Engineering Nutrition

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby patrix on Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:41 am

Observer » October 22nd, 2018, 9:14 am wrote:I'm beginning to suspect that Patrik simply likes the taste of animal fat, and Kham simply likes the taste of sweet fruit, and that Simon simply likes the taste of everything, and that I simply dislike the taste of animals, and that NOBODY is going to change what they eat NO MATTER EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED.

I find this to be a false statement. The science and support is there if you start looking into it, and THAT'S the barrier that needs to be crossed by using intuition. To be able to put a question in your head that contradicts what you believe to be true.

Edit:
Oh and (after a nice salad on the train) I do like the taste of vegetables and fruits. I just don't think eating only that is the way to health and sustainable humane food production, but quite the opposite.

Another great video about fasting:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIuj-oMN-Fk
Last edited by patrix on Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:51 am, edited 3 times in total.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby HonestlyNow on Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:44 am

Observer » October 22nd, 2018, 4:14 am wrote:. . . and that NOBODY is going to change what they eat NO MATTER EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED.

We're all pretending to be rational about this health subject, but as it turns out nobody is willing to change their diet based on new evidence. We are all searching for evidence to support our emotional taste preferences.

As the (current) saying goes, "We all love good news about our bad habits."

We each have our own journey, our own path of discovering this reality. Some are in their own personal reality, while others are growing in a consciousness of what is beyond that which is strictly personal. And it's never a straight line, but a rather bumpy back-and-forth process of advancement.

And, it is all good. For, to know, is to experience consciously. A conscious experience is to allow without fear. To experience consciously, is to then grow. Let us all consciously experience growth toward the Light. Amen (so be it).
HonestlyNow
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby Observer on Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:01 am

patrix wrote:please try to to look at every side before passing judgment or advice.


In your sat-fat campaign since 2016, you've been judging and advising, so to avoid being hypocritical:

Have you truly looked at the "dairy-consuming is not done by adult mammals" observable-fact side?
& have you truly looked at the "animal-consuming is not done by long-intestine mammals" side also?
And have you considered the possibility all "eating animals/dairy is natural" statistics are incorrect?

patrix wrote:I’ve looked at this many years


Looking at something for many years can be an advantage or a huge disadvantage, due to attachment.
The longer one takes in "belief X" books/videos, the harder it becomes to admit it was all a big waste.

10,000 hours of analyzing wrongness (9/11 "footage", satellite "facts", sat-fat "statistics", whatever)
makes it almost impossible for one to admit "I wasted 10,000 hours analyzing (& pushing) wrongness."

patrix wrote:vegetable oils


I think more precise language is important: even your first video praises coconut, palm, and olive oil.

When you say "vegetable oils are bad" you actually mean "HEAT-processed canola(etc) unnatural oils."
Are unheated unprocessed unsquished unmolested unchanged raw olives and avocados vegetable oils?
When you say "vegetable oils are bad" one gets the impression that implies "oils within all vegetables".

I think you really mean "seed/plant oils BECOME bad - when unnaturally squished/heated/processed".
Comparing raw-meat to highly-processed-plants would be as illogical as comparing: hotdogs to olives.

patrix wrote:To be able to put a question in your head that contradicts what you believe to be true.


My concern is, since you've always loved duck fat from mommy (with the lovely memories attached)
perhaps YOU aren't able to put a question in your head that contradicts what you believe to be true.

Patrix is so confident eating animals & dairy is the natural food for adult long-intestine mammals,
but my concern is that there is absolutely no studies that could be shown to get him to stop that.

Kham is confident eating monosaccharide-sugar molecules doesn't cause insulin diabetes probelms,
but my concern is that there is absolutely no studies that could be shown to get her to stop that.

Sharpstuff (and his French friends) are confident eating bread (wheat&yeast) should be done daily,
but my concern is that there is absolutely no studies that could be shown to get him to stop that.

No matter what studies are presented, we all say, "Those are paid for and falsified by big-whatever!"
And how can we know which studies are honest? Again, I think none of us are willing to change habits.
Last edited by Observer on Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:12 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Observer
Banned
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby patrix on Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:39 am

Observer » October 22nd, 2018, 12:01 pm wrote:Have you truly looked at the "dairy-consuming is not done by adult mammals" observable-fact side?

My concern is, since you've always loved duck fat from mommy (with the lovely memories attached)
perhaps YOU aren't able to put a question in your head that contradicts what you believe to be true.


Yes Observer, I have looked at the milk issue, and I think unprocessed milk and cream are very healthy, even for adults, and my adult cat seems to agree.

"Duck fat from mommy"? Seriously? You are using a tone and rhetoric that could be suspect of trying to derail this discussion. Not biting on that carrot.
Will this lighten the mood? Probably not...
https://www.reddit.com/r/ShittyLifeProT ... le_from_a/

Regarding science and reseach, this is a favorite of mine. Long read but very good and enlightening on how so called science is used to deceive
https://deniseminger.com/2010/07/07/the ... or-fallac/

Observer wrote:
When you say "vegetable oils are bad" you actually mean "HEAT-processed canola(etc) unnatural oils."
Are unheated unprocessed unsquished unmolested unchanged raw olives and avocados vegetable oils?
When you say "vegetable oils are bad" one gets the impression that implies "oils within all vegetables".

I mean exactly what the woman talks about in the video. Oils from corn, soy etc. They should be called seed oils and not vegetable oils actually. If they are heated or not makes no difference, they are bad regardless. Unprocessed/Virgin Palm oil, Cocunut oil, Avocado oil and (unheated) Olive Oil are safe.

And apologies for bad language. I'm not a native English speaker.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby Observer on Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:07 pm

[Admin Notice by SCS: Thank you Observer for your edit to this post. I’ve placed it back in this topic.]

Hmmm, my most recent post was moved to Derailing Room, but OK, I'll accept that decision gracefully. ;)

Now this post here is a useful contribution, correcting the video & sharing my high-sat-fats experiment:

1st, important note, about the "vegetable oils" phrase which Patrix and that nice lady repeatedly used:

Everybody (including that nice lady) using the phrase "vegetable oils" is using INCORRECT terminology.
Even she admits that the phrase was created by the people who wanted to sell some unnatural swill.
As the honest lady said @1:44 "vegetable oils" is NOT correct, she is (rightly) against "seed/bean oils".
But "seed/bean oils" is still incorrect, for it gives the wrong "oils in seeds/beans are bad" impression.

What she fails to make clear is that one should (rightly) label the enemy: HYDROGENATION PROCESS.
@5:18 she defines HYDROGENATION: "[extreme] Pressure, heat, hexane(solvent) + a metal catalyst"
"Resulting rancid mixture must be steamed to eliminate bad odors [from the above Hydrogenation],
bleached to remove the gray color, 'winterized' [toxic petrochemicals added] for stability, and then
artificial colors and synthetic vitamins [more petrochemicals]" so ALL THAT PROCESS is the problem.

To call that process "vegetable oils", "seed oils", "bean oils" is a psyop against vegetable, seeds, beans!

So that's her 1st mistake: accidentally giving the impression that oils from vegetables are unhealthy.
Unhealthy is: extreme pressure + extreme heat + hexane(!) + metal(!) + bleach(!) + petrochemicals(!)
This honest gal uses the incorrect "vegetable oils" phrase and thus honest folks like Patrix copied that.

In reality:
Corn HYDROGENATED is bad... Cottonseeds HYDROGENATED is bad... Soybeans HYDROGENATED is bad,
Safflower HYDROGENATED is bad... Peanuts HYDROGENATED is bad... Canola HYDROGENATED is bad...
Duck-Fat HYDROGENATED would be bad, Olives HYDROGENATED would bad, All HYDROGENATED is bad!

The 2nd mistake: "since hydrogenation is bad, and the result has low-sat-fat, then low-sat-fat is bad."

The 3rd mistake: "since low-sat-fat (via D.B.A. with hydrogenation) is bad, then high-sat-fat is good!"

Her intentions were good but her summary contains no "scientific" proof high-sat-fat is good or vital.
In reality, badness is: extreme pressure + extreme heat + hexane + metal + bleach + petrochemicals.

This is the tactic being used by the "meat is healthy" psyop: Carbs are bad (yes) so... meat is healthy!
I'm sorry but where is the supposed "scientific proof" "high-sat-fat" "from animals" is healthy and vital?
And since most folks dislike raw meat, where is the "scientific proof" non-raw cooked meat is healthy?
And as I wondered here, where is the "scientific proof" that one can pull fat from flesh without heat?
Really: "How does one separate good-animal-fat from bad-protein without processing=pressing=heat?"

OK, now about my experiment:

I just realized I should share this: I DID do the keto high-sat-fat (100% coconut MCT way) for 3 weeks.
I bought 20 expensive "85g=950yen" bottles (1700g=$170) of Medium-Chain-Triglycerides high-sat-fat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium-chain_triglyceride
https://shop.nisshin.oilliogroup.com/us ... lp-mct-oil
http://nisshin-mct.com/contents/page195.html

During those 3 weeks, I went from 67kg to 57kg, and I was lecturing people about how Keto is natural.
"We are supposed to specialize in high fat, but instead we have been specializing in high carbs=sugar."
"By specializing in high carbs=sugar, our body STOPS burning fat and starts STORING fat on our bodies."
"Thus by returning to low or no carbs=sugar, plus high-sat-fats, we return to the body's natural state."
"In the natural state, the body burns all incoming fat and burns all previously stored fat, as it should."
"From a fat unhealthy carb=sugar burning body, we return to a normal slim healthy fat-burning body."

Yes, it made sense, I thought I was gonna' keep pouring MCT on my green-beans and broccoli forever.
But then, I got the Keto-rash. It seems for the body to break down high-sat-fat: it produces ACETONE!
https://www.perfectketo.com/keto-rash

The debate rages about whether the keto rash is due to detox, or "just" producing too much ACETONE.
Yep, turns high-sat-fat causes the body to need to produce high amounts of acetone to break it down.
What? Years ago I learned our bodies produces endogenous DMT(nice). But ACETONE? That's a surprise.
The "detox" explanation is: over years of fat storage (due to not burning fat, due to high carbs=sugar),
the body stores junk it can't get rid of in the fat storage cells, so, when one changes to the keto way,
suddenly the body starts burning all that fat as it should, and thus decades of toxicity leaves the skin.
And while leaving the skin, the skin has trouble with the sudden amount of cleaning it is forced to do,
and that's why many folks (like me) who went 100% keto got keto-rash. That's the "detox" explanation.
So yeah I went extreme with keto and saw extreme results. No carbs, high-sat-fat, 3 weeks, 10kg lost.
For 3 weeks I stopped eating the pasta&cheese&fruit I love, and ate greens with 100% coconut MCT. B)
But the rash (itching all over my body, itching itching itching) whether detox or acetone: I didn't like it.

The funny thing is, before finding that site, I didn't know why I was itchy. I thought my room had bugs!
I was using natural & unnatural cleaning techniques all over my room trying to kill tiny unseen bugs. :lol:
Finally, I found the cause, the keto rash, so I got OUT of the state of ketosis by eating a LOT of carbs.

So I actually scientifically experimented with high-fat-sats: I lost 10kg & reduced my belly and breasts.
But I'm scared to use those magic green bottles of high-fat-sats again, because I'm scared of the rash. :(
Perhaps if I were to try it again, without entering such an extreme state of ketosis, I can avoid the rash.
But my concern is: maybe, in addition to detox & acetone, this MCT coconut oil is definitely processed.
Meaning, as we learned today about hydrogenation, this MCT coconut oil is probably heated & pressed.
And wow, perhaps this company even uses hexane and all those other petrochemicals mentioned above.
Which means, if (big if) if I want to do high-fat-sats again, I should really open and eat raw coconuts. :)
Last edited by Observer on Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Observer
Banned
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby patrix on Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:23 pm

Observer » October 22nd, 2018, 5:10 pm wrote:Pets/zoo-animals eat whatever yummy thing is given, but do any adult mammals drink milk in nature?
Nope, as soon as they can eat the food for non-babies they do that. They don't go return to the teat.

I find this "argument" against milk rather contradictory. No animal eats processed vegetable oils either in their natural habitat etc. But curiously now when dog and cat chow contains that ingredient, our pets seem to get the same diseases as we do like obesity and cancer. Go figure.
As it happens, I think eating GRASS (yep, plain ol' grass) is actually the most direct sun energy source.
So as it turns out, that stupid "dirt conclusion" seems like a "psyop" to me, haha, hiding GRASS TRUTH!
It seems we are all malnourished in the area of: Magnesium - which is found in green stuff like leaves.

Ok then. You are free to believe what you like, but this place is about using logic and reasoning in order to figure out what is true or not in the sea of deception we currently live in. And if you put forward the hypothesis that grass is suitable food for humans, then I would ask why the intestines of a cow or a gorilla uses a complex fermentation process in order to break down the grass into digestible components. To me it seems that humans are incapable of extracting nutrients from grass or dirt because we simply lack the digestive system needed.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby Observer on Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:03 pm

patrix wrote:No animal eats processed vegetable oils either in their natural habitat etc.


But dear Patrix, NOBODY (absolutely NOBODY) is claiming those hydrogenated toxins are healthy.
That's the false strawman you're raging against, that vegetarians/vegans praise heat-pressed stuff.
Nobody here has ever said those hydrogenated toxins are healthy. All us health freaks say: eat RAW.

To recap: adult mammals (naturally, in the wild) don't drink milk, so your pet reply is moot, right?
And your "wild animals don't eat hydrogenated toxins" point is moot, since nobody says that's healthy.

You're saying it's natural and healthy for adults to drink milk: I'm saying no wild adult animal does it.
You're also saying it's unnatural and unhealthy for humans to eat hydrogenated toxins: I agree 100%.

About the "no wild adult animal drinks milk" point, I think the only way to fight against that fact is:
"Well, humans are special. We no longer need to copy what natural wild animals do. We can remix."

Same thing goes for the "short-canine long-intestine animals are plant-eaters" point. It's unarguable.
Same thing goes for the "no animals warm their food, only raw food is natural & healthy" point too.
Same thing goes for the "dairy is addicting because it contains opium" point. These are simply facts.

It's fine if folks continue to cook wheat/meat/vegetables/whatever, but let's admit: it's unnatural.
It's fine if adults continue to like milk/dairy/cream/cheese (as I do), but let's admit: it's unnatural.

And you should realize that magnesium IS something which you and I and everyone is deficient in.
And grasses (like wheatgrass) are NOT something which "we can't digest or extract nutrients from".
Wheatgrass gives us magnesium, iron, calcium, amino acids, vitamins A, C, E, plus 17 amino acids,
(eight of those amino acids are considered essential which our bodies cannot produce), chlorophyll,
antioxidants like glutathione that fight free radicals, prevent cell damage, reduce oxidative stress, etc.

Anyway, I'm quite confident I'm sharing some interesting ideas. I hope one day you'll calmly consider. :)
Last edited by Observer on Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Observer
Banned
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby Observer on Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:04 pm

patrix wrote:fermentation process


By the way, you accidentally brought up a good point there Patrix, let's talk about fermentation.
You, and other meat-lovers, have implied "plants contain poisons" "poisons which must be cooked".
Well, I looked into that (since I am actually searching for truth here) and that's both right and wrong.

It turns out (thanks for motivating me to learn about this) some plants (like grains and beans) contain anti-nutrients.

Anti-nutrients? Yeah, these admittedly bad molecules BLOCK future nutrient intake. (!!!) Well that's awful:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/ho ... inutrients

Wow, glad I learned 'bout that. But again, the solution turns out to be not avoiding all plants, nor cooking them.
The solution turns out to be soaking such plants (beans) in water for 10 hours, and/or letting them ferment a bit.

Oh and BTW, a raw food friend of mine taught me how to make broccoli and such hard plants soft without cooking:
One simply can throw 'em in the freezer for bit, then: after they're frozen, run 'em under water. That softens 'em!

How about that? We learn new things everyday from these discussions. Seriously. I do. OK, take care friend. :)
Observer
Banned
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby patrix on Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:30 pm

Observer » October 22nd, 2018, 9:07 pm wrote:What she fails to make clear is that one should (rightly) label the enemy: HYDROGENATION PROCESS.

And I'm glad she doesn't because that would be incorrect. ALL oils high in polyunsaturated fat and omega 6 are problematic. And it seems like (which was news to me) that the current stabilization methods that have replaced the trans fat producing hydrogenation are even MORE harmful than trans fats. But this time around they are probably better at keeping the lid on and not finance any research that could show this. They don't want another Mary Enig. https://www.westonaprice.org/health-top ... mary-enig/

And there's no point in hydrogenating duck fat since it already is a saturated stable fat. I don't know where you got that idea from. A good introduction to fats: https://www.westonaprice.org/health-top ... roduction/
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby patrix on Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:08 pm

[Admin apology by SCS: Earlier today I inadvertently placed this, and the four posts above it, in the Derailing Room. I have corrected this blunder on my part.
Sincerely, SCS]


Observer » October 22nd, 2018, 10:04 pm wrote:Wow, glad I learned 'bout that. But again, the solution turns out to be not avoiding all plants, nor cooking them.

How about that? We learn new things everyday from these discussions. Seriously. I do. OK, take care friend. :)


I think cooking is a good idea for some vegetables since it breaks down anti-nutrients and makes them tastier and the starch more accessible to us. But it does remove some of the vitamins.

Yes. Fermentation effectively breaks down anti-nutrients in vegetables. That's why its important for example to eat bread made on dough that's been properly fermented. That excludes bread from the supermarket since they use some kind of air injection in industrial bakeries.

If this area interests you perhaps this is a video you will enjoy

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnjX3cZ4q84
Yes we learn. I've learned a lot from discussing these subjects and anyone should eat what they want. But what disturbs me greatly is that nutrition is laden with disinformation that can make us sick. And the saddest part is if we then start doing more of what made us sick in the first place thinking it will cure us. We really need to wise up in this area and see what's going on.

Take care and all the best.
Last edited by patrix on Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby patrix on Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:00 am

Observer » October 22nd, 2018, 10:03 pm wrote:
patrix wrote:No animal eats processed vegetable oils either in their natural habitat etc.


But dear Patrix, NOBODY (absolutely NOBODY) is claiming those hydrogenated toxins are healthy.
That's the false strawman you're raging against, that vegetarians/vegans praise heat-pressed stuff.
Nobody here has ever said those hydrogenated toxins are healthy. All us health freaks say: eat RAW.

To recap: adult mammals (naturally, in the wild) don't drink milk, so your pet reply is moot, right?
And your "wild animals don't eat hydrogenated toxins" point is moot, since nobody says that's healthy.

You're saying it's natural and healthy for adults to drink milk: I'm saying no wild adult animal does it.
You're also saying it's unnatural and unhealthy for humans to eat hydrogenated toxins: I agree 100%.

About the "no wild adult animal drinks milk" point, I think the only way to fight against that fact is:
"Well, humans are special. We no longer need to copy what natural wild animals do. We can remix."

Same thing goes for the "short-canine long-intestine animals are plant-eaters" point. It's unarguable.
Same thing goes for the "no animals warm their food, only raw food is natural & healthy" point too.
Same thing goes for the "dairy is addicting because it contains opium" point. These are simply facts.

It's fine if folks continue to cook wheat/meat/vegetables/whatever, but let's admit: it's unnatural.
It's fine if adults continue to like milk/dairy/cream/cheese (as I do), but let's admit: it's unnatural.

And you should realize that magnesium IS something which you and I and everyone is deficient in.
And grasses (like wheatgrass) are NOT something which "we can't digest or extract nutrients from".
Wheatgrass gives us magnesium, iron, calcium, amino acids, vitamins A, C, E, plus 17 amino acids,
(eight of those amino acids are considered essential which our bodies cannot produce), chlorophyll,
antioxidants like glutathione that fight free radicals, prevent cell damage, reduce oxidative stress, etc.

Anyway, I'm quite confident I'm sharing some interesting ideas. I hope one day you'll calmly consider. :)


Regarding milk - It's the flawed argumentation I try to illustrate by another example. The line of reasoning seems to be that since animals lack the capability to breed milk cows, milk must be an unhealthy food for adult mammals. They don't eat bread or drink soy milk either, so?

Regarding natural/unnatural I don't think this is a rather fruitful way of understanding how our metabolism and body chemistry works and how we should eat to stay healthy. Practically everything we eat today can be regarded unnatural since the crops and animals are breeded and fertilizers are used etc.

And the idea that plants are the best/only way to get minerals and vitamins is not supported by research. Animal foods are very nutrient dense. Another interesting video

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdRBFiBWQZQ
And just so we don't misunderstand each other. I think everyone should eat the way they prefer, but I do not think ideas that are not supported by observations/logic but based on emotions/implications should be promoted. And using language like "meat lover" or "mamas duck fat lover" is something you should refrain from.
Last edited by patrix on Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby Observer on Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:10 am

Observer wrote:
patrix wrote:No animal eats processed vegetable oils either in their natural habitat etc.


But dear Patrix, NOBODY (absolutely NOBODY) is claiming those hydrogenated toxins are healthy.
That's the false strawman you're raging against, that vegetarians/vegans praise heat-pressed stuff.
Nobody here has ever said those hydrogenated toxins are healthy. All us health freaks say: eat RAW.

To recap: adult mammals (naturally, in the wild) don't drink milk, so your pet reply is moot, right?
And your "wild animals don't eat hydrogenated toxins" point is moot, since nobody says that's healthy.

You're saying it's natural and healthy for adults to drink milk: I'm saying no wild adult animal does it.
You're also saying it's unnatural and unhealthy for humans to eat hydrogenated toxins: I agree 100%.

About the "no wild adult animal drinks milk" point, I think the only way to fight against that fact is:
"Well, humans are special. We no longer need to copy what natural wild animals do. We can remix."

Same thing goes for the "short-canine long-intestine animals are plant-eaters" point. It's unarguable.
Same thing goes for the "no animals warm their food, only raw food is natural & healthy" point too.
Same thing goes for the "dairy is addicting because it contains opium" point. These are simply facts.

It's fine if folks continue to cook wheat/meat/vegetables/whatever, but let's admit: it's unnatural.
It's fine if adults continue to like milk/dairy/cream/cheese (as I do), but let's admit: it's unnatural


patrix wrote:animals lack the capability to breed milk cows


Exactly, wild adults animals don't suck teats after babyhood, and adults never suck other species' teats.
Adult teat-sucking is unnatural, from a non-mom is more unnatural, from other-species is very unnatural.
So again, why the emotional illogical refusal to admit, "OK, OK, we humans ARE doing unnatural actions."

And in the spirit of intellectual honesty, aren't you going to admit, "Wow, I didn't know milk contains opium."

patrix wrote:They don't eat bread or drink soy milk either


Exactly, natural-raw-lovers admit cooked-grains ("bread") and cooked-soybeans ("soymilk") are unnatural too.

patrix wrote:ideas that are not supported by observations/logic but based on emotions/implications


You don't seem to get that that sentence describes YOUR meat-is-vital proselytizing at reddit and here at CluesForum.
I keep feeling compelled in the name of logic to reply to YOUR meat-is-vital campaign, which you started here in 2016.

I usually ever push my opinion that eating animals is unnatural. I'm just replying to YOUR evidence-less claims Patrix.
You haven't posted evidence yet: just a "Disney pushed animal cuteness" theory, and a video about Hydrogenated swill.

I don't see how "animal meat is densely packed with sat-fat" as being any proof that we humans should eat animal meat.

You keep implying that without meat, we long-intestine short-canine non-carnivores are unhealthily dying of a psy-op.
Yet I don't observe the various vegan animals like horses, elephants, gorillas, etc as somehow being victims of a psy-op.
Fact: long-intestine short-canine non-carnivores naturally don't eat animals, unless when they can't find any plants.

Why YOU keep posting highly-emotional evidence-less claims, while ignoring the rational replies you are receiving?
Observer
Banned
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby patrix on Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:32 am

Observer » October 23rd, 2018, 9:10 am wrote:Why YOU keep posting highly-emotional evidence-less claims, while ignoring the rational replies you are receiving?

Hard to be objective here, but I disagree. There's a lot of quality research done and I'm pointing to it and let's keep emotional language out shall we? Like "meat love" etc. Thanks. And it's interesting that you have gone through my posting history from years back and bring up things. Why not talk about the matters at hand? Not that I don't stand by things I've said, but brought up out of context it might, you know, derail the current subject.

And it's a myth that we have a digestive system similar to plant eaters
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Com ... _276660672

We are omnivores meaning we can use starch/sugar for energy, but we cant ferment to break down cellulose into fatty acids as grass eaters do. That's why we need to cook or ferment many vegetables before we can eat them.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby HonestlyNow on Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:58 am

patrix » October 23rd, 2018, 5:32 am wrote:That's why we need to cook or ferment many vegetables before we can eat them.

Where in nature do you see any animal cooking their food? The downfall of man was when he misapplied the use of fire unto their food. That's when we started getting into trouble, as it then led to dead animal eating (how palatable is it to eat dead animal flesh without cooking), eating foods that man is not biologically adapted to eat (grains and beans, as was correctly pointed out, need to be modified in order to avoid the "anti-nutrients"), the processing of foods, and the final and most tragic blow to our food supply, the chemicalization of foods through the growing processes and straight into the processing of the food itself.
HonestlyNow
Member
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: ENGINEERING NUTRITION

Unread postby SacredCowSlayer on Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:35 pm

HonestlyNow » October 23rd, 2018, 6:58 am wrote:
patrix » October 23rd, 2018, 5:32 am wrote:That's why we need to cook or ferment many vegetables before we can eat them.

Where in nature do you see any animal cooking their food? The downfall of man was when he misapplied the use of fire unto their food. That's when we started getting into trouble, as it then led to dead animal eating (how palatable is it to eat dead animal flesh without cooking), eating foods that man is not biologically adapted to eat (grains and beans, as was correctly pointed out, need to be modified in order to avoid the "anti-nutrients"), the processing of foods, and the final and most tragic blow to our food supply, the chemicalization of foods through the growing processes and straight into the processing of the food itself.


Dear HonestlyNow,

I agree with your observations regarding the indeed tragic “chemicalization” of our food supply in general. That is a point well made and received.

In fairness to Patrix however, I don’t see where humans are obliged to follow the lead of animals. That said, I’ll admit that I don’t consider human beings to be merely “another” mammal.

Where in nature are animals seen using the Internet or reading books? Where are they seen fastening and wearing clothes?

I’m not trying to be sarcastic here. Just making a point about how unhelpful the comparison of “animal behaviors” are (for a human) when trying to make healthy dietary decisions.

Along those lines, in response to Observer’s point concerning milk, it’s not as though animals have it as an option beyond the limited supply found in nature. And I don’t think it’s valid to imply that animals make some deliberate choice about refraining from “sucking the teat” of another animal.

I wouldn’t want to see what a bull would do in nature if some random animal walked up and tried to latch on to the utter of the female cow. Of course that is just one example off the top of my head. Countless others could be come up with. But I hope my point is made.

And Patrix, I disagree with your apparent assertion (in the Engineering Disease topic) that things can only be scientifically disproven. There are numerous examples of the scientific method (despite its limitations) being used to demonstrate and prove things in the positive.

It’s just that we often cannot do anything more than disprove certain psy-ops, stories, etc. I’ve had to make that point several times before. And I don’t want that logical point being illogically extended to instances where it doesn’t apply. I’m not saying that you are necessarily doing that here, but I wanted to take the opportunity to draw the distinction.

So you may want to clarify that statement, unless you truly meant that without qualification.

For the sake of keeping things healthy and orderly around here, let me kindly ask our members to refrain from souring the tone around here. Points are more effectively made in the absence of inflammatory language anyway.

Thank you all.

Sincerely,

SCS
scs

scs@cluesforum.info
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
 
Posts: 624
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General World Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dan_dare and 1 guest