Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[JohnDonne]

Still one of the go to studies on veganism nutrition. Note the co-authors name
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/23/3/249/4716649

Veganism, Clinical Findings and Investigations,
FREY R. ELLIS, M.D., M.R.C. PATH. V. M. E. MONTEGRIFFO, MB., B.S.
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 23, Issue 3, 1 March 1970,



Clinical examinations and ancillary investigations were carried out on 26 vegans and 21 control omnivores.

1) The vegans were found to be lighter in weight than the omnivores.

2) There was no significant difference in the clinical states of the vegans and omnivores.

3) The mean serum B12 level was lower in the vegans (236 pg/ml) than in the controls (441 pg/ml).

4) The mean serum folate level was higher for vegans (14.1 ng/ml) than for the controls (5.2 ng/ml).

5) The mean plasma urea levels were within normal limits but 7 of 22 controls had urea levels of 40 mg/100 ml or over as compared to 2 of the 26 vegans.

6) The mean male vegan serum cholesterol was lower (181 mg/l00 ml) than that of the mean male control level (240 mg/100 ml), but there was no difference between the female mean levels.

7) Six vegans had serum bilirubins of more than 0.8 as compared with one control.

I can speak on those findings:
1) Lower carbs
2) -
3) Bad for vegans
4) As long as the kidneys are okay, so what?
5) Meaningless unless pregnant.
6) Means nothing unless high BP.
7) Bad for vegans.

To be fair that study is from the seventies, there have been a lot of changes in vegan education and food availability since then. I also would doubt that any vegan deficient in b12 uses multivitamins either.

[K@th]

The first two questions really depends on circumstance, but in an ideal world persons would not be owned by other persons and they wouldn't be forcibly castrated. That doesn't mean I would argue against it in every case.

You don't get to make up your own definitions of words to support your narrative. You are trying to change the definition, true, but you don't get to use your personal definition until it gets in the dictionary. There is no discussion possible without definitions of words.

per·son
ˈpərs(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
a human being regarded as an individual.
"the porter was the last person to see her"
synonyms: human being, individual, man/woman, child, human, being, (living) soul, mortal, creature; More

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

So you admit bigotry, interesting. You are correct that it doesn't follow that all forms of bigotry are unethical, but I would say it follows that a bigot by definition is obstinately constrained by their prejudices.

Nukedog is a bigot as well, his bigotry is not arbitrary according to him either.

You say I have the burden of proof when I make an equivalence between humans and animals. I have provided that proof and you accepted it earlier in the thread. I said animals are persons, I cited their analogous behavior and causal structures. You accepted that but said you make a distinction between animal persons and human persons.

Personhood is the basis of my equivalence.

You are making a distinction in that equivalence, that places the burden of evidence back onto yourself.

Every distinction has a basis, if your distinction is not arbitrary but rational, what is the basis for your distinction and how is it ethically relevant?

You point out similarities between animals and humans, and ignore the differences. Just as you point out the differences between plants and animals, and ignore the similarities. I could also describe the similarities between humans and stones, but we would agree that those similarities don't prove that stones and humans require equivalent ethical considerations.

As far as bigotry goes. It is typically the people that view humans as nothing more than another animal on an unbroken continuum that rationalize treating some humans like animals.

You are implying that the similarities I point out between animals and humans have no relevance.

Do you disagree that personhood is ethically relevant?

Forgive me for sniping your argument with Okee, but I think making this a little more concrete will be helpful.

You argued that, for the sake of moral consistency, if killing a human is wrong, so is killing a dear. However, to protect dear from a terrible death by starvation, you are comfortable forcibly sterilizing them. Now, I assume, for the sake of fairness and consistency, this means you are comfortable forcibly sterilizing humans, given the right conditions... at least, more comfortable with that than you are with hunting for sport.

This is, I admit, a logically consistent viewpoint. It doesn't strike me as especially ethical, because, again, I am bigoted in favor of humans.

[JohnDonne]

Veganism is a very difficult diet to accomplish safely long term and, even then, it's only suitable for a subset of the population. There are lots of people that would face serious health risks for switching to such a diet.

Whole foods diet is the way to go in general.

For targeted goals, you can use something like keto, carb-cycling, intermittent fasting, etc., but you really don't even need to get that fancy if you are already not overweight or looking to build a lot of muscle quickly.

Stop eating sugar. Drink alcohol in moderation. Eat whole foods (food that comes from the produce, meat, and dairy sections).

Your first statement appears to be empirically false, and the part about it only being suitable for a subset of the population is unproven. Where do you get your facts from?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967195/

In conclusion, results concerning body weight, nutritional intake, nutritional quality and quantity are in line with the literature on restricted and prudent diets versus unrestricted omnivorous diets. The use of indexing systems, estimating the overall diet quality based on different aspects of healthful dietary models (be it the US Dietary Guidelines for Americans or the compliance to the Mediterranean Diet) indicated consistently the vegan diet as the most healthy one. The impossibility to score for (a) specific component(s) for the restricted diets was compensated by the higher scores on most of the other components. Adaptation with specific components (e.g., soy drinks instead of milk; inclusion of other polyunsaturated fat sources instead of fish) may increase the relation with different types of healthful diets, and this especially for the MDS system.

Nevertheless, the used indices may be useful as a screening method allowing the judgment of specific diets.

[Montegriffo]

Still one of the go to studies on veganism nutrition. Note the co-authors name
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/23/3/249/4716649

I can speak on those findings:
1) Lower carbs
2) -
3) Bad for vegans
4) As long as the kidneys are okay, so what?
5) Meaningless unless pregnant.
6) Means nothing unless high BP.
7) Bad for vegans.

To be fair that study is from the seventies, there have been a lot of changes in vegan education and food availability since then. I also would doubt that any vegan deficient in b12 uses multivitamins either.

I used the study because it is regularly quoted in veganism literature and because the author is a distant relative. It seemed to me to contradict claims that being vegan is a serious health risk.

[Speaker to Animals]

Veganism is a very difficult diet to accomplish safely long term and, even then, it's only suitable for a subset of the population. There are lots of people that would face serious health risks for switching to such a diet.

Whole foods diet is the way to go in general.

For targeted goals, you can use something like keto, carb-cycling, intermittent fasting, etc., but you really don't even need to get that fancy if you are already not overweight or looking to build a lot of muscle quickly.

Stop eating sugar. Drink alcohol in moderation. Eat whole foods (food that comes from the produce, meat, and dairy sections).

Your first statement appears to be empirically false, and the part about it only being suitable for a subset of the population is unproven. Where do you get your facts from?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967195/

In conclusion, results concerning body weight, nutritional intake, nutritional quality and quantity are in line with the literature on restricted and prudent diets versus unrestricted omnivorous diets. The use of indexing systems, estimating the overall diet quality based on different aspects of healthful dietary models (be it the US Dietary Guidelines for Americans or the compliance to the Mediterranean Diet) indicated consistently the vegan diet as the most healthy one. The impossibility to score for (a) specific component(s) for the restricted diets was compensated by the higher scores on most of the other components. Adaptation with specific components (e.g., soy drinks instead of milk; inclusion of other polyunsaturated fat sources instead of fish) may increase the relation with different types of healthful diets, and this especially for the MDS system.

Nevertheless, the used indices may be useful as a screening method allowing the judgment of specific diets.

What is your physique and athleticism right now?

Body fat percentage.
Muscle development.
Strength.


Because, honest to God, aside from a few genetic anomalies on YouTube who can actually accomplish this (if they are not lying), every single vegan who has tried to convert me in real life looked like total shit. Most of them are fat. You can see they are nutrient-starved close-up, with wrinkled, yellowing skin. They are, at best, skinny fat, but often times overweight. Even the Yoga chicks who went vegan look like total shit. Their bodies are loose and sagging. They have no muscle tone.

You guys aren't selling the world a very enticing product. Honestly.

I don't want to become a weak, sickly man who looks like a 19th century TB case. I don't want what you are selling.

[JohnDonne]

You point out similarities between animals and humans, and ignore the differences. Just as you point out the differences between plants and animals, and ignore the similarities. I could also describe the similarities between humans and stones, but we would agree that those similarities don't prove that stones and humans require equivalent ethical considerations.

As far as bigotry goes. It is typically the people that view humans as nothing more than another animal on an unbroken continuum that rationalize treating some humans like animals.

You are implying that the similarities I point out between animals and humans have no relevance.

Do you disagree that personhood is ethically relevant?

Forgive me for sniping your argument with Okee, but I think making this a little more concrete will be helpful.

You argued that, for the sake of moral consistency, if killing a human is wrong, so is killing a dear. However, to protect dear from a terrible death by starvation, you are comfortable forcibly sterilizing them. Now, I assume, for the sake of fairness and consistency, this means you are comfortable forcibly sterilizing humans, given the right conditions... at least, more comfortable with that than you are with hunting for sport.

This is, I admit, a logically consistent viewpoint. It doesn't strike me as especially ethical, because, again, I am bigoted in favor of humans.

Well, I wouldn't use the word "comfortable." Would you not agree that there are hypothetical conditions imaginable where forcibly sterilizing humans would be more ethical than other hypothetical options?

Whether I am less uncomfortable with forcibly sterilizing humans under a certain set of unnamed parameters as I would be with hunting for sport under a set of unnamed parameters, depends on the unnamed parameters.

I admit that I would choose forcibly sterilizing a part of group of humans given these alternatives:
1:Hunting them for sport
2:Forcing them into a position where they will slowly starve to death.
That is an ugly choice to have to make, but if Doctor Mengele was asking you for your input, would you choose differently, and why?

[Speaker to Animals]

Oh, and the other side of that spectrum is all the anorexic, near death, bitches on YouTube trying to convince other females to die early.

[JohnDonne]

Veganism is a very difficult diet to accomplish safely long term and, even then, it's only suitable for a subset of the population. There are lots of people that would face serious health risks for switching to such a diet.

Whole foods diet is the way to go in general.

For targeted goals, you can use something like keto, carb-cycling, intermittent fasting, etc., but you really don't even need to get that fancy if you are already not overweight or looking to build a lot of muscle quickly.

Stop eating sugar. Drink alcohol in moderation. Eat whole foods (food that comes from the produce, meat, and dairy sections).

Your first statement appears to be empirically false, and the part about it only being suitable for a subset of the population is unproven. Where do you get your facts from?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967195/

In conclusion, results concerning body weight, nutritional intake, nutritional quality and quantity are in line with the literature on restricted and prudent diets versus unrestricted omnivorous diets. The use of indexing systems, estimating the overall diet quality based on different aspects of healthful dietary models (be it the US Dietary Guidelines for Americans or the compliance to the Mediterranean Diet) indicated consistently the vegan diet as the most healthy one. The impossibility to score for (a) specific component(s) for the restricted diets was compensated by the higher scores on most of the other components. Adaptation with specific components (e.g., soy drinks instead of milk; inclusion of other polyunsaturated fat sources instead of fish) may increase the relation with different types of healthful diets, and this especially for the MDS system.

Nevertheless, the used indices may be useful as a screening method allowing the judgment of specific diets.

What is your physique and athleticism right now?

Body fat percentage.
Muscle development.
Strength.


Because, honest to God, aside from a few genetic anomalies on YouTube who can actually accomplish this (if they are not lying), every single vegan who has tried to convert me in real life looked like total shit. Most of them are fat. You can see they are nutrient-starved close-up, with wrinkled, yellowing skin. They are, at best, skinny fat, but often times overweight. Even the Yoga chicks who went vegan look like total shit. Their bodies are loose and sagging. They have no muscle tone.

You guys aren't selling the world a very enticing product. Honestly.

I don't want to become a weak, sickly man who looks like a 19th century TB case. I don't want what you are selling.

Being more healthy according to ncbi isn't a very enticing product? You can give me anecdotal evidence of vegans being unhealthy, sounds like a cartoon caricature to be honest, but more recent studies say differently.

And if we really want to judge by eye sight how the diets are doing we can go to walmart and see how the omnivore diet is working out for Americans, it's not going to be pretty, bet that.

I don't have any personal stats for you, fitness isn't really my bag. But I'm confident I could become quite muscular if I put in the effort.

But if you need to make this anecdotal, I'm 6 foot 2, 190 pounds, I'm an industrial athlete, and it has been pointed out to me by omnivores on the job that I usually outperform my omnivore brethren, and I don't even train much or try that hard. And that's on top of the fact that they barely have anything for me at the chow hall.
Yet I'm still killing it.

[Montegriffo]

Oh, and the other side of that spectrum is all the anorexic, near death, bitches on YouTube trying to convince other females to die early.

So you've got nothing but feelz then?
How about a scientific study to support your hypothesis?