Clockwood said:Yogurt: Its either cheese that is too new, milk that is too old, or icecream that is too warm.
The stuff is an abomination before man and nature.
Actually it's wrong. You have to eat more vegetables to get the same ammount of energy as from meat. And it's not personal experience, but physics and biology.by the time it gets to animals the energy level has already depleted
Actually it's wrong. You have to eat more vegetables to get the same ammount of energy as from meat. And it's not personal experience, but physics and biology.
No I think you are mistaken and confused, they absorb just the right amount of energy required for their metabolism and well beingPlants absorb the least energy
It still is and remains less than a cow eating a whole stack of grass.No I think you are mistaken and confused, they absorb just the right amount of energy required for their metabolism and well being
The more direct the source of energy the more raw it is, thats why Glucose is raw energy for humans, which by the way is produced by plants in photosynthesisWhat according to you is raw energy?
Well that may be trueLast time I read such a word combination was in a fantasy novel.
True, I agree to that, but this has nothing to do with anything. The fact is that plants are the first source of energy on the food chain. If a human eats nothing but plants for a whole year he will have more enegry than if he eats nothing but meat that whole year, even a high school student knows this.It still is and remains less than a cow eating a whole stack of grass.
Energy quantity per time: cow wins.
You mean burning coal, because last I checked there is very little energy in burning wood as well.There is a reason why we get more energy from burning wood than from solar cells.
But you'd have to eat more plants than meat. Plants have more percent of water in them than meat. In simple words: you'd have to eat a bigger dish of plants than if it were meat or plants and meat.True, I agree to that, but this has nothing to do with anything. The fact is that plants are the first source of energy on the food chain. If a human eats nothing but plants for a whole year he will have more enegry than if he eats nothing but meat that whole year, even a high school student knows this.
Greatly sufficient for my example with solar cells.You mean burning coal, because last I checked there is very little energy in burning wood as well.
Everything in this universe is made of energy.The more direct the source of energy the more raw it is
Avatar said:But you'd have to eat more plants than meat. Plants have more percent of water in them than meat. In simple words: you'd have to eat a bigger dish of plants than if it were meat or plants and meat.
Yes. Some matter however can more readily be converted to energy than others, these are what we call raw energy. In truth our discussion depends on the part of animal and plants you eat. The fatty(complex sugars) part of animals have a lot of carbon chains and can be converted to loads of energy, though the metabolism takes a relatively longer time than simple sugars. Plants are basically composed of cellulose, Glucose, and all those nice "ready energy" organic carbon chains; plants do not have as much energy as fat but since they are relatively simpler sugars it takes less energy to break them down and they are almost always readily available as raw energy. I agree we humans have to eat a bigger dish of plants, horses eat loads of plants but are fitter and stronger than many carnivores. Its not just horses but many strong animals eat vegetable....though in loads and loads of it.examples of high "ready energy" foods: Rice, Pasta, Potato, Sugar, Orange, cocoa(chocolate), Hay(for horses). Meat is mostly protein with very little carbonhydrates unless its the fats. Of cause no one can eat fat aloneEverything in this universe is made of energy