ITT we discuss the optimal diet: A Whole Food Plant Based Diet
And alcohol.
I think citing studies is to debunk/prove veganism is pretty useless because theres a ton of studies that prove/disprove the benefits of veganism.
The thing is, how have humans been eating for the past thousands of years? Meat and vegetables.
How can anyone think that sudenly we are herbivores?
Its just blows my mind. But its a useless debate because vegans are dogmatic and wont change their minds.
The thing is, how have humans been eating for the past thousands of years? Meat and vegetables.
How can anyone think that sudenly we are herbivores?
Its just blows my mind. But its a useless debate because vegans are dogmatic and wont change their minds.
How many vegan civilizations have their been? 0
Humanity has been feeding with meat and veg for milennia, some groups even consuming only animal products (massai and inuits) and you want to convince me we are herbivores?
Give me a break.
Humanity has been feeding with meat and veg for milennia, some groups even consuming only animal products (massai and inuits) and you want to convince me we are herbivores?
Give me a break.
Since you veered toward that subject I'll make a little post about it. Alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen according to the International Agency For Research On Cancer. Other group 1 carcinogens include processed meat, asbestos, tobacco smoking and plutonium. There is no safe dose of alcohol consumption. Alcohol has no place in an optimal diet for human beings.
The commonly held belief that a little alcohol could be healthy is a misconception based on poor science:
The commonly held belief that a little alcohol could be healthy is a misconception based on poor science:
There's been slavery for thousands of years too. I don't care about human behavior. I'm talking about what we--all great apes--are evolved to eat.
Thank you for the responses.
I'm not "obsessed" with protein. I need to gain muscle to burn more calories during exercise. I'm currently around 43% body fat...ugh, and my TDEE is terrible for someone my weight and with the amount of exercise I'm doing. Maintaining weight loss will be directly correlated with maintaining muscle mass...and not eating fast food+cakes, mental health, hormones, sleep, etc.
I'm not "obsessed" with protein. I need to gain muscle to burn more calories during exercise. I'm currently around 43% body fat...ugh, and my TDEE is terrible for someone my weight and with the amount of exercise I'm doing. Maintaining weight loss will be directly correlated with maintaining muscle mass...and not eating fast food+cakes, mental health, hormones, sleep, etc.
Now there are a small percentage of people say 10-15% of the population who eat terrible and are still thin. I'm sure you know many of these people.
They eat lots of animal products/processed junk and they don't gain weight. Those are just genetically lucky people. You're not one of those people. And keep in mind just cuz they eat trash and stay thin does not mean they are healthy on the inside.
BTW these are the type of people that will condescendingly judge you thinking or saying things like "she's probably lazy or lacks discipline, etc" Of course that's not the reality at all. The truth is you've shown way more discipline then those people could ever imagine cuz they've never had to battle this issue. The problem is you've just been eating the wrong foods. And since you're not one of the genetically lucky people you have to be strict and only eat foods you metabolize well if you ever want to reach and sustain your weight loss goals. It's that simple and there's no way around it.
BTW here's the best video I have ever seen on the subject of weight loss:
The best books on the science of weight loss:
How Not to Diet
The Pleasure Trap
PM me your address and I will send you both those books.
I'm not sure I want to take diet advice from a dude who looks like he fell into the uncanny valley.
I thought cancer patients were the thinnest
You should warn the eskimos and the massai that they need to start drinking soy milk instead of real milk and tofu with lentils instead of meat.
I mean it's probably true that the thinnest people in the world mostly eat carbohydrates. Africans are poor and carbs from the land are cheap. Same with rural Chinese.
Americans are not only rich but our cheapest food is processed high calorie junk.
I was going to watch that fork over knifes video posted but I stopped at psychologist. Thats a fake science, passed on that fake doctor.
But let's give credit where credit is due. ILOVEPOKER's comments about alcohol are absolutely correct. Zero alcohol is best and the latest scientific research defintely points towards that. So good work being right about something.
Americans are not only rich but our cheapest food is processed high calorie junk.
I was going to watch that fork over knifes video posted but I stopped at psychologist. Thats a fake science, passed on that fake doctor.
But let's give credit where credit is due. ILOVEPOKER's comments about alcohol are absolutely correct. Zero alcohol is best and the latest scientific research defintely points towards that. So good work being right about something.
The Seventh Day Adventist group are an interesting study. Thousands of people studied and due to religion (their body is a sacred temple, etc) all these people--meat eaters, fish eaters, vegetarians, vegans--eat super healthy and lead super healthy lifestyles. Exercising, not smoking, not indulging in process junk, etc. So what that graph is really comparing is the best of the best meat eaters vs the best of the best vegetarians, and the best of the best vegans. And what's really interesting is how even the best of the best meat eaters--some of the healthiest meat eaters in the world--are still overweight and almost obese. And even the super healthy lacto-ovo vegetarians were STILL overweight. The vegans were the only group that was not overweight. As mentioned before, the Loma Linda Seventh Day Adventist vegans are not just thin, but the healthiest longest living population ever studied.
Dr. Neal Barnard could also be referring to the 2nd healthiest population ever studied, the 20th century Okinawans, another thin population who ate 96% plant based. Dr. Garth Davis talks about them in this video (watch from 1:20 to 2:38):
Or Dr. Neal Barnard could be referring to the fact that the only dietary demographic in North America that are not overweight are vegans (who presumably eat the most carbs since all they eat is plants). American vegans btw are not that healthy. They eat a ton of added sugar, refined grains, refined fats (oils), and lots of sodium. A vegan diet is still far from an optimum diet, especially in the U.S.
And of course, their cholesterol got better too, but their claim to fame is that they “achieved greater weight loss at 6 and 12 months than any other trial that does not limit [calorie] intake or mandate regular exercise.” That’s worth repeating. A whole food plant-based diet achieved the greatest weight loss ever recorded at 6 and 12 months compared to any other such intervention published in the medical literature.
Additionally, according the the IARC, red meat, i.e. "all mammalian muscle meat, including, beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat" is a group 2 carcinogen. Would you agree that a rational person utilizing the precautionary principle who cares about their health and has the privilege do to something about it, should avoid red meat?
Also, like two-thirds of the planet can't even digest milk without problems. Humans have only been consuming cow's milk for around 8K years. If there's ever a food we are uncontroversially not evolved to eat, that's it. The strong link between dairy and prostate cancer (let alone the obvious link with heart disease) should be enough to get everyone's lips off of the cows tit.
Also pro tip so you don't make a fool out of yourself in the future: Never bring Eskimos into your argument. You'll just own yourself.
The common mythology is that in response to anecdotal reports of a low prevalence of coronary heart disease among the Eskimo, Danish researchers Bang and Dyerberg went there and confirmed a very low incidence of heart attack. The absence of coronary artery disease would be strange in a meat-based diet with hardly any fruits and vegetables—“in other words, a diet that violates all principles of balanced and heart-healthy nutrition.” This paradox was attributed to all the seal and whale blubber, which is extremely rich in omega-3 fish fat, and the rest is history.
There’s a problem, though. It isn’t true.
As I discuss in my video Omega-3s and the Eskimo Fish Tale, the fact is Bang and Dyerberg never examined the cardiovascular status of the Eskimo; they just accepted at face value this notion that coronary atherosclerosis is almost unknown among the Eskimo, a concept that has been disproven over and over starting back in the 1930s. In fact, going back more than a thousand years, we have frozen Eskimo mummies with atherosclerosis. From 500 years ago, a woman in her early 40s had atherosclerosis in her aorta and coronary arteries. And these aren’t just isolated cases. The totality of evidence from actual clinical investigations, autopsies, and imaging techniques is that they have the same plague of coronary artery disease that non-Eskimo populations have, and the Eskimo actually have twice the fatal stroke rate and don’t live particularly long.
“Considering the dismal health status of Eskimos, it is remarkable that instead of labelling their diet as dangerous to health,” they just accepted and echoed the myth, and tried to come up with a reason to explain the false premise. The Eskimo had such dismal health that the Westernization of their diets actually lowered their rates of ischemic heart disease. You know your diet’s bad when the arrival of Twinkies improves your health.
So, why do so many researchers to this day unquestioningly parrot the myth? “Publications still referring to Bang and Dyerberg’s nutritional studies as proof that Eskimos have low prevalence of [heart disease] represent either misinterpretation of the original findings or an example of confirmation bias,” which is when people cherry-pick or slant information to confirm their preconceived notions. As the great scientist Francis Bacon put it: “Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true.”
There’s a problem, though. It isn’t true.
As I discuss in my video Omega-3s and the Eskimo Fish Tale, the fact is Bang and Dyerberg never examined the cardiovascular status of the Eskimo; they just accepted at face value this notion that coronary atherosclerosis is almost unknown among the Eskimo, a concept that has been disproven over and over starting back in the 1930s. In fact, going back more than a thousand years, we have frozen Eskimo mummies with atherosclerosis. From 500 years ago, a woman in her early 40s had atherosclerosis in her aorta and coronary arteries. And these aren’t just isolated cases. The totality of evidence from actual clinical investigations, autopsies, and imaging techniques is that they have the same plague of coronary artery disease that non-Eskimo populations have, and the Eskimo actually have twice the fatal stroke rate and don’t live particularly long.
“Considering the dismal health status of Eskimos, it is remarkable that instead of labelling their diet as dangerous to health,” they just accepted and echoed the myth, and tried to come up with a reason to explain the false premise. The Eskimo had such dismal health that the Westernization of their diets actually lowered their rates of ischemic heart disease. You know your diet’s bad when the arrival of Twinkies improves your health.
So, why do so many researchers to this day unquestioningly parrot the myth? “Publications still referring to Bang and Dyerberg’s nutritional studies as proof that Eskimos have low prevalence of [heart disease] represent either misinterpretation of the original findings or an example of confirmation bias,” which is when people cherry-pick or slant information to confirm their preconceived notions. As the great scientist Francis Bacon put it: “Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true.”
Genuinely asking, why can 1/3 of us digest milk if it's the best example of things we can't digest?
If one disagrees that milk is the best example, they'd have to agree it's the strangest. We are the only species on earth that drinks the milk of another species and then it gets stranger: we are also the only species on earth that drinks milk into adulthood.
Approx 1/3 of humans have the recent, appropriate genetic mutation that allows them to digest cow's milk throughout their life, what is known as lactase persistence, the ability to produce the enzyme lactase and thus digest cows milk their whole lives.
Of course it goes almost without saying, the ability to digest cow's milk doesn't mean one gets to escape the problems associated with drinking it just like the ability to digest processed meat or refined grains doesn't allow someone to avoid the problems with consuming those toxic foods.
Reading is something that is also highly unhealthy since our most ancient ancestors didn't do so. Probably causes cancer
I know I'm just repeating myself now but let's be rational here and keep something in mind:
"There is zero data, and zero research that shows us that any animal products, makes us live longer," Dr. Belardo says. "There is zero data, and zero research that shows us that any animal products prevent cancer, prevent heart disease, reverse heart disease, or do anything for longevity.
"We have no data to show us that we need animal products and that animal products help us. We only have data to show us that animal products can hurt us and are associated with more chronic disease, more hypertension, more diabetes, more coronary artery disease, and more cancer.
"So, do we need any animal products? No. That being said, do I expect the world to go 100 percent vegan? Of course, I would love that. That would make me happy. But for me when I'm counselling patients, I take a reducetarian approach with them because there's a lot of literature about patients being ready to change...you have to approach it in a calm, approachable manner assessing how ready your patients are."
--Dr. Danielle Belardo
"We have no data to show us that we need animal products and that animal products help us. We only have data to show us that animal products can hurt us and are associated with more chronic disease, more hypertension, more diabetes, more coronary artery disease, and more cancer.
"So, do we need any animal products? No. That being said, do I expect the world to go 100 percent vegan? Of course, I would love that. That would make me happy. But for me when I'm counselling patients, I take a reducetarian approach with them because there's a lot of literature about patients being ready to change...you have to approach it in a calm, approachable manner assessing how ready your patients are."
--Dr. Danielle Belardo
Any rational human being utilizing the precautionary principle who cares about their health and has the privilege to do something about it should not eat ANY animal products. Pure and simple, becuz that's what the science says.
According to the science of the National Academy of Sciences, arguably the most prestigious institution on the planet, 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":
"The Only Safe Upper Level of Dietary Trans Fats is Zero" (Official document), by the Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (2005). Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients). National Academies Press. See bottom of p. 423.
This Institute of Medicine (National Academy of Sciences) research reported that the only “safe” level of trans fats in the human diet is “zero.” The report admits that “Because trans fatty acids are unavoidable in ordinary, nonvegan diets, consuming 0 percent of energy would require significant changes in patterns of dietary intake.” One-fifth of trans fats in the US diet is from animal parts and products, so a logical conclusion would be to recommend that people not eat animals.
When questioned, one scientist 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.”
This Institute of Medicine (National Academy of Sciences) research reported that the only “safe” level of trans fats in the human diet is “zero.” The report admits that “Because trans fatty acids are unavoidable in ordinary, nonvegan diets, consuming 0 percent of energy would require significant changes in patterns of dietary intake.” One-fifth of trans fats in the US diet is from animal parts and products, so a logical conclusion would be to recommend that people not eat animals.
When questioned, one scientist 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.”
Show us the science that reading raises disease rates plz.
The reason that animal products make us live longer is because we cannot make a certain vitamin that plants do not contain.
We can, of course, take super nasty, highly processed, unnatural, laboratory made substitutes for this vitamin. But evolution obviously didn't provide for that.
As far as proof that reading causes cancer, it is quite obvious. How many people do you know that have suffered from cancer who didn't read?
****
Since I am feeling strangely willing to give actual answers, toxins and beneficial stuff of all types are ALL dose-dependent. There is an amount of red meat that is too much. This amount is probably not zero ounces per week. There is also an amount of spinach that is too much. This amount is probably not zero ounces per week. Most people should probably eat less bacon and sausage than they do currently and maybe eat broccoli more often.
We can, of course, take super nasty, highly processed, unnatural, laboratory made substitutes for this vitamin. But evolution obviously didn't provide for that.
As far as proof that reading causes cancer, it is quite obvious. How many people do you know that have suffered from cancer who didn't read?
****
Since I am feeling strangely willing to give actual answers, toxins and beneficial stuff of all types are ALL dose-dependent. There is an amount of red meat that is too much. This amount is probably not zero ounces per week. There is also an amount of spinach that is too much. This amount is probably not zero ounces per week. Most people should probably eat less bacon and sausage than they do currently and maybe eat broccoli more often.
But animal products do NOT make us live longer. They shorten our lives:
Source.
And we should expect this to be true since the healthiest and longest living populations eat a primarily plant based diet. The Seventh Day Adventist vegans out of Loma Linda California are the longest living population ever studied followed by the 20th century Okinawans who ate 96% plant based. We know how the longest living people eat. We have the data. We don't have to guess at this or make **** up.
To evoke the words of the 2015-16 president of the American College of Cardiology referring to our #1 killer, heart disease: "There are two kinds of cardiologists: vegans and those who haven't read the data". Again, we have the data, we we might as well utilize it.
I assume you're referring to B12. Yes if one doesn't consume B12 they will eventually die but B12 doesn't come from animals. B12 are microbes that blanket the earth. For 99% of human history people got all the B12 they needed drinking from rivers/lakes or eating dirty veggies. Well today capitalism has pretty much poisoned all our lakes and rivers, and the water we drink has been sanitized (which is obviously a good thing) and I wouldn't recommend eating dirty veggies. So yes Vegans have to supplement and according to the NIH all people over 50 should supplement:
Source.
BTW the idea that we should get our B12 through eating the disease causing obesogenic dead decaying flesh of tortured murder victims is pretty ****ing absurd when odds are the only reasons those animals have sufficient B12 in them is becuz they themselves were fed B12 supplements.
You're not as clever as you think you are.
If one can help it, there is no rational reason to EVER consume group 1 or group 2 carcinogens period. This is not hard to figure out. If something is poisonous, even a low grade poison like red meat, there is ONLY one proper dose: NONE. Do you really think your opinions or hunches have more merit then the best science we have on this topic. Maybe you should call the IARC and enlighten them.
And of course it's not just the IARC and it's not just about cancer. According to the science of the National Academy of Sciences there is NO SAFE DOSE of any animal products "because any intake level above 0% of energy increased LDL cholesterol concentration". LDL of course is the #1 risk factor for the #1 reason you and your loved ones will die, heart disease. According to the NAS , any intake of animal products above 0% of energy increased chronic disease risk.
Ok so that's the IARC and the NAS reaching the same conclusion from two different angles (cancer and heart disease). Then we have additional compelling data telling us "there are no safe animal products" because consumption of any animal product, including fish and chicken, raises disease rates. If that isn't extremely compelling evidence then nothing is.
The fact that there is an amount of spinach that is too much or an amount of bok choy that is too much is perhaps interesting in itself but not relevant to this discussion. It's just a red herring. Like if I try to tell you that exercise is healthy but you tell me yeah but if you exercise too much you can cause damage to yourself, you're not really refuting my claim. You're just changing the subject. According to the best science available the healthiest diet/lifestyle is a whole food plant based diet. The fact that I could overdose on bok choy or eat too much peanut butter doesn't refute that.
Conclusions and relevance: High animal protein intake was positively associated with cardiovascular mortality and high plant protein intake was inversely associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, especially among individuals with at least 1 lifestyle risk factor. Substitution of plant protein for animal protein, especially that from processed red meat, was associated with lower mortality, suggesting the importance of protein source.
And we should expect this to be true since the healthiest and longest living populations eat a primarily plant based diet. The Seventh Day Adventist vegans out of Loma Linda California are the longest living population ever studied followed by the 20th century Okinawans who ate 96% plant based. We know how the longest living people eat. We have the data. We don't have to guess at this or make **** up.
To evoke the words of the 2015-16 president of the American College of Cardiology referring to our #1 killer, heart disease: "There are two kinds of cardiologists: vegans and those who haven't read the data". Again, we have the data, we we might as well utilize it.
Many older adults, who do not have enough hydrochloric acid in their stomach to absorb the vitamin B12 naturally present in food. People over 50 should get most of their vitamin B12 from fortified foods or dietary supplements because, in most cases, their bodies can absorb vitamin B12 from these sources.
BTW the idea that we should get our B12 through eating the disease causing obesogenic dead decaying flesh of tortured murder victims is pretty ****ing absurd when odds are the only reasons those animals have sufficient B12 in them is becuz they themselves were fed B12 supplements.
And of course it's not just the IARC and it's not just about cancer. According to the science of the National Academy of Sciences there is NO SAFE DOSE of any animal products "because any intake level above 0% of energy increased LDL cholesterol concentration". LDL of course is the #1 risk factor for the #1 reason you and your loved ones will die, heart disease. According to the NAS , any intake of animal products above 0% of energy increased chronic disease risk.
Ok so that's the IARC and the NAS reaching the same conclusion from two different angles (cancer and heart disease). Then we have additional compelling data telling us "there are no safe animal products" because consumption of any animal product, including fish and chicken, raises disease rates. If that isn't extremely compelling evidence then nothing is.
High animal protein intake is not even remotely the same as limited, or moderate animal protein intake.
I declined to read the rest once I saw that grave error at the beginning of your post.
I declined to read the rest once I saw that grave error at the beginning of your post.
Animal protein consumption also appears to trigger the release of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), a cancer-promoting growth hormone. IGF-1 levels rise during childhood to power our development and diminish when we reach adulthood. Should the levels remain too high, however, our cells will constantly receive a message to grow, divide, and keep going and growing. Not surprisingly then, the more IGF-1 in our bloodstream, the higher our risk for developing some cancers. Animal protein appears to stimulate IGF-1 production whether it’s the muscle proteins in meat, the egg-white protein in eggs, or the milk proteins in dairy. After just 11 days of cutting back on animal protein, however, our IGF-1 levels may drop by 20 percent.
Watching our animal-to-plant protein ratio may be useful for cancer prevention. The largest diet and bladder cancer study found that a 3 percent increase in animal protein consumption was associated with a 15 percent increased risk of bladder cancer, while a 2 percent increase in plant protein intake was associated with a 23 percent decreased cancer risk.
Dr. Ornish and colleagues were able to demonstrate that a nearly exclusively plant-based diet allowed for an apparent reversal in early stage cancer growth, so the ideal animal-to-plant protein ratio may be quite low.
Watching our animal-to-plant protein ratio may be useful for cancer prevention. The largest diet and bladder cancer study found that a 3 percent increase in animal protein consumption was associated with a 15 percent increased risk of bladder cancer, while a 2 percent increase in plant protein intake was associated with a 23 percent decreased cancer risk.
Dr. Ornish and colleagues were able to demonstrate that a nearly exclusively plant-based diet allowed for an apparent reversal in early stage cancer growth, so the ideal animal-to-plant protein ratio may be quite low.
Any rational person going by the precautionary principle alone, who cares about their health and has the privilege to do something about it should avoid animal protein as much as possible.
BTW I'm kinda curious about why you're even in this thread. Judging from your diet logs in your thread it's very clear you don't care about health, and given that you think you're smarter than the NAS and IARC--putting you in the same prestigious intellectual camp as flat earthers, young earth creationists, global climate change deniers, etc--it's very clear you're not a science guy to put it politely. So why are you here? Just to troll me? I mean, if so that's fine. Troll away to your heart's content. I won't judge.
Why would I continue to read a post that started on about high animal protein intake when that had nothing to do with anything you were responding to?
I'd have also stopped reading if you had posted about the dangers of high oxygen intake.
You do realize that there is a perfectly safe level of cyanide intake and this isn't zero, right?
I'd have also stopped reading if you had posted about the dangers of high oxygen intake.
You do realize that there is a perfectly safe level of cyanide intake and this isn't zero, right?
Vegan diet is optimal except you need to take supplements lol
I have said this before and I will say it again. Ilovepoker in general is a plus to the forum. There is zero doubt Americans could use a whole bunch more plants in their diet. The typical American diet is very MLYLTesque, which is straight up a death row diet. What you would eat if you only had one day to live, but ate it everyday.
Having says that, the 7th Day Loma Linda nutjobs offer a study on what I have been harping about it. They studied these people extensively and it was evident the vegetarians in this group lived longer than their meat eating counterparts (still part of the 7th day Adventists).
Ok, so case closed? Ilovepoker wins? Not so fast my friends. Right in the study it says that the vegetarian group exercised more, smoked less, drank less, was more likely to be married, etc etc.
And on processed meat being a carcinogen in the same category as smoking? Well the issue here is 1 million people die worldwide per year from smoking. From processed meat it's estimated at 30,000. 3%?!!! Can compare these two.
Eating processed meat does keep me up at night. I do try and minimize it. But my extensive research into the subject also makes me realize that meat eating is not a big rock. Let's say there are two identical locos. They exercise the same, drink very little, are both lean, etc etc. The only difference is one is a vegan and the other eats moderate amounts of mostly unprocessed meat. How many extra years would vegan loco get?
I think maybe one year, if that. And if they are both getting their colon checked out yearly, it might only be a month or two.
The point is I am leaner, exercise more, and don't do drugs. Ilovepoker and his vegan diet has no shot vs Papa Loco.
My rocks are way bigger. He dealing with pebbles. But sure sure, I am on board. If he takes care of those bigger rocks then he can worry about this pebble. And it is something that I do keep up with, because if more studies come out and this is worth years to me, I will be fast on the bandwagon.
Having says that, the 7th Day Loma Linda nutjobs offer a study on what I have been harping about it. They studied these people extensively and it was evident the vegetarians in this group lived longer than their meat eating counterparts (still part of the 7th day Adventists).
Ok, so case closed? Ilovepoker wins? Not so fast my friends. Right in the study it says that the vegetarian group exercised more, smoked less, drank less, was more likely to be married, etc etc.
And on processed meat being a carcinogen in the same category as smoking? Well the issue here is 1 million people die worldwide per year from smoking. From processed meat it's estimated at 30,000. 3%?!!! Can compare these two.
Eating processed meat does keep me up at night. I do try and minimize it. But my extensive research into the subject also makes me realize that meat eating is not a big rock. Let's say there are two identical locos. They exercise the same, drink very little, are both lean, etc etc. The only difference is one is a vegan and the other eats moderate amounts of mostly unprocessed meat. How many extra years would vegan loco get?
I think maybe one year, if that. And if they are both getting their colon checked out yearly, it might only be a month or two.
The point is I am leaner, exercise more, and don't do drugs. Ilovepoker and his vegan diet has no shot vs Papa Loco.
My rocks are way bigger. He dealing with pebbles. But sure sure, I am on board. If he takes care of those bigger rocks then he can worry about this pebble. And it is something that I do keep up with, because if more studies come out and this is worth years to me, I will be fast on the bandwagon.
If you are undisciplined with portion sizes, as most Americans are, a Vegan diet is probably actually beneficial, just on the grounds you will invariably consume less calories.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE