Serious Nutrition: A corrupt government's favorite topic

[Dandatpenguin]

Nutrition is a very hard thing to sort through concerning what is just lies by big industries and what is actually good for you.

Most people couldn't careless about their nutrition and like me have been told that what the government recommends is what I should eat (Food Pyramid). However any person who has a computer with internet can quickly find unbiased answers pertaining to what's good for you and what isn't.

This is an example of one those lies. (This picture is used since it's supported in most countries)

Since 1992 the U.S has been saying that cow's milk and meat are necessary for your body to stay healthy. This is not the case. While our body does need calcium cow's milk is not needed to provide our body with it. In fact drinking cow's milk is actually depleting calcium from your bones. If you're saying to yourself "This guy is a complete idiot" then please let me explain. You see like all animal protein milk acidifies the bodies pH in our body responds by trying to neutralize it. Calcium is an excellent neutralizer and the largest deposit of calcium in our body is within our bones. We are losing more calcium than we are gaining and specific diseases can arise from this such as osteoporosis.

Eating meat on the other hand has much shorter and ethical explanation. I'll skip the ethical explanation (as this is a nutritional thread) and go right into the nutrition. When asking any of your friends or family members (that aren't nutrition experts) what do we gain from eating meat they might say protein. Can you think of anything else? OMEGA-3 and Vitamin B12 if you're wondering. Most meat eaters will argue the case that we HAVE to eat meat to get protein. This isn't the case. You can get protein from spinach, cereal, soy, nuts, seeds, supplement bars, and beans. Plenty of different foods to get protein from which are good for you and you should be eating on a regular basis anyways. Now for the argument for OMEGA-3 we don't need the animal fat that provides OMEGA-3 but the vitamin itself which can be obtained by supplements. And while it is true vitamin B12 can ONLY be obtained through consuming meat our body only needs trace amounts, and you will only start facing the affects after 4-5 years. And once again B12 can also be obtained through supplements.

Feel free to post what's on your mind about what I've stated here, if you have any objections to what I have said, please post a comment and I will address it as soon as I can. If you still have questions ask them and I will address that as soon as I can. Anything other than that can as well be posted.

 

[forks]

eating spinach, cereal, soy, nuts, seeds, supplement bars, beans, omega 3 supplements and b12 supplements sounds like a lot more work than just eating meat.

if i understand correctly, you're saying not that meat is unhealthy, but that it is unnecessary because its nutritional contribution can be replicated by combinations of other food items. this being so, is it not the case that meat is a more efficient source of these nutrients than the numerous listed alternatives, of which none is singly sufficient? and if the only non-carnal sources of omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin b12 are supplements, does that not mean that where or when these supplements have been unavailable (for instance, during the millennia of human existence predating the introduction of vitamin supplements), the consumption of meat was indeed necessary?

 

[Dandatpenguin]

eating spinach, cereal, soy, nuts, seeds, supplement bars, beans, omega 3 supplements and b12 supplements sounds like a lot more work than just eating meat.

if i understand correctly, you're saying not that meat is unhealthy, but that it is unnecessary because its nutritional contribution can be replicated by combinations of other food items. this being so, is it not the case that meat is a more efficient source of these nutrients than the numerous listed alternatives, of which none is singly sufficient? and if the only non-carnal sources of omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin b12 are supplements, does that not mean that where or when these supplements have been unavailable (for instance, during the millennia of human existence predating the introduction of vitamin supplements), the consumption of meat was indeed necessary?

Maybe I wasn't clear, but yes I am trying to say that meat is unhealthy. A 28 year Harvard research study stated that people who ate three ounces of red meat every day were about 13 percent more likely to die—often from heart disease or cancer—before the study ended than people who didn’t eat meat. And daily servings of processed meat such as bacon raised the risk of early death by 20 percent. This research was conducted after tracking food choices of more than 121,00 adults. Your statement regarding whether one is singly sufficient I would say that nuts are very sufficient. In 100g of peanuts there is 26g of protein, in 100 grams of chicken nuggets there is 15g of protein. Perhaps you're still not satisfied by that example, with the same amount of grams (100) of steak you get 25g of protein, in a fish there is 19g of protein. And yes I am saying that before vitamin supplements were introduced that early man did indeed have to eat meat as a way to survive. We live in a more evolved society where we have access to these supplements. Of course in undeveloped countries such as most of northern Africa, they do not have access to to these alternatives and therefore cannot make a decision for themselves. We do.

 

[Mr.E]

The average person has very little to worry about as far as nutrition is concerned: Consume the right amount of calories and eat a good variety of food. The typical food pyramid serves as a fine guide. You don't have to follow it to the letter. The point is that if you eat a little bit of everything -- meat, beans, veggies, fruit, grains -- you'll probably happen upon all your essential nutrients without needing to actively keep track of your diet. People with special dietary concerns, whether biological (e.g. diabetic) or ethical (e.g. vegans), have to put a little more effort to finding alternative sources of certain vitamins and minerals that are commonly gotten from the food groups they're cutting back/out but it's not rocket science. Then it's just consuming the proper amount to control your weight. You can take a vitamin supplement if you're paranoid, though, or if a doctor recommends it after testing.

Most claims out there are either unsubstantiated urban myths or marketing BS. Subway is no more healthy than McDonald's or any other fast food restaurant, they simply encourage and advertise their healthier options. (Did you know an Egg McMuffin is one of the most nutritionally well-balanced breakfast sandwiches out there?) It's just their marketing niche: Subway is healthy, Arby's is premium, McDonald's is cheap. You can eat healthy or not at all three. Soda won't erode your teeth, unless you swish it around your mouth for unrealistic amounts of time, nor dehydrate you.

No, milk doesn't deplete calcium from your bones.

You have to go out of your way to eat something more acidic (or basic) than your body can handle (e.g. drink a beaker of H2SO4), since otherwise the stomach just acidifies the hell out of everything you ingest anyway. If it even made sense for acidic foods to deplete calcium for your bones, and it doesn't, the calcium in the milk would surely make up for it compared to most any other acidic food, no? And milk is barely even acidic.

 

[Dandatpenguin]

The average person has very little to worry about as far as nutrition is concerned: Consume the right amount of calories and eat a good variety of food. The typical food pyramid serves as a fine guide. You don't have to follow it to the letter. The point is that if you eat a little bit of everything -- meat, beans, veggies, fruit, grains -- you'll probably happen upon all your essential nutrients without needing to actively keep track of your diet. People with special dietary concerns, whether biological (e.g. diabetic) or ethical (e.g. vegans), have to put a little more effort to finding alternative sources of certain vitamins and minerals that are commonly gotten from the food groups they're cutting back/out but it's not rocket science. Then it's just consuming the proper amount to control your weight. You can take a vitamin supplement if you're paranoid, though, or if a doctor recommends it after testing.

Most claims out there are either unsubstantiated urban myths or marketing BS. Subway is no more healthy than McDonald's or any other fast food restaurant, they simply encourage and advertise their healthier options. (Did you know an Egg McMuffin is one of the most nutritionally well-balanced breakfast sandwiches out there?) It's just their marketing niche: Subway is healthy, Arby's is premium, McDonald's is cheap. You can eat healthy or not at all three. Soda won't erode your teeth, unless you swish it around your mouth for unrealistic amounts of time, nor dehydrate you. No, milk doesn't deplete calcium from your bones.

Milk doesn't deplete calcium from our bones? I can't tell whether you're joking or being serious. In case you're serious here a few websites I suggest you read
http://saveourbones.com/osteoporosis-milk-myth/
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium-full-story/
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/milk-for-your-bones
http://www.goodkarmafoods.com/is-your-milk-depleting-your-calcium/
http://plenteousveg.com/milk-calcium/
http://www.thedoctorstv.com/GreenFi...Build-Strong-Bones-Here-s-What-Else-You-Need-
http://www.kimmis.hubpages.com/hub/Milk-Depletes-Calcium
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/health-fitness/trends-fads/is-milk-bad-for-your-bones
http://healthierteeth.weebly.com/cow-milk-actually-depletes-calcium.html
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...he-milk-myth-what-your-body-really-needs.aspx

I tried my best to find unbiased and credible websites.

 

[newtonja]

also I am going to point out that the human body is designed to hunt and eat meat, sure you can compensate, but we are preditors, one good proof of this is that our eyes are on the front of our head, not the side. And just saying, one study doesn't cut it, there will always be conflicting studies like that. Also what are the variable, how much did meat eaters exercise, where did the red meat come from, at what time did they eat it? All of these things go into the results
Edit: However, I am under the belief that we need to cut our meat consumption.
Edit2: I think I made it sound like I was saying that men are carniviors, I am aware that we are omniviors and need a balance that includes grain and vegitables.

 

[Mr.E]

I read the Harvard link because it's the one I trust the most on its face; I'm certainly not reading them all and don't consider all of them credible. All it said was milk was a perfectly fine source of calcium, but not the only one, and a dietary concern for some people (e.g. those who are lactose intolerant). Drinking milk does not actively pull calcium from your bones, however the body will pull calcium from there to ensure everything else functions properly if you don't get enough from outside sources. Indeed, milk is a primary source of calcium for many people such as the body avoids having to do it. The WebMD is basically an anecdotal blurb of some random author that cites an inconclusive article published by someone with a biased agenda against milk consumption.

Which is... pretty much my post applied specifically to milk. Drinking a glass of milk is a good source of certain nutrients, primarily calcium and vitamin D. If you drink too much of it, you may be consuming too much fat (if it's not skim) and not enough carbs/protein. Depending on your eating habits, you may either consume too many calories, or the proper amount of calories but not enough other foods. (i.e. More milk = less everything else, which contain nutrients milk lacks.) Excessive amounts of milk can be bad for you just like anything else in excess. But it doesn't do anything crazy like pull calcium out of your body or otherwise harm you consumed regularly.

As far as meat is concerned, I don't inherently have a problem with eating it. That happens everywhere in the animal kingdom and I don't personally place ourselves on some type of special pedestal that says we have to be above and beyond eating lesser creatures. (I don't see why animals get special treatment and plants don't anyway.) And while certainly the slaughtering of animals for our consumption is sometimes done in less than savory manners, I'm of the opinion the entire industry doesn't need to be boycotted because of some bad apples anymore than, well, all fruit should be avoided because of the occasional bad apple. ;[

I couldn't tell you how much meat I eat daily but a lot of it isn't red meat either. Fish is meat too.

 

[BenTheDemon]

I actually considered being a Nutritionist. I'm a vegetarian, and I try to keep a well balanced diet.
I rarely get sick, and I believe that that's due to me being conscience of what I eat. I also enjoy reading books on nutrition.
My favorite nutritional mystery is this:
Fruits and vegetables have nearly no vitamin B12, yet strict vegans don't suffer from lack of vitamin B12 any more often than non-vegans.

 

[Dandatpenguin]

also I am going to point out that the human body is designed to hunt and eat meat, sure you can compensate, but we are preditors, one good proof of this is that our eyes are on the front of our head, not the side. And just saying, one study doesn't cut it, there will always be conflicting studies like that. Also what are the variable, how much did meat eaters exercise, where did the red meat come from, at what time did they eat it? All of these things go into the results
Edit: However, I am under the belief that we need to cut our meat consumption

You couldn't be more wrong, and your "proof" suggesting that our eyes in front of our head and not to the sides of our heads has to do with evolution a completely different subject. Back to the fact that you couldn't/cannot comprehend a high school textbook (which I'm suggesting due to your lack of knowledge regarding what you're saying) I simply put it like this. Lions have claws, we do not. Lions can pickup senses easily, we cannot. We DO NOT have razor sharp teeth to rip meat apart. If we did knives would be considered obsolete, we cannot digest raw meat but lions are able to. My last argument is lions have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly humans have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length. I suggest you Google what you're saying before you say it friend.

 

[Dandatpenguin]

I read the Harvard link because it's the one I trust the most on its face; I'm certainly not reading them all and don't consider all of them credible. All it said was milk was a perfectly fine source of calcium, but not the only one, and a dietary concern for some people (e.g. those who are lactose intolerant). Drinking milk does not actively pull calcium from your bones, however the body will pull calcium from there to ensure everything else functions properly if you don't get enough from outside sources. Indeed, milk is a primary source of calcium for many people such as the body avoids having to do it. The WebMD is basically an anecdotal blurb of some random author that cites an inconclusive article published by someone with a biased agenda against milk consumption.

Which is... pretty much my post applied specifically to milk. Drinking a glass of milk is a good source of certain nutrients, primarily calcium and vitamin D. If you drink too much of it, you may be consuming too much fat (if it's not skim) and not enough carbs/protein. Depending on your eating habits, you may either consume too many calories, or the proper amount of calories but not enough other foods. (i.e. More milk = less everything else, which contain nutrients milk lacks.) Excessive amounts of milk can be bad for you just like anything else in excess. But it doesn't do anything crazy like pull calcium out of your body or otherwise harm you consumed regularly.

As far as meat is concerned, I don't inherently have a problem with eating it. That happens everywhere in the animal kingdom and I don't personally place ourselves on some type of special pedestal that says we have to be above and beyond eating lesser creatures. (I don't see why animals get special treatment and plants don't anyway.) And while certainly the slaughtering of animals for our consumption is sometimes done in less than savory manners, I'm of the opinion the entire industry doesn't need to be boycotted because of some bad apples anymore than, well, all fruit should be avoided because of the occasional bad apple. ;[

I couldn't tell you how much meat I eat daily but a lot of it isn't red meat either. Fish is meat too.

Let me start off by addressing your logic saying that we can eat meat because it happens in nature. This is what's called the appeal to nature fallacy. Rape, murder, and theft all happen in nature does that mean we should make it acceptable in today's society? No. The reason why animals get "special treatment" and plants don't is because animals are sentient beings, who can feel pain, make relationships with other animals, and can make decisions for themselves. On the other hand plants who are not sentient beings, cannot feel pain, cannot make relationships, and cannot make decisions for themselves. Plants don't have brains, and only react to stimuli. Yes while they are still living beings I need to eat them to survive, I do not need to eat meat to survive.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I find the OP's comment on Milk "acidifying" our bodies almost laughable-- because if you're really worried about acids detracting from your calcium supply, then there's far worse than milk. Whether most people even realize it, they're constantly consuming highly acidic foods, whether it be citrus or straight up vinegar in almost a majority of seasonings and found in almost every culinary culture-- there's no escaping it. Acids are also some of the healthiest forms of seasonings; and certainly blasting a burger with Tobasco or Lemon juice is better for you than covering it with more salt.

Hell, when I eat a bowl of Ramen, I go through half a soy sauce bottle full of vinegar on average-- I'm far past worrying acid in milk. lol

Acidic foods are a staple of human diet, and targeting milk as a culprit is laughable when looking at food as a whole.

In the end, we're all going to die-- the point is to live with health and nutrition that will allow us to live lives rich enough in experience to satisfy us. To me, living without some fatty tuna on sushi vinegar rice, hamburgers with vinegar-rich BBQ sauce, and Lemon grass chicken would just-- not be living.

 

[Abra Kapocus]

hyper mega snip

Hate to say it, man, but you went from not wanting to force beliefs on people to doing just that.

 

[CPrime]

I was really hoping this could be a nutrition thread, not a vegan thread. Guess I shouldn't have expected so much!

 

[GatoDelFuego]

"corrupt government" giving us all that propaganda, soon the illuminati's gonna take over, right?

You couldn't be more wrong, and your "proof" suggesting that our eyes in front of our head and not to the sides of our heads has to do with evolution a completely different subject. Back to the fact that you couldn't/cannot comprehend a high school textbook (which I'm suggesting due to your lack of knowledge regarding what you're saying) I simply put it like this. Lions have claws, we do not. Lions can pickup senses easily, we cannot. We DO NOT have razor sharp teeth to rip meat apart. If we did knives would be considered obsolete, we cannot digest raw meat but lions are able to. My last argument is lions have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly humans have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length. I suggest you Google what you're saying before you say it friend.

This is incredibly laughable. Humans are the only animal on the planet to be able to eat meat that isn't raw. Why is that? Because we are also the only species to have invented fire. Our ability to consume complex proteins fuels our brain to development beyond an ape state...fire and cooking meat was one of the true drivers of human civilization. We DO have teeth to tear meat, they're called canines. What we can't rip apart, we use tools for. How did we get smart enough to use tools? By eating meat. I don't understand how the length of the digestive tract has to do with anything.

I understand that we are at an evolved stage where we can take supplements for our nutritional needs. Supplements don't contain calories, though, which meat does. It's filled with energy!


Going back to the first post, meat is not a carcinogen. Therefore people eating meat every day being more likely to die of cancer? Surely not because of meat. I mean, is your inclusion of that study really trying to say that meat is a carcinogen?

 

[newtonja]

You couldn't be more wrong, and your "proof" suggesting that our eyes in front of our head and not to the sides of our heads has to do with evolution a completely different subject. Back to the fact that you couldn't/cannot comprehend a high school textbook (which I'm suggesting due to your lack of knowledge regarding what you're saying) I simply put it like this. Lions have claws, we do not. Lions can pickup senses easily, we cannot. We DO NOT have razor sharp teeth to rip meat apart. If we did knives would be considered obsolete, we cannot digest raw meat but lions are able to. My last argument is lions have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly humans have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length. I suggest you Google what you're saying before you say it friend.

First off, please you could be a bit kinder, we are talking about food. I do suppose I could be more specific. We are designed to eat both animals and plants. We have both teeth for grinding and tearing. While animals like horses have teeth only for grinding. also I was taught that preditors have eyes in the front in a text book. Examples lions, wolves, apes and monkeys, bears, eagles, owls, and the list goes on. Now are there exceptions? Sure as with any rule in nature, but the trend is very convincing. But if the whole preditor thing isn't the cause of eyes forward, what is?

 

[moonbound]

Why do you worry about this stuff when the flourine in tap water is literally turning our brains into government-slave soup???

 

[Cresselia~~]

Re Chou,

Milk acidifying the body is different from how acidic it was to start with.
Things like citrus and vinegar does not acidify your body, whilst milk does. (To be more specific, it alters blood pH. And calcium is used to buffer it, that's why you actually loose calcium upon drinking milk.)
I suppose it is due to not all acids are the same. Some gets retained in the body and some does not.
And apparently, this theory is being proposed by Professor Campbell, instead of made up by the OP.
People in Asia rarely drink milk (especially, 10 years ago), but their rate of getting osteoporosis is actually very low.

also I am going to point out that the human body is designed to hunt and eat meat, sure you can compensate, but we are preditors, one good proof of this is that our eyes are on the front of our head, not the side. And just saying, one study doesn't cut it, there will always be conflicting studies like that. Also what are the variable, how much did meat eaters exercise, where did the red meat come from, at what time did they eat it? All of these things go into the results
Edit: However, I am under the belief that we need to cut our meat consumption

To be fair, a better word to use is "omnivorous".
We do need a bit of meat, but not so much meat like cats or dogs do since they are "carnivorous" instead of "omnivorous"

We, unlike cats or dogs, we need more grains and vegetables.
The length of our intestines is half-way between carnivores and herbivores. And also, our dentition formula is different.
This means, we need both plants and animals as part of our diet, and too much meat can be bad for us, since it stays in the intestine longer than in carnivores.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Thanks Jynx

anyway...

First off, please you could be a bit kinder, we are talking about food. I do suppose I could be more specific. We are designed to eat both animals and plants. We have both teeth for grinding and tearing. While animals like horses have teeth only for grinding. also I was taught that preditors have eyes in the front in a text book. Examples lions, wolves, apes and monkeys, bears, eagles, owls, and the list goes on. Now are there exceptions? Sure as with any rule in nature, but the trend is very convincing. But if the whole preditor thing isn't the cause of eyes forward, what is?

Actually... eyes in the front of the head evolve for depth perception. This is good when you're chasing down prey yes... but it's also good for many other life-styles, such as judging distance between branches when you jump...

There are many species of primates that are completely herbivores-- but forward facing eyes and enhanced visual sensory (such as color vision) are excellent tools for arboreal travel (jumping between branches) and arboreal food identification (such as homing in on fruit or younger leaves at greater distances). Throw in intelligence and social living to give you a decent eagle/leopard defense without side-facing eyes, and you got the basic blue prints of primate success. The eye position is not a proof of predatory ability in our case...


But then, GatoDelFuego is also correct that meat-eating is what gave early humans the needed proteins to build bigger brains and drive our own evolution and intelligence. Forward facing eyes may have evolved for life in the trees, but obviously translated well to life as a plains predator-- Excellent eyes and vision, matched with height from standing and intelligence, social behavior, power from weapons, and a form of locomotion that granted superior endurance and long-chase abilities; we were able to translate our basic biology to fit well into the same type of niche fit by wolves/hyenas. Even more so once the nose of the Dog was added, once the similar-life-style wolf also evolved into dogs, and our combined "packs" (if you will) represented hunting ability with unprecedented efficiency and effectiveness. And always, meat and the hunt drove that early biological human evolution.


That said, I don't really think our evolutionary roots should weigh in on the discussion much. What we "have eaten" is only somewhat relevant to what we "should eat." Animals are constantly evolving to take advantage of new food sources-- even now, it's only taken an evolutionary eye-blink for people around the world to evolve the genes needed to keep producing the enzymes to break down dairy products as adults (lactose tolerance), which evolved in cats (and dogs?) simultaneously.


The fact that meat drove the evolution of the human brain and the fact that cow milk has evolved to feed cow calves-- both of these facts are of little relevance to the discussion.

The human brain can certainly develop without meat now; while saying humans are evolved to eat organic grains and vegetables is equally laughable. Let's not bring base evolution into an end-all explanation for good nutrition.

 

[whistle]

never thought i would say i agree with every part of a mre post,, much less two of them,, ur doing gods work son

@ op: it is hard to take u seriously when u say that newtonja has no idea wat he is talking about and u turn around and spew this milk = acid junk with 0 justification. now maybe it is because i am only 15 and not very good at chemistry, but i have not read about this anywhere in school. closest i could find is http://jn.nutrition.org/content/138/1/164S.full (which acknowledges the point and dismisses it in the context of a balanced diet), interesting to note could not find physiology textbook that mention this

claim is there are several nutrients that are commonly found in omnivore diets that can be replaced in vegan diets. ok, maybe true, i have my doubts about the science but lets assume it is for the sake of argument. in any case, it is unsurprising that the government caters information to the dumbest dumbs, u have people who think fruit loops are fruits. u think it is good government policy to tell these ppl its ok if u dont eat meat, just eat plenty of soybeans and fish, no the fish flavored rice fake sushi from costco doesn't count as fish? whats this u dont know wat soybeans are? it is much easier just to say milk and meat, then ppl who have ethical qualms with doing that can do their own research. as far as big bad biopower goes... this is pretty harmless

u don't need to eat plants to survive, there is woman in nepal (?) who has been on hunger strike for 10+ years and survives off an iv drip of nutrients (altho idk wat goes into the iv drip). ppl eat meat because they don't have a convincing reason not to. ppl like u being militant does not help the cause

 

[Dandatpenguin]

I was really hoping this could be a nutrition thread, not a vegan thread. Guess I shouldn't have expected so much!

Veganism is always relevant in nutrition since most of it IS nutrition.

Re Chou,

And apparently, this theory is being proposed by Professor Campbell, instead of made up by the OP.

While I do agree with the theory when I have I ever claimed to come up with it?

"corrupt government" giving us all that propaganda, soon the illuminati's gonna take over, right?



This is incredibly laughable. Humans are the only animal on the planet to be able to eat meat that isn't raw. Why is that? Because we are also the only species to have invented fire. Our ability to consume complex proteins fuels our brain to development beyond an ape state...fire and cooking meat was one of the true drivers of human civilization. We DO have teeth to tear meat, they're called canines. What we can't rip apart, we use tools for. How did we get smart enough to use tools? By eating meat. I don't understand how the length of the digestive tract has to do with anything.

I understand that we are at an evolved stage where we can take supplements for our nutritional needs. Supplements don't contain calories, though, which meat does. It's filled with energy!


Going back to the first post, meat is not a carcinogen. Therefore people eating meat every day being more likely to die of cancer? Surely not because of meat. I mean, is your inclusion of that study really trying to say that meat is a carcinogen?

Me saying a government is corrupt is a form of yellow journalism or sensational writing to make the reader want to read this post. Secondly If we are truly born predators and are made to eat meat then why would we have to cook it in the first place? All other carnivorous animals don't need to cook their food in order to digest it, then why do we have to.

 

[Relados]

The reason why animals get "special treatment" and plants don't is because animals are sentient beings, who can feel pain, make relationships with other animals, and can make decisions for themselves. On the other hand plants who are not sentient beings, cannot feel pain, cannot make relationships, and cannot make decisions for themselves. Plants don't have brains, and only react to stimuli.

I would just like to point out that our brains and actions are just reactions to stimuli as well, only at a more complicated level that we can't yet break down completely. Sentience isn't a measurable or discrete quantity, it's a label that we arbitrarily assign. At what point do we consider life not sentient anymore - when it doesn't have a central nervous system, or when it doesn't have nerves, or when it doesn't have multiple cells? If we're going to be assigning some life as more important as others, is it right to amputate or remove any part of your body, since those are human cells, sometimes with many nerves as well? If the label is arbitrary, then why does it have meaning?

We are omnivores. Eating excessive amounts of meat or the wrong kinds of meat is unhealthy, but, like many things, is fine in moderation.

 

[Dandatpenguin]

I would just like to point out that our brains and actions are just reactions to stimuli as well, only at a more complicated level that we can't yet break down completely. Sentience isn't a measurable or discrete quantity, it's a label that we arbitrarily assign. At what point do we consider life not sentient anymore - when it doesn't have a central nervous system, or when it doesn't have nerves, or when it doesn't have multiple cells? If we're going to be assigning some life as more important as others, is it right to amputate or remove any part of your body, since those are human cells, sometimes with many nerves as well? If the label is arbitrary, then why does it have meaning?

We are omnivores. Eating excessive amounts of meat or the wrong kinds of meat is unhealthy, but, like many things, is fine in moderation.

Sentience is defined as the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity. Unlike humans plants cannot feel, perceive, or experience subjectivity. Plants cannot decide for themselves because they do not have a brain, we can. I never stated the plants were lesser beings than us I simply stated that they are not sentient and I have no problem eating them because I need to eat them to survive. On the other hand animals who are sentient beings and can make relationships, have emotions, feel pain, and have the will to live just as humans are not needed in my diet.

 

[Relados]

Sentience is defined as the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity. Unlike humans plants cannot feel, perceive, or experience subjectivity. Plants cannot decide for themselves because they do not have a brain, we can. I never stated the plants were lesser beings than us I simply stated that they are not sentient and I have no problem eating them because I need to eat them to survive. On the other hand animals who are sentient beings and can make relationships, have emotions, feel pain, and have the will to live just as humans are not needed in my diet.

You misunderstand my entire point - I'm not confused as to what sentience means, I'm asking if it even matters. Feeling, perceiving, and any of our thoughts are just reactions to stimuli, just like a plant is able to change the direction of its growth. We denote our reactions as "important" and give it meaning where there intrinsically is none (from an objective standpoint). A relationship is a complicated net of reactions, emotions and pain are just nerve responses. A sponge has a web of nerves, but no central nervous system, which is necessary for relationships or emotions (though you could argue it feels "pain," although without a central brain or ganglia it would just simply be a reflexive response). Insects and crustaceans don't have brains as we know them, they have ganglia - does that mean it's fine to eat them?

What I'm saying is for an objective argument, you can't use a dichotomy of "sentient" and "non-sentient" and label that as significant.

Please understand that when taking in account ethics of any of this, the idea of sentience could be argued to have meaning, but as you've said we're not getting into the ethical debate here - hence, my argument.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Secondly If we are truly born predators and are made to eat meat then why would we have to cook it in the first place? All other carnivorous animals don't need to cook their food in order to digest it, then why do we have to.

We most certainly DON'T have to cook it to digest it.

It's raw, it's perfectly digestible, and probably about as "sentient" as it comes-- whale sashimi. Tastes somewhere between fatty tuna and steak-- but slimy, 'cause raw. Eh, not the tastiest thing I ever ate, but it was alright, and never gave me digestive problems the few times I had it.

My opinion, you want a REALLY nice raw mammal, go for horse. Horse Sashimi-- mmm, great! Pretty close to Maguro.


But dat whale meat sure looks good though:

but eh... Raw Horse > Raw Whale in my book.

 

[Soul Fly]

Sentience is defined as the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity. Unlike humans plants cannot feel, perceive, or experience subjectivity. Plants cannot decide for themselves because they do not have a brain, we can. I never stated the plants were lesser beings than us I simply stated that they are not sentient and I have no problem eating them because I need to eat them to survive. On the other hand animals who are sentient beings and can make relationships, have emotions, feel pain, and have the will to live just as humans are not needed in my diet.

1.
No.
Animals possess very primeval sentience limited to three basic instincts: Food, Territory and Fucking. At least the ones we eat. And there's absolutely no fucking evidence to whatever bullshit you're spouting about plants not feeling pain, it took us almost a millenia just to prove they are living beings. How does an organism without any form of communication portray pain? It's inconclusive and asshole assumptive ignorance on your part to make a hypocrisy riddles statement.

Quoting Botanist-writer Carol Kaesek Yoon:
"When a plant is wounded, its body immediately kicks into protection mode. It releases a bouquet of volatile chemicals, which in some cases have been shown to induce neighboring plants to pre-emptively step up their own chemical defenses and in other cases to lure in predators of the beasts that may be causing the damage to the plants. Inside the plant, repair systems are engaged and defenses are mounted, the molecular details of which scientists are still working out, but which involve signaling molecules coursing through the body to rally the cellular troops, even the enlisting of the genome itself, which begins churning out defense-related proteins ... If you think about it, though, why would we expect any organism to lie down and die for our dinner? Organisms have evolved to do everything in their power to avoid being extinguished. How long would any lineage be likely to last if its members effectively didn’t care if you killed them?"

2.
Stop trying to fit Humans in the food chain. There's a reason we're on the top. Our Intelligence coupled with our omnivorous digestive systems make us an exception rather than the norm. Yes we have a choice... but it's not obligatory on our part since a starving tiger will clearly not return the favour.

3.
HUMAN BEINGS ARE PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF EATING MEAT RAW. FUCK YOU AND FUCK YOUR FALLACIOUS MEME-FICATION. YOU ARE A LITERAL IGNORAMOUS. GO GOOGLE WHAT "SASHIMI" IS, ALTERNATIVELY YOU CAN ALSO TRY THE QUERY "BEEF TARTARE"

Gato is Perfectly correct when he says the only reason we eat is cooked is because WE ARE FUCKING SMART and invented fire. It makes meat tastier and easier to digest... that's a no brainer. So give me a good reason to have it raw? Why do we wear clothes? Why do we have AC's in homes?
I'll reiterate this again HUMAN BEINGS ARE INTELLIGENT CREATURES and we'll always be the exception. And we've since been conditioned, even on evolutionary lines. The only reason we have it cooked because WE FUCKING CAN, and thanks to our supreme standards of sanitation (compared to wild animals) the only reason we cannot have it raw is because we're susceptible to foodborn pathogens and bacteria (ie: food poisoning) since we're not conditioned for them. It's the same reason the guy from USA takes malaria shots before going for the African Safari or gets diarrhea bingeing on Vietnamese street food, just on a more magnified scale. That and the fact that the excessive saturated fat gained from meat has a chance of clogging up your arteries etc etc.... because ONCE AGAIN THANKS TO OUR INTELLIGENCE... we are an extremely sedentary species, compared to any other wild creature and our civilized lifestyle doesn't permit it anymore.

Just to make it clear that I'm not stooping to your level and pulling 'facts' out of thin air,
Sources:
This Guy's has eaten nothing but raw meat for the past 5 years.
Can we stomach a raw meat mono diet? (tl;dr YES)

=====
I'll repeat it again. Your 'facts' are half baked and mostly completely wrong or pure conjecture and you're spouting a bastardized theory (which isn't even your own) as an absolute statement, while it is not... and it's pretty clear you don't properly know what you're speaking about. I really didn't have a reason to be hostile to you, (because I believe everyone's entitled to an opinion, no matter how ludicrous) until you stopped replying overwhelming points brought up by some posters and resorted to half assed memes and sweeping generalizations instead of making credible responses backed up by proper sources. Be happy people are even bothering to reply to you.