/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15821928
better in what sense? It's not like the human body just has a "health" meter that moves up and down

>>15821928
Why do you have to pick one? We're omnivores who were designed to eat both (with a slight edge towards cooked meat in some cases) to get our nutritional needs.

>>15821928
>Why hasn't science come to a consensus on this yet?
Because science is mostly a scam. I don't even mean on the level of modern scientific and academic practices. I mean on the level of claiming that the "scientific method" is an adequate way to figure out complex real-world systems, especially bioloical ones. It can only be summarized as charlatanry.

>>15821928
Meh, eating only meat is not fun, but not eating meat is just fucking retarded.

>>15821928
Right, easily, an ideal diet would be majority plant-based with 15% of it being meat. Only people who want to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian choose left. The science had been settled for awhile now.

>>15822190
>>15822191
Question was poorly formulated, omnivore apart.. which diet based food would be better I guess, vegetarian only or carnivore only?

>>15822339
Carnivore, obviously. At least if you cook your meat.

>>15822307
That's the diet of Netlflix's Blue Zones

>>15821928
The science on this has been settled for over a hundred years. You should eat both. Your monkey brain simply can’t handle the idea that both are possible.

>>15822339
see>>15822190

>>15822339
neither, a variety based diet is best

>>15822412
>>15822444
Wrong

>the JWST diet

>>15822447
sure thing nigga

Why is it so important? People don't get unhealthy because they eat one steak, or a slice of bread or a glass of milk. Obese people eat so much crap that their problems are extremely obvious. As long as you eat normally, you will likely be healthy, obsessing over your diet seems like a waste of time unless you are a professional athlete.

>>15821928
if you had to eat only one side for the rest of your life, you'd be better off with plants.
A healthy diet consists of mostly plants with a bit of meat.
The longest lived peoples in the world eat a diet that consists of mostly plants with a bit of meat.
humans traditionally ate mostly plants with a bit of meat

so i mean, its pretty obvious that is a straight vs its plant food that wins

>>15822344
It's also the diet of hunter-gatherers and nomads throughout history.

>>15823186
if you eat literally only plants you'll die of b12 deficiency, it'll just take a long time.

>>15821928
Fish is the best. What you gonna do about it? You can't farm fish! You can't ask a fish to jump into your mouth. They rain from the sky when the Lord is satisfied with our child sacrifices.

>>15823618
>He doesn't know about seaweed

>>15823924
Isn't that not concerned a sufficient source?
Also technically not a plant if I want to be a jackass (I do)

>>15823737
>You can't farm fish
Lookup aquaculture you midwit.

>>15822199
>I mean on the level of claiming that the "scientific method" is an adequate way to figure out complex real-world systems, especially bioloical ones.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?

>>15823930
You are certifiably retarded. One serving of nori has 80% of you daily vitamin B12. It is undeniably a plant. What do you think "plant" means?

>>15824004
a member of the kingdom Plantae

>>15822190
It's called your age.
>>15821928
Because you're imagining the "vs".

>>15822191
>nature designed us to eat cooked meat
Alright, award for most retarded thing I've read on /sci/ this week goes to you. Congrats.

>>15824099
Where else did we get brains that both like starting fires and have insane metabolic requirements but from nature?

>>15824040
Right. Now what kingdom is seaweed in?

>>15822339
>>15822340
Pure carnivore is the worst diet.
>>15822444
this. Has been shown in countless studies. There's not even room for interpretation.

>>15824102
It used to be protista but they killed that so now it's just sort of hanging out next-to-but-not-in plantae

>>15823011
Obese people get fat by eating sugar, carbs and oils. Nobody gets unhealthy because of hamburger, it is the soda and fries and sugary snacks every fifteen minutes of their waking lives.

>>15823996
By being a complete moron that has extremely romanticised view of the world of 1700s and earlier. Shows one time of scientists fumbling but then proceeds to ignore all the advancements it made in last two centuries, or even claiming they are false like vaccines, global warming, space, or demonising them like computers (which work only because of our understanding of subatomic particles) and GMOs

>>15821928
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/22/coca-cola-discloses-health-research-funding
they know that an animal based diet is optimal for humans. but they blurry the info and people get told it's more complicated than they think
>inb4 link studies
idk when this website became this reddit tier. but if I do link you a study supporting animal diet you'll link me another study against it and then we can go on and on.


let me simplify this for you.
what do you think our ancestors ate during the ice age?

>>15824099
unless you're african.
our ancestor discovered uses of fire a very long time ago

>>15822444
what does that even mean?
how much meat would you think is the best?
if it's 500gms a week then you are retarded and trying to blurry the water

>>15823011
>As long as you eat normally, you will likely be healthy, obsessing over your diet seems like a waste of time unless you are a professional athlete.
the average person is diabetic and obese.
please stop trying to blurry the water

>>15821928
>Why hasn't science come to a consensus on this yet? or has it and I'm just out of the loop and I'm being fed disinformation about one or another.
>One of them has to be better regardless of individuals genetics.
All you have to do is take 100 sets of twins, feed one vegetables and the other meat, while locking them in a cell so they eat nothing else, and wait 60+ years to see what happens.

>>15823186
>The longest lived peoples in the world eat a diet that consists of mostly plants with a bit of meat
did you get this from that retarded blue zone video from Netflix?
it's absolutely false you can go ahead and look up what people actually in these places. it's mostly meat

>>15824099
>thinks humans were designed
Moron. Selective pressure is not a design.

>>15824183
>it's mostly meat
I'm not against meat, but don't make things up. There's very few humans who survive primarily on meat. Maybe it's healthy, I don't know, but due to necessity we eat a lot of other things.

>>15824187
>quibbling over word choices
The fact is the human digestive track can't properly process meat and humans die early from disease due to meat consumption. Even a small serving of eggs can take a year off of your life.

>>15824188
where is your critical thought?
you just belive what a fucking document tells you?
what do you think the inuits eat?
what do you think our ancestors in the fucking ice age ate?
to think that kale something that didn't even exist like a few decades ago is part of the human diet is so retarded it's unimaginable.


it's a true fact that we developed agriculture our height decreased,skull size decreased, jaw size decreased.
why do you think indians are the way they are? its because they make it a crime to eat normal diet(animal based) there

>>15824191
bullshit.
the studies that show this don't take into account healthy user bias.
the vegans that don't eat meat also didn't drink,smoke or eat obvious bullshit like coke. and they exercised, that alone will make you survive 20 years longer than the average man

>>15824110
I looked it up and it seems different species are classified into three different kingdoms, including plantae. It turns out nori is eukaryota. You are technically correct, but it's irrelevant to vegans because realistically they just don't eat animalia or use products made from them.

>>15824240
>they just don't eat animalia or use products made from them.
yes they do, farming kills massive amounts of animals

>>15824240
>vegans because realistically they just don't eat animalia or use products made from them.
crops destroy the natural flora of the land.
egypt used to be a jungle until they destroyed it for grain production.
if the entire world went vegan,which is their target, millions of animal species will be extinct

>>15824271
That's not really how that works. If everyone were vegan we'd use less land overall because it wouldn't be devoted to fodder crops, pastures, or meat processing plants. I don't advocate veganism for my own reasons, but you shouldn't just make shit up.

>>15824263
>>15824271
Also, did you post twice, or did you both get your misinformation from the same place?

>>15824278
>fodder crops, pastures, or meat processing plants.
we wouldn't need that either if we just fed the animals their natural food.
you know like grass found in nature?

>>15824281
let's just say for the sake of your argument that vegans don't kill a single animal while they grow their fucking tofu.
which isn't true because if you have ever been to a farm youd know that moles,rabbits,rats etc are always trying to destroy the crops.
regardless let's say that vegans are saints.
the vegan diet is still in no way shape or form optimal for humans.
plants don't have bioavailable protein and in order to get the optimal amount you'd have to eat a shitton of it which will give a ton a carbs which will turn into fat

>>15822190
the human body is a molecular machine.

its either good for you, or its not, there is no in between.

>>15824291
oh you think this is some sci-fi movie where you can analyse a molecule and track it using a computer. get fucking real man

>>15824291
machines don't have healthbars either

>>15824292
>>15824294
so what have all these lazy scientists been doing all this time?

they should have figured out the optimal diet decades ago along with every molecular interaction in the human body

times up now show your work.

>>15824296

Scientists have spent the past few thousand years determining that the human body is too complicated to boil down to 1-dimensional "goodness"

>>15824299
show your work

and machines do have health bars

>>15824296
you can't feed people huge amounts of specific molecules you fucking retard.
you feed them something with high contrnts of it and see what are the effects

>>15824305
that has nothing to do with what I said, reply to me once you’re done having a stroke

>>15824307
you get your knowledge from my retard friend.

>>15824227
>vegans are healthier
>meat eaters are not healthy
>this doesn't count because... well, meat eaters are unhealthy :^)
Insanity.

>>15824341
the average diet is filled with things much worse than what vegans eat.
if you take heroine and alcohol while also consuming meat. can you blame meat for all your health complications?
this isn't much complicated at all my friend.
our ancestors ate mostly meat we too should eat mostly meat

>>15824287
Again, I'm not advocating for veganism, but you cannot just make shit up because you don't like something. Crops take up a tenth of the land that livestock do on a per calorie basis.

>>15824284
Pastures use fodder, which is usually grass or alfalfa, so they can over stock their cattle and maximize their profit. You would need the same amount of land to feed them either way.

>>15824346
>our ancestors ate mostly meat we too should eat mostly meat
Source?

>>15824356
>Crops take up a tenth of the land that livestock do on a per calorie basis.
but they don't provide even a quarter the value in terms of bioavailable nutrients and protein.
to suggest that humans should eat something that our ancestor didn't care to grow simply because it's cost effective is absurdly retarded.

>Pastures use fodder, which is usually grass or alfalfa, so they can over stock their cattle and maximize their profit. You would need the same amount of land to feed them either way.
again it's not about the amount of land they take up.
they destroy the natural flora. just look up what egypt was like and see what it has become. agriculture destroy nature

>>15824357
this is a fact not an opinion.
gravettians couldn't possibly grow rice and barley.
they were taller,stronger,stronger bones and a larger brain size than other humans. they were on average 6'0.
you look at the average Indian man and he's 5'4 and 82 iqd. you tell me which diet is better.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravettian#:~:text=Animals%20were%20a%20primary%20food,greater%20dietary%20emphasis%20on%20meat.

It has and the answer is the greek and italian diets

>>15824369
>gravettians
One small population who couldn't figure out agriculture or foraging eating meat for 11,000 years is insignificant compared to the 100,000 years of humans being hunter-gatherers with a low amount of meat in their diet.

>they were taller
Gigantothermy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantothermy

>>15824361
>but they don't provide even a quarter the value in terms of bioavailable nutrients and protein.
Nonsense.

>again it's not about the amount of land they take up.
>they destroy the natural flora. just look up what egypt was like and see what it has become. agriculture destroy nature
And you think performing agriculture on ten times as much land is somehow better? Are you aware that raising livestock is agriculture?

Why don't you try to learn what you're talking about before making shit up?

>>15824405
>One small population who couldn't figure out agriculture or foraging eating meat for 11,000 years is insignificant compared to the 100,000 years of humans being hunter-gatherers with a low amount of meat in their diet.
not gonna argue with this retard anymore.
but to address his points about gravettiens being my only examples.
it's not, gravettiens are the most extreme case where climate didn't allow any crops to be farmed. they weren't retards who couldn't figure out how plants worked.
humans always ate a significant amount of meat. most plants will kill you.
if koalas eat any leaf other than what they are designed to eat they'll just die from the toxins.
>Gigantothermy
are you fucking serious?
are people from Netherlands also due to gigantothermy? that was just normal human height.
go blow your Netflix overlords I'm not gonna waste my time arguing with a retard

>>15824414
no it's not nonsense at all.
the proteins and nutrients in plants is not bioavailable just look it up. you calling it nonsense won't change it because its a fact.
>And you think performing agriculture on ten times as much land is somehow better? Are you aware that raising livestock is agriculture?
i never said that. cattles should simply eat what their environment has available to them.

i think I'm arguing with Hindu pajeets due to the lack of ANY attempt at understanding what I'm trying to convey.
listen krishnu or Vishnu isn't real and they were as black as coal not blue

Too many variables and human ethic rules make most useful experiments prohibited. Maybe if there's a big war with a military draft, conscientious objectors can once again be experimented on like happened with the Minnesota Starvation Experiment.
Yes, that's THE Dr. Ancel Keys in pic related, so maybe a new experiment wouldn't be useful after all.

>>15824423
>humans always ate a significant amount of meat
You didn't read anything did you?
>Hunting and gathering was humanity's original and most enduring successful competitive adaptation in the natural world, occupying at least 90 percent of human history.[3]


>most plants will kill you.
This has nothing to do with the amount of plants in the human diet and it's hilarious that you would think otherwise. How can you be this stupid?

>>15824431
>the proteins and nutrients in plants is not bioavailable just look it up.
Nonsense.

>i never said that. cattles should simply eat what their environment has available to them.
That's called agriculture, you retard, and it takes ten times as much land to feed cattle the crops that you've grown especially for them while killing everything else. There's no other way to run a pasture. If you leave grazing animals to eat what they please in a pasture without ever tending to the fodder crops then they eat everything they can before it can drop seeds and ignore food they can't eat, which quickly selects for a field full of plants that cows can't eat.

>due to the lack of ANY attempt at understanding what I'm trying to convey.
What you're trying to convey is made up nonsense.

>>15824449
our recent ancestors were all meat eaters. yes we ate plants a very very long time ago. but current humans are not even close to them.
>This has nothing to do with the amount of plants in the human diet and it's hilarious that you would think otherwise
elaborate on this. what plant is natural to human diet?
>>15824453
lol retard Jeet that has never seen a farm quoting kurzgeshart. stop replying to me please

>>15824467
>our recent ancestors were all meat eaters
As evidenced by a short period of time for a small population tens of thousands of years ago?

>elaborate on this. what plant is natural to human diet?
All the edible ones, retard. Humans are omnivores which means plants are a natural part of our diet.

>lol retard Jeet that has never seen a farm quoting kurzgeshart. stop replying to me please
The irony. I've been studying soil science and agriculture for years. The fact that you read a book on cattle that was endorsed by Joe Rogan does not make you an expert on animal agriculture.

>cattle requires ten times as much land
not all land is suitable for crops, land that can be grazed is at least twice as large as that suitable for crops
the figure is probably bogus anyway as vegans like to compare their fucking tofu to beef, not realizing that soibeans are processed for their oil and so on before the byproduct is fed to the cows
oh, you took a small part of the soibean and fed the rest to the cow, so now you've technically used very little of the soibean and the cow a lot of the soibean, thus making you morally superior? what a joke

>>15824475
>As evidenced by a short period of time for a small population tens of thousands of years ago?
that example was for a population that exclusively ate meat.
name ONE JUUUUST ONE population that survived solely on plants. JUST OOOOONE

>>15824475
when you say that humans are omnivores what do think should be the proportion of meat and veggies?

>>15824555
And hunter-gatherers who rarely had as much as 20% of their diet as meat represent 90% of human history. You don't seem to know your history.

>>15824560
Less than 20% historically. What kind of dumbass gotcha do you have mind, shill?

>>15824517
>not all land is suitable for crops
So why are you using ten times as much to raise cattle? You want to pretend that marginal land is suitable for raising cattle, but the reality is that you need to import their nutrients from productive farmland. You have fallen for a grift because you are a moron.

>>15824584
>less than 20%
lol lmao even.
btw 10% of human history accounts for over 200,000 years. but sure keep telling yourself that brocolli is healthy

>>15824588
stop bullshitting us jeet.


I've seen how it works. cows eat grass and that's it. the grasses don't disappear or go extinct. a football size field can feed 25 cows and then more

>>15824588
>why ten times????
grass doesn't grow vertically very well, herp derp
also do you not know the process of raising cows?
very basically they spend all their life on the pasture raised on grass then get fattened up in the last 4 months in a feed-lot
and those "nutrients" are already spent soibeans where they've taken the oil and shoved it into every food product, cow get the rest
personally if I eat beef it's grass-fed so there's no grift to fall for

>>15824612
>broccoli
>low sugar, high vitamin c
sounds healthy to me

>>15824639
even the onions fed cows are better.
cows have huge digestive tract that they can use to clear out toxins.
ofcourse grass fed cows are the best but if you can't get it in your area just buy whatever you have available.
he's likely a Jeet that thinks that a cow is his mother

>>15824612
>10% of human history accounts for over 200,000 years.
Humans have not existed for 2 million years. Take your meds

>but sure keep telling yourself that brocolli is healthy
t. Picky child who had to eat his leftover broccoli for breakfast and is mad about it

>>15824617
>>15824639
>>15824658
Completely wrong. Your ignorance is truly astounding. Why don't you start here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level
The efficiency with which energy or biomass is transferred from one trophic level to the next is called the ecological efficiency. Consumers at each level convert on average only about 10% of the chemical energy in their food to their own organic tissue (the ten-per cent law).

There are real physical limitations on biological systems and pretending there isn't does not allow you to ignore those limitations.

>>15825049
Mf gave himself gout

>>15824658
>>15824639
>>15824617
>>15824517
>NOOO!!1 Just use three times the land to produce a fifth of the calories!

>>15825081
bullshit stats lol.
just because there is a study doesn't mean it's good study.
cows eat grass in an area then move onto the next.
during that period the grass in that area grows. it's not hard to understand. grass won't go extinct.
tofus are not part of the human diet.
go ahead and eat an 80% veggie diet. and keep believing that cabbages existed 10,000 years ago
i don't care

>>15825016
>using physics laws in biology
lol are you a cicotard?
anyways Jeet I'm sure you've got to go suck israeli dicks for the next 5 hours. I'll stop replying

>>15825120
Nonsense. Pull up statistics that aren't "bullshit" that contradict these or admit that you're making shit up and have no idea what you're talking about

>>15825049
>>15825053
>>15825062
>>15825066
>cherry picked examples
most people on a carnivore diet already had health complications. they also don't slowly become carnivores and eat enough salt and fats.
you don't actually believe humans ate cabbages to survive in ice age do you?


honestly why don't you try it yourself instead of looking at flawed studies and cherry picked pictures.


i know it's an inconvenience and you're addicted to eating high carbs but ain't nothing wrong with trying

>>15821928
The notion that you have to choose between meats and plants is a mental illness. People always instinctively knew that they needed to eat both meats and plants in order to thrive, it's only 21st century retard schizos with eating disorders who come up with these highly restrictive meme diets.

>>15825123
>gets BTFO
>gets mad
>leaves
I accept your concession and the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. Next time try to educate yourself on a topic before making shit up or regurgitating obvious misinformation with no basis in reality

>>15825130
1)i don't support cows being fed corns and other bullshit crops. but that beef is still better than s o y
2)these studies look at the current state of the world which obviously needs to change. i mean have you looked at the obesity stats?
3)just because a plant has protein or nutrients doesn't mean it's bioavailable to us. digestion is much more complicated than calories in calories out

>>15825144
Ah, no statistics or supporting evidence, I see. I accept your concession and the fact that you have been making shit up this entire thread.

>>15825147
>posts coca cola funded stats
>thinks it's an argument
kys jeet

>>15825120
>keep believing that cabbages existed 10,000 years ago
They literally did. We've been growing them for nearly that long too.

>The Brassicaceae originated in the Eocene in the Irano-Turanian region from where they spread worldwide (Franzke et al., 2011). According Sanskrit records the use of cruciferous crops was documented in India as far back as 3000 BC, while some other ancestral data show that Brassica crops were grown along coastal Europe near to 8000 years ago (Al-Shehbaz, 2011).

>>15825151
>he thinks baseless assertions are an argument
>still no statistics or supporting evidence
You should learn to accept defeat gracefully and understand that when you make shit up instead of doing actual research then you are setting yourself up for failure.

>>15825154
you really think these weren't made artificially?
lol just because it was made a few thousand years ago. doesn't mean it's natural.
instead citing Wikipedia and flawed coca cola studies. try the diet jeetsama.
cows are tasty

>>15825166
>made artificially
What does that mean to you? Brassicas were selectively breed for various traits which is why we have so many cruciferous vegetables today, but they were all breed from wild cabbage which has been a part of the human diet long before we started farming it ourselves. Brassicaceae is completely natural.

>>15825166
>>15825171
>Brassicaceae diverged 29.9 million years ago (Mya) during the Oligocene, and the majority of tribes started diversification in the Miocene with an average crown group age of about 12.5 Mya.

>>15825171
>>15825174
>proves my point that humans made these plants
thanks for the wiki citation.


alright let's say that you were correct what do you suggest our diet should be to fulfill our requirement of 1.2-1.8g protein/lbs

>>15825227
>He thinks humans made wild cabbage
You have lost this argument so fucking hard, my guy. Acting smug will not allow you to recover. Trophic levels dictate that you cannot raise livestock on less that 10 times the land for the same calories in crops. The graph I posted shows that globally we do not hit that mark, with 77% of the land being used to produce 18% of the calories, which means we need more than 15 times the land area per calorie. On a protein basis we get 37% of our protein from that 77% land use which means it takes about 9 times the land to produce the same amount of protein from meat.

Your original argument was that vegans are bad because agriculture is bad, so why do you want to do 9-15 times more agriculture to feed your food? Furthermore, why are you incapable of critical thinking or providing evidence for your claims? Are you aware that facts aren't just thoughts that you like?

>>15822307

This.

>>15825257
>same calories in crops.
we've been over this already. it's not bioavailable and optimal for humans.
anyways what do you suggest our diet should.
please I really want to know what the middle people actually think is natural to humans

>>15825257
>why do you want to do 9-15 times more agriculture to feed your food?
just to be clear I never said this.
I've said this multiple times but feeding cattles grass is the best method. but keep strawmanning me if it helps you think you won. you're a Jeet trying to muddy the water and it isn't working.

>>15825257
also we're eating too many calories. its not an opinion it's a fact. look at the rate of obesity and diabetes.
we don't need this many empty calories what we need is nutrient dense animal products.
look up the diaas scores of animal products vs plant products.
it becomes pretty clear how much more well adjusted our stomach is when we eat meat.

>inb4 NOOOOOO YOU HAVE TO SEARCH THIS FOR ME
just look it up

>>15825326
Nonsense. You have provided no evidence of this claim.

>>15825331
>I've said this multiple times but feeding cattles grass is the best method.
Grass is a crop and requires land to grow, you retard. That's agriculture, which you claimed is bad for the environment. Why do you want to do 9-15 times more agriculture to feed your food?

>>15825337
Complete nonsense provided with no evidence, again.

>>15825345
>Nonsense. You have provided no evidence of this claim.
just look up what diaas is


>Grass is a crop and requires land to grow, you retard. That's agriculture, which you claimed is bad for the environment. Why do you want to do 9-15 times more agriculture to feed your food?
holy kek I never claimed growing grass is bad. but growing tofu while chopping down vegetation and Forrest is what's bad.
>Complete nonsense provided with no evidence, again.
do you have a disease of repeating the same words over and over again.
it's pretty well known that meat is more nutrient rich than plants.
anyways stop being so dodgy and answer what should our diet look like.
PLEASE SIRS STOP BEING SO PATHETICALLY DODGY

>>15825345
please enlighten us middle path sama what should our diet be

>>15825364
>chopping down vegetation and Forrest is what's bad.
So why do you want to chop down 9-15 times as much vegetation and forest to grow the crops to feed your food?

>He doesn't understand the burden of proof
Anything presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>15825365
I don't care what you eat and I don't advocate veganism, which I feel is extreme and childish. Lacto-ovo vegetarianism is better than veganism in my opinion and there's nothing wrong with having some meat in your diet. This whole argument is the result of some moron asserting that growing food for vegans somehow uses more land than animal agriculture, which is absurd and should be obviously false to anyone with half a brain.

>>15825604
>So why do you want to chop down 9-15 times as much vegetation and forest to grow the crops to feed your food?
Grazing and feed crops like alfalfa use marginal land that's otherwise unusable for farming.

>>15825607
That's nonsense and you're evading the question. Why do you want to chop down 9-15 times as much vegetation and forest to grow the alfalfa to feed your food? If vegans are bad because agriculture is bad then how are you not 9-15 times as bad if you eat only meat? How can you be this logically deficient?

>>15825614
>That's nonsense and you're evading the question.
Ironic post considering.

>>15825616
Your claim is that vegans are bad because agriculture is bad because they cut down vegetation and forest for every new plot. I have shown that animal agriculture requires 9-15 times more land. You cannot logically justify why someone who eats meat isn't worse than a vegan because of your own premise. Next time don't post made up bullshit and sperg out when someone calls you on it.

>>15825620
>I have shown that animal agriculture requires 9-15 times more land.
You've asserted this without evidence even though basic knowledge of agricultural science tells otherwise.

>>15825622
See
>>15825081
>>15825257
and learn how to do high school math.

>even though basic knowledge of agricultural science tells otherwise
Lol no. I'd genuinely like to see you try to prove that. Agricultural science tells you that you need more land to raise the same amount of calories or protein as livestock compared to growing food crops.

You still have not been able to defend your assertion that vegans are bad because their food takes up more space than cows. You won't be able to because it's nonsense, but I'm still going to point out every deflection.

>>15825632
>Agricultural science tells you that you need more land to raise the same amount of calories or protein as livestock compared to growing food crops.
Agricultural science also tells you that it's most economical to graze animals on land that can only support turf rather than prime farmland. If you wondered why vast tracts of land in the southwest are used for cattle, cease wondering now.

>>15825634
No, agricultural science recommends rotating crops and livestock to maintain soil fertility and decrease runoff which can damage the environment, but that's irrelevant to your claim that vegans are bad because crops take more land than animal agriculture.

Justify your claim or admit that you made up some stupid bullshit and sperged out about it when you were called out.

animals can turn poor quality fodder into high quality food that's why hey matter.

plants have very little incentive to keep you alive if you try to eat them.
even with fruit they only want you alive long enough to distribute the seeds

>>15821928
In the UK we dont have any problem accepting that humans are omnivorous.

We have the enzymes.

We dont need to invent or accept these new panacea type theories which people just placebo themselves into.

>>15825793
Take your meds

>>15825825
What meds, why are you on meds?

>>15824176
Appeal to nature is not just stupid but downright makes me cringe. Yes, what is in nature works, and is better then randomly throwing darts, but it is never the best. Hunter gatherers might have been healthier overall then early agriculture civilisations that ate nothing but carbs in form of bread with occasional river fish, but they were no gigachads able to survive everything and rule the nature like Tarzan. Look at actual hunter gatherers in reservations today, they look alright but not exceptionally healthier then the average westerner that has normal BMI and works out. They also don’t look fitter then average gymbro because surviving in nature does not work your muscles like designated workout carefully researched and constructed to maximise muscle growth, or endurance, or whatever you are trying to achieve. With food it’s the same, koala or pandas have garbage natural diets, but it’s the only food available to them, or only one they are willing to eat. We even use this fact in industry, cows primary natural diet is 99% grass or other herbs, but we discovered that they grow faster if fed corn grain. Yes, more meat-based diet is generally better then going vegan, but not purely because it’s what our ancestors ate and what our perfect body perfectly adopted to

>>15825132
I don't believe in the ice age. Read the bible.

>>15825622
Bro, animals need to eat plants, it takes ten calories of plants to grow one calorie of animals. Thus eating animals will require more crop land.

>>15825886
that one calorie that's in animals is much much better than the same calorie that's found in plants.


we don't need more calories we need better calories.
excess carbs get turned to fat. this is a fact not an opinion.
your argument about just eating crops you feed to animals is downright retarded. instead we should feed the crops we eat to animals.

most of the world is going through an obesity and diabetes epidemic. it's because of excess carbs in food

>>15824138
Obese people ARE fat because they eat WAY MORE than they think they do. By way more I mean they are eating things every hour and just don't stop. And they eat unhealthy high calorie shit and their meals are unhealthy and high calorie. They just eat too much or the worst foods.

>>15821928
Omnivore as >>15822191 says. Cooking was invented to make meat and nutrients palatable to us. If it served us to eat grass and weeds we would never have invented cooking and medicine.

> I hold that the diet and food which people in health now use would not have been discovered, provided it had suited with man to eat and drink in like manner as the ox, the horse, and all other animals, except man, do of the productions of the earth, such as fruits, weeds, and grass; for from such things these animals grow, live free of disease, and require no other kind of food. And, at first, I am of opinion that man used the same sort of food, and that the present articles of diet had been discovered and invented only after a long lapse of time, for when they suffered much and severely from strong and brutish diet, swallowing things which were raw, unmixed, and possessing great strength, they became exposed to strong pains and diseases, and to early deaths.

>>15826131
the problem with the omnivore narrative is that people can't seem to define what it is.
some say eating 500g of meat per week is bad for you.
some say only 5% of your diet should be meat.
some say you shouldn't eat red meat.

this doublespeak is what is causing the confusion.


i think majority of our diet(80%) should be meat and animal products,like eggs,milk.
crops and vegetables have way too many carbs to fulfill our protein and fat intake.
that carb gets stored as fat leading to the rise of obesity and diabetes and also chronic diseases

>>15826150
The real answer is that the correct diet for you depends on your race and ethnic group. Thousands of years of symbiosis with regional gut bacteria determines your proper dietary requirements.

>>15826153
okay name one ethnicity that shouldn't survive on a majority meat diet

>>15825081
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312201313_Livestock_On_our_plates_or_eating_at_our_table_A_new_analysis_of_the_feedfood_debate
>Results estimate that livestock consume 6 billion tonnes of feed (dry matter) annually – including one third of global cereal production – of which 86% is made of materials that are currently not eaten by humans. In addition, basedbean cakes, which production can be considered as main driver or land-use, represent 4% of the global livestock feed intake. Producing 1 kg of boneless meat requires an average of 2.8 kg human-edible feed in ruminant systems and 3.2 kg in monogastric systems. While livestock is estimated to use 2.5 billion ha of land, modest improvements in feed use efficiency can reduce further expansion

>>15826163
Asians in general but the Japanese especially do well on low-meat diets, where their meat portions are sparing and mainly comprised of seafood. They can also tolerate (and in some cases suffer without) what we would consider high levels of rice carbs.

>>15826172
Asians consume alot of animal products, eggs,pork,fish comprise majority of their protein intake.
surprised you didn't mention jeetland.
sets a bad example don't it

>>15826172
>>15826189

>>15826172
>>15826189
>>15826193

>>15826172
>>15826189
>>15826193
>>15826195
just because they don't eat beef doesn't mean they are genetically predisposed to survive on s o y

>>15826197
>just because they don't eat beef doesn't mean they are genetically predisposed to survive on s o y
This is the definition of midwittery. You just downloaded random charts from google images without bothering to understand them.

>>15826206
what I meant to imply was that your theory is bullshit.
and the example you used to back up your theory was bullshit stacked on top of bullshit.


all humans regardless of where they are from need a protein and fat heavy diet. there is no fucking exceptions.
a cow from India and a bison from America have a very identical diet focused on consuming plants and cellulose and they got separated over 3 million years ago.
why do you think a few thousands years will make us an entirely different species?
you gotta do more research and actually try a protein and fat heavy diet before typing out your intellectually lacking posts.
if you're vegan and don't want to hurt animals just eat unfertilized eggs,milk and sea oysters or insects.
i mean I don't think vegans have a problem with killing mosquitoes so sea insects should be fine.

>>15826131
>Cooking was invented to make meat and nutrients palatable to us
nonsense
you can eat meat raw
it has other benefits like killing harmful bacteria or parasites and making carion more edible but you don't need to cook to eat meat

>>15826072
Even if we assume an animal calorie is more nutritious than a plant calorie. An animal calorie is not more caloric than an animal calorie. Thus simply supplying the minimum caloric needs of the population will require more land to do with animals than plants.

>>15826150
The problems with carbs can be remedied by just burning up your calories and not being fat. The problems with meat (artery clogging) cannot be solved by just burning up their calories. Also meat has calories that can be stored as fat as well. This is why it is recommended that people get most of their macros from carbs as opposed to meat.

The macro balance is not the worst part of carnivore though, carnivore diets cut out the main source of micro nutrients, non super starchy vegetables, which is very dangerous and stupid.

>>15826166
People get to choose what they grow on land lol. If they are growing for livestock they will grow fodder, if growing for people they will grow food. Livestock could be calorically beneficial for humans on some dry range land, but seeing as how much we rely on calories from cropland converting that to pasture would be crazy.

>>15825614
Don't bother with him. He literally forgot that animals eat plants when he initially claimed that eating plants is bad because they take up space.

>>15826859
>>15826870
>>15826890
Jesus faggot just wtf are you smoking?
how do you not know that animal calories are much more nutrient dense than plants it's unbelievable how much of retard you are. you're just replying to keep up your appearance of not losing the argument.


i gave you the stats. the waste products of crops that are non-human edible is what's mostly fed to animals.
keyword:non-human edible.
you also need to realise most land isn't fertile and usable for crops.
grass and other non-human edible plants can grow there which these animals can eat through grazing.


i don't think you want to change your mind. read the studies I have listed and maybe just maybe think.


I'm not saying the current system is flawless yes we need changes to make it more efficient. but to say we get all our proteins from plants and we only need 10% meat in our diet is total and utter bullshit.
I'm not gonna reply anymore.
try the diet and see how you feel

>>15826909
eating plants is bad because they're carb rich and don't have enough nutrients. strop strawmanning me because you can't beat my arguments.
I said growing tofu everywhere while destroying the natural vegetation of that place is bad.

but you know what. keep believing what you want.

>>15821928
Lovely topic.


One is more delicious than the other. But, which one? The [one] that someone chooses to eat while ignoring the other?

Meat seems to be good because we season it and add a BBQ sauce to it. Unseasoned meat is only as good as a piece of leather from a shoe or belt. But, what if we seasoned veggies the same as we season meat, and only ate that? Ehh?

I have a question and I don't know how to find the answer.

I know that 16 carbon palmitic acid and 18 carbon stearic acid are the primary even numbered dietary saturated fatty acids and most other fatty acids we consume are just these with extra carbon double bonds or branches.

But what about longer length fatty acids like arachidic(20) or behenic(22)? What is the longest chain fatty acid we can digest and what determines the limit of what we can breakdown through beta-oxidation?

What's the longest fatty acid i can eat?

>>15821928
You could ask Barry Grove?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn5zdWucv6I
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/celiac.html

most humans are prone to diabetes. Most humans are also poor and have learned a culture to use cheap carbs and grains to stretch a meal and satisfy their hunger for carbs and sugars.
Many of these would benefit by eating very little simple carbs and a little more meat, and a lot less in general. Others don't have the predisposition to diabetes that almost everyone has, have trouble gaining weight rather that trouble losing it and are poor, and can do fine on a stretching meals with carbs.

>>15827034
>most humans are prone to diabetes.
you mean chronic sugar poisoning?

>>15827039
yes, and survived genetically in part on being able to process insulin from a bit of cheap carbs to stretch their meat sources, but now in the modern diet all have diabetes unless they are unusually fit or addicted to stimulants or something. The soda and the pasta is now too much for their requirements rather than a survival plus.

>>15827080
Are you aware of the mitochondria level effect of reverse electron transport caused by skewed FADH2:NADH ratios on satiety?

>>15827034
>Most humans are also poor

Because the government hoards a fuck ton of land humans can't grow their own food. Its like me owning a knowledge factory and calling people dumb because I choose to willfully reject admittance in.

>>15827114
no that is outside my circle of competence. QRD?

>>15827124
As I understand it when sugars or fatty acids are processed for respiration they naturaly produce different ratios of FADH2:NADH, for gluccose the ratio is 20%, for saturated fatty acids approximately a 48-49%; which overloads some of the receptors producing a signaling molecule that feeds back up the hiearchy that you should stop eating. for polyunsaturated fatty acids like linoleic the ratio is around I think 43% which isn't enough to trigger the feedback

At least that was the theory as I saw it explained here https://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/
I'm still going through papers checking the mechanism, or I was until my browser crashed and I lost all the papers I had open to read though the details

>>15827034
so meat, boiled potatoes and broccoli? with a pear for dessert?

>t. i ate this yesterday

>>15827135
good stuff.. the satiety feedback is important.
some class of drugs, i forget that specifically has that as a side effect, may be antipsychotics or something else dopamine related IDK.
a combo of your info and the insulin response has to be big factors

>>15827605
assuming level of fitness, and not diabetic sounds relatively based.

>>15825132
Also add to the fact that when people say eat meat, most of them are retarded and just eat the most common meat sold at stores, which is muscle meat. Muscle meat has nothing but protein and fat in it, which is why lot of them get malnourished. What those people should rather eat is muscle meat combined with lot of organ meats and probably even some bone marrow. Liver contains pretty much every single vitamin any living creature would need, because that’s where our body stores them and because generally all vertebrates have roughly the same cell types and vast majority of organs, especially if you compare mammal to mammal rather then mammal to fish or even lancelets. You can even get fiver from eating animals. If you are willing to eat some bugs their shells work exactly like dumber in digestion. Or go the more caveman route of straight up eating random leaves or grass that gives you no calories or real nutrients. Most mammal predators like bears, canines and felines eat grass for digestive reasons.

>>15827640
>If you are willing to eat some bugs their shells work exactly like dumber in digestion.
Chitin is a toxic irritant in the human gut. It's not at all like dietary fiber.

>>15821928
If you're trying to build muscle you need a high glucose diet to be able to train harder
keto if you're trying to reverse alzheimer's, diabetes

>>15826960
>how do you not know that animal calories are much more nutrient dense than plants
>muhmuhmuh NUDRIENDS. fellow "live, love, laugh" sisters!
You don't get him, you utter woman. He was not talking about fucking nutrients. He is talking about calories.
Short vitamin C, a human can survive indefinitely without dietary micronutrients. Sure, it's not healthy, but you can still run a civilization if all your peasants live like that.
Calories are different. Calories are literally a measure of energy. Without adequate calories, your body can not be maintained in the truest sense of the word.

He was talking about how meat objectively has a worse calorie yield than plant heavy diets. Though that is only relevant if the land in question is arable to begin with. Meat can convert useless steppe or tundra acreage into calories.

Go write some articles for women's mags if you are so obsessed with micronutrients.

>>15821928
Corporate interest and false premises at the foundation of the science, I think

>>15826968
>destroying the natural vegetation of that place is bad.
How is destroying it to grow grass any better?

>>15827613
Well I also found a Uric acid sytem, that positive feedbacks on fructose to trigger gorging.
apetite is a complex topic

>>15821928
Its a retarded idea to eat an extreme diet like vegan or carnivore, you can eat 80% meat but you must include some nuts, fruits and veg otherwise you will be deficient in some minerals and vitamins

>>15823618
Add sardines and you have got +vit d and +b12 along with other vits and mins. I think mackerel and salmon are more efficient but cost more per kg

>>15822339
if vegetarian includes eggs and milk products, obviously vegetarian only.
Your teeth will literally fall out if you only eat meat without taking uppermost caution to eat the right organs for vitamin c. Even the ancient cave monkeys hunted meat AND collected berries to not die of scurvy.

>>15823618
Worse than that your brain will acually atrophy

>>15828184
vegan is extreme and retarded but carnivore will be fine if you are sensible about what you're actually consuming.

>>15828573
see the use of medical carnivore diets like the paleolithic ketogenic diet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWTc02J_O7s&t=637

>>15828885
ignore the timestamp

>>15821928
It has, the status quo is just all propaganda pushed with shit quality studies that poorly control confounding variables or misrepresent information. What’s really the truth?
>Unhealed blood clots driven by glycation, oxidation, inflammation and insulin resistance is what causes atherosclerosis. Which are caused by carbs, sugar, and easily oxidizable seed oils
>Fructose and Insulin resistance driven mainly by carbs and fructose is what causes hypertension.
>carb driven insulin resistance is what causes obesity
>insulin resistance is what causes diabetes and removing the carbs that cause it will cure the disease
>insulin resistance drives almost all other cronic diseases
>cronic diseases aren’t cronic we just aren’t removing the cause
>animal source foods cause none of those
>plant source foods are not nutrient dense, nutrient databases do not account for factors in plant foods which decrease their bioavailability
>fat does not produce more energy than carbs or protein, calories are a completely inappropriate unit of measurement since it is a measure of heat when we “run” off of mass
>fiber is completely unnecessary
>plant source foods are not better for the environment than animal source foods
>plant source foods aren’t more ethical to produce than animal source foods.

>>15827643
Nonsense

>>15828223
You just showed you know nothing of the subject.
1) glucose and vitamin c compete for cell absorption, no glucose means you need insanely less vitamin c.
2) one of the primary function of vitamin c is collagen synthesis, carnivore is high in collagene meaning you don't need as much vitamin c.
3) you are clueless, there is vitamin c in red meat, especially in the liver, the amounts are not big but well more than enough if you are in zero carbs.
The reason sailors got scurvy was because they ate a huge amount of bread.

There are tons of sailors that fed on fish exclusively with no issues.

There are tons of communities that have been carnivore their whole life with no issues, innuits for example.

Vegan with no supplement you would die within less than 5 years.

>>15825871
The Hellenic ideal body convinced me.

>>15821928
in general eating is really bad for you

>>15825878
The bible is a kiked version of the Sumerian myths.

>>15829323
That is how you get dragged into the street, cut into pieces, and burned alive.

>>15824176
The ice age was not the snowball Earth you dimwit.

>>15821928
Maybe bcuz we are just stupid, trust me bro

>>15828914
>fiber is completely unnecessary
lmao
lol, even

>>15821928
The real question is how unhinged do you have to be to believe that you must eat only meat or no meat at all.

>>15825081
>NOOO!!1 Just use three times the land to produce a fifth of the calories!
>picture
>This includes grazing lands for animal
right, there's more land available for grazing than for growing crops

>>15825016
Will the sun suddenly stop glowing, what the fuck is the point of this argument?

>>15827605
yes but in different order:
veggies, meat, carbs then dessert

>>15829558
what benefit would this sequence provide? it all goes the same way.

>>15824296
and they have, you don't like the conclusion so you pretend it doesn't exist

>>15829550
>>15829551
>Imagine being this retarded

>>15829550
Grazing turns worthless grass into tasty protein rich meat. Transforming all the land used for grazing into land used for crops would require a massive amount of irrigation, fertilizer, and mechanized plowing. This is why humans have had livestock to begin with. Not all land is good cropland. Take Montana for instance. It's way too cold for most shit, but it's good for beef.

>>15829993
>He doesn't know that grazing land requires irrigation, fertilizer, and mechanized plowing

>>15829993
yeah, that was sort of my point
no matter how many times more land it takes to raise cows the fact is there's more grazing land around than arable
so instantly this number like "3 times more land", "10 times more land", "28 times more land" and so on comes into question and is probably bullshit
even in the picture used as "evidence" there's a small text saying they're including land used for grazing

>>15829994
>he doesn't know about rain and animal shit
mechanized plowing? you don't need to reseed and fucking up the grass roots would probably give other weeds a chance to get a hold
you should've instead mentioned haymaking where they use fertilizers and obviously are using machines to make bales, but you can't do anything right

>>15829986
>I have no more arguments
I accept your concession

>>15830130
You clearly don't understand how land is converted into grazing land. Do you think they snap their fingers and grass and cows appear? First the trees and shrubs are cut down, then the roots are removed or killed, then the whole area is hosed down with herbicide to kill off all existing vegetation, including the local grasses, then a soil test is done, then the soil is amended and plowed and usually sprayed with herbicide again, then the grass seed is spread, then it's watered for months until it's established, then they put cows on it and it still needs to be watered regularly. You're talking about all the animal fodder that needs to be produced to support the over-stocked "grazing" land that is mostly there as a poorly functioning biological filter.

>>15830135
>Imagine being this proud of being retarded

>>15829994
>what is permanent pasture

>>15829993
>>15830114
>Ecosystems are worthless so we should get rid of them and replace them with lawns and cows

>>15830415
>then it's watered for months until it's established, then they put cows on it and it still needs to be watered regularly.
most grassland is rainfed
where the hell are you grazing?

>>15830430
grazing literally is an ecosystem

>>15830428
>How is permanent pasture made?

>>15830435
It's not, it's the exclusion of the ecosystem. You should learn what an ecosystem is.

>>15830432
It's not, and certainly not while it's being established.

The US government used to have a website about the dangers of a vegan diet which was taken down after complaints.

>>15830444
Most grazed grassland is literally rainfed look at the actual numbers.

>>15830440
A grassland is intrinsically an ecosystem, depending on the biome and ecosystem it is part of will determine its functionality.


What I don't like is trying to conflate things here.
an intensive short term grass/clover sward is a very different thing compared to longer term pasture systems
A short term annual like westerwald or italian ryegrass as an intensive silage or hay crop, it's akin to an arable crop.
long term pasture is a much more complex topic, relying on the interplay of multiple species of grasses and herbs but between the two is a spectrum

>>15821928
>Why hasn't science come to a consensus on this yet?
Because both sides have financial backing and that's all science is.

>>15830470
>Most grazed grassland is literally rainfed look at the actual numbers
The actual numbers say that most pastures require irrigation.

>A grassland is intrinsically an ecosystem
An agricultural pasture is not grassland, moron.

>What I don't like is trying to conflate things here.
>an intensive short term grass/clover sward is a very different thing compared to longer term pasture systems
And neither are an ecosystem.

Learn the difference between managed land and an ecosystem and get your agricultural facts out of something other than a Joe Rogan endorsed book written by the cattle industry.

>>15829386
Point to one necessitated physiological process that requires Fiber

>>15830436
Are you implying that Native Americans had all the technology you listed?

>>15830583
Are you comparing anything the Native Americans did to modern agriculture?

>>15830513
long term pasture is an ecosystem
your definition of grassland would have to change from ecotype to ecotype.
maybe you need to expand your scope because most pasture land isn't irrigated

>>15830699
>long term pasture is an ecosystem
It's not.

>your definition of grassland would have to change from ecotype to ecotype.
Nope, natural grasslands and agricultural grasslands are very different things.

>maybe you need to expand your scope because most pasture land isn't irrigated
Can you provide proof of that claim? It's standard practice to irrigate pastures.

>>15830743
I think our working definitions of pasture are in conflict.

>>15824138
>carbs
You mean like buns? And whatever sauce is on it?
>oils
Burgers can be pretty greasy

>>15830446
you can't help the mentally ill, they chimp out if you try to

>>15830850
>Burgers can be pretty greasy
It's the seed oils on the side dishes you need to worry about, not the beef tallow in the meat.

>>15830415
why are you even talking about converting forest(?) to grasslands?

>>15830430
>strawman fallacy
boring shit dude
and what are you even comparing to? monocrops and that vibrant ecosystem?
what are you even grasping at, do you have no good arguments left?

>>15830802
Great. Go look up how pastures are managed and learn what an ecosystem is.

>>15830890
That's the procedure with any type of land from forests to deserts.

>>15830896
>that vibrant ecosystem
Lol no. The vibrant ecosystem was destroyed to make room for the cattle. That's what a pasture is.

>>15830957
Pasture grasslands are their own ecosystem.

>>15830648
You said that without modern tech, there would not be permanent pasture. The fact that there was a culture based around hunting buffalo disproves this.

>>15830958
Lol no.

>>15831044
You're going to dislocate your arm reaching so hard. Native Americans did not convert land into pasture and natural pastures are very different from agricultural pastures. Try to be less of a retard.

>>15821928
Humans are naturally herbivorous and we are healthiest that way. Anyone telling you otherwise is falling for animal agriculture industry propaganda.

>>15830954
right, but the general topic is food so what food are you producing while keeping the current ecosystem?
you're not feeding anyone with forests and deserts
surely you didn't move goalposts until the main point of the whole thread; food was lost on you? right?

>>15831390
>you're not feeding anyone with forests
anon...

>>15831131
plants are literally trying to kill you

>>15830952
No, you are focusing only on intensively managed pastures, the actual definition of pasture is far broader than this and incorporates multiple sub groups.
It would be physically impossible for most pasture to be irrigated

>>15831459
hunting?
nuts?
bark?
not fruits because then it would a orchard
how do you feed a large human population with a forest?
when talking yield per land usage forest is far below cattle

>>15831131
you can eat most animals while most plants will harm you if you eat them
therefore humans are "naturally" carnivores

Vegan is superior
All you need are b12 and vitamin d supplements. The reason why it doesn’t get recommended as often as a “balanced” diet is because most people forget those

>>15831463
No, I am focused on the pastures we use in modern agriculture. You should look up how they're managed.

>It would be physically impossible for most pasture to be irrigated
Lol no.

>>15831390
>>15831524
Are you genuinely retarded?

>>15824176
We are still in an ice age. Threadly pedantic reminder

>>15831760
No I'm fully aware of grassland management, but it would be literally physically impossible for most of the world's pasture to be irrigated.
What you are calling pasture must therefore be much more narrow than what I call pasture.
either way this is all a pointless deviation from the starting point.

>>15831761
what is the point of bringing up clearing of land and the making of pastures in a topic about food?

>>15831865
Nonsense. Agricultural pasture is what we're talking about and you know it. You'd like to imply that they're the same as natural grasslands, but we both know they're not. Get over it and stop shilling for cattle.

>>15832002
>what is the point of bringing up clearing of land and the making of pastures in a topic about food?
Hmmm... I wonder what pastures have to do with food... I wonder if clearing land for cattle has something to do with food... What if the land use is being compared because animal agriculture is inefficient?

Are you genuinely retarded?

>>15832103
No my definition of pasture is just based on different principles.
We use terms like rough pasture for some of them.

But let's just stop this we aren't actually talking about anything important with this diversion.

You're talking about dryland irrigated pastures with regular reseeding routines. Which is more common in the areas you want to talk about so lets just focus on those.
Water abstraction, soil erosion, herbicide use, habitat destruction, etc, etc let's just focus on those because those are important points to discuss.

>>15832106
right, the alternatives are keeping the land as is, with no food coming out of it, make it fit for grazing or do monocrop plantation where everything dies but the crop
if the land is suitable for crops or grazing all depends on the conditions
what's your point?

>>15832229
I'm talking about the average agricultural pasture and you know exactly what I'm talking about. Pretending that you don't understand while regurgitating talking points from a book written by the cattle industry and endorsed by Joe Rogan is intellectually dishonest. Try to stick to the facts instead of the talking points.

>>15832240
>the alternatives are keeping the land as is
That's the point, retard. You need less land to grow crops than you do to raise cattle. That means more land is left undisturbed.

>>15832261
I have no interest in Rogan, I've actively avoided naratives pushed by him for several years now, I resent this accusation and am forced to think lesser of you for being this lazy. take your attitude and shove it up your arse faggot. talk about things that matter.

>>15832265
What is the nutritional value of the animal products compared to the vegetable products?

>>15832269
Sure, kid. You definitely didn't get your talking points from Sacred Cow, all your talking points just happen to be the same! You certainly haven't tried to steer this conversation away from environmental destruction and land use, you just want to focus on the important topics, like selling more beef.

>>15832271
Depends on the animal product and the crop. Any crop will produce more calories per acre, many crops will produce more protein per acre, and the same goes for every vitamin and mineral you could list. Animal agriculture is a luxury and the cost is huge swaths of the environment.

>>15832358
You're psychotic. Get a grip.

>>15832360
I accept your concession.

>>15832358
I think you might not be able to hold an actual discussion.

Are you vegan or some sort of avowed leftist ideologue?

>>15832363
Thank you for agreeing with me. I happily concede that your psychosis about some political bugbear prevents you from arguing rationally.

>>15832265
are we circling back to this again? not all land is suitable for growing crops, there's like double the area of grazing land than arable
so unless cow grazing encroach on arable and there's a big need of that arable land then it's never going to be a problem, they simple grass where you can't grow anything else
another thing: if your deal is saving trees, ecosystems or whatever then there's just as much harm done by plant based foods

>>15829994
>irrigation
Maybe in commiefornia.
>fertilizer
You mean cow manure?
>mechanized plowing
Grazing animals plow on their own. Part of their feeding behavior.

>>15832531
They don't do much of any ranching in California except dairy. The land isn't really suited for it except in the southeastern scrubland area where they're grazed mainly without irrigation and fed scraps from the state's vegetable and grain industry.

>>15832384
>>15832387
I accept your concession.

>>15832531
Look up how land is converted into pasture and subsequent pasture management.

>>15832619
You already accepted my concession that you're psychotic. What new concession from my statement are you adding to the list? The concession that you're incapable of argumentation?

It's not healthy to think of yourself in such low terms, but who am I to say what you can or can't do?

>>15831097
There is very little that differentiates regenerative rotational pasture and pastures of antiquity other than the grazer

>>15832625
Modern pastureland is much more sustainable for one thing. In the past some cultures would overgraze pastureland to the bare earth and then move on hoping it would re-grow later. This same poor stewardship of nature caused the collapse of the Comanche in more recent history.

>>15832624
I accept your concession.

>>15832631
That's great and all, but the issue is the amount of space it takes up and all the ecosystems that are destroyed to create space for more cattle.

>>15832632
Anon... You're really okay with being humiliated like that? You can't just accept all these negative concessions about yourself can you?

>>15832636
It doesn't really take up any space that would be used for anything productive, and grazing animals sustainably is well known to dramatically improve the health of local ecosystems by fertilizing otherwise nutrient and bacteria-poor arid soils.

>>15832638
>Ecosystems aren't productive
Lol ok, retard. Let's burn every biome and replace them with cattle.

>>15832637
I accept your concession. Cope harder.

>>15832643
You sound really psychotic honestly. Are you the same person who keeps agreeing that he's psychotic in really schizo posts like this >>15832645?

>>15832631
I'm talking about the Pasture itself, not the practices. You said that Natural Pastures are vastly different from cow pastures. Anything can be considered natural as long as its sustainable and renewable. Regenerative grazing fits both, plant based is not as plant based protein invariably requires amendments to the soil. Either way, animal based is by far superior for protein and fat sourcing, without which humans would recess evolutionarily, which we can see consistently throughout history.

>>15832650
>Anything can be considered natural as long as its sustainable and renewable.
You're already wrong.

>Regenerative grazing
And there it is. Regenerative grazing is nonsense. I've read the books on it and it's garbage. You get more "regeneration" by putting the cattle feed directly on the soil as a mulch and you have to destroy ecosystems to create the pastures in the first place. You have fallen for a meme.

>>15832661
You're literally regurgitating ag industry propaganda here anon.

>>15832649
I accept your concession. Cope harder.

>>15832662
Lol no. How about you tell me where you think the nutrients that "regenerative grazing" enriches the soil comes from? Where do you think the land comes from? Do you understand the importance of undisturbed ecosystems?

>>15832661
Either way, Nature destroys itself unless we manage it ourselves. Canada's recent wildfires are a testament to that. Us humans have a responsibility for stewardship which leaving nature to run rampant is not good.

>>15832668
Total nonsense. Nature has been doing fine for hundreds of millions of years without humanity to shepard it, and we have done significantly more harm than good.

>>15832669
We're part of nature. Our living inside of forests and around grasslands keeps them healthy. They evolved with us and with the animals we eat.

>>15832669
Holy shit we have an extinctionist here

>>15832672
We don't live inside forests, the only grasslands we live near are called "lawns" and neither are healthy exactly because of human stewardship. How can you be this delusional?

Pic related is the area of old growth forests in the US.

>>15832683
Alexa, what is "coppicing?"

>>15832682
Take your meds.

>>15832684
Alexa, what is an "old growth forest"

Are you merely pretending to be retarded?

>>15832685
Only vegans and vegetarian need meds

>>15832692
Spoken like someone who's off their meds.

>>15832713
Good luck with those nutritional deficiencies, gum disease and worsening eyesight

>>15832719
Good luck with those paranoid thoughts, delusions, and superiority complex.

>>15832732
Why would he worry about those? He already said he's not a vegan.

>>15832732
That's because I am objectively superior, without goyslop plant food, humans would not need glasses

>>15832734
>>15832740
You really should resume your meds.

>>15832757
Sliding the thread won't make you less upset.

>>15832763
The irony.

>>15832757
For what condition?

>>15832779
The ones diagnosed by your psychiatrist.

>>15832868
>Literally shilling for big Pharma
Go suck some jewish cock

>>15832970
Take your meds.

>>15832989
No thanks Rabbi

>>15826870
>The problems with meat (artery clogging) cannot be solved by just burning up their calories.
lol still believing in 80s sugar propaganda

>>15832623
>what? resources can be... le mismanaged? OH MY SCIENCE, LET'S ALL BECOME VEGETARIANS

>>15825081
so according to you we should all drink coca cola because it has a lot of calories abd doesn't use any land?
you do realise that a 100 gm of any plants isn't even close to a 100gms of beef in terms of nutrients,fats and proteins provided?

>>15826870
>The problems with meat (artery clogging) cannot be solved by just burning up their calories
the fat = atherosclerosis theory was debunked literally decades ago, why do you still fall for this propaganda?
The medical establishment really need to be brought kicking and streaming into reality but they're too embedded into financial interests

>>15833264
>doesn't use any land?
Are you stupid? How do you think it's made, moron? What do you think "high fructose corn syrup" is and where do you think it comes from?

>>15833261
Mismanagement is the standard practice, moron.

>>15833479
I'm not exactly supporting coca cola.
his argument was that plants produced more calories with less land.
my point is even though animals use more land. they provide a nutrient rich high protein high fat product which is what humans require.
aside from the fact that most of what animals eat is non-human edible(over 80%) most land isn't suitable for agriculture but these lands can be used for grazing. look at Argentina for example

>>15832732
lol.
vegans are the ones who think they're morally superior because they eat tofu and s o y lmao.
no problem with killing insects though just the animals that are capable of making noise and making expressions.
you can really tell how weak their argument is when it's based purely on emotions

>>15833490
They don't have a problem with killing animals or birds that eat their plants either, they're actively motivated to destroy their habitats so that these animals provide less of a threat to their crops.

>>15833488
Are you stupid? Plants produce more protein per acre. Humans do not require meat. Agricultural waste is not the main diet of livestock. Land that "isn't suitable for agriculture" isn't suitable for pasture either which is why the fodder needs to be imported.

You swallowed that cattle propaganda dick and didn't even need to come up for air. You're an ideological slut.

>>15833490
>Needless ecological destruction is actually a good thing and that's why we should cut down more forests to make room for more cattle.

>>15833515
>Better kill significantly more animals, birds, plants, and eliminate significantly more habitats to make room for beef

>>15833635
>>15833638
lmao completely missing the point and typing out an emotional response like a vegan lol.
the plant defensive chemicals are making you effeminate retard

>>15833629
>Plants produce more protein per acre.
not bioavailable. also it's not all about protein we need a lot more fat than protein. how do you get fat on a vegan diet? fucking sneed oils? lmao
>Humans do not require meat.
what do eskimos eat? what did humans eat during ice age?
your examples of plant only people are Indians and we all know how strong,fit and intelligent they are lmao.
>Agricultural waste is not the main diet of livestock.
this is a discussion about what's the best human diet. not whats better for American economy and the most profitable for moshe.
also>>15826166
>Land that "isn't suitable for agriculture" isn't suitable for pasture either which is why the fodder needs to be imported.
the land that isn't suitable for agriculture still has things that ruminants can eat.
>You swallowed that cattle propaganda dick and didn't even need to come up for air. You're an ideological slut.
projection.
if humans really were meant to be vegans or vegetarians. why do I feel so much better eating only meat? it's amazing honestly you should try it lol.

>>15833749
>lmao completely missing the point
How ironic. Why don't you reread the thread, idiot?

>>15833766
>not bioavailable.
Nonsense.

>also it's not all about protein we need a lot more fat than protein.
Nonsense.

>how do you get fat on a vegan diet? fucking sneed oils? lmao
Vegan bakers are often fat because the substitutions are high in protein, carbs, and sugars.

>what do eskimos eat?
What percentage of the population is Eskimo?

>what did humans eat during ice age?
Irrelevant. There were a couple million globally.

>your examples
You mean YOUR examples. I have not given any examples of anything.

>this is a discussion about what's the best human diet.
Ah, so you advocate for a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet?

>not whats better for American economy and the most profitable for moshe.
That would be taking advantage of agricultural subsidies (tax dollars) to raise and sell cattle.

>the land that isn't suitable for agriculture still has things that ruminants can eat.
Not before you destroy the ecology and replace it.

>if humans really were meant to be vegans or vegetarians. why do I feel so much better eating only meat?
False conclusion. If humans weren't meant to be heroin addicts then why do you feel so much better on heroin?

>>15833638
livestock can happily coexist with other animals, pigeons just ate your cabbages and rabbits have ruined your spinach crop, mice have eaten half your potatoes, the deer have trampled your soibeans

>>15833793
>>how do you get fat on a vegan diet? fucking sneed oils? lmao
>Vegan bakers are often fat because the substitutions are high in protein, carbs, and sugars.
He's asking what your sustainable sources of dietary fats are here not whether vegans get obese

>>15833793
>That would be taking advantage of agricultural subsidies (tax dollars) to raise and sell cattle.
No, livestock agriculture can exist quite well outside of subsidised distortions, you are treading on thin ice here given the subsidies on many crops.

>>15833825
They can, but ranchers would rather kill or drive off anything else on the off chance that it could possibly hurt their cattle

>pigeons just ate your cabbages and rabbits have ruined your spinach crop, mice have eaten half your potatoes, the deer have trampled your soibeans
Literally just get a few chickens and you don't have to worry about any of that or insects.

>>15833828
He's asking how you get fat on a vegan diet. The answer is the same way you get fat on any other diet. Too much protein, carbohydrates, and sugar.

>>15833834
Lol no. I would love to see you try to substantiate that claim.

>>15833847
No, it's quite clear because he sneered at the idea of using seed oils as your dietary lipid source, are you esl, it seemed quite obvious that was what he meant?

>>15833848
Either way a quick look at your average supermarket reveals that you cannot be affordably healthy on a vegan diet

>>15833855
Are you illiterate literate? He said
>how do you get fat on a vegan diet?
I answered the question. It is obvious what he meant because he asked a straightforward question.

>>15833870
>I love welfare because it means that my poor ass can afford to eat meat and subsidies are good because I can't afford to eat otherwise especially since I never learned about nutrition and broccoli tastes bad!
You are a picky child and a welfare queen.

>>15833955
>how do you get fat on a vegan diet?
that sentence is ambiguous BUT if you actually understood english you would realise that
>fucking sneed oils?
gives the proper context

Since he wasn't specific enough I'll clarify it so that you can't weasel out of answering the question, how do vegans source their dietary fats?
>inb4 seed oils, lol

>>15833962
Have you any idea how much cheap carbs and seed oils are subsidised and supported?

>>15833962
Broccoli has zero nutrional density

>>15834024
>that sentence is ambiguous
No, it's not.

>fucking sneed oils?
>gives the proper context
It does not give the context you claim, it merely expresses incredulity.

>you can't weasel out of answering the question
I answered his question. You are asking a new question which you could find the answer to with a google search:

Chia Seeds. ...
Flaxseeds. ...
Coconut Oil. ...
Nuts. ...
Nut Butters. ...
Hemp Seeds. ...
Cacao. ...
Avocados.

You have the IQ of a lukewarm glass of water, and I don't mean equivalent to it's temperature.

>>15834028
Much less than meat. Stop leeching off of taxpayers and get a job so you can afford food.

>>15834056
>200% daily vitamin C per serving
>Broccoli has zero nutrional density
You are a picky child. Eat your vegetables or you won't get dessert. They're good for you.

>>15834094
Point to one person that survives entirely on Broccoli

>>15834102
Point to one person who advocates surviving entirely on broccoli, but not before you finish your vegetables. If you don't eat them for dinner you'll be eating them for breakfast.

>>15834104
Exactly, meaning that no one respects the nutritional density of Broccoli

>>15834117
That's not what that means and you have not cleared your plate, young man. You won't be allowed any tendies tonight so unless you eat your vegetables you'll be going to bed hungry.

>>15834121
Tendies are garbage. Pure Goyslop

>>15834127
And that's why you need to eat your vegetables and won't be getting any tendies tonight. If it's on your plate I expect you to eat it without any backtalk. I do not tolerate picky children.

>>15834134
I said I'd rather starve than eat Goyslop, are you deaf or willingly stupid?

>>15834137
Then you'll starve. Everything you didn't finish tonight will be your breakfast tomorrow. I'm not going to cook you anything else until that plate is clean and if that means you're going to starve then you're going to starve. Clearly your mother was too indulgent with you and encouraged bad diet and bad behavior, but we do things differently in this house.

This thread was fucking cancer, are we still getting raided?

>>15834145
Yep. The /pol/ raid has lasted nearly a decade at this point with no sign of stopping.

>>15821928
>One of them has to be better regardless of individuals genetics.
Well you can basically live solely on meat as long as you consume more than muscle meat and the animals were raised well, while for plants you have to very carefully balance out the various plant sources to get the right fats, proteins, mineral, vitamins, and not overload yourself on antinutritional compounds like phytates or goitrogens

so from a practicality basis either hunting or buying, cooking and eating quality animal components is a lot easier to live healthier on and should on the fairly straightforaward principle that most abimals aren't going to have in their bodies materials designed to injure animals

>>15834162
t. scurvy ridden simp for cattle ranchers

>>15834190
You keep repeating that narative but it really just shows how ignorant and politically motivated you actually are. You have some ridiculous fictitious concept and project it onto anyone says something contra. Like some tankie blaming the CIA for every communistic failure and genocide.

As far as I'm aware the only parts of a plant not designed to in some way protect it from being eaten is the nectar or the flesh of the fruit surrounding its seeds, every other component has ben evolutionarily selected to not be eaten using whatever ingenious physical or biochemical mechanism could be invented by plants.

if you can find a refutation to this I'd be open to but I don't think you have anything.
Even with fruit there's quite a degree of species compatibility with plants actively targeting their preferred seed transporters while maiming or killing others.

>>15834236
Are you really implying that you eat 9 ounces of liver or 2 pounds and three ounces of kidneys a day? That's the only way you get enough vitamin C on a meat only diet to keep your teeth in your skull.

>As far as I'm aware the only parts of a plant not designed to in some way protect it from being eaten is the nectar or the flesh of the fruit surrounding its seeds, every other component has ben evolutionarily selected to not be eaten using whatever ingenious physical or biochemical mechanism could be invented by plants.
That's complete nonsense and I'd like to see you attempt to evidence it.

Eat an orange, ya scurvy dog.

>>15834423
>Are you really implying that you eat 9 ounces of liver or 2 pounds and three ounces of kidneys a day? That's the only way you get enough vitamin C on a meat only diet to keep your teeth in your skull.
As I thought, you're retarded, it doesn't work that way.

>>15834423
>That's complete nonsense and I'd like to see you attempt to evidence it.
It's the most basic of logic.
Plants do not evolve to be edible it tends to make them go extinct.

>>15834453
That's exactly the way scurvy works, me matey, and if ye do eat 9 ounces o' liver a day ye'll get the gout. So what will it be, me lad? Scurvy, or gout? Teeth, or yer foot?

>>15834456
That's not the case, and you have provided no evidence. Would you like to try again, or save the trouble and admit that you're making shit up?

>>15834456
>>15834467
Like fr, why would animals evolve to be eaten? That would tend to make them go extinct, logically.

>>15834467
>>15834470
Please spend at least a little thought into the matter.
Nothing evolves to be edible but plants because of their static nature have very restricted options to avoid being eaten generally through either being toxic or some sort of physical defence. animals rely on very different options since they can move.

>>15834487
>animals rely on very different options since they can move.
So can predators, retard. In fact predators usually run faster. Are you going to provide real evidence of your claims or admit that you're making shit up?

>>15834492
What am I making up?

>>15834487
Plants have evolved to be eaten. They are the basis of every ecology. If they evolved to not be eaten then the ecology would collapse and they would go extinct.

>>15834499
Everything. Provide evidence for your claims. Start with "plants evolved to be inedible so they don't go extinct".

>>15834504
google "antinutrients" and figure it out on your own, it's not hard.

>>15834501
This is retarded and you should realise why.
Just ask these two questions.
What evolutionarily plausible incentive exists for a plant to want to be eaten?
What evolutionarily plausible incentive exists for a plant to want to not be eaten?

>>15834506
That's not evidence. Would you like to try again?

>>15834519
>the chemicals plants use to make them bad for animals to eat are not evidence that plants don't want to be eaten
Are trolling me or just stupid?

>>15834509
Are you stupid? Plants need to be eaten to keep herbivores around so the soil doesn't die and kill them too. That's how an ecology works, moron. Plants are the base. They turn sunlight into energy so they can be eaten to support the next trophic tier. Ecologies evolve together which you can clearly see in predator-prey curves. Why would deer evolve to be eaten? Because if they didn't, then they would exhaust their food and starve to death. That's how ecologies work.

>>15834522
Are you stupid? The existence of poisonous plants does not mean that plants have evolved to be inedible anymore than the existence of poisonous animals means that animals have evolved to be inedible. Would you like to try again?

>>15834526
Why are you finding it hard to understand that plants don't want to be eaten? I thought it was obvious?

>>15834529
Why are you finding it hard to understand that animals don't want to be eaten? I thought it was obvious?

>>15834532
But I already stated that nothing wants to be eaten? They each develop strategies to avoid it plants rely mostly on either physical or chemical defences while most animals have other options, I've stated this repeatedly. What's so difficult or controversial about it to understand?

Oh and the argument about trophic levels is very weak.

>>15834532
Plants have far more downsides than animals as a food source, humans are chemically much more suited towards animal consumption. There's a reason why most wild herbivores have suboptimal traits. To deny Humans meat is to deny them evolutionary advantages

>>15834549
Again, that's nonsense and you haven't proven anything. Your faulty chain of reasoning is not sufficient evidence for your claims. Would you like to try again?

>>15834558
Can you prove it or are you just going to keep making shit up?

>>15834565
>Again, that's nonsense
You seem to be in denial. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

Plants don't want to be eaten so incorporate chemical defences into their tissues.

That's it

>>15834573
Do you understand what evidence and proof are? You seem to be in denial. This is not a difficult concept to understand. You need to validate your nonsense claims.

That's it

>>15834590
Evidence for what? That plants develop chemical defence mechanisms to stop themselves being eaten?

This feels surreal.

>>15834567
Equal bolus of ground beef versus any other bolus of plant bullshit. Which one has more bioavailable nutrients?

>>15834607
Yes, the claim that all plants develop chemical defence mechanisms to stop themselves being eaten, which you have claimed repeatedly and never supported with evidence.

This feels surreal.

>>15834640
Find an example that doesn't.

>>15834639
The plants, moron. Unless you're picking something with very few nutrients like lettuce or grass then there are plants that have higher concentrations of nutrients for every nutrient. Take 100g of beef and compare it to 100g of avocados. The avocados have more of every nutrient except protein.

>>15834647
Exactly, you cannot find a better substitute despite countless dollars invested. Humans can 100% survive and thrive on meat, whereas there are no comparable plant analogues

>>15834646
That's not how the burden of proof works, moron. How about you prove your claim for common vegetables at the very least? Spinach, lettuce, carrots, wheat, corn, bell peppers, potatoes, ect.?

>>15834655
Try reading that again, you illiterate moron. The plants win every time.

>>15834661
Tell me which plant you can only eat exclusively and do well with

>>15834656
I think you must be a troll, I find it impossible that
>spinach
oxalates
>lettuce
tastes bitter, probably something there
>carrots
umbelifer family
>wheat & corn
phytates, gluten, etc, etc
>peppers & potatoes
deadly night shade family

And you literally had to use agricultural crops that have been selected for millennia to artificially try and reduce the toxin load to make them palatable as your examples?
You must have a very sad life if you take umbridge at the idea that plants are trying not be eaten.

>>15834663
You don't need to eat any plant exclusively. What in the goalpost moving fuck kind of question is that?

>>15834703
Exactly, meat is the only food on the planet that is perfectly balanced in Nutrition.

>>15834683
>oxalates
Don't do anything to affect your health unless you consume way too much of them. Do you have any concept how much spinach you would need to eat to exhibit health effects?

>tastes bitter, probably something there
Wow, so convincing, so much evidence.

>umbelifer family
And what do you think that means?

>phytates, gluten, etc, etc
Gluten is not toxic and phytic acid does not exist in significant quantities in any plant.

>deadly night shade family
Buzzwords are scary! The family is solanaceae and it's one of most important families for humanity. You would have been better off mentioning solanine which also doesn't exist in vegetables in significant quantities.

All you had to do was provide real evidence for your arguments and you failed.

>>15834704
Meat is not perfectly balanced in nutrition, you moron. How did you get such a stupid idea in your head?

>>15834722
What is not in meat that you need?

>>15834728
Vitamin C, vitamin D, calcium, magnesium, ect. Furthermore, the nutrients in meat are not balanced and you cannot make a balanced diet from only meat products.

>>15834759
Vitamin C requirements are much lower with meat because carbs deplete it, Vitamin is from the sun, magnesium and calcium are super available in beef. This is on top of the fact that the human body digests meat much better than plants

>>15834776
All of that is nonsense except getting vitamin D from sunlight and even then most people are deficient in vitamin D and mushrooms set gills up in the sun are a much better source of vitamin D than any meat product.

>>15833793
wait you do realise that america had alot more ruminants here that survived on the natural natural vegetation here right?
you don't need to destroy the ecology.
ruminants are part of nature and have been for millions of years. it's impossible for them to destroy the climate. because if it was possible it would've been destroyed by now.

>>15829386
>t.still believes in 80s science

>>15834776
>>15834790
you can get all those from eating different parts of the animal like our ancestors lol.
like liver,heart,brain,bones...
what part of plants will provide all this lol?

>>15834865
Nonsense. The US has never had as many ruminants as we have now.

>you don't need to destroy the ecology.
That's what I'm telling you. Agricultural pasture is not a necessity and we shouldn't be destroying ecosystems to make room for cattle.

>>15834879
>you can get all those from eating different parts of the animal
List the balanced meat only diet you recommend. What does an average day in a "healthy" meat only diet look like?

>what part of plants will provide all this lol?
The parts you eat, retard. There is no nutrient in meat that you can't get from another source.

>>15834884
you do realize that those ruminants were bisons,elks,buffaloes,deers right?
who didn't need humans to grow crops for them right?
who ate way more than cows,sheeps and chickens right?
how did the ecosystem not collapse like you're saying it should? after millions of years of reign of these bioterrorist ruminants?

>>15834893
you eat liver once a week. and you'll get everything that you want. if you want to eat other parts it's your wish but it's not necessary.
>The parts you eat, retard. There is no nutrient in meat that you can't get from another source.
it's all about proportions.
there are NO plants that will provide as much protein and fat as meat at zero calories. NONE

>>15834926
heres an estimation of ruminant populations before European settlers came to North America.
bison(30million)
elks(10million)
deer(50million)
which is the exact number as the cattle present today 90million.
and this is without including rabbits,moose,sheep.
so please explain to me who fed them?