Serious Post: Nutrition Is Important

Discussion in 'Discussions' started by Essence, Sep 13, 2012.

  1. Karock

    Karock Member

    By the way, for anyone interested...

    The amount of protein you normally need per day is 0.8 grams per 2.2 pounds of body weight.
    The amount of protein you need as an athlete (serious, not I walk in the morning or play half an hour of basketball every week) is around 1.4 grams per 2.2 pounds of body weight.

    1 ounce is about 28.5 grams.
    About 3 oz of lean ground beef has about 20 grams of protein in it.
    About 3 oz of extra firm tofu has about 8.6 grams of protein in it.
     
    Daynab and OmniaNigrum like this.
  2. Warlock

    Warlock Member

    Strictly speaking however, your body will probably tell you just how good your nutritional intake is; if you're feeling too worn down and can't do anything in the early morning if you get up at that time, and you're getting sufficient rest commensurate to the work you're doing, you probably need to work on your diet. Calorie counting is for the people who're actually supposed to be worried about their intake, like people with digestive and metabolic disorders. That said, obsessive counting in otherwise normal people pretty much makes me go [​IMG]

    edit: what you eat does count too. Too much junk hurts everybody. Eat your fruit and veggies. Don't eat out twice a day, and try to minimize the amount of sweets you swallow. This is a TL;DR version of healthy eating, not tailored to those with specific needs.
     
    OmniaNigrum likes this.
  3. mining

    mining Member

    tl;dr of healthy eating:

    Consume 3 servings of soylent green per 24 hour period. Soylent green contains all essential nutrients, carbohydrates, amino acids and all other components required by a healthy human.
     
    TheJadedMieu, Karock, jadkni and 3 others like this.
  4. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    I was mistaken. I never bought nor used Whey anything.

    It was Soy Lecithin. And I was not using it for protein either. I was using it as a choline supplement.

    Truth being told, I actually liked it. I would prefer to use a teaspoonful or two in every cup of Coffee/Tea I make. And then mix in the Milk. It was otherwise how I described in my erroneous post about that earlier in this thread.

    But it is not the cheapest thing ever made, so I tend to not have the money for it.
     
  5. Kazeto

    Kazeto Member

    Yup, that is correct. Unless you work out on a daily basis to increase your stamina and strength, you don't need a lot of proteins because your body doesn't need it to repair the damage; on the other hand, if you do work out, then you can multiply the "normally" require amount by about half a dozen times and it's a start, but even then, it's not hard to get the required amount normally unless you are an idiot who has weird preconceptions against some foods (I'm not talking about vegetarians here, but some of the more "strict" vegans do count, and people who eat the same stuff all the time without introducing any variety ditto).

    Yeah, it is sad that people think like that. What really happens is that when you train, your muscles become "damaged" and your body needs certain types of proteins to "rebuild" the "damaged" muscles which is making them stronger (kind of like reinforcing the dam), but there is a limit to the amount of proteins that can be used for that.

    Nah, I think you are cool here. Your posts do make sense and are informative, and I don't see any obvious bias here or stealth insults towards any groups so the only people hurt by your posts would be those who stepped on their own toes when backing off because "how can he not think the way we do?", but nobody really listens to such people (and I don't think we even have any such fanatics here).

    Yeah, that. When I need to eat "out" I either make some sandwiches and take them with me or (if I was supposed to be back home already but whatever I was doing took longer than I wanted it to) I just go into the nearest store (they are pretty much everywhere) and buy myself a small bottle of yoghurt, one or two bananas (depending on whether there are any other worthwhile fruits; if there are, then it's one banana and some other stuff), and one chocolate bar. Not ideal, but not only is it better for my wallet, it's also better when it comes to giving me the required energy until I get back and can eat something normal.

    Oh, and Omni, if you are worried about bread not being good enough then you can always get some bran to go with it. Bran's awesome if you don't hate the way it tastes (it's a cool addition to salads, too).
     
    OmniaNigrum likes this.
  6. mining

    mining Member

    BUT BUT PROTEIN POWER
     
  7. Mashirafen

    Mashirafen Member

    I'm not a vegetarian by any means - I love eating meat and I have to live with a vegetarian sibling and (through no fault of his) his diet choice affects the eating habits of our entire family, and there are times when the massive restriction on the variety of foods and meals once can consume when following a vegetarian lifestyle seems like it would be unbearably dull and repetitive to me. I find veganism and other even more restrictive diets totally unfathomable.
    However, once I move out and become more financially independent I plan to replace a significant portion of the meat I eat with mycoprotein, tofu and all that jazz, simply because saving the planet.
     
  8. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    How exactly does eating meat kill the planet? Humans have been doing that forever. Animals do it too. Does that mean animals are killing the planet and should themselves be killed?

    Circular Reasoning.gif
     
  9. Kazeto

    Kazeto Member

    That would appear to be the summary of his post, which is certainly not what he meant. Because if he did, it would be stupid.

    Also, THIS IS MY 2000TH POST
    There you go Essence, have your fun.
     
    Essence, Vitellozzo and OmniaNigrum like this.
  10. Warlock

    Warlock Member

    That's actually correct to some extent; a cow releases more methane into the atmosphere in its lifetime than its equivalent body weight in coal (IIRC) because its digestion process involves a greater degree of fermentation from bacteria.

    You heard it from me; a cow's more capable of greenhouse pollution than fossil fuels. Don't ask how it works.
     
    OmniaNigrum likes this.
  11. Turbo164

    Turbo164 Member

    Termites produce more than cows iirc; not finding the numbers on my beforebedgooglefu.
     
    OmniaNigrum likes this.
  12. Warlock

    Warlock Member

    Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me; I should have mentioned termites too.
     
    OmniaNigrum likes this.
  13. Kamisma

    Kamisma Member

    Kill ALL the termites !!

    Anyway before eating tofu, you can still cut down red meat, and take white meat/poultry instead. Less Methane for the planet and less bad fat for your body.
     
  14. mining

    mining Member

    Animals don't cultivate huge numbers of other animals, though ;).
     
  15. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    Have you ever seen how eager bunnies are to procreate? Sure the other general meat animals may not do so as much when left to themselves, but they still do that quite frequent enough. If they did not, they would be extinct.

    Cows and Chickens are probably the two biggest product animals in the world. Chickens by sheer number, and cows by mass and number. Beef is getting more expensive as time goes on though. There was a time when you would literally be physically assaulted for serving "Pink Slime" to children and anyone else. These days it is a byproduct of an expensive trade, and some groups resort to this awful substitute purely to save money.

    (On that note, I suspect Pink Slime would fail the cat test. Meaning that a cat when presented with it would try to bury it like they do feces in a literbox.)

    *Edit* To be clear, rabbits *ARE* a meat animal in most parts of the world. Some species of rabbits grow to around twenty pounds or so. And they taste similar to beef.
     
    Kazeto likes this.
  16. mining

    mining Member

    There's a difference between "procreates to X amount" and "grown in large quantities out of the influence of disease, predators, and the necessity to take care of their own food". One allows relatively fair amounts of an animal. The other leads to things like humanity and our food animals.
     
  17. Haldurson

    Haldurson Member

    Can we just agree that overpopulation (and all that it leads to) is bad for the planet? I don't understand why but no more than 10 or 20 years ago, the main conversation was about overpopulation, but somehow that went away in favor of other discussions.

    In any case, there is a political aspect to this (isn't there always?) which I'll try not to touch on while getting dangerously close to it. While it may be true that many animals (including livestock) add methane to the air, and I'm not going to argue about the amounts, or its impact, since I honestly don't know the truth of it. But when scientists actually discuss carbon emissions, they focus on those things that they feel are a lot easier to deal with than actually massively altering human behavior (eg. turning everyone vegan). It's a lot easier to convince most people to buy a fuel-efficient car, than it is to 'mess with their meat', so to speak.

    Everything that you can do to improve the environment has a cost, and I'm not just talking about dollars and cents. It also involves time, convenience, trouble of various kinds, some people are going to be more inconvenienced than others, and so on. So when you decide what to do first, the smart thing is to not only take into account the effect, but all of the costs as well, and prioritize, not on which has the greatest affect, but which is most cost-effective (effect divided by cost). Reducing produce does not rank high on that list. Barring a massive loss of conscience on the part of our leadership, and giant breakthroughs in mass hypnosis, I'd be surprised if it would even would make the top 100.

    And that's why I always feel that arguments about global warming that start with "cows produce more methane than X" are always highly irrelevant. It only serves as a smokescreen.
     
    Kazeto and OmniaNigrum like this.
  18. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    I looked into this years ago. Cows produce much more undesired gases than most animals, even pound for pound. But a single small volcano spews more of those undesired gases into the atmosphere than all animal life on the planet. And they are dozens of active volcanoes on the Earth at any one time.

    Next time a "Super-Caldera" volcano erupts, it will spew more of that stuff than has ever been expelled by all animals and Humans even with machinery and furnaces and cars and such since the Dinosaurs walked the Earth. (It will be an extinction level event too.)

    At our current rate, what is regularly emitted by all mankind, animals, and machinery/power/fuel we have about eternity to equal even a brief portion of what the Earth itself does anyway.

    Note that I do not deny global warming. I am just skeptical about how much influence we actually have over that. We have as much impact as a person lighting a match in broad daylight has on blinding someone nearby by doing that. (I.E. None.)

    But this topic is about nutrition. Let us make another thread if we must go off topic.

    I am thinking of cooking some nice pork/beef/chicken right now. I will have to see what I have in the freezer, but I do not usually have much since the costs keep going up while my income remains pitifully constant.

    On topic, I think making Rice is good for anything you eat. I usually add Chicken Stock to it while cooking. (Chicken Stock is broth condensed to a thick, slimy paste. But it is far cheaper than buying the broth.)
     
    Kazeto likes this.
  19. Movra

    Movra Member

    Besides the methane gas issue, meat is not exactly an efficient type of food.

    - http://viva.org.uk/guides/feedtheworld.htm


    Back to the original topic:

    Let's look at the body as a system of chemical processes. The body requires a certain configuration of nutrients. Too little or too much of anything distorts the balance. To restore the balance, the body demands additional intake to make up for the deficit. The way one respond to such deficits can cause a vicious circle.

    A simple example: eat a lot of potato chips and the amount of salt in our blood will rise. Our brains sense the changed osmolarity and want to restore equilibrium: we become thirsty. We chug away a big glass of soda pop, which increases the amount of water in our blood. Unfortunately the drink also causes a surplus of sugar and other stuff our body didn't ask for.

    Extrapolating that example to our daily routine: what if our meals systematically lack certain nutrients? We start to make up by eating more, adding a lot of surplus non-essential nutrients in the process.

    I guess that is one of the things the organization in the opening post wants to research.
     
    Kazeto and OmniaNigrum like this.
  20. Vitellozzo

    Vitellozzo Member

    A little OT.
    I think overpopolation is just bad for us, and for some kind of species of every Kindgom of life. Planet itself, and the life within it, is just safe because you just cannot stop the never ending circle of life. There are just too many different forms of life to compete/convive with that the overpopulation of just one kind of mammal is a little to nothing matter.
    Nor it could be stopped, since with !SCIENCE! every day one person lives a little better, and a little longer.
     
    Kazeto and OmniaNigrum like this.