To all you animal protein, atkins diet etc fans

is that the book that concludes with that you shouldn't eat too much protein and red meat, only that every person with half a brain will understand that it's really about just not eating junk food?
 
So you agree with me? cool!

I've heard a lot about that book, and I bet I've almost read all of it just by reading quotes on the internet. He takes it to such an extreme.

Overeating is bad, eating too much trans and satures is bad.. we all know this.
 
It's obvious you haven't read the book; you ought to invest the time to read and learn from it - particularly Phate.
 
Well if I haven't read it, why don't you quote some of the arguments he makes and I'll pick it apart.
I won't invest time in reading something that cult-ish, I have better things to do, like play diablo 2.
 
so the evidence is clear... but I don't see you presenting any..
You have a really narrow minded view, I will never ever listen to someone who thinks there is only one way to go. You're the Hitler of nutrition.

(for the record, I think it's entierly possible to be a vegetarian or a vegan and get strong and healthy, but I do think it requires more effort)
 
I'm not promoting veganism, but people should certainly limit the amount of processed meat and red meat they consume; prefering white meat like turkey.

A narrowminded view? oh come on. I'm not going to spit out a few paragraphs of argument for a futile debate. Make an effort to read something as comprehensive as the book - instead of picked out quotes found on the internet.
 
Last edited:
A lot of people think they need to cut out almost all red meat, this is simply not true. Why? because of cholesterol? I bet that people who eat a lot of red meat do a lot of other stuff too, like smoke, drink, etc, in a lot of studies this isn't even made into a factor.

And first you post a link to a book written by someone who advocates pretty much total veganism, with a title telling protein people to look here, then you suddenly say you're not saying we should all only eat plants? Make a clear argument.
 
Your first paragraph clearly shows your inept for the topic. Because of cholesterol? not necessarily so. Toxins are plentifull in mean; so to vegetables and fruit, but much less so.

Do you want to show me these studies that don't take those details into account? I bet you won't show me.

I understand your feelings, I'd be sick to if i had to read 50% of the garbage in this topic. and to give you a clue it isn't from me.
 
takes too long to dig up studies can't be bothered.However, since you started this topic, you're the one with something to prove, so I'm afraid you are the one who needs to dash out the studies.
 
This has reminded me why i stopped coming here previously. The qaulity of discussions are so poor with often no scientific basis or intellectuall honesty; instead there are plenty of stubborn personal statements and arguments that are just not worth the time.
 
Just because i started the topic doesn't mean i have something to prove. If you look back you'll see that you were the one objecting to the book, having never even read it yourself - to me that says something.
 
I object to the book because it is about something I don't believe in. I don't have to read that book, I've read arguments about this too many times. There is no need to read everything. Besides, I've seen too much critisism in how the study was done to bother to take the time to actually read it. Have you read any of the critisism, Matt?

You come here with the book, and this title "To all you animal protein, atkins diet etc fans" to me that says "hey all you protein morons, read this and then come tell me how wrong you were afterwards!" when you make something with a title like this, you are trying to get a reaction, and you got one. You are the one with something to prove here, you are in hostile waters, the majority on this forum doesn't agree with you. I objected to the book, but by posting that link with that title you objected to the view you already know I have about nutrition. So again, you're the one with something to prove. You make a thread and try to make a point, then you are the one who has to prove it. Unless, of course, you didn't want to try to convince us that your view is better, in which case, you are just trying to make a **** storm.
 
matt182 said:
This has reminded me why i stopped coming here previously. The qaulity of discussions are so poor with often no scientific basis or intellectuall honesty; instead there are plenty of stubborn personal statements and arguments that are just not worth the time.
Click to expand...

Seriously, I love this guy.

Once you get too advanced, you're just annoying. And until you've got a feel for the choreography, you're mostly pathetic. Mid-levels are my favorite. :D
 
For the record, I have read this book, and I find it roughly as convincing as Richard "My Cat's Litter Box Smells Like Cat Pee" Dawkins'.

I do however seriously doubt that matt has. He may have looked at the paper on which the symbols were printed, but reading requires something more than that.

And while we're vaguely on the subject, I don't know how many times I have to say this, but shamanism does not qualify as a science, though it is a similar religious system. What you call science and parade around because it makes you feel better about barely understanding most of what you're talking about is really just another type of dogma, subject to all of the same failings.

Maybe if I tell you enough times you'll actually stop to think about it: Perception is relativistic; therefore, knowledge is contextual.

This precludes any notion of an objective metric by which to qualify or quantify anything. Which is not to say you should embrace solipsism, but rather that you should really occasionally do that which it is you campaign so fervently and violently for. "Science" is to "Knowledge" as "God" was to the "Crusades" - an excuse to be an ignorant, hateful savage.

Now we watch matt trip all over himself trying to point out how what I say clearly makes me an idiot without providing any refutation of anything... Which brings us back to mid-levels. While they are very amusing, the flavor runs out very fast - not unlike chewing gum, actually. ^_^
 
Be they facts or stretches of truth, no matter, I love me a juicy burger and there is no study or publication that will change that.
 
*scratches head with one hand while biting down on some red meat with the other.

The qaulity of discussions are so poor with often no scientific basis or intellectuall honesty
Click to expand...

Rofl. This isn't a "scientific" website you ****ing nerd. This is a fitness forum.
Now take your skinny weak ass over to some scientific message board and drown them with your idiotic studies.

Your studies don't mean **** to me because as many studies you dig up that are anti-red-meat there are as many studies that pro-red-meat.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Khoda Hafiz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top