search results matching tag: nutrition

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (73)     Sift Talk (5)     Blogs (8)     Comments (287)   

Joe Rogan - "Alex Jones Is Right About A Lot Of Stuff"

Drachen_Jager says...

The CIA doesn't have to do much to make him look crazy. He has, at various points said, there are "Humanoids that are 80 percent gorilla, 80 percent pig," Michelle Obama is actually a man and she murdered Joan Rivers, and my personal favourite, in England, "They had tanks, people with gills, and there were little babies, and they were in there just gulping, clawing at the sides. You see a turtle at the zoo that wants out and you feel for it? They got humanoids crossed with fish and stuff. I mean... we are screwed people, you understand that?"

I mean... fish people? Nevermind the math on the gorilla/pig hybrids, but fish people? He's like the Weekly World News. I honestly feel sorry for anyone who believes that stuff. Poor people like @Sagemind and @bobknight33 a lack of proper education, perhaps parents who didn't keep enough books in the house... poor nutrition? I honestly don't know what deprivations a human mind has to go through to become that incapable of discriminating the obvious lies people like AJ tell.

Sagemind said:

One of the CIA's main tools is to discredit the whistle-blowers and make then look crazy. So far it's working for them with many people. Nothing discredits a conspiracy theorist more than making the public identify them as crazy.

Milk Is Just Filtered Blood

Drachen_Jager says...

"Just filtered blood" is misleading. It's filtered, PROCESSED, blood.

This is like saying plants are just dirt, air, and water. While technically true, the biological processes in plant growth (as with milk production) create complex nutritive molecules out of simple constituents.

Why Is Salt So Bad for You, Anyway?

transmorpher says...

Feta is 46% RDI of salt
Halloumi etc....
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=feta+nutrition

EDIT:
Oh I see, I didn't write RDI in my previous comment, my bad. fixed. That would indeed be insanely wrong.


Although I do find it funny how I've posted about 10 different doctors, and you constantly think that it's the same guy just so you can allow yourself to dismiss any of the facts.

Here's another one in case you are counting: https://carsonmcquarrie.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/dr-kim-cardiologist-vegan-quote.jpg?w=640


Back on the ignore list you go :-)

newtboy said:

You are insanely wrong.

Why Did Steve Jobs Die?

newtboy says...

Bwaaahahaha! Pretty sure that term came from your video! Some proteins are more easily used by the body than others...these would be deemed 'quality proteins' when talking nutrition. Kuru, a prion, for one, is a non-quality protein.

This, from the guy that conflates enjoying cheese with heroin level addiction and anecdotal advertisements with peer reviewed studies?!? Lol!

transmorpher said:

"quality proteins" do you even science bro? You're trying to call out health professionals on their lack of scientific ability, but you go an use a phrase that means absolutely nothing beyond the meat commercial it came from.

I'm not going to waste 30 minutes of my time getting a list of studies together, because all you ever do is reply with aggressive hyperbole.

Taking Personal Responsibility for Your Health

newtboy jokingly says...

Um....wait....so you admit, in moderation, there's no risk to eating meat, but you ASSUME everyone will eat the worst quality meats in supreme excess, and only offer stats or theories that represent that warped idea, and claim the associated dangers of overeating processed food (the studies did not study processed meat VS processed veg) are universal to all meat eaters? Sweet Zombie Cheesus. No wonder I have to constantly correct you.
Some people have self control and knowledge about nutrition. Perhaps you need to spell it out that your comments are addressed only to those that eat TERRIBLY, not anyone that eats meat.

BTW, I smoke a cigar about twice a month or less too. My doctor said that's negligible in terms of dangers to my health....but if you assumed I smoke a box a week like many do, you could say it's TERRIBLY risky to me (but still less than cigarettes) and be right in your mind and in general, but wrong in actuality. Details matter.

transmorpher said:

This! And in Dr. Greger's book he even says this

Something a long the lines of:
Eating a steak once a week has a negligible amount of risk associated with health, as does smoking once per week. But most people find it a slippery slope, so it's easier to avoid it completely.

Taking Personal Responsibility for Your Health

transmorpher says...

Are you watching these videos via the enigma encryption machine? Because he does not say that.

He says "Plant based diets may now be considered the nutritional equivalent of quitting smoking."

newtboy said:

Absolutely false. He's outright saying that stopping eating meat, and nothing else, is equivalent to stopping smoking, which is an outright lie.

The Vegan Who Started a Butcher Shop

eoe says...

Wow. Like many misinformed university students, he was not 'craving meat" and feeling unhealthy because he was vegan. He was feeling unhealthy because rather than eating unhealthy meat, he ate unhealthy processed fake shit.

Try greens, vegetables, fruits, whole grains, mushrooms, nuts, and seeds and you'll find yourself quite healthy. And, according to the preponderance of science (not funded by the meat and dairy industry) you'll be much, much more healthy. It's very similar to the smoking industry when they were found to be unhealthy.

It's also similar to the climate change "controversy" and anti-vax "controversy". Science is in complete agreement that a vegan diet is way more healthy than any other diet, but smoke screens are made so that people give up because they're confused, and frankly would just like to eat meat without feeling like assholes.

Check out nutritionfacts.org, a doctor who just goes through contemporary studies in nutritional science. Just the science.

Try starting here if you truly believe in science.

The Terrible Truth Behind the Food Pyramid

transmorpher (Member Profile)

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

transmorpher says...

Eat all of the cake you want, provided it's got little fat in it, it's made from wholemeal flour or oats, and most of the sweetness is from fruits/veges

Such as http://support.pcrm.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=108396.0&dlv_id=122422

Even though the carrots and raisins will do a lot to suppress the insulin response from the added sugar, I'd still look at putting in less and less each time as it helps bring out the other flavours, and of course refined sugar has no nutritional value.


And I nearly forgot: BANANA NICECREAM! The more you eat the better.

ChaosEngine said:

harsh, bro.... harsh

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

ChaosEngine says...

There are millions of people all over the world who do this very thing all the time. It's a myth perpetuated by TV shows like "the biggest loser".

What's the purpose of the video? Generating ad revenue for Vox. They're a business after all. But secondary to that, I think the purpose of the video is simply to educate people about the importance of nutrition in weight loss. You would be amazed at the number of people who don't understand it.

I don't think you could really call it clickbait (other than the fact that everything is clickbait, so the term becomes meaningless). In fact, it's almost the opposite of clickbait... the main point is given away in the title. It's not like it was called "you won't believe this one amazing weight loss method" or some shit.

TheFreak said:

I don't recall anyone claiming the path to losing weight is exercise alone. This video is based on a straw man argument.

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

TheFreak says...

I don't recall anyone claiming the path to losing weight is exercise alone. This video is based on a straw man argument.

It's just as irresponsible to claim that exercise plays no significant part in weight loss. There just aren't definitive results yet from studies of how exercise affects metabolism. So we can't draw conclusions.

So what's the purpose of this video? There's a message at the end that we need to push politicians on food policy. So does this video provide biased interpretation for a political agenda? Maybe I was wrong on that count. But then, what IS the point of this video? They can't be trying to convince people to lose weight from diet alone. There is no reasonable study that makes that conclusion.

Maybe it's a clickbait video. What it is not, is a reasonable analysis of the available data. Because any reasonable analysis says, "we don't know yet, so diet AND exercise."

But I agree about HIIT. It is personally the only way I can stay at a healthy weight. Along with careful nutrition.

ChaosEngine said:

What "political agenda " are they pushing? Eat less?

And it's a YouTube video... of course the science is simplified.

The fact is that people DO think that exercise allows them to eat what they like (especially sugar) when it doesn't.

HIIT helps, but diet is still important.

Why You Can't Advertise Cancer Cures In Britain

entr0py says...

While we definitely need tighter restrictions on the marketing of drugs and nutritional supplements in the US, I think such quack medical devices are handled the same way. The device would need to carry a warning "This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." And the civil and criminal penalties of claiming your gadget really does treat any disease (not just cancer) are pretty severe.

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...?

If Meat Eaters Acted Like Vegans

transmorpher says...

1. If not for taste, then you must be doing it because you've been mislead (like I was) to think it's a nutritional requirement. There is zero nutritional reason to eat animals for the majority of people on this planet. Perhaps habit is involved, but nothing that can't be broken if you want to. 99.9% of vegans were not vegan.


2. There is no gene in the human body which specifically makes you eat meat or drink milk. The chemical reaction that makes you crave certain foods is influenced by the foods you eat. In a hypothetical survival situation, eat all of the animals you need to, but we don't live in that situation.


3. I'm a middle-class person just like the majority of the westerners. I wasn't vegan for the first 30 years or so of my life. If I can do it, I know anyone can, they simply must want to. There is no financial, professional, geographical reason for everyone apart from those living in extreme conditions in western society to not become vegan. The reason why I say western society is because not only is western society the biggest cause of this (poor countries are already plant based, using very few animal products comparatively), but because westerners have the opportunity to do it easily.
The only difficult part is finding out correct information, because animal industry groups love to create clouds of doubt by funding misleading research and advertising. But the information is now out there on the internet.


4. It's a nice thought, but until those ideal conditions are reality, we must look at what action we can take now.


5. You don't need to grow your own food, farmers do that for you, and there will be plenty of land free'd up since 70% of all farm land is currently used to feed livestock.


6. There is protein (including the 9 essential amino acids) in almost every edible plant - vegetable, grain, rice, potato, nut and fruit. That simply eating enough to not be hungry means you eat enough protein. You don't need to eat the 3 gluten sources to meet your daily protein requirements. Even if everyone apart from those with celiac disease became vegan, the impact to the planet would be immense, because it's not a common thing. (I'm guessing you must get annoyed with the current trend of hipsters avoiding gluten, when they don't have celiacs or have not had an intestinal biopsy to confirm it).

7. I think it's fair to say that there is very little risk, when the alternative is eating a well documented carcinogen (meat, especially processed meat, see the World Health Organisation). Surely not giving yourself cancer is a good reason to avoid meat?

8. We can philosophize about minute details of sentience, or something like abortion, but really that is say like we shouldn't drive cars because we don't fully understand the laws of physics. We know enough about physics to improve our way life. It's the same about veganism, we know farm animals are mistreated, we know they feel pain and misery, and they have a will to live, so lets fix that first, and then we can philosophize about sentience.


9. It's not about the people that don't have a choice, it's about the people that do, and the majority of people do have a choice, that is the point.


10. Again there is protein in everything you eat - how do you think a chicken or cow get's it's protein? From plants!

dannym3141 said:

I have to strongly disagree with the suggestion that animals are killed and tortured for my "taste preferences" and "pleasure".

It gives me no pleasure that an animal has to die for me to eat. My pleasure in the consumption of that animal is a fleeting, automatic chemical reaction triggered in my body. In an evolutionary sense, i only receive this pleasure because it prolongs the survival of my species to feel it.

Most of these arguments reek of over simplification and ignorance to the reality of the society westerners live in.

In ideal conditions, i would eat meat from animals that i tended, who died of natural causes (mostly old age i assume) which i would personally butcher. In reality, it is not possible and even if it were possible for one person, it would not be possible for every person - we have limited space, limited resources, limits placed by law, limits on our time. As well as the cost of the land, I would have to hope enough animals died naturally to sell enough humane meat to pay taxes on the land and maintain my farming equipment, buy grain for the animals and so on. Or maybe i could grow my own grain and use primitive DIY tools, but then i'd probably need help for all the farming i'd have to do every day and now i'd need enough animals to die to feed three, so more land, more grain... Oops, it looks like this is getting complicated doesn't it. Shall we keep going until we reach a society of 70 odd million people, or should we consider that the problem is far more complicated than comments here would care to acknowledge?

Furthermore gluten is often the primary protein source for vegans, but i have a disease that requires me to avoid that protein in entirety. The smug, holier-than-thou field radiating from certain commenters here will i'm sure extend far enough to condescendingly say "ah, but you can be a vegan and avoid gluten, you poor, uneducated, smiling murderer!" Yes, and you could live your life without ever being touched by the sun's rays, or sail a small sailboat without ever getting wet, not even a droplet. And how can we know what effect gluten-free-veganism may have on public health when it is extended to a population of 7 billion? What a dangerous experiment to salivate over - reckless and potentially harmful in a way that a butcher could never hope to be.

It would be wonderful if the world was ideal. I wouldn't have this disease, and all people of the world could enjoy their own 10 acre farm and eat only those animals whose time had come. Unfortunately when i am abroad, away from home, the only source of protein that i can entirely trust might perhaps be a roast chicken. And i will eat it, the only true pleasure from which i take is that i will not spend the next three days doubled up in bed.

There are people worse off than me, but i don't know enough about their situation to use it as a point in this discussion. To people like me, the language used by some people here makes me think of someone dancing around at a diabetics convention shouting "I can't believe you losers have to use insulin! I hope you all realise that drug addicts use needles!"

I reject any notion that these people have a moral advantage over me. Have any of them ever heard of walking a mile in another man's shoes, or does their narrow mind only reach as far as "ME"?

By the way, plants are also alive. Or is this about sentient life? Shall we move on to abortion then, if non-sentient life is ok to end? Shall we have the philosophical discussion about degrees of sentience and types of sentience and whether we can even know if a plant has its own brand of sentience? If yes, let's try to at least do it without you being smug and in return without me being sarcastic.

Worrying about how people treat vegans? How about how the language used to describe people who have no choice in the matter, lest that choice be never leave your own house and eat only this very small list of things which you may or may not find too disgusting to stomach? Am i to live in misery and squander my life so that a chicken could have an extra 2 years to run in circles? This issue is not fucking black and white despite the attempts to paint it so.



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