Is there any benefit to raw milk vs pasteurized milk?

[Creed of Heresy]

That link is a bit biased. Firstly vegan diets are not deficient in protein. Brain foods such as EPA and DHA can be obtained from vegan sources, specifically from algae. While vegans are at a greater risk of B12 deficiency, supplements are available, as are fortified foods. D3 can also be obtained from vegan sources, derived from lichens. Lastly veganism has been associated with a number of health benefits including reduced risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease and all cause mortality.

It's so biased that it keeps citing sources and studies. If you'd actually read the link, it did indeed state that you can get SOME proteins from legumes and the like, not ALL kinds of proteins, and there is more than one. You can get EPA and DHA from algae, sure...nowhere near the amount you get from a simple hamburger per volume so unless you're eating a FUCKTON of algae you are still deficient, and if you REALLY want to eat THAT MUCH algae a month...go right ahead, you enjoy eating something that tastes like foetid pond water, I'll enjoy something that my stomach doesn't revolt over...

You tell me MY site is biased, then you cite sources from a website tailored to vegans. The link I provided cited sources that show how inefficient D3 intake is from supplements. Now, I've found published literature on studies on the matter, and they seem to show that algal omega-3, EPA, and DHA can be readily supplied from it without any tradeoffs.

Thing was, the studies published in the review were done largely by industries involved with the production and distribution of the product, so additional, unbiased studies are being conducted still. Just saying, don't be so eager to claim your supplement is just as good, you might end up unpleasantly surprised later on down the road, though for now, I will concede that one, at least.

http://www.vegansociety.com/lifestyle/nu...n/b12.aspx To quote this own site that boldly admits the truth about B12 [respect to it for doing so]:

---

Is there a vegan alternative to B12-fortified foods and supplements?

If for any reason you choose not to use fortified foods or supplements you should recognise that you are carrying out a dangerous experiment - one that many have tried before with consistently low levels of success. If you are an adult who is neither breast-feeding an infant, pregnant nor seeking to become pregnant, and wish to test a potential B12 source that has not already been shown to be inadequate, then this can be a reasonable course of action with appropriate precautions. For your own protection, you should arrange to have your B12 status checked annually. If homocysteine or MMA is even modestly elevated then you are endangering your health if you persist.

If you are breast feeding an infant, pregnant or seeking to become pregnant or are an adult contemplating carrying out such an experiment on a child, then don't take the risk. It is simply unjustifiable.

Claimed sources of B12 that have been shown through direct studies of vegans to be inadequate include human gut bacteria, spirulina, dried nori, barley grass and most other seaweeds. Several studies of raw food vegans have shown that raw food offers no special protection.

Reports that B12 has been measured in a food are not enough to qualify that food as a reliable B12 source. It is difficult to distinguish true B12 from analogues that can disrupt B12 metabolism. Even if true B12 is present in a food, it may be rendered ineffective if analogues are present in comparable amounts to the true B12. There is only one reliable test for a B12 source - does it consistently prevent and correct deficiency? Anyone proposing a particular food as a B12 source should be challenged to present such evidence.

---

I've read around that fortified foods use the bacteria as opposed to the animals that processed it...but additionally, you'd need to eat like four bowls of cereal to match your daily dosage needs. As opposed to eating three ounces of cooked clams, which ensures you get like 1700% of the necessary amount. In other words, you're covered for a long-ass time on that afterwards. Whereas you gotta eat more cereal than you could possibly be hungry for in a single sitting. So, typically, unless you're sticking to that regiment, you're going to have deficiency. And how sad that this supposedly all-natural diet requires chemical manipulation and unnatural culturing processes to provide that B12 in fortified foods...

Finally, vegan diets are healthier it seems, yet not the healthiest. THAT would go to vegetarians who consume fish, so if health is REALLY your concern, then start eating fish instead of being a food-fundie. Unless it's just to be holier-than-thou in which case nobody really cares. There is also the anti-inflammatory properties of carnosine, which, again, is apparently related to aging.

And before you crow too quick about the results of the studies, I must wonder, what WAS the requirement for a "non vegetarian diet?" Were ones where they too were taking supplements for their uptakes factored in? Or was it just the diets alone? Were the vegan/vegetarian diets allowed supplements? I'd like to know that if it is at all possible t find out but I can't find anything about the studies that show it...

In that train of thought, too... http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp...t-8c.shtml

So I wonder if the comparisons are being made according to typical agriculture-industry meats and plant-based foods, or if they're comparing the so-called "organic" plant diets to the "standard" meat diets, or if they're comparing an organic vegan diet to a "hunter gatherer" styled diet of meats and vegetables...in which case, if the hunter-gatherer styled diet of meats wasn't taken into account, is this an accurate representation of the diets between vegans and omnivores? On top of that, if a vegan diet was so "naturally healthy," why on earth do you guys gotta jump through hoops with supplements and everything else? On top of that, much of the time, vegans only buy "organic" foods (as if it makes a difference...) which cost like twice as much, if not more, PLUS you're paying for $15+ bottles of supplements for things I get by eating a single $2 cheeseburger...less than $2 if I make it at home.

I get the impression that the higher cancer rates among non-vegetarians has something to do with the fact that vegans and vegetarians typically are extremely health-minded to a deranged degree.

I mean, that's the point of being a vegan, right? Bein' healthy? If you're that dedicated, probably means you don't drink, smoke, probably don't drink much of if any soft drinks, candy's probably right out, chocolate as well, sugar in general... I mean, if you're gonna go to that extent for health as it is, you gotta cut everything else out, otherwise what you're doing is just restricting your diet for the sake of restricting your diet.

Now, if it's to not harm animals, well, got news for ya; plants can feel too. You eat plants, you're killing them. Just cuz it can't yelp when you pluck it doesn't mean it has the ability to react to outside stimuli. Indeed, plants quite often do react to outside stimuli quite extensively...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05...71027.html An article on that here.

So...if it's for "moral" reasons, that's bullshit because you're just taking comfort in the fact what you're killing can't make a sound that disturbs you and doesn't bleed like you do so you don't consider it "murder." It's an arbitrary line wherein SOME things that live are considered more or less "OK to kill."

So you have to supplement your diet with a ton of pills that without science and "unnatural" human engineering you'd never be able to obtain in viable quantities...if at all. You have to justify the health-driven reasons for it by not being a hypocrite and partaking in other unhealthy activities, because given what hoops you're jumping through just for "health," if you're doing anything unhealthy deliberately, you're ruining the entire point of the endeavor. You will either have to pay for over-priced, underwhelmingly-flavored, pitifully-small produce at some yuppie store patroned by people with way too much money, which eats away at anything else you might spend money on, or you have to buy that awful "mass-produced" food. Never mind it often tastes better... And the size of it is usually larger...

And you sure as hell can't do it for moral reasons. You're still killing something that is living and able to sense and detect and react to outside stimulus not unlike how animals do.

So, the whole thing seems like a pointless endeavor to me. Less risk of cancer, sure, but I smoke, I drink, I treat my body like a mobile dumpster because I love the sensations and experiences.

To put it in the words of Gabriel Iglesias: "Gabriel, don't you want to live for a hundred years??" "Not if I can't tacos!" Time's limited on this planet no matter what. Plenty of people never smoke and get lung cancer. Plenty of people eat extremely healthy and get cancer, whereas some people who ate like pigs die at the age of 80 of congestive heart failure instead. You can maximize your chances, of course, of not getting it...but at what cost? Financial, sensory, hell, even health-wise if you're not watching your intake of certain vitamins and minerals like a hawk to make sure you're getting the right amount of what you need every day.

Doesn't seem anywhere near worth it to me. Superior health to omnivorous diets or no, I'd rather have one LESS thing to stress out over, and I'd rather eat food that tastes good, not food that tastes bland.

And the first person to say tofu can taste great is getting my meat-eating boot up their ass. >_>
So in conclusion: Vegan diets, even if healthier, seem rather unnatural given the amount of necessary supplements that I get without thinking about them just through the course of an average meal, and the moral "superiority" seems rather hollow to me. So, I need more explanation as to why anyone bothers with veganism.