would you ever become vegan?

[Choppaduel]

I'll give my answer, in the form of a video:

​

 

[thethingthatlurks]

Uhm, no? Spinach is just an example with which all of us would be familiar. The same is true for other leafy vegetables. Also to the best of my knowledge, spinach hasn't been selectively bred for its iron content, which isn't even available for you unless you know what you are doing. As for lemons, any citrus fruit will do. Or berries. Or root veggies like carrots. Oh, and broccoli. Do you really think lemons are special? Or for that matter artificially selected to provide even more vitamin C? Sorry mate, you're full of crap.

Yes, yes they are. Not for those specific things no, because when they did that they didn't even know vitamins existed. Fact is, humans have picked certain plants and have cultivated them for millenia, selectively breeding them in the proces. Pretty much every vegetable we eat at the moment doesn't exist in nature in that form, they're all cultivated species. Citrus fruits, beans and broccoli are excellent examples of that actually. But even without that, you're assuming that you can find them in large enough quantities to survive on. You're also assuming you can easily find combinations like spinach and citrus fruits together, and you're assuming you can find them easily enough so that you spend less calories gathering them than you get from them.

You obviously don't know the first thing about chemistry or biology, so let me try this again: obtaining nutrients is never a problem, obtaining the means of getting them into the bio-available state is. I may not find lemons and spinach growing together, but there are always other options. See, evolution has this nice side-effect: all animals will have similar metabolisms (especially the Kreb's cycle, and glycolysis), ergo I'd be able to find enough nutrients anywhere on earth. It may not be easy, but it is definitely possible.
And humans don't selectively grow for nutrients (usually), but for flavor and appearance. This generally doesn't diminish their nutrient content, although it may artificially inflate calories due to added sweetness.

Anyway, good job with the little test. It's not actually red that is the give-away, but bright colors in general. Still, would you be able to do the same for other animals which are not colored?

 

[WanderingFool]

It would probably be healthier for me, but so would not drinking soda, and that isnt happening.

 

[Evil Moo]

Here's a thought. Where do vegans stand on eating carnivorous plants (venus flytraps, pitcher plants and the like)? Not something we really eat as far as I'm aware, but for the sake of argument...

As something that derives most of its nutrients from animals, does that make it closer to being an 'animal product'? Or are second degree animal products alright?

 

[dancinginfernal]

Hell no.

I love my meat.

...

Er...

 

[Dr. Feelgood]

I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegan.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

Being a vegan is a good thing, but even after watching shows like Dr. Oz, yes it helps your health, but when you love to cook, you discover a whole new world of taste you can't pass. And you cannot change some people's habits.

For me, it is the personal different taste of each one of us that makes our world's multiculturalism so special.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

No, it's very difficult to do correctly, and can be very, VERY unhealthy if you don't watch every bite of what you're eating. You have to be so careful to ensure that you're getting everything your body needs, and it's very easy to miss out on key nutrients, especially if you don't have the money to pay for the expensive supplement pills.

If someone wants to do it, fine. But I'll stick with my meat and dairy. As far as weight loss, as long as you eat in moderation, choose naturally lean meats (beware of any meat that says it is more than 95% lean. Think of the steroids it must have had), low fat/fat free dairy, and other healthy choices, there is nothing wrong with them.

 

[Cowabungaa]

You obviously don't know the first thing about chemistry or biology, so let me try this again: obtaining nutrients is never a problem, obtaining the means of getting them into the bio-available state is. I may not find lemons and spinach growing together, but there are always other options. See, evolution has this nice side-effect: all animals will have similar metabolisms (especially the Kreb's cycle, and glycolysis), ergo I'd be able to find enough nutrients anywhere on earth. It may not be easy, but it is definitely possible.
And humans don't selectively grow for nutrients (usually), but for flavor and appearance. This generally doesn't diminish their nutrient content, although it may artificially inflate calories due to added sweetness.

Anyway, good job with the little test. It's not actually red that is the give-away, but bright colors in general. Still, would you be able to do the same for other animals which are not colored?

I do know 'the first thing' about biology, but the things you name, Kreb's cycle and all that, aren't what matter in this discussion, you're approaching it from the wrong angle. Yeah, humans and deer share bio-chemical pathways, but we're still not build the same. Humans are not build to live on a herbivore diet, we never were herbivores, that's a simple fact.

The only reason people can safely live on a vegan diet is because of our food technology and scientific knowledge, yet you say you can ignore all those advances ('forego technology') and live like a deer. You say you can do something Homo Sapiens has never done, not even when their bodies were a lot more attuned to eating things we couldn't bare to digest, when they actually lived on a natural, gathering diet, something is very different nowadays which has it's effects on our bodies too. You say you can do something your body simply isn't made for. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Anyway, good job with the little test. It's not actually red that is the give-away, but bright colors in general. Still, would you be able to do the same for other animals which are not colored?

As good as I could with plants, it's the same story there. Good luck picking the right berries, as they're pretty much all brightly coloured.

 

[Dana22]

read carefully before answering

Well now I have to ask what that meant:

society that gives me the option to live whatever lifestyle i want

I hope it doesn't meant that your local grocery shop provides you with fresh supply of vegetables every day -.-

 

[qeinar]

no, because not eating meat would not acomplish anything. even if no-one in the world did not eat meat.

 

[Red Albatross]

Make sure you consult a dietitian. I can't stand the militant smug douche version of vegans that think that just because they eat green shit, they're "healthy." (note: I'm aware it's a vocal minority - I have no problem with veganism, it's a freaking personal choice)

As for me, I just polished off two steaks. For every animal you don't eat, I'll eat two.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

You obviously don't know the first thing about chemistry or biology, so let me try this again: obtaining nutrients is never a problem, obtaining the means of getting them into the bio-available state is. I may not find lemons and spinach growing together, but there are always other options. See, evolution has this nice side-effect: all animals will have similar metabolisms (especially the Kreb's cycle, and glycolysis), ergo I'd be able to find enough nutrients anywhere on earth. It may not be easy, but it is definitely possible.
And humans don't selectively grow for nutrients (usually), but for flavor and appearance. This generally doesn't diminish their nutrient content, although it may artificially inflate calories due to added sweetness.

Anyway, good job with the little test. It's not actually red that is the give-away, but bright colors in general. Still, would you be able to do the same for other animals which are not colored?

I do know 'the first thing' about biology, but the things you name, Kreb's cycle and all that, aren't what matter in this discussion, you're approaching it from the wrong angle. Yeah, humans and deer share bio-chemical pathways, but we're still not build the same. Humans are not build to live on a herbivore diet, we never were herbivores, that's a simple fact.

You say you can do something Homo Sapiens has never done, not even when their bodies were a lot more attuned to eating things we couldn't bare to digest, when they actually lived on a natural, gathering diet. You say you can do something your body simply isn't made for. It makes no sense whatsoever.
As good as I could with plants, it's the same story there. Good luck picking the right berries, as they're pretty much all brightly coloured.

Uhm, same metabolic cycles imply similar nutrient needs, the closer related to another species we are, the more overlap there is. Not only are humans perfectly able to live a herbivore diet, our entire digestive system is better suited for that than for an carnivore diet. Now that's a simple fact. You're right though, humans were never 100% herbivore, which is why we have the rather limited ability to digest meat (limited when compared to true carnivores).
And why pray tell is my body not suited for living an herbivore diet? Show me some evidence, scientific papers, text books, etc.

Wait, you think I would go by color to distinguish between edible and toxic? Fat chance, I've learned to ignore that over the course of my chemistry education. For example, two compounds I've come across recently are both blue, the same shade even. The difference is, one compound will kill you in a about a minute, while the other is essentially harmless.
No, I'd observe which animals eat what, and take it from there with a small sample at once to minimize risk.

 

[tjcross]

NOO honestly i am getting tired of the herbavore vs omnivore human diet threads (although you actually mentioning vegan as becoming an herbavore is refreshing) i'll lay my beliefs. the human body requires a certain amount of different nutrients some are easily found in vegies or fruits but rarely in meats and vise versa therefor the easiest way to get good nutrition is by eating all of the four major food groups (or taking supplements but those can get expensive) as long as it is balanced and honestly to my tastes veges are horrible lettuce sprays liquids in my mouth causing me to vomit (or are so soggy i can't tell if it hasn't gone bad) any many others are worse for water content i still don't understand how people can have tomato on there food but that is personal taste, my cousin has a stomach condition that does not allow her to eat red meat.

tl;dr?
omnivore is the easiest way to get the nutrients needed by the human body

 

[Sneeze]

No, because I simply would not enjoy my food. I love meat, and not just that, avoiding dairy products too? And anything with egg in it? I just simply wouldn't be able to cope leaving purely on plants.
Don't get me wrong, I like some veggies, but on the side of something meaty.

 

[tjcross]

You obviously don't know the first thing about chemistry or biology, so let me try this again: obtaining nutrients is never a problem, obtaining the means of getting them into the bio-available state is. I may not find lemons and spinach growing together, but there are always other options. See, evolution has this nice side-effect: all animals will have similar metabolisms (especially the Kreb's cycle, and glycolysis), ergo I'd be able to find enough nutrients anywhere on earth. It may not be easy, but it is definitely possible.
And humans don't selectively grow for nutrients (usually), but for flavor and appearance. This generally doesn't diminish their nutrient content, although it may artificially inflate calories due to added sweetness.

Anyway, good job with the little test. It's not actually red that is the give-away, but bright colors in general. Still, would you be able to do the same for other animals which are not colored?

I do know 'the first thing' about biology, but the things you name, Kreb's cycle and all that, aren't what matter in this discussion, you're approaching it from the wrong angle. Yeah, humans and deer share bio-chemical pathways, but we're still not build the same. Humans are not build to live on a herbivore diet, we never were herbivores, that's a simple fact.

You say you can do something Homo Sapiens has never done, not even when their bodies were a lot more attuned to eating things we couldn't bare to digest, when they actually lived on a natural, gathering diet. You say you can do something your body simply isn't made for. It makes no sense whatsoever.
As good as I could with plants, it's the same story there. Good luck picking the right berries, as they're pretty much all brightly coloured.

Uhm, same metabolic cycles imply similar nutrient needs, the closer related to another species we are, the more overlap there is. Not only are humans perfectly able to live a herbivore diet, our entire digestive system is better suited for that than for an carnivore diet. Now that's a simple fact. You're right though, humans were never 100% herbivore, which is why we have the rather limited ability to digest meat (limited when compared to true carnivores).
And why pray tell is my body not suited for living an herbivore diet? Show me some evidence, scientific papers, text books, etc.

Wait, you think I would go by color to distinguish between edible and toxic? Fat chance, I've learned to ignore that over the course of my chemistry education. For example, two compounds I've come across recently are both blue, the same shade even. The difference is, one compound will kill you in a about a minute, while the other is essentially harmless.
No, I'd observe which animals eat what, and take it from there with a small sample at once to minimize risk.

ok i'm sure buddy knows that a human is not a carnivore it's an obviouse fact what he's saying is that our bodies are meant for an OMNIVOROUS diet since we can get nutrients from meat and since many humans like the taste why should we throw it out it would be like removing windows from your house and replacing it with clear plastic wrap you can do it but it would be pointless and more troublesome.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Only if they made a vegan friendly steak that actually tastes like steak.
And veggie gravy that dosnt taste of ass.

 

[Daveeo]

I would never give up eating my delicious meat! Some people say that they dont eat food because it´s cruel to animals, but i see it like this: if you dont eat the meat, then the animal have died in vein.

 

[tjcross]

If I became a vegan I would be dead within around...*counts on fingers*...erm...*does some mental arithmetic (which is most likely wrong)*...tomorrow!

Wardy

lol thanks you just lightened my mood by (whips out a calculator) 9.5% of my maximum happiness which is roughly the equivalent of a well told joke. fancy that

 

[Cowabungaa]

Uhm, same metabolic cycles imply similar nutrient needs, the closer related to another species we are, the more overlap there is. Not only are humans perfectly able to live a herbivore diet, our entire digestive system is better suited for that than for an carnivore diet. Now that's a simple fact. You're right though, humans were never 100% herbivore, which is why we have the rather limited ability to digest meat (limited when compared to true carnivores).
And why pray tell is my body not suited for living an herbivore diet? Show me some evidence, scientific papers, text books, etc.

Because human physiology isn't made for it. We don't have a digestive tract made for a herbivore diet either, it's way too short to properly extract all the energy you can get from it. It's all nice from a bio-chemical point of view, and yeah bio-chemically we work around the same, but there are stark differences in physiology. Look at a gorilla, a herbivore primate. Look at his gut. We don't have that. We're suited for an omnivoric hunter-scavenger-gathering diet, that's what our natural shtick is. Again, you're approaching this from the wrong angle, there's a lot more to diet than bio-chemistry, you seem to forget that.

Wait, you think I would go by color to distinguish between edible and toxic? Fat chance, I've learned to ignore that over the course of my chemistry education. For example, two compounds I've come across recently are both blue, the same shade even. The difference is, one compound will kill you in a about a minute, while the other is essentially harmless.
No, I'd observe which animals eat what, and take it from there with a small sample at once to minimize risk.

Doesn't work all that well. Lots of herbivores eat plants humans can't digest properly. We can do fuck-all with cellulose.