# You can wear cows



## rona

Apparently but you can't eat them............what a hypocrite 

Always knew he was but this just takes the biscuit. George


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

I didn't see the whole interview but have read about it. Can't say as I am a fan of his but Piers Morgan is an oaf who like many people look for the tiniest ***** in someone's armour to discredit their whole argument. No one on this planet can be 100% non hypocritical, we all have to make judgement calls every single day. It seems to some people like Piers Morgan if you can't be 100% pure then do nothing at all. @ouesi has a brilliant quote about unpicking a jumper thread by thread. Every little bit helps. I think we all know the cow was not raised and slaughtered to make a watch strap but hey ho, slate someone for taking a few steps in the right direction  I've still got a leather sofa, I've had it years, does that make me a hypocrite? probably, do I care? not one jot. When we replace it we won't replace it with leather but in the meantime at least I know I'm doing something for my own health, for the NHS, for the planet and for the animals


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/09/piers...r-for-wearing-leather-in-furious-row-6985956/

For anyone who wants to know what this thread is about.


----------



## Elles

How ridiculous. So people who eat meat, or wear leather aren’t allowed to campaign against factory farming, or for the better treatment of animals in farming and abattoirs?


----------



## rona

Elles said:


> How ridiculous. So people who eat meat, or wear leather aren't allowed to campaign against factory farming, or for the better treatment of animals in farming and abattoirs?


But he claims to be vegan................he also supports hunting on the QT


----------



## Elles

A man after my own heart then.


----------



## Guest

Wait, what? So if you wear leather, you don't get to have an opinion on how animals are treated in the food industry? How does that make any sense?

What about if you used to eat meat but no longer do, is your argument for not eating meat now invalid because you didn't always follow a meat-free lifestyle? 

What if I feed meat to my dogs but don't feed meat to my family? Am I allowed an opinion on humans eating meat? 
No, I don't source all my dogs' meat from ethical sources, but I do a lot of it. Much of it is hunted meat (whole 'nother can of worms there) and some of it is ethically, locally farmed stuff. In fact one of my friends breeds rabbits just so she can kill them and feed them to her dogs. Craziness.

Here's the thing. We're all hypocrites. Every single one of us. If you eat meat I bet you wouldn't eat dog, but you're fine eating a pig. Guess what? You're a hypocrite. If you eschew meat for ethical reasons but are fine with dairy, you're a hypocrite. If you eschew meat for health reasons but put toxins in your body in other ways, you're a hypocrite. So what? We're all hypocrites. 

But that doesn't make the argument for the ethical treatment of animals any less valid. That doesn't make the argument against factory farming and how destructive it is environmentally and to our health any less valid.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

rona said:


> But he claims to be vegan................he also supports hunting on the QT


There are all sorts of vegans around, they don't all choose not to eat animals for the same reasons and from what I understand he is more of an environmentalist who has recently decided to move towards not consuming animal products. Does the fact that he wears a leather watch strap and leather shoes (no doubt he has owned the shoes for yonks) mean his whole argument for consuming less animal products is null and void?


----------



## Guest

rona said:


> But he claims to be vegan


What is a vegan?

No, really. Serious question. 
What is a vegan?

I've stopped calling myself a vegetarian because I don't know what the term means. I care about animals, I care about the environment, I care about my health, I try to live my life in a way that supports those three things.


----------



## Catharinem

Everyone, not just vegans or vegetarians should stand up for better animal welfare in farming. 

In fact, as consumers, especially meat eaters should be encouraged to demand higher standards from farmers, transporters, abbatoir workers, etc. 

Meat eaters demanding better welfare for meat animals, and being prepared to pay for those higher standards through their wallets, could have a significant effect on the lives of millions of animals. 

Instead of vegans/vegetarians versus meat eaters, it should be more about how to educate meat eaters to expect high welfare standards, and hold producers to account. Also, to use every part of the animal, and use leftovers, slice and freeze cooked meat for future use, etc. With education, total numbers of animals killed should decrease, and market forces should put the intensive factory farms out of business. 

It should be easier to educate to use less meat, of higher quality, and get the extra money back through careful food use reducing waste, than to try to get everyone to go vegan. I think a "forgiving" vegan discussing better welfare intelligently will have more of an effect on wefare than a militant one antagonising meat eaters and being dismissed as extremists. 

Not phrased very well, racing for school pickup, but hope this makes sense.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

I think @noushka05 knows more about George Monbiot?


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> But he claims to be vegan................*he also supports hunting on the QT*


And we're supposed to believe this because you say so?:Hilarious And JFYI it was only relatively recently he went vegan himself so I doubt he bought his leather goods after that. Rona, George is trying to a extremely important message out about the cruelty within the livestock industry & the catastrophic affect the industry is having on the environment & on our climate. We should be grateful to people like George trying to make a difference in this world.


----------



## Guest

All I know about George Montibot is his TED Talk on trophic cascades which I love. 
All I know about Piers Morgan is that he's an ass who appears on TV and acts like he thinks he's better than everyone else. *shrug*

This is the Jane Goodall quote BTW  
*"Michael Pollan likens consumer choices to pulling single threads out of a garment. We pull a thread from the garment when we refuse to purchase eggs or meat from birds who were raised in confinement, whose beaks were clipped so they could never once taste their natural diet of worms and insects. We pull out a thread when we refuse to bring home a hormone-fattened turkey for Thanksgiving dinner. We pull a thread when we refuse to buy meat or dairy products from cows who were never allowed to chew grass, or breathe fresh air, or feel the warm sun on their backs.
The more threads we pull, the more difficult it is for the industry to stay intact. You demand eggs and meat without hormones, and the industry will have to figure out how it can raise farm animals without them. Let the animals graze outside and it slows production. Eventually the whole thing will have to unravel.
If the factory farm does indeed unravel - and it must - then there is hope that we can, gradually, reverse the environmental damage it has caused. Once the animal feed operations have gone and livestock are once again able to graze, there will be a massive reduction in the agricultural chemicals currently used to grow grain for animals. And eventually, the horrendous contamination caused by animal waste can be cleaned up. None of this will be easy.
The hardest part of returning to a truly healthy environment may be changing the current totally unsustainable heavy-meat-eating culture of increasing numbers of people around the world. But we must try. We must make a start, one by one."*


----------



## noushka05

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I think @noushka05 knows more about George Monbiot?


Rona hates George because hes done tons of research on the destructive game bird industry.


----------



## catz4m8z

Sounds like this George person maybe wasnt the best at putting his point across....but then again Piers arguement seems to be if you cant do everything then meh, just do nothing! Def missing the bigger picture there.

I describe myself as 'as vegan as possible'!:Shy Ive given up eating animal products, am now only buying toiletries from BUAV listed companies. Still have to work out what household products are safe to use though. Also I wont buy any animal products to wear or use in the future.
However I have a cat and snakes who are carnivores so I buy cat food and have frozen mice in the freezer. Also I do own some leather shoes and handbags which I was torn about keeping or giving away. I decided to keep them coz the damage is done already.

TBH its impossible for anybody to be completely vegan as they put animals in everything! (for example even sugar isnt free from animal cruelty. They whiten it by sifting it through bone char made from dead cow bones).


----------



## Guest

catz4m8z said:


> I describe myself as 'as vegan as possible'!


I've just recently heard about "reducitarians" which sounds like a good adjustment to make. These are people who haven't cut out animal products but make a concerted effort to cut back. I say good for them. Every effort matters 

https://www.forksoverknives.com/reducetarian-solution-cutting-meat-consumption/#gs.T8S152g


----------



## FeelTheBern

As we speak, children in Africa are dying slowly while drinking water filled with deadly viruses, and people are outraged about a presenter wearing a leather jacket. Pathetic!


----------



## Zaros

FeelTheBern said:


> As we speak, children in Africa are dying slowly while drinking water filled with deadly viruses, and people are outraged about a presenter wearing a leather jacket. Pathetic!


I think this is a perfect illustration of just how phuqt up humans are.


----------



## rona

It's like wearing fur and then slagging fur farmers or trappers


----------



## rona

FeelTheBern said:


> As we speak, children in Africa are dying slowly while drinking water filled with deadly viruses, and people are outraged about a presenter wearing a leather jacket. Pathetic!


I'm not outraged, I think it's pathetic too..................


----------



## FeelTheBern

rona said:


> I'm not outraged, I think it's pathetic too..................


Why do you keep posting about it, then?


----------



## Zaros

FeelTheBern said:


> Why do you keep posting about it, then?


Pot, wooden spoon and stir.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

rona said:


> It's like wearing fur and then slagging fur farmers or trappers


Its not. He is saying we should all try to reduce our consumption of animals not only because of the cruelty involved in large scale factory farming (which surely even you must agree is a shameful way to treat sentient beings) but also because of the depletion of the planet's resources which is not sustainable. He was wearing a leather watch strap and shoes FFS  . I'm sure he doesn't profess to be perfect, none of us are but dismissing his whole argument just because he was wearing a bit of leather is pretty pathetic and shows the opposition has no decent argument so instead of debating the facts they pick on something to try and discredit the person.


----------



## Guest

FeelTheBern said:


> As we speak, children in Africa are dying slowly while drinking water filled with deadly viruses, and people are outraged about a presenter wearing a leather jacket. Pathetic!


Much of this caused by the environmental cost of our meat heavy diet 

FWIW, it's not an either or for me, I think one can care about starving children (not just in Africa) and want to do something to help, and also care about the treatment of animals here at home and want to do something to help.

As for the interviewer in question, I think all they care about is ratings enguin


----------



## Jonescat

One thing you learn very quickly when you give up meat is that doing so apparently gives people the right to ask you all sorts of impertinent questions, and to attack your morality and general competence. Mostly you will be too taken aback and too polite to retaliate. George is clearly a beginner in the vegan stakes or he would have known this. Quite what he was doing talking to Morgan is another question - I do think you should save your energy for battles you can win, and Morgan (and his audience) are probably not a winnable battle.


----------



## MilleD

ouesi said:


> What is a vegan?
> 
> No, really. Serious question.
> What is a vegan?
> 
> I've stopped calling myself a vegetarian because I don't know what the term means. I care about animals, I care about the environment, I care about my health, I try to live my life in a way that supports those three things.


See, I thought veganism was pretty black and white? I assume from what you are saying that it's not?


----------



## Guest

MilleD said:


> See, I thought veganism was pretty black and white? I assume from what you are saying that it's not?


It's not at all IME. 
Can a vegan wear leather?
Can one call oneself a vegan and feed their pets meat?
Does a vegan have to use vegan beauty products also?
Do you still count as a vegan if you eat animal-free products that are by-products of the meat and dairy industry?

I think @Jonescat nailed it. If you use the word *vegan* or *vegetarian* all of a sudden all of your life choices are put in to question. I think some of it is genuine curiosity, but a lot of it is a "gotcha" mentality attempting to discredit you because you ate some glycerine in a supplement 4 weeks ago. I'm not really sure where that comes from, but it is a thing. I don't announce my food choices let alone life choices. I simply do my part however I can and I support those doing the same.


----------



## noushka05

Zaros said:


> Pot, wooden spoon and stir.


Then watch it completely backfire:Hilarious


rottiepointerhouse said:


> Its not. He is saying we should all try to reduce our consumption of animals not only because of the cruelty involved in large scale factory farming (which surely even you must agree is a shameful way to treat sentient beings) but also because of the depletion of the planet's resources which is not sustainable. He was wearing a leather watch strap and shoes FFS  . I'm sure he doesn't profess to be perfect, none of us are but dismissing his whole argument just because he was wearing a bit of leather is pretty pathetic and shows the opposition has no decent argument so instead of debating the facts they pick on something to try and discredit the person.


What an excellent post! I would have repped you for it if I could have RPH 



MilleD said:


> See, I thought veganism was pretty black and white? I assume from what you are saying that it's not?


I don't consume meat, milk or dairy - my diet is vegan most days, but we get eggs given off my FIL who has rescued hens so I do occasionally eat these. I don't really consider myself vegan - more an ovo vegetarian. I only buy cruelty free, eco-friendly, cosmetics & household products. But I have carnivorous pets & leather settees. The settees were second hand & we've them for ages. I am far from perfect but I try to do as much as I can to limit my impact on animals & the environment. I have the greatest respect, admiration & gratitude for strict vegans because its not easy to be 100% ethical.


----------



## noushka05

Can't wait for tonight:Cow:Beaver:Bear:Chickenandaenguinigeon


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> Can't wait for tonight:Cow:Beaver:Bear:Chickenandaenguinigeon


Explains an awful lot, especially why he's promoting himself on national tv. Shameless .


----------



## catz4m8z

Dr Pepper said:


> Explains an awful lot, especially why he's promoting himself on national tv. Shameless .


So he is promoting a tour whilst also trying to educate people about veganism?? what a jerk!

@noushka05 , you will have to let us know what its like. I read the blurb on his book and I really have no idea what he's going on about! lots of longass words and convoluted sentences!LOL


----------



## 1290423

As a part time meat eater it horrifies me the appalling treatment and horrendous end the poor animal endures for you to enjoy your Sunday roast , I so wish killing animals for food was outlawed like cannibalism sadly it wont happen. But if an animal has to be killed for food then it is only right that every single part of it be used and it not just wasted just a reminder that leather is normally a by-product.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Dr Pepper said:


> Explains an awful lot, especially why he's promoting himself on national tv. Shameless .


So every author who writes a book or actor in a new film or popstar releasing a new single or starting a tour who goes on TV promoting him/herself is shameless


----------



## Dr Pepper

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So every author who writes a book or actor in a new film or popstar releasing a new single or starting a tour who goes on TV promoting him/herself is shameless


Yup


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Dr Pepper said:


> Yup


 Well that is most of the TV shows wiped out then.


----------



## catz4m8z

DT said:


> But if an animal has to be killed for food.


key quote there! There are very few cultures that _have _to rely on animal products for nutrition and none of them are in the western world. We basically just eat meat, drink milk, etc coz we are giant assholes!


----------



## StormyThai

DT said:


> just a reminder that leather is normally a by-product.


That's a misconception 

The majority of leather comes from Indian cows. As India forbids the slaughter of cows they have to endure a grueling train journey (largely over crowded where many arrive already dead).
Some of the leather will be from our dairy and beef cows but most is imported from India. The leather industry is very lucrative...so much so that a cows skin is worth more than the meat itself.


----------



## MilleD

ouesi said:


> It's not at all IME.
> Can a vegan wear leather?
> Can one call oneself a vegan and feed their pets meat?
> Does a vegan have to use vegan beauty products also?
> Do you still count as a vegan if you eat animal-free products that are by-products


You see, I did think you could only call yourself vegan if you used no animal products whatsoever, even stuff made by them like honey.

I must have seen something from a more militant vegan at some point.


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> Explains an awful lot, especially why he's promoting himself on national tv. Shameless .


He wasn't promoting himself or even his book - he was desperately trying to get people talking about one of the most serious issues facing humanity.

Also I bought my ticket before he went on Good Morning Britain - I suspect most tickets had gone by the time he went on there. At some of the venues he's speaking at tickets are FREE 

http://www.lse.ac.uk/Events/2017/10/20171010t'830vOT/Out-of-the-Wreckage
_This event is free and open to all with no ticket or pre-registration required. Entry is on a first come, first served basis. For any queries see LSE Events FAQ or contact us at [email protected] or by calling 0207 955 6043
_



catz4m8z said:


> So he is promoting a tour whilst also trying to educate people about veganism?? what a jerk!
> 
> @noushka05 , you will have to let us know what its like. I read the blurb on his book and I really have no idea what he's going on about! lots of longass words and convoluted sentences!LOL


This is actually the third time we've been to a Monbiot talk He's actually extremely witty & engaging. The first one we went to, a few years ago, was called the 'pricing of everything'. It was about neoliberalism & me & my hubby hadn't got a clue what he was on about:Hilarious The audience was crammed with intellectuals who were all nodding & clapping completely tuned into what he was saying - we were sat their like a pair of lemons It was really good though - at least I though so, I think my hubby was glad when it finished lol We both loved his rewilding talk though


----------



## Dr Pepper

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Well that is most of the TV shows wiped out then.


Shameless the lot of them 

Just don't pretend it's about something else, this guy is making a living (or trying to, I hadn't heard of him before the other day) out of preaching about animal welfare, fair play if he can make difference. But maybe lay off the leather if you want to be taken seriously.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Dr Pepper said:


> Shameless the lot of them
> 
> Just don't pretend it's about something else, this guy is making a living (or trying to, I hadn't heard of him before the other day) out of preaching about animal welfare, fair play if he can make difference. But maybe lay off the leather if you want to be taken seriously.


I don't think he makes his living out of preaching about animal welfare - I might be wrong as I don't know much about him - @noushka05 can tell us more but I always thought of him as more of an environmental/political campaigner. Everyone has to make a living - when you go to the doctor and he/she listens to your problem they are making a living otherwise they wouldn't be there, when you go to talk to your bank manager (ah those were the days) about a mortgage she/he is making their living out of the choices you make, when you eat out in a restaurant the chef isn't cooking for the love of it but to make a living. Would you walk dogs all day for free?


----------



## Dr Pepper

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't think he makes his living out of preaching about animal welfare - I might be wrong as I don't know much about him - @noushka05 can tell us more but I always thought of him as more of an environmental/political campaigner. Everyone has to make a living - when you go to the doctor and he/she listens to your problem they are making a living otherwise they wouldn't be there, when you go to talk to your bank manager (ah those were the days) about a mortgage she/he is making their living out of the choices you make, when you eat out in a restaurant the chef isn't cooking for the love of it but to make a living. Would you walk dogs all day for free?


I've got no problem with him making a living from it. Just not sure how much he actually believes in the cause he's promoting. And from the little I have seen about him he seems to like bandwagon jumping and a bit of a Jack of all trades.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Dr Pepper said:


> I've got no problem with him making a living from it. Just not sure how much he actually believes in the cause he's promoting. And from the little I have seen about him he seems to like bandwagon jumping and a bit of a Jack of all trades.


Quick decision to make about someone you said yourself you hadn't heard of before the other day, if you don't mind me most respectfully saying so


----------



## Dr Pepper

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Quick decision to make about someone you said yourself you hadn't heard of before the other day, if you don't mind me most respectfully saying so


I don't mind at all. And you are right, but I can only comment on what I've seen so far which is a bandwagon jumping jack of all trades. Good luck to him if can make a difference to animal welfare, no matter what his motives.


----------



## 1290423

noushka05 said:


> He wasn't promoting himself or even his book - he was desperately trying to get people talking about one of the most serious issues facing humanity.
> 
> Also I bought my ticket before he went on Good Morning Britain - I suspect most tickets had gone by the time he went on there. At some of the venues he's speaking at tickets are FREE
> 
> http://www.lse.ac.uk/Events/2017/10/20171010t'830vOT/Out-of-the-Wreckage
> _This event is free and open to all with no ticket or pre-registration required. Entry is on a first come, first served basis. For any queries see LSE Events FAQ or contact us at [email protected] or by calling 0207 955 6043
> _
> 
> This is actually the third time we've been to a Monbiot talk He's actually extremely witty & engaging. The first one we went to, a few years ago, was called the 'pricing of everything'. It was about neoliberalism & me & my hubby hadn't got a clue what he was on about:Hilarious The audience was crammed with intellectuals who were all nodding & clapping completely tuned into what he was saying - we were sat their like a pair of lemons It was really good though - at least I though so, I think my hubby was glad when it finished lol We both loved his rewilding talk though


Groupie springs to mind xxxx enjoy


----------



## Picklelily

The issue with George Monbiot is that whilst his general message can be good he often holds biased against specific industries, research institutions or individual researchers. Some of the research references he uses are very poor indeed. He also can't accept when he is wrong and won't agree to meet those who have actual knowledge of research to discuss and share opinions. 

For example, he has a very poor understanding of marine protected areas, the needs of the fishing industry and how we have to work to both protect the environment but continue to support communities that rely on that environment for food and its livelihood. We need to work with those in industries that affect our environment and animals in order to improve things not alienate.

He is often too idealistic in my opinion although I believe his heart is in the right place to an extent. His need for a good confrontational headline isn't always in the best interest of all. In this case, his idealism and overconfidence in his own infallibility led to him being poorly prepared for this interview which allowed piers Morgan to destroy his argument. In this particular case, he wasn't a good representative for his own cause.


Whilst I don't actually know George Monbiot, I know of and in some cases know the researchers, professors etc he quotes in his articles. I have also heard directly the effects some of his more outrageous crusading behaviours have had on those he disagrees with. Bully boy tactics are used by him, so it's nice to see the tables turned on him for a change. I know of several who will be glad to see him get served some of his own.

I have to admit though he is a charismatic and interesting speaker, if he just got out of his own way he might actually help the environment.


----------



## Guest

MilleD said:


> I must have seen something from a more militant vegan at some point.


Some vegans can be quite militant indeed. Basically if you're not doing their particular brand of veganism you don't get to call yourself a vegan. And yup, lots of moral superiority/one-upmanship going on. 
I should say thought that most of my experience with fellow vegans/vegetarians has been highly supportive and inclusive. IME most of the time when someone cares enough to completely avoid all animal products, they tend to be pretty caring people in all areas 

I'm much more of a threads person myself. I'm happy for anyone to reduce their impact however they feel they can. I do more than some, less than others, but I'm doing something. And I think all efforts should be celebrated because every little bit does indeed make a difference.


----------



## Catharinem

DT said:


> As a part time meat eater it horrifies me the appalling treatment and horrendous end the poor animal endures for you to enjoy your Sunday roast


As a part time meat eater, surely that should be _we _can enjoy _our_ Sunday roast?

Every meat eater, even part time, has a role to play. Rather eat my own meat every day ( I don't though), home raised and locally slaughtered, than supermarket Value meat occasionally.


----------



## 1290423

Catharinem said:


> As a part time meat eater, surely that should be _we _can enjoy _our_ Sunday roast?
> 
> Every meat eater, even part time, has a role to play. Rather eat my own meat every day ( I don't though), home raised and locally slaughtered, than supermarket Value meat occasionally.


My thoughts exactly, two for seven quid supermarket chicken etc really winds,me up and another area that rattles my cage is cheap milk.
That said did you read about barn bacon, they are, or rather were near to us, terrible behaviour


----------



## 1290423

Catharinem said:


> As a part time meat eater, surely that should be _we _can enjoy _our_ Sunday roast?
> 
> Every meat eater, even part time, has a role to play. Rather eat my own meat every day ( I don't though), home raised and locally slaughtered, than supermarket Value meat occasionally.


Oh, maybe I put that wrong, I havent eaten meat for some time, I did eat chicken and fish, I've not had chicken though for over two weeks, I don't call myself anything like a veggie though and never shall. I was out for lunch at my daughters sunday had all the meal except the meat, but the roast spuds had been in contact so guess that's bad. 
I do cook meat for other half and am extremely picky as to how it was reared, hence my comment re barn bacon.


----------



## Catharinem

Didn't read about barn bacon, probably don't want to either. 

I don't think a spud touching a bit of meat counts, it's all about intention. 

Cannot get my head around 2 for £7 chickens either. Or ready roasted for a fiver each. The only way that could possibly work is economy of scale, and being bred to grow quickly- almost every time I've had a supermarket chicken it's either got bent legbones or else broken or bruised bones. A good freerange cockeral has straight legs, and thick sinews from all that running around after beetles. Am very suspicious of free range eggs too- if they're that free range why aren't their yolks rich gold/orange?


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> I've got no problem with him making a living from it. Just not sure how much he actually believes in the cause he's promoting. And from the little I have seen about him he seems to like bandwagon jumping and a bit of a Jack of all trades.


You clearly dont have clue what you're talking about  He's a very clever man. Hes a writer, investigative journalist and a passionate environmentalist - defending the environment almost cost him is life, that's how much he believes in 'the cause'. Most things he writes about connects to the environment in some way, whether its politics or livestock farming. He doesn't jump on band wagons - he's just desperately wants to stop this suicidal path we're on.

And fyi DP, George is one of the few journalists who has published a full list of all his income in the interest of transparency. Do you know of any other journalist who does the same?



DT said:


> Groupie springs to mind xxxx enjoy


HAHA

I did enjoy 



Picklelily said:


> The issue with George Monbiot is that whilst his general message can be good he often holds biased against specific industries, research institutions or individual researchers. Some of the research references he uses are very poor indeed. He also can't accept when he is wrong and won't agree to meet those who have actual knowledge of research to discuss and share opinions.
> 
> For example, he has a very poor understanding of marine protected areas, the needs of the fishing industry and how we have to work to both protect the environment but continue to support communities that rely on that environment for food and its livelihood. We need to work with those in industries that affect our environment and animals in order to improve things not alienate.
> 
> He is often too idealistic in my opinion although I believe his heart is in the right place to an extent. His need for a good confrontational headline isn't always in the best interest of all. In this case, his idealism and overconfidence in his own infallibility led to him being poorly prepared for this interview which allowed piers Morgan to destroy his argument. In this particular case, he wasn't a good representative for his own cause.
> 
> Whilst I don't actually know George Monbiot, I know of and in some cases know the researchers, professors etc he quotes in his articles. I have also heard directly the effects some of his more outrageous crusading behaviours have had on those he disagrees with. Bully boy tactics are used by him, so it's nice to see the tables turned on him for a change. I know of several who will be glad to see him get served some of his own.
> 
> I have to admit though he is a charismatic and interesting speaker, if he just got out of his own way he might actually help the environment.


I supposed hes going to be judged as biased by people within those industries he exposes as environmentally damaging. But they are the ones with the vested interests not George, his only interest is to save our fast disappearing natural world. George is world renowned for his thorough research so can you provide me with a link showing an example of the poor references he uses please? & references for the research institutions & the researchers he's biased against too please? I think I can guess the industries 

Well we're certainly not doing enough to protect our marine life. The government were recently criticised over delays completing the Marine Conservation Zone http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...-2017/mpa-special-report-publication-2017-19/

I can provide you at least one example of him admitting he was wrong about something lol And how do you know he hasn't met with people who have knowledge? (I assume by knowledge you mean first hand knowledge of an industry?) I've seen him in meetings with hill farmers for example - & he was perfectly polite to them. They were rude to him as they didn't like what he had to say. Sometimes there's no nice way to say something if its completely at odds with what you believe I guess. Can you also provide some examples of his 'bully boy' tactics please? He can certainly be passionate in debates & I've watched plenty - but I have never witnessed him 'bully' anyone. The most confrontational thing I've ever seen of him do is when he tried to perform a citizens arrest on John Bolton lol

Oh I've seen plenty of bloodsports brigade & others over on twitter seemingly ecstatic that George was treated so rudely. Addressing the horrendous suffering within the livestock industry & climate breakdown clearly isn't a priority.

Our climate is breaking down, ecosystems are collapsing, we need radical changes asap before we go past the point of no return. George is one of the few people using his platform to get this most urgent of messages out.

I only wish all journalists were as principled & honest as George & like him, not afraid of speaking truth to power .


----------



## Zaros

noushka05 said:


> You clearly dont have clue what you're talking about  He's a very clever man. Hes a writer, investigative journalist and a passionate environmentalist - defending the environment almost cost him is life, that's how much he believes in 'the cause'. Most things he writes about connects to the environment in some way, whether its politics or livestock farming. He doesn't jump on band wagons - he's just desperately wants to stop this suicidal path we're on.
> 
> And fyi DP, George is one of the few journalists who has published a full list of all his income in the interest of transparency. Do you know of any other journalist who does the same?
> 
> HAHA
> 
> I did enjoy
> 
> I supposed hes going to be judged as biased by people within those industries he exposes as environmentally damaging. But they are the ones with the vested interests not George, his only interest is to save our fast disappearing natural world. George is world renowned for his thorough research so can you provide me with a link showing an example of the poor references he uses please? & references for the research institutions & the researchers he's biased against too please? I think I can guess the industries
> 
> Well we're certainly not doing enough to protect our marine life. The government were recently criticised over delays completing the Marine Conservation Zone http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...-2017/mpa-special-report-publication-2017-19/
> 
> I can provide you at least one example of him admitting he was wrong about something lol And how do you know he hasn't met with people who have knowledge? (I assume by knowledge you mean first hand knowledge of an industry?) I've seen him in meetings with hill farmers for example - & he was perfectly polite to them. They were rude to him as they didn't like what he had to say. Sometimes there's no nice way to say something if its completely at odds with what you believe I guess. Can you also provide some examples of his 'bully boy' tactics please? He can certainly be passionate in debates & I've watched plenty - but I have never witnessed him 'bully' anyone. The most confrontational thing I've ever seen of him do is when he tried to perform a citizens arrest on John Bolton lol
> 
> Oh I've seen plenty of bloodsports brigade & others over on twitter seemingly ecstatic that George was treated so rudely. Addressing the horrendous suffering within the livestock industry & climate breakdown clearly isn't a priority.
> 
> Our climate is breaking down, ecosystems are collapsing, we need radical changes asap before we go past the point of no return. George is one of the few people using his platform to get this most urgent of messages out.
> 
> I only wish all journalists were as principled & honest as George & like him, not afraid of speaking truth to power .


People love character assassination

It doesn't matter how authoritative or disciplined an individual is in a particular, specialised field, there will always be the laymen who attempt to dismiss their research and discredit the researcher's expertise.

It happens in all sorts of practices and there is no finer place to disrespect or criticize someone with certain impunity, than the internet.

So glad you enjoyed your evening.


----------



## noushka05

Zaros said:


> People love character assassination
> 
> It doesn't matter how authoritative or disciplined an individual is in a particular, specialised field, there will always be the laymen who attempt to dismiss their research and discredit the researcher's expertise.
> 
> It happens in all sorts of practices and there is no finer place to disrespect or criticize someone with certain impunity, than the internet.
> 
> So glad you enjoyed your evening.


Yes they do - in fact I've had a dose of it myself from a very familiar source lol.

George is a radical thinker so of course he's going to challenge the status quo & get a lot of backs up lol. He doesn't expect everyone to agree with him though, he writes things to challenge us, to get us to think & debate - & he's obviously very good at that. Disagree with him, fine. I do on issues such as nuclear, but don't see the need to assassinate his character when he's one of the good guys fighting to save our living planet.

George Monbiot:
_Here are some of the things I try to fight: environmental destruction, undemocratic power, corruption, deception of the public, injustice, inequality and the misallocation of resources, waste, denial, the libertarianism which grants freedom to the powerful at the expense of the powerless, undisclosed interests, complacency._

_Here is what I fear: other people's cowardice_.

Thank you very much Zaros. It was really good, it was a very interesting talk, but most importantly to me it was extremely inspiring & filled with hope for something better. It seems like we're bombarded with bad news on a daily basis at the moment so to have hope a better future is possible if we grab it before its too late was just what I needed to hear. George has inspired me to get more proactive in my local community. I'm thinking of starting up some kind of free veg scheme for those who need a bit of help. (Me & my friends have 3 allotments between us now & next year we expect to have lots of surplus veg (all organic too). We already supply friends & family so why not share it amongst the wider community? & I want to encourage even more people to take up allotmenteering too & maybe they too might join my scheme - we could feed the whole town one day, who knows. )


----------



## hutch6

Here's a fact for you: Vegan food costs lives too, billions of them every day and they aren't in humane ways either. 

Unless you grow your own food then you have no idea how ethical your food is.

I invested in some night vision for the old plinker and was laid watching two rabbits do what rabbits do best without them knowing I was there (pervert!). I waited until the old boy had finished his duty and then picked him off for the pot. I like to think he went out happy and I did my bit by waiting for the next generation of freezer fillers was implanted.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> Here's a fact for you: Vegan food costs lives too, billions of them every day and they aren't in humane ways either.
> 
> Unless you grow your own food then you have no idea how ethical your food is.
> 
> I invested in some night vision for the old plinker and was laid watching two rabbits do what rabbits do best without them knowing I was there (pervert!). I waited until the old boy had finished his duty and then picked him off for the pot. I like to think he went out happy and I did my bit by waiting for the next generation of freezer fillers was implanted.


Could you give us some examples of how vegan food costs lives and isn't ethical please?


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Could you give us some examples of how vegan food costs lives and isn't ethical please?


Oh you mean how it is grown in mono-cultures with vast swathes of species being killed off through land reclamation, intensive growing raping the soil of any stability and structure causing billions of tonnes of run off into water systems that choke the life within them, then in comes the insecticides to take care of any crop depleting munchers to ensure a bumper crop return fro investment and then it has be shipped half way across the globe in huge diesel burning tankers that add vast amounts of carbon miles just so folk can get a varied diet living in the upper third of the northern hemisphere because you're fed up of potatoes and turnip. Sure, where would you like me to start?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> Oh you mean how it is grown in mono-cultures with vast swathes of species being killed off through land reclamation, intensive growing raping the soil of any stability and structure causing billions of tonnes of run off into water systems that choke the life within them, then in comes the insecticides to take care of any crop depleting munchers to ensure a bumper crop return fro investment and then it has be shipped half way across the globe in huge diesel burning tankers that add vast amounts of carbon miles just so folk can get a varied diet living in the upper third of the northern hemisphere because you're fed up of potatoes and turnip. Sure, where would you like me to start?


Posting some links to back up your arguments is usually a good place.


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Posting some links to back up your arguments is usually a good place.


No need to do that when you can look in your fridge and cupboards at the food you have and tell me where it comes from.

As a quickie, what did you have for tea last night? That's simple enough.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> No need to do that when you can look in your fridge and cupboards at the food you have and tell me where it comes from.
> 
> As a quickie, what did you have for tea last night? That's simple enough.


Cop out. Please show me some evidence to back up your claims.


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> Oh you mean how it is grown in mono-cultures with vast swathes of species being killed off through land reclamation, intensive growing raping the soil of any stability and structure causing billions of tonnes of run off into water systems that choke the life within them, then in comes the insecticides to take care of any crop depleting munchers to ensure a bumper crop return fro investment and then it has be shipped half way across the globe in huge diesel burning tankers that add vast amounts of carbon miles just so folk can get a varied diet living in the upper third of the northern hemisphere because you're fed up of potatoes and turnip. Sure, where would you like me to start?


The biggest culprit in farmers growing monocultures is the meat and dairy industry. Soy and corn being grown solely to feed cattle (who are not grain eaters and need constant doses of antibiotics to stave off infections from eating a diet not suited to them, which in turn also adds to our overall ill-health).

Michael Pollan (who does eat meat BTW) does an excellent expose of the food industry in it's entirety. 
Our meat heavy diet in western culture is simply not sustainable.


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Cop out. Please show me some evidence to back up your claims.


So you're unwilling to look at the food you are consuming and tell me where it comes from? OK.

I'll cover what I can based on what I imagine are in your cupboards and on your plate:

Soy:

There are loads of peer reviewed documents on the tiling methods for soy that compare the surface run off caused by soil erosion but as I am already aware of the issue you can purchase them for yourself:
http://www.jswconline.org/content/38/5/425.abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198708001323

There are also a few free ones you can read:

http://www.theecologist.org/green_g..._of_soya_how_one_super_crop_lost_its_way.html

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/impacts/

I am willing to bet you have some foods with "Palm oil" as a listed ingredient and i am sure you are well ware of the impact of consuming that has on the environment so I don't need to cover that.

Take a look at the labels on your fruit, veg and salad. How many are local villages to you? How many have places such as Venezuela, Spain, Peru, Argentina etc?

If you can't see the difference in biodiversity between a mono-culture pasture and lets say a dairy farm field or a hillside grazing field for sheep then I've got bad news for you. I get asked and paid to remove animals from crop fields.


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> The biggest culprit in farmers growing monocultures is the meat and dairy industry. Soy and corn being grown solely to feed cattle (who are not grain eaters and need constant doses of antibiotics to stave off infections from eating a diet not suited to them, which in turn also adds to our overall ill-health).
> 
> Michael Pollan (who does eat meat BTW) does an excellent expose of the food industry in it's entirety.
> *Our meat heavy diet* in western culture is simply not sustainable.


And there lies the problem.

Eat with the seasons in moderation and everything is fine with the world. It's when you right fancy a banana or an apple in February when things start going breasts skywards.


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> Eat with the seasons in moderation and everything is fine with the world.


Except that we don't. 
We (westerners) eat more meat now than ever before in history, and our environment is paying the price. 
Greenhouse tomatoes and bananas are not causing near the damage the meat industry is. I agree, it ALL needs to be looked at, but reducing our meat intake is going to have a far bigger impact that eating fewer tomatoes.

FWIW, I live in a part of the world where we have a very long growing season, and we have tons of local produce. My dinner of local summer squash, okra, and quinoa is not devastating the environment. My neighbor's hamburger is.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> So you're unwilling to look at the food you are consuming and tell me where it comes from? OK.
> 
> I'll cover what I can based on what I imagine are in your cupboards and on your plate:
> 
> Soy:
> 
> There are loads of peer reviewed documents on the tiling methods for soy that compare the surface run off caused by soil erosion but as I am already aware of the issue you can purchase them for yourself:
> http://www.jswconline.org/content/38/5/425.abstract
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198708001323
> 
> There are also a few free ones you can read:
> 
> http://www.theecologist.org/green_g..._of_soya_how_one_super_crop_lost_its_way.html
> 
> http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/impacts/
> 
> I am willing to bet you have some foods with "Palm oil" as a listed ingredient and i am sure you are well ware of the impact of consuming that has on the environment so I don't need to cover that.
> 
> Take a look at the labels on your fruit, veg and salad. How many are local villages to you? How many have places such as Venezuela, Spain, Peru, Argentina etc?
> 
> If you can't see the difference in biodiversity between a mono-culture pasture and lets say a dairy farm field or a hillside grazing field for sheep then I've got bad news for you. I get asked and paid to remove animals from crop fields.


Thank you - not a lot to ask for something to back up your claims was it?

From your first link about soya which also applies to the second link

It is a hidden product in many foods and everyday items such as soap. It is a cheap source of protein for people as well as animals and according to Greenpeace, *80 per cent of soya worldwide is used for the livestock industry.* WWF add that the UK consumption alone requires an area the size of Yorkshire to be planted with soya every year.

Vegans/wholefood plant based eaters are not claiming to be perfect by the way, nobody is perfect, we are just doing what we can for our health, for animal welfare and for the environment. I'm sure you do too but unfortunately the vast majority of animals produced for meat are not bonking in a field blissfully unaware they are about to get the bullet - more and more are raised in disgusting intensive farming facilities and worse still CAFCO's with their devastating environmental impacts.

*Nearly 800 mega-farms*
Our investigation has also shown the UK is now home to at least 789 mega-farms or what the US calls CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations).

To meet the definition of a Cafo, a facility must have at least 125,000 broilers (chickens raised for meat), or 82,000 layers (hens which produce eggs) or pullets (chickens used for breeding), or 2,500 pigs, 700 dairy cattle or 1,000 beef cattle.

The majority of the UK mega-farms - 575 - are poultry, with 190 pig, 21 dairy and 3 beef units.
*
Seven of the 10 largest poultry farms - producing meat or eggs or both - in the UK have the capacity to house more than one million birds. The biggest two farms are able to hold 1.7 million and 1.4 million birds respectively. The biggest pig farm is able to hold 23,000 pigs, while the largest cattle farm - in Lincolnshire - can house approximately 3,000 cattle.*

Most intensive farms in the UK are poultry farms, our analysis has shown. They make up 86% of the total numbers of permit-holding farms.

Between 2011 and 2017 there was a 27% increase in permit-holding poultry farms across the UK.

Overall, the number of large intensive farms - pig and poultry - with an Environment Agency permit in the UK is currently 1,674 - an increase of 26% since 2011 when there were 1,332 facilities requiring a permit. The figures are as of July 2017 for Scotland, March 2017 for England, and Northern Ireland and January 2016 for Wales.

Some areas of the UK saw particularly sharp rises: in Northern Ireland the number of pig and poultry factory farms has increased by 68% from 154 in 2011 to 259 in 2017.

And just to put your mind at rest I rarely eat soya products, very occasional tofu only, I don't eat products containing palm oil and the vast majority of my fruit and vegetables come from here

https://www.riverford.co.uk/bop/shop/fruit-veg/veg?tldr=tldr/


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> Except that we don't.
> We (westerners) eat more meat now than ever before in history, and our environment is paying the price.
> Greenhouse tomatoes and bananas are not causing near the damage the meat industry is. I agree, it ALL needs to be looked at, but reducing our meat intake is going to have a far bigger impact that eating fewer tomatoes.
> 
> FWIW, I live in a part of the world where we have a very long growing season, and we have tons of local produce. My dinner of local summer squash, okra, and quinoa is not devastating the environment. My neighbor's hamburger is.


Your dogs must thrive on a tomato, quinoa, okra and squash diet.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> Your dogs must thrive on a tomato, quinoa, okra and squash diet.


See that is exactly the sort of nonsense Piers Morgan pulled - trying to dismiss other people's concerns and the actions they take to try to make a difference by searching for something you think discredits their argument :Yawn:Yawn


----------



## Elles

It’s trolling isn’t it?


----------



## hutch6

Elles said:


> It's trolling isn't it?


Someone has a differing opinion based on evidence and it's trolling now, oh o-o-o-ok then.


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> See that is exactly the sort of nonsense Piers Morgan pulled - trying to dismiss other people's concerns and the actions they take to try to make a difference by searching for something you think discredits their argument :Yawn:Yawn


Erm no.

I agreed with the OP if you actually read or responses but then when it was stated that the neighbour's one burger was more damaging to the environment I simply stated that if their neighbour's burger was a major concern then the OP's dogs must be fed non-animal product food otherwise they too would be contributing the damage the meat industry causes.

On a side note, according to your veggie farm thing they import nearly 30% of their produce and you must be naive if you think animals aren't culled on a daily basis to keep the crop yields up so you can eat your tea, especially on the farm in France!!


----------



## Jesthar

hutch6 said:


> Someone has a differing opinion based on evidence and it's trolling now, oh o-o-o-ok then.


No, but sarcastic non-sequitur extrapolation is


----------



## rona

http://buybritishday.com/

It's today


----------



## rona

Elles said:


> It's trolling isn't it?


Hutch has always held these views, just cos the majority on here don't agree, doesn't make him a troll or wrong


----------



## LinznMilly

hutch6 said:


> Erm no.
> 
> I agreed with the OP if you actually read or responses but then when it was stated that the neighbour's one burger was more damaging to the environment I simply stated that if their neighbour's burger was a major concern then the OP's dogs must be fed non-animal product food otherwise they too would be contributing the damage the meat industry causes.
> 
> On a side note, according to your veggie farm thing they import nearly 30% of their produce and you must be naive if you think animals aren't culled on a daily basis to keep the crop yields up so you can eat your tea, especially on the farm in France!!


I think you're getting @rona (OP) confused with @ouesi. Now keep it civil, or this thread will be closed.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> Erm no.
> 
> I agreed with the OP if you actually read or responses but then when it was stated that the neighbour's one burger was more damaging to the environment I simply stated that if their neighbour's burger was a major concern then the OP's dogs must be fed non-animal product food otherwise they too would be contributing the damage the meat industry causes.
> 
> On a side note, according to your veggie farm thing they import nearly 30% of their produce and you must be naive if you think animals aren't culled on a daily basis to keep the crop yields up so you can eat your tea, especially on the farm in France!!


Firstly you didn't state any such thing, you stated this

"Your dogs must thrive on a tomato, quinoa, okra and squash diet."

Secondly I'm not naive, I used to own land and stables and kept horses so i'm well aware of the culling that goes on. Not sure what you think that has to do with asking people to cut down on meat consumption though.

Thirdly how do you know which products from the organic farm I choose each week?

Fourthly as I've already stated I'm not perfect, none of us including you are perfect but we can all strive to be better


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

LinznMilly said:


> I think you're getting @rona (OP) confused with @ouesi. Now keep it civil, or this thread will be closed.


That would be a shame


----------



## hutch6

Jesthar said:


> No, but sarcastic non-sequitur extrapolation is


"I am good because I eat only veg. My neighbour is bad because he eats meat, as do my dogs" Does that make sense?


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Firstly you didn't state any such thing, you stated this
> 
> "Your dogs must thrive on a tomato, quinoa, okra and squash diet."


Erm, yes, I did (see below).



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Secondly I'm not naive, I used to own land and stables and kept horses so i'm well aware of the culling that goes on. Not sure what you think that has to do with asking people to cut down on meat consumption though.
> 
> Thirdly how do you know which products from the organic farm I choose each week?
> 
> Fourthly as I've already stated I'm not perfect, none of us including you are perfect but we can all strive to be better


I never said I was nor did I say eating a vegan, vegetarian or omnivorous diet was any better than the others. I'm all for moderation across the lot of them - all veg is bad and all meat is bad.
Knowing where you food comes from is the key to reducing the environmental impact (that and a cull but that's another thread altogether)



ouesi said:


> The biggest culprit in farmers growing monocultures is the meat and dairy industry. Soy and corn being grown solely to feed cattle (who are not grain eaters and need constant doses of antibiotics to stave off infections from eating a diet not suited to them, which in turn also adds to our overall ill-health).
> 
> Michael Pollan (who does eat meat BTW) does an excellent expose of the food industry in it's entirety.
> *Our meat heavy diet* in western culture is simply not sustainable.





hutch6 said:


> And there lies the problem.
> 
> Eat with the seasons in moderation and everything is fine with the world. It's when you right fancy a banana or an apple in February when things start going breasts skywards.


----------



## hutch6

LinznMilly said:


> I think you're getting @rona (OP) confused with @ouesi. Now keep it civil, or this thread will be closed.


I was referring to the poster my comment was made in response to.

Why does a thread have to be closed if there is no name calling, no animosity or derogatory comments? It's a discussion that is all.


----------



## Dr Pepper

It's easy really. Humans are hunters and as such carnivores (that can't be denied, it's all over our faces), just like dogs and cats. Cows, sheep, pigs, chickens are prey.

And life is just natures way of keeping meat fresh.

So asking all humans to give up meat is a ridiculous non-starter that goes against nature. So we need to forget that fantasy and concentrate solely on animal welfare. But that not so headline grabbing, get yourself on telly, ticket selling controversial is it.


----------



## Elles

Why is all veg bad? (Though vegan isn’t just vegetables of course) The links have already shown that the concerns about soil erosion and biodiversity are to do with feeding meat animals and not down to vegans. We could all be vegan, eat mostly food that’s locally sourced and in season, feed the world and have far less of an impact. 

There are too many people for us all to buy guns and go out shooting rabbits, though at least the rabbit hasn’t been kept in a cramped cage and fed pellets, which I don’t doubt would happen if rabbit were a staple here, like chicken.

The only way to supply current demand for meat and dairy is through factory farming, there’s huge profits in it too, so if we’re concerned about animal welfare we have to stop eating so much meat and dairy, or cut it out altogether. They go hand in hand with each other unfortunately. Luckily cutting down on meat and dairy and not eating a bunch of over processed rubbish is also good for us and more likely to keep us slim and healthy, so it’s a win, win.


----------



## hutch6

"I firmly believe the motor car is the devil. It causes deaths on our roads . Deaths from the pollution. Deaths from villagers forced off of their lands for oil and the refinement of fossil fuels. Deaths from the unsafe working conditions in the manufacturing and production line assembly units. Everyone should use public transport or cycle or walk and that way our roads would be less congested, our children would be able to breath easier and everyone would be much fitter and healthier"

"I see. Well you were in a rush to get here this morning so can you tell us what happened?"

"My train was late in so I took an Uber cab to get here. It was only £25 so it was no bother"

"I see. And there is no issue with that?"

"No. None at all. Oh I see. Well if you're going to pick me up on things like that then I think that's a little childish don't you?"


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> Your dogs must thrive on a tomato, quinoa, okra and squash diet.


Actually, my dogs do very well on oats, rice, barley...  
And my neighbor who eats hamburger also hunts and shares his off cuts with me for the dogs.

I'm not quite sure what you're so upset about. 
I never said eating meat was wrong or bad or whatever. I was responding to your comment about the environmental impact of eating meat vs. eating veggies (FWIW, last I checked, meat eaters don't eat meat exclusively, they also eat plants, and vegetarians/vegans don't eat vegetables exclusively, they also eat fruits and grains).

All I'm saying is that our current western way of eating, high in animal products, is unsustainable. One of the (many) things we need to do to reduce environmental impact, is to eat less, much less meat and dairy than we currently do.


----------



## hutch6

Elles said:


> Why is all veg bad? (Though vegan isn't just vegetables of course) The links have already shown that the concerns about soil erosion and biodiversity are to do with feeding meat animals and not down to vegans. We could all be vegan, eat mostly food that's locally sourced and in season, feed the world and have far less of an impact.
> 
> There are too many people for us all to buy guns and go out shooting rabbits, though at least the rabbit hasn't been kept in a cramped cage and fed pellets, which I don't doubt would happen if rabbit were a staple here, like chicken.
> 
> The only way to supply current demand for meat and dairy is through factory farming, there's huge profits in it too, so if we're concerned about animal welfare we have to stop eating so much meat and dairy, or cut it out altogether. They go hand in hand with each other unfortunately. Luckily cutting down on meat and dairy and not eating a bunch of over processed rubbish is also good for us and more likely to keep us slim and healthy, so it's a win, win.


Ok, so tomorrow meat is completely gone forever. Where is all the food coming from? Veg patch at the back of the garden? An allotment? A farm? A super-farm? A plantation the size of a country?

What foods are to be grown? Are they on a crop rotation programme or a recovery programme? What nitrates are to be used to bump the soil quality up? How many crop yields are to be obtained for that year?

What intervention are you going to put in place to prevent crop failure and yield reduction through pests?

What are you going to do with all of the abandoned land where farms once stood?

How are you going to prevent the mid-west dust bowl happening globally?


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> Actually, my dogs do very well on oats, rice, barley...
> And my neighbor who eats hamburger also hunts and shares his off cuts with me for the dogs.
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you're so upset about.
> I never said eating meat was wrong or bad or whatever. I was responding to your comment about the environmental impact of eating meat vs. eating veggies (FWIW, last I checked, meat eaters don't eat meat exclusively, they also eat plants, and vegetarians/vegans don't eat vegetables exclusively, they also eat fruits and grains).
> 
> All I'm saying is that our current western way of eating, high in animal products, is unsustainable. One of the (many) things we need to do to reduce environmental impact, is to eat less, much less meat and dairy than we currently do.


I'm not upset about anything and I couldn't agree more with your last sentence.

There things everyone can do to fix this whole mess:

Stop eating fast food.
Stop using Supermarkets.
Stop eating processed food.

It's as easy as that.


----------



## catz4m8z

hutch6 said:


> Your dogs must thrive on a tomato, quinoa, okra and squash diet.


well, my lot are! They have tons of energy and love their food!



hutch6 said:


> "I am good because I eat only veg. My neighbour is bad because he eats meat, as do my dogs" Does that make sense?


I think its more a case of my neighbour is either bad or wilfully ignorant of the massive environmental impact meat and dairy farming has. Also clearly they arent an animal lover coz they dont seem to care about all the animals needlessly killed in factory farms. Not to mention the impact on their own health from eating something damaging and proven by the WHO to be carcinogenic!
If 80% of 'bad' mass produced soya, corn, etc is for animal feed then its pretty obvious that cutting out the animal will greatly the impact (a person only eats a fraction of what a farm animal does). The research is all out there and irrefutable.



Dr Pepper said:


> It's easy really. Humans are hunters and as such carnivores (that can't be denied, it's all over our faces), just like dogs and cats. Cows, sheep, pigs, chickens are prey.
> 
> And life is just natures way of keeping meat fresh.


We arent carnivores! We are omnivores, thats just science.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Dr Pepper said:


> It's easy really. Humans are hunters and as such carnivores (that can't be denied, it's all over our faces), just like dogs and cats. Cows, sheep, pigs, chickens are prey.
> 
> And life is just natures way of keeping meat fresh.
> 
> So asking all humans to give up meat is a ridiculous non-starter that goes against nature. So we need to forget that fantasy and concentrate solely on animal welfare. But that not so headline grabbing, get yourself on telly, ticket selling controversial is it.


We are not carnivores. We don't have the speed to catch animals unless they are already injured, we don't have the same teeth, digestive acids in our mouths or claws as carnivores - I'd like to see you kill and eat an animal without tools and we certainly don't have the short intestines that carnivores have to make sure the waste matter from animals passes quickly through. Most waste passes through a carnivore in 4 hours whereas in humans its nearer to 18 hours which is one of the reasons humans have a fairly high risk of getting bowel cancer and carnivores don't. We most resemble great apes and they eat a very high percentage of plants with a few insects when plants are scarce.


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> well, my lot are! They have tons of energy and love their food!
> 
> I think its more a case of my neighbour is either bad or wilfully ignorant of the massive environmental impact meat and dairy farming has. Also clearly they arent an animal lover coz they dont seem to care about all the animals needlessly killed in factory farms. Not to mention the impact on their own health from eating something damaging and proven by the WHO to be carcinogenic!
> If 80% of 'bad' mass produced soya, corn, etc is for animal feed then its pretty obvious that cutting out the animal will greatly the impact (a person only eats a fraction of what a farm animal does). The research is all out there and irrefutable.
> 
> We arent carnivores! We are omnivores, thats just science.


Why don't they care about the welfare of animals reared for food?


----------



## Rafa

LinznMilly said:


> I think you're getting @rona (OP) confused with @ouesi. Now keep it civil, or this thread will be closed.


I haven't yet contributed to this thread, but I am following it with interest.

It would be a pity to close it. Yes, it is a fairly lively debate, but I thought that was okay on the forum?

We can't all agree all of the time.


----------



## MilleD

catz4m8z said:


> well, my lot are! They have tons of energy and love their food!
> 
> I think its more a case of my neighbour is either bad or wilfully ignorant of the massive environmental impact meat and dairy farming has. Also clearly they arent an animal lover coz they dont seem to care about all the animals needlessly killed in factory farms. Not to mention the impact on their own health from eating something damaging and proven by the WHO to be carcinogenic!
> If 80% of 'bad' mass produced soya, corn, etc is for animal feed then its pretty obvious that cutting out the animal will greatly the impact (a person only eats a fraction of what a farm animal does). The research is all out there and irrefutable.
> 
> We arent carnivores! We are omnivores, thats just science.


Hang on, are you saying meat eaters can't be animal lovers?


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> We are not carnivores. We don't have the speed to catch animals unless they are already injured, we don't have the same teeth, digestive acids in our mouths or claws as carnivores - I'd like to see you kill and eat an animal without tools and we certainly don't have the short intestines that carnivores have to make sure the waste matter from animals passes quickly through. Most waste passes through a carnivore in 4 hours whereas in humans its nearer to 18 hours which is one of the reasons humans have a fairly high risk of getting bowel cancer and carnivores don't. We most resemble great apes and they eat a very high percentage of plants with a few insects when plants are scarce.


Never been trout tickling or flatty stomping then. Oh and certain tribesmen chase their quarry to complete exhaustion, no tools required.

If we weren't meant to eat meat then how come our ancestors were so hell bent on making new appliances to dispatch and process them then?

We have been hunting animals longer than we've been growing crops.


----------



## hutch6

MilleD said:


> Hang on, are you saying meat eaters can't be animal lovers?


Oh yeah!! Did you not know this?

We are switching to veggies, grains and fruit now so I am afraid to say the obligate carnivore in your avatar will have to, erm, you know, go on holiday or something.


----------



## FeelTheBern

ouesi said:


> Much of this caused by the environmental cost of our meat heavy diet


Are you suggesting that the Western meat industry is mainly responsible for the crisis in Africa? If so, please elaborate.


----------



## Dr Pepper

rottiepointerhouse said:


> We are not carnivores. We don't have the speed to catch animals unless they are already injured, we don't have the same teeth, digestive acids in our mouths or claws as carnivores - I'd like to see you kill and eat an animal without tools and we certainly don't have the short intestines that carnivores have to make sure the waste matter from animals passes quickly through. Most waste passes through a carnivore in 4 hours whereas in humans its nearer to 18 hours which is one of the reasons humans have a fairly high risk of getting bowel cancer and carnivores don't. We most resemble great apes and they eat a very high percentage of plants with a few insects when plants are scarce.


Sorry should have said "natural meat eaters" as all hunters are. Apes regularly hunt and eat meat.

However just like you get human vegans you also get human carnivores, just while we're all being pinickity picky.


----------



## MilleD

hutch6 said:


> Oh yeah!! Did you not know this?
> 
> We are switching to veggies, grains and fruit now so I am afraid to say the obligate carnivore in your avatar will have to, erm, you know, go on holiday or something.




He says he's fine where he is...


----------



## catz4m8z

MilleD said:


> Hang on, are you saying meat eaters can't be animal lovers?


well, no. You can be a dog lover or a cat lover but you cant really call yourself an animal lover if you are needlessly killing animals just coz you think they taste nice. Unless your arguement is that the animals really, really want to be killed??
I'll grant you that killing suicidal animals probably isnt as bad but..........



hutch6 said:


> Oh yeah!! Did you not know this?
> 
> We are switching to veggies, grains and fruit now so I am afraid to say the obligate carnivore in your avatar will have to, erm, you know, go on holiday or something.


If thats for me I dont have an obligate carnivore in my avatar its actually a happy little omnivore (easy mistake I suppose he probably only is as big as a rabbit!). He is also stupid enough that when I switched him onto vegan food he actually shoved the meat out of the way to get to the grain an veggies! True story....what an idiot!!LOL:Hilarious
(oh, just saw its Millie! NM, owning a cat from before you realiesed the damage you are doing doesnt negate the efforts you make now. Cats cant be omnivores, but doesnt mean I shouldnt be...Im not a cat!).


----------



## noushka05

hutch6 said:


> "I firmly believe the motor car is the devil. It causes deaths on our roads . Deaths from the pollution. Deaths from villagers forced off of their lands for oil and the refinement of fossil fuels. Deaths from the unsafe working conditions in the manufacturing and production line assembly units. Everyone should use public transport or cycle or walk and that way our roads would be less congested, our children would be able to breath easier and everyone would be much fitter and healthier"
> 
> "I see. Well you were in a rush to get here this morning so can you tell us what happened?"
> 
> "My train was late in so I took an Uber cab to get here. It was only £25 so it was no bother"
> 
> "I see. And there is no issue with that?"
> 
> "No. None at all. Oh I see. Well if you're going to pick me up on things like that then I think that's a little childish don't you?"


Most crops are grown to feed livestock Hutch not feed vegans lol Reduce livestock & we need far less land to feed humans so we can leave it nature.

And the carbon footprint of livestock industry is actually far greater than all transport combined. I just don't get why anyone wouldn't be glad to see people giving up consuming animals We only have 60 years of soil left at the current rate of degradation - no soil, no life.

*Vast animal-feed crops to satisfy our meat needs are destroying planet *

*WWF report finds 60% of global biodiversity loss is down to meat-based diets which put huge strain on Earth's resources
*
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...meat-needs-destroying-planet?CMP=share_btn_tw
*







*


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> well, no. You can be a dog lover or a cat lover but you cant really call yourself an animal lover if you are needlessly killing animals just coz you think they taste nice. Unless your arguement is that the animals really, really want to be killed??
> I'll grant you that killing suicidal animals probably isnt as bad but..........
> 
> If thats for me I dont have an obligate carnivore in my avatar its actually a happy little omnivore (easy mistake I suppose he probably only is as big as a rabbit!). He is also stupid enough that when I switched him onto vegan food he actually shoved the meat out of the way to get to the grain an veggies! True story....what an idiot!!LOL:Hilarious
> (oh, just saw its Millie! NM, owning a cat from before you realiesed the damage you are doing doesnt negate the efforts you make now. Cats cant be omnivores, but doesnt mean I shouldnt be...Im not a cat!).


No it wasn't as I recognise a dog when I see one and I quoted the person who I was directing it at. I do see that you have a cat and two snakes that require meat so therefore you are not an animal lover, am I right?


----------



## MilleD

The carbon footprint of these grapes must be immense  The pic went squint, sorry.


----------



## hutch6

noushka05 said:


> Most crops are grown to feed livestock Hutch not feed vegans lol Reduce livestock & we need far less land to feed humans so we can leave it nature.
> 
> And the carbon footprint of livestock industry is actually far greater than all transport combined. I just don't get why anyone wouldn't be glad to see people giving up consuming animals We only have 60 years of soil left at the current rate of degradation - no soil, no life.
> 
> *Vast animal-feed crops to satisfy our meat needs are destroying planet *
> 
> *WWF report finds 60% of global biodiversity loss is down to meat-based diets which put huge strain on Earth's resources
> *
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...meat-needs-destroying-planet?CMP=share_btn_tw
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


I think that is aimed at American audiences Noush as every dairy farmer I know sprays the waste on their fields to help the grass grow so they can get three cuts of silage from it each year so they don't have to spend as much money on soy or grain based fodder over the winter.

I think the overall answer here is we need less humans to feed.


----------



## noushka05

hutch6 said:


> I think that is aimed at American audiences Noush as every dairy farmer I know sprays the waste on their fields to help the grass grow so they can get three cuts of silage from it each year so they don't have to spend as much money on soy or grain based fodder over the winter.


Dairy farmers are polluting our rivers, spreading tb to our badgers & wildlife. Its a really destructive industry in this country & cows produce methane no matter what country they're in :Cow


----------



## catz4m8z

catz4m8z said:


> owning a cat from before you realiesed the damage you are doing doesnt negate the efforts you make now. Cats cant be omnivores, but doesnt mean I shouldnt be...Im not a cat!.





hutch6 said:


> No it wasn't as I recognise a dog when I see one and I quoted the person who I was directing it at. I do see that you have a cat and two snakes that require meat so therefore you are not an animal lover, am I right?


see, my above quote. I wont own carnivores again.



MilleD said:


> The carbon footprint of these grapes must be immense  The pic went squint, sorry.
> 
> View attachment 328971


All well and good but are they sustainable space grapes!?:Hilarious


----------



## Guest

FeelTheBern said:


> Are you suggesting that the Western meat industry is mainly responsible for the crisis in Africa? If so, please elaborate.


"Diet for a Small Planet" is a good place to start.

I'm not going to get in to the debate. Well, not with people who's minds are made up. I gave up meat over 30 years ago, and I've had this conversation way too many times, I know how it goes  Cognitive dissonance hits hard on this topic. Our beliefs on eating animal products are deeply entrenched in our culture, our lives (and livelihoods) our family histories... It's not something most people are ready to hear and thus completely unable to process.

For those who are ready to hear about reducing or giving up animal products entirely, @rottiepointerhouse has a wonderful thread as a sticky up in general chat that I invite anyone who is interested to join in 

https://www.petforums.co.uk/threads...getarian-or-just-after-some-new-ideas.450190/


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> Never been trout tickling or flatty stomping then. Oh and certain tribesmen chase their quarry to complete exhaustion, no tools required.
> 
> If we weren't meant to eat meat then how come our ancestors were so hell bent on making new appliances to dispatch and process them then?
> 
> We have been hunting animals longer than we've been growing crops.


Which particular tribesman are you referring to? Like to see the average modern western man even attempt to chase down quarry, more likely to suffer a heart attack from the exertion.



Dr Pepper said:


> Sorry should have said "natural meat eaters" as all hunters are. Apes regularly hunt and eat meat.
> 
> However just like you get human vegans you also get human carnivores, just while we're all being pinickity picky.


Studies presented in the "Proceedings of the National Academies of Science" used isotope analysis on fossil teeth of ancient man which showed we were heavy plant consumers. A two million year old fossil from South America showed food matter in the teeth mainly from tree leaves, bark and fruits. The diet was very similar to that of chimps, and this was in open Savanna habitat with plenty of animal food available. Whatever region of the world is studied Neanderthal teeth prove that humans ate mostly plants, including legumes. Also tools for grinding grains and plants have been found in Italy, Russia and the former Czechoslovakia many of which have been carbon dated to over three hundred thousand years ago. Nathaniel Dominey a professor of anthropology who writes widely on the subject of diet and ancient man notes that plants made up the bulk of calories for primates and hunter gatherer societies. The hunters have received all the glory but the bulk of the calories came from women doing the gathering.

Excerpt from Proteinaholic by Dr Garth Davis MD.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> I think that is aimed at American audiences Noush as every dairy farmer I know sprays the waste on their fields to help the grass grow so they can get three cuts of silage from it each year so they don't have to spend as much money on soy or grain based fodder over the winter.
> 
> I think the overall answer here is we need less humans to feed.


You must know a lot of small scale dairy farmers. What about intensive farms and CAFCO's, we have 21 dairy CAFCO's and 3 Beef already and the numbers are increasing (far worse for poultry and pigs).


----------



## LinznMilly

Sweety said:


> I haven't yet contributed to this thread, but I am following it with interest.
> 
> It would be a pity to close it. Yes, it is a fairly lively debate, but I thought that was okay on the forum?
> 
> We can't all agree all of the time.


It's OK to debate, of course, but one or 2 comments, were, I thought, a bit close to the mark. I do agree with you and @rottiepointerhouse, it will be a shame to close it.

I don't want to close a thread, unless they're ancient, or the OP hasn't returned, but if things start getting personal, then yes, they will be closed.

And just because a thread is closed, doesn't mean it'll stay closed.  Often, they're closed to give a Mod/Mods a chance to go through them and are then reopened.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

I have to go out now so I really hope its still open when I get back


----------



## LinznMilly

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I have to go out now so I really hope its still open when I get back


Probably, because I'm going to have to get ready to go hospital visiting. Mam was taken in over the weekend ... Again.  (unless one of the other Mods close it, of course, and I have no control over that).


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

LinznMilly said:


> Probably, because I'm going to have to get ready to go hospital visiting. Mam was taken in over the weekend ... Again.


On no. I'm sorry to hear that. Hope she is doing OK.


----------



## catz4m8z

LinznMilly said:


> And just because a thread is closed, doesn't mean it'll stay closed.  Often, they're closed to give a Mod/Mods a chance to go through them and are then reopened.


Glad to here it! Nobody in my live really bothers debating the vegan issue with me, they just agree with all my points then say 'yes, you're right!well, Im off to eat a burger!'
Its nice to practice arguing the points in a friendly environment!

Hope your mum is going to be ok.


----------



## Rafa

LinznMilly said:


> Probably, because I'm going to have to get ready to go hospital visiting. Mam was taken in over the weekend ... Again.  (unless one of the other Mods close it, of course, and I have no control over that).


I hope you find your Mum well.


----------



## LinznMilly

rottiepointerhouse said:


> On no. I'm sorry to hear that. Hope she is doing OK.





catz4m8z said:


> Glad to here it! Nobody in my live really bothers debating the vegan issue with me, they just agree with all my points then say 'yes, you're right!well, Im off to eat a burger!'
> Its nice to practice arguing the points in a friendly environment!
> 
> Hope your mum is going to be ok.





Sweety said:


> I hope you find your Mum well.


Thanks.


----------



## Dr Pepper

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Which particular tribesman are you referring to? Like to see the average modern western man even attempt to chase down quarry, more likely to suffer a heart attack from the exertion.
> 
> Studies presented in the "Proceedings of the National Academies of Science" used isotope analysis on fossil teeth of ancient man which showed we were heavy plant consumers. A two million year old fossil from South America showed food matter in the teeth mainly from tree leaves, bark and fruits. The diet was very similar to that of chimps, and this was in open Savanna habitat with plenty of animal food available. Whatever region of the world is studied Neanderthal teeth prove that humans ate mostly plants, including legumes. Also tools for grinding grains and plants have been found in Italy, Russia and the former Czechoslovakia many of which have been carbon dated to over three hundred thousand years ago. Nathaniel Dominey a professor of anthropology who writes widely on the subject of diet and ancient man notes that plants made up the bulk of calories for primates and hunter gatherer societies. The hunters have received all the glory but the bulk of the calories came from women doing the gathering.
> 
> Excerpt from Proteinaholic by Dr Garth Davis MD.


So what's a omnivore? We are omnivores aren't we? Or are we not now?

We are natural hunters, nature actually made/evolved us that way as opposed to being prey and herbivores. There is no denying that. Look at yourself in a mirror and compare what you see to predictors and prey.


----------



## picaresque

Humans don't have the speed and strength of other carnivorous animals it's true - we use our brains to hunt, that's what makes us who we are. In fact it's believed that meat eating is what helped us develop such big brains. That doesn't mean we shouldn't eat less in the way of animal products _now_, in fact the way things are going we soon won't much choice.


----------



## catz4m8z

Dr Pepper said:


> So what's a omnivore? We are omnivores aren't we? Or are we not now?
> 
> We are natural hunters, nature actually made/evolved us that way as opposed to being prey and herbivores. There is no denying that. Look at yourself in a mirror and compare what you see to predictors and prey.


So what is your arguement for meat and dairy being responsible for the majority of the leading causes of disease today? Surely if we were meant to eat meat it wouldnt give us cancer?


----------



## Dr Pepper

catz4m8z said:


> So what is your arguement for meat and dairy being responsible for the majority of the leading causes of disease today? Surely if we were meant to eat meat it wouldnt give us cancer?


.....and if we were meant to be outside (you know sowing the seeds, cultivating and harvesting crops ) we wouldn't get skin cancer.


----------



## Zaros

We were never designed to eat meat.

http://celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm


----------



## Dr Pepper

Zaros said:


> We were never designed to eat meat.
> 
> http://celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm


Yes we were. Hence why we are one of natures hunters. We weren't built, or evolved, to solely pick berries and plant crops.

Lovely happy flappy Website you found there selling their goods though, do they have a page on unicorns as well?


----------



## Jonescat

We were never designed 

Biology is not destiny, or rather a few bits of it are not. We can think and choose otherwise, whichi s also part of our biology.


----------



## Dr Pepper

Jonescat said:


> We were never designed
> 
> Biology is not destiny, or rather a few bits of it are not. We can think and choose otherwise, whichi s also part of our biology.


Isn't evolution design though? Designing to fit and evolve in our environment?


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> So you're unwilling to look at the food you are consuming and tell me where it comes from? OK.
> 
> I'll cover what I can based on what I imagine are in your cupboards and on your plate:
> 
> Soy:
> 
> There are loads of peer reviewed documents on the tiling methods for soy that compare the surface run off caused by soil erosion but as I am already aware of the issue you can purchase them for yourself:
> http://www.jswconline.org/content/38/5/425.abstract
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198708001323
> 
> There are also a few free ones you can read:
> 
> http://www.theecologist.org/green_g..._of_soya_how_one_super_crop_lost_its_way.html
> 
> http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/impacts/
> 
> I am willing to bet you have some foods with "Palm oil" as a listed ingredient and i am sure you are well ware of the impact of consuming that has on the environment so I don't need to cover that.
> 
> Take a look at the labels on your fruit, veg and salad. How many are local villages to you? How many have places such as Venezuela, Spain, Peru, Argentina etc?
> 
> If you can't see the difference in biodiversity between a mono-culture pasture and lets say a dairy farm field or a hillside grazing field for sheep then I've got bad news for you. I get asked and paid to remove animals from crop fields.


Actually I will play here because it's always fun to burst a bubble or two  :Angelic

Dinner last night:
Quinoa - grown in the US - either Oregon or Colorado. Probably a fairly heavy carbon footprint in shipping, packaging, and processing (rinsing the seeds). Still far lesser footprint than an equivalent animal food. Does not need to be kept cold, stores for ages so less likely to go to waste...
Summer squash grown locally, in season, other than my gas to the store and back, minimal carbon footprint. 
Bell pepper also local, same place, virtually zero carbon footprint. 
Okra grown by my coworker, she has more than she knows what to do with, I gladly take it off her hands. Grows like crazy here. Freezes well so many of us have freezers full of it to enjoy all winter. Yup, carbon footprint with electricity used to freeze said okra, again, minimal compared to the meat industry. 
Tomato salsa - made in a plant in Mexico, shipped here. Not local, but not crazy far either. Again, environmental impact still less than a steak or glass of milk.

I can make a difference in the above by using local grains instead of quinoa, and making my own salsa from my own tomatoes that I get tons of every summer, canning is a great way to preserve them. I am progressively growing more and more of my own food, so I hope to improve.

But I still believe every little bit helps. And for anyone looking to make a difference one thing you can do is eat less meat, less dairy. Every meat free meal makes a difference. Every locally sourced plant food makes a difference.

I refer you back to Jane Goodall's wonderful quote I posted earlier in this thread.


----------



## Jonescat

No need to wreck the environment
https://hodmedods.co.uk/


----------



## Jonescat

I don't see it as design. The word "design" has an element of intent to it that my interpretation of evolutionary process doesn't have.


----------



## Dr Pepper

Jonescat said:


> No need to wreck the environment
> https://hodmedods.co.uk/


:Vomit


----------



## Jonescat

Ah so it is taste and not biology?


----------



## Dr Pepper

Jonescat said:


> Ah so it is taste and not biology?


No, it's a healthy balanced diet I like not just pulses, grains and the like.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Dr Pepper said:


> So what's a omnivore? We are omnivores aren't we? Or are we not now?
> 
> We are natural hunters, nature actually made/evolved us that way as opposed to being prey and herbivores. There is no denying that. Look at yourself in a mirror and compare what you see to predictors and prey.


We are not natural hunters and looking in the mirror I obviously don't see what you see. Show me the humans alive today who can naturally hunt an animal, kill it, tear through its skin and eat it without using guns/other animals or tools.



picaresque said:


> Humans don't have the speed and strength of other carnivorous animals it's true - we use our brains to hunt, that's what makes us who we are. In fact it's believed that meat eating is what helped us develop such big brains. That doesn't mean we shouldn't eat less in the way of animal products _now_, in fact the way things are going we soon won't much choice.


Not sure about that  Nathaniel J Dominy the anthropologist I mentioned earlier has researched a particular gene that helps code for amylase a protein/enzyme in saliva that breaks down starches into glucose. Other primates besides humans do not have this gene which leads him to suspect that this is part of what allowed us to take the extraordinary evolutionary leap forward known as the "brains big bang" and make the journey from our hominid past to **** sapiens. He argues that our brain's preferred fuel is glucose and that humans are not really carnivores but starchivores relying on starches to obtain the necessary nutrients for their developing brains "I would say a mixture of plant foods with a large amount of starch coming from tubers and seeds - thats the fundamental component of the human diet". Evolutionary biologist Karen Hardy has also argued that starchy vegetables and tubers like yams, squashes and potatoes played a critical role in the development of the bigger brains that distinguish humans from their predecessors. "The regular consumption of starchy plant foods offers a coherent explanation for the provision of energy to the developing brain during the Late Pliocene and Early Pleistocene " This idea is backed up by recent evidence that cooking began much earlier than previously believed - as far back as 1.8 million years ago. Other researches have argued that even grains like wheat and barley played a key role in the human diet long before they were farmed. Evidence has also been found that Neanderthals ate wild varieties of peas and fava beans. In general there is plenty of evidence that hominids evolved a largely plant based eating style with some animal foods being supplemental, though the proportions over hundreds of thousands of years were probably varied and changing.

(Taken from The Caveman Cometh, Promises and Pitfalls of The Paleo Diet in "The Whole Foods Diet" by John Mackey, Alona Pulde MD and Matthew Lederman MD.)



Dr Pepper said:


> :Vomit


 You do realise that people who eat beans/lentils at least twice a week have a 50% lower risk of colon cancer?


----------



## Elles

None of my friends are vegetarian or vegan. Any conversation about it is always the same. They say they’d like to be vegetarian, but they'd miss bacon, or Sunday roast. It’s always bacon, or roast beef and Yorkshires, never chicken or burgers. I don’t really say anything and it’s hardly ever mentioned. It’s up to them. 

I haven’t eaten meat for around half a century. I’m slimmer and fitter than any of them and older than most of them, so they’d be on a loser before they started, if they tried to tell me my diet is unhealthy and we evolved to eat meat. :Hilarious


----------



## Jonescat

IMO it all points to salt and fat being far more attractive than anything else on the plate. And yes cheese (another thing that people can't give up apparently) I am looking at you as well. It's also why pizza is irrationally popular.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse




----------



## Guest

Jonescat said:


> No need to wreck the environment
> https://hodmedods.co.uk/


That's wonderful  I bet quinoa does grow well in the UK. It doesn't do well in high heat so the UK would be a great place to grow it.

Regarding the discussion on whether humans are meant to eat meat or not. 
Am I the only one strangely amused that we're sitting here discussing whether meat is an appropriate food for humans, yet the meat we're mainly talking about humans eating is from animals fed a diet that is wholly inappropriate for them. 
Cows are not designed to eat corn and soy (and ground up animal bones). They're designed to graze all day. Because they are fed such an inappropriate diet we have to pump them full of antibiotics to stave off the inevitable infections in their digestive system that come from the inappropriate diet. 
Chickens and pigs aren't fed a species appropriate diet either.


----------



## Catharinem

rottiepointerhouse said:


> We are not natural hunters and looking in the mirror I obviously don't see what you see. Show me the humans alive today who can naturally hunt an animal, kill it, tear through its skin and eat it without using guns/other animals or tools.


But not all carnivores hunt down, rip through skin without using tools .

Spiders use webs or hide behind trapdoors. 
Birds can use a stick to get termites out of a baked hard earthen nest. 
Thrushes use an anvil stone to smash snails open against. 
Even crocodiles stow their drowned ( not ripped apart) prey in underwater crevices to rot the flesh and soften it.


----------



## MilleD

rottiepointerhouse said:


> We are not natural hunters and looking in the mirror I obviously don't see what you see. Show me the humans alive today who can naturally hunt an animal, kill it, tear through its skin and eat it without using guns/other animals or tools.


We're certainly not prey though, our eyes are all wrong for that.


----------



## Dr Pepper

rottiepointerhouse said:


> We are not natural hunters and looking in the mirror I obviously don't see what you see. Show me the humans alive today who can naturally hunt an animal, kill it, tear through its skin and eat it without using guns/other animals or tools.


Ok, you can't see what's staring you in the face with regards to us being hunters. However we do agree we are designed/evolved (or whatever word you wish to use) to eat meat.

So going back to the op, what right does this leather wearing chap have to say we should all become vegan? It goes against nature and would cause so many health problems due to malnutrition the health services wouldn't be able to cope and we'd be dropping like flies within months (maybe not a bad thing for the planet though).

I don't really get why vegan/vegetarians become so evangelical about their diet, it's personal choice. I was a veggie for a couple of years but didn't sudden start preaching everyone should be as well. Today I will still use quorn in curries, chillie, stroganoff etc so I appreciate we don't have to eat meat all the time.

I can't really see what the argument is here?


----------



## Dr Pepper

MilleD said:


> We're certainly not prey though, our eyes are all wrong for that.


Thank you, you get it.


----------



## Calvine

Dr Pepper said:


> I don't really get why vegan/vegetarians become so evangelical about their diet, it's personal choice. I was a veggie for a couple of years but didn't sudden start preaching everyone should be as well. Today I will still use quorn in curries, chillie, stroganoff etc so I appreciate we don't have to eat meat all the time.


You are spot-on there with the word evangelical. It has almost become a religion with some of them.


----------



## Zaros

https://freefromharm.org/photo-galleries/9-reasons-your-canine-teeth-dont-make-you-a-meat-eater/

People shouldn't listen to advocates of the brutally cruel meat industry.


----------



## hutch6

In response to folk saying we are not natural hunters etc then look up "persistence hunting" techniques, look up how the human body is naturally developed for covering long distances and ask yourself why, look up why we evolved to stand up rather than walk on all fours, look up rainforest tribes and how they still hunt meat and keep domesticated animals for food despite not no intervention from the outside world, look up vitamin b12 and how we obtain it and the effects of its deficiency in our bodies, look up why you have that dog at your side, look up how humans learnt to chase other predators away form their kills, look up the benefits of offal and why we now only buy the crap cuts thinking they are the best part i.e the flesh.

I don't advocate intensive farms, I loath and avoid them. What I take for the table is done in a humane manner to ensure a quick death and I try to utilise as much as I can from every animal I kill (unless it's rats and squirrel isn't all that cracking so I do those to cull be they are not treated any less).


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> So what is your arguement for meat and dairy being responsible for the majority of the leading causes of disease today? SurelySo if we were meant to eat meat it wouldnt give us cancer?


So no vegan or vegetarian has ever died from cancer of any form?

Cancer cells don't feed off of glucose which we metabolise from starch then?


----------



## catz4m8z

Dr Pepper said:


> However we do agree we are designed/evolved (or whatever word you wish to use) to eat meat.
> 
> It goes against nature and would cause so many health problems due to malnutrition the health services wouldn't be able to cope and we'd be dropping like flies within months (maybe not a bad thing for the planet though).
> 
> I don't really get why vegan/vegetarians become so evangelical about their diet, it's personal choice.


I agree that we evolved to utilise meat when we could snag some as,much like dogs, we are opportunistic scavengers who learnt to supplement our plant based diet when we could.

Id rather have to worry about a few malnourished vegans then have the NHS collapse under the weight (literally!) of all the meat and dairy eaters dying of heart disease, diabetes and strokes. Those things are an epidemic now thanks to our meat heavy diet.

And surely its not just personal choice if it involves the torture and killing of other living creatures??


----------



## catz4m8z

hutch6 said:


> So no vegan or vegetarian has ever died from cancer of any form?
> 
> Cancer cells don't feed off of glucose which we metabolise from starch then?


Using individual cases doesnt really tell you much about the population as a whole. Statistical information is much more relevant and its been proven that dairy increases your risk of breast cancer or prostate cancer and meat will greatly increase your risk of colon cancer (which I belive is now the third most 'popular' cancer!). I know smoking will increase my risk of lung cancer so I dont smoke....seems pretty simple to me.


----------



## hutch6

TB ha sbeen aro


noushka05 said:


> Dairy farmers are polluting our rivers, spreading tb to our badgers & wildlife. Its a really destructive industry in this country & cows produce methane no matter what country they're in :Cow


TB has been around long before we started cultivating and domesticating. The result of us domesticating and cultivating was TB within our early communties, even traveled with us when we ventured away from Africa.

Swings and roundabouts with bTB being passed to wildlife.

Livestock and wildlife had it, then we got it out of livestock but wildlife passed it back and here we are today. I blame the number of deer on the issue followed closely by animal husbandry.


----------



## Dr Pepper

catz4m8z said:


> And surely its not just personal choice if it involves the torture and killing of other living creatures??


My personal choice is not to eat animals that have been tortured. I do prefer them dead though and think that's far more humane than eating them alive.


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> I agree that we evolved to utilise meat when we could snag some as,much like dogs, we are opportunistic scavengers who learnt to supplement our plant based diet when we could.
> 
> Id rather have to worry about a few malnourished vegans then have the NHS collapse under the weight (literally!) of all the meat and dairy eaters dying of heart disease, diabetes and strokes. Those things are an epidemic now thanks to our meat heavy diet.
> 
> And surely its not just personal choice if it involves the torture and killing of other living creatures??


You can't blame meat on the diabetic and obesity endemic end of.

We've been eating meat for millenia but only since the industrialised food manufacturing processes and the more sedentary lifestyle has this increase ramped up.
We can live a very cushty life of convenience with private transportation, a million TV channels, all our food needs under once roof and they will deliver, they even put meals together for you using cheap crap but people lap it up.

I've played around with my macros quite a bit whilst being at the gym and when I swapped to a high fat low carb diet the weight dropped off far too quick so I reverted back to a high carb low fat and the weight came back. Reading up on diet and it's effect on the human body has certainly shown me why people are so fat and struggling with health. I even took on WeightWatchers who advocate a low fat high carb diet with my girlfriend who went on a high fat low carb diet and we smashed their records to pieces. When you research ketogenics you learn what your body cells are built to utilise. Insulin is a hormone your body produces to get glucose out of your system. Whilst insulin is in your system your body can't access the body fat it needs to make fuel so when you eat cereal or fruit for breakfast your body fills with glucose or fructtose (which is then converted to glucose) and your system fills with insulin. The at lunch you have a sandwich or pasta or rice and the same for tea and these produce further glucose spikes. Whilst all of this is going o your body cannot access the body fat. Starving people produce ketones when they run out of glucose and that is when the human body goes into xylophone ribs mode. When you are on a high fat diet just breathing causes you to lose weight as that is how the human body is designed.
The food pyramid is a total mess and a waste of time as it serves only to promote the consumption of foods that are subsidised by the American government to the sum of most country's GDP so of course they want you to eat it. The food pyramid was drawn up by a member of congress with zero dietary or nutritional background.
In 195*odd* an American invented a GM crop that produced six times the bushels of a normal cereal. Now take that date and look at the mortality rate of heart disease and cancer and tell me that doesn't correlate?
How many chefs on TV or campaigns have advocated the use of cooking oils in food instead of animal fat? Olive oil is an omega6 product, it's cancer in a bottle as is every other cooking oil derived from cereal, veg or nuts.
Margarine isn't even recognised by the human body. It is something like one BCAA off of being plastic.

Diabetes can be reversed or at least the need for insulin be eliminated by eating a high fat low carb diet. But doctors put diabetics on a high carb low fat diet which is the reverse. This causes the sufferer to require more insulin. It is a perso's intolerance to glucose that causes them to get fat in the first place. Every one is different so my intolerance is different to everyone else's so I could eat a loaf of bread and not feel any difference where as someone else could only have a slice or two of the same bread and feel crap. Cereal crops act upon the body like an opiate, seriously, you can research that and find it as a fact. It is believed the inflammation from wheat causes the arteries and veins to swell and tear so the body patches these up with a substance called cholesterol. I got measured at the gym before I went high fat and after I went high fat. My bad cholesterol was virtually zero so does a high fat cause heart disease? I personaly don't think so as I have seen the effects myself and other leading scientists don't think so either.

Tim Noakes - keto
Jeff Volek - keto
Stephen Phinney -keto
William Davis - wheat


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> Using individual cases doesnt really tell you much about the population as a whole. Statistical information is much more relevant and its been proven that dairy increases your risk of breast cancer or prostate cancer and meat will greatly increase your risk of colon cancer (which I belive is now the third most 'popular' cancer!). I know smoking will increase my risk of lung cancer so I dont smoke....seems pretty simple to me.


No that was low fat dairy, not dairy as a whole. Low fat dairy contains more of the bad stuff (lactose - a form of sugar) than the good stuff (fat). The link between colon cancer and meat was a high consumption of red meat, which I have already stated is the least nutritional part of the animal.


----------



## hutch6

How come heart disease and diabetes is barely a factor in the true inuit population that are not touched by the modern western diet and yet they live primarily of of meat and fat? No veg or fruit grow in the far north the last time I checked so they survive off of the caribou herds they rely on for milk and food as well as the fatty animals up there.


----------



## Calvine

hutch6 said:


> But doctors put diabetics on a high carb low fat diet


That's if they can be bothered to hand out any dietary advice at all, @hutch6.


----------



## Rafa

catz4m8z said:


> I agree that we evolved to utilise meat when we could snag some as,much like dogs, we are opportunistic scavengers who learnt to supplement our plant based diet when we could.
> 
> Id rather have to worry about a few malnourished vegans then have the NHS collapse under the weight (literally!) of all the meat and dairy eaters dying of heart disease, diabetes and strokes. Those things are an epidemic now thanks to our meat heavy diet.
> 
> And surely its not just personal choice if it involves the torture and killing of other living creatures??


The high incidence of, for example, diabetes in our modern Society is largely caused by obesity.

Meat itself is far less likely to be the cause of obesity than the amount of processed and 'fast' food being consumed.

I live on the main access road on a large estate and the number of pizza delivery vehicles up and down here in an evening is ridiculous.

As kids, we grew up on a diet of home cooked food, including meat and veg., and I don't remember one obese child in the schools I attended.

Feeding kids pizza, whilst they sit on their bottoms, staring at a screen is a huge part of the problem.


----------



## StormyThai

hutch6 said:


> How come heart disease and diabetes is barely a factor in the true inuit population that are not touched by the modern western diet and yet they live primarily of of meat and fat? No veg or fruit grow in the far north the last time I checked so they survive off of the caribou herds they rely on for milk and food as well as the fatty animals up there.


Umm Inuits aren't without health issues due to their heavy meat diet 

*Atherosclerosis*
*Severe Bone Loss
Infected with Parasite
Chemical Pollution
*
Those are just a few things that Inuits have to cope with, add to that their short life I'm not so sure you want to use them as an example of good health on mostly meat diet


----------



## Calvine

Sweety said:


> As kids, we grew up on a diet of home cooked food, including meat and veg., and I don't remember one obese child in the schools I attended.


Now many of them visit MacD on their way home from school.


----------



## Calvine

StormyThai said:


> Umm Inuits aren't without health issues due to their heavy meat diet


Also due to the fact that many of them smoke like chimneys apparently (and allegedly).


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Catharinem said:


> But not all carnivores hunt down, rip through skin without using tools .
> 
> Spiders use webs or hide behind trapdoors.
> Birds can use a stick to get termites out of a baked hard earthen nest.
> Thrushes use an anvil stone to smash snails open against.
> Even crocodiles stow their drowned ( not ripped apart) prey in underwater crevices to rot the flesh and soften it.


Fair point about spiders but sticks & stones are still tools 



MilleD said:


> We're certainly not prey though, our eyes are all wrong for that.


Don't think I said we were prey.



Dr Pepper said:


> Ok, you can't see what's staring you in the face with regards to us being hunters. However we do agree we are designed/evolved (or whatever word you wish to use) to eat meat.
> 
> So going back to the op, what right does this leather wearing chap have to say we should all become vegan? It goes against nature and would cause so many health problems due to malnutrition the health services wouldn't be able to cope and we'd be dropping like flies within months (maybe not a bad thing for the planet though).
> 
> I don't really get why vegan/vegetarians become so evangelical about their diet, it's personal choice. I was a veggie for a couple of years but didn't sudden start preaching everyone should be as well. Today I will still use quorn in curries, chillie, stroganoff etc so I appreciate we don't have to eat meat all the time.
> 
> I can't really see what the argument is here?


:Hilarious:Hilarious Absolutely hysterically funny. Our health service is groaning at the seams because of our current diet, high in meat, dairy and processed foods. I can quote health research at you all day showing that vegans (and by that I mean people who understand how to eat properly as a vegan not the students who decide to live on chips and veggie burgers and beer) are the healthiest and that a wholefood plant based diet reverses heart disease (proved by scans showing reduction in plaque), reduces cholesterol and blood pressure, reverses Type 2 Diabetes, reduces the risk of some cancers (colon, breast, prostate) and can be very effective with many autoimmune/inflammatory disorders.

Evangelical :Hilarious personal choice :Hilarious - the planet belongs to all of us, the welfare of farm animals both on the farm (or should I said factory) and the slaughter house should be the concern of everyone. The argument started about one man who went on a TV show to discuss why cutting down on our animal consumption is so beneficial to the environment and to animal welfare but got lambasted by a thug because he happened to be wearing a leather watch strap which of course means we should all just stick our heads back deep in the sand and pretend everything is rosy in la la land.



hutch6 said:


> So no vegan or vegetarian has ever died from cancer of any form?
> 
> Cancer cells don't feed off of glucose which we metabolise from starch then?


Of course vegans and vegetarians still get some cancers, it takes years for many cancers to develop through the stages but there are types of cancer that being vegan can reduce your risk of and slow the process of. The WHO has classified processed meat as a Grade 1 carcinogen.


----------



## hutch6

StormyThai said:


> Umm Inuits aren't without health issues due to their heavy meat diet
> 
> *Atherosclerosis
> Severe Bone Loss
> Infected with Parasite
> Chemical Pollution
> *
> Those are just a few things that Inuits have to cope with, add to that their short life I'm not so sure you want to use them as an example of good health on mostly meat diet


Can you provide the source for the findings on atherosclerosis in inuits untouched by the industrialised world please?

I understand the bone one due to the lack of vitamin D from sunshine although fresh meat is packed with the stuff, especially seal and whale blubber.
Infected by parasites is the rick we run in our world. You can become infected by a parasite just walking in the countryside so not down to eating meat.
Chemical pollution is most likely down to the pollution from the developed world finding it's way into the food chain through ocean currents and migratory animals.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> You can't blame meat on the diabetic and obesity endemic end of.
> 
> We've been eating meat for millenia but only since the industrialised food manufacturing processes and the more sedentary lifestyle has this increase ramped up.
> We can live a very cushty life of convenience with private transportation, a million TV channels, all our food needs under once roof and they will deliver, they even put meals together for you using cheap crap but people lap it up.
> 
> I've played around with my macros quite a bit whilst being at the gym and when I swapped to a high fat low carb diet the weight dropped off far too quick so I reverted back to a high carb low fat and the weight came back. Reading up on diet and it's effect on the human body has certainly shown me why people are so fat and struggling with health. I even took on WeightWatchers who advocate a low fat high carb diet with my girlfriend who went on a high fat low carb diet and we smashed their records to pieces. When you research ketogenics you learn what your body cells are built to utilise. Insulin is a hormone your body produces to get glucose out of your system. Whilst insulin is in your system your body can't access the body fat it needs to make fuel so when you eat cereal or fruit for breakfast your body fills with glucose or fructtose (which is then converted to glucose) and your system fills with insulin. The at lunch you have a sandwich or pasta or rice and the same for tea and these produce further glucose spikes. Whilst all of this is going o your body cannot access the body fat. Starving people produce ketones when they run out of glucose and that is when the human body goes into xylophone ribs mode. When you are on a high fat diet just breathing causes you to lose weight as that is how the human body is designed.
> The food pyramid is a total mess and a waste of time as it serves only to promote the consumption of foods that are subsidised by the American government to the sum of most country's GDP so of course they want you to eat it. The food pyramid was drawn up by a member of congress with zero dietary or nutritional background.
> In 195*odd* an American invented a GM crop that produced six times the bushels of a normal cereal. Now take that date and look at the mortality rate of heart disease and cancer and tell me that doesn't correlate?
> How many chefs on TV or campaigns have advocated the use of cooking oils in food instead of animal fat? Olive oil is an omega6 product, it's cancer in a bottle as is every other cooking oil derived from cereal, veg or nuts.
> Margarine isn't even recognised by the human body. It is something like one BCAA off of being plastic.
> 
> Diabetes can be reversed or at least the need for insulin be eliminated by eating a high fat low carb diet. But doctors put diabetics on a high carb low fat diet which is the reverse. This causes the sufferer to require more insulin. It is a perso's intolerance to glucose that causes them to get fat in the first place. Every one is different so my intolerance is different to everyone else's so I could eat a loaf of bread and not feel any difference where as someone else could only have a slice or two of the same bread and feel crap. Cereal crops act upon the body like an opiate, seriously, you can research that and find it as a fact. It is believed the inflammation from wheat causes the arteries and veins to swell and tear so the body patches these up with a substance called cholesterol. I got measured at the gym before I went high fat and after I went high fat. My bad cholesterol was virtually zero so does a high fat cause heart disease? I personaly don't think so as I have seen the effects myself and other leading scientists don't think so either.
> 
> Tim Noakes - keto
> Jeff Volek - keto
> Stephen Phinney -keto
> William Davis - wheat


Oh gosh where to begin. Type 2 Diabetes is caused by insulin resistance. Insulin resistance is caused by a high fat diet which gums up the insulin receptors in the muscle cells so that insulin can't do its job and get the glucose out of the blood stream and into the cells where it should be. This might help explain it

http://www.jgc301.com/ch/reader/cre..._20170301003&year_id=2017&quarter_id=5&falg=1

From the above

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is rising worldwide, especially in older adults. Diet and lifestyle, particularly plant-based diets, are effective tools for type 2 diabetes prevention and management. Plant-based diets are eating patterns that emphasize legumes, whole grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and seeds and discourage most or all animal products. Cohort studies strongly support the role of plant-based diets, and food and nutrient components of plant-based diets, in reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes. Evidence from observational and interventional studies demonstrates the benefits of plant-based diets in treating type 2 diabetes and reducing key diabetes-related macrovascular and microvascular complications. Optimal macronutrient ratios for preventing and treating type 2 diabetes are controversial; the focus should instead be on eating patterns and actual foods. However, the evidence does suggest that the type and source of carbohydrate (unrefined versus refined), fats (monounsaturated and polyunsaturated versus saturated and trans), and protein (plant versus animal) play a major role in the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes. Multiple potential mechanisms underlie the benefits of a plant-based diet in ameliorating insulin resistance, including promotion of a healthy body weight, increases in fiber and phytonutrients, food-microbiome interactions, and decreases in saturated fat, advanced glycation endproducts, nitrosamines, and heme iron.

Please can you provide some links to research that proves that a high fat low carb diet reduces cholesterol levels or reverses heart disease? I would love to read it. Lets not forget what Dr Atkins died of either.


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Fair point about spiders but sticks & stones are still tools
> 
> Don't think I said we were prey.
> 
> :Hilarious:Hilarious Absolutely hysterically funny. Our health service is groaning at the seams because of our current diet, high in meat, dairy and processed foods. *I can quote health research at you all day showing that vegans (and by that I mean people who understand how to eat properly as a vegan not the students who decide to live on chips and veggie burgers and beer) are the healthiest and that a wholefood plant based diet reverses heart disease (proved by scans showing reduction in plaque), reduces cholesterol and blood pressure, reverses Type 2 Diabetes, reduces the risk of some cancers (colon, breast, prostate) and can be very effective with many autoimmune/inflammatory disorders. *
> 
> Evangelical :Hilarious personal choice :Hilarious - the planet belongs to all of us, the welfare of farm animals both on the farm (or should I said factory) and the slaughter house should be the concern of everyone. The argument started about one man who went on a TV show to discuss why cutting down on our animal consumption is so beneficial to the environment and to animal welfare but got lambasted by a thug because he happened to be wearing a leather watch strap which of course means we should all just stick our heads back deep in the sand and pretend everything is rosy in la la land.
> 
> Of course vegans and vegetarians still get some cancers, it takes years for many cancers to develop through the stages but there are types of cancer that being vegan can reduce your risk of and slow the process of. The WHO has classified processed meat as a Grade 1 carcinogen.


Go for it then.

Reputable sources from field experts and not some corporate sponsored own agenda bullcrap.

Can I take a stab at the Okinawa Diet being featured?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> No that was low fat dairy, not dairy as a whole. Low fat dairy contains more of the bad stuff (lactose - a form of sugar) than the good stuff (fat). The link between colon cancer and meat was a high consumption of red meat, which I have already stated is the least nutritional part of the animal.


No it isn't just low fat dairy - are you aware of the work of Dr Dean Ornish on heart disease and prostate cancer?

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/lifestyle-therapy-for-prostate-cancer-does-it-work

Just in case you can't be bothered to open the link

Scientists from five American research centers joined forces to study lifestyle therapy for prostate cancer. The trial, conducted in San Francisco, was headed by Dr. Dean Ornish, a nutrition expert, and Dr. Peter Carroll, a noted urologist.

The first challenge was to identify patients who were medically and ethically appropriate for the study. Only men who had already decided against active conventional therapy were eligible. All the men had newly diagnosed low-grade to moderate-grade prostate cancers (_Gleason score,_ less than 7) that were localized to the gland (_stage T1 or T2_). All the men had elevated blood PSA levels of 4 to 10 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml); none had already made major lifestyle changes, and none was abusing alcohol, tobacco, or drugs. After giving informed consent, 93 men enrolled in the trial; 44 were randomly assigned to the lifestyle therapy group, 49 to the untreated control group. At the start of the trial, the two groups were similar in age, weight, marital status, cholesterol levels, testosterone levels, PSA levels, and in Gleason scores (which predict the likely aggressiveness of prostate cancer cells).

The next challenge was to design a program that was intensive but sustainable. It included four elements:


_Diet._ Based on Dr. Ornish's ultra-low-fat vegan diet that is sometimes used for heart disease, the regimen provided less than 10% of calories from fat and contained only trace amounts of cholesterol. The menu consisted mainly of fruits, vegetables, whole grain products, legumes, and soy products.

_Supplements._ Each man took 58 grams of powdered soy protein, 3 grams of fish oil, 400 IU of vitamin E, 2 grams of vitamin C, and 200 micrograms of selenium every day.

_Exercise._ The men walked for 30 minutes at a moderate pace six days a week.

_Stress reduction._ The men performed yoga-based stretching, breathing, meditation, and relaxation exercises for a total of an hour a day.

The third challenge was to measure the effect of the program. Two techniques were used. The main standard was the blood PSA level. The second was the effect of each man's blood serum on the growth of _LNCaP cells,_ a standard line of human prostate cancer cells grown in tissue culture.

*Results*
The trial lasted one year. Three members of the lifestyle treatment group dropped out because the program was too arduous, but none left because they required conventional therapy. Six members of the control group required conventional therapy during the year because of the progression of their disease, indicated by rising PSA levels (4 patients) or MRI images that showed tumor enlargement (2 patients).

Initially, the treatment and control groups had identical PSA levels, which averaged 6.3 ng/ml. At the end of the year, a small but significant difference was evident. The average PSA in the intensive lifestyle group fell to 6 ng/ml whereas the average PSA in the untreated men rose to 6.7 ng/ml. And tests of how the men's blood affected the growth of prostate cancer cells showed similar changes. Blood samples from the lifestyle treatment group inhibited prostate cancer cell growth by 70%, while samples from the control group inhibited growth by only 9%.


----------



## Catharinem

I'm getting tired of the arguments that meat eaters torture animals by their food choices and vegans/vegetarians don't. Anyone who eats food not directly grown/raised by themselves puts money into the system, just because you don't see a dead animal on your plate doesn't mean their death hadn't occurred. Check out this "safe" rat poison for use on livestock and arable farms ( including organic arable), food storage and food prep areas, as well as domestic premises. Basically dries them out from the inside, so their mummified corpses remain smell free as they lie in the burrows the rats have crawled back to, slipped into a coma and died. http://www.eradibait.com/

Some crop pesticide controls aren't very nice either: nematode control of slugs, ants etc work by nematode worms entering target species through its natural openings or through the cuticle, once inside it releases bacteria which stop it feeding. Stop feeding within 3 days and dead in a week. Quick and painless then! As for rats, the dead slugs lie hidden, under the soil where tbeir dead bodies can't upset sensitve souls. https://www.nematodesdirect.co.uk/content/7-introduction-to-nemaslug
We should rightly be protesting against poor welfare standards on some livestock farms, and insist on small herds, naturally fed ( thus losing the " crops being grown to feed animals" argument ), and local slaughter in a humane manner. We need to be prepared to pay for this. 
At the same time, why aren't the cruel practices used by the arable industry, and even Joe Public in his Saturday allotment coming under scrutiny? A grass fed dexter steer, born and raised on the same farm for 2 1/2 years, staying with his mum the entirety of that time, being naturally weaned as he takes more grass and hay, loaded and driven for 30 - 45 minutes and slaughtered by appointment at small local abattoir is "cruel", but a wheat farmer or food shop causing rats to slowly mummify over the course of several days is ok? That's some seriously messed up thinking.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> How come heart disease and diabetes is barely a factor in the true inuit population that are not touched by the modern western diet and yet they live primarily of of meat and fat? No veg or fruit grow in the far north the last time I checked so they survive off of the caribou herds they rely on for milk and food as well as the fatty animals up there.


The Inuit eat more total fat but far less saturated fat less than 9% of calories compared to 15% or more in the Western diet. They also consume wild berries, kelp, flowers and nuts when available. The Inuits suffer from many chronic diseases and live on average ten years less than statistically matched Canadians(Choiniere 1992, Iburg, Brennum-Hansen et all 2001). They have the worst longetivity of all North American populations. They die of infections such as TB, have a high suicide rate, cancers of the GI tract and stroke (Paltoo and Chu 2004).


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> But doctors put diabetics on a high carb low fat diet which is the reverse


Just going back to this point, there are very few doctors in the UK who advise diabetics to eat a high carb diet, I wish there were more and then we might see a reduction in the tragic complications of the disease.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> Go for it then.
> 
> Reputable sources from field experts and not some corporate sponsored own agenda bullcrap.
> 
> Can I take a stab at the Okinawa Diet being featured?


Go for what? I've already given you a couple of examples of scientific, peer reviewed research. Where is yours? By all means take a stab at the Okinawa Diet.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Bit more on the Inuit/Masai

http://nutritionstudies.org/masai-and-inuit-high-protein-diets-a-closer-look/

What about their risk of heart disease? It turns out to be a myth so often repeated it just became an unsupported truth. A 2003 paper[5] published by a highly experienced, highly published scientist at the National Institute of Public Health in Greenland, written with his colleagues from Canada, documents many autopsy studies and clinical observations and studies proving that heart disease existed among the Inuit. In fact, in 1940 the "father of epidemiology" in Greenland, Bertelsen, noted heart disease to be quite common, perhaps even more interesting given the young age of the population. He based this on clinical experience and medical officer reports going back for many decades(cited in 5). All told, the 2003 paper found "the hypothesis that mortality from ischemic heart disease is low among the Inuit compared with western populations insufficiently founded." Further, "…a general statement that mortality from cardiovascular disease is high among the Inuit seems more warranted than the opposite."[5]

In addition, it has been found that bone health among the Inuit was quite bad. A 1974 study[6] found, "Aging bone loss, which occurs in many populations, has an earlier onset and greater intensity in the Eskimos. Nutrition factors of high protein, high nitrogen, high phosphorus, and low calcium intakes may be implicated."


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Oh gosh where to begin. Type 2 Diabetes is caused by insulin resistance. Insulin resistance is caused by a high fat diet which gums up the insulin receptors in the muscle cells so that insulin can't do its job and get the glucose out of the blood stream and into the cells where it should be. This might help explain it
> 
> http://www.jgc301.com/ch/reader/cre..._20170301003&year_id=2017&quarter_id=5&falg=1
> 
> From the above
> 
> The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is rising worldwide, especially in older adults. Diet and lifestyle, particularly plant-based diets, are effective tools for type 2 diabetes prevention and management. Plant-based diets are eating patterns that emphasize legumes, whole grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and seeds and discourage most or all animal products. Cohort studies strongly support the role of plant-based diets, and food and nutrient components of plant-based diets, in reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes. Evidence from observational and interventional studies demonstrates the benefits of plant-based diets in treating type 2 diabetes and reducing key diabetes-related macrovascular and microvascular complications. Optimal macronutrient ratios for preventing and treating type 2 diabetes are controversial; the focus should instead be on eating patterns and actual foods. However, the evidence does suggest that the type and source of carbohydrate (unrefined versus refined), fats (monounsaturated and polyunsaturated versus saturated and trans), and protein (plant versus animal) play a major role in the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes. Multiple potential mechanisms underlie the benefits of a plant-based diet in ameliorating insulin resistance, including promotion of a healthy body weight, increases in fiber and phytonutrients, food-microbiome interactions, and decreases in saturated fat, advanced glycation endproducts, nitrosamines, and heme iron.
> 
> Please can you provide some links to research that proves that a high fat low carb diet reduces cholesterol levels or reverses heart disease? I would love to read it. Lets not forget what Dr Atkins died of either.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945587/

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog...mate-low-carb-diet-good-for-you-2017072712089

https://www.healthtestingcenters.com/cholesterol-and-ketogenic-diet

I have pages of the stuff.


----------



## Elles

I think if we weren’t meant to eat meat, we wouldn’t be able to. The video compares us to horses, horses eat grass. Ever tried eating grass? (No, not that sort). If we weren’t meant to eat meat at all, we wouldn’t be able to digest it imo.

That doesn’t mean we have to eat it, if we don’t want to, or that it’s the best thing to eat. I don’t want to eat meat, so I don’t.

Vegans and vegetarians don’t tend to be evangelical until they’re told a bunch of myths about how they’re going to die and destroy the planet in the process. Then we have to defend ourselves and find proof to convince the naysayers. If we can be bothered. I can’t usually be bothered. If people haven’t seen the arguments in favour by now, they don’t want to see them.

This thread has been suggesting that most people could cut down on meat and dairy, eat more fruit and veg instead (wholefood, there’s a pinned thread) contribute to a healthier environment and be healthier for it themselves. What’s wrong with that? Even from someone who wears a leather watch strap.

It would be impossible for small ethical farms to keep up with demand, so if we wanted to go back to it, we’d all have to eat less meat and dairy. A healthier lifestyle for us is better for the planet and the nhs too. There are a number of ways we can adopt a healthier lifestyle, I get fed up with people bringing up anything they possibly can think of to disparage the vegan choice. 

All of the evidence points to a wholefood plant based diet being the healthiest diet for us and for the planet. No one has to take it up if they don’t want to, but at least make an informed decision. I’ve started noticing recently how much tv advertising is geared towards meat and dairy. We’re bombarded with it.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945587/
> 
> https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog...mate-low-carb-diet-good-for-you-2017072712089
> 
> https://www.healthtestingcenters.com/cholesterol-and-ketogenic-diet
> 
> I have pages of the stuff.


Thank you, I will have a good look and come back to you. I've done a high fat ketogenic diet myself for a couple of years so have first hand experience of the unpleasant side effects of maintaining ketosis one in particular has taken years to sort out.


----------



## Catharinem

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Fair point about spiders but sticks & stones are still tools


That was my point exactly. 

Saying we aren't natural meat eaters because we can't chase down and rip our prey without tools is like saying thrushes aren't natural snail eaters because they use rocks as anvils, and certain birds aren't natural termite eaters if they have to use a stick. 

Tool use in the animal kingdom, of which we are a small part, is rife. Tool use itself is a natural behaviour- we just took it up a few levels.

We could argue until the cows come home ( for milking) whether our bodies are designed to eat meat or not, as per the example showing humans can't open their jaws very wide, so not meant to kill with their teeth, ironically in the same quoted post showing off the vegetarian canine teeth in the _widely open _mouth of the vegetarian hippo. 

What we should be debating is what we, meat eaters, reductarians, vegetarians, vegans, peskeytarians( ), fruitarians etc etc can do to play our part in the bigger picture of food production, land use, food miles, species diversity etc for a healthier planet _and _a healthier, guilt reduced us.


----------



## Dr Pepper

rottiepointerhouse said:


> :Hilarious:Hilarious Absolutely hysterically funny. Our health service is groaning at the seams because of our current diet, high in meat, dairy and processed foods. I can quote health research at you all day showing that vegans (and by that I mean people who understand how to eat properly as a vegan not the students who decide to live on chips and veggie burgers and beer) are the healthiest and that a wholefood plant based diet reverses heart disease (proved by scans showing reduction in plaque), reduces cholesterol and blood pressure, reverses Type 2 Diabetes, reduces the risk of some cancers (colon, breast, prostate) and can be very effective with many autoimmune/inflammatory disorders.
> 
> Evangelical :Hilarious personal choice :Hilarious - the planet belongs to all of us, the welfare of farm animals both on the farm (or should I said factory) and the slaughter house should be the concern of everyone. The argument started about one man who went on a TV show to discuss why cutting down on our animal consumption is so beneficial to the environment and to animal welfare but got lambasted by a thug because he happened to be wearing a leather watch strap which of course means we should all just stick our heads back deep in the sand and pretend everything is rosy in la la land.
> 
> Of course vegans and vegetarians still get some cancers, it takes years for many cancers to develop through the stages but there are types of cancer that being vegan can reduce your risk of and slow the process of. The WHO has classified processed meat as a Grade 1 carcinogen.


So, let's take all meat off the supermarket shelves tomorrow, no better still lets slowly phase it out over five years. Suddenly the NHS is saved because obesity is eradicated? Or is it hit by far far more cases of malnutrition than obesity ever created? Just because you personally can and do live a healthy meat free lifestyle doesn't mean everyone has the knowledge or inclination to do the same. It'd be a disaster.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

https://www.vegansociety.com/get-involved/campaigns/plate-planet

https://www.vegansociety.com/whats-...port-says-we-must-switch-animal-plant-protein


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> No it isn't just low fat dairy - are you aware of the work of Dr Dean Ornish on heart disease and prostate cancer?
> 
> https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/lifestyle-therapy-for-prostate-cancer-does-it-work
> 
> Just in case you can't be bothered to open the link
> 
> Scientists from five American research centers joined forces to study lifestyle therapy for prostate cancer. The trial, conducted in San Francisco, was headed by Dr. Dean Ornish, a nutrition expert, and Dr. Peter Carroll, a noted urologist.
> 
> The first challenge was to identify patients who were medically and ethically appropriate for the study. Only men who had already decided against active conventional therapy were eligible. All the men had newly diagnosed low-grade to moderate-grade prostate cancers (_Gleason score,_ less than 7) that were localized to the gland (_stage T1 or T2_). All the men had elevated blood PSA levels of 4 to 10 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml); none had already made major lifestyle changes, and none was abusing alcohol, tobacco, or drugs. After giving informed consent, 93 men enrolled in the trial; 44 were randomly assigned to the lifestyle therapy group, 49 to the untreated control group. At the start of the trial, the two groups were similar in age, weight, marital status, cholesterol levels, testosterone levels, PSA levels, and in Gleason scores (which predict the likely aggressiveness of prostate cancer cells).
> 
> The next challenge was to design a program that was intensive but sustainable. It included four elements:
> 
> 
> _Diet._ Based on Dr. Ornish's ultra-low-fat vegan diet that is sometimes used for heart disease, the regimen provided less than 10% of calories from fat and contained only trace amounts of cholesterol. The menu consisted mainly of fruits, vegetables, whole grain products, legumes, and soy products.
> 
> _Supplements._ Each man took 58 grams of powdered soy protein, 3 grams of fish oil, 400 IU of vitamin E, 2 grams of vitamin C, and 200 micrograms of selenium every day.
> 
> _Exercise._ The men walked for 30 minutes at a moderate pace six days a week.
> 
> _Stress reduction._ The men performed yoga-based stretching, breathing, meditation, and relaxation exercises for a total of an hour a day.
> The third challenge was to measure the effect of the program. Two techniques were used. The main standard was the blood PSA level. The second was the effect of each man's blood serum on the growth of _LNCaP cells,_ a standard line of human prostate cancer cells grown in tissue culture.
> 
> *Results*
> The trial lasted one year. Three members of the lifestyle treatment group dropped out because the program was too arduous, but none left because they required conventional therapy. Six members of the control group required conventional therapy during the year because of the progression of their disease, indicated by rising PSA levels (4 patients) or MRI images that showed tumor enlargement (2 patients).
> 
> Initially, the treatment and control groups had identical PSA levels, which averaged 6.3 ng/ml. At the end of the year, a small but significant difference was evident. The average PSA in the intensive lifestyle group fell to 6 ng/ml whereas the average PSA in the untreated men rose to 6.7 ng/ml. And tests of how the men's blood affected the growth of prostate cancer cells showed similar changes. Blood samples from the lifestyle treatment group inhibited prostate cancer cell growth by 70%, while samples from the control group inhibited growth by only 9%.


So six dropped out because they got worse, their diets had to be supplemented with a host of vitamins (thought you'd get all of them from the fruit and veg) and fish oil (not right vegan is it?). They had to exercise for six days a week and after a year it only dropped 0.3 nano-grams per mil of blood. 
What was their diet before hand? I bet it was fat-food, processed crap and sugary junk with very little exercise.

Have I got that right?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Dr Pepper said:


> So, let's take all meat off the supermarket shelves tomorrow, no better still lets slowly phase it out over five years. Suddenly the NHS is saved because obesity is eradicated? Or is it hit by far far more cases of malnutrition than obesity ever created? Just because you personally can and do live a healthy meat free lifestyle doesn't mean everyone has the knowledge or inclination to do the same. It'd be a disaster.


Of course not, a lot of people when they give up meat load up on cheese and eggs instead. If we did as you suggest and phase it out over 5 years (which is pie in the sky but we can hope) we would need to bring in education to help people understand what they should be eating instead. What type of malnutrition do you anticipate? Its not just me personally, there are populations all over the world who manage to survive without meat and dairy or as in the Blue Zones use tiny amounts as a condiment or only on occasional feast days.


----------



## Elles

Dr Pepper said:


> So, let's take all meat off the supermarket shelves tomorrow, no better still lets slowly phase it out over five years. Suddenly the NHS is saved because obesity is eradicated? Or is it hit by far far more cases of malnutrition than obesity ever created? Just because you personally can and do live a healthy meat free lifestyle doesn't mean everyone has the knowledge or inclination to do the same. It'd be a disaster.


It's already a disaster. Don't worry, the big guns would be shipping out fake alternatives to the shelves in no time and you'd still have your pizza or burger. No one would starve to death.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> So six dropped out because they got worse, their diets had to be supplemented with a host of vitamins (thought you'd get all of them from the fruit and veg) and fish oil (not right vegan is it?). They had to exercise for six days a week and after a year it only dropped 0.3 nano-grams per mil of blood.
> What was their diet before hand? I bet it was fat-food, processed crap and sugary junk with very little exercise.
> 
> Have I got that right?


Yes but I think you purposefully overlooked this bit

Blood samples from the lifestyle treatment group inhibited prostate cancer cell growth by 70%, while samples from the control group inhibited growth by only 9%.


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Just going back to this point, there are very few doctors in the UK who advise diabetics to eat a high carb diet, I wish there were more and then we might see a reduction in the tragic complications of the disease.


Are kidding me?

There is a whole host of studies on the relationship between carbs and insulin and you still believe a high carb diet is best? Oh lawd.


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> https://www.vegansociety.com/get-involved/campaigns/plate-planet
> 
> https://www.vegansociety.com/whats-...port-says-we-must-switch-animal-plant-protein


Anything from a vegan society is immediately chucked in the bin as far as I'm concerned. They only push their own agenda regardless.


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Yes but I think you purposefully overlooked this bit
> 
> Blood samples from the lifestyle treatment group inhibited prostate cancer cell growth by 70%, while samples from the control group inhibited growth by only 9%.


I think you overlooked the other findings further down which go along the lines of "we fed a group f men X and told them to exercise Y. The cancer cells were depleted in those that exercised" They fed one group just fish and tomatoes.

The chair is the death of the human race. We are not built to be in that position for extended periods of times and yet we sit down at every opportunity.


----------



## Dr Pepper

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Of course not, a lot of people when they give up meat load up on cheese and eggs instead. If we did as you suggest and phase it out over 5 years (which is pie in the sky but we can hope) we would need to bring in education to help people understand what they should be eating instead. What type of malnutrition do you anticipate? Its not just me personally, there are populations all over the world who manage to survive without meat and dairy or as in the Blue Zones use tiny amounts as a condiment or only on occasional feast days.


That's the problem, we can't educate people to eat a healthy diet with all the options, take away meat and dairy and you stand even less chance.

I'm all for encouraging people to cut down on meat and dairy for the benefit of animal welfare. My issue with the muppet on telly (I've forgotten his name!!) was he was saying we should all stop eating meat, not cut down but stop. That's a ridiculous and unattainable crusade.


----------



## Elles

Dr Pepper said:


> That's the problem, we can't educate people to eat a healthy diet with all the options, take away meat and dairy and you stand even less chance.
> 
> I'm all for encouraging people to cut down on meat and dairy for the benefit of animal welfare. My issue with the muppet on telly (I've forgotten his name!!) was he was saying we should all stop eating meat, not cut down but stop. That's a ridiculous and unattainable crusade.


Quite right. People don't want to be healthy, the resistance is huge. My own doctor is morbidly obese, can barely walk and is constantly off sick and she's a doctor. What chance the rest. It's too easy to eat an unhealthy diet and become addicted to it. People inject themselves with heroin and make themselves sick at the weekends binge drinking and we want them to eat a healthy diet, even if the idiot experts could agree on what healthy is. :Hilarious

If you're bothered about it, do your research and help yourself, if you're not, don't worry about it. We'll probably vote in Corbyn next time anyway and he'll save the NHS for us.


----------



## hutch6

Elles said:


> Quite right. People don't want to be healthy, the resistance is huge. My own doctor is morbidly obese, can barely walk and is constantly off sick and she's a doctor. What chance the rest. It's too easy to eat an unhealthy diet and become addicted to it. People inject themselves with heroin and make themselves sick at the weekends binge drinking and we want them to eat a healthy diet, even if the idiot experts could agree on what healthy is. :Hilarious
> 
> If you're bothered about it, do your research and help yourself, if you're not, don't worry about it. We'll probably vote in Corbyn next time anyway and he'll save the NHS for us.


A doctor, the one we see, otherwise called GPs, are pretty much just fit the medicine with the issue. Pill pushers. Only the decent ones will look at outside factors other than the huge corporate sponsorship from massive pharmaceutical conglomerates.

The medical industry isn't all that fussed about the nutrition industry and the nutrition industry isn't all that fussed about the medical industry as they both counter act each other.


----------



## Elles

GPs are intelligent, educated people who see the results of poor diet every day. They also have access to the same information the rest of us do, if not more. If they can’t do it, why would I waste my breath trying to persuade anyone else. 

I don’t think we want to live like the Inuits. They have terrible problems and it would be very difficult to assess which of their issues are diet related and which aren’t. I don’t think they’re a very useful example to use, if trying to promote a meat based diet.


----------



## Dr Pepper

Elles said:


> Quite right. People don't want to be healthy, the resistance is huge. My own doctor is morbidly obese, can barely walk and is constantly off sick and she's a doctor. What chance the rest. It's too easy to eat an unhealthy diet and become addicted to it. People inject themselves with heroin and make themselves sick at the weekends binge drinking and we want them to eat a healthy diet, even if the idiot experts could agree on what healthy is. :Hilarious


When you put it like that it is all a bit ridiculous. The only real solution is less people on the planet that need feeding. Trouble is every time nature tries to wheedle down the population humans, in their wisdom, fight back.


----------



## noushka05

hutch6 said:


> TB ha sbeen aro
> 
> TB has been around long before we started cultivating and domesticating. The result of us domesticating and cultivating was TB within our early communties, even traveled with us when we ventured away from Africa.
> 
> Swings and roundabouts with bTB being passed to wildlife.
> 
> Livestock and wildlife had it, then we got it out of livestock but wildlife passed it back and here we are today. I blame the number of deer on the issue followed closely by animal husbandry.


We know poor farming practices & bio security are responsible for the spread of bTB in cattle Hutch. We know that 'culling badgers can make no meaningful difference to controlling the disease in cattle' - scientists could not be clearer on that.

Yet here we are, another year of slaughter as this despicable government rolls the cull out to wipe out over 30,000 innocent lives for sod all. This is badger extermination from swathes of the countryside just as I always knew it would be. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/philip-mansbridge/badger-cull_b_18071936.html

I think I'd choke on a glass of milk.

.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> Are kidding me?
> 
> There is a whole host of studies on the relationship between carbs and insulin and you still believe a high carb diet is best? Oh lawd.


High in unrefined carbs not high in donuts and fried potatoes.

Dr Neal Barnard explains it beautifully


----------



## Calvine

rottiepointerhouse said:


> there are very few doctors in the UK who advise diabetics to eat a high carb diet


There are very few who know or care too much about diet if you ask me.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Calvine said:


> There are very few who know or care too much about diet if you ask me.


Exactly although in fairness they get a tiny amount of nutrition training and most of that is related to things like providing nutrition for patients being tube fed, not sure what nurse training is like these days but when I trained there was nothing on nutrition either.


----------



## StormyThai

hutch6 said:


> Can you provide the source for the findings on atherosclerosis in inuits untouched by the industrialised world please?
> 
> I understand the bone one due to the lack of vitamin D from sunshine although fresh meat is packed with the stuff, especially seal and whale blubber.
> Infected by parasites is the rick we run in our world. You can become infected by a parasite just walking in the countryside so not down to eating meat.
> Chemical pollution is most likely down to the pollution from the developed world finding it's way into the food chain through ocean currents and migratory animals.


First show me an Inuit tribe that is completely untouched by the industrial world 
I've never been infected by parasites (especially an over burden) just from walking through the countryside and considering where Inuits live I doubt very much they do either 

I was just saying that you may not want to use them as an example of a healthy heavy meat eaters because for the most part they are no healthier than the rest of the world!


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> High in unrefined carbs not high in donuts and fried potatoes.
> 
> Dr Neal Barnard explains it beautifully


What about bread, pasta and rice etc? I wasn't meaning sweets and choccies.


----------



## Elles

hutch6 said:


> What about bread, pasta and rice etc? I wasn't meaning sweets and choccies.


It's in the video.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> What about bread, pasta and rice etc? I wasn't meaning sweets and choccies.


Please have a listen to Dr Barnard.


----------



## hutch6

StormyThai said:


> First show me an Inuit tribe that is completely untouched by the industrial world
> I've never been infected by parasites (especially an over burden) just from walking through the countryside and considering where Inuits live I doubt very much they do either
> 
> I was just saying that you may not want to use them as an example of a healthy heavy meat eaters because for the most part they are no healthier than the rest of the world!


DING! DING! DING!

So any Inuit tribe that has been introduced to certain aspects of the western diet has suffered as a consequence which was my original point. Prior to this happening they had the lowest cholesterol and heart disease rate, is that not correct. If it is not please point me to where it is found they had high levels prior to aspects of the western diets being introduced into their diet.

Just stay away from fox, rat, rabbit, deer and mouse excrement, you'll be fine.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> DING! DING! DING!
> 
> So any Inuit tribe that has been introduced to certain aspects of the western diet has suffered as a consequence which was my original point. Prior to this happening they had the lowest cholesterol and heart disease rate, is that not correct. If it is not please point me to where it is found they had high levels prior to aspects of the western diets being introduced into their diet.
> 
> Just stay away from fox, rat, rabbit, deer and mouse excrement, you'll be fine.


As previously posted

http://nutritionstudies.org/masai-and-inuit-high-protein-diets-a-closer-look/

What about their risk of heart disease? It turns out to be a myth so often repeated it just became an unsupported truth. A 2003 paper[5] published by a highly experienced, highly published scientist at the National Institute of Public Health in Greenland, written with his colleagues from Canada, documents many autopsy studies and clinical observations and studies proving that heart disease existed among the Inuit. In fact, *in 1940 *the "father of epidemiology" in Greenland, Bertelsen, noted heart disease to be quite common, perhaps even more interesting given the young age of the population. He based this on clinical experience and medical officer reports* going back for many decades*(cited in 5). All told, the 2003 paper found "the hypothesis that mortality from ischemic heart disease is low among the Inuit compared with western populations insufficiently founded." Further, "…a general statement that mortality from cardiovascular disease is high among the Inuit seems more warranted than the opposite."[5]


----------



## Guest

Oh my... I don't even know where to start LOL!
I can't help it though, I have to say "I told you so." This is exactly how these conversations go.
Someone says something about vegans/vegetarians.
Non meat eaters defend their choice to not eat meat. 
Meat eaters get offended and accuse non meat eaters of being OTT and trying to convert everyone to veganism.

The only thing non meat eaters on this thread have done is explain why we believe our choice to not eat meat is valid, and why reducing our use of animal products is a valid point. That's all. And let's not forget, this thread was not started by a vegan trying to convert everyone. This thread was started by a meat eater finding fault with vegans who wear leather.

Humans are not designed to eat meat. We are not herbivores in the sense that we can't break down cellulose efficiently like grazing animals, but we are not carnivores either. We *can* eat meat - cooked, but we do not thrive on meat. We evolved to digest starch, that's why we have so many copies of the genes for amylase - starch digesting enzyme.



hutch6 said:


> What about bread, pasta and rice etc? I wasn't meaning sweets and choccies.


Bread, pasta, and rice are the foundation of all major civilizations. 
If humans are hunters, why is it that so many populations starved when crops failed or were eaten by locusts? If we were such good hunters why did we not send our men out to hunt during these times instead? Or just eat the locusts? Protein right?

We need grains, they provide us with the nutrients we need to function optimally. Marathon runners don't eat a steak before a race, they eat pasta, bread, rice. 
BTW, speaking of marathon runners, the idea that we ran prey down to exhaustion has been debunked by common sense. It's an utterly inefficient way to gather food and not something a species who survived as well as we have would have done. We would have expended far more calories in the hunt than could be gained from the kill. No predator functions that way. 
And we're not really built to run long distances anyway. Not at the speeds we would have had to in order to keep up with the prey while exhausting it. Let's not forget that the first guy who ran a marathon died doing it. And just in case anyone wants to turn this in to me putting down distance running, I am a distance runner myself, training for my 4th half marathon in January. I love it, but I also know it is not an efficient way to hunt simply from the calorie requirement. I also know the foods that fuel me best, and they're carbs.

Our muscles use glucose when we use them, not protein. Our brains use glucose. Every cell in our body requires glucose which we most efficiently get from starches. 
Civilizations that lasted were all based on a starch. Potatoes, rice, wheat, millet, barley. Roman gladiators were called "barley men". We are meant to use starches and it is the food we use most efficiently. That's simple biology.


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Please have a listen to Dr Barnard.





Elles said:


> It's in the video.


I am trying to watch it but the statistics used are just laughable.

BMI: Everyone knows this is an utter waste of time but here it used to show how meat eaters have a high BMI. Well Torre Washington an advocate of vegan body building has a BMI that puts him overweight, the guy is shredded. Christiano Ronaldo is one point from being over weight. When I was on a 70% fat, 20% protein and 10% carb diet I was well within the BMI range of overweight for my height (6'1 and 87.6kg at my lightest) yet I was pretty ripped. Hugh Jackman in wolverine, Channing Tatum in Magic Mike and Gemma Atkinson (current) are all just one point within the "Healthy" range. One more point up and they are deemed over weight. WTF?!?!?!


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> I am trying to watch it but the statistics used are just laughable.
> 
> BMI: Everyone knows this is an utter waste of time but here it used to show how meat eaters have a high BMI. Well Torre Washington an advocate of vegan body building has a BMI that puts him overweight, the guy is shredded. Christiano Ronaldo is one point from being over weight. When I was on a 70% fat, 20% protein and 10% carb diet I was well within the BMI range of overweight for my height (6'1 and 87.6kg at my lightest) yet I was pretty ripped. Hugh Jackman in wolverine, Channing Tatum in Magic Mike and Gemma Atkinson (current) are all just one point within the "Healthy" range. One more point up and they are deemed over weight. WTF?!?!?!


For the vast majority of the population (not athletes and body builders) BMI is an good litmus test of healthy weight.
Surely you can't argue that in western societies far too many of us are either overweight or obese.
And being fit from exercise doesn't protect you that much from the harms of an unhealthy diet. "You can't exercise your way out of a bad diet" is sound advice.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

ouesi said:


> Oh my... I don't even know where to start LOL!
> I can't help it though, I have to say "I told you so." This is exactly how these conversations go.
> Someone says something about vegans/vegetarians.
> Non meat eaters defend their choice to not eat meat.
> Meat eaters get offended and accuse non meat eaters of being OTT and trying to convert everyone to veganism.
> 
> The only thing non meat eaters on this thread have done is explain why we believe our choice to not eat meat is valid, and why reducing our use of animal products is a valid point. That's all. And let's not forget, this thread was not started by a vegan trying to convert everyone. This thread was started by a meat eater finding fault with vegans who wear leather.
> 
> Humans are not designed to eat meat. We are not herbivores in the sense that we can't break down cellulose efficiently like grazing animals, but we are not carnivores either. We *can* eat meat - cooked, but we do not thrive on meat. We evolved to digest starch, that's why we have so many copies of the genes for amylase - starch digesting enzyme.
> 
> Bread, pasta, and rice are the foundation of all major civilizations.
> If humans are hunters, why is it that so many populations starved when crops failed or were eaten by locusts? If we were such good hunters why did we not send our men out to hunt during these times instead? Or just eat the locusts? Protein right?
> 
> We need grains, they provide us with the nutrients we need to function optimally. Marathon runners don't eat a steak before a race, they eat pasta, bread, rice.
> BTW, speaking of marathon runners, the idea that we ran prey down to exhaustion has been debunked by common sense. It's an utterly inefficient way to gather food and not something a species who survived as well as we have would have done. We would have expended far more calories in the hunt than could be gained from the kill. No predator functions that way.
> And we're not really built to run long distances anyway. Not at the speeds we would have had to in order to keep up with the prey while exhausting it. Let's not forget that the first guy who ran a marathon died doing it. And just in case anyone wants to turn this in to me putting down distance running, I am a distance runner myself, training for my 4th half marathon in January. I love it, but I also know it is not an efficient way to hunt simply from the calorie requirement. I also know the foods that fuel me best, and they're carbs.
> 
> Our muscles use glucose when we use them, not protein. Our brains use glucose. Every cell in our body requires glucose which we most efficiently get from starches.
> Civilizations that lasted were all based on a starch. Potatoes, rice, wheat, millet, barley. Roman gladiators were called "barley men". We are meant to use starches and it is the food we use most efficiently. That's simple biology.


Excellent explanation, worthy of rep if only we still had it.


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> Oh my... I don't even know where to start LOL!
> I can't help it though, I have to say "I told you so." This is exactly how these conversations go.
> Someone says something about vegans/vegetarians.
> Non meat eaters defend their choice to not eat meat.
> Meat eaters get offended and accuse non meat eaters of being OTT and trying to convert everyone to veganism.
> 
> The only thing non meat eaters on this thread have done is explain why we believe our choice to not eat meat is valid, and why reducing our use of animal products is a valid point. That's all. And let's not forget, this thread was not started by a vegan trying to convert everyone. This thread was started by a meat eater finding fault with vegans who wear leather.
> 
> Humans are not designed to eat meat. We are not herbivores in the sense that we can't break down cellulose efficiently like grazing animals, but we are not carnivores either. We *can* eat meat - cooked, but we do not thrive on meat. We evolved to digest starch, that's why we have so many copies of the genes for amylase - starch digesting enzyme.
> 
> Bread, pasta, and rice are the foundation of all major civilizations.
> If humans are hunters, why is it that so many populations starved when crops failed or were eaten by locusts? If we were such good hunters why did we not send our men out to hunt during these times instead? Or just eat the locusts? Protein right?
> 
> We need grains, they provide us with the nutrients we need to function optimally. Marathon runners don't eat a steak before a race, they eat pasta, bread, rice.
> BTW, speaking of marathon runners, the idea that we ran prey down to exhaustion has been debunked by common sense. It's an utterly inefficient way to gather food and not something a species who survived as well as we have would have done. We would have expended far more calories in the hunt than could be gained from the kill. No predator functions that way.
> And we're not really built to run long distances anyway. Not at the speeds we would have had to in order to keep up with the prey while exhausting it. Let's not forget that the first guy who ran a marathon died doing it. And just in case anyone wants to turn this in to me putting down distance running, I am a distance runner myself, training for my 4th half marathon in January. I love it, but I also know it is not an efficient way to hunt simply from the calorie requirement. I also know the foods that fuel me best, and they're carbs.
> 
> Our muscles use glucose when we use them, not protein. Our brains use glucose. Every cell in our body requires glucose which we most efficiently get from starches.
> Civilizations that lasted were all based on a starch. Potatoes, rice, wheat, millet, barley. Roman gladiators were called "barley men". We are meant to use starches and it is the food we use most efficiently. That's simple biology.


First point : Chasing down prey is calorific deficient. A marathon runner expends 100 calories per mile, that is 2600 for the run. My body uses about 2300 just to sat doing nowt all day. Now, how many calories can you get from a buffalo for example or a sheep or a goat? I'll give you an example.
How long before you can run down a sheep and sort it out? Certainly less than a marathon if you work in pairs (even on your own you can run a sheep down). Let's call it a marathon anyway.

Calories expended: 2600
Average dead weight of sheep: let's go low end at 13kg
Average calroies per 100g in sheep = 294k/cal per 100g

13000 / 100 = 130 servings of 100g
130 * 294 = 38220 K/cal per sheep.

So on one sheep at 38220 you can run 14.7 marathons before you are in a calorific deficit.

Please post evidence to the debunked theory of us running prey down as there still tribes that do it today, they must hunt unicorns though.

Second point: Can explain what our body does to protein then if it only uses glucose?

Third: can you explain what happens to your body's cells and your brain when you go onto a keto diet?

Fourth: Zach Bitter ran 163km in 12hrs to break the previous record and guess what, he was on a LCHF diet so no, you don't need to carbs but I wish you all the best with your run.

Fifth: 
potatoes - Bolivia 8-10,000 ya.
barley - domestication of wheat 10,000 years ago, 7000 years before the Romans. That is only 250 generations ago at 40yr average lifespan.
rice - 8-9000 ya

Evidence suggests we started eating meat 2.5million years ago. We must be evolve to not eat meat then I guess.

Sixth: What civilizations were wiped out due to crop failures and why did those crops fail? How come the Maasai have survived on one of the driest continents on earth for longer than we have been growing cereals? I wonder what they live off of and how that affects their diabetes, heart disease and cholesterol, hmmmmmmm.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Masai as previously quoted

Perhaps the best dietary survey done on Masai people is from the early 1980s, done by the International Livestock Centre of Africa[2]. This was at a time there had already been a dietary transition occurring among the Masai. Nonetheless, Masai women and children were found to consume large amounts of milk from their herd animals. Interestingly, they only consumed meat about 1-5 times per month. Again, the men's intake was too difficult to accurately track but it seemed that they had more access to meat.

In addition, in this pastoral population, physical activity is a major way of life. If inactive Americans wanted to get the same amount of exercise, they would have to walk an additional 19km (almost 12 miles) per day(cited in 3). Because of the enormous energy expenditure and the relative resource limitations, the 1982-83 survey estimated that women and children were only consuming 50-70% of their "estimated average energy requirement"[2]. That is quite a calorie deficit, accounting for the thinness in the population.

So the diet, when measured, was not as meaty and bloody as the popular belief dictated, though it was very rich in milk. They consumed maize in the early 1980s, but this may have been a recent addition to the diet. Further, there was extreme physical activity and relative calorie insufficiency. Is it possible that these factors contributed to health of the Masai?

And what about that previous, imperfect assessment of heart disease? Dr. Mann, who published some of the early research, did an autopsy study of 50 Masai men and found that they had *extensive atherosclerosis.* They had disease (coronary intimal thickening) on par with older American men. Over 80% of the men over age 40 had *severe fibrosis in their aorta*, the main blood vessel from the heart that supplies the rest of the body with blood. Yet there were no heart attacks shown on autopsy and these men still had functional heart vessels without blockages because their vessels had become larger. Researchers thought this might have been related to their rather extreme daily physical activity.

We're left with a bit of a confusing picture, made murky by a lack of data. We don't have mortality or illness statistics but have conflicting clinical and pathological reports. We don't have good dietary data. Impressions of high animal food intake, primarily in the form of milk intake, have been supported, but blood and meat intake may have been misconstrued. Making things more complicated, these were people who may have been in relative calorie deficiency because of extreme daily physical activity. They may have been experiencing intermittent fasting.


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> For the vast majority of the population (not athletes and body builders) BMI is an good litmus test of healthy weight.
> Surely you can't argue that in western societies far too many of us are either overweight or obese.
> And being fit from exercise doesn't protect you that much from the harms of an unhealthy diet. "You can't exercise your way out of a bad diet" is sound advice.


BMI is vastly outdated and causes more issues than it's worth. Any one in the nutritional or exercise/health arena will state that it is wholly inaccurate and a waste of time due the mix up in the maths. Short people are thinner and tall people are fatter.

The easiest way the caliper test or even waist to height ratio. BMI is right load of twoddle.

Hey, you, yeah you Usain Bolt, you can;t exercise your way out of a bad diet.
You'd be very surprised to find out just how many pro-athletes are on terrible diets and still out perform those on a more scientific diet.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> BMI is vastly outdated and causes more issues than it's worth. Any one in the nutritional or exercise/health arena will state that it is wholly inaccurate and a waste of time due the mix up in the maths. Short people are thinner and tall people are fatter.
> 
> The easiest way the caliper test or even waist to height ratio. BMI is right load of twoddle.
> 
> Hey, you, yeah you Usain Bolt, you can;t exercise your way out of a bad diet.
> You'd be very surprised to find out just how many pro-athletes are on terrible diets and still out perform those on a more scientific diet.


From "The End of Heart Disease" by Dr Joel Fuhrman M.D

Plenty of competitive runners including marathoners develop heart disease. Running so much may actually give these "over-exercisers" free rein to eat more heart disease causing foods without becoming overweight promoting food caused atherosclerosis and premature death. For example James Fixx the author of the 1977 bestseller "The Complete Book of Running" ran 10 miles a day in addition to other vigorous exercise. Friends described him as being in top physical condition yet Fixx had a fatal heart attack at the age of 52 while jogging near his home in Vermont. Although he had no symptoms autopsy results revealed that his left circumflex coronary artery was almost totally blocked, about 80% of the blood flow to his right coronary artery was blocked and half of the left anterior descending artery was blocked in places. This is a reminder that many individuals with superior fitness still develop heart disease. Being fit is not the same thing as being healthy.


----------



## hutch6

Don't expect any of you to watch them as they don't fit the agenda but here goes:











Just pick any by Dr Stephen Phinney

This is a beauty:


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> From "The End of Heart Disease" by Dr Joel Fuhrman M.D
> 
> Plenty of competitive runners including marathoners develop heart disease. Running so much may actually give these "over-exercisers" free rein to eat more heart disease causing foods without becoming overweight promoting food caused atherosclerosis and premature death. For example James Fixx the author of the 1977 bestseller "The Complete Book of Running" ran 10 miles a day in addition to other vigorous exercise. Friends described him as being in top physical condition yet Fixx had a fatal heart attack at the age of 52 while jogging near his home in Vermont. Although he had no symptoms autopsy results revealed that his left circumflex coronary artery was almost totally blocked, about 80% of the blood flow to his right coronary artery was blocked and half of the left anterior descending artery was blocked in places. This is a reminder that many individuals with superior fitness still develop heart disease. Being fit is not the same thing as being healthy.


Must have carbed up too much.


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> First point : Chasing down prey is calorific deficient. A marathon runner expends 100 calories per mile, that is 2600 for the run. My body uses about 2300 just to sat doing nowt all day. Now, how many calories can you get from a buffalo for example or a sheep or a goat? I'll give you an example.
> How long before you can run down a sheep and sort it out? Certainly less than a marathon if you work in pairs (even on your own you can run a sheep down). Let's call it a marathon anyway.
> 
> Calories expended: 2600
> Average dead weight of sheep: let's go low end at 13kg
> Average calroies per 100g in sheep = 294k/cal per 100g
> 
> 13000 / 100 = 130 servings of 100g
> 130 * 294 = 38220 K/cal per sheep.
> 
> So on one sheep at 38220 you can run 14.7 marathons before you are in a calorific deficit.
> 
> Please post evidence to the debunked theory of us running prey down as there still tribes that do it today, they must hunt unicorns though.


That's assuming any human can consume an entire sheep, which we can't. We simply don't have the volume in our stomach like most other carnivores do who have a very large stomach and relatively small intestinal tract. 
And marathon runners burn far more than 100 calories per mile. The first google hit is not always the most accurate  
Which tribes are you talking about? How come I have to post links and evidence and you don't?



hutch6 said:


> Second point: Can explain what our body does to protein then if it only uses glucose?


Yes I can  Can you?
Our body uses protein to build and repair muscle. Our bodies use protein as a last resort for fuel when calories are insufficient, at a high cost to our kidneys and other organs. It's not good for us and usually involves breaking down our own muscle to supply calories. 
Most plant foods that provide us with the needed starches also supply us with perfectly sufficient protein. I've not needed animal protein to grow two babies inside of me, provide breastmilk for said babies, run or recover from half marathons, etc. 
Hey and speaking of human breastmilk, a food designed by nature to provide all the nutrients a growing infant needs, did you know that human breast milk is the lowest in protein? One cup has a mere 2.5 grams of protein versus the nearly 8 grams in a cup of cow's milk. Don't you think if humans had such a great need for large quantities of protein, that the food designed specifically for them would contain more of it?



hutch6 said:


> Third: can you explain what happens to your body's cells and your brain when you go onto a keto diet?


I can again, can you? We are designed to use glucose, not protein for energy. I was taught back in the day that ketosis was a medical condition, not something I would willingly put my body through thanks  But hey, if it works for you, great. Just don't knock my decision to fuel my body with what my body is designed to use.



hutch6 said:


> Fifth:
> potatoes - Bolivia 8-10,000 ya.
> barley - domestication of wheat 10,000 years ago, 7000 years before the Romans. That is only 250 generations ago at 40yr average lifespan.
> rice - 8-9000 ya
> 
> Evidence suggests we started eating meat 2.5million years ago. We must be evolve to not eat meat then I guess.


Evidence *shows* that ancient man ate starches. Evidence based on tooth samples an fossilized stool of paleolithic man shows that even in our caveman days we ate starches.



hutch6 said:


> Sixth: What civilizations were wiped out due to crop failures and why did those crops fail? How come the Maasai have survived on one of the driest continents on earth for longer than we have been growing cereals? I wonder what they live off of and how that affects their diabetes, heart disease and cholesterol, hmmmmmmm.


They live off tubers and yams - there go those starches again 



hutch6 said:


> You'd be very surprised to find out just how many pro-athletes are on terrible diets and still out perform those on a more scientific diet.


No I wouldn't be surprised. Most of us are not pro athletes. We're fat, sick, and a huge medical cost to society and may be the first generation to die younger than our grandparents. Those pro athletes eating crap are going to die young too. (Some already have  )


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> Must have carbed up too much.


https://www.drmcdougall.com/2015/07/31/athletics-in-the-spotlight-low-carb-vs-high-carb/

All large populations of trim, healthy, athletic-competing, war-fighting people throughout verifiable human history have obtained the bulk of their calories from high-carbohydrate foods (starches). Examples of thriving populations include the Japanese, Chinese, and other Asians, who eat sweet potatoes, buckwheat, and/or rice; Incas in South America who eat potatoes; Mayans and Aztecs in Central America who eat corn; and Egyptians in the Middle East who eat wheat. Unfortunately, since the global spread of "fossil-fueled" economies beginning in the 1980s, the diets of billions of people have changed to include obesity- and disease-producing amounts of meat, dairy, and vegetable oils.

Today, the running abilities of the Tarahumara people of the Copper Canyon of Northwestern Mexico, and the East Africans from Kenya and Ethiopia provide undeniable evidence that the healthiest diets for human beings are very high in carbohydrates (natural sugars). Members of these communities have exceptional capacities for performance and endurance, which translates into winning.

Historically the Tarahumara are known to run distances of up to 200 miles in a competitive sport of "kickball" races, lasting several days. Honoring their abilities is the 50-mile foot race called "Ultramaraton Caballo Blanco." These men and women are noted for their absence of obesity and diabetes, and their very low levels of cholesterol and blood pressure. Carbohydrates, primarily from corn, beans, and squash, make up almost 80% of their diet, and meat consumption is rare.

The exceptional running abilities of the Tarahumara are not due to a genetic advantage. People from the same ancestral linage, the Pima of Southwestern US, have some of the highest rates of obesity, diabetes, and coronary heart disease in the world as a direct consequence of adopting a diet based on meat, dairy, and junk food less than a century ago.
Runners from Kenya have set astonishing middle- and long-distance running records. Kenyan men have accounted for 40% of the winners in all major international middle- and long-distance running competitions between 1987 and 1997. Like the Tarahumara, they follow a diet of about 80% carbohydrates. The staple of their diet is bread, boiled rice, poached potatoes, boiled porridge, cabbage, kidney beans, and ugali (well-cooked cornmeal molded into balls).


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> Must have carbed up too much.


This kind of comment tells me you're not even taking the conversation seriously. You're just arguing to argue. 
Love your meat? Have at it.

I'm not going to waste my breath on you as you're really just trolling at this point. Posting arguments and glib comments without even attempting to synthesize the information being given to you. You're not interested in any other POV, got it.

For those who are, I'll just reiterate that there is a lovely threat in general chat for anyone looking to decrease their animal food intake for any reason - health, environmental, moral, whatever. All interested are welcome. (Key word: interested  )


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> This kind of comment tells me you're not even taking the conversation seriously. You're just arguing to argue.
> Love your meat? Have at it.
> 
> I'm not going to waste my breath on you as you're really just trolling at this point. Posting arguments and glib comments without even attempting to synthesize the information being given to you. You're not interested in any other POV, got it.
> 
> For those who are, I'll just reiterate that there is a lovely threat in general chat for anyone looking to decrease their animal food intake for any reason - health, environmental, moral, whatever. All interested are welcome. (Key word: interested  )


Accused of trolling again because I have a difference of opinion?
We can't comment on things now is that it?

I've disagreed with a post you put up, called you out on points and provided evidence to back it up. Can I ask what more do you need?

How about I use anecdotal evidence on the many diets I experimented with when training for high intensity exercise and the outcomes? Please bare in mind these can be backed up by many nutritional experts in sports science.

I've clearly stated that one sheep provides more than enough food to warrant running after it (simple math) and you state "no human could eat it in one sitting anyway", talk about lack of logical reasoning. No one human can consume an entire apple tree or field of wheat either so I don't get what your point is.
I've posted lectures by nutrition experts and yet I don't provide evidence.

Sorry I don't fit with the clique or the ideal animal loving template as I hunt, catch and trap animals. Life is full of weird and wonderful people and if we were all the same I'd be the first to off myself.

I've done enough research of my own over the many years I've taken an active interest in what goes into my mouth and I would never advocate a vegan or vegetarian diet nor would I with a diet consisting of cereals and one that includes meat in every meal as I am fully aware that the human body turns excess protein into glucose which isn't good.

So troll teroll troll troll I go.


----------



## rona

hutch6 said:


> Don't expect any of you to watch them as they don't fit the agenda but here goes:
> 
> This is a beauty:


Hey Hutch. Do you take Vit D and what type do you take. I'm sure I need to start taking it in the winter,particularly now I'm getting on 

So pleased to see you back


----------



## hutch6

rona said:


> Hey Hutch. Do you take Vit D and what type do you take. I'm sure I need to start taking it in the winter,particularly now I'm getting on
> 
> So pleased to see you back


I most certainly do Rona.

Vitabiotics Ultra 1000IU - take them like smarties, about 14 a day.

Glad to be back. Had a nice time travelling the world a bit, rebuilding my house and what not.
Hope all is well.


----------



## rona

hutch6 said:


> I most certainly do Rona.
> 
> Vitabiotics Ultra 1000IU - take them like smarties, about 14 a day.
> 
> Glad to be back. Had a nice time travelling the world a bit, rebuilding my house and what not.
> Hope all is well.


All good thanks.

I saw a report the other day that too much supplement Vit D can be bad for you. Have you not come across that?


----------



## hutch6

If im arguing to argue how come when I said BMI was a load of garbage and explained why this is the reply I get:


Click to expand...
For the vast majority of the population (not athletes and body builders) BMI is an good litmus test of healthy weight.

It clearly isn't on any level as we have more accurate ways to measure it so even when folk are blatantly wrong they still don't accept it. Funny that.

Not natural hunters.
Humans can't chase down prey.
Not evolved to hunt.
Every exercise orientated and sports science website basically says you burn 100k/cal per mile in a marathon but no you don't.
Can't eat a full sheep in one sitting.
Vegan diet experiments with animal supplements in.
Diet experiments that show exercising reduces disease but you can't exercise yourself out of a bad diet.
Oh o-o-o-ok then. Just become vegan and the weight will drop off as there's no such thing as an obese vegan.

And i'm a troll or an antagonist? Lol just lol.


----------



## hutch6

rona said:


> All good thanks.
> 
> I saw a report the other day that too much supplement Vit D can be bad for you. Have you not come across that?


Vitamin A is a killer but I've taken 14plus vit d a day for ages after watching g that video and all that's happened is I feel tons better than I did. Almost as good as I did whwas n I knocked cereals out of my diet but we don't mention that.

Watch the full vid when you get the time as it's a real eye opener. Loads about pets and animals in there too.


----------



## catz4m8z

Maybe its just Darwinism or karma that those who eat the most processed meats, dairy, eggs, etc are way more likely to die of the most prevalent (and preventable) diseases today??:Wideyed
I mean at least the planet and the poor animals get some sort of revenge dont they!?:Nailbiting
just sayin......


----------



## rona

hutch6 said:


> Vitamin A is a killer but I've taken 14plus vit d a day for ages after watching g that video and all that's happened is I feel tons better than I did. Almost as good as I did whwas n I knocked cereals out of my diet but we don't mention that.
> 
> Watch the full vid when you get the time as it's a real eye opener. Loads about pets and animals in there too.


I saw him poohooing the fact that too much could be bad even though others say it is. I watched the last half though he lost me a few places, more through boredom than anything else :Shamefullyembarrased


----------



## Elles

I watched the videos and they are mostly saying the same thing, but giving slightly different answers. Processed, high salt and refined sugar diets are addictive and bad. There are alternatives. 

If you don’t want to eat meat and dairy you can be perfectly healthy on a wholefood plant based diet that has variety, lots of different colours. 

If you’re happy eating dead animals and the suffering associated with intensively farmed animal based diet, then there are relatively healthy options with those too, though they could have a side of antibiotics.

If you like dead flesh, but like to think your meat comes from happy, playful animals who are raised in green fields, go organic and look for small more ethical farming practices. The meat and other produce from these animals is likely to be healthier than from those intensively farmed.

Vegetables are good. Fruit is also good, though some diets restrict how much and the type. Nuts are good, though some diets restrict how much and the type.

Avoid McDonald’s and Pepsi, seems to be a recurring theme. 

I thought it quite interesting when the point about different countries and nations was raised. One type of wheat, or rice in one country, may be different from another. French bread was mentioned. The French do make very nice bread. Apparently it’s very different to the kind of wheat and bread they get in the USA and Canada. So, recurring theme of obesity and diabetes aside, some advice may need to be more specific to where we live.

We can probably all be healthier. Healthiest? The jury is still out, time will tell.

I don’t think working class Victorians are much of a dietary example, probably depends on whether they were farm workers, or in the workhouse. Most of them would have died before they had a chance to test the long term effects, but they most certainly ate grains and bread, so I’m not sure why they were brought up in one vid. 

Pregnant and breast feeding women need a healthy diet if they are going to raise healthy children. An unhealthy modern western diet is unlikely to provide the vitamins and minerals needed. Should be obvious.

We need to take care when supplementing most fat soluble vitamins. I give my horse a supplement based on her forage, which includes extra vitamin E in the winter and copper, as my area is low in copper. She also gets micronised linseed. My horse is probably even healthier than I am. It’s a lot easier to get her diet analysed and a lot simpler to tweak it. She eats the same every day without getting bored.


----------



## noushka05

This is so good.

. http://veganstrategist.org/2017/10/12/vegan-thou-shalt-consistent-george-monbiot-vs-piers-morgan/

*Vegan, thou shalt be consistent! (On George Monbiot vs Piers Morgan)*
October 12, 2017October 13, 2017 ~ Tobias Leenaert
*Author and Guardian columnist George Monbiot was slammed by host Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain for being a hypocrite* (check out the shouting match here). Monbiot wanted to talk about the ethics of factory farming, but didn't get much of a chance: Morgan called him out for wearing a leather watch strap.
..








It's a scene all too familiar for many vegetarians and vegans: people focus on the bits where we're inconsistent or not perfect (the medication, the plane rides, the leather belt…), and that seems to give them an excuse to not listen to anything interesting we may have to tell. *In this post I briefly want to explore the topic of consistency*: how consistent should we be? Is consistency necessarily the best thing? And should we give in to the demands for consistency (and perfection)?

*For the sake of the argument*, I will assume that what Monbiot chose to wear indeed suggests a certain degree of inconsistency. I'll make abstraction of the fact that, as he later tweeted, his watch-strap may not have been real leather, and that both it and his shoes may have been bought before he went vegan (in my opinion it's perfectly okay to wear out old leather clothing as a vegan). So, for the rest of this post, let's just assume his shoes and watch strap are leather, and that we don't know when he bought them.

*Gotcha! *Monbiot has come out as a vegan and has done a lot to raise awareness about the problems of animal products and the livestock industry. It's true that he changed his mind a couple of times on these issues, but that's one reason I appreciate him. *Changing one's mind in public* requires courage, and there is, in my view, nothing admirable in sticking to one's opinion when one actually doesn't believe in it anymore

Now, Monbiot, in talking about veganism while wearing leather, showed - it cannot be denied - *a certain degree of inconsistency* (again, we're ignoring the idea that he might have bought it before he went vegan). Accusing someone else of inconsistency or hypocrisy is a favored way to discredit them or their views. Which is exactly why people who want to look convincing will try to avoid appearing inconsistent. Also in the vegan realm we spend a lot of effort in making sure no one can say "gotcha!" to us. Monbiot could have thought of this beforehand, and could have worn a stylish vegan watch and ditto shoes. Then, when asked the question by Morgan, he could have proudly talked about how yes, even his watch and shoes were free from animal products. Gotcha, Morgan! Problem avoided!

*Mosquitoes*
But is it that simple, really? I'm sure a lot of vegans think it is, but let me - as usual - play the devil's advocate here.

First of all, one thing to keep in mind is that *when people are out to find a reason to discredit us*, they will find it. It's like asking the vegan whether she kills mosquitoes. If she answers yes, the non-vegan will shout "aha! inconsistent!" But if she says no, she'll hear "fundamentalist!" Monbiot might have fared better without the leather - and the headlines would be different - but Morgan probably would have invented something else to accuse his opponent of. He was clearly in attack mode, and wanted to find something to undermine Monbiot's credibility. As Monbiot tweeted: "It goes to show - you can prepare your arguments to the last dot and comma, but if someone is out to get you, there'll always be a way."

Part of this desire to spot inconsistencies - which is a form of do-gooder derogation - is of course that people think it gives them *a way out.* If the vegan (or other do-gooder) can be depicted as a hypocrite, there is, they think, no reason for them to change their thoughts or behavior.

*How do we win over the most people?*
What I mainly want to address here is the question of whether being entirely consistent is always the best way to win hearts and minds. In Monbiot's case, him explaining that yes, his watch and his shoes are actually vegan (which he didn't do, to be clear) may have caused admiration for his consistency, but it may also have caused a feeling of: "whew, these people go very far!" The zeal with which vegans are vegan, may seem daunting and inimitable rather than admirable

Of course, there are degrees in this. *Consistency itself is relative*. That may sound a bit like a paradox, but it isn't. When I give examples of my own inconsistencies (drinking non-vegan wine when out of the house or not inquiring about the ingredients of bread in a restaurant), these may seem like grave crimes to some vegans (enough to call me a non-vegan), while most non-vegans will hardly see them as examples of inconsistencies in the first place. In Monbiot's case, suppose he was sitting there pleading for an end to animal agriculture while eating a box of chicken nuggets (I know, but just suppose).That would be an extremely grave and blatant inconsistency that probably wouldn't have led to anything good

*It's about communication *
So, the question I have is: what is the right degree of consistency? I'm ignoring the fact that no one can be entirely avoid animal products. If you think I'm wrong, check this TED talk about how pig parts can be found in no less than 185 non-food products. Here, I'm rather talking about *what degree of consistency will garner the most goodwill from other people *- goodwill in the sense that they will move closer to wanting to follow our example. It's about finding the balance between the risk of seeming uncommitted, on the one hand, and appearing fundamentalist, on the other. That is probably why Monbiot said that he wasn't "*militant* about it". Not because of laziness or because, as the rude Morgan implied, because he loves his luxury products. But because he knows that appearing militant is not attractive for many people. Monbiot has called himself *97% vegan* before, and for many people, that might be a much more appealing prospect than a 100% vegan. (Undoubtedly some vegans will sing the "there is no such thing as a 97% vegan" refrain now.)

Many vegans don't see any dilemma here at all, and just state that we should be entirely consistent because animal products entail animal suffering - period. But, creating a negative impression can also create animal suffering, or at least prevent less suffering than a good image could. As I've written before, *what goes into your mouth is less important than what comes out of i**t*. Your own consumption has an impact, but the impact of the way you advocate is potentially much, much bigger.

The answer to my question - about the right degree of consistency - is that I'm not sure. I would welcome *research* that tells us whether it is consistency or a certain flexibility that is most appealing to others. As far as I know, nothing much has been studied on the subject.

*We don't need to be perfect - nor should we pretend to be*
For now, I'm trusting that decent and thinking people will be turned off not by Monbiot's inconsistency but by Morgan's calling him out for it. The ones that are calling Monbiot hypocritical are probably not ready to take any steps anyway.

I'm hoping that this episode won't reaffirm vegans in their belief that they have to be perfect. I hope they won't strive for *consistency über alles*, and won't spend a disproportionate amount of attention on the tiny details, while losing the bigger picture. I'm hoping it won't lead some of them to tell others that they cannot call themselves vegan if they still do eat or wear this or that, with the risk of *alienating these people from veganism* or the movement

Maybe part of the solution lies in us *not emphasizing our own consistency or perfection*, and presenting veganism as an aspiration rather than something we are always achieving. If we don't pretend it's a black and white thing, maybe people will be less tempted to call vegans out when they spot an inconsistency. What if we said we're 99% vegan?

*Vegans are not perfect, and not perfectly consistent.* And the fear of appearing inconsistent shouldn't stop us from focusing on what's really important, and that is reducing animal suffering, and communicating in a way that helps other people warm up to that idea. If a doofus like Pierce Morgan wants to attack, he will. People like him should not determine what our ideal course of action is.

*Monbiot*, in the meantime, is a great person to have in the vegan camp. No amount of leather on his body will efface the impact of his articulate writing on, indeed, one of the most important issues of our time.


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> Maybe its just Darwinism or karma that those who eat the most processed meats, dairy, eggs, etc are way more likely to die of the most prevalent (and preventable) diseases today??:Wideyed
> I mean at least the planet and the poor animals get some sort of revenge dont they!?:Nailbiting
> just sayin......


Because no more than 10 vegans or vegetarians haven't died from any of the same diseases. It's a cure for one and all. Every type of breast and colon cancer and heart related disease is peventable through not eating any meat.

That is what you've just said right?


----------



## Elles

Some are. If you, or your loved one is the one suffering, preventing one might have been enough. People who don’t smoke, sometimes die of lung cancer too.


----------



## hutch6

Elles said:


> If you're happy eating dead animals and the suffering associated with intensively farmed animal based diet, then there are relatively healthy options with those too, though they could have a side of antibiotics.
> 
> If you like dead flesh, but like to think your meat comes from happy, playful animals who are raised in green fields, go organic and look for small more ethical farming practices. The meat and other produce from these animals is likely to be healthier than from those intensively farmed.


But I don't promote intensive farms and have been against them for as long as I can remember.

Funnily enough, I'm not alone in this view amongst my savage meat eating crones.

Only the ignorant fund these practices and it is not their fault they are not educated on the matter that is down the education system and the information stiflement from the massive food industry giants who know there's killing the mass population but don't care as long as the share price is up and they are rich beyond their wildest dreams.


----------



## Elles

It’s not only the ignorant, many people know, but it’s cheap and accessible and not everyone thinks a cow or chicken is unhappy kept in a barn, or necessarily care whether they are or not. People eating factory farmed meat, enable the others. If everyone wanted more kindly and naturally raised meat and dairy, from organic farms, there wouldn’t be enough to go around and it would likely be extremely expensive. If most went vegan though, you could have your luxury raised meat and animal produce and there likely would be enough space left over after growing our spuds and cabbage.

You should encourage veganism in others, it could give you better meat.


----------



## catz4m8z

hutch6 said:


> Because no more than 10 vegans or vegetarians haven't died from any of the same diseases. It's a cure for one and all. Every type of breast and colon cancer and heart related disease is peventable through not eating any meat.
> 
> That is what you've just said right?


how did you get that from 'way more likely'??
Its that kind of sillyness that makes people not take you seriously you realiese!LOL:Hilarious


----------



## hutch6

Elles said:


> It's not only the ignorant, many people know, but it's cheap and accessible and not everyone thinks a cow or chicken is unhappy kept in a barn, or necessarily care whether they are or not. People eating factory farmed meat, enable the others. If everyone wanted more kindly and naturally raised meat and dairy, from organic farms, there wouldn't be enough to go around and it would likely be extremely expensive. If most went vegan though, you could have your luxury raised meat and animal produce and there likely would be enough space left over after growing our spuds and cabbage.
> 
> You should encourage veganism in others, it could give you better meat.


I'd rather promote responsible food sourcing as even a vegan diet can be a nightmare for natural resources and the environment where as a well researched an responsible omnivore diet can be less damaging. Isn't that the point?

I wil never ever ever advocate a vegan diet or any diet other than an ethically sourced one and always have if you want to sea h through all of my posts about this subject on here.


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> how did you get that from 'way more likely'??
> Its that kind of sillyness that makes people not take you seriously you realiese!LOL:Hilarious


How less likely then?


----------



## Guest

noushka05 said:


> This is so good.
> 
> . http://veganstrategist.org/2017/10/12/vegan-thou-shalt-consistent-george-monbiot-vs-piers-morgan/
> 
> *Vegan, thou shalt be consistent! (On George Monbiot vs Piers Morgan)*
> October 12, 2017October 13, 2017 ~ Tobias Leenaert
> *Author and Guardian columnist George Monbiot was slammed by host Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain for being a hypocrite* (check out the shouting match here). Monbiot wanted to talk about the ethics of factory farming, but didn't get much of a chance: Morgan called him out for wearing a leather watch strap.
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a scene all too familiar for many vegetarians and vegans: people focus on the bits where we're inconsistent or not perfect (the medication, the plane rides, the leather belt…), and that seems to give them an excuse to not listen to anything interesting we may have to tell. *In this post I briefly want to explore the topic of consistency*: how consistent should we be? Is consistency necessarily the best thing? And should we give in to the demands for consistency (and perfection)?
> 
> *For the sake of the argument*, I will assume that what Monbiot chose to wear indeed suggests a certain degree of inconsistency. I'll make abstraction of the fact that, as he later tweeted, his watch-strap may not have been real leather, and that both it and his shoes may have been bought before he went vegan (in my opinion it's perfectly okay to wear out old leather clothing as a vegan). So, for the rest of this post, let's just assume his shoes and watch strap are leather, and that we don't know when he bought them.
> 
> *Gotcha! *Monbiot has come out as a vegan and has done a lot to raise awareness about the problems of animal products and the livestock industry. It's true that he changed his mind a couple of times on these issues, but that's one reason I appreciate him. *Changing one's mind in public* requires courage, and there is, in my view, nothing admirable in sticking to one's opinion when one actually doesn't believe in it anymore
> 
> Now, Monbiot, in talking about veganism while wearing leather, showed - it cannot be denied - *a certain degree of inconsistency* (again, we're ignoring the idea that he might have bought it before he went vegan). Accusing someone else of inconsistency or hypocrisy is a favored way to discredit them or their views. Which is exactly why people who want to look convincing will try to avoid appearing inconsistent. Also in the vegan realm we spend a lot of effort in making sure no one can say "gotcha!" to us. Monbiot could have thought of this beforehand, and could have worn a stylish vegan watch and ditto shoes. Then, when asked the question by Morgan, he could have proudly talked about how yes, even his watch and shoes were free from animal products. Gotcha, Morgan! Problem avoided!
> 
> *Mosquitoes*
> But is it that simple, really? I'm sure a lot of vegans think it is, but let me - as usual - play the devil's advocate here.
> 
> First of all, one thing to keep in mind is that *when people are out to find a reason to discredit us*, they will find it. It's like asking the vegan whether she kills mosquitoes. If she answers yes, the non-vegan will shout "aha! inconsistent!" But if she says no, she'll hear "fundamentalist!" Monbiot might have fared better without the leather - and the headlines would be different - but Morgan probably would have invented something else to accuse his opponent of. He was clearly in attack mode, and wanted to find something to undermine Monbiot's credibility. As Monbiot tweeted: "It goes to show - you can prepare your arguments to the last dot and comma, but if someone is out to get you, there'll always be a way."
> 
> Part of this desire to spot inconsistencies - which is a form of do-gooder derogation - is of course that people think it gives them *a way out.* If the vegan (or other do-gooder) can be depicted as a hypocrite, there is, they think, no reason for them to change their thoughts or behavior.
> 
> *How do we win over the most people?*
> What I mainly want to address here is the question of whether being entirely consistent is always the best way to win hearts and minds. In Monbiot's case, him explaining that yes, his watch and his shoes are actually vegan (which he didn't do, to be clear) may have caused admiration for his consistency, but it may also have caused a feeling of: "whew, these people go very far!" The zeal with which vegans are vegan, may seem daunting and inimitable rather than admirable
> 
> Of course, there are degrees in this. *Consistency itself is relative*. That may sound a bit like a paradox, but it isn't. When I give examples of my own inconsistencies (drinking non-vegan wine when out of the house or not inquiring about the ingredients of bread in a restaurant), these may seem like grave crimes to some vegans (enough to call me a non-vegan), while most non-vegans will hardly see them as examples of inconsistencies in the first place. In Monbiot's case, suppose he was sitting there pleading for an end to animal agriculture while eating a box of chicken nuggets (I know, but just suppose).That would be an extremely grave and blatant inconsistency that probably wouldn't have led to anything good
> 
> *It's about communication *
> So, the question I have is: what is the right degree of consistency? I'm ignoring the fact that no one can be entirely avoid animal products. If you think I'm wrong, check this TED talk about how pig parts can be found in no less than 185 non-food products. Here, I'm rather talking about *what degree of consistency will garner the most goodwill from other people *- goodwill in the sense that they will move closer to wanting to follow our example. It's about finding the balance between the risk of seeming uncommitted, on the one hand, and appearing fundamentalist, on the other. That is probably why Monbiot said that he wasn't "*militant* about it". Not because of laziness or because, as the rude Morgan implied, because he loves his luxury products. But because he knows that appearing militant is not attractive for many people. Monbiot has called himself *97% vegan* before, and for many people, that might be a much more appealing prospect than a 100% vegan. (Undoubtedly some vegans will sing the "there is no such thing as a 97% vegan" refrain now.)
> 
> Many vegans don't see any dilemma here at all, and just state that we should be entirely consistent because animal products entail animal suffering - period. But, creating a negative impression can also create animal suffering, or at least prevent less suffering than a good image could. As I've written before, *what goes into your mouth is less important than what comes out of i**t*. Your own consumption has an impact, but the impact of the way you advocate is potentially much, much bigger.
> 
> The answer to my question - about the right degree of consistency - is that I'm not sure. I would welcome *research* that tells us whether it is consistency or a certain flexibility that is most appealing to others. As far as I know, nothing much has been studied on the subject.
> 
> *We don't need to be perfect - nor should we pretend to be*
> For now, I'm trusting that decent and thinking people will be turned off not by Monbiot's inconsistency but by Morgan's calling him out for it. The ones that are calling Monbiot hypocritical are probably not ready to take any steps anyway.
> 
> I'm hoping that this episode won't reaffirm vegans in their belief that they have to be perfect. I hope they won't strive for *consistency über alles*, and won't spend a disproportionate amount of attention on the tiny details, while losing the bigger picture. I'm hoping it won't lead some of them to tell others that they cannot call themselves vegan if they still do eat or wear this or that, with the risk of *alienating these people from veganism* or the movement
> 
> Maybe part of the solution lies in us *not emphasizing our own consistency or perfection*, and presenting veganism as an aspiration rather than something we are always achieving. If we don't pretend it's a black and white thing, maybe people will be less tempted to call vegans out when they spot an inconsistency. What if we said we're 99% vegan?
> 
> *Vegans are not perfect, and not perfectly consistent.* And the fear of appearing inconsistent shouldn't stop us from focusing on what's really important, and that is reducing animal suffering, and communicating in a way that helps other people warm up to that idea. If a doofus like Pierce Morgan wants to attack, he will. People like him should not determine what our ideal course of action is.
> 
> *Monbiot*, in the meantime, is a great person to have in the vegan camp. No amount of leather on his body will efface the impact of his articulate writing on, indeed, one of the most important issues of our time.


I absolutely love this, thanks for sharing 
I am currently wearing a leather bracelet. It's a simple strap given to me in the mid 80's by a dear friend who has since passed. I had put it away but when she passed 10 years ago, I put it back on and wear it pretty much all the time.
I'm also wearing a watch with a strap that most would think is leather, it's vegan leather and looks and feels just like animal leather. I'm also wearing a vegan leather belt. Not nearly as good quality as my watch band.

And I agree that none of us are perfect, but don't let that stop you from spreading the word. Every little bit helps, it really does.


----------



## noushka05

hutch6 said:


> I'd rather promote repost I keep food sourcing as even a vegan diet can be a nightmare for natural resources and the environment where as a well researched an responsible omnivore diet can be less damaging. Isn't that the point?
> 
> I wil never ever ever advocate a vegan diet or any diet other than an ethically sourced one and always have if you want to sea h through all of my posts about this subject on here.


Most meat & dairy isn't ethical, that's the point Hutch. The livestock industry not only causes suffering on an epic scale but its destroying our environment. Our living planet is dying, farming meat is simply unsustainable. The more people who switch to veganism the greater chance we have of saving it. I just don't get why some people are so anti-vegan when we need many more vegans in this world.


----------



## Elles

I think the dozens of articles and research has proved that a vegan, or even vegetarian, diet has less of an impact on the environment than one based on animal produce. Even meat eaters occasionally eat fruit and veg already. If the world went vegan, I think there’s enough proof now, it would be the best thing for the planet and our collective health. Failing breeding fewer of us, that would also be a great help. Neither is very likely to happen though. 

The op was about an interview regarding intensive farming practises involving animal produce. There’s no doubt at all that a mass uptake of veganism would do away with those altogether. Along with most abattoirs and live transport. And we could still feed our dogs and cats and even wear leather and sheepskin, we just wouldn’t need to raise and kill the billions that we do today.

You could shoot me the odd rabbit for Elles, I’d be more than happy to take it off your hands for her. You don’t have to promote a vegan diet, you’re not a vegan, but don’t try to tell me that I should eat meat either. I will never understand how anyone can kill an animal and put it’s dead flesh in their mouth, unless they’re a carnivorous animal and I’m not.


----------



## noushka05

ouesi said:


> I love this
> I'm no Kenyan runner, but when I first started running longer distances I was heavily influenced by the "carbs are bad" mentality even as a vegetarian.
> Long story short,
> 
> I absolutely love this, thanks for sharing
> I am currently wearing a leather bracelet. It's a simple strap given to me in the mid 80's by a dear friend who has since passed. I had put it away but when she passed 10 years ago, I put it back on and wear it pretty much all the time.
> I'm also wearing a watch with a strap that most would think is leather, it's vegan leather and looks and feels just like animal leather. I'm also wearing a vegan leather belt. Not nearly as good quality as my watch band.
> 
> And I agree that none of us are perfect, but don't let that stop you from spreading the word. Every little bit helps, it really does.


You're welcome . And why not, I have a watch of my Mums which has a leather strap & I treasure it. I'm far from perfect, I'm just doing the best I can.


----------



## noushka05

Just clicked the link to the video on my post about Morgan v Monbiot & it takes you to the Daily Mail article on the story. The comments section speaks volumes about the calibre of readers that rag attracts lol.

Worst rated comment is this one -

_Piers is missing the point!He usually does as a fence sitter yet this time he has a point as this directly affects him. The typical uneducated argument when something directly shines a torch on choice.People in glass houses should not throw stones Piers and what exactly do you do?The fierceness of opposition is indicative of a threatened ego and the attitude that on such sensitive issues I will not consider morality or be told what to do, I will just find the small points to pick holes.His unoriginal retort is typical predictable and the response of the adult child.Here is a valid debate, that requires attention between two opposing polarities. This subject needs urgent intelligent conversation and debate and is high on the agenda of flammable issues.Something needs to be done. World food shortage global warming and our developing humanity rests on this debate and requires urgent attention. We don't hear about this enough because agri-economics is a billion dollar indust_ry.

Best rated comment this -.

_God help me! I actually agree with Piers Morgan on something_.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Monbiot-s-leather-attire.html#ixzz4vPxDi6k3 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> Most meat & dairy isn't ethical, that's the point


A great deal of it is very ethical though, let's not tar the whole industry with the same brush. The farmers I know (lamb, pork and beef) care more about their stock than many dog/cat owners do. They get absolute 100% care, the farmers know more about how to care for their livestock than most vets, if for no other reason than it's their livelihood.

@noushka05 get out there in the real word and visit a few farms, see what they are doing and how they care for their animals. Searching out the bad on the internet will only cloud your view of the reality. Yes there is bad, but there's also a whole lot of great.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

noushka05 said:


> Just clicked the link to the video on my post about Morgan v Monbiot & it takes you to the Daily Mail article on the story. The comments section speaks volumes about the calibre of readers that rag attracts lol.
> 
> Worst rated comment is this one -
> 
> _Piers is missing the point!He usually does as a fence sitter yet this time he has a point as this directly affects him. The typical uneducated argument when something directly shines a torch on choice.People in glass houses should not throw stones Piers and what exactly do you do?The fierceness of opposition is indicative of a threatened ego and the attitude that on such sensitive issues I will not consider morality or be told what to do, I will just find the small points to pick holes.His unoriginal retort is typical predictable and the response of the adult child.Here is a valid debate, that requires attention between two opposing polarities. This subject needs urgent intelligent conversation and debate and is high on the agenda of flammable issues.Something needs to be done. World food shortage global warming and our developing humanity rests on this debate and requires urgent attention. We don't hear about this enough because agri-economics is a billion dollar indust_ry.
> 
> Best rated comment this -.
> 
> _God help me! I actually agree with Piers Morgan on something_.
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Monbiot-s-leather-attire.html#ixzz4vPxDi6k3
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


If you look hard enough you will find a few of my comments no there too :Shy


----------



## Elles

I’ve kept my horses on farms for years and I haven’t met one farmer who cares about their livestock in a pet dog or cat way. They can’t afford to, not when they’re raising them to be killed for meat. They have to be quick and efficient at best, they can’t afford sentiment. It’s not The Good Life, or the local petting zoo. I don’t think most vegans would like it very much.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

http://publichealth.llu.edu/adventi...edia-reports/cancer-protection-lacto-ovo-diet

*Vegans are less likely to develop overall and female-specific cancer; lacto-ovo diet confers protection from gastrointestinal cancers*

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22230619

*CONCLUSIONS:*

We conclude from this relatively large study that vegetarians, especially vegans, with otherwise diverse characteristics but stable diets, do have lower systolic and diastolic BP and less hypertension than omnivores. This is only partly due to their lower body mass.


----------



## hutch6

Dr Pepper said:


> A great deal of it is very ethical though, let's not tar the whole industry with the same brush. The farmers I know (lamb, pork and beef) care more about their stock than many dog/cat owners do. They get absolute 100% care, the farmers know more about how to care for their livestock than most vets, if for no other reason than it's their livelihood.
> 
> @noushka05 get out there in the real word and visit a few farms, see what they are doing and how they care for their animals. Searching out the bad on the internet will only cloud your view of the reality. Yes there is bad, but there's also a whole lot of great.


Don't be daft they all go out at night and kick nine bells out of their livestock, flush all the waste into rivers and rejoice how they don't have to follow any type of welfare policy.
None of them utilised the suicide helpline whilst the pyres of livestock four or five of the last generations had meticulously managed to breed prime stock burned. They just don't give a hoot don't our farmers. Not one of them. Every single one of them wants to see all wildlife off of their land they don't enjoy any of it.

However, because we put animals in our home and give them cute names and coo over them we know how to treat animals.


----------



## Dr Pepper

Elles said:


> I've kept my horses on farms for years and I haven't met one farmer who cares about their livestock in a pet dog or cat way. They can't afford to, not when they're raising them to be killed for meat. They have to be quick and efficient at best, they can't afford sentiment. It's not The Good Life, or the local petting zoo. I don't think most vegans would like it very much.


You need to change farms! Yes they'll put a no hope runt out of their misery, but (a decent farm) will also care for poorly animals 100% to the extent a farm hand recently took home four lambs back home to give them the best chance of survival and non-suffering. Farmers stay up throughout the night to feed poorly lambs every few hours. I know it's only because they are their livelihood but these animals couldn't be better cared for.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Dr Pepper said:


> A great deal of it is very ethical though, let's not tar the whole industry with the same brush. The farmers I know (lamb, pork and beef) care more about their stock than many dog/cat owners do. They get absolute 100% care, the farmers know more about how to care for their livestock than most vets, if for no other reason than it's their livelihood.
> 
> @noushka05 get out there in the real word and visit a few farms, see what they are doing and how they care for their animals. Searching out the bad on the internet will only cloud your view of the reality. Yes there is bad, but there's also a whole lot of great.


How do you know some of us haven't visited farms? Perhaps you might like to visit some of the intensive farms and CAFCO's. I don't think any of us are slating small ethical farms but they are not the majority in this country any more.


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> A great deal of it is very ethical though, let's not tar the whole industry with the same brush. The farmers I know (lamb, pork and beef) care more about their stock than many dog/cat owners do. They get absolute 100% care, the farmers know more about how to care for their livestock than most vets, if for no other reason than it's their livelihood.
> 
> @noushka05 get out there in the real word and visit a few farms, see what they are doing and how they care for their animals. Searching out the bad on the internet will only cloud your view of the reality. Yes there is bad, but there's also a whole lot of great.


70% of UK farm animals are kept in factory farms - FACT.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> If you look hard enough you will find a few of my comments no there too :Shy


Oops sorry RPH, I hope I haven't offended you or anyone else for that matter Its just I wasn't at all surprised that most people were against George lol


----------



## Dr Pepper

rottiepointerhouse said:


> How do you know some of us haven't visited farms? Perhaps you might like to visit some of the intensive farms and CAFCO's. I don't think any of us are slating small ethical farms but they are not the majority in this country any more.


I agree, but get off the internet and experience the non-intensive farms and you be pleasantly surprise.

Of course that doesn't make the intensive farming ok, but there is the other side to the coin.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

noushka05 said:


> Oops sorry RPH, I hope I haven't offended you or anyone else for that matter Its just I wasn't at all surprised that most people were against George lol


Don't be daft, I made the mistake of reading some of the comments and couldn't stop myself diving in and telling a few of them what I thought. Unfortunately I left my usual manners behind that day and was rather rude to some of them


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Dr Pepper said:


> I agree, but get off the internet and experience the non-intensive farms and you be pleasantly surprise.
> 
> Of course that doesn't make the intensive farming ok, but there is the other side to the coin.


I can't "get off the internet" right now because I'm actually working. I mainly come on here when I'm tied to the internet working, got better things to be doing when I'm not like studying nutrition


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> 70% of UK farm animals are kept in factory farms - FACT.
> 
> l


So a third are not. Lets focus and promote that third. Maybe, just maybe, if we promote the good in farming rather than concentrating on the bad we make progress.


----------



## noushka05

hutch6 said:


> Don't be daft they all go out at night and kick nine bells out of their livestock, flush all the waste into rivers and rejoice how they don't have to follow any type of welfare policy.
> None of them utilised the suicide helpline whilst the pyres of livestock four or five of the last generations had meticulously managed to breed prime stock burned. They just don't give a hoot don't our farmers. Not one of them. Every single one of them wants to see all wildlife off of their land they don't enjoy any of it.
> 
> However, because we put animals in our home and give them cute names and coo over them we know how to treat animals.


I know you're being sarcastic Hutch, but our badgers are being sacrificed right now for the dairy industry. And I for one think its shameful that a domesticated farmed animal is given priority over a native wild species.


----------



## noushka05

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Don't be daft, I made the mistake of reading some of the comments and couldn't stop myself diving in and telling a few of them what I thought. Unfortunately I left my usual manners behind that day and was rather rude to some of them


Oh I see - I must take a closer look at those comments:Hilarious



Dr Pepper said:


> So a third are not. Lets focus and promote that third. Maybe, just maybe, if we promote the good in farming rather than concentrating on the bad we make progress.


What like sweep the bad under the carpet?


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> What like sweep the bad under the carpet?


Not at all, just don't deny the good.


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> Not at all, just don't deny the good.


I didn't.


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> I didn't.


Good we agree again, that must be twice now


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> How do you know some of us haven't visited farms? Perhaps you might like to visit some of the intensive farms and CAFCO's. I don't think any of us are slating small ethical farms but they are not the majority in this country any more.


Right, and we as the consumers can change that and the methods. It's very simple really as I've kept banging on about.


----------



## catz4m8z

Dr Pepper said:


> A great deal of it is very ethical though, let's not tar the whole industry with the same brush. The farmers I know (lamb, pork and beef) care more about their stock than many dog/cat owners do.


This whole issue of ethical farmers and 'humane slaughter' really confuses me. Where is the ethics or humanity in taking a young animal which hasnt even lived a fraction of its live and then killing it?
It doesnt want to die, you dont need to kill it to live so it isnt about your survival so how can that ever be ethical??


----------



## Elles

Many business owners who went bust in the recession were suicidal. You can’t raise animals for meat or dairy and be sentimental about it. You’d go crazy checking whether they’re ready and shipping off stock for slaughter. There are tiny farms and small holdings with a few stock, they may specialise in rare breeds and even allow their herds to naturally wean, but they are incredibly rare. Vegans wouldn’t like most farms and not just intensive farms.

I’m not saying they’re all wicked, cruel and callous, but they aren’t all loving and sentimental either, their animals aren’t pets, they’re work and they die for meat, or have their newborns taken at birth, so people can drink their milk, it’s not comparable to pet dogs and cats and it’s not something I’d expect vegans to support.

The thread is about intensive farming though and you don’t have to give up meat and dairy to not like that very much.


----------



## LinznMilly

hutch6 said:


> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945587/
> 
> https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog...mate-low-carb-diet-good-for-you-2017072712089
> 
> https://www.healthtestingcenters.com/cholesterol-and-ketogenic-diet
> 
> I have pages of the stuff.


I would love to watch the videos you posted, but atm, I'm relying on my phone's data for internet connection, and my access to WiFi elsewhere is limited, so it would be days before I could realistically watch them. However, while I did have access to WiFi, I downloaded 2 of your links and read a 3rd. IMHO not one of them support your argument that the Ketone diet is good for you.

The Harvard study points out that the ketone diet is high in processed meat, but, at the bottom of the page, under The Bottom Line, it points out that a diet rich in vegetables, fruit legumes, lean meat and fish (as opposed to the processed food-rich ketone diet) is better for you.

One of the other links uses an example of a paltry 83 humans, studied for 24 weeks, and try to call that a "long term" study. Long term for that diet, perhaps, because "it's extraordinarily difficult to commit to" - yeah, we know. Dr Garth Davis, Bariatric surgeon, points out that his surgery is literally filled with patients who tragically believe they're too weak to stick to the Atkins, Paleo or similar diet and just "had to have" that donut. Well yeah, because their bodies were (to quote the surgeon) "screaming for the carbs", because, as your own links attest, we're designed to use carbs and starch for fuel. Meanwhile, there have been numerous studies carried out over years that prove that a meat-and-dairy-heavy diet is linked to every one of the major chronic diseases prevalent in the Western Hemisphere, and/or that a whole foods, plant based diet prevents or reverses them all - heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, hypertension ... And so on.

The other of your links, that I read, uses mice, studied for 24 weeks, and straw-clutches that that equates to so many human years. Presumably because it's easier to control the diet of lab mice and force them to stick to a ketone diet than it is to get humans to stick to it.

The only way a ketone diet doesn't end up as a yo-yo diet is, according to your own link, if it's paired with a Mediterranean diet in between - again, proof positive that people can't stick to the ketone diet/low carb diet long term.

The fact that a ketone diet causes weight loss is not news to anyone who's read Dr Garth Davis' book, "Proteinaholic". As he points out, early on in the book, I believe, you can lose weight eating a diet entirely made up of junk food - if you count calories and keep them well below the 2,000-2,500 recommended daily limit. Doesn't mean junk food is doing your body any good.

One link pays lip service to preventing heart disease. Unfortunately for you, that's as far as it goes. It doesn't explain how a heart attack/heart disease occurs in the first place, unlike both the book I referred to earlier "Proteinaholic" and "The End of Heart Disease", by Dr Joel Fuhrman. I'd also be interested to know who actually funded those studies because they all strike me as something the meat and dairy industry would be happy to pay for.

All-in-all, to me, none of the links that I read told me something I didn't already know, or provided evidence that would make me change my mind that meat and/or dairy are not healthy food choices.

As for your straw-clutching at vegans not being any healthier, and still being overweight, and/or having the same diseases we're referring to here, again, you're not actually saying something we don't already know. Not all vegan diets are good for you - no one is saying they are. Some are just as bad for you as the Standard Western Diet - because they're just as high in processed food. That diets rich in processed foods (vegan or carnivorous) are bad for you, isn't exactly headline news.

However, whole food plant-based diets have been scientifically proven to prevent and reverse heart disease, obesity, diabetes, autoimmune disease, and prevent colon, prostate and breast cancers. I've mentioned 2 of my sources already, before you ask for evidence.


----------



## hutch6

You need to watch the wheat one then to understand why people are addicted to carbs.

I’ve stuck to it for two years without the craving of cereals as you get you carbs from veg and seasonal berries. It’s not hard to stick to once your body gets over the cravings for cereals.
I had some garlic bread at a dinner party once and I felt absolutely terrible the next day.

I can eat around 18g of carbs per day.
Here are a few examples of my carb intake:

Spinach - 3.6g per 100g but there is 2,2 fibre so it’s 1.4g of net carbs. I’d have to eat 1.5kg of spinach to hit my carb intake. Looking online the bags you see at the supermarket are 260g so I’d have to eat almost six bags. I don’t think so. 

Sprouts - 9g of carbs with 3.8 fibre so 5.2 net carbs per 100g. So 350g of sprouts.

Cabbage - 6g of carbs and 3.5g of fibre so 2.5g per 100g. 720g of cabbage.

You get the idea now that I still have to eat a boat load of veg just to touch anywhere near 18g of carbs. If I do any form of HIIT, weights or even just walking the dogs for a bit longer I can up the amount of carbs I can eat.

Living the way I do does not mean my plate is just meat at all which is the impression I get from posts. I probably eat the same amount of veg as a vegan but what I eat isn’t packed with sugars that the human body simply does not need. 
I don’t eat cereals, I very rarely eat fruit as it’s not in season a great deal and is full of fructose anyway.

The majority of my calories (70%) comes from animal fat and oily fish. I cook using lard so it reduces the amount of actual animal product I need to consume. 

Local animals that I can either see in the fields (I even work amongst them), kill myself or catch myself with rod and line. There are even a couple of local sheep cheese makers which is the only dairy I consume.
Local veg that we either grow or I get given for doing pest work or general labour.

It’s not hard but people are unknowingly addicted to cereals, sugars and other rubbish that they sling in food. It’s not a diet as that implies you’re missing out or sacrificing something. I certainly don’t miss cereals as they make you bloat and feel ill but because people are so used to eating it they just think that’s how you’re meant to feel and it isn’t, they cause inflammation in your body which lets viruses in very easily. I’ve not had a single illness during the last two years not one and with my job I’m not sat around all day, I’m up hills and down dales carrying equipment. I’ve got perfectly regular movements and as I’ve already stated my bad cholesterol levels are extremely low at every point I’ve been tested. I had myself tested every month when I first started to ensure I wasn’t causing any issues and it was clear I wasn’t.

The fact is I eat less animal product than a normal meat eater because I eat the fatty bits and the offal so therefore I need less. It’s simple science.

The only supliment I take is vitamin d due to the latitude of where I live. That is the only synthetic product that goes into my body and the only one that needs to.


----------



## StormyThai

All I know (yes this is anecdotal but what's good for the goose and all that) is that I was an avid meat eater up to just over a year a go...All my meat was sourced locally, I'm not over weight (I struggled to put weight on) and I had no illnesses due to my diet.

However, just before I gave up meat I was starting to bloat after eating, I was sluggish and felt generally unwell.
Much to my doctors disgust I gave up all meat (I was told that I would not be able to maintain my weight) and within a week I stopped bloating and feeling sluggish, within a month or two I put on weight and noticed other positive changes within my body. I don't need studies to show me that we don't need to eat meat, my body showed me all I need ;-)


----------



## Calvine

Elles said:


> I haven't met one farmer who cares about their livestock in a pet dog or cat way.


I don't think @Dr Pepper was suggesting that the care was the same sort (you wouldn't, for example, let a bullock sleep on the settee or bed), just that it was care which is appropriate to the species. And yes, we all know that all too often this isn't always the case. We all know the horror stories about factory farming . . . or should.


----------



## LinznMilly

hutch6 said:


> You need to watch the wheat one then to understand why people are addicted to carbs.
> 
> I've stuck to it for two years without the craving of cereals as you get you carbs from veg and seasonal berries. It's not hard to stick to once your body gets over the cravings for cereals.
> I had some garlic bread at a dinner party once and I felt absolutely terrible the next day.
> 
> I can eat around 18g of carbs per day.
> Here are a few examples of my carb intake:
> 
> Spinach - 3.6g per 100g but there is 2,2 fibre so it's 1.4g of net carbs. I'd have to eat 1.5kg of spinach to hit my carb intake. Looking online the bags you see at the supermarket are 260g so I'd have to eat almost six bags. I don't think so.
> 
> Sprouts - 9g of carbs with 3.8 fibre so 5.2 net carbs per 100g. So 350g of sprouts.
> 
> Cabbage - 6g of carbs and 3.5g of fibre so 2.5g per 100g. 720g of cabbage.
> 
> You get the idea now that I still have to eat a boat load of veg just to touch anywhere near 18g of carbs. If I do any form of HIIT, weights or even just walking the dogs for a bit longer I can up the amount of carbs I can eat.
> 
> Living the way I do does not mean my plate is just meat at all which is the impression I get from posts. I probably eat the same amount of veg as a vegan but what I eat isn't packed with sugars that the human body simply does not need.
> I don't eat cereals, I very rarely eat fruit as it's not in season a great deal and is full of fructose anyway.
> 
> The majority of my calories (70%) comes from animal fat and oily fish. I cook using lard so it reduces the amount of actual animal product I need to consume.
> 
> Local animals that I can either see in the fields (I even work amongst them), kill myself or catch myself with rod and line. There are even a couple of local sheep cheese makers which is the only dairy I consume.
> Local veg that we either grow or I get given for doing pest work or general labour.
> 
> It's not hard but people are unknowingly addicted to cereals, sugars and other rubbish that they sling in food. It's not a diet as that implies you're missing out or sacrificing something. I certainly don't miss cereals as they make you bloat and feel ill but because people are so used to eating it they just think that's how you're meant to feel and it isn't, they cause inflammation in your body which lets viruses in very easily. I've not had a single illness during the last two years not one and with my job I'm not sat around all day, I'm up hills and down dales carrying equipment. I've got perfectly regular movements and as I've already stated my bad cholesterol levels are extremely low at every point I've been tested. I had myself tested every month when I first started to ensure I wasn't causing any issues and it was clear I wasn't.
> 
> The fact is I eat less animal product than a normal meat eater because I eat the fatty bits and the offal so therefore I need less. It's simple science.
> 
> The only supliment I take is vitamin d due to the latitude of where I live. That is the only synthetic product that goes into my body and the only one that needs to.


3 of your own links have failed to convince me, so now I should (need to) watch a video? I've just explained I can't do that because of limited internet access.

Good for you, that you hunt and catch your meat yourself, but the vast majority of people don't - certainly not in the developed world, so once again, your own argument falls flat upon anything even close to scrutiny.

You eat less meat than the average person - great, but that's what Proteinaholic and The End of Heart Disease advise - if you can't go vegan, at least cut down your meat intake. They recommend about condiment-sized portions a week.

So where, exactly, is your argument?

(Edit: I haven't yet read Reversing Heart Disease , I meant The End of Heart Disease)


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

LinznMilly said:


> I would love to watch the videos you posted, but atm, I'm relying on my phone's data for internet connection, and my access to WiFi elsewhere is limited, so it would be days before I could realistically watch them. However, while I did have access to WiFi, I downloaded 2 of your links and read a 3rd. IMHO not one of them support your argument that the Ketone diet is good for you.
> 
> The Harvard study points out that the ketone diet is high in processed meat, but, at the bottom of the page, under The Bottom Line, it points out that a diet rich in vegetables, fruit legumes, lean meat and fish (as opposed to the processed food-rich ketone diet) is better for you.
> 
> One of the other links uses an example of a paltry 83 humans, studied for 24 weeks, and try to call that a "long term" study. Long term for that diet, perhaps, because "it's extraordinarily difficult to commit to" - yeah, we know. Dr Garth Davis, Bariatric surgeon, points out that his surgery is literally filled with patients who tragically believe they're too weak to stick to the Atkins, Paleo or similar diet and just "had to have" that donut. Well yeah, because their bodies were (to quote the surgeon) "screaming for the carbs", because, as your own links attest, we're designed to use carbs and starch for fuel. Meanwhile, there have been numerous studies carried out over years that prove that a meat-and-dairy-heavy diet is linked to every one of the major chronic diseases prevalent in the Western Hemisphere, and/or that a whole foods, plant based diet prevents or reverses them all - heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, hypertension ... And so on.
> 
> The other of your links, that I read, uses mice, studied for 24 weeks, and straw-clutches that that equates to so many human years. Presumably because it's easier to control the diet of lab mice and force them to stick to a ketone diet than it is to get humans to stick to it.
> 
> The only way a ketone diet doesn't end up as a yo-yo diet is, according to your own link, if it's paired with a Mediterranean diet in between - again, proof positive that people can't stick to the ketone diet/low carb diet long term.
> 
> The fact that a ketone diet causes weight loss is not news to anyone who's read Dr Garth Davis' book, "Proteinaholic". As he points out, early on in the book, I believe, you can lose weight eating a diet entirely made up of junk food - if you count calories and keep them well below the 2,000-2,500 recommended daily limit. Doesn't mean junk food is doing your body any good.
> 
> One link pays lip service to preventing heart disease. Unfortunately for you, that's as far as it goes. It doesn't explain how a heart attack/heart disease occurs in the first place, unlike both the book I referred to earlier "Proteinaholic" and "The End of Heart Disease", by Dr Joel Fuhrman. I'd also be interested to know who actually funded those studies because they all strike me as something the meat and dairy industry would be happy to pay for.
> 
> All-in-all, to me, none of the links that I read told me something I didn't already know, or provided evidence that would make me change my mind that meat and/or dairy are not healthy food choices.
> 
> As for your straw-clutching at vegans not being any healthier, and still being overweight, and/or having the same diseases we're referring to here, again, you're not actually saying something we don't already know. Not all vegan diets are good for you - no one is saying they are. Some are just as bad for you as the Standard Western Diet - because they're just as high in processed food. That diets rich in processed foods (vegan or carnivorous) are bad for you, isn't exactly headline news.
> 
> However, whole food plant-based diets have been scientifically proven to prevent and reverse heart disease, obesity, diabetes, autoimmune disease, and prevent colon, prostate and breast cancers. I've mentioned 2 of my sources already, before you ask for evidence.


Brilliant post, worthy of rep. Can't tell you how proud I am of you and what you have achieved with your own health too


----------



## Dr Pepper

Calvine said:


> I don't think @Dr Pepper was suggesting that the care was the same sort (you wouldn't, for example, let a bullock sleep on the settee or bed), just that it was care which is appropriate to the species. And yes, we all know that all too often this isn't always the case. We all know the horror stories about factory farming . . . or should.


Yes, perhaps I wasn't clear. The care the animals get is second to none because it's the farms source of income. Scrawny sick sheep don't provide much of a profit, health sheep do. One farmhand took four runt lambs home with him to feed them every few hours until they were well enough to return, you can't really complain about that level of care. Yes if a animal is beyond hope it will get a swift bolt through the head, unlike many pet owners who keep their ill animals hanging on and suffering far to long. No they don't give them names or take them calves for a lovely day out at the beach (well I don't think they do)! If you use your local independent butcher you will usually be supporting these farms.


----------



## LinznMilly

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Brilliant post, worthy of rep. Can't tell you how proud I am of you and what you have achieved with your own health too


:Joyful Thank you.


----------



## catz4m8z

Dr Pepper said:


> The care the animals get is second to none because it's the farms source of income. Scrawny sick sheep don't provide much of a profit, health sheep do.


ok, so here is my question....
If you killed me after a cuddle and a four course meal would I be any _less_ dead then if you killed me after a slap and a drink of toilet water!?


----------



## Dr Pepper

catz4m8z said:


> ok, so here is my question....
> If you killed me after a cuddle and a four course meal would I be any _less_ dead then if you killed me after a slap and a drink of toilet water!?


No but you would have had wonderful cuddle and lovely meal before leaving this world.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Dr Pepper said:


> No but you would have had wonderful cuddle and lovely meal before leaving this world.


So in the real world what percentage of animals killed for the plate do you think are dispatched in such a cosy way?

Plants like this are where the majority of meat comes from these days

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/28/blood-sweat-deceit-west-midlands-poultry-plant

they churn out 6 million chickens a week, no way those numbers can be handled and slaughtered humanely.

I also posted this on a previous thread

Unfortunately with the massive numbers being processed in the larger slaughterhouses I doubt it is done correctly. I don't know the figures for this country but in the US some slaughterhouses "process" one thousand pigs per hour. The Journal of Animal Science reports 38% of all cows (again this is for the US) arrive at the slaugherhouse showing signs of lameness and crippling. None of the cows wants to leave the truck so they are struck with electric prods or dragged off with chains and forklifts. A former inspector reported cows having prods poked in their faces and up their rectums. They are then pushed through a channel and shot in the head with a bolt gun to stun them, the line moves so quickly and the workers are poorly trained so many cows are still fully conscious when their throats are cut". A reporter from the Washington Post described "within 12 seconds of entering the chamber the fallen cow is shackled to a moving chain to be bled and butchered on a fast moving production line. One worker (with 20 years experience) described how he frequently had to cut fully conscious cows and explained that slowing down the line to ensure animals are properly stunned/killed is unheard of.

and this (UK)

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.c.../animal-cruelty-figures-show-need-for-cameras

Cameras will be installed in every abattoir in England as part of government plans to reduce cruelty.

The announcement was made as new figures obtained by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism show an increase in the number of incidents where animals are subjected to needless pain or distress as part of the slaughter process.

CCTV will be introduced in all areas where live animals are present, with government vets being given unrestricted access to the footage. Abattoirs found to be failing welfare standards could face a criminal investigation, staff licenses suspended or revoked or enforcement letters.

*The announcement comes as the Bureau's new figures show how more than 1,600 serious breaches of animal welfare standards were recorded in England and Wales between July 2016 and early February 2017 - that is seven a day - including livestock being ineffectively stunned, crushed, trapped and injured, and large batches of animals dying during transport.*

In one case more than a quarter of a shipment of poultry died from heat stress before even reaching the slaughterhouse.

These were the most serious breaches - meaning animals were subjected to "avoidable pain, distress or suffering" in abattoirs or during transport to slaughterhouses.

Yes I understand you are not advocating factory farming but I really don't see farming going back to small scale farming anytime soon. The sheep/lambs you mentioned probably get the best life as they appear to be the least likely to be intensively reared.


----------



## Moobli

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I didn't see the whole interview but have read about it. Can't say as I am a fan of his but Piers Morgan is an oaf who like many people look for the tiniest ***** in someone's armour to discredit their whole argument. No one on this planet can be 100% non hypocritical, we all have to make judgement calls every single day. It seems to some people like Piers Morgan if you can't be 100% pure then do nothing at all. @ouesi has a brilliant quote about unpicking a jumper thread by thread. Every little bit helps. I think we all know the cow was not raised and slaughtered to make a watch strap but hey ho, slate someone for taking a few steps in the right direction  I've still got a leather sofa, I've had it years, does that make me a hypocrite? probably, do I care? not one jot. When we replace it we won't replace it with leather but in the meantime at least I know I'm doing something for my own health, for the NHS, for the planet and for the animals


The interview made me hate Piers Morgan just a little bit less. George Monbiot is an extremist with extreme views so I think PM did a great job in showing him up to be the hypocrite he is. I disagreed with PM's style of interview though.


----------



## Moobli

ouesi said:


> Wait, what? So if you wear leather, you don't get to have an opinion on how animals are treated in the food industry? How does that make any sense?
> 
> What about if you used to eat meat but no longer do, is your argument for not eating meat now invalid because you didn't always follow a meat-free lifestyle?
> 
> What if I feed meat to my dogs but don't feed meat to my family? Am I allowed an opinion on humans eating meat?
> No, I don't source all my dogs' meat from ethical sources, but I do a lot of it. Much of it is hunted meat (whole 'nother can of worms there) and some of it is ethically, locally farmed stuff. In fact one of my friends breeds rabbits just so she can kill them and feed them to her dogs. Craziness.
> 
> Here's the thing. We're all hypocrites. Every single one of us. If you eat meat I bet you wouldn't eat dog, but you're fine eating a pig. Guess what? You're a hypocrite. If you eschew meat for ethical reasons but are fine with dairy, you're a hypocrite. If you eschew meat for health reasons but put toxins in your body in other ways, you're a hypocrite. So what? We're all hypocrites.
> 
> But that doesn't make the argument for the ethical treatment of animals any less valid. That doesn't make the argument against factory farming and how destructive it is environmentally and to our health any less valid.


But GM is not for the ethical treatment of meat animals. He is for the complete abolition!


----------



## Moobli

Catharinem said:


> Everyone, not just vegans or vegetarians should stand up for better animal welfare in farming.
> 
> In fact, as consumers, especially meat eaters should be encouraged to demand higher standards from farmers, transporters, abbatoir workers, etc.
> 
> Meat eaters demanding better welfare for meat animals, and being prepared to pay for those higher standards through their wallets, could have a significant effect on the lives of millions of animals.
> 
> Instead of vegans/vegetarians versus meat eaters, it should be more about how to educate meat eaters to expect high welfare standards, and hold producers to account. Also, to use every part of the animal, and use leftovers, slice and freeze cooked meat for future use, etc. With education, total numbers of animals killed should decrease, and market forces should put the intensive factory farms out of business.
> 
> It should be easier to educate to use less meat, of higher quality, and get the extra money back through careful food use reducing waste, than to try to get everyone to go vegan. I think a "forgiving" vegan discussing better welfare intelligently will have more of an effect on wefare than a militant one antagonising meat eaters and being dismissed as extremists.
> 
> Not phrased very well, racing for school pickup, but hope this makes sense.


Brilliant post!!!


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Moobli said:


> The interview made me hate Piers Morgan just a little bit less. George Monbiot is an extremist with extreme views so I think PM did a great job in showing him up to be the hypocrite he is. I disagreed with PM's style of interview though.


Surely we are all hypocrites in one way or another. Have a read of the article @noushka05 posted about this - its #212 on page 11 of this thread - its a bit too long to cut & paste.


----------



## noushka05

I'm really glad Rona started this thread. Its got people talking about this crisis we're facing & that can only be a good thing. I feel sure George would pleased about that


----------



## noushka05

Moobli said:


> The interview made me hate Piers Morgan just a little bit less. George Monbiot is an extremist with extreme views so I think PM did a great job in showing him up to be the hypocrite he is. I disagreed with PM's style of interview though.


If George is an extremist then so is the UN Moobli.


----------



## Moobli

catz4m8z said:


> ok, so here is my question....
> If you killed me after a cuddle and a four course meal would I be any _less_ dead then if you killed me after a slap and a drink of toilet water!?


So the animal being dead is the crux of the matter for you? Not the fact it was well cared for, had all its needs met throughout its life, then had a quick, humane end? Wow!


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

noushka05 said:


> If George is an extremist then so is the UN Moobli.


Thanks for posting that, I haven't seen it before and have now added it to my favourites.


----------



## catz4m8z

Moobli said:


> So the animal being dead is the crux of the matter for you? Not the fact it was well cared for, had all its needs met throughout its life, then had a quick, humane end? Wow!


well, obviously I care about the massive global impact animal farming has on wildfire, the environment, the fact we are fishing our oceans empty of life, the fact that animal farming is in no way at all sustainable on the scale we are currently doing it. Also I care about my health and the fact that eating animal products is medically proven to increase your risk of nearly all the leading causes of death.
But ultimately yes, I care that you took a young animal that didnt want to die and you killed it all because you thought it tasted nice. We wouldnt accept it if it was a dog or cat so why should we accept that a cow or chicken has any less right to its life?
I can care about more then one thing at a time though!


----------



## MilleD

catz4m8z said:


> well, obviously I care about the massive global impact animal farming has on wildfire, the environment, the fact we are fishing our oceans empty of life, the fact that animal farming is in no way at all sustainable on the scale we are currently doing it. Also I care about my health and the fact that eating animal products is medically proven to increase your risk of nearly all the leading causes of death.
> But ultimately yes, I care that you took a young animal that didnt want to die and you killed it all because you thought it tasted nice. We wouldnt accept it if it was a dog or cat so why should we accept that a cow or chicken has any less right to its life?
> I can care about more then one thing at a time though!


The not wanting to die thing is an odd argument, it's almost as if you think that a battery farmed chicken is ok to be killed because it's miserable (and no I don't think anyone should eat those things).

Some nationalities happily accept it if it's dog or cat.

On the animal farming sustainability issue, I found this when I googled for Noush's UN vegan thingy.

https://munchies.vice.com/en_us/art...-diets-could-actually-be-worse-for-the-planet

Apologies if it's already been posted.

If this is true, the only answer to the food issue is fewer humans.


----------



## Guest

LinznMilly said:


> I would love to watch the videos you posted, but atm, I'm relying on my phone's data for internet connection, and my access to WiFi elsewhere is limited, so it would be days before I could realistically watch them. However, while I did have access to WiFi, I downloaded 2 of your links and read a 3rd. IMHO not one of them support your argument that the Ketone diet is good for you.
> 
> The Harvard study points out that the ketone diet is high in processed meat, but, at the bottom of the page, under The Bottom Line, it points out that a diet rich in vegetables, fruit legumes, lean meat and fish (as opposed to the processed food-rich ketone diet) is better for you.
> 
> One of the other links uses an example of a paltry 83 humans, studied for 24 weeks, and try to call that a "long term" study. Long term for that diet, perhaps, because "it's extraordinarily difficult to commit to" - yeah, we know. Dr Garth Davis, Bariatric surgeon, points out that his surgery is literally filled with patients who tragically believe they're too weak to stick to the Atkins, Paleo or similar diet and just "had to have" that donut. Well yeah, because their bodies were (to quote the surgeon) "screaming for the carbs", because, as your own links attest, we're designed to use carbs and starch for fuel. Meanwhile, there have been numerous studies carried out over years that prove that a meat-and-dairy-heavy diet is linked to every one of the major chronic diseases prevalent in the Western Hemisphere, and/or that a whole foods, plant based diet prevents or reverses them all - heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, hypertension ... And so on.
> 
> The other of your links, that I read, uses mice, studied for 24 weeks, and straw-clutches that that equates to so many human years. Presumably because it's easier to control the diet of lab mice and force them to stick to a ketone diet than it is to get humans to stick to it.
> 
> The only way a ketone diet doesn't end up as a yo-yo diet is, according to your own link, if it's paired with a Mediterranean diet in between - again, proof positive that people can't stick to the ketone diet/low carb diet long term.
> 
> The fact that a ketone diet causes weight loss is not news to anyone who's read Dr Garth Davis' book, "Proteinaholic". As he points out, early on in the book, I believe, you can lose weight eating a diet entirely made up of junk food - if you count calories and keep them well below the 2,000-2,500 recommended daily limit. Doesn't mean junk food is doing your body any good.
> 
> One link pays lip service to preventing heart disease. Unfortunately for you, that's as far as it goes. It doesn't explain how a heart attack/heart disease occurs in the first place, unlike both the book I referred to earlier "Proteinaholic" and "The End of Heart Disease", by Dr Joel Fuhrman. I'd also be interested to know who actually funded those studies because they all strike me as something the meat and dairy industry would be happy to pay for.
> 
> All-in-all, to me, none of the links that I read told me something I didn't already know, or provided evidence that would make me change my mind that meat and/or dairy are not healthy food choices.
> 
> As for your straw-clutching at vegans not being any healthier, and still being overweight, and/or having the same diseases we're referring to here, again, you're not actually saying something we don't already know. Not all vegan diets are good for you - no one is saying they are. Some are just as bad for you as the Standard Western Diet - because they're just as high in processed food. That diets rich in processed foods (vegan or carnivorous) are bad for you, isn't exactly headline news.
> 
> However, whole food plant-based diets have been scientifically proven to prevent and reverse heart disease, obesity, diabetes, autoimmune disease, and prevent colon, prostate and breast cancers. I've mentioned 2 of my sources already, before you ask for evidence.


Fantastic post. Wish there still was rep 

I have lost count of how many of my friends and acquaintances have tried low carb/keto etc. And yup, many of them lose weight and feel better. But not one so far has been able to stick to it long-term. There are of course outliers, some individuals will be able to eat this way and stick to it, but I've yet to meet one in person.

A two year diet is not "long term," I've been veggie for over 3 decades - that's long term  . 
I went veggie back in the day when there were not the assortment of meat replacements etc. Plus I was living in a part of the world where not eating meat was common and people ate what grew in the ground and came off of trees. I was "accidentally" whole food back then. When the processed veggie products came out and we were living in a part of the world where they were available, I did start eating those - to the detriment of my health. And later on I was also educated on the environmental impact of soy and the processed soy industry. 
I don't eat processed meat replacement food now. Now I'm purposeful about eating whole foods, plenty of whole food starches, and have raised my children on a whole food, plant based diet. There are numerous cultures around the world that thrive on no or very few animal products. It is a sustainable human diet, that also happens to prevent and reverse the diseases clogging up our healthcare systems, and is environmentally far friendlier than the typical meat heavy diet in the western world.

There's a guy I work with who found out years ago that I don't eat meat. He spends every encounter reminding me that he does. Comments like "animals like to be eaten" or "I had a big juicy steak for dinner last night, so rare it was still mooing." Fortunately we don't work in the same part of the building so I don't see him every day. It has become almost a game, I wait to see what he'll come up with this time or if he'll recycle an old line. He's basically harmless and doesn't really bother me, but obviously I bother him, greatly. Since he feels the need to address my diet passive aggressively with every single encounter.

I haven't quite figured out why so many people are threatened by vegans/vegetarians, but IME it really appears to be a thing. And I think this thread, and Piers Morgan's reaction are just more evidence of that. It makes me sad mostly. I don't ever want to be a threatening presence, and I certainly don't judge anyone who does eat meat, I just hope for them to be educated about ALL their food, where it comes from and what goes in to making it.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

MilleD said:


> The not wanting to die thing is an odd argument, it's almost as if you think that a battery farmed chicken is ok to be killed because it's miserable (and no I don't think anyone should eat those things).
> 
> Some nationalities happily accept it if it's dog or cat.
> 
> On the animal farming sustainability issue, I found this when I googled for Noush's UN vegan thingy.
> 
> https://munchies.vice.com/en_us/art...-diets-could-actually-be-worse-for-the-planet
> 
> Apologies if it's already been posted.
> 
> If this is true, the only answer to the food issue is fewer humans.


I've read the link, doesn't actually provide much information to back up their claim - not even a link to the research they are citing. So who are Munchies? what are their qualifications and experience and why don't they provide links to the relevant research or give the author's name at the end of the article?

Not that I'm suggesting anyone or any group of people who think like this are biased or ignorant of course 

"But when everything was tallied up, it wasn't looking great for all the *kale-munching, clean-eating freaks* on Instagram".


----------



## Guest

MilleD said:


> The not wanting to die thing is an odd argument, it's almost as if you think that a battery farmed chicken is ok to be killed because it's miserable (and no I don't think anyone should eat those things).
> 
> Some nationalities happily accept it if it's dog or cat.
> 
> On the animal farming sustainability issue, I found this when I googled for Noush's UN vegan thingy.
> 
> https://munchies.vice.com/en_us/art...-diets-could-actually-be-worse-for-the-planet
> 
> Apologies if it's already been posted.
> 
> If this is true, the only answer to the food issue is fewer humans.


That article is talking about replacing meat with fish and dairy, and lettuce . That's not what any of the non meat eaters on here are advocating. 
It's taking a head of lettuce vs. pork. Um... no one is trying to replace the calories in pork with equal calories in lettuce. Nor is that how any vegetarian I know eats anyway.


----------



## MilleD

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I've read the link, doesn't actually provide much information to back up their claim - not even a link to the research they are citing. So who are Munchies? what are their qualifications and experience and why don't they provide links to the relevant research or give the author's name at the end of the article?
> 
> Not that I'm suggesting anyone or any group of people who think like this are biased or ignorant of course
> 
> "But when everything was tallied up, it wasn't looking great for all the *kale-munching, clean-eating freaks* on Instagram".


Yeah that bit was a bit rude, but I think they appeal to a young audience.

A nicer version of it, from the university itself. https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2015/december/diet-and-environment.html


----------



## noushka05

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Thanks for posting that, I haven't seen it before and have now added it to my favourites.


You're welcome RPH 



MilleD said:


> The not wanting to die thing is an odd argument, it's almost as if you think that a battery farmed chicken is ok to be killed because it's miserable (and no I don't think anyone should eat those things).
> 
> Some nationalities happily accept it if it's dog or cat.
> 
> On the animal farming sustainability issue, I found this when I googled for Noush's UN vegan thingy.
> 
> https://munchies.vice.com/en_us/art...-diets-could-actually-be-worse-for-the-planet
> 
> Apologies if it's already been posted.
> 
> If this is true, the only answer to the food issue is fewer humans.


I think its a satire piece Millie.

This bit particularly tickled me

A team from Carnegie Mellon University-not exactly a shady institution-has published a new report in _Environment Systems and Decisions _arguing that vegetarian diets contribute more to climate change than your standard omnivorous


----------



## MilleD

ouesi said:


> That article is talking about replacing meat with fish and dairy, and lettuce . That's not what any of the non meat eaters on here are advocating.
> It's taking a head of lettuce vs. pork. Um... no one is trying to replace the calories in pork with equal calories in lettuce. Nor is that how any vegetarian I know eats anyway.


What, you mean you don't just eat lettuce all day, every day?


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> Good we agree again, that must be twice now


I'm sure it can't be as much as that


----------



## Elles

If we take in our all of our calories from lettuce, celery and cucumber, even if it were possible, it would save the planet, so they’re quite wrong. 

We’d all be dead.

According to the ‘about us’, the aim is to show that to save the planet we need to reduce the population. Job done.


----------



## catz4m8z

MilleD said:


> The not wanting to die thing is an odd argument, it's almost as if you think that a battery farmed chicken is ok to be killed because it's miserable (and no I don't think anyone should eat those things).


Im going to go out on a limb here and say that not only do they not want to die but they also dont want to be battery farmed.
Seems like a total no brainer to me...living things would much prefer to go on being living things, they dont want to become your burger or hot dog!


----------



## LinznMilly

ouesi said:


> That article is talking about replacing meat with fish and dairy, and lettuce . That's not what any of the non meat eaters on here are advocating.
> It's taking a head of lettuce vs. pork. Um... no one is trying to replace the calories in pork with equal calories in lettuce. Nor is that how any vegetarian I know eats anyway.


That reminds me of the ignorance of my SIL's stepdad (SIL eats meat because, "sorry Linz, but I like the taste of meat" ).

Anyway, unlike many meat eaters, she is interested in vegetarianism/veganism, and, back in March, joined me in our first ever vegan festival.

On the way back, her stepdad phoned and asked where we were (they had my nieces and nephew and wanted to drop them off). When she told him, he said "what you going to eat, then? Peas?"


----------



## Dr Pepper

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So in the real world what percentage of animals killed for the plate do you think are dispatched in such a cosy way?


A very small percentage which is why I was promoting using your local butcher if you dislike (which I do) intensive farming. Let's put the best solutions out there rather than the all or nothing arguments, there is a middle ground.


----------



## Dr Pepper

Elles said:


> If we take in our all of our calories from lettuce, celery and cucumber, even if it were possible, it would save the planet, so they're quite wrong.
> 
> We'd all be dead.
> 
> According to the 'about us', the aim is to show that to save the planet we need to reduce the population. Job done.


Yup, to many people. That's the problem. We live to long, we can cure diseases and prevent famine. Nature keeps trying to knock us back, perhaps we should let it.


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> I'm sure it can't be as much as that


I beg to differ.....

There normal service resumed. The familiar is far more comfortable, thank you


----------



## noushka05

This is the biomass of livestock compared to wild terrestrial mammals. 30% of mammals on earth are humans, 67% farm animals. Just 3% wild animals.

To carry on the way we are just doesn't bear thinking about.


----------



## MilleD

noushka05 said:


> This is the biomass of livestock compared to wild terrestrial mammals. 30% of mammals on earth are humans, 67% farm animals. Just 3% wild animals.
> 
> To carry on the way we are just doesn't bear thinking about.


I found a different one 

Perhaps the cricket biscuits that were on the telly weren't off the mark.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Dr Pepper said:


> A very small percentage which is why I was promoting using your local butcher if you dislike (which I do) intensive farming. Let's put the best solutions out there rather than the all or nothing arguments, there is a middle ground.


Why? does my local butcher slaughter all the animals he sells himself in the way you describe? Doubt it somehow. Granted there are a scattering of "better" slaughterhouses but the numbers going through the average one mean the problems like I posted in the link are inevitable.


----------



## noushka05

MilleD said:


> I found a different one
> 
> Perhaps the cricket biscuits that were on the telly weren't off the mark.


Dwarfed again by bacteria:Jawdrop

( The original one I posted is from this analysis by Vaclav Smil I believe. http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/PDR37-4.Smil_.pgs613-636.pdf )


----------



## MilleD

noushka05 said:


> Dwarfed again by bacteria:Jawdrop
> 
> ( The original one I posted is from this analysis by Vaclav Smil I believe. http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/PDR37-4.Smil_.pgs613-636.pdf )


Woah, that's bonkers!


----------



## noushka05

Just seen this on George Monbiot's twitter feed.

I don't feel up to watching it, I just caught the beginning where they mention a pig farm in Dorset, it was enough

UK pig farms 2016

Between January & May 2016, Animal Equality investigators filmed inside three typical but randomly chosen UK pig farms and found shocking conditions in each, including one owned by the British Pig Executive Chair who recently received a Queen's honour for her work on pig welfare.

Good grief!!


----------



## Guest

LinznMilly said:


> That reminds me of the ignorance of my SIL's stepdad (SIL eats meat because, "sorry Linz, but I like the taste of meat" ).
> 
> Anyway, unlike many meat eaters, she is interested in vegetarianism/veganism, and, back in March, joined me in our first ever vegan festival.
> 
> On the way back, her stepdad phoned and asked where we were (they had my nieces and nephew and wanted to drop them off). When she told him, he said "what you going to eat, then? Peas?"


It is a weird thing about not eating animal products, that people think you only eat lettuce (or peas). I think it speaks to how meat dependent the average diet it, and how little we think about other food groups outside of the meat and dairy paradigm. 
There is also the misconception that eating a plant based diet is a lot of work, or it's expensive, it's ___ well, you know, fill in the blank 

I feed a family of four with two teenagers who eat obscene amounts of food (one is a 6 foot tall boy who eats anything that isn't nailed down), for less than my peers spend. And I buy organic when I can and lots and lots of fresh local produce which is by default more expensive than frozen or canned stuff. Yet we still spend less. 
In the time the average home runs to the local KFC or pizza hut, waits on their food, and drives back (which let's face it, that's what most busy households do), I can have a huge meal of rice, beans, and veggies ready to go that everyone will eat happily and use the leftovers for lunch. Yes, I do have to clean up the kitchen instead of just throwing take out containers in the trash, but that's why I have teenagers - child labor right?


----------



## Elles

noushka05 said:


> Just seen this on George Monbiot's twitter feed.
> 
> I don't feel up to watching it, I just caught the beginning where they mention a pig farm in Dorset, it was enough
> 
> UK pig farms 2016
> 
> Between January & May 2016, Animal Equality investigators filmed inside three typical but randomly chosen UK pig farms and found shocking conditions in each, including one owned by the British Pig Executive Chair who recently received a Queen's honour for her work on pig welfare.
> 
> Good grief!!


http://ianimal.uk/

Virtual reality films. Interesting concept. I can't watch them, even without being there with the vr.

It's a real shame that we could do away with all this, improve our health, the health of the planet, save the nhs and prevent some of our own suffering and disease, just by changing our diet and moving away from animal products. 

Maybe in a generation or two people will start to get closer, if it's not too late.


----------



## hutch6

Elles said:


> http://ianimal.uk/
> 
> Virtual reality films. Interesting concept. I can't watch them, even without being there with the vr.
> 
> It's a real shame that we could do away with all this, improve our health, the health of the planet, save the nhs and prevent some of our own suffering and disease, just by changing our diet and moving away from animal products.
> 
> Maybe in a generation or two people will start to get closer, if it's not too late.





LinznMilly said:


> 3 of your own links have failed to convince me, so now I should (need to) watch a video? I've just explained I can't do that because of limited internet access.
> 
> Good for you, that you hunt and catch your meat yourself, but the vast majority of people don't - certainly not in the developed world, so once again, your own argument falls flat upon anything even close to scrutiny.
> 
> You eat less meat than the average person - great, but that's what Proteinaholic and The End of Heart Disease advise - if you can't go vegan, at least cut down your meat intake. They recommend about condiment-sized portions a week.
> 
> So where, exactly, is your argument?
> 
> (Edit: I haven't yet read Reversing Heart Disease , I meant The End of Heart Disease)


So I point out that we don't need to eat anywhere near the amount of meat people currently do. If we all cut back and ate the actual stuff our bodies can process instead of the huge slabs it can't then we'd more satiated and would actually consume less. This would alleviate the intensive farming systems folk (including myself) believe have no place and are not required and we could resort to the model farms I know of that are ethical in practice. 
Yes I take for the plate but the overwhelming majority of the animals I take come from arable land. The vast majority of calls and jobs I get are for clearing pests from crop and veg plantations. From what I take I can not only feed my own but also friends and exchange goods for other things. I don't even make a dent in the populations but because of what I do umpteen animals are completely removed from the food chain due to demand. The people who receive produce have cut down on their own intake due to my supply and are also on a no to low carb diet out of their own choice.
We do not have meat in every meal or indeed every day as some assume despite it being free, even profitable to be fair. 
I've forever and always been an advocate for everyone eating less animal products hence why I eat what I do.

A person's body does not cry out for carbs or starch at all. The human population has had this myth pushed upon it for years and is causing issues right across the globe with health because the cereal business is massively subsidised. 
It is used in foods as a filler because it makes you bloat giving you the impression that you're full but you're not, it's cheap to produce in huge quantities due to government funding and thanks to GM it produces massive (in huge excess) yields. The feeling of being full is your body becoming inflamed, swollen. Anyone who has given up bread for a while can attest to this because when you consume grains again you feel dreadful.

My argument is that if people were more willing to swap a nice floral garden for one that could feed you, stopped using supermarkets that waste more than they sell, had to make do with what was available rather than have food on demand, fast food outlets were burned to the ground, if governments stopped subsidising the cereal crop industry, if we demanded wonky food was just as good as the regulated food by getting shut of supermarkets, if we made use of the pests that are available to us instead of just obliterating them with poisons and disease and just swapped from being able to have animal produce at every meal then, then we can make a difference. I'm saying give it up completely at all but we can all cut back drastically and all be better off for it.
As I've said before, I probably consume just as much veg as a veggie or vegan but my body is built to run on ketones and energy converted from body fat. 
I have no need for processed food as does everyone else. The most mine is processed is by my own hands and a bit of heat.

In short, I agree whole heartedly about intensively grown food be it crop or animal, but I have to disagree on how the human body works and functions so I can not agree with a vegan diet.


----------



## catz4m8z

hutch6 said:


> then we'd more satiated
> 
> The feeling of being full is your body becoming inflamed, swollen. Anyone who has given up bread for a while can attest to this because when you consume grains again you feel dreadful.
> 
> In short, I agree whole heartedly about intensively grown food be it crop or animal, but I have to disagree on how the human body works and functions so I can not agree with a vegan diet.


Ive given up bread for several weeks at a time just coz I didnt fancy it, it never made me feel bad though when I ate it. Meat makes me feel sweaty, sluggish and unwell though and dairy causes a big inflammatory response so I get very sputumy and find exercise more difficult.
Which means our anecdotal evidence cancels each other out!LOL

(and I highlighted that first bit coz for some reason that word really bugs the everliving crap out of me! Whats wrong with 'full'!? (I may have issues....:Hilarious))


----------



## MilleD

I don't know if I may have a slight gluten intolerance, but when I eat too much carb I definitely feel like crap.


----------



## hutch6

LinznMilly said:


> The only way a ketone diet doesn't end up as a yo-yo diet is, according to your own link, if it's paired with a Mediterranean diet in between - again, proof positive that people can't stick to the ketone diet/low carb diet long term.


This statement tells me you don't know anything about the keto diet, how it works, what foods are involved and the nutritional content of the food. Take some info from here and some from there etc and you begin to build up a better idea not just built up from one person's own findings who is out to promote them.

The Mediterranean diet is a complete fallacy in itself. The notion goes that people who lived the longest in Europe lived on the Med coast so they took an overall look at these diets and came up wit "the Med Diet". What hey failed to make abundantly clear is that the longest living out of all the Med people don't consume olive oil. 
So forever more we are told to put olive oil in everything because the biggest chunk of the researched diets contained olive oil. Olive oil is omega6. It is cancer in a bottle just the same as any vegetable or refined cooking oil, yet it is promoted through TV and book to be really good for you, which is a total lie.



LinznMilly said:


> The fact that a ketone diet causes weight loss is not news to anyone who's read Dr Garth Davis' book, "Proteinaholic". As he points out, early on in the book, I believe, you can lose weight eating a diet entirely made up of junk food - if you count calories and keep them well below the 2,000-2,500 recommended daily limit. Doesn't mean junk food is doing your body any good.
> 
> One link pays lip service to preventing heart disease. Unfortunately for you, that's as far as it goes. It doesn't explain how a heart attack/heart disease occurs in the first place, unlike both the book I referred to earlier "Proteinaholic" and "The End of Heart Disease", by Dr Joel Fuhrman. I'd also be interested to know who actually funded those studies because they all strike me as something the meat and dairy industry would be happy to pay for.


So my diet which is made up of about 70% veg, 15% nuts, 10% animal and 5% berries doesn't look anything like the same diet the Dr Joel Fuhrman builds his whole advice around?










Dr Furhman, *Doctor Furhman*, even says you can have commercially raised meat and fast food occasionally for crying out loud. I just don't eat cereals.

How can you not understand that the governments are promoting cereals because they are cheap, the big multi-national food companies promote them because they are cheap. They are used as fillers in your food and your pet dog's food because they are cheap. The price of a loaf of bread is used as a direct indicator for the cost of living.
I urge you to just google "Wheat and the human body" and see what comes up and it;s not just wheat it is all cereal crops, including rice.

I'd love to hear what steps and measures all of those against intensive farming and what not are actually doing about it. It seems that is the issue here and everyone is banging on about it but how many actually sustain themselves or don;t shop for at least 70% of your stuff? We all like nice smelling clothes, clean pots and pans and to wipe our backsides clean but how many actively pursue a lifestyle that doesn't support intensive farming of any kind? I bet it's not many.
I wonder how many have out f season produce in their cupboards, fridge and bellies right now. I wonder how many have to pick their own food for their meal tonight or tomorrow. I wonder how many utilise their excess to find in-roads into other produce through personal trade. I wonder how many utiliise the produce of their harvest to benefit the wildlife (i.e I even feed moles to owls, kites, foxes, badgers and even a green woodpecker too one once). 
We can all e-stat and put up an online persona we want others to form an opinion of to garner likes and what but I bet truth be told the vast majority of veggies and vegans simply choose that diet and think they aren't part of the problem that is at the heart of what we're on about.


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> Ive given up bread for several weeks at a time just coz I didnt fancy it, it never made me feel bad though when I ate it. Meat makes me feel sweaty, sluggish and unwell though and dairy causes a big inflammatory response so I get very sputumy and find exercise more difficult.
> Which means our anecdotal evidence cancels each other out!LOL
> 
> (and I highlighted that first bit coz for some reason that word really bugs the everliving crap out of me! Whats wrong with 'full'!? (I may have issues....:Hilarious))


Fine but if I feel full longer then I eat less as well and have gone many days one just one or two meals a day which includes over an hour of gym plus dog walk.


----------



## LinznMilly

hutch6 said:


> This statement tells me you don't know anything about the keto diet, how it works, what foods are involved and the nutritional content of the food. Take some info from here and some from there etc and you begin to build up a better idea not just built up from one person's own findings who is out to promote them.
> 
> The Mediterranean diet is a complete fallacy in itself. The notion goes that people who lived the longest in Europe lived on the Med coast so they took an overall look at these diets and came up wit "the Med Diet". What hey failed to make abundantly clear is that the longest living out of all the Med people don't consume olive oil.
> So forever more we are told to put olive oil in everything because the biggest chunk of the researched diets contained olive oil. Olive oil is omega6. It is cancer in a bottle just the same as any vegetable or refined cooking oil, yet it is promoted through TV and book to be really good for you, which is a total lie.
> 
> So my diet which is made up of about 70% veg, 15% nuts, 10% animal and 5% berries doesn't look anything like the same diet the Dr Joel Fuhrman builds his whole advice around?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Furhman, *Doctor Furhman*, even says you can have commercially raised meat and fast food occasionally for crying out loud. I just don't eat cereals.
> 
> How can you not understand that the governments are promoting cereals because they are cheap, the big multi-national food companies promote them because they are cheap. They are used as fillers in your food and your pet dog's food because they are cheap. The price of a loaf of bread is used as a direct indicator for the cost of living.
> I urge you to just google "Wheat and the human body" and see what comes up and it;s not just wheat it is all cereal crops, including rice.
> 
> I'd love to hear what steps and measures all of those against intensive farming and what not are actually doing about it. It seems that is the issue here and everyone is banging on about it but how many actually sustain themselves or don;t shop for at least 70% of your stuff? We all like nice smelling clothes, clean pots and pans and to wipe our backsides clean but how many actively pursue a lifestyle that doesn't support intensive farming of any kind? I bet it's not many.
> I wonder how many have out f season produce in their cupboards, fridge and bellies right now. I wonder how many have to pick their own food for their meal tonight or tomorrow. I wonder how many utilise their excess to find in-roads into other produce through personal trade. I wonder how many utiliise the produce of their harvest to benefit the wildlife (i.e I even feed moles to owls, kites, foxes, badgers and even a green woodpecker too one once).
> We can all e-stat and put up an online persona we want others to form an opinion of to garner likes and what but I bet truth be told the vast majority of veggies and vegans simply choose that diet and think they aren't part of the problem that is at the heart of what we're on about.


You obviously haven't read your own link.

And Fuhrman doesn't say you can eat meat "occasionally", he says you can eat it RARELY.


----------



## Calvine

ouesi said:


> In the time the average home runs to the local KFC or pizza hut, waits on their food, and drives back (which let's face it, that's what most busy households do),


I don't know _anyone_ for whom this would be an 'average' mealtime. When my son was living at home and had friends over, I'd sometimes give them money to go out and get a pizza; but that was very much the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Calvine said:


> I don't know _anyone_ for whom this would be an 'average' mealtime. When my son was living at home and had friends over, I'd sometimes give them money to go out and get a pizza; but that was very much the exception rather than the rule.


I know this is from the Daily Mail but remember reading it a few years ago and asking on a forum (not this one but a similar pet forum) how many people had and was shocked at the frequency people were admitting to

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-320-year-fastfood-buying-12-meals-month.html

It was once just a treat for the weekend, but a new survey has found that the average Brit now forks out £110 per month on takeaway meals every month. The study found that an average of *12* takeaways is purchased per person per month- a staggering £1,320 a year. :Jawdrop:Jawdrop


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> This statement tells me you don't know anything about the keto diet, how it works, what foods are involved and the nutritional content of the food. Take some info from here and some from there etc and you begin to build up a better idea not just built up from one person's own findings who is out to promote them.
> 
> The Mediterranean diet is a complete fallacy in itself. The notion goes that people who lived the longest in Europe lived on the Med coast so they took an overall look at these diets and came up wit "the Med Diet". What hey failed to make abundantly clear is that the longest living out of all the Med people don't consume olive oil.
> So forever more we are told to put olive oil in everything because the biggest chunk of the researched diets contained olive oil. Olive oil is omega6. It is cancer in a bottle just the same as any vegetable or refined cooking oil, yet it is promoted through TV and book to be really good for you, which is a total lie.
> 
> So my diet which is made up of about 70% veg, 15% nuts, 10% animal and 5% berries doesn't look anything like the same diet the Dr Joel Fuhrman builds his whole advice around?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Furhman, *Doctor Furhman*, even says you can have commercially raised meat and fast food occasionally for crying out loud. I just don't eat cereals.
> 
> How can you not understand that the governments are promoting cereals because they are cheap, the big multi-national food companies promote them because they are cheap. They are used as fillers in your food and your pet dog's food because they are cheap. The price of a loaf of bread is used as a direct indicator for the cost of living.
> I urge you to just google "Wheat and the human body" and see what comes up and it;s not just wheat it is all cereal crops, including rice.
> 
> I'd love to hear what steps and measures all of those against intensive farming and what not are actually doing about it. It seems that is the issue here and everyone is banging on about it but how many actually sustain themselves or don;t shop for at least 70% of your stuff? We all like nice smelling clothes, clean pots and pans and to wipe our backsides clean but how many actively pursue a lifestyle that doesn't support intensive farming of any kind? I bet it's not many.
> I wonder how many have out f season produce in their cupboards, fridge and bellies right now. I wonder how many have to pick their own food for their meal tonight or tomorrow. I wonder how many utilise their excess to find in-roads into other produce through personal trade. I wonder how many utiliise the produce of their harvest to benefit the wildlife (i.e I even feed moles to owls, kites, foxes, badgers and even a green woodpecker too one once).
> We can all e-stat and put up an online persona we want others to form an opinion of to garner likes and what but I bet truth be told the vast majority of veggies and vegans simply choose that diet and think they aren't part of the problem that is at the heart of what we're on about.


He says you can have them RARELY - more as a condiment or flavouring for those people who would otherwise not be prepared to make the changes, he in no way promotes the consumption of meat but has made a small allowance.


----------



## samuelsmiles

Fascinating thread. And confusing at the same time for me. Hutch6 - you say olive oil is 'cancer in a bottle' but I have been using it and cold pressed rapeseed oil as part of my improved diet over the past 2 years. Most of the stuff I have read about these seem to suggest they are good for me? 

I stopped all processed meats and chicken a couple of years ago and buy free range eggs etc. I said 'all' processed meats but that isn't strictly true. Is there a healthy/tasty replacement for bacon?


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> A person's body does not cry out for carbs or starch at all. The human population has had this myth pushed upon it for years and is causing issues right across the globe with health because the cereal business is massively subsidised.
> It is used in foods as a filler because it makes you bloat giving you the impression that you're full but you're not, it's cheap to produce in huge quantities due to government funding and thanks to GM it produces massive (in huge excess) yields. The feeling of being full is your body becoming inflamed, swollen. Anyone who has given up bread for a while can attest to this because when you consume grains again you feel dreadful.


I'm sorry but you are woefully misinformed.

Yes, grains are hugely subsidized, and that is a problem, but they're not grown to feed humans. 95% of the corn produced in the US goes to feed livestock. That USDA stats. Most of the sorghum barley and oats go in to animal feed too. It's just a tiny percentage of grain that goes to human consumption. Our monoculture crops are not the result of a vast vegan demand, but a result of a huge demand for cheap meat and a need to fatten up meat animals on an unnatural diet so that they can be slaughtered at 14 to 16 months instead of the 2 to 3 years it took back in the 50's. 
I think you would find Michael Pollan's book "The Omnivore's Dilemma" very enlightening. He spend a long time researching where our food comes from, how it goes from the farm to the table, and what processes (industrial and political) go in to producing it. It is an excellent book, well worth the read if you are interested in where our food comes from and what food production is doing to our planet. And in case you were wondering about bias, Michael Pollan does eat meat.

As for the fuel our bodies need, starch, in the form of whole plant foods, is indeed our ideal food. I'm sorry this goes against what you believe, but the biology is irrefutable. Starch for humans is a clean burning fuel. Everything in our biology points to us utilizing starch from the multiple copies of genes that produce amylase (starch digesting enzyme), to our jaw that can move side to side and grind food, to the sweet receptors on our tongue (that many carnivores lack).

There is ample archaeological evidence that humans were eating starch before the advent of agriculture, and even neanderthal teeth show evidence of significant starch in their diet. Even the iceman who melted out of the Alps back in the 90's was found to have eaten mostly plant material. 
We have 6 copies of the gene for producing amylase compared to the two copies in other apes like chimps. Experts theorize that this ability to use starch allowed us to leave the equator and migrate north while utilizing the concentrated calories in tubers and grains that would last us through the winter.

Our bigger brains use glucose exclusively, a product of starch digestion, not protein. And when our glycogen stores are used up our brain still demands glucose at a high cost to our liver which ends up having to convert fat in to usable fuel for our brain. 
We are indeed starchivores. In fact, when humans are put in the position where they can only eat protein, they get sick and often die. Rabbit starvation is just one example of this. We can't survive on animal food alone (please don't revisit the Eskimos, that has been covered) yet we do more than just survived on plants alone, we thrive.

Low carb and keto followers talk about the "keto flu" the flu-like symptoms you experience when first starting on a low carb diet. IOW, it makes you feel sick! And why is it that you have to have "carb-up" days on a keto diet? Because we can't function without carbs. These low-carb diets are not sustainable.

Yes, humans can use animal protein, but when we break animal protein down it is a very acidic process which our body neutralizes by leeching calcium from our bones. As well as the heavy toll on our liver and kidneys and generalized inflammation from the fat. In other words, yes we can use animal derived foods, but it comes at a cost, it is not the clean burning process of fueling our bodies that plant based food provides.


----------



## Calvine

rottiepointerhouse said:


> the average Brit now forks out £110 per month on takeaway meals every month.


I must not know many 'average Brits' then; I wonder where they find them (these 'average Brits')? Obviously, someone who works in the City and buys a sandwich for lunch daily is going to buy more take-out food and spend far more than someone who is home all day.


----------



## Guest

Calvine said:


> I don't know _anyone_ for whom this would be an 'average' mealtime. When my son was living at home and had friends over, I'd sometimes give them money to go out and get a pizza; but that was very much the exception rather than the rule.


You may not know anyone, but the success of fast-food restaurants says otherwise as does the obesity epidemic in the western world which now includes as much as 30% of children. 
It's also a socioeconomic thing. Poor children eat far more fast food, mainly because it's cheap and their parents are often working more hours and aren't even home at mealtimes.


----------



## hutch6

LinznMilly said:


> You obviously haven't read your own link.
> 
> And Fuhrman doesn't say you can eat meat "occasionally", he says you can eat it RARELY.


He states twice a week or less on his website. So if you eat carrots twice a week is that rarely or occasionally or frequently?


----------



## Calvine

hutch6 said:


> So if you eat carrots twice a week


I would say that was regularly if it's something done twice every week (or most weeks).


----------



## Calvine

ouesi said:


> You may not know anyone,


Like I said, I don't.


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> So forever more we are told to put olive oil in everything because the biggest chunk of the researched diets contained olive oil. Olive oil is omega6. It is cancer in a bottle just the same as any vegetable or refined cooking oil, yet it is promoted through TV and book to be really good for you, which is a total lie.


Most of the plant based proponents tell you not to eat olive oil (or any refined oils). I've followed for years now the adage to "eat food that remembers where it came from" which means any refined/processed food is minimized or eliminated. Olive is fine, olive oil, not so much.

That said, I do use olive oil because I am part Mediterranean and my Italian grandmother (who lived to be 101) would roll over in her grave if I used anything but olive oil to sautee the garlic I put in everything 

And don't you use lard? How is that any better than a refined vegetable oil?!


----------



## Guest

Calvine said:


> Like I said, I don't.


Okay. Good for you. 
Not sure what point you're trying to make?


----------



## catz4m8z

hutch6 said:


> Fine but if I feel full longer then I eat less as well and have gone many days one just one or two meals a day which includes over an hour of gym plus dog walk.


well, I feel much fuller if I eat a nice healthy portion of carbs at every meal and eating just one meal a day doesnt appeal to me at all. Overall I feel fantastic and have lost a stone in the last month.
Check! over to you! LOL



Calvine said:


> I must not know many 'average Brits' then; I wonder where they find them (these 'average Brits')? Obviously, someone who works in the City and buys a sandwich for lunch daily is going to buy more take-out food and spend far more than someone who is home all day.


I can fully believe this. Until this year I would often order about £30 worth of Dominos in one go and Id do that at least once a week!:Shy No wonder I felt like hammered crap all the time!:Bag


----------



## Elles

If everyone changed to that pyramid/Dr Fuhrman diet and ate processed food rarely, processing would be less viable and eventually there would be little to none. Currently it’s perfectly feasible for an office worker living in London to change to a healthy version of a vegan diet, even if they only stuck to it most days and not all. It would still make a huge difference. Hunting rabbits, growing your own and trading with farms isn’t really a viable option for most city dwellers these days, so it’s not something I’d suggest personally. Saying that you can eat something once or twice a week, or rarely, isn’t the same as saying it’s the best thing to do. He’s saying you can get away with it, not that you should do it. 

Someone who doesn’t agree with raising and/or killing animals for food, is likely to be vegan, whether someone else agrees with it, or not. As all the evidence is pointing towards a plant based whole food diet being the best one for our health and the health of the planet, vegans are quite lucky. It would be bad news if we had to kill and eat animals in order to live, but fortunately we don’t. 

I usually only eat once a day. Usually at about 6. If I’m abroad I might force myself to swap to late morning, if breakfast is included where I’m staying and then eat something light in the evening, if I’m hungry. When I was a kid I wasn’t given any breakfast, so I’ve never really felt hungry until late afternoon. I’ve taken Elles out, ridden my horse, cleared the field and stables and now I’m having a quick coffee, before I finish up here at the yard. I haven’t eaten yet. It’s just what I’m used to. I haven’t felt any hungrier swapping from vegetarian to vegan tbh.


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> I'm sorry but you are woefully misinformed.
> 
> Yes, grains are hugely subsidized, and that is a problem, but they're not grown to feed humans. 95% of the corn produced in the US goes to feed livestock. That USDA stats. Most of the sorghum barley and oats go in to animal feed too. It's just a tiny percentage of grain that goes to human consumption. Our monoculture crops are not the result of a vast vegan demand, but a result of a huge demand for cheap meat and a need to fatten up meat animals on an unnatural diet so that they can be slaughtered at 14 to 16 months instead of the 2 to 3 years it took back in the 50's.
> I think you would find Michael Pollan's book "The Omnivore's Dilemma" very enlightening. He spend a long time researching where our food comes from, how it goes from the farm to the table, and what processes (industrial and political) go in to producing it. It is an excellent book, well worth the read if you are interested in where our food comes from and what food production is doing to our planet. And in case you were wondering about bias, Michael Pollan does eat meat.
> 
> As for the fuel our bodies need, starch, in the form of whole plant foods, is indeed our ideal food. I'm sorry this goes against what you believe, but the biology is irrefutable. Starch for humans is a clean burning fuel. Everything in our biology points to us utilizing starch from the multiple copies of genes that produce amylase (starch digesting enzyme), to our jaw that can move side to side and grind food, to the sweet receptors on our tongue (that many carnivores lack).
> 
> There is ample archaeological evidence that humans were eating starch before the advent of agriculture, and even neanderthal teeth show evidence of significant starch in their diet. Even the iceman who melted out of the Alps back in the 90's was found to have eaten mostly plant material.
> We have 6 copies of the gene for producing amylase compared to the two copies in other apes like chimps. Experts theorize that this ability to use starch allowed us to leave the equator and migrate north while utilizing the concentrated calories in tubers and grains that would last us through the winter.
> 
> Our bigger brains use glucose exclusively, a product of starch digestion, not protein. And when our glycogen stores are used up our brain still demands glucose at a high cost to our liver which ends up having to convert fat in to usable fuel for our brain.
> We are indeed starchivores. In fact, when humans are put in the position where they can only eat protein, they get sick and often die. Rabbit starvation is just one example of this. We can't survive on animal food alone (please don't revisit the Eskimos, that has been covered) yet we do more than just survived on plants alone, we thrive.
> 
> Low carb and keto followers talk about the "keto flu" the flu-like symptoms you experience when first starting on a low carb diet. IOW, it makes you feel sick! And why is it that you have to have "carb-up" days on a keto diet? Because we can't function without carbs. These low-carb diets are not sustainable.
> 
> Yes, humans can use animal protein, but when we break animal protein down it is a very acidic process which our body neutralizes by leeching calcium from our bones. As well as the heavy toll on our liver and kidneys and generalized inflammation from the fat. In other words, yes we can use animal derived foods, but it comes at a cost, it is not the clean burning process of fueling our bodies that plant based food provides.


Keto flu is easily easily sorted out by a glass of salted water. 
It occurs when the stored water is flushed from your body hence the big drop in weight very early. This flush makes you lose a lot of salts which causes your cells to wonder what is going on with the potassium/sodium pump. First time I went on it I felt the effects but got my macros messed up and dropped weight at a phenomenal rate so I went back to normal, researches it more and went for it. I took on more salt as was suggested and never felt the flu once and haven't since.
Protein only makes up 20% of the diet so yes, your brain doesn't run on protein. Once your body switches over to ketones your brain happily runs on these hence why it is a know cure for certain neurological conditions (look it up if you do t believe me).

This idea you have that the keto diet is based only around meat and processed animal stuff is just garbage.

Glucose from anything such as bread, spuds, pasta or rice is still glucose to our bodies and our bodies sort this out through the release of insulin. Why do diabetics need insulin?
How come I've made more muscle, can run for longer, sleep better, higher lavish, don't have slumps of energy and every test I've had done at the doctors shows my health is nowhere near cause for concern then?

The diet I am eating is the diet humans have been eating and evolving on for hundreds of thousands of years. There is more calcium in veg than there is any kind of milk gram for gram unless it's been messed with. There is more protein in 100g of chicken breast than there is half a kilo of beans. There is more fat (that my body runs off) in any animal product than there is in any Avocado.

Where do vegans get their vitamin b12 which is required for some pretty important features if the human body if it's not synthetically added through fortification or supplements?

Spuds are no longer what they were. Cereals and grains are no longer what they were. Carrots aren't even the right colour anymore but an egg contains the same stuff as it did when the dinosaurs decided they wanted to fly. The fat on a deer or wild boar hasn't changed since they came along. The paleo diet is anything pre-processing of food and agriculture. The keto diet is just using a different fuel source to run your body that your body naturally produces. It uses my fat to run it. It doesn't need to flood itself with hormones when I eat something, to me that's saying I'm eating the wrong thing. If insulin is in my bloodstream I can't access my natural fat reserves, the fat my body has put there as it's a fuel it can use so if keto isn't healthy please tell me why it fuels our body when glucose isn't present and we aren't all asleep or can't get up etc?


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> well, I feel much fuller if I eat a nice healthy portion of carbs at every meal and eating just one meal a day doesnt appeal to me at all. Overall I feel fantastic and have lost a stone in the last month.
> Check! over to you! LOL
> 
> I can fully believe this. Until this year I would often order about £30 worth of Dominos in one go and Id do that at least once a week!:Shy No wonder I felt like hammered crap all the time!:Bag


Well done. I'm genuinely pleased for you if losing weight is what you want to do.

I generally run at 10-12%. I did drop to around 8% body fat but that was on a severe calorie deffeciet. I didn't feel hungry or anything, I just like me food.

I've already stated that my girlfriend wanted to lose weight and had been going to weight watchers with a few mates every week for about 2months.
I explained the whole keto thing to her as she asked and she decided to do it.
We ran it at home but she still went to the weightwatchers thing with her friends for the social side plus she wanted to continue using there scales for consistency.
After the first two weeks she was three weeks ahead of her project weight loss on their programme. She was constantly getting slimmer of the week and what not. She reported how the others were sat there snacking on stuff where as we'd forgotten to eat a few times due to not needing to.
After about six weeks of her losing 30+lb she came clean and told them what she'd been doing.
She's stuck to ever since, with a few lapses here and there and is happier with herself than she's ever been.
Her periods aren't giving her any issues, she's not up and down in moods anymore, her lavish is sky high, her skin is glowing and she's not keeled over either due to her lack of starch and grains which is good.

We say it's a way of life and not a diet as generally a diet means you go it alone or cut out the things you enjoy but we don't feel like we are missing out on anything (and that's coming from a chocholic, she is female after all).

Even keto recipes go on about avocado this and that but we don't have any local so we have to make do with what we do have. I admit the health food shop does get hammered for nuts and she likes her flax seed but that's all we buy that's not local. Still, puts money into some kid's piano lessons or dance lessons and it's not one of the many charity shops popping up in delapidated high streets so I can cope with that. Just.


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> Once your body switches over to ketones your brain happily runs on these hence why it is a know cure for certain neurological conditions (look it up if you do t believe me).


Yes, the keto diet was originally developed for epileptic children, and those children did see a reduction in seizures, but they also suffered kidney stones and other illnesses related to their diet. Look it up if you don't believe me 

Cultures who are vegan get their B12 from the ground same place animals get it from. B12 is from bacteria in the ground. Eating food from the ground without obsessive washing like we do today supplied more than adequate B12 for humans.

The fat on deer and boar has very much changed because that is where toxins from pollution and chemicals we've pumped in to the environment over the years get stored. Both in you and in the animals you eat.

Starches from whole food sources don't flood your body with insulin. It's a slow release, clean burning fuel, especially when combined with the fiber and water content of whole foods, that doesn't tax your kidneys or liver in the digestion process.


----------



## Guest

This is a good explanation of the difference between burning vegetable fuel vs. animal fuel. And yes, @hutch6 I know you're not talking about eating animals 3X a day, I'm just using this to explain the difference between fat as fuel vs. starch as fuel.


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> Yes, the keto diet was originally developed for epileptic children, and those children did see a reduction in seizures, but they also suffered kidney stones and other illnesses related to their diet. Look it up if you don't believe me
> 
> Cultures who are vegan get their B12 from the ground same place animals get it from. B12 is from bacteria in the ground. Eating food from the ground without obsessive washing like we do today supplied more than adequate B12 for humans.
> 
> The fat on deer and boar has very much changed because that is where toxins from pollution and chemicals we've pumped in to the environment over the years get stored. Both in you and in the animals you eat.
> 
> Starches from whole food sources don't flood your body with insulin. It's a slow release, clean burning fuel, especially when combined with the fiber and water content of whole foods, that doesn't tax your kidneys or liver in the digestion process.


But my body doesn't need to produce insulin in order for me to get fuel. It just makes it direct from what I sling down my neck.
How can something be so good for you that the human body has proved it can't cope with diabetes that folk need to inject themselves with it as their own body can't cope?
You eat your meal and I eat mine. Your body ha to produce a hormone in order to deal with what you've just put in it. Mine doesn't. You blood sugars go up. Mine don't. We then go for a long run and you need sugary stuff to stay in the same energy state. I don't and you're telling me a human body isn't or wasn't supposed to function as mine is?
When the human body is depleated in glucose as a main energy source it naturally falls into ketosis to keep it functioning normally and converts body fat into everything it needs energy wise.

What total and absolute vegan cultures are you referring to and I'll look them up.


----------



## Calvine

catz4m8z said:


> I can fully believe this.


I really can't; it's totally alien to me.


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> This is a good explanation of the difference between burning vegetable fuel vs. animal fuel. And yes, @hutch6 I know you're not talking about eating animals 3X a day, I'm just using this to explain the difference between fat as fuel vs. starch as fuel.


So why don't I run out energy as quickly as I did? Why can I do more at the gym than I did (and we're talking to moment I went into ketosis not months of training down the line)?

6 of the top ten foods that we get the most calacium from are not derived from animals and I eat loads of them.
The thing is you need vitamin d to absorb calcium hence why I take a boat load of it otherwise anyone that lives above Spain is severely vitamin d deficient and at risk of osteoporosis and other bone issues regardless if you eat vegan or just a cow every day

A very small percentage of my plate is made up of animal product but the vast amount of calories are because it's more calorie dense.

As for kidney stones I eat more animal fat than flesh, that's what you do on the keto diet. I also drink plenty of water which if anyone doesn't do no matter what they eat will end up with kidney stones.

I eat more offal than Fat and a heck of a lot more fat than flesh because I simply don't have to eat anywhere near as much.


----------



## catz4m8z

hutch6 said:


> Keto flu is easily easily sorted out by a glass of salted water.
> It occurs when the stored water is flushed from your body hence the big drop in weight very early. This flush makes you lose a lot of salts which causes your cells to wonder what is going on with the potassium/sodium pump. First time I went on it I felt the effects but got my macros messed up and dropped weight at a phenomenal rate so I went back to normal, researches it more and went for it. I took on more salt as was suggested and never felt the flu once and haven't since.


huh. I hadnt heard of keto flu before. Although pretty much all the different diets I have been on (and sadly there have been many!LOL) have resulted in a large initial weight loss, alot of which was fluid because most diets are lower in salt in the junk you eat before. It wouldnt of occured to me to eat salt so I bloated up again....but then again I never really felt flu-ey on a diet. Although giving up Diet Coke made me feel like that for about a month!



Calvine said:


> I really can't; it's totally alien to me.


Shame more people arent like you! Its become the norm to rely on take aways or processed meals rather then cooking fresh foods yourself. 
Its actually quite horrifying the amount of diseases and illnesses that are lifestyle related and totally preventable.


----------



## hutch6

It’s a dead simple process.

More Fat means you’re full more so you eat less often quickly reducing the amount of calories you consume.
No insulin peaks in your blood means you have access to your body fat all of the time.

YOU CAN BE VEGAN ON A KETONGENIC DIET!!!

I’m not as I don’t have a coconut tree or avacado plantation nearby and don’t use supermarkets but it is absolutely achievable on a vegan diet.

A quick google of “medically proven benefits of ketogenic diet” will bring up a plethora of papers and studies.


----------



## Dr Pepper

..


----------



## Dr Pepper

I eat meat pretty much everyday. I also walk between twenty and thirty miles every day. And have done so for nearly nine years now.

Go figure.

Edit 
I've actually been walking for more than nine years, just though that needed to be added.


----------



## hutch6

Watch out for kidney stones though as you can get those on a ketogenic diet but maybe not if you’re vegan so not sure if you get them on a ketogenic vegan diet or not. 

As an example I’ve just noticed I’ve not eaten today. I last ate last night at about 7pm. I have drunk about three litres of water though and thirst makes you feel hungry


----------



## Elles

Some dogs live quite happily to a ripe old age on Bakers too. There’s 90 year old grannies who smoked since they were 15. Does this mean we should all take up smoking and feed our dogs Bakers? 

I think the research is looking at what is best for us, not what we can manage on, get away with, or thrive on if we’re lucky.


----------



## Dr Pepper

Elles said:


> Some dogs live quite happily to a ripe old age on Bakers too. There's 90 year old grannies who smoked since they were 15. Does this mean we should all take up smoking and feed our dogs Bakers?
> 
> I think the research is looking at what is best for us, not what we can manage on, get away with, or thrive on if we're lucky.


I think that just shows it's all a matter down to the individual. Just like this thread backs up.


----------



## Elles

Dr Pepper said:


> I think that just shows it's all a matter down to the individual. Just like this thread backs up.


So long as we know no one has to eat dead animals, or kill baby cows to get their mother's milk and we would all be better off, if we didn't, it's down to choice. Very few people go to prison for killing animals, even if they torture them a bit first. Unless they're riding horses and get the dogs to do it, or the animal is considered a 'pet', even then it's more likely a slap on the wrist than a prison sentence. Loverly aren't we.


----------



## hutch6

What body cells need ketones - erm, all of them.

What body cells need glucose - only as fuel and they need insulin to do so.

What do cancer cells feed on - glucose. Someone won a noble prize for pointing that out and yet we are told to eat grains and cereals and fruit and yet we are seeing more and more cancers.

What happens when your body runs out of glucose? It demands more so you feel hungry quicker and more often and then your insulin goes up and you because you eat more as you feel hungry more often you get fat and then a whole host of issues start.

Want to reduce your risk of cancer and illness further in your quest to be as healthy as you can be? - stop eating cereals and grains be it wholemeal or not. The information is all out there.


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> But my body doesn't need to produce insulin in order for me to get fuel. It just makes it direct from what I sling down my neck.
> How can something be so good for you that the human body has proved it can't cope with diabetes that folk need to inject themselves with it as their own body can't cope?
> You eat your meal and I eat mine. Your body ha to produce a hormone in order to deal with what you've just put in it. Mine doesn't. You blood sugars go up. Mine don't. We then go for a long run and you need sugary stuff to stay in the same energy state. I don't and you're telling me a human body isn't or wasn't supposed to function as mine is?
> When the human body is depleated in glucose as a main energy source it naturally falls into ketosis to keep it functioning normally and converts body fat into everything it needs energy wise.
> 
> What total and absolute vegan cultures are you referring to and I'll look them up.


I hate to burst your bubble, but you too produce insulin, otherwise you'd be a type 1 diabetic. Unless you're suggesting all type 1 diabetics should ditch their insulin pumps for a keto diet? 
Speaking of diet and diabetes, plant based diets have repeatedly been shown to reverse and cure not just diabetes (type 2) but hardened arteries, gout, kidney disease, obviously obesity, immune related diseases etc.

Every cell in our body requires glucose. Every one. Our brain runs almost exclusively on glucose. Starch from whole food plant sources is the cleanest way to provide that glucose for your cells and optimal body function. 
You are a sample size of one who by your own admission has only followed this diet of yours for 2 years. I've been eating this way for more than 30 years. (With a few lapses in to processed food in my late teens/early 20's. And I think we can all agree that processed foods are not good.) Every long term study of large populations that live long lives with few diseases show that the healthiest way to eat is a whole food plant based diet founded on starches. Like the video I posted says, it's not about weight loss. It's about long term health. You can eat iceberg lettuce and eat diet coke and lose weight, that doesn't mean the diet is good for you. But if weight loss is your goal, again every study shows that the most sustainable way of losing weight and keeping it off healthfully is with a plant based diet. 
I've yet to hear of anyone sustaining a keto/paleo/atkins/lowcarb diet for a lifetime, nor are there any cultures who eat this way and live long healthy lives. 
The blue zones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone



hutch6 said:


> So why don't I run out energy as quickly as I did? Why can I do more at the gym than I did (and we're talking to moment I went into ketosis not months of training down the line)?
> 
> 6 of the top ten foods that we get the most calacium from are not derived from animals and I eat loads of them.
> The thing is you need vitamin d to absorb calcium hence why I take a boat load of it otherwise anyone that lives above Spain is severely vitamin d deficient and at risk of osteoporosis and other bone issues regardless if you eat vegan or just a cow every day
> 
> *A very small percentage of my plate is made up of animal product *but the vast amount of calories are because it's more calorie dense.
> 
> As for kidney stones I eat more animal fat than flesh, that's what you do on the keto diet. I also drink plenty of water which if anyone doesn't do no matter what they eat will end up with kidney stones.
> 
> I eat more offal than Fat and a heck of a lot more fat than flesh because I simply don't have to eat anywhere near as much.


BIB, good! Excellent! That's all anyone on this thread has been advocating, fewer animal derived foods, and forcing the factory farm culture to change. 
But I'm confused as your first gripe on this thread was about how vegan foods are more costly to the environment than animal derived ones, yet you have repeatedly said you probably eat as many plant foods as vegans? So what gives?

And as I pointed out before, animal fat is where all the toxins get stored. Both in your own adipose tissue (which is one of the many reasons obesity predisposes you to many cancers) and in the adipose tissue of the animals you consume. 
If you do have an animal fat heavy diet, you may be interested in this talk below:


----------



## hutch6

Really? You might want to lookup the ketone - glucose thing.

My body just drips by with insulin, a normal level. I don’t put any amount of glucose or fructose or sucrose or sugar in that would require my body to raise the level on insulin in my bloodstream to balance out my blood sugars as they are not being thrown all over the shop. That’s what happens with what you’re talking about.
A guy modified wheat to feed the world (got a noble prize for it too) and the world governments jumped all over it and promoted it as a healthy thing. Suddenly obesity and diabetes are rife and folk can’t put two and two together.

I don’t advocate a vegan diet because I live in the Uk and it’s pretty hard to grow calorie dense food here like avacados and coconuts without artificial climates. Instead I eat with the seasons with what I and others grow locally.

Now, if you’re on a vegan diet where I am and you eat seasonally you’re going to need more stuff than I do which is supplemented with animals as the stuff is more calorie dense. 

As I have said on a previous post and numerous times before that, how many of the vegan and veggie folk in this thread that believe they have a less environmental impact than what I’ve stated are willing to tell the truth and state you have bananas, rice, lentils, veg, fruit, margarine etc that hasnt been produced in this country and then look at what is produced on another continent. Now tell me you food is ethical to the environment and you know exactly how it’s grown. I bet none of you will.

Be right back we grown our own avacados in the bathroom.
Be right back my dog has no processed food ever.
Be right back that’s not my cat!
Be right back I don’t have reptiles that need mice farms.
Be right back I bake my own bread from the local flour mill as we all have one of those on the street corner don’t you know?
Be right not everyone can go out hunting their own food.
Be right back can’t be bothered foraging as you have to spend too much time learning what’s safe to eat.
Be right back the packaging tells me it’s organic and rainforest friendly so it must be true, why would they have a reason to lie to us and put our conscience at ease whilst we pay more than the stuff that’s produced in the next field that the same company’s has just cut down the rainsforest to grow it but puts it under a different manufacturing name.
Be right back
Be right back

Go on, what’s in your drawers!!


----------



## hutch6

Where are these strictly vegan culture folk you were on about in the world?


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> Where are these strictly vegan culture folk you were on about in the world?


Posted above. Blue zones. I'm not the only one who has posted about them either.

Care to share the strictly atkins/paleo/keto/low carb cultures throughout the world?
Didn't Dr. Atkins die of heart disease and weigh over 250 pounds?


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> Posted above. Blue zones. I'm not the only one who has posted about them either.
> 
> Care to share the strictly atkins/paleo/keto/low carb cultures throughout the world?
> Didn't Dr. Atkins die of heart disease and weigh over 250 pounds?


At age 72 from a blood clot on his brain.
Linda macartney died aged 56 from cancer. 
What's your point exactly?

Are you sure I'm supposed to be the troll here?


----------



## hutch6

PRetty sure the Okinawa diet has pork in it and the Sardinian one has, sardines in it from what I know of them but I’ll double check.
Even Jaines drink milk and they’re supposed to be the only near vegan culture in the world.


----------



## catz4m8z

yeeaaahhh...think Im going to stick with what the reputable doctors say about animal products being bad for you. Also go with what causes least environmental impact (sure eating seasonally and locally is better but id rather we reduced our impact globally then just what the odd person could manage). Also go with what kills the least amount of animals....its that pesky V word again!


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> yeeaaahhh...think Im going to stick with what the reputable doctors say about animal products being bad for you. Also go with what causes least environmental impact (sure eating seasonally and locally is better but id rather we reduced our impact globally then just what the odd person could manage). Also go with what kills the least amount of animals....its that pesky V word again!


So by reducing your impact globally you're going to buy out of season products from miles away that can be grown anyway they want without your say and you have no idea how they managed to plant them where they did or the impact on the local ecological system. That's what you mean by what you've just said or have I read it wrong?


----------



## rona

.......................http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...eat-grown-oxford-could-revolutionise-farming/

The future


----------



## hutch6

By the way, do you mean reputable doctors that are now looking into trials of ketogenic eating habits, which can be done vegan styleee, with regards to Alzheimer’s and parkinson’s Prevention?

Can someone find me some hard scientific evidence that states your body must have glucose in it to work and if it doesn’t then you’ll drop dead instead of your body switching naturally into using ketones? 

All you have to do is copy and paste this into google:

What cells in my body need ketones to function

Then try

What cells in my body need glucose

And just for a laugh try

Wheat and the human body

You’ll never eat cereals again. Scary stuff.

They’ll all bring up scientific papers and what not for you to read at your leisure.


----------



## hutch6

rona said:


> .......................http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...eat-grown-oxford-could-revolutionise-farming/
> 
> The future


You can buy that at the local gardencentre - Baby's bio.

In a more serious note how is T6P produced though and what effect does this have on other things found in wheat fields?


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> yeeaaahhh...think Im going to stick with what the reputable doctors say about animal products being bad for you. Also go with what causes least environmental impact (sure eating seasonally and locally is better but id rather we reduced our impact globally then just what the odd person could manage). Also go with what kills the least amount of animals....its that pesky V word again!


Out of curiosity where do the mice for your snakes come form and what do you feed your cat?


----------



## Elles

If most were vegan we could grow more of our own food on arable land and rewild some of the grasslands we get back. Transporting bananas to the uk would be quite doable, without causing climate change. Wholefood plant based isn’t just grains. Rice, oats and potato are all considered better than wheat. Why all the focus on wheat? What about corn? 

Why no mention of green leafy, or tomatoes, or all the other fruit and veg available? 

This country already grows a lot of animal feed and bio oil crops that are exported. If the world was vegan we wouldn’t be growing tons of barley to feed cows in Spain. Nor would hundreds of thousands of live animals be packed into trucks and transported thousands of miles for slaughter.

Not that I’m expecting, or advocating that the world be forced to go vegan. Reducing the population, or at least not increasing it would be a help too. If people carry on eating animal based products as they currently do, it’s not sustainable and there’s not enough space to raise them all outside of factory farming. 

My way of making less of an impact and improving my health was to go vegan, with the info I’ve gleaned from the sticky thread and other sources. Other people might grow their own, yet others might do a combination of things. I’m quite happy with what I’ve read so far about the plant based diet, so I choose that one. I’m not quite sure why anyone would try to knock it when there is so much positive information out there, not least about the health benefits.


----------



## catz4m8z

hutch6 said:


> Can someone find me some hard scientific evidence that states your body must have glucose in it to work and if it doesn't then you'll drop dead instead of your body switching naturally into using ketones?
> .


Im sure you know what you are talking about but Im still going to go with human beings needing glucose to function. 20 years working in endocrinology has taught me that. Still, as long as we are all happy!



hutch6 said:


> Out of curiosity where do the mice for your snakes come form and what do you feed your cat?


I feed them all sunshine and unicorn farts obviously!

Of course they eat meat. The fact that I had meat eating pets before I educated myself and then am not willing to throw them out or destroy them doesnt negate my POV now. This harks back to the original point, alot of vegans have meat eating pets or leather shoes from the 'old days'. Its what you do when you know better that matters.


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> Posted above. Blue zones. I'm not the only one who has posted about them either.


Oh, you meant these blue zones!!

https://bluezones.com/exploration/sardinia-italy/

"But even more importantly, residents of this area are also culturally isolated, and they have kept to a very traditional, healthy lifestyle. Sardinians still hunt, fish and harvest the food they eat. "

https://bluezones.com/2017/05/okinawa-diet-eating-living-100/

"It turns out that it's whole plant foods, not fish, that make up 90% of the traditional Okinawan diet: Less than 1% of the diet was fish; less than 1% was meat; and less than 1% was dairy and eggs. "

https://bluezones.com/exploration/loma-linda-california/

"For those who prefer to eat some meat, Adventist recommend small portions served as a side dish rather than as the main meal."

http://www.enchanting-costarica.com...the-blue-zone-nicoya-peninsula-in-costa-rica/

*"6. Healthy lifestyle. *Like most Blue Zone residents in the world, Nicoyan elders eat little to no processed foods, and instead a primarily plant-based diet, especially of beans, corn and vegetables, and antioxidant-rich tropical fruit. *They eat meat only a few times per week*."

https://bluezones.com/exploration/ikaria-greece/

Ikarians have traditionally been fierce Greek Orthodox Christians. Their religious calendar called for fasting almost half the year. Caloric restriction - a type of fasting that cuts about 30 percent of calories out of the normal diet - is the only proven way to slow the aging process in mammals.

Oh wait, don't they go into ketosis then if they are fasting (30% less calories than a normal diet)?

http://www.island-ikaria.com/about-ikaria/Ikarian-Food-Diet

"The traditional Ikarian diet is characterized by simplicity, moderation, variation, seasonality and the sparing use of meat"

All of these "Blue Zone" diets sound like the one I chose to follow but I'll ask again, can you point me in the direct of a civilization anywhere on earth that lives a truly vegan diet as they're not vegan diets.

Glad I took note of the vitamin D thing though:

https://bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/

"Nicoyans regularly take in the sunshine, which helps their bodies produce vitamin D for strong bones and healthy body function. Vitamin D deficiency is associated with a host of problems, such as osteoporosis and heart disease, but regular, "smart" sun exposure (about 15 minutes on the legs and arms) can help supplement your diet and make sure you're getting enough of this vital nutrient."

Is it really our severe lack of vitamin D that results in us dying of heart disease more often than we thought?

So all in all I have no idea what I'm on about when it comes to diet then. I'm such an uneducated and silly little troll.


----------



## noushka05

Lewis Hamilton is someone else recently converted to veganism. I always thought he was lovely.

*Lewis Hamilton: F1 driver on going vegan and his fears for the planet*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41296229










Lewis Hamilton says he is aiming to become a vegan in an attempt to pursue the healthiest possible lifestyle and avoid damaging the planet.

The Mercedes Formula 1 driver said he had been inspired by a documentary about the meat industry, and its potential effects on the environment, animal welfare and human health.

Britain's Hamilton, who qualified fifth for Sunday's Singapore Grand Prix, has not eaten chicken for much of this year.

"I stopped eating red meat two years ago," said the championship leader. "I have generally been pescatarian for the majority of the year and now I've cut fish.

"As the human race, what we are doing to the world... the pollution [in terms of emissions of global-warming gases] coming from the amount of cows that are being produced is incredible.

"They say it is more than what we produce with our flights and our cars, which is kind of crazy to think. The cruelty is horrible and I don't necessarily want to support that and I want to live a healthier life."

Hamilton, 32, conceded pursuing a diet free of any animal products might be a challenge on a lifestyle front.

While in Singapore, where he is catered for by chefs, he has eaten only plant-based food but acknowledges maintaining that might prove difficult.

"So far I don't feel as if I have been missing out," he said. "But I don't know how easy it is going to be when I get home. That is going to be a real test.

"Every person I have met who has gone vegan says it is the best decision they have ever made.

"When you watch this documentary and you see meat clogging up your arteries, you see all the stuff they put in the meat, stuff we are all eating, there is no way I am going to disregard that."

Hamilton said his family's medical history had been an influence in his decision, with heart disease and cancer prevalent among his ancestors.

"I don't want in 10 or 20 years to have diabetes or catch any of that stuff," he said

"I can continue to decide to eat that stuff and take that risk, but when you get [a disease or illness like that], you want to make change, so I am trying to pre-empt that.

"I think it's the right direction and by letting people who are following me know, maybe that will encourage a couple of people to do the same thing."


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> He states twice a week or less on his website. So if you eat carrots twice a week is that rarely or occasionally or frequently?


I've read every book Dr Fuhrman has written and am a member of his forum so I can assure you he does not recommend eating meat twice a week, as I explained already he "allows" a very small serving of meat or low fat dairy as an occasional aid for those people who would otherwise not make the switch to a healthier diet and lifestyle which he recommends is reduced gradually as tolerated. This also reflects the habits of the people in the Blue Zones who are not totally vegan but eat very little animal produce. This is his advice for people wanting to start on his programme

If using animal products, use only wild, low-mercury seafood, or naturally-raised fowl. Animal products are best used in very small amounts as flavor enhancers, as a condiment, not as a main dish. Find out why.



hutch6 said:


> Keto flu is easily easily sorted out by a glass of salted water.
> It occurs when the stored water is flushed from your body hence the big drop in weight very early. This flush makes you lose a lot of salts which causes your cells to wonder what is going on with the potassium/sodium pump. First time I went on it I felt the effects but got my macros messed up and dropped weight at a phenomenal rate so I went back to normal, researches it more and went for it. I took on more salt as was suggested and never felt the flu once and haven't since.
> Protein only makes up 20% of the diet so yes, your brain doesn't run on protein. Once your body switches over to ketones your brain happily runs on these hence why it is a know cure for certain neurological conditions (look it up if you do t believe me).
> 
> This idea you have that the keto diet is based only around meat and processed animal stuff is just garbage.
> 
> Glucose from anything such as bread, spuds, pasta or rice is still glucose to our bodies and our bodies sort this out through the release of insulin. Why do diabetics need insulin?
> How come I've made more muscle, can run for longer, sleep better, higher lavish, don't have slumps of energy and every test I've had done at the doctors shows my health is nowhere near cause for concern then?
> 
> The diet I am eating is the diet humans have been eating and evolving on for hundreds of thousands of years. There is more calcium in veg than there is any kind of milk gram for gram unless it's been messed with. There is more protein in 100g of chicken breast than there is half a kilo of beans. There is more fat (that my body runs off) in any animal product than there is in any Avocado.
> 
> Where do vegans get their vitamin b12 which is required for some pretty important features if the human body if it's not synthetically added through fortification or supplements?
> 
> Spuds are no longer what they were. Cereals and grains are no longer what they were. Carrots aren't even the right colour anymore but an egg contains the same stuff as it did when the dinosaurs decided they wanted to fly. The fat on a deer or wild boar hasn't changed since they came along. The paleo diet is anything pre-processing of food and agriculture. The keto diet is just using a different fuel source to run your body that your body naturally produces. It uses my fat to run it. It doesn't need to flood itself with hormones when I eat something, to me that's saying I'm eating the wrong thing. If insulin is in my bloodstream I can't access my natural fat reserves, the fat my body has put there as it's a fuel it can use so if keto isn't healthy please tell me why it fuels our body when glucose isn't present and we aren't all asleep or can't get up etc?


A high fat ketogenic diet has its place in treating epilepsy in children sure. This is what Dr Fuhrman says about ketogenic diets seeing as you seem interested in his views

There are two types of ketogenic diets: one consists of high-fat and low carbohydrate; the other is high protein with low carbohydrate. The high fat, low carb diet has been used for decades to treat drug-resistant epilepsy in children. Currently it is being touted as a potential cancer treatment, without significant evidence for its effectiveness. Regardless, these types of diets are not appropriate or optimal for promoting long-term health in the general population and have too many significant drawbacks.

Under normal circumstances, the brain uses glucose exclusively to produce energy. However, when carbohydrates, the supplier of glucose, is insufficient, the body goes into an emergency state, known as ketosis, whereby the brain uses ketones (derived from fat) as an alternative or emergency fuel source. These diets aims to keep the body in chronic ketosis.

"Ketogenic" refers to the body's response to the low carbohydrate content; it does not define which foods are used to achieve this outcome. Of course, a ketogenic diet that included more leafy green vegetables, nuts, and avocado would be more healthful than one that included more butter, cheese, and oil. However, a diet of coconut oil, grass-fed butter, avocado, egg yolks and greens is still not in the same league as a Nutritarian diet for health promotion and longevity.

The very low carbohydrate content of a ketogenic diet restricts important fiber-rich, anti-cancer foods such as beans, berries, and orange vegetables, unnecessarily limiting nutritional variety and phytochemical richness - phytochemicals that have anti-infection, anti-cancer and cardioprotective effects and also build up our immune defenses. The protective phytochemcials and antioxidants in the rainbow of produce have more powerful longevity-promoting effects than simply being in ketosis.

The restriction of beans, a rich source of resistant starch and fiber, makes it more difficult to establish a favorable microbiome (the collection of microbes or microorganisms that inhabit an environment-here the human body.) In addition to their prebiotic effect, fermentation of fiber and resistant starch from beans produces short-chain fatty acids which help to prevent colon cancer.30,31

Beans are a food with a broad spectrum of longevity-promoting benefits, including low glycemic load and cholesterol and blood pressure-lowering properties.13,32-34 The exclusion of beans in favor of nutrient-poor oils and dairy fat is indefensible. Chronic ketosis itself is stressful on the body, increasing acid production,35 which can damage the kidneys and may even promote specific cancers.36

The traditional high-fat ketogenic diet does have the advantage of limiting animal protein, but it is almost impossible to live on oils, nuts and seeds and animal fat without consuming animal protein along with it. Even high-fat, ketogenic diets are still too high in animal protein. Remember plant proteins sources do not drive up IGF-1 into the danger zone as do animal proteins. This combination of animal protein, saturated fat and higher IGF-1 is strongly linked to cancer risk.37-43

In addition to excluding more healthful calorie sources, such as berries, squash, and beans, ketogenic diets create constipation and bad breath and raise the risk of kidney damage.44 High-animal protein, low-carbohydrate diets have been linked to increased risk of death from cancer, cardiovascular disease, and all causes.37,45,46 Plus this chronic mild acidosis, along with the induced potassium deficiency from this low plant-produce diet, can negatively affect insulin sensitivity, muscle mass, and bone density.47-52

There have been many large, prospective studies all coming to the same conclusion that high meat intake is linked to greater mortality risk.53 Studies have shown pro-inflammatory effects of carnitine, choline and arachidonic acid, pro-oxidant effects of heme iron, along with the other dangers from the IGF-raising effects of animal protein.54-62

A meat-heavy diet also exposes us to carcinogens such as heterocyclic amines in cooked meats.63-66 Like other diets that rely on large consumption of animal products, a ketogenic diet is linked to elevated LDL and triglyceride levels.67,68

Ketogenic diets are just not supported by the evidence available and not shown to be safe long-term. This diet-style is lacking in the amount and variety of important anti-cancer phytochemicals. It contains too many empty calories from oil, and the more animal products the diet contains, the more unsafe it becomes. It may actually accelerate the risk of certain cancers and its acidity and lack of phytochemical diversity may shorten lifespan. In contrast, a Nutritarian diet is associated with dramatic improvements in cardiovascular risk factors69 and contains a portfolio of plant foods, with broad-spectrum and documented anti-cancer benefits.


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> Im sure you know what you are talking about but Im still going to go with human beings needing glucose to function. 20 years working in endocrinology has taught me that. Still, as long as we are all happy!
> 
> I feed them all sunshine and unicorn farts obviously!
> 
> Of course they eat meat. The fact that I had meat eating pets before I educated myself and then am not willing to throw them out or destroy them doesnt negate my POV now. This harks back to the original point, alot of vegans have meat eating pets or leather shoes from the 'old days'. Its what you do when you know better that matters.


So you'll vilify farmers of human food but when it comes to pets that's ok? I don't get it. Sorry, I know you can't get rid as they are like family., but can you see why we get so frustrated with being told what we do is cruel even though the people who eat meat on here have stated they do their very best to ensure the ethical treatment of animals is upheld and at the forefront of what choices we make and then we get lambasted by people who have to have mice factory farmed and gassed at what, two months old, and their other animals are fed from the cheapest cuts going which are from the intensive systems you shout and carry on at? Can you not see how that doesn't sit with us, so yes, when a guy goes on TV wearing a leather strap say a load of rubbish it calls it into question. You can;t get rid of your pets, I get that, but he could get rid of his leather watch strap. I take deer from commercial forests, forests that grow pine for your furniture as they eat the new trees. I get my food, you get your furniture and the wildlife gets habitat (there are still a boat load of deer by the way).
I'm willing to bet you have food in plastic punnets or bags or foam trays in the fridge. Do you truly think they get recycled 100%? For that one punnet of blueberries you have in your fridge (probably from Peru or Venezuela at this time of year, South Africa will be next month or so) the supermarket or wholesale market your greengrocer bought it from had to order three just in case one went off and the other got squashed? Shops want your business they don;t want you walking away empty handed thinking "I won't go there again they didn't have owt in!" so they order a huge surplus of stock just in case, so every one thing you buy three are sat in the back going off on average. Its the same for meat as well. They also don;t want you going and not buying something because "the fruit was a bit scabby" or "the veg wasn't up to much" so they make sure they inspect produce and reject anything that doesn't conform to consumer appeal. This results is millions of tonnes of waste every year and that;s just from a two or three supermarket brands.

Does this make sense?

So if you work in endocrinology you know about insulin then? Can you say, in your experience and much deeper knowledge than I have, that it is perfectly normal for the human body to secrete larger quantities of insulin multiple times a day and not cause any damage?


----------



## hutch6

noushka05 said:


> Lewis Hamilton is someone else recently converted to veganism. I always thought he was lovely.
> 
> *Lewis Hamilton: F1 driver on going vegan and his fears for the planet*
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41296229
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewis Hamilton says he is aiming to become a vegan in an attempt to pursue the healthiest possible lifestyle and avoid damaging the planet.
> 
> The Mercedes Formula 1 driver said he had been inspired by a documentary about the meat industry, and its potential effects on the environment, animal welfare and human health.
> 
> Britain's Hamilton, who qualified fifth for Sunday's Singapore Grand Prix, has not eaten chicken for much of this year.
> 
> "I stopped eating red meat two years ago," said the championship leader. "I have generally been pescatarian for the majority of the year and now I've cut fish.
> 
> "As the human race, what we are doing to the world... the pollution [in terms of emissions of global-warming gases] coming from the amount of cows that are being produced is incredible.
> 
> "They say it is more than what we produce with our flights and our cars, which is kind of crazy to think. The cruelty is horrible and I don't necessarily want to support that and I want to live a healthier life."
> 
> Hamilton, 32, conceded pursuing a diet free of any animal products might be a challenge on a lifestyle front.
> 
> While in Singapore, where he is catered for by chefs, he has eaten only plant-based food but acknowledges maintaining that might prove difficult.
> 
> "So far I don't feel as if I have been missing out," he said. "But I don't know how easy it is going to be when I get home. That is going to be a real test.
> 
> "Every person I have met who has gone vegan says it is the best decision they have ever made.
> 
> "When you watch this documentary and you see meat clogging up your arteries, you see all the stuff they put in the meat, stuff we are all eating, there is no way I am going to disregard that."
> 
> Hamilton said his family's medical history had been an influence in his decision, with heart disease and cancer prevalent among his ancestors.
> 
> "I don't want in 10 or 20 years to have diabetes or catch any of that stuff," he said
> 
> "I can continue to decide to eat that stuff and take that risk, but when you get [a disease or illness like that], you want to make change, so I am trying to pre-empt that.
> 
> "I think it's the right direction and by letting people who are following me know, maybe that will encourage a couple of people to do the same thing."


A guy that gets flown all over the world, drive the most uneconomic car ever to grace the planet that goes through umpteen sets of tire per grand prix, and he chucks champagne away by the gallon and is going vegan.............. to save the planet?

What do you want me to do with this Noush?

You've seen what goes into each grand prix right? Sheeesh....


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I've read every book Dr Fuhrman has written and am a member of his forum so I can assure you he does not recommend eating meat twice a week, as I explained already he "allows" a very small serving of meat or low fat dairy as an occasional aid for those people who would otherwise not make the switch to a healthier diet and lifestyle which he recommends is reduced gradually as tolerated. This also reflects the habits of the people in the Blue Zones who are not totally vegan but eat very little animal produce. This is his advice for people wanting to start on his programme


As a starter I have no interest in Dr Fuhrman other than through you mentioning him. On his own website he has a "Lose 10lbs in Twenty days" program for $15. I'll tell you how to do that for free - stop eating cereals.
The supplements are extortionate and full of stuff you can just buy and eat and fell full which will stop you from eating which stop you buying his diet programmes. Just buy the vitamin d 1000IU from any outlet. They are also full of meidcally accurate stuff like "contains x, y and z which MAY help prevent *insert scary disease name here*" But hey, they're 100% vegan, just the same as every other pure vitamin D supplement.
Yo can buy Turkish figs. from an American site you can buy Turkish figs. What's that really short sentence in the bible again?

Secondly, a quick search of his own website brings this up:

https://www.drfuhrman.com/learn/library/articles/57/dr-fuhrmans-nutritarian-pyramid

The USDA pyramid allows for multiple servings daily of dairy, meat, and oils - nutrient poor foods that should be limited to 2 or less servings per week in Dr. Fuhrman's Pyramid.

And lastly I've just shown you through the Blue Zone website itself that none of the blue zone folk are completely vegan.


----------



## noushka05

hutch6 said:


> A guy that gets flown all over the world, drive the most uneconomic car ever to grace the planet that goes through umpteen sets of tire per grand prix, and he chucks champagne away by the gallon and is going vegan.............. to save the planet?
> 
> What do you want me to do with this Noush?
> 
> You've seen what goes into each grand prix right? Sheeesh....


Surely its a good thing he's trying to cut carbon footprint then?


----------



## Elles

F1 will still go on with or without Lewis Hamilton. Every little helps and he’s a public figure promoting veganism. Good on him. If some of his friends and fans try it, it’s still reducing the impact and might even go towards covering the impact of F1. 

This is how the thread started. We can’t promote a healthier lifestyle that involves not eating meat and dairy, unless we live in a mud hut and even then someone would likely bring up the accidental death of a beetle, or whether plants feel pain.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> But my body doesn't need to produce insulin in order for me to get fuel. It just makes it direct from what I sling down my neck.
> How can something be so good for you that the human body has proved it can't cope with diabetes that folk need to inject themselves with it as their own body can't cope?
> You eat your meal and I eat mine. Your body ha to produce a hormone in order to deal with what you've just put in it. Mine doesn't. You blood sugars go up. Mine don't. We then go for a long run and you need sugary stuff to stay in the same energy state. I don't and you're telling me a human body isn't or wasn't supposed to function as mine is?
> When the human body is depleated in glucose as a main energy source it naturally falls into ketosis to keep it functioning normally and converts body fat into everything it needs energy wise.
> 
> What total and absolute vegan cultures are you referring to and I'll look them up.


I don't understand why you would demonise insulin. We need hormones for lots of things and we need enzymes to digest macronutrients such as fat (lipase) if you were deficient in it you would have to take medication or drastically reduce your fat intake. Diabetics take insulin because they either don't produce any or what they do produce has become ineffective because their cells have become resistant to it. Are you suggesting the human body has made some huge mistake and none of us need insulin?


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I've read every book Dr Fuhrman has written and am a member of his forum so I can assure you he does not recommend eating meat twice a week, as I explained already he "allows" a very small serving of meat or low fat dairy as an occasional aid for those people who would otherwise not make the switch to a healthier diet and lifestyle which he recommends is reduced gradually as tolerated. This also reflects the habits of the people in the Blue Zones who are not totally vegan but eat very little animal produce. This is his advice for people wanting to start on his programme
> 
> If using animal products, use only wild, low-mercury seafood, or naturally-raised fowl. Animal products are best used in very small amounts as flavor enhancers, as a condiment, not as a main dish. Find out why.
> 
> A high fat ketogenic diet has its place in treating epilepsy in children sure. This is what Dr Fuhrman says about ketogenic diets seeing as you seem interested in his views
> 
> There are two types of ketogenic diets: one consists of high-fat and low carbohydrate; the other is high protein with low carbohydrate. The high fat, low carb diet has been used for decades to treat drug-resistant epilepsy in children. Currently it is being touted as a potential cancer treatment, without significant evidence for its effectiveness. Regardless, these types of diets are not appropriate or optimal for promoting long-term health in the general population and have too many significant drawbacks.
> 
> Under normal circumstances, the brain uses glucose exclusively to produce energy. However, when carbohydrates, the supplier of glucose, is insufficient, the body goes into an emergency state, known as ketosis, whereby the brain uses ketones (derived from fat) as an alternative or emergency fuel source. These diets aims to keep the body in chronic ketosis.
> 
> "Ketogenic" refers to the body's response to the low carbohydrate content; it does not define which foods are used to achieve this outcome. Of course, a ketogenic diet that included more leafy green vegetables, nuts, and avocado would be more healthful than one that included more butter, cheese, and oil. However, a diet of coconut oil, grass-fed butter, avocado, egg yolks and greens is still not in the same league as a Nutritarian diet for health promotion and longevity.
> 
> The very low carbohydrate content of a ketogenic diet restricts important fiber-rich, anti-cancer foods such as beans, berries, and orange vegetables, unnecessarily limiting nutritional variety and phytochemical richness - phytochemicals that have anti-infection, anti-cancer and cardioprotective effects and also build up our immune defenses. The protective phytochemcials and antioxidants in the rainbow of produce have more powerful longevity-promoting effects than simply being in ketosis.
> 
> The restriction of beans, a rich source of resistant starch and fiber, makes it more difficult to establish a favorable microbiome (the collection of microbes or microorganisms that inhabit an environment-here the human body.) In addition to their prebiotic effect, fermentation of fiber and resistant starch from beans produces short-chain fatty acids which help to prevent colon cancer.30,31
> 
> Beans are a food with a broad spectrum of longevity-promoting benefits, including low glycemic load and cholesterol and blood pressure-lowering properties.13,32-34 The exclusion of beans in favor of nutrient-poor oils and dairy fat is indefensible. Chronic ketosis itself is stressful on the body, increasing acid production,35 which can damage the kidneys and may even promote specific cancers.36
> 
> The traditional high-fat ketogenic diet does have the advantage of limiting animal protein, but it is almost impossible to live on oils, nuts and seeds and animal fat without consuming animal protein along with it. Even high-fat, ketogenic diets are still too high in animal protein. Remember plant proteins sources do not drive up IGF-1 into the danger zone as do animal proteins. This combination of animal protein, saturated fat and higher IGF-1 is strongly linked to cancer risk.37-43
> 
> In addition to excluding more healthful calorie sources, such as berries, squash, and beans, ketogenic diets create constipation and bad breath and raise the risk of kidney damage.44 High-animal protein, low-carbohydrate diets have been linked to increased risk of death from cancer, cardiovascular disease, and all causes.37,45,46 Plus this chronic mild acidosis, along with the induced potassium deficiency from this low plant-produce diet, can negatively affect insulin sensitivity, muscle mass, and bone density.47-52
> 
> There have been many large, prospective studies all coming to the same conclusion that high meat intake is linked to greater mortality risk.53 Studies have shown pro-inflammatory effects of carnitine, choline and arachidonic acid, pro-oxidant effects of heme iron, along with the other dangers from the IGF-raising effects of animal protein.54-62
> 
> A meat-heavy diet also exposes us to carcinogens such as heterocyclic amines in cooked meats.63-66 Like other diets that rely on large consumption of animal products, a ketogenic diet is linked to elevated LDL and triglyceride levels.67,68
> 
> Ketogenic diets are just not supported by the evidence available and not shown to be safe long-term. This diet-style is lacking in the amount and variety of important anti-cancer phytochemicals. It contains too many empty calories from oil, and the more animal products the diet contains, the more unsafe it becomes. It may actually accelerate the risk of certain cancers and its acidity and lack of phytochemical diversity may shorten lifespan. In contrast, a Nutritarian diet is associated with dramatic improvements in cardiovascular risk factors69 and contains a portfolio of plant foods, with broad-spectrum and documented anti-cancer benefits.


You can't be ketongenic on high protein as the body converts it to glucose.

Constipation? Have you seen the post I put up where I told you the fibre content of the food?

"along with the induced potassium deficiency from this low plant-produce diet, can negatively affect insulin sensitivity, muscle mass, and bone density"

Low potassium?

Spinach 100g

Carbs: 3.6g
Fibre: 2.2g
Net carbs: 1.4g

Potassium: 558mg or 15% of your daily need.

Rememebr when I said I;d have to eat five 220g bags of this just to hit my carbs target?

5 * 220 = 1100g
1100g / 100g = 11
11*15% = 165%.

Am I really lacking potassium?

I don't cook with oils as they are omega6 and how can I accelerate cancer if I don;t have glucose in my body?


----------



## hutch6

noushka05 said:


> Surely its a good thing he's trying to cut carbon footprint then?


And I help global warming by shooting stuff that farts, do i get a pat on the back now too?

Maybe if he quit he'd save the environment but how do you not see the irony in this?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> What body cells need ketones - erm, all of them.
> 
> What body cells need glucose - only as fuel and they need insulin to do so.
> 
> What do cancer cells feed on - glucose. Someone won a noble prize for pointing that out and yet we are told to eat grains and cereals and fruit and yet we are seeing more and more cancers.
> 
> What happens when your body runs out of glucose? It demands more so you feel hungry quicker and more often and then your insulin goes up and you because you eat more as you feel hungry more often you get fat and then a whole host of issues start.
> 
> *Want to reduce your risk of cancer and illness further in your quest to be as healthy as you can be? - stop eating cereals and grains be it wholemeal or not.* The information is all out there.


Sorry did I miss the World Health Organisation classifying cereals and grains as carcinogenic as they did with processed meats (level 1) and red meat (level 2)?


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't understand why you would demonise insulin. We need hormones for lots of things and we need enzymes to digest macronutrients such as fat (lipase) if you were deficient in it you would have to take medication or drastically reduce your fat intake. Diabetics take insulin because they either don't produce any or what they do produce has become ineffective because their cells have become resistant to it. Are you suggesting the human body has made some huge mistake and none of us need insulin?


No. I;m saying they are becoming diabetic as they can;t produce insulin or they can't provide enough to deal with the glucose in their system.

Isn't it blatantly obvious that the human body is not meant to consume vast quantities of glucose because it make sit shut down or malfunction rapidly in some way that if not treated will put you in a coma at best and end you at worst? Glucose can very easily make the human body fail. How is that not obvious!!


----------



## noushka05

hutch6 said:


> So you'll vilify farmers of human food but when it comes to pets that's ok? I don't get it. Sorry, I know you can't get rid as they are like family., but can you see why we get so frustrated with being told what we do is cruel even though the people who eat meat on here have stated they do their very best to ensure the ethical treatment of animals is upheld and at the forefront of what choices we make and then we get lambasted by people who have to have mice factory farmed and gassed at what, two months old, and their other animals are fed from the cheapest cuts going which are from the intensive systems you shout and carry on at? Can you not see how that doesn't sit with us, so yes, when a guy goes on TV wearing a leather strap say a load of rubbish it calls it into question. You can;t get rid of your pets, I get that, but he could get rid of his leather watch strap. I take deer from commercial forests, forests that grow pine for your furniture as they eat the new trees. I get my food, you get your furniture and the wildlife gets habitat (there are still a boat load of deer by the way).
> I'm willing to bet you have food in plastic punnets or bags or foam trays in the fridge. Do you truly think they get recycled 100%? For that one punnet of blueberries you have in your fridge (probably from Peru or Venezuela at this time of year, South Africa will be next month or so) the supermarket or wholesale market your greengrocer bought it from had to order three just in case one went off and the other got squashed? Shops want your business they don;t want you walking away empty handed thinking "I won't go there again they didn't have owt in!" so they order a huge surplus of stock just in case, so every one thing you buy three are sat in the back going off on average. Its the same for meat as well. They also don;t want you going and not buying something because "the fruit was a bit scabby" or "the veg wasn't up to much" so they make sure they inspect produce and reject anything that doesn't conform to consumer appeal. This results is millions of tonnes of waste every year and that;s just from a two or three supermarket brands.
> 
> Does this make sense?
> 
> So if you work in endocrinology you know about insulin then? Can you say, in your experience and much deeper knowledge than I have, that it is perfectly normal for the human body to secrete larger quantities of insulin multiple times a day and not cause any damage?


It isn't rubbish that livestock industry is destroying the planet & causes suffering on an epic scale Hutch. Its the truth.


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Sorry did I miss the World Health Organisation classifying cereals and grains as carcinogenic as they did with processed meats (level 1) and red meat (level 2)?


Righto, here you go:

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2017/05/15/sugar-and-cancer-what-you-need-to-know/

"Cancer cells usually grow quickly, multiplying at a fast rate, which takes a lot of energy. This means they need lots of glucose. Cancer cells also need lots of other nutrients too, such as amino acids and fats; it's not just sugar they crave."

And I eat less than someone who fuels their body with glucose and I don't consume any glucose, a bit of protein may get converted but I do limit my protein intake.


----------



## hutch6

noushka05 said:


> It isn't rubbish that livestock industry is destroying the planet & causes suffering on an epic scale Hutch. Its the truth.


Where did I say it was rubbish? That's what I've been screaming all along and I include veg and fruit farming in with all too.

Are you guys just reading what you want to hear in my posts or are you reading what I actually write?


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> It isn't rubbish that livestock industry is destroying the planet


We are not destroying the planet, not on any level. It's not within our means and there's plenty on evidence to prove that (unless arrogance convinces you otherwise). The planet will be fine, humanity maybe not so much.


----------



## noushka05

hutch6 said:


> And I help global warming by shooting stuff that farts, do i get a pat on the back now too?
> 
> Maybe if he quit he'd save the environment but how do you not see the irony in this?


No,Rona can give you one

I'd ban it if I had my way lol But guess he sees it as his job & it is - & I imagine its a short career being a racing driver. I for one am glad hes doing something to offset his carbon footprint & be more ethical. And lets remember the environmental impact of farming livestock is greater than all transport combined. Including racing cars.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> As a starter I have no interest in Dr Fuhrman other than through you mentioning him. On his own website he has a "Lose 10lbs in Twenty days" program for $15. I'll tell you how to do that for free - stop eating cereals.
> The supplements are extortionate and full of stuff you can just buy and eat and fell full which will stop you from eating which stop you buying his diet programmes. Just buy the vitamin d 1000IU from any outlet. They are also full of meidcally accurate stuff like "contains x, y and z which MAY help prevent *insert scary disease name here*" But hey, they're 100% vegan, just the same as every other pure vitamin D supplement.
> Yo can buy Turkish figs. from an American site you can buy Turkish figs. What's that really short sentence in the bible again?
> 
> Secondly, a quick search of his own website brings this up:
> 
> https://www.drfuhrman.com/learn/library/articles/57/dr-fuhrmans-nutritarian-pyramid
> 
> The USDA pyramid allows for multiple servings daily of dairy, meat, and oils - nutrient poor foods that should be* limited to 2 or less servings per week *in Dr. Fuhrman's Pyramid.
> 
> And lastly I've just shown you through the Blue Zone website itself that none of the blue zone folk are completely vegan.


Again he limits animals products to 2 servings (small servings not a rump steak but to use as a condiment or flavouring) or LESS per week initially in the hope that as people get the swing of it they will naturally reduce that. I've never claimed the Blue Zone folk are totally vegan - read back through my posts and you will see I say they are predominantly plant based with a very small serving of animal product occasionally often on feast days.

I think you have forgotten I've done a ketogenic diet too and yes I lost some weight but hell did I suffer for it. Total loss of appetite is not normal, foul taste in the mouth is not normal, wakefulness during the night is not normal, constipation is not normal, my blood pressure and cholesterol also went up.



hutch6 said:


> No. I;m saying they are becoming diabetic as they can;t produce insulin or they can't provide enough to deal with the glucose in their system.
> 
> Isn't it blatantly obvious that the human body is not meant to consume vast quantities of glucose because it make sit shut down or malfunction rapidly in some way that if not treated will put you in a coma at best and end you at worst? Glucose can very easily make the human body fail. How is that not obvious!!


Utter gobbledy ****.


----------



## hutch6

How about I just say this:

Glucose causes diabetes (and yes, it can be caused by a diet high in protein because you body converts excess proteins to glucose)


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

http://nutritionstudies.org/can-ketogenic-diet-lead-alzheimers-disease/

*Can the Ketogenic Diet Lead to Alzheimer's Disease?*
October 12, 2017
By Dean & Ayesha Sherzai, MD

The latest in this trend is the ketogenic diet, with sparse evidence for any efficacy beyond adjunctive treatment for particular types of epilepsy, or the questionable health of laboratory rodents. _The evidence for a ketogenic diet effect on cognitive health and prevention of Alzheimer's is absolutely nonexistent._ It does have a temporary effect on brain cells due to its alternative energy, but that effect is short-lived and believed to have long-term damaging effects. Yet the path to achieving a ketogenic diet, which often leads to glucose and lipid dysregulation, has repeatedly been shown to create harmful byproducts, as well as deposition of amyloid and tau proteins which are known to be strongly associated with end-stage Alzheimer's disease.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The evidence could not be more disproportionate on the side of the whole food, plant-based diet, yet somehow in the media, a false equivalency has been created based on appeal to anecdote and to the masses (e.g. "I have thousands in my blog that agree with me"). These biases always shift the burden of proof. The means by which one can achieve ketogenic states are the same ones that create dysregulation of fats and glucose metabolism, resulting in inflammation and immune dysregulation, ultimately leading to Alzheimer's.[11][12][13][14] The short-term ostensible gain in energy ends up costing the neurons dearly in the long run, and most likely shortens their lives. This cause is too important, and we need to empower communities in their fight for their mental health, now. There is no question that a whole food, plant-based diet helps maintain our most vital organ well into our 80s, 90s and beyond.


----------



## noushka05

hutch6 said:


> Where did I say it was rubbish? That's what I've been screaming all along and I include veg and fruit farming in with all too.
> 
> Are you guys just reading what you want to hear in my posts or are you reading what I actually write?


Here you go -



hutch6 said:


> Can you not see how that doesn't sit with us, so yes, when a guy goes on TV wearing a leather strap say a load of rubbish it calls it into question





Dr Pepper said:


> We are not destroying the planet, not on any level. It's not within our means and there's *plenty on evidence to* *prove that* (unless arrogance convinces you otherwise). The planet will be fine, humanity maybe not so much.


Go on then , prove it?


----------



## hutch6

noushka05 said:


> No,Rona can give you one
> 
> I'd bad it if I had my way lol But guess he sees it as his job & it is - & I imagine its a short career being a racing driver. I for one am glad hes doing something to offset his carbon footprint & be more ethical. And lets remember the environmental impact of farming livestock is greater than all transport combined. Including racing cars.


Right so if, as I have been spouting, we all ate less animals produce, just like your blue zone folk do, we'd be much better off farming wise.

If we all completely gave up cereals we'd be much better of healthwise.

If we all ate seasonally and what we produce locally we'd all be better off environmentally.

So that's farming, health and environment all covered by what I've been saying, and I'm apparently a troll.


----------



## Elles

We need some sort of farming to survive. People can relatively easily become vegan. Shooting rabbits and deer and trading vegetables is a thing of the past and even then, unless you were wealthy, or authorised, you’d likely be arrested for poaching. It’s nice that you can do it and live off the land, the rest of us will have to go shopping, unless there’s an apocalyptic event. What you’re suggesting just isn’t possible for most people, especially city dwellers. A solution has to be viable. A whole food plant based diet is viable. So is drastically cutting down on meat, dairy and processed foods. Either would help. A lot. 

You’re saying a vegan diet is bad for us and the planet, Ouesi, RPH and others are putting forward evidence to counter your arguments against veganism and plant based diets, not arguing with your points on eating less meat etc.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> How about I just say this:
> 
> Glucose causes diabetes (and yes, it can be caused by a diet high in protein because you body converts excess proteins to glucose)


No fat causes diabetes because it gums up the insulin receptors in the muscle cells which means that insulin cannot do its job and get the glucose out of the blood stream and into the cells.

http://www.pcrm.org/nbBlog/does-sugar-cause-diabetes

The human body runs on _glucose_, a simple sugar. Just as gasoline powers your car, glucose powers your muscles, your brain, and the rest of your body. Glucose comes from fruit and from starchy foods, such as grains, beans, and potatoes, and your body can also produce it when needed. Without it you would die.

Diabetes means having higher-than-normal blood glucose values. It comes in three common forms:


Type 1 diabetes is caused by the destruction of the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas, usually through an autoimmune process. The triggers for this process are under investigation and may include dairy proteins, viruses, or other factors.
Type 2 diabetes typically starts with _insulin resistance. _That is, the cells of the body resist insulin's efforts to escort glucose into the cells. What causes insulin resistance?* It appears to be caused by an accumulation of microscopic fat particles within muscle and liver cells.4 This fat comes mainly from the diet-chicken fat, beef fat, cheese fat, fish fat, and even vegetable fat*. To try to overcome insulin resistance, the pancreas produces extra insulin. When the pancreas can no longer keep up, blood sugar rises. The combination of insulin resistance and pancreatic cell failure leads to type 2 diabetes.
What Fuels the Diabetes Epidemic?

In Japan, China, and other Asian countries, the transition from traditional carbohydrate-rich (e.g., rice-based) diets to lower-carbohydrate Westernized eating habits emphasizing meats, dairy products, and fried foods has been accompanied by a major increase in diabetes prevalence. Similarly, in the United States, a meat-based (omnivorous) diet is associated with a high prevalence of diabetes, compared with dietary patterns emphasizing plant-derived foods. In the Adventist Health Study-2, after adjusting for differences in body weight, physical activity, and other factors, an omnivorous diet was associated with roughly double the risk of diabetes, compared with a diet omitting animal products.5


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> http://nutritionstudies.org/can-ketogenic-diet-lead-alzheimers-disease/
> 
> *Can the Ketogenic Diet Lead to Alzheimer's Disease?*
> October 12, 2017
> By Dean & Ayesha Sherzai, MD
> 
> The latest in this trend is the ketogenic diet, with sparse evidence for any efficacy beyond adjunctive treatment for particular types of epilepsy, or the questionable health of laboratory rodents. _The evidence for a ketogenic diet effect on cognitive health and prevention of Alzheimer's is absolutely nonexistent._ It does have a temporary effect on brain cells due to its alternative energy, but that effect is short-lived and believed to have long-term damaging effects. Yet the path to achieving a ketogenic diet, which often leads to glucose and lipid dysregulation, has repeatedly been shown to create harmful byproducts, as well as deposition of amyloid and tau proteins which are known to be strongly associated with end-stage Alzheimer's disease.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The evidence could not be more disproportionate on the side of the whole food, plant-based diet, yet somehow in the media, a false equivalency has been created based on appeal to anecdote and to the masses (e.g. "I have thousands in my blog that agree with me"). These biases always shift the burden of proof. The means by which one can achieve ketogenic states are the same ones that create dysregulation of fats and glucose metabolism, resulting in inflammation and immune dysregulation, ultimately leading to Alzheimer's.[11][12][13][14] The short-term ostensible gain in energy ends up costing the neurons dearly in the long run, and most likely shortens their lives. This cause is too important, and we need to empower communities in their fight for their mental health, now. There is no question that a whole food, plant-based diet helps maintain our most vital organ well into our 80s, 90s and beyond.


Where do you dig this rubbish up?!?!

I swear, you and your fear of Ketones!! Ha ha ha!!

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213453016301355

Cerebral glucose uptake and metabolism deteriorate in AD and this hypometabolism precedes the onset of clinical signs in AD. The early decline in brain glucose metabolism in AD has become a potential target for therapeutic intervention. This has led to investigations assessing the supplementation of the normal glucose supply with ketone bodies which are produced by the body during glucose deprivation and can be metabolized by the brain when glucose utilization is impaired.

http://www.alzheimersanddementia.com/article/S1552-5260(16)30935-9/abstract

Background: Diet is a powerful modulator of brain function. The ketogenic diet (KD), a very low carbohydrate diet, is remarkably effective in treating refractory epilepsy; 50-70% of patients have >50% seizure reduction and 30% have >90% seizure reduction. Although the mechanisms underlying its effectiveness are not definitively known, reduction of neuronal hyperexcitability and neuroprotective effects of ketones have been demonstrated, as has reduction in AD pathology in rodent models. In small pilot studies, interventions that elevate ketones improve memory in adults with MCI and AD.

https://www.charliefoundation.org/ketogenic-therapy/therapies-3/alzheimer-s

You'll love this bit I promise as it slags off keto:

According to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, avoiding saturated fats and eating a diet rich in carbohydrate from vegetables, legumes, whole grains and fruit are key recommendations to prevent Alzheimer's disease. Similarly, the current federal dietary guidelines for American adults recommends "fruits, vegetables, whole grains, fat-free and low-fat dairy products, and seafood" and discourages "solid fats."

These recommendations are the opposite of ketogenic diets, which rely on fat as the main source of energy. Coconut oil, butter, cream, nut, seed and olive oils are used lavishly in ketogenic diets. Also, ketogenic diets eliminate whole grains and, while including vegetables, allow very little fruit.

But then on the same page it come clean in it;s reason for that bit about how keto is terrible etc etc etc...

Recent studies raise the possibility that elements of the ketogenic diet may provide symptomatic relief and even delay the onset of Alzheimer's.
In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 152 people with moderate Alzheimer's, a ketone agent extracted from medium-chain triglyceride oil was given as a medication along with a normal diet. The degree of memory improvement was significant in the study group who had genetic indications of Alzheimer's and was positively correlated with the blood levels of the ketone agent.

Ta daaaaaaa!!!


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> No fat causes diabetes because it gums up the insulin receptors in the muscle cells which means that insulin cannot do its job and get the glucose out of the blood stream and into the cells.


I am beginning to think you've read the same old rubbish based on the old food pyramid that you're beginning to believe it.










Just a three word search. There is no words such as "benefit", "hinder", "cause" etc, just diabetes and keto. Take note of the websites that come up like, the diabetes.co.uk, healthline.com etc.


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Again he limits animals products to 2 servings (small servings not a rump steak but to use as a condiment or flavouring) or LESS per week initially in the hope that as people get the swing of it they will naturally reduce that. I've never claimed the Blue Zone folk are totally vegan - read back through my posts and you will see I say they are predominantly plant based with a very small serving of animal product occasionally often on feast days.
> 
> I think you have forgotten I've done a ketogenic diet too and yes I lost some weight but hell did I suffer for it. Total loss of appetite is not normal, foul taste in the mouth is not normal, wakefulness during the night is not normal, constipation is not normal, my blood pressure and cholesterol also went up.
> 
> Utter gobbledy ****.


I asked for completely vegan civilisations and you gave me the Blue Zone. In an earlier post I even said "is it anything do with Okinawa" or something.

Yes but you said you;d read all of his stuff and nowhere does it say he recommends two servings of meat per week, and it clearly does.

Quick edit:

The guy states on his website that no meaningful micro nutrients can be gained from animal products, it's on the same page as I posted:

https://www.drfuhrman.com/learn/library/articles/57/dr-fuhrmans-nutritarian-pyramid

These foods do not contribute beneficial micronutrients and therefore do not deserve such prominent positions in the diet.

Is the guy even aware that that you can die from eating too much lean meat due to the protein you get, it;s called protein poisoning. So if you can;t get any micro nutrients from animal produce how can this be?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_poisoning

http://knowledgenuts.com/2015/01/21/how-to-starve-to-death-while-stuffing-yourself-with-rabbit-meat/

You've got to be aware of this stuff when foraging.

EDIT: so a glucose based diet is better for you and the globe because you need to eat more often, please explain the logic?
Your restlessness is down to a lack of iron, check it out 
The taste in your mouth is probably down to not drinking enough water and that will attribute to the constipation as well.
Your bad cholesterol will come down as will your blood pressure as is outlined in every scientifitific study done of ketogenics.


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> Go on then , prove it?


Well there's Chernobyl for a start, we destroyed the place in the most destructive way possible yet today nature has taken over and is winning. The dinosaur was wiped of the face planet in a catastrophic event yet the planet recovered. We are simply passing through.


----------



## Dr Pepper

Dr Pepper said:


> Well there's Chernobyl for a start, we destroyed the place in the most destructive way possible yet today nature has d taken over and is winning. The dinosaur was wiped of the face planet in a catastrophic event yet the planet recovered. We are simply passing through.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> I asked for completely vegan civilisations and you gave me the Blue Zone. In an earlier post I even said "is it anything do with Okinawa" or something.
> 
> Yes but you said you;d read all of his stuff and nowhere does it say he recommends two servings of meat per week, and it clearly does.


No I didn't you are confusing me with someone else.

No he doesn't he says two servings or less and the size of those servings is very small.

Now I have to go and do some other stuff but I'll be back later. You ask where I get all this stuff from - 20 years as an RGN, an extensive library and a Certificate in Plant Based Nutrition. I'll leave you with the famous words of Denis Burkitt (The Fibre Man) - the populations who do the biggest poos need the smallest hospitals and the populations who do the smallest poos need the biggest hospitals


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> And don't you use lard? How is that any better than a refined vegetable oil?!


Olive oil is omega6.
Lard is a more stable fat

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/optimize-omega-6-omega-3-ratio#section5

We have just been programmed to believe vegetable oil healthy because it's got vegetable in the name but really, the truth is it's killing us.


----------



## hutch6

hutch6 said:


> I asked for completely vegan civilisations and you gave me the Blue Zone. In an earlier post I even said "is it anything do with Okinawa" or something.





rottiepointerhouse said:


> No I didn't you are confusing me with someone else.





rottiepointerhouse said:


> I*ts not just me personally, there are populations all over the world who manage to survive without meat and dairy* or as in the Blue Zones use tiny amounts as a condiment or only on occasional feast days.


Someone must've hacked into your computer and instead of stealing all of your identity and bank details etc they decided to post on a pet forum instead.


----------



## hutch6

noushka05 said:


> No,Rona can give you one


I'm sure you know by now I'm not here for the "likes" Noush.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> Someone must've hacked into your computer and instead of stealing all of your identity and bank details etc they decided to post on a pet forum instead.


Read the last bit of the last post you have quoted "use tiny amounts as a condiment or on feast days" that is not saying they are 100% vegan, its a very interesting book and one of many nutrition books in my library


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Read the last bit of the last post you have quoted "use tiny amounts as a condiment or on feast days" that is not saying they are 100% vegan, its a very interesting book and one of many nutrition books in my library


Yes but I asked for a pure vegan civilisation and you stated "*Its not just me personally, there are populations all over the world who manage to survive without meat and dairy"
*
I have asked you to point me in the direction of these populations and so far you haven't been able to.


----------



## 1290423

Well ive got good news, my blood pressures dropped.
But the bad news is, it was low to start with


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I believe M & S are doing a range of veggie & vegan meals for Christmas.
> 
> I buy lots of stuff from Tesco as back up for the freezer, they do some great mixes of frozen veggies in little bags to pop in the microwave, one I use a fair bit if I need a quick lunch has sweet potato cubes, beetroot, kale and broccoli which is great with rice and salad leaves.
> 
> https://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=295431954
> 
> Also like their frozen bags of grilled vegetables, chickpeas, bulgur wheat, couscous and apricots. I sometimes do that in a food flask for OH's lunch with one of their mixed frozen veg bags (spinach, broccoli, peas & corn).
> 
> https://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=295431977


You posted this in another thread.

Here are the products on the links you provided:

*Produced in*
Spain

Yet its' all in season over here right now:

http://www.eattheseasons.co.uk/

Your food comes from here:



































Wow!! Look at all that natural habitat for other animals and plants to thrive. I wonder how much nitrates they use to fertilise the soil or how much soil they have to rip form other parts of the world once they've raped the stuff under those plastic sheets of every single nutrient it has and I wonder where they dump it all once it's of zero use to anything. What could possibly survive in such zero nutrient soil?

*Vegan - the ethical diet*. My point exactly.


----------



## noushka05

hutch6 said:


> Right so if, as I have been spouting, we all ate less animals produce, just like your blue zone folk do, we'd be much better off farming wise.
> 
> If we all completely gave up cereals we'd be much better of healthwise.
> 
> If we all ate seasonally and what we produce locally we'd all be better off environmentally.
> 
> So that's farming, health and environment all covered by what I've been saying, and I'm apparently a troll.


Do you know Hutch, even George Monbiot has said he would eat road kill & animals shot as farm pests. Its the livestock industry he doesn't want to support anymore because its simply unsustainable (& cruel). Earth overshoot day was earlier than ever, this year it was the beginning of August. Time is running out fast to save our living planet, & George is an environmentalist....

IMO we should be celebrating everyone who makes the decision to switch to a vegan diet, its one of the most ethical things an individual can do for our planet. We've entered the sixth mass extinction, time is not on our side.

Yes we may be better health wise if we gave up cereals, but the vast majority of crops are grown to feed livestock.

I've seen your pics & you're definitely not a :Troll 



Dr Pepper said:


> Well there's Chernobyl for a start, we destroyed the place in the most destructive way possible yet today nature has taken over and is winning. The dinosaur was wiped of the face planet in a catastrophic event yet the planet recovered. We are simply passing through.


How on earth does Chernobyl prove we're not destroying our planet -& when I say planet, I mean our 'living' planet - the natural world with its ecosystems & biodiversity we all depend upon.

The livestock industry is destroying our 'living' planet. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/meat-eating-destroying-planet-report-warning-a7985071.html

We're not 'passing through', we're absolutely trashing it. Our actions are responsible for the degradation of our planet & we have a moral duty to care for it, for future generations & for all the wondrous lifeforms we share it with.



hutch6 said:


> I'm sure you know by now I'm not here for the "likes" Noush.


Yes I do, that's not what I was getting at at all. It was just a bad Joke, sorry.


----------



## hutch6

ooh look avocados:

https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/255903025
*Packed in*
ChileColombiaIsraelKenyaMoroccoPeruSouth AfricaSpainSwazilandTanzaniaZimbabwe

Iceberg lettuce:
I bet you can't ask for and get a guaranteed one from UK.

*Produce of*
United Kingdom, Poland, Spain, the USA

Bananas come from just down the road:

*Produce of*
Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Ghana, Guatemala, Ivory Coast (Côte d'Ivoire)

*Redmere Farms Cabbage*

well it sounds British enough, must be in another town:

*Produce of*
United Kingdom, Ireland, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain

Nope.

What about sweet potatoes, they're full of that starchy stuff everyone needs and we relied on to get up this far in the northern hemisphere:

*Produce of*
Egypt, Honduras, Spain, the USA

Oh.......

I'll wait for you to gather some information about how these don't come from where they say they do or how the places listed are actually in the UK like Egypt near Slough for example.


----------



## hutch6

noushka05 said:


> Do you know Hutch, even George Monbiot has said he would eat road kill & animals shot as farm pests. Its the livestock industry he doesn't want to support anymore because its simply unsustainable (& cruel). Earth overshoot day was earlier than ever, this year it was the beginning of August. Time is running out fast to save our living planet, & George is an environmentalist....
> 
> IMO we should be celebrating everyone who makes the decision to switch to a vegan diet, i*ts one of the most ethical things an individual can do for our planet.* We've entered the sixth mass extinction, time is not on our side.
> 
> Yes we may be better health wise if we gave up cereals, but the vast majority of crops are grown to feed livestock.
> 
> I've seen your pics & you're definitely not a :Troll


Only if you eat seasonally it is but how many do? I've asked for examples for fridge contents from the vegans on here yet nothing has come forward and I've just posted some that clearly show folk have zero idea of how, where or what goes into the production of their food.

It's only ethical in your head because immediately you don't see an animal has died but quite clearly there have been regional mass extinctions to make that food.


----------



## Elles

It’s not soil, it’s hydroponics. Been past it a few times. The produce in it isn’t unethical, it’s how it’s produced with cheap labour, plastic and Eu money. We could grow enough food to feed the world without it, if we all went vegan. We could use arable land, instead of covering deserts with plastic. It’s unsustainable.


----------



## hutch6

I know I'm picking on tescos but I hate them and all supermakets as they're all the same.

Quinoa and Bulgar wheat.
Lovely vegan food. Food of the Vegan God's almost.

*Produce of*
more than one country

What? Even Tesco don't know where it comes from.

Organic Chickpeas
Roll up roll up, get your humous!!!

*Produced in*
Italy

You been to see the practices of these Italian chickpea growers to ensure it is all organic and above board? You do realise they still hunt with packs of dogs over their ground as part of their social life? Watch out Mr Fox!!!

Spinach.
I love spinach. I grow loads of it and freeze it. Still got bit left growing...
*Produce of*
the U.K., Italy, Spain

Mind you that was that Redmere Farms brand again. Let;s try Tesco Organic Spinach as that's what i grow in a foot square flower tub so if I can do it every must be able to do it.

*Produce of*
Ireland

Sweet corn.
On the cob!! Gotta work for your food atleast.

*Produce of*
the U.K., Germany, Greece, India, Morocco, Senegal, Spain, the USA

Well what about sweetcorn in tins? We can grow sweetcorn over here and can it surely.

*Produced in*
Hungary

What about organic red kidney beans.
*Produced in*
Italy

Broad beans are weird.
If you want just broad beans they'll get them from here but if you want them in water?
*Produced in*
Belgium

Golden Delicious apples.
*Produce of*
Austria, Belgium, Chile, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain

My dad has bags of cox apples, can't get rid of them quick enough but when you want what you want, just ship it in.

Onions
Now these are easy to grow. If you can grow daffodils you can grow onions.
*Produce of*
the U.K., New Zealand, Spain

Salad tomatoes.
These are £1 for a box which doesn't surprise me because everyone's greenhouses are still full of them down the allotments.
*Produce of*
United Kingdom, Belgium, the Canary Islands, Morocco, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain

I bet 90% of folk have literally no idea where their food comes don't you?


----------



## hutch6

Elles said:


> It's not soil, it's hydroponics. Been past it a few times. The produce in it isn't unethical, it's how it's produced with cheap labour, plastic and Eu money. We could grow enough food to feed the world without it, if we all went vegan. We could use arable land, instead of covering deserts with plastic. It's unsustainable.


No it isn't.

Put this in goggle and click images:

inside the greenhouses of almeria

Now let's play spot the difference.

Almeria










inside the greenhouse in the Netherlands (they should know a thing or two about hydroponics )


----------



## catz4m8z

hutch6 said:


> Only if you eat seasonally it is but how many do? I've asked for examples for fridge contents from the vegans on here yet nothing has come forward


I think nobody is telling you that coz its weird and creepy and just one step away from 'what are you wearing?'. Dont even go there, dude! LOL:Hilarious

After watching Cowspiracy Im far more concerned about animal agriculture then I am about fossil fuels. The big planet killer is factory farming not out of season produce.


----------



## hutch6

Elles said:


> It's not soil, it's hydroponics. Been past it a few times. The produce in it isn't unethical, it's how it's produced with cheap labour, plastic and Eu money. We could grow enough food to feed the world without it, if we all went vegan. We could use arable land, instead of covering deserts with plastic. It's unsustainable.


Sorry, going back to this. Why not just use your own garden or flower planters or flower beds or allotments or rent a field from a farmer and turn it into a big veg patch or plant some fruit trees in parks or on streets instead of silver birch and elm? Why not train brambles so you have a nice bumper crop in summer/autumn and a divide between you and your neighbors that wildlife can use as a habitat? Why not go to your local council and ask for an allotment, if they don't have any under common law they have to find land for you I believe? Why not have cabbages instead of marigolds, runner beans instead of ivy, grow chili peppers in a window, grow onions in a window box, grow potatoes in an old bin, marrows instead of fushias, tomatoes against a fence or even beetroot in the side beds of your drive?
Already just by doing that the demand for stuff goes down and therefore isn't needed so doesn't get replanted. One giant greenhouse down already.


----------



## Elles

Sweet corn, from the farm my horse is on. Apples from the orchard. Fruit and veg from the farm down the road. Grapes from Greece. Nuts from Sainsbury’s garage. I’m lucky in that I’m surrounded by farms, so I can feed my dog organic meat, (she gets the odd shot rabbit too) which is species appropriate for her and plant based organic for me. If people went vegan, or at least cut right back on animal based, we’d have more of a planet to use.

I think you’ll find more than half of Almeria’s plastic growing dumps are hydroponic these days, at least that’s what I was told, I’d have to google it I suppose. They aren’t sustainable. It’s how it’s produced, with plastic, cheap labour and Eu money that makes a tomato unethical and potentially harmful. 

For me there’s nothing good about dairy, even if the cow lives in a field and is clicker trained. Same with beef, pork and chicken. For me personally, I’d rather vegans chased a fox overground from horseback with hounds, than took up meat eating, so you’ll not convince me that growing a tomato in an unethical, unsustainable way is somehow worse than factory farming animals.

If we all went vegan, we could all eat organic. If the human population reduced too, that would be a bonus.


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> I think nobody is telling you that coz its weird and creepy and just one step away from 'what are you wearing?'. Dont even go there, dude! LOL:Hilarious
> 
> After watching Cowspiracy Im far more concerned about animal agriculture then I am about fossil fuels. The big planet killer is factory farming not out of season produce.


But if you eat out of season you are adding to the whole issue of intensive farming be it animal or plant.

I don't go in to the animal agriculture business that video relates to (the yanks go to a whole different level than we or anyone else do).


----------



## hutch6

Elles said:


> If we all went vegan, we could all eat organic. If the human population reduced too, that would be a bonus.


Don't even get me started on this!!! I've refrained myself from going down that road at any point but I did let slip on a post "we need less humans", just count my lucky stars nobody asked me to elaborate.


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> At age 72 from a blood clot on his brain.
> Linda macartney died aged 56 from cancer.
> What's your point exactly?
> 
> Are you sure I'm supposed to be the troll here?


I was asking about the sustainability and long term health consequences of a diet.


hutch6 said:


> I've asked for examples for fridge contents from the vegans on here yet nothing has come forward .


I have and I did.


----------



## hutch6

Elles said:


> I think you'll find more than half of Almeria's plastic growing dumps are hydroponic these days, at least that's what I was told, I'd have to google it I suppose. They aren't sustainable. It's how it's produced, with plastic, cheap labour and Eu money that makes a tomato unethical and potentially harmful.


Aye, you're right. The use of perlite as a substrate is increasing.


----------



## Elles

hutch6 said:


> Sorry, going back to this. Why not just use your own garden or flower planters or flower beds or allotments or rent a field from a farmer and turn it into a big veg patch or plant some fruit trees in parks or on streets instead of silver birch and elm? Why not train brambles so you have a nice bumper crop in summer/autumn and a divide between you and your neighbors that wildlife can use as a habitat? Why not go to your local council and ask for an allotment, if they don't have any under common law they have to find land for you I believe? Why not have cabbages instead of marigolds, runner beans instead of ivy, grow chili peppers in a window, grow onions in a window box, grow potatoes in an old bin, marrows instead of fushias, tomatoes against a fence or even beetroot in the side beds of your drive?
> Already just by doing that the demand for stuff goes down and therefore isn't needed so doesn't get replanted. One giant greenhouse down already.


You seriously think that everyone in the uk, including office workers and bankers living and working in tower blocks in London can rent land from a farmer and live off the land? Or that they'd want to? Or that farmers would make anything like enough money from it, even if they had enough land for it. I haven't got a flower garden and I don't have the time or skill to grow my own. We're living in a different age. I presume you're posting from a phone, or a computer. Who's going to design and make it for you? Reducing meat consumption, or going vegan is something everyone can do. Grow your own, isn't. Still if tomorrow everyone had to rent a field and live off and share what we grew, it would reduce the population in no time. Most of us would starve to death, so it would solve one problem.

Go vegan, use arable land to grow food for us instead of billions of pigs, cows and chickens and rewild the landscape.


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> I was asking about the sustainability and long term health consequences of a diet.
> 
> I have and I did.


So he died of a brain hemorrhage. Still don't get your point.

All I can find is what you pt before I asked for the honest fridge look:



ouesi said:


> II can have a huge meal of rice, beans, and veggies


Good work on the local produce, it's what it's all about.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> You posted this in another thread.
> 
> Here are the products on the links you provided:
> 
> *Produced in*
> Spain
> 
> Yet its' all in season over here right now:
> 
> http://www.eattheseasons.co.uk/
> 
> Your food comes from here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!! Look at all that natural habitat for other animals and plants to thrive. I wonder how much nitrates they use to fertilise the soil or how much soil they have to rip form other parts of the world once they've raped the stuff under those plastic sheets of every single nutrient it has and I wonder where they dump it all once it's of zero use to anything. What could possibly survive in such zero nutrient soil?
> 
> *Vegan - the ethical diet*. My point exactly.


Thank you, its a while since I had a stalker following me around the forum :Joyful I've never claimed to be perfect, I've said several times in this thread that I'm not and that we can only strive to improve. I will look again at where the stuff I do buy from Tesco comes from, most of my fruit & veg as I've already said comes from Riverford but I do keep stuff in the freezer for quick lunches. The most important thing for me is that I don't compromise my health and that no animal gets killed or milked for my benefit. What are you doing to improve?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> So he died of a brain hemorrhage. Still don't get your point.
> 
> All I can find is what you pt before I asked for the honest fridge look:
> 
> Good work on the local produce, it's what it's all about.


I've got the details of his autopsy report somewhere - will try to find it. Think you will find he was riddled with atherosclerosis as well as being extremely overweight.


----------



## hutch6

Elles said:


> You seriously think that everyone in the uk, including office workers and bankers living and working in tower blocks in London


Don't push me down that road, I've told you.



Elles said:


> Who's going to design and make it for you?


Design and make what?



Elles said:


> Reducing meat consumption, or going vegan is something everyone can do. Grow your own, isn't.


Why not? What I've suggested isn't hard at all. I've done just that over the past couple of years whilst having a full time job, starting a totally separate business working for myself out of the hours of my normal job, rebuilt a house almost and sill had time to spend with friends and what not. I wanted to make a difference so I did.



Elles said:


> Still if tomorrow everyone had to rent a field and live off and share what we grew, it would reduce the population in no time. Most of us would starve to death, so it would solve one problem.
> 
> Go vegan, use arable land to grow food for us instead of billions of pigs, cows and chickens and rewild the landscape.


 What are you going to do with all the billions of pigs, cows and chickens (the sheep get away though eh? ) then? You can't just turn them free they'd die in their first winter without silage and hay.


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I've got the details of his autopsy report somewhere - will try to find it. Think you will find he was riddled with atherosclerosis as well as being extremely overweight.


Fine but that's not what killed him is it? It was an accident that caused trauma to his head.

That's like saying JFK had a terrible diet, he was full of kidney disease, acne and gout. Didn't kill him though did it?

Be a vegan and jump out of a plane with no parachute, you'll be reet!!


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Thank you, its a while since I had a stalker following me around the forum :Joyful I've never claimed to be perfect, I've said several times in this thread that I'm not and that we can only strive to improve. I will look again at where the stuff I do buy from Tesco comes from, most of my fruit & veg as I've already said comes from Riverford but I do keep stuff in the freezer for quick lunches. T*he most important thing for me is that I don't compromise my health and that no animal gets killed *or milked for my benefit. What are you doing to improve?


How do you know this? half you stuff comes from the other side of the continent?!?!?!

Look at the pictures of those greenhouses, look at them and be honest with yourself, was no animal killed for you to get veg from there? Are they over run with rats because they have a no kill policy? Are they letting the local wild life back into the area or are they turfing it out to make room for more greenhouses?

What am I doing to improve the situation?

I don't use supermarkets.
I grow my own stuff.
I trade what I have to spare with people for their produce.
I eat seasonally with what is grown in either my garden, the land I work on or by the growers down the allotments.
I shoot, trap and fish for the table - all of it is wild, free and shagging happily.
I don't buy things in plastic boxes or bags.
The girlfriend like to do preserves and chutney's so we can keep things out season and use left overs.
We freeze what we can to see us through when needed.

We are moving to be off-grid in every way in the near future. I realise not everyone can do this, I'm not daft, but it's something I've always wanted to do. I wanted to be a farmer growing up


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> Fine but that's not what killed him is it? It was an accident that caused trauma to his head.
> 
> That's like saying JFK had a terrible diet, he was full of kidney disease, acne and gout. Didn't kill him though did it?
> 
> Be a vegan and jump out of a plane with no parachute, you'll be reet!!


I'll get back to you tomorrow about his autopsy findings but actually its not the same, if you sell a diet/lifestyle which claims to be healthy when you are actually not healthy following it yourself that is deception.


----------



## Elles

hutch6 said:


> Don't push me down that road, I've told you.
> 
> Design and make what?
> 
> Why not? What I've suggested isn't hard at all. I've done just that over the past couple of years whilst having a full time job, starting a totally separate business working for myself out of the hours of my normal job, rebuilt a house almost and sill had time to spend with friends and what not. I wanted to make a difference so I did.
> 
> What are you going to do with all the billions of pigs, cows and chickens (the sheep get away though eh? ) then? You can't just turn them free they'd die in their first winter without silage and hay.


Design and make whatever you're posting here from.

I thought you worked doing pest control on farms, and got to keep a few deer and rabbits and were given farm produce? Ask the farmers you work for if they'd like to rent plots of their land to townies and city dwellers with guns? They'd need to sort out parking for their 4wds, or minibuses that ship them in. Most people can't do what you describe. Growing a few peas, or a couple of whatever in a window box isn't going to make a dent and there isn't enough space for every council to give every family an allotment. Best in general to leave the growing to people who know what they're doing, ie farmers.

I doubt everyone in the uk would go vegan in one day. With a gradual reduction in the need for animal produce, producers would breed fewer animals. If by some strange mass hysteria it did happen in one day, it would be a lot of work for vets and reminiscent of the foot and mouth disaster I expect.

Still, while I'm typing this you posted that you realise not everyone can do what you plan. Everyone can cut down on animal produce, or go vegan. This would free up arable land to grow food for humans and there'd be no need for plastic dumps in deserts. A vegan going vegan for environmental and ethical considerations, would be far more likely to reject produce grown in this way. Someone who eats a burger and doesn't care where it comes from, isn't likely to bothered about where the slice of tomato on it comes from either. 

Shipping seasonal organic plant produce from one country to another and using freezers, has far less of an impact than the trade in animals and animal produce.


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'll get back to you tomorrow about his autopsy findings but actually its not the same, if you sell a diet/lifestyle which claims to be healthy when you are actually not healthy following it yourself that is deception.


Oh no, someone sold a load of pish to make money claiming it'd keep you safe from disease and then they suffered from a disease they said it'd help protect you from!! Scandal!!

So there are no diabetic vegans? No vegans with any diet related illness at all?

I'm 6'1, 92kg, about 12% body fat and the NHS BMI calculator puts me as overweight at 26.8. Read into that what you will.

Your BMI and body fat must be less than mine being a vegan for however long.


----------



## hutch6

Elles said:


> Design and make whatever you're posting here from.
> 
> I thought you worked doing pest control on farms, and got to keep a few deer and rabbits and were given farm produce? Ask the farmers you work for if they'd like to rent plots of their land to townies and city dwellers with guns? They'd need to sort out parking for their 4wds, or minibuses that ship them in. Most people can't do what you describe. Growing a few peas, or a couple of whatever in a window box isn't going to make a dent and there isn't enough space for every council to give every family an allotment. Best in general to leave the growing to people who know what they're doing, ie farmers.
> 
> I doubt everyone in the uk would go vegan in one day. With a gradual reduction in the need for animal produce, producers would breed fewer animals. If by some strange mass hysteria it did happen in one day, it would be a lot of work for vets and reminiscent of the foot and mouth disaster I expect.
> 
> Still, while I'm typing this you posted that you realise not everyone can do what you plan. Everyone can cut down on animal produce, or go vegan. This would free up arable land to grow food for humans and there'd be no need for plastic dumps in deserts. A vegan going vegan for environmental and ethical considerations, would be far more likely to reject produce grown in this way. Someone who eats a burger and doesn't care where it comes from, isn't likely to bothered about where the slice of tomato on it comes from either.
> 
> Shipping seasonal organic plant produce from one country to another and using freezers, has far less of an impact than the trade in animals and animal produce.


Growing a few whatever won't make a dent is just a defeatist attitude.

So it wouldn't get them interested in food, it would be more nutritious than the stuff from abroad, it wouldn't stop them buying that extra piece from a supermarket that ships it in from abroad? 
No instead everyone has to quit a main staple of their diet over night or it's just not worth educating folk about diet and food source.

You want to make a difference, plant a seed. Don't expect people to just quit something they've got a life long association with over night.
Where do people get the vast majority of their food from? Supermarkets.
What do supermarkets have? Fresh produce, maybe an in-house bakery or a fish counter. Name me one supermarket that has half a pig hung up or a side of lamb on display or a full topside or ox heart or tripe or pigs trotters on display. 
It's all neatly packaged up in cuts so the association is lost. Ask any general shopper to point to where the fillet their fillet steak in their trolley came from on the diagram of a cow and I bet half of them get it wrong. Ask them to point to where bacon comes from or where sweetbreads come from.

If it were down to me we'd have to kill our own food. 
There's your animal, you want to eat meat then you kill it and butcher it. If you can't then don't eat it.


----------



## Elles

Where have I said I expect people to just quit something overnight? I think I’ve said I don’t expect them to. Nor do I expect them to go out and kill their own food either. It would be rather cruel and messy and arm rather a lot of people who shouldn’t be armed.

I am making a difference. I switched from 50 years of vegetarian, to vegan. Farmers can do the seed planting. If everyone ate the same as they do now, but all went for local, seasonal and organic produce, there wouldn’t be enough to go round. That’s why factory farming is successful, it’s meeting a demand that can’t be met any other way.

It’s nice that you can go off and do your own thing. My thoughts are food for the rest of us. I don’t doubt you feed yourself in a healthier and more sustainable way than the majority of westerners, unfortunately your method just isn’t feasible for the majority and although healthy, it might still not be healthiest. Healthier and less meat and dairy would be good for most though and could make a considerable difference. Not gonna happen, unless governments get involved as suggested by the UN though.


----------



## Guest

Elles said:


> You're saying a vegan diet is bad for us and the planet, Ouesi, RPH and others are putting forward evidence to counter your arguments against veganism and plant based diets, not arguing with your points on eating less meat etc.


Yes!! Thank you  I was beginning to think I was posting in hieroglyphics or something  
I'm not saying you @hutch6 need to eat vegan - or anyone for that matter. I did not start this thread. I only joined the thread to respond to 1) anyone including (especially) meat eaters should get to have an opinion on how animals are treated. And 2) to respond to the claims that veganism is not a healthy/natural/sustainable/normal diet for humans.

I have not eaten meat in 30 years, during that time I have gone long periods not eating dairy either. I currently eat minimal dairy (there is no dairy in the house), and the only eggs we eat are from a neighbor who has backyard chickens. I don't like the taste of eggs much myself, but I will use them in baking. Again very minimal. (Go ahead do a gotcha if you must.)

But that's over 30 years of not eating meat. I know several people who have gone longer. I don't know one single person who has lasted 5 years let alone 10 or longer on a low carb/atkins/paleo/keto diet. I know a lot of people who have lost a good bit of weight going low carb, but not one has kept it off nor was able to maintain the diet long term. 
I know a few people who start out paleo (or keto or atkins etc.), have an epiphany about processed food and turn their focus towards eating more whole food and less processed and do very well.



Elles said:


> Best in general to leave the growing to people who know what they're doing, ie farmers.


Absolutely. Let's move away from factory farming and get real farmers (not machines) back out on the land and doing what farmers are meant to do, grow smaller, varied crops for human consumption, not factory farmed animal feed.
Michael Pollan talks about how to support and bring back the small farmer who cares about land and works with the land growing crops that make sense for that region. Again, has to start with eating less or no meat.

I read Diet for a Small Planet back in the early 80's and everything she said then is still true today only much more so. It takes more water, grain, land and greenhouse gasses to produce a pound of beef than it does to produce the same number of calories from plant food. This is still as true today as it was in 1971 when Frances Moore Lapee wrote her groundbreaking book. We have got to stop our obsession with meat and dairy and get back to a more natural diet for humans. Many of us won't be willing to give up meat and dairy entirely, but all of us can make a difference with our food choices.


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> All I can find is what you pt before I asked for the honest fridge look:


Which confirms my suspicion that you're not really reading what I post  
This was in direct response (quoting you) to your query about what is in our cupboards:



ouesi said:


> Actually I will play here because it's always fun to burst a bubble or two  :Angelic
> 
> Dinner last night:
> Quinoa - grown in the US - either Oregon or Colorado. Probably a fairly heavy carbon footprint in shipping, packaging, and processing (rinsing the seeds). Still far lesser footprint than an equivalent animal food. Does not need to be kept cold, stores for ages so less likely to go to waste...
> Summer squash grown locally, in season, other than my gas to the store and back, minimal carbon footprint.
> Bell pepper also local, same place, virtually zero carbon footprint.
> Okra grown by my coworker, she has more than she knows what to do with, I gladly take it off her hands. Grows like crazy here. Freezes well so many of us have freezers full of it to enjoy all winter. Yup, carbon footprint with electricity used to freeze said okra, again, minimal compared to the meat industry.
> Tomato salsa - made in a plant in Mexico, shipped here. Not local, but not crazy far either. Again, environmental impact still less than a steak or glass of milk.
> 
> I can make a difference in the above by using local grains instead of quinoa, and making my own salsa from my own tomatoes that I get tons of every summer, canning is a great way to preserve them. I am progressively growing more and more of my own food, so I hope to improve.
> 
> But I still believe every little bit helps. And for anyone looking to make a difference one thing you can do is eat less meat, less dairy. Every meat free meal makes a difference. Every locally sourced plant food makes a difference.
> 
> I refer you back to Jane Goodall's wonderful quote I posted earlier in this thread.


----------



## hutch6

Seems that it’s too much hard work to even attempt to grow your own food. You’ve got to read stuff, talk to people, dig in muck, collect rain water and then put that in the food, and it’s not like it’ll be even ready eat next week. So what the point? Only farmers can grow stuff for us to eat. 

I remember growing some cress in half and egg shell with some loo paper as aggregate and being absolutely facinated by how it all worked and thought it was the best ever to eat it. We never had cress so I had nothing to compare it to but to me it was the bees knees.

A more natural diet - so having everything done for you and having no control over where your food comes from or how it’s produced is natural?
Big massive ships, big 18-wheelers and half a mile long freight trains just evolved did they? Having food with a low shelf life carted half way around the work is natural? Packing it in nitrogen filled bags to reduce the rate it rots is natural?

Tell me how much homegrown produce is wasted before it even gets to the supermarket. Now tell me why we can’t eat seasonally?
Your agmrgunent is you can’t be bothered to grow your own stuff to supplement what others can in your area.

Why would I say gotcha? I can already picture all of your cupboards because I read the recipes your gospel doctors try and sell you through their websites (that already raise alarm bells), everyone loves a varied diet but speaking to people over the years the holistic approach to eating seasonally doesn’t compute and finally I get “I can’t be bothered” when asking folk why they don’t grown their own. Funny though cos they can be bothered to trim the hedges, cut the grass, weed the beds, plant the beds and put some lovely garden features and furnitures in. Strange that.


----------



## Jonescat

I'm not telling you what is in fridge because when I told you about British pulses you were sick. I don't want to make it worse for you but I will just say it is as local as I can make it, I have an allotment, I am on the plastic reduction path, it is as organic as I can make it and I cook from scratch, and there are a good few pickles and preserves in the cupboard. In fact next up to make is squash, apple, and onion - all homegrown/traded (apples for leeks). Spices are tricky to source I grant you, but herbs aren't. We are only arguing over meat I think and some battles I am not prepared to fight. Real food meat eaters and cheapest chicken eaters are miles apart in terms of environmental damage and animal welfare so I am saving my energy for those who think that factory farms are the right thing to do.

Will you still talk to us when you are off grid? It would be interesting to know how you get on.


----------



## hutch6

And I will shout about intensive farming with you side by side.

If I can get some leccy up and running I will.
We saw a beautiful converted water mill when looking and dreaming and we almost jumped ship early and said “Sod it!!” 
It had two running water turbines - one powered the house and the other went back into the grid to provide a small income. Along with the river it had an acre pond, about 40yds of canal, woodland, pasture, a gite and there was a swimming lake not far from the house.
If I do get back on the Internet I’ll drop in or even better you can come stay and eat the organic fruit and veg we’ll be growing. That’s one of the purposes of us doing it.


----------



## Calvine

noushka05 said:


> and avoid damaging the planet.


So he'll stop driving those cars then? This reminds me of Leonardo DiCaprio who is so concerned about the planet but then jumps into his private jet. Don't do as I do . . .


----------



## Jonescat

Make sure it is somewhere with a lot of walking/birds and I'll be there like a shot


----------



## 1290423

Calvine said:


> So he'll stop driving those cars then? This reminds me of Leonardo DiCaprio who is so concerned about the planet but then jumps into his private jet. Don't do as I do . . .


Duh! If a murderer is a vegetarian he's not such a bad murderer as a murderer who's not a vegetarian silly.

Hey @hutch06 not seen you posting in a long time.


----------



## hutch6

Calvine said:


> So he'll stop driving those cars then? This reminds me of Leonardo DiCaprio who is so concerned about the planet but then jumps into his private jet. Don't do as I do . . .


I thought he went one better and flew everyone else in by private jet as softener to get them to attend?

Just going to put an ice cube on the bonnet of my 3ltr diesel car to help stop global warming, back in a tick.


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> How on earth does Chernobyl prove we're not destroying our planet -& when I say planet, I mean our 'living' planet - the natural world with its ecosystems & biodiversity we all depend upon.
> 
> We're not 'passing through', we're absolutely trashing it. Our actions are responsible for the degradation of our planet & we have a moral duty to care for it, for future generations & for all the wondrous lifeforms we share it with.


Chernobyl, do you fancy living there? Mother Nature isn't so bothered and is rapidly reclaiming it. The dinosaur extinction event was far worse than anything we've chucked at the planet, but hey look around! It's the arrogance of man thinking we are so much more influential to the planet than we actually are.

Of course we are just passing through. 99% of everything that has ever lived on the planet is extinct. If the world was twenty four hours old we'd have been here for fifteen or so seconds. Frankly we don't stand a chance. Of we course we won't destroy the planet, We may well destroy ourselves though and planet earth will merrily continue and thrive without us.


----------



## noushka05

hutch6 said:


> Only if you eat seasonally it is but how many do? I've asked for examples for fridge contents from the vegans on here yet nothing has come forward and I've just posted some that clearly show folk have zero idea of how, where or what goes into the production of their food.
> 
> It's only ethical in your head because immediately you don't see an animal has died but quite clearly there have been regional mass extinctions to make that food.


Between me & my 3 friends we have 3 allotments so I eat lots of seasonal produce - I still have to buy stuff though. No one is saying vegans are perfect (& I'm not totally vegan either, I've never claimed to be & I have to feed meat eaters, but I can accept facts that a meat/dairy free diet is the most ethical (generally speaking) ) And of course not all fruit, vegetables, crops grown for human consumption, come from sustainable, ethical sources. And these things aren't eaten exclusively by vegans either, are they.

I haven't judged what you or anyone else on here eats, I'm just stating facts. The point is we know without a shadow of a doubt that the livestock industry has a far greater _overall_ impact on the environment than any other in the farming sector. After the fossil fuel industry it is _the_ greatest threat to our planet in terms of land degradation. Its the 2nd largest contributor to climate change & climate change is perhaps _the _greatest threat to all life on earth. And then there's the threat to humanity of antibiotic resistance - https://www.ciwf.org.uk/news/2016/1...ibiotics&utm_source=ciwftw&utm_medium=twitter

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-81-322-2265-1_10

*Livestock is responsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide - a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years*
*Methane is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2 on a 20 year time frame.*

*Methane has a global warming potential 86 times that of CO2 on a 20 year time frame*

These are in my fridge - the cabbage, sprouts & swede were picked off my allotment yesterday.



















These are some of the staples in my cupboards (they're not in the cupboards now obviously - Its given me a push to clean them lol)


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> Chernobyl, do you fancy living there? Mother Nature isn't so bothered and is rapidly reclaiming it. The dinosaur extinction event was far worse than anything we've chucked at the planet, but hey look around! It's the arrogance of man thinking we are so much more influential to the planet than we actually are.
> 
> Of course we are just passing through. 99% of everything that has ever lived on the planet is extinct. If the world was twenty four hours old we'd have been here for fifteen or so seconds. Frankly we don't stand a chance. Of we course we won't destroy the planet, We may well destroy ourselves though and planet earth will merrily continue and thrive without us.


So man wasn't responsible for Chernobyl then? And human activity isn't driving global warming? Hmm ok:Hilarious


----------



## noushka05

Calvine said:


> So he'll stop driving those cars then? This reminds me of Leonardo DiCaprio who is so concerned about the planet but then jumps into his private jet. Don't do as I do . . .


I believe hes trying to offset his carbon footprint, but yes he is hypocritical but the message he is getting out is the most important message of all. Climate change is the greatest threat facing the human race. We must take bold action RIGHT NOW if we are to stand any hope of mitigating the worst effects of climate breakdown.


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> So man wasn't responsible for Chernobyl then? And human activity isn't driving global warming? Hmm ok:Hilarious


Grief, you've missed the whole point


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> Grief, you've missed the whole point


Its our moral duty to everything we possibly can to stop this happening.


----------



## hutch6

Jonescat said:


> Make sure it is somewhere with a lot of walking/birds and I'll be there like a shot


Oh it will have if I have anything to do with it.

I'm in charge of the land (I get the impression she kind of likes me but likes me even more when I'm not there) so I did two years of an ecology degree, I sit down with the people I work with (they are not intensive farmer by any stretch of the imagination) and I take notes about land management etc so i can merge the ecology side with the home growing side to make it all work alongside each other. So I will be encouraging wildlife onto the land because believe it or not, I love wildlife and always have done. I have always had the notion we can benefit from it and it from us as well. It's a kind of experiment and you never know, I could find something that could be scaled up to much bigger land. No harm in trying.

As for walking, where we are looking at there is barely any traffic, there is a market on in local village every day except Sunday and we are looking to be only an hour away from the Pyrenees which are simply stunning!!! You will be able to bask in vitamin D for 6 months of the year but when it rains, it really rains so I am already aware my first step is to make sure every drop that doesn't fall on the ground is harvested.


----------



## Magyarmum

noushka05 said:


> Between me & my 3 friends we have 3 allotments so I eat lots of seasonal produce - I still have to buy stuff though. No one is saying vegans are perfect (& I'm not totally vegan either, I've never claimed to be & I have to feed meat eaters, but I can accept facts that a meat/dairy free diet is the most ethical (generally speaking) ) And of course not all fruit, vegetables, crops grown for human consumption, come from sustainable, ethical sources. And these things aren't eaten exclusively by vegans either, are they.
> 
> I haven't judged what you or anyone else on here eats, I'm just stating facts. The point is we know without a shadow of a doubt that the livestock industry has a far greater _overall_ impact on the environment than any other in the farming sector. After the fossil fuel industry it is _the_ greatest threat to our planet in terms of land degradation. Its the 2nd largest contributor to climate change & climate change is perhaps _the _greatest threat to all life on earth. And then there's the threat to humanity of antibiotic resistance - https://www.ciwf.org.uk/news/2016/1...ibiotics&utm_source=ciwftw&utm_medium=twitter
> 
> https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-81-322-2265-1_10
> 
> *Livestock is responsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide - a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years*
> *Methane is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2 on a 20 year time frame.*
> 
> *Methane has a global warming potential 86 times that of CO2 on a 20 year time frame*
> 
> These are in my fridge - the cabbage, sprouts & swede were picked off my allotment yesterday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are some of the staples in my cupboards (they're not in the cupboards now obviously - Its given me a push to clean them lol)


The potatoes and carrots are from my own garden the rest were grown by my next door neighbour. In addition this year I grew tomatoes, peas, french beans, cucumbers, onions and courgettes all of which a safely in my freezer to eat during the winter. Unfortunately earlier in the year we had a hailstorm followed by torrential rain which washed away my spinach and parsnips, and also destroyed the blossom on my fruit trees, so this year instead of having apples, plums, cherries and walnuts have only a few apricots!










A few of the nearly 20 kgs of tomatoes I grew!










And I'm now waiting for the butternut to ripen! I have 7 each weighing around the 5 kilo mark and a baby one of about 2 kgs.
Everything is organically grown.


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


>


Exactly, proves my point nicely. Thank you.


----------



## Elles

I’m not doing it for the environment, that’s just a pleasant side effect.


----------



## catz4m8z

That all looks good @Magyarmum! I do try and grow a few things in my garden but you cant really fit alot in when you only have a 10ft x 20ft space and have 4 dogs who want to run around as well! As it is I have 4 raised beds and the dogs get to run around the gaps!LOL


----------



## Calvine

noushka05 said:


> . We must take bold action RIGHT NOW


And those who are telling others what to do should really be leading by example (as you say).


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> Oh no, someone sold a load of pish to make money claiming it'd keep you safe from disease and then they suffered from a disease they said it'd help protect you from!! Scandal!!
> 
> So there are no diabetic vegans? No vegans with any diet related illness at all?
> 
> I'm 6'1, 92kg, about 12% body fat and the NHS BMI calculator puts me as overweight at 26.8. Read into that what you will.
> 
> Your BMI and body fat must be less than mine being a vegan for however long.


Oh gosh we do go round in circles. Who has claimed there are no diabetic vegans or vegans without any diet related illness? Its all about reducing risk. I already posted this graph with an article earlier on but if you are right and glucose causes diabetes surely the vegans should be at the other end of this graph?










Not sure of the relevance of comparing my body stats to yours given I'm a middle aged female doing a sedentary occupation but if it helps my BMI is 23.7 or a "healthy weight". My OH who is 59 is 5 ft 11, weighs 10 st 8 or 68.5 kg, his body fat is 12.1% and his BMI is 20.6. His blood pressure prior to being vegan was 150-160/100 and his average reading is now 106/66 without medication. He gained muscle from weight training much more easily than he has in the past when eating meat. We are not trying to claim being vegan will prevent all illnesses but that it has been proven to reduce the risk of most chronic diseases and reverse many. My Dad died of colon cancer aged 46 so forgive me if I try to do everything possible to reduce my risk of having the same. I used to work on a bowel surgery ward for years, can't say as I nursed any vegans but that is not to say that no vegans get bowel cancer.


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> Seems that it's too much hard work to even attempt to grow your own food.





ouesi said:


> I am progressively growing more and more of my own food, so I hope to improve.





ouesi said:


> Okra grown by my coworker, she has more than she knows what to do with, I gladly take it off her hands.





noushka05 said:


> Between me & my 3 friends we have 3 allotments so I eat lots of seasonal produce





Magyarmum said:


> The potatoes and carrots are from my own garden the rest were grown by my next door neighbour. In addition this year I grew tomatoes, peas, french beans, cucumbers, onions and courgettes all of which a safely in my freezer to eat during the winter. Unfortunately earlier in the year we had a hailstorm followed by torrential rain which washed away my spinach and parsnips, and also destroyed the blossom on my fruit trees, so this year instead of having apples, plums, cherries and walnuts have only a few apricots!


Yes, clearly it's far too much trouble to grow our own food :Hilarious

And you know what? Even if vegans were all eating out of season fruits and veggies from as far away as they could get, that still would not have the environmental impact a factory farmed meat meal has. From the crops grown to feed said meat animals, to the emissions from those meat animals, to their waste, and then subsequent processing and packaging, the environmental cost still overshadows and out of season, out of country avocado.


----------



## hutch6

So quite clearly the issue here is education, hence why people in the public eye like to come forward and raise their own profile and what not to promote the issue. I get that, despite how hypocritical they are in the process which negates the whole point of what they're saying.

If people are not aware of nutrition, where their food comes from, what goes into the food they are currently eating and how to grow their own stuff with very little energy and time investment then wouldn't it make sense to teach this at school rather than say religion, media studies or make it part of citizenship studies?

Just tootling about look at people's houses. Note how many have nicely manicured lawns, non-fruit bearing trees, perfectly symmetrically planted flower beds or have just paved over it because they can;t be bothered having to sort it out. Imagine if they had gardens that could work for them and feed them? I am not saying a small garden could feed a family of four but it could make a dent. Imagine meat eaters having a couple of chucks foraging about the place, that's about an egg and half a day over the year. 

I have said this before on here when I was last on but we are an animal of convenience, we want something to always do the work for us. We have been conditioned over the years to measure our quality of life on what we have in material stuff - keeping up with the Jones' - but really the more you distance yourself from that the happier you actually are. 
When it comes to the supermarket shop do you go on a weekend or a weekday? If you go on a weekday is it because it's too busy on weekend and stressful? If you go on a weekend do you find it stressful? Do you look forward to it? Now imagine if you didn't have to go as often or for as long? Imagine going down the raised flower beds or flower tubs or into the bedroom to check on the food you're growing with your children that they might have planted and seeing the first shoots, the first leaf and the first fruit. Then they help you pick it and are interested in how it's used so they help you cook it and prepare it. They are aware of how much time and effort went into growing that one courgette so they don't want to waste any of it, maybe they want the other to be a marrow so you get more. Either way it wasn't readily available that day and won't be there again tomorrow if you cook it today. 
What if there was a food awareness week and they had butchers go into school and cut up animals right there in front of them and explained where the cuts came from, how the animals were raised and slaughtered?

It is all to clear in this thread and when you look at the public's habits that we are too far removed from our food. People take their kids to fast food outlets for Sunday lunch, it is a sad state of affairs.


----------



## Calvine

hutch6 said:


> paved over it because they can;t be bothered having to sort it out.


@hutch6: People also pave over their front gardens as they need somewhere to park their cars (they do in this part of the world anyway).


----------



## catz4m8z

ouesi said:


> Even if vegans were all eating out of season fruits and veggies from as far away as they could get, that still would not have the environmental impact a factory farmed meat meal has.


Thats true. We arent losing great swaths of rainforest so it can be planted with tomatoes for my salad! Its all soya and grain crops to feed cattle and pigs, etc.


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Oh gosh we do go round in circles. Who has claimed there are no diabetic vegans or vegans without any diet related illness? Its all about reducing risk. I already posted this graph with an article earlier on but if you are right and glucose causes diabetes surely the vegans should be at the other end of this graph?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure of the relevance of comparing my body stats to yours given I'm a middle aged female doing a sedentary occupation but if it helps my BMI is 23.7 or a "healthy weight". My OH who is 59 is 5 ft 11, weighs 10 st 8 or 68.5 kg, his body fat is 12.1% and his BMI is 20.6. His blood pressure prior to being vegan was 150-160/100 and his average reading is now 106/66 without medication. He gained muscle from weight training much more easily than he has in the past when eating meat. We are not trying to claim being vegan will prevent all illnesses but that it has been proven to reduce the risk of most chronic diseases and reverse many. My Dad died of colon cancer aged 46 so forgive me if I try to do everything possible to reduce my risk of having the same. I used to work on a bowel surgery ward for years, can't say as I nursed any vegans but that is not to say that no vegans get bowel cancer.


Oh, here we go with the pseudo science articles again.

From the link you posted


Sugar Is the Body's Fuel

*The human body runs on glucose*, a simple sugar. Just as gasoline powers your car, glucose powers your muscles, your brain, and the rest of your body. Glucose comes from fruit and from starchy foods, such as grains, beans, and potatoes, and your body can also produce it when needed. *Without it you would die*.

Erm, what? When do you die? After the body has been starved of glucose for a week, a month, a year, two years? We all die eventually.

In Japan, China, and other Asian countries, the transition from traditional carbohydrate-rich (e.g., rice-based) diets to lower-carbohydrate Westernized eating habits emphasizing meats, dairy products, and fried foods has been accompanied by a major increase in diabetes prevalence.

So what are the macros of a western diet I asked myself when reading this.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/diet.htm
*Dietary intake for adults aged 20 and over*
Mean carbohydrate intake for men (% of kilocalories): 47.4%
Mean carbohydrate intake for women (% of kilocalories): 49.6%
Mean protein intake for men (% of kilocalories): 16.1%
Mean protein intake for women (% of kilocalories): 15.6%
Mean total fat intake for men (% of kilocalories): 33.6%
Mean total fat intake for women (% of kilocalories): 33.7%

If your diet is almost 50% carbohydrate that is going to release insulin into your body's bloodstream right, that';s just what happens as carbs are glucose - bread, starch, fruit and high carb veg. So if insulin is in your bloodstream it is an inhibitor to you being able to access your fat stores, that is true also. Now when all of this insulin is in your system trying to stores the glucose in cells that get full very quickly as glucose is ONLY used for energy within the cells, what is your body doing with all of the fat you are putting in? It can't convert it into ATP as the cells are already full of glucose with still excess going round so your liver takes one for the team and turns it into fat along with any residual glucose as it's already done several circuits with no cells claiming it due tot hem being full and the pancreas is still trying to get shut of it as it's still in the bloodstream. This has now caused you to store fat around your internal organs. You don't look any different in the mirror but you weigh more. IF you get shut of the glucose in your system and burn off all of the sugars stored in your liver you eventually hit-the-wall, like marathon runners and they then top up with sugary drinks/gels to get their glucose up. If you don't top it up you go into ketosis and then your body can take the fat from around your internal organs and convert it into ketones that every cells uses not only for energy but for the health and well being of the cell itself. Your body will use the fat around your organs first and that is the most readily available so it doesn't have to work hard to obtain it so you lose weight but you don't look much different in the mirror. Eventually your organs will be clear of fat and you will then start converting body fat. You only have to breath in order to burn body fat in ketosis.
In summary, I eat about twice as much fat as the western diet yet I eat only 5% of the carbs. It's not about how many calories it's about where those calrories come from in macros and how your body deals with it. How much fat would you put on if you just ate fruit, cereals, fizzy drinks and vegan confectionery stuffed full of sugar? Now think about how much cereal and sugar is actually in "the Western Diet"
Pretty clear glucose is bad for you in form in your body has to work over time to get shut of it and if you continue to consume it in vast quantities eventually your body will not be able to deal with it and you will shut down and die. 
Why are all of the diabetes societies and researches banging on abut the keto diet eliminating the need for diabetics to have to use insulin supplementation?
The website you link to has a doctor talking about sugar, this quickly makes anyone think of table sugar but really what sugar is is glucose, fructose, lactose and sucrose. When you eat a banana you think you're eating a good thing but your body treats it just like you've eaten a spoonful of sugar. I'm aware you get vitamins from them but you overwhelmingly just get sugar in fructose form. Why not just eat potassium rich foods that don;t contain the same levels of fructose?
The Western Diet gets people addicted to sugars, carbs without them knowing (think sugar crash after peaks of glucose in your bloodstream deplete hence why office workers have the afternoon slump) and then combine it with fat that your body needs and fundamentally functions on but it can't access it.

In clinical trials, when people change from an omnivorous diet to a low-fat vegan diet, diabetes typically improves significantly.6

Yes because you are running off of glucose with the extra fat coming in and not being able to be burned so it is strored. Drop the fat and you just run off of glucose without any extra fat being stored.

*7.6% prevalence of diabetes*
High carb and high fat. - 6spons of carb (sugar) and 2 spoons of fat. 
4 spoons of sugar get used as energy. 2 spoons of sugar and the 2 spoons of fat get stored as they can't be used.
You feel hungry again so you eat the same again. Every meal you are storing 4 spoons of energy which converted to fat.

*2.9% prevalence of diabetes*
Low fat high carb - 8 spoons of carb (sugars) and 1 spoon of fat. 
7 spoons get used for fuel instantly or over the next few hours before you get hungry again so 2 spoons of sugar are stored. This is less notable but you are still storing sugar as fat that your body cannot convert until it fights it's way through the readily available high octane glucose.

*No extra insulin required*
Low carb high fat - 1/2 spoon of carbs and 10 spoons of fat. 1/2 a spoon of carbs gets burned instantly in the liver. The 10 spoons of fat are converted to ATP which every single cell and part of those cells utilises. 
I don't get hungry for ages so start eating into the reserve fat i have stored if I've had a lazy day or it just didn't get used.

Sugar Is Falling, Diabetes Is Rising

It has become fashionable in recent years to blame sugar for many health problems. However, per capita sugar consumption has actually been falling in the United States since 1999, when bottled water and sugar-free beverages began to edge sodas off the shelf. At the same time, consumption of cheese and oily foods has steadily increased, as has diabetes prevalence. This suggests that something other than sugar is driving the diabetes epidemic.

How ridiculous!! Just because the diet sodas have replaced glucose with sucrose doesn't mean you body treats it any different. Look at the rise in the consumption f cereal crops post world war II and then come back to me about cheese. They are not telling you the truth at all and trying to make you think white crystal sugar instead of all of the -tose stuff.

He even writes it here "Those consuming the most sucrose had 11 percent less risk of developing type 2 diabetes, compared with those consuming the least."

Other studies have focused, not on sugar overall but specifically on sodas and other sugar-sweetened beverages. Many have found no significant relationship, apart from sugar's extra calories that lead to weight gain. For example, the Women's Health Study,8 the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study,9 the Black Women's Health Study,10 and the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis found no significant associations between sugar consumption and diabetes risk after adjustment for measures of body weight. Some studies have had mixed results, exonerating sucrose, but indicting glucose and fructose.12,13 And some studies have shown associations between sugar-sweetened beverages and diabetes that persist after adjustment for body weight.14,15

Now he gets all confused by he own report reading. There are no significant relationships apart from sugar is extra calories and makes you gain weight. When they monitored a group of women they adjusted their individual intake for their individual weight, not against what they propose would be a healthy model or a model base don low risk factors oh no. They took sucrose out of the blame but still blamed it on glucose and fructose as though sucrose isn't treated exactly the same way as the other two by your body i.e it's not converted to glucose at any point.
The some studies have show that sugar-sweetened beverages and diabetes even after the tests are adjusted for the individual's body weight. Maybe that;s why the took sucrose out their findings so it made it fit what they wanted it to.

Still, Sugar Is Not a Health Food

So our bodies actually run on sugar-that is, glucose. Moreover, sugar has only 4 calories per gram (much less than fats and oils, which have 9 calories per gram), and sugar's calories can be used for metabolic needs or stored as glycogen. So does that mean that added sugars are innocuous?

Any divvy can workout from that that you need to consume more sugar than you do fat in order to get the energy your body needs. That there should tell you that glucose and it's other -tose friends cause diabetes.

For every serving of fat I eat you have to eat two and a quarter sugar ones hence why they prescribe a keto diet to eliminate the need for insulin.

Surely I don;t need to go on anymore?


----------



## hutch6

Calvine said:


> @hutch6: People also pave over their front gardens as they need somewhere to park their cars (they do in this part of the world anyway).


Yes, they do indeed.

They also extend their houses so they can add value or store more crap in it too, but that's taking my down that dark rabbit hole again.


----------



## Elles

So, taking into account that humans are animals of convenience who would rather have a job and a flower garden and pay farmers to take care of business, suggest they adjust what they can do and still live the life they’d like. Cutting down on meat and dairy, becoming vegetarian, or vegan, will barely impact on their daily lives, but have enormous impact on the environment and the suffering of billions. It will improve their health, save them money and have an impact on the nhs, by reducing the incidence of diet related disease. What’s not to like? It doesn’t make anyone a hypocrite. Even if if it did, so what?


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> Oh, here we go with the pseudo science articles again.


It's not pseudoscience Hutch. It's basic biology. Every cell in our bodies is designed to use glucose. Every one. Our brains run on glucose. Not fat, not protein, glucose.

Carbs (we're not talking simple carbs, but whole food complex carbohydrates like starch) are not the enemy of health. If that were true all those Asian populations that live primarily off of rice (white rice even) would be plagued with diabetes but they're not. 
If carbs were the enemy, people like me who grew up eating beans & rice - all carbs, should be fat, sick, and dead. But we're not. Kids who grow up eating like this should be overweight and getting type 2 diabetes, but they're not.


----------



## hutch6

Maybe if we die when we run out of glucose explains why orangutans are dying out, nothing to do with the palm oil plantations.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-o...ht-on-obesity-in-people-idUSTRE7BD03A20111214

Cliffes:

Orangutans are apparently the only primate to store fat.
They gorge themselves on fruit in time of abundance.
When there isn't enough food they rely on their fat reserves (ketosis).

There was an orangutan that was fed junk food by the park visitors and had to be put on a diet. Does this prove that the glucose/fructose from their allocated diet from the park plus fat from the visitors equal obesity thus proving the fallacy around the western diet that eating high carbs and high fat makes you erm, fat? They get fat by eating loads of fruit and they get fat from eating fruit and fat. Make up your own mind son that one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/10161529/Fat-Malaysian-orang-utan-put-on-diet.html


----------



## Guest

@hutch6 why won't you address the fact that populations that eat primarily carbohydrates are not getting type 2 diabetes?

Or let me ask you this. What does the human body do with excess carbohydrate? Excess fat? Excess protein?


----------



## catz4m8z

hutch6 said:


> Maybe if we die when we run out of glucose explains why orangutans are dying out, nothing to do with the palm oil plantations.


Maybe you're an orangutan, but Im not!

Also re- sustainable living. This has gotten me thinking. I have a plum tree in my garden that I have nutured for 4 years...its given me exactly 1 plum in all that time.:Shifty


----------



## Guest

catz4m8z said:


> Maybe you're an orangutan, but Im not!


Nope, you have 6 copies of the gene for amylase production, the orangutan has 2. You can digest starches and get usable *gasp* glucose from those starches. The poor orangutan has to eat fruit to get the glucose their bodies need.


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> It's not pseudoscience Hutch. It's basic biology. Every cell in our bodies is designed to use glucose. Every one. Our brains run on glucose. Not fat, not protein, glucose.
> 
> Carbs (we're not talking simple carbs, but whole food complex carbohydrates like starch) are not the enemy of health. If that were true all those Asian populations that live primarily off of rice (white rice even) would be plagued with diabetes but they're not.
> If carbs were the enemy, people like me who grew up eating beans & rice - all carbs, should be fat, sick, and dead. But we're not. Kids who grow up eating like this should be overweight and getting type 2 diabetes, but they're not.


Find anywhere that says our brains can't run on ketones? Why does a lack of glucose prevent neurological issues that are present when glucose is present?

If you want a fire to keep going to do you keep pouring petrol on it or do you put a log on it? glucose is the fastest energy source, yes, but it is by no means the only energy source we use.

Rice has next to zero nutritional value though. It' s just easy to mass produce and modify through genetics so it fits the bill for sustaining a huge population the same as other cereal crops.

https://www.fantaproject.org/sites/...Southeast-Asia-Nutrition-Overview-Apr2014.pdf

This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the support of the Office of Health, Infectious Diseases, and Nutrition, Bureau for Global Health, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and USAID Bureau for Asia under terms of Cooperative Agreement No. AID‐OAA‐A‐12‐00005, through the Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance III Project (FANTA), managed by FHI 360.

Contents
1 Introduction
2 Background 
Causes of Malnutrition of Particular Concern in Asia 
Preventing and Treating Malnutrition Effectively 
U S Government Efforts to Reduce Malnutrition and USAID's Investments in Nutrition in Asia 
3 Nutritional Status in Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, the Philippines, Timor Leste, and
Vietnam 
Low Birth Weight, Under-5 Mortality, Stunting, Underweight, and Wasting Among Children 
Maternal Underweight, Short Stature, and Overweight/Obesity 
Anemia 
Micronutrient Deficiencies: Vitamin A and Iodine 
4 Potential Underlying and Proximate Contributors to Nutritional Status in Southeast Asia 
Immediate 
Underlying 
Basic Causes 
5 Overall Nutrition Priorities for Seven Countries in Southeast Asia
Priority 1: Wasting and Stunting Among Children
Priority 2: Nutrition of Women of Reproductive Age and Low Birth Weight
Priority 3: Anemia and Micronutrient Deficiencies 
Priority 4: Nutrition Governance 
6 Recommendations for Southeast Asia


----------



## catz4m8z

hutch6 said:


> In summary, I eat about twice as much fat as the western diet yet I eat only 5% of the carbs.


Given that grains, beans/lentils, fruit and veggies are all carbohydrates what on earth do you eat then??:Wideyed Must be just meat and fat surely? That cant be good for you...



ouesi said:


> Nope, you have 6 copies of the gene for amylase production, the orangutan has 2. You can digest starches and get usable *gasp* glucose from those starches. The poor orangutan has to eat fruit to get the glucose their bodies need.


But we arent talking a bout orangutans, we are talking about people so quoting monkey research seems very random and unproductive.


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> Nope, you have 6 copies of the gene for amylase production, the orangutan has 2. You can digest starches and get usable *gasp* glucose from those starches. The poor orangutan has to eat fruit to get the glucose their bodies need.


*When fructose is joined to glucose, it makes sucrose*. Sucrose is abundant in sugar cane, sugar beets, corn, and other plants. When extracted and refined, sucrose makes table sugar. In the 1800s and early 1900s, the average American took in about *15 grams of fructose* (about half an ounce), mostly from eating fruits and vegetables. *Today we average 55 grams per day (73 grams for adolescents)*. The increase in fructose intake is worrisome, says Lustig, because it suspiciously parallels increases in obesity, diabetes, and a new condition called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease that now affects up to one-third of Americans. (You can read more about nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in a _Harvard Health Letter article_.)

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is-fructose-bad-for-you-201104262425

So when you eat a banana sandwich you are making cane sugar essentially.


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> Given that grains, beans/lentils, fruit and veggies are all carbohydrates what on earth do you eat then??:Wideyed Must be just meat and fat surely? That cant be good for you...
> 
> But we arent talking a bout orangutans, we are talking about people so quoting monkey research seems very random and unproductive.


No, I get my carbs and some protein from veg.

Here's an example of a keto meal for those too scared to having in their search engines, I'll even make it a pizza so you can see you don;t have to miss out on takeaways:

Keto Garlic Mascarpone Broccoli Alfredo Fried Pizza {Grain-Free}

Ingredients

1 tbsp garlic olive oil
1 cup shredded pizza cheese blend
1 cup shredded mozzarella cheese
1/4 cup mascarpone cheese
2 tbsp ghee
1 tbsp heavy cream
1 tsp minced garlic
1/8 tsp lemon pepper seasoning
2 pinches of salt
1/3 cup steamed, chopped broccoli heads
Shaved asiago cheese to taste
Not a single grain was seen that day.

Want a vegan keto meal? Here are some ideas by The Church of Latter Day Vegans:

https://www.peta.org/living/food/vegan-keto-tips-recipes/

*'Bacon' and 'Cream Cheese' Stuffed Mushrooms
Crispy Avocado Fries
Mediterranean Mung Bean and Olive "Meatballs"
Shirataki Noodles with Almond Butter Sauce




*


----------



## Elles

So are you saying that a wholefood, plant based diet is a bad diet that causes diabetes and other ailments and makes people fat and that your diet is better? Or are you just promoting your diet as better than a western junk food diet?

I’m not really sure what the argument is, other than you don’t like vegan diets and think they destroy people’s health and the environment, because current farming methods involve plastic greenhouses in Spain and other desert areas. Even though all the evidence is there to the contrary and the one thing morbidly obese diabetics can’t be accused of is eating too much fruit and veg.

We can look at plastic greenhouses once we’ve changed direction, which we will have to. If we don’t do it on our own, there will eventually be government directives, if the UN are already talking about it. It won’t be easy and it won’t happen in my lifetime, if ever, but to me it’s crazy not to.

All these people screaming for more money for the NHS and chanting Jeremy Corbyn, whilst eating a couple of burgers, having stocked up on a cooked breakfast at the services on the way to their rally. They’re who need reaching out to, not vegans.


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> Maybe you're an orangutan, but Im not!
> 
> Also re- sustainable living. This has gotten me thinking. I have a plum tree in my garden that I have nutured for 4 years...its given me exactly 1 plum in all that time.:Shifty


Don't nuture it then. I nutured my rabbit when I was young and we didn't get my more baby rabbits from it 

Does it flower well?


----------



## Elles

Where are you getting the ingredients for these Keto recipes?


----------



## catz4m8z

hutch6 said:


> Keto Garlic Mascarpone Broccoli Alfredo Fried Pizza {Grain-Free}


Holy crap! That sounds appalling, and a recipe for heart disease!

Still if it makes you happy @hutch6 then you go for it. Nothing wrong with being a lone voice in the wilderness (I feel like you need your own theme song:Singing....and maybe a cowboy hat:Hilarious).


----------



## hutch6

Elles said:


> So are you saying that a wholefood, plant based diet is a bad diet that causes diabetes and other ailments and makes people fat and that your diet is better? Or are you just promoting your diet as better than a western junk food diet?
> 
> I'm not really sure what the argument is, other than you don't like vegan diets and think they destroy people's health and the environment, because current farming methods involve plastic greenhouses in Spain and other desert areas. Even though all the evidence is there to the contrary and the one thing morbidly obese diabetics can't be accused of is eating too much fruit and veg.
> 
> We can look at plastic greenhouses once we've changed direction, which we will have to. If we don't do it on our own, there will eventually be government directives, if the UN are already talking about it. It won't be easy and it won't happen in my lifetime, if ever, but to me it's crazy not to.
> 
> All these people screaming for more money for the NHS and chanting Jeremy Corbyn, whilst eating a couple of burgers, having stocked up on a cooked breakfast at the services on the way to their rally. They're who need reaching out to, not vegans.


Cut out cereals and the rest the diet is fine. Just be careful when it comes to things that end in the word "bean" as they are heavy and ramped up in carbs so need to be used in measured amounts.

100g of broad beans

Calories 88
% Daily Value*
Total Fat 0.7 g 1%
Saturated fat 0.1 g 0%
Polyunsaturated fat 0.3 g
Monounsaturated fat 0.1 g
Cholesterol 0 mg 0%
Sodium 25 mg 1%
Potassium 332 mg 9%
Total Carbohydrate 18 g 6%
Dietary fiber 8 g 32%
Sugar 9 g
Protein 8 g 16%

So if you are on a keto diet you want the vast number of calories from fat.
100g of broad beans isn't going to be much because they weigh a lot individually. If you've got some weigh them out and see how many you get for 100g, it'll be less than twenty at a guess.

so for twenty beans you get 18g of carbs but you also get 8g of fibre. If we take off the fibre from the carbs as the body can;t digest that we get 10g of total carbs. The sugar at 9g you see is already added in the total carbs part (if it just says carbs and not total carbs then add the sugar on top). So we have 10g of carbs for every 100g of broad beans. We can only ingest say 20g of carbs throughout the day so we can have two servings of broad beans all day - about forty beans. But don't forget all of the other stuff you are eating will have carbs and fibre too so that comes off of your total for the day as well so really you can have maybe four broad beans.
Now we need to look at fat as that is the main macro for keto and broad beans have only 0.7g per 100g so they are rubbish if you're on keto. Great if you're on glucose though. A disaster if you;re on glucose and cereal.


----------



## Elles

catz4m8z said:


> Holy crap! That sounds appalling, and a recipe for heart disease!
> 
> Still if it makes you happy @hutch6 then you go for it. Nothing wrong with being a lone voice in the wilderness (I feel like you need your own theme song:Singing....and maybe a cowboy hat:Hilarious).


Lol. You could make a cauliflower cheese with a block of cheese and cream, not bother with the cauliflower and have the same result probably.  Sorry, but I'm with with @catz4m8z that looks appalling. Aren't you constipated from that kind of diet?


----------



## hutch6

Elles said:


> Where are you getting the ingredients for these Keto recipes?


Which ones? there are loads of sites with them on.

If you want veggie and vegan then try these:

http://meatfreeketo.com/

https://www.healthfulpursuit.com/roundup/keto-vegan-vegetarian-recipes/

http://ketomotive.com/vegan-ketogenic-diet/

or if you just want veggie:

https://ketodietapp.com/Blog/post/2015/07/05/2-week-vegetarian-keto-diet-plan

Once you get your head around what is approximately in the veg and stuff you can grow then you don;t really the recipes. After measuring it out for a few weeks you get to know the rough eight of stuff or how much to put in so you just sling it all in and off you toddle


----------



## hutch6

Elles said:


> Lol. You could make a cauliflower cheese with a block of cheese and cream, not bother with the cauliflower and have the same result probably.  Sorry, but I'm with with @catz4m8z that looks appalling. Aren't you constipated from that kind of diet?


Ha ha ha!! no not at all. I work perfectly fine but as mentioned in the other post where I admitted to frequenting a health food shop for nuts (great source of fat) and my girlfriend gets flax seed to help he rout as for every 100g it has 29g of total carbs but 27g of fibre so you get 27g fibre for 2g carb. Also drinking plenty of water (which we all fail to do anyway) helps keep thing flowing.


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> Holy crap! That sounds appalling, and a recipe for heart disease!
> 
> Still if it makes you happy @hutch6 then you go for it. Nothing wrong with being a lone voice in the wilderness (I feel like you need your own theme song:Singing....and maybe a cowboy hat:Hilarious).


Sorry, do these sound better then?

*Zucchini Ribbons & Avocado Walnut Pesto*
*Spicy Cauliflower Rice & Salmon Medley*
*Hatch Chile Casserole*
*Skillet Browned Chicken with Creamy Greens*

They are much smaller portions than normal meals as they are calorie rich.


----------



## Elles

What vegan eats broad beans twice a day? Tbh I don’t think I’ve eaten broad beans since I was about 10, they’re horrible. Have you looked at the wholefood plant based diet thread? Or looked at any of the websites that promote it and offer suggestions and recipes? 

The recipes you linked with avocados and the like in the post I was replying to. The ingredients in Keto vegan recipes aren’t likely to be seasonal British grown. 

If you want to live on cheese and fat, feel free. I presume the farms you get it from naturally wean the calves and have lower milk yields from their organic cows. If everyone did it, we’d back to factory farming to meet demand of course. 

I eat nuts too. I like nuts. Flax seed is good too. My horse gets micronised linseed (flax) which is good for her. The only grain I’d feed her is oats and then I’d rather grow and feed her the plant, than just the oat. I did it for a lovely tb I had living with me, he was IR/ems and needed his energy from something other than grass grown for dairy. Grass grown for high yield dairy cows isn’t very good, but most farmers seem to think it suits horses as well as their cows, which it doesn’t. It’s good for nothing really.


----------



## noushka05

Magyarmum said:


> The potatoes and carrots are from my own garden the rest were grown by my next door neighbour. In addition this year I grew tomatoes, peas, french beans, cucumbers, onions and courgettes all of which a safely in my freezer to eat during the winter. Unfortunately earlier in the year we had a hailstorm followed by torrential rain which washed away my spinach and parsnips, and also destroyed the blossom on my fruit trees, so this year instead of having apples, plums, cherries and walnuts have only a few apricots!
> 
> View attachment 329546
> 
> 
> A few of the nearly 20 kgs of tomatoes I grew!
> 
> View attachment 329549
> 
> 
> And I'm now waiting for the butternut to ripen! I have 7 each weighing around the 5 kilo mark and a baby one of about 2 kgs.
> Everything is organically grown.
> 
> View attachment 329550


Wow, how fabulous do they look!  Are they different varieties of squashes in the top picture? We've got butternut squashes but they're not as impressive as yours - they're really small, they still taste lovely lol. Our parsnips didn't do very well either, we have a few but most of them failed. We think our beetroot seeds blew away too lol So we chanced planting a row really late & we have some lovely baby beets now  We've got loads of leeks, black & curly kale, winter cabbages, caulis, sprouts a few sweet corn left, swede, the parsnips & beetroot & tomatoes. Thats all we've got to harvest at the moment. We've planted some spring cabbage for next year.

I picked these for one of my friends.












Dr Pepper said:


> Exactly, proves my point nicely. Thank you.


You're welcome. Glad we agree that humans are destroying our living planet.



Calvine said:


> And those who are telling others what to do should really be leading by example (as you say).


I don't need Leonardo to set an example for me. I WANT to do my best to reduce my impact on our planets finite resources. I want to leave behind a habitable planet for future generations. I care passionately about the natural world so I'm going to try to do the best I can as an individual.


----------



## Jonescat

catz4m8z said:


> I have a plum tree in my garden that I have nutured for 4 years...its given me exactly 1 plum in all that time.:Shifty


Do you know what variety it is? Some of them have to have a friend to pollinate them, but also how big is it? It might still be too young.


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> It's not pseudoscience Hutch. It's basic biology. Every cell in our bodies is designed to use glucose. Every one. Our brains run on glucose. Not fat, not protein, glucose.
> 
> Carbs (we're not talking simple carbs, but whole food complex carbohydrates like starch) are not the enemy of health. If that were true all those Asian populations that live primarily off of rice (white rice even) would be plagued with diabetes but they're not.
> If carbs were the enemy, people like me who grew up eating beans & rice - all carbs, should be fat, sick, and dead. But we're not. Kids who grow up eating like this should be overweight and getting type 2 diabetes, but they're not.


Reading though that report I linked to about folk in Asia.

At the opposite end of the nutrition spectrum, the prevalence of women who are overweight is highest in Indonesia and the Philippines, affecting almost a third of women in Indonesia and more than a quarter of women in the Philippines, where there are nearly twice as many women who are overweight than underweight.

"Food security is of greatest concern in Timor Leste where, according to the Global Hunger Index, there are alarming levels of hunger and 20% of households are food insecure." in countries rich in starchy food there is a shortage of nourishment. Strange if we are meant to thrive on starchy foods.

"Poverty. Timor Leste reports the greatest percentage of the population living below the national poverty line at around 50%. Although not comparable (the indicator differs between countries), both Indonesia and Vietnam report much lower percentages of their populations living below the national poverty line at 11% and 17% respectively. Laos has the highest percentage of its population living below US$1.25 per day at 34% compared to Indonesia and Vietnam which report 16% and 17% respectively"

"Vietnam is one of the top rice exporting countries after Thailand. Yet because rice is both an important export product for Vietnam and the staple food 
of its people, although rising rice prices are desirable in terms of improved income for rice farmers and foreign exchange earnings, they are also a blow to the life of urban residents, and paradoxically rising labour costs of workers bring a penalty in terms of export competitiveness for industrial products. This was evident in the global rice price surge from 2007 to 2008. At that time domestic rice prices also soared in Vietnam, which brought a sharp rise in overall domestic prices. Therefore, the Vietnamese government carried out extra export controls on rice, which resulted in a sharp rise in international prices."

Oh yes, that rice you want everyone to eat only causes poverty and suffering in the countries where it is grown but hey ho, it's an ethical diet.

http://www.maff.go.jp/primaff/e/review/pdf/150728_pr66e_03.pdf


----------



## Jonescat

Elles said:


> What vegan eats broad beans twice a day? Tbh I don't think I've eaten broad beans since I was about 10, they're horrible.


I beg to differ. They are gorgeous, unless you eat old shop bought ones, or the giant ones our parents made you eat because they refused to waste them, had planted too many, not staggered the crop and didn't know how to dry the giants they got as a result.


----------



## Elles

Jonescat said:


> or the giant ones our parents made you eat because they refused to waste them.


Grandparents, but yeah. :Hilarious


----------



## Elles

Talking about people who live on nothing but rice, is as relevant as talking about people who live on nothing but cheese. Billions of animals aren’t kept in in sterile, unnatural conditions, fattened up and slaughtered to provide us with rice. Why are you comparing a bad diet with your diet to make your point? The world could be fed a wholefood, plant based diet without destroying their health, or the planet. They couldn’t be fed an animal based diet without the cruelty of factory farms and mass slaughter and destroying the rainforests to feed the stock, even if it was the healthiest diet for humans and I think it’s been proven more than once on this thread alone that it’s not.


----------



## catz4m8z

Elles said:


> Talking about people who live on nothing but rice, is as relevant as talking about people who live on nothing but cheese.


Although there have been a couple of studies on people who followed a potato only diet for several months and were perfectly healthy!
(I could probably do that...I do love potatoes).


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> Find anywhere that says our brains can't run on ketones?


Find anywhere where I said your brain can't use ketones  
Of course your brain can use ketones. But the ideal fuel for the human brain is glucose. Ketosis is not a "clean" burning fuel. It produces acids and taxes the liver and kidneys. Yes, the human body *can* maintain a state of ketosis and yes you *will* burn fat in this process, but it is not an ideal state for the human body. It's taxing and it takes a toll. Which is why I ask repeatedly about long term studies of humans kept in a state of ketosis. The studies on the children who were put on ketosis showed it was detrimental to their long term health. That's why I brought up Atkins, not to be unkind, but to show that his own diet was not kind to his health in the long run.



hutch6 said:


> If you want a fire to keep going to do you keep pouring petrol on it or do you put a log on it? glucose is the fastest energy source, yes, but it is by no means the only energy source we use.


The "log" in your analogy is the long chains of starches found in the complex carbohydrates of whole plant foods like potato, rice, quinoa, etc. The fiber and water content of the whole food along with the structure of the starch means your body breaks them down slowly giving you slow release stable energy throughout the day. Any excess is stored unobtrusively in the muscles or simply breathed off as carbon dioxide or released as heat.

Again I'll ask, do you know what your body does with excess protein? Excess fat?



hutch6 said:


> 1 tbsp garlic olive oil


Wait, I thought you said olive oil was cancer in a jar?  
That is extremely high in dairy. Dairy farming is every bit as destructive as factory farmed meat, and every bit as cruel (if not more so). 
From an environmental and cruelty point of view it is every bit as important to minimize or eliminate our dairy consumption as it is to minimize or eliminate our meat consumption.



Elles said:


> So are you saying that a wholefood, plant based diet is a bad diet that causes diabetes and other ailments and makes people fat and that your diet is better? Or are you just promoting your diet as better than a western junk food diet?
> 
> I'm not really sure what the argument is,


I'm confused as well TBH. 
Is "keto" (or any of the low carb diets that focus on food that is not processed) better than the standard western diet? Of course! Anything that gets people eating fewer store bought cakes and chips is going to make a difference! 
But I've yet to see anything to convince me that humans are not starchivores, and that the ideal diet for humans is based in plants derived from whole food sources. Both for our health, and for the environment.


----------



## hutch6

Elles said:


> Talking about people who live on nothing but rice, is as relevant as talking about people who live on nothing but cheese. Billions of animals aren't kept in in sterile, unnatural conditions, fattened up and slaughtered to provide us with rice. Why are you comparing a bad diet with your diet to make your point? The world could be fed a wholefood, plant based diet without destroying their health, or the planet. They couldn't be fed an animal based diet without the cruelty of factory farms and mass slaughter and destroying the rainforests to feed the stock, even if it was the healthiest diet for humans and I think it's been proven more than once on this thread alone that it's not.


b-b-b-b-but I'm not the one bringing up these issue, I am merely answering the points put across to me.

Brain cells function better on ketones than on glucose. Hence why it is being investigated as means of preventing Alzheimer's and Parkinson's
The heart prefers acetoacetate (a ketone) in preference to glucose as an energy fuel.
The liver doesn't have to do any extra work converting ketones into brain energy, it just lets them slip through. Rest at ease Cpt Liver.
The blood pH level does not change during ketosis.
The pancreas doesn't have to do any extra work unlike when glucose is in the bloodstream and without insulin the cells can;t get the glucose.
You burn all fatty acids during rest and exercise not just some when doing exercise when glucose is the fuel.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2129159/

In comparison with glucose, the ketone bodies are actually a very good respiratory fuel. Indeed, there is no clear requirement for dietary carbohydrates for human adults. Interestingly, the effects of ketone body metabolism suggest that mild ketosis may offer therapeutic potential in a variety of different common and rare disease states.

*There is no Clear Requirement for Dietary Carbohydrates for Human Adults*
Although some studies suggest that pre-exercise muscle glycogen stores determine capacity for prolonged exercise [12], there is no clear _requirement _for dietary carbohydrates for human adults [13]. Current carbohydrate recommendations are based on _1) _preventing ketosis, and _2) _providing glucose beyond minimal needs. However, it is clear that ketosis is not harmful [14-16], except in the high levels seen in type 1 diabetes. Also, the need to provide glucose above minimal needs is exactly what has _never _been demonstrated [14]. Indeed, the National Research Council has not established Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for carbohydrates, probably because the human body can adapt to a carbohydrate-free diet and manufacture the glucose it needs. Nevertheless, some nutritionists contend that the carbohydrate is an essential nutrient. For example, Mcdonald claimed that healthy, moderately active adults require at least 200 g of carbohydrate daily to sustain normal brain metabolism and muscle function [17]. However, the author did not provide any evidence supporting this recommendation. Low-carbohydrate diets have been avoided because of the high-fat nature of the diets and the "predicted" associated hypercholesterolemia. However, serum lipids generally _improve _with the low-carbohydrate diet, especially the triglyceride and HDL measurements. In sharp contrast, high-carbohydrate diets, which reduce high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and raise triglyceride levels, exacerbate the metabolic manifestations of the insulin resistance syndrome [18]. Finally, all fats raise HDL cholesterol. The relative potency of fatty acid classes in raising HDL cholesterol is saturated > monounsaturated > > polyunsaturated [19]. Thus, it is clear that replacement of total fat (of any fatty acid distribution) with carbohydrates results in significant reductions in HDL cholesterol [19]. Indeed, recent studies of carbohydrate intake and its relationship to the development of CHD and type 2 diabetes have been rather revealing, showing that an _increase _in carbohydrate intake is related to _increases _in both conditions [20].

No, not a healthy diet at all.


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> Find anywhere where I said your brain can't use ketones
> Of course your brain can use ketones. But the ideal fuel for the human brain is glucose. Ketosis is not a "clean" burning fuel. It produces acids and taxes the liver and kidneys. Yes, the human body *can* maintain a state of ketosis and yes you *will* burn fat in this process, but it is not an ideal state for the human body. It's taxing and it takes a toll. Which is why I ask repeatedly about long term studies of humans kept in a state of ketosis. The studies on the children who were put on ketosis showed it was detrimental to their long term health. That's why I brought up Atkins, not to be unkind, but to show that his own diet was not kind to his health in the long run.
> 
> The "log" in your analogy is the long chains of starches found in the complex carbohydrates of whole plant foods like potato, rice, quinoa, etc. The fiber and water content of the whole food along with the structure of the starch means your body breaks them down slowly giving you slow release stable energy throughout the day. Any excess is stored unobtrusively in the muscles or simply breathed off as carbon dioxide or released as heat.
> 
> Again I'll ask, do you know what your body does with excess protein? Excess fat?
> 
> Wait, I thought you said olive oil was cancer in a jar?
> That is extremely high in dairy. Dairy farming is every bit as destructive as factory farmed meat, and every bit as cruel (if not more so).
> From an environmental and cruelty point of view it is every bit as important to minimize or eliminate our dairy consumption as it is to minimize or eliminate our meat consumption.
> 
> I'm confused as well TBH.
> Is "keto" (or any of the low carb diets that focus on food that is not processed) better than the standard western diet? Of course! Anything that gets people eating fewer store bought cakes and chips is going to make a difference!
> But I've yet to see anything to convince me that humans are not starchivores, and that the ideal diet for humans is based in plants derived from whole food sources. Both for our health, and for the environment.


Ooops!! Might want to read my post above.

Excess protein is converted to glucose hence why I have to watch how much I consume i.e the amount of actual meat or protein from whole foods. This why when you don;t have glucose going in or fats you start to see muscle wastage as it breaks it down for fuel.
Excess fat is stored on my internal organs including heart, liver etc or around my body as body fat in the form of triglycerides. As is any unused fuel from carbs by the way hence why a high carb-high fat diet is extremely bad as I have pointed out, similar with a high carb (I don't just mean cereals) - low fat diet but not as accelerated.

Linda McCartney's diet was not kind to her health either in a much shorter space of time but I don't bleet on about it.

Do we get more calories from plants or animals? So now tell me that as our ancestors wandered near and far they relied purely on plants when they could get more calories for less energy expenditure from hunting.

You've still not provided me with any civilisation that is true vegan despite you being adamant a society of people have survived for tens of thousands of years without needing animal produce.
Ancient civilisations died out due to drought yes but not because their crops failed but because of the lack of water. 
The Mayans weren't vegan.
The ancient greeks weren't vegan.
The egyptians weren't vegan

You've got a dog or two in your avatar. Why did the shared ancestor of the wolf decide to hang around with us, its' wasn't for the veg they could just eat themselves and it wasn't because we baked lovely bread, it was because we hunted and utilising their speed and our brains we teamed up to take down calorie rich prey.From there on in we have bred dogs for longer than we have been farming cereals or even growing our own food in order to make them better and more useful hunting companions. When you look at your dogs your ancestry looks right back at you "When we going hunting then?" is what they are asking.


----------



## catz4m8z

hutch6 said:


> When you look at your dogs your ancestry looks right back at you "When we going hunting then?" is what they are asking.


Maybe your dogs....mine were just looking at me asking 'when can I eat that butter bean porridge you just made me!?':Hilarious
(the answer is 'shhh, its for breakfast!', although I did let them lick the spoon!).


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> Excess protein is converted to glucose


The glucose our bodies don't need according to you?  
Actually the process of converting protein in to glucose is hugely inefficient, and most of us pee out excess protein because our bodies (unless hugely taxed with starvation) don't bother to convert protein in to glucose, they just excrete it through the kidneys. That's why all those low carb/high protein advocates are crippled twice a year with kidney stones. 
You never did look up rabbit starvation did you? 



hutch6 said:


> You've still not provided me with any civilisation that is true vegan despite you being adamant a society of people have survived for tens of thousands of years without needing animal produce.
> Ancient civilisations died out due to drought yes but not because their crops failed but because of the lack of water.
> The Mayans weren't vegan.
> The ancient greeks weren't vegan.
> The egyptians weren't vegan


Why does the civilization have to be *true* vegan? It's that gotcha thing again. Mayans don't count because they ate chicken from time to time. That doesn't negate the fact that they gained the bulk of their calories from plant based sorces, as did the Greeks, the Romans, the Mongols, the Inca, the Egyptians and every other great civilization that expanded and lasted for centuries. Sure, every once in a while there was meat in there, but the major percentage of their diet was a starch in some form or another. Humans are starchivores.



hutch6 said:


> You've got a dog or two in your avatar. Why did the shared ancestor of the wolf decide to hang around with us, its' wasn't for the veg they could just eat themselves and it wasn't because we baked lovely bread, it was because we hunted and utilising their speed and our brains we teamed up to take down calorie rich prey.From there on in we have bred dogs for longer than we have been farming cereals or even growing our own food in order to make them better and more useful hunting companions. When you look at your dogs your ancestry looks right back at you "When we going hunting then?" is what they are asking.


Revisit your sources  What separates dogs from wolves is that pesky STARCH digesting hormone again - amylase. Dogs have several copies of the gene that produces amylase. Wolves do not. Dogs can utilize starches very efficiently. Hence why so many dogs did so well on brown rice or barley back in the days before commercial dog foods. When I was growing up, there was no Purina dog chow. Our dogs ate brown rice or oats with offal thrown in from time to time. Meat was entirely too precious to waste on dogs.


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> The glucose our bodies don't need according to you?
> Actually the process of converting protein in to glucose is hugely inefficient, and most of us pee out excess protein because our bodies (unless hugely taxed with starvation) don't bother to convert protein in to glucose, they just excrete it through the kidneys. That's why all those low carb/high protein advocates are crippled twice a year with kidney stones.
> You never did look up rabbit starvation did you?
> 
> Why does the civilization have to be *true* vegan? It's that gotcha thing again. Mayans don't count because they ate chicken from time to time. That doesn't negate the fact that they gained the bulk of their calories from plant based sorces, as did the Greeks, the Romans, the Mongols, the Inca, the Egyptians and every other great civilization that expanded and lasted for centuries. Sure, every once in a while there was meat in there, but the major percentage of their diet was a starch in some form or another. Humans are starchivores.
> 
> Revisit your sources  What separates dogs from wolves is that pesky STARCH digesting hormone again - amylase. Dogs have several copies of the gene that produces amylase. Wolves do not. Dogs can utilize starches very efficiently. Hence why so many dogs did so well on brown rice or barley back in the days before commercial dog foods. When I was growing up, there was no Purina dog chow. Our dogs ate brown rice or oats with offal thrown in from time to time. Meat was entirely too precious to waste on dogs.


Oh jeez.

Yes, my pee smells fruity.

What do you mean I never looked up rabbit starvation?



hutch6 said:


> Is the guy even aware that that you can die from eating too much lean meat due to the protein you get, it;s called protein poisoning. So if you can;t get any micro nutrients from animal produce how can this be?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_poisoning
> 
> http://knowledgenuts.com/2015/01/21/how-to-starve-to-death-while-stuffing-yourself-with-rabbit-meat/
> 
> You've got to be aware of this stuff when foraging.
> .


You guys keep referring to vegan cultrues in numerous posts but have so far failed to name a single one or provide evidence of one.



ouesi said:


> There are numerous cultures around the world that thrive on no or very few animal products.





ouesi said:


> Cultures who are vegan get their B12 from the ground same place animals get it from. B12 is from bacteria in the ground.





rottiepointerhouse said:


> Its not just me personally, there are populations all over the world who manage to survive without meat and dairy or as in the Blue Zones use tiny amounts as a condiment or only on occasional feast days.


Dogs also have what they term the "Tame" gene which is why wolves can never be tamed, some also have a floppy ears gene. You can bang on about starchy foods all you want but I've given you all the information you need to understand that we don't need starchy foods, can we process it yes, but we process animal fats much better just the same as dogs (in before "you saying we dogs now?"). Pretty sure an animal didn't come to us because of our tasty yams but more the trail of blood and scent of meat.

I am not here to "get you" I am here to discuss. If you want to play a points game then fair enough, that's your choice.


----------



## hutch6

Turns out all primates frequently die of heart disease so it''s not just limited to Dr Atkins.

http://cmm.ucsd.edu/varki/varkilab/Publications/A173.pdf


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> You guys keep referring to vegan cultrues in numerous posts but have so far failed to name a single one or provide evidence of one.


Read my quote you quoted. "There are numerous cultures around the world that thrive on no* or very few* animal products." 
Note the use of "very few". 
That a civilization eats meat *rarely* does not negate that they're getting the bulk of their food supplies from plant sources, with animal foods being eaten very rarely if at all. They were not meat reliant, they were starch reliant.

You're getting the bulk of your food from dairy, heavy cream and processed cheeses - do you really think ancient man was shaving Asiago slices on to their mammoth burger and reaching for the heavy cream they have in their Flintstones refrigerator? How do you feel about the ethics of the dairy industry?



hutch6 said:


> Pretty sure an animal didn't come to us because of our tasty yams but more the trail of blood and scent of meat.


Dogs have no problem hunting on their own. They didn't need humans to hunt more efficiently. Dogs *are* scavengers though, and being able to digest starch gave them a heads up over other animals when it came to scavenging human trash piles  
If humans weren't eating starch, and dogs weren't eating starch, why would we have developed so many copies for the gene to digest said starch?



hutch6 said:


> You can bang on about starchy foods all you want but I've given you all the information you need to understand that we don't need starchy foods, can we process it yes, but we process animal fats much better


I'm really not trying to "bang on" about starch. I'm just explaining to you why plant based foods are such a good source of nutrition and how humans have survived on them so well, and can continue to if we would adopt a more plant-based eating style. Right back atcha, I've given you all the information you need to understand that starch is a cleaner burning fuel in the human body and the key to our health and the health of our environment.


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> Read my quote you quoted. "There are numerous cultures around the world that thrive on no* or very few* animal products."
> Note the use of "very few".
> That a civilization eats meat *rarely* does not negate that they're getting the bulk of their food supplies from plant sources, with animal foods being eaten very rarely if at all. They were not meat reliant, they were starch reliant.
> 
> You're getting the bulk of your food from dairy, heavy cream and processed cheeses - do you really think ancient man was shaving Asiago slices on to their mammoth burger and reaching for the heavy cream they have in their Flintstones refrigerator? How do you feel about the ethics of the dairy industry?
> 
> Dogs have no problem hunting on their own. They didn't need humans to hunt more efficiently. Dogs *are* scavengers though, and being able to digest starch gave them a heads up over other animals when it came to scavenging human trash piles
> If humans weren't eating starch, and dogs weren't eating starch, why would we have developed so many copies for the gene to digest said starch?
> 
> I'm really not trying to "bang on" about starch. I'm just explaining to you why plant based foods are such a good source of nutrition and how humans have survived on them so well, and can continue to if we would adopt a more plant-based eating style. Right back atcha, I've given you all the information you need to understand that starch is a cleaner burning fuel in the human body and the key to our health and the health of our environment.


Starch is not cleaner at all as it takes a hormone to assist with it. a hormone that if it can't cope or you body can't cope will end you. Ketones don't need any assistance from anything, they just fuel you without any further input required. How can that not be "cleaner"?

Do you mean the dairy at the farm I've been using for years as I can get my stuff direct (one of their milkmen is my girlfriend's brother, coincidence) and who I now do work for so get to spend time with the cows? Yeah, I''m fine with what they do. I'm not fine with the huge intensive dairy stuff so I don't give my money to them.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

But ketones are a risky way of fuelling the body, no?


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> Read my quote you quoted. "There are numerous cultures around the world that thrive on no* or very few* animal products."
> Note the use of "very few".
> That a civilization eats meat *rarely* does not negate that they're getting the bulk of their food supplies from plant sources, with animal foods being eaten very rarely if at all. They were not meat reliant, they were starch reliant.
> 
> You're getting the bulk of your food from dairy, heavy cream and processed cheeses .


So in your second statement that vegan cultures get their vitamin b12 from the muck is rubbish then because you actually meant cultures that only occasionally eat meat. And occasionally according to this Dr Furhman is twice a week. Pretty darn often really.

Please, tell me where my the bulk of my calories comes from and how much that equates to in actual weight/portion size?

I'll give you a clue - dairy products contain lactose which gets turned into glucose


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

Also, I'm sorry to be a disgusting pedant but amylase is an enzyme, not a hormone.


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> Starch is not cleaner at all as it takes a hormone to assist with it. a hormone that if it can't cope or you body can't cope will end you. Ketones don't need any assistance from anything, they just fuel you without any further input required. How can that not be "cleaner"?


Why does the need for insulin (a hormone we produce naturally) mean a fuel is bad? I'm really not following that logic. ALL digestion requires metabolic processes that include hormones, enzymes, etc. 
I can't sustain a pregnancy without certain hormones, does that mean pregnancy is bad? Really, your hormone argument is invalid.



hutch6 said:


> Do you mean the dairy at the farm I've been using for years as I can get my stuff direct (one of their milkmen is my girlfriend's brother, coincidence) and who I now do work for so get to spend time with the cows? Yeah, I''m fine with what they do. I'm not fine with the huge intensive dairy stuff so I don't give my money to them.


 Do you know what they do with the calves? Do you know what goes in to keeping a dairy cow lactating year round?

You get your cheese from this dairy also? They make pizza cheese blend, mozzarella, mascarpone, ghee, and asiago? If they're managing all that on a small scale they need to share their secrets!



Ceiling Kitty said:


> Also, I'm sorry to be a disgusting pedant but amylase is an enzyme, not a hormone.


I think Hutch is referring to the insulin you need to be able to use glucose. But yes, amylase is an enzyme, insulin is a hormone. And primates R us


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> So in your second statement that vegan cultures get their vitamin b12 from the muck is rubbish then because you actually meant cultures that only occasionally eat meat. And occasionally according to this Dr Furhman is twice a week. Pretty darn often really.


I'm not even sure what you're trying to say honestly 
But I will say that if everyone knocked their meat and dairy consumption down to twice a week I would be ecstatic. That would make a massive difference in our dependence on factory farms, really help reduce the waste and damage from the meat and dairy industry, and go very far towards pulling out those threads in this disaster of a food system we have created.


----------



## Guest

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/early-humans-ate-carbs_us_55ccd1fde4b0898c4886c948

This is a fun little write up with sources


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

ouesi said:


> I think Hutch is referring to the insulin you need to be able to use glucose. But yes, amylase is an enzyme, insulin is a hormone. And primates R us


Well I have two points in that case:

1. Insulin's predominant purpose in the body is inhibition of lipolysis. While it's best known for glucose handling because of its importance in diabetes, it is predominantly an anabolic lipid hormone.

2. Ketones are not passively released from body adipose deposits. They also require hormonal input - predominantly that of glucagon.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

ouesi said:


> You get your cheese from this dairy also? They make pizza cheese blend, mozzarella, mascarpone, ghee, and asiago? If they're managing all that on a small scale they need to share their secrets!


I buy organic milk and cheese, but it's a bit pointless really considering that dairy products are ingredients in so many other pre-prepared foods and are usually not organic in those cases.


----------



## hutch6

Ceiling Kitty said:


> But ketones are a risky way of fuelling the body, no?


How?

I've provided researched studies that show we do not need glucose as it puts pressure on other parts of the body to be used. So if the body does not get glucose it reverts back to ketones which is the bodies natural fuelling mechanism.

You eat a potato or a nice sandwich and then get locked away. After a while your body will run out glucose but you don;t just keel over and die or lose your brain function or start peeing blood or growing a hairy back, you body simply switches to ketones as they are how your body converts fat into energy. The ketones are sent around your entire system to every cell (no insulin required to enter the cell) where the cell effectively converts it to glucose without any other issues or systems involved.

Glucose direct needs insulin to get into the cell.
Ketones get into the cell and the cell does what it does best.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

Ketoacidosis.

The majority of dairy cows are ketotic during lactation. It's not good for them.

ETA I am familiar with the basics of mammalian metabolism.


----------



## hutch6

Ceiling Kitty said:


> Ketoacidosis.
> 
> The majority of dairy cows are ketotic during lactation. It's not good for them.
> 
> ETA I am familiar with the basics of mammalian metabolism.


Reeto.

So what's the solution in the cows? Is it the macro content of the food or the serving size of the food?


----------



## hutch6

Ceiling Kitty said:


> Well I have two points in that case:
> 
> 1. Insulin's predominant purpose in the body is inhibition of lipolysis. While it's best known for glucose handling because of its importance in diabetes, it is predominantly an anabolic lipid hormone.
> 
> 2. Ketones are not passively released from body adipose deposits. They also require hormonal input - predominantly that of glucagon.


So glucagon is only required when ketones are the predominant energy fuel?


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

hutch6 said:


> Reeto.
> 
> So what's the solution in the cows? Is it the macro content of the food or the serving size of the food?


Major changes to the infrastructure of the dairy industry would be a start - lower milk yields, for example - but that is unlikely to happen.

That aside, it's less to do with the ration per se and more about dry and transition cow management: making sure their body condition score is not too high, keeping energy and protein intake at the correct levels during the close-up period, close attention to good husbandry protocols, a good silage...

A dairy cow shouldn't really be on the same ration all year round - it's not that simple. Her energy requirements change when she is in late gestation, fresh and drying off, and feeding dairy cattle goes well beyond TMR.

Of course, providing enough energy in the ration to try and reduce the extent of negative energy balance she enters when freshly calved must be balanced against milk production, which of course is the reason she's being bred in the first place: too high an energy content, or too much fibre, and her DMI will fall and milk yields can suffer.

I did my undergrad dissertation on ketosis monitoring (specifically beta-hydroxybutyric acid) in dairy cows, but I've not worked with cattle in nearly a decade now and to be honest I'm well out of touch with it all - you're probably best off speaking to the people at your dairy farm about how they're managing their transition cows and tackling ketosis in their herd.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

hutch6 said:


> So glucagon is only required when ketones are the predominant energy fuel?


No. Glucagon, like virtually all peptide hormones, has multiple roles in metabolism.


----------



## Elles

There’s a retired heart surgeon who is 103 years old, retired when he was 95 and is vegan. People argue with him about whether a vegan diet is healthy, so we’ve got no chance. :Hilarious


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

Elles said:


> There's a retired heart surgeon who is 103 years old, retired when he was 95 and is vegan. People argue with him about whether a vegan diet is healthy, so we've got no chance. :Hilarious


Prepare yourself for multiple anecdotes about family members who lived until they were nearly 100 or more despite a life of smoking and drinking and eating whatever they liked... and yes I had such a family member myself!


----------



## catz4m8z

Elles said:


> There's a retired heart surgeon who is 103 years old, retired when he was 95 and is vegan. People argue with him about whether a vegan diet is healthy, so we've got no chance. :Hilarious


TBF, I think we are mostly all agreed. We should probably just agree to disagree with the one stand out!LOL


----------



## Elles

Yup, let’s forget that he’s a heart surgeon who worked until he was 95 and says it’s because of his diet, not in spite of it. 

In his retirement he’s working on promoting preventative health care.

Where he lives is a blue zone in the US apparently. The supermarket doesnt sell meat and the residents live longer than average. I didn’t know there was such a place.


----------



## hutch6

Ceiling Kitty said:


> Major changes to the infrastructure of the dairy industry would be a start - lower milk yields, for example - but that is unlikely to happen.
> 
> That aside, it's less to do with the ration per se and more about dry and transition cow management: making sure their body condition score is not too high, keeping energy and protein intake at the correct levels during the close-up period, close attention to good husbandry protocols, a good silage...
> 
> A dairy cow shouldn't really be on the same ration all year round - it's not that simple. Her energy requirements change when she is in late gestation, fresh and drying off, and feeding dairy cattle goes well beyond TMR.
> 
> Of course, providing enough energy in the ration to try and reduce the extent of negative energy balance she enters when freshly calved must be balanced against milk production, which of course is the reason she's being bred in the first place: too high an energy content, or too much fibre, and her DMI will fall and milk yields can suffer.
> 
> I did my undergrad dissertation on ketosis monitoring (specifically beta-hydroxybutyric acid) in dairy cows, but I've not worked with cattle in nearly a decade now and to be honest I'm well out of touch with it all - you're probably best off speaking to the people at your dairy farm about how they're managing their transition cows and tackling ketosis in their herd.


I can ask but milking isn't really something I'll be taking on when we move, heck we'll be in France!! I can ask when I'm there but at the moment my french limits me to asking where the bank because it's childish and I can point out if it's sunny or raining. One of the major things coming up in a full on French language programme.

Is it the same as "Milk Fever"? I've seen the odd wobbly cow over the years and the farmer has mentioned calcium deficiency, makes sense that if your body is producing something then it needs to be helped to fill the gap to replenish lost minerals etc..


----------



## Guest

Elles said:


> There's a retired heart surgeon who is 103 years old, retired when he was 95 and is vegan. People argue with him about whether a vegan diet is healthy, so we've got no chance. :Hilarious


:Hilarious:Hilarious

I really would be happy with *less* dependence on meat and dairy. I'm not one to say everyone has to go vegan, I'd just love to see the factory farmed meat and dairy industry dissolve from lack of demand.

I will continue to eschew meat and dairy for me. I like how I feel when I eat plant based, and I like that my toll on the environment is minimized. 
Except for in rare cases like today when a very kind co-worker make us all individual pumpkin pies, I was not going to refuse the mini pie because it might have some butter in the crust. Instead I ate it gratefully and told her how delicious it was (which it was). Gotta put the caveats in there for the purists 

But I do like the flexibility of eating plant based. That's the key word - plant *based*, not plant exclusive. For those who find the idea of *never* eating animal based food too much to digest (pardon the pun), encouraging less consumption is still better than doing nothing.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

hutch6 said:


> I can ask but milking isn't really something I'll be taking on when we move, heck we'll be in France!! I can ask when I'm there but at the moment my french limits me to asking where the bank because it's childish and I can point out if it's sunny or raining. One of the major things coming up in a full on French language programme.
> 
> Is it the same as "Milk Fever"? I've seen the odd wobbly cow over the years and the farmer has mentioned calcium deficiency, makes sense that if your body is producing something then it needs to be helped to fill the gap to replenish lost minerals etc..


Milk fever is hypocalcemia, yes. Also occurs in other species, though cows are of course at highest risk because of the high milk yields.


----------



## hutch6

DT said:


> Hey @hutch06 not seen you posting in a long time.


Sorry for the delay.

Aye, it's been a while but seems to have changed a fare bit in that time.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

I would like to see much less intensive farming, particularly in dairy which tends to get forgotten amongst many vegetarians (not necessarily on this thread) because the deaths are a side effect of the end product, rather than resulting directly from it.

But I can see why intensive farming cannot or will not disappear any time soon in western civilisation.


----------



## Guest

Ceiling Kitty said:


> But I can see why intensive farming cannot or will not disappear any time soon in western civilisation.


No, not until attitudes change. 
I don't know about the UK but in the US there is still very much a "Me man hunter, eat meat" type attitude. Usually held by middle aged balding men with pendulous man boobs and guts hanging over their over taxed belts who couldn't chase down a sick sloth let alone dispatch it, and who get out of breath walking down the grocery store isle to grab their plastic wrapped steak.

Sorry... sometimes you just gotta rant


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

In another discussion on vegetarianism/veganism on this forum, I remember one user (I shall not name them) being extremely taken aback - almost incredulous - that I offered the hypothetical ethical choice of consuming meat but not dairy, because they noted that animals are not slaughtered to yield milk and cheese. They even said my idea made no sense.

But ethics are very personal things.

I wish I'd answered that user with some questions:
1. What happens to the cow after she has come to the end of her milking life?
2. What happens to the calves bred to stimulate the cows' milk production?
3. How do you think the life of a dairy cow compares to that of a beef cow, on a daily basis?

If more people thought about this (again, I'm referring predominantly to people I've encountered in 'real life' and not necessarily on this forum), I think many people's ethics on eating animals and eating animal products would shift.

Dairy cows get forgotten because the industry in which they spend their lives is seen as harmless. After all, they're only getting milked every day, aren't they? Not like beef cows, who have to die so we can eat burgers. Why would supporting the dairy industry be the same - or worse - than supporting the beef industry?

I often wonder about the gamebird industry as well. I've met far more people who are vehemently opposed to that, but have no discernible opinion on the farmed chicken industry - yet I would argue that the life of a game bird is better than that of a broiler chicken.

It's all about what is most emotive for some people, rather than the reality. Just because something *seems* worse, doesn't mean it is.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

ouesi said:


> No, not until attitudes change.
> I don't know about the UK but in the US there is still very much a "Me man hunter, eat meat" type attitude. Usually held by middle aged balding men with pendulous man boobs and guts hanging over their over taxed belts who couldn't chase down a sick sloth let alone dispatch it, and who get out of breath walking down the grocery store isle to grab their plastic wrapped steak.
> 
> Sorry... sometimes you just gotta rant


As you know, I'm a meat eater - but I don't need (or want) to eat it on a daily basis. But yes, I've occasionally come across the mentality that every evening meal at least should contain some meat. I think it's just culturally ingrained.


----------



## rona

Ceiling Kitty said:


> I would argue that the life of a game bird is better than that of a broiler chicken.


And generally much longer


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

rona said:


> And generally much longer


Broiler birds are slaughtered at five weeks.


----------



## Guest

Ceiling Kitty said:


> In another discussion on vegetarianism/veganism on this forum, I remember one user (I shall not name them) being extremely taken aback - almost incredulous - that I offered the hypothetical ethical choice of consuming meat but not dairy, because animals are not slaughtered to yield milk and cheese. They even said my idea made no sense.
> 
> But ethics are very personal things.
> 
> I wish I'd answered that user with some questions:
> 1. What happens to the cow after she has come to the end of her milking life?
> 2. What happens to the calves bred to stimulate the cows' milk production?
> 3. How do you think the life of a dairy cow compares to that of a beef cow, on a daily basis?
> 
> If more people thought about this (again, I'm referring predominantly to people I've encountered in 'real life' and not necessarily on this forum), I think many people's ethics on eating animals and eating animal products would shift.
> 
> Dairy cows get forgotten because the industry in which they spend their lives is seen as harmless. After all, they're only getting milked every day, aren't they? Not like beef cows, who have to die so we can eat burgers. Why would supporting the dairy industry be the same - or worse - than supporting the beef industry.
> 
> I often wonder about the gamebird industry as well. I've met far more people who are vehemently opposed to that, but have no discernible opinion on the farmed chicken industry - yet I would argue that the life of a game bird is better than that of a broiler chicken.
> 
> It's all about what is most emotive for some people, rather than the reality. Just because something *seems* worse, doesn't mean it is.


Absolutely!
When I first went vegetarian, dairy wasn't even on my radar. I didn't even consider it an issue. 
More and more in my adult life though I've had moral issues with including dairy in my diet. I think it's actually harder to be humane in the dairy industry than it would be to be humane in the meat animal industry. 
OH worked in a dairy growing up, and though he ate meat when I met him, he's always been iffy about dairy just because of his experiences working on a large dairy farm. 
I spent a lot of time rationalizing in my head my dairy consumption. As I'm sure we all do about our choices.


----------



## WillowT

I have been following this post just the last 2 days.
A very interesting subject. Just wondering whether anyone has read a book called ‘ the sexual politics of meat’
I read it years ago. Really interesting and a great insight. It is feminist critical theory though. But still a very interesting read.


----------



## Guest

WillowT said:


> I have been following this post just the last 2 days.
> A very interesting subject. Just wondering whether anyone has read a book called ' the sexual politics of meat'
> I read it years ago. Really interesting and a great insight. It is feminist critical theory though. But still a very interesting read.


Oh! That looks fascinating. Off to peruse  Thanks, had not heard of that book before.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

ouesi said:


> Absolutely!
> When I first went vegetarian, dairy wasn't even on my radar. I didn't even consider it an issue.
> More and more in my adult life though I've had moral issues with including dairy in my diet. I think it's actually harder to be humane in the dairy industry than it would be to be humane in the meat animal industry.
> OH worked in a dairy growing up, and though he ate meat when I met him, he's always been iffy about dairy just because of his experiences working on a large dairy farm.
> I spent a lot of time rationalizing in my head my dairy consumption. As I'm sure we all do about our choices.


Rationalising our choices is what makes everyone's opinion different I guess - and because I cannot necessarily agree with the rationale of others' choices that's what makes my opinion differ.

For example, I cannot _personally_ follow the rationale of a person who does not eat meat because they cannot support the slaughter of animals for food, but consumes dairy products because milk doesn't require the death of the source animal.

I know that the dairy cow providing said milk ends her life in the same slaughterhouse as the beef cows making burgers, as do her (multiple) calves whose existence is necessary for us to consume milk. I _personally_ don't see how the non meat-eating dairy consumer should feel any better about themselves than the meat-eating dairy consumer just because they don't eat the dairy cow or her calves after they're dead. They still used her in the same way throughout her life; required her to give birth to calves that will one day end up in the slaughterhouse.

But that's _my_ ethics and rationale niggling at me, and I fully appreciate that other people presented with exactly the same facts may draw different conclusions and emotions from them.

My wish is that everyone making such decisions does so based on facts and not emotional misapprehensions.

How many people do you know who won't eat lamb, because lambs are cute? I mean, I used to be one of them as a kid until I actually went to work on sheep farms and received a dose of reality. Eating an 'ugly' animal while refusing to eat a 'cute' one is another example of rationale I just cannot now comprehend - yet it's commonplace.


----------



## WillowT

ouesi said:


> Oh! That looks fascinating. Off to peruse  Thanks, had not heard of that book before.


Yeah, I read it @ fair while ago and this debate has made me want to read it again! Gonna go find it out.


----------



## Catharinem

ouesi said:


> I don't know about the UK but in the US there is still very much a "Me man hunter, eat meat" type attitude. Usually held by middle aged balding men with pendulous man boobs and guts hanging over their over taxed belts who couldn't chase down a sick sloth let alone dispatch it, and who get out of breath walking down the grocery store isle to grab their plastic wrapped steak.
> 
> Sorry... sometimes you just gotta rant


That made me laugh!

I don't think the big butch cavemen went out to hunt, I think they got in the way, made the baby cry, put so much damp wood on the fire that it went out, and was finally told to b×gger off and not come home until it was dark.


----------



## Elles

You can include me in that @Ceiling Kitty. Although I chose local organic milk and dairy produce and bought, or got freebie eggs from a couple of friends who had chickens, it was this forum that drew my attention to why I couldn't continue with eggs and dairy in my diet. Bye bye cake. Like @ouesi though, if a friend made something vegetarian, but not vegan, I wouldn't make a fuss over it. I too would eat the pie.

As a kid I first refused to eat pig. My friend's family who lived on a small holding in the village had pigs. They were friendly, clean and intelligent. I remember now stroking them and talking to her about why they were friendly and clean, not dirty. We were about 5 or 6. I also remember the chickens. They were evil and attacked me, I was scared of them. The last meat I ate as a child, before I gave up meat altogether was chicken. :Chicken


----------



## Guest

Ceiling Kitty said:


> Eating an 'ugly' animal while refusing to eat a 'cute' one is another example of rationale I just cannot now comprehend - yet it's commonplace.


I know I'll get in trouble for this, but for me it's like someone being horrified at eating dog, but has no issue tucking in to a juicy hamburger. Not sure how one is "better" than the other.

As a kid I stood underneath a sweet mare who had recently had a foal and had horse milk squirted in to my mouth. It was lovely and I hold it as a cherished memory. Imagine my surprise when American high school aged kids heard that story and were horrified that I would not only drink horse milk, but straight from the animal. 
I never understood why horse milk was gross but cow milk was "normal". 
Or my favorite, people being completely grossed out at humans (like dads and moms) tasting *human* breast milk. Want to really freak someone out? Tell them you know what your breast milk tastes like  :Hilarious


----------



## Guest

Catharinem said:


> That made me laugh!
> 
> I don't think the big butch cavemen went out to hunt, I think they got in the way, made the baby cry, put so much damp wood on the fire that it went out, and was finally told to b×gger off and not come home until it was dark.


You may be on to something :Hilarious

Just gonna put this out there.... Vegan men have far fewer issues with erectile dysfunction. Fun little tidbit to add to the discussion


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

Elles said:


> I too would eat the pie.


A motto to live your life by.


----------



## 1290423

hutch6 said:


> Sorry for the delay.
> 
> Aye, it's been a while but seems to have changed a fare bit in that time.


Aye, it has that.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> No, I get my carbs and some protein from veg.
> 
> Here's an example of a keto meal for those too scared to having in their search engines, I'll even make it a pizza so you can see you don;t have to miss out on takeaways:
> 
> Keto Garlic Mascarpone Broccoli Alfredo Fried Pizza {Grain-Free}
> 
> Ingredients
> 
> 1 tbsp garlic olive oil
> 1 cup shredded pizza cheese blend
> 1 cup shredded mozzarella cheese
> 1/4 cup mascarpone cheese
> 2 tbsp ghee
> 1 tbsp heavy cream
> 1 tsp minced garlic
> 1/8 tsp lemon pepper seasoning
> 2 pinches of salt
> 1/3 cup steamed, chopped broccoli heads
> Shaved asiago cheese to taste
> Not a single grain was seen that day.
> 
> Want a vegan keto meal? Here are some ideas by The Church of Latter Day Vegans:
> 
> https://www.peta.org/living/food/vegan-keto-tips-recipes/
> 
> *'Bacon' and 'Cream Cheese' Stuffed Mushrooms*
> *Crispy Avocado Fries*
> *Mediterranean Mung Bean and Olive "Meatballs"*
> *Shirataki Noodles with Almond Butter Sauce*


Hell that is way worse than I expected, its basically a bowl of different types of cheese and fat with a broccoli garnish. You might as well take an IV of saturated fat. 1/3 cup steamed broccoli heads  Not a whole lot of Vitamin C going on is there? Do you have a sodium count for all that cheese? If I were your OH I would be seriously seriously concerned for your health and making sure you have a good life insurance policy.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

ouesi said:


> I know I'll get in trouble for this, but for me it's like someone being horrified at eating dog, but has no issue tucking in to a juicy hamburger. Not sure how one is "better" than the other.
> 
> As a kid I stood underneath a sweet mare who had recently had a foal and had horse milk squirted in to my mouth. It was lovely and I hold it as a cherished memory. Imagine my surprise when American high school aged kids heard that story and were horrified that I would not only drink horse milk, but straight from the animal.
> I never understood why horse milk was gross but cow milk was "normal".
> Or my favorite, people being completely grossed out at humans (like dads and moms) tasting *human* breast milk. Want to really freak someone out? Tell them you know what your breast milk tastes like  :Hilarious


I feel the same way. My issue with dogs and cats being consumed in other cultures is the way they are kept and killed - which is of course barbaric - but not the principle of it.

The idea of some animals being 'friends' and others 'food' doesn't sit well with me because the animals allocated to each category varies worldwide and there is little to suggest why one culture's decision is better or worse than another.

To tread even muddier waters though, where does that leave cannibals? Eating other humans is very different to eating animals even for me - though technically based on everything I just wrote, it shouldn't be....???


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

ouesi said:


> You may be on to something :Hilarious
> 
> Just gonna put this out there.... Vegan men have far fewer issues with erectile dysfunction. Fun little tidbit to add to the discussion


Not just men - a good blood supply to areas that become engorged with blood heightens sensitivity in females too :Smuggrin


----------



## Magyarmum

*


ouesi said:



Read my quote you quoted. "There are numerous cultures around the world that thrive on no or very few animal products." 
Note the use of "very few". 
That a civilization eats meat *rarely* does not negate that they're getting the bulk of their food supplies from plant sources, with animal foods being eaten very rarely if at all. They were not meat reliant, they were starch reliant.

Click to expand...

*


ouesi said:


> You're getting the bulk of your food from dairy, heavy cream and processed cheeses - do you really think ancient man was shaving Asiago slices on to their mammoth burger and reaching for the heavy cream they have in their Flintstones refrigerator? How do you feel about the ethics of the dairy industry?
> 
> Dogs have no problem hunting on their own. They didn't need humans to hunt more efficiently. Dogs *are* scavengers though, and being able to digest starch gave them a heads up over other animals when it came to scavenging human trash piles
> If humans weren't eating starch, and dogs weren't eating starch, why would we have developed so many copies for the gene to digest said starch?
> 
> I'm really not trying to "bang on" about starch. I'm just explaining to you why plant based foods are such a good source of nutrition and how humans have survived on them so well, and can continue to if we would adopt a more plant-based eating style. Right back atcha, I've given you all the information you need to understand that starch is a cleaner burning fuel in the human body and the key to our health and the health of our environment.


You might be interested in these two articles about the Hadza tribe of Northern Tanzania

https://www.wired.com/2014/04/hadza-hunter-gatherer-gut-microbiome/

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/05/health/hunter-gatherer-diet-tanzania-the-conversation/index.html


----------



## noushka05

Ceiling Kitty said:


> I *often wonder about the gamebird industry as well. I've met far more people who are vehemently opposed to that, but have no discernible opinion on the farmed chicken industry - yet I would argue that the life of a game bird is better than that of a broiler chicken.*
> 
> It's all about what is most emotive for some people, rather than the reality. Just because something *seems* worse, doesn't mean it is.


I think they're both appalling but its possible its because game birds are shot for 'sport' whilst chickens are bred for food?

The game bird industry is cruel, not just to the game birds, but also to predators which are eradicated on an industrial scale. And driven grouse shoots are an ecological disaster zone. Grouse moors are a sink for raptors, game keepers are killing these protected birds with impunity. The relentless persecution has pushed our stunning hen harrier to the very brink of extinction. It makes my flippin blood boil.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

Ceiling Kitty said:


> I feel the same way. My issue with dogs and cats being consumed in other cultures is the way they are kept and killed - which is of course barbaric - but not the principle of it.
> 
> The idea of some animals being 'friends' and others 'food' doesn't sit well with me because the animals allocated to each category varies worldwide and there is little to suggest why one culture's decision is better or worse than another.
> 
> To tread even muddier waters though, where does that leave cannibals? Eating other humans is very different to eating animals even for me - though technically based on everything I just wrote, it shouldn't be....???


I just read the last paragraph of my post again... that's enough internet for today I think! :Hilarious


----------



## Catharinem

ouesi said:


> You may be on to something :Hilarious
> 
> Just gonna put this out there.... Vegan men have far fewer issues with erectile dysfunction. Fun little tidbit to add to the discussion


Hubby gone from full time to part time, so around the house more. You can have too much of a good thing.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

noushka05 said:


> I think they're both appalling but its possible its because game birds are shot for 'sport' whilst chickens are bred for food?
> 
> The game bird industry is cruel, not just to the game birds, but also to predators which are eradicated on an industrial scale. And driven grouse shoots are an ecological disaster zone. Grouse moors are a sink for raptors, game keepers are killing these protected birds with impunity. The relentless persecution has pushed our stunning hen harrier to the very brink of extinction. It makes my flippin blood boil.


With respect noushka, it's not my experience that views as well informed as your own are shared by the majority of people I've spoken to about it. Most just don't like the idea of birds being shot (probably the sport aspect, as you say), but think nothing of tucking into plate of chicken nuggets. I haven't come across many people who know anything about the impact that the gamebird industry has on other aspects of the environment, let alone consider it when voicing their opposition.


----------



## noushka05

Ceiling Kitty said:


> With respect noushka, it's not my experience that views as well informed as your own are shared by the majority of people I've spoken to about it. Most just don't like the idea of birds being shot (probably the sport aspect, as you say), but think nothing of tucking into plate of chicken nuggets. I haven't come across many people who know anything about the impact that the gamebird industry has on other aspects of the environment, let alone consider it when voicing their opposition.


I take your point. When I ate meat, I blocked things out, I think that's what a lot of meat eating animal lovers do. They don't need to be fully informed to be aware blood sports are unethical but they don't want to face the reality of where their nuggets comes from. That's why its important people like George use their platform to raise awareness about the horrors of factory farming imo. Getting the message out is the only way we'll get change.


----------



## catz4m8z

noushka05 said:


> When I ate meat, I blocked things out, I think that's what a lot of meat eating animal lovers do. .


I think nearly everybody has had that sort of dissasociative thinking around eating animals and esp around dairy. Just think how many of us refuse to even watch scenes from slaughterhouses and factory farms. If we knew it wasnt wrong then we would have no problem watching it.


----------



## Elles

Of course it’s also easy to sign a petition against something you’ve never done and have nothing to do with, than make what can be massive life changing adjustments to lifestyle and diet, as well as signing the petitions.


----------



## noushka05

catz4m8z said:


> I think nearly everybody has had that sort of dissasociative thinking around eating animals and esp around dairy. Just think how many of us refuse to even watch scenes from slaughterhouses and factory farms. If we knew it wasnt wrong then we would have no problem watching it.


Totally agree x


----------



## Guest

Magyarmum said:


> You might be interested in these two articles about the Hadza tribe of Northern Tanzania
> 
> https://www.wired.com/2014/04/hadza-hunter-gatherer-gut-microbiome/
> 
> http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/05/health/hunter-gatherer-diet-tanzania-the-conversation/index.html


You're right, I do find stuff like this fascinating


----------



## Guest

Elles said:


> What vegan eats broad beans twice a day?


Oh I meant to ask, what are broad beans? Are they what we call lima beans? I quite like lima beans/butter beans


----------



## Elles

Broad beans and butter beans are different. I don’t know what Lima beans are.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Lima beans are butter beans. Broad beans are fava beans

http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/broadbeanandcourgett_91842


----------



## Jonescat

Broad beans are fava beans and one of the two traditional garden beans in the UK. The other is the runner bean. We also grow French beans or haricot but don't have a tradition of growing beans to dry.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty

Well broad/fava beans are my absolute favourite vegetable. I love them!


----------



## Catharinem

Catharinem said:


> Hubby gone from full time to part time, so around the house more. You can have too much of a good thing.


Just realised how that could be read. 

I meant having hubby around all the time when trying to work from home was "too much of a good thing", and led to my cavemen being chucked out untul dark theory.
I didn't mean " too much of a good thing" in the _other _sense!


----------



## Catharinem

Jonescat said:


> Broad beans are fava beans and one of the two traditional garden beans in the UK. The other is the runner bean. We also grow French beans or haricot but don't have a tradition of growing beans to dry.





rottiepointerhouse said:


> Lima beans are butter beans. Broad beans are fava beans
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/broadbeanandcourgett_91842


I never knew that. :Bookworm


----------



## Magyarmum

Catharinem said:


> I never knew that. :Bookworm


Another "useless" piece of information regarding dried beans which you might not know is that the UK is the most diverse market for the importation of dried beans due to its large ethnic population. It also imports more mung beans than any other country in the EU.

Bet that makes your day! :Joyful


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Hell that is way worse than I expected, its basically a bowl of different types of cheese and fat with a broccoli garnish. You might as well take an IV of saturated fat. 1/3 cup steamed broccoli heads  Not a whole lot of Vitamin C going on is there? Do you have a sodium count for all that cheese? If I were your OH I would be seriously seriously concerned for your health and making sure you have a good life insurance policy.


This post tells me you have no idea what you on about when it comes to nutrition and I'l explain it in a dead easy way so you can see what I am on about.

I'll use you husbands stats that you posted and put him as reasonably active on a ketogenic diet.

I use a macro calculator that was put together by nutrion experts on a forum that is free to us on a body building and fitness forum, you know, weher people go to get information about being the healthiest they can be.

Here are his stats as posted by you:



rottiepointerhouse said:


> My OH who is 59 is 5 ft 11, weighs 10 st 8 or 68.5 kg, his body fat is 12.1% and his BMI is 20.6.


In the calculator (I can post the link if you want so you know I'm not BSing). By the way 68.5kg is 10st 10lb (as an RGN I'm surprised you put that) but I'll go with the lower of the two at 10st 8lb (67.1) and it will still blow your mind.

So just to maintain his current weight etc and general state he requires the following on a ketogenic diet (70% fat, 20% protein and 10% carbs):

His BMR (Basic metobolic rate - what he needs just to do nothing and still keep his current state): 1486 calories.
BMR + activity ( i guessed he walked the dogs twice a day for an hour each time): 2304 calories.

Target BMR with diet = 2304 calories

So to walk the ogs twice a day for an hour each time and not gain or lose weight, gain muscle he needs 2304 per day. With the percenteages for macros that breaks down to:

Fat: calories 1613 or 179 grams

Protein: calories 461 or 115 grams

carbohydrates: 230 calories or 58 grams

That is per day.

Now let's assume he follows the norm and eats thre emeals per day. We break these valuse to:

fat: calories 538 or 60g

protein: calories 154 or 38g

carbohydrate: calories 77 or 19g

If you read nutritional labesl they usally list stuff in grams as working out there are 4 calories per gram of carb and protein or 9g per g of fat is just too taxing for the avergae person so let's look at some nutritional values of thing and see exactly what your husabdn can eat and what his plat would look like at every meal.

Each meal time he needs

Fat: 60g
Protein: 38g
Carbohydrate: 19g

You are so focused on carbs so I'l look at that first and since you meantioned broccoli we'll start with that and look at the macros and viatamins in broccoli.

Here are the basic nutritional facts about broccoli:










The total carbohydrate in broccoli is 7g but we minus the fibre as that s not used, here it is 2.6g. So the body gets a total of 4.4g of carbohydrate per 100g of broccoli eaten. That's just plain and easy.

So if your husband just ate broccoli for one meal, in order to reach his goal of his 19g per meal for carbs, he woul dneed to eat:

19g/4.4g = 4.3 servings if you round all 181818181s up.

So 4.3 servings at 100g per serving comes out at 430g of broccoli.

I've used Tesco stuff to highlight other things so I'l stick with their stuff. If we don;t got for the stalked broccoli as you don;t eat the stalks, these values are for the florest, and if we don;t go for the florets that are rozen so you are buying a tonne of water we have these:










one bag has 240g in it and your husband needs 430g for his meal of broccoli.

430g/240g = 1.8 bags of broccoli.

For your husbands meal of broccoli and 19g of carbs he needs to eat 430g or 1.8 bags of Tesco Florets.

But he's not just getting carbs here is he? Broccoli doesn;t just contain carbs if you scroll up (you don't have to I've worked it al here for you ). So let's see what else he gets whilst consuming 430g of broccoli.

Sodium: You were worried about my sodium intake but if your husband eats 420g of broccoli, a food that is good for you he gets:

4.2 * 100 (he has to have 4.2 servings which 420g) = 138.6mg of sodium or almost 10% of a recommended 1500mg per day by the NHS.

Vitamin C: you were worreid about the lck of that.

One 100g serving of broccli provides 148% of your RDA of Voitamin c and he has to eat 4.2 * 100g servings so he gets:

148% * 4.2 = 621.6% of his RDA for vitamin c.

Just times all of the little nutrients and vitamins by 4.2.

Protein: 2.8g & 4.2 = 11.76g of protein. If he was to get all of his meal requirement protein from broccoli he would actually need 13.5 * 100g = 1.3kg of broccoli or 5.6 packets of tesco florets, which isn't feasable due to every aspect including taking him way over his carbs intake, so he would need to look elsewhere for his intake of protein.

I can give you an idea of what his meal would like in total if you like if you still think vegetables are just "a garnish" on a keto diet and it's lacking in nutrients etc?


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> Dogs have no problem hunting on their own. They didn't need humans to hunt more efficiently. Dogs *are* scavengers though, and being able to digest starch gave them a heads up over other animals when it came to scavenging human trash piles
> If humans weren't eating starch, and dogs weren't eating starch, why would we have developed so many copies for the gene to digest said starch?


Really, have you ever hunted with dogs?

What dogs would catch what species then?


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> He gained muscle from weight training much more easily than he has in the past when eating meat.


In fact I don't know if was yourself that was a qualified plant nutritionist or if it was someone else, but can you post the macros to the diet he works with for his weight training/fitness programme? Would be interesting to see how that works being into weight training and fitness myself, thanks.


----------



## catz4m8z

hutch6 said:


> This post tells me you have no idea what you on about when it comes to nutrition and I'l explain it in a dead easy way so you can see what I am on about.


wow, so you think that all the fat from your cheese and cream, etc magically doesnt stick to your arteries like it does everybody else coz you are on a keto diet!?:Wideyed


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> Really, have you ever hunted with dogs?
> 
> What dogs would catch what species then?


Why would I be out hunting with dogs? :Hilarious
My grandfather hunted with beagles he raised himself for hunting.

Greyhounds hunt, catch, and kill rabbits (as did my great dane in her youth). Many other breeds are bred to catch and kill prey. Are you seriously suggesting dogs need a big badass guy next to them with a gun otherwise they would starve? 'Cause I got news for you, feral dog populations all over the place prove you wrong on that. 
My muttdog is a very good hunter and has caught and killed many a skunk :Meh:Yuck possums, and field mice. 
My other great dane was running feral and sustaining himself quite well on the local goat herds. 
Not sure if you've seen the damage a dog can do to sheep, but again, dogs don't need our help to hunt.

What does this have to do with my choice not to eat animal food?


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> wow, so you think that all the fat from your cheese and cream, etc magically doesnt stick to your arteries like it does everybody else coz you are on a keto diet!?:Wideyed


wow, so you're assuming all I eat is cheese and that is where I get all of my fat from because you've seen a few recipes use cheese as the fat content out of the multitude that are out there?

Shall we look at cheddar cheese, a dead easy cheese to produce and to buy at any local shop and supermarket and one that is consumed and rather large scale by people.










100g of cheddar cheese contains 33g of fat with 21g of the "bad" saturated fat you are saying causes cholesterol and heart disease etc.

*Now let's look at a couple of vegan foods









*
Different picture now isn't it?

100g of pecan nuts contain 77g of fat. So I'd have to eat 2.5 times the amount of cheese (250g) to get what I need from just 100g of pecan nuts and guess what, you don't get he same saturated fat.










100g of hazels nuts contain 72g of fat and less saturated fats.

Hence why I stated the local health food shop takes a hammering every so often.

Be right back just filling myself full of cheese when I can get the same stuff be in a better format from less than half a pack of Tescos nuts, 40g










Just LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL at a keto diet supporting the dairy industry just LOL.


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> Why would I be out hunting with dogs? :Hilarious
> My grandfather hunted with beagles he raised himself for hunting.
> 
> Greyhounds hunt, catch, and kill rabbits (as did my great dane in her youth). Many other breeds are bred to catch and kill prey. Are you seriously suggesting dogs need a big badass guy next to them with a gun otherwise they would starve? 'Cause I got news for you, feral dog populations all over the place prove you wrong on that.
> My muttdog is a very good hunter and has caught and killed many a skunk :Meh:Yuck possums, and field mice.
> My other great dane was running feral and sustaining himself quite well on the local goat herds.
> Not sure if you've seen the damage a dog can do to sheep, but again, dogs don't need our help to hunt.
> 
> What does this have to do with my choice not to eat animal food?


Nothing, but it has everything to do with your statement that dogs would survive well on their own and they are not linked to our evolution as human beings..

Where are the most feral dog populations that do not rely on any human interaction then? 
I have spent the vast majority of my life in the countryside and never come across a stray dog, a fully feral dog. I've seen plenty of them in cities I have visited and they didn't look too well, but of all the countryside I have been in I have never come across a feral dog, plenty of feral cats.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> This post tells me you have no idea what you on about when it comes to nutrition and I'l explain it in a dead easy way so you can see what I am on about.
> 
> I'll use you husbands stats that you posted and put him as reasonably active on a ketogenic diet.
> 
> I use a macro calculator that was put together by nutrion experts on a forum that is free to us on a body building and fitness forum, you know, weher people go to get information about being the healthiest they can be.
> 
> Here are his stats as posted by you:
> 
> In the calculator (I can post the link if you want so you know I'm not BSing). By the way 68.5kg is 10st 10lb (as an RGN I'm surprised you put that) but I'll go with the lower of the two at 10st 8lb (67.1) and it will still blow your mind.
> 
> So just to maintain his current weight etc and general state he requires the following on a ketogenic diet (70% fat, 20% protein and 10% carbs):
> 
> His BMR (Basic metobolic rate - what he needs just to do nothing and still keep his current state): 1486 calories.
> BMR + activity ( i guessed he walked the dogs twice a day for an hour each time): 2304 calories.
> 
> Target BMR with diet = 2304 calories
> 
> So to walk the ogs twice a day for an hour each time and not gain or lose weight, gain muscle he needs 2304 per day. With the percenteages for macros that breaks down to:
> 
> Fat: calories 1613 or 179 grams
> 
> Protein: calories 461 or 115 grams
> 
> carbohydrates: 230 calories or 58 grams
> 
> That is per day.
> 
> Now let's assume he follows the norm and eats thre emeals per day. We break these valuse to:
> 
> fat: calories 538 or 60g
> 
> protein: calories 154 or 38g
> 
> carbohydrate: calories 77 or 19g
> 
> If you read nutritional labesl they usally list stuff in grams as working out there are 4 calories per gram of carb and protein or 9g per g of fat is just too taxing for the avergae person so let's look at some nutritional values of thing and see exactly what your husabdn can eat and what his plat would look like at every meal.
> 
> Each meal time he needs
> 
> Fat: 60g
> Protein: 38g
> Carbohydrate: 19g
> 
> You are so focused on carbs so I'l look at that first and since you meantioned broccoli we'll start with that and look at the macros and viatamins in broccoli.
> 
> Here are the basic nutritional facts about broccoli:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The total carbohydrate in broccoli is 7g but we minus the fibre as that s not used, here it is 2.6g. So the body gets a total of 4.4g of carbohydrate per 100g of broccoli eaten. That's just plain and easy.
> 
> So if your husband just ate broccoli for one meal, in order to reach his goal of his 19g per meal for carbs, he woul dneed to eat:
> 
> 19g/4.4g = 4.3 servings if you round all 181818181s up.
> 
> So 4.3 servings at 100g per serving comes out at 430g of broccoli.
> 
> I've used Tesco stuff to highlight other things so I'l stick with their stuff. If we don;t got for the stalked broccoli as you don;t eat the stalks, these values are for the florest, and if we don;t go for the florets that are rozen so you are buying a tonne of water we have these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one bag has 240g in it and your husband needs 430g for his meal of broccoli.
> 
> 430g/240g = 1.8 bags of broccoli.
> 
> For your husbands meal of broccoli and 19g of carbs he needs to eat 430g or 1.8 bags of Tesco Florets.
> 
> But he's not just getting carbs here is he? Broccoli doesn;t just contain carbs if you scroll up (you don't have to I've worked it al here for you ). So let's see what else he gets whilst consuming 430g of broccoli.
> 
> Sodium: You were worried about my sodium intake but if your husband eats 420g of broccoli, a food that is good for you he gets:
> 
> 4.2 * 100 (he has to have 4.2 servings which 420g) = 138.6mg of sodium or almost 10% of a recommended 1500mg per day by the NHS.
> 
> Vitamin C: you were worreid about the lck of that.
> 
> One 100g serving of broccli provides 148% of your RDA of Voitamin c and he has to eat 4.2 * 100g servings so he gets:
> 
> 148% * 4.2 = 621.6% of his RDA for vitamin c.
> 
> Just times all of the little nutrients and vitamins by 4.2.
> 
> Protein: 2.8g & 4.2 = 11.76g of protein. If he was to get all of his meal requirement protein from broccoli he would actually need 13.5 * 100g = 1.3kg of broccoli or 5.6 packets of tesco florets, which isn't feasable due to every aspect including taking him way over his carbs intake, so he would need to look elsewhere for his intake of protein.
> 
> I can give you an idea of what his meal would like in total if you like if you still think vegetables are just "a garnish" on a keto diet and it's lacking in nutrients etc?


Good smoke screen but no cigar. I'm used to working in pounds and stones (haven't been nursing for many years now) so used an online converter to get the KG, he weighs 10 st 8. The rest of your post makes no sense, you cannot begin to guess how active he is, what his BMR is, nor what he eats in a day. He isn't on a ketogenic diet and never will be and we do not follow any set amount of macronutritent breakdown. We eat a wholefood plant based diet and plenty of it and both of us are the healthiest we have ever been.


----------



## catz4m8z

well, great! So you are saying that nuts are better for you and not only that its better for the environment and reduces animal cruelty to eat nuts rather then cheese!
Maybe time to go vegan then, @hutch6


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> In fact I don't know if was yourself that was a qualified plant nutritionist or if it was someone else, but can you post the macros to the diet he works with for his weight training/fitness programme? Would be interesting to see how that works being into weight training and fitness myself, thanks.


I am not and never have claimed to be a "qualified plant nutritionist" but I do have a certificate in plant based nutrition which is not the same thing at all, to train as a nutritionist takes years and whilst I would dearly love to do that I already run a very busy business that takes up 60 - 70 hours of my week, look after our home, cook nutritious meals every day and care for 3 dogs, somewhere in that mix I try to fit in my own exercise routine and if I'm very lucky I might get to sit down and watch a bit of telly for 20 mins a couple of times a week. We do not record our "macros" we eat a whole food plant based diet and plenty of it and as I said he has found it easier to build muscle despite his age than ever before.

If you are genuinely interested then this guy gave some lectures on my course although I do not claim to be any sort of expert on body building and my OH only uses weights at home a few times a week.

http://veganbodybuilding.com/?page=bio_robert

*What are some of your favorite sources of protein?*
I honestly don't have a single favorite source of protein. I eat a wide variety of foods based on what I'm in the mood for, where I am on a given day, what my training and competition schedule is like, and so on. In general, I like to eat Thai, Indian, Mexican, Japanese, and Ethiopian foods. These ethnic foods tend to be comprised of rice, vegetables, beans and legumes, and greens. Overall, they are incredibly filling, calorie and protein-rich and very tasty. If I feel like I want additional protein on top of my whole- food based meals, I'll use plant-based protein powders such as Vega, which is primarily made up of hemp, pea and rice protein.

*What are some of your favorite vegan foods?*
I love fruits more than anything else. I travel regularly and have the amazing opportunity to pick fruit off the trees and eat the freshest, tastiest fruit available. Berries in the summer are perhaps my ultimate favorite, but I'm also a big fan of more traditional fruits available in anywhere America year-round including bananas, apples, oranges, and grapes.

My second favorite type of food is probably burritos. I eat burritos almost every day. They are made of up some of my individual favorite foods including rice, beans, and avocado and all together are calorie-

rich, protein dense, and of course very tasty and filling. Yams and potatoes, quinoa, kale and artichokes are some of my other favorite whole foods. Thai and Indian dishes, especially Masaman and Yellow Curry and vegetable samosas and Aloo Matter, are by far my favorite dinner meals. Avocado rolls are another menu item I indulge in regularly.

A vegan diet/lifestyle is very conducive to success in athletics because plant-based whole foods provide the best sources of nutrition, coming from their original forms. The nutritional components we need to thrive are vitamins, minerals, amino acids, fatty acids and glucose and those all come in their original and best forms from fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, seeds and legumes. Whether we're referring to running, swimming, football or bodybuilding, all athletes and non-athletes alike, can benefit from a plant-based, whole food vegan diet/lifestyle.

Vegan Bodybuilding is becoming a lot more mainstream than it used to be. When I started www.veganbodybuilding.com in 2002, I was the only vegan athlete I knew of. Now we have over 5,000 members on our website and we're discovering new vegan athletes all the time from professional and elite levels of our major sports to weekend warriors and everyone in between. Vegan athletes aren't quite as mysterious as they used to be so I don't have to answer the protein question quite as much as I did 10-15 years ago. In general, other bodybuilders are curious as to what I eat since mainstream bodybuilding culture still embraces meat, eggs and whey protein as their primary sources.


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Good smoke screen but no cigar. I'm used to working in pounds and stones (haven't been nursing for many years now) so used an online converter to get the KG, he weighs 10 st 8. The rest of your post makes no sense, you cannot begin to guess how active he is, what his BMR is, nor what he eats in a day. He isn't on a ketogenic diet and never will be and we do not follow any set amount of macronutritent breakdown. We eat a wholefood plant based diet and plenty of it and both of us are the healthiest we have ever been.


If you're used to working in stones and pounds then just put that, I'm assuming your scales at home work in stones and pounds so why not just put up what they read as and have your scales set to kgs if you don;t understand what they equate to? Makes zero logical sense.
What smoke screen are you referring to? Everything is laid out there in simple terms. I never said he was on a keto diet and I never said how active he was I stated I worked it out on a him doing two hours of moderate exercise a day, if he is more active then the macros increase.

I used it as an example to show you that a keto diet isn't just fats and proteins and there is a boat of veg included which you don'; believe and I've just proved, you just can;t admit you were wrong about what is involved in the diet and can't bring yourself to face that fact because you've invested too many post trying to find negatives and saying it doesn't consist of any whole foods when quite clearly it does as I have explained right from the start.

You have a qualification in nutrition and you can't make sense of what I just wrote based on nutrition labels or it doesn't make sense when you have to apply the nutrition labels to the macros you need when following a diet? The diabetics in the trials won't have just slung stuff on a plate and hoped for the best like it seems you are doing yet claim to know exactly how much nutrients the human body needs yet you are worried about my deficiencies   
I've also shown in three easy to understand pictures that to go on a keto diet you don't have to support the meat or dairy industry but let me guess, you didn't understand that either? I proved I don't support the meat and dairy industry anywhere near as much as your assumed I did all throughout this thread and you still can't understand basic proof that any wholefoods nutritionist would have got from the off.

My diet DOES alleviate pressure on the meat and dairy industry, MASSIVELY but you can't bring yourself to say so because you have a preconception about what meat eaters diets consist of. More and more people are moving to a keto diet both omnivore and carnivore. Is that not a good thing after I have proved it drastically reduces the reliance on the meat and dairy industry?

Go on, find fault. Tell me I'm wrong and I'm a troll. Tell me that the keto diet consist of no whole foods and all the fats and proteins come from meat and dairy. Go on, because I've constructively provided you information at every stage but you just go along with your close mentally around diet based on your own opinion.


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> This post tells me you have no idea what you on about when it comes to nutrition and I'l explain it in a dead easy way so you can see what I am on about.
> 
> I'll use you husbands stats that you posted and put him as reasonably active on a ketogenic diet.
> 
> I use a macro calculator that was put together by nutrion experts on a forum that is free to us on a body building and fitness forum, you know, weher people go to get information about being the healthiest they can be.


Best lines in the whole debate :Hilarious:Hilarious

Dude, you're telling a bunch of medically trained professionals with a very good understanding of the biological sciences that you're getting your information from a weight lifting forum? That's seriously awesome 

I get my information from medical doctors with decades successfully treating real patients and studying real science. John McDougall, Garth Davis, Caldwell Esselstyn, Michael Greger.... I think I'll stick with what they know vs. some musclehead on a weightlifting forum trying to get bigger biceps


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> well, great! So you are saying that nuts are better for you and not only that its better for the environment and reduces animal cruelty to eat nuts rather then cheese!
> Maybe time to go vegan then, @hutch6


Seems that way doesn;t it but I'll explain why I eat meat as well.

A very small amount of nuts are produced over here compared with how many are imported and slung in the mix. There are website providers etc that produce UK nuts but my local health food obtains them anyway/
I also get given meat as part payment for the work I do or I get it heavily discounted. We are not talking a few pork or lamb chops, so I butcher it at home myself and freeze it.

Due to the amount of protein in meat I have to eat vastly less than I would if I used, say nuts as my protein source so I am relying less on the shop to provide me with nuts and I get to be around the animals that go into my food so i know how they are treated. So me ethically i am more aware of where my food comes from and I am also not putting extra pressure and reliance on imports (if everyone ate uk nuts we'd be dry in a day or two and they don't grow all year round).

So by me eating a mixture of meat and nuts for fats and proteins keep my food local and to me that is more ethical.

I never said the keto wasn't for vegans at all and I never said you could only get fat and protein from meat and dairy


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> Best lines in the whole debate :Hilarious:Hilarious
> 
> Dude, you're telling a bunch of medically trained professionals with a very good understanding of the biological sciences that you're getting your information from a weight lifting forum? That's seriously awesome
> 
> I get my information from medical doctors with decades successfully treating real patients and studying real science. John McDougall, Garth Davis, Caldwell Esselstyn, Michael Greger.... I think I'll stick with what they know vs. some musclehead on a weightlifting forum trying to get bigger biceps


They are qualified nutritionists and fitness experts.

How naive can you be to think that weight lifters and people with an interest in fitness aren't doctors, physios, nutritionists, surgeons, lawyers. No they're just knuckle draggers. There's that closed mind again.


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> Nothing, but it has everything to do with your statement that dogs would survive well on their own and they are not linked to our evolution as human beings..
> 
> Where are the most feral dog populations that do not rely on any human interaction then?
> I have spent the vast majority of my life in the countryside and never come across a stray dog, a fully feral dog. I've seen plenty of them in cities I have visited and they didn't look too well, but of all the countryside I have been in I have never come across a feral dog, plenty of feral cats.


Okay, so by your logic, wolves, coyotes, and african wild dogs should not exist because they didn't pair up with man to help them hunt.

You live in the UK. Guess what? There is a great big wide world out there outside the UK where feral dogs live and survive without human intervention. Some of it is in my "backyard" here in the rural south of the US. Just because you have never come across a stray dog in the countryside doesn't mean they don't exist.

Oh and I didn't say dogs and humans were not linked in our evolution. In fact I clearly remember commenting on the fact that dogs have several copies of the gene for producing amylase, you know, the enzyme we use to digest starch? Yeah, dogs have it too. Wolves don't. Chew on that for a minute with your jaw that can move side to side as well as up and down. Hrm... wonder why we can grind with our jaws? Might it be to better use those grains we're supposedly not able to use?


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> Okay, so by your logic, wolves, coyotes, and african wild dogs should not exist because they didn't pair up with man to help them hunt.
> 
> You live in the UK. Guess what? There is a great big wide world out there outside the UK where feral dogs live and survive without human intervention. Some of it is in my "backyard" here in the rural south of the US. Just because you have never come across a stray dog in the countryside doesn't mean they don't exist.
> 
> Oh and I didn't say dogs and humans were not linked in our evolution. In fact I clearly remember commenting on the fact that dogs have several copies of the gene for producing amylase, you know, the enzyme we use to digest starch? Yeah, dogs have it too. Wolves don't. Chew on that for a minute with your jaw that can move side to side as well as up and down. Hrm... wonder why we can grind with our jaws? Might it be to better use those grains we're supposedly not able to use?


Aren't they all mainly pack animals though and the dog isn't?

What dog would you say would survive the best?

I reckon the long dogs would be the main hunters (if they didn't need so much training to get them even half decent) but the bull breeds would steal most of their kills, a bit like cheetahs getting chased off of their kills most of the time. A grey x bull could possibly be the ultimate if it got it's act together but I doubt it.

So, a feral dog appears tomorrow with no basic information from a human on how and where to find prey, what happens next?

Any scent hound makes too much noise to get near something on their own.
Toy breeds would be dead within days after eating poisoned rats.
Pastoral are all bark and not much else, maybe the GSD could catch something like a wild hoglet but anything bigger wouldn't be feasible.,
A husky could chase down prey but then it comes down to being able to bring down the animal and overcome it.

They can't get into bins as they have all been designed to keep dogs out.

I assume that the feral dogs aren't much trouble in the veg patches, digging up potato crops or chopping through corn fields?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> If you're used to working in stones and pounds then just put that, I'm assuming your scales at home work in stones and pounds so why not just put up what they read as and have your scales set to kgs if you don;t understand what they equate to? Makes zero logical sense.
> What smoke screen are you referring to? Everything is laid out there in simple terms. I never said he was on a keto diet and I never said how active he was I stated I worked it out on a him doing two hours of moderate exercise a day, if he is more active then the macros increase.
> 
> I used it as an example to show you that a keto diet isn't just fats and proteins and there is a boat of veg included which you don'; believe and I've just proved, you just can;t admit you were wrong about what is involved in the diet and can't bring yourself to face that fact because you've invested too many post trying to find negatives and saying it doesn't consist of any whole foods when quite clearly it does as I have explained right from the start.
> 
> You have a qualification in nutrition and you can't make sense of what I just wrote based on nutrition labels or it doesn't make sense when you have to apply the nutrition labels to the macros you need when following a diet? The diabetics in the trials won't have just slung stuff on a plate and hoped for the best like it seems you are doing yet claim to know exactly how much nutrients the human body needs yet you are worried about my deficiencies
> I've also shown in three easy to understand pictures that to go on a keto diet you don't have to support the meat or dairy industry but let me guess, you didn't understand that either? I proved I don't support the meat and dairy industry anywhere near as much as your assumed I did all throughout this thread and you still can't understand basic proof that any wholefoods nutritionist would have got from the off.
> 
> My diet DOES alleviate pressure on the meat and dairy industry, MASSIVELY but you can't bring yourself to say so because you have a preconception about what meat eaters diets consist of. More and more people are moving to a keto diet both omnivore and carnivore. Is that not a good thing after I have proved it drastically reduces the reliance on the meat and dairy industry?
> 
> Go on, find fault. Tell me I'm wrong and I'm a troll. Tell me that the keto diet consist of no whole foods and all the fats and proteins come from meat and dairy. Go on, because I've constructively provided you information at every stage but you just go along with your close mentally around diet based on your own opinion.


Do calm down, you will bust a blood vessel otherwise and I don't want that on my conscience. We use pounds and stones on our bathroom scales but a) you quoted your weight in KG so I converted OH's to KG so it was easy to compare and B) I am not at home , we are at our holiday home near Dartmoor so no I couldn't go switch the scales to KG as we don't have scales here. Sorry but you keep forgetting or ignoring that I've done a keto diet myself so I do know what it involves, no fruit and very little veg (just a small serving of greens such as your one third cup of broccoli) and lots of saturated fat. I like to eat the colours of the rainbow every day thanks. I'm more than happy to admit that your particular diet alleviates pressure on the meat industry but you are not a "normal run of the mill" meat eater are you? how many people do you seriously know who crawl about on the ground watching bunnies copulate then killing them to bring home and eat? I'm not so sure you alleviate pressure on the dairy industry with all that cheese though. Incidentally I have not called you a troll on this thread either. Please re read my post above # 533 where I explain about my certificate in plant based nutrition.

@ouesi have you seen this short Rip Esselstyn video - he is quite funny - 6.45 he talks about the canary in the coal mine (erectile dysfunction). Another very fit plant based guy who has competed as an athlete


----------



## Elles

I have no idea what a Keto diet is. I’m not interested in analysing my food in depth or eating any meat, or dairy, or losing weight, or body building, so it’s not something I’d look at tbh. I wouldn’t look at slimming world, or weight watchers, or the caveman diet either. I didn’t realise you were talking about a specific diet to begin with. I thought you were talking about a lifestyle, where you kill for your own meat, grow your own fruit and veg and trade with farmers and other growers. Something that’s nice, but not possible for most, even if they wanted it.

When you linked a recipe that was majorly cheese and cream and talked about fat being the basis of your diet, then I realised it was a specific diet you’re talking about. If that diet cuts down in a big way in animal based products and processed food and is a healthier diet than most western diets, then fine. So long as you aren’t dissing my plant based diet and promoting your own as healthier, I don’t have a problem. I think you needed to be more specific than linking an artery clogging dairy feast as an example though.

Now if you are telling me that my diet will destroy my health and the health of the planet and I should eat dead animals and cheese, despite all the evidence to the contrary, then I do have a problem. Those claims would be spurious and could deter someone else from making changes that would benefit them, which would be wrong imo. That is the reason you’re getting arguments. Not just because of your diet, but because of what you’re saying about plant based and vegan.

A plant based diet is good for me, good for the planet and quite easy to follow. If I did eat animal based produce, then a wholefood plant based diet, with the occasional portion of (organic) meat, fish, egg, or dairy would also be a lot better than the average western diet and make a difference. I would encourage anyone to look into it, at least a bit and try to make changes, especially if what they eat is making them sick, or overweight. Buying locally grown, seasonal, organic produce where possible is also a good point.

Not sure what dogs have to do with it tbh.


----------



## noushka05

hutch6 said:


> Aren't they all mainly pack animals though and the dog isn't?
> 
> What dog would you say would survive the best?
> 
> I reckon the long dogs would be the main hunters (if they didn't need so much training to get them even half decent) but the bull breeds would steal most of their kills, a bit like cheetahs getting chased off of their kills most of the time. A grey x bull could possibly be the ultimate if it got it's act together but I doubt it.
> 
> So, a feral dog appears tomorrow with no basic information from a human on how and where to find prey, what happens next?
> 
> Any scent hound makes too much noise to get near something on their own.
> Toy breeds would be dead within days after eating poisoned rats.
> Pastoral are all bark and not much else, maybe the GSD could catch something like a wild hoglet but anything bigger wouldn't be feasible.,
> A husky could chase down prey but then it comes down to being able to bring down the animal and overcome it.
> 
> They can't get into bins as they have all been designed to keep dogs out.
> 
> I assume that the feral dogs aren't much trouble in the veg patches, digging up potato crops or chopping through corn fields?


Errm actually Siberian huskies are extremely efficient hunters, one of the reasons responsible owners wont let them off lead in an unsecured area. They are closest to the original phenotype. A primitive breed which had to hunt to survive. Each summer the Chukchi people would release their huskies to fend for themselves only feeding them in winter when they needed them to pull the sleds. Sibes evolved in an extreme climate - this means they are better equipped, than breeds which evolved in temperate climates, to survive extremes in temperature. Their double coat insulates them from the not only from the cold - but from the heat too. My huskies have killed all sorts over the years - sadly :-(


----------



## Elles

Catharinem said:


> Just realised how that could be read.
> 
> I meant having hubby around all the time when trying to work from home was "too much of a good thing", and led to my cavemen being chucked out untul dark theory.
> I didn't mean " too much of a good thing" in the _other _sense!


The 'other sense' is exactly how I read it and I would have agreed. :Hilarious


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Do calm down, you will bust a blood vessel otherwise and I don't want that on my conscience.


I can assure you I am calm. It's a discussion not a fight to the death.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> We use pounds and stones on our bathroom scales but a) you quoted your weight in KG so I converted OH's to KG so it was easy to compare and B) I am not at home , we are at our holiday home near Dartmoor so no I couldn't go switch the scales to KG as we don't have scales here.


So which weight converter did you use?



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Sorry but you keep forgetting or ignoring that I've done a keto diet myself so I do know what it involves, no fruit and very little veg (just a small serving of greens such as your one third cup of broccoli) and lots of saturated fat. I like to eat the colours of the rainbow every day thanks. I'm more than happy to admit that your particular diet alleviates pressure on the meat industry but you are not a "normal run of the mill" meat eater are you? how many people do you seriously know who crawl about on the ground watching bunnies copulate then killing them to bring home and eat?


Try and get your nutritionist head around this then: I can eat 77g of carbs a day and still be in ketosis. To get 77g from broccoli I would have to eat 3kg of it.

You clearly haven't been on a keto diet at all. You read what was involved and slung stuff on a plate and hoped for the best which would explain why you had such difficulties with restlessness etc.You can't even read nutritional labels as I proved you get more fat from nuts which are lower in saturated fat. At no point when I mentioned "Keto" did you say "You know you can do that diet as a vegan?", you just jumped in with meat and dairy which tells me you know absolutely nothing about keto and refuse to even try to understand it because you listen to experts who are body builders yet when i get information from people who are either body builders, coach body builders or are heavily involved in the fitness industry it is deemed as not worth anything.

These are scientific facts right across the board about the nutritional value sin food I am putting in front of you and you deny them because of your own closed mind about me. It's just laughable how you dismiss the most basic of information that even GOES with your diet choice but because I post it it is rubbished or isn't understood. You need to understand it to remain healthy on a vegan diet otherwise you put yourself in serious rick of deficiencies but you keep slinging stuff on your plates because it's colorful and hope for the best, I am sure it'll all work out so good luck with that.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> W I'm not so sure you alleviate pressure on the dairy industry with all that cheese though. Incidentally I have not called you a troll on this thread either. Please re read my post above # 533 where I explain about my certificate in plant based nutrition.


You see a few recipes and ASSUME I get my fat from dairy yet I show in a really simple way that you get more fats from nuts and you still post this. You clearly can't understand even the basics of information around nutrition.[/QUOTE]



rottiepointerhouse said:


> @ouesi have you seen this short Rip Esselstyn video - he is quite funny - 6.45 he talks about the canary in the coal mine (erectile dysfunction). Another very fit plant based guy who has competed as an athlete


"Oh you like my posts and share my point of view etc etc etc", it does make me laugh how you believe the more likes you get for a post warrants how valid the information within that post is. Apes R US


----------



## hutch6

noushka05 said:


> Errm actually Siberian huskies are extremely efficient hunters, one of the reasons responsible owners wont let them off lead in an unsecured area. They are closest to the original phenotype. A primitive breed which had to hunt to survive. Each summer the Chukchi people would release their huskies to fend for themselves only feeding them in winter when they needed them to pull the sleds. Sibes evolved in an extreme climate - this means they are better equipped, than breeds which evolved in temperate climates, to survive extremes in temperature. Their double coat insulates them from the not only from the cold - but from the heat too. My huskies have killed all sorts over the years - sadly :-(


I reckon they'd over heat on most of the planet though too quick to be effective.


----------



## hutch6

Elles said:


> I have no idea what a Keto diet is. I'm not interested in analysing my food in depth or eating any meat, or dairy, or losing weight, or body building, so it's not something I'd look at tbh. I wouldn't look at slimming world, or weight watchers, or the caveman diet either. I didn't realise you were talking about a specific diet to begin with. I thought you were talking about a lifestyle, where you kill for your own meat, grow your own fruit and veg and trade with farmers and other growers. Something that's nice, but not possible for most, even if they wanted it.
> 
> When you linked a recipe that was majorly cheese and cream and talked about fat being the basis of your diet, then I realised it was a specific diet you're talking about. If that diet cuts down in a big way in animal based products and processed food and is a healthier diet than most western diets, then fine. So long as you aren't dissing my plant based diet and promoting your own as healthier, I don't have a problem. I think you needed to be more specific than linking an artery clogging dairy feast as an example though.
> 
> Now if you are telling me that my diet will destroy my health and the health of the planet and I should eat dead animals and cheese, despite all the evidence to the contrary, then I do have a problem. Those claims would be spurious and could deter someone else from making changes that would benefit them, which would be wrong imo. That is the reason you're getting arguments. Not just because of your diet, but because of what you're saying about plant based and vegan.
> 
> A plant based diet is good for me, good for the planet and quite easy to follow. If I did eat animal based produce, then a wholefood plant based diet, with the occasional portion of (organic) meat, fish, egg, or dairy would also be a lot better than the average western diet and make a difference. I would encourage anyone to look into it, at least a bit and try to make changes, especially if what they eat is making them sick, or overweight. Buying locally grown, seasonal, organic produce where possible is also a good point.
> 
> Not sure what dogs have to do with it tbh.


What about vitamin and mineral deficiencies?

Our veg in shops these days is severely lacking in minerals and vitamins because of the poor environments they are grown in due to intensive fruit and veg growing.

I swear to mother nature!!!

I have been saying all along that what I eat cuts down on livestock farming and animal produce massively and still would if I didn't gather my own food.

Now, how many people are willing to listen me saying you can cut down you meat and an animal product supply massively and still enjoy the odd bit of meat here and there so you're not giving it up completely, it will make you healthier, you can still lose weight, remain the same weight or even put on muscle?
How many people listen to folk who say "I'm a vegan, have you thought about cutting animal stuff out of your diet?"

If I can get people to reduce their meat intake without feeling like they are missing out because they are not hungry all of the time then I stand more chance of folk giving up meat altogether than a ranting raving vegan. I dismiss vegan stuff mainly because of how I get talked to by them and I am pretty sure a great many others are but when the weight-watchers ladies found out about the girlfriend being on keto, guess what happened? their meat consumption went down and some are now veggies.


----------



## Guest

rottiepointerhouse said:


> @ouesi have you seen this short Rip Esselstyn video - he is quite funny - 6.45 he talks about the canary in the coal mine (erectile dysfunction). Another very fit plant based guy who has competed as an athlete


Yes :Hilarious
Rip Esselsyn is one of the guys I follow. Lots of great information about plant fueled athletes


----------



## noushka05

hutch6 said:


> I reckon they'd over heat on most of the planet though too quick to be effective.


As I said, their double coat insulates from the heat as well as the cold. My GSP used to suffer heat stroke - I've had 6 sibes & never had a problem with them. They cope remarkably well, bear in mind their summer coat is far less dense than their winter coat is. Breeds with little undercoat, like GSPs, would struggle in extreme heat AND cold ime

The wolf was the most successful mammal on earth until man exterminated it from most of its range. Siberian huskies are closest to the phenotype of their shared ancestor.


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I am not and never have claimed to be a "qualified plant nutritionist" but I do have a certificate in plant based nutrition which is not the same thing at all, to train as a nutritionist takes years and whilst I would dearly love to do that I already run a very busy business that takes up 60 - 70 hours of my week, look after our home, cook nutritious meals every day and care for 3 dogs, somewhere in that mix I try to fit in my own exercise routine and if I'm very lucky I might get to sit down and watch a bit of telly for 20 mins a couple of times a week. We do not record our "macros" we eat a whole food plant based diet and plenty of it and as I said he has found it easier to build muscle despite his age than ever before.
> 
> If you are genuinely interested then this guy gave some lectures on my course although I do not claim to be any sort of expert on body building and my OH only uses weights at home a few times a week.
> .


Nope, not much about your nutrition course here.

Your OH lifts weights a couple of times a week, presumably doesn't put all that much muscle on then - just basic human biology, unless he supplements with protein shakes, creatine and a whole host of other stuff. My guess is if he dropped the cereals (which cause you to retain water, yes , in your muscles) he'd look smaller than he does. Want a good muscle pump? Eat starch and grains as they make you retain water to their inflammatory properties.

You run a business that takes up 60-70 hrs of your week and do what the rest of us do.

A guy came over form America and gave you some lectures on your course - THAT is the only detail you provided.

Maybe if I ask for specifics.

When did you do your course?
Who was the education institute?
Who was the accrediting body?
How long was the course?
What was one of the subjects covered?
Did it cover how to read nutritional analysis of foods and how that data is found?


----------



## Guest

Elles said:


> Now if you are telling me that my diet will destroy my health and the health of the planet and I should eat dead animals and cheese, despite all the evidence to the contrary, then I do have a problem. Those claims would be spurious and could deter someone else from making changes that would benefit them, which would be wrong imo. That is the reason you're getting arguments. Not just because of your diet, but because of what you're saying about plant based and vegan.
> 
> A plant based diet is good for me, good for the planet and quite easy to follow. If I did eat animal based produce, then a wholefood plant based diet, with the occasional portion of (organic) meat, fish, egg, or dairy would also be a lot better than the average western diet and make a difference. I would encourage anyone to look into it, at least a bit and try to make changes, especially if what they eat is making them sick, or overweight. Buying locally grown, seasonal, organic produce where possible is also a good point.
> 
> Not sure what dogs have to do with it tbh.


Again, thank you. 
This really. 
I have no need nor desire to count calories let alone macronutrients (as an aside, I think classifying foods by their macronutrients is one of the huge issues we have in our inability to eat a normal, healthy, balanced diet) I just want to eat food. Which I do. I eat food, whatever I want, as much as I want, and I don't destroy the environment or my health in the process. 
Food should not be a source of constant stress, planning, overthinking etc. We westerners have a flucked up enough relationship with food as it is. I want my kids to know where their food comes from, what IS food (processed junk =/= food) how to prepare it, how to ENJOY it as a family. You know, like what we have lost in the hustle and bustle of the (sick) western lifestyle. If I can raise two kids who know where their food comes from and know how to eat responsibly, I've already done something sustainable for the environment if you ask me.

@hutch6 I'm not ignoring your posts, I actually do have to work today. I'll try to get back to specific points later. Just wanted to thank @Elles for another excellent post and excellent points made.


----------



## hutch6

noushka05 said:


> As I said, their double coat insulates from the heat as well as the cold. My GSP used to suffer heat stroke - I've had 6 sibes & never had a problem with them. They cope remarkably well, bear in mind their summer coat is far less dense than their winter coat is. Breeds with little undercoat, like GSPs, would struggle in extreme heat AND cold ime
> 
> The wolf was the most successful mammal on earth until man exterminated it from most of its range. Siberian huskies are closest to the phenotype of their shared ancestor.


Aye, the GSD X Husky used to jump like Pepé le Pu into the bracken and come out with a pheasant that had been squatting in it's lay.

Do you reckon two feral huskies would form a pack though and then go out and hunt like wolves do or would they just for themselves and stuff the others?


----------



## WillowT

Oh lord


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> I* have no need nor desire to count calories let alone macronutrients (as an aside, I think classifying foods by their macronutrients is one of the huge issues we have in our inability to eat a normal, healthy, balanced diet) I just want to eat food. Which I do. I eat food, whatever I want, as much as I want,* and I don't destroy the environment or my health in the process.


Massively emphasises my point in my posts throughout this thread.

The whole reason we have obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancers, a dying planet, intensive farming, animal cruelty, poverty and sickness right throughout the world is because of what you just typed

People want to be just eat, what they want, when they want, and however much they want.

My point is this, I bet you were surprised just how little stuff I have to eat to get my fats and much veg I need to eat to get my carbs. That not something new to me when talking to people. But as you saw, there is a whole lot more to just slinging stuff on a plate and hoping for the best because that is what has gotten us in tot this mess in the first place.



ouesi said:


> Food should not be a source of constant stress, planning, overthinking etc. We westerners have a flucked up enough relationship with food as it is. I want my kids to know where their food comes from, what IS food (processed junk =/= food) how to prepare it, how to ENJOY it as a family. You know, like what we have lost in the hustle and bustle of the (sick) western lifestyle. If I can raise two kids who know where their food comes from and know how to eat responsibly, I've already done something sustainable for the environment if you ask me.


Exactly that. Get the facts into the kids early and it isn't a stress. It's a stress to begin with but so is learning anything that is new but once you get your bonce around it, it's a doddle.


----------



## Elles

Who is a ranting raving vegan on here? What vitamin and mineral deficiencies? I said ‘organic’ I agreed with you on ‘locally sourced seasonal’ and I even mentioned fish, eggs, dairy and meat. I’m not deficient in vitamins and minerals, I have no diet related disease, or health issue and I have all my own teeth. I spend most of time outdoors though and I probably ingest too much dirt lol. 

Of course if a person is going to make a major change in diet, it would be a good thing to do a bit of research first and have some idea, but I think the average junk food, intensively farmed, heavy western diet is more likely to bring about deficiencies tbh. 

I want to eat whenever and whatever I like, when I feel like it too. So I cut out all the crap which means I can. If I wanted to eat cheese, crisps, cake and burgers whenever I felt like it and was addicted to them, I probably would make myself sick, but as what I like to eat is healthy and good for me, I can do what I like without weighing and measuring and timing it.


----------



## catz4m8z

hutch6 said:


> Now, how many people are willing to listen me saying you can cut down you meat and an animal product supply massively and still enjoy the odd bit of meat here and there so you're not giving it up completely, it will make you healthier, you can still lose weight, remain the same weight or even put on muscle?
> How many people listen to folk who say "I'm a vegan, have you thought about cutting animal stuff out of your diet?"
> 
> If I can get people to reduce their meat intake without feeling like they are missing out because they are not hungry all of the time then I stand more chance of folk giving up meat altogether than a ranting raving vegan. .


I wont deny that you will greatly improve your health by drastically reducing the amount of meat and diary you eat even if you dont give up completely. But as most people still get their meat from the factory farm industry they will still be contributing to alot of cruelty, suffering and unnecessary death.

Oh, and not to rant and rave but if you are hungry on a vegan diet then you are doing it wrong!


----------



## Elles

catz4m8z said:


> I wont deny that you will greatly improve your health by drastically reducing the amount of meat and diary you eat even if you dont give up completely. But as most people still get their meat from the factory farm industry they will still be contributing to alot of cruelty, suffering and unnecessary death.
> 
> Oh, and not to rant and rave but if you are hungry on a vegan diet then you are doing it wrong!


The only argument I'd have with that, is that if everyone cut right back on dairy, meat etc and looked for organic, there would no longer be enough customers to support factory farming and mass slaughter, so the farms would be more likely to close. Of course if everyone gave it up altogether, there'd be no doubt about it, but just cutting back and not giving kfc and Mac Donald's your custom would be on the right track and a good start and take pressure off the nhs.


----------



## hutch6

Elles said:


> Now if you are telling me that my diet will destroy my health and the health of the planet and I should eat dead animals and cheese, despite all the evidence to the contrary, then I do have a problem. Those claims would be spurious and could deter someone else from making changes that would benefit them, which would be wrong imo. That is the reason you're getting arguments. Not just because of your diet, but because of what you're saying about plant based and vegan./


But I don't have to have anything imported for me or intensively farmed including your fruit and veg.

If you take out the wild meat and game I eat and replace it with local farmed livestock meat then I bet it still works out less of a carbon footprint, less water use, less fertiliser, less animals having to be shunned out of their habitat or bumped off, less pollution in plastics, less soil impact and erosion to a typical vegan diet by anyone on this thread though and there's still loads left over for others to utilise so no waste.

I even stop rabbit and deer farts warming the planet up.

I get little bits here and there that contain 2.25 times more calories than your food does (fat has 9k/cls per gram and carb has 4 k/cal per gram), so I actually have to eat less than vegans do.


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> I wont deny that you will greatly improve your health by drastically reducing the amount of meat and diary you eat even if you dont give up completely. But as most people still get their meat from the factory farm industry they will still be contributing to alot of cruelty, suffering and unnecessary death.
> 
> Oh, and not to rant and rave but if you are hungry on a vegan diet then you are doing it wrong!


So when you put the idea forward to a person who eats meat that they should go vegan what are the most common reason they give you?


----------



## Dr Pepper

hutch6 said:


> So when you put the idea forward to a person who eats meat that they should go vegan what are the most common reason they give you?


I can answer that.

Because it tastes nice, particularly on top of a four cheese, cheesy stuffed crust pizza that's at least 14inch. With some black olives on as well so I have a balanced diet. Yum yum.


----------



## hutch6

noushka05 said:


> Errm actually Siberian huskies are extremely efficient hunters, one of the reasons responsible owners wont let them off lead in an unsecured area. They are closest to the original phenotype. A primitive breed which had to hunt to survive. Each summer the Chukchi people would release their huskies to fend for themselves only feeding them in winter when they needed them to pull the sleds. Sibes evolved in an extreme climate - this means they are better equipped, than breeds which evolved in temperate climates, to survive extremes in temperature. Their double coat insulates them from the not only from the cold - but from the heat too. My huskies have killed all sorts over the years - sadly :-(


Going back to this then. Dogs have been bred to help us to live in certain environments due to them being able to catch us nutrient rich and calorie dense food. That old hunter gatherer thing again.


----------



## hutch6

Dr Pepper said:


> I can answer that.
> 
> Because it tastes nice, particularly on top of a four cheese, cheesy stuffed crust pizza that's at least 14inch. With some black olives on as well so I have a balanced diet. Yum yum.


----------



## catz4m8z

Dr Pepper said:


> I can answer that.
> 
> Because it tastes nice, particularly on top of a four cheese, cheesy stuffed crust pizza that's at least 14inch. With some black olives on as well so I have a balanced diet. Yum yum.


 yup, this! Most selfish, self serving, idiotic reason on the planet. Sadly you cant really argue with stupid though so I just back away quietly and hope that karma pays them back for all the blameless animals they have killed and the planet they are destroying.

It is such a dumb arguement and its not like we would accept it from any other morally reprehensible behaviour...'oh, but I really like beating my wife!'


----------



## Dr Pepper

catz4m8z said:


> It is such a dumb arguement and its not like we would accept it from any other morally reprehensible behaviour...'oh, but I really like beating my wife!'


Only after a dozen pints of Stella Artois, obviously.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

hutch6 said:


> So which weight converter did you use?
> 
> Try and get your nutritionist head around this then: I can eat 77g of carbs a day and still be in ketosis. To get 77g from broccoli I would have to eat 3kg of it.
> 
> You clearly haven't been on a keto diet at all. You read what was involved and slung stuff on a plate and hoped for the best which would explain why you had such difficulties with restlessness etc.You can't even read nutritional labels as I proved you get more fat from nuts which are lower in saturated fat. At no point when I mentioned "Keto" did you say "You know you can do that diet as a vegan?", you just jumped in with meat and dairy which tells me you know absolutely nothing about keto and refuse to even try to understand it because you listen to experts who are body builders yet when i get information from people who are either body builders, coach body builders or are heavily involved in the fitness industry it is deemed as not worth anything.
> 
> These are scientific facts right across the board about the nutritional value sin food I am putting in front of you and you deny them because of your own closed mind about me. It's just laughable how you dismiss the most basic of information that even GOES with your diet choice but because I post it it is rubbished or isn't understood. You need to understand it to remain healthy on a vegan diet otherwise you put yourself in serious rick of deficiencies but you keep slinging stuff on your plates because it's colorful and hope for the best, I am sure it'll all work out so good luck with that.
> 
> You see a few recipes and ASSUME I get my fat from dairy yet I show in a really simple way that you get more fats from nuts and you still post this. You clearly can't understand even the basics of information around nutrition.


"Oh you like my posts and share my point of view etc etc etc", it does make me laugh how you believe the more likes you get for a post warrants how valid the information within that post is. Apes R US[/QUOTE]

OK until now I've played nicely with you but now you are being rude and obnoxious. Why does it remotely bother you which weight converter I used to work out how many KG 10 stone 8 equalled? I either read it wrong or the converter I used got it wrong, I don't even know which one I used because I had no idea I would be cross examined on it. It was a couple of pounds FFS why are you still banging on about it?

You posted the recipe with the obscene amount of cheese and a miserly third of a cup of broccoli, not me, I didn't assume it or dream it up, you posted it. Got the hump now because you wish you had picked something a tad more healthy? You tell me that I get more fat from nuts than you get from cheese - how do you know whether I eat nuts and if I do how many? Again you are either jumping to conclusions or muddling me up with someone else.

Why does me having taken a course in plant based nutrient make you feel so threatened and aggressive? Please don't tell me what I think and what I know and what I can and can't do. Have you even asked me what type of keto diet I did, what sort of things I ate? No you have assumed things and come up with your own version as you already did previously about my OH. Wrong on both counts. Yes thank you I'm sure eating a colourful diet full of wholegrains and healthy fruit and vegetables will see me continuing to enjoy excellent health.

What makes you "think" that you know what I believe, who said I believe the more "likes" a post gets the more valid the information is within the post? Do you think I am a child? Or perhaps you believe that yourself so you assume I do too. Apes R US :Hilarious:Hilarious very funny, I trust you have included yourself in the Apes part as you are behaving like a threatened Silverback beating his chest.



hutch6 said:


> Nope, not much about your nutrition course here.
> 
> Your OH lifts weights a couple of times a week, presumably doesn't put all that much muscle on then - just basic human biology, unless he supplements with protein shakes, creatine and a whole host of other stuff. My guess is if he dropped the cereals (which cause you to retain water, yes , in your muscles) he'd look smaller than he does. Want a good muscle pump? Eat starch and grains as they make you retain water to their inflammatory properties.
> 
> You run a business that takes up 60-70 hrs of your week and do what the rest of us do.
> 
> A guy came over form America and gave you some lectures on your course - THAT is the only detail you provided.
> 
> Maybe if I ask for specifics.
> 
> When did you do your course?
> Who was the education institute?
> Who was the accrediting body?
> How long was the course?
> What was one of the subjects covered?
> Did it cover how to read nutritional analysis of foods and how that data is found?


It wasn't supposed to provide you with information about my course. Again you are assuming and making up your own conclusions, I said my OH works out with weights a few times a week, few usually means 3 not 2 but as I said before I am not pretending to be an expert on body building nor is my OH, but thanks he has put on muscle and is more than happy with his physique and body fat percentage.

As for asking for the specifics of my course I don't see why I should share that with you, I haven't claimed to be a nutritional expert. You asked where I gained my information from and I said from years spent as a RGN, from a course in plant based nutrition and from my own research/reading. I have not asked you to give me your qualifications and tell me where you got them from and what your degree involved, nor have I demanded to know the contents of your cupboards/fridge or your partner's workout routine and diet. I actually posted the stuff about Robert Cheeke because I thought you might be interested in what he had to say but I won't waste my time again. You carry on munching cheese and I'll carry on munching fruit and veg and never the twain shall meet.


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> yup, this! Most selfish, self serving, idiotic reason on the planet. Sadly you cant really argue with stupid though so I just back away quietly and hope that karma pays them back for all the blameless animals they have killed and the planet they are destroying.
> 
> It is such a dumb arguement and its not like we would accept it from any other morally reprehensible behaviour...'oh, but I really like beating my wife!'


But they don't think they're the issue, and they're not. The issue is the guff that the health system they rely on tells them. You have to understand that the overwhelming majority of people in the western world are addicted to food and they don't realise it. Heck the vast majority in this thread are addicted to food and think they're not.

Education is king. Why back away instead of discussing something that means so much to you? You haven;t backed away in this thread and if you back away the issue only gets worse as the same people you back away from have children and then grandchildren who are not educated in actual human nutrition the issue actually increases as that is more mouths putting further demand on an already overstretched industry.

What if Emily Pankhurst had given up after missed the collision with the first horse?
What if Martin Luther King had given up his seat on that bus?
What if the Confederate didn't force the Union to give up their slaves?
What if Noah hadn't managed to find thousands of gallons of sap resin to seal the gaps on the arc?

Don't walk away and expect some one else to do it!!


----------



## catz4m8z

hutch6 said:


> Education is king. Why back away instead of discussing something that means so much to you?


So after you have given them all the information on the ethical issues, the destruction of the planet and the risks to their health and they _still_ say 'meh...bacon tastes good!' what is your counter argument?? (I would really like to know coz this is the one thing I have yet to be able to argue againest as it isnt logic based in the slightest).


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> "Oh you like my posts and share my point of view etc etc etc", it does make me laugh how you believe the more likes you get for a post warrants how valid the information within that post is. Apes R US


OK until now I've played nicely with you but now you are being rude and obnoxious. Why does it remotely bother you which weight converter I used to work out how many KG 10 stone 8 equalled? I either read it wrong or the converter I used got it wrong, I don't even know which one I used because I had no idea I would be cross examined on it. It was a couple of pounds FFS why are you still banging on about it?

You posted the recipe with the obscene amount of cheese and a miserly third of a cup of broccoli, not me, I didn't assume it or dream it up, you posted it. Got the hump now because you wish you had picked something a tad more healthy? You tell me that I get more fat from nuts than you get from cheese - how do you know whether I eat nuts and if I do how many? Again you are either jumping to conclusions or muddling me up with someone else.

Why does me having taken a course in plant based nutrient make you feel so threatened and aggressive? Please don't tell me what I think and what I know and what I can and can't do. Have you even asked me what type of keto diet I did, what sort of things I ate? No you have assumed things and come up with your own version as you already did previously about my OH. Wrong on both counts. Yes thank you I'm sure eating a colourful diet full of wholegrains and healthy fruit and vegetables will see me continuing to enjoy excellent health.

What makes you "think" that you know what I believe, who said I believe the more "likes" a post gets the more valid the information is within the post? Do you think I am a child? Or perhaps you believe that yourself so you assume I do too. Apes R US :Hilarious:Hilarious very funny, I trust you have included yourself in the Apes part as you are behaving like a threatened Silverback beating his chest.

It wasn't supposed to provide you with information about my course. Again you are assuming and making up your own conclusions, I said my OH works out with weights a few times a week, few usually means 3 not 2 but as I said before I am not pretending to be an expert on body building nor is my OH, but thanks he has put on muscle and is more than happy with his physique and body fat percentage.

As for asking for the specifics of my course I don't see why I should share that with you, I haven't claimed to be a nutritional expert. You asked where I gained my information from and I said from years spent as a RGN, from a course in plant based nutrition and from my own research/reading. I have not asked you to give me your qualifications and tell me where you got them from and what your degree involved, nor have I demanded to know the contents of your cupboards/fridge or your partner's workout routine and diet. I actually posted the stuff about Robert Cheeke because I thought you might be interested in what he had to say but I won't waste my time again. You carry on munching cheese and I'll carry on munching fruit and veg and never the twain shall meet.[/QUOTE]

You don't read my posts or you skim read them because despite me proving I don't have to eat cheese and if I do it makes up about as much of my diet as it does your vegan diet.yet at the end you state "You carry on munching cheese".

I said "I proved you get more fat from nuts", you, me, humans, anyone that eats nuts gets more fat that it would from cheese - nuts contain more fat than cheese.. Plus the original post I mentioned nuts in wasn't even in response to you.

I called you out on your keto diet because you have to be aware of what you eat to stay in ketosis and with the ailments you stated you suffered from it seems you got the macros mixed up. It's not a hard way of eating to get wrong.

You even said "Hell, that is way worse than I expected" so what does that mean? You didn't even look at other recipes?

What were you macros at the time? Was it a vegan diet or a veggy diet or an omnivorous diet?

I said you failed to mention that you can do a keto diet on vegan so that told me you didn't know it could be done on a vegan diet or you would have told me it could when i mentioned it over the course of about three or four pages of posts on here. You also stated that veg was a garnish So I'll ask you, am I right that you did not know you could do keto on a vegan diet?
If so then why not mention that I can get more fat from nuts than I can from animal and dairy?

I haven't come up with anything about your OH at all. You posted his stats and stated he works out a few times a week. I put him as reasonably active in the example to give you an idea of how much stuff you need to eat if you are slightly active, not to make him out to be any less or more active in his actual existence, just as an example. If he is more active than i made out then good for him, it just means he'd have to eat more carbs than I posted.

Your qualification in plant based nutrition doesn't make me feel threatened in any way at all, so I apologise if it came across that way. I laid out the nutritional basics of a food and explained in simple terms how you can work out how much you need but you didn't even acknowledge that it came as a surprise, you stated that you didn't understand it yet it is basic maths.

Yes, fruit and veg contain vitamins and minerals etc but that is no good if you are eating too much of one thing and not enough of another.

To ensure I don't miss out on such things I actually eat more offal than I do flesh but you just think I eat slabs of meat when I have explained and mentioned it several times.


----------



## Elles

For it not to have more of an impact and all be locally sourced, there would have to be considerably fewer people and they would all have to live in rich growing areas suitable for growing a variety of plant produce and supporting the animals for the meat and dairy. If that were the case, the planet could afford to transport bananas and nuts into the uk for the weirdo vegans. However mass suicide, or mass murder isn't an acceptable option.

We can feed the current world population if it went vegan. Raising a large enough number of cattle, pigs and chickens to feed everyone in the world even just the same diet you have, would mean factory farming and transport. It couldn't be done organically and locally. There'd be no other way. Depending on where we live, a vegan may or may not need to import food, but with the current population we could feed everyone ethically and organically on a healthy plant based diet and transport would have less of an impact.

I'm not trying to persuade you to change your lifestyle or your diet, but I do think your idea of what plant based is and it's impact is a little off tbh. It doesn't mean living on high carb white rice, mashed potato, or white bread, growing plants under plastic, draining the planet of water, or any of the things you talk about and it doesn't mean importing everything, or killing every animal in existence. These things happen, in a major part because of the animal product industry. We don't have enough land, because we feed cows, pigs, sheep and chickens, instead of feeding us. If we fed us instead, we could put something back. At least until we totally overran the planet.

I asked you to look at the pinned wholefood plant based thread, so that you can see for yourself no one is talking about eating a badly thought out vegan diet of cola and chips, or even one or two vegetables and an apple.

@Dr Pepper have your 3 cheese pepperoni Pizza, 3 pints of Stella and bacon sarny, but as an occasional treat, not a way of life? :Bag Sadly that would be what my husband would love as a balanced diet. He's a prime example of what junk food and too much beer does to you, even though he probably exercises more than most and did a 50km charity cycle ride last weekend, he's still pretty unhealthy. Taking up this Keto diet, at least short term, would be a major improvement in his case. Just not in mine. Fortunately the now grown up children take more after me than him for their food intake.


----------



## WillowT

Oh lord, oh lord, oh lord


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> So after you have given them all the information on the ethical issues, the destruction of the planet and the risks to their health and they _still_ say 'meh...bacon tastes good!' what is your counter argument?? (I would really like to know coz this is the one thing I have yet to be able to argue againest as it isnt logic based in the slightest).


"Good because that's what you need to eat for the next three days or week if you can" - I've not met anyone who wasn't fed up of eating bacon solidly for a week. After that it becomes an occasional treat as there are lots of other foods that provide you with the fat to keep you from being hungry. So after the initial gorge they'll slow their bacon intake down and the longer you go the less and less meat you actually eat if you get into the whole nutrition side of it all (i.e looking into new recipes).

The hardest thing to get people to give up is cereals and high carb food. Bread is the killer as folk are used to having it with most meals as a sandwich or a side, breakfast of toast and what not. chips come next as the thing folks miss. After a while in ketosis some will give in to the bread addiction by which time they won't have any inflammation or bloat and they will feel just what it's like to eat cereals and what they do to the body. They don't generally go back o them after that. Others are quite happy to have a carb-up day and eat pizzas or rice etc. Once you get passed the initial stages of food addiction cereals and high carb food doesn't even cross your mind anymore and you see it like you would if you were addicted to anything and gave it up - "So happy I'm not doing that anymore and don't need to".

What does quorn bacon taste of? Not being funny I genuinely have no idea. If you used to eat meat and now are vegan and have a point of reference for tastes between the two then what's the difference, is it any more tasty or less tasty than actual bacon?


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> Heck the vast majority in this thread are addicted to food and think they're not.


Oh please do tell me what food I'm addicted to


----------



## catz4m8z

hutch6 said:


> "Good because that's what you need to eat for the next three days or week if you can" - I've not met anyone who wasn't fed up of eating bacon solidly for a week.
> 
> What does quorn bacon taste of? Not being funny I genuinely have no idea. If you used to eat meat and now are vegan and have a point of reference for tastes between the two then what's the difference, is it any more tasty or less tasty than actual bacon?


We are talking about 2 different things here though. You are talking about persuading someone to follow a specific diet whereas I am talking about becoming vegan which is about more then just food/diet and has wider reaching global impact. 
This is why I couldnt ever become an activist...I just dont understand how people can know this stuff and still not care. Just imagine you woke up every morning and flicked a switch on the wall, you dont need to but you've done it all your life so, meh. What if somebody then told you that flicking that switch eletrocuted a dog in the next room...would you still flick that switch?

As for Quorn bacon it tastes horrible! We have perfected vegan burgers, sausages, fish fingers, etc but bacon eludes us (TBH I was never a fan of salty, fatty flaps of meat so I dont miss it!).


----------



## hutch6

Elles said:


> For it not to have more of an impact and all be locally sourced, there would have to be considerably fewer people and they would all have to live in rich growing areas suitable for growing a variety of plant produce and supporting the animals for the meat and dairy. If that were the case, the planet could afford to transport bananas and nuts into the uk for the weirdo vegans. However mass suicide, or mass murder isn't an acceptable option.
> 
> We can feed the current world population if it went vegan. Raising a large enough number of cattle, pigs and chickens to feed everyone in the world even just the same diet you have, would mean factory farming and transport. It couldn't be done organically and locally. There'd be no other way. Depending on where we live, a vegan may or may not need to import food, but with the current population we could feed everyone ethically and organically on a healthy plant based diet and transport would have less of an impact.
> 
> I'm not trying to persuade you to change your lifestyle or your diet, but I do think your idea of what plant based is and it's impact is a little off tbh. It doesn't mean living on high carb white rice, mashed potato, or white bread, growing plants under plastic, draining the planet of water, or any of the things you talk about and it doesn't mean importing everything, or killing every animal in existence. These things happen, in a major part because of the animal product industry. We don't have enough land, because we feed cows, pigs, sheep and chickens, instead of feeding us. If we fed us instead, we could put something back. At least until we totally overran the planet.
> 
> I asked you to look at the pinned wholefood plant based thread, so that you can see for yourself no one is talking about eating a badly thought out vegan diet of cola and chips, or even one or two vegetables and an apple.
> 
> @Dr Pepper have your 3 cheese pepperoni Pizza, 3 pints of Stella and bacon sarny, but as an occasional treat, not a way of life? :Bag Sadly that would be what my husband would love as a balanced diet. He's a prime example of what junk food and too much beer does to you, even though he probably exercises more than most and did a 50km charity cycle ride last weekend, he's still pretty unhealthy. Taking up this Keto diet, at least short term, would be a major improvement in his case. Just not in mine. Fortunately the now grown up children take more after me than him for their food intake.


I had a look at the thread and you're all eating three meals a day plus snack saying how much you like your food. Great.

I didn't go into this diet (it's not even a diet, it's a way of life just as vegan is a way of life) blind. I used to train a bit at the gym with a couple of lads as it was social, I was living on my own and didn't have anything else to do with my spare-time so they asked me along. after a while it got a bit more serious and then more serious and then you realise that what you do at the gym is only 30% of what you come out like, the other 70% is done in the kitchen. So me and the guys I trained with started trying different diets. We'd try them each and see what results we got from them over a period of about 4 months. Some lasted about three days as they were just not practical, some lasted the four months and so we would check the results against what we were like before we started the diet. The training never changed, just the weight we lifted due to muscle growth. We noticed on the keto diet we could train and we were no where near as tired at the end of the session, we weren't hungry either, we were putting on lean muscle whilst out weight was going down, our whole moods lifted. we spent ages looking into the nutritional aspects of individual food items etc and we haven't looked back. If you look on every health and fitness board there are load so diets. Some diets are the same just with different names or sound completely different but actually only eliminate a couple of extra things.

As part of my diet I only eat whole plant based produce so yes I get what it is about, I just don;t eat the cereals or high carbs foods that the folk in the thread do from what they posted in the last day or so explaining what they had for their meals that day or the day previous.


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> Oh please do tell me what food I'm addicted to


Cereals and high carb foods will be the ones you go for most because if you are on a glucose diet you have peaks and troughs of energy and need to refuel often because you burn it off but what you don't realise is the effects that cereals have on the body unless you've read up on it and researched it in which case you wouldn't eat them if you wanted to be healthy.
No doubt caffeine features in most people#s list of often consumed products as well and then either complain they can;t sleep or state they sleep well but don't realise that the cereals and caffeine are reducing their good sleep.

Google "wheat and the human body" for a good start into how it's bad for you. From there you can work your way through every cereal and grain. After that you'll find out about diets high in glucose and how your body becomes addicted to them.

I was the same.


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> We are talking about 2 different things here though. You are talking about persuading someone to follow a specific diet whereas I am talking about becoming vegan which is about more then just food/diet and has wider reaching global impact.
> This is why I couldnt ever become an activist...I just dont understand how people can know this stuff and still not care. Just imagine you woke up every morning and flicked a switch on the wall, you dont need to but you've done it all your life so, meh. What if somebody then told you that flicking that switch eletrocuted a dog in the next room...would you still flick that switch?
> 
> As for Quorn bacon it tastes horrible! We have perfected vegan burgers, sausages, fish fingers, etc but bacon eludes us (TBH I was never a fan of salty, fatty flaps of meat so I dont miss it!).


I have to go now, but I just wanted to say: why do they try and copy meat products with names and formation and I assume flavours? You don;t want to eat meat but yet the companies try and give you the sensation of eating meat. It's like these vape things and cigs in my mind. I get that it is to try and persuade people to give up meat so make that transition easier but why not just produce really nice tasty healthy looking stuff?

I'll answer your other bit when I can but we are working towards the same goal.

It's just my way works.    just kidding.


----------



## Elles

I’m not, but I haven’t posted much in there myself. As I said I usually eat once a day. I’ve had a glass of orange juice so far today and you’re right, 2 cups of coffee. I’ll eat later. So when you read through the recipes and what people have been eating since the thread started, does it look as though it’s all high carb, unhealthy, according to your dietary research? It is a mistake some people make when they go ‘vegan’. They swap to eating too many refined carbs, like chips, bread and white rice. 

That’s not what a wholefood plant based diet is about. It’s not about high fat, no carbs either though. I’ve never eaten pretend bacon, so I have no idea what it tastes like, sorry. My favourite fake food is fake yogurt. I don’t have any atm, so I’m not sure what it is. Soya prob. Whole oats are better for us than processed wheat I would think.


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> My point is this, I bet you were surprised just how little stuff I have to eat to get my fats and much veg I need to eat to get my carbs. That not something new to me when talking to people. But as you saw, there is a whole lot more to just slinging stuff on a plate and hoping for the best because that is what has gotten us in tot this mess in the first place.





hutch6 said:


> It's not a hard way of eating to get wrong.


Hrm... on the one hand you agree with me when I say I don't want to fuss around counting calories, macronutrients, whatever, and then on the other hand you say your keto diet is easy to get wrong. So which one is it? Is it an easy diet to follow or is it not hard to get wrong?
I eat what I want when I want. I eat food. Real, nourishing, satisfying FOOD. I don't eat quorn bacon whatever that is, prepared meals of any kind, processed food etc. I eat and prepare for my family food that remembers where it came from, and I teach my children where food comes from.

I'm not surprised at how little you have to eat or how much. I don't care. Really. Saying "you don't have to eat much" is not a selling point for me. I want to sit down at a table with my family and linger over a meal, eat as much as I feel like, and not think about what is carb, what is fat, what is protein. Again, we simply eat food. Food is not just for nourishing the body, it's part of our social lives and culture. It's meant to be enjoyed.



hutch6 said:


> But I don't have to have anything imported for me or intensively farmed including your fruit and veg.


Where does all that cheese you put on your pizza come from? What do you think goes in to making cheese?



hutch6 said:


> I had a look at the thread and you're all eating three meals a day plus snack saying how much you like your food. Great.


Nope, I don't eat breakfast.



hutch6 said:


> Now, how many people are willing to listen me saying you can cut down you meat and an animal product supply massively and still enjoy the odd bit of meat here and there so you're not giving it up completely, it will make you healthier, you can still lose weight, remain the same weight or even put on muscle?
> How many people listen to folk who say "I'm a vegan, have you thought about cutting animal stuff out of your diet?"
> 
> If I can get people to reduce their meat intake without feeling like they are missing out because they are not hungry all of the time then I stand more chance of folk giving up meat altogether than a ranting raving vegan. I dismiss vegan stuff mainly because of how I get talked to by them and I am pretty sure a great many others are but when the weight-watchers ladies found out about the girlfriend being on keto, guess what happened? their meat consumption went down and some are now veggies.


Who's a ranting raving vegan? One of my first posts on this thread was about "reducitarians" and I've continually said over and over on this thread that every effort to reduce our consumption of animal products should be celebrated. 
But hey, since you asked, currently two of my friends have asked about my eating and asked what they can do to improve their own health. One just bought her own copy of "Proteinaholic" and has reduced her meat intake greatly (she already ate very little dairy because it doesn't agree with her).



hutch6 said:


> Going back to this then. Dogs have been bred to help us to live in certain environments due to them being able to catch us nutrient rich and calorie dense food. That old hunter gatherer thing again.


See that's a huge misconception. Meat is not "nutrient rich" food. Fruits and vegetables are. We humans really don't get a whole lot from meat, and if it didn't have fat we couldn't even use it. Hence why people starve and die trying to eat only rabbits.


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> Cereals and high carb foods will be the ones you go for most because if you are on a glucose diet you have peaks and troughs of energy and need to refuel often because you burn it off but what you don't realise is the effects that cereals have on the body unless you've read up on it and researched it in which case you wouldn't eat them if you wanted to be healthy.
> No doubt caffeine features in most people#s list of often consumed products as well and then either complain they can;t sleep or state they sleep well but don't realise that the cereals and caffeine are reducing their good sleep.


Sorry dude. Wrong again.
I can go all day and not eat and be just fine.
The other day I had the dreaded carbs for dinner around 6pm. Got up the next day and ran 5 miles on an apple and a cup of coffee. Was fine. Didn't eat that day until around 3pm. Again, was perfectly fine.
I rarely eat breakfast and do just fine waiting until later to eat. Sure I feel hungry, but I don't feel faint or weak or any of the things people complain of when hungry.
@Elles eats usually once a day, again, no issues.

I don't *want* to be healthy, I *am* healthy 

No problems sleeping, usually fall asleep when my head hits the pillow, up before the alarm, never had issues sleeping. No bloating, no "wheat belly" or "grain brain" etc.
Go ahead, what else are you going to assume about my health and get wrong? 

Oh and yes, I drink coffee. One cup usually. I'm fine if I don't have it, but I find it a nice way to start the day. If I have a second cup it's usually social (coffee shop with friends or OH).


----------



## hutch6

What nutrients are you referring to?


----------



## Guest

For those who I know are reading with interest though not commenting, this is an excerpt from Dr. John McDougall, respected practicing medical doctor who has for decades now reversed heart disease and other chronic illnesses in his patients with a starch based diet:

*Starches Generate Fitness*

The basic metabolism of the body is genetically encoded to run most efficiently on starches, and no amount of willpower, dieting, or wishful thinking will ever change the fundamentals of our internal workings. The one big simple solution to health and beauty is to eat the diet we were designed for-a starch-based diet.

_Starches Are Appetite Satisfying._

The hunger drive keeps you and the whole human race alive. You will not fool your hunger drive by pushing yourself away from the table, putting your fork down between bites, eating from a small plate, or counting calories. It will always hurt to be hungry and you can never train yourself to not feel that pain, even if you practice until you are 90 years old. So give in and eat, you must satisfy this basic survival need. The control you do have is the composition of the foods that are on your plate. Choose wisely. Meat, dairy, and oils for meals will mean overweight and sickness. Starches, vegetables, and fruits will mean a trim fit body and lifetime of excellent health.

You may have heard that "all calories are the same when it comes to body weight." This is incorrect, especially in terms of efficiency of appetite satisfaction and ease of fat accumulation. Three substances-protein, fat, and carbohydrate-can provide fuel for the body, measured as calories. Starches, like corn, beans, potatoes, and rice, are abundant in carbohydrates, dietary fiber, and are very low in fat. Appetite satisfaction begins with physically filling the stomach. Compared to cheese (4 calories per gram), meat (4 calories per gram), and oils (9 calories per gram), starches, at only one calorie per gram, are very calorie dilute. In the simplest terms, starches physically will fill you up with a fraction-one-fourth-of the calories as will cheese, meat, and oil.2Furthermore, research comparing the impact of eating carbohydrates and fats on the appeasement of our appetite shows carbohydrates lead to long-term satiety, enduring for hours between meals; whereas the fats in a meal have little impact on satiety-people are left wanting more food when they eat fats and oils.3,4

_Excess Starch Does Not Turn to Body Fat_

A widely held belief is that the sugars in starches are readily converted into fat and then stored unattractively in the abdomen, hips, and buttock. Incorrect! And there is no disagreement about the truth among scientists or their published scientific research.5-13 After eating, the complex carbohydrates found in starches, such as rice, are digested into simple sugars in the intestine and then absorbed into the bloodstream where they are transported to trillions of cells in the body in order to provide for energy. Carbohydrates (sugars) consumed in excess of the body's daily needs can be stored (invisibly) as glycogen in the muscles and liver. The total storage capacity for glycogen is about two pounds. Carbohydrates consumed in excess of our need and beyond our limited storage capacity are not readily stored as body fat. Instead, these excess carbohydrate calories are burned off as heat (a process known as facultative dietary thermogenesis) or used in physical movements not associated with exercise.9,13

The process of turning sugars into fats is known as de novo lipogenesis. Some animals, such as pigs and cows, can efficiently convert the low-energy, inexpensive carbohydrates found in grains and grasses into calorie-dense fats.5 This metabolic efficiency makes pigs and cows ideal "food animals." Bees also perform de novo lipogenesis; converting honey (simple carbohydrates) into wax (fats). However, human beings are very inefficient at this process and as a result de novo lipogenesis does not occur under usual living conditions in people.5-13 When, during extreme conditions, de novo lipogenesis does occur the metabolic cost is about 30% of the calories consumed-a very wasteful process.11

Under experimental laboratory conditions overfeeding of large amounts of simple sugars to subjects will result in a little bit of de novo lipogenesis. For example, trim and obese women were overfed 50% more total calories than they usually ate in a day, along with an extra 3.5 ounces (135 grams) of refined sugar. From this overfeeding the women produced less than 4 grams (36 calories) of fat daily, which means a person would have to be overfed by this amount of extra calories and sugar every day for nearly 4 months in order to gain one extra pound of body fat.10 Obviously, even overeating substantial quantities of refined and processed carbohydrates is a relatively unimportant source of body fat. So where does all that belly fat come from? The fat you eat is the fat you wear.

_Fat Is the Metabolic Dollar Saved for the Next Famine_

After eating, dietary fat (from lard, butter, meat, cheese, nuts, olive oil, etc.) is absorbed from the intestine into the bloodstream and transported to the millions of cells designed for storage-the body fat (adipose) cells. The metabolic cost for this transfer is relatively inexpensive (3% of the calories consumed).11 No pricey chemical conversion is required, so this is a routine metabolic movement after every typical meal. When samples of a person's body fat tissue are chemically analyzed the results reveal the kinds of fats which that person commonly eats.14-17 For example, the consumption of margarine and shortening results in high proportions of "trans" fats in a person's fatty tissues. A diet with large amounts of cold-water marine fish means omega-3 fats are deposited and stored in the body fat. The saying "from my lips to my hips" expresses the real life effects of the fat-laden Western diet. Fortunately, starches contain very little fat for us to wear.

(link to the whole article: https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2009nl/mar/passionate.htm )
I quite like his take on passionate people, it rings true with me. I am not a moderate person, and moderation has never been one of my strong points. Hence the distance running because why run 3 miles when you can run 13? :Hilarious:Hilarious


----------



## Catharinem

hutch6 said:


> Aren't they all mainly pack animals though and the dog isn't?
> 
> What dog would you say would survive the best?
> 
> I reckon the long dogs would be the main hunters (if they didn't need so much training to get them even half decent) but the bull breeds would steal most of their kills, a bit like cheetahs getting chased off of their kills most of the time. A grey x bull could possibly be the ultimate if it got it's act together but I doubt it.
> 
> So, a feral dog appears tomorrow with no basic information from a human on how and where to find prey, what happens next?
> 
> Any scent hound makes too much noise to get near something on their own.
> Toy breeds would be dead within days after eating poisoned rats.
> Pastoral are all bark and not much else, maybe the GSD could catch something like a wild hoglet but anything bigger wouldn't be feasible.,
> A husky could chase down prey but then it comes down to being able to bring down the animal and overcome it.
> 
> They can't get into bins as they have all been designed to keep dogs out.
> 
> I assume that the feral dogs aren't much trouble in the veg patches, digging up potato crops or chopping through corn fields?


My little cocker girl caught herself a field mouse the other day, and brought it over ti show me. My boy has caught pigeons before.

Myxi rabbits would make easy prey, but hares not a chance.

I suspect the easiest prey of all would be roadkill.

Left totally isolated from man, in a world where cars, poisons, takeaway skips etc didn't exist, eventually dogs would develop in different directions to fill different niches. Big dogs would cooperate to pull down roe or muntjac, some would inhabit woodland and live on eggs, nestlings, small rodents, beetles, worms etc, and still others would fill the niches around beaches or rivers/ponds, eating small stranded fish, frogs ( not toads), crabs, etc.


----------



## catz4m8z

Catharinem said:


> Left totally isolated from man, in a world where cars, poisons, takeaway skips etc didn't exist, eventually dogs would develop in different directions to fill different niches. Big dogs would cooperate to pull down roe or muntjac, some would inhabit woodland and live on eggs, nestlings, small rodents, beetles, worms etc, and still others would fill the niches around beaches or rivers/ponds, eating small stranded fish, frogs ( not toads), crabs, etc.


*nods* mine like to scavenge for prey underneath the benches in parks (you never know when you might find chips). They have already found their niche!


----------



## hutch6

Exactly. And we used to scavenge for meat.

What would they do in winter when all the food you’ve mention is scarce and don’t forget that dogs started working with his when there was a lot more all year round ice.

The vast majority of breeds are here purely to deal with animal related activities so it makes sense they used to help us hunt so we could gain more calorie rich food easily between us.

If humans did have a past of killing animals and eating them then we wouldn’t be the most dangerous animals on the planet.

We hunted animals for food long before we started planting crops and harvesting them. The crops we eat today are vastly different to what we ate pre-1950.


----------



## Elles

The animals are very different too, as is how they are fed. They’re fed on the equivalent of mcdonald’s before they become a McDonald’s. It’s why it’s so, so difficult to find appropriate pasture for horses.


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> What nutrients are you referring to?


Who are you asking? And what post are you referring to?


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> Hrm... on the one hand you agree with me when I say I don't want to fuss around counting calories, macronutrients, whatever, and then on the other hand you say your keto diet is easy to get wrong. So which one is it? Is it an easy diet to follow or is it not hard to get wrong?
> I eat what I want when I want. I eat food. Real, nourishing, satisfying FOOD. I don't eat quorn bacon whatever that is, prepared meals of any kind, processed food etc. I eat and prepare for my family food that remembers where it came from, and I teach my children where food comes from.
> 
> I'm not surprised at how little you have to eat or how much. I don't care. Really. Saying "you don't have to eat much" is not a selling point for me. I want to sit down at a table with my family and linger over a meal, eat as much as I feel like, and not think about what is carb, what is fat, what is protein. Again, we simply eat food. Food is not just for nourishing the body, it's part of our social lives and culture. It's meant to be enjoyed.
> 
> Where does all that cheese you put on your pizza come from? What do you think goes in to making cheese?
> 
> Nope, I don't eat breakfast.
> 
> Who's a ranting raving vegan? One of my first posts on this thread was about "reducitarians" and I've continually said over and over on this thread that every effort to reduce our consumption of animal products should be celebrated.
> But hey, since you asked, currently two of my friends have asked about my eating and asked what they can do to improve their own health. One just bought her own copy of "Proteinaholic" and has reduced her meat intake greatly (she already ate very little dairy because it doesn't agree with her).
> 
> See that's a huge misconception. Meat is not "nutrient rich" food. Fruits and vegetables are. We humans really don't get a whole lot from meat, and if it didn't have fat we couldn't even use it. Hence why people starve and die trying to eat only rabbits.


Your last paragraph here.

What nutrients? Macros? Micros? Vitamins? Minerals? Fats? Carbs? Protein?

What meat are you referring to? Steak? Chop? Bacon? Lamb? Beef? Grass fed? Corn fed? Soy fed? Farmed meat? Wild meat? Game meat?

The issue around eating rabbit is its protein content hence they call it protein poisoning. Is protein not a nutrient now or did I miss something?


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> Your last paragraph here.
> 
> What nutrients? Macros? Micros? Vitamins? Minerals? Fats? Carbs? Protein?
> 
> What meat are you referring to? Steak? Chop? Bacon? Lamb? Beef? Grass fed? Corn fed? Soy fed? Farmed meat? Wild meat? Game meat?
> 
> The issue around eating rabbit is its protein content hence they call it protein poisoning. Is protein not a nutrient now or did I miss something?


Pound for pound, calorie for calorie, you get far more nutrition from plant food than animal food, and it's often more bio available too. IOW in a form your body can easily use.

Yes, nutrients, vitamins and minerals. ALL food has macronutrients. It's silly to separate food in to fat/carb/protein. That creates a messed up relationship with food. 
Do you really think ancient man ran around with a calculator measuring how many carbs fats and proteins they had that day? No, we ate what our stomachs and tastebuds told us to eat.

Plant food supplies all the protein, carbs, and fats our bodies need to function. We do just fine eating plants. We don't need animal food. That our ancestors sometimes included meat in their diet does not negate the fact that we don't *need* animal food.

If people want to include animal foods in their diet that is their choice. I'm simply addressing the misconception that it's a necessity in a healthy balanced diet or that it is a nutrient rich food. Compared to the nutrition I get out of a plant based meal, a slab of meat of any kind, doesn't come close. 
And of course that doesn't even address the health and environmental implications of eating meat that have been addressed over and over on this thread.


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> Pound for pound, calorie for calorie, you get far more nutrition from plant food than animal food, and it's often more bio available too. IOW in a form your body can easily use.
> 
> Yes, nutrients, vitamins and minerals. ALL food has macronutrients. It's silly to separate food in to fat/carb/protein. That creates a messed up relationship with food.
> Do you really think ancient man ran around with a calculator measuring how many carbs fats and proteins they had that day? No, we ate what our stomachs and tastebuds told us to eat.
> 
> Plant food supplies all the protein, carbs, and fats our bodies need to function. We do just fine eating plants. We don't need animal food. That our ancestors sometimes included meat in their diet does not negate the fact that we don't *need* animal food.
> 
> If people want to include animal foods in their diet that is their choice. I'm simply addressing the misconception that it's a necessity in a healthy balanced diet or that it is a nutrient rich food. Compared to the nutrition I get out of a plant based meal, a slab of meat of any kind, doesn't come close.
> And of course that doesn't even address the health and environmental implications of eating meat that have been addressed over and over on this thread.


Ok, I'll answer your claim in a one time when I've gotten changed but in the meantime, you don't take any vitamin tablets or dietary supplements? Just a question before you or anyone think I'm having a go.


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> Ok, I'll answer your claim in a one time when I've gotten changed but in the meantime, you don't take any vitamin tablets or dietary supplements? Just a question before you or anyone think I'm having a go.


Yup, I take B12 once a week. BTW most meat eaters also need to supplement their B12 since meat animals aren't grazing enough to get adequate amounts of the vitamin either. B12 is made by bacteria in the ground, not by animals. 
I also take Tumeric and MSM when I remember to at night.


----------



## Guest

This is a cool tool I just discovered. I actually don't know my meats well at all, so there might be a better meat to put in there to compare with the potato. But just for fun I put a plain old baked potato vs. a steak. Nutrition info pops up side by side.
BTW no one I know ever eats a plain baked potato, we usually put a hodgepodge of veggies on ours, and I would hope no one is out there eating only a steak for dinner, but who knows 
But yeah, just a fun comparison of the two foods:
https://www.healthaliciousness.com/nutritionfacts/nutrition-facts-compare.php


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> This is a cool tool I just discovered. I actually don't know my meats well at all, so there might be a better meat to put in there to compare with the potato. But just for fun I put a plain old baked potato vs. a steak. Nutrition info pops up side by side.
> BTW no one I know ever eats a plain baked potato, we usually put a hodgepodge of veggies on ours, and I would hope no one is out there eating only a steak for dinner, but who knows
> But yeah, just a fun comparison of the two foods:
> https://www.healthaliciousness.com/nutritionfacts/nutrition-facts-compare.php


Can you compare chicken liver with a baked potato and post the nutrient difference in the two, that would be interesting to see.


----------



## catz4m8z

Shame you cant put soya milk in, thats where I get alot of my vitamins and minerals...also even when I ate meat I wouldnt want to eat somethings internal organs.


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> Shame you cant put soya milk in, thats where I get alot of my vitamins and minerals...also even when I ate meat I wouldnt want to eat somethings internal organs.


So you ate the rubbish stuff we are told to eat and what gets pushed onto us? The stuff we need to eat more of to get anywhere near the nutrition you get from the good bits we are told are rubbish but which every predator and scavanger on earth goes for first including all tribe folk across all continents.

Soy milk you say?

You must get the artificially fortified stuff then.


----------



## catz4m8z

hutch6 said:


> Is there a whole food that gives you the same vitamin content for just 39 calories total?


Nutritional yeast is pretty good, although I wouldnt just eat a tbsp on its own. I had mine sprinkled on a veggie pasta bake. nom!


----------



## Guest

Oh Hutch you do amuse me  
Is there a whole plant food that gives you the same vitamin content for just 39 calories? LOL  YES!!! And more than that, for fewer calories! And no artery clogging cholesterol and other yuck I don't want to consume  
I don't have the time to look stuff up now, but I'll be back.


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> Oh Hutch you do amuse me
> Is there a whole plant food that gives you the same vitamin content for just 39 calories? LOL  YES!!! And more than that, for fewer calories! And no artery clogging cholesterol and other yuck I don't want to consume
> I don't have the time to look stuff up now, but I'll be back.


I'm only here to please so glad I'm doing my duty

EDIT: Let's hope it's something that fits my macros then hey? Please say it's spinach as I eat loads of that.


----------



## LinznMilly

I think this thread has outlived its usefulness now.

If anyone feels they have something meaningful to add, feel free to PM me. :Locktopic


----------



## LinznMilly

Well ... That proved to be an unpopular decision for some.

I'm happy to reopen this thread, but any more point scoring, or asking the consequences of irrelevant facts such as the abolition of slavery, and it'll be closed again.

And keep it civil.


----------



## MilleD

ouesi said:


> No, we ate what our stomachs and tastebuds told us to eat.


This is something I find interesting about how our ancestors discovered what could be eaten.

Case in point - olives. Have you ever tried one straight from the tree?

Who thought to soak them in brine to make them palatable (well, not to me, can't stand the things)? Or did they find them floating in the sea?


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> EDIT: Let's hope it's something that fits my macros then hey? Please say it's spinach as I eat loads of that.


Well, yes, spinach would be one. 
Just to make it fair, I plugged in plain old quinoa. Not a beta carotene rich sweet potato or calcium and iron rich spinach, just plain old quinoa.

For the same volume of food, quinoa has less fat (no cholesterol), more fiber, more vitamin A, alpha and beta carotene, more vitamin C, more vitamin K, more calcium, more potassium, less sodium, more manganese...
Granted, chicken livers do win out for essential amino acids. However, quinoa still provides those essential amino acids just not as much - amino acids that you're just going to pee out anyway if you get more than you need.

Now, true, quinoa will not "fit" your macros. Sorry. But I'm a bit confused by your logic. On the one hand you're all about what man did before the advent of agriculture, yet on the other hand you're adamant about keeping your body in a state of ketois. Do you really think ancient man deliberately kept themselves in ketosis and measured their mammoth to tuber ratio to make sure they didn't go over their carb limit? I kind of don't think so. I think man ate what was available to them, and (as the fossil record proves) ate lots and lots of starches.



MilleD said:


> Who thought to soak them in brine to make them palatable (well, not to me, can't stand the things)? Or did they find them floating in the sea?


 I want to know who was the first person who saw a chicken shoot an egg out it's rear and thought "huh, let me eat that." I'm sure someone quite hungry!


----------



## MilleD

ouesi said:


> I want to know who was the first person who saw a chicken shoot an egg out it's rear and thought "huh, let me eat that." I'm sure someone quite hungry!


 Well I reckon they watched other animals doing that. It does seem a little absurd when you think about it doesn't it? Did you know only the left ovary of a chicken produces eggs?

Do any animals eat fresh olives?


----------



## Catharinem

MilleD said:


> Do any animals eat fresh olives?


Goats? Goats eat most things, are browsers by nature and live in the same regions as olives.


----------



## MilleD

Catharinem said:


> Goats? Goats eat most things, are browsers by nature and live in the same regions as olives.


That's true. My OH have a 'farm' near Malaga and the local goat man takes his herd across their land. I've not noticed them eating the olives, I'll be more observant next time I'm there, but they definitely happily munch on the madly spiky wild asparagus. So maybe they do.


----------



## Catharinem

Yup, goats eat olives. 









Also found this, will never feel the same after my Imperial Leather Moroccan Spa Orange Blossom and Argan oil long soak :Vomit:Stop:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/m.hu...ree-full-of-goats_us_55f82492e4b0c2077efc045e


----------



## MilleD

Catharinem said:


> Yup, goats eat olives.
> View attachment 329736
> 
> 
> Also found this, will never feel the same after my Imperial Leather Moroccan Spa Orange Blossom and Argan oil long soak :Vomit:Stop:
> https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/m.hu...ree-full-of-goats_us_55f82492e4b0c2077efc045e


 I've seen the 'goat tree' before.

Man, those goats must be seriously thirsty after eating olives off the tree. I've been reliably informed that just one can suck every drop of moisture out of your body and leave you feeling as desiccated as the proverbial coconut


----------



## Catharinem

MilleD said:


> I've seen the 'goat tree' before.
> 
> Man, those goats must be seriously thirsty after eating olives off the tree. I've been reliably informed that just one can suck every drop of moisture out of your body and leave you feeling as desiccated as the proverbial coconut


Maybe they're addictively sour/dry, like sucking a good ripe sloe, or crab apple.


----------



## Guest

I just want the record to show that it was not me who brought up goats or posted a picture of them! :Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious

Back to nutrition and that quinoa vs. chicken livers. Also bears mentioning the bio availability of those nutrients. Just because a food has a nutrient, doesn't automatically mean the body will absorb it. For example, humans absorb iron and calcium better in the presence of vitamin C. Quinoa has a good bit more vitamin C than chicken livers, so even though chicken livers have more iron, the iron in quinoa will be absorbed better. The quinoa has more calcium than the chicken livers, and the vitamin C will help it get absorbed. So win win  

But I can make it even easier. Have one human go out out and forage for as much quinoa as they can find. Have another hunt and collect chicken livers. Now put both these humans in a cave for a few months because the weather is awful and there are predators about. Who's food stash is a) going to last longer, b) not make them sick, and c) sustain them longer? Remember, no antibiotics allowed


----------



## Elles

ouesi said:


> I want to know who was the first person who saw a chicken shoot an egg out it's rear and thought "huh, let me eat that." I'm sure someone quite hungry!


It probably was long before chickens and it was probably a nest and they ate the eggs after eating or failing to catch the bird that laid them. In this case of which came first, it would be the egg not the chicken, but then it always was.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

ouesi said:


> Well, yes, spinach would be one.
> Just to make it fair, I plugged in plain old quinoa. Not a beta carotene rich sweet potato or calcium and iron rich spinach, just plain old quinoa.
> 
> For the same volume of food, quinoa has less fat (no cholesterol), more fiber, more vitamin A, alpha and beta carotene, more vitamin C, more vitamin K, more calcium, more potassium, less sodium, more manganese...
> Granted, chicken livers do win out for essential amino acids. However, quinoa still provides those essential amino acids just not as much - amino acids that you're just going to pee out anyway if you get more than you need.
> 
> Now, true, quinoa will not "fit" your macros. Sorry. But I'm a bit confused by your logic. On the one hand you're all about what man did before the advent of agriculture, yet on the other hand you're adamant about keeping your body in a state of ketois. Do you really think ancient man deliberately kept themselves in ketosis and measured their mammoth to tuber ratio to make sure they didn't go over their carb limit? I kind of don't think so. I think man ate what was available to them, and (as the fossil record proves) ate lots and lots of starches.
> 
> I want to know who was the first person who saw a chicken shoot an egg out it's rear and thought "huh, let me eat that." I'm sure someone quite hungry!


Have you seen this by Jeff Novick (dietician - does a lot of work with Dr McDougall)

http://www.jeffnovick.com/RD/Articl...he_Limiting_Essential_Amino_Acid_Picture.html


----------



## Catharinem

ouesi said:


> But I can make it even easier. Have one human go out out and forage for as much quinoa as they can find. Have another hunt and collect chicken livers. Now put both these humans in a cave for a few months because the weather is awful and there are predators about. Who's food stash is a) going to last longer, b) not make them sick, and c) sustain them longer? Remember, no antibiotics allowed


Can I go for option 3?

Collect quinoa, collect a few chicken livers still inside the chicken, and have eggs or quinoa fed chicken meat, ( or egg fried quinoa, quinoa, egg and water "dumplings" etc) plus warm feathers to snuggle up to at night ( chickens will sit on you once know you and you can share body warmth like old fashioned "bundling"), _and _you get an early warning system for predators being nearby. It's a win, win, win solution.


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> Well, yes, spinach would be one.


Knew it would be.



ouesi said:


> Just to make it fair, I plugged in plain old quinoa. Not a beta carotene rich sweet potato or calcium and iron rich spinach, just plain old quinoa.
> 
> For the same volume of food, quinoa has less fat (no cholesterol), more fiber, more vitamin A, alpha and beta carotene, more vitamin C, more vitamin K, more calcium, more potassium, less sodium, more manganese...
> Granted, chicken livers do win out for essential amino acids. However, quinoa still provides those essential amino acids just not as much - amino acids that you're just going to pee out anyway if you get more than you need.


But who was phytates?

Link pretty please.



ouesi said:


> Now, true, quinoa will not "fit" your macros. Sorry. But I'm a bit confused by your logic. On the one hand you're all about what man did before the advent of agriculture, yet on the other hand you're adamant about keeping your body in a state of ketois. Do you really think ancient man deliberately kept themselves in ketosis and measured their mammoth to tuber ratio to make sure they didn't go over their carb limit? I kind of don't think so. I think man ate what was available to them, and (as the fossil record proves) ate lots and lots of starches.


And animal product, don't forget they ate that.

The vegan diet goes against every generation of human being before. As we have discovered on this thread no civilisation on earth has survived and been sustained by a pure vegan diet that is advocated by numerous people in this thread.
It wouldn't have been all that hard to keep themselves in ketosis at all. Why would the human body revert to it naturally after an extended period of starvation from high carb foods? Why would every cell, every organ in the human body be able to use ketones a a clean fuel that provide longer periods of energy over glucose?
Think of a scenario of our ancestors. What would they have to to do in order to find tubas and starchy foods? Consider the size of wild rice and cereal plants, much much smaller than now and you are competing with far more herbivores because there are more predators (humans killed the majority of them off). Do you spend the most part of the day out in the open or knelt on the ground vulnerable to attack or did they use signals like circling birds etc that lead them to a carcass site where they could either chase predators off using sticks (that they no doubt used for digging tubas once they discovered tools) or other weapons used at distance like stones (not needed to dig tubas so could they have used them earlier and be eating meat well before tubas). The ability to read signals of a carcass are easier than trying to locate tubas and picking handfuls of, essentially, small grass seeds. 
As is scientifically proven without any doubt is that animal fat contains more calories per gram than any vegetable of fruit. animal flesh, the protein part contains the same. 
Animal fat = 9 calories per gram
Animal protein = 4 calories per gram
fruit and veg= 4 calories per gram

So early humans could either quickly locate the carcass and get 9 calories per gram they consumed or 4 grams they consumed and let's not forget the amount of vitamins I have shown are in the internal organs.
Or they could spend time locating high glucose food that would rapidly burn of fin their systems and have to find and consume 2.5 the same amounts as they would in animal fat to get the same calories.

You have to take vitamin B-12 supplements once a week or something. Vitamin B-12 is vital to the structure and building of DNA. How far would we have come and in what way would we have evolved if early humans were not consuming high content sources of this nutrient? You say it comes from the soil etc but don't forget, to get to starchy tubas (that were in an arid area of the world so they wouldn't be like spuds, more like rice grains and probably only available for a few months after the wet season so not all year round) would mean long periods of exposure to attack. Even with a look out would each human have picked food for the lookout or just eaten what was picked and then swapped as look -out? Even with all of this, the cereals grow above ground so there would be very little vitamin-b12 in them like there is none on any of the cereals we grown today without it being fortified.
We were nomadic, we didn't make settlements for millions of years so we must have roamed around. It is far easier to carry a leg or chunk of an animal at 6-8kg than it is to carry a shopping bag of grains and tubas as they are loose.

Isn't it clear that we ate far more animal product than we did glucose?

Animals we have been on the same continent as have a deep seated fear of us bar a scarce few. Continents we have only just recently discovered the animals do not.

We are top of the food chain throughout the world. No other species has developed anywhere near as many tactics and instruments of death. we spend trillions each year developing new ways to kill, it is in our ancestry to kill. Stick, stones, sling, bows, arrows, spears, clubs and flint were all predominantly used to kill animals and then secondly humans when conflict occurred. Only when we are unarmed are we lower down the food chain.



ouesi said:


> I want to know who was the first person who saw a chicken shoot an egg out it's rear and thought "huh, let me eat that." I'm sure someone quite hungry!


It wont have been a chicken, more likely another type of bird, probably flightless like ostrich. One ostrich egg would feed a fair few people.


----------



## Elles

What are you going to do when the chickens warn you there’s a predator outside and in doing so alert the predators to the presence of food? I think even if you get away, you’ll likely lose your chickens to the predators and be left with just the quinoa you hadn’t fed to them. Natural chickens wouldn’t lay anything like the number of eggs you’d need either and once they’re dead, they’re dead and you’ve wasted a ton of quinoa keeping them alive for a couple of eggs and a day’s meat, that’s even if they were laying anything anyway. Unfortunately a cave isnt a suitable habitat for chickens to live in for a few months, they’d need to scratch about for more than just quinoa if you want their eggs to be any good and think of all the mess.

Disclaimer: I’m not a chicken expert, so I made it up. I don’t even know if chickens eat quinoa, but either way, chickens are scary, so I’ll take the quinoa. :Hilarious


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> I just want the record to show that it was not me who brought up goats or posted a picture of them! :Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious
> 
> Back to nutrition and that quinoa vs. chicken livers. Also bears mentioning the bio availability of those nutrients. Just because a food has a nutrient, doesn't automatically mean the body will absorb it. For example, humans absorb iron and calcium better in the presence of vitamin C. Quinoa has a good bit more vitamin C than chicken livers, so even though chicken livers have more iron, the iron in quinoa will be absorbed better. The quinoa has more calcium than the chicken livers, and the vitamin C will help it get absorbed. So win win
> 
> But I can make it even easier. Have one human go out out and forage for as much quinoa as they can find. Have another hunt and collect chicken livers. Now put both these humans in a cave for a few months because the weather is awful and there are predators about. Who's food stash is a) going to last longer, b) not make them sick, and c) sustain them longer? Remember, no antibiotics allowed


A ridiculous concept as why you wouldn't just bring the whole chicken isn't considered but I'll play along.

How much quinoa can you carry in your cupped hands? It will no doubt fall between the cracks and could only go up to the surface of the top of the cupped hands before it fell out. 
Chicken livers could be stacked a little higher and also carried on the forearms so if you made a pile of chicken livers and then scooped them up you could carry far more of them than you could ever carry in quinoa.

You'd also need to collect water and firewood to cook your quinoa but in cupped hands you wouldn't be able to carry any of it. It'd be multiple trips and you never mentioned about any of this so lets just go with the quinoa on it's own. We can eat raw liver just fine and it has a reasonably high water content so anyone who chose quinoa would die very quickly of dehydration. Probably a matter of days or a week.


----------



## Elles

@hutch6 Yes animal based produce on the whole has more calories than whole food plant based. That's why on the whole food plant based diet we can stuff our faces to our heart's content without getting fat, or blocking our arteries, but on an animal based diet we have to restrict ourselves and watch what we eat. It's a disadvantage these days. People eat rats, dogs, cats, even their dead buddies if there's nothing else, it doesn't mean we should promote it.  Vitamin b12 was plentiful until we started sterilising everything, so now we have to supplement it, which we can. We can live long and prosper without exploiting animals today, so why do it if we'd rather not?

Why are you trying to persuade vegans who are eating a perfectly healthy and sustainable diet to change to eating meat and dairy? Wouldn't you be better aiming at people who eat refined, processed, fast food diets?


----------



## hutch6

Elles said:


> @hutch6 Yes animal based produce on the whole has more calories than whole food plant based. That's why on the whole food plant based diet we can stuff our faces to our heart's content without getting fat, or blocking our arteries, but on an animal based diet we have to restrict ourselves and watch what we eat. It's a disadvantage these days. People eat rats, dogs, cats, even their dead buddies if there's nothing else, it doesn't mean we should promote it.  Vitamin b12 was plentiful until we started sterilising everything, so now we have to supplement it, which we can. We can live long and prosper without exploiting animals today, so why do it if we'd rather not?
> 
> Why are you trying to persuade vegans who are eating a perfectly healthy and sustainable diet to change to eating meat and dairy? Wouldn't you be better aiming at people who eat refined, processed, fast food diets?


Ok. I'm not having a go at the whole foods diet. I'm explaining the science behind the diet I eat which has come under very close scrutiny due to a lack of understanding.

Just because you can eat as much as you want doesn't mean you won't get fat. Go on any diet, any diet in the world and consume more calories than you expend and you will gain weight, that's just a fact of life.
The wrong combinations of macros as I have explained will make you fat quicker.

Think of it this way. Someone is however much you want over weight, say four stone. How do they lose that four stone of body fat? The human body doesn't turn body fat into energy ready glucose it can't. Instead it turns it into ketones which when cross the cells walls can be turned into glucose as energy. So when this overweight person loses weight they are not eating as much as they want and loosing weight. They are in calorie a deficit model and using more readily available energy from the food they are consuming which causes them to lose. The weight they lose comes using the body fat energy and the only way to do this is through ketones.

If you are on a whole foods diet and don;t consume your entire energy need for the day in one meal and then don;t eat for the rest of the day but expended more energy than you put in then you are now into body fat burning for fuel mode, ketones. The reason you don't feel dizzy and light headed is because you body is working perfectly fine on the reserves of body fat it has already stored.

Eat a meal of 1000 calories, it doesn't really matter what those calories consist of in this example, but if you expend 1500 calories then where do the extra 500 calories for energy come from and how are they converted?

Can I just say, we are all on the same page with reducing animal consumption and the heinous practices carried out across the world by, not all, but the vast majority of farmers and all other industries involved in food production (notice how i say food and not just animal products, it exists across the whole board). I am with you every step of the way.

What I am against is the claims that certain foods are not as nutritious for you because they come from animals. some of the claims on here are incorrect so that is what I have tried to set straight in my explanations.


----------



## Magyarmum

QUOTE="hutch6, post: 1065004237, member: 3703"]

The vegan diet goes against every generation of human being before. As we have discovered on this thread no civilisation on earth has survived and been sustained by a pure vegan diet that is advocated by numerous people in this thread.
It wouldn't have been all that hard to keep themselves in ketosis at all. Why would the human body revert to it naturally after an extended period of starvation from high carb foods? Why would every cell, every organ in the human body be able to use ketones a a clean fuel that provide longer periods of energy over glucose?
Think of a scenario of our ancestors. What would they have to to do in order to find tubas and starchy foods? Consider the size of wild rice and cereal plants, much much smaller than now and you are competing with far more herbivores because there are more predators (humans killed the majority of them off). Do you spend the most part of the day out in the open or knelt on the ground vulnerable to attack or did they use signals like circling birds etc that lead them to a carcass site where they could either chase predators off using sticks (that they no doubt used for digging tubas once they discovered tools) or other weapons used at distance like stones (not needed to dig tubas so could they have used them earlier and be eating meat well before tubas). The ability to read signals of a carcass are easier than trying to locate tubas and picking handfuls of, essentially, small grass seeds.
As is scientifically proven without any doubt is that animal fat contains more calories per gram than any vegetable of fruit. animal flesh, the protein part contains the same.
Animal fat = 9 calories per gram
Animal protein = 4 calories per gram
fruit and veg= 4 calories per gram

So early humans could either quickly locate the carcass and get 9 calories per gram they consumed or 4 grams they consumed and let's not forget the amount of vitamins I have shown are in the internal organs.
Or they could spend time locating high glucose food that would rapidly burn of fin their systems and have to find and consume 2.5 the same amounts as they would in animal fat to get the same calories.

You have to take vitamin B-12 supplements once a week or something. Vitamin B-12 is vital to the structure and building of DNA. How far would we have come and in what way would we have evolved if early humans were not consuming high content sources of this nutrient? You say it comes from the soil etc but don't forget, to get to starchy tubas (that were in an arid area of the world so they wouldn't be like spuds, more like rice grains and probably only available for a few months after the wet season so not all year round) would mean long periods of exposure to attack. Even with a look out would each human have picked food for the lookout or just eaten what was picked and then swapped as look -out? Even with all of this, the cereals grow above ground so there would be very little vitamin-b12 in them like there is none on any of the cereals we grown today without it being fortified.
We were nomadic, we didn't make settlements for millions of years so we must have roamed around. It is far easier to carry a leg or chunk of an animal at 6-8kg than it is to carry a shopping bag of grains and tubas as they are loose.

Isn't it clear that we ate far more animal product than we did glucose?

Animals we have been on the same continent as have a deep seated fear of us bar a scarce few. Continents we have only just recently discovered the animals do not.

We are top of the food chain throughout the world. No other species has developed anywhere near as many tactics and instruments of death. we spend trillions each year developing new ways to kill, it is in our ancestry to kill. Stick, stones, sling, bows, arrows, spears, clubs and flint were all predominantly used to kill animals and then secondly humans when conflict occurred. Only when we are unarmed are we lower down the food chain.

.[/QUOTE]

I'd like to respectfully suggest you're talking a load of b****cks about the way hunter and gatherers lived and organised their society.

Firstly there was a distinct division of labour with the women being the "gatherers" and the men being the "hunters". The men however didn't hunt or bring home meat every day and when they did it was shared amongst all the tribe and consumed until it was gone, not carried around as you seem to think. In other words they had a feast or famine mentality (which still persists amongst modern day Africans)! Even those tribes living in arid regions knew which plants were a source of water and when it did rain they caught water in gourds or ostrich shells which they stored underground for future use ..... I could go on ....

Here's an interesting article about the San people of South Africa which I suggest read in order to get your facts straight!

http://www.krugerpark.co.za/africa_bushmen.html


----------



## hutch6

Some of the comments on this thread regarding aspects of my diet that are woefully wrong:

*All I eat is meat and cheese with very little veg*. - I tried to explain about broccoli, got told I didn't know what i was on about.

*There are no nutrients in animal products* - quite clearly the nutritional analysis I have posted prove otherwise.

*I only get my fat from animal products* - I explained I can eat half the amount in pecan nuts than I have to in cheese to get my fat but this got over looked and I was even accused of calling someone fat or saying they would get fat.

*Certain foods are more nutrient rich than animal products* - quinoa, soy milk, potatoes don't contain anywhere near the amount of certain nutrients than some animal products. I eat a varied diet as well you know if you hadn't worked it out by now!!

*You can't get any micro nutrients from animal produce* - nutrient analysis is as clear as day that you can and in copious amounts.

*Ketones are not a cleaner fuel than blood glucose* - glucose needs insulin, your body has to work harder but clearly folk don;t want to hear that even when i explained you can be a vegan on a ketone diet.

*The human body needs to consume glucose *- no, it really doesn't. It is extremely successful at using ketones in cells to produce glucose as fuel and doe sit very efficiently.

*Slinging a copious amount of food into your diet won't make you fat*. - I challenge anyone to find a diet where consuming more than your use doesn't make you fat.

*A plate full of different veg and veg varieties guarantees you won't be deficient in any vitamins or nutrients.* - for a start you might need vitamin b-12 but if you look into it all I am sure you'll find you are deficient somewhere as am I, I can guarantee it.

Remember, it wasn't so long back that I got called a troll numerous times on this thread.


----------



## MilleD

Elles said:


> @hutch6 Yes animal based produce on the whole has more calories than whole food plant based. That's why on the whole food plant based diet we can stuff our faces to our heart's content without getting fat, or blocking our arteries,


I bet if I ate a boatload of nuts I'd be a right biffa


----------



## hutch6

Magyarmum said:


> I'd like to respectfully suggest you're talking a load of b****cks about the way hunter and gatherers lived and organised their society.
> 
> Firstly there was a distinct division of labour with the women being the "gatherers" and the men being the "hunters". The men however didn't hunt or bring home meat every day and when they did it was shared amongst all the tribe and consumed until it was gone, not carried around as you seem to think. In other words they had a feast or famine mentality (which still persists amongst modern day Africans)! Even those tribes living in arid regions knew which plants were a source of water and when it did rain they caught water in gourds or ostrich shell which they stored underground for future use ..... I could go on ....
> 
> Here's an interesting article about the San people of South Africa which I suggest read in order to get your facts straight!
> 
> http://www.krugerpark.co.za/africa_bushmen.html


Ok maybe I'm wrong after reading that.

The San are the oldest inhabitants of Southern Africa, where they have lived for at least 20 000 years.

the San are descendants of Early Stone Age ancestors.

These migratory people do not domesticate animals or cultivate crops, even though their knowledge of both flora and fauna is vast. The San categorized thousands of plants and their uses, from nutritional to medicinal, mystical to recreational and lethal. San men have a formidable reputation as trackers and hunters. San trackers will follow the 'spoor' (tracks) of an animal across virtually any kind of surface or terrain. Their skills even enable them to distinguish between the "spoor" of a wounded animal and that of the rest of the herd.

San are largely egalitarian, sharing such things as meat and tobacco.

The San will eat anything available, both animal and vegetable. Their selection of food ranges from antelope, Zebra, porcupine, wild hare, Lion, Giraffe, fish, insects, tortoise, flying ants, snakes (venomous and non-venomous), Hyena, eggs and wild honey. The meat is boiled or roasted on a fire. The San are not wasteful and every part of the animal is used. The hides are tanned for blankets and the bones are cracked for the marrow. Water is hard to come by, as the San are constantly on the move. Usually during the dry season, these migrants collect their moisture by scraping and squeezing roots. If they are out hunting or travelling, they would dig holes in the sand to find water. They also carry water in an ostrich eggshell.

The San are excellent hunters. Although they do a fair amount of trapping , the best method of hunting is with bow and arrow. The San arrow does not kill the animal straight away. It is the deadly poison, which eventually causes the death. In the case of small antelope such as Duiker or Steenbok, a couple of hours may elapse before death. For larger antelope, this could be 7 to 12 hours. For large game, such as Giraffe it could take as long as 3 days. Today the San make the poison from the larvae of a small beetle but will also use poison from plants, such as the euphorbia, and snake venom.

When catching small animals such as hares, guinea fowls, Steenbok or Duiker, traps made of twisted gut or fibre from plants were used. These had a running noose that strangled the animal when it stepped into the snare to collect the food that had been placed inside it. Another way of capturing animals was to wait at Aardvark holes. Aardvark holes are used by small buck as a resting place to escape the midday sun. The hunter waited patiently behind the hole until the animal left. When this happened, it was be firmly pinned and hit on the head with a Kerrie (club).

Hunting is a team effort and the man whose arrow killed the animal has the right to distribute the meat to the tribe members and visitors who, after hearing about the kill, would arrive soon afterwards to share in the feast. According to San tradition, they were welcome to share the meal and would, in the future, have to respond in the same way. However, plant foods, gathered by the womenfolk, are not shared but eaten by the woman's immediate family. The San make use of over 100 edible species of plant. While the men hunt, the women, who are experts in foraging for edible mushrooms, bulbs, berries and melons, gather food for the family. Children stay at home to be watched over by those remaining in camp, but nursing children are carried on these gathering trips, adding to the load the women must carry.Gender roles are not jealously guarded in the San society. Women sometimes assist in the hunt and the men sometimes help gather plant foods.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is based on modern times, i.e the last 20,000 years.

*Direct descendants of Stone age folk* - but we aren't hunters and gatherers.

*Use a plethora of tactics and weapons*.

*Everyone goes to the kill* - look at that list of what they kill with poison arrows and then ask yourself if people 900,000yrs ago would have had poisoned arrows to bring down a giraffe, a zebra or a lion. No, they'd have snatched and grabbed what they could carry to eat in safety.

*Anything picked or gathered is NOT shared outside of the immediate family* - is that because of the calorie expended/ calories gathered ratio?

*Women joined the hunt and men helped gather *- doesn't sound like a gender distinction of duties to me.


----------



## WillowT

I would really like to have some input in this thread..... but I really do not know where I would start. So I shall just keep reading comments instead


----------



## Dr Pepper

Anybody got a spare will to live they don't need because I've lost mine.


----------



## MilleD

Dr Pepper said:


> Anybody got a spare will to live they don't need because I've lost mine.


You can have mine. I don't need it any more.


----------



## hutch6

Dr Pepper said:


> Anybody got a spare will to live they don't need because I've lost mine.





MilleD said:


> You can have mine. I don't need it any more.


----------



## catz4m8z

WillowT said:


> I would really like to have some input in this thread..... but I really do not know where I would start. So I shall just keep reading comments instead


ahh, go on...have a little stir! I shall lend you my spoon!LOL

Poor @hutch6 , for all that research spouted and nutritional titbits they havent managed to convince a single person that a keto diet is the way to go.
animals 1- Hutch 0
:Hilarious


----------



## MilleD

hutch6 said:


>




"But enough about me, hope this hasn't been boring for you"


----------



## MilleD

catz4m8z said:


> ahh, go on...have a little stir! I shall lend you my spoon!LOL
> 
> Poor @hutch6 , for all that research spouted and nutritional titbits they havent managed to convince a single person that a keto diet is the way to go.
> animals 1- Hutch 0
> :Hilarious


'Spouted' is a bit rude but never mind.

When I eat low carb, I feel far better than eating full carbs. Probably not in full ketosis, but still low carb, making your body fuel itself more.

The beauty I find in it is that fat and protein make me feel fuller so I physically consume fewer calories.


----------



## hutch6

I am not out to convert people, it is their choice what they want to eat but when folk start saying what I eat lacks nutrients or comes from one place or another when it doesn't without the foggiest of what it involves and where those nutrients actually come from then yes, I will try and explain.

Again it is your choice what you eat and where that comes from but just slinging a bunch of stuff on a plate no matter how colourful will guarantee you are getting all of the nutrients you need.

Clearly it is isn't understood though as yet again you fail to realise you can be vegan and still be on a ketogenic diet it is not a purely meat eaters diet at all.



catz4m8z said:


> ahh, go on...have a little stir! I shall lend you my spoon!LOL
> 
> Poor @hutch6 , for all that research spouted and nutritional titbits they havent managed to convince a single person that a keto diet is the way to go.
> animals 1- Hutch 0
> :Hilarious


I think from this statement you believe I am in some form of stress about this discussion or remotely care about being liked or agreed with.

Clearly you have no interest in anything I have to say, including pointing out that the place where you get most of your nutrients from has next to nil actually in it unless it is fortified in which case that is such a wholesome natural nutrient food that has to have nutrients put in to it to actually give it some nutrients.

I don't care how many people disagree with me but you can't disagree with basic fundamental science which you are clearly overlooking or not understanding if you state it is spouted. When you guys put something up from an expert that has severe flaws in it and it is explained in a constructive way why it isn't spouted, it's hard, minutely researched, absolute expert professional information. Shame it comes from a source where they are trying to sell you stuff rather than trying to actually inform you but it is absolute gospel when it come to nutrition.

Be vegan, yes. Eat whole foods, yes. But don't think that the two combined provide you safe passage with every nutrient every single part of your body needs and then get flummoxed when I explain the most simple and basic understanding of nutrition labels.


----------



## MiffyMoo

hutch6 said:


> I am not out to convert people, it is their choice what they want to eat but when folk start saying what I eat lacks nutrients or comes from one place or another when it doesn't without the foggiest of what it involves and where those nutrients actually come from then yes, I will try and explain.
> 
> Again it is your choice what you eat and where that comes from but just slinging a bunch of stuff on a plate no matter how colourful will guarantee you are getting all of the nutrients you need.
> 
> Clearly it is isn't understood though as yet again you fail to realise you can be vegan and still be on a ketogenic diet it is not a purely meat eaters diet at all.


I'm very keen on the paleo diet, and do subscribe to it when I can afford (right now I'm more beans on toast diet due to finances). I love how it makes me feel, but have been told, on here, that it's a fad diet and I'd be better off going vegan. Nope, no thanks


----------



## rona

Dr Pepper said:


> Anybody got a spare will to live they don't need because I've lost mine.


I can't understand these people who want to live forever anyway........................very few are capable after about 80-85 and the majority lead a very sad life


----------



## WillowT

catz4m8z said:


> ahh, go on...have a little stir! I shall lend you my spoon!LOL
> 
> Poor @hutch6 , for all that research spouted and nutritional titbits they havent managed to convince a single person that a keto diet is the way to go.
> animals 1- Hutch 0
> :Hilarious


Lol, I think everyone confused me. I don't know much but just wanted to add.
My husband has been vegan for 20 years. He seems to get a good well rounded diet. Personally I couldn't do it as I really love my dairy. But he doesn't buy anything that could be made from an animal.... spent an extra 4 grand on his previous car to have all cloth material and not leather seats..... a vegan car...cool!
I had to fight tooth and nail for willow to not be a vegetarian dog....... he settled for wainwright dry food salmon and potato. 
When you start talking grams of this and that I just don't get it. 
It seems like something as simple as being or wanting to be vegan could be made rather complex when it feels like it should be something quite simple. Or I guess it can be as complicated as you want it to be.


----------



## Dr Pepper

WillowT said:


> When you start talking grams of this and that I just don't get it.


I must admit I find that bit quite simple. For example tonight I'll be having my 750ml of Bellingham 2016 Chardonnay, with maybe 568ml of organic New Forest scrumpy to get a variety of liquids. For tea I'll be having a intake of 8oz of prime beef burger with about 200g of baked beans and a mountain of buttery mash.

Easy peasy.


----------



## WillowT

Dr Pepper said:


> I must admit I find that bit quite simple. For example tonight I'll be having my 750ml of Bellingham 2016 Chardonnay, with maybe 568ml of organic New Forest scrumpy to get a variety of liquids. For tea I'll be having a intake of 8oz of prime beef burger with about 200g of baked beans and a mountain of buttery mash.
> 
> Easy peasy.


Well, yes. It is easy to say. It's all this measuring out I can't be doing with


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> ahh, go on...have a little stir! I shall lend you my spoon!LOL
> 
> Poor @hutch6 , for all that research spouted and nutritional titbits they havent managed to convince a single person that a keto diet is the way to go.
> animals 1- Hutch 0
> :Hilarious





Dr Pepper said:


> I must admit I find that bit quite simple. For example tonight I'll be having my 750ml of Bellingham 2016 Chardonnay, with maybe 568ml of organic New Forest scrumpy to get a variety of liquids. For tea I'll be having a intake of 8oz of prime beef burger with about 200g of baked beans and a mountain of buttery mash.
> 
> Easy peasy.


All the major food groups covered


----------



## Dr Pepper

hutch6 said:


> All the major food groups covered


My major ones anyway


----------



## catz4m8z

MilleD said:


> 'Spouted' is a bit rude but never mind.


oh, whoops! I didnt mean it in that way....I meant more in the lengthy, wordy or very long way!



hutch6 said:


> Clearly you have no interest in anything I have to say, including pointing out that the place where you get most of your nutrients from has next to nil actually in it unless it is fortified in which case that is such a wholesome natural nutrient food that has to have nutrients put in to it to actually give it some nutrients.


I found it moderately interesting but then I would rather trust the research of nutritionists, cardiologists and bariatric experts who have spent their lifetime working in this field. Id rather trust something like the China Study for instance which is very in depth.
Remember this thread started about wether a vegan should be wearing leather not wether a keto diet is good for you. If you can do a keto diet and eat no animal products then brilliant.


----------



## hutch6

WillowT said:


> Well, yes. It is easy to say. It's all this measuring out I can't be doing with


You don't have to do that if you don't want, I was just using it to show just how much veg you actually eat when it was suggested time and time again there was no veg in my diet or it was just a garnish.

sounds like your husband wen to great lengths to ensure he wasn't using animal products. Is he aware that there is animal product in car tyres? If not he might want t change them.

They use stearic acid which helps the tyre keep it's shape. I thought one of the vegans here might have posted it already seeing what lengths he went to.

You can get a list of vegan producers here but not too clear how up to date it is:

http://thriftyveganliving.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/vegan-car-tyres.html


----------



## MilleD

hutch6 said:


> sounds like your husband wen to great lengths to ensure he wasn't using animal products. Is he aware that there is animal product in car tyres? If not he might want t change them.
> 
> They use stearic acid which helps the tyre keep it's shape. I thought one of the vegans here might have posted it already seeing what lengths he went to.


Isn't that a bit like saying you can't have any money because there's animal fat in the new notes?


----------



## catz4m8z

MilleD said:


> Isn't that a bit like saying you can't have any money because there's animal fat in the new notes?


must be why I never have any then. Im being a good vegan:Woot (its not that Im stony broke!:Shifty)


----------



## WillowT

hutch6 said:


> You don't have to do that if you don't want, I was just using it to show just how much veg you actually eat when it was suggested time and time again there was no veg in my diet or it was just a garnish.
> 
> sounds like your husband wen to great lengths to ensure he wasn't using animal products. Is he aware that there is animal product in car tyres? If not he might want t change them.
> 
> They use stearic acid which helps the tyre keep it's shape. I thought one of the vegans here might have posted it already seeing what lengths he went to.
> 
> You can get a list of vegan producers here but not too clear how up to date it is:
> 
> http://thriftyveganliving.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/vegan-car-tyres.html


Yes he is aware of this..... he is also from the car industry.... sports and non sports and he said some things you just have to face is that there might not always be a vegan option. Stearic Acid can be either from s vegetable source or animal source. 
Good luck with getting any information from tyre manufacturers he says.


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> oh, whoops! I didnt mean it in that way....I meant more in the lengthy, wordy or very long way!
> 
> I found it moderately interesting but then I would rather trust the research of nutritionists, cardiologists and bariatric experts who have spent their lifetime working in this field. Id rather trust something like the China Study for instance which is very in depth.
> Remember this thread started about wether a vegan should be wearing leather not wether a keto diet is good for you. If you can do a keto diet and eat no animal products then brilliant.


So you are given a list of foods to eat by an "expert" and you just follow that blindly without any actual interest as to why you are eating that and in what quantities and you don't see how that relates to the whole obesity, cardiovascular issue you guys are going on about? Riiiiiiiiiight....

Hardly any of you even know what these experts say as I keep quoting them and you are certain they didn't say that until I actually send you the link to the very page and then it's just brushed over like it never happened. You are getting information from someone that is selling something!! Of course they are going to butter it up for you so buy their stuff.

No credentials in HFLC experts through, oh no, they're silly people:

http://thenoakesfoundation.org/prof-noakes

http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/

http://www.artandscienceoflowcarb.com/

You notice how they are all medical professionals in one way or another but they other than their books they don; try and sell you snake oil products? Every bit of information they know and research is free despite it going against everything the nutrition would believes we should be eating and what governments are trying to get you to eat How many people were supposedly killed or scared to speak out in Cowspiracy because of how it went against everything we get told by supposed experts, these guys are doing just that. Less, meat, no grain and no sugary foods. Those are some huge huge huge world ruling companies and institutes. Trillions and trillions in annual revenue and they are trying to steer us away from them.

I say the word "fat" and you immediately thought meat or dairy. Nutritional knowledge none.


----------



## Guest

MilleD said:


> It does seem a little absurd when you think about it doesn't it?


A lot of what we eat is really absurd when you step outside your culture and really look at it.


rottiepointerhouse said:


> Have you seen this by Jeff Novick (dietician - does a lot of work with Dr McDougall)
> 
> http://www.jeffnovick.com/RD/Articl...he_Limiting_Essential_Amino_Acid_Picture.html


Thanks for sharing that. I was never worried about getting enough protein/amino acids. Even way back when I first stopped eating meat and back then people still thought you had to eat a combination of foods to get the right combination of amino acids (since thoroughly debunked). Like Garth Davis says, we don't have a massive problem of protein deficiency. We have an obesity problem and chronic disease problem much of which can be not only reduced, but completely reversed with a more plant based diet.

Protein is not the problem 



rona said:


> very few are capable after about 80-85 and the majority lead a very sad life


I think that's hugely dependent on what you're used to though.
My mom is 82, lives independently, walks the neighbor's dog every day twice a day, goes snowshoeing in the winter, drives, plays tennis (doubles) every day... 
Her own mom lived to be 101, also mobile and independent until she died in her sleep. 
My father is also in his 80's drives all around the country, avid birdwatcher who spends a lot of time outside walking. Perfectly mobile, independent and healthy.

I have no intention of living forever. However I will also do whatever I can to stay healthy in to my later years. I will do whatever I can to not burden my children with an ailing parent, especially if it's something I have control over. And my physical health is something I do have a lot of control over.


----------



## Guest

Wow, a lot of posts since this morning! I don't know if I'll get it all covered 



hutch6 said:


> But who was phytates?
> 
> Link pretty please.


I don't know, who was phytates? 
Link for what?



hutch6 said:


> The vegan diet goes against every generation of human being before. As we have discovered on this thread no civilisation on earth has survived and been sustained by a pure vegan diet that is advocated by numerous people in this thread.


Who is advocating a vegan diet? All I'm advocating is an abolition of factory farms and less reliance (obsession with) meat and dairy products. We don't need them and we most certainly don't need them in the vast quantities we currently consume them in.

I don't agree that the vegan diet goes against every generation of humans before. Humans can survive (and thrive) on plant foods alone. Humans can't survive let alone thrive on animal foods alone. Even the Eskimos eat berries and seaweed.

But even if this were true, once we know better, shouldn't we do better? We know we don't need meat. Many people like meat and that's fine. Get it as ethically as you can, cut back, don't eat as much. But it's not a need in the human diet. Nor is dairy. And the scientific evidence shows you will be healthier for it. As will the planet.


----------



## WillowT

catz4m8z said:


> Remember this thread started about wether a vegan should be wearing leather not wether a keto diet is good for you. If you can do a keto diet and eat no animal products then brilliant.


Exactly.


----------



## catz4m8z

hutch6 said:


> So you are given a list of foods to eat by an "expert" and you just follow that blindly without any actual interest as to why you are eating that and in what quantities and you don't see how that relates to the whole obesity, cardiovascular issue you guys are going on about? Riiiiiiiiiight....


Well, no. I watched the documentaries What the Health and Forks Over Knives then found the talks on Youtube by the specialists and professionals who were working in this field (most of whom dont have an agenda because they are in direct opposition to the dairy, meat and pharm companies so def not popular people!). I read the studies, looked at the research and came to my own conclusions.
Im assuming that you did the same thing but came to totally different conclusions? Or did you just eat what an "expert" told you to and blindly follow their advice?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

A couple of plant based doctors discuss diabetes - check out Dr Greger @1.38 talking about the insulin response to meat






Just come across this






- its old but contains lots of interesting information - 1.47 - 3.52 shows the after effects of eating a high fat meal on the blood and the atherosclerosis being pulled out of the coronary arteries :Vomit Lots of clips from forks over knives and unfortunately it does also include some of T Colin Campbell's work with rats as detailed in the China Study. Haven't finished watching it yet so no idea whether its any good but check out the young Dr Klapper & Barnard


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> It wouldn't have been all that hard to keep themselves in ketosis at all. Why would the human body revert to it naturally after an extended period of starvation from high carb foods? Why would every cell, every organ in the human body be able to use ketones a a clean fuel that provide longer periods of energy over glucose?
> Think of a scenario of our ancestors. What would they have to to do in order to find tubas and starchy foods? Consider the size of wild rice and cereal plants, much much smaller than now and you are competing with far more herbivores because there are more predators (humans killed the majority of them off). Do you spend the most part of the day out in the open or knelt on the ground vulnerable to attack or did they use signals like circling birds etc that lead them to a carcass site where they could either chase predators off using sticks (that they no doubt used for digging tubas once they discovered tools) or other weapons used at distance like stones (not needed to dig tubas so could they have used them earlier and be eating meat well before tubas). The ability to read signals of a carcass are easier than trying to locate tubas and picking handfuls of, essentially, small grass seeds.
> As is scientifically proven without any doubt is that animal fat contains more calories per gram than any vegetable of fruit. animal flesh, the protein part contains the same.
> Animal fat = 9 calories per gram
> Animal protein = 4 calories per gram
> fruit and veg= 4 calories per gram
> 
> So early humans could either quickly locate the carcass and get 9 calories per gram they consumed or 4 grams they consumed and let's not forget the amount of vitamins I have shown are in the internal organs.
> Or they could spend time locating high glucose food that would rapidly burn of fin their systems and have to find and consume 2.5 the same amounts as they would in animal fat to get the same calories.
> 
> You have to take vitamin B-12 supplements once a week or something. Vitamin B-12 is vital to the structure and building of DNA. How far would we have come and in what way would we have evolved if early humans were not consuming high content sources of this nutrient? You say it comes from the soil etc but don't forget, to get to starchy tubas (that were in an arid area of the world so they wouldn't be like spuds, more like rice grains and probably only available for a few months after the wet season so not all year round) would mean long periods of exposure to attack. Even with a look out would each human have picked food for the lookout or just eaten what was picked and then swapped as look -out? Even with all of this, the cereals grow above ground so there would be very little vitamin-b12 in them like there is none on any of the cereals we grown today without it being fortified.
> We were nomadic, we didn't make settlements for millions of years so we must have roamed around. It is far easier to carry a leg or chunk of an animal at 6-8kg than it is to carry a shopping bag of grains and tubas as they are loose.
> 
> Isn't it clear that we ate far more animal product than we did glucose?
> 
> Animals we have been on the same continent as have a deep seated fear of us bar a scarce few. Continents we have only just recently discovered the animals do not.
> 
> We are top of the food chain throughout the world. No other species has developed anywhere near as many tactics and instruments of death. we spend trillions each year developing new ways to kill, it is in our ancestry to kill. Stick, stones, sling, bows, arrows, spears, clubs and flint were all predominantly used to kill animals and then secondly humans when conflict occurred. Only when we are unarmed are we lower down the food chain.


Hutch, you really are obsessed with this "man as hunter" top of the food chain thing  (By the way it was tubers ancient man ate, not tubas - though the mental image of digging up tubas with stone age tools gave me a good chuckle, again, thank you 

I've never denied that ancient man ate meat. So keep your image of big bad caveman meat eater safe in your psyche  
But look at the fossil record. Look at the evidence of starch consumption in the fossilized teeth, stools, and tools. They've found grinding stones with seeds and starches on them. There is ample evidence that paleolithic man was consuming a whole lot of plant material, much of it starch.

B12 is really only needed every 3 years. We store it exceedingly well. BTW, B12 deficiency is being seen in all western populations now and most health practitioners recommend all people, regardless of their diet, take a B12 supplement.

But again, let's say that you're right and ancient humans were carnivorous beasts running around with our superior weapons and badassery. Should we modern humans be aspiring to kill as many animals as we can, because you know, ancestry, or should we be aspiring to do as little damage to the planet (and our health) as we can and adopt a more plant based lifestyle?


----------



## MilleD

rottiepointerhouse said:


> A couple of plant based doctors discuss diabetes - check out Dr Greger @1.38 talking about the insulin response to meat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just come across this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - its old but contains lots of interesting information - 1.47 - 3.52 shows the after effects of eating a high fat meal on the blood and the atherosclerosis being pulled out of the coronary arteries :Vomit Lots of clips from forks over knives and unfortunately it does also include some of T Colin Campbell's work with rats as detailed in the China Study. Haven't finished watching it yet so no idea whether its any good but check out the young Dr Klapper & Barnard


Is that James Cordon? I'm afraid I can't take anything seriously with him in. Can't stand the jumped up so and so.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

MilleD said:


> Is that James Cordon? I'm afraid I can't take anything seriously with him in. Can't stand the jumped up so and so.


There is the tiniest clip of him with Stevie Wonder, I don't think he says anything just sort of singing.


----------



## MilleD

rottiepointerhouse said:


> There is the tiniest clip of him with Stevie Wonder, I don't think he says anything just sort of singing.


Yeah, still can't watch it. Makes me a bit queasy. Same as the Confused.com adverts.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

MilleD said:


> I bet if I ate a boatload of nuts I'd be a right biffa


So would I and have terrible skin. Most of the plant based diets recommend nuts and seeds in very small amounts - 30 g (which is a small handful @WillowT ). For those trying to lose weight or with heart disease etc most of the plant based doctors recommend not having them at all, although a couple of them say the 30 g serving once a day is fine and from the research I've read that seems to be the case. The problem with nuts is they are moorish and all the hard work of shelling them has been done for us so its very easy to overeat on them given they are calorie dense. I tend to use nuts in salad dressings or if I want to add them to a mix to stuff something like peppers with but don't have a serving every day although I always have ground flax seed every morning with my porridge.


----------



## noushka05

hutch6 said:


> Aye, the GSD X Husky used to jump like Pepé le Pu into the bracken and come out with a pheasant that had been squatting in it's lay.
> 
> Do you reckon two feral huskies would form a pack though and then go out and hunt like wolves do or would they just for themselves and stuff the others?


If I remember rightly wasn't that a rescue you were fostering Hutch?

Mine have caught a few game birds - on a line & in harness. When Shadow was younger, she was adept at catching birds mid-flight & eating them:Bag

They are an incredibly social breed. I know its probably hard to believe but they are very pack orientated. That said, I don't think they would cooperate in a hunt the way you see wolves do. I think they would pursue a large animal together but there would be no structure to the hunt. I feel mostly they would probably hunt for themselves.

A couple of other things I forgot to mention in their favour over other breeds in the survival stakes is their 'fuel efficiency' & their stamina. Sibes require far less food than a breed of similar size to survive & they are perhaps the ultimate endurance breed.

God they're so cool!


----------



## MilleD

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So would I and have terrible skin. Most of the plant based diets recommend nuts and seeds in very small amounts - 30 g (which is a small handful @WillowT ). For those trying to lose weight or with heart disease etc most of the plant based doctors recommend not having them at all, although a couple of them say the 30 g serving once a day is fine and from the research I've read that seems to be the case. The problem with nuts is they are moorish and all the hard work of shelling them has been done for us so its very easy to overeat on them given they are calorie dense. I tend to use nuts in salad dressings or if I want to add them to a mix to stuff something like peppers with but don't have a serving every day although I always have ground flax seed every morning with my porridge.


Trouble is I love nuts. Particularly Brazil nuts which are probably the worst for you knowing my luck.

Buying them in their shells is definitely one way of slowing down the intake, but why are they so difficult to find that way unless it's Christmas?


----------



## Guest

WillowT said:


> It seems like something as simple as being or wanting to be vegan could be made rather complex when it feels like it should be something quite simple. Or I guess it can be as complicated as you want it to be.


That's the thing. I don't want to complicate food. Food should be food, not measured in macronutrients and grams of carb to grams of protein or whatever. What a depressing way to eat. Eat what you want. Yes, sling stuff on a plate, make it colorful, enjoy!

Look how pretty this is!










As I've said a few times (losing track now LOL) I stopped eating meat in the 80's. Back then the low carb craze had not hit yet so the usual question I would get was about protein and if I was getting enough. 
When low carb eating gained popularity I started getting far more comments about my meals being "all carbs". *shrug* it looks like food to me 

I still contend that separating foods out in to their macronutrients is stupid and part of the reason so many people have such a messed up relationship with food. When we classify a donut the same as a sweet potato because they're both "carbs" that's just messed up.


----------



## catz4m8z

MilleD said:


> Trouble is I love nuts. Particularly Brazil nuts which are probably the worst for you knowing my luck.
> 
> Buying them in their shells is definitely one way of slowing down the intake, but why are they so difficult to find that way unless it's Christmas?


I love nuts too! I worked out this was why I had stopped losing weight coz Id have a small 'handful' when I felt hungry. Turns out my small handful was actually pretty big and a single serving size is actually just 6 nuts!
At the moment I just have a tbsp of mixed seeds in my porridge but I am tempted by brazils....30 cals per nut but all your daily selenium needs!


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

MilleD said:


> Trouble is I love nuts. Particularly Brazil nuts which are probably the worst for you knowing my luck.
> 
> Buying them in their shells is definitely one way of slowing down the intake, but why are they so difficult to find that way unless it's Christmas?


Be careful with Brazils as they contain a lot of selenium which can cause problems if you have too much. Walnuts are one of the healthiest nuts


----------



## MilleD

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Be careful with Brazils as they contain a lot of selenium which can cause problems if you have too much. Walnuts are one of the healthiest nuts


See? 

I like walnuts too, until you get one of those that tastes like it went rotten in 1900, do you know what I mean?


----------



## Elles

There are those exceptional centenarian ladies who teach yoga and dance. They’re pretty fit and flexible for their age and seem to have all their marbles. I expect some is down to genetics, but they all seem to be at least vegetarian and eat moderately. I wonder if there’s anyone who is morbidly obese with western diet ailments from eating too many nuts. Of course eating nothing but nuts wouldn’t really be the idea. I leave my mixed nuts til last and as they aren’t roasted and salted, I personally can’t eat very many, so I didn’t worry about it. Maybe it’s just me.


----------



## WillowT

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Be careful with Brazils as they contain a lot of selenium which can cause problems if you have too much. Walnuts are one of the healthiest nuts


What about monkey nuts?


----------



## MilleD

WillowT said:


> What about monkey nuts?


Not actually a nut?


----------



## WillowT

MilleD said:


> Not actually a nut?


They are a nut. Tesco sells them


----------



## MilleD

WillowT said:


> They are a nut. Tesco sells them


Prepare to have your faith in Tesco tested.

Peanuts are a type of pea.

To be fair Brazil nuts aren't really nuts either.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

WillowT said:


> They are a nut. Tesco sells them


Prepare to be confused 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/qi/8434868/QI-Quite-interesting-facts-about-nuts.html


----------



## WillowT

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Prepare to be confused
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/qi/8434868/QI-Quite-interesting-facts-about-nuts.html


Lol


----------



## Guest

MiffyMoo said:


> I'm very keen on the paleo diet, and do subscribe to it when I can afford (right now I'm more beans on toast diet due to finances). I love how it makes me feel, but have been told, on here, that it's a fad diet and I'd be better off going vegan. Nope, no thanks


I'm not going to make assumptions about how you eat, so the following is about going paleo in general, not you specifically 

For most people who go from a typical western diet to a paleo diet of whole foods, little to no dairy, and minimal to no processed foods, they definitely feel better!

Whole food plant based =/= vegan. You can be vegan and eat crap.
Whole food plant based means that the bulk of your food comes from plants in their whole food form.
Oreo cookies are vegan. They're not whole food 

I have a couple friends who embrace the paleo concepts. Our eating styles are very similar


----------



## hutch6

hang on


----------



## hutch6

noushka05 said:


> If I remember rightly wasn't that a rescue you were fostering Hutch?
> 
> Mine have caught a few game birds - on a line & in harness. When Shadow was younger, she was adept at catching birds mid-flight & eating them:Bag
> 
> They are an incredibly social breed. I know its probably hard to believe but they are very pack orientated. That said, I don't think they would cooperate in a hunt the way you see wolves do. I think they would pursue a large animal together but there would be no structure to the hunt. I feel mostly they would probably hunt for themselves.
> 
> A couple of other things I forgot to mention in their favour over other breeds in the survival stakes is their 'fuel efficiency' & their stamina. Sibes require far less food than a breed of similar size to survive & they are perhaps the ultimate endurance breed.
> 
> God they're so cool!


Good grief you've good memory!! Or do you just never forget a husky type?

Yes that was Jess, one of the many foster dogs that have crossed my path, they never did send me the easy ones that were old and just wanted a warm place by the fire, always the nutters.

They are the most efficient runners on the planet having read a fair bit about the Iditarod, they are pretty darn cool as you say.


----------



## noushka05

hutch6 said:


> Good grief you've good memory!! Or do you just never forget a husky type?
> 
> Yes that was Jess, one of the many foster dogs that have crossed my path, they never did send me the easy ones that were old and just wanted a warm place by the fire, always the nutters.
> 
> They are the most efficient runners on the planet having read a fair bit about the Iditarod, they are pretty darn cool as you say.


Husky type I've got a terrible memory lol

I couldn't remember details so wasn't sure whether she was a dog or a bitch. Well done for giving her (& all the others) a chance of finding a lovely home. Do you know if she did?


----------



## hutch6

rottiepointerhouse said:


> A couple of plant based doctors discuss diabetes - check out Dr Greger @1.38 talking about the insulin response to meat


Oh wow!!

Where to start with this.

I think I started here:

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...-common-foods-Am-J-Clin-Nutr-66-1264-1276.pdf

Then after about 4hrs I went here:

https://optimisingnutrition.com/2015/07/06/insulin-index-v2/

This bangs on about keto stuff so don't bother reading it , seriously. No seriously, you don't need to pick fault with it because I already did that after reading that detailed analysis report findings above.

So because I didn't agree with what they were on about after reading the data report I went here:

http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/eating-fat-raise-insulin-7239.html

The site is full of all sorts so could be written by anyone so i decided to hope over to:

https://nutritionfacts.org/

I can't remember what time it was when I finished watching and reading and cross referencing it with the cited reports but the sun was coming up this morning.

Finished watching forks and knives and started typing this but not before ordering a few books that have been mentioned.

That insulin index report took me down a very deep rabbit hole for a while that's for sure.

"My body doesn't produce insulin when i eat fats so i don;t put any additional work on my internal organs" I think it was I said earlier in a few posts:










Massively wrong.

So a few questions to get things rolling:

I won't have to count macros? 
I can eat as much fruit and veg as I want without any issues about getting fat?

How the f*** do you cook quinoa (oh yeah, cos it's spelled _keeeeeeeeeen-wah_)

I am dreading my trip to the supermarket later as it goes against everything I have stood for and worked to avoid but if the fruit from some overseas place benefits everything then so be it. I'm breaking out in a nervous sweat already.


----------



## Catharinem

Dr Pepper said:


> I must admit I find that bit quite simple. For example tonight I'll be having my 750ml of Bellingham 2016 Chardonnay, with maybe 568ml of organic New Forest scrumpy to get a variety of liquids. For tea I'll be having a intake of 8oz of prime beef burger with about 200g of baked beans and a mountain of buttery mash.
> 
> Easy peasy.


Chardonnay? Chardonnay with beef and baked beans? This chardonnay with beef and baked beans?http://www.wine.co.za/wine/wine.aspx?WINEID=40702

OK folks, time to stop this vegan/ carnivore/keto smalltalk and get this guy the help he needs.


----------



## catz4m8z

wow, @hutch6 ...those articles! Esp the first 2. I started reading, realiesed I had no clue what they were actually going on about, wondered if I needed a university education to understand, remembered Im too thick for university, finally slowly started to nod off :Hilarious(not my fault, Ive been up all night!):Shy

And those graphs with the teeny tiny dots all over the place? What were they supposed to be showing? :Wideyed Dont get me wrong, I liked the dots, they looked pretty but I prefer bar charts...with 1 syllable words...and possibly some cartoons.:Woot


----------



## Dr Pepper

Catharinem said:


> Chardonnay? Chardonnay with beef and baked beans? This chardonnay with beef and baked beans?http://www.wine.co.za/wine/wine.aspx?WINEID=40702
> 
> OK folks, time to stop this vegan/ carnivore/keto smalltalk and get this guy the help he needs.


Don't be ridiculous, who would have white wine with beef? My daily 750ml of wine is more an aperitif and not consumed with a meal. Whilst on the subject of pairing food with wine you kinda have a point, what would you recommend to go with baked beans? It just gets even more difficult when you have cheesy mash and baked beans together. It's hard work all this nutritional malarkey.


----------



## Guest

Actually, I'm going to take @hutch6 at face value and believe that he has seen the light (or some of it). Fat ain't healthy. Those links he posted basically say as much. Which I'm assuming is what he's getting at.



hutch6 said:


> I won't have to count macros?


Nope  Ah the freedom! 
Seriously though, any thought process that puts a nutrient rich sweet potato in the same category as a donut because they're both carbs can't be sane. Or an apple in the same category as a can of sprite because they're both "sugar" just isn't reasonable.

If you must categorize food, categorize it by whole foods vs. processed refined foods. Is it a plant or is it made in a plant. 
Those "healthy" energy bars in their pretty little packaging are still processed, refined, made in a factory foods. Make your own from your own whole food ingredients. 
Michael Pollan talks about food being prepared by humans vs. a corporation. Turns out humans prepare foods very differently than corporations do. Hint: human prepared food is healthier 



hutch6 said:


> I can eat as much fruit and veg as I want without any issues about getting fat?


Yup  Just don't drown your veggies in refined oils or butter, and don't douse your fruits with refined syrups or processed sugars.



hutch6 said:


> How the f*** do you cook quinoa (oh yeah, cos it's spelled _keeeeeeeeeen-wah_)


 It's a Quechua word that the Spanish borrowed and turned in to it's current spelling and pronunciation.
Easy to cook. One part quinoa, to two parts liquid. Dump it all in the pot together, bring to a boil, reduce heat, cover, simmer until all the liquid is absorbed (about 15 minutes). Take off heat and leave to stand, covered, for an additional 15 minutes. Enjoy. 
If you get bulk quinoa, make sure you rinse it well before cooking otherwise it can have a bitter taste to it.



hutch6 said:


> I am dreading my trip to the supermarket later as it goes against everything I have stood for and worked to avoid but if the fruit from some overseas place benefits everything then so be it. I'm breaking out in a nervous sweat already.


Don't go to the supermarket, go to your local farmer's market. If you must go to the supermarket shop local. I don't know about the UK, but here most supermarkets have a local food section where you can stock up on the produce produced in your area


----------



## Magyarmum

hutch6 said:


> Ok maybe I'm wrong after reading that.
> 
> The San are the oldest inhabitants of Southern Africa, where they have lived for at least 20 000 years.
> 
> the San are descendants of Early Stone Age ancestors.
> 
> These migratory people do not domesticate animals or cultivate crops, even though their knowledge of both flora and fauna is vast. The San categorized thousands of plants and their uses, from nutritional to medicinal, mystical to recreational and lethal. San men have a formidable reputation as trackers and hunters. San trackers will follow the 'spoor' (tracks) of an animal across virtually any kind of surface or terrain. Their skills even enable them to distinguish between the "spoor" of a wounded animal and that of the rest of the herd.
> 
> San are largely egalitarian, sharing such things as meat and tobacco.
> 
> The San will eat anything available, both animal and vegetable. Their selection of food ranges from antelope, Zebra, porcupine, wild hare, Lion, Giraffe, fish, insects, tortoise, flying ants, snakes (venomous and non-venomous), Hyena, eggs and wild honey. The meat is boiled or roasted on a fire. The San are not wasteful and every part of the animal is used. The hides are tanned for blankets and the bones are cracked for the marrow. Water is hard to come by, as the San are constantly on the move. Usually during the dry season, these migrants collect their moisture by scraping and squeezing roots. If they are out hunting or travelling, they would dig holes in the sand to find water. They also carry water in an ostrich eggshell.
> 
> The San are excellent hunters. Although they do a fair amount of trapping , the best method of hunting is with bow and arrow. The San arrow does not kill the animal straight away. It is the deadly poison, which eventually causes the death. In the case of small antelope such as Duiker or Steenbok, a couple of hours may elapse before death. For larger antelope, this could be 7 to 12 hours. For large game, such as Giraffe it could take as long as 3 days. Today the San make the poison from the larvae of a small beetle but will also use poison from plants, such as the euphorbia, and snake venom.
> 
> When catching small animals such as hares, guinea fowls, Steenbok or Duiker, traps made of twisted gut or fibre from plants were used. These had a running noose that strangled the animal when it stepped into the snare to collect the food that had been placed inside it. Another way of capturing animals was to wait at Aardvark holes. Aardvark holes are used by small buck as a resting place to escape the midday sun. The hunter waited patiently behind the hole until the animal left. When this happened, it was be firmly pinned and hit on the head with a Kerrie (club).
> 
> Hunting is a team effort and the man whose arrow killed the animal has the right to distribute the meat to the tribe members and visitors who, after hearing about the kill, would arrive soon afterwards to share in the feast. According to San tradition, they were welcome to share the meal and would, in the future, have to respond in the same way. However, plant foods, gathered by the womenfolk, are not shared but eaten by the woman's immediate family. The San make use of over 100 edible species of plant. While the men hunt, the women, who are experts in foraging for edible mushrooms, bulbs, berries and melons, gather food for the family. Children stay at home to be watched over by those remaining in camp, but nursing children are carried on these gathering trips, adding to the load the women must carry.Gender roles are not jealously guarded in the San society. Women sometimes assist in the hunt and the men sometimes help gather plant foods.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This is based on modern times, i.e the last 20,000 years.
> 
> *Direct descendants of Stone age folk* - but we aren't hunters and gatherers.
> 
> *Use a plethora of tactics and weapons*.
> 
> *Everyone goes to the kill* - look at that list of what they kill with poison arrows and then ask yourself if people 900,000yrs ago would have had poisoned arrows to bring down a giraffe, a zebra or a lion. No, they'd have snatched and grabbed what they could carry to eat in safety.
> 
> *Anything picked or gathered is NOT shared outside of the immediate family* - is that because of the calorie expended/ calories gathered ratio?
> 
> *Women joined the hunt and men helped gather *- doesn't sound like a gender distinction of duties to me.


This is based on modern times, i.e the last 20,000 years.

*Direct descendants of Stone age folk* - but we aren't hunters and gatherers.

You brought up the topic of hunters and gatherers, not me .... remember?
So the San are too "modern" for your taste?

Does this suit you better?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170928142016.htm
*
Use a plethora of tactics and weapons*.

*Everyone goes to the kill* - look at that list of what they kill with poison arrows and then ask yourself if people 900,000yrs ago would have had poisoned arrows to bring down a giraffe, a zebra or a lion. No, they'd have snatched and grabbed what they could carry to eat in safety.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...stone-tipped-weapons-coated-toxic-plants.html

httplss://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/27/caveman-diet-stone-age-humans-meat_n_2031999.html

https://www.ancient.eu/article/991/prehistoric-hunter-gatherer-societies/

*FOOD*
Because plant remains do not stand the test of time as well as butchered animal bones do, it is generally hard to determine exactly what our ancestors' veggie habits were like. However, a recent 2016 study gives us a rare glimpse into the plant diet of the people living at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel, some 780,000 years ago. A stunning 55 kinds of food plants were found there that include seeds, fruits, nuts, vegetables, and roots or tubers. The diversity shows these people had a good knowledge of which edible things could be found in their environment, and in which season, and reflects a varied plant diet. Besides the greens, the diet of this particular hunter-gatherer society also included both meat and fish. Moreover, fire was visibly used in food processing by this group, while cooking and the habitual use of fire seem not to have been widespread until around 500,000 - 400,000 years ago (see below). Whether this site just housed a group of prodigies or whether more general conclusions can be drawn from this is hard to say - it must at the very least be viewed in its geographical and chronological framework.

*TOOLS*
The above mentioned **** heidelbergensis, who was very widespread indeed, deserves some special attention. They appeared around 700,000 years ago in Africa, were probably descendent from **** erectus, and seemingly spread into Europe as far as present-day England by around 500,000 years ago. At a site in Schöningen, Germany, dated to at least 300,000 years old, Heidelbergensis astounded researchers: eight carefully crafted wooden spears were found, alongside flint tools and chips. These weapons represent the earliest indication for active hunting behaviour, and, interestingly, their targets were also present: the bones of numerous horses showing cut marks were found at the site, too. The systematic hunting of large animals is no mean feat, as it is hard to envision hunters being successful in this way without cooperating with one another to a decent degree. Indeed, researchers suggest that **** heidelbergensis was already capable of making quite sophisticated tools and hunting not only large but also dangerous animals, which, they say, may indicate that they engaged in cooperative social activities.

One thing you've completely failed to take into consideration is the impact fire and the discovery of cooking had on evolution. For the first time man was able to make his meat more digestible and much easier to chew, and make grains, pulses, tubers etc many of which in their raw state were either inedible or toxic, edible and palatable when cooked.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-fire-makes-us-human-72989884/


----------



## hutch6

catz4m8z said:


> wow, @hutch6 ...those articles! Esp the first 2. I started reading, realiesed I had no clue what they were actually going on about, wondered if I needed a university education to understand, remembered Im too thick for university, finally slowly started to nod off :Hilarious(not my fault, Ive been up all night!):Shy
> 
> And those graphs with the teeny tiny dots all over the place? What were they supposed to be showing? :Wideyed Dont get me wrong, I liked the dots, they looked pretty but I prefer bar charts...with 1 syllable words...and possibly some cartoons.:Woot


They show the insulin curve based on the for the carb content of each food - basically how much insulin is produced. They are then plotted on the graphs with the line you see showing the median of foods that have been plotted - best fit for scatter graphs.

Now, on that site I noticed they only used the carb content one with the foods labelled. But on the carb and protein one the food labels aren't there. Hmmmmmm....

The findings are that yes, refined carbs produce a massive insulin response which is expected.

On the whole foods carbs when compared with the high protein foods the y-axis intercept point was much higher and the median line remained a lot higher for longer. Ergo, high protein foods produce a heck of a lot more insulin for longer than do whole food high carb foods like spuds and pasta.

I'm a little bit anxious but giddy because it has flipped me on my head and I'm genuinely excited about starting this, which will be when I can get the truck of the drive as I've got a small army here fitting a new boiler right now and can;t get out.

I've downloaded the forks and knives app which is now ready to open so I'll take a butchers, I mean greengrocers, at the content and recipes.


----------



## Catharinem

catz4m8z said:


> wow, @hutch6
> And those graphs with the teeny tiny dots all over the place? What were they supposed to be showing? :Wideyed Dont get me wrong, I liked the dots, they looked pretty but I prefer bar charts...with 1 syllable words...and possibly some cartoons.:Woot


Like this?


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> They show the insulin curve based on the for the carb content of each food - basically how much insulin is produced. They are then plotted on the graphs with the line you see showing the median of foods that have been plotted - best fit for scatter graphs.
> 
> Now, on that site I noticed they only used the carb content one with the foods labelled. But on the carb and protein one the food labels aren't there. Hmmmmmm....
> 
> The findings are that yes, refined carbs produce a massive insulin response which is expected.
> 
> On the whole foods carbs when compared with the high protein foods the y-axis intercept point was much higher and the median line remained a lot higher for longer. Ergo, high protein foods produce a heck of a lot more insulin for longer than do whole food high carb foods like spuds and pasta.
> 
> I'm a little bit anxious but giddy because it has flipped me on my head and I'm genuinely excited about starting this, which will be when I can get the truck of the drive as I've got a small army here fitting a new boiler right now and can;t get out.
> 
> I've downloaded the forks and knives app which is now ready to open so I'll take a butchers, I mean greengrocers, at the content and recipes.


What we've been saying for about 30 pages. Glad it finally clicked  
Thanks @LinznMilly for keeping this open, was well worth it


----------



## Catharinem

Dr Pepper said:


> Don't be ridiculous, who would have white wine with beef? My daily 750ml of wine is more an aperitif and not consumed with a meal. Whilst on the subject of pairing food with wine you kinda have a point, what would you recommend to go with baked beans? It just gets even more difficult when you have cheesy mash and baked beans together. It's hard work all this nutritional malarkey.


Ahh, I see. I did wonder if was an aperitif, but thought surely everyone knows the apetitif before dinner is sherry? Maybe the tea/dinner divide is more than verbal?

What wine for beef, cheesy mash and baked beans? Hmm, difficult, leave it with me...


----------



## hutch6

ouesi said:


> Actually, I'm going to take @hutch6 at face value and believe that he has seen the light (or some of it). Fat ain't healthy. Those links he posted basically say as much. Which I'm assuming is what he's getting at.
> 
> Nope  Ah the freedom!
> Seriously though, any thought process that puts a nutrient rich sweet potato in the same category as a donut because they're both carbs can't be sane. Or an apple in the same category as a can of sprite because they're both "sugar" just isn't reasonable.
> 
> If you must categorize food, categorize it by whole foods vs. processed refined foods. Is it a plant or is it made in a plant.
> Those "healthy" energy bars in their pretty little packaging are still processed, refined, made in a factory foods. Make your own from your own whole food ingredients.
> Michael Pollan talks about food being prepared by humans vs. a corporation. Turns out humans prepare foods very differently than corporations do. Hint: human prepared food is healthier
> 
> Yup  Just don't drown your veggies in refined oils or butter, and don't douse your fruits with refined syrups or processed sugars.
> 
> It's a Quechua word that the Spanish borrowed and turned in to it's current spelling and pronunciation.
> Easy to cook. One part quinoa, to two parts liquid. Dump it all in the pot together, bring to a boil, reduce heat, cover, simmer until all the liquid is absorbed (about 15 minutes). Take off heat and leave to stand, covered, for an additional 15 minutes. Enjoy.
> If you get bulk quinoa, make sure you rinse it well before cooking otherwise it can have a bitter taste to it.
> 
> Don't go to the supermarket, go to your local farmer's market. If you must go to the supermarket shop local. I don't know about the UK, but here most supermarkets have a local food section where you can stock up on the produce produced in your area


I would sooner stab myself in the face than eat any processed garbage.

I've fed the dogs what I was going to have for breakfast already. Only the plumbers have had the milk so far as I've had a black coffee.

I already eat a lot of of the whole foods mentioned, it's just the other part of my my plate is made up of a small portion of high fat food be it animal produce or other, so I'm cutting out the animal stuff and replacing it with that quinoa stuff or brown rice (can't really bring myself to go on wholemeal pita or whatever just yet) and fruit.

We have a pretty good market on today (most days - it's a market town) so I'll see what they have, try the other health shops and if I'm feeling brave I'll browse the poopermarket.

What's the rule on dried fruits like apricots, figs, dates etc?


----------



## Magyarmum

Catharinem said:


> Ahh, I see. I did wonder if was an aperitif, but thought surely everyone knows the apetitif before dinner is sherry? Maybe the tea/dinner divide is more than verbal?
> 
> What wine for beef, cheesy mash and baked beans? Hmm, difficult, leave it with me...


Of course it's an aperitif, everyone in Hungary knows you drink a bottle of white wine for breakfast.
The rule for lunchtime is a bottle of Rose and for dinner with your goulash a really nice red!

And the day wouldn't be complete if you didn't have a tot or six of locally made Palinka!


----------



## Elles

I’m hungry early today. Been working hard out in the fields for the past few days. I’ve just thrown a few veg in a pan and will chuck a processed veg stock on them and some mint on the little potatoes. I get most of any snacky or sweet things from graze or alpro. I don’t miss dairy at all, so obviously I didn’t eat enough of it to be addicted. I do eat the odd pack of dried fruit from the garage, but it’s not really part of the whole food thing and probably gives me a sugar rush, so I wouldn’t make a habit of it. 

I do think the local, in season produce point was a very good one though. It’s something I will make more effort with myself. Even if transport wouldn’t be an issue if weren’t feeding and transporting so many animals, we aren’t there yet and every little helps. 

We have a farm market every Thursday here.


----------



## Catharinem

After much deliberation, I beleive a suitable match for a dish consisting of burger, cheesy mash and baked beans would be a nice pinot noir.:Hungry


----------



## Magyarmum

Catharinem said:


> After much deliberation, I beleive a suitable match for a dish consisting of burger, cheesy mash and baked beans would be a nice pinot noir.:Hungry


The burger, cheesy mash and baked beans OK but a better choice of wine for a lusty male like @Dr Pepper would be a Hungarian Bulls Blood!


----------



## Elles

I presume if we make massive changes to our diet, especially if we introduce a food type we’ve never eaten, we have to do it gradually to give our gut flora a chance? It’s a question, not a statement, I have no idea lol.


----------



## Magyarmum

hutch6 said:


> I would sooner stab myself in the face than eat any processed garbage.
> 
> I've fed the dogs what I was going to have for breakfast already. Only the plumbers have had the milk so far as I've had a black coffee.
> 
> I already eat a lot of of the whole foods mentioned, it's just the other part of my my plate is made up of a small portion of high fat food be it animal produce or other, so I'm cutting out the animal stuff and replacing it with that quinoa stuff or brown rice (can't really bring myself to go on wholemeal pita or whatever just yet) and fruit.
> 
> We have a pretty good market on today (most days - it's a market town) so I'll see what they have, try the other health shops and if I'm feeling brave I'll browse the poopermarket.
> 
> What's the rule on dried fruits like apricots, figs, dates etc?


Breathes great sigh of relief!

If you're not against ordering online there's a very good vegetarian/vegan/organic/gluten free ... you name it they have it shop in Edinburgh called Real Foods Their website is : www.realfoods.co.uk.

I live in Hungary which is not well provided for non meat eaters and I find I have to order a lot of grains and some pulses from the UK. They have a terrific selection. Take a look!

As well as quinoa which I love there's also buckwheat (Kasha) and bulgar. I often cook a mixture of bulgar, quinoa and red lentils!


----------



## noushka05

Magyarmum said:


> Breathes great sigh of relief!
> 
> If you're not against ordering online there's a very good vegetarian/vegan/organic/gluten free ... you name it they have it shop in Edinburgh called Real Foods Their website is : www.realfoods.co.uk.
> 
> I live in Hungary which is not well provided for non meat eaters and I find I have to order a lot of grains and some pulses from the UK. They have a terrific selection. Take a look!
> 
> As well as quinoa which I love there's also buckwheat (Kasha) and bulgar. I often cook a mixture of bulgar, quinoa and red lentils!


I get a lot of my things from Real Foods. They have a great selection & I've always found them very reliable


----------



## Dr Pepper

Catharinem said:


> After much deliberation, I beleive a suitable match for a dish consisting of burger, cheesy mash and baked beans would be a nice pinot noir.:Hungry


You could be right but I think you accidentally nearly nailed it when you mentioned Sherry. A decent Port I reckon, it'd go ok with beef, obviously it'd accompany cheesy mash very well, it's just the beans it might not quite work with so, and wait this is pure genius, make them cheesy beans!



Magyarmum said:


> The burger, cheesy mash and baked beans OK but a better choice of wine for a lusty male like @Dr Pepper would be a Hungarian Bulls Blood!


I appreciate your effortI really do, but ALC 12% for red isn't that for girls?


----------



## Magyarmum

noushka05 said:


> I get a lot of my things from Real Foods. They have a great selection & I've always found them very reliable


I was really impressed with them when I placed my last order. They hadn't got the brand of Walnut Oil I wanted in stock and phoned all the way to Hungary to tell me so. Now that's service!


----------



## Magyarmum

Dr Pepper said:


> You could be right but I think you accidentally nearly nailed it when you mentioned Sherry. A decent Port I reckon, it'd go ok with beef, obviously it'd accompany cheesy mash very well, it's just the beans it might not quite work with so, and wait this is pure genius, make them cheesy beans!
> 
> I appreciate your effortI really do, but ALC 12% for red isn't that for girls?


No that's so you can justifiably drink two bottles .... Hungarians aren't stupid you know!


----------



## Elles

Magyarmum said:


> No that's so you can justifiably drink two bottles .... Hungarians aren't stupid you know!


Is that what they call a 'whole bottle alcohol based' diet?


----------



## Catharinem

Dr Pepper said:


> You could be right but I think you accidentally nearly nailed it when you mentioned Sherry. A decent Port I reckon, it'd go ok with beef, obviously it'd accompany cheesy mash very well, it's just the beans it might not quite work with so, and wait this is pure genius, make them cheesy beans!


Pinot Noir is already great with steak/burgers and cheese, with a bit of digging I also found a recipe for pinot noir cooked beans ( which also contain tomato). I'd definitely give it a go. In fact, I think tomorrow I will try a steak with cheesy mash and this bean stew, with an extra glass on the side for drinking.


----------



## WillowT

ouesi said:


> What we've been saying for about 30 pages. Glad it finally clicked
> Thanks @LinznMilly for keeping this open, was well worth it


Lol, lol, lol.


----------



## Catharinem

Elles said:


> Is that what they call a 'whole bottle alcohol based' diet?


Does wine count as one of your 7 a day?:Bookworm

Drink a rainbow of colours... :Wacky


----------



## Elles

I much prefer carrots whole, grated, or sliced lengthways, rounds are nasty. :Vomit


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> What's the rule on dried fruits like apricots, figs, dates etc?


Fine in moderation. (As an aside, fresh figs right off the tree are one of my absolute favorite things in the world, nectar from heaven!)
The problem with dried fruit is that it's easy to eat too much because all the water volume is removed. Plus concentrating all those fruit sugars is not the best either. However, since all the fiber and other nutrients are still there, it's not the worst either.



Elles said:


> I presume if we make massive changes to our diet, especially if we introduce a food type we've never eaten, we have to do it gradually to give our gut flora a chance? It's a question, not a statement, I have no idea lol.


I do know that some people struggle with higher fiber in their diet, so yes, some foods you have to add gradually. But it's very person specific and some foods that bother some people won't bother others. 
One mistake you do see though is that some people up the dairy (cheese) when they eliminate or reduce meat, and dairy is one of the biggest culprits of digestive upset.


----------



## Dr Pepper

Catharinem said:


> Does wine count as one of your 7 a day?:Bookworm
> 
> Drink a rainbow of colours... :Wacky
> 
> View attachment 329834


Of course it does, it grapes. That's why I like to also have my apples via scrumpy as that's two of my five a day easily done. If I'm eating particularly unhealthy (not that often to be honest) I'll also have 568ml of Perry to up it three and if need be a Peach Schnapps and Bucks Fizz to get the full five.


----------



## Jonescat

Winter fruit is apples and pears for the UK and berries if you know what you are picking, and there some nuts out there too, - if you up the veg intake than you may not miss fruit so much. 

This is what is in season officially in the UK now: Apples, Beetroot, Blackberries, Broccoli, Brussels Sprouts, Butternut Squash, Carrots, Cauliflower, Celeriac, Celery, Chestnuts, Chicory, Chillies, Courgette, Elderberries, Kale, Leeks, Lettuce, Marrow, Onions, Parsnips, Pears, Peas, Potatoes, Pumpkin, Radishes, Rocket, Runner Beans, Spinach, Spring Greens, Spring Onions, Summer Squash, Swede, Sweetcorn, Swiss Chard, Turnips, Watercress, Wild Mushrooms, Winter Squash.

I also have French beans still going strong and things like pak choi, red mustard etc and if you have a greenhouse then you can have tomatoes and things as well. 

You don't have to go halfway round the world to eat, and remember the link to British pulses I posted earlier - they grow quinoa too.


----------



## hutch6

We're back!!

Well just me as the girlfriend is in Barcelona so I had to go in to the health shop for the first time as she normally goes in. Oh dear. Loads of bottles of synthetic allsorts, the nuts I'm used to seeing but not a great deal else really due to my fear of cereals but still managed a few bits.










What mung beans are or how you use them I haven't scooby but I'm sure I can fit them into something.

There wasn't a market on and no greengrocer so i started having a panic attack knowing what was coming. 
Nit going to lie, I got some funny looks as I was picking everything up and reading the labels. What I did notice is that you can pick up one product, say the sweetcorn. On one packet it says one country and if you dig about a bit you find another pack of the same stuff from a different country. Anyway, after looking like a pedantic weirdo (I probably am) I managed to find the follow UK produce:










Then it all went a bit terrible:










Off to plant a few trees to off-set all that wrapping.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Hate to be a party pooper but my BS ometer is going off big time. @hutch6 you already knew high protein foods cause an insulin reaction, you told me so pages and pages ago. If you are going to try WFPB then I'm guessing its as some sort of experiment so you can come back and tell us all you gained some weight. Which of course you will, you've been using ketones for energy so have no stored glycogen, as soon as you start eating proper carbs again you will replenish your glycogen stores and that involves some water. The reverse of what happens when you first go into ketosis and lose quite a few pounds as you lose the water with the glycogen stores. If I'm wrong I apologise.

Either way this just dropped into my inbox which I thought you might like to read - it has some meal plans for muscle building for vegans but sorry its the guy who talked on my course again.

http://www.nomeatathlete.com/build-muscle-plant-based/

I love this

http://www.nomeatathlete.com/wish-i-knew-vegan/


----------



## Elles

Don’t forget your greens.


----------



## WillowT

And just when we thought it had all calmed down..... round 2 . Lol.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

WillowT said:


> And just when we thought it had all calmed down..... round 2 . Lol.


Oh heck, I'm sorry I wasn't trying to be antagonistic and I cross posted with the photos of all the lovely fruit, veg & pulses so I can only reiterate that I'm sorry if I have misjudged your intentions @hutch6 .


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

*Why Diets Don't Work and Eating Whole Foods Does*
Yes, you really can eat more and weigh less. By focusing on foods with low calorie density, you can lose weight without hunger pangs-and you'll actually boost your intake of the nutrients your body needs to thrive.

In this free online presentation, _New York Times_ bestselling author and board-certified internal medicine physician Matthew Lederman, MD, explains this simple but life-changing approach to losing weight and keeping it off. Dr. Lederman will cover essential calorie density principles, including:

Free Presentation

*How to Eat More and Weigh Less: A Lesson in Calorie Density*
OCTOBER 24TH @ 4PM PT / 7 PM ET

https://www.forksoverknives.com/cal...m_term=Eat-More-Weigh-Less-Webinar#gs.VrSARWk


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> (can't really bring myself to go on wholemeal pita or whatever just yet)


You can still stay away from wheat if you want to. 
I rarely eat bread or crackers etc. no particular reason, there are just too many other things I would rather eat. But it's very easy to eat whole food based and avoid wheat if you want to. 
Now, I do eat a good bit of pasta, love my quinoa, and lots of potatoes of all kinds. If you haven't discovered the beautiful variety of potatoes out there, do yourself a favor and explore a bit. I bet the UK has some lovely varieties. I'm currently waiting impatiently for my favorite market to have purple sweet potatoes. Oh, so good!!! And there are tons of varieties of sweet potatoes to play with too.



Jonescat said:


> This is what is in season officially in the UK now: Apples, Beetroot, Blackberries, Broccoli, Brussels Sprouts, Butternut Squash, Carrots, Cauliflower, Celeriac, Celery, Chestnuts, Chicory, Chillies, Courgette, Elderberries, Kale, Leeks, Lettuce, Marrow, Onions, Parsnips, Pears, Peas, Potatoes, Pumpkin, Radishes, Rocket, Runner Beans, Spinach, Spring Greens, Spring Onions, Summer Squash, Swede, Sweetcorn, Swiss Chard, Turnips, Watercress, Wild Mushrooms, Winter Squash.


YUM!! That's plenty to keep one happy for a long time. 
Here we're overrun with apples and pears. Bought a lovely batch of Bartlett pears a few weeks ago that lasted about 2 days with the teens, this reminded me I need to go see if they have more. 
Courgette and summer squash are just about ending their season now, looking forward to the winter squashes coming up and the root veggies and potatoes. And pumpkin! Pumpkins everywhere!


----------



## Elles

I prefer oats and rice to anything wheat based myself, unless I’m in France, then I’m rather addicted to their bread.  King Edwards are my favourite potatoes. :Hungry


----------



## MilleD

Dr Pepper said:


> I appreciate your effortI really do, but ALC 12% for red isn't that for girls?


Not this girl.


----------



## MilleD

ouesi said:


> Here we're overrun with apples and pears.


I've been cycling over windfall for a couple of weeks to work and back.

The sad thing is that we are pretty rural, but there seems to be no wildlife eating it. And acorns!! Never seen so many. I think the squirrels must be on strike!


----------



## Elles

Pretty bumper year I think. Our orchard is crazy, never seen so many apples. Insects have been a bit lower in number than usual though. Hardly any clegs, or wasps about and I haven’t seen one bot.


----------



## Dr Pepper

MilleD said:


> Not this girl.


Well obviously I wasn't thinking of you :Hungover


----------



## Dr Pepper

Elles said:


> Pretty bumper year I think. Our orchard is crazy, never seen so many apples. Insects have been a bit lower in number than usual though. Hardly any clegs, or wasps about and I haven't seen one bot.


Actually, and being serious for a minute, same here. Masses of apples, plums and pears not to mention monster mushrooms. Same with insects, makes you wonder if they are overrated when it comes to pollination and the wind actually does most of the work?

Edit
We do have a lot of biting midges at the moment which is unusual being in the south, they should be long gone.


----------



## Magyarmum

It's been a bad year for fruit in my garden because we had a heavy hailstorm followed by a couple of days of torrential rain which destroyed all the blossom. And no walnuts either! I have 6 trees but only managed to find a measly dozen nuts and I think what few there were got stolen by the squirrels!


----------



## Catharinem

Jonescat said:


> Winter fruit is apples and pears for the UK and berries if you know what you are picking, and there some nuts out there too, - if you up the veg intake than you may not miss fruit so much.
> 
> This is what is in season officially in the UK now: Apples, Beetroot, Blackberries, Broccoli, Brussels Sprouts, Butternut Squash, Carrots, Cauliflower, Celeriac, Celery, Chestnuts, Chicory, Chillies, Courgette, Elderberries, Kale, Leeks, Lettuce, Marrow, Onions, Parsnips, Pears, Peas, Potatoes, Pumpkin, Radishes, Rocket, Runner Beans, Spinach, Spring Greens, Spring Onions, Summer Squash, Swede, Sweetcorn, Swiss Chard, Turnips, Watercress, Wild Mushrooms, Winter Squash.
> 
> I also have French beans still going strong and things like pak choi, red mustard etc and if you have a greenhouse then you can have tomatoes and things as well.
> 
> You don't have to go halfway round the world to eat, and remember the link to British pulses I posted earlier - they grow quinoa too.


On the wild berry side, as well as blackberries and elderberries, there are now sloes ( sloe gin), rosehips and haws. Both rosehip and haw make amazing syrups to dilute in drinks or pour over pancakes. 
Remember edible "ornamentals" too: fushia berries are edible raw, sunflowers have seed heads. 
And certain wild leaves are edible too- dandelion, chickweed, ground elder etc.


----------



## Catharinem

hutch6 said:


> What mung beans are or how you use them I haven't scooby but I'm sure I can fit them into something.


You sprout them on a tray of wet paper towel in a warm, dark place ( airing cupboard is perfect) to make beansprouts.


----------



## Magyarmum

Catharinem said:


> You sprout them on a tray of wet paper towel in a warm, dark place ( airing cupboard is perfect) to make beansprouts.[/QUOTE
> 
> I'm lazy and buy my Mung Beans ready sprouted from Tesco, I normally make a Chinese type stir fry with other veggies and a sweet/sour sauce served with either noodles or rice. I also love cooking whole Mungo beans. Here's some ideas for what you can do with them
> 
> http://www.onegreenplanet.org/vegan-food/how-to-use-mung-beans/


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> Pretty bumper year I think. Our orchard is crazy, never seen so many apples. Insects have been a bit lower in number than usual though. Hardly any clegs, or wasps about and I haven't seen one bot.


Insects are in dangerous decline Elles, I've noticed there aren't so many too 



Dr Pepper said:


> Actually, and being serious for a minute, same here. Masses of apples, plums and pears not to mention monster mushrooms. Same with insects, makes you wonder if they are overrated when it comes to pollination and the wind actually does most of the work?
> 
> Edit
> We do have a lot of biting midges at the moment which is unusual being in the south, they should be long gone.


87% of the worlds food crops depend upon pollinators. Insects feed a host of other creatures - without insects ecosystems collapse.

Factory farming is a major cause of this decline.

Please read this timely article by Damian Carrington. Here is George Monbiot's response: _*This great ecological collapse is taking place before our eyes*_



*Warning of 'ecological Armageddon' after dramatic plunge in insect numbers *
Three-quarters of flying insects in nature reserves across Germany have vanished in 25 years, with serious implications for all life on Earth, scientists say

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...eddon-after-dramatic-plunge-in-insect-numbers


----------



## Jonescat

This is my favourite thing to do with mung beans :
What you will need:
1 tbsp olive oil
1 tsp fenugreek seeds
1 tsp cumin seeds
3 garlic cloves, minced (optional)
2cm knob fresh ginger (finely grated)
Dash or two of chilli powder
1 onion, chopped (optional)
2 capsicums, chopped (optional)
2 medium potatoes, chopped into about 2cm cubes
1 tsp turmeric
2 cups mung beans, washed (no need to soak)
1 litre water or veggie stock
250g fresh spinach, roughly chopped or thrown in whole
3 tomatoes, cut into chunks
juice of 1 lime
salt to taste

Method:
Heat the oil in a large pot or wok pan and sprinkle in the fenugreek and cumin seeds. One minute later, add garlic, ginger, chilli, onion and capsicums, if using. Saute until onions are translucent, stirring often.
Add potatoes and turmeric. Minute later, stir in mung beans and add water.
Bring mixture to the boil and then simmer for 45 minutes.
Add tomatoes and spinach and cook for 10 minutes. Add lime juice and salt to taste.

You can serve this up with rice or bread but I found it very filling on its own.

It is from a book called Veggiestan by Sally Butcher. 
It claims you don't need to soak or pre-cook the beans but I do soak mine first.


----------



## Lurcherlad

Gardeners can help the insects by avoiding double or nectar free plants.

They prefer open, flat flowers.

I have large clumps of Sedum which bees and butterflies love. They were buzzing with lots of bees this year but hardly any butterflies 

Labels often carry the Bee Friendly sign.

Try to have something in flower all year and don't cut back all Ivy as the flowers are a valuable early/late food source when others are scarce.


----------



## Zaros

noushka05 said:


> Insects are in dangerous decline. I've noticed there aren't so many
> 
> 87% of the worlds food crops depend upon pollinators. Insects feed a host of other creatures - without insects ecosystems collapse.
> 
> Here is George Monbiot's response: _*This great ecological collapse is taking place before our eyes*_
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...eddon-after-dramatic-plunge-in-insect-numbers


Living in Lapland for the last decade, I've come to dread the short summer months, the squadrons of viciously hungry mosquitoes, and the many varieties of the strategically malicious paarma fly.
Ventured out at my peril and suffered the uncomfortable torment of their strikes for many days and nights.
The dreaded paarma, some upto 2cms in length, even terrify Oscar. He knows all too well the after effects of their bites.
I survive the season on a diet of antihistamines and lashings of hydrocortisone. Despite them being a pain in the 4r53, and anywhere else they succeed in biting you, they do serve a purpose. Sometimes positively. Sometimes negatively.
http://www.mosquitoreviews.com/mosquitoes-ecosystem.html
Over the last couple of years the regional Cloudberry numbers, has been dwindling quite dramatically. This is said to be as a direct result of the gradual change in the climate which is being destroyed faster than we actually realise.

Mosquitoes and Cloudberries go together like strawberries and cream. They are closely linked.
MrsZee, seemingly immune from airborne predators, would venture out across miles of swamp/bog land each summer and return home with 2 x 10 litre buckets of the berry which grows naturally in the environment. She would repeat the same arduous journey for many consecutive days.
This last summer multiple litres of Cloudberry have been reduced to just one or two litres .
This year, I have had no need of antihistamines. This year, I have had no need to daub my skin with hydrocortisone. This year, Oscar hasn't lived in terror of the Paarma.
This year, the Reindeer have hardly been seen in their droves on the open roads trying to escape the infernal mosquito. 
This year, there's hardly been any mosquitoes at all.


----------



## noushka05

Lurcherlad said:


> Gardeners can help the insects by avoiding double or nectar free plants.
> 
> They prefer open, flat flowers.
> 
> I have large clumps of Sedum which bees and butterflies love. They were buzzing with lots of bees this year but hardly any butterflies
> 
> Labels often carry the Bee Friendly sign.
> 
> Try to have something in flower all year and don't cut back all Ivy as the flowers are a valuable early/late food source when others are scarce.


Its important people do everything possible to help them. Something else they should stop doing is spraying weeds with weed killer. Even over counter products contain dangerous glyphosate.



Zaros said:


> Living in Lapland for the last decade, I've come to dread the short summer months, the squadrons of viciously hungry mosquitoes, and the many varieties of the strategically malicious paarma fly.
> Ventured out at my peril and suffered the uncomfortable torment of their strikes for many days and nights.
> The dreaded paarma, some upto 2cms in length, even terrify Oscar. He knows all too well the after effects of their bites.
> I survive the season on a diet of antihistamines and lashings of hydrocortisone. Despite them being a pain in the 4r53, and anywhere else they succeed in biting you, they do serve a purpose. Sometimes positively. Sometimes negatively.
> http://www.mosquitoreviews.com/mosquitoes-ecosystem.html
> Over the last couple of years the regional Cloudberry numbers, has been dwindling quite dramatically. This is said to be as a direct result of the gradual change in the climate which is being destroyed faster than we actually realise.
> 
> Mosquitoes and Cloudberries go together like strawberries and cream. They are closely linked.
> MrsZee, seemingly immune from airborne predators, would venture out across miles of swamp/bog land each summer and return home with 2 x 10 litre buckets of the berry which grows naturally in the environment. She would repeat the same arduous journey for many consecutive days.
> This last summer multiple litres of Cloudberry have been reduced to just one or two litres .
> This year, I have had no need of antihistamines. This year, I have had no need to daub my skin with hydrocortisone. This year, Oscar hasn't lived in terror of the Paarma.
> This year, the Reindeer have hardly been seen in their droves on the open roads trying to escape the infernal mosquito.
> This year, there's hardly been any mosquitoes at all.


 Reading this chills me to the bone, Zaros x.


----------



## Zaros

noushka05 said:


> Reading this chills me to the bone, Zaros x.


I'm sure some folks might want to accuse me of scaremongering, Noush'. Anything to dismiss the harsh truth of their undoing. Claim I'm just developing a more efficient immune system and, therefore my body's own defenses are better equipped to deal with the attacks. This is just not true. Despite the antihistamines, which I take a couple of weeks before the summer actually sets in, the bites I sustain are still as painful and the swelling just as severe as the very first day I set foot in the country.
I listen to the generations that have not only grown up in Lapland but have depended and relied upon the environment for survival. Winters are short and the season itself temperamental. It snows heavily and then the rains return. The temperatures plummet and the ground is iron hard with inches of ice which the natural wildlife, reliant on their ability to forage for their survival, cannot penetrate. 
Animals are slowly being starved to death. Easy pickings for predators if nothing else.


----------



## noushka05

Zaros said:


> I'm sure some folks might want to accuse me of scaremongering, Noush'. Anything to dismiss the harsh truth of their undoing. Claim I'm just developing a more efficient immune system and, therefore my body's own defenses are better equipped to deal with the attacks. This is just not true. Despite the antihistamines, which I take a couple of weeks before the summer actually sets in, the bites I sustain are still as painful and the swelling just as severe as the very first day I set foot in the country.
> I listen to the generations that have not only grown up in Lapland but have depended and relied upon the environment for survival. Winters are short and the season itself temperamental. It snows heavily and then the rains return. The temperatures plummet and the ground is iron hard with inches of ice which the natural wildlife, reliant on their ability to forage for their survival, cannot penetrate.
> Animals are slowly being starved to death. Easy pickings for predators if nothing else.


I know you're not scaremongering, that's why i find it so terrifying. Living out there in the wilderness you will notice all the more the changes to your amazingly diverse ecosystem, how heart breaking that must be. What are we doing to this beautiful planet of ours? We're on a suicidal course & taking down everything else with us.


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> Insects are in dangerous decline Elles, I've noticed there aren't so many too
> 
> 87% of the worlds food crops depend upon pollinators. Insects feed a host of other creatures - without insects ecosystems collapse.
> 
> Factory farming is a major cause of this decline.
> 
> Please read this timely article by Damian Carrington. Here is George Monbiot's response: _*This great ecological collapse is taking place before our eyes*_
> 
> *Warning of 'ecological Armageddon' after dramatic plunge in insect numbers *
> Three-quarters of flying insects in nature reserves across Germany have vanished in 25 years, with serious implications for all life on Earth, scientists say
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...eddon-after-dramatic-plunge-in-insect-numbers


I'm well aware of the perceived wisdom on insects and pollination. I was simply posing that at a local level we've had a bumper fruit year with seemingly less insects. Nature is remarkable at adapting so who knows? Reading more articles on what's been said thousands of times before isn't going to further that conversation.

All the answers aren't on the internet, the most interesting discussions are those that ask "what if" ignoring conventional thinking.


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> I'm well aware of the perceived wisdom on insects and pollination. I was simply posing that at a local level we've had a bumper fruit year with seemingly less insects. Nature is remarkable at adapting so who knows? Reading more articles on what's been said thousands of times before isn't going to further that conversation.
> 
> All the answers aren't on the internet, the most interesting discussions are those that ask "what if" ignoring conventional thinking.


God help us. Its a pity you don't read evidence based information lol

This is what you get when pollinator populations collapse - we have to pollinate by hand.

https://www.chinadialogue.net/artic...es-China-s-apple-farmers-to-pollinate-by-hand
*The role of bees and pollinators*

Farming and human health depend upon the ecosystem services provided by wild organisms; worms, woodlice, millipedes and a host of other creatures which help with soil formation, forests to produce oxygen, prevent soil erosion and regulate water flow, birds to eat insect pests, flies and beetles to break down animal dung, bees and other pollinators to pollinate crops.

Modern farming threatens to eradicate these organism, and so undermine itself.

Pollination provides one of the clearest examples of how our disregard for the health of the environment threatens our own survival. About 75% of all crop species require pollination by animals of some sort, often by bees, but sometimes by flies, butterflies, birds or even bats

Crop pollination by insects has been estimated to be worth $14.6 billion to the economy of the USA and £440 million a year to the UK. Some pollination is done by domesticated honeybees, but the bulk of pollination of most crops is done by wild insects, including many species of wild bee such as bumblebees.

In the UK, for example, recent studies suggest that about one-third of pollination is delivered by honeybees, the rest being carried out by a range of wild insects. These animals need undisturbed places to nest, and flowers to feed on when the crops are not flowering.

However, bee diversity has declined markedly in Europe, with many species disappearing from much of their former range, and some species going extinct. The UK alone has lost three species of native bumblebee, and six more are listed as endangered. Four bumblebee species have gone extinct from the whole of Europe, and there is good evidence for similar declines in North America and China.

Pollinating animals fly in to our fields to pollinate crops from surrounding wild areas, but if there are no wild areas, or if the crops are doused in insecticides, then pollination will suffer and yields will decline.

*China's hand-pollinated orchards*

Evidence from around the world points to falling and increasingly unpredictable yields of insect-pollinated crops, particularly in the areas with the most intensive farming. Where crops are grown in vast fields, there are not enough insects to go around. If insecticides are sprayed too frequently, then vital pollinators cannot survive.

The most dramatic example comes from the apple and pear orchards of south west China, where wild bees have been eradicated by excessive pesticide use and a lack of natural habitat.

In recent years, farmers have been forced to hand-pollinate their trees, carrying pots of pollen and paintbrushes with which to individually pollinate every flower, and using their children to climb up to the highest blossoms. This is clearly just possible for this high-value crop, but there are not enough humans in the world to pollinate all of our crops by hand.

There are simple solutions; studies in Europe and North America have found that planting strips of wildflowers on farms, and leaving patches of natural vegetation such as forests, can greatly boost pollinator populations. These practices can also increase populations of natural predators, decreasing the need for pesticide sprays.

With a little effort it is perfectly possible to grow food and look after the environment. In fact, taking a long term view, this is probably the only way to grow food, for otherwise there is a danger that farming will collapse. 
Without bees, our diets would be depressingly poor. We would be forced to survive on wind-pollinated crops; wheat, barley and corn, and little else. Imagine shops without raspberries, apples, strawberries, peas, beans, courgettes, melons, tomatoes, blueberries, pumpkins and much more.

Bees and other insects have provided free pollination for our crops for millennia. They will continue to do so if we learn to recognise their importance and return the favour by providing them with what they need to survive.

We need to recognise that the health and wellbeing of our children depends upon us preserving a healthy environment, and that to do so requires that we show some respect for the myriad of wild animals and plants with which we share the world.


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> God help us. Its a pity you don't read evidence based information lol
> 
> This is what you get when pollinator populations collapse - we have to pollinate by hand.
> 
> https://www.chinadialogue.net/artic...es-China-s-apple-farmers-to-pollinate-by-hand
> *The role of bees and pollinators*
> 
> Farming and human health depend upon the ecosystem services provided by wild organisms; worms, woodlice, millipedes and a host of other creatures which help with soil formation, forests to produce oxygen, prevent soil erosion and regulate water flow, birds to eat insect pests, flies and beetles to break down animal dung, bees and other pollinators to pollinate crops.
> 
> Modern farming threatens to eradicate these organism, and so undermine itself.
> 
> Pollination provides one of the clearest examples of how our disregard for the health of the environment threatens our own survival. About 75% of all crop species require pollination by animals of some sort, often by bees, but sometimes by flies, butterflies, birds or even bats
> 
> Crop pollination by insects has been estimated to be worth $14.6 billion to the economy of the USA and £440 million a year to the UK. Some pollination is done by domesticated honeybees, but the bulk of pollination of most crops is done by wild insects, including many species of wild bee such as bumblebees.
> 
> In the UK, for example, recent studies suggest that about one-third of pollination is delivered by honeybees, the rest being carried out by a range of wild insects. These animals need undisturbed places to nest, and flowers to feed on when the crops are not flowering.
> 
> However, bee diversity has declined markedly in Europe, with many species disappearing from much of their former range, and some species going extinct. The UK alone has lost three species of native bumblebee, and six more are listed as endangered. Four bumblebee species have gone extinct from the whole of Europe, and there is good evidence for similar declines in North America and China.
> 
> Pollinating animals fly in to our fields to pollinate crops from surrounding wild areas, but if there are no wild areas, or if the crops are doused in insecticides, then pollination will suffer and yields will decline.
> 
> *China's hand-pollinated orchards*
> 
> Evidence from around the world points to falling and increasingly unpredictable yields of insect-pollinated crops, particularly in the areas with the most intensive farming. Where crops are grown in vast fields, there are not enough insects to go around. If insecticides are sprayed too frequently, then vital pollinators cannot survive.
> 
> The most dramatic example comes from the apple and pear orchards of south west China, where wild bees have been eradicated by excessive pesticide use and a lack of natural habitat.
> 
> In recent years, farmers have been forced to hand-pollinate their trees, carrying pots of pollen and paintbrushes with which to individually pollinate every flower, and using their children to climb up to the highest blossoms. This is clearly just possible for this high-value crop, but there are not enough humans in the world to pollinate all of our crops by hand.
> 
> There are simple solutions; studies in Europe and North America have found that planting strips of wildflowers on farms, and leaving patches of natural vegetation such as forests, can greatly boost pollinator populations. These practices can also increase populations of natural predators, decreasing the need for pesticide sprays.
> 
> With a little effort it is perfectly possible to grow food and look after the environment. In fact, taking a long term view, this is probably the only way to grow food, for otherwise there is a danger that farming will collapse.
> Without bees, our diets would be depressingly poor. We would be forced to survive on wind-pollinated crops; wheat, barley and corn, and little else. Imagine shops without raspberries, apples, strawberries, peas, beans, courgettes, melons, tomatoes, blueberries, pumpkins and much more.
> 
> Bees and other insects have provided free pollination for our crops for millennia. They will continue to do so if we learn to recognise their importance and return the favour by providing them with what they need to survive.
> 
> We need to recognise that the health and wellbeing of our children depends upon us preserving a healthy environment, and that to do so requires that we show some respect for the myriad of wild animals and plants with which we share the world.


No disrespect but there you go again. You never actually provide any of your own thoughts or discuss "what if's", you just post other people's musings. As I said I'm fully aware of the perceived wisdom of pollination, but what if nature adapts to cope with far fewer insects? How might it do this?


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> No disrespect but there you go again. You never actually provide any of your own thoughts or discuss "what if's", you just post other people's musings. As I said I'm fully aware of the perceived wisdom of pollination, but what if nature adapts to cope with far fewer insects? How might it do this?


So you don't believe people have to pollinate fruit trees by hand in China because pollinator populations collapsed? lmao


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> So you don't believe people have to pollinate fruit trees by hand in China because pollinator populations collapsed? lmao


Didn't say that. I'm not talking about what is happening now in China. I asked the question "what if nature adapts to less insect pollination" off the back of my and another members observation of bumper crops with seemingly less insects.


----------



## Zaros

noushka05 said:


> I know you're not scaremongering, that's why i find it so terrifying. Living out there in the wilderness you will notice all the more the changes to your amazingly diverse ecosystem, how heart breaking that must be. What are we doing to this beautiful planet of ours? We're on a suicidal course & taking down everything else with us.


I suppose, in reality, our undoing has all been a clear case of want rather than need. We've far too much of what we want and not enough of what we need.

This is what Roberto Canessa observed about life during his days fighting for survival in the Andes.

_'What simple things we need to be happy and how we demand much more than we need in life'
_
For those who are not familiar with Mr Canessa;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Canessa

We should be fighting a war on want in the far reaching hope that the victor will eventually be need.'

_
_


----------



## planete

noushka05 said:


> So you don't believe people have to pollinate fruit trees by hand in China because pollinator populations collapsed? lmao


I have no answer but bear in mind some plants are insect pollinated and others are wind pollinated. Their whole structure favourises one or the other. It would probably take longer for any evolution to change this than it is taking for insects to disappear.


----------



## catz4m8z

I dont actually think we are heading towards the next big mass extinction in history...I think its already happening now. Whatever we do now might slow the collapse of the ecosystem but its going to be too little too late. We have def made the planet inhospitable towards human beings in the long term, but then again the extinction of the human race would be for the best for the planet.:Wideyed


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> Didn't say that. I'm not talking about what is happening now in China. I asked the question "what if nature adapts to less insect pollination" off the back of my and another members observation of bumper crops with seemingly less insects.


Nature doesn't adapt just like that. Evolution doesn't happen over night. Both plants and insects co-evolved over millions of years, both are essential to each other. If insect populations collapse so will ecosystems and with them goes our food security too. There may be less insect pollinators but they are still the reason for your bumper crop. How amazing is that? We must look after them before its too late.

_Like apples, pears are self-incompatible and need to attract insects in order to be pollinated and produce fruit.[1] One notable difference from apples is that pear blossoms are much less attractive to bees due to their pale coloring and light odor.[14] Bees may abandon the pear blossoms to visit dandelions or a nearby apple orchard. The majority of pollinators of pear trees are honey bees, although pears are also visited by blow flies and hoverflies.[1_



Zaros said:


> I suppose, in reality, our undoing has all been a clear case of want rather than need. We've far too much of what we want and not enough of what we need.
> 
> This is what Roberto Canessa observed about life during his days fighting for survival in the Andes.
> 
> _'What simple things we need to be happy and how we demand much more than we need in life'
> _
> For those who are not familiar with Mr Canessa;
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Canessa
> 
> We should be fighting a war on want in the far reaching hope that the victor will eventually be need.'


I could not agree with you (& Mr Canessa) more!


planete said:


> I have no answer but bear in mind some plants are insect pollinated and others are wind pollinated. Their whole structure favourises one or the other. It would probably take longer for any evolution to change this than it is taking for insects to disappear.


It's true not all plants rely on insect pollinators, but a very large proportion of the crops we eat rely mainly on insects.

Exactly, we can't wait in the hope evolution will somehow go into overdrive & save the day lol


----------



## noushka05

George has done an article on it now. Utterly terrifying.
*Insectageddon: farming is more catastrophic than climate breakdown 

The shocking collapse of insect populations hints at a global ecological meltdown*
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...astrophe-climate-breakdown-insect-populations


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> Nature doesn't adapt just like that. Evolution doesn't happen over night. Both plants and insects co-evolved over millions of years, both are essential to each other. If insect populations collapse so will ecosystems and with them goes our food security too. There may be less insect pollinators but they are still the reason for your bumper crop. How amazing is that? We must look after them before its too late.
> 
> _Like apples, pears are self-incompatible and need to attract insects in order to be pollinated and produce fruit.[1] One notable difference from apples is that pear blossoms are much less attractive to bees due to their pale coloring and light odor.[14] Bees may abandon the pear blossoms to visit dandelions or a nearby apple orchard. The majority of pollinators of pear trees are honey bees, although pears are also visited by blow flies and hoverflies.[1_
> 
> I could not agree with you (& Mr Canessa) more!
> 
> It's true not all plants rely on insect pollinators, but a very large proportion of the crops we eat rely mainly on insects.
> 
> Exactly, we can't wait in the hope evolution will somehow go into overdrive & save the day lol


I'll tell you what does happen though. Every spring I get the old selective weed killer out to get rid of patches of docks, nettles and brambles. Guess what, when they die back I'm not left with just grass patches, other plant life takes it's place, anything from trees sprouting, excisting hedgerows expand, wild flowers start to grow. I gave you the example of nature reclaiming Chernobyl but you didn't seem to understand. Nature will always win, humanity will no doubt fail.


----------



## catz4m8z

Dr Pepper said:


> I'll tell you what does happen though. Every spring I get the old selective weed killer out to get rid of patches of docks, nettles and brambles.


Sadly your little patch of nature isnt even a drop in the ocean againest the world wide devastation caused by human farming and destruction.


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> I'll tell you what does happen though. Every spring I get the old selective weed killer out to get rid of patches of docks, nettles and brambles. Guess what, when they die back I'm not left with just grass patches, other plant life takes it's place, anything from trees sprouting, excisting hedgerows expand, wild flowers start to grow. I gave you the example of nature reclaiming Chernobyl but you didn't seem to understand. Nature will always win, humanity will no doubt fail.


Of course I understood. I understood you were using Chernobyl as an excuse to do nothing. Lets carry on regardless poisoning & destroying our planet - because nature benefited from _mans absence_ after Chernobyl  . And that should be the point - mans absence. That's why nature bounced back. But when creatures go extinct - they are gone forever. We're in the midst of the 6 mass extinction. These lifeforms will be wiped of the face of the earth *forever* because of our greed & selfishness. There's something you don't seem to understand Dr Pepper - is that WE depend upon the earths ecosystems for our own survival.


----------



## Dr Pepper

catz4m8z said:


> Sadly your little patch of nature isnt even a drop in the ocean againest the world wide devastation caused by human farming and destruction.


I know, it was just a actual example of how nature can and will adapt. Chernobyl being a bigger example. The life that follows the path of the river Nile being another. There are plenty of examples of nature out there,


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> Of course I understood. I understood you were using Chernobyl as an excuse to do nothing. Lets carry on regardless poisoning & destroying our planet - because nature benefited from _mans absence_ after Chernobyl  . And that should be the point - mans absence. That's why nature bounced back. But when creatures go extinct - they are gone forever. We're in the midst of the 6 mass extinction. These lifeforms will be wiped of the face of the earth *forever* because of our greed & selfishness. There's something you don't seem to understand Dr Pepper - is that WE depend upon the earths ecosystems for our own survival.


And what caused the five previous mass extinctions? 99% of all living species are extinct. Bloody arrogant to think man has so much power over nature.

I've never said do nothing. I will say be realistic about what we can do if we always want to try and beat nature by making sure every living human being survives, that's the problem.


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> And what caused the five previous mass extinctions? 99% of all living species are extinct. Bloody arrogant to think man has so much power over nature.
> 
> I've never said do nothing. I will say be realistic about what we can do if we always want to try and beat nature by making sure every living human being survives, that's the problem.


Natural events. The sixth mass extinction has nothing whatsoever to do with natural events, it is anthropogenic driven.

Bloody wilful blindness not see man is trashing the planet when the evidence is all around us. Habitat destruction, climate change, over fishing/hunting, poison, pollution. Man is destroying our living world - its OUR fault.

(What does 99% of all _living _species are extinct even mean?:Hilarious)


----------



## catz4m8z

Dr Pepper said:


> I know, it was just a actual example of how nature can and will adapt.


Nature is very resilient, but not enough to cope with humanity I think. For instance if we stopped fishing then the oceans would recover but we wont stop fishing. In fact right now we are fishing the oceans at a rate that isnt sustainable. Nature doesnt have time to replenish itself and the oceans are slowly emptying.



noushka05 said:


> (What does 99% of all _living _species are extinct even mean?:Hilarious)


soon only zombie species will be left!!:Nailbiting


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> Natural events. The sixth mass extinction has nothing whatsoever to do with natural events, it is anthropogenic driven.
> 
> Bloody wilful blindness not see man is trashing the planet when the evidence is all around us. Habitat destruction, climate change, over fishing/hunting, poison, pollution. Man is destroying our living world - its OUR fault.
> 
> (What does 99% of all _living _species are extinct even mean?:Hilarious)


You know exactly what I meant, 99% of all living species in the history of the planet are extinct. How many are down to man?



catz4m8z said:


> Nature is very resilient, but not enough to cope with humanity I think. For instance if we stopped fishing then the oceans would recover but we wont stop fishing. In fact right now we are fishing the oceans at a rate that isnt sustainable. Nature doesnt have time to replenish itself and the oceans are slowly emptying.
> 
> soon only zombie species will be left!!:Nailbiting


So what is the real problem? It's really obvious, far to many humans that need feeding. You can want to save the planet OR you can want every living human soul to live as long as possible and fight nature every step of the way to achieve that. You can't do both. What you can be sure of is, unless we find another planet or three we can inhabit, nature will win and humans don't have the power to stop that.

Ask yourself (generally not you personally @catz4m8z), why does the planet have famines and diesels (bloody auto correct, but seemed somehow relevant!!) disease? They keep the planet in a sustainable order. We stop interfering with that and humanity and planet earth can coexist very nicely.


----------



## Guest

Dr Pepper said:


> Bloody arrogant to think man has so much power over nature.


No, it's not about thinking man is so oh powerful over nature, it's about having respect for mother nature and an understanding of the effects of our own behavior. 
If anything it's arrogant to sit there and say "mother nature will handle it." It's an attitude of privilege if you ask me. Because it won't be the privileged ones worst or first affected. Those of us sitting in our nice comfy solid homes with indoor plumbing and electricity are not worried about our crops failing and our trees not getting pollinated. We'll just buy someone else's crops. And spray some more insecticide on our manicured lawns


----------



## Dr Pepper

ouesi said:


> No, it's not about thinking man is so oh powerful over nature, it's about having respect for mother nature and an understanding of the effects of our own behavior.
> If anything it's arrogant to sit there and say "mother nature will handle it." It's an attitude of privilege if you ask me. Because it won't be the privileged ones worst or first affected. Those of us sitting in our nice comfy solid homes with indoor plumbing and electricity are not worried about our crops failing and our trees not getting pollinated. We'll just buy someone else's crops. And spray some more insecticide on our manicured lawns


I'm saying Mother Nature will, and does, reclaim the planet and thrive once man has left. When we either toddle off to another planet or die our planet earth will recover.

Unless we learn to control our numbers, or more to the point let nature control our numbers.


----------



## noushka05

catz4m8z said:


> Nature is very resilient, but not enough to cope with humanity I think. For instance if we stopped fishing then the oceans would recover but we wont stop fishing. In fact right now we are fishing the oceans at a rate that isnt sustainable. Nature doesnt have time to replenish itself and the oceans are slowly emptying.
> 
> soon only zombie species will be left!!:Nailbiting


Hahaa

you've got me thinking White walkers now (hope you watch GoT)



Dr Pepper said:


> You know exactly what I meant, 99% of all living species in the history of the planet are extinct. How many are down to man?
> 
> So what is the real problem? It's really obvious, far to many humans that need feeding. You can want to save the planet OR you can want every living human soul to live as long as possible and fight nature every step of the way to achieve that. You can't do both. What you can be sure of is, unless we find another planet or three we can inhabit, nature will win and humans don't have the power to stop that.
> 
> Ask yourself (generally not you personally @catz4m8z), why does the planet have famines and diesels (bloody auto correct, but seemed somehow relevant!!) disease? They keep the planet in a sustainable order. We stop interfering with that and humanity and planet earth can coexist very nicely.


I just said natural events caused the last 5 mass extinctions. The one we're in now is due to human activity - lifeforms aren't dying out because of some natural phenomenon like mass extinctions of the past. Can you really not see the difference Dr Pepper? 

*There's a population crisis all right. But probably not the one you think *

George Monbiot

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...on-crisis-farm-animals-laying-waste-to-planet


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> I'm saying Mother Nature will, and does, reclaim the planet and thrive once man has left. When we either toddle off to another planet or die our planet earth will recover.
> 
> Unless we learn to control our numbers, or more to the point let nature control our numbers.


What about all the wonderful lifeforms which will disappear forever. Don't you think we have a moral duty to try to change our ways to save them?


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> Hahaa
> 
> you've got me thinking White walkers now (hope you watch GoT)
> 
> I just said natural events caused the last 5 mass extinctions. The one we're in now is due to human activity - lifeforms aren't dying out because of some natural phenomenon like mass extinctions of the past. Can you really not see the difference Dr Pepper?
> 
> *There's a population crisis all right. But probably not the one you think *
> 
> George Monbiot
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/comment...on-crisis-farm-animals-laying-waste-to-planet


Come up with some of your own thoughts (right, wrong or indifferent it doesn't matter) and we can have a conversation. I don't want to debate with George's quotes or anybody else's , they are not here to answer back so it's pointless.


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> What about all the wonderful lifeforms which will disappear forever. Don't you think we have a moral duty to try to change our ways to save them?


Well we weren't here to save most of the previous 99% so why we should be able to the remaining 1%. Arrogance of man once again.


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> Come up with some of your own thoughts (right, wrong or indifferent it doesn't matter) and we can have a conversation. I don't want to debate with George's quotes or anybody else's , they are not here to answer back so it's pointless.


What a cop out. I respect George's opinion because he's renowned for his meticulous, evidence based research. What do you base your opinions on - or do you just know everything?:Hilarious


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> Well we weren't here to save most of the previous 99% so why we should be able to the remaining 1%. Arrogance of man once again.


Why should we? Because its our fault thats why. We didn't cause the 5 previous mass extinctions - that is the point. To carry on regardless wiping out all those species is shameful & its suicidal. Everything is connected.


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> What a cop out. I respect George's opinion because he's renowned for his meticulous, evidence based research. What do you base your opinions on - or do you just know everything?:Hilarious


I don't know everything by a very long stretch. I can however form my own opinions and not just relentlessly quote other people's. Which is what I've been encouraging you to do, to no avail.


----------



## MilleD

Dr Pepper said:


> I'm saying Mother Nature will, and does, reclaim the planet and thrive once man has left. When we either toddle off to another planet or die our planet earth will recover.


This guy https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/staff/iain-stewart said it very well in his series Earth:The Power of the Planet.


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> I don't know everything by a very long stretch. I can however form my own opinions and not just relentlessly quote other people's. Which is what I've been encouraging you to do, to no avail.


What do you form them on though? You don't seem to have any faith in experts, science or evidence lol


----------



## Dr Pepper

MilleD said:


> This guy https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/staff/iain-stewart said it very well in his series Earth:The Power of the Planet.


Didn't see it what's the general gist/jist (you know what I mean!)?


----------



## MilleD

Dr Pepper said:


> Didn't see it what's the general gist/jist (you know what I mean!)?


Planet earth will be just fine, it's just a matter of time. It's not the planet surviving we need to worry about, it's us.


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> What do you form them on though? You don't seem to have any faith in experts, science or evidence lol


Life and living in the real world. Seeing what has happened in the past (not what might happen in the future) and how nature copes with it's natural surroundings and also with what I throw at it.


----------



## MilleD

Dr Pepper said:


> Life and living in the real world. Seeing what has happened in past (not what might happen in the future) and how nature copes with it's natural surroundings and also with what I throw at it.


Like the people moaning today that the gravel my OH put down for them has a dandelion growing in it and can we come spray it. We told them we don't deal in poison.


----------



## Dr Pepper

MilleD said:


> Planet earth will be just fine, it's just a matter of time. It's not the planet surviving we need to worry about, it's us.


Great, I'm not on my own then there's you and what's his face as well 

Thank you


----------



## noushka05

MilleD said:


> Planet earth will be just fine, it's just a matter of time. It's not the planet surviving we need to worry about, it's us.


Of course the planet will survive lol What about all the species that we are driving to extinction, they wont survive, don't they matter?

Do you also think, like DP, that species should just be allowed to become extinct, when that is entirely preventable?



Dr Pepper said:


> Life and living in the real world. Seeing what has happened in the past (not what might happen in the future) and how nature copes with it's natural surroundings and also with what I throw at it.


That maybe so but you have absolutely no understanding of evolution, biodiversity or the natural world.


Dr Pepper said:


> Great, I'm not on my own then there's you and what's his face as well
> 
> Thank you


I follow Iain Stewart on twitter & guess what? He's a scientist who believes in science, fancy that lol

How arrogant of experts like Iain to believe this >>


*Iain stewart* Retweeted
 *IAPG Geoethics*‏@*IAPGeoethics* Oct 4

_*
Human impact on planet has changed course of Earth's history*_ (from geologypage)

The significant scale of human... http://www.geologypage.com/2017/10/...nged-course-earths-history.html#ixzz4uWwwF4kO


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> Of course the planet will survive lol What about all the species that we are driving to extinction, they wont survive, don't they matter?
> 
> Do you also think, like DP, that species should just be allowed to become extinct, when that is entirely preventable?
> 
> That maybe so but you have absolutely no understanding of evolution, biodiversity or the natural world.
> 
> I follow Iain Stewart on twitter & guess what? He's a scientist who believes in science, fancy that lol
> 
> How arrogant of experts like Iain to believe this >>
> 
> 
> *Iain stewart* Retweeted
> *IAPG Geoethics*‏@*IAPGeoethics* Oct 4
> 
> _*
> Human impact on planet has changed course of Earth's history*_ (from geologypage)
> 
> The significant scale of human... http://www.geologypage.com/2017/10/...nged-course-earths-history.html#ixzz4uWwwF4kO


I have a great understanding of evolution thank you, which is why I'm sure the planet will be ok.. "All the species....." who killed off the othe 99%? I'll leave that there for you to ponder...


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> I have a great understanding of evolution thank you, which is why I'm sure the planet will be ok.. "All the species....." who killed off the othe 99%? I'll leave that there for you to ponder...


The planet will be ok. Ecosystems rich in biodiversity will collapse. Ecosystems the human race depends upon to survive. We played no part in previous mass extinctions. I'll leave you to ponder that.


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> The planet will be ok. Ecosystems rich in biodiversity will collapse. Ecosystems the human race depends upon to survive. We played no part in previous mass extinctions. I'll leave you to ponder that.


And ponder on we had no part in the FIVE previous mass extinctions but you presume we are wholly to blame for the next. I'm glad you accept that the planet will survive very well though. When you accept our fifteen second minor role in earths existence you may realise how insignificant we really are. The arrogance of man.....


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> And ponder on we had no part in the FIVE previous mass extinctions but you presume we are wholly to blame for the next. I'm glad you accept that the planet will survive very well though. When you accept our fifteen second minor role in earths existence you may realise how insignificant we really are. The arrogance of man.....


I don't presume anything. Like Professor Iain Stewart I believe in science, I believe in evidence. Ecosystems are collapsing due to human activity, climate breakdown is happening due to human activity. These are scientific facts. To think you know better than experts is truly arrogant.


----------



## noushka05

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanplh/PIIS2542-5196(17)30083-9.pdf

Human activity is changing our world and given the pressing trajectories of the drivers of extinction, time for action is short. Reduction in use of fossil fuels and moving to a carbon-neutral energy economy will be essential for keeping climate change within limits set by the Paris Agreement. Providing people with different sources of proteins by modifying diets will be fundamental to reduce overhunting. Reduction of meat consumption, together with sugar and palm oil that require large areas of land and water, will play a crucial part in stopping deforestation. *Previous mass extinctions might have been inevitable but it is not too late to stop this latest assault on our ecology*. Unprecedented cooperation is needed between policymakers, international organisations, research scientists, and civil society to preserve and maintain our biodiversity-and to protect the world from ourselves


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanplh/PIIS2542-5196(17)30083-9.pdf
> 
> Human activity is changing our world and given the pressing trajectories of the drivers of extinction, time for action is short. Reduction in use of fossil fuels and moving to a carbon-neutral energy economy will be essential for keeping climate change within limits set by the Paris Agreement. Providing people with different sources of proteins by modifying diets will be fundamental to reduce overhunting. Reduction of meat consumption, together with sugar and palm oil that require large areas of land and water, will play a crucial part in stopping deforestation. *Previous mass extinctions might have been inevitable but it is not too late to stop this latest assault on our ecology*. Unprecedented cooperation is needed between policymakers, international organisations, research scientists, and civil society to preserve and maintain our biodiversity-and to protect the world from ourselves


Why should man think they have got power or wisdom to prevent the planets next mass extinction? Why is it up to us to know better? What if they planet has survived so long due to mass extinctions? By trying to prevent one we could be doing more harm than good.

What happens when we all become vegans and all live to 130+? Where do all the resources come from to heat, feed and water all these extra humans? Cutting back on meat is simply a short term plaster. The only one sure thing is planet earth can't support continued growth of the human race, so the solution is obvious.


----------



## catz4m8z

Dr Pepper said:


> Why should man think they have got power or wisdom to prevent the planets next mass extinction? Why is it up to us to know better? What if they planet has survived so long due to mass extinctions? By trying to prevent one we could be doing more harm than good.


Why should we do anything? Because it is our fault! Man broke it, therefore man should fix it!
This isnt like a meteor hitting the planet or a super volcano errupting, its a purely man made environmental disaster. I understand what you are saying about their being too many people and less people is the solution but its not going to happen is it? (although bacteria and germs are working hard everyday to become resistant to treatment and antibiotics so I imagine there will be outbreaks of serious diseases in our future).
Point is that we only have one planet....if we make this one unliveable its not like we have a spare 'out back' we can all move to!


----------



## Dr Pepper

catz4m8z said:


> Why should we do anything? Because it is our fault! Man broke it, therefore man should fix it!
> This isnt like a meteor hitting the planet or a super volcano errupting, its a purely man made environmental disaster. I understand what you are saying about their being too many people and less people is the solution but its not going to happen is it? (although bacteria and germs are working hard everyday to become resistant to treatment and antibiotics so I imagine there will be outbreaks of serious diseases in our future).
> Point is that we only have one planet....if we make this one unliveable its not like we have a spare 'out back' we can all move to!


We kinda agree, people and the sheer number of us are the problem. We don't have a obligation to put our mistakes right (because in the grand scale of things we are insignificant) we simply need to let Mother Nature do it for us and we need to stop interfering.


----------



## Catharinem

On a global scale, that makes perfect sense. 

Who's going to tell the mother walking 3 days to get her sick child to hospital that ir's better for the planet if her child dies? Maybe we should not send funds abroad to assist countries hit by famine, drought, cholera, ebola etc. Maybe women who have difficult labours should die in childbirth? Not treat HIV, no flu vaccines for the elderly...


----------



## LinznMilly

Catharinem said:


> On a global scale, that makes perfect sense.
> 
> Who's going to tell the mother walking 3 days to get her sick child to hospital that ir's better for the planet if her child dies? Maybe we should not send funds abroad to assist countries hit by famine, drought, cholera, ebola etc. Maybe women who have difficult labours should die in childbirth? Not treat HIV, no flu vaccines for the elderly...


I agree. To say we need less people is heading down a very slippery and dark slope. And it's one thing to say "stop interfering and let Mother Nature do what She does best" but quite another when you become her victim.


----------



## Dr Pepper

Catharinem said:


> On a global scale, that makes perfect sense.
> 
> Who's going to tell the mother walking 3 days to get her sick child to hospital that ir's better for the planet if her child dies? Maybe we should not send funds abroad to assist countries hit by famine, drought, cholera, ebola etc. Maybe women who have difficult labours should die in childbirth? Not treat HIV, no flu vaccines for the elderly...


It's exactly because we can now do all of that we have problem, not because we eat, or wear, cows (back on topic do I get a brownie point ). The human population has grown from about two billion to over seven billion in the last hundred years. Forget the cows and going vegan, human life isn't sustainable at it's current growth rate, not on this planet anyway.

So what could be the answer? I dunno, bar the obvious and unpalatable.


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> Why should man think they have got power or wisdom to prevent the planets next mass extinction? Why is it up to us to know better? What if they planet has survived so long due to mass extinctions? By trying to prevent one we could be doing more harm than good.
> 
> What happens when we all become vegans and all live to 130+? Where do all the resources come from to heat, feed and water all these extra humans? Cutting back on meat is simply a short term plaster. The only one sure thing is planet earth can't support continued growth of the human race, so the solution is obvious.


Because WE KNOW we're causing it. If we're causing it we can do something about it. You really don't seem to have any understanding about extinctions, evolution or the natural world at all. Putting aside the mass extinctions which have only happened 5 times since life first appeared on this planet, creatures have always gone extinct. They hit an evolutionary cul-de-sac and die out & species evolve over millenia - and that is how we have the rich bio-diversity we have now. Man has wiped many species out already. But had those natural mass extinctions not occured we would have very different living planet today - man would likely never have evolved. It would be teeming with life now, ecosystems would be healthy. How can trying to stop a mass of wonderous species dying out at our hands ever be a bad thing? It is downright psychopathic - & suicidal not to try.

I have never heard of a vegan living to 130 - have you? lol You have clearly not understood what many people have been saying on this thread & that is if people did go vegan we could feed the world. Farming livestock is the most destructive industry on the planet. It is simply unsustainable. We would use up far less resources if we stopped consuming meat and dairy. We know we can keep warm with renewable energy.

The human population is a massive problem but there's not much we can do about that. The livestock population is a far greater & we could do something about that. Another area we can change is our consumerism. Most of the worlds population can't even be classed as consumers, but consumerism is destroying our finite planet so that is something else we can do something about. The wealthy West consume far more than poorer nations. *We *are the greatest problem, not poor people in poor countries with large families.


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> It's exactly because we can now do all of that we have problem, not because we eat, or wear, cows (back on topic do I get a brownie point ). The human population has grown from about two billion to over seven billion in the last hundred years. Forget the cows and going vegan, human life isn't sustainable at it's current growth rate, not on this planet anyway.
> 
> So what could be the answer? I dunno, bar the obvious and unpalatable.


See above


----------



## Zaros

noushka05 said:


> Because WE KNOW we're causing it. If we're causing it we can do something about it. You really don't seem to have any understanding about extinctions, evolution or the natural world at all. Putting aside the mass extinctions which have only happened 5 times since life first appeared on this planet, creatures have always gone extinct. They hit an evolutionary cul-de-sac and die out & species evolve over millenia - and that is how we have the rich bio-diversity we have now. Man has wiped many species out already. But had those natural mass extinctions not occured we would have very different living planet today - man would likely never have evolved. It would be teeming with life now, ecosystems would be healthy. How can trying to stop a mass of wonderous species dying out at our hands ever be a bad thing? It is downright psychopathic - & suicidal not to try.
> 
> I have never heard of a vegan living to 130 - have you? lol You have clearly not understood what many people have been saying on this thread & that is if people did go vegan we could feed the world. Farming livestock is the most destructive industry on the planet. It is simply unsustainable. We would use up far less resources if we stopped consuming meat and dairy. We know we can keep warm with renewable energy.
> 
> The human population is a massive problem but there's not much we can do about that. The livestock population is a far greater & we could do something about that. Another area we can change is our consumerism. Most of the worlds population can't even be classed as consumers, but consumerism is destroying our finite planet so that is something else we can do something about. The wealthy West consume far more than poorer nations. *We *are the greatest problem, not poor people in poor countries with large families.


The arrogance of man has driven him, and every other living creature on this tortured planet, ever closer to the abyss into which he no longer wishes to gaze, for there, in the fathomless depths, lies the absolute truth of his undoing.
Ignorance.
And wherever ignorance has reigned supreme, doom has always been found hiding.

Man has had his time, and now he must accept his show is just about over. No curtain call, no applause. His extinction is waiting in the wings.
.


----------



## noushka05

Zaros said:


> The arrogance of man has driven him, and every other living creature on this tortured planet, ever closer to the abyss into which he no longer wishes to gaze, for there, in the fathomless depths, lies the absolute truth of his undoing.
> Ignorance.
> And wherever ignorance has reigned supreme, doom has always been found hiding.
> 
> Man has had his time, and now he must accept his show is just about over. No curtain call, no applause. His extinction is waiting in the wings.
> .


Yep, you've nailed it with one word. Ignorance.

We are a clever adaptable species, we can even put a man on the moon, so we could choose to change course and get off this path of destruction, but I fear we won't, because of ignorance. I want to have faith in the human race will wake up, but there are too many out there who think they know better than experts. Experts who are trying to tell us _how_ we can save our living planet & save ourselves.


----------



## Dr Pepper

noushka05 said:


> Because WE KNOW we're causing it. If we're causing it we can do something about it. You really don't seem to have any understanding about extinctions, evolution or the natural world at all. Putting aside the mass extinctions which have only happened 5 times since life first appeared on this planet, creatures have always gone extinct. They hit an evolutionary cul-de-sac and die out & species evolve over millenia - and that is how we have the rich bio-diversity we have now. Man has wiped many species out already. But had those natural mass extinctions not occured we would have very different living planet today - man would likely never have evolved. It would be teeming with life now, ecosystems would be healthy. How can trying to stop a mass of wonderous species dying out at our hands ever be a bad thing? It is downright psychopathic - & suicidal not to try.
> 
> I have never heard of a vegan living to 130 - have you? lol You have clearly not understood what many people have been saying on this thread & that is if people did go vegan we could feed the world. Farming livestock is the most destructive industry on the planet. It is simply unsustainable. We would use up far less resources if we stopped consuming meat and dairy. We know we can keep warm with renewable energy.
> 
> The human population is a massive problem but there's not much we can do about that. The livestock population is a far greater & we could do something about that. Another area we can change is our consumerism. Most of the worlds population can't even be classed as consumers, but consumerism is destroying our finite planet so that is something else we can do something about. The wealthy West consume far more than poorer nations. *We *are the greatest problem, not poor people in poor countries with large families.


I understand fully, ta.

Obviously vegans don't live to 130 but you and others and been promoting it as leading to healthy and longer life, not helping really is it.

So we agree the growing population is the problem.How are we going to cope if the worlds population doubles again before the end of the century?

You do know why, historically, people in poor remote places have many children? It's because most of those babies wouldn't survive , that's changed now though thanks to our intervention. Just a hundred or so years ago Mother Nature would chuck a dose of TB or some such at us to keep our numbers in check, but we sorted that which is why we are the "wealthy over populated west", but everywhere else is catching up.

You say we can't do much about the human population. Well we absolutely can and we stop breeding like rabbits and abandon living in climates that can't support us.


----------



## Zaros

noushka05 said:


> Yep, you've nailed it with one word. Ignorance.
> 
> *We are a clever* adaptable *species*, *we can even put a man on the moon*, so we could choose to change course and get off this path of destruction, but I fear we won't, because of ignorance. I want to have faith in the human race will wake up, but there are too many out there who think they know better than experts. Experts who are trying to tell us _how_ we can save our living planet & save ourselves.


I never quite understood the idea behind all that one-upmanship, apart from cold war competition. We've never been back since. And yet, here we are today spending billions upon billions of pounds/dollars on space research seeking out _'other'_ planets, whilst this one teeters precariously over the edge of the chasm.
It makes no sense at all.:Wacky

Unless, of course, the rich and powerful, privileged few are planning to escape this festering rock long before it finally falls foul of a (nuclear) meltdown and, thereafter, slips into an obsidian darkness.


----------



## Elles

Mother Nature made us broody and gave us a survival instinct. She’s not entirely free of blame. 

Future generations will have to go against nature and resist. We’re not at the stage where we need to kill off populations, if we make an effort. The more equal women become, the less likely they are to want large broods of children. Work on equality and contraception is key. Old fashioned religion doesn’t help. 

We could start though by not breeding billions of animals to eat and stripping the planet of resources to feed them.


----------



## noushka05

Dr Pepper said:


> I understand fully, ta.
> 
> Obviously vegans don't live to 130 but you and others and been promoting it as leading to healthy and longer life, not helping really is it.
> 
> So we agree the growing population is the problem.How are we going to cope if the worlds population doubles again before the end of the century?
> 
> You do know why, historically, people in poor remote places have many children? It's because most of those babies wouldn't survive , that's changed now though thanks to our intervention. Just a hundred or so years ago Mother Nature would chuck a dose of TB or some such at us to keep our numbers in check, but we sorted that which is why we are the "wealthy over populated west", but everywhere else is catching up.
> 
> You say we can't do much about the human population. Well we absolutely can and we stop breeding like rabbits and abandon living in climates that can't support us.


And this is an excellent example of how the population issue is used by those who don't want to change their consumption patterns

I challenge you to show where I have promoted veganism as a healthy diet leading to longer life? I have only been looking from an ecological & ethical perspective.

No I have not agreed the growing human population is _the_ problem. Its one of the problems & I clearly explained to you the other problems. You know, the ones we can actually do something about to alleviate the crisis we are facing.



Zaros said:


> I never quite understood the idea behind all that one-upmanship, apart from cold war competition. We've never been back since. And yet, here we are today spending billions upon billions of pounds/dollars on space research seeking out _'other'_ planets, whilst this one teeters precariously over the edge of the chasm.
> It makes no sense at all.:Wacky
> 
> Unless, of course, the rich and powerful, privileged few are planning to escape this festering rock long before it finally falls foul of a (nuclear) meltdown and, thereafter, slips into an obsidian darkness.


I don't get it either. We have a beautiful planet teeming with life - why don't we put our energy into preserving it?

I wouldn't ever want to leave Earth. Even if I had the choice to leave & save myself, I would refuse.


----------



## Elles

I've been promoting the whole food plant based, but not necessarily the vegan version, as a way of prolonging a healthy life. Good for the NHS, good for planet and good for us. I could live to 130 without causing too much of a problem. A 130 year old clean living, healthy elder, has a smaller carbon footprint than someone who was born in the '90s, lives on Mcdonald's and buys the latest smartphone.

Although it's not 130, it's about 103/5 at the moment. A person who is 103 saw a world war, lived on rations part of their life and lived moderately, or they wouldn't be 103. Old people no longer contribute to a population explosion, unless they work in fertility clinics. That's down to you young 'uns I'm afraid. Still, unhealthy living and tight underpants reduces fertility, so you might get your wish @Dr Pepper. Just need to work on tight underpants as a fashion statement.


----------



## FeelTheBern

Removed


----------



## FeelTheBern

Elles said:


> That's down to you young 'uns I'm afraid.


I have no intentions to procreate-ever!


----------



## Catharinem

Elles said:


> Still, unhealthy living and tight underpants reduces fertility, so you might get your wish @Dr Pepper. Just need to work on tight underpants as a fashion statement.


Superheroes: saving the planet one pair of tight underpants at a time







!


----------



## Elles

I’ve just been looking at the French company who make laughing cow, babybel and other processed cheese products. Just out of interest.

Did you know that to get into developing countries they open bank accounts for street traders and get them to sell laughing cow and babybel alongside their fruit and veg. Then take pre fab, container like mini factories so they can make it locally. That’s because the low to mid earners and the poorer people in Africa for example, only buy local produce from street traders and markets. Mini factory makes it local and incentives get it into street traders and markets. Clever huh?

If cheese is addictive, that’s a lot of new addicts they’re creating.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Elles said:


> I've just been looking at the French company who make laughing cow, babybel and other processed cheese products. Just out of interest.
> 
> Did you know that to get into developing countries they open bank accounts for street traders and get them to sell laughing cow and babybel alongside their fruit and veg. Then take pre fab, container like mini factories so they can make it locally. That's because the low to mid earners and the poorer people in Africa for example, only buy local produce from street traders and markets. Mini factory makes it local and incentives get it into street traders and markets. Clever huh?
> 
> If cheese is addictive, that's a lot of new addicts they're creating.


https://foodrevolution.org/blog/food-and-health/fast-food-health-risks/

The global fast food market is growing. And the demand for packaged foods is predicted to increase as well.

Industrialized food industry giants like KFC, Nestlé, and McDonald's are aggressively expanding in developing nations and getting people hooked, in places such as Brazil, Ghana, China, and India, where obesity and other health issues are becoming an epidemic.


----------



## Elles

The babybel thing is on a promotional video and includes talk about sustainability, saving the forests, the wwf and nutrition of developing countries and how they're adding vitamins and minerals to their processed food to make the people happy and healthy. They talk as though they're doing them a favour, instead of giving them heart disease.  It's crazy and very sad to see when you know it's all a con. They'll still be dying of malnutrition, just a different type. They show a few cows in a field, but talk about soya and palm oil.






Very proud of themselves. They're like McDonald's putting a lettuce leaf on a burger and calling it nutritious and healthy imo.


----------



## LinznMilly

Dr Pepper said:


> And ponder on we had no part in the FIVE previous mass extinctions but you presume we are wholly to blame for the next. I'm glad you accept that the planet will survive very well though. When you accept our fifteen second minor role in earths existence you may realise how insignificant we really are. The arrogance of man.....





Dr Pepper said:


> It's exactly because we can now do all of that we have problem, not because we eat, or wear, cows (back on topic do I get a brownie point ). The human population has grown from about two billion to over seven billion in the last hundred years. Forget the cows and going vegan, human life isn't sustainable at it's current growth rate, not on this planet anyway.
> 
> So what could be the answer? I dunno, bar the obvious and unpalatable.


DP, I challenge you to read _Comfortably Unaware._ I'm even willing to send you my copy, once I've finished reading it.


----------



## Elles

Insects again

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...osystem-collapsing-human-activity-catastrophe

"The earliest anecdotal impression of decline was through what is sometimes termed the windscreen phenomenon (or windshield if you live in the US): time was, especially in the summer, when any long automobile journey would result in a car windscreen that was insect-spattered. But then, not so much. Two years ago I wrote a book focusing on this curious happening, but I gave it a different name: I called it the moth snowstorm, referring to the moths which on summer nights in my childhood might cluster in such numbers that they would pack a speeding car's headlight beams like snowflakes in a blizzard.

But the point about the moth snowstorm was this: it had gone."

I remember that and more. I used to ride a bike. :Wtf

Don't you think this really is worrying? Are we really seeing the beginning of the end? I don't want to see the beginning of the end. Do something about it people. 

The kids will never have seen it, so they won't know it's gone. Do you think the powers that be have cried wolf over Armageddon so many times, that now it's actually happening we don't take any notice? Do we really want to get to the stage where we pollinate plants ourselves and wipe out a major part of nature's food chain? It would seem so.

If we actually want to do anything about the environment and this sort of thing, it needs to be on the front page of the Sun and the Mail, not aimed at Guardian readers. Trouble is barley is wind pollinated. If barley was down to insects and there was a beer shortage, we'd be talking riots. If there was a zombie apocalypse, everyone thinks they'd be one of the survivors, not one of the zombie extras, so who cares really.


----------



## Dr Pepper

LinznMilly said:


> DP, I challenge you to read _Comfortably Unaware._ I'm even willing to send you my copy, once I've finished reading it.


Thanks but no thanks. I'm fully aware of the state of the planet, what's causing it and what the only long term solution is/will be. I'm also not interested in reading other's opinions particularly in commercial form where they will be skewed to a particular market to achieve maximum sales.


----------



## Elles

Dr Pepper said:


> I'm also not interested in reading other's opinions particularly in commercial form where they will be skewed to a particular market to achieve maximum sales.


Don't you remember the moths though? Maybe my brain is exaggerating, because they used to really scare me.

I agree with you about the long term solution, everything in moderation, including families, but don't we need to do something about the short term so that we have time? Only through education and equality will many couples be able to choose smaller families and I'm not a fan of government solutions to this particular problem.

It's easy for me to say anyway. It's not really giving up, when it's something you don't want and I haven't wanted meat ever.


----------



## LinznMilly

Dr Pepper said:


> Thanks but no thanks. I'm fully aware of the state of the planet, what's causing it and what the only long term solution is/will be. I'm also not interested in reading other's opinions particularly in commercial form where they will be skewed to a particular market to achieve maximum sales.


Oh, dear. :Smuggrin


----------



## Dr Pepper

Elles said:


> Don't you remember the moths though? Maybe my brain is exaggerating, because they used to really scare me.
> 
> I agree with you about the long term solution, everything in moderation, including families, but don't we need to do something about the short term so that we have time? Only through education and equality will many couples be able to choose smaller families and I'm not a fan of government solutions to this particular problem.
> 
> It's easy for me to say anyway. It's not really giving up, when it's something you don't want and I haven't wanted meat ever.


I agree about the moths and seemingly lack of insects in general. We've definitely got fewer bees but also where as hornets were very rare they are now much more common so that explains the lowering bee population. Round these parts anyway.

Actually maybe we just splattered all the moths with our cars!!!!


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

LinznMilly said:


> DP, I challenge you to read _Comfortably Unaware._ I'm even willing to send you my copy, once I've finished reading it.


It a very uncomfortable read. I found this bit particularly so

"In 1986 during the food crisis in Ethiopia, there was an increase in global awareness of hunger in that country - most media services covered the topic well. What was blatantly lacking in media coverage however, was the fact that each day, while thousands of people were dying from hunger, Ethiopia was - at the very same time - using a significant amount of its agricultural land to produce cereal grains (linseed, rapeseed and cottonseed) for export to the UK and other European nations, to be used as feed for European livestock"

"Today as then, millions of acres of undeveloped third world land are being used exclusively to produce feed for European livestock. I find it interesting that 80% of the world's starving children live in countries where food surpluses are fed to animals that are then killed and eaten by more well off individuals in developed countries. It is estimated that one fourth of all grain produced by third world countries is now given to livestock. This figure has tripled since the 1950's".

"Each year in the US, inefficient use of land for food is exemplified by the fact that 157 million metric tons of cereal, legumes and vegetables - all suitable for human use - is fed to livestock to produce barely 28 million metric tons of animal protein for human consumption Each year nearly one billion tons of grains and vegetables are fed to animals in the meat and dairy industries . We have enough of the right type of land on the planet to provide healthy food for humans in a sustainable manner but currently the land is being depleted - perhaps irreversibly by livestock operations and unsustainable agricultural techniques used to produce feed that supports animals to be slaughtered instead of it going directly to humans to keep them alive and healthy".


----------



## Elles

A load of fuss about trade deals and omg chicken from America when Cargill are taking over the world, including the uk, destroying it in the process.


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> A load of fuss about trade deals and omg chicken from America when Cargill are taking over the world, including the uk, destroying it in the process.


The fuss is because leaving the EU will give free reign to corporate power. Why do you think hard right wingers like Rees Mogg & co are relishing the thought of stripping back all those regulations which protect us and our environment?

The tories are the party of big business. They have stood in the way of greater regulations across the EU, time after time.

*Brexit: UK lobbies to weaken EU climate and energy efficiency* targetshttps://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2017/05/28/brexit-uk-eu-climate-change-energy-efficiency/

*Tories aim to block full EU ban on bee-harming pesticides*
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ticides?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> Insects again
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...osystem-collapsing-human-activity-catastrophe
> 
> "The earliest anecdotal impression of decline was through what is sometimes termed the windscreen phenomenon (or windshield if you live in the US): time was, especially in the summer, when any long automobile journey would result in a car windscreen that was insect-spattered. But then, not so much. Two years ago I wrote a book focusing on this curious happening, but I gave it a different name: I called it the moth snowstorm, referring to the moths which on summer nights in my childhood might cluster in such numbers that they would pack a speeding car's headlight beams like snowflakes in a blizzard.
> 
> But the point about the moth snowstorm was this: it had gone."
> 
> I remember that and more. I used to ride a bike. :Wtf
> 
> Don't you think this really is worrying? Are we really seeing the beginning of the end? I don't want to see the beginning of the end. Do something about it people.
> 
> The kids will never have seen it, so they won't know it's gone. Do you think the powers that be have cried wolf over Armageddon so many times, that now it's actually happening we don't take any notice? Do we really want to get to the stage where we pollinate plants ourselves and wipe out a major part of nature's food chain? It would seem so.
> 
> If we actually want to do anything about the environment and this sort of thing, it needs to be on the front page of the Sun and the Mail, not aimed at Guardian readers. Trouble is barley is wind pollinated. If barley was down to insects and there was a beer shortage, we'd be talking riots. If there was a zombie apocalypse, everyone thinks they'd be one of the survivors, not one of the zombie extras, so who cares really.


I generally agree with most of this post Elles, but the guardian is there for all to read. Its printing facts about environmental issues, it isnt doing that to appeal to certain type of reader. Its down to individuals to get their information from a reliable source because the the right wing rags will never get up to speed on environmental news - its against the interests of their billionaire non-dom owners.

The right wing media reaction to the EU crackdown on glyphosate is spun as a negative. Notice the text in the Sun almost word for word Monsanto's press release? This is what 'journalism' looks like in the gutter press.

(And this is a great example why so many Sun, Mail, Express readers etc hate the EU.)

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/46946...risk-of-being-banned-by-brussels-bureaucrats/


----------



## WillowT

A bit off topic but not too much. So, I am fairly excited..... just read in our local paper that a vegan restaurant will be opening in the city in November.
This will be a first for oxford!
My husband isn’t so keen and says that ‘vegan’ can sometimes just be a fad or trendy thin* for some people to do. He has been vegan for 20 years.
Looking at the menu it will be a vegan comfort food.... so will more than likely be ‘ fast food’ rather than wholesome vegan meals but I will have to go when it opens just to see.


----------



## noushka05




----------



## MilleD

Elles said:


> If we actually want to do anything about the environment and this sort of thing, it needs to be on the front page of the Sun and the Mail, not aimed at Guardian readers. Trouble is barley is wind pollinated. If barley was down to insects and there was a beer shortage, we'd be talking riots.


Are you saying people that drink beer don't give a toss about the planet? Or that they are thick?

A little stereotypical if so.


----------



## Dr Pepper

MilleD said:


> Are you saying people that drink beer don't give a toss about the planet? Or that they are thick?
> 
> A little stereotypical if so.


The really good news is grapes don't require pollination.


----------



## Zaros

MilleD said:


> Are you saying people that drink beer don't give a toss about the planet? Or that they are thick?
> A little stereotypical if so.


Obviously so if they're implying only beer drinkers read the Sun and the Mail.


----------



## Elles

MilleD said:


> Are you saying people that drink beer don't give a toss about the planet? Or that they are thick?
> 
> A little stereotypical if so.


Nope. I'm saying that people who don't care about the planet, but who do drink beer and read the sun, might give a toss if their beer was threatened and it was on the front page.


----------



## Guest

noushka05 said:


>


#4 gets back to the whole point at the very beginning of the thread. 
I still can't figure out why it's such a radical idea to suggest we eat less meat and dairy


----------



## hutch6

Dear father, I have come to confess. It has been five days since any animal product has passed my lips.


----------



## LinznMilly

hutch6 said:


> Dear father, I have come to confess. It has been five days since any animal product has passed my lips.


I was wondering how you were getting on.


----------



## Guest

hutch6 said:


> Dear father, I have come to confess. It has been five days since any animal product has passed my lips.


How's it going?


----------



## noushka05

ouesi said:


> #4 gets back to the whole point at the very beginning of the thread.
> I still can't figure out why it's such a radical idea to suggest we eat less meat and dairy


Me neither. Its just common sense - unless saving our living planet isn't important to them



hutch6 said:


> Dear father, I have come to confess. It has been five days since any animal product has passed my lips.


----------

