TheFriendlyDickhead

Post here again when you are finished. Looks fun and I want to give it a try :)

It's weird that I don't even know if the meat or the vegan hardcores are downvoting me. This place realy has develloped a few hardcore communities that don't care for stuff like "logic" or "having a real discussion"

Obviously there are exceptions. But in general a vegetarion meal is cheaper in comparison to a meal with beef or something like that. That is true for most meats. So for an "average" meat eater it is cheaper.

The replacemets yes. But vegetarian food is so much more than just replacing meat. It's cooking completely different meals that taste great without anything meat related. And that absolutely is cheaper that eating meat.

Sadly some of them were just single issue idiots with half a braincell

Really?

(Insult to your mother)

I love how I already saw that meme so many times this year. It just keeps coming

Do you live near a skiable hill? That sounds great. Been skiing two times this year alread. It realy is thebest way of spending the winter.

Ok lets analyse your little paper: Because of a lack of page numbers I am going to cite with the number of the abstract

However, when it comes to virtually every other species, we generally take it for granted that it will flourish best on a diet that roughly resembles the one to which it was adapted (abst. 2)

This is based on the false take that our body developed to a only meat diet. Humans are omnivores, that means that our usual food consits of a lot of different things. Cats for example are pure carnivores. So their diet has to consist on mostly meat. And in oir society what they get is the meat that we don't want to eat, so no red meat and if so only small portions of it.

Schoenfeld and Ioannidis (Citation2013) found that, among 50 common ingredients used in a cookbook, 40 had been associated with cancer risk or benefit based on observational studies. (Abst. 3.1)

Yes they found a causality between these and cancer.

1. That doesn't mean that it has a negative influence

Only 39% of ingredients have a negative inpact and only 24% of those have a strong statistical significance. That means only 9.36% of tested foods have a statisticly strong influence. A lot less then the proclaimed 80% (Schonefeld and loannidis, 2013, page. 3, TABLE 1)

2. The paper only proves some sort of causality. It does not say how big the impact is. So still doesn't prove the point.

Ok I got to go now, but to sum up the reat of the article: I have not read a single proving argument. Everything just consisted of using sources that say red meat is bad and saying, something wild to direct the mind in a different direction. No own studies have been conducted! So the whole argumentation bases on could be.

But if you have any more abstracts you feel are important and should be conaidered feel free to reply :)

You are going to die of cancer and then we will se if red meat has an impact. There absolutely is consensus that too much is bad for you.

Based.