Is fish a meat in your eyes?
I’m afraid I’m going to ask for a cite on that one, preferably one that isn’t a vegan website.
Are there any non-partisan medical journals to back you up?
Let’s just leave the “cooking fires as an environmental hazard” part of it aside, shall we?
Do you seriously believe humanity could have sustained a healthy, nourishing all-vegan diet before modern physiology and dietics? Ten thousand years ago? Two thousand? Two hundred years?
We have hunting instincts, teeth for both ripping and grinding - and a digestive tract suited well for both meat-eating and fruit or vegetable eating. We function as omnivores and dragging “design” and “purpose” into it is absolutely ridiculous.
Whether or not instating veganism as a dietic ideal is a matter left to debate; certainly, most people could do with less red and more green in their diet. Then again, a lot of people need a hell of a lot more fish in their diet than they currently enjoy, as well.
shrug
You know what other animal tries to multiply and multiply? Every animal. Seriously, do you think badgers get together and say “Hey guys, there are enough of us. Let’s stop having more than two kids per badger from now on.” That’s possibly the stupidest line from a profoundly stupid movie. (Though the lobby gunfight kicked ass.)
I find it odd when people don’t consider fish a meat.
I think it all comes down to why a person is a vegetarian/vegan.
My girlfriend’s a vegetarian, which pretty much makes me a vegetarian, and I have other vegetarian and vegan friends. Many of them have different reasons for it.
My girlfriend seems to be a vegetarian because she doesn’t like the idea of hurting or ending the life of another living thing (above plant life, of course). Friends are often shocked when they hear she doesn’t eat fish. She says she doesn’t eat anything which can feel pain; I generally say she won’t eat “anything with a face and an ass.”
I had a friend who chose a vegetarian diet because he wanted to lose weight. I guess that’s fine as long as you don’t then eat fried potatoes and large pasta dishes. He eventually changed back to an omnivoric diet because he was still gaining weight. :smack:
(regarding the pulp fiction joke - sorry, too fun to pass up)
The ability to digest, process and gain nutrition from multiple food types is the definition of an omnivore. We can eat meat, therefore we are omnivores. Scientific classification only places animals in the other groups if their diet is almost exclusively sourced on one type.
There’s a lot of hedging in that abstract; lots of mays and mights. And it’s not specific as to which types of cooked food it addresses. It could be taken a weak citre for the claim that eating cooked food is bad for you, but it doesn’t at all address the issued of cooked food vs. meat (whatever that was supposed to mean) or the issue of the environment. I’ll give it a C-.
You are welcome to grade my cites all day. It doesn’t change the kind of person you are, though it does demonstrate exactly what kind that is.
The kind of person I am is irrelevant and an inappropriate topic of discussion for the forum we’re in. Please ready carefully and note that at no time did my post address anything other than the content of your cite.
Your grade for the next one? Because, after all, that is relevant to the discussion. Very important.
I’ve only read the abstract, but I see two primary issues with it.
Firstly, the abstract does not include the researchers’ definition of “high-protein diet.”
Secondly, unless that definition is much different from my understanding of the term, no one in this thread has been discussing high-protein diets. I assume you’ve read the full paper–is there anything in it which directly addresses the negative effects of cooked food in general, or of cooked proteins in moderation?
.
No doubt the complete paper does include this and other details. This is why abstracts make for generally poor cites; there simply isn’t enough information in them to validate the conclusion they’re purported to support.
<mod>
Argue the salient points.
Leave the personal insults out of it.
Don’t make me come back there!
</mod>
I think eating cooked foods is “unnatural” too. On the other hand, using a computer to communicate at near the speed of light with other raw-food eating great apes on the other side of the planet is entirely “natural”.
What constitutes a “poor diet?”
because human physiology shows humans weren’t designed for grains or meat
What are the consequences (both sort- and long-term) of such a diet?
other great apes do not suffer from the kind of diseases found in humans
What makes the dietary choices our earliest ancestors made different from those of any other primate; that is, why were their diets “poor” but that of other primates were “natural?”
you don’t see them skinning and cooking meat.
Many man-made things threaten the chance of the human race surviving. Looking beyond self-preservation, evolution is all about utilizing the central source of all terrestrial energy, sunlight. And in that sense humans are an utter failure.
I’ll just clarify on human small intestines. It ranges from 20-26 feet and the mouth-to-anus length averages between 2-3 feet. Cecil chose 23 feet and then chose a greater than average length for the mouth-to-anus body length.
According to me, a frugivore diet. A vegan might still eat grains. Ben & Jerry make more money by not telling you how to eat. Fruit, until about ten thousand years ago and the advent of agriculture and domestication.
Yah, tasty too.
Humans should’ve stayed in their natural habitat where fruit is abundant, then they don’t need modern whatever. We don’t have the anatomy of omnivores according to what is in my first post. We function as omnivores because we’re dysfunctional frugivores. Design and purpose is the best evidence of what (heh heh) purpose we were designed for.
That experiment says “fasting”. the one i gave said “with food”.
That’s what’s so phenomenal about humans. They’re supposed to eat primarily fruits and they have gone totally crazy.
Meat and grain are high protein, the exception being fruit.
And no one in his right mind would assert that cooked food is bad for both humans and environment. I did it mainly because I didn’t like seeing my favorite Matrix movie character being dissed so casually. Study your feces after going on a diet of cooked food and then raw food. Cooked food feces is stinky from being poorly digested and are of inferior biodegradability.
Well, since I do both I won’t comment.
Uh, no, it is not. What we have here is an entire ecosystem (having no connection with with humans, by the way) which is totally, 100% independent of sunlight for its existence. Evolution isn’t about anything. It’s a process, not a goal.
terrestrial
A complete sentence would be helpful here, as I’ve no clue what you’re trying to say.