The protein myth

[Ballesteri]

6.4355555 to be exact

and an extra 100 calories give or take

 

[Ballesteri]

About time he got banned...

Well I did not get to see the post that did it so can't comment on that

 

[madds87]

Hahaha and who said that he should of been banned from the beginning!!!! This guy!!! Lol

But he will come out on t.v. trying to sell his book and a copy of this convo lol

 

[blaykeryan]

Hahaha and who said that he should of been banned from the beginning!!!! This guy!!! Lol

But he will come out on t.v. trying to sell his book and a copy of this convo lol

I lol...I was the 2nd guy who said that...the book will be called the poison of America:cooked meat

 

[virago88]

I quit most forms of animal protein (still eat seafood) and dairy about three months ago. I'm lactose intolerant and it seemed to be getting worse. I noticed a massive difference- a positive one. I train twice, sometime 3 times a day for my sport and was struggling with energy and recovery (constantly injured) and tired. Changed diet and I changed performance. I too was a sucker for the whole protein/strength. Made the change when I was injured and have been happy.

 

[virago88]

Here's some info from an old post: The first study I found came from the US National Libary of Medicine. The Oxford Vegeterian Study was completed in the UK with subjects recruited between 1980-1984. Although this is a fairly dated study it is still worth looking at as it takes various lifestyle and dietary factors into consideration. They found that the health of vegeterans was better than meat eaters, but that vegans were at risk of iodine deficiency. The next study, a more recent one came from Harvard. Harvard's School of Public Health published research which observed 37,698 for 22 yrs and 83,644 women for up to 28 yrs. These subjects were free from cardiovascular disease and cancer at a base line. Their diets were assessed every four years. They discovered that "one daily serving of processed red meat (1 hot dog or 2 slices of bacon) was associated with a 20% increased [mortality] risk". Meanwhile, one daily serving (size of a deck of cards) of unprocessed red meat has a 13% increased risk. They also found benefits with replacing one serving of red meat with a healthier protein choice, like fish, poultry, nuts & legumes). And finally, in June 2012 a study published in the Medical Journal of Australia, claimed health benefits of a Vegeterian diet over a meeting eating one. This study again noted that vegan were at a risk of developing a b12 deficiency, but the key was being a well prepared. A well prepared plant based diet can meet the nutritional needs for both children and adults. In both the Harvard and Australian studies cancer, diabetes, obesity and rates where higher among the meat eating subjects. Hope this adds another thinking point to a very interesting topic.

 

[JudoJosh]

Here's some info from an old post: The first study I found came from the US National Libary of Medicine. The Oxford Vegeterian Study was completed in the UK with subjects recruited between 1980-1984. Although this is a fairly dated study it is still worth looking at as it takes various lifestyle and dietary factors into consideration. They found that the health of vegeterans was better than meat eaters, but that vegans were at risk of iodine deficiency. The next study, a more recent one came from Harvard. Harvard's School of Public Health published research which observed 37,698 for 22 yrs and 83,644 women for up to 28 yrs. These subjects were free from cardiovascular disease and cancer at a base line. Their diets were assessed every four years. They discovered that "one daily serving of processed red meat (1 hot dog or 2 slices of bacon) was associated with a 20% increased [mortality] risk". Meanwhile, one daily serving (size of a deck of cards) of unprocessed red meat has a 13% increased risk. They also found benefits with replacing one serving of red meat with a healthier protein choice, like fish, poultry, nuts & legumes). And finally, in June 2012 a study published in the Medical Journal of Australia, claimed health benefits of a Vegeterian diet over a meeting eating one. This study again noted that vegan were at a risk of developing a b12 deficiency, but the key was being a well prepared. A well prepared plant based diet can meet the nutritional needs for both children and adults. In both the Harvard and Australian studies cancer, diabetes, obesity and rates where higher among the meat eating subjects. Hope this adds another thinking point to a very interesting topic.

For the oxford study

Mortality in British vegetarians: review and preliminary results from EPIC-Oxford.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Three prospective studies have examined the mortality of vegetarians in Britain.



OBJECTIVE: We describe these 3 studies and present preliminary results on mortality from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Oxford (EPIC-Oxford).



DESIGN: The Health Food Shoppers Study and the Oxford Vegetarian Study were established in the 1970s and 1980s, respectively; each included about 11 000 subjects and used a short questionnaire on diet and lifestyle. EPIC-Oxford was established in the 1990s and includes about 56 000 subjects who completed detailed food frequency questionnaires. Mortality in all 3 studies was followed though the National Health Service Central Register.



RESULTS: Overall, the death rates of all the subjects in all 3 studies are much lower than average for the United Kingdom. Standardized mortality ratios (95% CIs) for all subjects were 59% (57%, 61%) in the Health Food Shoppers Study, 52% (49%, 56%) in the Oxford Vegetarian Study, and 39% (37%, 42%) in EPIC-Oxford. Comparing vegetarians with nonvegetarians within each cohort, the death rate ratios (DRRs), adjusted for age, sex and smoking, were 1.03 (0.95, 1.13) in the Health Food Shoppers Study, 1.01 (0.89, 1.14) in the Oxford Vegetarian Study, and 1.05 (0.86, 1.27) in EPIC-Oxford. DRRs for ischemic heart disease in vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians were 0.85 (0.71, 1.01) in the Health Food Shoppers Study, 0.86 (0.67, 1.12) in the Oxford Vegetarian Study, and 0.75 (0.41, 1.37) in EPIC-Oxford.



CONCLUSIONS: The mortality of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in these studies is low compared with national rates. Within the studies, mortality for major causes of death was not significantly different between vegetarians and nonvegetarians, but the nonsignificant reduction in mortality from ischemic heart disease among vegetarians was compatible with the significant reduction previously reported in a pooled analysis of mortality in Western vegetarians.



PMID: 12936946

For the Harvard study

Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Micha R, Wallace SK, Mozaffarian D.
Source

Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. [email protected]

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Meat consumption is inconsistently associated with development of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and diabetes mellitus, limiting quantitative recommendations for consumption levels. Effects of meat intake on these different outcomes, as well as of red versus processed meat, may also vary.
METHODS AND RESULTS:

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence for relationships of red (unprocessed), processed, and total meat consumption with incident CHD, stroke, and diabetes mellitus. We searched for any cohort study, case-control study, or randomized trial that assessed these exposures and outcomes in generally healthy adults. Of 1598 identified abstracts, 20 studies met inclusion criteria, including 17 prospective cohorts and 3 case-control studies. All data were abstracted independently in duplicate. Random-effects generalized least squares models for trend estimation were used to derive pooled dose-response estimates. The 20 studies included 1 218 380 individuals and 23 889 CHD, 2280 stroke, and 10 797 diabetes mellitus cases. Red meat intake was not associated with CHD (n=4 studies; relative risk per 100-g serving per day=1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.23; P for heterogeneity=0.36) or diabetes mellitus (n=5; relative risk=1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.46; P=0.25). Conversely, processed meat intake was associated with 42% higher risk of CHD (n=5; relative risk per 50-g serving per day=1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 1.89; P=0.04) and 19% higher risk of diabetes mellitus (n=7; relative risk=1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.11 to 1.27; P<0.001). Associations were intermediate for total meat intake. Consumption of red and processed meat were not associated with stroke, but only 3 studies evaluated these relationships.
CONCLUSIONS:

Consumption of processed meats, but not red meats, is associated with higher incidence of CHD and diabetes mellitus. These results highlight the need for better understanding of potential mechanisms of effects and for particular focus on processed meats for dietary and policy recommendations.

And lastly the Australian one

Meat consumption and cancer of the large bowel.

Truswell AS.
Source

Human Nutrition, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. [email protected]

Abstract

Since the major reviews on diet and cancer by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) and by the British Department of Health's Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA) in 1997 and 1998, additional epidemiological studies relating (red) meat consumption and colorectal cancer have been published or found by search. These are collected here. Thirty adequate case-control studies have been published up to 1999 (from 16 different countries). Twenty of them found no significant association of (red) meat with colorectal cancer. Of the remaining 10 studies reporting an association, some obtained statistical significance only in rectal or colon cancers, another only in men, not women, or found a stronger association with pasta and rice, or used an inadequate food list in the food frequency questionnaire. Fifteen cohort studies have now been published. Only in three were significant associations of (red) meat found with colorectal cancer. Two of these positive studies were from the same group in the USA (relative risk 1.7). The results of the third positive study appear to conflict with data from part of the vegetarians follow up mortality study. Here, five groups of vegetarians (in three different countries) with socially matched controls were followed up (total 76 000 people). Mortality from colorectal cancer was not distinguishable between vegetarians and controls. While it is still possible that certain processed meats or sausages (with a variety of added ingredients) or meats cooked at very high temperature carry some risk, the relationship between meats in general and colorectal cancer now looks weaker than the 'probable' status it was judged to have by the WCRF in 1997.

PMID: 11965518

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2

 

[JudoJosh]

Also some food for thought

Health effects of vegetarian and vegan diets.

Abstract

Vegetarian diets do not contain meat, poultry or fish; vegan diets further exclude dairy products and eggs. Vegetarian and vegan diets can vary widely, but the empirical evidence largely relates to the nutritional content and health effects of the average diet of well-educated vegetarians living in Western countries, together with some information on vegetarians in non-Western countries. In general, vegetarian diets provide relatively large amounts of cereals, pulses, nuts, fruits and vegetables. In terms of nutrients, vegetarian diets are usually rich in carbohydrates, n-6 fatty acids, dietary fibre, carotenoids, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E and Mg, and relatively low in protein, saturated fat, long-chain n-3 fatty acids, retinol, vitamin B(12) and Zn; vegans may have particularly low intakes of vitamin B(12) and low intakes of Ca. Cross-sectional studies of vegetarians and vegans have shown that on average they have a relatively low BMI and a low plasma cholesterol concentration; recent studies have also shown higher plasma homocysteine concentrations than in non-vegetarians. Cohort studies of vegetarians have shown a moderate reduction in mortality from IHD but little difference in other major causes of death or all-cause mortality in comparison with health-conscious non-vegetarians from the same population. Studies of cancer have not shown clear differences in cancer rates between vegetarians and non-vegetarians. More data are needed, particularly on the health of vegans and on the possible impacts on health of low intakes of long-chain n-3 fatty acids and vitamin B(12). Overall, the data suggest that the health of Western vegetarians is good and similar to that of comparable non-vegetarians.

PMID:16441942

The importance of distinguishing between processed and unprocessed meat when examing meat intake

May 18, 2010 (Boston, Massachusetts) — The first study to systematically separate out the effects of red unprocessed meat from processed-meat products has shown that eating the former is not associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease or diabetes.

But eating 50 g of processed meat per day--the equivalent of one typical hot dog in the US, or two slices of deli meat--was associated with a 42% higher risk of CHD and a 19% increased risk of diabetes, say Dr Renata Micha (Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA) and colleagues in their paper published online May 17, 2010 in Circulation.

Micha explained that US dietary guidelines recommend eating less red and processed meat, but that these are largely based on the expected effects of saturated fat and dietary cholesterol in the meats. However, previous studies, which have generally evaluated red meats together with processed meats, have shown mixed results in terms of the risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes, she says.

"We found red meats and processed meats had similar amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol, but processed meats had about four times the amount of sodium and 50% more preservatives, such as nitrates, than the unprocessed red meat," she told heartwire . "We suggest that salt and other preservatives might explain this higher risk we found for processed meats."

However, Micha emphasized that people "shouldn't use these findings as license to eat as much unprocessed red meat as they like," because although there was no increased risk for heart disease and diabetes, "it is important to stress that there was no reduced risk either." Also, she noted, processed and unprocessed meats have been associated with a higher risk of some cancers, especially colorectal, "and it will be important to evaluate unprocessed meat separately from processed meat for cancer outcomes too," she said.

"People should definitely give more emphasis to increasing consumption of foods that have been shown to be protective, such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, fish, and nuts," she stressed.

"This paper represents very important work," says Dr Nathan Wong (University of California, Irvine), president of the American Society for Preventive Cardiology, who was not involved with this study.

"The substantial increase in risk of both heart disease and diabetes associated with processed meats, while not surprising, should reinforce the message that these foods, which are particularly high in sodium, other additives, and fat, are potentially harmful and should be minimized or avoided," he told heartwire .

Processed and Unprocessed Meats Should Be Studied Separately

Micha and colleagues reviewed and combined all prior published studies around the world that examined the relationship between eating meat and the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and stroke. They identified 20 relevant studies, including around one million adults in 10 countries, across four continents.

Micha explained that they contacted the authors of each study and requested that they separate out unprocessed from processed meats. After multivariate adjustment, red-meat intake of 100 g per day--defined as unprocessed beef, pork, or lamb--was not associated with CHD (four studies) or diabetes mellitus (five studies).

In contrast, consumption of processed meat--any meat preserved by smoking, curing, or salting, such as sausages, bacon, and salami--was associated with increased risk of CHD (five studies: relative risk per 50-g serving per day=1.42; p=0.04) and diabetes (seven studies: relative risk per 50-g serving per day=1.19; p<0.001). Consumption of red and processed meat was not associated with stroke, but only three studies evaluated these relationships, the researchers note.

"When you tease [the data on] these meats out, you see different associations for disease risk between processed and unprocessed meats," Micha told heartwire . These findings suggest that these types of meats should be studied separately in future research for health effects, she noted.

And although she says cause and effect cannot be proven by these types of long-term observational studies, she explains there is "biological plausibility" for the salt and preservatives in processed meat contributing to the risks observed.

"We know that dietary sodium increases blood pressure, and in animal experiments, nitrate preservatives have been shown to promote atherosclerosis and reduce glucose tolerance. People should definitely avoid eating too much processed meat," she concluded.

Wong agrees: "With a 42% higher risk associated with each 50-g (<2-oz) intake of processed meat, this translates to nearly a doubling of risk for a daily intake of only a quarter of a pound [113.4 g], which many Americans do not think twice about consuming in a single meal," he told heartwire

And last but not least, quite possibly the sexiest and smartest lady on the inter webs - http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2

 

[Resolve]

Protein's aren't 'dead' or 'alive'. They're molecules that perform a given function in the right conditions. This post demonstrates a severe lack of even basic biological understanding.

Every protein you've ever eaten from a vegetable is just as 'dead' as the protein in the meat. Now, if you want to talk about secondary structure and denaturation during digestion, that's another subject, but still doesn't make anything OP said valid.

 

[PalmFist]

Protein's aren't 'dead' or 'alive'. They're molecules that perform a given function in the right conditions. This post demonstrates a severe lack of even basic biological understanding.

Every protein you've ever eaten from a vegetable is just as 'dead' as the protein in the meat. Now, if you want to talk about secondary structure and denaturation during digestion, that's another subject, but still doesn't make anything OP said valid.

Agreed ^^^

 

[AZMIDLYF]

I see a lot more old drunks than vegans...just an observation. Lol

 

[mmorton]

Meats FTW!

 

[fueledpassion]

breast milk and I also articulated from it that I should eat live animals

Thats what I was thinking too! Eat live animals so I can grow bigger and catch E. Coli at the same time.

 

[fueledpassion]

Protein's aren't 'dead' or 'alive'. They're molecules that perform a given function in the right conditions. This post demonstrates a severe lack of even basic biological understanding.

Every protein you've ever eaten from a vegetable is just as 'dead' as the protein in the meat. Now, if you want to talk about secondary structure and denaturation during digestion, that's another subject, but still doesn't make anything OP said valid.

I was wondering the same thing myself. A calorie is a calorie, lol.

 

[uvawahoowa]

And those who consume more animal proteins have more sickness and disease. Eating a dead, cooked animal is not as good as eating raw protein provided by nature.

I eat 350 g protein from animal sources daily. Odd I have only been sick once in the last 4 years

 

[Resolve]

I was wondering the same thing myself. A calorie is a calorie, lol.

To a point. Different energy substrates can have very different metabolic impacts physiologically.

 

[fueledpassion]

oh yes, I completely agree! I was making reference to a "dead" protein calorie vs a "live" protein calorie.

 

[JudoJosh]

I was wondering the same thing myself. A calorie is a calorie, lol.

Not exactly.

Yes a calorie is a calorie according to a calorimeter but humans are not calorie measuring devices. We eat food not calories. Food has metabolic consequences so a calorie of sugar has different metabolic consequences than ingesting a calorie of fat or protein.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2

 

[fueledpassion]

Not exactly.

Yes a calorie is a calorie according to a calorimeter but humans are not calorie measuring devices. We eat food not calories. Food has metabolic consequences so a calorie of sugar has different metabolic consequences than ingesting a calorie of fat or protein.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2

Read my previous post. Was not referring to metabolic pathway.

 

[11B_IRQ_VET]

I'm pretty sure this guy swallows his own semen for natural protein

 

[Spaniard]

and what evidence is this?

His opinion is evidence, Josh... Keep up man.

Put up your scientific evidence or shut your stupid trap. Peer reviewed and published only.

Hello moderator.

I skipped to the last page but I like to see Mr. Cooper drop some knowledge.

Why? Ever met Josh? Lol! Coop is a great resource but don't forget to look to the other great minds around here.

Well said. The problem we face is the brainwashing. We are born into the world, and since childhood we have been led to believe that truth comes from authority: if you want to heal your sickness, go to the doctor; if you want proper education, go to school; if you want justice, go to the lawyer; if you want truth, go to the media. Western society is plagued with myths and willful ignorance, which is why we are the sickest culture in the world. Instead of doing critical thinking, people just follow the sheep and repeat what they were told by someone else, who is also repeating what he was told, and so on. But if you do critical thinking and come to the conclusion that the majority of people are being duped, you are labelled a stupid fanatic. The media knows how easy it is to brianwash people. All you have to do is keep repeating the same thing over and over again, and eventually people accept it as fact.


Bodybuilding is no exception. Twenty years ago you could pick up a magazine that said, "Every bodybuilder must have at least 70g of protein a day." Ten years later another magazine would say, "Every bodybuilder must have at least 150g protein a day." And today a typical magazine will say, "Every bodybuilder must have at least 250g protein a day." Or some magazines will say, "1g of protein per pound in bodyweight," while another magazine will say, "2g of protein per pound in bodyweight." This is hogwash. Tell these imbeciles who write these magazines to debate a gorilla.


Let me explain how bodybuilders are duped: if you go to the supermarket and pick up a chicken breast, the label might say, "30g protein." The bodybuilder then thinks, "Ah ha, chicken is a good source of protein." But this is just a smoke screen. What the bodybuilder doesn't realize is that most of the protein in the chicken is not going to be absorbed into the muscle. Most of it will just go to waste. Animal protein is not properly digested and absorbed by humans, especially when the animal has been cooked and all the enzymes have been killed. Eating a dead, cooked animal will give you dead protein. It's so obvious. And eating animal protein on a regular basis increases the risk of disease.


If you get your protein from nature, you are getting the best quality protein ever. Protein from nature is completely natural and has all its living enzymes. If you are able to absorb small amounts of natural protein, you will grow. Eating 200-300g of animal protein is insane. If you look at 600-pound gorillas, they are among the largest, most muscular animals in the animal kingdom and they are vegetarians. They’re all eating truckloads of chlorophyll and high amounts of fiber that’s keeping their bodies alkaline and their muscles growing. It's not rocket science.


Peace

Wait for it....

Mod edit: and you're gone...

Oops...

Dammit easy! Now who are we going to argue with?

It's true. If you are getting good quality protein provided by nature, you only need a small amount to build muscle. If, however, you get your protein from dead animals that have been cooked, most of the protein is not absorbed into the muscle. Eating high amounts of dead animal protein will just put a strain on your liver, kidneys, and digestive system.

Soooo.... Still no evidence

h-t-t-p://m.mensfitness.com/training/fittest-guys-america

Mac Danzig??? UFC fighter...

Anarchy, please tell me you didn't cite a Mens Fitness interview as a source.

Are you not able to do your own research? I thought every adult by now knew that eating meat regularly increased the risk of disease. If you didn't know this then I'm shocked.

Still no evidence. Talk about avoiding the question

I posted it to show that not all vegetarians are skinny, cracked out looking little puss's... But obviously no matter what supporting articles I post, there are ignorant mofo's that will respond with responses as equally lame and relevant as a child's "I'm rubber, your glue..." I'm done with this thread, what you eat, your health, nutrition, matters not to me. And as I stated before, I eat lots of animal protein, and dairy. I was just sharing knowledge on the subject, outside the normal majority thoughts.

Here is where you went wrong "supporting article". Interviews and sticks you find in those magazines are bogus. With articles however some can be truthful if you actually take the time to cross reference their sources. The interview is not valid as a supporting argument tho bud.

Example: An avid drinker tells you that he's never felt better since consistently drinking 9 shots of vodka a day. Are you then going to say those of us who haven't been getting housed for breakfast have been doing it wrong because Jim Bob successfully does?

The correct answer is, no.

For the oxford study



For the Harvard study



And lastly the Australian one



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2

I can't post for a few days due to studying and you scare EVERYONE away with your fancy studies...

Also some food for thought



The importance of distinguishing between processed and unprocessed meat when examing meat intake



And last but not least, quite possibly the sexiest and smartest lady on the inter webs - http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2

Thank you for sharing that link! I LOATHE Forks Over Knives and the damn cult that follows it. All based on that bull **** study!

- Valdez

 

[virago88]

All based on that bull **** study!

- Valdez[/QUOTE]

I think it creates debate and food for thought (pardon the pun). It also means people can discuss the issue providing various evidence rather than relying on personal bias and/or preference. JudoJosh- though I have had opposite opinion- has provided useful evidence based on studies.

 

[Ballesteri]

His opinion is evidence, Josh... Keep up man.



Hello moderator.



Why? Ever met Josh? Lol! Coop is a great resource but don't forget to look to the other great minds around here.



Wait for it....



Oops...

Dammit easy! Now who are we going to argue with?



Soooo.... Still no evidence



Anarchy, please tell me you didn't cite a Mens Fitness interview as a source.



Still no evidence. Talk about avoiding the question



Here is where you went wrong "supporting article". Interviews and sticks you find in those magazines are bogus. With articles however some can be truthful if you actually take the time to cross reference their sources. The interview is not valid as a supporting argument tho bud.

Example: An avid drinker tells you that he's never felt better since consistently drinking 9 shots of vodka a day. Are you then going to say those of us who haven't been getting housed for breakfast have been doing it wrong because Jim Bob successfully does?

The correct answer is, no.



I can't post for a few days due to studying and you scare EVERYONE away with your fancy studies...



Thank you for sharing that link! I LOATHE Forks Over Knives and the damn cult that follows it. All based on that bull **** study!

- Valdez

Either you have to much time on your hands or you have been snooking in your fellow Firefighters to chime in

 

[Spaniard]

Either you have to much time on your hands or you have been snooking in your fellow Firefighters to chime in

I'm unfamiliar with the term "snooking". I'm only 26 I shouldn't feel this damn old lol! I can't keep up with the lingo!!

- Valdez

 

[Ballesteri]

I'm unfamiliar with the term "snooking". I'm only 26 I shouldn't feel this damn old lol! I can't keep up with the lingo!!

- Valdez

Lol I don't no some nonsense I made up, sneaking? snorkeling maybe, I have never seen the show and don't plan ever to.

 

[madds87]

Lol I don't no some nonsense I made up, sneaking? snorkeling maybe, I have never seen the show and don't plan ever to.

Snooky'ed? Lol

 

[liftandeat]

Your not going to get anywhere with these people without proof, you'll just be a joke.

 

[madds87]

Your not going to get anywhere with these people without proof, you'll just be a joke.

Neither are they going to get anywhere with me!!! That's why I was saying he needs to leave. I know those kinds of people and there only on here to cause trouble.... mostly idiots trying to find there place in the world.... Arguing just makes them feel important.

 

[EasyEJL]

If congress can label pizza as a vegetable for school lunches, can I have them lablel eggs as plants too? I think I could cope with eggs as my only source of protein

 

[Ballesteri]

If congress can label pizza as a vegetable for school lunches, can I have them lablel eggs as plants too? I think I could cope with eggs as my only source of protein

But EasyE with all the eggplants in Florida how could you not already know about this

 

[madds87]

If congress can label pizza as a vegetable for school lunches, can I have them lablel eggs as plants too? I think I could cope with eggs as my only source of protein

And vegetable oil....

 

[Rodel]

How about fresh caught raw tuna straight from the ocean right on the boat?

 

[samson1987]

If you cook a steak your then kill the protein? If you bake your hemp seeds does that kill your "live protein" it's ignorant your statement and completely close minded. I myself eat healthy, I eat protein from various sources, whey, protein isolate, casein, cottage cheese, milk,chicken, spinach, and yes hemp seeds. Humans evolved eating both plants and meat, just look at our ****ing teeth son! Back in golden age of bodybuilding what did Arnie, Zane, ferrigno and the likes eat? ****ing eggs, chicken, steak, potatoes and look at them the evidence is clear, they got the nutrients they needed. Eskimos eat diets of almost pure "dead animal" protein. I get what you are saying, it kinda makes sense, but its untrue. If I'm wrong ill gladly accept it and shake your hand, but show some studies, some real evidence backing up your close minded claims. I'm not smart and I'm not qualified these are my personal opinions, show me I'm wrong and ill gladly make a change. Till then

 

[Rodel]

Regarding the first paragraph, the idea isn't that small intake of protein will lead to no gains, but finding an amount that will lead to best gains and there are already active discussions about this on both sides.

If you eat a dead animal, you are getting a delicious source of bioavailable protein, proven to build muscle. A few enzymes may be lost in the cooking process but it's better than food poisoning and parasites. Don't overcook your food and you'll still preserve some of th enzymes anyhow. Bloody steak for the win. Either way though, you are getting a delicious source of bioavailable protein, proven to build muscle.

Whey protein has an extremely high biological value, and tops the list of proteins for this particular topic. It is not a whole food and nobody argues it to be. It's a "supplement" taken along side whole foods to achieve an amount of protein that creates the optimal conditions for muscle recovery.

Fruits, vegetables, nuts et cetera make excellent additions to a bloody steak dinner and to a whey shake for a convenient snack but if you want to talk about bad gas, eat a handful of chia seeds and report back.

Your entire post is off base and incorrect where building muscle is concerned. And for the record, once you rip a fruit, veggie or nut from the vine, it is dead and begins decaying immediatly. By the time you pick fruit up from the grocery store, cart it home and eat it a few days later, it has been dead for weeks. The decomposition may not be horrendous or even noticeable to the senses but many of its enzymes, phytochemicals et cetera have started to degrade.

Best point I've heard so far

 

[Ballesteri]

 

[GeraldNY181]

where can I get some "live" protein?? haha

 

[madds87]

Mothers tit?

 

[macdady]

The strongest animals in the world are vegetarians. The few animals that eat meat have a huge amount of stomach acid and are able to digest the meat a lot easier. Dead animal protein doesn't digest very well in humans, yet ignorant and stupid bodybuilders think that meat is good quality protein. It is not! Even a gorilla has got the intelligence to get its protein from nature. Dumb humans are like sheep. They will follow anything that suits them.

Gorillas eat their own poop for protein too... that's all I'm saying( sorry for the old thread bump lol

 

[haritec]

My Apologies in advance for writing a book :silly:


Protein - all protein - is digested in the stomache and upper part of the large intestine. Here is a simplified description of the process

Protein digestion begins in the stomach, chiefly with the action of the hydrochloric acid that is produced there, and by the enzyme called pepsin (PEP-sin). Some seven or more factors influence how fast the enzymes act on the protein. These factors include the concentration of the enzyme, that is, how much of it is present; the amount of protein food needing action; the acidity of the food and of the stomach; the temperature of the food; time; and the presence of any digestion inhibitors, such as antacids. Cooking and chewing help, but protein digestion does not begin in the mouth, as carbohydrate metabolism does. The hydrochloric acid in the stomach is required to break the protein bonds. The protein-containing foods are broken apart, separating out the protein, then the proteins are broken into their constituent parts, the amino acids.

Protein digestion continues in the upper portion of the small intestine under the action of the pancreatic protein enzymes, trypsin (TRIP-sin) and chymotrypsin (KI-mo-trip-sin). The amino acids are absorbed by the blood capillaries of the small intestines, carried through the liver, and then go into the blood of the general circulation. Recall from our discussion of carbohydrate digestion that absorption is done by means of selectively permeable membranes of the small intestine walls, which are arranged in folds called villi.

So, whether it is plant proteins or animal proteins - they are digested through similar pathways. Cooking helps digest proteins as it starts the process of breaking open the complex structures which makes the stomach acid be able to get at it more easily.

The OP is correct that raw foods have more active digestive enzymes associated with them. But the idea that protein from "dead" meat is treated any differently in the stomach than a protein molecule from a "live" bean is hogwash. Eating lots of meat does require a lot of stomach acid, and some people who are low acid producers can have a hard time digesting meat proteins - and may do better on a vegan or lacto ovarian (milk and eggs) diet. Taking Betaine HCl before meals has been a standby of the bodybuilding industry since the Vince Gironda days - the Betaine improves methylation in the liver while the HCl increases stomach acid and protein digestion. One can also supplement digestive enzymes.

Interestingly, there are arguments that the stomache has a really hard time when asked to digest complex carbs and protein at the same as it requires two different conditions (low acid for the carbs and high acid for the protein). So live foods like beans can be especially hard to digest and get the protein from.

The OP is completely irrevocably wrong when it comes to bio-availability of proteins. Numerous documented scientific studies have been done on bio-availability ( essentially this is a scale which rates how much of the protein in the food becomes available to the body when it is ingested - with a whole egg getting a rating of 100). From the table below - you see that meat eggs and dairy top the bio-availability list - and plant sources are much lower. Basically it says if your daily require for protein was 200 grams - you would need to eat almost 500 grams of protein (from peanuts) to give you that 200 grams since the protein is only 40% available.

Protein Source Bio-Availability Index
Whey Protein Isolate Blends 100-159
Whey Concentrate 104
Whole Egg 100
Cow's Milk 91
Egg White 88
Fish 83
Beef 80
Chicken 79
Casein 77
Rice 74
Soy 59
Wheat 54
Beans 49
Peanuts 43

Bottom line - There is no right way to eat - it is a personal choice. There is no good data to support that vegans get protein more efficiently - in fact the opposite is likely too. The human body uses animal protein very effectively.

 

[haritec]

Oh - and Beef makes me like to "engage in coitus" ( since f*ck is apparently not allowed) - unlike Soy and this boy :haha::haha:

Previous
research has focused on the beneficial effects of soy and its active
ingredients, isoflavones. For instance, soy consumption has been associated
with lower cardiovascular and breast cancer risks. However, the number of
reports demonstrating adverse effects of isoflavones due to their estrogenlike
properties has increased. We present the case of a 19-y-old type 1 diabetic but
otherwise healthy man with sudden onset of loss of libido and erectile
dysfunction after the ingestion of large quantities of soy-based products in a
vegan-style diet. Blood levels of free and total testosterone and
dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) were taken at the initial presentation for
examination and continuously monitored up to 2 y after discontinuation of the
vegan diet. Blood concentrations of free and total testosterone were initially
decreased, whereas DHEA was increased. These parameters normalized within 1 y
after cessation of the vegan diet. Normalization of testosterone and DHEA
levels was paralleled by a constant improvement of symptoms; full sexual
function was regained 1 y after cessation of the vegan diet. This case
indicates that soy product consumption is related to hypogonadism and erectile
dysfunction. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of a
combination of decreased free testosterone and increased DHEA blood
concentrations after consuming a soy-rich diet. Hence, this case emphasizes the
impact of isoflavones in the regulation of sex hormones and associated physical
alterations.

 

[haritec]

and if you want the definitive answer ( and more about protein than most of us want to know )

yyy.jssm.org/vol3/n3/2/v3n3-2pdf.pdf

replace the yyy with www - it wont let me posst links yet

 

[Math33]

Mike Tyson tried this route he became vegan, he lost 40 pounds

 

[Kluu]

Gorillas are omnivores just like humans they like red bloody meat just like we do. I do like the hemp protein and breast milk though (kinda miss my wife being pregnant).

 

[asooneyeonig]

And those who consume more animal proteins have more sickness and disease. Eating a dead, cooked animal is not as good as eating raw protein provided by nature.

well the inuit prove that idea wrong and have for thousands of years. care to try again?

 

[asooneyeonig]

After an animal has been slaughtered and cooked in the oven or the grill, I think we can safely say that it's not natural.

anthropologists have proven that eating animal based protein has allowed us to evolve to be homo sapiens in the first place.

humans have the amazing ability to learn from their experiences and the amazing ability to not do so. reminds me of a quote from einstein, the 2 most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and human stupidity and im not so sure about helium.

 

[asooneyeonig]

The strongest animals in the world are vegetarians. The few animals that eat meat have a huge amount of stomach acid and are able to digest the meat a lot easier. Dead animal protein doesn't digest very well in humans, yet ignorant and stupid bodybuilders think that meat is good quality protein. It is not! Even a gorilla has got the intelligence to get its protein from nature. Dumb humans are like sheep. They will follow anything that suits them.

those herbovires have different metabolisms and different digestive tracts than we do. they do not require essential amino acids like homo sapiens. so you are not comparing the same things.

the only thing i can even come close to agreeing with you is that animal meat does not digest as well in our bodies as it would in a carnivore. but guess what, we are not carnivores. we are omnivores. so again not a valid argument.

and how is animal protein not natural. i have not ready past this post yet but you keep saying its not and i have not read why its not. you have made the claims, can you back them up with science from peer reviewed research journals?

 

[macdady]

those herbovires have different metabolisms and different digestive tracts than we do. they do not require essential amino acids like homo sapiens. so you are not comparing the same things.

the only thing i can even come close to agreeing with you is that animal meat does not digest as well in our bodies as it would in a carnivore. but guess what, we are not carnivores. we are omnivores. so again not a valid argument.

and how is animal protein not natural. i have not ready past this post yet but you keep saying its not and i have not read why its not. you have made the claims, can you back them up with science from peer reviewed research journals?

We could get biblical if anyone here is religious and believes the bible lol... read Genesis chapter 9 verses 1-3... just sayin

 

[asooneyeonig]

We could get biblical if anyone here is religious and believes the bible lol... read Genesis chapter 9 verses 1-3... just sayin

we could, shall we involve all religions? or should we just stick to facts?

 

[macdady]

we could, shall we involve all religions? or should we just stick to facts?

Evolution isn't fact either mister its called the "the theory of evolution" for a reason lol... I'm not here to start a argument buddy just throwing out another view point on meat eating.

 

[asooneyeonig]

Evolution isn't fact either mister its called the "the theory of evolution" for a reason lol... I'm not here to start a argument buddy just throwing out another view point on meat eating.

http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19
http://thehappyscientist.com/study-unit/when-does-theory-become-law

gravity is a theory, it is also a fact it exists. try again. this is not argument, it is facts. science FTW.