 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / November 2004Vegan M.D. vs The Atkins Corporation
Dr. Michael Greger M.D. and vegan activist scared the Atkins Corporation when he put up his website atkinsfacts.com. The Atkins Corporation had good reason to be scared. Dr. Greger is intelligent, very well educated, very well versed in the literature, and a charismatic speaker. I am sure they have nightmare visions of him going on the talk show circuit to promote his upcoming anti-atkins book. So, they threatened him. Dr. Greger has retained lawyers and escalated his battle. He has published the threats from The Atkins coporation and his rebuttal to their points of argument on his web site: http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/135/Corporate_Threat.htm >Dr. Michael Greger M.D. and vegan activist scared the Atkins Corporation >when he put up his website atkinsfacts.com. > >The Atkins Corporation had good reason to be scared. Dr. Greger is >intelligent, very well educated, very well versed in the literature, >and a charismatic speaker. It's clear from looking at this website that there is a lot of money, as well as totally committed zealots, supporting the vegan cause. Nonetheless, you can't get around the facts. We have a digestive system that is similar to that of most carnivores. Studies of hunter-gatherer societies (who lead lifestyles similar to that of prehistoric humans) show that they consume a largely meat-based diet. Fossil evidence, and the wave of extinctions that accompanied mankind's spread around the world, show that early humans were prolific hunters. We evolved on a largely meat-based diet, and that is what our bodies are adapted to eat. Unfortunately, food science appears to be dominated by vegetarians and animal rights fanatics who are more concerned about the welfare of cute furry animals than their fellow human beings. They've used a series of biased, highly flawed studies to promote vegetarianism as healthy, despite an abundance of evidence that it is anything but. On the back of the vegetarian "healthy eating" myth, an extremely profitable processed foods industry has grown. Animal products such as meat and dairy foods are expensive and tend to have a short shelf life. By contrast, plant-sourced raw materials (such as flour, sugar and vegetable oils) are much cheaper and can be made into a wide range of processed foods, most of which have a long shelf life without refridgeration. The raw materials cost of these processed foods is tiny compared with the final retail price of the finished product, resulting in some of the highest profit margins of any industry. If the low fat vegetarian mantra were to lose its shine, they might be able to produce animal-sourced processed foods instead, but there is no way they would make such high profit margins. The health problems caused by overconsumption of vegetarian processed foods have proved a boon to the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical industry too. Obesity, heart disease and diabetes are some of their biggest moneyspinners, and they are all linked to overconsumption of plant-sourced starches and sugars. An additional contributor to the heart disease epidemic may be vegetable oils and particularly "hydrogenated" vegetable oil, a cheap artificial fat substitute used in margarine and many processed foods. For many people, too much vegetarian food is far from healthy, leading to chronic illness and an early death. Use your common sense. There are so many vested interests with so much to lose, how likely do you think it is that they will tell you the truth? Give Atkins a try - it'll help you lose weight and could add years to your life. >>Dr. Michael Greger M.D. and vegan activist scared the Atkins Corporation >>when he put up his website atkinsfacts.com. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It's clear from looking at this website that there is a lot of money, > as well as totally committed zealots, supporting the vegan cause. I'm not saying that you are wrong or that you are right, but did you read the entire text at that site? Steve http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/ Be a healthy Vegan or Vegetarian http://geocities.com/beforewisdom/Veg/healthyVeg.html "The great American thought trap: It is not real unless it can be seen on television or bought in a shopping mall" > >Dr. Michael Greger M.D. and vegan activist scared the Atkins Corporation > >when he put up his website atkinsfacts.com. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > truth? Give Atkins a try - it'll help you lose weight and could add > years to your life. well said >>Dr. Michael Greger M.D. and vegan activist scared the Atkins Corporation >>when he put up his website atkinsfacts.com. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > prolific hunters. We evolved on a largely meat-based diet, and that is > what our bodies are adapted to eat. You're completely wrong You surely need to read something by Jared Diamond about wat fossils evidences really show Humans were very very poor hunters They were not exactly what would you call an hunterers-gatherers but more gatherers-scaravengers-fishers Hearly humans were not profilic hunters, they used to eat many bugs and small mammals and mostly fish Hearly humans were mostly plant eaters as it has been estimated that their very high calcium consumption (300mg daily) could be obtained only through massive dark leaves consumption They were also mostly nuts eaters, plus cold climated fruits It has been estimated that hearly humans consumed 20% to 25% of their diet as animal foods, and this is lot less than what we eat today since nowhere we eat today 80% plant foods in our standard diet Humans evolved through fish and plants basically Plants gave them the material for bones buldings and fish gave them the fatty acids they need for their nervous system Meat had not role at all and our digestive system is no way similar to that of carnivorous animals but omnivorous ones Throw away those useless paleolithic diet books and read something by true anthropologists and archaeologists Daniel > Unfortunately, food science appears to be dominated by vegetarians and > animal rights fanatics who are more concerned about the welfare of [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > truth? Give Atkins a try - it'll help you lose weight and could add > years to your life. >>>Dr. Michael Greger M.D. and vegan activist scared the Atkins Corporation >>>when he put up his website atkinsfacts.com. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >evidences really show >Humans were very very poor hunters No matter what lies the animal rights propagandists put out, you can't get around the fact that our digestive tract is adapted for meat eating, not plant eating. If you don't believe me, try living on a diet of grass, twigs and leaves for a while. We are completely unable to digest cellulose, which means that we cannot digest most common plant materials. The fruits and vegetables which fill our supermarkets are the product of thousands of years of selective breeding which has made them easy to digest. They didn't exist when humans first evolved. Our ability to formulate strategies, to communicate ideas to each other, to work together in large groups, and to fashion tools and weapons, means that humans are and have always been very successful hunters. With the exception of Africa, on every continent colonised by humans, most or all large, easily hunted animal species have gone extinct shortly afterwards. This pattern has been repeated again and again, from wooly mammoths in Siberia to moas in New Zealand. The African game animals co-evolved with humans, giving them time to adapt to our presence, which is why so many large animal species have survived there. >Hearly humans were mostly plant eaters as it has been estimated that >their very high calcium consumption (300mg daily) could be obtained only >through massive dark leaves consumption This is nonsense. >They were also mostly nuts eaters, plus cold climated fruits Edible nuts were rare or nonexistent in most of the places colonised by early humans, and even where they are abundant, they are highly seasonal. You need to remember that the fruits and nuts we have today are farmed produce, the wild plants they were originally bred from are usually much less appetising. >It has been estimated that hearly humans consumed 20% to 25% of their >diet as animal foods, and this is lot less than what we eat today since >nowhere we eat today 80% plant foods in our standard diet Again, this is nonsense. Studies of a wide range of hunter-gather societies (who live a lifestyle closest to that of early humans) show that they typically get around 2/3 of their dietary calories from animal food sources and 1/3 from plants. The myth that hunter-gatherers eat a largely vegetarian diet apparently originated from Richard Lee's 1968 book "Man the Hunter". Lee claimed that hunter-gatherers got around 35 percent of their calories from hunted animal foods. Subsequent researchers took this to mean that they consumed 35 percent animal foods and 65 percent plant foods. This ratio ended up being cited again and again by more researchers (each taking it from someone else's earlier paper and assuming it to be true) until it became widely accepted as fact. However, it turns out that Lee had classified foods such as fish, carrion and insects as "gathered" foods, lumping them together with plant-sourced foods such as tubers and nuts. In other words, his statistics were worthless for determining the ratio of plant and animal food sources in the typical hunter-gatherer diet, and should never have been used for that purpose. Most hunter-gathers get the bulk of their calories from meat, not from vegetables. >Humans evolved through fish and plants basically >Plants gave them the material for bones buldings and fish gave them the >fatty acids they need for their nervous system >Meat had not role at all and our digestive system is no way similar to >that of carnivorous animals but omnivorous ones True omnivores (such as the rat) can digest cellulose, which means that they can live a much wider variety of foodstuffs than us. Rats like the same sorts of foods that we do, but when push comes to shove they can eat just about anything, including wood and paper. Because their digestive system is much better than ours at extracting nutriment from unpromising food, they can even thrive on human sewage. Our digestive system is adapted for a largely carnivorous diet, we are not omnivores. >>>>Dr. Michael Greger M.D. and vegan activist scared the Atkins Corporation >>>>when he put up his website atkinsfacts.com. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >get around the fact that our digestive tract is adapted for meat >eating, not plant eating. Utter nonsense. It is adapted to eating pretty much anything. Omnivore. > If you don't believe me, try living on a >diet of grass, twigs and leaves for a while. Or even a good vegan diet? Why choose such poorly nutritious foods? >We are completely unable >to digest cellulose, which means that we cannot digest most common >plant materials. Well the cellulose in them, anyways. What about all the starches, sugars, proteins and fats, not to mention all the valuable micronutrints? >The fruits and vegetables which fill our supermarkets >are the product of thousands of years of selective breeding which has >made them easy to digest. They didn't exist when humans first evolved. There are stacks and stacks of delicious plant foods in Australia with not a jot of human selection involved. Fruits are sweet so that fructivores (and omnivores) will eat them and disperse the seeds. You do realise that flowers don't produce nectar to feed bees, don't you? >Our ability to formulate strategies, to communicate ideas to each >other, to work together in large groups, and to fashion tools and >weapons, means that humans are and have always been very successful >hunters. When the game is about. When it has been hunted out coz there are too many humans and the climate is inclement? > With the exception of Africa, on every continent colonised by >humans, most or all large, easily hunted animal species have gone >extinct shortly afterwards. Which brings on a chronic shortage of game! >This pattern has been repeated again and >again, from wooly mammoths in Siberia to moas in New Zealand. The >African game animals co-evolved with humans, giving them time to adapt >to our presence, which is why so many large animal species have >survived there. Really? How have they changed in a few hundred thousand years? >>Hearly humans were mostly plant eaters as it has been estimated that >>their very high calcium consumption (300mg daily) could be obtained only [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >are farmed produce, the wild plants they were originally bred from are >usually much less appetising. Not always, but yes, in general, but hunger makes a good sauce, remember. >>It has been estimated that hearly humans consumed 20% to 25% of their >>diet as animal foods, and this is lot less than what we eat today since [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that they typically get around 2/3 of their dietary calories from >animal food sources and 1/3 from plants. Where abouts? Which folk? Do you realise how silly these generalisations appear? >The myth that hunter-gatherers eat a largely vegetarian diet >apparently originated from Richard Lee's 1968 book "Man the Hunter". [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >never have been used for that purpose. Most hunter-gathers get the >bulk of their calories from meat, not from vegetables. And do you really think that all hunter/gatherers ate the same thing all over the world, and thus had the same ratio of plant to animal food? And then there are the seasonal differences. Just look at the different ratios all over the world, at different times of the year, today. >>Humans evolved through fish and plants basically >>Plants gave them the material for bones buldings and fish gave them the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >True omnivores (such as the rat) can digest cellulose, which means >that they can live a much wider variety of foodstuffs than us. Rats can't digest cellulose. Neither can the other common omnivores, dogs and apes. > Rats >like the same sorts of foods that we do, but when push comes to shove [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Our digestive system is adapted for a largely carnivorous diet, we are >not omnivores. Again, you are dead wrong on so many counts. Did you know that humans often eat clay when hungry? > No matter what lies the animal rights propagandists put out, you can't > get around the fact that our digestive tract is adapted for meat > eating, not plant eating. Not true, necessarily. The human digestive tract is longer than most carnivores. It is not as long as a cow's, but that doesn't necessarily mean humans are incapable of eating many kinds of plants. And even my cat (a carnivore) can eat some vegetables without trouble (such as mashed chick peas, or hummus- they also like flaxseed oil). Cats will also eat grass because the fiber prevents hairballs, though they eat it in very small amounts. The bulk of cat food in the US, in fact, is made from corn and soybeans, with meat flavor and nutrients such as taurine added. > If you don't believe me, try living on a > diet of grass, twigs and leaves for a while. We are completely unable > to digest cellulose, which means that we cannot digest most common > plant materials. Fiber in the human diet is necessary to avoid constipation. It also might protect against colon cancer. Most vegetable matter in the human diet are fruits, seeds, or roots of plants- not the leaves. You are correct we are not cows, but that doesn't mean we cannot eat vegetables. > The fruits and vegetables which fill our supermarkets > are the product of thousands of years of selective breeding which has > made them easy to digest. They didn't exist when humans first evolved. And neither did the modern cow or chicken. > Our ability to formulate strategies, to communicate ideas to each > other, to work together in large groups, and to fashion tools and > weapons, means that humans are and have always been very successful > hunters. I have had quite a bit of experience in anthropology in college, and assuming that humans could talk and make tools only so they could hunt is considered passee and gender-biased. In all likelyhood, the gathering of plants and animal remains was equally important, if not more so, than hunting. Human's meat eating wasn't like the "noble hunter". More like the "craven scavenger", for the most part, at least until the last 70,000 years or so. > >It has been estimated that hearly humans consumed 20% to 25% of their > >diet as animal foods, and this is lot less than what we eat today since [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that they typically get around 2/3 of their dietary calories from > animal food sources and 1/3 from plants. Hunter gatherers of today are not necessarily the same as paleolithic hominids/humans. The San of the Kalahari, for instance, once lived in the scrublands of modern-day South Africa, but they were displaced into the Kalahari. And FWIW, most of the calories in their diet come from plants, not animals. They do hunt, but they are rarely able to succesfully kill anything. Any calories from hunting are a "bonus" for them, and not something they depend too much on. Their diet is mostly based on gathering. And all these arguements aside... we come down to the fact that modern humans have a brain. We no longer have to hunt to survive. Indeed, hunting tragically has killed off many species that still could be roaming the Earth. We no longer even need meat to survive. In the next decades, the world population will reach close to 10 billion people. There is just no way that that many people can live comfortably chomping down on steaks and Big Macs. The inherent inefficiency of feeding edible plants to animals, then eating the animals, will render this impossible. And right now, the heavy consumption of meat, along with a highly afluent, wasteful lifestyle, is placing strain on the ecology of the planet. >> No matter what lies the animal rights propagandists put out, you can't >> get around the fact that our digestive tract is adapted for meat [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] >heavy consumption of meat, along with a highly afluent, wasteful lifestyle, >is placing strain on the ecology of the planet. Thanks Magnulus. Well said. >> No matter what lies the animal rights propagandists put out, you can't >> get around the fact that our digestive tract is adapted for meat [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >carnivores. It is not as long as a cow's, but that doesn't necessarily mean >humans are incapable of eating many kinds of plants. Our gut is completely incapable of digesting cellulose. Without this ability, we are very restricted in the kinds of plant-sourced foods we can eat. We also can't deal with the phytotoxins present in many wild plants. If you were lost in a forest somewhere and tried eating leaves and grasses picked at random, you would very likely poison yourself and certainly wouldn't be able to get enough nutriment to make the effort worthwhile. > And even my cat (a carnivore) can eat some vegetables without trouble (such >as mashed chick peas, or hummus- they also like flaxseed oil). Yes, many carnivores will eat easily digested plant foods such as fruits when they are available. Which is precisely my point - we are carnivores. > Fiber in the human diet is necessary to avoid constipation. Actually, I'm not sure that that's true. I'm eating mostly meat now, and haven't found it to be a problem. Then there are the Inuit, whose traditional diet consists of meat, fish and blubber, and contains essentially no vegetable matter. Are there any studies showing that they suffer from chronic constipation? They live in an extremely harsh environment, and they just wouldn't be able to survive if they had any serious health problems (which chronic constipation would almost certainly cause). > It also might >protect against colon cancer. Although there isn't any unambiguous evidence that it does. > Most vegetable matter in the human diet are fruits, seeds, or roots of >plants- not the leaves. You are correct we are not cows, but that doesn't >mean we cannot eat vegetables. I never claimed that we can't eat vegetables. The point I was trying to make is that we are primarily carnivores with a limited ability to digest certain kinds of plant matter. >> The fruits and vegetables which fill our supermarkets >> are the product of thousands of years of selective breeding which has >> made them easy to digest. They didn't exist when humans first evolved. > > And neither did the modern cow or chicken. Yes, but when humans first appeared as a species there was an abundance of easily hunted prey, whereas wheat, corn etc didn't exist. There was plenty of meat, but the vegetable produce that we eat today didn't exist. >> Our ability to formulate strategies, to communicate ideas to each >> other, to work together in large groups, and to fashion tools and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >assuming that humans could talk and make tools only so they could hunt is >considered passee and gender-biased. Yes, unfortunately logic and the facts take second place to political correctness in many of the "soft sciences", such as anthropology. If you look at the evolution of hominid species you'll see that as our brains became larger, our diet became increasingly carnivorous and our tools changed from simple lumps of rocks to complex, skilfuly crafted objects such as arrowheads and fishhooks. Increasing brain size, tool use, hunting and a carnivorous diet all went hand in hand. It might not be PC to say so, but our success as hunters had a great deal to do with us becoming human. > In all likelyhood, the gathering of >plants and animal remains was equally important, if not more so, than >hunting. Human's meat eating wasn't like the "noble hunter". More like the >"craven scavenger", for the most part, at least until the last 70,000 years >or so. Crap - you only have to look at the wave of extinctions that accompanied mankind's spread around the world to see that humans are extremely effective hunters. >> >It has been estimated that hearly humans consumed 20% to 25% of their >> >diet as animal foods, and this is lot less than what we eat today since [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >anything. Any calories from hunting are a "bonus" for them, and not >something they depend too much on. Their diet is mostly based on gathering. Yes, our population has grown so much that we have hunted many of the largest and most easily caught animals into extinction. However, that is a relatively recent occurrance, for most of our time as a species hunting was a far more rewarding activity than it is for today's hunter-gatherers. > And all these arguements aside... we come down to the fact that modern >humans have a brain. We no longer have to hunt to survive. Indeed, hunting [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >heavy consumption of meat, along with a highly afluent, wasteful lifestyle, >is placing strain on the ecology of the planet. I can't speak for the whole world but in the UK isn't the fact that most pasture (formerly used for grazing) has been replaced with crops such as wheat, corn and oilseed rape, the main reason that so many formerly common species of wildlife are now endangered? Pasture supports a far richer variety of species than monocultures of food crops. Plus, it fixes its own nitrogen, doesn't need spraying with pesticides, and the input of fossil fuels needed to maintain it is minimal. Meat from grazing animals is actually quite an environmentally friendly food source, wouldn't you agree? A population of 10 billion people is an ecological disaster no matter what you do. Surely the answer is to prevent that situation from arising in the first place by providing better access to birth control? >>> No matter what lies the animal rights propagandists put out, you can't >>> get around the fact that our digestive tract is adapted for meat [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >ability, we are very restricted in the kinds of plant-sourced foods we >can eat. Why? What about horses? What about plant starches, sugars, proteins and fats? >We also can't deal with the phytotoxins present in many wild >plants. As well as any other animal. > If you were lost in a forest somewhere and tried eating leaves >and grasses picked at random, you would very likely poison yourself >and certainly wouldn't be able to get enough nutriment to make the >effort worthwhile. So? Use your noodle and try fruits, berries, seeds and tubers like our ancestors did. Some bark is quite good to eat. >> And even my cat (a carnivore) can eat some vegetables without trouble (such >>as mashed chick peas, or hummus- they also like flaxseed oil). Your point? >Yes, many carnivores will eat easily digested plant foods such as >fruits when they are available. Which is precisely my point - we are >carnivores. We are omnivores. Cats eating a typical human diet would die. Cats often eat grass. >> Fiber in the human diet is necessary to avoid constipation. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >serious health problems (which chronic constipation would almost >certainly cause). Are you sure they don't eat quite a bit if animal fibre? >> It also might >>protect against colon cancer. >> >Although there isn't any unambiguous evidence that it does. Well there is that meat has considerable negative effect. >> Most vegetable matter in the human diet are fruits, seeds, or roots of >>plants- not the leaves. You are correct we are not cows, but that doesn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >to make is that we are primarily carnivores with a limited ability to >digest certain kinds of plant matter. We can digest ALL the plant matter that most herbivores can. Only ruminants with bacterial slaves have the added advantage of getting the energy out of cellulose. >>> The fruits and vegetables which fill our supermarkets >>> are the product of thousands of years of selective breeding which has [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Yes, but when humans first appeared as a species there was an >abundance of easily hunted prey, whereas wheat, corn etc didn't exist. There was an abundance of prey for a few months in a few areas, until it was hunted out. There were grass seeds, nuts, fruits, pulses, tubers in various areas in various abundances. Much more likely that this closer-to-the-source food supply would have been exploited. Animals are concentrated energy, much of which has been disipated from the original source, plants. >There was plenty of meat, but the vegetable produce that we eat today >didn't exist. Utter nonsense. See above. What do many apes eat? >>> Our ability to formulate strategies, to communicate ideas to each >>> other, to work together in large groups, and to fashion tools and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Yes, unfortunately logic and the facts take second place to political >correctness in many of the "soft sciences", such as anthropology. And food faddism is a hard science? :-) > If >you look at the evolution of hominid species you'll see that as our >brains became larger, our diet became increasingly carnivorous and our >tools changed from simple lumps of rocks to complex, skilfuly crafted >objects such as arrowheads and fishhooks. And seed grinding stones and plant gathereing bowls. You are listening to that "hard food fad site" I guess. >Increasing brain size, tool >use, hunting and a carnivorous diet all went hand in hand. Yet you have no evidence for this? Why would meat get more abundant? Surely as hunting skills increased along with human population, this highly concentrated food source would diminish to a trickle. Early men felled trees to increase grasslands for seed production long before agriculture (planting grasses) evolved. >It might >not be PC to say so, but our success as hunters had a great deal to do >with us becoming human. Funny that we evolved from a furry little rat that ran under the dinosaurs feet :-) Of course survival tactics selected for big brains. But this hunting theory does not explain the lion or the cheetah. >> In all likelyhood, the gathering of >>plants and animal remains was equally important, if not more so, than [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >accompanied mankind's spread around the world to see that humans are >extremely effective hunters. My point! The meat larder goose was killed. Hence the overwhelming reliance on plants. Just the better survival rate of plant eaters wrt meat eaters should show that plants prevailed. Veges Rool! :-) >>> >It has been estimated that hearly humans consumed 20% to 25% of their >>> >diet as animal foods, and this is lot less than what we eat today since [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Yes, our population has grown so much that we have hunted many of the >largest and most easily caught animals into extinction. And forced our emphasis onto plants, and this since the earliest "hunters". >However, that >is a relatively recent occurrance, for most of our time as a species >hunting was a far more rewarding activity than it is for today's >hunter-gatherers. Why? Were they that unsuccessful that their population didn't increase to match their food supply? >> And all these arguements aside... we come down to the fact that modern >>humans have a brain. We no longer have to hunt to survive. Indeed, hunting [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >pesticides, and the input of fossil fuels needed to maintain it is >minimal. So long as you don't harvest the meat off it, but I suspect you have little idea of what inputs farmers must make to harvested pasture. >Meat from grazing animals is actually quite an >environmentally friendly food source, wouldn't you agree? No, intrinsically unsustainable like all cropping, just the amount of food per acre is about one tenth as meat than as plants. >A population of 10 billion people is an ecological disaster no matter >what you do. Surely the answer is to prevent that situation from >arising in the first place by providing better access to birth >control? Or even education, a much more effective regime, but even today, as I've said elsewhere, the world has 2 billion too many folk to survive naturally, and meat is one of the foods that must be reduced in many diets for a sustainable future wrt just food. snip >It's clear from looking at this website that there is a lot of money, >as well as totally committed zealots, supporting the vegan cause. >Nonetheless, you can't get around the facts. We have a digestive >system that is similar to that of most carnivores. Studies of >hunter-gatherer societies (who lead lifestyles similar to that of >prehistoric humans) show that they consume a largely meat-based diet. Yeah, and if they lived to 40 they were ancient and decrepit. I've known lots of healthy vegetarians. Generally, they seem to do better if they at least eat eggs or dairy. Personally, I'll only eat what I think I can kill. I can kill fish, insects and probably a chicken. I would not want to kill a pig, sheep or cow so I don't eat them. George M. Carter >Yeah, and if they lived to 40 they were ancient and decrepit. No, that was the "average" lifespan. There were many many who didn't make it to their first birthday and many who lived much longer than forty. >>Yeah, and if they lived to 40 they were ancient and decrepit. > >No, that was the "average" lifespan. There were many many who didn't >make it to their first birthday and many who lived much longer than >forty. And today's current "average" lifespan, sometimes ghastly diets notwithstanding? George M. Carter > >>Yeah, and if they lived to 40 they were ancient and decrepit. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > George M. Carter Only idiots do not comprehend the reality of the so called "average life span" and how it is calculated and what the real significance is. People were not old and decrepit at 40 years old! My god I still can not belive this fantasy is so widespread. In fact many if not MOST(who did not die before adulthood) lived to very old ages AND enjoyed robust health until the day the died. You do not seem like an idiot but it seems even though Dunne tried to explain it, you still fail to understand. Reality check please. >>>>Yeah, and if they lived to 40 they were ancient and decrepit. >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > MOST(who did not die before adulthood) lived to very old ages AND > enjoyed robust health until the day the died. Bullshit There are no evideces at all that prehistoric humans were healthier or lived longer No evidence at all Please read a good book about paleontology to understand what paleontology can prove what it cannot prove and what it has really proved We only know that prehistoric humans had better bone density, and this is due to the fact that their diet was 70% plant, especially dark green leafy vegetables which they get their calcium from Don't call someone idiot if what you say or believe is 10.000 time more stupid and based on nonsense and lack of knowledge Daniel >> >>Yeah, and if they lived to 40 they were ancient and decrepit. >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >idiot but it seems even though Dunne tried to explain it, you still >fail to understand. Reality check please. Well, Dunne didn't argue that the average paleolithic lifespan exceeded about 40. I can accept this is an arguable hypothesis but I believe the evidence suggests that was how long they lived. See, e.g., http://neuro-www.mgh.harvard.edu/forum_2/MultipleSclerosisF/7.3.9910.16AMLifesty le.mi.html I think to establish what peoples ate in that period is also problematic. And basically, my impression of the paleolithic diet is that it is just so much marketing bullshit. So I'm skeptical. Happy to be shown evidence to the contrary as I know very little about this subject. George M. Carter >>>Yeah, and if they lived to 40 they were ancient and decrepit. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > George M. Carter Much higher when we don't have those huge infant and maternal mortalities. >>>Yeah, and if they lived to 40 they were ancient and decrepit. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > George M. Carter Much higher, due to breakthroughs in medicine. Rob >>Dr. Michael Greger M.D. and vegan activist scared the Atkins Corporation >>when he put up his website atkinsfacts.com. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >hunter-gatherer societies (who lead lifestyles similar to that of >prehistoric humans) show that they consume a largely meat-based diet. Such as? >Fossil evidence, and the wave of extinctions that accompanied >mankind's spread around the world, show that early humans were >prolific hunters. We evolved on a largely meat-based diet, and that is >what our bodies are adapted to eat. That's not a fact. >Unfortunately, food science appears to be dominated by vegetarians and >animal rights fanatics who are more concerned about the welfare of >cute furry animals than their fellow human beings. They've used a >series of biased, highly flawed studies to promote vegetarianism as >healthy, despite an abundance of evidence that it is anything but. There are nutters in every area. Characterising food science as only done by nutters is just wrong. >On the back of the vegetarian "healthy eating" myth, an extremely >profitable processed foods industry has grown. And you ignore the billions of folk who have done well on a mostly vegetarian diet for thousands of years? > Animal products such as >meat and dairy foods are expensive and tend to have a short shelf >life. By contrast, plant-sourced raw materials (such as flour, sugar >and vegetable oils) And you ignore nuts fruit grains (rice etc) and pulses (soy etc) that are the commonest stapels throughout the world? >are much cheaper and can be made into a wide range >of processed foods, most of which have a long shelf life without >refridgeration. And you ignore dried meats, cheeses and eggs? >The raw materials cost of these processed foods is >tiny compared with the final retail price of the finished product, >resulting in some of the highest profit margins of any industry. I think you are confusing the small recent phenomenon of Western eating. Try to look at the big picture. > If >the low fat vegetarian mantra were to lose its shine, they might be >able to produce animal-sourced processed foods instead, but there is >no way they would make such high profit margins. Huh? You haven't visited a supermarket recently, I guess. >The health problems caused by overconsumption of vegetarian processed >foods have proved a boon to the medical establishment and the >pharmaceutical industry too. Huh? Surely the overconsumption of food is what causes this paranoid view of the western food industry. No-one forces anyone to overeat! >Obesity, heart disease and diabetes are >some of their biggest moneyspinners, You really think that they cause folk to sit on their a.ses and eat too much? >and they are all linked to >overconsumption of plant-sourced starches and sugars. Some are, but most are due to just plain overeating and under exercising. Overeating anything, and fat will get you there quicker. >An additional >contributor to the heart disease epidemic may be vegetable oils and >particularly "hydrogenated" vegetable oil, a cheap artificial fat >substitute used in margarine and many processed foods. Only if they are overconsumed, but most of the world never ate such stuff over the last few millennia. > For many >people, too much vegetarian food is far from healthy, leading to >chronic illness and an early death. Of course it is. Same as too much animal food. Struth! >Use your common sense. Which you don't seem to be doing. Perhaps you have read too much Atkins propaganda? >There are so many vested interests with so much >to lose, how likely do you think it is that they will tell you the >truth? As much as anyone.The secret is education. Learn to discriminate! >Give Atkins a try - it'll help you lose weight and could add >years to your life. Ahh, I thought so, now the shill. Sorry, but Atkins is likely to do you considerable damage. Try a balanced diet, in moderation. > Dr. Michael Greger M.D. and vegan activist scared the Atkins Corporation > when he put up his website atkinsfacts.com. Well, I think that in general, it is vegan activists that are scared by Atkins to death, not vice versa... Mirek "Mirek Fídler" <cxl@volny.cz> wrote in message news:<2ti8ntF1vsc1nU1@uni-berlin.de>... > > Dr. Michael Greger M.D. and vegan activist scared the Atkins Corporation > > when he put up his website atkinsfacts.com. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mirek LOL now that is a more realistic picture i think On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:19:46 +0200, "Mirek Fídler" <cxl@volny.cz> posted: >> Dr. Michael Greger M.D. and vegan activist scared the Atkins Corporation >> when he put up his website atkinsfacts.com. > >Well, I think that in general, it is vegan activists that are scared by >Atkins to death, not vice versa... Well not by all the recent announcements by government health departments in Australia decrying the Atkins diet as folly. > Dr. Michael Greger M.D. and vegan activist scared the Atkins Corporation > when he put up his website atkinsfacts.com. oooohhhh, they are just shaking in their boots..... > The Atkins Corporation had good reason to be scared. Dr. Greger is > intelligent, very well educated, very well versed in the literature, > and a charismatic speaker. NOT! > I am sure they have nightmare visions of him going on the talk show > circuit to promote his upcoming anti-atkins book. Bwahhhhh haaaaaa haaaaaaaa.... > So, they threatened him. It looks as if they are challenging his version of the facts. Does that threaten you? > Dr. Greger has retained lawyers and escalated his battle. Good for him. He's gonna lose. > He has published the threats from The Atkins coporation and his rebuttal > to their points of argument on his web site: > > http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/135/Corporate_Threat.htm Interesting how he accuses atkins of cherry picking facts when his entire response is cherry picking selective quotes out of context from the atkins letter to respond to. Then Greger cherry picks data from studies from non-profit organizations that have direct ties with the food and pharmaceutical industries who have a vested interest in selling us unhealthy manufactured carb crap. PETA, PCRM, Big Food and Big Pharma are all on the same side selling the same bullshit about diet. TC |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.