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: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
I think the majority of you guys are a bit off in your reasoning. It's not an either or situation. Some people do better on vegetarian/vegan diets. Some do horribly. I'm of the latter category. I tried to go vegetarian in 2007. Lasted about 4 months before my nutritional status, and biochemistry was all out of whack. It seems that genetic/blood type play a huge role in if you can go veg/vegan without issues. I went psychotic! No, meat is a necessity for myself. I rarely eat red meat, but do enjoy a lot of chicken and turkey nearly every day. At the same time, I eat a whole foods diet for 90% of my meals. Nuts, fruit, veggies, jellies, jams, nutritional supplements, herbs including various adaptogens. I'm quite healthy these days. Only thing I'm working on is getting rid of a few lbs of belly fat which will be easy. Just upping my exercise routine, and it'll be flat by end of October. Meat does me very, very good.




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Denise minger totally ripped this study apart on her blog. It essences this study is a complete joke.

it looks like what this study really measured was a Standard American Diet group (aka Animal Group) and a slightly-less Standard American Diet group (aka Vegetable Group). Both ate sucky diets, but the latter had slightly less suckage. You can bet the farm that neither was anything close to “low carb.” And if you have two farms, you can bet the other one that neither diet group was anything near plant-based, so I’m not sure the vegan crowd has much to gloat about here.
rawfoodsos.com...

Denise also tore apart the china study. In summary Dr. t campbell ignored important factors to make his conclusions.
rawfoodsos.com...



This thread has degenerated into a bunch of vegetarian/vegans trying to push there dietary dogma because these people generally want others to suffer on the same sucky diet. These diets are a sure fire to way to degenerate your body mainly due to the fact plant foods don't conain preformed fat soluble vitamins and are usually deficient in certain amino acids.

I saw a good quote in this thread "the author of the china study is vegan" actually he's not, he eat fish a couple tiems a year. Most of these doctors who push veganism the most don't even adhere to the diet. Mcdougall says he ca't be vegan because he doesn't want to be the loser at thanksgiving who eats no turkey but he advocates it because its th best. Yea sure lol





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



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
The oldest Italian in the world is 114. that's pretty damn old for meat consuming, smoking, and alcoholic group of folks.

You cannot state that meat shortens life. You can only say averagely it does. Because there are groups of people with immunity to whatever it is that causes it, such as rouge proteins in the brain, but there are those without immunity.

Simply put, you cannot judge the whole human race. Everyone is different. I'm sure a people used to plant consumption would die younger with meat. And I'm sure a people used to meat consumption would die without it.

Native Americans had a regular diet of buffalo for thousands of years. It is a fact that Buffalo increases life span and cleans the arteries. A virtual anti matter to the affects of beef, canceling them all out.

So there are three types of variables that disprove such a statement. Gender, origins, and type of meat. If you lived off Buffalo, fruit, and wheat, your liable to live a long healthy life.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
We can all go back and forth all day about how it's healthier to be vegetarian or it's better to have meat in your diet but there's a bigger issue...the biggest problem with peoples diet in the United States is PORTION CONTROL. I know a lady that comes to the restaurant I work and orders a full fried veggie appetizer for herself, then orders fried chicken with french fries, actually butters her fries and a DIET pepsi to wash it all down with. But hey she's working some veggies in her diet. They are fried and accompanied by ranch dressing...but veggies nonetheless. Say she got rid of the chicken...she's still eating like crap and eating a lot compared to someone who has a plate of steamed vegetables and some grilled chicken. Just because someone says they are a vegetarian doesn't mean that they are healthy or that they will live longer than someone who watches what they eat and controls their PORTIONS.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by stephanies-chase
the biggest problem with peoples diet in the United States is PORTION CONTROL.


Portion control doesn't matter when the food you eat is nutritionally deficient.

The biggest problem with the american diet is the fact that most there animal products come from factory farms where animals are fed unnatural diets and subjected to harsh conditions. Another huge problem is the propaganda put forth by the goverment to make our diets grain based so they can keep selling one of the USA's biggest commodities(grain crops).



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sourdough4life
Denise minger totally ripped this study apart on her blog. It essences this study is a complete joke.

it looks like what this study really measured was a Standard American Diet group (aka Animal Group) and a slightly-less Standard American Diet group (aka Vegetable Group). Both ate sucky diets, but the latter had slightly less suckage. You can bet the farm that neither was anything close to “low carb.” And if you have two farms, you can bet the other one that neither diet group was anything near plant-based, so I’m not sure the vegan crowd has much to gloat about here.
rawfoodsos.com...

Denise also tore apart the china study. In summary Dr. t campbell ignored important factors to make his conclusions.
rawfoodsos.com...



This thread has degenerated into a bunch of vegetarian/vegans trying to push there dietary dogma because these people generally want others to suffer on the same sucky diet. These diets are a sure fire to way to degenerate your body mainly due to the fact plant foods don't conain preformed fat soluble vitamins and are usually deficient in certain amino acids.

I saw a good quote in this thread "the author of the china study is vegan" actually he's not, he eat fish a couple tiems a year. Most of these doctors who push veganism the most don't even adhere to the diet. Mcdougall says he ca't be vegan because he doesn't want to be the loser at thanksgiving who eats no turkey but he advocates it because its th best. Yea sure lol





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



That's a BLOG! She's a computer programmer mate, not a nutritionist! My goodness, would you ask Sarah Palin about what the weather in San Francisco is going to be like next week? Would you go to your dentist and ask him to do your triple heart bypass surgery because his blog seemed more convincing than one of the foremost specialists in the field?

Ask yourself - why hasn't she published her work in any accredited journals? Why nothing peer-reviewed? All she does is push her anti-vegan agenda on random blogs. There's nothing there besides wishful thinking. It's possible she's right, but there is simply no real science to back up her assertions. It's possible that the Queen of England really is a shape-shifting reptilian alien, too.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Son of Will
 


Unfair comparisons, imo. I'd take a computer programmer who's likely brilliant over Sarah Palin's opinion of just about anything any day of the week!


edit on 9-9-2010 by unityemissions because: grammar boo-boo



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Son of Will


That's a BLOG! She's a computer programmer mate, not a nutritionist! My goodness, would you ask Sarah Palin about what the weather in San Francisco is going to be like next week? Would you go to your dentist and ask him to do your triple heart bypass surgery because his blog seemed more convincing than one of the foremost specialists in the field?

Ask yourself - why hasn't she published her work in any accredited journals? Why nothing peer-reviewed? All she does is push her anti-vegan agenda on random blogs. There's nothing there besides wishful thinking. It's possible she's right, but there is simply no real science to back up her assertions. It's possible that the Queen of England really is a shape-shifting reptilian alien, too.


I usually don't outirght bash people but your a moron.

Most nutritionist don't know # especially when it comes to interpreting scietific studies. I would way rather put my faith in someone who can actually interpret the data.

why hasn't she published her work in any accredited journals?
Because shes an amateur? She's doing this just becuase. FYI being posted in a accredited journal doesn't make your info any more valid

all she does is push her anti-vegan agenda on random blogs
Denise is a fruitarian who eats minimal animal products, shes anything but anti vegan imo

It's possible she's right, but there is simply no real science to back up her assertions

/facepalm ..... Did you even read the blog?? she has the actuall data from the study. You don't need science to disprove there ridiculous conclusions. What "science" would she use?

Next time actually read the blogs before you come out and just bash them, ok?



I reread your post in this thread and now I realize why you jumped to such retarded conclusions, your one of these vegan nuts. The lack of cholesterol shows.


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



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


My point still stands - the only criticism aimed at The China Study comes in the form of blogs and anonymous internet hate sites. This is probably the 20th blogger to attack Campbell's work - it doesn't mean a great deal unless it carries some professional weight behind it.

People who are so distinguished in their scientific fields like Campbell, don't tend to respond to each and every online accusation. They respond to academic peers, people who have proven themselves to be experts on the subject. So far, not ONE peer-reviewed paper has been submitted that refutes the China Study.

Considering the vastness of the meat and dairy industries, which dwarf any grains industries (besides corn), I personally think she is being funded by one of them.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   


Another huge problem is the propaganda put forth by the goverment to make our diets grain based so they can keep selling one of the USA's biggest commodities(grain crops).


This seems rather unlikely, given that the grain used to raise a cow for meat would feed far more people than the meat the cow produces. Therefore if this was the agenda they would be better off pushing a meat-based diet.

For me it boils down to this:

I chose to become a vegetarian, and subsequently a vegan, as I believe it is completely unethical and unnecessary to use meat and other animal products. Since making this decision I have never been happier or healthier, and I no longer have the suffering of intelligent animals on my hands.

As a result I have become more knowledgeable about nutrition, a much better cook, and I am becoming increasingly self-sufficient as I now grow my own vegetables. The majority of the food I eat is organic, home-grown, home-cooked, and delicious. I still eat all the foods I enjoy, get all my necessary nutrients (without supplements) and I do not feel that I have made any sacrifices.

I have never once tried to convert a meat eater. Many of my best friends are meat eaters, and it has never been a point of contention between us. However, I have been the cause of several of my friends giving up meat, never because I tried to make them, simply because I’ve shown them it’s possible without sacrificing health, happiness, or having to eat ‘rabbit food’ as meat eaters are so fond of saying.

I am physically active, and regularly cycle, play tennis and football with my friends, as well as other activities. I have never once felt that I couldn’t keep up with my meat eating friends, often the opposite, even with my asthma.

In seven years of not eating meat, my experience is that it is almost always the meat eaters who are argumentative, militant, derogatory, and insulting, not the vegetarians and vegans. I have had to endure endless challenges on my diet, mockery, and general nonsense from overly defensive meat eaters, who I suspect often behave this way because subconsciously they feel guilt about their diet, and meeting people who do not eat meat forces them to confront this.

Nothing anyone could say will ever change my mind, and with that said I will leave you guys to argue.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Sourdough4life
 


I'll let your ridiculous comments illustrate just how irrational and childish you are in your thinking. I don't see one element worthy of a response but I can't help it. How do you know she's a fruitarian and avoids dairy? According to her own work, that would be contradictory! She's claiming that dairy is inversely related to disease, so why avoid it? Truth is, she's full of BS and knows it. That right there should make you pause, and think about why you are praising her work so much, when such glaring contradictions just stare you in the face.

And she's an amateur because she has no formal training. Apparently this is not computing. She has no formal training. You are saying that the entirety of Academia is useless, because getting a degree in something doesn't mean you're an expert in it? And you're calling me a moron? Irony abounds...


edit on 9-9-2010 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malvenkemo


This seems rather unlikely, given that the grain used to raise a cow for meat would feed far more people than the meat the cow produces. Therefore if this was the agenda they would be better off pushing a meat-based diet.




Umm no. Why would they waste there time feeding the grains to the cows and then feeding you the cows when they can just feed you the grains? They feed cows grains because there is such a surplus, we aren't gonna stop feeding grains to cows and all of a sudden solve world hunger.

You realize the SAD is grain based??


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



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Ong Bak
 


At this moment in time i have to disagree with your post!!

I feel pretty healthy and i've been meats & Veg since i was born... you vegans and vegetarians are the one's who need to eat more moderately both meat & Veg to get the best from both instead of believing all those books you read!!!

I will continue eating Beef & Chicken because you can make great tasting dishes with it and i can't live without those 2 meats...



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Sourdough4life
 


Throwing insults at strangers over the internet makes you look like a jackass who has the mentality of a child. That said...

Of course you're allowed to criticize her work without being a professional. But without such credentials, it doesn't carry as much weight.

Someone of Campbell's experience and highly-respected status in the scientific community, is not going to respond to every random blog criticizing his work. There have been many bloggers in the past and there will be more in the future who attack his work.

The main difference is that not once has a REAL scientist come forward with a refutation of his work. If her work is so well done, then someone who actually has those credentials would have promoted it, or produced something of similar conclusion. But that hasn't happened.

It's just a blog. I'll take peer-reviewed science over a blog, sorry if that translates to your mind as accepting dogma. That's exactly what it sounds like you're doing to me.



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



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Carnivores tend to be healthier and more intelligent - because hunting prey takes effort and skill.

How hard is it to track down and kill a blade of grass?



But seriously, humans ideally need a balanced diet including fresh fish, meat, nuts, fruits, roots and grains. Processed foods and additives are the problem - not whether or not we exclude one or other of the food groups that we've evolved to eat, digest and obtain nourishment from.

There's an interesting question as to how much of the food we eat should be cooked. It certainly spoils meat .....



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Son of Will


It's just a blog. I'll take peer-reviewed science over a blog, sorry if that translates to your mind as accepting dogma. That's exactly what it sounds like you're doing to me.


It was clearly good enough to cause a stir in the vegan community and for campbell to respond.

Einstein didn't have degrees, I guess he wasn't a real scientist huh??

crossfitbirmingham.ning.com...

Loren cordain from CSU had a debate with campbell and campbell got owned.

Chris masterjohn who has a popular critique of the china study has a PhD in Nutritional Sciences with a concentration in Biochemical and Molecular Nutrition at the University of Connecticut.
www.cholesterol-and-health.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Sourdough4life
 



Originally posted by Sourdough4life

I usually don't outirght bash people but your a moron.



Originally posted by Sourdough4life

I called you a moron because you clearly have no reading skills.


Um, even if somebody (which I doubt in this particular case) cannot read, doesn't mean one's a moron. And even one is a moron, you definately portray some bad tactfulness in your posts also.

In general, I see very opionated posts regarding this thread. People should understand that there are various type of allergies and other factors which make some diets unfit for certain people.

You should eat what makes you feel good



Originally posted by unityemissions
I think the majority of you guys are a bit off in your reasoning. It's not an either or situation. Some people do better on vegetarian/vegan diets. Some do horribly.


For example, now there's a beacon of understanding


-v



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by unityemissions
 


My point still stands - the only criticism aimed at The China Study comes in the form of blogs and anonymous internet hate sites. This is probably the 20th blogger to attack Campbell's work - it doesn't mean a great deal unless it carries some professional weight behind it.

People who are so distinguished in their scientific fields like Campbell, don't tend to respond to each and every online accusation. They respond to academic peers, people who have proven themselves to be experts on the subject. So far, not ONE peer-reviewed paper has been submitted that refutes the China Study.

Considering the vastness of the meat and dairy industries, which dwarf any grains industries (besides corn), I personally think she is being funded by one of them.


What you're saying makes absolutely no sense.
You dont need to be a "distinguished scientist" to analyze scientific data. My professors had me do it all the time at university. As hard as it may be for you to believe, scientists regularly employ confirmation bias in their studies. Ever wonder why one study will tell you one thing and a year later you get a completely different result? You got it, despite being peer review by distinguished scientist, many of these studies reach their conclusion by dismissing inconvenient data. It just so happens that this blogger took the time to point out these inconsistencies. Inconsistencies which refute the conclusion no less.

As far as no peer reviewed studies being done to refute this peer reviewed study, a simple google search resulted in 3 peer reviewed studies that state:

Meta-analysis of several prospective studies showed no significant differences in the mortality caused by colorectal, stomach, lung, prostate or breast cancers and stroke between vegetarians and “health-conscious” nonvegetarians.

Study

Sooo...what to believe...



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sourdough4life

Einstein didn't have degrees, I guess he wasn't a real scientist huh??



In 1901, Einstein had a paper on the capillary forces of a straw published in the prestigious Annalen der Physik.[31] On 30 April 1905, he completed his thesis, with Alfred Kleiner, Professor of Experimental Physics, serving as pro-forma advisor. Einstein was awarded a PhD by the University of Zurich.
About Einstein.

Humm, maybe Wikipedia has got it wrong and is lying?


-v



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join