Humans are naturally plant-eaters

Originally posted by The_Zomar

Your source is a blog, and in it, it states that they are free from chronic disease which is not the case in reality.

Inuit Greenlanders, who historically have had limited access to fruits and vegetables, have the worst longevity statistics in North America. Research from the past and present shows that they die on the average about 10 years younger and have a higher rate of cancer than the overall Canadian population.

1. Iburg KM, Bronnum-Hansen H, Bjerregaard P. Health expectancy in Greenland. Scand J Public Health 2001;29(1):5-12. Choinere R. Mortality among the Baffin Inuit in the mid-80s. Arctive Med Res 1992;51 (2):87-93.

Nowhere does your quote say that the Inuit suffer from chronic disease. I would like you to show me, otherwise stop making such misleading claims.

From the same site you probably got that information from, but decided to omit:

"The research did not show that the Inuits live a long time or are healthy. The statements in the article made conclusions not supported by the research. The research merely was tracking the declining health of the Inuits since the spread of processed junk food among younger people. We can’t look to this group as an example of long-lived healthy people."



www.diseaseproof.com...

reply to post by Ciphor


Exactly. He has been doing this from the beginning, picking and choosing his arguments and ignoring the ones he can't win. I never claimed that the Inuits are the healthiest people in the world, or that a 100% carnivorous diet is desired. Only that it's possible and it can be healthy, hence proving that humans are well adapted to eating meat: that is the point of this thread.

Originally posted by PoorFool

Originally posted by The_Zomar

Your source is a blog, and in it, it states that they are free from chronic disease which is not the case in reality.

Inuit Greenlanders, who historically have had limited access to fruits and vegetables, have the worst longevity statistics in North America. Research from the past and present shows that they die on the average about 10 years younger and have a higher rate of cancer than the overall Canadian population.

1. Iburg KM, Bronnum-Hansen H, Bjerregaard P. Health expectancy in Greenland. Scand J Public Health 2001;29(1):5-12. Choinere R. Mortality among the Baffin Inuit in the mid-80s. Arctive Med Res 1992;51 (2):87-93.

Nowhere does your quote say that the Inuit suffer from chronic disease. I would like you to show me, otherwise stop making such misleading claims.

From the same site you probably got that information from, but decided to omit:

"The research did not show that the Inuits live a long time or are healthy. The statements in the article made conclusions not supported by the research. The research merely was tracking the declining health of the Inuits since the spread of processed junk food among younger people. We can’t look to this group as an example of long-lived healthy people."

You are assuming that the canadian people compared against do NOT indulge in junk foods. I have made this point several times; you simply do not understand.

And I don't "pick and choose" because science is on my side every-time. It's a matter of me vs. 3 or 4 of you, and I can only devote so much time to educating you without a paycheck.

reply to post by PoorFool


From the same source you thought I was "hiding stuff from"

Now for all my fellow nerds out there, Dr. Fuhrman also recommended checking out John Robbins’s book Healthy at 100. In it he lists the world’s healthiest people, and surprise-surprise the Inuit didn’t make the cut.

The Inuit people aren't healthy now, nor were they before processed junk food reached them. They were NEVER the most healthy people.

First it was the B12 argument which you clearly lost.
Now its the Inuit argument you clearly lost.

I have to ask, is your family in the meat business? Farm maybe?

Let's let the readers of this thread do their own research. You don't have to take it from me.

Research:
What do the Inuits diet consist of?
Are the Inuit people healthy?
Have they ever been very healthy?

Originally posted by The_Zomar
reply to post by PoorFool

 

From the same source you thought I was "hiding stuff from"

Now for all my fellow nerds out there, Dr. Fuhrman also recommended checking out John Robbins’s book Healthy at 100. In it he lists the world’s healthiest people, and surprise-surprise the Inuit didn’t make the cut.

The Inuit people aren't healthy now, nor were they before processed junk food reached them. They were NEVER the most healthy people.

First it was the B12 argument which you clearly lost.
Now its the Inuit argument you clearly lost.

I have to ask, is your family in the meat business? Farm maybe?

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

I never said the Inuit where the healthiest people in the world. Check out those he names as the healthiest in the world. They all eat meat. Point proven: an omnivorous diet is the healthiest.

I didn't make the B12 argument from what I recall, at least I didn't take it as far as others.

No one in my family is in the meat industry but I did grew up close to my grandfathers farm, watching animals getting slaughtered from time to time.

Originally posted by The_Zomar

Research:
What do the Inuits diet consist of?
Are the Inuit people healthy?
Have they ever been very healthy?

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

1. A large variety of sea animals and birds, including all their organs and often raw. Very few wild vegetation they come across.

2. Modern Inuits who live a partial Western lifestyle are not as healthy as they used to be.

2. For people who have lived in isolation in the harsh Arctic climate, you're either healthy or you die.

Originally posted by PoorFool
an omnivorous diet is the healthiest.

Science disagrees. I am a firm supporter of science.

Originally posted by PoorFool
watching animals getting slaughtered from time to time.

Does this make you proud? Mentally deranged serial killers enjoy torture and death of animals. It releases a chemical in a primitive mans brain.

reply to post by PoorFool


Why are you trying to answer ?

I said let the reader to their own research. Science is on my side.

Originally posted by The_Zomar

Originally posted by PoorFool
an omnivorous diet is the healthiest.

Science disagrees. I am a firm supporter of science.

Originally posted by PoorFool
watching animals getting slaughtered from time to time.

Does this make you proud? Mentally deranged serial killers enjoy torture and death of animals. It releases a chemical in a primitive mans brain.

Science does not disagree. He blogger to whom I've linked has a PhD. I took a course in anthropology. Evolution is the biggest factor here, and you can't deny that humans have always eaten meat. I don't know what science you're talking about.

Trying to make me feel bad? Pathetic. I know the difference between killing for pleasure and killing for food.

Originally posted by The_Zomar
reply to post by PoorFool

 

Why are you trying to answer ?

I said let the reader to their own research. Science is on my side.

You're a sad case, like a little kid begging his mommy to let him have the candy.

reply to post by PoorFool


You are desperate.


Back to the discussion at hand:

Lets compare humans to carnivores and herbivores.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4462f078bf0f.png[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f89e91e935ef.png[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/71de19ac239a.png[/atsimg]

reply to post by The_Zomar


What you have done, not what you have said. I know it's challenging for you to try and understand the meaning of words, but try harder ok? Your comprehension really is very low.

what you have done: means what you are doing, for example I can say I'm not driving, while I'm driving, and I am saying something different then I am doing

What you have said: means just that, what a person said, which can lead to what they do, but is not required.

There, I broke it down for you


I'm starting to think you may be missing some essential vitamin or mineral that helps your brain comprehend.

reply to post by The_Zomar


But I never claimed we were carnivores...

Here's a little article complete with scientific evidence debunking the myth that humans are herbivores and addressing the tables above:

www.marksdailyapple.com...
www.marksdailyapple.com...

I've read your stuff, now I hope you won't ignore mine.

Originally posted by The_Zomar
reply to post by PoorFool

 

You are desperate.


Back to the discussion at hand:

Lets compare humans to carnivores and herbivores.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4462f078bf0f.png[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f89e91e935ef.png[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/71de19ac239a.png[/atsimg]

No one is stating humans are carnivores so why are you comparing. We are all saying humans are omnivore.

Of course you failed to comprehend that though didn't you?

Here is what a VEGETARIAN Dr. with a PHD has to say.

www.vrg.org...

Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns.

[Dr. McArdle is a vegetarian and currently Scientific Advisor to The American Anti-Vivisection Society. He is an anatomist and a primatologist.]

AND THAT IS FROM A VEGETARIAN WITH A PHD IN THE FIELD

Go home, you are beat and never had a chance. All you doing now is blowing wind.

Originally posted by PoorFool
reply to post by The_Zomar

 

But I never claimed we were carnivores...

Here's a little article complete with scientific evidence debunking the myth that humans are herbivores and addressing the tables above:

www.marksdailyapple.com...
www.marksdailyapple.com...

I've read your stuff, now I hope you won't ignore mine.

Monkeys sometimes hunt other monkeys because they have developed the intelligence to sway from instinct. It's not a matter of that they need the meat but they have intelligently chose to make their own decision regardless of the health effects.
We can look to modern humans going to mcdonalds. Millions do it, it is their own choice but it doesn't mean it is the correct thing. If we were supposed to naturally hunt and eat meat our instincts would make the entire animals bodies appetizing to us.

He then incorrectly goes on to state that our hands developed around the use of tools. That is wrong, our hands developed to help us harvest fruit and vegetables in the wild.

When the intestinal issue arises, instead of measuring the real size of our intestines he uses his own scale in which he calls "Ass to Mouth". Why exclude the rest of the organ? That's going out on a limb to satisfy an otherwise legitimate issue.

His point about fossil evidence showing that we ate meat is very biased because he forgets that earlier humans did not hunt.

Humans evolved from vegetarian creatures. Even our digestive systems are not particularly suited to eating meat. Eating meat is a relatively recent development in human history, most likely born of opportunity and necessity. Perhaps earliest man observed carnivores eating meat, and if they couldn’t find any of the natural foods they were used to eating, such as vegetables, berries, nuts and grains, then they might have assumed that eating meat would at least sustain life. Source

This supports what I said earlier that humans ate meat out of choice and not instinct.

He goes on to say that tools are humans' fangs and claws and that it is part of out history. That is illogical, as every other animal is born capable of feeding itself naturally with the body it was born with.

Even if you don't believe all the evidence I have provided;
Nature is the strongest evidence and vegetarians are proved to live longer.

reply to post by PoorFool


Dude he doesn't even read his own links, he wont read yours.

Here is one of his links to a source for how being a vegetarian is more healthy then having a balanced diet

lunabar.com...

I'm not kidding, that is one of the links.

Trust me we are wasting our breath.

I just finished reading and I can't stop laughing

www.vrg.org...

www.vrg.org...

www.vrg.org...

This pretty much has all the evidence to completely shut gomar up.

Gomar can you please respond to this vegetarian, who was published in "Vegetarian Journal" (you read that?) who says the only reasons for a vegetarian/vegan diet are ecological, ethical, and health concerns? He is a vegetarian, a Dr with a PHD, he is an anatomist and a primatologist. And is published all over, NyTimes etc.

He also has colleagues who are also experts in 100% agreeance with him

Let me guess, isn't real because it doesn't agree with you? You have a link from soy milk with no author saying it's not true? I can't wait for your reply or to see how you avoid it all together.

Originally posted by Ciphor
reply to post by PoorFool

 

Dude he doesn't even read his own links, he wont read yours.

Here is one of his links to a source for how being a vegetarian is more healthy then having a balanced diet

lunabar.com...

I'm not kidding, that is one of the links.

Trust me we are wasting our breath.

You posted this saying I would not read his link; AFTER, I already posted a boil down of his link.

And the link you provided was someone else's link I posted, that was used in a debate on another webpage. You are right, I didn't read all those links but I did not say I did. I was posting information from another debate.

The link you chose to post, however, contains information relative to the thread. However you weren't intelligent enough to read the text above those links in which I said "the clickable versions are available at the website I provided" meaning you are posting the wrong link.

*Facepalm*

Originally posted by Ciphor
I just finished reading and I can't stop laughing

www.vrg.org...

www.vrg.org...

www.vrg.org...

This pretty much has all the evidence to completely shut gomar up.

Gomar can you please respond to this vegetarian, who was published in "Vegetarian Journal" (you read that?) who says the only reasons for a vegetarian/vegan diet are ethical, religious, or geographical? He is a vegetarian, a Dr with a PHD, he is an anatomist and a primatologist. And is published all over, NyTimes etc.

He also has colleagues who are also experts in 100% agreeance with him

Let me guess, isn't real because it doesn't agree with you? You have a link from soy milk with no author saying it's not true? I can't wait for your reply or to see how you avoid it all together.

Annnnddd you continue to humiliate yourself.

why don't we make an experiment ourselves?
Have 2 kids.both the same sex
from birth feed one vegan,and the other omnivore.

then compare 30-40 years later.

See ya in 40 years sir!!!

reply to post by The_Zomar


So that is how you will avoid it? You must feel smart right now.

Originally posted by The_Zomar

Monkeys sometimes hunt other monkeys because they have developed the intelligence to sway from instinct. It's not a matter of that they need the meat but they have intelligently chose to make their own decision regardless of the health effects.

And where the hell did you pull this one from? Look, if you're going to start claiming such ridiculous things, back it up with some freaking facts.

We can look to modern humans going to mcdonalds. Millions do it, it is their own choice but it doesn't mean it is the correct thing. If we were supposed to naturally hunt and eat meat our instincts would make the entire animals bodies appetizing to us.

No sh!t, of course it's not the correct thing to do, that's why millions are sick now more than ever.

Meat is tasty. Ever had cow tongue?

He then incorrectly goes on to state that our hands developed around the use of tools. That is wrong, our hands developed to help us harvest fruit and vegetables in the wild.

Not true. Making tools came WAAAAAAAAY before the advent of agriculture, roughly 10,000 to 20,000 years ago.

When the intestinal issue arises, instead of measuring the real size of our intestines he uses his own scale in which he calls "Ass to Mouth". Why exclude the rest of the organ? That's going out on a limb to satisfy an otherwise legitimate issue.

His point about fossil evidence showing that we ate meat is very biased because he forgets that earlier humans did not hunt.

Humans evolved from vegetarian creatures. Even our digestive systems are not particularly suited to eating meat. Eating meat is a relatively recent development in human history, most likely born of opportunity and necessity. Perhaps earliest man observed carnivores eating meat, and if they couldn’t find any of the natural foods they were used to eating, such as vegetables, berries, nuts and grains, then they might have assumed that eating meat would at least sustain life. Source

This supports what I said earlier that humans ate meat out of choice and not instinct.

You keep forgetting that eating meat is part of our evolution and it is what made us who we are. If we sat around all day long digging at grass we would not have developed intelligence, would not have migrated to all over the world, etc.

He goes on to say that tools are humans' fangs and claws and that it is part of out history. That is illogical, as every other animal is born capable of feeding itself naturally with the body it was born with.

Unlike other animals, we have this thing called intelligence, which I am beginning to suspect you lack.

Even if you don't believe all the evidence I have provided;
Nature is the strongest evidence and vegetarians are proved to live longer.

Then the heavy-meat-eating French, the fish-dependent Japanese, and those societies that that Dr. named the healthiest on the planet must all be an exception.

I find it hilarious how you now claim nature and science is on your side.