On Jul 22, 3:18 pm, Dutch > wrote:

> Larry's and apparently your slant on diet and health would be far better
> served in my view if the perspective were presented in a much more
> neutral, informative, professional manner.

Like referencing scientific studies?

> All the insulting rhetoric,

The first word of your post is a slight toward Laurie as he doesn't go
by the name of Larry. It seems you are only here searching for
conflict. You're bringing baggage here with no intention of exchanging
information about nutrition or adaptation (parataxic distortion).

> "Cutting out meat, fish, eggs,
> > dairy foods and cereal grains would result in the loss of many
> > nutrients" neither has anybody else.
>
> All those foods are loaded with nutrients, what's so difficult to
> understand?

Name 1 nutrient "loss" by excluding those food substitutes.
All the nutrients (especially protein, iron) are easily obtained in
natural food without the health risks of those food compromises. So
your "loss" is a gain when some nutrients are excessive & instead of
overdosing on protein/iron/fat- food compromises, you would be missing
out on the phytochemicals.

> Until then omnivarians continue
>
> > to cheer lead for digestion while replacing meat with plant food adds
> > life promoting phytochemicals.
>
> It's not about replacing plants with meat, it's about a healthy balance.

When you say "balanced" do you mean HDL balance w/LDL? Do you mean ph
balance? Bacterial flora? Energy ratios? Or balance in terms of
variety of species in diet? Meat of course is excessive in some
nutrients & creates deficiencies in other ways, while fruit naturally
reverses diseases associated with meat and there is no need to try to
"balance" or remedy fruit w/high fiber. The sufficient amount is
already in fruit. Trying to balance LDL w/HDL is not an issue with a
natural diet since the body naturally produces the necessary
cholesterol. In a natural diet you don't need to try to compensate or
take treatments for other food consumed. Food is not naturally disease
producing. When you try to substitute real food with meat you are
asking for deficiencies/overdoses.. Without numbers we can't talk
about balance. As Laurie says "balance" really doesn't exist in the
topic of health since the body is not static.


> There's a lot of equivocation going on here and precious little
> objectivity

Exactly. The most "objectivity" I'm seeing from those eating meat is,
"I like the way it tastes."

> . "Red meat", arguably the least desirable of the meat family

Meat family?

Desirable??

There you go.. Talking about what you are conditioned to "desire." Of
course this doesn't stimulate objectivity. Yet a lot of science is
available to show meat is not only not desirable but unhealthy.

But let's try..

"women who had one-and-a-half servings of red meat a day had nearly
double the risk for hormone receptor-positive cancer compared with
women who ate less than three servings of red meat per week."http://
info.med.yale.edu/yfp/news/breast_107.html

Your response?

> from a health perspective

Yes not from an insulting perspective..

> is often used to represent all meat,

Example? I can't debate "often." You're bringing in baggage/nothing
specific to debate.

> including fish and foul. Diets which consume far too much fatty meat,

Any meat is too much as it is a dietary compromise.

> processed foods, salt, refined sugar and trans-fats are used to
> represent all omnivorous diets, including those largely plant-centric
> with relatively small amounts of healthier meats. Those diets are
> actually close to many chimp diets, not evolutionary sidesteps at all.

??

C.