All of the most recent legit science shows going plant-based is the optimal way to go, for the long-term that is. Eating like a modern caveman is ok for short term gain, but if you want to look good and have decent erectile function as you get older, you need to make sure all of your arteries are clean and pumping blood as fully as possible.
[/quote]
Resent legit science? What recent legit science? I call Bullshit. Most likely more hear say. Maybe true, maybe not. There is as much so called science to support eating animal based foods as there is against eating animal based foods, just like there is more & more info coming out that saturated fat isn’t the heart destroying enemy previously thought. Also I have yet to see any evidence of a vegan diet boosting long term libido and the majority of male vegans certainly don’t look good.
Also, In my anthropology class, the teacher talked about most other cultures historically and currently outside the US eat quite a bit of all the organ meats, which I understand are far more nutrient dense than muscle meat. Anyone else have any info on this?
[quote]Kai9ne wrote:
Also, In my anthropology class, the teacher talked about most other cultures historically and currently outside the US eat quite a bit of all the organ meats, which I understand are far more nutrient dense than muscle meat. Anyone else have any info on this?[/quote]
Grass fed beef liver is the most nutrient-dense food per gram I believe. Way more so than any vegetable or fruit.
[quote]Kai9ne wrote:
Also, In my anthropology class, the teacher talked about most other cultures historically and currently outside the US eat quite a bit of all the organ meats, which I understand are far more nutrient dense than muscle meat. Anyone else have any info on this?[/quote]
Organ meat has much more nutritional value than muscle tissue. TC has an article about it somewhere, but I’m too lazy to look it up.
[quote]Kai9ne wrote:
Also, In my anthropology class, the teacher talked about most other cultures historically and currently outside the US eat quite a bit of all the organ meats, which I understand are far more nutrient dense than muscle meat. Anyone else have any info on this?[/quote]
Organ meat has much more nutritional value than muscle tissue. TC has an article about it somewhere, but I’m too lazy to look it up. [/quote]
[quote]Kai9ne wrote:
Also, In my anthropology class, the teacher talked about most other cultures historically and currently outside the US eat quite a bit of all the organ meats, which I understand are far more nutrient dense than muscle meat. Anyone else have any info on this?[/quote]
That is true and very important.
Some pretend it is better to be a meateater/omnivore because our ancesters did eat animals.
But the people in rich countries are not doing what was done 10,000 years ago.
Just look at the paleo nonsense.
Half thruths and half lies are now considered a source of alzeimer(eating muscles).
Look around and most people living in rich countries create the majority of their problems.
Soon the people living in north america will be too poor to buy meat, just be patient that problem will go away.
Also what is called chicken is very different from what it was 60 years ago so this discussion is ideological, really far from being based on facts.