blabbate

I want this. It's like a superpower.

Actually, whether you look in Exodus or Deuteronomy, the first commandment is always, "Have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3, Deut 5:7) Ego first, then everything else. Killing is 5th or 6th, depending on chapter and interpretation.

It's much more efficient to be biased against all of them indiscriminately.

Like Jimmy Hendrix? Exactly, which is why Jimmy is healthy to this day. Unfortunately, Jimi Hendrix had no such advantage and died young of probable drug overdose.

Don't be a fool. Keith is essentially unkillable. Poison, shock, impact, nothing can kill the man. You'd probably have to behead him and burn the body. I suspect he derives some sort of dark power from bandanas.

I wasn't criticizing him, simply making an observation. I just find it odd that he was praying the bug would make it to his destination okay when if it really mattered that much to him he could have ensured that. Pulling over on the highway in rush-hour traffic in DC is not a good move. It's dangerous to yourself and your fellow drivers.

That must be why you didn't feel any need to inconvenience yourself by taking 30 seconds to pull over and send him on his merry way. I don't see a need to be snarky. Rain is one of the most sincere people on the forum. Perception is reality as far as the masses are concerned. As you mention, society has a preconception about vegans. We want to fight those preconceptions so that more people will feel comfortable with a vegan diet and lifestyle. Of course, most of us probably believe, at least for ethical reasons, that it's better to be vegan and out of shape rather than omni and fit, but vegan and fit seems like the best choice overall.

It's PCRM. Drs. Katcher and Barnard are running it. They're good folks. Neal got me to go vegan in the first place, and Heather has worked with us some since then.

It certainly helps that you're in shape and not wasting away. You're showing everyone that you can be vegan and still strong and fit. That really makes people reconsider their preconceptions.

Fair enough. Note, not all crazy is bad and not all activism is bad. For instance, spay/neuter and abandoned/homeless animal activism are great, as are lobbying and petitioning against Monsanto. But picketing department and fur stores just pisses people off, as do many other PETA actions. It's a bit bad-crazy.

I've always understood what veganism is and what it entails, so I was initially surprised at the silly questions everyone has. Things like, "No meat? What about chicken? Fish?" Or, "No dairy, but can you have butter? Eggs?" Now I'm used to them. However, now that I'm around vegans more, I see that a very vocal minority is actually stranger than I thought with respect to diet. I'm thinking specifically of the blood-type eating, pH eating, monoeating, vibrational food, etc fanatics. Even some of the raw food people, but only a few. I just didn't expect so much bad science. I'm accustomed to a certain level of ... rigor regarding scientific claims. On animal rights, though, everyone seems to be pretty sensible. Very, very few PETA-level crazies. Instead, people are tempered and intelligent about the issue. I don't think others understand that we're not all out there picketing Bloomingdales and breaking into animal testing labs (not to say that I'm strictly against the latter).

Well, you don't want to get fat, of course. But it's ok to carry a few extra pounds. It won't be much weight, but have you seen off-season bodybuilders?

Diet Gatorade was introduced 7 years after that guy died. I'm not trying to say Gatorade is necessarily good for anyone, but it's not accurate to single out the gatorade or the creatine from that article, when it's the diet soda which supposedly could have caused the poisoning. I'm not even sure why they mentioned the gatorade. Also, "For about a month prior to his death, Fleming had complained to his wife about shortness of breath and intermittent nausea. For years Fleming drank ten or more 12-ounce cans of diet soft drinks each day and each evening had 2-4 mixed drinks of bourbon and Diet Sprite. He drank very little water and never tea or coffee. while on his fitness regimen, he ate various protein health bars and took several pharmaceutical preparations including Prevacid, digestive antacid, Tetracycline (antibiotic), Naproxed (digestive anti-inflammatory ), a multivitamin with iron and Vancenase AQ, a nasal inhaler for allergies." I think the lesson here is don't drink 120+ oz of diet soft drinks and 2-4 mixed drinks per day along with a variety of medications and supplements while not hydrating. This guy was a bomb waiting to go off.

Midsection fat is just fat. It's not special. There's no guaranteed way to spot-gain or spot-reduce fat aside from gaining/losing fat overall. So to keep off midsection fat, keep off fat in general. Whether that's possible during bulking is a different question. The majority here seem to think that it's best to just bulk like crazy and accept that you'll gain some fat, then cut back down afterwards. The other option is to try and balance your diet so that you gain muscle without fat, but it's going to take much longer and probably not work perfectly anyway, so you might as well go with option 1.

Saw this a few months back at a film fest in Philly, and yeah, it's pretty great. If you have any friends who doubt Monsanto and factory farming are horrible things, take them to see it. I don't even have a problem with GMO crops in terms of personal health and safety, but nobody should be able to claim they aren't unethical and dangerous as an industry.

Hmm, The website says "...Bodybuilding and Fitness." To me, fitness suggests not doing things like consuming excessive protein which are known from the theory and experience to create health problems like arthritis, osteoporosis, and kidney and liver problems. And there are other areas in the forum in which to discuss those theories. Proteins are made of the same building blocks, regardless of animal or plant source; in fact, animals do not create protein. Any amino acids in an animal came from a plant. You don't have a point. Proteins are made of the same building blocks, but so what? That doesn't mean all they behave the same way, nor that they're treated the same way in the body. There's so much wrong with that implication that I don't even know where to start. I didn't insert the "but not animal." That was in the report. Bottom line is that the report recommends 10-15% and gives no indication that intake over that level is dangerous. If you don't like the report or think it's biased, then don't use it to support your arguments. And if the "real figures" trusted by "many researchers" are below 10%, then give sources from those researchers showing those numbers. I don't know why you'd use a source you don't trust. So you agree that the WHO report shows no link between protein and cancer. Your only source for that claim remains the China Study. Right, 10% like I said. And any vegan knows how upwardly politicized these figures are. So if they say 10% that includes margin of error so the actual number is 10% or less.No, not "10% like [you] said." You said "no more than 10%." Last I checked, 35% was more than 10%. If that and "politiciz[ation]" are your only complaints about my rebuttal, I assume you'll be withdrawing this source as well. Protein is not normally taken as energy. Only if insufficient carbs and fats are consumed is protein converted to carbs for burning. Protein's purpose is to build and replace damaged tissue; a very, very small requirement when compared to energy needs. In fact, digesting protein into carbs for energy is a net energy loss which is why Atkins Diets work and high protein diets cause fatigue.It's not like excess protein simply disappears. Excess aminos are deaminated in the liver and either used immediately or converted to glucose via gluconeogenesis, then stored as glycogen or fat. Either way, it's stored as energy and counts as part of your energy intake. Also, digesting protein into carbs is not a "net energy loss." The suggestion is absurd. Gluconeogenesis, glycogenesis, and fatty acid synthesis are efficient processes. If they weren't, your body wouldn't use them. The caloric content of protein at about 4kcal/g is well-known and takes into account the mechanisms required to convert it into usable energy. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18523160. Deamination is already accounted for. Assuming that more is better, particularly considering the large body of evidence to the contrary, is very dangerous. More is not better when it comes to protein. I'm saying you shouldn't assume anything either way. And despite your repeated claims, you haven't actually provided any evidence. You obviously have never read one word of the China Study; it was conducted over decades involving thousands of people and millions of data points. It is the largest nutritional epidemiological study ever done. And it was funded by the NIH because they understood just how unique the opportunity was. Instead of reading some blurb on a website, you should take an evening or two, and actually read it. It's an extremely influential vegan health book, and no vegan should not have read it. I've read it, but I'm not going to reacquire a copy and find specific passages just for this thread. It's easier just to Google. Anyway, I think you missed the point regarding the statistics. More data points don't matter unless they're differentiable. Once you reach a statistically significant number of data points that are going to coalesce into a single set upon aggregation, it doesn't matter if you add more data points to that set. They're indistinguishable. You'll get as much value by simply copying and pasting the data over and over to artificially increase the sample. Additional data points only matter if they differentiate. Regardless of how long it took to collect the data or how many people were involved, the China Study boils down to the equivalent of 65 observations across the hundreds of variables they were studying. That's a Bad Thing. It's scientifically and statistically compromising. And again, it's very specific to certain proteins. Casein, for instance. Within the book, Campbell even admits that he generalizes from casein to all animal proteins (and animal foods in general) in his early studies. And he himself notes that other proteins (soy and wheat) are "safe proteins." Those are his own words. Or do you prefer the Morrison study that he misrepresents? And as for the China Study itself, even if we ignore the statistical shortcomings, the data itself doesn't match his claims. None of the protein consumption numbers had a statistically significant relationship to cancer or heart disease mortality.

And that's fine, but your goals are different from the OP's. This actually advises between 10-15%, not 10% and lower. But more importantly, if you read the whole report, there are no indications that a higher level of vegetable protein is harmful. The only mention in the report of protein increasing risk for any disease is with regards to osteoporosis, and it specifies animal protein: "To date, the accumulated data indicate that the adverse effect of protein, in particular animal (but not vegetable) protein, might outweigh the positive effect of calcium intake on calcium balance." If you read the section on cancer, which you specifically mentioned as a risk, you'll see no mention of protein at all. The press release actually recommends between 10% and 35% protein. And if you read the study the press release is about, "DRI for Macronutrients," you'll see those numbers are the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range, the ideal range to minimize chronic disease. The report doesn't even set any tolerable upper intake levels. The RDA is more concerned with minimum required intake. They recommend 0.8g/kg based on digestibility of reference proteins. Digestibility of vegan protein sources averages about 90% of reference, sometimes significantly lower (beans are 82%, greens are 86%). They also state that there is no evidence that increase protein intake leads to renal problems. They mention that it has been "suggested" that habitual high protein intake might contribute to osteoporosis, but it has "not [been] demonstrated" and "seems unlikely based on present evidence." In the end, they believe it's prudent to set an upper bound of twice the RDA, which is 1.6g/kg at 100% digestibility, and is significantly higher than 10% of energy intake. The China Study is still as flawed as it was when first published. 65 observations and hundreds of variables. It's statistically useless. And it focuses more on meat than on protein. http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8e.shtml That may indeed be true. I honestly don't know. But it also doesn't say anything about increased levels being harmful. You haven't made a point. Your sources boil down to papers that contradict your 10% figure, make no mention of increased protein intake contributing to health risks, or are statistically invalid.

No offense intended, because this certainly isn't a bad thing, but you look like a runner, not a lifter. I don't think anyone here doubts you can have a runner's physique on a low-protein diet, but you're not providing evidence that someone can get big or bodybuild that way. A quick google shows no link between dietary protein and arthritis. Some articles about RAGE inflammation and soy protein relieving symptoms, but that's all. As to protein and cancer, all I can find is the Washington U study from 2006, which is flawed on its face. They didn't control for caloric intake, protein source, or GI, all of which are significant when looking at IGF. If you have other studies I should look at, please share. This isn't just about deficiency, though. The OP specifically said he's a lifter. He just wants to know how to get 100 g of protein on a vegan diet, not how much is necessary to stave off deficiency.

ditto!!Oh you ladies crack me up. I enjoy my gender ambiguity on this forum.

You know how people say, "There's no such thing as a stupid question?" That's a lie. If you're performing oral sex and not ingesting any fluid at all, you're doing it wrong. Why? Because it's fun! Nobody's saying you should be doing it with random people or someone you don't trust. It is possible to have oral sex under safe, controlled circumstances. And anyway, that's beyond the scope of the original question. Oral sex is vegan. You aren't harming or commoditizing a living creature.

Is this about the Stanley Cup finals? It's nice to see the Pens finally doing something worthwhile.

So this is going to be at least a half-pound lollipop?

I'm with johan, both on his vitamin recommendations and his signature pic. Vitamin D is a must for me, as well as B vitamins, and then mostly RDI from there. Oh, and if it could not taste like lawn, that would be terrific.

Both of things are true, and are sorta creepy things to say about a growth-stunted 17-year-old. Creepy??? Yeah, because I have enough balls to say what most hetro guys are thinking. I'm not sure what her being 4' 10' has to do with anything. Hey, I said both things are true, so I think she's hot, but it's still creepy. I'm just ok with creepy.

Ugh, I'm so sick of Kate, with her freaky Steven Tyler mouth and incessant whining. And normally I love freckled brunettes. Give me Juliet any day. Or Sun. Or even Rose or zombie Shannon.