5 ms·

Vegan here. Not sure if this is exactly what you are hinting at, but I do perceive a significant bias against veganism that is, to my perspective, usually just

Vegan here. Not sure if this is exactly what you are hinting at, but I do perceive a significant bias against veganism that is, to my perspective, usually just not based on a solid rational basis.

worik 5y ago
Veganism has no solid basis in that there is no precedent. There is for vegetarianism, it was not invented in the nineteenth century, but veganism was. There are no examples of vegan cultures before modern times. Given that what we do not know about human metabolism is more important than what we do know I am sceptical of some new radical dietary plan.
- markstos 5y ago
  Animal agriculture is a top cause of climate catastrophe. Is avoid global catastrophe a radical idea?
  - worik 5y ago
    Is it? Is not industrial agriculture generally (and more generally, greed) the actual problem? I do not think that intensive crop growing is better than pastoral farming of animals for meat. The former is catastrophic to the local environment the latter is all around me and causes very few problems.
    - kelp 5y ago
      I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, but growing animals for meat generally requires growing lots and lots of feed stock. Many multiples more than what it would require to feed humans directly. So because we want meat, more and more industrial agriculture has to happen to grow that meat. So yeah, I think having an industrial meat industry has more environmental impact, than just having industrial farming in the absence of the industrial meat industry.
      - AngryData 5y ago
        It kind of goes both ways, today's factory farmed meat is grown with lots of grains and corn which is grown using artificial fertilizer, that is a lot of waste. But a bit more traditionally and on smaller scales you donn't feed cows much of any grains, that is for people to eat, they eat the alfalfa which is grown in rotation to put nutrients/fertilizer into the soil for free and without any pollution. So eating meat is both very polluting, but once was and still could be a net positive for agricultural sustainability and reducing fossil fuel pollution.
      - worik 5y ago
        No it does not. Certain industrial techniques do. I am surrounded by pasture with sheep (and some cattle, and even some Lama? Alpaca?...) eating grass. Industrial agriculture is not a state of nature, it is a choice. The industrial production of soy beans is quite horrifying also. There are industrial farming techniques that are not so bad as there are traditional techniques that are awful. We are intelligent creatures and we can make choices. Better choices than just giving up
- yboris 5y ago
  I'm unsure what kind of an argument you are making. Consider a parallel that could be uttered in the past: "Letting women vote has no basis in that there is no precedent." We know enough about nutrition that we could get all the nutrients needed without animal products. If your concern is about health, then how many examples of vegan people living healthy lives into their 90s would be enough to convince you?
  - Ensorceled 5y ago
    I'm not sure that "women should get to vote" is logically the same as "get your B12 from fortified foods like nutritional yeast and you still end up with B12 deficiency" ... The main finding of this review is that vegetarians develop B12 depletion or deficiency regardless of demographic characteristics, place of residency, age, or type of vegetarian diet. Vegetarians should thus take preventive measures to ensure adequate intake of this vitamin, including regular consumption of supplements containing B12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23356638/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23356638/
    - sweetheart 5y ago
      This is solved by a trivial supplement. Millions of vegans/vegetarians take them every day, and many hundreds of millions of livestock (which is how most get their B12, as well). If we didn't supplement our livestock with B12, we'd all always be deficient. A lot of suffering is avoided with a measly supplement.
      - worik 5y ago
        Are you asking people to eat pills to ensure adequate nutrition?
        sweetheart 5y ago
        In the case of B12, yes. B12 deficiencies are a result of modern farming practices, _not_ plant-based diets. This is why our livestock are supplemented with B12. B12 was originally sourced naturally by consuming things straight from the ground, like foraging and drinking from streams, or eating animals. Modern farming doesn't allow for a lot of this consuming straight from the wilderness though, so B12 needs to be supplemented. Either into animals so we get it via their meat, or directly, via a supplement. Your B12 is coming from a supplement either way, though. Vegans just ask that you take out the middleman so that they don't need to die for you to get something that is found in a measly pill.
ggm 5y ago
I feel the lmited factual objections, and they are typically somewhat slight, is the avoidance of problems like osteoporosis. Calcium is just not as bioavailable in plant sources. In like sense we don't synthesise some vitamins well, which is an indication we expect bioavailable sources to be in our diet, genetically speaking. Probably, insect sources would meet fat soluable needs if a live source was to be chosen. (Not a vegan, omnivorous, happy to consider lacto-ovo vegetarianism at some poibt)
- markstos 5y ago
  Harvard found calcium to be more bioavailable in plants. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium/#:~:text=*Bioavailability%20of%20calcium&text=For%20example%2C%20dairy%20foods%20have,a%20higher%20bioavailability%20than%20dairy https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium/#:~:tex.... What's your source for animal-based calcium being more bioavailable? I had my calcium tested as a vegetarian and later as a vegan and it's gone up.
  - ggm 5y ago
    The studies I read suggest oxalate and phylate inhibit absorption. For instance https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12088515/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12088515/ As a layperson, perhaps I misconstrued bioavailabilty and absorption because both come into effect. I glad your calcium levels have risen btw, I would wonder if other effects like exercise or overall dietary sufficiency have changed. If for instance you ate less foods with chelating agents you'd alter iron absorption, perhaps your dietary shift removed confounding phylate? And no matter why, it's great they rose.

Vegan here. Not sure if this is exactly what you are hinting at, but I do perceive a significant bias against veganism that is, to my perspective, usually just not based on a solid rational basis.

worik 5y ago

Veganism has no solid basis in that there is no precedent. There is for vegetarianism, it was not invented in the nineteenth century, but veganism was. There are no examples of vegan cultures before modern times. Given that what we do not know about human metabolism is more important than what we do know I am sceptical of some new radical dietary plan.

markstos 5y ago
Animal agriculture is a top cause of climate catastrophe. Is avoid global catastrophe a radical idea?
- worik 5y ago
  Is it? Is not industrial agriculture generally (and more generally, greed) the actual problem? I do not think that intensive crop growing is better than pastoral farming of animals for meat. The former is catastrophic to the local environment the latter is all around me and causes very few problems.
  - kelp 5y ago
    I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, but growing animals for meat generally requires growing lots and lots of feed stock. Many multiples more than what it would require to feed humans directly. So because we want meat, more and more industrial agriculture has to happen to grow that meat. So yeah, I think having an industrial meat industry has more environmental impact, than just having industrial farming in the absence of the industrial meat industry.
    - AngryData 5y ago
      It kind of goes both ways, today's factory farmed meat is grown with lots of grains and corn which is grown using artificial fertilizer, that is a lot of waste. But a bit more traditionally and on smaller scales you donn't feed cows much of any grains, that is for people to eat, they eat the alfalfa which is grown in rotation to put nutrients/fertilizer into the soil for free and without any pollution. So eating meat is both very polluting, but once was and still could be a net positive for agricultural sustainability and reducing fossil fuel pollution.
    - worik 5y ago
      No it does not. Certain industrial techniques do. I am surrounded by pasture with sheep (and some cattle, and even some Lama? Alpaca?...) eating grass. Industrial agriculture is not a state of nature, it is a choice. The industrial production of soy beans is quite horrifying also. There are industrial farming techniques that are not so bad as there are traditional techniques that are awful. We are intelligent creatures and we can make choices. Better choices than just giving up
yboris 5y ago
I'm unsure what kind of an argument you are making. Consider a parallel that could be uttered in the past: "Letting women vote has no basis in that there is no precedent." We know enough about nutrition that we could get all the nutrients needed without animal products. If your concern is about health, then how many examples of vegan people living healthy lives into their 90s would be enough to convince you?
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  I'm not sure that "women should get to vote" is logically the same as "get your B12 from fortified foods like nutritional yeast and you still end up with B12 deficiency" ... The main finding of this review is that vegetarians develop B12 depletion or deficiency regardless of demographic characteristics, place of residency, age, or type of vegetarian diet. Vegetarians should thus take preventive measures to ensure adequate intake of this vitamin, including regular consumption of supplements containing B12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23356638/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23356638/
  - sweetheart 5y ago
    This is solved by a trivial supplement. Millions of vegans/vegetarians take them every day, and many hundreds of millions of livestock (which is how most get their B12, as well). If we didn't supplement our livestock with B12, we'd all always be deficient. A lot of suffering is avoided with a measly supplement.
    - worik 5y ago
      Are you asking people to eat pills to ensure adequate nutrition?
      - sweetheart 5y ago
        In the case of B12, yes. B12 deficiencies are a result of modern farming practices, _not_ plant-based diets. This is why our livestock are supplemented with B12. B12 was originally sourced naturally by consuming things straight from the ground, like foraging and drinking from streams, or eating animals. Modern farming doesn't allow for a lot of this consuming straight from the wilderness though, so B12 needs to be supplemented. Either into animals so we get it via their meat, or directly, via a supplement. Your B12 is coming from a supplement either way, though. Vegans just ask that you take out the middleman so that they don't need to die for you to get something that is found in a measly pill.

ggm 5y ago

I feel the lmited factual objections, and they are typically somewhat slight, is the avoidance of problems like osteoporosis. Calcium is just not as bioavailable in plant sources. In like sense we don't synthesise some vitamins well, which is an indication we expect bioavailable sources to be in our diet, genetically speaking. Probably, insect sources would meet fat soluable needs if a live source was to be chosen. (Not a vegan, omnivorous, happy to consider lacto-ovo vegetarianism at some poibt)

markstos 5y ago
Harvard found calcium to be more bioavailable in plants. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium/#:~:text=*Bioavailability%20of%20calcium&text=For%20example%2C%20dairy%20foods%20have,a%20higher%20bioavailability%20than%20dairy https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium/#:~:tex.... What's your source for animal-based calcium being more bioavailable? I had my calcium tested as a vegetarian and later as a vegan and it's gone up.
- ggm 5y ago
  The studies I read suggest oxalate and phylate inhibit absorption. For instance https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12088515/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12088515/ As a layperson, perhaps I misconstrued bioavailabilty and absorption because both come into effect. I glad your calcium levels have risen btw, I would wonder if other effects like exercise or overall dietary sufficiency have changed. If for instance you ate less foods with chelating agents you'd alter iron absorption, perhaps your dietary shift removed confounding phylate? And no matter why, it's great they rose.