# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Health & Well-Being >  Frightening Truth About Animal Protein and Cancer

## farreri

_"Cancer is a function of nutrient intake and in this particular case, protein intake. Nutrition controls cancer growth."_




Animal Protein -- Meat and Dairy -- Cause Cancer 




IGF-1 as One-Stop Cancer Shop




*Leading Causes of Death*
1# - Heart disease
*2# - Cancer*
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lead...s-of-death.htm

----------


## Chester Copperpot

Im not sure if its the protein content OR the factory farming conditions we use and the fact that most of the animals we eat are sickly but cutting out animal protein and sugar is definitely a way to keep cancer growth at bay... Of course that sort of diet really isnt sustainable long term and I would suspect that some wild caught fish like sardines, herring, etc would be a satisfactory way to get the required missing nutrition from such a diet.

----------


## tod evans

Wonder of all wonders what you can find with a Google search.............




*The Vegetarian Gene: A Plant-Based Diet Causes Lasting Genetic Mutations That Could Increase Cancer Risk*

http://www.medicaldaily.com/vegetari...er-risk-380079

A new study suggests that the saying you are what you eat is more than just an old adage. According to the research, led by scientists from Cornell University, cultures that have adhered to strictly vegetarian diets for many generations have developed a unique genetic mutation that could put them them at increased risk for heart disease and colon cancer.

Fatty acids serve as the building blocks of fats in our body, and play important roles in how we store energy and grow and repair cells. According to the European Food Information Council, the human body is able to produce all the fatty acids it needs, except for two: omega-6 fatty acids and omega-3 fatty acids. We find these in our food.

The conversion of plants into fatty acids is a complicated metabolic process. When animals eat plants, their bodies metabolize the nutrients within into fatty acids, which we absorb when we eat the animals. Vegetarians, however, must go through this process on their own, metabolizing the fatty acids directly from their plant diet.

We all use the enzymes FADS1 and FADS2 to break down omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids for our bodies to use for brain development and controlling inflammation. In their study, the team identified a mutation, rs66698963, in the gene responsible for expressing FADS 1 and FADS 2. An insertion mutation, characterized by extra base pairs, caused an increase in the production of the two enzymes and a better ability to produce fatty acids from plants  which is why it was dubbed the vegetarian allele.

The researchers looked at how this insertion varied between 234 primarily vegetarian Indians and 311 meat-eating Americans (mostly from Kansas). They found that insertions existed in 68 percent of the Indians but only 18 percent of Americans, which makes sense considering the group of Indians used in the study had practiced vegetarianism for thousands of years. Then, armed with data from the 1000 Genome Project, they discovered that the vegetarian allele existed in 70 percent of South Asians, 53 percent of Africans, 29 percent of East Asians, and just 17 percent of Europeans.

Though the insertion may help vegetarians produce precious fatty acids, it is also associated with health risks. In the body, omega-3 fatty acids constantly compete with omega-6 fatty acids to be metabolized. Having too much omega-6 fatty acids in your diet could reduce the amount of omega-3s that can be metabolized, and this specific imbalance is linked to an increased risk for heart disease and colon cancer. However, co-author Dr. Alon Keinan told Medical Daily that there is an easy way for those whose ancestors were vegetarians to avoid these health risks.

[Those with an ancestral history of vegetarianism] would do perfectly well, as long as they avoid some foods that are vegetarian but high in omega-6, specifically plant-based oil, Keinan wrote in an email. More in general, vegetarians in industrialized countries tend to rely heavily on plant-based oil, which is rich in omega-6, and can lead... to inflammation-related diseases.

The team found the opposite type of gene mutation in Inuit Natives in Greenland, whose diet consisted mainly of fish and other marine animals. Rather than having an insertion, this group had a deletion, or the absence of a section of DNA. This ensured the population didnt consume too many omega-3 fatty acids, which are abundant in fish  eating too much can lead to health issues, such as colitis and other immune disorders.

Our study is the first to connect an insertion allele with vegetarian diets, and the deletion allele with a marine diet, said co-lead author Kaixiong Ye in a recent statement. He said the two genetic variations probably emerged early in our evolutionary history, when people around the world migrated to different environments. Sometimes they ate a plant-based diet and sometimes they ate a marine-based diet, and in different time periods these different alleles were adaptive.

The study is just one more example of how our dietary habits can change our genome. One of the most notable diet-based mutations is the human ability to digest milk. All humans are born capable of breaking down the enzymes in milk, but for most people, this ability fades once they enter adulthood. A genetic mutation that allows some people to keep drinking milk, however, is common among modern Europeans and those of European descent. According to Berkeley University, around 10 percent of Americans are lactose-intolerant, compared to 99 percent of Chinese. This is because having the gene for lactose tolerance was only advantageous in cultures that had access to domesticated dairy animals, and relied on them for food and milk.

Source: Kothapalli KSD, Ye K, Gadgil MS, et al. Positive Selection on a Regulatory Insertion-Deletion Polymorphism in FADS2 Influences Apparent Endogenous Synthesis of Arachidonic Acid. Molecular Biology and Evolution . 2016

----------


## farreri

> However, co-author Dr. Alon Keinan told Medical Daily that there is an easy way for those whose ancestors were vegetarians to avoid these health risks.
> 
> “[Those with an ancestral history of vegetarianism] would do perfectly well, *as long as they avoid* some foods that are vegetarian but *high in omega-6, specifically plant-based oil*,” Keinan wrote in an email. “More in general, vegetarians in industrialized countries tend to rely heavily on plant-based oil, which is rich in omega-6, and can lead... to inflammation-related diseases.”


The diet I recommend is a low-fat *oil-free* plant based diet, so I'm all good there. 




> 70 percent of South Asians, 53 percent of Africans, 29 percent of East Asians, and just 17 percent of Europeans.


The irony is flip those numbers around and those are basically the percentages of people who get the most cancer!

----------


## tod evans

> The diet I recommend is a low-fat *oil-free* plant based diet, so I'm all good there. 
> 
> 
> The irony is flip those numbers around and those are basically the percentages of people who get the most cancer!





> those whose ancestors were vegetarians


Whew!

Saved by my ancestors.

I'll do my part to make sure my progeny doesn't have to suffer the fate your ancestors bestowed on you.

I'm truly sorry.

Will you break the cycle? Will you eat a balanced diet in order to assure that your offspring don't suffer the indignities of forced vegetarianism due to genetic mutation?

----------


## farreri

> Will you break the cycle? Will you eat a balanced diet in order to assure that your offspring don't suffer the indignities of forced vegetarianism due to genetic mutation?


Na. 

*Vegetarians less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters, says study* 
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ncer-diet-risk

----------


## donnay

*Long term vegetarian diet changes human DNA raising risk of cancer and heart disease* 


Sarah Knapton 

29 March 2016 

Long term vegetarianism can lead to genetic mutations which raise the risk of heart disease and cancer, scientists have found.

Populations who have had a primarily vegetarian diet for generations were found to be far more likely to carry DNA which makes them susceptible to inflammation.

Scientists in the US believe that the mutation occured to make it easier for vegetarians to absorb essential fatty acids from plants.

But it has the knock-on effect of boosting the production of arachidonic acid, which is linked to inflammatory disease and cancer. When coupled with a diet high in vegetable oils - such as sunflower oil - the mutated gene quickly turns fatty acids into dangerous arachidonic acid.

The finding may help explain previous research which found vegetarian populations are nearly 40 per cent more likely to suffer colorectal cancer than meat eaters, a finding that has puzzled doctors because eating red meat is known to raise the risk.

Researchers from Cornell University in the US compared hundreds of genomes from a primarily vegetarian population in Pune, India to traditional meat-eating people in Kansas and found there was a significant genetic difference.

“Those whose ancestry derives from vegetarians are more likely to carry genetics that more rapidly metabolise plant fatty acids,” said Tom Brenna, Professor of Human Nutrition at Cornell.

“In such individuals, vegetable oils will be converted to the more pro-inflammatory arachidonic acid, increasing the risk for chronic inflammation that is implicated in the development of heart disease, and exacerbates cancer.

“The mutation appeared in the human genome long ago, and has been passed down through the human family.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...-risk-of-canc/

----------


## Valli6

All I know, is that my cousin became a vegan in her late twenties and she died of lymphoma in her mid fifties.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

LOL@vegetarians.

----------


## donnay

> All I know, is that my cousin became a vegan in her late twenties and she died of lymphoma in her mid fifties.


Sorry for your loss.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Like everything- studies showing eating a particular type of food causes cancer involves consuming very large amounts of that thing.   Moderation and variety.  Too much of anything is not good.

----------


## donnay

> Like everything- studies showing eating a particular type of food causes cancer involves consuming very large amounts of that thing.   Moderation and variety.  Too much of anything is not good.


If your a vegetarian and only eat plants you are ultimately, over a period of time, eating large amounts of plants which could be laced with pesticides that accumulate in the body.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Im not sure if its the protein content OR the factory farming conditions we use and the fact that most of the animals we eat are sickly but cutting out sugar is definitely a way to keep cancer growth at bay... Of course that sort of diet really isnt sustainable long term and I would suspect that some wild caught fish like sardines, herring, etc would be a satisfactory way to get the required missing nutrition from such a diet.


FIFY. There's nothing in animal protein that causes or worsens cancer. Sugar, however, feeds cancer (a fact well-known and universally accepted, last I checked).

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> FIFY. There's nothing in animal protein that causes or worsens cancer. Sugar, however, feeds cancer (a fact well-known and universally accepted, last I checked).


There are some cancers that can feed on animal protein.. Chicken meat and eggs seems especially prone to accelerating tumor growth in some studies.  You might be able to get away with things just by cutting out the sugar but at the time I wasn't taking any chances. Its not a diet I would ever advocate as a permanent lifestyle change.. I lost over 50lbs in 7 weeks and definitely was  deficient in protein and various nutrients no doubt.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> If your a vegetarian and only eat plants you are ultimately, over a period of time, eating large amounts of plants which could be laced with pesticides that accumulate in the body.


I worked with a woman who avoided fresh fruits and vegetables for that very reason.  Unfortunately she died at age 60 from cancer. The only way to avoid any risks from foods is to not eat food and not drink anything and not breathe any air. Of course your life would be considerably shorter. 

Just washing vegetables removes most pesticide residues.

----------


## fisharmor

This thread makes me wish I had a pack of cigarettes.

----------


## CPUd

> I worked with a woman who avoided fresh fruits and vegetables for that very reason.  Unfortunately she died at age 60 from cancer. The only way to avoid any risks from foods is to not eat food and not drink anything and not breathe any air. Of course your life would be considerably shorter. 
> 
> Just washing vegetables removes most pesticide residues.


I sometimes wash veggies with this stuff, it can remove the waxy stuff on tomatoes, etc.:

----------


## Zippyjuan

http://www.thekitchn.com/whats-the-d...uit-and-118406




> While they are generally considered safe,* the actual effectiveness of these washes is debated.* Even if they remove surface residues, one can't be sure that all pesticides have been eliminated. And some evidence suggests *water is actually good enough*. In a study of three commercial washes, University of Maine researchers found that distilled water was equally if not more effective in removing microbes such as bacteria and mold. Another study at Tennessee State University *also found that water worked as well as the vegetable wash tested.*
> 
> And yet, we know that produce washes give some people peace of mind. If this is the case in your household, you don't need to shell out a ton of money for commercial products.* You can make your own spray using ingredients you probably already have in your pantry. A solution of equal parts white vinegar and water can dissolve residues and kill bacteria;* just spray it on, rub, and rinse with water. For other simple solutions, see Re-Nest's How To: Make Your Own Fruit and Vegetable Wash.


http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eati...ove-pesticides




> There is a variety of conflicting information to be found about removing pesticides from the skin of vegetables and fruits. The organic wash that I’ve used in the past, Chico Wash,* doesn’t claim to remove any pesticide*s. It only claims to remove dirt and 99.999 percent of salmonella and E.coli from produce and nuts.
> 
> While I found lots of how-to advice on the Internet about removing pesticides, I didn’t find a single wash that claims to do so. I did find a study done over a decade ago by the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station on the removal of trace pesticide residues from produce. The study compared non-organic produce that was either not washed at all, rinsed only in water, and washed in “FIT, Fruit & Vegetable Wash, Organiclean, Vegi-Clean, or a 1% solution of Palmolive.”
> 
> The study found there was *“little or no difference between tap water rinsing or using a fruit and vegetable wash in reducing residues of the nine pesticides studied.”* There was a difference between the unwashed produce and the ones that were rinsed in water or washed with a product. The unwashed produce had more pesticide residues.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I can't for the life of me understand why so many people perceive vegans and vegetarians as 'holier than thou....'

----------


## opal

well damn

----------


## Suzanimal

> Like everything- studies showing eating a particular type of food causes cancer involves consuming very large amounts of that thing.   Moderation and variety.  Too much of anything is not good.


I agree with Zippy here. As far as veg washes go, I use vinegar when I buy something with that wax all over it and just plain water for everything else. If it doesn't come off, I peel it. Cucumbers seem to be the worst offenders. I finally started buying the seedless variety in the wrapper - they taste better and I don't have to peel the damn things.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *There are some cancers that can feed on animal protein*.. Chicken meat and eggs seems especially prone to accelerating tumor growth in some studies.  You might be able to get away with things just by cutting out the sugar but at the time I wasn't taking any chances. Its not a diet I would ever advocate as a permanent lifestyle change.. I lost over 50lbs in 7 weeks and definitely was  deficient in protein and various nutrients no doubt.


Which cancers?

----------


## Zippyjuan



----------


## farreri

> Scientists in the US believe that the mutation occured to make it easier for vegetarians to absorb essential fatty acids from plants.


That sounds like a GOOD thing!

----------


## farreri

> FIFY. There's nothing in animal protein that causes or worsens cancer. Sugar, however, feeds cancer (a fact well-known and universally accepted, last I checked).


Aren't you the guy who thinks this guy is fully natty?

----------


## farreri

> I can't for the life of me understand why so many people perceive vegans and vegetarians as 'holier than thou....'


I guess you think Paleo advocates are holier than thou too.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Aren't you the guy who thinks this guy is fully natty?


Steroids and HGH can do wonders. (and they can also promote cancer cell growth along with muscle growth).

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Which cancers?


I dont know which ones. But I wasnt taking any chances (Even when a lab says you have a certain type of cancer if might turn out to still be a different type of cancer on  subsequent test)... Most people overall say youre probably okay by just cutting out white sugar.. That even natural fruit sugars have molecules that spin an an opposite direction to white sugar molecules and so cancer cant utilize them for energy.. and of course there are some doctors that say that even if thats true that too much natural fruit sugar can raise your insulin and cause a higher sugar absorption rate that the cancer can utilize... Dr Frederick Hatfield cured his terminal cancer by switching to a paleo diet complete with lots of animal protein and no carbs... There are a good number of other people who have gone the paleo route with success as well.. There is a lot of room here for personal experimentation but if you get hit with cancer youve got to do what youre comfortable with... If you make a mistake it could cost you your life.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I guess you think Paleo advocates are holier than thou too.


as a matter of fact...

but they don't even begin to reach the level of "I AM BETTER THAN ALL YALL" that vegans and vegetarians seem to be utterly saturated in.

----------


## Zippyjuan

"My diet is better than your diet! I'm gonna look like 23 forever and you are going to DIE!!"

----------


## Ender

> as a matter of fact...
> 
> but they don't even begin to reach the level of "I AM BETTER THAN ALL YALL" that vegans and vegetarians seem to be utterly saturated in.


I'm pretty much Paleo- (the Blood Type O diet from 4 Blood Types, 4 Diets) saved my life and I am very grateful.

And most of my vegan friends are pretty much in the Holier Than Thou category.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I'm pretty much Paleo- (the Blood Type O diet from 4 Blood Types, 4 Diets) saved my life and I am very grateful.
> 
> And most of my vegan friends are pretty much in the Holier Than Thou category.


You know it's funny, I don't _ever_ recall you running around acting like you were better than the rest of the human race, based on what you choose to eat...

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> as a matter of fact...
> 
> but they don't even begin to reach the level of "I AM BETTER THAN ALL YALL" that vegans and vegetarians seem to be utterly saturated in.


yEAH I have to agree. Most vegans are completely over the top... Just look at Farreri's posting history here, hes a prime example... Hes right and everybody else is wrong to such a degree that its his job to talk down to the world and enlighten us.


Meanwhile Ive never noticed this from paleo eaters or weight watcher dieters or quite frankly any other group of eaters..... - - Just vegans

----------


## osan

> _"Cancer is a function of nutrient intake and in this particular case, protein intake. Nutrition controls cancer growth."_
> 
> Animal Protein -- Meat and Dairy -- Cause Cancer 
> 
> IGF-1 as One-Stop Cancer Shop
> 
> *Leading Causes of Death*
> 1# - Heart disease
> *2# - Cancer*
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lead...s-of-death.htm


IMO this is a load of crap.

How is it that for tens of thousands of years men ate animals, yet there is no evidence of cancer?

Until the twentieth century, there was no word in the Japanese language for "cancer" - and they were not the only ones.

One can also trot out studies that demonstrate the ill-effects of the absence of animal protein in the human diet.

It seems to me that these studies take otherwise solid facts and draw all the most inept inferences from them, misleading people to believe things that are patently untrue, or at the very least eminently questionable.  They always fail to account for the historical record that suggests other truths.  Prior to the twentieth century, cancer was all but unknown.  It is also interesting to note, and I cannot give cites for this so take what I say with a grain of salt, that as I recall the incidence of cancer began to make itself first noticeable in Britain and the United States, the birthplaces of the industrial revolution.  Assuming I am recalling correctly, I will sarcastically add that there is nothing to see there, so move along... PROLE.

----------


## farreri

> but they don't even begin to reach the level of "I AM BETTER THAN ALL YALL" that vegans and vegetarians seem to be utterly saturated in.


Sorry to hear they make you butthurt.

----------


## farreri

> How is it that for tens of thousands of years men ate animals, yet there is no evidence of cancer?


Because you didn't use your googling skills.




> The earliest known descriptions of cancer appear in several papyri from Ancient Egypt. The Edwin Smith Papyrus was written around *1600 BC* (possibly a fragmentary copy of a text from *2500 BC*) and contains a description of cancer, as well as a procedure to remove breast tumours by cauterization. It wryly observed that the disease has no treatment.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...arly_diagnoses

----------


## specsaregood

> You know it's funny, I don't _ever_ recall you running around *acting like you were better than the rest of the human race*, based on what you choose to eat...


That's because he is an elf.

----------


## osan

> Because you didn't use your googling skills.


My bad - I should have qualified that as "common" or "widespread".

I would not  be surprised if cancer has been around a long time, but it was not common as it is now.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> My bad - I should have qualified that as "common" or "widespread".
> 
> I would not  be surprised if cancer has been around a long time,* but it was not common as it is now*.


Couple of potential factors. 
1) many cancers take a long time to be noticeable or significant.  People now live longer so there is more time for cancers to develop. 
2) Detection of cancer is significantly better. We can find cancers which would have never even been noticed a couple decades ago. 

Actual incidence of cancers may or may not be higher than it used to be.




> Leading Causes of Death
> 1# - Heart disease
> *2# - Cance*r


#1 cancer death is from lung cancer- related to smoking, not diet (though diet may influence it). Lung cancer causes more than three times as many deaths as the next cancer.

----------


## farreri

> Couple of potential factors. 
> 1) many cancers take a long time to be noticeable or significant.  People now live longer so there is more time for cancers to develop. 
> 2) Detection of cancer is significantly better. We can find cancers which would have never even been noticed a couple decades ago.


3) Humans eat more animal products than ever.




> #1 cancer death is from lung cancer- related to smoking, not diet (though diet may influence it). Lung cancer causes more than three times as many deaths as the next cancer.


Cancer death rates are misleading because our technology has vastly improved the remission rates of certain cancers, so new cancer cases are what's more important to know.  

*Estimated New Cases*
Breast (Female – Male) 	246,660
Lung (Including Bronchus) 	224,390
Prostate 	180,890
Colon and Rectal (Combined) 	134,490
http://www.cancer.gov/types/common-cancers

I think the science is pretty clear our obsessant appetite for animal products is the biggest reason for those high rates of new cancer cases.

----------


## farreri

> I would not  be surprised if cancer has been around a long time, but it was not common as it is now.


What's your leading theory about why cancer rates are so common now that it is our #2 killer?

----------


## Zippyjuan

Prostate along with colon and rectal cancer take a very long time to develop. Many men die with it but few die from it. These are the cancers most associated with meat consumption.  Lung cancer is much more fatal. Nearly half die. Using initial cases is also a poor measure.  Smoking is still a far more leading cause of death than eating meat. Genetics plays a role as well.  

But as I have said repeatedly- too much of anything is not healthy.  Whether that is sugar, meat, fats, or grains, alcohol, or whatever.

----------


## farreri

> Lung cancer is much more fatal. Nearly half die.


Suzanimal posted a study showing how diet can severely increase the risk of lung cancer, although the article blamed the wrong food.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Correlation is not necessarily causation but lung cancer has declined significantly with the decline in smoking in this country.

----------


## farreri

> 


Interesting that the male rate looks to follow the smoking rate much more closely than the female rate.

----------


## Zippyjuan

In the early years, men smoked more than women. Their usage also peaked later. Among youth today, the rate is about the same. And so is the cancer rate. 

http://www.lung.org/about-us/media/p...declining.http




> *Lung Cancer Rates Declining*
> 
> CDC Report Shows Men's Rates are Declining Faster than Women
> 
> Statement of Harold P. Wimmer, National President and CEO, American Lung Association
> 
> (January 9, 2014) - Washington, D.C.
> The American Lung Association is pleased to see the decline in lung cancer rates reported today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). While this is good news, lung cancer remains the nation’s leading cancer killer. The data, published in the January 10, 2014 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report credits proven tobacco prevention and control measures for their contribution to this decline. During the period 2005-2009 the report shows that lung cancer rates among men have declined 2.6 percent per year and 1.1 percent per year among women.
> 
> *Over the past several decades smoking rates among men and women have become similar,* especially among those in younger age groups. This change is reflected by the data that show *the gap in lung cancer rates between younger men and younger women has been eliminated*. This is a sign that women may account for a greater portion of the lung cancer burden in the future.   Clearly much more work is needed to address lung cancer and all its risk factors – tobacco use, genetics and environmental exposures.


This chart splits them up:

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

Might have more to do with hormones in the meat than the meat itself. Humans evolved to eat meat and there's no evidence of widespread cancer rates within hunter/gatherer societies; quite the opposite in fact.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> as a matter of fact...
> 
> but they don't even begin to reach the level of "I AM BETTER THAN ALL YALL" that vegans and vegetarians seem to be utterly saturated in.


It's true.

Also interesting how vegans tend to be leftists and paleo-eaters tend to be on the right...

----------


## osan

> What's your leading theory about why cancer rates are so common now that it is our #2 killer?



That is tough to say, but 150 years of heavy pollution could conceivably have a hand in it.

I don't know how much you know about industrial processes, but I have been fairly intimate with quite a few of them and most are horrifically filthy.

The refining of aluminum is a great example, and only one of tens of thousands.  Cracking petrochemicals, chemical reaction chains... the list is very long and the poisons numerous and very dangerous in many cases.

Whether that is all a factor, I cannot say, but it would seem sensible.  There could be others.  I have wondered whether the taint of processing of food is one.  How about population pressure?  We could go on all day speculating.

But one thing we do know is that in ages past, cancer was very uncommon, yet people ate animal protein.

Perhaps it is that we eat too much of it?  I just do not believe that eating it is bad, in sé.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Sorry to hear they make you butthurt.


Is this supposed to be yet another statement claiming that you are better than me?

----------


## osan

> Might have more to do with hormones in the meat than the meat itself. Humans evolved to eat meat and there's no evidence of widespread cancer rates within hunter/gatherer societies; *quite the opposite in fact*.


Very much so.

For example, a mummified remain was discovered in South America a number of years ago.  Stomach contents showed plenty of meat.  IIRC, it was a woman in her 30s and apparently in  superb health.  Her teeth were absolutely immaculate - no sign of any dental disease whatsoever.  Bones strong, and so forth.

There is at least one study that showed serious harms to the mental faculties of those who ate no meats.  Issues of perception, logic, reason, etc., as I recall.

Personally, I think the vegan thing is unsound.  I was a vegetarian for two years in college, but not a vegan.  I knew vegans - all California hippies and I can honestly say that they were all weirdos in some ineffable manner that left me less than comfortable in their company.  I will note that when I returned to eating meat, my strength increased noticeably in my riding (bicycle racing).  I never looked back.

As for crap that is in American meat, it appears that the cancer rates in Europe are on par with those in the USA. Even Japan is at about 260/100K.

http://www.wcrf.org/int/cancer-facts...quency-country

----------


## Natural Citizen

I think all of the health problems that come from food in the modern era is because of all of the chemicals and processing. I try to eat the most natural and least processed food that I can.

The difference in meat today and centuries ago is obvious so the comparisons you all are making don't make a lick of sense in my view.  Meat today isn't largely natural diet and wild as it was then. It's fed chemicals and then processed out the wazoo on top of that.

I do eat meat but I'm very particular what I buy. It's almost all Amish raised and fresh. It's the best I can do compared to everything else.

----------


## Suzanimal



----------


## Suzanimal

> I think all of the health problems that come from food in the modern era is because of all of the chemicals and processing. I try to eat the most natural and least processed food that I can.
> 
> The difference in meat today and centuries ago is obvious so the comparisons you all are making don't make a lick of sense in my view.  Meat today isn't largely natural diet and wild as it was then. It's fed chemicals and then processed out the wazoo on top of that.
> 
> I do eat meat but I'm very particular what I buy. It's almost all Amish raised and fresh. It's the best I can do compared to everything else.


Do you have a Sprouts in your area? They have great prices on quality meat.

https://www.sprouts.com/

----------


## farreri

> Is this supposed to be yet another statement claiming that you are better than me?


Where did I claim I was better than you? I was just saying sorry those vegans make you so butthurt. Very ironic vegans make manly meat-eating men so butthurt.

----------


## farreri

> Perhaps it is that we eat too much of it?  I just do not believe that eating it is bad, in sé.


Well we eat more animal products than ever and heart disease and cancer have now become are our two biggest killers. Coincidence?

----------


## farreri

> Personally, I think the vegan thing is unsound.  I was a vegetarian for two years in college, but not a vegan.


Who said you have to be vegetarian or vegan to be healthy?




> I knew vegans - all California hippies and I can honestly say that they were all weirdos in some ineffable manner that left me less than comfortable in their company.  I will note that when I returned to eating meat, my strength increased noticeably in my riding (bicycle racing).  I never looked back.


Ever occur to you you weren't eating enough on your vegetarian diet? Not getting enough calories can make a person get weak and cray cray. Why do you think thin women always seem so mentally and emotionally unstable?

----------


## farreri

> Might have more to do with hormones in the meat than the meat itself. Humans evolved to eat meat and there's no evidence of widespread cancer rates within hunter/gatherer societies; quite the opposite in fact.


You mean gatherer/hunter societies.

----------


## Yieu

> as a matter of fact...
> 
> but they don't even begin to reach the level of "I AM BETTER THAN ALL YALL" that vegans and vegetarians seem to be utterly saturated in.


Hey Gunny.  I gave you rep based on your previous post in this thread because I didn't think you were being sarcastic and have had respect for you.  I personally cannot see for the life of me why people would think vegetarians are "holier than thou", because I make it a point to exemplify the opposite of that.  To some degree, it seems that some paleo people seem to be so as an "F-you" to vegetarians or something.  I don't care what people eat.  I prefer if people hunt their meat if possible.

But this thread title is insufferable, and does not represent my views.  farreri, you are giving people who eat like me a bad name!  Please play nice and be respectful and polite.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> I think all of the health problems that come from food in the modern era is because of all of the chemicals and processing. I try to eat the most natural and least processed food that I can.
> 
> The difference in meat today and centuries ago is obvious so the comparisons you all are making don't make a lick of sense in my view.  Meat today isn't largely natural diet and wild as it was then. It's fed chemicals and then processed out the wazoo on top of that.
> 
> I do eat meat but I'm very particular what I buy. It's almost all Amish raised and fresh. It's the best I can do compared to everything else.


Same with me... I normally go up there once a month to the farm to get all my eggs, milk, meat.. all grassfed or pastured...

----------


## Zippyjuan

Meat used to be luxury- people could not afford meat for every meal.  Wealthier societies tend to consume more meats- and other things which are bad for your health in large quantities like sugars and fats. Is it the meat- or the other junk? Or both? And to repeat from earlier- it is easier to detect cancers than before.  That simple change means more cases of cancer found- even if the actual frequency remains the same.  


Pounds per person.

Hong Kong actually consumes twice as much meat per capita as the United States.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Hey Gunny. I gave you rep based on your previous post in this thread because I didn't think you were being sarcastic and have had respect for you. I personally cannot see for the life of me why people would think vegetarians are "holier than thou", because I make it a point to exemplify the opposite of that. To some degree, it seems that some paleo people seem to be so as an "F-you" to vegetarians or something. I don't care what people eat. I prefer if people hunt their meat if possible.


For vegetarians, it's a case-by-case thing, but the vast majority of vegans are $#@!s. If you don't believe me, come to the Bay Area.

----------


## Yieu

> For vegetarians, it's a case-by-case thing, but the vast majority of vegans are $#@!s. If you don't believe me, come to the Bay Area.


I will admit that vegans are more often insufferable, and the vegetarians I know tend to be more rational, in general.

----------


## osan

> Where did I claim I was better than you? I was just saying sorry those vegans make you so butthurt. Very ironic vegans make manly meat-eating men so butthurt.


I will not speak for Gunny, but I suspect it is precisely this tone that prompted him to write what he did.

Your characterization and sarcastic implication that eating meat is the result of being either "neanderthal" or insecure such that one is a pussy trying to cover it up with macho bluster or meat-eating is gratuitous at best.  You started out citing claims that meat is, _in sé_, carcinogenic.  Some here, including myself, have rejected this claim and you have countered not with proper reason, but with what I see as emotionalism - at least to my posts.  I've not read them all, so I will not speak more broadly.

Cancer is a subtle creature in terms of its causes.  To attribute single variables to what has proven itself to be so multivariate a problem is really not valid.  Furthermore, the archaeological record appears to refute the claim that meat is carcinogenic in itself.  I offered you but a small handful of possible reasons for increased cancer rates - all speculative because carcinogenesis is so poorly understood.

One of my great grandfathers smoked 100 cigarettes per day, drank like a fish, ate plenty of meat, and lived to be exactly 100 years old.  He owned and ran a 90,000 acre barony, worked like a ditch-digger producing foods and other farm products.  Was his longevity a matter of genetics?  Did the hard physical labor protect him from cancer?  Was the quality of the food he consumed a contributing factor in his not having developed cancer in his lifetime?  Clean air and water?  Who knows?  Nobody, so far as I can tell.

Cancer is a game of combinatorics.  It is highly multivariate in nature, and therefore a real bugger to get wraps on.  You may not be familiar with multivariate systems and it is not my place to teach you about them.  But I will say that the moment the number of variables goes up past 3 or 4, linearity (predictability) rapidly flees.  With cancer there may be dozens or even hundreds of variables in a given case.  This is not to say that there are not things that either cause cancer in themselves or contribute such that there would have been no cancer in their absence.  But again it is as yet impossible to know precisely because of the complexity and subtlety of biochemistry.

Bathe in carbon tetrachloride and chances are likely you will develop cancer, and yet even then one cannot say that it will happen for certain in any given case.

Given all this, I could as easily take your resistance to truth as a form of butthurt as you _seemingly_ hold tight-shut your eyes to those inconvenient little factors that interfere with your apparently simplistic world view on the matter.  But I don't.  I don't because I am unwilling to assume quite that much about where you are coming from.  More to the point, I see nothing to be gained by attempting to insult with words.  It is a fruitless pursuit, IMO.  YMMV.

----------


## osan

> Who said you have to be vegetarian or vegan to be healthy?


Don't put words into my mouth.  It is an uncouth practice.




> Ever occur to you you weren't eating enough on your vegetarian diet? Not getting enough calories can make a person get weak and cray cray. Why do you think thin women always seem so mentally and emotionally unstable?


You have no knowledge of my circumstance.  Stop assuming.

----------


## farreri

> I will not speak for Gunny, but I suspect it is precisely this tone that prompted him to write what he did.
> 
> Your characterization and sarcastic implication that eating meat is the result of being either "neanderthal" or insecure such that one is a pussy trying to cover it up with macho bluster or meat-eating is gratuitous at best.


I just post scientific evidence that a plant based diet done right is superior for human health. It's not my fault people here get burthurt for learning the truth.




> You started out citing claims that meat is, _in sé_, carcinogenic.  Some here, including myself, have rejected this claim


Lots of people don't like to accept the science when it doesn't suite them.




> and you have countered not with proper reason, but with what I see as emotionalism - at least to my posts.


For instance? Why don't you criticize the other members when they post their snarky pics of meat all all my threads about the benefits of a plant based diet? Are you a hypocrite?




> Furthermore, the archaeological record appears to refute the claim that meat is carcinogenic in itself.  I offered you but a small handful of possible reasons for increased cancer rates - all speculative because carcinogenesis is so poorly understood.


So what caused cancer back in the days before man made chemicals?




> One of my great grandfathers smoked 100 cigarettes per day, drank like a fish, ate plenty of meat, and lived to be exactly 100 years old.  He owned and ran a 90,000 acre barony, worked like a ditch-digger producing foods and other farm products.  Was his longevity a matter of genetics?  Did the hard physical labor protect him from cancer?  Was the quality of the food he consumed a contributing factor in his not having developed cancer in his lifetime?  Clean air and water?  Who knows?  Nobody, so far as I can tell.


We are talking about the science of health. Are you seriously bringing up anecdotal evidence?




> With cancer there may be dozens or even hundreds of variables in a given case.


But why do the rates seem to follow the rate of animal consumption?




> Given all this, I could as easily take your resistance to truth


The only resistance to truth I see is from you heavy meat eaters. It's like your in denial about thinking you can be healthy with having your cake and eating it too, or for this instance, having your big plates of meat, cheese, and eggs and eating it too.




> You have no knowledge of my circumstance.  Stop assuming.


I'm basing my thoughts on the logical and scientific conclusion of why you felt weaker on a vegetarian diet because it's very common for people on forms of plant based diets who don't really know what they are doing, or not preparing well to easily find themselves not eating enough. Dannno had signs he wasn't eating enough when he was vegetarian.

----------


## tod evans

A plant based meme............(With lots of butter of course)

----------


## osan

> I just post scientific evidence that a plant based diet done right is superior for human health. It's not my fault people here get burthurt for learning the truth.


Your statement carries with it the presupposition of the conclusion.  That fails.





> Lots of people don't like to accept the science when it doesn't suite them.


And as often, they will believe even when the conclusions to which they have jumped are not warranted by the evidence at hand.





> For instance? Why don't you criticize the other members when they post their snarky pics of meat all all my threads about the benefits of a plant based diet? Are you a hypocrite?


It's your thread.  You made the assertions.  I've heard the arguments before and as structured, do not hold up.





> So what caused cancer back in the days before man made chemicals?


Did I not write earlier that cancer is not a simple disease with respect to cause?  I have no idea any more than do you.  But it is clear from historical records that it was not common.




> We are talking about the science of health. Are you seriously bringing up anecdotal evidence?


Most certainly I am.  It demonstrates that people (and I know many more) can do all manner of things that supposedly cause cancer and not develop it.





> But why do the rates seem to follow the rate of animal consumption?


That is a FUNDAMENTALLY different point from the one you originally made.  We can come up with two changes right off the top of our heads.  Firstly, we now pollute our meats with hormones, pesticides, ABX, and so forth.  Secondly, we eat a lot more meat.  There is a vast difference between saying that eating meat causes cancer and over-consuming.  The two cannot be compared.  Water is not only safe, it is essential as a nutrient.  Drink 3 gallons in one sitting and you will almost certainly die.





> The only resistance to truth I see is from you heavy meat eaters.


I call BULL$#@!.  You are changing your tune.  You begin by asserting that eating meat causes cancer with no emphasis on volumes consumed.  Now you modify your assertion to "heavy meat eaters".  Once again, that is an entirely different thesis.







> I'm basing my thoughts on the logical and scientific conclusion of why you felt weaker on a vegetarian diet because it's very common for people on forms of plant based diets who don't really know what they are doing, or not preparing well to easily find themselves not eating enough. Dannno had signs he wasn't eating enough when he was vegetarian.


You are basing your conclusion on baloney assumptions that are patently false.  For one thing, I was brutishly strong.  I rode 125 miles a day, no less than 6 days per week.  When I left the vegetarian diet, I felt stronger.  I ate huge amounts prior and afterward.  In fact I used to frequent a restaurant in Davis called Angela's.  I ate so many dinners at once, people used to come in on Wed. nights and take bets on how many I'd eat that week as Wed. was "all you can eat".  I had no shortage of calories. And when I returned to eating meat I did not over-consume.

There is nothing scientific about your baseless assertions.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Hey Gunny.  I gave you rep based on your previous post in this thread because I didn't think you were being sarcastic and have had respect for you.  I personally cannot see for the life of me why people would think vegetarians are "holier than thou", because I make it a point to exemplify the opposite of that.  To some degree, it seems that some paleo people seem to be so as an "F-you" to vegetarians or something.  I don't care what people eat.  I prefer if people hunt their meat if possible.
> 
> But this thread title is insufferable, and does not represent my views.  farreri, you are giving people who eat like me a bad name!  Please play nice and be respectful and polite.


I don't recall you _EVER_ acting anything even _remotely_ like this guy.  So I certainly was not trying to include you in any of that.  But this really is a problem with a lot of anti meat people.  Not all, but a lot.  I just came from a YouTube where some Tajiks broke a glass jar off from around a cat's head, and some guy in the comments was acting all 'better than you lot' and raising cain because HE was a vegan, and us savages weren't.  This was on a video of some random people rescuing a cat.  Maybe their rescuing of a cat from certain death doesn't count because they occasionally eat bacon??  I dunno.  It's a problem they have.  It's a problem that a _lot_ of them have.  It is _not_ a problem that _you_ have.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't recall you _EVER_ acting anything even _remotely_ like this guy.  So I certainly was not trying to include you in any of that.  But this really is a problem with a lot of anti meat people.  Not all, but a lot.  I just came from a YouTube where some Tajiks broke a glass jar off from around a cat's head, and some guy in the comments was acting all 'better than you lot' and raising cain because HE was a vegan, and us savages weren't.  This was on a video of some random people rescuing a cat.  Maybe their rescuing of a cat from certain death doesn't count because they occasionally eat bacon??  I dunno.  It's a problem they have.  It's a problem that a _lot_ of them have.  It is _not_ a problem that _you_ have.


Because _only vegans_ love animals...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiev...baogn2ejbdpr04

----------


## Suzanimal



----------


## jllundqu

I've tried a multitude of 'diets' and one thing I've come to understand is that it that our species evolved with meat as a PART of our diet, not the bulk, but certainly not excluding meat.

To Osan's point... eating moderate amounts of organic, hormone free, grass fed meat in combination with vast amounts of vegetable, fruits, and some grains/carbs thrown in is, IMO, the perfect human diet.  We are (were?) hunter gatherers.  For hundreds of thousands of years, humans ate what we could find in nature and/or hunt.

Eating mass amounts of processed meats and cheeses will of course lead to increases in cancer.  I would also posit that eating vast amounts of pesticide/herbicide ridden fruits and vegetable also has a tangible and measurable negative effect on human health.

What I can't stand, it people claiming that they know what is best for me without even a modicum of subject matter expertise.  

Reminds me of these:

----------


## tod evans

12 sec Suz........

Stick-girl need something in her yak-hole....

----------


## jllundqu

And yes I am a hunter that kills deer in the mountains, drags them back to camp, skins them, guts their carcasses, cuts them into tiny pieces, and then feeds them to my children.  It doesn't get more 'organic and free range' than wild game.  

There is nothing comparable, in my view, than to hunt for your own food.  A man (or woman) must intrinsically know and be in tune with nature to be a hunter.  You have to know the winds, the cycle of the moon, the weather, when the rut happens, etc.

I am also a greenthumb that has a HUGE garden where I grow an 1/8 of an acre of organic vegetables.... so there.

----------


## jmdrake

So vegans should mate with inuits.  Problem solved.  

Seriously though, most vegetarians aren't vegan and thus they get omega 3 from eggs and/or dairy.  And there are a lot of plant sources of omega 3s. 




> Wonder of all wonders what you can find with a Google search.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Vegetarian Gene: A Plant-Based Diet Causes Lasting Genetic Mutations That Could Increase Cancer Risk*
> 
> http://www.medicaldaily.com/vegetari...er-risk-380079
> 
> ...

----------


## Suzanimal

> 12 sec Suz........
> 
> Stick-girl need something in her yak-hole....


Short version. Meat eaters should be killed.

----------


## tod evans

> Short version. Meat eaters should be killed.


Coming from stick-girl who won't eat critters someone else kills and dresses for her...

Something about alligator mouth/canary ass eh?

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Short version. Meat eaters should be killed.


youre not a vegan susie are you?

----------


## tod evans

> youre not a vegan susie are you?


She eats meat...

----------


## farreri

> But this thread title is insufferable, and does not represent my views.  farreri, you are giving people who eat like me a bad name!  Please play nice and be respectful and polite.


You're asking me to play nice? I'm just reporting the science. It's the heavy meaters on this forum who are acting like whiny babies and posting snarky pics of steak on my threads that are trying to show people what's best for human health. After all, this is the Personal Health & Well-Being section.

----------


## farreri

> Secondly, we eat a lot more meat.  There is a vast difference between saying that eating meat causes cancer and over-consuming.  
> 
> Now you modify your assertion to "heavy meat eaters".


You haven't been following my posts close enough because I've never said any amount of meat will give people cancer or heart disease, but that the science is clear that eating too much animal products is the leading cause of both of those two diseases that are our #1 & #2 killers. It's like smoking. Having a pack of cigarettes a month probably won't do much harm, but having a couple packs a day WILL lead to cancer as the science is clear about.

----------


## farreri

> I don't recall you _EVER_ acting anything even _remotely_ like this guy.


How am I acting?

----------


## farreri

> To Osan's point... eating moderate amounts of organic, hormone free, grass fed meat in combination with vast amounts of vegetable, fruits, and some grains/carbs thrown in is, IMO, the perfect human diet.  We are (were?) hunter gatherers.


Vast amounts of fruit and grains, moderate of vegetables, and only small amounts or no amount at all of animal products is the healthiest diet for humans.




> For hundreds of thousands of years, humans ate what we could find in nature and/or hunt.


That was to survive, not thrive. We only started thriving when we became farmers and had abundant amount of starches (grains, potatoes) to consistently get enough clean calories.




> Eating mass amounts of processed meats and cheeses will of course lead to increases in cancer.


That's pretty much what I've been saying, it's American's insatiable appetite for animal products that is doing us in.

----------


## farreri

> Short version. Meat eaters should be killed.


I've seen that video. Your version is a little too short for what point she was actually trying to make.

And how can she be so thin from all the carbs she eats? I thought carbs make you fat?!

----------


## osan

> 


Typical of her ilk - takes a valid point and goes all simple with it.

I agree that a lot of really evil things are done to animals.  I completely reject industrial farming of animals.  However, what this dimwit fails to realize is that were we to shut it all down tomorrow, a billion people would die in a matter of a few months.  Industrialized farming became part of the division of labor that in turn lead to our abilities to render life such that we now have nearly 8 billion souls on the planet.  Remove the primary source of protein from the world and a REAL world war would break out as starving masses went berserk in the quest not to die of malnutrition.

So, Ms. Stupy$#@!, how would you propose to feed people such that they would not suffer the afflictions of intellect to which certain brands of protein deficiency give apparent rise?  <crickets>  That's what I thought.

I am the first to acknowledge that men have painted themselves into a very tight corner and that we now engage in much evil for the sake of survival and worse yet, vanity.  But how do we get ourselves out of this mess in a time-frame that is meaningful to our remaining existences?  Short of culling or allowing die a couple or five billions of people, there is no likely hope that we can escape the prison of our reality in the ways this narrow-between-the-eyes dip$#@! demands.  And who here, of the nearly eight-billion people you see standing behind me, does anyone think will be the first to step into the disintegration chamber for the sake of their fellows.  <more crickets>  Precisely.

So as to what I think, prior to hitting the play button I was thinking I'd like to get my hands up her blouse.  Post trauma, you could not pay me enough to put my digits there for fear of contracting the contagion of her stupid.  In fact, she earned a Takei on the matter:




I like George, even if he's a bit $#@!ed up on a few issues. 

The blind hypocrisy of such people astonishes me, as does the hubris as she presumes so much as to even ask the question of whether such people as meat eaters _deserve_ to _live_.  This is the just another element in the raging plague of dementia that may one day bring about global slaughter as the people on opposite poles of the perceptual spectrum finally decide they have had enough of each other and remove the gloves once and for all.  Horrible as it seems, this may be the unavoidably necessary remedy for said plague because AFAICS, appeals to logic, reason, decency, etc. have no effect on the insane.

----------


## jllundqu

> Vast amounts of fruit and grains, moderate of vegetables, and only small amounts or no amount at all of animal products is the healthiest diet for humans.
> 
> 
> That was to survive, not thrive. We only started thriving when we became farmers and had abundant amount of starches (grains, potatoes) to consistently get enough clean calories.
> 
> 
> That's pretty much what I've been saying, it's American's insatiable appetite for animal products that is doing us in.


I respectfully disagree with that assessment.  Mass amounts of fruits and grains (sugars and carbs)?  There is ample scientific evidence to refute that particular claim.   Also, humans didn't 'begin to thrive' as a result of the grains they farmed... they thrived because they stopped moving from place to place and built cities, invented writing to tally crops, began commerce, etc.  The beginning of human civilization is not because of eating freaking grains.... that is an outrageous and unsupported claim.

I stand by my assertion that eating what humans evolved to eat, mainly a mix of some meat, fat, vegetables, fruits, nuts and some grains... is vastly superior human nutrition than mass amounts of carbs and sugars (fruits and grains).

I think in the future, one of the things humanity will look back on as a massively costly mistake was removing fat from our foods and replacing it with sugar/carbs.

By your claim this:



is healthier than this:



I find that assertion to be ignorant in extremis.

----------


## Suzanimal

> youre not a vegan susie are you?


Nah, burgers are the only reason I couldn't easily go vegetarian, though.




> She eats meat...







> I've seen that video. Your version is a little too short for what point she was actually trying to make.


Which was? Animal cruelty so we should kill meat eaters or force them to go vegan.




> And how can she be so thin from all the carbs she eats? I thought carbs make you fat?!


Just like anything, they do if you eat too much of them and don't get off your ass occasionally.

----------


## osan

> 12 sec Suz........
> 
> Stick-girl need something in her yak-hole....



Screw you pal.  You fill her yak-hole if you want.  My yakker stays home this time.

The very thought makes me shiver so violently, I damned near tossed my soul into Kanawha county.

----------


## tod evans

> Screw you pal.  You fill her yak-hole if you want.  My yakker stays home this time.
> 
> The very thought makes me shiver so violently, I damned near tossed my soul into Kanawha county.


I was thinking along the lines of rhubarb...

----------


## jllundqu

> Screw you pal.  You fill her yak-hole if you want.  My yakker stays home this time.
> 
> The very thought makes me shiver so violently, I damned near tossed my soul into Kanawha county.


Couldn't put anything in her yak hole but a cucumber anyway....

----------


## osan

> You haven't been following my posts close enough because I've never said any amount of meat will give people cancer or heart disease, but that the science is clear that eating too much animal products is the leading cause of both of those two diseases that are our #1 & #2 killers. It's like smoking. Having a pack of cigarettes a month probably won't do much harm, but having a couple packs a day WILL lead to cancer as the science is clear about.


I wrote that you changed your tune when your arguments were proven wanting.

Your OP statement:  




> _"Cancer is a function of nutrient intake and in this particular case, protein intake. Nutrition controls cancer growth."_


Not a word about rate of consumption.

QED.

Please cut the bull$#@! and either prove that your claim that meat causes cancer in sé, concede you have no convincing argument, or at least show the integrity of admitting that you have altered your position from the OP. 

You cannot get away with anything here.  Far too many sharp people.

----------


## osan

> I was thinking along the lines of rhubarb...


The sour sure would be a proper match.

----------


## farreri

> I wrote that you changed your tune when your arguments were proven wanting.
> 
> Your OP statement:  
> 
> Not a word about rate of consumption.


That was a quote from the scientist. Take it up with him.

----------


## osan

> That was a quote from the scientist. Take it up with him.


Weak attempt at deflection.  Please tell us you have more than _that_.

----------


## osan

> Couldn't put anything in her yak hole but a cucumber anyway....


What a criminally horrible thing to do to a cucumber.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPAxEcZeuw


I've always had a weakness for the Oz accent.  For the first time in my life I am utterly and completely repulsed by an Australian woman.  Good job!

----------


## farreri

> Weak attempt at deflection.  Please tell us you have more than _that_.


What am I defecting? Not understanding the point you're trying to make.

----------


## farreri

> I respectfully disagree with that assessment.  Mass amounts of fruits and grains (sugars and carbs)?  There is ample scientific evidence to refute that particular claim.


Such as?




> Also, humans didn't 'begin to thrive' as a result of the grains they farmed... they thrived because they stopped moving from place to place and built cities, invented writing to tally crops, began commerce, etc.  The beginning of human civilization is not because of eating freaking grains.... that is an outrageous and unsupported claim.


All successful civilizations had some kind of starch as their staple food to fuel them to success.




> My recommendation for eating starches puts glazed looks on peoples faces, and many dismiss me as certifiably crazy. They think of starch as something used in the laundry to stiffen shirts.  Starch brings back memories of pasty bland-tasting goop, and white, airy Wonder Bread. Most disturbing is that nearly everyone believes starches are fattening and nutritionally inferior foods. Fortunately, common knowledge is completely wrong and the proof is right before your own eyes.
> 
> The most important evidence supporting my claim that the natural human diet is based on starches is a simple observation that you can easily validate for yourself: All large populations of trim, healthy people, throughout verifiable human history, have obtained the bulk of their calories from starch. Examples of once thriving people include Japanese, Chinese, and other Asians eating sweet potatoes, buckwheat, and/or rice, Incas in South America eating potatoes, Mayans and Aztecs in Central America eating corn, and Egyptians in the Middle East eating wheat. There have been only a few small isolated populations of primitive people, such as the Arctic Eskimos, living at the extremes of the environment, who have eaten otherwise. Therefore, scientific documentation of what people have eaten over the past thirteen thousand years convincingly supports my claim.
> 
> Men and women following diets based on grains, vegetables, and fruits have accomplished all of the great feats in history. The ancient conquerors of Europe and Asia, including the armies of Alexander the Great (356  323 BC) and Genghis Khan (1162  1227 AD) consumed starch-based diets.  Caesars legions complained when they had too much meat in their diet and preferred to do their fighting on grains.1 Primarily six foods: barley, maize (corn), millet, potatoes, rice, and wheat have fueled the caloric engines of human civilization. 
> 
> *Starches Consumed Throughout History*
> Barley  Middle East for 11,000 years
> Corn (maize)  North, Central, and South America for 7,000 years
> ...





> I stand by my assertion that eating what humans evolved to eat, mainly a mix of some meat, fat, vegetables, fruits, nuts and some grains... is vastly superior human nutrition than mass amounts of carbs and sugars (fruits and grains).


On my paleo nonsense thread, I posted links that science shows humans were frugivores, getting most of our calories from fruit just like most of the rest of the great apes, and after that we because starchivores and that's why we really started to thrive as a species.




> I think in the future, one of the things humanity will look back on as a massively costly mistake was removing fat from our foods and replacing it with sugar/carbs.


It's impossible to remove fat from our food. Fruit, starches, beans, and vegetables all have fat in them and there are plenty of plant fats like avocado, olives, and nuts & seeds.

The biggest costly mistake is what is causing 6 of our top 10 leading causes of death; too much animal products.

     *Heart disease*
     *Cancer*
     Chronic lower respiratory diseases
     Accidents (unintentional injuries)
     *Stroke* (cerebrovascular diseases)
     *Alzheimer's disease*
     *Diabetes*
     Influenza and pneumonia
     (*Kidney disease*) Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis 
     Intentional self-harm (suicide)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lead...s-of-death.htm




> By your claim this:
> 
> 
> 
> is healthier than this:
> 
> 
> 
> I find that assertion to be ignorant in extremis.


Fast clean energy carbs, or slow energy saturated fat and cholesterol laden meat.  Hmm.

----------


## farreri

> Which was? Animal cruelty so we should kill meat eaters or force them to go vegan.


Maybe you should watch the video the whole way through.




> Just like anything, they do if you eat too much of them and don't get off your ass occasionally.


So the reason you eat so alarmingly little is you're a sedentary couch potato?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Maybe you should watch the video the whole way through.
> 
> 
> So the reason you eat so alarmingly little is you're a sedentary couch potato?


So now you are just insulting the hell out of anyone who doesn't worship your lifestyle?  WTF is wrong with you?  Is this what abandoning meat does to a soul?  Turns you into a raging ass?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So now you are just insulting the hell out of anyone who doesn't worship your lifestyle?  WTF is wrong with you?  Is this what abandoning meat does to a soul?  Turns you into a raging ass?


Most zealots come off that way.

I give liberty zealots a pass only because they don't want to *do* anything to you past that.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> So now you are just insulting the hell out of anyone who doesn't worship your lifestyle?  WTF is wrong with you?  Is this what abandoning meat does to a soul?  Turns you into a raging ass?


one thing I can say is that when I went on my vegan diet for 7 weeks and then went off it, i had an aversion to meat. I dont have that aversion anymore though even though I really havent eaten any meat.. but I cant wait until I do lol.. could really go for a beef burrito rightnow

----------


## Suzanimal

> Maybe you should watch the video the whole way through.


I did a long time ago but I don't have the stomach for her. Must be all the meat





> So the reason you eat so alarmingly little is you're a sedentary couch potato?


Nope. I eat when I feel hungry and stop when I feel full.

----------


## farreri

> I did a long time ago but I don't have the stomach for her. Must be all the meat


Maybe it's not enough calories.




> Nope. I eat when I feel hungry and stop when I feel full.


If I only eat a scoop of peanut butter a day and that makes me feel full, that would be perfectly healthy?

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Maybe it's not enough calories.
> 
> 
> If I only eat a scoop of peanut butter a day and that makes me feel full, that would be perfectly healthy?


You might have more success with convincing people if you didnt act like your knew more about their bodies than their own bodies.

----------


## farreri

> You might have more success with convincing people if you didnt act like your knew more about their bodies than their own bodies.


I think you're the last person around here who should be talking.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> I think you're the last person around here who should be talking.


Im not sure why youd say that.. Its quite evident you dont play well with others, thats why you create all this animosity against you and veganism to boot.

----------


## farreri

> Im not sure why youd say that.. Its quite evident you dont play well with others, thats why you create all this animosity against you and veganism to boot.


People like you, tod, dannno, donnay, and gunny are the one's who can't play well with others who have a different view point.

Oh, and Lucille. You should read the crazy stuff she says to me when giving me a negative rep.

----------


## AZJoe

> Well we eat more animal products than ever and heart disease and cancer have now become are our two biggest killers. Coincidence?


Au contraire. The modern diet eats more sugars, carbs, and grains then ever before and right along with the modern diet has become cancer, heart disease, obesity and diabetes. Coincidence? The modern diet eats far, far less animal product than hunter gatherer societies which have virtually zero incidence of any of these modern ailments.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Au contraire. The modern diet eats more sugars, carbs, and grains then ever before and right along with the modern diet has become cancer, heart disease, obesity and diabetes. Coincidence? The modern diet eats far, far less animal product than hunter gatherer societies which have virtually zero incidence of any of these modern ailments.


plus add in that majority of meat eaten is $#@! factory farmed animals fed a bunch of GMO grain, candy, literal garbage from trash cans... so all that stuff is in the meat when people eat it.. people are eating sick plants and animals

----------


## farreri

> The modern diet *eats far, far less animal product than hunter gatherer societies* which have virtually zero incidence of any of these modern ailments.

----------


## Yieu

> I don't recall you _EVER_ acting anything even _remotely_ like this guy.  So I certainly was not trying to include you in any of that.  But this really is a problem with a lot of anti meat people.  Not all, but a lot.  I just came from a YouTube where some Tajiks broke a glass jar off from around a cat's head, and some guy in the comments was acting all 'better than you lot' and raising cain because HE was a vegan, and us savages weren't.  This was on a video of some random people rescuing a cat.  Maybe their rescuing of a cat from certain death doesn't count because they occasionally eat bacon??  I dunno.  It's a problem they have.  It's a problem that a _lot_ of them have.  It is _not_ a problem that _you_ have.


Thanks Gunny.  I think the problem exists more with the vegans than the vegetarians.  On another forum, I was just recently harangued over and over by vegans for "supporting animal suffering" by drinking milk.  I can't stand that attitude.  They would catch more flies with honey, but then they're against eating honey!

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Thanks Gunny.  I think the problem exists more with the vegans than the vegetarians.  On another forum, I was just recently harangued over and over by vegans for "supporting animal suffering" by drinking milk.  I can't stand that attitude.  They would catch more flies with honey, but then they're against eating honey!


Tell them you go to a dairy farm where none of the animals suffer. That'll fix 'em

----------


## Yieu

> Tell them you go to a dairy farm where none of the animals suffer. That'll fix 'em


Unfortunately, I am not aware of a dairy in my area that lets the cows live out their natural life, lets the calves have some of the milk, and doesn't sell the calves for meat.  If I did, then I would get my milk from there.  I am aware of such farms in other states, but not here.  So until I find a farm like that in my area, there is some suffering involved, but I don't think that should mean that I have to go vegan until I can find a farm where none of the animals suffer.

----------


## farreri

> Thanks Gunny.  I think the problem exists more with the vegans than the vegetarians.  On another forum, I was just recently harangued over and over by vegans for "supporting animal suffering" by drinking milk.  I can't stand that attitude.  They would catch more flies with honey, but then they're against eating honey!


No one's doing that over here despite what some paranoid heavy meat eaters claim.

----------


## Yieu

> No one's doing that over here despite what some paranoid heavy meat eaters claim.


It's good that no one is doing that for dairy here, though I was just noting that I've experienced that on other forums.

----------


## euphemia

> So now you are just insulting the hell out of anyone who doesn't worship your lifestyle?  WTF is wrong with you?  Is this what abandoning meat does to a soul?  Turns you into a raging ass?


Absolutely true.  farreri, I have no idea why you are on a liberty forum.  Every one of your threads is manipulative fearmongering about what might happen to people if they don't do what you think they should be doing.

----------


## farreri

> Absolutely true.  farreri, I have no idea why you are on a liberty forum.  Every one of your threads is manipulative fearmongering about what might happen to people if they don't do what you think they should be doing.


Thanks for sharing your opinion.

----------

