the sooner we get away from BEEF
- Thread starter killthesunshine
- Start date
I don't see one study in your reference that saturated fat is healthy?
In fact, one of the studies referenced..
"Meat consumption was positively associated with fatal ischemic heart disease in both men and women. This association was apparently not due to confounding by eggs, dairy products, obesity, marital status, or cigarette smoking. The positive association between meat consumption and fatal ischemic heart disease was stronger in men than in women and, overall, strongest in young men. For 45- to 64-year-old men, there was approximately a threefold difference in risk between men who ate meat daily and those who did not eat meat. This is the first study to clearly show a dose-response relationship between meat consumption and ischemic heart disease risk."
Since this study, which is dated (1984), these findings have been confirmed, many times over :eek:
You come equipped with incisor teeth. You think those are for eating dandelions? Your body chemistry comes equipped with pepsinogen, and when in the presence of Hydrocloric Acid (HCL), pepsinogen becomes pepsin required for the digestion of protein.
You either have reading comprehension issues, or you've intentionally misunderstood my point. Evolution has provided all humans with the necessary tools required for protein digestion. To suggest otherwise, or better yet, to suggest removing protein from one's diet provides an evolutionary benefit, represents fantasyland logic.
When your body needs energy (measured in 'calories'), it does not care whether that unit of energy (calorie) came from alcohol, sugar, crabohydrate, fat or protein. Energy is energy. When you need energy, it is either readily available in the blood (glucose levels) or it has to be obtained from reserves (cholesterol, or adipose tissue [fat cells]).
By mass, a pound of sugar contains more energy (calories) than a pound of fat, and that pound of fat contains more energy (calories) than a pound of protein. Again, any organism requires energy, but that organism doesn't care how it obtains the energy. Energy is energy.
An organism doesn't 'burn' sugar, fat or protein. The organism burns calories.
Eat fewer calories per unit time, and the organism weighs less and remains more healthy. The most efficient method for doing so is by eating the same mass of food, but use more of the fewest calorie food products - protein - in that consumed mass.
This concept doesn't require a PhD in Astrophysics to understand. Grade School kids learn this stuff.
Quote from killthesunshine:
i'm not holding my breathe
Of course not because you are one of those people who already know all there is to learn. Any opinion contrary to your own represents flawed thinking. You know best. Everyone else represents the unwashed or the unenlightened.
Heart Attacks didn't exist in North America until 30 years after the introduction of refined carbohydrates into the American Diet. Over a hundred years ago, people used to eat loads more meat than they do today. Yet, next to no heart attacks. How could this be? Americans started eating more and more refined carbohydrates (Wonder Bread, etc.) and BAM. Corconary Artery disease skyrockets.
As for science, During the Korean War, all returning casualties underwent autopsy for the purposes of improving scientific understanding of human anatomy and physiology. Ninety- Five percent of all those killed in the Korean war showed 50% or greater occlusion of their coronary arteries.
This study took place at a time in this country well before America went 'Super-Sized.' Today, huge numbers of Americans fall into the 'obese' or 'morbidly obese' catagory. You believe all this came from saturated fat??
Use your brain. Evolution did provide you with one.
- Spydertrader
LoL! 
Daily Red Meat Raises
Chances Of Dying Early
Study Is First Large Analysis Of Link With Overall Health
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; Page A01
Eating red meat increases the chances of dying prematurely, according to the first large study to examine whether regularly eating beef or pork increases mortality.
The study of more than 500,000 middle-aged and elderly Americans found that those who consumed about four ounces of red meat a day (the equivalent of about a small hamburger) were more than 30 percent more likely to die during the 10 years they were followed, mostly from heart disease and cancer. Sausage, cold cuts and other processed meats also increased the risk.
Previous research had found a link between red meat and an increased risk of heart disease and cancer, particularly colorectal cancer, but the new study is the first large examination of the relationship between eating meat and overall risk of death, and is by far the most detailed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032301626.html?hpid=topnews
Chances Of Dying Early
Study Is First Large Analysis Of Link With Overall Health
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; Page A01
Eating red meat increases the chances of dying prematurely, according to the first large study to examine whether regularly eating beef or pork increases mortality.
The study of more than 500,000 middle-aged and elderly Americans found that those who consumed about four ounces of red meat a day (the equivalent of about a small hamburger) were more than 30 percent more likely to die during the 10 years they were followed, mostly from heart disease and cancer. Sausage, cold cuts and other processed meats also increased the risk.
Previous research had found a link between red meat and an increased risk of heart disease and cancer, particularly colorectal cancer, but the new study is the first large examination of the relationship between eating meat and overall risk of death, and is by far the most detailed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032301626.html?hpid=topnews
Quote from killthesunshine:
the better we'll all feel
*I* am a VEGETARIAN, proud of it!
I am screaming it to the world..
I AM A VEGETARIAN!@!!!!!!
I'M PROUD OF IT!
i gave beef the boot
Gathering from the two things I now know about you, (vegetarian, and love fat old chicks), I now have a visual of you-
Framingham Heart Study
The most influential and respected investigation of the causes of heart disease is the Framingham Heart Study. This study was set up in the town of Framingham, Massachusetts, by Harvard University Medical School in 1948 and is still going on today. It was this study that gave rise to the dietary 'risk factors' with which we all are so familiar today. The Framingham researchers thought that they knew exactly why some people had more cholesterol than others - they ate more in their diet. To prove the link, they measured cholesterol intake and compared it with blood cholesterol. As Table I shows, although subjects consumed cholesterol over a wide range, there was little or no difference in the levels of cholesterol in their blood and, thus, no relationship between the amount of cholesterol eaten and levels of blood cholesterol was found. (Although it is interesting that women who had the highest levels of cholesterol in their blood were ones who had eaten the least cholesterol.)
Table I: Cholesterol intake - The Framingham Heart Study
Blood Cholesterol in Those
Cholesterol
Intake Below Median
Intake Above Median
Intake
mg/day mmol/l mmol/l
Men 704 ± 220.9 6.16 6.16
Women 492 ± 170.0 6.37 6.26
Next, the scientists studied intakes of saturated fats but again they could find no relation. There was still no relation when they studied total calorie intake. They then considered the possibility that something was masking the effects of diet, but no other factor made the slightest difference.
After twenty-two years of research, the researchers concluded:
"There is, in short, no suggestion of any relation between diet and the subsequent development of CHD in the study group."
On Christmas Eve, 1997, after a further twenty-seven years, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) carried a follow-up report that showed that dietary saturated fat reduced strokes. As these tend to affect older men than CHD, they wondered if a fatty diet was causing those in the trial to die of CHD before they had a stroke. But the researchers discount this, saying:
"This hypothesis, however, depends on the presence of a strong direct association of fat intake with coronary heart disease. Since we found no such association, competing mortality from coronary heart disease is very unlikely to explain our results."
In other words, after forty-nine years of research, they are still saying that they can find no relation between a fatty diet and heart disease.
Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial
One of the largest and most demanding medical studies ever performed on humans, The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (known in the medical world, by its initials, as MR. FIT) involved 28 medical centres and 250 researchers and cost $115,000,000. The researchers screened 361,662 men and deliberately chose subjects who were at very high risk to ensure that they achieved a statistically significant result. They cut cholesterol consumption by forty-two percent, saturated fat consumption by twenty-eight percent and total calories by twenty-one percent. Yet even then they didn't succeed. Blood cholesterol levels did fall, but by only a modest amount and, more importantly, coronary heart disease was unaffected. Its originators refer to the results as "disappointing" and say in their conclusions:
"The ....
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_2.html
Killthesunshine, look at ALL this studies.
I want to ask you a question for fun.
You go out with a girl to eat, and you are very, very attracted to her, and she likes you too. Then you order the salad, and she order a hamburger (no cheese )
Will you run away?
The most influential and respected investigation of the causes of heart disease is the Framingham Heart Study. This study was set up in the town of Framingham, Massachusetts, by Harvard University Medical School in 1948 and is still going on today. It was this study that gave rise to the dietary 'risk factors' with which we all are so familiar today. The Framingham researchers thought that they knew exactly why some people had more cholesterol than others - they ate more in their diet. To prove the link, they measured cholesterol intake and compared it with blood cholesterol. As Table I shows, although subjects consumed cholesterol over a wide range, there was little or no difference in the levels of cholesterol in their blood and, thus, no relationship between the amount of cholesterol eaten and levels of blood cholesterol was found. (Although it is interesting that women who had the highest levels of cholesterol in their blood were ones who had eaten the least cholesterol.)
Table I: Cholesterol intake - The Framingham Heart Study
Blood Cholesterol in Those
Cholesterol
Intake Below Median
Intake Above Median
Intake
mg/day mmol/l mmol/l
Men 704 ± 220.9 6.16 6.16
Women 492 ± 170.0 6.37 6.26
Next, the scientists studied intakes of saturated fats but again they could find no relation. There was still no relation when they studied total calorie intake. They then considered the possibility that something was masking the effects of diet, but no other factor made the slightest difference.
After twenty-two years of research, the researchers concluded:
"There is, in short, no suggestion of any relation between diet and the subsequent development of CHD in the study group."
On Christmas Eve, 1997, after a further twenty-seven years, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) carried a follow-up report that showed that dietary saturated fat reduced strokes. As these tend to affect older men than CHD, they wondered if a fatty diet was causing those in the trial to die of CHD before they had a stroke. But the researchers discount this, saying:
"This hypothesis, however, depends on the presence of a strong direct association of fat intake with coronary heart disease. Since we found no such association, competing mortality from coronary heart disease is very unlikely to explain our results."
In other words, after forty-nine years of research, they are still saying that they can find no relation between a fatty diet and heart disease.
Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial
One of the largest and most demanding medical studies ever performed on humans, The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (known in the medical world, by its initials, as MR. FIT) involved 28 medical centres and 250 researchers and cost $115,000,000. The researchers screened 361,662 men and deliberately chose subjects who were at very high risk to ensure that they achieved a statistically significant result. They cut cholesterol consumption by forty-two percent, saturated fat consumption by twenty-eight percent and total calories by twenty-one percent. Yet even then they didn't succeed. Blood cholesterol levels did fall, but by only a modest amount and, more importantly, coronary heart disease was unaffected. Its originators refer to the results as "disappointing" and say in their conclusions:
"The ....
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_2.html
Killthesunshine, look at ALL this studies.
I want to ask you a question for fun.
You go out with a girl to eat, and you are very, very attracted to her, and she likes you too. Then you order the salad, and she order a hamburger (no cheese
)Will you run away?
Vegetarianism causes brain damage.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/14077
No sex, please, you're a carnivore.
A new phenomenon in New Zealand is taking the idea of you are what you eat to the extreme.
Vegansexuals are people who do not eat any meat or animal products, and who choose not to be sexually intimate with non-vegan partners whose bodies, they say, are made up of dead animals.
The co-director of the New Zealand Centre for Human and Animal Studies at Canterbury University, Annie Potts, said she coined the term after doing research on the lives of "cruelty-free consumers".
Cruelty-Free Consumption in New Zealand: A National Report on the Perspectives and Experiences of Vegetarians and other Ethical Consumers asked 157 people nationwide about everything from battery chickens to sexual preferences.
Many female respondents described being attracted to people who ate meat, but said they did not want to have sex with meat-eaters because their bodies were made up of animal carcasses.
"It's a whole new thing â I have not come across it before," said Potts.
One vegan respondent from Christchurch said: "I believe we are what we consume, so I really struggle with bodily fluids, especially sexually."
Another Christchurch vegan said she found non-vegans attractive, but would not want to be physically close to them.
"I would not want to be intimate with someone whose body is literally made up from the bodies of others who have died for their sustenance," she said.
Christchurch vegan Nichola Kriek has been married to her vegan husband, Hans, for nine years.
She would not describe herself as vegansexual, but said it would definitely be a preference.
She could understand people not wanting to get too close to non-vegan or non-vegetarians.
"When you are vegan or vegetarian, you are very aware that when people eat a meaty diet, they are kind of a graveyard for animals," she said.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/14077
No sex, please, you're a carnivore.
A new phenomenon in New Zealand is taking the idea of you are what you eat to the extreme.
Vegansexuals are people who do not eat any meat or animal products, and who choose not to be sexually intimate with non-vegan partners whose bodies, they say, are made up of dead animals.
The co-director of the New Zealand Centre for Human and Animal Studies at Canterbury University, Annie Potts, said she coined the term after doing research on the lives of "cruelty-free consumers".
Cruelty-Free Consumption in New Zealand: A National Report on the Perspectives and Experiences of Vegetarians and other Ethical Consumers asked 157 people nationwide about everything from battery chickens to sexual preferences.
Many female respondents described being attracted to people who ate meat, but said they did not want to have sex with meat-eaters because their bodies were made up of animal carcasses.
"It's a whole new thing â I have not come across it before," said Potts.
One vegan respondent from Christchurch said: "I believe we are what we consume, so I really struggle with bodily fluids, especially sexually."
Another Christchurch vegan said she found non-vegans attractive, but would not want to be physically close to them.
"I would not want to be intimate with someone whose body is literally made up from the bodies of others who have died for their sustenance," she said.
Christchurch vegan Nichola Kriek has been married to her vegan husband, Hans, for nine years.
She would not describe herself as vegansexual, but said it would definitely be a preference.
She could understand people not wanting to get too close to non-vegan or non-vegetarians.
"When you are vegan or vegetarian, you are very aware that when people eat a meaty diet, they are kind of a graveyard for animals," she said.