So U think Vegan is healthy?

[Aractus]

Oh, be aware that the bakery section of Woolies or Coles do not bake "fresh bread" from scratch. You may find a better alternative from Baker's Delight. They seem to put less soy and additives into their bread. This is from a Master Baker I know over here who worked at both Coles and Woolies bakeries.

Neither does Subway. The Turkish Halal Pide House Yarralumla bakes their bread fresh, that's what makes their kebabs so great. There's a bakery next-door to them, there's a baker's delight close to where I live, there's other bakeries I sometimes go to as well.

So, you are thirty? I really wouldn't get too hung up about food mate. For me (like yourself) I have always been conscious of the link to good food and good health. As many others have argued, it really depends on the individual and what works best for them. What IS clear is that excessive amounts of anything will and can have detrimental affects to your overall long term health. Even being excessively underweight. What is not clear is any link to being over 45 and putting on weight for no real reason, or conversely being over 70 and losing weight for no apparent reason; dietary habits and exercise remaining the same.

Yes and my brother wasn't looking so good last time I saw him - he's 28, and usually underweight (but not by a lot).

---

QT I put my entire response to you in hide tags, enjoy.

---

I would like to just point out you've made many more numerous claims that I ever have here.

Yes, and I backed up most of them.

That's so ridiculously framed. There's literally no diet that can guarantee you 90 years. There are external factors and physiological differences.

Then you didn't read Dan Buettner's article "How To Live To 100 - Nine Healthy Habits" based on his research into the regions with high proportions of centenarians, or listen to his TED talk on the same subject - link. Dan Buettner's research says you can't slow or stop your aging, however you can accelerate it, and the capacity of the human body is about 90 years. Also, the areas he looked at were not people who were popping multivitamins or taking other supplements as so many in the western world seem to do. I see ads on TV advertising multivitamins for children, I think that's appalling how anyone thinks that advertising multivitamins for children is ethical.

My first post wasn't even addressed to you or anyone. Imbeciles like frodo and yourself started replying to me. I see you'll gloss over frodo's straw man in his first reply to me.

His first post addressed to you was: not a straw man. You claimed that that fruit, veg and grains are the 'best foods nutritionally' (your words), and he called that an unfounded assertion especially to do with grains.

You're the one who came in here crying "straw man". You're actually really great at making straw man arguments (FYI that doesn't make it ironic, but it does make you a hypocrit).

So what kind of credibility do you have to cry straw man. Especially when this is a theists M.O. to distort as much as possible, and the evidence is in your posts. You've distorted and cherry-picked quotes to make an argument. It's pathetic really.

This is not a thread about religion - last post I taught you the definition of straw man, this post I'm going to teach you the definition of trolling. That bullshit above is called trolling.

But you won't go over the negatives of meat. Which doesn't mean one should advocate the abstinence of meat, and I didn't advocate that.

Who told you I "won't go over the negatives of meat"? Or is this another one of your assumptions? So you don't bring up a subject, and then conclude that because I didn't bring it up already that I refuse to talk about it?

I've also been over the fact that you're wrong about any of those three containing the most nutrients - the most nutrient dense food is red meat, and specifically cattle liver has the highest density and biggest variety of vitamins and minerals.

And we've been over how stupid it is to think a mostly meat diet is better than a mostly green diet. But, yeah, more assertions above. I'm immediately skeptical that red meat is the best food nutritionally, let alone the best meat nutritionally.

LOL, @ that last sentence. For someone who cries straw man so often I can't understand how you are not more careful with what you say. I didn't ever say that "red meat is the best food nutritionally", I said it's the most nutrient dense food. Grains like Soy are in fact also very dense in "nutrients", however not the nutrients that humans need.

Lierre Keith, author of "The Vegetarian Myth" is the one who I quoted as saying red meat is the most nutrient dense. Notice that I have a reference, I already provided it, and that you don't.

In fact, it's not the best meat from what I've read over the years. And since you've made the claim about red meat, you've still got the burden of proof to show red meat is the best. Which has yet to been seen or recognized by science from what I've seen.

I didn't say it was the "best meat". In fact in my last post I said that people don't need to eat any red meat if they don't want to. I really wish you could learn to recognize your own straw man arguments. You clearly know the word because someone on another forum kept accusing you of making them!

Plenty of people live healthily for years or their entire lives on mostly green diets, with mostly meat diets or entirely meat or entirely green. So what you're saying is just bullshit. You completely ignore in my example the "mostly" connotation.

Here you go again, deliberately twisting what I said. Some people consume too much red meat, that's true, but many more people consume too much added sugar in western countries like Australia and the USA.

There are examples of people that over consume just about anything including water.

As to your constant statement that plenty of people live healthily on "mostly green diets" - so what? That's actually proven by Dan Buettner's research, a reference which I already provided. But they still eat dairy every day, most of them actually did eat meat/fish every day as well. However there's no evidence that, say, everyone should eat meat once a week just because it works for some people.

So, you would pick the mostly meat diet based on this statement, it seems, so thanks again for finally answering another question.

What is it with trying to put words into my mouth? Some people do very well with getting 60% of their calories from meat/fish, some people do very well with getting 30% of their calories from meat/fish. I'm not advocating extremes.

You claimed emotional argument as if it was a bad thing. I showed it was more than just that, and at the end I just tell you straight up that, even without other arguments, emotional arguments are not necessarily invalid. So I don't see why one would dismiss them off hand like that. Especially when saving other animals is paramount to our species surviving at all. If you don't get that, you're justly hopelessly ignorant and I shouldn't have wasted my time replying.

Yes, you think you're very smart don't you.

Let's take Seals as an example. Europe doesn't have the problem of having to deal with that pest species so they're completely detached from the reality of what Canada has to face. If Canadians didn't cull Seals then their fish stocks would be depleted. It is a necessary thing. Same thing here, in Australia, with Kangaroos. We have batshit-crazy far-left people that protest it, but we need to cull roos for the good of the environment.

Did I not just say that anything on that list could be close to endangerment or projected to be endangered? Just because it's not at a critical point of going extinct means we can just fish up whatever we want? no, you obviously don't know any of the implications of whaling. I mean, you're honestly defending whaling? you really are an idiot. You clearly don't understand the structure of the oceanic food chain or the magnificent order whales bring to the ocean. I see you completely ignored that we're killing the ocean and the marine life under the water.

Of course I'm in favour of sustainable hunting and fishing. No one is forcing you to eat whales if you don't want to. With that said, I'm not in favour of their dolphin hunting that is where I would draw the line. And look at that - you got all worked up about whales and did not even say a single thing about Southern Bluefin Tuna.

...Anyway, I said a mostly green diet was better compared to mostly meat, which was my opinion and a carefully worded opinion at that. Do I have to say "imo" in every opinion post, that's ridiculous. But the bottom line is, my body has reacted better to a mostly green diet (which included meat) and it made me feel better. Because we all react differently to different foods, there is no perfect diet for everyone. I already mentioned that one can munch on any diet and live out a good life, and athletes who go green don't necessarily need meat to gain muscle.

I've been saying the whole time that there's no one diet that's right for everyone...

What a shitty prophecy, like the ones you probably believe in like the Resurrection or something. And trust me, the irony of your post here is not lost on me, in fact, it's more ironic now than when I said it before, especially from what you say next..

Since you don't know what irony means, I will also teach you the definition of irony, and then perhaps you can use the word correctly in the future.

Here is the way you used irony 'a religious person crying unfounded claim, oh the irony'. Irony is doing or saying the exact opposite to what you are supposed to do or say. I'll give you an example to illustrate this for you. An ambulance driver gets in an accident while driving an ambulance: not irony. An ambulance driver gets to the accident scene and does not know what to do next and has to ask bystanders what to do: ironic. I'll give you another example: a marriage counsellor getting a divorce from his wife: not irony. A marriage counsellor driving an otherwise happy couple to divorce: irony.

Now that you know what this word means, please use it correctly.

You obviously don't know what it means if you think you haven't made more of straw man's than I have made (which is zero).

Do you really believe you've made zero straw man arguments? I believe the word for that is: delusion.

Especially when you claimed that "whatever answer you gave me I would call it a straw man"

Which you did.

obviously I wouldn't if you stopped making them, fucking moron. I can't even count one I've made and I've refuted every one you've brought up when you cherry-pick what you want from my posts when I'm replying to your whole post. Dishonest little turd.

And yet more evidence that you try to win arguments with insults and needless trolling rather than substance.

Provide a reference. Having an allergy to wheat is called "gluten intolerance" and I've never heard anyone use the phrase "grain intolerance" or similar to describe it, so provide a reference for saying that an allergy to say fish is indeed an allergy to meat.

This idiot is too much stupid for me..

Right, so asking you for a reference for the umpteenth time, and for the umpteenth time you still refuse.

---

---

They are certainly less bulky than western boys though-- they'd be better at volleyball and basketball than American football.

That's my point, their diet has altered their bulk over centuries. If you eat like a Korean, it doesn't mean that you'll become like one, but it would mean that if the whole world did it that over centuries you'd shrink down man even more - which is probably not what we want to do!

---

What is not clear is any link to being over 45 and putting on weight for no real reason, or conversely being over 70 and losing weight for no apparent reason; dietary habits and exercise remaining the same.

Use the BMR calculator, your calorie needs stay pretty constant 30-40, but once you reach 40 or 45 it does drop down by a significant amount, thus why you should be eating about 200 calories less on average after 40 than before. I just did a calculation on the site, and it says that I would need to eat about 150 calories a day less than I need now if I was 45.