DEBATE ABOUT VEGETABLES IN THE DIET.

Zeekie

Zeekie

Apricot
Joined
May 18, 2024
Posts
4,176
Reputation
5,366
@FlotPSL honestly, let's move it to a thread because arguing through my profile is a pain in the ass.




1753181994401


You said... and I quote: "We rely on stomach acid not on enzymes", this essentially means "We rely on stomach acid" ; "We don't rely on enzymes". Maybe it's just nit-picking stuff, but even ignoring that, stomach acid STILL HAS ENZYMES. So, what was the point here?



1753182091863

Your claim was that plants were not a part of the primitive human diet, right? Well the research disagrees, there are tons more you can dig up, but I'll be focusing on one article (which I will be providing below). "Dental microwear texture analysis shows within-species diet variability in fossil hominins"
1753182256259


By comparing microwear textures of fossil hominins with those of living primates with known diets, the researchers linked specific microwear patterns to food types.

There's also more recent evidence of anciet humans consuming plant foods. These guys lived roughly when the ice age ended.
1753184111638

1753184102457


Here's another fun one, involved your beloved isotopes. Suggesting that 3 million years ago we were both consuming fruits and LEAVES, as well as animal products.
1753184212057


And these guys lived just about when the ice age started. So all other primates eat fruits, nuts, seeds and leaves. Our ancestors from before the ice age ate leaves. Our ancestors after the ice age ate leaves too... And I'm like 99% sure we also ate some leaves, nuts, seeds and tubers during the ice age as well, they definitely weren't as common, but humans during that period ate them too, although since I don't have the evidence to cite, I won't be using that as a strong claim, since that's more an opinion rather than anything validated by any research I can provide (this is a jab at you if you didn't catch it, btw).


1753182319592

If you want to talk about science, we also have to share studies, science is not made through opinions, it is done through scientific research, which is mostly shared through articles and studies. So yeah, since you claimed there were "tons" of studies validating what you said, I'd love to read some of them. Again, I'm also open to providing as much research as you'd want to validate every single one of the points I've made.

This conversation would turn pretty dull and meaningless if we simply limit ourselves to saying this and that, but never bothering to prove anything, at that point it just becomes a game of who can repeat their opinion the most, not actual "scientific talk".


1753182488971

Again, the fact that we cannot digest fiber is what makes it good, because our gut microbiome CAN digest it, and that has net health benefits, and that aside fiber helps bowel movement. "But why aren't rock goods then?" what 😭? I'm not even gonna try to answer that one, I think you should have enough common sense to do it on your own, regardless, I'm convinced that had to be trolling.

Anyways, fiber is good for you! It helps cancer treatment, it benefits gut health, it even helps your heart!
1753182717498

1753182801397

1753182843239



1753182900887

  1. I thought you were saying fruit was good? Fruits ARE plants.
  2. Your body is mostly water... it won't dehydrate you if you consume a proper amount of electrolytes from your diet. Also, if tribal people didn't drink water, they'd be dead. Thankfully they do get their water from the food they eat, for example many of them drink blood, which as you may assume.. is mostly water! But I'd argue that their choice to avoid water is not a pragmatic, but the fact that getting clean water as an isolated community is incredibly difficult. But if we tried to get into arguing about why water is good for you, we'd be in another crazy argument, so let's leave it at that.


1753183080195

  1. Yes, anyone making a sound argument is obviouslyyy AI, am I right?
  2. "Plants have no nutritional value" this is just factually incorrect. Nutrients are ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS FOR LIFE, if you get no micronutrient intake in your diet your bodily systems would quickly degrade and you would diet. So how come people survive decades eating a plant-base diet? If your statement about plants having zero nutrition was correct, then no one that doesn't eat meat, would be alive right now.
  3. Plants miss over 15 micronutrients... right... like which ones?
 

Attachments

  • RSSETAL2005Nature.pdf
    455.9 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
  • +1
  • So Sad
  • JFL
Reactions: kazama, chadisbeingmade, diditeverbegin and 11 others
looks like someone started an argument with mr high iq
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: diditeverbegin, sub5mumbaifinalboss, looks>books and 5 others
@FlotPSL also if you were going to answer anything of what I wrote there, I made some edits and added new information, just so you don't forget to address that too
 
  • +1
Reactions: LTNUser, Methylphenidate, EliasDePoop and 1 other person
@FlotPSL also if you were going to answer anything of what I wrote there, I made some edits and added new information, just so you don't forget to address that too
Is it okay if i tag someone?
 
  • +1
Reactions: LTNUser, Methylphenidate and EliasDePoop
@FlotPSL honestly, let's move it to a thread because arguing through my profile is a pain in the ass.




View attachment 3945373

You said... and I quote: "We rely on stomach acid not on enzymes", this essentially means "We rely on stomach acid" ; "We don't rely on enzymes". Maybe it's just nit-picking stuff, but even ignoring that, stomach acid STILL HAS ENZYMES. So, what was the point here?



View attachment 3945376
Your claim was that plants were not a part of the primitive human diet, right? Well the research disagrees, there are tons more you can dig up, but I'll be focusing on one article (which I will be providing below). "Dental microwear texture analysis shows within-species diet variability in fossil hominins"
View attachment 3945378

By comparing microwear textures of fossil hominins with those of living primates with known diets, the researchers linked specific microwear patterns to food types.

There's also more recent evidence of anciet humans consuming plant foods. These guys lived roughly when the ice age ended.
View attachment 3945426
View attachment 3945425

Here's another fun one, involved your beloved isotopes. Suggesting that 3 million years ago we were both consuming fruits and LEAVES, as well as animal products.
View attachment 3945432

And these guys lived just about when the ice age started. So all other primates eat fruits, nuts, seeds and leaves. Our ancestors from before the ice age ate leaves. Our ancestors after the ice age ate leaves too... And I'm like 99% sure we also ate some leaves, nuts, seeds and tubers during the ice age as well, they definitely weren't as common, but humans during that period ate them too, although since I don't have the evidence to cite, I won't be using that as a strong claim, since that's more an opinion rather than anything validated by any research I can provide (this is a jab at you if you didn't catch it, btw).


View attachment 3945381
If you want to talk about science, we also have to share studies, science is not made through opinions, it is done through scientific research, which is mostly shared through articles and studies. So yeah, since you claimed there were "tons" of studies validating what you said, I'd love to read some of them. Again, I'm also open to providing as much research as you'd want to validate every single one of the points I've made.

This conversation would turn pretty dull and meaningless if we simply limit ourselves to saying this and that, but never bothering to prove anything, at that point it just becomes a game of who can repeat their opinion the most, not actual "scientific talk".


View attachment 3945384
Again, the fact that we cannot digest fiber is what makes it good, because our gut microbiome CAN digest it, and that has net health benefits, and that aside fiber helps bowel movement. "But why aren't rock goods then?" what 😭? I'm not even gonna try to answer that one, I think you should have enough common sense to do it on your own, regardless, I'm convinced that had to be trolling.

Anyways, fiber is good for you! It helps cancer treatment, it benefits gut health, it even helps your heart!
View attachment 3945387
View attachment 3945390
View attachment 3945391


View attachment 3945392
  1. I thought you were saying fruit was good? Fruits ARE plants.
  2. Your body is mostly water... it won't dehydrate you if you consume a proper amount of electrolytes from your diet. Also, if tribal people didn't drink water, they'd be dead. Thankfully they do get their water from the food they eat, for example many of them drink blood, which as you may assume.. is mostly water! But I'd argue that their choice to avoid water is not a pragmatic, but the fact that getting clean water as an isolated community is incredibly difficult. But if we tried to get into arguing about why water is good for you, we'd be in another crazy argument, so let's leave it at that.


View attachment 3945398
  1. Yes, anyone making a sound argument is obviouslyyy AI, am I right?
  2. "Plants have no nutritional value" this is just factually incorrect. Nutrients are ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS FOR LIFE, if you get no micronutrient intake in your diet your bodily systems would quickly degrade and you would diet. So how come people survive decades eating a plant-base diet? If your statement about plants having zero nutrition was correct, then no one that doesn't eat meat, would be alive right now.
  3. Plants miss over 15 micronutrients... right... like which ones?
goatis said no 15 micronutrients so there are no 15 micronutrients
 
  • +1
Reactions: LTNUser, Methylphenidate, obscuredusk and 2 others
goatis said no 15 micronutrients so there are no 15 micronutrients
Unironically, this is the kind of dogmatic thinking I fucking hate "muh Goatis and Aajonus said this" so they believe them without questioning and roll with that for their entire life. It's intellectually lazy, that's why I just hate primal people (or rather their mode of thinking, I don't hate anyone :heart:)
 
  • +1
  • Love it
Reactions: looks>books, LTNUser, Methylphenidate and 3 others
@HighIQ ubermensch EY BRA I DONT WANNA GET JUMPED
 
  • +1
Reactions: LTNUser, Methylphenidate, EliasDePoop and 1 other person
Here's another fun one, involved your beloved isotopes. Suggesting that 3 million years ago we were both consuming fruits and LEAVES, as well as animal products.
"3 million years ago" really it doesn't matter because they weren't humans we are HOMO SAPIENS we don't need plants and they do more bad than good to us
Raw animal products are optimal for our health
All plants are harmful

We exchanged our intestines for a bigger brain that's why Homo sapiens has to eat animals ideally you eat only animal products and seasonally you eat berries or some fruit, which wolves also do, but this does not contradict the fact that humans are in reality carnivores because wolves would not be carnivores then either.
 
  • +1
Reactions: EliasDePoop and KindMaster1
"3 million years ago" really it doesn't matter because they weren't humans we are HOMO SAPIENS we don't need plants and they do more bad than good to us
Raw animal products are optimal for our health
All plants are harmful

We exchanged our intestines for a bigger brain that's why Homo sapiens has to eat animals ideally you eat only animal products and seasonally you eat berries or some fruit, which wolves also do, but this does not contradict the fact that humans are in reality carnivores because wolves would not be carnivores then either.
yeah bro we are wolves
 
  • +1
Reactions: obscuredusk and Zeekie
"3 million years ago" really it doesn't matter because they weren't humans we are HOMO SAPIENS we don't need plants and they do more bad than good to us
Yes but... 12,000 years ago those neolithic communities were eating plant-foods.. Your point is? Again, both our pre-human ancestors and our Homo sapiens ancestors were eating plants, it ironically looks like the notion of purely eating animals is more modern than you'd like to think.

"we don't need plants and they do more bad than good to us" Could you please elaborate on how this is? And please using logically-sound and realistic examples, ideally backed by research, not making some shit up or saying that "if you eat 40 fucktons of broccoli you would die of goiter!!" or something ridiculous like that. In what way, properly plant foods eaten in the right quantities do more bad for us?
We exchanged our intestines for a bigger brain that's why Homo sapiens has to eat animals ideally you eat only animal products and seasonally you eat berries or some fruit, which wolves also do, but this does not contradict the fact that humans are in reality carnivores because wolves would not be carnivores then either.
  1. Ironically enough, it is highly hypothesized that the reason we got a bigger brain was because of cooking, since it allowed us to get access to more energy (calories) and nutrients from our food. This is called the "Cooking Hypothesis" in anthropological research, and it is widely accepted.
  2. Yes, wolves are facultative carnivores, their diets primarily consist of meat, but they can eat plant-foods when needed, but the fact that wolves are facultative carnivores doesn't mean we are. Unlike wolves, we have digestive systems and teeth made for a mix of foods, we have specialized molars for grinding plants (which carnivores lack since theirs are carnassial teeth) and we can produce enzymes to break down starches and sugars from plants, no carnivore has this ability to the extent that omnivores (like us) or herbivores do.
  3. Also, what's the point here? You're comparing us to wolves, but how's that evidence of anything? I could compare humans to bears who are omnivores, and actually find even more similitudes in our current and previous eating patterns! But as you may realize, this doesn't constitute meaningful scientific evidence.
 
  • +1
Reactions: obscuredusk and Shrek2OnDvD
@FlotPSL honestly, let's move it to a thread because arguing through my profile is a pain in the ass.




View attachment 3945373

You said... and I quote: "We rely on stomach acid not on enzymes", this essentially means "We rely on stomach acid" ; "We don't rely on enzymes". Maybe it's just nit-picking stuff, but even ignoring that, stomach acid STILL HAS ENZYMES. So, what was the point here?



View attachment 3945376
Your claim was that plants were not a part of the primitive human diet, right? Well the research disagrees, there are tons more you can dig up, but I'll be focusing on one article (which I will be providing below). "Dental microwear texture analysis shows within-species diet variability in fossil hominins"
View attachment 3945378

By comparing microwear textures of fossil hominins with those of living primates with known diets, the researchers linked specific microwear patterns to food types.

There's also more recent evidence of anciet humans consuming plant foods. These guys lived roughly when the ice age ended.
View attachment 3945426
View attachment 3945425

Here's another fun one, involved your beloved isotopes. Suggesting that 3 million years ago we were both consuming fruits and LEAVES, as well as animal products.
View attachment 3945432

And these guys lived just about when the ice age started. So all other primates eat fruits, nuts, seeds and leaves. Our ancestors from before the ice age ate leaves. Our ancestors after the ice age ate leaves too... And I'm like 99% sure we also ate some leaves, nuts, seeds and tubers during the ice age as well, they definitely weren't as common, but humans during that period ate them too, although since I don't have the evidence to cite, I won't be using that as a strong claim, since that's more an opinion rather than anything validated by any research I can provide (this is a jab at you if you didn't catch it, btw).


View attachment 3945381
If you want to talk about science, we also have to share studies, science is not made through opinions, it is done through scientific research, which is mostly shared through articles and studies. So yeah, since you claimed there were "tons" of studies validating what you said, I'd love to read some of them. Again, I'm also open to providing as much research as you'd want to validate every single one of the points I've made.

This conversation would turn pretty dull and meaningless if we simply limit ourselves to saying this and that, but never bothering to prove anything, at that point it just becomes a game of who can repeat their opinion the most, not actual "scientific talk".


View attachment 3945384
Again, the fact that we cannot digest fiber is what makes it good, because our gut microbiome CAN digest it, and that has net health benefits, and that aside fiber helps bowel movement. "But why aren't rock goods then?" what 😭? I'm not even gonna try to answer that one, I think you should have enough common sense to do it on your own, regardless, I'm convinced that had to be trolling.

Anyways, fiber is good for you! It helps cancer treatment, it benefits gut health, it even helps your heart!
View attachment 3945387
View attachment 3945390
View attachment 3945391


View attachment 3945392
  1. I thought you were saying fruit was good? Fruits ARE plants.
  2. Your body is mostly water... it won't dehydrate you if you consume a proper amount of electrolytes from your diet. Also, if tribal people didn't drink water, they'd be dead. Thankfully they do get their water from the food they eat, for example many of them drink blood, which as you may assume.. is mostly water! But I'd argue that their choice to avoid water is not a pragmatic, but the fact that getting clean water as an isolated community is incredibly difficult. But if we tried to get into arguing about why water is good for you, we'd be in another crazy argument, so let's leave it at that.


View attachment 3945398
  1. Yes, anyone making a sound argument is obviouslyyy AI, am I right?
  2. "Plants have no nutritional value" this is just factually incorrect. Nutrients are ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS FOR LIFE, if you get no micronutrient intake in your diet your bodily systems would quickly degrade and you would diet. So how come people survive decades eating a plant-base diet? If your statement about plants having zero nutrition was correct, then no one that doesn't eat meat, would be alive right now.
  3. Plants miss over 15 micronutrients... right... like which ones?
@FlotPSL unfortunately, you’re a retard.
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: unemployed_maxxer, Methylphenidate, obscuredusk and 1 other person
Thank you OP. You’re the voice of reason in a sea of crazies
 
  • +1
Reactions: LTNUser, Methylphenidate, obscuredusk and 2 others
The only reason you should include vegetables in your diet is for colon health. If you don't want to be constipated or develop diverticulosis and subsequent diverticulitis, and especially if you abuse sugar, you should consume plenty of fiber. Otherwise, avoid it
 
  • +1
Reactions: EliasDePoop and Zeekie
The only reason you should include vegetables in your diet is for colon health. If you don't want to be constipated or develop diverticulosis and subsequent diverticulitis, and especially if you abuse sugar, you should consume plenty of fiber. Otherwise, avoid it
I mean yeah colon health is very important because of veggies, but why would you avoid them otherwise? I mean just beyond fiber, there's micronutrients and antioxidants that they provide, vegetables are for example believe to the one of the many reasons why people in Spain, Italy and Greece live that long.

It's not that I necessarily disagree, too many veggies, specially when not properly prepared can be bad in a lot of contexts, but I do not think those present very often, so there's usually just no reason to avoid it
 
  • +1
Reactions: EliasDePoop, CD34 and Shrek2OnDvD
@FlotPSL honestly, let's move it to a thread because arguing through my profile is a pain in the ass.




View attachment 3945373

You said... and I quote: "We rely on stomach acid not on enzymes", this essentially means "We rely on stomach acid" ; "We don't rely on enzymes". Maybe it's just nit-picking stuff, but even ignoring that, stomach acid STILL HAS ENZYMES. So, what was the point here?



View attachment 3945376
Your claim was that plants were not a part of the primitive human diet, right? Well the research disagrees, there are tons more you can dig up, but I'll be focusing on one article (which I will be providing below). "Dental microwear texture analysis shows within-species diet variability in fossil hominins"
View attachment 3945378

By comparing microwear textures of fossil hominins with those of living primates with known diets, the researchers linked specific microwear patterns to food types.

There's also more recent evidence of anciet humans consuming plant foods. These guys lived roughly when the ice age ended.
View attachment 3945426
View attachment 3945425

Here's another fun one, involved your beloved isotopes. Suggesting that 3 million years ago we were both consuming fruits and LEAVES, as well as animal products.
View attachment 3945432

And these guys lived just about when the ice age started. So all other primates eat fruits, nuts, seeds and leaves. Our ancestors from before the ice age ate leaves. Our ancestors after the ice age ate leaves too... And I'm like 99% sure we also ate some leaves, nuts, seeds and tubers during the ice age as well, they definitely weren't as common, but humans during that period ate them too, although since I don't have the evidence to cite, I won't be using that as a strong claim, since that's more an opinion rather than anything validated by any research I can provide (this is a jab at you if you didn't catch it, btw).


View attachment 3945381
If you want to talk about science, we also have to share studies, science is not made through opinions, it is done through scientific research, which is mostly shared through articles and studies. So yeah, since you claimed there were "tons" of studies validating what you said, I'd love to read some of them. Again, I'm also open to providing as much research as you'd want to validate every single one of the points I've made.

This conversation would turn pretty dull and meaningless if we simply limit ourselves to saying this and that, but never bothering to prove anything, at that point it just becomes a game of who can repeat their opinion the most, not actual "scientific talk".


View attachment 3945384
Again, the fact that we cannot digest fiber is what makes it good, because our gut microbiome CAN digest it, and that has net health benefits, and that aside fiber helps bowel movement. "But why aren't rock goods then?" what 😭? I'm not even gonna try to answer that one, I think you should have enough common sense to do it on your own, regardless, I'm convinced that had to be trolling.

Anyways, fiber is good for you! It helps cancer treatment, it benefits gut health, it even helps your heart!
View attachment 3945387
View attachment 3945390
View attachment 3945391


View attachment 3945392
  1. I thought you were saying fruit was good? Fruits ARE plants.
  2. Your body is mostly water... it won't dehydrate you if you consume a proper amount of electrolytes from your diet. Also, if tribal people didn't drink water, they'd be dead. Thankfully they do get their water from the food they eat, for example many of them drink blood, which as you may assume.. is mostly water! But I'd argue that their choice to avoid water is not a pragmatic, but the fact that getting clean water as an isolated community is incredibly difficult. But if we tried to get into arguing about why water is good for you, we'd be in another crazy argument, so let's leave it at that.


View attachment 3945398
  1. Yes, anyone making a sound argument is obviouslyyy AI, am I right?
  2. "Plants have no nutritional value" this is just factually incorrect. Nutrients are ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS FOR LIFE, if you get no micronutrient intake in your diet your bodily systems would quickly degrade and you would diet. So how come people survive decades eating a plant-base diet? If your statement about plants having zero nutrition was correct, then no one that doesn't eat meat, would be alive right now.
  3. Plants miss over 15 micronutrients... right... like which ones?
For people who cannot read nutrition data tables. We need a study of 10 years where guys in puberty eat devoid of nutrients fat trimmings (grain fed for example), alongside tons of vegetables, and compare than to normal guys. This will be a good proof of how worthless vegetables are, containing no nutrition.

For normal people, they can just look into nutrition data tables and observe that vegetables don't contain any micronutrients, especially in comparison to true standard / benchmark of a standard daily dose of animal products.
 
  • +1
Reactions: EliasDePoop
Unironically, this is the kind of dogmatic thinking I fucking hate "muh Goatis and Aajonus said this" so they believe them without questioning and roll with that for their entire life. It's intellectually lazy, that's why I just hate primal people (or rather their mode of thinking, I don't hate anyone :heart:)
If you tried liver you wouldn't be saying this.
If you had average or above average hormonal production and tried normal raw primal (with muscle meat, and without liver), you wouldn't be saying this.
Everyone's practical experience doesn't give a shit about counterarguments in the face of significant positive experience.
 
  • +1
Reactions: EliasDePoop
For people who cannot read nutrition data tables. We need a study of 10 years where guys in puberty eat devoid of nutrients fat trimmings (grain fed for example), alongside tons of vegetables, and compare than to normal guys. This will be a good proof of how worthless vegetables are, containing no nutrition.
Yes, you need a fictional study not yet conducted to validate your beliefs, also, why are you suggesting that such study would side with you? Given the more than fair amount of available research at the moment, spanning literal decades (and really, I'm trying to be conservative with the numbers here), it doesn't seem like any research would agree with this notion any time soon.

For normal people, they can just look into nutrition data tables and observe that vegetables don't contain any micronutrients, especially in comparison to true standard / benchmark of a standard daily dose of animal products.
I agree with you, vegetables are not as nutritious as something like let's say liver, but the fact that they're not micronutrient dense makes them bad food? No that's stupid, you talk so much about gut microbiome and non-essential compounds found in food (like Omega-3s), you should know more than anyone else that nutrition is not as simple as macronutrients micronutrients, so why when it comes to vegetables it is that way?

I'm sorry, but the research is overwhelmingly strong, vegetables and fruits have net positive effects because of the many compounds they have that cannot be found on meat for example. These are non-essential, but including them in one's diet has been consistently shown to improve health
 
Someone would argue that they taste like shit or that will bloat you. But yeah i agree eith you i eat veggies everyday
I mean yeah colon health is very important because of veggies, but why would you avoid them otherwise? I mean just beyond fiber, there's micronutrients and antioxidants that they provide, vegetables are for example believe to the one of the many reasons why people in Spain, Italy and Greece live that long.

It's not that I necessarily disagree, too many veggies, specially when not properly prepared can be bad in a lot of contexts, but I do not think those present very often, so there's usually just no reason to avoid it
 
  • +1
Reactions: obscuredusk and Zeekie
If you tried liver you wouldn't be saying this.
I eat liver with my ground beef every day 😭
If you had average or above average hormonal production and tried normal raw primal (with muscle meat, and without liver), you wouldn't be saying this.
Everyone's practical experience doesn't give a shit about counterarguments in the face of significant positive experience.
My testosterone is above average, 800 ng/dl the last time I had it tested (with ideal biomarkers too, wink wink). Also, ah yes, positive experience, my favorite empirical measurement of health, those crackheads on the street also claim they feel FINEEEEE on drugs.

And who's to say I don't feel great either? If we try to go by word of mouth as "proof" of one's dietary superiority, we would just walk in circles. So far you guys have PURELY been working on exaggerated hypotheticals, have not provided a single study to validate any of your claims, and on top of that everything that comes out of your mouth just consistently contradicts the available findings.

You also keep suggesting that plants are inherently harmful without solid proof. Come on man, you can do better.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: KindMaster1
Disprove me than faggot
No offense, but have yet to deny any one of my counterpoints. It is not to say that calling someone more "knowledgeable" than you is wrong in any way, but it does paint a picture. You couldn't argue yourself because you cannot defend the position of your diet so needed someone else to do it for you, and yet you're trying asking people to "disprove you" when you have get to engage with my arguments?
 
@FlotPSL honestly, let's move it to a thread because arguing through my profile is a pain in the ass.




View attachment 3945373

You said... and I quote: "We rely on stomach acid not on enzymes", this essentially means "We rely on stomach acid" ; "We don't rely on enzymes". Maybe it's just nit-picking stuff, but even ignoring that, stomach acid STILL HAS ENZYMES. So, what was the point here?



View attachment 3945376
Your claim was that plants were not a part of the primitive human diet, right? Well the research disagrees, there are tons more you can dig up, but I'll be focusing on one article (which I will be providing below). "Dental microwear texture analysis shows within-species diet variability in fossil hominins"
View attachment 3945378

By comparing microwear textures of fossil hominins with those of living primates with known diets, the researchers linked specific microwear patterns to food types.

There's also more recent evidence of anciet humans consuming plant foods. These guys lived roughly when the ice age ended.
View attachment 3945426
View attachment 3945425

Here's another fun one, involved your beloved isotopes. Suggesting that 3 million years ago we were both consuming fruits and LEAVES, as well as animal products.
View attachment 3945432

And these guys lived just about when the ice age started. So all other primates eat fruits, nuts, seeds and leaves. Our ancestors from before the ice age ate leaves. Our ancestors after the ice age ate leaves too... And I'm like 99% sure we also ate some leaves, nuts, seeds and tubers during the ice age as well, they definitely weren't as common, but humans during that period ate them too, although since I don't have the evidence to cite, I won't be using that as a strong claim, since that's more an opinion rather than anything validated by any research I can provide (this is a jab at you if you didn't catch it, btw).


View attachment 3945381
If you want to talk about science, we also have to share studies, science is not made through opinions, it is done through scientific research, which is mostly shared through articles and studies. So yeah, since you claimed there were "tons" of studies validating what you said, I'd love to read some of them. Again, I'm also open to providing as much research as you'd want to validate every single one of the points I've made.

This conversation would turn pretty dull and meaningless if we simply limit ourselves to saying this and that, but never bothering to prove anything, at that point it just becomes a game of who can repeat their opinion the most, not actual "scientific talk".


View attachment 3945384
Again, the fact that we cannot digest fiber is what makes it good, because our gut microbiome CAN digest it, and that has net health benefits, and that aside fiber helps bowel movement. "But why aren't rock goods then?" what 😭? I'm not even gonna try to answer that one, I think you should have enough common sense to do it on your own, regardless, I'm convinced that had to be trolling.

Anyways, fiber is good for you! It helps cancer treatment, it benefits gut health, it even helps your heart!
View attachment 3945387
View attachment 3945390
View attachment 3945391


View attachment 3945392
  1. I thought you were saying fruit was good? Fruits ARE plants.
  2. Your body is mostly water... it won't dehydrate you if you consume a proper amount of electrolytes from your diet. Also, if tribal people didn't drink water, they'd be dead. Thankfully they do get their water from the food they eat, for example many of them drink blood, which as you may assume.. is mostly water! But I'd argue that their choice to avoid water is not a pragmatic, but the fact that getting clean water as an isolated community is incredibly difficult. But if we tried to get into arguing about why water is good for you, we'd be in another crazy argument, so let's leave it at that.


View attachment 3945398
  1. Yes, anyone making a sound argument is obviouslyyy AI, am I right?
  2. "Plants have no nutritional value" this is just factually incorrect. Nutrients are ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS FOR LIFE, if you get no micronutrient intake in your diet your bodily systems would quickly degrade and you would diet. So how come people survive decades eating a plant-base diet? If your statement about plants having zero nutrition was correct, then no one that doesn't eat meat, would be alive right now.
  3. Plants miss over 15 micronutrients... right... like which ones?
to me fruits maybe make sense like some berries but vegetables dont make sense, because like you can see whta they look like without gmo
1753188820433

also search up carrots,
like ts was straight up uneatable, i dont know what to think man
 
  • +1
Reactions: KindMaster1 and FlotPSL
No offense, but have yet to deny any one of my counterpoints. It is not to say that calling someone more "knowledgeable" than you is wrong in any way, but it does paint a picture. You couldn't argue yourself because you cannot defend the position of your diet so needed someone else to do it for you, and yet you're trying asking people to "disprove you" when you have get to engage with my arguments?
Yes because we were going back an forth
 
  • +1
Reactions: EliasDePoop
I eat liver with my ground beef every day 😭

My testosterone is above average, 800 ng/dl the last time I had it tested (with ideal biomarkers too, wink wink). Also, ah yes, positive experience, my favorite empirical measurement of health, those crackheads on the street also claim they feel FINEEEEE on drugs.

And who's to say I don't feel great either? If we try to go by word of mouth as "proof" of one's dietary superiority, we would just walk in circles.
Yeah, but if eat liver with ground beef, you get everything you need, no nutrient deficiencies, they are best foods on Earth.
And, if you cook them, you toxify them, including by cauterizing that maximal amount of iron in organs that is not present in muscle meat, much less white meat, and so you're getting a lot of free radicals (from cauterized iron that stops being bio available), and from this you cancel out your supposed benefits of vegetables containing antioxidants, because you oxidize your cells with those created free radicals from cooking.

Vegans and fasters get positive experience from stopping feeling like shit from poisoning, and from eating raw fat (which is their own fat storage).
Raw liver eaters experience increase in testosterone that no other food gives them, you can eat grains and vegetables all day long, you won't produce any (especially if you're underweight and has no body fat to convert).
We can discover interfering variables and account for them.
 
  • +1
Reactions: FlotPSL and EliasDePoop
I eat liver with my ground beef every day 😭

My testosterone is above average, 800 ng/dl the last time I had it tested (with ideal biomarkers too, wink wink). Also, ah yes, positive experience, my favorite empirical measurement of health, those crackheads on the street also claim they feel FINEEEEE on drugs.

And who's to say I don't feel great either? If we try to go by word of mouth as "proof" of one's dietary superiority, we would just walk in circles. So far you guys have PURELY been working on exaggerated hypotheticals, have not provided a single study to validate any of your claims, and on top of that everything that comes out of your mouth just consistently contradicts the available findings.

You also keep suggesting that plants are inherently harmful without solid proof. Come on man, you can do better.
Plants are hamrful because of pesticides which will destroy your endocrine organs and hormone production because glyphosate makes people infertile.
Plants have anti nutrients, making you deficient. They magnetize minerals. Fiber also steaks nutrients, preventing their absorption from coverage, making you poop them out. They're toxic in this natural way.
 
  • +1
Reactions: FlotPSL and EliasDePoop
Plants are hamrful because of pesticides which will destroy your endocrine organs and hormone production because glyphosate makes people infertile.
Plants have anti nutrients, making you deficient. They magnetize minerals. Fiber also steaks nutrients, preventing their absorption from coverage, making you poop them out. They're toxic in this natural way.
do you believe in evolution
 
  • +1
Reactions: KindMaster1
Dnr, but eating vegetables on the side. Is not the reason you have sub five genetics. Keep being a goatiscell
 
He didnt
Please leave the thread if your gonna be low iq
You’re*.

By the thread he made it looks like he debunked you well. Even though I don’t know your side so I can’t know for sure.
 
  • +1
Reactions: obscuredusk and EliasDePoop
to me fruits maybe make sense like some berries but vegetables dont make sense, because like you can see whta they look like without gmo
View attachment 3945558
also search up carrots,
like ts was straight up uneatable, i dont know what to think man
Exactly, those little seeds and bitter vegetbables are for tiny birds, we humans too large to eat them.
 
  • +1
Reactions: EliasDePoop
You’re*.

By the thread he made it looks like he debunked you well. Even though I don’t know your side so I can’t know for sure.
repping you because of yael
 
  • +1
Reactions: Copercel
Yeah, but if eat liver with ground beef, you get everything you need, no nutrient deficiencies, they are best foods on Earth.
No, absolutely not, this is what 100g of beef and liver provide:
1753189054923
1753189065250

They're nutrient dense, but if I just ate that for the day I would have clear micronutrient gaps.

And, if you cook them, you toxify them, including by cauterizing that maximal amount of iron in organs that is not present in muscle meat, much less white meat, and so you're getting a lot of free radicals (from cauterized iron that stops being bio available), and from this you cancel out your supposed benefits of vegetables containing antioxidants, because you oxidize your cells with those created free radicals from cooking.
can you please provide any evidence validate that:
  1. "Cautized iron" is not bioavailable
  2. That cooking food makes it toxic
Also yeah, cooking food can create some free radicals, but the degree to which this is problematic is just absurd, it simply isn't. And in fact, the added antioxidants in the liver (from vitamin E) or in cooking vegetables would reduce the degree to which anything oxidizes. But again, what evidence do you have to suggest that any of this is problematic?
 
  • +1
Reactions: EliasDePoop
No, absolutely not, this is what 100g of beef and liver provide:
View attachment 3945564View attachment 3945565
They're nutrient dense, but if I just ate that for the day I would have clear micronutrient gaps.


can you please provide any evidence validate that:
  1. "Cautized iron" is not bioavailable
  2. That cooking food makes it toxic
Also yeah, cooking food can create some free radicals, but the degree to which this is problematic is just absurd, it simply isn't. And in fact, the added antioxidants in the liver (from vitamin E) or in cooking vegetables would reduce the degree to which anything oxidizes. But again, what evidence do you have to suggest that any of this is problematic?
you would die of hunger from 200g of food, if that was even an argument
 
  • +1
Reactions: KindMaster1
do you believe in evolution
Impossible to know.
Either way, evolution could be created by archons / malicious gods, so who cares.
I believe in prison planet theory, and in Luciferian doctrine, and spirituality.
 
  • +1
Reactions: EliasDePoop
whole load of cope
 
  • +1
Reactions: EliasDePoop
Impossible to know.
Either way, evolution could be created by archons / malicious gods, so who cares.
I believe in prison planet theory, and in Luciferian doctrine, and spirituality.
ur fucking cooked, i think that evolution doesnt exist on a macro level but on microlevel definitely
 
  • +1
Reactions: KindMaster1
Dnr, but eating vegetables on the side. Is not the reason you have sub five genetics. Keep being a goatiscell
I know for a fact I have sub5 looks because I ate a grain based sugar diet, because my peers look better than me and people here eat a lot of animal meats and dairy.
 
  • +1
Reactions: EliasDePoop
to me fruits maybe make sense like some berries but vegetables dont make sense, because like you can see whta they look like without gmo
View attachment 3945558
also search up carrots,
like ts was straight up uneatable, i dont know what to think man
So first, GMO stands for genetically modified organism, a good bunch of vegetables are GMO, but many of them aren't. What you're likely referencing here is selective breeding.

But let's first talk about the GMO thing. Some people say GMOs are bad for you, others say they aren't, but if you want, you can just avoid them! Regardless GMOs are a VERY recent phenomenon, GMO were first invented in 1973 when we learnt how to modify the DNA of organisms in the first place, the foods we have been eating for the majority of our history were non-GMO, and again, if for whatever reason you're worried about it, you can just eat non-GMO foods, like you can just buy organic food if you fear pesticides!

Now talking about selective breeding, which has been happening for a while. It happens when we take a plant food, and cultivate it's most desirable offsprings (like the corn with the greatest amount of kernels and taste), this slowly resulted in plant foods that were more desirable for consumption, for what's wrong with that? Also, you cannot forget that all of the animals you eat nowadays are selectively bred too.
 
  • +1
Reactions: EliasDePoop
No, absolutely not, this is what 100g of beef and liver provide:
View attachment 3945564View attachment 3945565
They're nutrient dense, but if I just ate that for the day I would have clear micronutrient gaps.


can you please provide any evidence validate that:
  1. "Cautized iron" is not bioavailable
  2. That cooking food makes it toxic
Also yeah, cooking food can create some free radicals, but the degree to which this is problematic is just absurd, it simply isn't. And in fact, the added antioxidants in the liver (from vitamin E) or in cooking vegetables would reduce the degree to which anything oxidizes. But again, what evidence do you have to suggest that any of this is problematic?
Sure, bro, you're deficient in FLOURIDE. Go drink that tap water to fix this emergency! :lul::lul::lul:
 
  • +1
Reactions: EliasDePoop
I know for a fact I have sub5 looks because I ate a grain based sugar diet, because my peers look better than me and people here eat a lot of animal meats and dairy.
If you ate is as a primary food source as a baby and as a kid. Then it does apply yes
 
So first, GMO stands for genetically modified organism, a good bunch of vegetables are GMO, but many of them aren't. What you're likely referencing here is selective breeding.

But let's first talk about the GMO thing. Some people say GMOs are bad for you, others say they aren't, but if you want, you can just avoid them! Regardless GMOs are a VERY recent phenomenon, GMO were first invented in 1973 when we learnt how to modify the DNA of organisms in the first place, the foods we have been eating for the majority of our history were non-GMO, and again, if for whatever reason you're worried about it, you can just eat non-GMO foods, like you can just buy organic food if you fear pesticides!

Now talking about selective breeding, which has been happening for a while. It happens when we take a plant food, and cultivate it's most desirable offsprings (like the corn with the greatest amount of kernels and taste), this slowly resulted in plant foods that were more desirable for consumption, for what's wrong with that? Also, you cannot forget that all of the animals you eat nowadays are selectively bred too.
yeah bro, i thought of selective breeding, but organic = less pesticides or organic pesticides lol
 
  • +1
Reactions: Zeekie
Yes because we were going back an forth
What? We were going back and forth in my profile, but now we're here, and you have yet to dismiss any of my arguments here so far. And also have NOT provided any evidence to at the very least validate your own, allow me to remind you too that you claimed there were tons of studies to back you up, where are they?
 
  • +1
Reactions: EliasDePoop

Similar threads

asdvek
Replies
2
Views
77
Arbuscular
Arbuscular
MaracasMogs
Replies
13
Views
223
MaracasMogs
MaracasMogs
Jiaxi
Replies
16
Views
179
its_so_over2
its_so_over2
meena.psl
Replies
10
Views
934
pulsar23
pulsar23
Сигма Бой
Replies
13
Views
250
ahavik
ahavik

Users who are viewing this thread

  • SouthAfricancel
  • FlotPSL
  • Zeekie
  • bust
  • PrimalPlasty
  • Tyler1
  • crazyguy
  • asdvek
Back
Top