Study finds Death link to too much red meat


Recommended Posts

smithy_dll

I think our teeth reflect our invention of cooked foods tens of thousands of years ago.

We use tools, and cook our food to tenderise it. It not only makes it healthier by killing bacteria (thus enabling a longer life), but it also makes food easier to eat. We have been a master or tools for many thousands of years, enough for it to have affected our evolution and diet.

That is why we hunt with our tools and brains, and don't need to be bigger than another animal to dominate it for a feed. We then cut it up with tools, and cook it using tools. Then post photos of it on the internet in a blog post saying how great it was, all using tools.

Animals like cows have no purpose other than to serve us as a feed. They are graceful, clumsy, and completely defenseless. We eat domesticated animals such as Cows, Sheep, Ducks, Chicken, and Turkey which have no purpose because we created them through selective breeding.

What I can say is that feeding dead cow to cows is bad (Mad Cow Disease), and we should learn to not feed animals foods that they are not designed to eat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anarcho-Capitalist
I think our teeth reflect our invention of cooked foods tens of thousands of years ago.

So, why am I seeing the same sort of teeth in our ancestors 3.2 million years ago when the earliest evidence of cooking is:

The oldest generally-accepted evidence for controlled use of fire by humans dates to around 700,000-800,000 years ago and is from the site of Gesher Benot Yaacov in Israel. There are claims for earlier use of fire dating back to 1.4-1.8 Million years ago from sites in East and South Africa, but these are somewhat less convincing, -isolated burnt bones or burnt sediment patches that could just as well be results of natural fires.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Anthropology-2291/cook-food.htm

Hmmmm?

post-285898-1237971007.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Doli
...

Ok...I'm going to try this again....

Would you say that these teeth, chimp and human, would be close enough to each other that you would say they have the exact same diet? Come on now. You can't seriously tell me those teeth are both suited for tearing flesh off a bone, you just can't. The differences are like night and day. Even the snout is more pronounced like that of a dogs in the chimp, because it has to dig deeper into a carcass.

Well anthropology says yes they both are suited. Where are you getting your info from?

We are omnivores. Now you can present and debate your evidence to the scientific community and see where it goes from there but as of now we are omnivores.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anarcho-Capitalist
Well anthropology says yes they both are suited. Where are you getting your info from?

I'm getting it from Dr. Leakey himself. How about you?

post-285898-1237972066.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
comk
So, why am I seeing the same sort of teeth in our ancestors 3.2 million years ago when the earliest evidence of cooking is:

Hmmmm?

Our ancestors did eat meat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Doli
I'm getting it from Dr. Leakey himself. How about you?

The article you posted that says that its ok to eat meat and from my anthropology class.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anarcho-Capitalist
The article you posted that says that its ok to eat meat and from my anthropology class.

Well obviously, there seems to be discord in anthropological circles if Richard Leakey says we aren't natural meat eaters.

Also, check this out. Yet more evidence that we have more in common with herbivores than omnivores.

post-285898-1237974070_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
psionicinversion

You know anarcho, is your life at work really that boring you can sit on here and give a massive arguemental post about everything. You may be a vegan but keeping on trying to prove that you are right and that everybody elses opinion is wrong seems to me like your unhappy in life, prolly dont have that many friends and generally disliked at work. I wouldnt like someone that thinks hes right all the time.

You can chuck as much medical evidence into here as ya want but its just like the bible, ppl see what they want to see.

Meats are healthy for us obviously not in large amounts but none the less healthier. Its another choice to ppl who may not like all fruits and veg. For instance tomatos i cant eat raw tomatos, despite knowing they have anti-cancerous properties, and im not forcing meself to like it either. I love brocolli cauliflower runner beans, sprouts arent to bad know im older. Not much for parsnips despite having high lvls of carbohyhdrates (i think which is energy in short). I eat bananas, apples, grapes, strawberrys etc.

So with all the added extra fruit and veg would you argue that my body is still unhealthy because i eat a bit meat now and again?

Can you get omega-3 from veg, that naturally comes from fish? (dont know if ya can but ill say ya cant). Or do you just spread a piece of bread with some Flora (now with omega-3).

Also you can make anything unhealthy, like the chinese yes they eat alot of veg and beansprouts but they fry the crap out of it and turn into into something really healthy. Chinese is one of the greasiest foods in the world, if i drank a cup of lard it would prolly be healthier (sarcasm there incase you want to correct me on that as well).

So let ppl do what they want to do, if they want to eat themselves to death let em its not like its gonna affect you besides cus ppl are living longer and longer there wont be any money left to give a state pension in like 40-50 years like when i retire so maybe its for the best if ppl dont live so long.

Im sure youll have something to say about this so bring it on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Decryptor

My canines are quite long and quite sharp (and huge compared to my other teeth), I know they can cut cleanly through meat as I've managed to bite clean through the skin of my cheek a few times.

But anyway, we're omnivores.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anarcho-Capitalist
You know anarcho, is your life at work really that boring you can sit on here and give a massive arguemental post about everything. You may be a vegan but keeping on trying to prove that you are right and that everybody elses opinion is wrong seems to me like your unhappy in life, prolly dont have that many friends and generally disliked at work. I wouldnt like someone that thinks hes right all the time.

Actually, I found that when I became a raw vegan, some of my friends and co-workers would make fun of my diet, and I'd have to defend it and point out how stupid they were. Otherwise, no, I never push my diet on my friends and co-workers because I know better than to agitate them and bring upon myself unneeded drama. Also, I find I'm much happier as a raw vegan, whereas being a meat-eater I was more lazy and moody than I am now.

So with all the added extra fruit and veg would you argue that my body is still unhealthy because i eat a bit meat now and again?

Yes, to an extent. Meat really has no reason being there other than that you think it's tasty. It's not healthy in any amount.

Can you get omega-3 from veg, that naturally comes from fish? (dont know if ya can but ill say ya cant). Or do you just spread a piece of bread with some Flora (now with omega-3).

Yes, I get my omega-3 from flaxseeds, sea vegetables like dulse, spirulina, walnuts, and pumpkin seeds.

Just some extra knowledge to impart on you: fish get those omega-3 by eating sea vegetables like kelp, algae, etc. I get it directly from the stuff fish eat, meaning my omega-3's are both higher quality and in higher quantity than I get through fish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Axel
Another example of a true and well-documented omnivore is a grizzly bear.

Note the molars in the back for plants and the large, well defined sharp teeth in the front for meat.

If humans were true omnivores, we'd have pointed snouts and at least 4 sharp front teeth for digging into a freshly killed animal.

But no, we have a broad, flat face and rounded front teeth that are not longer than our incisors.

Therefore, we are herbivores.

I don't think anybody reading this thread would agree that we have "fangs" :rolleyes:

I'd really like to see you dig into a freshly killed deer with those teeth, as you were "naturally designed to do" with those big scary teeth we have. :rofl:

Hey can you point out the big fangs in this picture of a human skull?

It's a good job I know how to use a knife and fork then isn't it :D

I personally couldn't care less whether we were "designed" to eat meat or not. The fact is that I can, and I enjoy it.

Studies like this prove nothing, there's always something that can kill you waiting round the corner. And obviously too much of one thing is not a good thing, it goes without saying.

I eat MEAT (Chicken, Fish, Beef, Lamb, etc. - anything that once moved really), VEG, FRUIT, GRAIN, etc. and would say I have an extremely well-rounded diet. A lot of vegetarians and vegans convert to that lifestyle for morale grounds - but then forget that your diet must be even more disciplined in order to get the same nutrients, minerals, and so on. The result is being downright undernourished and unhealthy. Although I'm not saying this is the case for all vegetarians and vegans.

I will stick to my well varied diet thank you! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

Like all other 'studies' this confuses correlation with causation.

It's not the meat, it's the cooking. The ill effects of the aromatic esters created during carbonization of food are well known and long time accepted.

If a barbecue would be invented today it would be forbidden by the FDA.

Since most meats are prepared by some form of frying obviously you eat more toxic residue.

If you do the same study for people who eat only raw meat ( one wonders how come predators didn't die out long time already viewing how dangerous meat is) i'm sure you'll find there's no correlation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
psionicinversion

i wonder if they use meat you buy from a supermarket rather than freshly cut meat from a butchers. A butchers meat is going to be alot higher quality than supermarket cuts as you can buy exactly what ya want and can properly view it before ya buy. I know i watched a program once where it says if you eat 2 rashers of bacon (pre packed in a supermarket) your like 20% more at risk of heart disease, not becuase of the meat itself but the becuase of the way in which its cured. I love bacon but i wouldnt eat it everyday.

Like someone says as a vegan/vegetarian your diet will have to be alot stricter like going to a shop and buying all types of beans, and grains and seeds and what not just to get similar nutrients. For me im to lazy and cant be bothered have a 20 item dinner, im not that much for me as a whole cus i can struggle to chew it up and eat sometimes, either that or me mums cooking was really crap. I wouldnt say meat makes ya moody prolly just go down a bit as your stomach is processing it. Oh something i learned is drinking a glass of water 20 minutes before you sit down to eat meat, greatly helps with breaking down proteins so it can be digested easier. Gotta love water, water is ace its my drink of choice after alcohol.

anyway ill be having smoked haddock, potato and veg for dinner, yummy yummy

Link to post
Share on other sites
Laura

Our brains take up about a fifth of our calories and so are very expensive pieces of equipment. They are massively oversized in proportion to other animals' brain-body ratio. I'm not sure how the research/evidence stands currently, but a few years ago I was taught that it is believed meat eating may have helped fuel that increase as it would be hard to get all the energy and nutrients from plants alone. Without meat, we'd not be where we are now.

These days of course, it is perfectly possibly to survive without meat. Science and technology allow us to know which nutrients we need and plan a balanced diet, and we can even fly out-of-season produce from other parts of the world to get it.

To digest a certain food you need to produce the correct enzymes to break it down. To do this, your body needs to know how to produce those enzymes - it's a genetic thing. So .. we are born able to produce the enzymes needed for digesting meat. Seems pretty "natural" to me.

The fact that we can eat meat, choose to eat meat and then are able to digest it makes us omnivore, currently, as a whole. We are not "supposed" to eat or not eat meat. We just do (or don't for some).

I'm not particularly in favour of eating meat, either. I am trying to wean myself onto a cheaper, healthier* diet that sits better with my conscience ... but that doesn't mean I will ignore or twist basic facts and evidence to fit what I really wish upon a star was the truth :rolleyes: .

* healthier meaning less junk

Link to post
Share on other sites
Googintosh
I can still maintain that if people ate healthier by adopting a raw, vegan diet, where the food doesn't harm you but only makes you feel well, the happier you will be.

I can go ahead and start eating meat everyday like I used to, but being a man sitting in a hospital in my 60's because of a heart attack that almost cost me my life isn't worth it.

You sure can maintain that, but you're simply maintaining a bare assertion. Bare assertions are meaningless

I used to be the guy who made fun of vegetarians. The guy who would say that vegetarians are a bunch of weak, frail pussies.

So you went from one strawman stereotype to another, "I can go ahead and start eating meat everyday like I used to, but being a man sitting in a hospital in my 60's because of a heart attack that almost cost me my life isn't worth it."

Provide some solid scientific evidence from various legitimate studies to support your claims that:

.1) A raw foodist diet is the healthiest

.2) that it isn't harmful

.3) It is what's "intended"

The evidence should be from credible sources. By credible sources I mean do not cite junk-science like naturopathy/natural hygiene, chiropractic (eg. the charlatan Douglas Graham), or anything with a political/ideological agenda. Don't bother citing Herbert Shelton either as his work pertaining to raw food diets has long since been debunked. Finally, don't bother citing anecotes ("I feel healthier"), as anecdotes prove nothing empirically.

"Is there anecdotal evidence that unconventional therapies sometimes yield positive outcomes? Yes. There's also anecdotal evidence that athletes who refuse to shave during winning streaks sometimes bring home championships." -Steve Salerno

I have had discussions with raw foodist vegans before and the evidence to support the claims are as dubious as the claim that "we aren't intended to eat meat."

Dentation is not the only factor which differentiates omnivores from herbivores. The biochemistry of herbivore/frugivore digestion is quite different than the biochemistry of human (omnivorous) digestion. The former do not not have the same capacity to produce the enzymes omnivores do for digesting meat. Human beings show all the hallmarks of omnivores: dentation, jaw structure, digestion, long intestines, etc.

There may be sound ethical reasons to avoid eating meat, but arguing that it is healthier than having a balanced diet (which includes meat) will have to be supported by evidence. Strict raw food diets have been studied scientifically and the evidence doesn't correspond with your claims.

Here's just few:

Consequences of a long-term raw food diet on body weight and menstruation

About 30% of the women under 45 years of age had partial to complete amenorrhea; subjects eating high amounts of raw food (> 90%) were affected more frequently than moderate raw food dieters . . . The consumption of a raw food diet is associated with a high loss of body weight. Since many raw food dieters exhibited underweight and amenorrhea, a very strict raw food diet cannot be recommended on a long-term basis.

In summary, a third of women on who were studied and on a long-term strict raw food vegan diet stop menstruating.

Dental erosions in subjects living on a raw food diet

Raw food diet bears an increased risk of dental erosion compared to conventional nutrition

Long-Term Consumption of a Raw Food Diet Is Associated with Favorable Serum LDL Cholesterol and Triglycerides but Also with Elevated Plasma Homocysteine and Low Serum HDL Cholesterol in Humans

High consumption of vegetables and fruits is associated with reduced risk for cardiovascular disease. However, little information is available about diets based predominantly on consumption of fruits and their health consequences. We investigated the effects of an extremely high dietary intake of raw vegetables and fruits (70?100% raw food) on serum lipids and plasma vitamin B-12, folate, and total homocysteine (tHcy) . . . Of raw food consumers, 38% were vitamin B-12 deficient, whereas 12% had an increased mean corpuscular volume (MCV). Plasma tHcy concentrations were correlated with plasma vitamin B-12 concentrations (r = ?0.450, P < 0.001), but not with plasma folate. Plasma tHcy and MCV concentrations were higher in those in the lowest quintile of consumption of food of animal origin (Ptrend < 0.00[bThis study indicates that consumption of a strict raw food diet lowers plasma total cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations, but also lowers serum HDL cholesterol and increases tHcy concentrations due to vitamin B-12 deficiency[/b]Human Diet: Its Origin and Evolution, Peter Ungar (Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Arkansas), Mark Teaford (Dept. of Cell Biology and Anatomy, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine), April 2002

An increasing proportion of meat in the diet would obviously have provided more animal protein, a factor perhaps related to the stature increase which appears to have accompanied the transition from Australopithecines through Homo habilis to H. erectus, (McHenry, 1992) but greater availability of animal fat was probably a more important dietary alteration. Even crude Oldowan stone tools would have allowed early humans access to brain and marrow from a broad range of animals obtained by scavenging or hunting - including some species larger than those from which chimpanzee hunters preferentially extract brain tissue and marrow fat. These and other carcass fats were probably prized by the early hominids as they are by recently-observed modern human hunter-gatherers. (Steffanson, 196Nutritional Importance of Animal Source Foods

Animal source foods can provide a variety of micronutrients that are difficult to obtain in adequate quantities from plant source foods aloComparative Biochemistry and Physiology - Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology : Cooking as a biological trait

No human foragers have been recorded as living without cooking, and people who choose a 'raw-foodist' life-style experience low energy and impaired reproductive function. This suggests that cooking may be obligatory for humans. The possibility that cooking is obligatory is supported by calculations suggesting that a diet of raw food could not supply sufficient calories for a normal hunter?gatherer lifestyle ... this means that human biology must have adapted to the ingestion of cooked food (i.e. food that is tender and low in fiber) in ways that no longer allow efficient processing of raw foLong-Term Consumption of a Raw Food Diet Is Associated with Favorable Serum LDL Cholesterol and Triglycerides but Also with Elevated Plasma Homocysteine and Low Serum HDL Cholesterol in Humansl]

[if one requires vitamin supplements, that undermines the entire "natural" and "what is intended" premise]

Link to post
Share on other sites
punktematrix
You sure can maintain that, but you're simply maintaining a bare assertion. Bare assertions are meaningless

So you went from one strawman stereotype to another, "I can go ahead and start eating meat everyday like I used to, but being a man sitting in a hospital in my 60's because of a heart attack that almost cost me my life isn't worth it."

Provide some solid scientific evidence from various legitimate studies to support your claims that:

.1) A raw foodist diet is the healthiest

.2) that it isn't harmful

.3) It is what's "intended"

The evidence should be from credible sources. By credible sources I mean do not cite junk-science like naturopathy/natural hygiene, chiropractic (eg. the charlatan Douglas Graham), or anything with a political/ideological agenda. Don't bother citing Herbert Shelton either as his work pertaining to raw food diets has long since been debunked. Finally, don't bother citing anecotes ("I feel healthier"), as anecdotes prove nothing empirically.

"Is there anecdotal evidence that unconventional therapies sometimes yield positive outcomes? Yes. There's also anecdotal evidence that athletes who refuse to shave during winning streaks sometimes bring home championships." -Steve Salerno

I have had discussions with raw foodist vegans before and the evidence to support the claims are as dubious as the claim that "we aren't intended to eat meat."

Dentation is not the only factor which differentiates omnivores from herbivores. The biochemistry of herbivore/frugivore digestion is quite different than the biochemistry of human (omnivorous) digestion. The former do not not have the same capacity to produce the enzymes omnivores do for digesting meat. Human beings show all the hallmarks of omnivores: dentation, jaw structure, digestion, long intestines, etc.

There may be sound ethical reasons to avoid eating meat, but arguing that it is healthier than having a balanced diet (which includes meat) will have to be supported by evidence. Strict raw food diets have been studied scientifically and the evidence doesn't correspond with your claims.

Here's just few:

Consequences of a long-term raw food diet on body weight and menstruation

About 30% of the women under 45 years of age had partial to complete amenorrhea; subjects eating high amounts of raw food (> 90%) were affected more frequently than moderate raw food dieters . . . The consumption of a raw food diet is associated with a high loss of body weight. Since many raw food dieters exhibited underweight and amenorrhea, a very strict raw food diet cannot be recommended on a long-term basis.

In summary, a third of women on who were studied and on a long-term strict raw food vegan diet stop menstruating.

Dental erosions in subjects living on a raw food diet

Raw food diet bears an increased risk of dental erosion compared to conventional nutrition

Long-Term Consumption of a Raw Food Diet Is Associated with Favorable Serum LDL Cholesterol and Triglycerides but Also with Elevated Plasma Homocysteine and Low Serum HDL Cholesterol in Humans

High consumption of vegetables and fruits is associated with reduced risk for cardiovascular disease. However, little information is available about diets based predominantly on consumption of fruits and their health consequences. We investigated the effects of an extremely high dietary intake of raw vegetables and fruits (70?100% raw food) on serum lipids and plasma vitamin B-12, folate, and total homocysteine (tHcy) . . . Of raw food consumers, 38% were vitamin B-12 deficient, whereas 12% had an increased mean corpuscular volume (MCV). Plasma tHcy concentrations were correlated with plasma vitamin B-12 concentrations (r = ?0.450, P < 0.001), but not with plasma folate. Plasma tHcy and MCV concentrations were higher in those in the lowest quintile of consumption of food of animal origin (Ptrend < 0.00[bThis study indicates that consumption of a strict raw food diet lowers plasma total cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations, but also lowers serum HDL cholesterol and increases tHcy concentrations due to vitamin B-12 deficiency[/b]Human Diet: Its Origin and Evolution, Peter Ungar (Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Arkansas), Mark Teaford (Dept. of Cell Biology and Anatomy, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine), April 2002

An increasing proportion of meat in the diet would obviously have provided more animal protein, a factor perhaps related to the stature increase which appears to have accompanied the transition from Australopithecines through Homo habilis to H. erectus, (McHenry, 1992) but greater availability of animal fat was probably a more important dietary alteration. Even crude Oldowan stone tools would have allowed early humans access to brain and marrow from a broad range of animals obtained by scavenging or hunting - including some species larger than those from which chimpanzee hunters preferentially extract brain tissue and marrow fat. These and other carcass fats were probably prized by the early hominids as they are by recently-observed modern human hunter-gatherers. (Steffanson, 196Nutritional Importance of Animal Source Foods

Animal source foods can provide a variety of micronutrients that are difficult to obtain in adequate quantities from plant source foods aloComparative Biochemistry and Physiology - Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology : Cooking as a biological trait

No human foragers have been recorded as living without cooking, and people who choose a 'raw-foodist' life-style experience low energy and impaired reproductive function. This suggests that cooking may be obligatory for humans. The possibility that cooking is obligatory is supported by calculations suggesting that a diet of raw food could not supply sufficient calories for a normal hunter?gatherer lifestyle ... this means that human biology must have adapted to the ingestion of cooked food (i.e. food that is tender and low in fiber) in ways that no longer allow efficient processing of raw foLong-Term Consumption of a Raw Food Diet Is Associated with Favorable Serum LDL Cholesterol and Triglycerides but Also with Elevated Plasma Homocysteine and Low Serum HDL Cholesterol in Humansl]

[if one requires vitamin supplements, that undermines the entire "natural" and "what is intended" premise]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anarcho-Capitalist

All those studies come from the same group of researchers in Germany. I guess they must have some sort of agenda, and you couldn't find more than just those same researchers, from the same university no less.

Anyway, if you haven't noticed my username, I don't ascribe to state-run medicine as it does more harm than good. If anything, state-run, allopathic medicine hasn't provided anything other than the guidelines that have caused the United States to have the most deaths due to heart disease per capita, and considering that Germany suffers from the same state-run failures, I call out your "studies" as nothing more than propaganda, as I've been to private physicians here in the U.S. on the 3rd year of my raw foodist lifestyle, and my bloodwork and vitals have shown that I'm in exemplary health. Plus, I've never felt better in my life, and have all the knowledge to combat any of the deficiencies those studies warn against.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PixilEyes

/End thread

Move along everyone there is nothing to see here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
punktematrix

LOL Attacking the source of the studies rather than focusing on the content, and providing no evidence that the findings are wrong. Saying stuff and not backing it up. FAILTRON!

Edited by punktematrix
Link to post
Share on other sites
leesmithg
My canines are quite long and quite sharp (and huge compared to my other teeth), I know they can cut cleanly through meat as I've managed to bite clean through the skin of my cheek a few times.

But anyway, we're omnivores.

I am a herbivore, not an omnivore.

Red meat can be linked to women having facial hair and too much carcinogenic traits.

Meat should make up only 33% of a meal the rest should be vegetables, then you're less likely to suffer from illness and disease.

Myself, 100% is vegetable/rice/pasta/soya/fruit etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anarcho-Capitalist
LOL Attacking the source of the studies rather than focusing on the content, and providing no evidence that the findings are wrong. Saying stuff and not backing it up. FAILTRON!

Well, ok, I can cite plenty of pro-raw food diet stuff too. That's easy enough.

The Cooking Enigma - Evolution of the human diet.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr...EQm1ryu-tAPD6lw

Long-term strict raw food diet is associated with favourable plasma β-carotene and low plasma lycopene concentrations in Germans

Dietary carotenoids are associated with a reduced risk of chronic diseases. Raw food diets are predominantly plant-based diets that are practised with the intention of preventing chronic diseases by virtue of their high content of beneficial nutritive substances such as carotenoids. However, the benefit of a long-term adherence to these diets is controversial since little is known about their adequacy. Therefore, we investigated vitamin A and carotenoid status and related food sources in raw food diet adherents in Germany. Dietary vitamin A, carotenoid intake, plasma retinol and plasma carotenoids were determined in 198 (ninety-two male and 106 female) strict raw food diet adherents in a cross-sectional study. Raw food diet adherents consumed on average 95 weight% of their total food intake as raw food (approximately 1800 g/d), mainly fruits. Raw food diet adherents had an intake of 1301 retinol activity equivalents/d and 16?7 mg/d carotenoids. Plasma vitamin A status was normal in 82 % of the subjects ( ≥ 1?05 μmol/l) and 63 % had β-carotene concentrations associated with chronic disease prevention ( ≥ 0?88 μmol/l). In 77 % of subjects the lycopene status was below the reference values for average healthy populations ( < 0?45 μmol/l). Fat contained in fruits, vegetables and nuts and oil consumption was a significant dietary determinant of plasma carotenoid concentrations (β-carotene r 0?284; P < 0?05; lycopene r 0?168; P = 0?024). Long-term raw food diet adherents showed normal vitamin A status and achieve favourable plasma β-carotene concentrations as recommended for chronic disease prevention, but showed low plasma lycopene levels. Plasma carotenoids in raw food adherents are predicted mainly by fat intake.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displ...amp;aid=185029

Change in quality of life and immune markers after a stay at a raw vegan institute: A pilot studytudy

A stay at a raw vegan institute was associated with improved mental and emotional QOL. Studies are needed to determine the feasibility of conducting a clinical trial of the raw vegan diet among healthy people, and subsequently among patients with specific diseases.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pi...965229908000083Long-Term Low-Calorie Low-Protein Vegan Diet and Endurance Exercise are Associated with Low Cardiometabolic RiskRisk

Conclusions: Long-term consumption of a low-calorie low-protein vegan diet or regular endurance exercise training is associated with low cardiometabolic risk. Moreover, our data suggest that specific components of a low-calorie low-protein vegan diet provide additional beneficial effects on blood pressure.

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2006.0529

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anarcho-Capitalist
LOL Attacking the source of the studies rather than focusing on the content, and providing no evidence that the findings are wrong. Saying stuff and not backing it up. FAILTRON!

Well, ok, I can cite plenty of pro-raw food diet stuff too. That's easy enough.

The Cooking Enigma - Evolution of the human diet.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr...EQm1ryu-tAPD6lw

Long-term strict raw food diet is associated with favourable plasma β-carotene and low plasma lycopene concentrations in Germans

Dietary carotenoids are associated with a reduced risk of chronic diseases. Raw food diets are predominantly plant-based diets that are practised with the intention of preventing chronic diseases by virtue of their high content of beneficial nutritive substances such as carotenoids. However, the benefit of a long-term adherence to these diets is controversial since little is known about their adequacy. Therefore, we investigated vitamin A and carotenoid status and related food sources in raw food diet adherents in Germany. Dietary vitamin A, carotenoid intake, plasma retinol and plasma carotenoids were determined in 198 (ninety-two male and 106 female) strict raw food diet adherents in a cross-sectional study. Raw food diet adherents consumed on average 95 weight% of their total food intake as raw food (approximately 1800 g/d), mainly fruits. Raw food diet adherents had an intake of 1301 retinol activity equivalents/d and 16?7 mg/d carotenoids. Plasma vitamin A status was normal in 82 % of the subjects ( ≥ 1?05 μmol/l) and 63 % had β-carotene concentrations associated with chronic disease prevention ( ≥ 0?88 μmol/l). In 77 % of subjects the lycopene status was below the reference values for average healthy populations ( < 0?45 μmol/l). Fat contained in fruits, vegetables and nuts and oil consumption was a significant dietary determinant of plasma carotenoid concentrations (β-carotene r 0?284; P < 0?05; lycopene r 0?168; P = 0?024). Long-term raw food diet adherents showed normal vitamin A status and achieve favourable plasma β-carotene concentrations as recommended for chronic disease prevention, but showed low plasma lycopene levels. Plasma carotenoids in raw food adherents are predicted mainly by fat intake.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displ...amp;aid=185029

Change in quality of life and immune markers after a stay at a raw vegan institute: A pilot studytudy

A stay at a raw vegan institute was associated with improved mental and emotional QOL. Studies are needed to determine the feasibility of conducting a clinical trial of the raw vegan diet among healthy people, and subsequently among patients with specific diseases.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pi...965229908000083Long-Term Low-Calorie Low-Protein Vegan Diet and Endurance Exercise are Associated with Low Cardiometabolic RiskRisk

Conclusions: Long-term consumption of a low-calorie low-protein vegan diet or regular endurance exercise training is associated with low cardiometabolic risk. Moreover, our data suggest that specific components of a low-calorie low-protein vegan diet provide additional beneficial effects on blood pressure.

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2006.0529

Raw food eaters thin but healthylthy

People who follow a raw food vegetarian diet are light in weight but healthy, according to US researchers.

It has been suggested that eating only plant-derived foods that have not been cooked or processed might make bones thinner and prone to fractures.

But a study in Archives of Internal Medicine found although bones were lighter on this diet, turnover rates were normal with no osteoporosis.

The lower bone mass is down to raw food eaters being slim, believe the authors.

We recommend a varied, healthy, balanced diet which includes raw fruit and vegetables as well as other foods

Dr Stephen Walsh, nutrition spokesperson for the Vegan Society

The researchers compared the bone health of 18 people who had been following strict raw food diets for up to 10 years with that of people who ate a more typical American diet, including refined carbohydrates, animal products and cooked foods.

The raw food diet is different to more typical vegetarian and vegan diets, which do not exclude cooked, processed or otherwise refined foods.

The groups were matched according to age, sex and socioeconomic status.

To gauge bone health, the researchers looked at each person's body weight, bone weight and mineral density, markers of bone turnover, levels of vitamin D and inflammatory markers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4389837.stm[/Fibromyalgia syndrome improved using a mostly raw vegetarian diet: An observational studytudy

Conclusion: This dietary intervention shows that many fibromyalgia subjects can be helped by a mostly raw vegetarian diet.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...cgi?artid=57816

Link to post
Share on other sites
psionicinversion

to be honest you cant compare any type of healthy eating to american "normal" diets as ppl who i know that have been over there says most of the meals they had were MASSIVE, a good 50-100% larger than the portions theyd eat at home in england. The reason why americans are so fat wont have anything do with meat or anything its the sheer volume of food that stuck in front of ya face, which in turn makes em fat cus unless they go the gym all the time i doubt theyd burn off the calories theyd put into there bodies.

End of the day, theres arguements for both sides. Why dont ya just drop it and you do whatever makes you feel happy becuase we could still be here 200 pages later and no one will be any closer to proving whats "right".

There is no right and there is no wrong, besides whose to say you wont get killed in an accident tomorrow? Thats pretty detrimental to ya health cus youd be dead. May as well live for the moment and not for 10, 20, 30 years time. Keep an eye on ya diet so ya stay healthy but dont let it rule ya life through worrying of what MIGHT happen.

I reckon this thread should be closed cus its a waste of time arguing about something that will never be resolved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Green_Eye
Like all other 'studies' this confuses correlation with causation.

It's not the meat, it's the cooking. The ill effects of the aromatic esters created during carbonization of food are well known and long time accepted.

If a barbecue would be invented today it would be forbidden by the FDA.

Since most meats are prepared by some form of frying obviously you eat more toxic residue.

If you do the same study for people who eat only raw meat ( one wonders how come predators didn't die out long time already viewing how dangerous meat is) i'm sure you'll find there's no correlation.

Why is this being ignored?

here is a picture of boobs to get your attention...

boobs.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
psionicinversion

nice thats just reminded whether a woman is vegetarian or not 99% still love their "meat" :whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.