Yes people need to be more compassionate regarding the suffering of others. The sick part is infants and kids naturally love animals. They don't wanna eat them. They wanna play with them. No infant or kid looks at a pig and starts salivating. They'd rather pet the pig. And then what happens, usually before the kid is even fully conscious. We turn them into little Jeffery Dahmers.

I don't think it's very debatable. We now have enough good science to make an informed decision. Just following the EPIC study alone would get us in a much better place:

Yep, people really have no clue how easy it is to have lots of fun on a plant-based diet. This isn't 1985 anymore. The world has changed and it's continuing to change for the better. For example why would anyone eat coagulated cow pus ice cream when you can just eat plant based So Delicious ice cream which tastes just as good as the "real" thing. Now neither option is health promoting, but at least when you eat the plant based alternative you are not contributing to animal suffering and accelerating the destruction of the planet.

My updated health promoting ice cream recipe (It's slightly different than before):

Speaking of dairy:

Dare I suggest that children don’t want to eat meat... this is a trained behavior


I know anecdotally in my experience my kids prefer French fries, pasta, grilled cheese and pizza over chicken nuggets meatballs and hamburgers.

They kind of gravitate away from meat whenever it’s a choice. Even broccoli and avocado my kids will choose over meat. I’m writing this as my son just ate all of his French fries and took one little bite out of his burger.

I just know from years and years of watching kids eat that they really don’t go for the animal stuff they go for grains fruits and vegetables.

I personally have never known a kid to look at a dog, pig, bear, cow, chicken, cat, etc and instinctively wanna eat them. Becoming a animal flesh eating zombie--making meat , dairy, big pharma shareholders ever richer--is absolutely a learned behavior. A toxic behavior that is literally destroying our planet let alone our health. This quote pretty much sums it up:

The thread is getting better. Good progression Ilovepoker929.

I just watched a lady chug two gallons of canola oil on YouTube and I’ve never been more ready to go plant based.

It is common knowledge that children have sophisticated palates.

How you gonna get the kids back to bacon when they've seen this:

Or this:



It's game over for you guys. You just don't realize it yet. The zombies ain't gonna win this apocalyptic battle. And make no mistake it is an apocalyptic battle.

For more food porn, you guys can check out my girlfriend's instragram page:

https://www.instagram.com/awholefoodplantbasedlife/

All those delicious, addicting plant-based meals were made with zero oils, zero added sugar, zero refined grains, and low sodium. You guys have no clue how fun healthy eating can be, and I say that with 0% smugness and 100% sadness. If people only knew, they would never destroy themselves, getting overweight, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc, dying way before their time and watching their loved ones go down the same ill-fated path.

I understand that it's good for the economy to destroy the planet. Animal farming makes a lot of money for our so called betters. I get that a population of fat and sick people "getting pimped by food companies" invariably hooked on pharmaceutical drugs for life, make a ton of money for our so called betters too, and lastly I get that a fat and sick general population is the ideal state for capitalism or any system of authority and domination. Fat and sick people are way less likely to rebel against the owning class and fight for a better world.

Who knows, maybe people like Alexander Hamilton was right, maybe the general population is "the great beast" that must be tamed. Maybe John Locke was right when he said "day-labourers and tradesmen, the spinsters and dairymaids" must be told what to believe: "The greatest part cannot know and therefore they must believe." Maybe we MUST believe that eating low grade poisonous animal products--feeding off the secretions and mutilated bodies of tortured murder victims--is the only way to enjoy life. That belief certainly makes a lot of money for the right kind of people.

That food does not look good bro. And way too many desserts, I hope you are using stevia/splenda instead of honey/molasses/maple sugar calorie bombs.

And those squats are most likely way high! Deeper.

IMO her lasagna and her enchilada dish are 5 star meals, but yeah, you could say I'm biased if you want, but they seriously are amazing.

We do eat a lot of desserts. I basically live in a vegan bakery. Such is life I suppose when your gf is a formerly obese lifetime food addict. That said, all our desserts are made out of health promoting ingredients save the small amounts of sodium. At the risk of sounding like an infomercial, on this diet you really can have your cake and eat it too. However there is one caveat. These super delicious health promoting desserts are calorically dense. That in itself is not a problem. Many healthy foods like walnuts and avocados are calorically dense. The problem occurs with people who have food addiction/binge issues. People like my gf and my dad. We can make health promoting peanut butter or oatmeal cookies, but if one is eating 10-20 of those cookies in a matter of minutes (I've seen both my dad and gf do this), then yeah you've totally destroyed the whole purpose. Me personally, I eat 2-4 cookies and I'm completely satisfied for the day.

We use none of those ingredients. Like I mentioned before, we use no added sugar in our desserts. With one exception that I'll mention in a second, we only use sugar that is attached to fiber and antioxidants and other phytonutrients, I.E. natural sugar from whole food plants. Our major sweetener is dates. Sometimes raisins and dried apricots play a secondary role. Honey, molasses, and maple syrup all count as added sugar to me becuz they are sugar without fiber. Juices count as added sugar too, more sugar without fiber. As I would say, eat oranges, no orange juice, eat apples, no apple juice, etc.

Ok back to the one exception. we do also use the artificial sweetener erythritol. That is becuz the evidence at the moment suggests erythritol is aok, whereas the evidence for other artificial sweeteners ranges from "OMG I'm killing myself" to dubious at best. For more information on erythritol watch these videos:





BTW I think it's perfectly rational to be skeptical of ANY artificial sweetener and avoid all of them based on the precautionary principle. If new evidence comes out suggesting erythritol is a net negative health-wise, I'll certainly ditch it in a nanosecond. It's not really a critical ingredient anyways. Dates alone can make any dessert taste awesome.

Lol, I will let her know.

Grunch. I found this on politards, but I thought I'd leave it here.

Vegan YouTube star is exposed for lying about being a vegan, because following the diet and health prescriptions she gives her viewers was making her seriously ill

Meh, it's the same old boring tripe. Vegan gets sick. It must be the diet. Tortured flesh eater gets sick. Diet is never brought up.

It seems like it was her vegan diet causing her problems though.

Did you miss the lying part? I think that was kind of important.

How often is "tortured flesh eater" discovered to really be vegan but only pretending to eat meat?

It won't let me read the article but like I've said many times it's very easy to be vegan and not healthy especially in the U.S. What this thread is really about is following the scientific evidence to get as close as we can to an optimal diet for human beings. It just so happens if we do that we end up at a diet centered around eating unprocessed plants, I.E. a whole food plant based diet. A whole food plant based diet happens to be vegan but there is still a large chasm between the two.

Looking at the evolution of our digestive tract over the last 20 million years it is clear we are finely tuned to metabolize food with fiber in it, I.E plants. And this isn't just true with us, it's true for ALL apes, I.E. all our closest genetic relatives. And sure enough, all apes eat around 95-98% plants. And predictably the healthiest and longest living humans ever studied, the 20th century Okinawans (96% plants) and the Seventh Day Adventist vegans (99-100% plants) out of California ate in that same range. This evidence also lines up with what our paleolithic ancestors ate. By analyzing human fossilized feces from the paleolithic period we know those people were eating around 100 grams of fiber a day. In order to eat that much fiber in one day you'll be eating predominantly plants in the same range as the 20th century Okinawans, the Seventh Day Adventist vegans, and all our ape cousins.

And what happens when we wishfully think we are the one special carnivorous ape, and stray from eating fibrous food and start eating animal flesh, animal secretions, often animal excretions, refined grains, refined sugar, and refined fats (oils)? We get fat and sick. Our obesity rates, cancer rates, heart disease rates, diabetes, erectile dysfunction, dementia, etc all shoot up. This is why we should not be surprised to learn that if we follow the science of the National Academy of Sciences to its logical conclusion we should eat no animal products and no processed junk. Our bodies, are simply not designed to eat food without fiber in it. Even adding just a little meat to our diet increases our disease rates just as the National Academy of Sciences would have predicted. Yes we can eat meat and other junk to not starve and stay alive, but if we want to thrive, living long healthy lives that "food" needs to be eliminated from our menus as thoroughly as possible.

The additional fact that eating the bodies and secretions of other sentient beings causes immense suffering and also speeds up the destruction of the planet gives us even more reason to make that change, to stop eating disease causing food, and switch to eating health promoting food instead, eating a varied diet of whole grains, legumes, tubers, fungus (mushrooms/nutritional yeast), fruits, veggies, nuts, seeds, spices and herbs.

My Instant Pot spicy tomato sauce recipe.

Chop up 1 yellow onion, 1 garlic bulb, and 1 leek, and throw in the instant pot.

Press the sauté button and pour a little water in and water sauté your chopped up onion, garlic and leek to your satisfaction. Stir accordingly. They'll look done when they've been cooked down to about half their size and they are almost translucent.

Add the following spices and herbs while you're sautéing:

1 ts lemon pepper
1/2 ts black pepper
1/4 ts cayenne pepper
1/4 ts turmeric
1 TB crushed red pepper.
1 TB dried basil
1 TB Italian seasoning

Also, while you're sautéing or sometime before, dice up 6 roma tomatoes and set aside in a container.

Once you're done sautéing, turn the Instant Pot off and add the following:

28oz can of organic crushed tomatoes. It says Bianco Crushed Dinapoli on the can I use. I get it from Whole Foods.

6oz can of organic no salt tomato paste.

Add the 6 diced roma tomatoes.

Stir everything together.

Then turn the Instant Pot back on. Press the manual button. Punch in 10 minutes. Put the lid on and close it and let it do its job. When it's done make sure to let the pressure release before you open the lid.

While that's cooking, throw a box of red lentil pasta in a pan of boiling water (Kroger, Whole Foods and Sprouts sells it). Cook for 11 minutes at the halfway point between Med and High. The box says 7-9 min but I feel a few extra minutes hits that al dente sweet point.

When your sauce is done and your pasta is done, mix the two together and enjoy. Add some Nutritional yeast on top to create that parmesan texture.

There is no oils in this meal, no added sugar, no refined grains. There is 1,445mg of sodium in this meal coming from the can of crushed tomatoes and a little from the lemon pepper I use. There's around 6 servings, so that comes out to around 241mg per serving. Not bad. This meal could also easily be made salt free as it's not hard to find salt free crushed tomatoes or lemon pepper.

For more clarity on how to use an Instant Pot to make tomato sauce here's a video to help you guys out:

Holy **** Dr Greger is only 46?!?

A WFPB diet will definitely make you look better and thus younger. Unfortunately the diet doesn't do anything to save one's hair. Beyond looks, what you eat can literally change who you are. Going WFPB with a few other moderate lifestyle changes can change the expression of over 500 genes in your genome, down-regulating bad genes and up-regulating good ones. But alas, the hair loss gene is apparently unaffected in case one wasn't already convinced by looking at Dr Greger's shiny head.

But hey at least you can down-regulate those bad Alzheimers genes!

Yeah, pretty big indictment if I've ever seen one. Also, any "medical" website run by one person is absolutely incredible. The purpose is clearly to get you to donate or buy one of his books.

Definitely not a fan of all these specious doctors touting something as the truth and using their authority to convince people it is, often backed up by inconclusive studies. Then add into the fact you have such extremists pushing this view, it's really a poor way to convince anyone and is a bad look for promoting a viewpoint.

But ILP had no interest in having a honest discussion about veganism since the title definitively declares it as the optimal diet. I mean post #442 is a hilarious embarrassment.

It's not run by one person and "All the proceeds he receives from the sales of his books, DVDs, and speaking engagements continue to be donated to charity." I mean not that I care. Like if all the proceeds went to his stripper fund, all that matters at the end of the day is the science. The fact that the science presented on Nutritionfacts.org also lines up with the science of the National Academy of Sciences, Harvard, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, The American College of Cardiology, The Seventh Day Adventist studies, the 20th Century Okinawan study, The China study, etc, is pretty compelling if you ask me. And let's not forget there is only one diet that has been shown to reverse heart disease, our #1 killer, a plant based diet, a diet that has also been shown to reverse Type 2 diabetes.

Do you think the National Academy of Sciences was being specious when they said there is no safe dose of trans fat and cholesterol, implying that one should eat zero animal products, and zero processed junk "if they were truly basing" their eating decisions "on science"??

Was Harvard being specious when they basically said if you like life and wanna maximize it you should Switch out your animal protein for plant protein?

Do you think the International Agency for Research on Cancer was being specious when they said that processed meat is a group 1 carcinogen, the same category as asbestos, tobacco smoking, and plutonium? And that red meat, I.E. "all mammalian muscle meat, including, beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat", is a group 2A carcinogen?

Veganism is NOT the optimal diet. Not even close. My mom is vegan. She has vegan donuts all the time which I would bet is worse for you than meat (I mean as far as toxicity I doubt it can get much worse than eating refined grains + refined sugar, fried in oil), vegan cinnamon rolls and other vegan junk loaded with oils, refined sugar and refined grains, drinks coke every day, eats potato chips probably every day, drinks her chocolate almond milk (again loaded with refined sugar) all the time. My mom also goes out to eat a lot at vegan restaurants eating meals loaded with oils and tons of sodium. And every now and then she'll go get a sodium bomb vegan pizza with that toxic daiya cheese on top along with the refined grain crust.

The optimal diet just happens to be vegan, but being vegan is not even close to enough altho if enough people went vegan we might be able to save our rapidly dying planet:

Source.

Ah damn, had a post written out, but it was deleted.

Nutritionfacts.org is run by one person, or mostly him. His face is on the front page, the about section is all about him. The problem is he is a vegan himself and while I don't doubt there is some good info on the website, there is clearly going to bias towards veganism and whatever his ultimate agenda is.


The abstract did not say that sat fats, cholesterol, or trans fats are bad. It just said they couldn't use their UL model on it. You just want it to say that all of that is bad. Also, plant proteins have sat fats, so they must be bad too, by your logic. As for NAS saying trans fat is bad, well no ****, but it's only found in some animals and mostly processed meats. Poultry and fish seem to be free of them.

Not sure where you pulled that article from, but it seems like it's from a third party when saying statements like "the only logical conclusion is to not eat animals", which is a totally specious claim as pointed out above.


Harvard's study is only conclusive if the people already had at least one risk factor such as obesity or alcohol abuse, which probably has more to do with these people's general unhealthiness and probably poor diet to begin with.

The IAR is probably not being specious, but you are being fantastical by trying to lump meat with asbestos. That category just means it's a known carcinogen. How much processed meat is bad is almost certainly a high amount, how much asbestos is bad is any amount. Plus, processed meat doesn't include raw meat you buy at the store.


As for the last article, there are plenty of better sources showing the environmental impact of meat vs plant production. You chose a charity that pushes a political agenda towards veganism. Your argument seems to be more about processed foods being bad for you. I don't think anyone is going to argue that processed foods are worse than raw foods. But pretty much all of these articles are about processed meats and somewhat about red meats.

It is certainly not a one person operation. He has a team of volunteers that go through thousands of studies per year on nutrition, and other doctors on the site that help answer people's questions.

Lol there is no such thing as objective truth. The idea of eliminating human bias from the human species is pure adolescent fantasy. All we can do is follow the evidence the best we can.

Ok let me break this down for you. First from the abstract: "The IOM did not set ULs for trans fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol because any intake level above 0% of energy increased LDL cholesterol concentration and these three food components are unavoidable in ordinary diets."

ANY intake level of trans fats, saturated fat, and cholesterol above ZERO increases LDL. LDL is "the number-one risk factor for our number-one killer", heart disease, which "is the number-one reason we and most of our loved ones will die". That's why these "three boosters of bad cholesterol" are bad. Got it? That's why "[i]n its landmark report on trans fat, The National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine, one of our most prestigious institutions, concluded that no amount of trans fat is safe 'because any incremental increase in trans fatty acid intake increases C[oronary] H[eart] D[isease] risk.'"

Here's a direct quote from that landmark report (p. 423):

Dude, your beef is not with me, it is with arguably the most prestigious organization in the United States, The National Academy of Sciences. And if you're skeptical of their findings, don't worry you are not alone. Young earth creationists and climate change deniers will also be on your side.

That's the magic of eating whole plant foods. Beet sugar is toxic yet eating beets is super healthy, peanut oil is toxic yet eating peanuts is healthy, saturated fat is toxic yet eating nuts, seeds, and avocados (all plants that have some saturated fat) is healthy. Hmm it's almost as if the fiber, antioxidants, and other phytonutrients associated with these plants overcomes the negatives of the saturated fat. But notice that's not what happens when you eat animal products which have no fiber, virtually no antioxidants, and by definition no phytonutrients.

My understanding is that trans fat is naturally found in all animals. I can't verify that fish has trans fat, but poultry is easy: "According to the official USDA nutrient database, cheese, milk, yogurt, burgers, chicken fat, turkey meat, bologna and hot dogs contain up to about 1-5 percent trans fat." This can be further verified by looking at the USDA databade yourself (pg 27).

Back to fish, at the very least, we know there is no safe amount we can consume--according to the National Academy of Sciences--becuz fish has saturated fat and cholesterol. Plus fish has other major problems right now:





How anyone can eat fish after watching those videos is beyond me.

It's not specious because it is true. That's why "one [of the] scientist[s] who co-authored the study (Eric Rimm, Associate Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition, Harvard University) said, “We can’t tell people to stop eating all meat and all dairy products. Well, we could tell people to become vegetarians …If we were truly basing this on science we would, but it would be extreme.”

Well the truth is we don't need the Harvard study to reach a rational conclusion on this subject. The science of The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious organizations in the United States, is really all the science we need to make sound eating decisions. The Harvard study, however inconclusive you may deem it, is compelling because it reaches the same conclusion as the National Academy of Sciences from a different approach.

What the IARC is saying is that the level of evidence we currently have that processed meat causes cancer is just as strong as the evidence we have that asbestos or tobacco smoking causes cancer. It's not saying processed meat is just as bad as asbestos or tobacco smoking. I think it's safe to say there is no safe amount of any group 1 carcinogen, but in case I'm wrong we still know there is no safe amount of processed meat thanks to the science of The National Academy of Sciences.

Is the United Nations a satisfactory source for you?

Is The Lancet, one of most prestigious scientific journals on this planet, a satisfactory source for you:

Is one of the most important climate activists of our time begging her parents to stop eating meat because meat consumption is literally "stealing [the] future" of younger generations a satisfactory source for you? Let me reiterate that more bluntly. Is a teenage girl who is already way smarter than you'll ever be a satisfactory source for you?

As I've done in another post in this thread I'll finish up with two apropos quotes:

And your argument is they were saying that it means animals are bad. No, it doesn't. It just says their model is unusable for these types of nutrients because it raises LDL, which is auto bad in their eyes. As they stated, since at least one component of these is in pretty much every diet, maybe an LDL threshold would be better for their study.

I have no beef with them. Now you are specifically focusing on trans fats. They are useless to me. They are bad. They aren't in some meats and negligible in many, so why do I care?

The NAS also has never recommend to eliminate trans fats completely since they realize they are naturally occurring in small traces and that it could lead to nutrition imbalance.

From that 2005 report, the NAS "recommended that trans fatty acid consumption be as low as possible while consuming a nutritionally adequate diet"


And there it is. So according to the above abstract, all sat fats are bad. You literally made an argument saying that no one should eat animals because of sat fats. That's pretty much my entire point of my argument is pointing out your hypocrisy.

Now, you are trying to shift the goalposts focusing on trans fats. I've never argued they were helpful. Also, since plants have sat fats, I can pretty much make the argument that lean chicken breast is better than any plant protein based on your original assertion.


Most of those are processed or dairy. Both I would recommend limiting. If you really want to go with trans fats, we could easily have an argument about hidden cholesterol in plants in the form of their phytosterols.


Read above about what the NAS actually recommends.


Not every meat is processed meat. You can have a diet devoid of that and eat meat.


I've seen the data for meat processing vs plant processing. Unfortunately, I don't think any of those articles address the other uses from animals such as producing leather goods. How environmentally damaging is the alternative? I'd actually like to see the articles.

Regardless, this is an H&F thread. The environmental stuff is pretty irrelevant. If we are talking about the optimal diet, the environment should pretty much be ignored in any discussion of that. Lots of stuff we do in the world is not environmentally optimal, but the alternative is having a very suboptimal society in most people's eyes.