Eating Animals is Making us Sick

If meat is causing all this "sickness" then please explain why the ancient Egyptians suffered from atherosclerosis.....

Even ancient Egyptians suffered hardening of the arteries, CT scans show

CT scans of Egyptian mummies, some as much as 3,500 years old, shows evidence of atherosclerosis or hardening of the arteries, which is normally thought of as a disease caused by modern lifestyles, researchers said today. "Atherosclerosis is ubiquitous among modern-day humans and, despite differences in ancient and modern lifestyles, we found that it was rather common in ancient Egyptians of high socioeconomic status," said co-author Dr. Gregory Thomas, a cardiologist at UC Irvine. "The findings suggest that we may have to look beyond modern risk factors to fully understand the disease."

Still think red meat, saturated fat and dietary cholesterol cause heart disease?

Just so you're aware, the Ancient Egyptians relied on Agriculture--thanks to the Nile--to survive. Aside from a few helpings of fish, they consumed a diet that consisted almost exclusively on carbohydrates.

-Dev

"Rich people ate meat, and they did salt meat, so maybe they had hypertension (high blood pressure), but that's speculation," Thompson said.


[edit on 17-11-2009 by STFUPPERCUTTER]

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


They ate cooked food... Cooked grains are just as bad as meat

reply to post by Rawhemp


Devolution looks like you neglected this part,

Agriculture was well-established and meat consumption appears to have been common among those of high social status.

Mummies were people from the high social classes... Looks like meat is the culprit. Thanks for proving that meat is poison!

Lets see you meat eaters debunk these facts,

The liver and kidneys in the carnivore are much larger than in vegetarian animals. A lions kidney is twice the size of a bulls, and not much smaller than the elephants. This allows the lion to handle large amounts of protein and nitrogenous waste products contained in its natural flesh diet. The carnivores huge liver secretes larger amounts of bile into the small intestine than does the herbivores liver. There is a direct relation between the quantity of meat eaten and the amount of bile secreted. Meat-eating therefore, places a strain on the small liver of humans which impairs the organ's function over a long period of time.

The hydrochloric acid concentrations of various species are an additional determinant of their natural diet. A carnivores gastric juice is highly acidic, serving to prevent putrefaction while flesh undergoes digestion. Plant-eaters however, secrete a much less concentrated and less abundant quantity of hydrochloric acid that does not curtail the bacterial decomposition of flesh: a process that begins at the animals moment of death. Flesh is digested in an acid medium within the stomach. Humans secrete a very weak concentration of hydrochloric acid relative to the carnivore, and little of the protein-splitting enzyme pepsinogen. Carnivorous animals have concentrations of these flesh-digesting secretions 1100% greater than do humans. Lions can rip off and swallow your hand whole and quite readily digest it.

About 5% of the flesh volume of all animals consists of waste material called uric acid that is normally eliminated by the kidneys. Uric acid is a poison to humans because it is toxic and non-metabolizable. Nearly 100% of Americans suffer some form of osteoporosis which is due in large part, to the acidic end-products of meat (and grain) eating. All carnivorous animals however, secrete the enzyme uricase that breaks down uric acid so it can be readily eliminated. Humans do not generate this enzyme. Instead, we ABSORB uric acid when meat is eaten. As a result, calcium-urate crystals form and concentrate in joints, feet, and in the lower back. These deposits lead to arthritis, gout, rheumatism, bursitis, and lower back pain. Humans are physiologically unsuited to utilizing meat as food. Natural carnivores swallow hunks of carrion almost unchewed, and the flesh is digested in the stomach with ease and facility. If humans were to do the same, we would digest very little of it before putrefaction set in and illness ensued. For humans, meat is a pathogenic and nutritionally deficient food.

Natural carnivores have the inherent anatomical equipment provided as their birthright with which to apprehend, capture, kill, and rend their quarry. Dogs have powerful jaws that inflict fatal wounds to their prey. Humans however, have no sharp claws for tearing; no sharply pointed fangs for slashing; nor are our eyes or olfactory senses well developed for hunting. Nor is the human body designed to run fast enough to capture prey. Humans cannot grab animals in their mouth as do dogs, coyotes, wolves, jackals, lions, tigers, or cats. We instead inflict more damage with our hands and brute strength. Humans do however, have marvelous fingers, thumbs, and limbs for reaching, climbing and grabbing. Our natural food gathering capacity is very similar to the chimpanzees. Fruitarians of the primate order also have revolving joints in their shoulder, wrist, and elbow joints that allow for free movement in all directions. Frugivores have soft pliable, sensitive hands and fingers with opposable thumbs and flat nails that are perfect for grasping and gathering fruit.

www.medicalnewstoday.com...

You wouldn't know it by current world events, but humans actually evolved to be peaceful, cooperative and social animals, not the predators modern mythology would have us believe, says an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis...

reply to post by Rawhemp

'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts
Patrick Pasquet
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France
Claude-Marcel Hladik
Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, France
..
Theories of hominid evolution have postulated that switching to meat eating permitted an increase in brain size and hence the emergence of modern man. However, comparative studies of primate intestinal tracts do not support this hypothesis and it is likely that, while meat assumed a more important role in hominid diet, it was not responsible for any major evolutionary shift.
...
The adaptive biological significance of meat eating was summarized by Milton (1999),who came to the conclusion that "the incorporation of animal matter into the diet played an absolutely essential role in human evolution", otherwise the arid and seasonal environment likely to have been the cradle of hominids would not have provided enough protein. The link between a high quality diet (including animal matter) and the enlargement of the brain (characterizing hominization) has been highlighted by several authors (Martin, 1983; Foley and Lee, 1991; Leonard and Robertson, 1997).

In their most quoted paper, the argument of Aiello and Wheeler (1995) supports this view, proposing the "expensive-tissue hypothesis", related to the evolutionary forces implied in the increase of hominid brain size. They focus on the shift to a high-quality diet and corresponding gut adaptation. A reduced intestinal mass would considerably lower the relative energy cost and permit disposal of sufficient energy to cover the extra-expenditure of a larger brain. The main point of Aiello and Wheeler is based on the relationship between body mass and Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR): the Kleiber line characterizing the relationship between BMR and body size is identical for all mammals, including humans. Since maintenance of gut tissue is as expensive as that of brain tissue, Aiello and Wheeler proposed that gut reduction compensated for brain increase.

Henneberg et al. (1998), following this point of view, developed further arguments on the role of meat eating in human evolution. For these authors, the "quantitative similarity of human gut morphology to guts of carnivorous mammals" is a strong argument for a human status of "well evolved meat eater". In fact, one should ask if there is actual evidence of human gut adaptation to meat eating in the past that would have permitted a characteristic swing towards carnivorousness.
...
Thus, in humans, a clear-cut adaptation to meat eating would imply that the gut allometric relationship coincides with that of the "faunivores", with the lowest absorptive area. This is not supported by the measurements of human gut size that are plotted in Fig 1, all these measurements being grouped on the best fit line of the frugivores (Hladik et al., 1999). ..

Returning to the issue of relating increase in brain size to dietary adaptation, there is obviously no direct relationship. Similarly, Martin (1983) in his allometric analysis of the evolution of the mammal brain identified four separate "grades" of relative brain size (Fig. 2) characterized by the slope of the major axis of the relationship between cranial capacity and body weight.

Fig.2 Allometric relationships between cranial capacity and body weight in different categories of primates and insectivorous mammals SOURCE: R. D. Martin, 1983.

Since each of these "grades" includes species with different diets (folivorous, frugivorous, carnivorous), there is no clear-cut relationship between brain size and dietary adaptation. It is thus likely that a compensatory energetic reduction that allows the functioning of the large brain of Homo (with respect to Kleiber's law) may affect all body parts, rather than being exclusively focused on gut tissue.

DISCUSSION: DIET AND HOMINIZATION

Most forest primates have a frugivorous diet, with a supplement of protein provided either by young vegetable shoots and leaves, or by animal matter (mostly invertebrates). This is a most flexible dietary adaptation that allows them to switch between the various categories of food items available in different habitats throughout the seasons of the year (Hladik, 1988). The ambiguous term omnivore is used either to describe such flexibility or to emphasize a supplement of meat included from time to time in a mainly frugivorous diet. However, it is noticeable that the largest primate species, especially anthropoids, consume mainly vegetable matter to provide their protein requirements. Chimpanzees, that occasionally eat the meat of small mammals, do not receive all their protein requirements from this source, which is anyway rarely available to females and never exploited by the youngest animals (Hladik, 1981).

Considering the unspecialised frugivorous-type human gut anatomy, the dietary history of the genus Homo is likely to display a wide range of variation. During various historical periods, depending on availability and the nutrient content of food resources, our human ancestors would mostly have consumed either vegetable or animal matter (Isaac et al., 1981; Gordon, 1987; Couplan, 1997). The present consensual picture of our past feeding behaviour includes three major phases: (1) After the late Miocene climate shift, hominid feeding behaviour in changing environments progressively shifted from a mainly vegetarian diet to a diet including more and more animal matter, either from hunting and/or from scavenging; (2) the hunter- gatherer way of life and the resulting diet characterized the mid-Pleistocene period, but in the late Pleistocene, during the ice-ages, hominids had to specialize in large game; (3) these successive phases, as described by Gordon (1987), were followed by progressive control of animal and vegetable resources through domestication and cultivation, allowing some human groups to eat more vegetable matter than during previous periods.

Meat is only meant for times of extreme scarcity, I.E. ice age

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Eating Animals is Making us Sick

www.cnn.com

We need a better way to talk about eating animals, a way that doesn't ignore or even just shruggingly accept things like habits, cravings, family and history but rather incorporates them into the conversation. The more they are allowed in, the more able we will be to follow our best instincts. And although there are many respectable ways to think about meat, there is not a person on Earth whose best instincts would lead him or her to factory farming.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I AGREE WITH YOU

HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO GET MY PROTIEN WITHOUT MEAT!?!?!?!?!?!
I NEED IT TO LIVE , AND MEAT HAS PROTIEN!!!!!!!!

reply to post by STFUPPERCUTTER


Wow, first of all, please follow the all caps rule. There's no need to yell.

Second of all, you can get all the protein your body needs from vegetables.
Here is an article about the vegetarian diet and protein:
www.savvyvegetarian.com...

Also, here are some protein filled vegi options:
www.womenfitness.net...
or the more extensive:
www.savvyvegetarian.com...

Lastly, my wife is a nutritionist (she eats meat btw), "Ideally we should get 10% – 15% of calories from protein." You can obtain more than enough of that from vegetarian options. Remember, the FDA approved serving size of meat is the size of a deck of cards. We are WAY over-consuming meat.

This site has some great visuals to show how much if each food group is acceptable as a serving size.
www.foodnetwork.com...

Now eat your vegetables like a big boy!


edited for more delicious links!

[edit on 11.18.2009 by Avarus]

the guy before me used caps too, he didnt get yelled at
maybe i need more protien.....

Originally posted by Rawhemp
reply to post by Rawhemp

 

Devolution looks like you neglected this part,

Agriculture was well-established and meat consumption appears to have been common among those of high social status.

Mummies were people from the high social classes... Looks like meat is the culprit. Thanks for proving that meat is poison!

No, I didn't. Meat was not the staple of their diet.

The staples of both poor and wealthy Egyptians were bread and beer, often accompanied by green-shooted onions, other vegetables, and to a lesser extent meat, game and fish.

en.wikipedia.org...

It's very obsvious that Ancient Egyptians consumed a High Carbohydrate diet.

Please explain how the hell you come to the conclusion, based on the article I provided, that meat is the "culprit" and "poison?"

-Dev

reply to post by Rawhemp


Please provide a source when you post external quotes.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


Meat consumption common, what don't you understand about this??? Not to mention they drank beer and ate bread, which is just as bad as eating meat...

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by Rawhemp

 

Please provide a source when you post external quotes.

www.iol.ie... Posted this on last page but seems people neglected to read it. All the sources for my quotes are contained in this very long article

I skimmed through it. And liked it.

But to use that as your only source of information? Not a good idea.

-Dev

reply to post by Rawhemp

About 5% of the flesh volume of all animals consists of waste material called uric acid that is normally eliminated by the kidneys. Uric acid is a poison to humans because it is toxic and non-metabolizable. Nearly 100% of Americans suffer some form of osteoporosis which is due in large part, to the acidic end-products of meat (and grain) eating. All carnivorous animals however, secrete the enzyme uricase that breaks down uric acid so it can be readily eliminated. Humans do not generate this enzyme. Instead, we ABSORB uric acid when meat is eaten. As a result, calcium-urate crystals form and concentrate in joints, feet, and in the lower back. These deposits lead to arthritis, gout, rheumatism, bursitis, and lower back pain. Humans are physiologically unsuited to utilizing meat as food. Natural carnivores swallow hunks of carrion almost unchewed, and the flesh is digested in the stomach with ease and facility. If humans were to do the same, we would digest very little of it before putrefaction set in and illness ensued. For humans, meat is a pathogenic and nutritionally deficient food.

I just don't understand some of this.

Meat is not nutritionally deficient.....meat is nutrient dense.

Gout is not caused by meat consumption...it's caused by fructose(HFCS) consumption.

Just a bit of history, Gout is the original Rich Man's Disease. This is so because, originally, sugar and fructose rich foods--the real cause of gout-- were very expensive and ONLY the rich could afford them. Fructose causes hyperuricemia (high uric acid levels).

Nearly 100% of Americans suffer from osteoporosis? Come on. And then it goes on to say that it's caused by meat.....AND GRAINS? Please, tell me the physiological effects that both meat AND grains have on the body that are at all similar.

This is ridiculous. Is ALL of your information coming from this one source? That's what it seems like.

-Dev

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by Rawhemp

 

Meat is not nutritionally deficient.....meat is nutrient dense.

Compared to what? meat doesn't even fully digest due the nature of the human stomach, therefore very little nutrients are actually asorbed

Gout is not caused by meat consumption...it's caused by fructose(HFCS) consumption.

You linked a assumption based article from some guy thats trying to sell me stuff, are you serious????

Just a bit of history, Gout is the original Rich Man's Disease. This is so because, originally, sugar and fructose rich foods--the real cause of gout-- were very expensive and ONLY the rich could afford them. Fructose causes hyperuricemia (high uric acid levels).

Your very good at trying to mislead people my friend. Fructose only metabolizes into uric acid when you bombard the system with massive amounts of the refined product(soda, candy, sugar drinks etc.). Meat causes the same exact problem, no one can deny this not even you. The notion that gout is caused solely by refined fructose consumption is absurd, its can be caused by anything that raises uric acid levels beyond our kidneys control (meat being one of these things).

You know what else causes Hyperuricemia? A ketogenic diet(atkins diet), High intake of alcohol and a very low calorie diet without carbohydrate can induce extreme hyperuricemia

Nearly 100% of Americans suffer from osteoporosis? Come on. And then it goes on to say that it's caused by meat.....AND GRAINS? Please, tell me the physiological effects that both meat AND grains have on the body that are at all similar.

They both are highly acidic in our body. The main culprit for disease now a days is over acidification of the body.

This is ridiculous. Is ALL of your information coming from this one source? That's what it seems like.

Whats ridiculous is you can't see that all this information is easily backed up. mo

reply to post by Rawhemp


Just because you don't understand the physiology at hand doesn't mean you have to reject everything that contrasts with your beliefs.

Gout is hyperuricemia, elevated serum uric acid levels. It is traditionally taught, ignorantly so, that purines, found in red meat, fish and alcohol, increase uric acid levels and will cause Gout.

Unfortunately, low-purine diets don't improve uric acid levels significantly! Irving Fox, a gout specialist, stopped prescribing low-purine diets due to their inneffectiveness on lowering uric acid levels.

Eating more protein actually leads to the excretion of uric acid from the kidneys.

What researchers have found most important to the formation of gout is:

- Hyperinsulinemia and Insulin Resistance: High insulin levels in the blood caused by blood glucose(carbs) and isnulin resistance. Rsearchers have found that insulin tends to inhibit the kidney's ability to excrete uric acid.

- Hypertriglyceridemia: High serum triglyceride levels. Most individuals with gout also have high triglycerides. This observation led many researchers to think that fructose may be involved due to its ability to increase triglycerides. And, sure enough, fructose not only increases uric acid production but it also decreases the kidney's ability to excrete it.

BOTH incidences above are caused by the consumption of CARBOHYDRATES.

-Dev