#Carnivore Diet Advocacy | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

kathleengage696 · 3 years ago

Text

New Post has been published on Power Up for Profits

New Post has been published on https://www.powerupforprofits.com/bobby-sud/

The Truth About Factory Farming with Bobby Sud

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to be an advocate for the animals and for the vegan movement?

Have you given thought to the feeling you’d get by entering a factory farm, walking into the slaughter area to film what happens to the animals?

What about the need to put your emotions aside so that you can accurately document the truth of the horrendous and cruel treatment of pigs, cows, sheep and chickens?

Such is the case for vegan and animal activist, Bobby Sud.

With credentials that would impress even the most skeptical among us, Bobby Sud happened upon his work as an animal advocate and activist through a simple invitation from a friend to document the slaughter of animals at a local factory farm.

Yet, his activism started due to health. What began as a transition to a whole food, plant-based diet to minimize health risks, has turned into a life of activism and advocacy.

In a very mild-mannered fashion, Bobby is the first to say that his activism is about love rather than hate.

Tipping the Scales at 280

In 2015, Bobby tipped the scales at 280 pounds. He had Type II diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure, kidney and heart disease. For years he had tried diet after diet to get his weight to a healthy level, but with every failed diet, he despised himself for not being able to get his weight (and health) under control.

His brother, Adam, convinced him to move to Los Angeles and adopt a plant-based lifestyle to “reverse disease and find my happiness and health again.”

No Excuses Left

Although Bobby was working in the film industry before moving to Los Angeles, he was not enjoying it. He was left unfulfilled without a clear life direction.

His dog had recently passed away, he was frustrated, unhealthy and out of excuses. Packing up his earthly belongings, he resigned himself and moved in with his brother.

youtube

It was apparent from the start his life was about to turn upside down… in a very positive way. He had put himself in an environment that left very little room for failure. Everything he was eating was plant-based and vegan. Within six weeks he reversed his diabetes.

Within a year, he lost 100 pounds. Over that time, he reversed many of his other health conditions and committed 100% to plant-based eating.

A Chance Meeting at Veg Fest Enhances the Change

About a year after he started on the plant-based lifestyle, he was a featured speaker at Veg Fest. It was there, plant-based/vegan nutritionist and lifestyle coach and trainer, Jean Pierre talked to him about a pig vigil that Shaun Monson was starting.

Monson, wrote, directed and produced Unity is a 2015 documentary film that was the sequel to the 2005 film Earthlings.

Eager to meet some of the celebrities who would be in attendance at the vigil, like Joaquin Phoenix, Bobby jumped at the chance.

“I went for all the wrong reasons. I wanted to meet these people, but what I experienced when the trucks came around the corner brought with it the weight of reality and the pain and suffering the pigs go through as they are being carted off to slaughter.”

“When the truck pulls up and the truth is presented, it’s undeniable. It’s a full, visceral experience. You can smell them; you can hear them; you can feel the heat coming off their bodies. The air tastes different.

“I remember when that first truck pulled away with 200 six-month-old pigs and drove into the slaughterhouse. I had the most profound experience and realization.

“We get one chance to be here on this planet as the individuals that we are now. We all get one chance to experience and create as much connection and compassion and love and kindness as we can on this planet before our one chance is over.

“As those pigs were pulling into the slaughterhouse, I realized that this was their one chance. The pigs are never coming back. That was when it all switched for me. It became about animals after that.”

Since then, he has documented untold horrors of what goes on in slaughterhouses. His resume reads like the who’s who within the world of vegan activism. No one will dispute his keen ability to capture the truth of what goes on.

As a result of his first experience and the notice his work received, he went on to be a cinematographer with Nation Earth Films and has been filming inside slaughterhouses and factory farms for over three years.

He is the director and cinematographer for Million Dollar Vegan. He has appeared on an impressive lineup of podcast shows including the Rich Roll Podcast. In addition, he is the creator, producer, and director of The Road Less Eaten, a vegan travel show.

Watching is NOT Experiencing

Watching documentaries is one thing. Being at an actual vigil is something completely different and psychologically disturbing. It changes you forever.

A documentary can be turned off. With a vigil, activists are in the middle of the pain and suffering and there’s no turning off the emotions that flood in.

For Bobby, it was at a beef slaughterhouse. The experience was etched in his mind, body and soul forever. The hard part for Bobby was putting his emotions aside while filming from an objective perspective. Shaun made it very clear he had to maintain a poker fact the entire time.

What he remembers most are the sounds, smells and anguish. It was catastrophic. He hit an emotional bottom and could barely function as images flooded his mind for weeks after the experience. He did the opposite of what would have helped. He shut down and refused to talk about the experience.

Yet, this was a turning point for Bobby Sud. Since that time, he has worked with Shaun documenting the atrocities of slaughterhouses and factory farms.

Bobby’s life is committed to raising awareness about what the animals go through in factory farms. He believes raising awareness through his imagery, films and kindness will do more than to hate those who consume animal and dairy.

Love Over Hate for Carnivores

Bobby encourages people to choose words that do not condemn or judge those who are not yet vegan. Most people have been taught, from childhood, that consuming animal and dairy is the right thing to do.

They’ve been told by their parents, their doctors, and other “experts” eating meat and drinking milk is healthy.

Becoming a vegan is not a one-time experience. We may think we make the decision and that’s it, but the transformation happens over time.

One project that is outside the realm of factory farming was the Million Dollar Vegan series. The series Bobby worked on was 60 videos of plant-based athletes and doctors all sharing how going plant based changed their life and health.

His next project with Moby will be released in the next few weeks. Bobby is also working on a book with his incredible photos.

To see much of his advocacy work, both with film and stills, go to Bobby’s Instagram account: https://www.instagram.com/bobbysud/

You can also see his work on YouTube at: https://www.youtube.com/user/robsud20

One thing is for sure. When you experience Bobby convey his own experience, you can’t help but want to do more for the animals.

#animal activism #bobby sud #factory farming #going vegan #how to become an advocate for animals #saving animals #what is factory farming

0 notes

mcm-curiosity · 4 years ago

Text

Strongly Interacting Species:Conservation Policy,Management, and Ethics

MICHAEL E. SOULÉ, JAMES A. ESTES, BRIAN MILLER, AND DOUGLAS L. HONNOLD

Any legislation or other policy instrument based onempirical science is prone to senescence. Consider theUS Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. This was the firstfederal statute to grant de facto existence rights to species ofplants and animals (Varner 1987) and to impose binding, en-forceable duties on government agencies and private citi-zens to protect imperiled species. The ESA was based on thebest science of the time (Bean and Rowland 1997), and it stillremains in the vanguard of worldwide species protection ef-forts. However, the ESA, like other environmental laws fromthe 1970s, was enacted before conservation biology existed asa discipline, before the field of population viability analysisexisted, before ecologists understood many of the ecosys-tem consequences of species interactions and community dy-namics (Terborgh et al. 1999), and before the spatial andtemporal scale–related complexities of effective protection ofvulnerable species were widely understood (Soulé et al. 2003).Although the ESA was revised and reauthorized in 1988, itdoes not reflect many advances in population biology andcommunity ecology.

Among the scientific anachronisms in this law is the absenceof specific reference to species interactions that contribute sub-stantially to the maintenance of ecological and species diversity.Not only has the understanding of interaction webs ad-vanced (Menge 1995), but it is now widely understood thatthe disappearance of a strongly interactive species can lead toprofound changes in ecosystem composition, structure, anddiversity (Soulé and Terborgh 1999, Terborgh et al. 1999,Oksanen and Oksanen 2000, Schmitz et al. 2000, Soulé et al.2003). For instance, decimation of great whales by industrialwhaling substantially altered krill-consumer dynamics in theSouthern Ocean, and whaling has been proposed as the maincause of a recent megafaunal collapse in the North PacificOcean (Springer et al. 2003). In addition, the disruption offruit dispersal and seed-set patterns following early Holocenemegafaunal extinctions fundamentally altered the speciescomposition of neotropical forests (Janzen and Martin 1982),and the functional dynamics of coastal marine ecosystemsworldwide have been grossly altered by overfishing of largeherbivores and predators (Jackson et al. 2001).The functional extinction of species interactions often oc-curs well before the species themselves have completely dis-appeared. In the oceans, many large, interactive species persistonly as rare adults, or as small or juvenile individuals that donot interact like large adults, qualitatively or quantitatively.

On land, many large animals and other strongly interactivespecies are completely missing from vast areas that they oc-cupied a century or two ago (Laliberte and Ripple 2004). Glob-ally, many, if not most, large-bodied, strongly interactingspecies are increasingly rare, even if they persist in parts of theirformer range. A reasonable hypothesis is that ecosystemsthat have lost one or more strongly interactive species are des-tined to undergo profound degradation and simplification over time.

Nevertheless, most conservation laws, including the ESA,fail to reflect the effects of widespread ecological disappear-ances of strongly interacting species and the resulting ecosys-tem perturbations. For example, the current criteria forrecovery of endangered mammal species under the ESA gen-erally ignore interspecies interactions altogether (Soulé et al.2003), emphasizing short-term, single-species, demographicviability in only a few circumscribed areas. Indeed, manycurrent recovery plans, at least for mammals, call for no in-crease in numbers of individuals, numbers of populations, orgeographic range (Tear et al. 1995; but see USFWS 1998,Jennings 1999). Here we propose that population densities of strongly in-teractive species must not be permitted to fall below thresh-olds for ecological effectiveness, and that the geographicranges of such species should be as large as possible (Conner1988, Soulé et al. 2003). Before this proposal can be imple-mented, however, two issues must be clarified: (1) the defi-nition of strongly interactive species and (2) the achievementof ecologically effective densities of such species.

What are strongly interactive species?

The idea that some species interact more strongly than oth-ers is not new. Paine (1969) first used the term “keystonespecies” for particularly strong interactors: those, for exam-ple, whose activities maintain species and habitat diversity andwhose effects are disproportionate to their abundance (Kotliaret al. 1999). It is worth noting that Paine’s idea, one of the mostinfluential in all of modern ecology, is fundamentally a the-ory of species diversity—that the presence or absence of oneor several key species influences the distribution and abun-dance of many other species. Ecologists recognize, however,that the keystone designation artificially dichotomizes speciesinto groups such as “strongly interactive” (or keystone) and“non-strongly interactive” (Mills et al. 1993). Though such du-alisms have limited utility in science, this particular one is help-ful in education and advocacy.

Species that are relatively interactive have been catego-rized according to the kind of ecological interaction that ismost evident. Among these interactions are habitat enrich-ment, mutualisms, predation,and competition.Species whoseactivities affect and enhance physical or biological habitatstructure have been referred to as “ecological engineers”(Jones et al. 1994). Ecological engineers significantly modifytheir habitat in ways that increase local species diversity.Beavers (Castor canadensis), for instance, create wetlands bybuilding dams in streams. Other examples of ecological en- gineering include mound building by termites, burrowing andgrazing by prairie dogs (Cynomysspp.), and habitat conver-sion by elephants (Loxodonta africana) and bison (Bison bi-son) (Naiman et al. 1988, Owen-Smith 1988, Detling 1998,Kotliar et al. 1999).Mutualist species, by virtue of their interactions, can alsomaintain species diversity. An example is the relationshipbetween the whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulus) and Clark’s nut-cracker (Nucifraga columbiana). Clark’s nutcracker is stronglydependent on the seeds of the whitebark pine, and the pinedepends on the nutcracker for the dispersal of its seeds intocaches. These seed caches are also a major food source for bothsmall vertebrates and grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in theGreater Yellowstone ecosystem (Mattson et al. 1992). Terborgh and colleagues (1999) describe how the loss ofapex mammalian predators can precipitate ecological chainreactions that lead to profound degradation and species loss.Although top-down forcing through three or more trophiclevels has been demonstrated for nonvertebrate taxa (Stronget al. 1996, Terborgh et al. 2001), space constraints and im-mediate policy relevance preclude a detailed review here.Many predator-mediated chains of reaction have been de-scribed or postulated (Estes and Palmisano 1974, Pace et al.1999, Terborgh et al. 2001); some of these (ecological cascades)are summarized in figure 1 and further elaborated in figure2. Figure 2a illustrates the familiar case of gray wolves (Ca-nis lupus) in Yellowstone, representing the scenario in whichthe extirpation of a large carnivore leads to the ecological re-lease of large terrestrial ungulates and other herbivores, caus-ing changes in vegetation structure, species composition,and diversity.

Crooks and Soulé (1999) demonstrated the behavioral re-lease of mesopredators in patches of coastal sage scrub andchaparral in southern California, where the local absence ofcoyotes (Canis latrans) led to an increase in the activity of thehouse cat (Felis catus), in turn causing reductions of native,scrub-requiring bird species (figure 2b). An impressive caseof competitive release (Paine 1966) was described by Henkeand Bryant (1999) and is illustrated in figure 2c. They doc-umented a reduction of rodent diversity from 12 species tojust 1 as a result of coyote removal; the survivor was thecompetitively dominant kangaroo rat,Dipodomys ordii.Thefourth example (figure 2d)—the case of sea otters (Enhydralutris) and kelp forest—is described below.

The fifth example (figure 2e) of a predator-mediated eco-logical cascade is hypothesized to have begun with the deci-mation of the great whales by industrial whaling followingWorld War II. Springer and colleagues (2003) suggest that aseries of ecological extinction events affecting pinnipeds andsea otters in the northern Pacific Ocean and the Bering Seawas initiated when killer whales (Orcinus orca), followingthe effective disappearance of large baleen whales, expandedtheir diets. Though baleen whales are themselves carnivores,they are not considered to be apex predators because of therelatively small size of their prey and because they are preyedon by killer whales.

We know little about the distribution of interaction strengthamong species in most ecosystems. Nor do we know themorphological, physiological, behavioral, or ecological cor-relates of strong interactivity. Paine (1992) showed experi-mentally that the interaction strengths of seemingly similarspecies can vary substantially; he also argued that mammalsare especially strong interactors in many terrestrial ecosystems(Paine 2000). One of us (M. E. S.) surveyed all mammalspecies listed as threatened or endangered under the ESAfor which recovery plans are written (about 44 species orsubspecies). It appears that nearly half of these vulnerablemammals are relatively interactive, according to the criterialisted below, though this estimate may be low because the ques-tion is unstudied for many of the species (Soulé et al. 2003).Sala and Graham (2002) provide the most comprehensiveanalysis to date on species-specific variation in inter actionstrength. They estimate that roughly half of the macroinver-tebrate herbivore species in kelp forest ecosystems are stronginteractors. Based on limited information, therefore, it appearsthat a significant proportion of invertebrate and vertebratespecies are sufficiently interactive to warrant attention if re-covery criteria are an issue. Parenthetically, there are excep-tions to the view that strong interactors are universallybeneficial. Invasive exotic species and some native carnivores,particularly in highly perturbed ecosystems, can exacerbatemanagement problems. For example, coyotes can devastatesmaller, endangered predators such as captive-bred black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes), particularly if the coyotes areuncontrolled by wolves and if their prey occur in reduced, dis-turbed, or fragmented habitats (Miller et al. 1996).

The question of how interactivity is dis-tributed in ecosystems has yet another di-mension, namely variability within species.Like all ecological variables, interactionstrength is contingent on place, time, andhistory (Power et al. 1996). Just as it would befutile to assign species-wide, fixed values forage-specific fecundity, population growthrate, coefficients of competition, or othercontext-dependent variables, it would be un-reasonable to assign a fixed value for inter-activity to a widespread species.

Arguably, the related goals of (a) catego-rizing the kinds of interspecific interactionsand (b) assigning species to these categoriestrivialize the variability of species and envi-ronments in space and time. Interactivity isobviously a complex, context-dependent vari-able, and no species trait or feature is uni-versally associated with it across all taxonomicgroups and ecosystems. Nevertheless, the ESAcontains wording that justifies attending tospecies interactions: “The purposes of thisAct [the ESA] are to provide a means wherebythe ecosystems upon which threatened andendangered species depend may be con-served” (16 U.S.C. § 1531[b]). This leaves us with a practicalquestion: How can agencies and managers, in the face of thisuncertainty and variability, determine whether a vulnerablespecies in a particular locality or region is sufficiently inter-active to warrant special consideration with regard to recov-ery goals?

Guidelines for assessing interactivity

Operationally, a given species should receive special attentionfor recovery—beyond mere demographic viability—if itsabsence or unusual rarity causes cascading, dissipative trans-formations in ecosystems, including alterations or simplifi-cations in ecological structure, function, or composition.The following questions may assist in determining whetherthere are grounds to warrant the creation of appropriatemanagement prescriptions and actions that guarantee itsecological effectiveness.

Does the absence or decrease in abundance of the specieslead directly or indirectly to a reduction in local species di-versity? For example, the absence of coyotes from arid ecosys-tems can lead to a reduction in bird species diversity viamesopredator release (Crooks and Soulé 1999) or to a re-duction in rodent species diversity via competitive exclusion(Henke and Bryant 1999), as noted above.

Does the absence, decrease in abundance, or range con-traction of the species directly or indirectly reduce repro-duction or recruitment of other species? For example, thenumber of forest tree species that successfully reproduced on islands in a Venezuelan reservoir lacking large predatorsdropped from about 65 to about 10 because of a super-abundance of herbivores (Terborgh et al. 2001). Likewise, un-gulate herbivory prevented aspen (Populus tremuloides) clonesfrom recruiting sprouts into the overstory after extirpation ofwolves in the northern range of Yellowstone National Park(Romme et al. 1995, Ripple and Larsen 2000, Ripple andBeschta 2004).

Does the absence or decrease in abundance of the specieslead directly or indirectly to a change in habitat structureor composition of ecosystems? For example, excessive elk(Cervus elaphus) herbivory on willow (Salixspp.) in the ab-sence of wolves in Rocky Mountain National Park (Peinettiet al. 2002) and Yellowstone National Park (Ripple and Beschta2004) was apparently the major factor in the disappearanceof beaver and associated wetlands.

Does the absence or decrease in abundance of the specieslead directly or indirectly to a change in productivity or nu-trient dynamics in or between ecosystems? For example,prairie dog colonies shape nutrient cycling, soil chemistry, soilporosity, and the productivity and nutrient content of vege-tation through their burrowing and grazing activities (Whickerand Detling 1993, Kotliar et al. 1999, Miller et al. 2000), andsea otters strongly influence algal productivity (Duggins et al.1989) and food resource availability to herbivores (Konarand Estes 2003).

Does the absence or decrease in abundance of the specieschange an important ecological process in the system? For example, beavers have a profound effect on stream dy-namics, water tables, flooding, and the extent of wetlands(Naiman et al. 1988).

Does the absence or decrease in abundance of the speciesreduce the resilience of the system to disturbances such asfire, drought, flood, or exotic species? For example, the ex-tirpation of the dingo (Canis lupus dingo) in some regions ofAustralia indirectly degrades habitat quality because dingoesprey effectively on exotic rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), redkangaroos (Macropus rufus), and other herbivores (New-some 2001). In addition, dingoes may benefit native fauna,including small, endangered marsupials, by reducing popu-lation densities of the introduced red fox (Vulpes vulpes)(Newsome 2001), a major predator of small animals (O’Neill2002).

These questions cannot eliminate the need for informedjudgment, because interactivity of species is a multidimen-sional continuum, not a simple dichotomy. In addition, theinteraction strength of species is usually not susceptible to rig-orous empirical tests, in part because many appropriate ex-periments would be manipulative (involving the removal ofspecies), long-term, and geographically extensive. With sucha small portion of nature protected, it is difficult to justify experimental removal of a putatively critical species to provea point. There are, however, a number of powerful approachesthat can often be used to make inferences about interactionstrengths. Recovery of ecosystems following the reappearanceof species is one such approach that has been used effec-tively to establish that predators such as gray wolves and seaotters are strongly interactive (see the cases described be-low). Interaction strength has been modeled on the basis ofdemographic and energetic parameters (Williams et al. 2004),even where data are limited. Ecological reconstructions basedon historical records (Jackson et al. 2001), in conjunction withthe comparative approach, provide yet another powerfulmeans of assessing the ecological importance of species.

The estimation of ecologically effective densities

If persistence of species diversity is a management objective,it is essential to consider the densities or population levels thatmaintain interaction effectiveness rather than mere persistenceat minimal numbers. Once it is determined that a species hasrelatively strong interspecies interactions, the proper man-agement of such a species may require the estimation of theminimum threshold of ecological effectiveness. We define anecologically effective density as the population level that pre-vents undesired changes in a defined ecological setting. Asstated above, however, the estimation of effective density isstrongly contextual, depending on locality, season, produc-tivity, and other variables that fluctuate spatially and tem-porally (Estes and Duggins 1995, Soulé et al. 2003). Althougha challenge, this problem may not be more intractable thanthe estimation of population viability. For example, many ofthe relevant parameters in population viability analysis, in-cluding age-specific fecundity and mortality, are similarlysensitive to local conditions. To illustrate some of the factorsthat must be considered in the estimation of ecologically ef-fective densities, we present three examples of strongly in-teractive genera or species: the sea otter, the gray wolf, and theprairie dog.

The sea otter. Abundant sea otter populations inhabitedcoastal waters of the North Pacific Ocean and southernBering Sea throughout most of the Pleistocene and Holocene,but were reduced to a few remnant colonies by the maritimefur trade of the 18th and 19th centuries. Recovery followingthe fur trade was spatially and temporally asynchronous,thus providing contrasts between otherwise similar habitatswith and without sea otters. These contrasts demonstrate astrong limiting influence of sea otters on their most impor-tant prey, kelp-consuming sea urchins (Strongylocentrotusspp.). Thus, lush kelp forests abound where sea otters are abun-dant; where sea otters are absent, the habitat is typically de-forested by hyperabundant sea urchins. Because kelp forestsare highly productive (Duggins et al. 1989), provide habitatfor other coastal species (Dayton 1985), and attenuate watermovements (Jackson and Winant 1983), sea otters exert far-reaching influences on many other species (Estes 1996).Without sea otters, some of these kelp-dependent species decline or disappear, while others, including urchins, eruptto high levels. The ecologically effective population for sea ot-ters, though regionally variable, is always much larger thanminimum viable population sizes based on demography,and in some instances is near the environmental carrying ca-pacity (Estes and Duggins 1995).Geographic variation in the behavior of predators, com-petitors, and prey will also affect the population densitythreshold for ecological effectiveness. For example, the den-sity of sea otters that is effective in suppressing sea urchins dif-fers between sites, because the demography and dispersal ofsea urchins vary geographically. In the Aleutian Islands, whereurchin recruitment is frequent and strong, a higher densityof otters is needed to suppress the urchins and prevent kelpdeforestation than in southeast Alaska, where urchin re-cruitment is weak and episodic, and where just a few ottersare enough to maintain the kelp ecosystem (Estes and Dug-gins 1995). In summary, the estimation of effective densities of sea ot-ters for preventing kelp deforestation depends, among otherthings, on whether the state of the system is kelp dominatedor deforested, on the recruitment dynamics of urchins tothe kelp beds, on whether the substrate is dominated byrocks or mud, and on the mortality rate of otters (see Souléet al. 2003). For these reasons, the ecologically effective den-sities of otters can vary by an order of magnitude, but in allsituations observed, otters eventually attain such densities ifthey are not harassed by human beings or preyed on by killerwhales.

...

[Graphs Removed]

...

The gray wolf. Large areas of the United States, including mostof the East Coast and Midwest, now lack wolves and other largecarnivores, the result of a century of eradication on behalf oflivestock growers, hunters, and other interest groups thatbenefit from the absence of wolf predation on ungulates.Populations of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),elk, and moose (Alces alces) have increased both in numbersand in per capita consumption (Soulé et al. 2003), and theseincreases are frequently attributed, at least in part, to the ab-sence of wolves (Messier 1994, Crête 1999). Among the manyharmful consequences of wolf eradication have been in-creased costs for agricultural producers in the Midwest andEast, the widespread degradation of forests and other ecosys-tems, and the decline of many species of plants favored by un-gulates (Rooney et al. 2004). As noted above, aspenrecruitment failed for 80 years in large parts of YellowstoneNational Park, reflecting numerical and behavioral release ofelk subsequent to wolf eradication. Excessive browsing by elkalso affected recruitment of riparian cottonwoods and willows(Beschta 2003), causing the local disappearance of beaverwetlands. These effects are being reversed in Yellowstone Na-tional Park since wolves were reintroduced (starting in 1995),and signs of ecological effectiveness were noted before wolvesreached their current abundance of about 200 (Ripple and Beschta 2004). A similar trend has been observed in GrandTeton National Park, where a decrease in Neotropical migrant bird diversity has been attributed to overbrowsing by moosein riparian willow communities in the absence of wolf pre-dation or sport hunting of moose (Berger et al. 2001). It isnoteworthy that the recovery of willows in northern Yellow-stone National Park is particularly striking in areas where thetopography facilitates capture of elk by wolves (Ripple andBeschta 2003). Several factors affect wolves’ ecologically ef-fective population density. It is lower where hunters can sup-press ungulate numbers; where wolves coexist with otherlarge carnivores, such as bears and cougars; or where deep win-ter snow or periodically severe storms facilitate capture ofprey—for example, El Niño versus La Niña years (Schmitz etal. 2003). We grant that predators do not always control largeherbivores, but given alternative prey, multiple carnivorespecies, or appropriate habitat, wolves can often control su-perabundant ungulates (Soulé et al. 2003).

The prairie dog. A century ago, five species of prairie dog livedin a shifting mosaic of colonies that covered more than40,000,000 hectares (ha) on the Great Plains. By 1960, prairiedog area had declined to about 600,000 ha (Marsh 1984),largely because of poisoning campaigns, land conversion,and the introduction of plague (Yersinia pestis). This is a de-cline of 98 percent, and the remaining colonies are smalland isolated. Prairie dogs are a valuable food for many speciesof predators. In addition, prairie dogs decrease densities ofwoody shrubs and increase densities of grasses and forbs, thuscreating conditions that large grazers prefer. Prairie dog ac-tivities also increase plant productivity, soil nitrogen, nutri-ent cycling, and digestibility of grasses and forbs (Whicker andDetling 1993, Detling 1998). Their burrowing activity changessoil chemistry; increases soil porosity, soil turnover, and the organic content of soil; and enhances the dimensionality ofthe habitat for many other species (Whicker and Detling1993, Outwater 1996). Some species of plants, invertebrates,and vertebrates benefit from prairie dog activities, whileother species benefit from the areas outside of the colony(Kotliar et al. 1999). These effects differ among prairie dogspecies. Furthermore, prairie dogs, unfenced bison, and fireinteracted closely on the midgrass prairies, although thattriad may not have been as tightly associated on the drought-driven shortgrass prairies or the semidesert grasslands andshrublands. Estimating ecologically effective densities of prairie dogsis complicated by the introduction of plague. Plague reducesnumbers and changes the temporal and spatial characteris-tics of the historic “shifting mosaic” between prairie dogcolonies and grasslands. Despite those ambiguities, it is clearthat ecologically effective densities of prairie dogs are farhigher than the densities required for population persistence(Miller et al. 2000). As an example, 762 prairie dogs may berequired to support each female black-footed ferret and heroffspring (Biggins et al. 1993). Thus, conservative recoverygoals that consider only population viability could maintainprairie dogs without providing sufficient resources for ferrets.

...

[Section Removed]

...

Conclusions

Mitigating the current anthropogenic mass extinction will re-quire a scientifically rigorous and ecologically comprehensivegrasp of its drivers. Among these is the increasing rarity of in-teractive species, such as plants that provide critical resources(Terborgh 1986), insect pollinators (Dobson et al. 1999),habitat modifiers (Soulé et al. 2003), coral reef herbivores(Jackson et al. 2001), and carnivores, both marine and ter-restrial (Terborgh et al. 1999). The activities of relatively in-teractive species are disproportionately significant for thesurvival of native species and ecosystems.It is essential, therefore, that conservation practitioners,whether governmental or nongovernmental, adopt an eco-logical view that ensures the persistence of interactive speciesat ecologically effective population densities and maximalspatial occurrence (Soulé et al. 2003). In particular, we believethat natural-resource policymakers and wildlands managersshould determine whether the rarity or absence (Hughes etal. 2000) of a species in a region can be expected to trigger eco-logical degradation, including the disappearances of nativespecies and other elements of biodiversity. Even though interactivity is a quantitative variable, man-agers may be forced to make binary determinations, such aswhether to treat a particular species as strongly interactivewhen formulating recovery goals. Notwithstanding the arbi-trariness of such decisions, a commonsense approach will of-ten suffice. One should assume, for instance, that a substantialreduction of tree species that produce mast or invite cavity for-mation, or of apex predators and many large herbivores—suchas wolves, coyotes, sea otters, killer whales, sharks, predatoryfreshwater fish, and large, predatory or algae-eating reeffish—will trigger cascades of ecological degradation andspecies loss (Terborgh et al. 1999, Jackson et al. 2001, Souléet al. 2003, Springer et al. 2003). Other situations may requireliterature reviews or detailed research to ascertain whether aparticular species in a particular place fulfills any of the cri-teria for relatively strong interactivity given above.A conundrum for managers is that the ecological effec-tiveness of strongly interacting species is not specifically ad-dressed in current laws and policies dealing with biodiversityprotection and management. Until this perspective has beencodified in such laws, conservationists need to consider howbest to provide for such species and the processes they me-diate in accord with the intent of these laws. Population via-bility analyses and conservative recovery goals are aninadequate regulatory context for strongly interacting species.We now understand that the biodiversity of ecosystems willdegrade unless the interactions of species are maintained inas many regions as feasible, particularly those areas within thehistoric range. This more holistic, contemporary view re-quires that strongly interactive species receive special atten-tion to assure that they are well distributed and abundant, aposition consistent with an opinion of the US Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals (Defenders of Wildlife v.Norton,258 F.3d1136 [2001]). Such a geographic criterion for recovery wouldrequire more than scattered or refugial representation ofsuch species. Ecological function and diversity cannot beconserved in a region by maintaining interactive species in onlya few protected areas. Rather, it is essential that strongly in-teractive species be distributed as broadly as possible and beprotected within well-distributed, secure areas. Applying thisguideline to the wolf in the United States, for example, wouldmean that effective populations should be restored and pro-tected in the Northeast, the Pacific Northwest, the GreatBasin, the Colorado Plateau, the Southwest, and the south-ern Rockies. Moreover, if the current trend of decreasingsport hunting and the spread of chronic wasting disease in deerand elk continue, the pressure to reinstitute natural controlmechanisms will surely increase.The critical roles of interspecies interactions are rarelyconsidered in recovery planning. For example, the US Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS) admits that its goals for wolf re-covery are “somewhat conservative...and should be consideredminimal” (68 Fed. Reg. 15817 [2003]). A recent decision byUSFWS (68 Fed. Reg. 15821 [2003]) states that USFWS is notrequired to restore a species across its available habitat. Thedecision would limit wolf protection to about 5 percent of itshistorical range in the lower 48 states. Similarly, the multistateconservation plan for black-tailed prairie dogs (Luce 2003) sets a 10-year recovery goal for black-tailed prairie dogs(Cynomys ludovicianus) at about 2.5 percent of their histor-ical area, essentially the status quo.

We believe that such conservative recommendations are notbased on current ecological knowledge about the signifi-cance of species interactions. Moreover, minimalist distrib-utional and temporal goals constitute a trivialization of theterm “recovery” as it is used in the ESA. In other words, “re-covery,” at least for mammals, is typically used to mean thepersistence of only a few populations in a limited area for afew generations.Notwithstanding current policies, most natural-resourceand environmental laws require that federal agencies considernew scientific knowledge. Indeed, the ESA’s own mandate isto use “the best scientific and commercial data available” (16U.S.C. § 1533[b][1][A]). Moreover, implementing regulationsfor the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 requirethat federal agencies disclose and consider “cumulative im-pacts” and the anticipated environmental impacts of proposedfederal agency actions (40 C.F.R. § 1500 et seq. 1995). Any ar-tificially induced reduction in abundance of a strongly in-teractive species, therefore, must be considered in theseenvironmental analyses. In addition, regulations of the Na-tional Forest Management Act of 1976 require that nationalforest plans “provide for the diversity of plant and animal com-munities” and that “such diversity shall be considered through-out the process” (36 C.F.R. § 219.3).Since the recognition of conservation biology as a discipline(Soulé 1985), its practitioners have tacitly assumed that con-servation biologists are “physicians to nature.” Indeed, thereare many parallels between conservation biology and thefields of medicine and public health—disciplines infusedwith morality. Following the Hippocratic principle of doingthe least harm and the most good for patients and the pub-lic, physicians and public health officers are obligated, we think,to consider using new therapies and prophylaxes stemmingfrom peer-reviewed research, even before such practices aregenerally adopted in canonical documents such as textbooks.We propose, therefore, that conservation practitioners, whetherin a public or private (nongovernmental) employ, are simi-larly obligated to apply new biological knowledge in theirwork. Such a doctrine of “best conservation practices basedon the best science” is tantamount to an ethical obligation ofbiologists to adopt a higher standard for management thanis mandated by existing statutes and regulations, if the evidencewarrants it. Environmental codes build the legal and ethicalfoundation of conservation practice, but the best science ofthe day creates the walls and ceiling.In practice, policymakers and managers already haveenough flexibility to implement new knowledge while still ad-hering to relevant statutes and policies, though the exerciseof this doctrine may be inhibited by monetary and politicalconstraints. (Setting relatively stringent recovery objectives forstrongly interactive species, for example, will be opposed byindividuals and organizations who perceive negative conse-quences of such actions.) Even so, ignoring the interspecificinteractions of strongly interactive species will further impairthe diversity and resilience of ecosystems that are alreadyunraveling. In a nation and a world where increasing num-bers of species and ecosystems are shoved toward the brinkof annihilation, it is more important than ever that environ-mental policy and management be buttressed by the bestavailable science.

0 notes

sofiadearos · 5 years ago

Text

Restaurant Review: Van Gogh is Bipolar

It would be best to think of this place as half restaurant, half art gallery.

To my absolute delight, Jetro, the owner, showed up as a sincere, eccentric guy whose home / restaurant doubles as his therapy and charity. I lunched there with my boyfriend and his cousin, and spent three hours just savouring the food and conversing at length with Jetro. He shared with us his "nightmarish" battles with mental illness and suicidality, and how a sporadic seed of desire to create a safe space for other people obliterated his destructive self-spiral nearly overnight. Since then he's been cultivating a community of various creatives to share their skills with one another as well as with the public through intimate workshops held in Van Gogh is Bipolar.

Besides staring expectantly at artworks and waiting for my emotions to bubble at their feet, my favorite part of visiting an art gallery is reading (or photographing, if it’s too long to read immediately) the wall text. I’m moderately obsessed with context. It’s cool to view an artwork, but it’s even cooler to know the artist behind it, so that this whole real world blossoms in the background of the artwork, deepening your range of appreciation for the artwork, solidifying a sense of friendship and community beyond the aesthetic achievements of the artwork. Or something. Which is why I loved Van Gogh is Bipolar. There’s something special about being given the opportunity to speak with the person behind the project. In hearing his story I had no choice but to open my heart—and stomach.

A chemist by education, Jetro carefully designed his diet to heal his mind without medication, and this diet is what you will be served at VGIB. The decor in the restaurant is stunning and endlessly novel, reflecting Jetro's remarkable travels around the world as well as his dynamic inner life.

Here’s what you will be getting for what I consider to be a relatively steep fee (their cheapest set meal is 999php per head):

1. Healthy, unique food.

Other reviews of VGIB will tell you that the menu is purposely ambiguous and that before receiving your meal, you will have virtually no clue of what you will be eating. You will be given a slip of paper on which you are to indicate the mood you want to achieve, and whether you are a vegan, pescatarian, or carnivore. I wrote that I wanted to be “happy” and indicated that I stuck to a “pescatarian diet”.

I received a seared salmon surrounded by a lush garden salad with apples, pinapples, mushrooms that resembled the mome raths in Alice in Wonderland, and various greens.

I've been thinking about the meal I had for days now. My body is sensitive and I regret nearly every meal I eat because I'll be left lethargic and totally drained. But the meal at VGIB felt PERFECT for me. Vegetables and fruits served there are grown in Jetro's family farm in Isabela, and are served raw and crisp. Everything on my plate was flavourful and a delight to eat. Jetro called it “living food” and those veggies felt alive.

2. A chance to contribute to Jetro's advocacy and charity initiative.

Homeless people are invited to eat there for free. The space is patently therapeutic for Jetro, his staff, and the diners. This transparent advocacy made me think hard about where my money was going whenever I ate out at other expensive places. Okay, to the food, yes, but where else? 3. An interactive and involving space.

I was apprehensive at first, because loudly decorative places often strike me as gimmicky or kitschy, overstuffed with eyejazz and strange thingies bunched together. VGIB wasn't like that because it all made sense when I met Jetro. It didn't feel fake or self-important; it was just the way some guy liked to arrange stuff in his house. He didn't draw attention to anything, either. Whenever he presented a space to us, it wasn't him trying to get us to admire anything, it was always in the context of us interacting with the space. He would gesture excitedly to a board— “you can write on this!"— and gesture to a rack of hats and quirky headwear, including a Mongolian warrior’s cap— "you can wear/move around/ have one of these!"

I would not recommend this place to someone who is 1) unsentimental, 2) just wants a simple meal, and / or 3) is not into having long conversations with strangers. VGIB is best contextualized as an extremely intimate and interactive art installation, because if you expect a contrived, commercialized "weird" restaurant, a lot of things might seem off-putting. All in all, I loved it. I'm not too sentimental myself, but Jetro's sincerity was hard to ignore and when we left I thanked him for his work. This space is a good idea run by a good person.

Van Gogh is Bipolar

Address: 154 Maginhawa, Diliman, Lungsod Quezon, Kalakhang Maynila

Phone: 0922 824 3051

0 notes

johnnyprimecc · 5 years ago

Text

My Book is Now Available!

BUY IT NOW ON AMAZON!

That’s right you meat eating sons of bitches, I’ve written a book!

The Beef Bible: A Carnivore’s Compendium is a collection of articles, musings, and beef information that every steak lover should have at his or her fingertips. Inside my meat manifesto, you’ll learn all there is to know about the beef biz; from breeding to butchery, from calving to carving.

The Kindle…

View On WordPress

0 notes

absocialjustice-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Pre Diet Journey

What? What is vegetarianism? To those who have made the committed life choice of becoming vegetarian, it is the option of removing all meat based meals from your diet. All types of meat from any sort of animals are completely eliminated, whether it be cows, pigs, horse, fish, etc.

There are many different reasons as to why people decide to become vegetarian, some of which include animal advocacy, religious beliefs, political views, religion, economy, etc.

Some of the subsections of vegetarianism include pescetarian (fish but no other meat), lacto-vegetarians (eat dairy products but avoid eggs), pesco-polo vegetarians (eat fish and chicken but no red meat), and much more. The real question to be asked is what I, myself, am hoping to get out of an experience such as this. My sister has been a vegetarian for about (roughly) 5-6 years, and has made many different lifestyle changes because of it. She’s spoken about feeling misunderstood around her friends, and even our own family when she first started out which I admit I am guilty of. Growing up in a family full of carnivores, we didn’t really believe someone in our family couldn’t like meat let alone eliminate it completely from their day-to-day meals. It took awhile, but after more research and REALLY listening to her our family soon came to understand, but it wasn’t a fast process. I’m hoping through this 20 day experiment it will let me get a glimpse into her life, how she feels on a daily bases (both physically and mentally) and help me not only learn about this lifestyle but get a real hands-on experience.

I don’t expect this to be easy, and like my sister, I assume I’m going to have to take iron supplements as a way to make up for the lack of iron from the meat I would usually consume in my day to day diet. To prepare, I’m going to have a one-on-one interview with my sister so that she will be able to further prepare me and get a personal insight on how she believes this will play out, which should be interesting. To jot down my progress, at this point I believe I’m going to use a sort of video diary, though that may vary depending on the day and what I’m doing.

Who knows? Maybe I’ll even keep it going after the 20 days!

I’m going to try and make a vegetarian dinner for my family and I with Sophie (my sister) as well so this is sure to be exciting:)

Did I mention I work in a steakhouse?

Wish me luck!

-a

0 notes

rodrigohyde · 7 years ago

Text

Yes, you can get ripped without eating meat. Here’s how.

There’s this nasty rumor that’s been going around for years. Maybe you’ve heard it, or maybe you’ve even spouted it yourself: There’s no way a guy’s going to get enough protein from a vegan diet to build the kind of ultra-ripped body you’re aiming for.

Hm. Tell that to NFL pro Griff Whalen, NBA guard JJ Reddick, or Nike trainer Joe Holder—all of whom are vegan and seriously jacked.

“You can absolutely be a vegan power athlete, be a vegan and build muscle,” says Nanci Guest, R.D., C.S.C.S., a Toronto-based sports nutritionist who works with vegan Olympic sprinters and vegan professional UFC fighters.

[RELATED1]

While it’s certainly easier to load up on protein when it comes from animals, your muscles don’t actually reward the seemingly superior source. A study earlier this year in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found it didn't matter whether protein intake was from animals or plants—as long as men and women were getting at least the recommended daily allowance (that's 0.8g/kg of bodyweight), carnivores and omnivores had roughly the same muscle mass and strength.

Of course, switching over to veganism is totally different from trying a new diet like Paleo or high-fat, low-carb. But once you learn the basics, it’s actually really, really easy. So if you’ve been thinking about ditching meat—for animal advocacy, environmental impact, or maybe just because you watched What the Health and haven’t been able to look at chicken since—we’re serving up everything you need to know.

The basics of gaining muscle while vegan

Your basic dietary tenets still apply:

Eat protein after a workout.

Eat fewer carbs late at night.

Eat a balance of fat, protein, and carbs at every meal.

The primary difference:

Eating only plants is totally different for your digestive system. Not all your calories will be getting digested in the same way.

You’ll need to eat more in one sitting.

You’ll get hungry more often.

[RELATED2]

In essence, all the ways you needed to control your intake before will have to change. The most important thing is eating enough to fuel those HIIT workouts to shed body fat. And as long as you’re hitting your protein goals, you’ll have no problem being an ultra-ripped vegan.

Here’s a guidebook on how you can give up all meat, poultry, fish, and dairy—pretty much every source of protein you probably eat right now—and still get totally ripped.

Ease into veganism

If you’ve gotten on board with going V, chances are you want to dive right in. But Guest actually advises against going cold tofurkey.

She has two really good reasons: First, a lot of people experience bloating and gas when they first switch over. “If you’ve been eating a super high-protein diet and not all that much fiber, your gut bacteria is pretty brutal,” she explains. Suddenly eating so many more vegetables, whole grains, and legumes is radically different on your system. Over time, your stomach will build up its stores of good bacteria, but in the interim, the bloating can be enough to freak out any body-conscious dude—potentially to the point of retreating back to the safer chicken-and-yogurt way of eating.

The second reason: Nixing animal products all in one go implies a vastly different way of grocery shopping, cooking, snacking, and eating out. Until you learn your go-to meals, it’s going to be more mentally exhausting to eat than normal—especially if you’re super-busy and can’t devote a ton of time to finding non-dairy grab-and-go snacks. Just like with any diet, that mental exhaustion increases your risk of giving up.

Guest suggests you start by cutting out any animal flesh—that’s beef, chicken, fish, pork—but keep in eggs and yogurt over about four to six weeks before you go full vegan.

Give soy a chance

Giving up chicken, meat, fish, milk, cheese, eggs, whey, and casein means you’re definitely adding in soy (among other proteins). But if you still equate eating soy with growing man boobs, you need to get with the 2017 science. “As much as people want to say there’s an issue with soy, the science says it’s just fine,” Guest says. “There is some research showing the testosterone spike you get from a workout is slightly blunted when you consume soy post-workout compared to other proteins, but testosterone has no bearing on muscle protein synthesis or how much strength gains you’ll get, and it doesn’t affect your other testosterone levels.”

Can switching to a soy protein powder help you hulk out like the whey, casein, or egg white kind can? We won’t argue that whey is the golden child of protein powders. That’s largely because it’s higher in a key muscle-building amino acid called leucine compared to all other plant- or dairy-based proteins. With less leucine, you have less muscle protein synthesis, or so goes the theory.

[RELATED3]

But there’s actually a ton of research to support plant proteins’ ability to build just as much bulk as dairy varieties, namely soy and brown rice. And even if there is an advantage to whey, “That extra bit of leucine will make maybe 1% difference in building muscle,” Guest says.

Alternatively, here’s another easy fix: Add a leucine supplement to your soy shake, Guest suggests. A 2015 study in The Journal of Nutrition confirms that a leucine supp. will help offset any lack of muscle protein synthesis that might otherwise come with the plant protein. (Check that your powder doesn’t already have leucine added to the formula.)

Learn your plant proteins

“Protein is absolutely important for fitness and building muscle no matter if you are keto, paleo, raw, vegan, or something between,” says Matt Ruscigno, R.D., co-author of the No Meat Athlete and Chief Nutrition Officer at Nutrinic, a nutrition counseling center in Pasadena, CA. “Getting 20g of protein at each meal is actually very easy to do when beans and whole grains are part of your eating habits.”

Your heaviest hitters are now soy milk, tempeh, seitan, tofu, edamame, black beans, chickpeas, lentils, and vegan meats. Yes, you’ll certainly bite into a few terrible soy dogs and veggie burgers before finding brands that actually taste good—but hey, the same could be said for all the whey powders you sipped before finding the one brand that doesn’t taste like chalk.

Insider tip: We highly recommend checking out the Beyond Meat product line (sold at Whole Foods, among other stores), particularly the Beyond Burger, which everyone from Ruscigno to the 76ers’ Reddick recommends thanks to its high protein count and texture that’s as close to meat as you’ll get from plants.

A lot of high-protein veggie options (tempeh, tofu, edamame, and most vegan meats) are soy. Try to cap yourself at three servings of soy a day, advises Guest. That’s not because more soy is necessarily bad, but because you should be getting your protein from a variety of sources, she explains. “We all know variety is important, but it’s especially so in plant foods since they offer such a variety of phytochemicals. The more phytochemicals, the more your hard-training body is getting what it needs.”

[RELATED4]

That really won’t be a problem. “With plant foods, the numbers are lower, but they add up quick because there's protein in everything,” Ruscigno says. Here are a bunch of vegan protein sources with 4–8g of protein per serving:

Oatmeal

hemp seeds

chia seeds

nuts like walnuts and almonds

nut butters

seeds like sunflower or pumpkin

hummus

tahini

nutritional yeast

broccoli

quinoa

amaranth

kamut

wild rice

Even leafy greens—which every athlete should be eating because of their ability to increase nitric oxide, which helps deliver oxygen to the muscles—contain protein, Ruscigno points out. And while 4–8g might sound low, remember that you likely won’t be eating any of these items on their own. Plus, that’s right around the protein of one egg.

Oh, and if you’ve heard you need to pair plant proteins to ensure a complete amino acid profile, you can forget that advice. That idea is outdated and misleading, both nutritionists agree. Your muscles pull from a collective pool, not one individual meal, so as long as you’re eating a variety of protein sources throughout the day, you’re good.

Adjust your macros to account for more clean carbs

Chances are your meat-eating macro breakdown was either 30% protein, 30% fat, 40% carbs or 30% protein, 50% fat, 20% carbs. But on a muscle-building vegan diet, your new breakdown will land closer to 20% protein, 30% fat, and 50% carbs.

Wait—50% carbs?!

Don’t freak out.

“When you switch over, your macros will have to change somewhat because plant-protein sources are inherently lower-fat and higher-carb,” Guest says. “Tofu, soy milk, any protein powders—all can be low-carb or zero-carb. But most pulses, like beans, lentils, or dried peas, are between 15-30g of protein per cup. That’s the same as beef, chicken, or fish, but they come with more carbs.”

Otherwise, the same eating rules apply—every meal should have a balance of fat, protein, and carbs; pre-workout snacks should be a hit of carbs without too much fiber or fat; post-workout fuel should be a mix of protein and carbs.

[RELATED5]

Learn to love carbs

If 50% carbs scares you, keep in mind you’re (hopefully) spending those grams on way healthier sources than the crap you ate before. “Inherently, your carbs are all coming from fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans,” Guest says. “There’s no room in a healthy, muscle-building, athletic diet for refined bread and cookies anyway.”

Obviously you know refined junk was never on the “OK” omnivore list, but if you’re cutting out eggs and butter, suddenly the small cheats that quickly fill your 20% bucket—a small piece of birthday cake, a few bites of croissant—aren’t even options anymore.

Plus, fiber and starch are part of the carb count, so the grams on the label aren’t necessarily how many grams your body is actually getting, Ruscigno says. “Fiber isn't 'zero' calories, but it's definitely not the four calories per gram that other carbs are—which is why vegetarians and vegans weigh less, according to ongoing study cohorts with hundreds of thousands of people.”

Up your supps

You’ll score way more micronutrients with the overload of fruits and vegetables, but there are still a few vitamins and minerals you can only get when you eat meat. A 2016 study review by Mayo Clinic physicians found vegans are most often deficient in vitamin B12, iron, calcium, vitamin D, protein, and omega-3 fatty acids. Meanwhile, research in Clinical Nutrition found among vegans who weren’t supplementing with DHA and EPA—two nutrients crucial for brain health—about 60% had low levels of DHA and about 27% had very low levels of DHA, numbers akin to those who have brain shrinkage with aging.

So: Definitely pop B12 and DHA/EPA every day. And add 5g of creatine to your post-workout shake if you don't already: A recent study review found that creatine can significantly improve the performance and recovery in vegetarian athletes, since the nutrient is mainly found in beef and fish.

Eat way more often

It's totally normal to be hungry more often and to need snacks when you follow a vegan diet, Ruscigno says. “When switching to plants, you are eating a larger volume of food but fewer calories, so it's important to make sure you’re eating more, and eating more often.”

Listen to your body rather than your daily count. “I tell people to eat if they are hungry, even if they are trying to lose weight. That's the benefit of eating plant-based: You can eat more food and feel full while also having a calorie deficit,” he adds.

But if you’re hungry right after eating, it’s a sign that you need to add more volume and/or more fat and protein, he adds. Start adding nut butter to your fruits, or bean spreads to your raw vegetables. Instead of just plain ol’ oatmeal, make it with soy milk, frozen blueberries, walnuts, and/or chia seeds. The small additions really go a long way when you’re vegan, he adds.

[RELATED6]

Commit the time to learn new “anchor” foods

“When you decide to get serious about your training, it takes planning and effort, and nutrition is part of that program. Being vegan requires meal planning and cooking, but that’s true of healthy eating whether it includes meat or not,” Guest points out.

The good news: It’s way, way easier to be vegan in 2017 than ever before. Go to Whole Foods or your local health grocer and check out what pre-made vegan options are available to give you an idea for meal prep. Develop a few go-to foods for breakfast, lunch, and dinner (we’d suggest just straight copying what these seven elite vegan athletes eat to get (and stay) ultra-jacked).

Most important, keep snacks on hand. “If you’re a busy athlete, snacks can be the hardest since most of the easiest grab-and-go foods are dairy-based, like Greek yogurt or string cheese,” Guest points out. “Drinking two cups of soy milk can deliver about the same amount of protein to hold you over.” We’d also suggest stocking up on vegan bars like GoMacro, CLIF Builder's, and PROBAR to keep hangry from happening.

Keep it simple

“I encourage new vegans and athletes to keep it simple by thinking of meals like this: grain, bean, vegetables, sauce,” Ruscigno says. Think: Brown rice, black beans, salsa, avocado, fajita vegetables; quinoa, chickpeas, kale, pesto; wild rice, falafel, hummus, roasted cauliflower, and tahini dressing. “It's a good strategy because it's easy. I find people overthink how their meals have to look or they follow complicated recipes.” Then you adjust your ratios based on your macros, adding more legumes or less grains, and controlling the calories with the sauce or dressing.

Chew your food twice as long

OK, it doesn’t actually have to be double the count—but eating slower and chewing your food is one of the best ways to reduce bloating, according to Ruscigno. “Eating slower is a tough habit for people to acquire, but not chewing beans all the way is one of the leading causes of the quintessential discomfort.” Alternatively (or additionally), eat more mush: Making hummus or refried beans is a way to get your protein without risking bloating or GI distress from beans since they’re already somewhat broken down, he adds.

Stop obsessing

“I encourage my athletes to not obsess over the numbers—calories, macros—and instead just be sure to fuel their workouts,” Ruscigno says. “We need to be eating enough to fuel the workouts to build the muscle to be lean.”

Guest agrees that too many guys get hyperfocused on protein: “To build muscle, you need adequate protein, but the most important factor in gaining mass is eating enough energy, or calories. I’ve looked at probably 200 diets of meat-eating men who want to gain mass, and they’re almost always consuming around three times the protein they need, half as many carbs, and not enough calories.”

[RELATED7]

Vegan

from Men's Fitness http://www.mensfitness.com/nutrition/what-to-eat/yes-you-can-get-ripped-without-eating-meat-heres-how

#Men's Fitness

0 notes