4 ms·

> I never expected this post to get so much attention. There is nothing more popular than an anecdote that appeals to people's pre-existing biases. Unfortunate

by dejb 16y ago

> I never expected this post to get so much attention. There is nothing more popular than an anecdote that appeals to people's pre-existing biases. Unfortunately there will be many for which this one story will provide the same weight of evidence as the entire China Study.

abeppu 16y ago
I concur. It bothers me that at the top of part 4 she says she regrets having decided to become a vegan through being swayed by graphic images of factory farms rather than having "adhered to the rigorous academic standards" that she claims to use in all other decisions -- and yet this anecdote turned polemic will surely be used by others in hastily making up their minds that veganism and possibly vegetarianism are not viable or beneficial to either the individual or society.
zaphar 16y ago
The point of the story is that not everyone can do a Vegan diet and still be healthy. While this is just one example it does demonstrate the principle that meat is a necessary and vital part of some peoples healthy eating. I sometimes wonder if Vegans worry about Lions on the savannah eating antelope. Do they want prevent that as well. Humans are Omnivores. We are built to get nutrients from both meat and plantlife. Our metabolisms work best when we eat both in moderation. A Vegan lifestyle makes it harder to eat healthy not easier and for some it makes it impossible.
- abeppu 16y ago
  Humans are Omnivores. We are built to get nutrients from both meat and plantlife. Our metabolisms work best when we eat both in moderation. Please let's not resort to "appeal to nature", because that can certainly be abused both ways (and frequently is). There are certainly all sorts of sketchy vegetarian and vegan bogus arguments about why not eating animals is natural (and certainly eating dairy and chicken eggs isn't natural). We weren't built for anything, and just because something is natural, doesn't mean that it's good or right. If we ruled our lives by what was natural, we'd die in our thirties, have high infant mortality, and while we would eat meat, we would also chase after it with sharpened sticks, and more of us would die from starvation. Agriculture is unnatural; it's technology. Yes, our ancestors ate meat, but that alone doesn't mean that we need to. The OP's system couldn't handle her vegan diet, so she needs meat, but that doesn't mean everyone needs meat. If you want to eat meat, eat meat. That's reason enough. If you find that you personally physically need to eat meat, then please eat meat. But neither the omnivore nor the vegan who claims that one diet is universally nutritionally or morally optimal in virtue of being natural is making a solid justification.
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    >We weren't built for anything Swap out built with adapted and I think you'll have a hard time finding a dentist that agrees with that.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - jwhitlark 16y ago
      Agreed. It seems like many people add a "perfectly" to adapted, and that gets them into trouble.
    - dejb 16y ago
      Swapping 'built with adapted' doesn't avoid the naturalistic fallacy. Just because we have adapted to cope with something doesn't imply it is good for our current circumstances. Any source of calories would have desirable for our early ancestors - now we have the opposite problem. Instead gazing backwards to our primitive forbears for advice, we need to use science to guide us as to what the best foods to eat are.
    - abeppu 16y ago
      In line with my point above that nature is irrelevant in a discussion about what's good or right, I'd like to point out that because of such unnatural practices as cooking our food, it kind of doesn't matter what our teeth are adapted to eat. I don't want to eat whatever foods our savanna ancestor ate, because now we have farms and kitchens and supermarkets, and I have better options, and better criteria to guide my choice than some interpretation of what's 'natural'.
- dejb 16y ago
  > The point of the story is that not everyone can do a Vegan diet and still be healthy. When you hear a story about how some substance 'cured cancer' do you instantly conclude that the claims are necessarily correct - even for the cured person in the story? Would you expect the story to become popular on HN? The problem with one-off anecdotes like this is that they don't even conclusively demonstrate anything. > I sometimes wonder if Vegans worry about Lions on the savannah eating antelope. Dude that is a really ignorant and insulting thing to say. > Humans are Omnivores. We are built to get nutrients from both meat and plantlife. And here you demonstrate your limited grasp of evolution which a resort to a naturalistic fallacy. > Our metabolisms work best when we eat both in moderation. Actually the research demonstrates otherwise. > A Vegan lifestyle makes it harder to eat healthy not easier That is trivially true in a society where adding animal products to many foods is routine. If even 20% of the population was vegan it would be trivial to follow a vegan diet.
  - SmokenJoe 16y ago
    Being a strict vegan and getting all the required nutrients to maintain optimal health is almost mutually exclusive. You can take pills and shots to make up for the missing parts but these use animal products. It can be an insane amount of work for normal people. To say it would be easy if more people do it does not reflect the realities of nutrition. I wish you luck but it is not and can not be for everyone at leat not strict vegetarianism I also think that people who are pregnant and maintain the diet are amoral there is no shortage of research that show it can harm the infant. Note meat little meat and almost shurly less than optimal for health. I don't like the people that go against research.
    - dejb 16y ago
      Dude you've mostly just stated a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions which I assert are factually in error. You specifically mentioned 'there is no shortage of research that show it can harm the infant'. If there is no shortage of this research then you should easily be able to provide at least one reference.
      - 16y ago
- colanderman 16y ago
  > I sometimes wonder if Vegans worry about Lions on the savannah eating antelope. Do they want prevent that as well. I think it's safe to assume that you are against rape. Do you worry about dolphins in the ocean raping other dolphins?
  - philwelch 16y ago
    Veganism implies a moral consideration for animals; opposition to rape doesn't.
    - colanderman 16y ago
      Correction: veganism implies a moral consideration for animals from the point of view of humans. That is, most vegans believe it to be immoral to kill an animal because we as humans are (for the most part) capable of surviving without doing so, and we have the capacity to recognize this fact. True carnivores have neither of these traits and therefore are not morally obligated not to eat meat. Apologies if my analogy was not clear.
      - zaphar 16y ago
        Except that the OP is one example of someone who clearly can not survive without doing so. It may be true that some Humans can do so but it is not true that all Humans can do so.
- oops 16y ago
  > I sometimes wonder if Vegans worry about Lions on the savannah eating antelope. Do they want prevent that as well. I think vegans are more concerned with how animals are treated, not simply that they are killed and eaten.
- Tichy 16y ago
  Just as well there are probably people who can not eat a meat diet and be healthy, for example if they are allergic to eggs, milk or some meat variants. In fact the percentage of people who can't deal with milk is very high. If you go into a normal supermarket, it is actually very difficult to find any foods that don't have milk in it (Lactose being used for lots of dirty tricks). The symptoms she describes (bloated belly, increased heart rate after eating) sound to me more as if there were some other problems - maybe she couldn't deal with some parts of the food very well. I've just read a good book about those problems (it is not allergies, I don't know the proper translation), and for example up to 17% of humans in the western world have problems digesting fructose. So naturally stuffing themselves with vegetables might cause problems. In that book it is also explained that those problems can often be cured in a matter of weeks. Few doctors are knowledgeable about those, though.
burgerbrain 16y ago
The purpose of the post very clearly is to make the point that veganism is not for everybody. Not to suggest veganism is not viable for all people. edit: s/some/all/. english/logic fail.
alone 16y ago
And there are many people who will wrongly think the China Study is something to pay attention to: http://www.google.com/#q=debunking+china+study http://www.google.com/#q=debunking+china+study
- anthonyb 16y ago
  "debunking" is a rather loaded term, don't you think? I would imagine that you're more likely to pull up crank sites than normal with a search like that. In any case, there are (claimed) responses from the author of the China study which might be worth reading: http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycritics/forum/topics/campbells-response-to-denises http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycri... http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.htm http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.h... I haven't been able to find these on any "official" site though, so beware ;)
- dejb 16y ago
  If a link to google search is what you think passes as debate then why not also check out http://www.google.com/#q=debunking+evolution http://www.google.com/#q=debunking+evolution The standard of debate is likely to be at a similar level. If you actually have an confidence in any of these 'debunkings' then why not point out one that you think will stand up to scrutiny?
araneae 16y ago
I guess it all depends on whether you'd prefer to be miserable and slowly starve to death starting in your 20s or be happy and energetic before dying at cancer at 60.

by dejb 16y ago

abeppu 16y ago

I concur. It bothers me that at the top of part 4 she says she regrets having decided to become a vegan through being swayed by graphic images of factory farms rather than having "adhered to the rigorous academic standards" that she claims to use in all other decisions -- and yet this anecdote turned polemic will surely be used by others in hastily making up their minds that veganism and possibly vegetarianism are not viable or beneficial to either the individual or society.

zaphar 16y ago

The point of the story is that not everyone can do a Vegan diet and still be healthy. While this is just one example it does demonstrate the principle that meat is a necessary and vital part of some peoples healthy eating. I sometimes wonder if Vegans worry about Lions on the savannah eating antelope. Do they want prevent that as well. Humans are Omnivores. We are built to get nutrients from both meat and plantlife. Our metabolisms work best when we eat both in moderation. A Vegan lifestyle makes it harder to eat healthy not easier and for some it makes it impossible.

abeppu 16y ago
Humans are Omnivores. We are built to get nutrients from both meat and plantlife. Our metabolisms work best when we eat both in moderation. Please let's not resort to "appeal to nature", because that can certainly be abused both ways (and frequently is). There are certainly all sorts of sketchy vegetarian and vegan bogus arguments about why not eating animals is natural (and certainly eating dairy and chicken eggs isn't natural). We weren't built for anything, and just because something is natural, doesn't mean that it's good or right. If we ruled our lives by what was natural, we'd die in our thirties, have high infant mortality, and while we would eat meat, we would also chase after it with sharpened sticks, and more of us would die from starvation. Agriculture is unnatural; it's technology. Yes, our ancestors ate meat, but that alone doesn't mean that we need to. The OP's system couldn't handle her vegan diet, so she needs meat, but that doesn't mean everyone needs meat. If you want to eat meat, eat meat. That's reason enough. If you find that you personally physically need to eat meat, then please eat meat. But neither the omnivore nor the vegan who claims that one diet is universally nutritionally or morally optimal in virtue of being natural is making a solid justification.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  >We weren't built for anything Swap out built with adapted and I think you'll have a hard time finding a dentist that agrees with that.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - jwhitlark 16y ago
    Agreed. It seems like many people add a "perfectly" to adapted, and that gets them into trouble.
  - dejb 16y ago
    Swapping 'built with adapted' doesn't avoid the naturalistic fallacy. Just because we have adapted to cope with something doesn't imply it is good for our current circumstances. Any source of calories would have desirable for our early ancestors - now we have the opposite problem. Instead gazing backwards to our primitive forbears for advice, we need to use science to guide us as to what the best foods to eat are.
  - abeppu 16y ago
    In line with my point above that nature is irrelevant in a discussion about what's good or right, I'd like to point out that because of such unnatural practices as cooking our food, it kind of doesn't matter what our teeth are adapted to eat. I don't want to eat whatever foods our savanna ancestor ate, because now we have farms and kitchens and supermarkets, and I have better options, and better criteria to guide my choice than some interpretation of what's 'natural'.
dejb 16y ago
> The point of the story is that not everyone can do a Vegan diet and still be healthy. When you hear a story about how some substance 'cured cancer' do you instantly conclude that the claims are necessarily correct - even for the cured person in the story? Would you expect the story to become popular on HN? The problem with one-off anecdotes like this is that they don't even conclusively demonstrate anything. > I sometimes wonder if Vegans worry about Lions on the savannah eating antelope. Dude that is a really ignorant and insulting thing to say. > Humans are Omnivores. We are built to get nutrients from both meat and plantlife. And here you demonstrate your limited grasp of evolution which a resort to a naturalistic fallacy. > Our metabolisms work best when we eat both in moderation. Actually the research demonstrates otherwise. > A Vegan lifestyle makes it harder to eat healthy not easier That is trivially true in a society where adding animal products to many foods is routine. If even 20% of the population was vegan it would be trivial to follow a vegan diet.
- SmokenJoe 16y ago
  Being a strict vegan and getting all the required nutrients to maintain optimal health is almost mutually exclusive. You can take pills and shots to make up for the missing parts but these use animal products. It can be an insane amount of work for normal people. To say it would be easy if more people do it does not reflect the realities of nutrition. I wish you luck but it is not and can not be for everyone at leat not strict vegetarianism I also think that people who are pregnant and maintain the diet are amoral there is no shortage of research that show it can harm the infant. Note meat little meat and almost shurly less than optimal for health. I don't like the people that go against research.
  - dejb 16y ago
    Dude you've mostly just stated a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions which I assert are factually in error. You specifically mentioned 'there is no shortage of research that show it can harm the infant'. If there is no shortage of this research then you should easily be able to provide at least one reference.
    - 16y ago
colanderman 16y ago
> I sometimes wonder if Vegans worry about Lions on the savannah eating antelope. Do they want prevent that as well. I think it's safe to assume that you are against rape. Do you worry about dolphins in the ocean raping other dolphins?
- philwelch 16y ago
  Veganism implies a moral consideration for animals; opposition to rape doesn't.
  - colanderman 16y ago
    Correction: veganism implies a moral consideration for animals from the point of view of humans. That is, most vegans believe it to be immoral to kill an animal because we as humans are (for the most part) capable of surviving without doing so, and we have the capacity to recognize this fact. True carnivores have neither of these traits and therefore are not morally obligated not to eat meat. Apologies if my analogy was not clear.
    - zaphar 16y ago
      Except that the OP is one example of someone who clearly can not survive without doing so. It may be true that some Humans can do so but it is not true that all Humans can do so.
oops 16y ago
> I sometimes wonder if Vegans worry about Lions on the savannah eating antelope. Do they want prevent that as well. I think vegans are more concerned with how animals are treated, not simply that they are killed and eaten.
Tichy 16y ago
Just as well there are probably people who can not eat a meat diet and be healthy, for example if they are allergic to eggs, milk or some meat variants. In fact the percentage of people who can't deal with milk is very high. If you go into a normal supermarket, it is actually very difficult to find any foods that don't have milk in it (Lactose being used for lots of dirty tricks). The symptoms she describes (bloated belly, increased heart rate after eating) sound to me more as if there were some other problems - maybe she couldn't deal with some parts of the food very well. I've just read a good book about those problems (it is not allergies, I don't know the proper translation), and for example up to 17% of humans in the western world have problems digesting fructose. So naturally stuffing themselves with vegetables might cause problems. In that book it is also explained that those problems can often be cured in a matter of weeks. Few doctors are knowledgeable about those, though.

burgerbrain 16y ago

The purpose of the post very clearly is to make the point that veganism is not for everybody. Not to suggest veganism is not viable for all people. edit: s/some/all/. english/logic fail.

alone 16y ago

And there are many people who will wrongly think the China Study is something to pay attention to: http://www.google.com/#q=debunking+china+study http://www.google.com/#q=debunking+china+study

anthonyb 16y ago
"debunking" is a rather loaded term, don't you think? I would imagine that you're more likely to pull up crank sites than normal with a search like that. In any case, there are (claimed) responses from the author of the China study which might be worth reading: http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycritics/forum/topics/campbells-response-to-denises http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycri... http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.htm http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.h... I haven't been able to find these on any "official" site though, so beware ;)
dejb 16y ago
If a link to google search is what you think passes as debate then why not also check out http://www.google.com/#q=debunking+evolution http://www.google.com/#q=debunking+evolution The standard of debate is likely to be at a similar level. If you actually have an confidence in any of these 'debunkings' then why not point out one that you think will stand up to scrutiny?

araneae 16y ago

I guess it all depends on whether you'd prefer to be miserable and slowly starve to death starting in your 20s or be happy and energetic before dying at cancer at 60.