Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

meat = shorter life

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


Supplement is the key word there. You don't necessarily need to supplement but it couldn't hurt, in moderation. Taking vitamins is taking supplements for you are supplementing your diet. Supplementing can be healthy, especially in peoples whose bodies don't absorb nutrients as they should or if their diet is poor etc. The human body is very resilient and capable of taking a beating inside and out, and we have our livers to take that beating inside if we over moderate on supplementing. Unless you grow and raise your own food you are supplementing because of everything that is added to foods nowadays.




posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


I think you are wrong there. Look at the human body and realise how fragile it is. Not exactly built for hunting like a cat or dog. So what was man eating before he was making tools? It is quite possible that man was a scavenger but our bodies have not evolved to be scavengers when you compare other scavengers to the human body. Also the same can be true of carnivours. So what was man eating all that time ago? When the planet went through climatic changes as it has done in mans history it forced man to hunt animals as a source of food but that does not make man biologically an omnivour.
humans and meat
Biological adaptions



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Sorry Devolution, going through that thread you keep linking to as if it proves anything, I found this quite damning response -

www.abovetopsecret.com...




So who is this Denise Minger who "debunked" Campbell's China Report?

Well, she's apparently affiliated with Northern Arizona University - specifically, NAU's College of Engineering, Forestry and Natural Sciences, the Merriam-Powell Center for Environmental Research.

Denise Minger has 7 credits on NAU's Programs & Projects / Merriam-Powell website - for web design and maintenance.

As it happens, NAU and Merriam-Powell are affiliated with the Landsward Institute, in partnership with Babbitt Ranches.


Through the Landsward Institute (formerly the Ecological Monitoring & Assessment Program), Northern Arizona University and land stewards of the Colorado Plateau … an innovative partnership between Babbitt Ranches and Northern Arizona University. The partnership united the resources of a research and educational institution with an intimate knowledge of the land brought by a multi-generational ranching family. The EMA Program has worked to create a new model for sustainable, use-inspired land stewardship on the Colorado Plateau.


This case study explores the feasibility of a new business venture by a fourth-generation family business, Babbitt Ranches. As the business leader of a vast ranching empire in northern Arizona, Mr. William Cordasco, President of Babbitt Ranches, has developed a business plan to produce, process, distribute and sell beef and related beef products.



So why is a web designer with a college for "environmental" research that's partnered with a beef rancher tackling vegetarians?


As usual, the criticism against vegetarian and vegan diets stems entirely from bad science, and wishful thinking. Yet the ONLY valid criticism you can offer against The China Study is some unbased accusation that he made the book for sales.

And you're wrong about The China Study being just a book. It's the name of the actual study, as well as the book. I suppose the potential mischaracterization may be fair game for more distortion on your part, but for people who are intellectually honest, such misdirection just hurts your credibility.

edit on 8-9-2010 by Son of Will because: clarification



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by loner007
 

The human body isn't as fragile as you think my friend, what makes you think humans are soo fragile, I am curious to how you came to this interesting conclusion. The human body is very resilient in fact. Just look at how well and quickly humans adapt to different environments, this is far from being "fragile".
I believe that the human brain grew in size and evolved due to a diet of animal protein. I could be wrong because evolution isn't "fact" although I believe it is. But allow me to ask you this, why do humans have teeth that are used for the tearing of flesh like the teeth of true carnivores? Herbivores have all flat teeth for grinding. Please correct me if I am wrong. Btw (by the way), you ARE an animal lover aren't you?

edit on 8-9-2010 by kimish because: edit to add



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by loner007
 


Well, according to paleoantropologists, we were consuming a vegetarian diet. Of course, we had a huge gut way back then, like a gorilla. However, upon eating meat, it's likely that this dietary decision (and cooking it) allowed our guts to shrink and our brains to evolve. Less calories devoted to digestion and more devoted to developing larger brains.

As far as being too fragile to hunt....really? There are still indigenous populations to this day that are hunter-gatherers. They hunt their food daily. (oh, and if it weren't for accidents, infections and infant mortality, they would probably outlive us)

edit on 8-9-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by loner007
 


I believe that the human brain grew in size and evolved due to a diet of animal protein. I could be wrong because evolution isn't "fact" although I believe it is. But allow me to ask you this, why do humans have teeth that are used for the tearing of flesh like the teeth of true carnivores? Herbivores have all flat teeth for grinding. Please correct me if I am wrong. Btw (by the way), you ARE an animal lover aren't you?


WHAT?? are you serious? humans have teeth like that of a cat dog? tell you what have a look at a gorillas teeth.....



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I find this post to be really amusing, I'm not here to argue or anything but so what? If we as people didn't eat animals you wouldn't be alive to create this post in the first place...... I thought all the vegans went extinct in the ice age??? Uh oh what would happen to them if we ever had another one of those?



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Son of Will
 


Son of will...if you would have kept reading, or if you could do any thinking on your own, you would not only notice that the blogger invited herself to join the conversation for the simple reason to respond to the post you supplied here.

That poster was grabbing at straws, SoW. Denise Minger has NO affiliations with those organizations other than....they gave her work.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by loner007
 

We do have incisors and canines, teeth that herbivores lack and that carnivores have '
' . How old are you? '
' Also, We are not the only primates that eat meat. '
'


edit on 8-9-2010 by kimish because: edit to add

www.google.com...://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/10/att_gorilla.jpg&imgrefurl=http://gizmodo.com/311316/att-decides-to-pla y-nice-takes-the-teeth-out-of-termination-tariffs&h=444&w=294&sz=44&tbnid=tpj7-NNYq8c0_M:&tbnh=127&tbnw=84&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgorilla%2Bteeth&zoom=1&q =gorilla+teethusg=__zo-l8gy_VKEYgtk6HrcVKGGiPnk=&sa=X&ei=lTiITJmVKoGglAfQ7aDeCA&ved=0CBgQ9QEwAQ
It looks that that gorilla has fangs to me buddy. Correct me if I'm wrong. BTW, you are my new favorite person because I haven't smiled like the way I am now in days, so thank you for that.

edit on 8-9-2010 by kimish because: edit to add



edit on 8-9-2010 by kimish because: edit to add



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by Son of Will
 


Son of will...if you would have kept reading, or if you could do any thinking on your own, you would not only notice that the blogger invited herself to join the conversation for the simple reason to respond to the post you supplied here.

That poster was grabbing at straws, SoW. Denise Minger has NO affiliations with those organizations other than....they gave her work.


Granted, you are correct that she probably is innocent of all those accusations. Except the most important one - she has NO credentials whatsoever when it comes to nutrition. In her own words, she is self-educated. Well guess what, self-educated is just another word for "I don't have any formal training in that".

If you're saying The China Study is just an attempt to get money, what makes you think this woman didn't have precisely the same intention as what you're accusing Campbell of doing - namely, misconstruing the data just to get some money? She states several times that she didn't care what her job was, she just wanted money, it seems more plausible that she is the fraud, not Campbell.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
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, 8 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 


I think you are missing the point. Gorillas are strict vegetarians with a few insects thrown in why do they have big canine teeth? You dont think it has anything to do with breaking open fruits or other hard shelled foods etc


Humans are physiologically best suited for a primarily frugivorous diet, complemented by eggs and invertebrates. All of these provide animal derived nutrients, such as B12, without increasing the degenerative disease(s) risk associated with meat and dairy consumption. As such, we may be classified as omnivorous, but not necessarily as meat eaters. An omnivorous animal adapted for meat consumption, such as the bear, does not: * undergo an immune system reaction every time it consumes meat, * suffer free radical damage as a result of eating meat, * have to watch how much meat it consumes longterm in order to avoid succumbing to degenerative diseases, * worry about cholesterol levels, colon cancer, heart disease, low sperm counts, or any other negative effects Perhaps most telling, humans get healthier when they significantly lower, or completely stop, their consumption of meat and dairy.

Source

edit on 8/9/2010 by loner007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Son of Will
 

I never made that assumption. You know what they say when you assume things, you make an ass out of you and me '
'. I believe I stated that we are a resilient creature and one way to back that claim up is our ability to adapt to differing environments and so forth, and you are correct, we are far from perfect.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Another big flaw in your thread -

At the end of the day, however, studies like the China Project will never be accurate. Observational studies simply can't identify true causes of Multivariate diseases, like heart disease. There's just no arrow of causation. Funny thing is, Dr. Campbell believes epidemiology is more accurate because it allows for examination of large cohorts of the population and identifies broader "lifestyle" influences.

Campbell's work can be summed up into two words: Fallacious Reasoning


from Wikipedia -

Epidemiology is the study of factors affecting the health and illness of populations, and serves as the foundation and logic of interventions made in the interest of public health and preventative medicine. It is considered a cornerstone methodology of public health research, and is highly regarded in evidence-based medicine for identifying risk factors for disease and determining optimal treatment approaches to clinical practice.


Your accusation can be summed up in two words - dishonest slander.

edit on 8-9-2010 by Son of Will because: re-wording



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 


Sorry for the assumption, it's one of the most popular arguments against vegetarianism, despite its inherent flaws. I saw one piece of it in your thread and assumed you were making that argument, as someone previously did in this thread, my bad =)

edit on 8-9-2010 by Son of Will because: grammar



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by loner007
 


How is that relevant to gorilla teeth though? Just curious. And you don't have to admit you were wrong about us humans not having teeth like a cat or a dog, I would be embarrassed too for that comment but your still cool in my book. BTW humans DO have teeth like that of a cat and dog. We have teeth called canines, I don't think that's irony.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Son of Will
 

No harm done at all, this is quite the entertaining thread though! I like these types of discussions and If I go overboard feel free to burn me and let me know!



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Son of Will


Granted, you are correct that she probably is innocent of all those accusations. Except the most important one - she has NO credentials whatsoever when it comes to nutrition. In her own words, she is self-educated. Well guess what, self-educated is just another word for "I don't have any formal training in that".

If you're saying The China Study is just an attempt to get money, what makes you think this woman didn't have precisely the same intention as what you're accusing Campbell of doing - namely, misconstruing the data just to get some money? She states several times that she didn't care what her job was, she just wanted money, it seems more plausible that she is the fraud, not Campbell.


Well, first of all, she providing the raw numbers. Second of all, the data speak for themselves. Third, this woman clearly has no bias and isn't concluding anything from the data. She's simply doing what Campbell should have done in the first place.

She may not have credentials, but these guys and girls do:

Mary Enig, Ph.D.
Kurt Harris MD
Petro Dobromylskyj
Stephan Guyenet, Ph.D.
Mike Eades MD
William Davis MD
Loren Cordain, Ph.D.
Mark Cohen, Ph.D.
Weston A. Price, DDS
Gary Taubes

All of them have either publicly praised this girls work and/or have written/spoken out against campbell (because they actually looked at the data).



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by loner007
 


How is that relevant to gorilla teeth though? Just curious. And you don't have to admit you were wrong about us humans not having teeth like a cat or a dog, I would be embarrassed too for that comment but your still cool in my book. BTW humans DO have teeth like that of a cat and dog. We have teeth called canines, I don't think that's irony.


because canines may look similiar like a dogs or cats gorillas or humans they are designed quite differently for their primary diet
taken from the above link regarding chimps who eat meat as part of their diet and humans



Q: Chimps, our closest relatives, sometimes consume meat. They even have the same kind of teeth as we do. Doesn't this imply meat is a natural part of the human diet as well?
A: Humans and chimps may be related to a certain degree, but we are not the same species, anymore than eagles are the same species as Canadian geese. The first is a carnivory predator, while the latter is a grass grazing vegetarian. The genetic similarities between chimps and humans, in some instances, are less important than the differences. Consider this: "The greatest differences between humans and chimpanzees occur in the canine teeth. Small peg-like human canines do not project from the tooth row. In contrast, chimpanzee canines are much larger, robust, and project far above their tooth row. Diastemas, gaps in the tooth row of the maxilla allow projecting mandibular canines to pass the opposing canine and incisor during occlusion. The maxillary canine passes the buccal side of its opposing pm3, allowing the lingual surface of the canine to make contact with a blade-like sectorial surface on the premolar. Humans lack the large diastema and the human pm3 is non-sectorial. Human anterior teeth (canines and incisors) are greatly reduced in size and human incisors are positioned close to a transverse plane that passes through the canine teeth. Chimpanzee incisors are positioned well forward of this plane. Consequently the parabolic or elliptical human dental arcade contrasts sharply with the U-shaped arcade of chimpanzees. Human molars tend to be rounder and more compact than chimpanzee molars. Occlusal molar surfaces of human teeth are relatively flat, and quickly become even flatter with attrition (Department of Anthropology, University of Texas)." Compare the canine teeth of a chimp (whose teeth are very similar to, and almost as impressive as, those of the vegetarian gorilla) with those of a human:

media.abovetopsecret.com...
media.abovetopsecret.com...
media.abovetopsecret.com...
media.abovetopsecret.com...

Although genetically similar, chimps are only 29% identical to humans when the number of proteins we share are measured. This difference is significant and can account for a large variety of traits the two species do not share (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005).

Whatever similarities exist among chimps and humans, we are, none the less, different species. Mimicking the habits of another species makes no sense, particularly in light of some rather undesirable aspects of chimpanzee behavior, such as infanticide and consumption of one's own faeces.


can a kind mod please fix it so the pictures are showing....i thought i done it right....



edit on 8/9/2010 by loner007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Son of Will
 


You really have a problem with reading thoroughly, don't you?


As a public health discipline, epidemiologic evidence is often used to advocate both personal measures like diet change and corporate measures like removal of junk food advertising, with study findings disseminated to the general public in order to help people to make informed decisions about their health. Often the uncertainties about these findings are not communicated well; news articles often prominently report the latest result of one study with little mention of its limitations, caveats, or context. Epidemiological tools have proved effective in establishing major causes of diseases like cholera and lung cancer but have had problems with more subtle health issues, and several recent epidemiological results on medical treatments (for example, on the effects of hormone replacement therapy) have been refuted by later randomized controlled trials.[15]


See...you could have read all the way down where it discusses validity en.wikipedia.org...:_precision_and_bias

You really have no idea what you're talking about and should go post your random google searches in another forum.

Observational studies DO NOT prove anything. They have no arrow of cause. Remember, correlations does not equal causation. Perhaps you missed the part in your quote that said:


serves as the foundation


Epidemiology serves as a foundation to find associations that can THEN be tested further in lab studies and clinical trials.









 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join