search results matching tag: beans

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (282)     Sift Talk (10)     Blogs (21)     Comments (660)   

St. Cadaverstump's Home for Wayward Sbemails(Halloween 2015)

One small step fooohh shit, oh shit, oh shit!

One small step fooohh shit, oh shit, oh shit!

One small step fooohh shit, oh shit, oh shit!

One small step fooohh shit, oh shit, oh shit!

Taking Personal Responsibility for Your Health

eric3579 says...

And here is the problem in discussions like this. How we define words like rarity, moderation and negligible. The problem i see with this discussion is it seems like its more about winning than understanding. I think we can all agree on whats generaly healthy.

@transmorpher the issue i have is that you have shown yourself to be anti animal product NOT for health reasons necessarily although you are touting that, but for moral reasons. Its hard to buy into your sincerity regarding health when you feel consuming animal products is morally problematic.

And i believe that basing your diet on being plant based (fruits,veg,beans,nuts, very limited processed foods and animal products if any) is by far the best way to go for general health.

This is just my belief based on what ive read and my personal experience that left me in awe of how a healthy diet could make such a difference in my life physically and mentally. You think you know whats up, but then you realize you had no idea after you actually do it. This is my experience with diet.

transmorpher said:

I wouldn't consider once a week as moderation. I'd consider that rarely.

I also don't admit that there's no risk. There's a negligible risk, which is different.

Doggie Death Stare

Payback says...

A dog walker once tried to train me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

PSTHPPSTHPPSTHPPSTHPPSTHPPSTHPPSTHPPSTHP

Fuck Duct tape! FiberFix A Must Have For Any Real Man.

oblio70 says...

Shh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your spam. I love it. I'm having spam spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans spam spam spam and spam!

NotSure said:

Yeah, that ad doesn't work for me. Now I just want to meet that plumber.

Introducing FarmBot Genesis

newtboy says...

As a person who actually grows much of my own produce, I can say definitively that many of their numbers are WAY off. They require one to pay one's self $100 per month for produce shopping to come up with their $1400 per year 'savings', but claim 5 minutes a day for 'harvest time'...good luck with that if you're not living on just lettuce and cauliflower...peas and beans will take 3 times that. They claim $6 for seeds, but the seeds I buy are over $3 per packet, so that's only 2 vegetables at a time...not much variety. I also note they have no cost for soil, the bed, fertilizers, pest control methods/time, disease control, etc. They also arbitrarily put the maintenance time at :30 min per month...that doesn't seem really realistic for an outdoor robot. Keep in mind that a single break down can mean the loss of an entire crop, depending on how it malfunctions. They also don't give an expected lifespan...or guarantee/warranty, so there's little way to know yet if it will last a single season, much less the 4-5 they say it takes to pay off.

It would have made much more sense to me if they had compared it to growing a home garden by hand, as that's what it's replacing, not the grocery store.

Don't get me wrong, I love this idea and would take one in a second if someone offered, I just don't see it as cost effective at $3-4K. Once the bugs are worked out so it lasts 10 years and the DIY cost is down to $1K(+-), then I'll think they have something pretty good that could also save people money. Being totally open source, I have hope that it will evolve quickly and be clearly viable in the near future. The time is coming when I won't be able to do the home farming I do today...it would be great to have a metallic yard slave to take over for me when that time comes.

eoe said:

@newtboy: Seems they thought of this argument. They put quite a bit of effort in refuting this.

Fox News vs Harvard On ISIS Turns Into Ignorance Fest

newtboy jokingly says...

I had no idea there was a threat to world peas. Are world beans in danger as well?

vil said:

Forget the unprofessionalism of Fox and TYT.

Where exactly in the interviews do the students say the US is a bigger threat to world peas than ISIS? All they do is avoid the dumb question and explain that ISIS is in some ways the result of US foreign policy so why are you asking this stupid question conservative activist?

If Coffee Commercials Were Honest

newtboy jokingly says...

Nice...but... didn't cocaine also contribute to the industrial revolution?
https://www.netce.com/studypoints.php?courseid=1035&viewall=true

Wait....did he just say he's a harvester of BROWN beans? Coffee is RED when harvested....he's doing it wrong.....or maybe he harvests Civet coffee? EEEWWWW!

dag said:

Quote hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Brutal, but so true. But ... didn't coffee contribute to the enlightenment and the industrial revolution?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsFxH2zdi_Y

The science is in: Exercise isnt the best way to lose weight

transmorpher says...

If governments are serious about the obesity epidemic, they need to encourage people to eat real whole foods by any means necessary. It would certainly help stop the spiraling health care costs that many governments(and insurance companies!) pay for.

I'm not sure whether this strategy would work, but since poorer people are now more obese than richer people, it tells me that the price of certain foods has a lot to do with what people consume. So my solution would be to subsidise healthy foods such as brown rice, whole meal bread / pasta, potatoes, corn breads, legumes/beans, and of course vegetables and fruit so much, that they cost almost nothing, while at the same time taxing foods that are clearly associated with obesity and illness. That way people still have a choice to eat unhealthy foods, but they are paying for their healthcare costs upfront, while having easy access to healthful foods.

Massive Police Chase Against Stunt Motorcycles

Chairman_woo says...

They were playing with the police the entire time, pretty much all of those bikes could outrun even the police helicopter if they wanted to. (not exaggerating)

If the police took to more aggressive stopping tactics, the riders would simply give it all the beans and disappear as soon as they saw them, instead of goading them like they did in that vid.

They could try and set up a fortified position in their path or take swipes into the crowd but that leads into the big one for me; many of them likely have guns & other weapons! If the police escalate the violence to death and serious injury by ramming & spike traps or back them into a corner, they would be giving the bikers incentive to fight back.

I might argue that escalation of violence would be more dangerous to the public than the anti-social riding.

There was a couple of 100 of them at least. Unless you are going to call in the national guard or some such, no police force is likely to have the manpower to win that fight if it came to it. (these people are demonstrably a bit crazy after all)

The police aren't stupid. Ethics aside, a gang of a few 100 lunatics is just more than almost any police force can deal with when together. That's why they don't scatter, they know that in a pack they are basically untouchable.

Police follow and hope to catch out the ones that fall off or otherwise make a mistake. Beyond that all they can really do is go after the gang in the traditional way; informants, infiltrators, slip ups and so on.

I understand the outrage, but practically speaking there is little more can be done other than subsequent investigations by the gang unit. Very difficult as you can't prove a given bike was involved without plates and chassis numbers. Or for that matter that a given individual was riding it at the time anyway.

newtboy said:

Pit maneuver, please.

The real secret to sushi isn't fish

If Meat Eaters Acted Like Vegans

transmorpher says...

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?

dannym3141 said:

@transmorpher

It's a little difficult to 'debate' your comment, because the points that you address to me are numbered but don't reference to specific parts of my post. That's probably my fault as i was releasing frustration haphazardly and sarcastically, and that sarcasm wasn't aimed at you. All i can do is try and sum up whether i think we agree or disagree overall.

Essentially everything is a question of 'taste', even for you. There's no escaping our nature, most of us don't drink our own piss, many of us won't swallow our own blood, almost all of us have a flavour that we can't abide because we were fed it as a child. So yes, our decisions are defined by taste. But taste is decided by the food that is available to people, within reasonable distance of their house, at a price they find affordable according to the society around them, from a range of food that is decided by society around them. Your average person does not have the luxury to walk around a high street supermarket selecting the most humane and delicious foods. People get what they can afford, what they understand, what they can prepare and what is available. Our ancestors ate chicken because of necessity of their own kind, their children are exposed to chicken through no fault of their own, fast forward a few generations, and thus chicken becomes an affordable, accessible staple. Can we reach a compromise here? It may not be necessary for chickens to die to feed the human race, but it may be necessary for some people to eat chicken today because of their particular life.

I don't like the use of the phrase 'if i can do it, i know anyone can'. I think it's a mistake to deal in certainties, especially pertaining to lifestyles that you can't possibly know about without having lived them. Are you one of the many homeless people accepting chicken soup from a stranger because it's nourishing, cheap and easy for a stranger to buy, and keeps you warm on the streets? Are you a single mother with coeliac disease, a grumpy teenager and picky toddler who has 20 minutes to get to the supermarket and get something cooking? Or one of the millions using foodbanks in the UK (to our shame) now? I don't think you're willfully turning a blind eye to those people, i'm not tugging heart strings to do you a disservice. Maybe you're just fortunate you not only have the choice, but you have such choice that you can't imagine a life without it. I won't budge an inch on this one, you can't know what people have to do, and we have to accept life is not ideal.

And within that idealism and choice problem we can include illnesses that once again in IDEAL situations could survive without dead animals, nevertheless find it necessary to eat what they can identify and feel safe with.

Yes, those damn gluten hipsters drive me round the bend but only because they make people think that a LITTLE gluten is ok, it makes people take the problem less seriously (see Tumblr feminism... JOKE).

I agree that we must look at what action we can take now - and that is why i keep reminding you that we are not in an ideal world. If the veganism argument is to succeed then you must suggest a reasonable pathway to go from how we are now to whatever situation you would prefer. My "ideal farm" description was just me demonstrating the problem - that you need to show us your blueprint for how we start again without killing animals and feeding everyone we have.

And on that subject, your suggestions need to be backed by real research, otherwise you don't have any real plan. "It's fair to say there is very little risk" is a nice bit of illustrative language but it is not backed by any fact or figure and so i'm compelled to do my Penn and Teller impression and call bullshit. As of right now, the life expectancy of humans is better than it has ever been. It is up to you to prove that changing the diet of 7 billion people will result in neutrality or improvement of health and longevity. That proof must come in the form of large statistical analyses and thorough science. I don't want to sound like i'm being a dick, but any time you state something like that as a fact or with certainty, it needs to be backed up by something. I'm not nit picking and asking for common knowledge to have a citation, but things like this do:

-- 70% of farmland claim
-- 'fair to say very little risk' claim
-- meat gives you cancer claim - i accept it may have a carcinogenic effect but i'll remind you so does breathing, joss-sticks, broccoli, apples and water
-- 'the impact to the planet would be immense' claim - in what way, and what would be the downsides in terms of economy, productivity, health, animal welfare (where are all the animals going to be sent to retire as of day 1?)
-- etc. etc.

Oh, and a cow might get its protein from plants, but it walks around a field all day eating grass, chewing the cud and having sloppy shits with 4 stomachs and enzymes that i don't have................. I'm a bit puzzled by this one... I probably can't survive on what an alligator or a goldfish eats, but i can survive on parts of an alligator or fish. I can't eat enough krill in a day to keep me going, but i can let a whale do it for me...?



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon