4 ms·

> We don't need to eat meat or fish at all to be healthy I think you will have to back that statement up if you want to be taken seriously. I for one am certai

> We don't need to eat meat or fish at all to be healthy I think you will have to back that statement up if you want to be taken seriously. I for one am certainly not going to stop eating fish and meat, I have been a vegetarian for over a year and I did not fancy it.

ookdatnog 8y ago
> I think you will have to back that statement up if you want to be taken seriously. This is such a mainstream statement that it seems to me entirely reasonable to omit a source. You can find dozens of them by looking up "vegetarianism" on wikipedia and navigating to the "health effects" section.
- josteink 8y ago
  > This is such a mainstream statement that it seems to me entirely reasonable to omit a source Only in circles where alternative medicine is practiced, health-advice taken from unscholared internet-blogs and science is generally shunned. This very extreme claim certainly needs a source to have any sort of credibility.
  - cageface 8y ago
    4.5 million Jains in India would be happy to discuss this issue, just for starters. The world is full of healthy vegans and vegetarians.
    - close04 8y ago
      You are omitting the fact that genetics plays a huge role in the success and efficiency of your diet. More than a third of East Asians have a deficiency in one of the enzymes involved in the breakdown of alcohol (aldehyde dehydrogenase). They cannot properly metabolize it. Inuits have mutations in genes that code for enzymes that desaturate carbon-carbon bonds in fatty acids. This means they can handle diets that are very high in certain types of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. A mutation of the melanocortin-4-receptor (MC4R) leads to a markedly increased preference for high fat, but a significantly reduced preference for high sucrose food. So what I'm saying is that blanket statements like "well if I/those guys can do it then everybody should be able to" have no real value. Diets are strongly influenced by and relying on genetics. Since we don't have the same genes we won't handle the same diet in the same way. Linking to statements that have since been withdrawn due to omissions also doesn't help. Edit. Huh... getting downvoted for saying diet and genetics go hand in hand, with evidence that hasn't been retracted. If anybody was wondering why some people are never taken seriously, it's because they reject reality thinking this will change it.
      - Djvacto 8y ago
        I think you're being downvoted because of the "Withdrawn statements" comment. It looks like this has been posted multiple times in the same thread, but the statement was not withdrawn.
        close04 8y ago
        The paper liked originally was indeed withdrawn. It was corrected and subsequently republished which I didn't notice (can't edit anymore). This being said (from the paper): > appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets Most people's diets are not "appropriately" planned because most people never actually consult a nutritionist. This means most of those diets miss their mark and since that diet narrows the alternatives it's far easier to lose those benefits. And can't see anything about any disbenefits of introducing animal products in that diet in "appropriately planned" quantities. Would introducing certain amounts of animal products in your diet affect in in any direction? So would adding a moderate amount of fish in your vegad diet sabotge or improve it? Or no difference?
      - naasking 8y ago
        > You are omitting the fact that genetics plays a huge role in the success and efficiency of your diet. Not just genetics, but a lifetime of bacterial and other environmental exposures that defines your microbiome, which is obviously essential to processing all food. An environment with a long history of vegetarians will be well suited to vegetarians. Not so much if that hasn't been the case.
  - okmokmz 8y ago
    >Only in circles where alternative medicine is practiced, health-advice taken from unscholared internet-blogs and science is generally shunned. Completely false. Also, unscholared isn't a word https://www.dictionary.com/misspelling?term=unscholared&s=t https://www.dictionary.com/misspelling?term=unscholared&s=t https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unscholared https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unscholared https://www.onelook.com/?w=unscholared&ls=a https://www.onelook.com/?w=unscholared&ls=a >This very extreme claim It isn't
- ecmascript 8y ago
  So popular mainstream statements doesn't need to be backed by sources? This seems kind of strange and anti-scientific to me. It also makes me believe less in the statements, since there is not apparently any sources that can be used to back the statements up.
cageface 8y ago
It's the official position of the largest association of professional nutritionists in the US. It's hardly controversial. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
- j16sdiz 8y ago
  The position statement was REMOVED on the request of Academy Positions Committee (APC) of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics for "inaccuracies and omissions". https://jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(15)00261-0/abstract https://jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(15)00261-0/abstrac...
  - wgjordan 8y ago
    The 2009 statement linked above was not removed; a 2015 update of the position statement was retracted and re-published in 2016 [1][2]. The position has been formally endorsed until December 31, 2021. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704 [2] https://jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(16)31192-3/fulltext https://jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(16)31192-3/fulltex...

ookdatnog 8y ago

> I think you will have to back that statement up if you want to be taken seriously. This is such a mainstream statement that it seems to me entirely reasonable to omit a source. You can find dozens of them by looking up "vegetarianism" on wikipedia and navigating to the "health effects" section.

josteink 8y ago
> This is such a mainstream statement that it seems to me entirely reasonable to omit a source Only in circles where alternative medicine is practiced, health-advice taken from unscholared internet-blogs and science is generally shunned. This very extreme claim certainly needs a source to have any sort of credibility.
- cageface 8y ago
  4.5 million Jains in India would be happy to discuss this issue, just for starters. The world is full of healthy vegans and vegetarians.
  - close04 8y ago
    You are omitting the fact that genetics plays a huge role in the success and efficiency of your diet. More than a third of East Asians have a deficiency in one of the enzymes involved in the breakdown of alcohol (aldehyde dehydrogenase). They cannot properly metabolize it. Inuits have mutations in genes that code for enzymes that desaturate carbon-carbon bonds in fatty acids. This means they can handle diets that are very high in certain types of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. A mutation of the melanocortin-4-receptor (MC4R) leads to a markedly increased preference for high fat, but a significantly reduced preference for high sucrose food. So what I'm saying is that blanket statements like "well if I/those guys can do it then everybody should be able to" have no real value. Diets are strongly influenced by and relying on genetics. Since we don't have the same genes we won't handle the same diet in the same way. Linking to statements that have since been withdrawn due to omissions also doesn't help. Edit. Huh... getting downvoted for saying diet and genetics go hand in hand, with evidence that hasn't been retracted. If anybody was wondering why some people are never taken seriously, it's because they reject reality thinking this will change it.
    - Djvacto 8y ago
      I think you're being downvoted because of the "Withdrawn statements" comment. It looks like this has been posted multiple times in the same thread, but the statement was not withdrawn.
      - close04 8y ago
        The paper liked originally was indeed withdrawn. It was corrected and subsequently republished which I didn't notice (can't edit anymore). This being said (from the paper): > appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets Most people's diets are not "appropriately" planned because most people never actually consult a nutritionist. This means most of those diets miss their mark and since that diet narrows the alternatives it's far easier to lose those benefits. And can't see anything about any disbenefits of introducing animal products in that diet in "appropriately planned" quantities. Would introducing certain amounts of animal products in your diet affect in in any direction? So would adding a moderate amount of fish in your vegad diet sabotge or improve it? Or no difference?
    - naasking 8y ago
      > You are omitting the fact that genetics plays a huge role in the success and efficiency of your diet. Not just genetics, but a lifetime of bacterial and other environmental exposures that defines your microbiome, which is obviously essential to processing all food. An environment with a long history of vegetarians will be well suited to vegetarians. Not so much if that hasn't been the case.
- okmokmz 8y ago
  >Only in circles where alternative medicine is practiced, health-advice taken from unscholared internet-blogs and science is generally shunned. Completely false. Also, unscholared isn't a word https://www.dictionary.com/misspelling?term=unscholared&s=t https://www.dictionary.com/misspelling?term=unscholared&s=t https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unscholared https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unscholared https://www.onelook.com/?w=unscholared&ls=a https://www.onelook.com/?w=unscholared&ls=a >This very extreme claim It isn't
ecmascript 8y ago
So popular mainstream statements doesn't need to be backed by sources? This seems kind of strange and anti-scientific to me. It also makes me believe less in the statements, since there is not apparently any sources that can be used to back the statements up.

cageface 8y ago

It's the official position of the largest association of professional nutritionists in the US. It's hardly controversial. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

j16sdiz 8y ago
The position statement was REMOVED on the request of Academy Positions Committee (APC) of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics for "inaccuracies and omissions". https://jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(15)00261-0/abstract https://jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(15)00261-0/abstrac...
- wgjordan 8y ago
  The 2009 statement linked above was not removed; a 2015 update of the position statement was retracted and re-published in 2016 [1][2]. The position has been formally endorsed until December 31, 2021. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704 [2] https://jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(16)31192-3/fulltext https://jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(16)31192-3/fulltex...