Vegetarian Pros

sureshs · Oct 7, 2015

Firstservingman said:
The ratios in which they are given is not what we have evolved to process, though.
As I said above, it's like vitamin supplements.
Eating the food itself is still better.

But it is not like other foods don't have protein. Even grains have protein. What about the grand total?

Second, what about the lifestyle? We don't have the active lifestyle of hunter gatherers and we are not pursued by lions anymore. Do we still need all that extra nourishment?

Also, the environmental impact. When we evolved, we were not farming or building factories. We were running around like the rest of the animals trying to get food. From what I read, the amount of energy and water required to process meat for the population today is a huge burden on the environment, which we did not put when we were evolving. So, what is the really the "best" for us long term?

Aretium · Oct 7, 2015

Firstservingman said:
Whey gives you certain amino acids in certain ratios.
All the others (caesin, creatine, etc.) also give you certain amino acids in certain ratios.
Dairy will give you different ones again, and so of course will meat.
They are not perfect substitutes for each other.
Read what I previously said carefully, I said that these things can be pretty good substitutes, but I highly doubt they would be perfect.
Meat would likely be preferable for someone at, say, Federer's level.
He evolved specifically to eat that, not these powders we buy for $99.99 a jar which simply does not give you the active ingredients in their natural state.
Same with vitamin supplements, they simply aren't as good as just eating fruit and vegetables.
In biochemistry terms, this stuff matters, it's not just "Compound X in any form, quantity, or ratio will work".

I'm sorry, but you'd be wrong.

"evolved". What you mean is, basing your argument on no scientific real study and just stating generic comments.

Deleted member 688153 · Oct 7, 2015

Flash O'Groove said:
It might be a stupid comment, but if you consider that the human body require meat to function at 100% because of evolution, how do you explain thousands of years during which most human being didn't eat much meat because of poverty? Peasants constituted the biggest part of the population throughout the centuries and they certainly didn't eat meat on a daily basis, because if they had meat in the first place, it was better to sell it. Even my grandparents didn't eat much meat when they were kids, only sometime some pork or some chicken on sunday. Beef? On holly days. I except the generations before them ate a lot more sprouts, carrots, potatoes and wheat than meat. You need a good economy to eat as much meat as we do today.

We haven't physically evolved much over the last few thousand years though.

Flash O'Groove · Oct 7, 2015

Firstservingman said:
The ratios in which they are given is not what we have evolved to process, though.
As I said above, it's like vitamin supplements.
Eating the food itself is still better.

You didn't answer my question regarding this evolution thing. You argue that meat is a necessity to have a fully functioning body (of a professional athlete) because evolution as wired the body in this direction.

But I argue that many human being have successfully reproduced throughout centuries by eating very little meat. In some culture (Indians), vegetarianism exist since a very longtime (the indians on this forum will tell you for how long), and their offspring are probably as fit as anyone else.

As I said before, it's very recently that meat is eaten a lot by most human being. Before the 20th centuries, I expect the majority didn't eat meat as often as you say. Most of us are descendant from peasant, not from merchants or nobles, so most of us are the evolutionary product of people who didn't eat much meat.

Deleted member 688153 · Oct 7, 2015

sureshs said:
But it is not like other foods don't have protein. Even grains have protein. What about the grand total?

Second, what about the lifestyle? We don't have the active lifestyle of hunter gatherers and we are not pursued by lions anymore. Do we still need all that extra nourishment?

Also, the environmental impact. When we evolved, we were not farming or building factories. We were running around like the rest of the animals trying to get food. From what I read, the amount of energy and water required to process meat for the population today is a huge burden on the environment, which we did not put when we were evolving. So, what is the really the "best" for us long term?

I'm not saying that eating meat is necessarily "good" or anything, I just think that if someone wanted to squeeze out every last drop of what a human body can physically achieve (like win the AO 2012 final), the meat eater could well have a slight advantage.

I'm not dissing vegetarianism at all, you raise valid points as to why it's a good idea.

Aretium · Oct 7, 2015

The doctor who told Djok to change is from a town where my Dad was born. I happened to sit with him at a club there. He is one of the many doctors in the region practicing alternative medicine, because people in that region since the fall of socialism have developed superstitions along with their religion and nationality (which is fearce) and all things in the balkans start and end with rumours and lies.
My point is, can we associate djok's form with his diet or just purely from his gluten aversion. I know Djok eats little meat and if he does it would be chicken/fish.

I have read some recent stuff about a doctor criticising Djok's diet and saying that not eating complex animal fats like bacon etc will hurt him in the long run.

whether this is true or not......................

Deleted member 688153 · Oct 7, 2015

Flash O'Groove said:
You didn't answer my question regarding this evolution thing. You argue that meat is a necessity to have a fully functioning body (of a professional athlete) because evolution as wired the body in this direction.

But I argue that many human being have successfully reproduced throughout centuries by eating very little meat. In some culture (Indians), vegetarianism exist since a very longtime (the indians on this forum will tell you for how long), and their offspring are probably as fit as anyone else.

As I said before, it's very recently that meat is eaten a lot by most human being. Before the 20th centuries, I expect the majority didn't eat meat as often as you say. Most of us are descendant from peasant, not from merchants or nobles, so most of us are the evolutionary product of people who didn't eat much meat.

Answered above.

Also, of course we can survive and thrive without meat, but when you're Novak Djokovic, it might help you like 1-2%.

That's all I'm saying guys! Jeez!

Flash O'Groove · Oct 7, 2015

Firstservingman said:
We haven't physically evolved much over the last few thousand years though.

And what was the average size of a roman citizen compared to an italian one? How is it that we didn't evolve much for the last 3000-4000 years? Obviously we won't be able to observe as dramatic change as we can when we observe corpses of human beings evolving on a much longer time span (prehistoric time span), but while I'm not specially interested in evolution, I don't know anything to argue that humanity isn't evolving as of now.

Cortana · Oct 7, 2015

Firstservingman said:
I'm not saying that eating meat is necessarily "good" or anything, I just think that if someone wanted to squeeze out every last drop of what a human body can physically achieve (like win the AO 2012 final), the meat eater could well have a slight advantage.

I'm not dissing vegetarianism at all, you raise valid points as to why it's a good idea.

So please deliver some examples to make your argument valid.

Flash O'Groove · Oct 7, 2015

Firstservingman said:
Answered above.
Also, of course we can survive and thrive without meat, but when you're Novak Djokovic, it might help you like 1-2%.

That's all I'm saying guys! Jeez!

But you build your argument on the idea that in order to be at 100%, the human body need to eat meat. But you don't answer the fact that since the 20th century, we eat a lot more meat than anytime before in history, including the prehistoric time you seems to refer, where I doubt meat was as available as it is today. So most likely, our body is wired by evolution to eat a lot less meat that we do today.

Deleted member 688153 · Oct 7, 2015

Flash O'Groove said:
But you build your argument on the idea that in order to be at 100%, the human body need to eat meat. But you don't answer the fact that since the 20th century, we eat a lot more meat than anytime before in history, including the prehistoric time you seems to refer, where I doubt meat was as available as it is today. So most likely, our body is wired by evolution to eat a lot less meat that we do today.

I only meant some meat.
If we eat too much, the effects would probably be worse than eating too little.

Novak doesn't eat a lot, but he still eats some.

sureshs · Oct 7, 2015

Flash O'Groove said:
And what was the average size of a roman citizen compared to an italian one? How is it that we didn't evolve much for the last 3000-4000 years? Obviously we won't be able to observe as dramatic change as we can when we observe corpses of human beings evolving on a much longer time span (prehistoric time span), but while I'm not specially interested in evolution, I don't know anything to argue that humanity isn't evolving as of now.

There are plenty of mutations spreading through the human population. But they haven't yet produced any marked differences that would be easily noticeable. Also, fast evolution requires a degree of isolation and survival of the fittest, both of which are not as big forces as they used to be.

sureshs · Oct 7, 2015

Flash O'Groove said:
In some culture (Indians), vegetarianism exist since a very longtime

That is controversial because there are many references in the Scriptures about meat eating. Vegetarianism may have been a late development.

DJTaurus · Oct 7, 2015

Yeah yeah you need meat to do a federer. So what do u need to do an ultra marathon ?

http://www.richroll.com/

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/paleolithic-lessons/

Deleted member 3771 · Oct 7, 2015

a better question would be- what nutrient does meat have that is missing in plants? if it is none then meat is not required.

dlk · Oct 7, 2015

^^^Need animals for B12, unless you consume a food fortified with it. Iron is also required and is mostly gained by the heme complex (animal), which is absorbed much easier then non-heme iron (plant iron source). Non-heme is better absorbed when consumed with Vitamin C foods, or also if stewed in pot. So if one is considering a vegetarian diet, they should supplement B12 & iron.

Secondly, why is everyone riding Firstservingman? Instead of sharp-shooting his posts/opinions, provide your own position & argue all you want.

Slice'n'dice · Oct 7, 2015

dlk said:
^^^Need animals for B12, unless you consume a food fortified with it. Iron is also required and is mostly gained by the heme complex (animal), which is absorbed much easier then non-heme iron (plant iron source). Non-heme is better absorbed when consumed with Vitamin C foods, or also if stewed in pot. So if one is considering a vegetarian diet, they should supplement B12 & iron.

Secondly, why is everyone riding Firstservingman? Instead of sharp-shooting his posts/opinions, provide your own position & argue all you want.

That's not true though it Vitamin B12 is in plenty of non-meat products that's just a complete myth. Not even a Vegan has to take supplements if they know what they need and where to get it to get it, it's pretty well known these days actually.

dlk · Oct 7, 2015

Slice'n'dice said:
That's not true though it Vitamin B12 is in plenty of non-meat products that's just a complete myth. Not even a Vegan has to take supplements if they know what they need and where to get it to get it, it's pretty well known these days actually.

Yeah, believe what you want. I'm sure you know more than me about the subject. Where'd you go to college?

Cortana · Oct 8, 2015

dlk said:
^^^Need animals for B12, unless you consume a food fortified with it. Iron is also required and is mostly gained by the heme complex (animal), which is absorbed much easier then non-heme iron (plant iron source). Non-heme is better absorbed when consumed with Vitamin C foods, or also if stewed in pot. So if one is considering a vegetarian diet, they should supplement B12 & iron.

Secondly, why is everyone riding Firstservingman? Instead of sharp-shooting his posts/opinions, provide your own position & argue all you want.

Do you eat Kellogs? Lots of B12 & iron.

I'm eating around 3600kcal/day. There is no way that I could have a deficit.

Slice'n'dice · Oct 8, 2015

Cortana said:
Do you eat Kellogs? Lots of B12 & iron.

I'm eating around 3600kcal/day. There is no way that I could have a deficit.

No point using facts and logic with dlk, think you're wasting your time.

HipRotation · Oct 8, 2015

This thread sure went places.

Deleted member 688153 · Oct 8, 2015

HipRotation said:
This thread sure went places.

By the looks of things I'm glad I bailed.
Even the nicest fruit can quickly wither.

Vegetarian Pros

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Deleted member 688153

Guest

Hall of Fame

Deleted member 688153

Guest

Hall of Fame

Deleted member 688153

Guest

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Deleted member 688153

Guest

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Deleted member 3771

Guest

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Deleted member 688153

Guest

Similar threads