MegaDrive08 said:
Octane said:
You stopped ageing... lol sure... Don't know if I can take you serious or not. Anyway, I agree to an extent, eating too much meat isn't healthy, but that's the case with a lot of things. About milk, it didn't use to be ''natural'', but humans (with the exception of some African tribes) have developed a resistance against lactose, and it is completely fine to drink, but again, not too much. Meat on the other hand has always been part of the human diet.
Again, did you read my post? Different types of food have different effects on our body, but acidity doesn't matter.
It depends on how the research is conducted. I've seen and read plenty of half-arsed research papers in my life, but the things that's usually worse is the conclusions people draw. The raw data itself is usually interpreted wrongly. A lot of people tend to confuse causation and correlation. I can conduct a research where I follow 5,000 people that consume ''processed'' foods and 5,000 people that are on a ''natural'' diet (or even vegetarians if you want). I'm almost certain that the results will show that group A, the one that consumes relatively more ''processed'' foods are more likely to develop cancer than group B. However that isn't proof that ''processed'' foods cause cancer. There's usually a lot more going on. It's just a correlation, not a causation. If you're very concious about what you eat, you probably don't smoke and you probably work out more as well; thus you're more likely living a healthier life than group A, thus explaining why group A is more prone to develop cancer than group B, not necesarily because they have a more unhealthy diet, but because their entire lifestyle is likely less healthy. But still, you need to find what actually causes the cancer and how it causes cancer.
|
Yeah sure many more things go into it, such as excercise, genetics, drinking, smoking ect which i dont do either, and my ageing process has slowed dramatically i look over 10 years younger than i am, but think what you want about meat and dairy, humans are not carnivores, until you can eat your meat raw with furr blood and all, your not a real carnivore, our jaws work in a grinding motion not straight up and down like a lion, we sweat through our pores like a herbivore.
|
Omnivores. Those exist as well. You cannot predict an organism's diet solely based on their dentition. Pandas are a great example; almost strictly herbivore, but still have the dentition of a herbivore. Most bears feed on a lot of fruit, yet their teeth would suggest otherwise. Blue whales are carnivores as well, their jaws don't work like a lion's. You cannot simply compare humans to lions and draw the conclusion that because we process food differently we are therefore not carnivores. All monkeys are omnivores; great apes are omnivores and so are humans.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with ''sweat through pores'', but all non-primate only have eccrine sweat glands on their soles, only primates have eccrine sweat glands all over their body. Apocrine sweat glands are present in all mammals, both herbivores and carnivores, but they aren't nearly as effective as eccrine sweat glands when it comes to regulating body temperature. In short, the distribution of sweat glands on a horse or cow is more similar to that of a dog or cat than to the distribution of sweat glands on humans.