Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think TribeCavs argument is more about people in developed nations tend to get diseases of affluence (Cancer, heart disease, ect) and it is because of overeating in general - not due to one single food item such as red meat.
Correct, that is exactly what I was saying. And it's not just the demonizing of red meat that rankles me, the demonizing of white starch is no better (even though I usually don't eat much starch, personally).
In the United States, we have diseases of affluence taken to an extreme because of, in my opinion, two things: 1) constant eating, and 2) stress. Demonizing certain foods does little to nothing to alleviate these two problems, that is my whole point. Sometimes, eating some of these demonized foods can even help with these two problems, particularly #1.
In the United States, we have diseases of affluence taken to an extreme because of, in my opinion, two things: 1) constant eating, and 2) stress. Demonizing certain foods does little to nothing to alleviate these two problems, that is my whole point.
1.) Appetite regulation, in particular over-eating, is related to the types of foods consumed.
2.) Stress doesn't cause diseases of affluence, Americans are spoiled brats and have some of the highest rates of "disease of affluence". Furthermore, these diseases haven't increased during highly stressful times, for example WW II.
Though isolating particular foods outside of the overall diet doesn't always make sense, diet as a whole has everything to do with alleviating America's poor health.
Correct, that is exactly what I was saying. And it's not just the demonizing of red meat that rankles me, the demonizing of white starch is no better (even though I usually don't eat much starch, personally).
In the United States, we have diseases of affluence taken to an extreme because of, in my opinion, two things: 1) constant eating, and 2) stress. Demonizing certain foods does little to nothing to alleviate these two problems, that is my whole point. Sometimes, eating some of these demonized foods can even help with these two problems, particularly #1.
Your perception of the situation is different from mine.
My perception is, that demonizing the *overeating of certain foods* goes a long way. Demonizing all white starch, for everyone, under every circumstance, in every quantity, is not happening, except for a few odd crackpots on the internet and occasionally, Dr. Oz.
No one other than those few odd crackpots on the internet and occasionally, Dr. Oz, thinks that all white starch is bad, always, no matter how much or little you consume of it. You can add a demographic to the anti-meat group - the PETA people and their cronies, but in my world, PETA is nothing more than one of those crackpots on the internet . Even many ethical vegans won't try and sell you the "meat is BAD for you" malarchy. They know they've chosen not to eat meat, because they feel it's unethical to do so - not because meat is unhealthy. Health isn't their concern. Ethics is. PETA doesn't care about ethics or health; they care about - well - at this point it's hard to tell what they care about. They claim it's animals. Humans are animals too, and they've proven time and again they don't really care about them very much.
But that's a PETA rant, and I just wanted to slip that in because I haven't ranted against them in awhile and it was overdue
In any case - other than those crackpots, no one is claiming that all white starches and all meats are always evil and horrible at all times under all circumstances in all proportions. They are, however, saying that these things are often overconsumed, and it is the overconsumption that leads to heart disease and obesity.
Sorry, but the "odd crackpots" that speak out against refined carbohydrates, red meat, etc don't believe that if you eat 1 oz of these things that your health will magically deteriorate. The question is whether these foods should be a regularly part of someone's diet? Their answer: no...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Even many ethical vegans won't try and sell you the "meat is BAD for you" malarchy. They know they've chosen not to eat meat, because they feel it's unethical to do so - not because meat is unhealthy. Health isn't their concern. Ethics is. PETA doesn't care about ethics or health; they care about - well - at this point it's hard to tell what they care about. They claim it's animals. Humans are animals too, and they've proven time and again they don't really care about them very much.
