Originally posted by Moral Hazard
How about the fact that heart disease, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, MS, parkinsons, diabeties, and many other diseases common in "the west" either don't exist or are statistically insignificant in populations that consume less then 10% of their caloric intake from animal products? That would seem to suggest that eating meat is not really ideal for our bodies, no?
That's a reason not to eat meat, which I would promptly argue against. It isn't default. By default, we eat meat. The fact it's linked with certain diseases is not any proof against evolution.
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
How do they separate out effects of caloric restriction from effects of animal product restriction? Caloric restriction is proven to improve cardio stats and enhance longevity...
Actually, caloric intake is generally higher amongst people who consume less animal product. That said, in clinical tests they introduced aflatoxin to rats (initiating liver cancer); fed rats diets of equal caloric values, one with 23% animal protein (Casein specifically) and one with 5% animal protein... within 1 year all the high protein group had died of cancer, all the low were free of cancer (this was actually a replication of an earlier study).
___________________
quote:
Originally posted by RickyM
you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down
Nov-18-2009 20:23
MrJiveBoJingles
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: U.S.
Actually, livestock eat a huge portion of the plants we grow, so if the whole planet became vegan there might actually be fewer plants consumed, once the livestock died out. In prehistoric times eating meat was the most efficient strategy (in some climates, at least), but with modern farming techniques the cheapest way to go is almost certainly a high-plant diet.
Nov-18-2009 20:25
Lews
Platipus And Prog Addict
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: Hugging Whales And Saving Trees
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
That's a reason not to eat meat, which I would promptly argue against. It isn't default. By default, we eat meat. The fact it's linked with certain diseases is not any proof against evolution.
Actually by default we don't. It's not natural to eat meat or drink milk.
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Actually, caloric intake is generally higher amongst people who consume less animal product.
LOL, whaaat? Yeah, that is why the Chinese are so fat.
quote:
That said, in clinical tests they introduced aflatoxin to rats (initiating liver cancer); fed rats diets of equal caloric values, one with 23% animal protein (Casein specifically) and one with 5% animal protein... within 1 year all the high protein group had died of cancer, all the low were free of cancer (this was actually a replication of an earlier study).
What, so not eating protein *cures cancer?*
This sounds like bullshit.
Nov-18-2009 20:27
SYSTEM-J
IDKFA.
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: Manchester
quote:
Originally posted by Lews
Actually by default we don't. It's not natural to eat meat or drink milk.
Yeah, because it's not like the apes we evolved from eat meat. And it's not like we have teeth specifically designed to chew meat. Or eyes set in the front of our head so we can catch prey. Or any other clear evidence the species has been eating meat for millions of years before scientific studies or moral objections were invented.
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
LOL, whaaat? Yeah, that is why the Chinese are so fat.
It's true, primarally because grain is really high in caloric value. Interestingly, those who consume higher levels of complex carbs also burn more calories then the average person through activity and metobolic activity. Of course when I say caloric intake is generally higher that excludes the gluttons who eat way too much food to begin with.
quote:
What, so not eating protein *cures cancer?*
This sounds like bullshit.
Not at all. What they found was that a specific form of liver cancer's growth was inhibited by consuming less then 10% animal protein. I'd try to explain the actual process but I'd probably fuck it up so I'll bow out at this point. I thought it was bullshit too before I looked into it deeper. If you're interested you should read the study.
___________________
quote:
Originally posted by RickyM
you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down
Nov-18-2009 20:33
MrJiveBoJingles
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: U.S.
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Of course when I say caloric intake is generally higher that excludes the gluttons who eat way too much food to begin with.
