What do you think of this Fully Raw Vegan Chili?
Do you have any other Fully Raw Vegan recipes?
I'm not giving her views, what is she trying to pass off as chili? I can only assume it's some kind of spicy stewed beans? There is no such thing as vegan chili, the same way there is no such thing as vegan Mac and cheese. Just call it what it is and stop pretending god damn. If living vegan was so god damned delicious they wouldn't feel the need to make fake versions of dishes people actually like.
Most vegans are too stupid to actually pay attention to what important things they're cutting out of their diets, so while it is possible to be fully healthy on a raw vegan diet, most vegans are not. That's why they usually look sickly and miserable.
Stop putting saying "fully" every time you say "raw", shill grill. That's like saying "fully vegetarian", implying a dish can have a little meat in it and still be partially vegetarian.
Also this girl would probably get more views if she put a bag over her head and got a dog to narrate for her.
I've not noticed them being leathery. I know one guy who is vegan just for shits. He's just, pale slow and has odd habits, like eating 7 vitamin pills every day, not even a variety of pills just all from the same jar.
/ck/, your mission should you choose to accept it is compile me a list of vegetables that are toxic when raw so I can make a funposting video where I prepare a healthy raw vegan meal out of them
ok, so I think you want to use like, four whole nutnegs, some way of disguising the taste, kidney beans, rubarb stalk and leaf, minced tomato and a chunk of the stem, and a good deal of poppy seeds too, because y'know, they're good for you.
>four whole nutmegs
that would be horrific
Is that body considered to be healthy? She seems to have a largish belly and a lack of any muscle definition. I'm utterly clueless about health, but i think she just doesn't eat many calories.
I'm not personally of that persuasion, but I think the theory is that cooking is kinda like pre-digesting the food, so if you don't cook it your body will work harder to metabolize it and will absorb fewer calories, so you can eat more and get fuller but keep your weight or lose weight or something.
Many nutrients both essential and nonessential are heat sensitive. Many thermal decomposition products are unhealthy. Farm fresh fruits and vegetables also tend to have their own beneficial surface bacteria, so they're very probiotic.
Cooking does increase bioavailability of certain things, but sprouting, blending, and enzymatic treatment can do the same. If you do cook food it should be done with low temperature moist heat. Like boiling, double boiling, poaching, or steaming.
Can someone explain to me the point of raw? Why on earth would you cut out something so fundamentally *human* as cooking food? It seems to be deliberately depriving yourself a fundamental evolutionary advantage. Why?
I can get why some people think they should be vegan. I can get why some people would rather walk/run bare footed. But what the fuck do you have against cooking something? Does this lifestyle choice also extend to mean you can't use fire for warmth?
>Sun dried tomatoes
Is cured meat considered also raw food?
Reaction to vegetables boiled to mush.
It also takes much longer to human body to process uncooked food and it does it with less efficiency.
Our digestive system is made for cooked meals.
There is some pros with raw food. It will have all of it's micronutrients and raw vegetables are great food when trying to lose weight.
The burger stuff is pretty reasonable. I also really love eataly.. but spending 150 dollars a week on one person not including lunch is fucking insane. Ive been clean bulking for the past 2 months at 3700 calories a day and couldn't even figure out how to spend that much per week on food. You must eat like shit.
I still don't get it. You can be a vegan and still eat all this shit raw without limiting yourself to ONLY eating this shit raw. It should be a testament, and huge fucking red flag to you, that your dietary decisions limit you from eating some very healthy foods because they need to be cooked to be consumed; and are therefore are annexed from your dietary options. Of all the idiotic pseudo-nutrition fads out there, this one is really getting under my skin. Can they eat canned shit? Or are they just supposed to munch on whatever pine cones and rabbit turds they can scrounge in the winter?!
Raw for a dog? I get it.
Raw for a human? Why don't you just go live in a fuckin' tree as ancestral homo-classes did before they discovered cooking with fire too then if it's supposedly healthy to live 2 generations of species back on your evolutionary tree? Obviously your iq matches that stage of development.
The primary advantage provided by cooking food is sterilisation, not addressing some pre-existing shortcoming in our digestive system. Today we get the same advantage from other technologies and hygiene practices.
A lot of raw food recipes also involve blending ingredients, which makes nutrients more bioavailable in a way that was no possible for out ancestors.
I agree there's little point in restricting your diet solely to raw foods, but it's not as counterproductive as you're making out and keeping a portion of your diet raw is probably a good idea. The fad has also led to a lot of interesting techniques and recipes that might not have been developed otherwise. It's fun to read through them.
no. homo sapiens has not "evolved" in any way since the invention of fire (and thus cooking). there is literally too small a genetic drift to talk about evolution.
4/10 you made me reply
That's false despite what popular science will tell you, but it doesn't matter what came first so I won't argue the point. What matters is the fashion in which cooking has assisted survival. To fit it into your own worldview, if our tongues favoured the flavour of poop rather than the malliard reaction, our species would have died out after developing the practice of spreading poop on meat. Instead, we happened to favour a preparation technique that was biologically advantageous because it sterilised the food.
Or, put more briefly, just enjoying food more is no advantage. It's just an affectation. Getting sick less frequently is.
>respond positively to glycotoxins
did we evolve to respond positively to lead acetate as well?
>The primary advantage provided by cooking food is sterilisation
except we also evolved to eat starchy foods, beans, legumes, and these have benefits from being cooked other than sterilization like being easier to digest...
maybe cooking opened up a whole new food supply for us that wasn't possible before?
it's great to eat some raw food but some cooked foods definitely are easier to digest than their raw forms.
it seems like a lot of people want to distance themselves from "those crude and intellectually inferior humans" by doing things like you're doing
why do these fuckers call everything by its actual meat counterpart?
like nigga don't call it a fucking steak, don't call it fucking whatever bacon, fucking vegan meatballs.
mother fucker MEATBALLS. fuck vegan cunts.
Stop it with this stupid rhetoric. You're not making "cruelty-free" versions of anything, you're making meat-free versions, just as you're not "pro-choice" or "pro-life", just "pro-/anti-abortion".
It's not 'cruelty' to respect an animal more than the myriad ways it would die in the wild. There is no value to animal life in its natural state; it dies unknowingly from an unknowing assailant. It is victim to the dance of natural order and wordless hierarchy. As humans we can savor the taste of animal flesh, can prepare it in endless complex ways, can bring to life an essence and culture to meat and eating meat that wouldn't exist without us. An animal doesn't appreciate this, but it equally doesn't 'appreciate' choosing not to buy it at a store where someone else, inevitably, will buy it. Once you get past applying human concept and rhetoric to beasts below vocalizing, you'll realize that true compassion and reverence lies in appreciating what they bring as commodity.
Anyway, to top this off, your food is no cruelty free, no matter what. There is no method of industrial anything that doesn't intersect with the murder of animals. Even vegetarian products use farming methods that crush the errant animal under harvesting blades, the gluten free or vegan-friendly products available to you share warehouses with animal products half the time. If you traced all the materials you took advantage of today, including the tool you used to leave your comment, I'm sure there's a death toll. It's inescapable, as a human being. You can only choose to be vegan with the sentience you have because our ancestors ate meat (look into the history of brain development, evolutionary ... the harbinger was protein from animal sources). To reject our relationship with animals that has existed for centuries out of faddish, modern entitlements over what we choose not to do (how petit bourgeois!) is anti-humanist and repulsive to me.
The only one here reaching is you, for reductive and false-equivocating non-statements. Give me a reason that eating meat is not something intrinsically human, both in a biological, cultural, and spiritual sense, and something worth sustaining. 'My feelings' is not a good reason, nor is anything environmental - because that would be an argument against our current version of meat farming, not consuming meat on general principle.
>Once you get past applying human concept and rhetoric to beasts below vocalizing, you'll realize that true compassion and reverence lies in appreciating what they bring as commodity.
jesus christ, those are some impressive mental gymnastics. you've clearly made up your mind, what's the point in debating. if you're truly interested in how arguments in favour of minimizing suffering of sentient beings might be constructed rigorously and rationally, without any reference to emotions, look into sam harris, the youtube channel unnatural vegan, or the article on rationalwiki. it has some good references.
>Anyway, to top this off, your food is not cruelty free, no matter what.
MUH ABSOLUTIST FALLACY
"we can't achieve something in totality so it follows that there is no reason to pursue this something" thank god you don't work in government.
>Even vegetarian products use farming methods that crush the errant animal under harvesting blades, the gluten free or vegan-friendly products available to you share warehouses with animal products half the time.
what, therefore, slaughtering 80 million turkeys for thanksgiving every year follows on logically? fucking retard.
> I'm sure there's a death toll. It's inescapable, as a human being.
"what we ought to do follows from what is"
demonstrably stupid and an obvious fallacy. troll harder.
>To reject our relationship with animals that has existed for centuries out of faddish, modern entitlements over what we choose not to do (how petit bourgeois!) is anti-humanist and repulsive to me.
this only proves your lack of intelligence and ability to reason critically. nothing about veganism is anti-humanist. go ahead and say it's repulsive; that's a subjective and personal thing. but your argument is riddled with holes. embarrassing.
I didn't really read the thread, but how is criticism of "our current version of meat farmers" always dismissed as an irrelevant technicality in these threads? It seems to me that carnism considers industrial factory meat farming to be beyond criticism, and anyone who DARES suggest that there's something wrong with it is literally equivalent to Ingrid Newkirk. You people just want to bury your head in the sands and go LA LA LA and keep on huffing down your $0.99/lb shitmeat.
Not him, and not that many so-called meat eaters are technically able to be vegetarian.
How would you call the trend consisting of reducing animal protein consumption regardless the reason?
That is an insult to every Lamia.
>All eggs, literally ever single egg ever consumed by a human, has come from a bird in cage.
>Chickens don't lay infertile eggs all the time if you just leave them to their own devices.
>Somehow, in Super Vegan Logic, simply gathering and consuming these eggs is bad.
>gorgeous woman with slender body type
>2/10 WOULD NOT BANG WOULD NOT BANG
Holy shit id rail her ass and pussy all day. Id love to have her mouth on my shit too. Head from pretty faces is fuckin cash