|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:14 pm
Famicommie Famicommie Quote: It has long been assumed that B12 is produced by bacteria in the large intestine (aka the colon), but since B12 is produced below the ileum (where B12 is absorbed), it is not available for absorption. This theory is reinforced by the fact that many species of totally or primarily vegetarian animals eat their feces. It is surmised that eating feces allows them to obtain B12 on their diets of plant foods. http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/int Seriously, start learning some health facts on veg*nism Soymilk. Your misinformed opinions are going to seriously jeopardize somebody's health one day. From westonaprice.org: Quote: Some vegetarian authorities claim that B12 is produced by certain fermenting bacteria in the lower intestines. This may be true, but it is in a form unusable by the body. B12 requires intrinsic factor from the stomach for proper absorption in the ileum. Since the bacterial product does not have intrinsic factor bound to it, it cannot be absorbed (15). Quote: Additionally, claims are made in vegan and vegetarian literature that B12 is present in certain algae, tempeh (a fermented soy product) and Brewer's yeast. All of them are false as vitamin B12 is only found in animal foods. Brewer's and nutritional yeasts do not contain B12 naturally; they are always fortified from an outside source. Quote: The only reliable and absorbable sources of vitamin B12 are animal products http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html#2 Nothing really to add, this site basically said the same thing. smile
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:35 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:31 pm
Soymilk_Gun like raw vegans who dont eat anything fortified with B12 and some how do fine Like how raw food vegans almost invariably give up the lifestyle and return back to regular ol' vegetarianism? Of course, they might not suffer in the short term, because the human body is capable of storing several years worth of vitamin B12. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/patient-vitaminb12.html You're like a Xevec who doesn't even bother to source.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:46 pm
wow...all you said was true!! some of them i relaised before, but wow you really have got this sorted havnt you hehe well done! thats fab! biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:15 am
dinosaurs that were herbavours had teeth like ours... well.. at least able to shred stuff like us..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:16 pm
Holy_hand_granade dinosaurs that were herbavours had teeth like ours... well.. at least able to shred stuff like us.. While that's fine and good, it still fails to address tens of thousands of years of evidence that humans have eaten meat throughout their evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:08 pm
Don't the health statistics speak for themselves? Am I wrong? I mean come on... you can argue this 'well a feral human in the wild can survive on a scavenger diet' crud till you rot, it doesn't mean anything. I think it's pretty common knowledge that vegetarians and vegans live longer healthier lives in general compared to people that consume meat as a staple in their diet. What more are you looking for? Instead you guys choose to argue amongst yourselves for no apparent reason. -so lost- whee The topic isn't 'can we eat meat' it's 'are we meant to'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 4:46 am
Who said we were meant to live for that long? The fact that we can live to be 100 doesn't mean we're meant to.
Again, how do you argue that humans are MEANT to do something? Wouldn't that mean that everything is predetermined, or that something is controlling the way we exist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:28 am
Ciel Avec Cafeine Who said we were meant to live for that long? The fact that we can live to be 100 doesn't mean we're meant to. Again, how do you argue that humans are MEANT to do something? Wouldn't that mean that everything is predetermined, or that something is controlling the way we exist?
Well in that case you can go eat legos and say it's natural to do that too. And when you keel over we can say you werent meant to live any longer?
I was pointing out that since the human body obviously functions better on a veg diet that should be a bit of a hint that it's what we're designed to run on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:23 pm
You seem to be missing my point.
My issue is that you people keep saying we were MEANT to do this, and are SUPPOSED to do that. According to who? Is there some sort of master plan somewhere...?
If we're designed to run on plants, who did the designing? What kind of argument is it??
And if my body is supposed to run so well on veggies, how come it's hard for me to get the proper nutrients without buying special products?
I couldn't go vegan and be healthy. Vegetarian is difficult enough.
Do you really think it's plausible to suggest that everyone would be better off as vegetarians?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:59 pm
SoyBoy Joshua
Don't the health statistics speak for themselves? Am I wrong? I mean come on... you can argue this 'well a feral human in the wild can survive on a scavenger diet' crud till you rot, it doesn't mean anything. I think it's pretty common knowledge that vegetarians and vegans live longer healthier lives in general compared to people that consume meat as a staple in their diet. What more are you looking for? Instead you guys choose to argue amongst yourselves for no apparent reason. -so lost- whee The topic isn't 'can we eat meat' it's 'are we meant to'.I have yet to see anyone else post stats or journals on this subject. But I will post this lovely randomness: Quote: Am J Cardiol. 2006 Feb 1;97(3):380-3. Effects of long-term vegetarian diets on cardiovascular autonomic functions in healthy postmenopausal women. . Department of Neurology, Buddhist Dalin Tzu Chi General Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan. The incidence of cardiovascular disease is higher in postmenopausal women than in premenopausal women. We hypothesized that long-term vegetarian diets might modulate cardiovascular autonomic functions measured by frequency-domain techniques in healthy postmenopausal women. A total of 35 healthy vegetarians (mean age +/- SEM 55.0 +/- 1.3 years) who had been vegetarians for > or =2 years and 35 omnivores (55.1 +/- 1.4 years) participated in this study. These subjects were all postmenopausal without hormone replacement therapy. Fluctuations in arterial blood pressure and heart rate variability were diffracted into low-frequency (0.04 to 0.15 Hz) and high-frequency (0.15 to 0.4 Hz) segments. Cardiovascular autonomic functions and baroreflex sensitivity were evaluated by specific frequency-domain measures. The vegetarians had statistically lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and lower serum total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting blood sugar, and hemoglobin levels compared with the nonvegetarians. They also exhibited a significantly higher high-frequency power of heart rate variability and increased baroreflex sensitivity than did omnivores. No statistical differences were found in the low-frequency/high-frequency ratio or percentage of low frequency of heart rate variability between the 2 groups. In conclusion, in addition to the lower blood pressure and lipid concentrations in vegetarians, long-term vegetarian diets may facilitate vagal regulation of the heart and increase baroreflex sensitivity in healthy postmenopausal women, without increasing the sympathetic modulations of the cardiovascular system. PMID: 16442400 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16442400&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum Proc Nutr Soc. 2006 Feb;65(1):35-41. Related Articles, Links Health effects of vegetarian and vegan diets. . Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building. tim.key@ceu.ox.ac.uk Vegetarian diets do not contain meat, poultry or fish; vegan diets further exclude dairy products and eggs. Vegetarian and vegan diets can vary widely, but the empirical evidence largely relates to the nutritional content and health effects of the average diet of well-educated vegetarians living in Western countries, together with some information on vegetarians in non-Western countries. In general, vegetarian diets provide relatively large amounts of cereals, pulses, nuts, fruits and vegetables. In terms of nutrients, vegetarian diets are usually rich in carbohydrates, n-6 fatty acids, dietary fibre, carotenoids, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E and Mg, and relatively low in protein, saturated fat, long-chain n-3 fatty acids, retinol, vitamin B(12) and Zn; vegans may have particularly low intakes of vitamin B(12) and low intakes of Ca. Cross-sectional studies of vegetarians and vegans have shown that on average they have a relatively low BMI and a low plasma cholesterol concentration; recent studies have also shown higher plasma homocysteine concentrations than in non-vegetarians. Cohort studies of vegetarians have shown a moderate reduction in mortality from IHD but little difference in other major causes of death or all-cause mortality in comparison with health-conscious non-vegetarians from the same population. Studies of cancer have not shown clear differences in cancer rates between vegetarians and non-vegetarians. More data are needed, particularly on the health of vegans and on the possible impacts on health of low intakes of long-chain n-3 fatty acids and vitamin B(12). Overall, the data suggest that the health of Western vegetarians is good and similar to that of comparable non-vegetarians.]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16441942&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsumI have not found any statistics and I don't feel or care like looking. This topic is dead to me now... And on a side note I agree with what Ciel Avec Cafeine said 3nodding + I don't see too much of a point in being a**l about maintaining absolute health since we are bound to die anyway. Edit* Hey, there is a fly on my screen! dramallama
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:41 am
SoyBoy Joshua Don't the health statistics speak for themselves? Yes, and they say that we would have to eat meat if we lived in a pre-industrial society (or possibly post-industrial), which is indicative of the fact that outside of a socially constructed upbringing the human being is "meant" to naturally eat meat. Quote: Am I wrong? I mean come on... you can argue this 'well a feral human in the wild can survive on a scavenger diet' crud till you rot, it doesn't mean anything. Yes, it does. The topic here is whether or not humans are natural meat eaters, which all evidence suggests that we are. We arrive at such conclusions by using deductive logic. The topic is not about which diet choice is healthier. Quote: I think it's pretty common knowledge that vegetarians and vegans live longer healthier lives in general compared to people that consume meat as a staple in their diet. Ergo Hoc. Vegetarians are typically more health-inclined than meat eaters, and participate in more cardiovascular and anaerobic exercise. The evidence that vegetarians are healthier probably has a lot to do with things outside of their vegetarianism. How often do you see vegetarians sit down and eat a whole tub of ice cream? Vegetarians can eat ice cream, but because we're more aware of our diets, we tend to limit the intake. Quote: What more are you looking for? Real honest-to-goodness evidence. A small demand. Quote: Instead you guys choose to argue amongst yourselves for no apparent reason. Thank you for illuminating us all. Quote: -so lost- whee The topic isn't 'can we eat meat' it's 'are we meant to'. And the question has been answered, with the "no" side having been rendered pretty indefensible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:15 am
Ciel Avec Cafeine You seem to be missing my point. My issue is that you people keep saying we were MEANT to do this, and are SUPPOSED to do that. According to who? Is there some sort of master plan somewhere...? If we're designed to run on plants, who did the designing? What kind of argument is it?? And if my body is supposed to run so well on veggies, how come it's hard for me to get the proper nutrients without buying special products? I couldn't go vegan and be healthy. Vegetarian is difficult enough. Do you really think it's plausible to suggest that everyone would be better off as vegetarians?
You know what I'm saying and choose to mess with my wording rather then put up a decent argument. We are what we are, you can make your own choice about how you believe we got here. I really don't give a damn. I was referring to the simple fact that the human body can't handle mass amounts of flesh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:21 am
Famicommie Yes, it does. The topic here is whether or not humans are natural meat eaters, which all evidence suggests that we are. We arrive at such conclusions by using deductive logic. The topic is not about which diet choice is healthier.
If you truly believe you can survive in the wild with raw meat as a staple of your diet by all means test your theory and prove me wrong. I talk about comparing diets because the fact that vegs function better in general should tell you they're doing something right.Famicommie Ergo Hoc. Vegetarians are typically more health-inclined than meat eaters, and participate in more cardiovascular and anaerobic exercise. The evidence that vegetarians are healthier probably has a lot to do with things outside of their vegetarianism. How often do you see vegetarians sit down and eat a whole tub of ice cream? Vegetarians can eat ice cream, but because we're more aware of our diets, we tend to limit the intake
Lol... what the hell are you on about? I have to be some Olympic wanna-be because I'd rather eat a handful of broccoli then a 10lb chunk of dead cow? So you've given up arguing with human anatomy and comparing the diets themselves that you want to say that all veggies are health nuts? Cause last time I turned on the TV I didn't see vegetarian or vegan products being advertised to people, I see new low carb s**t, low fat meats, chicken fruit salads, etc etc... Crap for meaties that supposedly care about their fitness. People make the choice to go veg for any number of reasons, to clump us all up as health fanatics is just bs.Famicommie Thank you for illuminating us all.
No problem, anytime you feel like spouting garbage as if you've proven something that's obviously crap feel free to look me up.
At best humans in the wild would only resort to meat eating when other foods weren't readily available, just like our relatives. I never once said the human body can't consume meat, I said it's not a staple. You guys are acting like you could go out and peel a dead animal off the road and chow down without any effect on you whatsoever, and that's ridiculous. And you want me to concede and say 'oh well sure, of course you could live on that' and I'm not...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:29 pm
Your wording strongly implied that humans were intended to eat meat. "Intended" meaning that something/something intended us to eat meat.
Basing an argument on this unknown "something" is ridiculous, which is my problem with your wording. Get it yet?
"Can't handle" massive amounts of flesh? No, of course not! NO ONE is saying that!
A "balanced non-vegetarian" diet does NOT mean "eating massive amounts of meat". You do not have to be vegetarian to be healthy. Yes, if you can manage a balanced vegetarian diet, it's great for your health. No one is denying that. But meat in moderation is not an automatic death sentence.
If you want to deny the fact that non-vegetarians have lived to be over 100, or that there are plenty of non-vegetarians that are healthy, well, that's your problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
