Red Mosquito

Do people need research to show that getting enough vitamins are good for you?

tragabigzanda wrote:

run2death wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

run2death wrote:It's interesting that trag points to "peer-reviewed research" here, yet consumes and supports supplements and vitamins, which has NONE of said research to back it.

WTF are you talking about? There's tons of peer-reviewed research on nutrition supplements. Here's the top three google hits:

https://www.dovepress.com/nutrition-and ... ts-journal
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/2/399.full
https://ods.od.nih.gov/Research/Evidenc ... ogram.aspx

Spoiler: show

LOL. Did you actually read the things you linked to?

Yes. Here are some research article titles from the most recent issues of Nutrition and Dietary Supplements:

Vitamin A supplementation and childhood morbidity from diarrhea, fever, respiratory problems and anemia in sub-Saharan Africa

The effect of micronutrient supplementation on active TB incidence early in HIV infection in Botswana

Increased eating control and energy levels associated with consumption of bitter orange (p-synephrine) extract: a randomized placebo-controlled study

Prevalence and associated factors of low serum zinc concentration in adolescents of Gambella city, Southwest Ethiopia

So "tons" is one and that one is published by the American Society for Nutrition, which has more ties to food and supplement companies (including Herbalife) than the American Heart Association does.

The ASN encourages "food, biosciences and biotechnology, pharmaceutical, feed and agriculture, personal and health care and nutritional products companies" partnerships with the Society. At their web site they state that "Whether your concern is playing a part in the nutrition community, advancing your product development or monitoring market risks and opportunities, ASN offers you what you need to meet your organizational goals."

http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/wp-cont ... tFinal.pdf

My brother spent two years in Botswana for the peace Corp before most of you were born yet, and used to send home tapes to us talking about how the bushmen liked to fry up caterpillars to carry around in their pockets for quick snacks while hunting game. said they tasted like italian bread crust.

which really has nothing to do with being vegan, but trag bolded the word Botswana so i thought, hey, both interesting AND entertaining.

I really want to go there.

Anders wrote:I really want to go there.

He went back there about 6 years ago for a reunion with his fellow associates from the 70s, had a fantastic time but said it was amazing how much it's changed

malice wrote:

Anders wrote:I really want to go there.

He went back there about 6 years ago for a reunion with his fellow associates from the 70s, had a fantastic time but said it was amazing how much it's changed

I can believe that.

briefly summarize the book?

malice wrote:briefly summarize the book?

McCall Smith is a university professor, and writes really well. He is known for his dry, charming and kind-hearted humour. Book is about Mma Precious Ramotswe who has opened a detective agency in Botswana.

Anders wrote:

malice wrote:briefly summarize the book?

McCall Smith is a university professor, and writes really well. He is known for his dry, charming and kind-hearted humour. Book is about Mma Precious Ramotswe who has opened a detective agency in Botswana.

I'll have to tell my brother about it. He's a research professor/scientist at Cornell University, sounds right up his alley

malice wrote:

Anders wrote:

malice wrote:briefly summarize the book?

McCall Smith is a university professor, and writes really well. He is known for his dry, charming and kind-hearted humour. Book is about Mma Precious Ramotswe who has opened a detective agency in Botswana.

I'll have to tell my brother about it. He's a research professor/scientist at Cornell University, sounds right up his alley

Hope he likes it.

I just came back from H-E-B and saw some colorfully labeled jack fruit grillables package featured in the produce section. Smiled to myself and thought of this thread.

Also, trag - you mentioned some responsible chicken label thing earlier? I also see these Go Texan labels on a lot of local meat and produce at H-E-B. Didn't even think about labels. Going down a research rabbit hole soon I'm sure.

H-E-B is one of the few things I miss about Texas.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:I originally just wanted to ask Argo how he felt about humans eating meat in general, and I turned it into a horrible post as Jorge pointed out.

Argo, to be clear, I just wanted to hear your thoughts on human meat consumption if it could be done in a non-wasteful way, and as humanely as possible. The thought just popped into my head as I thought of other animals that eat meat and how it would impact them if their main protein/food source was taken away.

It would be wrong to take meat away from the animals whose food we control. They would all die. Their digestive systems can't pull adequate nutrition from a plant-based diet.
The tougher question in there: Is there such a thing as a non-wasteful and as-humane-as-possible way to harvest meat for a human diet?
Short answer: I think No.
Unlike true carnivorous animals, we don't need meat to survive. We can survive and be healthy and strong by eating plants alone, and we as a civilization have the know-how and the tools to grow enough food to do that. So, animal agriculture isn't necessary.
Is there a humane way to kill an animal? There may be pain-minimizing or painless ways for some animals, but is that humane? I'd say that, no matter how you do it, there's no humane way to kill another living thing. I don't think anything gives us that right. Because we're smarter? That's meaningless when examining whether other creatures deserve to die.
Is there a non-wasteful way to harvest meat? Well, how do we grow meat? By feeding animals the same food like grains and corn and soy that we could be eating. And it takes way more crops to do that than it would to just eat those crops ourselves. The steak you eat doesn't replace an equivalent amount of corn that you're not eating. It uses more land and water and time to create that steak. So, in that way, growing any meat is a waste of that extra land and water and time and energy.
I don't think using every part of a dead animal is a good way to honor that animal. A better way would be to just let it live according to its own instincts.

The Argonaut wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:I originally just wanted to ask Argo how he felt about humans eating meat in general, and I turned it into a horrible post as Jorge pointed out.

Argo, to be clear, I just wanted to hear your thoughts on human meat consumption if it could be done in a non-wasteful way, and as humanely as possible. The thought just popped into my head as I thought of other animals that eat meat and how it would impact them if their main protein/food source was taken away.

It would be wrong to take meat away from the animals whose food we control. They would all die. Their digestive systems can't pull adequate nutrition from a plant-based diet.
The tougher question in there: Is there such a thing as a non-wasteful and as-humane-as-possible way to harvest meat for a human diet?
Short answer: I think No.
Unlike true carnivorous animals, we don't need meat to survive. We can survive and be healthy and strong by eating plants alone, and we as a civilization have the know-how and the tools to grow enough food to do that. So, animal agriculture isn't necessary.
Is there a humane way to kill an animal? There may be pain-minimizing or painless ways for some animals, but is that humane? I'd say that, no matter how you do it, there's no humane way to kill another living thing. I don't think anything gives us that right. Because we're smarter? That's meaningless when examining whether other creatures deserve to die.
Is there a non-wasteful way to harvest meat? Well, how do we grow meat? By feeding animals the same food like grains and corn and soy that we could be eating. And it takes way more crops to do that than it would to just eat those crops ourselves. The steak you eat doesn't replace an equivalent amount of corn that you're not eating. It uses more land and water and time to create that steak. So, in that way, growing any meat is a waste of that extra land and water and time and energy.
I don't think using every part of a dead animal is a good way to honor that animal. A better way would be to just let it live according to its own instincts.

suffering from malnutrition, overpopulation, urban sprawl, and competition for energy rich nutritional sources by other now no longer food producing animals that all populate the same regions. good plan

Highminded discourse just doesn't have much impact in the day to day functioning of the world

Well, obviously just unleashing tens of billions of cows and chickens and pigs into the wild is a bad idea and impossible and never going to happen anyway. The whole world isn't about to go vegan overnight, leaving us with all these animals. The real ideal is that the future trillions of food animals won't ever have to exist and the land we would otherwise use to support them could grow food directly for humans or be returned to wild. And we'd let buffalo and hogs and turkeys live in the wild doing their own thing.

The Argonaut wrote:Well, obviously just unleashing tens of billions of cows and chickens and pigs into the wild is a bad idea and impossible and never going to happen anyway. The whole world isn't about to go vegan overnight, leaving us with all these animals. The real ideal is that the future trillions of food animals won't ever have to exist and the land we would otherwise use to support them could grow food directly for humans or be returned to wild. And we'd let buffalo and hogs and turkeys live in the wild doing their own thing.

how are we getting rid of the current surplus population?

malice wrote:

The Argonaut wrote:Well, obviously just unleashing tens of billions of cows and chickens and pigs into the wild is a bad idea and impossible and never going to happen anyway. The whole world isn't about to go vegan overnight, leaving us with all these animals. The real ideal is that the future trillions of food animals won't ever have to exist and the land we would otherwise use to support them could grow food directly for humans or be returned to wild. And we'd let buffalo and hogs and turkeys live in the wild doing their own thing.

how are we getting rid of the current surplus population?

Turn them into vegans.

malice wrote:

The Argonaut wrote:Well, obviously just unleashing tens of billions of cows and chickens and pigs into the wild is a bad idea and impossible and never going to happen anyway. The whole world isn't about to go vegan overnight, leaving us with all these animals. The real ideal is that the future trillions of food animals won't ever have to exist and the land we would otherwise use to support them could grow food directly for humans or be returned to wild. And we'd let buffalo and hogs and turkeys live in the wild doing their own thing.

how are we getting rid of the current surplus population?

OK, so say the best possible thing happens and everyone eventually decides to go vegan (this will never happen). Let's pretend this is an ideal, but still real world. This won't happen overnight. It will happen little by little. First 1% of the population. Next year, a full 5%. Three years later, we're up to 10% of all people being vegan. A generation later, everyone is vegan. The animal agriculture farms would go out of business just as slowly, selling and killing off the animals they have and not breeding future generations. Then re-purposing the land.
This is all silly, because this won't happen. But your objection to me was also silly, so this is what we're left with.