I mean they should just eat the parrot because humans are omnivores and it's natural to eat meat right Newtboy? lollololol

I, for one, am not trolling you. I agree that a vegetable based diet can have some healthy effects. I just do not see proof that it makes such a huge difference that it is a must follow plan. In addition, there are diets that limit the intake of certain proteins, like the Mediterranean diet, which have clearly shown to be just as effective as a non-animal based diet.

My major point of contention is that you are primarily posting videos that typically feature people or organizations that are WELL KNOWN for their tendency to overstate or blur the effectiveness of a Vegan diet. We are not herbivores, we are omnivores, and you can eat a protein restricted diet that is just as effective. But the PCRM and it's flunkies like Dr. Gregor would have you believe it is Vegan or nothing.

True enough about Maasai, 44+- sucks no matter what kills you.
I don't believe they have perfect dietary health, but do think they indicate genetics play a huge roll in how we process foods.

My short research indicated 1/2 serving of seafood per day on average....whatever percentage that comes out to doesn't bother me....plus occasional pork.

My grandmother ate meat almost daily and lived to days from 97, healthy the whole time except for lung issues the last years. Anecdotal evidence can be misleading.

Fewer animal foods isn't none. I agree, average Americans could probably benefit from cutting their meat consumption in half or more, but none at all wouldn't be healthier for most people.

I say the lack of top athletes who are vegan contradicts your last theory. Humans are omnivores and work best as such.

First off, I would go as far to say that most vegans are more unhealthy than omnivores because they think exactly that -- I'm vegan so nothing can go wrong! That's exactly what I'm saying.

Secondly, can you cite somewhere that says he and his volunteers do this alleged cherry-picking. This is sort of his point -- if you don't have a citation, then it's frankly not valid.

In fact, he just came out with a video explaining his process for picking studies and it's pretty damn thorough. I'd like to know where you get this info that he cherry-picks.

It's true that he could be merely claiming that this is his process, but then the only way to verify it is to literally watch him as he does the research on the research. There's only so much you can trust. But the fact that he does not profit on the site at all makes me also wonder why he'd have any motive to "further his agenda".

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?

Wow. You really are speaking with authority on a subject you are ignorant about, aren't you? Look up Masai, or Inuit. Both survive on a meat only (or almost only) diet out of necessity. So much for "nobody on this planet is currently in that situation, probably never will" [be].

You are not superior. You are narcissistic. It seems that's a side effect of being vegan...you ALL have this false sense of superiority. That alone is enough reason to keep eating meat.

When people have no sense of humor about their own ideals, it's proof positive that they are insecure in them.

Vegans are not diverse when it comes to doing their little superior dance. They all do it, then all go pat themselves on the back for being a vegan douche to some 'evil carnivore' (by which they mean omnivore).

BTW, chimps are OMNIVORE, not carnivore....you know, that THIRD category of eaters that nearly all animals fall into, but which vegans choose to ignore.

BS, vegans are like ex addicts, always trying to make their bean curd taste and feel like meat. They fail miserably, but they continue to try and try....because meat tastes good and they miss it. You find the THOUGHT of meat revolting, but you still LOVE the taste.

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

gorilla's & bonobo's to whom humans are very closly related eat almost exclusively plants.

here is a comparrison between shows that humans are anatomically herbivorous:

Facial Muscles
CARNIVORE: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
OMNIVORE: Reduced
HERBIVORE: Well-developed
HUMAN: Well-developed

Jaw Type
CARNIVORE: Angle not expanded
OMNIVORE: Angle not expanded
HERBIVORE: Expanded angle
HUMAN: Expanded angle

Jaw Joint Location
CARNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
OMNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
HERBIVORE: Above the plane of the molars
HUMAN: Above the plane of the molars

Jaw Motion
CARNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
OMNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side
HERBIVORE: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
HUMAN: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back

Major Jaw Muscles
CARNIVORE: Temporalis
OMNIVORE: Temporalis
HERBIVORE: Masseter and pterygoids
HUMAN: Masseter and pterygoids

Mouth Opening vs. Head Size
CARNIVORE: Large
OMNIVORE: Large
HERBIVORE: Small
HUMAN: Small

Teeth: Incisors
CARNIVORE: Short and pointed
OMNIVORE: Short and pointed
HERBIVORE: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
HUMAN: Broad, flattened and spade shaped

Teeth: Canines
CARNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
OMNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HERBIVORE: Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
HUMAN: Short and blunted

Teeth: Molars
CARNIVORE: Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
OMNIVORE: Sharp blades and/or flattened
HERBIVORE: Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
HUMAN: Flattened with nodular cusps

Chewing
CARNIVORE: None; swallows food whole
OMNIVORE: Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
HERBIVORE: Extensive chewing necessary
HUMAN: Extensive chewing necessary

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.

You've bought the bullshit.
We are not the only omnivore. Many animals that can survive without meat eat it. They have a choice, they choose meat. All dogs for instance.
You make the mistake of assuming all meat was 'harmed' because it didn't die a natural death. Simply not true.
Yes, it can be wrong to violently kill animals for entertainment, but not wrong to humanely kill them for sustenance.
Sure we fornicate in public. You've never been to Key West, obviously.
Do we kill our newborn children, no, we advanced enough to 'kill' them before they're born so they are never children, but before abortion, yes, humans absolutely killed their newborn children. In ancient Greece, a child wasn't considered a human until it was a year old, and killing it for any reason in that time was perfectly acceptable. In many cultures, if a child is deformed, it's killed, even today. You're just plain wrong.
A LARGE percentage of animals eat meat, not a small one.
Again, you make a mistaken ASSUMPTION that I (and everyone else) eat factory meat, because otherwise your argument falls flat.

What say you about the Masai, who have nothing to eat besides their cattle and live a symbiotic life with them?

Again, not interested in propaganda from a vegan site called "freefromharm.org"

But OK, maybe you've read and they can answer, why don't you attack dogs for eating meat then? They, like humans, are omnivores, and clearly benefit from eating meat as part of their diet, just like humans, but can survive without it, just like humans. (granted, humans often make meat a main stay of their diet, which is not healthy, but that's not the same as 'it's bad for you', that's 'too much is bad for you', which is true of anything.)

What's the difference between a pet pig and a livestock pig though?
They both want blankets and cookies. Or at the very least neither of them wants to stand in a tiny metal and concrete cage and be pumped full of antibiotics, hormones and god knows what else for their short miserable lives. Neither of them want to be bruised because they have only enough room to face one direction their entire lives. Neither of them want their testicles ripped out without anesthetic while they are piglets. Neither of them want to be beaten when they don't eat.

Also, despite what the marketing people say, humans are not omnivores, everything healthwise and physiologically suggests we are somewhere between herbivores and frugivores. It's also backed up historically too by analyzing fossilized poop!

Here is a quite simplified chart, but I think it does a pretty good point of showing how far away we are from typical mammalian omnivores http://www.whale.to/c/10013268_676368449097110_1949968139_n.jpg

I'm not having a go at you, but I just hope you aren't acting according to a few labels that some organisation has set.

It makes sense that we would process plants somewhat better than meat, as meat in a survival situation is hard to come by compared to vegetation. However, it cannot be denied that we evolved as omnivores and still are such barring a personal choice.

A plant based diet may be more healthy for you, I don't care to argue the science of it. I would note that science, at least in regards to our diets, continually changes. I went through multiple phases of science saying that a certain substance (alcohol, chocolate, eggs, butter, etc) was bad, only to reverse the decision as time went on and further studies were done. I don't say that as an excuse or to deny which diet is best, simply that we have a long way to go in determining what is best for one of us versus another.

My complaint about vegans is that they usually slam anyone who doesn't choose to be vegan over their choices. I've had many vegetarian/vegan/pescatarian friends tell me that the food I choose to eat is sentient. Where do we draw the line on sentience, I usually ask them? For a vegan that seems to mean on any non-plant product, even honey. A vegetarian might choose to drink milk or eat cheese, since nothing is being killed. A pescatarian obviously thinks fish are the cutoff for sentience. But if we are going to cut to the nitty gritty, insects that most any scientist would agree have no idea of what is going on other than an instinct to perform a set series of actions are consumed in mass quantities for their protein. Worms, insects, crabs and lobsters don't even have the pain transmitting chemicals that allow a creature to feel pain. Of course, they do react to stimuli, but so do plants.

Basically we all individually make a determination as to what we consider to be truly sentient and able to understand the far reaching concepts of death and pain. Some people draw the line at plants, others at lower level life forms, but in the end it all comes down to what you believe.