yes but the government + big Arg don't care. more profit today and no care for the future.
Hey Raveman...Not sure I agree with the idea that simply having a higher number of folks eat a plant based diet, automatically = less industrailized farming.
MONSANTO = PURE EVIL. STOP GMO at all costs. Do your homework and see if this is a easy or hard. While you are at it, look into what farming on a large scale does to top soil, etc.
Good Information HERE:
It is not an easy problem to solve.
Big_Slacker...Great to hear that you have experienced health benefits from changing your personal eating plan.
I do not have a name for the way I eat, but if someone were tp pigeon-hole it I would say it looks like a PALEO approach. In all honesty I don't consume a lot of red meat, but I do eat eggs, and raw milk, as well as chicken and fish occasionally.
All meats that I buy are free range (wild caught), organic, etc. Beef (bison, etc) is always free-range, grass fed, organic. I only drink whole raw milk (and don't drink it that often). I use protein powder that has no colors, additives, flavors etc. I consume a good amount of leafy greens, fresh fruits, raw nuts and seeds, etc. I avoid bread, pasta (all refined carbs). Don't eat beans or potato's either. I rarely consume tempeh or tofu products.
My body seems to function best on this sort of plan. I have experimented with many approaches and this one "feels" best for me.
TAKU
^^ Agree about Monsanto. They are indeed the very definition of the evil soulless corporation bent on profits at the expense of the health of everyone worldwide. They do shit that reads like a movie script. Like having a scientist in charge of a half assed study showing the BGH milk was safe, then using political sway to get her a job at the FDA where she APPROVE HER OWN REPORT! Then the FDA decided not to label the milk as BGH produced. the guy making the decision? A former Monsanto lawyer who was in charge of their anti-BGH labeling efforts. Haha, really?
They're spending a million dollars a day campaigning against the GMO labeling measure in CA on the current ballot and just might be able to buy it. Started out with 60+ percent in favor, almost dead even now.
You're right about finding what works. If you read a lot online about athletic diets it's always pushed that every athlete needs mass protein to make it work and you cut BF by going low carb. I've found that this isn't anything like optimal for me, and I've been strict and loose with this idea. Yes, I was able to put on mass and cut BF as needed but I always felt like crap during both phases and that's just not good for performance or long term health.
we will win in California, watch!
Can't even escape the armchair agronomists in the strength and conditioning forum. Sigh 
sewich -Can't even escape the armchair agronomists in the strength and conditioning forum. Sigh
Hell of a post, you've greatly enriched our lives and completely changed my view on the subject.
I'm vegan for health reasons and roll 4 times a week and it certainly doesn't effect my performance on the mat.. Do whatever works for you man and don't listen to others. Personally I thrive on a vegan diet. My wife loves steak. There you go. 
sewich -Can't even escape the armchair agronomists in the strength and conditioning forum. Sigh
As Big_slacker said...Great position and stance points! I've learned a lot from your input and I will be sure to cite you in any article or conversation I may have on the matter...what do any of US know, really?
westonprice.com
you jizz....DOT COM o_0
ArthurKnoqOut -sewich -Can't even escape the armchair agronomists in the strength and conditioning forum. Sigh
As Big_slacker said...Great position and stance points! I've learned a lot from your input and I will be sure to cite you in any article or conversation I may have on the matter...what do any of US know, really?
Your right in that sewich didn't offer any rebuttal, but he is correct - bunch of armchair agronomists, and what you know is pretty much dick, apparently.
FRAT warning. I grew up on a farm and have been working in crop science for most of my adult life; the last teaching job I had was a course in plant physiology, primarily for agronomy and crop science majors.
So I get a little sensitive about some of the nonsense that is passed around, particularly by athletes.
Why athletes?
The great amount of work done on crop science, the innovations that companies like Monsanto provide, have freed the vast majority of people from having to take any responsibility for producing their own food; they're free to pursue a life of leisure (and to pursue a career advising other people in their leisure, as nutritionists or strength and conditioning coaches).
It is a personal thing to me. I started running in junior high because it got me out of field work - I was working full days in the fields on weekends starting when I was 12, after school regularly, but an hour of track practice got me out of an hour of driving tractor in the dirt. I started cross-country season in college woefully out of shape, because August is harvest season for small grain, and working 10-12 hour days, 6 days a week didn't leave much time for training.
What I'm saying here is, unless you're willing to drop the weights and pick up a hoe, you've got little right complaining about industrialized farming. That physical effect wasted in the gym could be put to better use.
Specific rebuttals to follow.
ArthurKnoqOut -
I think the vast majority of vegans are healthier, however. Of course there are the junk food vegans/vegetarians that we've spoken of in many threads in the past but I rarely see vegans who don't know about b12 or omega-3s etc whilst I see even body builders who only understand macros and not trace minerals, nutrients, vitamins, etc.
That being said, your coach/trainer, OP is a bit nuts...Gorillas also have little peckers so does that suggest that dudes with small penises are stronger than dudes with larger penises?
Taku, it is actually better for the environment, it's just hard to really conceptualize it but overall, the major production of grain and soy and corn (all terrible things) are done to fatten up livestock (also something they shouldn't be consuming since they ruminant animals. So, that alone is "better" for the environment.
The majority of cropland, in the United States, falls to four crops - wheat, corn, soybean and alfalfa, mostly equally divided among the four; the rest is mostly small grains like oats or barley, some sorghum or sunflower, but for now we can ignore those.
Wheat is not fed to livestock - it's too valuable as human food. Been a stable for millennia. Soybean, about half is processed for animal feed - it's a good protein source compared to forages and it's a good complement for other protein sources, with regard to amino acid balance, as well.
Corn is the only grain where the major production goes to cattle feed. I don't know why you'd think cattle shouldn't be consuming corn, simply because their ruminants. Perhaps you think their feed only grain corn during finishing?
The farm I grew up on, we fed out roughly 200 head of yearlings a year; about 100 or so were raised in pasture on our land up to weaning, the others usually came from further west.
(This is important - calves and breeding herds are kept on pasture in dry regions, where crops don't grow well, then shipped for finishing to regions where crops predominate - this is an efficient use of agricultural resources. You would tend to burn the same amount of fossil fuels to plant poor cropland for less return.)
Anyway, feeder calves typically got a mix of alfalfa and silage; silage being the whole corn plant, chopped up. This is little different that grass, other than it lacks the noxious weeds that tend to make hay unpalatable. They would only get about 10% corn grain sprinkled on top.
This was always fun. I had to carry corn in buckets by hand from the grain bins to the feed lot. You know the Farmer's Walk exercise? That's what I did for real, about 200 meters one way.
And the last 50 meters was usually through a crowd. Steers love corn - love it. Here I am, a buck-thirty in high school, a five gallon bucket of corn in each hand, trying to work through a crowd of 600 pound adolescent animals, all wanting some of that sweet, sweet corn. Sure, it's relatively high calorie content, but, as an exercise enthusiast, you should know that to gain mass, you need to maintain a reasonable level of macronutrients. Since cattle don't handle lipids that well, it's carbs.
The diets the cattle receive, in production, are usually based on the recommendations of animal nutritionists - people who go to school specifically as health and nutrition majors, but for animals.
But, back to last of the big four - alfalfa. Alfalfa is good stuff. It's perennial, so putting a field into alfalfa for a few years reduces tillage; it's a legume so it helps restore soil nitrogen, it works well in dry environments, it's a great source of protein, and since it's a forage crop in it can be planted as a mix - with clover or grass, perhaps.
Trouble is, people don't eat it. They could, I suppose, but people are fussy about what they eat these days. The only way to profitably use alfalfa is to feed to cattle, or sheep. Not hogs, though.
So, if you look at the overall picture, eating beef is "better" for the environment.
Taku -
Hey Arthur,
What I meant was that industrialized farming is one of the worst things for the planet. If we assume all vegans are totally concious of the source of their food...Then perhaps in theory it's not bad. But I feel many people are not aware. Farming on the super scale at which it is done today, is one of the worst things going for the planet.
So...what I was implying is that if you feel that just because you eat a plant based diet, it is better for the earth...you are mistaken.
Hope that's clear.
TAKU
Taku, you do good work with coaching and providing training protocols, but you tend to screw up when you try to get into science. This is a case.
Industrialized farming is not really a problem; it's the solution to the bigger problem of urbanization and over-population. As part of my job, I usually attend the national meetings of the Agronomy Science and Crop Science Societies; many of the topics address the issues of continuing to meet growing demand for agriculture with limited resources.
But let me be more clear - let's consider the nitrogen cycle.
Nitrogen is the most expensive component to crop production; it either takes time to fix naturally (time we don't really have, because of the number of people who want to eat) or energy to fix industrially. Regardless, we get nitrogen in the soil, where it is fixed by plants into amino acids.
Crops, then, effectively concentrate nitrogen into a form that is easily transported to the vast mass of humanity living in cities, who have no connection to the land. I don't mean a spiritual connection to the land, I mean a hard, physical connection. They take in this nitrogen, use it for a while, then excrete. Where does it go? Does it go back to the crop land, or is it lost, washed down a river.
Are you pooping in your garden? If not, you've disrupted the nitrogen cycle, and that's bad for the planet. If you don't live in walking distance of your food source, if food has to be shipped to you, and you don't return your waste, that's bad for the planet.
That is, of course, one reason cattle are good. They walk themselves around pastureland, gathering up nitrogen and can walk themselves into trucks for shipping. Much less fossil fuel required to get soil nitrogen into form that can be shipped to people living in town.
The other advantage might not be so obvious.
Every fall, we would move cattle from pasture to stubble - that is, the crop fields after the crops are taken out. The breeding herd, since they're not gaining mass, can do quite well on stubble, and by eating the crop residue they help decompose it back to soil nitrogen. They also transfer some nitrogen, in the form of manure, from the pasture land (which is now lying fallow and soil organisms are restoring soil nitrogen) to crop land.
But, this is not true for all production regions. In many places, it is more profitable to rotate among crops. Perhaps you might argue that farmers should forego personal profit for the good of the planet? I hope not - then we would need to consider everybody's personal sacrifices of profit for the good of the planet.
Some people do that - give up your clients and move out of the city, use the time that was spent on trivial physical activity to produce for yourself.
I do it. Every year, my running goes to pot about June - the time I spend in the garden, hoeing, planting, weeding, plays havoc with my hamstrings.
big_slacker - I just tacked the junk food vegan thing on to agree with that point. I think I brought it up originally in the other threads. Or you did in an earlier thread I didn't read. ;)
Can I also agree that feedlot beef and the corn subsidy crap that supports it is incredibly harmful to humanity as a whole without offending anyone? That shit is terrible for us in more ways than one.
Well, you did offend me, in part.
The subsidies are a problem. Corn subsidies themselves, not so much. There's a huge industrial commitment to large scale ethanol production, and not without risk to the people in the industry, but the long-term gains to society are measurable.
Corn as a feed stock (and the associated subsidies) are really only a temporary solution. With production facilities in place and profitable, we can then move to other biomass sources, such as switchgrass; perennials that allow fallow land to produce fuels. That's a good thing.
Trouble is, some people - city people, mostly - take advantage of the subsidy program. Developers build houses on crop land, take the subsidies, put it in their pockets; home buyers buy an extra five acres that used to be cropland, plant a lawn and take the subsidy on the land.
Yes, it's abused in some cases, but overall the program is a greater good.
As for feedlot cattle, I grew up on feedlot cattle, steak every day. The great thing about feedlots is that it's a safe environment for cattle; you don't need to worry as much about wolves, or bears, or even coyote.
We don't have bear around here, but I've seen coyote hunts - neighbors driving around, shooting every coyote they see. Come home with a truckload of dead, well, they look like dogs.
Then there's the problem of orphan calves. Sometimes, a cow simply won't take to the calf. It's born on a cold, rainy spring morning, and mama won't let it feed, chases it away. That calf is brought back to the feed lot and raised by hand, it'll die a lonely death in the pasture otherwise. We usually had a couple-three a year.
After reading all that all I can think of is LOL K, feed us shit and call it caviar. I really liked the part about "animal nutritionists" because surely the educational system isn't based on the factory feedlot farming that essentially states "if the animal will eat it then it's acceptable". Cows are ruminant animals that will eat a twinkie, surely feeding them cookies, twinkies and twizzlers (which is really happening nowadays) is PERFECTLY normal :) ahh
Lemme ask you something, does Monsanto or Cargill pay well because I hear their cafeterias don't serve GMOs so I was thinking of selling my soul and working there if the price is right?
ravenman2000 -Taku -Hey Arthur,
What I meant was that industrialized farming is one of the worst things for the planet. If we assume all vegans are totally concious of the source of their food...Then perhaps in theory it's not bad. But I feel many people are not aware. Farming on the super scale at which it is done today, is one of the worst things going for the planet.
So...what I was implying is that if you feel that just because you eat a plant based diet, it is better for the earth...you are mistaken.
Hope that's clear.
TAKU
I am a heavy meat eater myself, but to be fair, eating a plant-based diet is better for the earth because it reduces industrialized farming. This is due to the fact that the majority of crops are grown in order to *drum roll* produce feed for the animals we eat. If we were all to eat plants instead of those animals, then the increase in the amount of plants we eat would still fall very, very short of the amount of plant matter those animals were eating. Of course, hunting and catching wild fish (which I also do) resolves this issue, but with the current population, it wouldn't be feasible for everyone to rely on that for subsistence.
Hunting and fishing doesn't necessarily resolve the issue.
If you come pheasant hunt in South Dakota, there's a good change you end up shooting farmed pheasants.
There's a lot of money to be made selling hunting vacations, and a lot of people have converted good farmland over commercial hunting preserves, at $1000 per gun, per day. These guys expect to shoot birds, so they're raised commercially, much like chickens, then released for the hunt.
Similar with fishing - the more popular fishing areas are stocked. Hunting and fishing in many areas has become just as industrialized as agriculture in many areas, for the same reasons - too many people, not enough land.
Do you know who stewards the land you hunt and fish on?
You don't work on routers, firewalls and host protection. You can't complain about your internet being slow or viruses on your computer, I'm pissed off that you would even talk about it because you haven't waked a mile in my shoes!!!! I'll stop there because my main point isn't to mock you, I'm very happy you took the time to post some information about something you obviously care about. I just wanted to shut down that "no one who isn't in my industry can criticize obvious problems." argument. Anyone who is a scientist, engineer, teacher should be absolutely open to criticism because if you deal with it honestly it leads to the truth, even if the truth is something that doesn't jibe with your current views.
With that out of the way, I don't have an opinion about the effect of factory farming on the environment. I've not done any serious looking around in that area. But I'd like to hear about why/whether you think feedlot/cornfed beef is healthier or better than grass fed beef for humans regardless of whether an animal nutritionist designed their diet or not.
I'd also like to hear your thoughts on whether it's a good or bad thing to label GMO based food products and whether its a good/bad thing that so many former employees of large food corporations end up in the FDA regulating their former industries?
BTW-I'm totally down with growing your own. My father in law has a half acre or so with a good variety of fruits/veggies, our neighbors have chickens, we do berries and I'm gonna do some kale and other stuff, although I'm limited cause it's a rental house.
"After reading all that all I can think of is LOL"
I get the same reaction every time i read your vegan hipster diet "advice"
Hey dakotajudo,
Glad you appreciate some of my coaching / training input. Not sure where my science is faulty, just because you disagree with things that I have said.
I appreciate your passion and recognize that you have some experience related to this subject. There is a lot of science out there, and not all of it is good science. In the fitness industry this is true, and unfortunately it's true in all other areas as well.
I have been actively working on this forum for 15 years. I respect your opinion, but choose not to argue, I have too many other things I can do with my time.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this subject.
TAKU
Taku -MONSANTO = PURE EVIL. STOP GMO at all costs. Do your homework and see if this is a easy or hard. While you are at it, look into what farming on a large scale does to top soil, etc.[\quote]
Lord, Taku, this is where you start going of the rails.
Why you should be thankful for Monsanto's products, if you care about topsoil.
Before Roundup-Ready soybean, typical production practice involved one pass through the field in the spring to kill pre-emergence weeds, and perhaps a pre-emergence herbicide like Treflan (much more toxic to animals than glyphosate). After planting, there may be 2-3 more passed to control broadleaf weeds, or spraying with a less selective herbicide than may "burn" the soybeans if over-applied.
Every one those passes burns fossil fuel and erodes topsoil.
Then there's walking the beans. Get up at 6am, walk up one row and down the other, half mile long field in the sun, heat, humidity, dirt, to pull the weeds that tilling or herbicide didn't catch. Tedious, tiring work. You think you're fit? Walk beans for a week.
Because weeds cost money - they contaminant the crop and some, like nightshade, are toxic.
After Roundup-Ready? No-till. Leave the soil undisturbed prior to planting, spray once or twice, harvest. And the spraying requires much less fuel per pass through the field. Much better for the environment.
Haven't you noticed this? Prior to Round-up Ready, the dust and haze in the air, spring and fall from all the tilling? I have. It's a good thing. Monsanto as created a huge labor saving technology and they deserve every penny.Taku -Good Information HERE:[\quote]
Terrible information. Did you actually read the research cited? It's mostly poorly done, and a lot of it isn't even pertinent to crops. You noted the papers citing potato lectin? Of course that's not something to feed animals. The anti-GM people just toss that in there, because they know you don't know any better and it's scarier.
The simple fact is, that if there were any potential for GM crops to be harmful to animals, there would be no market for GM crops.
The beef and dairy industries are also quite large and have many sophisticated scientists working on the issues of animal nutrition. They would not accept a product that would in any way threaten the profitability of animal agriculture.Taku -
In all honesty I don't consume a lot of red meat, but I do eat eggs, and raw milk, as well as chicken and fish occasionally.
Eggs? Even organic, is more highly industrialized that cattle production. We bought eggs from the farmer down the road; still industrialized. The only eggs I've had that weren't, in some form or other industrialized, where those we picked when we didn't slaughter then meat hens, and they started to lay.
Raw milk? Better be very sure about your producer, because, if you haven't noticed, cattle live where there's dirt; dirt has pathogens, like, say, tuberculosis. There's a reason milk is pasteurized.
We milked our own cows, for a while, and we pasteurized.Taku - All meats that I buy are free range (wild caught), organic, etc.
Free range and wild caught are not the same thing. I raised free range chickens, but they weren't wild caught.
And organic is really just a marketing gimmick; most organic production is heavily industrialized, or it's inefficient and wasteful.
From an animal health perspective, it's also a bit unethical. Animals in the field are exposed to a huge number of pathogens. Bacterial infections, fungi (it was pretty common, where I grew up, for kids in school to get ringworm from working cattle), intestinal parasites (I took a parasitology class as an undergrad, grabbed some shit samples from the herd; under the microscope, most cows carried 2-3 different species of tapeworm), insects (one of the more noxious parts of working cattle was applying treatment for lice, and when we sheared sheep, ticks under the wool looked like moving freckles), the list goes on.
And organic methods do not control these as well.
So most organic producers are left with a dilemma. Treat the animal, and it's no longer organic (so you have to maintain two separate facilities, one for organic production and one for conventional). Leave the animal alone to suffer; it's sick, but it's still organic. Or perhaps try some "organic" treatment that typically not very effective.
If you get sick, health-threatening sick, do you use "organic" medicines? Is it ethical to treat animals differently?