Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by James R, Aug 29, 2011.
It's a diet, Asguard. The aim is to lose weight.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
WRONG, its a daily healthy living plan actually, it has levels designed to lose weight and levels designed to MAINTAIN a standed weight while eating healthy.
oh and to crush your "theory" once and for all this is from the ABS
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As you can see adults eat an adverage of 100g a day and children eat an adverage of 200g
So your theory is that CSIRO belives meat eating is unhealthy but in order to apease meat eatters who eat an adverage of 100g's of meat a day they made there healthy life style diet contain an adverage of 300g per day.
Can you see any logical inconsistancies in there james?
The heart foundation apears to ALSO surport the CSIRO diet james
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You shouldn't be late, you should leave earlier!
It does tend to shoot a hole in the environmental argument though.
Heck I may even take note of where my fruit and veg comes from just to see how much better for the environment it is. French Apples, Spanish Tomotoes and Strawberrys. Melon, Mango, Pineapple - South American? Orange from Florida, but I suppose my Potatoes and Cucumbers could be local?
Now I'll need more of those to compensate for the lack of meat. Plus protein, so, Peanuts? South America again?... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's probably because they're lacking in protein and many vital nutrients. Don't mistake skinny with healthy. :shrug:
More like a bacon sandwich in his hands.
Though as quadraphonics pointed out it's a bait site. Which you posted, and I thought baiting was against forum rules?
there is a diet out there that you eat nothing but butter meat coconut oil basically everything that people say is terrible for you.. guy tried it.. he lost 20 lbs his good cholesterol went up his bad went down.. the fat that "as i understand it" you take vegetarianism is a diet which is completely false
what we are discussing is hardly a "fad diet", CSIRO is the top scietific body in Australia and this diet was based on alot of resurch done by them (see below). Further more it was surported by the heart foundation and Flinders uni. This isnt only a "diet" in the sense of what you would get out of womens weekly, but rather a "diet" in the sense of what a diabetic would be put on, ie its a long term healthy guide both to lose weight and get healthy and then stay that way forever. The difference if your not trying to lose weight is you add in 2 potatoes or a cup of rice into the meals, thats the only difference.
Now the reason james doesnt like me bringing it up is because it refutes the argument that meat is bad for us which is (to quote tony abbott *shudders*) "compleate crap". The top scientific body, the heart foundation and the Australian Nutrictional Foundation all surport eating meat (both red and chicken and fish) for health reasons, that pritty much leaves james arguments in the dust.
His other 2 arguments, that meat carries disease risks like sellmonalla and that its better for the enviroment are either strawmen, unsurported or wrong. Intensive farming is bad (period), its whats responcible for salinity in the soil which has destroyed much of the farm land in Australia, inorganic fertilizers are responcible for the deaths of the barrier reef and the river systems of Australia because of nitrate run off. Lastly the assertion on the energy cost is unreferenced and unsurported, and fails to take into acount that all that extra energy which isnt being used in the meat of the animal, can be recovered as manua which makes the best organic fertilizers for growing more plants. Now if he wants to argue that factory farming of plants and animals is bad i will agree with him (which is why we are reducing the amount of stuff we buy from woolworths to the lowest possible amount and buying everything we can from the farmers market up the road which is local which reduces energy footprint just for starters). One thing he has neglected compleatly in his arguments is that plant welfare is just as important as animal welfare, for instance he argues against raising chickens in factory farms indoors and so do I (and not just because its cruel to the animals but because the nurtrictional value is so much lower and its so much more fatty), i have always urged people to buy Australian free range beef (which you can tell because the fat is on the outside of the meat) rather than grain feed and seditory animals because again its healthier for you as well as better on the animal. But james neglects to concider that alot of veg now are hydroponic, now sure the energy profile may well be the same but where are the trace nurtients which should be in the vegitibles if the only thing the plant is getting is light and water?
there are fallacies from both sides of the argument, I eat chicken every day, I eat red meat once or twice a month, I eat more plant and grain though than meat and every time I have a physical I get a top notch rating from the doctor. I have no problems with people on either side of the fence, they live the life they see fit and that's how it should be.
at least some here are being scientific
stop trolling our forum
stop baiting and flaming
james, you should be ashamed of yourself. we really should aim for a higher standard of discourse. secondly, an op with nothing but a news article is not how we do things here anymore. best get up to speed or find some other forum more suited to your level of intellect
move to pseudoscience
This is bogus - eating meat has nothing to do with either of these. I gaurantee that if you and a meat eater both gave stool samples, and had them tested for these, there would be little difference between them.
E. coli poisoning and Salmonella posioning come from poor hygiene practice, Salmonella and E. coli are ubiquitous among warm blooded animals, including-humans, irrespective of dietary habits.
It's at least as rude as pushing alcohol on someone. Good hosts don't force their guests to drink.
Ok. My mistake.
I never made any claim about the CSIRO's beliefs about health.
Sure. The Heart Foundation also recognises that most people eat meat.
What's a "bait site"?
so still pushing your illogical ideology james?
you still havent explained why an organisation you belive is against eating meat would recomend increasing consumption by a third (from 200g to 300g daily, i missread my own graph, sorry) in order to apease those who eat meat, even though in your opinion they are opsed to it.
And now you atribute the same faulty logic to 2 other organisations (the heart foundation and the organisation which writes the Australian Dietary Guidelines)
Lets look at this logic if applied to Quit, they want people to quit smoking because it causes all sorts of health problems including cancer and heart disease, they know that on adverage people smoke 2 packs a day (these figures are oviosuly just an example), there for they recomend smoking 3 packs a day. Is that seriously what your suggesting james?
At this point i suggest we applie occam's razzor, rather than 3 (more actually but lets just stick to the 3) whole organisations who are deeply involved in clincial resurch into health being so stupid that they recomend against there own idology and resurch on one hand and on the other we have the possibility that your OWN idology and bias are making you sprout more rubbish than tony abbott when asked what his climate change policy is.
That you are sprouting more rubbish than tony abbott (which is no mean feat BTW)
It's a website whose business model consists of posting vapid, inflammatory content, for the purpose of generating a lot of links and pageviews, and then selling advertizing based on that. Basically the web equivalent of a sensationalist tabloid or talk radio. The "bait" metaphor is meant to invoke the image of fishing (for outrage/sanctimony-driven viewership) with the inflammatory, dashed-off articles as "bait."
Major examples of link bait sites would be Salon, Jezebel (really, the entire Gawker family of sites), World Net Daily, etc. They tend to show up a lot on SciForums, unsurprisingly - sometimes this places seems little more than a clearing-house node in the link bait media chain. Some of them used to be better (particularly Salon) but have gone downhill, others (especially, political ones) tend to exist in a bit of a grey area (HuffingtonPost).
Although, the term "link bait" can be used in a larger, less prejudicial context to refer to any kind of teaser material designed to entice people into following links. But colloquially, people only tend to use it for particularly cheap, trashy, or otherwise debased examples.
One thing to keep in mind about Salon.com in particular, is that their history indicates that they're smart enough to know what they're doing. The editors/publishers there surely do not consider this content to be intellectually defensible - and so you can be assured that they regard anyone who takes the bait in a cynical, condescending manner. Useful idiots, as it were.
I don't see that the content I linked in this thread depends for its plausibility or the strength of its argument on its source. It stands or falls on its own merits or failings.
*I was not aware that pigs are considered smarter than dogs.
*I would appreciate if someone can provide any specific evidence supporting the stated 4th placed pig IQ ranking (after chimps, dolphins and elephants)??
*How about the pig-dog ranking?
Wiki.answers says pigs are #4
And they taste much better than dogs.
But not as good as Dolphin.
With so little backup for it's crackpot claims (designed to provoke), it fails.
Given that the parts you cited contain factual errors, like attributing E. coli poisoning and salmonella poisoning to being the realm of meat eaters...
I got some sort of food poisoning really early Friday...Brief but harsh.
Passed out on the way to the toilet.
The linoleum always feels so comfy when you're passing out on it.0.o I should know better than to not scrub veggies...
Separate names with a comma.