Post: #151

(05-11-2016 02:23 AM)No Habit Wrote:  You can get 22g of protein per 100g kidney beans

Great, apart from the fact that kidney beans boost estrogen. I'm sorry but not eating meat at all because of moral reasons is just a fad. Humans need meat, the real question is what kind of meat is good for you (or least bad). You should get rid of beef and pork simply because of the amount of fat they contain. In Poland there is a notorious tradition of eating pork and it's no wonder why cardiovascular diseases are so common here. Eat fish, turkey (or other poultry) and seafood instead. Lean meat. Concentrate on quality as it can also mean a better treatment of animals. That's it, there's really no need to make it any more complicated than that.

Post: #152

(05-12-2016 02:40 PM)Bury Zenek Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 02:23 AM)No Habit Wrote:  You can get 22g of protein per 100g kidney beans

Great, apart from the fact that kidney beans boost estrogen.

Source ?

I've read that they increase testosterone as well, because of the fact that kidney beans contain zinc, of which low levels are associated with low testosterone.

Post: #153

100gr of cricket flour contains:
67gr Protein.
18,5gr Fat.
5.5 gr Carbs.

Insects are a sustainable protein source and enviromental friendly too.
(Since they basically live off human waste)

I bake bread of it and blending it in smoothies.

No reason to be vegans anymore boys, unless you feel for those insects.

PS, no hippie!

Post: #154

Best case for eating meat is those two little pointy teeth in the sides of your mouth, your canines...

You are designed to eat meat. Mother nature knows what she is doing.

You don't put diesel in a petrol car.

Post: #155

(05-12-2016 05:53 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  You don't put diesel in a petrol car.

Oops.

Post: #156

(05-12-2016 03:03 PM)WeekendCasanova Wrote:  Source ?

http://mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/04/08/...estrogens/
https://jeanhailes.org.au/health-a-z/hea...oestrogens
http://www.nutrition411.com/wp-content/u...mestan.pdf

They're not that bad to be honest but there may be other foods popular among vegetarians that have a higher phytoestrogen content like the god-awful soy.

Post: #157

The last link went bad so here it is:
https://www.sendspace.com/file/jlr9r2

Anyway, I don't want to derail this topic as it's about meat not estrogen.

Post: #158

(05-11-2016 04:44 AM)Fortis Wrote:  We're breeding them specifically for this purpose.

What about animals living in the sea that are not bred by us?

Fortis Wrote:Oh well, better that they feed me than some lion in the jungle.

Fortis Wrote:We aren't taking food off of the lion's table.

So you changed your mind about what you said earlier?

Quote:We've domesticated these animals over hundreds of generations and we eat them. What's wrong with that?

So are you asking: We are giving life and we are taking life, what is wrong with that?

Quote:

Quote:True. We had to kill animals in the past to evolve, but we don't have to anymore.

Didn't know you were the evolutionary biology master of the forum. Thanks for enlightening me.

I stated my opinion. If you don't agree with it, let us enquire together where I might be wrong.

Quote:Haven't you only been a vegan for all of three months?

What has my time being a vegan to do with this? Are you saying I have no right to state my reasons for doing something, because I am not holding them a certain time, yet? After what time will you grant me this right? Does it matter at all how long someone has spent time doing something when we are trying to find out the truth together?

Quote:Keep it real with us. What organization do you work for; how much money are they paying you to come troll the forum?

Do you call this "having a serious dialogue" or is it rather "schoolyard nonsense", which you claim you can't stand?

(05-11-2016 05:05 AM)Fortis Wrote:  Thanks for the correction there, Weekend.

I really have no problem with vegetarians. The only reason I jumped into this thread was because I thought Mr. No Habit over there is a bit too cavalier with his moral assertions in this thread.

So what. I eat meat. Animals die. Deal with it. I think animals aren't the issue here, some people just like to control others and can't stand it when others say "no, sorry, I don't care what you think."

Why do you think I like to control others and don't care about the their opinions? If I wouldn't care, would I ask them questions about their opinions then?

Quote:You eat veggies? Great. I'm happy for you and I wish you all the best, but I'm not going to kiss your feet or give you a medal.

That's cool, you don't have to.

Quote:It just seems like school yard nonsense. "Oh, you don't do that? Well, I do. Therefore, I'm better than you."

If you're going to be a vegetarian you should do it and be proud, but don't be insufferable to people who don't cater to your way of living.

Yes I am a vegan and just stated the reasons for this, nothing more. Neither do I think this is something to be proud of, nor do I judge any of you for eating meat.

Fortis, you stated that you can't stand people who like to control others and who don't care about what others think. You also stated that you one only came to this thread because you didn't like that I stated my opinion. It seems like you are the one who can't stand others opinions, likes to control them and does the usual schoolyard-business by not being interested in dialogue but rather to add up to his own image of being a great man.

Will you actually answer any of my questions or call me names again? Because I am actually interested in finding out the right way of living.


-
No Habit

Post: #159

Post: #160

Quote:Meat has the highest nutrition density.

Can you prove that? If it is so, what does this imply? Does it matter if one gets all his nutritiens from one steak or different types of fruits and veggies in one meal?

Does it really improve your life quality? And does a higher cancer rate, according to recent studies, not lower your life quality way more than this will ever benefit you?

Quote:Great, apart from the fact that kidney beans boost estrogen.

Can you prove this?

Quote:I'm sorry but not eating meat at all because of moral reasons is just a fad. Humans need meat.

Why do you think humans need meat? Nick Diaz seems to do pretty ok.

Quote:They're not that bad to be honest but there may be other foods popular among vegetarians that have a higher phytoestrogen content like the god-awful soy.

True. Dropped that soy shit after finding that out.

Post: #161

(05-13-2016 01:55 PM)cascadecombo Wrote:  

That's your best argument?

Post: #162

   

Post: #163

No point in being an Apex predator if you are not going to eat any and everything underneath you you want.

Post: #164

(05-13-2016 01:34 PM)No Habit Wrote:  

Quote:We've domesticated these animals over hundreds of generations and we eat them. What's wrong with that?

So are you asking: We are giving life and we are taking life, what is wrong with that?

I'll ask that.

I anticipate an answer based on a thin and misplaced moralism that doesn't apply.

(05-11-2016 04:25 AM)No Habit Wrote:  Also, why stop at not killing animals? Don't kill any life at all if you don't have to, including plants and trees, perhaps even bacteria. Take it as far as possible.

This degrades any argument for true morality.

This mentality reminds me of the one TLOZ addressed in his post on nihilism

Quote:The progressive ideology in its current form has its roots in the loss of traditional religious faith among intelligent men at the turn of the last century, and the universal adoption by them of a metaphysics of nihilism

...

It is not true, however, to say that progressives have replaced religion with the "worship of man" -- far from it. The progressive obsession with "equality" and with the protection of "the weak" and various "victim groups" stems from the feeling that in a world known to be "meaningless" all the way down the line, the pain and suffering experienced by the weak is adding insult to injury -- and that makes it the one thing that cannot be tolerated. Therefore, there is a sacred status accorded to groups in proportion to how far they are removed and shielded from the knowledge of "meaninglessness": thus the obsession with more primitive and "other" cultures that have not yet attained this terrible knowledge; the sacralization of women, children and animals, that are seen as always molested and tortured; and the most logical conclusion of all, the worship of Gaia and the "environment", of things that are entirely inanimate. And therefore too, the special hatred reserved for the white man as the creature that has become aware of "meaninglessness" yet continues to forge ahead with its unseemly and obscene "greed" and hunger for "growth", always adding insult to injury with its relentless forward drive even when it has been "understood" that it can have no possible point -- that all we can do in a "meaningless" world is to protect the "weak" from "torture" and give them the "justice" that is to be our sole consolation.

....

While the kind of traditionalist religiosity that you advocate stands in superficial contradiction to some of the literal tenets of progressivist ideology, it is in fact animated by the same shared conviction of "meaninglessness" and is just a differently processed reaction to it. It attempts to simply deny the deeply felt certainty of "meaninglessness" by affecting a return to a state that preceded it; yet this is belied by the same emotional undertone of fear and panic and the same conviction of inexorable decline that is shared by nilihist ideologies of all stripes. It is telling that both progressive environmentalists and would-be traditionalists are so drawn to the metaphor of a "virus", of a "disease" that has taken hold of mankind and that is already in "terminal" stages and cannot be cured unless the most radical measures are taken -- and maybe even then. For progressive environmentalists, the "disease" is the human being itself and what it has done to the "planet"

Post: #165

(05-13-2016 02:01 PM)No Habit Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 01:55 PM)cascadecombo Wrote:  

That's your best argument?

Post: #166

(05-13-2016 04:25 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 01:34 PM)No Habit Wrote:  So are you asking: We are giving life and we are taking life, what is wrong with that?

I'll ask that.

I anticipate an answer based on a thin and misplaced moralism that doesn't apply.

So, what do you think? Why do you think there is nothing wrong with giving and taking life? Also, if it is not, why do we punish parents if they kill their own babies then?

Or is it, that life itself does not belong to anyone? If this is the case, then the question would come down to "We are taking life, what is wrong with that?" .

Quote:

(05-11-2016 04:25 AM)No Habit Wrote:  Also, why stop at not killing animals? Don't kill any life at all if you don't have to, including plants and trees, perhaps even bacteria. Take it as far as possible.

This degrades any argument for true morality.

Why?

Post: #167

(05-14-2016 03:54 AM)No Habit Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 04:25 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 01:34 PM)No Habit Wrote:  So are you asking: We are giving life and we are taking life, what is wrong with that?

I'll ask that.

I anticipate an answer based on a thin and misplaced moralism that doesn't apply.

So, what do you think? Why do you think there is nothing wrong with giving and taking life? Also, if it is not, why do we punish parents if they kill their own babies then?

Human babies are not beef cattle, farm raised chickens, plants, or bacteria.

(05-14-2016 03:54 AM)No Habit Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 04:25 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 04:25 AM)No Habit Wrote:  Also, why stop at not killing animals? Don't kill any life at all if you don't have to, including plants and trees, perhaps even bacteria. Take it as far as possible.

This degrades any argument for true morality.

Why?

If you read the quoted text in my post it explains perfectly and beautifully what I mean.

The mentality of "all life as equal", and needing protection from "suffering", down to bacteria, stems from a nihilistic worldview.

Post: #168

No Habit, I don't know what your goal is here.

Is it to convert more people to drop eating meat?
Is it try to prove you have moral superiority for not eating meat?
Is it just because you like to argue?

Either way you are not going to convince people that are on the edge by being acting all morally superior like a lot of vegetarians do. Could have just said I don't eat meat here's why. Then let them come to the conclusion on their own.

One last thing.

Post: #169

Haven't read through the entire thread but it's definitely one of the best sources of saturated fat.

Fat is the ideal macronutrient for the majority of your calories since it doesn't activate the insulin/IGF-1 signaling pathway, thus increases longevity.

Most people have problems with dairy so that's out, all you're left with then is cooking everything in butter and fish, both of which get old fast so I don't see a sustainable alternative to meat

Post: #170

(05-13-2016 01:59 PM)No Habit Wrote:  

Quote:Meat has the highest nutrition density.

Can you prove that? If it is so, what does this imply? Does it matter if one gets all his nutritiens from one steak or different types of fruits and veggies in one meal?

Does it really improve your life quality? And does a higher cancer rate, according to recent studies, not lower your life quality way more than this will ever benefit you?

First of all, you have no right to spray questions like this. My position, and the majority position here, is the status quo, and has been for the entirety of human history, for almost the entirety of the planet. The burden is not on us to explain our position to you, so you should make more statements instead of just interrogating the majority with a barrage of questions.

Here are nutrition densities per 100g:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...1or7TYzrdY

I have a limited stomach size and digestion rate. Therefore, my maximum macro-nutrient intake rate is limited by the macro-nutrient density of my food. My macro-nutrient intake rate translates to my physical size, strength, and energy. Those in turn translate to more sex with hotter women. I would rather die than suffer low sexual success. So yes, it really improves the quality of my life.

Only vegan thing I saw in that spreadsheet that stood out was spirulina. Not sure how easy it is to eat a 200g slab of spirulina though...

Post: #171

Health and nutrition has been a hobby of mine for a long time so I thought I would throw in my two cents.

I’ve only skimmed the thread but I’m guessing the usual vegetarian/vegan arguments are being used:

1. Eating meat is bad for your health.

2. The moral issue of killing animals.

3. Sustainability.

Firstly, when I’m talking about consuming meat I’m talking about consuming free range, naturally raised meat, not factory farmed. I agree factory farming is bad for the environment, produces an inferior product that has possible health implications and is an inhumane treatment of animals.

Also I believe that just consuming muscle meat is not ideal, we evolved eating nose to tail so we should be including organ meats, skin, collagen and bone marrow. When you break down the nutritional level of liver, no other food comes close, it’s the true superfood!

Also I’m not arguing for processed meats. Except bacon, MUST HAVE BACON!!!

So let’s address the arguments.

1. Health issue - There’s plenty of studies around showing meat eaters having higher rates of cancer and heart disease, all these studies are the same observational studies that don’t account for the Healthy User Bias. The Healthy User Bias is people who engage in one behaviour perceived as healthy are likely to engage in other behaviours they perceive to be healthy. Your average vegetarian/vegan are generally more health conscious than your average meat eater. Once you account for this bias there is no difference in rate of heart disease and cancer between the two groups and some studies actually show decreased rates for meat eaters.

There's plenty of examples of native populations consuming large amounts of animal products and being extremely healthy showing no sign of modern disease. The Planes Indians eating buffalo as their main diet had the highest number of centenarians per capita of any population at the turn of the century. For any one interested, Imagining Head Smashed In is a great read, it outlines the Northern Plains Aboriginals methods of hunting and processing huge numbers of buffalo by running great herds of cliffs. Here’s a link to the free pdf - http://www.aupress.ca/books/120137/ebook...hed_In.pdf

We evolved eating meat, it’s what made it possible for us to reduce the size of our guts and increase the size of our brains. Vegetation takes a lot of energy to digest, and brains take a lot of energy to run, once we started eating meat, getting more calories with less energy needed for digestion our brain size could increase. That’s why primates have big guts, it’s needed for the digestion of the vegetation. To believe that a food we evolved eating, helped us increase the size of our brains so that we became the top of the food chain is somehow bad for us is a big call!

And for those that are worried about meat rotting in your gut - http://www.gnolls.org/1444/does-meat-rot...egetables/


2. Moral Issue - As General Stalin mentioned earlier, unless your producing your own food then your only kidding yourself that your vegetarian/vegan diet isn’t responsible for animal suffering and death.

This puts some number around it - http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-...=pulsenews

Quote:Published figures suggest that, in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in:

at least 25 times more sentient animals being killed per kilogram of useable protein
more environmental damage, and
a great deal more animal cruelty than does farming red meat.

There’s no life without death, it’s how nature on this planet works and it’s a beautiful thing! When I die I don’t want to be buried in a box or cremated, I want my body to be left to rot naturally in the bush or thrown into the ocean so my death supports the most life possible, kind of putting back what I’ve taken while I’ve been alive, exactly how nature intended. Not sure how I'm going to make this happen yet?


3. Environmental issue - This is a huge issue and I think the only way to solve it is with properly managed livestock grazing, when done properly it’s a net positive on the environment. This short video outlines it better than I ever could.





So, eat properly raised livestock and know you’re doing a good thing for your own health and the environment!

Post: #172

(05-14-2016 10:03 PM)Omad Wrote:  We evolved eating meat, it’s what made it possible for us to reduce the size of our guts and increase the size of our brains

While I'm glad that you, unlike most people in this thread, took a pragmatic approach to the discussion, and agree with most of your points - the quoted section is heavily disputed. As I stated above, our brains likely grew in size due to our ability to cook; grains and meat. Attributing it to one cause is erroneous.

(05-14-2016 10:03 PM)Omad Wrote:  1. Health issue - There’s plenty of studies around showing meat eaters having higher rates of cancer and heart disease, all these studies are the same observational studies that don’t account for the Healthy User Bias. The Healthy User Bias is people who engage in one behaviour perceived as healthy are likely to engage in other behaviours they perceive to be healthy.

False as well. Every study that the NCBI does (that I know of) accounts for varying levels of physical activity and healthy habits, including caloric intake.

Post: #173

(05-14-2016 10:18 PM)WeekendCasanova Wrote:  

(05-14-2016 10:03 PM)Omad Wrote:  We evolved eating meat, it’s what made it possible for us to reduce the size of our guts and increase the size of our brains

While I'm glad that you, unlike most people in this thread, took a pragmatic approach to the discussion, and agree with most of your points - the quoted section is heavily disputed. As I stated above, our brains likely grew in size due to our ability to cook; grains and meat. Attributing it to one cause is erroneous.

(05-14-2016 10:03 PM)Omad Wrote:  1. Health issue - There’s plenty of studies around showing meat eaters having higher rates of cancer and heart disease, all these studies are the same observational studies that don’t account for the Healthy User Bias. The Healthy User Bias is people who engage in one behaviour perceived as healthy are likely to engage in other behaviours they perceive to be healthy.

False as well. Every study that the NCBI does (that I know of) accounts for varying levels of physical activity and healthy habits, including caloric intake.

Yeah, there's no doubt our ability to control fire played an integral part of our brain evolution. Would we have gotten to where we are if we had the ability to control fire but didn't consume meat? We'll probably never know but the point is meat played a huge part in our evolution, saying now that it's damaging to our health doesn't really ad up.

Regarding the studies, how many control for the quality of the meat consumed? If my entire meat consumption is hamburgers I'm classed as a meat eater. If I only ever eat processed meats I'm a meat eater. That's the problem with observational studies, even when controlling for those things you mention there's still so many confounding factors. How am I cooking the meat, what sort of fat/oil is being consumed.

The other point I didn't bring up is what's the mechanism? There's been no clear mechanism shown between meet eating and cancer or heart disease. Example, sugar, we know excess sugar increases insulin, increased insulin causes insulin resistance then diabetes and so it goes on from there, it's a clear mechanism.

As I mentioned originally I'm talking about naturally raised meats, when it comes to processed meat and factory farmed meat all bets are off.

Post: #174

No Habit,

Which organization do you work for? Who is paying you to come here and attack anyone who doesn't care about your animal and vegetable utopia? You clearly have an agenda which makes me very suspicious of you.

Post: #175

(05-13-2016 04:14 PM)BassPlayaYo Wrote:  

Too bad.

Imagine how much better shape he'd be in if he did.