Vegetarians are less healthy according to science.

In today's world it's hard to know just what a "balanced" diet is.

Reading up on history, and gaining a basic understanding of how early man lived and what foods they could get - the answer is to remove new developments and look into modern agriculture and what foods come from where, and remove the modern. Foods that aren't manipulated before being put on the shelf, foods that grow naturally or are found in nature are all one needs. Foods that our early ancestors could hunt down, mix, chop up, cook, and eat.

I always eat farm-fed based meats for that reason. I don't like it that animals are kept in cages and injected with downers all their lives, and it is quite unhealthy to consume meats that have those hormones, or that have been mixed with all kinds of junk in factories. I normally stick with ground, farm fed turkey.

Let's ignore that some modern developments have allowed a smaller amount of farm land/farmers to sustain a greater population than has ever existed before. While I don't like animal savagery in factories and approve of say, Amish corn-fed chicken over Tyson 'Tastes like Suffering', removing the modern is in itself a potential slippery slope. Not all that is modern is bad, simply because it is not 'old/natural'.

Salad is really an appitizer.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Let's ignore that some modern developments have allowed a smaller amount of farm land/farmers to sustain a greater population than has ever existed before. While I don't like animal savagery in factories and approve of say, Amish corn-fed chicken over Tyson 'Tastes like Suffering', removing the modern is in itself a potential slippery slope. Not all that is modern is bad, simply because it is not 'old/natural'.

My reasoning? If it's how we naturally ate, can't go wrong. And it's good that I'm one of the few who purchase nature foods exclusively, there's not enough to go around.

Originally posted by Oneness
Yes, but I'm speaking of simplicity here. Figuring out a diet can be taxing if you take into account too many variables.

My reasoning? If it's how we naturally ate, can't go wrong. And it's good that I'm one of the few who purchase nature foods exclusively, there's not enough to go around.

We're naturally weak against AIDS, polio, shark bites, and radiation.

Natural != good. Rather, natural can be good, but is not in itself a good thing. The term is often loosely applied to things that people think are innately good, and incorrectly at that.

In any case, there's not enough granola to keep the world afloat.

Originally posted by Oneness
Yes, but I'm speaking of simplicity here. Figuring out a diet can be taxing if you take into account too many variables.

My reasoning? If it's how we naturally ate, can't go wrong. And it's good that I'm one of the few who purchase nature foods exclusively, there's not enough to go around.

"Natural foods" is a marketing scheme. People of the past ate worse food then we do today, and died younger.

They died younger because of life-style I'd think.

Cro-magnum fossils are filled with mid-life fractures all over their body.

They certainly didn't suffer from obesity, though.

Originally posted by Oneness
They died younger because of life-style I'd think.

Cro-magnum fossils are filled with mid-life fractures all over their body.

They certainly didn't suffer from obesity, though.

They died younger because of all sorts of ailments, including food poisoning. Food preservation and preparing has come a long way, even in the last 100 years. Their lives were also more violent, but there's no denying that newer methods of preparing food and growing it has improved life expectancy and sustained population growth well beyond what our ancestors could maintain.

As for obesity, this is largely an affect of lifestyle changes. People used to have to walk everywhere and were in motion most of the day. Now, people drive/cart everywhere and are stationary. Huge change in calorie usage, coupled with more available food sources.

You have to understand though, most of the time they didn't have food available.

So natural foods are packed with nutrients, take longer to digest, and provide a more sustained energy. This is good if you want to look good.

Originally posted by Oneness
You have to understand though, most of the time they didn't have food available.

So natural foods are packed with nutrients, take longer to digest, and provide a more sustained energy. This is good if you want to look good.

Originally posted by Oneness
You have to understand though, most of the time they didn't have food available.

And you have to understand that modern techniques make food more readily available, whereas the 'natural' method you describe would actually cause more deaths than it would prevent.

So natural foods are packed with nutrients,

Yes, because preservatives are placed in the vacant holes where nutrients once were.

Also, 'natural foods' is a blanket term, you know.

take longer to digest,

Which might be murder on being regular.

and provide a more sustained energy.

So, higher calorie content?

This is good if you want to look good.

While it's true that proper diet can influence obvious things like health, skin condition, and personal symetry, I'm not sure 'natural foods' is the answer to all conditions. A lot of the development of current foods, while arguably less pure, is a direct response to the needs of the many.

I tried an "only natural foods" diet, once. I shit all the time. ALL the time. I cooked the food that needed to be cooked but stipulation was "only eat food that is unprocessed." So cuts of meat were okay but not deli meat.

Raw fruits and vegetables were okay.

Anyway, it was a decent diet but it makes you shit. I think it makes you shit too much.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I tried an "only natural foods" diet, once. I shit all the time. ALL the time. I cooked the food that needed to be cooked but stipulation was "only eat food that is unprocessed." So cuts of meat were okay but not deli meat.

Raw fruits and vegetables were okay.

Anyway, it was a decent diet but it makes you shit. I think it makes you shit too much.

That's actually a good point. Once I tried a diet like that too because a friend from out west suggest it. Got a lot of reading done on the pot.

I've been trying to cut back on meat, not for ethical or even necessarily health-related reasons, but because it's so much cheaper with the prices of beef and chicken.

I eat fish 1-2 times a week (not the kind with omega-3, but I take fish capsules so...), eat yogurt once a day, drink a glass of milk at least every other night, and try to eat a heaping portion of some kind of legume or pulse (mostly lentils) every day, along with half a cup worth of onions/scallions/garlic per day to encourage the growth of beneficial intestinal bacteria.

If nothing else, my skin is doing better now that I've cut back on meat.

I wish almonds were cheaper, if they were I'd eat a cup's worth every day.

I dunno. I used to have a great uncle that thought people were unhealthy who weren't taking the kids to the pool at least 4 times a day. I think there are a variety of acceptable regulatory patterns with bowel movements.

As long as it's solid and not filled with old blood, pretty sure regular bowel movements is a sign of great health.

If food goes through you too fast, you will not get enough nutrients. But if it goes too slow, then that... well, all know what happens then.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If food goes through you too fast, you will not get enough nutrients. But if it goes too slow, then that... well, all know what happens then.

Constipation. The word you're looking for is constipation. Or, in medical terms, "inflammation of the vastus poopiallus" and some doctors have even termed this "acute turditis."

Originally posted by dadudemon
Constipation. The word you're looking for is constipation. Or, in medical terms, "inflammation of the vastus poopiallus" and some doctors have even termed this "acute turditis."

Your full of sh*t, is what I was alluding to.