| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
And I was always told that when taking supplements when working out that whey protein is what you want, and any other rice or whatever protein (not only tastes like shit) but isn't going to give you the right effect for muscle growth as well. Denying meat is like denying being a human imo. I got nothing against vegetarians though. | ||
|
Element)LoGiC
Canada1143 Posts
You can do whatever makes you feel smarter than everyone else, but don't push it on other people. Don't kid yourself, all these things you're doing are just meaningless hobbies. Maybe you people should research on sites that aren't funded by someone standing to gain from these "green" achievements. CO2 = fucking plants. We could multiply our co2 emissions by 30, and even the most delicate of plants would survive. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/08/the-ups-and-downs-of-methane/ | ||
|
daz
Canada643 Posts
On October 29 2009 02:24 Piy wrote: Do I have too? Very easily? You're going to be needing a huge amount of calories if you're actually eating that much protein anyway, but beans are on a par with meat in terms of protein percentage, as well as being lower in fat. Also, how big are you? 200g seems an awful lot even if you way 100+kg. You might want to look into protein related kidney problems if you're doing it over the long term. Yeah. That's true. But if I was lost in the desert with a person I had no particular affiliation with, I'd probably eat them too. And I don't really want to shakily transfer that conclusion back into the real world. P.S oh, and fun though this is, can we all just agree that Methane emissions DO in fact make up 1/5 of the cause of global warming like all leading scientists say, and that all the vegetarians/vegans in the world aren't silently dieing of malnutrition. How can you say its very easy to get 200g of protein without eating meat? Have you ever tried? I mean sure its doable but like you said you would have to eat an insane amount of calories to do it and I'm not interested in getting fat. The only way I've found to meet my protein intake requirement without eating 4000 calories a day is by eating lean meat and fish. And as far as beans go, it's true they do have a significant amount of protein but there are two problems with beans, first being that most types of beans have way more carbohydrates which makes them a poor choice for a bodybuilding type diet and secondly that the protein in beans has a much lower biological value than the protein found in meat which again make them unsuited for the purpose of muscle gain. Oh and for the record i weigh roughly 200lb, and if you are trying to gain muscle it is recommended to eat at least 1g of protein per lb of body weight, hence why i said 200g. I seriously doubt 200g of protein is in the kidney problems level. | ||
|
Element)LoGiC
Canada1143 Posts
On November 04 2009 09:48 daz wrote: How can you say its very easy to get 200g of protein without eating meat? Have you ever tried? I mean sure its doable but like you said you would have to eat an insane amount of calories to do it and I'm not interested in getting fat. The only way I've found to meet my protein intake requirement without eating 4000 calories a day is by eating lean meat and fish. And as far as beans go, it's true they do have a significant amount of protein but there are two problems with beans, first being that most types of beans have way more carbohydrates which makes them a poor choice for a bodybuilding type diet and secondly that the protein in beans has a much lower biological value than the protein found in meat which again make them unsuited for the purpose of muscle gain. Oh and for the record i weigh roughly 200lb, and if you are trying to gain muscle it is recommended to eat at least 1g of protein per lb of body weight, hence why i said 200g. I seriously doubt 200g of protein is in the kidney problems level. People that know nothing always complain about high protein intake and the liver/kidneys. These concerns mean nothing. Steroids however might be another issue. | ||
|
daz
Canada643 Posts
| ||
|
Element)LoGiC
Canada1143 Posts
On November 04 2009 10:00 daz wrote: oh shit i better get off em then Have fun not being able to compete  | ||
|
daz
Canada643 Posts
life sucks | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On November 04 2009 09:34 Element)LoGiC wrote: I can't wait for everyone to realize that all the stupid "green" things they've been doing all account for nothing. You all ASSUME that co2, methane, monoxide, etc, are culprits of global warming. What you don't seem to understand that 1998 was hotter than it was today. The larger Ice bodies are actually thickening, like the arctic. Here's a good article relating to that with a neutral POV: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
On November 04 2009 09:33 CharlieMurphy wrote: Denying meat is like denying being a human imo. I got nothing against vegetarians though. I completely agree. And yeah, I'm fine with vegetarians - more meat for me  | ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
Of course this has nothing to do with the meat YOU eat, that comes from Disneyland. ugh + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
On November 04 2009 10:23 cUrsOr wrote: More images from factory farms. Of course this has nothing to do with the meat YOU eat, that comes from Disneyland. ugh + Show Spoiler + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt1Jyh8NCDc Every time someone is shocked by something on the internet i have to laugh. Eating meat is natural. The fact that you guys are pushing that it is POSSIBLE to live on a vegetarian diet (a very carefully formulated one, of course) while billions of idiots with absolutely no nutritional training whatsoever manage to live perfectly fine on an omnivorous diet shows one thing: Vegetarians are like lots of people, they seek to feel superior to others for whatever token reason they grab onto. I will never stop eating meat. | ||
|
SonuvBob
Aiur21549 Posts
| ||
|
Infundibulum
United States2552 Posts
On November 04 2009 09:34 Element)LoGiC wrote: I can't wait for everyone to realize that all the stupid "green" things they've been doing all account for nothing. You all ASSUME that co2, methane, monoxide, etc, are culprits of global warming. What you don't seem to understand that 1998 was hotter than it was today. The larger Ice bodies are actually thickening, like the arctic. You can do whatever makes you feel smarter than everyone else, but don't push it on other people. Don't kid yourself, all these things you're doing are just meaningless hobbies. Maybe you people should research on sites that aren't funded by someone standing to gain from these "green" achievements. CO2 = fucking plants. We could multiply our co2 emissions by 30, and even the most delicate of plants would survive. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/08/the-ups-and-downs-of-methane/ Christ. You are very uninformed. Nobody just assumes that methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, etc. are the culprit greenhouse gases. Rigorous lab tests have been done demonstrating the heat trapping potential of these compounds. Data taken shows them occurring in increasing concentrations in our atmosphere along with correlating temperature changes. If the average temperature was higher in 1998 than it is now, this does not invalidate "global warming" (the media term for climate change). This is the intersection of the human and geologic time scale. Climate change does not mean every year is going to be hotter than the next. It entails a host of complicated and not entirely understood changes brought about by the complex feedback processes in the atmosphere and biosphere. The ice sheets are not thickening. Not the Arctic. Not the Antarctic (see: ice shelf collapse). Greenland is experiencing increasing melting rates. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.html NASA dot fucking gov. Care to claim source bias? And yes, tell the researchers and scientists who spent the last 30 years studying these problems that this is all just a "meaningless hobby." Are you really comparing climatology to building model trains or collecting stamps? Do you really think people worry about climate change just so they can feel smarter than others? As for CO2 = plants. You did not state your argument very well, but I see what you're getting at. Yes, there is a natural carbon cycle, and vegetation is a seasonal carbon storage. However: burning of fossil fuels coupled with deforestation and development release more net CO2 into the cycle. Effectively, it increases the amount of CO2 in the cycle while removing one of the storages. More CO2 accordingly remains in the atmosphere. One thing to note is that trees don't act as an infinite Carbon sink. For example, if you set aside an area of forest and pumped carbon in, eventually a threshold would be reached where the plants are "saturated" with CO2, leaving the rest in the air. There is some merit to the claim that research into climate science is biased by the funding sources. This is a problem in many scientific fields. I suggest you read some actual scientific papers if you're looking to develop a comprehensive and informed opinion on this subject. At least then, if nothing less, you'll be able to argue the other side more convincingly. | ||
|
m3rciless
United States1476 Posts
"progressive-minded ultra-liberal environmentalist" can't spell vegetarianism. I'm sure someone already pointed this out, but i thought it was hilarious. | ||
|
Element)LoGiC
Canada1143 Posts
On November 04 2009 12:11 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Christ. You are very uninformed. Nobody just assumes that methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, etc. are the culprit greenhouse gases. Rigorous lab tests have been done demonstrating the heat trapping potential of these compounds. Data taken shows them occurring in increasing concentrations in our atmosphere along with correlating temperature changes. I wasn't questioning their ability to trap heat, which I agree with. I do however disagree that they aid to "global warming" in any substantial manner. If the average temperature was higher in 1998 than it is now, this does not invalidate "global warming" (the media term for climate change). This is the intersection of the human and geologic time scale. Climate change does not mean every year is going to be hotter than the next. It entails a host of complicated and not entirely understood changes brought about by the complex feedback processes in the atmosphere and biosphere. Yup, complex, not well understood processes that have been in effect for I'm sure a pretty long time. The ice sheets are not thickening. Not the Arctic. Not the Antarctic (see: ice shelf collapse). Greenland is experiencing increasing melting rates. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.html It might be old. http://www.dailytech.com/A Melting Arctic Happy News for Mankind/article12882.htm NASA dot fucking gov. Care to claim source bias? And yes, tell the researchers and scientists who spent the last 30 years studying these problems that this is all just a "meaningless hobby." Are you really comparing climatology to building model trains or collecting stamps? Do you really think people worry about climate change just so they can feel smarter than others? You know that 20-30 years ago they were fearful of an ice age? Yeah, they planned to put soot on major ice bodies. As for CO2 = plants. You did not state your argument very well, but I see what you're getting at. Yes, there is a natural carbon cycle, and vegetation is a seasonal carbon storage. However: burning of fossil fuels coupled with deforestation and development release more net CO2 into the cycle. Effectively, it increases the amount of CO2 in the cycle while removing one of the storages. More CO2 accordingly remains in the atmosphere. The article I linked to explained that recently, we have not noticed a higher than normal ratio of methane in the atmosphere. One thing to note is that trees don't act as an infinite Carbon sink. For example, if you set aside an area of forest and pumped carbon in, eventually a threshold would be reached where the plants are "saturated" with CO2, leaving the rest in the air. There have been studies I could link to that conclude we can't even sustain the amount of CO2 that would be required to melt half of greenland in 1000 years. There is some merit to the claim that research into climate science is biased by the funding sources. This is a problem in many scientific fields. I suggest you read some actual scientific papers if you're looking to develop a comprehensive and informed opinion on this subject. At least then, if nothing less, you'll be able to argue the other side more convincingly. All that aside, I respect that you've actually researched the issue. More than I can say for about 95% of people that agree with global warming, like most of my friends. They think it's indisputable, which is why I hate anything that carries that tone. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
okum
France5778 Posts
On November 04 2009 09:34 Element)LoGiC wrote: I can't wait for everyone to realize that all the stupid "green" things they've been doing all account for nothing. You all ASSUME that co2, methane, monoxide, etc, are culprits of global warming. What you don't seem to understand that 1998 was hotter than it was today. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html You know that 20-30 years ago they were fearful of an ice age? Yeah, they planned to put soot on major ice bodies. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html In fact http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html gives a pretty good summary of much of the anti-global warming FUD. Regarding the OP: I like meat. I'm going to continue eating meat. In fact, I'm all in favor of the rest of you becoming vegetarians, as it leaves more meat for me to eat. | ||
|
arcticStorm
United States295 Posts
On November 04 2009 15:24 Element)LoGiC wrote: I wasn't questioning their ability to trap heat, which I agree with. I do however disagree that they aid to "global warming" in any substantial manner. Yup, complex, not well understood processes that have been in effect for I'm sure a pretty long time. It might be old. http://www.dailytech.com/A Melting Arctic Happy News for Mankind/article12882.htm You know that 20-30 years ago they were fearful of an ice age? Yeah, they planned to put soot on major ice bodies. The article I linked to explained that recently, we have not noticed a higher than normal ratio of methane in the atmosphere. There have been studies I could link to that conclude we can't even sustain the amount of CO2 that would be required to melt half of greenland in 1000 years. All that aside, I respect that you've actually researched the issue. More than I can say for about 95% of people that agree with global warming, like most of my friends. They think it's indisputable, which is why I hate anything that carries that tone. Like the 100% of global warming non believers out there, you claim greenhouse gas effect/global warming is disputable and just a "theory" The fact is, the earth IS getting warmer. The polar ice caps ARE melting, and sea levels WILL rise if the earth's water gets warmer (can't dispute that... thermal expansion of water). Whether or not this is caused by greenhouse gases you say is up for debate. Maybe it is. It has been shown that greenhouse gas levels are strongly correlated with global temperatures. Correlation not causation you say? What do you suggest we do? Wait around for a few hundred years and see who's right. For all practical purposes, the safest bet isto operate under the assumption that the greenhouse gas effect is true. Besides, how could anyone rationally believe that altering the composition of our atmosphere won't have any consequences? That said, I still want my meat. Unlike the use of hybrid cars, etc, which directly lower emissions, a small portion of the population not eating meat may decrease demand a little bit, but the prices will decrease and the meat will sell anyways. I don't see how a small vegetarian movement will be able to lower meat production. I also don't see how a large percentage of the population will give up eating meat. We are omnivores after all....... | ||
|
Infundibulum
United States2552 Posts
I wasn't questioning their ability to trap heat, which I agree with. I do however disagree that they aid to "global warming" in any substantial manner. The thing is, modern data is on a very short time scale compared to the amount of geological data. I'm not sure how familiar you are with paleoclimate, but basically temperature is estimated by measuring fractionated isotope ratios of Oxygen in ice or seafloor sediment. There's other indicators too, like pollen in sediments. You can also measure the concentration of CO2 in the same air bubbles trapped in the ice. Thus the infamous 'inconvenient truth' graphs that go back for 600,000 years or so. Anything before 3 million years is a bit less relevant to our time, due to the significant difference in ocean circulation patterns before the isthmus of Panama was formed. Still, we can generally see that when the Earth was warmer in the past, there was more CO2 in the atmosphere. The problem of a relatively short period of modern measurement has been partially solved by climate models. I guess the basic assumption is that if a model successfully predicts the present climate given a known set of past climate parameters, it's predictions for future climate will be more accurate. And then they run the model on lots of computers tons of times, and other models with different parameters. Models have been only increasingly complex over time. Tbh this is one area i'm not too familiar with though. But there is relatively little doubt that greenhouse gases have a significant effect on global climate. I think the questions most people are asking is, "Do the greenhouse gases people make have an effect on the climate?" "What is the rate that human sources are adding these gases to the atmospheric cycle, if at all?" "What are the natural sources/sinks and how could they be changing? Is man changing them?" Yup, complex, not well understood processes that have been in effect for I'm sure a pretty long time. Which means they are still in effect today. Albedo, volcanism, pressure systems, circulation etc. are all relevant now and were all doing their things however many millions of years ago and still are. I don't think I get your point here The article does have some good points about the language used in some global warming docs and articles. Obviously these are biased sources of info (as is this article). He is wrong about interglacials though. Sometimes all the ice melts in an interglacial, sometimes it doesn't. However, the processes thought to drive the last million years or so of Ice Ages are basically orbital in nature. They operate over time scales on the order of 23,000 - 100,000 years, so it's pretty unlikely we'd observe changes due to these in the short time we've been measuring. There is probably a threshold point, like in most Earth systems, that once crossed the renders the melting process irreversible. The argument that melting the Arctic ice cap doesn't contribute to seal level rise is not relevant. If you melt the Arctic, you are melting Greenland and probably Antarctica too. There's your sea level rise; enjoy it. I like how his main argument is that melting of sea ice is good because it gives access to whole new areas of exploitation. Charming really. Biodiversity be damned! It is true though, that governments will love to get their hands all over this geopolitical goldmine. Someone will get rich off of it, we can build some more material possessions for consumers to buy and the world keeps on spinning. You know that 20-30 years ago they were fearful of an ice age? Yeah, they planned to put soot on major ice bodies. I guess that's the problem with science. It's self correcting and therefore capable of mistakes. Before the 1960's people thought the crust of the earth was like a giant skin that contracted to form mountains. Now there's the theory of plate tectonics. Point being, new data changes the current theory. I agree that there is a large amount of uncertainty regarding the future of the climate (though I disagree that there is no human impact. imo, Man is a geologic agent more potent than most any other process in history). The article I linked to explained that recently, we have not noticed a higher than normal ratio of methane in the atmosphere. This isn't entirely true... http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2709.htm a few years old - while methane concentration is increasingly variably, there is a measured increase. Though it depends what you define as "normal." There have been studies I could link to that conclude we can't even sustain the amount of CO2 that would be required to melt half of greenland in 1000 years. then do it. really we can bandy about links to studies by smart people all day: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7266/abs/nature08471.html It's not the amount of CO2 that makes the glacier retreat. It's a) precipitation patterns, and b) temperature of air and sea. I don't think anybody really knows whether the Greenland ice sheet will be all there or half there or not there 1000 years from now. You can predict it based on models, but there are a lot more variables affecting ice sheet extent than just CO2 partial pressure. All that aside, I respect that you've actually researched the issue. More than I can say for about 95% of people that agree with global warming, like most of my friends. They think it's indisputable, which is why I hate anything that carries that tone. Thanks. Since I go to school studying very similar stuff, i try to stay on top of these issues. Though sometimes it's difficult to separate personal biases in studies/professors from a pragmatic view of the situation. Sorry if i come across as an asshole in my posts. I (usually) don't mean to. My main line of thought about global warming/climate change/scientific voodoo/whatever you want to call it right now is as follows. The recession of the last great Ice Sheets some 20,000 years BP gave rise to the modern climate - the Holocene. This is the climate that permitted the development of civilization and led to our current standing. It is the climate that allowed the widespread adoption of agriculture. If left unchecked, it is possible that human activities can eventually drive the climate from one that has been so hospitable, to one that is much less permitting of human development. A good article about this is A Safe Operating Space for Humanity. | ||
|
Rambling.
Canada314 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Soma
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
CrankTV Team League
BASILISK vs Streamerzone
Team Liquid vs Shopify Rebellion
Team Vitality vs Team Falcon
BSL Team A[vengers]
Gypsy vs nOOB
JDConan vs Scan
RSL Revival
Wardi Open
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
