Veganscum
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /fit/ - Fitness
You are currently reading a thread in /fit/ - Fitness
> Vegetarian and 'healthy' diets could be more harmful to the environment, researchers sayVegetarian and 'healthy' diets could be more harmful to the environment, researchers say
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151214130727.htm
Honest question OP, did you read the article you're linking and not feel that the premise of the article was misleading?
>"Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon," said Paul Fischbeck, professor of social and decisions sciences and engineering and public policy. "Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken."
Now where have you ever heard anyone say that we should switch to a diet where celery and cucumbers are relied upon for calories?
>>35370573
gotta get your calories, bro
and btw, there are people who only eat stuff like lettuce with dates and bananas
fuck vegans.
>>35370655
>gotta get your calories, bro
Yeah, but not from eggplant and lettuce. This article's just trying to be controversial.
>>35370783
what do you eat, soy? http://www.alternet.org/food/4-surprising-foods-packed-estrogen-chemical-linked-obesity-and-sexual-dysfunction
>>35370806
>what do you eat, soy?
No, but I see you've already jumped the gun with another link anyway.
I think you're trying way too hard to convince yourself that veganism is the worst thing ever, and you don't care about the quality of the information you find to support that belief.
>>35370835
read the link, it's not just about soy.
the quality evidence adds up.
>>35370531
>cherry-picking extremely low-calorie vegetables like lettuce and celery and judging them on how many calories they have
you can't be this stupid, can you? I don't eat celery for calories, I eat it specifically because it's low in calories. If you need calories you can get those from rice, corn, peanuts, etc.
This is so dumb I have to wonder if the """researchers""" are just idiots, or if they're simply trying to push an agenda
>>35370849
>it's not just about soy
And it's not about vegan or even vegetarian diets, but most importantly, it's just more fearmongering and attention seeking from journalists who have no expertise in the thing they're reporting on. The article starts out by saying that hormone drugs and xenostrogens like BPA are bad, then makes a leap in saying that the weak phytoestrogens, here measured in micrograms (millionths of a gram), in foods like flaxseed and legumes that are typically associated with good health, will fuck you up, again with no research cited. What do you really think this article is good for?
>>35370868
water is renewable, you fucktard
and you need protein, too (I need, anyway)
>>35370980
>And it's not about vegan or even vegetarian diets
then what is it about, sugartits?
>>35371009
Fearmongering about estrogens in foods. They even include meat and dairy on the list.
>>35370868
Both
>>35371015
so is there a fuckton of estrogen in those foods vegans rely on? then it's not mongering, it's informing.
>>35371020
The fearmongering part comes from presenting the information as a warning, like there's a problem with eating these foods as a result of their (phyto)estrogen content.
>those foods vegans rely on
Again, #4 on that list is meat/dairy. Did you not read this article either?
>>35371041
> Again, #4 on that list is meat/dairy. Did you not read this article either?
but have you noticed the difference in the numbers, sugartits?
>>35371041
>like there's a problem with eating these foods as a result of their (phyto)estrogen content.
It's not a problem if you want you bitch tits to grow, I guess.
NOW THAT'S a showcase in how science doesn't work.
It's beyond cherrypicking. It's a straight up swing and miss argument.
>>35371091
samefag
>>35371072
It's a huge difference senpai, but then potency comes into play. The first 3 foods on that list contain relatively weak plant-estrogens, which don't function the same way mammal estrogens do to begin with (just like eating phytosterols from plants doesn't have the same effect as eating cholesterol from animals, and can actually have the opposite effect), and estriadol in animal foods is tens of thousands of times more potent than plant estrogens
>>35371113
> tens of thousands of times
source ? I bet you just made it up.
>>35371113
> Tens of thousands of times
>Citation needed
>>35371168
Here's one that compares it to synthetic xenostrogens like BPA
http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/4/341.long
>The natural estrogen estradiol is at least 10 000-fold more potent than most identified environmental xenoestrogens, and the dietary exposure (from e.g. meat, dairy products and eggs) to the natural sex steroids is therefore highly relevant in the discussion of the impact of estrogens on human development and health.
I guess you're not gonna eat any meat or dairy now, huh?
>>35371186
>Here's one that compares it to synthetic xenostrogens like BPA
but that wasn't the question
> I guess you're not gonna eat any meat or dairy now, huh?
I'm not even convinced that milk is estrogenic overall. it's cow baby formula. But I don't live in the United States.
Soy - 103,920 micorgrams
Milk - 1.2 micrograms
Arrrr yes animal products are so estrogenic...... Stupid vegans not understanding simple math.....
>>35371210
>but that wasn't the question
Phytoestrogens are even weaker than synthetic estrogens
http://e.hormone.tulane.edu/learning/phytoestrogens.html
>In general, phytoestrogens are weaker than the natural estrogen hormones (such as estradiol) found in humans and animals or the very potent synthetic estrogens used in birth control pills and other drugs
Phytoestrogens, like phytosterols, can also have the opposite effect on health
>There is strong evidence that lifetime exposure to natural estrogens, such as estradiol, increases the risk of certain kinds of cancer, such as uterine cancer. Phytoestrogens may help reduce that risk because they may lower a person's lifetime exposure to natural estrogens by competing for estrogen receptor sites or changing the way natural estrogens are broken down
>I'm not even convinced that milk is estrogenic overall. it's cow baby formula
Why would that put doubt in your mind about milk being estrogenic? It's milk. It's a hormone cocktail used to guide the development of the baby.
>>35371220
Keep up with the discussion
>>35370990
>>35370990
>water is renewable
tell that to California dipshit. We have a finite amount of freshwater and it doesn't replenish itself instantaneously.
>calling somebody a fucktard while failing to understand the bare basics of the topic
>protein
soy, seitan, whey (not vegan but still vegetarian)
Also chicken uses a lot less water than beef, not all meat is created equally and beef fucks up the environment a lot more than chicken does. Fish can be good too depending on what type and how/where it's caught
>>35371186
>Here's one that compares it to synthetic xenostrogens like BPA
no it doesn't, learn to read:
>more potent than most identified environmental xenoestrogens
>most
And if it's so weak but scientists are so concerned, then how does that support your argument that we have nothing to worry about?
>>35371255
now you just went full retard and the quality of your "evidence" went down the gutter.
>>35371292
don't live in the desert, moron.
next.
> and it doesn't replenish itself instantaneously.
yeah, no shit. it's a cycle.
>protein
soy,
see >>35370806
>>35371298
>And if it's so weak but scientists are so concerned
Haha, what scientists? The blogger who wrote that article and didn't even differentiate between phytoestrogens and estradiol?
>now you just went full retard and the quality of your "evidence" went down the gutter.
Oh nooooo! I'm done for!
>>35371323
>Haha, what scientists?
you didn't get that point; the scientific community is concerned about substances like BPA, which you claim (without enough evidence, but let's put that aside) are so much weaker! But nothing to be concerned about with soy, right?
> The blogger who wrote that article and didn't even differentiate between phytoestrogens and estradiol?
please go ahead and differentiate. provide good evidence. go ahead, please.
> Oh nooooo! I'm done for!
you linked wikipedia and made claims which weren't even supported by your shitty wikipedia quotes. so just like before, but now you went even lower (full wikipedia)
>>35371323
>the scientific community is concerned about substances like BPA, which you claim (without enough evidence, but let's put that aside) are so much weaker! But nothing to be concerned about with soy, right?
I say again, different kinds of estrogens exert different effects. Like the Tulane article says, animal estrogens increase the risk of certain hormone-dependent cancers, while plant estrogens lower risk by binding to the estrogen receptors and blocking estrogen activity.
>please go ahead and differentiate. provide good evidence. go ahead, please.
I get the feeling you're not looking at the links I'm posting. It's bad enough that you don't read your own links, now you won't even read mine in the midst of a conversation?
>you linked wikipedia and made claims which weren't even supported by your shitty wikipedia quotes.
Hit CTRL + F on your keyboard and search the word "wikipedia"
I don't know what post you're looking at
>>35371091
>vegan complaining about cherry picking
>>35371406
> Tulane article
that's not an article, that's a text on a website of some marginal diploma meal as far as I'm concerned
> , while plant estrogens lower risk by binding to the estrogen receptors
binding to receptors is how hormones do their thing, so this doesn't make sense to me
the cancer risk increase is not the issue here, and it's very debatable even when you add a ton of natural hormones (like when you do TRT, it's well studied subject)
> I get the feeling you're not looking at the links I'm posting.
all you do is you make wild clams which are not supported by the links you post.
>>35371255
Uh oh
Soy decreases DHT the most powerful andrgoen
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14681200?dopt=Abstract
Destroyed a 19 year olds test levels
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21353476
Soy fucks up sperm
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/11/2584.short
soy gives you bitch tits eg gyno
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/5/10/785.short
Soy protein decreases test levels
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15735098
Check and mate on your soy estrogens are good for you
>>35371113
>just like eating phytosterols from plants doesn't have the same effect as eating cholesterol from animals, and can actually have the opposite effect
:^)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007114513002018
>>35371481
>that's not an article, that's a text on a website of some marginal diploma meal as far as I'm concerned
Not even sure what you mean by this
>binding to receptors is how hormones do their thing, so this doesn't make sense to me
"and blocking estrogen activity." As in binding to the receptors in place of the animal estrogens
>all you do is you make wild clams which are not supported by the links you post.
Okay
>>35371500
Cool, I'll read through these
>>35371532
> As in binding to the receptors in place of the animal estrogens
if it binds and does its thing then it doesn't matter which binds. but even if it doesn't do the same thing, the way hormones work the response will be that you're gonna pump out more estrogen.
>that's not an article
> Not even sure what you mean by this
it's a shitty text with many ancient citations on a university website I hear about first time in my life.
>>35371312
>don't live in the desert, moron.
we've got 7 billion people on the planet. Desert or no, the world as a whole is experienceing a water deficit. Even places like the southeast US can expect more water shortages in the near future, especially if everybody from the deserts just moved there instead.
Once again
>calling somebody a moron while failing to grasp simple concepts
you might want to try being less condescending about topics you're so fucking clueless on
>>35371432
>memetexting because you don't have an actual argument
>>35371519
>oxidized phytosterols
>>35371669
>Desert or no, the world as a whole is experienceing a water deficit.
especially the poor Hollywood celebrities with their green lawns and Olympic-size pools, right?
again, if you live like Americans and there's tens of millions of you, it doesn't matter where you go in the South, you're gonna need a giant water purification infrastructure because you're a wasteful and spoiled bunch of cunt people. so think about it in advance.
>>35371255
>Why would that put doubt in your mind about milk being estrogenic? It's milk. It's a hormone cocktail used to guide the development of the baby.
Oral sex hormones even in babies undergo rapid first pass metabolism. Basically none of them are systemically bioavailable. Why do you think HRT when not using a synthetic analogue of a hormone is always given by injection or transdermally or some other non-oral route?
There's an argument to be made that some of the proteins and peptides in milk are taken up due to differences in intestinal permeability in infants but unless there is some GI disorder this goes away after weaning.
>>35371500
>Destroyed a 19 year olds test levels
>1 (one)
Not evidence of anything.
>Soy fucks up sperm
Average sperm count per ml is about 180M. And that's eating 15 types of soy based foods, ie. eating soy for breakfast lunch and dinner.
>soy gives you bitch tits eg gyno
You linked an article called
>Stimulatory influence of soy protein isolate on breast secretion in pre- and postmenopausal women.
Men weren't even included in the study.
>Soy protein decreases test levels
>Soy protein isolates of varying isoflavone content exert minor effects on serum reproductive hormones in healthy young men.
>exert minor effects
>minor
Even consuming a lot of high isoflavones soy protein isolate (which is not fucking soy milk) decreased test by 15%. Which is considerable but not realistic as nobody will consume as much soy protein isolate.
>>35371680
>cherry picking homo vegan
Have fun being weak and small forever kek
>>35371766
Just saying this guy isn't me >>35371545, I'm still reading the links.
>>35371715
>cooked, processed, or not so fresh plants
>endogenous enzymatic oxidation or autooxidation
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14748942 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11734576 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4152888
There's also evidence that some phytosterols can't be degraded and accumulate in the brain, causing neurotoxicity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14640697
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22279184
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12153476
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12095162
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12153476
So it's unknown if they're completely neutral in all aspects, need more research
>>35371500
>>35371545
>>35371805
Shit, some people are coming over now, so I'll read the rest later on. But from what I looked at,
>Soy decreases DHT the most powerful andrgoen
This paper didn't actually use soy but a metabolite, called equol, of a type of phytoestrogen, called daidzen. Equol reduced prostate weight by blocking the action of DHT on its receptors, and the implication was that this could be used as a treatment for prostatic hyperplasia in humans. It didn't lower circulating levels of DHT, and actually increased LH levels, which stimulate the leydig cells to produce testosterone.
>Destroyed a 19 year olds test levels
I'd have more commentary on this if I could find a full text, so I'd be able to see what it really says, but a case report of a single person whose diet beforehand wasn't even being recorded and observed beforehand is hard to use as evidence of anything
>Soy fucks up sperm
This one is a nightmare. It's a cross-sectional study, started with 600 guys, which became 140 guys who self-reported their food intakes, and then down to 100 guys who sent in semen samples. The chart is all over the place and doesn't show any kind of linearity
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/11/2584/T2.expansion.html
Guys in the third tertile of phytoestrogen consumption seemed to have the highest total sperm counts
I'll check out the last two later, we're going to see a movie
>>35371728
Not that guy, but
Historically, around 3% of the water on earth has been made up of freshwater. Part of the renewal process for freshwater is glaciers that thaw during spring and send down freshwater into rivers and lakes and whatnot. We then use this water for our purposes.
However, since we're currently experiencing a heat increase in global earth temperatures, that means that the glaciers are also seeing less ice forming each year. This in turn leads to a smaller cycle of fresh water each year.
>>35372123
>However, since we're currently experiencing a heat increase in global earth temperatures, that means
there's more evaporation and rainfall, which leads to bigger cycle.
but if you want to infinitely grow the population of cities in the fucking desert and their fucking golf courses and giant private pools and waste everything in general because you're an americunt, then yeah, you're gonna run out out of any amount of water (in the desert)
>>35372164
and if you keep growing beef, you're gonna run out of water. We can't sustain 7 billion people having a beef-heavy diet. We can't even sustain what we have now, it's not just the deserts that are in trouble even the eastern US is on their way to water scarcity if they maintain their current pace. Most of the US, and the world, is using water faster than it's replenished.
also see infograph on >>35370868
Livestock is the single largest consumer of water in the US. Not golf courses or lawns or swimming pools.
>>35372270
>Livestock is the single largest consumer of water in the US.
I just like it how you jumped from the megalopolises located near the place called the Death Valley to "in the US". No, we're not talking about the US, and no, cows don't make water disappear, there used to be a gigantic natural bison population in North America, you probably heard about it.
California is having an overpopulation and yes, arrogant rich fuck problem with their waste and abuse. LA metropolitan area alone doubled(!) just during the past 50 years, and the water consumption per capita skyrocketed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area#Demographics
The reason people see soy as bad, is because the meat dairy and egg industry is against vegans, they make them lose profit, So these industries take the thing which comprises most of a vegan diet, soy, and say all these negative things about it, it causes excessive estrogen production, it is bad for you, etc.
Soy is a phytoestrogen, a plant hormone. When you eat Animals, which are full of animal hormones, estrogen. That is absorbed by your body.
You don't think you get gyno and lactation in males from soybean, grapes and apples. Or do you get it from hen periods (eggs chocked full of estrogen) , milk (full of estrogen) and meat?
If you are concerned about soy, 90% of soy grown in the US is animal feed, think of the huge amounts of soy and hormone added chemicals that are in the grains that these animals are given.
Why do you think gyno and breasts developing earlier and earlier is more common now? Why do you think that humans are eating more milk meat and eggs than they have ever done before?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykYJAeoIEdE
>>35372423
Eggs full of estrogen?
Eggs are full of cholesterol a steroidal hormone used by the testes to manufacture testosterone. Please do some research before sprouting rubbish.......
>>35370868
>This is so dumb I have to wonder if the """researchers""" are just idiots, or if they're simply trying to push an agenda
Hey, that's exactly how I feel about vegan researchers.
Saged.
>>35372714
The saturated fat and cholesterol to testosterone producton is extremely insignificantly small. Your body produces its own cholesterol, If you get cholesterol from an outside source (only animals) it is immediately bad cholesterol.
Have a funny /b/ vegan greentext
>>35371406
>plant estrogens lower risk by binding to the estrogen receptors and blocking estrogen activity.
Even if that was the case, estrogen replacement is really fucking bad, regardless of whether it increases hormonal response or decreases it. No matter how you slice it, phytoestrogens are a net negative just like every other uncontrolled xenoestrogen.
>>35373456
Cholesterol is essential for test. Low test causes heart disease.
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jcem-64-5-1083
>>35373509
What the fuck even is your argument.
As I said your body produces its own cholesterol naturally, just like every other single animal.
Then you are saying that cholesterol is good for you because it protects against heart disease? Thats the complete fucking opposite of what outside sources of cholesterol, even 3-4 eggs a week doubles your type 2 diabetes risk and cholesterol thickens blood which causes high blood pressure eventually blocking your arteries and causing a heart attack
>>35373548
Of what cholesterol does*
>>35372100
>This one is a nightmare. It's a cross-sectional study, started with 600 guys, which became 140 guys who self-reported their food intakes, and then down to 100 guys who sent in semen samples. The chart is all over the place and doesn't show any kind of linearity
Hey it sounds like every study that shows saturated fat is bad!
This article is dumb, nobody gets all of their daily calories from lettuce.
>>35373870
Nobody gets all their daily calories from meat either, but vegans still ape that shit up.
It's entirely possible to get all the calories necessary for a healthy, gaining, bulky body from a vegan/vegetarian diet. It's just a bit more difficult to do so (more attention needs to be paid to macros and calories) and might require some supplementing. It's certainly not impossible, however. It's certainly not unnatural or unhealthy, as long as you are smart about it.
Yes, it is more environmentally friendly to be vegetarian or vegan, but many things we do to live pleasurable lives is harmful to the environment or to society.
I totally understand both the moral and sustainability arguments of veganism, but surely I would hope that any vegan understand the nature of modern, first-world life; almost everything we do is selfish if examined through that totalistic perspective. People demand the fuller, more delicious experience from a varied diet that includes meat and animal products in the same way people want big houses or fast cars. It's totally unreasonable to expect people to make broad shifts to their lifestyles for the small, intangible difference it might make.
/thread :^)
>>35371766
>>35372100
holy shit well reasoned and informed responses, it is fucking christmas isn't it
>>35370868
>cherry picking
Literally what every fucking vegan does when they claim omnivorous diets are bad.
Get the fuck out.
>>35374440
Nice samefag vegan fag. Tell me, does pretending like you have support for your cuck diet make you feel better about yourself, or is it solely to trick people into believing vegan meme science?
Merry Christmas, cum guzzler.
>>35375154
Inb4 you being spammed and drowned in tangentially related studies and ultimately sourceless nutritionfacts.org shitposts.
