4 ms·

> HN is a fairly intelligent and educated crowd by internet standards. Yet intelligent and educated people do hold beliefs not based on facts, and are unwillin

by sridca 7y ago

> HN is a fairly intelligent and educated crowd by internet standards. Yet intelligent and educated people do hold beliefs not based on facts, and are unwilling to be questioned. > Perhaps it should give you pause that so many such people not only consider veganism not alarming but actually positive. It gives me no pause whatsoever as I'm not someone that so easily follows the crowd. I simply take it to be the case that veganism is the flat-earth-theory of 2019. > And dismissing it as mindless doesn't really signal debating in good faith on your part or his. Good faith on my, and others, part and already have come by and been downvoted into oblivion. Have you been watching this thread?

cageface 7y ago
I simply take it to be the case that veganism is the flat-earth-theory of 2019. And you wonder why nobody takes your comments seriously. The American Dietetics Association, the largest association of professional dieticians in the world, says vegan diets are healthy and appropriate for all ages: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704 Science is on our side. Who's the flat earther here?
- toight 7y ago
  Science doesn't have the multivariate statistical capability to settle the argument yet. Like I said The literature's converging and if dietitians had anything of value to add why are chronic health conditions escalating. I'm betting on the macro ratios of the pre colonial Polynesian diet, Works pretty well for me. And I can do 40 pressups without any training other than the odd walk and grass fed roast lamb is absolutely delicious and it's biochemistry evolved in synch with mine.But by all means eat the pea goo, it reduces the demand for lamb. Everyone gets freedom of choice to eat what they choose in developed countries, It's a valuable freedom.
  - cageface 7y ago
    I agree that we still have a lot to learn about nutrition. What’s not controversial is that you can be perfectly healthy on a strictly plant based diet. Dismissing vegans as flat earthers or vegan diets as pea goo just makes you sound defensive. Also, the diet you choose has consequences for the environment and the animals you eat so it’s not simply a matter of individual choices. Red meat in particular has a huge carbon footprint.
    - meekstro 7y ago
      It is controversial though. Vegans have higher rates of depression and anxiety than the general cheeseburger eating population which has terrible rates of depression and anxiety. They also have higher rates of auto-immune disorders. The major benefit of their diet comes from toxicity reduction from eating optimised daily calories. A plant sits in one spot thinking how to poison anything that eats too much of it. An animal moves about consuming as little poison as possible. Once you're assured of enough calories (which used to limit population growth) the primary solution is to eat some calories from animals that evolved systems for processing plant toxins to minimise your toxic load. I used pea goo in the comment because I went to the beyond meat website and looked at the ingredients in the impossible burger. The impossible burger consists of about 15 chemical compounds, combined by people highly financially motivated to optimise flavour, texture and colour and the primary component is pea protein. If you can think of a more concise name I'm all ears but it's definitely not a iphone or macbook air. Vegan's choose pea goo over lamb. That's their choice and some vegan's will have the genetic biochemistry to live healthily on a plant based diet. The general population doesn't share that biochemistry. Veganism is the most environmentally sound option if one's health optimises from the diet. Unfortunately this is not the case for the majority of the population. The average vegan should be admired for their sacrifice, not their logic.
      - cageface 7y ago
        Citation for your claims about depression and immune disorders being more common in vegans? I've seen tons of studies showing exactly the opposite and also anecdotally in every vegan I know. Plant based diets are highly anti inflammatory which helps a lot with depression. And the mammalian proteins in meat & dairy seem to be powerful triggers for the immune system to start attacking itself.
        meekstro 7y ago
        Vegetarians and rates of Depression https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1479-5868-9-67 https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1479-5868-... I don't have one for immune disorders. I apologise but people with multiple sclerosis don't gravitate towards vegan diets. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181302/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181302/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6412750/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6412750/ Can you please share a few of the best studies you've seen on veganism reducing depression and autoimmune disorders, I'm genuinely interested and hope I'm missing something.
- sridca 7y ago
  >> I simply take it to be the case that veganism is the flat-earth-theory of 2019. > And you wonder why nobody takes your comments seriously. My cheeky comment, in regards to veganism being the flat-earth-theory of 2019, was in response to your ludicrous suggestion to me that I should blindly accept something silly just because "so many people [...] consider veganism [...] actually positive". And it is nothing to do with my next response (to your follow-up comment of equally no substance re: good faith) that good faith on my, and others, part have already come by and been downvoted into oblivion (furthermore you are totally unaware of this happening). > The American Dietetics Association, the largest association of professional dieticians in the world, says vegan diets are healthy and appropriate for all ages: So what? Is the American Dietetics Association your religion, and whatever they espouse is to be taken as gospel? > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704 Just because something is posted on pubmed does not make it a fact. > Science is on our side. Hah, nope. Science is _not_ on your side. And posting links to pubmed does not automatically make you scientifically-minded. The American Dietetics Association, and the like, that you so fondly identify with are wont to rely on epidemiological studies (which are not exactly science). The vast majority of human nutrition research — including the lion share of the research cited in the EAT-Lancet report — is conducted using the tragically flawed methodology of nutrition epidemiology. Nutrition epidemiology studies are not scientific experiments; they are wildly inaccurate, questionnaire-based guesses (hypotheses) about the possible connections between foods and diseases. This approach has been widely criticized as scientifically invalid [see here <https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2018.00105/full> https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2018.00105... and here <https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2698337> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2698337>], yet continues to be used by influential researchers at prestigious institutions, most notably Dr. Walter Willett. An epidemiologist himself, he wrote an authoritative textbook on the subject and has conducted countless such studies, including a recent, widely-publicized paper tying low-carbohydrate diets to early death. In my reaction to that study <https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/diagnosis-diet/201809/latest-low-carb-study-all-politics-no-science> https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/diagnosis-diet/20180..., I explain in plain English why epidemiological techniques are so untrustworthy and include a sample from an actual food questionnaire for your amusement. Even if you think epidemiological methods are sound, at best they can only generate hypotheses that then need to be tested in clinical trials. Instead, these hypotheses are often prematurely trumpeted to the public as implicit fact in the form of media headlines, dietary guidelines, and well-placed commission reports like this one. Tragically, more than 80% <https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2011.00506.x> https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-... of these guesses are later proved wrong in clinical trials. With a failure rate this high, nutrition epidemiologists would be better off flipping a coin to decide which foods cause human disease. The Commission relies heavily on this methodology, which helps to explain why its recommendations often fly in the face of biological reality. (Straight from https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/diagnosis-diet/201901/eat-lancets-plant-based-planet-10-things-you-need-know https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/diagnosis-diet/20190... ) > Who's the flat earther here? Given that science was never on "your side" in the first place, all you need to do in order to answer this question is to look in the mirror.

by sridca 7y ago

cageface 7y ago

I simply take it to be the case that veganism is the flat-earth-theory of 2019. And you wonder why nobody takes your comments seriously. The American Dietetics Association, the largest association of professional dieticians in the world, says vegan diets are healthy and appropriate for all ages: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704 Science is on our side. Who's the flat earther here?

toight 7y ago
Science doesn't have the multivariate statistical capability to settle the argument yet. Like I said The literature's converging and if dietitians had anything of value to add why are chronic health conditions escalating. I'm betting on the macro ratios of the pre colonial Polynesian diet, Works pretty well for me. And I can do 40 pressups without any training other than the odd walk and grass fed roast lamb is absolutely delicious and it's biochemistry evolved in synch with mine.But by all means eat the pea goo, it reduces the demand for lamb. Everyone gets freedom of choice to eat what they choose in developed countries, It's a valuable freedom.
- cageface 7y ago
  I agree that we still have a lot to learn about nutrition. What’s not controversial is that you can be perfectly healthy on a strictly plant based diet. Dismissing vegans as flat earthers or vegan diets as pea goo just makes you sound defensive. Also, the diet you choose has consequences for the environment and the animals you eat so it’s not simply a matter of individual choices. Red meat in particular has a huge carbon footprint.
  - meekstro 7y ago
    It is controversial though. Vegans have higher rates of depression and anxiety than the general cheeseburger eating population which has terrible rates of depression and anxiety. They also have higher rates of auto-immune disorders. The major benefit of their diet comes from toxicity reduction from eating optimised daily calories. A plant sits in one spot thinking how to poison anything that eats too much of it. An animal moves about consuming as little poison as possible. Once you're assured of enough calories (which used to limit population growth) the primary solution is to eat some calories from animals that evolved systems for processing plant toxins to minimise your toxic load. I used pea goo in the comment because I went to the beyond meat website and looked at the ingredients in the impossible burger. The impossible burger consists of about 15 chemical compounds, combined by people highly financially motivated to optimise flavour, texture and colour and the primary component is pea protein. If you can think of a more concise name I'm all ears but it's definitely not a iphone or macbook air. Vegan's choose pea goo over lamb. That's their choice and some vegan's will have the genetic biochemistry to live healthily on a plant based diet. The general population doesn't share that biochemistry. Veganism is the most environmentally sound option if one's health optimises from the diet. Unfortunately this is not the case for the majority of the population. The average vegan should be admired for their sacrifice, not their logic.
    - cageface 7y ago
      Citation for your claims about depression and immune disorders being more common in vegans? I've seen tons of studies showing exactly the opposite and also anecdotally in every vegan I know. Plant based diets are highly anti inflammatory which helps a lot with depression. And the mammalian proteins in meat & dairy seem to be powerful triggers for the immune system to start attacking itself.
      - meekstro 7y ago
        Vegetarians and rates of Depression https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1479-5868-9-67 https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1479-5868-... I don't have one for immune disorders. I apologise but people with multiple sclerosis don't gravitate towards vegan diets. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181302/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181302/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6412750/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6412750/ Can you please share a few of the best studies you've seen on veganism reducing depression and autoimmune disorders, I'm genuinely interested and hope I'm missing something.
sridca 7y ago
>> I simply take it to be the case that veganism is the flat-earth-theory of 2019. > And you wonder why nobody takes your comments seriously. My cheeky comment, in regards to veganism being the flat-earth-theory of 2019, was in response to your ludicrous suggestion to me that I should blindly accept something silly just because "so many people [...] consider veganism [...] actually positive". And it is nothing to do with my next response (to your follow-up comment of equally no substance re: good faith) that good faith on my, and others, part have already come by and been downvoted into oblivion (furthermore you are totally unaware of this happening). > The American Dietetics Association, the largest association of professional dieticians in the world, says vegan diets are healthy and appropriate for all ages: So what? Is the American Dietetics Association your religion, and whatever they espouse is to be taken as gospel? > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704 Just because something is posted on pubmed does not make it a fact. > Science is on our side. Hah, nope. Science is _not_ on your side. And posting links to pubmed does not automatically make you scientifically-minded. The American Dietetics Association, and the like, that you so fondly identify with are wont to rely on epidemiological studies (which are not exactly science). The vast majority of human nutrition research — including the lion share of the research cited in the EAT-Lancet report — is conducted using the tragically flawed methodology of nutrition epidemiology. Nutrition epidemiology studies are not scientific experiments; they are wildly inaccurate, questionnaire-based guesses (hypotheses) about the possible connections between foods and diseases. This approach has been widely criticized as scientifically invalid [see here <https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2018.00105/full> https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2018.00105... and here <https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2698337> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2698337>], yet continues to be used by influential researchers at prestigious institutions, most notably Dr. Walter Willett. An epidemiologist himself, he wrote an authoritative textbook on the subject and has conducted countless such studies, including a recent, widely-publicized paper tying low-carbohydrate diets to early death. In my reaction to that study <https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/diagnosis-diet/201809/latest-low-carb-study-all-politics-no-science> https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/diagnosis-diet/20180..., I explain in plain English why epidemiological techniques are so untrustworthy and include a sample from an actual food questionnaire for your amusement. Even if you think epidemiological methods are sound, at best they can only generate hypotheses that then need to be tested in clinical trials. Instead, these hypotheses are often prematurely trumpeted to the public as implicit fact in the form of media headlines, dietary guidelines, and well-placed commission reports like this one. Tragically, more than 80% <https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2011.00506.x> https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-... of these guesses are later proved wrong in clinical trials. With a failure rate this high, nutrition epidemiologists would be better off flipping a coin to decide which foods cause human disease. The Commission relies heavily on this methodology, which helps to explain why its recommendations often fly in the face of biological reality. (Straight from https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/diagnosis-diet/201901/eat-lancets-plant-based-planet-10-things-you-need-know https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/diagnosis-diet/20190... ) > Who's the flat earther here? Given that science was never on "your side" in the first place, all you need to do in order to answer this question is to look in the mirror.