Going vegan?

Bigd5903 said:

That's how people used to eat before they discovered fire

Click to expand...

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. :s

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.

Stuff_ said:

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. :s

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.

Click to expand...

Well since you know everything I guess there's no reason for me to post. Oh and here's a smiley for ya

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.

yes but stuff will tell you you've got it all wrong.

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.

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.

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?

Shafty said:

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.

Click to expand...

Shafty said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Shafty said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Most vegetarians I know also eat fish and chicken.. what are those called (the technical term)?

A "notavegetarian." :D

LOL, cyclops. :-D

Or was it that they just ate fish.. don't remember. But they did it to get B12 I think. They eat a lot of tuna. =)

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:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.