veggie vegan omni ital? whats your diet and hows it relate to your dreadiness (if at all)

Yea but lifespan is just an overall average. Look at the environment they live in. Pretty sure they don't go to doctors or have antibiotics if they get a serious wound. You can take a couple who lived to in their upper 70's and had two children who died at birth and their average lifespan would be taken down to 37yrs. So I don't really follow that. And yes there are a lot of different countries that don't have cancer but again it's to not eating grains and not the meats fault. I was just taking one of the people for a reference. I also know the okinawans are the healthiest and longest living people but they still had at least a half serving of fish a day in there diets. Again if meat is so toxic why is it when grains have been eliminated all these problems disappear. I am not trying to start a conflict but I don't see any response to it other than still saying it's the cause for heart attack or cancer when there is actually no prove. Experts are now finding that all these ailments are linked to grains but more importantly wheat. As it has been genetically altered to where it is nowhere near what it used to be 50yrs ago and has pretty taken up 99% of the world's population. Only select farms grow any of the original wheat strain, which is still not great for you. Again please don't take offense.

ToTheAnkles! said:

@JustSomeChick
Yay! I consider you to be remotely nice :D.
Melanie did totally hit the nail on the head, though. That is exactly how you appeared to me aswell. Random mouthy chick.

The hip part was about you approach the whole matter:
"anyhow, after watching Forks Over Knives, my husband and I have decided on vegetarianism.".
That sentence is just...I don't even have any words for it. It's like a serial killer seriously telling people "After watching Silence of the Lambs, me and my parole officer have decided I should stop murdering hot women".

Natural does not equal good. Popping a pill to get B-12 with an otherwise healthy diet is probably better then eating meat/animal products and getting toxins to go with it. I know nothing about that Amish farm, so I suppose eating eggs is no issue if the chickens are treated well, but eggs are just not that healthy in the first place. Second, you would have to consume quite a bit of eggs to get sufficient B-12 and omega-3 fatty acids. It doesn't really solve anything, you will probably need to supplement both in order to get optimal amounts. Diary industry cows are treated no better then meat industry cows, so why drink milk unless that also comes from the Amish farm. Again, what's with the RAW! milk thing? Natural does not equal good, there's a reason they pasteurize that crap. While were on the matter of natural, it is not natural for a grown woman to consume the milk of another species.

The eskimo/inuit thing is taken way out of proportion. Do you know what their lifespan is? An awesome 50 years. These people do not even live close to even western society retirement regardless of their impeccable health. Do you know where else people rarely get cancer? In just about every third world country!

Do you know what people did live ridiculously long even by western society standard? The Okinawans. A bunch of simple farmers that lived off pretty much 99% sweet potatoes. Virtually no grains, virtually no meat (they did have some monthly festival thing in which they ate meat), virtually no fat or protein. Virtually no modern healthcare. Just. Frigging. Sweet potatoes.

updated by @cody-pitt: 07/23/15 07:37:45AM

You can't just pin it all down to 1 food category. The fact that grains form the basis of pretty much 90% of the western diet and thus screwing up the fatty acid balance is just one cog in the whole machine.Chemical toxins such as mercury, PCB's, and the whole slew of shit that's being pumped into the atmosphere, absorbed by plants, then eaten by animals who then store these toxins in their body is another. This why meat is just not healthy. Certain fish that are very low on the food chain contain much less toxins then a Blue Whale or White Shark (which have insanely dangerously high levels of toxins). Certainly eating a very small amount of fish won't cause you to die, but you'd be shocked at what minor intake there is already a danger to the fetus of a pregnant woman. It was something like 10 oz of salmon per week. Salmon has very low mercury content (the biggest danger to a fetus), tuna contains over 100x as much mercury.Genetical altering is just a silly reasoning. You know what else has been bred into not even appearing close to what it used to be? Pigs. Sheep. Dogs. Cats. Broccoli. Banana's. Pea's. It's not a big health issue. If we had genetically modified grains with a perfect fatty acid balance it would be healthy.The point isn't the lifespan, the point is cancer is a byproduct of aging. People that grow old have a much bigger chance of getting cancer. If people aren't growing old, then they have a much lower chance of getting cancer.We have 2 people. The inuit, that eat a ton of meat and had very little if no access to modern medicine. Average lifespan: 50 years.And the Okinawans, that eat mostly sweet potatoes and had very little if no access to moderm medicine. Average lifespan: 84 years.Which diet would be more likely to help with a long healthy life?All across the board the Okinawans show the healthiest profile in the world. Least amount of coronary heart disease, least amount of cancer, highest average lifespan, highest maximum lifespan. Even compared to already long lived and healthy people such as the Japanese. The inuit are, on the other hand, comparable to third world countries. Analyzing their diet and just plain lying about their lifespan and incidence of disease was done to make some money with new way of health obsession for the masses that didn't involve killing the meat industry.Every piece of the Okinawan diet can be attributed to life span increasing properties. Caloric restriction, very high potassium, very low sodium, very high antioxidants (vitamin E, vitamin A, Vitamin C etc), virtually no toxins/pollutants, balanced fatty acid intake. The inuit diet is just...a meat heavy diet. Eaten by people that die before they hit 60. It's no surprise they have very few incidences of cancer. I bet they also don't smoke or live near factories. Why don't we say that those are the cause of their health rather then the diet? They aren't even healthy. They just die before they get sick.

It can be though. Grain is an antinutrient. It is not meant to be digested. It's not as simple as adding a fatty acid to it. From that logic you could add vitamins to cigarettes but in the end it doesn't make it any better. The genetic altering was for a good cause back in the 1940's - 1950's to solve world hunger. Engineering it to produce a higher yield and be more resistant to diseases and environmental conditions. Which has created the dwarf wheat we have now. But they never tested it before they sent it out to countries all over the world. Nobody questioned it because it had such a higher yield.They considered the practice to be no different than the assumed to be benign practices of hybridization. The fact is that this gene modification has caused unexpected dna rearrangement near the gene insertion point. And over the last 50 years since then thousands of wheat strains have made it commercially into our food supply with out a single effort at safety testing. Point is I can go on and on and on why wheat is bad. Just check out the book. It really is an eye opener.

And to everything else you can thank that to our efforts for all the pollution. Take away all that and I am still willing to bet nothing is wrong with meat. As for both those groups they live in extremely different areas. It's no different than saying there is less fruit in the arctic compared to the tropics. The Eskimo or Inuit live in the harsh cold. Have to take in the fact at how cold it gets and they have to go out and hunt. There's the possibility that some do not make it back because of these conditions. A giant blizzard can come through and you would be trapped and at high risk of freezing to death or catching pneumonia and dying from that. Caribou and Moose during mating season are very aggressive and territorial and will attack anything that gets near them. That's not very uncommon. Being killed by Moose is very high in those territories. Yea okinawa has typhoons and stuff but it's still not as harsh. Again no prove their heavy meat diet is killing them at a younger age. Americans average is 72 for males and 79 for female but that doesn't make us healthier than the Eskimo/ Inuit. We have the luxury to modern medicine and are pretty well protected from the environments minus very severe weather like tornadoes, Hurricanes, Earthquakes. But we are always warned before most hit so we can get to safer distances or take safety precautions. But yet we have the highest obesity rate, Heart diseases, Diabetes, Brain diseases, all kinds of arthritis, Bone degeneration. Guess what are diet mostly consists of? 70% of our calories is taken from wheat. Also the high amounts of refined sugars and high fructose corn syrup, and large amounts of processed foods. The reason it's so high is because our own government is telling us fats are bad and that we should increase our so called healthy whole wheat grains. In 1985 they started telling us that and from then on all those conditions I have mentioned skyrocketed. They don't care it's not healthy or not. They just push us on to health insurances which makes them a lot of money instead of finding a cure.

I do agree with some things you said but there is always other variables that have to be looked at and are at times always overlooked.

T heAnkles! said:

You can't just pin it all down to 1 food category. The fact that grains form the basis of pretty much 90% of the western diet and thus screwing up the fatty acid balance is just one cog in the whole machine.

Chemical toxins such as mercury, PCB's, and the whole slew of shit that's being pumped into the atmosphere, absorbed by plants, then eaten by animals who then store these toxins in their body is another. This why meat is just not healthy. Certain fish that are very low on the food chain contain much less toxins then a Blue Whale or White Shark (which have insanely dangerously high levels of toxins). Certainly eating a very small amount of fish won't cause you to die, but you'd be shocked at what minor intake there is already a danger to the fetus of a pregnant woman. It was something like 10 oz of salmon per week. Salmon has very low mercury content (the biggest danger to a fetus), tuna contains over 100x as much mercury.

Genetical altering is just a silly reasoning. You know what else has been bred into not even appearing close to what it used to be? Pigs. Sheep. Dogs. Cats. Broccoli. Banana's. Pea's. It's not a big health issue. If we had genetically modified grains with a perfect fatty acid balance it would be healthy.

The point isn't the lifespan, the point is cancer is a byproduct of aging. People that grow old have a much bigger chance of getting cancer. If people aren't growing old, then they have a much lower chance of getting cancer.

We have 2 people. The inuit, that eat a ton of meat and had very little if no access to modern medicine. Average lifespan: 50 years.
And the Okinawans, that eat mostly sweet potatoes and had very little if no access to moderm medicine. Average lifespan: 84 years.
Which diet would be more likely to help with a long healthy life?

All across the board the Okinawans show the healthiest profile in the world. Least amount of coronary heart disease, least amount of cancer, highest average lifespan, highest maximum lifespan. Even compared to already long lived and healthy people such as the Japanese. The inuit are, on the other hand, comparable to third world countries. Analyzing their diet and just plain lying about their lifespan and incidence of disease was done to make some money with new way of health obsession for the masses that didn't involve killing the meat industry.
Every piece of the Okinawan diet can be attributed to life span increasing properties. Caloric restriction, very high potassium, very low sodium, very high antioxidants (vitamin E, vitamin A, Vitamin C etc), virtually no toxins/pollutants, balanced fatty acid intake. The inuit diet is just...a meat heavy diet. Eaten by people that die before they hit 60. It's no surprise they have very few incidences of cancer. I bet they also don't smoke or live near factories. Why don't we say that those are the cause of their health rather then the diet? They aren't even healthy. They just die before they get sick.

Perfect analogy tta. That's all imeant by it fiestyladddy

Except that Silence of the Lambs is a fictional film and Forks over Knives is a documentary. actually what really got me started thinking about this was reading about Jessica Ainscough whose cancer was cured with Gerson Therapy after this discussion. so i read about Gerson Therapy and obviously they're doing something right if they are curing cancer with it. then i had to convince my husband..

My milk comes from the same Amish farm. They are pastured and grass fed. Pasteurized milk is not better in regards to milk from healthy cows, the heat destroys the nutrients, it's pretty much a dead food. Notice how they add calcium and d3 back into pasteurized milk. I would NEVER consume raw milk from a grain fed or CAFO cow. Their gut bacteria is not correct as a result of their improper diet, which makes their milk dangerous to consume raw because of the high risk of contamination. They also started pasteurizing because CAFO farms tend to be filthy and their milking and handling practices aren't exactly clean. I have been consuming raw milk from grass fed cows for several years, including while I was pregnant. I have never had any issue, nor do I know anyone who has had any issue with it. I do know that after I switched to raw milk from pasteurized milk I wasn't bloated or constipated anymore. I realize milk consumption isn't natural. I like the occasional glass of milk though. I wouldn't recommend chugging it down all day.

From what I have read the Okinawans eat fish three times a week. But the average consumption is 3 oz. so very tiny portions. They also do consume grains, mostly noodles and rice. about a cup a day. but 3 oz of fish doesn't come anywhere near the AHA's recommendation for dha intake... so i think i'm going to call bullshit on their recommendations.. 70% of their calories are from sweet potatoes though! that's a lot of sweet potato. The Mediterraneans also consume very little meat, with the exception of a small amount of fish. and we know their diet lowers risk of heart disease, promotes brain health, etc. and then there are the Buddhists, Jains and Hindus who practice ahimsa and eat no meat including fish or eggs, and to my knowledge they are healthy. but that would mean they are also not getting b12... definitely calling BS on the AHA! This would also mean they are not supplementing b12 and somehow still healthy??

Back to omega 3s...

from what I'm seeing online, the only readily sources of omega 3s are in animal foods, especially fish oil or dha extracted from algae... which I'll add is often extracted with hexane. foods like flax seed and hemp seed have ALA which is the precursor to DHA and EPA but your ability to convert it to DHA can be extremely variable and isn't guaranteed. I didn't know that.

According to Vegan Health, ALA does readily convert to EPA. Supposedly the body can covert EPA into DHA, but I guess it's generally not too efficient to convert ALA to EPA and then EPA to DHA. i read that healthy people convert much better than your typical American (as a result of having too many omega 6s.)

also in regards to eggs, pastured eggs are so much better. Mother Earth News did a test to compare pastured eggs with conventional eggs. They used eggs from 14 different farms/factories. The average pastured egg contained 660 mg of omega 3s. WHO recommends 250 mgs of omega 3s per day. if you're eating typical organic grocery store eggs from caged hens or even from free range hens fed a grain diet, they will have significantly less omega 3s. they also have 75mg of DHA per egg. The difference between eggs from chickens treated right and regular eggs is really astounding. Pastured eggs are much harder to crack, the yolk is very firm and bright orange. But yeah at the end of the day that still isn't enough DHA if we're listening to the AHA.

the b12 is where my main concern lies.

ToTheAnkles! said:

@JustSomeChick
Yay! I consider you to be remotely nice :D.
Melanie did totally hit the nail on the head, though. That is exactly how you appeared to me aswell. Random mouthy chick.

The hip part was about you approach the whole matter:
"anyhow, after watching Forks Over Knives, my husband and I have decided on vegetarianism.".
That sentence is just...I don't even have any words for it. It's like a serial killer seriously telling people "After watching Silence of the Lambs, me and my parole officer have decided I should stop murdering hot women".

Natural does not equal good. Popping a pill to get B-12 with an otherwise healthy diet is probably better then eating meat/animal products and getting toxins to go with it. I know nothing about that Amish farm, so I suppose eating eggs is no issue if the chickens are treated well, but eggs are just not that healthy in the first place. Second, you would have to consume quite a bit of eggs to get sufficient B-12 and omega-3 fatty acids. It doesn't really solve anything, you will probably need to supplement both in order to get optimal amounts. Diary industry cows are treated no better then meat industry cows, so why drink milk unless that also comes from the Amish farm. Again, what's with the RAW! milk thing? Natural does not equal good, there's a reason they pasteurize that crap. While were on the matter of natural, it is not natural for a grown woman to consume the milk of another species.

The eskimo/inuit thing is taken way out of proportion. Do you know what their lifespan is? An awesome 50 years. These people do not even live close to even western society retirement regardless of their impeccable health. Do you know where else people rarely get cancer? In just about every third world country!

Do you know what people did live ridiculously long even by western society standard? The Okinawans. A bunch of simple farmers that lived off pretty much 99% sweet potatoes. Virtually no grains, virtually no meat (they did have some monthly festival thing in which they ate meat), virtually no fat or protein. Virtually no modern healthcare. Just. Frigging. Sweet potatoes.

You folks need to stop quoting my insano-long posts lol. It's becoming annoying to scroll through them.The details of the Okinawan diet are not really important, nor possible to even verify with 100% accuracy. The paper I have read is one specifically researching the lifespan effect and it states a mere 20 grams of fish per day. It doesn't really matter. The monthly festival meat eating took care of their B-12, considering these were probably pastured animals they most likely also got their DHA/EPA from there. Either way this is a very low meat diet even if we consider the monthly festival thing a massive binge. Even if the average Okinawan consumed 1 kg of meat during this time, that's still only 35 grams or so of meat per day.Even when assuming the best possible scenario, the Okinawans most likely got less then the RDA of B-12. Omega-3 is much harder to estimate, because their crops might have contained more ALA then is normal for crops that were researched. Either way, it's very improbable they got more then 2 grams of omega-3 per day, and pretty much all of that was ALA. You should also consider that you need more then the Okinawans, considering your probably a really big westerner, and the Okinawans were atleast a half a foot shorter on average. If you're a cute little 5 foot girl then it's obviously not an issue.And whatever you watched can most likely only be considered a documentary in the broadest sense of the word. Considering you mentioned the crock of shit that is dietary curing of cancer, I'd say you're a pretty impressionable person. Even if someone spontaneously cures from cancer it is not a freaking miracle and diet might not have much to do with it. Caloric restriction is one thing that is literally proven to slow down cancer growth, not some magical holistic pixie dust and fairy farts juicing diet.We can't eat meat that's free of toxins. The argument wheter meat was healthy before the industrial revolution is a useless one. What if we could eat vegetables that contain B-12, EPA and DHA? See? Stupid argument, it doesn't exist so there's no point to go through a whole "what-if" scenario.And government grain pushing and grain subsidizing has nothing to do with insurance. It's because grain can support the largest population, if everyone refused to eat anything but grass-fed beef and healthy crops there would be a massive food crisis. Governments consider the population cattle for tax revenue generation, and as such they want the largest herd of cattle that can be supported and feeding them grain is the best way to do it. You don't need people living till 80, they only work until 65 anyway. You should thank the government, because most of the world is hooked on grains you can get healthy foods far cheaper then they should be, even considering they're 4 times as expensive due to taxation.The inuit die before 50. How many times do I have to say this? People that die early ALWAYS get less cancer, heart disease and whatnot. These are diseases that only become epidemics in countries were people live to see 70. You cannot compare a people that lives until 50 with a population that lives until 70. Most of the diseases happen during the 51-70 years of life, not during the first 50. Some inuit that gets crushed by a walrus at age 35 might have developed heart disease at 46, you simply cannot tell anything about the effect of their diet on heart disease and cancer. And like I said, they don't smoke or live near factories either. Singling out the diet as the only factor to their health even if they were healthy is making very bad assumptions. Please tell me that you understand this now. Tribes in Africa don't get alot of cancer either, why don't we analyze their diet? The average aids-infested slum doesn't have a lot of heart disease, why don't we analyze their diet? It's bad fucking science to do so, that's why.

Maybe I would have used softer words sometimes but I do agree with what TTA said there (although I don't quote the entire thing )... Also about the Gerson diet. Never heard about it, so searched it a bit. These kind of things always sound incredibly suspicious to me. And, coffee gut washes?!

ill tell you 1 thing i was hospitolized in oregon many years ago at thattime they were conducting a study in 3 hospitols 6 mental hospitols and 6 nursing homes

they replaced the normal food with macrobiotic foods that looked smelled and tassted the same as trhe normal foods

97% showed remarkable improvements 89% were able to get off all medications

and yes most who had cancer went into remission

--
My new book Ban The Taboo Vol 1

But at the same time, did they stop their treatments?

Can you find that study in black and white SE? Considering this goes against pretty much what is known about diet you would need some serious reproducable proof, and unless 89% of the medications were for preventing the shits I don't see how.Cancer doesn't go into remission based on diet, if it did there would be a ton of famous health food nuts still alive. It's growth can be slowed by caloric restriction but that's about it.