I am definitely an omnivore, and I believe biologically we are equipped with the jaws and guts of an omnivore. Too much meat is certainly detrimental, particularly red meat, but the risks posed by saturated fat and cholesterol have been massively over stated or fabricated...in terms of science, nutrition seems to be a very murky area where miscommunication and misinformation are rife.

I think our species omnivorous, opportunistic approach to food is one of the reasons we have got to where we are today. The use of fire for cooking massively expanded our diet and allowed us to eat both a wider variety of things, and gain much more energy from other food types, particularly starch rich tubers, which still form an important part of the diet of hunter gathering tribes in central Africa. Another important step was our species stealing kills from other predators on the planes and so supplementing our diet with animal protein. It is thought we may have smashed open the bones of these kills to gain access to the bone marrow inside, one of the most nutrient dense and calorie rich of all animal foods. All this extra protein and energy could go towards making our brains bigger, and for making babies. Without these early developments of cooking and scavenging I very much doubt we would have got to where we are now as a species.

I eat lots of fruit and veg, but also a little meat and fish, and some cooked foods and some raw. I think the most important issue regarding food is to eat natural...it is our processing and refining of foods that pose such a major risk to our health. One should be eating as close to our ancestors diets, in terms of natural unprocessed foods, as we can.

This is false. China study (notice the lack of " the " )is an epidemiological study which means it can demonstrate correlation between things but doesn't proof that x causes y.

The China Study is a book, so no peer reviews there. Some people looked at the statistics and their conclusions aren't close to Campbell's.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/3/850.full
http://www.cholesterol-a...lth.com/China-Study.html
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/385/
http://healthcorrelator....arch/label/China%20Study
http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/

I meant the research from the china study is peer-reviewed.

There will always be critics but I've checked multiple sources and the evidence is pretty overwhelming.

What evidence ? The correlations or Campbell's interpretation of the data (which is not universal, and in some cases just plain false) ? If there is a specific study that Campbell cited that you feel is important then please, link it.

From the author himself "We didn't proof anything".
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/385/

If anyone is interested, Campbell vs. Cordain on protein. (PDF)

http://www.sciencedaily....2012/03/120312162746.htm

http://www.sciencedaily....2009/03/090323161109.htm

http://www.reuters.com/a...at-idUSTRE6535SG20100605

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15671256

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih....C2803089/?tool=pmcentrez

http://www.cancerproject...al/cancer_facts/meat.php

http://www.cancerproject...et/elevated_hormones.php

http://preventcancer.aic...ments_red_processed_meat

http://www.pcrm.org/heal...ncer-the-evidence-mounts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4088824.stm

http://preventcancer.aic...ommendations_05_red_meat

http://www.washingtonpos.../13/AR2006111300824.html

http://www.cancer.gov/ca.../stomach/meatconsumption

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/30/meat.cancer/

http://www.ajcn.org/content/70/3/532S.long

http://www.pcrm.org/heal...rns-about-dairy-products

http://www.bio-medicine....-Lead-To-Cancer-12102-1/

Of course there is always going to be conflicting data, but looking at the big picture, it's clear that animal protein is strongly linked to cancer and disease, and that plant-based food is healing and healthy.

I think there's no problem with eating meat, but when one considers the amount of land and energy used to produce meat for the human population, it's overwhelming. Indians most don't eat it and they seem to be doing fine without it.

You are wrong. First of all, Campbell has a veganist agenda and he cherry picked data to support this agenda - this has been shown many times. The study was peer reviewed, his unwarranted conclusions were not. Second, please read the debate between Cordain and Campbell, Cordain understands the rigor involved in science, Campbell likes to rely on a select few epidemiological studies to back up his claims. You can clearly tell from this debate who is interested in seeking the truth and who is out to push their beliefs. Third, the new study that has been in the news the past week about red meat has also been debunked. I've provided links below with information why such conclusions cannot be made. Taubes and Minger have a great understanding about how false these claims are. The only types of studies that will show solid evidence on diet benefits are longitudinal cross-over studies, and these have not been done yet. I'm sorry Spartan, but you've been lied to.

http://garytaubes.com/20...l-epidemiology-and-meat/
http://www.marksdailyapp...ating-red-meat-kill-you/


Oh by the way, I'm not sure if you've seen Forks and Knives (The Casablanca of Vegan Propaganda) but Denise Minger has an awesome analysis of this movie that you should read. It's so thorough and will give you new perspective on this ridiculous movie. http://rawfoodsos.com/20...t-a-review-and-critique/

You are presenting a false dichotomy. Either eat vegan or support unsustainable factory farming. There is an alternative: eat locally raised, grazing animals from a respectable farm - not only is this healthier, it is sustainable and will use much less fossil fuel. Also the money goes straight to your local farmer instead of to some corporate headquarters.

By the way, the amount of energy and land used on grain production is astounding. It is completely unsustainable and ruins the land very quickly (Midwest land will not have grain growing capacity within the next 100 years). How do you fix this ruined soil? Grow grass and let Cows graze and shit on it. This type of practice is sustainable, morally just, and healthy. Don't listen to vegan propaganda, it's all lies and false dichotomies.

Whatever you say. It still doesn't change the amount of land and energy used for meat production

You can fix soil with agroforestry, which may or may not involve livestock. You are presenting (or apparently implying) a false dicotomy yourself "meat can save the land, non-meat cant".

Instead of making generalized claims at how grain ruins the land, lets look at what grains, grown in what way. Genetically modified monocultures often present the worse case scenarios with the earth being devoid of nutrients and the farmers needing to buy the specific seeds and fertilizers in a vicious cycle. It is most certainly possible to grow grains sustainably, though.

Also, notice many of the most unsustainable crops are not for human consumption. Like livestock feeding (for example soya coming from brazil to feed livestock around the world, not only unsustainable in its practice but also often done in lands previously filled with forests). Also take a look at maize/corn in USA, how unsustainable it is as a fuel source too.

I think its clear that buying local and trying to find sustainable options is the way to go, whether one eats meat or not. Eating meat or not is a personal decision, that one should take not falling for vegan propaganda NOR anti-vegan propaganda.

eaing any livestock reguardless of how ethical the farm is is going to have a larger impact that a completely vegan diet that does not include supporting huge corn farms and soy farms that deplace forests etc..many vegan do not even eat grains either. Most corn is also all GMO and so is so much of the soy. I dont eat grains and I dont buy any corn products and I dont eat tofu etc. the only soy I eat is in miso and it is organic soy grown ethically. I wont support anything else. I am confidant that my "vegan" diet does have less impact on the environment than any meat eating diet unless maybe someone is hunting wild game or fishing etc.

Not all the info out there abotu vegan diets is proeganda or lies..this is a rediculous claim to make. The pro meat people and meat industry has just as much an agenda if not more than the vegan people. There is ALOT of money in meat. To say that either side is all propeganda or lies just makes you sound like you are biased and unwilling to look at anything beyond what you might believe.

However like endless said..eating organic freerange grass fed animals is a hell of alot better than eating the weird soy fed, hormone pumped, prison camp factory farmed meat that most people eat. There are degrees of everything..there are degrees of meat consumption that are much more destructive than others.

People do not need to eat meat every day anyway. It is unhealthy. I think there has been enough studies done by this point to conclude that people do not need to eat nearly as much meat as many westerns do, and that it is healthier to eat less of it. If people only ate meat a fraction of how much they now do, and made that meat only organic grass fed or wild meat things might be very different.

You are correct as it applies to traditional dirt farming. There are alternatives, such as Aquaponics which combines fish farming (for plant nutrients) and hydroponics. Aquaponics uses 90% less water than traditional dirt farming, can grow 3x the produce on the same amount of space and uses no fertilizers nor pesticides.

What are you talking about? Please show me the studies. This "we know meat is unhealthy" mantra is exactly the vegan propaganda I'm talking about. Sure, Americans are fatter and have higher rates of diabetes than ever before but are you really going to implicate meat? Meat consumption as a percentage of diet has gone downing the last 50 years... guess what has gone up... carb intake and grains in particular. Stop propagating the outdated debunked idea that saturated fat is bad. The studies simply do not show that this is the case at all. In fact, if we were to implicate any macronutrient as being bad it would be carbohydrates and the consequential insulin release that follows intake. It doesn't matter if your eating 100g of carbs from whole wheat or from sugar, the insulin response will be the same and over time your muscle and adipose tissue will become resistant to insulin and your liver will too. Please stop equating the Standard American Diet with high meat intake, because it's really a high carb high calorie diet. These statements like "People do not need to eat meat every day anyway. It is unhealthy." are not based on science and can be destructive to the health of anyone that listens to you. Please don't claim something to be true if the science isn't there (or show me the science).

I'm sure there will be some links to studies here soon, not long ago I saw an article about meat diet and it's connection to diabetes for example, can't find it right now though. Google might help if you are interested.
I understand you are against any so called propaganda but excessively defending meat eating doesn't sound good either.

tele, this is what I'm trying to convey here. You can't use correlations as proof. It's like Indians have brown tan and they are healthy* therefore brown tan must be responsible for their good health. Or rice might be healthy, or poverty or Mumbai air, ...

*India has a huge diabetes problem by the way.

"In 2011, IDF estimates that India alone has 61.3 million people living with diabetes; this places India second to China". PDF.

Spartan, I think you missed the point. Linking something without explaining the mechanism is nothing moar than an idea for a hypothesis.

And if "it's clear that animal protein is strongly linked to cancer and disease, and that plant-based food is healing and healthy" this is true, how do you explain the Eskimos or the Maasai ?

Dude, I'm not talking about indian peoples health here but that they are doing fine without meat. Fine means they can live without it without noticeable problems.
The reason for amount of diabetes in there I think has nothing to do with meat.

I think this whole debate meat vs no meat isn't the best discussion, everyone can decide what they want to eat and why.

"Stop propagating the outdated debunked idea that saturated fat is bad"

Maybe you could stop putting words into my mouth..that would be great. Instead of comming back to respond to me telling me to stop saying something I never even mentioned why dont you just speak for yourself? If you really have to resort to this to prove a point than your point cant be worth much.

How is this my vegan porpeganda? You spouted off some crap about people eating more grains..something I made very clear that I dont even eat.

Let your ego get out of the way a bit maybe before you post and actaully READ what is posted.

"It doesn't matter if your eating 100g of carbs from whole wheat or from sugar, the insulin response will be the same and over time your muscle and adipose tissue will become resistant to insulin and your liver will too"

Do you understand the relationship that exists between fats and insulin? If you do than why would you ignore that fact when you make a post like this?

Saying all carbs and all sugars are the same is just uninformed propeganda. They are not the same. Saturated fats are actaully not super great to eat in abundance with other carbs and vice versa..and even unsaturated fats are not great to combine with too much carbs.

Do you understand how fat binds to insulin receptors? If not than please dont act as if you know everything about this.

It is the high ammount of fats combined with sugars in a western diet that leads to so much of the diabetes.

Fat binds to insulin and blocks it's efficacy for a period of time. The insulin then is not able to properly deal with the rising blood sugar levels..this is a phnomenon of a large portion of the typical western diet.

If what you say is true, than why do I not have diabetes?..and why am I not even hypoglycemic anymore eating bowls and bowls of high carbohydrate containing fruits all day long? Especially with all the avacado I eat and nuts and seeds, if what you are saying was true my origional hypoglycemia would have just gotten worse over the years instead of reversing. I eat tons of carbs every day and I am fine.

I think experience counts for alot more than just some hersay on the internet from someone with an obvious meat centered agenda.

"What are you talking about? Please show me the studies"

here is some god information all about meat, protein and diabetes.

http://journal.diabetes....ectrum/00v13n3/pg132.htm

here is something stuff about red meat and cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15333470

http://www.examiner.com/...ease-diabetes-and-stroke

^that study is apparently not super conclusive but they did say this

"While 25 percent of vegetarians studied had metabolic syndrome, the number significantly rose to 37 percent for “semi-vegetarians” and 39 percent for non-vegetarians. The results hold up when adjusted for factors such as age, gender, race, physical activity, calories consumed, smoking, and alcohol intake"

http://www.sciencedaily....2006/04/060414012755.htm

https://www.msu.edu/~corcora5/food/vegan/calcium+protein.html

???? haha What mechanism are you referring to when you say fat binds to insulin? Please cite this as I am very interested and actually believe you're being quite ironic by not knowing what you're talking about yourself. Fat does not bind to insulin or insulin receptors. You might be referring to a false argument made by some vegans that saturated fat intake causes insulin sensitivity, but again this claim is based of cherry picked data that did not even conclude such a finding. Explained here: http://wholehealthsource...insulin-sensitivity.html

That's great that you don't have hypoglycemia anymore. I'm happy for you (really!). But first off, N=1 is a ridiculous thing to base anything off of. Also, there are probably numerous other lifestyle factors that you are not considering in terms of helping with this issue. If you wanted to truly get a grasp on diet's effect on this condition within your body you would have to run a controlled experiment on yourself where you controlled all other variables (exercise, sleep time, drug intake, etc.) and then switch to a couple of different diets for an extended period of time.

Saturated fat is certainly not a problem, this has been demonstrated clearly. If any type of fat could be implicated it metabolic derangement, it would be PUFU (poly unsat), specifically high n-6 fats and low n-3 (low n-3:n-6 ratio). Another great article describing this data well. http://www.diabetesincon...article/373&Itemid=8

I don't have a "meat centered agenda." I make no money off anything related to meat consumption (or food for that matter). I am simply on a quest to find truthful information about nutrition as to sustain my good health for as long as possible and to help others do so as well.