bob
It's better to have two hands than one glove.
Yessir, nothing unbiased about those two sites eh? Do you have any more uber left wing fruitcakes to cite or is that all you could come up with?
-
I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...
To meat or not to meat, that is the question.
- Thread starter TimToad
- Start date
Yessir, nothing unbiased about those two sites eh? Do you have any more uber left wing fruitcakes to cite or is that all you could come up with?
You are so confused by the BS propaganda from Monsanto. There would be plenty of food. Studies are showing GMO crops are producing less yield than conventional farming. Plus costing more to produce, and the whole reason for GMO is not even working anymore. GMO crops require way more toxic herbicides and Roundup is not killing the bugs anymore. If you want wheat to grow in arid farmland, harvest wheat seeds from an arid county. The world seed bank was developed for that reason.
chester215
Just call me Chester.
I agree with what you are saying but Roundup is a non-selective herbicide used to control weeds.
After growing some heirloom vegetables last summer we discovered that some vegetables actually have flavor.
OldPaint
New Member
as i stated in an earlier post......IAM OLD, 70..........been here a while, grew up killing my meat and growing veggies. harvesting wild grown fruits and plants from black raspberries/strawberries/horse radish/ramps to picking forest mushrooms and eating all of it. yes there are wild mushroom that are eatable and delicious. we picked the "buttons" the same as you buy in the store, to a 67 pound "sheeps head." these in the mushroom world text are called HEN OF THE WOODS. i have ate most meats from squirrels to moose. have taken a chicken from the pen, killed it, defeathered it, and ate it after it was cooked. same with beef & pork & venison. the process is not pretty as most would be VEGETARIANS......if they had to kill, clean the meat they cook.
was a carnivore for most of my life. did 19 years as vegetarian and did me well. for ME it was THE RIGHT THING, AT THAT TIME. has many good things going for it, no real down side. there are people who go beyond the VEGAN aspect and do RAW FOODING. all vegan, and veggies never taken to a temp above 112 degrees. this is one of the best ways to stop cancer. and its proven to work.
all in all.........you need to listen to YOUR BODY.........as to what it can use for sustenance. you would be surprised on how much of the food you ingest is NOT TO SUSTAIN your existence, most is psychological driven and pleasing YOURSELF.
was a carnivore for most of my life. did 19 years as vegetarian and did me well. for ME it was THE RIGHT THING, AT THAT TIME. has many good things going for it, no real down side. there are people who go beyond the VEGAN aspect and do RAW FOODING. all vegan, and veggies never taken to a temp above 112 degrees. this is one of the best ways to stop cancer. and its proven to work.
all in all.........you need to listen to YOUR BODY.........as to what it can use for sustenance. you would be surprised on how much of the food you ingest is NOT TO SUSTAIN your existence, most is psychological driven and pleasing YOURSELF.
DerbyCitySignGuy
New Member
There is propaganda from both sides. The internet is a wonderful tool, but unfortunately it's introduced massive amounts of misinformation that's readily available. Finding accurate information is incredibly difficult.
There is science supporting both sides of the argument, but the side with the most corporate donors is a little more suspect, in my opinion.
Natural News is a joke. The dude who runs the site is a nut job and the majority of the articles are pseudoscience at best. I'm pretty far left when it comes to environmental issues and nutrition and health issues, but this site is a crock. So much bunk. Do yourself a favor and forget it exists.
It's also worth mentioning that neonicotinoids from GMO crops are suspected in causing colony collapse disorder in bees. I don't know that there is any conclusive proof, but the general consensus seems to be that it's killing bees.
SOURCE LINKS? I DON'T NEED NO STINKIN SOURCE LINKS!!!
Yeah like I said, it may have been John Stossel, this was 4-5 years ago and I listen to a lot of podcasts on science and such, so it could be from someone else.... but I will try and find the source.
You ever grow Cherokee tomatoes? If not, give them a try.. my wife hates tomatoes normally but loves them.
FYI they are ugly as hell, most people think they rotten when they 1st see them, but they are awesome!
Attachments
Gino
Premium Subscriber
A friend sent me this new diet fad. Maybe it will work for those of you, knocking meat.
__________________
Yesterday I was at Costco buying a large bag of Purina dog chow for my loyal pet,
Necco, the Wonder Dog, which weighs 191 lbs. I was in the check-out line when a woman behind me asked if I had a dog.
What did she think I had.. an elephant?
So because I'm retired and have little to do, on impulse I told her that no, I didn't have a dog, I was starting the Purina Diet again. I added that I probably shouldn't, because I ended up
in the hospital last time, but that I'd lost 50 pounds before I awakened in an intensive care ward with tubes coming out of most of my orifices and IVs in both arms.
I told her that it was essentially a Perfect Diet and that the way that it works is, to load your jacket pockets with Purina Nuggets and simply eat one or two every time you feel hungry. The
food is nutritionally complete, so it works well and I was going to try it again.
Horrified, she asked if I ended up in intensive care, because the dog food poisoned me. I told her no, I stopped to pee on a Fire Hydrant and a car hit me.
Costco won't let me shop there anymore.
__________________
Yesterday I was at Costco buying a large bag of Purina dog chow for my loyal pet,
Necco, the Wonder Dog, which weighs 191 lbs. I was in the check-out line when a woman behind me asked if I had a dog.
What did she think I had.. an elephant?
So because I'm retired and have little to do, on impulse I told her that no, I didn't have a dog, I was starting the Purina Diet again. I added that I probably shouldn't, because I ended up
in the hospital last time, but that I'd lost 50 pounds before I awakened in an intensive care ward with tubes coming out of most of my orifices and IVs in both arms.
I told her that it was essentially a Perfect Diet and that the way that it works is, to load your jacket pockets with Purina Nuggets and simply eat one or two every time you feel hungry. The
food is nutritionally complete, so it works well and I was going to try it again.
Horrified, she asked if I ended up in intensive care, because the dog food poisoned me. I told her no, I stopped to pee on a Fire Hydrant and a car hit me.
Costco won't let me shop there anymore.
:dog42
While there may be propaganda coming from both sides, I generally look at motive and who has the most to gain financially from promoting a particular point of view. Do I trust 97% of the climatologists around the world who really don't stand to gain much from the onset and disruption of global climate change, or do I trust the couple of percent of oil, gas and other industry paid "scientists" denying the issue at the behest of their funders?
That answer seems really obvious and easy.
Even without the new data suggesting that neonicotinoids from GMOs contribute to colony collapse disorder, a world without pollinators is a world without most of the fruits and primary crops we and the livestock we consume rely on. The fact that bee populations are collapsing globally is a huge indicator of the enormity and seriousness of the issues.
Try to imagine a world without apples and other foods we take for granted. Here in the Central Valley of California, almond and fruit orchards are hiring beekeepers from across the country to come help with pollination because of the dramatic drop in local bees. They keep planting more and more orchards, but are totally dependent on a critter most people consider a nuisance.
DerbyCitySignGuy
New Member
That depends on how you want to spin it. I'm not particularly surprised that two (generally and fiscally) conservative publications would choose to present the argument in that manner.
Unfortunately, they DO cost health care systems money, even if they don't live as long. People who choose not to engage in unhealthy behaviors might live longer, but that cost spread out over 80 years is much less than the cost spread out over 40, 50, or 60 years. Based on the numbers from the Forbes article and data pertaining to average life spans and life expectancy based on behaviors, this is what you're looking at (I rounded a little bit):
Healthy: 281,000 over 80 years or about 3,500 a year
Obese: 250,000 over 65 years or about 3,800 a year
Smoker: 220,000 over 60 years or about 3,700 a year
Not a huge amount, but if you have a smoker that manages to live to 80, they're going to cost the healthcare system almost 25,000 more than a healthy person.
It's all relative.
A smoker or obese person living to 80 is already factored into the average...
The point being, many bureaucrats would love to rule our behaviors via tax. Jonathan Gruber, one of the main architect of Obamacare,
wrote this:
Ultimately, what may be needed to addressthe obesity problem are direct taxes on bodyweight. While it is hard to conceive of thisapproach being a common public policy tool inthe near term, such taxation may be happeningindirectly through health insurance surcharges.Currently, employers may charge upto 20 percent higher health insurance premiumsfor employees who fail to meet certainhealth-related standards, such as attaining ahealthy BMI. The new health reform legislationincreases this differential to 30 percent, withthe possibility of rising to 50 percent. Resultsof programs that use differential premiums toimpose direct financial penalties for obesity willbear watching in the future.
They love to use bad science/studies to further their agenda, this is the same government that came up with the food pyramid in the 70's that helped create a diabetes epidemic in the USA.
Here in the USA smokers & fat people do pay for a sizable portion of their own healthcare, whereas retirees generally don't.. add to that, if everyone started living to enjoy their retirement, Social security would
go bust.. So to all the healthy, fat people haters... You should give a fatty a hug today, because they're paying your way....
DerbyCitySignGuy
New Member
Yeah, I think we're on the same page. That's essentially what I was trying to say. There is propaganda on both sides, but most of the left wing propaganda comes from fringe nut jobs who watch too much Ancient Aliens (like the Natural News site), whereas the more conservative groups are getting funded by big business.
Colony collapse disorder if definitely a huge issue that needs to be getting more attention. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the people who are the cause of the problem just don't care. As long as they're getting paid, they're not worried about future generations.
DerbyCitySignGuy
New Member
When you say factored into the average, do you mean the average of everyone in the US? Or the average of just smokers? I used the average of just smokers, just obese folks, and then the average of everyone. If you take out the obese and smokers from the average life span it would probably go up a couple years.
In any case, the claim that sick people don't cost more money isn't completely accurate. A healthy person who lives a lot longer can end up costing more in the long term, but in the short term sick people cost way more, by a significant margin.
I absolutely agree with you about the government food recommendations though. They're definitely not acting with our (the average citizen) best interests in mind. There are a lot of issues with the food pyramid.
I mean, they way I read it, was they averaged out all of the overweight and/or smokers cost on health care against people that are non-overweight and non-smokers,
so that would automatically factor into account that some overweight and/or smokers would end up living longer than the norm and some non-overweight and non-smokers
would end up dying younger than the norm.
What I have seen happen, in my experience, is workaholics, who are more worried about getting the job done than taking the time to eat right,
end up being overweight and/or smoking and/or drinking coffee all day long, not really sick..in fact they're the ones that always show up to work.
Maybe they get a heart stent or two, but nothing big like living in assisted living for 20-30 years.. And at age 58 or so, boom, die of a major heart attack...
These poor slobs worked hard their whole life putting into the system and never lived to draw a dime.. and we have people/politicians that want to demonize them
and call them a drain on society...these same people probably never worked a hard day in their lives....
peavey123
New Member
Wildwest or nldixon, you guys been looking into ketogenic diets? Seems very interesting, but I've heard it's hard to do proper studies because our bodies are so used to getting our energy from carbs that it take a while of eating a ketogenic diet before our body starts properly breaking down the fat.
As for the GMO disscussion. You guys know that the term GMO is such a broad undefined term that it's basically harmful. Eg. in europe they ban GMO's right?..but your organic wheat was actually genetically modified in the 40's and isn't tested like gmo's are, so your organic wheat products could actually be more harmful than said gmo wheat. A lot of crops were modified and so long ago basically everything is GMO under it's current definition.
As for the GMO disscussion. You guys know that the term GMO is such a broad undefined term that it's basically harmful. Eg. in europe they ban GMO's right?..but your organic wheat was actually genetically modified in the 40's and isn't tested like gmo's are, so your organic wheat products could actually be more harmful than said gmo wheat. A lot of crops were modified and so long ago basically everything is GMO under it's current definition.
Gino
Premium Subscriber
You're all starting to insert more emotion than facts. All of you. What needs to be done to conduct these kinda surveys or studies is to find outfits which have nothing vested one way or the other and use ALL the facts and nothing BUT the facts. Kinda like the lobbyists and sh!t in our government. 
Anyone can dissect a study group and make the facts work to their advantage..... and on both sides of the fence. For as much for something.... you can find as much against it, but it's usually all emotions attached. Doesn't count. Sorry.
Once you start saying, the way I read it or the way I feel or my take is........ you're done. Unless you were in the study, your voice doesn't count. Assumptions, storylines, interpretations, wives tales and all the other how-tos and where tos don't mean a hill of beans. Facts and only facts which are not swaying out there for votes. Debates and discussions are based upon facts and not study groups, unless you're trying to get a new drug passed for the FDA. Then the sky's the limit.
Anyone can dissect a study group and make the facts work to their advantage..... and on both sides of the fence. For as much for something.... you can find as much against it, but it's usually all emotions attached. Doesn't count. Sorry.Once you start saying, the way I read it or the way I feel or my take is........ you're done. Unless you were in the study, your voice doesn't count. Assumptions, storylines, interpretations, wives tales and all the other how-tos and where tos don't mean a hill of beans. Facts and only facts which are not swaying out there for votes. Debates and discussions are based upon facts and not study groups, unless you're trying to get a new drug passed for the FDA. Then the sky's the limit.
DerbyCitySignGuy
New Member
Gotcha.
In any case, outliers in either group are going to swing the cost a significant amount in either direction. Someone dies at 30, they cost way less long term and short term. Someone dies at 80, they're going to cost way more short term and long term. Either way, the average overweight person or smoker is going to cost less long term, but more in the short term. They're just spinning the data.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, I just think it's a little disingenuous of the folks presenting the data to cherry pick it and present it as "the truth". Of course it's cheaper when you look at it long term on average. I'd try to present the data that way too if I was making a point.
I've never tried an actual ketogenic diet. I did eat a high protein, high fat, low carb (and low GI) diet for about three years. I was actually in really great shape and I felt good, but it was kind of hard to sustain. It required a lot of work and the meals kind of got a little repetitive (which may have been my own fault).
Here are a couple more fun food factoids, that I heard or read, but too lazy to research.
1. America has the most expensive and most unhealthy beef.... why? Because we subsidies farmers
to grow grains to feed cattle, which are given to ranchers to feed their cattle, being that these grains are are
not what the cattle naturally eats, they end up be sickly and are given hormones and steroids.
2. Some renowned scientists/nutritionists believe there is a direct correlation between the low fat diet craze
and the huge increase of alzheimer's and dementia. Our brains are 60% fat, and both "good" cholesterol and
"bad" cholesterol are both vital to our brain health.
1. America has the most expensive and most unhealthy beef.... why? Because we subsidies farmers
to grow grains to feed cattle, which are given to ranchers to feed their cattle, being that these grains are are
not what the cattle naturally eats, they end up be sickly and are given hormones and steroids.
2. Some renowned scientists/nutritionists believe there is a direct correlation between the low fat diet craze
and the huge increase of alzheimer's and dementia. Our brains are 60% fat, and both "good" cholesterol and
"bad" cholesterol are both vital to our brain health.