*ban
Outsourcing Digest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ket-g4KuAyo

I put that in quotations because he LITERALLY isn't a PhD dietitian, so he has NO credibility to dish out diet advice or write books on the topic anymore than the Lawyer who wrote The Obesity Myth. That is a fact. Deal with it. If you are going to put that in your title to gain credibility, be prepared to have it questioned.

I also simply mentioned Sucralose, which the only study against it was a single case study he used. Also, almost none of the studies proving that Sucralose is ok were industry funded, many of the ones showing it was bad was funded by the Naturalistic Industry. Funny how that works.

I rarely eat processed foods, and eat nothing that has whey or milk powder in it. That also doesn't explain why potatoes and Carrots cause my digestional upset as well, but thanks for trying. I am pretty sure you are even LESS qualified than the General Practitioner Greger in this.

And since the WHO wasn't talking about fish or poultry, they were not talking about Chicken Nuggets and Sliced Turkey. Sorry. Stop bending the facts to try to fit your narrative. Processed nuggets are not healthy for you, but they are NOT mentioned in this study.

Thanks again for playing, but like last time, you lost. Take the L babe

Your blog post doesn't "simply mention" anything. Your blog post is clearly an attack on Dr. Greger's credibility.

For starters the blog post title is "The case against Dr. Greger" AND!!!!! you put "Dr." into quotations to suggest he's not a doctor, or not worthy of being one.

You try to catch him out on a technicality, which you misword in your post to make it sound worse than it is.

Your artifical sweetner claims are also weak. ( The number of industry funded positive studies don't outweight the recent studies showing how bad artificial sweetners actually are, from obesity, to aspartame turning into formaldehyde in the blood).

These aren't the actions of someone that is "simply mentioning" something. You had a clear agenda when you wrote that blog post. Which was either to create controversy in order to get traffic to your website, or to justify your non-vegan diet at the time of writing.


Also if you're having digestive issues, it's most likely dairy. Not just milk and cheese, but the milk powder they put into processed foods.

Edit:
Chicken nuggets are poultry yes, but they are highly processed - which puts them into the processed meat category. The WHO report doesn't specifically mention every single type of processed meat and brand because they're assuming that people can tell what processed meat is. But apparently they've given people too much credit.

As the "Bozo" who runs the very site that you just attacked, I would like a chance to respond to your baseless accusations, sir.

I was plant-based lacto-vegetarian at the time of writing that post, and was vegan just 13 days after writing it, on November 27th. I am now going back and forth between vegan and vegetarian due to severe digestive health issues, but thanks for trying to say I am using that post to "justify" anything I do.

I wrote the blog post, and if you read it, I simply mention why Greger is unreliable as the "bulletproof" source that many vegans make him out to be, including his bias and his inaccuracies. I never once attacked him as a person, which you would know if you actually read the post, I simply mention that inaccurate claims that he doesn't benefit from his work, because facts state that the charity he gives to is his own charity, which does nothing other than fund his videos, books, and lectures.

These are facts. This isn't even an opinion. I am not trying to attack Greger, and I think that if he dropped his biases at the front door, and didn't use flawed or non-existent studies to promote this that or the other, I would like him more.

But to be honest, no, he isn't this infallible being people claim him to be.

and no, the WHO report, if you read it, does not mention Chicken Nuggets or Turkey Slices. The FAQ section I linked to only mentions poultry once, as the definiton of a processed food. But it also said:

"21. Should we eat only poultry and fish?

The cancer risks associated with consumption of poultry and fish were not evaluated."

Read the actual post before commenting on whether or not a blog is "opinion"

Sincerely,

The Bozo

1. I *AM* an LGBTQ person, I don't speak for them, but I am one voice.
I tend to avoid harassing people.

2. No.

3. a) Both. They aren't mutually exclusive. I want women to be equal and I want legal protections in place to maintain this. This is not secret information.
b) They do.

4. Question 3b) suggests women should be responsible for their safety. Question 4 seems to criticize the notion of being responsible for your own safety. Glad to see unified thought in this. The answer is I expected random bouts of mockery, judgement, and violence. You know, the other 95% of my life.

5. Because shitting on a group that seeks to change culture to react similarly to loss of black life as it does for white lives, while pointing out where society fails to meet this standard is pretty charactersticly racist.
Also I don't say that "Kill all white people" is not racist.

6. Yes. Did you know that the permanence of objects, the transmission of ideas and culture and systems of law are based on events in the past? That by studying history we can understand how humans work in a unique way, that knowing that say, there was a WWI may help us understand the conditions under which WWII occurred and that this knowledge may help us decide what to do in the aftermath of WWII to avoid a recurrence?
That if a group has historically had problems, many of those problems have probably been inherited along with consequences of the problems (such as poverty, strongly inherited social trait). Yes. Linear time,human affairs, culture. They are all things that exist.

7. Yes, I have many examples of people doing this. Mostly this is due to short lifespan. But there are many manchildren in our culture, who seem to think that other people asserting boundaries is immature.

8. There are programs designed to help boost male education dropout rate. If you 'fight' for 'improvements in the fairness of social order ' to help achieve this, you are a Social Justice Warrior, and so you could just have asked yourself.
Also, American bias? Pretty sure this is not a global stat...

9. Because one focusses on correcting the inequalities between the sexes and was born at a time when women didn't have proper property rights, voting rights etc etc, and so it was primarily focussed on uplifting women and so the name 'feminism'. Egalitarianism on the other hand, is the general pursuit. Many feminists are egalitarian, but not all. Hence different words. English, motherfucker....

10. Nothing, as I am not.

11. No, my grandparents were being enslaved in eastern Europe by the far left and right (but more the right, let's be honest).

Seriously though, I don't remember the liberal protests of "Not all ISIS".

12. Ingroup outgroup hatred and distrust is a universal human trait. Race seems to provoke instinctive group psychology in humans, presumably from evolving in racially separate groups.

13. The phrase is intended to deflate 'Black Lives Matter' whose point is that society seems to disagree, in practice, with this. There's only one realistic motivation to undermining the attempts to equalize how the lives of different races are treated socially.
It's also designed to be perfectly innocuous outside of this context so that white people can totally believe they aren't being dicks by saying it.

14. My social justice fighting is almost always done in secret. I hate the limelight, and I hate endlessly seeking credit for doing the right thing. So I try to keep it to a minimum while also raising consciousness about issues where I can.
Hey wait, did you fall for the bias that the big public figures are representative in all ways of the group? HAHAHAHA! Noob.
Wait, did a man voicing a cartoon kangaroo wearing an Islamic headdress, superimposed on video footage of a woman in a gym grinding her hips tell me to stop trying show off how awesome I am and and to get real?

15. No, they are both not capable of giving consent. Sounds like you have had a bitter experience. Sorry to hear that.

16. I spent two decades trying to change myself. I tortured myself into a deep suicidal insanity. When I stopped that, and when society had changed in response to my and others plights being publicised sympathetically I felt happy and comfortable with myself.
You would prefer millions in silent minorities living through personal hells if the alternative means you have to learn better manners? What a dick.

17. Sure. It's also OK if you say 'nigga' in the context of asking this question. But I'm white and English. You should ask some black Americans if your usage causes unintended messages to be sent. I'd certainly avoid placing joyful emphasis, especially through increased volume, on the word.

18. Ah, you've confused a mixture of ideas and notions within a group as a contradiction of group idealogy. Whoops. I don't understand gender identity. I get gender, but I never felt membership in any group. That's how I feel, and have since the 1990s. The internet has allowed disparate and rare individuals to form groups, and some of these groups are people with different opinions about how they feel about gender and they are very excited to meet people other people with idiosyncratic views as they had previously been alone with their eccentric perspective.

19. If white men are too privileged then the society is not my notion of equal.

20. After rejecting the premise as nonsensical. In as much as I want rules to govern social interactions that take into consideration the diversity of humanity as best as possible, I recognize those same rules will govern my behaviour.

21. Women can choose how to present themselves. Video Game creators choose how to present women in their art. I can suggest that the art routinely portrays women as helpless sex devices, while supporting women who wish to do so for themselves.

22. You DO that? I've never even had the notion. I just sort of listen and digest and try to see if gaps can reasonably be filled with pre-existent knowledge or logical inferrences and then I compare and contrast that with my own differring opinion and I consider why someone might have come to their ideas. Assuming they aren't stupid I try to understand as best I can and present to them my perspective from their perspective. I don't sing, or plug in headphones or have an imaginary rock concert.

23. I have done no such thing. Look, here I am listening to you. You have all been asking questions that have easy answers to if you looked outside your bubble of fighting a handful of twitter and youtube users thinking these people represent the entirety of things and seeking only to destroy them with your arguments rather than understanding the ideas themselves.

24. Reverse Racism is where white guys are systematically (and often deliberately) disadvantaged - such as the complaints against Affirmative Action. I'm sure your buddies can fill you in on the details. The liberal SJWs you hate tend to roll their eyes when they hear it too. Strange you should ask.

25. No. I've never seen the list. I just use whatever pronouns people feel comfortable with. Typically I only need to know three to get by in life, same as most other English speakers.

26. I'm the audience motherfucker, and so are you. That's how it works.

27. I don't do those things, but yes, I have considered the notion of concept saturation in discourse. Have you considered the idea that people vary in their identification of problems, based on a number of factors. Some people are trigger happy and this may be a legitimate problem. Since you are aware of this, you also have a duty to try to overcome the saturation biases.
Similarly, if you keep using the word 'fucking', motherfucker, you'll find it loses its impact quite quickly. See this post motherfucker. Probably why you needed to add the crash zoom for impact. You could have achieved more impact with less sarcasm and and a more surprising fuck.

Totally agree. I mean that after digesting far too much reporting that only covers the bad apples, it leaves everyone with a completely screwed opinion. Exact same way that when all you hear about the ghetto is that someone was shot or arrested. It's selling you a polarized narrative, even if it isn't doing so by design.

Why digest your own food like some stupid cow, when you can make a tree do it for you?

It doesn't make it more nutritious per se, but it does mean that your body has to expend less energy digesting it, so you get more nett energy (joules/calories/whatever) from eating cooked food (particularly meat).

Ok I'll try to divide up my wall text a bit better this time

I totally acknowledge that people in the past, and even in present day, some people have to live a certain way in order to survive, but for the vast majority of people that doesn't apply.


Taste:
Like most of the senses in the human body, the sense of taste is in a constant state re-calibration. It's highly subjective and easily influenced over mere seconds but also long periods of time. They say it takes 3 weeks to acclimatize from things you crave, from salt to heroin. That's why most healthy eating books tell you go to cold tofurkey (see what I did there ) for 3 weeks. It's all about the brain chemistry. After 3 straight weeks you aren't craving it. (The habit might still be there but, the chemically driven cravings are gone).
Try it yourself by eating an apple before and after some soft drink. First the apple will taste sweet, and after it will taste sour. Or try decreasing salt over a 3 week period, it'll taste bland at first, but if you go back after 3 weeks it'll be way too salty.



Food science:
One of the major things stopping me from not being vegan, was the health concerns, so I read a number of books about plant-based eating.
There is a new book "How Not To Die" by Dr. Michael Greger. If you want scientific proof of a plant based diet this the one stop shop. 500 pages explaining tens of thousands of studies, some going for decades and involving hundreds of thousands of people. I was blown away at the simple fact that so many studies get done. Most of them are interventional studies also, meaning they are able to show cause and effect (unlike observational or corrolational studies, as he explains in the book). 150 pages of this book alone are lists of references to studies. It's pure unbiased science. (It's not a vegan book either in case you are worried about him being biased).

At the risk of spoiling the book - whole foods like apples and broccoli doesn't give you cancer, in fact they go a long way to preventing it, some bean based foods are as effective as chemotherapy, and without the side effects. I thought it sounded it ridiculous, but the science is valid.
Of course you can visit his website he explains all new research almost daily at nutritionfacts.org in 1 or 2 minute videos.
He also has a checklist phone app called Dr.Greger's Daily Dozen.

There are other authors too, most of these ones have recipes too, such as Dr. John McDougall, Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn, Dr. Dean Ornish, Dr Joel Furhman.
Health-wise it's the best thing you can do for yourself. And if like me you thought eating healthy meant salads, you'd be as wrong as I was I haven't had a salad for years. My blood results and vitamin levels are exactly what the books said they would be.

Try it for 3 weeks, but make sure you do it the right way as explained in the books, and you'll be shouting from roof tops about what a change it's made to your life. The other thing is, you get to eat more, and the more you eat it's healthier. What a weird concept in a world where we are constantly being told to calorie count (it doesn't work btw).

Environmental:
I've read a lot about ethics, reason and evidence based thinking, as well as nutrition and health (as a result of my own skepticism). So I could and I enjoy talking about these all day long. On the environmental side of things, I'm not as aware, but there some documentaries such as Earthlings and Cowspiracy which paint a pretty clear picture.
Anyone can do the maths even at a rough level - there are 56 billion animals bred and slaughtered each year. Feeding 56 billion animals (many of which are bigger than people) takes a lot more food than a mere 7 billion. Therefore it must take more crops and land to feed them, not to mention the land the animals occupy themselves, as well as the land they destroy by dump their waste products (feces are toxic in those concentrations, where as plant waste, is just compost)
The other thing is that many of these crops are grown in countries where people are starving, using up the fertile land to feed our livestock instead of the people. How f'd up is that?
It's reasons like that why countries like the Netherlands are asking their people to not eat meat more than 3 meals a week.

Productivity and economics:
Countries like Finland have government assistance to switch farmers from dairy to berry. Because they got sick of being sick:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/dietary-guidelines-from-dairies-to-berries/

The world won't go vegan overnight, and realistically it will never be 100% vegan (people still smoke after all). There will be more than enough time to transition. And surely you aren't suggesting that we should eat meat and dairy to keep someone employed? I don't want anyone to lose their job, but to do something pointlessly cruel just to keep a person working seems wrong.

Animal industries are also heavily subsidized in many countries, so if they were to stop being subsidized that's money freed up for other projects, such as the ones in Finland.

The last bit:
If you eat a plant based diet, just like the cow you'll never have constipation, thanks to all of the fibre
When it comes to enzymes, humans are lactose intolerant because after the age of 2 the enzyme lactase stops being made by the body (unless you keep drinking it). Humans also don't have another enzyme called uricase (true omnivores, and carnivores do), which is the enzyme used to break down the protein called uric acid. As you might know gout is caused by too much uric acid, forming crystals in your joints.
However humans have a multitude of enzymes for digesting carbohydrate rich foods (plants). And no carbs don't make fat despite what the fitness industry would have you believe (as the books above explain).
Appealing to history as well, when they found fossilized human feces, it contained so much fibre it was obvious that humans ate primarily a plant based diet. (Animal foods don't contain fibre).

The reasons why you wouldn't want a whale to eat krill for you is:
1. Food is a packaged deal - there is nothing harmful in something like a potato. But feed a lot of potatoes to a pig, and eat the pig, you're getting some of the nutrients of a potato, but also heaps of stuff you're body doesn't need from the pig, like cholesterol, saturated fat, sulfur and methionine containing amino acids etc And no fibre. (low fibre means constipation and higher rates of colon cancer).
2. Your body's health is also dependent on the bacteria living inside you. (fun fact, most the weight of your poop is bacteria!) The bacteria inside you needs certain types of food to live. If you eat meat, you're starving your micro-organisms, and the less good bacteria you have, the less they produce certain chemicals and nutrients , and you get a knock on effect. The fewer the good bacteria also makes room for bad bacteria which make chemicals you don't want.
Coincidentally, if you eat 3 potatoes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, you have all the protein you need - it worked for Matt Damon on Mars right?

I liked this video so up voted. I would however avoid buying Purina puppy chow. Terrible, terrible stuff. Choose a food that does not contain Poultry by-products.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poultry_by-product_meal

http://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/choosing-dog-food/animal-by-products/

Poultry by-product meal (PBM) is a high-protein commodity used as a major component in some pet foods. It is made from grinding clean, rendered parts of poultry carcasses...Poultry by-product meal quality and composition can change from one batch to another....Chicken by-product costs less than chicken muscle meat and lacks the digestibility of chicken muscle meat.

Cool, your premise at the outset is wrong, so I don't have to read beyond the first sentence where you (seemingly unknowingly) admit that gorillas and bonobos eat meat.
If you want to look at what an animal eats, you look at their digestive tract, not just in their mouth....and your 'list' is just silly and completely lacking in any real science. Humans have canines, which are ONLY for eating meat, so boom goes the dynamite.
You believe obvious shills for veganism, and get your science from internet propaganda sites...why on earth would I put stock in your opinion about science, especially when your 'evidence' is so wrong, not just factually but also in it's conslusions?

part 2
Saliva
CARNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
OMNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
HERBIVORE: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
HUMAN: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes

Stomach Type
CARNIVORE: Simple
OMNIVORE: Simple
HERBIVORE: Simple or multiple chambers
HUMAN: Simple

Stomach Acidity
CARNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
OMNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HERBIVORE: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
HUMAN: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach

Stomach Capacity
CARNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
OMNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HERBIVORE: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
HUMAN: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract

Length of Small Intestine
CARNIVORE: 3 to 6 times body length
OMNIVORE: 4 to 6 times body length
HERBIVORE: 10 to more than 12 times body length
HUMAN: 10 to 11 times body length

Colon
CARNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
OMNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HERBIVORE: Long, complex; may be sacculated
HUMAN: Long, sacculated

Liver
CARNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
OMNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HERBIVORE: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
HUMAN: Cannot detoxify vitamin A

Kidney
CARNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
OMNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
HERBIVORE: Moderately concentrated urine
HUMAN: Moderately concentrated urine

Nails
CARNIVORE: Sharp claws
OMNIVORE: Sharp claws
HERBIVORE: Flattened nails or blunt hooves
HUMAN: Flattened nails

whale.to/a/comp.html

You are once again mistaken....
Real verified stats are had to come by, but: "In the coral reef community there are many species of fish which fill this ecological role: roughly 25 percent of the fishes are herbivores or make plants a part of their diet/omnivores (Deloach, 1999)."
That's just fish, far more abundant than land animals by number or biomass, as a group are at least 75% carnivore (not omnivore).

"obligate carnivore" is not honest, scientific, or reasonable. That means 10% CAN'T eat plants, not that only 10% does. Most animals are neither pure vegetarian or carnivore. I know vegans have a history of ignoring omnivores as a category, because it erases their positions/arguments, but that doesn't mean it's not a major category, in fact it's THE major category.

Herbivores have digestive systems designed to break down cellulose. Humans have one stomach, not designed to break down cellulose, so if it's a choice between carnivore or herbivore, biologically we are carnivores, which makes removing the omnivore category just plain silly for vegans.

There are a LOT of similarities. It definitely blurs the line between "reboot" and "homage", but I'd argue that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I think it will take a few years for me to digest and figure out where I think it ranks in my personal assessment of the Star Wars movies.

That being said, I'm excited about the future of Star Wars again -- the prequels came very close to destroying any optimism that I had in that regard.

For the moment, consider Episode VII but ignore the plot and parallels / homage / blatant copying between it and A New Hope. In all three prequels combined, there wasn't a single character that was interesting; that we could identify with. Anakin was annoying -- in kid form and adult form. Ewan McGregor did OK with the material and directing he was given, but the script and writing in general did NOTHING to connect prequels Obi-Wan with the original trilogy. Padme, Jar-Jar (ha!), Palpatine, Dooku, etc. -- not a single memorable, interesting character that made me want to learn more about them. Sam Jackson's Mace Windu was probably the closest, but didn't get enough screen time or depth to really establish interest.

Already I feel confident in saying that in terms of characters, Episode VII is massively, overwhelmingly better than the prequels. Rey, Finn, and Poe are each individually far more interesting than every character from the prequels combined. AND, I want to see how those new faces interact with the old stars also. Luke, Leia, even Chewbacca (my personal favorite of the OT) all seem like they will continue to be very important to the story moving forward -- and continue to develop their own story arcs in addition to the new cast.

The Force Awakens wasn't *perfect* -- I tend to think it leaned a bit too much on revamping A New Hope also -- but it was very good and very entertaining. And I am definitely excited about the future of Star Wars again.