Why doesn't meat help meat eaters be healthy?

[The Duke]

Admit it: You're banging your meat-eating, disgusting-skinned, cellulite-filled stinky 30 year old neighbor, right?

That's how he knows what she smells like so well.

 

[JGalt]

That's how he knows what she smells like so well.

I bet she smells like a rancid pork chop,

 

[gipper]

If they are "natural" then we have evolved to eat them

Those same naturally produced compounds that deter an insect from an edible plant are not an issue.

I doubt we have evolved. Man has been a meat eater forever. Veggies grains and fruits are a recent addition to our diet, relatively speaking.

Did you know cancer and heart disease hardly existed until 1910 in the USA? It’s true. What did our ancestors eat prior to then. BINGO! MEAT! They very nearly ONLY ate meat.

 

[Blues Man]

Link?

Partners Against Cancer

The American Cancer Society couldn't do what we do without the support of our partners. Learn more about these partnerships and how you too can join us in our mission to save lives, celebrate lives, and lead the fight for a world without cancer.

www.cancer.org

Lets see Tyson is in the list
Hormel foods
Purdue

Do you think that the American Cancer Assn would ever say that eating less or no meat is the way to prevent cancer and give up the money?

 

[Blues Man]

I doubt we have evolved. Man has been a meat eater forever. Veggies grains and fruits are a recent addition to our diet, relatively speaking.

Did you know cancer and heart disease hardly existed until 1910 in the USA? It’s true. What did our ancestors eat prior to then. BINGO! MEAT! They very nearly ONLY ate meat.

The meat you got in the 1900s was nothing like the meat you get today. It was leaner not full of added hormones and antibiotics and it was expensive most people didn't eat meat 3 times a day.

And in 1900 did we have the capability to diagnose diseases that we have now? You cannot say heart disease didn't exist because we didn't have the medical tech available to see it.



We transitioned from the forest to the savannah it was then humans started eating more meat and in all reality probably started doing that as scavengers.

And really whole grains have never been a problem it's the refined grains that are the culprit when it comes to health ramifications.

It has been shown that the gladiators of Rome ate a mostly vegetarian diet

 

[Blues Man]

This in interesting People today eat 150% more meat than they did in 1910

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Partners Against Cancer

The American Cancer Society couldn't do what we do without the support of our partners. Learn more about these partnerships and how you too can join us in our mission to save lives, celebrate lives, and lead the fight for a world without cancer.

www.cancer.org

Lets see Tyson is in the list
Hormel foods
Purdue

Do you think that the American Cancer Assn would ever say that eating less or no meat is the way to prevent cancer and give up the money?

I didn't see anything that indicated those were sources for "their big money".

Link?

 

[Blues Man]

I didn't see anything that indicated those were sources for "their big money".

Link?

yeah I'm sure Tyson only sends in $10 a year

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

yeah I'm sure Tyson only sends in $10 a year

If only you had evidence of your claims.

 

[Unkotare]

....

Most people who consume dead animals are disgustingly obese. ....

Bullshit.

 

[Unkotare]

Except the way we treat animals on farms. If this happened to a human being you'd call it a horror movie
.the fact that so few have ZERO compassion for another living, feeling creature shows a level of evil that is unimaginable.

.....

Let me guess: pro-abortion democrat

 

[WinterBorn]

Over eating is the problem

Most of us consume too much of everything, including meat, but also sugar and starch

I could fatten you up like a pig without any meat at all

Sugar kills more Americans than meat. It is in everything.

 

[braalian]

This in interesting People today eat 150% more meat than they did in 1910

That’s because working class people in 1910 could barely afford meat more than once or twice a week.

They also couldn’t always afford medicine or shoes for their 11 unwashed children.

 

[sparky]

The meat you got in the 1900s was nothing like the meat you get today.

unless you're some reclusive farmer that subscribes to 'old school' ways Blues......

~S~

 

[gipper]

The meat you got in the 1900s was nothing like the meat you get today. It was leaner not full of added hormones and antibiotics and it was expensive most people didn't eat meat 3 times a day.

And in 1900 did we have the capability to diagnose diseases that we have now? You cannot say heart disease didn't exist because we didn't have the medical tech available to see it.



We transitioned from the forest to the savannah it was then humans started eating more meat and in all reality probably started doing that as scavengers.

And really whole grains have never been a problem it's the refined grains that are the culprit when it comes to health ramifications.

It has been shown that the gladiators of Rome ate a mostly vegetarian diet

I can’t agree with much of your post. Meat was not expensive for early Americans. It was plentiful and cheap. Even the poorest Americans ate meat of some kind at every meal.

Americans knew what cancer and heart disease was. It’s a cop-out to claim these diseases weren’t diagnosed or known.

You can get quality meat without the nasty additives industrial farms use. Your fear of these additives is hypocritical when you consume a diet loaded with pesticides.

Man is a carnivore. Always has been.

Here is a good article for you.
How Americans Got Red Meat Wrong

In the book Putting Meat on the American Table, researcher Roger Horowitz scours the literature for data on how much meat Americans actually ate. A survey of 8,000 urban Americans in 1909 showed that the poorest among them ate 136 pounds a year, and the wealthiest more than 200 pounds.

A food budget published in the New York Tribune in 1851 allots two pounds of meat per day for a family of five. Even slaves at the turn of the 18th century were allocated an average of 150 pounds of meat a year. As Horowitz concludes, “These sources do give us some confidence in suggesting an average annual consumption of 150–200 pounds of meat per person in the nineteenth century.”

About 175 pounds of meat per person per year—compared to the roughly 100 pounds of meat per year that an average adult American eats today. And of that 100 pounds of meat, about half is poultry—chicken and turkey—whereas until the mid-20th century, chicken was considered a luxury meat, on the menu only for special occasions (chickens were valued mainly for their eggs).

The wider-lens picture is clearly that we eat far less red meat today than did our forefathers.

 

[Blues Man]

That’s because working class people in 1910 could barely afford meat more than once or twice a week.

They also couldn’t always afford medicine or shoes for their 11 unwashed children.

And that increase has correlated with the increase of heart disease and cancer

 

[Blues Man]

I can’t agree with much of your post. Meat was not expensive for early Americans. It was plentiful and cheap. Even the poorest Americans ate meat of some kind at every meal.

Americans knew what cancer and heart disease was. It’s a cop-out to claim these diseases weren’t diagnosed or known.

You can get quality meat without the nasty additives industrial farms use. Your fear of these additives is hypocritical when you consume a diet loaded with pesticides.

Man is a carnivore. Always has been.

Here is a good article for you.
How Americans Got Red Meat Wrong

In the book Putting Meat on the American Table, researcher Roger Horowitz scours the literature for data on how much meat Americans actually ate. A survey of 8,000 urban Americans in 1909 showed that the poorest among them ate 136 pounds a year, and the wealthiest more than 200 pounds.

A food budget published in the New York Tribune in 1851 allots two pounds of meat per day for a family of five. Even slaves at the turn of the 18th century were allocated an average of 150 pounds of meat a year. As Horowitz concludes, “These sources do give us some confidence in suggesting an average annual consumption of 150–200 pounds of meat per person in the nineteenth century.”

About 175 pounds of meat per person per year—compared to the roughly 100 pounds of meat per year that an average adult American eats today. And of that 100 pounds of meat, about half is poultry—chicken and turkey—whereas until the mid-20th century, chicken was considered a luxury meat, on the menu only for special occasions (chickens were valued mainly for their eggs).

The wider-lens picture is clearly that we eat far less red meat today than did our forefathers.

In 1910 people ate 150% LESS meat than they do today and as I said that meat was qualitatively different

 

[gipper]

In 1910 people ate 150% LESS meat than they do today and as I said that meat was qualitatively different

Not according to the study I posted.

 

[gipper]

According the mine it does.

You haven’t done the research. I have. You’ve accepted the official narrative. I haven’t.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 1910 people ate 150% LESS meat than they do today and as I said that meat was qualitatively different

In 1910 people ate 150% LESS meat than they do today

It's impossible to eat 150% LESS of anything.
100% less is the least you can eat.