4 ms·

Meat has a better track record huh? Basically all cardiovascular diseases are caused by animal products. Those 'odd ingredients' don't seem so odd to me. Go th

Meat has a better track record huh? Basically all cardiovascular diseases are caused by animal products. Those 'odd ingredients' don't seem so odd to me. Go through the list of a meat alternative one by one, you'll be surprised how mundane they are

nkozyra 6y ago
> Basically all cardiovascular diseases are caused by animal products. [ citation needed ] I'm a long-time vegetarian but this kind of specious pseudo science doesn't sit right with me.
- Badfood 6y ago
  Calling it pseudo science is more in need of a citation than the original statement.
  - nkozyra 6y ago
    That's not how it works. If you're going to make a claim, support it.
    - Badfood 6y ago
      The original claim was that meat has a good track record. Citation needed. NIH is brimming with publications to the contrary
      - nkozyra 6y ago
        Sure. Humans have been eating meat for tens of thousands of years. That's a track record. The idea that something that's been consumed by humans since there have been himself having a better track record than something that historically hasn't isn't even controversial. Your turn. Basically all cardiovascular diseases are caused by meat, right? I've spent most of my life as a vegetation but dishonest histrionics like this do a disservice to the aim of convincing meat eaters to eat less meat.
        Badfood 6y ago
        It's about the amount of meat and dairy we ate... Next to nothing compared to today. Today's rates of cardiovascular diseases don't exist in mostly plant eating cohorts, nor do they in other largely plant based apes. Its not that complicated, I fail to see how this qualifies as histrionics.
        nkozyra 6y ago
        Well you've drawn a correlation, for sure. As one could do for obesity rates, processed and fast food consumption, alcohol consumption per capita. Again, citation needed.
eyelidlessness 6y ago
Please recognize that the caution around new food science advances is based in experience. I’m sure most of us are old enough to remember when most crunchy fried snacks were on the shelf with oils that had no known health risk but turned out to produce widespread uncontrollable diarrhea because the oils were indigestible. I’m not suggesting these new meat substitutes have that effect but it’s reasonable for people to be cautious. Yeah heart disease and global emissions but... also soiling yourself without warning in public. The best thing proponents of these new foods could do is genuinely and honestly recognize and address those worries.
- Badfood 6y ago
  Go. Through. The. Ingredients. Caution not needed. Nothing new here
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    If you want to convince someone to trust something they’re likely not seeking out, giving them homework won’t be very persuasive.
    - Badfood 6y ago
      Fair point. I do feel the responsibility is on the shoulders of those making claims of the dangers of meat alternatives though. Its easy to paint it as frankenfood, but if you look at the ingredients they are boringly normal
      - eyelidlessness 6y ago
        This is actually a pretty simple burden of proof question. The burden of proof is on whoever wishes to persuade the other. As in any other case, to persuade another person is to assert a claim. It doesn’t matter that you already have done the requisite learning to understand what you’re certain is the baseline set of facts. What matters is you want to change someone else’s beliefs. As an example: It would be preposterous for me to say “I am certain that biological sex is a spectrum, and binary sex is a simplification useful as a tool for some applications but inadequate for others” and just expect anyone who doesn’t know that to crack open a book or start googling my hypothesis credulously. Even though I’m certain it’s true. I understand that while there’s sound scientific basis for the claim, it’s not a shared understanding of reality. I also understand that it’s a claim that may be questioned, even though I’m certain it’s correct, and it’s my choice whether to give it more weight when challenged (attempt to persuade someone who doesn’t accept the claim l) or to carry on certain I’m right. But if I take the latter path, I have to accept that it’s really very unlikely the other party will learn what I’ve learned, unless they become curious and open to the possibility. In other words, you can be right until the end of time and it wouldn’t ever matter to some people unless you give them a reason to want to be right too.
paulie_a 6y ago
That is not accurate at all. There are small links with increased cardiac issues but salt is a much much bigger culprit

nkozyra 6y ago

> Basically all cardiovascular diseases are caused by animal products. [ citation needed ] I'm a long-time vegetarian but this kind of specious pseudo science doesn't sit right with me.

Badfood 6y ago
Calling it pseudo science is more in need of a citation than the original statement.
- nkozyra 6y ago
  That's not how it works. If you're going to make a claim, support it.
  - Badfood 6y ago
    The original claim was that meat has a good track record. Citation needed. NIH is brimming with publications to the contrary
    - nkozyra 6y ago
      Sure. Humans have been eating meat for tens of thousands of years. That's a track record. The idea that something that's been consumed by humans since there have been himself having a better track record than something that historically hasn't isn't even controversial. Your turn. Basically all cardiovascular diseases are caused by meat, right? I've spent most of my life as a vegetation but dishonest histrionics like this do a disservice to the aim of convincing meat eaters to eat less meat.
      - Badfood 6y ago
        It's about the amount of meat and dairy we ate... Next to nothing compared to today. Today's rates of cardiovascular diseases don't exist in mostly plant eating cohorts, nor do they in other largely plant based apes. Its not that complicated, I fail to see how this qualifies as histrionics.
        nkozyra 6y ago
        Well you've drawn a correlation, for sure. As one could do for obesity rates, processed and fast food consumption, alcohol consumption per capita. Again, citation needed.

eyelidlessness 6y ago

Please recognize that the caution around new food science advances is based in experience. I’m sure most of us are old enough to remember when most crunchy fried snacks were on the shelf with oils that had no known health risk but turned out to produce widespread uncontrollable diarrhea because the oils were indigestible. I’m not suggesting these new meat substitutes have that effect but it’s reasonable for people to be cautious. Yeah heart disease and global emissions but... also soiling yourself without warning in public. The best thing proponents of these new foods could do is genuinely and honestly recognize and address those worries.

Badfood 6y ago
Go. Through. The. Ingredients. Caution not needed. Nothing new here
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  If you want to convince someone to trust something they’re likely not seeking out, giving them homework won’t be very persuasive.
  - Badfood 6y ago
    Fair point. I do feel the responsibility is on the shoulders of those making claims of the dangers of meat alternatives though. Its easy to paint it as frankenfood, but if you look at the ingredients they are boringly normal
    - eyelidlessness 6y ago
      This is actually a pretty simple burden of proof question. The burden of proof is on whoever wishes to persuade the other. As in any other case, to persuade another person is to assert a claim. It doesn’t matter that you already have done the requisite learning to understand what you’re certain is the baseline set of facts. What matters is you want to change someone else’s beliefs. As an example: It would be preposterous for me to say “I am certain that biological sex is a spectrum, and binary sex is a simplification useful as a tool for some applications but inadequate for others” and just expect anyone who doesn’t know that to crack open a book or start googling my hypothesis credulously. Even though I’m certain it’s true. I understand that while there’s sound scientific basis for the claim, it’s not a shared understanding of reality. I also understand that it’s a claim that may be questioned, even though I’m certain it’s correct, and it’s my choice whether to give it more weight when challenged (attempt to persuade someone who doesn’t accept the claim l) or to carry on certain I’m right. But if I take the latter path, I have to accept that it’s really very unlikely the other party will learn what I’ve learned, unless they become curious and open to the possibility. In other words, you can be right until the end of time and it wouldn’t ever matter to some people unless you give them a reason to want to be right too.

paulie_a 6y ago

That is not accurate at all. There are small links with increased cardiac issues but salt is a much much bigger culprit