366
Indian food is saving so many lives (media.piefed.social)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/vegan@slrpnk.net
140 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 6 months ago (10 children)

It's not even difficult, you just need to plan your meals and have a basic inkling of what nutritional requirements are.

Some combination of a legume and a whole grain can fulfill all your macronutrients. Lentils and rice, black beans and corn, etc. Then choose a vegetable that's high in iron, like broccoli or spinach.

These are just examples, but there are so many variations you can do on top of it.

A major part of the problem is how many vegans/vegetarians get upset whenever someone mentions "nutritional requirements." It's like it's a trigger word.

I get not wanting to listen to right-wing misinformation like "it's impossible for vegans/vegetarians to meet all their nutritional requirements," because that's bullshit. It's absolutely possible, and not even difficult. It just requires some intelligent planning.

But they don't stop at that. They also get upset whenever someone says "Meeting all your nutritional requirements as a vegan/vegetarian requires intelligent planning." This is completely irrational, because it does require planning. And it's a disservice and misinformation to say that it doesn't.

It's especially important for vegans and vegetarians to plan their meals to meet all their requirements. But when they get all offended and self-righteous about the suggestion, it teaches new vegans/vegetarians bad habits.

No, you can't just eat cheese-its and oreos. Teach people how to plan a full, balanced vegan/vegetarian meal, or shut the fuck up about it and let others who are doing it have the floor.

Another problem is the perception that anyone who talks about protein is a chud. Vegetarians and vegans need to talk about protein, because they need to be deliberate about where they're getting it from. It's not the same as when gym bros talk about protein.

But any time I mention it, people roll their eyes. It must be the same old misandry that says "this guy talking about protein must be a gym bro chud" and ignores the possibility that "this guy talking about protein might actually be vegetarian or vegan." Like, I'm a scrawny dude geeking out about lentils and broccoli, which do you fucking think I am?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago*

    I get not wanting to listen to right-wing misinformation like “it’s impossible for vegans/vegetarians to meet all their nutritional requirements,” because that’s bullshit. It’s absolutely possible, and not even difficult. It just requires some intelligent planning.

    I do think that Americans have been trained to believe "Vegetarian" is eating a salad or a bunch of crunchy hors d'oeuvre.

    There's a famous story of a community in Mississippi plagued by health issues, specific to the white population. The workers in this town were subsisting on cornbread, molasses, and a scant ration of salted meat. But only the colored communities were eating beans, because it was considered a "low class" food. Consequently, the meager ration of meat wasn't enough to fulfill nutritional needs for the white population, while the colored folks thrived.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    Honestly, it's people who also completely ignore the evolutionary requirements of a human diet. I'm thinking of people who obsess over carbs like they're some kind of poison, or the nutjobs who think that humans can and will do just fine as carnivores or fructivores.

    When I first went vegan, it was for health reasons. I'd had an accident and I fucked up my guts pretty good. Gluten and meat, and even dairy and eggs were literally hurting me to consume, so I had absolutely no choice in the matter. I'm better now, but it was a rough couple of years.

    I remember this one vegan YouTuber vividly. He was insisting that eating nothing but fruit had been good for him, that this was what a healthy human looked like, and everyone else was crazy. I just looked at this dude with his sallow, papery skin and gaunt frame, and I just went, "Ooookay, great incentive to start adding things back into my diet as soon as I'm healthy enough to handle them again."

    By all means, be vegan. I think it's genuinely a great idea. If you can't, then be vegetarian. It's also a great idea. If you can't do either, then just be sensible and eat less meat. But ffs, take a good look at the people who fell so far down the rabbit hole that they look like living ghouls, and pay attention to the hard science and good common sense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    Just learn basic nutritional requirements and plan your meals to meet them. It's not hard, and there are plenty of plant-based options to do so.

    People who cut out carbs completely are stupid. They're the main energy source. Sure, you can make energy from fats and proteins, but you can't replace carbs entirely without consequences like ketoacidosis. Just balance your carb intake with your caloric intake requirements. If you're sedentary, reducing carbs is fine. If you exercise a lot, eat some fucking carbs. You're gonna burn them off anyway.

    And any sort of diet that wants to only eat one food group is idiotic. The key to good nutrition is about balance. Fruit is good for you, but if it's the only thing you eat then you're missing critical macronutrients. And meat-only diets are just plain stupid.

    But we live in the age of internet disinfo, enshittified education, and social media being people's main source of information. So it's really not surprising that people make dumb choices.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    you can't replace carbs entirely without consequences like ketoacidosis.

    This is incorrect. The body is able to make all the carbohydrate it needs via gluconeogenesis. It needs no exogenous carbohydrates at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

    Our body does this on survival mode, you won't convince anyone here to join your lunatic diet my friendly carnivore. What are you even doing here?

    You guys are literally dying from your diet and you come here to share "science for health", I just learnt that Dr. Adam Nally died at 55 from a stroke. Please eat some veggies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    And where do you suppose it gets the calories to do that? Solely from fats and proteins? Because that's how you get some serious medical complications.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    Yes, indeed primarily from fat. The body is able to use the glycerol backbone from triglycerides to make glucose, alongside several other things like proteins and lactate. Since calories are a measure of heat energy, they are a reductive measure when it comes to nutrition. Much better to think in terms of nutrients.

    Stated another way, there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. This has been in scientific literature for a very long time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago*

    Okay, this right here shows you don't know what you're talking about, in a Dunning-Kruger sort of way:

    Since calories are a measure of heat energy, they are a reductive measure when it comes to nutrition. Much better to think in terms of nutrients.

    Yes, calories measure heat energy. No, they're not a nutrient. However, that doesn't make them a "reductive measure." Nobody (at least, no one who understands nutrition) is talking exclusively about calories. It's part of the overall picture.

    There are three main macronutrients: carbs, fats, and proteins. Each one provides calories. When your body uses energy (which it always does, even at rest, but uses more during activity), it needs to replace them. A caloric intake requirement measures how many calories you need to replace the energy you burn during the day. Nothing more. Any attempt to apply it to something else, is misinformed at best. ("I can't eat that, it has calories." Bullshit.).

    Also:

    Stated another way, there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.

    There's no such thing as an essential protein, either. There are essential amino acids, which build the proteins. There's no such thing as an essential fat, either. There are essential fatty-acids.

    "Essential" in nutritional terms refers to "building blocks," not "necessities." If you're applying the latter definition, then that would make fiber an "essential carbohydrate."

    Lastly:

    The body is able to use the glycerol backbone from triglycerides to make glucose, alongside several other things like proteins and lactate

    Yes, it is possible to make glucose from other sources. I never denied that. I said it's impossible to do it exclusively without serious consequences.

    If all of your caloric intake (yes, I said caloric, because that's what we're talking about. bite me.) is coming exclusively from fats and proteins, you're going to have medical issues. That doesn't mean it's impossible to get energy from fats and proteins, so stop arguing that point because no one is arguing against it. In fact, it implies that it is possible. How would you get medical complications from something that isn't possible?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent