Science of healthy eating

[Tks]

I'm not taking a shot at you personally with the following, but it's an argument I've heard many times before. However, there are a few things I'd like to point out:

I also don't want to take a shot at you personally, but I've heard all the counter arguments as well (going on years now). All riddled with logical fallacies, declaratory statements, and non-sequiturs. Allow me to elaborate.

We're apex predators. While that might be an uncomfortable realization for some, all the evidence is there to support this. Fortunately, we're also omnivorous generalists when it comes to our diet; A number of other apex predators are, though - Ex. Wolves, other Great Apes, etc. etc.. So we don't need to eat meat, but we can and do. And, this is advantagous as it's energy dense, and we don't have to expend too much energy trying to obtain it, thus leading to a calorific deficit.

This word "Apex predator" means nothing, as it's a pointless context-lacking descriptor. Even if I grant you the premise of being an "apex predator" (which can easily be refuted by dropping you in a cage with true apex predators, and you see this words meaning instantaneously evaporate, no other animal has this issue of definition in terms), the problem of using the word, is it has zero bearing on what our behavior, and biological requirements are. You then proceed to admit this subtly by saying "we don't need to eat meat, but we can and do". That right there isn't an argumentation, it's simply a declaratory statement, meaning: You're simply just saying something with no logical basis, nor relation to what you were saying before (meaning you never explained what apex predation has to do with "can and do eat meat" has to do with one another). And especially no single philosophical/ethical standpoint being made at all.

It's been suggested by evolutionary biology, that meat eating allowed for rapid brain development in our hominid ancestors all those millions of years ago as well - i. e. We got smarter because of it.

There are more theories, meat wasn't it, it was simply protien, could have been insect foraging, mushrooms, nuts etc.. and in other theories it was the development of agricultural systems, genetic pressures from the last Ice Age, allowing for more cooperation and the luxury of a massive calorie surplus. You can compare the "rapid brain development" (whatever that means, because again; context is everything) to the rapid development we had after the advent of Oil, and how such a massive caloric presence allowed such a massive and rapid expansion of our capabilities as a species. While obviously not a 1:1 comparison, the point is, there has no direct evidence tying "meat" to "intelligence". On the other hand, there is evidence of short life, and a slew of various diseases due to a deteriorating circulatory system filled with cholesterol and saturated fats.

You also have this whole ordeal with protien overblown. People who have had to subside on rabbits in the wild suffer from a condition known as protien poisoning. The FDA and such other regulatory bodies as you can see have no upper intake limit even with this condition's existence, which is why you still have the modern-day snake oil fitness industry of supplements selling protien powders with no regulations essentially. Finally, just think about it, this whole fascination with protien and meat is illogical because you've never went to a doctor and have him wonder, or have yourself wonder: "Hey doc, how're my protien levels looking this year eh?". It's a completely ridiculous notion because you can't actually die of "lack of protien" you first starve to death before you die from such a thing as protien is derived from planet matter in the first place anyway, so any consumption of it, gives you protien. If you need more proof of just how much, take a look at Rhino's or Elephants. You're going to tell me elephants with their well observed levels of intellect, need to get some more protien in their diets, and would be better if they weren't herbivores? Do you see why this whole "apex predator" or "meat is good" nonsense makes no sense when you actually think about it logically?

If you think the human life span in those times being on average that of the mid to late 20's was something we're getting smarter about, I can't argue that.

Lets grant the complete premise you propose: we got smarter from meat, so where are the mechanisms demonstrating this at all in any fashion in the modern day? And why is there no replication of it today now we bring into existence and farm over 50 billion land animals per year? On the contrary, we have diseases like heart disease as the number one killer on the planet. And that is by an large, driven by animal-based product consumption. All the while, a vegan diet is now recognized as the best with respect to average life span and quality of life for all markers. Also even if I grant the preimse completely, what held true 100's or 10's of thousands of years ago, doesn't need to hold true today (which it doesn't due to the number one killer on the planet being heart disease, so whatever "evolutionary advantage" afforded to us by meat, it doesn't do so anymore if it ever did). Also just want to mention, how other pure carnivores don't have big brains.. you would think this "meat" argument for intellegence would be observed elsewhere all over - it isn't. So scientifically, still a hypothesis, with less merit as time goes on.

You also have the whole theory of "biologically evolved" because of meat to be nonsensical, because we're not even omnivores (true carnivores and omnivores don't develop atherosclerosis, which is clogging of the arteries, no matter how much meat and fats they eat naturally). Eating animal products is simply more harm than good to us. Otherwise there should be no problem at all for you to tear an animal with your bare teeth (since most people talk to me about how we have predator canines), and then eat the animal raw. Instead you have the complete opposite of that - we get squeemish at the thought of such a thing, and literally sick if we ever attempted it. Instead we have to dress up our food as much as possible by cooking, and seasoning it. If we were true omnivores, there would be no need for any of that, and the majority of those people that "have to hunt to survive" wouldn't be wasting their time with things that would be considered nonsense like cooking and seasoning your food, as that is a waste of precious time and resource.

I, for one, am quite happy to live in keeping with my biology; I've hunted, I've killed, I've eaten what I've killed. Hunting isn't a sport I participate in any longer, by the way. And as purely sport, it's not something that I condone. But, if one needs to hunt to feed one's self and/or loved ones, I've absolutely no problem with it and wholeheartedly support them doing so. By the way, we got smarter about our hunting with the domestication of animals; I grew up on and around farms as well.

Now we get into the actual -meat- of the argument, as everything before this is basically Bio 101 preamble.

First off, you live in world where you're typing across a computer to someone like me somewhere else in the world. So this notion of "need to hunt to fee ones' self" is preposterous. But I agree with the statement in general that people will do what they need. But if you're going to be intellectually honest here, don't conflate the plight of Inuits or some secluded tropical tribes of people with 99% of the modern world. Most people on the planet today get their food with the aid of a super market. Veganism wasn't started due to the aboriginals of some unknown land causing problems for the world. So when we talk about "hunting when you need to" you have to admit before any other conversation can proceed, that: Hunting for need is an infinitesimally niche thing, and most hunting today is for pure enjoyment (which you devcieve yourself and say you're "bringing home the bacon" tonight for the family with some deer you shot, or some fish you got out the water). There is no sane person on this planet that will say they 'need' to hunt when going to a market is easier, more convenient, and makes far more sense.

Second, now that we've established most people hunt for recreational purposes (because you don't see the vegan cause being propogated to those aboriginal people in the middle of nowhere, obviously because they somewhat need to hunt to survive). How do you propose you reconcile that hunting with an ethics view point? Killing mostly sentient animals, for the sake of enjoyment more than any notion of some "need"?

That is at the crux of some of the ethics with respect to the vegan viewpoint. Unnecessary harm..

I was vegan, by the way, at one point in my life; I'd been meditating a lot at the time, and became hypersensitive to the idea of meat eating after watching a cooking competition - the scene was bloody. It lasted some months, and I happily became omnivorous again afterwards...

This is a very perplexing statement. You say you did something, then "happily" did the thing that you were watching that was making you "hypersensitive" when you watched it on TV.

Let me illustrate how perplexing that sounds if I use the human context:

"I became a pacifist, and watching documentaries on murderers in America's history made me hypersensitive to seeing people get killed, the scenes were bloody. It lasted some years, and I happily became a murder again afterwords "

Why be happy about going back to something you knew was not something that sat well with you?

Where is the explanation of why you became "vegan" and better yet, the explanation for why you went away from it (this is the most confusing aspect, as it is integral to understand such an odd shift that seemingly happened for no reason?)

Why tie "mediation" to this whole thing, the story itself smells of fabrication, the meditation portion is one of those stereotypical markers of trying to describe vegans as some sort of hippy people or something. I don't meditate, nor have I ever, seems like some silly placebo if you're meditating for hours on end to calm yourself or whatnot. When a pill could easily solve such issues instantly. We aren't all forest tree huggers and dirt worshipers or something.

----------------------------------------------------

A bit weird to say to be perfectly honest, mostly because that last portion says almost nothing as to the driving forces leading you to veganism, and then out.

But to be perfectly blunt, veganism isn't simply -a diet-, sure a diet is part of following such framework. But I think people who just follow the dietary guideline are simply "plant based", not really vegan. The reason being is I have never seen a legitimate convert away from veganism that isn't due to force, or bribery (basically folks either telling you to stop, and are holding social, economic, or welfare pressures over you, or people that just give you a better deal if you stop being vegan). The reason for that is, because very few people abandon knowledge of ethics and morality once they've been fully exposed to their aspects. This is why diets actually fail, they're supposed to be temporary, something to drop a little weight or such other things pertaining to health. Dropping a moral framework isn't something people actually do if the framework is sound, the only times that actually occurs is when you drop something on your head, or your head gets dropped on something, if you catch my drift.

I appreciate if you took the time to read up to here. As I gave a hint in the beginning. I've heard all the argumentation. If you want to see what people like you have to say and what people like me have to say on a more grand scale with far more experience, check out /r/DebateAVegan on Reddit. You're going to see in due time how meme-worthy and silly arguments like "apex predators" or "hunting for need" instantly fall apart in logical and moral discourse, and many many other arguments like "we have canines though", and other pretty funny low level counter-vegan machinations.

I hope you take no offense to what I am saying, as I said it's nothing personal, but I am personally addressing you so it can be interpreted as offensive to some people. Everyone has their own context and situation in life, and because I don't know your full picture, I can never pass judgement on you or anyone else I see across a computer screen.

But in conclusion that TL;DR just as a refresher:

1) Apex predator means nothing and isn't an argument, it's simply a label with no contextual elaboration.
2) Hunting is done out of recreation today FAR more than "need", thus isn't an argument for the majority of the modern world.
3) None of this has any ethics based reasoning, just because "we can" kill something, doesn't give us moral right to do so.

 

[BillG]

Apex predator means nothing and isn't an argument, it's simply a label with no contextual elaboration.

That description means everything to a scientist, and, yes, it is debatable depending upon which branch of the science one is discussing; some ecologists dispute the designation, while most biologists don't.

The argument about dropping me into a cage with an apex predator (you like the designation when it suits your purposes I suppose) falls short in one regard: we are as capable as others in that we have a huge advantage in terms of brain power. I can down a bear, wolf, lion or killer whale with relative ease provided I've the right tool on hand. They, on the other hand, might not be so successful at killing me as I can outsmart them with ease. If that's not apex predator behavior, well... I know whose population is increasing here, and it's not theirs...

As for morals, those tend to flexible in relationship to one's community and one's sense of self - What may be moral for you, might be immoral for me, and vice-versa. Ex. I had to frame a nasty, abusive racist for a crime once as it was the only way to rid myself of him after other avenues failed. I felt absolutely no remorse for doing so, while others might describe me as an immoral individual for it - I'm not worried about legally implicating myself here as he's dead now anyway.

As for protein? Every living organism on the planet is compromised of them, and I wasn't specifically arguing that as the evolutionary kick starter to brain development - I was pointing to energy density.

Watching stuff on TV, and not having to obtain my own food? As I wrote, I grew up on and around farms, and I've hunted and participated in animal slaughter - I wasn't always an urbane city dweller. The latter is somewhat unpleasant, I'll admit, but the nutrition I derived from it is undeniable. However, the hunting I can only describe as a primal thrill - I'm evolved to do it, and damn, it felt good to exercise that inherited skill!

You did take this personally, which is, of course, your choice. But the moment you mentioned morals in the OP, you took a shot at everyone else who may not agree with you.

 

[onofno]

"Casein (/ˈkeɪsiːɪn/ "KAY-see-in", from Latin caseus "cheese") pronounced "kay-seen" in British English, is a family of related phosphoproteins (αS1, αS2, β, κ). These proteins are commonly found in mammalian milk, comprising c. 80% of the proteins in cow's milk and between 20% and 45% of the proteins in human milk.[1] Sheep and buffalo milk have a higher casein content than other types of milk with human milk having a particularly low casein content.[2]

Casein has a wide variety of uses, from being a major component of cheese, to use as a food additive.[3] The most common form of casein is sodium caseinate.[4]

As a food source, casein supplies amino acids, carbohydrates, and two essential elements, calcium and phosphorus.[5]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casein

When milk is overheated (285°F) before being put in a bottle, amino acids, carbohydrates, calcium and phosphorus plus vitamins... all of them are "killed". Then vitamins are added.
Casein glue

 

[Tks]

That description means everything to a scientist, and, yes, it is debatable depending upon which branch of the science one is discussing; some ecologists dispute the designation, while most biologists don't.

The argument about dropping me into a cage with an apex predator (you like the designation when it suits your purposes I suppose) falls short in one regard: we are as capable as others in that we have a huge advantage in terms of brain power. I can down a bear, wolf, lion or killer whale with relative ease provided I've the right tool on hand. They, on the other hand, might not be so successful at killing me as I can outsmart them with ease. If that's not apex predator behavior, well... I know whose population is increasing here, and it's not theirs...

As for morals, those tend to flexible in relationship to one's community and one's sense of self - What may be moral for you, might be immoral for me, and vice-versa. Ex. I had to frame a nasty, abusive racist for a crime once as it was the only way to rid myself of him after other avenues failed. I felt absolutely no remorse for doing so, while others might describe me as an immoral individual for it - I'm not worried about legally implicating myself here as he's dead now anyway.

As for protein? Every living organism on the planet is compromised of them, and I wasn't specifically arguing that as the evolutionary kick starter to brain development - I was pointing to energy density.

Watching stuff on TV, and not having to obtain my own food? As I wrote, I grew up on and around farms, and I've hunted and participated in animal slaughter - I wasn't always an urbane city dweller. The latter is somewhat unpleasant, I'll admit, but the nutrition I derived from it is undeniable. However, the hunting I can only describe as a primal thrill - I'm evolved to do it, and damn, it felt good to exercise that inherited skill!

You did take this personally, which is, of course, your choice. But the moment you mentioned morals in the OP, you took a shot at everyone else who may not agree with you.

The apex predator thing is pointless semantics. It means nothing in reality, and nothing with respect to veganism. That's what I was attempting to convey. Unless you have a specific contextual descriptor on why an apex predator has moral precedent to deny moral value to anything lesser, you should then therefore be non-resistant to a hypothetical situation where aliens, or another species of sort, and wiped us all off at their desire (for whatever reason). "Apex predator" I am trying to say isn't an argumentation basically speaking. Point also being, just because you're the best at something, doesn't give you the moral right to deny them a right to life. There's no "flexibility" with respect to this notion.

You say you're flexible on morals, yeah, most people are, but there is a point where whatever your morals are, you eventually cross a threshold where the logic ceases, along with the sanity. This is why murderers are undesirable folks, and their machinations of morality are worthless outside of scientific observational curiosity. Also your example is (like the prior ones) too ambiguous. And pointless as it doesnt demonstrate a valid corollary to the topic of contention. You had to "frame" (what does this mean, as in - what did you frame him for, and what happened as a result), to "rid yourself" (again, what does this mean) of an "abusive racist" (this also, means nothing, abusive how, and why does his racism have anything to do with why you framed him?). So the example you brought up doesn't even stand firm in supporting your own prior claims (which isn't an an incorrect claim: that morals are somewhat "flexible" but, you failed to mention this is only in practice, not in literal logical principle, there is no "flexible way of murdering innocent people" for example in any literal moral outlook.

As for protien, you just dug yourself further with this claim of "energy density". I explained to you the largest energy boom was due to the Neolithic revolution. This is what afforded us the capacity for civilization. Carbohydrates are our primary source of energy. Not protien. I didn't get this impression before (that you were trying to say protien is energy dense). This is simply false on an elementary nutritional level, and biological level, with respect to the diet most suited to our well-being.

You then speak about how you've grew up on farms (I grew up on one), and hunted and participated in animal slaughter (I didn't hunt, but participated in slaughter). And you say this was in a bygone era of your past. If true, then you have less excuse, and less of an argument for continuing the same practice. Just because you did something before, isn't justification to keep on doing it. We had slaves for thousands of years, no sane person would say "yeah let's bring that back" (though the religious extremists in the Abrahamic religions are skirting the lines at times with this). This is what is traditionally known as an: Appeal to Tradition Fallacy. Just because we've done it in our long storied past, doesn't mean it is to remain eternally proper.

You then say the "nutrition you've derived from it is undeniable". This makes no sense, as there is no actual people out there left who are taken serious that would say a vegan diet isn't the healthiest. So whatever "nutrition" you derived from it, and what part of that is "undeniable" is yet again, another one of those ambiguous statements that holds no water in a debate for example. If you're going to make claims like that, you have to elaborate, otherwise you're just padding your statements with anecdotes. It's like audiophiles "the benefits from the rare rocks I have on my amps are undeniable".

You then say the hunting was a primal thrill. Umm, but that's one of the main points veganism tries to make.. that the only valid reply to anyone versed with vegan concepts - who then turns their back on it, has only "pleasure" as a rational excuse. There are no other reasonings left, morally, it's better not to kill sentient beings, morally it's better to not contribute as much to the obliteration of the planet and the pillaging of it's natural resources, and it's better health-wise to not die from a stupid disease like heart disease considering it's actually avoidable, and the vegan diet being the only proven one that has shown to reverse the condition. You want to talk about "natural", it doesn't get more natural than that, and plants.

Also, to the whole "my ancestors tho" excuse with "primal thrill" of the hunt. Some people get a "primal thrill" murdering others, and raping others. Shall we sympathize with their genetic predisposition toward such tendencies? No.. In conclusion to this portion: Just because it's /evolved/primal/natural/genetic... does not mean it's "good". As good as you feel engaging in it, it's the absence of empathy that allows you to enjoy something of that nature. Simply substitute a human with the animal, and you can test where your moral compass actually is. Safe to say, most people don't want to be a part of hunting other humans with good reason. Those same reasons logically are defensible from the animal perspective. If you feel there is a valid enough reason that delineates us from animals where right to life for them is denied, but we ought to have such right, then the burden of proof falls on you to name such trait.

To the last point you make about "you did take it personal". Pointless sentence, as I can easily say when you said "nothing personal" that you were lying. So I don't know why you would even mention it.

Second, I don't take it personal because I don't know you, nor what you do, and I've explained this before seeing as how your whole life isn't laid out before me to make such a -personal thing- out of it.

As for mentioning morals, I only speak from logical perspective. I'm not "shooting" at anyone, only laying down the state of affairs from a philosophical perspective. So anyone else that talks about morals is "taking a shot" at those that don't agree with them? What does "taking a shot" even mean? See, this is what I mean when I say, topics like this can't be addressed with silly ambiguous language like this, as the implications are very serious as you can tell, and as you yourself agree just because I brought morals into the equation.

Naturally morals are a very serious part as you can see (or don't as your familiarity with the topic of veganism is evidently elementary, all the while you feel the need to reply but you know there is a serious aspect you're unable to address with proper support). The whole thing with OP's topic and me bringing up veganism is because the health aspects are not undebatable anymore in serious circles. While the moral aspect only further solidifies the argumentation, while the environmental aspect in the current day makes it virtually mandatory to put into practice.

I appreciate the fact that people don't want to be "told" what they should do, but only what they ought do if their goals align with concepts pertaining to human long term well-being. So as many "shots" as I take at anyone.. You are at a severe disadvantage if you're going to debate against me, because all my argumentations are for the general betterment of all aspects of life, from the personal, to the global. So even if I am "shooting" at folks, it's only toward a positive that requires very little effort, in return for much more good for all.