|
weschrist
Feb 3, 2006, 3:08 AM
Post #426 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 579
|
In reply to: Ok - so now I know what you are thinking - Indians don't climb Can you say Sherpa?
No, actually I was thinking how great it was that they have asomewhat intact culture and diet that suits their physiological systems and environment.
And they do occasionally eat meat.
|
|
|
|
|
annak
Feb 3, 2006, 3:19 AM
Post #427 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2004
Posts: 191
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Your nutritional ignorance is showing again, in spades. racist Hard to tell, when, if ever, you are joking yeah, it was a joke. I'm sorry, that wasn't fair not TELLING you... I'm such an asshole for making you try to figure it out for yourself... Well, you've been wrong about every other ignorant assumption you've made about be, so it was difficult to rule out that you were joking this one particular time. Jay
I am totally missing this one -- what's that about?
|
|
|
|
|
winoclimber
Feb 3, 2006, 3:57 AM
Post #428 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2006
Posts: 9
|
k while admittedly i never climbed hard before being a veggie, without doing any weights or other real training i climb 5.11/ V4/5, remember when you were little and your mom used to say 'eat your broccoli' well its a damn good source of iron, and youll need it. try not to eat too much tofu, its processed and usually gmo. go with canned beans(fresh is better) at least once a day, the b12 is a concern but if you get some multi vitamins youll be alright
|
|
|
|
|
pval
Feb 3, 2006, 4:30 AM
Post #429 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2004
Posts: 12
|
I choose to not read the 27 other pages from this post and only read the first but i would love to give my two cents...
My basic statement is it is a very very very individualized issue. Everybody has different nutrition needs, blood types, deficiencies, etc. So whether to eat meat or not to eat meat has to based on how you feel not some ideal or opinion or book.
I learned this the hard way being a idealistic young vegetarian. Being a very strict Vegetarian for almost 4 years, near vegan, no eggs, no cheese, some dairy if in baked products.
I hiked the whole Colorado Trail with no meat or animal products and felt strong mostly but i lost a massive amount of weight. And i would get weak at times. I know now if i had eaten more animal protein, and less protein powders, I would have had a totally different experience. Once I started climbing hard I knew my body needed something and I started experimenting with eggs and fish. AND DAMN!! What a difference the animal protein made for me over soy and legume protein! Then I started eating grass-fed beef and felt even better. And I was climbing harder than ever(...so hard I torn my rotator cuff, surgery on TUES :()
I gained 15 pounds in 3 weeks( almost all muscle based on a body fat test) after seeing a nutritionist who helped me incorporate more animal products into my diet. So i found out my body functions a lot better and I weigh more now than ever before at 167 lbs 5'10" when i eat animal products. My whole thing was if I could be healthy and do little harm by not eating animals i would do it. I found I was not very healthy so eventually I was willing to change my approach.
Bottom line: experiment and pay attention to how you feel, and be open to all possibilities including meat or no meat. Don't get stuck on some righteous belief, BE FLEXIBLE.
long post, sorry I'm a bit bored been on disability for a week just waiting for surgery....
|
|
|
|
|
weschrist
Feb 3, 2006, 5:08 AM
Post #430 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 579
|
In reply to: I choose to not read the 27 other pages from this post and only read the first but i would love to give my two cents...
Shut up donny
http://growabrain.typepad.com/...egorized/donny_1.jpg
btw, that was a joke... God, this isn't even fun anymore.
Yeah, pval... that is pretty much what I have been trying to get at this whole time. Some people just don't listen, they think they have the answers... like NOBODY needs meat.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 3, 2006, 4:42 PM
Post #431 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: I gained 15 pounds in 3 weeks( almost all muscle based on a body fat test)...
Bullshit.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
weschrist
Feb 3, 2006, 8:17 PM
Post #432 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 579
|
pval, you should listen to jt58. he knows all there is to know... he appears to be omniscient. he even knows that my issues with soy aren't an allergy and they are not related to 87% of the US soy being GM... and he hasn't even met me! Wow, what a guy!
I wonder if he can help those in England as well? Cuz in England "allergy to soy products jumped 50 percent after Monsanto's Roundup-Ready soy was brought into the country."
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 3, 2006, 9:26 PM
Post #433 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: pval, you should listen to jt58. he knows all there is to know...
I know at least two things, anyway: First, what pval claims is biologically impossible, unless when he typed "muscle" he actually meant to type "water." The second thing I know is that you like to go on about subjects that you have little if any knowledge about. That is, you are a blowhard.
In reply to: he even knows that my issues with soy aren't an allergy and they are not related to 87% of the US soy being GM...
Coincidentally, I know 2 things about soy allergens: A Brazil nut allergen was transfered to soy beans in or around 1996, but the problem was caught in the lab, and the soy beans were never marketed. Secondly, natural soy is a high-allergen food, and genetic engineering has the potential to reduce its allergenicity by modifying the relevant proteins.
In reply to: wonder if he can help those in England as well? Cuz in England "allergy to soy products jumped 50 percent after Monsanto's Roundup-Ready soy was brought into the country."
And now Mr. Rigorous Scientist, who wrote-off an article that disagreed with his belief about vegetarian diets because it omitted error bars, attempts to use a mere correlation to assert causation, when it supports his position.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
weschrist
Feb 3, 2006, 9:37 PM
Post #434 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 579
|
In reply to: who wrote-off an article that disagreed with his belief...
wow, you really are a fucking idiot. at first I wasn't sure, now I am convinced. there is a huge difference between questioning aspects of the science presented in an article and writting it off. until the questions I asked are answered I will continue to ask the question. and you can continue with your "you just don't know..." witty responses.
In reply to: attempts to use a mere correlation to assert causation, when it supports his position.
you are a moron.
|
|
|
|
|
weschrist
Feb 3, 2006, 9:44 PM
Post #435 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 579
|
We are so lucky to have Jay...
In reply to: You have a food sensitivity. It has nothing to do with genetic modifications, real or imagined. Jay
cuz these guys sure don't know what they are doing
In reply to: "In March 1999, the York Nutritional Laboratory, Europe’s leading specialists on food sensitivity, reported that soy allergies skyrocketed over the previous year, jumping 50 percent. The increase propelled soy into the top ten list of allergens for the first time in the 17 years of testing. York scientists tested 4,500 people for allergic reactions to a wide range of foods. In previous years, soy affected 10 percent of consumers. Now, 15 percent reacted with a range of chronic illnesses, including irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, and skin complaints, as well as neurological problems, chronic fatigue syndrome, headaches and lethargy. Researchers confirmed the link with soy by detecting increased levels of antibodies in the blood. Furthermore, the soy tested in the study was likely to contain significant percentages of the genetically modified Roundup Ready variety. The fact that GM soy had just entered the food supply was not lost to the researchers, who, according to the Daily Express, “said their findings provide real evidence that GM food could have a tangible, harmful impact on the human body.” A spokesman said, “We believe this raises serious new questions about the safety of GM foods.”
I bet there aren't any Seventh Day Adventist at York National Labs...
btw, what does "[ This post has been highly rated by your peers.]" mean? can people actually rate posts?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 3, 2006, 10:01 PM
Post #436 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: "In March 1999, the York Nutritional Laboratory, Europe’s leading specialists on food sensitivity, reported that soy allergies skyrocketed over the previous year, jumping 50 percent. The increase propelled soy into the top ten list of allergens for the first time in the 17 years of testing. York scientists tested 4,500 people for allergic reactions to a wide range of foods. In previous years, soy affected 10 percent of consumers. Now, 15 percent reacted with a range of chronic illnesses, unless, of course, you're a moron.including irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, and skin complaints, as well as neurological problems, chronic fatigue syndrome, headaches and lethargy. Researchers confirmed the link with soy by detecting increased levels of antibodies in the blood. Furthermore, the soy tested in the study was likely to contain significant percentages of the genetically modified Roundup Ready variety. The fact that GM soy had just entered the food supply was not lost to the researchers, who, according to the Daily Express, “said their findings provide real evidence that GM food could have a tangible, harmful impact on the human body.” A spokesman said, “We believe this raises serious new questions about the safety of GM foods.”
A newspapwer article. Great evidence. This is anectdotal correlational data only. Not even a study.
Now, what does the peer-review lit. have to say on the subject:
"It should be noted that GM technology offers a possibility of preventing and treating allergy. There is a possibility of using recombinant technology to change known allergens into hypoallergens.
"This has indeed been done for major allergens in rice and soy and such work is under way for peanut allergies." [1]
So, it appears that genetic engineering has resulted in a less allergenic soy, rather than a more allergenic soy, unless you consider (when it happens to coincide with your beliefs, anyway) vague statistics in a newspaper article to be better evidence than peer review journal articles.
I guess each of us is convinced that the other is a moron. Why don't we leave it at that.
Jay
Ref.
1. Toxicology Letters 127 (2002) 337–340. Clinical risk assessment of GM foods. Gideon Lack. Department of Paediatric Allergy and Immunology, Imperial College at St Mary’s Hospital, Praed Street, London W2 1NY, UK.
|
|
|
|
|
knightstreet
Feb 3, 2006, 10:25 PM
Post #437 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2005
Posts: 38
|
I've just moved to Alberta where they eat lots of Beef. Is there a link to aggression and beef intake? When I get a big beef injection (that means eating lots of beef - not the other type of beef injection, stupid) my balls swell and I just want to fight something. Is this imagined aggression or is it biologically ingested aggression?
Example - there's a butcher near Harrogate (UK) that sells 'Beef packs' which is basically 1/4 of a cow in a bag. Needless to say my flatmates and I ate a LOT of beef for a number of weeks. By the end of this ordeal we were almost grovelling on the floor chewing bones and scratching nits from each other, territorially peeing behind the sofa and flying into rages of temper at the slightest provocation. Was this primate instinct brought on by beef overload?
On another note - Veggies rock as long as they aren't holier than thou and try to force their views and opinions onto you. Personally I don't give a beanshoot what you ingest, just leave some BEEF for me ya BA*T*RD C'MERE AND FIGHT LIKE A MAN.....sorry, that's the beef talking.
|
|
|
|
|
weschrist
Feb 3, 2006, 10:46 PM
Post #438 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 579
|
In reply to: Is this imagined aggression or is it biologically ingested aggression?
It is entirely imagined and completely unreal because there hasn't been a study on it. However, as soon as a study is conducted... no matter how sketchy and unreliable the data and methods are... you can rest assured it is 100% accurate, without question.
|
|
|
|
|
knightstreet
Feb 3, 2006, 10:50 PM
Post #439 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2005
Posts: 38
|
Maybe I should conduct one. Want a fight? I mean some Beef? Oh what the hell, want a beef fight?
|
|
|
|
|
weschrist
Feb 3, 2006, 11:00 PM
Post #440 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 579
|
Sounds kinky, but no....
unless of course you are talking hotdog vs. beef curtains...
I only fight girls
|
|
|
|
|
jred
Feb 3, 2006, 11:06 PM
Post #441 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
J512 and weschrist, I have been following this thread for awhile now, whether you like to admit it or not you guys both have built arguable strong cases.
Perhaps there is not enough evidence (or at least that is readily available)either way to support either of your opinions. Maybe you should decide on what you agree about and work from there?
Please keep berating each other though.
|
|
|
|
|
weschrist
Feb 3, 2006, 11:40 PM
Post #442 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 579
|
In reply to: Perhaps there is not enough evidence...
That is my point. I am not making any claims either way, just questioning the adamant claims that are being made based on incomplete studies.
|
|
|
|
|
daithi
Feb 4, 2006, 12:37 AM
Post #443 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I suspect you've just invalidated 90% of all scientific experiments by implying that funding means a results driven agenda. He pretty much has done just that, at least in nutrition and medicine. Most research in these fields is industry funded.
To suggest that academic research is perfectly objective and entirely free from influence of funding organisations is unfortunately naive. Sadly some research is tainted. Take for example research into brain tumours due to the use of mobile phones paid for by the phone companies. To believe this is a truly objective study free from fiscal considerations is a big leap of faith.
Leaving aside financial influence, a more pertinent concern is the influence of philosophy and religion in scientific research. Every scientist who comes to study something is influenced by his presuppositions. There is no such thing as a truly objective examination of data free from outside influences. In areas of research where the data is so subjective (like nutrition for example), interpretation is heavily biased towards the scientist's assumptions.
The problem with faith universities, as I see it, is they come with even more presuppositions of what the answer should be, in particular areas of research, than your average scientist. For example, geologists at a fundamentalist Christian or Islamic university would never publish data supporting an old earth hypothesis. Similarly, a SDA university would never publish data showing deficiencies in an all-vegetarian diet. This is not to question their integrity or even that their hypotheses are incorrect! It's not that they are hiding data or deliberately ignoring data. The problem is they see what they want to see in the data due to a priori philosophical believes, which taints their objectivism, if not completely then at least significantly.
|
|
|
|
|
weschrist
Feb 4, 2006, 12:48 AM
Post #444 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 579
|
In reply to: you are wrong
there, that is the short version. hopefully we won't need to suffer through the long version.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 4, 2006, 12:54 AM
Post #445 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I suspect you've just invalidated 90% of all scientific experiments by implying that funding means a results driven agenda. He pretty much has done just that, at least in nutrition and medicine. Most research in these fields is industry funded. To suggest that academic research is perfectly objective and entirely free from influence of funding organisations is unfortunately naive.
Fortunately, no one suggested that.
In reply to: Sadly some research is tainted. Take for example research into brain tumours due to the use of mobile phones paid for by the phone companies. To believe this is a truly objective study free from fiscal considerations is a big leap of faith.
And to assume that it is biased is a naive ad hominem argument, that would only demonstrate that whoever is making the assumption does not have a sufficient grasp of the scientific field to critically scrutinize the study.
In reply to: Leaving aside financial influence, a more pertinent concern is the influence of philosophy and religion in scientific research. Every scientist who comes to study something is influenced by his presuppositions. There is no such thing as a truly objective examination of data free from outside influences. In areas of research where the data is so subjective (like nutrition for example), interpretation is heavily biased towards the scientist's assumptions.
I don't know, dude, do you know what a test of significance is? The results of significance tests are objective.
In reply to: Similarly, a SDA university would never publish data showing deficiencies in an all-vegetarian diet.
Man, you guys really like to just make stuff up, huh? We would publish such findings without giving it a second thought.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
weschrist
Feb 4, 2006, 1:20 AM
Post #446 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 579
|
In reply to: And to assume that it is biased is a naive ad hominem argument, that would only demonstrate that whoever is making the assumption does not have a sufficient grasp of the scientific field to critically scrutinize the study.
How do you breath with your head so far up your ass. Seriously? All I did was ask for the methods, I didn't assume they were biased until I got the run around and the ducking and weaving. Where are the methods? I have checked all the relevant references cited, most of which are from Loma Linda, and NONE have the methods used or a detailed description of where their raw data comes from.
Settle it once and for all. Simply give me the exact source where they clearly state the raw materials they used to get the 1g meat = 10g of plant protein, and what "fresh vegetables" were compared to what "meat" using the LCA system. Pretty fucking simple. If you asked for a similar thing regarding radiometric dating you would have it in no time.
In reply to: The results of significance tests are objective.
garbage in = garbage out
In reply to: In reply to: Similarly, a SDA university would never publish data showing deficiencies in an all-vegetarian diet. We would publish such findings without giving it a second thought.
of course you would! what do you care if it goes against one of the pillars of your religious beliefs?
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Feb 4, 2006, 1:20 AM
Post #447 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
In reply to: The problem with faith universities, as I see it, is they come with even more presuppositions of what the answer should be, in particular areas of research, than your average scientist. For example, geologists at a fundamentalist Christian or Islamic university would never publish data supporting an old earth hypothesis. Similarly, a SDA university would never publish data showing deficiencies in an all-vegetarian diet. This is not to question their integrity or even that their hypotheses are incorrect! It's not that they are hiding data or deliberately ignoring data. The problem is they see what they want to see in the data due to a priori philosophical believes, which taints their objectivism, if not completely then at least significantly.
I specifically recall a bunch of instances where jt512 pointed out to the board that vegans are chronically deficient of B12. See, sometimes scientists find things out, then publish and discuss them, irrespective of perceived bias.
|
|
|
|
|
weschrist
Feb 4, 2006, 1:36 AM
Post #448 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 579
|
they don't preach an anti-B12 message
|
|
|
|
|
daithi
Feb 4, 2006, 1:49 AM
Post #449 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: In reply to: Similarly, a SDA university would never publish data showing deficiencies in an all-vegetarian diet.I specifically recall a bunch of instances where jt512 pointed out to the board that vegans are chronically deficient of B12. See, sometimes scientists find things out, then publish and discuss them, irrespective of perceived bias.
Sorry, I didn't express that as well as I could have. Obviously deficiencies like the one you mentioned can easily be rectified with supplements and so pose no conflict whatsoever with their core believes and values.
Maybe I should have left specific examples out of it. My point was a broader one concerning philosophical and religious presuppositions influencing objective scientific research.
|
|
|
|
|
weschrist
Feb 4, 2006, 1:53 AM
Post #450 of 522
(20181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 579
|
Those of us who are capable of grasping such broad concepts knew what you were talking about.
Styndall should have been able to pick up on that considering his fascination with Gutei
|
|
|
|
|
|
