Eating Animals vs Plants

[NEUROSPORT]

Nutrients can be essential or nonessential.  Essential nutrients are ones that cannot be manufactured by the body and must come from diet.

We know that you are what you eat, and this is the argument for eating animals.  We are animals therefore the argument goes we should eat animals as we are are going to be made out of them.  If we were to eat grass we would become grass - and if you look at raw vegans that's exactly what they look like - like leaves.

Now here is the problem.  Since we are the animals we eat, and they are us, it follows that whatever nutrients are essential to us are also essential to them - that is they can not manufacture them either.  They can't manufacture the nutrients that we need and the nutrients that we eat them for !  

Instead ALL of the essential nutrients in those animals we eat have come form PLANTS.  The animals have only acted as CONTAINERS for them.  They have added NOTHING to the nutrition in the plants they consumed that our own bodies could not manufacture.

And now we look for grass fed beef and omega 3 eggs - why ?  If we already know precisely WHAT plants the animals must be fed in order to absorb the nutrients that we need in them - WHY NOT EAT THOSE PLANTS DIRECTLY ?

Goodsamaritan explained to me that i should buy only Omega 3 eggs because they are made by hens who were fed flax seeds.  That's great.  But i can just drink flax seed oil directly.

Why is it acceptable to use animals to process and package the nutrients in plants but not acceptable to use a Vita-Mix to do the same ?

With beef or eggs i have to take the farmer's word for what went into that animal.  With a Vita-Mix i put the ingredients in MYSELF.

[djr_81]

Our stomachs and intestines can't process grass.
The ruminants we consume have 4 stomachs which they use to break the grass down into usable nutrients. The ruminants aren't just containers, they're processors.
By all means blend grass up in your blender and drink it down. It will unfortunately not sustain you but some people need to experience for themselves.

[NEUROSPORT]

Our stomachs and intestines can't process grass.
The ruminants we consume have 4 stomachs which they use to break the grass down into usable nutrients. The ruminants aren't just containers, they're processors.
By all means blend grass up in your blender and drink it down. It will unfortunately not sustain you but some people need to experience for themselves.

have you ever heard of JUICING ?

i just came up with a joke:

how many stomachs does it take to process a glass of juice ?

HAHAHAHA ! ! !

[djr_81]

have you ever heard of JUICING ?

Yup. Fails miserably in the long-term from what I've seen.

[NEUROSPORT]

Yup. Fails miserably in the long-term from what I've seen.

those morons at rawfoodtalk.com fail not because it can't be done but because they are idiots.  if they weren't idiots they wouldn't have banned me.  they simply refuse to face reality.  they actually believe that your body does not need protein.  they banned me for saying that you need protein.

every forum has its own mythology.  the mythology of rawfoodtalk was that people don't need protein and that plants are a better source of protein than animals.  this forum's mythology is that lard is the best possible nutrition.  over at cavemanforum the mythology is that cooking food is healthy and paleo.

i am offering you a chance to to get your head out of the sand and look at the facts.  the morons at RFT blew theirs.

[Ioanna]

every forum has its own mythology. 

the beauty of this forum (i can think of only one exception) is that everyone here is posting their experience(s).  we are just learning from each other as we go, connecting with people that keep us motivated.

those morons at rawfoodtalk.com fail not because it can't be done but because they are idiots.

let's not name call... i truly believe everyone is doing the best they can with what they know...  life is a journey.

if they weren't idiots they wouldn't have banned me. 

ah, now i get the name calling.

have you ever heard of JUICING ?

very intuitive and practical... go for it! and if it works for you and feels good, then great!

[KD]

the simplest way to answer this without getting into ethics or really complex biochemical processes or human physiology is just to observe the natural food chain.

One example is the Myrmecophaga tridactyla (Giant Anteater)

The anteater consumes up to 30,000 ants and termites a day. Every one of those bugs in turn probably breaks down lots of cellulose and earth fiber (or from other insects and greasy decayed matter from ants) which is completely impossible for it to eat. It also eats beetles, insect larvae; and occasionally some fruit and that is its diet. It fulfills it's need for water by licking wet vegetation but abstains from actually eating any leaves.

They also eat pebbles and dirt to help break down their food because they don't have teeth (again a reason why it needs ants that break down other omni food), so in a way this doesn't rule out your idea of using processing to help break down your foods. The idea that the lowest end of nutrition spectrum is the highest and the most efficient fuel for all species contradicts pretty much all of nature even when it looks good on paper for humans. I'm all for some tampering with nature in a modern context but also your point about animals adding nothing to nutrition is really hyperbolic, I mean I'm sure you know that at the very least the macronutrient ratios of the food shift dramatically, and there are plenty of known micro-nutrients say: CLA which are incredibly rare or absent in most plant foods. Also you are factually wrong in that likely little of the ingredients you are using in a vitamix are suitable food for most wild or pastured animals (even those that are indisputably herbivores or omnivores) so that is also something to think about. GS was probably just saying that it made more sense for the chicken to eat the hemp (being seed eaters) and processing the food in the same way you are criticizing, not that hemp fed omega eggs were ideal.

Another example would be a polar bear. Would you want to spend every second of your day in deep frozen ocean water in attempt to eat enough plankton to fill your stomach, or will you consume a whale that gets too close to the ice that eats up to 5000 lbs a day? Its also noted that some types of plankton are similar to plants in that they absorb sun energy as food, but this isn't the kind that whales eat and it certainly wouldn't be food for the polar bear.

[NEUROSPORT]

the simplest way to answer this without getting into ethics or really complex biochemical processes or human physiology is just to observe the natural food chain.

One example is the Myrmecophaga tridactyla (Giant Anteater)

The anteater consumes up to 30,000 ants and termites a day. Every one of those bugs in turn probably breaks down lots of cellulose and earth fiber (or from other insects and greasy decayed matter from ants) which is completely impossible for it to eat. It also eats beetles, insect larvae; and occasionally some fruit and that is its diet. It fulfills it's need for water by licking wet vegetation but abstains from actually eating any leaves.

They also eat pebbles and dirt to help break down their food because they don't have teeth (again a reason why it needs ants that break down other omni food), so in a way this doesn't rule out your idea of using processing to help break down your foods. The idea that the lowest end of nutrition spectrum is the highest and the most efficient fuel for all species contradicts pretty much all of nature even when it looks good on paper for humans. I'm all for some tampering with nature in a modern context but also your point about animals adding nothing to nutrition is really hyperbolic, I mean I'm sure you know that at the very least the macronutrient ratios of the food shift dramatically, and there are plenty of known micro-nutrients say: CLA which are incredibly rare or absent in most plant foods. Also you are factually wrong in that likely little of the ingredients you are using in a vitamix are suitable food for most wild or pastured animals (even those that are indisputably herbivores or omnivores) so that is also something to think about. GS was probably just saying that it made more sense for the chicken to eat the hemp (being seed eaters) and processing the food in the same way you are criticizing, not that hemp fed omega eggs were ideal.

Another example would be a polar bear. Would you want to spend every second of your day in deep frozen ocean water in attempt to eat enough plankton to fill your stomach, or will you consume a whale that gets too close to the ice that eats up to 5000 lbs a day? Its also noted that some types of plankton are similar to plants in that they absorb sun energy as food, but this isn't the kind that whales eat and it certainly wouldn't be food for the polar bear.

i am all for concentrating nutrients.  to me something like liver does accomplish that - it is a concentrated source of essential nutrients.

so is whey protein, so are chia or hemp seeds.

but lard is not.  lard is a concentrated source of calories, not nutrition to me.

what i am against is this blind religious belief that animal food is ALWAYS superior to all other forms of food ( plant AND supplements ).  this is not a reflection of reality - but a reflection of the desire of people for SIMPLICITY.  people prefer simple explanations to correct ones, and i am fighting that

somehow our ancestors were smarter than you people.  they would kill their enemy, eat his heart and drink his blood.  they would not focus on his fat.  why is it that they could think straight and you can not ?  they ate his heart because they wanted a stronger heart.  they drank his blood because they realized that blood is what gives life.  but they were not particularly obsessed with his fat because they didn't really want to be fat all that bad.

it appears that the ONLY logic behind the advise to eat more fat tissue is a childish rebellion against the conventional advice to avoid it.  can't we do better than that?  just because conventional diet is wrong doesn't mean that the opposite of it is right.  reality is not 1-dimensional.

[miles]

He's over +NINE THOUSSSAAND!

[TylerDurden]

Lard isn't what we praise over here as it is cooked/processed, I think.Raw animal fat is highly regarded but not viewed as the main food by most RPDers, except by RZCers who naturally want to avoid rabbit starvation.

[RawZi]

they drank his blood because they realized that blood is what gives life.  but they were not particularly obsessed with his fat because they didn't really want to be fat all that bad.

it appears that the ONLY logic behind the advise to eat more fat tissue is a childish rebellion against the conventional advice to avoid it.  can't we do better than that?  just because conventional diet is wrong doesn't mean that the opposite of it is right.  reality is not 1-dimensional.

    I've lived just about every health diet To the hilt!  My body needs calories.  It cannot utilize them from carbohydrates.  It utilizes them poorly from proteins.  Fat (raw fat not oil) works with my body.  With raw fat my body does not gain excessive weight or any weight.  

    As I understand it, each raw and cooked pig fat is called lard.  Tallow is another story, it's called suet when not cooked.  Pigs have lard right under their skin.  That's why they're so hard to poison by snake-venom.  Pigs often have light colored skin.  They also often have sparse and light colored fur.  If they are raised outdoors, that fat is more loaded with vitamin D than many other foods.  I'm coming from severe vitamin D deficiency.  That doctors are saying equals cancer, weak bones, inflammatory conditions etc.  

    Do you think I should avoid lard?  I only hope I can be lucky enough to eat a pig raised outdoors.  I'm actually allergic to the sun and to many plants as food.  I do see pigs I am going to eat.  They are raised outdoors.  Don't eat them if they are not your food.

    I agree.  Some people act childishly.  Some people act rebellious.  Some people mind their business.  There are so many ways people act.  So what?

    How did you get 72 posts on here?  What do you eat?  Did paleos have blenders?

[RawZi]

i am all for concentrating nutrients.  to me something like liver does accomplish that - it is a concentrated source of essential nutrients.

so is whey protein, so are chia or hemp seeds.

but lard is not.  

    I thought this topic was named eating plants vs animals, by you!  It sounds more like you're comparing fat vs fiber.  Are you strict 80-10-10 still, but get your 10% protein from liver and whey?  No overt fats is almost a religious rule, right?  I think that's blatantly bad for the ecology of the planet, by paleo standards, or any IMO.  What happens to the rest of the animal and the cheese?  You make topsoil with it? 

    Please, later you will find we are right.  You are welcome.

[djr_81]

what i am against is this blind religious belief that animal food is ALWAYS superior to all other forms of food ( plant AND supplements ).  this is not a reflection of reality - but a reflection of the desire of people for SIMPLICITY.  people prefer simple explanations to correct ones, and i am fighting that

I think many of us here agree with you that animal food is not always superior to plant food. The ZCers are the most vocal on the board hence thinking everyone feels this way.
Also, don't forget that many people on this forum have come from failed vegetarian/vegan diets, cooked and raw, and have strong conviction in the importance of raw animal meat & fat because it has helped them recover so noticeably.

somehow our ancestors were smarter than you people.  they would kill their enemy, eat his heart and drink his blood.  they would not focus on his fat.  why is it that they could think straight and you can not ?  they ate his heart because they wanted a stronger heart.  they drank his blood because they realized that blood is what gives life.  but they were not particularly obsessed with his fat because they didn't really want to be fat all that bad.

I don't think they were smarter but they did have a much closer & direct connection to the land and it's food sources. There is too much disconnect between "hunter" and "prey" nowadays. Most of us can't get things like fresh blood or brains because we're not killing our own animals.
The "obsession" with fat is purely from a survival necessity. If one is not consuming much/any carbohydrates then one must eat adequate fat for their energy source. Protein is great but you can't eat a high protein diet for long without harsh effects on the body; you need to buffer with one of the other macro-nutrients.
And again, fat does not make you fat. Good quality raw fat is very healthy for the body.

it appears that the ONLY logic behind the advise to eat more fat tissue is a childish rebellion against the conventional advice to avoid it.  can't we do better than that?  just because conventional diet is wrong doesn't mean that the opposite of it is right.  reality is not 1-dimensional.

For some it may be. Again, for many it's purely a function of the body's needs.

Nuero, you need to understand that there are two types of "ZC"ers. There are the ones who are doing it to lose weight (which it will help with) and the ones who have gotten here because they find it is the best diet to help with their health problems. Most of the posters here on this forum who are ZCers are in the second group (most value raw more than solely animal products) while the first group tend to frequent cooked forums. You can fight our convictions all you want but functional experience from our many members where they've regained health trumps all of your arguments so far IMO.

[klowcarb]

Nuero, you need to understand that there are two types of "ZC"ers. There are the ones who are doing it to lose weight (which it will help with) and the ones who have gotten here because they find it is the best diet to help with their health problems. Most of the posters here on this forum who are ZCers are in the second group (most value raw more than solely animal products) while the first group tend to frequent cooked forums. You can fight our convictions all you want but functional experience from our many members where they've regained health trumps all of your arguments so far IMO.

NO, there is a third. Those who eat ZC purely for health reasons, body composition (vanity) reasons, performance reasons, and mind freedom reasons. That is me. I can eat tons of carbs and remain thin, but not healthy. I do ZC because I eat delicious fatty meat, even when not hungry to get calories in, my performance at the gym rocks and my abs went flat of their own accord. I eat more calories yet remain leaner and more muscular. What is the downside?

Yes, animal foods are superior to plants and SHOULD make up the majority of any diet, raw or cooked. Note I said majority.

[actionhero]

Animals vs Plants?

One is food and the other is just something to keep you alive until you find real food.

[klowcarb]

Animals vs Plants?

One is food and the other is just something to keep you alive until you find real food.

That's right!