Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(May 12, 2014 at 6:03 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Third-party projection is not a healthy sign, mate.
Look mate, all i am asking is to see if anybody has got a clue
about religion, philosophy and other issues like whether man
is veg or omnivore but nobody seems to know.
Absolutely. Apart from all those times that people have told you that humans are omnivores, of course. Do try to keep up.
And I am not your mate.
(May 14, 2014 at 8:40 am)Riketto Wrote: Strange indeed considering that these guys post in these forum
time and time again.
When you stop posting shit, they'll stop cleaning it up. Not really so strange.
(May 14, 2014 at 8:40 am)Riketto Wrote: Do i ask too much mate?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(May 12, 2014 at 6:03 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Third-party projection is not a healthy sign, mate.
Look mate, all i am asking is to see if anybody has got a clue
about religion, philosophy and other issues like whether man
is veg or omnivore but nobody seems to know.
Strange indeed considering that these guys post in these forum
time and time again.
Do i ask too much mate? :thinking:
(May 13, 2014 at 12:01 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Hey guys, guess who this is:
Bla, bla bla......
Riketto already had the straight jacket idea few post ago.
Can't you be a bit more original by coming up with your
own ideas?
Are you a parrot that repeat what other people say? :):confused-fall::)
So, you're saying if you'd actually bothered to read what Esquilax posted 19 pages back, you wouldn't still be going
I'm sorry, but when someone can say with a straight face that humans weren't made omnivorous in spite of the reams of evidence he's been presented with in other threads to the contrary, and provides nothing to back up that disagreement but actual mockery, what else is there to do?
Enrico's been here for a long damn time, and we've engaged him on a number of topics; a look back through his post history will be enough to see the pattern. He rocks up, makes outrageous claims with no justification, and then crows that, since we can't disprove them, he must be right and we must be idiots. When he's presented with evidence, he steamrolls over it with yet more outrageous assertions, and when called on that he simply asserts that it isn't important.
Arguing requires two people actively engaging in it, and enrico doesn't have the mental presence nor epistemic wherewithal to engage on any point. He's a shit and run troll who will not go away, and as such there's nothing to argue with. Just a self aggrandizing back-patting machine.
The best thing we can do is turn his mental leavings into some kind of fun. It's the only useful thing he's ever done.
(May 12, 2014 at 6:03 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Third-party projection is not a healthy sign, mate.
Look mate, all i am asking is to see if anybody has got a clue
about religion, philosophy and other issues like whether man
is veg or omnivore but nobody seems to know.
Strange indeed considering that these guys post in these forum
time and time again.
Do i ask too much mate?
We've already established that Homo sapiens are omnivores. Move on.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
May 15, 2014 at 8:16 am (This post was last modified: May 15, 2014 at 8:17 am by Little Rik.)
(May 14, 2014 at 1:27 pm)Chas Wrote: We've already established that Homo sapiens are omnivores. Move on.
GUYS I GOT SOMETHING VERY VERY IMPORTANT TO SAY.
I ESTABLISHED THAT I CAN LEVITATE AND FLY.
Look guys i haven't got a rag of evidence to show you that but
you got to believe me.
Don't forget that i am Riketto.
Ok let us come back to earth.
Before you say that you established something can you please
give me concrete evidence that man can deal with
saturated fats, cholesterol and toxins like real omnivore
animals can?
(May 15, 2014 at 8:16 am)Riketto Wrote: Look guys i haven't got a rag of evidence to show you that but
you got to believe me.
Don't forget that i am Riketto.
And this, folks, is what is known as unintentional irony.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
Ricky, for your own sake as well as ours, look up the definitions of established and claimed. Here's a starter clue: one of them has evidence to support it, while the other can be thrown around like confettit and make just as much mess.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(May 15, 2014 at 8:16 am)Riketto Wrote: Ok let us come back to earth.
Before you say that you established something can you please
give me concrete evidence that man can deal with
saturated fats, cholesterol
The not so fast advice refers to the fact that the subject of saturated fats is very complicated.
Quote:This new research has strongly challenged the conventional nutritional wisdom that saturated fat is inherently bad for you. The lead author of the research, Rajiv Chowdhury of Cambridge University, is quoted in a New York Times article by Anahad O’Connor in March: “My take on this would be that it’s not saturated fat we should worry about.”
Saturated fat has a bad reputation because it raises levels of “bad” low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, the type that increases risk of heart attacks. However, as Chowdhury explains, the link between saturated fat and LDL is complex. Intake of saturated fat also increases high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (or “good” cholesterol).
The type of LDL cholesterol raised by ingestion of saturated fat is an LDL sub-type of big fluffy particles that are thought to be relatively benign. The smallest, most dense form of LDL is more dangerous, in that it is more likely to clog arteries. However, Chowdhury explains, these smaller particles are not increased by saturated fat, but rather by excess intake of sugary foods: “If anything is driving your LDL in a more adverse way, it’s carbohydrates.” Chowdhury therefore believes that high carbohydrate diets should be the focus of dietary guidelines.
Our modern diet tends to result in too much "bad" cholesterol. We also need the right kind of Carbohydrates.
Quote:What’s the difference between a sandwich made on white bread and one made with 100% whole grain bread?
Or, the difference between French fries and side salad made with spinach, tomatoes, carrots, and kidney beans?
All the foods above are carbohydrates. But the second option in both questions includes good carbohydrate foods (whole grains and vegetables).
We can reap the health benefits of good carbs by choosing carbohydrates full of fiber. These carbs that get absorbed slowly into our systems, avoiding spikes in blood sugar levels. Examples: whole grains, vegetables, fruits, and beans.
We can minimize the health risk of bad carbs by eating fewer refined and processed carbohydrates that strip away beneficial fiber. Examples: white bread and white rice.
So, back to our ancestors doing their hunter gathering in the dim and distant past. They didn't have white bread, white rice, French fries or sugary foods. The plants they ate were ones which grew naturally in the wild because farming and selective breeding of plants hadn't been invented.
The first article I linked to goes on to talk about the Mediterranean diet.
Quote:Another large study published last year, not included in Chowdhury’s study, reported that a Mediterranean diet supplemented with extra nuts and extra-virgin olive oil reduced heart attack and strokes compared with a low-fat diet with more starches (R Estruch and others, the New England Journal of Medicine (2013). The traditional Mediterranean diet is characterised by a high intake of olive oil, fruit, nuts, vegetables and cereals; moderate intake of fish and poultry; low intake of dairy products, red meat, processed meat and sweets; and wine in moderation, consumed with meals.
Our distant ancestors didn't have olive oil, cereals, dairy products, processed meat, sweets and wine, either, but once you remove them from the Mediterranean diet you're left with something very much like the chimpanzee diet - a lot of fruit, vegetables and nuts plus the occasional bit of meat.
It's difficult getting any unbiased opinion where human diet is concerned because there are rabid fanatics on both sides.
(May 15, 2014 at 8:16 am)Riketto Wrote: and toxins like real omnivore
Quote:The most common groups of fruits or vegetables causing reactions are:
Members of the rosaceae family: apple, pear, cherry, peach, and plum
Members of the cucurbitaceae family: cucumber, melon, watermelon, zucchini, pumpkin
Kiwi fruit is also a common cause of allergic reactions, and may result in more severe reactions than other fruits. Some people with allergy to kiwi fruit also react to banana, avocado and latex, due to cross-reactivity in the protein which causes the allergy.
Many fruit allergies are due to proteins called profilins, which are often found in trees, grass and weed pollens as well as many fruits and vegetables. Around one third of pollen allergies are due to profilins, and people with hayfever to profilins may find that they experience symptoms after eating melon, watermelon, citrus fruits, tomato, and banana.
Quote:Both peanuts and tree nuts (for example, walnuts, hazelnuts, almonds, cashews, pecans, brazils and pistachios) can act as allergens, and can cause an allergic reaction in some people.
Strictly speaking, peanuts are not nuts, they are legumes - they grow underground whereas other nuts grow on trees. The word nut in this article can mean either tree nuts or peanuts.
Does this mean that humans aren't designed to eat nuts, fruit and vegetables?
(May 15, 2014 at 8:16 am)Riketto Wrote: animals can?
(May 15, 2014 at 9:26 am)Stimbo Wrote: Ricky, for your own sake as well as ours, look up the definitions of established and claimed. Here's a starter clue: one of them has evidence to support it, while the other can be thrown around like confettit and make just as much mess.
Anytime you wish to talk about the meaning of words
i am ready to talk to you.
I wasn't that good in Latin but i understand quite well
the meaning of most words including establish (stabilire in Italian)
considering also that Italian come from Latin and considering that
so many English words come from Latin then i am quite confident
in knowing the real meaning of most words.
Now considering that you guys ESTABLISHED absolutely nothing
regarding whether man is omnivore or not then i have to ESTABLISH
that your ESTABLISH is as much true as my ESTABLISH that
i can levitate and fly.
If one day you will ESTABLISH that man can deal with saturated
fats, cholesterol and toxins then i will consider your ESTABLISH
like real.
At the moment your establish is like a pig fart.
(May 15, 2014 at 10:06 am)Riketto Wrote: If one day you will ESTABLISH that man can deal with saturated
fats, cholesterol and toxins then i will consider your ESTABLISH
like real.
Here's a puzzle for you from the American Journal Of Clinical Nutrition.
Quote:Conclusions: Consumption of marine products, the main source of EPA and DHA, appears to beneficially affect some cardiovascular disease risk factors. The traditional Inuit diet, which is rich in n−3 fatty acids, is probably responsible for the low mortality rate from ischemic heart disease in this population.
Quote:Inuit consume a diet of foods that are fished, hunted, and gathered locally. This may include walrus, Ringed Seal, Bearded Seal, beluga whale, caribou, polar bear, muskoxen, birds (including their eggs) and fish. While it is not possible to cultivate native plants for food in the Arctic, the Inuit have traditionally gathered those that are naturally available. Grasses, tubers, roots, stems, berries, fireweed and seaweed (kuanniq or edible seaweed) were collected and preserved depending on the season and the location.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
Quote:Compared to the general population of Canada, Inuit have a higher
incidence of lung, liver, oesophageal, nasopharyngeal, and salivary cancer.
However, they have lower rates of breast, prostate, and endometrial
cancers.
Cancer is the second leading cause of death among Inuit. Incidence rates
are increasing, especially in rates for preventable cancers, such as lung
cancer. It is suspected that, aside from tobacco smoke, levels of PCBs
(polychlorinated biphenyls) and other POPs (persistant organic pollutants)
may be a factor in rising cancer rates among the Inuit population.
For both Inuit men and women, cancer rates have risen in the past 30 years.
Quote:Many POPs are currently or were in the past used as pesticides. Others are used in industrial processes and in the production of a range of goods such as solvents, polyvinyl chloride, and pharmaceuticals.[1] There are a few natural sources of POPs, such as volcanic activity and vegetational fires,[2] but most POPs are created by humans in industrial processes, either intentionally or as byproducts.[1]
Public concern about contamination by POPs exists, due to the multitude of evidence showing the negative effects of POPs on human health and the environment. Several compounds have been identified as hormone disruptors which can alter normal function of endocrine and reproductive systems in humans and wildlife. Cardiovascular disease, Cancer, Obesity, and Diabetes have also been linked to POPs. Exposure to POPs during Pregnancy has been linked to developmental defects in the resulting offspring. There are many risks and effects of having these chemicals in our environment and none of them are a benefit to the Earth. After these pollutants are put into the environment, they are able to stay in the system for decades causing problems such as cancer, birth defects, learning disabilities, immunological, behavioral, neurological and reproductive disorders in humans and animals.
Quote:No one, not even residents of the northernmost villages on Earth, eats an entirely traditional northern diet anymore. Even the groups we came to know as Eskimo—which include the Inupiat and the Yupiks of Alaska, the Canadian Inuit and Inuvialuit, Inuit Greenlanders, and the Siberian Yupiks—have probably seen more changes in their diet in a lifetime than their ancestors did over thousands of years. The closer people live to towns and the more access they have to stores and cash-paying jobs, the more likely they are to have westernized their eating. And with westernization, at least on the North American continent, comes processed foods and cheap carbohydrates—Crisco, Tang, soda, cookies, chips, pizza, fries. “The young and urbanized,” says Harriet Kuhnlein, director of the Centre for Indigenous Peoples’ Nutrition and Environment at McGill University in Montreal, “are increasingly into fast food.” So much so that type 2 diabetes, obesity, and other diseases of Western civilization are becoming causes for concern there too.
![[Image: 6a5ure2a.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F05%2F15%2F6a5ure2a.jpg)
