TeDaDeS
Forum Addict!
McDonalds actually also provides a vegetarian and vegan menu (in some countries).
Still not the preferred place to eat, but a plan-B in case everything else fails.
Veganism
- Thread starter JDTAY
- Start date
Still not the preferred place to eat, but a plan-B in case everything else fails.
ClockworkCoder
Chaotic Neutral
Yeah, vegans aren't limited to uninspiring things like salad and nut loaf like they may have been 20 years or so ago (re dining out, or processed / pre-packaged food). Often I find myself trying the vegan option in a menu because frankly if often sounds the most interesting.
It's both boring and frankly unhealthy to not want to even attempt to broaden one's perspective or openness to try new things. I could be vegan (meat is not something I always crave for and do not need), but I'd be a hypocrite, as I have no problem with (having) a lifestyle such as having a small holding, and raising one's own livestock and crops and live modestly from it.
TeDaDeS
Forum Addict!
I actually respect people that 'raise' their own food. They usually understand really well where there food comes from.
McDonalds feels like the opposite of that, industrial prepared food.
comradekingu
Glowing ember
So if it isn't what it is you order from McDonalds that presents the real problem,
why would nutrition be based on cravings any more than opiates tend to your central-nerve system?
why would nutrition be based on cravings any more than opiates tend to your central-nerve system?
Like other animals, humans evolved to want to eat things that were good for them in those original environments. Then they figured out how to make food that tastes good regardless of nutrition. Also, what's good to eat in a harsh environment where you mostly aim to survive long enough to reproduce might not be the same as what gives you the best chance of a healthy old age in the modern world. But the original instincts do still have some use.
λ the β-Redex Reducer
β-Redex Reducing Member
Corpse-based chicken nuggets are bad for your health as well.
Being addicted to junkfood is just part of standard modern life, just like excess weight and chronic ailments are. So for almost anyone it is a given that they are addicted to some junkfood. But which junkfoods someone is addicted to differs per person. It can be meat, cheese, MSG, starch-heavy foods, refined sugar, etc. There are many different chronic ailments and everyone is chronically ill in their own unique way.
I guess you got unlucky if your specific set of chronic health issues make you dependent on meat. Good luck.
comradekingu
Glowing ember
@JDTAY
You appear to have changed most everything in your diet, and also some part of your training regimen all at once.
Get some blood-work done to find out if something is obviously wrong right-off the bat.
Also, get whatever supplements vegans normally take to stay ahead of the curve.
---
Nothing is more detached from nature and evolution than the modern vegan.
No concept of non-city life, never been close to anything even produced for consumption, and fundamentally convinced at that.
Diet consists of stuff that has either never been attempted, never for human consumption, or not at the volume for an even comparative cut of the populace.
These decisions are made based on, and I quote "spiritual advice", and backed by an in-group think-thank of logical fallacies.
Have some checks and balances, somewhere. You all have the capacity for it.
@λ the β-Redex Reducer
Comparing chicken nuggets to chicken (and I assume commercial modern chicken to chicken) and then defending it because
the base chicken nuggets are always unhealthy sums it all up. 3 logical fallacies deep, the health of the fellow man is now less important than veganism. And it didn't stop there…
Even the idea that no animal died to make the wheat and oils for the replacement is forgotten about, just because the mental model of eating something doesn't fit. This is a specific individual delusion. Thereby possibly instilling eating-disorders in others by adopting incorrect use of language to suit ones point is particularly ill-begotten.
Meat and cheese is never junk-food. These are protected food groups that commercial interests are all-to eager to mutilate and mimic.
It is stuff that attempts to be meat and cheese that is _always_ junk. It is also always _never_ a better product.
So why is cheese and meat key ingredients in what is considered junk?
The vegan oil it is cooked in, the vegan MSG that is added to it, and the vegan starch-heavy foods it is surrounded by, the refined sugar added to it, etc.
You aren't even chronically wrong… Delusions and food-addiction isn't chronic illness. All you have to do is make small adjustments and it is all corrected.
It isn't an unavoidable modern life at one end, and unique capacities in the other. It is very much what is in the middle.
There is a chronic health-issue that makes for meat-dependence, and it is an allergy to anything else. The opposite also exists.
Missing chicken isn't a chronic illness more than missing meat for vegans is unheard of…
There is a great deal of difference between being made dependent and having a penchant for something.
This is left as "can be", but an addiction is not always the same thing, and a further capacities of something it can be mixed in with is does not make everything the same addiction, just to get that cleared.
You say you went from "100% junkfood" "including meat and dairy" to something else.
Do you think it was the move away from it, or what in particular it got replaced by that produced the health-benefit?
Can we get some insight into "As for sugar replacement, honey is healthy but not good for bees."? What does that mean?
Harsh environments are great for health. Cold- and heat-shock protein production is exploited for this very reason.
What we have now, indulging on carbo-loading offset by high-fat trash does one thing well, and it is to produce sperm count and volume, at the detriment of just about all other physical properties. When conditions actually dictate who lives and dies it does wonders for turning evolution in a direction for what can be achieved in the conditions producing it. Outrunning base conditions hasn't happened yet.
There is a trade-off to how much work balances out calcium-deposits in the veins for example, but the betaglucanes of barley (and oats) is part of the traditional diet to balance this out.
The diet Europeans evolved with is still the best for Europeans. The idea that picking the most tasty things from it in abundance leads to other problems is exploited to no end by commercial interests that want to sell cheaper goods at high prices.
It is garbage if you do it as meat, and evidently the biggest meat-seller is happy to attempt replacing it all if it and only if it has better margins.
It didn't sell, so it was scrapped. No more telling scenario could be had for the underlying considerations.
Similarly, adapting diet to what is thought to be good for animals that aren't on it as an ethical consideration has no effective bearing on assured health. Eating only meat is a lot harder to fail with than very vegan but _never_ good for anyone trash.
Veganism has the benefit that its adopters are young (as over 80% stop), and more intelligent as it is an active choice of consideration (and with the age selection).
It has up until now been almost impossible to for example overeat on the lower-calorie stuff available, but as it becomes mass market, it can be targeted, and mass appeal is a regression to the norm for that selection bias.
Similarly, the people that get ill by going vegan will generally stop doing it and go back to what is normal for them.
I don't know the statistics for it, but veganism and suicide is in any event not racking up numbers high enough to matter, though I suspect it carries over well into areas of mental illness. Nutritional deficiencies from veganism do lead to isolated mental illnesses, so as societies adapt to keeping fat people alive artificially, there are other numbers to keep in mind when doing comparisons against their ilk.
Very sickly people for reasons other than diet will generally not go vegan (as some effect that curiously does well for the comparative health-benefit for the consumption for alcohol) but with the advent of heavy advertisement, now they actually might.
It is for these multitude of reasons disingenuous to create false dichotomies where any veganism gets to compare itself agaisn't non-conscious and non-free choice.
Or are we going to keep it consistent and treat the consumption of junk as it relates to the masses?
That junk is now people eating exclusively not-meat meat, which is an even grimmer comparison to a total that includes eating meat-based junk.
As this eat-your-own-dogfood exercise shows, what strictly amounts to veganism is just as much a red-herring in the debate about health.
Dumber people being more unhealthy is as constant a factor as not letting it dictate what one eats is a good idea.
As a microcosm of this, we now have entered a marketplace of bloggers on the same sorts of cheating and delusions trying to convert every tangible diet to an idea of all-encompassing bliss, as if it even applies to everyone equally.
Generally the only venue it defends this claim is when gullible idiots lap it up.
This is the same commercial interest that deemed the costly to produce butter "un-healty" as a solution to what to do with the motor-oil (rapeseed/canola) when the idea of lifetime (of the engine that wears out with no oil-changes) non-organic oil took hold.
If every single one of my ancestors survived doing one thing, will I replace it for supposedly helping adopt me to a lifestyle that also isn't something I am adapted for? No more than I am willing to start what I still consider to be ingesting cheap dog-food and motor-oil in my lifetime.
It is as easy for intelligent people to do better than average on veganism as it is to do worse than bad for the masses.
As with biology, the land-area available differs between regions too. How much water and power is available for global food-production isn't helped if reducing it means eating something else (that is possibly flown in) where it is found in abundance.
You appear to have changed most everything in your diet, and also some part of your training regimen all at once.
Get some blood-work done to find out if something is obviously wrong right-off the bat.
Also, get whatever supplements vegans normally take to stay ahead of the curve.
---
Nothing is more detached from nature and evolution than the modern vegan.
No concept of non-city life, never been close to anything even produced for consumption, and fundamentally convinced at that.
Diet consists of stuff that has either never been attempted, never for human consumption, or not at the volume for an even comparative cut of the populace.
These decisions are made based on, and I quote "spiritual advice", and backed by an in-group think-thank of logical fallacies.
Have some checks and balances, somewhere. You all have the capacity for it.
@λ the β-Redex Reducer
Comparing chicken nuggets to chicken (and I assume commercial modern chicken to chicken) and then defending it because
the base chicken nuggets are always unhealthy sums it all up. 3 logical fallacies deep, the health of the fellow man is now less important than veganism. And it didn't stop there…
Even the idea that no animal died to make the wheat and oils for the replacement is forgotten about, just because the mental model of eating something doesn't fit. This is a specific individual delusion. Thereby possibly instilling eating-disorders in others by adopting incorrect use of language to suit ones point is particularly ill-begotten.
Meat and cheese is never junk-food. These are protected food groups that commercial interests are all-to eager to mutilate and mimic.
It is stuff that attempts to be meat and cheese that is _always_ junk. It is also always _never_ a better product.
So why is cheese and meat key ingredients in what is considered junk?
The vegan oil it is cooked in, the vegan MSG that is added to it, and the vegan starch-heavy foods it is surrounded by, the refined sugar added to it, etc.
You aren't even chronically wrong… Delusions and food-addiction isn't chronic illness. All you have to do is make small adjustments and it is all corrected.
It isn't an unavoidable modern life at one end, and unique capacities in the other. It is very much what is in the middle.
There is a chronic health-issue that makes for meat-dependence, and it is an allergy to anything else. The opposite also exists.
Missing chicken isn't a chronic illness more than missing meat for vegans is unheard of…
There is a great deal of difference between being made dependent and having a penchant for something.
This is left as "can be", but an addiction is not always the same thing, and a further capacities of something it can be mixed in with is does not make everything the same addiction, just to get that cleared.
You say you went from "100% junkfood" "including meat and dairy" to something else.
Do you think it was the move away from it, or what in particular it got replaced by that produced the health-benefit?
Can we get some insight into "As for sugar replacement, honey is healthy but not good for bees."? What does that mean?
Unlike other animals, humans evolved to gain greater cognitive capacity as a result of eating meat, by outsmarting those animals and relinquishing a lot of raw physical capabilities. Moreover the humans with greater cranial volume became more successful, so it is still the most powerful biological pressure, even as it adapts to mimic other traits.
Harsh environments are great for health. Cold- and heat-shock protein production is exploited for this very reason.
What we have now, indulging on carbo-loading offset by high-fat trash does one thing well, and it is to produce sperm count and volume, at the detriment of just about all other physical properties. When conditions actually dictate who lives and dies it does wonders for turning evolution in a direction for what can be achieved in the conditions producing it. Outrunning base conditions hasn't happened yet.
There is a trade-off to how much work balances out calcium-deposits in the veins for example, but the betaglucanes of barley (and oats) is part of the traditional diet to balance this out.
The diet Europeans evolved with is still the best for Europeans. The idea that picking the most tasty things from it in abundance leads to other problems is exploited to no end by commercial interests that want to sell cheaper goods at high prices.
It is garbage if you do it as meat, and evidently the biggest meat-seller is happy to attempt replacing it all if it and only if it has better margins.
It didn't sell, so it was scrapped. No more telling scenario could be had for the underlying considerations.
Similarly, adapting diet to what is thought to be good for animals that aren't on it as an ethical consideration has no effective bearing on assured health. Eating only meat is a lot harder to fail with than very vegan but _never_ good for anyone trash.
Veganism has the benefit that its adopters are young (as over 80% stop), and more intelligent as it is an active choice of consideration (and with the age selection).
It has up until now been almost impossible to for example overeat on the lower-calorie stuff available, but as it becomes mass market, it can be targeted, and mass appeal is a regression to the norm for that selection bias.
Similarly, the people that get ill by going vegan will generally stop doing it and go back to what is normal for them.
I don't know the statistics for it, but veganism and suicide is in any event not racking up numbers high enough to matter, though I suspect it carries over well into areas of mental illness. Nutritional deficiencies from veganism do lead to isolated mental illnesses, so as societies adapt to keeping fat people alive artificially, there are other numbers to keep in mind when doing comparisons against their ilk.
Very sickly people for reasons other than diet will generally not go vegan (as some effect that curiously does well for the comparative health-benefit for the consumption for alcohol) but with the advent of heavy advertisement, now they actually might.
It is for these multitude of reasons disingenuous to create false dichotomies where any veganism gets to compare itself agaisn't non-conscious and non-free choice.
Or are we going to keep it consistent and treat the consumption of junk as it relates to the masses?
That junk is now people eating exclusively not-meat meat, which is an even grimmer comparison to a total that includes eating meat-based junk.
As this eat-your-own-dogfood exercise shows, what strictly amounts to veganism is just as much a red-herring in the debate about health.
Dumber people being more unhealthy is as constant a factor as not letting it dictate what one eats is a good idea.
As a microcosm of this, we now have entered a marketplace of bloggers on the same sorts of cheating and delusions trying to convert every tangible diet to an idea of all-encompassing bliss, as if it even applies to everyone equally.
Generally the only venue it defends this claim is when gullible idiots lap it up.
This is the same commercial interest that deemed the costly to produce butter "un-healty" as a solution to what to do with the motor-oil (rapeseed/canola) when the idea of lifetime (of the engine that wears out with no oil-changes) non-organic oil took hold.
If every single one of my ancestors survived doing one thing, will I replace it for supposedly helping adopt me to a lifestyle that also isn't something I am adapted for? No more than I am willing to start what I still consider to be ingesting cheap dog-food and motor-oil in my lifetime.
It is as easy for intelligent people to do better than average on veganism as it is to do worse than bad for the masses.
As with biology, the land-area available differs between regions too. How much water and power is available for global food-production isn't helped if reducing it means eating something else (that is possibly flown in) where it is found in abundance.
Last edited:
λ the β-Redex Reducer
β-Redex Reducing Member
I did not do that.
Wrong assumption.
I did not do that either.
All I said was that corpse-based chicken nuggets are unhealthy and plant-based chicken nuggets are unhealthy. It was just a quick one-liner, do not read a long preech into it.
@λ the β-Redex Reducer
the health of the fellow man is now less important than veganism.[/QUOTE]
Yet I say to cat owners that the healthiest diet for a cat is 100% raw meat. Why would I sacrifice veganism to tell the truth about cat health but then lie for veganism about human health? Humans are more important animals than cats are. If I would lie about humans for veganism then I would do it about cats as well.
Just because we cannot be perfect does not mean we have to give up and worse than we have too. I am just doing the best I can.
Besides, most industrial plant farming is done for the animal industry. Chickens need to eat, and they eat crops for which forests and natural habitats have been destroyed. So if you care about reducing the damage from industrial plant farming than going vegan is one way to lessen that damage.
The ideal solution IMO is vegan perma-culture. I am actually doing that myself, although I just started. This is how I want to solve my dependence on industrial foods.
The body heals automatically. Many sick people will heal once they removed whatever makes them sick. So even though good foods can help, I would say the main issue is to get rid of the bad.
It is bad for the bees if you take their honey. Also, supposedly the honey industry does much worse things than just taking the bees honey.
comradekingu
Glowing ember
Indeed, removed from what is a terrible diet, any other option sees the improvement in dispensing with the conditions the diet caused.
Bee-keepers keep bee-populations alive. The bees are free to leave.
Yes, subject to the content of what can qualify as vegan (since it is an ethical denominator), it can be unhealty, and/or as a component of meat as it is served popularly. Why vegans then cling to the idea that it is the meat that accompanies it that is unhealty, an own-goal is scored in a game nobody was playing.
This is also selection bias removed from what the food is, poised on what people do, and in particular dumb people overeating.
All the comparisons that fail to account for this is why veganism appears healthier.
This mass of people consuming the most popular vegan alternative is a lower quality food selection, but more to the point, the biggest restaurant with a vegan alternative on the menu just took it off because of popularity, meaning cost-benefit.
Veganism was never the issue in offering it in the first place, cost was.
Similarly, the availability of other food as the norm is what makes vegan places small and quirky. It takes a lot of manual labour and skill.
What is vegan perma-culture for you, and why can't or shouldn't it be industrial?
To me it just looks like the farming we have been doing forever, and now do for fun. No access to manure isn't helping, but I am unsure of the appeal.
Do you care about people hurting themselves, the environment around them, the effects of industrialization, or something else?
Bee-keepers keep bee-populations alive. The bees are free to leave.
Yes, subject to the content of what can qualify as vegan (since it is an ethical denominator), it can be unhealty, and/or as a component of meat as it is served popularly. Why vegans then cling to the idea that it is the meat that accompanies it that is unhealty, an own-goal is scored in a game nobody was playing.
This is also selection bias removed from what the food is, poised on what people do, and in particular dumb people overeating.
All the comparisons that fail to account for this is why veganism appears healthier.
This mass of people consuming the most popular vegan alternative is a lower quality food selection, but more to the point, the biggest restaurant with a vegan alternative on the menu just took it off because of popularity, meaning cost-benefit.
Veganism was never the issue in offering it in the first place, cost was.
Similarly, the availability of other food as the norm is what makes vegan places small and quirky. It takes a lot of manual labour and skill.
What is vegan perma-culture for you, and why can't or shouldn't it be industrial?
To me it just looks like the farming we have been doing forever, and now do for fun. No access to manure isn't helping, but I am unsure of the appeal.
Do you care about people hurting themselves, the environment around them, the effects of industrialization, or something else?
λ the β-Redex Reducer
β-Redex Reducing Member
Perma-culture is not special. In fact, every natural forest in the world is grown based on perma-culture principles. Perma-culture is the traditional way to do things. It means creating a natural food web and letting that do a lot of the work.
Maybe I ought to be clear about what I mean with "industrial". I use "industrial" to mean not perma-culture, that is, to mean using poison, artificial fertiliser, or a non-circular path for the nutrients where nutrients are exported away instead of returned to the land it came from. "Industrial" here means growing food without natural food web.
Human abuse, draining the land of nutrients, killing animals, mediocre fruit quality, and a lack of independence (as I am working towards self-sufficiency).
Why would there be no manure in vegan perma-culture?
