Veganism

[Valjean]

Vegans do tend to fart a lot as has previously been noted, a gas containing much methane.

Edit
"bones, gristle, organs, etc., that humans do not eat."
I think some fast food joints and school kitchens would love to hear you say that

I'm vegan, and I don't think I pass any more gas than anyone else.

 

[ChristineM]

I didn't make any such claim about any "deciding factor." Moreover, your statement about humans growing and maintaining bodies seems to be entirely irrelevant to any issue under discussion here.

Apparently unlike you and @David T, I can explain why I said what I have said here. In response to your post where you said you were unsure if “the methane emitted by 7 billion plus vegans would be more or less than the methane emitted by cows,” I noted: “It would be a significant reduction in methane emissions if humans ate a vegan diet. After all, most of the food that cows and pigs eat goes toward growing and maintaining bones, gristle, organs, etc., that humans do not eat.”

My comment was premised on propositions such as: the number of creatures whose annual sustenance requires the plants grown on 1000 acres each year will produce more methane than the number of creatures whose annual sustenance requires the plants grown on 200 acres per year. (Agree?) This proposition is roughly analogous to the situation that humans have created with livestock where "80 per cent of agricultural land is used to make livestock feed or for grazing". (Tackling the world’s most urgent problem: meat )

But the above proposition is disanalogous in several important ways, which accounts for the second sentence of my comment above. Among the livestock that humans raise and feed are large-bodied ruminants (1) who produce unusually large amounts of methane through inefficient enteric fermentation in multi-chambered stomachs, while (2) humans only eat a small portion of their bodies. It seems to me inarguable that less methane would be produced if humans merely acquired their calories directly from plants, rather than raising and maintaining the bodies of these ruminants for 2-8 years while they produce inordinate quantities of methane, and, in the end, humans only eat a small portion of their bodies. It seems to me that these further propositions surely enter into such facts as that “a quarter-pound Beyond Burger requires 99 per cent less water, 93 per cent less land and generates 90 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions, using 46 per cent less energy to produce in the U.S. than its beef equivalent,” and that the “ Impossible Burger, developed by Dr. Patrick Brown, founder of PLoS, requires "approximately 75 per cent less water and 95 per cent less land, generating about 87 per cent lower greenhouse gas emissions than beef burgers."

The underlined portions of the above quotations highlight the additional issue that it is certainly self-deceptive or somewhat diversionary to focus on methane emissions in evaluating even just the climate impacts of a vegan vs. commonplace “meat-eater” diet. In that comparison what is crucial is total GHG emissions in CO2e. We know from several reliable sources that a vegan diet wins that comparison hands-down.

But the non-underlined portions of the above quotations point to the further issues of other environmental impacts in the evaluation of a vegan vs. common “meat-eater” diet, particularly the highly important issue of water usage in food production for 7.5 billion humans. The other environmental impacts of a vegan vs. “meat-eater” diet also include factors such as other types of pollution, zoonotic diseases, and fishing the oceans to the point of collapse. Exactly as I said in my first 3 sentences on this thread:

One cannot logically deny the improvement to environment, including climate, and the massive reduction in suffering of trillions upon trillions of sentient creatures, if humans ate the plant-based diet that apes such as humans are biologically adapted to eat. One cannot logically deny the improvement to the environment, including climate, and the reduction in suffering of many sentient creatures, if the majority of humans were to simply change their diet today to something closer to a vegan diet. Nor can one logically deny the improvement in human health if either of the above conditionals were true.​

You introduced the claim. Why was it necessary for you to introduce it in argument but not for me to cite the same argument?

As for the rest of your post, im dyslexic and find it too much to read, sorry if you wasted your time.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm vegan, and I don't think I pass any more gas than anyone else.

You dont?

My daughter is vegi and has several vegan friends. They do

 

[Valjean]

wellwisher said: ↑

In a natural environment being vegan would not have allowed the entire earth to be settled, since cold snowy winters eliminate most of the edible plants.

Even if that were true (it isn't), it's completely irrelevant today as an excuse for apes such as humans to eat animals and animal products today.

I think you're both right.
Omnivory got us through the Pleistocene. Meat is calorically concentrated, allowing lions, for example, to spend much of their lives sleeping or lying around, rather than constantly grazing like zebras. Trying to survive an ice age on rose hips and blueberries would be problematic.
On the other hand, now we've invented agriculture and overpopulated the planet, gathering enough plant material to sustain ourselves is relatively easy, while raising animals for food creates some serious environmental problems.

Well.....there is reasons, i gave them to you in the prior post.

Experiments done. And animal proteins have higher aminos.

Meat tends to have a higher percentage of amino acids than most plants, and a balance closer to that of our own meaty bodies, but so what? It's not like many people, regardless of diet, are actually protein deficient. Many western diets, in fact, include enough protein to overwork the kidneys (with breakdown product elimination) and promote osteoporosis (from bone calcium leaching to buffer the blood pH decreases from protein metabolism).

 

[Valjean]

Some interesting facts regarding animal agriculture and environment -- and farts :
COWSPIRACY: The Sustainability Secret

 

[Jollybear]

Meat tends to have a higher percentage of amino acids than most plants, and a balance closer to that of our own meaty bodies, but so what? It's not like many people, regardless of diet, are actually protein deficient. Many western diets, in fact, include enough protein to overwork the kidneys (with breakdown product elimination) and promote osteoporosis (from bone calcium leaching to buffer the blood pH decreases from protein metabolism).

Im debating this from the standpoint of muscle mass. Meat plus working out builds the most muscle.

When you say your vegan, do you drink milk, eat cheese, whey? Eggs?

 

[Jollybear]

I haven't seen any "experiments" where the authors concluded that "bigger muscles" are produced by animal flesh sources of protein compared to plant sources of protein. Cite those experiments and quote where the authors drew such conclusion.

Check this video out. And pay attention to the pictures before and after.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SsDXBNcEjL4&ved=2ahUKEwjx54f-pPXeAhXIzlkKHfk8AgUQtwIwAXoECAgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0SfEZ2-dqFz9toZDBS7b5w

 

[Valjean]

Im debating this from the standpoint of muscle mass. Meat plus working out builds the most muscle.

Abundant building blocks plus growth builds tissue. Exercise signals the body to produce more muscle; to grow.
A high meat diet floods the body with a well balanced amino acid mixture. A high plant diet can do the same, provided there's sufficient protein to break down into the needed aminos.
As long as the amino acids are there, whatever the original source, your cells will use them to assemble whatever tissues are needed.
For most people a lot of protein/amino acid is broken down and excreted. Most of us eat a lot more protein than we use.

When you say your vegan, do you drink milk, eat cheese, whey? Eggs?

We vegans don't eat animal products. By definition, that includes dairy and egg derivatives.

 

[Valjean]

Check this video out. And pay attention to the pictures before and after.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SsDXBNcEjL4&ved=2ahUKEwjx54f-pPXeAhXIzlkKHfk8AgUQtwIwAXoECAgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0SfEZ2-dqFz9toZDBS7b5w

Interesting. Meat is usually a more concentrated source off protein than plants. A full meat meal would likely contain a lot more protein than a vegan meal of the same weight or bulk. I'd be curious about their total protein intake before vs during their experiment.

Interesting, too, that they mentioned that they didn't loose strength, just mass, as if the body were doing more with less, somehow operating more efficiently, with less extraneous bulk.

 

[Jollybear]

Abundant building blocks plus growth builds tissue. Exercise signals the body to produce more muscle; to grow.

Agreed.

A high meat diet floods the body with a well balanced amino acid mixture. A high plant diet can do the same, provided there's sufficient protein to break down into the needed aminos.
As long as the amino acids are there, whatever the original source, your cells will use them to assemble whatever tissues are needed.

Agreed.

For most people a lot of protein/amino acid is broken down and excreted. Most of us eat a lot more protein than we use.

Agreed and thats WHY everyone should do weight workouts, in order to use those aminos. Going for the burn will synthesize those aminos.

We vegans don't eat animal products. By definition, that includes dairy and egg derivatives.

Ok, the reason i asked was because im aware that some folks are HALF vegan.

Interesting. Meat is usually a more concentrated source off protein than plants. A full meat meal would likely contain a lot more protein than a vegan meal of the same weight or bulk. I'd be curious about their total protein intake before vs during their experiment.

Yes, that is interesting to note, there total protein intake before vs during.

I know from other videos they did, they go by the rule 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight. So, they weigh around 220pounds. So, they eat around 220 grams. Although in some other videos yet again, they said they would eat less then that at times, something like 50 grams less.

Now, i dont know if they wer eating 220 grams on the vegan diet now. But, yes, that would be interesting to know. But, in the video they did mention vegan protein powder too. That helps get it up there too.

Interesting, too, that they mentioned that they didn't loose strength, just mass, as if the body were doing more with less, somehow operating more efficiently, with less extraneous bulk.

Yes, thats true. They never lost strength. But you can clearly see from the pictures they lost mass.

And ive read in the past that theres 2 kinds of muscle tissue. myofibrillar hypertrophy and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Its the myofibrillar that is responsible for strength, not sarcoplasmic. And the myofibriller is more dense.

So, i gauss it depends on ones goal. More mass or less.

Also notice too they said on the vegan diet they lost more of there cuts? Meat tends to increase the thermogenesis of the body. Boosting the metabolism in order to increase those cuts.

 

[Nous]

Omnivory got us through the Pleistocene. Meat is calorically concentrated, allowing lions, for example, to spend much of their lives sleeping or lying around, rather than constantly grazing like zebras. Trying to survive an ice age on rose hips and blueberries would be problematic.

I know of no evidence by which to conclude that "omnivory got us through the Pleistocene." Obviously human ancestors didn't develop any new biological traits during this period such as lions or other carnivore or omnivore mammals have that enable them to catch, kill and eat other animals that are approximately their own body size or larger.

Hardy et al. cite the evidence by which they argue that was cooked starch that was the essential factor in human evolution:

The Importance of Dietary Carbohydrate in Human Evolution

Abstract We propose that plant foods containing high quantities of starch were essential for the evolution of the human phenotype during the Pleistocene. Although previous studies have highlighted a stone tool-mediated shift from primarily plant-based to primarily meat-based diets as critical in the development of the brain and other human traits, we argue that digestible carbohydrates were also necessary to accommodate the increased metabolic demands of a growing brain. Furthermore, we acknowledge the adaptive role cooking played in improving the digestibility and palatability of key carbohydrates. We provide evidence that cooked starch, a source of preformed glucose, greatly increased energy availability to human tissues with high glucose demands, such as the brain, red blood cells, and the developing fetus. We also highlight the auxiliary role copy number variation in the salivary amylase genes may have played in increasing the importance of starch in human evolution following the origins of cooking. Salivary amylases are largely ineffective on raw crystalline starch, but cooking substantially increases both their energy-yielding potential and glycemia. Although uncertainties remain regarding the antiquity of cooking and the origins of salivary amylase gene copy number variation, the hypothesis we present makes a testable prediction that these events are correlated.​

From the paper:

Although the timing of widespread cooking is not known, Wrangham and Conklin- Brittain (2003) argue that it was long enough ago to allow for biological adaptations to take place, including changes in digestive anatomy around 1.8 million years ago, reduction in tooth size, and reduced capacity for digestion of raw, fibrous foods. They further propose that cooked foods were soft enough to be palatable by infants, potentially leading to earlier weaning and shorter interbirth intervals (also see Carmody et al. 2011).​

Ancestral Diet

Plants produce a wide range of carbohydrates to serve as energy reserves or for structural functions. Reserve carbohydrates can be deposited in underground storage organs (USOs) such as roots, tubers, and rhizomes, or above ground in seeds, certain fruits and nuts, and in the inner bark of some trees. Starch constitutes up to 80% of the dry weight of edible roots and tubers and, if left undisturbed in the ground, they remain stable and can be harvested as needed over a period of months. USOs can also be dried to increase durability and portability, and have been proposed as important foods for early hominins (Laden and Wrangham 2005). The ability to exploit starch-rich roots and tubers in early hominin diets is considered a potentially crucial step in differentiating early Australopithecines from other hominids and to have permitted expansion into new habitats (Wrangham et al. 1999; Laden and Wrangham 2005). The consumption of USOs could also explain differences in dentition between early hominins and African apes (Laden and Wrangham 2005). USO-rich aquatic habitats such as deltas have been proposed as an intermediate niche in the adaptation of early hominins to savanna habitats, with the need to forage in shallow water promoting bipedality (Wrangham 2005, 2009). O’Connell et al. (1999, 2002) suggest that postmenopausal females played a central role in foraging for USOs and food sharing, which directly enabled younger female relatives to reproduce more frequently. They further proposed that meat formed an irregular component of the diet and that hunting by early hominins may have been as much to do with status as nutrition, something that has also been proposed for chimpanzees (Nishida et al. 1992; Stanford 1998). Although meat may have been a preferred food, the energy expenditure required to obtain it may have been far greater than that used for collecting tubers from a reliable source (Carmody et al. 2011).

Many other lines of evidence support consumption of starchy USOs by early hominins. Correlation of evidence for C4 plants in the diet of Australopithecus africanus and Paranthropus robustus, and specific-use wear traces on teeth are proposed to be indicative of consumption of sedge corms (Dominy et al. 2008; Ungar and Sponheimer 2011; Grine et al. 2012; Ungar et al. 2012). A C4 signal identified in the tooth enamel of a 3-million-year-old Australopithecus bahrelghazali from Chad has been interpreted as evidence for exploitation of Cyperaceae sedge tubers (Lee-Thorp et al. 2012). Evidence of abundant suids in many African hominin sites has been taken to suggest that USOs, the predominant food source for these animals, were plentiful (Reed and Rector 2007). The presence of palms in the Olduvai Gorge region date from around 1.8 mya (Albert et al. 2009); palms often have abundant edible starch in their trunks, and some species also produce dates. The roots of lilies (Liliaceae), rushes (Juncaceae), and sedges (Cyperaceae) have also been identified at Olduvai Gorge from a horizon dated to between 1.89 and 1.75 million years ago (Bamford et al. 2008). Edible USOs from these monocotyledons, along with grasses (Poaceae) identified at the same sites, offer evidence for the abundance of edible starch at a time that hominins were present.​

 

[Nous]

I haven't seen any "experiments" where the authors concluded that "bigger muscles" are produced by animal flesh sources of protein compared to plant sources of protein. Cite those experiments and quote where the authors drew such conclusion.

Check this video out. And pay attention to the pictures before and after.

So you're not able to cite any scientific "experiments" that conclude that "bigger muscles" are produced by humans consuming animal-flesh sources of protein compared to plant sources of protein. Correct?

 

[Jollybear]

So you're not able to cite any scientific "experiments" that conclude that "bigger muscles" are produced by humans consuming animal-flesh sources of protein compared to plant sources of protein. Correct?

I havent looked on google to see if there is any. But, there probably is. But, the reason i didnt is because i gave this video that i remembered watching awhile back.

And why dont you consider that video science? Just what IS science?

 

[Nous]

I havent looked on google to see if there is any. But, there probably is. But, the reason i didnt is because i gave this video that i remembered watching awhile back.

And why dont you consider that video science? Just what IS science?

I didn't watch your video. Scientific studies are published in peer-reviewed journals, describe their methodologies, findings and conclusions from those findings. If you ever find a study that substantiates your claims about "bigger muscles" being produced by humans consuming protein from animal sources compared to plant sources, please let me know.

 

[Valjean]

Agreed and thats WHY everyone should do weight workouts, in order to use those aminos. Going for the burn will synthesize those aminos.

The aminos aren't being synthesized. They're already there; breakdown products from the proteins we consume.

You seem to be saying we we have excess aminos that need to be utilized.
Wouldn't the easiest and cheapest approach to excess amino acids be to eat less protein?

I know from other videos they did, they go by the rule 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight. So, they weigh around 220pounds. So, they eat around 220 grams. Although in some other videos yet again, they said they would eat less then that at times, something like 50 grams less.

As I recall, the original protein studies were funded by the military in the 1940s, headed by a Dr Rose -- I forget his first name.
Rose found 10 grams/day was sufficient to prevent deficiency for a sedentary, 150 lb man. The study's subsequent recommendations for a Minimum Daily Requirement doubled this, as a sort of safety net. Of course, tissue damage from exercise or strenuous activity will increase protein need, but an oversupply will still be unnecessary.
A 50 lb table will need 50 lbs of wood to build. Supplying a cabinetmaker with a ton of it will not result in a better table, it'll just generate a great deal of kindling.

220 grams of protein is extraneous. The amount of damage that would require that much protein to repair would probably be fatal.

Keep in mind, excess protein can be toxic. Protein/amino acids not used must be broken down and eliminated. Over time, this overwork can damage the kidneys.
Protein metabolism also lowers blood pH. To counteract this acidity, the body pulls calcium from the bones as a buffer. Over time, this leads to osteoporosis.

Now, i dont know if they wer eating 220 grams on the vegan diet now. But, yes, that would be interesting to know. But, in the video they did mention vegan protein powder too. That helps get it up there too.

"...helps get it up there" is a strange way of putting it. It implies that excess protein is desirable.

Yes, thats true. They never lost strength. But you can clearly see from the pictures they lost mass.

And how is that not a good thing?
Wouldn't a 500 lb engine that produced 200 horsepower be preferable to a bigger, 800 lb engine producing the same power?

And ive read in the past that theres 2 kinds of muscle tissue. myofibrillar hypertrophy and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Its the myofibrillar that is responsible for strength, not sarcoplasmic. And the myofibriller is more dense.

There are three kinds of muscle tissue: Cardiac, skeletal and smooth (or visceral). You might also subdivide the individual cells into fast vs slow twitch and so on.
So what?

"Hypertrophy" means overgrowth, it's a pathology, not a tissue type.

So, i gauss it depends on ones goal. More mass or less.

So if the goal is to produce a hypertrophic, unhealthful freak, then, by all means, flood the body with protein.

Also notice too they said on the vegan diet they lost more of there cuts? Meat tends to increase the thermogenesis of the body. Boosting the metabolism in order to increase those cuts.

The body increasing its metabolic rate to burn off all the excess protein is a bad thing. it's unhealthful.

I know of no evidence by which to conclude that "omnivory got us through the Pleistocene." Obviously human ancestors didn't develop any new biological traits during this period such as lions or other carnivore or omnivore mammals have that enable them to catch, kill and eat other animals that are approximately their own body size or larger.

But they did...
It was a period of rapid change. Vegetarian species like A. robustus died out. Less specialized, omnivores like A. afarensis persisted and evolved, and may even be a direct ancestor of Homo sp.
Yes there are vegetarian apes, but they're rare and exist only in small, scattered bands, as the environment can only sustain a few per square mile. They spend almost all their waking hours eating. I'm sure you've noted the big sagittal crest needed to attach their massive jaw muscles.

 

[Nous]

I know of no evidence by which to conclude that "omnivory got us through the Pleistocene." Obviously human ancestors didn't develop any new biological traits during this period such as lions or other carnivore or omnivore mammals have that enable them to catch, kill and eat other animals that are approximately their own body size or larger.

But they did...

Be sure to specify the biological traits you are referring to, and cite the evidence showing that they occurred during the Pleistociene.

 

[Valjean]

Be sure to specify the biological traits you are referring to, and cite the evidence showing that they occurred during the Pleistociene.

Weren't we talking about carnivory, specifically?
What traits do you want me to elucidate?

 

[Jollybear]

So you're not able to cite any scientific "experiments" that conclude that "bigger muscles" are produced by humans consuming animal-flesh sources of protein compared to plant sources of protein. Correct?

Here is the video

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...IwAXoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0SfEZ2-dqFz9toZDBS7b5w

Tell me ya thoughts.

 

[Valjean]

Here is the video

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SsDXBNcEjL4&ved=2ahUKEwidrNjMr_jeAhXPoYMKHZPsAqQQtwIwAXoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0SfEZ2-dqFz9toZDBS7b5w

Tell me ya thoughts.

The video doesn't support your position. It's not clear how much protein they were consuming on their vegan diets vs their carnivorous diets.
It assumes that needlessly hypertrophic muscle mass is a good thing; that aesthetics trumps health and even efficiency.

 

[Jollybear]

The aminos aren't being synthesized. They're already there; breakdown products from the proteins we consume.

What i mean is, the protein we eat, breaks down to aminos. Then the aminos synthasize back into proteins in the body and build tissue. Now, when we workout, lift weights, go for the BURN, those aminos synthasize more into tissue or muscle . Thats what pretty much happens.

You seem to be saying we we have excess aminos that need to be utilized.
Wouldn't the easiest and cheapest approach to excess amino acids be to eat less protein?

Yes, IF we dont lift weights. But IF we do lift weights, which everyone should by the way, then axcess aminos are good and WILL be utilized. But only if we lift weights. If we dont lift, then we should eat less aminos or proteins. And the more often we lift, the MORE protein we need, plus more carbs, quit alot more carbs. Lifting breaks down muscle, hence the need to eat more in order to rebuild.

One guy on youtube, a doctor, and in good shape, said when he first began working out, he noticed he was LOSING muscle and not building it. Then he learned, he needed to up his callories in the form of protein, carbs and some fats. He did that, and his muscle came back, plus more.

As I recall, the original protein studies were funded by the military in the 1940s, headed by a Dr Rose -- I forget his first name.
Rose found 10 grams/day was sufficient to prevent deficiency for a sedentary, 150 lb man. The study's subsequent recommendations for a Minimum Daily Requirement doubled this, as a sort of safety net. Of course, tissue damage from exercise or strenuous activity will increase protein need, but an oversupply will still be unnecessary.
A 50 lb table will need 50 lbs of wood to build. Supplying a cabinetmaker with a ton of it will not result in a better table, it'll just generate a great deal of kindling.

Agreed.

220 grams of protein is extraneous. The amount of damage that would require that much protein to repair would probably be fatal.

Fatal? Thats a bit exagerated wouldnt ya say? Its no where near fatal. Ive eaten that much before, it didnt hurt at all. Of course that 220 grams is not just protein from all meat, its your TOTAL protein count from ALL sources of food that day. So, if you had 1 cup of oats with 4 eggs, and some blueberries; thats 10 grams of protein from oats alone, then 24 grams from the 4 eggs and mayby 1 gram from a handful of blueberries..so, your total for that one meal is 35 grams.

Keep in mind, excess protein can be toxic. Protein/amino acids not used must be broken down and eliminated.

Hence why everyone should lift weights. And eat other stuff too. Carbs, fats, fiber.

Over time, this overwork can damage the kidneys.

For that to happen you really gotta go out of your way to make that happen. No lifting weights and eat 300 to 400 grams of protein a day. And also it could happen if genetically you got a weak liver.

Protein metabolism also lowers blood pH. To counteract this acidity, the body pulls calcium from the bones as a buffer. Over time, this leads to osteoporosis.

Lifting weights does not ONLY help muscle, it helps bone density. Thus the reason EVERYONE absolutely needs to lift weights. Also, if your eating other foods, with calcium in it, thats gonna help too. Plus, not just calcium, but vitamin D and magnesium and vitamin K, those help absorb calcium. So a ballenced diet, along with lifting weights will help alot.

...helps get it up there" is a strange way of putting it. It implies that excess protein is desirable.

It is ONLY when working out with weights.

And how is that not a good thing?
Wouldn't a 500 lb engine that produced 200 horsepower be preferable to a bigger, 800 lb engine producing the same power?

With an engine, yes, but with a human body, it depends on the persons goal. Some people like large muscle bellies, some dont.

There are three kinds of muscle tissue: Cardiac, skeletal and smooth (or visceral). You might also subdivide the individual cells into fast vs slow twitch and so on.
So what?

"Hypertrophy" means overgrowth, it's a pathology, not a tissue type.
So if the goal is to produce a hypertrophic, unhealthful freak, then, by all means, flood the body with protein.

Muscle growth, done naturally, is VERY healthy.

The body increasing its metabolic rate to burn off all the excess protein is a bad thing. it's unhealthful.

How is it unhealthy? You burn more body fat too.