Going vegan?
The meat vs vegan diet is interesting. Do realize one thing: There are things in meat that you simply can't replace by going vegan. There was a very interesting article in Mens Health two months ago that lists all of the things that meat has that you can't replace the vegan way. Can't find the article now, but I'll mention the very important element that I know first hand: you can't get creatine going vegan.
As I'm sure you guys know, creatine is a muscle building compound found abundantly in red meat. When creatine supplements first came out, they were wrongly lumped together with steroids because they quite frankly worked in building muscle mass. Anyway, you can now get creatine at any GNC and study after study shows that not only is creatine safe, but they're even using it now for older people who are frail. Using creatine builds their bodies and allows them to resist bone breaks. There's no argument to the fact that this is something that meat provides (especially red meat) and going vegan doesn't.
Next, the argument that one should go vegan because they don't want to kill doesn't make sense to me. As others have pointed out previously, anything that you eat is organic and must be killed to be eaten. We don't eat "dead"
matter! The only argument can be that you don't like the way that the animals are being killed. To me, there are SOOO many other injustices that I can focus on other than the way animals are killed. Maybe we should give them lethal injections. They've actually done studies where plants were hooked up to electrodes to see how the respond to different stimuli. When threatened, plants stress out like any living animal would.
Now the whole thing regarding people liking meat because they like the taste of blood and violence...let's just move on, shall we?
The argument that we're not meant to eat meat because we don't have huge claws and teeth like lions is silly. I can come up with a long list of animals that consume meat and don't have huge pointy canines.
Look, different strokes for different folks. If you want to go Vegan because you feel "healthier", go for it. I work out and have done so for almost 20 years. Every time I go to the doctor, they're amazed that I weigh over 200 lbs (muscle, baby) at 6'0" but have such low blood pressure, cholesterol and resting heart rate. When I'm 65, I won't have to worry about the osteoperosis and therefore much greater chance of breaking bones because I refused to take advantage of the benefits of meat.
Again, realize that there are a number of other benefits to eating meat. I just can't find the article and will only speak what I know.
As I'm sure you guys know, creatine is a muscle building compound found abundantly in red meat. When creatine supplements first came out, they were wrongly lumped together with steroids because they quite frankly worked in building muscle mass. Anyway, you can now get creatine at any GNC and study after study shows that not only is creatine safe, but they're even using it now for older people who are frail. Using creatine builds their bodies and allows them to resist bone breaks. There's no argument to the fact that this is something that meat provides (especially red meat) and going vegan doesn't.
Next, the argument that one should go vegan because they don't want to kill doesn't make sense to me. As others have pointed out previously, anything that you eat is organic and must be killed to be eaten. We don't eat "dead"
matter! The only argument can be that you don't like the way that the animals are being killed. To me, there are SOOO many other injustices that I can focus on other than the way animals are killed. Maybe we should give them lethal injections. They've actually done studies where plants were hooked up to electrodes to see how the respond to different stimuli. When threatened, plants stress out like any living animal would.
Now the whole thing regarding people liking meat because they like the taste of blood and violence...let's just move on, shall we?
The argument that we're not meant to eat meat because we don't have huge claws and teeth like lions is silly. I can come up with a long list of animals that consume meat and don't have huge pointy canines.
Look, different strokes for different folks. If you want to go Vegan because you feel "healthier", go for it. I work out and have done so for almost 20 years. Every time I go to the doctor, they're amazed that I weigh over 200 lbs (muscle, baby) at 6'0" but have such low blood pressure, cholesterol and resting heart rate. When I'm 65, I won't have to worry about the osteoperosis and therefore much greater chance of breaking bones because I refused to take advantage of the benefits of meat.
Again, realize that there are a number of other benefits to eating meat. I just can't find the article and will only speak what I know.
BigYellow9999 said:
It seems this muscle building argument always comes up when talking about vegetarian vs meat diets.
BigYellow, if what you say is true about needing the creatine and other substances only found in meat to build muscle, explain to me where a gorilla gets its strength? Gorillas are strict vegetarians. I believe, if given a choice, they would subsist entirely on oranges. And being they are much stronger physically than a human, this Mens Health argument about needing meat for strength/muscle building makes no sense. Granted, we are not gorillas, but we are much more similar to a gorilla than, say, a lion or tiger.
Also, on the subject of protein, the time in life when a human being needs the most protein is very early in life; pretty much during the years when a baby is breastfeeding. Human mother's milk is about 12% protein. About the same percentage found in broccoli. Also, I don't believe breast milk contains any meat.
Stuff, the reason why I haven't posted any links is because arguing with you is like trying to slam my face into a brick wall. I could present you with a ton of info and you would reject it all. It's no use arguing with someone who has a strong moral sentiment attached to the subject you're arguing about. For my part, I was done with this thread, and I won't post any more if I can help it.
B12 deficiency, iodine deficiency, weak muscles, poor muscle-to-fat ratio, weak immune systems, brittle bones, low testosterone, anemia.. that is but a short list of the ailments pure vegans suffer from. And don't give me any of your 'my testosterone is higher ever since I stopped eating meat', because that is physiologically impossible. Unless your test has increased though another pathway, that is. It is a FACT that you NEED a certain amount (albeit a small one) of animal fats and cholesterol to make testosterone.
You should also realize that the health benefits from not eating meat can only be reaped by avoiding red meat. The average American who consumes large quantities of red meat is eating very unhealthy in other aspects, too- the red meat is the smallest factor to take into consideration when you look at the health of the general, high protein consuming populace.
And please, give it up with the 'protein is protein' argument. That is bullshit.
Here's an interesting article: http://www.universalnutrition.com/enter/high_bandwidth/universal_matters/UMV4_I4/pg_13.html
And another one:
http://www.vitafly.com/article148.html
Bear in mind that these articles do not apply to bodybuilders alone, but rather to any physically active person. Of course you can get your required protein if you eat a ton of rice every day- IF YOU ARE A COUCH POTATO.
B12 deficiency, iodine deficiency, weak muscles, poor muscle-to-fat ratio, weak immune systems, brittle bones, low testosterone, anemia.. that is but a short list of the ailments pure vegans suffer from. And don't give me any of your 'my testosterone is higher ever since I stopped eating meat', because that is physiologically impossible. Unless your test has increased though another pathway, that is. It is a FACT that you NEED a certain amount (albeit a small one) of animal fats and cholesterol to make testosterone.
You should also realize that the health benefits from not eating meat can only be reaped by avoiding red meat. The average American who consumes large quantities of red meat is eating very unhealthy in other aspects, too- the red meat is the smallest factor to take into consideration when you look at the health of the general, high protein consuming populace.
And please, give it up with the 'protein is protein' argument. That is bullshit.
Here's an interesting article: http://www.universalnutrition.com/enter/high_bandwidth/universal_matters/UMV4_I4/pg_13.html
And another one:
http://www.vitafly.com/article148.html
Bear in mind that these articles do not apply to bodybuilders alone, but rather to any physically active person. Of course you can get your required protein if you eat a ton of rice every day- IF YOU ARE A COUCH POTATO.
jGman said:
And jGman, if you go down that road, where do elephants or hippos get their great strength? Because they are built differently.
And, for the record, gorillas have testosterone levels that are ridiculously high compared to humans. Besides, the average modern man is a weak fleshbag when compared to our cavemen ancestors. It is through evolution into our seated lifestyle that we have shed off our muscles and great strength.
The way you speak about it, I should be dead... instead of much, much more healthy than when I ate meat, and feeling indescribably better. Yes my test levels are higher, it is very noticeable, so it is possible. Most of the arguements you and the links you gave are tailored for -vegans-, not -vegetarians-, there's a difference! We drink milk. Milk is very healthy. Humans drink milk from the time that they are born, and can until the day they die. We just switch from human milk to cow's milk. There is plenty of nutrition in the cow's blood, and it is all also in her milk. The civilized, intelligent human will get the nutrition from the correct and humane source - the milk. Killing the cow for her blood instead of drinking her milk is the very same as killing your mother as an infant for her blood instead of drinking her milk. Is that a very nice thing to do? No, it is sinful. In the end when all debates cease, it just comes down to the matter of sin.
The guy in that article who claimed atrophy when going vegetarian, he used the wrong word. He meant to say vegan because he said he took no dairy. And even that isn't why. It's because he didn't have a balanced diet, he didn't even try. He went into that thinking he was going to prove it wrong and ate poorly, either on purpose or out of lack of nutritional knowledge.
Again, I will stress this ever important point! There is not one single thing that the human body needs to be healthy in that is found in meat, that is not also found in a vegetarian source (meaning: MILK, grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, and nuts.) The human body is vegetarian. But it can take a little stress from eating some meat if absolutely nessecary. To be at optimal health, though, a vegetarian diet is needed. One may be 'healthy' and eating meat, but that only means that with a well balanced vegetarian diet they would only be more healthy.
Although you called bullshit on what I said, you linked an article which said rice and beans make a complete protien. I already knew this, but rice and beans are staple in the vegetarian diet just to let you know. The formation of a well balanced vegetarian diet is to the point where you do not even need to think of worrying over your health or if you're eating enough of this or that, if you know what you're doing. We produce enough bacteria in our mouths to get a sufficient amount of B12. To utilize that just drink a glass of water in the morning before you brush. We also get B12 through milk. Vegans who lack B12 must be using too much mouth wash and not enough water. It is painfully ridiculously simple how easily vegetarians can get every single needed nutrient. I don't even need to watch what I eat. I just eat a good, healthy, balanced vegetarian meal and I have no worries for health, or 'if I got enough protien. Actually what we should -all- be worrying about, vegetarian and non-vegetarian alike, is if we are getting too much protien! We all get more than twice what we need and the unused protien is treated like a toxin by the body and causes kidney strain and takes calcium from the bones and causes ostioporosis, among other things.
There is no way that being vegetarian would not benefit every single human on this planet, if they ate a balanced diet which includes milk, grains, vegetables, fruits, and nuts. And guess what... since I've stopped eating meat I don't have to eat as much! Yep, I had to eat more when I ate meat to get the needed nutrition. I think some of the toxins in meat probably kill some of the nutrition you take in and that may be why, but that's only my theory. I just wanted to let you know that because you seemed to imply that a vegetarian would have to eat more. That is not true.
All in all, vegetarians are healthier and live longer, but when it comes down to it, it's the choice of the individual. You may choose to forego a little health for a little taste, but again, that is all your choice and that is all fine and good! Remember, it is your choice. So don't get upset at me over mine.
The guy in that article who claimed atrophy when going vegetarian, he used the wrong word. He meant to say vegan because he said he took no dairy. And even that isn't why. It's because he didn't have a balanced diet, he didn't even try. He went into that thinking he was going to prove it wrong and ate poorly, either on purpose or out of lack of nutritional knowledge.
Again, I will stress this ever important point! There is not one single thing that the human body needs to be healthy in that is found in meat, that is not also found in a vegetarian source (meaning: MILK, grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, and nuts.) The human body is vegetarian. But it can take a little stress from eating some meat if absolutely nessecary. To be at optimal health, though, a vegetarian diet is needed. One may be 'healthy' and eating meat, but that only means that with a well balanced vegetarian diet they would only be more healthy.
Although you called bullshit on what I said, you linked an article which said rice and beans make a complete protien. I already knew this, but rice and beans are staple in the vegetarian diet just to let you know. The formation of a well balanced vegetarian diet is to the point where you do not even need to think of worrying over your health or if you're eating enough of this or that, if you know what you're doing. We produce enough bacteria in our mouths to get a sufficient amount of B12. To utilize that just drink a glass of water in the morning before you brush. We also get B12 through milk. Vegans who lack B12 must be using too much mouth wash and not enough water. It is painfully ridiculously simple how easily vegetarians can get every single needed nutrient. I don't even need to watch what I eat. I just eat a good, healthy, balanced vegetarian meal and I have no worries for health, or 'if I got enough protien. Actually what we should -all- be worrying about, vegetarian and non-vegetarian alike, is if we are getting too much protien! We all get more than twice what we need and the unused protien is treated like a toxin by the body and causes kidney strain and takes calcium from the bones and causes ostioporosis, among other things.
There is no way that being vegetarian would not benefit every single human on this planet, if they ate a balanced diet which includes milk, grains, vegetables, fruits, and nuts. And guess what... since I've stopped eating meat I don't have to eat as much! Yep, I had to eat more when I ate meat to get the needed nutrition. I think some of the toxins in meat probably kill some of the nutrition you take in and that may be why, but that's only my theory. I just wanted to let you know that because you seemed to imply that a vegetarian would have to eat more. That is not true.
All in all, vegetarians are healthier and live longer, but when it comes down to it, it's the choice of the individual. You may choose to forego a little health for a little taste, but again, that is all your choice and that is all fine and good! Remember, it is your choice. So don't get upset at me over mine.
Oh noooooooo!!!!! rofl
Seriously stuff, you are obviously an intelligent guy with good debating skills, so I gotta give you props for that. I'm just tired of this argument since we aren't going anywhere with it.
Your test levels may be higher. But it won't be because you have stopped eating meat. That is not possible according to the most advanced nutritional knowledge we have today, no matter what the source. Not just puBathmateed; you can look this up practically anywhere. You can't acheive your max potential test levels without some cholesterol and saturated fats in your diet. As I've said before, though, the amount needed isn't much. You CANNOT get that tiny amount if you stop eating meat completely, though. You can, of course, raise your test in other ways to compensate for that loss. Eat zinc supplements, tribulus terrestris, look at pictures of naked chicks (or guys- whichever tickles your fancy
) at frequent intervals- they all work. You can have high test levels without eating meat, but not BECAUSE you aren't eating it. IF you have high test (and that's a big IF- your libido could be kicking for several reasons), then it is for some other reason.
Also check out my response in the 'How much dairy?' thread... it is like you took the words right outta my mouth with your 'living longer' and 'not having to eat as much' comments...
Another thing about excessive protein consumption: a healthy person's kidneys will be perfectly able to handle even large amounts of protein, provided that they drink sufficient amounts of water during the day. Besides, if you go overkill on the protein, most of the excess will be broken down into glucose (this is referred to as glucogenesis) or just pissed out of your system. It isn't true that protein is stored as a toxin, UNLESS for some reason you have no (or very little) protein digesting enzymes in your system. Normal, healthy humans have more than enough to handle large amounts of protein.
Of course, everything in life is relative. If I were Big Farmer Joe from Texas and ate a 5 pound steak every day, I'd be raping my kidneys with an overkill that would cause at least some level of strain. However, most people who know what they're doing only consume as much as their body needs. Take me for example; I know that my body needs around 30 grams of protein per meal (I eat 5 meals a day at even intervals), which is the exact amount my muscles need to stay at their current size and my body to function normally. I add a little more on top of that (totalling to maybe 35 grams per meal) to keep them growing. It's all relative, as I said before: if you are a couch potato who doesn't strain his body or his muscles in any way, then you probably don't need as much protein as an active, physically fit person. The fact that you are here, though, makes me wonder why you would strive to have an emaciated frame (you don't see many vegan or vegetarian men with beefy bods, now do you?). I would think that you are striving to be the alpha male with a body to match his cock, just like most of us. That just isn't possible with a hypocaloric, vegetarian diet. Unless you drink ridiculous amounts of milk daily (which I assume you don't since you have such a negative view on "excessive" protein consumption.
Also, regarding the rice and beans thing: they are both relatively poor in their protein content, so you'd have to eat ridiculous amounts of them to get the amount you'd get from much smaller portions of meat. And that excess overload of carbs (from the rice: not the beans) would certainly make you fat and lethargic from an aggressive insulin spike.
Seriously stuff, you are obviously an intelligent guy with good debating skills, so I gotta give you props for that. I'm just tired of this argument since we aren't going anywhere with it.
Your test levels may be higher. But it won't be because you have stopped eating meat. That is not possible according to the most advanced nutritional knowledge we have today, no matter what the source. Not just puBathmateed; you can look this up practically anywhere. You can't acheive your max potential test levels without some cholesterol and saturated fats in your diet. As I've said before, though, the amount needed isn't much. You CANNOT get that tiny amount if you stop eating meat completely, though. You can, of course, raise your test in other ways to compensate for that loss. Eat zinc supplements, tribulus terrestris, look at pictures of naked chicks (or guys- whichever tickles your fancy
) at frequent intervals- they all work. You can have high test levels without eating meat, but not BECAUSE you aren't eating it. IF you have high test (and that's a big IF- your libido could be kicking for several reasons), then it is for some other reason.Also check out my response in the 'How much dairy?' thread... it is like you took the words right outta my mouth with your 'living longer' and 'not having to eat as much' comments...
Another thing about excessive protein consumption: a healthy person's kidneys will be perfectly able to handle even large amounts of protein, provided that they drink sufficient amounts of water during the day. Besides, if you go overkill on the protein, most of the excess will be broken down into glucose (this is referred to as glucogenesis) or just pissed out of your system. It isn't true that protein is stored as a toxin, UNLESS for some reason you have no (or very little) protein digesting enzymes in your system. Normal, healthy humans have more than enough to handle large amounts of protein.
Of course, everything in life is relative. If I were Big Farmer Joe from Texas and ate a 5 pound steak every day, I'd be raping my kidneys with an overkill that would cause at least some level of strain. However, most people who know what they're doing only consume as much as their body needs. Take me for example; I know that my body needs around 30 grams of protein per meal (I eat 5 meals a day at even intervals), which is the exact amount my muscles need to stay at their current size and my body to function normally. I add a little more on top of that (totalling to maybe 35 grams per meal) to keep them growing. It's all relative, as I said before: if you are a couch potato who doesn't strain his body or his muscles in any way, then you probably don't need as much protein as an active, physically fit person. The fact that you are here, though, makes me wonder why you would strive to have an emaciated frame (you don't see many vegan or vegetarian men with beefy bods, now do you?). I would think that you are striving to be the alpha male with a body to match his cock, just like most of us. That just isn't possible with a hypocaloric, vegetarian diet. Unless you drink ridiculous amounts of milk daily (which I assume you don't since you have such a negative view on "excessive" protein consumption.
Also, regarding the rice and beans thing: they are both relatively poor in their protein content, so you'd have to eat ridiculous amounts of them to get the amount you'd get from much smaller portions of meat. And that excess overload of carbs (from the rice: not the beans) would certainly make you fat and lethargic from an aggressive insulin spike.
Last edited:
Shafty said:
This is what [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]MoS[/words] is founded on!
Speaking your minds, debating the topic and walking away better friends because of it, no matter what the outcome. It is called maturity and having an open mind.Yeah, it's nice to debate controversial topics in a mature and level headed way. Thanks for remaining calm and brotherly... and not getting all angry over it. I've wanted to talk about this topic for a long time but I didn't want to get flamed. I'm glad we can talk more openly now in a friendly manner.
I just thought this quote looked like it needed to be outlined again.Shafty said:
"Cheese, peanuts, and lentils, for instance, contain more protein per ounce than hamburger, pork, or porterhouse steak."
Most of the beans I eat are a form of lentil, I also eat plenty of cheese and peanuts. I think protien is the least of all of our concerns... we all naturally get so much of it without even trying. Also about protien powder for body builders, I saw they make some made up of all 22 amino acids completely from vegetable sources, with no soy protien used.
Althletes and even body builders have been known to switch to vegetarian diets to help them make progress in their field. A few are: Chris Campbell (1981 world wrestling champion), Aaron Pryor (welterweight world boxing champion), Edward Moses (world record holder for 400 meter hurdles), Robert DiCostella (Olympic marathon champion), Anton Innaver (Olympic ski champion), Killer Kowalski (wrestler), and the entire Seibu Lions (Japanese) baseball team (who won the Pacific League championship two years in a row after switching to a vegetarian diet). Of course there are many more, but I just wanted to throw that in there.
It's been a long time since I've had some sleep and I should've just went to bed already... (on night shift currently), it was nice exchanging this friendly debate with you though.
Time for bed...There are plenty of things she could have besides those, so it could still work.
With allergies factored in... you'd just have to tailor the diet to your body personally, cutting out the things you can't have and taking other things in it's place. If she can survive without those things and with meat, then she can without those things and without meat.
With allergies factored in... you'd just have to tailor the diet to your body personally, cutting out the things you can't have and taking other things in it's place. If she can survive without those things and with meat, then she can without those things and without meat.
Shafty said:
They are built different? What does that mean? Built how, besides the obvious outward appearance? What are their digestive systems like? What about the oral cavity's make up? But no matter how they're built, both of those animals manage to glean a great amount of strength and size from a vegetarian diet.
A lion is built completely different from a human; yet you feel we should be eating the same foods? A gorilla, on the other hand, is a very close animal to a human being. They're 'built' extremely similar to a human, if you want to go that route. And by 'built', I don't mean, once again, only the obvious outside appearance; but from their oral cavity, through their digestive system, all the way out their asses. Find yourself a picture of the skull of a lion, gorilla and human, and try and see what we more resemble. And then do some reading on the digestive systems of each of those animals. That dictates what an animal should be eating; it's not simply based on an opposable thumb.
Our bodies, in no way, shape or form, resembles any type of carnivore on this planet.
As far as our ancestors, it's been discovered in recent years that they probably ate a lot less meat than previously thought. Studies done on teeth have found that they subsisted more on nuts and berries than what was first believed.
And, yes, this has been a good debate. Haven't had one of these in a while. I have to get all my vegan ducks in a row for this one.
Last edited:
The point about Milk is very important. Milk provides an EXCELLENT protein source, and passing that up for the fully plant-life diet is foolish IMHO. Milk protein contains 80% caseinate and 20% whey, meaning it has fast and slow digesting protein (mostly the slower caseinates) -- most importantly the fast digesting whey which has an complete amino acid profile (hence it's importance to body builders).
Another often over-looked plant protein source is hemp. It tastes pretty funky but it's great stuff health-wise and has one of the best Omega 3:6:9 fat ratios you will find anywhere.
Nothing against the vegetarian type life-style here... but I don't think I could manage without some meat. I really don't eat ALOT of meat on a regular basis, mainly due to cost, but I like it when I do eat it.
Another often over-looked plant protein source is hemp. It tastes pretty funky but it's great stuff health-wise and has one of the best Omega 3:6:9 fat ratios you will find anywhere.
Nothing against the vegetarian type life-style here... but I don't think I could manage without some meat. I really don't eat ALOT of meat on a regular basis, mainly due to cost, but I like it when I do eat it.
jGman said:
I believe he is referring to the way their bone structure is arranged.
And to address an earlier point about the diet of the gorilla:
"One misconception about the gorilla diet is that it contains no animal products. On the contrary, all of the great ape groups take in some animal protein, whether overtly or inadvertently, by consuming insects, insect eggs and the larvae that nest on the plants and fruits they eat. In her pioneering work on chimpanzees, Jane Goodall discovered to her amazement, and to the amazement of the rest of the world, that chimpanzees kill and eat monkeys and make a tool to extract termites from their hills (homes), and that they went to considerable effort to obtain these foods. It is also significant that meat is the only food they share with other chimpanzees."
http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/gorilla.html
It would be simply impossible for them to have the muscular build they have WITHOUT a fairly decent protein intake. In the absence of amino acids the body breaks down muscle tissue to get them, so obviously the gorialls are intaking plenty of amino acids through protein to maintain their size.
9
9cyclops9
Guest
This has gotten very interesting! I agree with the milk thing too. I can't see how a pure vegan diet can be healthy. I wouldn't say it's unhealthy, and definitely no more unhealthy than your average American's diet, but surely a lacto-vegetarian diet is much more healthy, and a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet would be even better. But I'll stick with fish. I like fish carcasses too much to give it up.
I like fish carcasses too much to give it up. German Stallion
Super Moderator
Wow, we all seem to have a great deal of opinions. I want to point out that there are books and articles on each side of this issue. The facts/opinions are changing quite rapidly in the medical journals so as you try and keep up with the "truth" on the vegitarian aspect you have to read weekly. Shafty, I respectfully disagree with you regarding the protein value of "rice and beans" and other protein sources of a vegitarian diet. It takes a while for the body to adjust to a "no meat" diet but it does it rather quickly and if balanced you are as strong and full of energy and adapt quite well. In fact, I personally find I am more satisfied and have as much strength and more than I did on a diet with meat. I have tried to be very careful not to be judgemental or to even try and sway or convince anyone about any diet. However there are facts and tests that have proven and are proving that colon cancer is very
"reduced" if not eliminated in a vegitarian diet. Thanks for listening. GS
"reduced" if not eliminated in a vegitarian diet. Thanks for listening. GS
JGman, gorillas have a huge amount of cross sectional muscle for animals their size. Their bone density is much higher than ours, and they have ridiculously high testosterone. These attributes combined give them their great strength and size.
As a side note, gorillas aren't bipedal at all: they prefer to run on all fours, and their bodily construct reflects this. You should never draw a comparison with humans and animals (especially when comparing relative muscle size and strength), since human physiology is from a different world. We need extensive manipulation to grow huge muscles, and from a viewpoint based on survival, too much muscle mass is just dead weight for us. For animals, however, strong muscles are a necessity.
BTW, gorillas have massive canines and a bite force that is rivaled by few animals. You notice the necks they have? This is where they derive their powerful bite from. Then again, you might wonder what a gorilla would possibly need this armament for if it is strictly a vegetarian. The answer is, it ain't. Gorillas don't hunt in the sense as lions or leopards do, but they do consume bugs and lizards on occasion. Their bodies are adapted to handling protein as well as plant matter.
And GS, thanks for your viewpoint. What I was referring to is that there is a huge difference between how much of the protein source you eat will actually be used by your body in different types of proteins. Vegetable proteins simply aren't utilized nearly as effectively as animal based proteins. A lot of what you eat will simply be discarded.
As a side note, gorillas aren't bipedal at all: they prefer to run on all fours, and their bodily construct reflects this. You should never draw a comparison with humans and animals (especially when comparing relative muscle size and strength), since human physiology is from a different world. We need extensive manipulation to grow huge muscles, and from a viewpoint based on survival, too much muscle mass is just dead weight for us. For animals, however, strong muscles are a necessity.
BTW, gorillas have massive canines and a bite force that is rivaled by few animals. You notice the necks they have? This is where they derive their powerful bite from. Then again, you might wonder what a gorilla would possibly need this armament for if it is strictly a vegetarian. The answer is, it ain't. Gorillas don't hunt in the sense as lions or leopards do, but they do consume bugs and lizards on occasion. Their bodies are adapted to handling protein as well as plant matter.
And GS, thanks for your viewpoint. What I was referring to is that there is a huge difference between how much of the protein source you eat will actually be used by your body in different types of proteins. Vegetable proteins simply aren't utilized nearly as effectively as animal based proteins. A lot of what you eat will simply be discarded.
Last edited:
arawndark said:
arawndark, you are right that "In the absence of amino acids the body breaks down muscle tissue to get them." But, amino acids are not only gotten from meat products, nor from what is believe to be 'protein' sources. The body does not need protein per se, but it's the amino acids that it needs. It will make the needed protein, along with other necessary building blocks for the body, from what it ingests.
A vegetarian diet supplies the body with plenty of the needed amino acids to survive. Protein deficiency is a very rare condition, unless, of course, that you starve yourself of ANY intake of foods.
Some quick links on the diets of gorillas:
http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/Gorilla/dietgor.html
http://www.ladywildlife.com/animal/gorilla.html
http://mbgnet.mobot.org/sets/rforest/animals/gorilla.htm
There are plenty more out there, but the gorilla is a herbivore. It may at times eat insects and whatnot, but it's not part of its daily intake of food. Compare that with the typical human diet of bacon and eggs in the morning, a ham and cheese sandwich at lunch, a steak and potatoes at dinner. A human probably eats more meat products a day, by weight, than a gorilla does over a month's, if not more, time.
There are other animals, re: hippos, elephants, that are able to gain/maintain, large sizes and muscular builds, through a strictly herbivore diet. So to say that it's impossible is simply inaccurate. One of man's main sources of meat, the cow, seems to do quite a job of building 'steaks' by eating grass.
I agree entirely that amino acids can be had from a plant source. I sourced the gorilla article based on a comment earlier in the thread that gorillas would subsist entirely on oranges if they could, and that was pretty out there. If you look carefully at my final paragraph that you reponded to it really doesn't say meat in there anywhere.
As for cows, alot of grasses are as much as 10-20% protein, so it makes sense that they are able to develop large slabs of muscle tissue.
As a final note... to a certain degree I agree that human protein requirement is overestimated. Human mothers milk contains one of the lowest protein percentages of any type of milk. But using my first hand experience with weight lifting I have actually experience a quicker gain in strength after consuming significantly more protein than when I didn't think about it at all. But, provided you don't lift like a crazy person like I do human beings are pretty safe without all that much protein -- I survived on almost entirely pop-tarts when I was about 15 years old
As for cows, alot of grasses are as much as 10-20% protein, so it makes sense that they are able to develop large slabs of muscle tissue.
As a final note... to a certain degree I agree that human protein requirement is overestimated. Human mothers milk contains one of the lowest protein percentages of any type of milk. But using my first hand experience with weight lifting I have actually experience a quicker gain in strength after consuming significantly more protein than when I didn't think about it at all. But, provided you don't lift like a crazy person like I do human beings are pretty safe without all that much protein -- I survived on almost entirely pop-tarts when I was about 15 years old
Arawndark; in your final statement you pretty much summed it up. A person's minimum protein requirement is very much related to how active he/she is physically. A couch potato won't need nearly as much as a bodybuilder or even someone who plays basketball recreationally, jogs, jumps rope or whatever.
One more thing about animals and their muscle size: they have hormonal outputs that put even the biggest pincushion-assed bodybuilders to shame. The bigger the animal, the more test/IGF2/HGH it naturally produces in its system. This should be a no brainer. Not all animals are of equal strength at similar size/weight classes, however. The gorilla, which was used as an example, has massively powerful arms and an insane bite force (the bite force is due to the neck muscles, as I explained)because of its bone structure/muscle alignment. Most other animals of similar size aren't nearly as powerful. If a human could attain a similar size with most of it being muscle (around 400 lbs for big silverback gorillas), he would still be very weak in comparison. This has nothing to do with how much protein the gorilla or the human consumes. It's all about humans having evolved beyond the need for insane strength and musculature, and gorillas still needing theirs to survive.
One more thing about animals and their muscle size: they have hormonal outputs that put even the biggest pincushion-assed bodybuilders to shame. The bigger the animal, the more test/IGF2/HGH it naturally produces in its system. This should be a no brainer. Not all animals are of equal strength at similar size/weight classes, however. The gorilla, which was used as an example, has massively powerful arms and an insane bite force (the bite force is due to the neck muscles, as I explained)because of its bone structure/muscle alignment. Most other animals of similar size aren't nearly as powerful. If a human could attain a similar size with most of it being muscle (around 400 lbs for big silverback gorillas), he would still be very weak in comparison. This has nothing to do with how much protein the gorilla or the human consumes. It's all about humans having evolved beyond the need for insane strength and musculature, and gorillas still needing theirs to survive.
K
KiTTie8695
Guest
I Just Recently Heard That You Can Get Wicked Sick From Going Vegan. Every Day Diet Change And All. Plus Not Enough Protein From Meat In Your Body To Help You Grow Stronger.
Whoever told you that you can get sick from going vegan doesn't know what they're talking about. Sure, you can get sick if you eat like shit after switching but you can get sick from eating like shit no matter what. You have to have a balanced diet. And also, I don't recommend going vegan, I recommend going Vegetarian. If you eat a balanced vegetarian diet there is no doubt that you will be more healthy than you were with meat (note the word balanced, which means don't just eat salads... that isn't vegetarian, that's... saladatarian 
). You don't need protien from meat, I thought we already cleared that up. You need some protien, not much, and it doesn't have to be from meat. Only like 10% or less of your diet is supposed to be protien, and it doesn't matter if it's meat, vegetable, grain, bean, milk, or nut protien. As long as you are getting the neccesary amino acids (only 8 out of the 22), there is nothing to worry about. And a balanced vegetarian diet indeed provides the neccesary amino acids. Not only that but if you have any worry about protien in any diet, it would be that you might be getting too much, more than you need, which can be harmful. Both vegetarians and meat-eaters get more than twice the recommended daily amount of protien. You won't get sick over something like that.
). You don't need protien from meat, I thought we already cleared that up. You need some protien, not much, and it doesn't have to be from meat. Only like 10% or less of your diet is supposed to be protien, and it doesn't matter if it's meat, vegetable, grain, bean, milk, or nut protien. As long as you are getting the neccesary amino acids (only 8 out of the 22), there is nothing to worry about. And a balanced vegetarian diet indeed provides the neccesary amino acids. Not only that but if you have any worry about protien in any diet, it would be that you might be getting too much, more than you need, which can be harmful. Both vegetarians and meat-eaters get more than twice the recommended daily amount of protien. You won't get sick over something like that.Shafty, humans are animals. Comparisons are done everyday in the scientific world between humans and other members of the animal kingdom. I'm sure the earliest humans looked to animals to see what they eat to determine what is edible. We cannot detach ourselves from the animal kingdom; we are part of it. We gain a wealth of information about ourselves by studying other animals.
The debate here is what is a better diet for the human animal. Personally, I look at it from a natural point of view. Using ONLY the human body itself, what can a human being eat? To me, there's no other way to look at it. Like I said earlier, if we were meant to eat steak, we wouldn't need steak knives. A lion, a natural carnivore, does not need steak knives. His body is designed for the task of eating another animal. We are not.
Of course, if someone ate nothing but carrots, they would probably not be very healthy. On the flip side, if they ate nothing but chicken, the same would be true.
The protein thing has been done ad nauseam, but to reiterate, it is possible to build massive amount of size and strength from a plant-based diet. Hippos, elephants, gorillas, etc., prove that fact. Humans will never be as big or as strong as any of those animals, not matter what we eat.
The debate here is what is a better diet for the human animal. Personally, I look at it from a natural point of view. Using ONLY the human body itself, what can a human being eat? To me, there's no other way to look at it. Like I said earlier, if we were meant to eat steak, we wouldn't need steak knives. A lion, a natural carnivore, does not need steak knives. His body is designed for the task of eating another animal. We are not.
Of course, if someone ate nothing but carrots, they would probably not be very healthy. On the flip side, if they ate nothing but chicken, the same would be true.
The protein thing has been done ad nauseam, but to reiterate, it is possible to build massive amount of size and strength from a plant-based diet. Hippos, elephants, gorillas, etc., prove that fact. Humans will never be as big or as strong as any of those animals, not matter what we eat.
Once more: the fact that humans can't be as big or strong as certain large herbivores (or omnivores or carnivores) has NOTHING to do with our nutrition. These aforementioned animals have huge skeletal frames that require massive amounts of muscle and strength just to keep them from collapsing under their own weight, so nature has conveniently arranged for them to develop those muscles EVEN though they eat plant matter. Their hormonal outputs make it possible. A human who ate a strictly vegan diet would never grow imposing muscles UNLESS he used massive amounts of roids. Protein is NEEDED for growth (in humans and most other omnivores). Why do you think all omnivores (bears.. HUMANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!.. hogs etc) thrive on a protein rich diet? If you look at bears for example, which are very much omnivorous animals, there is a clear correlation between how much protein and fat their diets contain and how big and strong they grow. Kodiak bears, which are the largest brown bear subspecies in the world, only grow to such massive frames because their diet consists of salmon (which is an excellent source of good fats (omega 3) and protein) year round. Inland grizzlies on the other hand never reach weights that big because they eat more plant matter. And no, they aren't any healthier than their bigger and stronger coastal counterparts.
I do realize that humans are animals in a certain sense. You can NEVER disprove the fact that we have been omnivorous from the dawn of time. We haven't always eaten this much meat (it used to be more about insects and such that didn't require any preperation), but it is a scientific fact that human evolution experienced a rapid acceleration from the point where we started to consume more meat, as I stated before (especially after we invented fire and could thus cook it). Human life expectancy shot up like a rocket, population growth exploded everywhere (we could afford to have more of us around due to this new source of nutritious food), and all levels of our development started to ascend to new heights.
And one more time for the road: we aren't strict carnivores (in fact, we do rely primarily on plant based nutrition), but rather omnivores, much like chimps. They don't have claws or carnivorous jaws either, yet they regularily prey on smaller monkeys and even baboons. The argument that we don't have claws is probably the worst possible one on behalf of us being strictly vegetarian, so everyone just let it go already. I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Besides, earlier human species' used to have pointed canines, the remnants of which can still be seen in our front row of teeth. We have evolved beyond the need for natural weaponry a long time ago, so we no longer have them, or the great strength and musculature of other primates, for that matter.
Of course this is all leading us to the turf or science vs religion. A lot of christians don't believe in evolution, which would make all my arguments invalid to them. I'm not sure about all the details being correct, either, but I have different reasons to doubt the prevailing theory. Our ascension from the animal kingdom into the human kingdom might have been catalyzed by some outside force, since the 'missing link' is yet to be explained. It could have been alien intervention, or perhaps some completely different phenomena, but there is no way in this world I will subscibe to the belief that the earth (and the universe along with it, I suppose) was created in seven days by God, and that He, in his infinite wisdom, chose to make us herbivores. Wooo, then we turned from the path of light at some point, lured by Beelzebub, and started to kill our brethren (animals) for food. That shit is not gonna fly.
I have a very stong feeling of 'kinship' (or whatever you want to call it) with animals, but I don't see how it is morally corrupt for humans to do what they've been doing since the dawn of humanity: eating meat. I DO think that animals are kept in appalling conditions in slaughterhouses, and as I've said before, I would probably stop eating meat if I ever saw it first hand. However, it is natural for man to hunt (just like chimps, our closest cousins, do) and eat what he catches. Remeber that we, too, were occasionally preyed upon by certain beasts in our 'caveman' days. It was just a natural part of the cycle of life: kill or be killed, eat or be eaten.
I do realize that humans are animals in a certain sense. You can NEVER disprove the fact that we have been omnivorous from the dawn of time. We haven't always eaten this much meat (it used to be more about insects and such that didn't require any preperation), but it is a scientific fact that human evolution experienced a rapid acceleration from the point where we started to consume more meat, as I stated before (especially after we invented fire and could thus cook it). Human life expectancy shot up like a rocket, population growth exploded everywhere (we could afford to have more of us around due to this new source of nutritious food), and all levels of our development started to ascend to new heights.
And one more time for the road: we aren't strict carnivores (in fact, we do rely primarily on plant based nutrition), but rather omnivores, much like chimps. They don't have claws or carnivorous jaws either, yet they regularily prey on smaller monkeys and even baboons. The argument that we don't have claws is probably the worst possible one on behalf of us being strictly vegetarian, so everyone just let it go already. I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Besides, earlier human species' used to have pointed canines, the remnants of which can still be seen in our front row of teeth. We have evolved beyond the need for natural weaponry a long time ago, so we no longer have them, or the great strength and musculature of other primates, for that matter.
Of course this is all leading us to the turf or science vs religion. A lot of christians don't believe in evolution, which would make all my arguments invalid to them. I'm not sure about all the details being correct, either, but I have different reasons to doubt the prevailing theory. Our ascension from the animal kingdom into the human kingdom might have been catalyzed by some outside force, since the 'missing link' is yet to be explained. It could have been alien intervention, or perhaps some completely different phenomena, but there is no way in this world I will subscibe to the belief that the earth (and the universe along with it, I suppose) was created in seven days by God, and that He, in his infinite wisdom, chose to make us herbivores. Wooo, then we turned from the path of light at some point, lured by Beelzebub, and started to kill our brethren (animals) for food. That shit is not gonna fly.
I have a very stong feeling of 'kinship' (or whatever you want to call it) with animals, but I don't see how it is morally corrupt for humans to do what they've been doing since the dawn of humanity: eating meat. I DO think that animals are kept in appalling conditions in slaughterhouses, and as I've said before, I would probably stop eating meat if I ever saw it first hand. However, it is natural for man to hunt (just like chimps, our closest cousins, do) and eat what he catches. Remeber that we, too, were occasionally preyed upon by certain beasts in our 'caveman' days. It was just a natural part of the cycle of life: kill or be killed, eat or be eaten.
(*puke*) That isn't the point, the point is could you pick up a live cow, turkey, or fish and eat it. Live and uncooked, still writhing in your hands... could you even bite into it? If you managed to would you live? (*puke*)Bigd5903 said:
And Shafty, I don't subscribe to 'current modern science's' belief that man appeared magically, suddenly only 2 million years ago. There are historical accounts in ancient texts that man has been on this planet for longer, and had been Very civilized (none of that 'cave man' stuff, great and wise sages went to caves sometimes to meditate though.) In fact it is said that in those times we even had airships and contact with beings from other planets in those ancient texts, we were far from being uncivilized and 'cavemen' or less intelligent. Actually the opposite is true, we were more advanced so all your arguements of 'when we discovered fire', and 'meat caused population to boom', and 'cavemen' are mute to me because back then population was very high and vegetarianism (not veganism) was popular. Killing for food was known to be a sin, it was still done by some though.
No 'devil' caused us to eat meat, our lower, animal desires within our own ego is what causes us to act in such ways. And yes we do kill our bretheren, the animals. If it was not morally corrupt to kill animals and eat them, then it is not morally corrupt to kill humans and eat them. [By the way, God didn't create the world in 7 days, but He is the source of it.
(and obviously it wasn't done just 4000 years ago or whatever) But that's another story.]See, that's what I mean. Your beliefs are just that- personal beliefs with no presentable evidence to back them up. You can't dismiss my arguments because they don't fit into your world view. I won't dismiss what you've said completely, either, since science is ever evolving, and the facts of today may very well be proven wrong tomorrow. I know everything doesn't add up in Darwin's theory, and one possible reason could be alien intervention, as you said. It would certainly explain a lot of things.
I do however believe that we have always eaten meat. There may have been advanced, sophisticated supercivilizations on earth thousands or hundreds of thousands of years before our current age, but the fact that we share 98% (or was it 99% by current calculations) of our genes with chimps, which are very much omnivores, tells me loud and clear that meat eating is natural to us. Maybe we are some kind of genetically engineered chimp.. who knows, really? But the point is, at this stage in human evolution meat eating is still something that I wouldn't exactly consider unhealthy or unreasonable.
Speaking from a strictly physiological standpoint, that is. The morals are a different issue altogether, and that is something I don't care to debate. Why? Because I don't want to be labled a barbarian or murderer simply because I happen to eat meat on occasion.
I do however believe that we have always eaten meat. There may have been advanced, sophisticated supercivilizations on earth thousands or hundreds of thousands of years before our current age, but the fact that we share 98% (or was it 99% by current calculations) of our genes with chimps, which are very much omnivores, tells me loud and clear that meat eating is natural to us. Maybe we are some kind of genetically engineered chimp.. who knows, really? But the point is, at this stage in human evolution meat eating is still something that I wouldn't exactly consider unhealthy or unreasonable.
Speaking from a strictly physiological standpoint, that is. The morals are a different issue altogether, and that is something I don't care to debate. Why? Because I don't want to be labled a barbarian or murderer simply because I happen to eat meat on occasion.
I doubt you could even break the skin with the comparatively dull teeth and weak jaw us humans have, especially of the possibly most mudered and eaten animal today, the cow, whos skin is rather thick. I don't recommend that you try. And people have known about fire for many millions of years so that arguement makes no sense, especially when coupled with the fact that you probably couldn't even break the skin or tear the flesh off if you got that far... not to mention you'd get very sick, perhaps even die. :sBigd5903 said:
Edit: And the market today is a bad idea. If someone wants to eat a dead body, they should have to kill it, skin it, gut it, clean it, cut it, and cook it all themselves. If you can't do all that then you aren't "qualified" to eat it. This includes women and children, each person should individually have to do this so they know a little more about the suffering, the reality, and the fact that this dead body is the same as your own and you just killed a living being just like yourself, which indeed has a soul equal to yours.
Last edited:
lol Does anyone else think its cool to be called a "corpse eater", kinda like a Thirteenth Warrior type thing.
Seriously though, with all the arguments I've heard (don't have alot of prior knowledge) but it would seem to me that when we are compared to the great apes and their diet/lifestyle, could it not be possible that our opposable thumb is meant to be a hunting weapon in and of itself.
Granted it probably won't help us to take down a cow, so perhaps the fact that we weren't meant to eat such animals is a valid argument, but other actions with the thumb such as holding to take a bite of something or having an easier time to break its neck and kill it. Perhaps our omnivorous diet was meant primarily for animals smaller than ourselves. Also what about oysters, and certain insects (in various cultures) that were meant to be eaten raw?
These things are certainly small enough to be picked up with an opposable thumb and eaten. An excess of anything is bad, this is why I would probably never choose an "Atkins" type diet. I do believe that yes there aren't just Carnivores and Herbivores in the world, but also omnivores which has been discussed and humans fall into that category.
As far as the humans being able to eat raw meat thing, I'm sure that someone nowadays would become quite ill if they started consuming raw meat in large quantities, especially with some of the diseases in such matter (keep in mind that the same diseases must be dealt with in the animal kingdom so it is something of a moot point), but I think there was a span of time before humans could cook anything that they were adapted to eating raw meat, much like some parts of South America where the people eat raw plantains (something that would make alot of the rest of the civilized world throw up simply because their stomach has not become strong enough), but these people adapted to that.
As humans we are the smartest of the animal kingdom, and the only members not afraid of fire, so with this to our advantage we now cook our food (meat and vegetable alike) to make it more edible, and as a world society have become adapted to this practice.
Anyway, good debate, just what my thought process has put together.
Seriously though, with all the arguments I've heard (don't have alot of prior knowledge) but it would seem to me that when we are compared to the great apes and their diet/lifestyle, could it not be possible that our opposable thumb is meant to be a hunting weapon in and of itself.
Granted it probably won't help us to take down a cow, so perhaps the fact that we weren't meant to eat such animals is a valid argument, but other actions with the thumb such as holding to take a bite of something or having an easier time to break its neck and kill it. Perhaps our omnivorous diet was meant primarily for animals smaller than ourselves. Also what about oysters, and certain insects (in various cultures) that were meant to be eaten raw?
These things are certainly small enough to be picked up with an opposable thumb and eaten. An excess of anything is bad, this is why I would probably never choose an "Atkins" type diet. I do believe that yes there aren't just Carnivores and Herbivores in the world, but also omnivores which has been discussed and humans fall into that category.
As far as the humans being able to eat raw meat thing, I'm sure that someone nowadays would become quite ill if they started consuming raw meat in large quantities, especially with some of the diseases in such matter (keep in mind that the same diseases must be dealt with in the animal kingdom so it is something of a moot point), but I think there was a span of time before humans could cook anything that they were adapted to eating raw meat, much like some parts of South America where the people eat raw plantains (something that would make alot of the rest of the civilized world throw up simply because their stomach has not become strong enough), but these people adapted to that.
As humans we are the smartest of the animal kingdom, and the only members not afraid of fire, so with this to our advantage we now cook our food (meat and vegetable alike) to make it more edible, and as a world society have become adapted to this practice.
Anyway, good debate, just what my thought process has put together.
Don't know if i could convert to veganity. Some of their food taste like crap smells.
I honestly don't want to eat pig, it taste like shit all kinds and types.
But im kind of forced when living at home.
Doe a vegan cant drink milk, and that isnt good for the sceleton and the bone structure.
I honestly don't want to eat pig, it taste like shit all kinds and types.
But im kind of forced when living at home.
Doe a vegan cant drink milk, and that isnt good for the sceleton and the bone structure.
9
9cyclops9
Guest
Wow it's getting thick in here. I will say, Shafty, that your "Christian veganism" thing is way off. I don't think anyone says any of that stuff. In the Bible God tells people to eat meat. However, I think I'm going to duck out of this thread until it gets away from the religion side of things, because I refuse to get involved in another religious debate. But as always, anyone that wants to discuss religion/theology/philosophy on AIM should feel free to get my screen name from my profile and IM me any time.
Bigd5903, you could pick up a steak and eat it; unfortunately, the 'steak' has already been butchered from a cow. Try picking up a cow and eating it; then tell me a knife isn't necessary.
Shafty, I'm not saying protein isn't necessary. You seem to think animal protein is 'better' than plant protein.
"Once more: the fact that humans can't be as big or strong as certain large herbivores (or omnivores or carnivores) has NOTHING to do with our nutrition. These aforementioned animals have huge skeletal frames that require massive amounts of muscle and strength just to keep them from collapsing under their own weight, so nature has conveniently arranged for them to develop those muscles EVEN though they eat plant matter. Their hormonal outputs make it possible."
Who said that humans have to be as big or as strong as other animals? We're all different animals, with different needs and limitations. And I really don't know what you mean by the 'nature has conveniently arranged...' statement. Nature doesn't do anything 'conveniently'. Everything in nature is done for a reason; the foremost of which is survival.
Do you think nature was sitting around one day and said, 'You know, we need these really big animals running around, but in order to keep them big, we have to screw around with their DNA so that they can get big just eating plants.'
It just seems to me like you have a problem with accepting the fact that animals on this planet have been able to grow to great size and strength by eating a plant-based diet, as evidenced by the statement: "...EVEN though they eat plant matter."
Look around this planet. This place is full of vegetation. It's an integral part of life on this planet. Life that has developed here HAS to be able to subsist on what's available. It's not convenience; it's natural law.
Besides the fact that plant-based diets are much more efficient for the environment than meat-based. Not sure of exact numbers, but an acre of land can produce 250 pounds of beef. On the flip side, on that same acre, you can produce 60,000 pounds of celery; or 50,000 pounds of tomatoes; 30,000 pounds of carrots, etc. Not to mention the corresponding water consumption. Also, about 80-90 per cent of our grains grown in this country go to feed livestock; an amount that could feed 4-5 times the population of the United States. Obviously, not a good return on investment. So, nature has done this, as you say, not as a convenience, but as necessity. Nature likes efficiency.
Nature knows how to run this planet a whole lot better than we can. That's the reason these animals are able to grow and survive on plants. It's not some freak occurrence, but just another day in the life on planet Earth.
Shafty, I'm not saying protein isn't necessary. You seem to think animal protein is 'better' than plant protein.
"Once more: the fact that humans can't be as big or strong as certain large herbivores (or omnivores or carnivores) has NOTHING to do with our nutrition. These aforementioned animals have huge skeletal frames that require massive amounts of muscle and strength just to keep them from collapsing under their own weight, so nature has conveniently arranged for them to develop those muscles EVEN though they eat plant matter. Their hormonal outputs make it possible."
Who said that humans have to be as big or as strong as other animals? We're all different animals, with different needs and limitations. And I really don't know what you mean by the 'nature has conveniently arranged...' statement. Nature doesn't do anything 'conveniently'. Everything in nature is done for a reason; the foremost of which is survival.
Do you think nature was sitting around one day and said, 'You know, we need these really big animals running around, but in order to keep them big, we have to screw around with their DNA so that they can get big just eating plants.'
It just seems to me like you have a problem with accepting the fact that animals on this planet have been able to grow to great size and strength by eating a plant-based diet, as evidenced by the statement: "...EVEN though they eat plant matter."
Look around this planet. This place is full of vegetation. It's an integral part of life on this planet. Life that has developed here HAS to be able to subsist on what's available. It's not convenience; it's natural law.
Besides the fact that plant-based diets are much more efficient for the environment than meat-based. Not sure of exact numbers, but an acre of land can produce 250 pounds of beef. On the flip side, on that same acre, you can produce 60,000 pounds of celery; or 50,000 pounds of tomatoes; 30,000 pounds of carrots, etc. Not to mention the corresponding water consumption. Also, about 80-90 per cent of our grains grown in this country go to feed livestock; an amount that could feed 4-5 times the population of the United States. Obviously, not a good return on investment. So, nature has done this, as you say, not as a convenience, but as necessity. Nature likes efficiency.
Nature knows how to run this planet a whole lot better than we can. That's the reason these animals are able to grow and survive on plants. It's not some freak occurrence, but just another day in the life on planet Earth.
Yeah... whatever. I'm done banging my head against a wall.
You have chosen to ignore what I've been trying to get through to you all along, so there is nothing further for me to say.
And it is YOU that has troubles accepting the dead simple fact that large herbivores are large and muscular because they naturally produce more of the hormones that construct bone and tissue, regardless of their diet. The only way they can sustain their size is by eating literally tons of plant matter. Big carnivores have to eat a lot less/less frequently to grow and sustain their size because what they eat is more nutritious. The size range of any species is dictated by how much growth hormones it produces. The differences between individuals of any given species can be attributed to available nutrition, climate, genes from both parents etc. What is so difficult to understand about that?
You have chosen to ignore what I've been trying to get through to you all along, so there is nothing further for me to say.
And it is YOU that has troubles accepting the dead simple fact that large herbivores are large and muscular because they naturally produce more of the hormones that construct bone and tissue, regardless of their diet. The only way they can sustain their size is by eating literally tons of plant matter. Big carnivores have to eat a lot less/less frequently to grow and sustain their size because what they eat is more nutritious. The size range of any species is dictated by how much growth hormones it produces. The differences between individuals of any given species can be attributed to available nutrition, climate, genes from both parents etc. What is so difficult to understand about that?
Shafty said:
Shafty said:
It's not difficult at all to me, but you seem to have a some difficulty, being you contradicted yourself about nutrition from a previous post.
Here's some quick reading for you, Shafty. There's some good links in there. The study by Dr. Alan Walker at Johns Hopkins is interesting.
http://www.markblackburn.org/diet1.htm
How exactly did I contradict myself? I don't see any of that happening. You once again did a splendid job of misunderstanding my words.
When I said that the fact that we can't grow as big and strong as certain animals has nothing to do with our nutrition, I was only trying to make a point that no matter what we eat, we will never grow to elephant size because our bodies don't produce nearly enough growth hormones. Of course what we eat (meat vs plant matter)dictates how big we can grow, but only on a level that is comparable with others of our own kind. It's so simple that it hurts me to have to repeat it over and over and over again. If we eat more meat, we grow bigger. However, we will never grow as big as elephants or rhinos. Just bigger than another human who has chosen to eat nothing but vegetable matter.
When I said that the fact that we can't grow as big and strong as certain animals has nothing to do with our nutrition, I was only trying to make a point that no matter what we eat, we will never grow to elephant size because our bodies don't produce nearly enough growth hormones. Of course what we eat (meat vs plant matter)dictates how big we can grow, but only on a level that is comparable with others of our own kind. It's so simple that it hurts me to have to repeat it over and over and over again. If we eat more meat, we grow bigger. However, we will never grow as big as elephants or rhinos. Just bigger than another human who has chosen to eat nothing but vegetable matter.
OK, I just read the link you posted, and I can't say I agree with much that was said. The person who wrote is was obviously blinded by his personal agenda. He actually threw in a lot of misinformation, such as "what do other primates eat? - fruits", without bothering to mention that meat is an essential part of the diets of baboons and chimps. He also forgot to mention what a positive impact the increase of meat consumption had on humanity as a whole in our early ages (if you want to believe the prevailing theories, that is... or, you can disregard them completely based on personal world views).
And one last goddamn time, I will spell it out in crayon.. no, actually I'll copy and paste it from my post in another thread: THIS IS THE REASON WHY VEGANS AND OTHERS ON LIFE LONG LOW CALORIE DIETS ARE MORE HEALTHY:
It is also a fact (demonstrated with lab tests) that a chronic state of slight hypocaloric intake will prolong a person's life expectancy. It isn't nearly as important whether or not there is meat in there than it is how much you are eating. In that sense you are correct: vegans often eat below maintenace calories, thus living longer. However, it isn't because they have eliminated meat from their diets: it's because the human body will 'last longer' when it isn't overburdened by a constant assault on the digestive system by large quantities of food. You could just as well eat meat and veggies, but only small amounts of both daily, and live just as long.
And another part of the same post:
a little known 'secret' that most vegans are unaware of is that the 'health benefits' (if we forget all the detriments for a moment) they reap are largely based on the fact that they go from eating extremely unhealthy, highly processed foods (not JUST the meat) with a high caloric intake to eating a hypocaloric diet with no junk in it. They don't just remove the meat (which is, again, the least of the culprits); they eliminate all the processed snacks, sodas and other high preservative, high trans fat shit from their eating regimens along with their newfound "close-to-nature" eating ways. It is so easy to blame it all on the meat without realizing that the true reasons for high blood pressure (too much sodium from sodas and salty snacks), obesity (high GI carbs laced with trans fats) and lethargy (blood sugar roller coaster from eating at uneven intervals) can be found in completely different food items/habits.
And one last goddamn time, I will spell it out in crayon.. no, actually I'll copy and paste it from my post in another thread: THIS IS THE REASON WHY VEGANS AND OTHERS ON LIFE LONG LOW CALORIE DIETS ARE MORE HEALTHY:
It is also a fact (demonstrated with lab tests) that a chronic state of slight hypocaloric intake will prolong a person's life expectancy. It isn't nearly as important whether or not there is meat in there than it is how much you are eating. In that sense you are correct: vegans often eat below maintenace calories, thus living longer. However, it isn't because they have eliminated meat from their diets: it's because the human body will 'last longer' when it isn't overburdened by a constant assault on the digestive system by large quantities of food. You could just as well eat meat and veggies, but only small amounts of both daily, and live just as long.
And another part of the same post:
a little known 'secret' that most vegans are unaware of is that the 'health benefits' (if we forget all the detriments for a moment) they reap are largely based on the fact that they go from eating extremely unhealthy, highly processed foods (not JUST the meat) with a high caloric intake to eating a hypocaloric diet with no junk in it. They don't just remove the meat (which is, again, the least of the culprits); they eliminate all the processed snacks, sodas and other high preservative, high trans fat shit from their eating regimens along with their newfound "close-to-nature" eating ways. It is so easy to blame it all on the meat without realizing that the true reasons for high blood pressure (too much sodium from sodas and salty snacks), obesity (high GI carbs laced with trans fats) and lethargy (blood sugar roller coaster from eating at uneven intervals) can be found in completely different food items/habits.
Hey, I just read through your link word to word, and it corroberates what I've said. With the exception of a few personal beliefs of theirs that are contradicted by many other nutritional experts.
BTW, here's a few facts of how badly equipped the human body is for handling high amounts of fructose (that's right... natural fruit sugar):
http://teaching.ucdavis.edu/nut293b/handouts/fructose.pdf
Now, if we were intended to be primarily frugivores, wouldn't our bodies be naturally more inclined to use and process fructose effeciently? However, it is quite the contrary. And you don't even have to eat concentrated forms of fructose to suffer from this: if you eat nothing but fruit, you will get what's coming to you.
BTW, here's a few facts of how badly equipped the human body is for handling high amounts of fructose (that's right... natural fruit sugar):
http://teaching.ucdavis.edu/nut293b/handouts/fructose.pdf
Now, if we were intended to be primarily frugivores, wouldn't our bodies be naturally more inclined to use and process fructose effeciently? However, it is quite the contrary. And you don't even have to eat concentrated forms of fructose to suffer from this: if you eat nothing but fruit, you will get what's coming to you.
Did you even read through that link? It's talking about ADDED fructose to foods; not naturally occurring fructose already present in foods.
Here's a quote:
"Second, the concerns raised about the addition
of fructose to the diet as sucrose or HFCS should not be extended
to naturally occurring fructose from fruit and vegetables. The consumption
of fruit and vegetables should continue to be encouraged
because of the resulting increased intake of fiber, micronutrients,
and antioxidants. In addition, the intake of naturally occurring
fructose is low, 15 g/d, and is unlikely to contribute significantly
to the untoward metabolic consequences associated with the consumption
of large amounts of fructose."
Do you have other links from nutritional experts to contradict what was said either by myself, the link I posted, or Stuff? This one link you posted just isn't cutting it for you.
Here's a quote:
"Second, the concerns raised about the addition
of fructose to the diet as sucrose or HFCS should not be extended
to naturally occurring fructose from fruit and vegetables. The consumption
of fruit and vegetables should continue to be encouraged
because of the resulting increased intake of fiber, micronutrients,
and antioxidants. In addition, the intake of naturally occurring
fructose is low, 15 g/d, and is unlikely to contribute significantly
to the untoward metabolic consequences associated with the consumption
of large amounts of fructose."
Do you have other links from nutritional experts to contradict what was said either by myself, the link I posted, or Stuff? This one link you posted just isn't cutting it for you.
This simply is not true.Shafty said:
Edit: Well, due to the specifics of your statement, 'vegetable matter', or vegetables, I'm not really sure because I have never looked into a purely vegetable based diet. Vegetarian diets include milk, grains, vegetables, fruits, and nuts, though, and what you said is simply not true for that diet.
Last edited:
9
9cyclops9
Guest
A "notavegetarian."
9
9cyclops9
Guest
People that eat a vegetarian diet plus fish are sometimes called "pescetarians." That's a fantastic diet, IMO. Fatty fish such as salmon is some of the best meat you can eat. Luckily for me, salmon at my grocery store isn't very much more expensive than chicken.
jGman said:
The same goes for excessive fruit consuption. There is a good reason why many top level athletes (not JUST bodybuilders) avoid consuming fruit in large quantities. The human body doesn't process it well. In fact, it is toxic in large amounts (fructose, that is: not the fruit in itself).
The link I posted didn't specify this. However, if we were to eat a diet that was heavily based on fruit, we would have to consume massive amounts of it to get the needed calories for survival. Fruit is a very calorie poor food, so naturally we'd need a whole lot of it to survive. Along with eating massive amounts of it we would get too much fructose. Which dispels the idea of us being primarily fructivores. I could post you a link to pretty much any bodybuilding site that is giving out sound, scientific info to seriously dedicated BBers and health conscious athletes, and you'd get the same answer. Fructose is bad for you. In fact, even refined sugar is better. Eating fruit is healthy because of the fiber, vitamins and such that you get, but fructose in itself (which is the only "nutrient" in most ripe fruits) isn't. We could never survive on a diet that relies heavily on fruit. Which was my point.
Last edited:
Stuff_ said:This simply is not true.
Edit: Well, due to the specifics of your statement, 'vegetable matter', or vegetables, I'm not really sure because I have never looked into a purely vegetable based diet. Vegetarian diets include milk, grains, vegetables, fruits, and nuts, though, and what you said is simply not true for that diet.
Stuff, I was discussing a purely vegan diet, since we seem to be getting into the argument of whether or not man should consume any animal based foods. A VEGETARIAN diet, such as the one you follow, shouldn't present any problems if you drink milk and whatnot.