# Vegetarians Vs. Non-Vegetarians



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

Is it true that vegetarian people are more prone to lacking monoamines than non vegetarians?



and also non-vegetarian food sources 

Provide more nutrition to Neurotransmission than 

Vegetarian food.

Non vegetarians.


----------



## Donnie in the Dark (Mar 15, 2011)

Oh wow.


I am 20- that's 20 years without meat, still alive, running, cycling, other sport...... I suppose I am some sort of medical miracle.....


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

Donnie in the Dark said:


> Oh wow.
> 
> I am 20- that's 20 years without meat, still alive, running, cycling, other sport...... I suppose I am some sort of medical miracle.....


With that kinda comprehension of this subject I think it's really a miracle that you are 20, Or I would say you

are no more than 15.


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

let me know if you have any experiences with this Subject matter.


Please.


Thank you so much in advance.




If you notice any kind of paragraph problems in my posts, that is the problem of my voice to text converter its Acting up.


----------



## Donnie in the Dark (Mar 15, 2011)

sasdawg said:


> With that kinda comprehension of this subject I think it's really a miracle that you are 20, Or I would say you
> 
> are no more than 15.


 Well, if you are waiting for people to agree with you that you need meat to live..... you will be waiting a looong time.


----------



## dcaffeine (Oct 26, 2013)

It is much more efficient to use non-vegetarian food. Relying on nuts and legumes for protein can cost a lot of calories. Plus, I think it would not be as good, since they are not complete protein sources. I have also read that vegetarians have very low creatine levels, which is not very safe.


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

dcaffeine said:


> It is much more efficient to use non-vegetarian food. Relying on nuts and legumes for protein can cost a lot of calories. Plus, I think it would not be as good, since they are not complete protein sources. I have also read that vegetarians have very low creatine levels, which is not very safe.


Tell the same things to the Mr above in the thread.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

There are no medical disadvantages due to eating a vegetarian diet (there are no advantages, either). People can be healthy on a diet of mostly meat, too.


----------



## Donnie in the Dark (Mar 15, 2011)

dcaffeine said:


> It is much more efficient to use non-vegetarian food. Relying on nuts and legumes for protein can cost a lot of calories. Plus, I think it would not be as good, since they are not complete protein sources. I have also read that vegetarians have very low creatine levels, which is not very safe.


 "Complete proteins" was debunked a long time ago, although a lot of people don't realise it.
Most westerners actually eat far too much protein.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

You don't need to rely on nuts or legumes for protein. In fact, all plants foods contain protein. Who would have thought? And I suggest researching the necessary amounts of protein needed. I recommend a low fat low protein diet, and thrive. Many others do as well. Too much protein can be very damaging. 

One thought: People will always justify their choices and will fight to death over protecting their bad habits.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

Donnie in the Dark said:


> "Complete proteins" was debunked a long time ago, although a lot of people don't realise it.
> Most westerners actually eat far too much protein.


No such thing :<

Also, debunked? Nope. A complete protein is a source that contains adequate proportions of all essential amino acids.



myersljennifer said:


> You don't need to rely on nuts or legumes for protein. In fact, all plants foods contain protein. Who would have thought? And I suggest researching the necessary amounts of protein needed. I recommend a low fat low protein diet, and thrive. Many others do as well. Too much protein can be very damaging.
> 
> One thought: People will always justify their choices and will fight to death over protecting their bad habits.


Uh, no that's remarkably unhealthy. A diet high in carbohydrates is _the worst_ out of all three.


----------



## RelinquishedHell (Apr 10, 2012)

I hardly ever eat anything with meat anymore (mostly because it's expensive) and I've lost a lot of weight and muscle even though I still eat a lot.


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

RelinquishedHell said:


> I hardly ever eat anything with meat anymore (mostly because it's expensive) and I've lost a lot of weight and muscle even though I still eat a lot.


Expensive ehh yeah expensive got it.


----------



## RelinquishedHell (Apr 10, 2012)

sasdawg said:


> Expensive ehh yeah expensive got it.


Are you attempting to have some sort of attitude with me?


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

RelinquishedHell said:


> Are you attempting to have some sort of attitude with me?


So no I was acting like Moe szyslak.


----------



## SuperSky (Feb 16, 2011)

And here I thought a topic containing "vs" would be a fight to the death. I are dissapoint.


----------



## zojirushi (Apr 8, 2013)




----------



## MCHB (Jan 1, 2013)

There's plenty of room for gods creatures...right next to the mashed potatoes!

Whatever your lifestyle choice, don't try to force it on anyone. :sus


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

MBwelder said:


> There's plenty of room for gods creatures...right next to the mashed potatoes!
> 
> Whatever your lifestyle choice, don't try to force it on anyone. :sus


Now look who's talking like Ned Flanders.


----------



## Donnie in the Dark (Mar 15, 2011)




----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

Donnie in the Dark said:


>


If you don't work or go anywhere no matter what you eat You'll get obese


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

Sacrieur said:


> Uh, no that's remarkably unhealthy. A diet high in carbohydrates is _the worst_ out of all three.


I don't expect you to take my word for it, haha. Check these out: Preventing and Reversing Heart Disease(by Dr. Esselstyn), The China Study, The Starch Solution. Also, check out the Okinawans who have lived the longest lives, thriving on a grain(carbs) based diet. Or just look at any rural areas of Thailand, China, etc. All lean, healthy, focused.

Plenty of the healthiest athletes thrive on high carbohydrate diets as well. Cyclists, runners, etc. It all depends on what your goals are.  But I am interested to hear why a high carb diet is the worst of all?

Insulin: Fat+sugars in the bloodstream causes insulin spikes. Remove the fat, increase the sugars(carbs), and the sugars can easily pass through the bloodstream efficiently. If you're looking for more proof, check out durianriders on YouTube, he eats high carb low fat low protein, and has perfect blood test results, which he has posted.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

I'm not here to argue with anyone though! I'm open to all point of views. 

And I probably don't have to mention that the body RUNS on glucose. If you don't know what glucose is, google my friend. Carbs might have some correlation. ^_^


----------



## wraith (Feb 22, 2010)

I don't eat meat because of ethical reasons. I simply cannot defend eating meat (research Peter Singer and you'll see what I mean). Any health benefits come as a plus. In short, there is no need to contribute to needless suffering of animals, as humans can get plenty of nutrients without them, just do some basic research to get up to speed.

Edit.

We all have a moral obligation to at least know where our food comes from. If you can defend eating food that comes from years of suffering and torture, that is, unfortunately, your right.. but that doesn't make it right, if you know what i mean.


----------



## arao6 (Jul 12, 2013)

Hey, I'm willing to debate.

There are a host of negatives associated with animal protein. Consider the study by Sluijs et al. 2009 which showed how protein derived from animals led to increased type II diabetes mellitus, but vegetable protein had no effect. Consider another study by Greenberger et al. 1977 where vegetable protein led to clinical improvement in chronic hepatic encephalopathy patients vs. animal protein. Yet another study by Clifton 2011 shows that diets low in red meat were associated with a 13% to 30% lower risk of CHD compared to diets high in meat.

Vegetarians/vegans vs. non-vegetarians? Where's the competition? Vegetarians are generally healthier and live longer.


----------



## Moochie (Nov 11, 2012)

I don't eat too much meat anymore. I wouldn't say I'm full on vegetarian but I'm not a die hard carnist. Health wise I've been the same, skinny, anemic, meh, lol. I do still take walks and try my best to eat healthy. 
I'd have to say that my skin is clearing up quite a bit without so much meat. Now that's something.


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

Moochie said:


> I don't eat too much meat anymore. I wouldn't say I'm full on vegetarian but I'm not a die hard carnist. Health wise I've been the same, skinny, anemic, meh, lol. I do still take walks and try my best to eat healthy.
> I'd have to say that my skin is clearing up quite a bit without so much meat. Now that's something.


I have never even seen meat from a distance of 10 foot,

My skin is all messed up although I'd say I never had pimples

And other stuff that often happens due to hormones spurt.

But my skin I'd say is not the cleanest or beautiful at all,

I have all kind of blemishes and cuts and scars and all that.

So I will rule out your hypothesis that meat turns your skin bad.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

arao6 said:


> Hey, I'm willing to debate.
> 
> There are a host of negatives associated with animal protein. Consider the study by Sluijs et al. 2009 which showed how protein derived from animals led to increased type II diabetes mellitus, but vegetable protein had no effect. Consider another study by Greenberger et al. 1977 where vegetable protein led to clinical improvement in chronic hepatic encephalopathy patients vs. animal protein. Yet another study by Clifton 2011 shows that diets low in red meat were associated with a 13% to 30% lower risk of CHD compared to diets high in meat.
> 
> Vegetarians/vegans vs. non-vegetarians? Where's the competition? Vegetarians are generally healthier and live longer.


Look at you, Neil. You smartypants, you. Got everything all nicely compact and linked up.


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

myersljennifer said:


> Look at you, Neil. You smartypants, you. Got everything all nicely compact and linked up.


I hope it's not a copy paste job.


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

I'd like to add anything can be unhealthy unless it's balanced.




If it's balanced on the nutrition scale eat whatever you want it will be healthy for you!


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

sasdawg said:


> I hope it's not a copy paste job.


Lol, what?


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

Neil is very intelligent and knows his facts.


----------



## Billius (Aug 7, 2012)

sasdawg said:


> If you don't work or go anywhere no matter what you eat You'll get obese


The fact that anyone could believe anything this ridiculous makes me sad.

Vegans have the most AGEs in their blood which is not good, meat eaters have the least, lacto-ovo vegetarians in the middle; 1 up to meat eating like that. As for how I feel about it I think anyone who has a strong voice one way or the other has either an insecurity or a grudge.


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

myersljennifer said:


> Neil is very intelligent and knows his facts.


Well good for us, Neil .


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

Billius said:


> The fact that anyone could believe anything this ridiculous makes me sad.
> 
> Vegans have the most AGEs in their blood which is not good, meat eaters have the least, lacto-ovo vegetarians in the middle; 1 up to meat eating like that. As for how I feel about it I think anyone who has a strong voice one way or the other has either an insecurity or a grudge.


What's AGE?


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

To be fair: Anyone who has a strong voice one way or the other doesn't necessarily have a "grudge" or "insecurity". It's more of a passion, or need to spread proper information to those who ask. I could get far into depth about the ethical stance but I will spare you.


----------



## arao6 (Jul 12, 2013)

sasdawg said:


> I hope it's not a copy paste job.


There's no need to copy/paste simple research. I was hired as a software engineer at the age of 14. Eventually, I became a researcher at an ambient computing lab to discern variable depth percepts by generating endogenous patterns through linear filters looking at the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) and primary visual cortex (V1), so I have some experience with searching for good citable research.


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

arao6 said:


> There's no need to copy/paste simple research. I was hired as a software engineer at the age of 14. Eventually, I became a researcher at an ambient computing lab to discern variable depth percepts by generating endogenous patterns through linear filters looking at the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) and primary visual cortex (V1), so I have some experience with searching for good citable research.


Nucleus in computing lab?

Okay I don't know maybe well I will need a little help from you my friend I'm also in the same field,

I was really running my brain over this thing that I'm unable to understand at all.

Why do you use a compliment while showing signed magnitude of a binary Digit.

Because obviously change the 1st bit as a signed representation But when you're doing arithmetic, you change it to 2's complement.

Is it because it will null and void the result that's Why we do it?

And also when you are on the go just tell me one more thing Why do we use offset While accessing the memory group first, lets take a 16 bit organization!

If it's going to take time then let me know I will wait!


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

Okay let go of the basement scientist, where were we, yeah 


I think non vegetarians are mentally supported because I see all of them are mentally fit, even those who were mentally unfit got better with a non vegetarian lifestyle. 






For instance take my neighbor, his son has down's syndrome, and is a typical undergrown clinical lunatic, but he got better because he is an avid meat eater, in fact quite hyena type meat affinity he has..(you can tell by looking at his overwide skull and oversized teeth) Although he is 20+ but too short and looks like a kid, he talks strangely with that strange typical lunatic voice...but he has improved...his mother says whenever they bring chicken he licks off the plate clean as brand new! even before they're prepared to serve properly.


So I had this motivation coming off that direction, I am partly dyslexic and look like a typically clinical lunatic from a distance! So I want meat...but I find it gross ewwwww....


----------



## arao6 (Jul 12, 2013)

sasdawg said:


> Nucleus in computing lab?


LGN is involved with visual perception. My research revolves around the biological sciences (I am going into medicine).



sasdawg said:


> Why do you use a compliment while showing signed magnitude of a binary Digit.
> 
> Because obviously change the 1st bit as a signed representation But when you're doing arithmetic, you change it to 2's complement.
> 
> Is it because it will null and void the result that's Why we do it?


It makes the arithmetic easier-- as easy as flipping the bits. Consider 10000001 = -127. For 2's complement, you XOR the desired bits with 1 (or just bitwise NOT it) and add 1. So you end up with 01111111 = 127. You need to understand that this is just a representation. Have you learned assembly yet? Bytes by themselves are untyped-- you provide the bits and bytes with meaning, so to speak. You can use whatever representation you want.



sasdawg said:


> And also when you are on the go just tell me one more thing Why do we use offset While accessing the memory group first, lets take a 16 bit organization!


Read up on memory segmentation.



sasdawg said:


> For instance take my neighbor, his son has down's syndrome, and is a typical undergrown clinical lunatic, but he got better because he is an avid meat eater, in fact quite hyena type meat affinity he has..(you can tell by looking at his overwide skull and oversized teeth) Although he is 20+ but too short and looks like a kid, he talks strangely with that strange typical lunatic voice...but he has improved...his mother says whenever they bring chicken he licks off the plate clean as brand new! even before they're prepared to serve properly.


This is not valid research; this is conjecture.


----------



## Grignard (Jan 16, 2013)

I spent most of last year as a vegan. To be honest, I felt better then than I do now. I still had meat occasionally, but it was not every day and certainly not every meal. Maybe every other week for one meal. My current university does not have a vegan cafeteria though, so I don't really have a choice now.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

arao6 said:


> Hey, I'm willing to debate.
> 
> There are a host of negatives associated with animal protein. Consider the study by Sluijs et al. 2009 which showed how protein derived from animals led to increased type II diabetes mellitus, but vegetable protein had no effect. Consider another study by Greenberger et al. 1977 where vegetable protein led to clinical improvement in chronic hepatic encephalopathy patients vs. animal protein. Yet another study by Clifton 2011 shows that diets low in red meat were associated with a 13% to 30% lower risk of CHD compared to diets high in meat.
> 
> Vegetarians/vegans vs. non-vegetarians? Where's the competition? Vegetarians are generally healthier and live longer.


You're both intelligent and rational so do not take this the wrong way.

Those are shaky studies at best, excluding the bit about hepatic encephalopathy which really doesn't apply anyway because it only deals with a very specific ailment. Correlation, as you know, is linked to causation.

Further, your last study included, "...  however the diary options of cheese and milk statistically significantly contributed to increasing life expectancy, as well as the protein source of poultry."

But this is voided anyway since, "This analysis intends to serve as a credible, but rudimentary basis to be built upon for further evaluation of the impact of foodstuffs to maximizing life expectancy, the usage of other data analysis techniques, and the inclusion of gender, race, income, crime rates, and other impacts to overall life expectancy are recommended."

This means that the research is basically useless if one wishes to draw conclusions from it because it failed to eliminate coexisting factors.

---

I've known about these studies for quite some time, but they've failed to be anything but correlation. Here a study found that red meats did not account for increased incidence of diabetes or coronary heart disease.

Donuts are a perfectly vegetarian food and vegans cut off excellent sources of nutrition like eggs and milk.

So sure they may purport to be healthier, but the reality is that it's not the meat that really matters. It's more the quality of food you're eating. Shoving fistfuls of pasta down your throat while chugging down Pepsi with a side of mashed potatoes is both perfectly vegan and something that will give you diabetes.

It's even counter-intuitive that a diet high in meat would give you diabetes... Since it's like, an insulin problem that deals only with sugar.

That's the problem with these studies. It's very likely that vegans and vegetarians are far more health conscious than their carnivorous counterparts which leads to a the discrepencies you see. Even if there were a benefit to one single diet it would be such a small improvement that it could probably be written off as negligible.

Hell, there's something called the ketogenic diet that completely cuts out carbohydrates and relies on primarily animal meats and fats to fill in the calorie gap. It appears to be perfectly healthy in long-term use. Of course it uses an entirely different metabolic pathway, but the point is this obsession that meat is pure evil is just an inane crusade.

---

Medical studies are trickier than other studies when it comes to finding good research.


----------



## Tomyx (Jun 27, 2013)

Donnie in the Dark said:


> "Complete proteins" was debunked a long time ago, although a lot of people don't realise it.
> Most westerners actually eat far too much protein.


Unless you're willing to display a personal show of average male strength, don't talk about about protein and its benefits...


----------



## Donnie in the Dark (Mar 15, 2011)

Tomyx said:


> Unless you're willing to display a personal show of average male strength, don't talk about about protein and its benefits...


 I think my press-ups ability is decently above average. My 5k time is pretty okay, and I can run 10 miles without too much difficulty and recover in a day. I don't do any weight stuff so I can't tell any manly tales about that, but there are plenty of Veg*ns who could.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

Can either of you even tell me what a protein is.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

Sacrieur, read the books I listed and there would be no further discussion. And if clinical studies are not good enough for you, or anyone else, then I recommend researching the human beings who have cured their cancer, heart disease, ovarian cysts, chronic fatigue, diabetes, and many more miracles through a plant based diet. Judge by results versus theory when necessary.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

I apologize I completely missed your post.



myersljennifer said:


> I don't expect you to take my word for it, haha. Check these out: Preventing and Reversing Heart Disease(by Dr. Esselstyn), The China Study, The Starch Solution. Also, check out the Okinawans who have lived the longest lives, thriving on a grain(carbs) based diet. Or just look at any rural areas of Thailand, China, etc. All lean, healthy, focused.


I never said someone couldn't be healthy on a diet, I said it was the worst out of the three. In managed portions carbohydrates are just fine. I've not read those books but I do eye them skeptically.

For starters the Okinawans have a very different diet than the rest of Japan. Found in this study, they had a diet that was based on sweet potatoes more than rice, which is lower in caloric density and a subsequent lower glycemic index. Further, they ate quite a few bit of vegetables and more pork (a lot more).

Stating that their diet was carbohydrate focused is a pretty huge stretch.



> Plenty of the healthiest athletes thrive on high carbohydrate diets as well. Cyclists, runners, etc. It all depends on what your goals are.  But I am interested to hear why a high carb diet is the worst of all?


Unlike fats, there are no "good" sugars; sugar is, at best, a neutral substance. The body is perfectly capable of handling average spikes in blood sugar brought about by low GI foods like fruits and vegetables, but has more difficulty handling foods with a higher GI like starchy potatoes and grains.

In managed portions it's alright because of the lower glycemic load which can be handled well. In any case, sugar promotes systemic inflammation. In addition, when sugar is taken in at high doses, the body doesn't handle it terribly well and we'll get sluggish and tired (the real cause of sleepiness for thanksgiving meals).

Athletes must have high carbohydrate diets because carbohydrates are their primary source of calories and they burn many calories. This is somewhat disproportionate to the general population who do not participate in nearly as strenuous athletic activities. Athletes who aren't bulking don't require all the much more protein from their increased activities in comparison to their carbohydrates: thus it makes their diet seem largely carbohydrate based.

Again, carbohydrates found in fruits and vegetables are perfectly okay. Even meat eaters should be eating mostly plants.



> Insulin: Fat+sugars in the bloodstream causes insulin spikes. Remove the fat, increase the sugars(carbs), and the sugars can easily pass through the bloodstream efficiently. If you're looking for more proof, check out durianriders on YouTube, he eats high carb low fat low protein, and has perfect blood test results, which he has posted.


Fat err... actually buffers the effect of sugar absorption. So yes, you have it right, the sugar would be more easily passed into the bloodstream, which would not decrease the insulin response, but increase it.

I watched a few of his videos, what he's talking about borders on err... He's educated enough, but not enough to know how little he actually knows about nutrition. 80/10/10 isn't actually all that radical, and only confirms what I stated before, and that's that humans can thrive on a very wide range of diets.

He also looks skinny, but this is likely due to him being an endurance athlete than anything. I have little doubt that he would have serious trouble on that diet if it came down to any sort of competition involving strength, though. Without allowing access to whey and higher levels of protein he's at a serious disadvantage and would eventually be forced to change his protein consumption.

I highly doubt anyone could compete in a lifting event on his 80/10/10 diet. Some of his arguments have issues_,_ but nevermind that.

Anyway, he eats plants, which are like, really good to eat and I'm not arguing that it's unhealthy or it's going to kill you. I'm saying a vegan diet has no advantages over a omnivorous diet. Everything a vegan can eat, I can also eat as a meat-eater. You're not actually expanding your diet; you're limiting it.

There are more intricacies but I could get into but I don't really feel it's necessary. I'm not attacking veganism; I'm merely holding the scientifically established position.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

If carbohydrates cause diabetes, why have so many people cured their diabetes through a high carbohydrate plant based diet? Why do these people have perfect blood test results, no insulin spikes, and thrive impeccably? Sure, Westerners should limit their sugar intakes BECAUSE they eat such a high fat diet, which I already touched on earlier(sugar+fat blood stream). But don't blame the sugars or carbohydrates. 

For example: donuts, cakes, chocolate bars, pizza, pasta, potatoes. What do people put on these foods? Butter, bacon, cheese, eggs, oil, FAT. Fat+carbs=problems. But we say "Don't eat that bread. When you're going to McDees, you better take the bread off the sausage egg mcmuffin, and chuck that orange juice out the window cause it's going to make you obese!" We also classify the foods above as junky carbohydrate foods. Wrong. More than 50% of the calories are coming from.....FAT.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

He could easily change his protein consumption for building muscle. Leafy greens contain more protein per calorie than beef. Also, he isn't always raw. Beans, legumes, etc can provide plenty of protein. He wants to stay lean, that is his path as a runner/cyclist. We are not debating this.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

Sweet potatoes are pure carbs.

Edit:

In my personal life, I prefer to do trial and error, and judge by results not theory. We can debate the theories, and statistics until the sun comes up, but I know that I've never felt so incredible in my entire life on a fruity/carb lifestyle, and I wouldn't change it for the world. I have had numerous health problems in the past, amongst other mental issues that have been increasingly improving with time. I have spoken to, met, and seen various people who have shared their stories and some are so incredible. I am always open to other view points and learning more and more about our bodies and the world we live in. 

I encourage you, and everyone to live the life that makes them happiest. If that's an omnivorous diet, then that's wonderful. I can only spread my experience and encourage people to be open to doing some trial and error themselves to find what truly makes them blossom.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

myersljennifer said:


> If carbohydrates cause diabetes, why have so many people cured their diabetes through a high carbohydrate plant based diet? Why do these people have perfect blood test results, no insulin spikes, and thrive impeccably? Sure, Westerners should limit their sugar intakes BECAUSE they eat such a high fat diet, which I already touched on earlier(sugar+fat blood stream). But don't blame the sugars or carbohydrates.


I never said carbohydrates cause diabetes, I said diabetes is a problem with insulin. Not all forms of diabetes can be cured through diet, either.

I don't know where you got the impression I was defending the "Western" diet.



> For example: donuts, cakes, chocolate bars, pizza, pasta, potatoes. What do people put on these foods? Butter, bacon, cheese, eggs, oil, FAT. Fat+carbs=problems. But we say "Don't eat that bread. When you're going to McDees, you better take the bread off the sausage egg mcmuffin, and chuck that orange juice out the window cause it's going to make you obese!" We also classify the foods above as junky carbohydrate foods. Wrong. More than 50% of the calories are coming from.....FAT.


There are bad fats. Especially trans fats. If you think this somehow means that all fats are bad, I dare say you haven't done your research on fats.



myersljennifer said:


> He could easily change his protein consumption for building muscle. Leafy greens contain more protein per calorie than beef. Also, he isn't always raw. Beans, legumes, etc can provide plenty of protein. He wants to stay lean, that is his path as a runner/cyclist. We are not debating this.


You're missing what I had written. Nowhere had I stated that he would have to start consuming meat. I merely stated he would have to increase his protein intake. From plants is fine and will do quite well.

Also that bit about leafy greens is because they contain so little calories (all that fiber is a good thing, though) and lack the fat beef does. Not really arguing that it's not.

Your insistence that you're not going to debate this is only working to confirm my suspicions that you're engaging in cognitive bias. I haven't actually disagreed with much of what you've said beyond some finer details about physiology yet you're acting in a very defensive manner.



myersljennifer said:


> Sweet potatoes are pure carbs.


Yes, yes they are. 95% carbs (far from being "pure", but close enough). But it has far lower GI and caloric density than the rice eaten by the Japanese. Additionally, the Okinawans ate plenty of other plants as well, it's not like they exclusively ate sweet potatoes and pork. The main reason for the longevity is mostly attributed to the caloric reduction.

And I do want to point out that as you said, they have one of the longest lifespans, and they eat meat as well. Not that it's a good argument, but perhaps it's one you'll recognize.

---

My position is this: humans can thrive on a wide variety of diets. A vegan diet offers no significant nutritional advantage or disadvantage over an omnivorous diet.

On one side I have meat eaters going, "LOL GOT PROTEIN?" and on other side I have vegetarians going, "MEAT IS EVIL AND SHOULD BE ELIMINATED FOREVER." The studies are quite clear that neither of these views are correct in any way. If you want to argue the ethical aspects of veganism, then you can start with Peter Singer, but if you want to argue the nutritional aspects of it, then you better be ready for some serious scientific scrutinty.

Nutrition is the field of medicine I've studied most, but you don't have to take my word for it, I have posted studies and valid critique.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

Whoa, haha. I'm the most laid back person around. I haven't been defensive whatsoever! I never assumed you said that he needed meat! In fact that didn't even cross my mind. You never said we needed meat. I was just agreeing with you that he would need to increase his protein for that type of lifestyle, and showing how easy it would be for him to do so!

You did say that eating fistfuls of pasta and potatoes will give you diabetes, which I haven't found to be true. 

About fats, they build the brain but carbs fuel the brain. We do need fats. All of which can be found in fruits and vegetables as well. So long as you eat enough. I don't really recommend nuts due to the toxicity in many of them. Avocados, coconuts, hemp seeds, etc are great sources of fatty acids. Whole foods.

I'm so confused about why you think I'm coming off as defensive. :O Can anyone else shed light on this? I didn't think I was behaving that way even slightly.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

I wanted to leave it at this:

"I encourage you, and everyone to live the life that makes them happiest. If that's an omnivorous diet, then that's wonderful. I can only spread my experience and encourage people to be open to doing some trial and error themselves to find what truly makes them blossom."

As I'm not the argumentative type....


----------



## zraktor (Jan 27, 2013)

Man, I really enjoy reading this thread. Keep it coming.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

I am timidly exiting..I don't like the vibes here right now. :hide


----------



## thinkstoomuch101 (Jun 7, 2012)

great information, BTW, thank you for posting, all of you. Many of you summed it up very well. It all depends on your individual needs. I've learned to basically exist on a vegetarian diet. With occasional fish, turkey or chicken maybe once a month. Depends what is needed at the time.

Your body will literally tell you what it wants, when it wants it - food wise. Also, it depends on how you've *trained* your body to eat according to it's environment and type of calorie expenditure, and of course, what's available.

when i come in from a hard work out, i will open the fridge, and listen to what the body responds to..usually, it's water (first) or gatorade, then either a veggie burger, egg whites, tofu, with some type of carbs, vegetables or fruit. Whatever i hone in on and it's healthy, i'll grab it.

Over time, I've trained my body to cut out red meat, period. Many ladies crave red-meat at certain times of the month? well, actually, your body wants/needs the *iron/minerals* found in red meat.

I've learned to replace this w/in a month by increasing my iron/mineral/magnesium with Black Strap Molasses supplements/tea. No more burger cravings. After eating red meat, i feel sluggish, and there's an intestinal "fall out" for any one within 3 feet of my locale.

It's pretty basic... of course, this only pertains to food. Follow your intuition.

My body has been wanting Timothy Olyphant for over a year now.. but, of course, he's not within my parameters. Trust me on this one.. If he was anywhere NEAR my refrigerator, i'd grab him first.


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

arao6 said:


> LGN is involved with visual perception. My research revolves around the biological sciences (I am going into medicine).
> 
> It makes the arithmetic easier-- as easy as flipping the bits. Consider 10000001 = -127. For 2's complement, you XOR the desired bits with 1 (or just bitwise NOT it) and add 1. So you end up with 01111111 = 127. You need to understand that this is just a representation. Have you learned assembly yet? Bytes by themselves are untyped-- you provide the bits and bytes with meaning, so to speak. You can use whatever representation you want.


Well is it like subtract 127-(-127)=256?lol sorry I am dyslexic I may or may not understand things at all lol thats why I request you to use direct reference(plain English)


----------



## arao6 (Jul 12, 2013)

Sacrieur said:


> You're both intelligent and rational so do not take this the wrong way.


Of course not; I love a good debate.



Sacrieur said:


> Those are shaky studies at best, excluding the bit about hepatic encephalopathy which really doesn't apply anyway because it only deals with a very specific ailment.


The studies were statistically significant. They demonstrated that the null hypothesis (no link between vegetable/animal protein and life expectancy) is false, and further proved that there is differential expectancy depending on diet. There are many more studies proving this fact. Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. There are a plethora of papers on this subject. Surely, they cannot all be "shaky."



Sacrieur said:


> Further, your last study included, "...  however the diary options of cheese and milk statistically significantly contributed to increasing life expectancy, as well as the protein source of poultry."
> 
> But this is voided anyway since, "This analysis intends to serve as a credible, but rudimentary basis to be built upon for further evaluation of the impact of foodstuffs to maximizing life expectancy, the usage of other data analysis techniques, and the inclusion of gender, race, income, crime rates, and other impacts to overall life expectancy are recommended."
> 
> *This means that the research is basically useless if one wishes to draw conclusions from it because it failed to eliminate coexisting factors.*




Not at all. The "analysis intends to serve as a credible, but rudimentary basis," i.e. the analysis is statistically significant but further research is necessary. The p-values listed in that study are significant, i.e. demonstrates a causal relationship between vegetarian diets and life expectancy.



Sacrieur said:


> I've known about these studies for quite some time, but they've failed to be anything but correlation. Here a study found that red meats did not account for increased incidence of diabetes or coronary heart disease.


It states: "Consumption of processed meats, but not red meats, is associated with higher incidence of CHD and diabetes mellitus." The debate here is vegetarianism vs. non-vegetarianism. There may be discrepancy between red meats between studies, but the overall causal link between meat consumption and mortality is clear.



Sacrieur said:


> Donuts are a perfectly vegetarian food and vegans cut off excellent sources of nutrition like eggs and milk.


To assume that vegans do not eat donuts would be hasty generalization fallacy. There are many vegan donut brands, and I know of vegans who eat them (myself included).



Sacrieur said:


> So sure they may purport to be healthier, but the reality is that it's not the meat that really matters. It's more the quality of food you're eating. Shoving fistfuls of pasta down your throat while chugging down Pepsi with a side of mashed potatoes is both perfectly vegan and something that will give you diabetes.


The reality is that a diet rich in meat is lower in quality than a vegetarian diet. Indeed, chugging high-phosphoric acid content or binging on starch can be adverse, just as swallowing buckets of chicken nuggets and chugging a milkshake can lead to diabetes. These studies connected a moderate vegetarian diet with a moderate non-vegetarian diet, so assuming the extreme is unnecessary.



Sacrieur said:


> It's even counter-intuitive that a diet high in meat would give you diabetes... Since it's like, an insulin problem that deals only with sugar.


Insulin intolerance and diabetes can be caused by diets higher in triglycerides (such as meat). For example, here are two studies, one with fats/meat and another with red meat.



Sacrieur said:


> That's the problem with these studies. It's very likely that vegans and vegetarians are far more health conscious than their carnivorous counterparts which leads to a the discrepencies you see. Even if there were a benefit to one single diet it would be such a small improvement that it could probably be written off as negligible.


While this is true, one of the studies that I have linked previously shows that vegetarians are generally healthier than non-vegetarians with similar lifestyles.



Sacrieur said:


> Hell, there's something called the ketogenic diet that completely cuts out carbohydrates and relies on primarily animal meats and fats to fill in the calorie gap. It appears to be perfectly healthy in long-term use.


Other studies here and here tend to disagree. Further research is of course necessary.



Sacrieur said:


> Of course it uses an entirely different metabolic pathway, but the point is this obsession that meat is pure evil is just an inane crusade.


There is no objective evil-- there is only a correlation between meat and lowered lifespan.



Sacrieur said:


> Medical studies are trickier than other studies when it comes to finding good research.


Completely agree!


----------



## arao6 (Jul 12, 2013)

sasdawg said:


> Well is it like subtract 127-(-127)=256?lol sorry I am dyslexic I may or may not understand things at all lol thats why I request you to use direct reference(plain English)


Computers need to be able to represent both positive and negative integers. Sign and magnitude is one common representation where the most significant bit gives the sign of the number and the other bits describe a binary representation of the number. While this representation is easy for us, it makes it difficult for computers to compute the sign of the answer during arithmetic, which is why computers use a different representation. In 2's complement, 01111111 (127) - 10000001 (-127) will cause an overflow because you are essentially adding (127 + 127). The benefit of the 2's complement is that it is easy to detect overflows. If the two starting numbers have the same sign but the answer has a different sign (as in here), then an overflow has occurred.


----------



## Tomyx (Jun 27, 2013)

Sacrieur said:


> Can either of you even tell me what a protein is.


It's one of the three macronutrients that make up all of the calories we eat every day. Used in the regeneration of most all bodily materials, most contextually to this conversation being that of muscle cells...


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

Tomyx said:


> It's one of the three macronutrients that make up all of the calories we eat every day. Used in the regeneration of most all bodily materials, most contextually to this conversation being that of muscle cells...


protein is also counted in calories??


----------



## arao6 (Jul 12, 2013)

sasdawg said:


> protein is also counted in calories??


Calories are just units of heat energy. Don't quote me on it, but if I recall, 1g of lipid = 9 cal, 1g protein = 4 cal, and 1g carb = 4 cal.


----------



## Tomyx (Jun 27, 2013)

arao6 said:


> Calories are just units of heat energy. Don't quote me on it, but if I recall, 1g of lipid = 9 cal, 1g protein = 4 cal, and 1g carb = 4 cal.


If lipid means dietary fat, then yeah that's right. 9/4/4...


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

:shock:shock:shock Neil you win at this thread and at life. Congrats. :boogie:evil

Great posts everyone!


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

myersljennifer said:


> :shock:shock:shock Neil you win at this thread and at life. Congrats. :boogie:evil
> 
> Great posts everyone!


hi thanks for liking our posts, hru btw


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

sasdawg said:


> hi thanks for liking our posts, hru btw


No thanks needed, you all did it on your own.  I am going to guess that "hru" means how are you? If so, I'm doing alright, thank you.


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

myersljennifer said:


> No thanks needed, you all did it on your own.  I am going to guess that "hru" means how are you? If so, I'm doing alright, thank you.


ur welcome, so what else is new, beautiful?


----------



## arao6 (Jul 12, 2013)

myersljennifer said:


> :shock:shock:shock Neil you win at this thread and at life. Congrats. :boogie:evil


Lol, thank you Jenny. I haven't won at life just yet haha. I am waiting for his rebuttal.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

arao6 said:


> Lol, thank you Jenny. I haven't won at life just yet haha. I am waiting for his rebuttal.


I have to read through all the studies and my work has kept me terribly busy, but all in due time.


----------



## arao6 (Jul 12, 2013)

Sacrieur said:


> I have to read through all the studies and my work has kept me terribly busy, but all in due time.


No problem. Take your time.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

arao6 said:


> Lol, thank you Jenny. I haven't won at life just yet haha. I am waiting for his rebuttal.


I says you have.


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

myersljennifer said:


> I says you have.


what's up, cutie?


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

These days I notice a lot of fake profiles be going here and there specially in the nutrition department! Beware folks...LOL


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

arao6 said:


> The studies were statistically significant. They demonstrated that the null hypothesis (no link between vegetable/animal protein and life expectancy) is false, and further proved that there is differential expectancy depending on diet. There are many more studies proving this fact. Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. There are a plethora of papers on this subject. Surely, they cannot all be "shaky."


Oh no sir, the conclusions to be drawn from those studies are vegetarians are healthier than omnivores (save for a few, like the diabetes study). It would be a jump to conclude that a vegetarian diet is healthier. I'll outline the problems with this later.



> Not at all. The "analysis intends to serve as a credible, but rudimentary basis," i.e. the analysis is statistically significant but further research is necessary. The p-values listed in that study are significant, i.e. demonstrates a causal relationship between vegetarian diets and life expectancy.


Yes, it's well known that plants are some of the most healthful things to eat, and a diet that incorporates more plants is typically more healthful. I do not dispute this.



> It states: "Consumption of processed meats, but not red meats, is associated with higher incidence of CHD and diabetes mellitus." The debate here is vegetarianism vs. non-vegetarianism. There may be discrepancy between red meats between studies, but the overall causal link between meat consumption and mortality is clear.


Again, I'll outline the problems with this later.



> To assume that vegans do not eat donuts would be hasty generalization fallacy. There are many vegan donut brands, and I know of vegans who eat them (myself included).


I never said they don't, but I figured it would be safer to not mention it since someone could easily come along and say, "but it contains animal products!"



> The reality is that a diet rich in meat is lower in quality than a vegetarian diet. Indeed, chugging high-phosphoric acid content or binging on starch can be adverse, just as swallowing buckets of chicken nuggets and chugging a milkshake can lead to diabetes. These studies connected a moderate vegetarian diet with a moderate non-vegetarian diet, so assuming the extreme is unnecessary.


The philosophical principle I was attempting to point out that the definition of being a vegan is not in and of itself a healthful concept.



> Insulin intolerance and diabetes can be caused by diets higher in triglycerides (such as meat). For example, here are two studies, one with fats/meat and another with red meat.


The first study shows that fat intake did not have an effect on diabetes risk, but that BMI did. The conclusion is that a higher BMI creates a higher risk for diabetes, and BMI can be increased by consumption of fats.

The second study's methods are a bit shaky. They compared the top quintile with the bottom and drew a line showing an increase after accounting for some other factors. There is no control group. It sort of bugs me.



> While this is true, one of the studies that I have linked previously shows that vegetarians are generally healthier than non-vegetarians with similar lifestyles.


Yes, absolutely true. The evidence is pretty overwhelming for that.



> Other studies here and here tend to disagree. Further research is of course necessary.


A ketogenic diet uses an entirely different metabolic pathway than a diet that uses carbohydrates. I should also point out that a ketogenic diet is extremely dangerous for people with diabetes and under no circumstances should people who have diabetes attempt it.

The second study demonstrates while using traditional energy pathways, restricting carb intake is a very bad idea. Really not disputing this, it is a bad idea. Carbohydrates are the main energy source, starving yourself of it is just stupid.

---

So now I'll explain the position more clearly and detail the philosophical problems.*The Definition of Vegetarianism*​When I say that a vegetarian diet is exclusive, I mean that it works by limiting food diversity. When it is claimed that this is superior to an omnivore's diet because meat is unhealthful, it runs into a serious philosophical problem.*Burden of Proof*​Suppose a vegetarian claims that his diet is superior because it doesn't include meat. He has just caught himself in a very tangled mess. You may have studies that show a diet that includes meat is in fact unhealthful, but this does not show that a vegetarian diet is superior: it only shows that as a sum, a vegetarian diet is superior to a combination analysis of all diets that include all varieties of meats.

Meat is an extremely diverse food. Even among the same animal, different cuts of meat have varying levels of quality. Including all different kinds of meat under a single umbrella as "meat" and labeling them all bad because the sum is bad is fallacious.

Do high quality, grass-fed cuts of steak produce the same effect as poorly-fed, low quality beef trimmings? Do pork chops and bacon have the same effects? Is crab and salmon both equally bad?

So the vegetarian's burden is this: he must individually go through all meats and independently conclude that they are _all_ bad.*Healthfulness vs Vegetarianism*​A rational person would attempt to avoid the above problem by not suggesting he does not eat any meat, but only that he does not eat food that is proven to be unhealthful. This form of exclusion is by definition excludes processed meats but does not exclude high quality steaks and excludes some types of seafood but does not exclude salmon.*Veganism
*​Vegans put themselves in a terrible dilemma. It takes the position as the vegetarian would and then expands it to include everything else that has come from an animal.

---

Consider also that the culture and people who tend to be vegetarians are so precisely because they're trying to be more health-conscious which leads to more health-conscious efforts.

And consider that because meat-eaters are the large majority companies attempt to market products with this in mind without showing concern for it. As a result, the vegetarian may be required to consume more healthful and less processed fruits and vegetables as opposed to microwave meals.

I could go on but I think you get the point.

There's a cool infographic about human metabolism found here, if you're interested.

---



sasdawg said:


> protein is also counted in calories??


Yes, excess protein not used is stored as fat.


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

Could you please go a little less explained?


You know it's an art to say your things in small sentences.



being brief and to the point is taught in writing skills.


----------



## ToughUnderdog (Jul 7, 2013)

You guys are engaging in a pretty diplomatic discussion. Most people from what I see get very defensive when they critique anther's lifestyle. I will say that I err on the side of a plant-based diet with very little meat. Both my parents started to have problems in their mid-forties, so that's a major reason why I eat the way I do. 

There is still a lot of mystery behind nutrition. They just came out with a study awhile ago mentioning how red meat and eggs alter gut bacteria which may increase the risk of heart disease. The gut bacteria in vegans was a lot different. It's new research, but it's on the right path. 

Keep it coming.


----------



## sasdawg (Dec 14, 2013)

ToughUnderdog said:


> You guys are engaging in a pretty diplomatic discussion. Most people from what I see get very defensive when they critique anther's lifestyle. I will say that I err on the side of a plant-based diet with very little meat. Both my parents started to have problems in their mid-forties, so that's a major reason why I eat the way I do.
> 
> There is still a lot of mystery behind nutrition. They just came out with a study awhile ago mentioning how red meat and eggs alter gut bacteria which may increase the risk of heart disease. The gut bacteria in vegans was a lot different. It's new research, but it's on the right path.
> 
> Keep it coming.


This is why its called discussion and not par-tay


----------



## arao6 (Jul 12, 2013)

Sacrieur said:


> Oh no sir, the conclusions to be drawn from those studies are vegetarians are healthier than omnivores (save for a few, like the diabetes study). It would be a jump to conclude that a vegetarian diet is healthier. I'll outline the problems with this later.


You appear to be suggesting that certain types of meat can be healthy, and thus it is problematic to suggest that a vegetarian diet is healthier than a meat diet. Let me remind you that even healthy meats are generally inferior to a vegetarian equivalent. Consider: lean/white meat, recommended by the WHO on the food pyramid, is observed to be the one of the healthiest of meat variants; however, vegetarian replacements have been found to be even healthier than the healthiest of meats. As previously discussed, other types of meat (such as red and processed meats) have already been found to be harmful. Given the context of this debate, the notion that healthy vegetarian sources are "better" than healthy non-vegetarian sources is a probable assertion, thus furthering the vegetarian side of this debate. In summary, it is most definitely _not_ a jump to conclude that a vegetarian diet is healthier. In the previous study, replacing the healthiest meat with a vegetarian counterpart was shown to increase the LDL oxidation lag phase, which in turn reduces the LDL that causes chronic diseases such as atherosclerosis and heart disease, which in turn are major global causes of death. In retrospect, a vegetarian diet has much lower LDL levels than meat, thus the decreased risk of disease.



Sacrieur said:


> The philosophical principle I was attempting to point out that the definition of being a vegan is not in and of itself a healthful concept.


Neither is the definition of being an omnivore. Indeed, certain types of veganism can be harmful to one's health, just as certain types of non-vegetarianism can be detrimental.



Sacrieur said:


> The first study shows that fat intake did not have an effect on diabetes risk, but that BMI did. The conclusion is that a higher BMI creates a higher risk for diabetes, and BMI can be increased by consumption of fats.


The point of the first study in context of this debate is quoted below:

"Frequent consumption of processed meat was associated with a higher risk for type 2 diabetes (RR 1.46, CI 1.14-1.86 for ≥5/week vs. <1/month, P for trend <0.0001)."​
Type II diabetes is largely correlated with diet, so it works as a rudimentary marker for determining further health implication.



Sacrieur said:


> The second study's methods are a bit shaky. They compared the top quintile with the bottom and drew a line showing an increase after accounting for some other factors. There is no control group. It sort of bugs me.


That's not quite right. First of all, the study _does_ have a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled control group. Secondly, linear trend tests across the increasing categories of intake were assigned medians in quintiles and treated as a continuous variable, followed by a likelihood ratio test to assess the significance of interaction. It is quite statistically valid.



Sacrieur said:


> When I say that a vegetarian diet is exclusive, I mean that it works by limiting food diversity.


To the contrary, a vegetarian diet needs to increase food diversity to account for various nutritional limitations (no single vegetable contains every essential nutrient, thus it is necessary to increase food diversity).



Sacrieur said:


> Suppose a vegetarian claims that his diet is superior because it doesn't include meat. He has just caught himself in a very tangled mess. You may have studies that show a diet that includes meat is in fact unhealthful, but *this does not show that a vegetarian diet is superior: it only shows that as a sum, a vegetarian diet is superior to a combination analysis of all diets that include all varieties of meats*.


The healthiest type of meat (lean/white meat) is still inferior to a vegetarian replacement. Since our debate compares vegetarianism and non-vegetarianism, the facts appear to indicate that vegetarianism is healthier.



Sacrieur said:


> Meat is an extremely diverse food. Even among the same animal, different cuts of meat have varying levels of quality. Including all different kinds of meat under a single umbrella as "meat" and labeling them all bad because the sum is bad is fallacious.


No one is labeling meat as "all bad." However, in summation, meat is indeed more harmful.



Sacrieur said:


> Do high quality, grass-fed cuts of steak produce the same effect as poorly-fed, low quality beef trimmings? Do pork chops and bacon have the same effects? Is crab and salmon both equally bad?
> 
> So the vegetarian's burden is this: *he must individually go through all meats and independently conclude that they are all bad.*


You appear to be labeling foods as good or bad, but no food is strictly good or bad-- it is relative to the characteristics of the consumer. Therefore, it does not make sense to assert that all meats are bad-- it only makes sense to assert that all meats are inferior to vegetables in a controlled clinical study.



Sacrieur said:


> A rational person would attempt to avoid the above problem by not suggesting he does not eat any meat, but only that he does not eat food that is proven to be unhealthful. *This form of exclusion is by definition excludes processed meats but does not exclude high quality steaks and excludes some types of seafood but does not exclude salmon.*


Indeed, not all meat is harmful intrinsically. However, in context of this debate, vegetarian counterparts are still healthier.



Sacrieur said:


> *Vegans put themselves in a terrible dilemma.* It takes the position as the vegetarian would and then expands it to include everything else that has come from an animal.


You are assuming too many things; I am vegan, and I assert that I am _not_ putting myself in a "terrible dilemma."



Sacrieur said:


> Consider also that the culture and people who tend to be vegetarians are so precisely because they're trying to be more health-conscious which leads to more health-conscious efforts.
> 
> And consider that because meat-eaters are the large majority companies attempt to market products with this in mind without showing concern for it. As a result, the vegetarian may be required to consume more healthful and less processed fruits and vegetables as opposed to microwave meals.


Indeed, vegetarians are generally more health-conscious.


----------



## equiiaddict (Jun 27, 2006)

MBwelder said:


> Whatever your lifestyle choice, don't try to force it on anyone. :sus


Could not agree more! I honestly don't care if you're a vegetarian, vegan, etc. Just don't try to force your lifestyle down my throat. I think that is probably one of the rudest and most inconsiderate things you can do to someone. It all comes down to a basic form of respect.
One of my best friends is a vegetarian but she isn't the type to try and preach to me about the fact that I eat meat. She respects my choices and I respect hers.


----------



## Billius (Aug 7, 2012)

Meat has creatine and taurine plants don't, suggest all you want but plant based alternatives still fall short. Any argument more than that is simply moonshine. The past couple of pages have done naught but confirm my position that anyone with strong feeling either way has grudge or an insecurity.


----------



## Mlochail (Jul 11, 2012)

Donnie in the Dark said:


>


Fat guy hand coloring fail


----------



## Melanin7 (Feb 25, 2013)

To the OP i suggest you read those books if you want some good infomation about this topic.

By Dr Doug Graham: The 80/10/10 Diet

By Dr McDougall: The Starch Solution
*
*


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

sasdawg said:


> ur welcome, so what else is new, beautiful?




So far I'm just sitting in bed tonight. Today is my relax day. How about you?


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

I love everyone's contribution to this thread. It has been interesting reading it all. I try to just be intuitive with my body and that leads me to a plant based diet though A LOT of trial and error. My suggestion is this: Open your mind a little bit and try to get past the ego. Nobody is forcing their beliefs down your throat with vegetarianism or veganism at this time. I've never understood that statement. I'll tell you what is, is religion. Religion takes it further than debates, and enforces laws, and takes away rights. Until you've lost your right to eat meat/dairy, then please, save it with the "*ego ego ego* don't force this upon me" because you probably just don't want to change your habits. People love to hear good things about their bad habits. Just look around. There's McDonalds diet plans. The shoving away new ideas comes from insecurity in a lot of people. I wish that could be removed. 

Science is an incredible way of providing information and evolving. I love reading new studies. I appreciate all the effort that was made in this thread, once again. I encourage everyone to try things for themselves. Don't stick with the status quo because it's comfy and normal. People can argue all different angles but the bottom line is that if someone's blocked off/set in stone, and just feeding their ego to prove the other wrong, change won't happen. I love all the information you have provided specifically, Neil. You are such an intelligent man. Keep being a great example of health and vitality.


----------



## Grog (Sep 13, 2013)

Bla bla bla healthier , not healthy ethical not ethical bla bla bla 
Every thing in moderation , 


Without meat would we have developed the brain we have now ? 

What are our incisor and canine teeth for ripping into that apple ? 

What's the difference between a living breathing bleeding plant or animal? 
Is it that plants don't have big brown eyes so they are ok to eat?

Why do most vegetarians eat some sort of animal product


----------



## ToughUnderdog (Jul 7, 2013)

Grog said:


> Bla bla bla healthier , not healthy ethical not ethical bla bla bla
> Every thing in moderation ,
> 
> Without meat would we have developed the brain we have now ?
> ...


Some people try to do their best with moderation and it just doesn't work.


----------



## Grog (Sep 13, 2013)

ToughUnderdog said:


> Some people try to do their best with moderation and it just doesn't work.


We'll if that doesn't work and you can't controlled yourself your going to have some sort of problem in some way or another 
So screw it and INXS all the way and enjoy what little time you have left before something catches up


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

Must be trolling?!?!? Haha.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

Grog said:


> Bla bla bla healthier , not healthy ethical not ethical bla bla bla
> Every thing in moderation ,
> 
> Without meat would we have developed the brain we have now ?


Definitely not. Cooking vegetables and especially meat is what lead to our superior brains.



> What are our incisor and canine teeth for ripping into that apple ?


Our canines are for tearing meat. Meat was more of a delicacy for our hunter gatherer ancestors. But really they ate whatever they could obtain.



> What's the difference between a living breathing bleeding plant or animal?


Plants use a fundamentally different energy pathway (i.e., photosynthesis) while animals use aerobic respiration. They are inverse processes.



> Why do most vegetarians eat some sort of animal product


Because vegetarians only exclude meat from their diet, and not animal products.

None of this actually undermines vegetarianism.

---



arao6 said:


> You appear to be suggesting that certain types of meat can be healthy, and thus it is problematic to suggest that a vegetarian diet is healthier than a meat diet. Let me remind you that even healthy meats are generally inferior to a vegetarian equivalent. Consider: lean/white meat, recommended by the WHO on the food pyramid, is observed to be the one of the healthiest of meat variants; however, vegetarian replacements have been found to be even healthier than the healthiest of meats. As previously discussed, other types of meat (such as red and processed meats) have already been found to be harmful. Given the context of this debate, the notion that healthy vegetarian sources are "better" than healthy non-vegetarian sources is a probable assertion, thus furthering the vegetarian side of this debate. In summary, it is most definitely _not_ a jump to conclude that a vegetarian diet is healthier. In the previous study, replacing the healthiest meat with a vegetarian counterpart was shown to increase the LDL oxidation lag phase, which in turn reduces the LDL that causes chronic diseases such as atherosclerosis and heart disease, which in turn are major global causes of death. In retrospect, a vegetarian diet has much lower LDL levels than meat, thus the decreased risk of disease.


Let me restate my position so we're clear. My position is that a vegetarian diet has no significant advantages over a omnivorous diet. I should add that this is only true for healthy individuals.

---

So what I'm saying in my argument is that an omnivore is a vegetarian who also eats meat. This is to say that everything that's in a vegetarian diet is also in an omnivorous diet, and thus, there are no superior vegetarian only sources of food.

We can argue the intricacies of meat vs. plant sources. But ultimately it's a lost cause. You're going to find that there's no significant benefit. The EPA found in fish oil is from algae and can be found in edible seaweed. Leucine found in beef is also found (in higher quantities) in soy. Or we can just skip the middle man and drink whey protein isolate.

Modernization and globalization has increased the availability of food to make vegetarianism a feasible diet. Eventually I reckon we'll gain the option to abandon food altogether and just have a soylent that is superior and tailor made to either option. In the past, it was difficult to thrive on a vegetarian diet due to the access of plant foods available -- meat supplementation was usually necessary -- because one couldn't just go down to the grocery store and have a wide selection available.

---



> Neither is the definition of being an omnivore. Indeed, certain types of veganism can be harmful to one's health, just as certain types of non-vegetarianism can be detrimental.


My focus is that a healthful diet is the superior diet. What kind of food groups you eat really have no significant impact.



> You are assuming too many things; I am vegan, and I assert that I am _not_ putting myself in a "terrible dilemma."


In this context, the vegan who asserts that his diet is superior for health reasons. Not speaking about you.

---

What you eat is only important up to a point, after that it's more calorie restriction and exercise that promotes longevity.

And while we're on the subject, 80/10/10 doesn't seem to be based on any physiological reasoning. A raw-food only diet is really just a fad, and there are plenty of times when cooking food improves its nutrient value (and times when cooking food destroys it). There are some plant foods that are poisonous in raw form but harmless when cooked.

In any case, I don't suggest any ratio to anyone, it's an extremely individualized thing and depends on your goals and personal physiological makeup. Eating a high fat diet can be the key to one person but a mistake for someone else. Additionally, if you stick to a specific diet adaptions are made specifically to that diet, in gut microbes especially.

Saying that an 80/10/10 diet is best for everyone is like saying a size 9 shoe is best for everyone.


----------



## AlexSky (Jun 1, 2011)

Grog said:


> What are our incisor and canine teeth for ripping into that apple ?


Human teeth is closer to a herbivore's than a carnivore's.
We don't have teeth meant for attacking animals. Try to kill an animal with your teeth. Awkward, huh?

It's why our teeth resembles a cow's and not a wolf's.

Cow:










Wolf:










Human:










Our canines are pathetic.



Grog said:


> What's the difference between a living breathing bleeding plant or animal?












Did you REALLY just ask that? Really? Come on now.










An animal has sentience, some degree of intelligence, a nervous system that can feel pain, and flesh and muscle tissue. They are composed of animal cells.

Plants are not sentient in the same way animals are and do not have nervous systems. They are composed of plant cells.

Trying to guilt-trip vegetarians by telling them they're "murdering" plants is a silly and illogical argument. Equating a screaming pig being slaughtered to chopping a carrot on a cutting board is ridiculous.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

AlexSky said:


> Our canines are pathetic.


You speak for yourself sir. My canines are pretty devastating, and my pre-molars are more like canines than they are like molars.


----------



## AlexSky (Jun 1, 2011)

Sacrieur said:


> You speak for yourself sir. My canines are pretty devastating, and my pre-molars are more like canines than they are like molars.


But they'll never be devastating enough to kill a zebra, or bull, or dog, or cow, or pig, or chicken. Our mouths are way too small, and our jaw isn't the right shape. Saying "well, my teeth are sharper than the average person" is still a weak point when you look at the bigger picture.



> *Meat-eaters*: have claws
> * Herbivores*: no claws
> * Humans*: no claws
> 
> ...


By nature, we have more herbivorous traits.
We could hypothetically eat insects, but that's disgusting and gross.

But hell, is anything about humanity natural at all? Not really.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

AlexSky said:


> But they'll never be devastating enough to kill a zebra, or bull, or dog, or cow, or pig, or chicken. Our mouths are way too small, and our jaw isn't the right shape. Saying "well, my teeth are sharper than the average person" is still a weak point when you look at the bigger picture.
> 
> By nature, we have more herbivorous traits.
> We could hypothetically eat insects, but that's disgusting and gross.


By nature we have omnivorous traits. We're poor herbivores, too. We can't digest cellulose. We're subpar in endurance, speed, and strength. We don't have fur or blubber. We don't have natural defenses. We're as far from herbivores as we are from carnivores.

Our only physical asset is that we're extremely adaptable. We can swim, climb, run, and have opposable thumbs which grant us immense dexterity. Canines help assist tearing fruit flesh too.

Our primate cousins eat meat too.


----------



## AlexSky (Jun 1, 2011)

Sacrieur said:


> By nature we have omnivorous traits.


Please elaborate with examples, since that doesn't add up with the majority of scientific research I've seen.

http://www.peta.org/living/food/natural-human-diet/

Also, take note that humans must prepare meat by cooking it and burning the ****e out of it. Eating raw meat can be dangerous.


----------



## Donnie in the Dark (Mar 15, 2011)

Grog said:


> Bla bla bla healthier , not healthy ethical not ethical bla bla bla
> Every thing in moderation ,
> 
> Without meat would we have developed the brain we have now ?
> ...


If you can tear through hide and raw flew with your mighty canines, I applaud you. Otherwise.......

The difference? Well, no nervous system, no brain for plants. 
The hilarious thing is, even if you were more concerned about plants than animals, you'd still need to be a vegetarian, because more plants are "murdered" to raise the animals that become meat than if we all just ate the plants in the first place.


----------



## Billius (Aug 7, 2012)

AlexSky said:


> Eating raw meat can be dangerous.


Not if it's fresh enough


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

AlexSky said:


> Please elaborate with examples, since that doesn't add up with the majority of scientific research I've seen.


We can digest a wide variety of meats, most herbivores can't. We lack the specialization herbivores have, like polygastric digestion. We lack the organs or symbiotic bacteria to digest cellulose, which, when combined with being monogastric, throws us in the, "not even worth considering if we're herbivores". This means that grass, most kinds of leaves, or bark is worthless.

The sheer different amount of plants we can eat is pretty diverse. We can eat algae, fungus, tubers, roots, and nuts/seeds. Herbivores very rarely have this diverse of a diet.

We have gall bladders for digesting fats. Many herbivores, like horses, do not.

We do have some bit of trouble with grains (celiac disease, etc.) and dairy. Both of which were very recently introduced into our diet.

The main reason herbivores have salivary amylase is because they produce very little so digestion in the mouth is needed. A pig produces 10 times the amylase a horse does. We really don't need the salivary amylase. Really while chemical digestion does begin in the mouth, it's not really all that important in humans. Teeth are just a way of mashing food into something that will fit down our esophagus.



> Also, take note that humans must prepare meat by cooking it and burning the ****e out of it. Eating raw meat can be dangerous.


Oh no, we can eat meat raw and do (see: sushi). But cooking it is recommended because of parasites, yes. Also the nutrients are better absorbed if we cook it.

---

PETA is being completely biased and cherry picking, as usual.


----------



## AlexSky (Jun 1, 2011)

As a reminder, just because we _can_ digest something, doesn't mean it's meant for our body or that we are biologically geared towards it. We can digest chocolate, pop, junk food and candy, but it's not as if we're candy-vores.

And there are monogastric herbivores, such as horses and rabbits.



> "The sheer different amount of plants we can eat is pretty diverse. We can eat algae, fungus, tubers, roots, and nuts/seeds. Herbivores very rarely have this diverse of a diet."


If you're trying to use this as evidence against humans being herbivorous, that's somewhat backwards logic.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

AlexSky said:


> As a reminder, just because we _can_ digest something, doesn't mean it's meant for our body or that we are biologically geared towards it. We can digest chocolate, pop, junk food and candy, but it's not as if we're candy-vores.


That's really the point, we're not geared towards anything, we're geared towards everything.



AlexSky said:


> And there are monogastric herbivores, such as horses and rabbits.


They have symbiotic bacteria which digest the cellulose for them.



> If you're trying to use this as evidence against humans being herbivorous, that's somewhat backwards logic.


I'm using this as evidence to support that we're omnivores. We're basically the quintessential omnivore.


----------



## AlexSky (Jun 1, 2011)

Sacrieur said:


> I'm using this as evidence to support that we're omnivores.


Yes, but that's similar to saying humans can eat *insert 1000 plant-based fruits and vegetables examples here*, then finishing it off with "your average herbivore doesn't have this diverse of a herbivorous diet", therefore = we're omnivorous?

Huh? What? That's almost like a fallacy, since I'd say it supports that humans are primarily herbivorous.

Well, then again, your average herbivore doesn't have opposable thumbs.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

AlexSky said:


> Yes, but that's similar to saying humans can eat *insert 1000 plant-based fruits and vegetables examples here*, then finishing it off with "your average herbivore doesn't have this diverse of a herbivorous diet", therefore = we're omnivorous?


Not can, sir. Do. We do eat those.

Look at what the Cherokee ate, at what the Inuit ate, the Aztecs, Kongo, or Maori. That, sir, is why we're considered omnivores. Mostly plants, yes, but also meats.

And we can thrive on such diets too. The Okinawans as mentioned earlier in this thread ate quite a bit of pork. The Mediterranean diet is popular for its well studied health benefits, which includes a lot of poultry and seafood.

Vegetarians only live 4-7 years longer than those who eat meat, and this is including people who eat processed meats, too. We're not just talking about carefully managed an controlled portions of high quality meat.


----------



## AlexSky (Jun 1, 2011)

Well, that's kind of an abrupt change of topic.

The entire human species can be labelled as omnivorous because some aboriginal groups from hundreds of years ate meat in their diet (when they were essentially trying to survive the cold winters and such)? I mean, yeah, if you're trying to survive, okay, eat meat, fine.

But now it's 2014. Times have changed drastically from the hunter-scavenger days.
Supermarkets, fast food, grocery stores.

Besides, there's been plenty of vegetarian societies in the past:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_vegetarianism

Anyway, I haven't slept, so good night. Nice talking to you.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

More on the comparison chart:

*Natural Weapons*: Due to our resourcefulness, we never evolved natural weapons.

*Perspiration*: Humans are well evolved mammals for surviving heat. Not only do we lack fur, but we also have more sweat glands than any other mammal. Cattle, for instance, can only sweat from their nose. Cats and dogs sweat through the pads in their feet, which they lick. It's not relevant to diet.

*Intestinal Tract*: Human intestine length has reduced over time due to meat consumption and cooking.

*Stomach Acid*: it's misleading to say the carnivore's stomach pH is 20x stronger. The pH in the human stomach varies from a resting pH of 4 - 5 down to a digesting pH as low as 1. It acidity varies based on what food is consumed. A steak will bring the stomach's pH to its lowest levels.

*Saliva*: I don't know who started the rumor about carnivore's having acidic saliva, but it's not true. Dogs have alkaline saliva and so do cats. It's pretty much the same for humans. Carnivores cannot have acidic saliva -- if they did their teeth would demineralize and rot. An alkaline environment is necessary for all animals with teeth.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

TimboY said:


> I have pointed out the question, pH levels when high refer to the digestion of denser food? I thought if pH is lower, it referred to the digestion of less denser food?!!??


Gastric acid secretions are caused primarily by the presence of protein. Food density is not a factor. Stomach pH increases and the stomach shrinks when not in use, this is for resource conservation: the mucousal lining will not deteriorate as quickly when the stomach pH is higher.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

TimboY said:


> You said steak. steak is a tough tight food lots of fibers lots of hard flesh and
> 
> That's Why I think it should be taking a highly concentrated acid to digest it.
> 
> Does high ph relate to higher concentration of stomach acid?


Gastric acid secretions create a lower pH in the stomach (this means more acid).



TimboY said:


> And yes steak has a lot of proteins too according to your theory.


Yes, it is very protein rich.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

AlexSky said:


> Well, that's kind of an abrupt change of topic.
> 
> The entire human species can be labelled as omnivorous because some aboriginal groups from hundreds of years ate meat in their diet (when they were essentially trying to survive the cold winters and such)? I mean, yeah, if you're trying to survive, okay, eat meat, fine.
> 
> ...


Great input! Thank you for your contribution.


----------



## visualkeirockstar (Aug 5, 2012)

I have to eat meat. Vegetables gives me no energy at all and plus it digest too fast so i get hungry quick.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

Removing the science/theories aside, for just a moment, and focusing on the immense amount of people who have cured their diseases with a planet based diet will show you that it actually can be superior. Maybe some of you should talk with someone who's gone through the process, especially the route of RAW foods that Sacrieur is giving a negative connotation.

My thoughts: Each species has a specific diet. Also, calorie restriction is far from healthy. If you're going to talk about what's natural, then what animals restrict their food intake? They FEAST whenever they can. As humans we have adapted to particular lifestyles, and therefore can digest certain "food", but like someone mentioned above, it doesn't mean it's our natural electrified way of thriving in life.

It is 2014. We have evolved. There's always going to be conflicting theories and evidence. It's up to the individual to follow their own path.

Something interesting to think about:

If you place a baby, or child in a room with an apple, and a small animal of choice, walk away and come back, is the child going to eat the animal, or the apple? Basic logic will tell you that the child is going to smell the apple, sense that it is food and eat it. They don't have the societal programming that we've grown up with. I think this is a strong indicator that *currently* we do not have natural carnivorous instincts. Therefore, all previous stories and theories are irrelevant in our current society. 
http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/members/sacrieur-111243/


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

visualkeirockstar said:


> I have to eat meat. Vegetables gives me no energy at all and plus it digest too fast so i get hungry quick.


Grains, potatoes, legumes, beans, etc all are slow releasing foods that will give you optimal energy. You do not *need *meat. You can *choose* to eat it, but it's best to avoid saying you need it because you're not giving yourself enough fuel/calories. That's just improper eating on your part. You have to eat enough to thrive.


----------



## thewall (Feb 1, 2009)

As a soon-to-be registered dietitian, there is so much inaccurate and false information in this thread it makes my head explode. Over and over again. Le sigh.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

thewall said:


> As a soon-to-be registered dietitian, there is so much inaccurate and false information in this thread it makes my head explode. Over and over again. Le sigh.


Hi, it would be awesome if you could give your input on the subject since you're well versed on diet.  Sorry that your head is exploding, maybe you can relieve some of the annoyance by contributing to the thread.

We're all getting cancer rapidly, mostly obese, and dying of heart failure so sometimes it's up to the individual to take holistic approaches. I know of a few(personally, and many more impersonally), who saved their lives by ignoring the mainstream ideals and principles.


----------



## marcel177 (Oct 7, 2012)

>.< still waiting for more debate....educate me pls. >.>


----------



## Pekopon (Dec 22, 2013)

myersljennifer said:


> I'm not here to argue with anyone though! I'm open to all point of views.
> 
> And I probably don't have to mention that the body RUNS on glucose. If you don't know what glucose is, google my friend. Carbs might have some correlation. ^_^


Durianrider has NO credentials to be able to give medical or nutrition advice. He gives inaccurate information and has no clue about nutritional biochemistry. He does NOT have "perfect" blood test results: http://30bananasadaysucks.com/2012/03/durian-riders-textbook-blood-test-results/

You are correct, glucose is the main fuel source for the brain and nervous system, although fat is used for fuel by the muscles and liver also. However, we need adequate amounts of all amino acids to build proteins for collagen structure, enzymes, blood transport proteins, storage molecules, hormones, etc. We need adequate amounts of essential fatty acids to make components of specialized membranes, extracellular signaling compounds, and ligands for nuclear factors that control gene expression.

Insulin is released from the pancreas in response to glucose, not fat, in the blood. What do you mean when you say "Remove the fat, increase the sugars(carbs), and the sugars can easily pass through the bloodstream efficiently"? What does that mean?


----------



## Donnie in the Dark (Mar 15, 2011)

I don't really see how the debate is relevant.
We know that people can survive and do well eating meat, and we know people can do well without it.
Vegetarianism is, or should be, a _moral_ decision.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

Pekopon said:


> Durianrider has NO credentials to be able to give medical or nutrition advice. He gives inaccurate information and has no clue about nutritional biochemistry. He does NOT have "perfect" blood test results: http://30bananasadaysucks.com/2012/03/durian-riders-textbook-blood-test-results/
> 
> You are correct, glucose is the main fuel source for the brain and nervous system, although fat is used for fuel by the muscles and liver also. However, we need adequate amounts of all amino acids to build proteins for collagen structure, enzymes, blood transport proteins, storage molecules, hormones, etc. We need adequate amounts of essential fatty acids to make components of specialized membranes, extracellular signaling compounds, and ligands for nuclear factors that control gene expression.
> 
> Insulin is released from the pancreas in response to glucose, not fat, in the blood. What do you mean when you say "Remove the fat, increase the sugars(carbs), and the sugars can easily pass through the bloodstream efficiently"? What does that mean?


Yes, he does. He's posted more than once and has told people they can go to the clinic with him to prove it. That site is a joke, and quite annoying. People can't wrap their heads around the reality that the lifestyle works, so they look for and create lies to support their bad habits.

Yes, I know it responds to glucose, but I'm referring to, if someone went on a high carb, low fat lifestyle, blood sugar issues could decrease due to the lack of fat blocking the sugars from passing through. I've had bad experiences combining fats+sugars, personally. I definitely don't recommend diabetics to eat as much sugar as they want if they're eating the standard diet, of course not. I also have blood test results that are in good range. I've seen people with type two diabetes cure it through this lifestyle. I'm not here to debate science, like I said before. You can argue with others on that matter.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

You still get all the essential fatty acids you need on the lifestyle. For goodness sakes. 

Like Donnie in the Dark said, there's no need to debate any further. And like I said earlier, there's ALWAYS conflicting studies! Everyone must choose themselves. I can't stand being involved in debates.


----------



## Pekopon (Dec 22, 2013)

myersljennifer said:


> Yes, he does. He's posted more than once and has told people they can go to the clinic with him to prove it. That site is a joke, and quite annoying. People can't wrap their heads around the reality that the lifestyle works, so they look for and create lies to support their bad habits.
> 
> Yes, I know it responds to glucose, but I'm referring to, if someone went on a high carb, low fat lifestyle, blood sugar issues could decrease due to the lack of fat blocking the sugars from passing through. I've had bad experiences combining fats+sugars, personally. I definitely don't recommend diabetics to eat as much sugar as they want if they're eating the standard diet, of course not. I also have blood test results that are in good range. I've seen people with type two diabetes cure it through this lifestyle. I'm not here to debate science, like I said before. You can argue with others on that matter.


I know you don't want to debate any further, but I have seen many people fall for the raw food diet and end up with problems. (I'm a grad student going for my MS in nutrition and work closely with my professors on various research projects and clinical work). Most people end up bingeing on cooked foods because they aren't getting what they need in their diets. What Durianrider promotes is a BS fad diet without scientific backing. There are ways to be healthy as a meat eater and as a vegetarian. Vegans have a harder time and often end up anemic unless they are very careful.

People who feel better on the raw food diet are usually switching from a SAD of processed foods. The benefits come from greatly reducing the processed crap, meat, grains, sodium, etc. from an intake that was too high to begin with. There is NO need to cut out entire food groups unless a person has an allergy or immune reaction. What I am saying is that people go from one extreme to the other, instead of eating a sensible, balanced diet.

Normal lab tests don't necessarily mean everything is fine. The human body is resilient and can compensate for a lot of deficiencies. For example, you don't start seeing abnormal kidney values until you've lost about 75% of your kidney function. By then, it's too late to do anything about it.


----------



## ToughUnderdog (Jul 7, 2013)

thewall said:


> As a soon-to-be registered dietitian, there is so much inaccurate and false information in this thread it makes my head explode. Over and over again. Le sigh.


There are plenty of nutritionists and doctors that are recommending a plant-based lifestyle as an optimal way to prevent disease and treat it. Surely you can admit that. Even Kaiser has started promoting it in its own practices.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

Pekopon said:


> I know you don't want to debate any further, but I have seen many people fall for the raw food diet and end up with problems. (I'm a grad student going for my MS in nutrition and work closely with my professors on various research projects and clinical work). Most people end up bingeing on cooked foods because they aren't getting what they need in their diets. What Durianrider promotes is a BS fad diet without scientific backing. There are ways to be healthy as a meat eater and as a vegetarian. Vegans have a harder time and often end up anemic unless they are very careful.


I don't eat a fully raw diet and I recommend most people to include slow releasing complex carbohydrates into their diets along with fruits/veg/beans/etc. I recommend fruit in the morning/daytime though. Not sure why we're talking about Durianrider, but he has also included cooked foods into his diet whenever he can't get enough calories from fruit. It's not a BS fad diet, it's a lifestyle that many have continued for decades, I think he's on 13 years now. Dr. Doug Graham has been on the fully raw food diet for 30+ years or so. I don't recommend a fully raw diet to those who can't get enough fruit. *His diet, raw, and cooked versions both have scientific evidence. Please check out these books and the studies involved; The Starch Solution, Preventing and Reversing Heart Disease, 80/10/10 Diet, The China Study, etc. *These will give the scientific evidence that you're looking for. I don't debate science, or anything really since I'm not confrontational, haha. I like to stay mellow and avoid any negative or stressful situations. I've read all of the above and done trial and error on myself and have found what works for me.



> People who feel better on the raw food diet are usually switching from a SAD of processed foods. The benefits come from greatly reducing the processed crap, meat, grains, sodium, etc. from an intake that was too high to begin with. There is NO need to cut out entire food groups unless a person has an allergy or immune reaction. What I am saying is that people go from one extreme to the other, instead of eating a sensible, balanced diet.


*I've been healthy vegan for over two years, and when I go all raw, I notice the benefits immediately.* Not coming from the SAD diet. I differ back and forth due to the cost of eating so much fruit. The failures on the raw diet are due mostly to not eating enough fruit. You are totally right, a lot of people are switching from the SAD diet and many cure their diseases through raw foods. Some can't add cooked back in or their illnesses return. These are just my experiences, what I've read/researched and the people I've spoken to through personal experiences.



> Normal lab tests don't necessarily mean everything is fine. The human body is resilient and can compensate for a lot of deficiencies. For example, you don't start seeing abnormal kidney values until you've lost about 75% of your kidney function. By then, it's too late to do anything about it.


*
Is the body still compensating for those on an all raw diet for 50+ years?* 
^Edit: Or those who have thrived on a vegan/plant based diet for even longer than 50 years?

I really like your input. I don't like to argue, it doesn't make me feel good. Thank you for the discussion. I think you bring up great points.


----------



## arao6 (Jul 12, 2013)

Sacrieur said:


> Plants use a fundamentally different energy pathway (i.e., photosynthesis) while animals use aerobic respiration. They are inverse processes.


The above does not pertain to the debate. Second of all, animals use both aerobic and anaerobic respiration. Glycolysis is the anaerobic stage of ATP production, which produces the pyruvate that enters the citric acid cycle / electron transport chain for oxidative phosphorylation. Thirdly, plants have both mitochondria and chloroplasts; they respire aerobically but also produce glucose through the dark/light reactions of photosynthesis.



Sacrieur said:


> So what I'm saying in my argument is that an omnivore is a vegetarian who also eats meat. *This is to say that everything that's in a vegetarian diet is also in an omnivorous diet, and thus, there are no superior vegetarian only sources of food.*


The inclusion of meat reduces health efficacy. That is the point that I have been arguing. In other words, the addition of meat is often a negative inclusion.



Sacrieur said:


> We can argue the intricacies of meat vs. plant sources. But ultimately it's a lost cause. You're going to find that there's no significant benefit. The EPA found in fish oil is from algae and can be found in edible seaweed. Leucine found in beef is also found (in higher quantities) in soy. Or we can just skip the middle man and drink whey protein isolate.


Have you read the studies that I have linked in my previous posts?



Sacrieur said:


> Modernization and globalization has increased the availability of food to make vegetarianism a feasible diet. Eventually I reckon we'll gain the option to abandon food altogether and just have a soylent that is superior and tailor made to either option. In the past, it was difficult to thrive on a vegetarian diet due to the access of plant foods available -- meat supplementation was usually necessary -- because one couldn't just go down to the grocery store and have a wide selection available.


I agree.



Sacrieur said:


> My focus is that a healthful diet is the superior diet. What kind of food groups you eat really have no significant impact.


... Read the studies that I have linked previously. They show that certain food sources are better.



Sacrieur said:


> What you eat is only important up to a point, after that it's more calorie restriction and exercise that promotes longevity.


Indeed.


----------



## arao6 (Jul 12, 2013)

thewall said:


> As a soon-to-be registered dietitian, there is so much inaccurate and false information in this thread it makes my head explode. Over and over again. Le sigh.


Enlighten us  It's always great to have professional input.


----------



## visualkeirockstar (Aug 5, 2012)

myersljennifer said:


> Grains, potatoes, legumes, beans, etc all are slow releasing foods that will give you optimal energy. You do not *need *meat. You can *choose* to eat it, but it's best to avoid saying you need it because you're not giving yourself enough fuel/calories. That's just improper eating on your part. You have to eat enough to thrive.


Nobody knows my body like i do. I hear a lot of people say those food gives energy but to me they don't.


----------



## Billius (Aug 7, 2012)

arao6 said:


> Enlighten us  It's always great to have professional input.


Professionals and other people who are a bit better informed/less zealous generally find threads such as these rather hard work to trudge through:roll I doubt they'll be back.


----------



## thewall (Feb 1, 2009)

ToughUnderdog said:


> There are plenty of nutritionists and doctors that are recommending a plant-based lifestyle as an optimal way to prevent disease and treat it. Surely you can admit that. Even Kaiser has started promoting it in its own practices.


Well I didn't even say what was incorrect, so thanks for just assuming.

I was actually referring to the arguments against vegetarianism. I've been veg for the past 7 years, so you're not going to hear me bashing it.


----------



## arao6 (Jul 12, 2013)

Billius said:


> Professionals and other *people who are a bit better informed/less zealous generally find threads such as these rather hard work to trudge through*:roll I doubt they'll be back.


Take a look at the discussion between Sacrieur, myersljennifer, and I. We are involved in a scientific discussion with plenty of research papers being passed around. It starts here.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

thewall said:


> Well I didn't even say what was incorrect, so thanks for just assuming.
> 
> I was actually referring to the arguments against vegetarianism. I've been veg for the past 7 years, so you're not going to hear me bashing it.


I had a feeling this would be the case. That's why I'm interested to hear your perspective!


----------



## Pekopon (Dec 22, 2013)

myersljennifer,

I want to let you know that I am enjoying this debate with you. I appreciate your considerate answers and the fact that you aren't trying to push an agenda on anyone. I apologize if I am coming off in a negative way. It is not my intention to make anyone not feel good. This subject matter tends to bother me because I have seen the damage that false information can do.



myersljennifer said:


> I don't eat a fully raw diet and I recommend most people to include slow releasing complex carbohydrates into their diets along with fruits/veg/beans/etc. I recommend fruit in the morning/daytime though. Not sure why we're talking about Durianrider, but he has also included cooked foods into his diet whenever he can't get enough calories from fruit. It's not a BS fad diet, it's a lifestyle that many have continued for decades, I think he's on 13 years now. Dr. Doug Graham has been on the fully raw food diet for 30+ years or so. I don't recommend a fully raw diet to those who can't get enough fruit. *His diet, raw, and cooked versions both have scientific evidence. Please check out these books and the studies involved; The Starch Solution, Preventing and Reversing Heart Disease, 80/10/10 Diet, The China Study, etc. *These will give the scientific evidence that you're looking for. I don't debate science, or anything really since I'm not confrontational, haha. I like to stay mellow and avoid any negative or stressful situations. I've read all of the above and done trial and error on myself and have found what works for me.


I did not know that Durianrider started eating cooked food. What was his reasoning? I'm curious, because he was always pretty adamant that cooked food was akin to poison. I have read most of the books you mentioned, but they are not the best sources for scientific information. In particular, I want to mention Dr. Graham's 80/10/10 book. (I've also listened to all his audio lectures). I know what he says about biology and what different species are designed to eat sounds convincing, but he is giving his own personal theories that are not based on scientific evidence. He says many things that are just plain wrong. Here are some examples:

1.) He states that, "Cooking denatures the proteins in foods, fusing the amino acids together with enzyme-resistant bonds that preclude them from being fully broken down, thus rendering the proteins substantially useless" (p. 56). This is not true unless you are talking about cooking protein for so long that it becomes black and charred. Yes, heating protein denatures it, but that is what digestion IS...denaturing protein so that the structure unfolds and it can be broken down into amino acids. When you eat raw protein, this is what your stomach acid does to it. Cooking the protein actually helps with this initial step and makes it easier for the body to digest.

2.) He says, "Most other nutrients-vitamins, minerals, enzymes, coenzymes, antioxidants, phytonutrients, and fiber are damaged or devitalized by the heating process, leaving behind "foods" with substantially empty calories" (p. 59). To this, I say...it depends. Some nutrients' like vitamin C are damaged by heat and are best consumed in uncooked sources. Many vitamins and minerals are perfectly stable when cooked. In addition, cooking helps break down plant cell walls, making certain foods easier to digest. Dr. Graham brushes off all credible research on this subject matter by stating that we should trust that nature knows best and nature does not give us cooked foods. Also, we do not use enzymes from our food for bodily processes. We produce our own enzymes for this purpose. Any enzymes consumed are treated as protein and denatured/digested.

3.) He says, "One of insulin's roles is to attach itself to sugar molecules in the blood and then find an insulin receptor in the blood vessel wall. The insulin can then transport the sugar molecule through the blood-vessel membrane to the interstitial fluid and continue to escort sugar across another barrier-the cell membrane-and into the cell itself" (p. 32). Insulin does NOT attach to or transport glucose in the blood. Insulin does not "escort" glucose into the cell. Glucose enters the cell via GLUT4 transporters, which are translocated to the membrane surface in response to insulin binding to its receptor on the surface of the cell. This is basic nutritional biochemistry.



myersljennifer said:


> *I've been healthy vegan for over two years, and when I go all raw, I notice the benefits immediately.* Not coming from the SAD diet. I differ back and forth due to the cost of eating so much fruit. The failures on the raw diet are due mostly to not eating enough fruit. You are totally right, a lot of people are switching from the SAD diet and many cure their diseases through raw foods. Some can't add cooked back in or their illnesses return. These are just my experiences, what I've read/researched and the people I've spoken to through personal experiences.


Durianrider would always tell people that they weren't eating enough fruit if the raw food diet wasn't working for them. He would tell people this even if they were eating mostly fruit. If you are interested, I'll send you a link to the blog of a girl who followed the raw food diet and experienced many health problems. She chronicled her whole experience and it's pretty interesting. I'm really glad to hear that it sounds like you eat a more complete diet than 100% raw. Not that it is any of my business what people choose to eat on a personal basis. People can choose to eat or not eat whatever they want. What upsets me is when people like Doug Graham make up their own science and use it to convince people that they are poisoning themselves by eating cooked food.



myersljennifer said:


> *
> Is the body still compensating for those on an all raw diet for 50+ years?*
> ^Edit: Or those who have thrived on a vegan/plant based diet for even longer than 50 years?


Yes. The body will compensate until it no longer has the ability to. Doug Graham has been doing it for 35 years, but there aren't really any studies on the long term health of people who stick with it. Maybe it works for him and he is happy. Maybe it is possible for some people to succeed with his plan. He is still dispensing inaccurate information about the science of nutrition.



myersljennifer said:


> I really like your input. I don't like to argue, it doesn't make me feel good. Thank you for the discussion. I think you bring up great points.


I like your input, too. I really do. Just for the record, I am an advocate of a plant based diet and lover of green smoothies. I think people eat way too much meat and processed food. However, I feel that we really need to take a look at whether the information that these health gurus are selling us stands up to scientific reasoning or not.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

I agree about Doug Graham. He can get a little fruity in the head, sometimes.  I do love his approach(mostly) and ideals. I resonate more with the MD..McDougall, as well as others like Barnard and Esselstyn. I feel the best ever when I'm raw and getting enough food in, but I don't believe it's sustainable unless you're extreme about it and constantly make sure you're getting enough cals/nutrients. All in all, I'm mostly a dummy about the science. That's why I link to the books and studies I've read, because I can't explain it well myself. I live through trial and error, like I said. I live through others stories, who I have seen save their lives, etc. I believe that Graham is a very smart man. He is sort of RAW IS LAW though which can sway people away and can be an elitist mentality.

I just can't accept or agree with your statement about the body compensating for over 50 years when you're feeding it the most nutrient dense foods(per cal) available. How does that work? Some of the oldest people to have lived thrived on a raw diet, this lady I discovered had lived on a raw diet for until she was 108. She had glowing skin. I believe she's passed now. There's many others as well. Also, check out this pup.  (For fun).

You know, there's got to be thousands of people out there who do the raw diet, who don't own a computer or express their lifestyle. They just live. And live a very long time. How can nature be wrong? Whole foods cannot be combated.

As for the scientific reasoning, and not following gurus...I don't debate that. I do what makes me thrive. I try new things, and stick with what works. Results versus theory when necessary.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

I really don't want to divert the discussion so much onto raw foods, or Harley(Durianrider). I'm not sure why you're taking it so far in that direction. The thread is about vegetarians vs non vegetarians. I'd like it to get back to that. But I forgot to answer your question: He chose to add cooked food back into his diet due to availability, cost and convenience. Also, the fruit can taste like utter **** certain times of the year. He trains well on his high carb cooked foods as well. He's doing it to show people that they should have a back up plan, and that raw isn't law. He's trying to be the living example.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

Sorry if I'm being short, I'm at work.


----------



## marcel177 (Oct 7, 2012)

Thank you for the info (scienitifically and through experience) on each persons point of view  and now I must start studying >.>


----------



## Billius (Aug 7, 2012)

arao6 said:


> Take a look at the discussion between Sacrieur, myersljennifer, and I. We are involved in a scientific discussion with plenty of research papers being passed around. It starts here.


The are some that consider this (faintly psychotic)obsession with science a critical flaw in modern society, thats what I was trying to say. If one steps away from google scholar for a bit and looks at the real world what unites all the healthiest and un-healthiest groups? Wrong choices, whether or not they eat meat is not generally a unifying factor. Which brings us to another flaw here: The obsession with finding a scapegoat(instead of taking responsibilty) and the increasing predisposition to zealotry once one is found. Your fabled science isn't going to help with these either :b


----------



## Grog (Sep 13, 2013)

Vegos , what makes you only eat plants ? , is it that animals have nervous systems ?
Seriously what made you decide not to eat meat ?


----------



## arao6 (Jul 12, 2013)

Billius said:


> The are some that consider this (faintly psychotic)obsession with science a critical flaw in modern society, thats what I was trying to say.


The obsession with science is a critical flaw in modern society? What? :|



Billius said:


> If one steps away from google scholar for a bit and looks at the real world what unites all the healthiest and un-healthiest groups? *Wrong choices, whether or not they eat meat is not generally a unifying factor*.


From one perspective, yes, I agree. Science is just one kind of lens, but to dismiss the "obsession" with science as a flaw is somewhat myopic. There is increasing and compounding evidence that meat consumption is a significant factor (that paper is just one of many). Whether or not the factor is unifying, I do not know, but it is significant.



Billius said:


> Which brings us to another flaw here: The obsession with finding a scapegoat(instead of taking responsibilty) and the increasing predisposition to zealotry once one is found. Your fabled science isn't going to help with these either :b


No one is trying to find a scapegoat; people support what they believe, especially if they have a passion for it. There are people here who are open-minded, objective, and rational (like Sacrieur, Pekopon, and myersljennifer). There are others who have a passion for one particular side of the debate (like me), motivated by ethical and moral factors. There is nothing wrong or zealous about it.



Pekopon said:


> Maybe it works for him and he is happy. Maybe it is possible for some people to succeed with his plan.


I agree. I cannot seem to find the study, but there is a long-term study that analyzed both positives and negatives of such a diet. The positives included favorable LDL and triglyceride levels, weight loss for overweight people, stabilization of serum glucose levels, and decreased risk for heart disease. The negatives included a vitamin B-12 deficiency, osteoporosis, amenorrhea, and hypoglycemia. Obviously, not everyone experienced the negatives and not everyone experienced the positives. The interesting part, I think, is how some individuals found their glucose levels stabilize while others experienced hypoglycemia. This leads me to believe that nutrition is somewhat individualized. I agree that the raw food diet is not for everyone, but those who thrive on the diet likely do not need to compensate; practically speaking, vegans/vegetarians appear to live longer than non-vegetarians (I posted several studies in my previous posts regarding this). Veganism/vegetarianism may not be for everyone, but I encourage everyone to try it.



marcel177 said:


> Thank you for the info (scienitifically and through experience) on each persons point of view  and now I must start studying >.>


Glad you are enjoying the discussion! I should probably start studying as well, haha.


----------



## Billius (Aug 7, 2012)

arao6 said:


> No one is trying to find a scapegoat; people support what they believe, especially if they have a passion for it. There are people here who are open-minded, objective, and rational (like Sacrieur, Pekopon, and myersljennifer). There are others who have a passion for one particular side of the debate (like me), motivated by ethical and moral factors. There is nothing wrong or zealous about it.


Fair enough, still don't 100% believe you though.

I suppose what i'm trying to do is suggest that maybe being moderate(or trying many things) is the best course of action. To me the need to 'prove' everything resembles borderline psychosis, it also seems to be exploited by big pharma(but this is not the thread for that topic). I think the term scientism applies.



arao6 said:


> The obsession with science is a critical flaw in modern society? What? :|


I'll clarify: The line between reason and zealotry can be rather on the thin side, to much faith in any one thing(or group) can lead to problems, imho society is often on the wrong side. As Nietzsche said:


> If there is something to pardon in everything, there is also something to condemn.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

The need to prove things is highly relevant, especially in a debate thread.

But it should be noted that it's not proof, it's theories. Studies. Tests.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

And without science...............................we would be very, very...........................................far back.


----------



## Billius (Aug 7, 2012)

myersljennifer said:


> The need to prove things is highly relevant, especially in a debate thread.





myersljennifer said:


> And without science...............................we would be very, very...........................................far back.


I'm not sure if you've just catastrophically missed the point or I'm being trolled I neither disclaimed the need to prove things nor did I deny the value of science. I merely said that these things are not the sole source of worth or understanding and suggested people take care not to get to obsessed.


----------



## arao6 (Jul 12, 2013)

Billius said:


> I suppose what i'm trying to do is suggest that maybe being moderate(or trying many things) is the best course of action.


A moderate approach is often the best approach. I do not dispute this.



Billius said:


> To me the need to 'prove' everything resembles borderline psychosis


Don't be silly. Science is one approach to arriving at plausible truth, but it certainly is not the only way. As far as history has shown, it is probably the best approach, as it has given rise to numerous technological and medical advancements in the last 200 years compared to thousands of years before that.



Billius said:


> I'll clarify: The line between reason and zealotry can be rather on the thin side, to much faith in any one thing(or group) can lead to problems, imho society is often on the wrong side.


I can see how you would think that, but I personally believe that society is progressing in a positive direction.


----------



## arao6 (Jul 12, 2013)

Billius said:


> I'm not sure if you've just catastrophically missed the point or I'm being trolled I neither disclaimed the need to prove things nor did I deny the value of science. I merely said that these things are not the sole source of worth or understanding and suggested people take care not to get to obsessed.


First, there is no need to change the font size. It makes you sound desperate and/or angry (when you need not be).

Secondly, "obsessed" is relative. What you consider obsessed is perfectly natural for many people. I think that science is undervalued (e.g. all the unfortunate budget cuts on NASA and other scientific agencies), and I think that more people should focus on science. Of course, science is not the only source of understanding, but it is often the most objective, quantitative, and unbiased source.

I suppose we should get back to the topic at hand-- vegetarianism vs non-vegetarianism.


----------



## Billius (Aug 7, 2012)

I am hardly being silly.


arao6 said:


> Don't be silly. Science is one approach to arriving at plausible truth, but it certainly is not the only way. As far as history has shown, it is probably the best approach, as it has given rise to numerous technological and medical advancements in the last 200 years compared to thousands of years before that.





Billius said:


> I neither disclaimed the need to prove things nor did I deny the value of science.I merely said that these things are not the sole source of worth or understanding and suggested people take care not to get to obsessed.


It's good but it's not the be all and end all.



arao6 said:


> I can see how you would think that, but I personally believe that society is progressing in a positive direction.


I'm quite misanthropic


arao6 said:


> I suppose we should get back to the topic at hand-- vegetarianism vs non-vegetarianism.


Probably, but i'd just be repeating the creatine taurine thing


----------



## DeniseAfterAll (Jul 28, 2012)

I'm vegetarian . . and that's why I'm skinny , don't get sick . . and will live longer . . unfortunately . . . .

I kinda like the skinny part , though . . . .


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

arao6 said:


> First, there is no need to change the font size. It makes you sound desperate and/or angry (when you need not be).
> 
> Secondly, "obsessed" is relative. What you consider obsessed is perfectly natural for many people. I think that *science is undervalued* (e.g. all the unfortunate budget cuts on NASA and other scientific agencies), and I think that more *people should focus on science*. Of course, science is not the only source of understanding, but it is often the most objective, quantitative, and unbiased source.
> 
> I suppose we should get back to the topic at hand-- vegetarianism vs non-vegetarianism.


Well said, as usual, Neil! :clap


----------



## arao6 (Jul 12, 2013)

myersljennifer said:


> Well said, as usual, Neil! :clap


You as well!



Billius said:


> Vegans have the most AGEs in their blood which is not good, meat eaters have the least, lacto-ovo vegetarians in the middle; 1 up to meat eating like that. As for how I feel about it I think anyone who has a strong voice one way or the other has either an insecurity or a grudge.


Glycotoxin levels for all three categories that you have listed above are incredibly less than that required to become toxic. Besides, it has already been proven over and over again that vegans/vegetarians live longer-- so much for the notion that AGEs accelerate aging! Haha, of course, there are more factors involved.


----------



## CeilingStarer (Dec 29, 2009)

myersljennifer said:


> I don't expect you to take my word for it, haha. Check these out: Preventing and Reversing Heart Disease(by Dr. Esselstyn), The China Study, The Starch Solution. Also, check out the Okinawans who have lived the longest lives, thriving on a grain(carbs) based diet. Or just look at any rural areas of Thailand, China, etc. All lean, healthy, focused.
> 
> Plenty of the healthiest athletes thrive on high carbohydrate diets as well. Cyclists, runners, etc. It all depends on what your goals are.  But I am interested to hear why a high carb diet is the worst of all?
> 
> Insulin: Fat+sugars in the bloodstream causes insulin spikes. Remove the fat, increase the sugars(carbs), and the sugars can easily pass through the bloodstream efficiently. If you're looking for more proof, check out durianriders on YouTube, he eats high carb low fat low protein, and has perfect blood test results, which he has posted.


I've entered the thread a bit late (haven't read all the pages), but have just started a combo of 80-10-10 with McDougall/cooked starch. Harley/durianrider has definitely been a huge inspiration. Good to see him get a mention here, and good on you!

I'm hoping to rectify some health issues with this lifestyle, so see how we go.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

CeilingStarer said:


> I've entered the thread a bit late (haven't read all the pages), but have just started a combo of 80-10-10 with McDougall/cooked starch. Harley/durianrider has definitely been a huge inspiration. Good to see him get a mention here, and good on you!
> 
> I'm hoping to rectify some health issues with this lifestyle, so see how we go.


Absolutely amazing! So awesome to hear that! Raw til 4 style is sooo easy and ideal. It can be a great lifestyle.  Harley is my biggest inspiration ever. He is so transparent and realistic.


----------



## CeilingStarer (Dec 29, 2009)

myersljennifer said:


> Absolutely amazing! So awesome to hear that! Raw til 4 style is sooo easy and ideal. It can be a great lifestyle.  Harley is my biggest inspiration ever. He is so transparent and realistic.


Cheers for the encouragement!

Harley is a major s***-stirrer, but he just tells it how it is, and I respect that. Not once has he tried to ram some supplement down my throat, and as you say, "transparent" with blood tests etc. People are more likely to stick with it if they can smash some rice/spuds/occasional vegan pizza, rather than starve or binge on junk and feel like failures.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

CeilingStarer said:


> Cheers for the encouragement!
> 
> Harley is a major s***-stirrer, but he just tells it how it is, and I respect that. Not once has he tried to ram some supplement down my throat, and as you say, "transparent" with blood tests etc. People are more likely to stick with it if they can smash some rice/spuds/occasional vegan pizza, rather than starve or binge on junk and feel like failures.


(Sorry I was short in my reply earlier, I had a lot of work to finish(at work). I have a minute now.)

Harley definitely loves the controversy. He has a massive heart, despite it all. I can see it very clearly. I have been following him for many years now. He's always responded and genuinely cares about helping people. I think he is doing a great service to people, giving free information and vital, sustainable help. If it wasn't for him, I wouldn't have followed through with this lifestyle. I found veganism a while back(and would/will never stray for ethical/health reasons), but didn't know the true value of the 80/10/10 ratios, which have helped me tremendously. I really hope it is working out for you, and you will reap/see the benefits long term.  I'd love to hear about it.

It's SO fcuking easy, convenient and DIRT CHEAP to get rice, potatoes, beans, and other carbohydrate foods. I love my fruits as well. Bananas are also dirt cheap here in America, but I know the prices there in Australia can be high. Damn.


----------



## CeilingStarer (Dec 29, 2009)

myersljennifer said:


> (Sorry I was short in my reply earlier, I had a lot of work to finish(at work). I have a minute now.)
> 
> Harley definitely loves the controversy. He has a massive heart, despite it all. I can see it very clearly. I have been following him for many years now. He's always responded and genuinely cares about helping people. I think he is doing a great service to people, giving free information and vital, sustainable help. If it wasn't for him, I wouldn't have followed through with this lifestyle. I found veganism a while back(and would/will never stray for ethical/health reasons), but didn't know the true value of the 80/10/10 ratios, which have helped me tremendously. I really hope it is working out for you, and you will reap/see the benefits long term.  I'd love to hear about it.
> 
> It's SO fcuking easy, convenient and DIRT CHEAP to get rice, potatoes, beans, and other carbohydrate foods. I love my fruits as well. Bananas are also dirt cheap here in America, but I know the prices there in Australia can be high. Damn.


Nah, that's all good... didn't have to expand on your reply.

Yeah, I live about 10 minutes drive from Harley (in Adelaide), so his rants about organic fruit prices literally hit home. I managed to find a place with cheap organic bananas, so I'm just buying up and eating while I can. When that runs dry, I'll bulk-up with cheap carbs until another deal comes through. I like sprouting mung beans etc too which is pretty cheap.

Yeah, I'll let you know how it goes. I already feel so much better after quiting alcohol 2 weeks ago. How long have you been on the 80/10/10 ratio? Hopefully I bump into Harley too around the place: I'll send your regards if I do!


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

I've lost interest discussing it further, I think arao6 have discussed it enough anyway.

Hilariously, in the future I will likely eliminate carbohydrates entirely and rely on permanent ketosis.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

CeilingStarer said:


> Nah, that's all good... didn't have to expand on your reply.
> 
> Yeah, I live about 10 minutes drive from Harley (in Adelaide), so his rants about organic fruit prices literally hit home. I managed to find a place with cheap organic bananas, so I'm just buying up and eating while I can. When that runs dry, I'll bulk-up with cheap carbs until another deal comes through. I like sprouting mung beans etc too which is pretty cheap.
> 
> Yeah, I'll let you know how it goes. I already feel so much better after quiting alcohol 2 weeks ago. How long have you been on the 80/10/10 ratio? Hopefully I bump into Harley too around the place: I'll send your regards if I do!


(I wanted to expand on my reply. )

Wow, that is really cool. I've never been to Australia. It looks so beautiful. The winters here in my area are so brutal. We got like 14 inches of snow the other day! It definitely makes things more difficult. But I would never want the prices of Australia. US is so cheap. Yet, I still barely get by, haha. Kudos on you for finding good deals and getting the food in.

Congratulations on removing the alcohol! That is so great! I've been doing this ratio for probably around 8 months hardcore(but have differed back and forth before this time a few months after going vegan). If it's a special occasion, or whatever, I may go a little higher on the fat. But I always notice. And I don't like how it makes me feel. That would be about once a month or less. I don't like high fat foods. They make me physically sick, and also affect my mental clarity/mood a LOT. I have depression issues, and a high fruit/carbohydrate diet has helped more than anything else. What are your goals/what do you want to get out of the lifestyle? Just out of curiosity.

Also, just for everyone else, if you're trying to build muscle then obviously you'd want to increase the non fatty protein ratio. For those who want to lose fat, or maintain a light weight for whatever purposes, this ratio is suuuper awesome.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

myersljennifer said:


> Congratulations on removing the alcohol!


You're going to love this.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

Sacrieur said:


> You're going to love this.


Why would I like or dislike it? If someone has a desire to cut out alcohol, or has a problem with alcohol, then they should take measures to stop, period.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

Not sure how it relates to my and his discussion. But interesting, nonetheless. Haha.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

myersljennifer said:


> Not sure how it relates to my and his discussion. But interesting, nonetheless. Haha.


It concluded that moderate alcohol drinkers have the lowest mortality and that abstainers had just as a high mortality as heavy drinkers.


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

Sacrieur said:


> It concluded that moderate alcohol drinkers have the lowest mortality and that abstainers had just as a high mortality as heavy drinkers.


Yes, I did notice that. What of it, mista?


----------



## arao6 (Jul 12, 2013)

Sacrieur said:


> You're going to love this.


Intriguing. Why do you think that is? I am on my phone, so I am unable to read the paper completely (site has formatting issues).


----------



## ToughUnderdog (Jul 7, 2013)

Sacrieur said:


> I've lost interest discussing it further, I think arao6 have discussed it enough anyway.
> 
> Hilariously, in the future I will likely eliminate carbohydrates entirely and rely on permanent ketosis.


You're going to gamble your health on that diet? I'd see the doc before doing that. Be skeptical if you have problems with nausea, gas, constipation, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and bad breath. Let us know how that works and if you plan to do any marathon training

You can "live la vida low-carb" with Jimmy everyday.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

ToughUnderdog said:


> You're going to gamble your health on that diet? I'd see the doc before doing that. Be skeptical if you have problems with nausea, gas, constipation, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and bad breath. Let us know how that works and if you plan to do any marathon training
> 
> You can "live la vida low-carb" with Jimmy everyday.


Numerous studies have shown it's quite safe.


----------



## CeilingStarer (Dec 29, 2009)

myersljennifer said:


> (I wanted to expand on my reply. )
> What are your goals/what do you want to get out of the lifestyle? Just out of curiosity.


It's gross, but I've had a long term problem with having to clear my throat all the time, especially after meals. I'm always so full of phlegm and have trouble speaking at times. It's the root of all my social anxiety/depression.

So yeah, whether allergy/acid reflux etc, clearing this up with diet is my main goal. I just want to get healthy, find a cool lady and start living before time slips away basically. I hate factory farming etc too, but that is secondary to my health goals right now.

Anyway, cheers for the chat!


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

CeilingStarer said:


> It's gross, but I've had a long term problem with having to clear my throat all the time, especially after meals. I'm always so full of phlegm and have trouble speaking at times. It's the root of all my social anxiety/depression.
> 
> So yeah, whether allergy/acid reflux etc, clearing this up with diet is my main goal. I just want to get healthy, find a cool lady and start living before time slips away basically. I hate factory farming etc too, but that is secondary to my health goals right now.
> 
> Anyway, cheers for the chat!


Not gross, I understand what you mean, my mother has a similar issue and has had acid reflux BAD for many years. This lifestyle will definitely help with that! Contains so much more water than the other crap. I'm so sorry about it causing your SA and depression.

Those are awesome goals, and I know you'll achieve them. Just cutting out dairy helps people with reducing acid reflux(it's very acidic, along with meats), and produces less phlegm. Drinking more water is sooooooo important. During the winter here, I get congested a bit and when I drink enough water, it's a thousand times better.

Good luck.


----------



## CeilingStarer (Dec 29, 2009)

myersljennifer said:


> Not gross, I understand what you mean, my mother has a similar issue and has had acid reflux BAD for many years. This lifestyle will definitely help with that! Contains so much more water than the other crap. I'm so sorry about it causing your SA and depression.
> 
> Those are awesome goals, and I know you'll achieve them. Just cutting out dairy helps people with reducing acid reflux(it's very acidic, along with meats), and produces less phlegm. Drinking more water is sooooooo important. During the winter here, I get congested a bit and when I drink enough water, it's a thousand times better.
> 
> Good luck.


Thanks heaps 

Hope you can similarly work through all that brings you to this forum. I was nowhere near as switched-on at 20!


----------



## myersljennifer (Sep 6, 2013)

CeilingStarer said:


> Thanks heaps
> 
> Hope you can similarly work through all that brings you to this forum. I was nowhere near as switched-on at 20!


Thank you very much.


----------



## twitchy666 (Apr 21, 2013)

*lucky with*

BBQs when offered veg burgers and sausage dogs built for me by girls

tried Quorn a lot but some awkward to cook when spitting in hot oil

Favourite is the Cauldron brand addiction with tofu coated / marinated to taste like meat in stirfry

I think volume works for me. Loads down the gullet than just a gentle salad


----------



## EddieDee (Jan 13, 2014)

I'm a vegan and I feel happy!! Eating healthy makes you happy and healthy and it cures almost everything. I've been a vegan for 5 years and it does help me to be positive. Going vegan is the smartest move you'll ever make and you'll feel like a hero because you're saving over 100+ animals a year.


----------



## GoogIe (Jan 18, 2014)

EddieDee said:


> I'm a vegan and I feel happy!! Eating healthy makes you happy and healthy and it cures almost everything. I've been a vegan for 5 years and it does help me to be positive. Going vegan is the smartest move you'll ever make and you'll feel like a hero because you're saving over 100+ animals a year.


Thousands of people say that when they have sustained being a vegan over a long term, if u asked the same person during his non-veg days, you may get a tripping over and a grin.


----------



## Orbiter (Jul 8, 2015)

That may be because of the fact that you are working out/doing fitness.
You can eat healthy all you want, if you don't move (enough), it won't help properly.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

Sacrieur said:


> Eventually I reckon we'll gain the option to abandon food altogether and just have a soylent that is superior and tailor made to either option.


I'm literally drinking Soylent as a read this. Goddamn I'm awesome.


----------



## Out of the Ashes (Jun 6, 2013)

I have a suspicion that the healthiest thing for your body would be to eat a little bit of everything (except refined sugar, unless you do cardio) and get a broad spectrum of random nutrition, while keeping your digestive system active. I dunno, just a theory.


----------

