Texas Ranch Has a New Owner

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

We could reword this for the other side:

A personal example. I had a very bad seizure (I have epilepsy) and was transported to the emergency room. I have great health insurance. However, the e.r. doctor who attended to me was not in-network with any insurance company nor was he required to be so. This means that he was able to charge whatever he wanted for his services and my insurance paid the out-of-network benefit. Turns out he charged me $5700 for the visit (way higher than the average), leaving me a bill of over $3000 after insurance. All of this is perfectly legal. In the e.r. I was postictal (post-seizure state) which means I had no idea what was going on and couldn't have made a choice on who was my doctor anyways.

After this I did a bunch of research and it is super common for e.r. doctors to not be in-network with any insurance. Why? Because they get so much more money this way. This dude got $5700 instead of the $800 or so he would have gotten if he had been in-network. I paid over 3 grand instead of the $150 I would have had to pay.

His personal liberty to charge whatever he wanted took advantage of me.

The next time I had a seizure I had to go to the e.r. because I dislocated my shoulder. I asked the doctor if he was in-network with my insurance. He said he didn't know. So there I am sitting in the e.r. making this decision: do I take a chance and I hope this doctor is actually in-network or do I go to the other hospital in town. I took the risk. When the bill came, it turns out he wasn't in-network but his company didn't charge me the balance. Some doctors do that because they can write it off on their taxes.

Last year my state of New Mexico passed a law requiring all doctors working in a hospital to be in-network with any insurance that the hospital takes. It took effect in January. This is a wonderful law aimed at curbing greedy doctors taking advantage of people in very vulnerable positions.

Yes, it takes away their personal liberty, but it protects me and others.

I suppose my long post in response to you is that maybe the issue of law/regulation vs. freedom is not quite as clear cut as your post makes it seem.

Of course.

But when you start regulating how much soda a person can buy that's another issue.

There's no point in carrying it to the Absurd from either side.

Edited February 17, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There is some truth to pointless regulation but I am wary of those who insist regulation is unnecessary by claiming they would do it anyway. Some regulation is inherently pointless. I work with getting approval for devices and they insist on a step in the procedure for using it. The step is pointless and is there as a legacy of an entirely different technology. So we are required by law to put in a step that means nothing and we cannot say we did it for fear that in court it would be asked how it worked or if we could prove it happened. So we invented something that does almost nothing and is pointless but it could be called that step with a bit of squinting. We gave it to the federal agency and explained all this. They felt it worked while covering the bases. When our competitors followed us into the market they did the same thing. Some things are even stupider. There was a bill in Ohio requiring doctors to, in certain circumstances, perform a certain medical procedure. The downside is that the procedure does not exist. I think it made it into law.

It is enough to make you think regulation is inherently bad. Then I look at cities drowning in smog from photos before the EPA and the decrease in a avoidable deaths when doctors are required to be educated and witch doctors are not allowed to pretend they are doctors. I see the strong in society bullying the weak and regulation is their only defense from being run over.

It is something we need but only works when done intelligently by the well-informed with discretion and wisdom. In other words humanity almost always gets it wrong.

 

No argument here either.

[RevTestament]

On 2/13/2020 at 9:21 AM, pogi said:

I'm not a fan of the cattle industry.  I think it is one of the most wasteful and inefficient foods to produce.  It is bad for the planet, bad for our health, and it also happens to be against the word of wisdom (unless we are in famine - which we are not).

I don't think the industry is sustainable long-term, personally. 

I know I am going to get a lot of flack for this position, but that is ok.  

I believe that is a misinterpretation of the WoW. I don't think there is "eating meat sparingly" in a famine. It might be all you have to eat. The "sparingly" language tells me it is ok to eat meat "sparingly" unless there is a famine. If there is a famine, you might only have meat to eat. I eat meat(incl seafood, etc) on average about one time per day. I wish no ill will on those who interpret it differently, or who wish to eat a vegan diet, but I think that goes beyond the WoW. In fact if eaten sparingly, I believe meat, poultry, fish, etc is the best way to build and maintain muscle. However, I am not going to disagree with your comments about the cattle industry, but there are other ways to supplement the diet than to support the cattle industry if you don't care to. 

[RevTestament]

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

We could reword this for the other side:

A personal example. I had a very bad seizure (I have epilepsy) and was transported to the emergency room. I have great health insurance. However, the e.r. doctor who attended to me was not in-network with any insurance company nor was he required to be so. This means that he was able to charge whatever he wanted for his services and my insurance paid the out-of-network benefit. Turns out he charged me $5700 for the visit (way higher than the average), leaving me a bill of over $3000 after insurance. All of this is perfectly legal. In the e.r. I was postictal (post-seizure state) which means I had no idea what was going on and couldn't have made a choice on who was my doctor anyways.

After this I did a bunch of research and it is super common for e.r. doctors to not be in-network with any insurance. Why? Because they get so much more money this way. This dude got $5700 instead of the $800 or so he would have gotten if he had been in-network. I paid over 3 grand instead of the $150 I would have had to pay.

His personal liberty to charge whatever he wanted took advantage of me.

The next time I had a seizure I had to go to the e.r. because I dislocated my shoulder. I asked the doctor if he was in-network with my insurance. He said he didn't know. So there I am sitting in the e.r. making this decision: do I take a chance and I hope this doctor is actually in-network or do I go to the other hospital in town. I took the risk. When the bill came, it turns out he wasn't in-network but his company didn't charge me the balance. Some doctors do that because they can write it off on their taxes.

Last year my state of New Mexico passed a law requiring all doctors working in a hospital to be in-network with any insurance that the hospital takes. It took effect in January. This is a wonderful law aimed at curbing greedy doctors taking advantage of people in very vulnerable positions.

Yes, it takes away their personal liberty, but it protects me and others.

I suppose my long post in response to you is that maybe the issue of law/regulation vs. freedom is not quite as clear cut as your post makes it seem.

I am sorry that happened to you, but things like this do point out how the system needs to change. I am personally not for the US govt getting involved in health insurance, and have doubts about how constitutional that is. I guess we can always change the constitution - I don't think it was written with the idea of health insurance in mind - but it certainly does fall within the power of states to regulate. Constitutional law traditionally left issues of health and welfare up to the states - that is until more recently with the likes of Obama care, etc. 

I do think it makes little sense for health insurance companies to be able to write themselves out of responsibility for pre-existing conditions - what a nightmare. And I think states have the power to require companies to provide health care insurance or at least some type of support towards a minimal state health dept. But it seems states have not really taken up that banner, and because they haven't, Democrats seem to think the US government should field it. I do think there is a need for a better system than what we had before Obama, which left many Americans uninsured.

The Church provides a minimal means of support in the event people have emergencies arise, but that doesn't typically pay hospital bills which can easily reach far beyond what the average person makes in a year. I do wish people would push their state governments for good systems - what works best can be adopted in other states.

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It would be a stupid sacrifice.

So you ended up agreeing anyway?  Alright.  Have a good one, the Nehor.

[pogi]

8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

In fact if eaten sparingly, I believe meat, poultry, fish, etc is the best way to build and maintain muscle. 

That myth has been thoroughly debunked.  Plants hold all of the essential amino acids to build/maintain strong muscles, without the nasty side effects of meats.  Have you ever heard the expression "strong as an ox"?  It's an ironic phrase that many meat eating muscle builders use - because an ox is an herbivore.  A strong man world-record holder, and considered by many to be the strongest man in the world, happens to also be a vegan.  Go figure!  Arnold Schwarzenegger is also a vegan and works to dispel the myth you stated.  The sports industry is starting to figure out that the myth is not true and many football players are going vegan and performing much better for it.  There are many, many gold medal olympians who are vegan.  It is absolutely untrue to suggest that meat is the "best" way to build muscle.  It is the worst!  It reduces blood circulation in the short term and long term (proven) and can't provide the same muscle energy provided by carbs that muscles need (meat makes you sluggish).  Again, there are no proteins found in meats that we can't find in plants - how do you think an ox builds his muscle?

 

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by pogi

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

That myth has been thoroughly debunked.  Plants hold all of the essential amino acids to build/maintain strong muscles, without the nasty side effects of meats.  Have you ever heard the expression "strong as an ox"?  It's an ironic phrase that many meat eating muscle builders use - because an ox is an herbivore.  A strong man world-record holder, and considered by many to be the strongest man in the world, happens to also be a vegan.  Go figure!  Arnold Schwarzenegger is also a vegan and works to dispel the myth you stated.

I am not going to get in a debate with you, but that is misleading. Arnold only became mostly vegan a few years ago. In his body building competition days he was not vegan. Meats are an easier and more complete source for the amino acids our proteins need. That is why I say they are a better source for building muscle. Yeshua helped His apostles fish, and fed a crowd with fish. These things are not myth. 

Quote

 The sports industry is starting to figure out that the myth is not true and many football players are going vegan and performing much better for it.  There are many, many gold medal olympians who are vegan.  It is absolutely untrue to suggest that meat is the "best" way to build muscle.  It is the worst!  It reduces blood circulation in the short term and long term (proven) and can't provide the same muscle energy provided by carbs that muscles need (meat makes you sluggish).  Again, there are no proteins found in meats that we can't find in plants - how do you think an ox builds his muscle?

This is also debatable. I have come to believe that carbs are not the best source of energy, but of course that does depend on what you are trying to do. For short strength needs complex carbs are not bad, but support the glucose based metabolism. This has downsides, and often is not the best for long-term energy needs largely because of the by-products of burning sugar like lactic acid which makes muscles tired and sore. Many, many modern athletic nutritionists are coming to the understanding that ketones are a better energy source for long-term energy needs. Shifting the body away from carbs trains it to utilize ketones, which results in better endurance and less to no exhaustion. I can tell I am not going to convince you, and I have already said I mean no offense - my only point was that I believe it is misleading to suggest that the WoW basically supports a vegan only diet.

Edited February 17, 2020 by RevTestament

[pogi]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I am not going to get in a debate with you, but that is misleading. Arnold only became mostly vegan a few years ago. In his body building competition days he was not vegan. Meats are an easier and more complete source for the amino acids our proteins need. That is why I say they are a better source for building muscle. Yeshua helped His apostles fish, and fed a crowd with fish. These things are not myth. 

This is also debatable. I have come to believe that carbs are not the best source of energy, but of course that does depend on what you are trying to do. For short strength needs complex carbs are not bad, but support the glucose based metabolism. This has downsides, and often is not the best for long-term energy needs largely because of the by-products of burning sugar like lactic acid which makes muscles tired and sore. Many, many modern athletic nutritionists are coming to the understanding that ketones are a better energy source for long-term energy needs. Shifting the body away from carbs trains it to utilize ketones, which results in better endurance and less to no exhaustion. I can tell I am not going to convince you, and I have already said I mean no offense - my only point was that I believe it is misleading to suggest that the WoW basically supports a vegan only diet.

I think it is misleading to suggest that the WoW doesn't support a vegan only diet, as if there is something wrong with that.  My personal interpretation is to eat meat sparingly.  Of, course that is very subjective.  I eat fish 3 times/week, so I am not completely vegan, and I don't only eat it in winter or famine.  I only suggested that that is one possible interpretation of the WoW.  

How can you suggest that meats are a more complete source of amino acids?  What amino acids does a vegan diet lack to make it less than complete?  I wonder how Patrik Baboumian is able to get as strong as he is a pure vegan if that is true.   What about an ox?

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

This is also debatable. I have come to believe that carbs are not the best source of energy, but of course that does depend on what you are trying to do. For short strength needs complex carbs are not bad, but support the glucose based metabolism. This has downsides, and often is not the best for long-term energy needs largely because of the by-products of burning sugar like lactic acid which makes muscles tired and sore. Many, many modern athletic nutritionists are coming to the understanding that ketones are a better energy source for long-term energy needs. Shifting the body away from carbs trains it to utilize ketones, which results in better endurance and less to no exhaustion. I can tell I am not going to convince you, and I have already said I mean no offense - my only point was that I believe it is misleading to suggest that the WoW basically supports a vegan only diet.

 Lots of theories out there, but when studied and tested in the real world, the exercise capacity of vegans are on par with their meat eating counter-parts:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31109329

When you consider recovery time however, the vegans kick butt with their high antioxidant diet.

Extreme endurance athletes are increasingly turning to veganism for that reason, and are competing just as well.  It is also a debunked myth to suggest that meat provides more "long-term" energy needs.   These are extreme endurance athletes - 100 mile runners etc.!  If they can do well on a vegan diet with long-term energy needs, it is ridiculous to suggest that the vegan diet is somehow inadequate for the average-Joe American.  I would suggest that around 95% of Americans would have improved health and well-being if they converted to a whole-foods-vegan diet.  OR at least ate meat much, much more sparingly and increased whole foods.

I always kind of chuckle when people bring up muscle building and long-term endurance as reasons not to be vegan - as if the average fast-food, high sugar, and high processed food consuming American wouldn't benefit from this diet.    If it is good enough for competing extreme weightlifters, and endurance athletes, why is it not good enough for me?  As if I need more muscle or have more long-term energy needs than they do.

There simply is no good health reason for the average American (and even competitive athlete) to not reduce, or completely eliminate meat consumption from their diet.  On the contrary, there are tons of good health reasons to do so.  

Edited February 17, 2020 by pogi

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

How can [one] suggest that meats are a more complete source of amino acids?  What amino acids does a vegan diet lack to make it less than complete?

I think the argument would be that comparing "meats" to "a vegan diet" isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Animal proteins are considered "complete" sources of protein because they contain all of the essential amino acids your body needs to function effectively. Whereas plant protein sources are all "incomplete" as they lack one or more essential amino acids (or lack one or more in sufficient quantities to really be effective). 

So, while it is certainly possible for one to get everything a body needs on a vegan diet, it involves being more cognizant of your diet and planning accordingly.

It's markedly easier to just consume meat every now an then.

 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Amulek said:

So, while it is certainly possible for one to get everything a body needs on a vegan diet, it involves being more cognizant of your diet and planning accordingly.

You can’t get all your nutrition from meat. Even if you include meat, healthy diets generally mean paying attention to being balanced in terms of fruits and vegetables to get needed vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc some of which is not available in meat as well as amino acids one can get from meat or by having a variety of plant proteins.  It is rare that if one has a varied diet with enough calories it won’t also have the needed amino acids, so I suspect it isn’t any harder making sure one gets enough magnesium, for example, and may be much easier given wiki states 57% of American diets are low in magnesium.

 

[Amulek]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

You can’t get all your nutrition from meat.

Correct. 

 

Quote

Even if you include meat, healthy diets generally mean paying attention to being balanced in terms of fruits and vegetables to get needed vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc some of which is not available in meat as well as amino acids one can get from meat or by having a variety of plant proteins.

I agree. 

What I was responding to was Pogi's question about how one could consider that meats are a more complete source of amino acids than a vegan diet. 

I think that's an inapt comparison. If one wants to compare amino acids available from proteins, then one should compare protein against protein - not amino acids available from a single protein vs amino acids available from multiple protein sources. 

And there is simply no denying the fact that animal based proteins are all complete while plant based proteins are incomplete (or functionally incomplete). 

 

Quote

It is rare that if one has a varied diet with enough calories it won’t also have the needed amino acids, so I suspect it isn’t any harder making sure one gets enough magnesium, for example, and may be much easier given wiki states 57% of American diets are low in magnesium.

I guess it depends on how one conceives of a "varied diet." My thought with respect to ease is simply that it's easier to ensure one has all of the essential amino acids your body needs to function by having a single serving of animal protein a few times a week because the essentials are met by that requirement alone. If you take the exact same diet and substitute that single serving of animal protein with a plant based protein you very well might not be getting all of the essential amino acids your body needs. 

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by Amulek

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, Amulek said:

What I was responding to was Pogi's question about how one could consider that meats are a more complete source of amino acids than a vegan diet. 

I wasn't the one making the comparison.  I was responding to RevTestament's comment.  I was talking about a vegan diet, and he suggested that meat offers a more whole protein.  I was simply suggesting that is not true.  A vegan diet has all the protein one needs. 

40 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And there is simply no denying the fact that animal based proteins are all complete while plant based proteins are incomplete (or functionally incomplete). 

There actually are plant based complete proteins.  Soy beans (kind of hard to avoid eating soy in your diet), quinoa, buckwheat, hemp seeds, amaranth, and chia seeds are examples.  Other simple and popular combinations eaten the world over offer complete proteins such as rice and beans, humus and pitta bread, and peanut butter sandwiches.

40 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If you take the exact same diet and substitute that single serving of animal protein with a plant based protein you very well might not be getting all of the essential amino acids your body needs. 

That simply is not true.  Honestly, it would be very, very, very difficult to not get all the essential amino acids in a vegan diet every week.  It is strange to me that people always bring up protein when comparing the two diets.  They should be talking about vitamin b-12.   That is the only nutrient that a vegan diet can't provide without supplementing.

Edited February 18, 2020 by pogi

[Amulek]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

A vegan diet has all the protein one needs. 

I agree that it is possible to get all the protein one needs from a vegan diet. 

 

Quote

There actually are plant based complete proteins. Soy beans (kind of hard to avoid eating soy in your diet), quinoa, buckwheat, hemp seeds, amaranth, and chia seeds are examples.

Soybeans are the only one on that list that can truly be considered complete. And by complete I mean containing all of the essential amino acids in adequate amounts. 

Quinoa is "relatively complete." It technically contains all of the essential amino acids, but it falls short of the lysine needed to be considered as a complete protein for adults, and research has concluded that the amino acids are not fully available because they contain substances which interfere with the biological utilization of nutrients (i.e., saponin glycosides). 

Other plant based proteins are similarly situated. Those that are "complete" in a technical sense often aren't in a practical sense. 

 

Quote

Other simple and popular combinations eaten the world over offer complete proteins such as rice and beans, humus and pitta bread, and peanut butter sandwiches.

Sure. But now we're back to comparing a single protein against multiple proteins in order to gain similar results. 

 

Quote

Honestly, it would be very, very, very difficult to not get all the essential amino acids in a vegan diet every week.  

Okay, but it is impossible to not get all the essential amino acids from a diet which includes animal proteins. 

 

Quote

It is strange to me that people always bring up protein when comparing the two diets.  They should be talking about vitamin b-12.   That is the only nutrient that a vegan diet can't provide without supplementing.

I think the focus tends to settle on proteins because that's where the meat eating crowd holds the protein vs protein high ground. Pretty much every animal based protein is a complete protein. And, say what you like about chia seeds, it's hard to stomach enough of them in a day to get the necessary amounts of protein and fiber you need (though I do like to mix them into my homemade fruit cups - makes for a healthy, satisfying mid-afternoon snack).

 

[pogi]

16 hours ago, Amulek said:

Soybeans are the only one on that list that can truly be considered complete. And by complete I mean containing all of the essential amino acids in adequate amounts. 

Quinoa is "relatively complete." It technically contains all of the essential amino acids, but it falls short of the lysine needed to be considered as a complete protein for adults, and research has concluded that the amino acids are not fully available because they contain substances which interfere with the biological utilization of nutrients (i.e., saponin glycosides). 

Other plant based proteins are similarly situated. Those that are "complete" in a technical sense often aren't in a practical sense. 

I don't know what sources you are looking at, but quinoa has one of the highest sources of lysine out there, it is high in total protein in well balanced quantities of amino acids.   As far as saponins go, they are not an issue.  That is why you are supposed to rinse your quinoa and other grains first to get off all the soapy saponins that give them a bitter taste.  Easy!  The relatively small amount that is eaten is simply not an issue with protein bio-availability. 

Either way, you at least admit that there is one plant source of complete protein.  That is not zero. 

16 hours ago, Amulek said:

Sure. But now we're back to comparing a single protein against multiple proteins in order to gain similar results. 

Again, I didn't start the comparison. I am talking about diets - not sure why people keep trying to do a one to one comparison.  Who eats only meat or only broccoli?  It is a ridiculous exercise.  My point is that eating meat in a diet is not "better" than not eating meat in in a diet terms of getting all your needed protein.  

16 hours ago, Amulek said:

Okay, but it is impossible to not get all the essential amino acids from a diet which includes animal proteins. 

It is impossible not to get all the essential amino acids from a diet which includes soy or quinoa etc., and other combinations. 

16 hours ago, Amulek said:

I think the focus tends to settle on proteins because that's where the meat eating crowd holds the protein vs protein high ground. 

Again, I disagree.  There is soy, etc.  There is no high ground.  But shouldn't we be looking at the whole nutrient profile anyway and not singling out one nutrient?  On the same token, if you single out one food, everything will be deficient in something. 

Quote

Contrary to popular belief, "Vegans have not been shown to be deficient in protein intake or in any specific amino acids." 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160316194551.htm

Where have they been shown to have deficiencies?  Vitamin B-12 for one.  Again, this obsession with protein is unfounded. 

If you are going to compare one to one (which is a dumb exercise) then meat is deficient in lots of things.  No fiber or vitamin c for example, so why the obsession with protein?  Is fiber and vitamin c not important too? So why focus on protein?  Makes no sense.

Thinking further about this one to one comparison - it would be interesting to see who would survive longer, someone who only eats beef or chicken, or someone who only eats quinoa.  I guarantee that the quinoa eater would survive much longer and be much healthier. 

Edited February 18, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

On 2/13/2020 at 8:16 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Eat a whole cow with a few weeks...? What kind of cow are you talking about, a starved skinny one? Or what kind of diet are you talking about, nothing but beef?

A whole cow gives about 400 pounds of meat.

Store it by keeping it alive until butchering it, then share the meat with others soon after butchering the cow.  I wasn't thinking of eating that much beef by myself.  I was just saying the best way to store beef is to keep it alive until people are ready to eat it.

No need to can or freeze dry a bunch of it.  That is an option and my wife and I do store beef for short amounts of time that way but we'd rather the cow stay alive until we are ready to eat some while distributing it to others so they can also eat some with us.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Ahab

[Ahab]

On 2/14/2020 at 6:08 AM, cacheman said:

If only it were that simple.  Keep in mind that the only organisms in this scenario that can create biomass out of thin air are the plants.  When a cow eats a plant,  a portion of the nutrients and energy are used by the cow for growth and metabolism.  The other portion is deposited as processed grass microbes.  This adds nutrients and organic matter to the soil,  but not as much as the cow took. 

The only way to improve that soil would be to being in external inputs.   You could either overstock it and bring in feed that was produced elsewhere,  or you could bring in manure or other organic material from off site.  

Simply grazing rangeland or pasture doesn't build soil.  It is,  however a way to maintain soil with reduced inputs. 

I was figuring that cows wouldn't be grazing on land unless there was grass or some other plants for them to eat.  I wasn't talking about grazing cows on desert land or land that didn't have any plants growing on it naturally.  If grass was all that was growing it would be like adding a lawnmower to the land but instead of only getting chopped grass there would be cow poo, processed grass microbes from the cow, to mix with the grass that would still be growing because the cow didn't eat it all down to the roots and that cow poo would make the land itself more suitable for farming other plants other than just the grass.  Your point didn't seem to figure in the grass that would still be growing, and any other plants that might also be there, to create more biomass.  Not that it adds more soil but that it makes the soil that is there better for plants to grow in.  Birds and bird poo helps with that too, as they drop seeds from plants they eat.  And the wind also carries plants by blowing their seeds around, even if only weeds or wildflowers.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I don't know what sources you are looking at, but quinoa has one of the highest sources of lysine out there, [...]

...for a plant.

And, as I said, it isn't that it doesn't have a good amount - it's that it doesn't have an adequate amount to qualify as a complete protein.

A single serving of quinoa (1 cup) contains 442 mg of lysine which, for a person weighing 70 kg (~154 lbs), is only about 21% of the recommended daily intake (source). 

Whereas a single roasted chicken leg provides 5712 mg (272% RDI) of lysine - literally more than an order of magnitude more. 

I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather eat a single chicken leg over 5 cups of quinoa any day of the week. 

 

Quote

Either way, you at least admit that there is one plant source of complete protein.  That is not zero. 

As a general rule, plant based proteins are incomplete proteins. A single exception does not swallow the rule. 

 

Quote

My point is that eating meat is not "better" than not eating meat in terms of getting all your needed protein.  

I guess that depends on how you define "better." Eating meat certainly seems easier / more efficient.

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

16 hours ago, Amulek said:

Okay, but it is impossible to not get all the essential amino acids from a diet which includes animal proteins. 

That is not a good reason not to be vegan. It is impossible not to get all the essential amino acids from a diet which includes soy or quinoa etc., and other combinations. 

See, here's the thing - I completely agree that it's possible to get all of the essential amino acids and almost everything else you need to be healthy from a well planned vegan diet. 

However, I have personally known too many vegans and vegetarians who have struggled with the "well planned" part and have ended up suffering from health issues.  

 

Quote

If you are going to compare one to one (which is a dumb exercise) then meat is deficient in lots of things.  No fiber or vitamin c for example, so why the obsession with protein?  Is fiber and vitamin c not important too? 

Comparing one-to-one is useful if you want to talk about something specific without getting sidetracked. So, if you want to talk about essential amino acids, then the fact remains that animal based proteins kick the living tar out of pretty much every available plant based protein. 

 

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

...for a plant.

And, as I said, it isn't that it doesn't have a good amount - it's that it doesn't have an adequate amount to qualify as a complete protein.

First, how are you defining a complete protein?  Are you defining a complete protein as a food source that provides 100% of the recommended daily intake of all amino acids in a single serving?  If so, why?  Every source that I have ever read considers quinoa a complete protein. 

Second, why are we even talking about complete proteins?  Who eats only one food in their diet?  We should be thinking in terms of diet and complimentary proteins.  

Third, you already agreed that soy is a complete protein, so the debate should be over. 

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

As a general rule, plant based proteins are incomplete proteins. A single exception does not swallow the rule. 

Again, why the one to one comparison?  And if we are doing a one to one, why can't I choose soy to compare?  I didn't know there were any rules that disqualify soy from being compared to meat. 

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I guess that depends on how you define "better." Eating meat certainly seems easier / more efficient.

As I have shown, it is a complete lie that vegans are deficient in protein or any specific amino acid as compared to meat eaters. You would think there would be more cases if it was really that much better in terms of getting your daily needs met.  It doesn't seem to be any better in getting our recommended protein needs.  Numbers simply don't show that. 

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

See, here's the thing - I completely agree that it's possible to get all of the essential amino acids and almost everything else you need to be healthy from a well planned vegan diet. 

However, I have personally known too many vegans and vegetarians who have struggled with the "well planned" part and have ended up suffering from health issues.  

You have known vegans who have a protein deficiency?   Studies show they are no more likely than meat eaters to be deficient in protein.  

What you say is funny because I personally know too many meat eaters who have struggled with the "well planned" part and have ended up suffering from health issues.  This tunnel vision focus on protein is not helpful.  Protein deficiency is simply on the bottom of our concerns in America (even among vegans).  It simply is not a health problem, so why the hyper-focus on this nutrient?  We have much bigger nutrient deficiency problems that could be solved by eating more plants. 

That is a good idea though, lets compare diets and health issues!  Speaking of suffering from health issues, do you want to know what the leading cause of death is in the US?  Cardiovascular disease.  What is one of the easiest ways to reduce that risk by a significant amount in a matter of weeks?  Stop eating meat.  Vegans are also shown to be at significantly lower risk for other top killer chronic diseases such as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's (all in the top 10 killers in US) and others like hypertension.   Studies show that vegans are the only group found to be in a healthy weight range; all other groups were overweight on average.   https://www.pcrm.org/news/health-nutrition/vegan-diets-reduce-risk-chronic-disease  So, again, why are we talking about protein when vegans are not found to be protein deficient?  I guarantee that I know WAY more meat eaters who suffer from health issues from not having well planned diets than you know vegans who suffer from not having well planned diets.   Are meat eaters immune from poor diets or something? 

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Comparing one-to-one is useful if you want to talk about something specific without getting sidetracked. So, if you want to talk about essential amino acids, then the fact remains that animal based proteins kick the living tar out of pretty much every available plant based protein. 

Again, I could say that plants kick the tar out of meat in terms of fiber and vitamin c, etc. 

But if you insist on the one to one comparison, soy is a complete protein, can you show me a meat source that has ANY fiber?  Not even one exception to the rule?  Plants win!

Edited February 18, 2020 by pogi

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

First, how are you defining a complete protein?  Are you defining a complete protein as a food source that provides 100% of the recommended daily intake of all amino acids in a single serving?  If so, why?  Every source that I have ever read considers quinoa a complete protein. 

Second, why are we even talking about complete proteins?  Who eats only one food in their diet?  We should be thinking in terms of diet and complimentary proteins.  

Third, you already agreed that soy is a complete protein, so the debate should be over. 

Again, why the one to one comparison?  And if we are doing a one to one, why can't I choose soy to compare?  I didn't know there were any rules that disqualify soy from being compared to meat. 

As I have shown, it is a complete lie that vegans are deficient in protein or any specific amino acid as compared to meat eaters. You would think there would be more cases if it was really that much better in terms of getting your daily needs met.  It doesn't seem to be any better in getting our recommended protein needs.  Numbers simply don't show that. 

You have known vegans who have a protein deficiency?   Studies show they are no more likely than meat eaters to be deficient in protein.  

What you say is funny because I personally know too many meat eaters who have struggled with the "well planned" part and have ended up suffering from health issues.  This tunnel vision focus on protein is not helpful.  Protein deficiency is simply on the bottom of our concerns in America (even among vegans).  It simply is not a health problem, so why the hyper-focus on this nutrient?  We have much bigger nutrient deficiency problems that could be solved by eating more plants. 

That is a good idea though, lets compare diets and health issues!  Speaking of suffering from health issues, do you want to know what the leading cause of death is in the US?  Cardiovascular disease.  What is one of the easiest ways to reduce that risk by a significant amount in a matter of weeks?  Stop eating meat.  Vegans are also shown to be at significantly lower risk for other top killer chronic diseases such as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's (all in the top 10 killers in US) and others like hypertension.   Studies show that vegans are the only group found to be in a healthy weight range; all other groups were overweight on average.   https://www.pcrm.org/news/health-nutrition/vegan-diets-reduce-risk-chronic-disease  So, again, why are we talking about protein when vegans are not found to be protein deficient?  I guarantee that I know WAY more meat eaters who suffer from health issues from not having well planned diets than you know vegans who suffer from not having well planned diets.   Are meat eaters immune from poor diets or something? 

Again, I could say that plants kick the tar out of meat in terms of fiber and vitamin c, etc. 

But if you insist on the one to one comparison, soy is a complete protein, can you show me a meat source that has ANY fiber?  Not even one exception to the rule?  Plants win!

You won me over Pogi!

I thought earlier to myself, what if we didn't eat cows...I wonder if then the wild cow would just be wild and untouched. Of course the population would be possibly minimal as well. And they'd roam the earth etc. How do we know God wanted us to eat cows.

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You won me over Pogi!

I thought earlier to myself, what if we didn't eat cows...I wonder if then the wild cow would just be wild and untouched. Of course the population would be possibly minimal as well. And they'd roam the earth etc. How do we know God wanted us to eat cows.

Who first looked at a cow and said something like:  Hmm, that looks good.  I want to eat that!

Berries I get.  Fruit from trees is reasonable.  But eating a cow?  Who thought of that?  Did the cow catch on fire somehow and then someone smelled it and then thought something like: Hmm, that smells good.  I want to eat that!

I just don't get it.  But it does taste good if it is prepared and cooked just right.  Especially with herbs and spices like pepper, salt  and bbq sauce made from sugar and tomatoes and peppers.   And a nice salad and potato on the side.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Who first looked at a cow and said something like:  Hmm, that looks good.  I want to eat that!

Berries I get.  Fruit from trees is reasonable.  But eating a cow?  Who thought of that?  Did the cow catch on fire somehow and then someone smelled it and then thought something like: Hmm, that smells good.  I want to eat that!

I just don't get it.  But it does taste good if it is prepared and cooked just right.  Especially with herbs and spices like pepper, salt  and bbq sauce made from sugar and tomatoes and peppers.   And a nice salad and potato on the side.

I just saw a report on the news that a Mediterranean diet is best. Looked it up and this came up.

https://www.helpguide.org/articles/diets/the-mediterranean-diet.htm

Edited February 18, 2020 by Tacenda

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

You won me over Pogi!

I thought earlier to myself, what if we didn't eat cows...I wonder if then the wild cow would just be wild and untouched. Of course the population would be possibly minimal as well. And they'd roam the earth etc. How do we know God wanted us to eat cows.

The world would look like India I guess. Ha! 

Tacenda is going vegan, sweet!

If you are serious, I think that is awesome.  I would recommend easing into it.  Start with meat-less Mondays then slowly add days to the week.  After a while you can drop dairy and egg.  Just keep in mind that vegan diets can be just as crappy as meat eating diets if you don't eat whole foods in proper balance.  It's really not that hard though.  Also, if you do go completely vegan, you will need to supplement with vitamin B-12 - that is why I still eat sardines/salmon 2-3 times per week.  It is seriously a good way to live, I feel better in my 40's than I ever did in my 20's! 

I thought you might be persuaded by the reduced risk of Alzheimer's (I know you are working hard to avoid that one).  

Even if you don't go completely vegan, simply reducing meat consumption and increasing whole plant based foods will go a long way in lowering risks of cognitive decline, "18%-33% lower risk".

www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/327046#Up-to-33%-lower-risk-of-cognitive-decline

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I just saw a report on the news that a Mediterranean diet is best. Looked it up and this came up.

https://www.helpguide.org/articles/diets/the-mediterranean-diet.htm

Yep, it's a great diet!  Mediterranean diet and pescatarian diet (which I try to follow) are basically the same thing. 

Edited February 18, 2020 by pogi

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Who first looked at a cow and said something like:  Hmm, that looks good.  I want to eat that!

Berries I get.  Fruit from trees is reasonable.  But eating a cow?  Who thought of that?  Did the cow catch on fire somehow and then someone smelled it and then thought something like: Hmm, that smells good.  I want to eat that!

I just don't get it.  But it does taste good if it is prepared and cooked just right.  Especially with herbs and spices like pepper, salt  and bbq sauce made from sugar and tomatoes and peppers.   And a nice salad and potato on the side.

I assume the idea came from observing other carnivores in the animal kingdom.  Not sure how they figured out that cooking it could make it taste better (beef tartare and sushi, notwithstanding).

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

The world would look like India I guess. Ha! 

Tacenda is going vegan, sweet!

If you are serious, I think that is awesome.  I would recommend easing into it.  Start with meat-less Mondays then slowly add days to the week.  After a while you can drop dairy and egg.  Just keep in mind that vegan diets can be just as crappy as meat eating diets if you don't eat whole foods.  Also, if you do go completely vegan, you will need to supplement with vitamin B-12 - that is why I still eat sardines/salmon 2-3 times per week.  It is seriously a good way to live, I feel better in my 40's than I ever did in my 20's! 

I thought you might be persuaded by the reduced risk of Alzheimer's (I know you are working hard to avoid that one).  

Even if you don't go completely vegan, simply reducing meat consumption and increasing whole plant based foods will go a long way in lowering risks, "18%-33% lower risk".

www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/327046#Up-to-33%-lower-risk-of-cognitive-decline

 

I get so irritated that my husband continually says he wants a half a beef, when it's asked by his mom. For years his parents raised 2 cows on their small farm and then they're children split the meat. I rarely pull out the meat, and it sits in our freezer and I try to give it away. So maybe one day I'll attempt a vegan type diet. But I can't say I hate beef altogether yet. I do like a good steak, but like fish too. Good for you though Pogi!