- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 41,555
- Reaction score
- 31,152
- Location
- Southern England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Nutritional deficiences cause those problems, not high fat.
Nutritional deficiences cause those problems, not high fat.
In other words, too much meat. like I said.
Poor PoS and his goose egg of a thread.
Instead of behaving like a jerk, how about adding something INTELLIGENT to this thread from a vegan standpoint. I've already done so from an eating disorder standpoint.
You know what? I have exactly zero issue with your choice or even the fact you're "militant" about it. Don't think I could do it (though I'd have a tougher time giving up carbs) but I think it's as valid a choice as any and I think there's enough variety out there that it could be perfectly healthy. More power to you.
that's a terrible argument. people who eat tons of animal fat don't live long healthy lives
Especially BACON...
Can't wait to read our resident Militant Vegan's response to Dr. Angela Guarda.
Tell that to the Inuit.
Well, maybe not, science is not sure yet, but there is reason to think that fat is no where near as bad for us as has been advertised.
D'oh. Are there really people who still don't understand that no individual food is good or bad per se, but that it's all about quantity and variety?
For a long time, medical advise warned of too much saturared fat ... and people went all nuts, declaring fat evil, but had no qualms eating tons of sugar and few vitamins and fiber, and actually believed less fat was healthy in this context. Now medical advice claims fat isn't that bad but sugar is, and some people believe it's now healthy to swallow 5000 calories of saturated fat per meal, as long as they avoid sugar.
Personally, I don't think moderate consumption of saturated fat or sugar or any other food is bad per se. But the problem is, too many people, on average, eat way too much of both.
My whole point was that our genetics were shaped over millennias when eating habits were much different, and that most likely shows. Obesity is mostly a problem, because our appetite was genetically shaped in a time when fat and sugar were less often and less readily available as it is today in the West, so many Westeners eat too much. Necessity and availability dictated a more varied and healthier diet for our ancestors.
So my point about meat: When your ancestors weren't Inuit or eskimos or so, your ancestors didn't eat meat daily, most of the time. For centuries, millennias perhaps, the largest part of their diet were grains and other fruits. People also herded and stocked animals, so milk and diary products were added to this daily diet. But meat was something you ate on special occassions; for a holiday, the best animal of the herd was slaughtered for the village feast, or every couple of days, a hunter was successful. Near the sea, fishing was probably common, too.
For example, look at the Bible stories: In the Old Testament, cattle is a very valuable commodity, and slaughtering them is reserved for special occassions or feasts.
So the point? Most likely our bodies aren't used to large quantities of animal fat on a daily basis. They are not used to refined sugars at all. And they are used to much more fibers than many people eat today.
D'oh. Are there really people who still don't understand that no individual food is good or bad per se, but that it's all about quantity and variety?
For a long time, medical advise warned of too much saturared fat ... and people went all nuts, declaring fat evil, but had no qualms eating tons of sugar and few vitamins and fiber, and actually believed less fat was healthy in this context. Now medical advice claims fat isn't that bad but sugar is, and some people believe it's now healthy to swallow 5000 calories of saturated fat per meal, as long as they avoid sugar.
Personally, I don't think moderate consumption of saturated fat or sugar or any other food is bad per se. But the problem is, too many people, on average, eat way too much of both.
My whole point was that our genetics were shaped over millennias when eating habits were much different, and that most likely shows. Obesity is mostly a problem, because our appetite was genetically shaped in a time when fat and sugar were less often and less readily available as it is today in the West, so many Westeners eat too much. Necessity and availability dictated a more varied and healthier diet for our ancestors.
So my point about meat: When your ancestors weren't Inuit or eskimos or so, your ancestors didn't eat meat daily, most of the time. For centuries, millennias perhaps, the largest part of their diet were grains and other fruits. People also herded and stocked animals, so milk and diary products were added to this daily diet. But meat was something you ate on special occassions; for a holiday, the best animal of the herd was slaughtered for the village feast, or every couple of days, a hunter was successful. Near the sea, fishing was probably common, too.
For example, look at the Bible stories: In the Old Testament, cattle is a very valuable commodity, and slaughtering them is reserved for special occassions or feasts.
So the point? Most likely our bodies aren't used to large quantities of animal fat on a daily basis. They are not used to refined sugars at all. And they are used to much more fibers than many people eat today.