I agree with alot of what PETA does to protest cruelty to animals. The problem is that PETA like the Sierra Club has splintered between moderates who and ultra radicals.
In case you wanted to flame me I ate steak 4 times yesterday.
Why does anybody care what someone else eats? I’ve never really understood that.
The stereotyping that is expressed here, though comical, is nothing more than a sign of ignorance. Congratulations to those that have willingly exposed this trait.
ProteinPowda, I’m stronger than you and I’m a vegetarian. At 194 pounds I can squat about 545, bench about 315, and deadlift around 555 (all raw, PL competition form). So put that in your pipe and smoke it! he he he.
I became a veg because I discovered that it lessened the chronic joint pain that had been nearly crippling me. Is that a good enough reason for those that would question my dietary choice?
Regards,
Sensless
[quote]mindeffer01 wrote:
I’m surprised that no one has brought up the anthropological studies that credit our developement of a frontal cortex to the ingestion of nutrient rich food sources,such as other animals.
It is prety well documented and agreed upon that it was when we started eating more meat that our brain developement increased in size and function,to approximately where it is now.
My point is this; Let the vegans go on for a couple more generations. As their brains devolve they will get even dumber.Once they loose the executive functions of the brain, we can keep them as pets. They should make great pets. Docile, playfull, and just smart enough to not poop on the floor.
[/quote]
If the anthropogical agrument (humans are carnivores) held its own weight, then why haven’t humans adapted to the negative effects of cholersterol. Unless you think open heart surgery and lipitor is a form of evolution.
As for brain devolution, there are no scientific facts that back up that argument. In fact some of the most intelligent people who have ever lived were vegetarian (Isaac Newton, Nikolai Tesla).
[quote]steelhmr wrote:
If the anthropogical agrument (humans are carnivores) held its own weight, then why haven’t humans adapted to the negative effects of cholersterol. Unless you think open heart surgery and lipitor is a form of evolution.
[/quote]
Because there really aren’t any negative effects to eating cholesterol. Your body produces it naturally. The more you eat, the less your body produces to attain the level it wants.
[quote]NateN wrote:
Because there really aren’t any negative effects to eating cholesterol. [/quote]
That statemet is completely false. Medical studies have tied cholesterol to heart disease since the 40s. Why else would doctors be concerned over high cholesterol? Why is Lipitor such a profitable drug?
[quote]NateN wrote:
The more you eat, the less your body produces to attain the level it wants.
[/quote]
Thats true, so why then are vegetarian cholesterol counts so much lower than those of non-vegetarians?
{Based on the results of the Framingham Heart Study and other research, the ideal level appears to be below 150 mg/dl. At that point, a heart attack is very unlikely. Unfortunately, the average cholesterol level in America is 205, which is not far from the average level for heart attack victims: 244.}
Perhaps their bodies are trying to tell them something.
[quote]steelhmr wrote:
If the anthropogical agrument (humans are carnivores) held its own weight, then why haven’t humans adapted to the negative effects of cholersterol. Unless you think open heart surgery and lipitor is a form of evolution. [/quote]
This takes time. That’s why some people are still lactose intolerant, it’s a relatively recent devolpment, genetically speaking.
[quote]As for brain devolution, there are no scientific facts that back up that argument. In fact some of the most intelligent people who have ever lived were vegetarian (Isaac Newton, Nikolai Tesla).
[/quote]
Well Hitler was decently intelligent and he was a vegetarian too. While I do greatly respect Tesla, and I think his acomplishments have not been given enough credit and I thank him for inventing so many things we use everyday, he still was kind of a screwball. Large women frightened him, and he could not stand the sight of pearls. He also would reclean all of the table settings, despite eating at the ebst restaurants in town. Then he would mentally calculate the volume of all the food he was going to eat before eating it.
I maintain that, in general, healthy eating omnivores are in overall better shape than veggies.
"I maintain that, in general, healthy eating omnivores are in overall better shape than veggies. "
Given you have no evidence to support the claim, I really see no way that you can declare this and expect it to be meaningful in anyway. Perhaps this should be your hypothesis and you can begin the research to provide results.
Personally, I would hypothesize that the diets are equally healthy. One just has fewer options on what can be consumed.
Regards,
Sensless
[quote]sensless wrote:
"I maintain that, in general, healthy eating omnivores are in overall better shape than veggies. "
Given you have no evidence to support the claim, I really see no way that you can declare this and expect it to be meaningful in anyway. Perhaps this should be your hypothesis and you can begin the research to provide results.
Personally, I would hypothesize that the diets are equally healthy. One just has fewer options on what can be consumed.
Regards,
Sensless[/quote]
I’ll just let you know that humans would have not developed into what they are without large quantities of meat. Without it our brains would not have developed beyond other lesser evolved primates.
And since that is the case I have a problem with non-meat eaters since they are trying to go against hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, and I don’t believe we have stopped evolving just 'cause you think the soul of a plant is lesser than the sould of an animal. Hahahahahaha!
Notice I referred to EATING cholesterol. No shit people’s arteries get blocked with cholesterol, but does that mean eating less is good for you? Here’s a similar situation using the same incredibly stupid logic you use: Did you know how doctors used to treat diarrhea? By stuffing the patient with bread and denying him/her water. After all, if the body is flushing out so much water, then water intake must be lowered! Now we’ve got it in our heads that if cholesterol levels are high, eating less will solve the problem.
Yes, Russian researcher M.A. Ignatovsky did induce death by feeding animals large amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol. Oh wait, those animals were RABBITS. Similar tactics were pulled on animals that eat meat with no similar effects.
Kritchevsky D. Dietary Protein, cholesterol and atherosclerosis: A review of the early history. Journal of Nutrition, 1995; 125: 589S-593S.
Also, some studies show that, while cholesterol has a correlation with CHD, low cholesterol intake correlated with cancer, liver diseases, and mental diseases.
Ulmer H, et al. Why Eve is not Adam: prospective follow-up in 149650 women and men of cholesterol and other risk factors related to cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Journal of Womens Health, Jan-Feb. 2004; 13 (1): 41-53.
Speaking of Framingham . . .
“Data from the Framingham study showed that people with falling cholesterol levels suffered increased mortality, while in Honolulu those with increasing cholesterol levels enjoyed greater longevity!(Anderson KM, et al)(Schatz IJ, et al.)”
Anderson KM, et al. Cholesterol and mortality. 30 years of follow-up from the Framingham study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1987; 257: 2176-2180.
Schatz IJ, et al. Cholesterol and all-cause mortality in elderly people from the Honolulu Heart Program: a cohort study. Lancet, Aug 4, 2001; 358 (9279): 351-355.
Now everyone can take a couple of seconds to figure out where I copied and pasted a lot of this stuff from.
[quote]steelhmr wrote:
That statemet is completely false. Medical studies have tied cholesterol to heart disease since the 40s. Why else would doctors be concerned over high cholesterol? Why is Lipitor such a profitable drug?
{Based on the results of the Framingham Heart Study and other research, the ideal level appears to be below 150 mg/dl. At that point, a heart attack is very unlikely. Unfortunately, the average cholesterol level in America is 205, which is not far from the average level for heart attack victims: 244.}
Perhaps their bodies are trying to tell them something. [/quote]
Hell, Cy Wilson says amount of cholesterol ingested has no relation to serum levels!
“Look, dietary cholesterol has been shown to have little or no effect on total and LDL cholesterol!”
Reaven GM, et al. “Insulin resistance, dietary cholesterol, and cholesterol concentration in postmenopausal women.” Metabolism 2001 May;50(5):594-7
Bowman MP, et al. “Effect of dietary fat and cholesterol on plasma lipids and lipoprotein fractions in normolipidemic men.” J Nutr 1988 May;118(5):555-60
[quote]steelhmr wrote:
NateN wrote:
Because there really aren’t any negative effects to eating cholesterol.
That statemet is completely false. Medical studies have tied cholesterol to heart disease since the 40s. Why else would doctors be concerned over high cholesterol? Why is Lipitor such a profitable drug?
NateN wrote:
The more you eat, the less your body produces to attain the level it wants.
Thats true, so why then are vegetarian cholesterol counts so much lower than those of non-vegetarians?
{Based on the results of the Framingham Heart Study and other research, the ideal level appears to be below 150 mg/dl. At that point, a heart attack is very unlikely. Unfortunately, the average cholesterol level in America is 205, which is not far from the average level for heart attack victims: 244.}
Perhaps their bodies are trying to tell them something. [/quote]
Just be like me and go through a 6lb protein jug ever 10 days or so…
“And since that is the case I have a problem with non-meat eaters since they are trying to go against hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, and I don’t believe we have stopped evolving just 'cause you think the soul of a plant is lesser than the sould of an animal. Hahahahahaha!”
I already stated that I stopped eating meat because it increased the chronic pain in my joints. The belief system you mention has no relevance to my choice.
Admittedly, I would have continued to consume approximately 12 pounds of meat each week if it weren’t for my joint pain. I think that the human race has worked rather diligently over its history to place itself at the top of the food chain. Being at the top of the food chain gives us the luxury to CHOOSE what we eat. Given that, I may choose to not eat meat, for whatever the reason, and another may choose to eat another creature. That is our prerogative. As stated previously, I don’t understand why one’s choice of food matters to anyone else. Why should I be belittled because I have a different diet than another? Should I belittle a person because their favorite color is different than mine? Should I belittle a person because they like to wear jeans and a tee shirt, or enjoy football, or enjoy volleyball? None of these things should matter to one another enough to cause conflict. I think that those that do cause conflict because of these differences in choice are small-minded and should embark on a path that will lead themselves to maturity.
Regards,
Sensless
Sensless,
Out of curiosity, do you know why meat caused (or contributed to) your joint pain?
Indeed, it seems the causality attributed to the joint pain may be misguided. I see no physiological reason beside some sort of psychologically conditioning that meat in of itself would create the conditions necessary for averse joint and ligament discomfort.
ahhhhhhh! much better…
Not that I’m saying he’s wrong, but maybe it wasn’t the meat itself but preservatives used, etc. Just an idea, though.
I have high uric acid levels that can cause gout. I realize that there are medications that can reduce this so I could continue to eat meat, but I don’t think that the high uric acid levels are the only cause. To be honest, I don’t understand what the true source of it is. I have experimented by eating meat 3x week, eating meat as much as I would like (the aforementioned 12 pounds/week), and not eating any meat to see which would produce the best results w/r/t my joint pain.
The results of my self-experimentation were: severe pain when eating as much meat as I want (unable to walk up/down stairs, difficulty riding in a vehicle, unable to perform squats, etc.); pain when I ate meat 3x week, though not as severe (some pain when riding in vehicles, prolonged soreness if using the stairs, pain and lack of stability when squatting); and voila! almost no pain at all when I removed meat from my diet.
I realize that none of this seems to make much sense as to why it happens, leaving me rather perplexed by the situation. I’m also disappointed that I can no longer consume my favorite dish (porterhouse steak) but it is a small sacrifice to make when compared to having the ability to function more normally.
I have also noticed that the vegetarian diet causes me to sweat much more than I did when enjoying an omnivore lifestyle. But once again, compared to the joint pain I was suffering, this is a nominal side-effect.
Regards,
Sensless
Those chicks are pretty hot. They just need a boob job and some muscles.
Seriously, I’ve known my fair share of fat vegetarians.
beef
[quote]NateN wrote:
Notice I referred to EATING cholesterol. No shit people’s arteries get blocked with cholesterol, but does that mean eating less is good for you? Here’s a similar situation using the same incredibly stupid logic you use: Did you know how doctors used to treat diarrhea? By stuffing the patient with bread and denying him/her water. After all, if the body is flushing out so much water, then water intake must be lowered! Now we’ve got it in our heads that if cholesterol levels are high, eating less will solve the problem.
Yes, Russian researcher M.A. Ignatovsky did induce death by feeding animals large amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol. Oh wait, those animals were RABBITS. Similar tactics were pulled on animals that eat meat with no similar effects.
Kritchevsky D. Dietary Protein, cholesterol and atherosclerosis: A review of the early history. Journal of Nutrition, 1995; 125: 589S-593S.
Also, some studies show that, while cholesterol has a correlation with CHD, low cholesterol intake correlated with cancer, liver diseases, and mental diseases.
Ulmer H, et al. Why Eve is not Adam: prospective follow-up in 149650 women and men of cholesterol and other risk factors related to cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Journal of Womens Health, Jan-Feb. 2004; 13 (1): 41-53.
Speaking of Framingham . . .
“Data from the Framingham study showed that people with falling cholesterol levels suffered increased mortality, while in Honolulu those with increasing cholesterol levels enjoyed greater longevity!(Anderson KM, et al)(Schatz IJ, et al.)”
Anderson KM, et al. Cholesterol and mortality. 30 years of follow-up from the Framingham study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1987; 257: 2176-2180.
Schatz IJ, et al. Cholesterol and all-cause mortality in elderly people from the Honolulu Heart Program: a cohort study. Lancet, Aug 4, 2001; 358 (9279): 351-355.
Now everyone can take a couple of seconds to figure out where I copied and pasted a lot of this stuff from.
steelhmr wrote:
That statemet is completely false. Medical studies have tied cholesterol to heart disease since the 40s. Why else would doctors be concerned over high cholesterol? Why is Lipitor such a profitable drug?
{Based on the results of the Framingham Heart Study and other research, the ideal level appears to be below 150 mg/dl. At that point, a heart attack is very unlikely. Unfortunately, the average cholesterol level in America is 205, which is not far from the average level for heart attack victims: 244.}
Perhaps their bodies are trying to tell them something.
[/quote]
You are the one who seems to not understand logic and or deductive reasoning. You stated that EATING (not aware of any other ways to ingest it)cholesterol had no negative effects. I showed you the correlation between high cholesterol and heart disease that is universally agreed upon. It was your initial statement that the more you eat the less you produce which assumes one body has some kind of equillibrium. My argument was that people who don’t ingest cholesterol had significantly lower counts. If your body produced less when you ingest more then why are the non veg counts so much higher than their veg counterparts. Shouldn’t they be the same as your argument suggested? They are not. And people are directed by doctors everyday to lower this surplus by reducing their intake of cholesterol.
“Yes, Russian researcher M.A. Ignatovsky did induce death by feeding animals large amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol. Oh wait, those animals were RABBITS. Similar tactics were pulled on animals that eat meat with no similar effects.”
So it had no negative effects on animals (carnivores) but it caused death to rabbits (herbivores). Wonder what would happen if they did this study on humans?
“Data from the Framingham study showed that people with falling cholesterol levels suffered increased mortality, while in Honolulu those with increasing cholesterol levels enjoyed greater longevity!(Anderson KM, et al)(Schatz IJ, et al.)”
That doesn’t say much about the test subjects involved. Particularly in Hawaii where meat is more prevalent in the upper class that have greater access to medical care. And who is to say that the people with falling cholesterol didn’t eat bad diets (high in sugar, etc). Can’t deny this study based on a couple of assumptions, but it is certainly not conclusive and not concurrent with recent medical studies i am aware of.
[quote]steelhmr wrote:
If your body produced less when you ingest more then why are the non veg counts so much higher than their veg counterparts. Shouldn’t they be the same as your argument suggested? They are not. And people are directed by doctors everyday to lower this surplus by reducing their intake of cholesterol.
My guess is veggies’ lower levels are due to a relatively more healthy lifestyle than the AVERAGE person. Since being a veg requires at least some attention to diet. I wonder what would happen if you compared your average veggie to your average cholesterol-eating T-Nation reader.
So it had no negative effects on animals (carnivores) but it caused death to rabbits (herbivores). Wonder what would happen if they did this study on humans?
So you’re not aware of any such study and you still say eating cholesterol is bad?!
Well, human ancestors always hunted animals with the largest fat stores. In fact, humans often refrained from hunting a certain kind of animal until it accumulated the greatest fat stores for the season. (In North America female bison would not be hunted in the spring). Humans have been eating cholesterol since humans have been around, and CHD only started getting serious in the last fifty years or so. This isn’t rocket science. I forgot to put a link to Cy Wilson’s article, did you see my second post?
“Data from the Framingham study showed that people with falling cholesterol levels suffered increased mortality, while in Honolulu those with increasing cholesterol levels enjoyed greater longevity!(Anderson KM, et al)(Schatz IJ, et al.)”
That doesn’t say much about the test subjects involved. Particularly in Hawaii where meat is more prevalent in the upper class that have greater access to medical care. And who is to say that the people with falling cholesterol didn’t eat bad diets (high in sugar, etc). Can’t deny this study based on a couple of assumptions, but it is certainly not conclusive and not concurrent with recent medical studies i am aware of. [/quote]
By now you must realize I’m also big on Weston A Price. You know about the Masi in Africa? Those guys who used to drink around 300 grams of saturated fat a day and were in perfect health?
Here’s the article by Cy Wilson. Scroll down to “A Word about Dietary Cholesterol”. Of course he DOES day saturated fat is bad, but I’ll have to look at the study he cited. It was done on animals.