this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
359 points (85.0% liked)
Perry Bible Fellowship
645 readers
53 users here now
This is a community dedicated to the webcomic known as the Perry Bible Fellowship, created by Nicholas Gurewitch.
https://www.patreon.com/perryfellow
New comics posted whenever they're posted to the site (rarer nowadays but still ongoing). Old comics posted every day until we're caught up
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not even vegetarian/ vegan, but you just come off as a giant asshole.
It is a well known fact that it's entirely possible to thrive on a non meat diet. So your argument that we need meat to thrive is a really bad one.
The world works the way we make it work. Imagine wanting to end slavery, and there you go "Grow up from the little child crying over the idea of slaves deserving their own lives, you just don't understand how the world works!"
You don't have to justify wanting to eat meat for sustenance. And you also don't need to be an asshole about it when engaging in civil conversations.
Wrong. Please stop spreading dangerous misinformation. Most should probably be eating LESS meat than they do, but none? You're harming your body. Plain and simple.
Veganism is a dangerous death cult and needs to be stopped.
What you are saying has no scientific basis. What your body needs are vitamins, minerals, protein, and glucose.
The body is harmed to various degrees if you stop your intake of either of those. But meat isn't the only source of protein. Just from the top of my head, oats and green lenses are excellent sources of protein.
Your body does not care where you get your protein from. As long as you get some.
This is elementary school level biology.
Like I said. Eat whatever you want. I don't care what you eat. But fact remains that your body doesn't need meat. It needs protein.
Know what else is science? The fact that the amount of protein from non-meat sources means you have to eat A WHOLE LOT of this food to equal one decent-sized serving of meat.
Enjoy literally stuffing yourself with vegan food while I eat one serving of meat for the same amount of nutrients.
Goddamn, vegans get pissy when you tell the truth. Maybe eating some meat might help that mood.
I just love that you bring up science. Because our bodies typically can't process more than 40-50grams of protein per meal for repairing muscle tissue.
The rest is used for other things not necessarily reserved for protein.
If you're under the impression a vegan needs to eat buckets full of green lenses you're gravely mistaken.
I've already told you I'm not a vegan. Not only do I eat meat. I'm a licensed hunter.
You're just wrong about this. Science isn't your strong suit. That's ok. You don't have to justify eating meat. Just don't bring science into it. You clearly don't understand the scientific process.
I'm fairly certain at this point when you say science you just mean your opinion, and you like to insult other people's intelligence and motivations. That isn't nice, you will find better discussions when you treat people with respect.
@the_doktor@lemmy.zip you have been incredibly patient, I applaud you.
Not actually true. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12970-018-0215-1
Priority Micronutrient Density in Foods
Please let me introduce you to DIAAS - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestible_Indispensable_Amino_Acid_Score and https://www.diaas-calculator.com/
To get 100g of bioavailable protein one needs to eat 470g of ground beef, or 2,500g of broccoli. So yes, buckets and buckets, of course being deficient is the default option as well.
I don't think you read the study you linked. It shows I was wrong, it's LOWER than 40-50 grams per serving according to the study.
According to their study, the optimal amount seems to be closer to 20g per meal, eating in intervals of 3 hours.
And why are you picking broccoli? Instead of something that contains more protein such as green lentils or oats. Probably because it wouldn't fit your argument.
And no. I don't mean my opinion when I say science. I mean the results coming from peer reviewed, repeatable experiments, that we use to conclude results based on our hypothesis.
At this point, this is just your rhetoric, I know you haven't had time to read the whole paper since you responded.
You will notice that in the IF section, and the OMAD section, groups of women (both young and old) they maintained their muscle mass despite exceeding the single meal limit.
Optimal for whom, and in what context? The point of the survey was that there are MANY variables at place, and focusing on a single group and a single metric (young body builders, anabolism) is being too simplistic.
If you care to look at the DIAAS calculator for oats you will see they are not a complete source of amino acids. Potatoes would be a better choice. In your original comment you mentioned buckets of leafy greens, so I was restricting myself to green material.
You have a tendency to over simplify, and not provide references.
You're not eating oats for the amino acids. You eat them for their protein and carbonhydrate content. Which is the topic here.
If you read just a little bit of it. You would know whom it was optimal for and in what context.
There is a big difference between protein used for rebuilding muscle tissue, and just providing fuel for the body as a whole. At a certain point. The excess protein you put in, isn't going to be used for rebuilding tissue. It's going to be stored as energy to be used.
I'm not gonna go into a big argument with someone that thinks a vegan diet is impossible for maintaining your body. There are many well known elite athletes that are vegan. If they can perform on an elite level on a strictly vegan diet. Normal people can sure as hell live on it as well.
It's not a debate. We already know the answer. Your notion that veganiam is a "death cult" is just ridiculous. I have no doubt, you'll be able to drag me down to your stupidity and beat me with experience.
Good luck.
Hey, remember all the insults you have been throwing around about other people being bad at reading, and bad at science?
Guess what proteins are made of?
You are just a rhetoric machine. Clearly as demonstrated in the survey paper people can utilize more then 50g of protein in a single bolus.
This is a mechanistic assumption, it has not been empirically mapped (science literacy again). If you have a reference where it has been demonstrated, I'd genuinely love to read it.
That's funny, I'm not the one who said that, it was the doktor.
Again not me, I worry about your demonstrated poor reading comprehension
@Sunshine@lemmy.ca
Please explain this to me, I'm here just talking about protein absorption and I get a downvote. I'm not the person who said anything bad about veganism.
The person who called veganism bad words doesn't get a downvote?
What did you find objectionable here? The protein absorption rate discussion. Normally I understand why you downvote something, here I'm a bit lost.
I don't have to guess. But since you seemed confused about it I wanted to make it crystal clear.
You can utilize unlimited amounts of protein. But it's not going to rebuild tissue that doesn't need rebuilding. That's the whole point. You CAN eat 5kg of beef in a single day. That doesn't mean your body will be able to put all of the protein to their primary use.
Yet here you are, spouting the same rethoric.
I asked you for a citation or a reference on the >50g of protein sink.
You never apologize for being incorrect or insulting people, do you?
I never claimed a >50g of protein sink. What I said, was that we typically can not utilize more than 40-50g for repairing muscle tissue (per meal). That is the number I recall from biology in college roughly 13 years ago. It would seem that we've since concluded that optimal intake for the purpose of repairing muscle tissue is much lower per meal. While I was wrong about the number, I was far closer to the modern number than what was claimed by mr "Vegan Death Cult"-guy, and parroted by you for his defense.
The study you linked, and this one both claim a much lower "limit" per meal, so while my information was outdated, it's outdated in the opposite direction of what is being argued. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5828430/
If you feel insulted, that's on you. And why you feel like people have to apologize for being mistaken when they change their mind when presented with new, more accurate information is beyond me. I'm not going to apologize for learning. And what a wonderful thing to learn, we need even less protein per meal for muscle tissue regeneration than I initially thought. That's great news.
I haven't concluded this.
It really doesn't. It says given the current literature we cannot map a direct MPS benefit for greater consumption in 20 something men doing body building.
Thanks for the paper, I'll put it on the read queue.
Because your insulting everyone you speak with in conversations, your the one creating offense. I'm not opposed to you onboarding new information but the shear hubris you demonstrate "You didn't read this", "you dont understand science", etc is really insulting to everyone.
While you may not have concluded that. It would seem that the authors of the study you, yourself linked. Have. And the authors of the study I linked have as well.
Yes, MPS is the goal here. That's mainly what you want Protein for.
I just find it hard to believe you would read a study that disproves your claim, and then link it as some kind of "gotcha-moment". It doesn't support your argument. It does the exact opposite. So, the logical conclusion of why someone would do that. Is that they did not read it. But if you did read it, and understood that it does in fact not support your argument. Feel free to indulge me in why you would link it.
If you take offense to being told that I don't think you read the study you linked since it literally disproves your own argument. Then so be it. And I don't know what else to say about the guy who doesn't think human beings can survive and thrive on a non meat diet. We're talking elementary school level of education that is desperately lacking. Now that is slightly insulting. To the parents and teachers who failed him.
Perhaps it is my illiterate nature, but I would say they made the more nuanced and validated statement "the current literature we cannot map a direct MPS benefit for greater consumption in 20 something men doing body building."
That is a very limited context, which the authors are very careful about speaking to its limited implications in overall health and health goals.
It doesn't, the paper has depth and nuance and a careful review of it makes it clear the simplistic sound bite take away is too simplistic, which was my entire point, and still is my entire point.
I didn't say this.
Yet another insult.
This all started, with the person you're so valiantly defending, saying that the human body is physically harmed by not eating meat. It further developed into you defending his claim that a vegan would have to eat literally buckets, full of vegetables to get enough protein for sustained health.
What both of the studies show, is that is simply not even remotely true.
You can eat as much protein as you want. But it's not going to make you regenerate muscle tissue any faster, just because you eat 5x the daily recommendation.
The studies are literally proving my point that you can absolutely thrive on a vegan diet, and get more than enough protein per meal to sustain, and develop your body.
I didnt' say, YOU said it.
You can think that's insulting. But that is literally, what is going on. We learn in elementary school about nutrition and various sources. That we need vitamins, minerals, glucose and protein. We learn that meat is a good source of protein. we also learn that there are many vegetables and cereals (grains) that are good sources of protein.
So yes. I would call that elementary school level of knowledge. If you posses it. I'm not talking about you.