Hunter-gatherers vs Westerners
Options
Replies
-
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.0 -
I'm not Paleo.
But I do eat meat.0 -
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.0
-
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,0 -
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 BS0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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
Haha. Haven't commented on this thread yet because its just such an old argument. But you really make me laugh.0 -
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.
What I mostly don't understand is how you constantly feel the need to talk to other people as if the are incapable of understanding simply because they happen to disagree with the viewpoints and evidence you are using to put across your 'arguments'.
I don't have journal access to read the study but since you like statistics so much you might like this:
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=5164
I always consider that I am probably more likely to get hit by a bus than make it to old age so I'll just carry on with my good quality wholefood diet thanks. Eat a veg*n diet if you please but it is a choice that you are able to make due to the society you live in, and it's not for me.0 -
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.
What I mostly don't understand is how you constantly feel the need to talk to other people as if the are incapable of understanding simply because they happen to disagree with the viewpoints and evidence you are using to put across your 'arguments'.
I don't have journal access to read the study but since you like statistics so much you might like this:
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=5164
I always consider that I am probably more likely to get hit by a bus than make it to old age so I'll just carry on with my good quality wholefood diet thanks. Eat a veg*n diet if you please but it is a choice that you are able to make due to the society you live in, and it's not for me.
I might point out that the choice of your meat-inclusive diet is also due to the society you live in--thanks to corn, beef and dairy farm subsidies that artificially deflate the cost of those foods. Take a look at how luxurious your level of meat consumption is from a global perspective:
http://chartsbin.com/view/bhy0 -
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.
What I mostly don't understand is how you constantly feel the need to talk to other people as if the are incapable of understanding simply because they happen to disagree with the viewpoints and evidence you are using to put across your 'arguments'.
No, that is not true. I was arguing with a fellow here (I believe) on human ancestors. We disagree, but he understood and argued appropriately. We still disagree, but he understood what I was saying. You, on the other hand seem to be purposely misunderstanding.
I don't have journal access to read the study but since you like statistics so much you might like this:
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=5164
Very cleverly written article. Not having actuarial tables, I nonetheless would assume that the figures they gave are correct. Also the math looks good. Only problem is they figured the odds of death at age 40, and as long as they do that it looks trivial. However, if they had figured the entire population of meat eaters dying at an 18% higher rate EACH YEAR, and they compared that population to the non-meat-eating population which would be dying at a slower rate, EACH YEAR you would see a really big difference as both populations started to age. Clever. good example of how statistics can be used to say the opposite of what is really occurring.
I always consider that I am probably more likely to get hit by a bus than make it to old age so I'll just carry on with my good quality wholefood diet thanks. Eat a veg*n diet if you please but it is a choice that you are able to make due to the society you live in, and it's not for me.
Whoa! Where are you? UK? (You said rubbish before) I can't talk about there, but here we have massive governmental subsidies on meat, dairy and associated products. I am paying via my taxes so poor people can eat a hamberger for $1. Disgusting. I guess our government wants to kill off the poor, and it seems to be working with obesity and childhood diabetes.
But you are also right about vegan diets. Vegetarians and vegans are generally richer, more intelligent and better educated than the rest of the population (and yes, I do have cites if you want them.) It is not clear whether they become vegan because they are more intelligent or whether being vegan makes them more intelligent, but yes, vegetarianism is much more prevalent in the upper classes, in the educated classes than in the poorer less educated classes.
But you are wrong about needing civilization to be able to afford to eat vegan, at least outside of the USA. As I have pointed out as an example, in India the average person eats about 7 pounds of meat per year. In the US it is close to 300 per year. Vegetarianism is in fact the diet of most of the world's poor, just not in the US.0 -
Rex - a simple question since it appears I am not alone in being somewhat put off by your condescending manner. Is it just me who you target due to my apparent gleeful misinterpreting of what you are saying or do you think there's a conspiracy here?0
-
for the record the dairy industry doesn't receive much in the way of subsidies, and though I'm not sure about the beef industry i don't think its as much as people think. the most subsidized is the corn and overall grain industries. actually if not for the government meat and dairy could be cheaper. Government ethanol mandates have drove prices up.
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.
What I mostly don't understand is how you constantly feel the need to talk to other people as if the are incapable of understanding simply because they happen to disagree with the viewpoints and evidence you are using to put across your 'arguments'.
I don't have journal access to read the study but since you like statistics so much you might like this:
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=5164
I always consider that I am probably more likely to get hit by a bus than make it to old age so I'll just carry on with my good quality wholefood diet thanks. Eat a veg*n diet if you please but it is a choice that you are able to make due to the society you live in, and it's not for me.
I might point out that the choice of your meat-inclusive diet is also due to the society you live in--thanks to corn, beef and dairy farm subsidies that artificially deflate the cost of those foods. Take a look at how luxurious your level of meat consumption is from a global perspective:
http://chartsbin.com/view/bhy0 -
I just read an interesting study on how hunter-gatherers burn about the same number of calories as Westerners do. You would think all that physically-demanding food gathering over the course of the day would burn tons of calories, but it apparently doesn't. What do you think? Are the laws of thermodynamics more complicated than we think?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120725200304.htm
Maybe they were not as active as we assume them to be as hunters and gathers. Once they had hunted and gather their food they might had time to be sedentary like many of us are now.0 -
This thread WAS an interesting read until it got derailed...
*sigh*0 -
Rex - a simple question since it appears I am not alone in being somewhat put off by your condescending manner. Is it just me who you target due to my apparent gleeful misinterpreting of what you are saying or do you think there's a conspiracy here?
I am not "targeting" you. You respond. I respond. Some people appear to be open minded, although they may not in reality be open minded, but I think you said it all when you pointed to the statistical study: you said something to the effect that even though there is a higher mortality rate for meat-eaters, you didn't care, and you were going to continue doing what you were doing. Actually, I shouldn't fault you for being honest. I think most meat eaters don't really care what the mortality or morbidity rate is (let's not forget morbidity - even if cancer heart disease doesn't kill you, it could cripple you.)
In any event I suppose I am exactly the same. Since I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons, even if it were discovered that not eating meat would lower your life span by 20 years, I would still not eat meat. But Paleos seem to be health oriented, but when pushed, they just like what they like. (I know you are not a Paleo.)0 -
for the record the dairy industry doesn't receive much in the way of subsidies, and though I'm not sure about the beef industry i don't think its as much as people think. the most subsidized is the corn and overall grain industries. actually if not for the government meat and dairy could be cheaper. Government ethanol mandates have drove prices up.
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.
What I mostly don't understand is how you constantly feel the need to talk to other people as if the are incapable of understanding simply because they happen to disagree with the viewpoints and evidence you are using to put across your 'arguments'.
I don't have journal access to read the study but since you like statistics so much you might like this:
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=5164
I always consider that I am probably more likely to get hit by a bus than make it to old age so I'll just carry on with my good quality wholefood diet thanks. Eat a veg*n diet if you please but it is a choice that you are able to make due to the society you live in, and it's not for me.
I might point out that the choice of your meat-inclusive diet is also due to the society you live in--thanks to corn, beef and dairy farm subsidies that artificially deflate the cost of those foods. Take a look at how luxurious your level of meat consumption is from a global perspective:
http://chartsbin.com/view/bhy
That is a massive misstatement. First of all, the corn industry is the beef industry. We were just out in Iowa about a month ago. over 80% of Iowas massive corn harvest goes to feedlots. Water rights are huge out West, and they favor farmers and cattlemen. And this year, for example, there is a massive drought, so the government, which subsidizes about 80% of farm insurance will pay farmers for their lost crops. The bill will be in billions of dollars.
The government subsidy in meat and dairy is astronomical, and don't believe the crap put out by the industry itself.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions