VeggieBoards banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In the spirit of the <a href="http://www.veggieboards.com/newvb/showthread.php?132425-quot-Plants-Feel-Pain!!!!-quot" target="_blank">"Plants Feel Pain!!!!"</a> thread.<br><br>
What:
<a class="spoiler-link H-spoiler-toggle" href="#"><strong>Warning: Spoiler!</strong> <span class="spoiler-help">(Click to show)</span></a><div class="spoiler-hidden">By "Cholesterol is a Government Conspiracy!!!!", I mean the un-evidenced belief that saturated fat and cholesterol is not actually a problem (in the sense that mainstream science, health organizations, and every major government body recognize that it is).<br><br>
I don't mean legitimate factors like LDL and HDL, or types of saturated fats and cholesterol which have different associated risks, or the minimal impact of dietary cholesterol. I mean rejection or wild misinterpretation of solid evidence regarding heart disease and cholesterol.</div>
<br><br><br>
I'd like to know how you respond to the Cholesterol conspiracy theories which seem to be trendy these days (even among vegetarians[<a href="http://www.veggieboards.com/newvb/showthread.php?131380-concerned-about-nutrition-more-so-than-actual-foods" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:xx-small;">for reference</span></a>]).<br><br>
I don't want to argue about the conspiracy theories here (if you believe in them, <i><b>please</b></i> start another thread to talk about that)- I just want to know if anybody has had any luck confronting them, or how you respond to them.<br><br>
Hopefully this will be a good source of responses for those people who find themselves arguing against this belief. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":)"><br><br><br>
Vegan issue because:
<a class="spoiler-link H-spoiler-toggle" href="#"><strong>Warning: Spoiler!</strong> <span class="spoiler-help">(Click to show)</span></a><div class="spoiler-hidden"><br>
I think this is an important vegan issue, since saturated animal fat is the primary reason that animal products are unhealthy (secondary reasons generally involving preparation, and tertiary reasons involving amounts/ratios in the diet- these are both much weaker arguments than saturated fat, which has the most evidence). For people who aren't concerned about morality, health is an important motivator that has a side effect of reducing animal suffering.</div>
<br><br>
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,014 Posts
Cholesterol really is a government conspiracy, but not for the reasons you say.<br><br>
It really is bad to consume excess cholesterol, yet the FDA and other government agencies constantly and incorrectly claim that foods that contain cholesterol are healthy (meat, dairy, etc). I'd call that a government conspiracy, wouldn't you?<br><br>
--Fromper<br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/juggle.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":juggle:">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,456 Posts
Meh, it may be a problem I just don't think it's as bad as they say it is. Things change. Wine is supposedly good for you but now it's coming out that the data behind it was fraudulent. I believe refined carbs are worse for you than cholesterol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
Well recent findings seem to suggest dietary cholesterol intake has a relatively small part in your bodies cholesterol levels. Saturated fat on the other hand IS harmful. Having high cholesterol levels in your body IS harmful. Though knowing the source of that cholesterol is important, and it's mainly from saturated fats, as opposed to dietary cholesterol intake ^_^.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,160 Posts
If you have a genetic predisposition to create more cholesterol in your own body, your dietary intake is more or less insignificant.<br><br>
I have no idea if that is relevant to the original post, by the way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
909 Posts
If animal based foods are so unhealthy, then why is it that populations with good health and the highest number of centenarians, live on an omnivorous diet? I'm sick and tired of this health veg*n crap <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/sad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":(">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>OutofLimits</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3083732"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Well recent findings seem to suggest dietary cholesterol intake has a relatively small part in your bodies cholesterol levels. Saturated fat on the other hand IS harmful. Having high cholesterol levels in your body IS harmful. Though knowing the source of that cholesterol is important, and it's mainly from saturated fats, as opposed to dietary cholesterol intake ^_^.</div>
</div>
<br>
Yes, that's what I meant.<br><br>
They actually believe the cholesterol levels aren't important, and that <i>saturated fats</i> are a healthy source of nutrition (despite that they raise cholesterol, and particularly LDL).<br><br>
They dismiss the demonstrated link between measured cholesterol levels and heart disease.<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Fromper</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3083715"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I'd call that a government conspiracy, wouldn't you?</div>
</div>
<br>
Less and less as time goes on- and hopefully that is a trend that will continue. It's largely thanks to consciousness of (and mounting evidence on) the dangers of saturated fats.<br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Doktormartini</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3083730"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Wine is supposedly good for you but now it's coming out that the data behind it was fraudulent.</div>
</div>
<br>
Ah... not quite:<br><a class="spoiler-link H-spoiler-toggle" href="#"><strong>Warning: Spoiler!</strong> <span class="spoiler-help">(Click to show)</span></a><div class="spoiler-hidden"><br>
...Wine was never generally recognized as healthy. -_- That was media sensationalism. What was found to have positive health effects, and still is understood to have them, are certain antioxidants present in grape skin (and usually present much less so in wine than in such exotic beverages as... grape juice). It has never been reasonable to recommend wine drinking; the FDA has always strongly cautioned limiting alcohol consumption, and has been very tempered about the effects of wine. Grapes or grape juice are a better option. For people who just don't eat fruit, though? Taking the good with the bad may be better than nothing.</div>
<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Doktormartini</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3083730"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I believe refined carbs are worse for you than cholesterol.</div>
</div>
<br><a class="spoiler-link H-spoiler-toggle" href="#"><strong>Warning: Spoiler!</strong> <span class="spoiler-help">(Click to show)</span></a><div class="spoiler-hidden">It has more to do with glycemic index than the degree of refinement (as long as proper nutrition is acquired elsewhere). That said, I've long cautioned against high glycemic foods- for lack of conclusive evidence I would not dare compare them with saturated fat, but I've never said that saturated fat/cholesterol levels are the sole measure of health. They are, however, extremely important.</div>
<br><br>
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
<a class="spoiler-link H-spoiler-toggle" href="#"><strong>Warning: Spoiler!</strong> <span class="spoiler-help">(Click to show)</span></a><div class="spoiler-hidden">OP, why are you putting half of your replies in spoiler tags? It's annoying to read through them.</div>
<br><br>
Thanks. I second what Earthling had to say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Thorham,<br><br>
Your biases are pretty clear, although I don't know why you hold them:<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Thorham</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2499532"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
[...]all the good stuff has meat and/or other animal products in them <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/sad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":("> Eating like a herbivore really does suck. What's worse is the fact that the vegan diet is unhealthy. Why? Because humans who eat only in that way need supplements (after all, humans aren't herbivores). Any diet that needs supplements is incomplete, and thus unhealthy. [...] Being vegan is annoying, unhealthy, boring [...]</div>
</div>
<br>
Thankfully, you are completely wrong.<br><br>
A diet that includes supplementation is not incomplete, as supplementation can be part of the diet (namely, B-12), and supplementation is not unhealthy (in the case of B-12, it's important for many omnivores as well, as modern diets and environments are generally deficient). Note also: A "natural" source of B-12 for many completely vegetarian animals is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagy" target="_blank">coprophagy</a> (and looking at close relatives, it is not unreasonable to expect that humans have engaged in the practice)- this is not a source I recommend, as we have perfectly cheap and biologically active supplementation readily available.<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Thorham</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3083786"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
If animal based foods are so unhealthy, then why is it that populations with good health and the highest number of centenarians, live on an omnivorous diet?</div>
</div>
<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy" target="_blank">Association Fallacy</a>. And an impossible to overcome sample bias to boot.<br><br>
To help you understand, consider why this argument is not valid:<br><br>
"If rape and murder are so bad, then how come the populations with good health and the highest number of centenarians are societies that include rape and murder?"<br><br>
When you can answer that, you'll have a head start in figuring out why your argument is wrong.<br><br><a class="spoiler-link H-spoiler-toggle" href="#"><strong>Warning: Spoiler!</strong> <span class="spoiler-help">(Click to show)</span></a><div class="spoiler-hidden"><br>
1. The sample bias: It's because there aren't any statistically relevant societies without some rape and murder to sample/study! The lack of controls on social studies of societies also compound the problem and make the practice of comparing any single aspect of a large populations with variable lifestyles highly dubious at best.<br><br>
2. The Association fallacy (see the comment about lack of controls). More specifically "guilt/honor by association", or "correlation is not causation"<br>
X culture is relatively healthy. X culture also practices occasional rape and murder. Conclusion: Rape and murder are healthy - <b>NOT</b> logically valid; the culture in question could be healthy despite these things.<br></div>
<br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Thorham</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3083786"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
the I'm sick and tired of this health veg*n crap <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/sad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":("></div>
</div>
<br>
Eh, I'm sick and tired of scientific illiteracy and bad logic. To each his or her own. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":)"><br><br>
But for the record: I'm vegan strictly for moral reasons. I eat healthfully for health reasons (avoiding many likewise unhealthy products that are vegan- the saturated fats of tropical fruits, trans fats, and high glycemic foods among them).<br><br>
.<br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Scorpius</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3083796"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
OP, why are you putting half of your replies in spoiler tags? It's annoying to read through them.</div>
</div>
<br>
Sorry, people keep saying I write too much; I'm trying to hide explanation so that people who just want the bare minimum can read only that and skip that which is hidden.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,861 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Thorham</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3083786"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
If animal based foods are so unhealthy, then why is it that populations with good health and the highest number of centenarians, live on an omnivorous diet? I'm sick and tired of this health veg*n crap <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/sad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":("></div>
</div>
<br>
I was interested in this point a while back and did a bit of web-ferreting ...<br><br>
If a veggie diet and an omni diet were no different in terms of longevity then about 1% of the recorded oldest living people would be/have been vegetarian.<br><br>
From what I was able to find it seemed to be somewhere around 20-30%.<br><br>
More surprisingly; More than a handfull of the most sucessfull coffin-dodgers I looked up were described as 'avid', or similar, smokers.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,861 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Earthling</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3083749"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
If you have a genetic predisposition to create more cholesterol in your own body, your dietary intake is more or less insignificant.</div>
</div>
<br>
Apparently so ..<br><br>
I developed a cholesterol spot on my eyelid after 20 years as a vegetarian and several of those as a vegan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Clueless Git</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3083996"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I was interested in this point a while back and did a bit of web-ferreting ...<br><br>
If a veggie diet and an omni diet were no different in terms of longevity then about 1% of the recorded oldest living people would be/have been vegetarian.<br><br>
From what I was able to find it seemed to be somewhere around 20-30%.<br><br>
More surprisingly; More than a handfull of the most sucessfull coffin-dodgers I looked up were described as 'avid', or similar, smokers.</div>
</div>
<br>
It would be interesting to compare that to the "avid" smokers in the general population.<br><br>
Smoking seems like a roulette game; either it kills you very quickly with lung cancer, or it doesn't do very much at all beyond harm lung capacity/function (which is certainly a problem, but not usually fatal).<br><br>
Bad diets seem a bit more systemic and reliable killers.<br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Clueless Git</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3084003"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Apparently so ..<br><br>
I developed a cholesterol spot on my eyelid after 20 years as a vegetarian and several of those as a vegan.</div>
</div>
<br><br>
That sucks. I know another vegan with an unfortunate genetic propensity too. Although he's not very careful diet wise at all (lots of chips [the American sort] and other junk food).<br><br>
Are you managing to avoid the things that exasperate the condition alright? I imagine it's a least much easier for you, diet-wise, having a head start by not eating animal products?<br><br>
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>vepurusg</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3083818"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br><br>
To help you understand, consider why this argument is not valid:<br><br>
"If rape and murder are so bad, then how come the populations with good health and the highest number of centenarians are societies that include rape and murder?"<br><br>
When you can answer that, you'll have a head start in figuring out why your argument is wrong.<br><br><a class="spoiler-link H-spoiler-toggle" href="#"><strong>Warning: Spoiler!</strong> <span class="spoiler-help">(Click to show)</span></a><div class="spoiler-hidden"><br>
1. The sample bias: It's because there aren't any statistically relevant societies without some rape and murder to sample/study! The lack of controls on social studies of societies also compound the problem and make the practice of comparing any single aspect of a large populations with variable lifestyles highly dubious at best.<br><br>
2. The Association fallacy (see the comment about lack of controls). More specifically "guilt/honor by association", or "correlation is not causation"<br>
X culture is relatively healthy. X culture also practices occasional rape and murder. Conclusion: Rape and murder are healthy - <b>NOT</b> logically valid; the culture in question could be healthy despite these things.<br></div>
<br><br>
Eh, I'm sick and tired of scientific illiteracy and bad logic. To each his or her own. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":)"><br><br>
Sorry, people keep saying I write too much; I'm trying to hide explanation so that people who just want the bare minimum can read only that and skip that which is hidden.</div>
</div>
<br>
Lol. Like. ^_^<br><br>
Oh and.. 20 years as a vegetarian was probably worse than if you had've been a meat eater during that time. 20 years of dairy and eggs o_O<br><br>
(I'm a noob- don't know how to quote the second person after I've already hit reply with quote for the first person? And, how annoying that if I type at the bottom of a thread, I can't see the first page of comments...)
 

·
Not such a Beginner ;)
Joined
·
8,394 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>vepurusg</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3085654"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
It would be interesting to compare that to the "avid" smokers in the general population.<br><br>
Smoking seems like a roulette game; either it kills you very quickly with lung cancer, or it doesn't do very much at all beyond harm lung capacity/function (which is certainly a problem, but not usually fatal)....<br><br>
.</div>
</div>
<br>
Heart disease is also strongly associated with smoking cigarettes. Strokes, heart attacks, sudden cardiac death.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>edibleangela</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3089195"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Lol. Like. ^_^</div>
</div>
<br>
Thanks <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":)"><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>edibleangela</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3089195"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
(I'm a noob- don't know how to quote the second person after I've already hit reply with quote for the first person? And, how annoying that if I type at the bottom of a thread, I can't see the first page of comments...)</div>
</div>
<br>
Click the little button to the right of "Reply With Quote", it has a + (plus sign) on it; that is the multi-quote button. When it is checked, that means you'll quote the post when you start your reply.<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>LedBoots</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3089211"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Heart disease is also strongly associated with smoking cigarettes. Strokes, heart attacks, sudden cardiac death.</div>
</div>
<br>
Maybe those people naturally have low enough cholesterol levels that the smoking can't compound the issue? Crazy good genetic luck, or maybe a lower calorie diet what with all of the smoking instead of eating?<br><br>
Just a thought.<br><br>
I don't smoke and I think it's disgusting; I haven't studied cigarette smoke very much since I don't have much interest in it (I avoid it). I just know the cancer and toxic effects, and I think it has something to do with multiplying existing risk factors for heart disease (like the opposite of an antioxidant)- I might be wrong there though.<br><br>
I should read more about it, but it seems comparatively trivial with regards to its effects on animal cruelty up against meat and other animal products, and pretty much everybody already knows it's unhealthy so there's not much convincing that needs to be done in that regard.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>vepurusg</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3083818"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Thorham,<br><br>
Your biases are pretty clear, although I don't know why you hold them:<br><br><br><br>
Thankfully, you are completely wrong.<br><br>
A diet that includes supplementation is not incomplete, as supplementation can be part of the diet (namely, B-12), and supplementation is not unhealthy (in the case of B-12, it's important for many omnivores as well, as modern diets and environments are generally deficient). Note also: A "natural" source of B-12 for many completely vegetarian animals is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagy" target="_blank">coprophagy</a> (and looking at close relatives, it is not unreasonable to expect that humans have engaged in the practice)- this is not a source I recommend, as we have perfectly cheap and biologically active supplementation readily available.<br><br><br><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy" target="_blank">Association Fallacy</a>. And an impossible to overcome sample bias to boot.<br><br>
To help you understand, consider why this argument is not valid:<br><br>
"If rape and murder are so bad, then how come the populations with good health and the highest number of centenarians are societies that include rape and murder?"<br><br>
When you can answer that, you'll have a head start in figuring out why your argument is wrong.<br><br><a class="spoiler-link H-spoiler-toggle" href="#"><strong>Warning: Spoiler!</strong> <span class="spoiler-help">(Click to show)</span></a><div class="spoiler-hidden"><br>
1. The sample bias: It's because there aren't any statistically relevant societies without some rape and murder to sample/study! The lack of controls on social studies of societies also compound the problem and make the practice of comparing any single aspect of a large populations with variable lifestyles highly dubious at best.<br><br>
2. The Association fallacy (see the comment about lack of controls). More specifically "guilt/honor by association", or "correlation is not causation"<br>
X culture is relatively healthy. X culture also practices occasional rape and murder. Conclusion: Rape and murder are healthy - <b>NOT</b> logically valid; the culture in question could be healthy despite these things.<br></div>
<br><br><br><br><br>
Eh, I'm sick and tired of scientific illiteracy and bad logic. To each his or her own. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":)"><br><br>
But for the record: I'm vegan strictly for moral reasons. I eat healthfully for health reasons (avoiding many likewise unhealthy products that are vegan- the saturated fats of tropical fruits, trans fats, and high glycemic foods among them).<br><br>
.<br><br><br><br><br>
Sorry, people keep saying I write too much; I'm trying to hide explanation so that people who just want the bare minimum can read only that and skip that which is hidden.</div>
</div>
<br>
Are you stalking Thorham?<br><br>
1. To be clear, B12 supplements are supplements. So Thorham isn't only not completely wrong in this, he's completely right.<br><br>
2. Interesting thing about coprophagy! Random, it applies in some specific cases, and damn! You smart! So what?<br><br>
3. Association fallacy? No. Thorham's only error was the he probably should have referred to percentages instead of numbers. Your attempt at analogy is a greater fail. The bigger question is if numbers or percentages of centenarians actually mean anything, anyway.<br><br>
4. Tired of scientific illiteracy and bad logic? You can always take a few classes a read some books. It's never too late to learn.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>paperhanger</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3089603"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Are you stalking Thorham?</div>
</div>
<br>
I don't know who Thorham is, I was just replying to a spectacularly incorrect (and unethically so, seeing as it promotes animal cruelty) claim- a claim made in reply to a thread I started. I glanced at his past posts to see if he had a habit of peddling that nonsense- and he did. I wanted to get at the root of his bad logic.<br><br>
So, your position is that a vegan diet is not healthy? Thanks for clearing that up. You're wrong, and at least most people on this forum will be able to see that clearly enough.<br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>paperhanger</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3089603"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
1. To be clear, B12 supplements are supplements.</div>
</div>
<br>
That's disingenuous semantic nonsense and you seem intelligent enough to know better- are <i>you</i> stalking me?<br><br>
Supplements are considered a category of food, and can be part of the diet. Meat and a number of animal products have also variably been considered supplementary in many diets throughout the world where they do not provide the main bulk of nutrition, but act to provide certain trace vitamins and minerals. It's perfectly legitimate to get those vitamins and minerals from vegan sources (like commercial processes of bacterial fermentation, or even purely non-biological chemical processes) as part of the diet. Just as it is to find, say, salt in a salt flat, and add iodine to it to provide both sodium and iodine in a diet- or to add iron and other vitamins back into white flour.<br><br>
Salt is part of my diet. So is B-12.<br><br>
The idea that only a certain arbitrary category of substances you consider "natural" enough can be called foods and be considered part of the diet is nothing more than an ad-hoc argument of special definitions to support your bad ideas that only omnivores can be healthy.<br><br>
It's absurd that you people are even bringing this up in attack on the legitimacy of a vegan diet.<br><br>
Paperhanger, you can stop reading here, the rest of this post isn't addressed to you.<br><br><br>
To mods: I thought posts promoting meat eating/ discouraging a vegan diet weren't even allowed on this forum?<br><br><br>
For those who actually care to understand my point:<br><br>
The big problem here is the assumption of causation from correlation (correlation does not imply causation), which I was referring to in my point about the lack of controls.<br><br><br>
The reasoning is as such:<br><br>
Whereas: Longevity is an indication of health. (this is more axiomatic, and is not part of the fallacy)<br><br>
Whereas: Japanese (for example) have the longest lived people. (this is assumed to be fact)<br>
Whereas: Diet is a factor in health and longevity. (this is assumed to be fact)<br>
Whereas: Japanese follow a particular Japanese diet. (this is assumed to be fact)<br><br>
Fallacious conclusion: The Japanese diet <b>causes</b> the greatest longevity, and is as such a comparatively healthy diet (the healthiest out of the sample).<br><br>
This conclusion is not valid: there could be other non-dietary factors contributing the the observed longevity.<br><br>
Introducing experimental controls as, "All other factors that could influence longevity have been controlled for, with diet being the only one influencing this sample" would validate the conclusion as far as we are able to reasonably determine causality at all. Such controls are non-existent on an inter-cultural scale.<br><br>
Without any real demonstrable causation, all this is, is an association fallacy:<br><br>
Premise: A is a B<br>
Premise: A is also a C<br>
Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs<br><br>
Premise: Japanese people eat meat<br>
Premise: Japanese people are healthy<br>
Conclusion: Therefore, meat is healthy<br><br>
Of course, that is nonsense; they could easily be healthy in-spite of the meat they eat, and might be healthier eating something better.<br><br>
This is not a matter of omnivorous diets being compared to vegan diets; it is a matter of various omnivorous populations being compared to each other and a number of third world malnourished populations.<br><br>
Even if there weren't a lack of controls on aspects aside from diet, modern vegan diets simply do not make up a statistically relevant enough part of the sample to be able to make any comparative commentary on them at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,743 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>vepurusg</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3083818"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
A "natural" source of B-12 for many completely vegetarian animals is coprophagy (and looking at close relatives, it is not unreasonable to expect that humans have engaged in the practice)</div>
</div>
<br>
My close relatives are definitely pretty sick freaks, but they're not nice enough to be vegetarians, so they probably don't practice that.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top