Couture547

Obviously that's a gross generalization that's not based on science since I just posted a study showing one animal protein that does not raise IGF-1 levels. I haven't seen many studies done on different proteins and IGF-1 levels. Please feel free to post the ones you've read.

I'd use the word superior protein when referring to plant proteins from whole foods. I'd take a food that is low in saturated fat, doesn't contain cholesterol, has many minerals, vitamins, has fiber, has healthy mono/ poly unsaturated fast, doesn't constipate you, takes short time to place though system any day over: No cabs, high cholesterol, high saturated fat to unsaturated fat ratios, has no fiber, has little to no vitamins or minerals, takes many days to past though the system(hence will people bowl movements spell like a rotting corpse) ect. We should look at the whole complex of foods rather then try and break down certain parts of certain foods. Highest doesn't equal best. You can't get the positives from animal products without taking the negatives with it. Can't imagine we're supposed to get are protein from foods that have such a negative side.

Yeah, i mean where did that do the protein come from that is on the animal if all they eat is unbalanced protein yet there meat is balanced? I bet the same thing would happen if you eat a frutians persons muscle meat that was built eating fruit which they would say is very deficient. Wouldn't it be more better to look at the profile of human breast milk then cows milk? or Human muscle ratios rather then a cow?

I really hate it when people say stuff like this, "it's not up for debate". Seems retarded to me since we do not know what we were evolved to eat so I would say it is very much up for debate. LOL yeah people are dieing of more and more diseases, meat eaters take smelly meat craps ect so there has to be a little bit of a debate. The Ego if this scientist to think they have it all figured out meanwhile they get the same problems that everyone gets.

I know, to think i was doing the right thing and find out it's a flawed diet and i'm supposed to eat meat that sucks

Yeah you guys are Right. The Vegan diet sucks for Human health, worse for athletes, poor protein quality, we're made to eat animal products and it has to be alot of it becase that plant protein sucks, but it is immoral to eat something that we're made to eat. The animal products give us colon cancer ect but that's just part of life, who wants to life that long anyways. That's a hard sell right there

But yet you are going to tell people how it is, when it comes to Eskimos. I was using them as a rare example of a culture that doesn't use primary carbs becasue there isn't many at all. probably more then them, but that comes to mind. If someone wants to follow there diet so be it

Couple places that i've checked have them averaging in the 60's. Haven't looked too much into and don't really care two since i'm a vegan and would like to continue as one. I think vegan or omni the most important factor is weather a diet is processed or not and next comes the macro/ micro ratio's. The problem with people considering a lower carb diet like the eskimo diet as a vegan is the diet is all processed fake foods like mock meats/ protein powders ect. Even if one lived on nothing but seeds/ nuts that's still 15 percent carbs or so. on a diet of mostly animal products you can eat un processed food and still keep the carbs as low as you want which would be healthier BTW i checked out the video and i really liked it

I take exception to your misinformation about Eskimos. Obese Eskimos might be more akin to the present, with the influx of the western diet. But fifty years ago obese Eskimos would have never survived the harsh physically demanding enviornment. (PS My wife father 100% Eskimo, living his whole life above the artic circle, died at age 94) I would also venture to say that any coastal dwelling communities had plenty of protein in their diets. Not every culture has had the same ratio. They have a shorter life ex then most cultures. and i'd imgaine if you put someone on that diet that hasn't had his parents and grandparents on that diet they wouldn't do all that well. better then the sad diet though. yeah every culture has different ratios but the most sucessful ones are majority carbs

I don't think it worked out that way at all and many of our ancestors survived on poor nnutrient diets, as has been proven by examinations of ancestral bones, and the diseases of. once we moved out of the so called garden of Eden and experience different climate changes and different diets that became available health was a greater variable, as could probably be proved by the average age of our ancestors. Are you refering to ancesters from 100,000 years ago? who knows what they did. i think it's better to look at what people have been doing more recently. what has worked and what hasn't. every culture has been on high carb/ moderate protein/ mod fat pretty much without exception except like the eskimos who are obese and have a short life ex. they are allso used to this diet with generation after generation doing it not something we can't say about most of are ancesters

I'm sure our ancestors had little issue with too much food over the 4 seasons, nor did macro ratios have any weight when it came to filling their bellies. that's why they were eatting diets in High in carbs, it's the easiest to find and grow. you can grow potatoes on the side of a cliff pretty much. carbs are the most abundant macro nutrient there is. but yeah they didn't worry about a percent, they didn't even know what nutrition was but it just happened that way

There in season about 2 months out of the year. All primates have a diet high in carbs, the only way that is happening for humans is either a ton of fruit or cooked starches Nuts and seed are much more calorie dense than fruits, due to the fat content. and easier to collect and store, not to mention they store better. Cooking has little to due with caloric values. I know and that is the issue with nuts and seeds, great in moderation but not good for a main calorie staple becasue it thoughs are ideal macro ratios out the window

There in season about 2 months out of the year. All primates have a diet high in carbs, the only way that is happening for humans is either a ton of fruit or cooked starches

Very few people exist on meat alone, we all consume fruits and vegetables in some form. so the argument is really only about the meat. ?

Yeah i agree, there has to be both. I think with the anti meat stuff we have as many people or pretty close to as many as we're going to have. Most people that truely care are all ready vegans, but then there's alot of people that like and care for animals but are feed these lies about protein and bone health and on and on. so to have Vegans saying the same stuff is very bad for the movement and we stunt it for sure.

Yep we're not made to eat that much greens, plus we'd have to eat all day to get are calorie needs, probably the reason we started cooked food (calorie dense)

I thought he was pretty fair, i thought it would be really bad. I really agree with him on 1 major point, You need to be more Pro Vegan rather then just Anti meat if we hope to make the movement bigger therefore lesson the suffering and killing of animals. i mean on the couple threads in the Heath section we had a couple members here saying that we evolved to eat meat and that plant protein is inferior to animal proteins and so on. Telling people to go to a inferior diet nutritionally isn't a good way at all to sell veganism. then you could say well what about the killing of animals? we'll you just got done saying we're made to eat them, so i hear alot of double speak and alot of anti meat but not pro veganism. I belive that Veganism is a Win win win all the way around the board and unless you approch it as such the movement will be slowed drastically

God Bless

I don't care about numbers and my body dont give a shit neither, my body doesn't even know what a number is. The best protein for human body is not the one with a highest number its the one that allows the best digestion and absorption. We're not even supposed to drink cow's milk or eat dairy products so let's not talk about it, it causes diseases and/or cannot even be digested for most people. Meat is a superior protein if you're a tiger or lion, but if you're human plant-based foods are superior. Meat takes 4 hours to digest and most of its calories come from proteins that are being lost just to be utilized as calories to digest the rest of the meat! Besides, unless you like raw eggs and raw meat, you need to cook it, which destroys about 30% of some amino acids. What is the PDCAAS for foods with high quality raw proteins like avocado and fenugreek, alfafa and other sprouts, quinoa, hemp and so on, and why do you think its not in that list? I guess because the meat and dairy industry wouldn't like that. If meat is so superior why so many people feel like shit after eating meat, especially if they stopped eating it for few days/weeks, they feel heavy, slow, they sweat, fall asleep etc after eating just a small peice of meat again. Why do carnivore animals in general have a much shorter lifespan than herbivores and plants. In case you didn't know already, science is often wrong. Actually, when science is wrong it shouldnt be called science but they call it like that anyway. It seems like science is your religion... Religion is always wrong; Science, often. Once they done a study they always speculate for trying to explain the results, and at the end they always write: more studies should be done soon to confirm, etc... But after like ten years they're still doing studies on chocolate, red wine and green tea. They've been telling us to drink one cup of wine each day and now they are saying even just one cup rises breast cancer risks by 30%, and even just one drop of any alcohol is carcinogenic. But it takes them all these years to discover this, while Shelton and others have been telling since the beginning that it is abnormal to drink alcohol, vinegar or eat salt. Shelton wrote: ''I am not "scientific" and in the present state of " science" I would be a fool if I were. I'd rather be right than to be " scientific". Now scientists are saying that green tea is healthier than water. There was an amazing article in the Globe & Mail few weeks ago but I can't find it online. It pointed out some of the conflicting statements scientists make, how they can say the exact opposite of what they were saying last year. Fallen Horse, if you believe science is right, then how do you explain there's some 'scientists' claiming we should thrive on meat and fat while some others say just the opposite. If they would know how to use their brain and common sense instead of stubbornly use only 10% of their brain these things wouldn't happen. Yeah good posts. If we eliminated all food that science says we shouldn't eat we'd be left with nothing

maybe it was casin, either way the ap raise the IGF-1

Animal products Raise IGF-1 Growth factor that leads to faster aging, unfortunately for many vegans that are heavy on processed soy products, soy protein raises it double what even Whey Protein Isolate does which raises it the highest of the AP. Dr. McDougall had a lecture about this

Shows how well the meat and dairy industried propaganda has worked, there's so much to nutrition and health yet a non vegan eatting fast food will be " Where do you get your Protein?" crazy even vegans buy into the animal products non sence from the very industry there supposed to be against. Kinda like the so called Race Science the nazi's did, the jews would be like "i hate those blonde hair blue eyed aryan people, but it's a fact there's superior, look at the science!!"

It's all muscle memory! His muscles must have a photographic memory. I wonder if there's such thing as muscle memory when you build that muscle on juice and then you go off and you lose a bunch of muscle

Saying humans evolved to eat meat is not backed by anything whatso ever. Have Humans been eatting it for a extremely long? for sure but that doesn't mean we've evolved to eatting it considering are amonmy doesn't support that claim. Not to mention there's a clear link between the amont of animal products people consume and there disease rate. that's like a cow having to limit it's grass intake or it gets cancer, but guess what you feed grains to livestock and they have diseases pop up. AS far as Ethics go if Humans are supposed to eat meat then there would be nothing wrong with consuming it. Should we stop breathing also becasue the Gobal warming fear rakers tell us it's humans causing it and of course we're a carbon based life form that breaths out carbon? Or kill all cows on the planet becasue they fart Methane gas?

Again those kinda of numbers are pure speculation on whats the best protein source. The best amino acid ratio for me maybe different for you or the next person. Of course the meat and dairly industry are going to fund studies that show meat/ dairy are needed for proper protein. Basically what a couple vegans are saying here is that Humans are made to eat meat. IF that's the case then how would it be unethical to do something we're supposed to do? out side of factory farming of course. Why stop there, might as well put all carnavores on soy protein isolote and other soy products becasue that would be more ethical.