(March 9, 2014 at 10:54 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: Wow! That was a lot simpler than I thought it would be. But alas, I want an explanation from enrico. I want him to explain how he thinks addiction works.

As all addictions people tend to continue the use despite the consequences, and keep on deny that it is harmful.

According to George D Pamplona-Roger, M.D. in his book "Foods That Heal" -

"The stimulant hypoxanthine is responsible for the satisfying and stimulating effects of meat. It is similar in chemical formula and effect as caffeine.

It has been known since antiquity that those who regularly eat meat experience some degree of enervation when they are deprived of this food for some time. This sensation that "something is missing" always results from abruptly removing meat from the diet, even when it is replaced with plant foods and dietary supplements providing as much or even more protein and nutrients as meat.

He goes on to say, "that the enervation that some persons experience when they stop eating meat products is not due to a lack of its protein or other nutrients that some consider irreplaceable. It is due to a type of stimulant found in meat. Today it's known that the muscle cells of meat contain Hypoxanthine, which increases in concentration as the meat ages.

Hypoxanthine and other similar substances, such as inosinic acid and guanylic acid, are present in meat. They have a chemical structure similar to that of caffeine in coffee or the theobromine in cocoa, with similar effects. They are central nervous system stimulants. They are addictive.

Hypoxanthine explains the stimulating effect of meat and it's capacity to create a certain level of addiction, which manifests itself when meat is given up abruptly. Because of this, it is recommended that those wishing to replace meat with plant-based foods follow a transition diet to help avoid the effect of sudden deprivation.

George D. Pamplona-Roger, M.D., is a doctor of medicine and surgery at the University of Granada in Spain. He is a board-certified general and digestive surgeon, and a specialist in health education, UNED University, Spain. He is a member of the International Union of Food Science and Technology, Ontario, Canada, and a fellow in the Royal Microscopical Society, Oxford, England. After practicing his specialty for 15 years, Dr. Pamplona-Roger now focuses on medical research and health education. He has been published in many health journals, and has also written Encyclopedia of Foods and Their Healing Power; Encyclopedia of Medicinal Plants, and New Lifestyle.

Here there are few interesting links that may open up your lock brains.
Good luck boy!

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/05/americas...he_planet/

http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/13/460552...can-fix-it

http://marktassi.wordpress.com/2011/10/1...ugivore-2/

(March 11, 2014 at 9:47 am)enrico Wrote: As all addictions people tend to continue the use despite the consequences, and keep on deny that it is harmful.

According to George D Pamplona-Roger, M.D. in his book "Foods That Heal" -

"The stimulant hypoxanthine is responsible for the satisfying and stimulating effects of meat. It is similar in chemical formula and effect as caffeine.

It has been known since antiquity that those who regularly eat meat experience some degree of enervation when they are deprived of this food for some time. This sensation that "something is missing" always results from abruptly removing meat from the diet, even when it is replaced with plant foods and dietary supplements providing as much or even more protein and nutrients as meat.

He goes on to say, "that the enervation that some persons experience when they stop eating meat products is not due to a lack of its protein or other nutrients that some consider irreplaceable. It is due to a type of stimulant found in meat. Today it's known that the muscle cells of meat contain Hypoxanthine, which increases in concentration as the meat ages.

Hypoxanthine and other similar substances, such as inosinic acid and guanylic acid, are present in meat. They have a chemical structure similar to that of caffeine in coffee or the theobromine in cocoa, with similar effects. They are central nervous system stimulants. They are addictive.

Hypoxanthine explains the stimulating effect of meat and it's capacity to create a certain level of addiction, which manifests itself when meat is given up abruptly. Because of this, it is recommended that those wishing to replace meat with plant-based foods follow a transition diet to help avoid the effect of sudden deprivation.

George D. Pamplona-Roger, M.D., is a doctor of medicine and surgery at the University of Granada in Spain. He is a board-certified general and digestive surgeon, and a specialist in health education, UNED University, Spain. He is a member of the International Union of Food Science and Technology, Ontario, Canada, and a fellow in the Royal Microscopical Society, Oxford, England. After practicing his specialty for 15 years, Dr. Pamplona-Roger now focuses on medical research and health education. He has been published in many health journals, and has also written Encyclopedia of Foods and Their Healing Power; Encyclopedia of Medicinal Plants, and New Lifestyle.

You haven't actually explained how addiction works but whatever. Even without researching this stuff myself and just taking George D. Pamplona Roger at his word, this does not answer the point I was making. Although, according to this guy, meat is addictive like caffeine and chocolate, it has nothing to do with what we were discussing. I objected when you compared meat eating, to addiction to illicit drugs such as heroin etc. Addiction is addiction but not on the level you were implying. Try again.

(March 11, 2014 at 9:47 am)enrico Wrote: Here there are few interesting links that may open up your lock brains.
Good luck boy!

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/05/americas...he_planet/

http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/13/460552...can-fix-it

http://marktassi.wordpress.com/2011/10/1...ugivore-2/

And 3 useless links. I have told you time and time again, the only evidence I will actually take is a peer-reviewed, scientific article, published in a journal.
Tell me, was this Pamplona-Rogers book, peer reviewed?

---

Just had a look on Amazon for his book and guess what?!!?!? Homeopathy! Nice try but no.
I've also had a brief look on google scholar and can't find is name on any relevant articles. Fail again....

(March 7, 2014 at 10:24 am)enrico Wrote:

Quote:This is not an accurate measure for omnivorous pigs whose, “small intestines have an average length of 15 to 20 m”Source. For those of you who aren't entirely familiar with the metric system a pig has a body length a little over one meter.

Gee, you could have chosen a different animal.
Everytime i think about pigs i think about meat and shit.
Please change animal.


The human intestine is ten times longer than the length of the body......
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/Anne...sino.shtml

---

Quote:The vegan skeptic site is very poor, it has no references. The second reference is better, but I don't think you have read it. It says that " the length of the entire human intestine can range from 7.5 to 8.5 meters (25 to 28 feet)." Now unless you think your average person is under a meter in hight, what you say must be complete nonsense. Lets say the average person is 1.6m tall ( which is a bit short, but I am being generous to your argument) 8 divided by 1.6 is 5. Therefore according to your own source, the length of the entire intestine is 5 times the length of the body, which according to the vegan skeptic site means we are either a carnivore or an omnivore. Do you agree? According to your own sources we are omnivores.
As a side note the pigs in the study I quoted were almost 2m in body length, which is why they had a a small intestine length 7 times that the length of their bodies.

I have read far too many references and all of them indicate that the human digestive system is a lot longer than meat eater creature as they need to process the meat very fast as the meat rot very quickly.

Why should we change our comparison between a human and a pig. If a pig is an exception to the rule then why is not human also not an exception.

You say you have read many references that support you conclusion that humans have a long intestines , yet the only reference you have so far sourced that actually refers to some scientific studies demonstrated the human intestines are around 7m, which according to your table would mean have evolved as an omnivore. I am certainly not saying we should therefore eat meat, however your appeals to nature that we should not eat meat are nonsense on two levels. Firstly we evolved to eat meat, and secondly what is and is not natural is irrelevant for moral considerations. Eating meat is awful and wrong, but your argument merely allows meat eaters to make themselves feel better about their meat eating because they can so easily dismiss your nonsense arguments.

(March 11, 2014 at 2:01 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Why should we change our comparison between a human and a pig. If a pig is an exception to the rule then why is not human also not an exception

Pigs can eat shit without getting sick.
If human would have something in common with pigs then we could say that it is natural for humans to eat shit.
Can't you see how wrong you are?

Quote:You say you have read many references that support you conclusion that humans have a long intestines , yet the only reference you have so far sourced that actually refers to some scientific studies demonstrated the human intestines are around 7m, which according to your table would mean have evolved as an omnivore. I am certainly not saying we should therefore eat meat, however your appeals to nature that we should not eat meat are nonsense on two levels. Firstly we evolved to eat meat, and secondly what is and is not natural is irrelevant for moral considerations. Eating meat is awful and wrong, but your argument merely allows meat eaters to make themselves feel better about their meat eating because they can so easily dismiss your nonsense arguments.

Carnivorous and omnivore do not get cardiovascular diseases while humans do.
The obvious conclusion is that meat eater can deal with saturated fat, cholesterol and toxins while humans can not therefore meat is naturally off the humans menu.

---

(March 11, 2014 at 11:19 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: You haven't actually explained how addiction works but whatever. Even without researching this stuff myself and just taking George D. Pamplona Roger at his word, this does not answer the point I was making. Although, according to this guy, meat is addictive like caffeine and chocolate, it has nothing to do with what we were discussing. I objected when you compared meat eating, to addiction to illicit drugs such as heroin etc. Addiction is addiction but not on the level you were implying. Try again.

Try again?
It would be a waste of time.
First you ask me the evidence that meat is addictive.
When i give you the evidence you still do not believe so what is the point in trying again?
Even if God would manifest in front your very eyes you would not believe.
You are just hopeless boy. hock:

Quote:And 3 useless links.

It is interesting how you come in a forum in which what is written is not backed up by peer review in 99.9% of the cases.
Why an intelligent scholar like you waste your time reading this forum?

(March 12, 2014 at 4:40 am)enrico Wrote: Pigs can eat shit without getting sick.
If human would have something in common with pigs then we could say that it is natural for humans to eat shit.
Can't you see how wrong you are?

I really don't see how its relevant, plenty of animals eat excrement including many herbivores for example rabbits do this too. Its not a relevant characteristic.

(March 12, 2014 at 4:40 am)enrico Wrote: Carnivorous and omnivore do not get cardiovascular diseases while humans do.
The obvious conclusion is that meat eater can deal with saturated fat, cholesterol and toxins while humans can not therefore meat is naturally off the humans menu.

Firstly you are avoiding the question. Do you have any other sources that scientifically demonstrate that the human intestines are as long as you claim?

Secondly carnivores do get cardiovascular diseases, for example dogs frequently get heart disease, and if you feed a dog a high fat diet they get become hypertensive

(March 12, 2014 at 4:40 am)enrico Wrote: Try again?
It would be a waste of time.
First you ask me the evidence that meat is addictive.
When i give you the evidence you still do not believe so what is the point in trying again?
Even if God would manifest in front your very eyes you would not believe.
You are just hopeless boy. hock:

You know what your problem is, enrico? You've mistaken "the things enrico accepts as true," as "evidence." You posted some reference, and someone else shows that that reference is not a sufficient standard, for various reasons. Your only response to this- and the fact that it's happened to you repeatedly should tell you something- is to just say "well, I showed you the evidence!"

Pay attention, fucker: your reference was not up to scratch. Deal with it.

(March 12, 2014 at 4:40 am)enrico Wrote: Pigs can eat shit without getting sick.

And you know that how exactly?

(March 12, 2014 at 4:40 am)enrico Wrote: Try again?
It would be a waste of time.
First you ask me the evidence that meat is addictive.
When i give you the evidence you still do not believe so what is the point in trying again?

I don't believe your 'evidence' for good reason. As I explained in my last post, the book is about homeopathic medicine. In the real world, it is a joke and nothing it says can be taken seriously. It certainly hasn't been peer-reviewed. I also have not found this guys name on any relevant journal articles either which leads me to conclude that he isn't a very good scientist and therefore nothing he says can be taken seriously. Each point is judged on its own merit, regardless of who said it. That is what peer-review is for.

(March 12, 2014 at 4:40 am)enrico Wrote: Even if God would manifest in front your very eyes you would not believe.

I wouldn't believe because that is the reasonable conclusion as there are many other explanations as to why I would be seeing god.

(March 12, 2014 at 4:40 am)enrico Wrote: It is interesting how you come in a forum in which what is written is not backed up by peer review in 99.9% of the cases.
Why an intelligent scholar like you waste your time reading this forum?

Wow ok, i'll give this one a shot.
Peer-review is about analysing the experiment and/or research of a scientist to make sure the findings are the best explanation of the facts. This analysis is carried out peers, that is to say: scientists who are experts in the relevant subject.
Saying things aren't peer-reviewed on a discussion forum is ridiculous because the term doesn't even apply to discussions.
However, almost everything that is said or asserted is usually backed up by evidence in the form of links, videos, pictures etc. And the times when assertions are not backed up by evidence, the perpetrator gets called out. Something I am doing to you quite a lot recently.

(March 12, 2014 at 7:02 am)jg2014 Wrote: [quote='enrico' pid='621715' dateline='1394613649']
Pigs can eat shit without getting sick.
If human would have something in common with pigs then we could say that it is natural for humans to eat shit.
Can't you see how wrong you are?

Quote:I really don't see how its relevant, plenty of animals eat excrement including many herbivores for example rabbits do this too. Its not a relevant characteristic.

You are the one who is avoiding the question.
If you say that pigs are so close to humans then why they can deal with shit while we can't?

(March 12, 2014 at 4:40 am)enrico Wrote: Carnivorous and omnivore do not get cardiovascular diseases while humans do.
The obvious conclusion is that meat eater can deal with saturated fat, cholesterol and toxins while humans can not therefore meat is naturally off the humans menu.

Quote:Firstly you are avoiding the question. Do you have any other sources that scientifically demonstrate that the human intestines are as long as you claim?

I already show you the reference and that is coming from uni scholars.
A step higher as far as knowledge there is God but is not much good for an atheist, isn't it?
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/Anne...sino.shtml

Quote:Secondly carnivores do get cardiovascular diseases, for example dogs frequently get

What's the matter with you?
You always choose the wrong animal.
Domesticated dogs are very different from wild dogs.
Wild dogs do not get cardiovascular diseases while domesticated dogs do.
The reason is that while wild dogs eat according to their nature domesticated dogs do not.
Just see what domesticated dogs are fed with.
Meat in the tin which it is loaded with preservatives and other carcinogen items plus other items that they would never eat in the wild.
The same problem affect the cows that are fed with grains or meat but i guess you never heard of the mad cow disease or the chicken aviary.
Next time you choose an animal as reference choose one that live according to his nature so you can be able to make the correct example.

Quote: If you say that pigs are so close to humans then why they can deal with shit while we can't?

Oh please can I cite "two girls one cup" as a reference? I never thought I'd get the chance!

(March 12, 2014 at 8:39 am)enrico Wrote: What's the matter with you?
You always choose the wrong animal.
Domesticated dogs are very different from wild dogs.
Wild dogs do not get cardiovascular diseases while domesticated dogs do.

Oh, is that so?

Couldn't be that you're just talking out of your ass, could it? Hmm...