Animal based proteins are the most unhealthy proteins you can consume and it is also greatly exaggerated how much protein people need:
T. COLIN CAMPBELL, PHD wrote:
Animal vs. Plant Protein
...Animal proteins also have a higher concentration of sulphur containing amino acids that get metabolized to acid-generating metabolites. As a result, a slightly lower physiological pH must be corrected and buffers like calcium are used to attenuate these adverse acid effects--to the disadvantage of the host.
[READ: EATING ANIMAL PROTEINS LEADS TO OSTEOPOROSIS!]
My point is that, beginning with the discovery of protein in 1839 until the present day, we have virtually revered this nutrient and as a result have made sure that our more general thoughts about nutrition and health had to fit this paradigm. This was especially true when protein was considered--and still is considered by many--to be mostly found in animal-based foods. In the early years, protein meant meat and meat meant protein. Thus, much of the reverence for protein really was a reverence for meat.We clearly showed that of all the chemical carcinogens tested in the government's chemical carcinogenesis testing program--and using the traditional criteria to decide what is a carcinogen--casein (and very likely most other animal based proteins) was the most relevant.
So, a debate about protein (mostly from animal based foods) should be a broader topic beyond the evidence, although the evidence itself is enough to be convincing.
I should also add that the focus on the hazards of saturated fat and cholesterol (in animal food, of course) as the chronic heart disease culprit came about historically because it was possible to reduce the intake of these components without reducing the intake of the animal food itself. Just take out some of the fat (leaving skim milk, leans cuts of meat, etc.). But removing the protein cannot be done; it would no longer even look like animal food. Thus, there has been tremendous pressure over the years not to venture into questioning animal based protein--it means sacrificing animal foods.
Your advice is very bad and outdated. Not only is it showing lack of compassion to eat animals but also to your human friends, family and paid caretakers. My grandma is personally ruining my life and that of her immediate family with all the secondary complications from her constant animal protein consumption which always includes coffee with milk and feta cheese, with bleached flour bread in the morning. This applies to vegetarians as well, since it is an almost useless term, what matters is how much animal proteins you are consuming or not. Yet funny enough she still has osteoporosis, despite all the ignorant mainstream propaganda: "milk builds strong bones"! Many meat eaters do the same to their relatives. It is also disingenuous to live in a country of fat cows like the USA who average 1.5x the body mass they should have, and take many medications due to the chronic problems associated with meat eating, and wax lyrical about:
I see a lot of sick, irritable vegans from protein malnutrition
Credibility just jumped out the window and fell to its death. I think what you and others perceive as sickness is seeing a population of people at a more normal bodyweight, which paradoxically seems unhealthy to Americans who are just simply huge and always looking to diet down with the next fad method.
Ok, you are being more than a little disingenuous. After checking some of the other links you gave before I know what you are doing. You are likely following a Paleo diet and two of those links were written by Loren Cordain, the founder of the Paleo fad diet. I know alot about this fad, it is what my selfish brother follows and it fits him as it allows him to pretend he is healthy, while actually eating more unhealthy than ever! That is what most people do who say they are into health, they pretend they are healthy by following fad advice that allows them to consider their unhealthy habits as healthy, rather than making any real changes. Paleo is fairly easy for most people compared to say veganism: you already eat meat, so just add grain phobia. Eat a hamburger without a wheat or bleached flour based patty, it is simple and requires little change of habit. Paleo gurus are very selfish, insular and ego oriented. For a counter example, Gary Null, whose vegan dietary advice I follow the most, here put up a video about poverty in America
, and another about homeless Gulf War veterans
What you are saying you are doing is called the French paradox. The French eat many unhealthy foods, but they don't have as many chronic care problems as Americans, simply because of portion control. However, if you are constantly going hungry to control your weight, how long will that last? Most people become overweight in the first place due to lack of discipline and by eating too many animal based foods(including cheese, and milk). If you eat a majority of real plant foods, equaling to over 90% of total calories, you can eat till your full and still lose weight. However given your histrionics in calling Tofurky vomit inducing, when I only see Steve-O on tv inducing vomit on command, and even then only after swallowing a live goldfish and the choice of the nickname Porkchop, I have a feeling things are all about taste preference above all for you.
To say your exaggerating would be an understatement. If people could feel such micro-changes in their body, how would so many millions be able to smoke, do drugs both illicit and prescribed, eat a meat heavy diet, eat corn syrup, eat GMOs, etc.? Sadly people cannot feel micro-changes and everytime someone makes a statement like you do, I seriously doubt their credibility. The world would be a totally different place if what you are saying was true, and sadly it is isn't so.
It is well known that fish oil has huge problems of rancidity and oxidization:
Crop & Food Research. wrote:
Fish Oil and Oxidation Products
He and colleague, Dr Carlene McLean, have studied commercially available fish oil in New Zealand, that’s been manufactured overseas. They found it contains varying levels of primary and secondary oxidation products.
“These oxidised products result in variations in the quality of fish oils and may explain the mixed results in international human clinical trials investigating omega 3 health benefits” Dr McLean said.Recent results from international cellular, animal and human trials indicate that the oxidised products in fish oils may have potential carcinogenic and pro-inflammatory actions. These products have the potential to increase the risk of atherosclerosis and thrombosis and reduce the potential benefits of omega-3 fatty acids.
Dr Turner says that unfortunately, fish oils containing omega-3 fatty acids are unstable and more vulnerable to oxidation than vegetable oils or other animal fats. When fish oils come into contact with oxygen and are exposed to metals, light and heat they degrade. Oxidation of the oil accelerates after extraction from the fish and during subsequent storage."
Not only that but likely in my lifetime global fish populations will collapse from the extreme overfishing that bigger ships, several miles long nets and factory fish farms that patrol the oceans have unleashed.