Jake Shields = Vegetarian MMA fighter?? where do you get protein?

BTW, this is what a sheep looks like when it's not sheared regularly. Its fleece weighs 27kg.

p18620odt.jpg
 
Yeah, I figured one of the guys like Sinister, Turbozed, or JSN would have spotted this.

What that white belt said is almost certainly wrong (looks like crap science he probably gleaned from the "raw foods" community, I'm guessing). In fact, and I think you might find this interesting JSN, but my mother recently related an article to me where some anthropologists are hypothesizing that one of the most critical behaviors that evolved civilization was the cooking of food; by applying fire to food, we basically partially digest it, and therein enable ourselves to consume more energy while expending less energy digesting. This allowed a reserve of energy to better pursue other activities. A strong indicator that is the overwhelming number of civilizations that have excavated/discovered sites where there is evidence of fire pits and food processing.

And yeah, I also believe you're right: carbs are digested faster than proteins. Dextrose is like the fastest digested food that I know of.

Anyways, that theory sounds like a dope idea to me. That along with the fossil studies that have suggested that man developed faster intellectually in coastal regions-- some are thinking because of diets richer in Omega-3's-- are two of the most interesting theories I've heard out of the anthro community, lately. I'll admit, though, it's not like I sit around reading anthro journals.
yeah i think i know what you're talking about. last year there was this anthropologist on npr science friday talking about this stuff. one of the things that interested me was that animals tend to favor cooked meat just like we do. obviously they can't cook it themselves, but they'd like to.

here is the link to the guy's book and the audio:

Science Friday Archives: How Cooking Made Us Human
 
The protein profiles in grains and legumes are complementary, so if you eat them together you get a complete protein source, if not an enormous amount of it.
 
Unfortunately, if that happens, many the animals we have domesticated will likely go extinct (or near it) because thousands of years of artificial selection have changed them such that they will likely not be able to survive in the wild.
Ironic as it was only thru the domestication of those allowable animals that would thrust man into the agricultural revolution, laying the grounds for the industrial revolution, paving the way for the modern scientific revolution


I think more people need to be talking about sustainability...

An Argentinian gaucho who's diet consists of 95+% meat is certainly morally and ethically superior (and some may argue healthier as well) to a so-cal vegan who does not understand that their greens have been (for the last 60+ years) selected for traits based on yield more than anything, not nutrient value. They don't see how the earth has been eroded, depleted, unnecessarily of the minerals and micro
nutes.

We haven't even begun to talk about synthetic fertz, chemical pesticides, etc that
are an integral part of any unknowing vegans diet.

We haven't even begun to talk about monsanto, etc.
 
It's surprisingly easy to get an adequate amount of protein with a well-balanced array of amino acids on a vegetarian diet. I would even say the average vegetarian probably gets just as much protein in a day as the average omnivore.
 
yeah i think i know what you're talking about. last year there was this anthropologist on npr science friday talking about this stuff. one of the things that interested me was that animals tend to favor cooked meat just like we do. obviously they can't cook it themselves, but they'd like to.

here is the link to the guy's book and the audio:

Science Friday Archives: How Cooking Made Us Human
I was also watching a documentary on the brown bears in Alaska recently. They only eat the heads (brains) and skin of the salmon when they make their runs and food is plentiful; they want only the fattiest part.

Clearly, for omnivores and carnivores, there's a seriously advantage to foods that contain more energy and require less to digest.
 
yeah do you remember that grizzly man docu? i read this book about that guy and the whole weird situ, and apparently the bear in that area are super tame because they have so many berries around instead of salmon. apparently the availability of what is the closest thing to pure sugar you can get from nature is way preferred from these fuckers who are trying to fatten up for winter, and that's why coastal brown bears are so much less dangerous than inland grizzlies, where food is more sparse- like they just chill and eat sugar if they can find it, but if not, they go after salmon and apparently just eat brains and shit, and if there's less they eat the whole salmon, and if less, the motherfuckers will eat anything.
 
You guys are conflating ease of digestion with "energy access".

Yeah, carbs are all energy, it's easier to access the energy in plant-source carbs than animal source protein. That has nothing to do with how well or easily you digest them. Grains are terrible on your digestive system, you'll still spike your blood sugar to hell eating white bread.

Protein is primarily a building-block macro; your body only uses it for energy as a last resort.
 
Monkster is right about one thing. Animal protein is generally more bio-available than plant protein (for example, chicken has a bioavailability index of 79, while rice is 74). But that's not an issue or a compelling reason to eat meat.
 
Yeah, I figured one of the guys like Sinister, Turbozed, or JSN would have spotted this.

What that white belt said is almost certainly wrong (looks like crap science he probably gleaned from the "raw foods" community, I'm guessing). In fact, and I think you might find this interesting JSN, but my mother recently related an article to me where some anthropologists are hypothesizing that one of the most critical behaviors that evolved civilization was the cooking of food; by applying fire to food, we basically partially digest it, and therein enable ourselves to consume more energy while expending less energy digesting. This allowed a reserve of energy to better pursue other activities. A strong indicator that is the overwhelming number of civilizations that have excavated/discovered sites where there is evidence of fire pits and food processing.

And yeah, I also believe you're right: carbs are digested faster than proteins. Dextrose is like the fastest digested food that I know of.

Anyways, that theory sounds like a dope idea to me. That along with the fossil studies that have suggested that man developed faster intellectually in coastal regions-- some are thinking because of diets richer in Omega-3's-- are two of the most interesting theories I've heard out of the anthro community, lately. I'll admit, though, it's not like I sit around reading anthro journals.

Not on the exact same subject, but related:

 
Everyone that is saying you don't need as much protein like they say in fitness magazines are wrong.

1g-1.5g protein per pound of lean body weight is optimal. Scientifically proven.

I think your argument is more along the lines of... could you get by with less protein? sure. Would you be better off with more protein? yes.
 
Vegetarians are inferior.

Why do you think ubereem eats horse meat?
 
beans. jake shields is a veagan not a vegitarian.beans have one of the best sources of protein.
 
Everyone that is saying you don't need as much protein like they say in fitness magazines are wrong.

1g-1.5g protein per pound of lean body weight is optimal. Scientifically proven.

I think your argument is more along the lines of... could you get by with less protein? sure. Would you be better off with more protein? yes.

I too would like to see a source to said "scientific proof"
 
Everyone that is saying you don't need as much protein like they say in fitness magazines are wrong.

1g-1.5g protein per pound of lean body weight is optimal. Scientifically proven.

I think your argument is more along the lines of... could you get by with less protein? sure. Would you be better off with more protein? yes.

I believe the text books and nutrition people are saying the 1 to 1.5g of protein per kg, not pound of bodyweight
 
I believe the text books and nutrition people are saying the 1 to 1.5g of protein per kg, not pound of bodyweight

Yes, but those are useless, based on 20 yo+ data and doctors who have no interest in athletes of optimizing performance.

2g per pound of LBM (lean body mass) is ideal of ADDING muscle. 1.5g - 1g is fine for maintaining.

Carbohydrates are protein sparring, so if you eat lots of them, you can get by with less protein (and enjoy a nice carb gut).

In other words, the skinny-fat folks who eat a food-pyramid 70% carbohydrate diet, and lift or whatever they do, will be able to maintain their LBM with protein only around 1g per pound, or less, of LBM because they'll have so much fuel to eat through, they'll never risk catabolism, and in all likely-hood (unless they're doing monster-workouts) will end up with an energy excess.
 
They get enough protein via google and the search function. These threads should not be allowed cause they always turn into my diet is better than yours threads.
 
Back
Top