meat = shorter life

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
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....

moral and health reason.
you are pretty aggressive, maybe you should cut down on the red meat consumption and mellow out a little. all that anger cant be good for you.
also, you can take my lack of response up till now a sign of......having other things to do rather than sit back and laugh at your terrible attempt to insult me and bait me inot an argument.
i suggest you aim a little lower with your trolling bro, its pretty bad.

Originally posted by Ong Bak

moral and health reason.
you are pretty aggressive, maybe you should cut down on the red meat consumption and mellow out a little. all that anger cant be good for you.
also, you can take my lack of response up till now a sign of......having other things to do rather than sit back and laugh at your terrible attempt to insult me and bait me inot an argument.
i suggest you aim a little lower with your trolling bro, its pretty bad.

edit on 15-9-2010 by Ong Bak because: (no reason given)

Anger is a pretty common reaction to condescending posts, espeically when those posts utterly avoid dealing with various issues raised. Drop the ad homs and address the points put to you, if you are unable to do this then you concede you are incorrect. Your point should be so clear it doesn't need you to attack people instead of points.

reply to post by Ong Bak


Well, calling me a liar while ignoring my posts will indeed incite a rather defensive response.

And, once again, you've completely ignored my rebuttals.

When will people learn that other people preaching what is good and not good for them does nothing? People have known for a long time cigarettes will kill you, lots of people still smoke. Tons of people do dangerous things every day, they don't care what you think.

I enjoy meat and if I die at 70 instead of 80, thats cool by me. I don't want to be too old to take care of myself anyway. I love meat and you can tell me 1,000 times a day that its going to kill me eventually, I am going to continue eating it because I love the way it tastes.

I just BBQ'd up 5 pounds of pork ribs 2 days ago and a couple of New York strips yesterday. All of it was excellent and I can't imagine not eating meat. I also have about 4 pounds of bacon sitting in my fridge...I think I'll go cook up a few pieces right now.

I wanted to add this article I found that addresses the study the OP was talking about. I apologize if it has already been added to the conversation, as I have not read every single page of this large thread.

At any rate, here is the article: The Healthy Skeptic

Here is a little snippet:

•The so-called low-carb diet in the study wasn’t remotely low-carb. The participants got between 37% – 60% of calories from carbohydrates, which is what most low-carb experts would call, um, “high-carb.”

He goes on to make many other points about why the study was basically nonsense.

For some reason the whole veg vs meat thing always feels almost religious to me. I think because its always someone preaching to me about eating trying to somehow "save" me. I don't need saving, thank you.

im not a vegetarian for moral reasons only, so your wrong.
i dont have a superiority complex, i jsut care aobut myself and the well being of other living things, unlike you guys.so u wrong again.
im not the one hurling insults blindly at people on a message board, so yuor wrong again there.
i did not deflect or ignore your post, i was busy working and not being on ATS, so you are wrong again.
i know plenty of things aobut nutrition and diet, but meat eaters that cant grasp a simple concept like i dunno, ur eating a CORPSE, dont really deserve a rational response int eh first place, since its 2010 and they are still eating dead animals.
its ok, i understand your afraid of things you cant comprehend, but dont think for a single second you can come off as a condescending blow hard and expect someone like myself to see you for what you are,
u trollin bro.

and besides the point of this thread isnt aobut me, or you personally. its aobut the effects of a meat laden diet on a population.
at the end of the day, it will slowly kill you. if you disagree, try eating only meat for a while see how long you last.
i will be willing to bet its not that long.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
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.

I know you're not vegetarian. And I won't jump down your throat if you address my points while restraining from personal attacks, like calling me a liar.

But how many exceptions does it take to begin to question the rule? One exception? Fine. But we're talking about multiple exceptions. Take the Swiss, for example, or the Australian aboriginals. Or the Masai in Africa or the Alaskan Inuit. Then consider the Spanish, the Italian and the French.....and every other paradox.

If you're considering adaptation to be the cause then why is it that the French paradox is suddenly starting to vanish? Why is that when Frenchmen come to the states, their paradox begins to fade?

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.

But which is it? The carbs? The fat? The ethanol? Take the fat out and the swiss will still have the problems.

There is a direct link between early death and heavy meat/fat/sugar consumption for the majority.

Ok, but which is it? Fat or carbs? That's the problem with "links" and correlations and associations....there is no arrow of cause. My morning alarm is associated with the sunrise, but is my alarm causing the sunrise? Is the sunrise causing my alarm to go off? An outside observer looking at pure data can't make an assumption based on the observation alone....other than morning alarms are associated with the sunrise.

A majority of my ancestors and immediate family lived long happy lives while eating meat and vegetables and studies are like polls to me, unreliable. They also lived through different kinds of weather phenomena from heat to cold without the U.N's help or the governments waste of tax dollars on wasteful claims. So what if meat shortens life a little. It seems sometimes that everyone should sit in a corner and not move until they die lest they have some enjoyment or an opinion. just my opinion and I'm off to grill.

reply to post by Pimpish


I don't think this is the study the OP was referencing. However, I will be posting a thread about the article you just provided. It shows just how ridiculous some of these militant vegetarians are, even the ones with degrees.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


Hmm, I may be wrong but this was a recent study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, which is where the OP said it was published. I guess it could be a coincidence...

Originally posted by Ong Bak
and besides the point of this thread isnt aobut me, or you personally. its aobut the effects of a meat laden diet on a population.
at the end of the day, it will slowly kill you. if you disagree, try eating only meat for a while see how long you last.
i will be willing to bet its not that long.

Okey Dokey! Why you take a little trip up to Alaska and visit with the very few remaining Inuit. They eat almost entirely animal meat and fat. Tell me how they're doing and then get back to me.

When you're done, take a trip to Africa and visit with the Masai.....They live on cows milk, meat and blood.

When you're done with that you can read a few books, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, by Weston. A. Price. And maybe....Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes. The Great Choleterol Con, by Anthony Colpo......wait, who am I kidding, I'm waisting my time.

reply to post by Pimpish

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.

Oh, maybe you're right. Well then, this will make my thread all the better.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
I know you're not vegetarian. And I won't jump down your throat if you address my points while restraining from personal attacks, like calling me a liar.

I don't believe i called you a liar. Please point out where i did that. If i use such language i have a very specific reason for it.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
But how many exceptions does it take to begin to question the rule? One exception? Fine. But we're talking about multiple exceptions. Take the Swiss, for example, or the Australian aboriginals. Or the Masai in Africa or the Alaskan Inuit. Then consider the Spanish, the Italian and the French.....and every other paradox.

As stated the hypothesis seems correct in that high fat/sugar/salt diets cause illness within certain populations. The hypothesis was tested and became a theory however in science a theory is subject to change upon new evidence and i think it needs to be recognised that certain populations may have adapted to high fat diets and so are not subject to the same effects as others. For example a French population eating a high fat diet may live a long life where a scottish population seem to die rather quickly.

Consider some of the paradoxes you just mentioned, many of them have incredibly active lifestyles. Understand that a high fat diet is fine if you are incredibly active, the problem with a high fat diet is if you are inactive. It seems the research needs tweaking but considering the fact this is all relatively new that is understandable.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
If you're considering adaptation to be the cause then why is it that the French paradox is suddenly starting to vanish? Why is that when Frenchmen come to the states, their paradox begins to fade?

That may be because the food they are eating shifts even more toward the fat and simple carb side, it may be that they abandon exercise as well. It's odd but the French seemt o get more exercise, check out paris and see how many people walk all day.

I think simple carbs are a big part of the issue. Our ancestors had simple carbs where they could but very often they had complex carbs, a mixture of meat and plant based proteins along with a mixture of saturated and other fats. They put this together with tons of exercise.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

But which is it? The carbs? The fat? The ethanol? Take the fat out and the swiss will still have the problems.

Maybe it's a combination of all three. Maybe it's a combination of all three and their genetics, maybe it's the lack of exercise, maybe maybe maybe Diet science is really quite new.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Ok, but which is it? Fat or carbs? That's the problem with "links" and correlations and associations....there is no arrow of cause. My morning alarm is associated with the sunrise, but is my alarm causing the sunrise? Is the sunrise causing my alarm to go off? An outside observer looking at pure data can't make an assumption based on the observation alone....other than morning alarms are associated with the sunrise.

You're attacking even though i'm agreeing. There is limited evidence for any of it however there is plenty of evidence that within certain populations a high fat diet will be associated with an increased risk of colon cancer for example. It may be that this is only true within an american population of certain ancestry, it may be true for others unless they get exercise. My point is that by and large a low saturated fat, medium protein and medium to high complex carb diet seems to be the safest option at the moment until further research comes along.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

I don't believe i called you a liar. Please point out where i did that. If i use such language i have a very specific reason for it.

It wasn't you, mate. I don't have a problem with you one bit. I enjoy discussing this issue with a somewhat intelligent individual that addresses my points.

As stated the hypothesis seems correct in that high fat/sugar/salt diets cause illness within certain populations.

The only variable above that truly contributes to these chronic diseases....is sugar. Or carbohydrate. Salt isn't a problem until carbs are consumed. Fat isn't a problem until carbs are consumed....

The hypothesis was tested and became a theory however in science a theory is subject to change upon new evidence and i think it needs to be recognised that certain populations may have adapted to high fat diets and so are not subject to the same effects as others. For example a French population eating a high fat diet may live a long life where a scottish population seem to die rather quickly.

But those are just guesses. There are no observations describing what you've just commented on. In fact, there are observations of the opposite.

Consider some of the paradoxes you just mentioned, many of them have incredibly active lifestyles. Understand that a high fat diet is fine if you are incredibly active, the problem with a high fat diet is if you are inactive. It seems the research needs tweaking but considering the fact this is all relatively new that is understandable.

It's very understandable, if you are presented with the right information.

And, a high-fat diet is great for an inactive person....the body burns fat at rest, remember. Carbs are the problem for inactive people.

That may be because the food they are eating shifts even more toward the fat and simple carb side, it may be that they abandon exercise as well. It's odd but the French seemt o get more exercise, check out paris and see how many people walk all day.

Wait..wait...wait. Check out New York. Those workers walk a ton, and yet....still fat, atherosclerotic and diabetic. One thing to keep in mind, light exercise...or steady state exercise based on caloric expenditure does not work.

Also, the Pre-westernized Alaskan Inuit women, who consumed an all meat/fat diet, were very sedentary....but they were NOT fat. They would literally sit around the "house" all day while the men were out hunting.

Maybe it's a combination of all three. Maybe it's a combination of all three and their genetics, maybe it's the lack of exercise, maybe maybe maybe

Diet science is really quite new.

It's not really....technology is new, dietary science and research is not.

You're attacking even though i'm agreeing. There is limited evidence for any of it however there is plenty of evidence that within certain populations a high fat diet will be associated with an increased risk of colon cancer for example. It may be that this is only true within an american population of certain ancestry, it may be true for others unless they get exercise. My point is that by and large a low saturated fat, medium protein and medium to high complex carb diet seems to be the safest option at the moment until further research comes along.

Silly, I'm not attacking. I'm asking questions to help you realize the truth.

It may be true, and actually is, that most people who eat meat also smoke, drink and eat junk food....sooooo.....

It may also be true that vegetarians are more health conscious and generally consume less calories....soooo....

A low saturated fat diet has NEVER been directly/independently linked to chronic disease. Ever.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


It's the oddest thing, you have replied and yet missed the parts where i agree with you then reply to then as if i had not agreed.

I stated clearly that simple carbs and indeeda high carb diet may very well be harmful and that is why western socities seem to have so many problems. However i also understand that if people are incredibly active a high carb diet doesn't seem to cause any problems at all.

I think the mistake you are making is daring to have an answer when the amount of data available is just not enough to decide. At this point in time it appears that a medium protein, low saturated fat and medium carb diet (complex carbs only) is beneficial if associated with a high amount of exercise and healthy fats are included. This is good advice for most people.

Bringing up inuit populations is i'm afraid ridiculous because they may very well have adapted to that high fat diet and also you burn more calories simply staying alive ina cold environment. Also notice how the inuit population seem to be more susceptible to the damage of a western diet which again suggests genetics are involved.

I'm thinking that in future we will each have diets tailoried to our genetics and right now we just don't have the research needed. You state that diet research isn't new, well i'm afraid this isn't correct. Diet research may go back 1000 years if you want to accept poor data. Well designed studies really should be taken from the past 50 years at their maximum.


You know i just realised we are playing into the OP's hands. This thread was about whether meat = a shorter life and i think that point has been utterly destroyed.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

I believe that you hit on a factor that is sometimes overlooked, the health of those living in a Urban area versus that of those who live in a Rural area.
There are all sorts of environmental factors that will affect the health of a person that are never looked at over the studies that are done. The studies often focus on one part, in this case the factor of meat versus that of a vegitarian diet, that it fails to take into account, where people live, what kinds of unhealthy habits do they have, and other items.
The other little aspect of this report that should be stopped and questioned, is that this sounds alot like the global warming bunch, and especially Al Gore, who stated we should stop eating meat as it was bad for the environment.
Or how the federal government is trying to dictate to people what they should be eating, to the point of going after the fast food businesses.
It is these kinds of coincedences that should raise the question, what is the real driving force behind this effort, as I do not believe that they have the publics health in its interest.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

 

I stated clearly that simple carbs and indeeda high carb diet may very well be harmful and that is why western socities seem to have so many problems.

.....but you kept implicating saturated fat as unhealthy. And salt. But neither cause problems, and, generally, salt doesn't unless consumed with a highcarb diet.

However i also understand that if people are incredibly active a high carb diet doesn't seem to cause any problems at all.

Incredibly is the key word. You're talking mostly about professional athletes. And when you say "seem" you mean appear. And what's going on inside is being masked, which is evident by the vast amount of overweight/diabetic/atherosclerotic post-career athletes.

I think the mistake you are making is daring to have an answer when the amount of data available is just not enough to decide.

On cancer? Yeah. You're absolutely right. Although, observations of indigenous populations suggest that processed fats and carbs are the main problem.

But heart disease? No. The evidence is quite clear now. Both clinical and observational data obviously suggests (if you look in the right places and don't listen to public health policy) saturated does not contribute to heart disease. Inflammation and stress are probably the biggest factors, along with processed fats and carbs.

Diabetes? Sort of. It's pretty damn clear that fats from whole foods don't contribute. Processed fats and carbs certainly do, however.

Obesity? NO! The data are VERY clear. Obesity is driven by insulin is driven by carbohydrates. Specifically, easily digestible and processed carbs.

At this point in time it appears that a medium protein, low saturated fat and medium carb diet (complex carbs only) is beneficial if associated with a high amount of exercise and healthy fats are included. This is good advice for most people.

Yes, if you listen to public health policy and ignore the data.

Bringing up inuit populations is i'm afraid ridiculous because they may very well have adapted to that high fat diet and also you burn more calories simply staying alive ina cold environment. Also notice how the inuit population seem to be more susceptible to the damage of a western diet which again suggests genetics are involved.

If they "adapted" to a high-fat diet, so did we. We were all consuming diets high in animal fat and protein for thousands of years, and you think we somehow devolved over the past 100? 200? Evolution doesn't work that way.

I'm thinking that in future we will each have diets tailoried to our genetics and right now we just don't have the research needed. You state that diet research isn't new, well i'm afraid this isn't correct.

I do agree with this. Can't wait.

Diet research may go back 1000 years if you want to accept poor data. Well designed studies really should be taken from the past 50 years at their maximum.

Come on now. 50 years? You're telling me that any data are irrelevant before 1960?

Some of the best research in nutritional science was conducted in the 40's and 50's.....and get this, IN OTHER COUNTRIES (mainly germany). In the 1930's, Weston Price published a book called Nutrition and Physical Degeneration....was that irrelevant? What about the starvation studies conducted in the 50's by the founder of the lipid hypothesis...Ancel Keys?

You know i just realised we are playing into the OP's hands. This thread was about whether meat = a shorter life and i think that point has been utterly destroyed.

Meh....doesn't matter. This is relevant discussion.

Originally posted by Pimpish
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

 

Hmm, I may be wrong but this was a recent study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, which is where the OP said it was published. I guess it could be a coincidence...

shhh its funnier if they think its that other one still.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Originally posted by Ong Bak
and besides the point of this thread isnt aobut me, or you personally. its aobut the effects of a meat laden diet on a population.
at the end of the day, it will slowly kill you. if you disagree, try eating only meat for a while see how long you last.
i will be willing to bet its not that long.

Okey Dokey! Why you take a little trip up to Alaska and visit with the very few remaining Inuit. They eat almost entirely animal meat and fat. Tell me how they're doing and then get back to me.

When you're done, take a trip to Africa and visit with the Masai.....They live on cows milk, meat and blood.

i took your advice and did a virtual tour of the inuit and the masai, and discovered both have something else in common above and beyond their meat,blood,milk only diets!
both have.......







wait for it......






20 years fewer than the average human on earth to spend eatinga terrible diet!
inuit avg life span - "Excluding infant mortality, about 25% of their population lived past 60. Based on these data, the approximate life expectancy (excluding infant mortality) of this Inuit population was 43.5 years"
masai - "In today's modern world, and even with the healing power of raw milk on their side, the average Maasai male can expect to live for only 43 years"

average lifespan 2010 - "The life expectancy at birth of the world is 67.2 years (65.0 years for males and 69.5 years for females) for 2005-2010, according to United Nations World Population Prospects 2006 Revision and 66.57 years (64.52 years for males and 68.76 years for females) for 2009 according to CIA World Factbook 2009"


soooo basicly, you jsut proved my point, thanks!