linked to a variety of diseases. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.


Grain allergies certainly are, yes. However, that's not the point you made. You suggested that grains were not "part of out diet" until we developed into agrarian societies. I provided an example of this being factually untrue, showing that even nomadic groups have been eating grains for a long time. This would suggest that we have been eating grains for a long, long time and thus have more than enough digestive power to handle them. Grain-related disease is nearly always linked to an underlying genetic disorder or an allergy.

Ancient Hebrew Nomads Used Grains

Ancient Africans Harvested Long Grains



Yea, I remember reading that the Inuit get ascorbic acid by eating the stomach contents of Caribou... Last I heard, they don't eat meat. The eggs we get from our supermarkets are all 'factory' farmed eggs which contain carcinogenic chemicals. Woo, vitamin A and cancer to boot! OM NOM NOM NOM!


The Inuit most certainly eat meat. In fact, they rarely eat the fruits and veggies you've been pushing as a replacement to such meats:

Inuit Diet is Largely Red Meat and Fat




Are you serious? It's the process coupled with the intensity of HEAT. Go do your homework, I'm not your mommy and I refuse to hold your hand.


HCAs are produced in such a low amount and excreted efficiently enough that they have not been shown to be a substantial cancer risk, unless given to lab animals in excessive amounts. As I stated earlier, the process, not the heat, has been shown to be the key. Exposure to carbonaceous sources introduces carcinogenic carbon compounds not found in the meats themselves.

No Causal Link Between HCAs and Breast Cancer

Smoking and Barbecued Meats Show Higher Risk, Cooked Meat Does Not

HCAs Highest in Non-Marinated Chicken When Cooked By Brazilian Method




Yea, biochemistry is a great tool also for making farm animals fatter. OK, so what exactly do you want me to learn? Proper nutrition or factory deeeelicious nutrition?


A good starting point for you would be learning the basic digestive processed that exist in the human body. You've made several basic errors that can be corrected with an introductory biochem text.



Yea, it's a common practice amongst druggies to shoot up. Again, just because you can doesn't mean you should!


Nice strawman argument. Yes, clearly the ancient practices of healthily drinking milk from cattle is akin to shooting a known toxin into your bloodstream.



Really, all I've learned from this diatribe of nonsensical un-sourced garbage (yes I know I haven't sourced either
) is that you disbelieve the numerous studies available around the internet.


I've yet to see any of these studies. Post some pubmed links, please.


Yet, like you said you can't hold me accountable for not reading every single post by you, I also can't really hold you accountable for not doing proper research on human nutrition. As much as I wish I had the time to hold your hand every step of the way, I sadly don't have that much time, so I leave you to your own opinions and devices.


I've made the time to support my argument. Now it's your turn.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 



*sigh* I'll be the bigger person between the two of us and post references. I trust you'll do the same, though keep in mind any source that is selling a book, refers to itself as a reference, or doesn't provide any supporting data will be ignored as misleading.


Wow, that was just adorable!


Yes, let's let you hypocritically bitch about how I didn't do the very same thing you didn't do and then attempt to save face by claiming to be 'the bigger boy' by posting sources only *after* being called out on your ridiculous hypocrisy.

Good one!



Again, please re-read the OP. You asserted in your post that eating meat leads to disease. Nothing in the OP would lead me to believe that.


Take out the intentional dietary effects and the grain based intolerance's. Note the word "disease" and the contextual clue "disease dietary listings".

Now ask yourself, is an intentional diet looking for a desired effect a disease? How about a grain intolerance?



Rather, it suggests that certain diseases lead to an inability to properly digest certain components of meat.


Hmm, yea... Consume a lot of 'X' food, get disease, stop consuming 'X' food disease symptoms get better.

I really love how your logic works, all you did was take out the first step.



Please cite these cancer studies. Also, bear in mind that inflammation (which is what you were referring to before you changed the subject) is not an indicator of cancer, nor is it required for oncogenesis.


Again, mind you that context is very applicable when discussing a topic with someone.

Read it again: "There are numerous cancer studies I have read around the web all indicative of red meat consumption being linked to various diseases and cancers."

Are you not aware that some diseases are *inflammatory* diseases? Seriously? Public school right?

Thanks for the links and excuse me if I don't link from pubmed. Will you except cancer.org?

cancer.org Search term: Red meats linked to cancer


Grain allergies certainly are, yes. However, that's not the point you made. You suggested that grains were not "part of out diet" until we developed into agrarian societies. I provided an example of this being factually untrue, showing that even nomadic groups have been eating grains for a long time. This would suggest that we have been eating grains for a long, long time and thus have more than enough digestive power to handle them. Grain-related disease is nearly always linked to an underlying genetic disorder or an allergy.


Uh, the ancient Hebrews came to be the ancient Hebrews well after agriculture. Your African link also places grain usage within the Mesolithic period, which was just before the neolithic when we started agriculture. As a dietary staple, grains were not consumed in high quantities until the neolithic.


The Inuit most certainly eat meat. In fact, they rarely eat the fruits and veggies you've been pushing as a replacement to such meats:


Where did I say they didn't? Maybe take a screen shot of you see, maybe my post is different than the one on my monitor.


HCAs are produced in such a low amount and excreted efficiently enough that they have not been shown to be a substantial cancer risk, unless given to lab animals in excessive amounts. As I stated earlier, the process, not the heat, has been shown to be the key. Exposure to carbonaceous sources introduces carcinogenic carbon compounds not found in the meats themselves.


I suppose this is source dependent. =3&search[sort]=date+desc&search[has_multimedia]=]link


A good starting point for you would be learning the basic digestive processed that exist in the human body. You've made several basic errors that can be corrected with an introductory biochem text.


Last time I checked, humans weren't factory farmed. That being said, I'm looking for health and longevity rather than factory deeeeliciousness.


I've yet to see any of these studies. Post some pubmed links, please.


Hypocrite, please don't bitch about the non post of sources when we begin a discussion with each other in which neither initial post in said discussion by either party contained any sources in themselves.

DUH. Seriously. Some people.



I've made the time to support my argument. Now it's your turn.


Great, so the "big boy" finally posted links after the fact of being called out as a hypocrite. Good boy! Now I've posted a couple too. We cool?



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Ong Bak
 


You're a moron! There are cultures all over the world that eat a mostly meat diet and are healthier than their non-meat eating counterparts. The Eskimos and native Inuits were some of the most happiest people and healthiest people in the world and they ate fish and fat. The Masai in africa sustained themselves off of raw milk, cow's blood, and meat. They used to be some of the healthiest people in the world. Vegetarians are not healthy. Human beings are omnivores. We have adapted to eat justa bout anything as long as it's in a natural state. There is nothing wrong with meat and meat eating. Processed food is what's killing us, our immune systems and destroying our health.

I've been reading about GI problems lately and appendicitis. Appedicitis is extremely low in developing countries. You know why? Because people still squat to go to the bathroom. We all sit on toilets in the west. You know why women give birth lying on their backs? Because some king wanted to look at his woman's vagina while she was givign birth. The human body naturally is made to give birth in a squatting position.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
The problem with eating meat nowadays is that most of the meat is comes from unhealthy and dirty animals. Meaning they are fed unatural diets, and are shot up with antibiotics and other drugs. So when you eat the meat you are eating those things as well. Grass fed beef from cattle raised on grass is one of the healthiest things you could put into your body. Raw dairy products from grass fed and free range cows is one of the most nutritious foods you can put into your body. Many people who are lactose intolerant tolerate raw dairy products without irritation because pasteurization kills all the healthy lactase, enzymes, vitamins, and healthy bacteria.

Vegetarians are some of the most clueless people and brainwashed people I've ever had the pleasure of meeting. They site the same old tired studies in their arguments i.e. the China study, 7th Day adventist studies etc. Which have all been debunked.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Take out the intentional dietary effects and the grain based intolerance's. Note the word "disease" and the contextual clue "disease dietary listings".

Now ask yourself, is an intentional diet looking for a desired effect a disease? How about a grain intolerance?


Hmm, yea... Consume a lot of 'X' food, get disease, stop consuming 'X' food disease symptoms get better.


So, infants who are born with celiac disease developed such a disease by eating a lot f grains? Interesting viewpoint. It's wrong, but interesting nonetheless.




Again, mind you that context is very applicable when discussing a topic with someone.

Read it again: "There are numerous cancer studies I have read around the web all indicative of red meat consumption being linked to various diseases and cancers."

Are you not aware that some diseases are *inflammatory* diseases? Seriously? Public school right?


Sooo...you're saying you CAN'T provide any links, then, and would rather resort fo childish name-calling?


Thanks for the links and excuse me if I don't link from pubmed. Will you except cancer.org?

cancer.org Search term: Red meats linked to cancer


If you'll notice, the links generated from your link are nearly five years old. The studies I've provided are recent. Science changes and evolves, perhaps you should keep up?




Uh, the ancient Hebrews came to be the ancient Hebrews well after agriculture. Your African link also places grain usage within the Mesolithic period, which was just before the neolithic when we started agriculture. As a dietary staple, grains were not consumed in high quantities until the neolithic.


If you'll read my links, which it's obvious you didn't give them more than a cursory scan, you'll see that, despite the time period, they are referring to purely nomaid tribes that would collect wild grains from regions they were letting their herds graze in. In fact, the link to information on the African tribes is specifically about trying to resurrect the ancient wild grains that nomadic tribes collected.



Where did I say they didn't? Maybe take a screen shot of you see, maybe my post is different than the one on my monitor.


Your exact words were: "Last I heard, they don't eat meat", which can be found in this post of yours.



I suppose this is source dependent. =3&search[sort]=date+desc&search[has_multimedia]=]link


Please note the following in the opening paragraph of your reference:
"This risk appears to increase in people with certain genetic variants." This is followed later by this statement by the researcher, "particularly well-done red meat, such as fried or barbecue", as well as "this effect is compounded if they carry high unfavorable genotypes".

So, it has validated everything I've said. The risk from red meat is dependent on the cooking source exposing the meats to carcinogenic, carbonaceous environs, as well as the persons genotype.




Last time I checked, humans weren't factory farmed. That being said, I'm looking for health and longevity rather than factory deeeeliciousness.


This has nothing to do with the part of my post you've quoted. Did you misquote?



Hypocrite, please don't bitch about the non post of sources when we begin a discussion with each other in which neither initial post in said discussion by either party contained any sources in themselves.


So, starting a discussion without sources precludes any use of sources in the future? Again, interesting viewpoint.



Great, so the "big boy" finally posted links after the fact of being called out as a hypocrite. Good boy! Now I've posted a couple too. We cool?


It's "big girl", and you posted one source. Your other reference was simply a link to search engine results.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I'm going to just jump on in on this one....


Read it again: "There are numerous cancer studies I have read around the web all indicative of red meat consumption being linked to various diseases and cancers."


I can play this game too.....The sun rise is linked to morning shows; skid marks are linked to car wrecks; tail chasing is linked to high cholesterol in dogs; shaving infrequently is linked to increased incidence of CHD in men; and high cholesterol levels are linked to atherosclerosis.

Try not to confuse correlation and causation. See, morning shows don't cause the sun to rise; skid marks don't cause car wrecks; tail chasing doesn't cause high cholesterol; infrequent shaving doesn't cause heart attacks; and high cholesterol, generally speaking, doesn't cause CHD. Logical Fallacies are no fun.

Now that that's out of the way...your "knowledge" of nutrition seems to stem from your ability to to simply search for articles that support your ideology. That's not research, my friend. Any idiot can search through google and find articles to support their stance.

If you actually found published research, read at least the abstract, figured study methods, post the study and explain how it supports your stance and/or refutes others.....then you have an argument. I understand this might be a problem for you since you have no knowledge of biochemistry or journal writing. But it's still not an excuse to post opinion articles, by dumbass journalists that think they can read the USDA, ADA and AHA websites and become health experts, and tote it as proof/citation/evidence.

-Dev

[edit on 12-5-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa


So, infants who are born with celiac disease developed such a disease by eating a lot f grains? Interesting viewpoint. It's wrong, but interesting nonetheless.



Is it wrong? I mean...what if the mother is consuming grains during pregnancy?

We know that consuming a high-carb diet during pregnancy essentially increases insulin resistance in the unborn child and increases susceptibility of developing diabetes.

I do have to agree with the idea that grains are not as healthy as we once thought. Grains, and wheat in particular, have a negative effect on LDL, causing the lipoproteins to become small/dense while increasing the percentage of this very harmful particle.

-Dev

[edit on 12-5-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


While I think it's noble of you to jump the the rescue and I do really enjoy reading the post, I do feel the need to point out that the particular aspect of that discussion between her and I was one of misunderstand contextual clues. I appreciate the effort and keep up the good work!



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Deleted because it's just going to get the post removed because some people don't know what context is or how to read.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by sirnex]

Decided to add the sentence one more time.

I read that the Inuit get their ascorbic acid by eating the stomach contents of Caribou... which last time I heard they don't eat meat.

To go over the sentence slowly:

The Inuit eat the stomach of Caribou to get a certain nutrient. A stomach is meat, hence I said nothing about the Inuit not eating meat in this sentence.

Caribou eat plants rich in ascorbic acid, last time I checked they didn't eat meat.

Taken into context of the discussion. Claiming the Inuit get their ascorbic acid direct from meat is a false claim as it dismisses the food chain and source of where the ascorbic acid is attained. Meat does not contain significant amounts ascorbic acid, hence the act of eating the stomach contents of the caribou in which to obtain significant amounts.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


You originally said they eat the stomach CONTENTS, not the stomach. You then followed this by saying you had heard they don't eat meat, thus strengthening that you think they eat the stomach CONTENTS.

Regardless, all meats contain ascorbic acid, caribou or otherwise. It's due to the nature of the tissue. Muscle has a high oxygen-turnover due to metabolic activity in vivo. Thus, they require anti-oxidants to ward off the effects of reactive oxygen species produced as the end result of aerobic metabolism. The "holy trinity" of anti-oxidants are vitamins A, C (ascorbic acid), and E, all of which are found in meats at various levels.

[edit on 5/12/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


You know what, forget it. Obviously an intelligent conversation with you is beyond all hope. I went so far as to break down a simple sentence FOR YOUR BENEFIT, and you STILL can't grasp it. Bye Bye. I don't have time for people who can't read.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I only used your words. I even showed you that meats on their own have anti-oxidant content. I'm not really sure what else I can do. If your own words cause you trouble, then maybe you should have made a better argument.

Again, keep in mind that your posts are shown above. I think it will be more than obvious to other readers that I used your exact words, and that you then back-peddled and claimed it was "out of context". So, let's let the readers be the jury, hm?

[edit on 5/12/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Ummm, pre westernized Eskimos got vitamin c from organ meat, liver in particular. Besides, most ruminants synthesize vitamin c from glucose.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Sirnex is saying that caribou do not eat meat.
The caribou get the ascorbic acid from plant matter, the innuit then eat the caribou, along with the stomach contents.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join