7,000 animals?
 

Neither. It's whinny. (pronounced winey)

So is it the average meat eating person as in the OP or is it the average meat eating American who consumes too many animals? Is a chart from a vegan website proving we have more vegetarian body characteristics than carnivore characteristics to be trusted as accurate as proof we are meant to be herbivores or does it mean that it is harder to chew and digest plant material for nutrition than to get the nutrition from meats.

Are you aware that the long term data on Seventh Day Adventists show that avoiding beef reduces the risk of fatal heart disease in men but actually increases it in women?
Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists
I have attached the pertinent graph below. This is the long term study of the white California group and the conclusion is important

"It is important to note that vegetarians may have lower disease risk because of their lack of meat consumption, but it is equally possible that this protection could be due to increased consumption of fruits, vegetables, or nuts. Upon multivariate analysis, the latter often appeared to be the case."

In fact the single most important nutritional difference found was a great benefit from eating nuts.

Previous posts on this thread that heart disease stopped in WW2 are wildly overstated. There was a mortality difference of 2 out of a 1000. And the claim of 10 year life expectancy difference for vegetarians is similarly wildly wrong.

http://www.internationaljournalofcar...290-X/abstract from 2014 "Conclusions

Data from observational studies indicates that there is modest cardiovascular benefit, but no clear reduction in overall mortality associated with a vegetarian diet. This evidence of benefit is driven mainly by studies in SDA, whereas the effect of vegetarian diet in other cohorts remains unproven."

There are many many more well done studies in good journals. The evidence at this point is that a lower meat, higher nuts so called Mediterranean diet may be the best for most people. But your individual mileage will vary.

Blue- thanks for the interesting data and your very balanced neutral analysis. You probably didn't mean it this way but your last sentence distills life and your post very succinctly.

That was in 1999 I think hardly current thinking or research



care to cite where you found that info?



Misleading Mediterranean Diets: Another Look at the Evidence

The recently published New England Journal of Medicine article on the benefits of a Mediterranean diet, “Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet,” has been roundly praised. It might have been better titled, “Promoting Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet.”

All three dietary groups had almost equal facility promoting the growth and clinical appearance of cardiovascular disease which manifested itself as strokes, heart attack and death in those who at study onset did not have this illness.

This Spanish study which clearly worsens cardiovascular disease, is not alone as earlier this month the British Medical Journal updated the randomized Sydney Heart Study, confirming that the addition of oils worsened the outlook for cardiovascular disease.

By way of contrast, our small plant based nutrition study took patients with established advanced cardiovascular disease and not only halted disease progression but was able to demonstrate disease reversal. We will shortly publish an expanded version confirming our original findings.

The epidemiologic ultimate confirmation of the power of plant based nutrition to prevent cardiovascular disease is best demonstrated in T. Colin Campbell’s China Study. In a rural province in China over a three year period examination of over 250,000 death certificates, not one death was attributable to cardiovascular disease.

We’ve reached a crucial fork in the road: do we promote cardiovascular disease with a Mediterranean diet or eliminate it with plant based nutrition?

Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., M.D.
Director Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and Reversal Program Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute.
February 26, 2013

- - - - -

The debate over which diet is best has been severely fraught with a serious misassumption, namely, what is a low fat diet. Virtually everyone, professionals and non-professionals alike, refer to a diet containing 25-30% fat as 'low fat' and anything lower as "extremely" low fat, thus dismissing it, in effect. The implications of this wrong-headed thinking are huge, misleading consumers, policy makers and medical practitioners worldwide, while driving up disease care costs. Being an experimental researcher and policy maker myself for more than a half-century, I have seen this first hand.

The dietary lifestyle having the greatest ability to maintain and restore health, while preventing and actually reversing disease, is one comprised of whole, plant-based foods, with no added oil and refined carbohydrates. It is one fashioned over millions of years by nature and its nutritional composition just so happens to be about 10-12% fat, 10-12% protein and 75-80% carbohydrates, while being chocked full of life-promoting antioxidants and the right kinds and ratios of fats, proteins and carbohydrates. Drs. Esselstyn and Ornish have it right. They have shown that cardiovascular diseases can be reversed with this diet. We also have shown that protein, when animal-based and when fed in excess of our needs say of 8-10%, turns on cancer and elevates the processes that lead to cancer and other serious diseases. Nothing in medical practice comes close to matching these benefits.

T. Colin Campbell, author of The China Study

- - - - - -

Also see article by John McDougall on this study, linked here.

this is good read

Though current medical and surgical treatments manage
coronary artery disease, they do little to prevent or stop
it. Nutritional intervention, as shown in our study and
others, has halted and even reversed CAD

full article


.

Can vegetarians eat gummy bears and gummy worms??

:loco::loco:

Goldfish Crackers??

My family said it was healthy to have a colorful plate where most of the stuff was fruits and veggies and a little bit of the stuff was protein, with a little fat for flavor and starch to make it go further and stick to your ribs. (none of us need that much now).... but I am not evangelistic about it. It tastes nice and it is good for us. My Aunt Elise said so.

AND it so happens that back then, when I was very young, it was also economical and many had kitchen gardens. We canned food and always had fresh veggies and fruits. Sugar was rationed when I was five.

Great advice.

So the latest information is 2.5% vegan? whereas I had said 2% based on a Gallup poll. Not a big difference. Either way it supports the point I was making that vegans are only a small minority.

Thanks for the information; I'll go with the 2.5%

There you go again with the name calling.

I don't have the exact dates but books were recommended like "Brain Drain" and "Wheat Belly".


Then what are you defending?


What's the agenda? Which facts do you think are severely flawed?

Good questions, rubicon, here's the answer:

Those who eat animal protein and junk food don't have to promote it because they have the food industry to do it for them.

What if the tables were turned and you were in the 2.5% minority? Imagine this: You read the newspaper on Thursday and all the restaurant ads are for vegan restaurants. You go to get your mail on Thursday and your postal box is full of glossy restaurant ads picturing nothing but vegan meals. You go to a restaurant and they only have one or two items for meat eaters - one is a ham sandwich and the other is a hotdog, if you're lucky.

Then you drive down the street and you see Vegan King, McVegan's (under the golden arches), Dunkin Vegans, Wendy-Vegan, Vinny's Vegan pizzas.
Imagine your world dominated by everything vegan.

Dogs eat whatever they are given. You buy the dog food, put it in their dish, and they'll eat it. How would you like to be treated that way in a restaurant if the tables were turned. You would have to be happy with the ham sandwich if that's all they decide to have available.

And if you should decide to promote meat, how would you like it if I said, "Live and let live."

I of course can't speak for rubicon, but if you posed the question to me...

I'd know I was a small minority therefore accept the consequences of my choice. I'd know that the arguments whether pro or con are not definitive regardless of how fervent either side is. And I'd be fine with "live and let live" as a result, not trying to force my views on others.

Surely vegans have chosen to be in the 2.5% minority?

If people cannot eat meat for medical reasons then I have sympathy for them, but if they CHOOSE not to eat meat then they really should be happy to live with their decision.

It just seems rather perverse to choose a lifestyle and then moan just because not everyone decides to go the same way?

Then why don't you simply go after the restaurants rather than attacking people for what they eat because it doesn't suit 2.5% of the population. And barefoot's statement was not a frivolous accusation. You have stated eating fish before.

God put animals on this earth for man to EAT! Thats there purpose!