Corbyn to become a vegan?

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Corbyn to become a vegan?

Visit the current forum | Forum Rules

Page 4 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Hrolf The Ganger 05 Sep 17 6.03pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston I agree that eating a small bit of meat caused a shock to our systems. The whole ecosystem of intestinal bacteria changes once you eliminate meat as your body gets rid of the unnecessary meat-digesting stuff and focuses on veggie-digesting stuff. However, you cannot deny how I feel and look, nor how my wife feels and looks, on a vegetarian diet. The only downside to it is people like you who feel the need to issue a pre-buttle to vegetarianism despite the fact that I say nothing about it unless asked first. You're killing yourself with meat, but you seem ok with it and that's none of my business. The global meat industry is the largest single contributor to climate change though, and that's everyone's business, even those who don't think it's real. We are killing ourselves by breathing the air. There is no evidence that the consumption of meat in itself kills people. Do you smoke? Drink alcohol? Eat rice? Have electrical equipment in your home? Drive your car on busy roads? Live near a busy road or electrical pylons? Have a family history of disease? Go out in the Sun? Have a stressful job? All of those things can be potentiallly harmful to your health and many more. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (05 Sep 2017 6.03pm)

Hrolf The Ganger

05 Sep 17 6.03pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

I agree that eating a small bit of meat caused a shock to our systems. The whole ecosystem of intestinal bacteria changes once you eliminate meat as your body gets rid of the unnecessary meat-digesting stuff and focuses on veggie-digesting stuff.

However, you cannot deny how I feel and look, nor how my wife feels and looks, on a vegetarian diet. The only downside to it is people like you who feel the need to issue a pre-buttle to vegetarianism despite the fact that I say nothing about it unless asked first.

You're killing yourself with meat, but you seem ok with it and that's none of my business. The global meat industry is the largest single contributor to climate change though, and that's everyone's business, even those who don't think it's real.

We are killing ourselves by breathing the air.
There is no evidence that the consumption of meat in itself kills people.

Do you smoke? Drink alcohol? Eat rice? Have electrical equipment in your home? Drive your car on busy roads? Live near a busy road or electrical pylons? Have a family history of disease? Go out in the Sun? Have a stressful job? All of those things can be potentiallly harmful to your health and many more.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (05 Sep 2017 6.03pm)

Kermit8 Hevon 05 Sep 17 6.07pm
Think the argument is is that our bodies aren't actually adapted properly for eating red meat and that it puts unnatural stresses on it when consumed. Most get away with it but plenty don't. Isn't bowel cancer and red meat quite strongly linked? Big chest and massive boobs [Link]

Kermit8

Hevon 05 Sep 17 6.07pm

Think the argument is is that our bodies aren't actually adapted properly for eating red meat and that it puts unnatural stresses on it when consumed. Most get away with it but plenty don't. Isn't bowel cancer and red meat quite strongly linked?

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Hrolf The Ganger 05 Sep 17 6.14pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 Think the argument is is that our bodies aren't actually adapted properly for eating red meat and that it puts unnatural stresses on it when consumed. Most get away with it but plenty don't. Isn't bowel cancer and red meat quite strongly linked? Cured meats perhaps. The problem is how you do proper science on living populations.I am hugely sceptical about the validity of the data it produces. The best people to study are dead people and you need very accurate data on them for decades.

Hrolf The Ganger

05 Sep 17 6.14pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

Cured meats perhaps.

The problem is how you do proper science on living populations.I am hugely sceptical about the validity of the data it produces.
The best people to study are dead people and you need very accurate data on them for decades.

Stirlingsays 05 Sep 17 6.14pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 Think the argument is is that our bodies aren't actually adapted properly for eating red meat and that it puts unnatural stresses on it when consumed. Most get away with it but plenty don't. Isn't bowel cancer and red meat quite strongly linked? Any study of our teeth shows that we are adapted to eat various foods, meat included. As for what is best to eat for long term health...that is a different question. .Anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge knows that human beings aren't meant to live to 70 within its natural environments. Our bodies weren't intended for long term use. The natural term of the human being in nature isn't that long at all. There's a biological reason that puberty starts very early. Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Sep 2017 6.15pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

05 Sep 17 6.14pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

Any study of our teeth shows that we are adapted to eat various foods, meat included.

As for what is best to eat for long term health...that is a different question. .Anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge knows that human beings aren't meant to live to 70 within its natural environments.

Our bodies weren't intended for long term use. The natural term of the human being in nature isn't that long at all.

There's a biological reason that puberty starts very early.

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Sep 2017 6.15pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Kermit8 Hevon 05 Sep 17 6.20pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Any study of our teeth shows that we are adapted to eat various foods, meat included. As for what is best to eat for long term health...that is a different question. .Anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge knows that human beings aren't meant to live to 70 within its natural environments. Our bodies weren't intended for long term use. The natural term of the human being in nature isn't that long at all. There's a biological reason that puberty starts very early. Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Sep 2017 6.15pm) It's not "stupid" as you so eloquently put it. Care to explain then why countries with high seafood intake and not much red meat consumption have significantly less cancers of the digestive tract and less heart disease? Big chest and massive boobs [Link]

Kermit8

Hevon 05 Sep 17 6.20pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Any study of our teeth shows that we are adapted to eat various foods, meat included.

Our bodies weren't intended for long term use. The natural term of the human being in nature isn't that long at all.

There's a biological reason that puberty starts very early.

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Sep 2017 6.15pm)

It's not "stupid" as you so eloquently put it. Care to explain then why countries with high seafood intake and not much red meat consumption have significantly less cancers of the digestive tract and less heart disease?

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Hrolf The Ganger 05 Sep 17 6.24pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 It's not "stupid" as you so eloquently put it. Care to explain then why countries with high seafood intake and not much red meat consumption have significantly less cancers of the digestive tract and less heart disease? Maybe they just eat less food. I'm sure that over consumption of red meat is an issue but the same can probably be said of carbohydrate.

Hrolf The Ganger

05 Sep 17 6.24pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

Maybe they just eat less food. I'm sure that over consumption of red meat is an issue but the same can probably be said of carbohydrate.

Stirlingsays 05 Sep 17 7.34pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 It's not "stupid" as you so eloquently put it. Care to explain then why countries with high seafood intake and not much red meat consumption have significantly less cancers of the digestive tract and less heart disease? God you are embarrassing Kermit, you didn't even read past the first line of the post. You obviously need to eat more seafood to help with your brain. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

05 Sep 17 7.34pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

God you are embarrassing Kermit, you didn't even read past the first line of the post.

You obviously need to eat more seafood to help with your brain.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 05 Sep 17 8.09pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston No, it isn't. Again, it's called science. They use things like control groups in studies to eliminate other factors. Yes, it's your choice to eat meat. But it's not your choice to deny the science that says, for example, that the causal link between eating meat and getting cancer is statistically as strong as the causal link between smoking and getting cancer. It's scientifically proven so, until you can prove otherwise, it's a fact. From a Government Health Paper: "Red meat, i.e. beef, lamb and pork, has a role to play in a healthy, balanced diet as it is a natural source of protein, iron, zinc and B vitamins. The government recommends eating around 70g (cooked weight) of red meat a day and the majority of people in the UK are well within this target" It looks like BOTH sides of the coin are different does it not! Lets all have a nice juicy Steak shall we? Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

susmik

PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 05 Sep 17 8.09pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

No, it isn't. Again, it's called science. They use things like control groups in studies to eliminate other factors.

Yes, it's your choice to eat meat. But it's not your choice to deny the science that says, for example, that the causal link between eating meat and getting cancer is statistically as strong as the causal link between smoking and getting cancer. It's scientifically proven so, until you can prove otherwise, it's a fact.

From a Government Health Paper:
"Red meat, i.e. beef, lamb and pork, has a role to play in a healthy, balanced diet as it is a natural source of protein, iron, zinc and B vitamins. The government recommends eating around 70g (cooked weight) of red meat a day and the majority of people in the UK are well within this target"

It looks like BOTH sides of the coin are different does it not!

Lets all have a nice juicy Steak shall we?

Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

Ray in Houston Houston 05 Sep 17 8.11pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Means nothing. 3% of a chimps diet is meat. Canine size is not a good indicator. It seems to me that humans might have begun to eat more meat as they moved to a colder climate where meat was the densest and most available source of nutrition. Just my theory. We are drawn to what is nutritious and in the modern world, all food stuff is readily available in large quantity. That is where the health problems start. Sugar, salt and protein is appealing and we now eat too much of it. Inuit and other cold climate races who are forced to subsist on fatty meat diets have also evolved to the point where their bodies can handle it. You are correct that the predominance of processed foods in modern diet is a big part of the problem with the world's health. This is being exacerbated by the fact that the west's modern meat-heavy "luxury" diet is being exported to emerging nations like China and India, where their massive populations are creating an exponential growth in meat production, bringing with it an acceleration of the ecological and environmental damage inherent in the industry. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Ray in Houston

Houston 05 Sep 17 8.11pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Means nothing. 3% of a chimps diet is meat.
Canine size is not a good indicator.
It seems to me that humans might have begun to eat more meat as they moved to a colder climate where meat was the densest and most available source of nutrition. Just my theory.
We are drawn to what is nutritious and in the modern world, all food stuff is readily available in large quantity. That is where the health problems start. Sugar, salt and protein is appealing and we now eat too much of it.

Inuit and other cold climate races who are forced to subsist on fatty meat diets have also evolved to the point where their bodies can handle it. You are correct that the predominance of processed foods in modern diet is a big part of the problem with the world's health.

This is being exacerbated by the fact that the west's modern meat-heavy "luxury" diet is being exported to emerging nations like China and India, where their massive populations are creating an exponential growth in meat production, bringing with it an acceleration of the ecological and environmental damage inherent in the industry.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Hrolf The Ganger 05 Sep 17 8.14pm
[Link] The dangers of quasi religious faith in restrictive diets.

Hrolf The Ganger

05 Sep 17 8.14pm

[Link]

The dangers of quasi religious faith in restrictive diets.

Hrolf The Ganger 05 Sep 17 8.20pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston Inuit and other cold climate races who are forced to subsist on fatty meat diets have also evolved to the point where their bodies can handle it. You are correct that the predominance of processed foods in modern diet is a big part of the problem with the world's health. This is being exacerbated by the fact that the west's modern meat-heavy "luxury" diet is being exported to emerging nations like China and India, where their massive populations are creating an exponential growth in meat production, bringing with it an acceleration of the ecological and environmental damage inherent in the industry. That is a symptom of rapidly increasing population and the development of countries which contain the majority of that increase. We are screwed in the next 100 years whatever we eat unless we kill or sterelise half the worlds popualtion.

Hrolf The Ganger

05 Sep 17 8.20pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

That is a symptom of rapidly increasing population and the development of countries which contain the majority of that increase.
We are screwed in the next 100 years whatever we eat unless we kill or sterelise half the worlds popualtion.

Ray in Houston Houston 05 Sep 17 8.27pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 The problem with meat is that it tastes so good but if the world stopped eating it tomorrow then the planet would be a much healthier place in more ways than one even if there would be suddenly 5,000,000 retail units up for grabs. And that's just in Texas. Seafood is better anyway. Seafood is a mostly healthier choice than meat, but the oceans are getting more and more polluted and there's no way to stop that s* getting into the marine food chain. Simple things like plastic microbeads (in yours and my wife's exfoliating soap) get washed down the plughole and into the ocean. Small bottom-feeders ingest them because they're indistinguishable from their regular food, and then bigger fish eat those smaller fish and so on. Eventually it gets into a fish that you eat. FYI, meat processing is one of the most dangerous jobs out there. Swapping those jobs for farming and picking crops would be a huge upgrade to those involved. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just waing with a football.

Ray in Houston

Houston 05 Sep 17 8.27pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

The problem with meat is that it tastes so good but if the world stopped eating it tomorrow then the planet would be a much healthier place in more ways than one even if there would be suddenly 5,000,000 retail units up for grabs. And that's just in Texas.
Seafood is better anyway.

Seafood is a mostly healthier choice than meat, but the oceans are getting more and more polluted and there's no way to stop that s*** getting into the marine food chain. Simple things like plastic microbeads (in yours and my wife's exfoliating soap) get washed down the plughole and into the ocean. Small bottom-feeders ingest them because they're indistinguishable from their regular food, and then bigger fish eat those smaller fish and so on. Eventually it gets into a fish that you eat.

FYI, meat processing is one of the most dangerous jobs out there. Swapping those jobs for farming and picking crops would be a huge upgrade to those involved.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

sitdownstandup 05 Sep 17 8.31pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger [Link] The dangers of quasi religious faith in restrictive diets. What about the claims of doctors who suggest that diabetes and other diseases can be cured buy switching to a healthy vegan/vegetarian diet. I've heard from many people personally who have switched to vegan diets and improved their symptoms of diabetes. [Link] Edited by sitdownstandup (05 Sep 2017 8.47pm) Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping. Hubert Reeves

sitdownstandup

05 Sep 17 8.31pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

[Link]

The dangers of quasi religious faith in restrictive diets.

What about the claims of doctors who suggest that diabetes and other diseases can be cured buy switching to a healthy vegan/vegetarian diet. I've heard from many people personally who have switched to vegan diets and improved their symptoms of diabetes.

[Link]

Edited by sitdownstandup (05 Sep 2017 8.47pm)

Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping.

Hubert Reeves

Ray in Houston Houston 05 Sep 17 8.32pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger We are killing ourselves by breathing the air. There is no evidence that the consumption of meat in itself kills people. Do you smoke? Drink alcohol? Eat rice? Have electrical equipment in your home? Drive your car on busy roads? Live near a busy road or electrical pylons? Have a family history of disease? Go out in the Sun? Have a stressful job? All of those things can be potentially harmful to your health and many more. The air would be cleaner if we weren't adding to the pollutants in it by the industrial farming of livestock. Yes I do all those other things, but I also do things like exercise regularly to relieve stress; I don't smoke but I do drink - a lot less these days than in my younger years. The point is that there are things that we don't need to be doing that can help us live longer, healthier lives. Scientists are speculating that consumption of the modern processed / meat diet will mean that the current generation of kids could be the first to live shorter lives than their parents. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Ray in Houston

Houston 05 Sep 17 8.32pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

We are killing ourselves by breathing the air.
There is no evidence that the consumption of meat in itself kills people.

The air would be cleaner if we weren't adding to the pollutants in it by the industrial farming of livestock. Yes I do all those other things, but I also do things like exercise regularly to relieve stress; I don't smoke but I do drink - a lot less these days than in my younger years.

The point is that there are things that we don't need to be doing that can help us live longer, healthier lives. Scientists are speculating that consumption of the modern processed / meat diet will mean that the current generation of kids could be the first to live shorter lives than their parents.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Ray in Houston Houston 05 Sep 17 8.41pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Any study of our teeth shows that we are adapted to eat various foods, meat included. As for what is best to eat for long term health...that is a different question. .Anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge knows that human beings aren't meant to live to 70 within its natural environments. Our bodies weren't intended for long term use. The natural term of the human being in nature isn't that long at all. There's a biological reason that puberty starts very early. I'd love to see your study data on all this. Or that of any scientist who supports any of this nonsense. People used to live only to 60, before that 50, before that 40. Go to any old town in the UK and look how small the doors are in the old buildings; they're tiny because so were the people. Henry VIII was a giant of a man...at 6ft dead...because he was unusually tall for his time. People used to marry off their daughters at 12, because that's when they needed to have kids as they weren't going to live much beyond 35. Puberty in girls is happening at a younger age these days not because of expected longevity but because of the fat in our diet. The body cranks up the reproductive machinery once the body has enough fat to support a pregnancy. As a species we have consistently improved our health over time, which is why we're getting bigger and longer-living. However, our current diet - which is believed will soon cause 2 of every 3 people on the planet to be diabetic - is getting set to reverse that trend. We aren't going to live forever, but saying that we're at the finite length of human mortality ignores both the improvements we have made and the threat to those improvements. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Ray in Houston

Houston 05 Sep 17 8.41pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Any study of our teeth shows that we are adapted to eat various foods, meat included.

Our bodies weren't intended for long term use. The natural term of the human being in nature isn't that long at all.

There's a biological reason that puberty starts very early.

I'd love to see your study data on all this. Or that of any scientist who supports any of this nonsense.

People used to live only to 60, before that 50, before that 40. Go to any old town in the UK and look how small the doors are in the old buildings; they're tiny because so were the people. Henry VIII was a giant of a man...at 6ft dead...because he was unusually tall for his time.

People used to marry off their daughters at 12, because that's when they needed to have kids as they weren't going to live much beyond 35. Puberty in girls is happening at a younger age these days not because of expected longevity but because of the fat in our diet. The body cranks up the reproductive machinery once the body has enough fat to support a pregnancy.

As a species we have consistently improved our health over time, which is why we're getting bigger and longer-living. However, our current diet - which is believed will soon cause 2 of every 3 people on the planet to be diabetic - is getting set to reverse that trend.

We aren't going to live forever, but saying that we're at the finite length of human mortality ignores both the improvements we have made and the threat to those improvements.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Stirlingsays 05 Sep 17 8.41pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger [Link] The dangers of quasi religious faith in restrictive diets. True, but if you are healthy these warnings can also be over stated. If you have underlying conditions...perhaps not. I went on a juice and smoothie only diet for sixty days once.....best I'd felt since being a teenager. A healthy human body can cope with restrictive diets of many types.....But the word 'healthy' is emphasized. Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Sep 2017 8.43pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

05 Sep 17 8.41pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

[Link]

The dangers of quasi religious faith in restrictive diets.

True, but if you are healthy these warnings can also be over stated.

If you have underlying conditions...perhaps not.

I went on a juice and smoothie only diet for sixty days once.....best I'd felt since being a teenager.

A healthy human body can cope with restrictive diets of many types.....But the word 'healthy' is emphasized.

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Sep 2017 8.43pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Hrolf The Ganger 05 Sep 17 8.44pm
Originally posted by sitdownstandup What about the claims of doctors who suggest that diabetes and other diseases can be cured buy switching to a healthy vegan/vegetarian diet. I've heard from many people personally who have switched to vegan diets and improved their symptoms of diabetes. [Link] Anecdotes don't cut it. It's just as likely because it's harder to over eat on a vegan diet. I do virtual fasting on two days a week because it is said to have a positive effect. It certainly cuts several thousand calories out of my weekly intake. Go on, have a Big Mac. It won't kill you.

Hrolf The Ganger

05 Sep 17 8.44pm

Originally posted by sitdownstandup

[Link]

Anecdotes don't cut it. It's just as likely because it's harder to over eat on a vegan diet.
I do virtual fasting on two days a week because it is said to have a positive effect. It certainly cuts several thousand calories out of my weekly intake.

Go on, have a Big Mac. It won't kill you.

Kermit8 Hevon 05 Sep 17 8.48pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays God you are embarrassing Kermit, you didn't even read past the first line of the post. You obviously need to eat more seafood to help with your brain. Just because you can't answer my questions and/or are even afraid to attempt to try you decide instead to deflect with even more meaningless nonsense. btw I did read all your post. Now that was embarrassing. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]

Kermit8

Hevon 05 Sep 17 8.48pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

God you are embarrassing Kermit, you didn't even read past the first line of the post.

You obviously need to eat more seafood to help with your brain.

Just because you can't answer my questions and/or are even afraid to attempt to try you decide instead to deflect with even more meaningless nonsense.

btw I did read all your post. Now that was embarrassing.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Hrolf The Ganger 05 Sep 17 8.48pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays True, but if you are healthy these warnings can also be over stated. If you have underlying conditions...perhaps not. I went on a juice and smoothie only diet for sixty days once.....best I'd felt since being a teenager. A healthy human body can cope with restrictive diets of many types.....But the word 'healthy' is emphasized. Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Sep 2017 8.43pm) For sure. I would imagine that the normal human condition in pre farming times was hungry and looking for food. We certainly don't need to eat all the food that many do. That does not mean that always being hungry makes for a better life though. There is evidence that staying hungry and a bit cold makes you live longer and I'm sure it would seem like it either way.

Hrolf The Ganger

05 Sep 17 8.48pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

True, but if you are healthy these warnings can also be over stated.

If you have underlying conditions...perhaps not.

I went on a juice and smoothie only diet for sixty days once.....best I'd felt since being a teenager.

A healthy human body can cope with restrictive diets of many types.....But the word 'healthy' is emphasized.

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Sep 2017 8.43pm)

For sure. I would imagine that the normal human condition in pre farming times was hungry and looking for food. We certainly don't need to eat all the food that many do. That does not mean that always being hungry makes for a better life though.
There is evidence that staying hungry and a bit cold makes you live longer and I'm sure it would seem like it either way.

Stirlingsays 05 Sep 17 8.50pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston I'd love to see your study data on all this. Or that of any scientist who supports any of this nonsense. People used to live only to 60, before that 50, before that 40. Go to any old town in the UK and look how small the doors are in the old buildings; they're tiny because so were the people. Henry VIII was a giant of a man...at 6ft dead...because he was unusually tall for his time. People used to marry off their daughters at 12, because that's when they needed to have kids as they weren't going to live much beyond 35. Puberty in girls is happening at a younger age these days not because of expected longevity but because of the fat in our diet. The body cranks up the reproductive machinery once the body has enough fat to support a pregnancy. As a species we have consistently improved our health over time, which is why we're getting bigger and longer-living. However, our current diet - which is believed will soon cause 2 of every 3 people on the planet to be diabetic - is getting set to reverse that trend. We aren't going to live forever, but saying that we're at the finite length of human mortality ignores both the improvements we have made and the threat to those improvements. Are you living on 'planet pointless' or something? I can't see much in what you said here that I'd disagree with....but it relates little to what I said. What do you think I'm saying that is wrong? What our body is designed for by nature and how much the human life can be stretched to are two separate things. I addressed one of them. Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Sep 2017 8.51pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

05 Sep 17 8.50pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

I'd love to see your study data on all this. Or that of any scientist who supports any of this nonsense.

We aren't going to live forever, but saying that we're at the finite length of human mortality ignores both the improvements we have made and the threat to those improvements.

Are you living on 'planet pointless' or something?

I can't see much in what you said here that I'd disagree with....but it relates little to what I said.

What do you think I'm saying that is wrong?

What our body is designed for by nature and how much the human life can be stretched to are two separate things. I addressed one of them.

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Sep 2017 8.51pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Page 4 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Corbyn to become a vegan?

Site Map