Saturated Fat Controversy

[Abaddon_ire]

OK then you have a reading comprehension failure.

Unlikely. I had studied English at school for 12 years and I scored 96% at the English language part of the maturity test. What seems much more likely is that you are misreading the abstracts of the studies or are simply being dishonest.

I am a native english speaker. I suspect my english comprehension exceeds yours.

I also don't see what that study has to do with what Michael Greger is saying about saturated fat "controversy": that studies that don't find a strong correlation between saturated fat intake and heart disease generally don't control for having test subjects who have low levels of cholesterol in blood.

So you claim without evidence.

From the scientific research that you conspicuously avoid.

Again, you are claiming that there is a lot of scientific research refuting some well-known fact, but you are refusing to point to that research. That's, if you ask me, a very dishonest tactic.

Why would anyone make that effort when you have already demonstrated that you will dismiss any such out of hand? Does that seem to you an effective expenditure of anyone's time? Really?

No, you are committed to the religion of veganism. And because it is a religious belief, any and all confounding evidence will simply be handwaved away.

That is nobodies problem but yours.

I don't eat canned fish. Why would I?

Because fresh fish is around 2 times more expensive?

So?

Since you are so hot on the burden of proof, how about you support your claim that antibiotics eliminate B12 from fresh meat. You have never done so.

Maybe the best answer to somebody demanding evidence for such a well-known and hardly controversial fact is: What exactly is that you doubt here? Do you doubt that B12 is produced by e. coli and other bacteria that are abundant in the intestines of cows and other grazing animals, because those bacteria are also responsible for digesting the cellulose? Do you doubt that almost all meat you can buy in supermarkets comes from factory farms? Do you doubt that animals there are regularly given antibiotics? Do you have doubts that antibiotics, along with killing the illness-causing bacteria, also kill the B12-producing bacteria (and keep in mind it's the same e. coli, that can cause death, that produces most of the B12)? Do you have doubts that, once those bacteria are killed by antibiotics, they don't produce B12 any more? Do you have doubts that, if those bacteria don't produce B12, there is little to no B12 in meat from that animal?

Irrelevant. The fact remains that copious B12 is obtained from meat in far more quantity than vegan diets allow. This is incontrovertible. There is one and one only objection to this simple fact. Religious faith.

Tools were in common use before the "first" humans. How is it possible that you did not know this?

My perception is that only the cranks who advocate paleo-diets claim that meat made a large proportion of the diet of the first humans. Nevertheless, I haven't really studied that issue. If you want to know if veganism is healthy, you should study nutritional science, not some distantly related and much more speculative field such as evolutionary biology.

And at last the truth is out. You reject science. Evolutionary biology is "speculative", is it? It is to laugh. Only religion can make people abandon reason that way.

Yup. It is a vegan myth that a golden age of human veganism ever happened.

Very few people are claiming it was a golden age. People died very young of illnesses that can be prevented with more sanitation. OK, I'd imagine Freelee the Banana Girl would say stuff like that, but that's not what most vegans believe.

Who cares which superstition "vegans" adhere to?

That is contrary to what vegans claim. I have no clue why you are so blissfully unaware of the tenets of the world view you espouse.

Vegans tend to be slightly more left-wing than the rest if the population, so I guess they are slightly more likely to believe the left-wing pseudosciences such as the anti-GMO movement. Not that my experience confirms that. Vegan Gains and Unnatural Vegan have made videos mocking anti-GMO movements. Bite-Size Vegan has made a few remarks against GMOs, but that was primarily directed at how genetically-modified animals suffer from some diseases, such as obesity, much more often (she also suggested that's intentional), nothing to suggest that she believes plants shouldn't be genetically modified in an attempt to eliminate carcinogens.

It is telling that you have your views defined by YouTube videos. Grow up.

Those that advocate paleo-diets also tend to be left-wing, so, of course, they are also more likely to believe in anti-GMO myths.
But we need to ask ourselves, how is the anti-supplement movement different from anti-GMO movement? I am not saying all supplements are good. Some, such as calcium supplements, are known to be harmful (taking a lot of calcium but not taking enough Vitamin K doesn't lead to stronger bones, it leads to atherosclerosis, and that's one of the reasons why drinking cow's milk is associated with higher risk of heart disease in humans). But B12 supplements are known to be beneficial. So, how is being against them different from being anti-GMO? It really isn't.

What is with the "paleo-diet"  crap? Why did you introduce that strawman?

Workers at tobacco farms can seek other employ.

I think that's a good analogy, because Cuba is a very poor country, so it's very hard to find another job there. Anti-sweatshops movements often lead to people whom they are supposed to help starving.
If everybody woke up one day and decided to stop smoking forever at the same time, that would cause some problems. But that's not a valid argument to continue smoking.
Similarly, the things that would happen if everybody suddenly stopped eating meat are not valid arguments for eating meat.

Cuba is poor because we in the west have made it so. You are so colossally naive.