How do vegans bulk up in weight?

[ChainFlow]

Oysters don't feel pain apparently, they're closer to plants than to the animal kingdom from what I read and their cultivation poses no harm to the environment or other species. I don't care if I lose the vegan badge of honor, the reasons why I turned vegan were purely ethical. Like someone else wrote, agriculture is a lot worse in this respect as it displaces animals while others are killed during harvesting.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2010/04/consider_the_oyster.html

Good on you for not wearing blinders.

There's no logical reason for vegans to avoid eating clams/oysters/scallops/etc.

They have the happy benefit of providing almost all the missing nutrients in good amounts, too.

 

[groo]

70 grams of protein?

That's your problem right there.

That should be enough for maintenance if they were complete protein......considering what he is eating, probably not.

 

[shunyata]

"Moreover, our results showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with poorer health (higher incidences of cancer, allergies, and mental health disorders), a higher need for health care, and poorer quality of life. Therefore, public health programs are needed in order to reduce the health risk due to nutritional factors."

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0088278#abstract0

^^^

I'll just leave that here.



On the topic of suffering and shellfish, and plants, and nerve webs, and central nervous systems, death and life are irrevocably intertwined. To live you will kill other life forms for food. We are not chemotrophs. Culling plant life is not without horror for the plant or the inhabitants of the field in which it was grown. There are many studies suggesting that while we really have very little to no idea how plants perceive reality many do have a nerve web of sorts and do have nervous responses to various stimuli including light, heat, touch, and most certainly trauma.

What is pain ultimately? Once we get beyond the subjective, pain is a neurological response to trauma and tissue damage which urges the organism to act in such a way as to stop or limit further damage or reinjury.

Look at the acacia tree. Acacia have been observed to secrete a toxic substance in response to trauma to their leaves, such as from a grazing giraffe. The substance is nauseating in taste and the goal is to reduce the herbivorous predation on the tree. So here we have a defensive chemical and neurological response to trauma where the plant attempts to defend itself from further trauma. But it's more complex than that. The Acacia also releases a pheromonal signal into the air to communicate with other Acacia in the grove. The pheromone warns other individuals of the attack and the possibility that they too will face a predatory herbivorous attack. In response, they too began secreting the nauseating toxin into their leaves. So on some level we have an example of a plant exhibiting a degree of awareness of trauma, response to the trauma, and communication to other nearby members of it's species that it is under attack and they should take steps to defend themselves.

 

[Nozza]

What is pain ultimately? Once we get beyond the subjective, pain is a neurological response to trauma and tissue damage which urges the organism to act in such a way as to stop or limit further damage or reinjury.

Look at the acacia tree. Acacia have been observed to secrete a toxic substance in response to trauma to their leaves, such as from a grazing giraffe. The substance is nauseating in taste and the goal is to reduce the herbivorous predation on the tree. So here we have a defensive chemical and neurological response to trauma where the plant attempts to defend itself from further trauma. But it's more complex than that. The Acacia also releases a pheromonal signal into the air to communicate with other Acacia in the grove. The pheromone warns other individuals of the attack and the possibility that they too will face a predatory herbivorous attack. In response, they too began secreting the nauseating toxin into their leaves. So on some level we have an example of a plant exhibiting a degree of awareness of trauma, response to the trauma, and communication to other nearby members of it's species that it is under attack and they should take steps to defend themselves.

Is this an attempt to say that a higher animal feeling pain is the same as eating a carrot?

 

[shunyata]

Is this an attempt to say that a higher animal feeling pain is the same as eating a carrot?

No, it is an explanation of the fact that at least some plants do have some degree of perception of trauma and that life forms including plants often try to do everything in their power to resist being killed by another organism for food.

And that because of that we should be respectful of what we kill for food, whether that be a rabbit or a shallot. And that assuming that raising carrots for food is more ethical than raising rabbits for food is a form of spiritual egotism. Respect all life, especially when you are taking it. Try to cull without being cruel, but recognize that the carrot didn't volunteer to be slaughtered any more than the rabbit did and that in both cases you are forcibly extinguishing that organism's life so that you can continue to live.

 

[Mae]

No, it is an explanation of the fact that at least some plants do have some degree of perception of trauma and that life forms including plants often try to do everything in their power to resist being killed by another organism for food.

And that because of that we should be respectful of what we kill for food, whether that be a rabbit or a shallot. And that assuming that raising carrots for food is more ethical than raising rabbits for food is a form of spiritual egotism. Respect all life, especially when you are taking it. Try to cull without being cruel, but recognize that the carrot didn't volunteer to be slaughtered any more than the rabbit did and that in both cases you are forcibly extinguishing that organism's life so that you can continue to live.

I'm sorry, but this is pure psuedo-science and quite poor philosophy. There is absolutely zero evidence that plants can feel pain or suffer. Yes, plants can respond to their environments, true, but that is not equivocal to having "perception" in the sense of an organism who can think and have desires. But even while there is no evidence that plants can feel pain, lets assume hypothetically that they can. Even if they can feel pain, would that pain be equivocal to us or an animal feeling pain? Of course not, as there is no higher awareness of oneself being in pain. The plant cannot think about the fact that it is thinking of the pain that it is in. But lets ignore this, and assume (against all science) that plants can indeed feel pain, and that their pain is the same as our pain. Would we then be justified in your view of "kill whatever we want" as long as we are "respectful"? Clearly not. For if plants can indeed feel pain, and it is indeed comparable to our pain, then it would still make sense to be a vegetarian. For a meat eating society requires far more plants to die than a vegetarian society (and obviously far more animals to die). For the meat eating society, you have to factor in all the plants we eat, plus all the plants and crops that the animals were fed before they were killed (if you know anything about how energy is transferred, you would know we get far less in return from an animal than what we put in it). So if you are really concerned with plant suffering, it is more logical to support a vegetarian diet. But of course I don't think you really are in fact concerned with plant life, you are just trying to construct (a very poor) argument against vegetarianism. So lets be serious, and not give ridiculous arguments. Meat eaters who say what you are saying here are simply either misinformed or being intellectually disingenuous. The same would be true of vegans who claim that if you eat any meat or animal product, you will be unhealthy and get cancer. Both of these extreme views are simply naive, and have no place in serious discussion. Do you really think that a plant releasing toxins is serious evidence for higher awareness and the ability to suffer? If you don't see the huge unjustified leap in logic you are making here, I don't know what to say...

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I'd like to make one last attempt at sprouting legumes before I take Beano. Sucks having to pay for something that the legumes inherently have. They synthesize their own enzymes once they go above ground. Free enzymes! :icon_chee

Do all legumes make you feel equally bloated? I know on a lot of people, a few certain ones are much worse than others.

Like people have been saying, quinoa is a good alternative. It isn't a legume so you won't get the bloating and you'll get a generous amount of protein.

Bad thing is it's kinda expensive. Which is the complete opposite of legumes which are cheap as shit.

 

[scottm]

Carnivory is behind the evolutionary success of humankind.

 

[EddieLovesYou]

I'm sorry, but this is pure psuedo-science and quite poor philosophy. There is absolutely zero evidence that plants can feel pain or suffer. Yes, plants can respond to their environments, true, but that is not equivocal to having "perception" in the sense of an organism who can think and have desires. But even while there is no evidence that plants can feel pain, lets assume hypothetically that they can. Even if they can feel pain, would that pain be equivocal to us or an animal feeling pain? Of course not, as there is no higher awareness of oneself being in pain. The plant cannot think about the fact that it is thinking of the pain that it is in. But lets ignore this, and assume (against all science) that plants can indeed feel pain, and that their pain is the same as our pain. Would we then be justified in your view of "kill whatever we want" as long as we are "respectful"? Clearly not. For if plants can indeed feel pain, and it is indeed comparable to our pain, then it would still make sense to be a vegetarian. For a meat eating society requires far more plants to die than a vegetarian society (and obviously far more animals to die). For the meat eating society, you have to factor in all the plants we eat, plus all the plants and crops that the animals were fed before they were killed (if you know anything about how energy is transferred, you would know we get far less in return from an animal than what we put in it). So if you are really concerned with plant suffering, it is more logical to support a vegetarian diet. But of course I don't think you really are in fact concerned with plant life, you are just trying to construct (a very poor) argument against vegetarianism. So lets be serious, and not give ridiculous arguments. Meat eaters who say what you are saying here are simply either misinformed or being intellectually disingenuous. The same would be true of vegans who claim that if you eat any meat or animal product, you will be unhealthy and get cancer. Both of these extreme views are simply naive, and have no place in serious discussion. Do you really think that a plant releasing toxins is serious evidence for higher awareness and the ability to suffer? If you don't see the huge unjustified leap in logic you are making here, I don't know what to say...

 

[golvmopp]

The main is going the same potato-way of its strength & conditioning-brethren.

 

[groo]

Dbol.

Is that considered a vegetable?

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Two things I find fascinating reading this thread:

-How quick meat eaters are to proselytize about the wonders of animal products and completely trash veganism/vegetarianism. TS wasn't starting a veganism debate but boy did it quickly turn into that. I'll never understand the anger that vegans produce. Some people don't wanna eat animal products, leave them the fuck alone.

-The "ethical" reasons given for veganism are, 95% of the time, centered around the feelings and emotions of animals. I think an infinitely FAR more compelling argument is stopping HUMAN suffering, which vegan/vegetarianism can also contribute to. Farm animals are some of the worst sources of pollution and biggest contributors to global warming, which affects and kills millions of humans. There have been studies on this and reducing consumption of animal products can have huge positive effects.

I'm a meat eater and I'm not too moved by the poor cows getting slaughtered. I am terribly moved by the thought that people in Bangladesh and other areas are having their lives ruined by the global warming that the cows I consume are causing.

I've always found it shocking that this isn't brought up more often. It's always about the poor pigs and chickens and cows.

 

[CouchPro**]

Cat is animal product, it's clear vegans don't eat cat.


Man was brought up to eat, beat, and deplete meat. Stories of hunting trophy broccoli just don't keep women's attention.

 

[Respeezy]

Cat is animal product, it's clear vegans don't eat cat.


Man was brought up to eat, beat, and deplete meat. Stories of hunting trophy broccoli just don't keep women's attention.

Dude..

 

[Burial]

Some people don't wanna eat animal products, leave them the fuck alone.

No.

 

[ocean size]

Homie, you need B12. I am not going to ask why you don't want to supplement if you don't want to tell us but you have no choice but to supplement or eat a decent amount of shellfish. A serving of oysters is listed at 400% DV, so assuming that is true you need to be eating some sort of bivalve at least a couple times a week. B12 deficiency is no joke. If you aren't going to supplement nor seek out shelfish that often nor eat fortified foods, please get blood tests. Also eat Natto and other fermented foods on occasion, you need K2 as well.

Is there a vegan alternative to B12-fortified foods and supplements?

If for any reason you choose not to use fortified foods or supplements you should recognise that you are carrying out a dangerous experiment - one that many have tried before with consistently low levels of success. If you are an adult who is neither breast-feeding an infant, pregnant nor seeking to become pregnant, and wish to test a potential B12 source that has not already been shown to be inadequate, then this can be a reasonable course of action with appropriate precautions. For your own protection, you should arrange to have your B12 status checked annually. If homocysteine or MMA is even modestly elevated then you are endangering your health if you persist.

If you are breast feeding an infant, pregnant or seeking to become pregnant or are an adult contemplating carrying out such an experiment on a child, then don't take the risk. It is simply unjustifiable.

Claimed sources of B12 that have been shown through direct studies of vegans to be inadequate include human gut bacteria, spirulina, dried nori, barley grass and most other seaweeds. Several studies of raw food vegans have shown that raw food offers no special protection.

Reports that B12 has been measured in a food are not enough to qualify that food as a reliable B12 source. It is difficult to distinguish true B12 from analogues that can disrupt B12 metabolism. Even if true B12 is present in a food, it may be rendered ineffective if analogues are present in comparable amounts to the true B12. There is only one reliable test for a B12 source - does it consistently prevent and correct deficiency? Anyone proposing a particular food as a B12 source should be challenged to present such evidence.

"Moreover, our results showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with poorer health (higher incidences of cancer, allergies, and mental health disorders), a higher need for health care, and poorer quality of life. Therefore, public health programs are needed in order to reduce the health risk due to nutritional factors."

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0088278#abstract0

^^^

I'll just leave that here.

I'll leave alone the rest of your post about plants and feelings, but that study was methodologically flawed. Another study using the SAME dataset from the SAME Austrian survey by the SAME authors actually found the complete opposite, not even mentioning all the other studies that found the complete contrary. And they go on to make public health recommendations? Please.

 

[hardheart]

Sorry buddy, but you tried to come off as superior and corrective based on a false assumption. It happens all the time, basic Internet tough-guy stuff. The statement "meat contains creatine" is not a false one; it can only be construed as so if you add other assumptions to it, as you did.

If you really think that people who eat meat and fish don't intake more dietary creatine than a non-supplementing vegan, then you're free to do so and be wrong. If you think that the creatine we synthesize in our body is enough, that's fine, but a different issue.

And it's here that I break the cycle of Internet bickering, no more responses from me on this.

Okay, you were trying to say that red meat contains substantial creatine. I explained why you're full of shit and you quickly googlerected yourself and instead are trying to act like some superior intellect.

You said some stupid fucking shit and refuse to own it. And instead of owning that you said stupid shit, you go ad hom and call me an internet tough guy. Physically, you may be a man but mentally you are still a child. If you'd rather worm your way out of saying stupid shit and trying to justify BUT BUT ON A TECHNICALITY I WAS RIIIGHT you're just going to discredit yourself.

If you could own that you said something that is (in the context it was said originally) incorrect you'd actually gain credibility. You're probably so scared inside to feel like you were wrong that your entire ego (the actual part of your psyche, not the bullshit people label ego commonly) is being propped up by your refusal to admit you were spreading bad info.

So that begs the question. Were you spreading bad info because you didn't know any better or because you were intentionally and knowingly spreading bad info? Your insistence that you knew what I was true all along indicates that you were knowingly, willingly, and intentionally spreading false info on this board. That's bad shit dude. That puts you in the same boat as Mike Dolce. You don't want to be in that boat.

 

[Pathogenic]

Is that considered a vegetable?

It's what they put in Popeye's spinach.

 

[DizzyYeahYeah]

Try eating 4000 calories.

 

[Kgeorge]

-Someone can correct me, but if you don't eat legumes then you're not getting complete proteins

Really no such thing as "complete proteins". What might be a problem though is bad ratios of amino acids... there's a little bit of evidence for this theory mainly from scientists testing on themselves.
Nick isn't a full time vegan he eats fish sometimes. I'd like to see that guys appetite though to get that big running marathons is crazy even if he was eating meat it is insane.

Ive been eating vegan for a year haven't changed weight and never wanted to. You are going to lose weight if you are eating just enough to get by everyday. I had a mission to eat 4000 calories a day and kept up with that for a while, I was burning it all off with at least 20 hours of exercise a week so of course I didn't gain.
I don't know how vegans gain weight... some people just have trouble gaining I think, I have a lot of trouble eating more than I need.

You are eating too clean to gain weight, you gotta dirty it up a bit to get some calories in, get something you can eat a lot of like non-whole grain pasta. And maybe for health reasons get an appetite for beans. Maple syrup, peanut butter and beans is an awesome combo.

Your current weight isn't too skinny but eat more just so you don't lose more. 2400 is barely enough for maintenance and if you are at all active you are going to lose weight eating that. You are also going to be under carbed if you are at all active which also is not good.

70g of protein is also right at the maintenance/gain level so that isn't too bad