I have a question for Vegans and Vegetarians everywhere!!

[Daniel.EM]

Sabyshii

Daniel.EM

Well your argument is null and void. 99.7% of meat produced in the US is from industrial battery farms, and they all produce "bad meat" as you put it.

But regardless, meat does not offer us anything that can't be found elsewhere. It can be consumed as part of a healthy balanced diet, but the healthy balanced part is a production of fruits, veg, legumes and nuts. You can eat cake as part of a healthy balanced diet, it offers carbs and sugars that you need, but you can get carbs and sugar elsewhere, without the fats and such.

You don't eat vegan as part of a healthy balanced diet, IT IS the balanced diet.

Shrugging it off is denial. Heart disease is the leading cause of deaths in western country's, 30% of the population will die from heart disease. Heart disease is caused when people eat too much cholesterol. The only source of cholesterol is animal products. So thats 30% of all deaths from illness removed instantly. Cholesterol is in all animal products, bad meat, good meat, organic, freerange. And thats just one example.

Then you can agree that meat is not the problem, but we are. Great to have you on board. We should fix that so that the animals we meat eaters consume stop getting sick due to our poor and unnatural practices. Sick food means sick people.

Again, no study confirms, with specific proof, your claim that fat or cholesterol is bad for you. Not one. All we have is correlation, and we all know that correlation is not causation. There are people who eat a high fat diet, and they're just as healthy as you are, and possibly with similar blood results. Clearly, something else is at play here, and meat isn't all of it.

When it comes to vegan diets, too many people screw up. Have you seen how many places have "Top X Lists" of deficiencies that are common for new people coming to the lifestyle?

All diets consisting of natural food work. Whether it's fruit, veggie or animal products, take your pick. We're here because of various combinations, or lack of a group or two, in dietary protocol, and we lived healthily enough to become top of the food chain. Take your pick, until we get the actual data to state that one of them is clearly more superior than the others... and then we'll still have the right to choose anyway.

Daniel.EM

You say you HAVE to cook fiberous vegetables to eat them. Dude, you have to cook all meats to eat them without flat out dieing. Besides, carrots have a s**t load of fiber, and you can eat them raw. Heres some more, ill leave you to pick out the ones you can eat raw:

You missed most of her point, and you're focusing on this? You can eat meat raw. It's a thing. They're not all just dropping dead.

Quote:

Your second point argues that its agriculture in general that causes environmental problems. Well, it takes 14 times the amount of grains (which is what cows are fed nowadays) to feed a cow, than it does a human. There would be considerably less agriculture around if we didn't waist most of eat feeding beef cattle.

Her point still stands. Most of our livestock aren't supposed to be eating these things. Cows eat grass, and we're feeding them garbage. It's cheaper to grow grain than it used to be, so they're using them to feed our animals. A single harvest of grain used to feed a family for a year, and it was incredibly labor intensive. There wasn't any extra for the farm critters to eat. But now that we've got machines to make most of the labor we have easier, we have too much of the stuff now, and it's incredibly cheap.

Quote:

Not only this, the UN stated that MEAT production specifically is more responsible for global warming than ALL transport combined. Trains, cards, boats, planes..everything. If we include the amount of s**t spreading and waist dumping the effects are even greater.

Watch this.

Quote:

You then go on to say that we owe our intellectual evolution to meat. This theory has never been proven. Infact, another theory exists with an equal lack of evidence. It states that you can spend 5minutes eating a potato, or you can cook 50 and eat them all in 5minutes. It was cooking, not meat specifically, that encouraged the increased calories we needed to develop. But tbh they are both just theory's, and who the ******** wants to use cavemen as gleaming role models to follow. We didn't develop past the stone age because we ran out of stones.

You're right, there is no proof. It's all speculation. As for cavemen... We're here, so they did something right.

Quote:

"If humans were not meant to eat meat, we would've stopped a long time ago" this is ridiculous haha.

If we weren't designed to eat meat, we wouldn't exist, or we'd just stop eating it altogether. We are a highly adaptable species, who can survive off of either end of the spectrum. We've been eating it for most of our existence, and for the most part, outside of parasites, war and infections... most of our current diseases are relatively modern, and spiked during the industrial revolution and it's influence over agriculture.

Quote:

We've been using slaves since the beginning, raping, murdering, i mean hell only 2 lifetimes ago did we allow the womens vote, and theres still country's that dont. We are supposed to live in a society that encourages moral responsibility and high ground. If we thought like you, we'd have never abolished slavery, or allowed the womens vote.

Morality is always changing. What's moral today is or will be immoral at some other point in time. Women and slaves were usually considered property. Do you let your dog make decisions?

Quote:

All law and anything we've ever done to change for the better would have never happened.

We won't know unless it happened.

Quote:

What a ridiculous way to think. The mass genocide ( 2billion animals every 2 weeks) of animals, and the associated repercussions to the environment, health etc seems contradictive to what the human race and civilization has been aiming to achieve.

We want to thrive.
As for the environmental repercussions... That's because of the food safety policies. There are people being arrested for having a garden. Something's messed up. If you raise all the cows in one area, then have them slaughtered and make them travel for several hundreds, or thousands of miles to be consumed... There's a problem.

Quote:

I mean ********, 2 billion living breathing sentient persons that are as smart, or more so, than a dog, than a human toddler. Its hypocritical to claim moral superiority then do and support atrocities to basic welfare and quality of life for humans and animals, just for a taste lol

Just think of all those poor worms, rodents and insects that had to die in order for most people to get their plant matter intake due to current the current agricultural procedure to prepare land for crops. If you want to live, something must die. You just chose plants. Your hands aren't clean either.

Agriculture is the problem. Seriously, watch that video. Imagine what would happen if we applied that knowledge to our agriculture.

I've never seen more nonsensical garbage be written by one person. I don't even know where to start.

You've admitted yourself that mass agriculture causes pollution. I've already told you it takes 14 times the food to feed a cow than it does a human. Less meat production means less agriculture, 14 times less, so your pretty much arguing in favour of veganism without even trying.

"What doesn't cause global warming? Don't want to support the red meat industry, eat fish, a lot less effective on the environment." wtf is this dude...seriously. Lots of things cause global warming, but ive just told you that meat production, ALL MEAT PRODUCTION, not just red meat, causes it more than anything else. And you think fishing doesn't effect the environment?! why are you even debating you don't know this context at all. http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/12353/en - read that.

I don't eat supplements, the fats your talking about that are good from fish are omega 3, 6 and 9 fatty acids. Nuts provide this. And i'd much rather eat nuts than get mercury poisoning from fish and theres this: "Researchers in England found that when people added about 5 ounces of fish (about 34 grams of protein) to a normal diet, the risk of forming urinary tract stones increased by as much as 250 percent." - Physicians committee for responsible medicine.

This notion that eating meat is natural. It isn't. And heres why.



This is from a book called the comparative anatomy of eating, by milton r mills. He has an MD in the subject and is actually qualified. You cant compare yourself to a ******** tiger you bellend. Your a primate, like a binobo, a chimp, an ape or a orangutan (all vegan). Tigers eat meat because they have teeth that can tear skin, they have digestive fluids that are strong enough to break down bone and they have an intestine short enough to get it in and out asap so not to let harmful bacteria harm them. Tigers don't pick and choose cuts, then cook it, then digest it for more than a day. Tigers eat everything, eyeballs, a**s, hair, fur, flesh, guts...they digest it in a matter of hours, raw. Ive never heard of an omnivore having to cook their food to make it edible, all other animals in the history of the planet that eats meat, eats it raw.

Also, you said theres no study or prove that tells us heart disease is connected to cholesterol. Thats bullshit, its a well known fact. Heres a link stating why. Its from a repuatable, independent source of doctors. http://pcrm.org/health/health-topics/cholesterol-and-heart-disease. Let me remind you, ALL animal products contain cholesterol and vegans have NONE of it in our diet. Do you really think an omnivore would suffer from so much illness if they were meant to eat meat, you never see a bear or a baboon die from a heart attack from too much cholesterol lol. Comparing yourself to wolves and lions aswell dude haha, no. When predators hunt, kill and eat their food its natural, because if they didn't eat it, they'd die. If we don't eat meat, we dont die, infact we thrive.

http://s3.photobucket.com/user/Daniel_EM/media/Vegan/284011_481899758508264_773732936_n_zpsbecd6e60.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0

The reason why i compare this to other human rights atrocities is because what we have here are sentient persons of another species, that are as smart as children, they are just children in another body. Being systematically abused and killed for no good reason. 2 billion animals every 2 weeks die for food, for no reason other than taste.

[Daniel.EM]

Sabyshii

Not only this, theres a HUGE human cost to eating meat. Sure these people are either brown, or poor, or both.

A big problem with industrial farming in regards to human health is quite simple: s**t. Masses and masses of poorly managed faeces. Rivers, lakes and pools of stagnating waste, as big as 120,000 square feet and 30feet deep, causes implications devastating to human health. A hundred or more of these lagoons may be found surrounding a single slaughter house or farm.

Today a typical pig factory farm will produce 7.2 million pounds of manure annually. A typical broiler farm will produce 6.6 million pounds and a cattle feedlot will produce 344 million pounds.
GAO (General Accounting Office) reports that individual farms "can generate more raw waste than the populations of some U.S cities". Farmed animals in the US alone produce 130times more waste than the entire human population - 87, 000 pounds of s**t per second. Keep in mind that cities have massive waste control and disposal infrastructures to deal with human waste, the same cannot be said for animal faeces. Imagine the entire population of great Britain defecating into an open air concrete pit for a year and your somewhere close to the faeces output of a single pig farm annually.

So what's in this s**t that makes it detrimental to human health?

These huge deposits of waste are not limited to faeces dumping. Stillborns, afterbirth, dead piglets/calf's/chicks, vomit, blood, urine, antibiotic syringes, broken bottles of insecticide, hair, pus, even body parts are all dumped. Ammonia, methane, hydrogen sulphide, carbon monoxide, cyanide, phosphorus, nitrates and heavy metals are present in huge amounts, some of which evaporate into the air and are carried on the wind. On top of that these waste pools harbour hundreds of deadly pathogens including salmonella, cryptosporidium, streptococci and girardia (see disease and virus's).

To take a step back, there's nothing wrong with s**t itself. Faeces has traditionally been an essential part of farming. Fertilizer for the fields means food for the animals means more fertilizer. s**t became a problem when the US and UK wanted to eat more meat than any other culture in history and pay less than any other. As a result industry standard farming is producing more "fertilizer" than the fields can absorb. A lot more.

Once these gargantuan pools of s**t reach capacity it is either spread on fields, often illegally, which creates harmful runoff (see environmental cost) or sprayed directly into the air in the form of a fine mist. A faecal geyser that shoots tons of s**t directly into the wind, saturating everything in its path. This mist delivers severe neurological conditions to the surrounding population, among other things.

Children are especially vulnerable. Children raised in the same town of a typical industry standard farm will have asthma rates up to and exceeding 50% and are twice as likely to develop asthma. They are forced to breathe s**t, literally.

Communities living nearby will complain about symptoms such as but not limited to; persistent nose bleeds, earaches, chronic diarrhea and burning lungs.

Even when local citizens pass laws in an attempt to restrict these practices the industries immense influence over government means the regulations are often nullified or go unenforced. The demand for meat, dairy and eggs combined with high level government corruption and property value depletion means that men, woman and children of America and the UK are prisoners of their own towns, forced to endure severe illness in the name of profit.

A worker in Michigan, repairing one of the lagoons, was over-come by the smell and fell in. His 15 year old nephew dived in to save him but was overcome, the worker's cousin went in to save the teenager but was overcome, the worker's older brother dived in to save them but was overcome, and then the workers father dived in. They all died in pig s**t. This was not an isolated incident.

This is one example. Take into account labour standards, nutritional costs and the health risks associated, the faeces disposal and how that ******** with peoples health, disease and virus incubation thats killed billions, and third world countrys and their peoples etc

[Poe-Sensei]

Daniel.EM

Sabyshii

Not only this, theres a HUGE human cost to eating meat. Sure these people are either brown, or poor, or both.

A big problem with industrial farming in regards to human health is quite simple: s**t. Masses and masses of poorly managed faeces. Rivers, lakes and pools of stagnating waste, as big as 120,000 square feet and 30feet deep, causes implications devastating to human health. A hundred or more of these lagoons may be found surrounding a single slaughter house or farm.

Today a typical pig factory farm will produce 7.2 million pounds of manure annually. A typical broiler farm will produce 6.6 million pounds and a cattle feedlot will produce 344 million pounds.
GAO (General Accounting Office) reports that individual farms "can generate more raw waste than the populations of some U.S cities". Farmed animals in the US alone produce 130times more waste than the entire human population - 87, 000 pounds of s**t per second. Keep in mind that cities have massive waste control and disposal infrastructures to deal with human waste, the same cannot be said for animal faeces. Imagine the entire population of great Britain defecating into an open air concrete pit for a year and your somewhere close to the faeces output of a single pig farm annually.

So what's in this s**t that makes it detrimental to human health?

These huge deposits of waste are not limited to faeces dumping. Stillborns, afterbirth, dead piglets/calf's/chicks, vomit, blood, urine, antibiotic syringes, broken bottles of insecticide, hair, pus, even body parts are all dumped. Ammonia, methane, hydrogen sulphide, carbon monoxide, cyanide, phosphorus, nitrates and heavy metals are present in huge amounts, some of which evaporate into the air and are carried on the wind. On top of that these waste pools harbour hundreds of deadly pathogens including salmonella, cryptosporidium, streptococci and girardia (see disease and virus's).

To take a step back, there's nothing wrong with s**t itself. Faeces has traditionally been an essential part of farming. Fertilizer for the fields means food for the animals means more fertilizer. s**t became a problem when the US and UK wanted to eat more meat than any other culture in history and pay less than any other. As a result industry standard farming is producing more "fertilizer" than the fields can absorb. A lot more.

Once these gargantuan pools of s**t reach capacity it is either spread on fields, often illegally, which creates harmful runoff (see environmental cost) or sprayed directly into the air in the form of a fine mist. A faecal geyser that shoots tons of s**t directly into the wind, saturating everything in its path. This mist delivers severe neurological conditions to the surrounding population, among other things.

Children are especially vulnerable. Children raised in the same town of a typical industry standard farm will have asthma rates up to and exceeding 50% and are twice as likely to develop asthma. They are forced to breathe s**t, literally.

Communities living nearby will complain about symptoms such as but not limited to; persistent nose bleeds, earaches, chronic diarrhea and burning lungs.

Even when local citizens pass laws in an attempt to restrict these practices the industries immense influence over government means the regulations are often nullified or go unenforced. The demand for meat, dairy and eggs combined with high level government corruption and property value depletion means that men, woman and children of America and the UK are prisoners of their own towns, forced to endure severe illness in the name of profit.

A worker in Michigan, repairing one of the lagoons, was over-come by the smell and fell in. His 15 year old nephew dived in to save him but was overcome, the worker's cousin went in to save the teenager but was overcome, the worker's older brother dived in to save them but was overcome, and then the workers father dived in. They all died in pig s**t. This was not an isolated incident.

This is one example. Take into account labour standards, nutritional costs and the health risks associated, the faeces disposal and how that ******** with peoples health, disease and virus incubation thats killed billions, and third world countrys and their peoples etc

I'm ignoring the other message, as this one is more closely getting at what it is that I've been trying to say. We can argue all day, playing doctor tag and all that fun stuff. Those studies are testing meat from animals that are sick, dying, can hardly stand up, and most likely very unhappy. The latter is obviously going to cause health problems. It's not that meat is bad, it's that the meat we're eating is so unhealthy that IT is bad. Grass-fed beef naturally contains lower fat, cholesterol, and way more vitamins. That was my entire argument, if you study the effects of the poorest examples in regards to health, and expect great results, anyone would be kidding themselves. (I like cows... I know I keep bringing them up. razz )

This is what I was saying. Our health problems are NOT from eating meat, it's because our farming methods (of plants and animals) are complete rubbish. There is no excuse for this mess, and the only reason it's still being done is laziness, and greed.

Yes, we're vastly over-eating animal products, but that is not what is causing our problems health wise. You're familiar with how our animals are treated. If we let those animals go loose in the wild somewhere in Africa, there would be a whole lot of changes in their demeanor, health, and nutrition. This is a problem with how they are being raised. We're raising sick, nearly dead animals, who lack the nutrition to properly stand, or walk, who eat out of a bucket and fed vaccines because they attract and breed bacteria that is infectious to the entire herd.

I really, really recommend you look up Joel Salatin on his methods for sustainable, environmentally sound animal products. Link I just found. Just a quick Google Search. You may remember him from Food, Inc. Also, if you saw the "Fresh" documentary, he played a pretty big role in it.

Not perfect, but leagues better than the CAFO setup.

Then there's Allan Savory. He too, is under some criticism, but who isn't? He has seen a lot of success, however, so that's at least worth looking into. TEDTalks Video. Even if not for the desert part, there's at least the methane part of the carbon and methane thing people are so worried about.

You're right about the poor management currently in operation, and the negative impacts it is having on the health of humans, the animals, and the environment. I completely agree. I never disagreed with that. But I was arguing that when you change the management to something more natural, that all changes.

This is why I keep encouraging local, properly raised food (animal or meat). You get to actually see where it's coming from, and can choose that way. We wouldn't have to worry about food being spoiled because we could safely store it ourselves and it didn't have to travel a thousand miles in a metal container and being heated up.

There is a moral issue in all of this, but it's not going to fix itself overnight. This is one of those cases where a bit of information distribution, and a little voting by dollars comes into play. As I said to Adam... do you know just how many people STILL believe that our cows are eating grass? We have become so disconnected to our food that things like this ended up happening.

[Daniel.EM]

Sabyshii

Daniel.EM

Sabyshii

Not only this, theres a HUGE human cost to eating meat. Sure these people are either brown, or poor, or both.

A big problem with industrial farming in regards to human health is quite simple: s**t. Masses and masses of poorly managed faeces. Rivers, lakes and pools of stagnating waste, as big as 120,000 square feet and 30feet deep, causes implications devastating to human health. A hundred or more of these lagoons may be found surrounding a single slaughter house or farm.

Today a typical pig factory farm will produce 7.2 million pounds of manure annually. A typical broiler farm will produce 6.6 million pounds and a cattle feedlot will produce 344 million pounds.
GAO (General Accounting Office) reports that individual farms "can generate more raw waste than the populations of some U.S cities". Farmed animals in the US alone produce 130times more waste than the entire human population - 87, 000 pounds of s**t per second. Keep in mind that cities have massive waste control and disposal infrastructures to deal with human waste, the same cannot be said for animal faeces. Imagine the entire population of great Britain defecating into an open air concrete pit for a year and your somewhere close to the faeces output of a single pig farm annually.

So what's in this s**t that makes it detrimental to human health?

These huge deposits of waste are not limited to faeces dumping. Stillborns, afterbirth, dead piglets/calf's/chicks, vomit, blood, urine, antibiotic syringes, broken bottles of insecticide, hair, pus, even body parts are all dumped. Ammonia, methane, hydrogen sulphide, carbon monoxide, cyanide, phosphorus, nitrates and heavy metals are present in huge amounts, some of which evaporate into the air and are carried on the wind. On top of that these waste pools harbour hundreds of deadly pathogens including salmonella, cryptosporidium, streptococci and girardia (see disease and virus's).

To take a step back, there's nothing wrong with s**t itself. Faeces has traditionally been an essential part of farming. Fertilizer for the fields means food for the animals means more fertilizer. s**t became a problem when the US and UK wanted to eat more meat than any other culture in history and pay less than any other. As a result industry standard farming is producing more "fertilizer" than the fields can absorb. A lot more.

Once these gargantuan pools of s**t reach capacity it is either spread on fields, often illegally, which creates harmful runoff (see environmental cost) or sprayed directly into the air in the form of a fine mist. A faecal geyser that shoots tons of s**t directly into the wind, saturating everything in its path. This mist delivers severe neurological conditions to the surrounding population, among other things.

Children are especially vulnerable. Children raised in the same town of a typical industry standard farm will have asthma rates up to and exceeding 50% and are twice as likely to develop asthma. They are forced to breathe s**t, literally.

Communities living nearby will complain about symptoms such as but not limited to; persistent nose bleeds, earaches, chronic diarrhea and burning lungs.

Even when local citizens pass laws in an attempt to restrict these practices the industries immense influence over government means the regulations are often nullified or go unenforced. The demand for meat, dairy and eggs combined with high level government corruption and property value depletion means that men, woman and children of America and the UK are prisoners of their own towns, forced to endure severe illness in the name of profit.

A worker in Michigan, repairing one of the lagoons, was over-come by the smell and fell in. His 15 year old nephew dived in to save him but was overcome, the worker's cousin went in to save the teenager but was overcome, the worker's older brother dived in to save them but was overcome, and then the workers father dived in. They all died in pig s**t. This was not an isolated incident.

This is one example. Take into account labour standards, nutritional costs and the health risks associated, the faeces disposal and how that ******** with peoples health, disease and virus incubation thats killed billions, and third world countrys and their peoples etc

I'm ignoring the other message, as this one is more closely getting at what it is that I've been trying to say. We can argue all day, playing doctor tag and all that fun stuff. Those studies are testing meat from animals that are sick, dying, can hardly stand up, and most likely very unhappy. The latter is obviously going to cause health problems. It's not that meat is bad, it's that the meat we're eating is so unhealthy that IT is bad. Grass-fed beef naturally contains lower fat, cholesterol, and way more vitamins. That was my entire argument, if you study the effects of the poorest examples in regards to health, and expect great results, anyone would be kidding themselves. (I like cows... I know I keep bringing them up. razz )

This is what I was saying. Our health problems are NOT from eating meat, it's because our farming methods (of plants and animals) are complete rubbish. There is no excuse for this mess, and the only reason it's still being done is laziness, and greed.

Yes, we're vastly over-eating animal products, but that is not what is causing our problems health wise. You're familiar with how our animals are treated. If we let those animals go loose in the wild somewhere in Africa, there would be a whole lot of changes in their demeanor, health, and nutrition. This is a problem with how they are being raised. We're raising sick, nearly dead animals, who lack the nutrition to properly stand, or walk, who eat out of a bucket and fed vaccines because they attract and breed bacteria that is infectious to the entire herd.

I really, really recommend you look up Joel Salatin on his methods for sustainable, environmentally sound animal products. Link I just found. Just a quick Google Search. You may remember him from Food, Inc. Also, if you saw the "Fresh" documentary, he played a pretty big role in it.

Not perfect, but leagues better than the CAFO setup.

Then there's Allan Savory. He too, is under some criticism, but who isn't? He has seen a lot of success, however, so that's at least worth looking into. TEDTalks Video. Even if not for the desert part, there's at least the methane part of the carbon and methane thing people are so worried about.

You're right about the poor management currently in operation, and the negative impacts it is having on the health of humans, the animals, and the environment. I completely agree. I never disagreed with that. But I was arguing that when you change the management to something more natural, that all changes.

This is why I keep encouraging local, properly raised food (animal or meat). You get to actually see where it's coming from, and can choose that way. We wouldn't have to worry about food being spoiled because we could safely store it ourselves and it didn't have to travel a thousand miles in a metal container and being heated up.

There is a moral issue in all of this, but it's not going to fix itself overnight. This is one of those cases where a bit of information distribution, and a little voting by dollars comes into play. As I said to Adam... do you know just how many people STILL believe that our cows are eating grass? We have become so disconnected to our food that things like this ended up happening.

I know what your getting at here. Its not meat in general, its hormone pumped, fast grown, faeces ridden, industry farmed meat thats the problem. Thats 99.7% meat in America. And ofcourse this is way worse nutritionally and environmentally. But meat, all meat, no matter how its raised in what environment is bad for you.

And heres a good example of how we know why. In the 1940's a large portion of Norways population (around 12%) was dieing of cardio vascular disease (clogged heart arteries). They ate a diet of mainly fruits and veg which also included a modest amount of meat, eggs and dairy. Good ol' fashioned, grass fed, small holding, family raised meat, industry style farming hadn't even been brain stormed yet.

When nazi Germany invaded Norway in 1945 they took all of the cattle to feed their troops. The state then fed the populace what was essentially a plant based diet with some bread. Astonishingly, as soon as they did, cardio vascular deaths all but stopped. When Germany left Norway in 1950, the deaths rose again.

Lets not chew our words here, thats flat out conclusive evidence that eating "good" meat still ******** with your health.


Heres the graph: http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/norway_wwii.jpg

and heres the source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1567233/


Its also interesting that we produce our own cholesterol, and its this extra ingestion of meats, eggs and dairy that gives us too much, and clogs our arteries. There is no omnivore on earth that produces its own cholesterol, they get it in their diet. Whereas every single herbivore on the planet produces its own cholesterol, because they don't get it in their diet.

So once you understand that cholesterol is harmful to us, because we already produce our own, proven through studies like the Norway one. You have to ask yourself, surely if we were evolutionary designed to eat meat, we wouldn't die ingesting modest amounts.

[Poe-Sensei]

Daniel.EM

I know what your getting at here. Its not meat in general, its hormone pumped, fast grown, faeces ridden, industry farmed meat thats the problem. Thats 99.7% meat in America. And ofcourse this is way worse nutritionally and environmentally. But meat, all meat, no matter how its raised in what environment is bad for you.

And heres a good example of how we know why. In the 1940's a large portion of Norways population (around 12%) was dieing of cardio vascular disease (clogged heart arteries). They ate a diet of mainly fruits and veg which also included a modest amount of meat, eggs and dairy. Good ol' fashioned, grass fed, small holding, family raised meat, industry style farming hadn't even been brain stormed yet.

When nazi Germany invaded Norway in 1945 they took all of the cattle to feed their troops. The state then fed the populace what was essentially a plant based diet with some bread. Astonishingly, as soon as they did, cardio vascular deaths all but stopped. When Germany left Norway in 1950, the deaths rose again.

Here is a link that tries to discredit the image and movie you posted below. There were also various other dietary changes (such as food coming in through foreign aid).

Quote:

Lets not chew our words here, thats flat out conclusive evidence that eating "good" meat still ******** with your health.


Heres the graph: http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/norway_wwii.jpg

and heres the source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1567233/

So, one graph and one documentary is enough to make you not look into other sources that more accurately depict the diet of these people?

Quote:

Its also interesting that we produce our own cholesterol, and its this extra ingestion of meats, eggs and dairy that gives us too much, and clogs our arteries. There is no omnivore on earth that produces its own cholesterol, they get it in their diet. Whereas every single herbivore on the planet produces its own cholesterol, because they don't get it in their diet.

You don't just get clogged arteries from ingesting cholesterol. It doesn't negatively impact your health unless your health has already been compromised. System inflammation screws with how your body reacts to things.

Quote:

So once you understand that cholesterol is harmful to us, because we already produce our own, proven through studies like the Norway one. You have to ask yourself, surely if we were evolutionary designed to eat meat, we wouldn't die ingesting modest amounts.

There are too many confounding figures to just up and state that it is harmful for us.



How does this compare to yours? Note that fish intake climbed dramatically during this time period, and fish (which is still meat) has cholesterol too, and still a fair bit of eggs. A far cry from your "plant based diet with some bread." There are too many confounding figures, which is not proof, despite your claim. Of course, you could find something to disprove that, and I could find something to disprove your rebuttal all the same.

And this is why I said that it's better off not turning into a debate. For every source, there's another to counter it, with just as much reason and statistics all it's own. We're far better off letting everyone decide for themselves, and hope they figure it out along the way. Everyone has evidence to support their own claims.

For example, I could argue that the introduction of hydrogenated oils into the diet in the early 1900's (Crisco was around 1911, I think), caused widespread inflammation during it's use, due to free radicals in the body, causing things to behave improperly, causing cholesterol to become so strange in the first place, making LDL unstable, thus creating health concerns because they're not getting enough anti-oxidants in their diet to combat this free-radical damage.You could then find something out there to combat it, and I, in turn, can do the same. This whole thing will get us nowhere, fast.

We could, of course play the, "My sources are more valid than yours" game, but really... what constitutes validity? Just because you have a white lab coat, a stethoscope, or a PhD in your title, doesn't make them right.

People thrive on both, can't we just leave it at that? These people seem to be doing just fine too, after all. (Currently 128 people there, I think.) Funny thing about health, we won't know what's up until something bad happens.

[Viginti tress]

Daniel.EM

Sabyshii

Daniel.EM

Check out my posts on page 4. Your wrong.

That random link you posted is a speculative article. It doesn't involve any kind of in depth scientific study.

Ofcourse vegans get cancer to lol, but the evidence is conclusive: A diet that includes meat, even in small amounts, and from any species of animal, increases the risks of a variety of health repercussions. Each piece of meat presents its own risks, each vegetable does not suffer from the same associated risks. Omnivores don't experience bad health as a result of eating meat, and the fact that we do says alot about how warped our diet has become.

No study done is specific enough. How about we track the health of someone who eats grass-fed, grass finished, hormone and antibiotic free, humanely raised cows (All of it. Liver, intestines, stomach, eyes, brain, etc...), and just as strict a regimen for plant matter. Health will improve, regardless of fat, cholesterol, or meat intake. Keep them in a place without access to any other type of food, to ensure they won't screw up the results by doing something else later.

We are omnivores. Your last line is misleading. Our body is designed to handle meat. We produce enzymes almost especially suited for meat consumption. But we are eating sick meat. Meat is not unhealthy, unless you eat meat that is raised improperly..

Eat sick food, you get sick too. We aren't exactly eating the Happy Cows from the commercials. The problem isn't meat, it's us. Your statement is correlation, and perhaps mine are too. We won't know. All we can do is experiment. Screw the studies. You don't need a PhD in science to practice the proper method on your own. If you feel terrible, alter something. If you feel great, alter anyway until you feel even better. (Of course, leaving time to adjust to new changes.)

Congratulations, you found what works for you. By all means, continue. But to erroneously state that meat is the cause of our problems is ignoring the real cause of our health problems on Earth. This is an agriculture issue.

Well your argument is null and void. 99.7% of meat produced in the US is from industrial battery farms, and they all produce "bad meat" as you put it.

But regardless, meat does not offer us anything that can't be found elsewhere. It can be consumed as part of a healthy balanced diet, but the healthy balanced part is a production of fruits, veg, legumes and nuts. You can eat cake as part of a healthy balanced diet, it offers carbs and sugars that you need, but you can get carbs and sugar elsewhere, without the fats and such.

You don't eat vegan as part of a healthy balanced diet, IT IS the balanced diet.

Shrugging it off is denial. Heart disease is the leading cause of deaths in western country's, 30% of the population will die from heart disease. Heart disease is caused when people eat too much cholesterol. The only source of cholesterol is animal products. So thats 30% of all deaths from illness removed instantly. Cholesterol is in all animal products, bad meat, good meat, organic, freerange. And thats just one example.

I think these facts are pretty much known. I mean its not hard for people to actually educate themselves on how detrimental meat is to society. The fact that people think there is still a debate there is laughable.

[Viginti tress]

http://bodyscience.org/are-humans-carnivores-or-herbivores/

[Poe-Sensei]

Viginti tress

Daniel.EM

Well your argument is null and void. 99.7% of meat produced in the US is from industrial battery farms, and they all produce "bad meat" as you put it.

But regardless, meat does not offer us anything that can't be found elsewhere. It can be consumed as part of a healthy balanced diet, but the healthy balanced part is a production of fruits, veg, legumes and nuts. You can eat cake as part of a healthy balanced diet, it offers carbs and sugars that you need, but you can get carbs and sugar elsewhere, without the fats and such.

You don't eat vegan as part of a healthy balanced diet, IT IS the balanced diet.

Shrugging it off is denial. Heart disease is the leading cause of deaths in western country's, 30% of the population will die from heart disease. Heart disease is caused when people eat too much cholesterol. The only source of cholesterol is animal products. So thats 30% of all deaths from illness removed instantly. Cholesterol is in all animal products, bad meat, good meat, organic, freerange. And thats just one example.

I think these facts are pretty much known. I mean its not hard for people to actually educate themselves on how detrimental meat is to society. The fact that people think there is still a debate there is laughable.

Except... there still isn't any proof, whatsoever. People who eat meat also have a higher probability of eating other garbage too. What if that's what's causing the problem? Because surely, the only thing wrong with McDonald's is the meat.

So far as cholesterol, it seems pretty well known to some doctors that it's not a problem unless LDL is oxidized.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/07/diet-heart-hypothesis-oxidized-ldl-part.html
http://www.sabiosciences.com/pathway.php?sn=LDL_Oxidation_in_Atherogenesis

I'm sure you can find more just looking up oxidized LDL or something in Google. This is why I said earlier about this whole thing being pointless, as we can all play the links to studies game.

And, speaking of those studies, this is what I mean by many of them being nowhere near specific enough. Read this.

Viginti tress

http://bodyscience.org/are-humans-carnivores-or-herbivores/

I'll leave the debunk to that with one more knowing that I am.

The image on there, also shared by Daniel.EM fail to include the fact that we don't have to be stronger, or faster than our prey. We just have to be smarter, and use tools, which are debatably human. We didn't call it the stone age for nothing. Who needs large jaws and sharp teeth to kill prey when you have spears? Who needs to take a large bite out of an animal when you can just cut it up with some razor sharp rocks?

[Viginti tress]

Sabyshii

Viginti tress

Daniel.EM

Well your argument is null and void. 99.7% of meat produced in the US is from industrial battery farms, and they all produce "bad meat" as you put it.

But regardless, meat does not offer us anything that can't be found elsewhere. It can be consumed as part of a healthy balanced diet, but the healthy balanced part is a production of fruits, veg, legumes and nuts. You can eat cake as part of a healthy balanced diet, it offers carbs and sugars that you need, but you can get carbs and sugar elsewhere, without the fats and such.

You don't eat vegan as part of a healthy balanced diet, IT IS the balanced diet.

Shrugging it off is denial. Heart disease is the leading cause of deaths in western country's, 30% of the population will die from heart disease. Heart disease is caused when people eat too much cholesterol. The only source of cholesterol is animal products. So thats 30% of all deaths from illness removed instantly. Cholesterol is in all animal products, bad meat, good meat, organic, freerange. And thats just one example.

I think these facts are pretty much known. I mean its not hard for people to actually educate themselves on how detrimental meat is to society. The fact that people think there is still a debate there is laughable.

Except... there still isn't any proof, whatsoever. People who eat meat also have a higher probability of eating other garbage too. What if that's what's causing the problem? Because surely, the only thing wrong with McDonald's is the meat.

So far as cholesterol, it seems pretty well known to some doctors that it's not a problem unless LDL is oxidized.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/07/diet-heart-hypothesis-oxidized-ldl-part.html
http://www.sabiosciences.com/pathway.php?sn=LDL_Oxidation_in_Atherogenesis

I'm sure you can find more just looking up oxidized LDL or something in Google. This is why I said earlier about this whole thing being pointless, as we can all play the links to studies game.

And, speaking of those studies, this is what I mean by many of them being nowhere near specific enough. Read this.

Viginti tress

http://bodyscience.org/are-humans-carnivores-or-herbivores/

I'll leave the debunk to that with one more knowing that I am.

The image on there, also shared by Daniel.EM fail to include the fact that we don't have to be stronger, or faster than our prey. We just have to be smarter, and use tools, which are debatably human. We didn't call it the stone age for nothing. Who needs large jaws and sharp teeth to kill prey when you have spears? Who needs to take a large bite out of an animal when you can just cut it up with some razor sharp rocks?

PLease do not quote me or attempt to talk to me. You have already filled this topic with so much ignorance it is laughable. Please refrain from quoting me as you have completely no clue as to what you are talking about and you have made that painfully obviously. The next quote gets you a block. I will not read anything that you write because you really have zero clue as to what you are talking about and its getting embarrassing for you. That other poster already schooled you so hard and you are still at it? That is embarrassing please stop. Or quote me so I can block you

[Daniel.EM]

Sabyshii

Daniel.EM

I know what your getting at here. Its not meat in general, its hormone pumped, fast grown, faeces ridden, industry farmed meat thats the problem. Thats 99.7% meat in America. And ofcourse this is way worse nutritionally and environmentally. But meat, all meat, no matter how its raised in what environment is bad for you.

And heres a good example of how we know why. In the 1940's a large portion of Norways population (around 12%) was dieing of cardio vascular disease (clogged heart arteries). They ate a diet of mainly fruits and veg which also included a modest amount of meat, eggs and dairy. Good ol' fashioned, grass fed, small holding, family raised meat, industry style farming hadn't even been brain stormed yet.

When nazi Germany invaded Norway in 1945 they took all of the cattle to feed their troops. The state then fed the populace what was essentially a plant based diet with some bread. Astonishingly, as soon as they did, cardio vascular deaths all but stopped. When Germany left Norway in 1950, the deaths rose again.

Here is a link that tries to discredit the image and movie you posted below. There were also various other dietary changes (such as food coming in through foreign aid).

Quote:

Lets not chew our words here, thats flat out conclusive evidence that eating "good" meat still ******** with your health.


Heres the graph: http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/norway_wwii.jpg

and heres the source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1567233/

So, one graph and one documentary is enough to make you not look into other sources that more accurately depict the diet of these people?

Quote:

Its also interesting that we produce our own cholesterol, and its this extra ingestion of meats, eggs and dairy that gives us too much, and clogs our arteries. There is no omnivore on earth that produces its own cholesterol, they get it in their diet. Whereas every single herbivore on the planet produces its own cholesterol, because they don't get it in their diet.

You don't just get clogged arteries from ingesting cholesterol. It doesn't negatively impact your health unless your health has already been compromised. System inflammation screws with how your body reacts to things.

Quote:

So once you understand that cholesterol is harmful to us, because we already produce our own, proven through studies like the Norway one. You have to ask yourself, surely if we were evolutionary designed to eat meat, we wouldn't die ingesting modest amounts.

There are too many confounding figures to just up and state that it is harmful for us.



How does this compare to yours? Note that fish intake climbed dramatically during this time period, and fish (which is still meat) has cholesterol too, and still a fair bit of eggs. A far cry from your "plant based diet with some bread." There are too many confounding figures, which is not proof, despite your claim. Of course, you could find something to disprove that, and I could find something to disprove your rebuttal all the same.

And this is why I said that it's better off not turning into a debate. For every source, there's another to counter it, with just as much reason and statistics all it's own. We're far better off letting everyone decide for themselves, and hope they figure it out along the way. Everyone has evidence to support their own claims.

For example, I could argue that the introduction of hydrogenated oils into the diet in the early 1900's (Crisco was around 1911, I think), caused widespread inflammation during it's use, due to free radicals in the body, causing things to behave improperly, causing cholesterol to become so strange in the first place, making LDL unstable, thus creating health concerns because they're not getting enough anti-oxidants in their diet to combat this free-radical damage.You could then find something out there to combat it, and I, in turn, can do the same. This whole thing will get us nowhere, fast.

We could, of course play the, "My sources are more valid than yours" game, but really... what constitutes validity? Just because you have a white lab coat, a stethoscope, or a PhD in your title, doesn't make them right.

People thrive on both, can't we just leave it at that? These people seem to be doing just fine too, after all. (Currently 128 people there, I think.) Funny thing about health, we won't know what's up until something bad happens.

No dude haha. What you've done here is taken a documentary created by a whole bunch of leading doctors and physicians, and then linked me some random dudes blog, and says it disproves it. You've speculated on other causes of cardio vascular disease, blaming the aid, or the consumption of fish, without giving any actual proof. I have given you indisputable fact here, its not debatable, fish consumption did not go up at this time, and you have no way to prove that it did, where as if you watched the documentary they give you reliable sources saying that fish consumption didn't go up. Your talking out of your a**.

Your little theory about free radicals makes no sense either, because if the oils were the cause you wouldnt see such a dramatic decline and incline following the nazi invasion. Let me tell you what constitutes validity; extensive scientific evaluation, deduction and conclusion. Fact and evidence.

And yeah you can find a link to combat my link, but not when its some randomers blog vs 5 or 6 expert doctors & physicians.

Ok lets leave it on "people can thrive on both". If people can thrive on both, then why are we sacrificing the environments health, animal welfare (understatement), the economy and third world peoples just for an unnecessary taste. People can thrive on a healthy balanced diet that includes cake, but if cake came at such a great cost like meat does, i doubt anyone would eat it.

[lVlIGHTY]

I eat red meat every once in a while. Only because it has natural creatine in it.

[Daniel.EM]

DEAD BY APRIL ARMY

I eat red meat every once in a while. Only because it has natural creatine in it.

Your body produces creatine. It also adapts to the amount it produces, depending on how much muscle mass needs to be built.

[Poe-Sensei]

Daniel.EM

No dude haha. What you've done here is taken a documentary created by a whole bunch of leading doctors and physicians, and then linked me some random dudes blog, and says it disproves it. You've speculated on other causes of cardio vascular disease, blaming the aid, or the consumption of fish, without giving any actual proof. I have given you indisputable fact here, its not debatable, fish consumption did not go up at this time, and you have no way to prove that it did, where as if you watched the documentary they give you reliable sources saying that fish consumption didn't go up. Your talking out of your a**.

Your little theory about free radicals makes no sense either, because if the oils were the cause you wouldnt see such a dramatic decline and incline following the nazi invasion. Let me tell you what constitutes validity; extensive scientific evaluation, deduction and conclusion. Fact and evidence.

And yeah you can find a link to combat my link, but not when its some randomers blog vs 5 or 6 expert doctors & physicians.

Your earlier link stated the following.

Quote:

Many studies have shown the connection between cholesterol and heart problems. Beginning in 1948, under the direction of William Castelli, M.D., the population of Framingham, Massachusetts, has been monitored to see what influences the rate of heart disease.21 Castelli’s study has shown that there is a cholesterol level below which, essentially, coronary artery disease does not occur. Framingham data show that only patients with cholesterol levels of less than 150 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl) achieve the lowest coronary artery disease risk. In the first 50 years of the Framingham study, only five subjects with cholesterol levels of less than 150 mg/dl developed coronary artery disease. Rural residents in the developing areas of Asia, Africa, and Latin America typically have total-cholesterol levels of about 125-140, and they do not develop coronary artery disease.2

However, there is also this to think over.

Quote:

“In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people’s serum cholesterol. We found that people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories weighed the least and were the most physically active.” – From Archives of Internal Medicine, 1992. Dr. William Castelli, Director of the Framingham Study. "Concerning the possibility of a nut."

PubMed

"The dietary intake of saturated fatty acids (SAFA) is associated with a modest increase in serum total cholesterol, but not with cardiovascular disease (CVD)." - Link

Journal of the American Medical Association

Conclusions. —Our findings do not support the hypothesis that hypercholesterolemia or low HDL-C are important risk factors for all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease mortality, or hospitalization for myocardial infarction or unstable angina in this cohort of persons older than 70 years. - Link

From the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.

A large number of scientific studies contradict the hypothesis that dietary fat and high cholesterol play a major role in the causation of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease. Readers may probably object that I have preferably picked contradictory studies out of a huge number of supportive ones. However, a thorough examination of the literature in this area [1] has convinced me that most studies are either useless for determining causality, or they are contradictory. But even if many studies were supportive, a valid hypothesis should withstand all attempts of falsification.One single study that falsifies it and which is based on verifiable observations should suffice for its rejection.
There are many, more or less probable, alternative hypotheses about the causation of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease, but the maintenance of the diet–heart hypothesis by prestigious and powerful scientists and organizations retard their exploration by turning away intellectual and financial resources. Worse is the fact, that any new discovery is twisted and bent to tally with the current concept, not to mention the negative effects on public health, food production, and the health and general well-being of millions of people. It would be a great contribution to science and mankind if influential institutions could break the vicious cycle by supporting researchers who create hypotheses that fit their data, instead of researchers who interpret their data to fit a predetermined hypothesis. - Link.

The image from my last post was from another source, not her. It's not like she just pulled it out of thin air. And they have sources too.

Quote:

Ok lets leave it on "people can thrive on both".

Okay.

Quote:

If people can thrive on both, then why are we sacrificing the environments health,

It's pretty consensual that we're not raising our animals properly, right? Or the crops, for that matter. The current system is flawed, doesn't mean that it cannot be changed to a more proper paradigm with fewer problems.

Quote:

animal welfare (understatement),

I want them to be raised better, but I'm still going to eat them. I'm not alone in this. It's not like knowing that they can move, and enjoy life, prevented people from eating meat throughout history. We took the bow, and we drew the string. The meat industry isn't going anywhere.

The moral issue for this is a completely personal one. If you don't want too, fine, but it's not like most of us have a problem with it, either.

Quote:

the economy

Properly raised animals are pretty much a no-cost venture. Their food naturally grows on the ground, so you don't have to continually pay or harvest food for them, let alone having to plant anything, they aren't given hormones and antibiotics to combat mismanagement, and most of them are sold locally.

Quote:

and third world peoples

"This is one example. Take into account labour standards, nutritional costs and the health risks associated, the faeces disposal and how that ******** with peoples health, disease and virus incubation thats killed billions, and third world countrys and their peoples etc"
^ I assume you mean in this way? Again, I say mismanagement.

Quote:

just for an unnecessary taste.

Because we want too? It's kinda why people still do it.

Quote:

People can thrive on a healthy balanced diet that includes cake, but if cake came at such a great cost like meat does, i doubt anyone would eat it.

People are going to continue to eat meat, despite it's current impact. Everyone I know, is going to continue eating meat, myself included.


You most likely don't agree with everything I said above. Fine. I'm cool with that. We can nitpick all we want. We're not going to get anywhere.

[Daniel.EM]

Sabyshii

Daniel.EM

No dude haha. What you've done here is taken a documentary created by a whole bunch of leading doctors and physicians, and then linked me some random dudes blog, and says it disproves it. You've speculated on other causes of cardio vascular disease, blaming the aid, or the consumption of fish, without giving any actual proof. I have given you indisputable fact here, its not debatable, fish consumption did not go up at this time, and you have no way to prove that it did, where as if you watched the documentary they give you reliable sources saying that fish consumption didn't go up. Your talking out of your a**.

Your little theory about free radicals makes no sense either, because if the oils were the cause you wouldnt see such a dramatic decline and incline following the nazi invasion. Let me tell you what constitutes validity; extensive scientific evaluation, deduction and conclusion. Fact and evidence.

And yeah you can find a link to combat my link, but not when its some randomers blog vs 5 or 6 expert doctors & physicians.

Your earlier link stated the following.

Quote:

Many studies have shown the connection between cholesterol and heart problems. Beginning in 1948, under the direction of William Castelli, M.D., the population of Framingham, Massachusetts, has been monitored to see what influences the rate of heart disease.21 Castelli’s study has shown that there is a cholesterol level below which, essentially, coronary artery disease does not occur. Framingham data show that only patients with cholesterol levels of less than 150 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl) achieve the lowest coronary artery disease risk. In the first 50 years of the Framingham study, only five subjects with cholesterol levels of less than 150 mg/dl developed coronary artery disease. Rural residents in the developing areas of Asia, Africa, and Latin America typically have total-cholesterol levels of about 125-140, and they do not develop coronary artery disease.2

However, there is also this to think over.

Quote:

“In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people’s serum cholesterol. We found that people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories weighed the least and were the most physically active.” – From Archives of Internal Medicine, 1992. Dr. William Castelli, Director of the Framingham Study. "Concerning the possibility of a nut."

PubMed

"The dietary intake of saturated fatty acids (SAFA) is associated with a modest increase in serum total cholesterol, but not with cardiovascular disease (CVD)." - Link

Journal of the American Medical Association

Conclusions. —Our findings do not support the hypothesis that hypercholesterolemia or low HDL-C are important risk factors for all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease mortality, or hospitalization for myocardial infarction or unstable angina in this cohort of persons older than 70 years. - Link

From the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.

A large number of scientific studies contradict the hypothesis that dietary fat and high cholesterol play a major role in the causation of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease. Readers may probably object that I have preferably picked contradictory studies out of a huge number of supportive ones. However, a thorough examination of the literature in this area [1] has convinced me that most studies are either useless for determining causality, or they are contradictory. But even if many studies were supportive, a valid hypothesis should withstand all attempts of falsification.One single study that falsifies it and which is based on verifiable observations should suffice for its rejection.
There are many, more or less probable, alternative hypotheses about the causation of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease, but the maintenance of the diet–heart hypothesis by prestigious and powerful scientists and organizations retard their exploration by turning away intellectual and financial resources. Worse is the fact, that any new discovery is twisted and bent to tally with the current concept, not to mention the negative effects on public health, food production, and the health and general well-being of millions of people. It would be a great contribution to science and mankind if influential institutions could break the vicious cycle by supporting researchers who create hypotheses that fit their data, instead of researchers who interpret their data to fit a predetermined hypothesis. - Link.

The image from my last post was from another source, not her. It's not like she just pulled it out of thin air. And they have sources too.

Quote:

Ok lets leave it on "people can thrive on both".

Okay.

Quote:

If people can thrive on both, then why are we sacrificing the environments health,

It's pretty consensual that we're not raising our animals properly, right? Or the crops, for that matter. The current system is flawed, doesn't mean that it cannot be changed to a more proper paradigm with fewer problems.

Quote:

animal welfare (understatement),

I want them to be raised better, but I'm still going to eat them. I'm not alone in this. It's not like knowing that they can move, and enjoy life, prevented people from eating meat throughout history. We took the bow, and we drew the string. The meat industry isn't going anywhere.

The moral issue for this is a completely personal one. If you don't want too, fine, but it's not like most of us have a problem with it, either.

Quote:

the economy

Properly raised animals are pretty much a no-cost venture. Their food naturally grows on the ground, so you don't have to continually pay or harvest food for them, let alone having to plant anything, they aren't given hormones and antibiotics to combat mismanagement, and most of them are sold locally.

Quote:

and third world peoples

"This is one example. Take into account labour standards, nutritional costs and the health risks associated, the faeces disposal and how that ******** with peoples health, disease and virus incubation thats killed billions, and third world countrys and their peoples etc"
^ I assume you mean in this way? Again, I say mismanagement.

Quote:

just for an unnecessary taste.

Because we want too? It's kinda why people still do it.

Quote:

People can thrive on a healthy balanced diet that includes cake, but if cake came at such a great cost like meat does, i doubt anyone would eat it.

People are going to continue to eat meat, despite it's current impact. Everyone I know, is going to continue eating meat, myself included.


You most likely don't agree with everything I said above. Fine. I'm cool with that. We can nitpick all we want. We're not going to get anywhere.

Never have I heard such half assed drivel. It feels like im banging my head against a brick wall, you misread everything I put so you can reply to it. You've provided no expert opinion, no evidence, no PROOF. Lets ignore the link wars, because that can go on forever. But the rest of that bollocks about the reasons you still eat meat, jesus wept.

You've just admitted to me that the problem is the way we currently treat our animals. So you've just acknowledged theres a problem, and then admitted to not do ANYTHING about it. I know eating animals ******** up everything, but ill carry on doing it because it tastes yummy.

******** you. You make victims (animal, human, environmental) for no reason, and you know it, and admit it, but do it anyway, its incredible. A rapist knows hes creating a victim, but he does it because it feels good. Your doing the same thing..your not a rapist, but its morally incomprehensible regardless.

You tell me you wont change, the people around you wont change. And?

Racism used to be the norm, less than two generations ago women couldn't vote. Forget about other people, have some independent thought and self moral worth ffs.

Its worse because your not ignorant, your smart enough to know theres alot wrong with eating animals, but not empathetic enough to stop.

It doesn't matter that its the "way" we're raising them thats the problem (its not but lets go with that), because thats 99.7% of meat in America. All the meat, eggs and diary you eat is ******** up, and you've admitted as such.

You eat meat knowing fore-well its an awful industry, knowing forewell you can thrive without it, for no reason. You've admitted this. And its ******** disgusting.

[Brie Basix]

Yooms

Is it a bad choice to not eat any red meats and poultry? My doctor told me that it's not healthy for me to not eat any red meats and poultry.. do you think he's just saying that so I'll start eating it? Honestly, I'm much happier not eating any sort of red meat and poultry. I'm not vegan or vegetarian because I do eat ham and seafood.

I just want everyone's (preferably people who don't eat meat) opinion on this topic.

Thanks. biggrin

well, to be honest, there are so many different opinions..i can give you some facts

red meat is a HUGE source of iron, and women tend to be more prone to anemia than men (which is lack of iron in the blood)
poultry is "low fat" though now they're finding that the fat in meat, no matter what it is, all plays important roles in your body and you should eat all of it, poultry (chicken, duck, goose, turkey) is all considered healthier than beef, for now. but, unless it was raised grass fed and antibiotic free it has antibiotics in it, and may have a strange taste from whatever they're feeding it in CAFO's

Beef also gets antibiotics, giving antibiotics to animals in CAFO's (confined animal feeding operations) makes us ingest those antibiotics, which builds up an antibiotic resistance in us. Strep throat may soon be a fatal disease because of this resistance we are building, and because they are giving cows in CAFO's corn to eat, they're developing an acidic stomach, when if they were fed grasses they were supposed to eat, they wouldn't have the same acidity levels. These acid stomachs let a new strain of E. Coli grow, which if it gets into the meat it will kill young children and the elderly. it causes some kind of hemorrhaging diarrhea, you'd have to look into that yourself, im not sure of the specifics. (watch Food Inc, great movie)

As far as your doctor, he is probably concerned with you getting enough protein in your diet. There are other sources of protein besides animal meats. if you were to consume more dairy and animal byproducts (which my prove to be better for your health than meat itself) you can keep your protein levels up, and also add additional calcium and beneficial bacteria to your body. You can also get protein through certain plants and beans as well, soy is a huge one for this, but you will have to look those up on your own also.

Remember, you cant get rid of one thing in your diet and not expect strange results, you have to replace it with something else. I have stopped eating red meat for four years now, but have upped my dairy consumption, and i am much healthier for it.

Take some time to research where your meat comes from, how its raised and treated, what its given and who produces it (Tyson etc) you'll gain more security in it. Good luck!