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: 16
23
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   

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.

ya with strokes, cancer, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.




posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by soleprobe
 


why did you mention coconut oil? I didnt mention coconut oil as being bad. I said saturated fats are bad.I didnt want to continue this further but seeing as you forced me here we go.
Saturated fat has 4 types of acid depending where it comes from. They are Lauric acid, Myristic acid,Palmitic acid and Stearic acid. NOw lets look at Palmitic acid which is found in dark chocolate MEAT and palm oil.



The World Health Organization claims there is convincing evidence that dietary intake of palmitic acid increases risk of developing cardiovascular diseases. [8] 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

Now Chocolate comes in its natural form of cacoa seeds contain linoleic acid. Linoleic acid comes from mainly plant sources however chicken fat does contain it but i dont know if its greater than 4.5% of energy. So eating meat on its own with saturted fat WILL increase cardiovascular diseases.
Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) total CLA content in milk or dairy products ranges from 0.34 to 1.07% of total fat. Total CLA content in raw or processed beef ranges from 0.12 to 0.68% of total fat
I am not going to go into the other 3 acids as there is no health problems associated with them. SO yes u can have saturated fat in your diet provided its not meat fat.

However I will agree there is a great misconception regarding saturated fat. In general though when they talk about saturated fat being bad for you they are talking about animal fat.



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



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   

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...



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Ong Bak
 


there's nothing worse in life then a vegan with an agenda.

it's the worst.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I'm an omnivore like our Chimpanzee cousins.
How long do I have to live?



- Lee



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   

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?


This is a vegan conspiracy.
They used PROCESSED MEAT in combination with those TRASH CARBS.
Go and google for PALEO DIET to see how to eat meat properly.
I do even better... RAW PALEO DIET: RAW MEAT all the time.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Three words... "Bovine growth hormones"...
You want to know why little kids are physically maturing faster these days?



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by LosTNForGotteNWayS
Three words... "Bovine growth hormones"...
You want to know why little kids are physically maturing faster these days?


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.


edit on 12-9-2010 by Sourdough4life because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Sourdough4life
 


Soy the biggest propaganda of all, like copperton and sun cancer, like statins and colesterol, if anybody wants to know how soy became the "miracle food" don't go any farther than the food industry, most of the soy in the US is GMO and even the organic soy due to our overworked soil lack what the food industry wants to sell.

Soy is no the wonder food that people have been sold, women with estrogen dominance are in dangers of developing cancer, men should stay away from it and children.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Strange thing, meat eating has been the status quo in human society for hundreds of thousands of years, yet you would imagine that it had just become a revolutionary new habit of distinction in the last 30 years. Never have I seen people more religious about eating meat than they are today. Most vegetarians or vegans have experienced both diets - meat eating and non-meat eating and are able to make an informed decision from a comparison between them. The religious meat eater though, resists an experiment in non-meat eating as if some integral part of his or her self will be forfeited and unable to be retrieved at salad's end.

I often hear people talking about meat as if it is some new mind-expanding drug, much as the hippies must have done about '___'. The next meat meal seems to be a desire that is never really quenched, and is always floating near the top of their consciousness. It seems to be a desire that is a mixture of many strong emotions - the strongest of which are lust and ambition. These two emotions are continually being fed by commercial and governing vested interests.

Eating meat is not revolutionary - vegetarianism is. Meat eating is ultra-conservative. So how did it become the new hip?
Eating meat for most people is a sacred act, more than just food and an act more sacred than going to any temple, church or synagogue.
The defense of meat eating is the defense of aggression, acquisition and competition as necessary human instincts. In turn, this is an unwitting defense of the increasing militarization of human society.

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.

Therefore then we are also forced to accept that it is natural laws which cause economic collapse, destruction of the ecosystem, the rise of superpowers and ambitious politicians and finally warfare on increasing scales. Its just human nature, dyed in the wool. Nothing can be done about it.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Golden Rule
 


Many more people have gone vegetarian or vegan and came back to animal foods once there health started to decline.

There is overwhelming evidence that we need ,the vitamins and nutrients only available in animal foods(b12, preformed fat soluble vitamins, certain proteins etc.)

I personally tried the vegan thing for a couple years and it was definitely great at first, when I was in the cleanse face. Once I cleansed all the crap from the SAD out of me tho my health started to decline, pretty rapidly. Animal foods, specifically the grass fed fatty ones, were the only thing that enabled me to regain my health and stamina. The lifestyle and physical health I have achieved because of the animal products is amazing, its vastly trumps anything I was ever able to achieve on a vegan diet.

The health movement we see today is based on kellogg the cereal producer who was a so called avid health nut. What he really was tho is a very smart business man. He figured out how to mass produce grains and turned them into a major commodity, making him a billionaire. The agenda is further being pushed by peta, vegsource, militant vegans etc. These people are blind to the facts and claim everyone has an agenda or they are part of meat lobbying. But these very same people promote the hell out of "whole grains" which are the biggest US commodity.

Irony??

P.s. lol at your propaganda, you realize you have fallen into big business trap? Who promotes a grain based diet?? Monsanto, the government, the WHO. Who recommends against a animal based diet??? Monsanto, the government, the WHO. They got you.


edit on 12-9-2010 by Sourdough4life because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   

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...


You best be trollin'. A good majority of my friends are vegetarian and they are all very healthy.


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.


Phytoestrogen isn't powerful enough to make any changes in the body no matter what age you are. The amount of it needed compared to oestrogen to be active in the body is just too much. You would have to eat a ton of soy (exaggeration) everyday to even get the slightest effects.


edit on 12-9-2010 by Jupiter Crashes because: To add second quote.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

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

Wee Mad


The sharp teeth in the front of your mouth are for tearing fruit.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

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.


The sad thing is, I'm not spreading dangerous lies. In fact, it is you who's buried their head in the sand. You're blindly accepting public health policy because it's something you already believe in. It's called confirmation bias.

Here, check this out.

Meat, poultry and fish and risk of bowel cancer


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.


Cancer incidence in vegetarians


Conclusion:The incidence of some cancers may be lower in fish eaters and vegetarians than in meat eaters.


Cancer risk in vegetarians


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.


Don't call me a liar, cause that's when you get embarrassed. Most of these findings show little or no correlations between meat eating and cancer; however, the data is all over the place. And that's typical of observational studies...just like the ones your "sources" use to condemn meat consumption, and just like the China Project.

Here, I'll give you more.

Vegetarian diet and risk of breast cancer


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.


Health effects of vegetarian diets


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


Mortality in British 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


Should I keep going?

Meat and dairy consumption and risk of lymphoma


In conclusion, no consistent associations between red and processed meat consumption and lymphoma risk were observed


Fruit and vegetable intake and cancer risk


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.


Meat, eggs and dairy products and breast cancer risk


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.


Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of pancreatic cancer



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.


Dietary fat intake and risk of prostate cancer



CONCLUSION: The results from this large multicenter study suggest that there is no association between dietary fat and prostate cancer risk.


Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies of Red Meat Consumption and Colorectal Cancer



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.


I could go dig up more. And larger ones, if you'd like. But I think I've made my point.

These are all epidemiologica/observational, so there's no arrow cause and they certainly don't provide proof, just as the studies (or articles, I haven't seen any actual studies posted) you and others have posted don't provide any proof. You find positive associations and I find inverse associations.

Now, don't accuse me of being a liar and don't come on here telling me I'm making things up. What's irresponsible is someone, like yourself, blindly accepting what is spoon fed to you by "cancer.org" and "T. Colin Campbell" and "PCRM"



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by loner007
Wrong FAT is not assumed to be bad its depends on which type of fat. again you are twisting things.


Haha, no, I'm not. Go back and read your damn links....there is a clear recommendation to reduce total fat, AND bad fats.


the fats that are bad are called trans fat and saturated fat.


You're half right. Trans fats are indeed nasty little buggers. Saturated fat, on the other hand, really isn't. And, as others have pointed out, certain plant saturated fats (lauric acid) are extremely beneficial.


This [saturated] fat can clog up arteries and cause heart attacks to name one


No, it really doesn't. Saturated fat does not clog up arteries. That, my friend, is a myth. The real argument that the medical establishment has against saturated fat is its effect on hypertension, not the formation of atherosclerotic plaque.


so it does but so does olive oil. and saturated fat? are you saying that is actually good for you?


Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. At the very least, it's not detrimental.


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.


Well, as I've mentioned, you're way off. Please, tell me, what type of fat is stored as body fat? And when you answer that, what is your body typically using as fuel when you're at rest? And when you answer that, what kind of idiot would think that burning body fat would cause "clogging of the arteries"


www.britishmeat.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...




It's beyond me why you insist that there are studies everywhere, and yet you're doing nothing but posting the articles that your search engine spits out.

I'll clear something up here:

While there isn't any real, clear evidence showing meat consumption causes cancer (though, admittedly, there is a slightly positive association when ALL evidence is weighed, but it's all observational), there is real, clear evidence that saturated fat does not cause heart disease, both epidemiological and clinical.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
It's also worth noting that the study in question didn't study meat-eaters in general. It studied people on low-carb, high protein diets (such as Atkins.) Meaning, people who - were they not to consume primarily plant protein - would not only consume meat, but consume a larger percentage of meat protein than any other food in their diet. That is a factor that must be taken into consideration when looking at this evidence, in my opinion. It isn't necessarily reflective at all of people on balanced diets which include animal protein. It's comparing the health of high protein dieters consuming meat to high protein dieters consuming plants; not normal, balanced dieters eating meat in moderation to normal, balanced dieters avoiding most or all meat.

Every doctor I've ever talked to has told me: all things in moderation for health. Some meat, lots of healthy fats (omega-3, etc.) from things like fish and nuts, sufficient vegetables, and obtain sugars in moderation from fruits instead of processed sweets. Your protein requirements also change when exercising regularly, particularly if doing strength training. There are vegetable protein sources with good amino acid profiles for workouts, but animal protein (whether from meat or just from something like whey) are still considered the most effective and efficient by most.

I respect vegetarians and vegans' choices. I also respect their intentions and principles. If they maintain good health and acquire sufficient protein and other nutritional requirements, then I say more power to them! But I can't view this study as evidence correlating meat in general to poor health without further proof, except - like everything else - when consumed in too great an abundance.

The ethical issues some vegans take with eating meat is another story. That I can at least fully understand and relate to somewhat, while not adhering to it myself.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

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.


Vegans ARE OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY.

Veganism is a mere TEMPORARY TOOL for detoxification when over cooked proteinized.

Long term veganism (more than a month) leads to MALNUTRITION and INFERTILITY.

No human tribe in history or pre-history has EVER been vegan.

Humans are omnivores.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Exactly. The reason why I study cancer development is because our life span became too long. Genetic diseases/cancer will be the disease of the 21st century. Even if we outlive the common reasons of death, such as diabetes and stroke, we will also pay the debt of trying to buy years to the grave.

Of course some of you will say that current and future technologies will help us to achieve 120-140 years of age but until we invest more time/money on body parts replacement nothing notorious will be obtained. Nevertheless, we can look back at our ancestors to see they didn't leave longer than 36 years but the reasons of death were mostly disease, few were the cases of genetic degeneration defects.

Now, pardon me if I don't pay too much attention to the topic of this discussion but at I can say is that we did evolve. Evolution means a body plan evolves towards the amelioration according the achievement of a main objective. If we flying is the only way to survive then those who have wings like structures will outlive the others.

Diet behavior is the same. Meat eating insures the ingestion of food with high protein content. That diet behavior allowed the development of an "advanced" brain. Saying that eating less meat makes you leave longer is nonsense. Eating less or having a low caloric diet allows you to live longer. Why, because you have less oxidation stress and, again, you're less prone to genetic disease due to mitochondrial derived DNA mutation that all of us will suffer.

So, my point of view is, based on real facts and scientific data, it doesn't matter what you eat but the quality of that food and most importantly the quantity.

By the way, fish offers us more protein content than meat.




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.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
The animal does not have a choice in the matter, MordernAcademia

In fact, the animals we eat would not actually exist if it were not for the demand of them

Hence, we have given them life when such life should not have existed...

Should they be greatful? No Should we feel bad for killing them when that was the intention when creating them....No

The only thing I can agree on is that fish, dolphins, whales must be regulated better as we DO NOT regrow these animals and can't keep taking and taking



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ADUB77
 


The issue here is whether meat eating lengthens or shortens the potential of one's life. But what relevance is an individual life if the life of the ecosystem that supports that individual is being shortened?
Meat is more than food, it is a psychological ritual - the ritual slaughter. I believe that what is eluding us is that all the justifications we use to exploit animals and then eat them at the peak of their life are the same justifications that are used by human global elite power groups.
These people regard the average citizens of nations as cattle, cattle who live off their resources. In exactly the same way, and viewed through a similar logic, they would say:

"In fact, people would not actually exist if it were not for the demand of them

Hence, we have given them life when such life should not have existed...

Should they be grateful? No. Should we feel bad for exploiting and killing them when that was the intention when creating them....No."

After all, this is the ultimate goal of such power hungry and vain people - to corporatize the food supply, land and human reproduction and make military service compulsory so that every able-bodied person is trained to kill and be killed should diplomacy require it.

It is not so much meat which has been an enduring and central component of human civilization to date, it is sacrifice - ritual sacrifice. Meat is like the sacrament handed out to the faithful by the priests in the Catholic church.

Lets leave the sheep and cattle to their business and busy ourselves with the evolution of the pineal gland - that way we have a hope in hell.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join