3 ms·
The definitions you're using for "deficiency", "enough" and "too little" are useless. If your body performs better with more of a substance that can be obtained
by natrius 17y ago
The definitions you're using for "deficiency", "enough" and "too little" are useless. If your body performs better with more of a substance that can be obtained through food or produced by your body, I'd call that a deficiency. If your body isn't performing as well as you'd like, and that can be improved by consuming more of a substance without harming your health, then you don't have enough of it.
This really shouldn't be controversial. I think vegetarianism is a good thing and it's something I'm attempting, but ignoring science because you don't like the negative connotation of "deficiency" doesn't make any sense.
- scott_s 17y agoIf we define a "deficiency" as "expected level" of something, then we don't know if they had a deficiency. Regarding your definition, I don't have a testosterone deficiency, but I'd certainly perform better as an athlete if I took anabolic steroids. Regarding creatine levels, all we know from the study is that after the supplementation, they had significantly more in their body. Maybe the results would be the same for omnivores - we don't know until someone runs the experiment. Even within this data, I'd like to see the vegans and vegetarians graphed separately.
- natrius 17y agoMy definition of "deficiency" was intended to consider only levels that can be obtained through food or created by your body from food. The definition still isn't completely right since given the same inputs, different people will produce a range of values. You get the idea, though.