One of the arguments you here in the discourse on vegetarianism is as such
okay well lets evaluate the health risks associated with these deficiencies and vegetarianism and then compare them to the health risks of eating meat
being a vegetarian you are more likely to be:
eating meat you are morel likely to:
tldr:
Other urls found in this thread:
heart.org
scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
bbc.co.uk
livescience.com
sciencebasedmedicine.org
researchgate.net
westonaprice.org
besynchro.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ornish.com
google.com
philmaffetone.com
fao.org
en.wikipedia.org
sciencedirect.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
livescience.com
davita.com
articles.mercola.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ajcn.nutrition.org
chicagotribune.com
authoritynutrition.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
articles.mercola.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
webmd.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
cancercenter.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
jainhospitals.com
researchgate.net
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
mja.com.au
drhyman.com
researchgate.net
circ.ahajournals.org
circ.ahajournals.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
circ.ahajournals.org
circ.ahajournals.org
agriculture.vic.gov.au
nature.com
econtent.hogrefe.com
pubs.acs.org
adaptt.org
beyondveg.com
choose-healthy-food.com
twitter.com
Nobody gives a rat's ass you proselytising cretin. Go eat your lawn.
...
this strawman name calling
my argument is about pointing out the flaws in the logic of anti-vegetarian discourse
if people want to eat meat, that's fine, if people want to be a vegetarian, that's fine, if people want to tell vegetarians that they are dumb for being a vegetarian using flawed logic and do so with a sense of superiority, then there is a problem
the fact that having the logic that underpins your world view pointed out as being flawed makes you resort to trolling and sound ignorant makes me think that you could be from Holla Forums
you aren't smart.
great argument you have there br0
If I remember correctly wasn't there another Vegan Thread post like this a few weeks ago and I believe OP or one of his dick-sucking friends went on a total sperg out due to how bullshit the whole vegan diet is?
What happened /fit/ got tired of your shit and kicked you out?
...
...
hahahahahahahahaha fag
an argument, care to form one? or are you going to just carry on being ignorant trolls?
Yup! OP is a complete fag and possibly one of those butthurt vegans. Also I just asked you a question boyo you're the one getting defensive here.
...
Cry me a river.
...
itt: cognitive dissonance
no. On top of being vegetarian and having that problem, ull die of heart attack and cancer due to stress and environment and u get fat on vegetable oil too.
Topkek
i don't think you understand what
means
I will eating meat.
Faggot.
...
Look at your teeth you fucking faggot
...
frugivore teeth is what he would find
You shit compost, therefore you are gay.
Not herbivore teeth though
i dont think u understand its not enough to say "the risk is higher" if its a change from 0,5% to 1%. ITS DOUBLE THE RISK
I was part of the old vegan thread, I was the one saying meat eaters are retarded pieces of shit, and someone said "trying to convince them to stop eating animal products is like trying to convince people in the 1920's to stop smoking".
so there you have it, the health red pill is too much for these fucking faggots, just let them die off, I see it as just another form of population control.
This is wrong as long as you consume in moderation, like everything.
heart.org
That's, again, red meat
scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org
We all know this can be avoided by exercising, eating lean meat, and less fatty stuff.
Your teeth are significantly more similar to the teeth of an herbivore than the teeth of a carnivore or anatomical omnivore.
Horses have larger canines in relation to their incisors that you do.
Your jaw moves laterally, unlike any anatomical omnivore or carnivore.
That someone was me. How's it going. OP is retarded. Gave the shittiest executed argument. Didn't post any studies either. Absolutely shameful. He deserved all the insults he got.
From the other thread: (Because no one has been able to refute it yet)
Look at population studies, populations that eat the least meat, dairy, and eggs have the lowest risk of chronic disease (including cancer)
Before the Okinawans adopted a more Westernized diet they had the longest average life-spans of any population. Their diet had less than 4% of total daily calories coming from animal foods, and the bulk of their consumption was vegetables and legumes.
Currently the Seventh Day Adventists are the population with the longest average recorded life-span. They follow a diet rich in whole fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains, nuts, and seeds- with no meat, dairy, or egg consumption.
There's a reason humans get heart-disease, Gout, and gall-stones from eating lots of meat while other truly omnivorous animals (like bears) do not.
Here's a list of biological traits that humans have that are in direct conflict with the traits of any other omnivorous or carnivorous mammal:
A tongue that lacks receptors for ATP
Cholesterol synthesis
Lack of Vitamin C synthesis
Laterally moving mandible
Carbohydrate digesting enzyme (amylase) in saliva
Narrow esophagus
Stomach acid with a pH of 2-3.5 (whereas carnivores have stomach acid pH of 1-2)
Bile too weak to break-up crystallized cholesterol before it forms gall-stones
Lack of the enzyme Uricase, which breaks-down uric-acid before it causes gout.
Necessity of fiber (cellulose) in the diet to pass waste properly
Low stomach-volume in comparison to intestinal volume. (The stomach volume of a carnivore, or true omnivore, represents 60-70% of the total capacity of the digestive system. )
Intestinal track 7 times body-length that allows meat to ferment and create sulfur-dioxide (implicated in colon-cancer) True omnivores and carnivores have short digestive tracts that expel meat before it can ferment.
etc. . .
From mouth-to-anus you lack every adaptation to eat meat, and have all the same adaptations your great-ape cousins have- adaptations to eat a plant-based diet. (The one exception is that humans make significantly more amylase enzyme, which is implicated in the digestion of starch as the result of learning to cook and, by extension, eating starchy root-vegetables and grains)
canine and bicuspid teeth
bye
What was that, OP? I couldn't hear you over the sound of sizzling bacon.
i dont even why people still think this argument is ever valid
by your logic rape and murder are natural and therefore completely acceptable
in any case you haven't addressed the point discussed in OP, not sure if retarded or genuine shit poster
meat tastes good. meat is cheaper. meat is meat and i like it. end of le argument. if i don't kill those pesky faggot animals and eat them, how would i maintain my position as leader of the planet? you are both animal-fuckers and kiddie fiddlers.
Oh, look who's back!
The disease cancer, and the development of cancerous cells are not mutual. A healthy immune system, and a body not saturated with compounds that encourage cancer cell growth that out-paces one's immune response, will kill
cancerous cells before they can multiply enough times to cause disease (what we refer to as someone "having cancer")
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Read these studies. You can hinder or accelerate the growth of cancer cells in a petri-dish by pouring blood of different people onto them. Genetics can't be ruled out entirely- but the trend in studies so far is that people eating diets that exclude meat, dairy, and eggs (and include high vegetable consumption) have blood that is significantly more hostile to cancer cell growth. (Both inhibits growth and causes apoptosis of cancer cells)
If you want to contest this, bring real evidence.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Read these studies. It is easier to keep weight off if you're eating whole fruits and vegetables- and not eating meat, dairy, and eggs
The article you posted noted that the reason you shouldn't eat red meat is the saturated fat and cholesterol. Fish and chicken still have saturated fat and cholesterol- beans do not.
Truly omnivorous animals won't develop heart disease no matter how much saturated fat or cholesterol they eat. The fact that you have to limit these at all (and that you synthesize your own cholesterol, unlike real omnivores and carnivores) is evidence that you are not an omnivore and should not be eating meat, in general.
BTW chicken is one of the most potent sources of feminizing pthalates.
Americunts know no balance, they all need some quality gulag time and be taught the basics of surviving, like how to fucking eat. They are a people of retarded, mentally children that cannot take care for themself and fuck the whole world up for everybody else not following their imperialist, that is capitalism in decay, thus degenerate cultureless consumerism.
...
Don't think murder is natural. We don't have any body part that facilitates it.
Rape is natural? Don't think most men will be able to get an erection when they're struggling to get the women to be still and quiet.
Vegetarianism stunts penile growth, that's all I need to know.
how many people have buggered you?
It's hardly just Americans. The Inuits have incredibly high rates of atherosclerosis and heart-disease. As do the pacific islanders, as does any population where the meat consumption is high.
If you have to moderate your intake of a food for threat of disease you should not be eating that food inn the first place. Humans are not omnivores anatomically speaking. The diseases humans get from chronic meat, dairy, and egg consumption are unique to non-omnivorous, non-carnivorous animals.
see my prior post where I outline the anatomical traits I am referring to.>>6485984
bacon trips checkd
The irony
Typical american
I posted some studies showing how meat, dairy, and egg consumption stunts penile growth, causes gynaecomastia, and decreases one's testosterone.
Where did you hear that not eating meat stunts penile growth. You know that vegan men have higher testosterone on average, right?
researchgate.net
Since you faggot wont read anything that doesn't fit your narrative, even though you're "quoting" works based on it:
The China Study shows: NO CORRELATION BETWEEN MEAT CONSUMPTION AND DEATH
Eat this, faggot.
Vitamin B12 is found in no vegetable and is required to live
None of these things are true
Can you articulate what precisely is wrong with The China Study? I don't speak German.
I find it funny that the people who criticize this literature tend to be fat and unhealthy. Unlike the author T. Colin Campbell who is still trim and fit, despite his old age.
The original work on which the book you are refering to is based on shows data that does not match what in any shape way or form the bullshit narrative you are pushing.
What a shitty argument. B12 is produced by anaerobic bacteria, it is not synthesized by any animal. Where do you think the animals you eat get their B12, shit-head?
One line from hearing him speak you can tell hes retarded
As for the china study, the actual reference that meat causes cancer isn't in the sources when you look in the back of the book.
Good point animals don't contain any backteria
This is a terrible argument. We make things that go against our nature everyday, including sitting.
The fact that we can limit it and be fine should be enough to justify doing it. Same for obesity, it's not going to get to you if you're responsible.
Yeah, this isn't exactly news.
Not going to buy anything, mate. By looking at the abstracts, this article ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The China Study Myth
Flaws in the Vegan Bible
The year 2006 marked an event that rocked the world of nutrition (as well as the walls of Whole Foods): the release of The China Study by T. Colin Campbell. Printed by a small publishing company known for other scientific masterpieces such as The Psychology of the Simpsons and You Do Not Talk About Fight Club, Campbell’s book quickly hit the word-of-mouth circuit and skyrocketed towards bestseller status, with sales exceeding half a million copies to date.
The premise is that all animal foods—ranging from Chicken McNuggets to a fillet of wild-caught salmon—are responsible for modern ailments like heart disease and cancer. Such diseases, the book claims, can generally be prevented or even cured by shunning animal products and eating a diet of whole, unprocessed plant foods instead.
Although this startling thesis was hard for some to swallow, the book appeared credible due to its exhaustive references and the author’s laundry list of credentials—including a PhD from Cornell, authorship of over three hundred scientific papers, and decades of direct research experience. Perhaps not surprisingly, The China Study was quickly absorbed into the vegan community as a bible of sorts—the final word on the harmfulness of animal foods, and indisputable proof that a plant-only diet is best for mankind. To the exasperation of meat lovers everywhere (especially those who enjoy arguing for sport), once lively debates with vegans were now extinguished with one simple phrase: Just read The China Study!
But despite the book’s black-and-white declarations about animal products—and its seemingly well-referenced arguments—The China Study is not a work of scientific vigor. As we’ll see in this article, the book’s most widely repeated claims, particularly involving Campbell’s cancer research and the results of the China-Cornell-Oxford Project, are victims of selection bias, cherry picking, and woefully misrepresented data.
Does Animal Protein Cause Cancer?
The seeds of animal-food doubt were first planted early in Campbell’s career, while he was working in the Philippines on a project to help combat malnutrition. A colleague informed him of a startling trend: liver cancer was plaguing affluent Filipinos at a much higher rate than their less-wealthy counterparts—a phenomenon that, despite a slew of other lifestyle differences, Campbell believed was linked to their higher intake of animal protein.1 Bolstering his suspicions, Campbell also learned of a recent study from India showing that a high protein intake spurred liver cancer in rats, while a low protein intake seemed to prevent it.2 Intrigued by this gem of little-known research, Campbell decided to investigate the role of nutrition in cancer growth himself—an endeavor that ended up lasting several decades and producing over one hundred publications (none of which pertained to Fight Club).3
The China Study relayed Campbell’s findings with powerful simplicity. In a series of experiments, Campbell and his team exposed rats to very high levels of aflatoxin—a carcinogen produced by mold that grows on peanuts and corn—and then fed them a diet containing varying levels of the milk protein casein. In study after study, the rats eating only 5 percent of their total calories as casein remained tumor-free, while the rats eating 20 percent of their calories as casein developed abnormal growths that marked the beginning of liver cancer. As Campbell described, he could control cancer in those rodents “like flipping a light switch on and off,” simply by altering the amount of casein they consumed.4
Despite these provocative findings, Campbell wasn’t ready to declare all protein a threat to public health and stamp the peanut butter aisle with Mr. Yuk stickers. Animal protein, it turned out, seemed to be uniquely villainous. In several of his experiments, when the aflatoxin-exposed rats were fed wheat protein or soy protein in place of casein, they didn’t develop any cancer—even at the 20 percent level that proved so detrimental with casein.5 It seemed that those plant proteins were not only PETA-approved, but also the least likely to turn rat livers into tumor factories.
These findings led Campbell to his firm and famous conclusion: that all animal protein—but not plant protein—could uniquely promote cancer growth. Out with the steak, in with the tofu! But as several critics have pointed out,6,7 that proclamation required a few somersaults of logic (and maybe some cartwheels of delusion). The effects of casein—particularly isolated casein, separated from other components of dairy that often work synergistically—can’t be generalized to all forms of milk protein, much less all forms of animal protein. An impressive number of studies shows that the other major milk protein, whey, consistently suppresses tumor growth rather than promoting it, likely due to its ability to raise glutathione levels.8,9 Another of Campbell’s own studies suggests that fish protein acts as a cancer-promoter when paired with corn oil, but not when paired with fish oil—highlighting the importance of dietary context (and the neverending terribleness of vegetable oils).10
And the kicker: one of Campbell’s most relevant experiments—which sadly received no mention in The China Study—showed that when wheat gluten is supplemented with lysine to make a complete protein, it behaves exactly like casein to promote tumor growth.11 This means that animal protein doesn’t have some mystical ability to spur cancer by mere virtue of its origin in a sentient creature—just that a full spectrum of amino acids provide the right building blocks for growth, whether it be of malignant cells or healthy ones. And as any vegan who’s been asked “Where do you get your protein?” for the eight hundredth time will answer, even a plant-only diet supplies complete protein through various mixtures of legumes, grains, nuts, vegetables, and other approved vegan fare. Theoretically, a meal of rice and beans would provide the same so-called cancer-promoting amino acids that animal protein does. Indeed, Campbell’s experiments lose their relevance in the context of a normal, real-world diet opposed to the purified menu of casein, sugar, and corn oil his rats received.
But that’s only the tip of the proteinaceous iceberg. In his September 2010 article, “The Curious Case of Campbell’s Rats,”12 Chris Masterjohn ventured beyond the well lit pages of The China Study to explore the dark alleys of Campbell’s publications firsthand. And what he found regarding the low-protein rats was a far cry from the sunshine-and-lollipops descriptions we read in the book. Although rats consuming a high-casein diet were indeed developing liver cancer as Campbell described, the ones in the low-casein groups—which were portrayed as downright bright-eyed and shiny-coated in The China Study—were suffering an even worse fate. Campbell’s research actually showed that a low-protein diet increases the acute toxicity of aflatoxin, resulting in cell genocide and premature death. Because protein deficiency prevents the liver from successfully doing its detoxifying duties, less aflatoxin gets converted into cancer-causing metabolites, but the end result is massive (and eventually deadly) tissue damage.
Even the research from India that jump-started Campbell’s interest in the diet-cancer link showed that rats on a low-casein diet were dying with disturbing frequency, while the high-protein rats—tumored as they may have been—were at least staying alive.13 (It’s surprising, then, that The China Study promotes a plant-based diet to prevent cancer, when death is equally effective and requires fewer shopping trips.)
More clues for understanding the casein-cancer research come from another Indian study—this one published in the late 1980s, and examining the effects of protein in aflatoxin-exposed monkeys instead of rats.14 As with Campbell’s experiments, the monkeys were fed diets containing either 5 percent or 20 percent casein, but with one important difference: instead of being slammed with an astronomically (and unrealistically) high dose of aflatoxin, the monkeys were exposed to lower, daily doses—mimicking a real-world situation where aflatoxin is consumed frequently in small amounts from contaminated foods. In a fabulous case of scientific switcheroo, this study showed that it was the low-protein monkeys who got cancer, while the high-protein monkeys rejoiced in their tumorlessness.
This apparent paradox highlights a major problem in Campbell’s rat research: the level of aflatoxin exposure plays a critical role in how protein affects cancer growth. When the aflatoxin dose is sky high, animals eating a low-protein diet don’t get cancer because their cells are too busy dying en masse, while animals eating a higher protein diet are still consuming enough dietary building blocks for the growth of cells—whether healthy or cancerous. When the aflatoxin dose is more moderate, animals eating a low-protein diet develop cancer while their higher-protein counterparts remain in mighty fine health.
In a nutshell, the animal protein fear-mongering in The China Study stems from wildly misconstrued science. What Campbell’s rat experiments really showed wasn’t that animal protein is a vengeful macronutrient of doom, but the following:
1. High-quality protein promotes cell growth no matter where it comes from;
2. Protein deficiency thwarts the liver’s ability to detoxify dangerous substances; and
3. With more realistic doses of aflatoxin, protein is actually tremendously protective against cancer, while protein-restricted diets prove harmful.
First of all, both of those are for chimps. Don't give me any crap about similarities in DNA and brains, even among different species of monkey they have different behaviors.
Second
Seems like the only "natural murder" comes from defending your territory. I don't think killing a burglar that breaks into your house is a bad thing.
>livescience.com
Your own source debunked you.
Point out to me where in the book the data does not suggest that populations with lower meat, dairy, and egg consumption have lower chronic-disease risk.
I have the book here with me. Tell me what page and chapter.
One line from hearing him speak you can tell hes retarded
Yeah, like everyone else in UFC- he's a fighter, not a scientist. The fact that he was able to beat Connor McGreggor while training on a totally vegan diet speaks volumes against the claim that a vegan diet will leave you weak and anemic.
There are many newer studies, some of which I've posted here already, that show the link between a meat-rich diet and cancer. Still, I'd like to know specifically what you're referring to in the book. Send me the page number of the study that should be referenced, I have the book with me.
As always, whatever americans make popular, is based on fraud.
westonaprice.org
/faggot
No it's not, and you're about to show me how stupid you are for saying that.
Right off the bat you're not addressing my argument. I stated that if you have to limit your consumption of something because even moderate over-consumption causes disease, then you shouldn't be consuming it.
My argument was about what is in line with your anatomy, sitting is hardly "going against our nature" nor is it as harmful as eating cheeseburgers or smoking cigarettes.
Although my argument wasn't about what's "natural", it was about what is healthy to consume in relation to our anatomy.
What an intellectual you are. . .
Considering the prevalence of breast cancer it's a good analogue. But you are ignoring the other study I posted that was in regard to cancer cells in general.
You didn't read it, but you know what it says. . .LMAO
It notes that meat, dairy, and egg consumption is a risk factor for breast-cancer- my argument was in regard to the optimal diet- if you can only eat a little tiny bit, or else you'll increase you risk of cancer, then it's hardly optimal.
i dont think you can even follow your own argument
lmao, don't believe that anyone is anti-vegetarian
Anti-VEGANism is something that is much more realistic and logical
I'm still reading the 4 posts in regard to the China Study- I didn't post anything suggesting no one look at the works of critics. Cool your jets.
BTW, showing that one specific portion of one study, when I've poted numerous other more recent studies proving the same, is hardly showing that I'm "full of shit"
meanwhile, you can't find one study, or piece of medical literature by an accredited organization, that shows saturated fat and cholesterol consumption isn't implicated in heart disease- and you're still unable to refute my prior post in regard to your lack of anatomical adaptations to eat meat.
When all the evidence points to a vegan diet being optimal for longevity and chronic disease prevention- you're not looking so logical being "anti-vegan"
ethical veganism is garbage tho
I never said I agreed with it, but you have to admit the arguments for anti-veganism have more logical reasoning than anti-vegetarianism
ss
you ban meat, little man, ill just eat you and the politicians
You stated yourself you have to limit your consumption, not eliminate it. I don't see what's hard to understand about that, and I certainly didn't fail to address your argument.
besynchro.com
The one that was about prostate cancer, you mean?
You were the one that linked to the abstracts with links to the full texts behind a paywall. I don't see what else you wanted me to do.
Who said I didn't read it?
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
We're back to the same topic as before, where you can just reduce your consumption. Or don't bother too much if you're not generally predisposed to cancer anyway.
Good counterargument.
First of all, Weston A. Price is not a medical organization, and its members are not board-certified medical professionals. They are a "non-profit" that takes donations from cattle-ranchers and makes money promoting dairy "Real Milk Campaign" and making fallacious statements about the dangers of soy "Soy Alert!". It's no surprise that their proponents and attendees are, overwhelmingly, overweight old women. Pics related. (from conference)
Secondly, it's important to note that The China Study covers more than just cancer-development. Obesity, diabetes, autoimmune disease, and heart-disease are covered in the book as well.
Also note that the link between meat consumption and cancer has been established by multiple studies independent of Dr. Campbell's work (the testing methods he uses for the cancer promoting aspects of animal foods isolate proteins specifically and is performed on mice- newer studies show that a range of components in meat, dairy, and eggs work synergistically to promote cancer development in humans. I've posted studies earlier in this thread in relation to the link between meat consumption and cancer risk.
Yeah, don't bother linking those to references- I trust you.
This I have no qualms with. The fish-cancer study wasn't well performed. There are other reasons to not eat fish though, I posted some studies on the health implications of fish consumption earlier in the thread. (And yes consuming processed oil, especially when heated, is bad for you)
Fails to mention the source of the lysine.
I take issue with Campbell's studies on rats using isolated proteins regardless- but the source of the lysine was animal-based.
Also, they're rats, not people. Population studies are better benchmarks.
I never contested that it was the animal protein alone that promoted cancer. It's a combination of factors in EX: Heme-iron, IGF-1, saturated-fat, cholesterol, etc. . .
2. Protein deficiency thwarts the liver’s ability to detoxify dangerous substances; and
3. With more realistic doses of aflatoxin, protein is actually tremendously protective against cancer, while protein-restricted diets prove harmful.
These claims are shaky and dishonest, in regard to "debunking" the superiority of a vegan diet.
No shit, the issue is cancer cells though, not cells in general. Methionine has been shown to promote cancer cell growth- guess where methionine comes from. . .
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
No one is talking about BANNING meat.
But vegan strongman Patrik Baboumian could teach you a thing or two about how to put on size.
Or the thousands of other people in the same profession that eat meat could do just as good a job at helping you put on size.
But you have to go to the vegan one because veganism is a religion.
I didn't say you "have to" do anything. I am arguing what's optimal. As long as you understand that meat, dairy, and eggs are not good for you, I don't care. Having two cigars a week wont kill you either, but it's not optimal.
I'm talking about the ideal diet, not what you can get away with.
>besynchro.com
Please refrain from posting blogs instead of actual studies or medical literature. Or if you're going to post a blog, at least let it be a blog by a medical doctor.
Also, I said that sitting wasn't unnatural- and it isn't. You don't need a chair to sit. But, yes, squatting or standing is objectively healthier than sitting in a chair for hours on end.
How exactly is this relevant to veganism?
It was my mistake. Here's the full one for free. (Despite that, all you had to do was search the title, dude)
ornish.com
I refer you to my previous answer. I'm talking about the optimal diet- not what you can get away with and still live.
Fuck Yeah !
Praise the bacon trips
Can't you read?
You go vegan because it reduces your risk of heart-disease, gout, gall-stones, and various forms of cancer.
Anatomically speaking, a human is not an omnivore. See my prior post outlining the anatomical attributes of humans that are at odds with all truly omnivorous animals.
If meat is a necessity for strength, then shouldn't they be BETTER at helping you gain mass? LMAO
Notice how lean Baboumian is compared to other strong-men, who don't even hold his record. Eat meat if you want to get fat.
Thats just your sales pitch and it only works on americans since they're the ones at great risk for those things because they eat too much in general.
For the suckers that fall for it its no different than being in a religion where suddenly you have to do so much more than just change your diet to be a "real vegan", and you'll find your wallet emptying faster than it would in a church.
I'm not drinking the koolaid, sorry.
3 numbers in a row on a Mongolian image-board won't prevent you from getting heart-disease, faggot.
By the way, I love bacon memes. Totally not played-out yet. google.com
Inuits have some of the highest rates of heart-disease and atherosclerosis of any population.
The populations with the longest recorded life-spans (Seventh-Day Adventists and pre 1950's Okinawans) are populations that eat little-to-no meat, dairy, or eggs.
Take a minute to read through the studies and argument posted in this thread. We've been over this already. Population studies from accross the gloe show that people who eat less meat, dairy, and eggs- and more fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains, nuts, and seeds - have lower risk of heart-disease, gout, gall-stones, diabetes, obesity, etc. . .(and longer life-spans on average)
Vegan men also have higher testosterone on average, and dairy is highly feminizing.
see:
and
actually read the studies (or at least the abstracts)
Do you have a learning-disability?
You don't have to do shit, there's no title to uphold. I eat the way I do because it keeps me trim and healthy- I don't fraternize with the ethical-vegans who support animal rights, and you don't have to be and ethical-vegan to follow a vegan diet.
But that's not even what you're worried about, is it? You just don't have the will-power to put the tendies down.
...
You misunderstand. You stated you have toabstain from meat in order to have your "optimal" diet.
I'm saying your sources say you're wrong. Meat can be in an optimal diet as long as it's in moderation. They all say you have to go low on fat, which isn't impossible while still having meat.
Alright.
philmaffetone.com
Do you have difficulty reading a couple posts back?
It was an example of something we do everyday that isn't natural. My point is doing something we weren't designed for is not necessarily a bad thing.
It's your job to back up your claims, not mine.
See above. Meat can still be in the optimal diet.
How fitting that the fat sack of shit is pointing fun at the fit and handsome vegan in that image-macro. . . very fitting.
lean meat should be good. Plus the fatasses on the right look like they each eat several pounds of food per meal and don't exercise.
and while I'm not vegan, I have considered it. Tried it once - a little tired but quicker shits. Find a decent vegan/vegintarian food that gives the energy meat does and you'll make the diet more popular. vegan gains fucked up the efforts of sooo many vegans and vegetarians - he's a fucking dick. good luck m8 - i'll check back in a few days to see if you've run across anything
I was a vegetarian for 9 years of my life, from the age of 7 to the age of 16. I did it because I was a hippy faggot, and my parents didn't give a shit. I had to eat an incredible amount of food to get anywhere near the correct amount of protein, so I was hungry when I was full. I hit puberty very late, and hit it very slowly. One summer, I lived with my grandparents. They wouldn't put up with my faggotry, and starved me into eating delicious meat. I grew 18 inches my first year of eating meat, I lost 50 pounds, got out of my depression, and got /fit/. My bad diet still fucked me up, and I am not as tall as either of my parents and I really doubt my dad got cucked by a manlet, since I look like him otherwise If you want to be a little faggot herbivore, that's your right, but remember that herbivores get killed and eaten by faster, stronger carnivores.
me
That I don't deny. You need to do what I and the doctors espouse in order to have an OPTIMAL diet. . . But I am not denying that you need to have an optimal diet. I just want you to know that your diet is not optimal, there are quite a few people out there who believe they are omnivores that need meat to live- they are killing themselves slowly over misinformation.
No you are not, you are saying that limiting a risk factor rather than eliminating it is "optimal". By definition that is not optimal.
If a factor of your diet must be moderated, because the risk factor is dose-dependent, and it is not a factor that is a necessity or gives you any health advantage. . . by definition, it is not optimal. You are adding risk unnecessarily, no matter how minor.
op·ti·mal
ˈäptəməl/Submit
adjective
best or most favorable; optimum.
"seeking the optimal solution"
philmaffetone.com
Thank you, although it's redundant. I conceded in my last post that sitting in a chair for an extended period of time is not healthy. For this reason I do not sit at a desk to use my home computer.
This neither discredits optimal diet, nor holds relevance to the present discussion (regarding ideal, or optimal, diet)
That would be relevant if I was arguing that one should be vegan because it is "natural" but I was not.
and my point was exclusively in regard to dietary consumption and digestive anatomy.
I said it was my mistake, I gave you the full text- chill out.
See above, you don't seem to understand what "optimal" means.
...
Yeah, I'm not a fan of Vegan Gainz (Richard) either. His "Worst of the fitness industry" shit isn't bad, but he should stick to the evidence-based refutations. His comedy, and his ethical stance, are fucking cringe-worthy.
...
still can't believe the guy used his grandfather's death to get views. night
It's called moderation of not being a fatass.
Don't be a southern piece of shit and eat KFC all day. It's as simple as that.
That meme sure got me good!
I don't see how people find this difficult.
The way I do it most days is:
Oatmeal and fruit smoothie for breakfast.
Rice and vegetables for lunch with plenty of carbs (If I don't prepare something at home I just go to Chipotle or subway or a SouthEast Asian restaurant or something)
Dinner is another starchy meal and a salad
Sometimes I snack on mixed nuts and dried fruit.
As long as you're eating carbs (especially starch) with every meal, your golden. I cycle and lift weights as well. No lack of energy.
Work on your creative writing, Pajeet. It's still not believable.
Also vegetarianism is infinitely inferior to veganism. Dairy prevents you from absorbing iron properly- if you're getting an overdose of iron from meat you can balance it out. But vegetarians don't know shit about nutrition.
...
...
so eat only meat for maximum iron then, simple
www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/265215.php
bmi is disproven, try again you communist hippy faggot
...
Way to do literally the exact same thing frustrated chubby tendies-loving faggots did in the last thread- get BTFO with scientific evidence and then spam
-as if that doesn't make you look like a shit-head who is mentally unable to argue his point with evidence.
FTFY
In addition, the article doesn't even contest the graph I posted, it just points out that BMI doesn't necessarily measure health (which everyone knows already)
Above you there are a miriad of medical studies proving the health benefits of a vegan diet, but please, tell me more about how everyone that was averaged in that BMI chart was actually just super-ripped power-lifters rather than chubby sacks of shit who consume microwave-frozen ready meals, chocolate milk, and chicken-tendies.
I think you're out of your element, dude.
He tried to. Honestly wish he had, it would have been taken down (obviously) but someone would have saved it.
It would have been just like when that faggot Onision filmed his girlfriend having a seizure.
of course vegans have a low bmi when most of them are anorexics
they are the only group that, on average, are in the healthy BMI range.
But I guess from your perspective, anyone who doesn't look like a sagging sack of wet rags is "anorexic" you greasy little butterball.
this is your average omnivore
If it weren't for the dbol and clenbuterol, Jeff Seid would look like shit- just like the chubby 14-year-olds who follow his diet plan.
BTW, look how fucking autistic he acts- dude is only on gear to compensate for his lack of social skills. This shit is pure cringe.
how about you post a picture of yourself then? oh wait you won't because there's only a select few vegans who aren't anorexic, and you're not one of them. at least the average person has the opportunity to get big on an omnivorous diet
being a vegetarian is simply putting arbitrary limits on what you can eat. If you simply eat vegetables most meals yet still have fish or lean meats like chicken sparingly its almost strictly better than being vegetarian
you better not have eaten a burger in your life or you're going to die of heart disease you sick animal murdering fuck
Insulin release will give you muscles if you've properly trained previously and a fair amount of plants have protein. Posting buff vegans is pointless
Is it supposed to be a ground breaking revelation that people who are mindful of their diets are living longer than poor countries that don't have a choice in what they eat or americans who just don't give a fuck?
Of course populations who don't allow themselves to eat a certain kind of food are going to be more aware of their diet and plan it specifically around getting the nutrients they're missing from all the food they won't eat, it doesn't have as much to do with being vegan as it does just being mindful of your fucking diet and not eating mostly processed foods and meat for every meal.
I thought you posted that as a joke, I just wanted to take that opportunity to tell you what I thought of him- I think he's taking advantage of kids who should know better- who should be able to tell what's natural and what's not.
If you honestly idolize Jeff Seid- I'm sorry. . .
Seriously though, his dietary advice is in dierct conflict with what a cardiologist will tell you. Don't buy his workout guides either, there's nothing in there that's unique or worth your money. Supplements are a scam too- they wont get you ripped-up like someone who takes winny and clen.
Said no medical professional, ever. . .
Vegetarianism is shit. Dairy is feminizing, full of saturated-fat, and loaded with IGF-1 (which raises your risk of developing cancer)
Eggs aren't good for you either- Did you ever consider that maybe you aren't a truly omnivorous animal- from an anatomical perspective? . . .
Let's run through a list of biological traits that humans have that are in direct conflict with the traits of any other omnivorous or carnivorous mammal:
1)A tongue that lacks receptors for ATP
2)Cholesterol synthesis
3)Lack of Vitamin C synthesis
4)Laterally moving mandible
5)Carbohydrate digesting enzyme (amylase) in saliva
6)Narrow esophagus
7)Stomach acid with a pH of 2-3.5 (whereas carnivores have stomach acid pH of 1-2)
8)Bile too weak to break-up crystallized cholesterol before it forms gall-stones
9)Lack of the enzyme Uricase, which breaks-down uric-acid before it causes gout.
10)Necessity of fiber (cellulose) in the diet to pass waste properly
11)Low stomach-volume in comparison to intestinal volume. (The stomach volume of a carnivore, or true omnivore, represents 60-70% of the total capacity of the digestive system. )
Intestinal track 7 times body-length that allows meat to ferment and create sulfur-dioxide (implicated in colon-cancer) True omnivores and carnivores have short digestive tracts that expel meat before it can ferment.
12)etc. . .
From mouth-to-anus you lack every adaptation to eat meat, and have all the same adaptations your great-ape cousins have- adaptations to eat a plant-based diet. (The one exception is that humans make significantly more amylase enzyme, which is implicated in the digestion of starch as the result of learning to cook and, by extension, eating starchy root-vegetables and grains)
Still not convinced?
Look at population studies, populations that eat the least meat, dairy, and eggs have the lowest risk of chronic disease (including cancer)
Before the Okinawans adopted a more Westernized diet they had the longest average life-spans of any population. Their diet had less than 4% of total daily calories coming from animal foods, and the bulk of their consumption was vegetables and legumes.
Currently the Seventh Day Adventists are the population with the longest average recorded life-span. They follow a diet rich in whole fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains, nuts, and seeds- with no meat, dairy, or egg consumption.
Vegans, who aren't in it for the ethics, follow the diet because we understand biology and human dietetics. Eating meat, dairy, and eggs is not optimal- animal products and processed food are not part of the perfect human diet.
Here's some scientific studies:
BTW Vegan men have higher testosterone on average. Put down that chocolate milk and eat your greens, you chubby little queer.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
still waiting for you to post a pic of yourself, until then your research that you're posting means jack shit to me
...
Really wish we could separate ethical veganism from dietetic veganism. Ethical vegans give the diet a bad reputation.
Who the fuck is a dietary vegan? It's arguably not as healthy as a well balanced diet.
Veganism is a first world problem invented by bored people.
Actions of the past do not justify actions of the present.
Obviously cave-men didn't have to worry about being over-weight or dying of heart-disease.
Do you think we should emulate cave-men? Should we give up on plumbing and shit in the street like Pajeet? Would that be healthy?
Meat's a source of extra calories when you're in a bind, but that doesn't make us omnivores. Deer and cows will eat birds if given the opportunity, that doesn't make them anatomically omnivorous. It's important to note, also, that you can give any herbivore heart-disease by feeding it saturated-fat and cholesterol the same as a human- but bears (anatomical omnivores) won't get heart-disease from saturated-fat and cholesterol no matter how much they're fed.
I also refer you to this list of anatomical traits and studies- I'm sure you'll have no trouble refuting them all.
meat tastes good though, i mean if you want to live to 90 or whatever go for it, but is it really worth needing to be picky over everything you eat just for that? your enjoyment of life decreases
From what I've read red meat isn't bad for you in and of itself. It's the preparation (high heat) which causes the health issues. Unfortunately high heat makes meat tasty so….
Eating something that you have no nutritional need for, that also causes chronic disease with time, is not balance.
You should start eating lead paint-chips- if you don't your not getting a balanced diet.
"You don't eat cigarette butts? What are you ORTHOREXIC"
Scroll up a little and do some reading.
There's a list of reasons why you're not a real omnivore and a bunch of studies showing how much healthier you'd be if you gave up the vices of meat, dairy, and eggs.
It is not necessity, it is not healthy, it is hedonism, it is self destruction.
What I am espousing was invented by cardiologists, biologists, and physicians. It is the perfect human diet.
the only qualifying condition to be an omnivore is to eat animal products and plant products
Saturated fat, cholesterol, and uric-acid are not healthy. Gall stones are not healthy, heart-disease is not healthy, diverticulitis is not healthy.
Read the post I referred you to, and the studies I linked in that post.
Here, I'll post it again for you:
The evidence is all there, and all verifiable by medical professionals.
wrong
from what i've seen, yes there vegans for the ethics, but there are so many people(like myself) who were having problems on whatever diet they tried, eventually finding that veganism is a really good parameter to fix alot of issues. not a healthy diet by default Animal loving-druggie-hippies give veganism a weird rep. Health conscious vegans are armed to the brim with facts supporting their position on nutrition
...
Only in behavior, not by biology.
We lack the adaptations that other omnivores have to eat meat without developing chronic disease.
It's the TAXONOMIC term, not the dictionary definition that I'm referring to. From a biological perspective- you are not omnivorous.
Can you refute the list of traits I provided you?
i would go vegan but it's too expensive
An omnivore is anything that can obtain energy and nutrients from both plant matter and meat. Humans can do this, thus they are omnivores. The effectiveness of consumption doesn't matter.
The information is there, it's fewer words than a fucking buzzfeed article, and I wrote it all myself. But I know that's not the real issue- you know you don't have the wherewithal to contest my claims, because you don't know a fucking thing about biology or dietetics. You'd only embarrass yourself, so you post this lazt cop-out.
idgaf about health, vegan food tastes like shit
hey bro ur pretty good at this, are you VG?? hehehe
pic
who is this meant to convince? this seems like a good reason not to make these foods your staple
it is objectively cheaper to buy vegetables, legumes, grains, nuts, fruits, and seeds than it is to buy meat, dairy, eggs, and processed food.
Why do you think Vietnamese rice farmers, who live on $1 a day eat oats and rice and vegetables instead of steak and eggs? Are you stupid, or have you not even thought about it?
Wew
People who care about their health, people who want to save money, and the over-lap in-between.
Yeah, you wouldn't want to sully your upper-crust palate with fruits and vegetables- blegh- that's darkie peasant food. Your refined palate is only fit for hot-pockets and chicken tendies.
...
tell me user, what is it that you would need to see, or have proven, that would convince you to attempt a proper vegan diet?
There are many proven studies waiting to persuade you if you would listen to them
precisely, hot pockets and tendies are the most delicious stable food
You don't give a fuck about convincing someone that veganism or vegetarianism is the better choice, you just want to jerk your dick off about how "smart" you are for eating veggies. All of this is just a shit excuse for you to try to convince yourself you're better than random strangers on the internet, which is pretty damn pathetic.
when its easier to do so, i.e. milk/eggs not in every processed food. and even then it will only be by accident because i still wont check ingredients for non-vegan stuff
Not that user, but give me one study to read, I ain't got time to wade through piles of shit.
1) Yes, we eat too much meat. A little meat in moderation is fine
2) Processed foods are worse than natural foods, regardless if they are meat or not
3) Veganism goes too far, vegetarianism seems healthier
4) Every vegan I know is an anemic little string bean
5) None of the "blue zone" have vegan diets: en.wikipedia.org
6) The human body is pretty amazing. Micromanaging your shit isn't necessary.
LMAO. The only reason I have all this shit on-hand and memorized is because my friends and relatives (most of whom are overweight, total coincidence) ask me/ tease me about it- Every once in a while we'd get into an argument and I have to run through all this shit.I keep a lot of the studies saved to my phone now.
I try to make a good impression of the diet's benefits. I lift weights, I cycle, I don't eat processed food. In high-school I was chubby (5'11" 250lbs) now I'm 185lbs and around 10% body-fat. Entirely the result of this diet.
I was introduced to it through Dr. Michael Greger and Dr. John A. McDougall first. (McDougall actually lives pretty close to me, but I've never met him- want to tho) I really don't like the youtube vegan crowd- way to much faggy drama. Vegain Gainz isn't funny, I think he has asperger's. . . but at least Dr. Greger has a channel.
Calories in vs. calories out. You can get fat on a vegan diet, we call them "potato chip vegans".
If you have to moderate your consumption, or else get disease- you shouldn't be eating that thing at all. No one gets heart-disease from fruits and vegetables.
No shit Sherlock
Evidence? No? Didn't think so. Dairy and eggs are not health-foods. They are bad for your cardiovascular system, raise cancer risk, and dairy is feminizing.
The zones with the lowest meat, dairy, and egg consumption also have the lowest rates of chronic disease- but that's a total coincidence, right?
The longest-lived population presently is the Seventh Day Adventists, who follow a no processed food vegan diet. The Okinawans pre-1950's (before their diet became more westernized) previously held the title of longest-lived people. Less than 4% of their daily calories came from meat, dairy, and eggs.
All the more reason to smoke cigarettes and eat paint-chips, right? You're clearly not in pursuit of optimum health.
see my post outlining my evidence, studies are linked.
I wrote it out myself, not copypasta. Please read.
apparently you have a vitamin deficiency causing impaired brain functions. that or you are fucking retarded
IGF-1, estrogen,and insulin will put weight on you regardless of whether or not you consume more calories.
Biology is more complicated than a car's engine, dullard.
So you aren't allowed to eat anything at all?
If we were herbivores, we wouldn't have fangs. Strictly limiting ourselves to vegetables won't make us any healthier.
A balanced diet of both sides is the ultimate best way of living.. So yes, why don't we have both?
Pretty sure he's gone now, dude.
If you stay out too long in the sun you'll get skin cancer, does that mean you shouldn't go in the sun?
The human body is perfectly capable of looking after itself within reasonable conditions. Equating smoking cigarettes with eating meat is fucking retarded.
holy fuck you need to eat some meat your brain is shutting down.
Please, describe for me in vivid detail (with sources) how eating fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains, nuts, and seeds carries with it the same dose-dependent risk of chronic disease that meat, dairy, and egg consumption does.
You have no argument. You don't know shit about dietetics and digestive anatomy. I see you ignored the post I referred you to which hosts my arguments and evidence WHICH NO ONE HAS YET BEEN ABLE TO REFUTE
Try harder, faggot.
i eat meat to assert my dominance over other animals. i dont even like the taste, i just want those sub-humans to know the score.
You are more likely to suffer these issues if your diet is fucking terrible and you don't know what a salad is. Not from eating meat.
Do you consume the sun? My argument was specific to consumption. Stay on topic, I understand you want desperately to stray off topic in order to ignore the evidence I referred you to- but please, let's keep this moving.
Diet-related heart-disease kills more people annually than lung-cancer shit-head.
Why don't you just eat thousands and thousands of calories of bananas all day every day for the rest of your life, its perfectly healthy because its not meat after all so nothing bad can come of it.
The primary risk factors for heart-disease are saturated-fat and cholesterol consumption, you absolute ass-hat. If meat is good for you, why do you have to limit it so much more rigorously compared to salad in order to not develop a disease?
nigga are you for real? assuming they're not deep fried in a bucket of lard eggs are one of the healthiest things you can eat
You absorb nutrients from the sun, idiot. The analogy stands despite you thinking anything that slightly veers from your specific argument is off topic.
Not specifically meat related, just diet. As in, an unhealthy, unbalanced diet comprised of processed foods and large amounts of sugar? Or a regular diet with an even amount of well-prepared meat and vegetables?
I wonder if the same amount of people who smoke also eat meat? Oh no wait, it's far far less. And therefore far less people who get lung disease, so of course more people die from diet-related diseases you fucking moron. Literally everyone has to eat, and is therefore at risk.
AT LAST MY EYES ARE OPEN.
because meat is full of calories compared to eating greens so its easy to overdo it.
Theres such a thing as eating an unhealthy amount of salad too, it would just take a shitload more salad than it would meat.
Thats why vegans have to spend all day eating constantly and never feeling full.
Because it is protein and calorie rich and your digestive system has limits; and also because if you fill up on meat you can't fulfill your other nutritional needs. The healthy intake of meat consumption is about the size of your palm, 2 or 3 times a week.
Too much of any one food is bad for you. A diverse diet with all things in moderation is optimal.
Hey fucknut, you do know patrik baboumian has a BMI of 38.9 making him Obese according to BMI, so on average YES vegans are all skinny little twinks.
Well it certainly wont give you fucking heart-disease and gout, will it?
Realistically, you could do this and be fine- and some people do. Eventually you have to eat other plants because of micro-nutrient requirements, but doing this won't give you a chronic disease- and because of the volume/calorie ratio you would be nigh physically-unable to make yourself obese doing this. And, no, you wouldn't over-dose on potassium.
Some professional endurance athletes actually do this before races. Your arguments are shit. Read the studies, read what I referred you to before- you might fucking learn something.
Even if you have compelling evidence, your argumentation skills are that of a two year old. No one is going to listen to your dumb ass when you compare a non vegan diet to eating paint chips, retard.
No, it'll just give you potassium poisoning. Also you can get gout from eating too much fruit, so that kind of throws a spanner in your argument doesn't it?
again with this argument
Do you honestly think that the average overweight or obese person (remember this graph is on averages across first-world nations) is actually a ripped power-lifter at 7% body-fat? . . . or is it more likely that they were a bunch of soggy grease-balls with cellulite on their man-boobs. The reason vegans, on average, are the only group in the healthy BMI range, is because a vegan diet is what suits your body best.
what about starch? what about fucking water? if you dont moderate your consumption of EVERYTHING you will die
That graph literally says nothing. Is it BMI? Age? You need to label both axes retard
are you arguing that vegans aren't on average skinny twinks? because your graph contradicts that.
Wow so you mean you have to moderate your diet and not consume too much of one food? Obviously fruits and vegetables aren't good for you at all then because you can't just eat one vegetable for the rest of your life and be healthy.
Thats the kind of retarded logic you're using on us about meat and expecting us to see veganism as something worthwhile.
No its because vegans are mindful of their diet, it has nothing to do with what the diet is just the fact that you keep track of what you eat when other people just eat meat for every meal every day and wonder why they're gaining weight.
If everyone was as obsessed over their diet as vegans are then everyone would be at a healthy weight.
...
Evidence?
No? Didn't think so.
Gout is caused by Uric-acid build-up. There are several articles online (which are not written by medical professionals) that suggest certain fruits MAY aggrivate pre-existing gout. The idea is that fructose, like in soft-drinks can convert to uric-acid- but they fail to mention that fructose, when bound to fiber, is absorbed in the colon, rather than the duodenum like soft-drink- fructose absorbed in the colon doesn't convert as readily to uric-acid. . .
Even then, the risk is so astronomically small compared to the risk of developing gout from animal products that it is statistically irrelevant.
No it will not give you fucking potassium poisoning. There are people who actually eat 3000 calories of bananas in a day (you physically can't eat that all at once) and they don't develop potassium poisoning. It's called banana-island, it's an internet trend and it's completely safe. A lot fucking safer than what Furious Pete does, motherfucker got nut cancer TWICE and it's not for no reason.
At the rate of your bodies potassium clearance, one would have to eat 400 bananas in a 4 hour period to get potassium poisoning.
So, no- that doesn't throw a spanner in my argument- you should be wearing a red helmet, you fucking retard.
Try to contest any of the claims I made in the post I referred you to. Why are you avoiding it in favor of trying to find and example situation in which fruit and vegetables can be even CLOSE to as harmful for your health as meat, dairy, and eggs. (Good luck)
Do you have a learning disability? Read the top line of the graph.
but i'm not a vegan and i'm not fat i just like to eat meat
Clips form movies are not arguments. Prove my arguments wrong. Read through my evidence:
Pro tip: you can't
Good for you, dude. Meat's still not healthy. Enjoy your first cardiac ischemia- it'll be like a special 40th birthday present from all the animals you ate.
Being Vegan is awesome. It's the socially acceptable way of saying "No fat chicks".
FTFY
Enjoy your heart-attack you fat constipated faggot!
That sounds like it came off of a Hallmark-store fridge magnet. Not bad though, if OC.
Neither is a terrible unsourced graph, you cretin.
I'm actually borderline anorexic and if I didn't have a decent amount of meat in my diet every day I'd probably have died already because I have no appetite and meat is the only thing high enough in calories to keep me from losing weight.
Don't let me stop you from pretending that everyone on earth who eats meat is fat though.
Hardly analogous to the moderation you need to enact in order to not get heart-disease or gout from your meat consumption.
If I was making the argument that you shouldn't eat meat because it doesn't have every nutrient you need, then your post would make sense.
Your arguments are piss-weak, dude. You need to learn to admit when you're outmatched.
Shit, if we known banning meat would have killed you, we'd have done it yesterday.
sciencedirect.com
y'all vegans are fucking dense. i have no problems with you eating the way you please, go enjoy your vegetable smoothies and kale chips. stop trying to force your world view on other people with shitty science, though.
A lot of things aren't healthy, living in general isn't healthy. and i'm not a fat fuck so it's not like i'll die early
keep dreaming
Compare the amount of moderation you need to enact on your meat consumption to avoid developing heart-disease or gout in your old age-and compare that to how much you need to moderate your water or starch consumption before scumming to disease. (Notice how one cannot develop a chronic illness like atherosclerosis from drinking water or eating starch- one can only develop acute illness from eating, or drinking, quantities that are near physically impossible to ingest in the short period of time in which these things have not yet been excreted.)
They are hardly analogous. Why not go after some of the below pieces of evidence, rather than playing a game of semantics that you cannot win?
Here is my post containing the vast majority of my arguments. It is not copy-pasta, I wrote this myself. Please read the studies linked as well (or at least the abstracts):
If humans evolved to eat a strict vegan diet we wouldn't be here. We're able to consume many types of food because we had to, don't know if you know about it, but we didn't always have grocery stores.
We're all proud you found your new religion and are as obnoxious as vegans usually are.
What compared to your argument of moderating a diet including meat being too hard for you therefore nobody should eat meat?
Go fuck yourself, you're the one trying to prove something not me and you're doing a horrible job.
The problem with veganism is that 1st world nations are fat as fuck. ANY permanent change in people's diets is impossible because people don't have diets to begin with.
My argument is that humans lack the adaptations true omnivores have that prevent chronic disease from meat consumption (gout, gall-stones, atherosclerosis)
Yes, the extra calories from meat were, at times, necessary to our paleolithic ancestors- but even a deer or cow can digest meat for the sake of calories, and they will if given the opportunity- but that does not mean they are fit to consume it regularly.
You are a great-ape, and it shows in your digestive anatomy.
Let's run through a list of biological traits that humans have that are in direct conflict with the traits of any other omnivorous or carnivorous mammal:
1)A tongue that lacks receptors for ATP
2)Cholesterol synthesis
3)Lack of Vitamin C synthesis
4)Laterally moving mandible
5)Carbohydrate digesting enzyme (amylase) in saliva
6)Narrow esophagus
7)Stomach acid with a pH of 2-3.5 (whereas carnivores have stomach acid pH of 1-2)
8)Bile too weak to break-up crystallized cholesterol before it forms gall-stones
9)Lack of the enzyme Uricase, which breaks-down uric-acid before it causes gout.
10)Necessity of fiber (cellulose) in the diet to pass waste properly
11)Low stomach-volume in comparison to intestinal volume. (The stomach volume of a carnivore, or true omnivore, represents 60-70% of the total capacity of the digestive system. )
Intestinal track 7 times body-length that allows meat to ferment and create sulfur-dioxide (implicated in colon-cancer) True omnivores and carnivores have short digestive tracts that expel meat before it can ferment.
12)etc. . .
From mouth-to-anus you lack every adaptation to eat meat, and have all the same adaptations your great-ape cousins have- adaptations to eat a plant-based diet. (The one exception is that humans make significantly more amylase enzyme, which is implicated in the digestion of starch as the result of learning to cook and, by extension, eating starchy root-vegetables and grains)
Still not convinced?
Look at population studies, populations that eat the least meat, dairy, and eggs have the lowest risk of chronic disease (including cancer)
Before the Okinawans adopted a more Westernized diet they had the longest average life-spans of any population. Their diet had less than 4% of total daily calories coming from animal foods, and the bulk of their consumption was vegetables and legumes.
Currently the Seventh Day Adventists are the population with the longest average recorded life-span. They follow a diet rich in whole fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains, nuts, and seeds- with no meat, dairy, or egg consumption.
Vegans, who aren't in it for the ethics, follow the diet because we understand biology and human dietetics. Eating meat, dairy, and eggs is not optimal- animal products and processed food are not part of the perfect human diet.
Here's some scientific studies:
BTW Vegan men have higher testosterone on average. Put down that chocolate milk and eat your greens, you chubby little queer.
researchgate.net
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
This is copy-pasted from my previous post because everyone seems to be ignoring it in favor of making wild postulations about dietetics and anatomy with NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. Please read the studies linked (or at least the abstracts)
Your constant comparison to "true carnivores" or "true omnivores" completely ignores the fact that no other animal on the planet is capable of cooking its food so no shit they'll be evolutionarily different than us, this is no true scotsman tier argumentation.
Don't be dishonest, and twist my words, just because you have no evidence to support your outlandish claims. My argument was that one shouldn't eat meat because it is not healthy, and that if even moderate doses cause disease over a long-period of time consumed- therefore no dose is optimal. It is an unnecessary risk. You gain nothing, from a health perspective, by eating meat.
Yes, your arguments are piss-weak. Rather than playing this game of semantics refute something from this
PRO TIP: YOU FUCKING CAN'T, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER DUMB CHUBBY PIECE OF SHIT ON THIS BOARD
Holy fuck what an absolute raging retard you are. Has your fad diet impaired your brain function by any chance or were you just born this way?
Not everyone is the same, I need meat to not become so anorexic that I'd be at risk of dying. The "risk" is absolutely necessary in my case and plenty of others.
Theres nothing special about a vegan diet, the only thing that matters is your awareness of what you're eating and regulating it which can be done without going vegan.
If veganism works for you great, but stop acting like everyone who isn't vegan is doing something wrong because you aren't the arbiter of what is and isn't a healthy diet for everyone.
it can happen
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
livescience.com
davita.com
furthermore, any kind of all fruit diet can fuck you up
articles.mercola.com
Get with the times:
i notice you chose to ignore
And you're trying to sell people on this? That's completely fucking retarded. You might not get potassium poisoning but eating 3000 calories of bananas is not a viable diet for humans you utter moron. 33 bananas a day is a diet for apes, and even they eat other things.
no idea who that is, irrelevant.
Nobody has the time or the inclination to read your fucking verbose arguments you idiot. Try expressing them succinctly if you want to get them across.
that's why we chew our food before swallowing
So our stomach acid is *maybe* a level higher than carnivores. Wow, what a big difference that must make.
Testosterone levels are so important guys! Everyone's a queer except for the vegan twinks who have BMIs of 20
Your entire fucking argument rests on the claim that if you eat meat you will get fat, and that moderating the amount of meat you eat is way too difficult. It's incredibly easy to moderate meat. One or two meals a day of proper meat (not whatever the fuck processed shit it is that permeates american supermarkets) won't make you fat. And if it does increase your likelihood of some disease then so what? Just about everything has the potential to increase your chances of getting a disease. The healthiest possible diet would be some soylent shit that gives you exactly what you need, but people don't want that because they actual enjoy the flavour of food. Why is it do you think that cooking food and the people who cook food well is a large part of literally every culture? Animals don't cook their food, so of course they're not going to have the same enzymes as humans.
Also you keep posting these pictures of shaved animals as though showing that is somehow convincing that they can build muscle just through diet. Except primates and other animals automatically build muscle because their muscles are literally always in use.
What's the bet you'll ignore this as well? And still go about screeching that nobody can prove you wrong. It's easy to be right when you can just dismiss evidence that refutes your claims because it's not up to whatever standards you've decided are necessary.
No it is not a true-scottsman fallacy, you shit-head, because a true-scottsman fallacy would require "true-omnivore" have criteria that aren't concrete and are unatainable. That's what a True-Scottsman fallacy is.
"No true Scotsman is a kind of informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample."
Furthermore, it is not is because cooking meat does not reduce the amount of saturated-fat, cholesterol, or uric-acid.
If cooking meat changed it so severely that it wasn't harmful to eat, I would eat it. But that's not reality, we still lack the same adaptations that omnivores (in the taxonomic sense) have to keep from developing the diseases mentioned.
Also, the majority of humans still eat raw meat on occasion.
IS THIS THE BEST THIS BOARD HAS TO OFFER? I MIGHT AS WELL BE ARGUING WITH A CLASS OF GENDER-STUDIES MAJORS. YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE LOGICAL FALLACIES YOU CLAIM I'M MAKING.
There is no way you're actually real.
Please, please go on an all-nana diet, user. I'm begging you. You're right, potassium poisoning is a myth pushed by Big Meat, show them who's boss, please!
We also lack functions that plenty of herbivores have which is why we can't just go outside and eat our lawn to survive, that doesn't mean we're carnivores.
You can declare you're winning the "argument" all you want but it won't make you look like any less of a retard to everyone here.
you got a source on that pal?
How about all of your strawman arguments about people who eat meat being fat? Just because you say one logical fallacy isn't present in your arguments doesn't mean there aren't a myriad of others
But that's not reality, we still lack the same adaptations that omnivores (in the taxonomic sense) have to keep from developing the diseases mentioned.
We can't use our appendixes like herbivores, we don't share taxonomic similarities with them, so I guess we should never eat anything herbivores eat, right?
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ajcn.nutrition.org
while i'm at it, learn you some eggs:
chicagotribune.com
we don't have gizzard stones either, that doesn't mean we shouldn't eat vegetables
tbh veganism has no chance until eggs, dairy and gelatin aren't found in every processed food, sauce, etc. there is. until then, vegetarianism is the only diet of this direction that has the potential to see any noticeable growth.
These are all arguments refuting what you've said, but you've yet to respond to any of them.
Literally every response you've been able to muster has been picking one line posts and replying to them, while ignoring posts with actual evidence that refutes yours. You can shout as much as you like about how nobody can beat your arguments, but it doesn't make it true. Face it, you've lost. You haven't got a leg to stand on.
Stop lying about what I've claimed, you absolute child. It was the CHRONIC DISEASE RISK- HEART-
DISEASE, GOUT, GALL-STONES, ATHEROSCLEROSIS, DIVERTICULITIS, ETC. . .
STOP trying to misrepresent my arguments in attempt to avoid having an actual discussion about dietetics- you'd rather dismantle a straw-man, you disingenuous little slime-puddle.
Once again, you liar. That's not what I posted. Anyone can reread my our prior posts. Who do you think you're fooling?
This is what your argument boils down to? . . .
My primary argument was that you shouldn't eat meat because it raises your risk of chronic disease- and your argument is "So WHAT?"
You've conceded, you're done. You have nothing left to say. You have failed to prove my claim wrong and yet still think you've outsmarted me. I was right, you really SHOULD be wearing a helmet. . .
No, it wouldn't because your body is adapted to absorbing nutrients from the fibrous structure of plants- soylent causes digestive issues and mal-absorption of nutrients (assuming your referring to the nutrient shake that actually exists, and not soylent green.)
Humans are animals, dipshit.
Nothing could convince you of that. God could come down from heaven and hand you a 30-day vegan meal and exercise plan, telling you that if you didn't change your lifestyle you'd die a painful death in front of your children's very eyes, and you'd bat it out of his hands and call him a dirty hippy.
"How come if glue bad- it taste good?, ooga-booga" That's you stupid.
If your going to keep misrepresenting my arguments and ignoring all the evidence I post in favor of anecdotes from your Tarzan fan-fiction, just don't even bother.
You're right, if you don't eat meat you'll waste away- You're a real omnivore, just like a bear. Go into the woods, my child. . . It's the only place you can be with beings of your own, special, intellectual fortitude. I love you. God loves you too.
Now fuck off back to the BBW thread.
okay this guy's just here to shitpost. time to get back to studying for my pharmacology exam
I can only reply to one thing at a time. Hold the fuck on.
You must learn a lot about nutrition and dietetics in PHARMACOLOGY CLASS.
Couldn't name-drop that any harder, could you?
i could have.
tell us all ur classes so we wont make this mistake again
yeah its a good thing you just conveniently haven't gotten to the post from an hour ago that doesn't fit your narrative and explained how the poster is just a fat loser so they're wrong.
You didn't say anything about the esophagus, stomach acid or testosterone. Or the bananas. You've still yet to respond to any other arguments refuting your claims with evidence.
you're only getting more desperate every time you post buddy
of course I'm referring to soylent green you obtuse dingus. "Soylent" as in some kind of ingestible that contains all the calories and nutrients you need.
Now you're just being utterly retarded. You know exactly what I'm referring to.
hey look! another logical fallacy
I've never tasted glue because I'm not a moron. Also nice, fifth-grade response, and you call me a child lol.
What does this even mean?
Whoa, nice one. I didn't even have to try.
Still can't reply to posts much older than the ones you're cherrypicking, can you?
Vegans are generally less active and have less energy to do things. Meat is far easier to digest than soy will ever be. Not to mention the protein value is much higher and is more nutritious:
authoritynutrition.com
Also, soy creates more estrogen's in the human body (which is female hormone). It would explain why op types like a girl.
soy contains phytoestrogens, it doesn't create estrogens. not much difference, just ftfy
but he may have 1-2% higher testosterone compared to us according to vegan studies so clearly we're the inferior men.
What a total lie. Jesus christ go to bed already op it's common knowledge soy creates estrogen's in the human body.
phytoestrogens mimic estrogen in the body and act on estrogenic receptors. the result is pretty much the same
also i'm not OP i'm this guy
i just hate bad science
OP is a low-T nu male.
Pic related.
Ah. I just looked it up. You're right. *fist bump
Well I'm just going to post and ghost
Yes you can go either or. yes the vegan dude is following every stereotype but in regards of the whole teeth thing, you fucking faggot, humans ate what ever they could get more proof is being shown humans ate mostly plant life and most of the meat was prepared (earlier humans ate meat uncooked but still prepared by other means) now once humans learned how to cook meat that's when we started getting better brains
Literally the reason why you can brag about being a faggot who's only meat comes from cock is because the all mighty prepared meat
...
Don't mistake my only being able to reply to one thing at a time with ignoring posts.
Still raises risk of chronic-disease, people in the developed world don't need to worry about not getting enough essential micronutrients.
Regardless of the distinction, these researchers still acknowledge that saturated-fat and cholesterol consumption are the primary risk factors of cardiovascular disease.
This article isn't arguing that meat is a health-food, it's simply trying to downplay the very real risk of developing heart-disease in later life by pretending as if the reason people are avoiding meat is because they are worried about developing an acute illness, or early onset chronic illness.
For god's sake, they even acknowledge the guidelines for meat consumption should be followed. If meat is healthy, then why do you need to be limiting your consumption to as little as "No more than seven percent of your total daily calories should come from saturated fats"
and
"When deciding whether to include eggs in your diet, consider the recommended daily limits on cholesterol in your food: If you are healthy, consume no more than 300 mg of cholesterol a day. If you have diabetes, high cholesterol or heart disease, limit the daily cholesterol intake to no more than 200 mg a day."
Pointless to compare the two, I advocate for no meat- not white over red.
In the study mentioned in your initial quote there was no control group eating a vegan diet- and there was no dietary intervention to control for lifestyle variables like in the studies I posted. It was just a questionnaire and a 24-hour recall.
Not only that, but the results weren't consistent between the sexes. How is this better evidence than the population studies I previously referred to?
Our world view is an objective view of Dietetics and Preventative medicine. The article you posted even acknowledges the guidelines for meat consumption, implying that they acknowledge that saturated-fat and cholesterol consumption is implicated in heart-disease. Fucking read your shit before you post it.
If there was an intervention study in where dietary factors were controlled, like in the studies I posted it would have some credence. Do you think I wouldn't like to eat meat if I whole-heartedly believed it was healthy? I want good-evidence, damn-it.
And the mammalian estrogen in your milk, that doesn't bother you at all, right.
BTW, phytoestrogens only bind to receptors- they are not molecularly similar enough to activate them.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
also see studies in pics related. Enjoy your gyno with your chocolate milk.
Getting to this next>>6487042
Yes, you are.
Whom are you quoting?
Meant for
It took you half an hour to come up with this?
Because meat is solely made of saturated fats, right?
wew
There it is
Got 'em real good man! Nice work
Why are you so hung up on the fact that you have to moderate how much meat you eat? Seeing as your a vegan you should know by now a good diet isn't a diet where you only eat one type of food to excess every single day, thats unhealthy regardless of the food.
Claiming that you can't eat only meat and be healthy therefore meat isn't good for you is the most retarded fucking thing I've ever heard come out of a vegans mouth.
Next are you going to claim that no medicine can be good for you because if you take too much of it you'll overdose and die?
b-but muh chance of chronic diseases!
You retarded fucking nigger. Non-human animals can't cook.
it can happen
Once again, I acknowledged that it CAN happen, but considering the incredible volume (400 bananas in one sitting) no one is going to fucking do that by accident.
Remember that this topic was brought up because some guy was comparing the risk factor for developing heart-disease from chronic meat consumption (not huge amounts, can be done on accident- Heart disease is the number one killer in the Western World for a reason) with the risk factor for developing an illness via banana consumption.
I advocated no such thing .And what your referencing doesn't differentiate between isolated fructose (absorbed in duodenum) and fructose bound to fiber in fruit (absorbed in colon)
Also, Mercola isnt a fucking medical organization, it's an e-rag. I understand Joseph Mercola is a physician, but the supplements he sells are scams (fucking Krill oil and fermented black garlic, holy shit)- he's a hack.
this was explained in this post, no need for further acknowledgement.
this is next>>6487057
Fucking thread exploded, I can't even keep up. All the other vegans left already. Fucking pussies.
Yeah, except for the fact you can get heart disease without eating meat. The fact you don't know this is either:
a) You're being purposefully disingenuous
b) You're truly this retarded.
Not to mention the fact that heart disease is usually the factors of poor diet and poor exercise. Also, there are no long term studies to suggest that heart disease has anything to do with eating meat. That's one to grow on kiddo.
Well I can't adopt a vegan diet because of health reasons but even if I could I'd still take the risk and eat meat because I'd rather live a average length fulfilling life than a long boring one.
Theres plenty of situations where people put their health on the sidelines to enjoy life more like drinking alcohol or smoking or doing drugs or even just sitting on their ass at the computer without exercising for extended periods.
Theres a point where overdoing all of those things can lead to serious health problems but in moderation you aren't going to lose years of your life because of them so why make it an all or nothing thing?
b-b-but i thought veganism increased your t?
You made the distinction that time, I wasn't wrong. What's your point? I have other questions to get to so that these fucker s don't accuse me of ignoring "credible evidence"
you were just wilfully obtuse and ignorant
lol kill yourself nigger
lol you're not on Holla Forums
you right
i'm gettting crazy deja vu here. who's talking points are you parroting user?
Holey shit you're retarded. That's a fucking ad hominem you fucking retard.
its pretty simple
the first line refers to the post that was called a strawman by the second post EG:
Oh man. You're just like one of those Clinton supporting sjws that only watches CNN. In fact you are an sjw. Not to mention nothing from what you posted had citations to actual studies. Go read a book you dumb nigger.
not a single cell in your body agrees with you. as with anything, there is a healthy normal range. too much is bad. too little is bad. the presence of cholesterol doesn't make meat poison. see below
also wrong. see below
a vegan diet is not a control group
you keep telling yourself that buddy
articles.mercola.com
Re: saturated fats
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
plain english on the above article:
webmd.com
sure, but that doesn't make him automatically wrong. have some other sources.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
cancercenter.com
i am aware of this. i was trying to illustrate that your argument
is a moot point. you have to limit your intake of everything. just as you can't eat nothing but steak and be healthy, you can't eat nothing but fruit and be healthy.
since i know you'll bring it up, i'll respond to this post too:
let's go with water, the most basic human need, as a comparison.
if i eat nothing but a kilo of steak (noting that this is a huge amount of food and any more will probably induce vomiting) every meal, every day for a week i'll get severe constipation and increase my risk of bowel cancer. worst case scenario the constipation becomes so bad that i get ileus.
if i drink more than say, two liters of water over the course of an hour, i might become hypernatremic. generally not a problem for anybody who isn't an athlete or doing something stupid for a bet/competition, but water will kill you a lot quicker than steak.
i really ought to get going and do something productive for a while. will check back in a few hours
Why then, do the Inuit have of heart-disease comprable with Americans?
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Why is it that populations who eat less meat, dairy, and eggs- and more fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds have lower rates of heart-disease and longer average life-spans?
Need I remind you of the Okinawans circa 1950? Need I remind you of the Seventh Day Adventists?
These populations held records for longest average life-span (When Okinawa westernized their diet, they lost their longevity, weird coincidence, right? Adventists hold present record) and consume the least meat, dairy, and eggs of any populations. Is that mere coincidence?
Is it a coincidence that the "Blue-Zones" are populations with low meat, dairy, and egg consumption, and higher fruit and vegetable consumption, compared to Western nations?
The risk of getting heart-disease without consuming saturated-fat and cholesterol is astronomically low unless you're frying everything you eat in canola oil- and even then, the risk factor ounce-for-ounce is lower than if you were to do the same with animal fat.
BTW I do not advocate eating processed oils, or processed foods in general.
Here are some studies from cardiologists in regard to what the primary risk factors for developing heart disease really are:
jainhospitals.com
researchgate.net
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
drhyman.com
researchgate.net
circ.ahajournals.org
circ.ahajournals.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
circ.ahajournals.org
circ.ahajournals.org
From the world heart federation: "Research makes it clear that abnormal blood lipid (fat) levels have a strong correlation with the risk of coronary artery disease, heart attack and coronary death. In turn, abnormal blood lipids are related to what you eat. A diet high in saturated fats (e.g. cheese) and trans fats (often used in cakes, cookies and fast food) leads to high levels of cholesterol.
Saturated fats are found in animal products. Trans fats are oils that have been hydrogenated to turn them into semi-hard fats. Hydrogenated fat is found in processed food like shop-bought cakes, biscuits, stock cubes and a range of other products you buy every day. Saturated and trans fats raise cholesterol levels in the blood, which in turn can lead to atherosclerosis.
Unsaturated fats, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated are beneficial for heart health. They are present in fish, nuts, seeds and vegetables.
The essential fatty acids omega-3 and omega-6 are found in oily fish and in nuts and seeds. Our bodies cannot make these acids so we have to eat them to gain their benefits, which include improving cholesterol levels in the body.
But it is important to note that if your total fat intake is greater than 37% of your total calories, then even if that fat is unsaturated you increase your risk of cardiovascular disease. Saturated fat intake should not exceed 10% of total energy and for high-risk groups, like people with diabetes, total fat intake should be 7% or less of total energy."
Yes there are other factors implicated in heart disease, but saturated fat consumption is the most potent risk-factor. In addition, other risk factors for CVD are eliminated when following the diet I espouse: A diet with little-to-no processed foods, a diet rich in whole fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds.
There is no human-necessary nutrient exclusive to meat, dairy, or eggs. What does that tell you about your biology? It is at odds with the requirements of taxonomic omnivores, like bears.
It's a false equivalence.
The "average meat eater" in these studies is the average normie who is almost entirely unaware and ignorant of health and nutrition, and probably eat a lot of fast food and processed food. While the average vegan is gonna be at least somewhat health conscious, despite their nutritional deficiencies.
These studies would mean something if they compared nutrition and fitness aware meat eater with nutrition and fitness aware vegans. But until then, they're worthless except for vegans to fap to.
...
elaborate.
What is B12 for 500 dollars, Alex
Nah, I'm saying that if you compare the average dipshit with someone who know about health and nutrition, obviously the latter is gonna do better.
So a valuable study would compare health conscious omnivores with health conscious herbivores.
Seriously? I mean you can take vitamins and shit, but a straight vegan diet is gonna be missing some nutrients. A vegan would die without modern luxuries.
if you lump group C with group A you will naturally fuck the averages.
uh actually that's a pretty big deal
obviously people who don't know anything about health and don't even attempt to be healthy are generally going to be unhealthy, especially amerifats.
if you think your vegan diet actually stands up to criticism, compare it to the health-conscious meat eaters who actually think veganism is unhealthy, not the ignorant masses who don't even begin to care.
Even with modern luxuries the majority of vegans end up going back to a normal diet, its just a fad.
...
see pic, and maybe the other vegan who has sources will post something, idk
what nutrients? and if we werent living with modern luxuries i'd not be vegan, correct. your point?
What point are you trying to make, user? What I said to you was that a vegan diet would be unsustainable without modern luxuries, which you agreed with. What else would you like to discuss?
cool tumblr infograph. how about some citations
also
Kill yourself shill.
nvm, he already addressed this point, read the thread fgt
some vegans use dietary supplements, correct. what's your point, supplements are bad? if so, stop eating any non grass fed animal products, because lot fed animals get b12 supplements.
Herbivores are prey.
The point isn't the supplements are bad, it's that your diet would kill you without supplements. Meanwhile, omnivores take supplements if they feel they don't eat enough of something, while vegans die without supplements.
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because people were dying for a variety of reasons other than personal health? Maybe people actually had a better diet and were exercising more.
first of all, b12 deficiency wont kill you. second, did you read what i wrote? you indirectly take dietary supplements anyway
You're ignoring my point, user. Which is that a vegan diet is entirely unsustainable without supplementation. And just so you know, I don't eat meat that has been supplemented and pumped full of bullshit antibiotics and preservatives and hormones and whatnot. The only meat I eat, I killed myself.
but user, if veganism is healthy, why do you need to take supplements?
(citation needed)
Learning disabled? Humans synthesize cholesterol. We have no need for exogenous cholesterol, unlike taxonomic omnivores and carnivores.
The American college of Cardiology and the majority of accredited medical journals agree with me. . . But you found an article (that links to no scientific study) by a hack physician, one Joseph Mercola, who sells krill-oil and fermented black garlic as cure-alls SO I GUESS THAT NEGATES MY EVIDENCE.
LMAO, see your local cardiologist before you eat yourself into an early grave.
When you are testing the effects of meat consumption, obviously you nee a control-group that isn't eating any meat. Are you stupid?
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
This study only claims that the results were not clear. Among a litany of medical literature spanning multiple decades that show a clear connection, and mode of progression, for how saturated-fat and cholesterol consumption are implicated in heart-disease- but because you found one study were the conductors were unable to get the same result twice (they did no find the inverse to be true, mind you- and they did not specify the source of the polyunsaturated fats, or the rest of the subjects' diets- they only managed to get heterogeneity of results. . .
Hardly convincing evidence.
>webmd.com
Webmd is not an accredited medical journal. Why didn't you just link to the sources? BTW the sources redirect back to Webmd, not to the actual studies mentioned- and the opinion of the American Heart Association (where the first study supposedly came from) on saturated fats is "Eating foods that contain saturated fats raises the level of cholesterol in your blood. High levels of LDL cholesterol in your blood increase your risk of heart disease and stroke."
Did you even check the sources?
Not what I was arguing against. My argument was that the quantity of meat a person must eat per day to develop a chronic disease is minuscule to the amount of fruit or vegetables one must eat to garner the same result.
The studies you provided in regard to fruit consumption only further illustrate my point, given the quantity. It's also important to note that isolated fructose is digested very differently from fructose pound to the fiber of fruit. Isolated fructose is absorbed in the duodenum, fructose in fruit is absorbed in the colon.
if i drink more than say, two liters of water over the course of an hour, i might become hypernatremic. generally not a problem for anybody who isn't an athlete or doing something stupid for a bet/competition, but water will kill you a lot quicker than steak.
This analogy hardly proves that steak is healthier than plant-foods in the short OR long-term. Eating the volume of steak (without any fiber) in one sitting that one could safely eat of a plant food-like bananas or potatoes or lettice- could cause acute diverticulitis, shock, and sepsis.
Weak shit.
-and yet you think you are outsmarting us. . . pathetic. You could've spent two seconds on google and spared yourself the embarrassment.
see
Where do you think the animals people eat get their B12(considering no animal can synthesize it)?
The answer is a little gross. . .
Elephants and Hippos are herbivores. . .
Silverback gorillas are omnivores-
in that case, if it was wild killed animals, it would have b12 in it from grazing the earth, you are in the vast minority with that though, just about every other user here eats lot fed meat, i.e. take supplements. veganism is as unnatural/unsustainable as their diet, and again, you can only non-hypocritically claim being unnatural is bad if you live a purely self sustaining hunter gatherer lifestyle, which no one here is.
how do lot fed animals get b12 then?
this is how
agriculture.vic.gov.au
Are you guys seriously trying to make the point that an herbivore diet is just as natural and healthy for a human as an omnivore diet? That's just straight up fucking dishonest. If you wanna argue that it's more ecologically sound and less cruel or whatever, that's fine. But the shit you're saying is ridiculous. We evolved to eat an omnivorous diet, and pretending to be carnivores or herbivores is not good for humans.
is like a
Provide evidence or crawl back in your miserable hole. Surrounded by your Alpha-Brain supplements and radio-wave disrupting egg-crate panels.
What that borderline unreadable infoshit that you ripped from a vegan Tumblr doesn't tell you is that "B12" in plants like kale and in supplements like fortified milk is not the same as B12 from animal sources: it is more often a pseudo-cobalamin analogue that can introduce even more health risks because they compete for the same metabolic receptors as natural, animal-borne B12. This is why statistically speaking, vegetarians and infants from vegetarian (let alone vegan) families suffer the most from B12 deficiency. In infants a B12 deficiency can be lethal. Babies raised in vegetarian households have died from a lack of B12.
You are a scientifically illiterate toolbox who has absolutely no clue what he's talking about. As someone else aptly put it earlier in the thread, congratulations on finding your religion after watching a few Youtube videos from cranks, because that's what it is.
it doesnt come from animals, getting it from animals is second hand b12
not an argument
not an argument
You're basically a creationist.
I'll tell ya. Anyone that beats that chump (your pic related). He has a pretty shitty record user.
neat. so? i don't see how this is comparable to having the need to pop supplement pills to maintain health.
bacteria are a normal and healthy part of animal physiology and in many cases necessary for life. the half assed infographic described this as if humans were intervening to supplement nearly all the B12 cows are getting so they would be more nutrient rich. apparently this is not the case:
in other words "it is sometimes necessary but generally it's fine". this line of argument isn't very convincing.
lmao
Then why do we lack all of the adaptations that taxonomic omnivores have to avoid developing gall-stones or gout or heart-disease.
I made a list. . . see:
...
this is why people think vegans are fucking retards. you keep proving them right.
if we're herbivores then why can't you eat your lawn clippings to survive like a "true herbivore" can?
someone didnt read the thread i see
it proves that by eating meat you will eat supplements, which is what i set out to prove
For real? How about our teeth, for starters. We don't have carnivorous teeth like wolves, or herbivore teeth like deer. We have omnivore teeth.
Not my infographic, but that is the case in factory farms. Cows, pigs, and chickens are given B12 enrifhed feed, and sometimes B12 injections. All you're doing by taking the supplements yourself is cutting out the middle-moo.
Also, natural streams, well-water, and soil typically contain B12 because they are not sterilized.
Are you honestly trying to say that an omnivore equally needs to supplement as a vegan like yourself?
How the fuck do you think humans survived for the past few million years? They couldn't go to Walmart and pick up a B12 supplement.
no, it proves that meat industries sometimes feels that it's necessary to supplement the nutrition of their livestock. i'm still eating meat with a normal physiological make-up. the fact that what i am eating might have been fed supplements at some point (assuming, for the sake of discussion, that i even buy food from a commercial meat industry) doesn't make your comparison more valid. i am not required to pop pills while eating a normal diet.
Fucking this.
Your teeth? Horses have larger canines than humans. Your teeth differ DRASTICALLY from the teeth of any omnivore or carnivore.
actually the structure of your teeth and jaw are very similar to a deer's (but more so like a great-ape. . . which is what you are. A frugivorous ape)
Fucking read the list.
they also couldnt shitpost on an imageboard for Cantonese pottery enthusiasts, what's your point?
i.e. you take supplements, like it or not. and i dont take pills for b12. again, whats bad about supplements that doesnt also apply to your modern life in some way?
Not all herbivores can digest cellulose- and technically speaking you are frugivorous- just like the rest of the great-apes.
The peanut gallery rejoices at the opportunity to toss aside evidence-based reason for more tendies and chocolate-milk.
literally nothing. i just wanted you to argue the point because
is just as dumb as
I said "animal-borne", retard, as in B12 synthesised within animal guts, typically herbivores. This is to distinguish it from plant sources, which most often contain zero bioavailable B12 sources but check positive on bacterial essays because of the heavy presence of useless analogues, meaning that vegetarians and vegans consume spirullina and wheat grass for practically nothing.
You do not know what you're babbling about. You aren't a scientist and you aren't fit to give dietary advice.
Humans have evolved to eat a diet of mainly vegetables and other forage, with a side of meat, and a hint of fruit. They weren't fucking vegans. That's what we're good at. The health issues that bullshit studies highlight with meat eating today don't isolate the many variables in play like hormones pumped into the meat, vitamins pumped into the meat, antibiotics pumped into the meat, etc. Not to mention they don't control for people eating fast food, processed food, etc.
You fucking vegans are so incredibly dishonest. You got my point, dipshit. Humans survived for millions of years on an omnivorous diet.
i didn't realize you are a biologist, so tell us, what exactly defines an organism as a "taxonomic omnivore"
because from what i can tell the only requirement is the ability to absorb calories from plant and animal sources.
having said that, the human omnivorous diet does not inherently require b12 supplementation. that is only a recent development due to modern day animal farming practices.
If you aren't eating factory farmed meat then, by definition, your diet is not normal.
Also, if you grow your own vegetables, simply washing them poorly will give you B12. The anaerobic bacteria that produce B12 are commonly found in natural streams, well-water, and natural soil.
Why do you find it necessary to get your nutrients through such an inefficient process as to run them through another animal first?
furthermore, it's still possible to eat non-supplemented meat if you're diligent about where your food comes from (eg. source from ethical farms or hunt it yourself)
you know apes and monkies eat meat right?
...
Just about every mammal, regardless of taxonomic dietary classification can digest and attain calories from meat, dairy, and eggs. Deer and cows will eat birds if given the opportunity, but because they do not REQUIRE nutrients exclusive to meat they are not classified as omnivorous.
Taxonomic classification of diet is based on necessity for certain nutrients. Bears cannot synthesize their own cholesterol, but CAN synthesize vitamin C- you are the opposite. Read the fucking list:>>6487015
i never claimed you need to limit consumption of meat as i never claimed it is healthy. did you think that post through?
citation needed
yes, they did, my point is that with the modern luxuries we have, we can live better quality lives on a vegan diet. we arent still cavemen/hunter gatherers if you didnt realise, we dont need to emulate every aspect of their lifestyle
just as how herbivorous animals dont require supplementation
Listen weeb, the only reason I brought that up was because the fucker thought it wasn't "natural" to get B12 from non-animal sources- when in reality, living in nature you will seldom get the opportunity to develop B12 deficiency.
Citation fucking needed. And I want a study that properly accounts for a pure alternative-sourced B12 diet (no "cheat days" as commonly found with vegetarians) over a period of at least five years as compared to a control group. The human adult body coasting on decades of normal (i.e. non-vegetarian) nutrient backlog can tolerate a lot of punishment before health problems kick in. Sadly infants don't have this luxury, as I noted earlier.
fuck your list faggot, show me a biological journal with the definition of a fucking omnivore. by your logic i can just go, Hurr humans have hands, only true- omnivores have hands. you are literally using a no true scotsman fallacy you retard.
You mean B12 synthesized by the anaerobic bacteria withing animal guts, (meaning shit) which is not the same B12 that ends up in the flesh of the animal that you eat.
The only good arguments for veganism are
Modern meat production methods are highly inefficient, and require much more energy than they output. However, this does not affect homegrown (hunted) meats.
Many factory farms employ unnecessarily brutal methods of execution. In most cases humans are the only animal that gives a shit about the suffering of its prey, this is often subverted in modern factory farms. However, just like the prior argument, this is a better argument for boycotting modern meat production methods, rather than abandoning meat altogether.
Humans are unarguably evolved to eat meat, as a small part of our overall diet. While we can do with in the modern age of decadence and luxury, that does not necessarily mean that it is healthy, only healthier than other modern diets which are also very unhealthy and unnatural.
nature.com
econtent.hogrefe.com
pubs.acs.org
>The vitamin B12 concentration of an algal health food, spirulina (Spirulina sp.) tablets, was determined by both Lactobacillus leichmannii ATCC 7830 microbiological and intrinsic factor chemiluminescence methods. The values determined with the microbiological method were ∼6−9-fold greater in the spirulina tablets than the values determined with the chemiluminescence method. Although most of the vitamin B12 determined with the microbiological method was derived from various vitamin B12 substitutive compounds and/or inactive vitamin B12 analogues, the spirulina contained a small amount of vitamin B12 active in the binding of the intrinsic factor. Two intrinsic factor active vitamin B12 analogues (major and minor) were purified from the spirulina tablets and partially characterized. The major (83%) and minor (17%) analogues were identified as pseudovitamin B12 and vitamin B12, respectively, as judged from data of TLC, reversed-phase HPLC, 1H NMR spectroscopy, ultraviolet−visible spectroscopy, and biological activity using L. leichmannii as a test organism and the binding of vitamin B12 to the intrinsic factor.
(checked)
m8 i dont speak science, this says nothing about animals producing more bioavaliable b12
this
They still aren't arguments in favor of veganism though, just in favor of improving the way we get meat which will undoubtedly happen when stuff like artificial meat can be grown without needing to raise and kill an animal first.
Because you have to eat meat in nature to even survive. Seriously just watch Naked and Afraid and see how well a vegan does she had to eat meat!!!
wait you mean there isn't a Whole Foods in nature?
For it to be a no true scotsman fallacy I would have to be changing the definition so that noting you presented could be construed as trul y omnivorous. You, just like the last ass-hat who claimed that I was making this fallacy, don't fucking understand what a true-scottsman fallacy means. I made it very clear, these are the same criteria that people who study comparative anatomy of digestion use.
"No true Scotsman is a kind of informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample."
Dr. Milton Mills has a talk on comparative anatomy of digestion somewhere on the internet. I understand that by dictionary definition an omnivore is just an animal that consumes both animal and plant foods- but that applies to nearly every mammal circumstantially.
If I can find a video of his talk right now I'll post it, I have to go to fucking bed. I've been arguing with you guys for something like 4 hours and no one has even bothered to contest what I mentioned in the list or the studies provided there.
You don't make uricase- every other mammall we consider "omnivore does"
Your bile is too weak to break-up crystallized cholesterol- every other mammal we consider to be an omnivore doesn't have this problem
etc. . .etc. . . run through the list and compare to different animals. You might be astounded to find that I'm not lying about this fucking trend among mammals. Don't get gout. I'm going to bed.
adaptt.org
You're retarded. I'm going to bed.
Even if she didn't eat meat she would get B12 from the stream-water.
My point was never that veganism was good when stranded in the woods, but that it was healthier over the long-term in civilization- and you faggots have failed to prove me wrong at every instance.
Fuck you peanut-gallery, you contribute NOTHING!
Goodnight and god-bless.
you've also failed to prove how its healthier over the long term in civilization, as your only proof pits diet aware vegans against people like americans who stuff whatever they want into their face and don't care or people like the inuits who don't have a whole foods market to make sure they have a proper diet.
Thats not a fair comparison and it doesn't prove shit.
You can claim nobody has proved you wrong all you want but you're the one trying to force a lifestyle change on us, not the other way around.
here's a pretty comprehensive refutation to that particular article.
burden of proof nigga. you've failed to prove yourself right.
its irrelevant.
animals have eaten each other since the dawn of fucking time.
just want to point out
good
yes
but you forgot about
and then proceeded to do exactly that
Humans need to preserve the ability to consume meat in case of emergencies. I like knowing thatI could slaughter my fellow man and survive on her for weeks. This alone is enough of an argument to keep eating meat
the anti-vegetarian logic would be equivalent to a smoker saying
if we are supposed to eat meat, why have we evolved to the point where we can't eat meat raw unlike animals?
if eating meat is as healthy as eating vegetables, why does eating meat raw have a high risk of being fatal, and why do we need to cook it reducing it's nutritional content?
we evolved to not eat meat, so we force ourselves to eat something that can potentially kill us, by damaging it to the point that it depletes it's nutritional value by up to 50% because reasons
if meat is so good for you, why is it that the more vegetables you eat the more healthy you will be, whereas the more meat you eat the more likely you are to die?
this appeal to nature
not sure if troll or just retarded
OK I get all that but what is the logic behind having to continually remind people you are vegetarian?
Why cant you just eat the food you like without bothering other people?
A wageslave has time for a maximum of two fast meals. Only meat has the calorie density needed to fit into two fast meals (fast to prepare, fast to eat).
we can eat raw meat, we just generally don't because it's less safe and less energy efficient to digest. as a result we eventually stop being able to tolerate it well, because our gut microbiome quiccly adapts and forgets about it.
the same thing happens to vegans who don't eat meat for too long. eventually their body forgets how to digest meat and it becomes very difficult to come crawling bacc to it when their body eventually starts needing it.
as for the nutritional loss, it isn't a big deal.
The main nutrient we want from meat is fine, and the rest can be acquired easily elsewhere.
i'll also point out that the stuff listed here is only a tiny fraction of the nutritional in meat. there's also a whole host of valuable amino acids, fats, protein, minerals, and so on that the article didn't bother to mention because they are unaffected.
this tired argument again? there's a limit to the amount of anything your body can handle. if you eat too much of anything you will suffer. meat is dense and energy rich, and as a result we can tolerate less of it in comparison to vegetables.
you're also comparing meat - an extremely narrow category made up of different cuts of a small variety of animals with similar nutritional make up - to vegetables, a category that encompasses half the fuccing plant kingdom. it's obvious that the more diverse category will appear to be healthier in that scope, but if you start comparing specific vegetables your argument will fall apart quiccly.
although that would be a fuccing pointless exercise. ever heard the phrase "comparing apples and oranges"?
here's an equally retarded argument:
I want to see a vegan tell spear chuccing niggers to stop eating meat
someone do this, and film it.
meat fills several niches in our diet far better than a variety of vegetables that you would otherwise have to consume much more.
you have to eat combinations of different vegetables and legumes, or Kale, to get the proper amino acid range to produce proteins
vitamin B is difficult to obtain from plants, mostly Cabbage-relatives.
Dark leaf vegetables, legumes and peas.
sunlight, although the vast majority of the population, even those who are highly active, experience vitamin D deficiency.
Seeds, specifically wheat germ, gourds and nuts.
so to properly supplement your diet, you need a LOT of dark leafy greens, a lot of nuts and legumes, cabbages, and vitamin D supplements (which to be fair, everyone should take, not just vegans. However vegans should be noted to be at in increased risk)
but the nutrients in all of those forms are low density compared to meat or not as easily incorporated into the body as if it were from meat.
it probably is healthier in the long term as a vegan if you practice a rather ridged, regimented diet composed of the above as well as your other foodstuffs (let's not forget calcium, omega 3, and other micronutrients) but to do so requires a large investment in time and resources and the benefits aren't really attractive enough to justify the extreme divorce from their previous meal-situations. It makes much more sense to reintroduce more vegetables bacc into the meals you already eat while cutting down, but not eliminating meat entirely simply because it's so useful as a source of otherwise disperse nutrients.
OP I'm underweight and I eat meat. If I was a vegetarian with my eating habits, I'd probably die.
Hahahahahahahaha How The Fucc Is Anorexia Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Go To McDonalds Like Nigga Eat Some Food Haha
I'm not anorexic, just underweight.
sure thing buddy
but vegans are fuccing gay
0/10 who cares