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.

 

meat = shorter life

page: 10
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Vegan Parents Jailed for Babys Death.

The murder conviction, in May, of vegan parents whose six ­week old baby died of starvation underscores the dangers to infants of vegan ideology... ...The baby was only 3 1„2 pounds when it died of starvation in April 2004.

...The Atlanta conviction follows two other cases of vegan parents found guilty of the deaths of their babies. Previously, a New York couple was convicted of murder and a Florida couple of manslaughter. Many more babies, however, have been malnourished on soy milk because of their parents’ vegan ideology.


I'm posting this to make the point that the truth often lies in the middle and anything taken to extremes is bad. Although there is nothing wrong with either the Vegan lifestyle or a diet that includes meat, something in between is likely to be the correct answer.

This is an excerpt from a book on social development relative to the act of eating meat by Craig Stanford, Co-Director of the Jane Goodall Research Center.


Chimpanzees hunt and eat the meat of a variety of mammals. They are skilled makers and users of tools....

...A second key piece of evidence about the behavior patterns that made us human is that our ancestors foraged for meat. The fossil record contains evidence of increasingly sophisticated tool manufacturing beginning some two and a half million years ago, just as the human brain began to approach the size threshold that is considered human. Reseachers believe that this tool use facilitated an increase in the importance of meat in the early human diet...


It is now thought that hunting had a great deal to do with our progress in tool making and forming social bonds through the act of hunting in groups. The process covers two and a half million years of our development.

It is totally disingenuous to even present the idea that we have not evolved to eat an omnivorous diet. It is an intellectual lie in fact.

Although it may be beneficial to limit meat in our diet, the idea that we are not physiologically evolved to eat and process meat is a product of prejudice by people of radical views not born out by facts. Not only did we in fact evolve as Omnivores, our ancestors among the Ape family, as we know from Chimpanzee's, were also Omnivores.

On top of this, you are faced with the problem of the huge contribution to the worlds food supply made by animal proteins. Remove meat from the worlds diet and many will starve. It is that simple.

I have no issue with anyone choosing any diet, except perhaps in the case of radical Vegans causing suffering or death by trying to impose a true Vegan diet on infants and very young children. Diet, like so many other things in our lives is a matter of personal choice.

There is no difference between a Human killing for food or say a Lion or a Polar Bear doing the same. It seems to me the concept of it being somehow evil or wrong is a product of our disassociation with our own natures and evolved traits. As we get farther and farther from nature, the stranger our ideas of what is natural become.

The study this article is based on is one of three I've read parts of recently. The fact that is left out in its presentation here is they did not factor in other behaviors or even confirm the subjects diets did not change over time. If you take the time to look up the original source, you will find that is true and admitted too. I'll leave it to those with enough interest to check that out for themselves.

The source of the OP's article.

Limitations: Diet and lifestyle characteristics were assessed with some degree of error.


Vegans should always make it clear that a pure Vegan diet is dangerous for infants, soy milk is not a suitable substitute for milk products and that if the Mother is a Vegan and nursing, she must supplement her own milk, which is devoid of necessary items like B12 for the sake of the infants health and development. You MUST do that, and your child will need B12, Calcium and Iron supplements.

Our ancestors have hunted and eaten meat to supplement their diets for at least two and half million years of our history and our predicesors in the Ape family also were omnivorous and that is simply a fact. Those who argue otherwise are heavily biased by a radical point of view. Nobody should be made to feel guilty for eating a natural diet that includes meat, anymore than a Vegan should be chided for their choices.

I'm betting if a study were done of people who eat small amounts of meat and mostly fish or wild game, that their lifespans would be similar to a Vegans.



edit on 9/9/2010 by Blaine91555 because: corrections to the text




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jymmyjaymes
You can eat any type of meat or animal by product, and vegetables smothered in butter. I eat like this all the time now and feel great. I lost all my excess belly fat and have more energy.


I agree… I’m over 50 and for the last few years I’ve been eating meat, free-range eggs, raw cheese, animal fat, fish fat, coconut oil, and raw vegetables. I rarely eat grains and sugars and my belly is totally flat, perfect weight/height ratio and I never feel drowsy or sluggish after I eat… I get instant energy after eating and recently passed my physical with flying colors and I take no meds for cholesterol or blood pressure. I can’t say this for a few of my siblings who do not eat the same way I do and have puffy faces and big bellies.

If it were not for meat I wouldn’t be here because my ancestors had to hunt meat to survive. I also consider what Abraham, thousands of years ago, set before my Lord the Creator to eat:

“So he took butter and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree as they ate.”

If butter, milk and meat are good for my Lord it’s good for me too.

Speaking of the China Story just yesterday Dr. Mercola posted an article titled “The Dark Side of the China Study Story Supporting Vegetarianism…”:

articles.mercola.com...

Within the article he also post a link to the critique of the China Study written by Dr. Michael R. Eades, M.D.

www.proteinpower.com...-4213

Such a timely thread from the OP.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

The link between meat consumption and lifespan in that study could also be indirect -- i.e., eating meat may not be the DIRECT cause of shortening a lifespan.


Exactly. Vegetarians tend to lead generally more healthy lifestyles than those who live on hamburgers and fries 3 times a day.

I haven't looked at the details of the study, but we would need to compare people who eat and do not eat meat but in every other aspect lead an identical lifestyle for it to have any meaning.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
obviously people have not bothered to read some of the earlier posts judging by whats being said since my last post.
1) We are not designed to eat meat from animals. The only reason we are able to digest animal protein in the 1st place is so we can drink our mothers milk after birth. Herbivours are the same. The human body phsyiologically is not able to deal with the toxins eating meat produces. Our stomach acid is 20 times weaker than that of cats dogs and bears to give a few examples. TO anyone who wishes to compare us to chimps well a post i made earlier dealt with that. The human body is made to digest insects fruits and vegetables.

2) Vitamin b12 can be got from eating diary products or by eating insects thats the only source of vit b12 other than meat. Vit b12 is made from bacteria produced in the gut made from certain animals and most insects.

I think i covered most misconceptions meats eaters put forward as arguements you just have read most of the posts I made


edit on 9/9/2010 by loner007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by loner007
obviously people have not bothered to read some of the earlier posts judging by whats being said since my last post.


just because people do not agree with you doesn't mean they haven't read the earlier post. I tried both routes where I ate less meat and saturated fat and lots of whole grain products (some products containing sugar), fruits, and vegetables and I tried the way I just posted above. When I was on the previous diet the doctor tried to prescribe me cholesterol and blood pressure medication of which I refused. Every time I finished eating I wanted to fall asleep about an hour later... especially after lunch and right after I ate I always had a strong sugar craving. When I went on the diet that I mentioned above, which I found out later was more to my nutrition type, the difference was felt immediately. After I ate I didn't feel sluggish and had no sugar cravings.

This not-eating-meat- thing is more of a new age religion than common sense. I don't need scientists to tell me what to eat... I eat what my ancestors ate and they ate meat. But I try to avoid big agri animal concentration death camp meat


edit on 9-9-2010 by soleprobe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
I'm all for folks who want to be vegans or vegetarians, etc., but there's no need for them to push it on me. Life is about choices, and those choices just don't appeal to me.

What about the choice of the animal?
Do they have one or we shouldn't care?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Ong Bak
 


Couldnt we assume lifestyle difference between vagitarians and meat eaters? One could assume meat eaters are more indulgent than vagatarians. Anyone else agree with me? I know more meat eaters that smoke then vagaitarians.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by loner007
 


Pure Vegans do not eat dairy or any other product that supplies B12. You seem to not understand what a pure Vegan diet is?

There are many types of Vegetarians. Some do use dairy or eggs, but Vegans do not. Hence the name Vegan rather than Vegetarian. If you use dairy, eggs or fish, you are technically not a Vegan.

As far as how we evolved, perhaps you need to do some actual reading and study about that. All Great Apes eat meat and we have hunted for two and a half million years. Any logical person could not argue we are not Omnivores. It would be an Intellectual Lie.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 

where did i say vegans eat diary products? what makes you think I dont know what a vegan is? (I already posted in an earlier thread that vegans cannot get b12 and need b12 supplements
heres what I said in case you missed it


LOL omg what a total misconception you have of vegetarians. There is nothing in meat that the human body cannot get elsewhere. the only vitamin that Vegans cannot get is Vit b12 however vegetarians can easily get that through dairy products like milk cheese eggs. Thats a fact. It is also a fact that cooked meat causes cancer. Also you want to see what a vegetarian can do in terms of body building? heres a Link


and we are not carnivours or omnivours. In case again you failed to read my erlier posts anatomically and physiologicaly humans are frugivorous and insectivorous and herbivorous


edit on 9/9/2010 by loner007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
gah, the ops nonstop typos were actually difficult to read...

ok, I eat meat, and I smoke...phear me

I cut off a good 10-15 years of my life by my habits...

buit it is the 10-15 years of wearing adult diapers and being overly needy anyhow...until quality of life extends to 90, then simply put, who the hell even wants to live those last years...full of doctors, pain, belittlement, loss of all things you loved doing, etc.

Give me 50-60 happy and strong years verses 100 years in a perpetual breakdown state.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by soleprobe
 


Well, I weigh in at 70 kilos (used to be 60-67) now that I've turned 30 and so, and my diet has included as much meats and grains as possible, milk, often milk with pork even, and I am over 180 cm tall, actually over 6 feet, I can carry more than the strong lads longer, I can carry it further than the big lads, and I never quit and only take breaks to smoke or drink beer, that's why I was given special jobs in prison (after among other things having kicked a person in the head who tried to test my patience). In a way I am sincerity here, but nevermind, we'll all have to be sincere in the end anyway, I was just taught wisely by my spirits' want for game. And trust me, all gods or angels love game, atleast when it's as jewsy as mine



edit on 9-9-2010 by Neo Christian Mystic because: hehe, call itr a typo



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by loner007
 




and we are not carnivours or omnivours. In case again you failed to read my erlier posts anatomically and physiologicaly humans are frugivorous and insectivorous and herbivorous



I aint a sheep mate, i am an omnivorous (eating food of both animal and vegetable origin, or any type of food indiscriminately) , this is the catch all for what humans are, yes i eat fruit, ive never eaten an ant eater or a frog or spider so i cant be insectivorous, and i eat oats but don't eat grass or wheat stocks, flax etc so omnivore me, and the rest of the human race.

Wee Mad,



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ong Bak
pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com...
anyway heres the link i dug it up. and it was 130k people and 26 years.
meat eaters died more, do with this what you will.


You really should rephrase that. 100% of meat eaters AND vegetarians die. I haven't read the study but I bet they did not look at activity levels and other variables. My supposition is that vegetarians in general tend to be more active. Most vegetarians I know tend to be more active than there carnivore counterparts. That does not mean I don't believe that they may be right. I'd also l;ike to see a breakdown by what specific diets correlate with what longevity cohorts.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by loner007
obviously people have not bothered to read some of the earlier posts judging by whats being said since my last post.
1) We are not designed to eat meat from animals. The only reason we are able to digest animal protein in the 1st place is so we can drink our mothers milk after birth. Herbivours are the same. The human body phsyiologically is not able to deal with the toxins eating meat produces. Our stomach acid is 20 times weaker than that of cats dogs and bears to give a few examples. TO anyone who wishes to compare us to chimps well a post i made earlier dealt with that. The human body is made to digest insects fruits and vegetables.

2) Vitamin b12 can be got from eating diary products or by eating insects thats the only source of vit b12 other than meat. Vit b12 is made from bacteria produced in the gut made from certain animals and most insects.

I think i covered most misconceptions meats eaters put forward as arguements you just have read most of the posts I made


edit on 9/9/2010 by loner007 because: (no reason given)



Well said. You indeed covered many of the recurring misconceptions on this thread. I would like to add one more though, in response to the comparison with Chimpanzees -

Evolution is not perfect. While it's true that meat has likely always been a part of our diet in the past, this has no bearing on whether or not we are optimally designed to do so. Most meats are rich in a wide variety of minerals and nutrients. So they help infants grow healthy to the point of procreation. However, people become sexually active within the first 1/5 of their lives. For the remaining 4/5, evolution has no say whatsoever. All it works on is getting the species to procreate.

That is why we get cancer. That's why we get osteoporosis, and glaucoma, and dozens and dozens of other ailments - which manifest later in life. That's the clincher here - longterm chronic diseases. That's why we still have an appendix. And it's why you can't argue that we've evolved to eat meat because of incisors or various enzymes etc.

The only way to scientifically approach the issue of diseases that manifest over the long term is large-scale epidemiological studies. And the largest one ever conducted, involving free-range, healthy meat and dairy, concluded that meat and dairy are associated with an increase in long-term disease, whereas whole foods and plants were associated with a decrease in these diseases.

And it's never been refuted in a peer-reviewed journal - the only two papers I've seen are blogs, and one was written by a computer programmer with no formal experience whatsoever in nutrition. Yet the author of the original China Study still obliged both of them with rebuttals, which can be found floating around this thread.

So as far as I'm concerned, there is no scientific basis to discredit The China Study. There's so many experts in the field who have lauded the study, that to only focus on the one or two criticisms seems very dishonest to me.


edit on 9-9-2010 by Son of Will because: clarification



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pacific_waters

Originally posted by Ong Bak
pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com...
anyway heres the link i dug it up. and it was 130k people and 26 years.
meat eaters died more, do with this what you will.


You really should rephrase that. 100% of meat eaters AND vegetarians die. I haven't read the study but I bet they did not look at activity levels and other variables. My supposition is that vegetarians in general tend to be more active. Most vegetarians I know tend to be more active than there carnivore counterparts. That does not mean I don't believe that they may be right. I'd also l;ike to see a breakdown by what specific diets correlate with what longevity cohorts.


Well, you really should read the study then, because that would satisfy your main criticism of it - the study took place in rural China. Not the cities, but the countryside farmers who live very active lifestyles. It's really a brilliant study if you care to look at it. And it didn't study vegetarians per se - it studied the various disease rates and dietary styles from dozens of different remote villages, and over the years were able to draw correlations between different foods and their respective long-term consequences for various ailments and cancers etc.

Check it out and make up your own mind after reading the reviews.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
How many creatures on this planet eats meat only when cooked?
Answer = Only Humans!
Here's a question for you: How many animals grow and take care of crops?


We were not meant to eat meat
I agree. That's why people have been able to do it for a long time.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Son of Will


Well said. You indeed covered many of the recurring misconceptions on this thread. I would like to add one more though, in response to the comparison with Chimpanzees -

Evolution is not perfect. While it's true that meat has likely always been a part of our diet in the past, this has no bearing on whether or not we are optimally designed to do so. Most meats are rich in a wide variety of minerals and nutrients. So they help infants grow healthy to the point of procreation. However, people become sexually active within the first 1/5 of their lives. For the remaining 4/5, evolution has no say whatsoever. All it works on is getting the species to procreate.

we aren't "designed" to optimally eat plant material either, because we are omnivores, not herbivores or carnivores.
the second vegans get this, the second they can get over it. we don't primarily eat meat, but meat is the best source of calories around that isn't dependent on seasons or locations. why would we stop eating meat if it helps us survive it would make no sense.



That is why we get cancer. That's why we get osteoporosis, and glaucoma, and dozens and dozens of other ailments - which manifest later in life. That's the clincher here - longterm chronic diseases. That's why we still have an appendix. And it's why you can't argue that we've evolved to eat meat because of incisors or various enzymes etc.

no its because we have extended our lives past the point were our bodies can cope with all the problems that crop up from living.
we have an appendix because there is no evolutionary issue with having one, the appendix is a vestigial organ left over from before it became more useful to eat meat. the incisors and canines are evidence that we evolved to eating meat, from eating just plants.



The only way to scientifically approach the issue of diseases that manifest over the long term is large-scale epidemiological studies. And the largest one ever conducted, involving free-range, healthy meat and dairy, concluded that meat and dairy are associated with an increase in long-term disease, whereas whole foods and plants were associated with a decrease in these diseases.

i hope not, epidemiological studies are worthless without evidence, it leads people to believe that meat eating is evil and vegan is holy.
i want proof that there is a connection between meat eating and a long term increase in disease, that couldn't be down to other factors like genetics.


And it's never been refuted in a peer-reviewed journal - the only two papers I've seen are blogs, and one was written by a computer programmer with no formal experience whatsoever in nutrition. Yet the author of the study still obliged both with rebuttals, which can be found floating around this thread.

do you have the peer-reviewed journal the study was published in? does he do any scientific study?


So as far as I'm concerned, there is no scientific basis to discredit The China Study. There's so many dozens of experts in the field who have lauded the study, that to only focus on the one or two criticisms seems very dishonest to me.


edit on 9-9-2010 by Son of Will because: to add note at end


the problem is i don't see anyone refuting it because it isn't scientific, the author even admits he looked for data to SUPPORT HIS CONCLUSION.
that is not scientific, that is pseudo-science. real scientists test their hypothesizes via studies under clinical conditions and don't throw out data that contradicts their claims.

the "china project", namely the survey and not the book may have been looked at by scientists, but that is data, you don't refute data, that would be like trying to argue against someone observing birds flying south for the winter, you wouldn't debate the part about birds fly south, you'd debate the persons conclusion.

what you are asking is to write a peer review of the data, not the conclusions of campbell, well you won't find anyone to do that, on the other hand, anyone can refute campbell.
he wrote a book about the data and drew a flawed conclusion and someone looked at the data and concluded he was wrong, and real scientists backed her.
name me a real scientist who supports campbells' conclusion.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
The evidence point towards us being omnivores, but the question still has some unknowns.

www.rense.com...

Personally I enjoy meat in moderation, my teeth and digestive system can handle it,... and it tastes good.

Generally those who eat more meat eat more food, are wealthier and can afford more meat, and there is a point where eating more can mean a shorter life.

www.time.com...

There may be an association between meat eating and a shorter life, but the link may be between excessive caloric intake and a shorter life.

Peace



edit on 9-9-2010 by slane69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
When a doctor was once asked if vegan diet extended a persons life? He answered it with this simple question.

How many centenarians do you know that are vegetarians?

It was a powerful point.

He then said he recommend only very moderate amounts of meat consumption, only once a week.
And make sure it is of the highest quality, not hamburger or other low end meats.
I thought it was a very interesting comment, moderation in all things.

I have lowered my meat consumption considerably in recent years, I never have any meat in my freezer or fridge to the point that I am a part time vegetarian. But if I get invited out to a barbecue, I am going to enjoy the meat being served.









edit on 9-9-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Son of Will
 




You still don't get it. I'll type it out for you again....

The China Study is a BOOK! The China Project is the actual study.

Have you read The China Study? I have.

Here's the actual study: www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk...

Another thing you seem to continually misunderstand: The difference between Campbell and Minger is Campbell went into this study with a PURPOSE...and that was to connect the dots between animal products and disease. Denise Minger simply provided the DATA in an easy to understand format without bias.

You ask why a formal rebuttal hasn't been published? You can't publish a rebuttal in a medical/nutritional journal. You ask why no studies have set out to prove it wrong? Studies of that magnitude are extremely expensive. And nobody is going to get funding for a study whose primary goal is to disprove another study.

What we DO have are studies that have are multiple studies that completely contradict the conclusions of Campbell's. What we DO have are the DATA from the China Project that clearly show plant proteins causing problems, wheat causing problems and animal products not really causing problems

When I said before that large, prospective studies are the best we've got, I meant they're the most practical and cheapest way of getting data. Surveys and blood samples aren't tough to collect. But people are unreliable when reporting their dietary habits. And there are simply too many variables to account for. As I said before, epidemiology is used to form HYPOTHESES that should later be tested in controlled, randomized studies.

The following is T. Colin Campbell's rebuttal to Denise Minger's blog post:


But she suffers one major flaw that seeps into her entire analysis by focusing on the selection of univariate correlations to make her arguments (univariate correlations in a study like this means, for example, comparing 2 variables–like dietary fat and breast cancer–within a very large database where there will undoubtedly be many factors that could incorrectly negate or enhance a possible correlation). She acknowledges this problem in several places but still turns around and displays data sets of univariate correlations.


He's essentially admitting to what I've described throughout this thread.

Want more?


In Eades' view, the advocacy implicit in The China Study is further underscored when Campbell writes, "As time passed, we were to learn something quite remarkable. Almost every time we searched for a way, or mechanism, by which protein works to produce its effects [on cancer formation and progression], we found one!"[40] Eades comments, "That, my friends, is almost the dictionary definition of confirmation bias summed up in one sentence."

en.wikipedia.org...


More?

In the following video, Campbell openly admits to examining the data gathered by The China Project with intention to seek associations between animal food consumption and disease. We call this perversion of data 'confirmation bias'. He also admits in the video that Plant fats are extremely problematic, much more so than animal fats...regarding tumor growth.




new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join