With all the recent media attention around the hazards of consuming processed foods and high amounts of red meat, I came across this freebie that I thought would be helpful to many.
I think it's a great initiative and hopefully a good resource to help kickstart healthier eating.
You can also download a free PDF copy from the same registration page, but this bargain lands you a free printed copy in the mail.
Really?……ENELOOPS ENELOOPS ENELOOPS ENELOOPS…. :)
Yep, eneloops need to have nutritional value printed on them so we can incorporate more into our diet
Eneloops provide the essential vitamins of AA, AAA, C & D
Why cant they just do their thing without aggressively trying to convert people.
Meat till I die
This comment section is more agressive 'pro-meat' than anything.
Its not really 'pro-meat' we are really just discussing our own views and commenting on the fact that a sudden change of diet is not a good thing and people should know the dangers of it.
there are a few people stating that they are meat eaters
but most of this has been anti-peta comments
If dietry concerns were a real valid issue on this site such comments would also be included in fast food deals such as the frequent cheap dominos or the week and a half of almost free delivery hero deals, but they are not because people know that measures need to be taken to avoid a high fat diet. Similarly in a vegetarian/vegan diet people know you need to do other things to stay healthy.
If dietry concerns were a real valid issue on this site such comments would also be included in fast food deals
and i regularly see people talking about it in those junkfood deals as well. comments about obesity and heart disease etc etc are common in deals ive read.
@Venom_TAG:
you would be surprised how many people are admitted to hospital with health problems associated with a sudden switch of diet and not knowing that they have to make substitutes. a lot of people think switching to vegan means just not eating meat or animal proteins (egg, cheese etc)
a lot do not realize that a vegan diet also contains a high amount of nuts, seeds etc.
Most people also do not realize that Vitamin B12 in a diet largely comes from animal products.
knowing that a high fat diet is bad for you is different to knowing you need to do other things to stay healthy in a vegan/vegetarian diet as not everyone knows that straight from the start
But those posts are not promoting pizza as a healthy diet. Or suggesting becoming a pizzatarian.
I'm just against PETA
I am for the REAL ethical treatment of animals.
We evolved to eat meat.
Not eating meat is unhealthy for your body.
Unless you intake protein, b12, etc from other sources.
"Not eating meat is unhealthy for your body." it isn't actually
The "kit" is a 24 pp PDF…
… of which only 6 pages contain recipes, the other 18 consist of preaching.
This isn't a bargain.
PETA disgusts me.
This is PETA advertising, not a bargain.
I can hear the quacking from here, and it ain't from ducks. Oh..right it's PETA.
I think the (significant) health benefits of going Vegan is actually the weakest argument to make the change. Please consider the ethical and environmental consequences of your eating habits.
That said obviously eating vegetables, fruits, legumes, grains and starches is far better for you than eating animals products that are high in fats, cholesterol, Methionine & Dietary Acid.
Here's some pretty respectable sources that back up the benefits of a vegan lifestyle.
On dietary fats
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dieta…
"She ticks off the various advantages associated with this way of eating—lower body mass index and blood pressure; reduced risks for heart disease, diabetes, and cancer; and longer life.
Cardiovascular disease
"Vegans, compared with omnivores, consume substantially greater quantities of fruit and vegetables (14–16). A higher consumption of fruit and vegetables, which are rich in fiber, folic acid, antioxidants, and phytochemicals, is associated with lower blood cholesterol concentrations (17), a lower incidence of stroke, and a lower risk of mortality from stroke and ischemic heart disease (18, 19)."
Cancer
Vegans consume considerably more legumes, total fruit and vegetables, tomatoes, allium vegetables, fiber, and vitamin C than do omnivores (14–16, 20, 23). All those foods and nutrients are protective against cancer (25). Fruit and vegetables are described as protective against cancer of the lung, mouth, esophagus, and stomach and to a lesser degree some other sites, whereas the regular use of legumes provides a measure of protection against stomach and prostate cancer. In addition, fiber, vitamin C, carotenoids, flavonoids, and other phytochemicals in the diet are shown to exhibit protection against various cancers, whereas allium vegetables provide protection against stomach cancer, and garlic against colorectal cancer. Foods rich in lycopene, such as tomatoes, are known to protect against prostate cancer.
Bone Health
In addition to a high intake of fruit and vegetables, vegans also tend to have a high intake of tofu and other soy products (14, 16). Soy isoflavones are suggested to have a beneficial effect on bone health in postmenopausal women (50). In a meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials, soy isoflavones showed a significant benefit to spine BMD of menopausal women (59).
Source: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1627S.full
Obviously you have to take precautions on any lifestyle. Exercise is still essential, as is a B12 supplement. There isn't much mainstream coverage of the benefits of a Vegan lifestyle, but the consensus from public bodies has always been the same. The private sector has it's own motives.
Please consider the ethical and environmental consequences of your eating habits.
i hope you also consider that when it comes time for you to think about breeding. overpopulation is by far more of a problem than eating meat ever was. i chose not to, you should do so as well.
So by your logic because one thing is really bad every other injustice we commit is fair game? Sorry mate, doesn't hold up. The problem of overpopulation does not somehow magically reconcile the ethical, environmental and health problems associated with consuming animal products.
Finally I agree with you on something, you shouldn't populate.
ouch harsh
That said obviously eating vegetables, fruits, legumes, grains and starches is far better for you than eating animals products that are high in fats, cholesterol, Methionine & Dietary Acid.
Look up and most people on here disagree with you, i don't
Sure. Everyone can have their own opinions but not their own facts..
what are you talking about!? this is the internet for goodness sakes!
Its funny as an outside watching:
The whole vegan movement has gone from
"oh poor animals getting killed and slaughtered for meat"
and it is now
"oh poor environment getting pillaged and raped for meat"
I haven't noticed that but perhaps people are more receptive to that message? Both are undeniably true of course..
chickens at home - pillaging my backyard by giving them the food scraps instead of going to the tip?
all in context I guess
Both are undeniably true of course..
wont you please think of the massive slaughter of innocent plants. at least us meat eating folk dont just pick off a hind leg of a cow for a rump steak and let it go back out and roam missing its limb… think about that next time you rape a tree and pick off its reproductive organs for your fetish #OrangesLivesMatter
and now you have proven your worth….
yea, mostly comedic… mostly.
tho you have to posses your own brain to work out which is which…
im fine with that
aside from the fact that i agree peta is a questionable organisation, let's not miss the point of this post. here's a bargain for all you ULTRA SENSITIVE meat lovers… and it's free of charge!
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-are-the-healthiest-food…
check out the whole website. you really shouldn't speak unless you have your facts straight. some of you probably already know about the awesome dr. greger!
Don't know where i'd be without Dr Greger's resources. Invaluable source for correcting people on "science".
Which leads me back to my previous comment about unbiased research.
look at the sponsors page of nutrition facts. a good number of $1000+ sponsors are Vegetarian promoting organizations and doctors who are personally vegetarian/Vegan.
While the website does have some good info on foods the fact that it is sponsored in the majority by people with an interest in what its promoting does not make it unbiased. Just so people are aware and don't take the websites as being all knowing and right.
I value your scepticism. However, Dr Greger is very transparent about his website and potential conflicts.
"NUTRITIONFACTS.ORG is a strictly non-commercial, science-based public service provided by Michael Greger, M.D., launched with seed money and support by the Jesse & Julie Rasch Foundation. Now a 501c3 nonprofit charity, NutritionFacts.org provides free updates on the latest in nutrition research via bite-sized videos. There are now hundreds of videos on more than a thousand topics, with new videos and articles uploaded every day."
He also provides a bio on the Jesse & Julie Rasch Foundation:
"The Jesse & Julie Rasch Foundation was established in Toronto, Canada in the year 2000 by Jesse Rasch. Among the objectives of the Foundation is the funding of research into the role of health and nutrition in the prevention and treatment of disease and to ensure that the research results are appropriately disseminated to the medical profession. The Foundation is also striving to educate the public on the enormous role that health and nutrition play in disease prevention."
About Dr Greger:
"Dr. Greger is a physician, author, and internationally recognized speaker on nutrition, food safety, and public health issues. A founding member and Fellow of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Dr. Greger is licensed as a general practitioner specializing in clinical nutrition. Currently he proudly serves as the public health director at the Humane Society of the United States. Dr. Greger is a graduate of the Cornell University School of Agriculture and the Tufts University School of Medicine.
His latest book, How Not to Die, is now available for pre-order. 100% of all proceeds he has ever received from his books, DVDs, and speaking engagements has always and will always be donated to charity. Dr. Greger receives no compensation for his work on NutritionFacts.org."
Can you imagine seeing the same level of transparency in big pharma or livestock industries?
Too bad people who care enough to let others know things like, "How not to die", are so biased. I guess you can skip that reading! Saves you a bit of time.
The bottom line is that bias is not something to say it's there or it isn't there. In evidence-based medicine, we must consider how bias was prevented by a properly conducted study.
@twocsies: Of course. If you've seen any of his videos you'd see he's very transparent about the studies he uses. He also responds to user comments on every video. It's great to demand impartiality and transparency but you must be consistent in your application. Do you demand the same level of accountability from the meat industries?
@jesho: Sorry if my sarcasm was missed. I think my point is people online think "bias" is a good argument. Even though I don't agree with the meat industry, I don't claim that because it is biased, any research they sponsor is worthless due to bias. At the end of the day, anyone who opens their mouth or types at a keyboard has some bias, but every researcher has to do both those things, and it doesn't result in research bias unless they don't control for it, which would be unethical.
@twocsies: Ah yes, duly picked up on a second reading. I agree with the premise of what you're saying but we know that some studies have been deliberately costructed so to create desired results.
One such example is the 'debate' over saturated fat. Please read this response from the Harvard school of medicine on recent research that supposedly demonstrates that saturated fats are benign in our diets.
This is true only when replacing saturated fats with refined carbohydrates, something that no one recommends as part of a healthy diet. Hence cancer rates stayed the same and saturated fats were apparently exonerated. If replaced with healthy vegetables, grains, legumes, starches the association with cancer is clear.
Call it bias, unethical behaviour or whatever you like but it would be naive to think that money doesn't change people's behaviour..
Source: "Dietary fat and heart disease study is seriously misleading" http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dieta…
@jesho: The problem with that line of thinking is that bias is not all or nothing. Your example shows a study with some fundamental flaws, and yes, when that much bias is found, the journal adds an edited version that includes like this "Limitation: Potential biases from preferential publication and selective reporting." (http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638). Very embarrassing for the reputed scholars who conducted the meta-analysis.
At the end of the day, there are biases in research. But pulling out the "bias" card shouldn't be a convincing argument without due consideration.
without trying to sound argumentative, would you trust research about the benefits of not smoking if it was carried out by non-smokers? bias is only relevant if it distorts results.
@orbitalsatellite: You should not trust any research. But to distrust anything just because you think it has a drop of bias is naive.
Research informs us about the world. Scientists investigate what is interesting to them, and they (should) seek to minimize their biases. We don't trust or distrust research because of the scientists that conduct the research, we trust systematic reviews, the scientific method and repeatable results.
You said, "bias is only relevant if it distorts results." But at a fundamental level, the recommendations of a research study are much more subject to bias than the results themselves.
Personally, I would not trust research about the benefits of not smoking if it was carried out by the cigarette companies. But it is a matter of history; when cigarette company scientists got negative results, the companies did not allow them to be published. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i110.full
no bargain here. humans need meat.
Hence why we're omnivores and the longest living societies on earth are vegetarian/vegan. Oh wait..
Neg all you want but it would be much more worthwhile to challenge my claim with evidence. Here, i'll get the ball rolling..
Plant based diets and longevity:
http://www.livescience.com/37102-vegetarians-live-longer.htm…
Necessity of meat
http://freefromharm.org/health-nutrition/catching-up-with-sc…
Dumbest. Comment. Ever.
If you become a VEGAN and depending on what kind of vegetarian, you give up DHA (A type of Omega 3 only found in seafood and fish) which is associated with lowering the risk of cardiac problems, and essential in brain function.
Maybe thats why some people think PETA are stupid (or act stupid).
Oh and for those thinking that they can get away with that by eating Omega 3 breads…guess what? the omega 3 DHA in the bread comes from fish oils.
that's actually not true. studies have shown otherwise. but just like gluten-free, which is only for coeliac disease sufferers, companies know people will fall for any gimmick. i like to think ozbargainers are bit more careful about how they spend (or waste) their money.
Not sure what research you have been reading, but i dont take 2nd hand or 3rd hand information from people who write articles and then do not reference. Especially those that post on a website called "nutritionfacts.org". Read peer-reviewed scientific journals:
Research from the American Heart Association
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/21/2747.full?links=f…
-Beneficial effects on individuals with existing Cardio Vascular Disease
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/54/3/438.full.pdf
-high levels of omega 3 lower LDL cholesterol
Journal of American College of Nutrition
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07315724.2002.107…
American Society for Hematology
http://www.bloodjournal.org/content/58/5/880.short?sso-check…
- salmon oils reduced cholesterol concentration in plasma.
American Heart Association:
http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/23/2/151.full
-In randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that enrolled patients with coronary heart disease, omega-3 fatty acid supplements significantly reduced CV events (death, nonfatal heart attacks, nonfatal strokes). Omega-3 supplements can also slow the progression of atherosclerosis in these patients.
TLDR: Theres a ton of peer-reviewed research supporting the effects of omega 3s on brain function, and its effects on cardio vascular diseases. These research show a variety of clinically randomized controlled experimental designs, which have more reliability and validity than other kinds of research. More significant findings have been found than research that "do not show otherwise". THese articles are only 4 out of some 28,000 research papers
In support of your statement, there is only one systematic review that investigates on 159 articles, who they say show inconsistent findings. This means that some research show positive results, others show negative results. That does not mean that there is no positive effect, it just means that some research was not able to find positive findings. This could be due to a variety of factors, such as insufficient sample sizes, confounding variables etc.
A meta-analyses of randomized clinical controlled trials showed that omega 3s did have a significant overall effect of reducing mortality
http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(01)01114-7/fulltext?refuid=S0002-8223(07)02079-2&refissn=0002-8223&mobileUi=0
In the end its up to you if you want to make up your mind that it doesnt. But there is enough randomized clinical trials to convince me that it does have the potential for reducing CVD
appreciate your time and effort. quite busy at present but will try to read the links you provided asap. until then i will continue to trust dr greger is providing excellent information, generally speaking.
Omega 3 can be found in other sources such as flax seeds, almonds, walnuts, canola oil, etc.
Omega 3 consists of a group of fatty acids. DHA and EPA is only found in seafood, and other eggs and meats in small quantities. ALA is found in nuts and flax seeds, and cardiologists believe the body does a poor job of converting ALA into EPA. DHA is the type of Omega 3 that has been backed up by decades of research to promote brain and retinal functioning, as well as lowering heart disease.
Sources:
http://www.dhaomega3.org/Overview/Differentiation-of-ALA-pla…
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/0…
Does this starter kit include explanations on why it's OK to eat plants but not animals, given research suggests plants feel pain, have external stimuli and can respond to that stimulus in real time?
Plants don't feel pain like humans do, they "react" as they are a living thing but it doesn't mean they're hurting. But research would like to "suggest" otherwise.
It's not the People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants (PETP)… Also, PETA does have an explanation for this frequently asked question (it is very much like Trishool's)
http://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/what-about-plants/
1 - PETA… LOL.
2 - always free?
3 - Nutrition over activism.
The WHO material and the media frenzy that followed are ridiculous. They did a meta-study/survey and found evidence that if you look at those who have bowel/intestinal cancer 15-18% more of them are what was considered heavy meat eaters. But as a proportion of the population the number is quite small. I saw a response on a science blog that suggested you had a 1% increase in the chance of developing cancer in your life if you were a heavy meat eater all your life. It's not a great study and the reporting on it is even worse. It wasn't supported by all the scientists on the committee that published it (can't wait for conspiracy theory nonsense).
To put that into perspective 10% of smokers die of lung cancer and smokers suffer many other diseases. So the comparison to lung cancer and cigarettes is ridiculous.
So do yourself a favour and don't eat a ton of meat, but at the same time don't cut it out based on this nonsense.
WHO often seem to mean well but do harm. For example the insist that mothers should breast feed until 2 years of age. This has resulted in a breast feeding mafia of sorts that guilts women - even those not producing good milk - into trying to breast feed well beyond pushing through a little bit of sleeplessness. This directly affects the rate of and recovery of post-natal depression.
To be fair, you really cannot design a randomized control trial with meat to prove it causes cancer. The researchers looked at data that showed a plausible mechanism for creating cancer. They found that meat, when cooked, releases heterocylcic amines, is loaded with heme iron, stimulates IGF1, has Neu-5-GC, changes bowel bacteria, all of which can lead to cancer. They then used epidemiologic studies to see if the mechanisms described actually lead to cancer.
IF ANYTHING, the results are underplayed. Many of the studies had even stronger correlation between meat and cancer, but they then did statistical methods such as controlling for weight, and LDL, and amounts of veggies eaten, which weakened the association, and yet it was STILL present. They used hundreds of studies to arrive at these conclusions. To say that was not a 'great study' is being disingenuous.
The WHO recs were not made lightly. You can imagine how much heat they must have been feeling from the industry.
It was a meta-study or survey that is claiming a 15-18% increase in rate of "excessive" meat consumers that get digestive tract cancer. It equates to under 1% of the general population and they said about 0.4% of all cancer sufferers. Not all the scientists involved signed off on the results. I would argue it's hard to distinguish such precise figures on small increases from statistical noise in a meta-study that considers a set of studies with different criteria, groups etc.
And to top it off reporting made the 15-18% figure sound like it was an absolute 15-18% personal risk increase to an individual if they chose to eat meat - as in almost 1 in 5 chance of developing cancer on top of what already existed. Which then led to comparisons with cigarettes.
If anything I have underplayed how irresponsible this all is. We've done this before. In the 60s fat was vilified and as a result we have shifted diets to high carb leading to obesity, heart disease and diabetes.
As above WHO recommendations have often done more harm than good. I have personal experience with this. The pressure put on women to breast feed no matter what is ridiculous and it will break a weaker willed woman who may already be experiencing post natal depression. Very few people in Australia would agree with the WHO recommendation to breast feed until age 2. That may make more sense in nations where nutrition is poor and good food scarce. But a woman who's been struggling on 1 hr/night sleep for months to breastfeed and who isn't producing milk despite that effort shouldn't be told to suck it up and keep trying.
we have shifted diets to high carb leading to obesity, heart disease and diabetes.
oh dear, did you just vilify carbs? Pot meet kettle.
The pressure put on women to breast feed no matter what is ridiculous
It should be full support, and not just pressure. Unfortunately many women expect it to be always easy and give up much too quickly.
The benefits of breast-feeding are huge - it is so much more important than whether you eat bacon.
oh dear, did you just vilify carbs? Pot meet kettle.
FACEPALM You have to eat something. I'm advocating for a BALANCED diet. One that isn't high carb, high protein, low sugar, doesn't rely on fairytales about cavemen running around jumping on antelope etc.
I'm saying that these quick fix it remove stuff or only live on one thing diets are the problem. And that media reporting of a dubious meta-study is irresponsible.
And you got out of that that I'm a hypocrite? Perhaps you should take a look at your comprehension skills.
It should be full support, and not just pressure. Unfortunately many women expect it to be always easy and give up much too quickly. The benefits of breast-feeding are huge - it is so much more important than whether you eat bacon.
It's not just women giving up and your silly claims put exactly the kind of pressure on women that they don't need. For all women it's going to be hard to put up with sleep interruption and pain etc. But for some they also have a baby that isn't getting the nutrition they need from the breast milk. Pushing such women to continue to feed and not give up has caused mental health issues for many women. Some women can. Some can't. And we live in an age when the quality of formula is very good.
Much better studies have shown that the benefits of breast feeding have been shown to be over-stated repeatedly http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11886646/Breastf…
Google "breast feeding does not cause" and "bottle feeding does not" to save me listing them all. Then google women's breast feeding horror stories.
In the old days you use to have wet nursing. Now that's considered disgusting - you should have seen the Facebook responses when a woman wrote a piece on breast feeding other people's children.
OK I take your point, but a normal balanced diet is high-carb. Since the dawn of civilisation, thats where we get most of our calories from.
You cannot blame carbs for obesity. Excess sugar might be an issue, but we're still waiting on the evidence.
(Read your other comments, but not the place for a BF argument.)
How high is high? A lot of people have cereal (many with sugar or fruit) and toast and a cup of juice for breakfast and think they're being healthy. That's carb on carb on carb.
Balanced means just that. Not too much or too little of any one type of food. It's not catchy or sexy sexy. It doesn't demonize or lay blame on anything so it doesn't make people emotional enough to stop thinking and start spending. It's not a guaranteed revenue stream for any company. So the diets that get all the attention are idiot extreme diets like Atkins, Paleo on one end and no sugar on the other.
I'm tired of arguing so here's some evidence for you:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2844943/Why-fry-is…
https://www.diabeteshealth.com/why-eating-too-many-carbs-mak…
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbs-against-card…
It’s difficult to specify how many people are directly affected by the carcinogens found in meat because dietary cancer risk is hard to tease out of confounding factors: genetics, stress level, the overconsumption (or under consumption) of other foods, smoking habits, and physical activity, to name a few. Cancer is not governed by a simple equation. Nonetheless processed and red meat is the only foods known to increase the risk. Why would any reasonable health organisation endorse the consumption of something that is guaranteed to increase your risk of getting cancer?
Processed meats are obviously not as bad as cigarettes. This is the sensationalism of media at work. The classification “describes the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.” Ergo there is as much evidence to show that processed meats cause cancer as there is to demonstrate that smoking causes cancer.
Disingenuous to claim that this is an example of a food being “good for you” one day and public health enemy number one the next. If people actually bothered to read dietary recommendations rather than television adverts they'd notice that red and processed meats have never been lauded as a health food; and scientists have long recommended that we eat other foods. People are only noticing now because it's on T.V.
Wow. So much misinformation. You can't just make up what you like and state it as fact then expect to be taken seriously.
You said:
"Nonetheless processed and red meat is the only foods known to increase the risk."
http://www.pcrm.org/health/health-topics/milk-consumption-an…
http://www.livescience.com/35158-the-healthy-geezer-does-mer…
http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/1958/cancer-prevention/diet-…
And you also need to think about other health risks not just cancer. Consider the explosion in the rates of heart disease and diabetes in recent years. Directly linked to a move away from fat and to high carb.
You said:
"If people actually bothered to read dietary recommendations rather than television adverts they'd notice that red and processed meats have never been lauded as a health food"
That's just plain wrong. Scientists have long acknowledged the benefits of red meat.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/what-6-australian-scientis…
The National Health and Medical Research Council’s current dietary guidelines recommends consuming no more than 65 to 100 grams of cooked red meat, three-to-four times a week
The risk of cancer and other chronic disease as well as beneficial contributions of foods in the overall diet was considered (for meat protein-rich and an important source of iron, zinc).
@syousef: "That's just plain wrong. Scientists have long acknowledged the benefits of red meat."
Never said it doesn't have benefits, just that it needs to be weighed up against the risks. I don't know of any other 'health food' that has a demonstrable causal association with cancer. If you actually read the report you'd note that the authors advised conducting "risk assessments, in order to balance the risks and benefits of eating red meat and processed meat and toprovide the best possible dietary recommendations.”.
Common sense stuff here. You can get vegetables, enjoy the vast array of micro nutrients and physiochemical they provide with little to no side effects or consume red meat, which has high concentrations of particular nutrients and deficiencies in others and will increase your risk of cancer. Why would you anyone recommend the later if you had the choice?
"Nonetheless processed and red meat is the only foods known to increase the risk." The risk of.. Colorectal cancer, well actually it is.
Here's the list of 116 that the IARC has found sufficient evidence to demonstrate a causal relationship with Cancer. You'd note that alongside Chinese-style salted fish, processed meats are the only foods on the list. There isn't evidence to demonstrate that Chinese-style salted fish causes bowel cancer so that leaves us with.. Processed meats.
Meanwhile red meat was classified as being "probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A), based on limited evidence that the consumption of red meat causes cancer in humans and strong mechanistic evidence supporting a carcinogenic effect." "This association was observed mainly for colorectal cancer, but associations were also seen for pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer."
Nothing I've said is incorrect, you've just misconstrued the context.
"Consider the explosion in the rates of heart disease and diabetes in recent years. Directly linked to a move away from fat and to high carb." And i'm the one making up things am i? Lol ok.
You want some common sense? ANYTHING you replace your red meat with will have risks. That includes vegies. For some foods they'll be less. For others more.
Bread/grain/starchy veg like potato/rice/fruit/sugar/most carb = diabetes, heart disease
Non starchy vegies = Nitrites
Dairy = Cholesterol/Fat
Tuna = high mercury
Chicken = hormones
Your statement that I'm "making this up" is laughable and your use of "am I the only one" is telling. I can point to sources. Can you?
http://authoritynutrition.com/6-graphs-the-war-on-fat-was-a-…
So you can't just look at the absolute risk of removing the meat without looking at the risk of what you're replacing it with.
Please don't add to the brain dead nonsense by using terms like "micro nutrients" and "physiochemical". They may sound trendy but they either have no scientifically defined meaning, or their meaning can be applied to most things including meat. "Micronutrients" which literally means small nutrients usually just refers to vitamins and minerals - and there are both kinds of substance present in meat. I have no idea what "physiochemical" means in the context you're using it. "Pertaining to physiology and chemistry" is the closest I could find. So yeah you've admitted to making things up and I've caught you out doing it. I suggest you do a bit more reading and a little less spouting of misinformation. LOTS of what you've said is incorrect and I understood what little made sense perfectly.
You can argue all you want about the benefits of eating meat but I would be surprised if this does not make you feel uncomfortable:
https://www.facebook.com/AnimalsAustralia/videos/10154288644…
@Circly: you see, this is why "you" people sicken me. while i am all for treating animals with respect (which i do) the fact you only post up shit about "cute" animals is sickening. if you truly cared about ALL animals why is all your propaganda only about "cute, fluffy, adorable" animals even if those animals have no real meaning to the vitality of the earth as a whole?
there are far more less attractive species which are far more valuable to the planet as a whole but you dont ever see the vids of why to protect those, do you?
if its pretty to look at… get all up in arms about it…
if its not so pleasant to look at, who gives a shit if they are becoming extinct….
PS, i saw nothing offensive in that vid really. things dying has to happen for other things to live… its just a reality
Sure I want unnecessary cruelty to stop, but any method that is near instant isn't going to be cruel even if it looks dramatic when slowed down and music is added. The solution isn't to stop eating meat. It is to force the industries to adopt better practices. If you want to live, something else must die. It's really that simple.
All animals not just cute ones.
If you saw nothing bad about it then I have nothing else to add.
We don't need meat to live. This is coming from someone who loved his chicken schnitzels, steaks burgers etc etc. It sure was hard to give up but I don't need it to live. Meat used to be a luxury something you ate on special occasions, that has totally changed now with people eating it three times or more a day.
I said something must die. Plants also die. Meat isn't impossible to replace nutritionally but it is difficult and whether you like it or not people did evolve to eat meat. Cutting it out altogether is a very artificial thing to do. Also people use to eat what was available. They also use to die in childbirth, of preventable diseases etc. How it use to be is not always desirable.
I said something must die. Plants also die.
but plants arent cute and fluffy…. and they dont have big eyes that can look up at you lovingly…. so no one gives a shit about that…
So you have trouble differentiating between a plant and an animal now?
You keep eating your chicken wings, steaks, lamb chops and ham and tell me that I am the one that doesn't give a shit about animals.
So you have trouble differentiating between a plant and an animal now?
last i checked they were both living things are they not? i just find most vegos to be massive hypocrites, vegans even worse :)
So plants think, form bonds, have families, fear death, have a CNS?
You can justify eating meat all you want (it probably helps you sleep at night) but trying to say that an animal and grass are the same is a bit silly.
@Circly:
seems you forgot to answer my question champ? here ill try again
last i checked they were both living things are they not?
You didn't answer mine.
Plants are not even capable of acknowledging their own existence, does your lawn suffer when it is mowed? No it doesn't.
You are just playing devils advocate in any case.
last i checked they were both living things are they not?
thats caus you havent answered mine yet
last i checked they were both living things are they not?
Plants are a living organism just like an animal. However, they are not sentient like animals who have an evolved consciousness. A plant does not possess a CNS and are unable to suffer, they are not even aware of their own existence.
Btw most of the plants grown goes to feed livestock. If plants suffer as equally as animals (they don't), the production of meat for consumption actually produces greater suffering overall.
last i checked they were both living things are they not?
thats really a yes or no sort of question… maybe you need some more meat in your diet to help your brain work better…
edit: i see you edited your comment
Circly on 02 November at 14:32
@nosdan:
A plant does not possess a CNS and are unable to suffer, they are not even aware of their own existence.
I am negging this. It is a freebie that is always free and therefore not a deal. It also promotes extremist ideology from a group known for violent action.
so, terrorists?
I think I will just stick to a balanced diet of meat, veggies and fruit.
Sorry. I must have missed the email about giving + and - based on my OPINION of what is being posted instead of the "BARGAINESS" of what is on offer. It's free. You get my +1.
its also always been free, so is not a deal Per sey.
Propaganda, not a bargain.
Bloody hell so sick to death of all these bloody meat eaters bitching about vegetarian and vegan lifestyles. Guys just shut the hell up, and eat and let eat. If you don't agree to a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle then stop bitching about it. Comment on the deal here, this is not the place for your whining, arguing, and bickering.
Not sure I would classify being brainwashed as a bargain… :|