Meat is Unhealthy. Why?

[plant]

So over the course of my life as a vegan, I've been aware that the scientific consensus is that meat is unhealthy. However I've really never known why this is the case and when asked why it is in the case I couldn't present anything. Fortunately the few people I was unable to inform are people close to me, so I can reeducate them. Anyways, why is meat unhealthy?

It appears that it increasingly acknowledged by mainstream media and science to such a level that hard evidence must be easy to find. Forbes.com (a magazine for billionaires) published an article in which it was stated that shunning meat consumption can save 8 million lives per year and save $31 trillion USD in health care costs.

(2018) Millennials Are Driving The Worldwide Shift Away From Meat

A global reduction in meat consumption between 2016 and 2050 could save up to eight million lives per year and $31 trillion in reduced costs from health care and climate change. (National Academy of Sciences).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpel ... 0b03f3a4a4

[brimstoneSalad]

I think I understand where your coming from.

You do not, and at this point it seems intentional.

Perhaps a court room is a good metaphor for your understanding of causality. If Bob dropped a ball and it fell to a large body because of gravity and the falling was a crime. The judge could apportion blame, some to gravity and some to Bob. And so pass sentence on each.

Not even remotely correct. Gravity existed the entire time, and did not start existing when the ball was dropped.

A drunk driver hits a pedestrian -- will the judge apportion blame, some to the car manufacturer, some to the company that made the road, some to the pedestrian, some to the alcohol company, some to physics itself for making it possible for cars to function, some to biology for making it possible for things to live and die, and some to the driver?

Necessary conditions are not the same as proximate causes.

You could argue then with respect to the Inuit paradox that when Inuit populations developed heart disease in the 1950s after beginning to eat a western diet high in refined carbohydrates and saturated fat that the cause was any of a number of factors from genetic drift to incorrect records or other factors like alcohol consumption or cigarettes.

You're begging the question again. I already explained that this did not happen. Incidence of heart disease DECREASED when diets began to be westernized.

What can we blame this decrease in heart disease on? Certainly not on cigarettes. They were already eating a diet high in saturated fat before and it was actually lowered. Likely either more carbs protected them or less saturated fat lowered risk. It's probably not the sugars, so it's probably a mix of added fiber and lowered saturated fat.

High blood sugar produces inflammation and cholesterol then forms protective plaque.

Lie upon lie. Plaques are not protective, that's conspiratorial nonsense. You have the causation backwards and it has very little to nothing to do with sugar:
https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-he ... ue-buildup

Plaque forms when cholesterol lodges in the wall of the artery. To fight back, the body sends white blood cells to trap the cholesterol, which then turn into foamy cells that ooze more fat and cause more inflammation. That triggers muscle cells in the artery wall to multiply and form a cap over the area. But the soft plaque beneath the cap is dangerous. "For example, if your blood pressure spikes, it puts pressure on the thin wall of the plaque, which can break open, form a clot, and cause a heart attack," says Dr. Cannon. About three of every four heart attacks occur when plaques rupture.

Plaques form when cholesterol is deposited on artery walls, not as protection but as a side effect of high cholesterol (particularly LDL). It's not very clear why LDL would deposit cholesterol like this, but solubility is likely to be part of the issue (in terms of basic chemistry). There's a transport protein that seems to be involved too but its function isn't really clear.
It was once thought that the artery walls had to be damaged first for cholesterol to be deposited but that does not appear to be true.

Once that cholesterol is deposited the body responds. The consequence of that is inflammation as these plaques are treated more like a foreign body that needs to be attacked.

This is false: Sugar -> inflammation -> protective plaque

This is how it works: Plaque deposition -> inflammation

Oxidation may also play a role, and it's possible that processed sugar can contribute (non-exclusively) to oxidation by depleting antioxidants.

Potentially how it works: Plaque deposition -> oxidation -> inflammation

https://www.health.harvard.edu/newslett ... d_arteries

The first step in atherosclerosis occurs when LDL cholesterol lodges in the wall of an artery (see figure). If enough HDL is available, it will latch onto the cholesterol in the artery wall, lug it back into the bloodstream, and carry it to the liver. Since cholesterol is taken out of arterial cells, the process is sometimes known as cholesterol efflux. Since cholesterol is returned to the liver (where it was assembled in the first place), reverse transport is another name for the process. By either name, it's good for vascular health, since the liver collects cholesterol from the HDL particles, packages it into bile salts and bile acids, and dumps it into the intestines for excretion in the feces.

HDL in action

Antioxidant activity. The next step in atherosclerosis occurs when the LDL cholesterol in the artery wall is bombarded by oxygen free radicals that turn it into oxidized LDL cholesterol. Oxidized cholesterol is the stuff that's actually responsible for arterial damage — and research shows that HDL has antioxidant activity that can help protect LDL cholesterol from free radicals.

Anti-inflammatory action. An atherosclerotic plaque is not simply a mechanical build-up of cholesterol but a site of intense inflammation triggered by oxidized cholesterol and perpetuated by white blood cells called T lymphocytes and macrophages. Elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) reflect the inflammation. HDL helps to quiet the inflammation, and it may also neutralize CRP's tendency to perpetuate the inflammatory cycle.

Plaque stabilization. As the cholesterol-laden inflammatory plaque enlarges, it may fill an artery enough to cause angina. If the plaque develops a fibrous cap that holds it together, things don't get any worse. But if an unstable plaque ruptures, it can trigger a heart attack or stroke. Although the evidence that HDL can help stabilize plaques is less compelling than the data supporting its other benefits, research suggests HDL may help prevent plaque rupture.

If we rely on Occam's razor[...]

If we rely on Occam's razor it's most likely that consensus on saturated fat and cholesterol is correct and fringe conspiratorial claims contrary to that consensus (e.g. what you're peddling) are wrong.

If this is true of the general population then we would assume that people on diets low in carbohydrates would have a low coronary calcium score or no hard plaque. This is indeed what we find.

Lies and half-truths.

Reduction in risk is only in moderately low carb diets high in plant based proteins and fats, not in diets rich in animal products.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritions ... ate-diets/

Research shows that a moderately low-carbohydrate diet can help the heart, as long as protein and fat selections come from healthy sources.

A 20-year prospective study of 82,802 women looked at the relationship between lower carbohydrate diets and heart disease; a subsequent study looked at lower carbohydrate diets and risk of diabetes. Women who ate low-carbohydrate diets that were high in vegetable sources of fat or protein had a 30 percent lower risk of heart disease (4) and about a 20 percent lower risk of type 2 diabetes, (34) compared to women who ate high-carbohydrate, low-fat diets. But women who ate low-carbohydrate diets that were high in animal fats or proteins did not see any such benefits. (4,34)
More evidence of the heart benefits from a lower-carbohydrate approach comes from a randomized trial known as the Optimal Macronutrient Intake Trial for Heart Health (OmniHeart). (35) A healthy diet that replaced some carbohydrate with protein or fat did a better job of lowering blood pressure and “bad” LDL cholesterol than a healthy, higher-carbohydrate diet.
Similarly, the small “EcoAtkins” weight loss trial compared a low-fat, high-carbohydrate vegetarian diet to a low-carbohydrate vegan diet that was high in vegetable protein and fat. While weight loss was similar on the two diets, study subjects who followed the low-carbohydrate “EcoAtkins” diet saw improvements in blood lipids and blood pressure. (36)

What we see is that whatever macronutrient ratio we examine, within that category either an entirely or predominately plant based diet always wins. There are very obvious reasons for that in the form of fiber and antioxidants, but also reduction in things like dietary cholesterol and saturated fats that increase endogenous production, and often a reduction in carcinogens as well from cooked meat.

[Peppesq]

Eating meat is a heinous sin. A person who kills an animal for meat will die a violent death (Manu-Smriti, 5.38), Further, such sinful persons will, in their next lives, be eaten by the same creatures they ate in this life. (Bhagavata Purana 11.5.14).

People are neglecting this just for the taste of their tongue. Everyone is going to misguide you on this topic because they really don't know what's the after effect of this hineous sin.

Should humans eat meat or not has become a highly debatable topic of all time. Vegans and vegetarians feel that it is sinful or unethical to eat meat. Meat eaters, on the other hand, try hard to prove that eating meat is beneficial for health and our ancestors ate meat too. In this article we will discuss if it is healthy or sinful to eat meat, and also, what did our ancestors eat that made them the healthiest and virtuous people in history.

It was nearly 2.6 million years ago when humans started eating meat and today the whole world is suffering from chronic diseases, evil, hatred, rage, and anxiety. They say “You are what you eat”. Then where our generation has gone wrong with the food? Did God allow us to eat meat in the first place?

What Does God Say About Eating Meat?

Diet in Christianity according to the Holy Bible:

Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every seed-bearing plant on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit contains seed. They will be yours for food.
And to every beast of the earth and every bird of the air and every creature that crawls upon the earth—I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. (Holy Bible, Genesis 1:29 & 30)
According to the Bible, God created fruits and vegetables for humans and green plants for animals i.e. even the animals were not allowed to eat meat. So, does the bible forbid eating meat? The answer is yes.

Diet in Islam

Diet in Islam allowed by Allah was the same as allowed in the Bible. The same verses(1.29&30) as mentioned above also appear in Tourat or Torah (the book of genesis) which is the first of the four holy books revealed by Allah.
If later, any other person, spirit or angel (eg. Gabriel in Holy Quran and verse 9.3 in Bible) allowed meat-eating in the scriptures, that couldn’t be considered as the order of God.
Diet in Hinduism -

In Ayurveda meat is considered Tamsik (impure) food which is fit only for ignorants and demons according to Bhagavad Gita(Chapter 17 shloka 10). Ancient Hindus followed a strict vegetarian diet as Satvik (pure) food for a healthy body and a spiritual lifestyle. Whoever consumed meat was regarded as Rakshas/demon.

Can Sikhs Eat Meat

Sikhs are not allowed to eat meat. There are many verses in Sri Guru Granth Sahib that forbid eating meat and using intoxicants.

■ But to quote just one verse told by Supreme God Himself

Kabir, Bhaang Machali Sura Paan, Jo Jo Prani Khaanhi
Teerath Barat Name Kinha, Tai Sabhe Rasatal Janhi (Ang 1377, Shri Guru Granth Sahib)

Meaning: God Kabir Sahib Ji said that those who consume meat, fish, alcohol or other intoxicants, they will all go to hell, no matter what spiritual activities, pilgrimages, or rituals they perform.

If God ordered all living beings to be vegetarian, why do people keep eating meat? Do they not know the negative side effects of eating meat?
Is It Healthier to Eat Meat or be a Vegetarian?
■ According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, meat is a significant cause of foodborne illness. Every year in the US, nearly 33 million cases of illness are diagnosed due to microbial pathogens found in meats, with about 9,000 deaths occurring annually as well. (Wikipedia)

Consumption of meat is linked to many diseases like cancer, diabetes, obesity, cholesterol, heart diseases, etc.
Apart from these, some deadly diseases originate solely from meat-based products, like, E. coli from beef, Trichinosis from pork, Salmonella from poultry, Scrapie from mutton, and Swine flu from pigs, to name a few.
These are words of God ; Never kill any animal ,make them your pet for milk ,ghee and for your help.Have mercy on them.

Never kill animals for eating meat, they are entitled to live, not born to be killed.

Meat eaters also worship, eventually they go to hell. They should not be under any illusion.

It doesn’t matter if it is Jhatka, Halal or Kutha meat, killing God’s children and eating them is inhuman and sinful and deserves severe punishment in hell and next lives.

A person who kills an animal for meat will die a violent death (Manu-Smriti, 5.38), Further, such sinful persons will, in their next lives, be eaten by the same creatures they ate in this life. (Bhagavata Purana 11.5.14)

If you are a meat eater you have accumulated too much bad karma and you can’t be free of Karma unless you find a true saint who can tell you the way out.

The only way to be free from all the bad karma, all the evils, and diseases is to go in the refuge of a Tatvadarshi (enlightened) Saint. Bhagavad Gita(4:34) directs us to go in the refuge of a Tatvadarshi Saint and ask from Him, very politely, the complete spiritual knowledge and the correct way to worship the supreme God. Then the supreme God forgives all the sins of His worshipper. (Holy Yajurved 8:13). In this day and age, Jagatguru Rampal Ji Maharaj is the Tatvadarshi saint, the knower of all the Holy Scriptures. True mantras given by Saint Rampal Ji have already healed thousands of people of incurable diseases and addictions, be it an addiction to alcohol, intoxicants or meat-eating. Merely reading or listening to His sermons can make a huge difference. It will give you the knowledge of good and bad deeds and the best way to live life.

[Red]

Calling me names doesn't change the science.

Who are you where are you copying and pasting from

[brimstoneSalad]

@Red the last post (just deleted) was probably spam (contained a review site link).
If this is a real person, he or she is not very good at answering quesiotns.

@Peppesq Are you a spammer? If not, we need to talk about the copy and pasting.

[Peppesq]

they say there's an increased risk "associated" with red meat, but if you look at the numbers in perspective you'll see that it's not much of an increase. for example, assume the lifetime risk of getting colorectal cancer is 5% and a 17% increase risk of cancer due to red meat, that increases your overall lifetime risk to 5.85%. people see sensational headlines that say "17% increased risk of cancer due to red meat" and start freaking out.

WHO's website says:
https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
"The consumption of processed meat was associated with small increases in the risk of cancer in the studies reviewed. In those studies, the risk generally increased with the amount of meat consumed. An analysis of data from 10 studies estimated that every 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by about 18%.
The cancer risk related to the consumption of red meat is more difficult to estimate because the evidence that red meat causes cancer is not as strong. However, if the association of red meat and colorectal cancer were proven to be causal, data from the same studies suggest that the risk of colorectal cancer could increase by 17% for every 100 gram portion of red meat eaten daily."

american cancer society on the overall risk of getting colorectal cancer:
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/colon-rec ... stics.html
"Overall, the lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is: about 1 in 22 (4.49%) for men and 1 in 24 (4.15%) for women. This risk is slightly lower in women than in men. A number of other factors (described in Colorectal Cancer Risk Factors) can also affect your risk for developing colorectal cancer."
good add: https://enrgifitness.com/fitness-and-stress/