Saturated Fat Controversy

[FlatAssembler]

Why do you care about what other people eat?

Well, because slaughterhouses don't have glass walls, and there is a lot of propaganda out there preventing people from making informed decisions. And what people eat can cause a lot of unnecessary suffering.

And recieives a point by point rebuttal on sciencebasedmedicine.org.

If they are claiming that saturated fat doesn't cause heart disease, they are obviously going against mainstream science, so they are probably not worth listening to.

You mean like death being a food borne disease?

Many people do die of the diseases caused by improper diet.

Cattle wander the fields, sheep wander the mountains, free range chickens are ubiquitous and pigs are cleaner than humans.

Cows raised for milk are sometimes grass-fed. About a third of them, I think. That's because milk of grain-fed cows doesn't contain omega-3, and many people believe (without evidence) that omega-3s protect against heart disease.
Cows raised for meat are almost exclusively kept in factory farms, and so are chickens and pigs. I can't find any statistics on that, but I've never seen pigs let to graze near my town. On the pastures near my town, you can see sheep, horses, goats and cows, but you can't see pigs and chickens there. And I know where pigs are being kept, I've never actually been inside there, but it's very stinky even when you get just near that factory farm.

So go moan at the muslims and stop wasting my time.

The fact that people who manage slaughterhouses care more about meeting the halal standards than about animal welfare is rather telling. And it's not just the halal standards. Why are they suffocating the pigs with CO2, rather, than, for instance, beheading them (which nearly all neuroscientists agree would be painless)? Money, maybe?

And do you know why hamsters are useful in testing?

No, and I don't care about that any more than I care about the apologetics the Nazis were making for their useless medical experiments.

See, there is that zealotry again.

What do you mean by "zealotry"?

There are studies that show coffee causes cancer. There are studies that show coffee cures cancer.

Then we need to see which studies are better designed, or backed up by harder sciences.

All you are doing is cherry picking the studies you are told to pick by your "pope".

There is nothing like a pope in veganism.

Then cite them.

Here are a few of them:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...739190346Q
http://evidenceba.se/facts/31-milk-cause...rt-disease
I can link you to some more if you like. It's very frustrating search engines don't link you to the actual studies, but to pages that may or may not link to them, especially since I only have access to the slow and expensive cellular Internet right now, and the connection breaks quite often today for some reason. Optima ISP said they will fix my Internet today. Let's hope they will, it hasn't been working for months now.

So what?

Well, that strongly suggests those studies linking milk intake with heart disease are telling the truth.

Eat a fucking banana once in a while.

Well, that's not what people are being told to do. They are told cow's milk somehow provides enough of everything their body needs. If people believe that, they are going to make wrong dietary decisions which lead to heart disease.

No they require EVIDENCE. Science does not operate on the basis of faith unlike your vegan religion.

To a large degree, science operates on the basis of faith that those who are greater experts than you are interpreting the evidence right. The evidence is not always easy to interpret.

What I said was that I have no need of B12 supplements thanks to a balanced diet.

What do you mean by "balanced diet"? You mean one in which the proportions of the nutrients are similar to that of in human milk? Because I bet that you aren't eating a balanced diet then. In human milk, about 3% of the calories comes from protein. Almost everybody is eating too much protein these days.

Shame that is not what evolutionary biology is all about then.

Sure. But trying to use that part of evolutionary biology (guesses about what our ancestors were eating tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago) to contradict nutritional science is using a softer science to contradict a hard one.

If one were to uncritically accept youtube videos

Again, I don't accept what YouTubers have to say if it obviously contradicts mainstream science.

Sure, some gullible people will fall for them

OK, what is more gullible, to believe that your parents somehow got what is the best diet for humans right, or that Michael Greger, one of the most respected nutritionists of our time, got it right?

Right up to the point they try to shove it forcibly up my nose.

More like calling you out for what you say. Though making meat illegal probably makes more sense than making cars running on fossil fuels illegal, which many politicians propose.

Sure, whatever, but it has bugger all to do with veganism.

Veganism could probably lessen the issue, because people eating meat raises the prices of grain. We are producing around 2-3 times as much grain as we actually need because we are feeding animals we eat with grain. Eliminating those animals would cause a drop of the demand for grain, and thus would decrease the prices. It's simple supply-and-demand.