Vegetarianism

El_Dangeroso · 10-02-2013 3:56pm

blatantrereg wrote: »

Vegetarians have higher IQs than non-vegetarians on average though.

Only in the west, in India you'll find that it's the opposite. What do western vegetarians and Indian meat eaters have in common? They tend to be of higher socio-economic status, that's the only difference.

In fact if you control for health-consciousness when comparing veggies with meat eaters in the west, there is no difference in health.

blatantrereg wrote: »

Yes trans fats are much worse than saturated fats. Hydrogenated fats are much worse than animal fats because they contain far more of them. However vegetable oil doesn't become hydrogenated from home cooking, nor do trans fats occur in it during the process. If you avoid hydrogenated oils and similarly processed ones, the only trans fats you get are from animal fats.

Trans-fats in animal fats are entirely different to the man-made kind. Conjugated Linoleic Acid or CLA is the transfat in dairy that has been touted to do everything from help you lose weight to having potent anti-cancer effects, absolutely polar opposite to the partially hydrogenated vegetable oil that has been mostly phased out of the food system now.

Peanut wrote: »

So there was a completely justified backlash against them, but it's not at all accurate to extend that to seed or vegetable oils in general.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that seed oils have a really bad effect on health. The BMJ recently published a re-analysis of the Sydney Diet Heart trial showing that replacing saturated fat with seed oils high in polyunsaturates increased deaths from all causes, heart-disease and cancer. The evidence is slowly trickling through that seed oils are bad news.

There are many traditional societies that are really healthy and are very close to being vegetarian, very little meat is consumed. But they still eat just a little bit.

I wouldn't consider protein to be an issue whatsoever. Melanesians eat 5% of their calories as protein and they look pretty toned:

https://www.google.ie/search?um=1&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&tbo=d&biw=1366&bih=653&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=melanesian+man&oq=melanesian+man&gs_l=img.3..0i24.32755.33551.0.34254.4.4.0.0.0.0.123.275.3j1.4.0...0.0...1c.1.2.img.yOvayFBtLdQ#imgrc=XpweKyFo1xi3xM%3A%3BRQN1Zd26YG-MsM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.nairaland.com%252Fattachments%252F241693_shapeimage_2_jpg5ae015c13f0b5c99fd27c53935e4d6dc%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.nairaland.com%252F411158%252Fphotos-wonderful-people-melanesia%3B630%3B293

You can totally be lacto-ovo vegetarian and perfectly healthy, you do have to pay a bit more attention to getting zinc though. Vegetarians prone to bouts of depression take note (and maybe eat an oyster or two - they have no central nervous system so feel no pain, are local, totally sustainable and actually improve the environment that they are grown in and one provides 100% of your RDA of highly bioavailable zinc).

Vegan, eh, not so much, at least not long term. Taurine, B12, adequate vitamin A (not everyone converts the plant form very easily - celtic descent especially). If you control for nothing else, vegetarians live longer, but vegans live shorter lives than both vegetarians and omnivores, and that's comparing to the average junk eating, non-health conscious omnivore too.

ScumLord · 10-02-2013 4:02pm

DagneyTaggart wrote: »

That is not the norm for most people, who's eating habits are primarily determined by price and taste.

While taste has been a constant reason for choosing our food price hasn't been. Money is a made up human concept. It would be more accurate to say "availability". Processed food is cheap so it's what's available to poorer people. The ancient people who originally came to Ireland wouldn't have had farming as a possible food source so would have had to hunt. The environment the human is in dictates what their diet is.

On heart disease I would say excessive salt and butter use has a bigger impact than just about anything else.

Peanut · 10-02-2013 4:17pm

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

It is becoming increasingly apparent that seed oils have a really bad effect on health. The BMJ recently published a re-analysis of the Sydney Diet Heart trial showing that replacing saturated fat with seed oils high in polyunsaturates increased deaths from all causes, heart-disease and cancer. The evidence is slowly trickling through that seed oils are bad news.

I don't think making generalisations such as "Seed oils are bad" is especially useful.
There are many studies about the potential benefits of seed oils, when used appropriately. Here's just one.

It's worth noting that the original Sydney Diet trial referred to was conducted in the 60s, and the original study protocol is unavailable. Here's an opinion on this re-interpretation :

“The British Medical Journal study is interesting, but not conclusive. It is offset by a large body of scientific evidence that continues to show cardiovascular benefits associated with eating mono- and poly-unsaturated fat, rich in Omega-6 linoleic acids, in place of saturated fats,” said Penny Kris-Etherton, Ph.D., R.D., American Heart Association spokesperson and distinguished professor of nutrition at Pennsylvania State University.

On the one hand, people complain about the fact that saturated fat was demonised to an extent, but you can't realistically take that stance and then make exactly the same kind of sweeping statements that you're arguing against.

El_Dangeroso · 10-02-2013 4:36pm

Peanut wrote: »

I don't think making generalisations such as "Seed oils are bad" is especially useful.
There are many studies about the potential benefits of seed oils, when used appropriately. Here's just one.

That study was 60 days long, you need years to determine the true effect of a food.

Peanut wrote: »

It's worth noting that the original Sydney Diet trial referred to was conducted in the 60s, and the original study protocol is unavailable. Here's an opinion on this re-interpretation :

On the one hand, people complain about the fact that saturated fat was demonised to an extent, but you can't realistically take that stance and then make exactly the same kind of sweeping statements that you're arguing against.

The protocol isn't as important as the data. Of course the AHA are going to say that, they receive huge donations from unilever.

Also, the 'huge body of evidence' she refers to is observational, which is a lesser form of evidence than a clinical trial. Also this is not the only clinical trial to find this result. Rose et al. Corn oil trial also noted an increase in mortality with increasing seed oil.

Here's a great meta-analysis that doesn't cherry-pick studies examining replacing saturated with omega 6 heavy polyunsaturated fat:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7930322&fulltextType=RV&fileId=S0007114510004010

Some seed oils that are not high in omega 6 fats are probably OK, such as high-oleic sunflower oil, which is genetically modified to be so high in monounsaturates that it crowds all the polyunsaturates out.

But I'm not overstating the evidence when I say that:

1. A diet high in omega 6 (>5% calories) is completely novel to our species (as in commencing mid-20th century)

2. The weight of the evidence points to high levels of omega 6 increasing the inflammatory burden and thus increasing the risk of heart-disease.

Peanut · 10-02-2013 4:57pm

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

The protocol isn't as important as the data.

They're both important - if the protocol is wrong, the data is utterly useless.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Of course the AHA are going to say that, they receive huge donations from unilever.

I had a feeling that was coming!

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Also, the 'huge body of evidence' she refers to is observational, which is a lesser form of evidence than a clinical trial.

I'm not sure where she stated that the evidence was purely observational. Here's a meta-analysis of 8 trials where which participants were randomized to increase their polyunsaturated fat intake for at least a year and in which coronary heart disease events were reported.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Some seed oils that are not high in omega 6 fats are probably OK, such as high-oleic sunflower oil, which is genetically modified to be so high in monounsaturates that it crowds all the polyunsaturates out.

But I'm not overstating the evidence when I say that:

1. A diet high in omega 6 (>5% calories) is completely novel to our species (as in commencing mid-20th century)

2. The weight of the evidence points to high levels of omega 6 increasing the inflammatory burden and thus increasing the risk of heart-disease.

You've just shifted the goalposts from "all seed oils are bad" to "diets unreasonably high in Omega-6 are bad". I won't argue against that, but it's absolutely not a reason to vilify seed oils.

El D, would it be fair to say that if it was claimed "All saturated fats are bad", you would have an issue with it? Why then such a knee-jerk reaction to alternatives?

Just because the mainstream consensus was strongly against your point of view for a long time doesn't mean that you have to, in turn, use the same style of generalisations, does it?

blatantrereg · 10-02-2013 4:59pm

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

That study was 60 days long, you need years to determine the true effect of a food.

The protocol isn't as important as the data. Of course the AHA are going to say that, they receive huge donations from unilever.

Also, the 'huge body of evidence' she refers to is observational, which is a lesser form of evidence than a clinical trial. Also this is not the only clinical trial to find this result. Rose et al. Corn oil trial also noted an increase in mortality with increasing seed oil.

Here's a great meta-analysis that doesn't cherry-pick studies examining replacing saturated with omega 6 heavy polyunsaturated fat:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7930322&fulltextType=RV&fileId=S0007114510004010

Some seed oils that are not high in omega 6 fats are probably OK, such as high-oleic sunflower oil, which is genetically modified to be so high in monounsaturates that it crowds all the polyunsaturates out.

But I'm not overstating the evidence when I say that:

1. A diet high in omega 6 (>5% calories) is completely novel to our species (as in commencing mid-20th century)

2. The weight of the evidence points to high levels of omega 6 increasing the inflammatory burden and thus increasing the risk of heart-disease.

CLA raises oxidative stress more than smoking. There are other detrimental effects such as reducing DHA levels and raising bilious cholesterol. Studies are conflicting regarding any utility in fat loss. The consensus from authorities is that all trans fats ought to be avoided because of the concern about detrimental effects... You might want to be wary of cherry picking studies yourself tbh.

El_Dangeroso · 10-02-2013 5:16pm

Peanut wrote: »

They're both important - if the protocol is wrong, the data is utterly useless.

The methods are there in the paper. That is the contents of the protocol more or less. Protocols are not peer reviewed like the paper is so I don't why your hanging your entire objection on that.. clutching at straws?

Peanut wrote: »

I had a feeling that was coming!

Why? Because it's true?

Peanut wrote: »

I'm not sure where she stated that the evidence was purely observational. Here's a meta-analysis of 8 trials where which participants were randomized to increase their polyunsaturated fat intake for at least a year and in which coronary heart disease events were reported.

Ha! I knew you were going to post that meta-analysis! That's why I referred to cherry-picking in my post.

That paper excluded the Rose et al. and Sydney diet heart trials. It included the Finnish Mental Hospital trial which had serious methodological flaws (It wasn't randomized, appropriately controlled or even semi-blinded). They also included the Oslo-diet and STARS trials which were multi aspect interventions (namely increasing fruit and veg and omega 3 respectively), so you can't draw any conclusion as to what generated a benefit.

Peanut wrote: »

You've just shifted the goalposts from "all seed oils are bad" to "diets unreasonably high in Omega-6 are bad". I won't argue against that, but it's absolutely not a reason to vilify seed oils.

I've shifted nothing, the only seed oil low in omega 6 is genetically modified to be so. Name one seed oil naturally low in omega 6?

blatantrereg wrote: »

CLA raises oxidative stress more than smoking. There are other detrimental effects such as reducing DHA levels and raising bilious cholesterol. Studies are conflicting regarding any utility in fat loss. The consensus from authorities is that all trans fats ought to be avoided because of the concern about detrimental effects... You might want to be wary of cherry picking studies yourself tbh.

Your looking at studies of synthetic CLA supplements, not the same as natural.

Peanut · 10-02-2013 5:57pm

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

The methods are there in the paper. That is the contents of the protocol more or less. Protocols are not peer reviewed like the paper is so I don't why your hanging your entire objection on that.. clutching at straws?

Ok - the replaced omega 6 was from safflower oil and safflower oil polyunsaturated margarine. How do we know how this oil and margarine was processed, especially since the margarine format implies either some sort of hydrogenation or other processing to enable a solid form at room temperature.

Are you confident that the results could be replicated if other unrefined seed oils were substituted instead?
There is no evidence to say that this is the case.

As it happens, you have posted yourself before in the Veg* forum that the extraction and processing method of oils can introduce potentially harmful properties, and I believe that's true.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Why? Because it's true?

Yep Unilever - makers of Flora. Also Ben & Jerrys' and Wall's ice-cream, and heavy users of highly saturated palm oil.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Ha! I knew you were going to post that meta-analysis! That's why I referred to cherry-picking in my post.

That paper excluded the Rose et al. and Sydney diet heart trials. It included the Finnish Mental Hospital trial which had serious methodological flaws (It wasn't randomized, appropriately controlled or even semi-blinded). They also included the Oslo-diet and STARS trials which were multi aspect interventions (namely increasing fruit and veg and omega 3 respectively), so you can't draw any conclusion as to what generated a benefit.

Fair enough.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I've shifted nothing, the only seed oil low in omega 6 is genetically modified to be so. Name one seed oil naturally low in omega 6?

Yes you have - because you're isolating the nutritional content of a single food item out of the context of diet in general.

I could equally say milk is high in saturated fat, excess saturated fat is bad, therefore milk is bad. It would be just as facetious however.

El_Dangeroso · 10-02-2013 6:11pm

Peanut wrote: »

Ok - the replaced omega 6 was from safflower oil and safflower oil polyunsaturated margarine. How do we know how this oil and margarine was processed, especially since the margarine format implies either some sort of hydrogenation or other processing to enable a solid form at room temperature.

Are you confident that the results could be replicated if other unrefined seed oils were substituted instead?
There is no evidence to say that this is the case.

As it happens, you have posted yourself before in the Veg* forum that the extraction and processing method of oils can introduce potentially harmful properties, and I believe that's true.

I take your point, I'd love to see a study on first pressing expeller pressed sunflower oil but we don't have one. But since 99.9% of seed oils are industrially extracted this is the de-facto method by which they are delivered to the consuming public. It's worth saying that the only 'traditional' seed oils are used very sparingly as condiments and never as staple fats if that counts for anything - eg seseme oil in asian cooking.

Peanut wrote: »

Yep Unilever - makers of Flora. Also Ben & Jerrys' and Wall's ice-cream, and heavy users of highly saturated palm oil.

Yes but they don't make health claims about their ice-cream do they?

Peanut wrote: »

Yes you have - because you're isolating the nutritional content of a single food item out of the context of diet in general.

I could equally say milk is high in saturated fat, excess saturated fat is bad, therefore milk is bad. It would be just as facetious however.

The recommendations are currently advocating eating upwards of 10% of your calories as polyunsaturates.* That is excessive, so although seseme oil or equivalent sprinkled on a stir-fry is perfectly fine, replacing butter with flora is definitely a bad idea.

Capt'n Midnight · 11-02-2013 12:40am

Theatricality and deception wrote: »

Yea true, also true is that people without a moustache are healthier than those with a moustache.

Don't old ladies with moustaches skew those stats ?

Capt'n Midnight · 11-02-2013 12:42am

Ush1 wrote: »

Just so people know, wild animals that aren't eaten by humans don't just fall over and die peacefully. Most will die horrific deaths and live a much more fearful existance than most animals in captivity.

Oddly enough predators are more likely to die prematurely than their prey.

In early life the risk being killed by their own species , like when a lion eats the cubs , later on it's injuries in hunting and direct competition for resources.

nucker · 11-02-2013 12:51pm

wolfpawnat wrote: »

That sort of thing drives me mad, my partner studies veterinary, they are shown how different meats are created/cut since there are vets involved in the abattoirs, food board, etc. So they are brought out to a few abattoirs themselves. That gunk is nowhere near McDonald's or any other chicken. In Ireland if it says 100% breast, it is 100% breast, they are always checking, hence how they caught the Polish Horse DNA and it's origin so quickly.

Also the animals in Ireland for the most part are kept in good conditions, they experience excellent health checks and are for the most part, able to spend a good portion of their lives outdoors (winters require cattle to stay inside a lot). As consumers it is our duty to ensure this continues, and the best way to do that is to buy free range eggs and chickens, as they are the animal that suffer cruelty in battery farms.

I get you there, but the point is that she told me that she was 9 when she last ate meat, I know a lot of youngsters go to McDonalds, but chicken nuggets are a relative new thing, plus for me nuggets didn't look like chicken nuggets because the texture of the pink gooey stuff was just not like chicken.

Shenshen · 11-02-2013 12:57pm

wolfpawnat wrote: »

That sort of thing drives me mad, my partner studies veterinary, they are shown how different meats are created/cut since there are vets involved in the abattoirs, food board, etc. So they are brought out to a few abattoirs themselves. That gunk is nowhere near McDonald's or any other chicken. In Ireland if it says 100% breast, it is 100% breast, they are always checking, hence how they caught the Polish Horse DNA and it's origin so quickly.

Also the animals in Ireland for the most part are kept in good conditions, they experience excellent health checks and are for the most part, able to spend a good portion of their lives outdoors (winters require cattle to stay inside a lot). As consumers it is our duty to ensure this continues, and the best way to do that is to buy free range eggs and chickens, as they are the animal that suffer cruelty in battery farms.

I think the devil is in the detail. Yes, when they say 100% chicken breast, then that's what it has to be.
But usually they say : Made with 100% chicken breast. Not from, with.
Small but vital difference. so the 100% chicken breast the product is made with can contain some 1 or 2% 100% chicken breast, the rest would be anyone's guess.

wolfpawnat · 11-02-2013 2:22pm

Shenshen wrote: »

I think the devil is in the detail. Yes, when they say 100% chicken breast, then that's what it has to be.
But usually they say : Made with 100% chicken breast. Not from, with.
Small but vital difference. so the 100% chicken breast the product is made with can contain some 1 or 2% 100% chicken breast, the rest would be anyone's guess.

Well obviously the batter on the nuggets are not chicken, they were cheeky for a while and were using Turkey. Not as controversial as horse DNA anyway! But these days they are trying to keep to what they say. But they have passed all recent tests so I prefer the risk of eating turkey and chicken mixes until the beef/whatever controversy.

Bad Santa · 11-02-2013 3:20pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2yV1Kgcmg4

kylith · 11-02-2013 4:49pm

I don't understand this Raw business at all. Our guts can't digest cellulose so most of the nutrition is simply unavailable to us. Do they have to eat loads to get enough calories or are they knocking back supplements to stave off malnutrition?

Shenshen · 11-02-2013 4:53pm

kylith wrote: »

I don't understand this Raw business at all. Our guts can't digest cellulose so most of the nutrition is simply unavailable to us. Do they have to eat loads to get enough calories or are they knocking back supplements to stave off malnutrition?

I don't really get it either, but I used to have a housemate who did it for a while.

She lost lots of weight is all I can say. How good it was for her I wouldn't know, but she got very seriously into sports at the same time, so it didn't seem to have any negative effect of her energy levels.

I have to say that I would usually eat about half the food I eat in a day in raw form - salads for lunch, lots of fruit for snacks.
I'm not sure I could switch my entire diet to it, though.

--Kaiser-- · 11-02-2013 4:57pm

Bad Santa wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2yV1Kgcmg4

I'm not sure why you posted this, so we all could have a good laugh? Why not post a video of those people who eat nothing but bananas while you're at it?

Bad Santa · 11-02-2013 5:04pm

kylith wrote: »

I don't understand this Raw business at all. Our guts can't digest cellulose so most of the nutrition is simply unavailable to us. Do they have to eat loads to get enough calories or are they knocking back supplements to stave off malnutrition?

If someone said they had a large fry with sausages, bacon, eggs, hash browns, mushrooms, beans etc etc and then at lunch had a footlong subway, with ham and extra cheese, a Big Mac and fries on the way and then later that evening, they had some Chicken & Cheese rolls followed by a Beef Curry from the local Chinese - nobody would question how the fcuk they digested all that, nor comment on what a massive volume of food it was but whenever someone says they eat a Raw Vegan diet that consists of lots of fruits, veg and salads, straight away it's How could someone eat so much? The world's attitude to food is seriously skewed.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I'm not sure why you posted this, so we all could have a good laugh?

From the OP:

HTML5! wrote: »

I've read articles claiming it's healthier to be one. Is it really though?

Anyone ever tried it?

Any converts that are feeling way better since becoming one?

Kristina is good example of someone that is very healthy on a raw vegan diet and so it's relevant.

Why not post a video of those people who eat nothing but bananas while you're at it?

Because eating bananas alone doesn't supply sufficient enough nutrition and I would like to give the impression to the OP that it would.

--Kaiser-- · 11-02-2013 5:09pm

Bad Santa wrote: »

Because eating bananas alone doesn't supply sufficient enough nutrition and I would like to give the impression to the OP that it would.

Neither does eating only raw fruit and vegetables

wolfpawnat · 11-02-2013 5:11pm

Bad Santa wrote: »

If someone said they had a large fry with sausages, bacon, eggs, hash browns, mushrooms, beans etc etc and then at lunch had a footlong subway, with ham and extra cheese, a Big Mac and fries on the way and then later that evening, they had a Beef Curry from the local Chinese, with fried rice and chicken and cheese rolls as a starter - nobody would question how the fcuk they digested that nor how a massive a volume of food it was but when someone says they eat a Raw Vegan diet that consists of lots of fruits, veg and salads, straight away it's How could someone eat so much? The world's attitude to food is seriously skewed.

In general most of us would question how a person could abuse their body with all that disgusting food at once. One of those meals every so often as part of a balanced diet is one thing, but when people eat it all the time they end up dead of a heart attack by forty and for the most part most of us would actually say "Sure what would you expect?" And your body will not digest all that high fatty food, sorry for going "gross" here but the most of it would just flush out the other side in a less than lovely manner.

If person eats a load of raw veg, most people don't give a shít. I think what most of us would be thinking is "does it not get a bit boring eating the same thing over and over?"

kylith · 11-02-2013 5:21pm

Bad Santa wrote: »

If someone said they had a large fry with sausages, bacon, eggs, hash browns, mushrooms, beans etc etc and then at lunch had a footlong subway, with ham and extra cheese, a Big Mac and fries on the way and then later that evening, they had a Beef Curry from the local Chinese, with fried rice and chicken and cheese rolls as a starter - nobody would question how the fcuk they digested that nor how a massive a volume of food it was but when someone says they eat a Raw Vegan diet that consists of lots of fruits, veg and salads, straight away it's How could someone eat so much? The world's attitude to food is seriously skewed.

Did you even read what I wrote? Let me say it again : our digestive system is not designed for raw vegetation, we cannot digest cellulose. Since we cannot digest it we cannot access all the calories in the food, meaning that either the intake of food has to vastly increase or the nutritional shortfall has to be made up with supplements. I was merely querying which raw foodists were more likely to do.

--Kaiser-- · 11-02-2013 5:24pm

kylith wrote: »

I don't understand this Raw business at all. Our guts can't digest cellulose so most of the nutrition is simply unavailable to us. Do they have to eat loads to get enough calories or are they knocking back supplements to stave off malnutrition?

I think it's a mistake to assume that someone on a raw vegan diet actually knows anything meaningful about nutrition (I mean stuff that's actually true)

kylith · 11-02-2013 5:26pm

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I think it's a mistake to assume that someone on a raw vegan diet actually knows anything meaningful about nutrition (I mean stuff that's actually true)

Yeah, I suppose you have a point.

Bad Santa · 11-02-2013 6:09pm

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I think what most of us would be thinking is "Does it not get a bit boring eating the same thing over and over?"

Well, whenever I have seen advocates of this diet discussing it, they all address this point and and many have of course dealt with it when starting out on the diet but the health benefits seem enough for them to stick it out. Tonya Kay would be one of those people .EasyToBeRaw is a channel on YouTube for people starting out on it also and the video I posted earlier was from a long time raw vegan who also has her own website where she shows precisely how to go about eating the raw vegan diet in a way that is not boring.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Neither does eating only raw fruit and vegetables

Yes it can.

kylith wrote: »

Did you even read what I wrote? Let me say it again : our digestive system is not designed for raw vegetation, we cannot digest cellulose. Since we cannot digest it we cannot access all the calories in the food, meaning that either the intake of food has to vastly increase or the nutritional shortfall has to be made up with supplements.

You'd swear someone was advocating a diet of hay the way you are going on. Humans don't need to digest cellulose in order to acquire sufficient sustenance from plant foods. You do however have something in common with Jeremy Kyle here actually (I'm sure you'll be delighted to find out) as when he met Kristina from the above video, he too had a tough time wrapping his head around it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prs88-Q72BE

--Kaiser-- · 11-02-2013 6:18pm

Bad Santa wrote: »

You'd swear someone was advocating a diet of hay the way you are going on. Humans don't need to digest cellulose in order to acquire sufficient sustenance from plant foods.

Humans can't acquire sufficient sustenance from plant foods, that's the point

nucker · 11-02-2013 6:37pm

blatantrereg wrote: »

Vegetarians have higher IQs than non-vegetarians on average though.

Yes trans fats are much worse than saturated fats. Hydrogenated fats are much worse than animal fats because they contain far more of them. However vegetable oil doesn't become hydrogenated from home cooking, nor do trans fats occur in it during the process. If you avoid hydrogenated oils and similarly processed ones, the only trans fats you get are from animal fats.

Pfft, where did you get this info? Fair enough there are a few people who are dumb that eat meat, but that doesn't suggest that eating vegetable is good for your IQ

Bad Santa · 11-02-2013 6:41pm

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Humans can't acquire sufficient sustenance from plant foods, that's the point

No, the point here is, that humans don't need to eat animals in order to get sufficient nutrition. Like I said in my first post on this thread, I eat meat, but I eat out of choice, not out of necessity. I have no problem with people eating animals by the way, but I just wish they did so in a more honest and conscious fashion. Not with this rabble about having to as they have no choice and that animals suffer far more in the wild than they do in a cage or a gestation crate.

miss no stars · 11-02-2013 6:49pm

For those thinking of following those ridiculous raw diets... I urge you to look at the first 3 minutes of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VVgydE6mAE

Cooking food is to your benefit. Instead of spending 8 hours a day munching away on raw veg, you could spend 3-4 hours a day eating the same veg cooked and get more calories out of it.

Bad Santa · 11-02-2013 7:00pm

miss no stars wrote: »

For those thinking of following those ridiculous raw diets... I urge you to look at the first 3 minutes of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VVgydE6mAE

Cooking food is to your benefit. Instead of spending 8 hours a day munching away on raw veg, you could spend 3-4 hours a day eating the same veg cooked and get more calories out of it.

LMAO!

She tried to prove you couldn't survive on raw carrots??

Can you show me one person advocating a raw diet that suggests eating only carrots??

The main raw vegan diet is the 80/10/10 diet and the vast majority of that diet (around 85%) is recommended to come from high sugar or high starch Fruits or high fat foods like Coconuts and Avocados. Seriously, if you want to try and rubbish something, at least know what you are rubbishing.

Vegetarianism

Comments