11 Apr 14
3 edits
Originally posted by Eladar
It isn't a straw man. I've already linked stories about why grains can be bad for you. They are a source of toxins and can lead to health problems even if the toxins do not exist.
Why introduce the risk if they are not needed? If people are having blood sugar problems, why are grains still immune to being questioned?
Why introduce the risk if they are not needed?
But you can argue they are "needed" because EVERY food group has its own risks associated with it and thus if we we adhere to the principle that we must not eat any food that introduces a "risk", we would eat nothing at all and starve. What about the risks of eating NO food?
And what about the risks (as shown by the links I already given you ) introduced from eating meat? If the risks of eating gains is “not needed” then surely the risks of eating meat is also “not needed” and thus, using the same flawed logic, we should be all be vegetarian! ( there are perfectly good rational reasons for most of us to not eat meat but merely purely because there are some "risks" with eating meat would not be one of them! )
11 Apr 14
Originally posted by humyDo all food groups have high levels of fungal poisons and feed fungus if we have it growing in us? Do all groups possibly cause high levels of blood sugar leading to problems like diabetes? Do all groups feed cancer?
Why introduce the risk if they are not needed?
But you can argue they are "needed" because EVERY food group has its own risks associated with it and thus if we we adhere to the principle that we must not eat any food that introduces a "risk", we would eat nothing at all and starve. What about the risks of eating NO food?
And what about ...[text shortened]... at but merely purely because there are some "risks" with eating meat would not be one of them! )
I don't think so.
11 Apr 14
16 edits
Originally posted by EladarEating too much meat has been causally linked to diabetes and cancer while eating modest amounts of grain, i.e. not too much, doesn't. Therefore, you haven't given an argument here of a reason to believe that eating grain is necessarily 'less healthier' than meat because that just depends on how much of each you eat. You haven't made any valid health argument here for eating meat while eating NO grain. Obviously, eating too much of ANY food group is bad for health and that includes BOTH grains AND meat -So? -So simply don't eat too much of any food group 😛 Since BOTH have heath risks associated with them and since you haven't demonstrated why we should believe the health risks for eating meat are generally less than that for grains ( only that the risks are of different kinds, not greater or lesser ) why pick on grains and not meat? Explain...
Do all food groups have high levels of fungal poisons and feed fungus if we have it growing in us? Do all groups possibly cause high levels of blood sugar leading to problems like diabetes? Do all groups feed cancer?
I don't think so.
In fact, I can give an excellent argument why we should pick on meat rather than grains PROVIDING we are talking here about RED meat and PROVIDING we are talking here about WHOLE grains and NOT processed carbohydrates:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/preventing-diabetes-full-story/
"...There is convincing evidence that diets rich in whole grains protect against diabetes, whereas diets rich in refined carbohydrates lead to increased risk.
...
When the researchers combined these results with those of several other large studies, they found that eating an extra 2 servings of whole grains a day decreased the risk of type 2 diabetes by 21 percent.
...
The evidence is growing stronger that eating red meat (beef, pork, lamb) and processed red meat (bacon, hot dogs, deli meats) increases the risk of diabetes, even among people who consume only small amounts.
....
The latest support comes from a “meta analysis,” or statistical summary, that combined findings from the long-running Nurses’ Health Study I and II and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study with those of six other long-term studies. The researchers looked at data from roughly 440,000 people, about 28,000 of whom developed diabetes during the course of the study. (43) They found that eating just one daily 3-ounce serving of red meat—say, a steak that’s about the size of a deck of cards—increased the risk of type 2 diabetes by 20 percent. Eating even smaller amounts of processed red meat each day—just two slices of bacon, one hot dog, or the like—increased diabetes risk by 51 percent.
...
The good news from this study: Swapping out red meat or processed red meat for a healthier protein source, such as nuts, low-fat dairy, poultry, or fish, or for whole grains lowered diabetes risk by up to 35 percent. Not surprisingly, the greatest reductions in risk came from ditching processed red meat.
..."
Thus, despite all your constant straw man rhetoric and irrelevant web links you have shown that insult my intelligence by just showing some irrelevant facts I already knew and don't dispute, this comprehensive study clearly conclusively shows that eating even small amounts of red meat generally increases the debates risk while eating moderate amounts of whole grain generally lowers the debates risk.
Well?
11 Apr 14
4 edits
Originally posted by Eladarred meats generally and, yes, that would include organic grass fed beef for it being either grass fed or 'organic' or both wouldn't make a huge difference within this narrow context.
[b]Eating too much meat has been causally linked to diabetes and cancer while eating modest amounts of grain, i.e. not too much, doesn't
What kind of meats? Grass fed organic beef?[/b]
So do you dispute the results from this massive comprehensive study that conclusively shown a clear potential health benefit of eating modest amounts of whole grains while conclusively showing a clear potential health risk of eating even small amounts of red meat that generally doesn't come from eating modest amounts of whole grains?
11 Apr 14
Originally posted by EladarMany people become vegetarian AFTER discovering they have a chonic illness or AFTER they are overweight. If the study did not look at people who became vegetarian PRIOR to being diagnosed with any health issues, it is a crap study. I suspect they did not control for this important variable.
Study: Vegetarians Less Healthy, Lower Quality Of Life Than Meat-Eaters
[b]Vegetarians may have a lower BMI and drink alcohol sparingly, but vegetarian diets are tied to generally poorer health, poorer quality of life and a higher need for health care than their meat-eating counterparts.
Looks like the BMI folks don't have it figured out.
http:// ...[text shortened]... a.cbslocal.com/2014/04/01/study-vegetarians-less-healthy-lower-quality-of-life-than-meat-eaters/[/b]
11 Apr 14
Originally posted by PhrannyExcellent point!
Many people become vegetarian AFTER discovering they have a chonic illness or AFTER they are overweight. If the study did not look at people who became vegetarian PRIOR to being diagnosed with any health issues, it is a crap study. I suspect they did not control for this important variable.
12 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat's slick!
LOL too funny had me in stitches , he's nothing if not predictable! Here's a JQuery script you can have for free!
$(document).ready(function(){
$(eladar).click(function(){
$(this).getslogan();
});
});
$("getslogan).click(function(){
$("eladar).inject_strawman({
});
});
$("strawman).click(function(){
$("eladar).spout_tautology({
});
});
😀
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by humyPerhaps you can give a link to the study that simply included organic grass fed beef. Or are you talking out your arse?
red meats generally and, yes, that would include organic grass fed beef for it being either grass fed or 'organic' or both wouldn't make a huge difference within this narrow context.
?
24 Apr 14
2 edits
Originally posted by EladarNo, no need. Only have to show a link showing why eating much of ANY red meat is generally bad for you and obviously that is regardless of whether it is 'organic' and that obviously includes "organic grass fed beef":
Perhaps you can give a link to the study that simply included organic grass fed beef. Or are you talking out your arse?
http://health.india.com/news/revealed-why-red-meat-is-so-bad-for-your-heart/
"...Replacing red meat portions in your diet with vegetables may be a good recipe for your heart as scientists have now discovered a strong association between heme iron, found only in meat, and potentially deadly coronary heart disease....
Heme iron consumption increased the risk for coronary heart disease by 57 percent, the study warned. “Heme iron is absorbed at a much greater rate in comparison to non-heme iron (37 percent vs. five percent),”
...
...The body can better control absorption of iron from vegetable sources, including iron supplements, but not so with iron from meat sources, showed the findings of the research. For the study, the researchers examined 21 previously published studies and data involving 292,454 participants.
..."
the problem with eating red meat is that it is so high in heme iron it gives you too much iron that is digested and absorbed all at once causing an excessive iron spike and that increases you risk of coronary heart disease and several other serious health problems.
Now, why would 'organic' red meat not contain this heme iron? Obviously it does. -if you admit it makes little difference to the heme iron content whether it is 'organic' , then why would the heme iron from organic red meat be any less dangerous to health than that from none-organic red meat? -it has exactly the same chemical formula after all in both cases.
I can show you other links showing more research that shows this on request.
Now I have shown what I claim is based on known science, can you show a link to a valid scientific study that shows this above claim about iron is false? if not, who here is talking out of his arse?
25 Apr 14
Originally posted by humyThat's what I thought, you were talking out of your arse.
No, no need. Only have to show a link showing why eating much of ANY red meat is generally bad for you and obviously that is regardless of whether it is 'organic' and that obviously includes "organic grass fed beef":
88