COMMENTS: 133
The Danger of Meat-Heavy Diets
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Personal Health headlines via email.
Best-selling health writer and nutrition guru Dr. Dean Ornish wrote a good explanation for Newsweek on why the reporting on this study was really quite misleading; he does his usual excellent job of explaining what's so, as he did in the foreword to his brilliant best-seller, Eat More, Weigh Less.
I am reminded of the fact that it's been three years since Atkins Nutritionals filed for bankruptcy. And if your local grocery market is like mine, those once-omnipresent packaged foods with the "no-carb" labels are now harder and harder to find -- with good reason, it seems to me.
While the South Beach Diet books and foods haven't gone away, probably because it gets some things right (i.e., it recommends less meat and cutting out simple carbohydrates -- both excellent pieces of advice), its popularity should wane as the scientific consensus grows that if you want to maintain a healthy weight and fight off disease, the best diet is a truly low-fat diet (more like 10 to 15 percent of calories from fat) based almost exclusively on whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables. The South Beach diet is certainly a big improvement on the standard American diet (rightly called SAD), but it's a half-measure, as Ornish and others are teaching us. Indeed, if food industry statistics, celebrity interest and the success of books like Skinny Bitch and (OK, here's a little self-promotion!) my own Quantum Wellness: A Practical and Spiritual Guide to Health and Happiness are any indication, there's a growing shift toward healthy, plant-based diets, especially among people looking to lose weight and keep it off.
All of this is music to the ears of independent, qualified nutrition experts, who object to the "low-carb" diets. I'm not going to overload you with a tome of scientific evidence about why low-carb diets are bad for us. If you are looking for more in-depth information on the topic, I highly recommend checking out http://www.atkinsdietalert.org. Run by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, the Web site documents the health consequences of diets high in animal flesh, eggs and dairy, and lists the long history of grave concerns raised by medical experts, including an American Dietetic Association spokesperson calling Atkins "a nightmare diet." The experts' concerns are really basic common sense if you ask me, but sometimes common sense gets swept away by a combination of wishful thinking and impressive marketing. Basically, every reputable health agency knows that a mountain of evidence indicates that the saturated fat and cholesterol in animal flesh, eggs and milk clogs your arteries and increases your risk of heart disease, among an array of other problems.
Heart disease is of course just one meat-related health problem; eating animals also raises one's risk of cancer. For example, a massive Harvard study in 2006 found that people who frequently eat skinless chicken (often touted as the "healthy" way to cook chicken) had a whopping 52 percent higher rate of bladder cancer. The evidence that animal protein is carcinogenic is strong, and people who eat lots of it are raising their risk. Diabetes and high blood pressure are also linked to meat-heavy diets, and vegetarian diets are far outpacing those that include meat on an array of health-related issues, as I've discussed previously.
Yet another reason low-carb diets are going through tough times is that people are realizing that these diets do not work over the long run. As with any unhealthy, severely limiting diets, you'll lose weight over the short term (if you eat just grapefruit, you'll also lose weight). But eventually the body objects to any unsound quick fix and the weight creeps back, as Dr. Ornish explains so eloquently.
So what is someone who wants to lose weight supposed to do? The answer is fairly simple: Switch to a diet made up of a diverse selection of foods: vegetables, whole grains (we should skip the refined carbs -- South Beach gets that right), beans, chickpeas, nuts, fruit, lentils, etc. A wide array of evidence shows that vegans are less likely to be overweight or obese than meat-eaters are -- because it's not a diet, it's a lifestyle transition. Because these foods are less calorie-dense and lower in fat than animal products, and because all plant foods contain zero cholesterol, eating that way allows us to shed weight in a sustainable way.
And a well-rounded vegan diet will provide us with a healthy mixture of complex carbs, protein and healthy fats, as well as vitamins, minerals and fiber. Because most nutrition advice is aimed at meat-eaters, it's worth reading up a bit on how to maximize the health advantages of a vegan diet; I like the Optimal Vegan Nutrition Web page. And of course we shouldn't think that our healthy new diet means giving up tasty food -- Web sites and cookbooks with thousands of delicious vegan recipes abound. Eating should be a celebration -- and we should do it joyfully, like the French and others in the Mediterranean do.
A shorter version of this article appeared in the HuffingtonPost.com.
Stay up to date with the latest Personal Health headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TwinsFanatic on Jul 29, 2008 12:33 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a pretty good link on the issue, which includes a link to the Mills essay.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Other experts offer the evidence that shows how adapted we are to eating meat
Posted by: bernadette
» RE: CORN SYRUP //sugar //EXCESSIVE CARB CONSUMPTION
Posted by: republicanwriter
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TwinsFanatic on Jul 29, 2008 3:03 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Never-Ending Diet Wars
by Dr. Dean Ornish
A new study reports that the Atkins diet can be just as healthy as a low-fat diet. But don't start buying bacon yet. This research has some serious flaws.
A new study comparing the Atkins diet, a Mediterranean diet and a low-fat diet published on July 17 inThe New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), is likely to inspire headlines saying that the Atkins diet is better for your waistline and your health than a low-fat diet.
However, as a lead investigator on numerous peer-reviewed studies of low-fat diets, and the author of several books about the benefits of healthy low-fat lifestyles, I believe this study is extremely flawed. Here's why:
The NEJM study, which was funded in part by the Atkins Foundation, reported that participants who ate a low-carb (Atkins) or Mediterranean diet (restricted calorie, moderate fat intake) for two years lost more weight, and saw more of an improvement in their glucose and cholesterol levels, than those who were on a low-fat, restricted calorie diet. However, participants in the study who were on the "low-fat" diet decreased their total fat intake from 31.4 percent to 30.0 percent, hardly at all.
I'm also very skeptical of the quality of data in this study. For example, the investigators reported that those on the "low-fat" diet consumed 200 fewer calories per day—or 10,000 fewer calories per year—than those on the Mediterranean diet, yet people lost more weight on the Mediterranean diet. That's physiologically impossible.
In addition, in the "Atkins diet" that was tested, "the participants were counseled to choose vegetarian sources of fat and protein and to avoid trans fat." A vegetarian Atkins diet? Most people associate an Atkins diet with bacon, butter and brie, not a plant-based diet like the one I recommend.
Then there's the question of what constitutes a "low-fat" diet. The one used in the NEJM study was not very low in fat. It was based on the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines, which I have long criticized as not being enough of a change in diet to show much benefit. In earlier studies, as in this one, the AHA diet did not cause much of a reduction in either blood cholesterol levels, weight or blood sugar, so it's not surprising that the new NEJM study reported that the Atkins and Mediterranean diets were more successful at reducing these levels. In the Womens Health Initiative study, the AHA diet didn't do much to prevent heart disease, colon cancer or breast cancer, either.
My colleagues and I at the nonprofit Preventive Medicine Research Institute and the University of California, San Francisco, have studied for more than three decades the effects of diets much lower in fat (10 percent) than the one used in NEJM study as well as lower in refined carbohydrates and higher in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes and soy products.
We reported in a randomized, controlled clinical trial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association a 24-pound weight loss after one year and 13-pound average weight loss after five years in a group of men and women, much more than the 9.7 to 10.3 pounds lost in the new NEJM study. These findings were replicated in larger demonstration projects as well.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Newsweek: The Never-Ending Diet Wars, by Dr. Dean Ornish, pt 1
Posted by: TwinsFanatic
» pt 3
Posted by: TwinsFanatic
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Martin32 on Jul 29, 2008 3:47 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You keep kidding yourself, I'll keep eating food that tastes nice! Seriously, I do understand that there are valid health and environmental reasons for eating less or no meat. I do my best to ensure that the meat (and fish) I buy is ethically sourced, sustainable and carrying a low-carbon footprint. I try to eat a much more rounded diet than I used to, including fruit, vegetables, grains etc etc. But, PLEASE, stop lying to me and telling me that the healthy option is also the tastiest one because, if that were true this debate would be over and the world (at least that portion of it rich enough to choose) would be vegan. The fact is that taste is subjective and that, to me, almost every meat tastes nicer than almost anything else. I'm sure that I speak for others as well. I'm not saying that I make every decision based purely on my own pleasure, but it does count for something. And, it's not a matter of familiarization either. I used to eat a Mars bar everyday. Six months ago, I replaced it with an apple, or other item of fruit. But, you know what? The Mars bar still tastes nicer than the fruit!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Krusty Geezer on Jul 29, 2008 3:56 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would also be very skeptical about figures such as the skinless chicken/bladder cancer ones touted in the article. Where was this study done? Were these organically or intensively farmed chickens? Were they the feathered hormone bombs you find anywhere in the Americas (North, South, Middle). Similarly, if any study was done using beef from America, one has to look at it from the point of view of is it the meat or the growth hormones the cow's been pumped with that are producing the worrying side effects? There is a reason why most American meat isn't allowed in the EU. There are so many more chemicals and hormones allowed in American farming industry, and the US is still living in denial regarding 'Mad Cow' disease.
Don't get me wrong, a predominantly meat based diet isn't healthy. For example there's a whole raft of digestive tract cancers linked to heavy consumption of red meats. But the picture has certain nuances that seem to be ignored in articles such as this one; and organic production contra 'normal' production is a big factor. Just take a look at fish. No-one denies that fish is good for you, but look at the fat in a lazy and overfed (and look at the feed!) farmed salmon compared to a line caught, wild one. And no, it isn't just more of 'the good' fats!
Nor are vegetables the answer if they're covered in the one chemical after the other.
Look at cigarettes, not healthy I know, but the general consensus is that the majority of the carcinogens contained therein, aren't in the tobacco itsself, but all the additives the tobacco companies put in to 'improve' the overall smoking experience. (Read: to make it burn quicker, and make the hit more intense and immediate, thereby increasing the chances of being hooked)
So yes, articles like the above are fine on a very superficial level, but they're not really addressing the problem. It's not necessarily what food we're eating; it's how it's produced, the amount we're eating, and what's surreptitiously coming into our bodies via our food.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jnelson4765 on Jul 29, 2008 4:10 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look, chimpanzees eat meat. Our closest relative in the natural world. Not a lot of it, but they do. Is the American diet unhealthy? Definitely. Is meat a health risk? In excess, yes. Should it be eaten with respect, and not that often? Yes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» That's right... keep it within reason
Posted by: zeofredo
» Moderation
Posted by: kepstein7777
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Martin32 on Jul 29, 2008 4:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Grass fed beef
Posted by: sarajeanne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ankhet on Jul 29, 2008 4:15 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, monkeys and apes do eat meat - whenever they can scavenge or cannibalize. Even purely vegetarian animals eat animal protein - cows do not clean the bugs off their grass before they eat it. Many herbivores enjoy the occasional meal of meat, if it's not too hard to fetch or if food-supply problems make it necessary.
Human beings have carnivore kidneys, and some anthropologists believe that it's thanks to the consumption of meat, a very concentrated source of nutrition, that the human race advanced so far. Hard to prove, of course, but the coarse veg diets of early humans would have taken a lot of time out of their day that they could have spent painting caves.
Yes, we're overdoing the meat consumption, but the quality of the meat (and other foods) we consume is also dropping, leaving us less satisfied and craving more. A win-win for agribiz.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Diets missing iron and B12 are also unhealthy, and you wouldn't know that based on certain articles
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Diets missing iron and B12 are also unhealthy, and you wouldn't know that based on certain arti
Posted by: richholland
» RE: Diets missing iron and B12 are also unhealthy, and you wouldn't know that based on certain arti
Posted by: ankhet
Comments are closed-
Posted by: argyle on Jul 29, 2008 5:06 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ECtek on Jul 29, 2008 5:17 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is only natural that vegetarianism will continue to increase since it not only is healthier, but it is a far more sustainable diet for the earth's capacity and of course it is more humane, especially when you consider the industrialized farming techniques (which place production and profit over humane treatment) that became the norm in recent decades.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: s.duplantier on Jul 29, 2008 5:23 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can be suspicious about that when you see a citing of Dean Ornish.
Read some unbiased information about fats, meat, and diet from the Weston A. Price Foundations's website
http://westonaprice.org/
Read especially the work of Dr. Mary Enig and Sally Fallon.
It is simply NOT the case that low fat is good and high fat is bad.
Did you know, for example, the following:
"The following nutrient-rich traditional fats have nourished healthy population groups for thousands of years:
* Butter
* Beef and lamb tallow
* Lard
* Chicken, goose and duck fat
* Coconut, palm and sesame oils
* Cold pressed olive oil
* Cold pressed flax oil
* Marine oils"
"The following new-fangled fats can cause cancer, heart disease, immune system dysfunction, sterility, learning disabilities, growth problems and osteoporosis:
* All hydrogenated oils
* Soy, corn and safflower oils
* Cottonseed oil
* Canola oil
* All fats heated to very high temperatures in processing and frying"
Do yourself a favor and get all the facts. Who would be surprised to find out that there is politics at the heart of what is presented as nutrition science and policy in the U.S.
Read the Oiling of America:
http://westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/oiling.html
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Plenty missing information here
Posted by: Idunno
» RE: Plenty missing information here
Posted by: medusa
» RE: Plenty missing information here
Posted by: astudent
» Grass fed beef
Posted by: sarajeanne
» RE: Grass fed beef
Posted by: s.duplantier
» RE: Grass fed beef
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: adocann1 on Jul 29, 2008 5:26 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Just another stab as veganism
Posted by: hoorah
» RE: Just another stab as veganism
Posted by: dlibby
» RE: Just another stab as veganism
Posted by: adocann1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: snowhound on Jul 29, 2008 5:39 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bad advice
Posted by: Fredly
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Beck on Jul 29, 2008 5:55 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is happening often enough that I'm starting to see that I've been duped. There are obviously plenty of people calling themselves vegetarians who do eat the pepperoni pizza and don't mind getting a hamburger at a concert. Calling yourself vegetarian is the thing to do.
Actually, my husband and I are vegetarians so far today. I was a vegetarian for, oh, about 99% of yesterday. I'll guess that I'll be a vegetarian for most of today, but not quite all. And that will make me as vegetarian as, I'm guessing, 2/3 of those calling themselves that. I suppose people mean to stick to it. And think that since so much of the time they are vegetarian, they get to not count the times they eat meat. So really, we all are!
Ich bin ein vegetarian. Until dinner. For that, we're having a steak from a grass-fed cow bought at the farmer's market, which we won't cook too much, having been warned about how lean it is. After that, though, I'll be one again.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Does having a single cigarette...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» No, having a cigarette regularly makes you a smoker.
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Does having a single cigarette...
Posted by: Crazy H
» I'll be honest. I used to eat meat a lot. Now I don't.
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: williameon on Jul 29, 2008 6:00 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hydrogenated Oil
Corn Syrup
Over refined white flour
These are Poison.
The cause of the Obesity, the Diabetes Epidemic, Hardening of the Arteries, Heart Attacks, Cancer and Colon disorders Americans are suffering from now.
Beef only in moderation.
It is loaded with hormones, fat and possibly M. Cow Disease.
ADD:
Cold Pressed Oils
FRESH Organic Fruits and Vegetables
Organic Grains,
Fresh Fish, Seafood,
Nuts,
and
Stone ground Flours.
Free range meats in moderation.
These are the building blocks of life.
This is what we have lived on for centuries.
Eliminate as much stress from your life as possible by shutting of the Faux Media.
Turn off the Indoctrination Set and turn on to Nature.
Everything springs from one source, Mother Nature.
Trust in her and her healing abilities.
Everything necessary for a healthy, happy, fulfilling and prosperous life is here now.
Take advantage of it!
Relax and enjoy it.
We all have ways to relax.
Find yours and cultivate it.
It is doorway into the present, beyond words and imagination.
Take a walk, play your favorite sport, play a game, read a relaxing book,
Meditate or Exercise.
Occupy your conscious mind with a steady stream of positive information till it naturally quiets itself and then get a glimpse of the real you that finally shines through.
Anytime we are having fun, it is a door way in to a very special World, where we enjoy and live in the moment.
I call it The Zone.
Peace, Brotherhood, Harmony, Cooperation, True Compassion and Patience.
These are the fruits of the spirit.
Eat of them often.
I’ll meet you on the other side in
The ZONE!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Mediterranean Diet, Moderation and Extra Virgin Olive Oil
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 29, 2008 6:47 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Lentils are healthy but not a complete protein
Posted by: Beck
» Are you sure?
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Are you sure? Yes, pretty sure
Posted by: Beck
» Ok, but some clarifications.
Posted by: maxpayne
» By the way, I never said by itself.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: By the way, I never said by itself. You do seem to imply that you mean that, though
Posted by: Beck
» Well, lentils replacing meat worked out very well.
Posted by: maxpayne
» Uh Max, read the second page. It's there.
Posted by: jwverez
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Jul 29, 2008 6:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Vasmurti makes a more compelling argument for veganism than Kathy Freston. I wonder how many columns she would get if she donated truckloads of money to Alternet...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I wonder why omnivores are expected to take the advice of vegans any more than vegans. ..
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rmforall on Jul 29, 2008 7:04 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.drmcdougall.com/stars/jason_wyrick.html
Jason Wyrick, Cured Type-2 Diabetes -- No Cost
formaldehyde, aspartame, and migraines, the first case series, Sharon E Jacob-Soo, Sarah A Stechschulte, UCSD, Dermatitis 2008 May: Rich Murray 2008.07.18
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.htm
Friday, July 18, 2008
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1553
Dermatitis. 2008 May-Jun; 19(3): E10-1.
Formaldehyde, aspartame, and migraines: a possible connection.
Jacob SE, Stechschulte S.
Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.
Aspartame is a widely used artificial sweetener that has been linked to pediatric and adolescent migraines.
Upon ingestion, aspartame is broken, converted, and oxidized into formaldehyde in various tissues.
We present the first case series of aspartame-associated migraines related to clinically relevant positive reactions to formaldehyde on
patch testing. PMID: 18627677
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: organic low-fat, low-protein vegan diet is best -- NOT
Posted by: Idunno
» RE: organic low-fat, low-protein vegan diet is best -- also avoid aspartame and additives
Posted by: medusa
» RE: organic low-fat, low-protein vegan diet is best -- also avoid aspartame and additives
Posted by: PirateJesus
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ecoalex on Jul 29, 2008 7:26 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» A Real Vegan
Posted by: Tricia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pfgetty on Jul 29, 2008 8:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even whole grain foods and potatoes with the skin on will exacerbate these prediabetic conditions. We are seeing the problems even in teenagers.
While it is clear that some people can handle huge amounts of grain problems without the diabetic complications, probably because of an ancestry that had a long history of grain eating, most of our bodies have not adapted to this "new" diet. Remember that grains and potatoes have only been eaten for about 10,000 years, too short of a time for most populations to have evolved systems to digest and properly utilize all of it. Diabetes is unheard of in hunter gatherer groups who do not eat grains and potatoes and sugar.
The end of metabolic disease..........amputations, heart failure, stroke, morbid obesity, blindness........is horrible. Avoiding too much grain and potato and sugar is the best way for many of us to stay clear of these tragic complications.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yes, especially for those of us with celiac disease
Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Yes, especially for those of us with celiac disease
Posted by: pfgetty
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on Jul 29, 2008 9:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A majority of people don't have the discipline to handle a well-rounded vegan diet. People get sick. That's what stops vegan ideas cold.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Vegan and meat look like two opposite ends of extremes.
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: solrev on Jul 29, 2008 9:51 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Too bad you ain't gonna get the meat like the good old times dude.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Too bad you ain't gonna get the meat like the good old times dude.
Posted by: pfgetty
» RE: Too bad you ain't gonna get the meat like the good old times dude.
Posted by: jwverez
» RE: Too bad you ain't gonna get the meat like the good old times dude.
Posted by: pfgetty
Comments are closed-
Posted by: EMB on Jul 29, 2008 9:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What is best for pregnancy?
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: What is best for pregnancy?
Posted by: dudelette
» RE: What is best for pregnancy? I am so sorry.
Posted by: Beck
» RE: What is best for pregnancy?
Posted by: dudelette
» RE: What is best for pregnancy?
Posted by: AMerrickanGirl
» Cut the grains and potatoes!
Posted by: SpiderWoman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jmooney on Jul 29, 2008 10:21 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We want to believe that eating animals is somehow illiberal, but eating them is just what we do. We might eventually evolve to where we can eat, without difficulty, veggie or starchy diets, but that's going to take a while. As for me, pass the bacon, please.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It takes more burning of fossil fuels to produce meat than it does veggies.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Bogus
Posted by: dlibby
» RE: Bogus
Posted by: dlibby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dudelette on Jul 29, 2008 10:22 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, thanks. I look ten years younger than I am, cholesterol is low, blood pressure low, great hair and skin, and I'm 50. I do find that buying organic, whether vegetables, fruit or meat, has made a huge difference in how I feel. I can't eat meat that isn't at least organic, preferably grass fed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: riffraff2001 on Jul 29, 2008 10:22 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You didn't read the article. Besides, your gramps must have taken more meds for all that fried shit.
Posted by: maxpayne
» gramps
Posted by: YogiBear
» Mom ate meat, bacon, butter and was 96 with NO meds
Posted by: harpy
» An Oxford U. study showed no lifespan differences between vegetarians and omnivores
Posted by: Beck
» RE: An Oxford U. study showed no lifespan differences between vegetarians and omnivores
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: An Oxford U. study showed no lifespan differences between vegetarians and omnivores
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Libertarian Paternalist on Jul 29, 2008 10:59 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However what I object is the condescending tone of the author. The largest problem in modern societies is today obesity. If it has now been concluded that the diet humans were originally evolved to, Paleolithic Diet or as it is known today Atkins/South Beach, we should be rejoicing that we now know how to curb the obesity epidemic.
Humans were originally hunter-gatherers. They lived on meat, fruits, berries, nuts, roots, and a limited supply of vegetables.
They were not vegetarians, that is for sure. They did not eat any carbohydrate rich foods such as grain, corn, rice etc. This is the staple food of todays vegetarians, not pre-historic man.
I have myself always eaten this way, I love meat, the rarer the better. I love fruits and nuts and I dislike bread, grain and rice.
I eat copiously but do not gain weight. If I stick to the Atkins diet, Paleolithic Diet I loose weight faster than lightning.
You may choose whatever diet you like but do not force your diet down my throat. I have found most Vegans I meet to be extremely fundamentalist, they call me a murderer, they think my morals are obnoxious and if they came into power they would forbid meat eating.
I think Vegans are loonies but best left alone. But loonies in power, especially fundamentalist ones can be very dangerous indeed. So their lunacies mus be exposed, kept under close scrutiny when they become violent, go for Direct Action. The violent fringes of PETA is an example of it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Read the article. Nobody's forcing you. Prehistoric people did not eat heavy meats either.
Posted by: maxpayne
» You cannot move from a totalitarian society
Posted by: Libertarian Paternalist
» Veganism is no different than the Atkins "diet" scam. Both suck and are extreme.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: You cannot move from a totalitarian society
Posted by: YogiBear
» By the way, it's gonna take more fossil fuel burning to keep the Atkins sham alive.
Posted by: maxpayne
» Vegans are all absolutist
Posted by: Libertarian Paternalist
» Er, no. Atkins is absolutist for attacking grains and vegetables.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Vegans are all absolutist
Posted by: dlibby
» RE: If you want to go Vegan it is OK, but do not force me!
Posted by: dlibby
» RE: If you want to go Vegan it is OK, but do not force me!
Posted by: dlibby
» most vegetarians don't have a problem with leather shoes
Posted by: harpy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Urgelt on Jul 29, 2008 12:30 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All fats are not created equal:
- Animal fats can contain large amounts of hormones, drugs and toxins if produced using industrial agricultural methods. These are variables which dieting efficacy studies typically fail to take into account, and thus their findings are necessarily flawed.
- Temperate crop vegetable oils such as soy, canola, and corn contain a plethora of short-chain fatty acids with different health properties than tropical oils such as olive, coconut, sesame, and almond. These are also variables which dieting studies usually fail to control.
- The Omega-3 fatty acids DHA and EPA are of supreme importance to health, which is rarely considered in these diet studies.
- An overabudance of the Omega-6 fatty acids has negative health consequences arising from their inflammatory effects, but you won't find that out by reading these "all fats" diet studies.
- Hydrogenation of oils, a common industrial process, has been shown in studies to produce very negative health effects. This is another variable typically left uncontrolled in diet studies.
What is more, the evidence that "animal fats clog arteries" is very weak. There is no correlaton between cholesterol consumption and cholesterol blood levels - nor is there a correlation between cholesterol level in blood and atherosclerosis.
In fact, it's well understood that placque deposits in arteries do not form willy-nilly from precipitates of cholesterol. Placque is a repair mechanism for damaged arterial walls, and it forms only in places where arterial tissue damage has produced leakage. The logical question to ask - and one which science has not yet answered, though there are theories - is, what is causing the damage?
Until both science and nutritionists come to grips with the salient fact that all fats are not interchangeable, any narrative attempting to conclude "more fats are bad" or "more fats are good" is fatally flawed. Neither is nutritional advice useful to consumers.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Grass fed beef
Posted by: sarajeanne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jwverez on Jul 29, 2008 2:14 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Meat has only gotten worse in quality thanks to privatization and deregulation.
Posted by: dlibby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 4animals on Jul 29, 2008 2:55 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You're not pregnant, are you, and anorexics also feel great
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Vegan eating is healthier
Posted by: dlibby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Jul 29, 2008 3:31 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The gorge of a cat, for instance, will rise at the smell of a mouse or a piece of raw flesh, but not at the aroma of fruit. If a man can take delight in pouncing upon a bird, tear its still living body apart with his teeth, sucking the warm blood, one might infer that Nature had provided him with a carnivorous instinct, but the very thought of doing such a thing makes him shudder. On the other hand, a bunch of luscious grapes makes his mouth water, and even in the absence of hunger, he will eat fruit to gratify taste."
As far back as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that: "A vegetarian diet can prevent 97% of our coronary occlusions." More recently, Wiiliam S. Collens and Gerald B. Dobkens concluded: "Examination of the dental structure of modern man reveals that he possesses all the features of a strictly herbivorous animal. While designed to subsist on vegetarian foods, he has perverted his dietary habits to accept food of the carnivore. It is postulated that man cannot handle carnivorous foods like the carnivore. Herein may lie the basis for the high incidence of arteriosclerotic disease."
Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), responds to the argument that killing animals for food is natural:
"The main problem with this argument is that it does not justify the practice of meat-eating or animal husbandry as we know it today; it justifies hunting. The distinction between hunting and animal husbandry probably seems rather fine to the man in the street, or even to your typical rule-utilitarian moral philosopher. The distinction, however, is obvious to an ecologist. If one defends killing on the grounds that it occurs in nature, then one is defending the practice as it occurs in nature.
"When one species of animal preys on another in nature, it only preys on a very small proportion of the total species population. Obviously, the predator species relies on its prey for its continued survival. Therefore, to wipe the prey species out through overhunting would be fatal. In practice, members of such predator species rely on such strategies as territoriality to restrict overhunting and to insure the continued existence of its food supply.
"Moreover, only the weakest members of the prey species are the predator's victims: the feeble, the sick, the lame, or the young accidentally separated from the fold. The life of the typical zebra is usually placid, even in lion country; this kind of violence is the exception in nature, not the rule.
"As it exists in the wild, hunting is the preying upon isolated members of an animal herd. Animal husbandry is the nearly complete annihilation of an animal herd. In nature, this kind of slaughter does not exist. The philosopher is free to argue that there is no moral difference between hunting and slaughter, but he cannot invoke nature as a defense of this idea.
"Why are hunters, not butchers, most frequently taken to task by the larger community for their killing of animals? Hunters usually react to such criticism by replying that if hunting is wrong, then meat-hunting must be wrong as well. The hunter is certainly right on one point--the larger community is hypocritical to object to hunting when it consumes the flesh of domesticated animals. If any form of meat-eating is justified, it would be meat from a hunted animal."
In his 1975 book, Animal Liberation, Australian philosopher Peter Singer writes:
"Killing an animal is in itself a troubling act. It has been said that if we had to kill our own meat we would all be vegetarians...If it is distasteful for humans to think about, what can it be like for the animals to experience it?"
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You post this every single time there's a vegetarian/vegan article
Posted by: dudelette
» It's better quality info than 99.9% of the other repetitive arguments on this topic...
Posted by: jparsons
» 99.9%?
Posted by: YogiBear
» Only very modern people could claim that if we had to kill our own meat, we wouldn't eat meat
Posted by: Beck
» RE: is killing for food natural?
Posted by: sju
Comments are closed-
Posted by: shikejian on Jul 29, 2008 6:37 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2. high cholesterol is being found to not be the cause of heart attacks
3. cutting down and ripping up plants from the ground is killing
4. just whatcha gonna do when there's a drought or a time of low yield harvest?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Or if you live in the north?
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Or if you live in the north?
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: thoughtlessness leads the way especially when describing it.
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Jul 29, 2008 7:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And if you're an endormorph, caveman-veggie is still superior especially with a exercise/activity heavy lifestyle (which is what endomorphs were built for. All the hysteria about "dieting" is as much shite ads the diets themselves generally. But don't knock the ones that work and make sense and are sustainable. If you do, then you're just another fundamentalist cultist bullshit artist and not worth listening to.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Atkins is not meat heavy
Posted by: harpy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jolt on Jul 29, 2008 8:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Amen bro !
Posted by: jwverez
Comments are closed-
Posted by: marlboromascara on Jul 30, 2008 10:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» When you give me life, you give me death
Posted by: marlboromascara
Comments are closed-
Posted by: macguffin25 on Jul 30, 2008 11:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/facts/meat.php
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/ healthday/071211/high-meat-consumption-linked-
to-heightened-cancer-risk.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/782959.stm
Those are just some examples.
I also applaud this article because the author had the boldness to write about facts and research and stand up to popular opinion (judging by the comments). There are many reasons to have a vegan lifestyle: for your own health, for the animals, and for the environment. Some people choose one, two, or all three, this article simply addresses the personal health benefits. As a reader you can choose to accept these facts or ignore them and accept outdated, now defunct information on high animal protein diets. Hint: Those who choose the former live longer.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» But read this, too, by Bruce Friedrich
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 30, 2008 12:08 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An estimated 19 percent of total energy used in the USA is taken up in the production and supply of food. Currently, this mostly comes from non-renewable energy sources which are in short supply. It is therefore of paramount importance that ways of reducing this significant fuel consumption in the US food system are found.
David Pimentel and his colleagues at Cornell University in New York set out a number of strategies which could potentially cut fossil energy fuel use in the food system by as much as 50 percent.
The first, and very astute suggestion they put forward is that individuals eat less, especially considering that the average American consumes an estimated 3,747 calories a day, a staggering 1200-1500 calories over recommendations. Traditional American diets are high in animal products, and junk and processed foods in particular, which by their nature use more energy than that used to produce staple foods such as potatoes, rice, fruits and vegetables. By just reducing junk food intake and converting to diets lower in meat, the average American could have a massive impact on fuel consumption as well as improving his or her health.
Further savings are possible in the food production industry. The authors suggest that moving towards more traditional, organic farming methods would help because conventional meat and dairy production is extremely energy intensive. Similarly, in crop production, reduced pesticide use, increased use of manure, cover crops and crop rotations improve energy efficiency.
Finally, changes to methods of food processing, packaging and distribution could also help to reduce fuel consumption. Although well-established energy-saving considerations in lighting, heating and packaging materials all have their part to play, the authors again highlight individual responsibility as having the biggest impact. They contend that the most dramatic reduction in energy used for food processing would come about if consumers reduced their demand for highly processed foods. This would also help cut down food miles and its related fuel cost as US food travels an average of 2,400 km before it is consumed.
This study argues strongly that the consumer is in the strongest position to contribute to a reduction in energy use. As individuals embrace a ‘greener’ lifestyle, an awareness of the influence their food choices have on energy resources might be added encouragement for them to buy good, local produce and avoid highly processed, heavily packaged and nutritionally inferior food. As well as leading to a cleaner environment, this would also lead to better health.
Journal reference:
Pimentel et al. Reducing Energy Inputs in the US Food System. Human Ecology, 2008; DOI: 10.1007/s10745-008-9184-3
Adapted from materials provided by Springer.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: YogiBear on Jul 31, 2008 9:06 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What do you do, use some sort of Monica Goodling vetting for your writer/editor selection process? I've never seen anything like it. Surely there must be some outcast in this organization who sneaks down to the corner and gets a red hot all the way?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: marxistsocialist on Aug 12, 2008 7:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Roberto on Aug 13, 2008 12:53 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In geologic time, man's existence is very short indeed. The time of manufactured meat, vegetables and fruit reflects a very short period of that human experience.
Man has evolved eating, meat, vegetables and fruits, period. It was all organic until the advent of factory farms and ranches. All the meat consumed was very lean since the feed was pasture and grasses, not corn feed.
The whole point is not to take sides as vegans or carnivores. The goal should be to consume much less and eat a mixture of lean meat, preferably mostly cold water fish (Alaska salmon is excellent and sustainable)and plenty of fruits and vegetables comprised of complex carbs with low glycemic levels. We must learn to stay away from processed food, eat less and exercise much more. Then Mother Nature will do the rest.
Enough of the partisan ranting.
Bon appetit.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TwinsFanatic on Jul 29, 2008 12:33 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a pretty good link on the issue, which includes a link to the Mills essay.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Other experts offer the evidence that shows how adapted we are to eating meat
Posted by: bernadette
» RE: CORN SYRUP //sugar //EXCESSIVE CARB CONSUMPTION
Posted by: republicanwriter
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TwinsFanatic on Jul 29, 2008 3:03 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Never-Ending Diet Wars
by Dr. Dean Ornish
A new study reports that the Atkins diet can be just as healthy as a low-fat diet. But don't start buying bacon yet. This research has some serious flaws.
A new study comparing the Atkins diet, a Mediterranean diet and a low-fat diet published on July 17 inThe New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), is likely to inspire headlines saying that the Atkins diet is better for your waistline and your health than a low-fat diet.
However, as a lead investigator on numerous peer-reviewed studies of low-fat diets, and the author of several books about the benefits of healthy low-fat lifestyles, I believe this study is extremely flawed. Here's why:
The NEJM study, which was funded in part by the Atkins Foundation, reported that participants who ate a low-carb (Atkins) or Mediterranean diet (restricted calorie, moderate fat intake) for two years lost more weight, and saw more of an improvement in their glucose and cholesterol levels, than those who were on a low-fat, restricted calorie diet. However, participants in the study who were on the "low-fat" diet decreased their total fat intake from 31.4 percent to 30.0 percent, hardly at all.
I'm also very skeptical of the quality of data in this study. For example, the investigators reported that those on the "low-fat" diet consumed 200 fewer calories per day—or 10,000 fewer calories per year—than those on the Mediterranean diet, yet people lost more weight on the Mediterranean diet. That's physiologically impossible.
In addition, in the "Atkins diet" that was tested, "the participants were counseled to choose vegetarian sources of fat and protein and to avoid trans fat." A vegetarian Atkins diet? Most people associate an Atkins diet with bacon, butter and brie, not a plant-based diet like the one I recommend.
Then there's the question of what constitutes a "low-fat" diet. The one used in the NEJM study was not very low in fat. It was based on the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines, which I have long criticized as not being enough of a change in diet to show much benefit. In earlier studies, as in this one, the AHA diet did not cause much of a reduction in either blood cholesterol levels, weight or blood sugar, so it's not surprising that the new NEJM study reported that the Atkins and Mediterranean diets were more successful at reducing these levels. In the Womens Health Initiative study, the AHA diet didn't do much to prevent heart disease, colon cancer or breast cancer, either.
My colleagues and I at the nonprofit Preventive Medicine Research Institute and the University of California, San Francisco, have studied for more than three decades the effects of diets much lower in fat (10 percent) than the one used in NEJM study as well as lower in refined carbohydrates and higher in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes and soy products.
We reported in a randomized, controlled clinical trial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association a 24-pound weight loss after one year and 13-pound average weight loss after five years in a group of men and women, much more than the 9.7 to 10.3 pounds lost in the new NEJM study. These findings were replicated in larger demonstration projects as well.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Newsweek: The Never-Ending Diet Wars, by Dr. Dean Ornish, pt 1
Posted by: TwinsFanatic
» pt 3
Posted by: TwinsFanatic
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Martin32 on Jul 29, 2008 3:47 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You keep kidding yourself, I'll keep eating food that tastes nice! Seriously, I do understand that there are valid health and environmental reasons for eating less or no meat. I do my best to ensure that the meat (and fish) I buy is ethically sourced, sustainable and carrying a low-carbon footprint. I try to eat a much more rounded diet than I used to, including fruit, vegetables, grains etc etc. But, PLEASE, stop lying to me and telling me that the healthy option is also the tastiest one because, if that were true this debate would be over and the world (at least that portion of it rich enough to choose) would be vegan. The fact is that taste is subjective and that, to me, almost every meat tastes nicer than almost anything else. I'm sure that I speak for others as well. I'm not saying that I make every decision based purely on my own pleasure, but it does count for something. And, it's not a matter of familiarization either. I used to eat a Mars bar everyday. Six months ago, I replaced it with an apple, or other item of fruit. But, you know what? The Mars bar still tastes nicer than the fruit!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Krusty Geezer on Jul 29, 2008 3:56 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would also be very skeptical about figures such as the skinless chicken/bladder cancer ones touted in the article. Where was this study done? Were these organically or intensively farmed chickens? Were they the feathered hormone bombs you find anywhere in the Americas (North, South, Middle). Similarly, if any study was done using beef from America, one has to look at it from the point of view of is it the meat or the growth hormones the cow's been pumped with that are producing the worrying side effects? There is a reason why most American meat isn't allowed in the EU. There are so many more chemicals and hormones allowed in American farming industry, and the US is still living in denial regarding 'Mad Cow' disease.
Don't get me wrong, a predominantly meat based diet isn't healthy. For example there's a whole raft of digestive tract cancers linked to heavy consumption of red meats. But the picture has certain nuances that seem to be ignored in articles such as this one; and organic production contra 'normal' production is a big factor. Just take a look at fish. No-one denies that fish is good for you, but look at the fat in a lazy and overfed (and look at the feed!) farmed salmon compared to a line caught, wild one. And no, it isn't just more of 'the good' fats!
Nor are vegetables the answer if they're covered in the one chemical after the other.
Look at cigarettes, not healthy I know, but the general consensus is that the majority of the carcinogens contained therein, aren't in the tobacco itsself, but all the additives the tobacco companies put in to 'improve' the overall smoking experience. (Read: to make it burn quicker, and make the hit more intense and immediate, thereby increasing the chances of being hooked)
So yes, articles like the above are fine on a very superficial level, but they're not really addressing the problem. It's not necessarily what food we're eating; it's how it's produced, the amount we're eating, and what's surreptitiously coming into our bodies via our food.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jnelson4765 on Jul 29, 2008 4:10 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look, chimpanzees eat meat. Our closest relative in the natural world. Not a lot of it, but they do. Is the American diet unhealthy? Definitely. Is meat a health risk? In excess, yes. Should it be eaten with respect, and not that often? Yes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» That's right... keep it within reason
Posted by: zeofredo
» Moderation
Posted by: kepstein7777
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Martin32 on Jul 29, 2008 4:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Grass fed beef
Posted by: sarajeanne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ankhet on Jul 29, 2008 4:15 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, monkeys and apes do eat meat - whenever they can scavenge or cannibalize. Even purely vegetarian animals eat animal protein - cows do not clean the bugs off their grass before they eat it. Many herbivores enjoy the occasional meal of meat, if it's not too hard to fetch or if food-supply problems make it necessary.
Human beings have carnivore kidneys, and some anthropologists believe that it's thanks to the consumption of meat, a very concentrated source of nutrition, that the human race advanced so far. Hard to prove, of course, but the coarse veg diets of early humans would have taken a lot of time out of their day that they could have spent painting caves.
Yes, we're overdoing the meat consumption, but the quality of the meat (and other foods) we consume is also dropping, leaving us less satisfied and craving more. A win-win for agribiz.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Diets missing iron and B12 are also unhealthy, and you wouldn't know that based on certain articles
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Diets missing iron and B12 are also unhealthy, and you wouldn't know that based on certain arti
Posted by: richholland
» RE: Diets missing iron and B12 are also unhealthy, and you wouldn't know that based on certain arti
Posted by: ankhet
Comments are closed-
Posted by: argyle on Jul 29, 2008 5:06 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ECtek on Jul 29, 2008 5:17 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is only natural that vegetarianism will continue to increase since it not only is healthier, but it is a far more sustainable diet for the earth's capacity and of course it is more humane, especially when you consider the industrialized farming techniques (which place production and profit over humane treatment) that became the norm in recent decades.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: s.duplantier on Jul 29, 2008 5:23 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can be suspicious about that when you see a citing of Dean Ornish.
Read some unbiased information about fats, meat, and diet from the Weston A. Price Foundations's website
http://westonaprice.org/
Read especially the work of Dr. Mary Enig and Sally Fallon.
It is simply NOT the case that low fat is good and high fat is bad.
Did you know, for example, the following:
"The following nutrient-rich traditional fats have nourished healthy population groups for thousands of years:
* Butter
* Beef and lamb tallow
* Lard
* Chicken, goose and duck fat
* Coconut, palm and sesame oils
* Cold pressed olive oil
* Cold pressed flax oil
* Marine oils"
"The following new-fangled fats can cause cancer, heart disease, immune system dysfunction, sterility, learning disabilities, growth problems and osteoporosis:
* All hydrogenated oils
* Soy, corn and safflower oils
* Cottonseed oil
* Canola oil
* All fats heated to very high temperatures in processing and frying"
Do yourself a favor and get all the facts. Who would be surprised to find out that there is politics at the heart of what is presented as nutrition science and policy in the U.S.
Read the Oiling of America:
http://westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/oiling.html
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Plenty missing information here
Posted by: Idunno
» RE: Plenty missing information here
Posted by: medusa
» RE: Plenty missing information here
Posted by: astudent
» Grass fed beef
Posted by: sarajeanne
» RE: Grass fed beef
Posted by: s.duplantier
» RE: Grass fed beef
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: adocann1 on Jul 29, 2008 5:26 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Just another stab as veganism
Posted by: hoorah
» RE: Just another stab as veganism
Posted by: dlibby
» RE: Just another stab as veganism
Posted by: adocann1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: snowhound on Jul 29, 2008 5:39 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bad advice
Posted by: Fredly
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Beck on Jul 29, 2008 5:55 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is happening often enough that I'm starting to see that I've been duped. There are obviously plenty of people calling themselves vegetarians who do eat the pepperoni pizza and don't mind getting a hamburger at a concert. Calling yourself vegetarian is the thing to do.
Actually, my husband and I are vegetarians so far today. I was a vegetarian for, oh, about 99% of yesterday. I'll guess that I'll be a vegetarian for most of today, but not quite all. And that will make me as vegetarian as, I'm guessing, 2/3 of those calling themselves that. I suppose people mean to stick to it. And think that since so much of the time they are vegetarian, they get to not count the times they eat meat. So really, we all are!
Ich bin ein vegetarian. Until dinner. For that, we're having a steak from a grass-fed cow bought at the farmer's market, which we won't cook too much, having been warned about how lean it is. After that, though, I'll be one again.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Does having a single cigarette...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» No, having a cigarette regularly makes you a smoker.
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Does having a single cigarette...
Posted by: Crazy H
» I'll be honest. I used to eat meat a lot. Now I don't.
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: williameon on Jul 29, 2008 6:00 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hydrogenated Oil
Corn Syrup
Over refined white flour
These are Poison.
The cause of the Obesity, the Diabetes Epidemic, Hardening of the Arteries, Heart Attacks, Cancer and Colon disorders Americans are suffering from now.
Beef only in moderation.
It is loaded with hormones, fat and possibly M. Cow Disease.
ADD:
Cold Pressed Oils
FRESH Organic Fruits and Vegetables
Organic Grains,
Fresh Fish, Seafood,
Nuts,
and
Stone ground Flours.
Free range meats in moderation.
These are the building blocks of life.
This is what we have lived on for centuries.
Eliminate as much stress from your life as possible by shutting of the Faux Media.
Turn off the Indoctrination Set and turn on to Nature.
Everything springs from one source, Mother Nature.
Trust in her and her healing abilities.
Everything necessary for a healthy, happy, fulfilling and prosperous life is here now.
Take advantage of it!
Relax and enjoy it.
We all have ways to relax.
Find yours and cultivate it.
It is doorway into the present, beyond words and imagination.
Take a walk, play your favorite sport, play a game, read a relaxing book,
Meditate or Exercise.
Occupy your conscious mind with a steady stream of positive information till it naturally quiets itself and then get a glimpse of the real you that finally shines through.
Anytime we are having fun, it is a door way in to a very special World, where we enjoy and live in the moment.
I call it The Zone.
Peace, Brotherhood, Harmony, Cooperation, True Compassion and Patience.
These are the fruits of the spirit.
Eat of them often.
I’ll meet you on the other side in
The ZONE!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Mediterranean Diet, Moderation and Extra Virgin Olive Oil
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 29, 2008 6:47 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Lentils are healthy but not a complete protein
Posted by: Beck
» Are you sure?
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Are you sure? Yes, pretty sure
Posted by: Beck
» Ok, but some clarifications.
Posted by: maxpayne
» By the way, I never said by itself.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: By the way, I never said by itself. You do seem to imply that you mean that, though
Posted by: Beck
» Well, lentils replacing meat worked out very well.
Posted by: maxpayne
» Uh Max, read the second page. It's there.
Posted by: jwverez
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Jul 29, 2008 6:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Vasmurti makes a more compelling argument for veganism than Kathy Freston. I wonder how many columns she would get if she donated truckloads of money to Alternet...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I wonder why omnivores are expected to take the advice of vegans any more than vegans. ..
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rmforall on Jul 29, 2008 7:04 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.drmcdougall.com/stars/jason_wyrick.html
Jason Wyrick, Cured Type-2 Diabetes -- No Cost
formaldehyde, aspartame, and migraines, the first case series, Sharon E Jacob-Soo, Sarah A Stechschulte, UCSD, Dermatitis 2008 May: Rich Murray 2008.07.18
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.htm
Friday, July 18, 2008
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1553
Dermatitis. 2008 May-Jun; 19(3): E10-1.
Formaldehyde, aspartame, and migraines: a possible connection.
Jacob SE, Stechschulte S.
Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.
Aspartame is a widely used artificial sweetener that has been linked to pediatric and adolescent migraines.
Upon ingestion, aspartame is broken, converted, and oxidized into formaldehyde in various tissues.
We present the first case series of aspartame-associated migraines related to clinically relevant positive reactions to formaldehyde on
patch testing. PMID: 18627677
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: organic low-fat, low-protein vegan diet is best -- NOT
Posted by: Idunno
» RE: organic low-fat, low-protein vegan diet is best -- also avoid aspartame and additives
Posted by: medusa
» RE: organic low-fat, low-protein vegan diet is best -- also avoid aspartame and additives
Posted by: PirateJesus
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ecoalex on Jul 29, 2008 7:26 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» A Real Vegan
Posted by: Tricia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pfgetty on Jul 29, 2008 8:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even whole grain foods and potatoes with the skin on will exacerbate these prediabetic conditions. We are seeing the problems even in teenagers.
While it is clear that some people can handle huge amounts of grain problems without the diabetic complications, probably because of an ancestry that had a long history of grain eating, most of our bodies have not adapted to this "new" diet. Remember that grains and potatoes have only been eaten for about 10,000 years, too short of a time for most populations to have evolved systems to digest and properly utilize all of it. Diabetes is unheard of in hunter gatherer groups who do not eat grains and potatoes and sugar.
The end of metabolic disease..........amputations, heart failure, stroke, morbid obesity, blindness........is horrible. Avoiding too much grain and potato and sugar is the best way for many of us to stay clear of these tragic complications.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yes, especially for those of us with celiac disease
Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Yes, especially for those of us with celiac disease
Posted by: pfgetty
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on Jul 29, 2008 9:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A majority of people don't have the discipline to handle a well-rounded vegan diet. People get sick. That's what stops vegan ideas cold.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Vegan and meat look like two opposite ends of extremes.
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: solrev on Jul 29, 2008 9:51 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Too bad you ain't gonna get the meat like the good old times dude.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Too bad you ain't gonna get the meat like the good old times dude.
Posted by: pfgetty
» RE: Too bad you ain't gonna get the meat like the good old times dude.
Posted by: jwverez
» RE: Too bad you ain't gonna get the meat like the good old times dude.
Posted by: pfgetty
Comments are closed-
Posted by: EMB on Jul 29, 2008 9:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What is best for pregnancy?
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: What is best for pregnancy?
Posted by: dudelette
» RE: What is best for pregnancy? I am so sorry.
Posted by: Beck
» RE: What is best for pregnancy?
Posted by: dudelette
» RE: What is best for pregnancy?
Posted by: AMerrickanGirl
» Cut the grains and potatoes!
Posted by: SpiderWoman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jmooney on Jul 29, 2008 10:21 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We want to believe that eating animals is somehow illiberal, but eating them is just what we do. We might eventually evolve to where we can eat, without difficulty, veggie or starchy diets, but that's going to take a while. As for me, pass the bacon, please.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It takes more burning of fossil fuels to produce meat than it does veggies.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Bogus
Posted by: dlibby
» RE: Bogus
Posted by: dlibby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dudelette on Jul 29, 2008 10:22 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, thanks. I look ten years younger than I am, cholesterol is low, blood pressure low, great hair and skin, and I'm 50. I do find that buying organic, whether vegetables, fruit or meat, has made a huge difference in how I feel. I can't eat meat that isn't at least organic, preferably grass fed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: riffraff2001 on Jul 29, 2008 10:22 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You didn't read the article. Besides, your gramps must have taken more meds for all that fried shit.
Posted by: maxpayne
» gramps
Posted by: YogiBear
» Mom ate meat, bacon, butter and was 96 with NO meds
Posted by: harpy
» An Oxford U. study showed no lifespan differences between vegetarians and omnivores
Posted by: Beck
» RE: An Oxford U. study showed no lifespan differences between vegetarians and omnivores
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: An Oxford U. study showed no lifespan differences between vegetarians and omnivores
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Libertarian Paternalist on Jul 29, 2008 10:59 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However what I object is the condescending tone of the author. The largest problem in modern societies is today obesity. If it has now been concluded that the diet humans were originally evolved to, Paleolithic Diet or as it is known today Atkins/South Beach, we should be rejoicing that we now know how to curb the obesity epidemic.
Humans were originally hunter-gatherers. They lived on meat, fruits, berries, nuts, roots, and a limited supply of vegetables.
They were not vegetarians, that is for sure. They did not eat any carbohydrate rich foods such as grain, corn, rice etc. This is the staple food of todays vegetarians, not pre-historic man.
I have myself always eaten this way, I love meat, the rarer the better. I love fruits and nuts and I dislike bread, grain and rice.
I eat copiously but do not gain weight. If I stick to the Atkins diet, Paleolithic Diet I loose weight faster than lightning.
You may choose whatever diet you like but do not force your diet down my throat. I have found most Vegans I meet to be extremely fundamentalist, they call me a murderer, they think my morals are obnoxious and if they came into power they would forbid meat eating.
I think Vegans are loonies but best left alone. But loonies in power, especially fundamentalist ones can be very dangerous indeed. So their lunacies mus be exposed, kept under close scrutiny when they become violent, go for Direct Action. The violent fringes of PETA is an example of it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Read the article. Nobody's forcing you. Prehistoric people did not eat heavy meats either.
Posted by: maxpayne
» You cannot move from a totalitarian society
Posted by: Libertarian Paternalist
» Veganism is no different than the Atkins "diet" scam. Both suck and are extreme.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: You cannot move from a totalitarian society
Posted by: YogiBear
» By the way, it's gonna take more fossil fuel burning to keep the Atkins sham alive.
Posted by: maxpayne
» Vegans are all absolutist
Posted by: Libertarian Paternalist
» Er, no. Atkins is absolutist for attacking grains and vegetables.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Vegans are all absolutist
Posted by: dlibby
» RE: If you want to go Vegan it is OK, but do not force me!
Posted by: dlibby
» RE: If you want to go Vegan it is OK, but do not force me!
Posted by: dlibby
» most vegetarians don't have a problem with leather shoes
Posted by: harpy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Urgelt on Jul 29, 2008 12:30 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All fats are not created equal:
- Animal fats can contain large amounts of hormones, drugs and toxins if produced using industrial agricultural methods. These are variables which dieting efficacy studies typically fail to take into account, and thus their findings are necessarily flawed.
- Temperate crop vegetable oils such as soy, canola, and corn contain a plethora of short-chain fatty acids with different health properties than tropical oils such as olive, coconut, sesame, and almond. These are also variables which dieting studies usually fail to control.
- The Omega-3 fatty acids DHA and EPA are of supreme importance to health, which is rarely considered in these diet studies.
- An overabudance of the Omega-6 fatty acids has negative health consequences arising from their inflammatory effects, but you won't find that out by reading these "all fats" diet studies.
- Hydrogenation of oils, a common industrial process, has been shown in studies to produce very negative health effects. This is another variable typically left uncontrolled in diet studies.
What is more, the evidence that "animal fats clog arteries" is very weak. There is no correlaton between cholesterol consumption and cholesterol blood levels - nor is there a correlation between cholesterol level in blood and atherosclerosis.
In fact, it's well understood that placque deposits in arteries do not form willy-nilly from precipitates of cholesterol. Placque is a repair mechanism for damaged arterial walls, and it forms only in places where arterial tissue damage has produced leakage. The logical question to ask - and one which science has not yet answered, though there are theories - is, what is causing the damage?
Until both science and nutritionists come to grips with the salient fact that all fats are not interchangeable, any narrative attempting to conclude "more fats are bad" or "more fats are good" is fatally flawed. Neither is nutritional advice useful to consumers.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Grass fed beef
Posted by: sarajeanne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jwverez on Jul 29, 2008 2:14 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Meat has only gotten worse in quality thanks to privatization and deregulation.
Posted by: dlibby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 4animals on Jul 29, 2008 2:55 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You're not pregnant, are you, and anorexics also feel great
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Vegan eating is healthier
Posted by: dlibby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Jul 29, 2008 3:31 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The gorge of a cat, for instance, will rise at the smell of a mouse or a piece of raw flesh, but not at the aroma of fruit. If a man can take delight in pouncing upon a bird, tear its still living body apart with his teeth, sucking the warm blood, one might infer that Nature had provided him with a carnivorous instinct, but the very thought of doing such a thing makes him shudder. On the other hand, a bunch of luscious grapes makes his mouth water, and even in the absence of hunger, he will eat fruit to gratify taste."
As far back as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that: "A vegetarian diet can prevent 97% of our coronary occlusions." More recently, Wiiliam S. Collens and Gerald B. Dobkens concluded: "Examination of the dental structure of modern man reveals that he possesses all the features of a strictly herbivorous animal. While designed to subsist on vegetarian foods, he has perverted his dietary habits to accept food of the carnivore. It is postulated that man cannot handle carnivorous foods like the carnivore. Herein may lie the basis for the high incidence of arteriosclerotic disease."
Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), responds to the argument that killing animals for food is natural:
"The main problem with this argument is that it does not justify the practice of meat-eating or animal husbandry as we know it today; it justifies hunting. The distinction between hunting and animal husbandry probably seems rather fine to the man in the street, or even to your typical rule-utilitarian moral philosopher. The distinction, however, is obvious to an ecologist. If one defends killing on the grounds that it occurs in nature, then one is defending the practice as it occurs in nature.
"When one species of animal preys on another in nature, it only preys on a very small proportion of the total species population. Obviously, the predator species relies on its prey for its continued survival. Therefore, to wipe the prey species out through overhunting would be fatal. In practice, members of such predator species rely on such strategies as territoriality to restrict overhunting and to insure the continued existence of its food supply.
"Moreover, only the weakest members of the prey species are the predator's victims: the feeble, the sick, the lame, or the young accidentally separated from the fold. The life of the typical zebra is usually placid, even in lion country; this kind of violence is the exception in nature, not the rule.
"As it exists in the wild, hunting is the preying upon isolated members of an animal herd. Animal husbandry is the nearly complete annihilation of an animal herd. In nature, this kind of slaughter does not exist. The philosopher is free to argue that there is no moral difference between hunting and slaughter, but he cannot invoke nature as a defense of this idea.
"Why are hunters, not butchers, most frequently taken to task by the larger community for their killing of animals? Hunters usually react to such criticism by replying that if hunting is wrong, then meat-hunting must be wrong as well. The hunter is certainly right on one point--the larger community is hypocritical to object to hunting when it consumes the flesh of domesticated animals. If any form of meat-eating is justified, it would be meat from a hunted animal."
In his 1975 book, Animal Liberation, Australian philosopher Peter Singer writes:
"Killing an animal is in itself a troubling act. It has been said that if we had to kill our own meat we would all be vegetarians...If it is distasteful for humans to think about, what can it be like for the animals to experience it?"
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You post this every single time there's a vegetarian/vegan article
Posted by: dudelette
» It's better quality info than 99.9% of the other repetitive arguments on this topic...
Posted by: jparsons
» 99.9%?
Posted by: YogiBear
» Only very modern people could claim that if we had to kill our own meat, we wouldn't eat meat
Posted by: Beck
» RE: is killing for food natural?
Posted by: sju
Comments are closed-
Posted by: shikejian on Jul 29, 2008 6:37 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2. high cholesterol is being found to not be the cause of heart attacks
3. cutting down and ripping up plants from the ground is killing
4. just whatcha gonna do when there's a drought or a time of low yield harvest?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Or if you live in the north?
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Or if you live in the north?
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: thoughtlessness leads the way especially when describing it.
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Jul 29, 2008 7:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And if you're an endormorph, caveman-veggie is still superior especially with a exercise/activity heavy lifestyle (which is what endomorphs were built for. All the hysteria about "dieting" is as much shite ads the diets themselves generally. But don't knock the ones that work and make sense and are sustainable. If you do, then you're just another fundamentalist cultist bullshit artist and not worth listening to.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Atkins is not meat heavy
Posted by: harpy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jolt on Jul 29, 2008 8:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Amen bro !
Posted by: jwverez
Comments are closed-
Posted by: marlboromascara on Jul 30, 2008 10:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» When you give me life, you give me death
Posted by: marlboromascara
Comments are closed-
Posted by: macguffin25 on Jul 30, 2008 11:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/facts/meat.php
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/ healthday/071211/high-meat-consumption-linked-
to-heightened-cancer-risk.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/782959.stm
Those are just some examples.
I also applaud this article because the author had the boldness to write about facts and research and stand up to popular opinion (judging by the comments). There are many reasons to have a vegan lifestyle: for your own health, for the animals, and for the environment. Some people choose one, two, or all three, this article simply addresses the personal health benefits. As a reader you can choose to accept these facts or ignore them and accept outdated, now defunct information on high animal protein diets. Hint: Those who choose the former live longer.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» But read this, too, by Bruce Friedrich
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 30, 2008 12:08 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An estimated 19 percent of total energy used in the USA is taken up in the production and supply of food. Currently, this mostly comes from non-renewable energy sources which are in short supply. It is therefore of paramount importance that ways of reducing this significant fuel consumption in the US food system are found.
David Pimentel and his colleagues at Cornell University in New York set out a number of strategies which could potentially cut fossil energy fuel use in the food system by as much as 50 percent.
The first, and very astute suggestion they put forward is that individuals eat less, especially considering that the average American consumes an estimated 3,747 calories a day, a staggering 1200-1500 calories over recommendations. Traditional American diets are high in animal products, and junk and processed foods in particular, which by their nature use more energy than that used to produce staple foods such as potatoes, rice, fruits and vegetables. By just reducing junk food intake and converting to diets lower in meat, the average American could have a massive impact on fuel consumption as well as improving his or her health.
Further savings are possible in the food production industry. The authors suggest that moving towards more traditional, organic farming methods would help because conventional meat and dairy production is extremely energy intensive. Similarly, in crop production, reduced pesticide use, increased use of manure, cover crops and crop rotations improve energy efficiency.
Finally, changes to methods of food processing, packaging and distribution could also help to reduce fuel consumption. Although well-established energy-saving considerations in lighting, heating and packaging materials all have their part to play, the authors again highlight individual responsibility as having the biggest impact. They contend that the most dramatic reduction in energy used for food processing would come about if consumers reduced their demand for highly processed foods. This would also help cut down food miles and its related fuel cost as US food travels an average of 2,400 km before it is consumed.
This study argues strongly that the consumer is in the strongest position to contribute to a reduction in energy use. As individuals embrace a ‘greener’ lifestyle, an awareness of the influence their food choices have on energy resources might be added encouragement for them to buy good, local produce and avoid highly processed, heavily packaged and nutritionally inferior food. As well as leading to a cleaner environment, this would also lead to better health.
Journal reference:
Pimentel et al. Reducing Energy Inputs in the US Food System. Human Ecology, 2008; DOI: 10.1007/s10745-008-9184-3
Adapted from materials provided by Springer.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: YogiBear on Jul 31, 2008 9:06 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What do you do, use some sort of Monica Goodling vetting for your writer/editor selection process? I've never seen anything like it. Surely there must be some outcast in this organization who sneaks down to the corner and gets a red hot all the way?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: marxistsocialist on Aug 12, 2008 7:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Roberto on Aug 13, 2008 12:53 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In geologic time, man's existence is very short indeed. The time of manufactured meat, vegetables and fruit reflects a very short period of that human experience.
Man has evolved eating, meat, vegetables and fruits, period. It was all organic until the advent of factory farms and ranches. All the meat consumed was very lean since the feed was pasture and grasses, not corn feed.
The whole point is not to take sides as vegans or carnivores. The goal should be to consume much less and eat a mixture of lean meat, preferably mostly cold water fish (Alaska salmon is excellent and sustainable)and plenty of fruits and vegetables comprised of complex carbs with low glycemic levels. We must learn to stay away from processed food, eat less and exercise much more. Then Mother Nature will do the rest.
Enough of the partisan ranting.
Bon appetit.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Could Your Cell Phone End Up Killing You?
The Overuse of Antibiotics in Livestock Feed Is Killing Us
One of the Most Common Chemicals Used in Modern Life Is Now Being Seen as a Health Threat




