Page 18 of 23 FirstFirst ... 8 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ... LastLast
Results 426 to 450 of 573
  1. #426
    Save Jesus
    Reputation: beanbag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,706
    Wait, was the discussion about evolutionary dietary adaptations, or modern healthful eating? Because humans were definitely not evolved to eat "a varied and balanced vegan diet" because agriculture, planes, and trucks were not invented yet. They could not one day eat some flax seeds, a rich source of ALA O3 fatty acids, which are inefficiently converted to EPA, and then decide to eat some bell peppers, a source of cysteiene, helping them in their meager biosynthesis of taurine.

    In the meantime, I found this page which has a long ass article if one is interested in evolution, teeth, apes, intestines, etc.
    Comparative Anatomy Updated. Humans--Omnivores or Vegetarians?

    I also noticed an interesting comment that a vegan diet can "cure" cancer. So if you already got cancer, you can go vegan and fix it? Really?

  2. #427
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by beanbag View Post
    Wait, was the discussion about evolutionary dietary adaptations, or modern healthful eating?
    with all due respect, is this a serious question???

    to begin with, "evolutionary dietary adaptations" assumes facts not in evidence. specifically that the macro evolutionary theory of the origin of life and diversity of species is irrefutable.... which it is not. not by a long shot. it's on shaky ground at best with probability and logic strongly contravening it.

    however that is another discussion entirely, one not suited here, and one that for some reason you keep trying to force. you're squarely in the evolution camp. we get it. but that's irrelevant to whether or not man is (present tense) a functional construct herbivore.

    the position that you are refuting is that man is (present tense) irrefutably designed (irrespective of I.D. or evolution) as a functional construct herbivore. yet inexplicably you keep referring to evolution, which is wholly irrelevant to the current observable features, physiology, and biochemistry of the human digestive tract.

    again with all due respect after reviewing the past week or so of this thread it seems rather clear that this discussion has NEVER been about evolutionary dietary adaptations but rather the premise that humans are (present tense, i.e. "modern") or are not functional construct (irrespective of origin of design) herbivores.

    Quote Originally Posted by beanbag
    Because humans were definitely not evolved to eat "a varied and balanced vegan diet" because agriculture, planes, and trucks were not invented yet. They could not one day eat some flax seeds, a rich source of ALA O3 fatty acids, which are inefficiently converted to EPA, and then decide to eat some bell peppers, a source of cysteiene, helping them in their meager biosynthesis of taurine.
    first of all, the statement "humans were definitely not evolved to eat..." yet again assumes facts not in evidence and is arguing a point not in contention.

    second, because we're not talking about what humans ate eons ago the "not invented yet" argument is wholly without merit and is a red herring and strawman in a discussion of whether humans are (present tense) functional construct herbivores.

    third, the body is capable of (and does quite adequately) synthesizing the EPA and taurine it needs from "a varied and balanced vegan diet". yet again, what ancient man ate eons ago is wholly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by beanbag
    In the meantime, I found this page which has a long ass article if one is interested in evolution, teeth, apes, intestines, etc.
    Comparative Anatomy Updated. Humans--Omnivores or Vegetarians?
    you "found a page" that has a "long ass article" on why man is not a functional construct herbivore despite the digestive tract being that of an herbivore from lips to anus? congratulations. after all, if it's on the internet it MUST be true.

    i personally find it disingenuous that if such chicanery were attempted with any other clearly classified functional construct herbivore the author would be ridiculed, scorned to shame, and ostracized by being laughed out of the scientific community. only with the clearly herbivorous digestive tract of one animal is this kind of nonsensical pablum and drivel accepted as a quantitative refutation.... humans. hmmmmm..... why is that? disingenuous, dishonest, quackery, and hypocritical don't even begin to cover such a supposition/position.

    Quote Originally Posted by beanbag
    I also noticed an interesting comment that a vegan diet can "cure" cancer. So if you already got cancer, you can go vegan and fix it? Really?
    yes. cancer is simply an outgrowth of certain types of cells that the immune system can no longer keep under control. one's diet has a huge impact on the immune system but there's more to it than simply "going vegan" to fix it. nutrition therapy is nothing new, is well documented, and quashing it (along with homeopathy) are but a couple of reasons the AMA was formed. however, nutrition therapy predates hippocrates who said "let food be thy medicine, and medicine be thy food".

    there are countless well documented cases of people reversing cancer simply by nutrition therapy. i happen to know one individual personally who, with terminal metastatic jaw cancer, was given less than 6 months to live. they advised that if she had radical surgery removing most of the lower portion of her face and and extensive chemo she may get up to 3 or 4 years. she refused and went the route of nutrition therapy. almost 20 years later she's still cancer free.

    nutrition therapy has also been shown to reverse coronary artery disease, gout, control diabetes, reverse and/or control many other maladies including neurological and psychological issues.
    Last edited by monogod; 03-08-2013 at 06:48 AM.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  3. #428
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    470
    Humans are not born lactose intolerant, breast milk contains about 9% carbs in the form of lactose. Our enzymes are specific to our mothers breast milk though, through exposure to other items, we build up the necessary enzymes to break down "tolerate" other forms of milk. This not only happens with milk but just about everything else we eat as well, we are not born perfectly capable of consuming everything...that's what the human immune system is constantly, a work in progress and how eat is how it is formed. Your body will build in a immune system to tolerate your diet....that is unless your body has a specific genetic mechanism that does not tolerate a certain substance within the body.

    This is the basis for why when you quit eating a food for a while your body reacts differently the next time you consume it. I has quit producing the necessary enzymes to break it down. Keep eating it for a while and your body will readapt. It's has been this case with me in cutting wheat based carbs out of my diet. Much like milk, modern wheat pales in comparison to what it is actually supposed to be. The lining if our stomach(diverticuli,sp) are mechanically unable to absorb modern wheat.

    I am not making trying to make the case that we should consume milk, present day milk is far from actually being milk and I do not drink it myself. By I did grow up in WI where I drank about a gallon a week my whole life.

    PS. Did anyone else see they are lobbying the FDA to allow aspartame to be allowed in milk?? Lets get our kids hooked on sweets through the milk they drink at school at the age of 5 (now that choc. Milk is not allowed in a lot of schools).

    Now someone add another recipe.
    Last edited by LaXCarp; 03-08-2013 at 07:01 AM.

  4. #429
    Save Jesus
    Reputation: beanbag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,706
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    with all due respect, is this a serious question???
    Since you asked with due respect, then my answer is yes, that was a serious question since you / somebody brought up comparison to primates, teeth structure, presence of features, I.D., etc. Evolution provides a long case history of what worked, what doesn't kill you, and why certain features are the way they are. But you don't want to go there. Fine.

    again with all due respect after reviewing the past week or so of this thread it seems rather clear that this discussion has NEVER been about evolutionary dietary adaptations but rather the premise that humans are (present tense, i.e. "modern") or are not functional construct (irrespective of origin of design) herbivores.
    Oh, well in that case, I would say that humans cannot be "functional construct herbivores" because (some, most?) herbivores can live their entire life eating only one thing, whereas humans require a "balanced vegan diet". Eat some rice and beans to make up for the protein you are not getting from eating meat. What does this show? Only that some some people can survive without eating meat.

    That a human digestive tract shows similarities to herbivores does not exclude the possibility that it is best suited for omnivore.

    That long ass article goes into detail on why humans are functional construct omnivores. In the time it took you to reply, you could not have read much of it at all, instead immediately calling it quackery. That doesn't sound very open minded at all. What claims does it make that are blatantly false?

    there are countless well documented cases of people reversing cancer simply by nutrition therapy.
    While there are many many maladies that can be fixed by "eating better", I'll have to wait for a controlled and peer-reviewed study in the case of cancer.

  5. #430
    bust a move
    Reputation: 2ridealot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,677
    Quote Originally Posted by LaXCarp View Post
    Holy drama,ill try my best to get the conversation moving in a less cumbersome direction. I am not vegetarian but am becoming more of one the last couple years...no red meat, mainly fish and occasional chicken.

    Korean fried califlower:
    1/2 cup corn starch
    1/2 cup flour
    1/3 cup toasted sesame seeds
    1/3 cup unsweetened coconut
    1/2 cup cold water
    1/2 cup vodka(secret ingredient)

    Coat, shake, fry then smother in a sweet soy sauce, something like:
    1/2 cup soy sauce
    1/4 cup rice vinegar
    1/4 cup sweet cooking wine
    Honey
    Sriracha
    Scallions
    Simmer and reduce til thickened

    Tastes like Korean fried chicken!
    That sounds pretty tasty. Thanks for posting the recipe!
    Falling down is part of LIFE…Getting back up is LIVING…

  6. #431
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod
    with all due respect, is this a serious question???
    Quote Originally Posted by beanbag
    Since you asked with due respect, then my answer is yes, that was a serious question since you / somebody brought up comparison to primates, teeth structure, presence of features, I.D., etc. Evolution provides a long case history of what worked, what doesn't kill you, and why certain features are the way they are. But you don't want to go there. Fine.
    discussing the fact that the human's digestive tract is (current tense) designed (irrespective of by I.D., evolution, alien intervention, or the flying spaghetti monster) as a functional construct herbivore (i.e. presence of features/function) is hardly an opening to begin discussing the theory of evolution along with man's diet eons ago. in other words, irrespective of how man arrived at his current functional construct that construct is irrefutably that of an herbivore. an honest comparative anatomy investigation clearly illustrates this -- and we've only looked at the digestive tract. other comparisons also clearly classify humans as functional construct herbivores as well.

    dishonest science is ignoring clearly observed evidence and drawing a conclusion based on what one wants as an outcome rather than going strictly by facts in evidence. you've got an agenda that you need to meet so you're looking for any way to slant the evidence in that favor. but pure, objective, fact based comparative anatomy clearly and irrefutably places humans as functional construct herbivores. dishonest science is ignoring these facts to arrive at the pre-ordained conclusion one wishes to reach.

    further, looking into man's past is not synonymous with "evolution providing a long case history" of anything. it is nothing but pure assumption/conjecture that because fossils have been found evolution explains their origin. again, citing evolution as fact assumes facts not in evidence. evolution is not fact. doesn't matter how hard you want it to be or keep referring to it as fact.... it's just not. it doesn't even matter that there are other much more plausible, mathematically/statistically probable, anatomically/physiologically viable, and far more logical explanations for origin/diversity than evolution because evolution is not fact on it's own basis, lack of evidence/merit, and required assumptive foundational framework. where i'm trying not to go is a discussion on origin of life and diversity of species but you still keep pushing and pushing the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by monogod
    again with all due respect after reviewing the past week or so of this thread it seems rather clear that this discussion has NEVER been about evolutionary dietary adaptations but rather the premise that humans are (present tense, i.e. "modern") or are not functional construct (irrespective of origin of design) herbivores.
    Quote Originally Posted by beanbag
    Oh, well in that case, I would say that humans cannot be "functional construct herbivores" because (some, most?) herbivores can live their entire life eating only one thing, whereas humans require a "balanced vegan diet". Eat some rice and beans to make up for the protein you are not getting from eating meat. What does this show? Only that some some people can survive without eating meat.
    you're welcome to say that humans are not functional construct herbivores, but the evidence simply doesn't support your statement. you're free to say that the sun revolves around the earth, but the evidence offers just about as much support for that statement as well. in fact, you're free to say whatever you want and even if i disagree i will defend to the death your right to say it -- but we're not talking about opinion. instead we're talking about looking at the functional construct of every element of the human digestive tract from lips to anus, including down to the type saliva, and that evidence clearly classifies humans as functional construct herbivores.

    further, even if meat is included in the diet a human has to eat "a balanced and varied diet" rich in varied grains, fruits, veggies, greens, etc. for optimal nutrition. meat is not a nutritional panacea. the suggestion that the only way one can meet their nutritional needs is with meat is ludicrous and without merit. in fact, the opposite is quite true combined with the fact that the more meat one consumes there is a direct proportionate rise with both chance and occurrence of cancer.

    one doesn't eat rice and beans to "make up" for what they are not getting from meat. one eats beans and rice to get protein from sources their body is designed (irrespective of origin) to ingest. one can either get their protein needs met from beans and rice or meat. if one chooses beans and rice they miss out on all the lovely accouterments of meat such has higher cholesterol, increased risk/occurrence of cancer, heart disease, coronary artery disease, gout, and so on.

    one argument for eating meat is having the brains to know how to use tools and fire to hunt/kill/process/cook meat. conversely that same argument holds true that we have used our brains to learn that our bodies are designed as herbivores and we have learned about the nutritional content of foods that our bodies are designed to ingest/process and how to get complete nutrition from those foods without resorting to ingesting things our bodies are not designed to ingest/process. we have used our brains to discover that even infrequent ingestion of meat increases the risk/occurrence of cancer several fold.

    listen, if you want to eat meat then eat it. no one is telling you not to. eat it without guilt. it's your body, do with it what you want. but an honest look at comparative anatomy shows that in doing so you will be an elective omnivore rather than a designed one. the discussion is not what you want to do or what diet you or anyone elects to have. it's whether or not humans are herbivores from a functional construct and comparative anatomy standpoint. and that evidence is clear irrespective of the fact you refuse to acknowledge it and long for it not to be so.

    Quote Originally Posted by beanbag
    That a human digestive tract shows similarities to herbivores does not exclude the possibility that it is best suited for omnivore.
    you have thus far presented the grand sum of ZERO actual evidence to support that possibility and/or why despite the fact that the human digestive tract from lips to anus is irrefutably herbivore it should not be classified as such.

    i will absolutely be the first to agree that humans are ELECTIVE omnivores. but so are some primates (at a rate of about 2-3% non-plant material or 2-3 ounces out of every 6.25 lbs of food). so are many other types of functional construct herbivores in times of crisis/famine or when their survival depends on it. however, an organism (whether human or not) ELECTING to eat meat when it's functional construct is that of an herbivores does nothing to alter said construct in any way. it simply means it has CHOSEN to ingest something its digestive tract was not designed to process.

    Quote Originally Posted by beanbag
    That long ass article goes into detail on why humans are functional construct omnivores. In the time it took you to reply, you could not have read much of it at all, instead immediately calling it quackery. That doesn't sound very open minded at all. What claims does it make that are blatantly false?
    or it means i've had this discussion/debate before and have seen and read that article before. the article begins by presenting assumption/supposition as fact, draws concrete conclusions and bases foundational premises on conjecture, supposition, and facts not in evidence, and basically tries to offer an explanation of why humans, though clearly having an herbivore digestive tract from lips to anus, should be classified as omnivores rather than herbivores.

    as i previous said about it, i personally find it disingenuous that if such chicanery were attempted with any other clearly classified functional construct herbivore the author would be ridiculed, scorned to shame, and ostracized by being laughed out of the scientific community. only with the clearly herbivorous digestive tract of one animal is this kind of nonsensical pablum and drivel accepted as a quantitative refutation.... humans. hmmmmm..... why is that? disingenuous, dishonest, quackery, and hypocritical don't even begin to cover such a supposition/position.

    Quote Originally Posted by monogod
    there are countless well documented cases of people reversing cancer simply by nutrition therapy.
    Quote Originally Posted by beanbag
    While there are many many maladies that can be fixed by "eating better", I'll have to wait for a controlled and peer-reviewed study in the case of cancer.
    dr. nicholas gonzalez conducted a study supervised the the national cancer institute and funded by nestle, the results of which were published in "Nutrition and Cancer" (a peer reviewed journal) and reported "the best results ever in the treatment of the disease". you wanted a case, theres one. and there are others exist as well.

    additionally there are many peer reviewed studies which show that the closer one moves to a plant based diet the more the risk and occurrence of cancer decreases and that vegetarian live longer and enjoy a better quality of life specifically in their latter years.

    the fact that you seem to be ignorant of nutrition therapy and think it equates to merely "eating better" does nothing to negate the fact that it has been used successfully for over a hundred years in modern medicine with outstanding success. nor does it remove the victory over cancer and cessation/reversal of disease process that lots of people enjoy yearly due to nutritional therapy.
    Last edited by monogod; 03-08-2013 at 02:26 PM.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  7. #432
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    849
    Who cares how prehistoric humans ate?

    Its 2013. You're not Tarzan. You're not chasing down prey all day and hauling it back to your village. You're driving your car to the grocery store to buy neatly packaged, factory farmed flesh harvested from unhealthy animals that were raised on unnatural diets.

    It's all a moot point, anyway. Let's all eat like people did during a time where the average life expectancy was 20 years. Sounds like a great idea.

  8. #433
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    925
    Quote Originally Posted by ultraspontane View Post
    Let's all eat like people did during a time where the average life expectancy was 20 years. Sounds like a great idea.
    I totally agree with your point about the irrelevance of the (presumably highly varied) paleolithic diet.

    But where'd you get 20 year life expectancy from?

    I think we mostly don't have any clue, especially for the earlier homos, but there are some very old specimens with evidence of arthritis....

    I've also heard arguments that agriculture and later industrialization led to some decreases in life expectancy as populations grew when harvests were good, but contracted sharply when crop or human disease came or when weather turned against them.

    North American people during the woodland period, for example, were less numerous but probably lived longer and were certainly much taller than their later mississipian period semi-agrarian descendants. But this is long after modern humans evolved.

  9. #434
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    849
    Sorry, I was thinking about Neolithic life expectancy. After some research, upper paleolithic life expectancy is thought to be 33 years.

    I don't see the point of a man living in the year 2013 walking around thinking "what would a caveman do?" We have something called science now. We have ways of finding out what foods are good for you, and what foods are bad for you.

    Telling the fattest nation on the planet that eating a plate of fried sh*t for breakfast is "good for you" is just plain irresponsible. I see paleo cookbooks at the grocery store that have pictures of fried chicken on the cover. I don't believe the paleo diet is a good choice for already fit people who are concerned about long term wellness, either. Consuming copious amounts of cholesterol, saturated fat, trans fat (fried anything) and living in a perpetual state of ketosis is NOT a solution for long term wellness. It's a fad diet.

    On a side note, here is my delicious lunch before I head out for a ride today: Vegan lasagna, almond kale salad w/tamari, brown rice, and carrots sauteed with maple syrup and red pepper.
    Vegetarian and Vegan Passion-imag0080.jpg
    Last edited by ultraspontane; 03-18-2013 at 11:52 AM.

  10. #435
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    925
    that's a good looking meal, ultaspontane.

    My 5 minute go to lunch for replacing $6 burritos that I used to buy daily:
    1 can of black or "refried" beans
    1/2 to 3/4 bag of mixed frozen vegetables
    a couple of spoonfuls of plain, full-fat yogurt
    chipotle peppers in adobo sauce or sriracha to taste

    I just microwave the whole shebang (yogurt added after cooking) for a couple of minutes and my $1.50 lunch is ready to eat. If I'm ambitious I throw in some cheese.
    prep time: 2 minutes
    cook time: 3 minutes

    I intend in the future to get back to cooking with dried beans, but thus far I have been too lazy/not planning sufficiently ahead.

  11. #436
    Gigantic Hawk
    Reputation: dubthang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,228
    I'm going to create a new diet based on the Roaring Twenties. I'm going to eat lots of meat, and food filled with untested chemicals. I'm going to drink tons of milk, and smoke like a chimney. I'll get my exercise by dancing and drinking heavily at the local speak easy. And I'll top it all off by driving home drunk, and beating my girlfriend.

  12. #437
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bikemaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    978
    The roaring 20's led to a wonderful Wikipedia tangent I realized all I really knew about it centered around art and cultural movements, which were fabulous and quite important! Women's suffrage, to me, has always defined the 20's. Really, we could have done worse It was pretty much the cultural pivot to catch us up with what the industrial revolution had done for the economy and technology. An era that is defined by revolutionary ideas and positive cultural growth is hardly one to turn our noses up at. People were trying new things and being adventurous with their diets, which really is the spirit of being a vegan

    Dubthang, I think you are thinking of the 50's. I would more argue the 50's were the beginning of the modern, terrible American and European diets and lifestyles. World wars over, nuclear families and white collar jobs are emphasized, all centered around television and explosive growth in advertising. Artificial foods and TV dinners, convenience and mass produced consistency were key. No prep, freezer to oven, just add water to a box of chemicals, etc. No farming needed, fully stocked grocery stores everywhere and fridges and freezers in every house. Sedentary lifestyles were the norm, and even the lower class could afford to eat the dirt cheap factory farmed meat on a regular basis. Middle class exploded, so everyone had a car, horses were only seen on farms. Smoking was promoted on kid's cartoons. DuPont and other industrial companies were busy inventing massive amounts of new, caustic, and environmentally toxic chemicals and materials that we are still trying to clean up, phase out, and convince the EPA and USDA are dangerous. Drinking was banned in the US in the 20's, if you remember, so there was a cultural outlash against it. By the 50's, a 'good little woman' at home was expected to greet her husband with a martini, and never discuss how she got that black eye. Almost undid all the hard work of the women of the 20's trying to get equal rights and treatment for themselves.

    A diet based on the 20's would be an improvement over the average American diet, which has changed little since the 50's. Honestly, a Paleo diet, as ridiculous as it is, is still an improvement over the average modern one. It cuts out processed foods, at least I won't even touch Atkins, except to point out what most already know; Dr. Atkins died of a heart attack.

    Centered on commonly available modern foods, the "contemporary" Paleolithic diet consists mainly of fish, grass-fed pasture raised meats, eggs, vegetables, fruit, fungi, roots, and nuts, and excludes grains, legumes, dairy products, potatoes, refined salt, refined sugar, and processed oils.
    Which leads me to the point of my tangent (there is always one, I swear!) that perhaps the worst of the two evils (processed vs. meat) is, perhaps, processed? From what I have read and heard, it seems that a diet that is free from processed foods and chemicals is much better for us than one that is vegan, but full of processed foods.

    This is a good conversation of where I think some valuable information can be found, as to whether it is the lack of processed foods that brings the most benefit to a vegan lifestyle, or if it really is all about the lack of animal products? Inherently, vegans eat less processed food simply because it is not mainstream, more food needs to be cooked at home, and those companies that make vegan convenience foods are mostly not big companies who dump the same chemicals into everything they make. Obviously a lifestyle that lacks both meat AND processed foods is the best, but I can tell you that 90% of vegans still eat processed food. High fructose corn syrup, enriched white flour, hydrogenated oils, artificial sweeteners, dyes, chemical preservatives... all the worst offenders are all still vegan and found in most common items that are technically vegan. (I have heard many vegans talk about their favorite junk food, like Oreos, which are the epitome of processed horribleness, even if it is *technically* vegan)

    Are we doing more damage eating the processed food than the benefit we are gaining from not eating animal products? Should the focus be more towards getting people to stop eating processed food instead of how to sidestep animal products?

    Thoughts? Resources for more information?

  13. #438
    Gigantic Hawk
    Reputation: dubthang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikemaya View Post
    The roaring 20's led to a wonderful Wikipedia tangent ...
    Happy to create the lead. I fully agree that the 50's are way worse than the the 20's were. The 20's thing was more tongue in cheek than serious. The beginning of the 1900's was a time with plenty of experimentation with people's food and little solid research. We are still dealing with such a system, but I feel slightly safer with today's system... slightly.

  14. #439
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikemaya View Post
    I won't even touch Atkins, except to point out what most already know; Dr. Atkins died of a heart attack.
    complications from head trauma actually. it'd be a nice arrow to have in the quiver but at his family's direction no autopsy was performed to be able to know for sure. however, medical records requested by and accidentally sent to an anti-Atkins physician revealed he had a history of M.I., CHF, and HTN - all of which typically accompany the diet he promoted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikemaya
    Which leads me to the point of my tangent (there is always one, I swear!) that perhaps the worst of the two evils (processed vs. meat) is, perhaps, processed? From what I have read and heard, it seems that a diet that is free from processed foods and chemicals is much better for us than one that is vegan, but full of processed foods.
    interesting query, but begs a couple of questions.

    • how much of the diet would be made up of animal flesh and by-products? main staple or infrequent addition (i.e. used <3x weekly).
    • organic free range meat? eating non-organic free range meat IS eating chemically/disease laden food no different that heavily processed foods.


    in order to eat animal flesh and by-products free of hormones, chemicals, disease, and GMO free one literally has to be as careful and fastidious about their diet as vegans generally are. i'd suggest that those kind of folks would generally avoid processed foods as well. be that as it may though, even infrequent ingestion of animal flesh and by-products carries with it increased risk of multiple cancers, heart disease, coronary artery disease, etc.; and although limiting to only organic/free-range would eliminate the chemcial/hormone component it will only slightly lower the risk of lifestyle diseases associated with their inclusion in the diet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikemaya
    This is a good conversation of where I think some valuable information can be found, as to whether it is the lack of processed foods that brings the most benefit to a vegan lifestyle, or if it really is all about the lack of animal products?
    although you said "most" implying one over the other i'd say the answer is "both". as you mentioned one can eat oreos, doritos (a chemical soup marketed as food), white bread and enriched grain/rice products (nutritionally empty carbs), and soda and be vegan. however, most processed foods have animal products in them either as casein (a dairy protein directly related to insulin dependent diabetes), animal fat, some sort of cheese, etc. and is one reason vegans avoid them.

    are the chemicals in processed foods detrimental? certainly. but likewise detrimental is the cholesterol and fat, increased systemic acidity, lifestyle diseases, and autoimmune disorders related to animal flesh/by-product ingestion. so it's kind of like asking whether it's worse to fall from a 10th story balcony or a 12th story balcony.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikemaya
    Obviously a lifestyle that lacks both meat AND processed foods is the best, but I can tell you that 90% of vegans still eat processed food. High fructose corn syrup, enriched white flour, hydrogenated oils, artificial sweeteners, dyes, chemical preservatives... all the worst offenders are all still vegan and found in most common items that are technically vegan. (I have heard many vegans talk about their favorite junk food, like Oreos, which are the epitome of processed horribleness, even if it is *technically* vegan)
    although you've made some great points i totally agree with i must say that i know a lot of vegans and in my experience the percentage that eat processed foods is around 5-8% (if that). vegetarians, however, are another story. most vegetarians i know eat lots of processed foods as they simply eschew animal flesh, but not their by-products, from their diet and are far less concerned about what they shovel down their gullets than are vegans. (not all, lest any vegetarians protest, but most that i have come across). which is interesting because technically a vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat ANY animal flesh/by-products (root of the word is "veg") and vegan used to mean someone that doesn't use ANY animal products like leather, etc. in addition to not consuming their flesh/by-products. but that's a whole other topic...

    i'm not saying you're wrong, as 90% of the vegans you know may very well consume processed foods. that's simply my observation resultant to over a decade of teaching health/nutrition/wellness seminars, my experience in the medical field, travelling all over the world, living in a major city with a large vegan population/culture (austin), along with knowing/interacting with lots of vegans. most vegans i know and have come into contact with avoid processed foods for the same reason they avoid animal flesh/by-products -- they're poison to the human body (as you mentioned).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikemaya
    Are we doing more damage eating the processed food than the benefit we are gaining from not eating animal products?
    again, in general that's like asking if it's worse to fall from a 10th story balcony or a 12th story balcony. both contribute to cancers, autoimmune disorders, cardiovascular, neurological, renal, and other systemic diseases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikemaya
    Should the focus be more towards getting people to stop eating processed food instead of how to sidestep animal products?
    comprehensive education on both to avoid falling from either balcony.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  15. #440
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    849
    Anyone here listen to the Rich Roll podcast? If not, check it out. That also goes for all of you "plant-curious" folks out there, too. Look it up on iTunes or whatever podcast client you use.

  16. #441
    Desert RAT
    Reputation: Joshua_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    248
    How come all the meat eaters come over here just to pick fights?

  17. #442
    mtbr member
    Reputation: trap121's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    303

    Vegetarian and Vegan Passion

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua_B View Post
    How come all the meat eaters come over here just to pick fights?
    They feel the need to defend themselves even when not provoked. You see the same thing from atheists towards Christians. Ironic and childish.

  18. #443
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    2,568

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by trap121 View Post
    They feel the need to defend themselves even when not provoked. You see the same thing from atheists towards Christians. Ironic and childish.

    I think people like to defend the choices that they have made be it the type to bike they rider, their wheel size etc and their diet.
    Perhaps we should start a thread on the benefits of mostly eating meat and dairy. Obviously since so many people do it, it must have some merit!
    I have done a lot of research lately on diet and if you look at the facts, a plant based diet appears to be the best. Read the China Study.
    I talk to a lot of people and friends about diet and it is really surprising how clueless they are in regards to it. I don't think they choose to be clueless but they just look at what everyone else eats and it must be OK, right??
    I was on a bikepacking trip the last few days and we stopped into a restaurant to get breakfast. Big mistake. All I could order from the menu was 2 pieces of dry wheat toast and some hash-browns and that was the best food they had!! I looked at all the customers and the cooks and waitresses and they were all overweight, out of shape and had a layer of goo all around them. Are these people bad people? No but they are certainly ill informed on nutrition. I find it real hard to go to a restaurant anymore just because all their menu choices are so unhealthy.
    And then people get diabetes, cancer, heart disease and bad knees from being overweight, but they never look at what caused it. It is always woe is me. Doc, can you fix me up? And people wonder why health care and insurance is so expensive. It is like requiring everyone to drive at least 100MPH. Don't you think car crashes and claims would go up?
    I actually think it is good for meat eaters to look at this forum. If it turns a few people onto the real truth about nutrition then I think it is worth it.
    But you meat and diary consumers, bash all you want, but look in the mirror and do your own research on what is a healthy diet and what type of diet leads to a long healthful life. Initially it might be heck to change but once you do, you might never go back.
    Personally I don't care what you eat. It is you who should care about what you eat. I figure the more people that die the better. Too many people on this planet anyways!

  19. #444
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    849
    Vegetarian and Vegan Passion-imag0081.jpg

    Spinach, Chard, and Kale salad w/avocado and a simple balsamic vinegar and olive oil dressing. The greens come pre washed in a tub, simple and easy. One $3.99 tub gets me enough for 5 days of big salads.

  20. #445
    Gnarly
    Reputation: cyclelicious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    11,142
    That looks delish!
    F*ck Cancer

    Eat your veggies

  21. #446
    Desert RAT
    Reputation: Joshua_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    248
    I think I'll have that for dinner! ^^^

  22. #447
    Vegan on the S-Works
    Reputation: durianrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by dubthang View Post
    I'm going to create a new diet based on the Roaring Twenties. I'm going to eat lots of meat, and food filled with untested chemicals. I'm going to drink tons of milk, and smoke like a chimney. I'll get my exercise by dancing and drinking heavily at the local speak easy. And I'll top it all off by driving home drunk, and beating my girlfriend.

    pretty much sums up the vegan haters out there. I used to be a redneck though. I woke up when I went vegan. Its like a light switch when you pump your body so full of plant food nutrition something changes inside.

  23. #448
    Gigantic Hawk
    Reputation: dubthang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by durianrider View Post
    pretty much sums up the vegan haters out there. I used to be a redneck though. I woke up when I went vegan. Its like a light switch when you pump your body so full of plant food nutrition something changes inside.
    My point wasn't to 'sum up the vegan haters,' but to make a joke about all the diet/lifestyle movements out there. Anybody with an idea can turn it into a lifestyle whether it is right or wrong in the eyes of others. I've been a vegetarian for 17 years. Doesn't mean that my lifestyle is the correct one. It's simply the way I choose to live my life. The trick is getting everybody else to put down their stones, and except other people's differences.

  24. #449
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    849

    Re: Vegetarian and Vegan Passion

    Quote Originally Posted by dubthang View Post
    My point wasn't to 'sum up the vegan haters,' but to make a joke about all the diet/lifestyle movements out there. Anybody with an idea can turn it into a lifestyle whether it is right or wrong in the eyes of others. I've been a vegetarian for 17 years. Doesn't mean that my lifestyle is the correct one. It's simply the way I choose to live my life. The trick is getting everybody else to put down their stones, and except other people's differences.
    I think he was referring to the paleo-flavored vegan haters out there.


    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

  25. #450
    Gigantic Hawk
    Reputation: dubthang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by ultraspontane View Post
    I think he was referring to the paleo-flavored vegan haters out there.


    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
    I understand that. Generalizing them into a group makes us no better than the others that don't understand and/or make fun.

    Plus, most of the paleo folks that I know are just as passionate and understanding of their lifestyle as we are of ours.

Page 18 of 23 FirstFirst ... 8 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Any vegetarian riders out there?
    By stumblemumble in forum Nutrition and Hydration
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 08-09-2012, 08:59 PM
  2. My Dog Is Now A Vegan?
    By Dirdir in forum Arizona
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-17-2012, 11:50 AM
  3. Vegetarian
    By hdo_1975 in forum Clydesdales/Tall Riders
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 07-29-2009, 08:52 AM
  4. Anyone here a Vegetarian or Vegan?
    By DownHillFast in forum Arizona
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 10-29-2004, 10:02 PM
  5. Vegan SS?
    By bigboarder1 in forum Singlespeed
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 08-18-2004, 05:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •