Food shaming? I know all about that.

Apparently all I eat is grass, my teeth will rot, my bones will be weak, and I'll die 6 times in a row from protein deficiency. That's just on the daily. Despite me never eating meat in my 51 years of life (Indian parents).

The real clever people like to tell me that I'll make the cows go extinct, and the next person will tell me that the cows will overpopulate the earth if we don't eat them.

Don't worry about doing a degree in nutrition, just tell someone you don't eat animal foods, and they'll become a dietitian in about 4 seconds :-)

No, Bob, that's called projection. Your head has always been in the clouds.

There is obstruction there. No question. It will be assumed to be felonious obstruction without a full release of the investigation, something already being fought against by Trump even as he tells you he wants it released. This report specifically did not exonerate Trump, so of course he lies and says it does...and of course you take his word over the report summation itself about the report itself. *facepalm. I wonder why I talk to you, you tell me you think I'm intelligent, knowledgeable, and communicate well, but never does a fact make it past your ears (eyes). You admit Trump is a massive, professional liar and fraud, yet you believe every word he tells you. It's simply asinine and mirrors the actions of someone with serious mental deficiencies or disorders.

YOU want to play this game another 6+ years....with Clinton, a private citizen already cleared by multiple investigations over multiple never ending politically motivated accusations already spending 10 times the money and effort to nail her, and your bubble was burst and your dreams of charges went bust....but you want more...More...MORE.

No, I am not the one of us in a bubble....never was. I held no illusions that this investigation would publish any findings that would make a difference, being politically stymied as it was, nor that there would be any consequences if it did because it was led by republicans, controlled by republicans, and any consequences relied on republicans to do their job and not kowtow to their great exalted leader. Since you people are all brain dead sycophants who love Trump exponentially more than America I never had any illusions it might matter or change any minds. I was correct.

Funny how as recently as last week this report was all lies and a purely political hit piece, a witch hunt created by unprofessional frauds and liars and based on lies that should be discarded out of hand because it's so tainted it's worthless, and this week it's an unimpeachable Trump vindication (even though it's blatantly not) prepared by honorable professionals that did a great job. *facepalm

Now, the multiple felonious state charges in states not controlled by republicans, those might stick, but won't matter a whit to your ilk. He won't be jailed, so you'll gladly vote for a felon....again.

So the great divider gets to lie more about the findings and erode our international standing, political discourse, and civility farther and you get to kiss his feet and prepubescently thumb your nose at anyone not following suit....while our union dissolves and we slide towards dissolution. Enjoy. Your kids get to live in the hell you're creating.

You didn't dispute their science, did you? Are you pretending this was reviewed by outside scientists who aren't card carrying vegan zealots...or even by non contributors to the paper they've presented? Do you know who funded it, since that does matter? Any meat producers among them?
You know they neglected to include a list of possible conflicts of interest the authors had, too. Could that be because the vast majority made/make their living selling veganism in one way or another?

I gave specific points of contention with specific details of eat lancet including it's scientific validity, with specific data you failed to address at all.

I'm just pointing out the deficiencies in your movement's new attempt at science...it may have some good points none the less.

I'm much less concerned with the messenger than the science. Veganism pushes out these new claims so often that it takes an army to keep up with debunking them, it's no surprise some soldiers are less than perfect, I don't know these two enough to care....but do you contradict their article's scientific points, ignoring the authors likely bias?

All that said, I don't disagree that red meat once a week is a decent limit, or that less sugar and processed grain would be even more beneficial to average people's health (not everyone)...and that's far from suggesting veganism...but those three suggestions seem to be the main takeaways from the synopsis I've read, but the devil is in the details, which seem to need serious work.

It's important to know this is apparently not peer reviewed science (co-authors reviewing each other's claims is not real peer review), and is not verified by experimental data...not a single clinical trial, only epidemiology. This kind of science has been shown to be accurate, when tested in rigorous clinical trials, only 0-20% of the time.
Close examination finds it lacking in many areas.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/01/the-eat-lancet-diet-is-nutritionally-deficient/

https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/news/eatlancet-report-one-sided

It's important to know this is apparently not peer reviewed science (co-authors reviewing each other's claims is not real peer review), and is not verified by experimental data...not a single clinical trial, only epidemiology. This kind of science has been shown to be accurate, when tested in rigorous clinical trials, only 0-20% of the time.
Close examination finds it lacking in many areas.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/01/the-eat-lancet-diet-is-nutritionally-deficient/

https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/news/eatlancet-report-one-sided

You've been calling me protein deficient last few videos and what not, and now you're offended when I give a little back? Awww poor baby.

Refined carbs aren't great, but grains, starchy roots (potatos) and beans are a key component of every bluezone in the world where people live the longest and with the fewest amounts of disease. There's a video about it on the same channel as this video above :-)

You don't want to trade weight loss, for long term health is what I'm saying. Weight loss in of itself is going to improve health markers and general wellbeing, but the majority of people in the west die from preventable heart-disease, which is without a doubt tied to cholesterol, which eggs are full of (yes there are a lot of cholesterol deniers out there, but there is no valid research backing up their claims). Bob Harper is a good recent example, huge keto/low-carb advocate, had a heart-attack, despite being lean and athletic. He's doing the bluezone way of eating now....

Also have you noticed that nobody ever mentions the 4th macro nutrient in any diet these days? Fibre! The one macro nutrient almost everybody is deficient in.... but nobody seems to talk about it, except those selling fibre supplements. I find it weird personally!

He did mention fish/white meat, however he was making the point that meats aren't what is making them healthy - the Mediterraneans are healthy despite these animal foods. They are healthy because of the large intake of whole plant foods, as is the case in Japan.

And we know this, because within Japan itself there's a clear relationship between health, and amount of animal products consumed. The traditional Okinawan diet (the place which has the most centenarians int he world) is just 6% calories from animal products, the rest being from sweet potato and rice and veg. Where as mainland Japan where they eat more animal products they don't do as well as their Okinawan neighbors.

This relationship of animal food intake & rates of chronic diseases works on a local level or a global level. Less is always better, all the way to none (Loma Linda 7th day Adventists many of which are vegan by religion tend do the best out of all of the blue zones, when it comes to chronic disease).



------


Omega 3 is present in so many plant foods - such as flaxseed/linseed, hemp, chia, and even sea algae (which is where the fish get their omega 3 from)

The benefit of getting omega 3 from plant sources means almost no saturated fat, no cholesterol, no mercury, no IGF-1 raising protein structures (and no antibiotics if you are eating farmed fish). Also they say the ocean will be fishless by 2048..... (which also coincides with the Post Atomic Horror era for the Trekkies out there lol)

Fish also don't have any fiber, (the one macro nutrient everyone pretends doesn't exist, and most people are deficient in). Stay regular and prevent diverticulitis/diverticulitis, and avoid hemorrhoids, and even varicose veins.

Flax also contains lignans which prevents/treats prostate cancer https://www.healthline.com/health/prostate-cancer/flaxseed-and-prostate-cancer.


You just get so much more nutrition out of plants over all. Animal products tend to have a higher amount of a single compound or nutrient, but they have a lot of baggage with it. It's like buying a car, you don't necessarily want the one with the biggest engine, the total package is what's important.


------

Whether or not Barnard is a vegan shill, doesn't change the nutritional profiles of foods as shown above.

It also doesn't change the fact he looks, acts and speaks amazing for someone that's 65 years old - clearly putting his theory into practice with wonderful results. And while that is anecdotal, that's certainly something nobody would say about Atkins, or Loran Cordain (Paleo advocate) or Jimmy Moore (Keto advocate), who all look like they could drop dead any minute (and Atkins literally did drop dead).

Facepalm
Bob, you implied, then actually said driving a car is a guaranteed right like voting, now you want to pivot away from that stupidity and hope you won't get called out on the bait and switch of your failed argument.
Just admit you were wrong. Stop the mental gymnastics trying to twist your way out of your ridiculous factually deficient argument....you aren't good at them.

This latest ridiculousness has already been utterly decimated above, it was a really poorly thought out ploy you tried. So sad.

Are you really so deluded that you believe every adult in my country has a car and license to operate it? It's certainly not the case in your country.

Dude. Proofread your stuff. It makes you look incompetent.


Incompetent:

1. Not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully.
"a forgetful and utterly incompetent assistant"

synonyms: inept, unskillful, unskilled, inexpert, amateurish, unprofessional, bungling, blundering, clumsy, inadequate, substandard, inferior, ineffective, deficient, inefficient, ineffectual, wanting, lacking, leaving much to be desired;

A big part of the Zero's reputation came from racking up kills in China against a lot of second-rate planes with poorly-trained pilots. After all, there was a reason that the Republic of China hired the American Volunteer Group to help out during the Second Sino-Japanese War – Chinese pilots had a hard time cutting it.

The Wildcat was deficient in many ways versus the Zero, but it still had superior firepower via ammo loadout. The Zero carried very few 20mm rounds, most of it's ammo was 7.7mm. There are records of Japanese pilots unloading all their 7.7mm ammo on a Wildcat and it was still flyable. On the flip side, the Wildcat had an ample supply of .50 cal.

Stanley "Swede" Vejtasa was able to score seven kills against Japanese planes in one day with a Wildcat.

Yes, the discovery of the Akutan Zero helped the United States beat this plane. But MilitaryFactory.com notes that the Hellcat's first flight was on June 26, 1942 – three weeks after the raid on Dutch Harbor that lead to the fateful crash-landing of the Mitsubishi A6M flown by Tadayoshi Koga.

Marine Captain Kenneth Walsh described how he knew to roll to the right at high speed to lose a Zero on his tail. Walsh would end World War II with 17 kills. The Zero also had trouble in dives, thanks to a bad carburetor.

We were behind in technology for many reasons, but once the Hellcat started replacing the Wildcat, the Japanese Air Superiority was over. Even if they had maintained a lead in technology, as Russia showed in WW2, quantity has a quality all of it's own. We were always going to be able to field more pilots and planes than Japan would be able to.

As far as Soviet rockets, once we were stunned by the launch of Sputnik, we kicked into high gear. You can say what you will of reliability, consistency, and dependability, but exactly how many manned Soviet missions landed on the moon and returned? Other than Buran, which was almost a copy of our Space Shuttle, how many shuttles did the USSR field?

The Soviets did build some things that were very sophisticated and were, for a while, better than what we could field. The Mig-31 is a great example. We briefly lagged behind but have a much superior air capability now. The only advantages the Mig and Sukhoi have is speed, they can fire all their missiles and flee. If they are engaged however, they will lose if pilots are equally skilled.

As @newtboy has said, I am sure that Russia and China are working on military advancements, but the technology simply doesn't exist to make a Hypersonic missile possible at this point.

China is fielding a man portable rifle that can inflict pain, not kill, and there is no hard evidence that it works.

There is no proof that the Chinese have figured out the technology for an operational rail gun on land, let alone the sea. We also have created successful railguns, the problem is POWERING them repeatedly, especially onboard a ship. If they figured out a power source that will pull it off, then it is possible, but there is no concrete proof other than a photo of a weapon attached to a ship. Our experts are guessing they might have it functional by 2025, might...

China has shown that long range QEEC is possible. It has been around but they created the first one capable of doing it from space. The problem is, they had to jury rig it. Photons, or light, can only go through about 100 kilometers of optic fiber before getting too dim to reliably carry data. As a result, the signal needs to be relayed by a node, which decrypts and re-encrypts the data before passing it on. This process makes the nodes susceptible to hacking. There are 32 of these nodes for the Beijing-Shanghai quantum link alone.

The main issue with warfare today is that it really doesn't matter unless the battle is between one of the big 3. Which means that ANY action could provoke Nuclear conflict. Is Russia going to hypersonic missile one of our carriers without Nukes become an option on the table as a retaliation? Is China going to railgun a ship and risk nuclear war?

Hell no, no more than we would expect to blow up some major Russian or Chinese piece of military hardware without severe escalation! Which means we can create all the technological terrors we like, because we WON'T use them unless they somehow provide us a defense against nuclear annihilation.

So just like China and Russia steal stuff from us to build military hardware to counter ours, if they create something that is significantly better, we will began trying to duplicate it. The only thing which would screw this system to hell is if one of us actually did begin developing a successful counter measure to nukes. If that happens, both of the other nations are quite likely to threaten IMMEDIATE thermonuclear war to prevent that country from developing enough of the counter measures to break the tie.

As usual, you're absolutely wrong on all counts.

Manafort was convicted of repeatedly committing felonious frauds with the express purpose of hiding his massive financial ties to Russia and hide the fact that he is a foreign agent working for them and has been for years if not decades.

Paying out of your pocket to women to not say anything in order to help your campaign for president, which Trump did repeatedly (according to his personal lawyer who has released tapes of them discussing it) without disclosing it as a campaign contribution is absolutely a crime, as is making a personal contribution in those amounts.

Lying about it can also be a crime, which is part of why he cannot testify. He knows he'll also be asked about them and all the other women he's screwed and paid, and he doesn't know what they can prove, so has no idea which lie to tell. He also cannot testify about his finances without admitting many more felonious frauds. No blue dress needed when you're talking about an admitted criminal fraud and consummate liar like Trump, and btw, making a blue dress dirty wasn't a crime either....hiding it and lying about it under oath was....and Trump lies 3 times per sentence. He will never survive any interview under oath....he just isn't capable of honesty.

These are high crimes, felonies, not even misdemeanors. If Clinton had 1/10 the ties to Russia you would call her a Putin stooge and be calling for her head, and you know it. If her administration had 1/10 the convictions you would be frothing at the mouth for impeachment and be irate there was any obstruction to the special council or delay in getting her testimony, and claiming the convictions were absolute proof of her guilt. The smoking gun will be found, huh.....now that the multiple decades of investigations are over and she's been cleared of any crimes, and there's no accusations of actual criminal activity forthcoming (if you say pizzagate I'm going to assume you're actually mentally deficient and stop talking to you)...NOW the smoking gun will be found. *facepalm

If there's a log of smolder and smoke on the Clintons, there's a blast furnace on Trump. His entire upper echelon is either convicted of high crimes against the state, fired, both, or at odds with him for unpresidential actions and for trying to politicize the justice system like a despot. So much for his "I have the best people" lie, eh?

You are so blatantly hypocritical it would be funny, if only there weren't tens of thousands of you willing to say any kind of ignorant nonsense if you think it distracts from the overtly and undeniably criminal administration you support. That's pretty damn unpatriotic of y'all.

Alrighty, so when challenged with an obvious flaw in your original post (ie. posting in a video about how the alt right trolls while using the exact same methodology), you change up the terms on engagement rather than answer the original criticism...

1. Short quip about how said boxed people are insane.
2. Go on about why said boxed people are mentally deficient, then crap on about Trump.
3. Get in to a pedantic explanation about the 50% figure and whether or not it was entirely accurate.

None of which addresses my original criticism and further goes to show that you are doing exactly what this video is talking about.

I don't give a fuck about Trump or his supporters, and while I do agree there are likely some racists/crazy people in the mix, I theorise that they mostly voted for him because he was different. Which is neither here nor there, the video is a smug left winger pointing out what a bunch of pointy headed gits alt right trolls are and you prove that the left is equally capable of being smug, pointy headed and trollish gits... = \

I don't disagree with your discontent re: the parlous state of affairs in the US at the moment, and I have a great deal of sympathy for American's who don't want that orangutan representing them. But if you (collective left, not you personally) want to try and occupy a high ground and dismiss the alt right, you need to actually live up to the standards you use to castigate people like Bk33.

A snippet from Lord Beveridge's "Full Employment in a Free Society":

The proposition that there should always be more vacant jobs than unemployed men means that the labour market should always be a seller’s market rather than a buyer’s market. For this, on the view of society underlying this Report — that society exists for the individual — there is a decisive reason of principle. The reason is that difficulty in selling labour has consequences of a different order of harmfulness from those associated with difficulty in buying labour. A person who has difficulty in buying the labour he wants suffers inconvenience or reduction in profits. A person who cannot sell his labour is, in effect, told that he is of no use. The first difficulty causes annoyance or loss. The other is a personal catastrophe. This difference remains even if an adequate income is provided by insurance or otherwise, during unemployment; the idleness even on an income corrupts; the feeling of not being wanted demoralizes. The difference remains even if most people are unemployed only for relatively short periods. As long as there is any long-term unemployment not obviously due to personal deficiency, anybody who loses his job fears that he may be one of the unlucky ones who will not get another job quickly. The short-term unemployed do not know that they are short-term unemployed till their unemployment is over.

Since those food processor blades have been recalled for being brittle and chipping into foods, I wouldn't suggest freezing them before use unless you have a steel deficiency in your diet.

Great video, but I really can't dig the bloody burgers.