Dr. Doug Graham (80-10-10 raw vegan)

[miniboes]

Yes, the physiological difference is that we're getting fatter which is due to hormonal imbalance, i.e. "leptin resistance". There are some interesting hypothesise about how this happens, and one is that we're not eating enough fat because we're eating too much added sugars. Other research is looking at the roles that genes play in this. But ultimately no one knows for sure what causes it or how to prevent it at this time.

Sure, and how is that relevant when talking about vitamin b12 or the effect of milk on bone health?

Something else I want to say on the whole B12 thing, but why would you stack up a documented cure for our #1 killer against that one vitamin that you can take a supplement for? Also keep in mind that almost all physicians that recommend the plant-based (vegan) diet, like Neal Barnard and Michael Greger, actually recommend a B12 fortified plant-based diet. Whoever really listens to their advice will not have B12 deficiency.

I'll quote my textbook for you:

"It is true that hereditary and dietary factors can elevate blood cholesterol to dangerously high levels. ... Only about 15% of our cholesterol comes from the diet; the other 85% is internally synthesized, primarily by the liver."

It is as I mentioned saturated fat that causes blood cholesterol levels to rise, not dietary cholesterol.

Did you even look at what I send you? How does your book contradict it?

As I understand it, it's only trace amounts in meat, not 1-5%.

Then your understanding does not correspond to the facts.

Because we require meat for balanced nutrition.

What do you mean with 'balanced'?

Well you should, becuase no one should follow a diet that has negative health consequences for them. Wouldn't you agree that anyone wanting to try veganisim should also put their health first?

Your anecdotes don't prove anything about a larger group of people, that's the very nature of anecdotes. For many health is the very reason to follow a vegan diet actually, it is the best way to deal with diabetes and CVD.

I'm not interested in IPCC's recommendation. They're directed to make those reconsiderations by politicians. Thus their motives are political in nature.

Yeah, I would agree if their findings would actually benefit politicians, but they don't. Most politicians would prefer human-caused GHGs to be a non issue, because then they wouldn't have to do anything. The IPCC recommendations mean that politicians should be telling the largest companies of their nations to reduce emissions, something few of these politicians are prepared to do. However, to take responsibility for our actions here is well, the responsible thing to do. Here's what the people at the Nation Academy of Sciences have to say:

(p1) "there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations."
(p21-22) "Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=1

Why? Are you really saying that people who experience problems on a vegan diet do not matter?

No, I am saying anecdotes do not actually prove anything. It's called the anecdotal fallacy.

See also

---

You ready for a long and disappointing discussion?

Well, I'm not just going to take your word for it you know. So sure.

My money also goes to people who hurt people - there's no sense candy coating what my money may be or is being used for. Thing is, I don't have a whole lot of control over what happens to money when it is no longer mine. (...) I'm content, personally, to pursue what I feel to be the best possible outcome given the reality of a situation. If more is required.

You can be pretty damn certain that the money you give to your local butcher is causing animals to suffer. Therefore, pursuing the best possible outcome, as in causing the least suffering, necessarily includes not buying meat.

You mean how, other than replacing a non-renewable input that is responsible for global environmental devastation, chronic political upheaval, and widespread social exploitation?

The suffering of the animals, how does it reduce the suffering of the animals?

Oh? You get ahold of one of my grocery receipts? You do some investigate work into the products that I buy? Thought not. But so what if I were? Do I have a choice?/quote]

Since you're having this discussion with me I assumed you are not vegan. Am I not correct? And yes, you have a choice, it is not buying the damn meat.

[quote='Rhythm' pid='789521' dateline='1415118289']For you, any of the bacterial supplementals should be off the table

There's a fundamental difference between bacteria and most animals; the animals are sentient, bacteria are not. Animals have an interest to live, bacteria do not. If something cannot suffer, if something cannot even want anything, then I have no problem with eating it. However, if it can suffer, and it does have a will to live, then it is in our circumstances not justifiable. That is, unless you are allergic to all plant foods, which I doubt.