How Many Cannibals Could My Body Feed?

I have to agree. I am rather heartened to know that my hard work at the weights, and the dinner table, would pay off in a good-sized repast for hungry man-eaters.
 
Oh wow. Now I'm hearing a song in my head.

LOL!

:rose:

Hush, my darling
Don't fear my darling
The lion sleeps tonight
Hush, my darling
Don't fear my darling
The lion sleeps tonight

Yes, I admit to trying out the quiz. I'm a little leaner than Hommie: 9 cannibals get fed here (and the bastards would have to listen to a lecture on the evils of excessive cholesterol intake the whole time I'm in that pot).
 
Hush, my darling
Don't fear my darling
The lion sleeps tonight
Hush, my darling
Don't fear my darling
The lion sleeps tonight

Yes, I admit to trying out the quiz. I'm a little leaner than Hommie: 9 cannibals get fed here (and the bastards would have to listen to a lecture on the evils of excessive cholesterol intake the whole time I'm in that pot).

LOL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5zUqqYFMyA
 
16 Cannibals here.

Where do people come up with these ideas to make quizzes to find out how many people your body would feed?
 
11 cannibals...hmm...that's a football team...there's something to think about...hehehe.
 
19 cannibals.

I want to know how they work that out. Are they taking the cannibals' nutritional needs into account, or simply working out body mass and dividing it by some predetermined portion size -- and if so, how did they determine the portion size?

Am I thinking about this too much?
 
Me too!

I'm curious about the "are you a veggie or not" question. How does that apply? Most of the "meat" people eat are not meat eating animals. I'm confused why that's even a factor.

:rose:
 
Me too!

I'm curious about the "are you a veggie or not" question. How does that apply? Most of the "meat" people eat are not meat eating animals. I'm confused why that's even a factor.

:rose:

My guess is that they're working with the assumption that a full-on vegetarian consumes much less fat, in general, than a full-on carnivore. That would mean that per ounce of consumable flesh, a vegetarian would yield fewer calories. That makes for more ounces per serving, so to speak.

And you thought that keeping that yummy tush tight and tiny was a good thing. Now it's an even better thing as it makes you less attractive to the missionaries-in-a-pot crowd. :D
 
My guess is that they're working with the assumption that a full-on vegetarian consumes much less fat, in general, than a full-on carnivore. That would mean that per ounce of consumable flesh, a vegetarian would yield fewer calories. That makes for more ounces per serving, so to speak.

And you thought that keeping that yummy tush tight and tiny was a good thing. Now it's an even better thing as it makes you less attractive to the missionaries-in-a-pot crowd. :D

Interesting indeed.

:rose:
 
My guess is that they're working with the assumption that a full-on vegetarian consumes much less fat, in general, than a full-on carnivore. That would mean that per ounce of consumable flesh, a vegetarian would yield fewer calories. That makes for more ounces per serving, so to speak.

And you thought that keeping that yummy tush tight and tiny was a good thing. Now it's an even better thing as it makes you less attractive to the missionaries-in-a-pot crowd. :D

Eh, I wouldn't point directly at fat alone. Lots of veg-dishes are quite high in fat. I would point to a general lack of balanced diet vis a vis macronutrients in general. Sure, I can point to some vegetarians, and even vegans, that are in phenomenal shape, but a lot of veg-heads don't really pay enough attention (IMO) to protein and fat intake in general, and, as a result, have poor quality muscle-mass themselves.

It is pretty damned easy to get good proteins and fats on a veg-only diets, you just have to watch what you are eating. Well, actually, it's bloody hard to get certain omega-3 fatty acids (and easier to get others *shrug*) on veg-only. The issue becomes complete proteins. Yes, beans(of various sorts) have protein, but they lack various important amino acids that the body really wants. Rice has protein as well, but the same problems. Add them together, however, and you've got a solid, complete protein dish with great amino acid profile.

Soy can go a long way towards helping with protein profiles, but it has other issues inherent, and many people avoid it.

My personal favourite is a friend's wife that is a virtually life-long veg. She's got a masters degeree in biology and is bloody smart, yet her diet is pants, and her muscle mass is pathetic as a result. She is the perfect example of skinny-fat, if you've heard that term. Cook her and a lot of that fat would cook off leaving precious little muscle mass. She'd probably make a good broth though.


ETA: This is not a criticism of vegetarians or vegans. It is a discussion on the folly of poor dietary choices. It is entirely possible to eat veg/vegan and be in phenomenol shape. I used to read the blog of a raw vegan who went by the handle of Fruitarian One, and he had a body on par with Bruce Lee (and more muscular) on a diet of raw fruits, nuts, and vegetables only.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top