meat = shorter life

Originally posted by Ong Bak

20 years fewer than the average human on earth to spend eatinga terrible diet!
inuit avg life span - "Excluding infant mortality, about 25% of their population lived past 60. Based on these data, the approximate life expectancy (excluding infant mortality) of this Inuit population was 43.5 years"
masai - "In today's modern world, and even with the healing power of raw milk on their side, the average Maasai male can expect to live for only 43 years"

Both these people live in harsh conditions. The data you quoted shows that the inuit live into there 80-90s with no disease if they make it there. Both these statistics are post western contact, the white man brought lots of disease and processed food to these people which further skews the numbers.

Dewailly says the traditional Inuit diet is high in selenium, common to whale skin, and likely explains why prostate cancer is almost unheard of in the north, as are most other cancers. Cardiovascular disease is also rare, likely because the Inuit diet remains rich in wild game. "The traditional Inuit diet is fats and proteins, no sugar at all," says Dewailly. "It is probably one of the healthiest diets you can have. The human body is built for that."
www.canada.com...

Older peoples in the Masai tribe and Siberia are believed to be more than 100 years old, although they were not able to produce any records of their birth certificate for proof.

Lets not forget the so-called centenarian tribes(Hunza, Azerbaijan, okiniwan, sardinians). The hunza and Azerbaijan drink copious amounts of kefir, especially the Azerbaijan. Okiniwans cook in lard and eat copious amounts of fish. Sardinians are a herding culture so they rely heavily on sheeps milk, wild game and wild herbs.

Originally posted by Ong Bak
20 years fewer than the average human on earth to spend eatinga terrible diet!
inuit avg life span - "Excluding infant mortality, about 25% of their population lived past 60. Based on these data, the approximate life expectancy (excluding infant mortality) of this Inuit population was 43.5 years"
masai - "In today's modern world, and even with the healing power of raw milk on their side, the average Maasai male can expect to live for only 43 years"

average lifespan 2010 - "The life expectancy at birth of the world is 67.2 years (65.0 years for males and 69.5 years for females) for 2005-2010, according to United Nations World Population Prospects 2006 Revision and 66.57 years (64.52 years for males and 68.76 years for females) for 2009 according to CIA World Factbook 2009"


soooo basicly, you jsut proved my point, thanks!

Please learn how to reference your sources....

As Sourdough pointed out, pre-westernized Inuit lived long lives in a harsh environment and experienced almost no incidence of the chronic diseases we see today.

And, according to your quotes, infant mortality wasn't considered with the Masai....can you PLEASE cite your sources?????

and waht exactly would be the point of refrencing any source you will immediatly discredit?
you have already taken a extremely harsh stance on anything even remotely related to common sense.
do the research yourself.
this thread is aobut meat decresing life spans.
you cherry picked 2 examples, and they turned out to be perhaps the 2 worst examples possible to make your point. i went out of my way to see if you were correct, but it turns out you were very incorrect.
oh and here is another one for you to digest (pun intended)
"Life expectancies in the Adventist Health Study have recently been published. They show that this group of Seventh-day Adventists appears to be the longest-lived, formally studied population in the world (with an average life span of 78.5 years for men, 82.3 for women)."
and no i wont reference this, id rather watch you complain aobut it.
keep failing!

and jsut to point out, this thread isnt aobut "harsh environments". if you wish to discuss environments effect on lifespan, maybe go start a thread about it, im sure it will be interesting.

reply to post by Ong Bak


You realize there is no vegan centenarians?? So for all intent purposes meat does increase lifespan, its a undisputed fact of life

reply to post by Ong Bak


It's a well understood fact that much of what we think we know about vegetarians comes from the Seventh Day Adventists.....who don't drink and don't smoke. These are typically two confounding factors.

Let me set a good example....

Cancer morbidity and mortality in USA Mormons and Seventh-day Adventists.

Accordingly, mortality rates of Mormons and Seventh-day Adventists show a significant lower level when compared with cancer data of lung, colon and rectum, and prostate from the best German cancer registry (Saarland). The life expectancy is generally elevated by 2-4 years in Mormons and Seventh-day Adventists. The association with the particular life style of both religious groups, especially the strict reduction of tobacco consumption, and factors of dietary and other habits is discussed.

Why does this matter? Well....Mormons consume copious amounts of beef.

Nice try though. Let's see what else you can google.

Oh...when referencing external information on this site one must cite the source. It's T&C's

Originally posted by Sourdough4life
reply to post by Ong Bak

 

You realize there is no vegan centenarians?? So for all intent purposes meat does increase lifespan, its a undisputed fact of life

Yeah if someone has nothing else to eat and would starve otherwise meat for sure increases the lifespan. The milk- and meatindustry is also claiming that their products are very essential for a healthy nutrition.

But scientific studies prove that vegeterarians or vegans have less often heart illnesses, suffer less often from high blood pressure, overweight, diabetes and have also less risk of some chancer types.

Scientists of the Center for Science in the Public wrote in a publication of the year 1999 that ground meat would be the most likely canditate for being the greatest harm in the ameriacan nutrition (source: Food Revolution by John Robbins). If anyone cares about a wealthy nutrition I can recommend reading this book.

reply to post by Ong Bak


At least it's a short and tasty life! But seriously, everything we eat/breathe/smell/touch/drink is killing us. And how do you know it's the meat killing us and not the harmful additives like steroids that is actually harming us?

Anyways, I'm off to eat a nice big steak with onions and *gasp* frenchfries...

Originally posted by Fenrin


Scientists of the Center for Science in the Public wrote in a publication of the year 1999 that ground meat would be the most likely canditate for being the greatest harm in the ameriacan nutrition (source: Food Revolution by John Robbins).

And for decades before and a decade after researchers have repeatedly proven this assumption wrong. That's what you get when you get your information from vegetarian advocacy groups...

I remember this guy from Spurlock's Super Size Me.....a documentary that is extremely misleading (spurlock won't release his food logs).

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Originally posted by Fenrin


Scientists of the Center for Science in the Public wrote in a publication of the year 1999 that ground meat would be the most likely canditate for being the greatest harm in the ameriacan nutrition (source: Food Revolution by John Robbins).

And for decades before and a decade after researchers have repeatedly proven this assumption wrong. That's what you get when you get your information from vegetarian advocacy groups...

I remember this guy from Spurlock's Super Size Me.....a documentary that is extremely misleading (spurlock won't release his food logs).

How do you know that these researchers are not paid from the meatindustry? Or do you believe in nonindepent researchers?

I dont think that the Center for Science in the Public belongs to vegetarian advocacy groups.

reply to post by Fenrin


The CSPI is not; John Robbins runs one.

Here's merely one of the problems with CSPI.... www.westonaprice.org...

In 1988, CSPI published a booklet called Saturated Fat Attack, which defended trans fatty acids and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils and called for pejorative labeling of "saturated" fats. The booklet contained a section called "Biochemistry 101," which claimed that only tropical oils were dangerous when hydrogenated. "Hydrogenated (or partially hydrogenated) fats are widely used in foods and cause untold consternation among consumers. . . [they] start out as plain old liquid vegetable oils (usually soybean), which are then reacted with hydrogen. . . converting much of the polyunsaturated fatty acids to monounsaturated fatty acids. . . [with]. . . small amounts. . . converted to saturated fatty acids. . . [e.g.], stearic acid, which seems to have no effect on blood cholesterol levels.

"Overall, hydrogenated fats don't pose a significant risk. . . exceptions are hydrogenated [tropical oils, which are made]. . . even worse after hydrogenation."

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Originally posted by Fenrin


Scientists of the Center for Science in the Public wrote in a publication of the year 1999 that ground meat would be the most likely canditate for being the greatest harm in the ameriacan nutrition (source: Food Revolution by John Robbins).

And for decades before and a decade after researchers have repeatedly proven this assumption wrong. That's what you get when you get your information from vegetarian advocacy groups...

I remember this guy from Spurlock's Super Size Me.....a documentary that is extremely misleading (spurlock won't release his food logs).

because obviously somone whop takes in 5k calories of mcdonlds a day would end up in superior health?

reply to post by Ong Bak


What are you talking about?

And are you going to ignore my posts again and instead comment on a point I made to another poster?

i wasnt ignoring you, i jsut thought after you embarrassed yourself with the masai and inuit references you didnt want to talk any more.

Originally posted by Frontkjemper
reply to post by Ong Bak

 

At least it's a short and tasty life! But seriously, everything we eat/breathe/smell/touch/drink is killing us. And how do you know it's the meat killing us and not the harmful additives like steroids that is actually harming us?

Anyways, I'm off to eat a nice big steak with onions and *gasp* frenchfries...

only 1 way to find out. you try eating only meat for as long as possible, if you make it more than 67 years on a meat only diet we can rule that factor out.

Originally posted by Ong Bak
only 1 way to find out. you try eating only meat for as long as possible, if you make it more than 67 years on a meat only diet we can rule that factor out.

Man you avoid replying to things, when you do you seem to get stuff wrong and when people point it out you just insult them. But worse than this you take things to the extreme. Obviously a meat only diet would be bad for most people because we are not designed to live off of only one food for extended periods. Likewise if you ate only potatoes you would be dead from malnutrition after a while.

Check out the populations with the longest average lives, from the okinawans to the sardinians, they eat meat and/or fish quite often. However they get plenty of exercise, eat a varied diet and other factors which come into play that you seem so happy to ignore.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Ong Bak
only 1 way to find out. you try eating only meat for as long as possible, if you make it more than 67 years on a meat only diet we can rule that factor out.

Man you avoid replying to things, when you do you seem to get stuff wrong and when people point it out you just insult them. But worse than this you take things to the extreme. Obviously a meat only diet would be bad for most people because we are not designed to live off of only one food for extended periods. Likewise if you ate only potatoes you would be dead from malnutrition after a while.

Check out the populations with the longest average lives, from the okinawans to the sardinians, they eat meat and/or fish quite often. However they get plenty of exercise, eat a varied diet and other factors which come into play that you seem so happy to ignore.

i am failing to see how that was insulting.
but if you want to call me out than feel free.
so a meat only diet is bad? how come? i thought meat was supposed to be good for you.

Originally posted by Ong Bak
i am failing to see how that was insulting.
but if you want to call me out than feel free.
so a meat only diet is bad? how come? i thought meat was supposed to be good for you.

edit on 16-9-2010 by Ong Bak because: (no reason given)

Water is supposed to be good for you but drink to much and you can become sick, vitamins are to good for you but overdo it and you can have all sorts of complications. You are taking what someone has said (that meat can be a part fo a perfectly healthy diet) and pushing it to unrealistic and extreme levels. We are omnivores not carnivores and your tactic of pushing this to the extreme of a meat only diet is deeply dishonest.

You also avoided answering anything i said about the okinawans and the sardinians, two sets of people who have the highest life expectancy on Earth and they include meat in their diets. You are the one who created this thread claiming that meat = a shorter life, people have presented evidence, like several population studies to disprove it and instead of dealing with that you try and ignore it.

You're an extremist and like all extremists you ignore what doesn't fit with your ideology.

I think it comes down to eating vegtable fat eliminates the animal fat cancer causing Aromatase

Plant Oils Protective For Prostate Cancer , Buffalo ... new windowpreviewpreviewshow in clouds A diet high in plants fats also reduced levels of 5-alpha reductase and aromatase . These two enzymes help metabolize testosterone into end products that also are implicated in the development of prostate cancer . In rats on the high plant- fat ...

so all the animals have shorter life ... well, are all are doomed