bajrang Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 multivitamin is garbage. i would have taken it more then the ppl in this thread combined . unless u are elite level athlete where even a miniscule thing can count u really dont need it, just drink milk, eat egss fruits and nuts that's all. now there is difference between looking good and looking average.i sense for lots of people here, being not too fat, not too skinny means looking good. but that's actually an average look. women can get away with vegetarian food (low protein, medium carb) cause fat gives them curves. some women depending on their genetics, will get drool worthy curves without ever steeping into a gym. while fat in men only gives them pot bellies. men need muscles. men needs food with medium protein medium carb. other then pulses, grains and some nuts i dont know any vegetarian food that fits the bill. even if u somehow mange to get ur protein requirement on veg food u still will have to slave ur bum off in a gym to look half decent. evolution has already dealt us men an unfair hand when it comes to naturally looking good, u are only further stacking up the odd against you by restricting yourself.
Brainfade Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 Science speaks: From the journal "Archives of Internal Medicine:" http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/archinternmed.2011.2287 Methods We prospectively observed 37 698 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2008) and 83 644 women from the Nurses' Health Study (1980-2008) who were free of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer at baseline. Diet was assessed by validated food frequency questionnaires and updated every 4 years. Results We documented 23 926 deaths (including 5910 CVD and 9464 cancer deaths) during 2.96 million person-years of follow-up. After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. The corresponding HRs (95% CIs) were 1.18 (1.13-1.23) and 1.21 (1.13-1.31) for CVD mortality and 1.10 (1.06-1.14) and 1.16 (1.09-1.23) for cancer mortality. We estimated that substitutions of 1 serving per day of other foods (including fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy, and whole grains) for 1 serving per day of red meat were associated with a 7% to 19% lower mortality risk. We also estimated that 9.3% of deaths in men and 7.6% in women in these cohorts could be prevented at the end of follow-up if all the individuals consumed fewer than 0.5 servings per day (approximately 42 g/d) of red meat. Conclusions Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality. Substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk.
hari504504 Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 Lol! Even Brahmins eat non veg back in Kerala. I've got a couple of friends who eat non veg without their parents knowing about it. Beef in Kerala is frigging awesome. And when someone visits Kerala next time, avoid eating Beef fry from a 5* restaurant rather go for the street food..that's where the taste lies (Its clean aswell).. Nope not true. You are talking about the modern liberal types of Brahmins. They are everywhere, not only in Kerala. Orthodox Kerala Brahmins don't even drink coffee as it is considered an intoxicant.
nballa Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 Since you are insisting to be thick on head... In your style: "multivitamins are useless" - is a blanket statement, there are cases where they are known to be useful. go ahead and search yourself or continue sucking your own. have you ever considered you taking multivitamins is somehow responsible for your inability to read. think about it. wait.. thinking might be a task too difficult for you. just sit down.
akshayxyz Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 have you ever considered you taking multivitamins is somehow responsible for your inability to read. think about it. wait.. thinking might be a task too difficult for you. just sit down. Since you want to continue making fool of yourself, I won't stop you. Thanks for the entertainment. You are too thick to be affected by even nuclear missiles.
dial_100 Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 Why did you choose to eat meat when others around you didn't? Wanted to be cool? Wanted to rebel? Taste? Chalta hai attitude? well, it is a choice thing. I dont believe in any connection between food and religion (or spirituality for me) at all. As long as you are detached from what you eat then it is fine. I can eat beef/pork if there is abolutely nothing else abvailable, or chicken when no best veggie available. If and when I go to Indian restaurant, I only eat veg. If I am home, I ear 95% veg. But if I were to survive on only greens, veg, non-veg, I can do it because I think I am much above food and taste now. May be chalta hai attitude because as I said it is just a food. I would rather stop corruption, killing of young girls, rape of 5-6 years old girl if I could rather than worrying about a chicken or fish. I dont know but I couldn't just relate to the reasons they believe in to not eat non-veg food. Thats all. Rebel & all are too big words to be used for trivial things like food.
dial_100 Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 You know' date=' even when I was a non veg, I didn't like beef or pork. Mostly because there are no good restaurants in India.[/quote'] To be honest, I dont find any difference in any veggie dish and a chicken dish or seafood for that matter. I can certainly say that there is not much in beef/pork that i cannot substitute with better option so I better avoid it. Beside for my body type, red meat is abolutely No No. Thats all.
Crookbond Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 Science speaks: From the journal "Archives of Internal Medicine:" http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/archinternmed.2011.2287 This was just on "Red meat", just pointing out.
anotherhawkeye Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 well, it is a choice thing. I dont believe in any connection between food and religion (or spirituality for me) at all. As long as you are detached from what you eat then it is fine. I can eat beef/pork if there is abolutely nothing else abvailable, or chicken when no best veggie available. If and when I go to Indian restaurant, I only eat veg. If I am home, I ear 95% veg. But if I were to survive on only greens, veg, non-veg, I can do it because I think I am much above food and taste now. May be chalta hai attitude because as I said it is just a food. I would rather stop corruption, killing of young girls, rape of 5-6 years old girl if I could rather than worrying about a chicken or fish. I dont know but I couldn't just relate to the reasons they believe in to not eat non-veg food. Thats all. Rebel & all are too big words to be used for trivial things like food. Interesting and makes sense. Thanks for answering my question. I suspect many traditionally vegetarians eat non veg for the same reason. Vegetarian parents often fail to convince their kids on the merits of vegetarianism. Don't eat a food or do something because its prohibited by your religion is not going to work in the 21st century. That's what Vatican is finding out on the topic of sex. :) There are cases of people who eat non veg to spite their parents, just because their parents, usually ultra conservative and strict, said no. That's what I meant by rebellious.
hari504504 Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 What special forces go through during survival training course
yoda Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 nice, posting snake eating pics in a thread asking if you are a vegetarian.
Recommended Posts