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
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2005, 07:31 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

usual suspect wrote:
John Coleman wrote:

The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known

No, it isn't. Once again, you are confusing mere
polemical assertion with fact.


You are out of touch Rudy,


You were never in touch, Coleman.

the ill effects of consuming animal products are
the outcome of years of epidemiology, clinical research, and other
scientific work.


Your sentence is so shoddy that it appears you're blaming scientific
study for the ill effects of consuming animal products, you sissy.


Wasn't that pathetic?! He wrote,

the ill effects of consuming animal products are the outcome
of...research.

Nice.


They are therefore well known.


Logical fallacy of appealing to popular knowledge. To date, studies

have
shown that overconsumption of certain animal products, especially

fatty
meat, can have deleterious health consequences. But conversely, some
studies have shown consumption particularly of fish and poultry to

have
very positive health benefits: reduced incidence of colorectal

cancers,
significant improvements in LDL:HDL and triglycerides, etc.

Both heart disease and
cancer are major killers that have been associated with eating

animal
products.


Ipse dixit, poor generalization. The latest red meat study which

you'll
no doubt put on your pseudoscience website showed a significant
reduction in colorectal cancer rates among those who ate more poultry


and fish. As well, the studies upon which you rely seldom distinguish


between lean meats and fatty meats, reduced-fat dairy products and

whole
milk products, etc. IOW, you like to compare apples to oranges and

make
wild claims accordingly.


Coleman and Larry Fruity and Peril and all the other
pseudo-science-spewing vegetarian extremists ALWAYS get this point
wrong. EVERY scientifically credible study indicates that *excessive*
meat consumption, particularly fat, is the problem, NOT meat
consumption per se.


  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2005, 08:07 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rudy Canoza wrote:
usual suspect wrote:

John Coleman wrote:


The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known

No, it isn't. Once again, you are confusing mere
polemical assertion with fact.

You are out of touch Rudy,


You were never in touch, Coleman.


the ill effects of consuming animal products are
the outcome of years of epidemiology, clinical research, and other
scientific work.


Your sentence is so shoddy that it appears you're blaming scientific
study for the ill effects of consuming animal products, you sissy.


Wasn't that pathetic?!


That's standard practice in his circle jerk.

He wrote,

the ill effects of consuming animal products are the outcome
of...research.

Nice.


They are therefore well known.


Logical fallacy of appealing to popular knowledge. To date, studies


have

shown that overconsumption of certain animal products, especially


fatty

meat, can have deleterious health consequences. But conversely, some
studies have shown consumption particularly of fish and poultry to


have

very positive health benefits: reduced incidence of colorectal


cancers,

significant improvements in LDL:HDL and triglycerides, etc.


Both heart disease and
cancer are major killers that have been associated with eating


animal

products.


Ipse dixit, poor generalization. The latest red meat study which


you'll

no doubt put on your pseudoscience website showed a significant
reduction in colorectal cancer rates among those who ate more poultry



and fish. As well, the studies upon which you rely seldom distinguish



between lean meats and fatty meats, reduced-fat dairy products and


whole

milk products, etc. IOW, you like to compare apples to oranges and


make

wild claims accordingly.



Coleman and Larry Fruity and Peril and all the other
pseudo-science-spewing vegetarian extremists ALWAYS get this point
wrong. EVERY scientifically credible study indicates that *excessive*
meat consumption, particularly fat, is the problem, NOT meat
consumption per se.


You can even say that it's the excessive consumption of *saturated*
fats, including transfats. Many cardiologists recommend their patients
increase their consumption of fatty fish rich in omega-3 FAs. Not all
animal fats are "bad" -- some are much more healthful than some
plant-derived fats.
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2005, 10:04 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
nk.net...
John Coleman wrote:

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...

Larry Fruity wrote:


"usual suspect" wrote in message
.. .


I love hamburgers and chicken, among many other
types of animal products, but due to the associated ill effects of

such
consumption, I abstain.

What "ill effects"?

The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known

No, it isn't. Once again, you are confusing mere
polemical assertion with fact.



You are out of touch Rudy, the ill effects of consuming animal products

are
the outcome of years of epidemiology, clinical research, and other
scientific work.


No, there is no such conclusion that comes out of any
of those fields.


Science never produces "conclusions" as such, there is always the posibility
of new findings proving the current ideas wrong. However, currently there is
plenty of information linking meat eating to serious degenerative diseases,
and no sign of this being wrong or even likely wrong.

A few years ago the UK government were even considering a program to
recommend meat intake be limited to less than 90g daily (which is a lot)
because that would lower cancers, but it was blown off by the meat marketing
lobby.

Furthermore, YOU have no expertise in
any of the fields. That's why you are so prone to
misreading the conclusions they DO make.


uh, unlike you the expert??

See the thread I posted "China Study book published"*. Read the book. It's
written by an expert in biochemistry, epidemiology and nutrition.

John
---

*http://www.thechinastudy.com/about.html

The findings? "People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most
chronic disease . People who ate the most plant-based foods were the
healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be
ignored," said Dr. Campbell.



  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2005, 10:09 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/293/2/172

Meat Consumption and Risk of Colorectal Cancer
Ann Chao, PhD; Michael J. Thun, MD, MS; Cari J. Connell, MPH; Marjorie L.
McCullough, ScD; Eric J. Jacobs, PhD; W. Dana Flanders, MD, ScD; Carmen
Rodriguez, MD, MPH; Rashmi Sinha, PhD; Eugenia E. Calle, PhD


JAMA. 2005;293:172-182.

Context Consumption of red and processed meat has been associated with
colorectal cancer in many but not all epidemiological studies; few studies
have examined risk in relation to long-term meat intake or the association
of meat with rectal cancer.

Objective To examine the relationship between recent and long-term meat
consumption and the risk of incident colon and rectal cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants A cohort of 148 610 adults aged 50 to
74 years (median, 63 years), residing in 21 states with population-based
cancer registries, who provided information on meat consumption in 1982
and again in 1992/1993 when enrolled in the Cancer Prevention Study II
(CPS II) Nutrition Cohort. Follow-up from time of enrollment in 1992/1993
through August 31, 2001, identified 1667 incident colorectal cancers.
Participants contributed person-years at risk until death or a diagnosis
of colon or rectal cancer.

Main Outcome Measure Incidence rate ratio (RR) of colon and rectal
cancer.

Results High intake of red and processed meat reported in 1992/1993 was
associated with higher risk of colon cancer after adjusting for age and
energy intake but not after further adjustment for body mass index,
cigarette smoking, and other covariates. When long-term consumption was
considered, persons in the highest tertile of consumption in both 1982 and
1992/1993 had higher risk of distal colon cancer associated with processed
meat (RR, 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.17), and ratio of red
meat to poultry and fish (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.08-2.18) relative to those
persons in the lowest tertile at both time points. Long-term consumption
of poultry and fish was inversely associated with risk of both proximal
and distal colon cancer. High consumption of red meat reported in
1992/1993 was associated with higher risk of rectal cancer (RR, 1.71; 95%
CI, 1.15-2.52; P = .007 for trend), as was high consumption reported in
both 1982 and 1992/1993 (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.00-2.05).

Conclusions Our results demonstrate the potential value of examining
long-term meat consumption in assessing cancer risk and strengthen the
evidence that prolonged high consumption of red and processed meat may
increase the risk of cancer in the distal portion of the large intestine.



  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-01-2005, 10:16 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Coleman wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
nk.net...
John Coleman wrote:

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...

The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known

No, it isn't. Once again, you are confusing mere
polemical assertion with fact.


You are out of touch Rudy, the ill effects of consuming animal

products
are the outcome of years of epidemiology, clinical research, and

other
scientific work.


No, there is no such conclusion that comes out of any
of those fields.


Science never produces "conclusions" as such


Then you were simply bullshitting above, not to mention constructing
truly wretched English sentences.

However, currently there is
plenty of information linking meat eating to serious degenerative

diseases,
and no sign of this being wrong or even likely wrong.


No. You are wrong. There is information linking HIGH meat consumption
with degenerative diseases. There is no information linking meat
consumption _per se_ with degenerative diseases.

This is the fundamental point you, Larry Fruity, Peril, and all other
anti-meat orthorexics get fundamentally wrong.


A few years ago the UK government were even considering a program to
recommend meat intake be limited to less than 90g daily (which is a

lot)

That is NOT a large quantity.

because that would lower cancers, but it was blown off by the meat

marketing
lobby.


Perhaps; or, perhaps that's merely your extremist's paranoia at work.


Furthermore, YOU have no expertise in
any of the fields. That's why you are so prone to
misreading the conclusions they DO make.


uh, unlike you the expert??

Unlike you, I don't pretend to expertise I don't have.



  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-01-2005, 01:45 PM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Coleman" wrote in message ...
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/293/2/172

Meat Consumption and Risk of Colorectal Cancer
Ann Chao, PhD; Michael J. Thun, MD, MS; Cari J. Connell, MPH; Marjorie L.
McCullough, ScD; Eric J. Jacobs, PhD; W. Dana Flanders, MD, ScD; Carmen
Rodriguez, MD, MPH; Rashmi Sinha, PhD; Eugenia E. Calle, PhD


JAMA. 2005;293:172-182.

Context Consumption of red and processed meat has been associated with
colorectal cancer in many but not all epidemiological studies; few studies
have examined risk in relation to long-term meat intake or the association
of meat with rectal cancer.

Objective To examine the relationship between recent and long-term meat
consumption and the risk of incident colon and rectal cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants A cohort of 148 610 adults aged 50 to
74 years (median, 63 years), residing in 21 states with population-based
cancer registries, who provided information on meat consumption in 1982
and again in 1992/1993 when enrolled in the Cancer Prevention Study II
(CPS II) Nutrition Cohort. Follow-up from time of enrollment in 1992/1993
through August 31, 2001, identified 1667 incident colorectal cancers.
Participants contributed person-years at risk until death or a diagnosis
of colon or rectal cancer.

Main Outcome Measure Incidence rate ratio (RR) of colon and rectal
cancer.

Results High intake of red and processed meat reported in 1992/1993 was
associated with higher risk of colon cancer after adjusting for age and
energy intake but not after further adjustment for body mass index,
cigarette smoking, and other covariates. When long-term consumption was
considered, persons in the highest tertile of consumption in both 1982 and
1992/1993 had higher risk of distal colon cancer associated with processed
meat (RR, 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.17), and ratio of red
meat to poultry and fish (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.08-2.18) relative to those
persons in the lowest tertile at both time points. Long-term consumption
of poultry and fish was inversely associated with risk of both proximal
and distal colon cancer. High consumption of red meat reported in
1992/1993 was associated with higher risk of rectal cancer (RR, 1.71; 95%
CI, 1.15-2.52; P = .007 for trend), as was high consumption reported in
both 1982 and 1992/1993 (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.00-2.05).

Conclusions Our results demonstrate the potential value of examining
long-term meat consumption in assessing cancer risk and strengthen the
evidence that prolonged high consumption of red and processed meat may
increase the risk of cancer in the distal portion of the large intestine.


################################################## #####

Former McDonald's CEO Charlie Bell dies of cancer
Posted 1/16/2005 7:11 PM

CHICAGO (AP) Charlie Bell, who stepped down last year
as McDonald's Corp.'s chief executive to battle colorectal cancer,
died early Monday in his native Australia. He was 44.
....
http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...ell-obit_x.htm


  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-01-2005, 01:45 PM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Coleman" wrote in message ...
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/293/2/172

Meat Consumption and Risk of Colorectal Cancer
Ann Chao, PhD; Michael J. Thun, MD, MS; Cari J. Connell, MPH; Marjorie L.
McCullough, ScD; Eric J. Jacobs, PhD; W. Dana Flanders, MD, ScD; Carmen
Rodriguez, MD, MPH; Rashmi Sinha, PhD; Eugenia E. Calle, PhD


JAMA. 2005;293:172-182.

Context Consumption of red and processed meat has been associated with
colorectal cancer in many but not all epidemiological studies; few studies
have examined risk in relation to long-term meat intake or the association
of meat with rectal cancer.

Objective To examine the relationship between recent and long-term meat
consumption and the risk of incident colon and rectal cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants A cohort of 148 610 adults aged 50 to
74 years (median, 63 years), residing in 21 states with population-based
cancer registries, who provided information on meat consumption in 1982
and again in 1992/1993 when enrolled in the Cancer Prevention Study II
(CPS II) Nutrition Cohort. Follow-up from time of enrollment in 1992/1993
through August 31, 2001, identified 1667 incident colorectal cancers.
Participants contributed person-years at risk until death or a diagnosis
of colon or rectal cancer.

Main Outcome Measure Incidence rate ratio (RR) of colon and rectal
cancer.

Results High intake of red and processed meat reported in 1992/1993 was
associated with higher risk of colon cancer after adjusting for age and
energy intake but not after further adjustment for body mass index,
cigarette smoking, and other covariates. When long-term consumption was
considered, persons in the highest tertile of consumption in both 1982 and
1992/1993 had higher risk of distal colon cancer associated with processed
meat (RR, 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.17), and ratio of red
meat to poultry and fish (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.08-2.18) relative to those
persons in the lowest tertile at both time points. Long-term consumption
of poultry and fish was inversely associated with risk of both proximal
and distal colon cancer. High consumption of red meat reported in
1992/1993 was associated with higher risk of rectal cancer (RR, 1.71; 95%
CI, 1.15-2.52; P = .007 for trend), as was high consumption reported in
both 1982 and 1992/1993 (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.00-2.05).

Conclusions Our results demonstrate the potential value of examining
long-term meat consumption in assessing cancer risk and strengthen the
evidence that prolonged high consumption of red and processed meat may
increase the risk of cancer in the distal portion of the large intestine.


################################################## #####

Former McDonald's CEO Charlie Bell dies of cancer
Posted 1/16/2005 7:11 PM

CHICAGO (AP) Charlie Bell, who stepped down last year
as McDonald's Corp.'s chief executive to battle colorectal cancer,
died early Monday in his native Australia. He was 44.
....
http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...ell-obit_x.htm


  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-01-2005, 09:59 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

heartless ~peril~ jumped up and down on Charlie Bell's casket and wrote:
################################################## #####

Former McDonald's CEO Charlie Bell dies of cancer
Posted 1/16/2005 7:11 PM

CHICAGO (AP) Charlie Bell, who stepped down last year
as McDonald's Corp.'s chief executive to battle colorectal cancer,
died early Monday in his native Australia. He was 44.


That's the same Charlie Bell who revamped McD's menu to include
healthier fare like salads, bottled water, etc.
  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-01-2005, 09:59 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

heartless ~peril~ jumped up and down on Charlie Bell's casket and wrote:
################################################## #####

Former McDonald's CEO Charlie Bell dies of cancer
Posted 1/16/2005 7:11 PM

CHICAGO (AP) Charlie Bell, who stepped down last year
as McDonald's Corp.'s chief executive to battle colorectal cancer,
died early Monday in his native Australia. He was 44.


That's the same Charlie Bell who revamped McD's menu to include
healthier fare like salads, bottled water, etc.
  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-01-2005, 02:48 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

blackhearted peril wrote:
"usual suspect" wrote...

heartless ~peril~ jumped up and down


eh? I'm dancing!


Dance is one of the arts. It's hard to tell what you're doing the way
you skinheads thrash and stomp about, but rest assured it's NOT dancing.


  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-01-2005, 03:09 PM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"usual suspect" wrote in message ...

Dance is one of the arts. It's hard to tell what you're doing the way
you skinheads


Explain to us the difference between hearsay and evidence again, usual liar.


  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-01-2005, 08:54 PM
Laurie
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...

The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known


No, it isn't.

The effects are well known and documented by those, obviously excluding
yourself, that scan the scientific literature.
See the degenerative disease of your choice at:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html

Gee, noBalls, yet another phony name/account/header?? What is the point
of this juvenile behavior??

Laurie




  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-01-2005, 09:44 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Larry Fruity wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ink.net...

The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known


No, it isn't.

The effects are well known and documented by those blah blah blah
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html


Nothing on that junk page documents ill effects of consuming animal
products per se.

  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-03-2005, 01:24 AM
Laurie
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jon-a-thug noBalls" wrote in message
oups.com...

The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known

No, it isn't.

The effects are well known and documented ...
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html


Nothing on that junk page documents ill effects of consuming animal
products per se.

"Per se"?? That page is full of links to well over 700 abstracts that
fully support everything I say. Juvenile dodge, though, all you are capable
of, noBalls; except the endless vulgarity and personal insults.

Laurie


  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-03-2005, 04:28 AM
Abner Hale
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Laurie wrote:
"Jon-a-thug noBalls" wrote in message
oups.com...

The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well

known

No, it isn't.
The effects are well known and documented ...
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html


Nothing on that junk page documents ill effects of consuming animal
products per se.

"Per se"?? That page is full of links to well over 700 abstracts

that
fully support everything I say. Juvenile dodge, though, all you are

capable
of, noBalls; except the endless vulgarity and personal insults.

Laurie


It's crap, "Laurie." You're a scientific illiterate.



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
WHY VEGANISM? Dr. Jai Maharaj[_1_] Vegan 72 12-02-2012 10:46 PM
free health coupons and samples from quality health pappu Diabetic 0 02-05-2007 07:17 AM
get frEE health samples from QUALITY HEALTH pappu Diabetic 0 30-04-2007 01:15 PM
free health coupons and samples from quality health pappu Diabetic 0 21-04-2007 01:28 PM
free health coupons and samples from quality health pappu Diabetic 0 18-04-2007 03:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017