 |
|
| 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 | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Mr Ball's mentality
*
Jonathan Ball wrote: > >>That's nonsense.* You are making an implied claim: > >>meat in any quantity gives people "health problems". > >>Prove it.* The burden of proof is on you to support > >>your claim.* Get busy. > > > > > > I'm putting it right back on you. > > No, you're not.* You can't legitimately do so.* You > make a claim, the burden is on you to support your claim. > > Fix your clock, asshole. Why the need to call this person an asshole? Why is that you are so dam predictable? You never stop with the demands for that others stay on topic, yet your topic is always on being an abusive schmuck! I encourage everyone to be aware that Joni Ball is not here to discuss meat/beef efficiency or animal costs. He is here to troll for arguments to justify being abusive asshole. He especially can not control himself with women. He is an unashamed misogynist. Here is just a small sample of the abusive nature of this coward sexist punk taken from* alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian: Subject: No more Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 06:57:10 GMT From: Jonathan Ball > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Ball wrote: <snip> * You stupid, stupid, stupid ****:* I'm talking about the* address of the letter from the Associate Deputy Counsel* of the GAO that was linked *within* the address of the* faggot web site.* You didn't read that letter.* You* STILL haven't read the letter. You are just so incredibly stupid. how on earth can you keep up this ****witted, barely concealed belief of yours that you are the* smartest person in the world? No problem.* I don't have any problem at all deflating your swollen ego.* You are not anything close to as* smart and intelligent as you like to pretend. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Joni Ball has done far worse than this. Review this and the alt.food.vegan back log of post to see just how much low life this coward punk is. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The nature of Ball
*
Jonathan Ball wrote: > The ****ing cocksucker means that he is too arrogant to > set his calendar to the correct day, not that he > doesn't know how to do it (although he probably > doesn't.)* His arrogance is expected. Arrogance? Typical contradictory practice coming from you. But I don't think arrogant is the right word for you. You make no attempt to be superior. All you do is spew garbage because that is all you are - a buck tooth hunch back troll that solicits hate and abuse so you can get off by spewing it yourself. You are one lonely pathetic loser! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
"katie" > wrote in message .cable.rogers.com... > i think the thing here is that pulling out longevity info about different > population groups by either side isn't going to answer this question. just > as plant-based diets aren't necessarily healthier than omnivorous ones, > there are a multitude of factors contributing to the longevity (or lack > thereof) of each population group: socioeconomic factors, geography, > population & disease, conflict, colonialism etc. ==================== Sure, but vegans try to make the explicit statement that their diet is *THE* healthiest of any. it's yet another claim they've never been able to back up. The examples are just proof of their delusions. > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > > wrote: > > >>>The thing is, then why does meat give people health problems? > > >> > > >>Who says it does? I can name one plant food that causes far more health > problems > > >>from head to toe than "meat," which you say generically. That plant food > is > > >>sugar (and by sugar I mean any simple carbohydrate: glucose, sucrose, > fructose, > > >>etc.). > > >> > > >>Sugar causes tooth decay. Consumption of sugar can lead to diabetes. > Diabetes > > >>can lead to cardiovascular problems even in a veg-n diet; it can also > cause > > >>problems with vision, with mobility (circulation to feet), etc. > > > > > > You are merely trying to derail the point. > > > > No, I am noting that meat isn't inherently or automatically bad for > health, and > > that some plant-based foods cause plenty of health problems. High sugar > > consumption results in many of the same ailments that plague people who > consume > > too much saturated fat: heart disease, diabetes, etc. > > > > >>Many cuts of meat are low-fat and cause no health problems. Some meat -- > such as > > >>fatty fish (salmon, etc.), game, grass-fed beef -- is even advisable for > people > > >>with hypercholesterolemia because those meats help elevate HDL, which in > turn > > >>lowers LDL. BTW, LDL elevates with consumption of saturated fats -- not > merely > > >>cholesterol. That includes tropical oils (coconut and palm), transfats > > >>(hydrogenated vegetable oils), etc. > > >> > > >>>One would think that a naturally adapted diet would be perfectly > > >>>healthy. > > >> > > >>Sugar isn't healthy, yet many fruits are very high in sugars. > > > > > > I won't even bother with that one. > > > > Why not? Juicing removes beneficial fiber, and many nutrients. Juice is > merely > > sugary water with a few nutrients one doesn't get from Kool-Aid. > > > > >>>It's a poser, because I believe the evidence is there, that > > >>>early humans and even before, ate meat. > > >> > > >>The evidence is substantial that our early ancestors ate meat as part of > a > > >>varied diet. > > > > > > I want evidence from scientific studies of current humans, not moldy > > > axes in the dirt. > > > > http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4...ins.paleo.html > > http://www.thirdage.com/news/archive...031118-02.html > > http://www.cnn.com/FOOD/news/9906/28/red.meat.study/ > > > http://www.beef.org/dsp/dsp_content....o ntentId=428 > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0424031929.htm > > http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=2833 > > http://www.eatwild.com/cla.html > > http://res2.agr.ca/lethbridge/rep2001/rep0213_e.htm > > > > I could go on all day since there were plenty more hits on my searches. > Let me > > know if you need more evidence. > > > > > Form the british medical journal: > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/2ttj3 > > > > Data from nations with sizable vegetarian populations, such as India, show > that > > vegetarians and omnivores have statistically similar longevity and that > > vegetarians die from the very same diseases that affect omnivores. > > > > It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating > > peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who > > traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their > > longevity (at least before colonisation by Europeans). Within Aboriginal > > society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42). Obviously, if no > > old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book > > Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs > > of elderly native peoples from around the world (42). Explorers such as > > Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Inuit (again, > > before colonisation). (43) > > > > Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on > > a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for > > their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's > > milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In > > contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the > > shortest life-spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled > > around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. > > Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in > > animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for > > Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In > > Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty > > fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in > > athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples > > whose diets were largely vegetarian (42). > > http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vege...s-lifespan.htm > > > > Well? > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
> wrote in message ... > On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 17:33:38 GMT, Jonathan Ball > > wrote: > > >FIX your system calendar. > > > wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:08:49 GMT, usual suspect > > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>The thing is, then why does meat give people health problems? > >>> > >>>Who says it does? > >> > >> > >> > >> Prove that it doesn't. > > > >That's nonsense. You are making an implied claim: > >meat in any quantity gives people "health problems". > >Prove it. The burden of proof is on you to support > >your claim. Get busy. > > I'm putting it right back on you. ================== Typical ignorant vegan... makes a claim they cannot support and demands others to. What a hoot. > > Prove that meat doesn't. ================ Ok, just to play along. The longest living groups of people in the world are not vegans. Period. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
> wrote in message ... > On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:41:44 GMT, "rick etter" > > wrote: > > > > >> > >> I have not seen any evidence better than what I provided. > >==================== > >ROTYFLMAO Which was exactly, well, none.... > > > If a study done by a peer reviewed medical journal > over 17 years with a statistically sigificant number > of people is *nothing* then it just looks like you have > no regard for the scientific method, and hence can be > ruled out as any kind of rational person. > > Either that or you don't know how to follow the thread > back to where I posted the link. > > in either case, plonk. time. =============== Ah yes, runaway little one!!! Run like the wind... > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr Ball's mentality
Joni Ball has done far worse than this. Review this and the alt.food.vegan back log of post to see just how much low life this coward punk is. ~~jonnie~~ is a nasty shit bag. He reminds me of the dwarf in the "Singing Ringing Tree". http://freespace.virgin.net/sion.lew/dwarf.jpg |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
> wrote in message news  > On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:41:22 GMT, "rick etter" > > wrote: > > > > >================== > >Typical ignorant vegan... makes a claim they cannot support and demands > >others to. What a hoot. > > ok, for the lazy and ignorant, I'll post it again: > > http://tinyurl.com/2ttj3 > > > then **** off or be rational, or learn how to read. ===================== You, ignorant fool. You can take any 10000 people that are already disposed to a healthy diet and compare them to other people all day, and it won't make your study 'prove' anything. Plus, they didn't report for fish, dairy, alcohol, overall energy intake, exercise, or enonomic status. In other words fool, they were unable to: "...We were therefore unable to explore whether the significant associations observed were partly due to confounding by other dietary or non-dietary variables...." Plus, are you ignoring this statement?: "...A vegetarian diet was also associated with a significant increase in mortality from breast cancer...." > > any one of the above. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr Ball's mentality
In article >, Port Whine
> wrote: > Joni Ball has done far worse than this. Review this and the alt.food.vegan > back log of post to see just how much low life this coward punk is. Then why the hell do people keep responding to him? For f**k's sake, if he couldn't get a rise out of you, he would eventually get bored and go away. Killfile him and be done with it. The groups will be a much nicer place. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr Ball's mentality
"Port Whine" > wrote in message ... Jonathan Ball wrote: >>That's nonsense. You are making an implied claim: >>meat in any quantity gives people "health problems". >>Prove it. The burden of proof is on you to support >>your claim. Get busy. > > > I'm putting it right back on you. No, you're not. You can't legitimately do so. You make a claim, the burden is on you to support your claim. Fix your clock, asshole. Why the need to call this person an asshole? Why is that you are so dam predictable? You never stop with the demands for that others stay on topic, yet your topic is always on being an abusive schmuck! I encourage everyone to be aware that Joni Ball is not here to discuss meat/beef efficiency or animal costs. He is here to troll for arguments to justify being abusive asshole. He especially can not control himself with women. He is an unashamed misogynist. Here is just a small sample of the abusive nature of this coward sexist punk taken from alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian: Subject: No more Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 06:57:10 GMT From: Jonathan Ball > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Ball wrote: <snip> You stupid, stupid, stupid ****: I'm talking about the address of the letter from the Associate Deputy Counsel of the GAO that was linked *within* the address of the faggot web site. You didn't read that letter. You STILL haven't read the letter. You are just so incredibly stupid. how on earth can you keep up this ****witted, barely concealed belief of yours that you are the smartest person in the world? No problem. I don't have any problem at all deflating your swollen ego. You are not anything close to as smart and intelligent as you like to pretend. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Joni Ball has done far worse than this. Review this and the alt.food.vegan back log of post to see just how much low life this coward punk is. here, here! and have you seen some of etter's posts? he really doesn't say anything, just spouts off at the mouth dribbling incoherently john |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
> wrote in message ... > On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 22:17:02 GMT, "rick etter" > > wrote: > > >=============== > >Ah yes, runaway little one!!! Run like the wind... > > > yes, definitely a person demonstrating a lack of > interest in serious discussion or ability to consider > evidence. ======================= I respondedto you ignorance fool. I predict you will ignore it. > > troll. =============== Yes, that's all you've done so far. When you going to back up your ignorance? Your last site didn't do it, fool. > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr Ball's mentality
"Zakhar" > wrote in message ... > > > Joni Ball has done far worse than this. Review this and the alt.food.vegan > back log of post to see just how much low life this coward punk is. > > ~~jonnie~~ is a nasty shit bag. He reminds me of the dwarf in the "Singing > Ringing Tree". > > http://freespace.virgin.net/sion.lew/dwarf.jpg That's not ~~jonnie~~ it's his dad. > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
> wrote in message ... > On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 10:47:40 GMT, "Rubystars" > > wrote: > > > > >It sounds a little bit like a UFO convention, a skeptic free environment. > >You know? Not to be rude or anything, but I think you should be able to > >listen to what the evidence indicates far and above what you'd rather be > >true. Humans are omnivores and always have been. > > > The thing is, then why does meat give people health problems? > One would think that a naturally adapted diet would be perfectly > healthy. It's a poser, because I believe the evidence is there, that > early humans and even before, ate meat. Overconsuming meat leads to problems because people aren't as active as they used to be. People need to eat more vegetables, etc. to get a balanced diet. It's the overconsumption of meat, not the consumption of meat itself that's the problem. -Rubystars |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr Ball's mentality
*
john smith wrote: > * > > "Port Whine" > wrote in message > ... > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > > > >>That's nonsense.* You are making an implied claim: > > >>meat in any quantity gives people "health problems". > > >>Prove it.* The burden of proof is on you to support > > >>your claim.* Get busy. > > > > > > > > > I'm putting it right back on you. > > > > No, you're not.* You can't legitimately do so.* You > > make a claim, the burden is on you to support your claim. > > > > Fix your clock, asshole. > > Why the need to call this person an asshole? Why is that you > are so dam predictable? You never stop with the demands for > that others stay on topic, yet your topic is always on being > an abusive schmuck! > > I encourage everyone to be aware that Joni Ball is not here > to discuss meat/beef efficiency or animal costs. He is here > to troll for arguments to justify being abusive asshole. He > especially can not control himself with women. He is an > unashamed misogynist. > > Here is just a small sample of the abusive nature of this > coward sexist punk taken from* > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian: > > Subject: No more > Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 06:57:10 GMT > From: Jonathan Ball > > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, > talk.politics.animals > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > > <snip> > * > > You stupid, stupid, stupid ****:* I'm talking about the* > address of the letter from the Associate > Deputy Counsel* of the GAO that was linked *within* the > address of the* faggot web site.* You didn't read that > letter.* You* STILL haven't read the letter. > > You are just so incredibly stupid. > > how on earth can you keep up this ****witted, barely > concealed belief of yours that you are the* smartest person > in the world? > > No problem.* I don't have any problem at all deflating your > swollen ego.* You are not anything close to as* smart and > intelligent as you like to pretend. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Joni Ball has done far worse than this. Review this and the > alt.food.vegan back log of post to see just how much low > life this coward punk is.*here, here! and have you seen some > of etter's posts? he really doesn't say anything, just > spouts off at the mouth dribbling incoherentlyjohn > That's funny as hell! Both Etter and Ball are two of the most pathetic white trash dirt balls that ever lived. No doubt you would find a 77 Camaro all rusted out on blocks parked in front of their broken down mobile home parked out in an over grown field of trash! These are the biggest assholes ever to walk this earth! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr Ball's mentality
*
John Manning wrote: > In article >, Port Whine > > wrote: > > > Joni Ball has done far worse than this. Review this and the alt.food.vegan > > back log of post to see just how much low life this coward punk is. > > Then why the hell do people keep responding to him? For f**k's sake, if > he couldn't get a rise out of you, he would eventually get bored and go > away. > > Killfile him and be done with it. The groups will be a much nicer place. I never reply to them in topic, only to their abusive commentary. If no one engaged them then we all could have an intelligent conversation. I think you make a good point but you must understand that these two guys live here almost 24/7, each new person has to learn. Ball and Etter are basically Rush Limbaugh educated hate mongers that see people that are sensitive to animals as soft people. Because they are both cowards they target who they perceive as easy prey. This is the same reason why they focus on posts with female names - they both are sleazy mysigonists. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
STOP TOP-POSTING
katie wrote: > i think the thing here is that pulling out longevity info about different > population groups by either side isn't going to answer this question. That's the whole point. The OP made a specific claim about "meat" without any distinctions. I was demonstrating the folly of his position on the basis of the facts. > just > as plant-based diets aren't necessarily healthier than omnivorous ones, > there are a multitude of factors contributing to the longevity (or lack > thereof) of each population group: socioeconomic factors, geography, > population & disease, conflict, colonialism etc. True enough, but many of those factors also weigh heavily on individual dietary choices in the first place. The point I made, though, was to contradict the OP's views that (a) "meat give[s] people health problems," (b) "that a naturally adapted diet" is "perfectly healthy" or excludes meat, and (c) his implied claim through the use of one study that meat shortens lives. The OP is wrong. Now PLEASE stop top-posting. >>>>>The thing is, then why does meat give people health problems? >>>> >>>>Who says it does? I can name one plant food that causes far more health > > problems > >>>>from head to toe than "meat," which you say generically. That plant food > > is > >>>>sugar (and by sugar I mean any simple carbohydrate: glucose, sucrose, > > fructose, > >>>>etc.). >>>> >>>>Sugar causes tooth decay. Consumption of sugar can lead to diabetes. > > Diabetes > >>>>can lead to cardiovascular problems even in a veg-n diet; it can also > > cause > >>>>problems with vision, with mobility (circulation to feet), etc. >>> >>>You are merely trying to derail the point. >> >>No, I am noting that meat isn't inherently or automatically bad for > > health, and > >>that some plant-based foods cause plenty of health problems. High sugar >>consumption results in many of the same ailments that plague people who > > consume > >>too much saturated fat: heart disease, diabetes, etc. >> >> >>>>Many cuts of meat are low-fat and cause no health problems. Some meat -- > > such as > >>>>fatty fish (salmon, etc.), game, grass-fed beef -- is even advisable for > > people > >>>>with hypercholesterolemia because those meats help elevate HDL, which in > > turn > >>>>lowers LDL. BTW, LDL elevates with consumption of saturated fats -- not > > merely > >>>>cholesterol. That includes tropical oils (coconut and palm), transfats >>>>(hydrogenated vegetable oils), etc. >>>> >>>> >>>>>One would think that a naturally adapted diet would be perfectly >>>>>healthy. >>>> >>>>Sugar isn't healthy, yet many fruits are very high in sugars. >>> >>>I won't even bother with that one. >> >>Why not? Juicing removes beneficial fiber, and many nutrients. Juice is > > merely > >>sugary water with a few nutrients one doesn't get from Kool-Aid. >> >> >>>>>It's a poser, because I believe the evidence is there, that >>>>>early humans and even before, ate meat. >>>> >>>>The evidence is substantial that our early ancestors ate meat as part of > > a > >>>>varied diet. >>> >>>I want evidence from scientific studies of current humans, not moldy >>>axes in the dirt. >> >>http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4...ins.paleo.html >>http://www.thirdage.com/news/archive...031118-02.html >>http://www.cnn.com/FOOD/news/9906/28/red.meat.study/ >> > > http://www.beef.org/dsp/dsp_content....o ntentId=428 > >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0424031929.htm >>http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=2833 >>http://www.eatwild.com/cla.html >>http://res2.agr.ca/lethbridge/rep2001/rep0213_e.htm >> >>I could go on all day since there were plenty more hits on my searches. > > Let me > >>know if you need more evidence. >> >> >>>Form the british medical journal: >>> >>>http://tinyurl.com/2ttj3 >> >>Data from nations with sizable vegetarian populations, such as India, show > > that > >>vegetarians and omnivores have statistically similar longevity and that >>vegetarians die from the very same diseases that affect omnivores. >> >>It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating >>peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who >>traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their >>longevity (at least before colonisation by Europeans). Within Aboriginal >>society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42). Obviously, if no >>old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book >>Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs >>of elderly native peoples from around the world (42). Explorers such as >>Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Inuit (again, >>before colonisation). (43) >> >>Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on >>a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for >>their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's >>milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In >>contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the >>shortest life-spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled >>around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. >>Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in >>animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for >>Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In >>Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty >>fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in >>athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples >>whose diets were largely vegetarian (42). >>http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vege...s-lifespan.htm >> >>Well? >> > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
wrote:
>>No, I am noting that meat isn't inherently or automatically bad for health, and >>that some plant-based foods cause plenty of health problems. High sugar >>consumption results in many of the same ailments that plague people who consume >>too much saturated fat: heart disease, diabetes, etc. > > Of course refined sugar is bad. Stick to the point. Strawman. I didn't limit my claim to refined sugar. Excess sugar is bad regardless of its source. >>>I won't even bother with that one. >> >>Why not? Juicing removes beneficial fiber, and many nutrients. Juice is merely >>sugary water with a few nutrients one doesn't get from Kool-Aid. > > I see. you are a circle-talker. No, I am not. > You never even mentioned juicing in your previous statement. No, it's elaborating on my point about sugar. >>>>>It's a poser, because I believe the evidence is there, that >>>>>early humans and even before, ate meat. >>>> >>>>The evidence is substantial that our early ancestors ate meat as part of a >>>>varied diet. >>> >>>I want evidence from scientific studies of current humans, not moldy >>>axes in the dirt. >> >>http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4...ins.paleo.html > > I'd want to see a study done of people eating this wild game meat > diet over a period of 17 years, not just a euphemism about omega > fats being good for you. bah. Goalpost move. >>http://www.thirdage.com/news/archive...031118-02.html > > A 4 week study as opposed to a 17 year study? And then they > used the same group of women for both types of eating. Yes, that's quite common in food studies. > Not scientific. Ipse dixit. > Something smells like fish in university ville. > bah. Can you even address the issue at hand? > also, low fat was emphasized. Perhaps you should look around at a grocery store and see how many products are labelled "low-fat" and "fat-free." That's a supply provided to meet a demand. Compare that to labelling "full-fat" or "extra-fat" for comparison purpose. >>http://www.cnn.com/FOOD/news/9906/28/red.meat.study/ > > The headlines from this study, funded by the National Cattlemen's Beef > Association. So? > Ok then, right. Also, this is merely a comparison of > different meats on cholesterol. How long was the study? They > don't say. Were scientific methods used? Right. Read the article again, dopey. It mentions methodology. It also mentions the journal which published the study. >>http://www.beef.org/dsp/dsp_content....o ntentId=428 > > Same deal. Let's leave out "studies" funded by the beef industry, > ok? On what basis: scientific or aesthetic? Methodology dictates results, not the funding itself. > I usre as hell will. I know, but there's nothing I can do about your willful ignorance except to continue pointing to studies which contradict your claims. >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0424031929.htm > > "Diversity and variety contribute as much to diet quality as does low > fat content,'' Drewnowski said. "A monotonous diet of two or three > low-fat foods may do wonders for your cholesterol levels, but will do > nothing for your mental health or your quality of life. The premier > U.S.D.A. recommendation is to enjoy a variety of foods. That is the > one guideline that we should follow." > > Logically faulty, Ipse dixit. Care to explain why you think it's flawed? > smugly narrow on purpose in its criticism. The same can be said of your "analysis" here. > Also, a 2 day study? Give me a break. Why should I give you a break? You repeatedly make claims without substantiating them. > That is a lifestyle quiz, nothing more. What was the methodology employed in your study? Subjects were recruited by distributing a short questionnaire.... To assess the stability of dietary patterns we interviewed 289 subjects between one and a half and six years after the recruitment questionnaire was completed.... > It;s also based on the USDAS ideas about > the food group pyramid. So? > I want to see a 17 year study proving that dietary variety is > the most improtant factor in diet, Will Framingham suffice? The study found that 24% of women in the “Heart Healthy” group became overweight in twelve years, 30% of “Light Eating” women, 22% of “Wine and Moderate Eating” women, and 28% of “High Fat” eaters. The “Empty Calorie” category had the highest prevalence of overweight women at 41%. http://www.bu.edu/sargent/programs/g...i_article.html > one that can also prove > that vegetarians DON'T have much dietary variety. ha. Here you go with asking others to prove negatives again. >>http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=2833 > > oh, another "study" funded by the beef insdustry. The funding is less important than the methodology and results: Dr Katrine Baghurst, leader of consumer science program at CSIRO Health Sciences and Nutrition in Adelaide, said many Australians have misconceptions about saturated fats in red meat. ‘We need to educate the community that lean red meat is a nutrient dense food which is...perfectly suitable for people who are looking for a healthy balanced diet that helps control their weight.’ Deal with the issue, not tangentials like who funded the research. >>http://www.eatwild.com/cla.html > > I want to see the 17 year study of the people eating grass fed beef. Goalpost move. > Naturally, they will be rich, or be able to raise their own. This > will automatically put them outside the pale of the average "life > style." Ipse dixit. >>http://res2.agr.ca/lethbridge/rep2001/rep0213_e.htm > > looks like another one funded by the beef industry. So? Deal with the issue, not tangentials like who funded the research. > Let's > chug some wesson multi-purpose vegetable oil down > the cow's throats every moirning. yum. Chugging isn't necessary. Supplementing bovine diets with oil increases CLA levels. >>I could go on all day since there were plenty more hits on my searches. Let me >>know if you need more evidence. >> >> >>>Form the british medical journal: >>> >>>http://tinyurl.com/2ttj3 >> >>Data from nations with sizable vegetarian populations, such as India, show that >>vegetarians and omnivores have statistically similar longevity and that >>vegetarians die from the very same diseases that affect omnivores. >> >> It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating >> peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who >> traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their >> longevity (at least before colonisation by Europeans). Within Aboriginal >> society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42). Obviously, if no >> old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book >> Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs >> of elderly native peoples from around the world (42). Explorers such as >> Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Inuit (again, >> before colonisation). (43) >> >> Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on >> a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for >> their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's >> milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In >> contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the >> shortest life-spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled >> around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. >> Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in >> animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for >> Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In >> Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty >> fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in >> athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples >> whose diets were largely vegetarian (42). >> http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vege...s-lifespan.htm >> >>Well? > > where is the peer-reviewed medical journal article? heh. Did you look at the references? 42. Price, op. cit.; Fallon, S. "Nasty, Brutish, and Short?" The Ecologist, (London), Jan/Feb 1999; Enig & Fallon, "Australian Aborigines," Jnl of PPNF, Summer 1998. 43. Stefansson, V., The Fat of the Land, Macmillan, New York, 1956 44. Pitskhelauri, G.Z., The Long Living of Soviet Georgia, Human Sciences Press, New York, 1982; Moore, Thomas. Lifespan: What Really Affects Human Longevity (Simon & Schuster; NY), 1990. 45. Abrams, "Vegetarianism," pp. 74-77. > You just come up with any friggin blarney web stie out there. No, you've listed one study and made claims beyond its authors' scope. I have offered information from studies which support YOUR claims. > Who is this Russell Smith, PhD? This is the most banal of > references. What study is it, who funded it? how many people > participated? How long did it last? You apparently didn't read the article or look at its references. > I want to see the 17 year study proving that meat eaters > live longer. Name one vegetarian culture whose population outlives the norm even in the US or UK. > Is the idea that meat eating is some kind > lucky talisman agaisnt all forms of death, accidental > and etc? wow. Strawman. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:08:49 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote: >> The thing is, then why does meat give people health problems? > >Who says it does? I can name one plant food that causes far more health problems >from head to toe than "meat," which you say generically. That plant food is >sugar (and by sugar I mean any simple carbohydrate: glucose, sucrose, fructose, >etc.). > >Sugar causes tooth decay. Consumption of sugar can lead to diabetes. Diabetes >can lead to cardiovascular problems even in a veg-n diet; it can also cause >problems with vision, with mobility (circulation to feet), etc. You are merely trying to derail the point. > >Many cuts of meat are low-fat and cause no health problems. Some meat -- such as >fatty fish (salmon, etc.), game, grass-fed beef -- is even advisable for people >with hypercholesterolemia because those meats help elevate HDL, which in turn >lowers LDL. BTW, LDL elevates with consumption of saturated fats -- not merely >cholesterol. That includes tropical oils (coconut and palm), transfats >(hydrogenated vegetable oils), etc. > >> One would think that a naturally adapted diet would be perfectly >> healthy. > >Sugar isn't healthy, yet many fruits are very high in sugars. I won't even bother with that one. > >> It's a poser, because I believe the evidence is there, that >> early humans and even before, ate meat. > >The evidence is substantial that our early ancestors ate meat as part of a >varied diet. I want evidence from scientific studies of current humans, not moldy axes in the dirt. Form the british medical journal: http://tinyurl.com/2ttj3 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:08:49 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote: >> The thing is, then why does meat give people health problems? > >Who says it does? Prove that it doesn't. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 17:32:17 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote: >Your system clock/calendar is off by a day. FIX IT. thank you, I'm not looking for advice in that area right now. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 17:33:38 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote: >FIX your system calendar. > wrote: > >> On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:08:49 GMT, usual suspect > >> wrote: >> >> >>>>The thing is, then why does meat give people health problems? >>> >>>Who says it does? >> >> >> >> Prove that it doesn't. > >That's nonsense. You are making an implied claim: >meat in any quantity gives people "health problems". >Prove it. The burden of proof is on you to support >your claim. Get busy. I'm putting it right back on you. Prove that meat doesn't. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 17:43:50 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote: wrote: >No, I am noting that meat isn't inherently or automatically bad for health, and >that some plant-based foods cause plenty of health problems. High sugar >consumption results in many of the same ailments that plague people who consume >too much saturated fat: heart disease, diabetes, etc. Of course refined sugar is bad. Stick to the point. >> I won't even bother with that one. > >Why not? Juicing removes beneficial fiber, and many nutrients. Juice is merely >sugary water with a few nutrients one doesn't get from Kool-Aid. I see. you are a circle-talker. You never even mentioned juicing in your previous statement. > >>>>It's a poser, because I believe the evidence is there, that >>>>early humans and even before, ate meat. >>> >>>The evidence is substantial that our early ancestors ate meat as part of a >>>varied diet. >> >> I want evidence from scientific studies of current humans, not moldy >> axes in the dirt. > >http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4...ins.paleo.html I'd want to see a study done of people eating this wild game meat diet over a period of 17 years, not just a euphemism about omega fats being good for you. bah. >http://www.thirdage.com/news/archive...031118-02.html A 4 week study as opposed to a 17 year study? And then they used the same group of women for both types of eating. Not scientific. Something smells like fish in university ville. bah. also, low fat was emphasized. >http://www.cnn.com/FOOD/news/9906/28/red.meat.study/ The headlines from this study, funded by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Ok then, right. Also, this is merely a comparison of different meats on cholesterol. How long was the study? They don't say. Were scientific methods used? Right. >http://www.beef.org/dsp/dsp_content....o ntentId=428 Same deal. Let's leave out "studies" funded by the beef industry, ok? I usre as hell will. >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0424031929.htm "Diversity and variety contribute as much to diet quality as does low fat content,'' Drewnowski said. "A monotonous diet of two or three low-fat foods may do wonders for your cholesterol levels, but will do nothing for your mental health or your quality of life. The premier U.S.D.A. recommendation is to enjoy a variety of foods. That is the one guideline that we should follow." Logically faulty, smugly narrow on purpose in its criticism. Also, a 2 day study? Give me a break. That is a lifestyle quiz, nothing more. It;s also based on the USDAS ideas about the food group pyramid. I want to see a 17 year study proving that dietary variety is the most improtant factor in diet, one that can also prove that vegetarians DON'T have much dietary variety. ha. >http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=2833 oh, another "study" funded by the beef insdustry. >http://www.eatwild.com/cla.html I want to see the 17 year study of the people eating grass fed beef. Naturally, they will be rich, or be able to raise their own. This will automatically put them outside the pale of the average "life style." >http://res2.agr.ca/lethbridge/rep2001/rep0213_e.htm looks like another one funded by the beef industry. Let's chug some wesson multi-purpose vegetable oil down the cow's throats every moirning. yum. > >I could go on all day since there were plenty more hits on my searches. Let me >know if you need more evidence. > >> Form the british medical journal: >> >> http://tinyurl.com/2ttj3 > >Data from nations with sizable vegetarian populations, such as India, show that >vegetarians and omnivores have statistically similar longevity and that >vegetarians die from the very same diseases that affect omnivores. > > It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating > peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who > traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their > longevity (at least before colonisation by Europeans). Within Aboriginal > society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42). Obviously, if no > old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book > Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs > of elderly native peoples from around the world (42). Explorers such as > Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Inuit (again, > before colonisation). (43) > > Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on > a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for > their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's > milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In > contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the > shortest life-spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled > around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. > Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in > animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for > Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In > Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty > fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in > athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples > whose diets were largely vegetarian (42). > http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vege...s-lifespan.htm > >Well? where is the peer-reviewed medical journal article? heh. You just come up with any friggin blarney web stie out there. Who is this Russell Smith, PhD? This is the most banal of references. What study is it, who funded it? how many people participated? How long did it last? I want to see the 17 year study proving that meat eaters live longer. Is the idea that meat eating is some kind lucky talisman agaisnt all forms of death, accidental and etc? wow. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:44:05 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote: >> I was just taking away his excuse for not knowing how to change it. > >I figured about as much. I was just letting him know >he's already exposed. why do you even care. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:05:49 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote: wrote: ><...> >>>>>>The thing is, then why does meat give people health problems? >>>>> >>>>>Who says it does? >>>> >>>>Prove that it doesn't. >>> >>>That's nonsense. You are making an implied claim: >>>meat in any quantity gives people "health problems". >>>Prove it. The burden of proof is on you to support >>>your claim. Get busy. >> >> I'm putting it right back on you. > >Because you cannot support your own claim. I gave a link to a medical journal that conducted a 17 year study. You provided a bunch af baloney funded by the beef industry. > >> Prove that meat doesn't. > >Why are you so busy asking others to prove negatives -- which is folly -- rather >than supporting your own claim? why don't you support yours? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:25:57 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote: >usual suspect wrote: > >> wrote: >> <...> >> >>>>>>> The thing is, then why does meat give people health problems? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Who says it does? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Prove that it doesn't. >>>> >>>> >>>> That's nonsense. You are making an implied claim: meat in any >>>> quantity gives people "health problems". Prove it. The burden of >>>> proof is on you to support your claim. Get busy. >>> >>> >>> I'm putting it right back on you. >> >> >> Because you cannot support your own claim. >> >>> Prove that meat doesn't. >> >> >> Why are you so busy asking others to prove negatives -- which is folly >> -- rather than supporting your own claim? > >The usual "vegan" arrogance, that's why. Oh, and his >inability to support his claim, too. I have not seen any evidence better than what I provided. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:24:14 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote: >>>> >>>>Prove that it doesn't. >>> >>>That's nonsense. You are making an implied claim: >>>meat in any quantity gives people "health problems". >>>Prove it. The burden of proof is on you to support >>>your claim. Get busy. >> >> >> I'm putting it right back on you. > >No, you're not. You can't legitimately do so. You >make a claim, the burden is on you to support your claim. I already did. Sorry if you don't like it. > >Fix your clock, asshole. **** off |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 17:50:21 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote: wrote: >>>>The thing is, then why does meat give people health problems? >>> >>>Who says it does? >> >> Prove that it doesn't. > >I don't entertain addled people who demand proof of a negative. You are the one >who made a claim: "meat causes health problems." Please support it with evidence. can you read? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
i'm sorry, is top posting when i write on the top of a thread like this?
isn't it much easier to read because it's right up here, and the most recent posts are at the top and the later ones follow a sequence down, instead of chopping the thread up and winding up with a million >>> to dissect before figuring out who said what? that's why i'm posting like this. but if top posting means something else, please enlighten me. i've never heard the expression until this board. "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > STOP TOP-POSTING > > katie wrote: > > i think the thing here is that pulling out longevity info about different > > population groups by either side isn't going to answer this question. > > That's the whole point. The OP made a specific claim about "meat" without any > distinctions. I was demonstrating the folly of his position on the basis of the > facts. > > > just > > as plant-based diets aren't necessarily healthier than omnivorous ones, > > there are a multitude of factors contributing to the longevity (or lack > > thereof) of each population group: socioeconomic factors, geography, > > population & disease, conflict, colonialism etc. > > True enough, but many of those factors also weigh heavily on individual dietary > choices in the first place. The point I made, though, was to contradict the OP's > views that (a) "meat give[s] people health problems," (b) "that a naturally > adapted diet" is "perfectly healthy" or excludes meat, and (c) his implied claim > through the use of one study that meat shortens lives. The OP is wrong. > > Now PLEASE stop top-posting. > > >>>>>The thing is, then why does meat give people health problems? > >>>> > >>>>Who says it does? I can name one plant food that causes far more health > > > > problems > > > >>>>from head to toe than "meat," which you say generically. That plant food > > > > is > > > >>>>sugar (and by sugar I mean any simple carbohydrate: glucose, sucrose, > > > > fructose, > > > >>>>etc.). > >>>> > >>>>Sugar causes tooth decay. Consumption of sugar can lead to diabetes. > > > > Diabetes > > > >>>>can lead to cardiovascular problems even in a veg-n diet; it can also > > > > cause > > > >>>>problems with vision, with mobility (circulation to feet), etc. > >>> > >>>You are merely trying to derail the point. > >> > >>No, I am noting that meat isn't inherently or automatically bad for > > > > health, and > > > >>that some plant-based foods cause plenty of health problems. High sugar > >>consumption results in many of the same ailments that plague people who > > > > consume > > > >>too much saturated fat: heart disease, diabetes, etc. > >> > >> > >>>>Many cuts of meat are low-fat and cause no health problems. Some meat -- > > > > such as > > > >>>>fatty fish (salmon, etc.), game, grass-fed beef -- is even advisable for > > > > people > > > >>>>with hypercholesterolemia because those meats help elevate HDL, which in > > > > turn > > > >>>>lowers LDL. BTW, LDL elevates with consumption of saturated fats -- not > > > > merely > > > >>>>cholesterol. That includes tropical oils (coconut and palm), transfats > >>>>(hydrogenated vegetable oils), etc. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>One would think that a naturally adapted diet would be perfectly > >>>>>healthy. > >>>> > >>>>Sugar isn't healthy, yet many fruits are very high in sugars. > >>> > >>>I won't even bother with that one. > >> > >>Why not? Juicing removes beneficial fiber, and many nutrients. Juice is > > > > merely > > > >>sugary water with a few nutrients one doesn't get from Kool-Aid. > >> > >> > >>>>>It's a poser, because I believe the evidence is there, that > >>>>>early humans and even before, ate meat. > >>>> > >>>>The evidence is substantial that our early ancestors ate meat as part of > > > > a > > > >>>>varied diet. > >>> > >>>I want evidence from scientific studies of current humans, not moldy > >>>axes in the dirt. > >> > >>http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4...ins.paleo.html > >>http://www.thirdage.com/news/archive...031118-02.html > >>http://www.cnn.com/FOOD/news/9906/28/red.meat.study/ > >> > > > > http://www.beef.org/dsp/dsp_content....o ntentId=428 > > > >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0424031929.htm > >>http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=2833 > >>http://www.eatwild.com/cla.html > >>http://res2.agr.ca/lethbridge/rep2001/rep0213_e.htm > >> > >>I could go on all day since there were plenty more hits on my searches. > > > > Let me > > > >>know if you need more evidence. > >> > >> > >>>Form the british medical journal: > >>> > >>>http://tinyurl.com/2ttj3 > >> > >>Data from nations with sizable vegetarian populations, such as India, show > > > > that > > > >>vegetarians and omnivores have statistically similar longevity and that > >>vegetarians die from the very same diseases that affect omnivores. > >> > >>It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating > >>peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who > >>traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their > >>longevity (at least before colonisation by Europeans). Within Aboriginal > >>society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42). Obviously, if no > >>old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book > >>Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs > >>of elderly native peoples from around the world (42). Explorers such as > >>Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Inuit (again, > >>before colonisation). (43) > >> > >>Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on > >>a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for > >>their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's > >>milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In > >>contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the > >>shortest life-spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled > >>around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. > >>Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in > >>animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for > >>Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In > >>Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty > >>fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in > >>athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples > >>whose diets were largely vegetarian (42). > >>http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vege...s-lifespan.htm > >> > >>Well? > >> > > > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
katie wrote:
> i'm sorry, is top posting when i write on the top of a thread like this? Yes, that's it. > isn't it much easier to read because it's right up here, and the most recent > posts are at the top and the later ones follow a sequence down, instead of > chopping the thread up and winding up with a million >>> to dissect before > figuring out who said what? No, it's much harder to see the specific points to which you're replying. The context is missing. > that's why i'm posting like this. but if top > posting means something else, please enlighten me. i've never heard the > expression until this board. > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>STOP TOP-POSTING >> >>katie wrote: >> >>>i think the thing here is that pulling out longevity info about > > different > >>>population groups by either side isn't going to answer this question. >> >>That's the whole point. The OP made a specific claim about "meat" without > > any > >>distinctions. I was demonstrating the folly of his position on the basis > > of the > >>facts. >> >> >>>just >>>as plant-based diets aren't necessarily healthier than omnivorous ones, >>>there are a multitude of factors contributing to the longevity (or lack >>>thereof) of each population group: socioeconomic factors, geography, >>>population & disease, conflict, colonialism etc. >> >>True enough, but many of those factors also weigh heavily on individual > > dietary > >>choices in the first place. The point I made, though, was to contradict > > the OP's > >>views that (a) "meat give[s] people health problems," (b) "that a > > naturally > >>adapted diet" is "perfectly healthy" or excludes meat, and (c) his implied > > claim > >>through the use of one study that meat shortens lives. The OP is wrong. >> >>Now PLEASE stop top-posting. >> >> >>>>>>>The thing is, then why does meat give people health problems? >>>>>> >>>>>>Who says it does? I can name one plant food that causes far more > > health > >>>problems >>> >>> >>>>>>from head to toe than "meat," which you say generically. That plant > > food > >>>is >>> >>> >>>>>>sugar (and by sugar I mean any simple carbohydrate: glucose, sucrose, >>> >>>fructose, >>> >>> >>>>>>etc.). >>>>>> >>>>>>Sugar causes tooth decay. Consumption of sugar can lead to diabetes. >>> >>>Diabetes >>> >>> >>>>>>can lead to cardiovascular problems even in a veg-n diet; it can also >>> >>>cause >>> >>> >>>>>>problems with vision, with mobility (circulation to feet), etc. >>>>> >>>>>You are merely trying to derail the point. >>>> >>>>No, I am noting that meat isn't inherently or automatically bad for >>> >>>health, and >>> >>> >>>>that some plant-based foods cause plenty of health problems. High sugar >>>>consumption results in many of the same ailments that plague people who >>> >>>consume >>> >>> >>>>too much saturated fat: heart disease, diabetes, etc. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>Many cuts of meat are low-fat and cause no health problems. Some > > meat -- > >>>such as >>> >>> >>>>>>fatty fish (salmon, etc.), game, grass-fed beef -- is even advisable > > for > >>>people >>> >>> >>>>>>with hypercholesterolemia because those meats help elevate HDL, which > > in > >>>turn >>> >>> >>>>>>lowers LDL. BTW, LDL elevates with consumption of saturated fats -- > > not > >>>merely >>> >>> >>>>>>cholesterol. That includes tropical oils (coconut and palm), transfats >>>>>>(hydrogenated vegetable oils), etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>One would think that a naturally adapted diet would be perfectly >>>>>>>healthy. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sugar isn't healthy, yet many fruits are very high in sugars. >>>>> >>>>>I won't even bother with that one. >>>> >>>>Why not? Juicing removes beneficial fiber, and many nutrients. Juice is >>> >>>merely >>> >>> >>>>sugary water with a few nutrients one doesn't get from Kool-Aid. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>It's a poser, because I believe the evidence is there, that >>>>>>>early humans and even before, ate meat. >>>>>> >>>>>>The evidence is substantial that our early ancestors ate meat as part > > of > >>>a >>> >>> >>>>>>varied diet. >>>>> >>>>>I want evidence from scientific studies of current humans, not moldy >>>>>axes in the dirt. >>>> >>>>http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4...ins.paleo.html >>>>http://www.thirdage.com/news/archive...031118-02.html >>>>http://www.cnn.com/FOOD/news/9906/28/red.meat.study/ >>>> >>> >>> > http://www.beef.org/dsp/dsp_content....o ntentId=428 > >>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0424031929.htm >>>>http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=2833 >>>>http://www.eatwild.com/cla.html >>>>http://res2.agr.ca/lethbridge/rep2001/rep0213_e.htm >>>> >>>>I could go on all day since there were plenty more hits on my searches. >>> >>>Let me >>> >>> >>>>know if you need more evidence. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Form the british medical journal: >>>>> >>>>>http://tinyurl.com/2ttj3 >>>> >>>>Data from nations with sizable vegetarian populations, such as India, > > show > >>>that >>> >>> >>>>vegetarians and omnivores have statistically similar longevity and that >>>>vegetarians die from the very same diseases that affect omnivores. >>>> >>>>It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating >>>>peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who >>>>traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their >>>>longevity (at least before colonisation by Europeans). Within Aboriginal >>>>society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42). Obviously, if no >>>>old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book >>>>Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs >>>>of elderly native peoples from around the world (42). Explorers such as >>>>Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Inuit (again, >>>>before colonisation). (43) >>>> >>>>Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on >>>>a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for >>>>their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's >>>>milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In >>>>contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the >>>>shortest life-spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled >>>>around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. >>>>Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in >>>>animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for >>>>Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In >>>>Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty >>>>fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in >>>>athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples >>>>whose diets were largely vegetarian (42). >>>>http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vege...s-lifespan.htm >>>> >>>>Well? >>>> >>> >>> >>> > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
wrote:
>>Strawman. I didn't limit my claim to refined sugar. Excess sugar is bad >>regardless of its source. > > You're the one that WHO, not that. > brought up the sugar, which is not what I was > talking about. You made an unsubstantiated point. I made a comparison to sugar, which causes more health problems for more people than your generic claim of "meat." > Stick to the point. I have stuck to the point. When will you make one you can support with evidence? >>No, it's elaborating on my point about sugar. > > Which has nothing to do with the issue of meat-eating. Meat-eating has nothing to do with the claims you've made about it. Sugar -- not just refined, but also from fruits, juices, milk (lactose), etc. -- causes more health problems for humans. >>Goalpost move. >> >> >>>>http://www.thirdage.com/news/archive...031118-02.html >>> >>>A 4 week study as opposed to a 17 year study? And then they >>>used the same group of women for both types of eating. >> >>Yes, that's quite common in food studies. > > No it isn't. Ipse dixit. Can you refute the study? >>>Not scientific. >> >>Ipse dixit. >> >> >>>Something smells like fish in university ville. >>>bah. >> >>Can you even address the issue at hand? > > Can you? I have. When will you address it? You raised it yet have offered no evidence. >>>also, low fat was emphasized. >> >>Perhaps you should look around at a grocery store and see how many products are >>labelled "low-fat" and "fat-free." That's a supply provided to meet a demand. >>Compare that to labelling "full-fat" or "extra-fat" for comparison purpose. >> >> >>>>http://www.cnn.com/FOOD/news/9906/28/red.meat.study/ >>> >>>The headlines from this study, funded by the National Cattlemen's Beef >>>Association. >> >>So? > > Do you know anything at all? Apparently I know more than you do. > Now, how would you react if that > study of vegetarian diet was funded by the soybean industry? I would assess it on the basis of methodology, just as I assess any study. Unlike you, I'm open-minded and not peddling an agenda -- aside from wanting my fellow man to have good health. > right..... We've already figured out how you respond to studies which contradict yours: with contempt. Why are you so closed-minded? >>>Ok then, right. Also, this is merely a comparison of >>>different meats on cholesterol. How long was the study? They >>>don't say. Were scientific methods used? Right. >> >>Read the article again, dopey. It mentions methodology. It also mentions the >>journal which published the study. Did you read the parts that mentioned the methodology and cited the journal in which the study was published??????? >>>>http://www.beef.org/dsp/dsp_content....o ntentId=428 >>> >>>Same deal. Let's leave out "studies" funded by the beef industry, >>>ok? >> >>On what basis: scientific or aesthetic? Methodology dictates results, not the >>funding itself. > > The funding makes it suspect. Ipse dixit. Can you refute its methodology or findings? >>> I usre as hell will. >> >>I know, but there's nothing I can do about your willful ignorance except to >>continue pointing to studies which contradict your claims. >> >> >>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0424031929.htm >>> >>>"Diversity and variety contribute as much to diet quality as does low >>>fat content,'' Drewnowski said. "A monotonous diet of two or three >>>low-fat foods may do wonders for your cholesterol levels, but will do >>>nothing for your mental health or your quality of life. The premier >>>U.S.D.A. recommendation is to enjoy a variety of foods. That is the >>>one guideline that we should follow." >>> >>>Logically faulty, >> >>Ipse dixit. Care to explain why you think it's flawed? > > yes I can, Then do it, putz. Why do you need to be reminded that you say one thing and then cannot support it? You keep doing the same thing, from your claim about meat to this. > but the fact that you think "studies" funded by > the beef industry are something I should accept as valid, > causes me to doubt your veracity. This is your own problem, not mine. I haven't objected to your "source" for your claim. I pointed out that its findings aren't as you claim. "Wide confidence intervals" don't lend credibility, they only invite more questions. Also, the study you cite did make one statistically-significant claim: that vegetarian women are more likely to experience breast cancer. How does *that* support your broad claim that meat causes health problems? >>Why should I give you a break? You repeatedly make claims without substantiating >>them. > > Now I'm getting ****ed off. Good. > yeah, I see, totally ignore the bmj study I didn't ignore it, I read it. Note that it finds vegetarian women experienced a statistically significant rate of breast cancer. Note that other diseases were statistically INsignificant. What was your point again, dipshit? > I posted a link to, act like I didn;t even provide any evidence at > all, It did NOT support any of your claims, including the initial one to which I objected. That was, "meat causes health problems." > when in fact it is much stronger evidencd than anything you have > provided. It didn't. Maybe you should re-read it, along with that CNN article which mentioned methodology and cited a peer-reviewed journal. > Yep, I see where you are coming from all right. Too bad you don't see where you're going. >>>That is a lifestyle quiz, nothing more. >> >>What was the methodology employed in your study? >> Subjects were recruited by distributing a short questionnaire.... To >> assess the stability of dietary patterns we interviewed 289 subjects >> between one and a half and six years after the recruitment questionnaire >> was completed.... > > It's far better than a 2 day lifestyle quiz. Ipse dixit. Can you refute any of the studies to which I linked? >>>I want to see a 17 year study proving that dietary variety is >>>the most improtant factor in diet, >> >>Will Framingham suffice? >> >> The study found that 24% of women in the “Heart Healthy” group became >> overweight in twelve years, 30% of “Light Eating” women, 22% of “Wine >> and Moderate Eating” women, and 28% of “High Fat” eaters. The “Empty >> Calorie” category had the highest prevalence of overweight women at 41%. >>http://www.bu.edu/sargent/programs/g...i_article.html Well???? Aside from "Empty Calorie" eaters -- those who eat a lot of sugar, fats, etc. -- the others were statistically insignificant. That study was longer than "yours" and far more exhaustive. >>>one that can also prove >>>that vegetarians DON'T have much dietary variety. ha. >> >>Here you go with asking others to prove negatives again. >> >> >>>>http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=2833 >>> >>>oh, another "study" funded by the beef insdustry. >> >>The funding is less important than the methodology and results: >> Dr Katrine Baghurst, leader of consumer science program at CSIRO Health >> Sciences and Nutrition in Adelaide, said many Australians have >> misconceptions about saturated fats in red meat. ‘We need to educate the >> community that lean red meat is a nutrient dense food which >> is...perfectly suitable for people who are looking for a healthy >> balanced diet that helps control their weight.’ >> >>Deal with the issue, not tangentials like who funded the research. > > I find it rather central. You would since you cannot support your original claim and since you're relying on a study which supports what everyone else here is telling you. >>>>http://www.eatwild.com/cla.html >>> >>>I want to see the 17 year study of the people eating grass fed beef. >> >>Goalpost move. > > ditto on you. No, deal with the facts. Can you refute the findings? >>>Naturally, they will be rich, or be able to raise their own. This >>>will automatically put them outside the pale of the average "life >>>style." >> >>Ipse dixit. >> >> >>>>http://res2.agr.ca/lethbridge/rep2001/rep0213_e.htm >>> >>>looks like another one funded by the beef industry. >> >>So? Deal with the issue, not tangentials like who funded the research. > > Is this article the issue? I don;t think so. It's part of it: it diminshes your claim that "meat causes bad health." >>>>I could go on all day since there were plenty more hits on my searches. Let me >>>>know if you need more evidence. > > You provided none. I provided plenty to contradict your wild-assed statement, which you've yet to support (other than to ask others to prove negatives). >>>> Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on >>>> a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for >>>> their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's >>>> milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In >>>> contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the >>>> shortest life-spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled >>>> around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. >>>> Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in >>>> animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for >>>> Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In >>>> Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty >>>> fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in >>>> athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples >>>> whose diets were largely vegetarian (42). >>>> http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vege...s-lifespan.htm >>>> >>>>Well? >>> >>>where is the peer-reviewed medical journal article? heh. >> >>Did you look at the references? >> >> 42. Price, op. cit.; Fallon, S. "Nasty, Brutish, and Short?" The Ecologist, >>(London), Jan/Feb 1999; Enig & Fallon, "Australian Aborigines," Jnl of PPNF, >>Summer 1998. > > moldy axes on the dirt. I said I wanted scientific research done on > currently living humans, not cultural habits, not stone tools in glass > cases. Re-read that article and look at the date on the source: Dr. Price has numerous photographs of elderly native peoples from around the world. Present tense, asshole. >>43. Stefansson, V., The Fat of the Land, Macmillan, New York, 1956 > > >>44. Pitskhelauri, G.Z., The Long Living of Soviet Georgia, Human Sciences Press, >>New York, 1982; Moore, Thomas. Lifespan: What Really Affects Human Longevity >>(Simon & Schuster; NY), 1990. >>45. Abrams, "Vegetarianism," pp. 74-77. >> >> >>>You just come up with any friggin blarney web stie out there. >> >>No, you've listed one study and made claims beyond its authors' scope. I have >>offered information from studies which support YOUR claims. > > In my view, you have offered nothing. Your view is founded on peddling an agenda, facts be damned. >>>Who is this Russell Smith, PhD? This is the most banal of >>>references. What study is it, who funded it? how many people >>>participated? How long did it last? >> >>You apparently didn't read the article or look at its references. >> >> >>>I want to see the 17 year study proving that meat eaters >>>live longer. >> >>Name one vegetarian culture whose population outlives the norm even in the US or UK. > > As I said, I want to see the 17 year study proving that meat eaters > live longer. A SCIENTIFIC one. Then Price's study of Australian Aborigines and Stefansson's study of Inuit should disabuse your errors. >>>Is the idea that meat eating is some kind >>>lucky talisman agaisnt all forms of death, accidental >>>and etc? wow. >> >>Strawman. > > No, that is the impression I get from this article. You're not comprehending it very well. > Projecting? Nope, I just won this "debate." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
wrote:
>>>>No, I am noting that meat isn't inherently or automatically bad for health, and >>>>that some plant-based foods cause plenty of health problems. High sugar >>>>consumption results in many of the same ailments that plague people who consume >>>>too much saturated fat: heart disease, diabetes, etc. >>> >>>Of course refined sugar is bad. Stick to the point. >> >>Strawman. I didn't limit my claim to refined sugar. Excess sugar is bad >>regardless of its source. >> >>>>>I won't even bother with that one. >>>> >>>>Why not? Juicing removes beneficial fiber, and many nutrients. Juice is merely >>>>sugary water with a few nutrients one doesn't get from Kool-Aid. >>> >>>I see. you are a circle-talker. >> >>No, I am not. >> >> >>>You never even mentioned juicing in your previous statement. >> >>No, it's elaborating on my point about sugar. >> >> >>>>>>>It's a poser, because I believe the evidence is there, that >>>>>>>early humans and even before, ate meat. >>>>>> >>>>>>The evidence is substantial that our early ancestors ate meat as part of a >>>>>>varied diet. >>>>> >>>>>I want evidence from scientific studies of current humans, not moldy >>>>>axes in the dirt. >>>> >>>>http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4...ins.paleo.html >>> > >>Read the article again, dopey. It mentions methodology. It also mentions the >>journal which published the study. > > How is it you think a comparison of eating chicken vs. beef applies > to vegetarinaism or veganism? Now that you have dragged out the > name calling: Idiot. It was your claim that "meat is unhealthy." You have yet to support it, and my sources have demonstrated that meat can be part of a healthy diet. >>Why should I give you a break? You repeatedly make claims without substantiating >>them. > > I don't give any of your links any credence either, far less in fact. Figures, since your own source doesn't support your own claims: This study was initially set up to test the hypotheses that daily consumption of wholemeal bread (as an indicator of a high fibre diet) and vegetarian diet are associated with a reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease; the reduction in mortality associated with both of these dietary factors was NOT SIGNIFICANT. We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15% reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was NOT SIGNIFICANT and was LESS THAN the roughly 30% reductions REPORTED IN EARLIER ANALYSES of this cohort.... A vegetarian diet was also associated with a SIGNIFICANT INCREASE in mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence interval was wide.... The numbers of deaths for individual cancer sites were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence intervals. The 41% reduction in mortality from lung cancer associated with daily consumption of fresh fruit was NOT SIGNIFICANT.... >>>That is a lifestyle quiz, nothing more. >> >>What was the methodology employed in your study? >> Subjects were recruited by distributing a short questionnaire.... To >> assess the stability of dietary patterns we interviewed 289 subjects >> between one and a half and six years after the recruitment questionnaire >> was completed.... > > avoid the issue, find another way to strike back, I'm the one who's dealth with the issues. You have YET to support your wild-assed claims. >>>I want to see a 17 year study proving that dietary variety is >>>the most improtant factor in diet, >> >>Will Framingham suffice? >> >> The study found that 24% of women in the “Heart Healthy” group became >> overweight in twelve years, 30% of “Light Eating” women, 22% of “Wine >> and Moderate Eating” women, and 28% of “High Fat” eaters. The “Empty >> Calorie” category had the highest prevalence of overweight women at 41%. >>http://www.bu.edu/sargent/programs/g...i_article.html > > You don;t really give very good back up info, There's nothing wrong with it -- it just doesn't support your claim. But then again, neither did your own "source." This study was initially set up to test the hypotheses that daily consumption of wholemeal bread (as an indicator of a high fibre diet) and vegetarian diet are associated with a reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease; the reduction in mortality associated with both of these dietary factors was NOT SIGNIFICANT. We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15% reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was NOT SIGNIFICANT and was LESS THAN the roughly 30% reductions REPORTED IN EARLIER ANALYSES of this cohort.... A vegetarian diet was also associated with a SIGNIFICANT INCREASE in mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence interval was wide.... The numbers of deaths for individual cancer sites were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence intervals. The 41% reduction in mortality from lung cancer associated with daily consumption of fresh fruit was NOT SIGNIFICANT.... > and you behave like an asshole on top of it. You don't like the style because you can't handle the substance. You have made claims; you have yet to support them. I have made claims; I have not only supported them, I have contradicted your claims with your own source: This study was initially set up to test the hypotheses that daily consumption of wholemeal bread (as an indicator of a high fibre diet) and vegetarian diet are associated with a reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease; the reduction in mortality associated with both of these dietary factors was NOT SIGNIFICANT. We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15% reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was NOT SIGNIFICANT and was LESS THAN the roughly 30% reductions REPORTED IN EARLIER ANALYSES of this cohort.... A vegetarian diet was also associated with a SIGNIFICANT INCREASE in mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence interval was wide.... The numbers of deaths for individual cancer sites were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence intervals. The 41% reduction in mortality from lung cancer associated with daily consumption of fresh fruit was NOT SIGNIFICANT.... >>>one that can also prove >>>that vegetarians DON'T have much dietary variety. ha. >> >>Here you go with asking others to prove negatives again. >> >> >>>>http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=2833 >>> >>>oh, another "study" funded by the beef insdustry. >> >>The funding is less important than the methodology and results: >> Dr Katrine Baghurst, leader of consumer science program at CSIRO Health >> Sciences and Nutrition in Adelaide, said many Australians have >> misconceptions about saturated fats in red meat. ‘We need to educate the >> community that lean red meat is a nutrient dense food which >> is...perfectly suitable for people who are looking for a healthy >> balanced diet that helps control their weight.’ >> >>Deal with the issue, not tangentials like who funded the research. > > What does that quote have to do with methoidolgy ? nothing. The quote isn't from an industry spokesperson, it's from a public health official -- a doctor -- who understands the implications of sound research. > er, ahem, "we need to educate the comunity" sounds like propaganda > to me. How is that any different from your role here, aside from the fact that Dr Baghurst has a study to support her work and you have none? >>>>http://res2.agr.ca/lethbridge/rep2001/rep0213_e.htm >>> >>>looks like another one funded by the beef industry. >> >>So? Deal with the issue, not tangentials like who funded the research. > > I would say it is rather suspect. Refute it if you can. You keep saying a lot without supporting anything. >>No, you've listed one study and made claims beyond its authors' scope. I have >>offered information from studies which support YOUR claims. > > One good apple is way better than a bunch of quetionable ones, > conducted completely by meat eaters. Ipse dixit. You don't know the dietary habits of researchers. Support this new claim, if you can. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:41:44 GMT, "rick etter" >
wrote: >> >> I have not seen any evidence better than what I provided. >==================== >ROTYFLMAO Which was exactly, well, none.... If a study done by a peer reviewed medical journal over 17 years with a statistically sigificant number of people is *nothing* then it just looks like you have no regard for the scientific method, and hence can be ruled out as any kind of rational person. Either that or you don't know how to follow the thread back to where I posted the link. in either case, plonk. time. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
