Tbh you should cook your meat only sparingly(raw omnivour)

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I thought the test was revealing though, and served a strong point: if you want to do veganism, you can't just eat whatever sounds good to you. With a typical omnivorous diet, you don't have to try all that hard to get enough of the basic micronutrients. Questions that ask where you would get your protein and more specifically where you would get your vitamin Bs, and what other nutrients might detract from that goal (nutrients that cause absorption issues for other nutrients). I stand by the notion that veganism is not a life-long sustainable diet, not for a fully healthy body, but if you are an adult you might be able to scrap by between regular meals and supplements (vitamins, minerals, oils, etc). Don't dare push it on a child though, and anyone that does should be charged with child endangerment! But on the idea of scraping by, to do so with veganism you absolutely need supplements and an intelligent approach to your diet or else you may end up missing some crucial nutrients or not getting enough of them. The body is fairly adaptable and can get by on less than it really needs but you risk a whole lot more than needed.

You have raised some very good points about veganism.
I have to admit (even though, I think that I am fairly knowledgeable about food and diet stuff), that I am NOT 100% sure, how one would safely become a vegan. (Without seeking the necessary information from books, the internet and professionals etc).
For example, I sometimes wonder, how such people, manage to meet their daily protein requirements, from just eating fruit and vegetables.
Because many fruits, and some vegetables, don't seem to have much protein in them (perhaps 1g to 5g (or more) per 100g of food). Even the ones that do, sometimes don't really have that much protein per 100g, compared to meat and fish, which usually have tons (e.g. 30g per 100g of food) of protein per 100g of food stuff.
Also, you need to keep the appropriate balance of (especially the essential ones) amino acids.
Most meats, fish and diary products (e.g. Cheese), have the full range of essential (and some/all non-essential) amino acids. So you can freely eat them, even singly, and easily meet your daily amino acid requirements.
But, in general, fruit and vegetable protein sources, are usually not complete amino acids (which make up protein). I.e. they may be low or missing, one or more of the essential amino acids.
So, what you have to do, is eat the right mix of fruit and vegetables, to ensure you have a mix (and the right quantity), of the essential amino acids. Offhand, (i.e. without looking it up), I would be unsure, how to do that, specifically. But might get away, without such knowledge, if I had a big enough mixture of different vegetable and fruit sources, each day.

In other words, if you just ate tomatoes and nothing else, for a month or so. You could run out of certain amino acids and/or be eating too little protein.

Similarly, vitamins, are probably similar, and would also probably need, appropriate mixtures of foodstuffs.

Some vegetables, such as beans and nuts, are rather high in protein (especially nuts), so I guess that is one way. But they are rather high in fat and calories , unfortunately.

Even some fatty acids (fats/oils), are essential (since the body can't make them, such as omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acids).

 

[Darwin333]

I hold the patent on using the tubes for cross border trade.

I hate to break it to you but Americans have been knocking up Canadian women since both lands were created. You can't really blame the Canadian women though, ours is a superior seed, probably where @Red Squirrel got his red hair from. It's a win/win, they get superior genes and we don't have to pay child support

 

[destrekor]

You have raised some very good points about veganism.
I have to admit (even though, I think that I am fairly knowledgeable about food and diet stuff), that I am NOT 100% sure, how one would safely become a vegan. (Without seeking the necessary information from books, the internet and professionals etc).
For example, I sometimes wonder, how such people, manage to meet their daily protein requirements, from just eating fruit and vegetables.
Because many fruits, and some vegetables, don't seem to have much protein in them (perhaps 1g to 5g (or more) per 100g of food). Even the ones that do, sometimes don't really have that much protein per 100g, compared to meat and fish, which usually have tons (e.g. 30g per 100g of food) of protein per 100g of food stuff.
Also, you need to keep the appropriate balance of (especially the essential ones) amino acids.
Most meats, fish and diary products (e.g. Cheese), have the full range of essential (and some/all non-essential) amino acids. So you can freely eat them, even singly, and easily meet your daily amino acid requirements.
But, in general, fruit and vegetable protein sources, are usually not complete amino acids (which make up protein). I.e. they may be low or missing, one or more of the essential amino acids.
So, what you have to do, is eat the right mix of fruit and vegetables, to ensure you have a mix (and the right quantity), of the essential amino acids. Offhand, (i.e. without looking it up), I would be unsure, how to do that, specifically. But might get away, without such knowledge, if I had a big enough mixture of different vegetable and fruit sources, each day.

In other words, if you just ate tomatoes and nothing else, for a month or so. You could run out of certain amino acids and/or be eating too little protein.

Similarly, vitamins, are probably similar, and would also probably need, appropriate mixtures of foodstuffs.

Some vegetables, such as beans and nuts, are rather high in protein (especially nuts), so I guess that is one way. But they are rather high in fat and calories , unfortunately.

Even some fatty acids (fats/oils), are essential (since the body can't make them, such as omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acids).

Well you solved it right there at the end, fats and proteins through rich hearty plant products like beans, nuts, seeds, etc. Soy is practically a staple in any vegetarian/vegan diet. You'll get some carbs naturally so that's never a concern. Fats are good! And many plants have terrific fats, and with a diet with a higher fat and protein intake than the typical modern western diet, (and thus sufficiently fewer carbs), it's generally going to be healthier. But that's on a "macro" level - it's the nitty gritty details, which specific fats are commonly found, which specific amino acid profiles in the non-meat proteins, etc, that make a truly healthy vegan diet all that much more challenging.

Vegans will stoop to all levels to defend their diet, cite this and that "complete protein" and how the body can manufacturer different fats from simpler fats, etc... but it's all essentially a justification for some moral high ground act. I get it, watching animals die kind of sucks, for sure! You can do your part for a responsible meat eating movement though, such as limiting your meat intake (especially red meat, because until lab grown meat becomes common place, there are very real environmental concerns for mass livestock and that's typically only true for the red meats which yes does include the false-white swine... but I digress). Environmental responsibility movements are making waves (the slow kind), so you can still contribute in that regard.

While it is true that there haven't been any satisfactory long-term studies on vegan diets, there are certain facts that just line up regardless, and there could very well be some ethical conundrums if they ever want to include children in the diet from birth or from a very early age. (I wonder if vegan parents would think their own breast milk is certified vegan?)

 

[zinfamous]

what a way for OP to go out!

 

[lxskllr]

Well you solved it right there at the end, fats and proteins through rich hearty plant products like beans, nuts, seeds, etc. Soy is practically a staple in any vegetarian/vegan diet. You'll get some carbs naturally so that's never a concern. Fats are good! And many plants have terrific fats, and with a diet with a higher fat and protein intake than the typical modern western diet, (and thus sufficiently fewer carbs), it's generally going to be healthier. But that's on a "macro" level - it's the nitty gritty details, which specific fats are commonly found, which specific amino acid profiles in the non-meat proteins, etc, that make a truly healthy vegan diet all that much more challenging.

Vegans will stoop to all levels to defend their diet, cite this and that "complete protein" and how the body can manufacturer different fats from simpler fats, etc... but it's all essentially a justification for some moral high ground act. I get it, watching animals die kind of sucks, for sure! You can do your part for a responsible meat eating movement though, such as limiting your meat intake (especially red meat, because until lab grown meat becomes common place, there are very real environmental concerns for mass livestock and that's typically only true for the red meats which yes does include the false-white swine... but I digress). Environmental responsibility movements are making waves (the slow kind), so you can still contribute in that regard.

While it is true that there haven't been any satisfactory long-term studies on vegan diets, there are certain facts that just line up regardless, and there could very well be some ethical conundrums if they ever want to include children in the diet from birth or from a very early age. (I wonder if vegan parents would think their own breast milk is certified vegan?)

Veganism is unnatural bullshit. If you have to put thought into your diet, you're doing it wrong. Imagine if a regular predator had to be so specific to stay alive.

"Let's see, today I need to eat three toads, a bunny, seven spiders, and hopefully a dozen crickets. If I can catch one possum, I won't have to eat the spiders or the bunny."

Does that shit sound right?! The dumbest person in the world should be able to keep themselves alive by eating. It shouldn't require semi pro nutritional knowledge, and scientific extracts and potions to have complete nutrition.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I always wondered about that actually, nutrition is actually super complicated. Like the specific amounts of nutrients you need have to be exact (according to "experts") but yet nobody can know what's good and what's bad and nobody seems to have it figured out as all the advice contradicts itself because it depends who you listen to. Like some experts say fats are evil while some say they're good. Some say wheat is bad while some say it's not etc.

But at the end of the day does it really matter? All the other animals eat whatever is available, why would our bodies be so different and specific to what we need?

 

[destrekor]

I always wondered about that actually, nutrition is actually super complicated. Like the specific amounts of nutrients you need have to be exact (according to "experts") but yet nobody can know what's good and what's bad and nobody seems to have it figured out as all the advice contradicts itself because it depends who you listen to. Like some experts say fats are evil while some say they're good. Some say wheat is bad while some say it's not etc.

But at the end of the day does it really matter? All the other animals eat whatever is available, why would our bodies be so different and specific to what we need?

Well the body is specific about what it needs - all animals actually have specific requirements. But those requirements generally developed over eons of evolution, so it really became more of a case where the body evolved to survive on what was available to eat.

The thing is though, in the natural world, the animal is already limited to what they can eat in general. They won't eat what they have learned might make them sick or kill them, and so that leaves whatever else is edible and attractive to their gut's desire. The body has a funny way of signalling to the brain what sounds good to eat, based on what it knows you are lacking at any given moment.
Humans mucked that up by changing nature around us to suit us, which means we now have massive quantities of just about every food, and so we can generally get what we need but we can actually screw that up. You can't solely subsist on wheat, for instance. The body may or may not revolt.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Well you solved it right there at the end, fats and proteins through rich hearty plant products like beans, nuts, seeds, etc. Soy is practically a staple in any vegetarian/vegan diet. You'll get some carbs naturally so that's never a concern. Fats are good! And many plants have terrific fats, and with a diet with a higher fat and protein intake than the typical modern western diet, (and thus sufficiently fewer carbs), it's generally going to be healthier. But that's on a "macro" level - it's the nitty gritty details, which specific fats are commonly found, which specific amino acid profiles in the non-meat proteins, etc, that make a truly healthy vegan diet all that much more challenging.

Vegans will stoop to all levels to defend their diet, cite this and that "complete protein" and how the body can manufacturer different fats from simpler fats, etc... but it's all essentially a justification for some moral high ground act. I get it, watching animals die kind of sucks, for sure! You can do your part for a responsible meat eating movement though, such as limiting your meat intake (especially red meat, because until lab grown meat becomes common place, there are very real environmental concerns for mass livestock and that's typically only true for the red meats which yes does include the false-white swine... but I digress). Environmental responsibility movements are making waves (the slow kind), so you can still contribute in that regard.

While it is true that there haven't been any satisfactory long-term studies on vegan diets, there are certain facts that just line up regardless, and there could very well be some ethical conundrums if they ever want to include children in the diet from birth or from a very early age. (I wonder if vegan parents would think their own breast milk is certified vegan?)

Thanks. That is a very useful and informative post you just made, which has taught me something as well!

I have become increasingly dissatisfied with the quality of meats, e.g. Chicken in the UK. Over, say the last ten years.
The prices have gradually become less and less (relatively speaking), but the quality (e.g. Chicken) seems to have noticeably suffered.
I'm NOT familiar with all the appropriate technical terms to describe the quality drops, on a year by year basic.
But reading up on it (and experiencing it myself, from what I eat), it is being blamed on the ever increasing use of antibiotics in the feed, growth hormones (The UK/EU is suppose to ban/limit much of that stuff, so I'm a bit confused, as to why the standards seem to be falling) and other stuff/nonsense, just to make the meat cheaper/faster to "grow/create".
Also the tiny cramped space Chickens are often reared in and hence their lack of movement (poor muscles), fresh air, etc etc. Are all rumored to cause the race to the bottom, as regards lowest prices and (unfortunately) poor meat (e.g. Chicken) quality.
I like to go for the healthier meats, such as Chicken. Because they can be relatively low in fat, very high in protein, affordable, readily available almost everywhere and are suppose to be good for you and/or not as bad as red meats and other stuff.

There are free range and/or Organic and/or better quality meats, such as chicken (what I mean is, you can buy really cheap chicken, but there are also very expensive, normal (non-organic) chickens for sale as well). Available for sale in UK supermarkets. But the prices go up to eye watering levels.
E.g. Cheap frozen Chick is around £3.50 to £6 ($6/$7+) per Kilogram (Kg).
Freerange is perhaps around £10 .. £12 ($15+) per Kg
But Organic Chicken, is more like around £20($25+)/Kg

 

[Naer]

cooking is a recent thing. There isn't a biological cause of evolution due to cooking since it is so recent. There isn't evidence supporting that we would have never evolved if we stuck to raw meat. Easier to eat cooked? maybe. Candy is also easier to eat

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

cooking is a recent thing. There isn't a biological cause of evolution due to cooking since it is so recent. There isn't evidence supporting that we would have never evolved if we stuck to raw meat. Easier to eat? maybe. Candy is also easier to eat

Some theories of evolution seem to think that we came from fish (or at least the sea, a very long time ago).
But that doesn't mean that it would be a good idea, to weigh yourself down (without any source of air) and drop 1,000 feet below the seas surface for a week, to try living/acting like a fish.
Because it is too late, we are no longer fish, so we can no longer breath, using just sea water, without any access to air.

Similarly, if we now need to eat cooked food, then that is what we need to do.

Maybe, 100,000 years ago, we could live off raw food alone (as regards meat), but it would be too late now, as we have adapted to eat, mainly cooked food. Especially as regards meat.

 

[Naer]

qqqqqqq

Some theories of evolution seem to think that we came from fish (or at least the sea, a very long time ago).
But that doesn't mean that it would be a good idea, to weigh yourself down (without any source of air) and drop 1,000 feet below the seas surface for a week, to try living/acting like a fish.
Because it is too late, we are no longer fish, so we can no longer breath, using just sea water, without any access to air.

Similarly, if we now need to eat cooked food, then that is what we need to do.

Maybe, 100,000 years ago, we could live off raw food alone (as regards meat), but it would be too late now, as we have adapted to eat, mainly cooked food. Especially as regards meat.

imo, that's a bad metephore. Environmental factors such as breathing, and eating, are two separate deals. The few bacteria and enzyme richness in raw meat supports good health. Cooking demolishes those properties. Cooking meat as the majority was cute for a short while, but the illnesses that it causes isn't worth it imo

 

[zinfamous]

cooking is a recent thing. There isn't a biological cause of evolution due to cooking since it is so recent. There isn't evidence supporting that we would have never evolved if we stuck to raw meat. Easier to eat cooked? maybe. Candy is also easier to eat

What? Of course there is. In fact, it's the leading understanding of how our brains evolved to have massive cerebrums compared to other related apes. The requirement of the protein and iron load sufficient to feed that growing part of our brain could have only come from animal protein, when you consider the available nutrient sources of the time. Sorry, raw food morons: foraging a completely non-diverse selection of naturally-grown, necessarily nutrient-thin plant products in the millennia prior to agriculture would never possibly substitute for meat. That's completely asinine.

And, obviously, this wouldn't really have been possible without learning how to cook meat. Far too many deaths and crippling illnesses from parasites. Cooking allowed greater efficiency of safe nutrient distribution to more individuals in the group. These were the groups that survived to pass on their genes and their growing brains--not the families of proto-Naers in the caves across the river that spent most of their prime reproductive years writhing in pain from gut worm infections and terrifying potential mates with bleeding postules on their faces.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

qqqqqqq

imo, that's a bad metephore. Environmental factors such as breathing, and eating, are two separate deals. The few bacteria and enzyme richness in raw meat supports good health. Cooking demolishes those properties. Cooking meat as the majority was cute for a short while, but the illnesses that it causes isn't worth it imo

The problem with most modern societies, cheap supermarket meats, is that (I believe), they are of poor quality (in at least some respects), and are not really suitable for eating raw, safely.

I think your best bet, would be to eat raw foods but avoid meat altogether, and only eat raw fish which are 100% safe to eat raw (most are NOT safe to eat raw, I think), and do it properly,

 

[nakedfrog]

qqqqqqq

imo, that's a bad metephore. Environmental factors such as breathing, and eating, are two separate deals. The few bacteria and enzyme richness in raw meat supports good health. Cooking demolishes those properties. Cooking meat as the majority was cute for a short while, but the illnesses that it causes isn't worth it imo

I fully support your endeavor. Please prove all these know-it-all sons-of-bitches wrong by thriving on your raw meat diet. Then you can stick it in their stupid, smug faces.

 

[Ichinisan]

... The few bacteria and enzyme richness in raw meat supports good health. Cooking demolishes those properties. Cooking meat as the majority was cute for a short while, but the illnesses that it causes isn't worth it imo

There are also bacteria that promote death. The same horrific death that plagued our ancestors.

 

[Ichinisan]

Have I missed any good self ownage threads? Is this the first one in a while?

Did adlep get his eCat?

 

[JulesMaximus]

I'm a big fan of not getting stuff like e-coli, salmonella or whatever other diseases you can get from raw meat. So I cook meat. It also taste better cooked. I don't get the appeal of people who like it still full of blood. The meat itself just tastes horrible if it's not cooked enough. Worse is biting into a piece of chicken that's not quite cooked it just has a horrible taste to it.

There is no blood in raw meat that has been cleaned properly (like the stuff you buy at the grocery store or your butcher). I cook meat but steaks I like medium rare. The juices that come out of a steak cooked this way are not blood.

 

[destrekor]

There is no blood in raw meat that has been cleaned properly (like the stuff you buy at the grocery store or your butcher). I cook meat but steaks I like medium rare. The juices that come out of a steak cooked this way are not blood.

Correct, it's not blood. It is myoglobin (and intracellular water IIRC) a heme-carrying protein that is functionally equivalent to hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying component of a red blood cell (which gives the blood cell its color). It's functionality is quite similar to blood but it is correct to say it is not blood at all.

Just musing now, but in a way it's kind of a muscle's internal "blood" - unlike other tissues that feast directly off the body's blood supply, muscles have their own internal oxygen system, with myoglobin acting as an oxygen storage system to keep muscles fueled with oxygen even when the muscle is no longer receiving enough oxygen from the blood (myoglobin captures oxygen from hemoglobin, and then shuttles it into the muscle - other tissues don't have this intermediary transfer/storage agent)

Myoglobin, besides giving meat color, also contributes to that iron flavor characteristic of the darkest meats. "White meats" still have myoglobin but in very small amounts. Pork is not technically white, but swine just have a lot less myoglobin in most muscle groups. Chicken and turkey breast is white because those muscles are rarely ever used in life, so there is minimal myoglobin.

 

[snoopy7548]

qqqqqqq

imo, that's a bad metephore. Environmental factors such as breathing, and eating, are two separate deals. The few bacteria and enzyme richness in raw meat supports good health. Cooking demolishes those properties. Cooking meat as the majority was cute for a short while, but the illnesses that it causes isn't worth it imo

You should watch Raw then tell us if you still want to eat raw meat.

 

[William Gaatjes]

What? Of course there is. In fact, it's the leading understanding of how our brains evolved to have massive cerebrums compared to other related apes. The requirement of the protein and iron load sufficient to feed that growing part of our brain could have only come from animal protein, when you consider the available nutrient sources of the time. Sorry, raw food morons: foraging a completely non-diverse selection of naturally-grown, necessarily nutrient-thin plant products in the millennia prior to agriculture would never possibly substitute for meat. That's completely asinine.

And, obviously, this wouldn't really have been possible without learning how to cook meat. Far too many deaths and crippling illnesses from parasites. Cooking allowed greater efficiency of safe nutrient distribution to more individuals in the group. These were the groups that survived to pass on their genes and their growing brains--not the families of proto-Naers in the caves across the river that spent most of their prime reproductive years writhing in pain from gut worm infections and terrifying potential mates with bleeding postules on their faces.

Totally right. Near should look at the food chimpansees and gorillas consume and how much they have to eat. And notice the swollen tummies of gorillas...

 

[William Gaatjes]

http://theconversation.com/the-top-ten-parasites-that-could-be-lurking-in-your-food-29015

This page has great pictures :

It seems some infections can even be one of several reasons needed to cause liver and bile cancer.
Near should rather do more research in increasing the amount of T cells (Which seems impossible).

 

[WelshBloke]

Come on OP! Man up.

Buy a whole chicken and video yourself eating it raw. Report back on the health benefits.

 

[skull]

cooking is a recent thing. There isn't a biological cause of evolution due to cooking since it is so recent. There isn't evidence supporting that we would have never evolved if we stuck to raw meat. Easier to eat cooked? maybe. Candy is also easier to eat

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-fire-makes-us-human-72989884

Which is, in a way, his point: Human beings evolved to eat cooked food. It is literally possible to starve to death even while filling one’s stomach with raw food. In the wild, people typically survive only a few months without cooking, even if they can obtain meat. Wrangham cites evidence that urban raw-foodists, despite year-round access to bananas, nuts and other high-quality agricultural products, as well as juicers, blenders and dehydrators, are often underweight. Of course, they may consider this desirable, but Wrangham considers it alarming that in one study half the women were malnourished to the point they stopped menstruating.

 

[Red Squirrel]

http://theconversation.com/the-top-ten-parasites-that-could-be-lurking-in-your-food-29015

This page has great pictures :

It seems some infections can even be one of several reasons needed to cause liver and bile cancer.
Near should rather do more research in increasing the amount of T cells (Which seems impossible).

Yikes, does that person end up losing their vision from this or are the eyes savable? There's actually quite a lot of nasty parasites out there. There was a show on Discovery called Monsters Inside Me that talked about them. The one that freaked me out the most was one that you can get from cat litter, and it will lay eggs inside your eye balls. Always wash hands with soap after handling cat litter.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Yikes, does that person end up losing their vision from this or are the eyes savable? There's actually quite a lot of nasty parasites out there. There was a show on Discovery called Monsters Inside Me that talked about them. The one that freaked me out the most was one that you can get from cat litter, and it will lay eggs inside your eye balls. Always wash hands with soap after handling cat litter.

Yeah, i remember watching a documentary that they had to remove a parasitic worm from the eye of a person. Can you imagine having a worm wiggling around in your eye. And that you can even see it moving around when looking straight forward....
Also a parasite that can be ingested from raw or undercooked meat. I forgot the name. It was the one that i was searching for initially, but the tapeworms i found to be enough of a reason to not eat raw or undercooked meat.