So, are you actually going to argue now that when you wrote that we are "fine tuned over millions of years to eat meat" you weren't implying that such a diet is superior to one devoid of meat?

Jay

I can't believe you actually went through that s---. Pathetic.

I never once used the word "superior" ...

Yeah Jay, I don't have a problem saying what I mean and I rarely resort to implying anything.

The human body IS a fine tuned machine that has evolved over millions of years with meat as an integral part of its diet.

But NO, I never claimed a diet with meat was "superior" to one without meat.

...like when I busted you trying to compare kcal/g of DRY corn to kcal/g of moist chicken)

What you did write is that we have been "fine tuned" by millions of years of evolution to eat a diet that contained "some meat." So if that "fine tuning" didn't result in a diet containing "some meat" to be superior to containing no meat, then I guess we really weren't "fine tuned" to eat a meat-containing diet, were we? So which is it, were we "fine tuned" to eat a meat-containing diet or were we not? Or are you now claiming that some people were "fine tuned" and others not? Or what?

Why don't you just concede the point that this supposed "fine tuning" left us susceptible to all the chronic diseases that we now suffer from in the latter decades of life, and that the diet that we were "fine tuned" for could even contribute to the development of those diseases; and therefore, that evolutionary arguments about our diet should take a back seat to modern nutrional findings about the relations between diet and health/disease.

We were fine tuned to be omnivorous, ie to eat a diet containing meat. That doesn't mean we HAVE to eat meat to be healthy.

I will not concede because: 1) that is a very poorly written sentence...

and I am not about to try and decipher the cryptic muddlings of a cognitively challenged vegetarian,

2) a balanced diet containing meat does NOT leave us susceptible to chronic diseases later in life...

3) longevity should not be the central issue in human existence.

That is a contradiction. If we can be just as healthy not eating meat as eating meat, then we were not "fine tuned" to eat meat.

Baloney.

If that were true then people eating a balanced diet containing meat would not be susceptible to chronic diseases, but they obviously are.

I agree, but if you're doing a study, you have to reasonable measureables outcomes.

It is not a contradiction and you are an idiot. to take the machine analogy a step further (please try to wrap your head around the concept of an analogy so I don't have to explain that one to you too), consider diesel engines that were "fine tuned" to burn petroleum diesel, but can USUALLY successfully run on biodiesel. It is worth noting that these engines can only run on biodiesel under ideal conditions. You have to use the fuel they were designed to use in order to get maximum performance.

Don't make me send that to ANY middle school English teacher... I'll do it!

sorry, should have said does NOT SPECIFICALLY leave us susceptible to chronic diseases later in life.

yeah, what he said...?

Ok, then using your own analogy (see if you can wrap your head around the concept of consistency), a meat-containing diet is superior to a vegetarian diet, because, except possibly under ideal conditions, you have to eat meat to get the maximum performance from the body. So, like I've been saying all along, and you've been denying, for some reason, you are arguing that meat-containing diets are superior to vegetarian diets.

Do it. You're likely to learn something useful.

The question in modern nutrition is what diet will minimize our susceptibility to chronic disease

Poor thing. So often out of your depth.

Seriously, you are a fool.

You want to go at this? Okay, first define "superior" then maybe we can be on the same page.

Otherwise, pull your head out of your ass

and realize that I am saying, with absolute certainty and clarity, that vegetarian diets CAN work just fine for some people but it is OBVIOUS that the human body in general has evolved to be omnivorous.

What, like how to correct an 8th grade level run-on sentence?

and the question for those of us who don't live in chronic fear of death is: "What is going to make my life the best it can be while I'm here?"

That is so like you to go back and edit your posts instead of accepting your mistakes and dealing with them.

If that were true then people eating a balanced diet containing meat would not be susceptible to chronic diseases, but they obviously are.

Sorry to interupt your discourse with the mental midget...

...but please back this one up. Can you cite a study that shows a healthful omnivorous diet is inferior to a veggie diet?

Each of the six studies in the review attempted to match comparably healthy veg. and omnivore diets, but the methodologies for doing so ranged from imperfect to terrible.

Regardless of the methodological issues (or perhaps because of them [duh]), 4 of the 6 studies found greater mean life expentencies (or equivalently, lower mortality) for the low-meat eaters, and none of the studies found significantly greater mortality for the low-meat eaters.

I'll be at the Quarry this weekend. Wanna hook up and do some climbing?

Yeah, you can call me an idiot to my face and see how that works.

What I can tell you is that good research can and does come from religious Universities. You need to critically look at the research; casting aspersions on its validity merely because it was conducted at a religious University is the ad hominem fallacy.

Edit: Let me put this another way. Published research in peer-review journals goes through the same peer-review process whether it comes from Loma Linda or Harvard. As part of your critical read of a study, you should not ignore potential biases of the authors. However, the fact that a study has undergone peer review and been published indicates that it has, in the opinions of experts in the field, scientific merit.

this is not to question their integrity or even that their hypotheses are incorrect!

I'm sorry to say I can no longer claim to have any close friends that are vegetarian or vegan. My following friends have started eating meat sometime in the last month:

Person 1: A current PhD student and associate professor who was vegetarian for over a decade. She has a MS in nutritional science and worked in that field for a number of years. She feels better now.

Person 2: A training fiend who has researched various diets including: vegan, vegetarian, zone, atkins (wasn't impressed), paleolith, and others. He and his wife were vegan for nearly a decade (more?) and then he began experimenting with animal products (fish oils, whey, etc) and has noticed a positive change. He is a successful patent lawyer so if you claim he doesn't know how to do research you are a moron.

Person 3: A medical student who is starting her residency soon. She was a vegetarian for nearly a decade and has recently come to terms with her omnivorous side.

Of course this is all anecdotal, as I am sure jt58 and other myopic blowhards will point out, but I found it very interesting considering this recent discussion. In fact, most of the vegetarian acquaintances I know now are under the age of 23....

stay healthy and open minded.

He said that India has much lower rates of obesity-related illnesses than US does (but that's not saying much, most nations can say that). They have low rates of heart diseases etc.

I think if you were to take one healthy adult, and have him live his entire life while either a) eating a well-balanced, healthy meat-free diet, b) eating a well-balanced, healthy meat diet... the results for a and b would be the same

IMHO, it is far easier to get a healthy, well-balanced diet while not eating meat, especially if you are on a low budget.

Weschrist, perhaps your friends that said that eating meat made them feel better weren't eating healthy, balanced diets while vegetarian?

The first two people sound like they don't give a s--- about their diet. Using these kind of people to compare a healthy meat vs. no meat diet is the whole problem with 99% of of the pro-veg literature and pro-veg stance.


I am not arguing that the typical American diet is in anyway good. But in said countries they also don't sit at their desks all day or in their cars for hours to get to and from the grocery store, and they eat much less processed foods.


My point... over and over again...


I completely disagree:

1 quart of soymilk (enjoy!) = 28 g protein, 400 calories, $1

4 oz grass-fed hamburger = 38 g protein, 573 calories, $1.25

(that is 30 grams of protein/$1 and 458 calories/$1 for beef)

and before you argue that most of those calories come from saturated fat you should know that less than 10% of the fat in grass fed beef is saturated... plus grass-fed beef has an omega 6:3 ratio comparable to fish. I don't think many nutritionists would argue that cane sugar is better for you than high quality unsaturated fat. If you don't know the significance of EFA's it really is an interesting field to research.

wanna compare something else, some other nutrient perhaps? Here's the beef:
http://www.yaledining.org/menu_nutr.cfm?mRecp=8817


Possibly, but I guess that is relative... I think it was pretty healthy. The training fiend friend ate dinner over hear after a day of climbing and ate: 4 zucchinis, an onion, 1 package of extra firm tofu, a can of beans, some other vegetables I can't remember (but not canned and only lightly cooked), and finished it off with a soft tofu/fruit smoothie... during the day of climbing he ate fake soy meats, nuts, carrots, and humus.

I'm not saying you should eat meat... but you should be informed and not make the assumption that vegetarian = good, meat = bad.

but I'd prefer to continue with my current lifestyle.

...because you started it, anyway...

An entire subset of humanity has lived perfectly well without eating meat, so why can't I?

Animals are not products.

Though my reasons are more varied and health-related, his view is just as relevant. Why kill another living being for your sustenance when it's unessecary?

wanna compare something else, some other nutrient perhaps? Here's the beef:
http://www.yaledining.org/menu_nutr.cfm?mRecp=8817

If you care about your health, you won't be eating many of those things, whether they are grass fed or not. That burger is 17% (of energy) from saturated fat, and has SFA/PUFA ratio of 4.9 (which is terrible). Compare that with Atlantic salmon: 6% saturated fat and an SFA/PUFA ratio of 0.4. Your figures appear to be for a cheeseburger, and they hardly support your claim that grass-fed beef is healthy. Even if it is, you don't want to put it in a bun and and eat it with cheese.

Jay