I’m not even vegetarian/ vegan, but you just come off as a giant asshole.
It is a well known fact that it’s entirely possible to thrive on a non meat diet. So your argument that we need meat to thrive is a really bad one.
The world works the way we make it work. Imagine wanting to end slavery, and there you go “Grow up from the little child crying over the idea of slaves deserving their own lives, you just don’t understand how the world works!”
You don’t have to justify wanting to eat meat for sustenance. And you also don’t need to be an asshole about it when engaging in civil conversations.
Wrong. Please stop spreading dangerous misinformation. Most should probably be eating LESS meat than they do, but none? You’re harming your body. Plain and simple.
Veganism is a dangerous death cult and needs to be stopped.
What you are saying has no scientific basis. What your body needs are vitamins, minerals, protein, and glucose.
The body is harmed to various degrees if you stop your intake of either of those. But meat isn’t the only source of protein. Just from the top of my head, oats and green lenses are excellent sources of protein.
Your body does not care where you get your protein from. As long as you get some.
This is elementary school level biology.
Like I said. Eat whatever you want. I don’t care what you eat. But fact remains that your body doesn’t need meat. It needs protein.
Know what else is science? The fact that the amount of protein from non-meat sources means you have to eat A WHOLE LOT of this food to equal one decent-sized serving of meat.
Enjoy literally stuffing yourself with vegan food while I eat one serving of meat for the same amount of nutrients.
Goddamn, vegans get pissy when you tell the truth. Maybe eating some meat might help that mood.
I just love that you bring up science. Because our bodies typically can’t process more than 40-50grams of protein per meal for repairing muscle tissue.
The rest is used for other things not necessarily reserved for protein.
If you’re under the impression a vegan needs to eat buckets full of green lenses you’re gravely mistaken.
I’ve already told you I’m not a vegan. Not only do I eat meat. I’m a licensed hunter.
You’re just wrong about this. Science isn’t your strong suit. That’s ok. You don’t have to justify eating meat. Just don’t bring science into it. You clearly don’t understand the scientific process.
Science isn’t your strong suit. That’s ok. You don’t have to justify eating meat. Just don’t bring science into it. You clearly don’t understand the scientific process.
I’m fairly certain at this point when you say science you just mean your opinion, and you like to insult other people’s intelligence and motivations. That isn’t nice, you will find better discussions when you treat people with respect.
To get 100g of bioavailable protein one needs to eat 470g of ground beef, or 2,500g of broccoli. So yes, buckets and buckets, of course being deficient is the default option as well.
I don’t think you read the study you linked. It shows I was wrong, it’s LOWER than 40-50 grams per serving according to the study.
A total of 80 g of whey protein was ingested in one of the following three conditions: 8 servings of 10 g every 1.5 h; 4 servings of 20 g every 3 h; or 2 servings of 40 g every 6 h. Results showed that MPS was greatest in those who consumed 4 servings of 20 g of protein, suggesting no additional benefit, and actually a lower rise in MPS when consuming the higher dosage (40 g) under the conditions imposed in the study.
According to their study, the optimal amount seems to be closer to 20g per meal, eating in intervals of 3 hours.
And why are you picking broccoli? Instead of something that contains more protein such as green lentils or oats. Probably because it wouldn’t fit your argument.
And no. I don’t mean my opinion when I say science. I mean the results coming from peer reviewed, repeatable experiments, that we use to conclude results based on our hypothesis.
At this point, this is just your rhetoric, I know you haven’t had time to read the whole paper since you responded.
It shows I was wrong, it’s LOWER than 40-50 grams per serving according to the study.
You will notice that in the IF section, and the OMAD section, groups of women (both young and old) they maintained their muscle mass despite exceeding the single meal limit.
the optimal amount seems to be closer to 20g per meal, eating in intervals of 3 hours.
Optimal for whom, and in what context? The point of the survey was that there are MANY variables at place, and focusing on a single group and a single metric (young body builders, anabolism) is being too simplistic.
And why are you picking broccoli? Instead of something that contains more protein such as green lentils or oats. Probably because it wouldn’t fit your argument.
If you care to look at the DIAAS calculator for oats you will see they are not a complete source of amino acids. Potatoes would be a better choice. In your original comment you mentioned buckets of leafy greens, so I was restricting myself to green material.
I don’t mean my opinion when I say science. I mean the results coming from peer reviewed, repeatable experiments, that we use to conclude results based on our hypothesis.
You have a tendency to over simplify, and not provide references.
You’re not eating oats for the amino acids. You eat them for their protein and carbonhydrate content. Which is the topic here.
If you read just a little bit of it. You would know whom it was optimal for and in what context.
There is a big difference between protein used for rebuilding muscle tissue, and just providing fuel for the body as a whole. At a certain point. The excess protein you put in, isn’t going to be used for rebuilding tissue. It’s going to be stored as energy to be used.
I’m not gonna go into a big argument with someone that thinks a vegan diet is impossible for maintaining your body. There are many well known elite athletes that are vegan. If they can perform on an elite level on a strictly vegan diet. Normal people can sure as hell live on it as well.
It’s not a debate. We already know the answer. Your notion that veganiam is a “death cult” is just ridiculous. I have no doubt, you’ll be able to drag me down to your stupidity and beat me with experience.
I’m not even vegetarian/ vegan, but you just come off as a giant asshole.
It is a well known fact that it’s entirely possible to thrive on a non meat diet. So your argument that we need meat to thrive is a really bad one.
The world works the way we make it work. Imagine wanting to end slavery, and there you go “Grow up from the little child crying over the idea of slaves deserving their own lives, you just don’t understand how the world works!”
You don’t have to justify wanting to eat meat for sustenance. And you also don’t need to be an asshole about it when engaging in civil conversations.
Wrong. Please stop spreading dangerous misinformation. Most should probably be eating LESS meat than they do, but none? You’re harming your body. Plain and simple.
Veganism is a dangerous death cult and needs to be stopped.
What you are saying has no scientific basis. What your body needs are vitamins, minerals, protein, and glucose.
The body is harmed to various degrees if you stop your intake of either of those. But meat isn’t the only source of protein. Just from the top of my head, oats and green lenses are excellent sources of protein.
Your body does not care where you get your protein from. As long as you get some.
This is elementary school level biology.
Like I said. Eat whatever you want. I don’t care what you eat. But fact remains that your body doesn’t need meat. It needs protein.
Know what else is science? The fact that the amount of protein from non-meat sources means you have to eat A WHOLE LOT of this food to equal one decent-sized serving of meat.
Enjoy literally stuffing yourself with vegan food while I eat one serving of meat for the same amount of nutrients.
Goddamn, vegans get pissy when you tell the truth. Maybe eating some meat might help that mood.
I just love that you bring up science. Because our bodies typically can’t process more than 40-50grams of protein per meal for repairing muscle tissue.
The rest is used for other things not necessarily reserved for protein.
If you’re under the impression a vegan needs to eat buckets full of green lenses you’re gravely mistaken.
I’ve already told you I’m not a vegan. Not only do I eat meat. I’m a licensed hunter.
You’re just wrong about this. Science isn’t your strong suit. That’s ok. You don’t have to justify eating meat. Just don’t bring science into it. You clearly don’t understand the scientific process.
I’m fairly certain at this point when you say science you just mean your opinion, and you like to insult other people’s intelligence and motivations. That isn’t nice, you will find better discussions when you treat people with respect.
@the_doktor@lemmy.zip you have been incredibly patient, I applaud you.
Not actually true. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12970-018-0215-1
Priority Micronutrient Density in Foods
Please let me introduce you to DIAAS - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestible_Indispensable_Amino_Acid_Score and https://www.diaas-calculator.com/
To get 100g of bioavailable protein one needs to eat 470g of ground beef, or 2,500g of broccoli. So yes, buckets and buckets, of course being deficient is the default option as well.
I don’t think you read the study you linked. It shows I was wrong, it’s LOWER than 40-50 grams per serving according to the study.
According to their study, the optimal amount seems to be closer to 20g per meal, eating in intervals of 3 hours.
And why are you picking broccoli? Instead of something that contains more protein such as green lentils or oats. Probably because it wouldn’t fit your argument.
And no. I don’t mean my opinion when I say science. I mean the results coming from peer reviewed, repeatable experiments, that we use to conclude results based on our hypothesis.
At this point, this is just your rhetoric, I know you haven’t had time to read the whole paper since you responded.
You will notice that in the IF section, and the OMAD section, groups of women (both young and old) they maintained their muscle mass despite exceeding the single meal limit.
Optimal for whom, and in what context? The point of the survey was that there are MANY variables at place, and focusing on a single group and a single metric (young body builders, anabolism) is being too simplistic.
If you care to look at the DIAAS calculator for oats you will see they are not a complete source of amino acids. Potatoes would be a better choice. In your original comment you mentioned buckets of leafy greens, so I was restricting myself to green material.
You have a tendency to over simplify, and not provide references.
You’re not eating oats for the amino acids. You eat them for their protein and carbonhydrate content. Which is the topic here.
If you read just a little bit of it. You would know whom it was optimal for and in what context.
There is a big difference between protein used for rebuilding muscle tissue, and just providing fuel for the body as a whole. At a certain point. The excess protein you put in, isn’t going to be used for rebuilding tissue. It’s going to be stored as energy to be used.
I’m not gonna go into a big argument with someone that thinks a vegan diet is impossible for maintaining your body. There are many well known elite athletes that are vegan. If they can perform on an elite level on a strictly vegan diet. Normal people can sure as hell live on it as well.
It’s not a debate. We already know the answer. Your notion that veganiam is a “death cult” is just ridiculous. I have no doubt, you’ll be able to drag me down to your stupidity and beat me with experience.
Good luck.