Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road?

[Carla_Danger]

We're not omnivores--- DOGS are omnivores. Carla's link has it exactly right.

An omnivore is an animal that eats plants and animals. That describes most humans so the fail is all yours. Where do you guys get this shit? HuffPo?

In part the medical profession. I work with doctors. A lot.

Which means nothing on two fronts. Doctors don't know shit about nutrition and you working with them isn't evidence that we are herbivores. Any doctor that thinks so needs to quit offering his opinion and stick with gouging people for medications with side effects and surgery. It's all they really know.

You didn't ask what the evidence was here --- you asked what the SOURCE was. So I told you. And it's not the doctors themselves but the medical research behind it (which is what I work with), and that's one source out of several. I also had to educate myself independently on my own digestive issues (ulcers for one), which is another source.

You sure jumped on that defensively, bent on moving the goalposts and denouncing everything in sight.
Perhaps whatever animals you're eating are making you melt down into an asshole. Maybe you should at least try eating a different part of that animal. I dunno. But you asked a question, didn't like the answer and puked a hissyfit.

Clearly you're the one with the issue, not me.

(/offtopic)

LOL, you calling someone an asshole is funny. So is your tiny dick slinging. Not impressed. When people have to back up their assertions with more assertions you know they're full of shit.

No, the "medical" community is not unanimous. Only a few whack jobs would claim we are herbivores. It's nonsense and medical facts won't back it up. I denounce bullshit for what it is.

I'm hardly defense since you two dumb assholes are in the very extreme minority. I have the whole rest of the world on my side.


For Most Of Human History, Being An Omnivore Was No Dilemma
For Most Of Human History, Being An Omnivore Was No Dilemma

If diet is destiny, then modern humans should thank our ancestors for their ability to eat just about anything.

Two new studies peek into the distant past to try to figure out just how big a role food played in human evolution. One says that eating meat made it possible for early human mothers to wean babies earlier and have more children.

The other study finds that humans and some other primates have stuck with being omnivores for a very long time. That's unlike many of our mammal friends, who used the omnivore lifestyle as a mere rest stop on the way from herbivore to carnivore.

"Primates are a little bit weird," says Samantha Hopkins, an assistant professor of geology at the University of Oregon, who led the study that revealed primates' omnivorous ways. Most primates became omnivores early in their existence, and stayed put. "We seem to hang out in this omnivorous role."

It's easy to imagine that there's an evolutionary advantage to being able to eat just about anything. Herbivores and carnivores have specialized teeth and digestive systems that make going back and forth practically impossible.

For instance, carnivores are usually the first to go extinct when times are tough, because they depend on other animals for their food source.

But there may be some evolutionary downside to being an omnivore, too Hopkins says. Namely, we're slow to diversify.

It took three times longer for omnivores to diversify, compared to herbivores. Producing more varied species means producing more progeny, which is the name of the game in evolution.

Hopkins and her colleagues found this out by scanning the literature for data on what 1,500 species of modern mammals eat. They gleaned it from field research by biologists, who sift through poop and examine stomach contents. It is not glamorous work.

They then matched the animals' diets with the mammalian family tree, and traced back the branches. It's the first study to look at diet across all mammal group through evolutionary time. The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The second study looked at how long modern mammals nurse their young. Researchers in Sweden compared the diet, brain size, and weaning times of 67 species. Humans breastfeed for 2 years on average, while chimpanzees, our closest relatives, nurse for four to five years.

They found that all the animals stopped nursing when their brains hit a certain stage of development, regardless of diet. All the meat-eaters, including ferrets, killer whales, and humans, reached that point of brain development earlier than herbivores or omnivores, the researchers found. (They classified humans as carnivores based on the percentage of meat in the typical human diet.)

Also, they conclude, the big difference in breast-feeding times between humans and other primates is due to the better nutrition provided to both mothers and babies by meat consumption. The study was published online in PlosOne.

Big caveat: Both of these studies looked at the role of diet in evolution. They aren't a commentary on whether modern-day eating habits, carnivorous or not, are healthy.

I can drink jet fuel, but that doesn't make me an airplane. In fact, it will kill me! Again, people can eat meat, but that doesn't mean they should. There is not a single population in the world with a high meat intake which does not have a high rate of colon cancer. Our intestines are not designed to break down meat, especially red meat. It's really very simple...the more meat you eat, the more you are at risk.

Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk

The World Health Organization has determined that dietary factors account for at least 30 percent of all cancers in Western countries and up to 20 percent in developing countries. When cancer researchers started to search for links between diet and cancer, one of the most noticeable findings was that people who avoided meat were much less likely to develop the disease. Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters.

Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk

 

[Carla_Danger]

Carla_Danger--Chickens crossing the road in 1957 were about half of the size they are now. Now they are pumped full of antibiotics and steroids. Millions of chickens would like to cross the road, but instead are caged and treated in the most inhumane way possible. I no longer participate in the poor treatment of chickens or any other animals, by not eating them.

Go vegetarians!!!

Cow teeth

Wolf teeth

Human teeth

Any questions?

What's astonishing is that you can't see the difference between human teeth compared to that wolf. lol The only way you can convince me, is for you to hunt an animal, kill it with your hands and shred it with your teeth, eat in raw, then post it on youtube.


There is no more authoritative source on anthropological issues than paleontologist Dr. Richard Leakey, who explains what anyone who has taken an introductory physiology course might have discerned intuitively--that humans are herbivores. Leakey notes that "[y]ou can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand.... We wouldn't have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines" (although we have teeth that are called "canines," they bear little resemblance to the canines of carnivores).

In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables. Similarly, like the intestines of other herbivores, ours are very long (carnivores have short intestines so they can quickly get rid of all that rotting flesh they eat). We don't have sharp claws to seize and hold down prey. And most of us (hopefully) lack the instinct that would drive us to chase and then kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. Dr. Milton Mills builds on these points and offers dozens more in his essay, "A Comparative Anatomy of Eating."

Shattering The Meat Myth: Humans Are Natural Vegetarians

Cute but not factual. Humans are omnivores. Have been their whoooole existence. In fact, the Japanese have excellent records of the lives of the Buddhist monks in Japan going back hundreds of years. They kept detailed records of what they did, what they ate etc.

Those who ate a pure vegetarian diet had an average life span of 34-35 years (don't remember which, it's been a few years since I was told this by the President of the Meiji College in S.F. a traditional medical school) on the other hand those who ate a single egg upped their life span to 51. A single egg made that much difference.

LOL!

 

[Carla_Danger]

Study after study shows the more meat you eat, the higher at risk you are for getting cancer.

First, meat is devoid of fiber and other nutrients that have a protective effect. Meat also contains animal protein, saturated fat, and, in some cases, carcinogenic compounds such as heterocyclic amines (HCA) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) formed during the processing or cooking of meat. HCAs, formed as meat is cooked at high temperatures, and PAHs, formed during the burning of organic substances, are believed to increase cancer risk. In addition, the high fat content of meat and other animal products increases hormone production, thus increasing the risk of hormone-related cancers such as breast and prostate cancer.

In 2007, the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) published their second review of the major studies on food, nutrition, and cancer prevention. For cancers of the oesophagus, lung, pancreas, stomach, collorectum, endometrium, and prostate, it was determined that red meat (beef, pork, or lamb) and processed meat consumption possibly increased cancer risk. For colorectal cancer, a review of the literature determined that there is convincing scientific evidence that red meat increased cancer risk and that processed meat, saturated/animal fat, and heavily cooked meat were also convincing of increased risk.

Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk

 

[Pogo]

LOL, you calling someone an asshole is funny. So is your tiny dick slinging. Not impressed. When people have to back up their assertions with more assertions you know they're full of shit.

So Meltdown Man counters being schooled by making his post text real big.

Loser...

 

[westwall]

Carla_Danger--Chickens crossing the road in 1957 were about half of the size they are now. Now they are pumped full of antibiotics and steroids. Millions of chickens would like to cross the road, but instead are caged and treated in the most inhumane way possible. I no longer participate in the poor treatment of chickens or any other animals, by not eating them.

Go vegetarians!!!

Cow teeth

Wolf teeth

Human teeth

Any questions?

What's astonishing is that you can't see the difference between human teeth compared to that wolf. lol The only way you can convince me, is for you to hunt an animal, kill it with your hands and shred it with your teeth, eat in raw, then post it on youtube.


There is no more authoritative source on anthropological issues than paleontologist Dr. Richard Leakey, who explains what anyone who has taken an introductory physiology course might have discerned intuitively--that humans are herbivores. Leakey notes that "[y]ou can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand.... We wouldn't have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines" (although we have teeth that are called "canines," they bear little resemblance to the canines of carnivores).

In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables. Similarly, like the intestines of other herbivores, ours are very long (carnivores have short intestines so they can quickly get rid of all that rotting flesh they eat). We don't have sharp claws to seize and hold down prey. And most of us (hopefully) lack the instinct that would drive us to chase and then kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. Dr. Milton Mills builds on these points and offers dozens more in his essay, "A Comparative Anatomy of Eating."

Shattering The Meat Myth: Humans Are Natural Vegetarians

Cute but not factual. Humans are omnivores. Have been their whoooole existence. In fact, the Japanese have excellent records of the lives of the Buddhist monks in Japan going back hundreds of years. They kept detailed records of what they did, what they ate etc.

Those who ate a pure vegetarian diet had an average life span of 34-35 years (don't remember which, it's been a few years since I was told this by the President of the Meiji College in S.F. a traditional medical school) on the other hand those who ate a single egg upped their life span to 51. A single egg made that much difference.

LOL!

That the best you got? Sad.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Carla_Danger--Chickens crossing the road in 1957 were about half of the size they are now. Now they are pumped full of antibiotics and steroids. Millions of chickens would like to cross the road, but instead are caged and treated in the most inhumane way possible. I no longer participate in the poor treatment of chickens or any other animals, by not eating them.

Go vegetarians!!!

Cow teeth

Wolf teeth

Human teeth

Any questions?

What's astonishing is that you can't see the difference between human teeth compared to that wolf. lol The only way you can convince me, is for you to hunt an animal, kill it with your hands and shred it with your teeth, eat in raw, then post it on youtube.


There is no more authoritative source on anthropological issues than paleontologist Dr. Richard Leakey, who explains what anyone who has taken an introductory physiology course might have discerned intuitively--that humans are herbivores. Leakey notes that "[y]ou can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand.... We wouldn't have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines" (although we have teeth that are called "canines," they bear little resemblance to the canines of carnivores).

In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables. Similarly, like the intestines of other herbivores, ours are very long (carnivores have short intestines so they can quickly get rid of all that rotting flesh they eat). We don't have sharp claws to seize and hold down prey. And most of us (hopefully) lack the instinct that would drive us to chase and then kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. Dr. Milton Mills builds on these points and offers dozens more in his essay, "A Comparative Anatomy of Eating."

Shattering The Meat Myth: Humans Are Natural Vegetarians

Cute but not factual. Humans are omnivores. Have been their whoooole existence. In fact, the Japanese have excellent records of the lives of the Buddhist monks in Japan going back hundreds of years. They kept detailed records of what they did, what they ate etc.

Those who ate a pure vegetarian diet had an average life span of 34-35 years (don't remember which, it's been a few years since I was told this by the President of the Meiji College in S.F. a traditional medical school) on the other hand those who ate a single egg upped their life span to 51. A single egg made that much difference.

LOL!

That the best you got? Sad.

Okay, I'll wait here while you find a link showing that vegetarians have an average life span of 34-35 years.

 

[Iceweasel]

LOL, you calling someone an asshole is funny. So is your tiny dick slinging. Not impressed. When people have to back up their assertions with more assertions you know they're full of shit.

So Meltdown Man counters being schooled by making his post text real big.

Loser...

The meltdown is yours because smearing your ass on the forum is all you have.

 

[Iceweasel]

I can drink jet fuel, but that doesn't make me an airplane. In fact, it will kill me! Again, people can eat meat, but that doesn't mean they should. There is not a single population in the world with a high meat intake which does not have a high rate of colon cancer. Our intestines are not designed to break down meat, especially red meat. It's really very simple...the more meat you eat, the more you are at risk.

Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk

The World Health Organization has determined that dietary factors account for at least 30 percent of all cancers in Western countries and up to 20 percent in developing countries. When cancer researchers started to search for links between diet and cancer, one of the most noticeable findings was that people who avoided meat were much less likely to develop the disease. Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters.

Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk

Wrong. You drink jet fuel, you die. That's a failed analogy.

The WHO is off base, I'd say it's closer to 100%. Our intestines do break down meat, your full of shit. A study has to take everything into consideration. Picking out meat eating is stupid. The healthiest people seem to be traditional Japanese meal eaters, and they do eat meat. They just don't eat it in the quantities most Americans do.

 

[Iceweasel]

Study after study shows the more meat you eat, the higher at risk you are for getting cancer.

First, meat is devoid of fiber and other nutrients that have a protective effect. Meat also contains animal protein, saturated fat, and, in some cases, carcinogenic compounds such as heterocyclic amines (HCA) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) formed during the processing or cooking of meat. HCAs, formed as meat is cooked at high temperatures, and PAHs, formed during the burning of organic substances, are believed to increase cancer risk. In addition, the high fat content of meat and other animal products increases hormone production, thus increasing the risk of hormone-related cancers such as breast and prostate cancer.

In 2007, the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) published their second review of the major studies on food, nutrition, and cancer prevention. For cancers of the oesophagus, lung, pancreas, stomach, collorectum, endometrium, and prostate, it was determined that red meat (beef, pork, or lamb) and processed meat consumption possibly increased cancer risk. For colorectal cancer, a review of the literature determined that there is convincing scientific evidence that red meat increased cancer risk and that processed meat, saturated/animal fat, and heavily cooked meat were also convincing of increased risk.

Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk

You're like a Moonie that can only view the world through a small tunnel. Who says you can't eat fiber if you eat meat? That's just devoid of thought.

Possibly isn't science, try again.

Eating too much processed foods, especially empty carbs absolutely will cause problems. Eating too much good food will cause problems. Not getting enough nutrition will cause problems.

You need more than a toggle switch to understand the issue.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I can drink jet fuel, but that doesn't make me an airplane. In fact, it will kill me! Again, people can eat meat, but that doesn't mean they should. There is not a single population in the world with a high meat intake which does not have a high rate of colon cancer. Our intestines are not designed to break down meat, especially red meat. It's really very simple...the more meat you eat, the more you are at risk.

Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk

The World Health Organization has determined that dietary factors account for at least 30 percent of all cancers in Western countries and up to 20 percent in developing countries. When cancer researchers started to search for links between diet and cancer, one of the most noticeable findings was that people who avoided meat were much less likely to develop the disease. Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters.

Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk

Wrong. You drink jet fuel, you die. That's a failed analogy.

The WHO is off base, I'd say it's closer to 100%. Our intestines do break down meat, your full of shit. A study has to take everything into consideration. Picking out meat eating is stupid. The healthiest people seem to be traditional Japanese meal eaters, and they do eat meat. They just don't eat it in the quantities most Americans do.

I think I'm going with the World Health Organization over you, thank you.

In Japan, for example, the traditional diet is much lower in fat, especially animal fat, than the typical western diet, and breast cancer rates are low. In the late 1940s, when breast cancer was particularly rare in Japan, less than 10 percent of the calories in the Japanese diet came from fat.16 The American diet is centered on animal products, which tend to be high in fat and low in other important nutrients, with 30 to 35 percent of calories coming from fat. When Japanese girls are raised on westernized diets, their rate of breast cancer increases dramatically. Even within Japan, affluent women who eat meat daily have an 8.5 times higher risk of breast cancer than poorer women who rarely or never eat meat.

Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk

 

[Iceweasel]

I can drink jet fuel, but that doesn't make me an airplane. In fact, it will kill me! Again, people can eat meat, but that doesn't mean they should. There is not a single population in the world with a high meat intake which does not have a high rate of colon cancer. Our intestines are not designed to break down meat, especially red meat. It's really very simple...the more meat you eat, the more you are at risk.

Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk

The World Health Organization has determined that dietary factors account for at least 30 percent of all cancers in Western countries and up to 20 percent in developing countries. When cancer researchers started to search for links between diet and cancer, one of the most noticeable findings was that people who avoided meat were much less likely to develop the disease. Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters.

Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk

Wrong. You drink jet fuel, you die. That's a failed analogy.

The WHO is off base, I'd say it's closer to 100%. Our intestines do break down meat, your full of shit. A study has to take everything into consideration. Picking out meat eating is stupid. The healthiest people seem to be traditional Japanese meal eaters, and they do eat meat. They just don't eat it in the quantities most Americans do.

I think I'm going with the World Health Organization over you, thank you.

In Japan, for example, the traditional diet is much lower in fat, especially animal fat, than the typical western diet, and breast cancer rates are low. In the late 1940s, when breast cancer was particularly rare in Japan, less than 10 percent of the calories in the Japanese diet came from fat.16 The American diet is centered on animal products, which tend to be high in fat and low in other important nutrients, with 30 to 35 percent of calories coming from fat. When Japanese girls are raised on westernized diets, their rate of breast cancer increases dramatically. Even within Japan, affluent women who eat meat daily have an 8.5 times higher risk of breast cancer than poorer women who rarely or never eat meat.

Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk

I'll go with everyone else. Mining for answers you want without understanding the test results doesn't make your case. The typical western meat portion feeds an entire Japanese family. You look at that and blame the meat.

There probably are no poor Japanese women that never eat meat, they don't use food as a religion like the whack obs here.

Americans do eat too much meat, the amount is about double what it was in 1950. But what you can't get is that abusing a diet doesn't demonstrate anything but what abuse can lead to. And what happened to your herbivore mantra since you are quoting studies that show healthy people eating meats?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Study after study shows the more meat you eat, the higher at risk you are for getting cancer.

First, meat is devoid of fiber and other nutrients that have a protective effect. Meat also contains animal protein, saturated fat, and, in some cases, carcinogenic compounds such as heterocyclic amines (HCA) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) formed during the processing or cooking of meat. HCAs, formed as meat is cooked at high temperatures, and PAHs, formed during the burning of organic substances, are believed to increase cancer risk. In addition, the high fat content of meat and other animal products increases hormone production, thus increasing the risk of hormone-related cancers such as breast and prostate cancer.

In 2007, the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) published their second review of the major studies on food, nutrition, and cancer prevention. For cancers of the oesophagus, lung, pancreas, stomach, collorectum, endometrium, and prostate, it was determined that red meat (beef, pork, or lamb) and processed meat consumption possibly increased cancer risk. For colorectal cancer, a review of the literature determined that there is convincing scientific evidence that red meat increased cancer risk and that processed meat, saturated/animal fat, and heavily cooked meat were also convincing of increased risk.

Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk

You're like a Moonie that can only view the world through a small tunnel. Who says you can't eat fiber if you eat meat? That's just devoid of thought.

Possibly isn't science, try again.

Eating too much processed foods, especially empty carbs absolutely will cause problems. Eating too much good food will cause problems. Not getting enough nutrition will cause problems.

You need more than a toggle switch to understand the issue.

Your reading comprehension has failed you. I never said you can't eat fiber and neither did the article.

This fact allowed scientists to separate the effects of eating meat from other factors. Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat. In contrast, Harvard studies showed that daily meat eaters have approximately three times the colon cancer risk, compared to those who rarely eat meat.

Vegetarian diets and diets rich in high-fiber plant foods such as whole grains, legumes, vegetables, and fruits offer a measure of protection. Fiber greatly speeds the passage of food through the colon, effectively removing carcinogens, and fiber actually changes the type of bacteria that is present in the intestine, so there is reduced production of carcinogenic secondary bile acids. Plant foods are also naturally low in fat and rich in antioxidants and other anti-cancer compounds. Not surprisingly, vegetarians are at the lowest risk for cancer and have a significantly reduced risk compared to meat-eaters.

Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk

 

[Iceweasel]

Your reading comprehension has failed you. I never said you can't eat fiber and neither did the article.

This fact allowed scientists to separate the effects of eating meat from other factors. Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat. In contrast, Harvard studies showed that daily meat eaters have approximately three times the colon cancer risk, compared to those who rarely eat meat.

Vegetarian diets and diets rich in high-fiber plant foods such as whole grains, legumes, vegetables, and fruits offer a measure of protection. Fiber greatly speeds the passage of food through the colon, effectively removing carcinogens, and fiber actually changes the type of bacteria that is present in the intestine, so there is reduced production of carcinogenic secondary bile acids. Plant foods are also naturally low in fat and rich in antioxidants and other anti-cancer compounds. Not surprisingly, vegetarians are at the lowest risk for cancer and have a significantly reduced risk compared to meat-eaters.

Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk

I comprehend just fine. The study you link to is flawed. Some of the &th Day Adventists do eat meat, but don't smoke, drink or consume coffee and sodas. Then they are comparing it to the typical over eating heavily meat diet of Americans and drawing the conclusion that meats are bad. It makes no sense.

Also they claim saturated fats are bad for us. Nonsense! It was big government that got prople freaked out about it so they came out with margarines and all the transfats. Now they are admitting the transfats are bad for us, well duh, they're unnatural.

All that ignores that our ancestors ate meats (and fats) our systems do digest it just fine thankyouverymuch. Being a vegetarian doesn't automatically make one healthy, lots of other things to consider. I know 90 year olds that ate meat all their lives, you just don't like it so you pick poor diets with meats to make your case.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Your reading comprehension has failed you. I never said you can't eat fiber and neither did the article.

This fact allowed scientists to separate the effects of eating meat from other factors. Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat. In contrast, Harvard studies showed that daily meat eaters have approximately three times the colon cancer risk, compared to those who rarely eat meat.

Vegetarian diets and diets rich in high-fiber plant foods such as whole grains, legumes, vegetables, and fruits offer a measure of protection. Fiber greatly speeds the passage of food through the colon, effectively removing carcinogens, and fiber actually changes the type of bacteria that is present in the intestine, so there is reduced production of carcinogenic secondary bile acids. Plant foods are also naturally low in fat and rich in antioxidants and other anti-cancer compounds. Not surprisingly, vegetarians are at the lowest risk for cancer and have a significantly reduced risk compared to meat-eaters.

Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk

I comprehend just fine. The study you link to is flawed. Some of the &th Day Adventists do eat meat, but don't smoke, drink or consume coffee and sodas. Then they are comparing it to the typical over eating heavily meat diet of Americans and drawing the conclusion that meats are bad. It makes no sense.

Also they claim saturated fats are bad for us. Nonsense! It was big government that got prople freaked out about it so they came out with margarines and all the transfats. Now they are admitting the transfats are bad for us, well duh, they're unnatural.

All that ignores that our ancestors ate meats (and fats) our systems do digest it just fine thankyouverymuch. Being a vegetarian doesn't automatically make one healthy, lots of other things to consider. I know 90 year olds that ate meat all their lives, you just don't like it so you pick poor diets with meats to make your case.

Those Seventh-Day Adventists are mostly vegetarian, and even the meat eaters, eat very little meat. My information comes from WHO, Harvard, and the American Institute for Cancer Research. They all say the same thing. The more meat you eat, the higher at risk you are for getting various types of cancers. It's really just that simple.

Of course you must have common sense. An Oreo cookie is vegan. If you live on Oreo cookies you will be unhealthy. And yes, you must do other things to stay healthy, like exercise, sleep..etc. But that doesn't erase the fact that the more meat you eat, the more likely you are to get cancer.

 

[Pogo]

LOL, you calling someone an asshole is funny. So is your tiny dick slinging. Not impressed. When people have to back up their assertions with more assertions you know they're full of shit.

So Meltdown Man counters being schooled by making his post text real big.

Loser...

The meltdown is yours because smearing your ass on the forum is all you have.

​

SMH

 

[Iceweasel]

LOL, you calling someone an asshole is funny. So is your tiny dick slinging. Not impressed. When people have to back up their assertions with more assertions you know they're full of shit.

So Meltdown Man counters being schooled by making his post text real big.

Loser...

The meltdown is yours because smearing your ass on the forum is all you have.

​

SMH

You must be about 12 years of age.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What's astonishing is that you can't see the difference between human teeth compared to that wolf. lol The only way you can convince me, is for you to hunt an animal, kill it with your hands and shred it with your teeth, eat in raw, then post it on youtube.


There is no more authoritative source on anthropological issues than paleontologist Dr. Richard Leakey, who explains what anyone who has taken an introductory physiology course might have discerned intuitively--that humans are herbivores. Leakey notes that "[y]ou can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand.... We wouldn't have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines" (although we have teeth that are called "canines," they bear little resemblance to the canines of carnivores).

In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables. Similarly, like the intestines of other herbivores, ours are very long (carnivores have short intestines so they can quickly get rid of all that rotting flesh they eat). We don't have sharp claws to seize and hold down prey. And most of us (hopefully) lack the instinct that would drive us to chase and then kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. Dr. Milton Mills builds on these points and offers dozens more in his essay, "A Comparative Anatomy of Eating."

Shattering The Meat Myth: Humans Are Natural Vegetarians

Of course there are differences, and also strong similarities. Notice the canines? The molars?

Humans, like all great apes, are omnivorous. We are designed to eat meat. That you have a couple of whackjobs is of no relevance.

{
"Primates are a little bit weird," says Samantha Hopkins, an assistant professor of geology at the University of Oregon, who led the study that revealed primates' omnivorous ways. Most primates became omnivores early in their existence, and stayed put. "We seem to hang out in this omnivorous role."

It's easy to imagine that there's an evolutionary advantage to being able to eat just about anything. Herbivores and carnivores have specialized teeth and digestive systems that make going back and forth practically impossible.

For instance, carnivores are usually the first to go extinct when times are tough, because they depend on other animals for their food source.}
For Most Of Human History, Being An Omnivore Was No Dilemma

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ding dong was comparing human teeth to wolves, which are carnivores. And just because we can eat meat, it doesn't mean we should. As I already pointed out, our intestines are long, while a carnivores intestines are short and can digest meat much faster. Obviously, you didn't read the entire link.

No Cruella, I showed you both cow and wolf teeth - which both have similarity to ours.

We are omnivores, we can eat and digest both plant and animal

The point is this: Thousands of years ago when we were hunter-gatherers, we may have needed a bit of meat in our diets in times of scarcity, but we don't need it now. Says Dr. William C. Roberts, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, "Although we think we are, and we act as if we are, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us, because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."

Sure, most of us are "behavioral omnivores"--that is, we eat meat, so that defines us as omnivorous. But our evolution and physiology are herbivorous, and ample science proves that when we choose to eat meat, that causes problems, from decreased energy and a need for more sleep up to increased risk for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

Old habits die hard, and it's convenient for people who like to eat meat to think that there is evidence to support their belief that eating meat is "natural" or the cause of our evolution. For many years, I too, clung to the idea that meat and dairy were good for me; I realize now that I was probably comforted to have justification for my continued attachment to the traditions I grew up with.

But in fact top nutritional and anthropological scientists from the most reputable institutions imaginable say categorically that humans are natural herbivores, and that we will be healthier today if we stick with our herbivorous roots. It may be inconvenient, but it alas, it is the truth.

Shattering The Meat Myth: Humans Are Natural Vegetarians

So, you're a nut job - no new information theres.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

We're not omnivores--- DOGS are omnivores. Carla's link has it exactly right.

BWHAHAHAHA

what a fucking retard.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We are "behavioral" omnivores, but natural herbivores. Where do we get this shit? How about by reading? Try reading from sources that have actually done years of study on this very subject.

LOL

We are biologically omnivorous. If we were not, we would not be able to extract nutrients from meat and vegetable matter.

Feed a horse, an actual herbivore, a steak. How long will the horse live?

You are simply a nutjob,