[lol] It's so obvious that humans are carnivores.

[Lila9]

20 minutes ago, Michael569 said:

@The0Self @Lila9 you guys are correct, algae do indeed contain EPA, dunno why I had that wrong. Thanks for the correction

No problem ?

In this opportunity, I'd like to recommend this algae based Omega-3 supplement for everyone who's looking for a reliable source of Omega-3 that is not fish:

[Jannes]

On 21.4.2023 at 2:08 PM, Schizophonia said:

lol

https://ourworldindata.org/quaternary-megafauna-extinction

https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.abf9776

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51068816

I just watched a very well researched video on the question "Was meat responsible for brain growth?"

The answer that its just meat is way to simplistic. Meat could be part of the reason but probably not the main reason:

-Eating much meat doesn't cause brain growth per se because if that were the case all carnivores would be smart as fuck which they aren't. It needed a survival benefit for brain growth.

-One of the main reason might be that we learned how to cook food. Cooking food means our digestive track could get smaller from the easier digestible and more energetic type of food and therefore didn't take up as much energy which allowed for the growth of the brain. Despite us being far more intelligent than most animals, we need around the same calories as an equally heavy mammal.

-Another good is reason is that humans developed a body with less muscle and more fat compared to other mammals which is energy saving and would allow for brain growth.

-Cooking allowed two new food sources in roots and sweet grasses (predecessor of grain). The extra carbs helped us to think cause our brain runs on carbs if it isn't in ketosis and also gave us more calories which could allow for adaptations.

-Our denture is neither the one of a meat eater, nor of a plant eater. It's a unique one that fits the purpose of eating easily digestible (cooked food).
 

But now matter what the reason was back then how does this even matter for today? The question "Was meat responsible for brain growth?" can't be translated into todays question "Does meat grow my brain?". There are enough plant based fat and protein sources today to cover brain health.

[6] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19843...
[7] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24564...
[8] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17439...
[9] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26123...
[10] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17827...
[11] https://www.pnas.org/content/109/45/1...
[12] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2744104
[13] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25293...
[14] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26591...
[15] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NB...
[16] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19049...
[17] https://bit.ly/3BFMhF4
[18] https://bit.ly/3AwY4o0

Quote

No, starches without condiments, even cooked, don't taste good, unripe fruits don't taste good, oil and refined sugar don't taste too good, rotten foods don't taste good, etc. etc.

These are not objective facts that's just your preference. 

I like cooked starches actually. The whole grain has a healthy natural taste to it. 

I still like many unripe fruits like bananas or apples.

Quote

Yes, the vast majority of animals are potentially omnivorous, and are just more suited to one type of food and will prefer it.
The more you are adapted to a food the more you will like it.

Not necessarily. A deer is very badly adapted to eat steak. But because the stake is SO MUCH more nutritionally dense than grass it will still outrank its natural food sources. Even if only 10% of the steak can get digested, that's still way more than all the grass. 

But an animal that is adapted to eating watermelon for example compared to an animal which is adapted to eating meat. In this case these animals probably wouldn't switch their food sources because they already have very nutritionally dense food sources so the benefit to change to another less adapted diet for the benefit of getting more valuable food doesn't stand. 

Quote

The point is, you don't like starches, it's a survival solution, and you're going to try to camouflage their taste with subterfuge.
You want nice, juicy meat, and some fruit/dairy if you can digest it, possibly tubers/white flour starches if you're in fruit shortage and/or starving and your mitochondria are adapted to high carbohydrate diet for some time.

They are not natural products and cheat on your palate, and in fact even if they are attractive for attavic reasons they are quickly sickening and even disgusting.

Do you season your meat? Most people put a bunch of seasonings on their meat to make it taste more like vegetables. If that's not cheating idk what is. 

Quote

Stone Age men weren't some kind of violent, hungry monkeys who ate anything while shouting "ouga ouga ouga"
I don't know if you understand what you're saying, but if the first men had to settle for "seeds and roots", they would be dead and you wouldn't be here.

And there is nothing complicated to know what is natural or not, you can imagine that bean packets do not grow in trees and that you cannot fish knackis, it is elementary logic.

"Natural" doesn't necessarily mean healthy as I argumented before. Although I do believe that cooking various plants including grains is natural. 

 

Edited April 23, 2023 by Jannes

[Schizophonia]

On 23/04/2023 at 5:05 AM, M A J I said:

Can you eat meat raw and bloody without cooking it and adding all different salts (minerals) and herbs/spices (plants) that you actually crave... not the meat itself? If you craved the meat you wouldn't need to add 'salts' and 'additives' and plants to make it flavorful and palatable.

I don't need to put seasoning on my meat, eggs or dairy.
In fact, I don't know exactly why (balance potassium sodium?), but the more my diet is rich in animal products, the less I want to add salt.
Currently I have returned to a more classic diet for several reasons and I again wanted to put salt on my eggs/meat.

Quote

You would simply hunt, kill, eat and drink fresh blood like a feline does and wont get an upset stomach, but you are clearly not a feline or canine, nor a bear

I don't know what this strange argument is, nor am I a deer, koala or gorilla.

Quote

... maybe a delusional or psychopath... if you enjoy it raw...

You are just Anglo-Saxon lol, everyone on the planet eats raw/undercooked meat.

Quote

Why do you think garlic, clove and onion have always been intuitively added to meat while cooking? Cause especially garlic and clove target and kill parasites. Meat is full of parasites, what controls the gut controls the mind. Those are not hunger pains or cramps you are experiencing.

1)Only pork is reputed to give parasites, and it is a very particular animal condemned in many religions.
Otherwise the meat is not supposed to contain dangerous parasites, otherwise the animal would be seriously ill anyway.
You also don't make sense, like in some third world countries, to leave the meat literally rotting outside.

2)No, people put on garlic and onions because food is an art form and we crave new flavors.
Besides, you won't get any real antiseptic quality with onion or even raw garlic.
Alcohol is technically a poison and that doesn't prevent alcoholic beverages from being tasty.

Quote

Fruit is the natural food because you don't need to flavor it, you don't need to cook it or alter it in anyway, you don't need to add additives like salt or sugar to make it palatable to the human taste.. Its right in front of our very eyes, but to a mind that is blind.. I guess its invisible.

Neither are fruit and sugar pleasant to some extent, even when your mitochondria are more carb-metabolizing.

Like "starchivores" make "bean, oatmeal, and tomato sauce steaks" because eating even a kilo of cooked legumes a day is too boring, frugivores make a ton of smoothies and "nicecream" with high-calorie exotic fruits (bananas, dates, etc.) because eating a lot of fruit is boring.

Quote

Even vegetable is not the same, we are not cows, we don't have hooves, if we need to add 'salts' and 'flavors' we are missing the point entirely.

1) You can add salt as a "bad habit" as seasonings can throw off cravings eventually.
Everyone adds salt to anything, starting with plants. My point is that you need herbal seasonings to make up for the boredom of their texture and bulk.
Animal meat and fat, in addition to being tasty, are small in size and easy to eat.

Quote

A baby will never intuitively eat the rabbit and play with the apple, and 9/10 times it will pick the fruit over the vegetable.

interesting argument

1) Children are not going to play with the rabbit as it will run away/be hostile unless it is a domesticated breed (selected)

2) Human children cannot survive on their own and they are still extremely sensitive with high brain plasicity.
The ability to fight and hunt usually comes later, with brain maturation, exposure to androgens etc.
Many men just don't feel able to hunt anymore, they're just weakened by a life of comfort and underexposure to androgens, it's not just a matter of not being able to kill an animal anymore, it's also no longer be able

3) This is a pretty wacky vegan hippie idea, kids aren't that nice and empathetic, kids can actually be particularly sadistic.
A girl in my family literally had fun killing cats by smashing them against the wall, she didn't become psycho or mean, the kids just have fun exploring boundaries, they're not that dual.

Quote

Why are baby foods 90% fruit-based? because its the gentlest on the human body. Yet people think fruit is merely a snack.

No, we sometimes give fruit purees to children because it's cheap and easy to digest, but their post-weaning nutrition is varied, in fact when I was a baby, I was given cereal boils and pieces of meat.
As for carnivorism, I haven't seen people giving carnivorous food to their child so I won't comment. (and that's another topic)

Quote

Why is there a fruit bowl on almost every kitchen bench in almost every house?

Because it looks pretty and inflates the ego by making us feel like respectable people who eat well etc etc.
It's also good, I'm not against fruit, I don't know if you've read it but by "carnivor" I mostly mean "meat-based".

Quote

These things are some big wake-up calls most do not see. Others are just in utter denial of truth and they cannot accept the fact that everything they've been taught is a lie, they've invested so much on a false-life, and the rest are just 'drug addicts' too deep to even realize it themselves.

begging the question begging the question begging the question

Quote

Then God said, “I give you every (seed-bearing plant) on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has (fruit) with (seed) in it. They will be yours for (food). Genesis 1:29

lol

I'm not sure that basing one's diet on the writings of apostles of a Palestinian sect is scientific or simply rational.

Quote

I could go all day but you get my drift... If you cannot "see" past what i have just shared then I cannot help you.

On 19/04/2023 at 9:25 PM, Lila9 said:

Pandas, like any bear, are omnivores, means they can consume either only plants or only meat their entire life and they will be healthy.

Idk, maybe.

What I do know though is that unless you supplement yourself with certain nutrients, being vegan is going to drive you relatively insane within a decade.

 

On 18/04/2023 at 6:53 PM, zurew said:

@Schizophonia So TLDR: you have nothing tangible, other than a handful of testimonials.

Adversarial reversal, do YOU have tangible proof?
The primal/paleo diet (carnivore was a provocative misnomer, call such a diet what you will) is amazing to me and many others.
The more I eat like this, the better my cognition, the better my poo, the stronger I am in the gym etc etc.
And obviously the taste is much better than a vegan diet, while being really satisfying in terms of appetite.

Troll/provocation aside, I've shared and suggested checking out the story of other people on even stricter diets than me who don't have health issues including artherosclerosis (despite high LDL), while recalling that, here again, carnivore is a vague and provocative term to agree on a diet based on animal products.

And you ? What do you have apart from generally epidemiological studies.
For the 10th time, regardless of the quality of the studies and the fact that we can be interested in them, they are impersonal and manipulable.
You absolutely want a study?
giveaway: https://www.dovepress.com/total-meat-intake-is-associated-with-life-expectancy-a-cross-sectional-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-IJGM

On 23/04/2023 at 11:30 AM, Jannes said:

I just watched a very well researched video on the question "Was meat responsible for brain growth?"

The answer that its just meat is way to simplistic. Meat could be part of the reason but probably not the main reason:

-Eating much meat doesn't cause brain growth per se because if that were the case all carnivores would be smart as fuck which they aren't. It needed a survival benefit for brain growth.

-One of the main reason might be that we learned how to cook food. Cooking food means our digestive track could get smaller from the easier digestible and more energetic type of food and therefore didn't take up as much energy which allowed for the growth of the brain. Despite us being far more intelligent than most animals, we need around the same calories as an equally heavy mammal.

-Another good is reason is that humans developed a body with less muscle and more fat compared to other mammals which is energy saving and would allow for brain growth.

-Cooking allowed two new food sources in roots and sweet grasses (predecessor of grain). The extra carbs helped us to think cause our brain runs on carbs if it isn't in ketosis and also gave us more calories which could allow for adaptations.

-Our denture is neither the one of a meat eater, nor of a plant eater. It's a unique one that fits the purpose of eating easily digestible (cooked food).
 

But now matter what the reason was back then how does this even matter for today? The question "Was meat responsible for brain growth?" can't be translated into todays question "Does meat grow my brain?". There are enough plant based fat and protein sources today to cover brain health.

[6] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19843...
[7] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24564...
[8] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17439...
[9] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26123...
[10] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17827...
[11] https://www.pnas.org/content/109/45/1...
[12] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2744104
[13] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25293...
[14] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26591...
[15] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NB...
[16] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19049...
[17] https://bit.ly/3BFMhF4
[18] https://bit.ly/3AwY4o0

These are not objective facts that's just your preference. 

I don't know if I misunderstood your message or if you can't understand the principle of Darwinism.
Nothing causes the growth of the brain, it is a genetic evolution produced by evolutionary pressure.
The fact is that the human brain has the particularity of requiring an enormous amount (compared to other animals) of omega 3 and that the evolution of the brain is consistent with the migration of hominids, from the tropical forests to the high African plains and the development fishing and hunting.

Eating as much carbohydrate as you want will not magically eliminate your deficiencies in other nutrients, nor change the archaeological evidence.
Besides, I live in France close to the "Lascaux caves", I have often visited them, the hunting engravings I have seen them yes, the oat cooking engravings not too much ah ah.
I've also seen a lot of shows about the practices of the ancient peasants in my country, McDougall likes to say that Europeans ate vegetables and beans, but he forgets to mention that the vegetables were literally, most of the time, preserved in PORK FAT and cooked with this same fat.
In short, the pro "starchivores" are rewriting history.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0260106012437550

Quote

I like cooked starches actually. The whole grain has a healthy natural taste to it. 

Either you decorate in an exaggerated way your "complete cereals", with oil, condiments, transform them into pasta etc.
Or you eat 1000 calories a day.
Either you are delusional, like a homeless man thinks he is rich when he manages to afford a macdonal, eat a good greasy entrecote, without condiment or possibly a little salt if you are too used to it, and dare to say it without being a hypocrite massive that your bulgur is more appealing.
Dare  

Quote

I still like many unripe fruits like bananas or apples.

Ditto

Quote

Not necessarily. A deer is very badly adapted to eat steak. But because the stake is SO MUCH more nutritionally dense than grass it will still outrank its natural food sources. Even if only 10% of the steak can get digested, that's still way more than all the grass. 

But an animal that is adapted to eating watermelon for example compared to an animal which is adapted to eating meat. In this case these animals probably wouldn't switch their food sources because they already have very nutritionally dense food sources so the benefit to change to another less adapted diet for the benefit of getting more valuable food doesn't stand. 

It has nothing to do with nutrient density, it's a matter of enzymes.

 

Quote

Do you season your meat? Most people put a bunch of seasonings on their meat to make it taste more like vegetables. If that's not cheating idk what is. 

Already answered.
1) "Like a plant" does not mean anything, the vast majority of plants are filthy, come to understand that "spices" are precisely a handful of plants selected from millions for their ability to give potentially pleasant flavors.

2) Meat already tastes good, people season it to taste better because curiosity is in our nature, it's not about animal vs plant products, this rhetoric is very dishonest.
Alcohol is bad for humans and wine is one of the finest and most enjoyable foodstuffs on this planet, I know some guys who put vodka in their pineapple juice to improve the taste, is that does that mean they actually secretly want alcohol?

"This person puts a pinch of paprika on his steak, it's proof that he wants beans and spinach"

lmao

Quote

"Natural" doesn't necessarily mean healthy as I argumented before.

I agree

Quote

Although I do believe that cooking various plants including grains is natural. 

 

Everything is "natural", just because humans are so intelligent that they have actions that are particularly contrasting with those of the rest of the animal world does not make it "unnatural", we just do stuff humans.

Edited April 24, 2023 by Schizophonia

[Schizophonia]

On 21/04/2023 at 2:26 PM, M A J I said:

@Schizophonia It does not matter to me what you think nor makes any difference, your mind is (fixated) and convinced that way... and there's nothing I can do about that, only time will tell if the seeds will sprout or not. I will continue to share the truth regardless but won't argue endlessly and pointlessly.

agree

On 21/04/2023 at 2:26 PM, M A J I said:

Out of many fruitarians I know, only a few uneducated and unprepared ones experience health issues, most thrive and some of the most "alive" people I know and not zombified like you would see with the average englishman/american ect...

I'm not American or English, where I am people are healthy and far from "fruit-eaters".

Average overweight Westerner is neither vegan, nor frugivorous, nor carnivorous, nor paleo, nor any diet. He just stuffs himself with processed and high-calorie products of any kind.

On 21/04/2023 at 2:26 PM, M A J I said:

Plant fats like avocado, durian, coconut, olives ect.. are superior to animal-fats in many ways when we are talking about the homosapian.

Names of fats are fats, there are highly unsaturated (cold water fish) and highly saturated (beef tallow, dairy products) animal products, there are highly unsaturated plant products (avocado, nuts...) and very saturated (coconut, palm fruit).
That's like saying "fruit sugar is different from unrefined cane sugar."

On 21/04/2023 at 2:26 PM, M A J I said:

Even Nikola Tesla stated plant foods are superior, one of the highest geniuses known to mankind.

Nicolas Tesla is an excellent engineer with an extraordinary capacity for visualization.
He is not a nutritionist or someone who has taken a keen interest in nutrition. And even if he is very intelligent he is a human and he regularly makes affirmative statements based on unvalidated knowledge, or simply debatable.

In other words, just because a so-called genius says something doesn't mean it's true.
Myself I sometimes fail argumentatively in front of people who, without pretense, have a particularly lower iq.

On 21/04/2023 at 2:26 PM, M A J I said:

Not for everyone I agree as everyone is at different levels of conscious experiencing but you cannot really argue

yes, the proof, I'm doing it 

On 21/04/2023 at 2:26 PM, M A J I said:

with the fact that humans are frugivore by natural design. If you cannot see it, how clear and evident it is, then I cannot help you further. The entire anatomy, biology, DNA says otherwise..

hummmm... no

On 21/04/2023 at 2:26 PM, M A J I said:

but we can agree to disagree because I can already see your energy.

yes 

On 21/04/2023 at 2:26 PM, M A J I said:

Hell even Jeff juices recently uploaded a video where he also talks about how he gained weight and muscle on fruit-based diet and lifestyle long term juicing and fasting https://www.instagram.com/p/CrQbhj8JxW4/

This guy looks like a stick insect, without being mean

On 21/04/2023 at 2:26 PM, M A J I said:

I believe once you do long term juicing and fasting and heal properly, you will be able to realize what a far more efficient human being operating on a higher energy bandwidth feels like, and there is a simple reason why that occurs. Its human nature.

 

 

It's up to you to give me the example of a frugivore "full of energy".
I watched a video of the frugivore arguing with a carnivore in another video someone posted on this thread, he looked almost lethargic.

There is obviously more than diet

On 22/04/2023 at 4:45 PM, hyruga said:

How are you going to get past constipation without fruits and vegetables?

Very fibrous plants constipate me. I haven't gone down the rabbit hole of these issues so I'll refrain from giving an opinion for now.

 

On 22/04/2023 at 8:19 PM, thepixelmonk said:

lmao anatomy has no value, man the mental gymnastics is strong in this one.

There is no "mental gymnastics", I explained why and gave an example, I could give others.
There are also other evolutionary particularities in humans which point to a potential evolution for hunting and the consumption of animal products, I would be happy if you could explain to me without "mental gymnastics" why

 

On 21/04/2023 at 5:25 PM, Michael569 said:

 

No, Vegetable Police is a poser who likes to create drama. I have been following his journey for around 4 years before I realised that for him it is always about "what's the new crazy thing I can be doing"

I was even in his Patreon Group at one point. In fact he will tell you that neither carnivore nor vegan nor paleo nor keto nor anything else worked for him. He'll always bring up how everything flares up his IBD and then do some lunacy rather than actually stick to one protocol long enough. His content is all about jibberish and monkey business. I've stopped taking him seriously a long time ago. He is a funny guy tho and gave me many laughs over the year but his health content is all over the place. The camera channel is pretty hilarious I have to admit and he is also a really talented music producer - I bought his album couple years ago and it was really cool. 

As per John Venus, I don't believe he ever gave fuck about animals. He is a poser and always has been. I wouldn't be surprised if he was, all that time, snacking on meat behind the scenes. He and his wife are just your typical Youtube fitness pseudo-fitness gurus selling cookie cutter overpriced plans. When I spoke to him on vegfest in London, I didn't buy the things he was saying - his body language did not confirm the words he was speaking. But he is a good marketers and a good business man, that's for sure. And he looks like a Greek god with a face that melts your heart which does help  

Nimai Delgado might be a better example although I'm not sure to what degree he is roid free, he probably is. 

If you want to see a healthy example, the best one I can think of is Derek Simnet and Krystal Kennings from Simnet Nutrition. I spoke to both of them on VegFest and they are the most charming couple out there. I am sure Richard Burgees from Vegan Gains behind all that drama and depression is a decent guy who just needs to learn to let go and take a step back. 

But yah overall the vegan influencer scene is riddled with posers, fake natties and a lot of pseudoscience but there are good examples of really caring people who do good things. 

 

You are sectarian.
You seek to demonize people who struggle with their health (and indeed can be versatile/do anything like VP) by turning them into manipulators, dishonest people etc.
On the other hand when a person from your "camp" (Richard), who (this is a non-exhaustive list, this is what I remember :):

- Explained in video hating children, and wanting to explode the skulls of crying children around him "until there is a boil of blood on the sidewalk."

-Explained in a video that he asked for a street fight with a father because his children were making too much noise.

- Threatened with death a person with whom he was playing an online video game

- Shamelessly insult those they comment on and disagree with, including VP for that matter.

-Laughed at the death of a youtuber + insulted his children.

-Literally admitted to being sadistic and sociopathic.

-Mythomane (lied saying that he never said he didn't like children, and that he was "just afraid of them", this example is obvious but he literally lies all the time during his lives to appear confident and intellectually informed).

There on the other hand "oh it's just depression, basically it must be a downhill type "

Can you see your half measure? Michael.

[Basman]

Humans are clearly omnivores. There are no primates or past human species that where obligate carnivores or herbivores. It is a strength of our species. It means that there is more for us to eat and our physiology doesn't have to overly specialize, locking us out of being a generalist species.

As to what is preferable, it depends on you. Some people prefer certain diets because of how it makes them feel, but I'd be sure to take dietary trends on the internet with a grain of salt. Social media rewards extremism and outrage, making certain attitudes more visible. You have to ask yourself if a proposed diet is being propogated because it is generally true or because how the influencer manages to sway the algorithm to their favor.

[Jannes]

6 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

I don't know if I misunderstood your message or if you can't understand the principle of Darwinism.
Nothing causes the growth of the brain, it is a genetic evolution produced by evolutionary pressure.
The fact is that the human brain has the particularity of requiring an enormous amount (compared to other animals) of omega 3 and that the evolution of the brain is consistent with the migration of hominids, from the tropical forests to the high African plains and the development fishing and hunting.

Eating as much carbohydrate as you want will not magically eliminate your deficiencies in other nutrients, nor change the archaeological evidence.
Besides, I live in France close to the "Lascaux caves", I have often visited them, the hunting engravings I have seen them yes, the oat cooking engravings not too much ah ah.
I've also seen a lot of shows about the practices of the ancient peasants in my country, McDougall likes to say that Europeans ate vegetables and beans, but he forgets to mention that the vegetables were literally, most of the time, preserved in PORK FAT and cooked with this same fat.
In short, the pro "starchivores" are rewriting history.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0260106012437550

Are you argumenting for a carnivores diet/ highly meat based diet or for a diet that includes some meat?

What deficiencies?

Well as I argumented there are many reasons for why our brain developed independent from the fact that we consumed meat.

Also we could have just grown more intelligent and therefore gotten able to kill more animals tactically and as a result thrived and reproduced a lot. You say that the chicken came before the egg but you don't actually know. 

But all of this doesn't even really matter because we have modern nutrition now which might be better than any paleo diet. 

Quote

Either you decorate in an exaggerated way your "complete cereals", with oil, condiments, transform them into pasta etc.
Or you eat 1000 calories a day.
Either you are delusional, like a homeless man thinks he is rich when he manages to afford a macdonal, eat a good greasy entrecote, without condiment or possibly a little salt if you are too used to it, and dare to say it without being a hypocrite massive that your bulgur is more appealing.
Dare  

It's good as a side dish instead of rice for example. 

"complete cereals" lol. Sounds carbphobic. 

Bulgur is made out of wheat flour so its not really a natural product

I am not arguing that cooked grains are more appealing than meat, (although idk if I would like it because I am not used to meat anymore). Anyway let's take a pig as an example. A pig is a clear omnivore we can agree on that right? If you give that pig the option between veggies and meat I think it's safe to say that it would pick the meat. Not because it's healthier or more natural for the pig but just because the meat is loaded with calories and calories are jummi.

Quote

Ditto

It has nothing to do with nutrient density, it's a matter of enzymes.

Well if a deer has badly adapted enzymes for meat but still manages to break up 10% of the meat that's still better then the grass where it can digest 90% from or whatever.

Quote

Already answered.
1) "Like a plant" does not mean anything, the vast majority of plants are filthy, come to understand that "spices" are precisely a handful of plants selected from millions for their ability to give potentially pleasant flavors.

2) Meat already tastes good, people season it to taste better because curiosity is in our nature, it's not about animal vs plant products, this rhetoric is very dishonest.

 Are you sure people like meat without seasonings? I was never a big meat eater so I can't really tell but I always find it funny how bodybuilder grow tired of eating their unseasoned chicken breast so much ?

I think you have to compare seasoned plants with seasoned meat or unseasoned meat with unseasoned plants. And even then, as in my marked comment, meat has an advantage because it is high in calories which doesn't mean it's healthy for ya. High calorie foods just taste good for survival reasons but that doesn't count anymore. 

 

 

[M A J I]

All I see here is major denial of truth and a severe lack of education. I no longer have to partake in this, all the relevant facts have been stated.

Take it or leave it, enjoy your empty rambles.

[Schizophonia]

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

Are you argumenting for a carnivores diet/ highly meat based diet or for a diet that includes some meat?

A meat-based diet.

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

What deficiencies?

Mostly B12, EPA/DHA, Vitamine A.

But also Choline, Zinc, L-Carnitine, Taurine and simply a good amount of protein.
You can say that the nutrients just above are present in sufficient quantities in a vegan diet, or that they are not "essential nutrients" but:

1) It's hypocritical because vegans are all (or almost) pro-high carbs, exogenous carbohydrates are also not "essential" in absolute terms.

2) Just because you're not deficient in something doesn't mean low intake isn't a problem.
A low intake of the above nutrients will decrease your mental and physical performance.

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

Well as I argumented there are many reasons for why our brain developed independent from the fact that we consumed meat.

No, it's literally the centerpiece.
No omega 3 EPA/DHA, no human brain development
Moreover, animal products are the most calorically dense in nature, there were no particularly caloric plants in Paleolithic Africa apart from certain fruits and tubers.

I've also posted several links that show that the demographic expansion of homo sapiens and his hominid ancestors significantly influenced the fauna of southern africa, as well as links showing that civilizations like the valley civilization industry was probably meat-based.

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

Also we could have just grown more intelligent and therefore gotten able to kill more animals tactically and as a result thrived and reproduced a lot. You say that the chicken came before the egg but you don't actually know. 

Ditto

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

But all of this doesn't even really matter because we have modern nutrition now which might be better than any paleo diet. 

If science (if that means anything) "proves" that a diet is healthier and it's irrefutable, then it's more likely that it's just our view of the paleo diet that's wrong.

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

It's good as a side dish instead of rice for example. 

Luckily ha ha 

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

"complete cereals" lol. Sounds carbphobic. 

I'm not against carbohydrates, fruits and natural sources of monosaccharides are good.
In fact I eat a lot of carbohydrates for the calories, every morning I eat porridge, I just worry about preparing it well (soaking, cooking) and mixing it with butter so that it is pleasant for the intestines, Oats are inexpensive and quite nutritious. 

I am still aware that this is not natural in itself, given the preparation it requires, and that oats without butter/honey/fruits/spices are tasteless and even unpleasant.

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

Bulgur is made out of wheat flour so its not really a natural product

agree

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

I am not arguing that cooked grains are more appealing than meat, (although idk if I would like it because I am not used to meat anymore). Anyway let's take a pig as an example. A pig is a clear omnivore we can agree on that right? If you give that pig the option between veggies and meat I think it's safe to say that it would pick the meat. Not because it's healthier or more natural for the pig but just because the meat is loaded with calories and calories are jummi.

 

Herbivores are very fond of eating food that is not nutritionally dense.
Also the plants are not very dense for us because we cannot derive energy from the fibers (which are fructose polymers), but for a ruminant for example it is in fact dense food.

The real question is, will the pig choose between meat and cooked grains?
And even the answer will be tendentious because men are not pigs.

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

 

Well if a deer has badly adapted enzymes for meat but still manages to break up 10% of the meat that's still better then the grass where it can digest 90% from or whatever.

I'm not sure I understood

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

 Are you sure people like meat without seasonings? I was never a big meat eater so I can't really tell but I always find

Yes, most people where I am eat almost raw meat, with just a little salt (or not).

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

it funny how bodybuilder grow tired of eating their unseasoned chicken breast so much ?

The bodybuilder diet is a nightmare, even the best food in the world will be disgusting if you have to eat it in industrial quantities.

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

I think you have to compare seasoned plants with seasoned meat or unseasoned meat with unseasoned plants. And even then, as in my marked comment, meat has an advantage because it is high in calories which doesn't mean it's healthy for ya. High calorie foods just taste good for survival reasons but that doesn't count anymore. 

 

 

agree, but it's more complicated than plants vs meat.
A mango or certain vegetables are very good, kale is not pleasant.
Muscle meat, eggs and milk are very good, some parts of the animal can be unpleasant (kidneys, liver...)

 

12 hours ago, M A J I said:

All I see here is major denial of truth and a severe lack of education. I no longer have to partake in this, all the relevant facts have been stated.

Take it or leave it, enjoy your empty rambles.

Lol, i find you very pretentious for someone who bases his diet on biblical writings and the opinion of some engineer.

And from the youtube videos of course, I recognized Neil Barnard's "children playing with the rabbit" argument ah ah.
Except that just watching videos from nutritionfact.org and neil barnard isn't enough to be "scientifically informed" or simply show yourself to be an exceptionally rational person.

[Schizophonia]

15 hours ago, Basman said:

Humans are clearly omnivores. There are no primates or past human species that where obligate carnivores or herbivores. It is a strength of our species. It means that there is more for us to eat and our physiology doesn't have to overly specialize, locking us out of being a generalist species.

As to what is preferable, it depends on you. Some people prefer certain diets because of how it makes them feel, but I'd be sure to take dietary trends on the internet with a grain of salt. Social media rewards extremism and outrage, making certain attitudes more visible. You have to ask yourself if a proposed diet is being propogated because it is generally true or because how the influencer manages to sway the algorithm to their favor.

Spot on

I play so I'm a bit extreme about the fact that we are "carnivorous", obviously we ate everything we could find for more calories including plants. You can be vegan and be healthy, I just tease them by childishly showing why I'm skeptical.

No need to have headaches 

[Jannes]

2 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

A meat-based diet.

Why though. You don't need all your calories coming from animal products in order to get enough protein and healthy fats for your brain and muscles. (Or any ) And evolutionary speaking all of this brain growth could have happened with a part fish diet. I don't think there is even that much Omega3 in meat but I could be wrong about that.

Quote

Mostly B12, EPA/DHA, Vitamine A.

Can be supplemented. 

Carnivores miss ALA from Omega 3.

Vitamin A is in lots of fruits and veggies 

We could have gotten B12 easily from the dirt on plants and some insect on leaves for example vegan (well kinda vegan) 

That we only gotten EPA/DHA naturally through animal products is true though. 

But it's possible to get it with algae oil. And as a vegetarian with eggs, especially omega3 eggs. 

Quote

But also Choline, Zinc, L-Carnitine, Taurine and simply a good amount of protein.
You can say that the nutrients just above are present in sufficient quantities in a vegan diet, or that they are not "essential nutrients" but:

1) It's hypocritical because vegans are all (or almost) pro-high carbs, exogenous carbohydrates are also not "essential" in absolute terms.

They tend to be on average but you could actually run a ketogenic vegan diet if you wanted. 

Idk where vegans are hypocrites. They don't say that you need or should eat as much carbs as possible to be healthy I don't think.

I don't think you are getting easily getting deficient in these nutrients as a vegan. Zinc is the only one of that list that DGE (German Society for Nutrition) sees as a high risk of lacking in vegans and they are pretty conservative in their claims. 

Quote

2) Just because you're not deficient in something doesn't mean low intake isn't a problem.
A low intake of the above nutrients will decrease your mental and physical performance.

That's what being deficient in something means, that it is a problem. 

Quote

No, it's literally the centerpiece.
No omega 3 EPA/DHA, no human brain development
Moreover, animal products are the most calorically dense in nature, there were no particularly caloric plants in Paleolithic Africa apart from certain fruits and tubers.

I've also posted several links that show that the demographic expansion of homo sapiens and his hominid ancestors significantly influenced the fauna of southern africa, as well as links showing that civilizations like the valley civilization industry was probably meat-based.

Well there are many intelligent plant eating animals. Those also developed their brain only with plants somehow. 

I asked chatgpt about it and that's it answer below.

Quote

If science (if that means anything) "proves" that a diet is healthier and it's irrefutable, then it's more likely that it's just our view of the paleo diet that's wrong.

What do you mean by that?

Quote

I'm not against carbohydrates, fruits and natural sources of monosaccharides are good.
In fact I eat a lot of carbohydrates for the calories, every morning I eat porridge, I just worry about preparing it well (soaking, cooking) and mixing it with butter so that it is pleasant for the intestines, Oats are inexpensive and quite nutritious. 

I am still aware that this is not natural in itself, given the preparation it requires, and that oats without butter/honey/fruits/spices are tasteless and even unpleasant.

Cooking is a very natural thing to do for us humans. Our digestive track is literally adapted for cooked food. 

Quote

agree

Herbivores are very fond of eating food that is not nutritionally dense.
Also the plants are not very dense for us because we cannot derive energy from the fibers (which are fructose polymers), but for a ruminant for example it is in fact dense food.

It will be more nutritionally dense but still a cow for example has to eat pounds of grass everyday to get enough calories. Even with everything adapted perfectly.

Quote

The real question is, will the pig choose between meat and cooked grains?
And even the answer will be tendentious because men are not pigs.

That's not what I wanted to illustrate. And cooked meat will be more nutritionally dense than cooked grains. 

Quote

I'm not sure I understood

Cow example

Quote

Yes, most people where I am eat almost raw meat, with just a little salt (or not).

Damn where do you live?

Quote

The bodybuilder diet is a nightmare, even the best food in the world will be disgusting if you have to eat it in industrial quantities.

yep

Quote

agree, but it's more complicated than plants vs meat.
A mango or certain vegetables are very good, kale is not pleasant.
Muscle meat, eggs and milk are very good, some parts of the animal can be unpleasant (kidneys, liver...)

I find that very interesting. I don't think people back then would through away the offal of an animal cause then they would waste a good chunk of the animal and the insights are the most nutritious. So doesn't that speak against carnivore diets being "natural" that we dislike the taste of unseasoned offals?

Edited April 25, 2023 by Jannes

[Leo Gura]

On 4/18/2023 at 11:17 AM, The0Self said:

What was affected the most? Triglycerides and HDL? Triglycerides and VLDL?

Every cholestoral number there is got way worse in every possible way.

Edited April 26, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Roy]

On 4/17/2023 at 4:53 AM, Schizophonia said:

Your excuse to repress your instincts and obey Dr. Greger, McDougall or another fallout ghoul? 

Ngl this post was triggering me a bit but then when you referred to vegans as fallout ghouls I spit laughing and realized you have a good sense of humor 

[Michael569]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Every cholestoral number there is got way worse in every possible way.

Have your ApoB measured. It is more important than the entire lipid panel and most likely the most relevant marker. The test is relatively cheap in US

If it shows too high and you cannot change the diet for now, it might be a good idea to take an occasional injection of PCSK-9 inhibitor to protect your vascular system from atherogenesis while you fix your gut.

Alternatively, taking a low-grade statin would keep those levels low as well. It is not ideal, but it is the lesser evil where arterial plaque build-up is concerned. 

Just a friendly share

Edited April 26, 2023 by Michael569

[undeather]

3 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Have your ApoB measured. It is more important than the entire lipid panel and most likely the most relevant marker. The test is relatively cheap in US

If it shows too high and you cannot change the diet for now, it might be a good idea to take an occasional injection of PCSK-9 inhibitor to protect your vascular system from atherogenesis while you fix your gut.

Alternatively, taking a low-grade statin would keep those levels low as well. It is not ideal, but it is the lesser evil where arterial plaque build-up is concerned. 

Just a friendly share

Good advice.
Maybe to mention that PCSK9-inhibitors are super expensive (~6-10k $/ year), while statins are cheap as hell.
Also, check your Lipoprotein A (Lp(a)) at least once in your lifetime - even if your ApoB is known. 

Edited April 26, 2023 by undeather

[Basman]

I went to a vegan restaurant an everyone inside was grumpy and miserable

6 hours ago, Roy said:

vegans as fallout ghouls

Litteraly.

[Schizophonia]

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

Why though. You don't need all your calories coming from animal products in order to get enough protein and healthy fats for your brain and muscles. (Or any ) And evolutionary speaking all of this brain growth could have happened with a part fish diet. I don't think there is even that much Omega3 in meat but I could be wrong about that.

You are right, by meat I also meant fish.
In fact, I saw a pharmacist doctor on a forum explain that humans were hunters of fish, shellfish and small game (thus white meat, low in heme iron...).
Probably true, I didn't do more research.

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

Can be supplemented. 

This is precisely the problem 

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

Carnivores miss ALA from Omega 3.

I didn't know, maybe.
Do you have a link ?

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

Vitamin A is in lots of fruits and veggies 

It is not Vitamin A but beta-carotene, which is only a precursor.

You need at least double the amount of beta carotene to get the same plasma retinol boost.
You must be careful to consume plants particularly rich in BC (which do not exist in nature, such as carrots or sweet potatoes) on a daily basis or almost daily, assuming that you do not have genetics that drastically reduce your ability to conversion, which is recurrent (BCO1 Gene)

https://www.xcode.life/23andme-raw-data/beta-carotene-conversion-vitamin-a/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9096837/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7353293/

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

We could have gotten B12 easily from the dirt on plants and some insect on leaves for example vegan (well kinda vegan) 

Do you have proof or do you draw this example from the opinion of certain doctors or vegan speakers on ideological documentaries?
The recommended amount of B12 is 2/3 mcg per day, roughly the equivalent of a small steak per day, assuming full bioavailability.
How do you expect to have the equivalent by eating wild plants (which by the way? most edible plants contain little cobalt, and it is accused of being carcinogenic), where perhaps bacteria have consumed and metabolized a little of cobalt in b12?

As a reminder, the most recognized theories are simply that B12 passes through the food chain from insects to larger carnivorous/omnivorous animals, and that large herbivores and especially ruminants obtain theirs by fermenting large amounts (several kilos per day of raw greens ) quantities of plants more or less rich in cobalt in their digestive system.

Before releasing the arguments of certain marginal vegan personalities remember that Game Changer, WhatTheHealth and other documentaries were produced by screenwriters of cinemas, that their speakers are controversial compared to the rest of the members of the medical system, and that their diffusion is allowed and protected by the legislation of a country so liberal (partly rightly) that it allows the presence of a lot of sects on its territory.

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

That we only gotten EPA/DHA naturally through animal products is true though. 

But it's possible to get it with algae oil. And as a vegetarian with eggs, especially omega3 eggs. 

So the only important and easily accessible sources remain animals.
You may not be deficient by consuming certain algae, my point is that this is not proof that humans are fundamentally adapted to a herbivorous diet.

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

They tend to be on average but you could actually run a ketogenic vegan diet if you wanted. 

looks like a nightmare 

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

Idk where vegans are hypocrites. They don't say that you need or should eat as much carbs as possible to be healthy I don't think.

I target personalities like McDougall who insist that protein or calcium deficiency "does not exist" as if that argument were enough, avoiding applying the same logic to carbohydrates.

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

I don't think you are getting easily getting deficient in these nutrients as a vegan. Zinc is the only one of that list that DGE (German Society for Nutrition) sees as a high risk of lacking in vegans and they are pretty conservative in their claims. 

It's not that you'll be technically deficient, it's mainly partially orally available peptides/proteins, the consumption of which has additional benefits.

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

That's what being deficient in something means, that it is a problem. 

Well there are many intelligent plant eating animals. Those also developed their brain only with plants somehow. 

I asked chatgpt about it and that's it answer below.

What animals? The most intelligent animals do not exceed the cognitive capacities of a 6-year-old homo sapiens child, and they are all at least omnivorous (pig, dog, dolphins, etc.)

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

What do you mean by that?

I mean, there can't be a healthier modern diet than the paleo diet.
If you manage to demonstrate, without possible refutation, that for example a vegan diet is healthier and more pleasant than a paleo diet, then there is a good chance that the vegan diet is the real paleo diet.

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

Cooking is a very natural thing to do for us humans. Our digestive track is literally adapted for cooked food. 

Vegetables, even cooked and well prepared, can be unpleasant/irritating to the intestines, cause gas, etc. even cooked, they also have an unattractive taste.
No civilization eats beans or whole grains unless they are very well prepared (fermentation, soaking, robust cooking...).
Humans produce a lot of amylase, but it may simply be an epigenetic modification (due to the consumption of starches), or an adaptation to the digestion of animal muscle glycogen, short polysaccharides (sucrose ) or simply easy plant starches

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

It will be more nutritionally dense but still a cow for example has to eat pounds of grass everyday to get enough calories. Even with everything adapted perfectly.

It's true, and precisely that doesn't pose a problem for him.
Now can you eat several pounds of vegetables or just pounds of cooked starches a day for your 2000 to 3000 calories a day as a human? 

I tried to go on a HCLF diet at 3000 calories a day, the most unpleasant diet I have ever done in my life.

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

That's not what I wanted to illustrate. And cooked meat will be more nutritionally dense than cooked grains. 

Not necessarily, maybe even the opposite if your meat is lean.
There is also more "unnecessary" calorie loss with amino acids than with glucose.

It's more or less equivalent after all

+I bought tamari a few weeks ago, it's quite boring to peel and it's not very dense in terms of calories, yet it's much more appealing than biting into an avocado or raw starches.
So this argument does not seem so obvious that !a.

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

 

Damn where do you live?

South West of France

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

 

I find that very interesting. I don't think people back then would through away the offal of an animal cause then they would waste a good chunk of the animal and the insights are the most nutritious. So doesn't that speak against carnivore diets being "natural" that we dislike the taste of unseasoned offals?

Organ meats can taste relatively good (example: raw fresh beef liver), but it is much less attractive than muscle meat, and this is more of a problem (muscle meat is rich in zinc, but organs such as the liver are too rich in copper, can also create an excess of vitamin A and can be other problems).

I believe that the majority of large predators including humans are adapted and prefer muscle meat, and that other smaller predators in the food chain are scavengers and eat organs etc down to microorganisms that devour bones , part of the cartilages etc.

I don't know if it's true, but I seem to have seen somewhere that white people had higher ferritin because of the progressive adaptation to a higher consumption of dairy products and therefore of calcium compared to the meat (calcium blocks the absorption of iron).
To be taken with tweezers.

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

Agree.

anything that allows more calories would have helped brain development, I just wanted to say that the consumption of fish rich in certain fatty acids was necessary for its structural evolution.

6 hours ago, Roy said:

Ngl this post was triggering me a bit but then when you referred to vegans as fallout ghouls I spit laughing and realized you have a good sense of humor 

Lol

Kidding aside, these guys are in poor health. They may look "ok" on google photos but if you watch the videos you see the destruction.

They also wear loose clothing to hide muscle wasting.

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Every cholestoral number there is got way worse in every possible way.

If you say that you are probably around 400/500mg/dl

Have you tested an index measuring inflammation (CRP Reactive for example) or even a test verifying if you have developed artherosclerosis? This is what high LDL scores in particular are supposedly correlated with.

[undeather]

Quote

 

If you say that you are probably around 400/500mg/dl

Have you tested an index measuring inflammation (CRP Reactive for example) or even a test verifying if you have developed artherosclerosis? This is what high LDL scores in particular are supposedly correlated with.

 

It takes years - sometimes even decades for measureable atherosclerotic plaques to form. 
Most modalities, especially vascular-ultrasound are very crude measurement techniques with very low specificity.
MRI-angiography would be a gold standard but is expensive and sometimes difficult to interpret.
Calcium-scores are useful, but it comes with a shitload of limitations: Calcification is a late-stage process of atherogenesis, soft plaques are much more common in young people, there are a shitton of heart attacks in young people with CAC=0.

Funfact: Statins tend to increase CAC-Scores but decrease the rate of heart attacks. Funnily enough, more calcified plaques tend to rapture less frequently - which makes sense if you think about it. 

hs-CRP and other acute phase proteins CAN correlate with atherogenesis but it's a terrible proxy because it's regulated by all sorts of processes. If somebody sneezes in front of you, your CRP will go up - good luck decoupling this from tiny changes in plaque formation.

Edited April 26, 2023 by undeather

[Asayake]

1 hour ago, Basman said:

I went to a vegan restaurant an everyone inside was grumpy and miserable

Is it possible that your aversion towards veganism got projected onto the people there, because you didn't really want to be there? Why do you think the Jews seemed to be evil to the Nazis?

[Basman]

19 minutes ago, Asayake said:

Is it possible that your aversion towards veganism got projected onto the people there, because you didn't really want to be there? Why do you think the Jews seemed to be evil to the Nazis?

Mad.

Never said I hated them tf. I was a vegan once.

Speaking of projection.

[Michael569]

5 hours ago, undeather said:

Maybe to mention that PCSK9-inhibitors are super expensive (~6-10k $/ year), while statins are cheap as hell.
Also, check your Lipoprotein A (Lp(a)) at least once in your lifetime - even if your ApoB is known. 

Good to know, I was not aware of the cost barrier. What is the pharmacodynamic life of a single shot before you need another one? 

Also regarding Lp(a) - where does it stand among full lipid panel and ApoB in terms of its relevance for CVD risk? 

 I understand that where evidence goes we have Total Cholesterol, LDL C and HDL-C at the top, ApoB probably one step lower and Lp(a) kinda somewhere underneath not being as significant but still interesting. 

Or is that not so? I have not looked into this myself so I'm a bit in the dark on that one