On Jul 22, 11:19 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> crisology wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 3:18 pm, Dutch > wrote:

> >> "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.
>
> There are literally thousands.

So neither of you are able to name just 1 of the nutritional losses by
excluding fallback food with available fruit.

> By balance I mean including a wide variety of foods in the diet.

So what are the variety of nutrients you are trying to obtain w/
different types of meat? where are your numbers? Most great apes &
larger primates eat over 100 different species of fruit/yr plus other
vegetation. Fruit is the preferred food (digested most easily) among
all apes when available. As a human with available fruit, what is your
food species count? Just trying to survive with meat is not adding
variety of species to a diet- it prevents variety.
Meat is meat. There isn't much difference in type of nutrients between
them. Among plant species there are vast differences in antioxidants,
nutrient profiles.You are only getting as much variety in xenobiotics
as you are nutrients in meat.

> Balance does not imply a static state.

Then show some numbers for any of the categories of balance you are
alluding to and how you obtain that balance using meat as opposed to
fruit.

> >> . "Red meat", arguably the least desirable of the meat family
>
> > Meat family?
>
> > Desirable??
>
> Am I speaking a foreign language?

I understand you have cravings..I did too.

> > science is
> > available to show meat is not only not desirable but unhealthy.
>
> A lot of science shows that meat is highly nutritious in the context of
> a balanced diet. It depends on your pre-conceptions.

Meat is carcinogenic regardless of your preconceptions.You haven't
defined the mysterious "context" "of a balanced diet."

> > 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?
>
> That is exactly what I was talking about before. "Red meat" is presented
> as representative of all meat

So you will not defend red meat and admit.red meat is unhealthy. We
agree on that much?

> beef steak is a completely different food than a halibut steak.

You said, "meat is highly nutritious in the context of a balanced
diet." You use no numbers when talking about balance so that's a non-
issue and you introduce a mysterious "context" to eat meat on top of
the non-falsifiable balance cravings. The only context I'm aware of is
if you have no food available, then resort to eating meat, otherwise
it's a nutritional compromise. to available natural food.

C