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: 15
23
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by DreamerOracle
 


Most vegetarians also enjoy depression and malnutrition and osteoporosis and higher cancer rates. YAY!


I don't get Depressed, Ive never had malnutrition and I've never broke a bone even with being knocked off my push bike twice in access of 30mph ....touch wood!! As for Cancer



* Karen McVeigh * The Guardian, Wednesday 1 July 2009 * Article history

For years, they have boasted of the health benefits of their leafy diets, but now vegetarians have the proof that has so far eluded them: when it comes to cancer risks, they have the edge on carnivores.

Fresh evidence from the largest study to date to investigate dietary habits and cancer has concluded that vegetarians are 45% less likely to develop cancer of the blood than meat eaters and are 12% less likely to develop cancer overall.

Scientists said that while links between stomach cancer and eating meat had already been reported, they had uncovered a "striking difference" in the risk of blood cancers including leukaemia, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma between the groups. The study looked at vegetarians, fish eaters and people who ate meat.

Co-author Naomi Allen, from the Cancer Research UK epidemiology unit at Oxford University, said: "Previous research has found that processed meat may increase the risk of stomach cancer, so our findings that vegetarians and fish eaters are at lower risk is plausible. But we do not know why cancer of the blood is lower in vegetarians."

She said the differences in cancer risks were independent of other lifestyle factors including smoking, alcohol intake and obesity.

However, Allen urged caution over the interpretation of the findings. "It is a significant difference, but we should be a bit cautious since it is the first study showing that the risk of cancer of the blood is lower in vegetarians. We need to know what aspect of a fish and vegetarian diet is protecting against cancer. Is it the higher fibre intake, higher intake of fruit and vegetables, is it just meat per se?"

The study also reported that the total cancer incidence was significantly lower among both the fish eaters and the vegetarians compared with meat eaters.

The study, published in the British Journal of Cancer, is part of a long-term international study, the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition (Epic).

Today's findings were based on a study of 61,000 people who scientists followed over 12 years. During this time, 3,350 participants were diagnosed with cancer. Of those, 68% (2,204) were meat eaters, 24% (800) were vegetarians and 9.5% (300) ate fish but no meat.

They found that 180 meat eaters developed blood cancers, while 49 vegetarians developed the diseases and 28 fish eaters. They found the risk of being diagnosed with cancers of the stomach, bladder and blood was significantly lower in vegetarians than in meat eaters but, in contrast to earlier work, they found the rate of bowel cancer was slightly higher among vegetarians than meat eaters.

A spokesman for BPEX, the British pig executive, questioned the methodology of the study: "We are unable to take a view on this because there is mixed evidence based on the compounding factors to do with lifestyle that come into it."

Richard Lowe, the chief executive of Eblex, the English beef and lamb executive, said: "We think that the link between diet and cancer is complex and as scientists themselves say, more research is needed to see how big a part diet plays."

The Oxford research is the latest in a series of reports to discourage too much meat in the diet. Last year, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – which last year earned a share of the Nobel peace prize – urged giving up meat at least once a week as a way of combating global warming. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Two years ago, the World Cancer Research Fund found a link between red and processed meat and bowel cancer and recommended that the average amount of meat eaten should be no more than 300g a week. In Britain, the current meat intake is about 970g a week for men and about 550g a week for women.

In 2005, the Epic study, funded by the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, concluded that eating just two portions of red meat a day – the equivalent of a bacon sandwich and a fillet steak – increased the risk of bowel cancer by 35%. It found that eating fibre, in the form of vegetables, fruit and wholegrain cereals, lessened the risk of cancer and that fish, eaten at least every other day, was also protective.

Annette Pinner, chief executive of the Vegetarian Society, said: "It is widely recognised that a third of cancers are directly related to diet and what's interesting in this study is the findings on blood cancers. We wouldn't claim vegetarianism is a panacea for cancer but it is a step in the right direction."


And to add my wife has broken bones she suffers from clinical depression she eats meat and I'm slowly weaning her to a minimal amount for her own health.

There is one downside from being Vegetarian




edit on 11-9-2010 by DreamerOracle because: to add




posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by loner007
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


SO in other words eat the bran and germ of wheat and you be ok.


Ummm, no. No you won't. Germ, which is lectin, and bran has been shown to cause all kinds of problems in clinical studies. Like insulin resistance.....This study demostrated wheat bran's effects. Subjects initially had lowered glucose response but then resulted with increased glucose response, insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia and hypoglycemia. (this was a controlled study, mind you). And others have demonstrated the same especially over the long term.




link




It appears that the presumably adverse impact of high-CHO diets on blood lipids is limited primarily to short-term clinical trials in which the research subjects' calorie intake is artificially manipulated (ie, controlled by researchers) and the high-CHO diet is composed largely of sugar and other refined CHOs with little fiber. This is the Stanford model. The flaw in their experimental design was all explained to the Stanford group in a letter to the editor.[19] Unfortunately, Dr. Reaven's (point man for the Stanford group) replied, "In an effort to make results meaningful, we maintained energy intake and output constant throughout the study." Clearly he missed my main criticism of their experimental design.[21] Apparently Dr. Reaven and other academic researchers just don't get it. These and other researchers should compare a high-CHO diet consisting largely of natural foods high in fiber, like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and beans, with a similar diet to which olive oil or other unsaturated oils are added. They should also allow their research subjects to consume both diets ad libitum (rather than imposing artificial controls on how much people eat). Then they would likely find that a VLFNV diet does not produce adverse changes in blood lipids that increase the risk of CAD as they imply. Indeed, any changes in blood lipids that such a diet causes must be viewed as favorable simply because such a diet has been proven to reverse atherosclerosis. High-fat diets have not been shown to regress atherosclerosis and are usually associated with its progression.





I love that. The paragraph above states..."If you just look at the data with our biased eyes, you'll clearly see that low-fat diets are good for you." When the data CLEARLY shows that Low-fat, High-carb diets adversely effect blood lipids when compared to High-fat, Low-carb diets.


Just as the Stanford researchers observed in their most recent study, the results of this study also showed that postprandial [triglycerides] (and presumably RLP) were also much higher on the higher [carb] diet than on the diet higher in fat.


See?
I just love how they try and twist the data to fit their hypothesis.....and then conclude that their reasoning is,


simply because such a diet has been proven to reverse atherosclerosis.


What? Unbelievable.


It appears that the presumably adverse impact of high-CHO diets on blood lipids is limited primarily to short-term clinical trials


Yeah, when you cherry pick the studies.

And then, of course, they go on to condemn high fat diets without any CONVINCING supporting data...


High-fat diets have not been shown to regress atherosclerosis and are usually associated with its progression


It's actually pretty funny when you read through these articles analytically.




edit on 11-9-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DreamerOracle
 


Well, anecdotes really don't count.


And do you have link?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Source
As requested.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by loner007
Source


That's Wikipedia.

Clearly there are two extremes of thought on the subject. This is not a contest and you don't have to be a jerk to get your point across and you don't have to be "right" or "wrong". I'm just sharing the information that I have and happen to believe. I'm not trying to make you "wrong" because I don't give flying fig what you eat. Can you eat flying figs?


I believe that there are government and pharmaceutical interests that WANT a sick populous. They WANT us to eat corn and soy and sugar and soda pop. So quoting Wikipedia or the AMA or any other "official" food pyramid information is obviously meaningless to someone who believes as I do.
And there's NWIH (no way in hell) you or anyone is going to convince me otherwise. I have empirical proof that eating the way I do is good for me. Now if you're happy eating vegetarian or which ever way you eat, that's good. Good for you. But the sanctimonious attitude that most anti-meat people have is both unpleasant and unnecessary.

Thanks for reading.



edit on 9/11/2010 by Benevolent Heretic because: she meant "or" but typed "of"...



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


ok time for me to be wary of wheat products I was unaware of the dangers of wheat's particular type of lectin as lectins plays a role in maintaining our bodies and refined wheat just eat bran. So you going to stop eating flesh?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by loner007
 


To add to my post....

Half of the studies referenced as "low-fat diets reduce arterial plaque" are from a fellow name Dean Ornish. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Dr. Dean Ornish has not shown to reduce atherosclerotic plaque with his low-fat diets; he has, however, shown an improvement in endothelial dysfunction. How misleading of him......

Here...this is a study conducted by Christopher D. Gardner, PhD...in which he compared the Atkins, Ornish, Zone and LEARN (sad) diets and their effects on weight and related risk factor. This study lasted 12 months.

jama.ama-assn.org...


Results: Weight loss was greater for women in the Atkins diet group compared with the other diet groups at 12 months, and mean 12-month weight loss was significantly different between the Atkins and Zone diets (P



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by loner007
 


Ummmm, no. Because there's not REAL evidence that consuming animal products is bad.

As I've pointed out....Our bodies are meant to run on fat, so why would I consume a low-fat diet? Numerous indigonous tribes throughout the world THRIVE on high-fat, animal product-based diets. (and, granted, many also thrive on vegetable based diets)

My guess is you are a moral vegetarian. You justify your exclusions of animal products by claiming you're not harming animals. That's fine. But don't try and rationalize it by typing "animal products cause _______ disease" in a search engine.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 

err excuse me i have not avodcated low fat diets nor have I said animal products are bad coz i love diary especially goats milk . Though killing an animal for its skin is something i find to be barbaric.I have been saying man are frugivours and eats insects for the protein and our bodies are not suited for eating flesh.
as for low carb high fat ?? that has nothing to do with eating flesh of an animal.

By the way yes the bodys needs fat I never said it didnt nor have I mentioned fats and since you have heres a bit of info



The nature of the fat depends on the type of fatty acids that make up the triglycerides. All fats contain both saturated and unsaturated fatty acids but are usually described as 'saturated' or 'unsaturated' according to the proportion of fatty acids present. Saturated fats are generally solid at room temperature and tend to be animal fats. Unsaturated fats are liquid at room temperature and are usually vegetable fats - there are exceptions e.g. palm oil, a vegetable oil that contains a high percentage of saturated fatty acids.


and i havent been searching google I been doing something called research. you may want to try that sometime.

cancer project



edit on 11/9/2010 by loner007 because: (no reason given)




edit on 11/9/2010 by loner007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DreamerOracle
 


Sorry, I remembered incorrectly. Vegetarians have a higher risk of colorectal cancer.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Ong Bak
 

Meat 'slowly kills you' - but doesn't life slowly kill you anyway?

When my wife's father was born (1930) there were just over 2 billion* people on earth, now there are [very nearly] 7 billion*, and given the problems facing us currently, not least with how the most technologically 'advanced' states are facing desperate problems with ageing populations, pensions, healthcare and sustainability...

I am very suspicious of the anti-ageing/increase-lifespan wagon, it can't possibly carry everyone, and those on it become increasingly separated from the poorer masses - not a good place to go IMO.

Thanks, but given that I don't smoke, rarely get to afford drink, and would really like my children to not have to be over-burdened by supporting an anti-ageing/ageing populous obsessively chasing immortality, I think moderation with those few remaining vices will be the king for some time?

Now avoiding premature death, that's something else, no?


edit on 11-9-2010 by curioustype because: correction to data & addition of data source:en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by loner007
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 

err excuse me i have not avodcated low fat diets


Look, you're linking all these articles that advocate low-fat diets.


nor have I said animal products are bad


And you're also linking articles that claim animal products are "bad"


Though killing an animal for its skin is something i find to be barbaric.


So I was right? Hey, I would respect you so much more if you would just stick with that. Don't try and venture into the science, especially the nutritional science, because your idea of "research" is nothing more than regurgitating what you've searched for. If you want to really research, you can start first by learning a little biochemsitry. Or even some medical terminology, or journal writing so you can understand how to read the data and make a truely informed decision.


I have been saying man are frugivours and eats insects for the protein and our bodies are not suited for eating flesh.


As I've said, try and be frugivorous in the wild. How many apples do you think you'll find that are suitable to the pallat? You would be eating ALL day long following that kind of diet. There's simply not enough calories, and if there were, where are you getting essential fatty acids from?


as for low carb high fat ?? that has nothing to do with eating flesh of an animal.


Yes, it does. It's incredibly difficult to maintain a high fat diet without animal products, unless you live on a tropical island with coconuts.

I'm not killing an animal for it's skin, rather it's nutrients.


By the way yes the bodys needs fat I never said it didnt nor have I mentioned fats and since you have heres a bit of info


Why are posting a paragraph about fats? I'm very well aware of the differences between fatty acids.



cancer project



That's great. But what about the mound of research that completely contradicts the sources provided in that article? What about the fact that most of those studies in the article you provided are observational studies.....they provide no arrow of cause. What about the fact that, as I've stated before, vegetarians tend to avoid most of the foods and lifestyles that contribute to cancer. Once again, how many of those studies are taking into account the vast amount of possible confounding variables?

Let me show you something. The following external quotes are from the link you provided:


Two themes consistently emerge from studies of cancer from many sites: vegetables and fruits help to reduce risk, while meat, animal products, and other fatty foods are frequently found to increase risk.


The focus here is on fat, which is a general misconception in nutritional science. It's assumed that fat is bad.


Consumption of dietary fat drives production of hormones, which, in turn, promotes growth of cancer cells in hormone-sensitive organs such as the breast and prostate.


Actually, this one is close. But it should actually read, "Consumption of dietary carbohydrate drives production of hormones, namely insulin, which, in turn, affects every other hormone in the body. " Dietary fat is used to produce sex hormones, but an overabundace of it doesn't cause an overproduction of those hormones. There are other hormones in place that regulate that.
The effects of hyperinsulinemia tumor growth are profound (and hyperglycemia, for that matter). There's a reason why diabetes increases the risk of cancer, obesity and heart disease immensely (it's the effects of glucose, fructose and insulin).


Meat is devoid of the protective effects of fiber, antioxidants, phytochemicals, and other helpful nutrients, and it contains high concentrations of saturated fat and potentially carcinogenic compounds, which may increase one’s risk of developing many different kinds of cancer.


Meat also contains high amounts of monounsaturated fat, in the form oleic acid, which is touted as being protective of heart disease. Saturated fat? Please, don't get me started on that.


Plant foods are also naturally low in fat and rich in antioxidants and other anti-cancer compounds. Not surprisingly, vegetarians are at the lowest risk for cancer and have a significantly reduced risk compared to meat-eaters.


Wow. Sounds like this whole article is leaning heavily towards vegetarianism, with a obvious bias against meat-eaters.

Oh.....lol.....I found out why.

Remember Dr. T. Colin Campbell, the guy who directed the study outlined in the OP? The guy who lied about the data found by the china project? That guy! Well, he serves on the advisory board for....the Pysicians Committee for Resonsible Medicine (PCRM).....Gues who's the president of that board......Neal Bernard, M.D.

And upon further reading, we find that the Cancer Project is actually run by the PCRM. Imagine that...


PCRM’s Cancer Project has provided vital information to tens of thousands of people.


Why does that matter? en.wikipedia.org...


People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has donated more than $1.3m to PCRM.[20] It is understood, however, that PCRM supports a vegan diet for its health benefits and PCRM is in no way affiliated with any animal rights organizations.


Millitant vegetarianism......it never stops.


edit on 11-9-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd because: my face hurts



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by DreamerOracle
 


Sorry, I remembered incorrectly. Vegetarians have a higher risk of colorectal cancer.

this is flat out wrong.
Diet, exercise, and body weight

You can lower your risk of developing colorectal cancer by managing the risk factors that you can control, like diet and physical activity.

Diets high in vegetables and fruits have been linked with lower risk of colon cancer. Diets high in processed and/or red meats have been linked with a higher risk. The American Cancer Society recommends that you eat a healthy diet, with an emphasis on plant sources. This includes the following:

* Choose foods and beverages in amounts that help achieve and maintain a healthy weight.
* Eat 5 or more servings of a variety of vegetables and fruits each day.
* Choose whole grains rather than processed (refined) grains.
* Limit your intake of processed and red meats.


taken directly from cancer.org.
if you choose to eat meat and bury your head in the sand thats fine with me, but please stop spreading dangerous lies.
its one thing if you wish to throw your own life away, but you are putting others health at risk by making things up and thats jsut plain irresponsible.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Ahhh yes… Just had myself a big, juicy New York steak cut to order from grass fed beef raised in the pristine interior of northern British Columbia seared to perfection. I fried up some organic onions and mushrooms in organic coconut oil and mixed in seasoning and organic barbecue sauce. Than I smothered it all over the steak with a side of fresh steamed veggies.

I feel great… full of energy and mentally alert and focused… stomach totally flat

Sure beats a slab of GMO tofu fried in GMO canola oil with a side of alfalfa and bean sprouts



edit on 11-9-2010 by soleprobe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
after reading the previous 15 pages im actaully pretty happy most of you have a firm grasp on reality and are advocating a healthy lifestyle.
im equally disheartened to see the callous lies and ignorance being spread by the carnivores here.
i dont want to really stray too far off topic so ill keep this short and sweet.
are humans carnivores? no
are humans vegetarian by nature? no
are humans omnivores? yes
we CAN eat many things, but SHOULD we? probably not.
the one advantage humans clearly have in the food chain this the ability to amke choices independant of purely survival based needs. we have an abundant amount of choices for food, and some of us choose wisely. wisely for ourselves, wisely for the other inhabitants of our planet, wisely for ecological impact, wisely for the good of everyone and everything aorund us.
and yet, some of us choose to act like cavemen from the year 15,000 BC. still slaughtering animals unnescesarily and acting upon only instinct.
its clear that some of us have adpated to a changing world and will benifit going forward while others grasp on to antiquated lifestyle that will soon go by the wayside along with their barbaric ways.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 



The focus here is on fat, which is a general misconception in nutritional science. It's assumed that fat is bad.

Wrong FAT is not assumed to be bad its depends on which type of fat. again you are twisting things. the fats that are bad are called trans fat and saturated fat. Fleshy meat has a content of high saturated fat. This fat can clog up arteries and cause heart attacks to name one.yes saturated fat is also found in diary products. and yes there is a few plant sources of saturated fat like coconut oil and palm oil. trans fat is done in the manufacturing stage .




Meat also contains high amounts of monounsaturated fat, in the form oleic acid, which is touted as being protective of heart disease. Saturated fat? Please, don't get me started on that.

so it does but so does olive oil. and saturated fat? are you saying that is actually good for you? though the body can deal with a little saturated fat providing you have a higher ratio of mono fats as too much leads to clogging of the veins as already mentioned.

and I point out again they are numerous studies not to mention the human physiologically not suited for eating flesh. there is nothing in flesh man needs that he cant get from fruit veg diary and insects.

www.britishmeat.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...


edit on 11/9/2010 by loner007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DreamerOracle
 


Exactly a one diet for all is a dream each body is different no everybody react to the same diets equal.

What is killing our nation today and is making us the fattest and most diabetic nation in the world is processed foods, sugars and refined carbs.

Anybody that think they can eat from both sides, fats and carbs without balancing what kind of fats and carbs they eat are for a rude awakening, that is why obesity in the US is an epidemic.

Like you, I am happy with my diet, it gives me what I need and at my age I look and feel great, that is the key.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by loner007
are you saying that is actually good for you? though the body can deal with a little saturated fat providing you have a higher ratio of mono fats as too much leads to clogging of the veins as already mentioned.


That’s a bunch of corporate establishment hype that’s been going on for decades… People have been following this popular advice for decades like my old man did … avoiding saturated fats and eating omega 6 industrial seed oils produce by the big multinationals who work closely with the sickcare industry. He had to get a quadruple by pass even though he jogged everyday and ran the Boston marathon.

Is Coconut Oil REALLY Healthy?

www.youtube.com...#!

Coconut Oil is the Healthiest Oil on Earth!

www.alternative-healthzine.com...

Excerpt from article:

“So why has coconut oil gotten such a bad rap in the recent past? … The answer is politics and economics. Coconut oil was heavily used in the US at one time, being used for baking, pastries, frying, and theater popcorn. But starting in the 1980s some very powerful groups in the US, including the American Soybean Association (ASA), the Corn Products Company (CPC International) and the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), began to categorically condemn all saturated oils. Faulty science was used to convince the public that ALL saturated fats were unhealthy, when in fact saturated fats rich in the medium chain fatty acids, like lauric acid, are very healthy.”



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by soleprobe
 


Just like Copperton came with a campaign to made sun loving Americas hate and be scare of the sun back in the 60s in order to launch their sun blocking line of products, look what is happening now, before the 60s Americans didn't have a problem with vitamin D deficiencies now they are starving for it with higher bone problems.

The big pharma in order to launch their killing statin drugs demonized animal fats when is already been established that cholesterol from animal fats if minimal and the rest is made by our own bodies in order to protect our internal organs, people are dying the same with statin drugs or not.

Is just a fallacy and a very well concocted propaganda campaign.

I like my cholesterol the way it is, as we get older our bodies will thanks us for that, specially our brains.


edit on 11-9-2010 by marg6043 because: spelling



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join