80/10/10--I'm doing it!

Kanlassak

Can u survive n sustain doing something like this forever????
I just don't get the point what would make a person resort to measures like these to lose weight.. U WON'T be able to keep it off once u lose!
The whole idea of being on MFP is that u eat right, exercise right n lose weight so that u can maintain it all your life! Proteins n Fats are ESSENTIAL, do not drop it to such horrendously low levels.

On what are these value judgements based? Do you have anything credible to substantiate this? The World Health Organization recommends only 3-4% protein.

WHO actually recommends .83 g protein per kg, which comes to around 11% for a 65kg person on 2000 calories per day. For a larger person, or a person eating at a deficit, this could be a greater percentage (for me it would be more like 16%). Or for a smaller but active person it could be a bit less. But I don't think it comes anywhere near 4% for most people.

Their recommendation on minimum total fat intake is 15% of your total energy for the sake of getting essential fatty acids and fat soluble vitamins, and 20% for women of reproductive age.

So, for long term 80/10/10 probably isn't very sustainable, but a slightly less extreme ratio could work.

WHO recomendations taken from here: http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/nutrientrequirements/WHO_TRS_935/en/index.html
http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/nutrientrequirements/fatsandfattyacids_humannutrition/en/index.html

albertabeefy

I don't claim otherwise, and at this point I feel like you are willfully misunderstanding me as I have made clear many times that I do not think a vegan diet is healthier than one that includes animal products.

Unfortunately, the content of your posts seemed like you were. FYI I'm not "willfully" misunderstanding, but you do seem somewhat contradictory in your arguments. Also, it appears you're misunderstanding me, as well.

I don't claim that vegan diets shouldn't be supplemented with B12, that would be irresponsible, I was merely pointing out the fact that there are vegan sources for B12 .

Good, unfortunately though when someone posts a blanket statement claiming there's vegan sources for B12, most people believe that to be dietary, not supplementary - and I wanted that to be perfectly clear. Not all the posts in regard to this were clear.

When have I tried to force it on others?

'Force' no, but certainly convince. Statements of yours such as:

"If you choose to kill animals instead of eating plants, that's an act of violence. If you've ever killed an animal yourself (I have), you'll understand that."

"In order to produce eggs in the quantity that Americans eat them, we need to do very terrible things to the chickens."

Are an attempt to sway people toward an ethical argument based in opinion. We never did terrible things to our animals, including chickens. Tyson does, sure. But small farms don't.

If you look at the dictionary definition of violence, killing something when you don't need to definitely fits it.

In your opinion, yes. I, however eat meat. Because I choose to eat meat - which is not wrong - I do need to have that animal butchered. Therefore, in the case of any person that chooses to eat meat, it does NOT fit that definition. Once again, you make claims based on opinion, not fact.

You're telling me that the vast majority of people in the world would look in a slaugherhouse or a factory farm and see no violence?

Well, see there's where you're wrong about me and many others. I do not eat 'factory-farmed' meat, except possibly when eating out. I do not believe in factory farming - I believe in free-range. And luckily, where I live, there is an incredible amount of open space for free-range/grass-fed meats. Even in the USA people can choose free-range foods.

Your argument is against factory-farming is completely invalidated for the many of us that choose the majority of our meat from free-range sources.

Facts:
Eating fewer animals means less animals will suffer. (I've edited out "violence" for you).
You don't need to eat animals to be healthy.

Facts:
Eating free-range animals means less animals will suffer.
I choose to eat animals to be very healthy.

Sources:
Supply and demand economics, and that animals suffer by being farmed and killed.
Every vegetarian and vegan who lived many years healthfully.

Neither of these are sources. One is based on assumptions and opinion, and the other is completely anecdotal and in the case of vegans, the science of longevity is stacked against them.

These are not opinions, and nobody has said anything about moral superiority.

Yes, they ARE opinions. Your sources ... aren't. And it's well known and supported by science it's better environmentally for animals to be free-grazing - both for the soil and water.

Again, what I take exception to is your quoting assumptions, anecdotal evidence and opinion as fact.

It absolutely has been debunked. Campbell can't support his own claims in that book, not even with his own research.

Which is what I've stated all along... perhaps you're not reading what I said and this is one place you're misunderstanding me. I was saying the scientific critiques of the China Study were not debunked. I was quite clear in that regard.

I've read those articles, and long before you posted them. You're assuming that I haven't, I guess because I haven't mentioned anything specific? It really wasn't my point to.

You read them all, and yet claim they're ALL both biased and bull-s***, without providing any intelligent rebuttal. You're stating opinion again as if it were fact. There's the problem with your statements.

My only point was that as much as there is vegan propaganda, there is anti-vegan propaganda (propaganda being misinformation used to promote a specific cause). I was just mentioning it to caution people who went to read your articles to beware of that.

Which is why I clearly stated I read all of them and analyzed all of them. Their science is sound - if you FEEL it's biased and not scientific, back up your claim with valid studies that contradict it. If you cannot, then you're just stating your opinion.

My intention was not to rebut the analyses of the articles you referenced. I already said like a million times that I agree. I really think you don't want to hear what I'm saying. It seems like to you I'm just a vegan so everything I say must fit the vegan dogma.

Much of what you say DOES fit vegan dogma. You use the ethical arguments as if they were factual, when they're not. The decision to be vegan for ethical reasons is purely one of opinion, not fact. It's never been fact and you haven't shown any real sources for why it is factual, just opinion.

I'm vegan. I'm also a scientist. I also really hate that vegans promote a lot of propaganda, I think it's bad for the cause.

It's horrible for the cause, but you - yourself - are doing the same thing. It seems you don't realize that.

I never said you were biased. I said that some of the sources you linked to were.

No, you said:

You're responding to "vegan" propaganda with "anti-vegan" propaganda. That's not science. That's bull****.

Which is a statement both incorrect and not based in analysis of the data I provided. Everything I linked to was evidence-based. You call it "propaganda" and "bull****" without backing up your assertion.

To do so is hardly scientific of you.

None of my statements have indicated that I have an obvious bias. You have no idea what my level of informed-ness is. So that's not truth, that's opinion.

Your own statement quoted above, claiming every source I linked to was "propaganda" and "bull***" quite clearly shows your bias, sorry. If you can't see that you're blind.

You've assumed a lot about me just because I'm vegan. You attacked me on points that I never tried to make.

I've never attacked you. I've asserted you claim facts not in evidence, and that you state opinion as if it were fact.

You've assumed that I'm biased without listening to a word I've said, you've accused me of being incapable of even posing an argument.

Your statements show your bias to anyone reading them. You haven't posed an argument - we're all still waiting.

You've done all of this not based on anything I've said, just based on the fact that I'm vegan. And then you preach about how unbiased you are.

As I've shown you, I've stated what I've stated based SOLELY on what you've said. Your statements could not be taken by any intelligent person as un-biased.

If you're truly unbiased, tell me how "Science-Based Medicine", Chris Masterjohn, Denise Minger (former vegan herself who also still eats primarily a plant-based diet), etc., are biased.

Or is everyone who disagrees with veganism, regardless of their personal reason, biased? That seems to be your stance.

Helloitsdan

Sorry to sound ignorant but whats 80 10 10

Pure stupidity.

No offense.

holothuroidea

albertabeefy, I'm PMing you in the hopes of clearing up misunderstandings.

albertabeefy

albertabeefy, I'm PMing you in the hopes of clearing up misunderstandings.

Happy to keep it out of this thread, sure.

carissar7

80 carbs, 10 protein, 10 fat. Not what I'd call very balanced. I wouldn't get very far consuming 25 to 30 g's of protein a day.

Generally, these diets are very high calorie so people can get their protein minimums.

...I still think it's a poor choice, though, the ideas behind it are based on really flimsy reasoning and bad interpretation of data. I put raw veganism right up there with WAPF and paleo in the hierarchy of ridiculous diet ideas but at least those diets are capable of providing a person with all the nutrition they need.

Cholesterol, It's what cells need.

Yeah, good thing our bodies synthesize it all by themselves and we don't need to eat it ever.

But no, it's not "toxic."

Vegans really are a weird cult.

Not really. Most of us are just compassionate people who advocate for nonviolence. People who are doing plant-based diets or advocate for it for (misguided) health reasons seriously need to stop hijacking the word "vegan."

You're comparing paleo to raw veganism?

^ That's what I'm saying ... I follow the Primal diet (close to Paleo). Honestly I don't even care if there is science or no science behind it ... I feel like a brand new person eating this way. The health benefits inside & out are incredible. But Primal/Paleo makes sense ... you don't really need science to tell you that in the paleolithic era they didn't eat bread, spaghetti, poptarts, etc.

Raw veganism is just ridiculous, in my opinion. Mostly because the reasoning behind it makes absolutely no sense. I may take a little heat for this but I'll go as far as saying all vegan, vegetarian, raw, etc. diets are stupid in my eyes.

Sorry but I'm glad I don't know you in real life. Vegan, vegetarian and raw are all stupid? Wow. Vegan, vegetarian and raw can all be extremely healthy diets.

To me primal and paleo are not good choices. Sure, our ancestors ate that way but we have evolved. We don't HAVE to consume meat. Millions get by and are incredibly healthy without it. For some reason I get the impression from you that you think your way of eating is far superior to all others.

Why do you think they are not good choices? I once too believed that we did not "have" to consume meat but I was just never satiated enough on an all-plant diet. We don't "have" to consume meat, and we also don't have to consume fresh fruits and vegetables. There are people who LIVE on junk food/fast food and don't eat anything besides potato chips and ice cream. If it was strictly a means of survival we could probably get by on eating grubs and drinking murky pond water for all we know. Of course none of these options are healthy but the point still stands.

You are flabbergasted that the other poster does not in any way advocate a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, and you claim they are very healthy diets by millions of people yet in your same exact post bash primal/paleo and say that you're assuming she thinks her way of eating is superior to others. Call me an over-analyzer but I'm pretty sure you just did the exact same thing. Of course there are vegans/vegetarians who lead very healthy lifestyles, but it's completely possible and sustainable over long-term to have just as much of a healthy, balanced diet while still eating meat. Unless you are eating strips of bacon and fatty cuts of steak with every single meal and not eating enough fruits and vegetables I see no reason why it would be unhealthy. People assume without proper knowledge that primal/paleo is ALL about the meat....It's not. It advocates just as much vegetables as a vegetarian or a vegan would eat. I see nothing wrong with not wanting to consume animal products by way of moral or ethical reasons but to say that eating meat is bad because "we don't have to" is simply an illogical and unreasonable thing to say. I do NOT think that being vegan or vegetarian is 'stupid' (unless you're doing it assuming you will lose tons of weight and your health will rapidly improve) but I DO think 80/10/10 is (I know that is different than what you were discussing). Eating 30 bananas a day will surely screw up your health faster (and much worse) than a piece of chicken or a lean cut of steak will.

Beezil

Dietary cholesterol is, at strongest, only loosely related to blood serum cholesterol levels. And it has less to do with HDL vs LDL levels. It is also strongly debated, among medical professionals, how much it should be cut from the diet when someone has high serum cholesterol levels.

Much stronger relations are total lipid (fat) intakes and activity levels. HDLs are carrying fats to be metabolized by the body, where LDLs are carrying them to be stored (simplified version). Obesity is also a stronger link to heart health. True, it is often connected to high cholesterol (and especially high LDLs). But that doesn't mean that consuming animal products in appropriate levels is toxic.

I think I love you. No one has ever explained this in such a concise, understandable way (at least for me!) so thank you. I only had a vague understanding of it until now.

EDesq

Look, you don't need a fad to eat Raw, Vegan, Vegetarian...Just DO It! ALSO, WHO SAYS YOU CAN'T do WHAT YOU WANT. There is a Program called Raw Until 4PM...Meaning eat all Raw Fruit/Veggies/Juices until 4 PM, then if you feel like having a COOKED Vegan or Vegetarian Meal, go ahead with (Steamed Potatoes or Rice and Beans...) it's ALL good and will help one stay Vegan or Vegetarian and MOSTLY RAW.

People place all of these UNrealistic guidelines on themselves and end up failing. I'd rather eat 70-80% Raw than end up back consuming flesh and lousy food because I could not stay with some crazy Unreal concepts. Don't make stuff a fad, if I want a slice of bread, I'm eating it!


ETA: I do not have the "weight" of all of these "Philosophical" reasons that some have for going Vegan or Vegetarian. I'm STRICTLY doing it for My HEALTH!!! So I will supplement and anything else it takes to stay HEALTHY. Yes, Vegetarian and Vegans have longer and healthier lives than meat eaters. And anyone who has had severe arthritis, colon or any other cancers and switched from S.A.D. will tell ya!!! So all you Fanatics can continue to argue "Validity", I just want to keep on LIVING a LONG QUALITY LIFE!!!

CoderGal

Dietary cholesterol is, at strongest, only loosely related to blood serum cholesterol levels. And it has less to do with HDL vs LDL levels. It is also strongly debated, among medical professionals, how much it should be cut from the diet when someone has high serum cholesterol levels.

Much stronger relations are total lipid (fat) intakes and activity levels. HDLs are carrying fats to be metabolized by the body, where LDLs are carrying them to be stored (simplified version). Obesity is also a stronger link to heart health. True, it is often connected to high cholesterol (and especially high LDLs). But that doesn't mean that consuming animal products in appropriate levels is toxic.

I think I love you. No one has ever explained this in such a concise, understandable way (at least for me!) so thank you. I only had a vague understanding of it until now.

omg someone explaining something sensible and someone recognizing they understand it *tear of joy* there is hope.

thisismeraw

80 carbs, 10 protein, 10 fat. Not what I'd call very balanced. I wouldn't get very far consuming 25 to 30 g's of protein a day.

Generally, these diets are very high calorie so people can get their protein minimums.

...I still think it's a poor choice, though, the ideas behind it are based on really flimsy reasoning and bad interpretation of data. I put raw veganism right up there with WAPF and paleo in the hierarchy of ridiculous diet ideas but at least those diets are capable of providing a person with all the nutrition they need.

Cholesterol, It's what cells need.

Yeah, good thing our bodies synthesize it all by themselves and we don't need to eat it ever.

But no, it's not "toxic."

Vegans really are a weird cult.

Not really. Most of us are just compassionate people who advocate for nonviolence. People who are doing plant-based diets or advocate for it for (misguided) health reasons seriously need to stop hijacking the word "vegan."

You're comparing paleo to raw veganism?

^ That's what I'm saying ... I follow the Primal diet (close to Paleo). Honestly I don't even care if there is science or no science behind it ... I feel like a brand new person eating this way. The health benefits inside & out are incredible. But Primal/Paleo makes sense ... you don't really need science to tell you that in the paleolithic era they didn't eat bread, spaghetti, poptarts, etc.

Raw veganism is just ridiculous, in my opinion. Mostly because the reasoning behind it makes absolutely no sense. I may take a little heat for this but I'll go as far as saying all vegan, vegetarian, raw, etc. diets are stupid in my eyes.

Sorry but I'm glad I don't know you in real life. Vegan, vegetarian and raw are all stupid? Wow. Vegan, vegetarian and raw can all be extremely healthy diets.

To me primal and paleo are not good choices. Sure, our ancestors ate that way but we have evolved. We don't HAVE to consume meat. Millions get by and are incredibly healthy without it. For some reason I get the impression from you that you think your way of eating is far superior to all others.

Why do you think they are not good choices? I once too believed that we did not "have" to consume meat but I was just never satiated enough on an all-plant diet. We don't "have" to consume meat, and we also don't have to consume fresh fruits and vegetables. There are people who LIVE on junk food/fast food and don't eat anything besides potato chips and ice cream. If it was strictly a means of survival we could probably get by on eating grubs and drinking murky pond water for all we know. Of course none of these options are healthy but the point still stands.

You are flabbergasted that the other poster does not in any way advocate a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, and you claim they are very healthy diets by millions of people yet in your same exact post bash primal/paleo and say that you're assuming she thinks her way of eating is superior to others. Call me an over-analyzer but I'm pretty sure you just did the exact same thing. Of course there are vegans/vegetarians who lead very healthy lifestyles, but it's completely possible and sustainable over long-term to have just as much of a healthy, balanced diet while still eating meat. Unless you are eating strips of bacon and fatty cuts of steak with every single meal and not eating enough fruits and vegetables I see no reason why it would be unhealthy. People assume without proper knowledge that primal/paleo is ALL about the meat....It's not. It advocates just as much vegetables as a vegetarian or a vegan would eat. I see nothing wrong with not wanting to consume animal products by way of moral or ethical reasons but to say that eating meat is bad because "we don't have to" is simply an illogical and unreasonable thing to say. I do NOT think that being vegan or vegetarian is 'stupid' (unless you're doing it assuming you will lose tons of weight and your health will rapidly improve) but I DO think 80/10/10 is (I know that is different than what you were discussing). Eating 30 bananas a day will surely screw up your health faster (and much worse) than a piece of chicken or a lean cut of steak will.

I have said previously that no diet is better than another. We all choose our diets due to our own beliefs and our own health reasons. I have always said vegan, vegetarian, paleo, etc is not better than another as they can all be healthy (and they can all be unhealthy).

I believe paleo is not the way to go for me.. maybe my comment didn't come off as a comment directed at me... me thinking it's not right for me. I have no issues with the paleo diet. My husband eats mainly a paleo diet. It's a diet that is not right for me. I have issues digesting meat and I choose not to eat animal products. I also have issues with gluten and wheat and most dairy products hence why paleo is not good for me. Neither are done for weight loss though. I get all the nutrients I need with a diet that includes no meat and very rarely anything that contains an animal product (maybe a egg or two once a month). I find I feel best when I eat a mainly raw vegan diet however I haven't and never will go as extreme as 80/10/10. I know people who follow that diet plan however it's just not something I could ever do. I do mainly raw because it makes me feel best. I can get my B12 without suppliements. I can get my protein, fats, fiber, etc etc in.

My issues with the OP and their comment on a vegan and vegetarian lifestyle was they flat out said it was stupid which I definatley don't believe.. however, everyone is entitled to their own opinion for sure.

I haven't, and never will tell someone my diet is better than theirs. My diet is better for me than any other diet however it might not be best for you or anyone else.

carissar7

80 carbs, 10 protein, 10 fat. Not what I'd call very balanced. I wouldn't get very far consuming 25 to 30 g's of protein a day.

Generally, these diets are very high calorie so people can get their protein minimums.

...I still think it's a poor choice, though, the ideas behind it are based on really flimsy reasoning and bad interpretation of data. I put raw veganism right up there with WAPF and paleo in the hierarchy of ridiculous diet ideas but at least those diets are capable of providing a person with all the nutrition they need.

Cholesterol, It's what cells need.

Yeah, good thing our bodies synthesize it all by themselves and we don't need to eat it ever.

But no, it's not "toxic."

Vegans really are a weird cult.

Not really. Most of us are just compassionate people who advocate for nonviolence. People who are doing plant-based diets or advocate for it for (misguided) health reasons seriously need to stop hijacking the word "vegan."

You're comparing paleo to raw veganism?

^ That's what I'm saying ... I follow the Primal diet (close to Paleo). Honestly I don't even care if there is science or no science behind it ... I feel like a brand new person eating this way. The health benefits inside & out are incredible. But Primal/Paleo makes sense ... you don't really need science to tell you that in the paleolithic era they didn't eat bread, spaghetti, poptarts, etc.

Raw veganism is just ridiculous, in my opinion. Mostly because the reasoning behind it makes absolutely no sense. I may take a little heat for this but I'll go as far as saying all vegan, vegetarian, raw, etc. diets are stupid in my eyes.

Sorry but I'm glad I don't know you in real life. Vegan, vegetarian and raw are all stupid? Wow. Vegan, vegetarian and raw can all be extremely healthy diets.

To me primal and paleo are not good choices. Sure, our ancestors ate that way but we have evolved. We don't HAVE to consume meat. Millions get by and are incredibly healthy without it. For some reason I get the impression from you that you think your way of eating is far superior to all others.

Why do you think they are not good choices? I once too believed that we did not "have" to consume meat but I was just never satiated enough on an all-plant diet. We don't "have" to consume meat, and we also don't have to consume fresh fruits and vegetables. There are people who LIVE on junk food/fast food and don't eat anything besides potato chips and ice cream. If it was strictly a means of survival we could probably get by on eating grubs and drinking murky pond water for all we know. Of course none of these options are healthy but the point still stands.

You are flabbergasted that the other poster does not in any way advocate a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, and you claim they are very healthy diets by millions of people yet in your same exact post bash primal/paleo and say that you're assuming she thinks her way of eating is superior to others. Call me an over-analyzer but I'm pretty sure you just did the exact same thing. Of course there are vegans/vegetarians who lead very healthy lifestyles, but it's completely possible and sustainable over long-term to have just as much of a healthy, balanced diet while still eating meat. Unless you are eating strips of bacon and fatty cuts of steak with every single meal and not eating enough fruits and vegetables I see no reason why it would be unhealthy. People assume without proper knowledge that primal/paleo is ALL about the meat....It's not. It advocates just as much vegetables as a vegetarian or a vegan would eat. I see nothing wrong with not wanting to consume animal products by way of moral or ethical reasons but to say that eating meat is bad because "we don't have to" is simply an illogical and unreasonable thing to say. I do NOT think that being vegan or vegetarian is 'stupid' (unless you're doing it assuming you will lose tons of weight and your health will rapidly improve) but I DO think 80/10/10 is (I know that is different than what you were discussing). Eating 30 bananas a day will surely screw up your health faster (and much worse) than a piece of chicken or a lean cut of steak will.

I have said previously that no diet is better than another. We all choose our diets due to our own beliefs and our own health reasons. I have always said vegan, vegetarian, paleo, etc is not better than another as they can all be healthy (and they can all be unhealthy).

I believe paleo is not the way to go for me.. maybe my comment didn't come off as a comment directed at me... me thinking it's not right for me. I have no issues with the paleo diet. My husband eats mainly a paleo diet. It's a diet that is not right for me. I have issues digesting meat and I choose not to eat animal products. I also have issues with gluten and wheat and most dairy products hence why paleo is not good for me. Neither are done for weight loss though. I get all the nutrients I need with a diet that includes no meat and very rarely anything that contains an animal product (maybe a egg or two once a month). I find I feel best when I eat a mainly raw vegan diet however I haven't and never will go as extreme as 80/10/10. I know people who follow that diet plan however it's just not something I could ever do. I do mainly raw because it makes me feel best. I can get my B12 without suppliements. I can get my protein, fats, fiber, etc etc in.

My issues with the OP and their comment on a vegan and vegetarian lifestyle was they flat out said it was stupid which I definatley don't believe.. however, everyone is entitled to their own opinion for sure.

I haven't, and never will tell someone my diet is better than theirs. My diet is better for me than any other diet however it might not be best for you or anyone else.

You have sensitivities to wheat, gluten and dairy, then say THAT'S the reason why paleo is not good for you? Do you know what paleo is?? I am doubtful that the answer is yes because paleo completely cuts out entire food groups that contain these specific ingredients. The entire premise behind it and the reason it was made was for people with food allergies (such as gluten and wheat) and intestinal inflammation. I'm sorry but your post does not make any sense.

thisismeraw

80 carbs, 10 protein, 10 fat. Not what I'd call very balanced. I wouldn't get very far consuming 25 to 30 g's of protein a day.

Generally, these diets are very high calorie so people can get their protein minimums.

...I still think it's a poor choice, though, the ideas behind it are based on really flimsy reasoning and bad interpretation of data. I put raw veganism right up there with WAPF and paleo in the hierarchy of ridiculous diet ideas but at least those diets are capable of providing a person with all the nutrition they need.

Cholesterol, It's what cells need.

Yeah, good thing our bodies synthesize it all by themselves and we don't need to eat it ever.

But no, it's not "toxic."

Vegans really are a weird cult.

Not really. Most of us are just compassionate people who advocate for nonviolence. People who are doing plant-based diets or advocate for it for (misguided) health reasons seriously need to stop hijacking the word "vegan."

You're comparing paleo to raw veganism?

^ That's what I'm saying ... I follow the Primal diet (close to Paleo). Honestly I don't even care if there is science or no science behind it ... I feel like a brand new person eating this way. The health benefits inside & out are incredible. But Primal/Paleo makes sense ... you don't really need science to tell you that in the paleolithic era they didn't eat bread, spaghetti, poptarts, etc.

Raw veganism is just ridiculous, in my opinion. Mostly because the reasoning behind it makes absolutely no sense. I may take a little heat for this but I'll go as far as saying all vegan, vegetarian, raw, etc. diets are stupid in my eyes.

Sorry but I'm glad I don't know you in real life. Vegan, vegetarian and raw are all stupid? Wow. Vegan, vegetarian and raw can all be extremely healthy diets.

To me primal and paleo are not good choices. Sure, our ancestors ate that way but we have evolved. We don't HAVE to consume meat. Millions get by and are incredibly healthy without it. For some reason I get the impression from you that you think your way of eating is far superior to all others.

Why do you think they are not good choices? I once too believed that we did not "have" to consume meat but I was just never satiated enough on an all-plant diet. We don't "have" to consume meat, and we also don't have to consume fresh fruits and vegetables. There are people who LIVE on junk food/fast food and don't eat anything besides potato chips and ice cream. If it was strictly a means of survival we could probably get by on eating grubs and drinking murky pond water for all we know. Of course none of these options are healthy but the point still stands.

You are flabbergasted that the other poster does not in any way advocate a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, and you claim they are very healthy diets by millions of people yet in your same exact post bash primal/paleo and say that you're assuming she thinks her way of eating is superior to others. Call me an over-analyzer but I'm pretty sure you just did the exact same thing. Of course there are vegans/vegetarians who lead very healthy lifestyles, but it's completely possible and sustainable over long-term to have just as much of a healthy, balanced diet while still eating meat. Unless you are eating strips of bacon and fatty cuts of steak with every single meal and not eating enough fruits and vegetables I see no reason why it would be unhealthy. People assume without proper knowledge that primal/paleo is ALL about the meat....It's not. It advocates just as much vegetables as a vegetarian or a vegan would eat. I see nothing wrong with not wanting to consume animal products by way of moral or ethical reasons but to say that eating meat is bad because "we don't have to" is simply an illogical and unreasonable thing to say. I do NOT think that being vegan or vegetarian is 'stupid' (unless you're doing it assuming you will lose tons of weight and your health will rapidly improve) but I DO think 80/10/10 is (I know that is different than what you were discussing). Eating 30 bananas a day will surely screw up your health faster (and much worse) than a piece of chicken or a lean cut of steak will.

I have said previously that no diet is better than another. We all choose our diets due to our own beliefs and our own health reasons. I have always said vegan, vegetarian, paleo, etc is not better than another as they can all be healthy (and they can all be unhealthy).

I believe paleo is not the way to go for me.. maybe my comment didn't come off as a comment directed at me... me thinking it's not right for me. I have no issues with the paleo diet. My husband eats mainly a paleo diet. It's a diet that is not right for me. I have issues digesting meat and I choose not to eat animal products. I also have issues with gluten and wheat and most dairy products hence why paleo is not good for me. Neither are done for weight loss though. I get all the nutrients I need with a diet that includes no meat and very rarely anything that contains an animal product (maybe a egg or two once a month). I find I feel best when I eat a mainly raw vegan diet however I haven't and never will go as extreme as 80/10/10. I know people who follow that diet plan however it's just not something I could ever do. I do mainly raw because it makes me feel best. I can get my B12 without suppliements. I can get my protein, fats, fiber, etc etc in.

My issues with the OP and their comment on a vegan and vegetarian lifestyle was they flat out said it was stupid which I definatley don't believe.. however, everyone is entitled to their own opinion for sure.

I haven't, and never will tell someone my diet is better than theirs. My diet is better for me than any other diet however it might not be best for you or anyone else.

You have sensitivities to wheat, gluten and dairy, then say THAT'S the reason why paleo is not good for you? Do you know what paleo is?? I am doubtful that the answer is yes because paleo completely cuts out entire food groups that contain these specific ingredients. The entire premise behind it and the reason it was made was for people with food allergies (such as gluten and wheat) and intestinal inflammation. I'm sorry but your post does not make any sense.

I'm guessing you missed the part where I also had mentioned that I have issues with meat and don't consume it and that is one reason why I won't go paleo. Maybe my punctuation was off a bit and that's why it was difficult for you.

I do consume some dairy products and can handle a rare wheat product (same quantities and I'm ok with consumption).

minivegrunner

Heya! I'm living a vegan lifestyle, but the 811 concept has been really interesting me latley. Good luck on your journey! I may want to try one day soon

bonjalandoni

Hi, everyone

New to the board here. I decided that, for the New Year, I would do 30 days of 80/10/10. I've been mostly raw for about a year and a half now, but I've lost my passion for it, so I'm hoping this will help. So far, I'm doing okay. I'm definitely not hungry. If anything, I find it nearly impossible to eat enough food to hit my targets! I've been coming in at closer to 15% fat most days, though, so I need to get that under control. I'd love to hear from anyone who has tried this approach or is currently living it. I'm especially interested in hearing how you structured your food intake and which foods gave you the most bang for your buck.

Thanks!

Ameyls

People in the (back country) of the Philippines are doing a similar diet even now. They eat a lot of steamed RICE and vegetables or RICE with fish. They also eat a lot of mongo beans with RICE. If you are willing to eat a lot of rice (2-3 cups per meal) with vegetables (steamed, stewed, or grilled) or mongo or fish, then you can do it. You can seldom see any fat person in the community. Most of them are thin (lack of protein?)... Of course they are less bulky than the people in the city but most of them spend almost no time in the hospital in their whole lives. I have also seen this in vegans and they do have thin builds. Definitely not a diet for me as I like my meat very much but is good for people who just want the lean look. :-) Good luck.

Jude_V

The really, really sad thing about veganism, and the thing that gets lost in all the debate is that, if we were all vegans (and that always seems to be the aim of vegans) you would only ever see a Cow, Sheep or Pig in a zoo. All those fields of quietly grazing animals with their calves and the lambs happily hopping around the pastures in spring time would be a thing of the past....

CoachReddy

WHHHHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYY????????


sorry for that inflammatory response, but this is a terrible idea.

anything below 20% fat will cause you to produce MORE body fat. smh

Bumbumbelly

If your looking for tips and guidelines on a solid VEGAN lifestyle check our "Thrive" by Brendan Brazier.... World Famous Tri- Athlete. (and totally hot!! worth the photos alone on his webiste . )
http://myvega.com/team-vega/brendan-brazier/biography

Vegan should not be a fad diet but a life style, same with Raw and Vegetarian.

holothuroidea

The really, really sad thing about veganism, and the thing that gets lost in all the debate is that, if we were all vegans (and that always seems to be the aim of vegans) you would only ever see a Cow, Sheep or Pig in a zoo. All those fields of quietly grazing animals with their calves and the lambs happily hopping around the pastures in spring time would be a thing of the past....

Is this a joke?

ThickMcRunFast

Don't kid yourself, Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you cared about

juliezum

I'm pretty sure that's how I ended up on this site trying to lose over 100lbs.