Dog lovers are annoying

Then they should also opt out of all school. The degree doesn't mean the same if you aren't learning the same information.

 

Science and theories aren't absolutes. Religion is an absolute. Science is ever evolving and changing, while religion sticks to the same belief structure with no regard to outside evidence. Scientific topics are what they are. Religion isn't science. It doesn't rely on peer reviewed studies, data, or "proof" of any kind. For that reason, it is more fitting to be part of philosophy, if we want to categorize it as something to study. When you study theology, you are studying philosophies and philosophical topics. It doesn't matter what origins science had, in relation to old world religion. Religion does not want or need contribution from the scientific community today, nor did it want this in the past. Hell, just a few hundred years ago, conducting scientific studies could put you on the chopping block with the Catholic church.
I fear we are diving too far into a realm that no one wants to enter. You are going to see some really strong opinions in regards to this. Just understand, I don't call religion a philosophy out of disrespect. In fact, I think if more people used it in this way, the world would be a better place.

 

While I disagree with your premise...I agree with you that the topic is not worth the ridiculous perspectives that would come up--happy to PM you about that topic just lmk.

 

No to be Joe the Plumber over here again guys, but have you noticed that our currency says "In God We Trust". Take your wallet out, pull out a $1, I know y'all at least got that in your pocket. Look at it. Remember that. And remember the hypocrisy that a lot our our country lives in. Our national songs mention religion, our currency has it. What we consider "America/European" culture was ALL based and founded on these beliefs... I am not saying that kids have to pray in school if they don't want to. Not saying they even have to say the "PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE" for gawds sake.... But as "far" as we have come as a nation, with tolerance, acceptance and freedom to do and think pretty much whatever you want, you BEST NOT forget your past and where we came from, and everything that the men before us believed. Not saying you gotta believe it. Not saying that I do. I am just saying, with all the BS I have seen in my brief times on this earth and everything that is so PC and unacceptable, one thing that I think needs to be left alone is the church in our country. So what if it's in the curriculum. Teach them both. Explain that these are the two "theories" or whatever, but you must tolerate both....


I know that there are plenty of other religions that have populations in our country, as well as a HUGE portion of atheists... But be careful of the other side of strong beliefs, cause I am pretty sure OWNING, USING or even HOLDING the American $1.00 bill is probably against every other religion on earth. You dont "Believe" in these things, but you live on this soil. You live in this nation. You work for this dollar. You live with this dollar. You feed your family with this dollar. So you had better respect this dollar and where it came from and where it has been, otherwise, move to China.

Just my thoughts, but you would have to remove most of our nations culture to "rid" it of religion. We would then have no past and no future. Just one big, politically correct cesspool.

 

I forget what corny movie this is from, but it was a response to being told how religous the man's son had become. He replied "Anything that makes my son a better man, I am all for it."

That is what religion is supposed to be all about. About making yourself, your family and this world the best that it can be. Religion was supposed to govern people. To give them faith, hope and piece of mind. It was twisted and manipulated by men to build their churches, to build their wealth and they changed the message from being a better person, to having to be a lifelong recruiting agent for the "cause" or the church. On they wanted the authority to govern people, not god. So, religion was high jacked by power, wealth-hungry men, like a SI thread by shark hunter. It was never meant to be this way. In it's proper application, it was supposed to keep us all from killing, raping and pillaging each other.... And instead, every religion in the world at some point or another has manipulated it into the exact opposite. The reason we should kill, instead the reason we should not....

It's a shame. All humanity ever wanted was hope. Without hope, what is there?

 

the first article you presented uses a study from the Weston A price foundation that promotes a high animal fat diet. they call butter a superfood. hmm

the second article is by Denise Minger, who coincidentally is affiliated with the Price foundation., has been found to have many flaws in her critique of the china study..

denise minger is a 23 yr old English major with no medical degree, no certification in physiology, biochemistry, or nutrition. not qualified in math or statistics, no experience with actual patients, and is not licensed to practice medicine, or to dispense human nutritional or medical advice to the public.

compared to the author of the china study dr. colin t campell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Colin_Campbell

 

btw the china study does not promote veganism. one large misconception. it suggests to limit animal protein to only 5% of caloric intake and the rest of calories from whole plant foods.. not the 20% plus that todays westerners eat.

 

The first article only mentions that other study. Hall still makes separate points that are real issues with the study. Other MDs have brought up issues with the China Study as well. I honestly picked the most popular. The fact remains that the study is no a peer reviewed research piece written by an unbiased author. Good points to consider: http://drlwilson.com/Articles/CHINA STUDY BOOK REVIEW.htm
Honestly, I have automatic doubts when anyone skips the peer review process. Instead, he writes a book and sells it as good scientific research. Of course, the vegans buy up anything that promotes their lifestyle.

 

Interesting thoughts, but the country was founded on religious freedom. The Christians have hijacked that freedom in the last 60 years. Even the "under god" part of the pledge was a late addition. Religion isn't the problem anyways. It is the followers that have really messed up religion. They focus on words instead of philosophy.

 

I am no nutritionist but I find hole in dr. wilsons critique. it sounds like what he is implying is that vegan/vegitatrians eat only kale, bananas, and bread.

its true that you can become sick on a vegan diet if it is not balanced but I sure see a lot of sick non vegs too.

40% of americans are b12 deficient. I don't think 40% of the u.s. is veg, therefore its not only a veg issue.

daily requirements of zinc are easy with proper vegan nutrition

his claims of too high carb to low protein and poor protein can be argued extensively.

a lot of his claims are false as certain examples of the book have been taken out of context.

he also sites studies from the price foundation. (butter is a superfood?)

his approach to nutrition is questionable. he seems to go by Chinese philosophy in his approach and by his statements go against ayurvedic practices.

there are many professional vegan athletes with good blood results and very high energy/endurance.

I myself eat a high carb low fat low protein diet. my blood tests are normal and show no deficiencies.

I do occasionally supplement but not often.

so I have to disagree with his argument

 

ok I guess we are talking diets now?

vedgetarians are gay.i eat salad everyday,love it,but usually after I eat a steak.any part of a pig,chicken or cow and im happy and my dog is happy.i cant see how anyone can survive off of leaves and tofu,thats very unhealthy.u need protein,iron,calcium and other stuff u get from meat.im very unhealthy but somehow in pretty good shape.I eat a lot of fastfood but not mcdonalds or burger king,just pizza and subs,but I also eat a lot of salad and drink a shytload of milk

 

You can find numerous holes in the China study as well, if you are willing to look past your own pro vegan viewpoint. The criticism by Ms. Minger actually contained a lot of good data, which is my main issue with discrediting her review based on credentials alone. Lack of peer review opens up a world of poor scientific process.
Here is critique from someone in Dr. Campbell's own field: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-china-study/
Even though this guy has his own books to sell, this is a very important point to make:
"But in the end it is still only an observational study. And even though – again, according to Dr. Campbell – there are over 8000 statistically significant correlations, correlations are not causation. Any scientist worth his/her salt will tell you that all you can do with data from observational studies is use them to form hypotheses that can be rigorously tested in randomized, controlled trials."

Population studies are nice, but you have to dig a bit deeper before making definitive claims.

Here is an article full of peer reviewed studies countering what Campbell wrote in his book:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/07/31/one-year-later-the-china-study-revisited-and-re-bashed/
Interesting the Campbell was even part of some studies.

And I also posted this earlier: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/3/516s.full

The moral of the story: eat a balanced diet and don't fall for any new life-changing food book that comes out.

 

<br /><br />You should check your sources Brew. They are coming from a biased perspective.<br />Dr. Eades promotes an Atkins style diet. <br />Again you recite Denise Minger who is promoting a paleo diet, and is unqualified to give such perspectives.she also hails work from the likes of Mark Sisson, who says fried foods are good but limit fruit consumption and also sells a lot of bs like expensive protien powders and supplements to go along with his diet recommendations. He also supports the use and uses himself performance enhancing drugs.<br />Why would anyone claiming their diet recommendations are optimal also promote and sell the use of expensive supplements?<br />Also regarding your post from ajcn. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has come under a lot of scrutiny because they are funded by major food corporations. Biased? Conflict of interest? Indeed.<br />The moral of the story for me is to look to the people who practice what they preach and show personal results to prove their point. Not look to those who tell you their way is best and sell you all kinds of crap on top of it bc their program is lacking. It is very easy to have a well rounded vegan diet. Most people who fail the vegan diet and become promoters of the paleo diet (like Denise Minger) failed at veganism bc of not being well rounded.<br /><br />I was vegan for 4 years and my health and fitness increased dramatically before i was introduced to the China Study 10 months ago and the books recommendations go along with what I was already doing.<br /><br />Moral of the story don't take health advice from unhealthy people.

 

Can you not see the clear mistakes in what the China Study presents? This is basic scientific method. I said upfront that Eades is biased, but his points and criticisms are still valid. There is no rule that says you can't have bias when providing criticism on scientific works. Just be sure that criticism is backed up with fact, which were in the pieces I posted.

"They are coming from a biased perspective."
You just explained the entire China Study.

"The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has come under a lot of scrutiny because they are funded by major food corporations."
And Campbell's research is funded by his own book sales. If the American Journal of Nutrition was so biased, why would they allow claims that pescatarianism, vegetarianism, and veganism are all shown to reduce heart disease in the study?

"Moral of the story don't take health advice from unhealthy people."
Strawman. Also, completely silly. Health is not something one can always control. There are genetic factors, environmental factors, among several other other variable that determine how healthy a person is. There are no physical exams required in PhD programs. In addition to that, there is no one size fits all nutrition plan. No holy grail to prevent death and disease.


Before you call me a shill or whatever else people like to label others that disagree, I think the paleo diet is bullsh1t as well. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-paleo-diet-half-baked-how-hunter-gatherer-really-eat/
Life is about balance.

 

I think the answer to this is simple, and has already been mentioned.

Humans are Omnivores. We are built for, and built to eat both vegetables and animal proteins/meat. PERIOD. Humans, as a WHOLE (because certain instances, any individual could require a certain dietary change), are at their healthiest, eating a balanced diet, with a lower percentge of meat to a much higher level of starch/vegetable/etc.

Thats it. It is UNHEALTHY to do too much of either thing, or to do none of one thing. Period. End of story....

Vegetarians CAN NOT replace the protein and nutrients found in various meats with their SOY or other forms of protein... Yes, you can achieve similar LEVELS, but the contents of said proteins are not the same as the ones found in meats and will never achieve the same results on the human body. With that being said, someone who eats too much meat compared to their vegetables, grains etc. will CERTAINLY have health issues and risks that would be substantially lower if they ate a more balanced diet and not so much red meat.

Humans need Meat and Veggies. Period. If you rob your self of one or the other, without it being a doctors request, you are robbing yourself of strength and health.

 

So you overall efforts in maintaining your balance and dietary needs sound exponentially higher than a normal way of life? My wife's cousin and her husband are hard core vegans, for about 5 years now. They have to supplement their diets all day with strange things. They both teach yoga all day and are super active, so I attribute that more than anything to their overall fitness levels. But I knew them both back when they would grill steaks with us in CA. They looked MUCH healthier then. Now, they are pale, sickly looking and skinny as rails. They say they are happy and healthy and all that, but the food they eat looks terrible and tastes revolting.

My ex girlfriend was an animal lover and was a vegeterian for about 6 years before we met. She was very active, ate well and was always in the gym. I would give her massages or what have you, and she was always so fragile. Her muscles were so weak, even though they were tight from fitness, they were just weak to the touch... One day I convinced her to eat a cheese steak. She went on eating meat for ever, but about a week later, she thanked me, told me how she had never felt better and after just one week of being re-introduced to meat, the strength and over all health of her body and muscles had risen substantially. From then on, you could give the girl a normal massage and work out her muscles without her squirming around and shreeking from the pain.

Again, you even stated, that most people FAIL at veganism because they do not follow the proper procedures and supplement their diets well. I get that. I agree with that. But something that is SO DIFFICULT to do for most people, or something that requires so much un-natural discipline with regards to what your body consumes, don't you see how un-natural that seems? Vegan or Vegetarianism inherently go against what our human body need.

I can understand turning away from meat because of it's handling, or disease or what have you. But you can find properly handled meat, or hunt it yourself. Fish for it yourself and enjoy it. To make a complete STAND against it just goes against our very nature. Humans would not have made it this far, had they incorporated techniques like this centuries ago.

 

Not true

Just two examples of so called weak vegans.

http://www.greatveganathletes.com/rich_roll

http://www.greatveganathletes.com/mac_danzig

 

It's not difficult or strange or unnatural. It only is because since before you can remember you we're eating meat eggs and dairy. It's part of your conditioned psyche. Yeah I've seen plenty of vegans who claim to be healthy and happy but look sickly. Most don't consume enough calories.

 

It seems difficult and natural just like a regular tv watcher without having a tv around.

 

I believe you meant to say humans are omnivores not herbivores.