Is there really no "Cons" to a Vegetable only diet?

Recommended Videos

Ironman126

Dark DM Overlord
Apr 7, 2010
658
0
0
PaulH said:
Very limited booze selection. Booze is a food group, right?
"Booze ain't food." - Nathan Explosion

Booze might not be food, but dammit if it doesn't do in a pinch.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
13,054
6,748
118
Country
United Kingdom
Ironman126 said:
Booze might not be food, but dammit if it doesn't do in a pinch.
Stout certainly does in a pinch. Some of them are so dense, they're like drinking bread.
 

Fieldy409_v1legacy

New member
Oct 9, 2008
2,686
0
0
Silvanus said:
Ironman126 said:
Booze might not be food, but dammit if it doesn't do in a pinch.
Stout certainly does in a pinch. Some of them are so dense, they're like drinking bread.
I read somewhere once the original idea behind beer was as a portable source of food that kept preserved by the alcohol, and that they had much lower alcohol content. Then we realised how fun it was to smash 20 of them down and made higher alcohol content ones.

Might be bullshit though.
 

Ironman126

Dark DM Overlord
Apr 7, 2010
658
0
0
Silvanus said:
Ironman126 said:
Booze might not be food, but dammit if it doesn't do in a pinch.
Stout certainly does in a pinch. Some of them are so dense, they're like drinking bread.
I had one called Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout. You can just about stand a spoon up in that brew. There's another one (by Oskar Blues), Ten Fidy, that's the consistency and color of motor oil, pours like it and everything.
 

vallorn

Tunnel Open, Communication Open.
Nov 18, 2009
2,309
1
43
Richard Gozin-Yu said:
Fieldy409 said:
Silvanus said:
Ironman126 said:
Booze might not be food, but dammit if it doesn't do in a pinch.
Stout certainly does in a pinch. Some of them are so dense, they're like drinking bread.
I read somewhere once the original idea behind Bread was as a portable source of food that kept preserved by the alcohol, and that they had much lower alcohol content. Then we realised how fun it was to smash 20 of them down and made higher alcohol content ones.

Might be bullshit though.
Basically there is an ongoing debate based on uncertain archaeological evidence, as to which came first: The Bread or The Beer. Part of the problem is that evidence has been found of germinating cereal grains at a time when it wasn't thought that we made beer, but we did make bread. Some people take that as evidence of brewing, while others assume it was spontaneous fermentation that wasn't a desirable outcome. It's a big deal, because as it stands there are two big narratives out there in academia:

Narrative A: Humans were hunter gatherers, but at some time in the past we engaged in some primitive agriculture. Mostly this involved gathering wild barley when it was in season, then storing it for lean times. When you store grain either for later eating, or planting, sometimes it gets wet and germinates. If it's hot and sunny later, it might dry out, and that process can give you a malted grain. It would have been a pretty nice snack, or it might have rained again, harder this time. Now the malted barley is swimming in water, and with wild yeast or bacteria it starts to ferment. Our ancestor comes back to retrieve his grain, and finds this bubbling sludge with a funky smell. He's hungry, so he tastes it, and it's good![footnote]It's also incredibly nutritious. People in ancient Egypt were given their rations in beer for example.[/footnote] People get much more interested in barley, even though it's somewhat difficult to gather. This drives people to gather in larger groups and engage in agriculture at the level of planting and harvesting crops. The surplus of grains need to be reliably turned into compact, portable nutrition (as you said) and so bread is invented.

Narrative B: Humans were hunter gatherers, but at some time they started to gather in larger and larger groups. They would have been harvesting wild cereal grains, and at some point they made the connection that it was possible to plant and harvest them. This allowed the formation of even larger groups, which drove social and technological development. The need for a compact and portable source of nutrition, and a way to handle the problem of surplus grains leads to the invention of bread. The process described in Narrative A, whereby stored grain spontaneously germinates and ferments happens in this context, now that it's likely to find clay containers full of grain anywhere you find humans. Beer is born.

It's hard to find evidence that conclusively supports one narrative over another at this point, and not necessarily likely that it will be found any time soon.
There's also that drinking beer was FAR safer than drinking water, almost every human society invented things to drink that were ways of making water safer, teas involve boiling water which kills bacteria while beers have alcohol that makes them safer for example. Hell, for a long time in Europe you had "small beer", really, really weak beer that nevertheless was safer than water to drink so kids could have it or it could be easily carried in a waterskin.
 

Lacedaemonius

New member
Mar 10, 2016
70
0
0
There might be beyond the ones discussed already. Vegetarian diets that include animal products are well studied and understood, since hundreds of millions of people have lived that way traditionally. Vegetarian diets that avoid all animal products though are not as well studied, and not adopted by anything like as many people for as long. The assumption that there are no adverse effects to major dietary changes along those lines is therefore, unsupported.
 

NPC009

Don't mind me, I'm just a NPC
Aug 23, 2010
802
0
0
Rosiv said:
I think the longest I lasted on a vegetarian diet was 3 days, and then I wimped out.

I just missed eating meat so much, so I guess that would be the con. Although watching that recent episode on VICE about the environmental hazards of irresponsible meat production made me consider the no meat lifestyle.
You could go for meat that's produced responsibly. It'd probably require some research to figure out what your options are and you'll probably get less meat for the same amount of money, but you'll still be able to enjoy meat.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
People have done it, but as far as I know, it IS more difficult to find suitable replacements for the things Vegetarians and Vegans do not eat. Protein is most readily-available in meat. If you're not eating meat, your sources are either {A} small and very-often consumed to make up the difference or {B} specially-made but more expensive. Your life choice is your own and there's nothing wrong with that, but make sure it's all planned out in the budget.
 

NPC009

Don't mind me, I'm just a NPC
Aug 23, 2010
802
0
0
sheppie said:
NPC009 said:
You could go for meat that's produced responsibly. It'd probably require some research to figure out what your options are and you'll probably get less meat for the same amount of money, but you'll still be able to enjoy meat.
The problem with that is that few people can afford to double what they spend on food, and you get into some pretty shady parts of the food industry where there are some pretty unprofessional farmers working. Last time I looked at that, I found the farm sells raw milk.
That is bad... But like I sad, doing some research before buying is the smart thing to do. Other than that, instead of eating the same amount of meat, you could eat less meat. As long as your diet is balanced, you generally don't need to have meat with every meal or even every day to get the nutrition you need.