3 ms·

And for some reason they seem to be on the fatter side with probably low activity amount. A women desk jockey definitely do not have the same diet requirements

by seec 3y ago

And for some reason they seem to be on the fatter side with probably low activity amount. A women desk jockey definitely do not have the same diet requirements as a working sailor… The gene things do not help to sort which part of the population can digest what. If some people are lactose intolerant it would be surprising that people with genes coming from the north do not have issues with digesting many fibrous high protein veggies/beans. They didn’t say if the diet were calories matched, because it is indeed much easier to under feed with a vegan diet full a fillers. It might be fine for people that have a decent amount to lose, if we are talking about someone with a 15% body fat it might not be the same story… As someone that can double my minimum caloric expenditure on a high activity day I can say it is extremely challenging to feed yourself enough without large amount of oils or refined sugar on a vegan diet. Rather sooner than later all those beans and veggies take too much space in your stomach and too long to digest, it quickly becomes an uncomfortable experience. I’m extremely skeptical about those studies, as long as they do not make physical activity and body fat an important variable it doesn’t means much. All my meat eating family born around the 2nd world war have lived happily to over 90 years old, and most are in fact still alive. So if meat is actually a “killer” it is not a very good one, and I would say nearing hundred years ought to be enough for most people (at this everything in the system is so used up that it’s barely worth living anyway). Come to think of it, dying from cardiovascular problem might be a feature more than a bug but… That just leave the environmental factor, but there again there are a lot of exaggeration and I don’t think things are as clear cut as activists want it to be… More research…

rajnathani 3y ago
Yes, I had the same thought of them being overweight participants. This affects things a lot, as any form of caloric restriction would've shown results (given the participants' higher fat reserves and existing cholesterol); and given that the study split is not isocaloric, it is very likely that the vegan diet was naturally lower in calories. Edit: Confirmed: The diets are not isocaloric, as mentioned in their study (see my top-level comment (I added it for better visibility)).
- seec 3y ago
  Thanks for actually reading, I didn't have time and I was on mobile at the time (I had a hunch it wasn't worth it anyway). This is not surprising and, in my opinion, completely invalidates the results. They just proved lowering caloric intake when you have too much body fat is good for you. We know that for a while now, but it's just not politically correct to say it (body shaming and all that nonsense). And if there was a performance component to those type of studies and similar caloric intake, I believe a vegan diet wouldn't do well for both physical and intellectual activities. The following argument would be "what is the point" if it's to live a worse version of life than you could be... In my experience many vegans are vegans because they want to diet to lose body fat but they don't want to say it and/or they are not willing to do what's necessary (good amount of physical activity with plenty cardio) or can't say no without an excuse. To be fair some people are extremely pushy with food and if you don't agree to eat whatever good but extremely high calorie treat that is offered it becomes a problem. But it's only a short-term fix, vegans will generally lose a decent amount of weight in the 1-2 years but will end up with a worse composition at some point. After a while they gained low weight but large bodyfat to muscle ratio and their energy expenditure that is linked to muscle mass and brain activity is way too low. So, they end up being able to consume even fewer calories and since vegan food is not inherently better, they end up in a worse situation than they started with. Im extremely skeptical about all the "informations" on veganism. If it was so good, we wouldn't need so many "studies" the benefits would be self-evident, my experience is that it is actually hard to find benefits (even cost wise it can only compete if you have cheap energy, lots of time and lots of tools for processing).

by seec 3y ago

rajnathani 3y ago

Yes, I had the same thought of them being overweight participants. This affects things a lot, as any form of caloric restriction would've shown results (given the participants' higher fat reserves and existing cholesterol); and given that the study split is not isocaloric, it is very likely that the vegan diet was naturally lower in calories. Edit: Confirmed: The diets are not isocaloric, as mentioned in their study (see my top-level comment (I added it for better visibility)).

seec 3y ago
Thanks for actually reading, I didn't have time and I was on mobile at the time (I had a hunch it wasn't worth it anyway). This is not surprising and, in my opinion, completely invalidates the results. They just proved lowering caloric intake when you have too much body fat is good for you. We know that for a while now, but it's just not politically correct to say it (body shaming and all that nonsense). And if there was a performance component to those type of studies and similar caloric intake, I believe a vegan diet wouldn't do well for both physical and intellectual activities. The following argument would be "what is the point" if it's to live a worse version of life than you could be... In my experience many vegans are vegans because they want to diet to lose body fat but they don't want to say it and/or they are not willing to do what's necessary (good amount of physical activity with plenty cardio) or can't say no without an excuse. To be fair some people are extremely pushy with food and if you don't agree to eat whatever good but extremely high calorie treat that is offered it becomes a problem. But it's only a short-term fix, vegans will generally lose a decent amount of weight in the 1-2 years but will end up with a worse composition at some point. After a while they gained low weight but large bodyfat to muscle ratio and their energy expenditure that is linked to muscle mass and brain activity is way too low. So, they end up being able to consume even fewer calories and since vegan food is not inherently better, they end up in a worse situation than they started with. Im extremely skeptical about all the "informations" on veganism. If it was so good, we wouldn't need so many "studies" the benefits would be self-evident, my experience is that it is actually hard to find benefits (even cost wise it can only compete if you have cheap energy, lots of time and lots of tools for processing).