Jan 19th, 2015: Vegan's Savior

[orthodoc]

As for the larvae ... bleeecccchhh.

Any vegan worth the name knows that it's impossible to be protein-deficient if you're taking in enough calories to meet your metabolic needs (roughly 700 kcal/day). Protein deficiency is called kwashiorkor. It really isn't an issue in the USA, particularly among those who are vegans by decision.

[Happy Monkey]

You can if you refuse to eat food containing DNA.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

You can if you refuse to eat food containing DNA.

my favorite part of that article:

If you ask a question that is nuts when interpreted precisely, but is basically similar to a sensible question, people are going to answer the question they think you meant to ask. People are helpful that way, even when it isn’t helpful.

[orthodoc]

??? You can what? No one said anything about refusing to eat food containing DNA.

[Happy Monkey]

Be protein deficient.

I was referencing a recent study where people when polled wanted food containing DNA to be labeled.

My link is to an article about how that poll was silly.

[orthodoc]

Thanks for that. The conclusion was reasonable: that people, when confronted with a question formulated so as to be ridiculous, answer the more reasonable question they assume you meant to ask.

All of which is still to say that North Americans are in no danger of being protein deficient, vegan or non-vegan.

[sexobon]

The topic of insects wasn't really brought up as a supplement for protein deficiency; rather, as a protein substitute for plants to reduce the collateral damage to other animals that occurs when raising and harvesting crops.

[orthodoc]

Agreed, that current farming methods are harmful ... both the despicable treatment of most animals destined for grocery stores, and the cultivation of feed crops for factory-farmed animals. There's a better solution than farming black soldier fly larvae (or any other insects) for human consumption, though.

[sexobon]

Of course, everyone knows that we should be eating our dead.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Of course, everyone knows that we should be eating our dead.

of course it's dead.


as opposed to eating.. .. the ... living????!!!!

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by blueboy56

If we aren't to eat meat, why then do we have incisors, canines (teeth) and premolars.

Eventually, we would only have molars and no front jaws.

Pardon me, we are omnivores, we have always been omnivores and I intend to stay that way.

I find a very weird dissonance in people who talk about what we (as a whole) are "meant" to eat due to evolution, as if evolution is akin to predestiny. The whole point of evolution is that if we have to change due to our environment, then we (as a whole) can do that. By definition we (as a whole) don't have to do what our ancestors did--if our environment suddenly makes it so that nothing but meat is available to eat, then we'll eat that, a bunch of us will die, but the ones whose metabolisms can manage it, if only barely, will have babies who are better at it, and in a few thousand years we'll be like lions scoffing at how we were never "meant" to eat produce.

On an individual level, it's an entirely different story. I know what works best for my one body, personally, and I don't give a shit what vegans or bacon-lovers or anyone else thinks I "should" be eating.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I think I'd like to study your body more closely... Uh, for scientificical like stuff... yeah, that's it, for the good of the species. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I find a very weird dissonance in people who talk about what we (as a whole) are "meant" to eat due to evolution, as if evolution is akin to predestiny. ...

Some things are better attributed to creationism like if God didn't intend for man to eat pussy, he wouldn't have made it look like a taco.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

On an individual level, it's an entirely different story. I know what works best for my one body, personally, and I don't give a shit what vegans or bacon-lovers or anyone else thinks I "should" be eating.

Everybody is a little different outside the general stuff. I've noticed a relationship between sugar and inflammation for me. We're going to ease back into the dirty hippie foods and see if I can't dump some belly weight.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I find a very weird dissonance in people who talk about what we (as a whole) are "meant" to eat due to evolution, as if evolution is akin to predestiny. The whole point of evolution is that if we have to change due to our environment, then we (as a whole) can do that. By definition we (as a whole) don't have to do what our ancestors did--if our environment suddenly makes it so that nothing but meat is available to eat, then we'll eat that, a bunch of us will die, but the ones whose metabolisms can manage it, if only barely, will have babies who are better at it, and in a few thousand years we'll be like lions scoffing at how we were never "meant" to eat produce.

On an individual level, it's an entirely different story. I know what works best for my one body, personally, and I don't give a shit what vegans or bacon-lovers or anyone else thinks I "should" be eating.

I feel similarly. To me, it's more correct to think of it as hearing blueboy56's statement as "our ancestors were successful (at eating and living and reproducing) by eating meat; that worked for them and we have the same tools (teeth), so let's go with the same plan!". It's too simplistic. It reverses cause and effect, with regard to evolution (and never mind the vast generational timescales involved to produce different teeth in a population).