Hunter-gatherers vs Westerners

1…89101113

Replies

  • girlinahat
    girlinahat Posts: 2,956 Member
    A fine criticism from someone who makes ex cathedra pronouncements like, "neither dietary cholesterol nor saturated fat has been proven to have a direct link to disease in the human body," and other unsubstantiated opinions you throw out with absolutely no science to back you up. You can't Google the subject without finding a hundred studies to show you are wrong. Just for the Hell of it I googled "Studies in 2012 that show eating meat causes cancer and heart disease," and I got about a dozen studies including this one:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/12/red-meat-death-heart-cancer

    Here is a longitudinal study on HUMANS not rats that just proves you wrong, dead wrong.

    and I quote - "the study was observational, not controlled, and so cannot be used to determine cause and effect"

    Observational studies such as this are well known to be flawed simply due to the fact that the humans participants are notoriously bad at recording accurately. Usually they require the participants to maintain a log, and this is reviewed, but other studies have shown (and many members of MFP can testify) that inaccurate recall can play havoc with your resluts.

    If you read the study carefully, it states that eating red meat in excess of 500g a week suggests a link to heart disease. Note that noweher does it state that dietary cholecterol or saturated fat are the sulprits, and indeed it highlights the dangers of 'processed meat', which in itself is a vague term. 500g a week consumption of red meat is pretty high and the average person doesn't consume this. Also, please note that nowehere does it state that we shouldn't eat meat at all because we are herbivores.
  • girlinahat
    girlinahat Posts: 2,956 Member
    sorry - probably what I should have said was that their BMR changes little. So to say that the TDEE of the couch potato is the same as the skinny guy running around isn't true.
    The skinny guy has a low BMR and more physical activity, the couch potato has a higher BMR but is sedentary. Result - potentially similar TDEE.....

    "Contrary to expectations, measures of TEE among Hadza adults were similar to those in Western (U.S. and Europe) populations. In multivariate comparisons of TEE controlling for FFM and age, Hadza women’s energy expenditure was similar to that of Western women (n = 186) and Hadza men’s TEE was similar to Western men (n = 53)" - from the paper http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0040503

    The range of energy expenditure (TDEE) for the hunter gatherer women sits within the range of the Western women.

    I apologise - I got distracted and should have responded to agree with what you are saying. I think you sum it up better than me! :flowerforyou:
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member
    WE ARE HERBIVORES!!!

    Anatomically and physiologically, people are herbivores.

    Facial Muscles
    Carnivore: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
    Herbivore: Well-developed
    Human: Well-developed

    Jaw Type
    Carnivore: Angle not expanded
    Herbivore: Expanded angle
    Human: Expanded angle

    Jaw Joint Location
    Carnivore: On same plane as molar teeth
    Herbivore: Above the plane of the molars
    Human: Above the plane of the molars

    Jaw Motion
    Carnivore: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
    Herbivore: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
    Human: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back

    Major Jaw Muscles
    Carnivore: Temporalis
    Herbivore: Masseter and pterygoids
    Human: Masseter and pterygoids

    Mouth Opening vs. Head Size
    Carnivore: Large
    Herbivore: Small
    Human: Small

    Teeth (Incisors)
    Carnivore: Short and pointed
    Herbivore: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
    Human: Broad, flattened and spade shaped

    Teeth (Canines)
    Carnivore: Long, sharp and curved
    Herbivore: Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
    Human: Short and blunted

    Teeth (Molars)
    Carnivore: Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
    Herbivore: Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
    Human: Flattened with nodular cusps

    Chewing
    Carnivore: None; swallows food whole
    Herbivore: Extensive chewing necessary
    Human: Extensive chewing necessary

    Saliva
    Carnivore: No digestive enzymes
    Herbivore: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
    Human: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes

    Stomach
    Carnivore: Simple
    Herbivore: Simple or multiple chambers
    Human: Simple

    Stomach Acidity
    Carnivore: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
    Herbivore: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
    Human: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach

    Stomach Capacity
    Carnivore: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
    Herbivore: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
    Human: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract

    Length of Small Intestine
    Carnivore: 3 to 6 times body length
    Herbivore: 10 to more than 12 times body length
    Human: 10 to 11 times body length

    Colon
    Carnivore: Simple, short and smooth
    Herbivore: Long, complex; may be sacculated
    Human: Long, sacculated

    Liver
    Carnivore: Can detoxify vitamin A
    Herbivore: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
    Human: Cannot detoxify vitamin A

    Kidneys
    Carnivore: Extremely concentrated urine
    Herbivore: Moderately concentrated urine
    Human: Moderately concentrated urine

    Nails
    Carnivore: Sharp claws
    Herbivore: Flattened nails or blunt hooves
    Human: Flattened nails


    Anatomically and physiologically, people are herbivores.


    When we kill the animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings." --William C. Roberts, M.D., editor of The American Journal of Cardiology

    See when I was a kid growing up I used to think people with multiple college degrees were something special, smarter than anyone else, BUT then I went to college, then I started living life in the real world. I found out they are just like you and me, no smarter, and in a lot of cases those with PHD, MD, or what have you after their names were actually not even as wise as people without, a lot of times they lack what “we” like to call common sense.

    For anyone to seriously consider, or seriously try to convince another human that we are herbivores, and to do so because our mouth doesn’t open as wide as a lion, because our teeth aren’t as long as a leopard, because our colon is shaped different,,,,,,,,, well is just beyond foolish.

    How about the hippo, carnivore or herbivore , it’s got a big mouth? How about the fact our eyes are in the front of our head for binocular vision, like all predators? How about the fact we do have teeth in the upper front of our mouth? Most of you probably don’t know this, and genius here I’m sure doesn’t, but cows, goats and deer etc, don’t even have teeth in their upper front jaw. How about the fact that without supplements humans CANNOT live as strictly vegans, if we evolved or were created as herbivores wouldn’t it make sense that we could survive, n,o thrive on a strict veggie diet without supplemental aids?

    This folks is why you should be very careful whose advice you take from the internet, run it through your BS meter and see if it stinks,,,,,, because someone around here is piling on the BS.
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member
    "Well, then it is quite shocking that the Editor of the American Journal of Cardiology thinks we are (herbivores) After all that medical training and all those operations, you would think he would know better! "

    Actually I wouldn't. Roberts is a physician and pathologist. He's not a specialist in anatomy, diet or paleopathology. So why would he be the expert on the matter.

    I quoted Macardle out of laziness. There are plenty of others. Let's go back to rats for a moment. Humour me. Is a rat a carnivore or a herbivore? Only it appears to have evolved nicely to eat pretty much anything. Like humans. Which can stand because they have evolve to hunt. Which have bigger brains due to more consumption of protein. Which learnt to cook almost simultaneously with learning to farm and therefore were able to process the grains and digest them. Physiology is only part of the story, and there are traits we share with carnivores, in the same way we share traits with herbivores.

    As I said earlier, neither dietary cholesterol nor saturated fat has been proven to have a direct link to disease in the human body. And we are not herbivores. I'm out. I am not going to try and argue with someone who simply reiterates rubbish without considering the simple basic facts - that humans eat meat and have done so for millennia quite happily.

    A fine criticism from someone who makes ex cathedra pronouncements like, "neither dietary cholesterol nor saturated fat has been proven to have a direct link to disease in the human body," and other unsubstantiated opinions you throw out with absolutely no science to back you up. You can't Google the subject without finding a hundred studies to show you are wrong. Just for the Hell of it I googled "Studies in 2012 that show eating meat causes cancer and heart disease," and I got about a dozen studies including this one:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/12/red-meat-death-heart-cancer

    Here is a longitudinal study on HUMANS not rats that just proves you wrong, dead wrong.

    Just for the record, showing a link between something doesn't "prove" it, I can show you a link between having a phd and not know what the hell you are talking about if you gave me enouth money to study it
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    A fine criticism from someone who makes ex cathedra pronouncements like, "neither dietary cholesterol nor saturated fat has been proven to have a direct link to disease in the human body," and other unsubstantiated opinions you throw out with absolutely no science to back you up. You can't Google the subject without finding a hundred studies to show you are wrong. Just for the Hell of it I googled "Studies in 2012 that show eating meat causes cancer and heart disease," and I got about a dozen studies including this one:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/12/red-meat-death-heart-cancer

    Here is a longitudinal study on HUMANS not rats that just proves you wrong, dead wrong.

    and I quote - "the study was observational, not controlled, and so cannot be used to determine cause and effect"

    Observational studies such as this are well known to be flawed simply due to the fact that the humans participants are notoriously bad at recording accurately. Usually they require the participants to maintain a log, and this is reviewed, but other studies have shown (and many members of MFP can testify) that inaccurate recall can play havoc with your resluts.

    Spoken like a person who has never had an advanced statistics course in her life.

    If you read the study carefully, it states that eating red meat in excess of 500g a week suggests a link to heart disease. Note that noweher does it state that dietary cholecterol or saturated fat are the sulprits, and indeed it highlights the dangers of 'processed meat', which in itself is a vague term. 500g a week consumption of red meat is pretty high and the average person doesn't consume this. Also, please note that nowehere does it state that we shouldn't eat meat at all because we are herbivores.

    500 grams a week is two quarterpounders. And you think the average meat eater doesn't consume that? Perhaps you don't understand the metric system. From what you have said you don't understand much about science.
  • girlinahat
    girlinahat Posts: 2,956 Member


    500 grams a week is two quarterpounders. And you think the average meat eater doesn't consume that? Perhaps you don't understand the metric system. From what you have said you don't understand much about science.

    from wiki -
    The Quarter Pounder is a hamburger product sold by international fast food chain McDonald's, so named for containing a patty with a precooked weight of a quarter of a pound (113.4 g). The burger was introduced in 1972.

    yup. last time I looked a quarter was a fourth of a pound. there are 2.2 pounds to the kilo.

    and no, I have never taken an advanced statistics course, but I can read, and I can read carefully into what studies actually show and what they are trying to show. You have a beef with people eating meat. Fine. Go ahead. I really don't care. You're funny.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018


    500 grams a week is two quarterpounders. And you think the average meat eater doesn't consume that? Perhaps you don't understand the metric system. From what you have said you don't understand much about science.

    from wiki -
    The Quarter Pounder is a hamburger product sold by international fast food chain McDonald's, so named for containing a patty with a precooked weight of a quarter of a pound (113.4 g). The burger was introduced in 1972.

    yup. last time I looked a quarter was a fourth of a pound. there are 2.2 pounds to the kilo.

    and no, I have never taken an advanced statistics course, but I can read, and I can read carefully into what studies actually show and what they are trying to show. You have a beef with people eating meat. Fine. Go ahead. I really don't care. You're funny.

    Okay, four quarter pounders per week. In the US the average meat consumption per person is 300 lbs per year. That is almost one pound per day.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/world-meat-consumption_n_1475760.html#s937014&title=177_India_7
  • _VoV
    _VoV Posts: 1,494 Member
    vergingonvegan, im curious since you pointed out that herbivores often consume meat, and i agree because i have seen that in many feed lots and dairies when its mixed into their feed. my question is how many of these herbivores seek meat out when in the wild? because humans do.

    I'm not sure I know enough to answer your question. I do know that carnivores, like bears and wolves, eat plants in the wild. My cats crave certain plant-foods, and will beg for them. I'm not sure how well-equipped a natural herbivore would be to catch an animal, and they might be like me in the sight of carrion: totally grossed out. I have no doubt natural herbivores inadvertently eat some bugs when they graze.
  • tidmutt
    tidmutt Posts: 317
    Okay, four quarter pounders per week. In the US the average meat consumption per person is 300 lbs per year. That is almost one pound per day.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/world-meat-consumption_n_1475760.html#s937014&title=177_India_7

    That's overall meat consumption, not just red meat and it's actually 276 lbs total.

    On that study, here is one snippet about it that discussed the results:

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/12/red-meat-eating-increases-risk-of-early-death/

    They found replacing a serving of red meat with fish improved your health and not only eliminated the increased risk of mortality but actually had a positive impact on lifespan. They then go on to talk about "veggies are even better" but don't quote the evidence of this from the study, like they did for the other claims which makes me think the study didn't show this for veggies... I then seen "Ornish" quoted as talking about the veggies... figures... lol

    These studies have so many potential issues... but lets for the moment run with it... it may completely NOT apply to those on a Paleo/Primal diet since their intake of other food will be higher, as well their omega 3's and they'll be eating grass fed beef as much as possible. If you did the study with this type of diet the results may be completely different.

    Also, they sort of mixed processed meat in there, that's not on the Paleo menu either.

    Next...
  • doorki
    doorki Posts: 2,576 Member
    vergingonvegan, im curious since you pointed out that herbivores often consume meat, and i agree because i have seen that in many feed lots and dairies when its mixed into their feed. my question is how many of these herbivores seek meat out when in the wild? because humans do.

    I'm not sure I know enough to answer your question. I do know that carnivores, like bears and wolves, eat plants in the wild. My cats crave certain plant-foods, and will beg for them. I'm not sure how well-equipped a natural herbivore would be to catch an animal, and they might be like me in the sight of carrion: totally grossed out. I have no doubt natural herbivores inadvertently eat some bugs when they graze.

    I thought bears were omnivores.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    vergingonvegan, im curious since you pointed out that herbivores often consume meat, and i agree because i have seen that in many feed lots and dairies when its mixed into their feed. my question is how many of these herbivores seek meat out when in the wild? because humans do.

    I'm not sure I know enough to answer your question. I do know that carnivores, like bears and wolves, eat plants in the wild. My cats crave certain plant-foods, and will beg for them. I'm not sure how well-equipped a natural herbivore would be to catch an animal, and they might be like me in the sight of carrion: totally grossed out. I have no doubt natural herbivores inadvertently eat some bugs when they graze.

    I thought bears were omnivores.

    You thought wrong. They are in the class CARNIVORA. Only animals in the class OMNIVORA are omnivores.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    Okay, four quarter pounders per week. In the US the average meat consumption per person is 300 lbs per year. That is almost one pound per day.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/world-meat-consumption_n_1475760.html#s937014&title=177_India_7

    That's overall meat consumption, not just red meat and it's actually 276 lbs total.

    On that study, here is one snippet about it that discussed the results:

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/12/red-meat-eating-increases-risk-of-early-death/

    They found replacing a serving of red meat with fish improved your health and not only eliminated the increased risk of mortality but actually had a positive impact on lifespan. They then go on to talk about "veggies are even better" but don't quote the evidence of this from the study, like they did for the other claims which makes me think the study didn't show this for veggies... I then seen "Ornish" quoted as talking about the veggies... figures... lol

    These studies have so many potential issues... but lets for the moment run with it... it may completely NOT apply to those on a Paleo/Primal diet since their intake of other food will be higher, as well their omega 3's and they'll be eating grass fed beef as much as possible. If you did the study with this type of diet the results may be completely different.

    Also, they sort of mixed processed meat in there, that's not on the Paleo menu either.

    Next...

    Countries that Paleos should emulate, the tribal countries of Africa, eat around 10 to 11 pounds of meat per person each year, Tell me why Paleos don't advocate that?

    Also, I asked some questions earlier that you haven't seemed to have gotten around to answering.
  • doorki
    doorki Posts: 2,576 Member
    vergingonvegan, im curious since you pointed out that herbivores often consume meat, and i agree because i have seen that in many feed lots and dairies when its mixed into their feed. my question is how many of these herbivores seek meat out when in the wild? because humans do.

    I'm not sure I know enough to answer your question. I do know that carnivores, like bears and wolves, eat plants in the wild. My cats crave certain plant-foods, and will beg for them. I'm not sure how well-equipped a natural herbivore would be to catch an animal, and they might be like me in the sight of carrion: totally grossed out. I have no doubt natural herbivores inadvertently eat some bugs when they graze.

    I thought bears were omnivores.

    You thought wrong. They are in the class CARNIVORA. Only animals in the class OMNIVORA are omnivores.

    So a Panda Bear is in order CARNIVORA yet subsists off of bamboo shoots? Seems to not be a very good way of classification. So what do humans eat since they are in the PRIMATE order?

    Also, I see no listing for Omnivora but I do see a vegan site lamenting the loss of the order.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    I thought bears were omnivores.

    You thought wrong. They are in the class CARNIVORA. Only animals in the class OMNIVORA are omnivores.


    So a Panda Bear is in order CARNIVORA yet subsists off of bamboo shoots? Seems to not be a very good way of classification. So what do humans eat since they are in the PRIMATE order?

    Cats are obligate carnivores. Yet they could live if 99% of their diet were vegetarian. I haven't looked at the Pandas, but I assume it is the same story.



    Also, I see no listing for Omnivora but I do see a vegan site lamenting the loss of the order.

    Right. There is no classification OMNIVORA. Say it loud and often THERE IS NO CLASS called OMNIVORA.. What might the reason be? Because OMNIVIORE IS NOT A TAXON OR PHYSIOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION.

    I think I have been trying to make this point for some time.
  • girlinahat
    girlinahat Posts: 2,956 Member

    Right. There is no classification OMNIVORA. Say it loud and often THERE IS NO CLASS called OMNIVORA.. What might the reason be? Because OMNIVIORE IS NOT A TAXON OR PHYSIOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION.

    I think I have been trying to make this point for some time.

    erm. do you have some short term memory loss problem? Only about two posts ago you wrote this:

    "You thought wrong. They are in the class CARNIVORA. Only animals in the class OMNIVORA are omnivores."

    yours, very confused.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018

    Right. There is no classification OMNIVORA. Say it loud and often THERE IS NO CLASS called OMNIVORA.. What might the reason be? Because OMNIVIORE IS NOT A TAXON OR PHYSIOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION.

    I think I have been trying to make this point for some time.

    erm. do you have some short term memory loss problem? Only about two posts ago you wrote this:

    "You thought wrong. They are in the class CARNIVORA. Only animals in the class OMNIVORA are omnivores."

    yours, very confused.

    That was a set up. Of course I know there is no class OMNIVORA. But there is a class CARNIVORA. Why do you suppose?
  • doorki
    doorki Posts: 2,576 Member

    Right. There is no classification OMNIVORA. Say it loud and often THERE IS NO CLASS called OMNIVORA.. What might the reason be? Because OMNIVIORE IS NOT A TAXON OR PHYSIOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION.

    I think I have been trying to make this point for some time.

    erm. do you have some short term memory loss problem? Only about two posts ago you wrote this:

    "You thought wrong. They are in the class CARNIVORA. Only animals in the class OMNIVORA are omnivores."

    yours, very confused.

    That was a set up. Of course I know there is no class OMNIVORA. But there is a class CARNIVORA. Why do you suppose?

    The classification system does not have to do with diet but rather with heredity. All creatures in the class CARNIVORA came from a line of creatures that was a carnivore. If it was based on diet alone, don't you think they would have shifted the Giant Panda out? Your reliance verbal loopholes and syntax prove that you really have no argument.
  • girlinahat
    girlinahat Posts: 2,956 Member

    Right. There is no classification OMNIVORA. Say it loud and often THERE IS NO CLASS called OMNIVORA.. What might the reason be? Because OMNIVIORE IS NOT A TAXON OR PHYSIOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION.

    I think I have been trying to make this point for some time.

    erm. do you have some short term memory loss problem? Only about two posts ago you wrote this:

    "You thought wrong. They are in the class CARNIVORA. Only animals in the class OMNIVORA are omnivores."

    yours, very confused.

    That was a set up. Of course I know there is no class OMNIVORA. But there is a class CARNIVORA. Why do you suppose?

    Stop wasting people’s time. You are completely obsessed with this herbivore thing. Does it matter that much? The term omnivore applies very well to the human race because our bodies process both herbs and meat very successfully. Almost all animals can be classed as omnivores due to their use of both meat and veg, and each animal uses the material for different purposes. The human race (particularly in Northern Europe) developed to be able to absorb nutrients from cow’s milk as this assisted in the species survival. Some adults have developed to be able to continue to use these nutrients. Birds that are generally herbivorous feed worms to their babies to enable them to grow. Is it safe for humans to eat meat, have they evolved to be able to absorb nutrients from meat? Yes. They have. Eating meat will not kill you. Eating cr*p probably will.
  • girlinahat
    girlinahat Posts: 2,956 Member

    The classification system does not have to do with diet but rather with heredity. All creatures in the class CARNIVORA came from a line of creatures that was a carnivore. If it was based on diet alone, don't you think they would have shifted the Giant Panda out? Your reliance verbal loopholes and syntax prove that you really have no argument.

    talking of Giant Pandas, really they should be extinct. They choose to eat something which is exceptionally low in nutrients and their body cannot possibly get enough nutrients from meaning they have to eat more and more of it. And they are rubbish at reproduction.


    But they are cute.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018

    Right. There is no classification OMNIVORA. Say it loud and often THERE IS NO CLASS called OMNIVORA.. What might the reason be? Because OMNIVIORE IS NOT A TAXON OR PHYSIOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION.

    I think I have been trying to make this point for some time.

    erm. do you have some short term memory loss problem? Only about two posts ago you wrote this:

    "You thought wrong. They are in the class CARNIVORA. Only animals in the class OMNIVORA are omnivores."

    yours, very confused.

    That was a set up. Of course I know there is no class OMNIVORA. But there is a class CARNIVORA. Why do you suppose?

    Stop wasting people’s time.


    Hello! I did it to make a point. A point you still have not understood.

    You are completely obsessed with this herbivore thing. Does it matter that much? The term omnivore applies very well to the human race because our bodies process both herbs and meat very successfully.

    Yeah, except for getting chronic diseases from eating too much meat. If we also got chronic diseases from eating too many fruits and vegetables then you would have a point. But we don't and you don't.



    Almost all animals can be classed as omnivores due to their use of both meat and veg, and each animal uses the material for different purposes.

    Absolutely correct, Which is why the term is meaningless.


    The human race (particularly in Northern Europe) developed to be able to absorb nutrients from cow’s milk as this assisted in the species survival.

    Correct.

    Some adults have developed to be able to continue to use these nutrients.

    Correct.

    Birds that are generally herbivorous feed worms to their babies to enable them to grow. Is it safe for humans to eat meat, have they evolved to be able to absorb nutrients from meat? Yes. They have. Eating meat will not kill you.

    Eating meat CAN kill you. This is what I really dislike about you Paleos, you have selective ability to understand what you read. There are hundreds of studies that show that eating large amounts of meat will kill you. Governmental food recommendations tell you to eat less meat. Every competent health source says to eat less meat. Yet you continue strolling in Lala land pretending eating meat does no harm. YOU ARE WRONG . Eating meat can hurt you.


    Eating cr*p probably will.

    I don't know. I will have to take your word for it.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018

    The classification system does not have to do with diet but rather with heredity. All creatures in the class CARNIVORA came from a line of creatures that was a carnivore. If it was based on diet alone, don't you think they would have shifted the Giant Panda out? Your reliance verbal loopholes and syntax prove that you really have no argument.

    talking of Giant Pandas, really they should be extinct. They choose to eat something which is exceptionally low in nutrients and their body cannot possibly get enough nutrients from meaning they have to eat more and more of it. And they are rubbish at reproduction.

    It is you who is looking for loopholes. I am not the one who made up the physiological taxa. If you know anything about anthropology, you know that all the animals in a single taxon have important physiological characteristics and traits that they share in common. And as you say, their heredity is common. Isn't that the whole point of the Paleo theory? Eat what your ancestors ate? You of course make exceptions to that theory when it is convenient.


    But they are cute.
  • girlinahat
    girlinahat Posts: 2,956 Member
    I'm not Paleo.

    But I do eat meat.
  • girlinahat
    girlinahat Posts: 2,956 Member
    and while we are on the subject, the studies you have posted about eating large amounts of meat that will kill you? not yet seen one that can categorically state that it is meat that kills.
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member
    and while we are on the subject, the studies you have posted about eating large amounts of meat that will kill you? not yet seen one that can categorically state that it is meat that kills.

    Because there are none, this 12 year old posing as a mutli-degreed college grad does not know what he is talking about, and everyone that has read this, except maybe his girl friend (and she probably does too) knows it,
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member

    Right. There is no classification OMNIVORA. Say it loud and often THERE IS NO CLASS called OMNIVORA.. What might the reason be? Because OMNIVIORE IS NOT A TAXON OR PHYSIOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION.

    I think I have been trying to make this point for some time.

    erm. do you have some short term memory loss problem? Only about two posts ago you wrote this:

    "You thought wrong. They are in the class CARNIVORA. Only animals in the class OMNIVORA are omnivores."

    yours, very confused.

    That was a set up. Of course I know there is no class OMNIVORA. But there is a class CARNIVORA. Why do you suppose?

    The classification system does not have to do with diet but rather with heredity. All creatures in the class CARNIVORA came from a line of creatures that was a carnivore. If it was based on diet alone, don't you think they would have shifted the Giant Panda out? Your reliance verbal loopholes and syntax prove that you really have no argument.

    Careful, you start tell the professor he is full of crap and he will take his toys and go home (put you on ignore) like does does with others that see thru his BS
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    and while we are on the subject, the studies you have posted about eating large amounts of meat that will kill you? not yet seen one that can categorically state that it is meat that kills.

    Duh, Okay I will print it out for you. Tell me which words you do not understand:


    Regularly eating red meat increases significantly risk of death from heart disease and cancer, according to a study of more than 120,000 people carried out over 28 years.

    The findings show that each extra daily serving of processed red meat – equivalent to one hot dog or two rashers of bacon – raised mortality rate by a fifth.

    Conversely, replacing red meat with fish, poultry, or plant-based protein foods contributed to a longer life. Nuts were said to reduce mortality rate by 20%, making a case for swapping roast beef for nut roast.

    Data from 121,342 men and women taking part in two large US health and lifestyle investigations were analysed to produce the findings, published in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine.

    The studies monitored the progress of their participants for more than 20 years and gathered information about diet.

    Scientists documented 23,926 deaths, including 5,910 from heart disease and 9,364 from cancer, and there was a striking association in the data between consumption of red meat and premature death.
  • girlinahat
    girlinahat Posts: 2,956 Member


    The findings show that each extra daily serving of processed red meat – equivalent to one hot dog or two rashers of bacon – raised mortality rate by a fifth.

    Duh, Okay I will write it out for you. Tell me which words you do not understand:

    'processed'. Please clarify.


    awaiting hard copy to my home address.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018


    The findings show that each extra daily serving of processed red meat – equivalent to one hot dog or two rashers of bacon – raised mortality rate by a fifth.

    Duh, Okay I will write it out for you. Tell me which words you do not understand:

    'processed'. Please clarify.




    awaiting hard copy to my home address.

    No problem. If you go to the top of the article, there is a photograph of red meat slices. Underneath that photo is a caption that states:

    "Eating any kind of red meat was found to increase the chances of dying from heart disease by 16% and from cancer by 10%. Photograph: David Sillitoe for the Guardian"

    The photograph, as well as the actual text which was in English indicates that they were talking about ANY red meat, with processed red meat being the worst.

    Happy to help you understand. Bytheway, there are hundreds more studies that may be easier for you to understand. Would you like to go through some more?
  • girlinahat
    girlinahat Posts: 2,956 Member


    The findings show that each extra daily serving of processed red meat – equivalent to one hot dog or two rashers of bacon – raised mortality rate by a fifth.

    Duh, Okay I will write it out for you. Tell me which words you do not understand:

    'processed'. Please clarify.




    awaiting hard copy to my home address.

    No problem. If you go to the top of the article, there is a photograph of red meat slices. Underneath that photo is a caption that states:

    "Eating any kind of red meat was found to increase the chances of dying from heart disease by 16% and from cancer by 10%. Photograph: David Sillitoe for the Guardian"

    The photograph, as well as the actual text which was in English indicates that they were talking about ANY red meat, with processed red meat being the worst.

    Happy to help you understand. Bytheway, there are hundreds more studies that may be easier for you to understand. Would you like to go through some more?

    Oh come on, we've talked about relevance of authors before....the study, not David Sillitoe the Guardian photographers interpetation of it is what is important. The photo was chosen to illustrate something that the photographer found in the text. Does it make it accurate? Or does it show he can use a zoom lens?

    and no, it does not show that they were talking about ANY red meat, purely and simply because the study does not differentiate between pure red meat and processed. as a scientific experiment, it is flawed.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018


    The findings show that each extra daily serving of processed red meat – equivalent to one hot dog or two rashers of bacon – raised mortality rate by a fifth.

    Duh, Okay I will write it out for you. Tell me which words you do not understand:

    'processed'. Please clarify.




    awaiting hard copy to my home address.

    No problem. If you go to the top of the article, there is a photograph of red meat slices. Underneath that photo is a caption that states:

    "Eating any kind of red meat was found to increase the chances of dying from heart disease by 16% and from cancer by 10%. Photograph: David Sillitoe for the Guardian"

    The photograph, as well as the actual text which was in English indicates that they were talking about ANY red meat, with processed red meat being the worst.

    Happy to help you understand. Bytheway, there are hundreds more studies that may be easier for you to understand. Would you like to go through some more?

    Oh come on, we've talked about relevance of authors before....the study, not David Sillitoe the Guardian photographers interpetation of it is what is important. The photo was chosen to illustrate something that the photographer found in the text. Does it make it accurate? Or does it show he can use a zoom lens?

    and no, it does not show that they were talking about ANY red meat, purely and simply because the study does not differentiate between pure red meat and processed. as a scientific experiment, it is flawed.

    The study DOES differentiate between red meat and processed meat. Would you like me to help you read it again? The morbidity rates for processed meats were given separately, and were much higher.

    I would not suggest that you read the original study if a newspaper article about the study is giving you so much trouble.

Categories