Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Do angry vegans turn you against going vegan?

There's many people and communities of people i've met online who eat nothing but animal product. Zero carb. There's also the Masai and the Inuit who's traditional diets are pretty much if not entirely veg free.
Except:
More recently the Maasai have started to consume other foods with more regularity, including cabbage, potatoes, maize meal and rice, which makes their diet more well rounded and lowers the fat and cholesterol content of the overall diet.
Maasai Tribe Diet
 
Cereal was one of the worst things I used to eat. Was ravenous an hour later, blood sugar through the floor. Even on something as simple as oats. Most cereal with b12 are agian fortified and likely full of sugar and all sorts of other crap
That's your own personal experience. Zillions of people enjoy cereal every morning.
 

So, some people live in a place where growing fruit and veg is all-but impossible so they subsist almost entirely on meat, fat and blood, and over many centuries have evolved physically to take advantage of this very specific diet .. so therefore everybody should eat meat because it's what's best for everyone.

That seems to be the point of referencing the Inuit in this context. Care to show your working?
 
Yes, carbs are just sugar.

That's why i went low carb. Experiencing hypoglycemic episodes isn't fun

I've largely cut out sugar and also seriously cut back on bread, pasta and rice due to the wobbly post-sugar crash and partly because I'm a bit of a carb monster and overdo them.
I haven't found the carbs in vegetables and most fruit to be an issue, though, and tend to eat some kind of protein at most meals, which eases the GI.
 
You're just appealing to balance, it means nothing to say their diet is 'more rounded', just as it does to say 'lowers fat and cholesterol'. WHy are those tho things bad. It was never an issue for the masai before, which is the point.
There's obviously other issues at play, but here's something you should mull over: Life expectancy in Tanzania is 42 for men and 44 for women.
 
Sure, you can cite some sources to correct anything I've said or linked to. We're just having a discussion on an internet forum and I've already conceded that I have no problem with people eating vegan so cool your jets
I have rockets, not jets, and they run hot.
It's not really any of my business who you do or don't "have problems with", however when you open with dodgy statements suggesting that it's hard to be healthy on a plant based diet when the available data appears to show otherwise then don't be surprised if you're called out.
 
I'll look forward to the science behind this claim.
What claim are you referring to?

That's your own personal experience. Zillions of people enjoy cereal every morning.

I enjoyed cereal, that's why i ate it. Didn't stop it from reacting badly inside me. Sure some people eat lots of carbs and seem fine, good luck to them. Some don't, I'm one of them. So I changed my diet. Lots of other people, for all sorts of reasons, eat a LCHF diet, and they seem to be doing fine from the messages I read. More importantly, since that's anecdotal, there seems to be a lot of good evidence behind it. Keto has been around for decades. Eating real food, not processed junk foods or transfats. That's impoortant to me. Obviously not everyone suffers badly reacting to sugar.

So, some people live in a place where growing fruit and veg is all-but impossible so they subsist almost entirely on meat, fat and blood, and over many centuries have evolved physically to take advantage of this very specific diet .. so therefore everybody should eat meat because it's what's best for everyone.

That seems to be the point of referencing the Inuit in this context. Care to show your working?
I don't think evolution explains it. Evolution requires much greater spans of time.

I've largely cut out sugar and also seriously cut back on bread, pasta and rice due to the wobbly post-sugar crash and partly because I'm a bit of a carb monster and overdo them.
I haven't found the carbs in vegetables and most fruit to be an issue, though, and tend to eat some kind of protein at most meals, which eases the GI.
I don't find the carbs in veg to be a problem either, maionly because there's so few of them :D
 
There's obviously other issues at play, but here's something you should mull over: Life expectancy in Tanzania is 42 for men and 44 for women.

Which data is that? I'm seeing Male 59.9, female 63.8 based on 2015 WHO data. With AIDS/HIV as most common cause of death.
 
There's obviously other issues at play, but here's something you should mull over: Life expectancy in Tanzania is 42 for men and 44 for women.
Research on the masai diet and the bodies of the masai themselves found no evidence of aetherosclorosis or helath problems to do with their diet. Fat and cholesterol weren't killing them.

There's plenty of low sugar/sugar-free ones and some people go really wild and sprinkle on fresh/dried fruits too. Amazeballs etc.
yes full of carbs, which is sugar, or fructose, which is sugar. Fruits contain nutrients of course, but are primarily just compact hits of sugar.
 
There's plenty of low sugar/sugar-free ones and some people go really wild and sprinkle on fresh/dried fruits too. Amazeballs etc.

I never found a sufficiently low sugar one that I liked more than just eating something else, but you know the mass-market stuff I'm talking about.
The food industry needs a good kicking over the stuff that is marketed at kids.
 
Me: A comparable veggie/vegan breakfast will keep most people feeling full too.
You: not if its full of carbs

And now the science bit, please.

I don't really know what comparable means in that sentence, though.
Maybe that new vegan egg stuff and tofacon would keep you full as long - more research required...
 
Me: A comparable veggie/vegan breakfast will keep most people feeling full too.
You: not if its full of carbs

And now the science bit, please.
Do you know what hypoglycemia is?

EDIT: let me clarify, protein is more satiating than carbohydrate, because the latter turns to sugar, and also makes you fat because it binds with water. Healthy fats promote longer satiety as well as provide a more stable source of energy
 
Or brown rice compared to say pasta. There's an element of portion size as well. I suspect most people just eat to many in a single sitting. I was shocked recently when I started weighing mine just how much I was over consuming. Doesn't mean I'm cutting them out, just making sure they are a much smaller part of the meal.
 
I'll look forward to the science behind this claim.

As usual people are getting 'carbs' all backwards.

Carbohydrates include both simple sugars like glucose and fructose, complex molecules like starch and also cellulose which is undigestible to humans and is known as 'dietary fibre'. What you normally get is amateur nutritionists* talking about the separate groups 'carbs', 'sugar' and 'fibre' even though the latter two belong in the former category. When people say carbs, they usually mean starch.

And yes, starch is made of sugar molecules. But the body doesn't treat them like sugar molecules. Starch does not have the same near-instantaneous physiological effects as refined sugars and doesn't send the pancreas and liver into panic mode trying to keep up. Starch is the ideal long-term energy source and the one the body can most efficiently make use of.

Atkins-type diets are designed to trick the body into using metabolic back alleys to produce the glucose that your organs need to function, as a way to deliberately use more energy than we would otherwise need. This is based on a fundamentally stupid conception of what food is for. The goal is not to eat as much as you can without getting fat, the goal is to provide your body with what it needs to function. This is what we mean when we say low-carb diets are a fundamentally capitalist idea because they're a solution to the non-problem of having too much food. They're designed to allow consumption to outstrip need and that is the fundamental basis of consumer capitalism, swindling people into buying shit they don't need and working triple shifts to pay for it.

*and this is the only kind of nutritionist, because 'nutritionist' is not a real thing.
 
It's a question of scale. Pre-industrial farming techniques fed a much smaller global population, most of whom were eating far less meat than your typical westerner eats nowadays.

Meat production always requires more land and water, and produces more waste products, than producing an equivalent amount of vegetable foods.

If the whole world wanted to eat as much meat as the average American, well that would be impossible. There's not enough farmland or fresh water in the world. To say nothing of the ecosystems that would have to be destroyed to make room for all the cows. The entire Amazon basin would be a dust bowl.

Ive only recently learned about the impact it was having on the oceans as well. I thought this was one thing I wasn't impacting much as I hardly eat fish. Turns out that a lot of animal feed is fish based, so I don't even get a pass on that.

Although there is promising work done of making it from maggots that are fed on waste.
 
When people say carbs, they usually mean starch.

And yes, starch is made of sugar molecules. But the body doesn't treat them like sugar molecules. Starch does not have the same near-instantaneous physiological effects as refined sugars and doesn't send the pancreas and liver into panic mode trying to keep up. Starch is the ideal long-term energy source and the one the body can most efficiently make use of.

Aren't starches basically chemical mirror-images of sugars?
 
Atkins-type diets are designed to trick the body into using metabolic back alleys to produce the glucose that your organs need to function, as a way to deliberately use more energy than we would otherwise need. This is based on a fundamentally stupid conception of what food is for. The goal is not to eat as much as you can without getting fat, the goal is to provide your body with what it needs to function. This is what we mean when we say low-carb diets are a fundamentally capitalist idea because they're a solution to the non-problem of having too much food. They're designed to allow consumption to outstrip need, and that is the fundamental basis of consumer capitalism, swindling people into buying shit they don't need and working triple shifts to pay for it.

*and this is the only kind of nutritionist, because 'nutritionist' is not a real thing.

'trick the body'? Evidence please.

No human has ever needed carbs. It's the one macro you do not need.

Atkins is also not a keto diet. It reduces carbs initially and then reintroduces them to the point you start gaining weight to find your tolerance level.

Keto diets have been studied and studied. Low carb isn't some weird 'hack' despite what some american guru types might like to think.

I don't know why you think this is also about deliberately spending more energy, and how you've tied that to capitalism makes no sense to me at all.
 
I don't really know what comparable means in that sentence, though.
Maybe that new vegan egg stuff and tofacon would keep you full as long - more research required...
I seriously doubt that anyone having a full English-style veggie/vegan breakfast would end up any more/less hungry than someone who eat a meaty one of equivalent size.
 
Back
Top Bottom