Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-07-2008, 07:53 PM posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 139
Default new page

http://ecologos.org/times.htm

Laurie
--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-07-2008, 07:49 PM posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 17
Default new page

On Jul 11, 2:53*pm, Laurie wrote:
http://ecologos.org/times.htm

* * * * Laurie
--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science




crap, again.



rating your own postings i see.


  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-07-2008, 12:42 PM posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 139
Default new page

white, fat and fugly wrote:

crap, again.

Anyone else observe that these illiterate meatarian propagandists do
not have the ability to write a coherent sentence that expresses any
concept?
Their most popular "debating" techniques are lying, insults,
name-calling, and
generally expressing their profound lack of any education.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm

"white, fat and fugly"

..., you forgot terminally stupid.

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-07-2008, 03:10 PM posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 17
Default new page

On Jul 15, 7:42*am, Laurie wrote:
white, fat and fugly wrote:

crap, *again.


* * * * Anyone else observe that these illiterate meatarian propagandists do
not have the ability to write a coherent sentence that expresses any
concept?
* * * * Their most popular "debating" techniques are lying, insults,
name-calling, and
generally expressing their profound lack of any education.
* * * *http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm

* "white, fat and fugly"
* * * * ..., you forgot terminally stupid.

* * * * Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science





nice excuse... but since you're too ****in' stupid to realize i'm a
vegan.....



that comes from inept potential that you were born with.


why is that?


oh, that's the ****tarded syndrom. nice try on the meat
excuse... but you fail again.


  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-07-2008, 02:28 PM posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 36
Default new page

On Jul 11, 2:53 pm, Laurie wrote:
http://ecologos.org/times.htm

Laurie
--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science


Thanks for sharing another good addition Laurie. It's worth reading
more than once.

The main idea of Amanda’s Web site is to eat popular “lip smackingly
good meals” like “sardines thrown on a barbecue and eaten with hot
crunchy bread” and “forget the things you shouldn't eat” yet
“reconnect with real food and start concentrating on things that you
actually enjoy.” “Just savour every mouthful.” “Always choose foods
you like.” “..have a good time.”

Amanda is a digestive system-cheerleader between feedings.

I don’t know why English people need a nutritionist to be encouraged
to eat more cows. “How about a succulent steak cooked to perfection”
http://www.amandaursell.com/html/philosophy.html

At “Amanda Ursell's Feel good” http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...3/ai_n14528443
she suggested vitamins for vegetarian children to obtain iron but blew
an opportunity to advise high vitamin C food to DIGEST iron even after
stating, “iron from plant foods is not well ABSORBED.” Any mention of
disease risks associated with heme iron wouldn’t “feel good.” If I
were trying to dissuade people from a veg diet, I don’t know how I
would do it differently. She goes on to suggest eggs, anchovies for
pizza, poultry, etc.-as if to enlist children into her cravings team.
No wonder she has “a habit of attracting calamity.”
http://www.amandaursell.com/shop/pro...b705e71c7481a5

“she obviously is not the slightest bit familiar with plant-based
diets” –Laurie
Amanda stepped up to provide examples of a salt exclusion diet
http://www.amandaursell.com/html/salt.html but otherwise writes as
though she were under the influence of galanin & advertising pressure.

I think the formula Amanda tries to use for calculating nutrients is:
“our innate understanding of what is good for us to eat.”

Chris


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-07-2008, 04:26 PM posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 36
Default new page

On Jul 15, 7:42 am, Laurie wrote:
white, fat and fugly wrote:

crap, again.


Anyone else observe that these illiterate meatarian propagandists do
not have the ability to write a coherent sentence that expresses any
concept?


They just make noise. Thus, please continue posting the much
appreciated, accurate analysis & relevant research..

With fruit,
Chris
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-07-2008, 07:43 PM posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 139
Default new page

white, fat and fugly wrote:

crap, again.

nice excuse... but since you're too ****in' stupid to realize
i'm a vegan.....


I am not a mind reader, neither are you.
Regardless of your diet still do not have the ability to write a
coherent sentence; you have retained your meatarian ignorance,
arrogance, and compulsive vulgarity.
But, you are a great example of the fact that a vegan diet does NOT
FORCE one to be educated, rational, polite, or civil.

Laurie
--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-07-2008, 07:59 PM posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 139
Default new page

On Jul 15, 7:42 am, Laurie wrote:
white, fat and fugly wrote:

crap, again.

Anyone else observe that these illiterate meatarian propagandists
do not have the ability to write a coherent sentence that
expresses any concept?


crisology wrote:
They just make noise.

Actually, they ARE providing a useful and vital contrast to
intelligent folks who would like to educate themselves, and share
ideas and experiences. Their idiotic beliefs and brutish behavior
provide, at least me, 'talking points' to be easily refuted; this, in
the distinct advantage to those who would like to clarify their
understanding of the science of human nutrition.
So, I use these pathetic psychopaths for =my= purposes; and, they are
too stupid to recognize that I am in control of them.
Thanks, psychopaths; I could not do all this without you.

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-07-2008, 09:06 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 139
Default Amanda’s Web site ...

crisology wrote:

Amanda’s Web site ...

Thanks for the links, I have added significantly to my page as a result.
I will send her the link to her page on Ecologos, and challenge her to
a public debate on news:alt.food.vegan.science.
Any bets of whether she will respond in an intellectually-honest manner?
Again, thanks for your continuing support.

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-07-2008, 04:06 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 36
Default Amanda’s Web site ...

On Jul 20, 4:06 pm, Laurie wrote:
crisology wrote:
Amanda’s Web site ...


Thanks for the links, I have added significantly to my page as a result.


I just read it carefully. Excellent additions! And thank you for
clearly contrasting those pork & sardine examples of "educational
darkness" with "eating in harmony with our genetic programming." Each
page you add brings healthy/natural diet into better perspective.

I will send her the link to her page on Ecologos, and challenge her to
a public debate on news:alt.food.vegan.science.


Almost as we speak (last month),
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle4095920.ece
Amanda still advises iron from meat without mention of health risks or
vitamin C which may help absorb heme iron & does help digest natural
iron in plants.

Any bets of whether she will respond in an intellectually-honest manner?


Response could be contingent upon Almond Board of California ("The
Portfolio Diet") & Nourkrin hair supplement manufacturers' estimates
of whether intellectual honesty will help sales/false body image.
http://hairstyleandcare.blogspot.com...6_archive.html

Amanda has some unturned boulders on that page and a chance to defend/
promote her philosophy & books. But the chances Amanda ambushes, mauls
& ingests raw calves are greater than the likelihood anybody explains
how such cattle tissue supplements are healthier or more natural than
fruit. Amanda hasn't explained how "Cutting out meat, fish, eggs,
dairy foods and cereal grains would result in the loss of many
nutrients" neither has anybody else. Until then omnivarians continue
to cheer lead for digestion while replacing meat with plant food adds
life promoting phytochemicals.

Chris


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-07-2008, 08:18 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default Amanda’s Web site ...

crisology wrote:
On Jul 20, 4:06 pm, Laurie wrote:
crisology wrote:
Amanda’s Web site ...

Thanks for the links, I have added significantly to my page as a result.


I just read it carefully. Excellent additions! And thank you for
clearly contrasting those pork & sardine examples of "educational
darkness" with "eating in harmony with our genetic programming." Each
page you add brings healthy/natural diet into better perspective.


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. All the insulting rhetoric,
mudslinging and conspiratorial innuendo just makes him look like another
garden variety loon.


I will send her the link to her page on Ecologos, and challenge her to
a public debate on news:alt.food.vegan.science.


Almost as we speak (last month),
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle4095920.ece
Amanda still advises iron from meat without mention of health risks or
vitamin C which may help absorb heme iron & does help digest natural
iron in plants.

Any bets of whether she will respond in an intellectually-honest manner?


Response could be contingent upon Almond Board of California ("The
Portfolio Diet") & Nourkrin hair supplement manufacturers' estimates
of whether intellectual honesty will help sales/false body image.
http://hairstyleandcare.blogspot.com...6_archive.html

Amanda has some unturned boulders on that page and a chance to defend/
promote her philosophy & books. But the chances Amanda ambushes, mauls
& ingests raw calves are greater than the likelihood anybody explains
how such cattle tissue supplements are healthier or more natural than
fruit. Amanda hasn't explained how "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?

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.

There's a lot of equivocation going on here and precious little
objectivity. "Red meat", arguably the least desirable of the meat family
from a health perspective, is often used to represent all meat,
including fish and foul. Diets which consume far too much fatty meat,
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.
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-07-2008, 10:13 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 36
Default Amanda’s Web site ...

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.

  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-07-2008, 04:19 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default Amanda’s Web site ...

crisology wrote:
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?


Like presenting information in a neutral tone instead of the hysterical
conspiratorial tone the site has presently.

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's hardly an insult to use a person's real name. Moreover given the
overall disparaging tenor of the entire website, that is hardly relevant.

It seems you are only here searching for
conflict.


I made what I thought was a constructive criticism. If the goal is to
have people read the information and consider it then peppering the site
with insults and personal attacks is hardly the way to achieve that.

You're bringing baggage here with no intention of exchanging
information about nutrition or adaptation (parataxic distortion).


I have a point of view, if that's what you mean. I gained that point of
view by a long life of taking in information from a wide variety of
sources. I am not easily swayed by the kind of condescending,
manipulative rhetoric Larry, er "Laurie" employs.

"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.

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.


Your verbiage is cluttered with prejudicial assumptions.


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?


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


Balance does not imply a static state.



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."


I didn't say that, although it's true. Enjoyment of food is an important
factor in nutrition.


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


Meat family?

Desirable??


Am I speaking a foreign language?

There you go.. Talking about what you are conditioned to "desire."


I wasn't talking about being conditioned to desire anything. The comment
was obviously about the health profile of meat. Red meats have the
highest negative factors of the meats.

Of
course this doesn't stimulate objectivity. Yet a lot of 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. You're cherry-picking.


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 by anti-meat extremists, when in fact a
beef steak is a completely different food than a halibut steak.

from a health perspective


Yes not from an insulting perspective..


What?


is often used to represent all meat,


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


You provided the example right above.


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


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


That's an opinion not supported by the bulk of dietary research. Which
meat? Which type exactly? In what amount? In what context?


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.


??


What don't you understand about that?

C.

  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-07-2008, 05:42 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 36
Default Amanda’s Web site ...

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

  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-07-2008, 06:52 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default Amanda’s Web site ...

crisology wrote:
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.


You changed the question, you asked which nutrients would be lost by
excluding meat, not which could not be replaced with other foods. The
one that comes to mind immediately is B-12. If fruit is our natural food
it is odd that an essential nutrient cannot be obtained from it.

http://www.explorevitamins.co.uk/Vitamins-and-Meat.html
If you love eating meat you’ll be glad to hear that you may well find it
easier to eat plenty of B vitamins than your vegetarian friends. That’s
because, unlike many other vitamins, the B vitamins are not always
easily found in plant-based foods. So this is one area where eating meat
now and again is likely to help you get your recommended daily
allowance, or RDA, of many essential nutrients. Here’s exactly which B
vitamins you’ll find in your favourite meat dishes.
Vitamin B1, which is good for your heart and nervous system, is found in
a wide variety of meats so you shouldn’t have any trouble getting enough
of this one.
Vitamin B2, which is good for growing bodies and essential in helping
your body release energy from food, is in liver and liver products like
paté. Eating liver seems to have gone out of ‘fashion’ in recent years,
but adding some to your diet now and then can be a healthy choice.
Also found in liver is essential nutrient vitamin B3, which is important
for building the structure of the skin.
Vitamin B5 is a key element in the production of red bloods cells in
your body and you can find it in both chicken and beef. So it’s no old
wives’ tale that if you’re unhealthily pale, a hearty meal of steak or
beef might help put some colour back in your cheeks.
Vitamin B6 is necessary for a healthy nervous system and blood function.
You’ll be eating up plenty when you go for chicken or fish. So if you
are usually a red meat eater, try alternating with these lighter
alternatives now and again. Fish is particularly easy to cook and there
are so many varieties to try. You’re sure to find something you love.
Vitamin B12 helps you release energy from food and is important for the
production of red bloods cells. It’s in meat, fish and dairy products.
Once again, if you enjoy eating meat, you should have few problems
making sure you get enough vitamin B12.
Other Vitamins and Meat
Vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E and vitamin K are not so readily
available in meat or meat products, although you can get vitamin D from
oily fish. So you will need to serve plenty of vegetables, grains and
fruits with your favourite roast or grilled dish, to ensure you get the
little bit of everything you need for maximum health.

Striking a Healthy Balance... etc

The site author, John Rowlinson is a bio-physicist.

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?


You can look them up for yourself.

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.


Please show where I suggested that we "just trying to survive with meat"

Meat is meat. There isn't much difference in type of nutrients between
them.


That is not true. Oily fish such as salmon are very rich in Vitamin D
and Omega 3 fatty acids


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.


I was not referring to cravings, the context of my remarks should have
made that clear. By "desirable" I meant "nutritionally desirable". The
kind of desirability you are referring to is totally subjective
therefore it could not have been what I meant.

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."


A balanced diet is a diet which contains a wide variety of foods which
contain different groups of nutrients, so that what may be lacking in
one can be obtained in others.


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?


No, red meat is unhealthy if one consumes too much of it as many people
do. Water can be poisonous if you drink too much. You could probably
overdose on potassium if you ate nothing but bananas. An occasional
small organic steak is perfectly healthy.

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


People don't "eat by numbers".

and you introduce a mysterious "context" to eat meat on top of
the non-falsifiable balance cravings.


The context is a diet which is focused on fruit, vegetables, healthy
grains, dairy and selected meat products.

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.


Your language reveals your dietary extremism. There's no such thing as
"natural foods".


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
see my web page.......... malar General Cooking 4 07-04-2012 07:43 AM
Page 3 Josef Fritzl General Cooking 3 22-03-2009 08:31 PM
new page Laurie Vegan 3 17-06-2008 12:12 AM
WEB PAGE Tom Wine 1 08-03-2006 11:04 PM
FireMagic web page Drew Cutter Barbecue 1 14-06-2004 03:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017