Why doesn't meat help meat eaters be healthy?

[braalian]

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.

Plus, I’m willing to bet they ate a lot less of *everything*.

It was 1910. Unless you were upper class you were probably malnourished much of your life.

 

[gipper]

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.

He’s confused.

 

[gipper]

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

Here’s the truth, very likely.

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).
How Americans Got Red Meat Wrong

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He’s confused.

Maybe he needs more protein.....for brain function?

 

[gipper]

Maybe he needs more protein.....for brain function?

Maybe that explains his confusion. Lol.

 

[gipper]

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

Have you asked yourself what if?

For decades, we have been told that the best possible diet involves cutting back on fat, especially saturated fat, and that if we are not getting healthier or thinner it must be because we are not trying hard enough. But what if the low-fat diet is itself the problem? What if the very foods we’ve been denying ourselves—the creamy cheeses, the sizzling steaks—are themselves the key to reversing the epidemics of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease?

 

[gipper]

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

It seems we’re getting a great deal of conflicting information about diet. I wonder why?

Total Meat Intake is Associated with Life Expectancy: A Cross-Sectional Data Analysis of 175 Contemporary Populations​

Total Meat Intake is Associated with Life Expectancy: A Cross-Sectional Data Analysis of 175 Contemporary Populations.

 

[Rambunctious]

Why doesn't meat help meat eaters be healthy?​

Because they eat processed grains and starch with meat....
If you eat a meat and eggs and veggie diet you will lose weight and train your body to burn fat for energy....

 

[gipper]

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

There appears to be a lot of conflicting information on red meat consumption.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Studies have been linking red meat consumption to health problems like heart disease, stroke, and cancer for years, but these invariably suffer from methodological limitations.
• In an unprecedented effort, health scientists at the University of Washington scrutinized decades of research on red meat consumption and its links to various health outcomes, introducing a new way to assess health risks in the process.
• They only found weak evidence that unprocessed red meat consumption is linked to colorectal cancer, breast cancer, type 2 diabetes, and ischemic heart disease, and no link at all between eating red meat and stroke.

Red meat is not a health risk. New study slams years of shoddy research

 

[Blues Man]

There appears to be a lot of conflicting information on red meat consumption.
View attachment 766286
KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Studies have been linking red meat consumption to health problems like heart disease, stroke, and cancer for years, but these invariably suffer from methodological limitations.
• In an unprecedented effort, health scientists at the University of Washington scrutinized decades of research on red meat consumption and its links to various health outcomes, introducing a new way to assess health risks in the process.
• They only found weak evidence that unprocessed red meat consumption is linked to colorectal cancer, breast cancer, type 2 diabetes, and ischemic heart disease, and no link at all between eating red meat and stroke.

Red meat is not a health risk. New study slams years of shoddy research

I'll wait for the peer reviews

 

[gipper]

I'll wait for the peer reviews

I‘d give up lobster. It’s the cockroach of the sea.

 

[Blues Man]

I‘d give up lobster. It’s the cockroach of the sea.
View attachment 766874

I don't eat seafood.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

That's all changing. There's lots of healthy meat on the market.

Not to the animal

 

[gipper]

I don't eat seafood.

Yeah. I know. Lol.

 

[BS Filter]

Not to the animal

Would you rather a wolf ate a lamb or a human? Who's more humane?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Would you rather a wolf ate a lamb or a human? Who's more humane?

More silly talk trying to justify cruelty to animals. I'm neither a wolf or a lamb. I'm a son of God. I respect my Father's creation

 

[BS Filter]

More silly talk trying to justify cruelty to animals. I'm neither a wolf or a lamb. I'm a son of God. I respect my Father's creation

Who created the wolf? Is God's creation cruel to other creatures God created?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Who created the wolf? Is God's creation cruel to other creatures God created?

You're too stupid to deal with. Off to ignore you go. Bye

 

[BS Filter]

You're too stupid to deal with. Off to ignore you go. Bye

Lol. Didn't really think that one through, huh.

 

[buttercup]

Lol. Didn't really think that one through, huh.

On the contrary, you obviously haven't thought it through. By even asking the question "Who created the wolf? Is God's creation cruel to other creatures God created?" it appears that you don't even realize that the way the world is now is NOT the way it was in the very beginning. This is a fallen world.

In the Garden of Eden, before sin came into the world, there was no flesh-eating, or bloodthirsty predators, or killing or anything like that. It was paradise, it was GOD's ideal, which was peace and harmony among all creation.

Even the animals did not eat eachother in the beginning, read Genesis 1:30! So you are either unaware of what the bible says... or SO guided by your belly and desire for flesh that you choose to ignore what the bible clearly says about God's ideal, which we can see in the beginning, and in the future restored world.

Speaking of wolves... this passage below is God's perfect will. You can choose to either honor it or go against it. For now anyway.... because according to the bible, this IS the future:

The wolf will live with the lamb,​

and the leopard will lie down with the goat.​

The calf, the young lion, and the fatling will be together,​

and a child will lead them.​

The cow and the bear will graze,​

their young ones will lie down together,​

and the lion will eat straw like the ox.​

An infant will play beside the cobra’s pit,​

and a toddler will put his hand into a snake’s den.​

​

None will harm or destroy another​

on My entire holy mountain,​

for the land will be as full​

of the knowledge of the Lord​

as the sea is filled with water.​

Isaiah 11:6-9​