Post: #26

This is the best butter:



If you have a Sam's club, you can get this:

Post: #27

I did some research on butter and it seems that Kerrygold is the best brand you can buy in stores. On a side note today I ate a baked sweet potato with a tablespoon of Kerrygold butter and bruh......

Post: #28

I use Anchor brand because that's the only grass fed buffer available in Thailand that I know of.

What makes Kerrygold better? I dont know much about grass fed butter honestly.

Post: #29

Butter made in New Zealand or Australia is almost 100% guaranteed to be grassfed.

Post: #30

Anchor is better than Kerrygold. Anchor is expensive in the US though so Kerrygold is more popular.

Grass does not grow year round in Ireland, therefore Kerrygold is not always grassfed. Kerrygold claims when grass is growing that their cows are fed only grass--but when there's no grass they feed them a supplement.

Post: #31

(02-12-2015 06:29 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

I have a few problems with this infographic:

1. Why aren't our mouths better at neutralizing the acid produced by sugar eating bacteria? The gum disease known as GINGIVITIS is rampant these days from consuming simple sugars. An animal optimized for eating tons of fruit should have high pH saliva and drool a lot.

2. Our social behavior is a lot closer to that of chimps (ominvores) than that of our closest frugivore relatives: bonobos. For reference, bonobos are sedentary matriarchies that spend most of their time jacking off. So I guess at least modern western civilization matches that...but hunter/gatherer societies don't.

3. Our bodies are constructed for walking upright on a savannah. All the fruit-eating animals I've heard of are evolved for mobility in the trees, either flying around like bats and birds, or swing around like monkeys.

4. Fossil records of humans and their ancestors suggest diets focused originally on scavenging followed by a lot of hunting once we had the brains to coordinate our efforts. One of the big reasons humans beat out the neanderthals was because we figured out how to fish and get meat out of the lakes and rivers while neanderthals were stuck hunting dwindling numbers of megafauna.

5. Vegans need to consume some fairly unnatural vegetable sources to get their protein and b vitamins. 99% of human evolutionary history hasn't had access to tofu pad thai and those wierd tasting fake breakfast sausages.

This stuff's just off the top of my head, but as far as the op is concerned chopping up a bunch of red potatoes into wedges, shaking them up in a big ziploc bag to coat them with a little olive oil, then baking them into oven fries is delicious.

Post: #32

(02-16-2015 04:06 AM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  I have a few problems with this infographic:

1. Why aren't our mouths better at neutralizing the acid produced by sugar eating bacteria? The gum disease known as GINGIVITIS is rampant these days from consuming simple sugars. An animal optimized for eating tons of fruit should have high pH saliva and drool a lot.

Strangely enough the people consuming the 80-10-10 diets have no problem with the sugar-content of fruits. Also the data available from simple cultures where a lot of natural fruit is consumed shows that there is something off about our current tooth decay perception. The health of our teeth stems to a large degree from within - lack of vitamins and minerals. Processed sugars are much different to natural ones found in bananas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qci5-kjf9w



2. Our social behavior is a lot closer to that of chimps (ominvores) than that of our closest frugivore relatives: bonobos. For reference, bonobos are sedentary matriarchies that spend most of their time jacking off. So I guess at least modern western civilization matches that...but hunter/gatherer societies don't.


There is so much propaganda concerning bonobos that it's not funny anymore. The bonobos especially have been addressed by the 'sphere, because the current mainstream faux-science fuck-tards use it as an example to push matriarchy, homosexuality, poly-amory etc.
But I read a recent study by one scientist who says that all studies claiming matriarchy etc. were done in captivity. He studies bonobos for decades in the wild and he says that they are a species which is monogamous, patriarchal, the males are quite aggressive and even territorial. He compares the studies pushed to scientific sociological "results" on human sexual behavior in prison! Yeah - if you put humans into prisons with nothing to do, then you would have us all fucking, masturbing and even engaging in homosexual activity if there were not enough partners around. Feminist BS recognized!


3. Our bodies are constructed for walking upright on a savannah. All the fruit-eating animals I've heard of are evolved for mobility in the trees, either flying around like bats and birds, or swing around like monkeys.

Evolutionary developments sometimes don't make sense - an exoskeleton would be great too or being faster than a lion would come in handy too.


4. Fossil records of humans and their ancestors suggest diets focused originally on scavenging followed by a lot of hunting once we had the brains to coordinate our efforts. One of the big reasons humans beat out the neanderthals was because we figured out how to fish and get meat out of the lakes and rivers while neanderthals were stuck hunting dwindling numbers of megafauna.

Most fossil records preserved are from ice-ages in the north, when a lot of food content was preserved. Those people could never ever consume fruits on a constant basis.


5. Vegans need to consume some fairly unnatural vegetable sources to get their protein and b vitamins. 99% of human evolutionary history hasn't had access to tofu pad thai and those wierd tasting fake breakfast sausages.

Again - you obviously have not checked out the 80-10-10ers. The human evolutionary history likely ranges millions of years back. We adapt to whatever is available, but there are just facts which point to a high fruit, raw vegan original lifestyle.

Post: #33

(02-16-2015 04:32 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  3. Our bodies are constructed for walking upright on a savannah. All the fruit-eating animals I've heard of are evolved for mobility in the trees, either flying around like bats and birds, or swing around like monkeys.

Evolutionary developments sometimes don't make sense - an exoskeleton would be great too or being faster than a lion would come in handy too.

Hang on a sec, evolution pushes pretty hard into making a species good at its primary job of getting food. Humans suck at swinging through trees or flying around, which makes getting fruit that isn't rotting on the forest floor difficult.

What we are good at is throwing sharp things and shedding body heat via sweat, which allows for effective persistence hunting.

Post: #34

(02-12-2015 08:07 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  A lot of you mention potatoes mashed with butter. Sound delicious. How do you make it?

Peel about 60 dkg of potatoes (that's roughly 1 1/2 pounds for you barbarians ), cut them into 3-5 cm (1-2 inch) cubes and cook them in moderately salted boiling water for 10-15 minutes (at least minutes are called minutes all around the world) until you can easily cut through one of the chunks with a side of the fork (not a knife!!!) by pressing it against the pot wall). Turn off the heat and drain the water.

Now you can either add some parsley, olive oil and garlic and eat them in cubes like that ("salty potatoes")...



...or you can cover them with 1/3 rd of a glass of milk and two spoonfuls of butter, and then mash them and stir them until you end up with an even golden mass ("mashed potatoes"):



Assuming that you're eating it with meat as a side dish, it serves 3 people or in my case 1 person 3 times.

Post: #35

With a potato ricer there's no need to peel...just boil the whole potatoes for 45 minutes and pass them through that. I also like to boil some garlic without peeling it and add that to the recipe.

Post: #36

(02-16-2015 04:50 AM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

(02-16-2015 04:32 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  3. Our bodies are constructed for walking upright on a savannah. All the fruit-eating animals I've heard of are evolved for mobility in the trees, either flying around like bats and birds, or swing around like monkeys.

Evolutionary developments sometimes don't make sense - an exoskeleton would be great too or being faster than a lion would come in handy too.

Hang on a sec, evolution pushes pretty hard into making a species good at its primary job of getting food. Humans suck at swinging through trees or flying around, which makes getting fruit that isn't rotting on the forest floor difficult.

What we are good at is throwing sharp things and shedding body heat via sweat, which allows for effective persistence hunting.

Look - those arguments make no sense at all - yes - we humans are fantastic long-range runners, but we are versatile.

However we are absolutely, utterly and completely NOT adapted to be meat eaters. Nature does not create beings who can only eat foods exclusively in highly processed form. If we had evolved to hunt meat, then why isn't our entire digestive system not adapted to it? We can barely digest meat only in highly processed and cooked form vs. real carnivores or omnivores, who can exist on raw or even rotting meat exclusively for life! Our own instincts and those of our children are telling as well - when we look at bunnies, birds or cows, we don't have predatory instincts rising within us. Even most meat recipes only taste good for us when vegetables or fruits are added to it in the form of spices or sauces. Keep in mind that gorillas eat meat too when they don't find suitable food otherwise.

Evolutionary signs are actually quite telling - I think an advanced species evolved from cats for example would still be carnivorous and might automatically react predatory when met with small animals.

Currently science is way too suppressed and agenda-manipulated to get a decent consensus out of it.

One example - our species has a genetic potential age of 140. That knowledge is widely known among academic physicians. We as a species age too fast. According to some estimates we should be looking like well-kept 60 year olds in our 100s. There is just too much we do not know. Some of the stuff does not really make much sense - you have to essentially search the truth yourself and make up your mind according to the current guidelines. And nothing is set in stone obviously.

And I certainly don't accept the current elite-driven push towards vegan and insect protein. Yes - we could replace it, but it would take high quality vegan food to really replace animal products and they are not going to provide that. Instead they have insect pizza, shit-steak and pesticide laden GMO crap waiting for us. So we have to be careful when looking for the truth out there.

   

Post: #37

Ok after a week of eating potatoes I found this:

That stuff is incredibly filling and great for quick energy, but it also dies out pretty quick. I often get hungry after just 2-3h of last meal, especially late at night.

In effect this means that I need to eat more meals and spread out my meals, which isn't a bad thing I guess. It's just not very convenient.

Post: #38

I grew up eating coal fired taters. It's as masculine as you can get with food cooked on an open flame. White taters need to be covered in foil, but the sweet variety can be thrown on the coals as seen in the pic. Just make sure to to turn occasionally. Poke with a fork, and when tender, it's done. The 'meat' will pull away from the skin, making it easy to eat.



   



   

Post: #39

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet
Humans surviving on a nearly 100% meat diet. Not only that, but eskimos were pretty damn healthy until they adopted Western diets, with very low incidences of heart disease or cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_...rly_humans
We've had at least 200,000 years to evolve adaptations to cooking meat. In comparison we've had only about 10,000 years to adapt to gluten in grain or lactose in dairy, via agriculture and animal husbandry respectively. Also as a time reference humans didn't achieve modern levels of sapience until about 50,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_r...hypothesis
You can't dismiss my persistence hunting argument as making no sense that easily.

Post: #40

(02-16-2015 04:05 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_r...hypothesis
You can't dismiss my persistence hunting argument as making no sense that easily.

The man versus horse marathon has been going on since the 80s and a horse has won every year except for 2004 and 2007. That's an abominable track record for "human endurance".

If you and your "hunting" party have to run more than 22 miles to get dinner and then proceed to drag it back to camp it's probably not even worth doing. That is best-case-scenario, when the hunt is actually successful.

Post: #41

this thread makes me want some potatoes

Post: #42

Meat is fully digested by the time each reaches the colon we can easily digest it. That picture of vegans for the paleo purposely picked terrible choices as well. Only one is paleo and they are much older than the corresponding vegans. There are equivalent body types if you wanted to look for it but that is pure propaganda.

Pressure cooked mashed potatoes is great though as well as roasted potatoes with herbs. I think its best to eat potatoes more at night they tend to help me sleep when I eat them.

Post: #43

(02-16-2015 05:14 PM)Hades Wrote:  

(02-16-2015 04:05 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_r...hypothesis
You can't dismiss my persistence hunting argument as making no sense that easily.

The man versus horse marathon has been going on since the 80s and a horse has won every year except for 2004 and 2007. That's an abominable track record for "human endurance".

If you and your "hunting" party have to run more than 22 miles to get dinner and then proceed to drag it back to camp it's probably not even worth doing. That is best-case-scenario, when the hunt is actually successful.

I can't actually say for sure if persistence hunting is true or not. However, I do recollect on many occasions reading accounts of Indians running down deer during hunts. These were written both by eyewitnesses and by captive white settlers who had a chance to practice it themselves. Some of the accounts suggest that it was done during icy conditions, the deer's weight during flight would cause it to cut through the ice layer and slice up its legs, which means that perhaps it as only a practical method during winter.

Post: #44

(02-16-2015 04:05 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet
Humans surviving on a nearly 100% meat diet. Not only that, but eskimos were pretty damn healthy until they adopted Western diets, with very low incidences of heart disease or cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_...rly_humans
We've had at least 200,000 years to evolve adaptations to cooking meat. In comparison we've had only about 10,000 years to adapt to gluten in grain or lactose in dairy, via agriculture and animal husbandry respective . Also as a time reference humans didn't achieve modern levels of sapience until about 50,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_r...hypothesis
You can't dismiss my persistence hunting argument as making no sense that easily.

More meat be...

Did you know that the Inuits have a genetic advantage to be able to consume all that meat? They have livers and bladders twice the size of regular peoole to help in the break down of thier meat diets (meats release a lot of 'waste' and toxins into your system, they are able to process double the amount then non-inuit humans).

All these meat heads don't get it. Go hunt and kill your food for a week and report back on how great your all meat diet is. Its easy when you can drive to the store to go get chicken breasts already skinned and prepped for you. Go drain, feather, and dress the 3-4 chickens you would need for your kilo of chicken breasts and again, report back....

You need energy to get energy. Hunting is resource and energy intensive. Which is the reason humans ditched it the moment they could create growing systems for plants and staples that would yield more energy (calories) for less work. Protien/flesh was then favoured to smaller grazing animals that could be kept like rabbits, goats, lamb, pigs, and fish with would be trapped.

Post: #45

(02-17-2015 03:11 PM)kosko Wrote:  More meat be...

Did you know that the Inuits have a genetic advantage to be able to consume all that meat? They have livers and bladders twice the size of regular peoole to help in the break down of thier meat diets (meats release a lot of 'waste' and toxins into your system, they are able to process double the amount then non-inuit humans).

Canadian explorers who lived with the Inuits reported being able to change over to an all meat diet without issue, no exceptions noted. Here is an article about it. So the whole "you need genetics to eat nothing but meat" or "Inuits are a bad example because genetics" is a pretty facile argument, notwithstanding that it conflates keto diets with an omnivorous diet (which is closer to what most people eat).

(02-17-2015 03:11 PM)kosko Wrote:  All these meat heads don't get it. Go hunt and kill your food for a week and report back on how great your all meat diet is. Its easy when you can drive to the store to go get chicken breasts already skinned and prepped for you. Go drain, feather, and dress the 3-4 chickens you would need for your kilo of chicken breasts and again, report back....

I could say the exact same thing about vegetarians or vegans except I'd actually have a point. To wit ->

"You vegans just don't get it. Go dig up your own roots and tubers for a week and report back on how great your all vegetable diet is. It's easy when you can drive to the store to go get kale and carrots already washed and prepped for you. Go forage, dig, crush, roast, boil, harvest, or ferment the several kilos of vegetable matter you'd need to survive and again, report back .... "

I resent this argument anyway. It's asinine. I can't think of a single event where somebody, confounded by their own laziness, decided starvation over preparing food for themselves. Even in terrible situations, like the Holodomor, people display a willingness to eat their own children to avoid death.

Post: #46

Potatoes are delicious, especially when they are fresh and small.
We call them "new potatoes" over here.

Personally potatoes makes me feel bloated and sometimes creates a feeling of "fake hunger" so I choose to eat them rarely.

Post: #47

(02-17-2015 10:42 PM)Hades Wrote:  

(02-17-2015 03:11 PM)kosko Wrote:  More meat be...

Did you know that the Inuits have a genetic advantage to be able to consume all that meat? They have livers and bladders twice the size of regular peoole to help in the break down of thier meat diets (meats release a lot of 'waste' and toxins into your system, they are able to process double the amount then non-inuit humans).

Canadian explorers who lived with the Inuits reported being able to change over to an all meat diet without issue, no exceptions noted. Here is an article about it. So the whole "you need genetics to eat nothing but meat" or "Inuits are a bad example because genetics" is a pretty facile argument, notwithstanding that it conflates keto diets with an omnivorous diet (which is closer to what most people eat).

Again - the problem with us humans is not that we cannot survive on such a diet or it can be even partially healthy (no tooth decay, no diabetes etc.) The problem is that there are major signs that show, that something is off:

Quote:The Eskimos had no acne, diabetes etc. But he also noted that they looked very old before their time. He said that 40-year-old females looked 60 years old. He also noted that they did not live as long as Americans on a typical Western diet. The fact that they died sooner than people eating refined foods is particularly troubling. I just can't figure why they had such decreased lifespans.

Their life expectancy was and is very low. And no - it's not the sun that lets them age that much. The people living in Siberia have the same difficulties.

Post: #48

(02-16-2015 07:26 PM)kbell Wrote:  Meat is fully digested by the time each reaches the colon we can easily digest it. That picture of vegans for the paleo purposely picked terrible choices as well. Only one is paleo and they are much older than the corresponding vegans. There are equivalent body types if you wanted to look for it but that is pure propaganda.

Pressure cooked mashed potatoes is great though as well as roasted potatoes with herbs. I think its best to eat potatoes more at night they tend to help me sleep when I eat them.

Because of resistant starch.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-defin...nt-starch/

Post: #49

(02-11-2015 11:20 PM)Teutatis Wrote:  

(02-11-2015 09:24 PM)YossariansRight Wrote:  I add carrots to my potatoes, then mash together. Tasty.

I use either olive oil or vegetable oil instead of milk and butter in my mashed potatoes/potatoes & carrots.

If you're looking to cut carbs, try mashing cauliflower. Very tasty as well.

I do the same, mash potatoes and olive oil, and sometimes mash them with carrots, cauliflower or broccoli, except I very occasionally use butter; vegetable oil is not that good though, stick with the olive oil, it's so much better.

Anyway, eat your potatoes, they're great, especially if you lift.

Yep, broccoli mash is great....I always try to add a tiny bit of mustard also. Lovely stuff.

Edit - I do use milk and butter though, but I'm not coming at this from a fitness standpoint - but a taste one!

Post: #50

Why are people in this thread not more concerned about potatoes' high glycemic index? I've always lost weight whenever I cut simple carbs out of my diet.