Do you eat a lot of meat ?

[Adieu]

If I had a choice between either eating cheap, sketchy sourced meat or high quality veggie food I'd become a vegetarian, I guess I'm lucky I don't.

 

When I had to become a 100% veggie for 5 months traveling in India I really struggled, I didn't feel any better, or felt any healthier, in fact the opposite. Funny when I was trekking I was with a posh doctor from Oxford who reckoned some humans are better developed to not eat meat than others, I remember him laughing and putting me firmly in the meat eating category. After five months I was having burning fantasies/dreams about eating meat.. Having said that in a perfect world I'd like to be 65% veggie, 35% meat (fish or beast). I get the whole deal with being veggie. Vegans not so sure about, I think they don't get the same chemical reactions and a smile on my face I do when I see a plate of food.

 

you should probably be getting 65% of your calories from veggies in general.

[Silent Member]

You should at least avoid factory farmed meat. Being born into a life of misery only to be slaughtered and eaten is terrible.

[Adieu]

You should at least avoid factory farmed meat. Being born into a life of misery only to be slaughtered and eaten is terrible.

 

For sure, torture is not the same as killing imo. there is a very drastic difference. Ideally I would kill my own wild food.

 

factory farmed food is also less healthy and bad for the environment.

[eugene]

 

 

 

cows eat grass, cows make soil fertile for farming and also naturally till soil by walking over it, we eat cows. That does makes sense from a cyclical standpoint.

dunno wtf cyclical standpoint means here. it's pretty clear that you lose a lot of energy by "converting" plants into cow meat and then eating cows compared to eating plants yourself without involving the cows.

 

I don't see killing and eating food as unethical.

i think causing unnecessary suffering is unethical by definition.

 

I know that vegan/vegetarians would love for it to be unhealthy to eat animals so they could further promote the idea that it's both unethical and unhealthy but the science doesn't back that up.

don't see a problem with misleading the public in this regard, the ends justify the means pretty clearly here.

 

 

humans don't eat grass. cows do. so there is no loss there. it's actually a again, because grazing animals makes arid lands fertile, and could potentially be used to make all of the dry lands on the earth fertile again. but soil has to be kept fertile and farming it depletes the nutrients from the soil. This is actually a really big issues with nutrient density in vegetables already. They are less dense than in the past due to farming practices, and many of the nutrients in them are lost due to being sensitive to handling/traveling/packaging, etc.

 

Plants don't want to be eaten either. you forget this. they also communicate with each other about potential threats. Plants also contain antinturients that were formulated as a defense mechanism against being eaten. Plants are alive and they want to be alive.

 

The only 100% ethical diet is frutarian and that's insanely bad for you.

 

I don't consider doing what I'm naturally designed to do as unethical. animals are food. very efficient food. the entire basis of humans being what we are today is likely from consuming the extremely nutrient dense animals we consumed that enabled us to create society and culture.

 

the land can be used for plants that are eaten by humans.

 

plant's don't have a "want", a brain, consciousness or anything of that sort, they don't have the capability to feel anything either in a sense that people and animals do, can't experience suffering an so on.

 

nature and ethics have nothing to do with one another, it's a nonsensical argument.

[Adieu]

 

 

 

 

cows eat grass, cows make soil fertile for farming and also naturally till soil by walking over it, we eat cows. That does makes sense from a cyclical standpoint.

dunno wtf cyclical standpoint means here. it's pretty clear that you lose a lot of energy by "converting" plants into cow meat and then eating cows compared to eating plants yourself without involving the cows.

 

I don't see killing and eating food as unethical.

i think causing unnecessary suffering is unethical by definition.

 

I know that vegan/vegetarians would love for it to be unhealthy to eat animals so they could further promote the idea that it's both unethical and unhealthy but the science doesn't back that up.

don't see a problem with misleading the public in this regard, the ends justify the means pretty clearly here.

 

 

humans don't eat grass. cows do. so there is no loss there. it's actually a again, because grazing animals makes arid lands fertile, and could potentially be used to make all of the dry lands on the earth fertile again. but soil has to be kept fertile and farming it depletes the nutrients from the soil. This is actually a really big issues with nutrient density in vegetables already. They are less dense than in the past due to farming practices, and many of the nutrients in them are lost due to being sensitive to handling/traveling/packaging, etc.

 

Plants don't want to be eaten either. you forget this. they also communicate with each other about potential threats. Plants also contain antinturients that were formulated as a defense mechanism against being eaten. Plants are alive and they want to be alive.

 

The only 100% ethical diet is frutarian and that's insanely bad for you.

 

I don't consider doing what I'm naturally designed to do as unethical. animals are food. very efficient food. the entire basis of humans being what we are today is likely from consuming the extremely nutrient dense animals we consumed that enabled us to create society and culture.

 

the land can be used for plants that are eaten by humans.

 

plant's don't have a "want", a brain, consciousness or anything of that sort, they don't have the capability to feel anything either in a sense that people and animals do, can't experience suffering an so on.

 

nature and ethics have nothing to do with one another, it's a nonsensical argument.

 

 

you have no idea how farming works or else you wouldn't be making this argument.

 

land cannot be continually farmed. it ruins the soil. it has to be rotated. when it's rotated you graze cattle or other hoofed animals on it to replenish the soil nutrients. this is an evolutionary design. a cycle. when you remove the grazing animals you are forced to use other means of fertilization. this is where fertilizers come in. from my understanding fertilizers are bad for the environment for numerous different reasons, and do not provide the same benefit that grazing animals provides to the soil. Grazing animals have an evolutionary benefit to the soil on our planet.

 

all life has a want to grow and stay alive. this is specifically why plants contain antinutrients. plants also communicate with one another. communication is a sign of intelligence.

 

the process of gauging the validity of a life forms existence is a supremely intellectually dishonest standpoint that vegans/vegetarians take.

 

your argument is biased towards approving of eating plants, which are alive, things that desire to be alive and do so by measurable behavior and evolutionary adaptations. 

[manmower]

I think I've spoken on the sort of intellectually dishonest concept that veganism is superior from an animal welfare standpoint. You cannot farm without killing massive amounts of animals including larger mammals like baby deer. It causes habitat displacement. Furthermore, grazing animals play a necessary role in keeping soil fertile for farming. If you take them out of the equation, not only are you doing something seriously unnatural and disrupting the built in cycle for soil regeneration, but you're also going to be using methods that are not great for the environment to reach the same ends.

This would have made at least a bit of sense if feeding everyone a vegan diet actually required more farming, but the opposite is true. It would be much more efficient to eat what we grow directly (the principle of eating lower on the food chain) instead of feeding it to livestock first, which is nothing but a grossly inefficient way to convert plants into worse food.

 

Plenty of plant-based ways to fertilize the soil are available.

 

I've seen people promoting the concept that a properly grazed grassfed cow is environmentally neutral. I think this makes sense, but obviously the commercial meat industry is not appropriately raising animals. Hopefully the current trend of free range, pasture raised, and grassfed becomes the industry standard.

There's more to veganism than ecology of course, but even if there weren't, you're never going to meet any kind of realistic demand (even if it were drastically lowered from its current level) using truly environmentally neutral methods. It's doomed to end up as one of those tragedy of the commons type deals.

 

I mean you more or less said fat causes malnutrition. Whether you want to say it's specifically related to oil intake, which it's not, and whether fat containing foods are significantly different is fine, but it's not really accurate.

You suggested that a vegan diet requires a lot more supplementation than is actually necessary, and my reaction was that this might be the case if you were to eat so much fat (i.e., foods with high specific energy and inherently lower micronutrient to calorie ratio). That would implicitly make it harder to reach adequate micronutrient intake without eating excess calories. If you leave out the fat, you can eat lots more of the nutrient dense foods instead. Which we'd agree is a good thing.

 

MCT's/Coconut oil have massive benefits. Olive oil is very good for you although not the best oil for cooking because it does oxidize at higher heats.

 

Fatty oils and supplements may not be nutrient dense, but they are not "empty calories". Your body utilizes fat in very specific ways, and an increase in fat intake has many notable benefits.

 

a) increased metabolic flexibility

b) increase in metabolism/thermogenesis

c) increase in food palatibility which means you'll actually consume more of the nutrient dense healthy foods

d) increase in nutrient absorption most notably from vegetables

e) increase in feelings of energy and satiety although protein helps with this as well

f) better functioning mitochondria

g) energy that requires 0 metabolic processes, more efficient energy

h) better athletic performance/endurance

I find my food perfectly palatable without any added fat. (So palatable that I have zero problems sticking to my diet full time even, how cray is that?) Logically speaking, for a given constant total energy intake I can eat more of the "nutrient dense healthy foods" if I leave out the oils and other fats. I know you're making the argument that you can eat more calories because of this supposed metabolic advantage of eating fat but all the evidence I've seen simply doesn't show the size of this advantage to be sufficiently large to allow for that, if it exists at all. Certainly not to a degree where you could add spoonfuls of oil and eat even more of the (now allegedly more palatable) foods you put it on yet somehow end up in a better energy balance.

 

The whole nutrient absorption thing is based mostly on that one salad dressing study, but again the same logic applies. Skip the added oil but at the same time substitute more vegetables (calorie for calorie), and the increase in nutrient density will end up far outweighing any reduction in absorption due to the lower fat content. Vegetables already have plenty of fat in them to get adequate nutrition provided you eat enough of them.

 

Personally if I had the choice between, say, 300 kcal of nuts or seeds vs. 300 kcal of potatoes or oats or barley or something, I know which I'd find more satiating, but I guess that could be subjective.

 

More efficient energy again just means you're more likely to be stuck with an excess which is inconsistent with your claims about it being easier to maintain healthy weight on high fat, unless that mythical metabolic advantage enters the picture again. On a side note, if we're that efficient at using fat for fuel, why the need to keep carbohydrate intake so low and enter that exceptional state of ketosis and whatnot?

 

People in blue zones tend to eat lots of fats, oils, and animal products also. Weird that you mention blue zones, and there's a huge difference between a bodybuilder and having a good body composition.

Not arguing with you on the animal foods, but check out the average calorie density and the percentage of calories from fat in the traditional diet of the Okinawa Japanese for instance. How many of these peoples go through prolonged phases of ketosis on a regular basis? The kind of healthy body composition they have, is achieved by having low absolute body fat thus also a low body fat percentage, not by putting on tons of muscle to compensate for the fat they're carrying around like they're some kind of power lifter or strongman. I only brought that up because Hoodie specifically mentioned gaining muscle, not losing fat.

 

and your nonsense about government health authorities recommending specific things is irrelevant, even more so, your claims of "fad" science. LCHF has been studied and applied for 200 years. The health benefits are very well documented. Are you even aware that it recently came out that the sugar industry suppressed negative research findings about sugar intake, and also promoted the skewed findings from research they funded themselves concerning fat intake? That's basically where the low fat craze that ruined so many people's health and quality of life came from.

 

You can think about it in a very general way, if you remove fat from foods you have to replace it with something to make it palatable and able to provide energy. That was sugar. That's why you almost cannot find anything in a gas station in the USA that isn't extremely high in sugar. Thankfully more options are becoming available but it's not common. Sugar has a negative effect on the people's ability to control their food cravings, so they eat more and overeat regularly. High sugar intake is related to numerous diseases so people get sick a lot.

 

And generally recommending that people eat high carbs is not functional for a lot of people especially people that have had their body compromised by poor diet and lifestyle already and possibly coupled with medical interventions like antibiotic use. One size does not fit all.

Did I even mention sugar? I'm not sure but I know I meant starches, complex carbs, the whole time.

[caze]

there's nothing stopping us having grazing animals, and not eating them. (well, I'd still eat them, because 'yum')

[eugene]

land cannot be continually farmed. it ruins the soil. it has to be rotated. when it's rotated you graze cattle or other hoofed animals on it to replenish the soil nutrients. this is an evolutionary design. a cycle. when you remove the grazing animals you are forced to use other means of fertilization. this is where fertilizers come in. from my understanding fertilizers are bad for the environment for numerous different reasons, and do not provide the same benefit that grazing animals provides to the soil. Grazing animals have an evolutionary benefit to the soil on our planet.

 

 

it's been thousands of years since humans began circumventing what the evolution provided with a lot of success, to claim that the best (in the many senses of the word) way to fertizlie the soil is the natural way is kinda similar as a claim that the best way to communicate is using pigeons. and btw, who said that vegans are against natural grazing?

 

all life has a want to grow and stay alive. this is specifically why plants contain antinutrients. plants also communicate with one another. communication is a sign of intelligence.

you're anthropomorphizing plants, they don't have a will or a want, it's simply a misnomer to attach them one. communication is a sign of intelligence, wtf? why come up with nonsense on the fly?

 

the process of gauging the validity of a life forms existence is a supremely intellectually dishonest standpoint that vegans/vegetarians take.

what part is dishonest exactly? it makes much more sense to assume that beings with a brain experience suffering in a similar manner to humans, no one likes suffering so it's best to avoid causing it. the vegan arguments are really the simplest arguments you can think of when talking about ethics.

 

your argument is biased towards approving of eating plants, which are alive, things that desire to be alive and do so by measurable behavior and evolutionary adaptations.

my argument is based on avoiding suffering of others as far as possible, not on some abstract notion of life. given that plants cannot experience that i'm ok with consuming them.

[watmmisdead]

what kind of physical pain plants can feel? none.

then go look at how pigs are being treated all their life and then killed. 

 

I wont say plant dont have a consciousness, but since they cannot biologically feel pain, its absurd to compare plants suffering vs animals suffering. morally, its obvious that killing a animal is cruel, violent and creates pain. killing a plant...

 

you can be as healthy being a vegetarian then eating meat as long as you know what you must eat being a vegetarian in order to still be healthy.

 

and when you buy meat, you encourage a immoral industry. a lot of people would like to convince themselves that its not their responsability and that when they buy meat, its not big deal. sadly, its not the case

[watmmisdead]

there's nothing stopping us having grazing animals, and not eating them. (well, I'd still eat them, because 'yum')

would you kill the cow or the pig with your own hands? if you were to live with that cow or pig and learn to see that its a sentient being just like yourself, your cat or dog, would you still kill it or would you try instead to eat eggs, beans, tofu, hemp seeds, oats, barley, quinoa which wuold keep you as healthy as killing that sentient being.

[caze]

 

there's nothing stopping us having grazing animals, and not eating them. (well, I'd still eat them, because 'yum')

 

would you kill the cow or the pig with your own hands? if you were to live with that cow or pig and learn to see that its a sentient being just like yourself, your cat or dog, would you still kill it or would you try instead to eat eggs, beans, tofu, hemp seeds, oats, barley, quinoa which wuold keep you as healthy as killing that sentient being.

 

 

from a moral standpoint I'm a vegan, I just don't practice. meat is too tasty. i'd probably have problems killing my own food to begin with, well, maybe not chickens, but certainly more personality-imbued animals like cows and pigs, but I'm sure I'd get over it pretty quickly if the need ever arose.

[hello spiral]

 

there's nothing stopping us having grazing animals, and not eating them. (well, I'd still eat them, because 'yum')

would you kill the cow or the pig with your own hands? if you were to live with that cow or pig and learn to see that its a sentient being just like yourself, your cat or dog, would you still kill it or would you try instead to eat eggs, beans, tofu, hemp seeds, oats, barley, quinoa which wuold keep you as healthy as killing that sentient being.

 

 

Dude, if we were stranded somewhere desolate, don't turn your back on me.

[caze]

lol

[Raktorn]

Hey, WATMM! Bit new here. So recently I just went through a bad breakup after introducing my girlfriend to Merzbow! What do I do?

[Silent Member]

Hey, WATMM! Bit new here. So recently I just went through a bad breakup after introducing my girlfriend to Merzbow! What do I do?

Eat vegetables. No, sorry. Was the breakup related in any way to the introduction, or is that just some random fact?

[watmmisdead]

 

 

there's nothing stopping us having grazing animals, and not eating them. (well, I'd still eat them, because 'yum')

would you kill the cow or the pig with your own hands? if you were to live with that cow or pig and learn to see that its a sentient being just like yourself, your cat or dog, would you still kill it or would you try instead to eat eggs, beans, tofu, hemp seeds, oats, barley, quinoa which wuold keep you as healthy as killing that sentient being.

 

 

Dude, if we were stranded somewhere desolate, don't turn your back on me.

 

thats how much you dislike me huh

[hello spiral]

nothing personal bro. I'm saying I'd eat you is all.

[auxien]

 

 

 

there's nothing stopping us having grazing animals, and not eating them. (well, I'd still eat them, because 'yum')

would you kill the cow or the pig with your own hands? if you were to live with that cow or pig and learn to see that its a sentient being just like yourself, your cat or dog, would you still kill it or would you try instead to eat eggs, beans, tofu, hemp seeds, oats, barley, quinoa which wuold keep you as healthy as killing that sentient being.

I know this wasn't to me, but I've raised and killed animals (including cows), hunted and killed animals (sweet cuddly little rabbits, squirrel, etc.), and I've no issues with any of it. I have issues with trophy hunting and the sad conditions of life of for so many farming operations where we get our meat, poultry, fish, etc. Raising and killing your own stock in humane ways, as well as humane and regulated hunting, is fine and good.

[Adieu]

 

I think I've spoken on the sort of intellectually dishonest concept that veganism is superior from an animal welfare standpoint. You cannot farm without killing massive amounts of animals including larger mammals like baby deer. It causes habitat displacement. Furthermore, grazing animals play a necessary role in keeping soil fertile for farming. If you take them out of the equation, not only are you doing something seriously unnatural and disrupting the built in cycle for soil regeneration, but you're also going to be using methods that are not great for the environment to reach the same ends.

This would have made at least a bit of sense if feeding everyone a vegan diet actually required more farming, but the opposite is true. It would be much more efficient to eat what we grow directly (the principle of eating lower on the food chain) instead of feeding it to livestock first, which is nothing but a grossly inefficient way to convert plants into worse food.

 

Plenty of plant-based ways to fertilize the soil are available.

 

>grazing animals doesn't require farming. the nutrients you get from grains is not equivalent to the nutrients you get from eating grazing animals. Your argument is not logical on multiple levels. Animal fertilizer is superior to plant fertilizer.

I've seen people promoting the concept that a properly grazed grassfed cow is environmentally neutral. I think this makes sense, but obviously the commercial meat industry is not appropriately raising animals. Hopefully the current trend of free range, pasture raised, and grassfed becomes the industry standard.

There's more to veganism than ecology of course, but even if there weren't, you're never going to meet any kind of realistic demand (even if it were drastically lowered from its current level) using truly environmentally neutral methods. It's doomed to end up as one of those tragedy of the commons type deals.

 

>there's definitely environmentally neutral ways to exist.

I mean you more or less said fat causes malnutrition. Whether you want to say it's specifically related to oil intake, which it's not, and whether fat containing foods are significantly different is fine, but it's not really accurate.

You suggested that a vegan diet requires a lot more supplementation than is actually necessary, and my reaction was that this might be the case if you were to eat so much fat (i.e., foods with high specific energy and inherently lower micronutrient to calorie ratio). That would implicitly make it harder to reach adequate micronutrient intake without eating excess calories. If you leave out the fat, you can eat lots more of the nutrient dense foods instead. Which we'd agree is a good thing.

 

> It's your opinion that it requires less supplementation. It's the opinion of mine and many very highly educated people that it requires the amount of supplementation I suggest. I would love to see any of the vegans or vegetarians get a full blood panel done to analyze their actual health. The fact that it requires any supplementation at all really proves the point that it's an insufficient diet though.

 

What you're suggesting in terms of calorie ratios is absolutely stupid. Sorry. But it's dumb. It doesn't make sense in application. I don't even worry about calories because my metabolism is that good now. It's not even a consideration. I eat as much as I want all the time. This was not the case before. The fact of the matter is that on a plant based diet you have to eat a lot more calories in general which isn't necessarily beneficial as it increases the breakdown of the body through oxidative stress.

 

LET ME REPEAT MYSELF AGAIN. THE FATS THAT I SUGGESTED PLAY AN INTEGRAL ROLE IN YOUR HEALTH AND YOUR BODY DESIRES THEM. THEY ARE BENEFICIAL TO CONSUME ON MULTIPLE LEVELS THAT I'VE OUTLINED. I CAN INUNDATE YOU WITH SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IF YOU DESIRE ME TO.

 

MCT's/Coconut oil have massive benefits. Olive oil is very good for you although not the best oil for cooking because it does oxidize at higher heats.

 

Fatty oils and supplements may not be nutrient dense, but they are not "empty calories". Your body utilizes fat in very specific ways, and an increase in fat intake has many notable benefits.

 

a) increased metabolic flexibility

b) increase in metabolism/thermogenesis

c) increase in food palatibility which means you'll actually consume more of the nutrient dense healthy foods

d) increase in nutrient absorption most notably from vegetables

e) increase in feelings of energy and satiety although protein helps with this as well

f) better functioning mitochondria

g) energy that requires 0 metabolic processes, more efficient energy

h) better athletic performance/endurance

I find my food perfectly palatable without any added fat. (So palatable that I have zero problems sticking to my diet full time even, how cray is that?) Logically speaking, for a given constant total energy intake I can eat more of the "nutrient dense healthy foods" if I leave out the oils and other fats. I know you're making the argument that you can eat more calories because of this supposed metabolic advantage of eating fat but all the evidence I've seen simply doesn't show the size of this advantage to be sufficiently large to allow for that, if it exists at all. Certainly not to a degree where you could add spoonfuls of oil and eat even more of the (now allegedly more palatable) foods you put it on yet somehow end up in a better energy balance.

 

The whole nutrient absorption thing is based mostly on that one salad dressing study, but again the same logic applies. Skip the added oil but at the same time substitute more vegetables (calorie for calorie), and the increase in nutrient density will end up far outweighing any reduction in absorption due to the lower fat content. Vegetables already have plenty of fat in them to get adequate nutrition provided you eat enough of them.

 

Personally if I had the choice between, say, 300 kcal of nuts or seeds vs. 300 kcal of potatoes or oats or barley or something, I know which I'd find more satiating, but I guess that could be subjective.

 

More efficient energy again just means you're more likely to be stuck with an excess which is inconsistent with your claims about it being easier to maintain healthy weight on high fat, unless that mythical metabolic advantage enters the picture again. On a side note, if we're that efficient at using fat for fuel, why the need to keep carbohydrate intake so low and enter that exceptional state of ketosis and whatnot?

 

> You're actually in denial. The entire basis of your position is the human body/behavior in a vacuum. Humans use fats for food preparation because it makes it better. There is nothing alleged about this. It also makes cooking easier and better. The entire point is to eat less food that tastes better so that you are not forced into eating every 1-2 hours because you're hungry all of the time, or forcing yourself to eat something you don't desire/enjoy. To not be a slave to foods. Eating more food does not equal better. Not even close. It's more expensive and it requires more time. You don't want either of those things. It's not even realistic to require someone to eat more foods that they don't desire just to meet nutrient requirements either. So the basis is way off. Adding oil to your foods to improve palatibility and lowering the total requirement is the better option.

 

A blanket comparison of nuts/seeds vs potatoes/oats is awkward. Not a realistic example of the choices for food that we have available.

 

If you want to test how well your metabolism is functioning take your temperature 3 times a day and report back the results. You should be very close to 98.6 F almost all of the time, but it might vary based on the time of day. If you are under 98.0 F your metabolic function is suffering a lot. There are numerous causes, but increasing thermogenically favorable foods like coconut oil/MCT's improves this.

I think that I could probably eat the equivalent amount of calories you eat with all the added oils and fats that I eat and gain less than 10 pounds if it's above my current caloric intake. Which I don't even track btw because it's completely irrelevant to me. I'd definitely be willing to try it if you provide what you're eating to me. I cannot do it and eat all the carbohydrates you eat so I would have to substitute other foods like veggies, meat, and fruits.

 

Fats are not metabolized the same way that fructose, sucrose, and carbohydrates are. You gain fat when you have an excess of glucose present. Fat is not metabolized into glucose. It's metabolized into fatty acids such as beta-hydroxybutyrate. These acids are used as energy in an entirely different way than glucose. MCT's are thermogenically favorable because they require 0 metabolic process to be used as fuel. They also do not alter blood sugar levels which means you will not get a rise and dip in energy and focus in the same way that eating things that are converted into glucose will.

 

There is a simple experiment to test the very different way you will feel if you eat MCT's. Mix them with your tea or coffee in a blender and drink them. You will instantly feel energy and a reduction in your hunger.

 

The reason you are likely not to be stuck with excess energy on HFLC is because ketones suppress appetite which means you will not be likely to overeat which is extremely common with HCLF diets due to constant feelings of hunger caused by numerous factors including blood insulin levels and leptin resistance. There is nothing mythical about a metabolic advantage. It is a fact.

 

Ketosis only occurs when the body's glycogen stores are depleted. If you continually add more glucose to the body then you will never begin to use fat as fuel. It's pretty simple.

 

There reason you do not want to mix high levels of carbs and high levels of fat is because they use different energy pathways, and the resulting effect on insulin levels causes fat storage. This is a simplification obviously. Personally I can eat a ton more carbohydrates now and metabolize them better than I could before, and that's because I improved my metabolic function and flexibility. Notable consequences of going on LCHF.

 

It's cool that you're having a debate with me about a topic you obviously know nothing about though.

 

Here's a very short paper on why you should be consuming coconut oil/mct's: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/ebook/Coconut_Oil_Report.pdf

People in blue zones tend to eat lots of fats, oils, and animal products also. Weird that you mention blue zones, and there's a huge difference between a bodybuilder and having a good body composition.

Not arguing with you on the animal foods, but check out the average calorie density and the percentage of calories from fat in the traditional diet of the Okinawa Japanese for instance. How many of these peoples go through prolonged phases of ketosis on a regular basis? The kind of healthy body composition they have, is achieved by having low absolute body fat thus also a low body fat percentage, not by putting on tons of muscle to compensate for the fat they're carrying around like they're some kind of power lifter or strongman. I only brought that up because Hoodie specifically mentioned gaining muscle, not losing fat.

 

> What you're saying doesn't make any sense. You don't put on muscle to compensate for body fat. Ketosis is not even a requirement btw even though if they are laborers they likely intermittently fast unknowingly. Having zero muscle and zero body fat is not ideal. Vegans/Vegetarians regularly suffer from less muscle among other things. Okinawans eat more fat and less carbs though. Sweet potatoes are low glycemic as well and that's their staple.

and your nonsense about government health authorities recommending specific things is irrelevant, even more so, your claims of "fad" science. LCHF has been studied and applied for 200 years. The health benefits are very well documented. Are you even aware that it recently came out that the sugar industry suppressed negative research findings about sugar intake, and also promoted the skewed findings from research they funded themselves concerning fat intake? That's basically where the low fat craze that ruined so many people's health and quality of life came from.

 

You can think about it in a very general way, if you remove fat from foods you have to replace it with something to make it palatable and able to provide energy. That was sugar. That's why you almost cannot find anything in a gas station in the USA that isn't extremely high in sugar. Thankfully more options are becoming available but it's not common. Sugar has a negative effect on the people's ability to control their food cravings, so they eat more and overeat regularly. High sugar intake is related to numerous diseases so people get sick a lot.

 

And generally recommending that people eat high carbs is not functional for a lot of people especially people that have had their body compromised by poor diet and lifestyle already and possibly coupled with medical interventions like antibiotic use. One size does not fit all.

Did I even mention sugar? I'm not sure but I know I meant starches, complex carbs, the whole time.

 

> It's weird when I write a paragraph about something and you gloss over it time and time again.

 

land cannot be continually farmed. it ruins the soil. it has to be rotated. when it's rotated you graze cattle or other hoofed animals on it to replenish the soil nutrients. this is an evolutionary design. a cycle. when you remove the grazing animals you are forced to use other means of fertilization. this is where fertilizers come in. from my understanding fertilizers are bad for the environment for numerous different reasons, and do not provide the same benefit that grazing animals provides to the soil. Grazing animals have an evolutionary benefit to the soil on our planet.

 

it's been thousands of years since humans began circumventing what the evolution provided with a lot of success, to claim that the best (in the many senses of the word) way to fertizlie the soil is the natural way is kinda similar as a claim that the best way to communicate is using pigeons. and btw, who said that vegans are against natural grazing?

all life has a want to grow and stay alive. this is specifically why plants contain antinutrients. plants also communicate with one another. communication is a sign of intelligence.

you're anthropomorphizing plants, they don't have a will or a want, it's simply a misnomer to attach them one. communication is a sign of intelligence, wtf? why come up with nonsense on the fly?

the process of gauging the validity of a life forms existence is a supremely intellectually dishonest standpoint that vegans/vegetarians take.

what part is dishonest exactly? it makes much more sense to assume that beings with a brain experience suffering in a similar manner to humans, no one likes suffering so it's best to avoid causing it. the vegan arguments are really the simplest arguments you can think of when talking about ethics.

your argument is biased towards approving of eating plants, which are alive, things that desire to be alive and do so by measurable behavior and evolutionary adaptations.

my argument is based on avoiding suffering of others as far as possible, not on some abstract notion of life. given that plants cannot experience that i'm ok with consuming them.

First statement is a false equivalency.

 

Rocks do not communicate with one another because they have 0 intelligence. Plants communicate with one another, because they are intelligent. Consciousness is measured on a gradient. I actually think you're trolling me. Plants desire to grow and be alive. I've already provided evidence of this, but you're casually denying it is valid.

 

Veganism is not a simple argument at all. If I ate only meat less animals would die from my food sources than would for a vegan. It's not simple at all.

 

Death is not suffering.

 

There is nothing abstract about the fact that plants are alive before you kill them and eat them.

what kind of physical pain plants can feel? none.

then go look at how pigs are being treated all their life and then killed.

 

I wont say plant dont have a consciousness, but since they cannot biologically feel pain, its absurd to compare plants suffering vs animals suffering. morally, its obvious that killing a animal is cruel, violent and creates pain. killing a plant...

 

you can be as healthy being a vegetarian then eating meat as long as you know what you must eat being a vegetarian in order to still be healthy.

 

and when you buy meat, you encourage a immoral industry. a lot of people would like to convince themselves that its not their responsability and that when they buy meat, its not big deal. sadly, its not the case

Animals being treated improperly is not an argument supporting the superiority of eating plants vs eating animals.

 

Aren't you buddhist? So you should know that life is suffering not death?

 

When you exist in almost every way that involves you being a part of society you encourage unethical behavior. Taking some kind of moral high ground regarding one element of it is not consistent.

 

How is it moral to eat plants that are grown and as a result causes the death of numerous different creatures but eating an animal is more unethical?

 

there's nothing stopping us having grazing animals, and not eating them. (well, I'd still eat them, because 'yum')

would you kill the cow or the pig with your own hands? if you were to live with that cow or pig and learn to see that its a sentient being just like yourself, your cat or dog, would you still kill it or would you try instead to eat eggs, beans, tofu, hemp seeds, oats, barley, quinoa which wuold keep you as healthy as killing that sentient being.

"as healthy" is debatable.

 

the problem with this entire discussion is that there is no one-size fits all to humans.

 

If you feed a tomato to 15 people you will see 15 people's bodies react differently.

[eugene]

First statement is a false equivalency.

that wasn't an attempt to construct some proper anagloy, just a rebuttal of the notion that natural=good or effective. it's easy how it's applicable to other fields besides communication.

 

Rocks do not communicate with one another because they have 0 intelligence. Plants communicate with one another, because they are intelligent.

 

they communicate something because they have the means to communicate and some biological purpose in doing that, how do you quantum-leap from that to plants having intelligence is beyond me.

 

Plants desire to grow and be alive. I've already provided evidence of this, but you're casually denying it is valid.

 

well now that you've repeated that idiocy about plants "desiring" something or "wanting" something (without having a capability to do any of that) for the third time, i'm finally convinced. dunno what are you even referring to though.

 

Veganism is not a simple argument at all. If I ate only meat less animals would die from my food sources than would for a vegan. It's not simple at all.

 

that's a load of nonsense easily debunkable in the first page of "does veganism cause more animal death than being a carnivore" search query results in google.

[Alcofribas]

I CAN INUNDATE YOU WITH SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IF YOU DESIRE ME TO.

 

 

amazing

[LimpyLoo]

That's a huge-ass post, adieu...I'm impressed

 

1) Are plants intelligent and/or sentient? Mold can solve rat mazes, does that mean they're intelligent? Cognitive intelligence is not always the cause of adaptive behavior(s) and in fact it rarely is

 

2) Buddha didn't say life is "suffering"...that's a poor translation that unfortunately spread like wildfire..."disappointment" or "disillusionment" are closer to what was meant

[keanu reeves]

when we walked in fields of text

[watmmisdead]

 

Animals being treated improperly is not an argument supporting the superiority of eating plants vs eating animals.

 

Aren't you buddhist? So you should know that life is suffering not death?

 

When you exist in almost every way that involves you being a part of society you encourage unethical behavior. Taking some kind of moral high ground regarding one element of it is not consistent.

 

How is it moral to eat plants that are grown and as a result causes the death of numerous different creatures but eating an animal is more unethical?

"as healthy" is debatable.

 

 

I believe in compassion toward any sentient being, insects, animals, fish any sentient beings.

Eating plants is the only alternative so I dont die of hunger. 

 

Plants do not have the nervous system to feel pain. its very hard to know exactly the extent of a plant consciousness but it seems evident enough that a plant consciousness differ greatly from insects/animals/fish ect. to imply that plants suffer seem a stretch.

I however know that any sentient beings )animal/insects) are able to feel, to desire, wants to live and doesnt want to suffer/die and that killing them creates suffering.

 

How is it moral to eat plants that are grown and as a result causes the death of numerous different creatures but eating an animal is more unethical?

"as healthy" is debatable.

when you buy meat at the supermarket, its a bit like asking someone to kill a animal for you, you ask him to lack total compassion and love toward that being. I cannot ask anyone to do this for me so I cannot eat meat.

 

Aren't you buddhist? So you should know that life is suffering not death?

 

 

for anyone that is not enlightened, yes suffering/insatisfaction/stress/worry exist in the mind. cravings creates suffering. the craving to kill is very bad craving that creates a lot of suffering for many other beings.

 

in buddhism, one of the five precepts is to not kill any being. Killing a plant, and by doing so, killing insects unintentionally is not comparable to intentionally kill a animal. 

 

How is it moral to eat plants that are grown and as a result causes the death of numerous different creatures but eating an animal is more unethical?

"as healthy" is debatable.

what is the alternative, that I let myself die of hunger in case that eating plants is immoral?

[Redruth]

me thinks trying not to kill is a noble thing to do. so often we as humans do not get credit for trying. why is th ultimate achievement always the gold standard? if trying not to harm living things is bad then i don't know what good could be? all the best to anyone who attempts to preserve life imo. th world shows us an example in everything eating itself, everything chasing the other things around to try to eat it. even microscopic things do this all around us, every day. it is somewhat of a nightmare imo, nature. it is beautiful and a bloody-squrting nightmare. are we really meant to follow this example blindly? there is a short list of things killing actually aids in this world other then appetite. yet, almost everything benefits from love. i myself question the killing most of all because of the extreme reaction that the majority of th creatures hav when they are killed. the squealing, screeching, screaming and th attempts to run away are challenging for anyone i think, anyone who is honest..