It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 07:57 PM

american cancer society ] cherry picking small scale biased studies from backwater websites
so like we dont live in caves and hunt food with spears to survive any more, why are you still eating like we do?

posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:00 PM

Originally posted by goodsamaritan55

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.


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.

humans are omnivores is correct. but humans also have the ability to think and make educated ( for some of us anyway) choices based on our current knowledge of the universe.
why do some of us choose to move forward with progressive idealogies, and some of us want to drag our feet kicking and screaming and grasping on to antiquated lifestyle choices taht lead to an early death?
personally, i dont know why, but i do know which choice is the correct one.

posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:39 PM
reply to post by Ong Bak

Yeah, we'll just forget the fact that you're talking about the wealthiest "nonprofit" organization in the world. We'll forget the fact that we're talking about public health policy, which has a track record of dead wrong regarding nutrition science (mainly because of politics and a constant pressure to "get things done"). I don't care who it is, if they're claiming that observational studies are proof of anything, they're idiots or are pushing an agenda.

If you keep making claims that I'm lying or that I'm cherry picking from small, useless studies, you're just going to keep embarrassing yourself. I suggest reading my post and the links provided before submitting your rebuttal. Really! If you do that simple thing, you'll notice that the studies I provided are from one pool of data.....

It's called European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)

EPIC (the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition) was initiated in 1992 and is the largest detailed study of diet and health ever undertaken. It involves over 500,000 people in 10 European countries (see EPIC-Europe). It is coordinated by the World Health Organization and supported by the European Union and national funding agencies.

EPIC-Oxford is one of two EPIC cohorts in the UK, the other being EPIC-Norfolk. (A “cohort” is a large group of people who have joined a study and whose health is being followed.) The EPIC-Oxford cohort was recruited between 1993 and 1999. The strategy for establishing the EPIC-Oxford cohort was to recruit participants with a wide range of diets by targeting vegetarians as well as participants from the general UK population. As such EPIC-Oxford is of great scientific value to the EPIC study as a whole, because the diets of vegetarians, and especially vegans, differ substantially from those of meat-eaters and this range in diets makes it easier to detect relationships between nutrition and health.

By studying very many people in different countries with differing diets, and by using carefully designed and tested questionnaires, EPIC should produce more specific information than previous studies about the effects of diet on long-term health.

And ....

The EPIC-Oxford Study

Welcome to EPIC-Oxford. The Oxford component of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) is a prospective cohort of 65,000 men and women living in the UK, many of whom are vegetarian.

The main objective of the study is to examine how diet influences the risk of cancer, particularly for the most common types of cancer in Britain, as well as other chronic diseases. The study began in 1993 and since then, a great deal of important research, from both EPIC-Oxford and its collaboration with other centres in Europe, has been published.

During 2007 and early 2008 we sent participants a second follow-up questionnaire to help us to understand how changes in diet and other aspects of lifestyle can influence future health. The response has been excellent, with over 33,000 questionnaires already returned. We would also like participants to complete another 7-day food diary.

All but one of the aforementioned studies was pulled from EPIC.....that's right, it says OXFORD.

You'll also realize that my point was to provide studies showing either slight or negative correlations, because if your claim is that meat consumption causes cancer, and if your claims are based on observational studies, then all observational studies have to be weighed. If anyone is cherry picking, it's the ACS and everyone else touting this faulty hypothesis.

So, be careful with your accusations.

edit on 12-9-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd because: it's getting hot in here

posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:00 PM
let me get this straight .

the OP is citing a study done in china? A study that determined that eating chinese meat could have adverse side effects. UHHHHHHH. DUH. were talking chinese meat. ever been to china? not exactly the most advanced farming practices in the world for cattle. It's probably half the crap that made it's way into the meat during processing that kills people. just not sure one can cite a study done on eating chinese meat and health.

you know that the flu developed in china due to it's backwards farming processes. they would keep their ducks and pigs next to each other. the ducks had the flu. the pigs would eat the bird poop and the disease mutated into effecting pigs and thus humans giving the world the flu virus. so a study done with chinese meat probably not very accurate.

meat is healthy for you. and we put all sorts of crap into our grain and produce too so it's not like you are sparing yourself the chemicals by not eating meat.

also ong bak was a great movie. ong bak two...not so much. crummy ending.

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 12:32 AM
reply to post by loner007

You're assuming I care to read 12 pages of comments. I don't.

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:01 AM

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

Totally un-true, un-researched, and biased at best.
Might i recommend watching this video for ALL that are either vegetarian OR meateaters

Some real true facts between the two, and what helps you to live a longer/healthier life =]

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:03 AM

Originally posted by danielhanson420
were all going to die one day and most of us arnt going to see a pention(whatever age it will be by then). so thanks for the warning but im giong to enjoy my meat and die happy nomatter how much quiker it is as a conciquence.

If thats the case why not just stock up on meat based products ONLY, only sugar, fat, high carbs...
Really its quite a narrow minded, extremely un-educated and dimwitted "argument" meat eaters seem to make towards others who choose NOT to have meat in their diet.

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:28 AM

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?

I read a study a few years agao (I will try and locate it)...where low meat consumption seemed to have a benefit until you are in your sixties...
...but people who survived the longest post-100's where meat eaters.

Meat is still the only source of complete protein...
...and it contains a heap of mineral... is the mineral that seems to contribute to longevity.

Go figure...

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:55 AM
reply to post by Ong Bak

i came across this, and thought of this thread. it is informative about the history of what humanity's diet has been.

Man? Vegetarian Vs. Meat Eater, Nutrition by Natalie

This is your brain on veggies. even this guy says "you are what you eat". ok .... i want to be a vegitable why?

then there is this type of persuasive arguement from this healthy looking vegan:
Vegans vs Meat Eaters

Do Vegetarians Eat Fish?

Do Humans Need Meat

Long Pig (people who eat meat are borderline cannibals)

this guy is a vegan. does he know he consumes animal bacteria every time he swallows?
he mainly eats the genetalia of plants.

thought i would share.

pass me the A1,

edit on 13-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher because: fix link

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:19 AM
Growing up as a seventh day adventist i've witnessed all sides of this story. I am personally a meat eater as was my mother growing up. she then became a vegetarian when my sister was born(born a vegetarian)and then moved on to being a vegan. I can assure you it does indeed expand your life. But at the cost of Iron, protein, and a few other things I can't think of. from my understanding those are the main two. They either have to supplement or eat a large variety of foods. Now being that I've lived with these two some times I'm forced to eat their way. I've experienced what both have to offer.

I currently find that the best diet one can eat is mainly fruits vegetables beans with a minimal amount of meat. You see it's not really about the nutrients b/c while it may be hard you can get what you need from each diet. The difference comes in digest ability. for example if you eat only salad for a day and you dont' eat after 7 or 8 you will be on the toilet early the next morning. And you'll feel great all day. If you eat nothing but steaks for a day. you may not be able to use the bathroom for a day or two maybe more. Meat is very hard on your body. It literally gets stuck in your digestive system. It doesn't actually take too long for it to begin to rot in your system making it that much harder to pass..

Vegetables will actually help clean your colon. which is what it's really all about. A person with a clean colon will outlive the latter. While the latter will be plagued with sickness stemming from their colon. (not literally coming from the colon but the body will weak from dealing with what is stuck in there)

Now this may be yucky to some people but it's the truth like it or not. If any of you have really young kids look at their logs in the toilet. chances are their logs will be longer and thicker than that of an adult meat eaters. Their colons have not had the chance to be blocked up yet.

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:17 AM
Interesting thread...

I'll think about it tonight over a T-Bone steak and mashed potatoes, asparagus, pickled beets and a salad.

Yes Meat may = Shorter life, but to me life without meat = what is the freaking point..

If I had to go through life knowing that I couldn't have a thick juicy delicious steak ever again I would loose all will to live.

edit on 13-9-2010 by DaMod because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:30 AM

Originally posted by kaskade
If thats the case why not just stock up on meat based products ONLY, only sugar, fat, high carbs...

Could you please explain what this means?

edit on 13-9-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd because: of you

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:45 PM
Since we are talking about the different studies of life and diet around the world, the question should be asked:
How long would a person be expected to live, average life span if they eat fried food for 2 meals, for every day of their life, including a diet of beef, poultry, fish and pork, where 30 percent of the population smokes cigarettes, drink hard liquor and have a higher amount of stress than anyone else in the world.
Now mind you this is not the US, where the average life expectency is about 76 years.
Seems like the Japanese eats all of the wrong things, have unhealthy vices, live a hard stressful life and tend to have a higher life expectency of about 80 years. Why is that?

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:10 PM
reply to post by sdcigarpig

They also have extremely high stroke rates! Yay!

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:13 PM

Originally posted by DaMod

If I had to go through life knowing that I couldn't have a thick juicy delicious steak ever again I would loose all will to live.

edit on 13-9-2010 by DaMod because: (no reason given)

thats is just aobut the most pathetic thing i have ever read. not in the sense taht i think its stupid or lame, but jsut sad. has your entire life really degenereated tot eh point that the ritualistic consumption of flesh dictates teh ebb and flow fo your entire existence?

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:54 PM
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

Yes, but the point being that you can not just go off of what is good for the people in one country or another. Take France, the french food is one of the richest, high calorie and high in cholestrerol, but have a rate of heart attacks and heart disease that is lower than the US.
The point being, that I believe that there are more factors that lead to the different diseases than just one study would indicate, and that the study done in China is ultimately flawed on that aspect.
You see when that was done, they just looked at the current people living to make that study, but the question is how far back did they go into history to determine the different factors that lead to the condition that permits such? My knowledge of chinese history is limited, but from what I do know, is that the people there have lived on that kind of diet for generations. So if for generations a group lives on that kind of a diet, would that not preclude a change in the genetics to accomidate for such?

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:59 PM
reply to post by Ong Bak

Just admit it, you're a vegetarian for moral reasons and, like others in this thread, you have ventured into the nutrition discussion and are failing miserably. You really have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to be a vegetarian to satisfy your moral superiority complex, go right ahead, but don't come spouting off about things that you don't understand.

I take it that your lack of response to my post is a sign of concession....

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:10 PM

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

Yes, but the point being that you can not just go off of what is good for the people in one country or another. Take France, the french food is one of the richest, high calorie and high in cholestrerol, but have a rate of heart attacks and heart disease that is lower than the US.

Oh yes, there's the French paradox, the spanish paradox, the Swiss paradox....and on and on. A paradox is a set of data that contradict the prevailing hypothesis. With so many obsverved, it would make sense to think there is no paradox, rather that the hypothesis is wrong.

The French consume more calories, smoke more and drink more, and yet have less heart disease. And, oh yeah, they eat a ton of cheese and fatty meats....lots of saturated fat. Hmmmm......

So if for generations a group lives on that kind of a diet, would that not preclude a change in the genetics to accomidate for such?

In the rural populations, yes, which is precisely why the study only examined the diets of those rural populations. Urban-city dwellers would have a varying diets that would have been fluid over the past 100 years. The rural areas would stick to one diet for a longer period of time and would all consume very similar diet within large geographic areas.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:03 AM

Looks like it's settled then.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:07 PM
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

I'm not a vegetarian so please don't jump down my throat when i say this.

While the French paradox and others exist they are the exceptions and not the rule. It is quite possible that these populations have adapted to these diets and so they can eat them while other populations die more often when we eat like that. Take the Scottish, they have i believe the highest rates of heart disease and stroke in Europe because they eat the most terrible diet. It's fat laden, sugar rich and alcohol heavy.

There is a direct link between early death and heavy meat/fat/sugar consumption for the majority. However i don't agree with people becoming vegetarian, of course they can if they want but the lies they tell about the health benefits are disgusting. Yes eating less meat is a good thing but that doesn't mean that eating no meat will automatically be better. What vegetarian vs meat eating studies tend to ignore are other factors like overall lifestyle and the amount of meat consumed.

new topics

top topics

<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in