• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Veganism

If every one in the world was vegan, what do you think the results would be?

  • The results would be delightful.

  • The results would be somewhat beneficial, but nothing extreme.

  • There would be no or little difference.

  • The results would be somewhat harmful, but nothing extreme.

  • The results would be a catastrophe.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Katja

Member
I know one thing for sure as I reduced my meat consumption and eating more greens and vegetables. You forgot to put in 'smelly'.

I'm getting really sick and tired of farting all the time!!!!!!

I had significantly less gas when I was living in Thailand and eating accordingly. Didn't eat any more meat then than I do now... just a different vegetarian diet (and probably well less milk/cheese, actually).


Also, they told how they felt. They said on the vegan diet, they felt energy, strong, healthy. But on the meat, they wer bigger and stronger.

And was this additional size and strength necessary for living a normal life, or even an athletic one... or just desirable for a {competitive?} body builder? Sounds like they said they felt and performed perfectly fine on a plant-based diet... they just weren't as big as some of the guys. Bet they were probably still bigger and stronger than your average non-bodybuilding meat eater, though.


Vegan is an illusion created by modern culture and trade. 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. Meat is still available during the winter and made it possible to settle the entire earth. Natural selection will favor the omnivores and meat eaters, The vegan illusion is created by trade, where veggies are imported from other parts of the world, during winter, to create the illusion the earth does not have winter.
I eat a lot of imported food and so do plenty of meat eaters. Food gets imported, full stop. It can't be blamed solely (or even mostly) on those who eat veg{etari}an.


Ok, the reason i asked was because im aware that some folks are HALF vegan.
No, that's called "vegetarian." Just like the so-called "vegetarians" who eat fish are actually "pescatarians." I mean, I can call myself a car all I want but that doesn't make it so and it doesn't dilute what a car actually is... just means I'm a bit deluded in my naming conventions.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
With an engine, yes, but with a human body, it depends on the persons goal. Some people like large muscle bellies, some dont.
I don't like large muscle bellies because it makes PT harder. Body builders have lower range of motion and the muscles can get so massive that the tendons put too much strain on the bones and cause them to weaken or cause separation or a higher likelihood of bursitis or tendonosis. It's an aesthetic quality, not a health quality.
That said, it's not impossible or even hard for someone with the right body type to become a body builder as a vegan.
VegNewsPlantBuiltDocList.png

Everyone in this picture is a vegan.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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.
You miss my meaning. I was saying that the amount of damage that would fully utilize 220 grams/d of protein would be considerable.
I'm skeptical about any weight lifting regimen actually incorporating that much protein into muscle growth.
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.
Not necessarily. Even ordinary westerners with a typical diet and activity level often develop osteoporosis over time, as they age. In regions with typically low protein diets, like parts of sub-Saharan Africa, osteoporosis is practically unknown.
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.
Yes, stress on a bone causes growth, but over ingestion of protein will counteract the effect. You'll have two opposing mechanisms operating.
Don't you think your assertion that lifting weights is "absolutely necessary" is a bit overblown? I've heard of people living long, healthy lives without ever encountering a set of barbells.
It is ONLY when working out with weights.
Oh I don't know. When I worked in a burn unit we routinely put patients on a high protein diet.
With an engine, yes, but with a human body, it depends on the persons goal. Some people like large muscle bellies, some dont.
As I said, if your goal is unnecessarily massive muscles, go for it.
How is it unhealthy? You burn more body fat too.
As I said before, protein catabolism stresses the kidneys and leaches calcium from bone.
 
I don't like large muscle bellies because it makes PT harder. Body builders have lower range of motion and the muscles can get so massive that the tendons put too much strain on the bones and cause them to weaken or cause separation or a higher likelihood of bursitis or tendonosis. It's an aesthetic quality, not a health quality.
That said, it's not impossible or even hard for someone with the right body type to become a body builder as a vegan.
VegNewsPlantBuiltDocList.png

Everyone in this picture is a vegan.

Right...and ive never said anyone could not get into great shape being a vegan. They certainly can. But, i think eating meat can maximize ones NATURAL muscle building potential.

Also that other issue you talked about where some can get so big they lose motion. Thats not easy to attain even if someone tried with all there heart and life put into it.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Right...and ive never said anyone could not get into great shape being a vegan. They certainly can. But, i think eating meat can maximize ones NATURAL muscle building potential.

Also that other issue you talked about where some can get so big they lose motion. Thats not easy to attain even if someone tried with all there heart and life put into it.
You don't have to get very big to have those issues. I see it with even entry level weight lifters. Even the most Mesomorph body will run into muscle obstructed joint movement and adopt that characteristic 'bulldog' pose. Give me a swimmer body to work on over a power lifter any day.
 
You miss my meaning. I was saying that the amount of damage that would fully utilize 220 grams/d of protein would be considerable.
I'm skeptical about any weight lifting regimen actually incorporating that much protein into muscle growth.
Not necessarily. Even ordinary westerners with a typical diet and activity level often develop osteoporosis over time, as they age. In regions with typically low protein diets, like parts of sub-Saharan Africa, osteoporosis is practically unknown.
Yes, stress on a bone causes growth, but over ingestion of protein will counteract the effect. You'll have two opposing mechanisms operating.

Will it truly counteract though?

Don't you think your assertion that lifting weights is "absolutely necessary" is a bit overblown? I've heard of people living long, healthy lives without ever encountering a set of barbells.

Sure, but, as long as they exercise. And eat for your situation. Food is fuel. The more active, the more lifting, the more carbs and protein. The more sedentairy, the more fats, less carbs, and less food overall. Protein is needed, WHEN its needed. Just like carbs, just like fats, just like fiber, or vitamins.

Oh I don't know. When I worked in a burn unit we routinely put patients on a high protein diet.
As I said, if your goal is unnecessarily massive muscles, go for it.

Even eating meat wont give you massive muscles unless you got good genetics, plus eat alot of carbs with it, because carbs are protein sparing. And eat some fats too, which build testosterone. And workout. In my own experience the more carbs i eat the stronger i get. Lots of carbs.

As I said before, protein catabolism stresses the kidneys and leaches calcium from bone.

Eat more calcium. Cheese, spinach, blueberries, oats and fish. Theres vitamin K, magnesium, calcium and vitamin D. Or go in the sun for the D.

Let me ask you this. Do you agree that these percentages are the best for maxamizing peoples goals of getting in shape? >

30% protein, 50% carbs, 20% fats.
 
Last edited:
You don't have to get very big to have those issues. I see it with even entry level weight lifters. Even the most Mesomorph body will run into muscle obstructed joint movement and adopt that characteristic 'bulldog' pose. Give me a swimmer body to work on over a power lifter any day.

Doesent that also depend on genes and how they workout too? Lifting all the time at or close to ones one rep max will over time mess up ones joints.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Doesent that also depend on genes and how they workout too? Lifting all the time at or close to ones one rep max will over time mess up ones joints.
Like I said, even the most mesomorph body frames get these problems with fairly low amounts of bulking. It's not a natural state to be in (We're built more for longevity than power). If you want to maximize fitness for health, better to go a lean muscle mass direction like swimming.
 
Like I said, even the most mesomorph body frames get these problems with fairly low amounts of bulking. It's not a natural state to be in (We're built more for longevity than power). If you want to maximize fitness for health, better to go a lean muscle mass direction like swimming.

I think those problems are due to lifting all the time near ones one rep max. People still have to workout intelligently too. As long as thats done, injury wont happen.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I think those problems are due to lifting all the time near ones one rep max. People still have to workout intelligently too. As long as thats done, injury wont happen.
Like I said, I work in PT and am seeing people who are working professionally under coaches who swear they are working 'intelligently.' And they still present with lots of unhealthy symptoms and increases on injuries. Bodybuilding is not a health related, healthy, health driven sport. It's all about building to an unnatural aesthetic which places more stress on your body than if you just did sensible lean muscle building workouts. And you can still touch the spot between your shoulderblades.
 
Like I said, I work in PT and am seeing people who are working professionally under coaches who swear they are working 'intelligently.' And they still present with lots of unhealthy symptoms and increases on injuries. Bodybuilding is not a health related, healthy, health driven sport. It's all about building to an unnatural aesthetic which places more stress on your body than if you just did sensible lean muscle building workouts. And you can still touch the spot between your shoulderblades.

Ive seen some really big guys who dont have those problems.

I know one guy in the gym, the strongest ive seen in the gym i go. He lifts 700 pounds dead lift, about the same bench. He does it like for 8 reps, fast reps. And he appears just fine.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Ive seen some really big guys who dont have those problems.
That you know of. I'd wager a healthy sum they'd find out they had it real quick if they got an assessment by a non-contracted PT who had them measure against actual range of motion tests.
Let me ask you this. Do you agree that these percentages are the best for maxamizing peoples goals of getting in shape? >

30% protein, 50% carbs, 20% fats.
Depends on the body. Those ratios would kill me. I've been doing keto so long that the carb load you're describing would inflame my gut and lead to a lot of new water and fat retention.
70-80% fats. 20-25% protein. 5-10% net carbs (total carbs minus fiber) for me.
 
Depends on the body. Those ratios would kill me. I've been doing keto so long that the carb load you're describing would inflame my gut and lead to a lot of new water and fat retention.
70-80% fats. 20-25% protein. 5-10% net carbs (total carbs minus fiber) for me.

Hmmm, thats interesting. Well, i agree, keto is real good for getting lean. Ive done keto at different periods of my life, with great success. However, when it comes to building strength and more muscle (when i say more, it dont equal a whole lot more, lol) alot more carbs are in order.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Weren't we talking about carnivory, specifically?
What traits do you want me to elucidate?
You said "omnivory got us through the Pleistocene." I know of no evidence by which to conclude any such thing. I noted that 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. Biologically, humans remain apes. We can catch, kill, crack open and eat eggs that are sitting in a nest, but we're nothing like omnivorous mammals that can catch, kill, and devour other large animals that are our body size or larger, that could provide us with plenty of calories.

And I noted that Hardy et al. cite the evidence by which they argue that it was cooked starch that was the essential factor in human evolution, providing our ancestors with the critical extra calories so that we could grow bigger, metabolically very expensive brains.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I wish that more people recognized the environmental destruction wrought by humans raising and killing (including hunting) animals for consumption. The following is from the Executive Summary of FAO's 2006 Livestock's Long Shadow. As almost 13 years old, it probably needs updating to some degree.

Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency.

[. . . ]

Growing populations and incomes, along with changing food preferences, are rapidly increasing demand for livestock products, while globalization is boosting trade in livestock inputs and products. Global production of meat is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/01 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, and that of milk to grow from 580 to 1 043 million tonnes.

[. . . ]

Land degradation

The livestock sector is by far the single largest anthropogenic user of land. The total area occupied by grazing is equivalent to 26 percent of the ice-free terrestrial surface of the planet. In addition, the total area dedicated to feedcrop production amounts to 33 percent of total arable land. In all, livestock production accounts for 70 percent of all agricultural land and 30 percent of the land surface of the planet.

Expansion of livestock production is a key factor in deforestation, especially in Latin America where the greatest amount of deforestation is occurring -- 70 percent of previous forested land in the Amazon is occupied by pastures, and feedcrops cover a large part of the remainder. About 20 percent of the world’s pastures and rangelands, with 73 percent of rangelands in dry areas, have been degraded to some extent, mostly through overgrazing, compaction and erosion created by livestock action. The dry lands in particular are affected by these trends, as livestock are often the only source of livelihoods for the people living in these areas.

[. . .]

Atmosphere and climate

With rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting icecaps and glaciers, shifting ocean currents and weather patterns, climate change is the most serious challenge facing the human race. The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport.

The livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The largest share of this derives from land-use changes – especially deforestation – caused by expansion of pastures and arable land for feedcrops. Livestock are responsible for much larger shares of some gases with far higher potential to warm the atmosphere. The sector emits 37 percent of anthropogenic methane (with 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2) most of that from enteric fermentation by ruminants. It emits 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide (with 296 times the GWP of CO2), the great majority from manure. Livestock are also responsible for almost two-thirds (64 percent) of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems.

[. . . ]

Water

The world is moving towards increasing problems of freshwater shortage, scarcity and depletion, with 64 percent of the world’s population expected to live in water-stressed basins by 2025.

The livestock sector is a key player in increasing water use, accounting for over 8 percent of global human water use, mostly for the irrigation of feedcrops. It is probably the largest sectoral source of water pollution, contributing to eutrophication, “dead” zones in coastal areas, degradation of coral reefs, human health problems, emergence of antibiotic resistance and many others. The major sources of pollution are from animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and pesticides used for feedcrops, and sediments from eroded pastures. Global figures are not available but in the United States, with the world’s fourth largest land area, livestock are responsible for an estimated 55 percent of erosion and sediment, 37 percent of pesticide use, 50 percent of antibiotic use, and a third of the loads of nitrogen and phosphorus into freshwater resources.

Livestock also affect the replenishment of freshwater by compacting soil, reducing infiltration, degrading the banks of watercourses, drying up floodplains and lowering water tables. Livestock’s contribution to deforestation also increases runoff and reduces dry season flows.

[. . . ]

Biodiversity

We are in an era of unprecedented threats to biodiversity. The loss of species is estimated to be running 50 to 500 times higher than background rates found in the fossil record. Fifteen out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed to be in decline.

Livestock now account for about 20 percent of the total terrestrial animal biomass, and the 30 percent of the earth’s land surface that they now pre-empt was once habitat for wildlife. Indeed, the livestock sector may well be the leading player in the reduction of biodiversity, since it is the major driver of deforestation, as well as one of the leading drivers of land degradation, pollution, climate change,overfishing, sedimentation of coastal areas and facilitation of invasions by alien species. In addition, resource conflicts with pastoralists threaten species of wild predators and also protected areas close to pastures. Meanwhile in developed regions, especially Europe, pastures had become a location of diverse long-established types of ecosystem, many of which are now threatened by pasture abandonment.

Some 306 of the 825 terrestrial ecoregions identified by the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) – ranged across all biomes and all biogeographical realms, reported livestock as one of the current threats. Conservation International has identified 35 global hotspots for biodiversity, characterized by exceptional levels of plant endemism and serious levels of habitat loss. Of these, 23 are reported to be affected by livestock production. An analysis of the authoritative World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species shows that most of the world’s threatened species are suffering habitat loss where livestock are a factor.​


Please note that the figure 18% of anthropogenic GHG emissions in CO2e is partly derived by using a 100-year time frame to calculate methane's Global Warming Potential. The IPCC recommends using a 20-year time frame for methane's GWP, which more closely reflects methane's lifetime in the atmosphere, and which yields a much higher percentage of GHG emissions in CO2e contributed by livestock.
 
Top