You do not seem to know very much about bears, Rheghead. Although they all belong to the order Carnivora, most species are omnivores like ourselves. The only ones that are not are the polar bear (a true carnivore, although even they have been observed chewing on roots in times of starvation while waiting for the sea ice to re-form so that they can hunt) and the bamboo eating Giant Panda.
You have not been reading my posts, selective reading. I have said on many occasion that bears are carnivores by physiology but omnivores by behavior. The point I was making, which I really think was quite apparent though you seem to have missed it, was not to liken human beings to bears but to underline the nutritional value to an omnivore of eating flesh. Comparison between the highly diet- restricted Giant Panda and the omnivorous Grizzly further illustrates the point. The pandas have such a poor diet that they struggle to fulfil their nutritional needs and are only able to produce one cub (sometimes not even that) every 2 years and they are endangered whereas Grizzly and Brown bears commonly produce and rear 2 or even 3 cubs at a time.
The panda is related to a raccoon, not a bear Being an omnivore allows animals and ourselves to exploit more ecological niches and opportunities and has conferred an evolutionary advantage. If not, it would have died out a long time ago.
Yes for animals in the wild, we are humans with a herbivore physiology
You have also (presumably deliberately) not taken on board the point that I was making about those races of people following their traditional lifestyle. The Inuit living in this way do not suffer high rates of cancer or heart disease, despite their high fat and pretty much entirely flesh eating diet. There are plenty of references to this if you Google it (and it has attracted a lot of study and attention) and it is called the ‘Inuit paradox’. (What happens to people when they are either forced or choose to give up that lifestyle and are exposed to the modern ills of addiction, inactivity, poverty, depression and the like is entirely another matter. This presumably, is what you are highlighting whereas I was not). However, the point is, and contrary to all your assertions, the Inuit provide proof that eating even a lot of meat does not necessarily equate to poor human health. The situation is far more complex than that.
You asserted that the Inuit had resistance to various things that were completely untrue. They suffer from less breast cancer but that could be down to that their terrain is less conducive to raising dairy animals. I supplied a link from the inuit community to support that
There is a link in western society between high red meat consumption (with no differentiation made between processed and non processed meat) and bowel cancer.
It is stated that for people in the UK, bowel cancer is the third most common type of cancer. An estimated 38,000 new cases of bowel cancer are diagnosed each year and an estimated 16,000 people die from bowel cancer each year. Approximately 80% of bowel cancer cases develop in people who are over 60.
An estimated 40,000 new cases of bowel cancer are diagnosed each year and about one in every 20 people in the UK will develop bowel cancer during their lifetime. Almost nine out of 10 people who develop bowel cancer are over 60. Also, People who smoke cigarettes are at greater risk of developing bowel cancer. Stopping smoking will reduce your risk.
Obesity and being inactive are also linked to an increased risk of bowel cancer. I'd say obesity and a lack of exercise is linked to eating meat which is linked to bowel cancer. Vegans tend to be more active, less obese. You need to prove causality instead of reaming off a list of correlations.
The overall increased risk from red meat eating of developing bowel cancer is very small. So small that some colorectal surgeons who are at the coal face when it comes to dealing with the disease pay it little heed. The studies that have been done are observational and rely on people accurately reporting what they eat. The flaws in this approach are notorious and well recognised. Studies have also not differentiated between other lifestyle factors; do the red meat eaters also eat lots of vegetables or very little; are they overweight or not; are they active or sedentary. Do they smoke; do they consume alcohol etc. My whole point is that (and here I will shout and use as many exclamation marks as you please), there is NO EVIDENCE that if meat is eaten sparingly as part of a balanced diet eating as wide a variety of foods as possible, that it is anything other than good for you. NOT A SINGLE STUDY proves otherwise. Current nutritional advice is not to cut out red meat from your diet completely but to eat it more sparingly, if you need and want to.
Define sparingly. You know, people who claim to be able to smoke one cigarette every day really keep to that regime.
For example, the TV presenter Nick Knowles has recently brought out a highly successful, no nonsense vegan cookbook. He went from being, by his own admission, a 3 meat meals a day man (clearly excessive) to now, being veggie 80% of the time. He looks and feels better but is not hung up about the other 20% of what he eats and continues to enjoy eating meat sparingly if he feels he wants to. If this had been your approach then I, for one, would be more on board with you.
Good for him if he can keep to that. But if I know humans as I know humans, rarely do people stick with diets as it means counting calories and making an effort. They son relapse into their old ways. Vegans have a clear red line, no animal products in their diet. It is simple, healthy and easily kept.
Aging is definitely the greatest risk factor for bowel cancer. So what should we conclude then- that none of us should grow old or should the over 60s give up eating meat. No!
Red meat is one of the most nutritious foods you can eat.
It is loaded with vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and various other nutrients that can have profound effects on health.
A 100 gram (3.5 ounces) portion of raw ground beef (10% fat) contains (3):
· Vitamin B3 (Niacin): 25% of the RDA.
· Vitamin B12 (Cobalamin): 37% of the RDA (this vitamin is unattainable from plant foods).
· Vitamin B6 (Pyridoxine): 18% of the RDA.
· Iron: 12% of the RDA (This is high quality heme-iron, which is absorbed much better than iron from plants).
· Zinc: 32% of the RDA.
· Selenium: 24% of the RDA.
· Then there are plenty of other vitamins and minerals in there too, in smaller amounts.
A vegan diet can also provide all those nutrients. Vitamin B12 is not produced by animals either. It is injected into animals as a supplement
Critically, these nutrients are recognised to be in the most bioavailable form- an important factor for the elderly in whom absorption of nutrients declines with aging. Many elderly people are short of iron, vitamin B 12 and selenium due to age-related mal-absorption and while there are undoubtedly plant sources for some of these, they are mostly in a form that is far harder to digest. Meat and animal based foods are a better source.
That claim needs a scientific source to back it up
It is also sensible and recommended everywhere to eat more oily fish and fish is likewise flesh and not vegan. Another issue that you refuse to address.
‘I thought you were out of here’.
So much for your much heralded professions of ‘concern’ for the welfare of others. What are you afraid of Rheghead?
Afraid? Get over yourselfWhy are you so defensive of ‘your thread’- a bizarre concept anyway on what is supposed to be open discussion on a public forum, up for comment by all. Never mind, if you wait long enough, perhaps the ‘bad dudes’ will fade away and some militant vegans to whom you can fully relate and who will join you in denigrating the views of others will pop along to give you their support and you can then enjoy a mutual, oh so superior, veggie love in. I wish you joy in it.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Goodfellers
Bookmarks