Post: #76

Here's a post I wrote back in 2009 about this same topic...it goes into further details about the corruption that goes on to fund these sorts of "Meat causes Cancer" scares that regularly appears in the mainstream media.

The Source of Dietary Deception

Post: #77

(05-22-2013 10:31 AM)JayMillz Wrote:  

(04-14-2013 04:25 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  I'd rather go through my 30s and 40s jacked than live an extra 5-10 years.

These folks are in their 70s.

Black don't crack!

Post: #78

(05-22-2013 08:00 PM)K Galt Wrote:  Here's a post I wrote back in 2009 about this same topic...it goes into further details about the corruption that goes on to fund these sorts of "Meat causes Cancer" scares that regularly appears in the mainstream media.

The Source of Dietary Deception

"I admit I didn't even try to find or read the study, I merely drew my own conclusions based on the article written about the study that drew the conclusion that animal fats causes cancer."

Stopped reading after that sentence.

Post: #79

I guess you didn't read the sentence just prior to that one either?

" I thought it was quite ridiculous to claim a connection between cancer and ANY kind of food through a mass mailed questionnaire."

Post: #80

How do you know the study is based on a questionnaire if you say you didn't even try to find the study?

Have you read Gary Taubes' Good Calories Bad Calories? Some random dude on Youtube named Plant Positive digged into the papers Taubes' cited and exposed how Taubes was misrepresenting facts (really just straight up lying). If you want people to take you seriously, you can't write 'I didn't even bother checking the original sources' with a straight face.

Post: #81

Oh here, Genghis.... here's the relevant part you missed when you stopped reading....when the guy I was citing DID dig into the papers:

Here’s the first big problem with the study (the largest of its kind!): the survey itself. In order to determine what people eat, the investigators sent them a list of 120 foods and asked them to answer questions like this:

Over the last 12 months, how often did you eat the following foods? (Ignore any recent changes.)

Whole milk (4%), NOT in coffee, NOT on cereal: Never | 1-6 per year | 7-11 per year | 1 per month | 2-3 per month | 1-2 per week | 3-4 per week | 5-6 per week | 1 per day | 2-3 per day | 4-5 per day | 6+ per day. Portion size: less than ½ cup | ½ to 1 cup | more than 1 cup.

Breads or dinner rolls, NOT INCLUDING ON SANDWICHES: Never | 1-6 per year | 7-11 per year | 1 per month | 2-3 per month | 1-2 per week | 3-4 per week | 5-6 per week | 1 per day | 2-3 per day | 4-5 per day | 6+ per day. Portion size: less than 1 slice or roll | 1 or 2 slices or rolls | more than 2 slices or rolls.

Mayonnaise or mayonnaise-like salad dressing on bread: Never | 1-6 per year | 7-11 per year | 1 per month | 2-3 per month | 1-2 per week | 3-4 per week | 5-6 per week | 1 per day | 2-3 per day | 4-5 per day | 6+ per day. Portion size: less than 1 teaspoon | 1 to 3 teaspoons | more than 3 teaspoons.

Ground beef in mixtures such as tacos, burritos, meatballs, casseroles, chili, meatloaf: Never | 1-6 per year | 7-11 per year | 1 per month | 2-3 per month | 1-2 per week | 3-4 per week | 5-6 per week | 1 per day | 2-3 per day | 4-5 per day | 6+ per day. Portion size: less than 3 ounces | 3 to 7 ounces | more than 7 ounces.

-------

Now tell me Genghis, how can ANYONE declare ANY sort of food causes cancer or any other disease based on SELF-REPORTING with general questions like this?

Furthermore, it makes zero difference between home made foods and fast/processed foods. Take that last question: it only makes intuitive sense to understand that a food questionnaire survey like this HAS to be inaccurate, as it doesn't differentiate quality of food choices the survey respondents were asked to recall eating.

Surely you must realize the vast difference between a Taco Bell or Del Taco beef taco, made with a meat "product" laced with MSG and cut with soy protein (unless it specifies 100% ground beef, ANY beef you order at a fast food restaurant is most assuredly cut with "textured vegetable protein.), and topped withe processed cheese -- and a taco I may make at home with organic tortilla's, grass fed beef and cultured, grass fed dairy cheddar cheese!

Or how about a hamburger made in your home, versus a big mac from McD's?

Survey's like this make no such distinction.

I once read a survey that had the following question: "How many servings of butter or margarine have you had in the past week?"

Wait....you're putting butter churned from dairy cow milk in the exact same nutritional category as partially hydrogenated soybean oil (margarine?)

Yeah. Ok. Whatevers.

You keep worrying about your cancer from meat...I'm gonna go grill a T-bone for dinner.

Post: #82

PS - Genghis, if I'm coming across like an asshole here, understand it's in no way directed towards you. I may have only been registered here at RVF since Feb...but I've actually been a long time lurker before I finally registered.

You are certainly one of the posters who's opinion I mostly respect and you are one of the worthwhile contributors to the forum.

This topic gets me wound up, because I HAVE done the digging in the past on similar such reports. I've spent hours tracking down contributors to the World Cancer Fund, and I have looked at the methodologies of such "studies" which are then turned into Pro-Vegetarian propaganda and touted all over the mass media. I now see them for the lies that they are, and knowing I'm deliberately lied to, pisses me off. My tone is not meant to be directed personally at you, so please be clear on that.

I've done so much research into this topic, that I can pretty much just read a report like the one you cited, and just by the wording of it, already determine that it's most assuredly a statistical analysis used to "prove" whatever is on their agenda - aka "meat is bad for your health."

I've also been there, done that. I've gone from attempted vegan, to vegetarian, to Paleo diet carnivore. I've experienced the differences in health and well being on both diets, and there is NO comparison.

Weight, energy, stamina performance...all improved on the carnivore heavy, paleo diet, all while in my mid to late 30's.
When I was a mid to late 20's vegetarian/semi-vegetarian (only ate chicken and fish, only used turkey bacon, and low fat/non-fat feed products), I was fatter, sicklier, and way less capable of handling hard core exertion. And that was supposedly during my physical prime!

Post: #83

(05-22-2013 02:50 PM)Exactaking Wrote:  Blacks really can age well. I've never seen a older white (without botox) that looked even 20 years younger. Once you hit 70, the wrinkles are too pronounced.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/competitive-...20419.html

Post: #84

Hey K Galt, first of all, sorry if I came across as a dick. I respect the fact you took the time to explain your positions here on the forums. Though I will say, I can understand where you're coming from when you say you've read so many papers/articles/etc. you can determine the agenda by the wording.

However I still do think you should be careful saying you didn't read the study.
1. Even if you know it's complete crap, I would still read through it. You never know what you might find out. We all have our biases, so it is important to just go through the other side's argument with an open-mind. Though I totally agree with you, questionnaires are a disgrace, waste of money and highly deceptive in terms of what they bring to the table.

2. Once again, not to sound like a dick, but if you're a blogger/writer, you need to go through the studies properly. Even though I might not agree with the paleo camp, everyone owes it to each other to do their research properly. To not do so makes it easy for the other side to simply claim: "Dude didn't even read the study, why should I bother to read what he has to say"

Post: #85

Post: #86

reasons to eat meat:

- macronutrients: high source of protein and fat
- micronutrients: high source of certain ones
- psychological: very tasty and filling

however you can get all the protein and fat via dairy (milk, yogurt, cheese, and protein powder) and all the micronutrients via vitamin pills. there is no must, really.

Post: #87

Post: #88

(04-15-2013 10:42 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  India is an entire country of vegetarians. How's that working out of them.

Is this vegetarian thread a clever Indian Race Troll angle?

Those meat studies are bogus, by the way.

They look at people like my dad. He'll have a cheese burger on top of those buns that come 8 to a pack and are made with artificial, bleached flower. He'll have some Ruffles potato chips and some cake for dessert.

Then the geeks blame the meat.

I just had 12 ounces of pork chops with a huge kale, quinoa, and blueberry salad.

Feeling great.

Not to mention pretty much every vegetarian or vegan I know also doesn't do things like drink excessively, smoke, they tend to workout more and do healthier lifestyle activities like biking and running. Also many meat eaters I know tend to eat fewer vegetables than vegetarians simply because its harder to eat half a pound of broccoli and 6 ounces of chicken. So maybe the "healthier" part of vegetarianism is because they vegetarians eat a certain amount of plant based foods, not because of a lack of meat.

I've done a few research projects (not in this specific area but other areas) and they all contained numerous assumptions that were cited as fact because they did not have the funding to isolate every single variable (did every person in the study have the same body chemistry, activity level, genetics, other habits, living environment free of pollution and other toxins, etc.) so previous studies results were assumed to be accurate.

Then you have the researchers who are going in looking for a pre-determined result, and while I'm not accusing them of altering the results (although one I worked on absolutely changed the results after the testing so they could gain more funding), they can easily overlook inconsistencies and if anything doesn't jibe, call it an anomaly.

Post: #89

The most important reason I've found is because not eating meat makes it much more likely you will be an obnoxious, pretentious asshole who pesters people about their diet.

I've never heard a meat eater try to convert or even give a shit about a vegetarians diet, but I've had it happen several times with vegans (to be fair most vegetarians I know couldn't care less about who eats what)

Post: #90

@Cr33pin: I bet she still eats meat on a daily basis

OT: Are you a man? If so, I can't imagine any legitimate argument against eating meat.

Veganism is like the dietry equivalent of feminism - wank and irrationality

Post: #91

Vegetarians have much lower sperm counts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/me...ounts.html

Quote:Vegetarians and vegans had significantly lower sperm counts compared with meat eaters, 50 million sperm per ml compared with 70 million per ml.
They also had lower average sperm motility – the number of sperm which are active. Only one third of sperm were active for vegetarians and vegans compared with nearly 60 per cent for meat eaters.
The team believes that vitamin deficiencies may be to blame but also believe that replacing meat with soy could be responsible.
“We found that diet does significantly affect sperm quality. Vegetarian and vegan diets were associated with much lower sperm counts than omnivorous diets,” said Dr Eliza Orzylowska an obstetrician at Loma Linda University Medical Centre in California.

Post: #92

(10-20-2014 09:00 PM)Sombro Wrote:  Vegetarians have much lower sperm counts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/me...ounts.html

Quote:Vegetarians and vegans had significantly lower sperm counts compared with meat eaters, 50 million sperm per ml compared with 70 million per ml.
They also had lower average sperm motility – the number of sperm which are active. Only one third of sperm were active for vegetarians and vegans compared with nearly 60 per cent for meat eaters.
The team believes that vitamin deficiencies may be to blame but also believe that replacing meat with soy could be responsible.
“We found that diet does significantly affect sperm quality. Vegetarian and vegan diets were associated with much lower sperm counts than omnivorous diets,” said Dr Eliza Orzylowska an obstetrician at Loma Linda University Medical Centre in California.

Meat makes babies. Good reason to go veg.

Post: #93

Unless you plan on supplementing creatine, eating meat and fish is the only way to get creatine.
http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/weightlifting

Creatine concentration also apparently helps memory and brain retention:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evol...n-creatine
Probably explains the hamsterism that most vegans employ

Post: #94

Best argument: it's just easier.

Meat is a highly nutritious and widely available. If you're a skinny dude like me, lettuce aint going to do it. If need calories and protein, in high density, meat is always available somewhere. Try eating decent meals in Australia or Japan if you're a vegetarian.

If you're fat on the other hand, you don't need those calories.

Post: #95

(10-21-2014 09:25 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  If you're fat on the other hand, you don't need those calories.

Fat people especially NEED to feel full. Fat and Protein do that better than carbs.

A chicken breast is about 250 calories. So are about 4 oreos. Which makes you feel fuller?

Post: #96

Fair point.

Post: #97

(04-13-2013 06:55 PM)Doctor Wrote:  Gorillas have tiny penises.

Gorillas are vegetarian.

That's enough science for me.

Yeah but a gorilla also has enough muscle to deadlift 2000 lbs

Post: #98

Post: #99

Post: #100

^ Veganism is rising strongly in 2016.
The last couple of days a lot of vegans have been posting pictures of the vegan fighter Nate Diaz.

I'm curious to know how many of all these vegan athlets are really 100% strict with their diet.
If you are taking Omega 3 oil for example,you are cheating and not a pure vegan.

I'm pretty sure most Vegans are semi-vegans.

Interesting topic however, would be interesting to try eating a well planned vegan diet for a month only to see how it would feel.