Ultramarathoner Jurek takes diet to the extreme

Thank you for that totally unsubstantiated claim.

ive said it before wrote:

Avoid beef and pork (all mammals actually) and your diet will be much more healthy. That's my diet.

No friggin' way I am reading all the posts on this board - I avoid all knowledge of the meat industry so I can continue to enjoy burgers.

But isn't it amazing that the human body is so adaptable that it obviously can perform well on both a heavy meat diet and a completely meat-free diet? I mean, really. I'm sincere here - no sarcasm at all meant.

What a piece of work we are.

Vegetarians,vegans and 90% of Hybrid drivers=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlYte9_4yk4

My point is, what evidence do you have that wheat gluten (a pretty regular ingredient) or soy protein are unhealthy? Because it doesn't cut it to just put out a scary list and say "Oh my gwarsh, look at that (short) list as opposed to this even shorter list that I vastly simplified". It's immature is all, so just provide some evidence instead of backing up the guy who thinks it's enough to simply compare how many ingredients there are (when most of the ingredients are in the <2% range).

I wonder what kind of diet the Japanese guy who smoked Jurek eats? If he's like most Japanese runners, lots of fried food and beer.

Awww, so insecure.

Smug alert wrote:

Vegetarians,vegans and 90% of Hybrid drivers=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlYte9_4yk4

embarrassed for you wrote:

Awww, so insecure.

Smug alert wrote:

Vegetarians,vegans and 90% of Hybrid drivers=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlYte9_4yk4

Actually I think it's the other way around and you're insecure. I agree with smug alert. It doesn't bug me that you don't eat meat. What's annoying is that a lot of you guys are expecting a pat on the back or an atta boy for your decision. That's insecurity. This is just as bad as the religious fanatics who push force their values on people. Now if you excuse me I'm going to go eat a nice juicy hamburger.

Precisely Watson: what evidence do you have that wheat gluten (a pretty regular ingredient) or soy protein are unhealthy?

Sorry dude, nobody's paying me to bring you up to speed on contemporary topics in nutrition, and I ain't motivated to spend much more time doing it pro bono.

I already sent you the Pollan article, which speak to whole vs. processed foods. You can google "gluten health" and "soy health" for views from people a lot better schooled than I. As with everything, opinions vary. I don't know if you'll find proof you consider 100% compelling against either of these things (or against ultra-processed foods). Then again, apply the same standards and try to prove conclusively that those things *are* healthy and unconditionally safe, and maybe you'll better understand the need for informed judgment.

And this is all for those primary ingredients, before you get to all that stuff straight from the New Jersey chemical plants.

If you want to start your own dietary cult where eating all that crap is the pinnacle of good nutrition, have at it. I suggest you call it "The Great Cornholio Diet."

You get an 8/10 for trolling several responses from me, but a 3/10 for keeping it interesting.

Atta boy score board wrote:

Actually I think it's the other way around and you're insecure. I agree with smug alert. It doesn't bug me that you don't eat meat. What's annoying is that a lot of you guys are expecting a pat on the back or an atta boy for your decision. That's insecurity. This is just as bad as the religious fanatics who push force their values on people. Now if you excuse me I'm going to go eat a nice juicy hamburger.

Well... there's a huge difference. Religion is based on pure conjecture, imagination, and non-provable claims. The dietary, environmental, and ethical implications of a meat-centered diet are quantifiable, provable, and unassailable. Advocating for veganism isn't like preaching..... it's presenting a set of facts, which are usually uncomfortable to meat eaters. Adults don't like to be confronted with the fact that they might be wrong, hence the public backlash against people who choose a meat-free diet.

Show us. You and your fellow insecure gnats imagine it. None of the vegans here give a crap what YOU eat nor whether you approve of what WE eat. You just don't like facing the truth about what you eat and what we eat.

Atta boy score board wrote:

embarrassed for you wrote:

Awww, so insecure.

Actually I think it's the other way around and you're insecure. I agree with smug alert. It doesn't bug me that you don't eat meat. What's annoying is that a lot of you guys are expecting a pat on the back or an atta boy for your decision. That's insecurity. This is just as bad as the religious fanatics who push force their values on people. Now if you excuse me I'm going to go eat a nice juicy hamburger.

"Honestly, I think it's less to due with not eating meat than it is to do with not eating dairy products. That stuff is incredibly bad for you, and it overstimulates your salivary functions, which create a superhighway for germs."

good grief.

Look, I don't even eat boca burgers. I don't care about your freakish cult accusations, idiotic as they are. All I'm saying is that it was a stupid argument in the first place. The guy posted an oversimplified ingredients list for beef and then posted the slightly longer ingredient list for boca burgers and acted like that was supposed to convince me that beef was somehow inherently better. Never mind that there are so many other factors that go into food production than a list of ingredients. I agree with you. Chemicals are bad, m'kay? Go harass your dog if it makes you feel better. I'm not a troll, either.

Well... there's a huge difference. Religion is based on pure conjecture, imagination, and non-provable claims. The dietary, environmental, and ethical implications of a meat-centered diet are quantifiable, provable, and unassailable. Advocating for veganism isn't like preaching..... it's presenting a set of facts, which are usually uncomfortable to meat eaters. Adults don't like to be confronted with the fact that they might be wrong, hence the public backlash against people who choose a meat-free diet.[/quote]

It is a biased and incomplete set of facts that is the problem, and nobody is against people who don't eat meat, it is the attitude, many US vegans inparticular, have regarding some higher morality ("betterness") that they have for doing so; being a vegan specifically doesn't make you a better person or even healthier or even more aware of the problems that face the world's food production.

The problems are not all associated with meat production; and if there are healthly meat production practices as there are crop production practices then what is the problem? Shouldn't we be pushing for better food production practices than making everyone feel bad for being human?

People only backlash when you push narrow minded ideas as facts down their throats.

McGurk wrote:

It is a biased and incomplete set of facts that is the problem, and nobody is against people who don't eat meat, it is the attitude, many US vegans inparticular, have regarding some higher morality ("betterness") that they have for doing so; being a vegan specifically doesn't make you a better person or even healthier or even more aware of the problems that face the world's food production.

The problems are not all associated with meat production; and if there are healthly meat production practices as there are crop production practices then what is the problem? Shouldn't we be pushing for better food production practices than making everyone feel bad for being human?

People only backlash when you push narrow minded ideas as facts down their throats.

You can twist the problem around 1000 times and can't change the fact that producing animal protein is a ludicrously inefficient process. 5000 gallons of water and 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. 20 times the amount of fossil fuels are required to produce one pound of meat protein as opposed to one pound of vegetable protein. Whether it's organic, free range, or "naturally grown," these numbers are static. In a world that is increasingly becoming painfully aware of our limited natural resources, there is no environmentally justified reason for the continued production of animals for food. I challenge you to prove me otherwise.....

bootsie wrote:

Advocating for veganism isn't like preaching..... it's presenting a set of facts, which are usually uncomfortable to meat eaters.

That's true until you start straying into gray areas like the moral equivalency of animals. That's just as much a leap for many omnivores as it would be for you to accept a hardcore fruitarian's belief that leafy greens deserve our respect too.

I don't know if this is your intention but you do often come across as slightly... evangelical.

bootsie wrote:

In a world that is increasingly becoming painfully aware of our limited natural resources, there is no environmentally justified reason for the continued production of animals for food. I challenge you to prove me otherwise.....

There's no environmentally justified reason for having electricity or clearing land to build cities either.

Just because you don't want to eat flesh, doesn't mean no one should. If I wanted to live in the wilderness without any modern amenities, I don't think everyone else should because it's environmentally justified in my mind.

bootsie wrote:

You can twist the problem around 1000 times and can't change the fact that producing animal protein is a ludicrously inefficient process. 5000 gallons of water and 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. 20 times the amount of fossil fuels are required to produce one pound of meat protein as opposed to one pound of vegetable protein. Whether it's organic, free range, or "naturally grown," these numbers are static. In a world that is increasingly becoming painfully aware of our limited natural resources, there is no environmentally justified reason for the continued production of animals for food. I challenge you to prove me otherwise.....

You do realize that only a small portion of the planets land can support grain crops. And that the natural diet of most animals we eat doesn't involve grains. Eating locally raised, grass fed beef hardly costs any natural resources at all (all it takes is pasture and minimal transportation).

AC XC wrote:

You do realize that only a small portion of the planets land can support grain crops. And that the natural diet of most animals we eat doesn't involve grains. Eating locally raised, grass fed beef hardly costs any natural resources at all (all it takes is pasture and minimal transportation).

What about the water? It still takes 5000 gallons per pound of meat, and water, as we know, will soon the be the new oil in terms of resource scarcity.

a fat kid wrote:

That's true until you start straying into gray areas like the moral equivalency of animals. That's just as much a leap for many omnivores as it would be for you to accept a hardcore fruitarian's belief that leafy greens deserve our respect too.

I don't know if this is your intention but you do often come across as slightly... evangelical.

The only moral equivalency I was referencing was that cows and chickens and pigs feel pain and suffer in basically the same way that dogs and cats do, and as a society, we've deemed that these latter animals deserve legal protection from the kinds of abuses that factory-farmed animals suffer every day. That.... is a contradiction.