• HEALTH & RECOVERY
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules Thread Directory 1 Thread Directory 2
    Mindfulness Links Addiction & Mind
    Sober Living Partner Program (SLiPP)
  • H&R Moderators: VerbalTruist | cdin | Lil'LinaptkSix

what do you guys think of this

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

psychedelic food

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
217
http://pescetarianlife.com/library.php#3 click the one on the right. It talks about how saturated animal fats are transported through the blood and cause pretty much every cardiovascular problem, while also slowing down blood flow throught the body. It also talks about how animal proteins cause many health problems including most of the western cancers. Alot of other evidence is shown that really shows how eating meat is more detrimental than most people think (or want to think).
 
Last edited:
I think more people should be aware of stuff like this. Funny thing is, as we were watching this I was eating a salad, and my fiancee had beef pizza rolls in the oven and was smoking a cigarette. :p
 
eating like a caveman is my general rule of thumb

unprocessed veggies, fruit, meat, yum.
 
So he's showin' some saturated fats in a test tube. Big fuckin' deal. We're meant to eat some. You'd get that same shit from coconut or palm oil :p
 
psychedelic food said:
Cavemen lived till age 30. The whole paleolithic diet is a joke.
Click to expand...

Cavemen did not have soap or antibacterial drugs.

The Monkey Mantra said:
So he's showin' some saturated fats in a test tube. Big fuckin' deal. We're meant to eat some. You'd get that same shit from coconut or palm oil :p
Click to expand...

That is not yet settled. Those have not been shown to increase heart disease risk, possibly because of the length of the fatty acids versus animal saturated fatty acids.
 
Pretty safe to say (red esp) meat in moderation is not that bad for you. Now, I don't eat it in moderation, I eat a shitload so maybe I'm a little biased. But I eat it as party of a demanding workout routine, so show me these studies that say how bad it is, ok that's fine.

I'm not, however out eating McDonalds and other processed crap. I don't smoke, hardly ever drink, and don't do drugs anymore. So I'll take my red meat and the "risks" associated!
 
to tell the truth people's bodies weren't meant to live past the age of 60 at most
 
Where the fuck are words like "should" and "meant to" coming from. Am I reading posts on a young-Earth creationist message board?
 
Heard of T. Colin Campbell?
By robbwolf | December 3, 2008
I received the following question in the comments section:

Hey Robb, Have you ever looked at the work of T Colin Campbell at Cornell? He wrote a book called the China Study about how eating meat is bad for you. I don’t want to ask you to do extra work, just wondering if you had already looked at his research. Sabin Sabin-

Yes, I’m familiar with Campbells work. We sponsored a debate between Campbell and Loren Cordain a few years ago. I have much respect for the body of work Campbell has generated, but he put minimal effort into the project…I think it simply reflected a pay-day for him. His arguements were weak, he was totally outclassed and thus resorted to what many debators do when faced with immenent defeat: He went for personal attacks on Cordain, addressed none of the core issues and relegated the debate to the realm of metaphysics.

I tackled this in a post at the NorCal site. NorCal Nutrition: Are We Crazy?

If someone wants to deconstruct the paleo concept, there are ample opportuniteis to do so from the material in that post…but when we start talking facts, predictive value of theories etc. the nay-sayers can only find company with the likes of FlatEarthers and New-Earth proponents.

The notions that:

1-Vegetarianism is the best way for humans to eat.

2-the earth is flat.

3-the earth is 6,000years old

Share some interesting characteristics:

They do not reflect, research data, empirical findings, or offer any predictive value. Why? They are fantasies.

In the case of vegetarianism from the China Study perspective, we should see a simple dose response curve with meat intake and cancer. We do not. In fact, we only need ONE (1) example of a conflicting finding to completely discredit the hypothesis. The Inuit Paradox is just such an example. Now the vegetarians will start back-pedaling and yamering a bunch of bull-shit, but the fact is we have a well documented example of a society that consumes greater than 90% of it’s calories from MEAT yet suffers NO:cancer, diabetes, or heart disease until the introduction of neolithic foods. This fact is forgotten, ignored, dismissed…but it’s still a fact. The inuit, are BTW but one of hundreds of hunter gatherer cultures who represent this interesting “Paradox”.

I wrapped up the NorCal Nutrition post with Prof. Cordain’s opening piece from the Protein Debate. I’m going to re-post that here becasue it needs to be read, discussed and debated. If you are going to attack the merrits of a paleo nutritional approach then you need to attck the underpinnings of modenr biology, genetics and biochemistry. Good luck with that.

http://robbwolf.com/?p=300
 
Amebix said:
Heard of T. Colin Campbell?
By robbwolf | December 3, 2008
I received the following question in the comments section:

Hey Robb, Have you ever looked at the work of T Colin Campbell at Cornell? He wrote a book called the China Study about how eating meat is bad for you. I don’t want to ask you to do extra work, just wondering if you had already looked at his research. Sabin Sabin-

Yes, I’m familiar with Campbells work. We sponsored a debate between Campbell and Loren Cordain a few years ago. I have much respect for the body of work Campbell has generated, but he put minimal effort into the project…I think it simply reflected a pay-day for him. His arguements were weak, he was totally outclassed and thus resorted to what many debators do when faced with immenent defeat: He went for personal attacks on Cordain, addressed none of the core issues and relegated the debate to the realm of metaphysics.

I tackled this in a post at the NorCal site. NorCal Nutrition: Are We Crazy?

If someone wants to deconstruct the paleo concept, there are ample opportuniteis to do so from the material in that post…but when we start talking facts, predictive value of theories etc. the nay-sayers can only find company with the likes of FlatEarthers and New-Earth proponents.

The notions that:

1-Vegetarianism is the best way for humans to eat.

2-the earth is flat.

3-the earth is 6,000years old

Share some interesting characteristics:

They do not reflect, research data, empirical findings, or offer any predictive value. Why? They are fantasies.

In the case of vegetarianism from the China Study perspective, we should see a simple dose response curve with meat intake and cancer. We do not. In fact, we only need ONE (1) example of a conflicting finding to completely discredit the hypothesis. The Inuit Paradox is just such an example. Now the vegetarians will start back-pedaling and yamering a bunch of bull-shit, but the fact is we have a well documented example of a society that consumes greater than 90% of it’s calories from MEAT yet suffers NO:cancer, diabetes, or heart disease until the introduction of neolithic foods. This fact is forgotten, ignored, dismissed…but it’s still a fact. The inuit, are BTW but one of hundreds of hunter gatherer cultures who represent this interesting “Paradox”.

I wrapped up the NorCal Nutrition post with Prof. Cordain’s opening piece from the Protein Debate. I’m going to re-post that here becasue it needs to be read, discussed and debated. If you are going to attack the merrits of a paleo nutritional approach then you need to attck the underpinnings of modenr biology, genetics and biochemistry. Good luck with that.

http://robbwolf.com/?p=300
Click to expand...

As for the inuits http://pescetarianlife.com/faq.php#14 Im not saying become a full blown vegan. I eat eggs once a week and fish on special occasions. Its the constant eating of toxic meat and fat for taste only that is bad. If you disagree with any of that please show some facts that support that eating meat is good for you. That video and many others like it show facts other than "well people have done it for thousands of years it must be good for you". Show me some evidence that saturated fat and trans fat do not cause heart attack or stroke. Show me some evidence that animal protein does not cause cancer and various other diseases. They dont cause those in the Inuit population so they must not cause them here right?
 
if you expect to be taken seriously, stop calling things "toxic" when the next thing you say isn't a scientific description of its toxicity.
 
Pander Bear said:
if you expect to be taken seriously, stop calling things "toxic" when the next thing you say isn't a scientific description of its toxicity.
Click to expand...

The first post included a link to a video with a sceintific description. It would have been redundant to type out another description.

Also please watch the whole video before making a reply. It pretty much proves that its toxic. If someone can provide some evidence that is not then thats different. It doesnt make sense to deny it unless you have some evidence of your own. Its just blatantly denying facts. The post about the inuits was a good point.
 
Last edited:
psychedelic food said:
Dude im not going to argue with you i dont expect you to understand. This thread was made to inform and help people. peace
Click to expand...

actually my guess is this thread was made out of boredom due to your failure to find a suitable hackey-sack partner:)

on a more serious note, the burden of proof is on you, not the rest of us whom you are trying to convince. with that in mind, its totally reasonable for someone to opt for you to summarize the basic concepts of the videos, as oppose to watching an hour of what may well turn out to be, baseless nonsense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top