DEBATE ABOUT VEGETABLES IN THE DIET.

[Rxna]

Sure, bro, you're deficient in FLOURIDE. Go drink that tap water to fix this emergency!

thank god we live in europe so we have some regulations

 

[Rxna]

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?

Sure, bro, you're deficient in FLOURIDE. Go drink that tap water to fix this emergency!

https://newgeology.us/presentation32.html read this shit if you want to know why macroevolution cant happen

 

[Zeekie]

ur fucking cooked, i think that evolution doesnt exist on a macro level but on microlevel definitely

also side note, I never understood this argument, this is not a personal attack just trying to understand... How can you believe on microevo but not on macroevo? Macroevolution is just microevolution repeated for a long ass time. If you have a car, and you decide to change a piece of the car every month, wouldn't you argue that by the end of the year, or a couple years, you would have a completely different car from the one you started with? I mean evidence of evolution aside, macroevolution is just all those micro adaptations accumulated over a lot of time.

 

[Zeekie]

you would die of hunger from 200g of food, if that was even an argument

No, I'm not saying you have to eat 200g of food, the point being made there is that liver and beef do not provide every single nutrient you need, as it was claimed.

 

[KindMaster1]

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.

Reply to this

 

[Zeekie]

https://newgeology.us/presentation32.html read this shit if you want to know why macroevolution cant happen

You know what was Hitler's mistake? He tried to fight two wars on two different fronts, we're not even done with the diet debate and you want me to jump into another one? Plus I'm already skeptical of this source:

Evolution is a theory, yes, but I doubt the publisher understand what a theory in the context of science even is lmao Colloquially when we speak the words theory and hypothesis are interchangeable, but in science a theory by definition requires observational or experimental evidence for it to be validated as one, otherwise it's just called a hypothesis.

 

[Rxna]

also side note, I never understood this argument, this is not a personal attack just trying to understand... How can you believe on microevo but not on macroevo? Macroevolution is just microevolution repeated for a long ass time. If you have a car, and you decide to change a piece of the car every month, wouldn't you argue that by the end of the year, or a couple years, you would have a completely different car from the one you started with? I mean evidence of evolution aside, macroevolution is just all those micro adaptations accumulated over a lot of time.

i have linked the pdf up but basically you can't have such a big of a jump in genes because you'd have to change the genes of a whole population, and the probabilty of that happening is really low - like the it would take more than trillion of years, there is an explanation in the video, idk how to expalin myself, i can look into it and then say, but i remember that you have to change either 3 or 5 nucleotides

 

[KindMaster1]

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?

I said both liver AND fatty red muscle meat (ground beef).

They cover EVERYTHING.

In fact, they are the standard of health, so go measure 500 grams of liver plus 500 grams of fatty ground beef, raw, and then compare that to equivalent amount of money of vegetables (however much, even kilograms, because technically all of us can soften vegetables by cooking and stuff our mouth in 10 minutes).

Then you will see vastly different amounts.

 

[Rxna]

You know what was Hitler's mistake? He tried to fight two wars on two different fronts, we're not even done with the diet debate and you want me to jump into another one? Plus I'm already skeptical of this source:

View attachment 3945599
Evolution is a theory, yes, but I doubt the publisher understand what a theory in the context of science even is lmao Colloquially when we speak the words theory and hypothesis are interchangeable, but in science a theory by definition requires observational or experimental evidence for it to be validated as one, otherwise it's just called a hypothesis.

there are like 2 experiments lol, i mean i dont want to talk about human races on this website but we are not from the same source lol

 

[Zeekie]

Plants are hamrful because of pesticides which will destroy your endocrine organs and hormone production because glyphosate makes people infertile.

1. Pesticides are bad, yes, in low quantities they aren't thaaaat bad, but I guess they still are so... just by organic food? And again, I don't even eat organic everything just the dirty dozen which are foods that heavily absorb pesticides, other plant foods don't exactly store those in high quantities.

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. Anti-nutrients aren't an issue if you just cook your vegetables, also do you understand the degree to which micronutrients impair nutrient absorption? The claim that they make you "deficient" is absurd, and like most of what you said, validated by zero research.
2. They don't magnetize to minerals either, which makes me wonder whether you actually understand the underlying science here or are just repeating bullcrap you were told. Chemical binding IS NOT a magnetic force.
3. "Fiber also steaks nutrients"... No???

 

[Tyler1]

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.

It doesn't mean it's good we would eat anything to survive not even to survive just to feel full as long as we like the taste of the food for example..

My feral cat sometimes gets some "cat food" with vegetables or bread from my family and she eats it if there is nothing else but it does not mean that it is good or beneficial right? It is the opposite and even bodily harm in every way.

"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?

It has been explained here often enough why plants are allergic to everyone, but what about people who have a very strong allergy to plants like me? Explain to me why we have this strong allergy

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.

That’s bullshit Cooking destroys it destroys B vitamins what was needed for the development of the brain almost all modern humans contradict you in nature they eat raw and don't use the ex-colonized Africans because they were taught to grill meat for 5-10min by europeans

1. 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.

Humans are facultative carnivores too

1. 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.
2. 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.

The point was that we are similar to wolves and it doesn't contradict that we are carnivores because we used to eat seasonal fruits or use plants as starvation food we are still carnivores

Teeth are not an argument we didn’t evolved to hunt animals with our teeth we have hands and our brains to hunt

 

[Zeekie]

I said both liver AND fatty red muscle meat (ground beef).

YES AND I PUT IN 100g OF LIVER and 100g OF RED MEAT.

In fact, they are the standard of health, so go measure 500 grams of liver plus 500 grams of fatty ground beef, raw, and then compare that to equivalent amount of money of vegetables (however much, even kilograms, because technically all of us can soften vegetables by cooking and stuff our mouth in 10 minutes).

Then you will see vastly different amounts.

1. I can do that, I can put them in raw, but I don't think that's the best for your argument since raw foods are less bioavailable, but I'll do it.
2. Also, again, the fact that vegetables have less micronutrient density than meat means nothing. You need them BOTH for optimal health, meat has great stuff, vegetables have great stuff.

HERE ARE THE RAW 500G EACH NUTRITIONAL VALUES OF LIVER AND MEAT:

Your point was?

 

[jaaba]

@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?

Ew vegetables icky

 

[Zeekie]

there are like 2 experiments lol, i mean i dont want to talk about human races on this website but we are not from the same source lol

I don't think there are 2 experiments, many actually, but the evidence for evolution is majority observational (from embriology, genetics, fossil history, etc). But yeah, let's leave it at that

 

[Rxna]

I don't think there are 2 experiments, many actually, but the evidence for evolution is majority observational (from embriology, genetics, fossil history, etc). But yeah, let's leave it at that

I mean we cant know if thats actaully what happened (the fossils and stuff) its better to debate about the food, this is too hypothetical almost like history

 

[FlotPSL]

@EliasDePoop wtf nigga why dont u believe in evolution

 

[Rxna]

@EliasDePoop wtf nigga why dont u believe in evolution

doesnt make sense to me, the whole thing about the races and how we came from africa is a hoax, the blue eyes ancestor myth is fake, like it doesnt make sense. There is a reason why recessive genes exist

 

[Zeekie]

It doesn't mean it's good we would eat anything to survive not even to survive just to feel full as long as we like the taste of the food for example..

My feral cat sometimes gets some "cat food" with vegetables or bread from my family and she eats it if there is nothing else but it does not mean that it is good or beneficial right? It is the opposite and even bodily harm in every way.

This is different, what your family is doing is not right literarily speaking, cats get basically no benefit from plant foods, since (UNLIKE US) they have a very short digestive track and lack the needed enzymes to digest said foods and get any nutrition from them. Thankfully, our anatomy is vastly different from cats. Also, why the hell do you keep comparing us to wolves and cats? Wouldn't a more biologically appropriate example would be comparing us to our primate relatives? Or is that too inconvenient?

It has been explained here often enough why plants are allergic to everyone, but what about people who have a very strong allergy to plants like me? Explain to me why we have this strong allergy

First, it has been explained with very shaky logic which I have denied. If you have a very strong allergy to plants, then don't eat plants I suppose! But you aren't the majority of the human population, and I also doubt you're allergic to all plants, or properly prepared ones for that matter. But this is a situational example, your case isn't the same as the one for the majority of people.

Going back to the "it has been explained part!" note that explaining something, doesn't mean you're right when you lack the necessary evidence to backup said claims. I will keep repeating it, I'm open to provide evidence for EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY CLAIMS, are you capable of doing the same however?

That’s bullshit Cooking destroys it destroys B vitamins what was needed for the development of the brain almost all modern humans contradict you in nature they eat raw and don't use the ex-colonized Africans because they were taught to grill meat for 5-10min by europeans.

Cooking destroys some B vitamins and vitamin C, but first that destruction is partial, depending on the cooking process and length between 40-80% of the B vitamins and vitamin C are destroyed, you will say "80% is a lot!!" but that has only been seen in the strongest of cooking methods for the longest duration, most cooking processes leave 40-60% of these vitamins intact, and really, it doesn't matter that your vitamins are affected from a single food, most people eat a varied diet, so they're getting that 40-60% repeatedly from many different foods, meaning that they're not deficient in these water-soluble vitamins.

Also, again, ironically enough, cooked foods are less bioavailable and harder to digest.

Humans are facultative carnivores too

Evidence?

The point was that we are similar to wolves and it doesn't contradict that we are carnivores because we used to eat seasonal fruits or use plants as starvation food we are still carnivores

Bears also eat berries, meat, roots, tubers and a lot that consistently. Therefore, we're omnivores (I'm making fun of you btw, I wouldn't make an argument this ridiculous ever, I'm mirroring your behavior)

Teeth are not an argument we didn’t evolved to hunt animals with our teeth we have hands and our brains to hunt

Our ancestors ate plants and insects, this is why our teeth morphology is the way it is. It's true that we didn't evolve hunting animals, so the implication here is that we evolved eating foods that correspond to the tools we have for digestion and mastication.

 

[Zeekie]

I mean we cant know if thats actaully what happened (the fossils and stuff) its better to debate about the food, this is too hypothetical almost like history

Honestly at this point I'd prefer debating evolution, this argument is going on circles, just like I assumed it would BECAUSE THESE NIGGERS CANNOT CITE OR DEBATE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH FOR THE LIFE OF THEIRS!!!

 

[Rxna]

Honestly at this point I'd prefer debating evolution, this argument is going on circles, just like I assumed it would BECAUSE THESE NIGGERS CANNOT CITE OR DEBATE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH FOR THE LIFE OF THEIRS!!!

Cant rebate rn im going out

 

[KindMaster1]

YES AND I PUT IN 100g OF LIVER and 100g OF RED MEAT.

1. I can do that, I can put them in raw, but I don't think that's the best for your argument since raw foods are less bioavailable, but I'll do it.
2. Also, again, the fact that vegetables have less micronutrient density than meat means nothing. You need them BOTH for optimal health, meat has great stuff, vegetables have great stuff.

HERE ARE THE RAW 500G EACH NUTRITIONAL VALUES OF LIVER AND MEAT:
View attachment 3945621View attachment 3945623
Your point was?

Minerals are not proper measure of nutrition.
It should be about vitamins. We all have enough minerals to survive, otherwise we die.
Your tracker of nutrition is incorrect, plus uses weirdo ordering (by super secondary unimportant things, instead of by proper categories, like B vitamins, like important minerals, just common sense), use nutritiondata website, it's excellent, plus has comparison feature.
Raw meat contains every micro nutrient. Stop believing bs that there is 0 at anything. Even grass fed fat contains DHA and vitamin D and B12, for example, even though it's still vastly inferior to fatty sea food.

 

[HighIQ ubermensch]

goatis said no 15 micronutrients so there are no 15 micronutrients

All of them can be created by our own body
This is just irrelevant anyways, as we're talking about vegetables + meat not vegan
This

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.

JFL at this, Goatis said you will get Euphoria by his shitty diet & you think you will also get it.
1 year later you would eat a potato or some fast food & start hating goatis.

I said both liver AND fatty red muscle meat (ground beef).

They cover EVERYTHING.

In fact, they are the standard of health, so go measure 500 grams of liver plus 500 grams of fatty ground beef, raw, and then compare that to equivalent amount of money of vegetables (however much, even kilograms, because technically all of us can soften vegetables by cooking and stuff our mouth in 10 minutes).

Then you will see vastly different amounts.

Nigger you won't get Fiber, carb & it will rape your glycocalyx, bacteria population would be low,
which will rape your butyrate production which will fuck up colon cells.

 

[KindMaster1]

This is different, what your family is doing is not right literarily speaking, cats get basically no benefit from plant foods, since (UNLIKE US) they have a very short digestive track and lack the needed enzymes to digest said foods and get any nutrition from them. Thankfully, our anatomy is vastly different from cats. Also, why the hell do you keep comparing us to wolves and cats? Wouldn't a more biologically appropriate example would be comparing us to our primate relatives? Or is that too inconvenient?


First, it has been explained with very shaky logic which I have denied. If you have a very strong allergy to plants, then don't eat plants I suppose! But you aren't the majority of the human population, and I also doubt you're allergic to all plants, or properly prepared ones for that matter. But this is a situational example, your case isn't the same as the one for the majority of people.

Going back to the "it has been explained part!" note that explaining something, doesn't mean you're right when you lack the necessary evidence to backup said claims. I will keep repeating it, I'm open to provide evidence for EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY CLAIMS, are you capable of doing the same however?


Cooking destroys some B vitamins and vitamin C, but first that destruction is partial, depending on the cooking process and length between 40-80% of the B vitamins and vitamin C are destroyed, you will say "80% is a lot!!" but that has only been seen in the strongest of cooking methods for the longest duration, most cooking processes leave 40-60% of these vitamins intact, and really, it doesn't matter that your vitamins are affected from a single food, most people eat a varied diet, so they're getting that 40-60% repeatedly from many different foods, meaning that they're not deficient in these water-soluble vitamins.

Also, again, ironically enough, cooked foods are less bioavailable and harder to digest.


Evidence?


Bears also eat berries, meat, roots, tubers and a lot that consistently. Therefore, we're omnivores (I'm making fun of you btw, I wouldn't make an argument this ridiculous ever, I'm mirroring your behavior)


Our ancestors ate plants and insects, this is why our teeth morphology is the way it is. It's true that we didn't evolve hunting animals, so the implication here is that we evolved eating foods that correspond to the tools we have for digestion and mastication.

You advocate for destroying 50 percent of nutrition with cooking, and then supplementing with vegetables

 

[HighIQ ubermensch]

You advocate for destroying 50 percent of nutrition with cooking, and then supplementing with vegetables

You do realize you don't need 1000% of RDA?

 

[KindMaster1]

glycocalyx, bacteria population would be low,
which will rape your butyrate production which will fuck up colon cells.

Please explain, this is my first time hearing this.

 

[KindMaster1]

You do realize you don't need 1000% of RDA?

Obviously we DO need it. For anti ageing.
Especially guys in puberty who need to develop bones and endocrine organs.

 

[Zeekie]

I mean we cant know if thats actaully what happened (the fossils and stuff) its better to debate about the food, this is too hypothetical almost like history

So yeah, let's actually do that because it sounds more fun. Can we KNOW what happened in the past? Not really, but if we have enough evidence, we can somewhat make up a reasonable explanation for stuff.

Think about it like being a detective, if you walk into a crime scene and see a body laying on the floor with blood, and a knife at their side, you might not have been there to see it, but it is pretty logical to infer that the person in the ground was killed by stabbing using the knife next to them. Sciences do something similar with evolution, just that it's far more complicated.

Let me give you a few examples:

1. Why do we share 98% of your genomic code with chimpanzees, but only about 80% of it with dogs? Isn't it convenient that we share more DNA with the animals we seem more closely related to?
2. One of the most interesting cases in evolution is the one of whales, because that's one of the animals that provides us with the strongest body of archeological finding to understand how it adapted by the coming years.

If you didn't know whales are mammals, they're not fish, and that troubled biologists for a while, because mammals originated on land. This implied that whales had to go from the land back into the sea and as archeological findings were uncovered, we began to understand how this occurred, the oldest registered ancestor of whales is the Pakicetus a land-dwhelling mammal, as this mammal evolved, by looking at the archeological record we can see how it's bones started to morph, including the skull, legs and so on and on, if we align all of our fossils of whale-ancestors by how old the bones are, we literally see a timeline of changes that explain to us how these animals changed over time.

And this is just the tip of the answer and me making stuff very simply, neither of us are an evolutionary biologist, so getting in depth into how all of this works is pretty futile, but the case is simple... We have a case where we can see how old fossils of things that look like animals we know show very plausible changes over time to suggest how modern animals came to be, and specially we see that animals that look similar or change similar features tend to share the most amount of DNA, suggesting ancestry.

Again, in truth, no one saw evolution happen (Actually we have seen small-scale evolution occuring with isolated population of birds and a few animals, but I don't wanna talk about that case now lol ), but just using logic, intuition and the evidence we have, the picture paints itself pretty clearly. And again these are just to particular sources of evidence, evolution is cross-validated by just about every field in Biology, and there's a reason why the consensus among the majority of scientists is that it happened.

 

[Zeekie]

You advocate for destroying 50 percent of nutrition with cooking, and then supplementing with vegetables

You are strawmanning me bro You couldnt respond to my argument so you had to resort to this. But just for the heck of it, I'll answer to you anyways.

I don't advocate for supplementing with vegetables, what I'm saying is that... YES! Cooking destroys some vitamins, but that's a non-issue, because if you eat like a normal human, this "destruction" is not significant. If you eat enough food, or a variety of food, you can easily see how 50% + 50% + 50% + ... and so on easily allows you to meet your nutritional needs.

We haven't even began to speak about the benefits of eating cooked food vs raw, because yeah, maybe raw food as more total nutrients, but is that worth the risks?

 

[Rxna]

So yeah, let's actually do that because it sounds more fun. Can we KNOW what happened in the past? Not really, but if we have enough evidence, we can somewhat make up a reasonable explanation for stuff.

Think about it like being a detective, if you walk into a crime scene and see a body laying on the floor with blood, and a knife at their side, you might not have been there to see it, but it is pretty logical to infer that the person in the ground was killed by stabbing using the knife next to them. Sciences do something similar with evolution, just that it's far more complicated.

Let me give you a few examples:

1. Why do we share 98% of your genomic code with chimpanzees, but only about 80% of it with dogs? Isn't it convenient that we share more DNA with the animals we seem more closely related to?
2. One of the most interesting cases in evolution is the one of whales, because that's one of the animals that provides us with the strongest body of archeological finding to understand how it adapted by the coming years.

View attachment 3945655View attachment 3945656
If you didn't know whales are mammals, they're not fish, and that troubled biologists for a while, because mammals originated on land. This implied that whales had to go from the land back into the sea and as archeological findings were uncovered, we began to understand how this occurred, the oldest registered ancestor of whales is the Pakicetus a land-dwhelling mammal, as this mammal evolved, by looking at the archeological record we can see how it's bones started to morph, including the skull, legs and so on and on, if we align all of our fossils of whale-ancestors by how old the bones are, we literally see a timeline of changes that explain to us how these animals changed over time.

And this is just the tip of the answer and me making stuff very simply, neither of us are an evolutionary biologist, so getting in depth into how all of this works is pretty futile, but the case is simple... We have a case where we can see how old fossils of things that look like animals we know show very plausible changes over time to suggest how modern animals came to be, and specially we see that animals that look similar or change similar features tend to share the most amount of DNA, suggesting ancestry.

Again, in truth, no one saw evolution happen (Actually we have seen small-scale evolution occuring with isolated population of birds and a few animals, but I don't wanna talk about that case now lol ), but just using logic, intuition and the evidence we have, the picture paints itself pretty clearly. And again these are just to particular sources of evidence, evolution is cross-validated by just about every field in Biology, and there's a reason why the consensus among the majority of scientists is that it happened.

I still dont believe in it lol (scizo thinking everythung is a hoax)

 

[KindMaster1]

You are strawmanning me bro You couldnt respond to my argument so you had to resort to this. But just for the heck of it, I'll answer to you anyways.

I don't advocate for supplementing with vegetables, what I'm saying is that... YES! Cooking destroys some vitamins, but that's a non-issue, because if you eat like a normal human, this "destruction" is not significant. If you eat enough food, or a variety of food, you can easily see how 50% + 50% + 50% + ... and so on easily allows you to meet your nutritional needs.

We haven't even began to speak about the benefits of eating cooked food vs raw, because yeah, maybe raw food as more total nutrients, but is that worth the risks?

50 percent nutrients is an irrelevant thing? Again, why do you care about "extra nutrition" of vegetables, if you destroy HALF of your nutrition from main food?
You defeat your own purpose.

 

[HighIQ ubermensch]

Obviously we DO need it. For anti ageing.

I partially agree, If you have problem absorbing maybe eating more would help.
But again Eating a lot more than you need won't force your body to use it anyways,
It doesn't fix 1000 other problems that come with aging
Either way even after loss of nutrients after cooking, you will have a lot more than you need, also you don't wanna risk parasites in old age lol.

Especially guys in puberty who need to develop bones and endocrine organs.

This is just false, while severe deficiency of nutrients causes problem, Abundance of nutrients won't change the signals of your body.
You won't grow to Austin wayne height because Muh your parents didn't reach full potential. Most get a lot more nutrients than they need.

Please explain, this is my first time hearing this.

This is a layer in your stomach, home to beneficial bacteria, Low Fiber would fuck it up

 

[Zeekie]

Your tracker of nutrition is incorrect

My nutrition tracker pulling data from the latest research on nutrition is incorrect... right, so could you even provide your own evidence-based system to trick vitamin intake on food? That contradicts mine?

plus uses weirdo ordering (by super secondary unimportant things, instead of by proper categories, like B vitamins, like important minerals, just common sense), use nutritiondata website, it's excellent, plus has comparison feature.
Raw meat contains every micro nutrient

I'm unsure which "nutritiondata website" you're speaking about, no searches on google pop up.

. Stop believing bs that there is 0 at anything. Even grass fed fat contains DHA and vitamin D and B12, for example, even though it's still vastly inferior to fatty sea food.

If you actually read the data from Cronometer, it doesn't say there is 0% of vitamin D3 and B12, the opposite with your 1lb of combined liver and muscle meat there's 43% the vitamin d3, and absurd amounts of B12. It does claim that there is 0% molydbenium, fluoride and iodine, which is partially true, these foods have very low quantities of those 3, but Cronometer mainly doesn't include them because it doesn't have validated data on the specific nutritional content of those foods on those trace minerals.

 

[KindMaster1]

I partially agree, If you have problem absorbing maybe eating more would help.
But again Eating a lot more than you need won't force your body to use it anyways,
It doesn't fix 1000 other problems that come with aging
Either way even after loss of nutrients after cooking, you will have a lot more than you need, also you don't wanna risk parasites in old age lol

We store nutrients in our organs, our fat storage, and our tissues (by increasing their quality, because vegans do not die, they just have low quality of all their cells, which ages them and creates diseases, and only way later kills them).

This is just false, while severe deficiency of nutrients causes problem, Abundance of nutrients won't change the signals of your body.
You won't grow to Austin wayne height because Muh your parents didn't reach full potential. Most get a lot more nutrients than they need

I know that Indians eating vegans and vegetarian are underdeveloped, recessed, never reaching their epigenetic potential.
I know that carnivore kids grow to be moggers.
I know that raw animal foods are even better than cooked carnivore.
Conclusion is that raw carnivore will make anyone chad, guaranteed, no exception.

This is a layer in your stomach, home to beneficial bacteria, Low Fiber would fuck it up

What about sugar? Can I replace fiber with sugar? Describe this further.

 

[FlotPSL]

This debate went crazy fr fr

 

[Zeekie]

50 percent nutrients is an irrelevant thing? Again, why do you care about "extra nutrition" of vegetables, if you destroy HALF of your nutrition from main food?
You defeat your own purpose.

No... 4oz of beef liver has 2792% the RDA for vitamin B12, let's say that in the worst case scenario you cook your liver with the worst possible cooking method and lose out on 80% of that B12... That's still 558.4% of your RDA dude. Regardless, does any of this even matter? The debate was around vegetables not cooking, and you have yet to provide evidence to support your claims about vegetables being bad for you and have been unable to counter the evidence about them being actually beneficial for your health.

Shall we cite?

 

[LTNUser]

stfu proex thats why you look like a fucking spanish conquistador

Wait u have seen him?

 

[KindMaster1]

I'm unsure which "nutritiondata website" you're speaking about, no searches on google pop up.

It has 2 URLS, one is my nutritiondata, and another one is this https://tools.myfooddata.com/nutrition-comparison/170379-100066191/100g-100g/1-1/1

If you actually read the data from Cronometer, it doesn't say there is 0% of vitamin D3 and B12, the opposite with your 1lb of combined liver and muscle meat there's 43% the vitamin d3, and absurd amounts of B12. It does claim that there is 0% molydbenium, fluoride and iodine, which is partially true, these foods have very low quantities of those 3, but Cronometer mainly doesn't include them because it doesn't have validated data on the specific nutritional content of those foods on those trace minerals.

All you're saying to me is that Chronometer is shit.

 

[Rxna]

Wait u have seen him?

Bro its a public knowledge

 

[KindMaster1]

No... 4oz of beef liver has 2792% the RDA for vitamin B12, let's say that in the worst case scenario you cook your liver with the worst possible cooking method and lose out on 80% of that B12... That's still 558.4% of your RDA dude. Regardless, does any of this even matter? The debate was around vegetables not cooking, and you have yet to provide evidence to support your claims about vegetables being bad for you and have been unable to counter the evidence about them being actually beneficial for your health.

Shall we cite?

Of course it matters. You could have an easy life with optimum brain, and instead you want subhuman brain.
It matters for anti ageing, puberty, everything. Why pick a LEAST important parameter? Sounds like a helpless reach.

 

[HighIQ ubermensch]

We store nutrients in our organs, our fat storage, and our tissues (by increasing their quality, because vegans do not die, they just have low quality of all their cells, which ages them and creates diseases, and only way later kills them).

you just denying aging at this point

I know that Indians eating vegans and vegetarian are underdeveloped, recessed, never reaching their epigenetic potential.
I know that carnivore kids grow to be moggers.
I know that raw animal foods are even better than cooked carnivore.
Conclusion is that raw carnivore will make anyone chad, guaranteed, no exception.

Indians just didn't went through enough natural selection like WW2 soldiers in Europe & height demand isn't present.
A lot of poor countries are literally starved,
these are few people who don't get enough nutrients to grow cuz they live on rice & starve.
It ain't comparable to cooking meat.

Why are other Asians short then?
why are Europeans taller than Central Asians?

Why are kazakhs still manlets despite consuming meat & raw milk in abundance?

What about sugar? Can I replace fiber with sugar? Describe this further.

Nah, you need both

 

[Zeekie]

It has 2 URLS, one is my nutritiondata, and another one is this https://tools.myfooddata.com/nutrition-comparison/170379-100066191/100g-100g/1-1/1

All you're saying to me is that Chronometer is shit.

Notice how Cronometer and MyFoodData still output basically the same results with some variability

As a matter of fact your source actually outputs slightly less of some vitamins, this however still proves my point, if we take the data from both sites we still come to the same conclusion: liver and meat do NOT provide all of the essential micronutrients in the right quantities, not even eating 1 lb of them combined. You'd need a ridiculous intake to even meet half of your vitamin E or vitamin C

 

[HighIQ ubermensch]

Of course it matters. You could have an easy life with optimum brain, and instead you want subhuman brain.
It matters for anti ageing, puberty, everything. Why pick a LEAST important parameter? Sounds like a helpless reach.

your body simply can't overuse nutrients nigga

 

[Zeekie]

Of course it matters. You could have an easy life with optimum brain, and instead you want subhuman brain.

You're the one contradicting all of the latest understanding in nutrition, yes my guy, the wholeeeee world is wrong and you're sooo right.
Thats the thinking of crazy people.

It matters for anti ageing, puberty, everything. Why pick a LEAST important parameter? Sounds like a helpless reach.

There's nothing better associated with anti-aging in the scientific literature than vegetable intake lol. Otherwise again, CITE ME SOMETHING TO VALIDATE THIS, you make all of this crazy claims, yet so far they're just word of mouth, where's the evidence?

 

[KindMaster1]

you just denying aging at this point

Obviously. In nature wild animals don't age, and this includes humans. A wild animal dies from old age while looking young

Indians just didn't went through enough natural selection like WW2 soldiers in Europe & height demand isn't present.
A lot of poor countries are literally starved,
these are few people who don't get enough nutrients to grow cuz they live on rice & starve.
It ain't comparable to cooking meat.

Why are other Asians short then?
why are Europeans taller than Central Asians?

Genetics mean nothing. You say it yourself, starvation is everything, and I just claim that malnutrition from plants is part of starvation.

Chinese in big towns, eating middle class meat and fish, grow to be 6 feet, which means there is NO difference between white Europeans / Americans compared to Asians, given same animal nutrition.

Europeans could also be taller because of our mitochondrial genetics, and cold exposure's mitochondrial light, giving us UV and IF inside cells, even without sunbathing. So, we get better cellular health.

why are Europeans taller than Central Asians?

Central Asians eat grains, more.

Nah, you need both

Why.

 

[FlotPSL]

 

[KindMaster1]

Notice how Cronometer and MyFoodData still output basically the same results with some variability
View attachment 3945734View attachment 3945738
As a matter of fact your source actually outputs slightly less of some vitamins, this however still proves my point, if we take the data from both sites we still come to the same conclusion: liver and meat do NOT provide all of the essential micronutrients in the right quantities, not even eating 1 lb of them combined. You'd need a ridiculous intake to even meet half of your vitamin E or vitamin C

View attachment 3945744

Who gives a fuck about vitamin C, brooo
I'm not eating cola all day to digest all that toxic sugar

 

[Zeekie]

Obviously. In nature wild animals don't age, and this includes humans. A wild animal dies from old age while looking young

Animals almost never die of old age, they die because they get killed or sick. A lion's lifespan is 10-14 years in the wild, in captivity that extends to 20 years. So I don't knowwww could it be that instead of them "dying looking young", they just actually die young?

Also, some cases of wild animals living far beyond the average years for their species has been reported... This is an old lion, very young indeed.

 

[KindMaster1]

your body simply can't overuse nutrients nigga

Of course it can. If there is deficiency, you disallocate from looks and allocate to survival. If there's enough, you allocate to super health based survival. If there is abundance, healing of diseases starts, anti ageing starts (compared to all peers, being best of best), and bones grow, the more abundance the better.

 

[FlotPSL]

A lion's lifespan is 10-14 years in the wild

I didnt know it was that low wtf

 

[veggiedietcell]

Plants miss over 15 micronutrients... right... like which ones?

vitaminD3, K2, taurine, l carnitine, creatine, choline, EPA, DHA, vitamin A, riboflavin, B12 and more