Support NeoGAF

[StreetsofBeige]

and it is OK to hate people for pretty much any reason, especially vegans and douche nozzles who do CrossFit.

So true.

Here's my Facebook feed from friends and fam:

Average dude who never exercises: Might post some fun pics camping or hiking. Often combined with a pic drinking beers

Gym bro who works out everyday including eating healthy and exercising at 6 am when others are still sleeping: Never posts pics about being at the gym. Comes to work with muscles bustling out of his office shirt. Keeps quiet and doesn't brag with sweaty pics

Person who does cross fit or that all day exercise shit in the mud: Hey look at me everybody! Check out my toned body. Please read my blog about being a crossfitter, and I'll be participating in the crossfit event end of the month!

 

[MaestroMike]

makes it sound like they have weak as$ bones because they don't eat meat. you get weak as$ bones if you don't get enough vitamin D and eat enough greens

 

[borborygmus]

Probably because of a lack of vitamin K2.

 

[BILLY BIG BALLS]

Get a load of Billy Big Balls.

All that hazlenut milk making my ballnuts stronger than ever

 

[Ma-Yuan]

I've been a vegetarian, and I've been on an all meat diet. If you choose not to eat meat you are choosing to live a suboptimal life.

I don't think so. I am vegetarian for 24 out of my 35 years. I assume a vegan live style isn't healthy but no meat is OK if you have dairy products and eggs. So far check ups never showed any side effects or other words I am quite healthy. The only side effects I had since became vegetarian is constantly being mocked by meat eating people even when I never lecture or blame anyone. My wife and two kids can eat as much as they want. I don't think it's right but it's their choice or currently my wife's for our kids.

 

[Taxexemption]

I don't think so. I am vegetarian for 24 out of my 35 years. I assume a vegan live style isn't healthy but no meat is OK if you have dairy products and eggs. So far check ups never showed any side effects or other words I am quite healthy. The only side effects I had since became vegetarian is constantly being mocked by meat eating people even when I never lecture or blame anyone. My wife and two kids can eat as much as they want. I don't think it's right but it's their choice or currently my wife's for our kids.

Eggs are meat. If you eat eggs or fish you aren't really a vegetarian. Sorry to spoil your fun.

 

[Ma-Yuan]

Eggs are meat. If you eat eggs or fish you aren't really a vegetarian. Sorry to spoil your fun.

Eggs are not meat. And I don't wanna call you stupid but please read.

Vegetarianism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Edit: one more side effect. People like you assume I eat fish. That's the dumbest thing any meat eating person can say or ask. I tell people about 100 times a year I don't eat animals that would also include fish. If I eat fish I would be pescetarian...

Pescetarianism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Taxexemption]

Eggs are not meat. And I don't wanna call you stupid but please read.

Vegetarianism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You are simply wrong. Eggs are meat. Your notion of what is meat is bs sophistry to justify why you are better than other people.

 

[Super Mario]

How is this news? Who thought these skinny soyboys had bones made of adamantium. You think the bones are bad, wait until you see their mental illnesses

 

[eddie4]

I've talked about it before but one of the things that bemuses me no end is the Cargo Cult nature of a lot of vegan/vegetarian products... Sausages, Burgers, mince...just stop it, come up with things that aren't trying to emulate meat-based goods.

Pretty much. Don't use chicken nuggets, meat free.. well then its just soy nuggets, or something, don't put chicken, then say its chicken free. Just say it's nuggets, or whatever they are.

 

[Cutty Flam]

This explains why Lauri Markkanen of the Chicago Bulls had a stress reaction in his pelvis

His wife is vegan, he goes vegan, had to sit out 4-6 weeks last season in January I think it was
with the hip injury

 

[Ma-Yuan]

You are simply wrong. Eggs are meat. Your notion of what is meat is bs sophistry to justify why you are better than other people.

Repeating what you say does not make it right.

meat
/miːt/
Aussprache lernen

noun

1. 1.
   the flesh of an animal, typically a mammal or bird, as food (the flesh of domestic fowls is sometimes distinguished as poultry ).
   "pieces of meat"

Yes I think eating meet is wrong imho. But I try not stop anyone. And at least I know what words mean and try not bs around to get my way

 

[JimmyRustler]

You were evolved to eat meat. Choosing not to eat meat is cucking yourself.

Highly debateable. The problem about meat is that it's not easy to store long term. Meaning, ancient humans would have had to hunt all the time and basically consume the meat right away. It's highly unlikely this happened.
From an evolutionary standpoint it makes more sense to say we evolved to be mostly vegetarians and fish eaters (because settlements usually were around water).

But all that is unimportant anyway because we weren't supposed to live as long as we do.

 

[The Cockatrice]

You are simply wrong. Eggs are meat. Your notion of what is meat is bs sophistry to justify why you are better than other people.

I'm not a vegetarian but eggs are not meat unless ofc you consider your sperm meat as well.

 

[Kimahri]

Meanwhile, high milk consumption is linked to osteoporosis. Nothing is that simple.

I find this pretty worthless as long as we don't know how fractures happened, and what these people actually ate.

 

[captainnapalm]

Purely anecdotal, but vegetarians also strike me as looking pale and unhealthy. You'd think they'd look super healthy only eating "healthy" food but that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[and 3 others]

I'm not a vegetarian but eggs are not meat unless ofc you consider your sperm meat as well.

 

[KiNeMz]

Beef is the only superfood. True.

 

[eot]

You legit have way better shits when you don't eat meat

 

[-Minsc-]

You were evolved to eat meat. Choosing not to eat meat is cucking yourself.

It's reasonable in my mind for me to say we were evolved and/or created to eat what would can get our hands on to survive. Bison were a large and convenient source of nutrition.

 

[YCoCg]

What a load of nonsense, this can't be real, oh well I'm just gonna grab this jar of pickles on top of the shelf and OH NO...

 

[Kimahri]

It's reasonable in my mind for me to say we were evolved and/or created to eat what would can get our hands on to survive. Bison were a large and convenient source of nutrition.

The whole "what we're meant to eat" discussion is largely meaningless. Our bodies adapt, and they have done so. What we might originally have been designed to eat, isn't necessarily something we'd be well suited for in this day and age. Just look at how our jaws have changed after we started cooking our food. They used to be wide, strong, powerful, now they're weak and it's not uncommon for people to have to pull out teeth because there's not enough room.

So yeah, we adapt to whatever is available.

 

[JimmyRustler]

You legit have way better shits when you don't eat meat

That is because stomach and intestines are much better at processing vegan food than meat. One more evidence that eating meat is not that "natural" for us.

Just saying btw. I eat meat myself. Only 3-4 times a week though. Personally I think that every unprocessed food has it's pros and should be consumend in moderation.

 

[GymWolf]

Weak boned pussies.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Slaves / peasants / serfs ate vegetables and grains. The priesthood and royalty feasted on meat. The "fattened calf" was a centerpiece of celebration and a symbol of prosperity. Many cultures worshipped the gods of cattle. Serfs were punished for "poaching" meat from the land. Stealing / harming herds was generally punished more harshly than offenses against crops. Cheap grains and beans are the mass-produced food of the common people.

it's worth noting that historically we've had to ferment and heavily process grains/beans/legumes to make them edible. Eating your fill of dry kidney beans will likely kill you. Eating your fill of raw fish or game meat likely won't.

Elites have always found ways to keep meat for themselves while telling the peasants that meat is out of their reach, illegal, or "bad for them". Now they are trying to sell abstinence as some kind of vegan religion.

 

[DavidGzz]

Frail muscles and hollow bones. Eat yer meat....wait

 

[The Cockatrice]

Do you season it?

 

[Kev Kev]

Makes sense. As a vegetarian, it’s tough getting certain nutrients like calcium, vit a and d, and more.

most plant based people will be against supplementing for some weird reason, but it really goes a long way to supplement and lift free weights. In the end tho, youre definitely making a sacrifice to not eat animals.

 

[borborygmus]

Slaves / peasants / serfs ate vegetables and grains. The priesthood and royalty feasted on meat. The "fattened calf" was a centerpiece of celebration and a symbol of prosperity. Many cultures worshipped the gods of cattle. Serfs were punished for "poaching" meat from the land. Stealing / harming herds was generally punished more harshly than offenses against crops. Cheap grains and beans are the mass-produced food of the common people.

it's worth noting that historically we've had to ferment and heavily process grains/beans/legumes to make them edible. Eating your fill of dry kidney beans will likely kill you. Eating your fill of raw fish or game meat likely won't.

Elites have always found ways to keep meat for themselves while telling the peasants that meat is out of their reach, illegal, or "bad for them". Now they are trying to sell abstinence as some kind of vegan religion.

They want us to eat insects though, which are considered meat.

 

[Kev Kev]

I’ll just leave this here

 

[OmegaSupreme]

To those that are arguing that we weren't evolved to eat meat or that it's "debatable" It's not at all. Look at your teeth. We have canines. Or eye teeth. They are specially shaped to hold and tear meat.

 

[KiNeMz]

That is because stomach and intestines are much better at processing vegan food than meat. One more evidence that eating meat is not that "natural" for us.

Just saying btw. I eat meat myself. Only 3-4 times a week though. Personally I think that every unprocessed food has it's pros and should be consumend in moderation.

No its not.

We dont digest fibre. it goes through us. It is waste. When eating meat we digest majority of it.

Also think of this.

99% of plants on this planet, if consumed either make us ill or can kill us. But we can eat any animal, and thrive. Sugar, is from a plant. Drugs we consume, made from plants. the selection of plants that we can eat these days have been modified over 100s of years and come from all places on the planet. You couldn't eat spinach, capsicums, tomatoes, celery, onions, carrots a few hundred years ago. All these plants were never avaialble in the one place. Its only recently that we have had seasonal vegetables available all year round. Meat was always the prize.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

That is because stomach and intestines are much better at processing vegan food than meat. One more evidence that eating meat is not that "natural" for us.

Untrue. Most of the "vegan food" we've eaten over the millennia had to be processed heavily. Grain, as compared to a live cow, must be separated from any shell / bran, then it must be boiled into submission or further ground down into flour, which has to be fermented. The fan-favorite soybean has been fermented for most of its history of consumption.

"Vegan" animals like the aforementioned cow hammer the point home: the grains are eaten and then fermented for hours and hours in the stomachs before they are actually passed through the animal.

Grains don't usually want to be eaten. Plants that want to be eaten don't typically attract eaters to the seed itself, but to the fruit around it. Otherwise, the plant will include barriers between the eater and the nutrition. An easy experiment is to eat a rare cut of meat (fish, beef, whatever) alongside a serving of steamed peas and corn, then shit on a plate and see which pieces came through the other end less digested. Seeds are very resilient to digestion. Meat is not. The danger from meat comes from disease, not digestibility.

They want us to eat insects though, which are considered meat.

I'd eat bugs if they were more readily available instead of a gimmick. But I wouldn't make em a staple to the diet.

 

[JimmyRustler]

No its not.

We dont digest fibre. it goes through us. It is waste. When eating meat we digest majority of it.

Also think of this.

99% of plants on this planet, if consumed either make us ill or can kill us. But we can eat any animal, and thrive. Sugar, is from a plant. Drugs we consume, made from plants. the selection of plants that we can eat these days have been modified over 100s of years and come from all places on the planet. You couldn't eat spinach, capsicums, tomatoes, celery, onions, carrots a few hundred years ago. All these plants were never avaialble in the one place. Its only recently that we have had seasonal vegetables available all year round. Meat was always the prize.

Like I said earlier, meat was very hard to obtain and hence this doesn't make sense either. Keeping livestock became only a thing recently (in historical terms I mean). Beofre that it was hunt down an animal and then eat that shit right away basically. To assume this was an important food consumption for humans is ludacris. It doesn't make sense. Fish and plants on the other hand make much more sense because they were more easily available. Meat wasn't and also it was next to impossible for humans to stock for most of our history.

 

[borborygmus]

Untrue. Most of the "vegan food" we've eaten over the millennia had to be processed heavily. Grain, as compared to a live cow, must be separated from any shell / bran, then it must be boiled into submission or further ground down into flour, which has to be fermented. The fan-favorite soybean has been fermented for most of its history of consumption.

"Vegan" animals like the aforementioned cow hammer the point home: the grains are eaten and then fermented for hours and hours in the stomachs before they are actually passed through the animal.

Grains don't usually want to be eaten. Plants that want to be eaten don't typically attract eaters to the seed itself, but to the fruit around it. Otherwise, the plant will include barriers between the eater and the nutrition. An easy experiment is to eat a rare cut of meat (fish, beef, whatever) alongside a serving of steamed peas and corn, then shit on a plate and see which pieces came through the other end less digested. Seeds are very resilient to digestion. Meat is not. The danger from meat comes from disease, not digestibility.


I'd eat bugs if they were more readily available instead of a gimmick. But I wouldn't make em a staple to the diet.

You're right that grains don't "want" to be eaten, but neither do animals what with their running the hell away from you and fighting back. Nothing alive wants to be eaten. Obviously plants can't run away so they produce defensive substances like phytates. They also want to reproduce so the seeds have higher defenses and often times they rely on seeds being consumed but not digested in order to propagate (e.g. delicious fruits that result in the seeds getting pooped out elsewhere). But it turns out a certain amount of phytates is very good for us, so clearly we're adapted to eating grains. We also benefit greatly from plant antioxidants like bioflavonoids that can't be found in meat.

We are basically like rats. We'll eat anything. Evolution is only relevant insofar as we live long enough to procreate so we can't theorize very hard about evolutionary factors since history has already happened, and it happened with both meat and plants, and the latter being responsible for an unprecedented population explosion. The "optimal" diet can't be found by looking evolutionary models. That we have to process certain foods is not an indicator of their appropriateness, at least if we're talking about rudimentary processing like soaking/sprouting, because then you might say the same about hunting (and having to produce tools for hunting, etc) or raising livestock (which is considered a part of agriculture).

As a corollary to the above, the reason we rely on meat now is we lost a lot of bacteria that used to produce things like B12 and K2, so now we have livestock eat greens and have their bacteria produce those things. Then it ends up in their meat and then we eat that and get those bacteria-produced nutrients. Without B12 we die, yet we don't have the bacteria for it anymore. An evolutionary model wouldn't be able to capture this (prescriptively, anyway). And vegans who don't eat natto or supplement vitamin K2 will probably be deficient, since not even all strains of B. subtilis produce it so the odds of having the right bacteria are very low.

re:insects: No thank you. I am never eating insects.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

You'd be better off cutting red meat out and replacing it with fish for that, since it's digested more efficiently, thus would be converted more readily to muscle, as well as removing the carcinogenic problems from your diet.

Just because vegans are dumb wankers, and you can eat it in small amounts with only a minor increase in health risk, doesn't suddenly make red meat good for you.

jk, really. I’m far from a great consumer of red meat, but veganism as an ideology doesn’t sound right or healthy to me. We have so much choice when it comes to food, and there isn’t a “best” diet for everyone.

 

[Kev Kev]

Eggs are not meat. And I don't wanna call you stupid but please read.

Vegetarianism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Edit: one more side effect. People like you assume I eat fish. That's the dumbest thing any meat eating person can say or ask. I tell people about 100 times a year I don't eat animals that would also include fish. If I eat fish I would be pescetarian...

Pescetarianism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

dude just give up. im a vegetaran and have done this song and dance w gaffers before

they hate you

its not going to change, just dont engage

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

You're right that grains don't "want" to be eaten, but neither do animals what with their running the hell away from you and fighting back. Nothing alive wants to be eaten. Obviously plants can't run away so they produce defensive substances like phytates. They also want to reproduce so the seeds have higher defenses and often times they rely on seeds being consumed but not digested in order to propagate (e.g. delicious fruits that result in the seeds getting pooped out elsewhere). But it turns out a certain amount of phytates is very good for us, so clearly we're adapted to eating grains.

We are basically like rats. We'll eat anything. Evolution is only relevant insofar as we live long enough to procreate so we can't theorycraft very hard about evolutionary factors since history has already happened, and it happened with both meat and plants. The "optimal" diet can't be found by looking evolutionary models.


re:insects: No thank you. I am never eating insects.

Animals running away isn't a factor in digestibility unless we really wanna stretch the definition. Humans applied their toolmaking craft to food itself, both to create herds of domesticated animals and to tame toxic plants. I don't personally stick to the "we evolved for this specific thing" because we can see plainly how adaptable humans are. I agree that the "optimal diet" (if there is such a thing) cannot be found by evolutionary assumptions. Both sources of food are beneficial, but understanding their place in human history and understanding the plain biology of how these are digested is also beneficial.

The benefit of plants is not that they are more nutritious for us, but that they require less work, can be stored more easily, and are easier to scale up in production. Hunters and herdsmen have been around longer than organized agriculture, and one of the first applications of organized agriculture was to scale up the production of food for the herds and keep them closer to the cities instead of relying on pastoralist herding. Cities necessitate predictable food production and storage, so agriculture has a major advantage when a civilization needs to support dense population centers.

We're talking macro, "keep the peasants from revolting", famine-prevention scale of things, not on the scale of individual nutrition and health, where meat wins out, especially if you include consumption of organ meat (which was also encouraged by religious and cultural practices in most societies).

Quick edit: the breakdown / production of certain nutrients by bacteria is itself quite fascinating. We'd be stretching the definition to call those microorganisms "meat" but it's still worth pointing out that the bioavailability of these foods is because living creatures have done their work on it.

 

[borborygmus]

Animals running away isn't a factor in digestibility unless we really wanna stretch the definition. Humans applied their toolmaking craft to food itself, both to create herds of domesticated animals and to tame toxic plants. I don't personally stick to the "we evolved for this specific thing" because we can see plainly how adaptable humans are. I agree that the "optimal diet" (if there is such a thing) cannot be found by evolutionary assumptions. Both sources of food are beneficial, but understanding their place in human history and understanding the plain biology of how these are digested is also beneficial.

The benefit of plants is not that they are more nutritious for us, but that they require less work, can be stored more easily, and are easier to scale up in production. Hunters and herdsmen have been around longer than organized agriculture, and one of the first applications of organized agriculture was to scale up the production of food for the herds and keep them closer to the cities instead of relying on pastoralist herding. Cities necessitate predictable food production and storage, so agriculture has a major advantage when a civilization needs to support dense population centers.

We're talking macro, "keep the peasants from revolting", famine-prevention scale of things, not on the scale of individual nutrition and health, where meat wins out, especially if you include consumption of organ meat (which was also encouraged by religious and cultural practices in most societies).

I think animals running away is a factor because the goalpost isn't digestibility itself but the amount of processing needed before achieving digestibility, as is any self defense mechanism your desired food has. Dead processed animals are as highly digestible as dead processed plants. We don't think of meat as processed, but on average it's a comparable number of steps to make it edible as with plants. Some plants you can eat raw, some you have to disarm the defenses (soaking, cooking), and some you can't eat at all. It's exactly the same for animals.

imho- if you eat meat, also eat some greens and some colorful berries. This has a lot of synergies. For example, blueberries blunt the reduction in flow-mediated dilation from eating saturated fat.

The problem with meat is it has virtually no antioxidant value at all so that needs to be covered by also eating things that are not meat. This is why fad diets people (like ketobros) are in for a rude awakening when research on it reaches critical mass. Total lack of exposure to carbs makes you insulin resistant (all those keto people who "cured" their diabetes can't eat anything carby without a blood sugar spike) and it is extremely well established now that whole food antioxidants are extremely beneficial in myriad ways.

btw. The nobles who ate meat are not a great example. Their peasants had enough energy to toil all day while the nobles sat around on their asses and had gout.

 

[Kev Kev]

this guy is pumping some kind of product. but he clearly goes through his diet and shows exactly how it is possible to hit 100% of your RDI's on a vegan diet.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Dead processed animals are as highly digestible as dead processed plants. We don't think of meat as processed, but on average it's a comparable number of steps to make it edible as with plants. Some plants you can eat raw, some you have to disarm the defenses (soaking, cooking), and some you can't eat at all. It's exactly the same for animals.

imho- if you eat meat, also eat some greens and some colorful berries. This has a lot of synergies. For example, blueberries blunt the reduction in flow-mediated dilation from eating saturated fat.

The problem with meat is it has virtually no antioxidant value at all so that needs to be covered by also eating things that are not meat. This is why fad diets people (like ketobros) are in for a rude awakening when research on it reaches critical mass. Total lack of exposure to carbs makes you insulin resistant and it is extremely well established now that antioxidants are extremely beneficial.

I mentioned raw ingredients to highlight the inherent digestibility of these food sources. I'm not talking about steps to turn it into a burger, I'm talking about steps to denature or detoxify a given portion of food. Meat requires fewer steps to digest compared to plants, whether we're taking about the shorter length of a carnivore's digestive tract or throwing a slab on a hot stone. As KiNeMz pointed out, many vegetables we have today were only domesticated within the last few 100 years. Most of the "raw plants" you refer to are likely in this group of domesticated plants. Food like blueberries attract more than just humans, but other animals too. We're not talking about a resilient grain that must be broken down, but a plant that wants to get eaten so that it can spread. The digestibility of those blueberry seeds is just as poor as the digestibility of a wheat berry.

I am not making the case for a meat-only diet. I am making the case against a vegan-only diet. Bringing up meat-only diets is a strawman, plain and simple. Every continent on earth has an ecology with meat-eaters who are larger and have bigger brains than the prey animals. Making your prey do the "heavy lifting" of converting plant nutrients into meat-nutrients is the foundation of animal husbandry. It makes sense that a human would also be able to benefit from meat in this way.

 

[borborygmus]

I mentioned raw ingredients to highlight the inherent digestibility of these food sources. I'm not talking about steps to turn it into a burger, I'm talking about steps to denature or detoxify a given portion of food. Meat requires fewer steps to digest compared to plants, whether we're taking about the shorter length of a carnivore's digestive tract or throwing a slab on a hot stone. As KiNeMz pointed out, many vegetables we have today were only domesticated within the last few 100 years. Most of the "raw plants" you refer to are likely in this group of domesticated plants.

I am not making the case for a meat-only diet. I am making the case against a vegan-only diet. Bringing up meat-only diets is a strawman, plain and simple. Every continent on earth has an ecology with meat-eaters who are larger and have bigger brains than the prey animals. Making your prey do the "heavy lifting" of converting plant nutrients into meat-nutrients is the foundation of animal husbandry. It makes sense that a human would also be able to benefit from meat in this way.

I consider hunting animals equivalent to "denaturing" and "detoxifying" food. I view animal defenses and plant defenses as equivalent in that all living things put up various kinds of defenses, and whatever form they have, we have to disarm them in order to eat them. I include animals fighting back in this classification. And just as we have domesticated plants, we also have domesticated animals. We should agree to disagree on this point because there's not much more to it and I don't think we'll change each other's mind, and I leave it to whoever reads this discussion to make up their own mind.

In general I'm not advocating for any specific overall position like "pro vegan" or "anti meat." What you called a strawman I didn't really intend to present as an accurate of complete example of your position. I was only elaborating on some things I thought were relevant. I concede that it's not really clear that not all my points are full/direct rebuttals of your points. Sometimes I think out loud while writing. I apologize if that's frustrating.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Not surprised at all. I think it has a negative effect on physical performance in various sports (Not all of them) as well. John Fitch, Shane Carwin, and several other MMA fighters had a noticeable decline when they stopped eating meat.

I can’t watch current mma. I remember the good old days of Pride and UFC. Where dudes like Overeem gained 50 pounds of muscle eating horse meat and PEDs.

 

[KiNeMz]

I consider hunting animals equivalent to "denaturing" and "detoxifying" food. I view animal defenses and plant defenses as equivalent in that all living things put up various kinds of defenses, and whatever form they have, we have to disarm them in order to eat them. I include animals fighting back in this classification. And just as we have domesticated plants, we also have domesticated animals. We should agree to disagree on this point because there's not much more to it and I don't think we'll change each other's mind, and I leave it to whoever reads this discussion to make up their own mind.

In general I'm not advocating for any specific overall position like "pro vegan" or "anti meat." What you called a strawman I didn't really intend to present as an accurate of complete example of your position. I was only elaborating on some things I thought were relevant. I concede that it's not really clear that not all my points are full/direct rebuttals of your points. Sometimes I think out loud while writing. I apologize if that's frustrating.

Plant defence is chemical. Which are consumed. Just because plants contain certain nutrients doesn't mean they are bio available. That's a key factor with plant foods. Many people reverse many illnesses by removing certain plant matter from their diets. Animal defence doesn't effect the nutrient content of the food.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I consider hunting animals equivalent to "denaturing" and "detoxifying" food. I view animal defenses and plant defenses as equivalent in that all living things put up various kinds of defenses, and whatever form they have, we have to disarm them in order to eat them. I include animals fighting back in this classification. We should agree to disagree on this point because there's not much more to it and I don't think we'll change each other's mind.

There is a specific mouth-to-anus biological process that takes place when meat or grain enters the human body. Beyond meat, what about fat, blood, bones, and other tissues that a human might get from an animal? These contain different chemicals but are also highly digestible like meat. Soft-boned fish basically dissolve in the stomach like a calcium pill.

The animal running away versus the grain staying in the field isn't why vegans are 43% more likely to suffer broken bones compared to meat eaters. That's what we're talking about. I'm not trying to change your mind about animals running away, I'm simply pointing out that it has no bearing on the digestibility of these foods. As I said,

Animals running away isn't a factor in digestibility unless we really wanna stretch the definition.

and if you wanna go that far, then I will take the argument to its logical conclusion and claim that any bacteria involved in the breakdown of plant fibers also disqualify the food for being vegan. Shame on vegans for digesting those innocent yeast-colonies and lactobacillus!

We have to draw the line somewhere.

In general I'm not advocating for any specific overall position like "pro vegan" or "anti meat." What you called a strawman I didn't really intend to present as an example of your position. I was only elaborating on some things I thought were relevant. I concede that it's not really clear that not all my points are full/direct rebuttals of your points. Sometimes I'm just thinking out loud. I apologize if that's frustrating.

I enjoy the thinking-out-loud mode and I won't hold it against you. I'm trying to be specific in my answers, that's all.

 

[SpiceRacz]

I believe Shane Carwin, John Fitch, etc, may have stopped doing other things, as well.

Pre-USADA I believe, but yea. None of them pass the eye test.

 

[ipukespiders]

Vegans pussies smell way better tho.

Fish is yummy

 

[teezzy]

I'm not a vegetarian but eggs are not meat unless ofc you consider your sperm meat as well.

Mine tastes like chicken

 

[Futaleufu]

Not surprised at all. I think it has a negative effect on physical performance in various sports (Not all of them) as well. John Fitch, Shane Carwin, and several other MMA fighters had a noticeable decline when they stopped eating meat.

To be fair, Carwin had a sharp decline after they busted the Florida lab he was a client of.

 

[The Cockatrice]

Mine tastes like chicken

Do you use it for soup?