It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by soleprobe
I like my cholesterol the way it is, as we get older our bodies will thanks us for that, specially our brains.
The World Health Organization claims there is convincing evidence that dietary intake of palmitic acid increases risk of developing cardiovascular diseases.  However, another study showed that palmitic acid has no hypercholesterolaemic effect if intake of linoleic acid is greater than 4.5% of energy. On the other hand, it was shown that, if the diet contains trans fatty acids, the health effects are negative, causing an LDL cholesterol increase and HDL cholesterol decrease
Originally posted by Ong Bak
so i read an article the other day taht cited some study with thousands of men and women conducted over a period of like 25 years that showed a direct relationship between meat consumption and increased mortality rates/shorter life spans.
im not here to argue the validty of said study, im jsut wondering if the amount of people int he study, it think it was liek 50k people and the length of the study (25 years) is long enough to prove once and for all that what many well educated peopel have known for alogn time, that meat will kill you slowly, its legit?
or will meat eaters continue to deny the obvious fact that its poisoning their bodies becasue they jsut like to eat dead animals?
Originally posted by LosTNForGotteNWayS
Three words... "Bovine growth hormones"...
You want to know why little kids are physically maturing faster these days?
Originally posted by NeverApologize
No. Meat is good. Have you ever met a healthy vegan or vegetarian? I know I haven't!
Of course being on topic I suppose crapping your brains out on veggies and rabbit for would make one delusional and believe themselves superior to those evil meat eaters... Or wait...
Originally posted by Sourdough4life
2 words... Grass fed.... There are tons of factors why kids are maturing faster, the phytestrogen content of soy most likley being one of them.
Originally posted by weemadmental
what a lot of nonsense this is, all you need to know is that the teeth in your mouth have evolved to allow us to eat both meat and veg, there are lots of different factors in life that stop us from reaching old age. if you look at vegans and vegetarians you will see that they need to consume extra vitamins and minerals not found in plants to stay healthy, if they dont they dont have a long life, you just have to take things in moderation
Originally posted by Ong Bak
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.
CONCLUSIONS: This study using pooled data from prospective food diaries, among cohorts with low to moderate meat intakes, shows little evidence of association between consumption of red and processed meat and colorectal cancer risk.
Conclusion:The incidence of some cancers may be lower in fish eaters and vegetarians than in meat eaters.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall cancer incidence rates of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in this study are low compared with national rates. Within the study, the incidence of all cancers combined was lower among vegetarians than among meat eaters, but the incidence of colorectal cancer was higher in vegetarians than in meat eaters.
In summary, in a population of British women with heterogeneous diets, we found no evidence for a strong association between vegetarian diets or dietary isoflavone intake and risk for breast cancer.
Cohort studies of vegetarians have shown a moderate reduction in mortality from IHD but little difference in other major causes of death or all-cause mortality in comparison with health-conscious non-vegetarians from the same population. Studies of cancer have not shown clear differences in cancer rates between vegetarians and non-vegetarians. More data are needed, particularly on the health of vegans and on the possible impacts on health of low intakes of long-chain n-3 fatty acids and vitamin B(12). Overall, the data suggest that the health of Western vegetarians is good and similar to that of comparable non-vegetarians
CONCLUSIONS: The mortality of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in these studies is low compared with national rates. Within the studies, mortality for major causes of death was not significantly different between vegetarians and nonvegetarians, but the nonsignificant reduction in mortality from ischemic heart disease among vegetarians was compatible with the significant reduction previously reported in a pooled analysis of mortality in Western vegetarians
In conclusion, no consistent associations between red and processed meat consumption and lymphoma risk were observed
Conclusions A very small inverse association between intake of total fruits and vegetables and cancer risk was observed in this study. Given the small magnitude of the observed associations, caution should be applied in their interpretation.
CONCLUSIONS: We have not consistently identified intakes of meat, eggs, or dairy products as risk factors for breast cancer. Future studies should investigate the possible role of high-temperature cooking in the relation of red meat intake with breast cancer risk.
These results from a large European prospective cohort suggest that higher consumption of fruit and vegetables is not associated with decreased risk of pancreatic cancer.
CONCLUSION: The results from this large multicenter study suggest that there is no association between dietary fat and prostate cancer risk.
The available epidemiologic data are not sufficient to support an independent positive association between red meat intake and CRC. This conclusion is based upon summary associations that are weak in magnitude, heterogeneity between available studies, inconsistent patterns of associations across the sub-groups analyses, and the likely influence of confounding by other dietary and lifestyle factors.
Originally posted by loner007
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.
This [saturated] fat can clog up arteries and cause heart attacks to name one
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.
Originally posted by Golden Rule
Vegetarians are accused of being out of touch with reality - tree huggers and animal lovers, as if to love nature is something pathological. They are informed that there is nothing wrong with aggression, acquisition, and competition as long as they are forces which are controlled and directed properly - aggression is to be channeled through sports and career ambitions, acquisition is directed towards impressing a mate and reproduction, and competition is survival of the fittest, which meat eating seems to prove is nature's law.
Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by kimish
As I've previously stated in this thread, evolution is not perfect. We still have appendices, but they are useless. We get cancer and various chronic illnesses later in life. Clearly, you can't just assume that every feature of the human body is perfectly adapted for its environment.