

http://funnypictures.s3.amazonaws.com/2e4775b1-0e73-4975-9bed-a652cbc4adbf.jpg
Comments
-
@rhcp girl, casein is just a slow to break down protein. I take physiology in university and major in Kinesiology. What you stated doesn't have any scientific backing considering you're stating a causal relationship when at best, a weak correlation may exist with no significant value. You also claim it causes cancer, what type of cancer? I know that there is a link between barbecued meats and having an increase in carcinogenic agents due to the way it's cooked. Casein is one type of protein, and there are many others in meat. Although that isn't a big deal considering they all get broken down into amino acids which your body absorbs. Unless you can show me some scientific research, peer evaluated, you can't claim any of this. Sorry hun, have a nice day.
-
@rhcp girl, not to mention animal protein has the highest bioavailability for absorption in humans, right behind eggs. Our bodies have evolved to incorporate meat in our diets to a large extent, not to create malignant tumors from its ingestion. Some anecdotal evidence, go look up the 'Paleo' diet, which focuses on eating in the same way that individuals from the Paleolithic era ate 'hunters and gatherers.' A lot of people once they switched to this diet, feel a lot better, have better hormonal levels, decreases in body fat, lower low-density cholesterol (the bad cholesterol). Which is now being supported a great deal by scientific evidence. All this from eating why you claim is bad for individuals, "if you eat more than 5%."
-
@MACWE, they have proof that it is. Back in the 30's the polish lived on a high meat diet with cancer rates in the 90%. After the Germans invaded they forced them to eat a all plant diet and cancer went down immediately in the 10% then in 1945 when they gained control of their land back it went right back up to 90% in a matter of 5 years. I'm not saying protein caused cancer I'm saying casein does. Also there is scientific proof that it ford
-
@rhcp girl, I'm assuming you're a vegetarian. Historic statistics don't hold any evidential power in science. A large amount of other mediating and confounding variables can play a large role in it. Also, regarding the 5% casein, that was one study done by Campbell looking at liver cancer which was done on rats nonetheless, which can not warrant causal relation. At best it can warrant further research into the topic.
-
@rhcp girl, the Inuits (Eskimos) lived for thousands of years on a diet based almost entirely on meat/blubber (not many plants grow reliably in that climate). They were able to obtain all necessary vitamins and minerals by eating the internal organs of animals, such as the heart and liver. Ample documentation shows that they enjoyed above average health, with very low rates of cancer, diabetes, and heart disease... that is, until their traditional diet began to be replaced with a Western one.
-
@rhcp girl, I noticed you ignored my comments. Firstly, you said meat causes cancer. I called you on that and then you claimed more specifically it was casein. I disputed this and you gave me historical evidence, which doesn't hold up. I brought up the only research done on the topic to support your ideas and explain how it can't be seen as causation yet alone generalized to the entire human populous, and you ignore it. Let alone the non-stringent significance levels, or low level of power the study had, makes it less than worthy towards saying factor A 'casein' causes factor B 'cancer.' Which you didn't specify as to which cancer, considering there are so many. Anyways, have a nice day. I'd recommend live and let live, and not to spout that type of stuff, as it just causes unneeded anxiety in the general population not educated in this area.
-
@MACWE, actually my historical evidence did hold up and yes meat causes cancer because it contains casein and by the way I can whatever on here that I want. Just because your some teenager who thinks they know everything and has to challenge everyone doesn't mean I can't put my own input on here. Thank you. And goodbye.
-
@Milton Waddams, Hun also cancer rates for those people are higher then those who eat just vegetables and fish. These are records that show proof of the huge fluctuating rates in cancer. Although the government obviously try's to hide this from the general public so I understand if you havnt heard anything like this but it is one of those things that's true. Eating to much meat causes cancer
-
@rhcp girl, firstly, I'm not a teenager. Secondly, you should have just left it at that. Now that you reply with nothing but hostile comments, you come off as childish yourself, maybe not age wise but attitude wise. I gave you nothing but evidence to support my ideas, I even did extra research on your point of view to try understand where you were coming from. In the end though, like most individuals who's ideas feel threatened and rightfully so you turn to insults toward the individual and not towards the actual topic. I'm sorry that I appear to act as a know-it-all towards you, but this is my passion in life and what I go to school for. That leads me to be passionate and frustrated when people say things like, "meat causes cancer" without any backing, or understanding what type of implications with word 'causes' has in science. Anyways, take it easy.
-
@MACWE, sweetie I'm not the one being childish. You told me not to post what I think on here when that's an immature thing to tell somebody to do. You do not control people so learn that. Second your "evidence" didnt support you claim sense casein the cancer promoting protein is not found in fish and seal blubber it is found in stuff like beef and chicken. Which is what the modern American mostly eats. Thank you and have a nice day.
-
@rhcp girl, you, we're the one turning sour, I'm no scientist but from what I have read you are just repeating the same piece of information which doesn't even seem to have much evidence behind, then you are getting angry at the fact that MACWE clearly has superior knowledge on the topic, and you are just trying to cancel out his point.
-
@FOCsake, sweetie I wasn't getting angry, he was the first one to point out that I shouldn't state my opinion. And it's hard to prove my side when most of my evidence is from graphs and very detailed explanations that I couldn't do. Also my answers couldn't be too long because I was in school and didnt have the time too:)
-
@rhcp girl, firstly, I find it amusing you call individual's 'sweetie' when we are trying to have a civilized debate, in order to belittle those who don't hold your opinion. Secondly, I can tell you are angry by the fact you feel the need to down vote all my comments which aren't anything hostile towards you but just retorting your points. Thirdly, I was not telling you not to speak freely of your opinion, I was recommending, big difference than telling, that you do not illustrate your opinion as fact. Considering, the main point I was trying to get across was that you were trying to speak about the matter as if it was a fact, yet now you claim it's your opinion? Science doesn't have opinions. Lastly, you can't use inability to describe data as a reason for not properly articulating your side of the argument.
-
@MACWE, I only do that after you so rudely tried to say I shouldn't say my opinion. And first of all sorry I don't have time to search up exact full detailed information. I'm downtown with my boyfriend. I am going to speak freely of my opinion just like everyone else on here. I'm not angry. People can have different opinions and that's ok. Goodbye
I felt extremely uncomfortable when my Grandma learned that I was a stabtastic cannibal. She just wouldn't stop struggling to get her arm out of my mouth.