Great Vegan Debate

[tatpurusa]

Natural is irrelevant to what is good or not good. Your logical fallacy is appeal to nature

Some guy's blog is also not an accurate source of information. Professional nutrition scientists know more than that guy does. Most of what he said is just flat out wrong. The largest organizations of nutrition professionals in the word vs some guy with a blog. It's not even a contest!

Sorry, but even if you do not want to see, we humans are a part of nature.
During our evolution as a race we have adapted to consume natural foods, not supplements.
So yes, while supplemets can be some emergency measure to compensate for unhealthy
eating habits, this is not what our organism would really want and needs in order to function
optimally in terms of health.

Secondly, you cannot simply discard everything I wrote just because I linked a "blog" you would prefer not to trust.
The need of DHA for brain development is a medical fact; do your research, there is an enormous amount of
real scientific research on it.
The inefficient conversion of ALA into EPA and DHA is also a physiological fact. So even if you feed enormous
amounts of flax seed and walnuts to your kid every day, this will not be enough for optimal brain development.
Do your own research.

Actually consumption of DHA (from fish and from bone marrow and brain of big animal) was that helped the rapid growth
and development of human brain during evolution making us human in the first place.

https://www.ocl-journal.org/articles/oc ... 170035.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10419087

[Sādhaka]

Vitamin A

Plant sources are pre Vitamin A, and animal sources are active Vitamin A.

From what I understand, with plant sources you’re only going to get about an 3 to 6 percent conversion from pre-A to active-A.

That’s an whole of kale and carrots to eat.

And an whole lot of oxalates, and too-much-fiber to deal with.

I also think that getting the full spectrum of Vitamin Ks is going to be tough for vegans too. Or all of your fat-soluble vitamins in general.

[tatpurusa]

Could this be linked to a general lack of Omega3, especially DHA in today's nutrition?

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i ... cna1008576

[Vasana]

It's odd that vitamin deficiencies are the defining parameters for the vegan debate when the typical ultra-processed, additive rich, sweet, fatty and salty american or European diet (with the exception perhaps of Mediterranean) sees that deficiencies are common place, even for omnivores. The skewed ratio of omega-6's to omega-3's in the typical diet is one example, iodine deficiency is another.

Health is really not a game of just ensuring all of the boxes have been ticked on paper. Its more than the sum of it's parts. Most people don't eat a diverse enough diet to tick all boxes. You can tick all of the vitamin boxes on paper but still be unhealthy just as you can probably live a relatively decent life with sub optimal levels of certain vitamins, unchecked food sensitives and allergies, mal-absorbtion etc...In fact, most people do just that. Of course this may increase risk factors for other diseases as time goes on but we know that disease and wellness is more than just the sum total of food you consume.

Diet, food quality, quantity, timing, environmental exposure, genetics, existing health conditions, excercise, sleep, stress levels, mental and emotional hygiene, aging, karma, merit, life-force. None of these are static or independent from one another and there will nearly always be trade-offs in dietary and lifestyle choices.

[tatpurusa]

It's odd that vitamin deficiencies are the defining parameters for the vegan debate when the typical ultra-processed, additive rich, sweet, fatty and salty american or European diet (with the exception perhaps of Mediterranean) sees that deficiencies are common place, even for omnivores. The skewed ratio of omega-6's to omega-3's in the typical diet is one example, iodine deficiency is another.

It's not odd considering that the topic of this thread is exactly veganism.
Of course the standard American diet is nothing better, but that does not make veganism somehow less lacking in key nutrients.

[Vasana]

It's odd that vitamin deficiencies are the defining parameters for the vegan debate when the typical ultra-processed, additive rich, sweet, fatty and salty american or European diet (with the exception perhaps of Mediterranean) sees that deficiencies are common place, even for omnivores. The skewed ratio of omega-6's to omega-3's in the typical diet is one example, iodine deficiency is another.

It's not odd considering that the topic of this thread is exactly veganism.
Of course the standard American diet is nothing better, but that does not make veganism somehow less lacking in key nutrients.

No it doesn't mean it's not lacking at all, but it doesn't make vegans worse off than those on standard American diets either. In most cases its probably the opposite. Of course key nutrients are just that, but health, quality, length of life and disease formation are all more complex than just yes/no nutrient theshold box ticking. Very few people whatever their diet are hitting full RDI and even that is no guarantor of good health. The rest of my post had the additional healthy/unhealthy nuance i was getting at.

[Könchok Thrinley]

It's odd that vitamin deficiencies are the defining parameters for the vegan debate when the typical ultra-processed, additive rich, sweet, fatty and salty american or European diet (with the exception perhaps of Mediterranean) sees that deficiencies are common place, even for omnivores. The skewed ratio of omega-6's to omega-3's in the typical diet is one example, iodine deficiency is another.

It's not odd considering that the topic of this thread is exactly veganism.
Of course the standard American diet is nothing better, but that does not make veganism somehow less lacking in key nutrients.

No it doesn't mean it's not lacking at all, but it doesn't make vegans worse off than those on standard American diets either. In most cases its probably the opposite. Of course key nutrients are just that, but health, quality, length of life and disease formation are all more complex than just yes/no nutrient theshold box ticking. Very few people whatever their diet are hitting full RDI and even that is no guarantor of good health. The rest of my post had the additional healthy/unhealthy nuance i was getting at.

Exactly.

Research supports the claim that veganism is a healthy diet if done right and one does really need to take only B12 vitamin (unless one wants to eat soil, which is where B12 is naturally found and some animals, which are then eaten by other animals, get it there) and omega 3 can be gotten from supplements based on algea (which is where fish get their omega 3 and hey its not polluted with heavy iron, but really reaaaallly expensive). The rest of the vitamins it is not really and issue since they eat more vitamin rich foods than most of western civilisation. So two supplements and enough veggies and legumes per day and boom you are ready to go.

[Könchok Thrinley]

Natural is irrelevant to what is good or not good. Your logical fallacy is appeal to nature

Some guy's blog is also not an accurate source of information. Professional nutrition scientists know more than that guy does. Most of what he said is just flat out wrong. The largest organizations of nutrition professionals in the word vs some guy with a blog. It's not even a contest!

Sorry, but even if you do not want to see, we humans are a part of nature.
During our evolution as a race we have adapted to consume natural foods, not supplements.
So yes, while supplemets can be some emergency measure to compensate for unhealthy
eating habits, this is not what our organism would really want and needs in order to function
optimally in terms of health.

Let me then ask a question. Since when is a computer a natural thing. Or going 100 km/h in a metal box a natural thing. Or even better yet since when is being in space a natural thing. Sorry but humans are to a certain degree beyond this. We are capable of treating diseases which is not natural and you do not seem to be against that either. Since when during our evolution did we use white pills to treat flu or some bacterial disease or sth? Or a heart surgery?

during evolution we have adapted to die early not to have our lives saved by medicine!

[Simon E.]

The distinction between natural and unnatural is more about a Romantic view of the world than any reflection of reality. Human beings are part of nature and so it follows that anything man made is also natural. Broadcasting is an extension of our sight and hearing, as are space telescopes. I fact all electronic devices are extensions of our nervous systems. Pandora is not going back into her box no matter how isolationist and Amish we become.

[tatpurusa]

Let me then ask a question. Since when is a computer a natural thing. Or going 100 km/h in a metal box a natural thing. Or even better yet since when is being in space a natural thing. Sorry but humans are to a certain degree beyond this. We are capable of treating diseases which is not natural and you do not seem to be against that either. Since when during our evolution did we use white pills to treat flu or some bacterial disease or sth? Or a heart surgery?

during evolution we have adapted to die early not to have our lives saved by medicine!

Of course they are not natural. Are they good for our physical and mental health? Probably not.
But at least we do not eat them

If you say we as humans are above or independent from nature in any way, you are a self-illuding technocrat.
This is just so obviously plain wrong. Worse, this attitude is exactly what is ruining life on earth.

[tatpurusa]

The distinction between natural and unnatural is more about a Romantic view of the world than any reflection of reality. Human beings are part of nature and so it follows that anything man made is also natural. Broadcasting is an extension of our sight and hearing, as are space telescopes. I fact all electronic devices are extensions of our nervous systems. Pandora is not going back into her box no matter how isolationist and Amish we become.

Stawman's argument. Get serious, factual and on-topic
Thanks..

In any way, it does not matter if it is natural or not. What matters is wheater it is healthy (also a romantic concept?) or not.
If it is adequate for maintaining human health or not.

[Simon E.]

Strawmen don’t have arguments. Some arguments are Strawmen. Get educated.

[tatpurusa]

Strawmen don’t have arguments. Some arguments are Strawmen. Get educated.

Thanks for your kind education.
And sorry that English is not my native language.
Or do you mean that only native English speakers can have valid arguments?

[DharmaN00b]

during evolution we have adapted to die early not to have our lives saved by medicine!

... or just at the right time depending on who you ask. As you may well know a number of advanced civilized nations are looking at an elderly care crisis due in part to a population implosion, NOT to mention the 'mgtows', the 'lgbts', the 'incels' and the third wave feminism movement (in case I get into trouble).

The late stage capitalist paradigm seems to have created a lot of dead weight or baggage whether that be thirsty cows or less than wanted elderly citizens. Soo this is perhaps where the ISM of veganISM becomes important (covering three ethical branches of self, environment and animal welfare).

If we had no veganISM then perhaps we could all have a nice friendly chat about our food choices. As it stands people feel threatened at the possibility of a potential bacon ban. We end up subconciously policing one another and creating a false dichotomy where the heart of the interest goes to gaining the moral high ground in lieu of helping others. Of course this means giving up unsolicited information on a topic with the assumption people of the opposite mindset are going to change... but I digress

In any case while the clock is ticking we are seconds closer to an A.I. revolution where the masses can continue to be spoon fed information they like and the old folk bask in the electronic glow of their robot overlords. Brave New World

[Simon E.]

if you are going to use a colloquial expression in a discussion then make sure that you know what it means and how to use it.

An argument introduced to distract from the main point is “ a man of straw” used to ignite bonfires.

My point was a serious and considered one, to whit that humans are “natural”. And have changed the environment so drastically for good or ill that distinctions between natural and unnatural no longer apply. We produce pollution just as a wasp colony produces the material from which it makes its nest That needs managing urgently, which will not happen by creating a false dichotomy between natural and unnatural.

[tatpurusa]

No it doesn't mean it's not lacking at all, but it doesn't make vegans worse off than those on standard American diets either. In most cases its probably the opposite. Of course key nutrients are just that, but health, quality, length of life and disease formation are all more complex than just yes/no nutrient theshold box ticking. Very few people whatever their diet are hitting full RDI and even that is no guarantor of good health. The rest of my post had the additional healthy/unhealthy nuance i was getting at.

We agree on that, said sad SAD (Standard American Diet) is probably the worst of all you can get. This should not be discussed at all, because it is so obvious.
But veganism is not the solution.

You are correct in saying that there are many factors to human health. Nutrient deficiencies, toxicity, lifestyle, environmental influence and infection all play a role.
The human organism has very clever mechanisms for dealing with / compensating for most of these factors.
The only exception being is nutrient deficiency. If something essential is just not there, out of nothing noone can create anything.
So our body continues missing that essential component and becomes debilitated.
The bodily functions get less efficient, including the capacity to eliminate toxins and fight infections.

So yes, one can say that among all factors relevant to health deficiency (and complete missing) of key nutrients is the gravest and the only
one that our body cannot fight or compensate in any way.

[seeker242]

Natural is irrelevant to what is good or not good. Your logical fallacy is appeal to nature

If something is natural, it’s not guaranteed to be good.

But if something is unnatural, it’s pretty much guaranteed to be not good.

That isn't true at all. Natural is irrelevant to good and bad. What is interesting though with B12, is that the main reason why animal products have it in appropriate quantities, is because livestock is given B12 supplements.

[well wisher]

This is just me and some of my family member's opinion:
we are very leery of any synthetically man-made substance, so that includes any supplements.
By natural, we mean that it needs to be from natural sources which grows from the earth - i.e formerly living plants or animals. It is like we trust living organisms more, to reduce the risk of pre mature deaths.
Also due to many years of news of scientific about increase occurrence of unwanted side effects and overdoses from synthetic medicine and supplements.

Also we are becoming very suspicious of the big-$$ pharmacy industry and their profit motive:
who knows what other additives they add into their "medicines" and "supplements" to get customers hooked and addicted so they can make more $$?!
Just like our modern over-flavoured (overly salted & sugared) food industry. My mom had diabetes (too much sugar) and my dad had high blood pressure (too much salt). Luckily they both seem to havwe recovered after adjusting their own diets to include more bland & natural foods (like clear water), moderation is key.
It also does not help with all the trade wars and economy recession predictions going on.
The fact is: supplements usually cost more than fruits and veggies.

[seeker242]

Natural is irrelevant to what is good or not good. Your logical fallacy is appeal to nature

Some guy's blog is also not an accurate source of information. Professional nutrition scientists know more than that guy does. Most of what he said is just flat out wrong. The largest organizations of nutrition professionals in the word vs some guy with a blog. It's not even a contest!

Sorry, but even if you do not want to see, we humans are a part of nature.
During our evolution as a race we have adapted to consume natural foods, not supplements.
So yes, while supplemets can be some emergency measure to compensate for unhealthy
eating habits, this is not what our organism would really want and needs in order to function
optimally in terms of health.

Like I said earlier, the B12 you get from milk, beef, chicken, etc. mostly comes from supplements. "Being part of nature" is irrelevant.

Secondly, you cannot simply discard everything I wrote just because I linked a "blog" you would prefer not to trust.
The need of DHA for brain development is a medical fact; do your research, there is an enormous amount of
real scientific research on it.
The inefficient conversion of ALA into EPA and DHA is also a physiological fact. So even if you feed enormous
amounts of flax seed and walnuts to your kid every day, this will not be enough for optimal brain development.
Do your own research.

You are right in saying ALA conversion into EPA and DHA is inefficient. However, you are wrong in saying this will not be enough because you intentionally dismiss supplements, which is inappropriate and intellectually dishonest. I've been doing research on this for over 25 years, I'm quiet familiar with the research.

Actually consumption of DHA (from fish and from bone marrow and brain of big animal) was that helped the rapid growth
and development of human brain during evolution making us human in the first place.

What helped us evolve 30,000 years ago, isn't relevant.

[tatpurusa]

You are right in saying ALA conversion into EPA and DHA is inefficient. However, you are wrong in saying this will not be enough because you intentionally dismiss supplements, which is inappropriate and intellectually dishonest. I've been doing research on this for over 25 years, I'm quiet familiar with the research.

Actually consumption of DHA (from fish and from bone marrow and brain of big animal) was that helped the rapid growth
and development of human brain during evolution making us human in the first place.

What helped us evolve 30,000 years ago, isn't relevant.

Organisms are incredibly complex and to a high degree their physiological and biochemical functions are not understood.
Eating natural (yes, this exists!) food with its naturally immense complexity of ingredients is absolutely not comparable to
consuming supplements. As I said earlier, supplements are at the most an emergency measure in order to alleviate the gravest
consequences of an inadequate diet.
Our organism expects and is adapted to receive all nutrients in their natural (note that this exists and valid) complexity and not in an oversimplified form
like supplements are, without the thousands of other substances naturally occurring in living organisms.

Natural food contains thousands of ingredients in a balanced form that synergetically work together.
Supplements are overpurified, unbalanced substances not expected to be consumed by living organisms.
They are useful as an emergency measure, not as a real solution.

Chances are that there are still a lot of unknown substances essential to human health contained in real food, so good luck
substituting it with artificial creations.