Humans are naturally plant-eaters

The American Heart Association says if done correctly that a vegetarian diet is healthier.

Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer.

www.americanheart.org...

Originally posted by PoorFool

Originally posted by The_Zomar
60,000 people studied.

12 years later:

3350 people had cancer

2204 were meat eaters
317 Were vegetarians who ate fish
829 were vegetarians


Link to study:
www.nature.com...

Correlation does not equal causation.

Not all meat eaters eat the same.

On the other hand vegetarians in general tend to be more health inclined.

You absolutely cannot compare a meat eater that only eats free range meat and all natural foods to a meat eater that eats fast food and other crap. But this is what you are doing.

USE YOUR BRAIN! Meat gave it to you.

edit on 27-1-2011 by PoorFool because: (no reason given)

Bump to the new page.

Still waiting for your reply buddy. Don't pick and chose what arguments you want to debate.

Originally posted by PoorFool

Originally posted by PoorFool

Originally posted by The_Zomar
60,000 people studied.

12 years later:

3350 people had cancer

2204 were meat eaters
317 Were vegetarians who ate fish
829 were vegetarians


Link to study:
www.nature.com...

Correlation does not equal causation.

Not all meat eaters eat the same.

On the other hand vegetarians in general tend to be more health inclined.

You absolutely cannot compare a meat eater that only eats free range meat and all natural foods to a meat eater that eats fast food and other crap. But this is what you are doing.

USE YOUR BRAIN! Meat gave it to you.

edit on 27-1-2011 by PoorFool because: (no reason given)

Bump to the new page.

Still waiting for your reply buddy. Don't pick and chose what arguments you want to debate.

The studies aren't using those who only eat fast food and other crap so your argument is void.

reply to post by The_Zomar


Oh, show me where it isn't?

It's a fallacy to assume all meat eaters eat the same.

Originally posted by PoorFool
reply to post by The_Zomar

 

Oh, show me where it isn't?

It's a fallacy to assume all meat eaters eat the same.

Your thought process amazes me. Show me where it DOES say that?

I don't come up to you and say all meat eaters worship a steak idol - prove to me they don't.
You can't make a made up claim of your own and then tell someone to refute it.

The study I showed you was a study of 60,000 people. Everyone went about their normal business except part of them were vegetarian. The meat eaters may have ate fast food - they may have not. The same goes for vegetarians. They may have eaten fast food - they may have not. The results are unbiased.

Originally posted by The_Zomar

Originally posted by PoorFool
reply to post by The_Zomar

 

Oh, show me where it isn't?

It's a fallacy to assume all meat eaters eat the same.

Your thought process amazes me. Show me where it DOES say that?

I don't come up to you and say all meat eaters worship a steak idol - prove to me they don't.
You can't make a made up claim of your own and then tell someone to refute it.

The study I showed you was a study of 60,000 people. Everyone went about their normal business except part of them were vegetarian. The meat eaters may have ate fast food - they may have not. The same goes for vegetarians. They may have eaten fast food - they may have not. The results are unbiased.

edit on 28-1-2011 by The_Zomar because: (no reason given)

I would like to see a study where the meat eaters where strictly Paleo dieters, which is what most of us here are arguing for. You keep forgetting that and you keep putting all meat eaters in one category.

It is true that most meat eaters eat crappy. but that's because it's the norm. It has nothing to do with meat.

On the other hand vegetarians often become vegetarians for the supposed health benefits - hence they generally eat healthier.

I'm not saying that that study was biased, what I am saying is that correlation does not equal causation.

Originally posted by PoorFool
I would like to see a study where the meat eaters where strictly Paleo dieters, which is what most of us here are arguing for. You keep forgetting that and you keep putting all meat eaters in one category.

It is true that most meat eaters eat crappy. but that's because it's the norm. It has nothing to do with meat.

On the other hand vegetarians often become vegetarians for the supposed health benefits - hence they generally eat healthier.

I'm not saying that that study was biased, what I am saying is that correlation does not equal causation.

If that is your opinion then you need to take it up with those who perform said tests.
I don't have the capability of scientifically studying 60,000 people.

I could argue that a lot of those meat eaters ate very little meat. I could argue that the vegetarians ate mostly junk food. Thats why it's always averaged. And on average vegetarians live 6 to 10 years longer. If that isn't the definition of health then I don't know what is...

I don't know why you continue posting here. I'm obviously not going to satisfy whatever it is you are searching for. Science is on the side of vegetarians. I'm not arguing that vegetarians are healthy because I am one. I am arguing because I began my research as an omnivore and when I read the studies I switched. I simply would prefer to live my life the longest I possibly can. We have one life to live, and knowing I could extend my ONLY LIFE by as much as 10 years - cutting meat out of my diet was obvious.

I don't care what you eat, or what anyone else eats. I do feel for the animals but I'm not about to command anyone change their habits. I don't go into drug dens and demand they stop selling substances because it is killing people. Meat is simply not worth paying any portion of my life no matter how good it tastes. Period.

I read a science article years ago that claimed man was originally a fruit eater. Something about the teeth, but I don't remember. Aren't fruits alkaline when they hit the stomach? Noone would be able to eat only fruit, without eating veggies for five years straight, I read. I don't know, if that's true.

www.health101.org...

Edited to add article

reply to post by Ciphor


What the OP says in the thread title is true. You can deny, debate, argue, fuss, and even ignore material presented that supports the claim but it will not change the fact that although we CAN eat most anything (what is coca cola anyway?) a diverse plant based diet is optimal since we are most closely identified as vegetarian.

More precisely, we are "unspecialized frugivores." Poster above..Onboard2 is correct.

Our taste for and adaptability to meat is called "opportunistic feeding" It is common and many creatures stray from their "natural" designated food sources and try whatever is available. This does not change what they are. Does not change what we are physically specifically designed to consume or what will work best for our bodies, nor does it change our ideal diet and that classification.

Originally posted by Onboard2
I read a science article years ago that claimed man was originally a fruit eater. Something about the teeth, but I don't remember. Aren't fruits alkaline when they hit the stomach? Noone would be able to eat only fruit, without eating veggies for five years straight, I read. I don't know, if that's true.

www.health101.org...

Edited to add article

edit on 28-1-2011 by Onboard2 because: (no reason given)

Some people are "Fruititarians - Eating only fruit" and I know I butchered the spelling of that. I don't advocate that diet at all, but some people do practice it and survive (somehow) haha.

I read somewhere Steve Jobs was one for awhile - I don't know if it is true or not though, haven't cared to look.

reply to post by rusethorcain


Truth? Thank you for the example of just how subjective that term is.
Anyrate, what about the fact that our teeth are obviously designed for a omnivorious diet? What about the fact that food intolerances tend to be more of the plant variety? There are a few others but if you can answer those I would be greatly appreciative.

Originally posted by PoorFool

Originally posted by The_Zomar
I've given the facts and evidence. You just don't accept it.

You've been doing precisely this a few pages back.

Now that I leave you think you can take our words and twist our arguments in your favor?

edit on 27-1-2011 by PoorFool because: (no reason given)

On the contrary...The_Zomar has nothing to gain by falsifying his information or even enlightening others. He also has provided a litany of information which you and others deliberately choose to ignore. If that is not the case - I have to assume reading is the problem and perhaps you could request some sources on tape. Or pick another argument. This one has been settled.

Do vegans even realize that our their eyes face forwards?
We are predators, we are omnivore's
No amount of strawman's argument is going to change that.

Herbivore's are prey animals, prey animals have their eyes to the side.
We have our eyes in front so that we can spot our prey easier, we are predators.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by rusethorcain

 

Truth? Thank you for the example of just how subjective that term is.
Anyrate, what about the fact that our teeth are obviously designed for a omnivorious diet? What about the fact that food intolerances tend to be more of the plant variety? There are a few others but if you can answer those I would be greatly appreciative.

I have already posted scholarly sources, anthropological evidence which explains that and more. If you did visit any of those links you would not be asking those or likely your other questions.
Our teeth are not designed for tearing flesh and your stomach is not designed to digest it. Where do you get such ideas? There is a big difference between an omnivorous diet and an omnivore. A lion might occassionally eat some grass for a stomach ailment, does that make the lion an omnivore?

For purposes of weight watchers and nutrisystem we are omnivores...as a scientific classification we are "unspecialized frugivores."

Food intolerances are unrelated. They are unique, individual peculiarities.

Truth is not subjective, ideas are.
Ideas can be wrong. The truth can be twisted. The truth can be sad, inconvenient, unwanted, unfortunate,
The truth cannot be wrong.

Originally posted by Segador
Do vegans even realize that our their eyes face forwards?
We are predators, we are omnivore's
No amount of strawman's argument is going to change that.

Herbivore's are prey animals, prey animals have their eyes to the side.
We have our eyes in front so that we can spot our prey easier, we are predators.

Strawman?! You are funny. And not the "eyes in front" argument. What does this have to do with your teeth and your stomach which determine your optimal diet? Where do you come up with this stuff? Out of sheer curiosity you must point out your sources. Yourself in a mirror checking out where your eyes are...I am guessing.

I don't doubt you are a predator- but this is based upon your actions, not your diet. As far as your scientific classification with regard to your diet..."predator" isn't even a choice, bright eyes.

The Princeton Naked Demo
www.peta2.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/482d90137eee.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5bfaa4cd2a48.jpg[/atsimg]


malct32.blogspot.com...

Bernd Jürgen Brandes Having eaten an estimated 20kg of his victim, Meiwes is something of an expert on the subject, and in an interview from his prison cell he was more than happy to explain the taste: "The flesh tastes like pork, a little bit more bitter, stronger. It tastes quite good."

"it tastes quite good" I seen alot of arguments in this thread that say "why is meat so yummy if we are not supposed to eat it.. well, I guess its okay to eat humans to then

It only stands to reason that humans originally started out eating plants and fruits. After all, we are not physically equipped to hunt animals the way animals hunt other animals. The human species had a learning curve so to speak to overcome in order catch other animals. We are slow, weak, deaf and blind in comparison to other beasts on this planet, we had to learn to use our brains instead to catch those elusive critters. So, I do agree with the argument that humans predominately ate plants, to a point. However, I do not agree that eating animals is unhealthy, as mentioned, everything must be consumed in moderation. Heck, if you drink enough water it will kill you as well. I think if in indeed it is unhealthy, it is not due to the fact it is meat in itself that is unhealthy, but the process in which it is produced. Such as all the antibiotics and growth hormones that is used to produce animals as fast as possible. The growth chemicals used is what is causing all the cancers and other ailments, not the meat.

Originally posted by Sly1one
reply to post by Vandalour

 

Well I have a background in exercise science and nutrition with more than 10+ years experience in weight training and diet.

Why does this matter? Well because to understand what "good" nutrition is you have to understand what the demands of the human body are.

I have some serious issues with the anti-omnivore and anti-meat movement because they cannot provide a decent source of protein and essential amino acids.

There is A LOT of propaganda surrounding promotions of their movement and most times the deciding factors lean more on "animal rights" than science and nutrition.

They claim meat is "bad" for you health wise and link it with "heart-disease" etc, if you are eating slabs of saturated fat bacon then yes you will find this statement true. They typically don't acknowledge the overwhelming amount of evidence concerning the "healthy" meats such as fish and the benefits of consuming clean meats. They instead focus on obvious areas of contention and point out growth hormones (which has ultimately benefited the health movement) as a reason to out meats all together.

I believe there is a true balance or moderation of meats that is health but to eliminate it all together is unwise in my experience.

I have found that a lot of the vegan movement is motivated first on animal rights and secondly on nutrition. This presents an interesting conflict of interest when there is evidence that suggests meats are very healthy when consumed appropriately. This is where vegan's in my opinion go "wrong" instead of siding on the side of science and health their ultimate decision is based on "animal rights" as if that deer you just ate wasn't going to die as food eventually and fall victim to other predators.

I have been hunting most of my life and there is nothing abusive about it. It is a process of nature that was designed the second life existed and no amount of animal rights movements will save all animals from their place in the food chain. What we don't kill and eat, something else will. I particularly think that a instant death via gunshot is better than the mauling, ripping and shredding an animal receives from their "animal" predators.

See the vegan movement has to justify their "claims" that meat is "bad" by eliminating the consumption of ALL animals, in all instances, this is actually a disservice to their movement because science/nutrition know better.

We are true omnivores because we have the capability (obviously) to kill and consume other animals not because we have canines. The structural makeup of your teeth doesn't matter when you have thumbs and can shred a fish into tuna, cut meat up into more manageable pieces with knives, so on and so forth.

The comparison of human diets to the rest of the animal kingdom is silly for the most part because we are completely different. We use tools, this was intended otherwise we wouldn't be able to make them. We don't have teeth like our carnivorous animal counterparts because we don't hunt like them, we don't have to. We don't pounce through the brush and physically attack like other predators because we have evolved passed that and can make bows.

I guess ultimately what I am asserting is that I think there are some dangerous types of meat and meat eating habits that are very unhealthy. But to base the elimination of eating meats all together on that is a fallacy.

Interesting comments.

As stated, meat does supply essential amino acids and all essentiall fatty acids which would require a strict vegetarian to eat a variety of plant material in order to make sure that these are eaten in sufficient quantities to make sure that they have a diet that supplies all their nutritional requirements. Doctors even have to sometimes advise young patients who are into such vegetarian diets to add supplements to their daily intake to be sure that they get enough proper nutrition for their growing/developing bodies. If you have to add supplements (i.e. pills), then something is missing (meaning not adequate). Of course, too much of anything (meat included) can be a bad thing, and cause harm to one's health.

Also, I seem to recall articles showing apes (chimps/gorillas/etc.) actually killing small monkeys to eat (not just termites and ants). I'm not really interested in eating monkeys just because the great apes do it (so it must be more natural, and better?).

I have decided next week to go an all beef diet, with maybe some real cheese and mayo if wanted. I have some current health concerns, obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. I'm not currently taking my meds for them, I just hate taking meds. So, anyway, I am going to the store on Saturday and going to pile up on the beef and that will be my diet, and I will also take some pics before, and keep a record of my progress.

reply to post by davidchin


Chimps are a little canabalistic sometimes. Great apes are not. Our DNA was mixed with an inferior creature if you ask me. I know..nobody did.

To the fellow above going on the meat diet...good for you.
Shows how smart you are....n't.
Just don't eat at Taco Bell.