• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eating too much red meat ages the body

SocialD said:
I watched a presentation similar to this national geographic one. it analyzed the diets of more than a dozen groups of indigenous peoples. the study was from some years ago as there are hardly any indigenous peoples left today that still eat a diet their people traditionally did.
The thing that was interesting to me was that, other than the outlying groups that were in an extreme situation like Inuits, the common diet balance was lots of protein and simple fats and very little grains. the carbs they got were just what was in the vegetables they ate for the most part and was a minimal part of the diet.
Really the bottom line of it all is the processing. processed foods of any type do not have the nutritional content they do in their natural form and even the attempts to nutritionally fortify them don't make up for what is lost.
Click to expand...

And along those lines I saw an argument from from some very specialized scientists who go back and do their best to study very ancient ways of life which concluded that going to farming and trying to survive on farmed grains almost killed off humanity, it was not doable, they were horribly malnourished. I think too that in the last 30 years the biggest mistake we made was subbing carbs for fat, that these low fat diets were a huge mistake, which was caused by alleged know it alls selling their myths on what we should eat without ever bothering to test their theories with science first. You will see this over and over again, things that have been sold as conventional proven wisdom for a generation or more that we never had data on to start with, and we never thought to go get some later either. It pisses me off.
 
Militant_Vegan_ said:
bad health is everyone's business. this country is obese and unhealthy. denial won't help
Click to expand...

Wrong answer. I demand my freedom to live as I choose unless you have a VERY GOOD! reason to demand other.

THIS AIN'T IT!

You will be listened to on this demand of yours up to the point that I decide I have more important things to do.

You sir have reached that point.

Good Day.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
And along those lines I saw an argument from from some very specialized scientists who go back and do their best to study very ancient ways of life which concluded that going to farming and trying to survive on farmed grains almost killed off humanity, it was not doable, they were horribly malnourished. I think too that in the last 30 years the biggest mistake we made was subbing carbs for fat, that these low fat diets were a huge mistake, which was caused by alleged know it alls selling their myths on what we should eat without ever bothering to test their theories with science first. You will see this over and over again, things that have been sold as conventional proven wisdom for a generation or more that we never had data on to start with, and we never thought to go get some later either. It pisses me off.
Click to expand...

I agree. I recall in in gradeschool , maybe 1st or 2nd grade there was a big four food groups campaign. it promoted eating a 'balanced' diet of a portion of dairy, meat, fruits/veggies and grains. this was a USDA .. in fact i found a wiki about it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_USDA_nutrition_guides -

From 1956 until 1992 the United States Department of Agriculture recommended its "Basic Four" food groups.[7] These food groups were:
Vegetables and fruits: Recommended as excellent sources of vitamins C and A, and a good source of fiber. A dark-green or deep-yellow vegetable or fruit was recommended every other day.
Milk: Recommended as a good source of calcium, phosphorus, protein, riboflavin, and sometimes vitamins A and D. Cheese, ice cream, and ice milk could sometimes replace milk.
Meat: Recommended for protein, iron and certain B vitamins. Includes meat, poultry, fish, eggs, dry beans, dry peas, and peanut butter.
Cereals and breads: Whole grain and enriched breads were especially recommended as good sources of iron, B vitamins and carbohydrates, as well as sources of protein and fiber. Includes cereals, breads, cornmeal, macaroni, noodles, rice and spaghetti.

"Other foods" were said to round out meals and satisfy appetites. These included additional servings from the Basic Four, or foods such as butter, margarine, salad dressing and cooking oil, sauces, jellies and syrups.[7]

The Basic Four guide was omnipresent in nutrition education in the United States.[8] A notable example is the 1972 series Mulligan Stew, providing nutrition education for schoolchildren in reruns until 1981.

......

The first chart suggested to the USDA by nutritional experts in 1992 featured fruits and vegetables as the biggest group, not breads. This chart was overturned at the hand of special interests in the grain, meat, and dairy industries, all of which are heavily subsidized by the USDA.[10] If Americans followed the chart suggested, they would buy much less meat, milk, and bread. On the other hand, if they ate as the revised chart suggested, it "could lead to an epidemic of obesity and diabetes," as original composer of the food Pyramid, Louise Light warned. [11]

"The 'Pyramid' emphasized eating more vegetables and fruits, less meat, salt, sugary foods, bad fat, and additive-rich factory foods. USDA censored that research-based version of the food guide and altered it to include more refined grains, meat, commercial snacks and fast foods, only releasing their revamped version 12 years after it was originally scheduled for release. " [12]


I had read in other sources at some point that the original four food group plan was an easy way for the USDA to equally please each major food industry. So instead of recommending what was right they did that.
And as noted above in 1992 a more correct representation of what to eat was proposed , but then modified.. presumably for the same reasons of pleasing the grain industry.
 
SocialD said:
I agree. I recall in in gradeschool , maybe 1st or 2nd grade there was a big four food groups campaign. it promoted eating a 'balanced' diet of a portion of dairy, meat, fruits/veggies and grains. this was a USDA .. in fact i found a wiki about it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_USDA_nutrition_guides -

From 1956 until 1992 the United States Department of Agriculture recommended its "Basic Four" food groups.[7] These food groups were:
Vegetables and fruits: Recommended as excellent sources of vitamins C and A, and a good source of fiber. A dark-green or deep-yellow vegetable or fruit was recommended every other day.
Milk: Recommended as a good source of calcium, phosphorus, protein, riboflavin, and sometimes vitamins A and D. Cheese, ice cream, and ice milk could sometimes replace milk.
Meat: Recommended for protein, iron and certain B vitamins. Includes meat, poultry, fish, eggs, dry beans, dry peas, and peanut butter.
Cereals and breads: Whole grain and enriched breads were especially recommended as good sources of iron, B vitamins and carbohydrates, as well as sources of protein and fiber. Includes cereals, breads, cornmeal, macaroni, noodles, rice and spaghetti.

"Other foods" were said to round out meals and satisfy appetites. These included additional servings from the Basic Four, or foods such as butter, margarine, salad dressing and cooking oil, sauces, jellies and syrups.[7]

The Basic Four guide was omnipresent in nutrition education in the United States.[8] A notable example is the 1972 series Mulligan Stew, providing nutrition education for schoolchildren in reruns until 1981.

......

The first chart suggested to the USDA by nutritional experts in 1992 featured fruits and vegetables as the biggest group, not breads. This chart was overturned at the hand of special interests in the grain, meat, and dairy industries, all of which are heavily subsidized by the USDA.[10] If Americans followed the chart suggested, they would buy much less meat, milk, and bread. On the other hand, if they ate as the revised chart suggested, it "could lead to an epidemic of obesity and diabetes," as original composer of the food Pyramid, Louise Light warned. [11]

"The 'Pyramid' emphasized eating more vegetables and fruits, less meat, salt, sugary foods, bad fat, and additive-rich factory foods. USDA censored that research-based version of the food guide and altered it to include more refined grains, meat, commercial snacks and fast foods, only releasing their revamped version 12 years after it was originally scheduled for release. " [12]


I had read in other sources at some point that the original four food group plan was an easy way for the USDA to equally please each major food industry. So instead of recommending what was right they did that.
And as noted above in 1992 a more correct representation of what to eat was proposed , but then modified.. presumably for the same reasons of pleasing the grain industry.
Click to expand...

The thing about the government is that this was all about science, they knew, because they had studied, we ignore their advise at our peril......and it was all most all motherfiucking lies and assumptions!

Sometimes made at the motive of keeping stakeholders happy, and sometimes bought and paid for by the corporate class who where selling their wares.

Wantta know why Trump is doing so well?

This kind of thing explains it too you.

Seriously.
 
Last edited:
Militant_Vegan_ said:
right. remember back then they couldn't afford enough to overeat either. also the quality of meat was unadulterated. everyone on the board claims they buy pure nad raised meat from a friendly farmer down the road. then we see the same people posting about how good fast food hamburgers are. the sedentary lifestyle of modern days is a great point too though. let's also be honest. the rate of lung cancer is much greater in smokers. Thank you for your civil discussion, southern dad.
Click to expand...

straw.jpeg
 
Militant_Vegan_ said:
what do you consider both an unhealthy level consumption of meat, too much or too little?

I think you look too hard for an argument.
Click to expand...

How about admitting the dishonesty that I called you out on, first? THEN you can start with some questions.
 
Militant_Vegan_ said:
bad health is everyone's business. this country is obese and unhealthy. denial won't help
Click to expand...
1. Eating meat, in and of itself, is not unhealthy.
2. Unless contagious it is only the persons business.
Not yours or anyone else's.


Militant_Vegan_ said:
there are always exceptions.
Click to expand...
Which is like the vegan bs that you have been pushing. Exceptions.
Still not any of your business.


Militant_Vegan_ said:
people always think they will be the 100 year old who ate bacon every day and smoked. more denial. they don't think they will take after their father who died at 48 from clogged arteries or lung cancer
Click to expand...
Still is none of your business and neither is how long someone naturally lives.
 
Militant_Vegan_ said:
Forget pricey face creams and spa treatments, if you’re keen to look younger then cutting out red meat can save you years as well as pounds. New research has shown that eating too much red meat and not enough vegetables can increase the biological age of your body.

The study, published in the journal Aging, shows that an increase in the levels of serum phosphate –naturally occurring phosphorus in the blood – combined with a poor diet, adds more miles to the body clock, meaning your body may be far older than your chronological age.

Researchers from the Institute of Cancer Sciences at Glasgow University compared the dietary habits of those in the least and most affluent parts of the Greater Glasgow area. Worst affected were men in the most deprived areas of Scotland’s second city, who can expect to die 14 years earlier than men in more affluent areas. The figure is 11 years for women.

The study suggests a direct link between speeded-up body ageing, the level of phosphates in their blood and how often they ate red meat. Red meat is believed to have a particular effect on this group because of their poor diet and “suboptimal fruit and vegetable intake”, according to the researchers.


Eating too much red meat ages the body - Meat Free Monday
Click to expand...

Overconsumption of red meat has been known to carry several negative side effects for some time now.

So yes, overconsumption of red meat combined with a poor diet can "age" the body faster. That is why one should strive for balance.

Although what is interesting is this:

Red meat is believed to have a particular effect on this group because of their poor diet and “suboptimal fruit and vegetable intake”, according to the researchers.

So it's not red meat itself, but the aggregate poor diet with out proper levels of fruits and.vegetables. not quite the damning expose it would seem.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Wrong answer. I demand my freedom to live as I choose unless you have a VERY GOOD! reason to demand other.

THIS AIN'T IT!

You will be listened to on this demand of yours up to the point that I decide I have more important things to do.

You sir have reached that point.

Good Day.
Click to expand...

using your logic, all drugs, and belt fed machine guns should be available over the counter.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
And along those lines I saw an argument from from some very specialized scientists who go back and do their best to study very ancient ways of life which concluded that going to farming and trying to survive on farmed grains almost killed off humanity, it was not doable, they were horribly malnourished. I think too that in the last 30 years the biggest mistake we made was subbing carbs for fat, that these low fat diets were a huge mistake, which was caused by alleged know it alls selling their myths on what we should eat without ever bothering to test their theories with science first. You will see this over and over again, things that have been sold as conventional proven wisdom for a generation or more that we never had data on to start with, and we never thought to go get some later either. It pisses me off.
Click to expand...

Rethinking the Paleo Diet

The global increase in obesity and diet-related diseases has ramped up interest in our ancestral diet. Surprisingly, there is little clear agreement on the make-up of the Paleolithic diet. “It is clear,” the researchers wrote in introducing their study, “that…our physiology should be optimized to the diet that we have experienced during our evolutionary past.” The increase in brain size, which began around 2 million years ago and accelerated until about 12,000 years ago, is thought to be directly linked to alteration in diet.

(Paleo diet proponents are correct on that point. They are also correct that the rise of agriculture brought with it health problems, according to Zack S. Conrad, a doctoral candidate at Tufts University’s Friedman School of Nutrition and Policy, who studies such matters. “But that isn’t because grains are bad for you; it was because the change was so abrupt,” he explained in the Tufts University’s Health & Nutrition Letter (July 2015). “People switched to eating almost only cereal grains, which resulted in severe micronutrient deficiencies, many of which are evident in skeletal remains,” he continued. Over time diets became more diversified and the problem was resolved.)

The transition to a predominantly meat based diet has been considered to be the major driver of the increase in brain size and other evolutionary changes. The Hardy team argues that carbohydrates were also essential. A fortunate combination of events made that possible. The widespread availability of cooking coincided with the emergence of digestive enzymes which released the energy-yielding potential of starches. Cooking softened starch-rich plant foods and the digestive enzymes made them available to fuel the development of the human prototype. The combination also reduced chewing time allowing Paleo man more time to use and develop his growing brain. There are more details, but that series of events led the researchers to conclude that starchy carbohydrates were an important part of the Paleo diet.

The researchers summarized their breakthrough findings as follows:

We propose that plant foods containing high quantities of starch were essential for the evolution of the human phenotype during the Pleistocene. Although previous studies have highlighted a stone tool-mediated shift from primarily plant-based to primarily meat-based diets as critical in the development of the brain and other human traits, we argue that digestible carbohydrates were also necessary to accommodate the increased metabolic demands of a growing brain. Furthermore, we acknowledge the adaptive role cooking played in improving the digestibility and palatability of key carbohydrates. We provide evidence that cooked starch, a source of preformed glucose, greatly increased energy availability to human tissues with high glucose demands, such as the brain, red blood cells, and the developing fetus. We also highlight the auxiliary role copy number variation in the salivary amylase genes may have played in increasing the importance of starch in human evolution following the origins of cooking. Salivary amylases are largely ineffective on raw crystalline starch, but cooking substantially increases both their energy-yielding potential and glycemia. Although uncertainties remain regarding the antiquity of cooking and the origins of salivary amylase gene copy number variation, the hypothesis we present makes a testable prediction that these events are correlated.

Although it is difficulty to decipher what happened eons ago, Hardy et al have provided convincing evidence and support for the inclusion of starchy carbohydrates in our ancestral diet. Paleo diet enthusiasts may want to consider making room on their menu for whole grains, legumes, and perhaps intact potatoes.



*

Starchy Carbs:  The Missing Link in the Paleo Diet - Big Brains Need Grains
 
Militant_Vegan_ said:
there are always exceptions. people always think they will be the 100 year old who ate bacon every day and smoked. more denial. they don't think they will take after their father who died at 48 from clogged arteries or lung cancer
Click to expand...

My great grandfather lived to be near 100, he ate red meat everyday, had bacon for breakfast, and smokes pipe cigarettes and cigars everyday. None of those did him in, he died because he basically gave up on life and starved himself to death after my great grandmother died. My great grandmother died at 85 from lung cancer, after smoking five packs a day from age 9.

too many factors affect age and longevity, no single factor will make a major dent in anyones lives.
 
Paleocon said:
There are many many cases of malnutrition and other ailments arising from total non-consumption of animal products.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is not true.

There is nothing that red meat gives you that is important to life that you cannot get through other foods and multi-vitamins.

Protein is easily found in other foods and iron as well.
 
 
PoS said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/vegetarian/comments/2mxe2g/40_year_vegan_dies_of_a_heart_attack_why_the/

Long term vegetarian diet changes human DNA raising risk of cancer and heart disease

https://authoritynutrition.com/top-11-biggest-lies-about-vegan-diets/

[url]http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/29/why-are-vegetarians-at-risk-of-heart-disease.aspx
[/URL]
Click to expand...

All you have to do is supplement your diet with a suitable multivitamin and you wil get all the nutrients you need (like B-12, Iron, Vitamin A, etc.).

Plus, a vegetarian diet is far less expensive and usually contains FAR less saturated fat and cholesterol then a non-vegetarian diet - especially one that is relatively heavy with red meat. And it provides lots of fibre, something meats do not have and which is very good for colon health.

Imo, there is NOTHING you can get in red meat that you cannot get in fish and chicken and fruits/vegetables (if you don't want to go the whole vegetarian way).

Imo, red meat is totally unnecessary to a human's existence.


Additionally, my friend, meat takes up LOTS of calories/energy just to create it...something to consider as the population of the planet continues to grow.

Calories per acre for various foods

food-energy.png


Energy Required To Produce a Pound of Food : TreeHugger
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
All you have to do is supplement your diet with a suitable multivitamin and you wil get all the nutrients you need (like B-12, Iron, Vitamin A, etc.).

Plus, a vegetarian diet is far less expensive and usually contains FAR less saturated fat and cholesterol then a non-vegetarian diet - especially one that is relatively heavy with red meat. And it provides lots of fibre, something meats do not have and which is very good for colon health.

Imo, there is NOTHING you can get in red meat that you cannot get in fish and chicken and fruits/vegetables (if you don't want to go the whole vegetarian way).

Imo, red meat is totally unnecessary to a human's existence.


Additionally, my friend, meat takes up LOTS of calories/energy just to create it...something to consider as the population of the planet continues to grow.

Calories per acre for various foods

food-energy.png


Energy Required To Produce a Pound of Food : TreeHugger
Click to expand...

Thank you for a very civil and informative post.
 
Lovebug said:
Thank you for a very civil and informative post.
Click to expand...

You are welcome.

PoS is a friend and I have a lot of respect for him...so that may explain the extra civilility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom