So U think Vegan is healthy?

[MJ the Skeptical]

I'm not even going to bother dignifying that with an answer since you've obviously made a straw man.

Straw man? c'mon, just no. I asked you to confirm or deny something. Significantly different to making your position for you, wouldn't you say...

You sound like you're conceding that you don't need meat to build muscle or even live healthily if I made a staw man...But seriously, get real with the false straw man claim.

Which didn't prove that you needed meat since people can live without it, but continue...

If that wasn't your claim about needing meat then I withdraw my statement.

Since you're the one making that claim, the onus of proof is on you. Show me vegan societies anywhere in the world that have reproduced and thrived on a vegan diet?

That would be interesting to see but I know of no vegan societies to speak of. But, you are saying that you need meat to reproduce and thrive healthily, so, you just proved I made no straw man. Thanks.

The average length of time a person in the USA is on a vegetarian diet is 9 years (the figure from psychology today). Health problems from deficiencies can take 20 years to develop.

Nobody advocated for a total vegan diet, if you had actually been reading you'd have seen that.

Who's making straw man's against who again?

There is no oral B12 supplement that has been proven can work long term for vegans.

Which is why you balance it out like I've been saying over and over but you keep ignoring for an argument.

I think we will be able to get all of the nutritional value from some sort of modified meat or something similar in the future. Maybe not soon, but eventually we should be able to synthesize anything.

Eliminating an entire food group (or two, counting dairy separately) is not a balanced diet.

Wow, you're being kind of a dumbass right now. You cry straw man when there are none from me and then make two against me including this new one above. I never said eliminate an entire food group, get that through your head, okay great.

Furthermore your comparison is uneven: meat is one food group out of five, and someone who eats only meat is eliminating four out of the five good groups.

Damn, a third straw man. I never said someone who only eats meat, I said someone who mostly eats meat.

A vegan is eliminating two entire food groups: meat and dairy, that is not balanced. A paleo eliminates grain entirely, that also may not be balanced.

Never once have I promoted Veganism. I think this qualifies as a 4th straw man here.

No, anything you have read is probably propaganda.

For someone who doesn't even know my position, I doubt you could tell the difference between fact and propaganda when you're so intellectually dishonest in your replies.

But what can I expect from someone of your stupid religious beliefs though, distortion is your game.

Many people have other food sensitivities. Some people can't eat gluten, some people can't eat nuts, some people can't eat foods containing soy.

And some people can't eat meat or meat products...Just sayin'...

Let me give you a hypothetical: it's been proven that plant-based diets lower cholesterol. Cholesterol deficiency causes anxiety, depression, anger and aggression. How does a vegan go about correcting a dangerously low cholesterol level?

I'm not a vegan, but your answering a question with another question sounds like another concession to me.

You claimed that animal products are not the only source of high quality protein, I proved otherwise. Furthermore there are countless examples, as in my OP, of people who could not build muscle on fully vegan diets no matter what they did or what supplements they took.

You hardly proved anything but whatever helps you sleep at night I guess. But this rant is at least the 5th straw man in this reply. My exact words were "Meat is not the only good source of protein" not high source of protein. There are good alternatives.

See? it was your own fault for the misunderstanding. Basically you started an argument for no reason with someone you probably agree with for the most part, hope you have fun.

I hear the sound of you eating your words

Projection at it's finest, folks.

[Aractus]

---

Raw soy is toxic to all carnivores and omnivores. It's only non-toxic to herbivores.

Proof: The Health Dangers of Soy by Dr. Joseph Mercola

Now, since we know soy is toxic the onus of proof on whether processed soy is "safe to eat in moderate amounts" is on the one making the claim, and so far it has not been proven.

---

Wikipedia - Joseph Mercola
''A 2006 BusinessWeek editorial called his marketing practices as "relying on slick promotion, clever use of information, and scare tactics."[3] In 2005, 2006, and 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Mercola and his company to stop making illegal claims regarding his products' ability to detect, prevent and treat disease.[7] The medical watchdog site Quackwatch has criticized Mercola for making "unsubstantiated claims and clash with those of leading medical and public health organizations [and making] many unsubstantiated recommendations for dietary supplements."[7]''

While that is a good point, it doesn't refute his health concerns about Soy since that charge relates to an entirely different matter. It's an even further way from proving that processed soy is healthy.

---

There are vegans that took oral B12 supplements and came to a point where their doctors told them the only way that they can continue their vegan diets is with intravenous B12, administered twice a year or so. That's why a lot of vegans that know about this are unable to tell you which B12 supplement to take to avoid B12 deficiency because the tablets have been proven not to work for everyone; just like how we have no drugs whatsoever that are effective for managing obesity - and in fact the drugs that have been on the market previously have been withdrawn.

---

You do realize you're at odds with National Institutes of Health on this? You never responded to this:

• http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Vitamin...fessional/
  
  "Existing evidence does not suggest any differences among forms with respect to absorption or bioavailability. However the body’s ability to absorb vitamin B12 from dietary supplements is largely limited by the capacity of intrinsic factor. For example, only about 10 mcg of a 500 mcg oral supplement is actually absorbed in healthy people [8]."

*note that 10 mcg is more than 4x the recommended daily allowance for adults.

As long as it's a biologically active form of B12, and as long as you have intrinsic factor, you will be able to absorb it. The form doesn't matter.
If somebody had to have it injected, maybe they weren't producing enough intrinsic factor.

What you've provided is in no way proof that B12 oral supplements can work for all or most long-term vegans. There are 15-year+ vegans that tried everything to increase the B12 before IV and were unable to - that's not a theory or anecdotal it's imperial evidence.

What you need to show that long-term vegans can absorb enough B12 from oral supplements is to get a few hundred long term vegans (who have been vegan for 15+ years), and show that B12 can be increased using oral supplements for all of them - so far no one has proven this or even come close, and thus at the moment the balance of evidence says that oral supplements may not work for all vegans, and particularly long-term vegans.

---

Eliminating an entire food group (or two, counting dairy separately) is not a balanced diet. Furthermore your comparison is uneven: meat is one food group out of five, and someone who eats only meat is eliminating four out of the five food groups. A vegan is eliminating two entire food groups: meat and dairy, that is not balanced. A paleo eliminates grain entirely, that also may not be balanced.

---

Meat is not a food group. The Food Guide Pyramid labels it Meat & beans, but the image also includes nuts and eggs in that area. It does include dairy as a food group, but the Harvard Healthy Eating Pyramid says "Dairy or vitamin D/Calcium supplements". However, there are some vegetables high in calcium, and mushrooms (a fungus) have vitamin D.

You're really splitting hairs. Beans can be considered in the vegetable group. Personally though, I don't believe beans belong in the same food group as meat or vegetables. The allergy to legumes is the fastest growing allergy in Australia, and also I believe in the USA. A few years ago I knew someone who was vegetarian (not vegan) and was unable to eat any gluten (wheat) or legumes/beans. She said her allergy to gluten was much worse than the one to peanuts, however she could not eat either.

Legumes are a grain, they belong in that food group. I'm not paleo - I'm not against eating your grains, however you have to realize that grains contain high levels of two things, those are: lectins and cellulose. Cellulose is dietary fibre, and while too much of it is not a good thing, most westerners do actually need more in their diet, so it's not a bad source for dietary fibre. Lectins are a protein and are not always good for us, the ones in seeds are an anti-nutrient and designed to protect the seed from being eaten. Lectins are in all meat, vegetables and fruit and do have other roles just like proteins. This is thought to be why most animals, besides birds that is, don't eat or do well with eating seeds (grains). It is true, however, that domestication has certainly reduced the concentration of lectins and this is evidenced by the fact we need to use pesticide to protect the grains, when originally the grains protected themselves.

Hmm, but Harvard considers "Fish, Poultry, and Eggs" a unique food group.

I agree with including eggs in the meat food group, and agree that dairy is its own food group, however it's a food group that not everyone can eat only those with lactose-persistence. I don't agree that red meat is separate to other meats in the food group - that's as silly as saying that rice and wheat are in two different food groups.

[Aractus]

• 
  

  ---

  The videos in the OP are of someone who was unable to thrive on a well planned vegan diet, no matter what supplements he took etc he couldn't build muscle

  ---

  Kind of a slippery slope suggesting that you need meat to gain muscle huh? Are you suggesting people haven't gained muscle on vegan diets or there are no vegan athletes? If your answer is no then I'm just going to outright call you wrong and ignorant.

---

I'm not even going to bother dignifying that with an answer since you've obviously made a straw man.

---

Straw man? c'mon, just no. I asked you to confirm or deny something. Significantly different to making your position for you, wouldn't you say...

You sound like you're conceding that you don't need meat to build muscle or even live healthily if I made a staw man...But seriously, get real with the false straw man claim.

You didn't bother to address the argument at all, the topic as raised in the very first post, and then you came and made a claim that my argument is a slippery slope because there are some vegan athletes.

Well I already pointed this out, and if you had searched through my posts using associated keywords you would have found it:

• We can go to any gym and find fit and healthy people on a complete range of different diets.

The reason why your argument is a straw man is because I as you well know was talking about long-term veganism, and what you referred to - vegan athletes - are not long-term vegans. Some might be, but most are not. The average length of time a person in the USA is a vegetarian for is 9 years, and 75% go back to eating meat (figure from psychology today). We don't know the numbers for vegans, however it's believed to be similar. Veganism can be great for some people in the short term. So can crash dieting in fact, but just about every nutritionist will agree that long-term crash diets are extremely dangerous.

Ashton Kutcher went on a "fruitarian diet" (80/10/10) just as Steve Jobs used to do - didn't even do it for very long and was hospitalized. Steve Jobs died of pancreas cancer, almost certainly caused by his diet. Now you will say "that's doing veganism wrong" - and I agree, it is certainly doing it wrong, we would both agree on that.

But is there a "right way" to do a long-term vegan diet that is healthy for everyone? No there isn't. I'll quote Alex Jamieson's email to me:

• Hi Daniel,
  
  thanks for your email.
  
  I can't give you much insight, as I don't know the specifics about Harley.
  I can tell you that many, MANY people have come out to me (via email or face-to-face) in the last year with similar stories.
  
  They've been vegan for years, some over a decade. They follow vegan doctors' plans and still find their health faltering.
  When they add meat back into their diet, their health problems disappear.
  
  We are all different. Some people need meat for a while, or their entire lives.
  It's not a theory. It's fact.
  I still encourage people to try a plant-based detox if they feel compelled, or have a health problem that
  seems to warrant it.
  
  Be well,
  Alex
  
  Her TEDx talk (correcting her health problems with diet instead of drugs):
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQXhxjtcI_k

Note that even she didn't make it to long-term vegan she was vegan for ~11 years, and while she does not eat much meat at all, she does eat it now in the amount she believes is right for her.

Her vegan diet did however work for correcting her health problems that she had at 25. Going back to meat corrected her health problems more recently.

..that's in the very first post, you only had to read that far.

Which didn't prove that you needed meat since people can live without it, but continue...

Vegans are the ones making the claim that we don't need any meat, and the onus of proof is on them. The claim they most often make is: "veganism done correctly does not lead to any health problems" or the way you put it* "people can live without (meat)" - disproven. It doesn't work for everyone long-term.

*PLEASE NOTE: I'm not calling you a vegan.

There are two extremes: 1. everyone needs to eat meat every day. 2. everyone can do well with no meat in their diets. Vegans believe one extreme, most of us - especially doctors and nutritionists - don't believe either extreme. Everyone is different. Some people thrive eating meat once a fortnight, however very few people thrive on long-term vegan diets. 75% of American vegetarians return to eating meat with the average length of time being 9 years, and the number one reason they give for returning to eating meat (given by 35% of respondents) is for health (link).

Which is why I suggested a balanced diet, there are drawbacks to every diet you try. If you exclusively ate meat or mostly ate meat you'd have horrible problems if not worse problems that if you were vegan or mostly vegan.

Another straw man - you can't use "mostly vegan" for arguments to do with perceived health benefits on vegan diets. Let me explain this as Daniel Vitalis does: even if you proved to me that my breathing less oxygen would be more beneficial to my health, it's a giant leap to then conclude that breathing no oxygen at all will be even healthier still.

And while a balanced diet is the best we can do currently, can we at least agree that meat is far from the most needed food group.

No we don't agree upon that. We agree that "sweets" are an unneeded food group, we agree that "alcohol" is an unneeded food group, we agree that dairy is an unneeded food group for most of the world. I would agree with the Paleo camp that grains are the least needed of the five major food groups - however I don't agree with eliminating them from your diet entirely and I think that's extreme. I also don't agree with eliminating dairy if you're lactose tolerant.

Nobody advocated for a total vegan diet, if you had actually been reading you'd have seen that.

Who's making straw man's against who again?

This is what you wrote:

• 
  

  ---

  The videos in the OP are of someone who was unable to thrive on a well planned vegan diet, no matter what supplements he took etc he couldn't build muscle - that's in the very first post, you only had to read that far.

  ---

  Which didn't prove that you needed meat since people can live without it, but continue...

Which is why you balance it out like I've been saying over and over but you keep ignoring for an argument.

I think we will be able to get all of the nutritional value from some sort of modified meat or something similar in the future. Maybe not soon, but eventually we should be able to synthesize anything.

Why would you want to synthetise something that's grown naturally? Do you want to synthetise opium artificially instead of growing poppies too? What's the benefit?

Eliminating an entire food group (or two, counting dairy separately) is not a balanced diet.

Wow, you're being kind of a dumbass right now. You cry straw man when there are none from me and then make two against me including this new one above. I never said eliminate an entire food group, get that through your head, okay great.

Maybe not the way you count food groups, but beans, and for that matter corn too are seeds and all seeds are grains.

No, anything you have read is probably propaganda.

For someone who doesn't even know my position, I doubt you could tell the difference between fact and propaganda when you're so intellectually dishonest in your replies.

But what can I expect from someone of your stupid religious beliefs though, distortion is your game.

I've provided plenty of academic references, you've provided zero, I simply surmise since you bring up assertions as "facts" that you can't reference them with scientific material. Simple.

As to your attack on my religious beliefs, you don't know this because you're new, but at my church we have one of the leading astrophysicists in the world (not just in Australia, the world). He has personally taught about 15 PHD's who went on to become science advisors to world leaders (that's not counting everyone else). We also have 3 or 4 GP's (the congregation size is about 150 people or so) and other medical professionals. No decent professional lets their religious beliefs bias their scientific beliefs. I would wager you, however, that there is far more scientific expertise in the congregation that I'm a part of then the general public.

Many people have other food sensitivities. Some people can't eat gluten, some people can't eat nuts, some people can't eat foods containing soy.

And some people can't eat meat or meat products...Just sayin'...

And your reference?

Let me give you a hypothetical: it's been proven that plant-based diets lower cholesterol. Cholesterol deficiency causes anxiety, depression, anger and aggression. How does a vegan go about correcting a dangerously low cholesterol level?

I'm not a vegan, but your answering a question with another question sounds like another concession to me.

---

You claimed that animal products are not the only source of high quality protein, I proved otherwise. Furthermore there are countless examples, as in my OP, of people who could not build muscle on fully vegan diets no matter what they did or what supplements they took.

---

You hardly proved anything but whatever helps you sleep at night I guess. But this rant is at least the 5th straw man in this reply. My exact words were "Meat is not the only good source of protein" not high source of protein. There are good alternatives.

See? it was your own fault for the misunderstanding. Basically you started an argument for no reason with someone you probably agree with for the most part, hope you have fun.

You're now being deliberately dishonest. You were responding to what I originally wrote:

• Aractus: Soy is poison, and you can't get any high quality protein from fruit/veg/nuts and grains.

To which you replied:

• Quantum Theorist: You're still full of shit, meat is not the one and only good source of protein.

So you're now conceding that I'm not full of shit and I'm correct in saying that animal products are the only source of high quality protein? Or are you are simply saying that changing my position in your response from "animal products" to "meat" and "high quality protein" to "good source of protein" is somehow honest and not making a straw man?

[MJ the Skeptical]

You didn't bother to address the argument at all

Because my original post had nothing to do with it. Case solved.

there are some vegan athletes.

And that should tell you something, shouldn't it.

Well I already pointed this out, and if you had searched through my posts using associated keywords you would have found it

I'd rather poke my eyes out than fritter away time like that.

Vegans are the ones making the claim that we don't need any meat, and the onus of proof is on them.

Why the fuck are you bringing it up then if I'm not a vegan? just admit you made the actual straw man.

The claim they most often make is: "veganism done correctly does not lead to any health problems" or the way you put it* "people can live without (meat)" - disproven. It doesn't work for everyone long-term.

I don't give a damn, stop bringing up the irrelevance of veganism.

*PLEASE NOTE: I'm not calling you a vegan.

Then stop mentioning it, are you purposely being dense?

Vegans believe one extreme, most of us - especially doctors and nutritionists - don't believe either extreme.

Who gives a fuck what vegans think, stay on topic chief.

Everyone is different. Some people thrive eating meat once a fortnight, however very few people thrive on long-term vegan diets. 75% of American vegetarians return to eating meat with the average length of time being 9 years, and the number one reason they give for returning to eating meat (given by 35% of respondents) is for health.

How does it feel to argue with yourself?

Another straw man - you can't use "mostly vegan" for arguments to do with perceived health benefits on vegan diets.

I think you completely missed the point of what I said, but I'm not surprised. If you think someone who eats mostly meat is better off than someone who eats mostly vegetarian / vegan / whatever label, that's fine, you're entitled to your stupid opinion. I don't know how much we can agree on before you just knock it off. How you can still argue with me after I advocate a balanced diet is beyond reasonable.

No we don't agree upon that.

If you think meat is the most important food group then there's really no helping you here.

however I don't agree with eliminating them from your diet entirely and I think that's extreme.

Who suggested that? Do you like bringing up irrelevent things all the time?

I also don't agree with eliminating dairy if you're lactose tolerant.

And?

This is what you wrote:

• [quote='Quantum Theorist' pid='653516' dateline='1397888322']
  
  

  ---

  ---

  Which didn't prove that you needed meat since people can live without it, but continue...

That's not an advocation of veganism, sorry but you're an idiot. I'm pointing out that you can live without it, not that you should.

Looks like you're still the only one attacking the straw man.

Why would you want to synthetise something that's grown naturally? Do you want to synthetise opium artificially instead of growing poppies too? What's the benefit?

Do you have any empathy for other animals or no? how could any empathetic, altruistic human being possibly be against properly synthesized food if we could save billions of animals that get killed every year. I will freely admit it's not viable yet, but why would you not at least be in favor of it unless you're just a cold-hearted speciesist. Maybe you are a speciesist seeing as how you're a Christian.

Maybe not the way you count food groups, but beans, and for that matter corn too are seeds and all seeds are grains.

So where is my declaration to get rid of a food group? still waiting for your cherry-picked, out of context quote like you tried to pull earlier. Or are you going to admit you made another actual straw man...

I've provided plenty of academic references, you've provided zero

That's because you're arguing with yourself.

I simply surmise since you bring up assertions as "facts" that you can't reference them with scientific material. Simple.

You misrepresented me several times, so of course I didn't bring up any references if I never made the positions you suggest I made. Herp Derp. This is getting old, hopefully your reply is almost over..

As to your attack on my religious beliefs, you don't know this because you're new

I don't need to be new to recognize a poisoned mind.

I'm sure you're a nice guy, but, religious people like you love to distort the actual facts. The truth of the matter is, you argued against nobody, you thought I was a vegan the whole time. You made yourself look bad, I don't need to be new to recognize that either.

And your reference?

Really? people can't get allergic to meat? news to me, sounds like bullshit but you may be right.

Guy, your title says "u" instead of "you" ..talk about ironic..

Also, No, I used your as a pronoun...

You're now being deliberately dishonest. You were responding to what I originally wrote:

• Aractus: Soy is poison, and you can't get any high quality protein from fruit/veg/nuts and grains.

To which you replied:

• [i]Quantum Theorist: You're still full of shit, meat is not the one and only good source of protein

Look at the cherry-picking, out of context, mental gymnastics going on here.

So you're now conceding that I'm not full of shit and I'm correct in saying that animal products are the only source of high quality protein?

No, because I said that meat wasn't the only good source, not the only high source.

Get the distinction yet? I don't care, whatever.

Or are you are simply saying that changing my position in your response from "animal products" to "meat" and "high quality protein" to "good source of protein" is somehow honest and not making a straw man?

You're the one who conflated 'high' with 'good'. So tell me, who's making straw man's again...

[Aractus]

No, I meant your as a pronoun.

Fair enough, point taken.

A list of your bullshit personal attacks:

• That's not an advocation of veganism, you're an idiot.
  
  ...
  
  Do you have any empathy for other animals or no? how could any empathetic, altruistic human being possibly be against properly synthesized food if we could save billions of animals that get killed every year. I will freely admit it's not viable yet, but why would you not at least be in favor of it unless you're just a cold-hearted speciesist. Maybe you are a speciesist seeing as how you're a Christian.
  
  ...
  
  That's because you're arguing with yourself, dumbass.
  
  ...
  
  I don't need to be new to recognize a poisoned mind.
  
  I'm sure you're a nice guy, but, religious people like you love to distort the actual facts. The truth of the matter is, you argued against nobody, you thought I was a vegan the whole time. You made yourself look bad, I don't need to be new to recognize that either.

You're the one who conflated 'high' with 'good'. So tell me, who's making straw man's again...

Really? Let's count the straw men in your last post then shall we?

1. I think you completely missed the point of what I said, but I'm not surprised. If you think someone who eats mostly meat is better off than someone who eats mostly vegetarian / vegan / whatever label, that's fine, you're entitled to your stupid opinion. I don't know how much we can agree on before you just knock it off. How you can still argue with me after I advocate a balanced diet is beyond reasonable.
   
2. If you think meat is the most important food group then there's really no helping you here.
   
3. Do you have any empathy for other animals or no? how could any empathetic, altruistic human being possibly be against properly synthesized food if we could save billions of animals that get killed every year. I will freely admit it's not viable yet, but why would you not at least be in favor of it unless you're just a cold-hearted speciesist. Maybe you are a speciesist seeing as how you're a Christian.
   
4. I'm sure you're a nice guy, but, religious people like you love to distort the actual facts. The truth of the matter is, you argued against nobody, you thought I was a vegan the whole time. You made yourself look bad, I don't need to be new to recognize that either.
   
5. Really? people can't get allergic to meat? news to me, sounds like bullshit but you may be right.

Since you like posting straw men so much I'll answer them for you:

1. There's no such thing as "mostly vegan". You're using the term as if it means "plant based diet with some meat".

2. All major food groups are important, but the least important is dairy since most people can't eat it.

3. "If we could save animals..." etc is an emotional argument. I agree with environmental concerns coming well before emotional concerns. Two things I see as ridiculous is 1. the UN not allowing Japan to hunt non-endangered marine life whilst allowing the hunting of critically endangered species, 2. the EU in 2009 putting a ban on Canadian Seal products when seals are like rabbits or roos in Australia - a pest species that needs annual culling for the good of biodiversity. Pasture is a much more environmentally friendly use of land compared to agriculture. If you're going to make meat artificially then what use would you have in mind for farmland used for pasture? How are you going to grow the meat in an environmentally friendly way? Cows and Sheep eat the grass straight out of the ground, Pigs are fed primarily spoiled fruit and veg, so how are you going to grow meat in a way as environmentally friendly as pasture-fed?

4. I never called you a vegan. I have not distorted the facts and I've provided many academic references whereas you have provided zero.

Here's what you originally posted to fr0d0:

A religious person crying unfounded claim, oh the irony. Can you not get protein from beans and other alternatives like soy? Your lack of imagination or education on nutrition is not an unfounded assertion by me.

Then you posted this at me:

You're still full of shit, meat is not the one and only good source of protein.

And then this:

Kind of a slippery slope suggesting that you need meat to gain muscle huh? Are you suggesting people haven't gained muscle on vegan diets or there are no vegan athletes? If your answer is no then I'm just going to outright call you wrong and ignorant.

You came into a thread in which the primary topic is long-term veganism, and you started making claims that are unsubstantiated for long-term veganism without providing any sources. I made no assumptions about your diet, all I did was respond to your claims. You don't have to be vegan to claim that vegan diets are healthy, etc. In fact until recently as I said in the original post I believed that proper vegan diets are healthy, and I now believe it's been proven to me that this isn't true for everyone - my position is right there in the OP.

5. I'm calling bullshit on you. Whatever way I answer that you're going to claim I'm making a straw man, so I'll simply state what I know to be the facts: some people have allergies to certain foods, eg fish, but I've never heard of anybody being allergic to all meats at the same time, just as I've never heard of anybody being allergic to all grains at the same time. If you believe that some people are allergic to all meat then start providing references.

[MJ the Skeptical]

A list of your bullshit personal attacks:

• That's not an advocation of veganism, you're an idiot.

You equated my position with veganism several times, otherwise why bring up such irrelevance about it? I was talking about something very specific and you made a mountain out of a mole-hill. Maybe I could have worded it better to avoid confusion so sorry if I was ambiguous or vague but there's hardly a disagreement from us other than some details.

Really? Let's count the straw men in your last post then shall we?

You cry straw man when you aren't even addressing the ones you made, that's why you've been intellectually dishonest with me. I'm critically examining myself and the things you consider straw man's and addressing them, meanwhile you haven't addressed one of them. I even ask you if we as humans can't be allergic to meat, because I'm open to learn. You clearly had a misconception of me and it shows in your opening replies.

I think you completely missed the point of what I said, but I'm not surprised. If you think someone who eats mostly meat is better off than someone who eats mostly vegetarian / vegan / whatever label, that's fine, you're entitled to your stupid opinion. I don't know how much we can agree on before you just knock it off. How you can still argue with me after I advocate a balanced diet is beyond reasonable.

Mostly meat vs. Mostly green (we'll just call it that)

I genuinely want to know the answer from your opinion, it's not a straw man.

If you think meat is the most important food group then there's really no helping you here.

...Not a straw man.

You said we "couldn't agree" in your last reply on this particular sub-topic.

Do you have any empathy for other animals or no? how could any empathetic, altruistic human being possibly be against properly synthesized food if we could save billions of animals that get killed every year. I will freely admit it's not viable yet, but why would you not at least be in favor of it unless you're just a cold-hearted speciesist. Maybe you are a speciesist seeing as how you're a Christian.

A question + another question/guess = straw man. Got it.

I'm sure you're a nice guy, but, religious people like you love to distort the actual facts. The truth of the matter is, you argued against nobody, you thought I was a vegan the whole time. You made yourself look bad, I don't need to be new to recognize that either.

You're not a nice guy then? that's a straw man?

Really? people can't get allergic to meat? news to me, sounds like bullshit but you may be right.

Since you like posting straw men so much I'll answer them for you:

Are you gonna duck the question again? Can people be allergic to meat or not? it was not as straw man, it's an inquiry.

1. There's no such thing as "mostly vegan". You're using the term as if it means "plant based diet with some meat".

Sure, why not. Another term might be an Opportunistic Meat-eater.

2. All major food groups are important, but the least important is dairy since most people can't eat it.

I never imply any food groups aren't important so this is more irrelevance.

3. "If we could save animals..." etc is an emotional argument.

It's also an environmental and economic concern seeing as how we wouldn't be able to survive without other animals other than just for eating them. And we would also save quite a bit of money on the force feeding and constant breeding that goes on. It's far more than just emotional, even though that is a good enough reason by itself.

I agree with environmental concerns coming well before emotional concerns.

They're not mutually exclusive.

Two things I see as ridiculous is 1. the UN not allowing Japan to hunt non-endangered marine life whilst allowing the hunting of critically endangered species

You'd have to be more specific on "Non-endangered" since you could be close to endangered or be projected to be endangered. Perhaps there's more there that hasn't been fully looking into or looked at objectively. Especially if you're talking about Japan with their notoriously brutal reign over the pacific ocean. All that aside, lots of marine lifeforms are closing in on extinction in the ocean because of how shitty we take care of it. I'd say the ocean can't get enough protecting and that's not an emotional or environmental opinion, it's both.

2. the EU in 2009 putting a ban on Canadian Seal products when seals are like rabbits or roos in Australia - a pest species that needs annual culling for the good of biodiversity.

And we're a pest to lots of other animals, just a matter of perspective.

But then again, one would have to have empathy first to understand.

Pasture is a much more environmentally friendly use of land compared to agriculture. If you're going to make meat artificially then what use would you have in mind for farmland used for pasture? How are you going to grow the meat in an environmentally friendly way? Cows and Sheep eat the grass straight out of the ground, Pigs are fed primarily spoiled fruit and veg, so how are you going to grow meat in a way as environmentally friendly as pasture-fed?

I already conceded it's not viable yet. End of discussion there.

4. I never called you a vegan. I have not distorted the facts and I've provided many academic references whereas you have provided zero.

Academic papers for what? Mostly meat diet vs. Mostly veggie/green/vegan/etc. diet?

Here's what you originally posted to fr0d0:
[i]A religious person crying unfounded claim, oh the irony. Can you not get protein from beans and other alternatives like soy? Your lack of imagination or education on nutrition is not an unfounded assertion by me.

Then you posted this at me:

You're still full of shit, meat is not the one and only good source of protein.

And then this:

Kind of a slippery slope suggesting that you need meat to gain muscle huh? Are you suggesting people haven't gained muscle on vegan diets or there are no vegan athletes? If your answer is no then I'm just going to outright call you wrong and ignorant.

Where's your post to give my posts their context...

There's still no problem with my posts, I already covered this yesterday.

You came into a thread in which the primary topic is long-term veganism

So what, I went a different direction. Sue me.

you started making claims that are unsubstantiated for long-term veganism without providing any sources.

So a mostly meat diet is better than a mostly green or veggie diet? It's a serious question, just answer it or move on.

I made no assumptions about your diet, all I did was respond to your claims.

Which made you go on irrelevant tirades.

You don't have to be vegan to claim that vegan diets are healthy, etc.

Mostly vegan wouldn't be truly vegan though right, so that was just a slip up in terminology from me. We can use any label you want.

In fact until recently as I said in the original post I believed that proper vegan diets are healthy, and I now believe it's been proven to me that this isn't true for everyone - my position is right there in the OP.

That's fine. I never disagreed with you.

5. I'm calling bullshit on you. Whatever way I answer that you're going to claim I'm making a straw man

Actually I do care about what someone says to me, but this^ is another actual straw man, ironically enough.

so I'll simply state what I know to be the facts: some people have allergies to certain foods, eg fish, but I've never heard of anybody being allergic to all meats at the same time

So there are people that can be allergic to meat, even if it's just some kinds of meat. Thanks for finally answering.

just as I've never heard of anybody being allergic to all grains at the same time. If you believe that some people are allergic to all meat then start providing references.

I never said all meat. I said there are people who are allergic to meat. Even if it's just one kind of meat, that's still an allergic reaction to the generic word for flesh called meat.

[Aractus]

You equated my position with veganism several times, otherwise why bring up such irrelevance about it? I was talking about something very specific and you made a mountain out of a mole-hill. Maybe I could have worded it better to avoid confusion so sorry if I was ambiguous or vague but there's hardly a disagreement from us other than some details.

There's disagreement on a very large issue, the question of whether veganism is healthy long-term or not. Just like I mentioned about the Fruitarian diets (80/10/10) - it's perfectly fine and healthy to eat just fruit for a week or so, but doing it for even moderate lengths of time is absurdly dangerous. Now when it comes to vegan diets, some can be maintained for a number of years without impacting negatively upon a person's health, but so far there's no proof that a person born and raised vegan can thrive for their whole life into their 90's - let alone that it's a good idea to be adopted by a number of people, and yet vegans make the claim that it is a healthier way of eating for everyone.

Quantum Theorist: You cry straw man when you aren't even addressing the ones you made, that's why you've been intellectually dishonest with me.

Um, no, you cried straw man even though you were the first to make straw man arguments. You made a straw man against fr0d0 and then in your next post against me. And in your first post you made this claim:

Quantum Theorist: Someone who eats mostly vegan is more healthy than someone who eats mostly meat. One can argue some meat is okay for a balanced diet, but overall the best foods nutritionally are; fruits, grains and veggies.

I asked you to provide an academic reference and you did not. I've already gone over the negative things about grains quite a bit in this thread - but that doesn't mean that I advocate eating no grains, I do however believe that eating more veggies than grains is a great idea. I've also been over the fact that you're wrong about any of those three containing the most nutrients - the most nutrient dense food is red meat, and specifically cattle liver has the highest density and biggest variety of vitamins and minerals.

What I'm saying is not news, it's fact. So if you eat more grain then you should also eat more meat, but if you eat less grain and consequently more fruit and veg you can eat the same amount or less meat and still have a balanced diet.

50% of the world gets 50% of their calories from wheat. They can't get enough nutrients for a balanced diet just from fruit and veg if they are that reliant on grain. Now they don't need any red meat, but they do need meat - be it chicken, fish or red meat.

Quantum Theorist: I'm critically examining myself and the things you consider straw man's and addressing them, meanwhile you haven't addressed one of them. I even ask you if we as humans can't be allergic to meat, because I'm open to learn. You clearly had a misconception of me and it shows in your opening replies.

This is what you wrote:

Quantum Theorist: Really? people can't get allergic to meat? news to me, sounds like bullshit but you may be right.

Are you really telling me I misinterpreted that??

Quantum Theorist: Mostly meat vs. Mostly green (we'll just call it that)
I genuinely want to know the answer from your opinion, it's not a straw man.

Then see what I wrote above. Your theory is incorrect in the real world for the majority of people; the more we are dependant on grain the more meat we need to eat because it's nutrient dense.

Put it this way... nutrient density from least to most: 1. grains, 2. fruit & veg, 3. meat & animal products.

Quantum Theorist: If you think meat is the most important food group then there's really no helping you here. ...Not a straw man.

We need meat as much as we need fruit & veg and we need fruit & veg as much as we need meat. We don't need grain as much as the preceding three, however it is easy to incorporate grains into a healthy and balanced diet and in fact easier to have a healthy balanced diet with grains than without (paleo), thus all four are important. While I acknowledge that grains are less important, they're also cheap and have the benefit of making balanced diets easier, so besides grains I never said that any of the other three are least or most important.

Quantum Theorist: A question + another question/guess = straw man. Got it.

That's not what a straw man is, and the questions in my response are rhetorical questions.

Quantum Theorist: It's also an environmental and economic concern seeing as how we wouldn't be able to survive without other animals other than just for eating them. And we would also save quite a bit of money on the force feeding and constant breeding that goes on. It's far more than just emotional, even though that is a good enough reason by itself.

I don't even understand what you're trying to say there.

Quantum Theorist: You'd have to be more specific on "Non-endangered" since you could be close to endangered or be projected to be endangered. Perhaps there's more there that hasn't been fully looking into or looked at objectively. Especially if you're talking about Japan with their notoriously brutal reign over the pacific ocean. All that aside, lots of marine lifeforms are closing in on extinction in the ocean because of how shitty we take care of it. I'd say the ocean can't get enough protecting and that's not an emotional or environmental opinion, it's both.

Minke whales and humpback whales are not endangered, and Japan doesn't hunt any humpbacks anyway. Southern Bluefin Tuna is critically endangered - bot we (Australia) and Japan have quotas for fishing Southern Bluefin Tuna, but the UN is against a sustainable quota for hunting whales.

Quantum Theorist: Academic papers for what? Mostly meat diet vs. Mostly veggie/green/vegan/etc. diet?

You could start with your claim that "overall the best foods nutritionally are; fruits, grains and veggies", which I believe I've already refuted with my evidence.

Quantum Theorist: So a mostly meat diet is better than a mostly green or veggie diet? It's a serious question, just answer it or move on.

There is no one diet that is perfect for everyone. Some people do better with more meat in their diet than others. Because meat is nutrient dense, a person that gets 55% of their overall calories from meat is in fact eating much less meat than fruit and veg. So if the question is can a person get 55% of their calories from meat and have a healthy balanced diet, then the answer is yes - for at least some people, and this kind of diet may be better for some people than for others. If the question is can a person get 90% of their calories from meat and have a healthy balanced diet, then I would say probably not for most people, however anything is possible and that kind of extreme would affect some people differently to others.

Aractus: I'm calling bullshit on you. Whatever way I answer that you're going to claim I'm making a straw man
Quantum Theorist: Actually I do care about what someone says to me, but this^ is another actual straw man, ironically enough.

I should have been a prophet - I missed my calling in life. You don't even know what the definition of irony is - since you went ahead and claimed my answer is a straw man - that's not irony I'm sorry to tell you. Also, it's not a straw man, do you even know the definition of straw man? A straw man is if I say your argument is something that it's not, and I didn't do that. Saying that "you'll probably just say such and such" is not the same as misstating your position for you.

Quantum Theorist: Are you gonna duck the question again? Can people be allergic to meat or not? it was not as straw man, it's an inquiry.

Aractus: so I'll simply state what I know to be the facts: some people have allergies to certain foods, eg fish, but I've never heard of anybody being allergic to all meats at the same time

Quantum Theorist: So there are people that can be allergic to meat, even if it's just some kinds of meat. Thanks for finally answering.

Quantum Theorist: I never said all meat. I said there are people who are allergic to meat. Even if it's just one kind of meat, that's still an allergic reaction to the generic word for flesh called meat.

QT, your question was worded thus: "Really? people can't get allergic to meat? news to me, sounds like bullshit but you may be right."

Now, again, I'm asking you to provide a reference. This is your claim:

I never said all meat. I said there are people who are allergic to meat. Even if it's just one kind of meat, that's still an allergic reaction to the generic word for flesh called meat.

Provide a reference. Having an allergy to wheat is called "gluten intolerance" and I've never heard anyone use the phrase "grain intolerance" or similar to describe it, so provide a reference for saying that an allergy to say fish is indeed an allergy to meat.

[psychoslice]

What is good for one person maybe poison for another, meat maybe no good for one, and vegetarian good for another, as with vegan also. Its not rocket science, its just plain common sense, don't let your bias opinion blind you.

[KichigaiNeko]

As I tried to insinuate before.

Many meats "so called fresh" have been treated with Sulphites.

It appears that the addition of soy products and preservatives is more the issue. And since many vegetarian / vegan diets are impossible without such additives, this helps to make them less healthy than they are marketed as

---

Sorry to interrupt the dialogue gentlemen.

Just a point that you both seem to be dancing around

[Aractus]

What is good for one person maybe poison for another, meat maybe no good for one, and vegetarian good for another, as with vegan also. Its not rocket science, its just plain common sense, don't let your bias opinion blind you.

That's not common sense.

This is common sense:

Killing animals is not a nice thing - most people don't enjoy it. But humans have done it for the 200,000 years that there have been humans - despite it not being a particularly nice thing to have to do. So common sense says that we did it because we felt we had to do it for our health.

There is no way to eat a healthy vegan diet without processed foods and supplements, and we're only just learning about the effects of long-term vegan diets. We don't fully understand how a diet that eliminates two of the five major food groups affects us long term - but we do know it's extreme and we do know that there are a number of people who have done the experiment for 20 years or longer and it caused them severe health problems.