7,000 animals?
 

Let's go back to the OP's OP. His statement is from an article in USA Today (not one of your more intellectual newspapers), and it quotes a prediction from an organization I can't even find in Google:

"An organization called Vegetarian Calendar is predicting how many animals the average meat-eating person will consume over a lifetime."

If I may borrow one of the arguments frequently used by Villages PL, this (not even a) "study" comes from a source with a specific bias/agenda.

I hardly consider it credible.

Your right it can't be found in Google if you search for the WRONG name of the organization :024:

try Vegetarian Calculator

it's calculator not calender

the issue of credibility is your choice, but it was picked up as valid article by hundreds of other media world wide..

The other choice is to do your own math :loco:

7,000 animals?
 

Having been picked up by world wide media hardly makes it a valid source(s). The media today are not worthy of being considered trustworthy scientific sources unless they carefully are sourced from true scientific journals. I've looked and cannot find any recognized scientific basis behind the site you note.

Oops!

My quote was directly from USAToday.com. They're the ones who called it the Vegetarian Calendar.

Double oops!

Talk about a load of you know what. I put in 3 months and the vegetarian calculator said:
How many animals you saved: 51
How many lbs of meat you didn't eat: 49

How small are these animals considering they weighted a tad over a pound each. You could eat 49 pounds of beef and that wouldn't even be one cow. Amazes me some people believe this stuff.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I like that dice metaphor and I agree.
Then there are the heavy drinkers/smokers who end up living a long time saying that if they'd known they were going to live so long they would have taken better care of themselves.

Genes play a much smaller role than most people have been led to believe. For example, genes can be turned on or off by lifestyle activity. We can see this because many people who have the genes associated with breast cancer never develop breast cancer. And the same has been demonstrated for Alzheimer's etc.

Of course if one lives a poor lifestyle, genes will play a larger role because genes for disease will more likely be turned on.

7,000 animals?
 

What to believe...decades of scientific and medical research and study, or one highly biased, agenda-driven opinion? Hmmm.

Double Hmmm!

Triple Hmmm.

And the Hmmmms have it!

Search Google, naysayers, the statement is correct in most cases.

here's one quick read

However it is easier to define in certain diseases like type 2 diabetes and heart conditions.

.

Two diseases out of the myriad of genes impacting the human body does not support your claim.

The simplistic answer posted by VPL about genes being turned on or off shows a lack of basic understanding about the role of genetics in mammals. A micro deletion of the elastin gene can cause a syndrome, but they just aren't turned on or off by lack of carrots, thank you.

Some of us are just born carnivores. We have a full set of canine teeth. I love bloody rare T-bone steaks more than anything else I can think to eat.

To me vegetarian is Latin for poor hunter.

Gracie, I said in most not all diseases.

How about a real scientific source - PubMed - google is hardly equivalent

I have a couple of hundred more articles if you like:
Impact of genetic testing on complex diseases.

You should really give credit to Dr (?) Merkola the eminent medical huckster, otherwise you are skating very close to plagiarism.
A Healthy Lifestyle Supports Healthy Genetic Expression