search results matching tag: meat consumption

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

  • 1
    Videos (3)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (0)     Comments (8)   

WHAT I EAT FOR BREAKFAST

newtboy says...

What?! Transmorpher posted a set of pro vegan videos that claim to be "up to date on the latest nutritional and health research"? Never seen that before, at least this one doesn't claim moderate meat consumption will absolutely give you cancer.

Almost like veganism is a *cult instead of lifestyle or health plan.

Vegan Diet or Mediterranean Diet: Which Is Healthier?

newtboy says...

True enough about Maasai, 44+- sucks no matter what kills you.
I don't believe they have perfect dietary health, but do think they indicate genetics play a huge roll in how we process foods.

My short research indicated 1/2 serving of seafood per day on average....whatever percentage that comes out to doesn't bother me....plus occasional pork.

My grandmother ate meat almost daily and lived to days from 97, healthy the whole time except for lung issues the last years. Anecdotal evidence can be misleading.

Fewer animal foods isn't none. I agree, average Americans could probably benefit from cutting their meat consumption in half or more, but none at all wouldn't be healthier for most people.

I say the lack of top athletes who are vegan contradicts your last theory. Humans are omnivores and work best as such.

transmorpher said:

At a life expectancy of 44 heart-disease for the Masaai is the least of their concerns.... but the it's also a myth that they have perfect health on beef https://nutritionstudies.org/masai-and-inuit-high-protein-diets-a-closer-look/

Traditional Okinawan's eat very little fish - less than 6% of their diet is animal products. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vnV4EGU1K4

These are the people who we now see living to well over 100 years old. Where as modern Okinawa's have a far worse life expectancy now that they have more animal foods in their diet.

Both of these cultures are further examples of how fewer animal foods in the diet always has better health outcomes.

And thanks to the vegan 7th Day Adventists in Loma Linda, we know that zero animal products has the best health outcomes.

This is a very strong indication that animal products are obsolete in the human diet.

Cancer Screening Myths

transmorpher says...

Read the link please. It says anything more than 300g of RED meat, and ANY processed meat consumption will lead to cancer.

Most people go over these recommendations every single day.

I've never conceded anything. I'm not responding to your rant. I just want this to be clear in case anyone reads your rant and mistakes your loudness for insight.

newtboy said:

I didn't argue against any study, only his (and your) consistent misrepresentations of them. Those 9037 studies may indicate eating large amounts of red meat seems to raise the risk of certain cancers, they never claim red meat causes cancer, no legitimate study would make that leap, and no legitimate scientist would lie to you about that....but he does.

Stating there are studies that say highly processed cured red meat appears to contain carcinogens is true. Saying those studies concluded and claimed eating red meat is the same or worse than heavy smoking is wholly unsupported nonsense. He did the latter....and you repeat it.

Sweet zombie Jesus...."they" huh? They who? Clearly huh? Clear to whom? That's not what that would mean even if it was in the study, which I doubt. Your obvious bias completely overwhelms your ability to read a study.

Besides, who eats >2.5 lbs of highly processed cured red meat every week for life?
Keep in mind that's >2.5lbs cooked/processed weight that appears to raise your risk, (so probably 5-7.5lbs uncooked weight) without a rate of rise listed (the study didn't say "serious risk", did it, I would bet it said "elevated risk" or similar if it actually said anything about risk), so you must make umpteen leaps away from logic and fact to make your statement

.....why are you arguing this again. You eventually conceded you were totally wrong and he had exaggerated and misrepresented data last time we had this discussion. Were you just hoping to not be contradicted again so you could fool/scare some people into your vegan mindset with misinterpretations and misrepresentations of studies you've previously admitted were totally misrepresented by Greger?

Also keep in mind the study was only about highly cured and processed red meats, not just red meat...one more fudging of fact in a long line. It's intended to be studying the results of processing/curing meats, not the meat itself.

So, what happens when the world doesn't end?

Mikus_Aurelius says...

I don't think the links he's making make much sense. By his argument, every time we do something morally wrong or intellectually stupid, it contradicts our belief that we are good or smart. However, I don't think most people believe they are so good, or so smart, that they will always make the correct choice. Making bad choices isn't a conflict of character. It's the reality of being imperfect beings. This doesn't parallel the cultists who invest their entire identity in the idea that they are making a particular important decision correctly and later have to face the fact they were not.

The case of factory farms also seems inappropriate. We've seen several animal slaughter/torture videos on the sift. Most omnivores in the comments don't deny that modern farm animals live miserable tortured lives, nor that our meat consumption is responsible for their situation. Instead they argue that there's no moral imperative for one species (humans) to treat another species (pigs) well. If that's how you feel about it, then you can chow down on pork chops without any cognitive dissonance whatsoever.

The fun of eating a live Octopus!

Stu says...

The mirror test huh? Besides humans the only ones who pass the mirror test are the great apes, which thankfully are the same order as humans so we know you aren't a cannibal. That leaves the other 18 orders of animals in the class of mammalia free to eat including veal, lamb, dogs, cats and every other pet you can conceive of. Well, except monkeys and I knew a guy with a pet monkey but it's rare so we won't put them in the pet category. So the mirror test is a pretty shitty test of what someone will or won't eat.

You just sound like another PETA member trying to convince billions of people that we aren't the top of the food chain and we should care about what we eat. Alive or dead a vast majority of animals don't have the same pain receptors we contain for the simple fact of being eaten alive. They have touch receptors in the extremities for movement and awareness of surroundings. You can look that up in any science textbook about animal nervous systems. You can believe and preach what you want about cruelness to animals. Either way it is still going to be eaten.

Even still, crushing an animal to death and having it die in seconds in your mouth as compared to being boiled alive over minutes is still less cruel. You should think of the alternatives of how the animal might die before you say eating it alive is cruel.
>> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^kronosposeidon:
It's a mixed bag for me. I'm completely inconsistent. This makes me squeamish and therefore seems cruel to me, but then I remember that I eat lobster from time to time, and lobster is prepared by boiling it alive. Cockles and mussels are also cooked while they're alive. A lot of the world includes insect protein in their diet, and insects are rarely dispatched humanely before preparation. Some are roasted alive before consumption. (I'm not even sure if there is a way to humanely kill an insect anyway. Decapitation?) And how about the way we treat animals before they're killed? How about veal? And has anyone seen film of modern chicken houses? Meat consumption is littered with ethical issues. I think about it often while stuffing Big Macs in my face.>> ^Fusionaut:
I don't know if biting into something that is still alive is all that wrong under the right circumstances. It happens in the wild all of the time. Dunking it in a hot, pepper sauce before the first bite seems cruel to me though. However, I did eat a live mayfly once. Grabbed it out of the air and then CHOMP! The wings got stuck in my teeth. Now you know a weird fact about me.


Right, but I'm not sure that typical meat consumption is comparable to consuming an animal alive for no purpose other than... whatever the purpose is. It's grotesque, it's excessive and it shows casual disregard - and perhaps even contempt - for the suffering of species that don't have our gawking faces. The fact that animals are eaten alive in the wild just isn't relevant, either. We're able to make the choice. Maybe I'm just a bitch. One of my overarching directives is to minimize the amount of suffering that I'm responsible for. This is just fucking awful.
It's not relevant but I don't eat veal or lamb, nor lobster or crab and certainly not octopus. I won't consume the flesh of any animal order that contains creatures which pass the mirror test.

The fun of eating a live Octopus!

Gallowflak says...

>> ^kronosposeidon:

It's a mixed bag for me. I'm completely inconsistent. This makes me squeamish and therefore seems cruel to me, but then I remember that I eat lobster from time to time, and lobster is prepared by boiling it alive. Cockles and mussels are also cooked while they're alive. A lot of the world includes insect protein in their diet, and insects are rarely dispatched humanely before preparation. Some are roasted alive before consumption. (I'm not even sure if there is a way to humanely kill an insect anyway. Decapitation?) And how about the way we treat animals before they're killed? How about veal? And has anyone seen film of modern chicken houses? Meat consumption is littered with ethical issues. I think about it often while stuffing Big Macs in my face.>> ^Fusionaut:
I don't know if biting into something that is still alive is all that wrong under the right circumstances. It happens in the wild all of the time. Dunking it in a hot, pepper sauce before the first bite seems cruel to me though. However, I did eat a live mayfly once. Grabbed it out of the air and then CHOMP! The wings got stuck in my teeth. Now you know a weird fact about me.



Right, but I'm not sure that typical meat consumption is comparable to consuming an animal alive for no purpose other than... whatever the purpose is. It's grotesque, it's excessive and it shows casual disregard - and perhaps even contempt - for the suffering of species that don't have our gawking faces. The fact that animals are eaten alive in the wild just isn't relevant, either. We're able to make the choice. Maybe I'm just a bitch. One of my overarching directives is to minimize the amount of suffering that I'm responsible for. This is just fucking awful.

It's not relevant but I don't eat veal or lamb, nor lobster or crab and certainly not octopus. I won't consume the flesh of any animal order that contains creatures which pass the mirror test.

The fun of eating a live Octopus!

kronosposeidon says...

It's a mixed bag for me. I'm completely inconsistent. This makes me squeamish and therefore seems cruel to me, but then I remember that I eat lobster from time to time, and lobster is prepared by boiling it alive. Cockles and mussels are also cooked while they're alive. A lot of the world includes insect protein in their diet, and insects are rarely dispatched humanely before preparation. Some are roasted alive before consumption. (I'm not even sure if there is a way to humanely kill an insect anyway. Decapitation?) And how about the way we treat animals before they're killed? How about veal? And has anyone seen film of modern chicken houses? Meat consumption is littered with ethical issues. I think about it often while stuffing Big Macs in my face.>> ^Fusionaut:

I don't know if biting into something that is still alive is all that wrong under the right circumstances. It happens in the wild all of the time. Dunking it in a hot, pepper sauce before the first bite seems cruel to me though. However, I did eat a live mayfly once. Grabbed it out of the air and then CHOMP! The wings got stuck in my teeth. Now you know a weird fact about me.

Baby Chicks dumped alive into a grinder (and other horrors)

Mysling says...

While I don't necessarily agree with the "Go vegan" statement, this is still one of the prime reasons why people should eat significantly less meat, and demand much more from the meat that they do eat.

I think people can attain a greater degree of satisfaction by limiting their meat consumption to once every 3 or 4 days, enabling them to buy high-quality organic meat for those special occasions which can truely be savoured instead of simply devoured.

And that's without even factoring in the other obvious benefits of reduced meat consumption, such as a healthier digestion, greatly reduced pressure on agriculture and the resulting drops in fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions.

It is important to remember than one doesn't necessarily have to adhere to strict vegan- or vegetarianism to make a difference.

  • 1


Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon