ozleicester Posted 10 January 2013 Author Posted 10 January 2013 and if you want to eat really nice food and not look like a stick - don't. MEAT = TESTOSTERONE LEMME HEAR YOUR WAR CRY Strongman Patrik Baboumian has been voted Vegan Athlete of the Year 2012 Patrik has had a great year, winning the European powerlifting title in the open category and setting two world records in the 125-140kg category. He also set a record for fronthold and keglift, and won the German loglift championships. Mac Danzig Mac Danzig is an internationally recognised Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) competitor who has competed at the highest level. In 2005 Mac won the King Of The Cage Lightweight Championship which he successfully defended four times, and has also won the Ultimate Fighter 6 competition. http://www.greatveganathletes.com/
Guest MattP Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 A 21-10 fighter is the best athlete you've got? Jeez.... Heres the list of current champions (all meat eaters) Division Champion Since Defenses Heavyweight Cain Velasquez Dec 29, 2012 0 Light Heavyweight Jon Jones Mar 19, 2011 4 Middleweight Anderson Silva Oct 14, 2006 10 Welterweight Georges St-Pierre Apr 19, 2008 7 Lightweight Benson Henderson Feb 26, 2012 2 Featherweight José Aldo Nov 20, 2010 3 Bantamweight Dominick Cruz Dec 16, 2010 2 Renan BarãoInterim champion Jul 21, 2012 0 Flyweight Demetrious Johnson Sep 22, 2012 0
BoneDog Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 The diet of the Roman gladiators was vegetarian I think. Pure energy foods. Just found this on the subject from a quick google - http://donmatesz.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/real-gladiator-diet.html On the subject of disease, there is an ancient Indian text (can't remember right now where I read about it) that says something like 'before humans started eating the flesh of dead animals there were three known diseases. Soon afterwards there were another ninety diseases'.
MooseBreath Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 Well that's it for me. I've read the whole thread without being moved an inch towards vegetables, but if an ancient Indian text says eating meat causes diseases, it must be true.
Guest MattP Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 Breakfast today. (without the bubble and squeak)
The Doctor Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 Even the article you quoted shows that Veggies are healthier and less at risk of cancer than non veggies Eh, are you blind or just retarded? Please note that Mablo was talking about a specific type of cancer - which that paper does say you're more at risk of getting.
Zingari Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 It says here that vegan diet reduces the risk of colon cancer http://coloncancer.about.com/od/nutritionanddiet/a/Vegans-And-Colon-Cancer-Risk.htm I've got no idea either way , but sometimes I think you can get whatever evidence you're looking for.
Manwell Pablo Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 Even the article you quoted shows that Veggies are healthier and less at risk of cancer than non veggies If you were (as you imply) actually concerned about the health and well being of the worlds population, then you have no alternative but to support a veggie lifestyle. A vast array of studies from top universities and independent researchers has found that eating the flesh of chickens, cows, and other animals promotes cancer. Here are a few: One study compared cancer rates of vegetarians and meat-eaters in 34,000 Americans. The results showed that those who avoided meat, fish, and poultry had dramatically lower rates of prostate, ovarian, and colon cancer compared to meat-eaters. An 11-year-long German study involving more than 800 vegetarian men found that their cancer rates were less than half those of the general public. The lowest cancer rates were found in those who had avoided meat for 20 years or more. A 2007 study of more than 35,000 women published in the British Journal of Cancer found that women who ate the most meat had the highest risk of breast cancer. A study comparing the dietary habits of men in 32 countries found that the highest risk factors for prostate cancer mortality were meat and dairy products. By contrast, another study of men diagnosed with prostate cancer showed that a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and grains can slow or even halt the progression of the disease. Scientists from the Bremen Institute for Prevention, Research, and Social Medicine and theGerman Cancer Research Center observed in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that "the relationship between a vegetarian and fiber-rich diet and a decreased risk for colon cancer has been reported in many studies." Dr. T. Colin Campbell, arguably the foremost epidemiological researcher alive today, believes that animal proteins are the prime carcinogen in meat and dairy products. He points out that "human studies also support this carcinogenic effect of animal protein, even at usual levels of consumption. … No chemical carcinogen is nearly so important in causing human cancer as animal protein." And should we even start with climate change? which if it continues could (reports suggest) see the deaths of up to 100 MILLION people by the year 2030. If you want to save millions from dying, then a veggie lifestyle is something you can actually do...as opposed to guessing which virus is going to strike next and then trying to guess how to prevent it.... London, 5 June 2012 – A paper by WPF scientists published in the International Journal of Climate Change states that by addressing the largest source of shorter-lived climate forcers, livestock production, can help limit global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius. Reducing livestock production and returning pastures to native forests, woodlands and grasslands is the most affordable and effective means of achieving this goal. “Shorter Lived Climate Forcers: Agriculture Sector and Land Clearing for Livestock†expands on a June 2011 report released by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) titled “Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone.†Of course i have only mentioned the potential death of millions due to climate change, perhaps i should mention the climate change refugees. Those people who are up in arms about the number of immigrants now, have really got a shock coming their way, when millions of climate change refugees come in search of places they can survive. so in summation, If you want to, reduce cancer, live a longer healthier life - Go Veg If you want to reduce the number of refugees - Go Veg If you want to prevent the unnecessary death of millions - Go Veg Oh and if you want to reduce animal cruelty - Go Veg don't laugh slap your head and proceed to not answer the orginal question and whinge on about things that are irrelevant. Your excellent at picking your arguements I'll give you that. if you want to stop climate change have a word with the Chinease other wise you wont stop the death of anyone mate so thats a completley mute point. Look at what your article actually says "can help" i.e "could potentially contribute" in other words, will not prevent. As usual with your arguements there are much more important things to worry than livestock. I do apologise of should of said I already know the risk of cancer is greater in meat eaters I thought I had to be honest although I doubt it would have prevented you going off on one (if that Dr actually thinks meat is the most carcagenic chemical in humans he needs his degree taking off him, it's tar in cigarretes by a country mile) but you've still dodged the question and started whinging on about nothing. Please actually read what I am saying, that there is a risk of cancer for everyone, and colon cancer has been linked to veganisem. So tell me what is more worthwhile trying to develop a world with an 11% reduction in cancer or trying to devlop a cure resulting in 100% reduction in cancer? I will also point out that your points RE cancer are nothing like mine on untreatable disease and child death, there is one very big point you seem to forget, people currently have the choice not to eat meat if they wish to lower their chances of cancer, they do not require saving from it, and people who are over weight inflict this on themselves by eating to much which is again their choice. No one forces the evils of meet upon a person, they way up their own options and make their decision. In the examples I give, no one has a choice, they are stuck with whats available, which as much as you protest there will be death because of it. Another thing I've been meaning to put to you for awhile, you harp on about "rights" and "cruelty" and I think you told Kitch he was arguing that "black was white" because he stated that killing an animal following correct laws was not cruel. You seem to misunderstand, that rights are a human invention, nothing would have any rights if we didn't give it to them. One thing you have stated over and over again is that a animal has the right to not be kept in captiviety and slaughtered. Have a quick look through the "rights" of any animal currently raised for meat, and I think you'll find that they do not hold this right. So next time you say something like that, please say "In my opinion an animial should have the right not to be kept in captiveity and killed" otherwise your just stating something that is completley false.
Captain... Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 don't laugh slap your head and proceed to not answer the orginal question and whinge on about things that are irrelevant. Your excellent at picking your arguements I'll give you that. if you want to stop climate change have a word with the Chinease other wise you wont stop the death of anyone mate so thats a completley mute point. Look at what your article actually says "can help" i.e "could potentially contribute" in other words, will not prevent. As usual with your arguements there are much more important things to worry than livestock. I do apologise of should of said I already know the risk of cancer is greater in meat eaters I thought I had to be honest although I doubt it would have prevented you going off on one (if that Dr actually thinks meat is the most carcagenic chemical in humans he needs his degree taking off him, it's tar in cigarretes by a country mile) but you've still dodged the question and started whinging on about nothing. Please actually read what I am saying, that there is a risk of cancer for everyone, and colon cancer has been linked to veganisem. So tell me what is more worthwhile trying to develop a world with an 11% reduction in cancer or trying to devlop a cure resulting in 100% reduction in cancer? I will also point out that your points RE cancer are nothing like mine on untreatable disease and child death, there is one very big point you seem to forget, people currently have the choice not to eat meat if they wish to lower their chances of cancer, they do not require saving from it, and people who are over weight inflict this on themselves by eating to much which is again their choice. No one forces the evils of meet upon a person, they way up their own options and make their decision. In the examples I give, no one has a choice, they are stuck with whats available, which as much as you protest there will be death because of it. Another thing I've been meaning to put to you for awhile, you harp on about "rights" and "cruelty" and I think you told Kitch he was arguing that "black was white" because he stated that killing an animal following correct laws was not cruel. You seem to misunderstand, that rights are a human invention, nothing would have any rights if we didn't give it to them. One thing you have stated over and over again is that a animal has the right to not be kept in captiviety and slaughtered. Have a quick look through the "rights" of any animal currently raised for meat, and I think you'll find that they do not hold this right. So next time you say something like that, please say "In my opinion an animial should have the right not to be kept in captiveity and killed" otherwise your just stating something that is completley false. I know it's going off the point slightly, but you do know we will never find a cure for cancer, and the majority of research know is aimed at prevention and removal of cancerous cells, there is no cure as it is not a disease it is cellular mutation, which cannot be reversed, the closest comparison to cancer is ageing, we will never find a cure for old age but like cancer we can take steps to help ourselves live a long and healthy life. So slightly back on topic, if there was an optimal diet that involved seriously cutting back on the amount of meat we ate, but without cutting out meat completely because there are some nutrients that we need that we can only get from meat and whilst a vegan diet supplies alternatives they are not direct substitutes, it would also involve not smoking and seriously cutting down on alcohol intake, and also spicy food. That really should be what we are aiming for because we are massively over farming livestock and destroying the planet and increasing the incidence of cancer in the process, and however pompous and over the top you believe Oz to be in all of this, he is right on a large number of points, and all logic dictates we shouldn't eat meat and should take a lot more interest in what we eat and where it comes from.
Carl the Llama Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 so in summation, If you want to use airquotes whenever you order a 'burger' - Go Veg If you want to pretend you're a gerbil - Go Veg If you want to prevent the unnecessary death of millions - Go back in time and kill Hitler Oh and if you want horrendous smelling farts - Go Veg
Manwell Pablo Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 I know it's going off the point slightly, but you do know we will never find a cure for cancer, and the majority of research know is aimed at prevention and removal of cancerous cells, there is no cure as it is not a disease it is cellular mutation, which cannot be reversed, the closest comparison to cancer is ageing, we will never find a cure for old age but like cancer we can take steps to help ourselves live a long and healthy life. So slightly back on topic, if there was an optimal diet that involved seriously cutting back on the amount of meat we ate, but without cutting out meat completely because there are some nutrients that we need that we can only get from meat and whilst a vegan diet supplies alternatives they are not direct substitutes, it would also involve not smoking and seriously cutting down on alcohol intake, and also spicy food. That really should be what we are aiming for because we are massively over farming livestock and destroying the planet and increasing the incidence of cancer in the process, and however pompous and over the top you believe Oz to be in all of this, he is right on a large number of points, and all logic dictates we shouldn't eat meat and should take a lot more interest in what we eat and where it comes from. Cure is probably incorrect terminology, I am quite sure when the human genome was discovered researchers seemed to think it would be possible to devlelop ways of preventing the cellular mutation which leads to cancer, and who's to say we can't create a full proff treatment that kills cancerous cells? It's certainly no less realistic than some of the rubbish spouted by captin celerey in here. What is the point in making people live a certain way just so they can live longer if they do not wish to? At the end of the day if somebody wants to live their life chewing on grass leaves just to try and put off the inevitable by a few years they can get on with it for all I care, I am not going to tell them I'm wrong anymore than they should be telling me I'm wrong, nothing in current society stopping them. Unlike Nazi Vegan world where we all have to eat the same thing! This Livestock global warming stuff is bollocks anyway, the biggest cause of climate change is C02, the worst cause is from industry, second is cars, now assuming Oz has a car and taking into the fact I don't drive I'm probably doing a lot more for my enviroment by not pumping out exaust fumes everywhere than he is by refusing to eat a hamburger. I very much doubt he gives a shit about global warming, It's just a shit arguement to back up the fact that he's a big wet lettuce and can't stomach watching a flulffy animal die. This is without mentioning that in this fantasy we are going to replace livestock with crops, obviously we can't use animal manure on it as we haven't got any (and the animals are still out shitting all over the place in the wild, granted in fewer numbers, but we've lessened the problem, not solved it) so with all these new plants are going to have to increase our use of Chemical fertilizers and assuming we are still allowed to protect our crops, pesticides. And guess what they cause?
Captain... Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 Cure is probably incorrect terminology, I am quite sure when the human genome was discovered researchers seemed to think it would be possible to devlelop ways of preventing the cellular mutation which leads to cancer, and who's to say we can't create a full proff treatment that kills cancerous cells? It's certainly no less realistic than some of the rubbish spouted by captin celerey in here. What is the point in making people live a certain way just so they can live longer if they do not wish to? At the end of the day if somebody wants to live their life chewing on grass leaves just to try and put off the inevitable by a few years they can get on with it for all I care, I am not going to tell them I'm wrong anymore than they should be telling me I'm wrong, nothing in current society stopping them. Unlike Nazi Vegan world where we all have to eat the same thing! This Livestock global warming stuff is bollocks anyway, the biggest cause of climate change is C02, the worst cause is from industry, second is cars, now assuming Oz has a car and taking into the fact I don't drive I'm probably doing a lot more for my enviroment by not pumping out exaust fumes everywhere than he is by refusing to eat a hamburger. I very much doubt he gives a shit about global warming, It's just a shit arguement to back up the fact that he's a big wet lettuce and can't stomach watching a flulffy animal die. This is without mentioning that in this fantasy we are going to replace livestock with crops, obviously we can't use animal manure on it as we haven't got any (and the animals are still out shitting all over the place in the wild, granted in fewer numbers, but we've lessened the problem, not solved it) so with all these new plants are going to have to increase our use of Chemical fertilizers and assuming we are still allowed to protect our crops, pesticides. And guess what they cause? For me it is all about finding balance, and at the moment our lifestyle is not a harmonious one with our environment, my comment about destroying the planet is not just one of global warming, but also about the destruction of natural land for farming, specifically grazing cattle, particularly prevalent in South America as more and more of the Amazon rainforest, also known as the lungs of the world, as it is the largest provider of oxygen, which we kind of need to live, is destroyed. You are right CO2 is a problem, but this problem is exacerbated by transport of livestock especially to the UK as we have run out of space to meet all our meat eating needs and so have to import in meat and livestock from far away places, such as New Zealand, probably the furthest point on the planet from the UK, not to mention all the refrigerated units that are used to keep meat cool as it is transported. We don't really need new plants, just to eat the plants and grain that would have been fed to animals directly, the stats are something like 90% of all nutrition is lost through each level in the food chain, so if we eat the plants directly rather than feed them to the animals, we could reduce the amount of crops we need by 90%. I know this is a simplistic look at things and doesn't take into account that some animals such as cows get a lot of their nutrients from grass that we can't digest, but the point still remains that eating direct from the source means we need less animals and less crops to reach the same level of nutrition. If we do then significantly reduce the need for both crops and animals we will not need to undertake such intensive farming techniques which will reduce the need for industrial fertilisers and we will hopefully find the balance where plants and grains are able to grow naturally under their own natural resources, rather than cramming as much together as possible and then needing fertiliser because they are all competing for the same nutrients in an over saturated field. This is what I mean when I talk of balance and harmony with nature, unfortunately balance and harmony doesn't equate to profit so it will never work while we still maintain this profit at all costs attitude.
Manwell Pablo Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 For me it is all about finding balance, and at the moment our lifestyle is not a harmonious one with our environment, my comment about destroying the planet is not just one of global warming, but also about the destruction of natural land for farming, specifically grazing cattle, particularly prevalent in South America as more and more of the Amazon rainforest, also known as the lungs of the world, as it is the largest provider of oxygen, which we kind of need to live, is destroyed. You are right CO2 is a problem, but this problem is exacerbated by transport of livestock especially to the UK as we have run out of space to meet all our meat eating needs and so have to import in meat and livestock from far away places, such as New Zealand, probably the furthest point on the planet from the UK, not to mention all the refrigerated units that are used to keep meat cool as it is transported. We don't really need new plants, just to eat the plants and grain that would have been fed to animals directly, the stats are something like 90% of all nutrition is lost through each level in the food chain, so if we eat the plants directly rather than feed them to the animals, we could reduce the amount of crops we need by 90%. I know this is a simplistic look at things and doesn't take into account that some animals such as cows get a lot of their nutrients from grass that we can't digest, but the point still remains that eating direct from the source means we need less animals and less crops to reach the same level of nutrition. If we do then significantly reduce the need for both crops and animals we will not need to undertake such intensive farming techniques which will reduce the need for industrial fertilisers and we will hopefully find the balance where plants and grains are able to grow naturally under their own natural resources, rather than cramming as much together as possible and then needing fertiliser because they are all competing for the same nutrients in an over saturated field. This is what I mean when I talk of balance and harmony with nature, unfortunately balance and harmony doesn't equate to profit so it will never work while we still maintain this profit at all costs attitude. Again, their are tons of reasons why the rainforest is being hacked down, you take away grazing cattle you wont stop that either, they hack it down for mines, roads, houses, wood, paper. It is also ok for you to sit there in your nice warm home/office, with a nice cup of tea in front of the computer judging the South Americans for hacking down the rain forest, I invite you to go over there and try and live their life without doing so and I think you'll change your mind. Transport point is neither here nor there we will have to transport food to feed a population of 6,000,000,000 this will inevitablably lead to food needing to be transported whether it be meat fruit of veg, fruit espeically comes from all over the world. Completely redundant point. And no offence this just sounds like unresearched crap to me, for one you can't live off plants and grain that animals would eat alone it's would be terrible for you and totally defeat the object of it all. We will need to increase the amount of vegtables high in carbohydrates massively to make up for lack of meat things like potatoes only really eaten by pigs will be needed to scaled up massievly. Besides, Proffesor Parsnip has been arguing that the millions of people made redundant by the lack of a meat industry would be fine as they could get jobs in the upscaling of crop farming. You can't have it both ways. Yes it is, very simplistic. Profit is important, it probably makes a few people (most of whom have done something to deserve it) richer than they should be but there people more often than not these people provide jobs and opportunities to others. As I have said before we do not have a potless amount of money at our disposal.
Captain... Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 Again, their are tons of reasons why the rainforest is being hacked down, you take away grazing cattle you wont stop that either, they hack it down for mines, roads, houses, wood, paper. It is also ok for you to sit there in your nice warm home/office, with a nice cup of tea in front of the computer judging the South Americans for hacking down the rain forest, I invite you to go over there and try and live their life without doing so and I think you'll change your mind. Transport point is neither here nor there we will have to transport food to feed a population of 6,000,000,000 this will inevitablably lead to food needing to be transported whether it be meat fruit of veg, fruit espeically comes from all over the world. Completely redundant point. And no offence this just sounds like unresearched crap to me, for one you can't live off plants and grain that animals would eat alone it's would be terrible for you and totally defeat the object of it all. We will need to increase the amount of vegtables high in carbohydrates massively to make up for lack of meat things like potatoes only really eaten by pigs will be needed to scaled up massievly. Besides, Proffesor Parsnip has been arguing that the millions of people made redundant by the lack of a meat industry would be fine as they could get jobs in the upscaling of crop farming. You can't have it both ways. Yes it is, very simplistic. Profit is important, it probably makes a few people (most of whom have done something to deserve it) richer than they should be but there people more often than not these people provide jobs and opportunities to others. As I have said before we do not have a potless amount of money at our disposal. regards the eating of animal grain, as I said it was a simplistic approach, but the theory is still there, you take the all the land used for growing crops specifically for cattle and all the land used for grazing cattle in the UK and turned that into land specifically for growing fruits veggies and grains for human consumption we would get a lot closer to feeding 60,000,000 (which I think is what you meant). Don't know if it would create more jobs or not, depends really on technology, could put some hauliers out of business. As for the Amazon shrinking I read that the main cause was farming, both animal and plant farming, found this on wiki: One of the most important causes of deforestation in the Amazon is the cultivation of agricultural commodities such as soya, which is used mainly to feed animals. McDonald's has denied feeding its chickens with soya from the Amazon rainforest supplied by agricultural giant Cargill; however, not only did evidences prove this to be true, but also pointed out the soya farmers were linked to the use of slave laborers, illegal land grabbing and massive deforestation. It has been calculated that McDonald's and its suppliers are responsible for 70,000 km² of the Amazon's deforestation in the last three years. Greenpeace have demanded that fast food companies eliminate soya trade and any meat products that are associated with the Amazon rainforest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_Rainforest#Causes
BoneDog Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 60 pages now. Anybody changed their mind yet? I've thought about it before, and have cut down on meat over the years, but love a good quarter pounder too much to quit altogether! And lamb. Had a roast chicken with chips, peas, carrots, onions, mushrooms and gravy from the Chinese last night. Probably eat meat about two or three times a week, but used to be every day.
BoneDog Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 Well that's it for me. I've read the whole thread without being moved an inch towards vegetables, but if an ancient Indian text says eating meat causes diseases, it must be true. You may mock, but I would think it was an honest historical observation! I doubt they just made it up, they wanna no fools.
The Doctor Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 You may mock, but I would think it was an honest historical observation! I doubt they just made it up, they wanna no fools. I highly doubt it was an honest historical observation - for one, hominids have been omnivorous for far longer than Homo s. sapiens has been around, they can't have possibly seen the times prior to people eating meat without some sort of time-machine.
MooseBreath Posted 10 January 2013 Posted 10 January 2013 I highly doubt it was an honest historical observation - for one, hominids have been omnivorous for far longer than Homo s. sapiens has been around, they can't have possibly seen the times prior to people eating meat without some sort of time-machine.
ozleicester Posted 16 January 2013 Author Posted 16 January 2013 Horsemeat "beef burgers" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21038521 We really have no clue whats going on
Manwell Pablo Posted 16 January 2013 Posted 16 January 2013 Horsemeat "beef burgers" http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-21038521 We really have no clue whats going on What can I say, Horses for main courses.
Captain... Posted 16 January 2013 Posted 16 January 2013 Horsemeat "beef burgers" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21038521 We really have no clue whats going on Nowt wrong with horse meat, but I would rather eat it knowingly than by mistake, this is generally why I avoid processed meat.
The Doctor Posted 16 January 2013 Posted 16 January 2013 Horsemeat "beef burgers" http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-21038521 We really have no clue whats going on Are you bothered about the veggie burgers containing uniquorn?
Manwell Pablo Posted 16 January 2013 Posted 16 January 2013 Kievs for dinner later. To make Oz happy I am having asperagus new potatoes and green beans with them. Although I do intend to put butter on them so maybe not.....
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.