As the lord runner vegan, I would expect you to know berries are not fruits, but berries themselves. Berries are allowed in some instances of keto/paleo diet
As the lord runner vegan, I would expect you to know berries are not fruits, but berries themselves. Berries are allowed in some instances of keto/paleo diet
H. Hoover wrote:
My Grandpa went to Burger King 5 times a week, had a Whopper Jr. and a small fry with a coke and lived to be 92 years old. How did that work?
According to many in this thread the carbs from the fries and coke should've given him diabetes, obesity and killed him long before 92.
Sorry bud. Berries are a type of fruit. That is simply a fact. Is English your second language or something?
It's unnatural to eat fruit all year long. Why fight nature?
S. Canaday wrote:
Sorry bud. Berries are a type of fruit. That is simply a fact.
Is English your second language or something?
San Diego Hobby Jogger wrote:
As the lord runner vegan, I would expect you to know berries are not fruits, but berries themselves. Berries are allowed in some instances of keto/paleo diet
Our closest relatives were Neanderthals, which were apex carnivores, almost 100% meat eaters. Our large brains and running abilities were not developed in order to hunt down berries and tubers. Even chimpanzees are far from being vegan, despite their arboreal capabilities and abundance of fruit and vegetation to eat. However they do not have enough meat in their diet to support a larger brain. It took social, tool-using hunting of large game on the savanna as facultative carnivores to facilitate that, and then building on that success by spreading to temperate and boreal climates to further develop our brains to be adaptable in relation to different environments.
Low carb diets are the most effective diet in reversing type II diabetes and in treating cancer (see Thomas Seyfried and the Warburg effect). Modern diseases of industrialization have increased exponentially in the U.S. despite a 40% REDUCTION in beef consumption. The successful industrial push in supplanting healthy saturated animal fats with toxic, corporate-promoted plant oils high in linoleic acid has fueled heart disease, obesity and diabetes.
I lived and trained 15 year as a whole food vegetarian, sometimes vegan, before it finally almost killed me. The more animal products I have consumed, the stronger and healthier I have gotten. Over the course of almost 50 years, I have literally tried it all except 100% fruitarian or breatharian, and there is no question or comparison for me that 95% or of carnivore is the best and healthiest diet. If you have not tried it, you have no experiential basis for comparison, period.
Each of us is an experiment of one. My experiment is improving by the day, by the month, by the year. How is yours doing?
Yep. As we all know, its carbs that are the enemy!
YMMV wrote:
Our closest relatives were Neanderthals
YOUR closest relatives are Neanderthals.
Correction`, wrote:
YMMV wrote:
Our closest relatives were Neanderthals
YOUR closest relatives are Neanderthals.
BINGO! That explains a lot about YMMV's mental retardation.
https://www.sciencealert.com/humans-didn-t-outsmart-the-neanderthals-we-just-outlasted-themhttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/8898321/Neanderthals-were-too-smart-for-their-own-good.htmlhaha! wrote:
Correction`, wrote:
YOUR closest relatives are Neanderthals.
BINGO! That explains a lot about YMMV's mental retardation.
S. Canaday wrote:
Sorry bud. Berries are a type of fruit. That is simply a fact.
Is English your second language or something?
San Diego Hobby Jogger wrote:
As the lord runner vegan, I would expect you to know berries are not fruits, but berries themselves. Berries are allowed in some instances of keto/paleo diet
Fruits have a seed on the inside. Berries have the seeds outside
Some of you need to look up the appeal to nature fallacy. Just because it exists in nature, or our ancestors ate something, does not mean it is good for us or better for us than other foods they may not have eaten or had access to.
You are the first person I’ve ever heard Say that “berries aren't a kind of fruit”. “berries “ are simply defined as being a kind of “fruit”...that is a fact...and basic semantics. your opinion on this does not apply However your grasp of the English language (and logical thinking abilities for that matter) are now up for debate...
San Diego Hobby Jogger wrote:
S. Canaday wrote:
Sorry bud. Berries are a type of fruit. That is simply a fact.
Is English your second language or something?
Fruits have a seed on the inside. Berries have the seeds outside
S. Canaday wrote:
You are the first person I’ve ever heard
Say that “berries aren't a kind of fruit”.
“berries “ are simply defined as being a kind of “fruit”...that is a fact...and basic semantics. your opinion on this does not apply
However your grasp of the English language (and logical thinking abilities for that matter) are now up for debate...
San Diego Hobby Jogger wrote:
Fruits have a seed on the inside. Berries have the seeds outside
Why is Sage getting all salty and attacking the person instead of the argument? Although I guess calling you the lord runner vegan was a low blow.
Keep it civil boys wrote:
S. Canaday wrote:
You are the first person I’ve ever heard
Say that “berries aren't a kind of fruit”.
“berries “ are simply defined as being a kind of “fruit”...that is a fact...and basic semantics. your opinion on this does not apply
However your grasp of the English language (and logical thinking abilities for that matter) are now up for debate...
Why is Sage getting all salty and attacking the person instead of the argument? Although I guess calling you the lord runner vegan was a low blow.
He is salty due to having a deficiency in cholesterol, which leads to having low testosterone.
sub_3_is_the_goal wrote:
Some of you need to look up the appeal to nature fallacy. Just because it exists in nature, or our ancestors ate something, does not mean it is good for us or better for us than other foods they may not have eaten or had access to.
Our bodies and minds are shaped by something called evolution, which provides context to our nutritional needs. Our physiology is based on those that came before us, which includes Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis, all of which were facultative carnivores. Sage tried to compare us to chimpanzees, a notion which is well into the realm of fallacy.
haha! wrote:
Correction`, wrote:
YOUR closest relatives are Neanderthals.
BINGO! That explains a lot about YMMV's mental retardation.
Once more, Homo ad-hominensis makes it's dullard appearance on the way to eventual extinction.
YMMV wrote:
haha! wrote:
BINGO! That explains a lot about YMMV's mental retardation.
Once more, Homo ad-hominensis makes it's dullard appearance on the way to eventual extinction.
Once again, you sure do.
YMMV wrote:
sub_3_is_the_goal wrote:
Some of you need to look up the appeal to nature fallacy. Just because it exists in nature, or our ancestors ate something, does not mean it is good for us or better for us than other foods they may not have eaten or had access to.
Our bodies and minds are shaped by something called evolution, which provides context to our nutritional needs. Our physiology is based on those that came before us, which includes Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis, all of which were facultative carnivores. Sage tried to compare us to chimpanzees, a notion which is well into the realm of fallacy.
Evolution tells us about our nutritional needs and nutrition available in the ancestral environment. It does not follow that in the modern environment we have the same needs nor that the nutrition that was plentiful in the ancestral environment is the best nutrition for us today.
YMMV wrote:
haha! wrote:
BINGO! That explains a lot about YMMV's mental retardation.
Once more, Homo ad-hominensis makes it's dullard appearance on the way to eventual extinction.
Don't type what you don't understand caveman.
I did not compare humans directly to chimps...now you're just putting words in my mouth. sub_3_is_the_goal has some good points here. I would ever argue that our ancestors should've been vegan in the Paleolithic era (obviously they would have died from starvation!). Again, I had mentioned that without the technology of clothes and shelter and fire we probably never should have moved too far away from the equator....and all the kinds of plants we could consume in warmer climates year-round. Again with the evolution, YMMV seems to be very caught up with how carnivorous our ancestors were...but did they really eat that much meat? They simply ate whatever they could find/catch! Is it ideal for longevity now though? And so why would we want to regress and eat live a caveman now? Because they lived so much healthier and more productive lives? But back to the fruit (and yes berries are fruit). Chock full of antioxidants and vitamins and rehydrating (plus great fuel for endurance athletes).
sub_3_is_the_goal wrote:
YMMV wrote:
Our bodies and minds are shaped by something called evolution, which provides context to our nutritional needs. Our physiology is based on those that came before us, which includes Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis, all of which were facultative carnivores. Sage tried to compare us to chimpanzees, a notion which is well into the realm of fallacy.
Evolution tells us about our nutritional needs and nutrition available in the ancestral environment. It does not follow that in the modern environment we have the same needs nor that the nutrition that was plentiful in the ancestral environment is the best nutrition for us today.