Meat and early mortality
Replies
-
Might check your facts on Pandas. I have never seen a cow eat a chicken or a giraffe eat a kangaroo ....... Just sayin'
Pandas are bears, converted to veganism.0 -
-
And before the haters: Pandas don't want fo reproduce in captivity.
It was a little joke, ok?
I love vegans. Well done, with chianti.
Ok ok I will stop.
But, for all the cannibals out there, do they prefer a meat eating person or a vegan person?
Just wonderin...0 -
And before the haters: Pandas don't want fo reproduce in captivity.
It was a little joke, ok?
I love vegans. Well done, with chianti.
Ok ok I will stop.
But, for all the cannibals out there, do they prefer a meat eating person or a vegan person?
Just wonderin...
Vegans taste better
0 -
Vegans taste better
[/quote]
Touché
0 -
Read your quote. It says thousands.
Human beings haven't been around for millions of years...........Humans have been living long, healthy lives eating meat for thousands (and maybe even millions) of years.
This study is biased and makes my head spin like the exorcist.
"And maybe even millions"
suggesting that humans might have been eating meat for "millions" of years.
Which made me laugh a little, considering we have not been around for that long.
Not really sure why it required a response, I just thought it was funny.
And you obviously missed this little lesson from the resident Archaeologist....
"Actually, if you're talking about anatomically modern humans, then you're correct. Fossil evidence and subsequent dating indicates that homo sapien has been around for 100,000 to 200,000 years.
However, the oldest known hominid, or humanlike species, has been dated at 4.4 million years old. Another species, which is yet to be confirmed as a hominid, has been dated at 6 million years old. Scientists estimate that the hominid lineage diverged from the great ape lineage 5 to 8 million years ago.
Early hominids were likely scavengers rather than hunters. But we know for a fact that Homo habilis (1.76 million years ago) was a hunter (google Acheulean Hand Axe). Even earlier, is the Oldowan tool technology (2.6 to 1.7 mya)--associated with Australopithecus garhi as well as Homo ergaster and early Homo habilis----SO......
Technically speaking, the human SPECIES has been eating meat for millions of years."
No, not technically speaking.
the human species, or homo sapien, has not been around for millions of years. A scavenger human LIKE species (according to the article you posted) has been around longer.
I wasn't arguing for or against eating meat, so can you stop jumping down my throat. Humans have not been around for millions of years, and it was clearly said out of ignorance- not referring to a scavenger human-like creature.
Sorry, but the poster you are quoting is correct.
Homo hab·i·lis (hb-ls)
n.
An extinct species of humans considered to be an ancestor of modern humans and the earliest hominid to make tools. This species existed between 1.5 and 2.0 million years ago.0 -
Of course, why do you think we feed all our meat animals vegan feed?And before the haters: Pandas don't want fo reproduce in captivity.
It was a little joke, ok?
I love vegans. Well done, with chianti.
Ok ok I will stop.
But, for all the cannibals out there, do they prefer a meat eating person or a vegan person?
Just wonderin...
Vegans taste better
0 -
Yes, "human" is the term for every member of the genus "homo." From homo habilis and homo gautengensis all the way up to modern homo sapiens sapiens.
Read your quote. It says thousands.
Human beings haven't been around for millions of years...........Humans have been living long, healthy lives eating meat for thousands (and maybe even millions) of years.
This study is biased and makes my head spin like the exorcist.
"And maybe even millions"
suggesting that humans might have been eating meat for "millions" of years.
Which made me laugh a little, considering we have not been around for that long.
Not really sure why it required a response, I just thought it was funny.
And you obviously missed this little lesson from the resident Archaeologist....
"Actually, if you're talking about anatomically modern humans, then you're correct. Fossil evidence and subsequent dating indicates that homo sapien has been around for 100,000 to 200,000 years.
However, the oldest known hominid, or humanlike species, has been dated at 4.4 million years old. Another species, which is yet to be confirmed as a hominid, has been dated at 6 million years old. Scientists estimate that the hominid lineage diverged from the great ape lineage 5 to 8 million years ago.
Early hominids were likely scavengers rather than hunters. But we know for a fact that Homo habilis (1.76 million years ago) was a hunter (google Acheulean Hand Axe). Even earlier, is the Oldowan tool technology (2.6 to 1.7 mya)--associated with Australopithecus garhi as well as Homo ergaster and early Homo habilis----SO......
Technically speaking, the human SPECIES has been eating meat for millions of years."
No, not technically speaking.
the human species, or homo sapien, has not been around for millions of years. A scavenger human LIKE species (according to the article you posted) has been around longer.
I wasn't arguing for or against eating meat, so can you stop jumping down my throat. Humans have not been around for millions of years, and it was clearly said out of ignorance- not referring to a scavenger human-like creature.
Sorry, but the poster you are quoting is correct.
Homo hab·i·lis (hb-ls)
n.
An extinct species of humans considered to be an ancestor of modern humans and the earliest hominid to make tools. This species existed between 1.5 and 2.0 million years ago.0 -
Read your quote. It says thousands.
Human beings haven't been around for millions of years...........Humans have been living long, healthy lives eating meat for thousands (and maybe even millions) of years.
This study is biased and makes my head spin like the exorcist.
"And maybe even millions"
suggesting that humans might have been eating meat for "millions" of years.
Which made me laugh a little, considering we have not been around for that long.
Not really sure why it required a response, I just thought it was funny.
And you obviously missed this little lesson from the resident Archaeologist....
"Actually, if you're talking about anatomically modern humans, then you're correct. Fossil evidence and subsequent dating indicates that homo sapien has been around for 100,000 to 200,000 years.
However, the oldest known hominid, or humanlike species, has been dated at 4.4 million years old. Another species, which is yet to be confirmed as a hominid, has been dated at 6 million years old. Scientists estimate that the hominid lineage diverged from the great ape lineage 5 to 8 million years ago.
Early hominids were likely scavengers rather than hunters. But we know for a fact that Homo habilis (1.76 million years ago) was a hunter (google Acheulean Hand Axe). Even earlier, is the Oldowan tool technology (2.6 to 1.7 mya)--associated with Australopithecus garhi as well as Homo ergaster and early Homo habilis----SO......
Technically speaking, the human SPECIES has been eating meat for millions of years."
No, not technically speaking.
the human species, or homo sapien, has not been around for millions of years. A scavenger human LIKE species (according to the article you posted) has been around longer.
I wasn't arguing for or against eating meat, so can you stop jumping down my throat. Humans have not been around for millions of years, and it was clearly said out of ignorance- not referring to a scavenger human-like creature.
That was not an article--that was me, paraphrasing the information that was crammed into my cranium for four solid years at the University of Wyoming, but thanks.
And our hominid ancestors can be called many things, but not a 'human like species." Homo as a species HAS been around for millions of years. More than two most certainly--and those in the early Homo line were tool manufacturing, critter killing, meat eating, plant gathering humans.0 -
"Men and women with higher intake of red meat were less likely to be physically active and were more likely to be current smokers, to drink alcohol, and to have a higher body mass index (Table 1). In addition, a higher red meat intake was associated with a higher intake of total energy but lower intakes of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables"
Right from the study.....these people died from their lifestyle choices - not the red meat.0 -
Oh jeez.. so this is the root of "all evil"... I'm a vegetarian... but ... please. PLEASE STOP THIS KINDA THREAD. I had enough arguments between vegan rules and meat rules (personally I got pissed when my own boyfriend who eats meat are trying to pick a fight on me for that. it's stupid.)0
-
Ohmygosh, this is out of control...0
-
I'm going to go eat an entire delicious cow and contemplate my impending death. Peace0
-
I believe... when studies like this are performed, they are looking for a specific outcome. Only the data pertinent to the specific outcome is collected. Someone could do a study on how beef benefits the body and make the results look like beef is essential to take your next breath.
Believe it or not, most scientists actually want to get the most accurate results possible. I hate this "they were just looking for x" argument.
The point is not that scientists are all evil and wanting to advance their own agenda just that selection bias is part of human nature, it is incredibly difficult to avoid and we don't even realize we are doing it.0 -
1 month and 5 days...
This thread was last posted in 1 month and 5 days ago. Really?0 -
This short video explains the results of the meat and early mortality Harvard study that was released yesterday:
http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/harvards-meat-and-mortality-studies/
Please note that even meat-eaters who eat their veggies are at greater risk of cancer, heart disease and strokes than herbivores are. And, to me, it's not so much about how you die, but rather how you live. I want to reduce my risk of debilitating illness, and if that means I live to a ripe old age, so much the better. PLANTS RULE!
Why do you hate cows? Don't you want to see them fulfill their place in this world and be made into a juicy steak? Why deny them their sole purpose in life? You are obviously a anti-cowmite.0 -
Also, if red meat is banned, then all cattle ranchers would stop raising cattle. If we have less cattle, then that will help global warming. Cattle produce 70 and 120 kg of Methane per year (cow farts) and this Methane contributes to green house.
Soooo...I usually believe that things are researched for certain reasons. Saying red meat will kill us helps the government to ban red meat (obviously not right away, but maybe over time) and then the Government can kill two birds with one stone (close some corporations (fast food restaurants) and help global warming) !
I have nothing against vegetarians or vegans, but I have to say that ive seen this 'if only there were no cattle....' argument a 100 times on political boards. The fact is, cow gas is but a teenie drop in the global warming ocean because the real problem is US. We breed like bloody rabbits with no thought of sustainability. The FACT is that we cannot afford (as in, there are not enough global resources) for everyone to live as we live in the West. Our societies WHOLLY depend on keeping other parts of the world at subsistence level....and they are defying us; they're getting richer (India and China are good examples.). The current global population growth is unsustainable and killing off cows won't change a damn thing in that respect.
We (humans) have two choices; either Keep the third world starving and undeveloped in order to sustain our current standard of living in the West OR curb our population worldwide by heavily deincentivising having children. There is a third option, but that involves a lot of luck and a damn good retro-virus to wipe a few billion of us out.
I suppose this is somewhat off topic, but the overly pessimistic tone compels me to respond... I won't disagree on some of your points, but seriously, really think about what you are saying. Most of the "developed world" has near-zero or negative population growth, in a way, the population issue is taking care of itself, the richer and more educated people become the less children they tend to have for various theorized reasons. Most developed countries have an immigration program in part to offset their low population growth and provide sufficient labor to support their aging populations. As the developing world progresses and becomes richer (which as you pointed out is happening before our eyes) they will most likely see a decline in population growth as well. In fact, the official statistics shows world population decline after it reaches a peak a decade or two from now. These couple of decades are a problem yes, but if we can work our way through that period population will start to actually decline.
The other point I'd like to make is that your assumptions of dire consequences to our planet assume a static level of technological development. That is most unlikely. Growth in knowledge is exponential, there are solutions for all of our problems, be it pollution, agriculture, energy, all it takes is the desire to develop them. Decades ago there was great concern that the world would starve, but a revolution in agriculture prevented that. I'm not saying we should be arrogant in our approach to our consumption of natural resources but this doom and gloom is just more of the same. There have always been those who claim the end is near, but yet somehow we're still here. We don't need a retro virus to wipe out a few billion of us as you claim, just the smart application of the right solutions which would allow the entire world to enjoy a high standard of living. Just look at the amazing efforts of a whole new generation of rich philanthropists such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and so on. They have the resources to actually transform the world. Despite all our problems I think this is an amazing and gloriously optimistic time to be alive, all 7.08 Billion of us.0 -
Humans have been living long, healthy lives eating meat for thousands (and maybe even millions) of years.
This study is biased and makes my head spin like the exorcist.
Modern Homo sapiens have been around less than 200,000 years (I teach human evolution at the college level). Also, they weren't eating the highly processed and unhealthily raised meats we do, and did not get meat nearly as often as we do.
Sigh... these arguments about how long humans have been around are just splitting hairs. The argument is based on what foods we consumed for a large part of our evolution the theory being that natural selection would result in us being adapted to consume those foods. If ancestors to modern humans have been eating meat for millions of years then the theory would be that we may be well adapted to eating meat, regardless whether modern humans have only been around for 100-200K years. Note: In this case I'm not trying to argue for and against, just clarifying this line of reasoning. The modern human vs extinct ancestor point is mostly meaningless in this context.0 -
If you get a chance watch "Forks over Spoons" on video. I have been on a plant based diet for 14 days and everything is feeling better. My addiction to food and sweets have subsided.
Don't you mean Forks Over Knives?
I turned it off in disgust when they started showing a model for atherosclerosis that is vastly over simplified and decades out of date. The movie is just the regurgitation of Campbell's China Study.0 -
This short video explains the results of the meat and early mortality Harvard study that was released yesterday:
http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/harvards-meat-and-mortality-studies/
Please note that even meat-eaters who eat their veggies are at greater risk of cancer, heart disease and strokes than herbivores are. And, to me, it's not so much about how you die, but rather how you live. I want to reduce my risk of debilitating illness, and if that means I live to a ripe old age, so much the better. PLANTS RULE!
Hey Vega,
It's me, the Mutt, I'm back. Ready to debunk your theories in a calm and respectful manner.
For my 2 cents, yet again this is another case of skipping steps of the Scientific Method. You don't draw conclusions from observations, you form testable hypothesis which then you test with controlled experiments. Anything else is BAD SCIENCE.
Food questionnaires every 4 years? Seriously? Really? Give. Me. A. Break. I barely remember what I ate last week.
20% increase in death... oh geez, so my chance of death from all causes went from 10% to 12% maybe (or maybe 1% - 1.2%) because I eat red meat or maybe one of a billion other confounding variables that the research did not factor in and therefore their regressions could not hope to eliminate. It's amazing when you write the percentages differently how it's a lot less freaky.
As I've said before Verging On Vegas and also to VeggieRexiusMaximus you're going to have to do much better than this study.
Keep 'em coming!
Hope you guys are well, btw.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions